Discipline and Violence: another perspective
A Guest Post by Josh Brumfield
As a father of a 2 and half year old boy and a newborn baby girl, the recent posts on the disciplining of children caught my eye. Nathan attempted to show that spanking done “properly” need not be violent but can be a useful tool for disciplining young children. At least one person (Sofia Loves Wisdom) felt that adults only employ such methods of discipline against children because children are smaller and can’t defend themselves. They’d never attempt to discipline an adult child in the same manner. Sam was interested in emphasizing the need for caution in making certain kinds of claims and generalities.
However, I wonder if Sofia’s critiques might be able to transcend her personal experiences. Might there be some parenting transcendentals to guide us in this discussion? Certainly we could draw brackets around the obvious abusive situations, but it may be helpful to attempt an approach that recognizes the truth about children and the truth about discipline, admittedly in general and abstract terms, so that we can think about discipline, spanking, and violence within a proper (“Catholic”?) framework.
In my mind, the Church has “canonized” (at least) two approaches to the disciplining and education of children in the last two centuries. In canonizing St. John Bosco and approving his Salesian order, the Church has essentially put her stamp of approval on Don Bosco’s approach, which he called the Preventive System, which he distinguished from the repressive system of education which prevailed at the time (and probably still prevails). He summed up the basic attitude of Salesian educators toward children with the motto “reason, religion, and loving-kindness.” (Don Bosco primarily ministered to boys older than those focused on in the aforementioned posts, so I will not go into further detail on the Preventive System here).
A second “method” which the recent popes have commended is commonly known as the Montessori Method. Dr. Maria Montessori was a Catholic scientist who based her approach to education and discipline on the scientific observations of children and on her knowledge of St. Thomas. She and her work have been recognized, authorized, and/or commended by all the recent popes going back to Benedict XV.
[Note: “Church commendation” is not nearly as important as whether Don Bosco’s and Montessori’s claims about children are true. We’ll have to return to that later.]
Montessori also characterized the common methods of discipline and education as repressive and believed that children should never be treated with “violence.” Why?
In society at large society she saw the great external victories of men over nature in the industrial and technological revolutions, but she also observed a whole world of people who had been repressed from developing as they were created to do so. Of course as adherents to the doctrine of Original Sin we know that we are all broken, but she felt that many of us suffer from more or less subtle forms of various psychological illnesses because of the way in which we were disciplined and educated. Adults, generally well-intentioned, have repressed the natural impulses of children by demanding obedience to certain standards of “adult” society, but children aren’t adults. They function at very high human levels, but they function quite differently and are unable to exhibit consistent obedience until they reach the age of reason.
In observing children, Montessori identified a divinely instituted inner dynamism by which the child aims to develop her “personality”. The child possesses marvelous directives that come from within which urge her to work with great concentration and for long periods at certain types of tasks (which vary by age). Through these intense periods of working, the child, in a certain sense, directs her own formation and advances through her developmental stages, many of which are psychological or spiritual at root. Unfortunately, adults all too often are ignorant of what the child is trying to accomplish by repeatedly flipping the light switch (or something of the sort), of the importance such activities have for the development of the brain and the will, and of the damage done do the child when they impatiently reprimand the child for such innocent behavior. When this happens the child fails to develop “normally,” and learns to doubt her natural desires, her will, which traditionally speaking is one of the avenues through which God attempts to speak to us on a personal level. Thus, many of us grow up simply not knowing or trusting what we really like, what we really want to do with ourselves. We don’t believe that we can be happy with our work. Montessori and Montessori children know otherwise. Therefore, based on her scientific observations, Montessori insisted on respect for the child, whose freedom should be respected as much as an adult’s and whom she saw as a powerful being capable of bringing into existence a “normal” adult, if only the child is provided the right environment and the freedom to work as she wills in that environment.
According to her observations, children exhibit order and discipline on their own when are placed in environments which enable them to work with “reality” in their own way and at their own (often repetitive) pace. More importantly, they exhibit love and cooperation with other children rather than jealousy, competition, and tantrums.
Montessori describes a beneficial approach to a child in a state of chaos as follows:
Let us consider the three- or four-year-old child, as yet unaffected by the factors which will create in him internal discipline. [i.e. her “method”] …
(1) The voluntary movements are disordered. I do not mean the intention of the movements, but the movements themselves: fundamental co-ordination is lacking. …The small child who is clumsy in his movements will show many other obvious characteristics, such as disorderly actions, uncontrolled behaviour, screaming and contortions, but all these are of minor significance. An education which delicately co-ordinates the finer movements will by itself obliterate all the disorder of the voluntary movements. Rather than try to correct the thousand external manifestations of one deviation from the right path, it will be enough for the teacher to offer an interesting means of developing skill in the finer movements: placing a small light cube in the centre of a square, and so on.
Thus her approach relies on observation, that is humbling oneself and noticing what the child is doing or trying to do; showing the child how to do it, and allowing the child to perfect that skill on her own. When children are given an environment which enables them to interact with reality freely, they exhibit an intrinsic motivation to work on their development, including their discipline.
Children have, especially in the first years of life, an internal sensibility as to their spiritual needs, which repression and wrong education can cause to vanish, to be replaced by a kind of slavery of the external senses to every surrounding object. … It reveals itself in that delicate act of free choice, which a teacher untrained in observation would trample under foot before she had noticed it… The child who has fixed his attention on a chosen object, and is concentrating
his being upon the repetition of an exercise, is a saved soul, in the sense of spiritual health of which we are speaking. There is no need henceforth to occupy ourselves with him, otherwise than by preparing his environment so that it will supply his needs, and by removing obstacles which might obstruct for him the way of perfection. … The child who concentrates is happy within himself, unconscious of his neighbours and of his surroundings… When the concentration passes, he seems to become aware, as if for the first time, of the world which surrounds him, with unlimited scope for further discoveries; aware also of his companions in whom he shows a loving interest.
He awakens to a love of persons and of things – gentle and affectionate towards all, and ready to admire everything that is beautiful. The spiritual process is evident; he has to detach himself from his world in order to acquire the power of uniting himself to it.
Thus for Montessori the job of the teacher and parent is not to demand obedience by instilling fearful respect in any of a variety of ways but to allow the child the freedom interact with reality in a safe and appropriate environment . Any form of “violence” fails to respect the child’s freedom. The parent should allow the child maximum freedom within set limits, which are discerned by the parent with prudence, safety, and the child’s developmental needs in mind. Giving the child choices — this or that pair of pants, walk or in the stroller, etc.– can help her to form her will and to develop her unique personality. It will help her to grow up knowing who she is and what she wants, teaching her to trust her desires through which God can lead her to the vocation for which she was created and through which she will find joy and peace.
Of course, there will be the occasional (or in some cases quite frequent) tantrum or testing of the boundaries. In these situations the parent must remain emotionally uninvolved, attempting to understand the child’s frustration and to explain to her why she can’t do this or that. Any discipline that is necessary should be consequential, which means punishments should be something that follow naturally from the offense so that the child learns that her choices have consequences.
In short, a Montessori approach begins with a humble disposition of learning to understand the child’s developmental needs and her attempts to fulfill those needs. It demands respect for the child’s freedom to develop within set limits and respects the absorbent mind of the sensitive learning periods of the child by allowing the child to explore and work with her environment. Finally the Montessori approach does not allow for the repression of the child, via certain forms “violent (physically or verbally) discipline, or the manipulation of the child by showering excessing praise for mundane tasks. (Good job! You went down the slide.)
Montessori would say that spanking and other apparently effective forms of punishing or lesson-teaching, might change the child’s external behavior, but these approaches fail to help the child develop, to change the mind or form the will. She’d say they may obey, but they will likely not internalize the correct behavior for themselves.
I am not here generalizing my own experiences as a parent or a child. As a child I was spanked sparingly. As a parent I have not spanked and hope not to do so, but at present my home is far from a Montessori home; I am guilty of repressing my son without resorting to spanking. However, Montessori’s observations seem to accord with an authentic Catholic anthropology and reflect an integrally Catholic view of the world, which is more than can be said of Dewey or any number of other so-called education and/or discipline experts. I pray for the humility and grace to better observe my son’s actions and his needs and to aid his attempts at forming himself, while prudently, firmly, and lovingly redirecting him whenever he crosses the line.
Sam is right. Being a parent is risky and dangerous. I do not here wish to pass any form of objective judgment on any disciplinary action a parent might take in a given situation. I certainly claim no ability to judge concrete events by some generic code.
However, if Montessori is right about the development of children (and recent scientific studies of child brain development and child psychology have affirmed many of her observations), then we, as parents or teachers, may individually need to reassess our presumptions about our children and how we hope to aid their development into the disciples God intends them to become. I may need to learn to be more willing to observe my children humbly and not to impute rational disobedience or ill-intention to persons who do not yet have a fully-formed will or intellect and who often act out impulsively, simply forgetting “rules” which I think have been made quite clear. But, then again, how often do I, a “matured“ and “developed” adult, need reminders of God’s will and ultimately require recourse to reconciliation? As a parent, by the grace of God go I.
[Disclaimer: I am only recently becoming familiar with Montessori’s thought and am no expert on it in theory or practice, but I do feel her thought can make an important contribution to what has been discussed here recently. Hopefully a contributor or commenter here will be more well-informed and practiced than I.]
Comments are closed.
I agree with much of what has been said in the post. I’m a big proponent of Montesorri (especially having gone through it briefly myself – not that I remember much), but I do know that a lot of mainstream educators have difficulty with the concept. I’m not an expert as to why, but I would be interested in hearing the rebuttal of those who may be more educated in this space.
I also largely agree with the tone of this post that most physical or verbal discipline that is based on intimidation is largely the dark side of the force – it is the much quicker path to achieving said ends, but it comes at a price. That being said, the reality of the world is that not everyone is capable (either circumstantial or psychologically) of the time and self-discipline needed to become a parenting Jedi. Sometimes shortcuts are necessary. We just need to ensure that any shortcuts through the field are counterbalanced by ensuring that we compensate in other areas.
Dan,
Thanks for reading and for your reply. I think you make a great point about the difficulties many of us face in applying this is in practice. The circumstances of life, including our own insufficiencies, often make it quite difficult, but I think it is a worthy ideal of shooting for.
No one says that you have to be a parenting Jedi. We do have access to the confessional after all. But your point is that it is MUCH more difficult to discipline thoughtfully than it is to use your hand or even a voice to intimidate.
Amen. It is the parents’ maturity that must develop to the point of being open to new perceptions of self beginning with loving kindness which then transcends to each relationship. Children instinctively resonate with the disposition of the adult. If the adult is in distress so goes the child.
Great post, by the way.
As someone who was spanked for reasons that, as an adult, I still think are foolish, I agree that violence does not necessarily discipline an internal reasonsing. Mainly, it instilled fear, resentment, anger and eventually – after many years of self therapy and introspection – pity for the abuser, my father.
I now have my own children and am daily challenged by my 2 year old’s need for constant direction. My husband and I have made many efforts and vows to not hit our children, because we found our own upbringing ineffective as described above. We want our children first and foremost to know that they are loved, and will be protected. That being said, sometimes our children do not know the physical boundaries from dangerous to safe. A hot stove has its own “discipline” which will be administered to the child who touches it. So far, we have kept our child safe from the stove, but other dangers lurk. He previously never went into the street, exercising a maturity in that area which other 2 year olds seem to lack, but lately he is venturing closer and closer to the edge of that danger.
I spoke to my mother a few weeks ago about hitting. I told her how I was glad she never hit us outside of a few times which I clearly remember. Those times when she hit us, I remember feeling bad because I had obviously been so naughty that I made my mother hit me. The three times I remember, she ran away and cried – adding to my sorrow. My mother was so wonderful, I must have been horrible to make her resort to violence.
She corrected me, saying that she had hit us when we were younger. She wasn’t a spanker. However for tantrums or fits or just the sheer hysteria of being a toddler, she said she would hit us. “Once”, she said, “you were being so naughty in church that I smacked you right in the face.” Wow. I didn’t remember that – but I can see her doing it. Sometimes I want to smack my child in the face at church, luckily my husband will lead him out of mass, which is a blessing my mother didn’t have. She also said we would get an immediate smack if we were approaching danger – running in the street, playing with fire, etc. I grew up in a very safe household and I still feel a strong calling to focus on safety – maybe those smacks are why.
I’m digressing. The point of this is hearing from my mother that she did, in fact, hit me, made me feel somewhat better about [i]wanting[/i] to hit my child at times. Again, we are a fallen people, and sometimes we try not to sin outwardly, but we sin in our hearts. I’m pretty sure I have murdered my children in my heart a hundred times. Does this make me a bad parent? I dont think so. I’m a good parent. I want what is best for them and I’m trying very hard to balance my human weakness with their human weakness, need for direction, and proper formation of freedom.
We are trying to decide now if we want to hit our children, and how that hit will be administered. We see that days on which we are tired, stressed or disappointed (missed nap, anyone?) we are more likely to be violent-minded towards our children. We have a good book called “Scream-free parening” which says that there are many ways we “scream” at our children, screaming, hitting, passive-agressive behavior, avoidence of discipline, ignoring them. What is most important is “informing their freedom” so that they grow to have a strong moral compass, and not just a fear of punishment. This is what Montessori is talking about – right?
I think the guidelines that many of us need aren’t “don’t hit” or “don’t spank” because those are different and can potentially be applied judiciously or ridiculously, even between two parents in the same household. What children need is quoted here.
[quote]It demands respect for the child’s freedom to develop within set limits and respects the absorbent mind of the sensitive learning periods of the child by allowing the child to explore and work with her environment. [/quote]
What parents need is the guidence to know how to set limits – respectfully – and how to set limits that a child of a certain age can be expected to obey. Some limits are non-negotiable in my house – running in the street is one. Do I yell? Do I stress the importance of not running in the street? You bet I do. Do I hit? not yet, but if it comes to it, I may. I would rather hit and hurt my child to make them fear running in the street rather than them being hit or hurt by a car. I would. Would another parent? I don’t know, and that’s their decision. Maybe other parents don’t let their child run as freely close to a street as I do, so this question isn’t as important to them. We play in the yard by the street every evening for hours, so street saftey is really important to our family’s rules. Again, I’m rambling. I’m sorry. So, where’s the advice on how to set limits – respectfully.
Veronica,
Thanks for reading and sharing.
“So, where’s the advice on how to set limits – respectfully.”
I think that for Montessori this ultimately starts with the environment. She thinks we need to minimize external limits and maximize the child’s freedom to interact with reality. This setting of the environment may be the most fundamental and also most difficult (on a certain level) of Montessori’s positions. In a post-industrial and technological home, it can be quite difficult to provide a safe space for toddlers, especially outside and near a street. I think she would encourage you to try to remain emotionally neutral in responding to your child. When he heads toward the street, stop him, but don’t do so angrily or “gently”, just matter of factly. Explain to him why he can’t play in the street.
She also likes to emphasize giving the child choice. Perhaps you could say, “Son you can play outside on the grass, but you can’t go in the street, or you can play inside.” When/ if he heads for the street you take him inside, tell him you understand that he is upset, but we don’t run in the street. Now he’ll have to play inside. Eventually he will learn the rule, but it requires more patience and vigilance on the part of the parent.
Finally, but perhaps most importantly, she would say that a child at that age does not have a developed will, and parents cannot reasonably expect him to be consistently obedience. This has been most difficult for me to understand.
“Before the child is three he cannot obey unless the order he receives corresponds with one of his vital urges.”…“If the child is not yet master of his actions, if he cannot obey even his own will, so much the less can he obey the will of someone else.”
Therefore, as parents we ought to give our child appropriate environments with appropriate restrictions, and an good deal of freedom, but all of this order to helping the child develop his will.
I’m sorry I don’t have any good concrete examples, but I’m just learning to implement this stuff myself.
A helpful blog may be: http://montessorihomes.blogspot.com/
Happy Parenting!