Child Abuse in Past Societies

[John Fredrick Parker]

So I just read something* on the idea of “psychohistory”, or the ideas of one Lloyd DeMause -- and while I can easily see why the guy isn’t treated seriously by the academic community, I can’t seem to shake the impression that he did happen upon a very good question, and depending on how capable we are at even beginning to answer it, would have serious implications for how we think about history and the past more generally. So I thought I’d ask for some thoughts here, on these questions specifically:

• Were the common child rearing practices of societies of the past what we in the present would consider abusive? As in insanely, outlandishly traumatizing, horrific, and/or traumatizing? For the purposes of this first question, we’re focusing on standards of present day modern societies -- the kind of stuff that would get an offender at minimum a visit from child services, at maximum serious jail time (neglect, exploitation, beatings, torture, sexual abuse, etc)?
• Second, what would a society composed mostly of (what we would call) child abuse look like? How would a society where most individuals had those kinds of experiences growing up, and had said experiences with most people they knew in common, be psychologically affected? And how do those effects impact how society works at the larger level - - its social norms, its social and politically consciousness, how they conceive of and solve problems individually and collectively, etc? Or can we even conceive of such a thing? Would “abuse” still have effects as we conceive of them if they were “normalized”?
• Third, to the extent we can answer those last two questions, what kind of insights would that offer to how we in the present understand past societies and history more generally?

Thanks.

*currently on The End is Always Near by Dan Carlin

 

[kholieken]

- Yes, many "normal" things in the past we would consider abusive.
- No, its not insanely outlandish traumatizing
- Normal society.
- Yes, abuse still have an effect even if it "normalized".

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

- No, its not insanely outlandish traumatizing

I mean things that would be considered "outlandish and/or traumatizing" by present day modern society standards; so things like getting raped as a ten year old, getting sold by your parents, or that kind of thing would qualify, or at least I would think they would qualify.

- Normal society.

Care to elaborate? How would society be normal if traumatic experiences were commonplace? Or does the fact that they are commonplace mean they would not be traumatic?

 

[DocJamore]

The problem with judging historical people by our modern standards is doesn’t take long to determine that EVERYONE was an asshole. Then the analysis hits a dead end. Do we need sort people on whether they were full blown assholes, half assholes, or quarter assholes? Everything is going to be asshole flavored regardless of what we do.

If we want to analyze history at a deeper level we have to judge people by the standards and conditions of their time.

 

[DanMcCollum]

I mean, there's little doubt thst the treatment of children in, say, Sparta would be considered extensively abusive by modern standards (and, I dare say, were probably considered as such by Sparta's contemporaries as well).

I'm don't feel qualified in going into too much depth - there sre those here FAR better read on thst subject than me. But I'd gather it wouldn't be too hard to look at Spartan society to see the impacts.

 

[The Tai-Pan]

• Were the common child rearing practices of societies of the past what we in the present would consider abusive? As in insanely, outlandishly traumatizing, horrific, and/or traumatizing? For the purposes of this first question, we’re focusing on standards of present day modern societies -- the kind of stuff that would get an offender at minimum a visit from child services, at maximum serious jail time (neglect, exploitation, beatings, torture, sexual abuse, etc)?

Of course.

• Second, what would a society composed mostly of (what we would call) child abuse look like? How would a society where most individuals had those kinds of experiences growing up, and had said experiences with most people they knew in common, be psychologically affected? And how do those effects impact how society works at the larger level - - its social norms, its social and politically consciousness, how they conceive of and solve problems individually and collectively, etc? Or can we even conceive of such a thing? Would “abuse” still have effects as we conceive of them if they were “normalized”?

? We know what those societies look like....because it is all of them? I'm not sure what exactly you are asking for. it's like asking for what a society would look like if it had money. We know that.

• Third, to the extent we can answer those last two questions, what kind of insights would that offer to how we in the present understand past societies and history more generally?

Always more to learn, the lessons would vary from time and place.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

We know what those societies look like....because it is all of them? I'm not sure what exactly you are asking for. it's like asking for what a society would look like if it had money. We know that.

Sorry meant to say "what would a society composed mostly of people who suffered child abuse look like?" As in, "What would society look like if suffering (what we would call) severe child abuse was commonplace instead of the exception?"

The problem with judging historical people by our modern standards is doesn’t take long to determine that EVERYONE was an asshole. Then the analysis hits a dead end. Do we need sort people on whether they were full blown assholes, half assholes, or quarter assholes? Everything is going to be asshole flavored regardless of what we do.

If we want to analyze history at a deeper level we have to judge people by the standards and conditions of their time.

But we're not looking at these past societies for the purpose of judging them, we're looking back at them in the hopes of understanding them; and part of understanding is knowing why people (individually or collectively) do what they do.

And given that we know that experiences in our formative years have an impact on who we are and what we do when we grow into adults, it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to think that when you have a society mainly composed of people who had experiences in their formative years that would, from our modern experience, be considered far more the exception than the rule, then irregardless of how we might morally judge said experiences, we could reasonably expect to see said society differ from our own in key ways. That's what I'm trying to get at here.

 

[Metempsychosis]

The problem with judging historical people by our modern standards is doesn’t take long to determine that EVERYONE was an asshole. Then the analysis hits a dead end. Do we need sort people on whether they were full blown assholes, half assholes, or quarter assholes? Everything is going to be asshole flavored regardless of what we do.

If we want to analyze history at a deeper level we have to judge people by the standards and conditions of their time.

TBH, you could argue that almost everyone is an asshole today. Some of what we consider child abuse today might not actually harm children, and some of what we consider proper childcare today might have been seen as unthinkably abusive by those before us. And heck, not everyone today agrees on what is abusive. Children's rights are definitely a complicated topic.

 

[PecuTheGreat]

I think the relationship to the abuse matters more than the abuse itself.

 

[Fatt Shea]

Well this is quite hard to know since the effects of this would be mostly psychological and there was a lack of interest in the field in the past meaning we lack good statistics but we can speculate anyway.

First we should look at the effects of child abuse on the mind in modern times. The effects will vary from person to person but they can include: increased risk for developing mood disorders like depression, anxiety/social anxiety and bipolar disorder, increased the risks of developing personality disorders like borderline and antisocial, it also leads to increased PTSD rates and increased suicide rates. More generally it can lead to lower self esteem and increased subtance use rates. A lot of those disorders mentione dpreviously also lead to increased substance use rates.
In the 1830s the alcohol use rate for the average American per year was 7.1 gallons per year whereas today it is 2.3 gallons per year. A reason for this could be the normalcy of abusive parenting leading to more usage of alcohol, either on its own or as a symtom of other disorders that can be caused by abuse e.g borderline personality disorder. I would definitely say that abuse contributed to the number being higher but it is hard to say because there are so many factors that contribute to something as common as alcohol usage, many of them cultural. That is kind of the problem with a lot of this, the past was so different to today that is hard to isolate one factor (abusive parenting) and look at its effects on its own. Similarly, violent crime in the United States has generally decreased since colonial times, you could say it was higher in the due to more abusive parenting higher prevalance of substance use and higher rates of anti social personality disorder and this was likely a factor. But there are so many other things that could have caused this, like it being easier to get away with crime at earlier points in history, due to a lack of police if you go back to the 1700s, lack of communication between police departments, inproper investigative methods and lack of things like finger prints, in the past it was possible to commit a crime in one state and simply move to the next state and change your name, just to do it again. So a lot of things could have contributed to the increased crime of the past in the US. That is the central problem with trying to invesigate this, it is hard to isolate one factor from the rest of the differences of the past.

 

[dcharles]

A) Yes.
B) It looks like this very society you and I are in.
C) Stupid is as stupid does.

 

[FALightFighter]

There are a pretty wide range of behaviors covered here that I think have a wide variety of disparate impacts. I mean there is a difference between getting tortured or raped by your parents and being pulled out of school after 6th grade to become a manual laborer, despite the fact that we consider both of them to be abusive and they are covered under the initial post.

Some things are inarguably traumatic (e.g., rape or torture) and will have the effects discussed by others. Others, like going to work much younger than we find tolerable today, have very different effects, and I think would probably NOT be very traumatic if that is the accepted and expected situation. Much like most of us would consider living without indoor plumbing to be pretty horrific, but 200 years ago most people, most of the time, would have dealt with it as a matter of course. Sure, a very few, very rich people would have had other means to mitigate all of the associated discomforts, but they would have been inconceivable to most people. Similarly, a few rich people would have had playboy lifestyles, but most people would have worked relatively young, and probably not been overly impacted by it. The emotional/psychological response is one thing if you know everyone else is going to school and you have to work, it's very different if everyone that you know "graduates" with you and goes to work. Even if you are aware that there are a few, well-off people that don't work like you do, if everyone you personally know does work like you, it's much less impactful to have to do so.

 

[kholieken]

I mean things that would be considered "outlandish and/or traumatizing" by present day modern society standards; so things like getting raped as a ten year old, getting sold by your parents, or that kind of thing would qualify, or at least I would think they would qualify.

These things did not happen as normal behaviour. And likely also considered abusive by past societies.

Past is different places, but human is human and parents love their children.

Care to elaborate? How would society be normal if traumatic experiences were commonplace? Or does the fact that they are commonplace mean they would not be traumatic?

Traumatic experience is not commonplace in past society.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Traumatic experience is not commonplace in past society.

Traumatic experience is not commonly recognised in past society. Or admitted to.
Doesn't make it right or acceptable though.
As a gross simplification, suicide rate in older teens has not changed significantly over past 40 years. So the consequences of previous societal norms may not be that different from our own societies transgressions

Suicide - Total suicide deaths in 15-24 year olds - by gender - Infogram

This is part of the State of Child Health website by Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. See more at https://stateofchildhealth.rcpch.ac.uk

infogram.com

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

tortured or raped by your parents

These things did not happen as normal behaviour. And likely also considered abusive by past societies.

I think, of the kinds of beatings and punishments that were once common for children, we today would pretty commonly be referred to as "torture"; like if we in the present were to take a good deal of the kind of treatment a prepubescent child would receive from a guardian or instructor, and apply them to adult prisoners, that's how they'd be legally understood. We're not just talking about physical beatings (not just spanking, but deliberately causing injuries), or otherwise deliberately creating blisters on nine year olds (with canings, with "pear shaped devices", etc), but also introducing them to sexual activities at shockingly young ages (and the historical record is very clear this was the rule, not exception), parents straight up exploiting their labor (not just taking them out of school to help on the farm, since they never even go to school in the first place, but selling them to work for someone else, then drinking away the money their kid sweated for), or just completely neglecting, abandoning, or outright selling or otherwise" outsourcing" them (and almost never to a loving household). These are the kinds of things I'm getting at here -- not so much not going to school to begin with, or living in what we would call "extreme poverty", but suffering what would be considered, unambiguously, to be abusive, even if we were to make clear distinctions between things like household or social poverty as such.

Hope that helps.