By
On Thursday, Sept. 19, 2024, in Vanguard newspaper (also published by BlackBox Nigeria), Ganiyu Bamgbose (PhD)—hereafter GB— in an article titled “African Homes and the Missing Rod” (click to read article here), grants a seemingly normative argument for the use of corporal punishment in parenting. GB made a series of fallacious statements from cum hoc ergo propter hoc and post hoc ergo propter hoc (false cause), when drawing the correlation between being pampered and dissociation from a parent; to hasty generalizations—in the conclusion GB draws from his and other colleagues’ observation of a few students’ lifestyles—and unwarranted assumptions, which includes GB’s gerontocratic and absolutist interpretation of a younger generation’s socio-existential anxieties, among others. However, since a comprehensive rejoinder would span more than the space of an op-ed, I will reply only to the trope that runs through his view, which is corporal punishment—or the rod as he puts it. My main claim in this rejoinder is that GB’s proposal is dangerous and unsafe for child and adult well-being, and should therefore be rejected. I offer the following succinct recast of GB’s main argumentfor my purpose.
There is a connection between the pampering of children by parents and the dissociation of children from their parents. This dissociation is causal, as the more pampered children are the ones who are dissociated from their parents, meanwhile, the ones for whom the rod was not spared are the ones who are homely and connect to their parents. By logical inference, the cause of the dissociation of children from their parents has a one-to-one connection to the sort of parenting tactics adopted by parents. Contemporary parents have jettisoned the ways of the old, which includes the use of the rod on children. Although the use of the rod may be presumed by some people as problematic and reprehensible, the use of the rod is not the problem, but its absence is a source of moral degeneration, including the dissociation of children from their parents. Espousal of all of the old parenting tactics may not be possible at the moment, but there are some of the practices that must not be neglected. Of the identified oldtactics, the use of the rod stands out as efficacious. Therefore, having affirmed that the absence of the rod is the problem, the use of the rod should be endorsed to correct the social anomaly of children’s dissociation from their parents.
For the sake of logical charity, I concede that GB partially alludes to ‘the rod’ as a metaphor for discipline, but his obsession with the rodbetrays the metaphorical use when he asserts that “In conclusion, if the closer we get as parents is the farther they become as children, then we may conclude that the use of the rod is not the problem but the avoidance of its use”. My point is that although GB infusesancillary arguments into his claim, the central aim of his piece is to demonstrate how the missing rod in African homes is a testament topoor parenting, and that it consequently contributes to children’s dissociation from their parents—a condition he insinuates must not be condoned.
Corporal punishment in parenting falls within the category of violent parenting, and research has shown that it does not have an overall positive impact on the well-being of children. Contrary to GB’s unfounded and misleading claims, results from a variety of research conducted by behavioural psychologists, pediatricians, psychiatrists, and neuroscientists, among other professionals, show a link between corporal punishment in childhood and antisocial behavior, aggression, violent behaviour, and mental health impairment in adulthood. The World Health Organisation’s (2021) research reaches a similar conclusion. Additionally, Dr. Gabor Mate’s longtime research, which culminated in the documentary The Wisdom of Trauma, provides additional evidence for the aftermath of child abuse of the sort GB is proud to endorse.
Now, let me turn to some philosophical reflections on the traumatic response to the consequence of bodily and psychological abuse emanating from corporal punishment. There is no doubt that corporal punishment is often accompanied by verbal and psychological abuse, and, naturally, victims react to the traumatic effect later in life. There are two fundamental ways people respond to the aftermath trauma of child abuse of the corporal punishment bend: the first is the acknowledgment path; the second is denial. The first path is excruciatingly difficult, as the victim would need to come to full realization of their psychological burden and find ways to heal. The difficulty involved in this choice is that it could last even for a lifetime, as episodes of abuse would occasionally flash through the victim’s mind. It takes courage and quite a monumental risk to come to terms with one’s abusive childhood and attempt to heal from it. The other path is to live in denial of the abuse suffered; and this is the path that seems to appear attractive, especially when society permits it. When the latter choice is made, the victim would develop some coping mechanisms, and the chief among these is what I call moral neutralization. Through moral neutralization, the victim would accept actions leading to their trauma as morally permissible and even instrumental to their self-actualization as adults. Hence, certain expressions such as “If not for my parents’ beatings and stern discipline, I would not have turned out successful; it was their discipline that made it possible for me not to be wayward or derail as a child; there is nothing wrong with being beaten or scolded harshly, it is all for the best; being beaten is not child abuse, it is good parenting, and my parents had to do it because they loved me”, and several other denialist statements, which appear within the confines of moral neutralization would be used to conceal the innermost traumatic experience of abuse. What is worse about this approach is that the victim implicitly accepts to be a conduit for the transfer of similar actions to the next generation—most especially their offspring. This is where the cycle of abuse continues, and intergenerational trauma subsists, as parents pass it on to their children who then pass it on to the coming generation in succession. Away from the homestead, the school teacher, the Alfa ilekewu, the iya ile ookan, and the egbonadugbo, also often serve as conduits for intergenerational trauma; and it is for the sake of legitimization that these identified villains would deck their actions in the regalia of moral and socio-cultural responsibility.
GB makes one more remark with the asseveration that when we recall moments of corporal punishment with friends and siblings, it is with laughter. He fails to notice the nuances of temporal psychosocial relief that emanate from sharing our trauma with folks who had similarexperiences. It is the ‘you are not alone syndrome’ that is at play in such a situation. GB also omits how humor is sometimes used to dispel our innermost anxieties as humans, by mistaking what is often a convergence of eccedentesiasts for genuine laughter. In Nigeria’s media, for instance, humor has been a coping mechanism to the extent that the hypodermic-needle theory continues to hold. Having been biologically conditioned to respond to media stimuli, victims of child abuse are readily disposed to nodding and playing along with folk psychology when issues around trauma are raised humorously. The human psychological leaning permits such social performativity. However, such a scenario ought not to be confused with genuine happiness, as GB erroneously presumes. The point I am making here is that there is a sense of relief that comes with the discovery that one’s experience also relates to those of others and that one could perfectly perform psychosocial consonance—in this case, laughterworks as a trope.
That corporal punishment is socially acceptable does not rule out its moral reprehensibility. In short, those who champion the cessation of its use could be stirring the hornet’s nest, as its endorsement is appealing to the public of many societies, including Nigeria. So, when GB makes a case for the continued use of corporal punishment, weshould not necessarily take it as some novel, positive, contribution to public discourse and policy on parenting from the ivory tower. Rather, it should be seen as the paradox of ‘the gown’ dancing in the ‘town’square, with a banging scream of “eureka!”. In conclusion, while healthcare activists, child rights advocates, and other relevant professionals are working assiduously to eradicate corporal punishment because of its adverse effects, the view expressed by Ganiyu Bamgbose should be avoided for its lack of merit on the one hand, and its inexpert conclusion on the other hand.
Leye Komolafe writes from the Department of Philosophy, University of South Carolina, USA.
