| A Study of Attitudes Towards Corporal
Punishment as an Educational Procedure From the Earliest Times to the Present by Robert McCole Wilson |
| table of contents |
| There is a kind of Justice which aims neither at the
amendment of the criminal, nor at furnishing an example to others, nor at the reparation
of the injury. This justice is founded in pure fitness, which finds a certain satisfaction
in the expiation of the wicked deed ... this punitive justice ... which is properly
vindictive justice, and which God has reserved for himself at many junctions ... is always
founded in the fitness of things, and satisfies not only the offended party, but all wise
lookers-on, even as beautiful music or a fine piece of architecture satisfies a
well-constituted mind.It is thus that the torments of the damned
continue, even tho they no longer serve to turn anyone away from sin, and that the rewards
of the blest continue, even tho they confirm no one in good ways. (Leibnitz, 1926 edition,
137) |
| In 1764 Cesare Bonesana Beccaria (1738-1794) published his
famous work, An Essay on Crimes and Punishments, in which he condemned all torture,
including flogging, to extract confessions, and pleaded that no good and much harm was
achieved by excessive punishment. |
| No man can be judged a criminal until he be found guilty; nor
can society take from him the public protection, until it has been proved that he has
violated the conditions on which it was granted. What right then, but that of power, can
authorize the punishment of a citizen, so long as there remains any doubt of his guilt?
This dilemma is frequent. Either he is guilty, or not guilty. If guilty, he should only
suffer the punishment ordained by the laws, and torture becomes useless, as his confession
is unnecessary. If he be not guilty, you torture the innocent; for in the eyes of the law,
every man is innocent, whose crime has not been proved. (Beccaria, 1963 edition, 18) |
| At the end of the 18th century, one of the fullest analyses
of punishment, including that of children, was made by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), who
showed how complex the problem really is. While others may not agree with his conclusions,
his detailed examination cannot be ignored. Much of the influence of Rousseau (whom we
shall examine separately) can be seen, but Kant finds punishment as the natural
consequences inadequate. To Kant, the outcome of an action is incidental: the morality
resides in the motive or intention generating the action. |
| All transgressions of a command by a child is a lack of
obedience, and this entails punishment. Even if the transgression is due simply to
negligence, correction is not useless. This punishment is either physical or moral.Moral punishment is that which
affects our desire to be honored and loved, this being auxiliary to morality; for example,
when the child is shamed and treated coldly and reservedly. These inclinations should be
preserved as far as possible. This kind of punishment, therefore, is the best, since it
comes to the aid of morality; for example, if a child lies, a look of scorn is sufficient
and most suitable.Physical punishment consists either
in the refusal of that which the child desires or in the infliction of chastisement. The
former is closely related to moral punishment, and is negative. The other forms should be
practised with caution, in order that they many not result in a servile disposition. It is
not good to distribute rewards among children; it makes them selfish, and results in a
mercenary disposition.Obedience, moreover, is that of the child
or the adolescent. Disobedience entails punishment. This is either really natural,
brought by the man himself by his own conduct; for example, the child falls ill if he eats
too much, and these forms of punishment are the best, for man experiences them, not only
in his childhood, but throughout his whole life; or it is artificial. The desire to be
esteemed and loved is a sure way of making chastisement durable. Physical means should
serve merely to supplement the insufficiency of moral punishments. When the latter are of
no avail, and recourse is had to the former, the formulation of a good character ceases.
But in the beginning physical constraints supply the deficiency of reflection within the
child.Punishments which are angrily inflicted
have perverted effects. Children then regard them merely as consequences, but themselves
as objects, of another's emotions Children should always be corrected cautiously, that
they may see that the only aim in view is their improvement. It is absurd to demand of
children, when they have been chastised that they will thank you, that they will kiss your
hand, etc.: this only makes them servile. If physical punishments are often repeated, they
make a child stubborn; and if parents chasten their child for wilfulness, they only make
them more wilful. Stubborn people are not always the worst, but often yield easily to
kindly remonstrances. (Kant, 1904 edition, 191-193) |
| We can see in the above, that when he came to a discussion of
the details of punishment, Kant was as concerned with its results as the justification or
morality of it.The clearest application at this time that
the justification for punishment must be judged by its results was made by Jeremy Bentham
(1748-1832), who laid down that morals and legislation must be founded on the principle of
utility; thus his philosophy was call "Utilitarianism". On punishment he made
the following comments: |
| But all punishment is mischief: all punishment in itself is
evil. Upon the principle of utility, if it ought at all to be admitted, it ought to be
admitted in as far as it promises to exclude some greater evil. (Bentham, 1948 edition,
171) |
| He further states four purposes of punishment: 1. to prevent all offences 2. to prevent the worst (if there is a choice) 3. to keep down the mischief 4. to act at the least expense. |
| Subservient to these three objects or purposes, must be the
rules or canons by which the proportion of punishments to offences is to be governed.
(Ibid., 1979) |
| He himself does not appear to have applied the principle to
the management of children, but a world which he influenced was bound to see an
application. He, more than anyone else, changed the question from "is it right?"
to "does it work?"As the 19th century moves on, there is
more and more acceptance that punishment is bad, that any good will be far outweighed by
the evil effects, as the following passage from Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)
illustrates. |
| The broad effects which can be obtained by punishment in man
and beast, are the increase of fear, the sharpening of the sense of cunning, the mastery
of desires; so it is that punishment tames man, but does not make him "better"
-- it would be more correct even to go so far as to assert the contrary. "Injury
makes man cunning" says a popular proverb: so far as it makes him cunning, it also
makes him bad. Fortunately, it often enough makes him stupid. (Nietzsche, 1964 edition,
99) |
| It is always difficult to assess to what degree philosophical pronouncements bring about change, or are reflections of the change that is already occurring. Whichever is the case, in the 19th century, while the theory of punishment was opposing cruelty and injustice, so too did public opinion and actual practice tend towards more humane treatment of offenders, with a desire for rehabilitation rather than retribution. It was inevitable that the humanity which was applied to criminals would also be applied to children. While the 19th century, with the Industrial Revolution, was one of the worst periods of man's inhumanity to man, it was also the time of heroes of social reform who developed philosophies and attitudes on the treatment of the weak, the poor, and the downtrodden, which are generally accepted, if not always applied, today. |
| I have already said enough to show that children should never
receive punishment merely as such; it should always come as a natural consequence of their
fault. (Rousseau, 1957 edition, 65) |
| Much of this approach depends on Rousseau's view of the
natural goodness of the child. |
| Never punish him, for he does not know what it is to do
wrong; never make him say "Forgive me," for he does not know how to do you
wrong. Wholly unmoral in his actions, he can do nothing morally wrong, and he deserves
neither punishment nor reproof. (Ibid., 56) |
| Rousseau's views are a curious mixture of morality and
utility. While at times he may appear to be advocating the abolition of punishment for
practical reasons, his arguments are based upon a premise of an ideal child which he never
demonstrates actually exists.Rousseau probably did more than anyone
else to break down the traditional Christian view that the child is inherently evil. While
he most certainly attempts to swing the pendulum to another extreme, it stimulated others
into looking more closely at their own views of what a child is. After the time of
Rousseau, there would be a growing difficulty for anyone to advocate the punishment of
children because they were naturally bad.Time and time again since then do we see
the ideas of Rousseau being repeated either directly, or as part of another philosophy. In
Romantic literature, William Wordsworth, for instance, portrays Lucy as ideal childhood
innocence, and the child heroes and heroines of Charles Dickens are able to gain much of
their reader's sympathy through the same feature.In the school he set up at New Lanark,
Robert Owen (1771-1858) was clearly influenced by Rousseau's ideas. Owen states that the
basic principle regarding the affairs of men is: |
| Any general character, from the best to the worst, from the
most ignorant to the most enlightened, may be given to any community, even to the world at
large, by the application of the proper means; which means are to a great extent at the
command and under the control of those who have influence in the affairs of men. (edited
by Harrison, 1968, 44) |
| Thus by the manipulation of the environment, good men and
bad, wise men and ignorant, can be produced. The emphasis has been, he says, on doing
something about wrong acts after, instead of before, they happen. It is through education
that the new way of life will be brought in, a life in which punishment will not be
needed. And just as no punishment is the end, so also must no punishment be the means. |
| ... the instructors and governors of the world will acquire a
knowledge that will enable them, in one generation, to apply the means which shall
cheerfully induce each of those whom they control and influence, not only to think, but to
act in such a manner as shall be best for himself and best for every human being. And yet
this extraordinary result will take place without punishment or apparent force. (Ibid.,
106) |
| In speaking of the schools he had established at New Lanark,
Owen says: |
| ... that all rewards and punishments were excluded from these
schools, except those which nature herself has established. By natural reward and
punishment, we mean necessary consequences, immediate and remote which result from any
action. (Ibid., 133) |
| The influence of Rousseau can be seen in this last statement.Ralph Waldo Emerson (1801-1882) also owes
much of his thinking to Rousseau. His approach to punishment flows from his view that the
child is not to be cast into a pre-conceived mould, but is to be given an opportunity of
fulfilling his own potential uniqueness. Traditional methods of all types are thus
suspect, for they are concerned with producing a child for the purpose of society, rather
than for producing a child with beliefs and attitudes which develop from his own natural
goodness. Punishment is the result of the desire on the part of the teacher to control the
child, who will fulfill the teacher's or society's expectations of him.The following passages are quoted at
length because, although written over a hundred years ago, they show so well the current
philosophy of education which is to give the child an opportunity to fulfill his own
potential and desires, a philosophy in which punishment has no place. |
| I believe that our own experience instructs us that the
secret of Education lies in respecting the pupil. It is not for you to choose what he
shall know, what he shall do. It is chosen and foreordained, and he only holds the key to
his own secret. By your tampering and thwarting and too much governing he may be hindered
from his own end, and kept out of his own. Respect the child. Wait and see the new product
of Nature. Nature loves analogies, but not repetitions. Respect the child. Be not too much
his parent. Trespass not on his solitude.But I hear the outcry which replies to
this suggestion: -- Would you verily throw up the reins of public and private discipline;
would you leave the young child to the mad career of his own passions and whimsies, and
call this anarchy a respect for the child's nature? I answer, -- Respect the child,
respect him to the end. (Emerson, 1966 edition, 16-17).... total abstinence from this drug [the
use of rules], and the adoption of simple discipline and the following of nature, involves
at once immense claims on the time, the thoughts, on the life of the teacher. It requires
time, use, insight, event, all the great lessons and assistances of God; and only to think
of using it implies character and profoundness; to enter on this course of discipline is
to be good and great. It is precisely analogous to the difference between the use of
corporal punishment and the methods of love. It is so easy to bestow on a bad boy a blow,
overpower him, and get obedience without words, that in this world of hurry and
distraction, who can wait for the return of reason and the conquest of self; in the
uncertainty too whether that will ever come? And yet the familiar observation of the
universal compensations might suggest the fear that so summary a stop of a bad humor was
more jeopardous than its continuance. (Ibid., 224) |
| To Emerson, then, corporal punishment is the result of a
wrong type of education; only by altering our concept of the purpose of education and its
basic structure will we be able to significantly alter its methods. He is equally
sympathetic towards the teacher in the usual classroom situation. No wonder, he says, does
he resort to violent means in such objectionable circumstance. |
| Whatever becomes of our methods, the conditions stand fast,
-- six hours, and thirty, fifty, or a hundred and fifty pupils. Something must be done,
and done speedily, and in this distress the wisest are tempted to adopt violent means, to
proclaim martial law, corporal punishment, mechanical arrangement, bribes, spies, wrath,
main strength and ignorance, in lieu of that wise genial providential influence they had
hoped, and yet hope at some future day to adopt. (Ibid., 223) |
| While Rousseau's influence has been general, it has been only
partial as far as most schools are concerned. The fullest applications are to be found in
the self-styled "free-schools", the most notable of which is Summerhill,
established by A.S. Neill (1883 -). All forms of punishment, but particularly corporal
punishment, are condemned by him. The "self-regulated" child is the result of no
interference by the parent or teacher in the development of natural instincts. The reason
for punishment lies not within the child but within the adult who tries to mould the child
to a restrictive morality, or who suffers from his own personal problems. |
| No moralist, no narrowly religious person, no disciplinarian
can have self-regulated children. Self-regulation means behaviour coming from the self,
not from outside compulsion, but the moulded child has no self; he is only the replica of
his parents. (Neill, 1967 edition, 9) Spanking generally has nothing to do with the child; it is an outlet for adult rage and frustration and hate. (Ibid., 56) |
| Neill suggests that much of the trouble lies in the Christian
tradition, for "if you sin, hell awaits you in the classroom and in the future"
(Ibid., 57). The solution for this undesirable state of affairs "lies in the
self-examination on the part of irritable adults." He wishes |
| ... teachers and parents could acquire some consciousness of
what they really are ... poor, undeveloped, unhappy people in a tawdry authority which
they are too un-grown-up to use decently. They cannot help being as they are, for they are
the victims and products of a home and school education that was ignorant of child nature.
(Ibid., 57) |
| Much of Neill's attitude rests on his belief that
aggressiveness is objectionable, and because punishment, particularly physical punishment,
leads to aggression it is to be condemned. |
| The popular notion is that man is naturally aggressive. ... I
really wonder if this is so. Is aggression due to thwarting, frustration? I ask because
the most aggressive pupils I ever have are those who have been most disciplined at home
and school. (Ibid., 80) |
| The Rousseauian approach to punishment is somewhat motivational: by using these means we will be better able to develop the type of person which we want. But because it is a special type of person, an ideal of the naturally-developed, unique, self-regulated person, that is wanted, and because Rousseau and his followers have felt that the type of person developed by the usual type of education is undesirable, their approach is basically an ethical one. Perhaps their most significant contribution is the realisation that punishment has been part and parcel of the traditional approach to education; that only by a re-examination of the whole educational structure including its purposes, and the total learning environment, can we develop a really new approach to punishment. |
| In view of the different backgrounds from which my beggar
children came, in view of their age, their deeply ingrained habits, the need of a simple
way of making an impression on them all swiftly and surely, and the need to achieve one's
aim with all of them, the effect of corporal punishment was considerable. The fear that
one may thereby lose the trust of the children is quite unjustified. It is not single,
rare actions which determine the feelings and attitudes of the children; it is the true
nature of your disposition towards them as revealed daily and hourly to them, and the
degree to which you like or dislike them which fix once and for all their feelings towards
you. This done, the impression created by individual actions will be interpreted according
to the firm judgement of these inner feelings. (quoted by Heafford, 1967, 71) |
| This must not be taken as approval of such a method
indiscriminately or by anyone. Only after the teacher has achieved a relationship which is
like a parent, can it be used without danger. |
| I am firmly against the striking of a strange pupil by a
strange teacher, but not against a similar punishment by a father or mother. There are
occasions when corporal punishment is undoubtedly the best thing; but it must be carried
out with the greatest assurance from a parental heart, and the teacher who really reaches
the point where he can act in the same spirit as a father or mother should have the right
to act as they do in certain important cases which demand such measures. (Ibid., 71) |
| In Leonard and Gertrude we have a more detailed
prescription of which punishments are recommended for which circumstances. Corporal
punishment is to be reserved for the worst cases of moral offence. |
| The lieutenant's punishments were designed to remedy the
faults for which they were inflicted. An idle scholar was made to cut firewood, or to
carry stones for the wall which some of the older boys were constructing under the
master's charge; a forgetful child was made school-messenger, and for several days was
obliged to take charge of all the teacher's business in the village. Disobedience and
impertinence he punished by not speaking publicly to the child in question for a number of
days, talking with him in private after school. Wickedness and lying were punished with
the rod, and any child thus chastised was not allowed to play with the others for a whole
week; his name was registered in a special record-book of offences, from which it was not
erased until plain evidence of improvement was given. The schoolmaster was kind to the
children while punishing them, talking with them more than at any other time, and trying
to help them correct their fault. (edited by Ulich, 1963, 504-505) |
| Prussia adopted Pestalozzi's methods and became a model for
much of the world.Johann Friedrich Herbart (1776-1841) also
allows the use of corporal punishment, but only in extreme circumstances. As can be seen
from the following, he warns against injuring the boy's self respect, and hardening him to
this punishment so that it becomes ineffective. |
| It would be in vain to attempt to banish entirely the
corporal punishments usually administered after fruitless reprimands; but use should be
made of them so sparingly that they be feared rather than inflicted.Recollection of the rod does not hurt the
boy. Nor is there any harm in his present conviction that a flogging is henceforth as much
beyond the range of possibility as his meriting such treatment. But it would no doubt be
injurious to actually violate his self-respect by a blow, however little he might mind the
physical pain. And pernicious in the highest degree, although, nevertheless, not quite
obsolete yet, is the practice of continuing to beat children already hardened to blows.
Brutish insensibility is the consequence, and the hope is almost vain that even a long
period of now unavoidable indulgence will restore a normal state of feeling. (Herbart,
1909 edition, 34) |
| This attitude should be judged against his general view of
punishment, which is a modification, or should we say a distortion, of Rousseau.
Punishment should follow nature as much as possible -- that is, it should be the logical
result of poor behaviour. It is not natural in Rousseau's sense, but natural in the sense
that punishment is the sure result of wrong acts. The teacher must see that it does indeed
occur and is consistent; it must not depend on the momentary whims of the teacher, and he
must administer it in a quiet, self-controlled way. |
| Among educational arrangements to secure this, the
punishments proper to education are conspicuous, which are not bound to a proportional
retribution as are the punishments of government, but must be meted out, that they always
appear to the individual as well meant warning, and do not excite lasting opposition to
the teacher. The pupil's way of feeling here decides everything. (Herbart, 1896 edition,
243) |
| An excellent example of those who believe that all punishment
corrupts, and therefore has no place in education is Friedrich Froebel (1782-1852). He has
almost nothing to say on punishment, because, in his conception of education, not only
does the necessity for it disappear, but it must disappear because of its evil effects.
The influence of Rousseau is obvious. |
| In good education, then, in genuine instruction, in true
training, necessity should call forth freedom; external hate, inner love. Where hatred
brings forth hatred; law, dishonesty and crime; compulsion, slavery; necessity, servitude;
where oppression destroys and debases; where severity and harshness give rise to
stubbornness and deceit, all education is abortive.In order to avoid the latter and to secure
the former, all prescription should be adapted to the pupil's nature and needs, and secure
his co-operation. This is the case when all education in instruction and training, in
spite of its necessarily categorical character, bears in all details and ramifications the
irrefutable and irresistible impress that the one who makes the demand is himself strictly
and unavoidably subject to an externally ruling law, to an unavoidable eternal necessity,
and that, therefore, all despotism is banished. (Froebel, 1895 edition, 13-14) |
| The growing democratic spirit is illustrated here where the
freedom of mankind is extended to include the freedom of the child from oppression.It is more than a coincidence that these
writers are continental. When we look at most prominent English educational commentators,
the prognosis for reform is not so optimistic.Thomas Arnold (1795-1842), the great
headmaster of Rugby School, if judged by his copious writings, was never reluctant to
defend his institutions or methods, among which was the use of the cane. By today's
standards he was authoritarian, in both social and educational matters. One aspect of this
was his rejection of popular opinion as a base on which to act. |
| Popular principles sympathize with all who are subject to
authority, and regard with suspicion all punishments -- liberal principles sympathize, on
the other hand, with authority, whenever the evil tendencies of human nature are more
likely to be shown in disregarding it than abusing it. (T. Arnold, 1845, 365)The real servility which exists in
England, whether among men or boys, is not an excessive deference to legal authority, but
a surrender of individual judgment and conscience to the tyranny of public opinion.
(Ibid., 377) |
| In the last quotation, Arnold was replying to an attack on
the use of flogging and fagging in Public Schools.Arnold dislikes the use of punishment and
would gladly do without it, but the child is not yet ready to act correctly. We see
underlying his ideas the doctrine of child depravity. As the child grows older, there
should be less need to use such methods. |
| It is very true that the fear of punishment generally (for
surely it makes no difference whether it be the fear of personal pain of flogging, or of
the personal inconvenience of what have been proposed as its substitutes, confinement, and
a reduced allowance of food) is not the highest motive of action; and therefore the course
actually followed in education is most agreeable to nature and reason, that the fear of
punishment should be appealed to less and less as the moral principle becomes stronger
with advancing age. (Ibid., 366) |
| Arnold is not willing to concede the idea which has kept
appearing since the time of Quintilian, that corporal punishment is degrading for the
child. How can it be, he asks, when the child is inferior to the man? |
| There is an essential inferiority in a boy as compared with a
man, which makes an assumption of equality on his part at once ridiculous and wrong; and
where there is no equality, the exercise of superiority implied in personal chastisement
cannot in itself be an insult or degradation. (Ibid., 368) |
| What then is to be done with the older child if he
misbehaves, if corporal punishment is appropriate only to the young? He should be removed
from school. We should note in the following extract that Arnold sees failure to learn as
sometimes due to a lack of capacity, but sometimes due to a deliberate, therefore immoral,
attitude. If this is so with the older child, then it is fair to assume that he would
allow corporal punishment for the young child who deliberately did not learn. We know from
other sources that such punishments were common in his school. |
| ... if a boy above fifteen is of such a character as to
require flogging, the essential trifling nature of school correction is inadequate to the
offence. But in fact boys, after a certain age, who cannot keep their proper rank in a
school, ought not to be retained at it; and if they do stay, the question becomes only a
matter of choice of evils. For the standard of attainment at a large school being
necessarily adapted for no more than the average rate of capacity, a boy who, after
fifteen, continues to fall below it, is either intellectually incapable of deriving
benefit from the system of the place, or morally indisposed to do so, and in either case
he ought to be removed from it. (Ibid., 369) |
| One point that Arnold makes quite strongly is that public
opinion should not interfere with the teacher's right, or should we say duty, to punish.
Where such interference occurs, the school suffers. |
| Thus the business of education is degraded for a schoolmaster
of a commercial school having no means of acquiring a general celebrity, is rendered
dependent on the inhabitants of his own immediate neighbourhood, -- if he offends them, he
is ruined. This greatly interferes with the maintenance of discipline; the boys are well
aware of their parents' power, and complain to them against the exercise of their master's
authority. (Ibid., 229) |
| Arnold's approach is largely based on his belief in the need
for children to "keep their place", as all men should do. Whatever his political
beliefs, his social outlook was certainly not democratic.One of the interesting implications of
Arnold's remarks is that he saw a need to defend the use of corporal punishment, an
indication that there was some growing feeling that it was not an acceptable practice. But
if we are to believe Tom Brown's Schooldays, a semi-autobiography by an "old
boy" of Rugby during the time or Arnold, the boys accepted the system, and no
ill-will was born against the masters, rather the contrary.Arnold was not without support from other
prominent writers. John Ruskin (1819-1900), for instance, approached the disciplining of
children in a very traditional, some may call reactionary, way. The present state of
"moral disorganisation", he complained, was because "the rod of
correction" had been forgotten. While he was a reformer in other areas, Ruskin offers
the following remedy for children: |
| The first essential point in the education given to children
will be the habit of instant, finely accurate, and totally unreasoning obedience to their
fathers, mothers, and tutors. (Ruskin, no date, Vol. II, 135) |
| Matthew Arnold (1822-1888), the son of Thomas, and a school
inspector, had made several visits to continental schools and had been influenced by how
they coped with the control of children. In contrast to his father, he believed that
corporal punishment was an outdated and unacceptable method of achieving discipline. |
| .... flogging ...., without entering into long discussions
about it, one may say the modern spirit has irrevocably condemned as a school punishment,
so that it will more and more come to appear half disgusting, half ridiculous, and a
teacher will find it more and more difficult to inflict it without a loss of self-respect.
The feeling on the continent is very strong on this point The punishments in French
schools are impositions and confinements. (M. Arnold, 1912 edition, 148) |
| But this is not to say that discipline is not to be regarded
highly, rather the contrary. He advocates the freeing of the teacher from the need to
placate fee-paying parents who substitute indulgence for responsible upbringing. In
contrast to those of the lower classes, the children of the lower middle-class do not
receive discipline from deprived circumstances, but their parents, because they are
half-educated themselves, do not realise the need for respect, obedience and self-control. |
| The teacher's hands cannot be strengthened too much in the
schools which this class frequents; for if they are not disciplined at school, they will,
while young, be disciplined nowhere. (Ibid., 3) |
| The general ferment of intellectual ideas was bound to have
its effect on education. Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), for instance, is noted in the
history of ideas for his application of evolutionary theory to social and moral
situations. In his book, Education, he devotes about forty-five pages to the
punishment of children. The following is his approach in brief.A child learns quickly and greatly by the
painful consequences of his acts, such as touching something hot. But these, strictly
speaking, are not punishments but "unavoidable consequences". Artificial
consequences, or punishments, usually fail to produce reformation; indeed often have the
opposite effect. The function of parents and teachers is to see that children do, in fact,
suffer the consequences of their acts, through neither protecting the child from them, nor
intensifying their effects.The emotional reactions of parents when
they scold, threat or strike can be regarded as a consequence, but this occurs when
"ill-controlled adults make up the people", and is a sign of a primitive
society. But in a civilized society, the displeasure will be manifest spontaneously in
milder ways -- "measures strong enough for their better-natured children." |
| In brief, the truth is that savageness begets savageness, and
gentleness begets gentleness. Children who are unsympathetically treated become relatively
unsympathetic; whereas treating them with due fellow-feeling is a means of cultivating
their fellow-feeling. (Spencer, 1895, 204) |
| It is interesting how, as the century moves on, no matter
what is used as the basis for argument, the end results are remarkably similar.
Evolutionist and Romantic, Christian and Atheist, seem so often to differ in their
professed beliefs, yet are remarkably similar in their actions if they share the same
society.By the end of the 19th century, corporal
punishment was not only still used, but was still justified and defended by authorities,
with certain restrictions, in English-speaking countries. An interesting comparison
between French and English attitudes can be seen in The History of Pedagogy, by
Gabriel Compayré, a professor at a French Normal School. It was published in 1879, and
translated into English in 1887 by W.H. Payne, an education professor at the University of
Michigan.One of the themes of the work is the
gradual disapproval of the use of corporal punishment as pedagogical method, and its
elimination in France by the early 19th century. But Compayré is shocked to see its
continuous use and advocacy in English schools. |
| It is difficult to conceive the perseverance with which
English teachers cling to the old and degrading customs of corrections by the rod.... A
more astonishing thing is that the scholars seem to hold to it as much as the teachers.
(Compayré, 1887, 202) |
| The word "degrading" indicates that his prime
objection is a moral one, though elsewhere he quotes with approval those who oppose
corporal punishment because it is not effective in bringing about the desired results.But the translator, Payne, adds an
interesting footnote: |
| On the question of corporal punishment is not M. Compayré
not too absolute in his assumptions? On what principle does he base his absolute
condemnation of the rod? What is to be done in those cases of revolt against order and
decency that occur from time to time in most schools. There is no doubt that the very best
teachers can govern without resorting to this hateful expedient; but what shall be done in
extreme cases by the multitude who are not, and never can be, teachers of this ideal type?
Nor does this question stand alone. Below, it is related to family discipline; and above,
to civil administration. If corporal punishment is interdicted in the school, should it
not be interdicted in the state? (Compayré, 1887, 203, footnote) |
| Payne, we notice, objects to it in all but extreme
disciplinary cases. Notable is his attempt to relate the school situation to the larger
social situation. One could speculate on whether the differences between these two writers
was the result of differing conditions in French and American schools, and society.In English-speaking countries, then, the
belief slowly but surely grew that the use of the rod was to be limited, to be replaced
wherever possible by more humane means and higher motives, but not be entirely discarded.
We find in Upper Canada, for instance, Dr. Ryerson, the Chief Superintendent of Schools
stating in his Annual Report for 1864, the following: |
| But there are some who go to the extreme of objecting to all
corporal punishment of Pupils by the Teacher. Upon the same ground should they object to
corporal punishment of a Child by a parent, -- an objection contrary to Scripture and to
common sense. The best Teacher, like the best Parent, will seldom resort to the Rod; but
there are occasions when it cannot be wisely avoided.It often happens that Parents, whose
Children most need the Rod of correction, are the first to object to it. Children that are
perfectly governed at home, will seldom, if ever, need the Rod of correction, or
suspension, or even reproof at School; but Children who are irregular, or not governed at
home, can seldom be governed at School without the Rod.But this exercise of discipline should
never be done in a passion, or under the influence of angry feelings. A Teacher should
never allow himself to punish a Pupil until his mind is calm and his heart free from
anger. He should rebuke and chastise in love, -- showing that he acts from a sense of
duty, and from kindness to the Pupil punished, as well as for the order and welfare of the
whole School. (in Hodgins, 1893-1910, Vol. XVIII, 239) |
| Ryerson is obviously a transitional figure in this history.
He is still strongly under the influence of Old Testament edicts, but sees the virtues of
the new humanity, and of improved classroom techniques.People who are in the
"front-line" of teaching, are less likely to be influenced by philosophy than by
the practical situation in front of them. Whereas the teacher had once reacted
instinctively in one way only, many were beginning to analyse the child's situation,
rather than automatically punishing an infringement. A mixture of the old and the new is
shown in the opening address to the Ontario Teachers' Association Convention of 1869,
delivered by the President, the Reverend Nelles. |
| My last observation is that the Teacher should appeal as much
as possible to the higher motives. Fear, as an instrument of discipline, is to not be
disregarded. I would not have a Teacher say to his School, "I never flog."
Philosophers tell us of what they call "latent consciousness." There should be
in every School a latent consciousness of the Rod, and this will need occasionally to be
developed, and as it were brought to the surface by a vigorous application of the rod to
some dozing offender who may be taken as a kind of "representative man."But the best teacher is one who secures
good order and progress with the minimum of whipping. It is easy to flog, especially for a
big man to flog little children; it is natural to flog; there are so many temptations to
flog; so many occasions on which this method seems necessary, that it becomes with some
Teachers a kind of "royal road to knowledge," a sort of catholicon to cure all
diseases, like "Radway's Ready Relief," or other nostrums of the day. That dull
boy must be flogged though possibly his dullness may be but the slow development of great
powers which flogging will not hasten. That Truant Boy must be flogged, although a proper
system of Gymnastics and recreation might have prevented his playing Truant. That tardy
Boy must be flogged, though his tardiness may be the fault of his parents. That
equivocating Boy must be flogged, though his equivocation be the result of timidity, which
flogging does but increase. Some teachers seem to think they best discharge their
obligations by discharging the big Ruler at the heads of children; according to them, the
tree of knowledge is the Birch. The old adage warns us not to flog when angry; but the
fact is the presence of anger and the absence of moral power are chief causes of flogging.The true Teacher will love and reverence
children, and feel his way as quickly and skillfully as possible to their better nature.
Fear, at best, is only an instrument; but the love of knowledge, self respect, respect for
Teacher and Parent, the love of excellence, the sense of right, these are not only higher
instruments, but ends in themselves. (Hodgins, Vol. XXI, 293) |
| That the Reverend Nelles felt such comments were necessary, indicates that the abuses he objected to were prevalent. How the teachers themselves reacted to this type of exhortion is difficult to say; the notes of the meeting merely indicate that "a hearty vote of thanks was awarded to the President for his eloquent address." |
| Suggestions or
comments to the author: |
| Mail to rmw@island.net |
|
http://www.zona-pellucida.com/wilson04.html © Copyright 1997-2003 Robert M. Wilson |