Changing society through social engineering & social work...

[parentastic]

In the past weeks, MomoJA and I had a very interesting (yet also heated) debate about spanking and the criminalization of spanking.
It occurred to me, as I was reading her answers, that we were perhaps hitting a fundamental disagreement about our <I>culture.</I>

I thought this was fascinating and I wanted to dig deeper and try to understand why there was such a disconnect. I'd like to have your reflections and input on this. Here is the issue:

I am from Canada. Here, thousands of students are trained in our universities every year to learn how to influence and change the society. The programs we follow are social work, social science, applied human science, family life education, and many others. All of these university degrees all have in common the desire to understand how the society works, how it is impacted by different variables, and how to make it into a better place for everyone by acting on it through various means.

Some of these means can be:

<LIST>

• 
  <LI>
• Recommendations and lobbying to promote new laws (protecting children, protecting the environment, setting minimal hourly wages for workers, setting employment insurance, setting universal health care, setting bigger parental days off-work after a birth for both parents, reducing speed on street roads to reduce the amount of death-by-car in accidents, etc)</LI>
  <LI>
• Building social programs to educate people about specific issues (effect of spanking, effect of smoking, importance of exercising, effect of fast food)</LI>
  <LI>
• Calculation of large scale return-on-investment to promote these programs (money saved from universal health care by influencing more people to exercise or to quit smoking, lower rate of SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome) by promoting different type of baby cribs, lower rate of infant mortality, etc...) and to get funding for these programs</LI>
  <LI>
• Research and studies to analyze the effect of previous policies and social changes and correct course if needed, etc...</LI>

</LIST>
To me, this seems evident and useful. Thousands of students every year get trained to do this, and work their whole life helping the system, and pushing to make it better.

Yet, in my discussion with MomoJA, this came out:

You have specifically stated on more than one occasion that you thought spanking should be illegal so that parents would learn not to do it and to teach parents, etc., and when I asked, you stated that spanking was not criminal but misguided and that making it a illegal would make parents stop it.
I can accept that as you have gone into more and more detail in your responses, your argument has become more focused and you sincerely feel that it should be a crime not to "teach society" but because it is a criminal act, and if that is the case, while I heartily disagree with you, I don't find that way of thinking frightening. As it was that frightening attitude that got me so involved in this debate in the first place, three threads ago, if you don't support that way of "educating" about spanking, then the argument is nothing more than that you think spanking is an offense akin to other criminal offenses, and I think it is not. We can agree to disagree about that.

So here is my question for all of you: is it different in US culture, or in your own culture if you come from somewhere else than Canada?
What is <I>frightening </I>about this, if anything?

 

[MomoJA]

In the past weeks, MomoJA and I had a very interesting (yet also heated) debate about spanking and the criminalization of spanking.
It occurred to me, as I was reading her answers, that we were perhaps hitting a fundamental disagreement about our <I>culture.</I>

I thought this was fascinating and I wanted to dig deeper and try to understand why there was such a disconnect. I'd like to have your reflections and input on this. Here is the issue:

I am from Canada. Here, thousands of students are trained in our universities every year to learn how to influence and change the society. The programs we follow are social work, social science, applied human science, family life education, and many others. All of these university degrees all have in common the desire to understand how the society works, how it is impacted by different variables, and how to make it into a better place for everyone by acting on it through various means.

Some of these means can be:

<LIST>

• 
  <LI>
• Recommendations and lobbying to promote new laws (protecting children, protecting the environment, setting minimal hourly wages for workers, setting employment insurance, setting universal health care, setting bigger parental days off-work after a birth for both parents, reducing speed on street roads to reduce the amount of death-by-car in accidents, etc)</LI>
  <LI>
• Building social programs to educate people about specific issues (effect of spanking, effect of smoking, importance of exercising, effect of fast food)</LI>
  <LI>
• Calculation of large scale return-on-investment to promote these programs (money saved from universal health care by influencing more people to exercise or to quit smoking, lower rate of SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome) by promoting different type of baby cribs, lower rate of infant mortality, etc...) and to get funding for these programs</LI>
  <LI>
• Research and studies to analyze the effect of previous policies and social changes and correct course if needed, etc...</LI>

</LIST>To me, this seems evident and useful. Thousands of students every year get trained to do this, and work their whole life helping the system, and pushing to make it better.

Yet, in my discussion with MomoJA, this came out:



So here is my question for all of you: is it different in US culture, or in your own culture if you come from somewhere else than Canada?
What is <I>frightening </I>about this, if anything?

You mention me by name and quote me out of context. But I see in your list of ways students are trained to "better" society that you haven't mentioned that in Canada you practice changing society through <SIZE size="175">criminalizing</SIZE> acts that are deemed "misguided" by current wisdom, the very concept that I found and continue to find frightening. Perhaps most Canadians support that practice, though I sort of doubt it. (In case you missed my point, legal policies and criminal laws are legislatively, effectively, and conceptually different.)

If you want to argue social engineering, have at it. Social engineeriing has been practiced since the beginning of time in productive as well as destructive ways and for reasonable as well as unreasonable motives. It could be a fascinating discussion. If you want to discuss cultural differences, go for it. But I'll thank you to not bring me and my comments into the discussion unless you want to argue the specific point above, which, by the way, I do not want to argue any longer as it is a waste of my time.

 

[parentastic]

You mention me by name and quote me out of context.

I mention you by your forum name, which to my knowledge is not private. And I quoted the whole thing, although readers who want more context are welcome to read the whole thread here.
I don't think I am doing anything wrong or against the rules here; just trying to have an interesting debate on a wide topic.

criminalizing</SIZE> acts that are deemed "misguided" by current wisdom[/B], the very concept that I found and continue to find frightening. [/QUOTE]

I did say: "Recommendations and lobbying to promote new laws", the law banning spanking being one of them.
Since I was trying to elevate the debate higher than spanking, however, I did not want to focus exclusively on this issue.
I would like to hear what you find frightening in this issue. Can current wisdom be wrong? Is it possible?

Perhaps most Canadians support that practice, though I sort of doubt it. (In case you missed my point, legal policies and criminal laws are legislatively, effectively, and conceptually different.)

As you may or may not know, Spanking is strictly defined in Canada and is <U>criminalized</U> when it is done with any object, when it's done with anything but the open hand, when it's done anywhere on the head, or when it's done in any way shape or form below 2 years old or over 12 years old. Not merely illegal, but criminal.
This being said, I'd like to hear more about the difference between the two. Since this is a new thread, perhaps we can discuss this as a new and interesting point, rather than assuming who missed each other point in a previous post.

If you want to argue social engineering, have at it. Social engineeriing has been practiced since the beginning of time in productive as well as destructive ways and for reasonable as well as unreasonable motives. It could be a fascinating discussion. If you want to discuss cultural differences, go for it. But I'll thank you to not bring me and my comments into the discussion unless you want to argue the specific point above, which, by the way, I do not want to argue any longer as it is a waste of my time.

The comments you made triggered the desire for me to discuss social engineering, and the way it is seen and perceived in different culture. I don't see why you don't like to see it there. If you don't want to argue this specific point any longer, then why are you responding about it at all now? This thread is not about you. Really. it's not.

 

[singledad]

I am from Canada. Here, thousands of students are trained in our universities every year to learn how to influence and change the society. The programs we follow are social work, social science, applied human science, family life education, and many others. All of these university degrees all have in common the desire to understand how the society works, how it is impacted by different variables, and how to make it into a better place for everyone by acting on it through various means.


So here is my question for all of you: is it different in US culture, or in your own culture if you come from somewhere else than Canada?
What is <I>frightening </I>about this, if anything?

I find most "lobby groups" frightening. And don't get me wrong - no one should just sit back and accept everything that is wrong in the world. But one should always be very careful when lobbying for something, and do so with a very open mind, considering the consequences of what you are lobbying for, and a lot of respect for those who disagree with you.

Eg. I am sickened by animal cruelty. I would love to ban any and every practice that harms animals. I also do my bit by not supporting such practices. One thing I do, is to only buy free-range chicken and eggs. I have chicken batteries. I would love to see chicken batteries banned. Problem is, to go from a battery to free-range is expensive. It takes more space and more labour. Free range chicken is more expensive. If chicken batteries were banned here, thousands of jobs would be lost, and a large part of the population, would be unable to afford their primary source of protein. So, I keep talking, writing, and educating people, trying to keep the slow pace of change ticking over, at least, without trying to speed it up too fast.

A more pertinent example - In the late 90's, corporal punishment was banned in schools in SA. It happen quickly, over night, almost, under massive pressure from several lobby groups. Teachers were told to use detention and demerit systems instead, or to be creative. It has been more than 10 years, and teachers are feeling powerless and overwhelmed. The average teacher has no idea how to instill discipline in the 40 kids in front of them. Cases of teachers assaulting kids are rising alarming fast (due to frustration, I would guess), as well as stories of children assaulting teachers, and teachers being afraid to go to school because they had been threatened with knives, or even guns. Our public school system is, frankly, a frightening mess.

Spanking was banned long before the teaching fraternity was ready.

What should have happened, is that the lobby groups should have quit picketing in front of parliament, and rather spent their energies on educating teachers, teaching them why they shouldn't spank, and offering them alternative means of enforcing discipline, etc. Teachers should have been educated, while still having the power to fall back on spanking. I would dare to say that if that was done successfully, then a spanking ban would have become redundant.

Do I approve of spanking in schools? No.
Do I believe that it is better than no discipline at all? Yes.
Do I believe that spanking or complete lack of discipline are the only choices? Not at all. But the other choice will take a lot of education, and therefor a lot of time.

And then, of course, I don't think you are completely wrong about the cultural thing. But see, interacting with, and getting along with other cultures is all about knowledge and respect. You have to understand the other person's culture, and you have to respect it. "Culture" is no excuse for doing what is harmful, but on the other hand, one has no right to force your "culture" on anyone else. Just because it is your culture, and therefor ingrained so deeply into you psyche that you can no longer distinguish between what your culture dictates and what is "right", does not mean that you have the right to force anyone else to abide by it. That is the biggest challenge of living in a multicultural society.

 

[Xero]

I kind of agree with MomoJA, I have never had anyone quote me directly in a conflictual way like that. Seems like it would bother me.

So here is my question for all of you: is it different in US culture, or in your own culture if you come from somewhere else than Canada?
What is <I>frightening </I>about this, if anything?

Also, I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to ask here. Is WHAT different in US culture? You mean, social programs? Because all the things you mentioned Canadian students being trained for in colleges and whatnot, there are the exact same programs in the US. All of those same things exist here. "Social work, social science, applied human science, family life education, and many others". Yes, we have those too. And I think that they are a good idea, and its a great thing they exist. I'm not sure if you think that Canada is the only place that has figured that out? Or what you're trying to ask...?

 

[mom2many]

I kind of agree with MomoJA, I have never had anyone quote me directly in a conflictual way like that. Seems like it would bother me.



Also, I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to ask here. Is WHAT different in US culture? You mean, social programs? Because all the things you mentioned Canadian students being trained for in colleges and whatnot, there are the exact same programs in the US. All of those same things exist here. "Social work, social science, applied human science, family life education, and many others". Yes, we have those too. And I think that they are a good idea, and its a great thing they exist. I'm not sure if you think that Canada is the only place that has figured that out? Or what you're trying to ask...?

I thought I was the only one?!

 

[MomoJA]

I mention you by your forum name, which to my knowledge is not private. And I quoted the whole thing, although readers who want more context are welcome to read the whole thread here.
I don't think I am doing anything wrong or against the rules here; just trying to have an interesting debate on a wide topic.



I did say: "Recommendations and lobbying to promote new laws", the law banning spanking being one of them.
Since I was trying to elevate the debate higher than spanking, however, I did not want to focus exclusively on this issue.
I would like to hear what you find frightening in this issue. Can current wisdom be wrong? Is it possible?



As you may or may not know, Spanking is strictly defined in Canada and is <U>criminalized</U> when it is done with any object, when it's done with anything but the open hand, when it's done anywhere on the head, or when it's done in any way shape or form below 2 years old or over 12 years old. Not merely illegal, but criminal.
This being said, I'd like to hear more about the difference between the two. Since this is a new thread, perhaps we can discuss this as a new and interesting point, rather than assuming who missed each other point in a previous post.



The comments you made triggered the desire for me to discuss social engineering, and the way it is seen and perceived in different culture. I don't see why you don't like to see it there. If you don't want to argue this specific point any longer, then why are you responding about it at all now? This thread is not about you. Really. it's not.

Parentastic, If you look back, you will see I made no argument. I was pointing out to you that you took something I said about a very specific, very narrowly defined method of "engineering society" and aligned it with a whole list of things that I don't see as being even remotely similar. You then asked what anyone could find frightening about those things. By doing so, you more than implied that I found those things to be frightening as well. I say you cannot logically draw the conclusion that because I find criminalizing target "misguided" behavior to be frightening that I also find those other methods of "social engineering" to be frightening.

Now either you did not realize that was what you were doing, or you did and you did it intentionally. I believe that it was the former. You never did understand my point in the previous argument. You always assumed I was talking about something else and continued to argue that other point no matter how many times I hammered the point that I was frightened by the idea of "teaching" people how to behave by making "misguided" behaviors criminal.

Whether you understand that was what you have done or not, I'm pointing it out in no uncertain terms because I don't really want words put in my mouth in that way. If you do not understand this is what you have done and persist in disagreeing that is what you have done, at least I've made my point to other members of the forum and to guests that I have NEVER stated that I find your list of "social engineering" techniques to be "frightening ."

I'm sorry. I don't mean to be ugly, but I'm trying to spell things out as clearly as I can.

I find the debate about social engineering to be a fascinating one, and I hope this thread becomes about that. I just felt strongly that I had to make my opinions from the other thread clear. I felt you had muddied the waters, so to speak, so that my opinion had been presented in a manner that was at the very least ambiguous if not outright false.

 

[parentastic]

Parentastic, If you look back, you will see I made no argument. I was pointing out to you that you took something I said about a very specific, very narrowly defined method of "engineering society" and aligned it with a whole list of things that I don't see as being even remotely similar. You then asked what anyone could find frightening about those things. By doing so, you more than implied that I found those things to be frightening as well. I say you cannot logically draw the conclusion that because I find criminalizing target "misguided" behavior to be frightening that I also find those other methods of "social engineering" to be frightening.

Thank you for this last post, MomJA. :wubclub:
It makes a lot more sense to me now, and we did come from a misunderstanding, I think.
The difference between these other things I mentioned in this thread and the previous thread are still confusing to me, perhaps because I don't make the distinction you seem to make about misguided vs criminal in the case of spanking... because of the children/human right issue I outlined in the previous post.
I think I see your point much more clearly now. Thank you!

Now either you did not realize that was what you were doing, or you did and you did it intentionally. I believe that it was the former.

I assure you I have no intention to assume anything, nor to annoy or misquote anyone. Which is also why I asked about culture - I started to wonder if we were perhaps sing the same words but not putting the same meanings on them.

You never did understand my point in the previous argument. You always assumed I was talking about something else and continued to argue that other point no matter how many times I hammered the point that I was frightened by the idea of "teaching" people how to behave by making "misguided" behaviors criminal.
Whether you understand that was what you have done or not, I'm pointing it out in no uncertain terms because I don't really want words put in my mouth in that way.
I'm sorry. I don't mean to be ugly, but I'm trying to spell things out as clearly as I can.

I really appreciate that you did so.
And I feel also more understood too, so again, thank you. There is nothing to be sorry about - on the contrary, I feel a lot of respect for this.

I find the debate about social engineering to be a fascinating one, and I hope this thread becomes about that. I just felt strongly that I had to make my opinions from the other thread clear. I felt you had muddied the waters, so to speak, so that my opinion had been presented in a manner that was at the very least ambiguous if not outright false.

I am glad that it seems more clear now - at least to me.
I am still confused, because to me, spanking is a bit of a special case, since it is an intervention both aimed at a large scale social engineering AND a necessary step to protect children's rights. If it was not about protecting children's right, I'd go for policies, but not for criminalization. You'll have to be patient with me, okay? I can be dense sometimes. :veryconfused:

I am looking forward to debate and learn from this thread, as I also think it can be a fascinating debate. I'll look forward to read your posts!

 

[singledad]

I am still confused, because to me, spanking is a bit of a special case, since it is an intervention both aimed at a large scale social engineering AND a necessary step to protect children's rights. If it was not about protecting children's right, I'd go for policies, but not for criminalization.

Nicholas, you mentioned the human rights angle before, and I accepted it then because I had no time to check it out for myself. However, I've just googled and read through the universal declaration of human rights, and I'm not sure which article you refer to that directly prohibits spanking?

Oh, and I am also looking forward to hearing peoples thoughts on social engineering. I'll keep my opinion until I have more time to formulate and substantiate it properly

 

[parentastic]

U.N Charter for Children's rights: source
1 The child shall enjoy all the rights set forth in this Declaration. Every child, without any exception whatsoever, shall be entitled to these rights, without distinction or discrimination on account of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, whether of himself or of his family.

2 The child shall enjoy special protection, and shall be given opportunities and facilities, by law and by other means, to enable him to develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually and socially in a healthy and normal manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity. In the enactment of laws for this purpose, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.

3 The child shall be entitled from his birth to a name and a nationality.

4 The child shall enjoy the benefits of social security. He shall be entitled to grow and develop in health; to this end, special care and protection shall be provided both to him and to his mother, including adequate pre-natal and post-natal care. The child shall have the right to adequate nutrition, housing, recreation and medical services.

5 The child who is physically, mentally or socially handicapped shall be given the special treatment, education and care required by his particular condition.

6 The child, for the full and harmonious development of his personality, needs love and understanding. He shall, wherever possible, grow up in the care and under the responsibility of his parents, and, in any case, in an atmosphere of affection and of moral and material security; a child of tender years shall not, save in exceptional circumstances, be separated from his mother. Society and the public authorities shall have the duty to extend particular care to children without a family and to those without adequate means of support. Payment of State and other assistance towards the maintenance of children of large families is desirable.

7 The child is entitled to receive education, which shall be free and compulsory, at least in the elementary stages. He shall be given an education which will promote his general culture and enable him, on a basis of equal opportunity, to develop his abilities, his individual judgement, and his sense of moral and social responsibility, and to become a useful member of society.
The best interests of the child shall be the guiding principle of those responsible for his education and guidance; that responsibility lies in the first place with his parents.
The child shall have full opportunity for play and recreation, which should be directed to the same purposes as education; society and the public authorities shall endeavour to promote the enjoyment of this right.

8 The child shall in all circumstances be among the first to receive protection and relief.

9 The child shall be protected against all forms of neglect, cruelty and exploitation. He shall not be the subject of traffic, in any form.
The child shall not be admitted to employment before an appropriate minimum age; he shall in no case be caused or permitted to engage in any occupation or employment which would prejudice his health or education, or interfere with his physical, mental or moral development.

10 The child shall be protected from practices which may foster racial, religious and any other form of discrimination. He shall be brought up in a spirit of understanding, tolerance, friendship among peoples, peace and universal brotherhood, and in full consciousness that his energy and talents should be devoted to the service of his fellow men.

(My emphasis added)
Spanking, and the use of any technique akin to humiliation, violates article 2, as well as potentially article 6.

 

[IADad]

So here is my question for all of you: is it different in US culture, or in your own culture if you come from somewhere else than Canada?
What is <I>frightening </I>about this, if anything?

so, from the OP, what is frightening, or at least cause for pause, is that just because something is well intentioned, doesn't make it inherently good.

The goal of providing water and electricity to vast parts of the southwest lead us to build Hoover dam, there are eco-systems that have been irreparably changed, and even other people deprived of water. The great scientists and engineers didn't set out to harm anything, they thought they were doing good. So, advancements in one area can and do cause unintended collateral damage. There are tons of examples in thephysical and medical worlds of cases like this were we've ended up whether science always makes things better, and I think it's healthy to question, not the intentions, but the outcomes, or projected outcomes ofany scientific application.

Even parentastics examples of the great work social science engages is is full of questionable outcomes. Minimum wage laws have arguably created a stuck under-employed class. Universal health care is questioned about rtationing care and creating problem with access to specialization. In the US has our war on poverty, undertaken 4 decades ago really made any progress despite significant resources allocated to them.

I'm not saying, "do nothing, the world is fine as it is." but, "proceed with caution. Let's consider what new protections we reallly need.

Here in my little corner of the world, the highway people are putting in cables to keep cars from crossing through the median, into oncoming traffic. The cost for this cabling over a 30 mile stretch is over $2.1 million, for an area population of around 400,000 people. Sure, if it's my life it saves, it's a great investment ;-), but I question whether anyone has really thought about the best societal use for this money? How many childdren need medical care? nourishment? clothing? shelter? And yet, virtually non one stood up and said, really $2MM, are we sure? I'm reasonable certain that these will end up being deemed useless or dangerous in the near future and ripped out at a cost near the cost of installation.

I common sense were truly common, we'd all have it.

 

[GavinH]

One of the things that concerns me about the conscious social engineering as described ....

Here, thousands of students are trained in our universities every year to learn how to influence and change the society.

.... is that a significant number of the teachers of these students tend to have a liberal focus and so the result is that we will have conscious social engineering that tends to move society more and more towards a paternalistic government, passing laws that infringe on what I believe are my personal rights.

Take for example seat belt usage. While I absolutely agree that seat belt usage is a good thing and should be encouraged, I object to there being a law that enforces it on adults. If I elect to not wear a set belt I will only injure or kill myself or run up medical bills that I am responsible for.

The flip side however is also a problem. Look at all the laws on the books that are the result of over zealous religious based or moral based social engineering. Here in the southern USA we still have laws the prevent the sale of alcohol on Sundays. Prostitution is another law that is a complete waste of time and money. Making it illegal to sell something that I can legally give away is bizarre. Think back on prohibition ..... social engineering at it's worst.

I guess that at the end of the day we all have to be very cautious of any social engineering. What seems like a good idea often has an unintended outcome or it is later shown that the "science" that the engineering was based on was later proven to be bogus or engineered to ensure a specific outcome.

my 2c .....
Thanks for the opportunity to participate.

 

[IADad]

must add, on the subjecct of unintended consequences, that at one point Queen Vicotria approved of a law making homosexuality illegal, but refused to believe that female homosexuality existed or was even possible, so she made lesbianism legal while male homosexuality was illegal. A good historical example of being sure you define things as you intend.

 

[parentastic]

One of the things that concerns me about the conscious social engineering as described ....
.... is that a significant number of the teachers of these students tend to have a liberal focus ...

I would tend to agree with this, although I don't see this as a bad thing.
I guess it's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem.
The people who decide to spend virtually 10-15 years of their life to study this field so that they end up with a PhD or post-doctorate and end up teaching happens to be the people who... well... think that it's worth spending 10-15 years of their life doing this.
Which happens to be people who believe in social work and social welfare, by definition.

However, I think we reach a point were we disagree when the "liberal focus" is akin to "paternalistic government" - which in my book is a judgment based on a perception (and again, perhaps it is also cultural) :

...and so the result is that we will have conscious social engineering that tends to move society more and more towards a paternalistic government, passing laws that infringe on what I believe are my personal rights.

In my views, the government is (or at least <I>should be</I>) by the people, of the people and for the people. Hence it is not supposed to be paternalistic. It's not - or <I>should not</I> - do things "for your own good", but rather, <I>for the greater good</I>. There is a world of difference between the two. For instance, take your example:

Take for example seat belt usage. While I absolutely agree that seat belt usage is a good thing and should be encouraged, I object to there being a law that enforces it on adults. If I elect to not wear a set belt I will only injure or kill myself or run up medical bills that I am responsible for.

So, in an individualistic society in which everyone pays for their own medical bills, the decision to enforce the seat belt may indeed be perceived as a paternalistic move. The big daddy is telling the child "put your seat belt on!" and has a punishment for you if you don't. Not cool!

On the flip side, in a society which values <I>the whole</I> and not only the individual, it's a different story. For instance, in Canada, we have universal health care. Every worker pays an amount of money, through taxes, that is <I>proportional</I> to their income, and a part of that money goes into health care and pays for your medical bills. This means that a poor family of five with a low revenue of 20K will have access to a brain surgery if he gets a brain tumor, just as much as the rich corporate lawyer who makes 200K a year.
However in that context, your decision not to put your seat belt means you inject higher risks into the common health insurance system. If you maim yourself and require an expensive surgery, that surgery is paid by the people. That same people, represented (<I>in theory</I>) by the government (of the people, by the people, for the people) then makes a law so that you are required to put your seat belt on.

If later it is proven through research that having your seat belt on does not reduce the risks of injuries, or their frequency or their severity, then (again <I>in theory</I>) the people can mobilize to change the law and reverse it. I can't press enough how important it is that these changes in policies stem from true research, and not from mob mentality or political bias.

Of course this whole problem is made much more complicated in today's globalized world because of corporations and the need to an everlasting ever-growing profit: so the above story does not take into account the lobbying from the seat-belt manufacturers who would want that law to be taken.

Still, I think the principle stands, <I>in theory</I>, even if it's not easy and the system is often abused from many different areas.

Look at all the laws on the books that are the result of over zealous religious based or moral based social engineering.

In this case, I think the focus is on the importance of separation between religion and state - a key principle that is strongly being challenged by the tea party and the religious right in US right now.
When social engineering stems from true social science and research, the risks of these things happening are much more controlled - even if I am the first to say that it's far from perfect.

One last thing I'd like to add, on this specific point.

Often the idea is that social engineering is dangerous or delicate and that the chances to make it wrong is high.
It's perfectly true.
However, the counterpart is this idea that if you don't do social engineering, you are okay because you are not doing anything. You are "safe". But I think this idea is very deeply flawed.
I think that whether or not people (scholars, educators, politicians, social workers and anyone mobilized in the population) do something, the social map is <I>changing</I> everyday with out without us. Corporations push REAL HARD toward their agenda. They manipulate governments, they flood us with marketing and commercials, push us to consume, influence our very perception of our needs, and re-arrange the social network thousand times more than we do ourselves through social work.
So I feel very passionately about this topic, because I feel all we need to do to hit a HUGE wall, soon, is to do nothing.

 

[MomoJA]

As I've said before, social engineering has been practiced since the beginning of time and almost exclusively with good intentions. But to see why there is reason to be leary of any attempt to engineer society, just read the book, Rabbit Proof Fence, or watch the movie. This is just one small example of fairly recent social engineering that is offensive. Of course no one on this forum would support this course of action today, but it was enforced in my lifetime and the lifetimes of most of the people on this forum and when it was instituted, it was considered by the vast majority to be in the best interest of the child. I'm sure that an argument could be made that it would live up to the UN Human Rights Declaration and leaving those children with their parents would be against the declaration. the people who designed the policy unquestionably believed they were doing good and that right was on their side.

On the other hand, there is no question that some things have to be changed and sometimes "force" is the only way to change them. (By force I mean, for example, making status quo so inconvenient that people eventually change.)

But I distrust any activist who is blind to counter arguments and I pity any culture that does not question every attempt to "engineer" it. Without those checks and balances we end up with the Holocaust.

A current and controversial "social engineering" policy is the one-child policy in China. I see both sides of tahe issue, but I come down on one side, though I won't say which here.

Edited to add: In case anyone doesn't know what Rabbit Proof Fence is about, briefly, it is the true story of two bi-racial girls (Aboriginal/White) who followed the Rabbit Proof Fence home to their mothers the 1200 miles from the camp they were taken to to educate them in Western ways and "breed the Aboriginal out of the mixed race" so to speak. The policy was in place until the mid 70s.

 

[MomoJA]

A more pertinent example - In the late 90's, corporal punishment was banned in schools in SA. It happen quickly, over night, almost, under massive pressure from several lobby groups. Teachers were told to use detention and demerit systems instead, or to be creative. It has been more than 10 years, and teachers are feeling powerless and overwhelmed. The average teacher has no idea how to instill discipline in the 40 kids in front of them. Cases of teachers assaulting kids are rising alarming fast (due to frustration, I would guess), as well as stories of children assaulting teachers, and teachers being afraid to go to school because they had been threatened with knives, or even guns. Our public school system is, frankly, a frightening mess.

Spanking was banned long before the teaching fraternity was ready.

What should have happened, is that the lobby groups should have quit picketing in front of parliament, and rather spent their energies on educating teachers, teaching them why they shouldn't spank, and offering them alternative means of enforcing discipline, etc. Teachers should have been educated, while still having the power to fall back on spanking. I would dare to say that if that was done successfully, then a spanking ban would have become redundant.

Do I approve of spanking in schools? No.
Do I believe that it is better than no discipline at all? Yes.
Do I believe that spanking or complete lack of discipline are the only choices? Not at all. But the other choice will take a lot of education, and therefor a lot of time.

And then, of course, I don't think you are completely wrong about the cultural thing. But see, interacting with, and getting along with other cultures is all about knowledge and respect. You have to understand the other person's culture, and you have to respect it. "Culture" is no excuse for doing what is harmful, but on the other hand, one has no right to force your "culture" on anyone else. Just because it is your culture, and therefor ingrained so deeply into you psyche that you can no longer distinguish between what your culture dictates and what is "right", does not mean that you have the right to force anyone else to abide by it. That is the biggest challenge of living in a multicultural society.

I think this is a very interesting example. For one, because I'm a teacher and when I began teaching in the 90s we still had legal corporal punishment in my state. It was so regulated though that it was a joke. Students much preferred to "take their licks" than go to in-school suspension. I left the US for 12 years and as far as I know it it still legal here, but I don't know of any district in which it is still practiced. I think, effectively, it has been defeated.

But I also find this interesting because of the cultural aspect. I don't know about the Afrikaans, but I'm guessing the Africans do not oppose corporal punishment at all. And that brings up the whole argument of imposing one culture's morals on another. I'm not saying I'm against it because there are some cultural practices I cannot support. But I also find it presumptious to assume that my cultural norms are better than those elsewhere. I find nothing wrong with preferring them, but . . .

And then there is that I see parallels between this and what goes on in schools in my area. In an attempt to "respect the rights of children" we have created chaos. For example, a friend of mine tells a story of when one of her 2nd graders ran away from school and was racing down the highway. She, visibly pregnant, chased after the child and grabbed him by the arm before he shot across the road. His parents threatened to press charges because she "laid hands on him." This story is a tiny bit extreme, but really not far off from what happens every day in schools in my area. There has to be a balance.

 

[Choppy]

I started reading this thread with interest, but it got way too confusing for me.

I'm not sure what has apparently been criminalized in Canada. Maybe someone could cite some sources or the criminal code. It is to my knowledge perfectly legal to discipline your own children. It is illegal to beat your child with a weapon. I think the media likes to sensationalize specific legal cases and draw up the question of 'should spanking be illegal' because it generates more website hits. Most cases that I've seen actually come before the courts are unfortunate acts of child abuse and have little if anything to do with discipline.

Society changes whether we "engineer" it or not. It's important to critically evaluate social movements - whatever their direction. Some, I believe are very important. Others are very misguided. I know of a high-school project where a 10th grader was about to gain a large number of signatures on a petition to ban <I>dihydrogen oxide</I> because it was a chemical that was saturating the local water supply and seeping into lakes and rivers.

 

[Xero]

Take for example seat belt usage. While I absolutely agree that seat belt usage is a good thing and should be encouraged, I object to there being a law that enforces it on adults. If I elect to not wear a set belt I will only injure or kill myself or run up medical bills that I am responsible for.

I disagree with this. I absolutely think that there should be a seatbelt law, because it is not always 100% certain that you are the only one who will get hurt because of it. If you are in a car with other people, you can easily injure or even kill someone else with your body just by being unrestrained. Everyone else who was restrained in your car could have been safe if only you had been restrained too. As a matter of fact, its highly likely that you will hurt someone else if you're not the only one in your car and you're not wearing a seatbelt. Haven't you ever seen this commercial?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzvzqaicMz0&amp;feature=related[/URL]

 

[mom2many]

I started reading this thread with interest, but it got way too confusing for me.

So glad I am not the only one LOL

Take for example seat belt usage. While I absolutely agree that seat belt usage is a good thing and should be encouraged, I object to there being a law that enforces it on adults. If I elect to not wear a set belt I will only injure or kill myself or run up medical bills that I am responsible for.

I happen to agree with you, I think sometimes there is to much government control.

 

[singledad]

So, basically, you want to engineer society by banning spanking because in your (educated, yes) opinion it violates a child's dignity and could cause feeling of inssecurity?

So, if I can rephrase my question from the other thread sligtly, can I ask: what makes spanking special, among all the other things that parents do that undermine a child's dignity, that it, alone, should be banned?

See, that illustartes the danger of social engineering quite well - who gets to decide what goes and what doesn't, and what should be banned or not? I think that as long as there is any room to argue FOR a certain action, or any possibility that banning it can cause harm in any shape and form, it should not be banned.