The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    cmaukonen's picture

    Ritual Abuse or Why some people like torture

    By cmaukonen on Wed, 05/18/2011 - 7:54pm |



    "Speak roughly to you little boy and beat him when he sneezes. He only does it to annoy because he knows it teases." - Louis Carol

    Severely punishing ones children by beating them was considered the appropriate behavior for a long time. Most especially among those in the Abrahamic religions.  Unfortunately this is still true today far too often. The psychological consequences of which are still denied by those who practice it. In fact they will defend this behavior quite vehemently.  As Brian Enright says in this article.

    In my years as a family therapist I talked to hundreds of parents.  One of the biggest brick walls that I would frequently run into was the fact that MANY parents of children who had emotional/behavioral problems believed STRONGLY in, and defended, the practice of regularly "disciplining" their children by hitting, even beating them.

    I'm not talking about an occasional light tap on the butt.

    These parents couldn't seem to understand the difference between discipline and abuse--both physical and verbal.  Most of them fiercely defended their behavior.   And they seemed totally blind to the negative effects that such behavior had on their unfortunate children.

    It turned out that many--if not most of these parents--had been hit or beaten themselves when they were small. I remember one man who almost proudly told me, "My father hit me with a wooden two-by-four and it did ME good!"
    One might wonder how anyone could defend such a practice. But then how can anyone defend beating ones wife or how a woman could remain in such a relationship.  And to admit that this kind of behavior on their part is abusive would also require them to admit that their parent behavior was also abusive. This facing the truth about ones self and their lives can be very difficult if not impossible for some.
    Was this an example of unconscious "loyalty" to their own parents?--not wanting to admit or believe that their parents were abusive?  
    Was it an  unconscious "defense mechanism' in which the child unknowingly denies and buries his pain from his young memory and blindly "identifies" with his abusive parent, only to later take it out on others, like his or her OWN children?

    George Santayana wrote that "When experience is not retained those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it."

    One wonders about why so many people grow up with a "lack of empathy" for others.  That, and the lack of a conscience, are the chief characteristics of what we call "sociopathic" behavior.  Researchers now now say that many people--not just ruthless criminals--display sociopathic behavioral traits.

    Alice Miller wrote that Adolph Hitler once told his secretary how, during one of the routine beatings that his father gave him, he had managed to stop himself from crying, TO FEEL NOTHING and to even count the thirty-two strokes that he received.

    What permitted Hitler to later--without any show of conscience or pity--act out such hatred and violence toward others?  Is it perhaps because he had buried his own childhood abuse?

    That he had never learned to empathize with his own pain?  That he had had no parental figure available to empathize with him as a child?

    One thinks of sexual predators--many, if not most of them, who were once sexually abused themselves. 
     
    How many of us were raised  in "authoritarian" households, by parents who used power and fear to raise "obedient" children?  Studies have shown that many adults who are raised by such parents tend to become authoritarian themselves when they grow up.

    Or they tend to admire or and be submissive to leaders who, like their parents, have authoritarian personalities.

    This kind of parenting behavior is most prevalent in those who adhere to a very fundamentalist Christian view, using the bible to justify it. I myself have see the results of this kind of abuse.  And the mental and emotional abuse is even worse, believe it or not.  Interestingly enough children who are spoiled - given their every hearts desire - often turn out exactly the same.  Since these children are given "things" as a substitute for love and empathy and compassion. The author goes on the suggest that his may have something to do with why some people see no problem with extreme interrogations such as water-boarding.
    I believe that many of those people who were raised with--let us call it "tough" parenting--tend to believe otherwise, that  only such aggressive methods as waterboarding are effective ways of getting others to "obey"  and "tell the truth".

    I believe that such things as water-boarding also serve as an excuse to vicariously act out one's own long-denied fear and anger by"punishing" the prisoner's evil behavior.

    As it was with most of the parents who I treated in therapy--who reacted with defensiveness, anger and even rage when I confronted their beliefs in corporal punishment, tried to explain the ineffectiveness of such behavior and persuade them to use less abusive parenting strategies--I expect that many of my readers will also angrily disagree with and fiercly attack the validity of my beliefs.

    That is why I don't believe that there will ever be an end to the debate over such things as water-boarding.

    But this is but one factor. There are many others to consider.  One can only wonder whether this kind of behavior is behind other beliefs of the right wing and even some who profess to be on the left as well.  As a society can we really justify this kind of behavior on religious grounds or the sanctity of the family ? We used to allow the burning of witches and other horrendous acts this way but they are no longer permitted.  Should we still be allowing this now that we are fairly sure of the consequences ?

    Comments

    My dad, when he was the chair of the Academy of Pediatrics, was invited by anti-spanking-activist Rob Reiner to participate in a televised debate with pro-spanking-(anti-wanking)-activist Rev. Jerry Falwell. It fell though though.

    Incidentally, James Dobson rose to prominence among the religious right because of the success of his book, Dare to Discipline.

    What is it about spanking and the religious right?


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 05/18/2011 - 11:17pm

    This is just a guess on my part but.....I think it's the abusive treatment and authoritarian family style that attracts them to the fundamentalist religions. And abusive authoritative God.


    by cmaukonen on Wed, 05/18/2011 - 11:25pm

    What is it about spanking and the religious right?

    I think it was something they read by a reputedly wise Jewish leader:

    • "He who spareth the rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him correcteth him betimes" (Proverbs 13:24)
    • "Withhold not correction from a child: for if thou strike him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell." (Proverbs 23:13-14)

    The problem with holy books is even non-literal-minded people tend to take things literally when their eternal soul is at stake.  


    by EmmaZahn on Thu, 05/19/2011 - 12:27am

    {shakes head} Ho...boy.....


    by cmaukonen on Thu, 05/19/2011 - 9:02am

    I have a few comments. First, spanking a child who is doing something dangerous and is not yet old enough to properly reason with is not the same thing as beating and abuse. Let's please try to distinguish these.

    Second, this essay is replete with hasty generalization. A couple of Old Testament proverbs does not mean that spanking is a central tenant [tenet] in Christian religion. And don't throw James Dobson at me because he is not a Christian. His messages have little to do with love, or forgiveness, or humility. Those were the three fundamental teachings of Christ--along with aiding those in need. I don't remember Him saying a word about spanking. In fact, the only angry words from Christ were directed at the religious leaders of His day.


    by The Decider on Thu, 05/19/2011 - 9:32am

    One perspective on this is from looking at from Kohlberg's stages of moral development.

     

    Level 1 (Pre-Conventional)
    1. Obedience and punishment orientation
    (How can I avoid punishment?)
    2. Self-interest orientation
    (What's in it for me?)
    (Paying for a benefit)
    Level 2 (Conventional)
    3. Interpersonal accord and conformity
    (Social norms)
    (The good boy/good girl attitude)
    4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation
    (Law and order morality)
    Level 3 (Post-Conventional)
    5. Social contract orientation
    6. Universal ethical principles
    (Principled conscience)

    Young children cannot be expected to operate beyond the pre-conventional since they don't have access to the abstract thinking necessary for the higher levels.  Using punishment or rewards is the easiest path of control and "good behavior" since it is what the children will easily understand.  Of course, the easiest of all is the threat of violence which can administered anywhere at anytime. And rarely do the adults take the time to place in a higher level morality context.  it's just you did bad...whack.  It is too much effort to explain why it's bad even if the kid doesn't quite get it.

    I think part of the problem is that many adults never advance beyond the pre-conventional stage whether it is the Wall Street broker who takes down the economy in the quest for profits or the religious fanatic that needs the fear of a God to make them do the right thing.

    But for many the turning to violence to shape their kids behavior and deal with behavior that is unacceptable comes from either they are too lazy to think of a punishment/reward system that isn't abusive, or they are basically incapable of being that creative.

    Moreover, if someone is operating for the most part in this mode, then they generally won't be able to understand people who are guided by higher levels of morality.  They will see success from interrogation techniques coming from finding either the right punishment or right reward to motivate the person.  If someone believes that the one being interrogated is "evil" - like a terrorist - then the only motivation that would work would be the fear of severe punishment. 


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 05/19/2011 - 9:46am

    Moreover, if someone is operating for the most part in this mode, then they generally won't be able to understand people who are guided by higher levels of morality.  They will see success from interrogation techniques coming from finding either the right punishment or right reward to motivate the person.  If someone believes that the one being interrogated is "evil" - like a terrorist - then the only motivation that would work would be the fear of severe punishment.

    Of course we are seeing that this works real well.....NOT.


    by cmaukonen on Thu, 05/19/2011 - 9:55am

    Waterboarding is sometimes the best answer.

    That was the course of last resort, for my son anyway.

    Well i can do anything I want to do!

    Yeah, at six you can do anything you want to do!

    And it was time to get aboard and get him on board, if you know what I mean.


    by Richard Day on Thu, 05/19/2011 - 4:45pm

    Interesting comments so far. From what I gather though, not only is it acceptable to hit you kids - it may even be acceptable to beat the living crap out of them on occasion.

    So much for progressive-ism.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Laughing


    by cmaukonen on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 11:16am