Your Child Today and Tomorrow | Page 7

would you have done or
said to Jennie?
In the answers the most striking thing is the range of reasons given by
the children for punishing Jennie. There are three prominent reasons.
The first is clearly for revenge. Jennie was a bad girl; she made her
mother unhappy; she must be made unhappy. She made her mother
angry; she must be made angry. A boy of ten says: "I would have sent
Jennie to bed and not given her any supper, and then she would get
mad and cry." One boy of nine says: "If I had been that woman I would
have half killed her." A sweet (?) little girl would make her "paint
things until she is got enough of it." Another girl: "If I had been
Jennie's mother, I would of painted Jennie's face and hands and toes. I
would of switched her well. I would of washed her mouth out with soap
and water, and I should stand her on the floor for half an hour."
This view was taken mostly by the younger children.
The second reason for punishing is to prevent a repetition of the act. A
thirteen year old girl says: "I would take the paints away and not let her
have them until she learned not to do that again." When a threat is used
it is with the same idea in view: "I wouldn't do anything just then, but I
would have said: 'If you do that any more I would whip you and send
you to bed besides!'" All trace of revenge has disappeared.

The third stage of punishment is higher still. Jennie is punished in order
to reform her. In the previous examples the act was all-important. Now
Jennie and her moral condition come into the foreground. None of the
younger children take the trouble to explain to Jennie why it was wrong
to paint the parlor chairs. A large percentage of the older ones do so
explain.
A country boy of fourteen says: "I would have took her with me into
the parlor, and I would have talked to her about the injury she had done
to the chairs, and talked kindly to her, and explained to her that the
paints were not what was put on chairs to make them look nice."
A girl of sixteen says: "I think that the mother was very unwise to lose
her temper over something which the child had done to please her. I
think it would have been far wiser in her to have kissed the little one,
and then explained to her how much mischief she had done in trying to
please her mother."
We can see from this study that the children themselves are capable of
reaching a rather lofty attitude toward wrong-doing and punishment,
yet these children when grown up--that is, we ourselves--so frequently
return to a more primitive way of looking at these problems. In
punishing our children we go back to the method of the five- and
six-year-old.
What is the reason for our apparent back-sliding? Is it not plainly the
fact that we allow ourselves to be mastered by the animal instinct to
strike back? When the child does something that causes annoyance or
even damage, do we stop to consider his motive, his "intent," or do we
only respond to the result of his action? Do we have a studied policy
for treating his offence, or do we slide back to the desire to "get even"
or to "pay him" for what he has done?
Sometimes a very small offence will have grave consequences, while a
really serious fault may cause but little trouble.
Here, for instance, is Harry, who was so intent upon chasing the
woodchuck that he ran through the new-sown field, trampling down the

earth. He caused considerable damage. If your punishment assumes the
proportion dictated by the anger which the harm caused, he certainly
will be dealt with severely. Knowing that he had not meant to do wrong,
he cannot help but feel the injustice of your wrath. Of course, he has
been careless and he must be impressed with the harm such
carelessness can cause. Whether you lock him in a room or deprive him
of some special pleasure, or whether you merely talk to him, depends
upon you and upon Harry. But one thing must be certain: Harry must
not get the notion that you are avenging yourself upon him for the harm
he has done, or for the ill-feeling aroused by his act--he must not feel
that "you are taking it out of him" because you have been made angry.
This brings us to the old rule: Never punish in anger.
On the other hand, while we must allow every trace of anger to
disappear, we must not