I think there are two sorts of mindsets, one that sees things, life, as a process, or a vast bunch of interactive processes where things are all in motion. Things change, interact, and adapt with other things and the environment; things are always coming into existence, or fading from existence, if a thing exists, it is because it is being created, actively, I mean that if the processes that create a thing are not in force, the thing will not exist. Creation is a dynamic, always happening thing. Social things, in particular, exist because we create them and support them, we create our human social world continually with choices that we make, by the things that we do.

                The other sort of mindset sees things as static, as existing or not. These things are, and those things are, and these other things are not; this mindset sees things as they are, in the now, and in a way, this is a very practical way to view the world. People with this sort of outlook have little trouble making decisions and getting things done. These two views correspond in some ways to all the other dichotomies of life. We could say, quite easily, that the fluid, process-based view is linked to liberalism, plus, it is apparent that the process-oriented view fits very tightly with evolutionary thinking, while the static view may easily be seen to lend itself to conservatism and even religion.

                  Of course, while avoiding politics in this book, I haven’t kept my attitude secret. The thesis of this book is more liberal than the liberals, in parenting terms, on the spectrum from permissive parenting to authoritarian parenting, I am not in between but left of left, more permissive than the permissive. From where I am on this issue, just about everyone, the permissive and the authoritarian types alike are all just more or less authoritarian. Is that clear enough? Authoritarianism and permissiveness are both the same in this: they both make the same judgment of what is right or wrong, and they both come from a place of entitlement where they feel they have the right, the power, and the responsibility to either forbid or permit. They are both based in authority, and authority is an unequal division of human rights. In terms of parenting, I think our children are not our property, nor are they our slaves or employees. In the circle of life, they are us, people like us. We were them, and they will be us; I think we have no right to make decisions for each other like that at all, and – the point of this book – certainly, absolutely no right to hurt each other to enforce those decisions.

                In terms of what is punishment and what is abuse, the line has been drawn in a number of places through the years and across cultures. Of course it’s not so simple, but can be useful to say that there has been a progression towards humanism over the last few hundred years in European and western culture, during which time punishments have been moving toward gentler means, as well as some movement in that direction for the punishment of children, for not quite so long. It has probably been something less than one hundred years that at least in the West, children have seen their status change from something like property to something like personhood and this is a positive change for everyone, because of course, we all begin as children. Our societies are trying to move away from the corporal punishment of children, and we’re groping a little, trying to find better ways.

                I’ve been thinking about this subject for twenty years as of this writing, sporadically writing about it, reading and blogging, and talking to and observing other parents . . . it was about that same twenty years ago when I realized that punishment, all punishment, was the primary cause of all bad things in life. I have been on-line getting feedback and practicing my arguments for this for several years, and I have been slowly collecting my thoughts for this project nearly my whole adult life, even if I was busy as a working family man and letting it develop mostly on its own schedule. Once I finally decided to attempt the book, the first several parts flowed out as fast as I could type it, despite that it was very different from my blogs and my previous writings, as I knew it would have to be. I had no writers’ blocks. I couldn’t wait to write, and I lost some sleep for not being able to stop thinking about it. But I have to say, it was at exactly this point in the book, this week, as I write this where I very nearly stalled.

                 I knew that non-physical discipline would form the central part of this thing, so I began to read about it again. Honestly, it had been a long while since I gave it enough credit to actually focus and slow-read it; fortunately it isn’t hard to find. It’s all over the ‘interwebs,’ as a niece of ours says. I had my idea of what was wrong with Positive Parenting, and what I would say, how I would refute it . . . but reading it somehow got to me. I lost my confidence. Positive Parenting very nearly won me over, and I was feeling like I had no legitimate complaints to make about it; it sounds so professional and so, well, positive. The entire four day Easter weekend came and went, and although I got some stuff done in the yard and completed and filed our income taxes, I was very worried that my book was dead. Who could critique all those professionals? Who could shout down all that beautiful, positive language? When I finally sat down to write, I chose the Gershoff article as typical as well as close to the original, I think, close to ‘from the horse’s mouth,’ no slight intended, and I started writing from fear and respect. I want to leave that bit in, I really do mean the respect, and I really do think the whole idea is a major step away from the old, violent parenting model, especially because of the cultural backlash that is always looming about it.

                 Once I got past the disclaimer though, when I started my critique, all that was over. The spell was broken; the failure of logic that I was looking at in that article was just too easy. Again, words began to pour out of me.

                The idea is incredibly seductive, insidious. I had my insight, and I have positioned myself against it for decades, and still I was seduced. That tells me a number of things: one, I was not missed, not passed over by the culture of punishment we live in. Very few are, I imagine.

                 Two, someone even more thoroughly indoctrinated in the normal system than myself is at the mercy of these ideas. Someone who has never questioned it – and they are out there, are they ever! The number of people I’ve encountered in real life and on-line who have never even dreamed of a life without punishment, a life where the people who love you don’t hurt you to prove it, it’s scary – someone who has never questioned it, has very little chance to hear it. It is going to take some very good arguments, and even if I can make them, it’s probably all for naught.

Whoever tells us that ‘no matter what you do, teenagers are Hell’ lie. My teenagers have been a breeze. Thing is, if you make an enemy of your child, your life gets worse as they grow in knowledge and power. Powerful enemies are a bad thing indeed.

Turning that equation over, if you have someone in your life that makes your life harder as they learn and grow, that must be one of a number of things, in two catagories:

1. They are NOT learning, perhaps in the case of a special needs child, or perhaps you are trying to make a pet out of an undomesticated animal, a chimp, or a large predator, like a bear or a big cat.

2. If it’s really true that it’s a fully-abled human being and they ARE learning – you have, intentionally or not, made an enemy of them rather than a friend. That’s what punishing does. I know it’s not what you wanted it to do, I know it’s not why you do it – but that’s what it does.

But if your FRIENDS grow in knowledge and power, life just keeps getting easier, and that’s how it’s been with my kids, easier the older they get.

                Next, this is what the “new punishers” call offering choices: “Which do you want to do first—brush your teeth or take a bath?” This is a word game too, I’m afraid. I understand this is designed to include the child in the decision making process, at least to make the child feel as though he is, but it’s not really a choice, and at some point, the child may figure it out and trust may be compromised, the same as with punishments. It’s “positive” only in the sense that having your parents lie to you when you’re little is more positive than being beaten by them. Suppose I said to my wife “Which do you want to do first – vacuum the living room or clean out the litter box?” Would she feel I’ve ‘included her in the decision making process,’ and be glad to share in the responsibility of planning our evening, or would I wind up unconscious on the living room carpet under a pile of dirty kitty litter?  These sorts of “choices” are offensive attempts to trick, not the ‘trust building’ exercises we might wish them to be.

                 What follows in the article is a series of transgressions and the non-physical punishment to match, all of which would only ever work if the child is willing, and if not, I repeat: it’s a recipe for physical punishment (or at least a fight).

                 It needs to be said that none of the goals of discipline are bad in themselves; I have no objection to the things we want to happen when discipline seems to be called for, but that’s sort of obvious. Of course the goals are acceptable. Abuse is in the method, in the matter of choice. Hyperbole being my forte, I offer an extreme illustration: sex is a lovely thing; lovemaking is not intrinsically wrong or evil. If I wish a joyful interlude of lovemaking for myself and a partner, this is an acceptable goal, a pleasantry for all. But if I make a rule about it? If I say to my partner, “Sweetie, you need some loving, it’s good for you, everyone needs it,” that’s all well and good, but if I make it a rule and make it happen, If my partner doesn’t want it but I unilaterally decide it’s a good thing and force it? That is called rape, of course. And so it is with discipline. The goal is good and rational, it seems to go towards a healthy person and a healthy society, but if we force it, if we make it happen – then it has become something else. Again, abuse is in the method, in the matter of choice.

                After all that, it still needs to be said: most of the damage of punishment and abuse is not the physical damage, so if that list of “non-physical disciplinary measures” works, it works by damaging the kids. Don’t worry about that though, it doesn’t work, not by itself. It only works because it’s backed up by the other kind of discipline.

Secondly, the concept is prone to changes in language only.

“ . . . by the promise of rewards rather than by threats of punishment.” is the first one in the article that stands out. I see no difference between “If you’re all ready to go to Grandma’s in five minutes, we’ll stop for ice cream” (an offer of reward) and “If you’re not ready to go to Grandma’s in five minutes, we’re not stopping for ice cream” (a threat of punishment). For any reasoning person, this does not constitute any change whatsoever, except in the wording.

“ . . . removal from the situation . . . “ – this is most likely physical, and most likely to be felt as unpleasantness. This is the same as time out, likely the first part of the time out process, and always a situation that might cause a child to resist and fight. If the adult removing the child is committed to their choice of action – and the advice is to be consistent and to do what they say they’re going to do – then this situation is a recipe for physical punishment, or at least a fight. Again, I see no change here from the old, physical “system” and the new, save in words only.

First of all, I want to say I commend the work of people like Elizabeth Gershoff, Joan Durrant, etc., that have been producing this sort of information for parents and say that these ideas are a huge step forward in child-rearing information and methodology. These people are doing great work, and we all owe them a debt of gratitude. Theirs is work I would never attempt to invalidate; I only wish to further it, if I can. They are the professionals; I am a tradesman and a parent of only a few children, and not to be sexist about it, but my kids are girls. I’m told I have had it pretty easy.

Having said that, I have substantial objections.

First of all, Ms. Gershoff, I apologize for making your article my example. The previously cited metastudy on physical punishment was excellent. I am hoping that this is sort of fair, to cite the same people for my case and against, as opposed to choosing one authority to praise and another to criticize. It is only an example, an example of a large volume of information that can be found everywhere. The type of information Ms Gershoff et al., have provided has had huge circulation and can be found in many forms and many places. It is, as near as I can see the current standard, and I can’t say it enough, a huge improvement over the previous standard. I don’t consider that I am critiquing anyone in particular, and I am attempting to address concepts only, and not personalities. Having said that, we had one parenting manual in the house when my children were young: “kids are worth it!” by Barbara Coloroso. Although just this year, in preparation for this book, I’ve been internet researching and reading much ‘positive parenting’ literature from a variety of sources, it may be that it was that book that has been on my mind during the intervening years, while I’ve been raising my kids and developing my idea.

Firstly, and this is almost correct, really: the above advice says nothing about what a parent is to do if none of it “works,” if the child is intractable.

I think this may be where I differ, even though I also offer nothing that “works” for that. As I stated at the outset, this is not a parenting manual. All I’m offering here is what not to do, and why. I fear that this is where the entire system of positive parenting breaks down, that when none of the positive, “first, do no harm” methods bring about the result the parent wants or needs, that there may be some tacit approval there to do what is necessary. One still has the impression from this sort of literature that it remains the case that the parent is always in charge, that it is the parent’s plan that should always be followed, and that the whole plan is offered as an alternate way for the parent to always get the results he, she, or both are after. Thus, it is a change of preferred method only, and not really anything qualitative, not really a change of principle, and therefore always vulnerable of interpretation to the old ways.

The literature very often, as this article does, endorses the “time out.” This is not offered as a punishment, the time out is only a way to diffuse a situation, or stop some rough interaction, allow one or more participants to cool down, maybe get distracted. (There is far more to say and far more that has been said about time outs, most notably that the use of time out is basically the same as solitary confinement for adult convicts, as well as the actual penalty for children being, from the child’s point of view, an enforced parental abandonment. This is not the point I wish to discuss, I don’t wish to be discussing the various methods of punishing and their relative merits. I am critiquing the principle, the merits or not of any sort of punishing. Having said that, upon editing this section, it seemed an omission not to mention the punitive aspect of the time out.) However, this, or any sort of punishment, will a great deal of the time cause the non-physical method to break down very quickly indeed, if the child doesn’t want to do it. Any plan the parent has, anything the parent thinks MUST happen can and often will, start a fight. When the parent must win the fights, there will be threats, intimidation, or force, maybe even violence. In this way, non-physical punishments are oxymoronic: how physical do you have to be, sometimes, to get an angry, misbehaving child to take his or her non-physical penalty?

                 2. Lack of intent to change behaviour:

                 Retribution and punishment, while distinct in text and speech are linked in the real world in such a way that separating them is impossible. They go hand in hand. When a wrong is committed, we impose some nastiness upon the person who did it, both as punishment, so as to change his behaviour, but also as retribution, which has two functions. Paraphrased from the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy:

                 The nobler one being that retribution, some pain upon the criminal, ensures that the innocent victims of crime are not suffering more than the perpetrators. This, whether it deincentivizes further crime or not, at least provides some balance of pain in the world. The other function is pragmatic, and appeases our less noble selves, the desire for revenge. Perhaps those are not really different things after all, but in any modern state, or an organization like a school, it is revenge by proxy, which is preferable to street justice.

 

Bedau, Hugo Adam and Kelly, Erin, “Punishment”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2010/entries/punishment/&gt;.

                 

                When we act upon a transgressor, we nearly always are doing both things, punishing and exacting some retribution. Conflating them is constant, nearly universal, and it becomes something we never have to think about. We put some pain on someone who is misbehaving, and both functions are served. But what about the times when punishment fails to be served, when authority or intent can’t be supported? I think, at the psychic level, that if the authority is lacking only in the mind of the punished, and he happens to be an adult, the retribution that remains is not all bad. It only results in a second best solution in a criminal justice related situation where really, things are rarely ideal. It is true, probably in the majority of cases of adults being subjected to justice and punishment, that the person was probably fully aware of the law and the penalties and only retribution and incapacitation are indicated. Still, anyone speaking about those situations in terms of punishment, public officials or lawyers, may be viewed as being somewhat less than completely honest, and possibly counting on the easy conflation of the several ideas. As to intent, however, if we consider that adults already know all about their crimes and their penalties, the intent to change behaviours becomes suspect at best. In the case of repeat offenders, regular, guilty customers of the criminal justice system, without an effort toward rehabilitation any pretence of behaviour modification should be abandoned altogether, due to the documented failure of previous ‘punishments’ to change it.

                 In child-rearing situations, though, retribution is harder to justify, and rightly so.

                It is one of the main points of this project that even ‘proper’ punishment of children is bad enough for them and for society, which I plan to show, let alone putting any sort of hurt on children without so much as an attempt at changing the unwanted behaviour. Retribution, practiced upon children, is counter-intuitive to the acceptable goals of society; clearly, in that stage of life and development, education must be the priority for any action adults take with the young. With no more productive lesson, pain for pain’s sake is not something we should be teaching. However, many children can also fall into the role of ‘repeat offender’, seeming to require endless punishment. In that case, as with adult criminals, the excuse of the intent to change behaviour cannot be supported. At some point, we have to admit it’s not working, and just not admitting it doesn’t count; our denial won’t transform retribution upon children into productive punishment. In this sense, retribution upon children may well be in itself a definition for abuse.

                Psychic harm is an individual thing, an internal matter, so to speak. Subjective. When we exert a stimulus upon someone, it is not up to us what response will be generated in that person, we cannot determine psychic responses based upon our intentions. If the stimulus of legitimate punishment and abuse are identical, undifferentiated by our intentions, we can expect the same suite of responses: fear, confusion, trauma, in a word, damage.

                 But, what if our child is not having either of these doubts, what if he is a believer?

                 What if the child sees the imposition of unpleasantness upon him as authorized and proper, suppose the child knows he is guilty as charged, he knows the punisher is the correct and appropriate person to administer his punishment, and he knows the punishment itself is appropriate and just . . . then what results?

                Education, moral direction, respect?

                 Of course, this is rather tongue-in-cheek, we see the disconnect here, the logical problem with this example. It is very difficult to imagine why a child who agrees about his crime, and agrees about his punishment, and acknowledges the authority of the person administering his punishment would ever require that punishment in the first place. All the information to be gleaned from the situation he already has, there is nothing he needs to be taught. If, knowing it all, he still finds a compelling reason to commit his crime, we can assume he has done some risk analysis, weighed the costs and benefits, and proceeded. It’s reasonable to assume he thought the odds of getting caught were small, or the benefit of his misdeed was big enough to outweigh the chance of getting caught, whatever the odds, or possibly that some other harm would come to him that is even more unpleasant than the penalty if he didn’t do the crime, a worse consequence from some other agency. The point is, this scenario is a false one. In real life, the punished are not conscious and willing in their punishment. In the mind of the punished, it is seldom fair and reasonable; the punishments we receive rarely seem just to us. The idea that a punished child, a punished person, understands and agrees about his crime, his punishment, and the authority of the punisher, is a fallacy. To the punished, it is all abuse, to some degree or other. If we understood and agreed with our penalties, we wouldn’t need them.