Torture, abuse or discipline?

Torture, abuse or discipline?

      What is abuse? Applied equally to drug use, alcohol, gambling, or domestic situations where spouses, parents or children are mistreated, the word "abuse" has come to signify anything society holds in disfavor. I've even heard it used in reference to the environment. But what does it actually mean?

      Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language says "abuse" is:

      (1) to use wrongly or improperly; misuse; (to abuse one's rights or authority.) (2) to treat in a harmful, injurious or offensive way (to abuse a horse, to abuse one's eyesight) (3) to speak insultingly, harshly, and unjustly to or about; revile or malign. (4) to commit indecent assault upon. (5) to deceive; cheat. (6) to abuse one-self, to masturbate. (7) wrong or improper use, misuse. (8) harshly or coarsely insulting language. (9) bad or improper treatment; maltreatment (the child was subjected to cruel abuse.) (10) a corrupt or improper practice or custom (the abuses of bad government.) (11) rape or indecent assault.

      Note that "child abuse" is far down on this list of definitions, #9, after abuse of horses, deception, cheating, indecency, insults and masturbation, which is hardly considered an abuse, and just two definitions higher than rape which is last on the list. None of these 11 definitions includes the words "pain" or "suffering", "agony" or "anguish."

      On the other hand, Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language defines "torture" as:

      (1) the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty. (2) a method of inflicting such pain. (3) often, tortures, the pain or suffering caused or undergone. (4) extreme anguish of body or mind; agony. (5) a cause of severe pain or anguish. (6) to subject to torture. (7) to subject to severe pain of body or mind (my back tortures me.) (8) to force or extort by torture (we'll torture the truth from his lips!) (9) to twist, force, or bring into some unnatural position or form. (10) to distort or pervert.

      The few examples of torture most of us know are the accounts from survivors of the holocaust or from prisoners of war captured during the Second World War, Korea and Vietnam. And the stories are horrifying. Whatever their torture consisted of, however it was administered, they had three elements in common:

      1. Those who were tortured were powerless to prevent it.

      2. Whether the torture was physical, sexual or psychological, those who were tortured suffered extreme pain.

      3. For those who were tortured, their survival was in question.

      It is hardly necessary to point out that in these three elements, there is no difference between the torture inflicted upon these prisoners and the torture inflicted upon helpless children. The suffering of children who are unable to tell about it, however, is downgraded to "abuse" while survivors of war crimes are accorded the dignity of a term that accurately describes their experience; they were "tortured!"

      While the #1 definition of torture needs to be expanded to "for sheer cruelty or perverse gratification," no one is really in doubt about what torture is. Torture is almost synonymous with unbearable pain and suffering. The word "abuse," however, does not automatically bring that picture to mind. Abuse is a softer word; using it lowers pain and suffering to the level of being deceived, cheated or insulted. While there are degrees of torture, degrees of abuse, including them all under the least offensive umbrella obliterates their differences, downgrading them all to the lowest level of offense. "Abuse" is truly the lowest common denominator.

      Downgrading horrifying acts in the public perception has ruled out any kind of rational and realistic definitions, guidelines or procedures for dealing with either torture or abuse and has, as a by-product, created a far greater problem. With no clarity in this issue, the broad umbrella of "abuse" has become synonymous, not with torture, but with discipline.

      Again, according to Websters, "discipline" means (1) training to act in accordance with rules, (2) instruction and exercise designed to train to proper conduct or action, (3) punishment inflicted by way of correction and training. And under "punish," (1) to subject to pain, loss, confinement, etc. Websters goes on to say "To discipline is to give a kind of punishment which will educate or will establish useful habits."

      The punishment aspect of discipline has come under fire. Attempting to curb the abuses inherent in excessive (too often) and extreme (too severe) physical punishment, today's politically correct society takes the position that all disciplinary touching is abusive and has virtually eliminated it altogether. (And some even argue that touching of any kind, even hugging, is actionable by child protection agencies.)

Unintended consequences

      The law of unintended consequences argues that the long term effects of this policy will not be its intentions but its unintended consequences.

      Eliminating a prime element of discipline, parental authority has been eliminated as well. Discipline establishes a parent's authority to be in charge, to make and enforce rules and regulations. With parental authority firmly established in a child's formative years, the incident by incident struggles for control seldom occur, and children have the environment, the guidance and the time to grow into responsible maturity. But parents who don't enforce their authority, or relinquish it too soon, allow young children who believe there are no limits and no consequences to step into the vacuum and assume power and control -- not only over themselves, but over their parents as well.

      In addition, many schools, social services, legislators and courts undermine what little parental authority there is by implementing socially correct policies based on the premise that parental abuse of children is not the exception to the rule, but IS the rule; that every child is a victim and every parent guilty.

      In this atmosphere, parents who do try to discipline their children put themselves, their families and their children at risk. Any criticism, by anybody, will guarantee some degree of governmental inquiry. And, lacking legal standards and guidelines that discriminate between "abuse" and discipline, the legal machinery proceeds against them on the basis of someone's personal opinion, and there is a wide divergence of opinion about discipline. Any parent may be arrested and prosecuted, may experience crushing legal fees, go to jail and even lose their children. Sadly, the abused and terrified children are too afraid to report their parents to the authorities; those who do are the defiant ones already out of parental control.

      Afraid to discipline them, many parents try to control their children by other means -- by ineffective time-outs, by reward, by pleading or threats, by manipulation, by rejection, shame and guilt, by outside counselling or by medication. Or, following the "permissive" school of thought, make no attempt to train or control them at all. And these techniques are far, far more damaging to the child's psychological well-being and development than spanking ever was.

      Far more damaging than that, allowing children to be in control creates an artificial environment that distorts their perceptions of reality and their expectations of life. Trained (or untrained) to believe they can do anything they want, they are made incapable of understanding or coping with authority and rules, with consequences and punishment, with pain and the lack of control most of us learned to deal with as children. Real life, for many of them, is a shattering disillusionment, a betrayal, leading to a deep-seated, smoldering and violent rage.

      Even in nature, childhood is the training ground for adulthood. Offspring learn to survive because their parents are in charge. Otherwise, they die. In this culture, the offspring are in charge, and they are dying! The rising rate of child violence and killing is a manifestation of nature's law in human terms.

But this is not the worst of it!

      Not too long ago, in this community alone, a three year old was beaten and kicked to death just months after the agency had returned the child to her abusive mother, and after two reports to the agency she was being tortured again! The child, herself, had talked to a relative on the phone saying, "Will somebody please come and get me?" But nobody came.

      The state agency knew about this little girl and still she slipped through the cracks. Why? Were personnel grossly incompetent? irresponsible? swamped? Absolutely. But, more than that. By being too broad, their policies not only overloaded both the system and the personnel, they buried a real abuser among too many other parents and too many trivial complaints. With such non-selective criteria, they could not distinguish one from the others.
      A striking example of the governmental "thinking" behind this escalating problem was recently illustrated on TV. After another child's torture and death, the state agency's response was "Don't want something like this happening on my watch. We'll be taking even more children away from their parents!" Talk about overloading the system!

      While legislators wring their hands, wondering why the problem hasn't been solved, they blame the gun makers, the movie makers, television, video games and the internet. They lay the blame on parents for not "controlling" their children, blame the schools for not preventing cliques, blame the children for being insensitive. Their too broad policies making the situation worse, they blame everyone but themselves.

      Granted, they've had little to base their policies on but opinion. If, however, the punishment of a child was seen to fall on a continuum somewhere between torture and discipline, "abuse" could be defined. Then, with its severity being judged upon its approach to torture i.e.: (1) the child's inability to prevent it, (2) suffering unbearable pain and (3) death, the policy makers would have rational and realistic guidelines, and the legal system could be restricted to prosecuting instances of actual torture and/or abuse.

      Only one state has recognized that the problem is their own, and their legislature has taken steps to remedy it. In Oklahoma, parents are permitted to spank their children. Evidently, the legislature believes Oklahoma parents have enough judgment and control to discipline their children without damaging them. By allowing normal spanking, the legislature has made great progress in returning authority and control to Oklahoma parents as well as culling many, if not most, of the trivial cases from their child-protection agencies.

      In "How to Prosper During the Hard Times Ahead" (published by Regnery Publishing, Inc. in 1999) on pages 207-209 in the chapter entitled "Rebuilding the American Family", Howard Ruff discusses the ways in which Sweden has preceeded the US on a path of self-destruction. In it's zeal to prevent child abuse, the Swedish Parliament passed legislation to make spanking illegal and, outlawing psychological abuse as well, made withholding a child's allowance against the law! When children have a dispute with their parents, they can call the authorities and report them; and they can "divorce" them as well.
      Mr. Ruff reports that Swedish tax law punishes one income families and rewards those where both parents work outside the home. Almost all their children, then, are left in the care of government-run day care centers. There, the children are indoctrinated with the government's secular, anti-religious policies; and, with sex education routine, the children are officially encouraged to experiment. Teen-age pregnancy is barely noticed and most children are born out of wedlock. Especially among the young, the rates of both suicide and alcoholism are second only to Russia. Quoting from Mr. Ruff, " Sweden has a generation of beautiful, blond, lawless, alcoholic, drug-ridden, promiscuous teen-agers and young adults. And the government is nearly bankrupt, with the highest tax rates in the world."

      In most states our own governmental policies will not change on their own. They've gone too far. Because of the enormity of the oppression and the pervasive nature of politically correct attitudes, concerned parents may have to unite and organize. Organizing will not only reduce their individual risks but will generate money and political clout. With political power and the money to do it, parents can sue their state for infringing upon their parental rights. And when their cause is just, they can win! Only that will change the laws.
JH White

Not subjected to psychological abuse until three and a half years old, ET Aul was aware of the difference; she had prior experience to judge by. And, because her personality fragmented, the parts that remained children could access the information and tell about it. As a result, "As you desire me: the psychology of a multiple personality" gives remarkable insight into the hidden world of psychological abuse.

As you desire me: the psychology
of a multiple personality