From a cultural point of view NZ is of western cultural heritage but striving for more equality.
Most families have been subject to the 'strict father model' of child rearing and this is endemic in our culture. I insert a paper below for reference.
Our systems of governance in this regard try to provide equality by patching up a problem, which inevitably ends up unjust to one or another.
Fathers (and mothers, and others) need to understand the 'nurturant parent model' of child rearing before changes will occur.
Parenting Styles, and their Impact on Children:
Humiliation, Abuse and Neglect
Lindner, Evelin Gerda (2005). Parenting Styles, and their Impact on Children: Humiliation, Abuse and Neglect. In Sahil, 14 (32, April-June), 9
Evelin Gerda Lindner, MD, PhD, PhD (Dr psychol, Dr med)
Social scientist
Founder of Human Dignity and Humiliation Studies (www.humiliationstudies.org)
and affiliated to
the University of Oslo, Department of Psychology (http://folk.uio.no/evelinl/),
to the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) in Trondheim, Department of Psychology,
the Maison des Sciences de l'Homme, Paris,
and in cooperation with
the Columbia University Conflict Resolution Network, New York
February 2005
For thousands of years, almost everywhere on the globe, humankind believed in hierarchically ranking human value. Almost everybody thought that some people were born as higher beings and others as lower beings. This was called the order of natureor divine order The cradle of democracy, the Greek city state of about 2,000 years ago - just to give you one example out of many - was adamant that women and slaves, per definition, had no voice.
Any pain or suffering that those had to endure who had their place somewhere at the bottom of the pyramid of power was deemed to be necessary pain or prosocial humbling. Through thousands of years, underlings sufferings were regarded as goodfor them and fruitfulfor the health of society as a whole. Beating underlings, for example, was usually regarded not as abuse, but as legitimate means to remindthem of their dueplace. Vaccinations or surgical operation, albeit painful, are generally accepted as good treatmentfor patients; this is a positive view of pain that everybody sympathizes with. Similarly, for millennia, underlings pain was seen as good treatmentfor underlings and the health of society altogether.
Strict Father Model
Parents typically were central to reproducing obedient underlings. Alice Miller (1983), spelled out how, in the period that lead up to the two World Wars, leading pedagogues of the time regarded breaking the will of the child as essential for childrearing. Lakoff and Johnson (1999) describe the underlying framework with what they call the Strict Father model (as opposed to the Nurturant Parent model):
The father has authority to determine the policy that will govern the family. Because of his moral authority, his commands are to be obeyed. He teaches his children right from wrong by setting strict rules for their behavior and by setting a moral example in his own life. He enforces these moral rules by reward and punishment. The father also gains his childrens cooperation by showing love and by appreciating them when they obey the rules. But children must not be coddled, lest they become spoiled. A spoiled child lacks the appropriate moral values and lacks the moral strength and discipline necessary for living independently and meeting lifes challenges. The mother has day-to-day responsibility for the care of the household, raising the children; and upholding the fathers authority. Children must respect and obey their parents, because of the parents moral authority. Through their obedience they learn the discipline and self-reliance that is necessary to meet lifes challenges. This self-discipline develops in them strong moral character. Love and nurturance are a vital part of family life, but they should never outweigh parental authority, which is itself an expression of love and nurturance - tough love. As children mature, the virtues of respect for moral authority, self-reliance, and self-discipline allow them to incorporate their fathers moral values. In this way they incorporate their fathers moral authority they become self-governing and self-legislating (Lakoff & Johnson (1999), pp. 313-314).
The result is described by Lakoff and Johnson as follows,
Evidence from three areas of psychological research attachment theory, socialization theory, and family violence studies shows that the Strict Father model tends to produce children who are dependent on the authority of others, cannot chart their own moral course very well, have less of a conscience, are less respectful of others, and have no greater ability to resist temptations (Lakoff & Johnson (1999), p. 327).
Thus, the Strict Father model seems to produce what Theodor Adorno called the authoritarian personality whose principal characteristic is obedience and preparedness to blindly following orders, irrespective of their moral contents (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick, Levinson, & Sanford (1950)).
Nurturant Parent Model
Around 300 - 250 years ago, the Human Rights revolution began to undermine the belief that it is natures orderto have lower and higher beings. In 1757, a new meaning of the word humiliation emerged. Up to 1757 the verb to humiliate meant nothing worse than to lower or to humble, or to show underlings their legitimate lowly place, without any connotation that this may also signify an illegitimate violation. This we learn from the Oxford English Dictionary with regard to the English language. I quote from Miller (1993), who informs us that the earliest recorded use of to humiliate meaning to mortify or to lower or to depress the dignity or self-respect of someone does not occur until 1757.
Article 1 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulates that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.This declaration represents a revolution insofar as it upsets the hierarchical ranking of human worthiness that was in place for millennia and calls for a new order, namely the order of equal dignity for all. In this new order it is regarded illegitimate to put down people; putting down people, beating and punishing them cruelly, is no longer labeled as prosocial humblingbut as abusive antisocial humiliation. As might be expected, this revolution has consequences also for parenting.
Lakoff and Johnson allude to this when they describe the Nurturant Parent model of rearing children. This model describes a parenting style that abides by the new Human Rights ideals. What formerly was regarded as goodfor children, turns into abuse and neglect in the new nurturant framework.
Many parents fear that being nurturant means being lenient and permissive. Yet, nurturant parenting has nothing to do with leniency. It combines firmness with respect for equal dignity. Lakoff and Johnson write, Nurturant Parent morality is not, in itself, overly permissive. Just as letting children do whatever they want is not good for them, so helping other people to do whatever they please is likewise not proper nurturance. There are limits to what other people should be allowed to do, and genuine nurturance involves setting boundaries and expecting others to act responsibly(Lakoff & Johnson (1999), p. 316).
The point with the Nurturing Parent model is that lessonsare no longer taught by putting down children. Breakingchildren is no longer permissible. Lessonsare now to be taught with firm love and humility, no longer by applying humiliation.
To summarize, we all, parents included, live in the midst of a historic transition from concepts of ranked human worthiness to visions of equal dignity for all. We all are embedded in some way or another within this transition, either by welcoming it or resisting it, and in all cases by being confused by it. It is a difficult transition even for the most fervent human rights enthusiast because it is easy to lose orientation.
We lose orientation not least because old recipes still sound so right. For example, is it so bad to sometimes hit a child? Have we not all survived such treatment? And was it not to our own good? And what about the treatment of women? Should not women be careful not to lose their femininity[= submissiveness as lower beings]? Many such questions confuse our minds in times of transition.
What we have not yet developed are new proverbs and new sayings that sound equally rightas the old ones. The new world is not yet there while the old world disappears. We need to develop new language, new proverbs and sentences that highlight that lessonsare no longer to be taught by humiliation, but with love and humility.
Reference List
Adorno, Theodor W., Frenkel-Brunswick, Else, Levinson, Daniel J., & Sanford, R. Nevitt (1950). The authoritarian personality. (First ed.). New York, NY: Harper.
Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Miller, Alice (1983). For your own good: Hidden cruelty in child-rearing and the roots of violence. London: Virago Press, see the afterword also on http://members.xoom.com/childhistory/victim.htm, retrieved May 22, 2000.
Miller, William Ian (1993). Humiliation and other essays on honor, social discomfort, and violence. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
