The Semantics of Discipline and Punishment

One of the most obvious places where motherhood and philosophy clash is in the discipline and/or punishment of our children. In order to mold them to our personal worldview of morality and culture there must be some way to corral them from subculture and belligerence. I choose the word "corral" for one specific reason: there is a difference between discipline and punishment and they are not interchangeable.

Here come the semantics.

Discipline is, for me, a word that means to modify behavior with reminders and admonishments. Using words, coercion, perhaps even logic. In my mind punishment is a word for the consequences of misbehavior. Punishment, for example, is a spanking for using a naughty word. Discipline would be requiring a child to clean up the mess they made in the living room after tearing all the stuffing out of the beautiful pillow your mother crocheted for your sixteenth birthday. In either case you could spank or you could find alternate means to rectify the child's behavior. Of course, both outcomes bring up philosophical quandaries.

Let's start with the Bible. First I would like to point out that I am an atheist, as is my entire family. This does not mean that I have little or no respect for the Bible. Being an historian, I find that the Bible is a great primary source for life at certain points in history to which we have a broken record of written information. There can be much gleaned from the Bible. It is, in my mind, a written account of oral culture. I am not using the text in a religious fashion, but as a cultural reference. So, religion aside, there is a cultural and historical basis for spanking. We have in Exodus, for example, a list of crimes and punishments. These are colloquially referred to as "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."¹

In Proverbs we have the lovely quote, "Withhold not correction from a child: for if thou strike him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell."² Okay, okay. I'm not here to argue about the correctness of those statements. I'm using them to illustrate the culture of discipline in America - which is arguably Christian-based. I'm also not here to argue the point of whether corporal punishment is right or wrong. What I'm saying is that stability and predictability are essential for child-rearing. If you follow the Biblical school of thought - whether consciously or no - then you must be consistent in that punishment. In behavioral modification, effective punishment must be swift, sure, certain, and severe.³ The longer you wait between the child breaking your prized Ming vase and spanking him or her, the less likely the child is to relate that punishment to the crime that took place. And the more often that such punishment alters from previous consequences, the less effective it becomes.

Philosophical Diva?

Woah, woah, woah, you might be thinking. Aren't you making a mountain out of a mole hill? I don't know. Am I? I wrote in a previous article that the foundations for culture begin with the family unit, with the parenting of a child. So when it comes time to tackle these large issues of crime and punishment (such as the death penalty or abortion) the foundation for our system of beliefs regarding these matters has already been formed. Formed by our parents, grandparents, and our caretakers during childhood. So while it may seem like such a small, simple situation with your three year old, it has the potential to become life changing for someone as an adult years down the road. That is where consistency is key. If you choose corporal punishment (which in turn may one day become a belief in capital punishment) then you must always choose corporal punishment as your form of parental control. Every time you waffle from a spanking and put your child in the corner or send them to their room, it decreases the effectiveness of the next time you choose to spank them. This is the foundation for our criminal justice system and defense of the death penalty in general. "Capital punishment is proportionate to the offense of the intentional and unjustified taking of an innocent person's life."⁴

Is this an inflammatory example? Sure it is. Over the top? Maybe. I think its essential, however, for a mother to understand how even seemingly small decisions are based not only on wider understandings of our own philosophy and culture but also lay the groundwork for their children's beliefs.

No, I'm not claiming that all children who were spanked became adamant supporters of the death penalty. I'm just trying to clarify where these viewpoints come from and establish that it is essential for us as mothers to understand our own philosophical underpinnings when choosing how we discipline our own children. Right or wrong doesn't matter. What matters is what we believe to be right or wrong and how consistent we are at carrying out and living those philosophical beliefs.

Disclaimer

Nope, I'm not even going to touch on my parenting style. Why? Because that is certainly not what this article is about. Its not about who is right or who is wrong, or which parenting style is better. My entire point is that we must examine ourselves deeply as human beings because "ὁ δὲ ἀνεξέταστος βίος οὐ βιωτὸς ἀνθρώπῳ" (the unexamined life is not worth living). In order to be the best mothers we can possibly be we not only have to make choices about our parenting styles (in this case discipline) but we must know and understand where those choices are coming from and why we made them. This does not make them right or wrong, but provides a strong foundation that we can pass on to our children so they can make their own educated decisions. Providing them a strong framework for rational adulthood is what its all about, isn't it?

^{1. Exodus 21:24-25}

^{2. Proverbs 23:13-14}

^{3.Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishments (Empire Books, 2012), 45.}

^{4. Paul G. Cassell, "In Defense of the Death Penalty," in Debating the Death Penalty, ed. Hugo Bedau and Pal Cassell (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 199.}