That is, at least, what editors at People's Daily seem to want us to believe. This is from a story, "Don't Be Obsessive, Parents Told," they picked up from China Daily (I couldn't get the CD link):
...the Tuen Mun Court sentenced a 46-year-old man to two weeks in jail for forcing his 10-year-old son to walk naked in public for failing to do his homework. The sentence, however, was suspended for one year.
Another man pleaded guilty in the same court for thrashing his 14-year-old son with a wooden ruler after finding out that he had lied about going through the rigors of his daily exercise regimen: skipping 1,300 times, 1,600 leg stretches and running 50 laps of the corridor outside his home.
...
According to Social Welfare Department statistics, 387 child abuse cases were reported in the first six months of 2006, with 193 of them being physical abuses. Parents were to blame in 241 cases, followed by relatives and friends (38) and siblings (13).
I in no way want to suggest that Hong Kong is worse on child abuse than other places. The US has its own horrendous problem. But I wonder if these cases of HK parents beating their children are expressions of particular cultural expectations and roles. The story suggests as much:
Against Child Abuse (ACA) and Caritas Personal Growth Centre for Men (CPGCM) are two of the many social organizations trying to correct this malady in society. ACA director Priscilla Lui and CPGCM supervisor Lai Wai-lun both agreed that in these days of nuclear families, some parents are obsessed with their children's future and well being. They think, Lui says, that "the more serious the punishment, the more affection the children will get".
"Such parents believe their children's knowledge and sense of responsibility will be reinforced if they are subjected to painful and negative feelings. This mindset should be changed."
Lai wants parents to drop the idea that they have the authority to choose any punishment they want because everything they do is for the good of their children. It's wrong to think that parents have the right to be harsh and lose their head when children don't obey them.
"It's when parents feel their children are being disrespectful that they get angry and beat them up," he says.
The first thing to notice, of course, is the good work of these non-governmental organizations in honestly addressing the problem. The second thing to see is the cultural context. Parents, and especially fathers - at least some socially significant portion of them - believe that their children must obey them absolutely. The punishment for disobedience is swift and severe. And I know who will be blamed for such an exaggerated notion of parental authority and power: Confucius.
It is true that Confucianism became an ideology of patriarchal authority and was used to legitimate parental power over children. But that reality was a distortion of the earliest writings of Confucius and Mencius. While children were certainly expected to respect their elders, the early Confucians did not condone parental abuse or humiliation of children. But don't take my word for it. Here is something from an article, "What if the father commits a crime?", by Rui Zhu, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Lake Forest College in Illinois (The Journal of the History of Ideas, 63.1 (2002), pp. 1-17. For those of you with access to Johns Hopkins Press on-line, through its Project Muse, the html version of the article is here):
According to Mencius, a father should never educate his own son, for education is a rectifying process, with disciplinary actions as its necessary components. If a son makes a mistake, his father has to criticize him; on seeing no effect, the father would naturally become frustrated and angry. If that happens, their relation would turn sour. Mindful of this danger, Mencius propagates his view, based on a historical observation: "In ancient times, people exchange their sons to educate. Between father and son there should not be any rectification. Rectifying creates fissure. Nothing is more ominous than a fissure between father and son."
The idea that "there should not be any rectification" would clearly reject the kinds of behavior performed by the abusive fathers mentioned above. They may think that Confucius says that they have absolute power over their sons and can humiliate them with impunity, but they are wrong. Confucius says nothing of the sort.
Thank goodness for groups like Against Child Abuse (ACA) and Caritas Personal Growth Centre for Men (CPGCM) for doing the right, Confucian thing.
This theme has interested me! They may think that Confucius says that they have absolute power over their sons and can humiliate them with impunity, but they are wrong.
Posted by: Camarad | September 04, 2011 at 03:02 AM