|We hear it all the time, when spanking is
mentioned. Someone steps forward and says something like this:
"Well, I don't see what all the fuss is about. I was
spanked, and I'm fine. We all know that sometimes spanking is
necessary for solving problems with kids. And since it's both
necessary and harmless, it should be allowed and even
At face value, this seems to be an airtight case; a perfectly
logical justification of spanking as part of the necessary
discipline of children. And a lot of people see it that way. But
is it really so logical? Is spanking necessary? And is it as
harmless as so many believe it to be?
Let's examine the argument:
- "I was spanked." (fact)
- "I'm fine." (opinion)
- "Sometimes spanking is necessary for solving problems
with kids." (false assumption)
- "Since it's both necessary and harmless, it should be
allowed and even encouraged." (illogical conclusion)
Now let's consider a similar argument that seems to justify
- "George Burns smoked all his life from his teenage
years on." (fact)
- "He was in reasonably good health all his life and
lived to be 100." (fact)
- "Sometimes smoking is necessary for coping with life's
problems." (false assumption)
- "It should be allowed and even encouraged."
This analogy should help to make it clear that the spanking
argument, like the one on smoking, is based on false assumptions
and leads to illogical conclusions. Some children, like some
smokers, are less affected than others because of a natural
emotional resiliency, just as Mr. Burns must have had physical
resilience. Some children, like some smokers, are less harmed than
others because of mitigating factors, such as the presence of
other adults who treat them with love and care. To the extent that
a spanked child is really "fine", it is in spite of,
not because of, the punishments they have received. Mr. Burns
must have had mitigating factors too. Perhaps his strict regimen
of daily exercise helped him to fare better than other smokers, or
perhaps he inherited a strong constitution. And research shows
that laughter can be an important healer, and that many
professional comedians live long lives.
For many reasons, George Burns was one of the survivors among
frequent smokers. And for many reasons, there are also
"survivors" of spanking. But we can never know just how
much happier and more fulfilled they might have been had they been
gently guided instead of being punished - any more than we can
know just how much healthier Mr. Burns might have been had he
never smoked a cigarette or a cigar. Would he have lived even
longer, entertaining more people and writing more of his
delightful books? Would he have brought joy, laughter, charm and
wisdom to yet another generation? Sadly, we will never know.
Like smoking, spanking is not only harmful, it is entirely
unnecessary, because there are far more effective and emotionally
healthy alternatives. And these alternatives work in the long-term
(which spanking does not) because they establish a pattern of good
behavior that is motivated by the simple, genuine desire to
reciprocate love. As Dr. Elliott Barker has written, "Kids
who have their needs met early by loving parents ... are subjected
totally and thoroughly to the most effective form of 'discipline'
conceivable: they don't do what you don't want them to do
because they love you so much!"
Behavior that is based on fear can last only until the child is
old enough not to fear defying the parent. Punishment builds anger
and resentment within the child that will inevitably be expressed
at a future time (angry teenagers do not fall from the sky). In
contrast, behavior that is based on mutual love and trust will
last through all the years of a child's life, and through the
entire length of the parent-child relationship. There is little
that is more rewarding for a parent than the enjoyment of an
enduring, loving and close tie with their child over many years.
Given all of this, let's revise the spanking argument:
- I was spanked.
- I'm fine, but I wish I were happier and more productive, and
better able to love and trust others.
- Since spanking is both unnecessary and harmful, it should
never be allowed. Our government should ban this harmful
practice, as have over
25 countries around the world.
Spanking, like all other forms of punishment, such as time-out
and so-called logical consequences, can only bring about temporary
and superficially "good" behavior based on threats and
fear. As John Holt reminded us years ago, "When we make a
child afraid, we stop learning dead in its tracks."
Gentle, loving, and respectful guidance is the only truly
effective way to help a child to grow and develop to his full
potential as a loving and trusting adult. Spanking is unnecessary,
harmful, disrespectful, and unfair. Let's stop doing it!