Breaking a child's will through discipline and training
Over at Challies, Tim put up an excerpt from a the writings of George Whitefield, one of the great evangelists from the second Great Awakening. In the passage, Whitefield disciplined a boy who refused to pray, and his method began a very nice discussion of discipline, forced religion, and how to raise children. I responded with the comment below. Here's the passage from Whitefield's journal:
Had a good instance of the benefit of breaking children's wills betimes. Last night, going between decks (as I do every night) to visit the sick and to examine my people, I asked one of the women to bid her little boy say his prayers. She answered his elder sister would, but she could not make him. Upon this I bid the child kneel down before me, but he would not till I took hold of his two feet and forced him down. I then bid him say the Lord's prayer (being informed by his mother he could say it if he would), but he obstinately refused, till at last, after I had given him several blows, he said his prayer as well as could be expected and I gave him some figs for a reward.
Without having to discuss the relevant scriptures, the general principle of breaking a child's will is scriptural and a well-established doctrine in xian child raising. Here's how it is described.
It is similar to breaking a horse. You don't want to crush it's spirit, but you want to break it's own willfulness so that it can work safely with you (safety for both of you) and not freak out when accomplishing challenging tasks, like pulling a cart in a crowded street.
Children come into the world at the mercy of their own unbroken wills. If you don't control them, they will not learn self-control. When you break their will through consistent, loving discipline and training (the latter of which occurs BEFORE they make a mistake), you give them back a broken will, which is a gift, because you give them self control.
If you fail to control them, and break their will with meaningful limits, training, and discipline, they end up insecure, feeling unsafe, and like they and their surroundings are out of control. Hence a majority of ADD kids, who never got the right kind of discipline.
And not only are they often driven by insecurity and feelings of unsafe surroundings, without discipline, their consciences are not cleansed after doing things they know are wrong (but were unable to resist due to their self-will). With this guilt, they are often driven by self-loathing. This is why such kids end up adoring tough mentors (or teachers in juvie facilities) because someone if finally caring enough to make them safe, to help them feel in control, and to help cleanse their consciences from the things they do.
Once the discipline is over, they start with a clean conscience, a fresh slate. Care is needed to not be abusive or overly permissive. That's the challenge of good parenting. And in all things, we should be guided by love. But I'm sure some of the things presented here will offend the more humanist among us.
In the Whitefield case, forcing a child to pray is probably not a good idea at all. But willful disobedience is to be dealt with firmly, lovingly, and consistently.
...till at last, after I had given him several blows, he said his prayer as well as could be expected and I gave him some figs for a reward.
Treated like a dog. Obedient as a dog. Ignorant as a dog.
Children come into the world at the mercy of their own unbroken wills.
Doesn't the Qu'ran teaches this as well?
Posted by: Cineaste | 18 April 2007 at 11:20 PM
Delightful. A primer on brainwashing.
Posted by: Stewart | 19 April 2007 at 06:35 AM
You're endorsing child abuse Seeker. Striking a child several times until he is forced to pray isn't loving, discipline, or anything else other than what it appears to be: abuse. Furthermore, the fact that you so willingly endorse this man's abusive approach to child-rearing - while at the same time objecting to violence in the Koran - is beyond the pale. I should expect no different.
Finally, your total misunderstanding of ADD/ADHD is unbelievable - there are brats, and there are kids who literally cannot pay attention, who literally cannot stay still. Saying that the ones are like the others indicates nothing more than ignorance. Most kids aren't ADD/ADHD, even if they're diagnosed that way. But some genuinely are.
Posted by: Sam | 19 April 2007 at 06:57 AM
Yeah, I don't really support that. Hitting a child for not saying their prayers - what does that accomplish? The boy didn't really pray, he just told Whitfield what he wanted to hear so he wouldn't hit him again.
Disciple is one thing, this is not that.
Posted by: Aaron | 19 April 2007 at 07:12 AM
Here we have something analagous to the torture debate: are you really saying/doing/acting upon something when the punishment for not doing so is physical abuse? Torture produces exactly what the torturer wants to hear, just as this Captain's abusive child-rearing produced exactly what he wanted to see/hear. Seeker, you can't honestly believe this, can you? Are you actually beating your children into submission so that they're "accept" Jesus?
Posted by: Sam | 19 April 2007 at 07:14 AM
This has to be one of the most disgusting things I've ever read. It's interesting how, in order to force religion on children, you have to "break their will" with blows and brainwashing. Will the violence ever end?
Posted by: Louis | 19 April 2007 at 09:22 AM
If I didn't know better (Seeker), I would almost conclude that you really believe this. Since I have never observed this kind of behavior practiced on your own children, I can only conclude that this post represents one of two things:
1) You are attempting to place a subtle piece of satire here and have done such a poor job that no one gets it
2) You really agree with this kind of physical abuse to bring about religous compliance in children. but only for children that are not your own.
At this time, I am voting for scenario 1 above while holding my breath and stopping short of saying that such a practice is utterly wrong.
Posted by: Silver Hallide | 19 April 2007 at 09:42 AM
The shamefulness of abusing a child and then hiding behind a Bible - God told me to hit a child! - is disgusting beyond all reason. Why I expected any better from Seeker is beyond me.
Posted by: Sam Wilkinson | 19 April 2007 at 09:49 AM
It also crossed my mind that this is a piece of satire. However, knowing seeker, I couldn't be sure.
Posted by: Louis | 19 April 2007 at 11:01 AM
I have a few quick things to say for now:
1. If you are anti-corporal punishment, and anti-spanking, then you will have little or no ability to understand the things I am saying here, and are predisposed to seeing all such acts as abuse.
2. There is a difference between spanking and abuse. As I have mentioned, acceptable use of spanking is that it is used sparingly, consistently (i.e. judicisiously), lovingly, and of course, with appropriate force (no bruising, etc.)
3. While I readily admitted that forcing children to perform religious duties this way is totally inappropriate (if you missed that in my article, go back and re-read), correction of willful rebellion with spanking is not abuse, and is appropriate.
4. The pyschological functions of punishment, both corporal and otherwise (like time outs, which we use for most discipline at my house), are real - security in the establishment of limits, brokenness of the unbridled and out of control self-will, and cleansing of the conscience.
5. Scripture provides balance to such teachings, and is not merely focused on corporal discipline. However, it does include it so that our humanistic, selfish ways of looking at the human heart don't fool us.
Ephesians 6:4
Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.
Here are some articles to edumacate you on biblical child discipline.
How Christian Homes Produce Rock & Roll Rebels
To Train up a Child
This book is written by an Ahmish couple, and causes modern humanists to go into fits, but is a classic. Enjoy.
How to shape your child's will (Dobson)
1. Begin teaching respect for authority while children are very young.
2. Define the boundaries before they are enforced.
3. Distinguish between willful defiance and childish irresponsibility.
4. Reassure and teach after the confrontation is over.
5. Avoid impossible demands.
6. Let love be your guide!
But again, as a summary, while spanking is not the first response, it is advisable for children if administered correctly, and has many benefits, including giving the child self-control.
Posted by: seeker | 19 April 2007 at 11:49 AM
There is no justification for spanking, ever. There is no need to ever lay an aggressive hand upon a child because the lesson it conveys is not one of morality but rather one of force. In other words, the child who is spanked for stealing cooking from the cookie jar isn't learning that stealing cookies from the cookie jar is wrong; he's learning that he will be hit if he steals cookies from the cookie jar. A far more positive, and practical, punishment is restrict the child's access to cookies, while explaining that access will be returned when the child can act in an appropriate and acceptable manner.
I will accept no explanation, not Earthly or Biblical, for hitting children. Those who claim that they can lovingly hit a child are lying to themselves about the damage that they are doing.
Posted by: Sam | 19 April 2007 at 01:10 PM
I will accept no explanation, not Earthly or Biblical, for hitting children. Those who claim that they can lovingly hit a child are lying to themselves about the damage that they are doing.
I hope you get a strong willed child who pushes your philosophy. While corporal punishment can be and is abused, I think you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and disagreeing with sound wisdom.
I forget, do you have children? Are you saying that you have never smacked your kid's bottom for not listening or purposely disobeying? What do you do when they refuse to get in the tub, when cajoling, arguing, and threatening to put them in time out doesn't work?
For me, I often forcibly (not forcefully) pick my daughter up, for instance, and put her in the tub, or in time out. And if she fights me by squirming or physically resisting, I ask her if she wants a "pow pow" - if she ignores my request, she gets a quick sting on the butt. That puts and end to the matter, and teaches her the correct lesson.
Posted by: seeker | 19 April 2007 at 01:31 PM
1. I have a daughter.
2. I have never hit my daughter.
3. My daughter has never refused to get in the tub.
4. I tend to believe that if my daughter, who is six, takes a stand on something that she doesn't want to do, I need to re-examine what it is that I am asking her to do. If it is unreasonable, shame on me. If it is reasonable, then I return to the drawing board to find a way of explaining things that makes the act reasonable to her. If she continues to refuse, I have various punishments at my disposal. None of them involve hurting my daughter to "teach" her a lesson.
Posted by: Sam | 19 April 2007 at 01:53 PM
I have various punishments at my disposal.
Can you elaborate?
And btw, daughters, like mine, are often compliant. We almost never need to spank her. But not all children are compliant. As I said, if you have another, I hope you get one that challenges your authority and philosophy a bit more.
And spanking doesn't "hurt" her in any long term sense, physically or emotionally.
Posted by: seeker | 19 April 2007 at 02:10 PM
Seeker, parents don't "get" children. They raise them. If a child is "strong-willed", as you say, there is probably a reason for it. I have never, in my life, encountered a child whose behavior was truly surprising, given the context in which they were raised.
That's a convenient, and unevidenced belief.
Compliance? She's your daughter, not your employee. Why would you strike your child when she doesn't want to get in the bath tub? Because it's inconvenient for you? Get over yourself. Every time you hit your daughter, you're teaching her that physical coercion is an acceptable way to exert your opinion on those who are weaker than you. Is that really what you want?
I happen to agree with Sam about there never being an adequate reason to use physical violence to coerce a child. But even if I weren't entirely on that side of the argument, I would likely still be appalled by your application over bathing. Will your daughter be in danger if she doesn't get in the bathtub exactly when you say? Is she going to turn to a life of crime if you don't employ authoritarian threats in order to get her into the tub?
Moreover, why stop at bathing? If that's the kind of thing you'll hit your daughter over, why not hit her when she doesn't pray? You don't seem to think striking your daughter is a big deal. If it's good enough to get her washed faster, I don't understand why you wouldn't do it as a means of saving her eternal soul.
Posted by: Stewart | 19 April 2007 at 02:46 PM
If a child is "strong-willed", as you say, there is probably a reason for it. I have never, in my life, encountered a child whose behavior was truly surprising, given the context in which they were raised.
Those of us who have experience with children realize that children have different personalities that we have no part in choosing. Some are strong willed, some are compliant. Strong willed children need a stronger hand of parenting. While we use general principles for raising all children, it's not one size fits all.
That's a convenient, and unevidenced belief.
Here's a UC Berkeley study from 2001 for evidence:
UC Berkeley study finds no lasting harm among adolescents from moderate spanking earlier in childhood
There is at least one well-known study that says the opposite, but that study, if I recall, was flawed in that it did not separate angry abusive spanking from the type I am recommending.
Compliance? She's your daughter, not your employee.
Compliant is an adjective often used to describe children who do not buck authority. But the aim for discipline is not compliance, but respect and obedience from the heart.
Why would you strike your child when she doesn't want to get in the bath tub? Because it's inconvenient for you?
No, because I know what is best for her, and because she needs to learn that she must respect and obey authority. Not unquestioningly - I often give her her way when she wants something incovenient - in fact, my motto is "if I can say yes, I will."
But when she is being whiny and feeling out of control, I control her and teach her self control. She learns I mean business sometimes.
I would likely still be appalled by your application over bathing. Will your daughter be in danger if she doesn't get in the bathtub exactly when you say? Is she going to turn to a life of crime if you don't employ authoritarian threats in order to get her into the tub?
Obedience in small matters is often as important as in big matters. Children do not rule the house. She has as much freedom as she can handle, but I don't let her decide our schedule just because she doesn't feel like bathing.
The fact that you are appalled is pathetic. It's like me saying "I am appalled that you discipline your child by taking away privileges - you are doing them emotional harm by using such manipulation." "Get over yourself" yourself.
If that's the kind of thing you'll hit your daughter over, why not hit her when she doesn't pray? You don't seem to think striking your daughter is a big deal.
First of all, I already explained that in spiritual matters, you can't force them with good effect. Don't use that "all or nothing" B.S. when trying to make your point. Only a fundamentalist does that.
And I never said it wasn't a big deal, I said that when used properly, it is BENEFICIAL, and to never do it is foolishness, if not HARMFUL and NEGLIGENT. How's that? You got it now? Sheesh.
Posted by: seeker | 19 April 2007 at 03:16 PM
And regarding ADHD, while I admit I know little about it, and I believe that there are strong biological factors, environmental factors also play a part:
Interestingly, ADD is on the rise, and more physicians are looking into environmental causes, including parenting, pollutants, and actually, TV watching, which has been recently indicated in environmental causes for autism.
Posted by: seeker | 19 April 2007 at 03:39 PM
Seeker,
Interestingly Seeker, on this particular point I am a fundamentalist, in that I am fundamentally against reason/justification for punishing your child physically. It is a lazy parents who hits first and asks questions later. But, perhaps I should more specifically address your points.
1. The fact that my child is a girl doesn't make a difference. I would no sooner physically punish a boy.
2. The punishments at my disposal tend to involve getting down at eye level with my daughter and explaining to her why we have to do something she doesn't want to do. Rarely, if ever, will I fall back on something as simplistic as, "Because I'm your father," which is apparently the line at which you start physically coercing your children into obedience. A child, if spoken to and treated like a human being, will act like a responsible human being. If treated otherwise, they will act otherwise.
3. I worked with children for three years. I worked with children whose disobedience put your own children's behavior to shame. I assure you that I have seen all manner of approach tried, and none has ever worked so well as treating a child like I would treat an adult.
4. Children don't have in born traits Seeker, remember? Gays are turned gay by adults. You don't get to now claim that some children are "born that way."
5. Then there's this gem: But when she is being whiny and feeling out of control, I control her and teach her self control. She learns I mean business sometimes.
I thought the point was teaching your child self-discipline? If she's learning that you mean business, she's not learning self-discipline. She's learning that you can't be bothered to take the time to do anything but hit her when she's acting ornery. You're a real class act.
6. Finally, nice try accusing me of being harmful and negligent for not hitting my child. That isn't going to work. You know it isn't going to work. Stop trying. The only abusive person here isn't the guy who doesn't hit his kids.
Posted by: Sam | 19 April 2007 at 03:43 PM
I draw the line on this one. In some circumstances I do not find it objectionable to resort to spanking to discipline a child. It should never be the first resort, but it is a viable last resort.
That being said, as I think the dead horse and the blood that is strewn around this thread indicates, it is beyond the pale to use physical punishment to coerce a child or any sentient being to pray or worship any particular God or conform to a religion. Full Stop (Seeker).
Posted by: Silver Hallide | 19 April 2007 at 03:53 PM
I do not find it objectionable to resort to spanking to discipline a child. It should never be the first resort, but it is a viable last resort.
We agree on this point, although I wouldn't put it as last resort, just not first.
He who spares the rod spoils the child. And of course, I never supported Whitefields approach to making a child pray. HOWEVER, in our feminized, demasculinized culture, we ought to look back to men of stature and accomplishment and consider what made them effective.
Posted by: seeker | 19 April 2007 at 04:05 PM
That's absurd. I don't know you or your daughter, but your last sentence is a complete fabrication. You could easily let your daughter choose her own bath time. Exactly what, in that case, is preventing you from saying yes, as your motto implies? If that's any example of when you'll physically enforce your will on her, I'm sure there are many other instances, daily, where you could give her the autonomy, but choose to physically assert yourself instead.
Look, I understand perfectly that children are a handful. But how do threats of physical violence -- however mild you may describe it as being -- teach a child anything positive? How could that teach them about anything but violence, and pointless self-assertion?
Yes, you did. When you explained how you used the threat of a spanking to get your daughter into a bathtub, you made it very clear to us all that the violence against your daughter is something that you take very lightly. How else can we view this? It's a bath, and she's practically still a baby, but you're all-too willing to strike her in order to get what you want. That's very sad to me.
Posted by: Stewart | 19 April 2007 at 04:11 PM
One more thing on ADHD. Here's an article by one ADHD parent I found interesting, and will drive you humanists crazy.
What kind of discipline and rewards did you use with your children?
There's more good stuff in the article, which I enjoyed (while laughing with evil glee and rubbing my hands together, as you have imagined).
Posted by: seeker | 19 April 2007 at 04:13 PM
Obviously it was being beaten by their parents when they refused to get in the tub.
Also, I think it's great that you've added misogyny to your list of grotesque philosophies.
Posted by: Stewart | 19 April 2007 at 04:16 PM
You could easily let your daughter choose her own bath time.
You are right, you don't know me. When I get home, we have exactly 2 hours before the children's bed time, and I have a schedule to keep if I want to do my graduate studies, exercise, spend time with my wife, and get my kids into bed.
So at 8PM, we have bath time, for both kids, esp. since the younger one goes to bed at 8:30. If she is smelly, I don't care if she doesn't feel like it. We all have responsibilities. Mine is to make sure, for hygeine's sake, that my kid, who may not have taken a bath the day before, gets one before bed. She may want to play with her toys more. I offer her the toys in the tub, and tell her she can return to her dry toys after her bath. If that doesn't work, I have neither time nor patience for disobedience. I have to get in bed so I don't fall asleep at the wheel the next die, and die in a fiery crash because she wanted to bathe at 9PM. It's as simple as that.
Posted by: seeker | 19 April 2007 at 04:19 PM
So at 8PM, we have bath time, for both kids, esp. since the younger one goes to bed at 8:30. If she is smelly, I don't care if she doesn't feel like it. We all have responsibilities. Mine is to make sure, for hygeine's sake, that my kid, who may not have taken a bath the day before, gets one before bed. She may want to play with her toys more. I offer her the toys in the tub, and tell her she can return to her dry toys after her bath. If that doesn't work, I have neither time nor patience for disobedience. I have to get in bed so I don't fall asleep at the wheel the next die, and die in a fiery crash because she wanted to bathe at 9PM. It's as simple as that.
That is a complete 180 from your previous efforts of child up until 10, 11, or whatever. You must have whipped out a big stick to make that change knowing how strong willed your children are.
- S
Posted by: Silver Hallide | 19 April 2007 at 04:44 PM
Actually, we weaned them back from their late bedtimes to the current 8:30 and 9:30 bedtimes, resp. Part of it is just a natural progression from infant to toddler, and part of it is getting them up earlier (now that I have to get my wife to work at 8 AM, we all get up earlier).
No beatings were necessary to get them to sleep earlier, although my 3 year old daughter is like her father, and is wide awake at bedtime. We OFTEN, after reading her the customary stories, have to "threaten" her into bed. She does some of the usual "can I get a book" or whatever to get up, and we put up with some of it, but after a point, it's "pow pow" or obedience, and she gets to choose.
Posted by: seeker | 19 April 2007 at 05:12 PM
Seeker,
Daughter doesn't want to take a bath? Pick her up and put her in the bathtub. If she pouts, talk to her about it, explaining that she may pout all she likes, but it is nearing bedtime, and she must be clean before she goes to bed. I'll bet you that if you tried this, while looking her in the eye, while kneeling down to be on her level, and then you played with her while she's in the tub, you won't have a problem.
You're talking about solving easy problems in the most complicated, damaging fashion possible. I do not fathom how you have come to this. And as for your broadside against Feminism, grow up. Nobody needs to get hit to learn a lesson.
Posted by: Sam | 19 April 2007 at 07:24 PM
Hitting a child and spanking a child are two different things. If everything that those of you who oppose spanking completely is true why is today's culture more violent than those of the past.
It seems to me that those who were spanked like my parent and my grandparents had lot less violence and troubled individuals to deal with than I or my children have.
Sam, your methods work a lot of the times and those are the ones I use the most. I try to get down with my son and talk with him and explain to him the issues, but sometimes that doesn't work. You know why - because a 4-year-old isn't an adult, so I can't treat them like one.
He doesn't understand things yet. He doesn't know a lot of the "why" questions. He doesn't know that eating vegetables will help him in the long run. He doesn't know that getting a good night's sleep gives him more energy to play tomorrow. He doesn't know that he can't play computer games whenever he wants to. He has to understand that he is not the "daddy" and cannot impose his will on everyone else.
I'm not going to tell you that the way you are raising your child is wrong. If it is an effective way and she is growing up to be a wonderful little girl, that's fantastic. I am honestly glad for you. I know it is difficult. But at the same time, I don't expect you or Stewart or anyone else to know what is best for my family and the best way to discipline my child. I appreciate help and advice, but insinuating that I am abusing my children is neither.
Posted by: Aaron | 20 April 2007 at 06:38 AM
I have made my position clear: there is no excuse for hitting a child. It is the product of lazy parenting, at best, and something far more sinister at worst. Also, claiming causation between reduced spanking and today's violent society? You're kidding, right?
Posted by: Sam | 20 April 2007 at 09:11 AM
What metric could you possibly be using to determine that vague judgement?
Is that what being a father means to you?
Posted by: Stewart | 20 April 2007 at 09:20 AM
Don't you remember, Stewart? Xian parents must break the will of their children! Otherwise, how could they make them believe all that bilge?
Posted by: Louis | 20 April 2007 at 09:25 AM
Unfortunately, Seeker is far from a minority on this issue. Although their numbers are drastically lower than at any other point in American history, there are still millions of families in this country who believe (1) that physical punishment is effective at instilling 'discipline' in children, and (2) that it has no negative effects on the child.
There seems to be a widespread belief in these families that this drop in familial, corporal punishment is a cause of increased violence and decreased morality in the U.S. and abroad. In fact, there is no correlation at the personal level between decreased violence at home, and increase violence in adulthood. Additionally, the groups which are most likely to be convicted of a felony in adulthood (low-income, racial minorities) are also the groups which are
most likely to employ such methods of punishment. This doesn't show that spanking increases the likelihood of criminal behavior, but it does refute the conservative belief that spanking has the opposite effect.
Posted by: Stewart | 20 April 2007 at 10:18 AM
Stewart, you know that tons of other factors play in the high rate of felonies in low income, minority households other than spanking. I hope you are not trying to dishonestly connect the two even as you dismiss other connections between spanking and morality.
And no I don't think imposing my will on my son is what being a father is all about. Loving my son is what being a father is about and part of loving him is disciplining him and correcting him when he needs through the best possible measure.
Louis, actually my parents did spank but I was never spanked. That was not an effective punishment with me. I responded more to a raised voice and an expression of disappointment. My sister was...different.
So, I didn't need to be spanked to follow Christ. I made my own decision about that and followed the best evidence that I could find. One cannot be forced into following Jesus, that defeats the purpose.
Posted by: Aaron | 20 April 2007 at 02:39 PM