Despite all the new talk of individuality the greatest mistake in

training children is still that of treating the "child" as an abstract

conception, as an inorganic or personal material to be formed and

transformed by the hands of those who are educating him. He is beaten,

and it is thought that the whole effect of the blow stops at the moment

when the child is prevented from being bad. He has, it is thought, a

powerful reminder against future bad behaviour. People no not suspect

that this violent interference in the physical and psychical life of

the child may have lifelong effects. As far back as forty years ago,

a writer showed that corporal punishment had the most powerful somatic

stimulative effects. The flagellation of the Middle Ages is known to

have had such results; and if I could publish what I have heard from

adults as to the effect of corporal punishment on them, or what I have

observed in children, this alone would be decisive in doing away with

such punishment in its crudest form. It very deeply influences the

personal modesty of the child. This should be preserved above everything

as the main factor in the development of the feeling of purity. The

father who punishes his daughter in this way deserves to see her some

day a "fallen woman." He injures her instinctive feeling of the sanctity

of her body, an instinct which even in the case of a small child can

be passionately profound. Only when every infringement of sanctity

(forcible caressing is as bad as a blow) evokes an energetic,

instinctive repulsion, is the nature of the child proud and pure.

Children who strike back when they are punished have the most promising

characters of all.

Numerous are the cases in which bodily punishment can occasion

irremediable damage, not suspected by the person who administers it,

though he may triumphantly declare how the punishment in the specific

case has helped. Most adults feel free to tell how a whipping has

injured them in one way or another, but when they take up the training

of their own children they depend on the effect of such chastisement.

What burning bitterness and desire for vengeance, what canine fawning

flattery, does not corporal punishment call forth. It makes the lazy

lazier, the obstinate more obstinate, the hard, harder. It strengthens

those two emotions, the root of almost all evil in the world, hatred and

fear. And as long as blows are made synonymous with education, both of

these emotions will keep their mastery over men.

One of the most frequent occasions for recourse to this punishment is

obstinacy, but what is called obstinacy is only fear or incapacity.

The child repeats a false answer, is threatened with blows, and again

repeats it just because he is afraid not to say the right thing. He

is struck and then answers rightly. This is a triumph of education;

refractoriness is overcome. But what has happened? Increased fear

has led to a strong effort of thought, to a momentary increase of

self-control. The next day the child will very likely repeat the fault.

Where there is real obstinacy on the part of children, I know of cases

when corporal punishment has filled them with the lust to kill, either

themselves or the person who strikes them. On the other hand I know of

others, where a mother has brought an obstinate child to repentance and

self-mastery by holding him quietly and calmly on her knees.

How many untrue confessions have been forced by fear of blows; how

much daring passion for action, spirit of adventure, play of fancy, and

stimulus to discovery has been repressed by this same fear. Even

where blows do not cause lying, they always hinder absolute

straightforwardness and the down-right personal courage to show oneself

as one is. As long as the word "blow" is used at all in a home, no

perfect honour will be found in children. So long as the home and the

school use this method of education, brutality will be developed in the

child himself at the cost of humanity. The child uses on animals, on

his young brothers and sisters, on his comrades, the methods applied to

himself. He puts in practice the same argument, that "badness" must be

cured with blows. Only children accustomed to be treated mildly, learn

to see that influence can be gained without using force. To see this

is one of man's privileges, sacrificed by man through descending to the

methods of the brute. Only by the child seeing his teacher always and

everywhere abstaining from the use of actual force, will he come himself

to despise force on all those occasions which do not involve the defence

of a weaker person against physical superiority. The foundation of the

desire for war is to be sought for less in the war games than in the

teachers' rod.

To defend corporal discipline, children's own statements are brought

in evidence, they are reported as saying they knew they deserved such

discipline in order to be made good. There is no lower example of

hypocrisy in human nature than this. It is true the child may be sincere

in other cases in saying that he feels that through punishment he has

atoned for a fault which was weighing upon his conscience. But this is

really the foundation of a false system of ethics, the kind which still

continues to be preached as Christian, namely; that a fault may be

atoned for by sufferings which are not directly connected with the

fault. The basis of the new morality is just the opposite as I have

already shown. It teaches that no fault can be atoned for, that no one

can escape the results of his actions in any way.

Untruthfulness belongs to the faults which the teacher thinks he must

most frequently punish with blows. But there is no case in which this

method is more dangerous.

When the much-needed guide-book for parents is published, the

well-known story of George Washington and the hatchet must appear in it,

accompanied by the remark which a clever ten-year-old child added to the

anecdote: "It is no trouble telling the truth when one has such a kind

father."

I formerly divided untruthfulness into unwilling, shameless, and

imaginative lies. A short time ago I ran across a much better division

of lying; first "cold" lies, that is, fully conscious untruthfulness

which must be punished, and "hot" lies; the expression of an excited

temperament or of a vigorous fancy. I agree with the author of this

distinction that the last should not be punished but corrected, though

not with a pedantic rule of thumb measure, based on how much it exceeds

or falls short of truth. It is to be cured by ridicule, a dangerous

method of education in general, but useful when one observes that this

type of untruthfulness threatens to develop into real untrustworthiness.

In dealing with these faults we are very strict towards children, so

strict that no lawyer, no politician, no journalist, no poet, could

exercise his profession if the same standard were applied to them as to

children.

The white lie is, as a French scientist has shown, partly caused by pure

morbidness, partly through some defect in the conception. It is due

to an empty space, a dead point in memory, or in consciousness, that

produces a defective idea or gives one no idea at all of what has

happened. In the affairs of everyday life the adults are often mistaken

as to their intentions or acts. They may have forgotten about their

actions, and it requires a strong effort of memory to call them back

into their minds; or they suggest to themselves that they have done, or

not done, something. In all of these cases, if they were forced to give

a distinct answer, they would lie. In every case of this kind, where a

child is concerned, the lie is assumed to be a conscious one, and when

on being submitted to a strict cross-examination, he hesitates, becomes

confused, and blushes, it is looked upon as a proof that he knows he has

been telling an untruth, although as a rule there has been no instance

of untruthfulness, except the finally extorted confession from the child

that he has lied. Yet in all these complicated psychological problems,

corporal punishment is treated as a solution.

The child who never hears lying at home, who does not see exaggerated

weight placed on small, merely external things, who is not made cowardly

by fear, who hears conscious lies always spoken of with contempt, will

get out of the habit of untruthfulness simply by psychological means.

First he will find that untruthfulness causes astonishment, and a

repetition of it, scorn and lack of confidence. But these methods should

not be applied to untruthfulness caused by distress or by richness of

imagination; or to such cases as originate from the obscure mental ideas

noted above, ideas whose connection with one another the child cannot

make clear to himself. The cold untruth on the other hand, must be

punished; first by going over it with the child, then letting him

experience its effect in lack of confidence, which will only be restored

when the child shows decided improvement in this regard. It is of the

greatest importance to show children full and unlimited confidence,

even though one quietly maintains an attitude of alert watchfulness; for

continuous and undeserved mistrust is just as demoralising as blind and

easy confidence.

No one who has been beaten for lying learns by it to love truth. The

accuracy of this principle is illustrated by adults who despise corporal

punishment in their childhood yet continue to tell untruths by word

and deed. Fear may keep the child from technical untruth, but fear also

produces untrustworthiness. Those who have been beaten in childhood for

lying have often suffered a serious injury immeasurably greater than

the direct lie. The truest men I ever knew lie voluntarily and

involuntarily; while others who might never be caught in a lie are

thoroughly false.

This corruption of personality begins frequently at the tenderest

age under the influence of early training. Children are given untrue

motives, half-true information; are threatened, admonished. The child's

will, thought, and feeling are oppressed; against this treatment

dishonesty is the readiest method of defence. In this way educators

who make truth their highest aim, make children untruthful. I watched

a child who was severely punished for denying something he had

unconsciously done, and noted how under the influence of this senseless

punishment he developed extreme dissimulation.

Truthfulness requires above everything unbroken determination; and many

nervous little liars need nourishing food and life in the open air, not

blows. A great artist, one of the few who live wholly according to the

modern principles of life, said to me on one occasion: "My son does not

know what a lie is, nor what a blow is. His step-brother, on the other

hand, lied when he came into our house; but lying did not work in the

atmosphere of calm and freedom. After a year the habit disappeared by

itself, only because it always met with deep astonishment."

This makes me, in passing, note one of the other many mistakes of

education, viz., the infinite trouble taken in trying to do away with

a fault which disappears by itself. People take infinite pains to teach

small children to speak distinctly who, if left to themselves, would

learn it by themselves, provided they were always spoken to distinctly.

This same principle holds good of numerous other things, in children's

attitude and behaviour, that can be left simply to a good example and to

time. One's influence should be used in impressing upon the child habits

for which a foundation must be laid at the very beginning of his life.

There is another still more unfortunate mistake, the mistake of

correcting and judging by an external effect produced by the act, by the

scandal it occasions in the environment. Children are struck for using

oaths and improper words the meaning of which they do not understand; or

if they do understand, the result of strictness is only that they go

on keeping silence in matters in which sincerity towards those who are

bringing them up is of the highest importance. The very thing the child

is allowed to do uncorrected at home, is not seldom corrected if it

happens away from home. So the child gets a false idea that it is not

the thing that deserves punishment, but its publicity. When a mother

is ashamed of the bad behaviour of her son she is apt to strike

him--instead of striking her own breast! When an adventurous feat fails

he is beaten, but he is praised when successful. These practices produce

demoralisation. Once in a wood I saw two parents laughing while the

ice held on which their son was sliding; when it broke suddenly they

threatened to whip him. It required strong self-control in order not

to say to this pair that it was not the son who deserved punishment but

themselves.

On occasions like these, parents avenge their own fright on their

children. I saw a child become a coward because an anxious mother struck

him every time he fell down, while the natural result inflicted on the

child would have been more than sufficient to increase his carefulness.

When misfortune is caused by disobedience, natural alarm is, as a rule,

enough to prevent a repetition of it. If it is not sufficient blows have

no restraining effect; they only embitter. The boy finds that adults

have forgotten their own period of childhood; he withdraws himself

secretly from this abuse of power, provided strict treatment does

not succeed in totally depressing the level of the child's will and

obstructing his energies.

This is certainly a danger, but the most serious effect of corporal

punishment is that it has established an unethical morality as its

result. Until the human being has learnt to see that effort, striving,

development of power, are their own reward, life remains an unbeautiful

affair. The debasing effects of vanity and ambition, the small and great

cruelties produced by injustice, are all due to the idea that failure or

success sets the value to deeds and actions.

A complete revolution in this crude theory of value must come about

before the earth can become the scene of a happy but considerate

development of power on the part of free and fine human beings. Every

contest decided by examinations and prizes is ultimately an immoral

method of training. It awakens only evil passions, envy and the

impression of injustice on the one side, arrogance on the other. After I

had during the course of twenty years fought these school examinations,

I read with thorough agreement a short time ago, Ruskin's views on the

subject. He believed that all competition was a false basis of stimulus,

and every distribution of prizes a false means. He thought that the

real sign of talent in a boy, auspicious for his future career, was

his desire to work for work's sake. He declared that the real aim of

instruction should be to show him his own proper and special gifts, to

strengthen them in him, not to spur him on to an empty competition with

those who were plainly his superiors in capacity.

Moreover it ought not to be forgotten that success and failure involve

of themselves their own punishment and their own reward, the one bitter,

the other sweet enough to secure in a natural way increased strength,

care, prudence, and endurance. It is completely unnecessary for the

educator to use, besides these, some special punishments or special

rewards, and so pervert the conceptions of the child that failure seems

to him to be a wrong, success on the other hand as the right.

No matter where one turns one's gaze, it is notorious that the

externally encouraging or awe-inspiring means of education, are an

obstacle to what are the chief human characteristics, courage in oneself

and goodness to others.

A people whose education is carried on by gentle means only (I mean

the people of Japan), have shown that manliness is not in danger where

children are not hardened by corporal punishment. These gentle means are

just as effective in calling forth selfmastery and consideration. These

virtues are so imprinted on children, at the tenderest age, that one

learns first in Japan what attraction considerate kindliness bestows

upon life. In a country where blows are never seen, the first rule of

social intercourse is not to cause discomfort to others. It is told that

when a foreigner in Japan took up a stone to throw it at a dog, the dog

did not run. No one had ever thrown a stone at him. Tenderness towards

animals is the complement in that country of tenderness in human

relationship, a tenderness whose result is observed, among other

effects, in a relatively small number of crimes against life and

security.

War, hunting for pleasure, corporal discipline, are nothing more than

different expressions of the tiger nature still alive in man. When the

rod is thrown away, and when, as some one has said, children are

no longer boxed on their ears but are given magnifying glasses and

photographic cameras to increase their capacity for life and for loving

it, instead of learning to destroy it, real education in humanity will

begin.

For the benefit of those who are not convinced that corporal punishment

can be dispensed with in a manly education, by so remote and so distant

an example as Japan, I should like to mention a fact closer to us.

Our Germanic forefathers did not have this method of education. It was

introduced with Christianity. Corporal discipline was turned into

a religious duty, and as late as the seventeenth century there were

intelligent men who flogged their children once a week as a part of

spiritual guardianship. I once asked our great poet, Victor Rydberg, and

he said that he had found no proof that corporal punishment was usual

among the Germans in heathen times. I asked him whether he did not

believe that the fact of its absence had encouraged the energetic

individualism and manliness in the Northern peoples. He thought so, and

agreed with me. Finally, I might note from our own time, that there

are many families and schools, our girls' schools for example, and also

boys' schools in some countries, where corporal punishment is never

used. I know a family with twelve children whose activity and capacity

are not damaged by bringing them under the rule of duty alone. Corporal

punishment is never used in this home; a determined but mild mother

has taught the children to obey voluntarily, and has known how to train

their wills to self-control.

By "voluntary obedience," I do not mean that the child is bound to ask

endless questions for reasons, and to dispute them before he obeys. A

good teacher never gives a command without there being some good reason,

but whether the child is convinced or not, he must always obey, and if

he asks "why" the answer is very simple; every one, adults as well as

children, must obey the right and must submit to what cannot be avoided.

The great necessity in life must be imprinted in childhood. This can

be done without harsh means by training the child, even previous to his

birth, by cultivating one's self-control, and after his birth by never

giving in to a child's caprices. The rule is, in a few cases, to work

in opposition to the action of the child, but in other cases work

constructively; I mean provide the child with material to construct his

own personality and then let him do this work of construction. This is,

in brief, the art of education. The worst of all educational methods are

threats. The only effective admonitions are short and infrequent ones.

The greatest skill in the educator is to be silent for the moment and

then so reprove the fault, indirectly, that the child is brought to

correct himself or make himself the object of blame. This can be done

by the instructor telling something that causes the child to compare his

own conduct with the hateful or admirable types of behaviour about which

he hears information. Or the educator may give an opinion which the

child must take to himself although it is not applied directly to him.

On many occasions a forceful display of indignation on the part of the

elder person is an excellent punishment, if the indignation is reserved

for the right moment. I know children to whom nothing was more frightful

than their father's scorn; this was dreaded. Children who are deluged

with directions and religious devotions, who receive an ounce of

morality in every cup of joy, are most certain to be those who will

revolt against all this. Nearly every thinking person feels that the

deepest educational influences in his life have been indirect; some good

advice not given to him directly; a noble deed told without any direct

reference. But when people come themselves to train others they forget

all their own personal experience.

The strongest constructive factor in the education of a human being

is the settled, quiet order of home, its peace, and its duty.

Open-heartedness, industry, straightforwardness at home develop

goodness, desire to work, and simplicity in the child. Examples of

artistic work and books in the home, its customary life on ordinary

days and holidays, its occupations and its pleasures, should give to the

emotions and imagination of the child, periods of movement and repose,

a sure contour and a rich colour. The pure, warm, clear atmosphere

in which father, mother, and children live together in freedom and

confidence; where none are kept isolated from the interests of the

others; but each possesses full freedom for his own personal interest;

where none trenches on the rights of others; where all are willing to

help one another when necessary,--in this atmosphere egoism, as well as

altruism, can attain their richest development, and individuality

find its just freedom. As the evolution of man's soul advances to

undreamed-of possibilities of refinement, of capacity, of profundity;

as the spiritual life of the generation becomes more manifold in

its combinations and in its distinctions; the more time one has for

observing the wonderful and deep secrets of existence, behind the

visible, tangible, world of sense, the more will each new generation of

children show a more refined and a more consistent mental life. It is

impossible to attain this result under the torture of the crude methods

in our present home and school training. We need new homes, new schools,

new marriages, new social relations, for those new souls who are to

feel, love, and suffer, in ways infinitely numerous that we now can

not even name. Thus they will come to understand life; they will

have aspirations and hopes; they will believe; they will pray. The

conceptions of religion, love, and art, all these must be revolutionised

so radically, that one now can only surmise what new forms will be

created in future generations. This transformation can be helped by the

training of the present, by casting aside the withered foliage which now

covers the budding possibilities of life.

The house must once more become a home for the souls of children, not

for their bodies alone. For such homes to be formed, that in their

turn will mould children, the children must be given back to the home.

Instead of the study preparation at home for the school taking up, as

it now does, the best part of a child's life, the school must get

the smaller part, the home the larger part. The home will have the

responsibility of so using the free time as well on ordinary days as on

holidays, that the children will really become a part of the home both

in their work and in their pleasures. The children will be taken from

the school, the street, the factory, and restored to the home. The

mother will be given back from work outside, or from social life to the

children. Thus natural training in the spirit of Rousseau and Spencer

will be realised; a training for life, by life at home.

Such was the training of Old Scandinavia; the direct share of the child

in the work of the adult, in real labours and dangers, gave to the life

of our Scandinavian forefathers (with whom the boy began to be a man at

twelve years of age), unity, character, and strength. Things specially

made for children, the anxious watching over all their undertakings,

support given to all their steps, courses of work and pleasure specially

prepared for children,--these are the fundamental defects of our present

day education. An eighteen-yearold girl said to me a short time ago,

that she and other girls of the same age were so tired of the system of

vigilance, protection, amusement, and pampering at school and at home,

that they were determined to bring up their own children in hunger,

corporal discipline, and drudgery.

One can understand this unfortunate reaction against an artificial

environment, the environment in which children and young people of the

present grow up; an existence that evokes a passionate desire for

the realities of life, for individual action at one's own risk and

responsibility, instead of being, as is now the case, at home and in the

school, the object of another's care.

The Education of the Child · 第 2 / 4 段