Children Must Be Smacked - Literature review Example

Children Must be Smacked i. Introduction Child smacking is a widespread practice. Children were smacked a home, in their bedrooms, out shopping, in the lounge and the kitchen. They are being smacked on the bottom, on the arm, on the head, face or cheek, and on the hands and legs. Research shows that many parents think that it is sometimes necessary to smack a child. Believing that it is indispensable and needed to communicate effectively with younger children, parents’ organisations, politicians, and educationalist support the right of parents to smack their children. However, they do not support smacking children on the head, or shaking a child, or depriving the child of part of a meal. Children need a sense of direction and smacking, strictly as a form of discipline, is an essential part of parenthood. It is a measure that needs to be imposed at times when behavioural limitations are violated. ii. Children and Smacking During the last few years, there has been much discussion on whether to smack children or not. The United Kingdom is one of the last countries in Europe to allow parents and carers to “smack children whenever they feel like it” (Hobart and Frankel 2000, p.76). However, hitting anyone else is a criminal assault. Sir William Utting who chaired the commission on the proposed national charter of non-violence was quoted as saying “Hitting people is wrong. Hitting children teaches them that violence is the most effective means of getting your own way” (Hobart and Frankel 2000, p.76). “A child must never be slapped, smacked or humiliated” (Hagan and Geraghty 2001, p.2), “shaken, belittled, or isolated” (Fisher et. al. 2003, p, 272) because physical punishment is persuasive, ineffective, and always linked to aggressive, anti-social behaviour in childhood and later as adults (Lyons 2000, Preface). However, opposing arguments are often presented by parents, who insist that “smacking never did me any harm” (Hobart and Frankel 2000, p.76) and even citing a verse in the Bible saying ‘spare the rod, you spoil the child’. Although there is no such phrase in the Bible and it is probably a “quoted axiom” (Leehan 1993, p.150), verses like "Don't withhold correction from a child. If you punish him with the rod, he will not die (Proverbs 23:13), "One who spares the rod hates his son, but one who loves him is careful to discipline him" (Proverbs 23:24), and "The rod of correction gives wisdom, but a child left to himself causes shame to his mother" (Proverbs 29:15) all seems to substantiate the phrase. According to (Leehan 1993), proverbs and its deuterocanonical counterpart, Ecclesiasticus, are great sources of concise saying to guide one’s daily life, one’s family life, and especially parents’ relationship to their children. The advice given seems to favour a stringent orientation and to approve of physical discipline. The scriptural supposition give the impression that children are in nature troublesome and disobedient and that they are best brought into line by the rod. “The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a mother is disgraced by a neglected child” (Proverbs 29:15). Even Islam is in favour of smacking if both males and females failed to pray and do other duties with regard to learning or household matters (Abdul-Rahman (2003, p.121). According to Bifulco and Moran (1996, p.68), many will agree the children must acquire a code of conduct to regulate behaviour, and that sanctions need to be imposed at times when behavioural boundaries are transgressed. Smacking is a fundamental animal instinct. It is along the lines of a lion and a lion cub. It is the same with a parent, to reach forward and smack the child’s hand to stop it from touching whatever it is going to hurt it. However, there is no eventual threat for as long as you are doing it out of discipline and not out of aggression. This is because the frame of mind and the emotion you are showing the child when they are being discipline is as important as the act of discipline (Dosanjh and Ghuman 1996, p. 107). While some view ‘smacking’ as a control issue, almost all the women understood that control over a child was, in itself, something they should be able to accomplish as mothers (Ribbens 1994, p.174). The term used in research literature according to Ribbens (1994) to talk about the issue of control over children is ‘discipline’, but the concept of ‘discipline’ itself presumed specific evaluations, such that ‘discipline’ is often thought to be a virtuous thing. Moreover, referring to Newson and Newson (1985), Ribbens (1994, pp.174-176), explains that discipline is the prevention of naughtiness and the promotion of ‘goodness’ and it is essential to parenthood. The ability to control children’s behaviour of whatever purpose and in the service of whoever’s benefit was considered desirable in its own right. Physical punishment when carried out as a means of disciplining the child “is not only essential but commendable” (Bifulco and Moran 1998, p.68). It is important to consider that there are substantial temperamental variations in children. One child might experience a push as distressingly violent, whereas another would be insensitive to it. According to Roberts (2002, p.52), not all children go through a path of hurting others are being smacked themselves. It may be that a child who begins to hurt others is struggling with something else. When we chastise a child for doing something that could cause harm, we do so out of love. We hurt those we love in a small way; to prevent those we love from being hurt in a big way. When we smack a child on the backside for running onto the road without looking, the child does not really understand why we have smacked the child on the backside, but the child does learn not to run out onto the road. Moreover, when the child grows, the child realises why we smacked the child on the backside for running onto the road, and the child appreciates that we loved the child enough to prevent major suffering which the child would endure if a car hit the child (Kohe’t 2002, p.189). The only problem that we see in children’s smacking is the line between fair discipline and physical abuse. In a study conducted by Bifulco and Moran (1998, p.69), light smacks on the hand or back of the leg were remarkably common in the childhood histories of the samples. Since physical abuse involved being hit, sexually assaulted, and burned or physically restrained (Decalmer and Glendenning 1997, p.17), certainly, none of it is for love and discipline. Even the signs of abuse and neglect such as bruises on the head, face, cheeks, bald patches on the head, cigarette burns, scratches, neck injury etc. (Hobart and Frankel 2000, p.72) are improbable consequence of a ‘light’ disciplinary smack. Furthermore, physical punishment as a way of regulating a child’s behaviour is accepted in principle (Bifulco and Moran 1998, p. 68) thus we only need to address the degree of physical discipline or punishment and not the act. For instance, a childminder who smacked a child in her care was reinstated because her lawyer argues that the child’s parents had given her permissions to smack their child. Moreover, the judge ruled that the Children Act 1989 did not say that physical punishment could not be used on children (Curtis and O’Hagan 2003, p.18). Another is when an English court ruled that ‘punishing’ a child with a garden cane is ‘reasonable’ even by his stepfather (Lyons 2000, Preface). Apparently, physical punishments imposed by parents are allowed and it is even transferable to a childminder or to a stepfather. Making smacking illegal will destabilize and abate parent’s duties and responsibilities towards their children. Smacking is a constructive way of showing children ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ behaviour and of preventing hazardous or detrimental behaviour (Kay 2003, p.159). Many parents’ organizations, politicians, and educationalist support the rights of parents to smack their children because it is both indispensable and good and it is needed to communicate with younger children (Stanko 2003, p.63). iii. Conclusion Logically, when we say hitting children teaches them that violence is the most effective means of getting your own way, we also validate the impression that many adults believe in violence as the most effective means of resolving things. This is because our parents out of love and concern for our safety smacked the majority of us in our childhood. However, not a soul will agree that because of that smack we are now violent, anti-social, depress, hate our parents, and still resentful about it. Smacking never did us any harm and many of us will agree that punishments are required at times when behavioural boundaries are transgressed. There is no ultimate threat in smacking for as long as it is entirely intended for discipline. Discipline is preventing destructive behaviour and promoting righteousness and essential to parenthood. Smacking is useful and prevents dangerous or negative behaviour. It is desirable, commendable, and never an abuse. Therefore, children on certain occasion must be smacked. iv. Reference List Abdul-Rahman Muhammad Saed, 2003, Islam: Questions and Answers - Pedagogy Education and Upbringing, Published by MSA Publication Limited, 4 Bello Close, Herne Hill, London, SE24 9BW, UK Bifulco Antonia and Moran Patricia, 1998, Wednesday's Child: research into women's experience of neglect and abuse in childhood, and adult depression, Published by Taylor & Francis, 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxford OX14 4RN, UK Curtis Audrey and O'Hagan Maureen, 2003, Care and Education in Early Childhood: A Student's Guide to Theory and Practice, Published by Routledge, 130 Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4SB, UK Decalmer Peter and Glendenning Frank, 1997, The Mistreatment of Elderly People, Published by SAGE, United Kingdom Dosanjh Jagjit Singh, Ghuman Paul Avtar Singh, 1996, Child-Rearing in Ethnic Minorities, Published by Multilingual Matters, 15 Dial Hill Road, Clevedon, United Kingdom Fisher Angela, Seamons Stephen, Webb David, and Wallace Ian, 2003, Gcse Health and Social Care: Student Book, Published by Folens Limited, Waterslade House, Thame Road, Haddenham Buckinghamshire, HP17 8NT, UK Hobart Christine and Frankel Jill, 2000, Foundations in Caring for Children, Published by Nelson Thornes, Delta Place 27 Bath Road Cheltenham, United Kingdom Kay Janet, 2003, Protecting Children: A Practical Guide, Published by Continuum International Publishing Group, The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London, UK Kohe't Tsunyota, 2002, Full Circle: Searching for My Soul, Published by Eagle Spirit Ministry, online, available at http://www.eaglespiritministry.com/ Leehan James, 1993, Defiant Hope: Spirituality for Survivors of Family Abuse, Published by Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky Lyons Christina, 2000, Smacking: A Contradiction in Human Rights and Law, Published by Institute for Public Policy Research, 30 - 32 Southampton Street, Covent Garden London O'Hagan Maureen and Geraghty Patricia, 2001, Early Years Practitioner: A Level 2 Textbook, Published by Elsevier Health Sciences, United Kingdom Ribbens Jane, 1994, Mothers and Their Children: A Feminist Sociology of Childrearing, Published by SAGE, United Kingdom Rosemary Roberts, 2002, Self-esteem and Early Learning, Published by SAGE, United Kingdom Stanko Elizabeth Anne, 2003, The Meanings of Violence, Published by Routledge, 130 Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4SB, UK Read More