Framing effects, again:
Question 1: Would you support the Canadian courts if they decided to “ban spanking in most circumstances?
Question 2: Would you support the Candian courts if they decided to tighten the current loophole in the law on common assault which allows some kinds of physical violence against children?
Question 2 is actually the better description of the facts; the question at issue is the definition of “reasonable chastisement” of a minor by its parents, which is a carve-out from the law on assault.
For additional credit, could someone explain to me why it is that my wife and my child are both insolent and disobedient to me, but I am only within my rights to impose reasonable physical chastisement on one of them (these days) , specifically the one who is less able to defend themselves and utterly unable to stop living in my house if they so choose? Don’t even get me started on the servants …
Yeah, I’ve often thought it’s significant that parents stop hitting their children at about the time that they get big enough to start hitting back.
otak-
Young children don’t have the same level of maturity as older children or adults. I thought that was obvious, but apparently not. A quick painful reminder delivered immediately after an infraction is a very effective way of getting kids to stop doing things they ought not do. When they are old enough to grasp the idea of less immediate penalties for misbehaviour, those penalties become effective, and physical punishment becomes superfluous.
Kids are not adults. It’s a very simple observation. Why do anti-spanking advocates insist on pretending there’s no distinction? Failure to demonstrate a grasp of the obvious is a major obstacle to being taken seriously.
There’s a case against brutal punishment (which is pretty much what the Canadian ruling is about), but conflating a smack on the bum administered right at the time of an offence with beating one’s child senseless is idiotic.
I’ve had some bitter arguments with people over this issue which seemed to me to resolve to a dispute about the relationship between law and morality.
Some people seem to think (a) that if a person has a moral right not to be hit, they ought also to have a legal right not to be hit. And they also seem to think that asserting the legal right has some kind of moralizing force within society so that people’s beliefs about whether the ought to hit their kids will be modified by passing a law.
Other people think (b) that in passing a law we ought to have a lot of regard to what the implementation of the law will look like, whom it takes power from and whom it gives it to etc etc.
(Obviously there are a lot of Ts uncrossed and Is undotted in my broad-brush contrast).
I think people ought not to hit their kids, and that their kids have a moral right not to be hit. But given that passing a stronger law than currently exists involves giving power to social workers and child protection workers beyond the powers they currently enjoy, and given my lack of faith in the ability and track record of many of those people under the existing law - I’d opt for the status quo.
I’m going to play devil’s advocate here. This is admittedly pure sophistry, not a statement of personal belief, but perhaps society does not recognize a need for spouses to be obedient but does recognize a need for children to be so. Might that not, in some way, explain the distinction in how your two extra-credit examples are treated under the law?
But given that passing a stronger law than currently exists involves giving power to social workers and child protection workers beyond the powers they currently enjoy
I wish there was more detailed work on this. My own intuition is that removing the reasonable chastisement loophole wouldn’t have that much effect on the ability of social workers to trick up a slap on the wrist into a case of assault given that anyone sufficiently zealous could probably do that anyway.
As a matter of interest has Chris Bertram has got any empirical basis for his rather sweeping assertion that ‘many of these people’ (social workers) are not to be trusted? Beyond one or two well publicised cases which presumably represent a small fraction of inappropriately excercised (or actually failure to excercise) powers?
jchave: I fear that representing me as saying they are “not to be trusted” suggests that I am somehow imputing dishonesty. No. I’m just asserting a plausible distribution of the overzealouseness, incompentence, rigidity, tiredness, lack of empathy, fear of one’s own superiors, underfunding, &c &c that mark our public services and wondering what we can actually expect to happen if we pass such a law.
My guess is that we’ll have local papers full of “Stressed mum faces jail for tapping tearaway on wrist” stories and that Victoria Climbie would still die.
As for “empirical basis” : just experience….Like D2 I wish there was more work on this. I could be wrong but my guess is that changing the law would do not much good and some significant harm (no doubt in “one or two well publicised cases which presumably represent a small fraction of inappropriately excercised (or actually failure to excercise) powers”).
“For additional credit, could someone explain to me why it is that my wife and my child are both insolent and disobedient to me, but I am only within my rights to impose reasonable physical chastisement on one of them…“—Daniel
Do I get credit for pointing out that your framing of that question is hugely biased? Children are, rightly or wrongly (and almost all people agree that it’s “rightly”), thought not to be fully responsible for themselves and their parents therefore assume those responsibilities. In much of the world, including your neck of the woods, this is no longer the case with a husband and his wife. Somehow, I expect that you’re aware of that.
When someone makes the sort of argument you’re making here—a smug statement of the absurdity of conventional opinion—I immediately start to enumerate the many opinions likely or known to be held by said person that are arguably just as or more absurd.
It’s not so morally brave as many think to be slightly advanced of popular opinion; it is, really, rather easy, all things considered. What is much harder is discovering—or even “merely” making an effort to discover—the various conventional and unquestioned beliefs one holds that future generations will find morally indefensible. Do people believe some things that a few of us find patently absurd? Yes, of course. But even we supposedly “enlightended” few believe things that our children or grandchildren will find abhorrent, irrational, and hateful.
A friend of mine and I were discussing the Canadian case (which he and I both agreed was silly and caused us the same concerns that Chris has voiced), and spanking in general. He commented that “we don’t/won’t do it because we don’t think it’s effective and we don’t have the stomach for it, but it seems like all the real harm-based arguments against it are subjective and would apply to just about any kind of negative sanction or punishment.” That sums up the feelings of my wife and I about as well as I ever could. Kids need to learn consequences, as Andrew so plainly put it; what matters (outside obviously harmful extremes, of course) is the context in which those consequences are taught, not the method. My wife was raised in a “time-out” family, I was raised in a spanking family (my dad did it, with his hand or a belt). Ultimately, I prefer her family’s approach. But I really can’t discern any differences between the two of us, much less any handicaps I have, that can be attributed to the different disciplinary styles of our upbringing.
Somehow, I expect that you’re aware of that. […] It’s not so morally brave as many think to be slightly advanced of popular opinion; it is, really, rather easy, all things considered. What is much harder is discovering—or even “merely” making an effort to discover—the various conventional and unquestioned beliefs one holds that future generations will find morally indefensible. Do people believe some things that a few of us find patently absurd? Yes, of course. But even we supposedly “enlightended” few believe things that our children or grandchildren will find abhorrent, irrational, and hateful.
Round my way we call it “a joke”.
Ah.
Further to the comparison with what a man might do to his wife: until the early nineties it was legal for a man to rape his wife in this country (the UK). The campaign to make it illegal met a lot of the same resistance as the campaign against the right of parents to hit children. That is, it would disrupt families, it would be too hard to prove, it would bring officaldom into the private arena.
However since the law was changed I have heard not one commentator, no matter how misogynist or right-wing, argue that the right to rape should be reinstated. Indeed it is quite hard to imagine someone making that case in the public sphere.
Similarly, imagine that it was illegal to beat children. In that circumstance, would anybody be campaigning for that right? Or to give others that right? I think not.
It’s interesting that, in Canada, the case is seen as a big loss for anti-spanking campaigners and a win for the traiditional values types. The right-wing editorialists have praised it as a blow to judicial activism, a common sense deference to family autonomy, etc. Do the libertarians think the court should have authorized using base ball bats or putting kids in hospitals?
The question of hitting children is not theoretical; it’s not academic. We are talking about overwhelming someone small and helpless and inflicting pain, however temporary, and humiliation, likely much less temporary. We are talking about breaking the bond of trust between child and parent, the person pledged to protect them. Certainly one looses one’s temper—which is when most “corporal punishment” occurs I have not the least doubt—but one leaves the room and takes some deep breaths. And apart from anything else, speaking of my three year old at least, the worst thing he ever does is hit someone else (or the dog). How is hitting him while telling him, “No hitting!” going to help him develop the maturity and responsibilty that other posters have pointed out he lacks?
it seems like using violence (however mild) to punish our children is counter-productive, teaching them that violence is, in some cases, acceptable. I would much prefer a strict set of consequences (grounding, extra chores, etc) that do a better job of preparing children for real life consequences of their actions.
And as for this ruling, what upsets me is not the parental component, but the extent to which it applies to to teachers and other individuals. If my child was ever spanked by an authority figure without my consent, I would want to consider that assault, similar to them hitting me with the same force.
The only time physical force should be necessary is in self-defence, or in the physical defence of others.
Humans are animals, and all our high and mighty intellectual and moral accomplishments rest on a base of animal instinct and conditioning. Take aversive conditioning out of the toolbox for those raising children, and you’re inevitably going to run into more failures to achieve the higher level results, as sometimes positive conditioning won’t cut it.
“Certainly one looses one’s temper—which is when most “corporal punishment” occurs I have not the least doubt—but one leaves the room and takes some deep breaths.”
Er, and what if you’re on a busy station platform / on a ferry, etc, etc?
“For additional credit, could someone explain to me why it is that my wife and my child are both insolent and disobedient to me, but I am only within my rights to impose reasonable physical chastisement on one of them (these days) , specifically the one who is less able to defend themselves and utterly unable to stop living in my house if they so choose?”
I have a wife and a tree year old child. I do not hit either of them. But I do sometimes impose non-violent chastisement on my child that I would never impose on my wife. Is this wrong? if not, why? Doesn’t the above logic apply to ALL chastisement, not just physical?
(This argument reminds me of those who claim the death penalty is wrong due to the hypocracy of killing people to show that killing people is wrong. I am not a death penalty supporter myself, but I want to ask these people: What do you think we should do with kidnappers?)
It was hinted at, but I don’t think explicitly said: more and more studies have pretty conclusively shown that spanking is not, in fact, very effective, and is far more likely than other forms of punishment to have long-term adverse effects. [if I were a better commenter, I’d provide a link]
Of course, no number of these studies will quiet the “my pop beat hell out of me and I turned out fine” crowd (full disclosure - I was, in fact, spanked on a few noteworthy occasions, and do think I turned out fine), but I think it’s important to recognize. In some ways, this is like the arguments about racial profiling. The argument revolves around whether or not something should be done (morally or ethically), without addressing its practicality. If frisking every dusky-skinned male at the airport doesn’t make me safer, then who cares whether or not it’s constitutional?
But on both these cases, the conservative/traditional side of the argument simply takes the high ground on assumption: of course spanking/profiling is effective. Once that is conceded, the other side of the argument must needs remain on its heels. So don’t concede. Not until someone provides evidence to back up the reactionary assumption.
I used to think spanking was abhorrent, but then I thought about the alternative, “Time Out” type punishments, and I realised I felt psychological torture to be at least as disturbing as physical torture.
The natural environment provides many instances where we learn based on pain (eg., I shouldn’t step on nails, or jab myself with a pencil). Why shouldn’t the social environment do the same?
(When I look back at my childhood, the most traumatic experiences involved some sort of deprivation, rather than pain)
The natural environment provides many instances where we learn based on pain (eg., I shouldn’t step on nails, or jab myself with a pencil). Why shouldn’t the social environment do the same?
I agree. Bring back the rack, the wheel, scarlet A’s, et al!
I do think husbands should be able to spank wives, but only if wives have a legally enforceable countervailing right to spank the husbands. Fair is fair.
It took me embarassingly long to figure out that we’re not talking about THAT kind of spanking…
I generally dislike corporal punishment, and we do not generally punish our children corporally. But I think one must be a bit pragmatic here. With very small children, a swift swat to the bottom can be just the thing when they are doing something dangerous (e.g., sticking metal objects into an electrical socket). In such cases, I’d rather use a bit of operant conditioning than have a well-adjusted, unspanked but dead child. I agree, though, that spanking is not a good idea as a response for mere bad behaviour, and is all too likely to be an expression of parental frustration rather than a well-founded disciplinary measure.
Alison: it was not formerly legal for a man to rape his wife in the UK. It was formerly impossible for a man to rape his wife in the UK. That is, he might force her to have intercourse against her will; but this was not the crime of rape, which at that time by definition was intercourse forced on a woman by a man not her husband. Thankfully, this has changed in the UK and in a number of other jurisdictions in which rape used to be, in effect, a property crime.
I haven’t ever spanked either of my children. My father was abusive, and I don’t trust that I can manage my rage any better than he manages his. The only time I feel like physically disciplining my children is when I’m so furious I could really hurt them. And that my level of anger is also usually way out of proportion with their transgression.
I don’t think a spanking every now and then causes irreparable harm to most children, but I find that positive reinforcement for good behavior combined with negative (but not physically negative) consequences for bad behavior has worked pretty well for us.
Er, and what if you’re on a busy station platform / on a ferry, etc, etc?
If a small child is throwing a tantrum in a public place, hitting them will likely only escalate it. Children are often not in control, and violence from their caregiver is hardly likely to help them regain it. Sometimes you will have to scoop them up to contain them, but even that needs to be done with care so that containment for their safety doesn’t turn into rough confinement. Sometimes you may just have to miss the train.
As for empirical evidence re: child services, in the US at least such proceedings are deeply cloaked in secrecy, so the evidence is not available.
I interned as a child advocate in dependency court for a semester, and my general impression is that social workers had a functional mode that they applied to nearly all of their cases. There was the reuniter, who would try to keep families together even though it was very clear that some parents weren’t going to learn to stop abusing their kids. (I’m think especially of the dad who broke the arms of his kid on three different occassions over 2 years, but was ‘in counseling’). There is the worker with infinite faith in the ability of parents to shape up their acts. (I’m thinking especially of the woman who had her 6th child taken away, for neglect regarding food and water due to drug use, and showed up to the hearing pregnant. The social worker said, ‘she’s in rehab, she’ll be able to keep this one’. Baby tested positive for cocaine AND heroin at birth). There is the equally bad worker who has been burned so many times that he extends no trust or hope whatsoever for the parents in question, and will work to pull the kids no matter what the evidence. (I’m thinking specifically of the single dad who lost his job, went on a drinking binge the next day, got arrested for disorderly conduct, had his 14 year-old pulled, and despite getting a better job within two weeks and a voluntary agreement to be tested each week while going to AA 4 times a week for a year, couldn’t convince the social worker to let him have his daughter back.)
In short, the social services system is important but dangerous. It allows a lot of leeway to social workers, and even though they try to do what they think is best they can still do a lot of things that we wouldn’t think are very appropriate.
Sebastian—agreed. One way to move toward a solution to this problem might be to offer decent pay and managable workloads to social workers. We might then get more skilled people who burn out less and have time (and skill) to pay more attention to the nuances of each situation. Of course, such a plan costs money….
It would also help if we (in general, as a society, speaking from the U.S. here) had a less robust notion of parental “rights,” which in the minds of many veer toward ownership.
One way to move toward a solution to this problem might be to offer decent pay and managable workloads to social workers. We might then get more skilled people who burn out less and have time (and skill) to pay more attention to the nuances of each situation. Of course, such a plan costs money….
Colour me sceptical. Some people just enjoy exerting power over poor people and there’s not all the government money in the world that can change that.
Well, I’m sure that’s true, but given the supremely low pay and high workloads (at least here in the US), I’d say it seems like a reasonable conjecture that these more mundane problems are at least as significant as the one you’ve identified. It defies reason that you won’t get a better job performance from a profession on the whole if you make it possible to do with some financial security and thoroughness.
“It would also help if we (in general, as a society, speaking from the U.S. here) had a less robust notion of parental “rights,” which in the minds of many veer toward ownership.”—djw
I think it’s very close to ownership and I strongly disgaree with this sensibility. Screw that. Parents are granted responsibility for their children based upon a presumption of competence that they can, and often do, disprove.
“I think it’s very close to ownership and I strongly disgaree with this sensibility. Screw that. Parents are granted responsibility for their children based upon a presumption of competence that they can, and often do, disprove.”
Parents are obliged to be responsible for their children and often fail in their obligation.
There were, and are, Native American tribes that never physically disciplined their children. That thought it was not only a dubious practice, but a barbaric one.
But outside that tribal framework there was the immediate and grave presence of the natural world. When you live close to the ground, close to fatal consequence, the seriousness of it permeates all context. Children absorb that seriousness osmotically, and the withdrawal of approval, the stern regard of an elder, is felt by the child for what it is, at a visceral level, deeper even than the physical recognition of a painful swat to the backside.
How many times have you seen the naked disrespect of a child, who’s learned to express it within the loose boundaries of current social propriety? Children who have a kind of consumerist equality within the family. That’s a dysfunction we’re seeing more and more of now. Use your words, as though words had some ultimate moral power.
The viciousness of purely verbal and tonal scorn can be seriously and permanently damaging and yet it will never be legislated against.
This is still a primitive morality, with its emphases on the body before all else. The damage of spanking is abhorred, the damage of the cutting remark is accepted.
People in the same state of mindlessness shriek in horror at Steve Irwin’s dangling baby, and put their own children in meteoric jeopardy in the automobile.
Spanking isn’t really the issue, it’s the social context in which the spanking is or isn’t being done.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review