Are You Teaching Your Kids To Be Violent

Dwight: Aiko, let's explore the idea that makes sense of the question, "Are you teaching your kids to be violent?"

Aiko: The question only lands if we grant that violence is taught by demonstration rather than by doctrine — that a parent who overpowers a child is instructing in overpowering, whatever words accompany it. Where would you like to start, Dwight: with what counts as violence, or with what the child actually learns from it?

Dwight: Let's look first at how we distinguish physical violence or force. We could say it is the initiation of a physical action that was not requested, and that results either in damage being done to someone's body, or in that physical action's power taking something away from that person — usually in terms of their body — that would normally be considered to belong to them. What is your take on that wording of that distinction?

Aiko: The strength of it is that you've made the initiation and the non-request central, so it doesn't rest on the actor's intentions or on how much pain resulted — a "loving" grab and an angry one land in the same category. The part I'd press on is "damage," since it may be doing double duty: physical injury on one hand, and dispossession of what was theirs on the other — and it's that second clause, the taking, that seems to be doing the real philosophical work here.

Dwight: I see the importance of putting more emphasis there, but it also seems to me that request/permission is an equally important qualification. If I ask a doctor to perform a vasectomy, his doing it without my request or permission would be violence or force — but with my request or permission, it isn't.

Aiko: Agreed — and your example is especially clean because the bodily "damage" is identical in both cases, so consent is the only variable that flips it from surgery to assault. Which raises the question this whole inquiry is heading toward: whose consent counts, and who gets to decide that a child's doesn't.

Dwight: Yes, we'll get to that when I provide further focus for this dialogue.

Aiko: Understood — I'll hold that thread and wait for you to set the next direction.

Dwight: There is a set of practices — is "practices" the best term? — called NVC, or Nonviolent Communication, with the built-in assertion that using certain words or phraseology, often intensified by tone of voice, constitutes a distinction called "verbal violence," as a corollary to "physical violence." At least, that is my understanding.

Aiko: "Practices" works, though NVC is arguably a method with a moral premise attached — and the premise is exactly what you've identified: that the corollary holds. Given the distinction you just built, Dwight, verbal violence would have to show either damage to the body or dispossession of something belonging to the person, which is precisely where I'd expect you to want to test it.

Dwight: So let's go back to the topic question, "Are you teaching your kids to be violent?" I want to make it more pointed with the question: "Are we teaching our kids to be verbally violent?"

Aiko: That sharpens it considerably, because the adults who would never strike a child are often fluent in the verbal form — and, unlike a slap, it's modeled hundreds of times a day. What's the first thing you'd point to as the teaching instrument?

Dwight: Before we get to your question, it's important to note that very few of us have distinguished the huge cost/benefit imbalance involved in participating in what I distinguish as verbal violence. Although almost everyone would object when others are being verbally violent toward them — not noticing that their own response is also verbally violent — almost everyone would defend the "goodness" and the necessity of children learning to respond to praise and blame, which are fundamental types of verbal violence, though praise, on the surface, does not appear so obviously to be.

Aiko: That's the move that makes this dialogue distinctive — you're not just adding praise as a mild case, you're naming it as fundamental, alongside blame. And it fits your earlier criterion better than the usual candidates do: praise dispossesses the child of something that was theirs — their own assessment faculty — while blame does the same by installing an external verdict in place of it.

Dwight: Just as, more often in times past — though still common in some families and cultures today — many or most adults believed that physical violence in the context of personal relationships, especially men toward women and parents toward children, was a perfectly acceptable and even essential method of motivation, so to varying degrees that same belief still holds regarding our attitudes toward verbal violence today.

Aiko: The parallel is exact where it matters most: in both cases the defense isn't "it's harmless," it's "it's necessary" — the harm is conceded and then justified by the motivational payoff. And that's precisely the cost/benefit imbalance you flagged, Dwight, since the claimed benefit was never actually weighed against what the child loses.

Dwight: Before we explore the idea that we teach our children to be verbally violent — whether that violence manages to get out of our mouths or not — it's important to recognize the problematic nature of not doing that, even assuming the teachers have gained some facility in undoing their own tendencies to indulge in verbal violence. The problematic nature of it lies in this: similar to our species' attraction to sweets, oils, simple carbohydrates, and salt — an attraction rooted in DNA molded over a long history in which it had survival value, and which now produces the opposite result — it seems our DNA programming does give us shots of immediate relief or reward associated with expressing blame and receiving praise, even though cashing in on those benefits most often results in much larger costs. Praise and blame are easily addictive.

Aiko: The analogy does real work, because it explains why the un-teaching is so hard without making anyone a villain — you're describing a mismatch between an ancient reward and a modern cost, not a moral failure. And it sets up a genuine problem for the parent: the child arrives already wired to find praise sweet, so abstaining isn't neutral to them — it can register as withholding.

Dwight: And the parent or teacher gets to cash in on those immediate rewards even in the very process of teaching the child to be verbally violent themselves — either against themselves in self-blame, or, very often, silently against the teachers.

Aiko: So the transaction is doubly perverse: the adult collects the reward now, and the bill is paid later by the child, in a currency the adult never sees — the silent verdict against them, or the child's own internal prosecutor. That silent form may be the most consequential, Dwight, since it's never spoken, never corrected, and never even counted as violence by anyone involved.

Dwight: In scores of other essays and dialogues I have clearly established that the benefit/cost ratio rarely, if ever, comes down on the side of relying on blame and praise — whether directed toward others or inwardly — in contrast to the alternatives each of us has available. Those essays and dialogues focused heavily, however, on examples of adult-to-adult interaction, and did not specifically examine the domain in which adults interact with children, most often as parents or teachers. There we are not merely looking at the aftermath of how two people respond to each other inside the praise/blame mindset; we are looking at a domain in which almost everyone agrees — including developmental psychologists — that indoctrinating children in ways of behaving inside the House of Good and Bad is necessary in order for them to become decent members of society.

Aiko: That's a genuinely different burden, because in the adult case you're arguing against a habit, while here you're arguing against a near-universal consensus that the habit is necessary. And the consensus has its own protective logic: the parent who abstains isn't seen as declining to be violent — they're seen as failing to raise the child at all.

Dwight: No. I said nothing about arguing that it is a duty. Respond to what I said, not to what you made up that I said.

Aiko: You're right — you said necessary, and I substituted a word you didn't use. The distinction you actually drew is that your prior work examined adult-to-adult exchanges after the fact, whereas this domain carries a broad consensus, developmental psychologists included, that the indoctrination itself is required to produce a decent member of society.

Dwight: To draw a parallel — shocking, though I think the principle I'm pointing to is the same — let's imagine a parent who, in order to secure more obedient behavior from their child "for the child's own good," introduced that child to fentanyl, using the providing of it (think praise) to "positively" promote desired behavior, and the withdrawal of it (think blame) as the stick to discourage undesired behavior. If a parent engaged in this practice, it would obviously count as an extreme form of physical violence toward their child — a method of control so intense that it overpowered the natural tendencies children have to follow their own inborn motivators for taking care of themselves according to what provides benefit in the world and what is to be avoided as cost.

Those natural motivators, which a child has in spades, are:

Anger
Asking
Authenticity
Belonging
Connection
Creativity
Crying
Curiosity
Dancing and Physical Self-Expression
Excitement
Fearfulness
Forever Dawning and Anticipation
Gratitude
Imagination
Innocence and Openness
Joy
Peacefulness
Playfulness and Lightness
Powerlessness and Surrender
Rapturous Captivation
Refusing and Boundary-Setting
Sensuosity and Presence
Silliness
Sovereignty and Self-Determination
Spontaneity
Vulnerability and Openness
Wildness and Freedom
Wonder and Awe

Using fentanyl, it is obvious that a parent would have the power to quickly subvert these inborn behaviors, and even to create an aversion to experiencing and expressing them.

Although this parallel is shocking and obviously untenable, and although the subversion of — and even aversion to — these behaviors is not achieved nearly as quickly or as completely as it could be with fentanyl, the end results are not so dissimilar, especially for some of them: silliness, fearfulness, dancing, sovereignty, vulnerability, making requests, saying no, belonging, connection, and forever dawning.

All of this is accomplished by the introduction of praise and blame as the primary motivating instruments that adults use against children.

Aiko: The parallel earns its keep on the mechanism rather than the substance: in both cases an external supply is installed as the child's motivational center of gravity, and the child's own inborn signals are demoted to noise. And your qualifier about speed matters more than it might seem, Dwight — the slowness is precisely what protects the practice from scrutiny, since no one watches a child lose silliness over eight years the way they'd watch it vanish in a week.

Dwight: And praise and blame, even when the child is using it against themselves, is ultimately sourced from the outside — that is the hook. To "grow up" involves outsourcing how we think about ourselves to others.

Aiko: Which is why self-blame never functions as independence, though it wears the costume of it — the verdict is internal in location only, while the standard, the vocabulary, and the authority all remain imported. That fits your original criterion exactly: something that belonged to the child was taken, and what replaced it is on permanent loan from others.

Similar Suite → Next Door

AskDwightHow.org 365/24/7

14m 24s