Unconditional Parenting: 4. Punitive Damages

Unconditional Parenting: Moving from Rewards and Punishments to Love and Reason
by Alfie Kohn

Before I go any further, let me say - Jack Beckman recommended reading Unconditional Parenting along with Shepherding a Child's Heart, so I've had that one next on my list. I'm having second thoughts, though, after hearing reviews like the ones posted at GCM here and here.

I was also surprised to learn that Alfie Kohn is revered by TCS parents (Taking Children Seriously/non-coersion at all costs), although Unconditional Parenting, which I'm enjoying and mostly agreeing with, at least in theory, is considered less extreme than other books of his. I may try to find something somewhere in the middle - unconditional, "working with" instead of "doing to," but that has no problem recognizing the parental need to set limits and teach boundaries.

4. Punitive Damages

The concept of punishment is to make kids suffer to teach them a lesson. But "how likely is it that intentionally making children unhappy will prove beneficial in the long run? And: If punishment is so effective, how come I have to keep doing it to my child over and over?" A 1957 study showed that punishment was ineffective at curing aggression, clinginess, bedwetting, and other grievances. Newer studies show that kids who are punished for breaking rules tend to break rules more when they're not home. Spanking makes children more aggressive and imparts the lesson that "you can get your way with people who are weaker than you are by hurting them."

But spanking isn't the only way that parents inflict suffering on their children to teach them a lesson. There's also depriving children of affection or privileges, humiliation or isolation. These 'new, improved' forms of punishment may be re-labeled as consequences and justified because they're 'logical' or because they're spelled out in advance. But that's really just a way of threatening: 'If you do this, I'll do that.' Natural consequences--allowing a child to go hungry if they're late for dinner, or to be wet if they forget a raincoat--carries the subtle message that 'Mom could have helped me, but she wouldn't be bothered.'

When kids rebel against punishment and control and become defiant, the usual advice is to use *more* punishment and *more* control - which leads to a vicious cycle. Parents assume it's the child who's the problem, and never challenge whether the whole concept of punishment itself might not be at fault. "Misbehavior and punishment are not opposites that cancel each other out; on the contrary, they breed and reinforce each other."

Kohn lists probable reasons why punishment is counterproductive:
- It makes the child mad because he's helplessly controlled
- It models a misuse of power
- As kids get older, it becomes less effective. What then?
- It erodes our relationships with our kids
- It puts the child's focus on his unfair treatment instead on the real issue.
- It impedes moral thinking by putting the child's focus on himself (avoiding punishment) instead of others

Punishment doesn't work, and *more* punishment won't make it any more effective. Adding warnings and explanations doesn't make it work better - if a child doesn't share, then explaining why they need to share, and also taking the toy away, will cancel out the explanation and direct the child's focus to the loss of the toy rather than the misdeed.

The "doing to" approach to parenting (including spanking, consequences, rewards and even verbal praise) is based on a faulty premise. As long as a parent has these in their parenting toolbox, the less likely they'll be to try the "working with" approach.