The failure of a parent or a caregiver to meet the minimal physical and psychological needs of a child.
Many students become frustrated by the lack of definitional consistency in the field of child maltreatment. Although it does not make the situation any easier to deal with, it is helpful to note that the field is a new one. Certainly, the mistreatment of children is not new; all recorded history includes references to acts we would today define as maltreatment. However, the professional examination of child maltreatment has a fairly short history. Many date the beginning of the professional research in this field to the early 1960s.
A Brief History of Child Maltreatment
Although we definitely hear more about child abuse today than we did in the past, this does not mean it is a new phenomenon. The psychohistorian Lloyd deMause edited The History of Childhood in 1974, which he began with the now-familiar quotation:
The history of childhood is a nightmare from which we have only recently begun to awake. The further back in history one goes, the lower the level of child care and the more likely children are to be killed, abandoned, beaten, terrorized and abused.
(deMause, 1974, p. 1)
Ancient History
Historical research seems to support this rather grim statement. A study of ancient history reveals that infanticide (the act of killing an infant) was practiced in many societies. While we still use this term today, there are two important differences to note between ancient and modern usage. First, modern developmental psychologists define infancy as the period covering only the first year or two of life (Farlex Inc., 2013). In ancient times, the term infancy covered a much longer range, being identified as the period between birth and 7 years. Second, whereas infanticide is clearly illegal today, in ancient times, it was often condoned by society. The historians TenBensel et al., (1997) noted that in ancient times children did not have the right to live until that right was bestowed on them by their father. If the father withheld this right, then the infants were abandoned. In some cases, even fathers could not grant their children the right to live. For instance, the Roman Law of Twelve Tables actually required that any âdreadfully deformedâ child be put to death, no matter what the parentsâ desires were for that child. Reasons for infanticide included population control, appeasement of god(s), limitation of family size, and a way for an unwed mother to deal with shame. Allowing the murder of infants for any of these reasons suggests that children did not have even the most basic right â the right to life. Children who were permitted to live were considered the property of their fathers. As such, the rule of the father over the child was nearly complete. There is ample evidence that it was even socially acceptable in certain circles in ancient Greece for fathers to allow other men to use their sons sexually (Kahr, 1991). The respected philosopher Aristotle wrote, âThe justice of a master or a father is a different thing from that of a citizen, for a son or a slave is property, and there can be no injustice to oneâs own propertyâ (as cited in Helfer et al., 1997, p. 5).
Infanticide
The killing of an infant, particularly a newborn.
Middle Ages
During the Middle Ages, laws forbidding infanticide were passed. It is not clear whether the laws were carefully enforced, but the idea was taking hold that the child at least had the right to live. This does not mean that the Middle Ages were a glorious time for children. The widespread poverty of this time made children a liability. There are horrific stories of children who were severely mistreated by their parents in order to bring more money into their household. Some children were actually sold for profit by their own parents. Other children were mutilated so that they would be more effective beggars. Although wealthy strangers may have turned their back on a healthy child who was begging in the streets, it was harder to ignore a child who was blind or missing a limb; therefore, a child who was injured or deformed was likely to have more success on the streets.
Reformation
A dramatic change in the view of children occurred as a result of the Reformation of the 16th century. This religious movement, marked by a rise in Protestantism, had a significant impact on how children were regarded. On a positive note, children were seen as fragile creatures of God who needed to be safeguarded. As persons created in Godâs image, they had a soul and the right to life. On the other hand, all humans were born marked with the stain of original sin. These beliefs led to a resurgence of interest in educating children in a way that would overcome the stain of original sin. Parents and teachers were urged to use strict discipline in the hopes of molding children into moral human beings (Stone, 1977). John Robinson, a pastor of the Pilgrim Fathers in the Netherlands, wrote, âSurely there is in all children a stubbornness, and stoutness of mind arising from natural pride, which must in the first place be broken and beaten downâ (Stone, 1977, p. 116). The general acceptance of this approach was clear when the birch rod became a symbol of education. The normative view seemed to be an acceptance of the saying âSpare the rod and spoil the child.â Flogging became the normal punishment for any academic lapse, and records of the beatings reveal that they were often quite harsh. Children were whipped, generally with a bundle of birches, on their bare buttocks until they bled. Other teachers used a ferula (a mat piece of wood that had a rounded end with a hole in the middle) to hit students on the hand or mouth, which resulted in a painful blister (Stone, 1977). The beatings extended even into the college years. Students working toward their bachelorâs degree in the early 1600s could be flogged, not only by the college head but also by their deans and even their tutors.
While this paints a very bleak picture of childhood during the Reformation, there is some good news being reported in recent scholarship. Moran and Vinovskis (1986) found that this harsh child-rearing strategy may have been true of the prevailing public opinion, but many parents were resistant to using harsh discipline and instead raised their children with love and affection. This is also an important reminder that at any point in time, there will be great diversity in how children are treated, no matter what the current prevailing public opinion is.
Enlightenment
It was not until the Enlightenment that things begin to improve for children in terms of the generally accepted views of child-rearing. The next shift in how childhood was viewed has been largely attributed to the writings of John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Locke saw children as tabula rasa, which means blank slate. Locke viewed children not as innately flawed, but simply as blank or neutral. If children are tabula rasa, then parents and teachers need only to shape them, to mold them into whatever is good; there is no need to eliminate innate badness. Certainly, this would suggest that a kinder, gentler parent and educator were required. Rousseauâs philosophy went even further by saying that children were noble savages, neither evil nor blank, but endowed with an innate sense of right and wrong. Rousseau believed that a parentâs training would only interfere with a childâs innate, orderly, moral development. Instead of forcing or molding a child, an adult needs to be sensitive to a childâs needs (Berk, 2018). Children should be permitted to grow with very little constraint by parents or teachers.
Tabula Rasa
A blank slate; a mind that has not yet been affected by experiences or impressions.
Industrial Revolution
This shift in the view of human nature, from evil to neutral to good, does not mean that children have been treated gently since the Enlightenment! In fact, some of the saddest stories about the mistreatment of children come from the 19th century and the Industrial Revolution. Although the Industrial Revolution brought relief from hard labor for many, it was merely a new age of abuse for poor children who were brought into the labor force. Even very young children were forced to work long hours in horrific conditions in which they were exposed to occupational hazards.
Some of the most compelling child labor stories in the United States were about the âbreaker boys,â who worked in the anthracite coal industry. The job for these boys was to pick impurities, such as slate, out of the coal before it was sold. In order to do this, the boys sat on benches that were suspended over the conveyor belts that carried the coal. They spent their days bent over, picking through the coal in order to remove any impurities. The air was thick with coal dust that settled in their lungs and led to harsh coughs. Their hands were covered with cuts and calluses from dealing with the rough and sharp material. The long days of their work were filled with noise and danger. Boys who fell from their suspended benches suffered burns, cuts, and occasionally death by suffocation. Some adults indicated that the work done by the breaker boys was even more dangerous than working in the mines (Hindman, 2002).
These abuses continued in the United States until child labor laws were passed and enforced. By the late 1800s, advocates for children began pushing for legislation that would protect children. By 1900, all industrialized states had some law that dealt with child labor, but the laws at this time varied substantially in terms of the rules they proposed and the seriousness of their enforcement. This discrepancy led advocates to fight for a federal law to protect children in the workforce. Initial attempts at passing and sustaining a federal child labor law were not successful for a variety of reasons, including charges that they were unconstitutional or that they gave the federal government too much power. The issue was not resolved until 1941, when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act, which limited child labor. In many ways, the passing of this federal law was anticlimactic, because most child labor in the United States had been eliminated by that time (Hindman, 2002). Children living in the United States today are well protected by the child labor laws. With only a few exceptions (acting, newspaper delivery, and some types of family businesses), children younger than the age of 14 are not permitted to work. Between the ages of 14 and 15, work for pay is limited by law. When school is in session, young adolescents may work a maximum of 3 hours per day and no more than 18 hours per week. When school is not in session, they can work no more than 40 hours per week. Some dangerous jobs such as coal mining, roofing, and logging may only be done by adults. Although the enforcement of the child labor laws in the United States is not perfect, it is generally considered to be fairly good. These laws were directed at eliminating child maltreatment at work, but they were not relevant to what took place at home.
Looking at maltreatment from a historical perspective can give us hope when we consider how far we have come in protecting children. Although children today still suffer from abuse and neglect, many would argue that the lot of children is far better now than it has ever been. The progress we have made is, to a large degree, the result of the work of child advocates. Although some may judge the response to child maltreatment as too slow and too little, there have always been people who were willing to fight for children, and progress has bee...