The Difficult Child and the Problem of Discipline

C.W. Valentine

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9781138899377
• eBook ISBN: 9781317481249
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Developmental Psychology
• Index: Psychology

Originally published in 1940, this book was addressed to students of the psychology of childhood and to parents and teachers who were trying to get from psychology some light on problems of discipline and of the difficult child. It includes critical discussions of some ideas which were gaining widespread attention at the time and which masqueraded as sound psychology, but which seem to be both untrue and harmful.

Topics dealt with include: fads and fallacies about discipline, repression and the inferiority complex, the supposed significance of sex in early childhood, early signs of abnormality, inborn individual differences, heredity and environment, are there "no problem children, only problem parents"?, is character determined by the early years?, the nursery school and the child guidance clinic, home discipline and the cooperation of parents, fallacies about corporal punishment.

Part One
Psychology and the Difficult Child

I
Introduction: Some Unjustified Assertions as to the Psychology of Early Childhood

IN THE HARD task of bringing up children in the home or in dealing with the difficult child in the school, many parents and teachers are looking to the psychologist to give guidance. Unfortunately they are apt to be bewildered by the varying doctrines of persons who adopt the label ‘psychologist’. It is one aim of this book to try to sift some of these which refer to the development of children, to reveal the groundless nature of some of the dogmas, and yet to show that psychological thought can contribute something of real value in the handling of the difficult child, and in the training of normal children so that they do not become problem children.

It is regrettable that at present anyone without any adequate training in psychology can call himself a psychologist and even advertise himself as a consulting psychologist, with the danger of great harm being done to individuals, and certainly to the detriment of the reputation of psychology.

Such fantastic things indeed are said about the social development of children by various persons who claim the name of ‘psychologist’, that by some intelligent people psychology is either disliked, despised, or feared. Thus, according to a newspaper report, a speaker at a recent meeting of ‘Practical Psychologists’ stated that the most deadly enemy of the boy was his mother, the father coming a good second. This sweeping assertion (the speaker, according to the report, did not add ‘in some cases’—which might have been true) was rightly denounced by a member of the Education Committee of the City of Sheffield; but, unfortunately, he regarded it as typical of the view of psychologists, and therefore he opposed a suggestion that Local Education Authorities should engage psychologists to test and advise about children in the schools.

It is in reference to difficult or ‘problem’ children that such extreme and ill-founded generalizations are especially made. The term ‘difficult’ child here and in the title of the book, is meant to indicate not only the extreme cases of difficulty, the so-called ‘problem’ children who are in complete revolt against authority at home and at school, or who play truant or lie or steal, but in particular that much more frequent type which is ‘difficult’ at home or at school, resentful of discipline, or excessively aggressive; the type of child who in the last century would have been called simply the ‘naughty’ or ‘spoilt’ child. We shall also refer to the child who is excessively diffident and needs encouragement rather than restraint, and to the child who becomes too emotionally dependent.

It is significant of the change of attitude that such ‘naughty’ children should now be studied as ‘problems’, and the causes of their naughtiness sought in their environment and training rather than merely in their ‘original sin’. We shall see reason to think, however, that this attribution of the causes of all naughtiness to training or environment has gone too far; that we cannot ignore the great element of truth in the idea that there are inborn defects in varying degrees. We shall see also that some popular dogmatic assertions so readily accepted by many parents and teachers, are not justified by our present knowledge of the social psychology of early childhood.

Gaps in our knowledge of the social psychology of childhood

It is true that great advances have been made recently in the study of intelligence and of some special abilities in childhood: but when we come to consider the early development of character and disposition we find much greater difficulty in stating general facts. True, we have many reports on the characteristics of children of different ages: and much evidence on individual differences in temperament even in the earliest years.¹ So cautious a writer as Professor Cyril Burt, on the basis of his own wide experience of school children and juvenile delinquents, concludes that ‘to a large extent, the behaviour of the child who is temperamentally subnormal resembles that of a child who is considerably younger than himself’.² But as to the very young child we have little knowledge as to what is really normal or at least ‘desirable’ and what we should regard as a bad sign for future development. Rapid conformity to adult standards (often taken as the ideal) may not be essential for later normal development.

The hasty application of insecure psychological theories as to standards of normal or healthy conduct will only bring scepticism, ridicule, and perhaps reaction. A recent visitor to an American Nursery School found a mother greatly upset because of a report on her three-year-old boy, which said he was ‘lacking in co-operation and leadership’ and that ‘concentration was somewhat spasmodic’! The mother was distressed because the boy was not ‘socially conscious’—and this at three years! Generally speaking, the test of character at this early age seemed to be: ‘How far does it approximate to that of an adult?’ I suggest that we do not know enough at present to say whether it is not as good, or even better, for a boy of four or five to be modest and retiring rather than attempt leadership; or whether at ten or twelve he should not be somewhat aggressive instead of too peaceful or obedient. As Claparède has pointed out, it will not hasten the development of the tadpole into a frog if we cut off its tail.

We need especially much fuller and more exact knowledge of what may be the characteristics of a normal child and what are the signs of later abnormal social or emotional development, needing exceptional treatment. Within my own family circle I can cite the following examples of apparent excessive emotional outbursts in early years which were disturbing at the time, but were succeeded by satisfactory development later without any special ‘treatment’.

(1) Occasional violent tempers in one of our boys at the age of 2;0 to 2;6¹—at times rolling on the ground with rage—sometimes it seemed merely through frustration of his wishes. This proved consistent with development into an exceptionally equable temperament in young manhood.

(2) Hysterical night fears (seeing ‘horrid faces’, etc.) in one of our little girls at about 350—very troublesome over a considerable period; these proved consistent not only with a marked stability of emotion later, but with an unusual absence of fears of all kinds—darkness, animals, rough seas, burglars, and with a passion for aeroplane flying. Yet I find that the director of a Child Guidance Clinic declares that night fears are a sign of a ‘nervous’ child!

(3) An outburst of violent temper in another girl was noted at about 2;6, in which she struck a maid with a knife and afterwards boasted, ‘I did bleed her!’ Yet this girl grew up to be extremely sympathetic to pain in other people and in animals.

Rage, cruelty, hysterical fears may certainly appear at various stages in the development of healthy, happy and intelligent children. One investigation indeed suggests that a difficult period of revolt against discipline—between the ages of 2;0 and 450 is usually a good sign. H. Helzer for example reports that of 100 such children, 84 developed later normally as to ‘will’: while of 100 who had no such period of revolt, only 26 developed normally, the others revealing feeble wills.¹

As to children of school age, say from 6 to 14 or from 11 to 18, the teacher of long experience has a fairly good idea as to what type of behaviour is usual, though it may be limited to behaviour in school, and largely to behaviour under the particular teacher’s own influence. But even here we cannot assume that ‘good’ behaviour in school is necessarily a condition for, or a certain indicator of, a normal healthy or vigorous personality in manhood.

In particular we are uncertain as to the extent to which various types of character or behaviour are due to heredity, or environment, are inborn or acquired. Consider such tendencies as self-assertion or submissiveness, affection, suggestibility or stubbornness, sympathy or aggression. We have at present no accurate means of estimating the strength of such tendencies or the degree to which these are inborn, or dependent on or modified by experience. Consequently on these matters ideas tend to be much looser than our ideas about intelligence, more extreme views are expressed, and fads flourish.

We shall consider in Chapter II some unproved assumptions about the question of heredity and environment, especially the assumption often made that abnormal conduct is almost invariably due to social environment or wrong training.

The supposed significance of sex problems in infancy

Psycho-analysts are sometimes responsible for sweeping and unproved assertions about children, and unfortunately in the minds of many people psycho-analysis is identified with psychology. We shall see later in the chapters on discipline how some extreme ideas and modem fads as to discipline are due largely to speculative dogmas of certain psycho-analysts or a misunderstanding of some of their sound ideas. Some of their assertions about the emotional development of little children are supported only by most flimsy evidence. No doubt many readers, whether parents or teachers, have been faced with the statement that the main difficulties of discipline, the chief cause of defiance or of excessive fears in the child and of early conflicts in the home, are in some way connected with sex. Some parents having read such statements have reported that they were afraid of showing affection towards their children for fear of stimulating an unholy sex impulse in them! We had better say something about this bogey of infantile sexuality at the start.¹

Stress on the influence of the early development of sex in children has led in some quarters to some fantastic explanations of their behaviour. Melanie Klein, for example, who attempts to psycho-analyse little children even of three or four, thus describes her treatment of a little girl of three and three-quarter years of age, said to be neurotic. The girl, when playing with a toy man and cart, threw the man out of the cart, and Mrs. Klein explained to the child that she did this because she resented the father’s sexual relations with her mother, which Mrs. Klein apparently described in detail to the child. That child had been troublesome at home, and Mrs. Klein gives as evidence of the correctness of her interpretation, the fact that the little girl was now more friendly to her and wanted to come to her playroom again the next week. Of course! Who else would tell her such wonderful fairy stories?

Now Melanie Klein may not have much influence on education, but such a well-known writer as Dr. Susan Isaacs thinks so well of Mrs. Klein’s opinions and methods, that she dedicates one of her own books to her with the words: ‘To Melanie Klein who understands the minds of children’; and Dr. Isaacs herself attributes so much influence to sex in infancy that she states that ‘idiosyncracies about food, and difficulties as to training in cleanliness are mainly the outcome of deep-seated mental conflict connected with sexual life’.¹

To deal adequately with the supposed evidence of sexuality in infancy is not possible in this brief book. I hope to examine it more fully in a book to be published shortly.¹

We may consider, however, some other types of evidence in addition to that just exemplified.

One common fallacy is the assumption that early interest in and curiosity about the sex organs, imply the beginnings of the development of sex proper. Of course the infant is naturally interested in all parts of his body, and becomes more so when he finds differences between himself and his sister. This curiosity is often stimulated by prohibition against exploration. Indeed I once roused enormous curiosity in my four children—whose ages at the time of the experiment ranged from three to twelve—simply by telling them that a certain box (which was in fact empty) must not be opened. Repeated questioning about the box by the children continued for days, and with the youngest for some weeks.

No doubt when there is persistent or intense interest in the sex apparatus, even after normal curiosity should have been satisfied, there is possibly some premature and excessive development of sex in the child. But in most families still, I imagine, natural curiosity is far from fully satisfied.

A second type of evidence of sex development in early childhood offered by some psycho-analysts, is the fact that mere infants of one or two years will play with their genitals, and masturbation may sometimes be persistent through later infancy. But a normal baby of one or two loves to handle and play with anything wit...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Original Title Page
• Original Copyright Page
• Preface to First Edition
• Contents
• Part One Psychology and the Difficult Child
• Part Two The Problem of Discipline
• Appendix
• Index