Professor of child health sees home as a cradle of violence

Press, 8 November 1978, Page 17

Professor of child health sees home as a cradle of violence

Adults teach children to be aggressive and violent much more persuasively and consistently than ’“The Sweeney” and “Statsky and Hutch,' 1 says one of New Zealand’s foremost pediatricians. “In the name of training and discipline we daily use against our children techniques that in adult life are regularly used only in the Army and there only in times of war,” suggests Professor James Michael Watt. What we had established was a society where aggression in child-rearing was the social norm and this had led to a cycle of aggressive children becoming aggressive parents, said the emeritus professor of pediatrics and child health a t the University of Otago. He was delivering the Peter, Lewis Memorial Lecture at the Plunket Society's general conference in Christchurch. Speaking on “The Genesis of Violence,” Professor Watt questioned the theory that television was one of the main villains in the teaching of violence, a

point being examined by the Select Parliamentary Committee on Violent Offending. “For centuries, our children have been brought up on fairy stories that are packed with violence — ‘Little Red Riding Hood,’ Aesops Fables, even the tales of Hans Christian Andersen and the Grimm Brothers. “Many of these are full of violence and even death, but nearly all end with violence requited, and state that active hostility is bad. “So on TV, we find that the more mean and unpleasant the villain, the more we look forward to his receiving his just desserts before the story ends. Indeed, such fantasies help us to cope with our inborn aggression and to move towards a mature personality.

“In nearly all these fantasy situations, whether fairy-tale or TV story, violence is shown to be bad and nearly always punished, though often by greater violence. “But there is little or nothing to encourage a normal child or adolescent to believe that violence is a good thing,” said Professor Watt. Defining aggression and

violence, Professor Walt said that aggression was a necessary instinct, an inborn drive to strive for survival in one’s environment. Only when attempts were made to overwhelm or destroy the environment did aggression become “violence.” Violence, therefore, was socially unacceptable aggression just as a temper tantrum was socially unacceptable anger. “Our aim in civilising, or humanising, our children must be to teach them to control, and keep within acceptable bounds, their aggression as well as their fear (which we accept as caution) and their anger (which is admired as righteous indignation).

“Just as we try to teach our children that temper tantrums cannot be tolerated while righteous anger is acceptable, so we must let them see that violent aggression is not allowed while aggressive determination rr?y be admirable,’’ said Professor Watt. All children strove toward “normality” — the generally accepted pattern of behaviour of the society in which they live. We had to make this norm non-violent with aggression controlled.

"Because at present our society isn’t like this, we are not like this. On the contrary, we bring up our children to believe that might is right, that aggression is an essential prerequisite to achievement,” said Professor Watt.

By the age of five, the avers ce child had learned most of his skills — he could walk, run, climb, jump, talk, sing, reason and argue; and he could charm, beg, lie and fight.

The first few years of life saw the greatest rate of rowth and development and at the same time the child’s basic character traits were also well moulded and could only be modified to a limited extent. “It’s clear that a child’s abilitv to use or abuse his aggressive drive is also largely determined before he ever goes to school.

“So it is at home, in early childhood, that we must look for reasons for the, aggression and violence in our society.” At some time, all adults had taken advantage of their size or position to express unearned aggression and hostility to small children, safe in the knowledge that they cannot retaliate.

“What we must recognise is that each time we do it, we are demonstrating to those children that aggression is acceptable and effective if we are strong enough to make it work without fear of reprisal.”

This encouraged children to grow up as aggressive and violent individuals.

“They will become our union secretaries, employers’ representatives, radio and television interviewers, members of parliament and even Prime Ministers — people who seem incapable of opening their mouths without being unpleasantly and unnecessarily aggressive.” Professor Watt said such behaviour and the resultant strike., and lockout . were every bit as much a reflection of our aggressive society as are the murders and robberies with violence we all abhor.

“They are the adult equivalent of temper tantrums and reactive punishment in childhood and suggest we still have a long, long way to go in learning to deal with our aggressive drive.

“When our society decides to reduce violence, we shall no longer waste

time on committees enquiring into TV violence.

“Rather, we will guide and encourag" parents to train ■ their children to abhor uncontrolled aggression and then in a generation or two we shall move in to a truly brave new world.”