Subject:
|
Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 21 Jun 2001 15:40:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
631 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> Punishment... merely teaches the recipient to avoid being caught. It also
> creates a divide between the authority and the punished, rather than bringing
> them together team-wise.
Postmodernist "power structure" drum-beating, if you ask me! Your
assertion depends on the assumption that people can never grasp a concept of
(culture- and society- based) right and wrong but instead must languish in
an attitude of "the power structure is out to get me."
In addition, the entirety of animal life (and a lot of the plant life) on
Earth is based on the concept of "avoid being caught," both in a literal and
figurative sense.
> The universe has it's own way of handling 'negative' behavior. If a child
> does stuff that pisses you off, then the child has to deal with a pissed off
> person. Just like I do, if I piss you off. Why does a child need some kind of
> artificial extra consequence above and beyond what we all get?
Well, I disagree with the characterization of a rationally-considered
punishment as an artificial consequence. Without making this debate larger
than it is, then "the universe" that handles negative behavior also includes
the punishment chosen by the pissed-off person. You might suggest that the
punishment is artificial because it will have stemmed from the adult rather
than from the "wrong" action, but I find that distinction to be more or less
arbitrary. The adult, as care-giver and instructor in the ways of society,
has a duty to train the child, and as such is directly and appropriately
empowered to make certain decisions about the forms and propriety of
punishment (but that's not to say that adults have some transcendent wisdom
regarding appropriate punishment, and there are *certainly* cases of abuse
to consider).
Further, what if the child does something wrong that doesn't piss off the
adult but is still wrong? In that case the child has done wrong but doesn't
have a pissed-off adult to deal with. A child should get an "extra
consequence" for the same reason that children generally require extra
attention as compared with adults.
Since you seem to agree that the child cannot--at the fundamental
level--comprehend certain abstractions of right and wrong, then simply
saying instructing the child re: correct behavior will be useless. Moreover,
if you're expecting the child to respond positively to some sort of
non-verbal subtext, then I assert that that sort of psychological
undercurrent is a great way to create a dysfunctional family environment.
We are left, therefore, with a choice between some decisive negative
consequence and some vague "pissed-off adult" consequence. I do not agree
that the latter is more effective or healthy. Again, however, I absolutely
don't think children should be beaten indiscriminately, but even in the rest
of the animal kingdom (which you have previously identified as non-separate
[my phrase] from humanity) engages in physical punishment of a kind, even if
it's only a nip on the backside when the bear cub--or whatever--plays too
aggressively.
> The child may be made to realize briefly that coloring on the wall with
> crayon is objectionable, but that won't stop the child from doing it again in
> the future.
> And you think that some kind of artificial consequence will? And even if it
> will, what is the cost in terms of relationship and personal autonomy? In
> ability to decide for itself?
Since I don't agree that the consequence is artificial, I can't answer
your question as asked. The costs in terms of relationship and personal
autonomy (whatever that means, really) are minor, except in cases of
arbitrary and excessive abuse. If humans were to remain at the pre-formal
operational stage of development, I might agree that punishment could only
ever achieve a simple associative result, a la "do this and get smacked."
However, since humans are able to advance beyond simple, linear concepts of
transgression and punishment into notions of (culture- and society-based)
right and wrong, then I maintain that punishment is not an inappropriate
measure until such abstract concepts can be grasped.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
67 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
