By Bob Myers.                                                                                                     

Questions about the rights and responsibilities of parents are often raised in regard to discipline and smacking children. Many people believe there is nothing wrong with the age-old custom of smacking or giving a ‘whack with a wooden spoon.’ Many claim that parents should be able to  discipline their kids how they please, within reason. Supporters of physical punishment maintain that there is a difference between child abuse and smacking and that the laws concerning child abuse are sufficient to protect children. A common theme is that ‘I was smacked as a child and it didn’t do me any harm.’ 

People generally agree about the need for discipline, and that there is a difference between a smack and child abuse. However, it isn't always clear how those who believe in physical punishment can decide when the line between the two is crossed. More about my suggestion on that below.

It's not surprising that some people still believe parents should have the right to smack their children because smacking wasn't questioned up to fairly recently, and most of us felt the odd whack or two as children. Most parents have probably at least threatened to smack their children. I smacked my kids when they were little, partly because I thought that was what parents were supposed to do, and partly because I didn’t know what else to do. Fortunately, I discovered there are other ways that work better. 

There are many definitions of discipline and some of them support the use of physical punishment. This could be because so many people associate the word ‘discipline’ with punishment, and dictionary definitions usually reflect the common usage of a word. The definition of discipline I use in my books, because it best describes the real task for parents, is: Discipline means to teach, assist, and guide children to become self-controlled. For kids to become truly self-controlled, we have to help them develop a positive attitude towards rules and authority figures, so they will choose to keep to the rules because they provide safety or fairness.

Smacking, along with other kinds of punishment, keeps the parent in control of the child instead of using methods that gradually help the child to have self control. Punishment takes the child’s attention away from the positive reasons for keeping to rules and tends to hinder the development of real self-control. Punishment may only teach the child to avoid getting caught.

Another major reason for not using punishment is that punishment is based on the principle that it’s OK to control a child by inflicting some degree of pain, suffering or discomfort, which I like to believe parents would only do if they can’t think of a better way. The principle that says it's OK to control others by inflicting pain and suffering is the principle behind extremes such as terrorism and extortion. Although it would be stupid to associate smacking with terrorism, my concern is that when we teach a child a principle like that, we have no way of knowing - and no control over -  how far down that road the child will go when trying to control the behaviour of other people later in life. 

I would suggest that the line between smacking and abuse is crossed if the parent knows there are better ways to teach, assist and guide children to become self-controlled but refuses to learn those ways, or the parent knows those better ways and chooses not to use them. My books, Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness, and Enjoy Parenting Teenagers present many simple ways to help kids develop a positive attitude to rules and authority figures, and maintains that it is never too late to start.


Photo by Microsoft.

NEW RELATIONSHIP BUILDING EBOOK to boost parents' confidence and self-esteem.

Family relationship problems? My new eBook on family problems is invaluable for parents or for anyone filling the parenting role temporarily or permanently.

I know from long experience that parents want easy-to-understand ways of coping when faced with the everyday difficulties adolescent children experience. This book makes complex theory simple, and explains how to build, maintain, repair and strengthen relationships with teenagers.

While acknowledging that parents are the real 'experts' in dealing with their families, this self improvement eBook encourages parents to take control of the parenting situation by taking control of their own actions and reactions. It describes how to remove destructive conflict from parent/child relationships and identifies the traps that block good communication.

Every child can be thought of as an apprentice adult and the adolescent child can be thought of as very nearly through that apprenticeship. You have passed on many of the skills needed for your child to make a good job of being an adult and the time is very near for some solo flying practice. However, there are just a few things that need tweaking during this period of 'letting go'. 

Parents, teachers, residential youth workers and anyone working with young people will find much in this conflict transformation book to support them in the often difficult task of teaching, guiding and assisting children prepare for life as responsible independent adults.

Bob Myers.

  There are few subjects more controversial than how we should respond to wrongdoing, and the family is the ideal setting to use as the base for a discussion on the complexities of discipline. Some of the thoughts and ideas expressed in chapter six of Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness may appear strange and ‘way out’ to some people and yet they have been around for thousands of years. They only seem strange because our main cultural response to wrongdoing is what Walter Wink referred to as ‘redemptive violence.’ But the nonviolence compass can lead us to many more effective methods to use.

In regard to parenting, the word ‘discipline’ means: To teach, assist and guide a child’s development towards self-control.

  Everyone has an opinion on how children should be disciplined, and can generally be divided into two main camps; those who believe parents should have the right to smack their children and those who are opposed to the use of physical punishment. I want to make my position on this very clear. I believe that parents who neglect to firmly discipline a child put the emotional and moral development of the child at risk, and make it more difficult for that child to form healthy relationships as an adult. Firm discipline is a necessary part of responsible parenting and the failure to meet that responsibility should be classed as a form of child abuse. However, I also want to make it very clear that although punishment remains an option, the negative effects of using it has led me to not only be against physical punishment, but against the use of punishment as a means of discipline.

  To many people that may seem an extraordinary contradiction. How can strict discipline be maintained without punishment? Does that mean children should be allowed to do anything and not be corrected at all? Obviously my strong belief in the need for strict discipline rules out such permissiveness and is backed up by the research indicating that each child should go through a stage in life when rules are obeyed simply because they are the rules, and authority figures be respected simply because they are in positions of authority. That doesn’t happen by letting kids do whatever they want to do.

  Some of the many tools available to help parents discipline children are:

• Grounded love.
• Manners.
• Example.
• Centring.
• Fairness and safety rule-making guidelines.
• Guidelines of creative conflict.
• Consensus.
• Truth-seeking debates rather than adversarial debates.
• Knowing the difference between punishment and consequences.
• The restorative action process.
• Voluntary punishment.
• Restorative consequences.
• Social contracts (cooperation\noncooperation.
• The Reality questions.

  The most effective way for people, including children, to become responsible, interdependent individuals is by the example of others and being held accountable for their actions. Anyone can use these tools to establish peace and harmony in the home and workplace. An additional tool for large groups of people is called Open Space Technology.

Composite of ideas from Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness by Bob Myers. 
 

From Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness.
By Bob Myers.

Everything written on this website, including these tips, is based on the principle: There is no happiness without peace; no peace without justice; and no justice without equality, even in the home.  

• Reward children just for ‘being,’ not just when they are achieving. Children deserve love and affection simply for existing. This can be shown often through hugs, affectionate play or verbal expressions of love and concern.
• Every child has a unique identity. Some are shy, others are confident, and you cannot force a child to change her basic nature. Every child should be accepted and appreciated as they are, if only because they had no say in what attributes and disposition they inherited. Nor do they have a say in what they have learned since birth.
• Trying to force a child to do something he is not ready to do can lead to trouble. When he is ready he may need guidance and encouragement, but will not need to be forced.
• To encourage a positive attitude towards work, make a list of routine tasks and think about the fairness and safety reasons for those tasks, as well as the short and long term consequences (effects) when those tasks are not carried out, so you can explain it to the kids when they ask that annoying question, ‘Why?’
• To encourage a positive attitude towards rules, do the same as you did with the tasks. Then you can explain the fairness and safety reasons for the rules.
• If you normally make the rules, ask the kids to suggest how the rules could be improved. If they suggest something that is fairer or safer, adjust or replace the rule. This helps them to develop ownership of the rules.
• Try not to criticize a child’s behaviour in front of others. You want the child’s behaviour to change; you don’t want to damage their self- esteem.
• If you think of the child as being separate from her behaviour, you can strongly condemn the behaviour without condemning the child. You can be angry at the behaviour without being angry with her. The behaviour is unloved; the child is loved. The behaviour is rejected but the child is simply taught a more acceptable way of acting.
• Give children age-appropriate choices so they get practice at making decisions. This will increase their sense of self and of their importance in the family.
• When going shopping remember to ask your child what he likes and dislikes. This is a way of helping children develop the confidence that accompanies a sense of equality with others.
• Parents and children have different responsibilities and different problems but the child’s problems are just as important to the child as the parent’s problems are to the parent. This sometimes causes a conflict that could get out of hand if it turns into a power struggle. If possible, solve the child’s problem first, so peace is restored, and then tackle your problem.
• Every problem is an opportunity to spend healthy time bonding with the child and passing on knowledge and skills as you encourage the child’s efforts.
• Teaching kids habits, rituals and routines is essential for helping them develop a sense of security, especially if you explain the safety and fairness reasons for each action. For example ‘stop, look, and think before crossing a road’ is obviously based on safety, and knowing that reason can help them to think about consequences.

Photo: Chambers Pillar, N.T. Australia.

Many people argue that violence is a natural reaction to threats. This means we are born with that protective reaction and therefore we are naturally violent. Since I partly agree with this, I am willing to concede that point but add that we are also born illiterate.
Professor Colman McCarthy of Maryland USA asked his students to write a paper along those lines and he described the response from one student as “a masterpiece of brevity and breadth.” It consisted of just 13 words:

“Why are we violent but not illiterate? Because we are taught to read.”

Does this mean our society is becoming more violent because we teach our kids to be violent? No. The student was pointing out that just as each child is born with the potential to learn to read and write, and gain all the benefits of literacy, each child is born with the potential to learn the ways of nonviolence, and gain all the benefits attached. Violent behaviour comes from not teaching our kids to be nonviolent. That may seem to be a double negative but it isn’t. Most people teach kids to be ‘not violent,’ which is very different to teaching kids to be nonviolent. Teaching kids to be ‘not violent’ may achieve some level of ‘peace’ but it actually perpetuates violence.

The main way most of us teach children to be ‘not violent’ is through the use of punishment or the threat of punishment , which means the natural violent reaction is suppressed by the fear of punishment. Take the fear of punishment away by lowering the chance of being caught or raising the potential reward to be gained and a child is more likely to use violence.

Nonviolence is difficult to define because it is not just the absence of violence. It is the opposite of violence; the antidote of violence. It is an attitude towards other people and to ‘rules of behaviour.’ Nonviolence defies violence and deprives it of any victory. Nonviolence disarms an aggressor without using violence. Nonviolent discipline can be aggressively confrontational, and even take a zero tolerance stand in holding people accountable for their violent behaviour, without resorting to any kind of punishment. Imposing a punishment often sets up a cycle of revenge that prevents any worthwhile lesson being learned. The real consequence of behaviour is the most effective way people learn what acceptable and responsible behaviour is.  

One of the great advantages of nonviolent discipline in the home, school or workplace is the distinction it makes between punishment and consequences, allowing ‘restorative action’ to be taken instead of imposing punishment. This is not just spin because ‘taking restorative action’ and ‘imposing a punishment’ are mutually exclusive opposites. All of us are capable of thinking in both ways, and we do sometimes take restorative action depending on the circumstances of a situation, but we cannot think in both ways at the same time. 

The above could explain why school discipline programs based on restorative practices, such as the Responsible Thinking Classes, are not as effective as they could be. Maybe some of those running the programs are caught up by our cultural addiction to punishment. That could also be the reason why restorative programs in the criminal justice system don’t always produce excellent results. A punishment-minded person cannot effectively operate a program designed to be run by a restorative-minded person.

Parents can introduce kids to the ways of nonviolence in the very first year of a child’s life. School children can be taught the art of nonviolence from day one. And it's never too late to start. It won’t always work in every situation because few parents or teachers have the nonviolence training to recognise how their own attitudes are effected by the institutional, structural and social violence built into the culture we live in. Once we become aware of our own attitude we can help children to live nonviolently in a violent world, and change it.