Is smacking a child an indefensible act of abuse against the most vulnerable in society, or does it teach children important lessons about how power structures operate in the adult world?
It seems to me that smacking is often applied because it is convenient to the parent. It's simple, quick and sends a strong message. I've heard it argued that smacking is justified because the busy pace of a modern parents lifestyle demands that an uncooperative child's behavior be addressed swiftly.
This is a ghastly justification imo. We don't consider it acceptable to violently lash out against others who inconvenience us during our day, so why should our children be any exception? Impatience doesn't justify violence.
The implicit admission by a parent that they are too time poor or impatient to implement a gentler and more humane punishment reflects a failing on the parents behalf, or on the behalf of the systems in the world we live which are not sufficiently accommodating to the parents needs, and in no way justifies the violence against the child.
On witnessing a child misbehaving in public, we've all found ourselves thinking about how the parent is doing a disservice to that child by not correcting their behavior, and you may have found yourself entertaining thoughts of how a smack would be beneficial to the child.
There is an assumption in society that an arbitrarily determined "appropriate" level of violence against a child is a parents right.
Having experienced violence and trauma from a young age, we are all as children socialized to accept the power structures that exist in society, and that it is the right of authority figures, in this case parents, and later in life others such as teachers, the police, to violently rebuke us when we disobey their rules and systems, which we did not choose to participate in.
Because we've been hurt by this abuse, we repress our feelings of hurt towards our parents by embracing the absurd popular fantasy that this abuse was beneficial to us as a child. We are scared, threatened and jealous of the anarchic, free personalities of children, because we were abused and denied the freedom to feel that same way. Our own innocence was stolen from us, we are justifiably bitter and confused about this, so we take it out on the only people who have no power and voice to resist.
Undoubtedly hitting a child can be effective at changing their behavior. But given the number of dysfunctional adults and teens that come from families where they were regularly physically punished, it seems unreliable and dangerous as a treatment
I think the use of physical violence against children must be justified as in some way beneficial to the child, in ways that other punishments are not.
What does hitting a child really teach them? That those with power are entitled to inflict violence and control? That they are inferior to everyone else around them who is not forced to suffer physical violence?
If we accept smacking a child is wrong, it raises the question of what is appropriate punishment for a child? Can you be certain other, psychological punishments, such as sensory deprivation, are any less harmful to a child?
/here endeth the longest post
