Spanking in anger--what does it matter?

Whenever someone speaks out against spanking, there is instantly a chorus of pro-spankers who claim that the problem is only spanking in anger.  They sincerely believe that spanking is a good thing as long as it is done the right way--without anger.  Really?  What difference does it really make whether the spanking is done calmly or in anger?

The argument with the most merit is that a parent not spanking in anger is in control and less likely to cause lasting physical damage.  Obviously, a person who is out of control with rage has no business hitting anyone, least of all a small child who is particularly vulnerable to injury.  Does that really even need to be said?

Anger is a little more insidious than that, though.  There is quite a continuum of anger.  Even more, the outward manifestation may not always match up with the heart.  I have seen people bluster with surface anger that wasn't especially damaging.  I have also seen a cold, intense anger that looked calm on the surface, but was seething underneath.  Furthermore, I have seen people struggling with depression and other issues who were not always able to accurately gauge the intensity of their emotions.   So if even the parent can't always tell whether they are spanking in anger, how can the child or anyone else evaluate what is in the parent's heart?

Most parents that I know have a very hard time detaching themselves enough from their emotions to avoid spanking in anger.  And I think that is a good thing.  For the parents to detach themselves to the extent that they feel no anger over the offense that resulted in the spanking is eerily reminiscent of Nazi-like behavior.  They had so effectively detached themselves that they couldn't see their actions as being cruel.  They are unlikely to experience compassion for their children, or to be able to tell if they are crossing the line into abuse.

From a child's perspective, spanking done calmly is no better than a spanking done in anger.  Either way, they are hurt.  In fact, many people who have experienced both found spanking in anger less damaging.  They can recognize a distinction between their responsibility and their parent's reaction.  Spanking calmly may be more emotionally damaging, because it is much more effective at teaching the children that they deserve to be hit by those who love them.  Think about this: if someone you love were to say something that hurt you in a moment of anger, or to say the same thing with the intent to hurt you when they were completely calm, which would be more damaging?  For most of us, the latter would be far worse.

 
Most people have no idea where the formulas for "correct" spanking come from.  They certainly don't come from the Bible.  Christian spankers frequently use the Proverbs to justify spanking.  (Jews do not.  Spanking children is illegal in Israel).  In Hebrew, it is very clear that those passages do NOT refer to spanking, but even if you are trying to take a literal version of the English translations, it is pretty clear that it does not follow the formula.  They never mention spanking in anger.  Why not?  If these verses are the basis for instruction, then why isn't such a crucial part of "correct" spankings mentioned?

The unspoken recognition behind spanking in anger is that you can go too far, despite the verse in Proverbs that claims (in most translations) that if you beat your child with the rod, he will not die (Note: despite the claim by many spankers that they just take the verses literally, this does not say that if you give a couple of swats on a covered bottom without anger, he will not die.  If you want to take the Proverbs verses at face value in English, you are most definitely beating, not "popping", and it is the back, not the bottom that should be hit, you are using a branch closer to a baseball bat than a twig, your emotional state is irrelevant, and you cannot go too far.)  However, reality shows us that children have died from being beaten with the rod.  Face-value interpretations from an English translation with our cultural baggage are a clear lie.  We must dig deeper.

Grace-based discipline can never be taken too far.  (Extreme permissiveness, which is neglect, is not a part of grace-based parenting).  You cannot teach (discipline) you child with love and grace too much.  You can spank too much or too hard, regardless of whether you are angry or not.  Consider, is your goal really to get as close as possible to abuse without crossing the line?  Why even go near it at all?

I believe that the whole issue of spanking in anger has become a cop out.  It is a way for pro-spankers to avoid acknowledging the reality of the problems that spanking can cause.  They can dismiss any account of damage by assuming that it was done in anger, and therefore would have been fine had the parent only been calm.  And since most parents do spank in anger, at least some of the time, they can ignore warning signs in their own home about the damage from spanking by assuming that the problem is only their occasional lapse in attitude, never the spanking itself.

Finally, the origin of the "never spank in anger" directive is actually based in domestic spankings--the Spencer Spanking Plan.  Yes, it was meant to describe husbands never spanking their wives in anger.  The instructions are very specific: 1. Explain what actions will merit a spanking. 2. Be careful not to cause injury or leave welts or bruises.  It should only cause just enough pain to be effective.  3.  It must never be done in anger.  4. After the spanking, the wife will kiss her husband and thank him.  Her offense is now forgiven and friendly relations are re-established.  Sound familiar?  It comes right out of S and M.  Is that really what you want to base your child's discipline on?  There is a reason why googling spanking will turn up as many porn/fetish sites as it does parenting sites.

Certainly, spanking in anger is harmful.  But spanking calmly is not benign.  It is still striking a child with the goal of causing pain and fear.  The solution is discipline without spanking.  It is not just about avoiding "spanking in anger".  There is no good spanking.