From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Mon Sep 29 2003 - 19:56:22 BST
DMB,
I think I agree with what you've said here. I think that violence is rarely
the best way to socialize children. However, I am concerned when studies
like the one you cited are used to say that physical punishment should never
be used and is always bad. Parents should learn how to discipline children
effectively without physical intimidation, BUT if a parent does not have
such skills, physical punishment may be best for that parent and child. I
think what has happened for many parents is that they have learned that
physical punishment is bad so they they don't discipline their kids at all.
The message should not be "spanking is wrong" but rather, "doing X, Y, and Z
is more effective than spanking for these reasons."
In short, I tend to think the message people get from such studies is that
we should simply stop spanking and we will solve all the problems that
spanking causes. It is important to add, however, that we will be left with
all the problems that spanking has long existed to solve if we don't replace
spanking with something better.
Thanks,
Steve
> Walter, Platt, Steve and all:
>
> Platt said:
> "Don't let your kids suffer. Wack the unruly ones."
>
> Steve agreed:
> I also think that physical punishment can be effectively used. If one
> applies the MOQ levels... A young child who is not very socially developed
> will respond to biological value, i.e, physical pleasure and pain. Later
> the child may best be influenced through social value, i.e, celebrity and
> shame, and only much later can they respond to the intellectual value of a
> reasoned argument...
>
> dmb says:
> We don't disagree about the levels here, but we draw different conclusions
> from them. As I said the first time, "Pirsig is NOT saying we ought to beat
> our children. There are many forms of discipline, including physical
> restraint, that are effective but do not resort to violence." The levels
> work like a compass, they orient us as to the general direction of things,
> but we have to add our particular experiences and culture to that equation.
>
> This is why I mentioned "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social
> Cognition", which was published not too long ago in the journal of the
> American Psychology Association, "Psychological Bulletin". Its not just a
> new study. Its a survey and a synthesis of 50 years worth of studies. I
> think that's hard to dismiss such a huge pile of data insofar as it
> represents a huge pile of experience AND links that with specific political
> figures and movements. Obviously, I don't share Walter's distrust of the
> "experts".
>
> Anyway, one of the first and best studies on this topic (THE AUTHORITARIAN
> PERSONALITY, Adorno et al., 1950.) sought to explain the rise of Fascism
> throughout Europe in the '30s and '40s. The authors of that early work
> "proposed that harsh PARENTING styles...led entire generations to repress
> hostility toward authority figures and to replace it with an exaggerated
> deference and idealization of authority and tendencies to blame societal
> scapegoats and punish deviants. The theory of authoritarianism holds that
> fear and agressiveness resulting from PARENTAL punitiveness motivate
> individuals to seek predictability and control in their enviroments." The
> studies since then are many. The paper includes five and a half pages of
> source references. If you want to dismiss 50 years of pyschological
> investigation into the matter or just don't have the time to read the paper,
> we can just talk about it in Pirsigian terms. But I think the paper contains
> info that only helps us use the levels better.
>
> One of the interesting points made in Lila on this topic is how parenting
> styles of the intellectuals of the 20's and 30's differed from that of the
> Victorians. They seemed to take opposite sides, but Pirsig was careful to
> point out that what he thought was really going on was a shift from European
> social values to Indian social values. Not that every native was kind to
> children or that every white parent was harsh or cruel, but as a general
> rule that was true. I mean, how long has Europe honored that old
> spare-the-rod style of parenting? And to take it a bit further. I think we
> can see that both methods are aimed at socializing the child. They both work
> to transmit the culture and thereby mollify and modify the biological level.
> The differences in parenting sytles are effectively a reflection of those
> two different cultures. The European culture putting the emphasis on order
> and hierarchy and the Native American culture putting the emphais on freedom
> and individuality. My head is swimming with all the inter-related points,
> not to mention that movies Cowboys were basically Indians in disguise and
> hardly demonstrated European values and that Cowboy attitudes don't work
> very well in dense urban areas or in U.S. foreign policy, but I think you
> can probably see what I'm saying already.
>
> I'm saying that its not so simple. We ought view the relationship between
> the biological and social levels in a way that includes what we know from
> experience and history. I mean, its just not appropriate to treat children
> as if they were criminals or enemy soldiers. Cops and armies are essential
> to hold society together, but they don't raise our children. And if my three
> and a half year old son is anything like your kids, then you know that one
> of the major tasks as a parent is to teach those little creatures to stop
> hitting and biting each other. (My boy has come home with teeth marks on his
> arm more than once.) If we "wack" kids for hitting aren't we just teaching
> them to be hypocritical and violent? Yes, we're transmitting certain
> cultural values when we do that. When this practice is extreme and
> widespread, the result has been fascism. Its no accident that Stalin, Hitler
> and Mao all had brutal fathers. As the paper's fourth footnote says...
>
> "The clearest example seems to be Stalin, who secrectly admired Hilter and
> identified with severl right-wing causes (including anti-Semitism). In the
> Soviet context, Stalin was almost certainly to the right of his political
> rivals, most notably Trotsky. In terms of his psychological make up as well,
> Stalin appears to have had much in common with right-wing extremists. (see
> e.g. Bert, 1993; Bullock, 1993; Robbins and Post, 1997)"
>
> Spanks for your time,
> dmb
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 29 2003 - 20:58:56 BST