So what does a ‘traditionally built’ female detective have to do with discipline? Heaps actually!
Yesterday I was part of a panel chat about discipline on Erica Davis’ morning show on Sydney radio station Hope 103.2. I talked about the idea of restorative justice versus punitive justice. It probably sounds like an odd way of approaching behaviour management but for me the philosophy behind what you do is just as important as what you do. Especially when it comes to discipline. What we are doing needs to make sense with what we are actually trying to teach our children.
I first started thinking about these ideas when I was studying international relations and the use of state force. You see, the use of force is limited under international law. One of the new doctrines that was attracting a lot of attention at this time was the ‘responsibility to protect’. The generally accepted idea is that it’s not OK for a nation state to use military force against another country unless it is in self-defence. (Stay with me). But then what about when something like the Rwanda massacre occurs? This new doctrine says that the international community has a responsibility to protect a state’s citizens. If people are being butchered by their own state, the use of ‘protective’ force is acceptable to safeguard the innocent.
So I took these ideas home and started applying them to my then one-year-old. I decided to try not using ‘punitive force’, like smacking, but using protective force instead. That means if my kid hits another kid in a George W. Bush style ‘pre-emptive strike’, (ie. aggression dressed up in the language of self-defence, “But she was going to hit me, I just know it!), then rather than smacking my kid I would intervene to protect the other child. That could mean separating them (putting in a new border), making the ‘hitter’ play elsewhere (extradition), or physically staying present to make sure no more hitting occurs (peacekeeping troops). Hopefully this also sends a clearer message to the child. Rather than saying, “You’re not allowed to hit your cousin but I am allowed to hit you,” (like bombing Iraq) my actions will say, “Hitting is not acceptable, and I am here to protect you both.” (The UN).
Enter Mma Ramotswe, fictional proprieter of The No 1 Ladies Detective Agency and enforcer of common sense justice. Mma Ramotswe is a self-taught private detective (self-taught from the esteemed Clovis Anderson’s seminal instruction book, Principles of Private Detection) who goes about setting right the wrongs in her beautiful home country of Botswana. Mma Ramotswe solves mysteries and rights wrongs but she almost never involves the law or shames the wrong doer. Instead she finds ways to ‘restore justice’, to set right what was wrong without punishment. This doesn’t mean there aren’t consequences for the criminals, but the answer usually involves them taking responsibility for their actions in some way. Having read about 10 books in the series, I’ve found my thinking constantly being shaped by the idea of ‘restorative justice’, as opposed to ‘punitive justice’ which is designed to hurt the wrong doer and make them regret their action. Unfortunately, punitive justice tends to create bitterness and resentment between people whereas restorative justice is about restoring trust in the relationship. I didn’t even realise this concept had found its way into mainstream ideas about discipline until I saw it on the cover of Sydney’s Child last week. Apparently restorative justice is now being applied among at-risk kids in high schools with massive success. It’s harder work than just dishing up a punishment, and many of the kids would rather just take the wrap than face up to those they have wronged. But the long-term results are impressive.
If you’re not convinced, just think about how you feel when you have stuffed up in some way or have let someone down. What would your prefer? To be punished, or offered forgiveness? Adults are not immune from punishing each other. We do it by withholding affection or intimacy, by avoiding those who we perceive have wronged us, or by giving someone the silent treatment. (Is this really so different from isolating a child by sending them to their room or putting them on the naughty chair?) If you’ve ever been on the receiving end of this kind of treatment then you’ll know it hurts like hell. Especially if you don’t know what you’ve done to deserve the snub. Different people will respond to that kind of treatment in different ways. Either they will detach from the relationship so they don’t continue to be hurt, they will confront the person and demand an explanation, or they will try even harder to please the person who is punishing them. If on the other hand, you already know and have acknowledged what you’ve done wrong, then why do you need to be punished? What you need at that point is to be restored to the other person, which only comes about through the process of seeking forgiveness and extending grace. It’s as simple as saying, ‘That’s OK’, ‘Don’t worry about it,’ ‘Thanks for your apology’, ‘I appreciate that.’ I’m not saying that there’s never a time to send a child to their room or put them on the naughty step, but you need to be clear on why you are doing it and be sure that it makes sense in the context of what you’re trying to teach them.
At this point, the advocates of the punitive model usually say, ‘Ah but it’s different, because with children you have to teach them right from wrong by punishing them.’ But is that really so different to adult relationships? When adults hurt each other, we don’t usually do it deliberately. We usually hurt each other, or behave badly because we don’t yet know better. We didn’t realise that thing we did or said or failed to do would be hurtful to that person. We didn’t understand the way they think or feel, what they expected of us, or what their particular sensitivities were. Once we have learned and communicated without blaming then we can improve that relationship. Children usually also stuff-up because they didn’t quite realise what was expected of them, or they didn’t know how to deal with their feelings. Children, like adults, need to experience the consequences of their mistakes, but we don’t have to make those consequences disproportionate to the original problem.
It is self-evident that you don’t get punished for doing the wrong thing, you get punished for getting caught. (If you do the wrong thing, but don’t get caught, there’s no punishment. Also if you are punished unfairly for something you haven’t done, it creates resentment.) This can lead to deceptive behaviour, lying or far worse a child (and later an adult) who only behaves well when people are watching. Punishment says, “If you do that behaviour, you will be punished, so don’t do that behaviour again.” It’s a model based on obedience and good behaviour as the goal. What I want my children to learn, more than obedience or how to behave, is empathy. Punishment does not easily model empathy. When we punish, we switch off our own empathy temporarily. We leave our child crying on the naughty chair or in their room instead of comforting them, or we smack them with the deliberate intention of hurting them, even though we ourselves would not like to be treated that way. So the child in response has several choices; to also switch off emotionally and accept the punishment, to rebel against the punishment or to try harder to please us in the future. Learning to please others is not the same as developing empathy or consideration for others. Clinical psychologist Lyn Worsely talks about how even babies as young as six weeks who have experienced trauma will look to their caregiver for cues and create fixed expressions that aim to please their parents. It may be compliant but it’s not necessarily healthy. And it can lead to anxiety down the track.
So now when I’m faced with a conundrum, rudeness, an injustice or a behaviour I don’t like, I ask myself “What would Mma Ramotswe do?” (WWMRD?) How can this problem be solved in a way that respects everybody’s autonomy, encourages each person to take responsibility for their own actions and treats the child as a person in their own right, rather than a puppet, expected to dance when we pull their strings (which, by the way is the American approach to international diplomacy!)
Mma Ramtoswe isn’t perfect. She isn’t even real. She doesn’t have all the answers. She makes mistakes. But she’s prepared to admit it as the following passage demonstrates:
Mr J.L.B Matekoni looked suprised.
‘I can’t imagine you making any mistakes,’ he said. ’You’re too clever for that. You would look at all the possibilities and then choose the right one. Every time.’
Mma Ramotswe snorted.
We all make mistakes. We don’t usually need to punish each other. We just have to admit when we’re wrong.
Sarah
I think restorative justice is a great concept. But it is really important that there are logical consequences for the child as well as an attempt to get them to see what they have done wrong. I worked as a teacher in a school about five years ago which claimed to use “restorative justice” but they forgot about the justice side of it (this is when it got to the executive). Kids learnt that as long as they said the right answers then they would be able to walk out of the principal’s office scott free – the result was a complete breakdown in the behaviour of a large number of the students because they knew they would get away with it (I’m talking about students throwing chairs, completely ignoring instructions, rampant bullying etc). It’s not about punishment, though, it is about consequence. And it needs to be delivered in a loving way (that is, not come from anger or a desire to hurt).
katrinaroe
Very interesting. I think a lot of people misinterpret ‘restorative justice’ as ‘just be nice to each other’ but it actually should be quite difficult and hard work, not the easy way out. The person who has done wrong actually has to make amends in some way and in a relational way (not just picking up papers or writing out lines, which has nothing to do with the original transgression.) I recently heard a study that said getting prison inmates to face their victims had absolutely no success in reducing the rate of reoffenders and was actually just traumatic for the victims because the offenders did not actually show remorse or learn empathy. The reason for that is because it’s actually too late. It’s very hard to develop empathy later in life if it doesn’t develop properly during childhood.
Sarah
I completely agree, and that was where these school leaders had fallen down. Logical consequences is the catch term that I am familiar with and you have perfectly described what that means. Of course, the logical consequence to a misbehaviour will be different for different people (including the nature of the child involved) – it’s definitely something you need to feel your way with and adjust for your own family, I think
Nath
Thanks Katrina for this reminder about pursuing behaviour strategies that are creative and restorative for relationship. I know I can too easily resort to punitive measures in both parenting and teaching as an immediate but not necessarily effective solution, as you have well outlined.
I recently used a restorative method in a school setting. It did also have a punitive effect as the students complained when I set them the task that they would rather be suspended. The situation involved two students, male and female, with an Intellectual Impairment and low social skills who regularly verbally abuse each other. On this particular day the incident included the most foul language you can think of, the details of which are too indecent to be posted here. For not the first time it ended with a physical altercation. Ordinarily it is common procedure to suspend students for fighting, and in an Acting position I had the authority to do so. I decided instead to speak to them individually and set them a challenge: They had until lunchtime to come up with three positive comments to say to the other person in my presence. They could research by asking other staff and students and they had to ensure the compliments weren’t actually backhanded ie.”you are good at being stupid”. Well surprisingly they did both manage to achieve the task! Not without some reluctance however and a reference to the third person on one occasion “they say you are really helpful”. I didn’t say they had to be convinced of the positives, but merely hoped to open their minds to the possibility that there were at least some redeeming qualities about the other! And for one day at least it was more of a win-win situation than being denied access to a formal education for a few days.
I would like to do this more, particularly when it involves relational incidents. However I do see a place for obedience especially as it relates to the personal safety of children. Many safeguards and preventative measures, including education should be put in place but I also want direct and unquestioning obedience to be an available strategy for me to use if necessary. As you mentioned: “I’m not saying that there’s never a time to send a child to their room or put them on the naughty step, but you need to be clear on why you are doing it and be sure that it makes sense in the context of what you’re trying to teach them.” An example for me would be a situation in which I am momentarily distracted and my 2 year old son decides to chase a bird onto the road and I do not have time to physically stop him. I NEED to be able to say ‘STOP’ and have him stop immediately exactly where he is. Later I will have time to explain to him again (for the 15th time) about road safety and the consequences of him being hit by a car. But in that moment he needs to do exactly as I ask. This needs to be trained prior to such event. Yes, ideally he will be rewarded with praise (and at times other items) when he does obey. But when you consider that when it comes to a situation such as this in which his life is on the line I won’t just rely on positive reinforcement. If there is any chance that punishment will be a deterrent then I will not hesitate to use it as well. If the worst imaginable outcome was to take place after a moment of disobedience I would not like to have the lingering thought that I had not tried every available method to train my child to obey in such a situation. This of course is just one example but I think it illustrates your point above.
In the adult world I am glad we have punitive methods such as fines for speeding. For someone like me, although I know that going over a certain speed in a particular location will increase the likelihood of accident and hence critical injury, it is the threat of a fine that actually prevents me from going over the speed limit. It is not ideal, and maybe it has been trained into us, but for me and many others it is the artificial deterrent rather than empathy in such a situation that stops me from doing something that will potentially harm others.
katrinaroe
Nathan, Thanks for your thoughtful and insightful comments. It’s interesting that the kids would have preferred to be suspended. That is a very common response to restorative justice techniques. The kids would rather be punished with a suspension or detention because that is easier on them emotionally and takes less effort. But it also doesn’t produce changes in behaviour in those children who are immune to it.
Also your examples about road safety are also worth commenting on. In the example of the child running after the bird onto the road, the emphasis is on training. So just like teaching a dog, you hammer in the behaviour through consistent repetition and consequences. It’s not something that you need to allow for different needs or interpretation. In fact you want to eliminate the possibility of any room for deviation. So consistency is vital. And so is trust. When I yell stop to my daughter in an urgent voice, she stops because she trusts me and she hears I’m serious, as well as the fact that we’ve hammered in road safety week after week. And with the speeding fine, the punishment works because it’s actually a disincentive to do the wrong thing. And you’re right, we need it because we don’t always have enough empathy to consider others when we’re late or focussed on our own need to get from A to B. So most of the time, the fine works to stop us speeding. But people still get speeding fines because it also gives us the option to choose the punishment. Some people will take the calculated risk that actually this time they will speed and are prepared to take that risk. Children may also decide they will risk the punishment to get the thing they want or express the feeling they want to express. The important thing is that we all know what the consequence will be and why that rule is important enough to warrant the punishment or consequence.