Spanking is Just A Fancy Word For Hitting

Spanking.  It's one of the most controversial parenting subjects out there.  People often ask me where I stand on the subject, as a teacher and a mother, and I find it a hard question to answer.  Not because I don't have a strong stand, but that, to me, it seems like the answer should be obvious.   I feel very surprised and confused that the question even exists.  So here is my official position: I am adamantly, passionately, and vehemently against spanking.  In my opinion, spanking is not discipline, it's just a fancy word for hitting.  It's the worst form of what I call "uncreative parenting."

The reason why the question surprises me so, is that if I changed the question to "how do you feel about hitting children?" everyone would quickly respond against it.  So, it confuses me that we replace the word with another word that means exactly the same thing and suddenly it becomes a controversial and plausible disciplinary method.  I know that the reality is that many parents out there were spanked themselves as children.  Many of us believe it's why we learned to behave.  So much of parenting is about continuing what was done before us; it's what we know.  I'm not saying that most of our parents didn't do their best, because I know they did (well, many of them).  But, many of them didn't have the information available to us now.  Many of us drove around without seat-belts and car-seats or didn't wear helmets when we rode our bicycles, but we don't continue those behaviors with our children now.  It would put their lives at risk.  There's a lot more information today about what's better and safer for our children.  It's our duty to protect them.  And, I think it's our duty to stop the cycle of violence and strip hitting of it's pseudonym, spanking.

Many parents often believe that the alternative to spanking is a lack of discipline.  We go from one extreme to the other.  Often, it's because parents don't know how to implement alternatives as they have no experience with them.  It also requires that we change how we think about discipline and children as a whole.  It requires that we look at discipline as guidance to help children grow into compassionate, independent, conscious adults, rather than as a tool to make children respond to the external wills of others.  In truth, discipline without spanking is a lot harder, so many parents who have chosen not to spank falter in their ability to replace it or change the way they think about it.  Discipline without spanking takes a lot of creativity, understanding, and patience.  But, I promise you, there's good reason for it.  And good reason to use other methods.  And I promise, those other methods can not only work, but work far better than spanking ever could.

I'll start with the science first.  When I began writing this post, I thought (or hoped) I could cite irrefutable evidence that spanking was unhealthy for children.  In fact, there are a few studies that show spanking has an adverse and damaging effect of children, particularly with regards to cognition, aggressive behavior, and the ability to emotionally regulate.  On the other hand, there is also a recent study that claims spanking has a positive effect on cognition.  A lot of pro-spanking science is based on self-report, meaning that people who were spanked claim it had a positive effect on them.  Truthfully, it seems ALL the science on spanking is fairly flawed at the moment.  There are just too many variables in the research to confirm a causal relationship.  For example, it's possible that children who have cognitive difficulties have a harder time behaving and so tend to be spanked more often.  The general issue with most scientific studies on spanking is that they have found correlations but that does not necessarily mean there is a causal effect.  So, we haven't reached irrefutable scientific evidence.  Still, I would like to point to two articles that think through the science of spanking a little further.  First, Tom Johnson's Fallacies of Pro-Spanking Science is a great read and in-depth discussion about much of what I say in this article.  Carl Bialik's New Research On Spanking Might Need A Time Out talks about how no spanking studies seem to follow reliable science as of yet (pro or anti spanking).

So, unfortunately we can't rely on science (although if you go to most parenting science websites, which based their parenting advice on scientific study, you will find them anti-spanking).  What can we rely on to make this decision?  To me, it seems fairly simple, but it requires that we throw out any emotions we have about our own spanking experiences (if you have them).  This is for two reasons.  The first is that we are all different people.  I promise you, just because something didn't damage you doesn't mean your child will react to it the same way.  Also, you can never know if not being spanked and alternative disciplinary measures would have had even more of a positive effect of you because you never experienced it.  The second reason is that by having this discussion, we must recognize that we aren't attacking our own parents or the way we were raised.  Instead, we are looking at the topic rationally and coming to a conclusion that is not tied into the emotional baggage of the past.  We owe it to our children to think it through and come to conclusions that are based on something deeper than "it's what my parents did."

So, here is my first argument against spanking.  Spanking is hitting.  I don't care if you do it lightly, open handed, always on the child's bottom, etc.  I don't care if you claim that you are calm when you do it (which I don't believe but will discuss later).  I don't care which way you try to spin it...you are hitting your child.  So before a parent chooses spanking as a disciplinary method, I think they have to come to terms with this.  The reason I can argue this is that if you did the exact same thing to another adult (your spouse, your neighbor, etc) then it would be defined as a hit.  In fact, it would not only be a hit, but it would be punished by law as an assault.  And it doesn't matter how lightly you do it.  You strike another adult, you are guilty of assault and that is a prosecutable offense.  So why on earth when we do it to a child does it become "for their own good?"

So, now, let us think through what we are telling a child when we hit them.  The first thing we are telling them is their parents (the people they trust to care for them, guide them, and the only ones they know to rely on) will purposefully cause them pain.  We are telling them that we WILL hurt them if we choose to hit.  And that statement ultimately means that no one is safe.  For a child whose parents are willing to hit him, it sets the tone that anyone in the world can hit them or hurt them.  It sets the tone that the nothing in the world is truly safe or peaceful.  Regardless of whether or not the child-turned-adult recognizes this affect on their consciousness, it is still there lurking deep in the mind and forever changing who they have become.  It also tells our children that we are giant hypocrites.  Because I promise you, at some point in your child's life you will tell him that hitting is not only unacceptable, but wrong.  However, if you at the same time hit (oh, wait, spank) your child, you are doing the exact thing your told your child was wrong.  If you go as far to hit him for hitting...well, then that's the biggest hypocrisy of all.

Based on this last reason, hitting your children (regardless of whether you call it "spanking") also tells your children that hitting is OKAY.  Take that parent who spanks his child for hitting someone.  It's the most confusing message in the world.  How can we tell children that they need to resolve their problems without resorting to violence if we choose to resolve a problem with violence?  That's all that discipline is: working through behavior problems.  How we respond to that as parents directly affects how our children approach conflict resolution.  Children who are spanked often hit other children when those children break rules. It's completely fair logic on their part if their parents choose to spank: we hit people who break rules or don't do what we ask of them.  It is extremely difficult for a young child to understand why only adults can hit children and other children cannot.  And, in all honesty, it makes no sense.  If you choose to hit your child, you are teaching them to resolve conflicts with hitting.  Even if a child-turned-adult learns not to hit others, that same sense of violence will still exist in their moments of anger and frustration.  They are given an internal sense of violence rather than peace.

The reality is, we all have that internal sense of violence.  We are humans, and by definition, animals, and violence is an instinctual part of that reality.  This is why I argue that there is no such thing as the calm collected parent who chose to spank rationally and without anger.  If you have been driven to spanking, I don't believe that there is no anger involved.  I believe that the only way a person could ever hit anyone is only driven from a place of frustration, confusion, impulsivity, and anger.  In a situation of frustration, it can be plain human instinct to react physically.  You'll see children do it all the time because they do not yet have control of their bodies.  If we want them to fight this instinct and resolve conflict peacefully no matter how frustrated they are, then we have to do the same.

My final argument against spanking is to point out that it is disrespectful and, in all honesty, weak parenting.  It is disrespectful to anyone to resolve a conflict in such a manner.  The reason why it's weak parenting is that it doesn't teach your child anything positive.  Even if your spanking resulted in compliance on your child's part...it's blind obedience.  It's obedience based on not wanting to get hit again, which is the lowest form of morality possible.  It's the same pavlovian response we use to train dogs with loud noises (as I bet most people, at least animal advocates, would agree that hitting dogs is pretty unacceptable to).  Our job as parents is to guide children to adulthood: helping them become peaceful, independent, self-disciplined members of society.  Spanking is the least beneficial method to promote any of those goals.

True morality is based on not wanting to do harm to others, based on a genuine sense of empathy.  That empathy has to be taught, and you cannot do it with it a hit.  You have to do it by showing the child the impact of their actions on others and teach them how to make amends by making a person feel better.
True obedience is self generated on a basic understanding of what is acceptable.  It's derived from being able to control ones body, something which young children are still generating the ability to do.  It is true that this obedience will begin by weighing consequence, but that consequence can be any number of creative ideas that help a child understand why something is acceptable.  Consequences should be designed in order to teach your child something.  There are also a thousand ways to get a very young child to follow your lead without demand or force.  And certainly, without a spank.

This will be my only negative post on the subject matter.  I am a firm believer in positive discipline, and it's much more valuable for me to talk about positive discipline than just yell about negative discipline.  So, my goal from this point on will be to write posts about how to replace spanking; how to generate positive discipline that can be applied to even the most difficult child.  But before I do, I just wanted to go on record: spanking shouldn't even be an option.