Smacking Kids Issues - Essay Example

SMACKING KIDS {Insert university’s name} {Insert instructor’s name} {Insert student’s name} April 12, 2013. SMACKING KIDS Introduction In natural development environment, it is normal for children to test or challenge adult and parental authority and expectation. At times, children decide to misbehave with an aim of gaining things such as peer approval, object, power or attention. The aforementioned is an important aspect of children’s growth process; however, parents are not encouraged to physically punish their children (Porter, 2008). In the current world, about 29 nations all over the world have made it illegal for not only parents but also teachers and other adult to smack a child. Additionally, there are about 113 nations that prohibit corporal punishment in schools. Nonetheless, in North America physical punishment especially rendered by a parent and it is not severe is regarded as discipline. There is plenty of evidence indicating that it is not right to physically discipline kids as a way of managing their behavior, factually smacking damages children’s development (Aucoin, Frick, & Bodin, 2006). This essay is organized into number of sections, introduction, background information and reasons why smacking is not right. Lastly, there will be opposition of the refuting side and then conclusion summarizing and demanding an action. Hence, the next section highlights the background information on smacking by including terms and history on the same. Background information Smacking is the act whereby one is strike by another person using open hand with an aim of causing temporary pain without producing physical injury on the person. It was done with an aim of instilling discipline. Discipline is defined as how children are made to learn right from wrong as well as acceptable behavior from unacceptable. Historical information has indicated that smacking was first reported in Ancient Greece. During that period it was regarded as a pagan practice aimed at escalating fertility in barren women. The smacking was conducted by priests. Later, the Catholic Church introduced smacking practice on women with an aim of removing sins and it was conducted by catholic priests after the confession session (Aucoin, Frick, & Bodin, 2006). Consequently, other sources indicate that smacking started in Victorian Europe (Holden, 2002). It was during the same period that Sigmund Freud wrote and published what was later to be known as Oedipus/Electra theories (Porter, 2008). The aforementioned theories indicated that parents sexually abused their parents due to the existing strict home environments. The public protested and as a result Freud lost his funding. Nonetheless, it is important to note that there are numerous periods in the history whereby smacking was regarded as normal and as part of life. For instance, in the united states of American, slave owners could smack their slaves an aspect that was abolished in theory at the end of civil war. In nations whereby smacking is illegal, most parents still practice it. According to Aucoin, Frick, & Bodin (2006) in US for instance approximately one third of children below one year are smacked by their parents. Consequently, Lytton (1997) in his study points out that for children aged 3 to 5 years, smacking has reached a record of 90 percent and they are hit approximately three times a week. However, according to Strauss (1994) smacking prevalence decreases as children age with just 30 percent and six times a year. The next section will centre on the effects of smacking highlighting explanation and support. Reasons why physical punishment is not right First, physical punishment results into behavioral effects in children. According to Strauss (1994) children who are constantly punished physically show escalating defiance and increased aggression as well as antisocial acts not only during childhood and adolescent but also into adulthood. Additionally Holden (2002) points out that physical punishment on children simply complies them so as to avoid the consequences and as a result their internal locus of casualty does not develop. The mentioned according to Lytton (1997) is likely to cause conscious development that is impaired or they may fail to internalize the value of parents. Consequently, still on behavioral effects of physical punishment on children, it result to social skills impairment like social problems characterized with increased peer dislike and lowered peer acceptance. The mentioned effects are because of the hostile environment and relationship with their parents making them to develop same negative expectation of their peers (Aucoin, Frick, & Bodin, 2006). Secondly, Lytton (1997) in his study points out that physical punishment results to emotional distress in children such as loss or fear of adult approval, sadness, anger, humiliation and guilt. In most cases, there is likely of the aforementioned emotions blocking the child’s cognitive appreciation of the reason for the discipline (Strauss, 1994). Additionally, physical punishment administered for a long term on children make them to experience depression, anxiety, low self esteem and in adulthood, dependency on alcohol (Holden, 2002). Further, in circumstances whereby physical discipline is regarded as culturally normative in nature, the children’s emotional adjustment is reduced and on the other hand their social aggression is greatly increased as compared to when the parenting practice is less accepted is a given cultural context (Aucoin, Frick, & Bodin, 2006). Evidently, emotional distress as a result of physical punishment results into development impairment in children like reduced IQ (Lytton, 1997). This is due to the fact that parents administering physical punishment in most cases apply less reasoning in the process. Thirdly, physical punishment is regarded as physical abuse. Lytton (1997) points out that smacking seldom results into physical injury, but for parents who are easily angered injury is likely to occur. This is because parents who were subjected to abuse or harsh discipline in childhood, who are who have limited knowledge on parenting strategies and normal behavior as well as experiencing economic stress are more likely to injure their children (Holden, 2002). Additionally, Porter, (2008) adds that parents experiencing the aforementioned conditions mostly employ violent or harsh parenting in frustration of the ability of their children to comply with expectations that are developmentally inappropriate (Strauss, 1994). However, in other terms, physical abuse in most cases is the outcome of the normal disciplinary encounters escalation, i.e. smacking. The most vulnerable group to physical injury is children below five years as compared to their older counterparts due to the fact that they are often smacked. In regard to these, it will be essential to highlight the argument for physical punishment. Refuting the opposing side Holden (2002) in his study points out that even in situations where it is challenging to demonstrate the detrimental effects of smacking; it is hard to prove the beneficial effects on children. Those for physical punishment argue that it results into increased compliance and this is the only positive aspect of it. Nonetheless, the mentioned is merely a dubious achievement according Lytton (1997) due to the fact that it does not encourage independent thinking in children or teach them moral reasoning. Consequently, in circumstance whereby smacking attains compliance, it is evident that the children are amenable and hence, lesser punishment techniques are likely to be more effective if not equal. In other terms, physical punishment is not necessary. Furthermore, behaviorists have even concluded that physical punishment is only effective for 95 percent but specifically to children who are cooperative and are likely to respond to lesser punishment methods. On the other, children who have developed antisocial behavior, physical punishment does not yield any positive result (Porter, 2008). From the arguments, it is evident that the disadvantages of physical punishment outweigh the existing gains in compliance rather than signaling the person in charge, it is challenging to promote permanent behavioral improvements (Lytton, 1997). Conclusion The concept that it is acceptable to physically punish children relies on two assumptions, both questionable and historical. Those for physical punishment argue that it is impossible to reason with children. The mentioned ancient view indicates that by nature children are naughty and hence it is justifiable for parents to correct physical force in correcting evil tendencies. The second existing assumption emphasizes that physical punishment making children to comply with instructions given by the adults. Nonetheless, it is evident that compliance results to considerate behavior when they are not under adults’ supervision and they are not taught moral reasoning. From the arguments against physical punishment, it is evident that it has behavioral, emotional and physical effects on children. In regard to the aforementioned arguments, it is essential to teach children ways of considering other people. This can be achieved through demonstrating considerateness. The fact that smacking only considers the needs of adults and not children, it does not demonstrate the caring nature that children should emulate. Furthermore, instead of parents, teachers and other adults smacking children, they should aim to be role models to them. Being role models, assist teachers, parents and other adults to be teach children not only self-control, responsibility as well as appropriate behavior, and accountability while improving their self esteem. In a nutshell, typically children experience no positive effects but instead negative consequences with physical punishment as they are fearful or inhibited by the aspect of nature. From the argument on physical punishment is not good for children as there are detrimental outcomes. References Aucoin, K.J., Frick, P.J. & Bodin, S.D. (2006). Corporal punishment and child adjustment. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27(6), 527-541. Holden, G.W. (2002). Perspectives on the effects of corporal punishment: Comment on Gershoff (2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 590-595. Larzelere, R.E. (2000). Child outcomes of non abusive and customary physical punishment by parents: An updated literature review. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 3(4), 199-221. Lytton, H. (1997). Physical punishment is a problem, whether conduct disorder is endogenous or not. Psychological Inquiry, 8(3), 211-214. Porter, L. (2008). ‘Smacking children’, adapted from Young children’s behaviour, (3rded), Sydney: Elsveier. Strauss, M. A. (1994). Beating the devils out of them: Corporal punishment in American families. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Lexington. Read More