Spare the rod…
Most of the times we punish our children, they have in fact
already been punished, and by dishing out our own punishment,
we make the situation worse, says
Katherine Sellery
.
W
hen we talk about the
merits or drawbacks
of punishing children,
we first need to stop
and determine how we actually view
the act that we may think needs
punishing. People can see the same
situation in many different ways
and how we interpret a behaviour
will determine what we think is the
appropriate response and our reasons
why.
Jiddu Krishnamurti, religious
philosopher and teacher said,
“Observation without evaluation is the
highest form of human intelligence.”
So when a child is ‘out of control’,
do we judge the offender as badly
behaved, acting inappropriately,
naughty and unacceptable? Or do we
see it as developmental inexperience,
natural exuberance, exploration, lack
of information, a lapse of self-control?
Double standards
If we were to compare how we feel
when children make developmental
or academic mistakes versus
behavioural mistakes, do we notice a
difference in our perspectives? If it
is developmental – say a misspelled
word – don’t we look at it as though
children are trying to get things right
and that errors are accidental? That
kind of learning requires exploration
and mastery requires lessons and
practice, which will inevitably involve
some mistakes along the way. If our
children have difficulty achieving
developmental expectations, they may
need additional support and, in these
cases, we seek out whatever they need
so that they can develop the skills to
feel successful.
With behavioural mistakes
however, our assumption is often
that children are trying to get things
wrong, that the errors are deliberate,
intentional, they could have done
better, they purposefully chose not
to do as we hoped. We assume that
children should not explore rules and
limits, should not make behavioural
mistakes and that those children who
have difficulty achieving behavioural
expectations should be punished
and certainly not be given warmth,
support and understanding. We
respond with: “Go to your room!”,
“No TV!”, “No dessert!”, or “No
iPad!”.
There is a negative underlying
belief that informs this way of seeing
things: that children have got to learn;
give children an inch and they will
take a mile; they are attention-seeking
and manipulative; that adults can’t
give in to children because if we do
they will have won and we will have
lost.
This way of seeing is actually a
choice. It’s ageism. We are actually
punishing children for being children:
for lacking the skills to regulate
their emotions, to problem-solve or
mediate their differences, for having
lapses in either impulse control or
emotional control or both. Where did
we get the idea that banishing them
to their rooms would teach them life
management skills? It teaches them
to be ashamed for having not had
the skills to do better, to be ashamed
of being a child, and to feel even less
supported and understood, driving
more disconnection.
The guidance approach
A behaviourist or controlling style
of discipline uses rewards (praise,
treats, stars, merit awards, pocket
money, access to preferred activities)
and punishments (reprimands, time
out, corporal punishment) to induce
children’s compliance. A guidance
approach to discipline uses no rewards
or punishments but instead teaches
children to act considerately and
when they don’t, uses active listening,
compassion and empathy to help them
recover from their loss of control so
that they can manage themselves
and the situation with dignity. The
guidance approach acknowledges that
children will lose it from time to time
and that when they do they will need
support to gain emotional control
again and to recover. Children need
22
