Spanking as a Viable Form of Discipline: A Personal View

Imagine a weekday morning, and you are involved in your usual early-morning routine: waking up the kids, getting them to wash up and dress, making sure they eat their breakfast rather than decorate the kitchen with it, and getting them out the door and onto a school bus, while managing - in-between all these activities - to prepare yourself for a day at work. This ultimate exercise in multitasking, so familiar to practically all parents, must be conducted in a limited span of time, where an unexpected delay at any juncture may cause the entire system to fall apart into little pieces. In this situation, when a child is acting out in an unreasonable manner - determined, of course, by a reasonable parent - a quick and decisive punishment might be needed.

Despite various claims by psychologists and sociologists concerning the emotional trauma that physical punishment can cause children in their adulthood, or even teenage years, in my personal experience - shared and agreed upon with many of my peers - a quick smack on the bottom not only produces the best results in terms of achieving obedience, but also does not carry noticeable emotional scarring that may negatively influence the child's life in the future. This quick spanking does not mean that I love my kids any less or that I would not sacrifice everything I have, including myself, to ensure their well being and happiness. Which brings me to the main point of my argument: spanking can be a viable and effective form of discipline when applied as a measure of last resort, while being balanced out with love and care under all other regular circumstances.

Even among the opponents of physical punishment, the understanding exists that it is impossible to go through life without suffering pain in the process of learning about life. Even Peck (1978), who claims that discipline can be acquired through self-learning, does not deny that many "trials and tribulations" that a person goes through in the process of acquiring discipline are a form of negative reinforcement similar to that provided by punishment administered by parents to children. Punishment does not have to be physical, but of course, to be truly effective, it must immediately follow the action by a child so as to support the cause-and-effect combination that takes place in a "natural" environment of self-learning as well. On the other hand, if a child does something commendable, it is just as important to not withhold the reward in a form of verbal approval or anything else.

Punishment is mostly necessary because not all of the actions that could potentially produce negative results actually produce such in a natural, cause-and-effect environment. For example, a child will not always get a cut when handling broken glass, and thus will not learn to exercise caution when using objects made from glass. In a similar example, a child will not always hit somebody when throwing a rock, and if he likes it - and no negative reinforcement is there to teach him otherwise - he is likely to do it in the future again. The presence of a parent is essential for the acquisition of life's truths because the parent can provide the negative reinforcement that leads to this truth but is "naturally" unavailable.

Holt (1975) insists that the worst kind of discipline is the one where a person possessing a superior force applies it or threatens someone who does not have it with that force to compel that individual to act in some particular manner. It is usually applied as "lesser evil," with a person being threatened with something bad happening to him or her so as to avoid something even worse happening. One of Holt's reservations about such use of force, of which spanking can be considered one, is that it breeds in the weaker person the feeling of resentment towards the one who is applying it. In case of spanking applied by parents to their children, according to Holt's argument, it would spoil the relationships between them.

Even Holt, however, mentions that such a situation is likely to occur only in case of "excessive" use of discipline by compelling force. He does not provide the exact definition of such excursiveness, but it can be found in other writings on the subject. Chisholm (1999), for example, mentions that "if you are spanking once a day, you have a big problem." Miller (2000) claims that beating children "from the outset" and often produces the types of "emotional cripples" that look for justification of their rage and fulfillment of their "thirst for vengeance" for the rest of their lives. It is impossible not to agree that spanking or, worse, beating a child simply for the sake of applying punishment is the most nonsensical activity imaginable. In a situation like this, especially if the punishment is administered often, the child soon is no longer able to associate a parent with anything but physical pain. Being too small and weak to hit back, the child can and will indeed grow resentful of the person applying such punishment, which supports Holt's argument. Moreover, this form of punishment applied often and for all types of infractions - or worse, for no infractions at all - soon loses its usefulness as a method of enforcing discipline and compliance, because at some point the child will no longer associate the spanking with punishment for something he or she did wrong. The spanking at that point becomes simply that - a spanking, with no reason behind it.

This is not the type of application of spanking I support. Excessive and unreasonable use of physical force cannot be justified even by the argument Dodson (1978) brings forth about spanking releasing the tension between a parent and a misbehaving child. In my opinion, spanking is a measure of last resort, when all other attempts at getting the child to comply with parent's requests have failed. It also cannot be deliberate - nothing can be worse than "scheduling" a spanking - or applied with enough force to seriously hurt, or even leave a significant mark.

A spanking is, in a way, similar to slapping an adult on the cheek when they are acting hysterical. Similar to such a hysterical condition in an adult, a child who continuously misbehaves, despite repeated verbal reprimands, loses touch with reality. Usually with children, even when they are cranky or unhappy about something, it is possible to help them see reason, or to achieve disciplinary compliance, without adhering to physical force. In many instances, even the threat of physical punishment is not necessary. This is due mainly to the fact that children who are brought up in an environment where they are not neglected receive from a very young age a basic understanding of what is allowed and what is not allowed. As they grow up, they become better able to understand the concepts of right and wrong, but even without it, the rudimentary understanding of what is expected of them in terms of behavior is generally enough to ensure discipline. Accepting this as the basis for "normal" behavior, it is possible to assume that the child who usually behaves well but who at one particular moment misbehaves continuously, or throws a temper tantrum, is no longer capable, for that moment, to understand the concepts of allowable and disallowable action. Similar to a smack on the face or a vigorous shaking helping a hysterical adult, a sensation of quick and sharp physical contact can bring this child back to reality. This is also why, in my opinion, an instance of spanking cannot consist of more than one smack, which should be more than enough to bring a child to his or her senses. Delivering more than one blow is unnecessary and should be considered cruel.

Opponents of spanking might read the previous paragraph and go "A-ha!" while claiming it as proof that physical force indeed can be applied as a form of discipline without using spanking, being replaced, for example, with a vigorous shaking. Individuals offering such arguments forget that children's bodies are more vulnerable to injury from shaking because their bones and connecting tissue are still in the process of growing. A smack on the bottom carries practically no chance of causing serious physical damage to a child, while a vigorous shake result in strains, sprains, and even limb dislocation and broken bones.

Aside from the fact that it should not be deliberate and forceful enough to leave a lasting mark, spanking especially cannot be done by applying a bare hand to a bare bottom. This is especially true for mothers, because from the youngest age, the contact between the baby's bare skin and that of the mother associates for the child with care, warmth, and nourishment, such as in the case of breastfeeding. Such contact establishes for the child the feeling of security and positive emotions associated with direct skin contact. Delivering a spanking using a bare hand on a bare bottom severely undermines one of the most fundamental aspects of the child's upbringing by making him or her associate bare skin contact with pain and discomfort rather than with care, love, and nourishment. Of course, it is even worse to use a tool to deliver a spanking, such as a belt or paddle, so in my opinion a bare hand is the best means of delivering a spanking, but it should be done to the bottom that is completely covered with clothing.

While I agree on principle with Dodson's argument in favor of spanking, I do not agree with him on details and reasoning. He claims that spanking, done immediately following an infraction by a child and performed in a reasonable manner - i.e., without cruelty and viciousness - is an appropriate form of punishment because it teaches a lesson, releases negative emotions that dealing with unruly children often produces in parents, and "clears the air" between a parent and a child. Dodson claims that both parents and children feel better once the tension in their relationship is out of the way, relieved by spanking. Personally, I doubt any reasonable, psychologically healthy parent ever feels good after giving their children a quick smack on the bottom (I certainly would not), nor would children be particularly happy about receiving this smack. When my child is hurting, I am hurting along with her, especially if I am the one delivering - deliberately or not - a painful sensation. Children also should not be spanked out of sheer frustration associated with the inability to get them to behave any other way. In my mind, doing so constitutes a weakness, representing the parent's inability to handle his or her own emotions and actions. If I am incapable of such control, I should not be around children, at least not trying to discipline them. Instead, spanking must deliver a clear message to the child, namely that his or her behavior has gone beyond the limits of parental tolerance.

Dodson also says that it is appropriate to apologize to a child after a spanking is delivered and to explain exactly why it has been administered. Considering his arguments in favor of spanking, it is understandable why a parent should apologize to a child after a spanking; after all, the parent delivers it because he or she has lost control of personal emotions. Since my view differs from Dobson's in this regard, in my opinion, an apology following a spanking diminishes its impact by making the child believe that the parent did something wrong. Following a simple logical chain, the child just got spanked for doing something wrong. So if the parent is admitting to having done something wrong, why is she or he not being spanked as well? There could be no doubt in the child's mind that the parent is in the right, and not simply exercises an advantage in size and strength to deliver a physical punishment.

The second part of Dodson's argument - that of an explanation for a spanking - warrants more positive consideration, since it is necessary to ensure that there is a logical association between a spanking and an action by the child that brought it on. However, unlike what Dodson suggests, rather than immediately explaining to the child why he or she has been spanked, it is better to ask first and see if the child's answer coincides with the actual reason. Doing so serves two purposes. Firstly, following the chain of argument that spanking helps bring children back to reality, forcing the child to form logical conclusions helps him or her to come back more quickly to behavior controlled by reason. Secondly, if the child produces an answer that coincides with the actual reason why a spanking has been delivered allows the parent to switch almost immediately from negative reinforcement to positive reinforcement by rewarding the child for coming up with the correct answer. This positive reinforcement can consist of a simple hug or affectionate hair tussle, but even this reinforces in the child's mind that the type of behavior for which he or she has been spanked, and afterwards named, is inappropriate and should not be repeated. At the same time, it returns the relationship between the parent and the child to the regular path of loving and caring.

Even though I am in favor of spanking, I agree with Pomeranz and Schultz (1986) about not punishing a child if an infraction is committed for the first time. It is often hard to realize that just because a child is told to not do something or to not behave in a certain way does not mean that a child understands exactly why he or she should not perform this certain action or behavior. It is also hard to imagine that the shock of seeing a broken vase and hearing anger or disappointment in a parent's voice is enough of a deterrent for the child to not do the same thing in the future.

I also believe that parents should carefully evaluate their children's reasoning ability and stop administering spankings once the child is capable of understanding the more long-term consequences of unacceptable behavior. Spanking also must no longer be an option when other forms of punishment become available that had not been available during the child's younger years. Examples of such forms of punishment are financial - reducing or withholding allowance - or associated with labor, such as extra chores within or outside the household.

Obviously, my attitude toward spanking as a viable form of punishment is a positive one, but subject to many conditions. These conditions are necessary to ensure that the parent is fully aware of the possible consequences of resorting to spanking; the child is made to understand the reasons such punishment has been administered; and both realize that delivering - and receiving - this punishment does not change the fact that both parties truly love and care for each other. Only this can help ensure that spanking does not turn from an occasional, extreme form of discipline of last resort into a methodical, deliberate system of physical and emotional abuse.

Works Cited

Chisholm, Patricia. "Punishment gets a scolding: But anti-spank crusaders collide with critics." Maclean's 112 (1999): D20.

Dodson, Fitzhugh. How To Parent. Seattle, WA: Signet, 1978.

Holt, John. "Disciplining children." Patterns for College Writing. Eds. Kirszner, Laurie & Stephen Mandell. 6th ed. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1975: 304-309.

Miller, Alice. "Against spanking." Tikkun 15 (March/April 2000): 17-19.

Peck, Scott, M. The Road Less Traveled. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978.

Pomeranz, Virginia E. and Dodi Schultz. "The First Five Years." Student's Book of College English. Eds. Skwire, David and Frances Chitwood. 4th ed. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1986: 194-196.