Expert answer:Child abuse
Expert answer:Attached you will find the Class 9 Summary document and the Pfohl article The Class Summary document contains all the instructions, readings and links that you will need and details the posting that you are required to make in the Discussion Forum. In the Discussion Forum you should write at least one paragraph per question answer them all separately as indicated and clearly. —————————————————————————- link child abuse documentary: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15288865
pfohl_this_discovery_of_child_abuse.pdf
class_summary_child_abuse.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
The “Discovery” of Child Abuse
Author(s): Stephen J. Pfohl
Source: Social Problems, Vol. 24, No. 3 (Feb., 1977), pp. 310-323
Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Society for the Study of Social Problems
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/800083 .
Accessed: 23/04/2013 17:26
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
University of California Press and Society for the Study of Social Problems are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Problems.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 209.2.54.148 on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:26:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE”DISCOVERY”
OFCHILDABUSE*
STEPHENJ. PFOHL
Ohio State University
This paper representsa study of the organizationof social forces which
gave rise to the deviant labelling of child beatingand which promotedthe
speedy and universalenactmentof criminallegislationin the mid-1960s.
Initial considerationis given to an historicalsurvey of social reaction
prior to the formulationof a fixed label. Specific attention is focused on
the nineteenth-century “house of refuge movement,” early twentiethcentury crusadesby the Society for the Preventionof Crueltyto Children
and the rise of juvenile courts. A second section concentrateson the web
of culturalvalues related to the protection of childrenat the time of the
“discovery”of abuse as deviance.A third section examinesfactors associated with the organizationalstructureof the medicalprofessionconducive
to the “discovery”of a particulardeviant label. The final segment of the
paper concerns resultant social reaction. The paper synthesizes conflict
and labelling perspectives in providingan interpretation of a particular
social-legaldevelopment.
Despite documentaryevidence of child beating throughoutthe ages, the “discovery”of
child abuse as deviance and its subsequentcriminalizationare recent phenomena.In a fouryear period beginningin 1962, the legislaturesof all fifty states passed statutes againstthe
caretaker’sabuse of children.This paperis a study of the organizationof social forces which
gave rise to the deviant labeling of child beating and which promoted speedy and universal
enactment of criminallegislation.It is an examinationof certainorganizedmedicalinterests,
whose concern in the discovery of the “batteredchild syndrome”manifestly contributedto
the advanceof humanitarianpursuitswhile covertly rewardingthe groupsthemselves.
The structure of the present analysisis fourfold: First, an historical survey of social reaction to abusivebehaviorprior to the formulation of fixed labels duringthe early sixties,
focussing on the impact of three previousreformmovements.These include the nineteenthcentury “house-of-refuge”movement, early twentieth century crusadesby the Society for
the Prevention of Cruelty to Children,and the rise of juvenile courts. The second section
concentrateson the web of culturalvalues related to the protection of childrenat the time
of the “discovery”of abuse as deviance.A third section examinesfactors associatedwith the
organizationalstructureof the medicalprofessionconduciveto the “discovery”of a particular type of deviant label. The fourth segment discusses social reaction. Finally, the paper
provides a sociological interpretationof a particularsocial-legaldevelopment.Genericallyit
gives supportfor a synthesisof conflict and labelingperspectivesin the sociology of deviance
and law.
THE HISTORY OF SOCIAL REACTION: PREVENTATIVE PENOLOGY AND “SOCIETY SAVING.”
The purposefulbeating of the young has for centuries found legitimacy in beliefs of its
necessity for achievingdisciplinary,educationalor religiousobedience (Radbill, 1968). Both
the Roman legal code of “PatriaPatistas” (Shepard, 1965), and the Englishcommon law
*The author acknowledges the invaluable collaboration of Judith Dilorio of The Ohio State University
in bringing this manuscript to its final form. Also acknowledged are the critical comments of John Conrad,
Raymond Michalowski and Dee Roth. Consultation with Simon Dinitz, Gideon Fishman and Andrew
Rutherford on an earlier draft of this paper is likewise appreicated. Gratitude is also expressed to Kathy
Delgarn for the preparation of the manuscript.
This content downloaded from 209.2.54.148 on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:26:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Discovery of ChildAbuse
31 1
(Thomas, 1973), gave guardianslimitless power over their childrenwho, with chattel-like
status, had no legal right to protection.
The common law heritage of America similarly gave rise to a tradition of legitimized
violence toward children. Legalguardianshad the right to impose any punishmentdeemed
necessary for the child’s upbringing.In the seventeenth century, a period dominated by
religiousvaluesandinstitutions, severepunishmentswere consideredessentialto the “sacred”
trust of child-rearing(Earle, 1926:119-126). Even in the late eighteenthand early nineteenth
centuries, a period markedby the decline of religiousdominationand the rise of rationalism
and a proliferationof statutes aimed at codifying unacceptablehumanbehavior,there were
no attempts to prevent caretakerabuse of children. A major court in the state of North
Carolinadeclaredthat the parent’sjudgmentof need for a child’spunishmentwas presumed
to be correct. Criminal liability was said to exist only in cases resulting in “permanent
injury”(State v. Pendergass,in Paulsen, 1966b:686).
I am not suggestingthat the Americanlegaltraditionfailedto recognizeany abuseof discipline as something to be negativelysanctioned.A few cases resultingin the legal punishment
of parents who murderedtheir children,have been recorded.But priorto the 1960’s sociolegal reactions were sporadic, and atypical of sustainedreactionsagainstfirmly labeled deviance.
Beginning in the early nineteenth century, a series of three reform movementsdirected
attention to the plight of beaten, neglected and delinquent children. These included the
nineteenth century “house-of-refuge”movement, the turn of the century crusadesby the
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Childrenand the early twentieth century rise of
juvenile courts. Social response,however, seldom aimed measuresat amelioratingabuse or
correcting abusive parents. Instead, the child, ratherthan his or her guardians,became the
object of humanitarianreform.
In each case the primaryobjectivewas not to save childrenfrom cruel or abusiveparents,
but to save society from future delinquents.Believingthat wicked and irresponsiblebehavior
was engenderedby the evils of povertyand city life, these movementssought to curb criminal
tendencies in poor, urban youths by removingthem from corruptenvironmentsand placing
them in institutional settings. There they could learn order,regularityand obedience(Rothman, 1970). Thus, it was children, not their abusiveguardians,who felt the weight of the
moral crusade.They, not their parents,were institutionalized.
The “Houseof Refuge”Movement
Originatingin the reformistdreamsof the Jacksonianera, the so-called”Houseof Refuge
Movement” sought to stem the social pathologies of an industrializingnation by removing
young people, endangeredby “corrupturbanenvironments,”to institutionalsettings.Neglect
statutes providingfor the removalof the young from bad home lives were originallyenacted
to prevent children from minglingfreely with society’s dregsin alm houses or on the streets.
In 1825, the first statute was passed and the first juvenile institution, the New York House
of Refuge, was opened. Originallyprivately endowed, the institution soon received public
funds to intervene in neglectful home situations and transplantchildren to a controlledenvironment, where they shared a “proper growing up” with other vagrant,abandonedand
neglectedyouths as well as with delinquentswho had violated criminalstatutes. Similarinstitutions were establishedin Philadelphiaand Boston a year later, in New Orleansin 1845, and
in Rochesterand Baltimorein 1849.
The Constitutionality of the neglect statutes, which formed the basis for the House of
Refuge Movement,was repeatedlychallengedon the groundsthat it was reallyimprisonment
without due process. With few exceptions court case after court case upheld the policy of
This content downloaded from 209.2.54.148 on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:26:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
312
PFOHL
social interventionon the Aristotelianprincipleof “parenspatriae.”This principlemaintained
that the State has the responsibilityto defend those who cannot defend themselves,as well
as to assert its privilegein compellinginfants and their guardiansto act in ways most beneficial to the State.
The concept of preventivepenology emergedin the wording of these court decisions.A
distinction between “delinquency”(the actualviolationof criminalcodes) and “dependency”
(being born into a poor home with neglectful or abusiveparents)was consideredirrelevant
for “child saving.” The two were believed to be intertwinedin poverty and desolation. If
not stopped, both would perpetuate themselves. For the future good of both child and society, “parens patriae”justified the removalof the young before they became irreparably
tainted (Thomas, 1972:322-323).
The underlyingconcept of the House of RefugeMovementwas that of preventivepenology, not child protection. This crusaderegisteredno real reactionagainstchild beating.The
virtue of removingchildren from their homes was not to point up abuseor neglect and protect its victims, it was to decreasethe likelihood that parentalinadequacies,the “cause of
poverty,” would transferthemselvesto the child and hence to the next generationof society
(Giovannoni, 1971:652). Thus, as indicated by Zalba (1966), the whole nineteenth century
movement toward institutionalization actually failed to differentiate between abuse and
poverty ahidthereforregisteredno social reactionagainstbeatingas a form of deviance.
MaryEllen, the SPCC,and a Short-LivedSocial Reaction
The first period when public interest focussed on child abuseoccurredin the last quarter
of the nineteenth century. In 1875, the Society for the Preventionof Cruelty to Animals
intervenedin the abuse case of a nine-yearold girl namedMaryEllen who had been treated
viciously by foster parents. The case of Mary Ellen was splashedacross the front pages of
the nation’s papers with dramatic results. As an outgrowth of the journalisticclamor, the
New York Society for the Preventionof Crueltyto Childrenwas formed. Soon incorporated
under legislationthat requiredlaw enforcementand court officials to aid agentsof authorized
cruelty societies, the NYSPCCand other societies modeled after it undertook to prevent
abuse.
Though the police functions of the anti-crueltysocieties representeda new reaction to
abuse, their activities did not signify a total breakwith the society-savingemphasisof the
House of Refuge Movement.In fact, three lines of evidence suggest that the SPCCenforcement efforts actually withheld a fixed label of deviancy from the perpetratorsof abuse, in
much the same manneras had the House of Refuge reforms.First, the “saving”of the child
actually boosted the number of children placed in institutions, consequently supporting
House of Refuge activities (Thomas, 1972:311). Second, according to Falks (1970:176),
interorganizationaldependency grew between the two reform movements;best evidenced
by the success of SPCCefforts in increasingpublic supportto childcareinstitutionsunderthe
auspices of House of Refuge groups.Finally, and perhapsmost convincingly,naturalparents
were not classifiedas abusersof the greatmajorityof the so-called”rescuedchildren.”In fact,
the targets of these savings missions were cruel employers and foster or adopted parents
(Giovannoni, 1971:653). Rarely did an SPCCintervene against the “natural”balance of
power between parentsand children.The firmnessof the SPCC’sallegedsocial action against
abuse appearssignificantlydampenedby its reluctanceto shed identificationwith the refuge
house emphasison the “industrialsins of the city” and to replaceit with a reactionagainst
individuals.
The decline of the SPCCmovement is often attributedto lack of public interest, funding
problems, mergerswith other organizationsand the assumption of protection servicesby
This content downloaded from 209.2.54.148 on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:26:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Discoveryof ChildAbuse
313
public agencies (Felder, 1971:187). Its identification with the House of Refuge Movement
also contributedto its eventual demise. More specifically,the House of Refuge emphasison
the separationof child from family, a position adopted and reinforcedby the SPCC’sactivities, came into conflict with perspectivesadvocatedby the newly-emergingprofessionsof
social work and child psychology (Kadushen, 1967:202f). Instead of removingthe child
from the home, these new interests emphasizedefforts to unite the family (Thomas, 1972).
This latter position, backed by the power of professionalexpertise,eventuallyundercutthe
SPCC’spolicy of preventivepolicingby emphasizingthe protection of the home.
The erosion of the SPCCposition was foreshadowedby the 1909 WhiteHouse Conference
on Children.This Conferenceproclaimedthat a child should not be removedfrom his or her
home for reasonsof poverty alone, and called for serviceprogramsand financialaid to protect the home environment.Yet, the practice of preventivepolicing and institutionalization
did not vanish,due, in part,to the developmentof the juvenile court system. The philosophy
and practice of this system continued to identify abuse and neglect with poverty and social
disorganization.
TheJuvenile Courtand the ContinuedShadow of Abuse
The founding of the first juvenile court in Illinois in 1899 was originallyheraldedas a
major landmarkin the legal protection of juveniles. By 1920, courts were establishedin all
but three states. Nonetheless,it is debatablethat much reformwas accomplishedby juvenile
court legislation. Coalitionsof would-be reformers(headed by variousfemale crusadersand
the commissionersof severallarge public reformatories)arguedfor the removalof youthful
offenders from adult institutions and advocated alterationof the punitive, entrepreneurial
and sectarian “House of Refuge” institutions (Fox, 1970:1225-29). More institutions and
improved conditions were demanded (Thomas, 1972:323). An analysis of the politics of
juvenile court legislation suggests, however, that successful maneuveringby influential
sectarian entrepreneursresulted in only a partial achievement of reformist goals (Fox,
1970:1225-26). Legislation did removejuveniles from adult institutions. It did not reduce
the House of Refuge Movement’scontrol of juvenile institutions. Instead, legislationphilosophically supported and financially reinforcedthe Movement’s”society-saving”operation
of sectarianindustrialschools (Fox, 1970:1226-27).
The channelingof juvenile court legislation into the “society-saving”mold of the House
of Refuge Movement actually withheld a deviant label from abusiveparents. Even the reformers, who envisioned it as a revolution in child protection, did not see the court as protection from unfit parents.It was meant insteadto preventthe developmentof “lowerclass”
delinquency (Platt, 1969) and to rescue “those less fortunate in the social order”(Thomas,
1972:326). Again, the victims of child battering were characterizedas pre-delinquents,as
part of the general “problem”of poverty. These children,not their guardians,were the targets of court action and preventivepolicies. The courts, like the House of Refuge and SPCC
movements before them, constrained any social reaction which would apply the label of
deviantto parentswho abusedtheir children.
SOCIAL REACTION AT MID-CENTURY:
“DISCOVERY”
THE CULTURAL
SETTING
FOR THE
OF ABUSE.
TheDecline of PreventativePenology
As noted, preventativepenology representedthe philosophicalbasis for variousvoluntary
associationsand legislativereform efforts resultingin the institutionalizationof neglectedor
abused children. Its primaryemphasiswas on the protection of society. The decline of pre-
This content downloaded from 209.2.54.148 on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:26:38 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
314
PFOHL
ventive penology is partiallyattributedto three variables:the perceivedfailure of “institutionalization,” the impact of the “Great Depression”of the 1930’s, and a change in the
culturalmeaningof “adultvices.”
In the severaldecadespriorto the discoveryof abuse,the failureof institutionalizationto
“reorder”individualsbecame increasinglyapparent.This realizationunderminedthe juvenile
courts’ role in administeringa pre-delinquencysystem of crimeprevention.Since the rise of
juvenile courts historicallyrepresenteda majorstructuralsupportfor the notion of preventative penology, the lesseningof its role removeda significantbarrierto concern with abuseas
an act of individualvictimization.Similarly,the widespreadexperienceof poverty duringthe
Great Depression weakened other beliefs in preventivepenology. As impersonaleconomic
factors impoverisheda great number of citizens of good moralcredentials,the link between
poverty and immoralitybegan to weaken.
Another characteristicof the period immediatelyprior to the discovery of abuse was a
changing culturalawarenessof the meaningof adult vice as indices of the future character
of children.”Parentialimmoralitiesthat used to be seen as warningsof oncoming criminality
in children [became] acceptable factors in a child’s homelife” (Fox, 1970:1234). Parental
behavior such as drinking,failing to provide a Christianeducation, and refusingto keep a
child busy with usefullabor, were no longerclassifiedas unacceptablenor deemed symptoms
of immoralitytransmittedto the young. Hence, the savingof society from the tainted young
became less of a mandate, aiding the perception of social harmagainstchildrenas “beings”
in themselves.
Advanceof ChildProtection
Concurrentwith the demise of “society-saving”in the legal sphere, developmentsin the
fields of child welfare and public policy heightenedinterest in the problemsof the child as
an individual.The 1909 White House Conferenceon Childrenspawnedboth the “Mother’s
Aid” Movement and the American Association for the Study and Prevention of Infant
Mortality.The former group, from 1910 to 1930, drew attention to the benefits of keeping
children in the family while pointing out the detrimentaleffects of dehumanizinginstitutions. The latter groupthen, as now, registeredconcernover the rate of infant deaths.
During the first half of the twentieth century, the FederalGovernmentalso met the issue
of child protection with legislation that regulated child labor, called for the removal of
delinquent youths from adult institutions,and established,in 1930, a bureaucraticstructure
whose purpose revolvedaround child protection. The Children’sBureauof HEWimmediately adopted a “Children’sCharter”promisingevery child a home with love and security plus
full-time public services for protection from abuse, neglect, exploitation or moral hazard
(Radbill, 1968:15).
Despite the growth of cultural and structuraldispositionsfavoringthe protection and increased rights of children, there was still no significant attention given to perpetratorsof
abuse, in the courts (Paulsen, 1966:710), in the legislature(DeFrancis,1967:3), or by child
welfare agencies(Zalba, 1966). Whilethis inactivitymay have been partlycausedby the lack …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
How it works
- Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
- Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions
- Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
- Download the paper after the writer uploads it
Will the writer plagiarize my essay?
You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.
Is this service safe?
All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades