The Next Generation is Infected with Boomeritis

“I don't know. That maybe true. But this generation is also growing fast and is more aware of political and global issues compared to the previous generation(thanks to the internet).”

That comment in and of itself shows a bit of generational narcissism. MY generation (Generation X) spawned the Internet as we know it today…and the Baby Boomers were the peace activists of the 1960s.

And if you look at the top searches on Yahoo (i.e., Britney Spears or Lindsey Lohan), I don't see any particular indication that having Internet access in and of itself increases your smarts or brain cells.

:-)

The narcissism comes from low self esteem and hopelessness.  You may also be aware that this younger generation is also the generation with the highest rates of depression ever (at that age).  The mind's response to overwheming doubt and frustration can go either way - fight (narcissism or violence) or flight (suicidal depression).

Think about it, these young folks have been told that their grand inheretance is a potentially dying planet with war, violence, and fear as standard policy!  They've been forced, by the hopelessness that we've handed them, to contract into defensive mode, where there is simply no biological way for them to grow and mature properly, and they spend all their energy trying to compensate for the lack of love and compassion (a failure at the Purple/Magenta stage), and the inability to find a way to feel useful (Blue/Amber) and effective (Red).  So they get stuck in the bottom half of first tier, at least emotionally/spiritually.

The only way most of these young adults have found to feel like they can have even some semblance of love, effectiveness, and usefulness in their lives is to give it to themselves, and unfortunately, they have been trained, by society, to think that materialism is the only way to do that.

If you want kids to grow up with healthy self esteem (feeling love, belonging, effectiveness, and usefulness), then you've got to help them see why it's not hopeless, give them unconditional love and respect, and find ways for them to use their talents and skills for the benefit of their community.

Instead of telling these young adults that they are special, or diseased (afflicted with “Boomeritis”), how about telling them that they are incredibly important to us, we need them to be healthy, in mind, body, and spirit, and that we will do everything we can to support them in their lives, so that they will not only feel loved, respected, valued, effective, and useful, but also so that they have access to a world of knowledge, a world of beauty and diversity, and ways to find more peace and understanding of our Universe?

I'm sceptical of their results. Sixteen thousand is a lot of students, no argument there. I just somehow don't buy their conclusions that today's young people suck (which is more or less what they're implying—just like every older generation has implied about the younger one, since the beginning of time. These guys are just leaning on pseudoscience to do it.)

C4, my brother and I were raised without any physical punishment. And I have carried on this tradition in raising my own girls.

Hitting does work. But it works by inspiring fear, and it teaches violence as an acceptable solution, in a very simple and fundamental way. It teaches that hitting is ok, and loving. The child grows up to believe there is no other way–that one must hit to raise a child well.
They have never seen a model of how to parent well without  hitting, and feel it would be irresponsible of them to do otherwise.

I would like to urge people to break down this assumption, deeply question it. Otherwise gentle and compassionate people in all walks of life hit children. They would never hit their friends, their co-workers, their lovers, their cats, their neighbours…. But they hit their kids, because they feel it's the right thing to do. I am not criticizing you, or your parents. But I would like to encourage you to take this idea apart and look at it closely.

I was well-raised without physical punishment. Everywhere we go, adults make comments to us about what fine people our daughters are. It's truly not necessary to hit children to teach them.

crow

I was raised with hitting, but I don't hit my kids…just a personal choice, but sometimes I sure have wanted too…argh, boyz!
I blog too…call it what you will C4…:) but I like talking about myself too much to stop now! HA! I see that it sure has gotten some dialouge going around these issues…so I say great post…and Blog on, my friend…blog on.

I thought the same thing when I read that article.

I took my share of licks as a kid (I'm Filipino myself).  But everytime I got punished, it was in complete context.  We were all given long leashes, but when we strained the leash for too long, that's when we got it.  That means when the belt had to come out, we really deserved it.

Because we grew up in a tight knit Asian community, the cousins would watch each take a walloping whenever they crossed their lines.  In that case, punishment was communally instructional: you learned the lesson your cousin was learning.  If you were smart, you would learn not to head in that direction yourself (or at least learn how not to get caught).

Because the punishment was in context, I never experienced it as being abusive.  Given all previous warnings, I had finally done something to earn it.  I'm sure parental anger helped spur on the punishment, but there was never a sense of a personal anger trying to be satisfied.  Again, the act was instructional, not punishing.

My sister raised two great kids without raising a stick to them.  But she would give them the look of death when they would start to make the hint of trouble.  They didn't have to be told twice about it.

I just wonder what percentage of those polled were on Zaadz…

I heard of that study yesterday.  The press is so good at focussing on the negative.  You find whatever you go looking for.  My kids are the neatest people. (all Mom-induced bias aside).  And their friends are great too.  My teenaged daughter saw my page on Zaadz, thought this site was great and now has one here too.  As for “sparing the rod,”  no thanks!  I was whomped around plenty as a kid, and it only made me resentful, causing years and years of internalized anger.  The secret to being a good parent is taking the time to listen - truly listen - to your kids and to yourself.  In addition, how you life your life speaks volumes.  If kids are narcissistic, then what behaviours are their parents modelling?

Otter, that was beautiful. 

Listen. Be a role model. Take the time.

: )  crow

I thought your were joking ~C4, about the whacking being a good idea…

Violence definitely doesn't teach responsibility or respect, it teaches fear and violence as a good solution to your problems.  If you don't want your kids (or parents, or neighbors, or government) to use violence as a solution, than you shouldn't use it as a solution yourself.

Peace, begins with you.

Honestly, there is never a situation where there isn't a better solution than violence, physical or verbal.  Not that we can always control ourselves, and it does happen even to those who would never want to harm another human, but it's simply not a good solution, and will inevitably lead to more harm in the future.

I've had some kids in my classes that I've had to spend a year or more working with to counteract their parents' confused idea of healthy parenting.  Our efforts paid off, and the kid was brough back from a very dark place, and I think we helped the parents find more effective techniques for helping their kid stay safe and developmentally healthy.  But it's a lot of work, and it would be far, far better for everyone if the parents had access to the information on healthy parenting in the first place.  Parenting (especially in this modern world) is absolutely the toughest job known to humankind, and it's a shame that we don't offer more training and resources to the brave (or careless) folks who end up with a kid to raise.  I mean, we have tests and training up the wazoo for driving a car, but we offer almost nothing for people raising another human being!

Narcissism comes from low self esteem and hopelessness? Maybe some clinical varieties, but I think what the article was referring to was something more like a lack of healthy humility. I think there is indeed a serious self-esteem problem in our society: there’s way too much of it.

Anthony, there is healthy self esteem which is absolutely required for healthy living, and there is fake (unhealthy) self “esteem”, which is what happens when you feel like a failure, and try to compensate for that by puffing yourself up unrealistically.  That's not high self esteem, that's low self esteem with a mask on.

Turtle, surely there is also such a thing as having a blithely overestimated sense of one’s worth and entitlements without any accompanying feelings of failure. Some egos seem quite impervious to intimations of failure, whether internal or external in origin. But even if we were to grant some deficiency of proper nurturing or whatever, there are surely way too many people who esteem their capabilities too highly and feel entitled to be given things rather than earning them. Either way, that’s a problem.

If you eat too many carrots your skin goes yellow. It does not matter if they are fed to you or if you eat them on your own.

Being told that you are special and like no other person as a child isn’t wrong. It’s when you take that attitude and make it mean that you are superior. You’re no longer being ‘fed’ this attitude, but you’re still having it.

I’ve noticed this with people my age: they seem to think they are entitled to everything they want, when they want it. This doesn’t come directly from their upbringing, but a combination of what they are told and what they choose to hear.

Narcissus was protected from his beauty, and later died.
Perhaps, now and then, everyone needs to glance into the surface of a pond, smile and walk away.

(sorry for the meandering semi-related thoughts)

There is small “s” self-esteem and big “S” Self-Esteem.  The small “s” variety is the one  of which Anthony speaks.  It's ego-driven and relies on external validation and expression.  It is narcissistic by its nature, because it focuses in on itself - my feelings, my accomplishments, etc. 

The big “S” variety comes when one has esteem for the Self.  When we know Our True Essence and see it manifested everywhere and in everyone - by nature, that kind of person is humble.  From this Esteem springs compassion, empathy and consideration for others.  Instead of striving for more and more, these kinds of people are content with who they are and what they have.

Many of today's youth lack this kind of “S”elf Esteem.  Why?  Because the larger society only pays lip service to it.   The predominent belief is you are what you own, what you do and what you look like.  Understanding Our True Essence requires that we listen to the silence inside.  Before one gets to the Fullness of big “S” Self-Esteem one has to experience emptiness.  As a general rule, many people are uncomfortable with those feelings. So, we medicate them with television shows and gossip or whatever fixes work. 

If the parents are “there” - if they are at ease with their own emptiness -  if they listen to it and respect it -  then their children will be too.  If the parents run from that experience, then the kids will follow.  Is this generation of kids any more narcissistic than the last?  Look at the last one and you will find your answer.

It’s always hard to generalize from one’s own experience, but it seems to me there are some important differences in the different generations. And in any case, that’s more probable than that ever generation would have an identical quantity of one thing or another, as if immune to all the accidents of history.

Otter, you said that the predominant belief is “what you own, what you do and what you look like.” We would probably agree about the vanity of the first and third term, but surely what one does has genuine bearing on self-respect.

One has the choice to use one’s time and talents wisely or to squander them, to do good or to do evil. I accept that, in the spirit of turtle’s comments, that people can have distorted perceptions of themselves. But surely one’s self-esteem, if it’s worth anything, should be a truthful appraisal. We can appeal to a deeper emptiness,” but on the level of what one has actually done in one’s life, self-esteem might be correct to be low.

Perhaps “emptiness,” or the notion of mercy, are wise insights into the futility of the pursuit of “self-esteem.” Perhaps Hamlet’s line “if everyone were to be judged by his deserts, who should ‘scape whipping?” is uncomfortably close to the truth. But at the same time, given emptiness, God’s mercy, or however one might understand this deeper truth, that’s not what matters. One simply seeks to go on and do right/be right in the moment.

If you spend some, or a lot, of time in other countries, you quickly find that the way people are raised in the U.S. - sans the whacking - is very atypical.  A peculiar feature of North American culture, although influencing Europe. isn't as prevalent, still a lot of “whacking” going on.  But Asia, Central and South America, Africa, most of the world  believes and uses “whacking as a last resort”.

If you take the populations together, its sort of hard to assume that the U.S. kids are turning out so much better than the rest of world's, just because of the “lack of whacking”.  Certainly, the new adults of the U.S. over the last 40 years (since Dr. Spock basically) don't seem any better.

Ebuddha, I think pretty much every US American child continues to get whacked, only on a more subtle level, rather than a gross level.  Most kids get the message, quite regularly, that they aren't “good enough” that there is something wrong with them (too active, not active enough, not smart enough, not skinny enough, not popular enough, not pretty enough, not tough enough, etc.).  These whackings are attacking the intellect and the emotions (mind and spirit), rather than the body.  But they are whackings nonetheless, and in the long term they do just as much damage to the child, and society in general, as whacking that also affect the body.  Just because we don't hit our kids physically as much as we used to, doesn't mean we aren't screwing them up in other, more creative ways :-)  Adults still have anger and frustrations in life, especially around their kids, whom they feel personally responsible for, and that anger and frustration has to go somewhere…

Until we find a way to reach out to people, and help them learn healthy ways to deal with their anger and frustration, and how to avoid getting angry and frustrated in the first place, we'll continue to have kids and everyone else, having lots of unhealthy crap dumped in their laps.

I wonder whether “To whack, or not to whack?” is really the question, or the only question. Whether or not some degree of spanking were applied by parents, if there is a surrounding culture of self-indulgence, self-importance and entitlement, spanking short of sadistic abuse may be a non-issue.

Speaking of other countries, the level of civility in Britain has nose-dived as crime of all sorts has skyrocketed. This is especially true in the lower socioeconomic strata, as traditional virtues were replaced by an ethos of self-satisfaction. Working class Britain was never a paradise, but communities that were once quite livable have become filthy and dangerous—even as the overall economic situation improved.

Otter poses a question: Is this generation of kids any more narcissistic than the last? Look at the last one and you will find your answer. A look at the United Kingdom will yield a strikingly clear (and very discouraging) answer.

This thread has been following my thoughts over the last couple of days.

Here's one thing that I found, during my research on the various subjects that have come up, here: North America isn't lacking in wacking!  As a group, they're actually pretty enthusiastic wackers: 

“A telephone interview survey of 600 adults in each of the 50 states, carried out by SurveyUSA of Verona NJ in August 2005, found that overall almost three out of four (72%) supported the use of spanking as a disciplinary method (ranging from 55% in Vermont to 87% in Alabama), with almost one in four (23%) believing it acceptable for a teacher to spank a child (ranging from 8% in New Hampshire to 53% in Arkansas and Mississippi). Nearly one third (31%) believed it is acceptable to wash out a child's mouth with soap (from 23% in Hawaii, Maryland and Massachusetts to 46% in Idaho). (SurveyUSA, Verona NJ, August 2005, Disciplining a Child 08/24/05”

That stat is just one of several US surveys listed here, under “Prevalence research.” Here's a page that links to prevalence research stats around the world, regarding the physical punishment of children; you can look up your own country or browse to get a sense of worldwide patterns.

What is common practice in other countries is not, in any case, necessarily desirable in one's own. The matter of women's rights and freedoms comes quickly to mind. Even if “everyone else is doing it,” that doesn't necessarily make it the right choice. The use of a practice in previous generations and centuries isn't an argument for its continuation either.

The healing of our world isn't going to be furthered by more hitting of children, more condemnation of parents, more disassociation from, and judgement against, our youngest adults. They are our future, they are us. 

We're all in this beautiful mess together, we're all responsible for where we stand now (and the older you are, the more responsible you are, not the other way around). And we have come together here looking for compassionate and intelligent solutions to a world that needs both, very much. The question isn't “what's wrong with X group of people”?  The question is “How can we, as a whole community, create peace, safety, hope, and well-being for all?”  

bows,
crow

In Zen practice, there is this notion of “right time, right place, right amount.”  There is a tremendous difference between spanking-as-a-teaching and violence.  If you don't consider context, that last sentence isn't going make any sense.  And as ebudda states, it's a lesson of last resort.  Punishment is what you do to satisfy yourself.

I remember standing in a friend's new-age bookstore one Sunday morning, looking out onto the ocean with her.  She said to me, “There are times when I want to take my customers, grab them by the lapels and shake some sense into them.”  Is that punishment?  Is that violence?

Punishment is what you do to satisfy yourself.

I don’t see how that is necessarily the case. Many punishments are delivered reluctantly, for one reason or another.

The healing of our world isn’t going to be furthered by more hitting of children, more condemnation of parents, more disassociation from, and judgement against, our youngest adults. They are our future, they are us.

What does this mean? That we shouldn’t make judgments about what it might be better for parents to do or notice disturbing trends in our children’s behavior that might call for attention and rethinking our assumptions?

Turtle, while I’m sympathetic of your call for us all to be more gentle to each other, I can’t believe that all the selfishness in the world is caused by “low self esteem.” It’s possible for a person to be raised very indulgently and think the world of themselves while having callous disregard for others. In fact, those qualities are highly compatible with each other.

Consider my example of decaying civility in Britain. I happen to think some of that is indeed owing to mechanism you describe, but not all of it. Corporal punishment was probably more uniformly practiced in the past in Britain when there was only a small fraction of the crime that there is today. As the society fragments, there may be more physical abuse, which contributes to the kind of cycle you suggest. But even before things got as bad as they did, I would assert that a culture of “do your own thing” and “you’re as good as everyone else just as you are” is an independent factor in the decline in a more cooperative society.

Bottom line (no pun intended) spanking is not likely to be very harmful when done judiciously and with proper restraint. Much more harmful is an atmosphere where people are told that the highest good is self-satisfaction, that no one should dare to criticize you, and that others be damned.

Kiso,

Does she actually do it?  I bet she doesn't. For one thing, it's illegal and is referred to as assault. Children are the only category of human in the western world that it is legal to physically assault–mildly or otherwise.

I meant to share another website, this is a good place to do it. It's a global report and part of the UN Secretary General's study on violence against children.

It opens with “Hitting people is wrong - and children are people too. Corporal punishment of children breaches their fundamental rights to respect for their human dignity and physical integrity. Its legality breaches their right to equal protection under the law. Urgent action is needed in every region of the world to respect fully the rights of all children - the smallest and most fragile of people.”

Children are people too. It's something that no one should blow off without thinking deeply about.

I want to clarify that I am not suggesting that there's no difference between a light smack and a brutal beating, or no difference between a child beater and a loving parent who believes in the spare use of moderate physical punishment. It's not helpful to anyone to just paint everyone with the same brush. In the end, though, I really don't see the distinct difference between hitting your children and hitting your spouse or neighbour or letter carrier. And I don't believe anyone should have the legal right to do any of those (except in self defence.)

crow

I really don’t see the distinct difference between hitting your children and hitting your spouse or neighbour or letter carrier. And I don’t believe anyone should have the legal right to do any of those

I guess the argument is that a two-year old might not to verbal interaction as well to reason as the letter carrier would, and one is responsble for the two-year old and not the letter carrier.

We should all agree that real abuse should be against the law. But to say no one has the legal right to spank their child gives government new levels of power over families.

a two-year old might not to verbal interaction as well to reason as the letter carrier would, and one is responsble for the two-year old and not the letter carrier. We should all agree that real abuse should be against the law. But to say no one has the legal right to spank their child gives government new levels of power over families. 

At one time, people used that exact argument to protect a man's right to physically discipline his wife. In many parts of the world, they still do. 

Hitting a child isn't a necessity in parenting, it's a choice. I am raising the 3rd generation in a line of families who have never used hitting in their parenting. The Quaker people raise their children without corporeal punishment. You can raise a dog without hitting it. 

I found a quote on a dog trainer's site that I think beautifully applies to both puppies and children.

Before you can choose an actual dog trainer, I believe you must first decide what kind of bond you want to establish with your dog. Do you want a relationship based on Intimidation and Force or would you like one based on Cooperation and Trust? Do you want to use Pain to get your dog to listen to you or would you rather use Pleasure? Choke chains or Cookies? It really is a choice. To take it a step further, I truly believe every single one of us raising dogs today share an incredible responsibility in determining how our dogs will view their world. Will they see through the eyes of fear or through the eyes of love? The latter is only possible with a process of training and interacting with your dog that uplifts his spirit rather than tears it down. Both techniques will produce the results you want, however, only one method will feel right in your heart.

- Jeffrey Brian

(Founder of Karma Dog Training Method and author of soon to be published “A Walk Towards Heaven”)

crow

From the limited reading I've done, it seemed clear that, spanking or no spanking in a home, consistency in the rules and structures, consistency in the rewards and take-aways, of course mixed with love, care and BEING THERE for your children, is the most important thing.

According to that research (don't have it at my fingertips at the moment), an inconsistent upbringing - no clear rules, no clear expected behavior, not enough interaction, etc - is worse than spanking/no spanking

At one time, people used that exact argument to protect a man’s right to physically discipline his wife. In many parts of the world, they still do.

That’s ridiculous, Crow. First of all, two-year-olds are cognitively different than grown women (and letter carriers!). In any case, I’m talking about a smack on the bottom not what you euphemistically call a man “physically disciplining” his wife.

I’m completely against anyone hitting their children to simply discharge their anger disconnected from a real purpose of alerting the child that what they’re doing is dangerous, for example. Consistent with that is my conviction that spanking for very small children is not likely to do them any harm. At the same time I’m very open to arguments for completely non-violent approaches. I think there is merit in your view. But I cringe at the idea of the government interfering with families.

Anyway, the fact that it is possible to raise children without ever spanking doesn’t mean that whether one spanks or not is a meaningful factor in whether children turn our well or become narcissists. As ebuddha suggests, there are likely other factors that have far more impact within the family circle. And as I have suggested, there are likely influences in the broader social environment that are likely to have bearing.

Anthony, here's a little exercise that might help you understand a way to approach living healthfully with children. Think of a tree, it's pretty low on the intellect scale, right?  It's not going to respond to your carefully thought out arguments and do what you want it to do, no matter how clever your argument is.  But maybe you are worried about the tree, and you believe that it is suffering or in danger.  So, being a compassionate and good person, you want to help this particular tree.  Yay!  You have a couple of great options for healthy ways to help the tree:

1. Ask yourself what this individual needs to be healthier and grow properly, and see if you can provide it.  If you don't know what the individual needs, ask someone else who's got a lot of experience with these types of individuals.  (And test your theories out, if they don't seem to help, try something different.)

2. Realize that this individual has to grow in the way it needs to grow, not in the way you want it to grow, and find a way to appreciate the creative courage of this individual.

The same goes for any individual, of any species, high intellect or not.  We all need the freedom to learn and grow in our own ways, we need to be allowed to make mistakes, because without mistakes we can't learn, and we need to have basic physical and mental and emotional conditions met (see Maslow's hierarcy of needs), if we are to grow into healthy adults.  We can survive with some stifling of our needs, but the more we have our needs compromised by others or by ourselves, the less we will be able to grow healthfully. 

Turtle,

What a beautiful analogy. That one is a keeper, thank you : )

crow

Turtle, I fail to see the relevance of your comments about carefully thought out arguments, since once does not raise one’s children by arguing with them. However, children certainly can benefit from careful thought about how best to raise them. My arguments were an effort to engage in that kind of thinking with others, and while I would not expect my four-year-old to understand them, I cherish some hope that you might.

Coincidentally, this morning I just finished writing an article on protecting trees from a certain kind of infestation. As a layman reporting on the scientific research, I can tell you I am deeply impressed by the cleverness of argument that goes into improving the welfare of trees.

Your comment provides some worthwhile, if banal, insight into raising children, despite its ad hominem approach. However, it is not inconsistent with anything I have said, and it fails to deal with very reasonable diagnoses of the problem we have been talking about. Thus, nice as it is, it does not advance the discussion.

Let’s agree to recognize our children’s individuality and delicately cultivate it to the extent we can. What does that tell us about whether spanking reliably corrupts or whether other influences are more important in influencing the incidence of narcissism in society?

In talking about discipline, whether of children or self-discipline, one has to distinguish between needs and wants as much as possible. Individuals’ wants will inevitably conflict, and so the suppression of those wants is inevitable to some degree. Parents should accommodate the desires of children where appropriate and suppress them when appropriate. While children need gentle handling, part of that handling is guidance. And while their needs must be supplied, “compromising” their wants is an essential feature in applying the kind of discipline necessary to help them mature socially. To connect this thought to earlier ones expressed here, a person might become narcissistic because of an excess of indulgence, resulting in a surfeit rather than a deficiency of self-esteem.

In my experience, the Universe will naturally give children, and adults, ample opportunity to see how they are not the only ones in the Universe.  There is no need for parents or anyone else to go out of their way to get this message across by intentionaly causing them to suffer, though direct harm (to body, mind, or spirit).  Honestly, you absolutely don't need to intentionally “compromise” anyone's needs.  It will happen naturally, and healthfully, if you let nature take it's course.  Life isn't fair.  You don't need to make it more unfair. 

Neurology/Biology tells us that in any living being, suffering creates an atmosphere of defensiveness, and stops growth.  When under stress (the individual's basic needs not being met) the body turns off the parasympathetic nervous system (PNS)  and turns on the autonomic nervious system (ANS).  The PNS is what runs your higher functions, including intellect and growth.  The ANS runs your fight or flight system, and reverts you to your most basic animal instincts.  This happens because stress is something that is bad for the individual, and needs to be dealt with immediately.  So when you hit a human kid (or a tree, or a dog, or your mother), no matter what reasons you have for doing so, from their perspective you are causing that person stress, and you are stopping their healthy growth.  Suffering can be overcome, but it's healthier for the suffering not to happen in the first place.  And if the stress is constant (regular fear of being harmed, i.e. by a parent, teacher, the military, terrorists, etc.), it seriously stunts growth.  And in mammals (including humans), the result is someone who either becomes depressed - feels unworthy of having their needs met - or becomes obsessive, aggressive, greedy, and narcissistic - trying desperately to meet their needs, but in any way they find.  Narcissism isn't about taking more than you need, it's about not knowing what you need.  Society tells people that they need material stuff, toys, cars, expensive clothes, and lots and lots of money.  So people blindly follow along with that prescription for happiness, and find that no matter how much they can accumulate, they are never satisfied.  And that's because they are following a lie (or at least an untruth).  They don't need expensive stuff, they need love, security, a healthy body, a supportive community or family where they can use their talents and skills to improve the health of the community, and the knowledge of how to do that effectively (e.g. job skills).

Finally, my tree analogy was to try to help you understand why harming someone isn't healthy for them, since that didn't seem to be apparent to you (probably because you were led to believe the idea that “it's for your own good!”).  If you want a tree to grow healthfully, you don't go around whacking it, 'cause that won't do it any good.  Instead, you figure out what it needs and try and meet those needs.  For humans, those needs are clean air, clean water, nutritious nonpoisonous food, healthy levels of exercise and rest, healthy levels of sensory stimulation (good stuff to see, touch, smell, etc.), protection from extremes, protection from physical injury, a feeling of safety, a feeling of belongingness and love, ability to be in control of oneself, a sense of being useful and needed, and so on (this is pretty much Maslow's hierarchy of needs here).  Being assaulted is not only not a need, it's actually stifling a need (for safety and protection).  So, if you want a tree, or a kid to grow healthfully, you should do your best (nobody's perfect!) to meet their needs and keep them protected from stress and harm.

you absolutely don’t need to intentionally “compromise” anyone’s needs.

I didn’t say that. I said parents effectively do have to suppress wants, having insisted on the need to distinguish between wants and needs.

Certainly a very important part of parenting is letting “nature take its course,” but vigilance and intervention are just as important. That involves actively inhibiting desires, as nature taking its course can mean swallowing Drano or walking into the street.

To be clear: I am not advocating spanking, I am simply expressing skepticism to claims that its effects are as bad as some suggest, along with revulsion at the idea that the government should be able to interfere with parenting except under exceptional circumstances.

What I find striking about your responses is that you refuse to engage with empirically based arguments, however anectdotal and simply reiterate you theory that any unpleasant physical stimulus is destructive. Your reference of science may appear to lend a patina of empirical validity to what you say, but you are simply taking valid scientific observations and shoving them into the procrustean bed of your theoretical preconceptions.

Your points about the human nervous system might make sense if we were talking about serious beatings and torture, but we’re talking about spanking. The idea that by administering a smack on a child’s bottom one is stopping their health growth is absurd. Surely if it were true, America would have become a nation of midgets long ago. I’ve known people who were abused enough to be hurt psychologically who nevertheless grew like weeds and ended up a size quite in keeping with hereditary expectations.

In short (no pun intended) your protestations seem rather overwrought, not to say histrionic. The human frame is very resilient, especially to physical shocks, and suffering is a dramatic word for the experience of a smart pat on the posterior. To appeal once more to what ebudda wrote, it seems far more plausible arbitrary treatment is far more likely to foul up a person’s emotional upbringing than spanking, especially spanking delivered judiciously within a context of abundant expressions of love.

I agree about narcissists not knowing what they really need, but not with your reasons. First, you give no good reason to doubt that someone can have an inflated opinion of himself, owing to endless reinforcement and indulgence from parents, while being careless about the feelings of others. The two qualities are eminently compatible.

Also, while expensive stuff is insufficient for happiness, it certainly can contribute to happiness. Ask yourself: if someone were brought up perfectly in keeping with your recommendations, might they not still enjoy things such as going to the theater, driving a responsive car, skiing whenever they wanted and living in a spacious and well-furnished house?

At one time, people used that exact argument to protect a man's right to physically discipline his wife. In many parts of the world, they still do.

 
I highly agree with you, crow. 

While reading this thread I'm having problems understanding how anyone could think that hitting a child (yes, spanking is hitting) is appropriate under any circumstance.  If that child were an adult, in any court in the States that would be assault and battery (both criminal charges).  Our legal system is still largely based on common law- that’s the old English laws that said many things, including children and women were property, like cattle and sheep. During ancient times, average/typical people did not  always question the hitting of cattle, women, or children.  I think thd idea that adults have the right to hit (spank, slap- it’s still hitting, folks) children is left over from an age when society was much more of a hierarchy.

The twentieth century saw women get the right to vote in the States (but the Equal Rights Amendment has yet to pass), the Irish became “white”, the beginning of civil rights for African Americans, and some rights for gay people.  While we can probably all agree that rights for women and African Americans are far from ideal, we can also agree that the hitting of a woman or a person of color is generally culturally and legally unacceptable. 

So why does this society still condone the hitting of the most vulnerable people of all? (Children).  Children are not property and should have the right to escape hitting by anyone, especially by those entrusted with their care.  Sure, parents and others who care and rear children must teach them the ways of proper behavior etc., but as crow and others here have demonstrated, hitting children is not necessary or in the their best interest, to rear a responsible adult. 

The child in my life and I have always had an agreement.  I have promised to never hit him (I also do not hit my partner or the dogs and cats that live with us) and he understands what consequences happen when he commits undesirable behavior.  Meaning, if he does A then B happens.  But B is never hitting.  Never.  This child is now 11, in the honors program at his school, and when he’s here (at my house) he says he feels like he can really relax and be himself. 

Spanking is hitting, folks, please don’t convince yourselves otherwise. 

Ultimately, how you choose to behave depends on what kind of world you want to live in.  If you want to create a world where people use violence and suffering to control others and solve problems, you will choose to use violence and suffering in your own life.  If you want to create a world where people use creativity, compassion, intelligence, reason, and beauty to solve problems, then you will choose to use creativity, compassion, intelligence, reason, and beauty in your own life.  The choice is up to you, and you will do whatever you believe is right, no matter how many arguments, scientific studies, or empassioned pleas others offer you.

I wish everyone much success in whatever choices they make!

Drew & Turtle, thank you. Between the two of you, you've said anything that I might have hoped to add, before retiring from this discussion. It's been a valuable and illuminating one, for me, and has inspired some really good conversations in my own family, with my husband and two daughters.  

Thanks to all for an interesting and challenging conversation! And especially, C4, thanks for accidentally hosting it :P  

bows,

crow

Turtle, the implication of what you say is that people who have been spanked – not terribly abused or beaten mind you, just spanked – are unlikely to be creative, compassionate, tolerant, gentle people or to celebrate those qualities. Whether having spanking on the disciplinary menu is the best approach or not, it taxes credibility that it has as terrible effect on people subject to it as you imply.

Anthony, I want to start by saying I think your point of view has some merit to it. Like you, I was once in the is-spanking-really-so-bad? camp. But I recently became a dad (2 years now), and decided I needed to do the research. As it turns out, the answer is: Yes, it really is so bad. There has been an enormous amont of research on this, and its pretty consistent – spanking is bad. Always. Plently of research has tested your hypothesis about spanking out of love, spanking judiciously and proper restraint, etc., and while that's not as bad as outright abuse, its still negative. Your assertion that an atmosphere of self-satisfaction where no-one can criticize you is worse than an authoritarian atmosphere of physical punishment is, to be frank, laughable. But that's not to say that the pervasive culture of narcissism is no big deal – it is a problem, and the culture of specialness is a very significant cause, but out of the options that are being presented here, it is the lesser evil.

Turtle, I'm sorry to have to say that narcissism does indeed come from high self-esteem, not low self-esteem as you say. The studies also fail to show much of a connection between behavior and esteem. According to a review of the research, “The associations between self-esteem and its expected consequences are mixed, insignificant, or absent…If the association between self-esteem and behavior is so often reported to be weak, even less can be said for the causal relationship between the two.”

We tend to view parenting from the perspective that there is a choice between authoritarianism and permissiveness, between punishing kids or showering them with praise and rewards. To me, these are two sides of a bad coin, and that coin is behavior control. Let's say a small child has decided to throw a fit – the traditional response is punishment, or if you are a bit more up-to-date, ignore it and make a mental note to reward good behavior later. But both of these approaches blithely ignore the most apparent fact. You are in the company of a child in a great deal of distress who is communicating it the only way she knows how. Maybe that way is inconvenient, inappropriate or even dangerous, but the only way a child can survive is by getting your attention. The fastest way to calm down person in distress is to clearly and unambiguously communicate to them that you are there, completely present with them in their moment of anguish. You don't have to give in to their demands, but you do need to fully acknowledge that they are hurting. Most parents don't do that, they either become absorbed in their own moment of frustration, or tune the whole situation out completely. Its an tremendous exercise in mindfulness to stay in the moement with a screaming or misbehaving child while still allowing natural feelings of fear, anger, shame, frustration and being overwhelmed to arise and pass without being caught in them. More than anything, I think misbehavior is driven out of the sense of terrible isolation we feel when we are in pain. Children just want their parents to say, “I know. It hurts.” Hell, everyone wants that. More info at Alfie Kohn's Unconditional Parenting website.

Its interesting to note that when the Dalai Lama first learned about self-esteem, he had no idea what it was – apparently they have nothing like that in Tibet. I think this is partly because we live in such a hyper-individualistic culture where social isolation is the norm. We respect people who don't care about what other people think, people who are cool, unique, completely independent, non-conformist and invulnerable. Paradoxically, we are taught that doing this makes you socially desirable. After all, who would want to be around someone who's just ordinary? But the ugly secret is that the most popular people are often the most isolated, because everyone around them is using them to get up the ladder, to reach the pot of gold that they think must be at the end of the popularity rainbow. In short, we're taught that only special, unique snowflakes really deserve social connectedness, and the self-esteem movement is really a badly misguided effort to say that everyone needs companionship and human connection without implying that you are a loser. The solution, in my view, is to boldly challenge the value system that overvalues independence and denigrates the need for connection. Paradoxically, all aspects of our culture, from mainstream to underground subcultures, are in uniform agreement on this value system, so challenging the importance of non-conformity is just about the most non-conformist thing you can possibly do.

Mr. Teacup, I appreciate your saying my point of view has some merit, but I have my doubts as to how well you understand it. You write:

Your assertion that an atmosphere of self-satisfaction where no-one can criticize you is worse than an authoritarian atmosphere of physical punishment is, to be frank, laughable.

I hope you’ve enjoyed your laugh, but it will have been at someone else’s expense since I assert no such thing.

My apologizes for misinterpreting you.

I'll I have to say is, If you're a parent considering whether or not to hit your kid.  Make sure you know the difference between DISCIPLINE and PUNISHMENT!

Besides knowing your kid and knowing what's best for them individually.