Spanking from an anthropologic perspective

[limabean]

I read social anthropologist Desmond Morris' The Naked Womanrecently, and he had some really interesting things to say about spanking. I wish I still had the book for reference, but I'll do my best to paraphrase his words.

He talked about the "presenting" posture of (nonhuman) primates -- how they'll turn their rump toward the dominant figure to demonstrate submission. It stems from sexual presenting of the rump, but its use is figurative -- juvenile males may present to adult males to say, "You are stronger than me -- look, you could easily overtake me if you wanted to." The dominant primate typically is satisfied with this presentation, and the conflict ends -- the submissive primate's admission of inferior status is enough to satisfy their urge to dominate.

When humans spank their children, they not only force the child to assume this submissive rump-presenting posture, but they then do the very thing that that posture is supposed to prevent -- they strike! It's a double affront to respect -- forcing a humiliating posture and then taking advantage of the even-more-weakened state and inflicting harm. I thought that was a fascinating and very well-put way to describe my personal problem with spanking, and thought I'd share.

[sophmama]

Very interesting!

[pianojazzgirl]

That is interesting! Thanks for sharing.

[Joannarachel]

Verrrry interesting.

[Piglet68]

Interesting perspective on why spanking seems to be traditionally done on the rear end.

[Trinitty]

I’ve often wondered about that since I have an interest in anthropology…. A layman’s interest, but still an interest.

I don’t have children yet, I’m here taking notes, and I’m not really sure about some of the “gentle discipline” methods touted here.

One of the apprehensions I have about “GD” is what I see to be lack of natural consequences, thus I’m really interested in the anthropological angle.

For example: in a family group of primates, say, chimpanzees, if a young chimp starts acting up, jumping all over the mother, etc, she puts up with it for a while, and then pushes him or her away and ignores him or her, doesn’t give attention to the behaviour and it dissipates.

If the situation escalates, say, if an older “child” bites or hits an infant, or insists on nursing with the infant, the mother will physically discipline the perpetrator. She will yank him or her away from the scene, or smack him or her, or bear her teeth and scream at the older child.

So, while hitting the buttocks seems to be counter-culture when it comes to primate behaviour, hitting in general is not.

All monkeys hit, that’s why human children who have never seen hitting, or been physically disciplined themselves, will hit other children, their parents, the cat, their toys, etc. It’s “natural.”

So, this leads me to thinking about an interesting combination, or dilemma, or contradiction when it comes to natural parenting, or planned natural parenting in my case.

Many of us try to look to the natural way of things when it comes to rearing a family, co-sleeping, cloth diapering, slinging, growing our own food, breastfeeding, nfp, etc…. BUT, when it comes to discipline, most “attachment parenting” followers deem physical discipline to be uncivilized or brutish, or mean, and choose not to do it…. Yet, it is “natural” in the rest of the primate world.

So, is it all about picking and choosing the “best” from the natural way of things when it comes to sex, sleeping and eating and imposing/learning “higher” techniques for discipline?

I throw this out there for discussion.

[captain crunchy]

Hey lots of things are natural. Radiation is natural. Brown recluse spiders are natual. Poison ivy is natural. Strychnine is natural. Tobacco is natural. Arsenic is natural. Lead is natural. A girl can phycially become pregnant shortly after she menstruates. I mean, I wouldn't expose my children to any of those things willingly despite them being natural, I am not going to spank because some animals in the wild may -- (I am not saying you suggested that).

Besides, primates also fling their feces at eachother to mark their territory and when they are angry. As much as I would love to do that to certain people, I refrain .

[Trinitty]

I'm sorry, it was the "flinging feces" thing that got me.

Some babies do it if they can get their hands on it, can't they? Way to embrace your inner monkey, darling!

.........................................

I totally hear you on the naturally lethal substances and the onset of menarche.... (although, some tribal peoples are "marrying" girls off at the onset of puberty because she CAN physcially bear children).... but I'm trying to get to the nub of parent-child behaviour when it comes to being "natural." We could even extend this to organic food, no plastic toys, or not vaccinating children, or not listening to recorded music, etc.

So, I'll try to rephrase...

How is it that you mothers (and fathers) chose between what may be "natural" or instinctive, and what is a more "learned" or civilized approach with your children?

Is there a rule you use? Is there a line you draw?

[captain crunchy]

So, I'll try to rephrase...

How is it that you mothers (and fathers) chose between what may be "natural" or instinctive, and what is a more "learned" or civilized approach with your children?

Is there a rule you use? Is there a line you draw?

I'll try to answer. It is not easy though Being a sociology major in college I am well aware that many things are learned behaviors -- even if we *feel* they may be natural or instinctual. Because society is so ingrained into our psyche, it is difficult to distinguish between the two.

I dunno, I try to parent with a combination of instinct, common sense, research, and from what I feel my daughter needs most to feel loved and valued.

For instance, not vaccinating was instinctual to me to a certain degree--but it was also ingrained in me that it is the only way to go, there is no other option, your child will die without them -- so my instincts got fuzzy and I questioned myself. That is where we differ from animals I suppose -- I had access to a different *tribe* who did things a different way. I had access to research, to all kinds of resources which helped me make my decision NOT to vax.

As an example, pretend an ape doesn't want to spank. It isn't as if they can just run off and find a tribe of other apes that are down with that. I know it seems like a ridiculous example, but it is true. Society, even animal societies are shaped much by tradition and status quo and the following of elders that it truly is difficult to say it is purely instinctual, even with animals.

So when we say instinct versus mandated by the norms of society, I think the lines are blurry. Sure, there will always be people who spank for instance. However, if society mandated (not even legally but morally) that spanking was wrong, and barbaric, and not to be done... while you would certainly still have your spankers, you would have less of them because for the most part, it would be ingrained that it wasn't what was *done*.

Even we here at mdc have our rules of conduct. Even people who go *against the grain* live against a grain that the people inside the grain can't go against --- does that make any sense? An example of this is even the disagreements that go on within any of the boards. We all basically have the same philosophy but they vary so much.

My point is (I know it is clear as mud) --- the only way (imo) to know that something is instinctual is if it is done without thought -- and more difficult, without the indoctrination that comes simply with living in a society, whether it is animal or otherwise. We cannot truly say that animals don't have a thought process, as it is difficult to judge that as they are not verbal.

Any action which there has been thought, research, and consideration on can not be of pure instinct -- it may have had the seed of instinct sure, but instinctual action is based on acting without any bias, thought, or premeditation. That is way hard to do or to define.

A good example would probably be something like -- you see someone drowning and before you can even think of the risks (strong tide/alligators/temperature of the water/can you even swim??) you jump in and try to save them. That would be something I may define as instinct, though even that is not purely definable as such, because most people are taught from an early age to help someone who is in trouble (or to try).

I am not saying instinct doesn't exsist, I am just suggesting that most of us are so far removed from our instincts (not by anyone's fault) that it is difficult to distinguish.

[Trinitty]

It is hard to define isn’t it? That’s why it fascinates me I suppose.

Thanks for your thoughtful response, and no, it’s much clearer than mud…. This is a misty issue at best, so it would be difficult to give decisive answers.

I’ll do some thinking and post as soon as I can.

[freewitheft]

Originally Posted by Trinitty

All monkeys hit, that’s why human children who have never seen hitting, or been physically disciplined themselves, will hit other children, their parents, the cat, their toys, etc. It’s “natural.”

I disagree. Check out The Continuum Concept if you haven't already done so. I've always had an interest in anthropology myself, so I'm pretty sure you will LOVE it. The tribe Liedloff was with had children who absolutely did NOT hit, ever. They had no concept of it, and had no reaction when faced with this behavior from an "outsider" as well. This book is the true foundation of the AP movement as we know it today. Dr. Sears originally gave some credit for his ideas to Liedloff in the 80's, but in later writings omitted it.

Liedloff puts forth the radical idea that, in an ideal society - true to our continuum, discipline *isn't even necessary*. Our children want to please us, want to do what's right, and are inherently good. All we need to do is expect that of them, and they will live up to the expectation.

[pacifica]

Very interesting....all of it.

I don't have any education per say to back up my ideas, but after having twins I have OFTEN identified with animals who have litters. For instance, when my boys were babies, I constantly thought of all the mother cats we had on our farm. All mothers were different and the ones my mom labeled "good moms" were constantly with there newborns for 2 to 2 1/2 weeks. Hardly ever leaving the babies. Some mothers fed their babies, but were outa there when the basic needs were met. Still others would even abandon their young (usually very young first time mothers.....but often never turned into good mothers with age).So I tried to make a human timeline of how to care for my litter in a good mommy way! I'm at a loss when it comes to weaning, because many cat mothers had to physically remove herself from her kittens....or they wouldn't stop nursing!!

Since my boys are now toddlers, I struggle with staying calm 24/7 when my boys seem out of control. I have "growled" at my children before, feeling quite primitive! I feel AP babies and GD toddlers is a whole new ball game.

[Trinitty]

Oooooh, that does sound interesting!

I will admit that I'm highly skeptical, but I will take a look at it for sure. I have yet to see a primate that doesn't "smack" at times, so if there is a tribe of humans that never ever does, even as children, I would find that really exceptional.... although I wouldn't need THAT as proof not to spank children.

I shall check it out.

PS:

Funny reason for skepticism:

My little cousin was raised (for a while, long story) by a vegan woman who forbade television and toy guns and many other things, giving him only baby dolls to play with..... one of my funniest memories of him was when he was five or so, and I handed him one of his dolls to play with while he was wanting to rough-house with me.... he pulled the leg off of the dollie and "shot" me with it. Conditioning, my foot.

[eirual]

only way (imo) to know that something is instinctual is if it is done without thought

I know what you're getting at with that statement, but it's just quite not there. Saying that (I know you went on to exclude societal norms kind of) vaxxing would be natural since many people don't give it a second thought.

And 'natural' is a continuum I think. For example cotton is certainly more natural than the chemical-laden sposie diapers, but reading your child's signs to EC is even more natural still....to some.

[DevaMajka]

Can we really say that if a primate group does it, it means its natural?
I don't know the answer. It just seems to me that I've read about groups of primates who's behavior changed due to different leaders or what have you. (I obviously have no education here. lol)

I agree with freewitheft, mostly.
I have seen kids that have not witnessed violence, who start hitting. But perhaps its not so much that hitting is natural, so much as its a sign that a lot of other things they are experiencing are NOT natural. And hitting just happens to be one way of getting frustration/energy/confusion out.
Who knows where it could have been picked up (in the timeline of human development, I mean) but just because it is (what seems to be) an innate part of our psyche (did I say that right?), doesn't mean that it is natural, or has always been innate, or is supposed to be that way. kwim?

[julesmom]

Originally Posted by Deva33mommy

I have seen kids that have not witnessed violence, who start hitting. But perhaps its not so much that hitting is natural, so much as its a sign that a lot of other things they are experiencing are NOT natural. And hitting just happens to be one way of getting frustration/energy/confusion out.

Just lurking...but I think this is a great point.

Interesting thread!

[crissei]

Hmm...
This thread is making me think to much. That can't be good!

I have something to add to the mix;
Anthropologicaly (sp?) speaking, Isn't anything a human does "natural"
Whether it be picking berries or opening a bag of Doritos, dosen't just the sheer fact that it is being done, make it "natural".
Can anything, be un-natural?

Ouch! My brain hurts.:

[Trinitty]

hmmmmm

What about, a "natural" response to an unpleasant situation or series of events, which itself can become unpleasant? Barring the Continum Concept previously mentioned, I would say that hitting is natural, yet unpleasant.

Example: One ape stealing another ape's walnut could result in the wronged ape smacking the thief, (natural reaction to being wronged?) which could in turn result in the dominant ape shunning or ignoring the hitter because of the status of the thief.

I would still call this natural, in a sense that apes don't seem to share discipline techniques and philosophies the way we do. They seem to (we can't really know) learn by example and react with instinct when pushed or threatened, as I think many of us humans do as well, with good and bad results. Good: running away from a bear; Bad: telling your boss he’s a major jerk.

Oh, I guess we should perhaps agree on a definition of "natural" at least for this thread.

I use primate groups and some tribal communities (trying to not offend anyone here) when referring to basic "natural" living because it's the closest situation I can find which resembles the hunter/gatherer lifestyle that humans lived for millions of years. I enjoy examining the possible behaviours and methods used by our ancestors for the majority of our species' time on this planet.

I try to compare and contrast what could be our innate behaviour (sleeping with babies rather than leaving them alone at night) to that of the civilized, structured, controlled society in which we now live, with laws and school and religions, etc, which could either dictate or strongly influence our behaviour and cause it to be "altered" for good or ill.

[crissei]

Originally Posted by Trinitty

I use primate groups and some tribal communities (trying to not offend anyone here) when referring to basic "natural" living because it's the closest situation I can find which resembles the hunter/gatherer lifestyle that humans lived for millions of years. I enjoy examining the possible behaviours and methods used by our ancestors for the majority of our species' time on this planet.

Just to clarify;
Our species is about 200,000 years old.

[marsupial*mama]

This thread reminds me of James McKenna's work and another woman whose name I can't recall (author of Our Babies, Ourselves?).

Anyhow, I just wanted to address one of Trinity's earliest questions:

One of the apprehensions I have about “GD” is what I see to be lack of natural consequences, thus I’m really interested in the anthropological angle.

It's funny because I see GD as being very much dependent on natural consequences.

To use the hitting example:
I have encountered parents who constantly freak out about the unavoidable dangers in their homes - hot ovens, heaters, sharp things, electricity, etc. While it is our job as parents to protect our children from these dangers, how we go about it sometimes requires some creativity.

This is one example where I have often heard of hitting being justified but I think the natural consequences are much better teachers (OK, not electricity - prevention is better than cure here).

Some might consider it child abuse but I readily let my child touch (with supervision) a hot oven or heater, a sharp knife or scissors - even if it means receiving a small burn or cut. To me, this is much more effective than hitting (for punishment or prevention) to altogether avoid an injury for a child. Some might call this child abuse. I don't know. But it seems to me that my child will learn more readily that s/he must avoid these dangers in the home than if I am constantly vigilant and having to repeatedly hit (or even redirect) for this behaviour. My child is briefly injured (though in a controlled context) but his/her own power is still intact and in a single instance, an assortment of lessons are learned and internalised. This is natural consequences in it's purest application and to my way of thinking, it is entirely something that would happen in the animal kingdom as well.