*Department of Sociology, Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA 98926
Child abuse was "discovered" in 1962 with the publication of an article by a group of pediatricians in Denver who described what they called "The Battered Child Syndrome." In the following twenty or so years, the public was made aware of a problem which had long been ignored, and, as a result, states created large and complex systems for reporting, investigating, and treating child abuse. As laws mandated reporting, child abuse appeared increasingly frequent in the daily news. [(1)] Great pressure was felt widely not to deny the existence child abuse, especially sexual abuse, following Suzanne Sgroi's mandate that "Recognition of sexual molestation of a child is entirely dependent on the individual's inherent willingness to entertain the possibility that the condition may exist." [(2)] More and more, abuse was recognized everywhere.
Early in the 1980's, however, the popular press began to carry stories that suggested the system was producing unanticipated consequences in the form of false accusations. Cases of individuals were described who claimed to be caught up in what was said to be a mindless, indifferent, and officious sytem when they had not done anything at all. [(3)] The McMartin Pre-school case in California, parents in Jordan, Minnesota, and charges against a grandmother who ran a day care center in the Bronx, New York, for instance, all captured headlines in the evening news. [(4)]
Expressions of professional concern began to appear in the literature led by Douglas Besharov, former Director of the National Center for Child Abuse and Neglect. Besharov noted the increasing rate of reporting cases of suspected child abuse and the accompanying rise of unsubstantiated cases which he blamed on inadequate definition. Fuzzy definitions of child abuse, he argued, were not only encouraging citizens to report any and everything as abuse, but agencies as well were increasingly unable to distinguish between abuse and non-abuse. [(5)]
As stories of false allegations increased, especially involving sexual abuse, concerns began to appear in print about the consequences of false accusations for agencies, professionals and lay-citizens alike. [(6)]
Changes in the behavior of teachers, coaches and others who work with children began to be reported. Teachers became afraid even to "put an arm around a youngster and say `It's good to see you.'" [(7)] "Many school teachers [reported being] anxious about holding children on their laps, fixing stuck zippers, or even talking to students alone." [(8)] "Teachers who used to hug troubled students ... [quit] the profession over the fear of being called a child molester," according to press reports. [(9)]
Teachers, in turn, began to place demands on administration to protect them by means of rigid rules. For instance, the director of Child Advocacy of the National Council of Churches received "scores" of calls, such as from a large Midwest church day-care center where the staff of over 100 had "issued an ultimatum. Fearing that they would be falsely accused of sexual abuse, they refused to return to work until the Board of Directors issued precise guidelines for physical contact with [their] young charges." [(10)] Other day-care centers reported requiring parents to sign release forms before the workers would be permitted to change babies' diapers, and not permitting a splinter to be removed from a child's bottom without witnesses being present. [(11)] Many day-care centers closed because they could no long get insurance.
Articles railed contemptuously against a Child Protective Services run amok, charging that politicians and bureaucrats alike used abused children to serve their own ends. [(12)] A teacher in a church-run pre-school told of teachers being "accused of being 'verbally abusive' and 'impairing self-esteem' for asking a child to blow his nose or tie his shoe. If a child was absent more than two days, [staff would speculate] that he may be recovering from bruises inflicted by his single mother working two jobs. The director report[ed to CPS] any child who [did] not seem average." [(13)] Teachers and child-care workers were upset at what they saw happening but seemed powerless to alter the course of events.
Claimed victims of false accusation took the system further to task, cautioning well-meaning professionals not to allow themselves to get drawn into the process. A teacher's instincts may be to protect a child, but in so doing, they warned, the teacher could inadvertently contribute to grave injustices to others and cause the destruction of his or her own career. [(14)] Still others became political, organizing themselves in a national group called Victims of Child Abuse Laws (VOCAL) which began to lobby legislative bodies for protection from what was said to be an "unthinking and uncaring bureaucracy". [(15)]
The press, in turn, was attacked for using child abuse to sell newspapers and television time. As one noted commentator pointedly stated, "A lot of the graphic horror stories in the press are little more than child porn, published or broadcast because editors and producers want to titillate. And when they're not being salacious, the media is being mawkish, which sells almost as well." [(16)]
Child protection professionals began to fight back, however, both to defend their position as well as to protect themselves from false accusations or liability for having acted on false accusations. Some child advocates simply denied that there was an issue. Pointing to statistics that indicated a statistically small number of false accusations, and hence no great harm relative to the benefit derived from their services, they also observed that "unsubstantiated charges" do not necessarily mean "false charges." [(17)] Other defenders of the system deflected criticism by questioning the credibility of self-proclaimed victims of false accusations [(18)], especially the members of VOCAL [(19)] and, later, the False Memory Syndrome Foundation.
Still, some professionals began to take the matter seriously and accept the possibility that some accusations might be false, especially in bitter divorce cases, and began to offer advice to professionals. The testimony of experts came under criticism as unreliable proof that abuse occurred; that a claimant is credible; that children don't lie [(20)]; and that memory of trauma can be repressed and recovered later in life. Children's testimony elicited by therapists came under scrutiny as therapeutic interview methods were shown often to be coercive.
Benedek and Schetsky noted that in cases of false accusation they studied, all came from adults rather than from children themselves. They argued that clinicians must develop special techniques of interviewing and inquiry to separate out the false positives. [(21)] New research was prompted which ultimately would indicate that ano/genital findings, which physicians had long accepted as evidence of sexual abuse, were actually found widely in normal populations. [(22)] One could only speculate about how many innocent persons had gone to jail because of erroneous medical assumptions. Physicians were warned about drawing conclusions about sexual abuse based solely on physical evidence. [(23)]
After the highly publicized case where Gary Ramona successfully sued a psychologist for having implanted false memories of abuse in his daughter's memory, even the American Psychological Association began to distance itself from exuberant discovery of past child sexual abuse through recovering presumed repressed memories.
Media attention grew with the increase in reporting and notoriety of cases of missing children as well as sexual abuse. Although the basis for news reports came under scrutiny because of inflated and misleading statistics [(24)], they persisted unabated.
And with heightened popular consciousness came proposals for dealing with the problem. Teaching children how to protect themselves by identifying "good touches" vs. "bad touches" and then warding off "bad touches" by saying "no" or telling someone, flew across the land like wild-fire as a means to "empower" children to protect themselves. [(25)]
Strangers in general and males in particular became targets for special attention. Programs for helping children identify dangerous persons left the message that "a stranger is anyone you don't know. Most people are strangers and most of them are nice. [But y]ou can't tell by looking who's nice and who's not." [(26)] The popular press generated more mistrust by informing the public that "[The abuser is] a man you trust. He's a man your children trust. He's a teacher, a coach, a Cub Scout leader -- someone your family knows well." [(27)]
Whether this all reduced the incidence of abuse or abductions is debatable, but the effect on others was noticed quickly. Mothers kept their children at home and wouldn't let them talk to strangers. [(28)] Men immediately felt themselves under suspicion for simply being men and especially if they were in occupations which required working with children. The view was heard that the days of men entering nurturing roles were over. The risk of accusation was too great. [(29)] Child care was once again becoming "woman's work." Similarly, it was observed that "Any man who wants to work with young children is [treated as] a potential pedophile. ... The wave of fear is not only dividing day-care workers from parents, it is also destroying the vital bond between day-care workers -- female as well as male -- and children." [(30)]
Child care administration, even if it trusted men, became apprehensive about hiring men. An administrator would be crazy not to be afraid. "What would the community at large think of a man who would want this job and of a program that would hire him?" it was said. [(31)]
But even if an employer had confidence in a man, the employer's fear of false accusations, which could bring about ruinous law suits, could compel the employer to have a woman present whenever the man was around children. But, having two people to do the job of one would be economically intolerable, and so men would likely not be used [(32)], unless a program were especially important, such as, girls' athletics in public schools. If only men were available to coach, however, some schools would hire a female to chaperone the male coach. [(33)]
This has all been occurring, mind you, against a backdrop of increasing sensitivity to issues of wife battering, rape, date rape, sexual harassment at all levels, and court cases upholding women's rights in ways never before thought possible. It is no criticism of the women's movement to say that the issues raised here, especially to the extent they involve sexual abuse, cannot be separated from the political climate fostered by that movement.
The effect has been to create an atmosphere not entirely different from that of the days of the McCarthy hearings of the 1950's. At least one commentator has described child advocates as "shar[ing] the same paranoid mind frame ... [of] commie hunters and Satan hunters." [(34)] The situation has become chaotic.
So, how can we understand what has been happening? While I don't have any ready answers, let me make a few suggestions.
The emergence of specialists
The specialist has emerged in child protective work as surely as in any other area of modern industrial society. Since the emergence of the juvenile court in 1899 [(35)], a variety of specialists have emerged whose assigned or adopted responsibility is to protect children from the destructive consequences of industrialization. These specialists are (1) reporters of abuse, such as, teachers and physicians; (2) evaluators of abuse, such as, child protection workers, psychologists, and psychiatrists; (3) enforcers of child protection, such as, police, prosecutors, and judges; (4) advocates for victims of abuse and accused abusers, that is, legal and policy specialists; (5) healers of victims of abuse and accused abusers, that is, therapists and the like; and (6) communicators about abuse, who are mass media specialists.
It is in this context that child abuse has come of age as a social issue. In the title of this talk I referred to child abuse not as a social problem but as a social movement , that is, a collection of individuals or interest groups bound together by a common set of goals and values who are organized politically to accomplish their shared goals.
What are their goals? In general they focus on advocacy, an advocate being a person who speaks and acts on behalf of another who is incapable of acting on his or her own. By advocating for children, these specialists has been to assume the burden of defining adult-child relationships in increasingly chaotic urban industrial society.
In a complex, legal order, the consequences of specialists' definitions extend far beyond the bounds of formal, written rules. Fear of stigmatizing publicity or lawsuits alone are often sufficient to put ordinary citizens on notice that the definition of the situation and subsequent negative consequences, lie in someone else's hands. Thus, if power is a function of the extent to which fear can be induced, then specialists are in a position to exercise power.
Such social power may be enhanced by the perceptions of affected persons. Perceptions may or may not be based on any facts; nevertheless, perceptions may give rise to responses. To the extent that perceptions generate fear, a person fearing unwarranted exercise of power may feel vulnerable. The evidence just cited suggests that many people today are feeling vulnerable.
The possibility of an adult-child relationship being the subject of accusation may have implications for that relationship. They may not want to be alone with children, touch them, hug them, help them, indeed do anything with children that might in any way open themselves to charges.
To the extent this occurs, then, the nurturing adult-child relationship is being replaced by a set of calculated, bureaucratic regulations stipulating in normative, technical terms adult-child relations. The goal of these, as all bureaucratic rules, is to eliminate negative factors from task-oriented behavior. But since such distinctions are inherently value judgements in an array of competing values, legal equity dictates that all non-system values must be eliminated. Thus, in an effort to eliminate hurt, help, too, will be eliminated.
Problems of Child Abuse Investigation
The establishment of child protection laws in the United States had the effect of enabling and legitimizing definitions emerging in special interest groups as well as legitimizing essentially random definitions. The wording of such laws emphasize three key elements. They (1) specify reporting suspected abuse, (2) require reporting by certain specified professions, notably medicine, teaching and counseling, and (3) limit recourse against reporters. The conditions under which one should suspect abuse are not spelled out, however, leaving the matter to whatever interests and perspectives motivate the observer, as long as it is not maliciously intended.
The consequences of these laws, therefore, is to give force of law to the world view of any person or body of persons. While it is certainly true that not every report will ultimately produce a prosecution let alone a conviction or punishment, the law establishes legal processes which themselves may have serious consequences. The law enables and encourages people to pick up the telephone and make a call to those charged with taking such a call seriously. It further establishes the basis for ensuring that the call is taken seriously, which means at the very minimum, establishing a file; gathering information; contacting the persons about whom the report was made; viewing the child and possibly interviewing the child and others in the child's social field; possibly bringing in law enforcement and agents of the court, medical personnel; and possibly even taking custody of child during such proceedings.
Without a clear, commonly accepted definition of child abuse, however, two factors increasingly confound our efforts to understand child abuse. The first is that, whereas we began by recognizing child abuse as one recognizes midnight from noon, widening attention and broadening definition have increasingly confronted us with the need to distinguish the vague point at which day becomes night. What used to be regarded as ordinary acts increasingly are treated as deviant.
The second is that we are increasingly confronted with the dilemma presented by the question "If a tree falls in the woods and there is no one there to hear, does it make a sound?" Just as a hearing ear is needed to interpret movement of air molecules into sound, so also is a seeing eye necessary to interpret human actions into child abuse. Since child abuse often occurs behind closed doors, it is quite like the tree in the woods. The best witnesses are often no better than no witnesses at all.
The putative child-victim, often lacking language and descriptive skills, as well as possibly being intimidated by adult authority, may be incapable of describing adequately what happened. The suspected adult-abuser is not a good witness either because of the presumption that he or she is motivated not to tell truly what happened. Further, we may not be justified in generalizing our own past experiences to the present case in the absence of clear evidence.
While extreme acts may fill the headlines, the increasing rate of unsubstantiated reports [(36)] suggests that either (1) ordinary acts by ordinary people under ordinary circumstances are being reported more often, (2) more cases revolving around testimony of key persons rather than hard evidence are being reported, or (3) agencies are not investigating adequately.
So what are the prospects for clearer definition and identification. Can we eliminate false positives, false accusations? I'm not so sure, and to explain why and perhaps help us out of the dilemma, I'd like to introduce you to the work of W. Edwards Deming.
The Deming Method and the identification and treatment of child abuse
W. Edwards Deming is known to the world as the man who taught the Japanese how to produce high quality products. As such, one might be skeptical about learning much from him as regards child abuse insofar as he has been concerned primarily with industrial processes. But I believe that analogies and analyses from other disciplines can help us focus on matters we may otherwise overlook. I believe we can learn from him.
Deming's analysis of productive systems has been influence heavily by modern theories of the world, especially quantum physics, which describe the universe in terms of uncertainty, unpredictability and randomness. In his view, it is not possible to design an optimal human productive system because there is enough natural chaos of the environment that necessary information is both unknown and unknowable.
Instead of trying to design an optimal system, Deming emphasizes the need for a resilient system which can be improved over time, though never made perfect. Since external forces are constantly changing, making necessary information unknowable, the best that can be done is to monitor systems as they actually function and to use this information to improve them.
Deming argues that failure to fulfill organizational goals is usually due to the organization itself and not the people who serve in it . If problem-solving focuses on the system, rather than on people, it is easier to avoid an atmosphere of fear and mistrust which is the key to system improvement. (Gluckman & Roome; p. 188)
The problem of prediction
Organizing human production with reference to the future necessarily involves the ability to predict activities and outcomes. Prediction is always based on knowledge, and knowledge is always built on theory. Theory tells us what is important information, where to find it, how to gather and interpret it, and what to do with it. (Deming, 1993; 104-105)
Management of child protection relies on cases identified by others. Seldom does CPS initiate an investigation without a referral from others. This means that from the outset, child protection agencies are heavily dependent on others for information. At the same time, though, they have no control over who reports what, when or under what conditions.
This may not be a reliable basis for action, however, for there is no way of knowing what is not being reported, and what criteria the observer used in deciding to report or not. As a result, there is no way of knowing whether the observed behavior is a function of individuals or systems. When prediction is based on unknown criteria, prevailing theory must dictate that the future will replicate the past. Hence, there are no surprises because the world looks as we expect it to. Because we do not know what was not reported -- which would be essential to challenge our theory -- we never know when similar behavior produces other, that is, not bad, outcomes.
Although an agency may need to treat all cases before it as "true" abuse, in Deming's view there is no such thing as a true characteristic, state or condition of anything. The knowledge of all so-called facts is subject to unknown factors which affect how evidence is collected, evaluated and used. Since the conditions of observation are never completely controllable, the consequences of one observation, in turn, affects what else is observed. (Deming, 1993; p. 107) In the world of child protection, who is reported by whom for doing what with reference to whose criteria is always uncertain.
Adequate information and the problem of sampling
Deming rejects much of what has been practiced in industry in the name of quality control. Industry has widely practiced quality control by random sampling of finished products, for instance. The problem with sampling, he argues, is that sampling only reflects a certain probability of determining outcomes, and at any given time the probability of undetected defects remaining undetected is high. Sampling never tells us anything about cases not selected or about the systemic origin of defects. Further, random sampling may turn up situations which seem unique, though they are characteristics of the system as a whole. They only seem unique because sampling has singled them out. Any sample would have produced similar characteristics
In child abuse, assessment of the risk of abusing or re-abusing is similarly difficult. A list of risk characteristics will contain elements found among persons who abuse, but the same list will include characteristics found routinely in the population as a whole as well as among abusers who will not re-abuse. Since there is no control over which cases come to the attention of CPS -- remember, anyone may report suspected abuse -- they are essentially randomly selected. (cf. Wald & Woolverton, 1990)
Deming also does not believe that quality can be created simply by analyzing deviant -- that is, extreme -- cases. Deviant case analysis is based on the assumption that whatever seems unique to the case must be the cause of the problem. But by singling out the unique case for study, it easily becomes the standard for the system as a whole as unique factors are generalized to all other situations.
In Deming's view, then, it is important to set standards and adhere to them and not get distracted by random deviations.
The problem of variation
Central to Deming's thesis is the question of variation and how to reduce it. Variation, he argues, is found in all things for the simple reason that it is impossible to control all variables.
Steel shafts, for example, coming from a particular plant will always have some degree of variation, even though small, which stems from inherent imperfections in the steel, temperature variations, irregularities in the manufacturing tools, etc. Variation is to be found in everything -- which, for my purposes, includes the parent-child relationship.
Further, he argues, not all variation is a function of individual producers. Indeed, most variation is the product of systemic factors. Changing the characteristics of individual producers will not get rid of all variation. Any individual producer will exhibit variation in behavior at any time. The tendency to blame individuals for mistakes -- whether in industrial systems, child protective systems, or family systems -- misses the point that it is systemic factors which produce the greatest deviation from goals.
Typically, manufacturers try to get rid of variation by identifying all specific instances of variation and eliminating them. This does not eliminate variation, however; it only makes it worse.
Lloyd Nelson, the 1987 winner of the American Deming Prize, demonstrates the problem of trying to eliminate variation by adjusting standards. He uses the experiment of a funnel which has a fixed diameter and length through which a ball of known size and weight is dropped. (Deming, 1986; p. 327-332) Figure 1 shows that dropping the ball five hundred times aimed from a fixed position at a constant target (Deming calls this a stable system) will produces a range of points, nearly all of which remained within inches of the target. This is what Deming refers to as Rule 1, the Funnel Stationary Rule. (Deming, 1986; pp. 327-330. Aguayo, 1990; pp. 67-82)
There is, of course, a great temptation to want to adjust the funnel to remove the variation that exists, so we might make minor adjustments. For instance, if the ball lands two inches south of the target, we might adjust the funnel two inches to the north of the strike point, based on the reasoning that the last drop would have hit the target had it been aimed higher. This is the Rule of Modest Adjustments (Aguayo, 1990; Deming, 1986), and Figure 2 shows its effects. Instead of improving our accuracy the results are worse. The radius is larger. Although the results remain within known parameters, the range is larger than had we done nothing.
This is hard to accept, because, as Deming points out, we take it as a matter of faith that intervention makes things better. But if the system is stable, interventions only make things worse. The problem is not what is done, but what is not done. We observe only certain factors and overlook others which may be less obvious, the importance of which may be subtle or unrecognized. The cumulative effect of unrecognized factors may be great, however.
In child protection, as well as industry, adjustments are constantly being made. We often think we should try something more dramatic. Figure 3 illustrates the consequences of drastic change. In this case the funnel is moved relative to the target rather than to the last position of the ball. Whereas Rule 2 relocated the funnel three inches north of the ball's previous position, now, if the ball drops three inches south of the target, the funnel is moved to a new position three inches north of the target for the next drop. This is Rule 3, the Rule of Extreme Adjustments (Deming, 1986; Aguayo, 1990).
The results are even worse than before. The system is now expanding in two directions and is no longer stable. In an effort to make a stable state better, which is to say less variable, we have made it more variable and hence less stable.
As Deming explains it, in our effort to eliminate a certain amount of variation in a stable system, we have actually introduced a new source of variation, that is, us, our own movement of the funnel. But our movement did not cancel out the natural variation as we had hoped. Instead, it combined with it to produce even more variation. With extreme adjustments in the case of Rule 3, variation is cumulative.
In general, shifts in policy based on results are examples of extreme adjustments. Rather than stabilizing the situation, frequent and extreme adjustments make the situation more unstable and volatile. (Aguayo, 1990; pp. 72-73)
Finally, in one more experiment, we seek to reorient our aim by re-aiming the funnel after each drop so that it is directly over the spot where the last drop fell. Known as the Just Like the Last Time Rule, Rule 4, the results are shown in Figure 4.
In this case, the results are as bad as in the case of Rule 3, but expanding in one direction only. This is where previous instances of something become the basis for future development, much like rumor transmission in a party game. Each successive event adds to the distortion so that when the game is over, the final story bears no resemblance to the first.
These last two examples seem to be characteristic of contemporary attempts to deal with child abuse and contribute to the outcomes cited earlier in this paper, that is, the public sense of ever-expanding definition of abuse such at no action is free of threat. A previously stable system has become unstable and out of control.
The key to dealing with variation, in Deming's view, is to establish at the outset a range of tolerable variation for the product. Given this range, then, pursue constant refinement of the entire productive process over time. Never simply sample products with the expectation that the sample reflects the entire population. Never simply respond to extreme events as though they were typical. And never simply see any variance as being a product of the individuals involved in the process. Over-adjustment of a stable system invariably makes things worse. Indeed, it deserves a special name: tampering. (Aguayo, 1990; p. 75) Never tamper with a system.
Neither rewarding nor punishing participants in the process will produce quality products in the future. Only systemic revision will ultimately reduce variation, and systemic changes can only come from the top. Quality control must come from management
Managing child production
Many different kinds of people and institutional arrangements are involved in creating children, parents as well as the specialists mentioned earlier. Therefore, there are many "managers" of child-producing systems. In Deming's view, managers must take their instructions from consumers. In order to understand managers of child production we must ask: Who is the consumer of children? To answer this, we must know for what or whose end does a child exist.
This is the first and foremost problem of quality control in child protection -- definition of the purpose of a child. As I have pointed out, there is no clear or consistent definition of child abuse. This is true because there is no consistent definition of a child in terms of the child's existential purpose. The answer to the question "Why does the child exist?" establishes what social qualities a child should have when he or she is grown. And knowing why a child exists provides the basis for knowing how the child should be raised.
Every society has some conception of a "desirable person." My own informal research indicates that among parents a widely held view of the desirable person embodies certain characteristics such as honesty, responsibility, dependability, courtesy, respect, generosity, hard work, self-sacrifice and a host of other characteristics. Whether a child turns out successfully or not is judged largely on the presence or absence of such qualities. Parents thus have both a consumptive interest in children as well as being the managers of the child's production..
But there are other consumers of children who have different criteria for the desirable person. While all may nominally adhere to the criteria of parents, if a child were to have the characteristics desired by parents, it would be of no use to other consumers of children in that they seek "undesirable" children. A counselor (as counselor), for instance, would have no specific interest in a genuinely "desirable" child since by definition counselors are only of benefit to those lacking desirable characteristics. In the same way, unstylishly clothed or bored children are of great consumptive value to clothing manufacturers or entertainers.
Similarly, the press has little commercial interest in an ordinary, normal, desirable person since deviant cases (positive as well as negative) are more worthy of reportáge. It is often said in journalism that "Dog bites man" is not news; "Man bites dog" is!
By the same token, child protection workers also gain by parents failing to bring about the desirable person by means which the CPS workers find appropriate. To the extent that parents fail, CPS continues to have an interest in the child and hence a need is fulfilled. CPS -- as an agency -- has no interest in normal, desirable parents or children. If you doubt this, conduct an experiment such as the late sociologist, Harold Garfinkel, would do when trying to discover the rules of everyday behavior. Call CPS and report a neighbor child for being normal, well-adjusted and from a healthy, happy family. They'll think you're nuts!
To accept seemingly deviant behavior and not consider it deviant, as Deming suggests, seems nearly impossible when it comes to child rearing. None of the specialist-consumers of children are prepared to accept behavior which deviates from their "ideal" since it is precisely that which is the basis for their interest in children. Indeed, expansion of the range of undesirable qualities as defined by parents is more to their interest since that is why they are interested in the child in the first place.
Establishing a common range of acceptable child rearing behavior
What would it mean to establish a range of acceptable treatment of children within which neither CPS nor other specialist/consumers of children would be concerned?
As it stands now, there is no such established range. The legal definition of child abuse focuses on harm to a child, but what is harm? Here, as elsewhere, there may be high consensus on the difference between noon and midnight, but the point at which day become night is much more difficult to define.
Fractures, lacerations, flowing blood; brain, eye, organ injuries -- we could find a considerable consensus that these are too much, that they reflect either deliberate cruelty or gross indifference to the child's well-being or both.
Spanking or slapping, however, is a different matter, especially when carried out as a means to bring about the desirable person. Not only is it not possible to say that spanking per se is harmful in any long term sense, it might be argued that not spanking is harmful. Indeed, it may be argued that those who do not chasten their children may be said to be abusive by not training them strictly. Whether corporal punishment is ipso facto abuse is, therefore, an matter of ideology and faith and less a matter of discernable fact. In fact, Washington State law furthers the confusion by stipulating that "reasonable" corporal punishment is not child abuse.
Nevertheless, it is no longer uncommon to find parents reported for child abuse for having spanked their children, sometimes being turned in by complete strangers, grocery store clerks, for instance. Everybody has become a definer of child abuse.
As little consensus as there is about corporal punishment, there is even less about exposing children to sexually explicit entertainment, advertising, or news.
In the absence of consensus on acceptable treatment of children, then, perhaps we must speak of something we might refer to as "tolerable abuse."
"Tolerable" abuse
"Tolerable" physical abuse is hard to contemplate. What would it look like? Consider the case of the Hutterites described by Claudia Konker (1992). The Hutterites, a 16th Century German-speaking anabaptist religious community which emigrated to North America in the 1870's, are traditional in every sense of the word. Theologically related to the Amish and Mennonites, the Hutterites practice strict gender segregation and raise their children according to literal interpretation of the Christian Bible. This interpretation involves corporal punishment. Children, they believe, are innately bad and must be made good and kept good until they can make a free choice in adulthood to live in accordance with the Scriptures.
Parents are those charged by the Bible with the responsibility of carrying out God's will, which includes, raising children and determining when punishment is warranted. Children are raised according to general guidelines which can be expressed with five words: teaching, example, praise, warning, and spanking. Although these are general guidelines for training children, the focus is on discipline and punishment for wrong-doing. Parents are taught to punish immediately if a child disobeys a clear instruction; not to keep picking at a child over minor matters; and to avoid asking a small child to make decisions himself. (Martin, nd)
What are the consequences of this? Well, there is no youth delinquency and, in fact, no crime at all. In the some-400 years of Hutterites' existence, murder, theft, and rape have been rare to non-existent. While not free of conflict or deviance, it is, simply stated, a very orderly and peaceful society. Human beings exist to serve God and follow His will. It is not materialistic or self-centered in any sense. While the Hutterites do not reject technology as do the Amish, they do eschew modern entertainment and the technology of entertainment, such as movies and television. Sex outside marriage or for obvious personal pleasure is out of the question.
As in true communities, there is no sense of individualism, at least as the outside world understands the term, nor is there individual freedom, that is, the freedom to determine one's own life course for one's own reasons. In fact, individualism -- the worship of self and self-interest -- they believe, is the root of all evil. It is even child abuse, one might say, when parents seek to make of children what they, parents as individuals, want.
The Hutterites temper their punishment with love, unconditional love. Specifically this means creating in the child the absolute knowledge that the child will never been thrown away or abandoned because the child interferes with the parents' own plans or interests. It is not possible for parents ever to lose interest in their children or resent their existence. Indeed, parents have no interests in differentiating their children as individuals from others in the community. On the contrary, the child grows up in a community wherein the practice is for the community to build for all children a new life by spawning new colonies as soon as the community reaches a new level of development. This is not seen as personal sacrifice; it is existential obligation. The creation of generation after generation is the purpose of life according to God's will. Individuals have nothing to say in the matter. They have only to carry out God's will. Punishment, in this regard, is never an expression of resentment of a child's existence or burden on the parent. It is never an attack on the child. It is always in pursuit of higher goals for the child and the community.
We may say that it is terrible that the child has nothing to say about its own future. Parents should be free to choose what is best for themselves and for their children, we say. Yes, we can say that, but if successful child rearing can be measured by social indicators, such as, crime and delinquency statistics, drug and alcohol abuse and the like, then the Hutterites are spectacularly successful whereas individualistic society is not so. In exchange for momentary discomfort, the Hutterite child is guaranteed a situation of long-term care, consideration and concern as the result of enhanced social solidarity. From this perspective, most traditional religious groups -- Mormons, Moslems and similar groups -- may also be seen as highly successful.
Contemplating "tolerable" sexual abuse is far more difficult even than physical abuse. As it stands now, the definition of sexual abuse resides in the perceptions of the victim or victim advocate. To establish a range of "tolerable" behavior which may have sexual connotations, we would have to be prepared to deny the victim or victim advocate the right to define all victim perceptions as being valid bases for intervention. Certain touches and contacts would have to be declared to be unimportant enough that we would not be prepared to intervene. That would be extremely difficult in the present climate.
Conclusions
We like to think we are in control of our productive processes, and in this regard quality control by command and positive science is appealing. Gather data, perfect the rules, and blame individuals when things go wrong. But Deming forces us to think about our systems as weak, and necessary information as unknown and unknowable. Outcomes are unpredictable and uncertain, and our own attempts to impose certainty on outcomes may make them even more uncertain. Furthermore, we are forced to think about the values that drive our system. A variety of interests seek to exert influence over the social shape children take as if they were consumers of children in a competitive marketplace. As in all wars of the marketplace, some producers will be driven from the market as new consumers begin to assert their interests. We approach this war with armies claiming morality, protecting children from evil. But even though we claim to be on the same side, we really aren't. We're mortal enemies.
Child protective services, social workers, therapists, and the like, after all, derive their very existence from the proposition that children need protection, notably protection from parents. Parents, as warriors in this conflict, may well resent -- indeed, fight -- any interference in the raising of their children on the proposition that their children are just that, their children, their property with the emphasis on property. Schools fight to raise children according to their own criteria, which, it is to be hoped coincides with parents interests, but if not, that's too bad. Business, including sports and entertainment, battle to dominate children as mechanisms of spending who have to be detached from the control of parents. The press struggles to keep injured children in the headlines.
If this sounds cynical, examine the relationship between parents and CPS, parents and schools, parents and business, CPS and schools, the press and anybody. Each points a finger; each argues the other is more harmful.
Deming tell us that we are pursuing a will-o'-the-wisp if we try to eliminate all forms of harm from a child's life. Harm has no definition that we can rally around collectively, and yet we try. We feel, we identify, we respond, we refine and feel anew. We wander from definition to definition, from approach to approach, theory to theory. In our struggle for a harm-free childhood we convert relationships to rules. Fear replaces affection; and legalism, love. Competition crowds out caring. And children suffer a new, unacknowledged and invisible harm, the increasing deprivation of personal, selfless, human contact with no strings attached.
If there is any message in this, it is that we should back off and stop tampering with culture and human practices. It only makes things worse. We should try to set standards and stay with them. We should refine our systems, but be prepared to live with variation. We must be prepared to tolerate behaviors we deplore. We have to bring together all competitors in the market for children, especially the press and merchandisers. They are not simply thorns in our sides; they are major players.
Specifically we must work slowly and systematically to reduce variation by working for more uniform definitions of appropriate treatment of children, more uniform laws among jurisdictions, more uniform enforcement, increased parental time with and attention to children, less divisive product marketing to and about children, less corrosive entertainment, more involvement of the press in ordinary family life, less blaming of individuals, whether they be case workers or parents, and more attention to systems.
We have to acknowledge that children survive difficult childhoods and go on to become useful citizens. And, remarkably, they do it without us -- maybe even in spite of us. We should stop dwelling on the hardship and the assumption that children necessarily turn out badly without our intervention and try to understand how children survive hardship. We must study the normal and look for things we do not want to find.
I wish I could end this on an up-beat note, but it is not that simple. Instead, I will leave you to ponder the unintended consequences of our intervention.
Good luck, and thank you for listening.
Return to Presentations
1. 1. See, for instance, Daughtery, P., "I was accused of child abuse." Ladies Home Journal. 100:18+ (November, 1983).
2. 2. Sgroi, S. M. et al., Sexual Assault of Children and Adolescents. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1978; p. xvi. Quoted in Hechler, D. op cit., p. 25.
3. 3. Hechler, D. The Battle and the Backlash. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1988; Press, A. "I've gone through hell." Newsweek, 104:38 (October 1, 1984).
4. 4. Hechler, D., op cit., Ch. 2.
5. 5. Besharov, D. J., op cit.
6. 6. Such as the one wherein a physician had misinterpreted lesions in a young girl's vagina and reported the teenage day-care worker for sexual abuse. See Baxter, A. "I was falsely accused of child abuse." Glamour 84:168-169+ (July 1986).
7. 7. Gest, T. "The other victims of child abuse." U. S. News and World Report 98:86 (April 1, 1985).
8. 8. Baxter, op. cit.
9. 9. Gest, op.cit.
10. 10. Lindner, E. "Child carelessness: Sexual abuse in day care." Christian Century 102:270-272 (March 13, 1985).
11. 11. Wesson, C. "Child care" National Public Radio, Weekend Edition (April 2, 1988).
12. 12. Wexler, R., "Invasion of the child savers: No one is safe in the war against abuse." Progressive 49:19-22 (September, 1985); Elshtein, J. B. "Invasion of the child savers: How we succumb to hype and hysteria." Progressive 49:23-26 (September, 1985).
13. 13. Wexler, R. "Readers respond to 'Invasion of the Child Savers.'" Progressive 49:6-8 (November, 1985).
14. 14. Spiegel, L. D., "Child abuse hysteria -- a warning for educators." Elementary School Guidance and Counselling 22:275-283 (April, 1988).
15. 15. Hechler, D. op cit.
16. 16. TRB, The New Republic (no date), quoted in Wexler, R. op cit.
17. 17. MacFarlane, K. "Child sexual abuse allegations in divorce proceedings" in MacFarlane, K. et al. Sexual Abuse of Children, New York: Guilford, 1986; Krugman, R. D., Elementary School Guidance and Counselling 22:284-286 (April, 1988).
18. 18. Krugman, R. D. Ibid.
19. 19. Hechler, D. op cit.
20. 20. McCord, D., "Expert psychological testimony about child complaints in sexual abuse prosecutions: A foray into the admissibility of novel psychological evidence." Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 77:1-68 (Spring, 1986); see also the criticism of Dr. Higgs in England who found child sexual abuse everywhere, with profound consequences, after learning about "reflex anal dilation," the so-called "anal wink", as evidence of child abuse. "So who's abusing whom?" Economist 305:57-58 (November 21, 1987)
21. 21. Benedek, E. and Schetsky, D., "Allegations of sexual abuse in child custody and visitation disputes." in Benedek, E. and Schetsky, D. (eds.) Emerging Issues in Child Psychiatry and the Law. New York: Bruner/Mazel, 1985.
22. 22. McCann, J. et al. "Perianal findings in prepubertal children selected for non-abuse: A descriptive study." Child Abuse and Neglect, 13:179-193 (1989).
23. 23. Krugman, R. D. "The more we learn, the less we know 'with reasonable medical certainty'." Child Abuse and Neglect 13:165-166 (1989); Paradise, J. E. "Predictive accuracy and the diagnosis of sexual abuse: A big issue about a little tissue." Child Abuse and Neglect 13:169-176 (1989).
24. 24. See, for instance, McGehee, C. L. "Is missing children problem on local doorstep?" Ellensburg Daily Record, Ellensburg, Washington (March 27, 1986); Best J. "Missing children, misleading statistics." Public Interest 92:84-92 (Summer, 1988).
25. 25. For a review of programs on touching, empowerment and other programs for sexual abuse prevention, see Wurtele, S. K., "School-based sexual abuse prevention programs: A review." Child Abuse and Neglect 11:483-495 (1987); Costello, J. "Talking about touch." Parents 61:180 (March, 1986).
26. 26. Kraizer, S. K. et al., "Programming for preventing sexual abuse and abductions: What does it mean when it works?" Child Welfare 67:69-78 (January/February, 1988).
27. 27. Abel, G. G., "The child abuser: How can you spot him?" Redbook 169:98-100+ (August, 1987).
28. 28. McGehee, C. L., op cit.
29. 29. Miller, S., "Men and child care: The plot thickens." Ms 16:54-56 (October, 1987).
30. 30. Richardson, D., "Day care: Men need not apply." Education Digest 51:58-59 (January, 1986).
31. 31. Richardson, D., Ibid.
32. 32. Writer's own observations as Chairman of the Board of the Kittitas County Child Advocacy Council, Ellensburg, Washington.
33. 33. Interview with public school official, Ellensburg, Washington.
34. 34. Cockburn, A., "Out of the mouths of babes: Child abuse and the abuse of adults." The Nation 250:190-191 (February 12, 1990).
35. 35. Platt, A. M., The Child Savers: The Invention of Delinquency. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press, 1969.
36. 36. Besharov, D. J., "'Doing something' about child abuse: The need to narrow grounds for state intervention." Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. 3(Summer 1985):539-589. See also, Besharov, D. J., "Unfounded allegations: A new child abuse problem." Public Interest, 83(Spring 1986):18-33; and Besharov, D. J., "Policy guidelines for decision making in child abuse and neglect." Children Today, 16(November/December 1987):7-10+.