Dear Chris Grayling: I was smacked as a child and it DID do me harm

If this is going to be a match of anecdotes, don't devalue mine, argues Glosswitch.

Chris Grayling, justice secretary, has defended a parent’s right to smack his or her child. In an interview with the Mail on Sunday (the main purpose of which appears to be to demonstrate just how rock hard he is – criminals, beware!) Grayling offers the following parental guidance:

You chastise children when they are bad, as my parents did me. I’m not opposed to smacking. It is to be used occasionally. Sometimes it sends a message – but I don’t hanker for the days when children were severely beaten at school.

Well, that’s all reasonable, isn’t it? Nice, loving parents shouldn’t have to spare the rod, although teachers – who are not to be trusted anyhow – bloody well should. I’m guessing, of course, that Grayling doesn’t mean all parents (one middle-class parent’s reasonable chastisement is another working-class parent’s beating the living daylights out of an innocent child). Still, Grayling was smacked as a kid, and he smacked his kids, so that’s all… fine?

The argument most commonly used in favour of smacking seems to be “I was smacked as a child and it didn’t do me any harm”. It is, on the face of it, a ridiculous argument. I was accidentally thrown into a half-frozen pond filled with ornamental carp as a child and it didn’t do me any harm. That’s not the sodding point. The question is not whether it harmed you personally but whether, potentially, it could be damaging to others.

And yet, on the other hand, it’s a very clever argument, because it silences dissent. You don’t want to be the person who says “I was smacked as a child and the experience scarred me”. After all, it makes you sound like the less rational person in the debate, seeing as you’re already admitting to being psychologically damaged. Plus it positions you as the kind of tosser who blames his or her parents for everything. Mummy and/or Daddy hit me and I’ve never forgiven them. Waah! That’s what it sounds like, even if actually, you now get on with your parents pretty well and consider them to be good people. You’re trying to make a point based on limited personal experience – in response to one which is similarly based on limited person experience – yet you sound like Kevin the teenager while your interlocutor somehow appears to have the wisdom of Solomon.

Well, I’ll stick my neck out here (please don’t hit it): I was smacked as a toddler, child and teenager and yes, the experience did cause me a great deal of fear and distress. This has lasted well into adulthood. I’m still terrified of people “turning” and becoming violent with me if I do the wrong thing. And yes, this might sound like I’m blaming Mummy and Daddy for my own personal flaws. And yes, perhaps you were hit too and you coped with it more successfully because you’re so much stronger than me. Frankly, I don’t think it matters (and yeah, I’ve effectively confessed to being less resilient than Chris Grayling. Although that in itself probably takes a certain amount of courage). Anyhow, let’s just not hit children. It’s surely not a risk worth taking.

I realise I might be pulled up due to the way I’m slipping between using the words “smack” and “hit”. Apparently they’re very different things. Great. Just tell me the cut-off point, because it’s not all that obvious to me. It might just come down to pressure that’s been ever so slightly misjudged, or the edge of a door getting in the way, or someone losing their balance, or the chair that you’ve been hiding under turning out to be more fragile than everyone believed. Nobody’s fault, all an accident. Because “reasonable chastisement” is, by its very nature, “reasonable”, and as for the rest, well, nobody’s perfect. A “loving slap” might occasionally be administered in anger. After all, we all get angry, don’t we? As long as it doesn’t leave marks it’s legal, and if it does? Well, some children bruise more easily than others. The law is a blunt tool. It’s messy. Hence it’s a good job that, for the most part, no one ever finds out what goes on behind closed doors. We just have a halfway-house legal compromise that, to take Grayling’s own words, “sends a message”, namely that administered correctly, physical violence can be an expression of love.

I don’t smack my children. I presume at this point in the argument I’m meant to list all the alternative forms of discipline I use. It’s something I’m loathe to do, on the basis that I don’t smack my partner, parents or colleagues either, and I doubt I’d be expected to offer up alternatives for dealing with them, too. All the same, I know it will be suggested that since children are less rational than adults, they form a special case. I don’t buy this. If they know enough about cause and effect to link being naughty with feeling pain, they also know enough to link it with things they value – praise or favours – being withheld (at least, mine seem to, and I definitely wouldn’t declare either of them to be more rational than the average child). Moreover, I’ve been around adults whom I’d consider less rational than my five-year-old (I’ve spent time in a psychiatric hospital and no, I’m not blaming my sodding parents for it). Some adults who are delusional strike me as less susceptible to grasping the long-term consequences of their actions than children are. I don’t see anyone making a moral case for hitting them (even if, in reality, that’s what some carers – the ones we regard as abusive – end up doing).

Clearly we don’t grant very small children the same rights to bodily integrity as everyone else, and there are reasons for this. I wash my children; I dress my children; I brush their teeth and rub shampoo into their hair even if it makes them cry. I do it “for their own good”, but I’m not always comfortable with it. Even so, there is difference between this and causing them fear and pain for the sake of it. Our children’s bodies are separate from our own. The older they get, the harder it is to just pick them up and plonk them wherever you need them to be. You have to use persuasion instead, and clearly that’s a pain in the arse when they’re ranting and raving about not wanting to wear pants on a Tuesday or needing to watch one more episode of Peppa Pig. When is it right for me to drag my children by the wrists and when is it abusive? I don’t know. What I do know is that unlike Grayling, I wouldn’t sit in the cold light of day, miles away from the complexities of family life, and calmly defend physical assault.

I don’t think I’m a better parent, or indeed a better person, than those who smack. The cultural acceptability of physical chastisement means it’s not the same as other forms of abuse. I think it’s possible to feel conflicted, and even guilty, for not smacking, given the number of people insisting it’s what parents should be able to do. Non-smackers face insinuations that if you don’t hit, you must be using psychological abuse to discipline your children, with the implication being that that’s far worse. But you can use both, one or the other, or neither. Surely at least attempting the latter is best.

And now I’m due back on parent duty to prevent someone from smacking my five-year-old. Obviously I’m against this, but at least this someone has an excuse; unlike Chris Grayling, he’s three.

Photograph: Getty Images

Glosswitch is a feminist mother of three who works in publishing.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

From hard to soft to the “people’s Brexit”: Theresa May’s Britain is in one hell of a frightful mess

Nobody told me there’d be days like these.

Theresa May became Prime Minister only because of Brexit. Her insouciant predecessor, whose most substantial contribution to this year’s general election campaign was to tweet a photograph of his and his wife’s feet as they lay side by side in bed, resigned because of Brexit. May’s successor will become prime minister because of Brexit. The defining question of British politics is Brexit and its effects and consequences.

So much time, energy and anxiety are being wasted on Brexit, and for what? For Britain to negotiate a new relationship with the European Union that will be, in every way, inferior – socially, economically, culturally – to what we have already, and at a time of dangerous instability in the world, when a clown and braggart occupies the White House. Nobody told me there’d be days like these, as John Lennon once put it in a song popularised by his son Julian. Strange days indeed – most peculiar, mamma.

***

David Cameron’s decision to hold the 2016 referendum at the height of the worst refugee crisis in Europe since the end of the Second World War was an act of spectacular folly by a politician who believed too much in the myth of his own good fortune (“Lucky Dave”, they called him). Michael Portillo has described it as the greatest blunder ever made by a British prime minister. After Cameron’s resignation last summer, Theresa May seemed like the only grown-up in a cabal of entitled and squabbling leadership contenders and Conservative MPs duly organised her coronation.

When she became Prime Minister, May delivered a fine speech in Downing Street: she would create a different, more communitarian, even post-liberal conservatism, and she would fight against “burning injustice”. She understood that the vote for Brexit was also a vote of protest against a failed economic model; against austerity, against stagnant wages and in-work poverty, and against ultra-globalisation. People were weary. “I know you’re working around the clock, I know you’re doing your best, and I know that sometimes life can be a struggle,” May said. “The government I lead will be driven not by the interests of the privileged few, but by yours.”

***

Opinion polls seemed to suggest that May was admired and trusted. She was cold and austere but she also seemed serious, and these were serious times. Yet May’s actions were never equal to her early rhetorical positioning and she never reached out to the many millions who had voted Remain and felt excluded.

By the time of the general election campaign, she was reduced to repeating soundbites and clichés. She had become the Maybot. The promising “Red Tory” language of the early months of her premiership – when she spoke about the common good and the need for greater social responsibility – had gone altogether. This is a source of much regret to her maligned former joint chief of staff Nick Timothy.

“My biggest regret,” he has said, “is that we did not campaign in accordance with the insight that took Theresa to Downing Street in the first place.” With her authority and confidence shattered, May will be gone soon: in seeking to deliver the hard Brexit her Eurosceptic supporters in the party and press demanded, she has succeeded only in creating more confusion and tumult.

***

May used to tell us with supreme wisdom that “Brexit means Brexit”. In her Lancaster House speech in January, she explained her preference for a “clean” Brexit (ie, Britain should leave the single market and customs union and be outside the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice). Her use of the word “clean” was philosophically very interesting, especially when you consider its opposite: dirty, as in a dirty or unclean Brexit.

One of the many satisfying outcomes of the general election was that it has reopened the possibility of an alternative to hard (or clean) Brexit, for which there is no mandate in the House of Commons. I have been keeping a note of the different kinds of Brexit that are being touted.

What is clear is that the adjectives “hard” and “soft”, when prefixed to Brexit, are now quite passé. Emboldened by the improbable revival of the Scottish Conservatives, Ruth Davidson favours what she calls an “open” Brexit, and so now does the preposterous Boris Johnson, too, who waits like a big, overheated, hungry dog for the door of 10 Downing Street to open for him, the saliva of ambition dribbling from his mouth.

Keir Starmer, Labour’s serious-minded barrister supreme, is against what he calls an “extreme Brexit”, even if we are not sure what he is actually for, and the Guardian opposes what it calls a “chaotic Brexit”. Andrew Adonis, the Labour peer and educationalist, supports a “sane Brexit”. The Labour activist Sam Tarry wants a “people’s Brexit”. The commentator Philip Stephens has called for an “intelligent Brexit”, as one would expect of an FT panjandrum; and ­Jeremy Corbyn, a long-standing Eurosceptic who leads a party of parliamentary Remainers, wants a Brexit that protects jobs and workers’ rights. Perhaps we should call this a “Bennite Brexit”. Do please let me know if you spot any other variations.

***

My own preference – and I write having been no great enthusiast for the EU before the referendum – is for “no Brexit”, such is the mess into which this country has been dragged by a former Conservative prime minister who believed the simple mechanism of a binary plebiscite could settle an internal party dispute; one that had festered since Ted Heath took Britain into the European Economic Community in 1973. This as well as his desire to assuage the populism of Nigel Farage and appease his tormentors in the press: and all at the time of his own choosing. Strange days indeed – most peculiar, mamma.

Jason Cowley is editor of the New Statesman. He has been the editor of Granta, a senior editor at the Observer and a staff writer at the Times.

This article first appeared in the 22 June 2017 issue of the New Statesman, The zombie PM

0800 7318496