Does anyone here think punishments received at primary school were more severe and humiliating in relation to a pupils age and understanding, over those received in senior school.

Where Senior schools established rules, consequences for infringements, with punishments carried out in an orthodox manner at the understanding of both student and teacher, there seems a sense of injustice at primary school level. Physical punishments was unpredictable, often at whim and mood of a teacher, often for something so minor, the recipient was left totally unaware what infraction theyd committed.

Unlike the cane or slipper applied in senior schools, there was no standardization in my primary schools to how or where physical punishments were administered or applied, despite local Educational regulations /guidelines. Children often had the extra humiliation of being shaken, dragged to the front of class, made to stand in corners, on chairs all part of their punishment.

A fair amount of discussion has been raised between Jenny and the Doc with regard to equality and negative effect CP.

What's apparent to me, chatting with ex school friends, reading reminiscences, as adults, where CP was experienced at primary level theres a tendency to express negativity, in some cases hatred towards certain primary teachers, and none or very little at secondary level,

"I hated Miss X she slapped really hard for no reason"

"I got the Cane from Miss X, did me no harm."

As adults they seem less forgiving than one would imagine, and this is evident in both genders. Could some of the negativity that Dr D refers to be attributed by reason that such punishments were felt unjust, without reason of understanding at primary level, and not from CP given fairly and just, as applied in most senior schools.

Ketta

Hi Ketta,

Couldn't agree more. I told my primary school saga a few days ago , but that left me completely bemused. Certainly the punishment - six strokes of a full sized tawse on two young children's hands, looks severe in comparison with senior school punishments. More importantly , it seemed the heads were autocrats. little Hitlers in their own state, with no accountability.

The worst thing was there was no space for explanation. To answer back was , de facto, insolence. Guilty because they said you were guilty. Also , to children,time has a different meaning when you are young. You can explain to a teenager that six of the best will hurt dreadfully, but will pass, and that they have brought this on themselves, whereas the effect of pain on a younger child is more damaging and the concept that it will pass , be it in minutes or an hour, is more difficult to 'hold' - but in any case no body bothered when you were in primary.

At a lower level of severity class punishments fell to me into two categories. those which were what today I would call not intended to be particularly cruel, but rather a 'Roman Carnival' , lots of embarrassment and not a terribly hard conclusion .

Our 'slipperiness' fell into that category for both boys and girls. If , like me, you didn't often transgress, the teacher would act as compare , clown and executioner....., and would make a point of big build up ....the class enjoyed that! ' I don't often get this opportunity , better make it count ( or some such joke)....and... 'Come on bend right over, you can do better than that ....etc.... The actual punishment, a couple of fairly mild whacks , was an anticlimax after the 'show'! But then the class was with you not against you, so it was accepted in the spirit it was meant ......Sometimes, particularly with very nervous girls the teacher would ensure afterwards they had a gentle word to see there wasn't any real dislike.... Budding JJ's certainly need not apply for that role.

There were a couple of staff who didn't have this light approach. I can remember one part time teacher who took delight in slapping legs as hard as she could in front of the class, and as many times as necessary, with the clear intention of reducing her victim of whatever sex to tears. For what heinous crime? Being unable to answer her questions....that was inattention and day dreaming. Now her kind attentions I did avoid.......

Small community , lack of checks and balances.....and yes , certainly many of my friends from different backgrounds seem to hold more grudges against staff at this level.....later on the bad apples could be identified, and if possible avoided. in primary it is too close a community for that.

There is a great deal of truth that punishments at primary school were quite different from those at grammar school.

In particular I remember the ceremonial slipperings we got when I was eight or nine. The young female teacher would call out your name and add " bring me your slipper" You then had to go to your locker and take your slipper to her. She would then order you to bend over , all the time with a big smile on her face. You then got 3 or 4 very mild whacks which did not really hurt, but there was an embarrassment factor and you would go red in the face.

One girl made the mistake of smiling herself, and got a couple of mild smacks and then got a really hard one, the teacher saying that she did that to take the smirk off her face , which it certainly did. Subsequently we were never quite sure whether we would get a mild slippering or a proper one.

There was another instance of CP in her class when this teacher was late for the lesson. Some of us got bored waiting for her and stsrted banging our desk tops down causing a great racket. A more senior male teacher stormed into the room and ordered all the boys who had been making the noise to line up. In view of Jenny's comments on the subject of different punishments for boys and girls this was clearly unfair, as no girls were punished.

This male teacher then spanked about 10 boys including myself. It was a fairly severe spanking as this teacher had quite a temper and didn't hold back. I had previously seen him giving two boys the most severe slippering I have ever seen in front of the entire school.

At grammar school slipperings in normal lessons were rare, though very common in PE and games lessons. If you misbehaved in English, say , you would be sent to the head , or deputy, and not punished in front of the class.

Declan


One girl made the mistake of smiling herself, and got a couple of mild smacks and then got a really hard one

Clearly, as she slippered both boys and girls for misbehaviour, the teacher was using the slipper as punishment - albeit making more use of the embarrassment factor than the discomfort factor.

There was another instance of CP in her class when this teacher was late for the lesson. Some of us got bored waiting for her and stsrted banging our desk tops down causing a great racket. A more senior male teacher stormed into the room and ordered all the boys who had been making the noise to line up. In view of Jenny's comments on the subject of different punishments for boys and girls this was clearly unfair, as no girls were punished.

No boys were punished either - they were abused.

This male teacher then spanked about 10 boys including myself. It was a fairly severe spanking as this teacher had quite a temper and didn't hold back. I had previously seen him giving two boys the most severe slippering I have ever seen in front of the entire school.

Clearly this was not a punishment for misbehaviour because all the teacher knew all the class was equally guilty but only selected some of them. As the offence itself did not result in punishment, the "punishment" was not for the offence. Perhaps he got some thrill out of "spanking" boys and girls but thought his cover might be blown if he "spanked" girls too so restricted himself to boys.

Ketta asked:

Does anyone here think punishments received at primary school were more severe and humiliating in relation to a pupils age and understanding, over those received in senior school?

It could possibly be argued that Another  Lurker cannot answer this question. Apart from one trivial prefects' court appearance involving lines and the occasional heavy humour or hurled wooden blackboard eraser (or window pole) when a Master at secondary school though I wasn't performing to expectation, I was only punished twice at school, and never beyond the age of 10, so no punishments at senior school to compare with. Even the punishment age 10 was only a trivial single stroke in a totally unavoidable mass slippering! Reading this estimable Forum I have even wondered if my secondary school operated some sort of 'red list' similat to prof.n's old school or Doctor Dominum's present establishment. I don't think so though, as this surely wouldn't have extended to any sort of punishment at all!

No, I think the reason for my freedom from the usual perils of school punishments was down to my being very good, or very devious or very lucky, or possibly all three. I certainly tried to be very good, and the reason for that was a punishment received in the penultimate year of infant school. (First half of primary school for those not familiar with the terminolgy - in those far off days things went infant, junior, senior not primary, secondary.)

This punishment, as a participant in a mixed age group leg smacking in front of what was, for me at least, a mixed class of older children, made such an impression on me that, young as I was (just short of 7), I resolved afterwards never to be punished at school again! It was a very painful leg smacking, each unwilling participant having shorts leg or dress pulled up to bare a suitable amount of thigh for a prolonged and hard smacking. Also, in additon to the 'public' nature of the actual punishment there was additional humiliation for myself and the others involved from my class. On our return there our much loved and usually very kind and motherly class teacher made us stand hands on head in front of the class while she used us as an illustration in a little lecture to our classmates on what might happen to naughty children now we were nearly old enough to move into the top class.

The full unexpurgated story, for those who don't already know it by heart backwards, can be found by clicking on the underline in my user name in the second paragraph of this post. I like a bit of trickery like that, but no amount of trickery or any other device can alter the fact that it was only a leg smacking. As against a caning, or even a slippering, it barely rates on the school CP scale. So why did it make such an impression on me, an impression which influenced the rest of my school days?

I think Ketta, with:

Physical punishments was unpredictable, often at whim and mood of a teacher, often for something so minor, the recipient was left totally unaware what infraction they'd committed.

and

Children often had the extra humiliation of being shaken, dragged to the front of class, made to stand in corners, on chairs all part of their punishment.

And prof.n, with:

The worst thing was there was no space for explanation. To answer back was , de facto, insolence. Guilty because they said you were guilty. Also , to children,time has a different meaning when you are young. You can explain to a teenager that six of the best will hurt dreadfully, but will pass, and that they have brought this on themselves, whereas the effect of pain on a younger child is more damaging and the concept that it will pass , be it in minutes or an hour, is more difficult to 'hold' - but in any case no body bothered when you were in primary.

both sum it up perfectly!

The punishment that shaped the remainder of my time at school was unexpected, and was for something very minor. It was at the whim of a teacher who happened to decide to rigorously enforce a particular rule that day. The process, once caught up in it, seemed terrifying and inexplicable. It hurt a lot. My much loved class teacher, whom I'd have expected to comfort me, acted in a totally unexpected and to me at the time very upsetting way. Above all though there was the humiliation, both during the punishment and back in my own class. Even at that age I had a definite concept of being in control and managing what happened to me. In that punishment I had absolutely no control whatsoever, and the humiliation involved certainly didn't fit the self management model!

All in all, a lesson in real life at a young age, and one I now think was on the whole good for me. Those who think a few canings are an essential rite of passage for lads (and girs for that matter - never let it be supposed that I'm frightened of Jenny ) would probably disagree though.

How did that happen, and especially to that word? On the Humpty Dumpty principle 'girs' in my final paragraph above should be taken to mean exactly what I intend it to mean, no more, no less. And what I intend it to mean is of course 'girls'!

Hi Another Lurker,

A really interesting and valuable post. I will reply in detail a little later, at his stage i would just say that you identify something that is crucial in the socialization process in school, and that is the interaction between trust and power, which , you will see i have highlighted in a different context on the 2009 thread. It will be interesting to see any congruence between the two .

I hope to post a detailed response later .....

Hi Another lurker ! You say

I was only punished twice at school, and never beyond the age of 10, so no punishments at senior school to compare with. Even the punishment age 10 was only a trivial single stroke in a totally unavoidable mass slippering! Reading this estimable Forum I have even wondered if my secondary school operated some sort of 'red list' similar to prof.n's old school or Doctor Dominum's present establishment. I don't think so though, as this surely wouldn't have extended to any sort of punishment at all!

Actually in some ways , as I hope to demonstrate you are in a rather good position to expose some of the inherent weaknesses in our whole approach to discipline in that time. As to the Red lists, well the beauty of this , certainly in those days, is , that unless you were an inquisitive, annoying , persistent ,cantankerous and tenacious little b****r like me you would have been oblivious of the issue of lists at all!!!!As , in those days , was the idea. The age of enlightenment had not dawned upon the world of British Education ! ( Of course whether it has today is even more questionable. The answer may lie beyond a worm hole, if not in a parallel universe!

First I'd like to comment on some of your text from this and the original post and then move towards more general conclusions and questions


This punishment, as a participant in a mixed age group leg smacking in front of what was, for me at least, a mixed class of older children, made such an impression on me that, young as I was (just short of 7), I resolved afterwards never to be punished at school again!

Now this statement really is interesting. What shines through is that the effect on you of this experience was mainly psychological , and yet there is no sense of 'magnitude' in the decision. It is an absolute. You state it as an absolute. It's not I never want six of the best again , but what would it take to risk two. Yet you are not stating in any way a moral or ethical position. (For example one of my schoolmates who was an evangelical christian had a absolutist morality. He would never break a rule, but not for fear of punishment, well not in this temporal sphere anyway....).No your position is a direct response to your experience and your internalization of it.


You reacted in a way that were it not for Lacan or Foucault we might have described your action as direct submission to an exemplary penalty....Why? Because you did not engage either that day or any other in the strategies, covert discourses or ruses that exemplify the 'chatter ' and ' subterranean business' of any social institution , such as a school which is built on a complex of informal power relations. Rather you submitted ....or did you? Power was exercised from above , without particular concern for legitimacy and yet you submitted. Why or is this a misreading ? I think it is a misreading . Very much so.

You wrote in the original post

I remember feeling acutely embarrassed, having noted the amusement of some of them as the girl was spanked and realising that I was now the object of their suppressed mirth. To add to my discomfiture it took a lot longer for Miss B to work the leg of my grey school shorts up to reveal the desired amount of thigh than it had taken to raise the girl's dress, which prolonged the ordeal. However after what seemed an age the barrage of slaps descended, I've no idea how many. It was extremely painful, and this combined with sheer embarrassment quickly had me in tears.

Still in tears I fled back to my own class, where I realised, to the accompaniment of further tears that I hadn't rolled down the leg of my shorts and was displaying an excellent set of Miss B's hand prints to my teacher and my classmates. I didn't feel quite so bad when my other classmates, a girl and a boy, who'd been waiting their turn when I fled, returned one by one, both in tears.

Two points. Firstly the feelings of embarrassment clearly trumped the pain. Your response was no different to anyone else's (you were all in tears) yet I guess they didn't make the absolutist decision you did! Why not ? the answer lies in your next extract:

. I remember being absolutely mortified though as our teacher took the opportunity to deliver a little homily.

She made us stand in front with our hands on our heads while she explained to the rest of the class that we'd been very naughty and that we'd been spanked, and that they must all behave when they moved up to the top class very soon, or they might be spanked too. I've forgiven her now though. She was a dear lady,

The real influence here wasn't the 'Polish Lady' whom I assume was pretty cold to you and vice versa, but your form teacher, whom you clearly held in respect and whose view of you was important to your self esteem. The fact you went from hero to zero in one second flat, in front of your classmates, and thus in your eyes were denigrated by her , and thus clearly had lost your approval rating was far far worse than what the Polish lady had done.

So to revise. It was NOT the exemplary nature of the punishment which had pregnancy ; it was what Lacan would call 'micro powers' the interpersonal relationships , spoken and unspoken, in Foucault's terminology the 'gaze' of discipline. Teachers often forget that they are managers of collective space. Psycho-social power is formed 'spatially' as well as personally. In your case A.L. you probably internalised her disapproval personally , whereas her intention was to operate spatially.........She probably never noticed or knew your distress.

Some things went terribly wrong that morning.

I was nearly 7, in the next to the top class, and as the youngest children went in first my class had a little time to wait. For some reason I spoke to another child. Very foolish, because the young lady teacher on duty that morning had decided to make an example of anyone breaking the silence rule. She'd already collected a few children, mainly from her own top class, and I was hauled out of the ranks to join them.


Some young 'harridan' got out of bed the wrong side, and decided to enforce a rule strictly ( which I guess from your casual behaviour - you didn't remember what you said- was not always so rigidly enforced) . There appears to have been no warning or reminder to you all of what you should do before the 'strict' enforcement. . (At that age positive reinforcement is vital )

You were 'hauled out' ( THAT phraseology to a Lacanian would be pregnant with meaning), and punished. You had no opportunity to speak for yourself : not even to apologise, or promise not to sin again. That might not, arguably should not have affected the punishment in any way, but it would have evened up the guilt.


Worse was to come . the teacher you relied upon, you liked, related to then had a second round , shaming and exemplifying you as 'bad'. For goodness sake , yes, you had broken a rule. Yes you had been punished, some may say quite severely, and with no concern for your individual record or needs. Furthermore there seems to have been no 'drawing of a line' under the incident the ' Its over now we wont talk of this again.... ' phase of 'forgiveness' wasn't actioned, you were left feeling upset and demoralised.It appears your teacher didn't even notice. She could have made her point without exhibiting you all as prize marrows. It appears she didn't even take the time later to talk to you individually. More uncontrolled , misdirected raw power.

Primary schools are not examples of well controlled power.They lack management and control. They are discontinuous, rambling systems with little grasp by those in management of the singular details which define the students. In these schools power was, and sometimes still is, is exercised over the constituent social groups by exemplary intervention. They are incapable of individualizing strategies suitable for single pupils. In short they damage their cargo far more frequently and seriously than secondary school ever can...even Bacon's.

Why? Because the children in primary are vulnerable, impressionable, and dependent on relationships with a teacher which run across a rainbow of expectations. They cannot fight back. Make a mistake in secondary years and you can apologise and often make some gesture. In primary if you fracture that relationship you never get the second chance.

You conclude the story :


The punishment that shaped the remainder of my time at school was unexpected, and was for something very minor. It was at the whim of a teacher who happened to decide to rigorously enforce a particular rule that day. The process, once caught up in it, seemed terrifying and inexplicable. It hurt a lot. My much loved class teacher, whom I'd have expected to comfort me, acted in a totally unexpected and to me at the time very upsetting way. Above all though there was the humiliation, both during the punishment and back in my own class. Even at that age I had a definite concept of being in control and managing what happened to me. In that punishment I had absolutely no control whatsoever, and the humiliation involved certainly didn't fit the self management model!

Well yes , little to add, it says it all. The advantage of physical punishment is that matters are out of control for a very short period. can time stand still? Yes but only for a little while! Your experience didn't confirm that, and , having accepted what the text books of the day would have called 'necessary correction' you were further humiliated without a sign ( in the psychological sense) of closure.

I think it was jenny ( but I could be wrong if so sorry!) who commented in another post of the superfluous or gratuitous nature of a ' no hard feeling' statement . Actually it isn't. The difficulty is it is not only necessary but vital for a certain subset of students who need that reinforcement. Unfortunately we can't analyse the psychology of each child , so we can't identify for whom it is necessary or to whom superfluous.


Finally you conclude ;

All in all, a lesson in real life at a young age, and one I now think was on the whole good for me. Those who think a few canings are an essential rite of passage for lads (and girls for that matter - never let it be supposed that I'm frightened of Jenny wink.gif) would probably disagree though.


first sentence. I'm glad you do !!!!- I don't know I would agree!!!

The next sentence is very difficult indeed. I don't know I would say they are essential. I think they WERE essential for self esteem and social standing in certain types of schools in the past, certainly if you were to achieve your potential. In my case as I've said many times Miss f gave the game away with her phrase' All I've done is let this cat cut his claws and take his rightful place in the pride. ' She didn't HAVE to cane : she chose it as a punishment for what she will now admit were primarily psycho-social reasons. This takes us into the realm of social anthropology and beyond present issues. .

Your case is difficult. your teachers acted in line with norms and values of the day. Doubtless they had a profound influence on your socio/psychological make up , and your attitude to such things as risk taking, particularly in mature life. I think it is a great pity that the one person you appeared to depend upon didn't recognise your distress, and as a consequence that possibly bulked larger than it should have in subsequent decisions. Deleuze writing in 1963 notes

'How does ..... understanding apply itself to the phenomena which are subject to it?'

You applied understanding so as to develop an absolutism to never allow this position , of powerlessness, worthlessness and lack of control ever manifest itself again. A logical response. But we know you to be a logical man.your career alone tells us that ! But a response which could, no in my mind should, have been mediated by the simple expedient of the staff 'knowing' there students as persons not numbers. Every child matters.

I hope you don't feel I've shredded your story, but I think the decision to share it here should give pause for thought , and has raised some vital but often hidden issues.

Hi prof.n. A most fascinating post, and I am, said completely without irony or sarcasm, quite honoured to be the subject of such detailed and comprehensive analysis. I cannot do better initially than to quote the immortal Burns, from his poem 'To A Louse':

O wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us! It wad frae monie a blunder free us, An' foolish notion: What airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e us, An' ev'n devotion!

I went to a catholic primary school and there was a lot of shaming going on as a means of discipline, apart from smacking. I think it can be grating on your self esteem. The only time I got smacked was from a female teacher in 4th class who I had a bit of a crush on. She smacked me on the hand with a ruler (cant remember why though.) In my fantasy life I have turned her smack into a full on spanking as an adult! Anyway, I still liked her afterwards but hated some of the other teachers who used not only hitting but name calling. I got called stupid by this one bitch of a nun quite a bit in 3rd grade and learned nothing from her except that I was, well, stupid. Having said that, I now have completed four uni degrees, so I guess she was wrong. Nevertheless, it is terrifying to hear that type of thing from an adult who is full of rage and hate. I really believed her and my parents werent much help either but thats anbother story. Basically the nun should've left and had a good root somewhere, as many of them needed to.
Personally I would've preferred a good smack/caning from someone I respected than the emotional abuse by a repressed tyrant.
Peter

Oops, prof.n has shaken me up so much that I've pressed the wrong button and posted too early. However, the item will stand on its own, and rather than starting again (and thus troubling the Forum Management to delete items) I'll let the escapee remain and continue here. One small point though. Those who know their Burns, and thus the name of the young lady over whose bonnet the louse was crawling, should read absolutely nothing into it. There are no hidden messages here. With Another_Lurker what you see is what you get, no more, no less!

So, prof.n, you have indeed to an extent enabled me to see myself as others see me. I think I've survived the experience, although the premature posting may be a bad omen. I have always regarded that Infant School punishment as crucial to my subsequent school survival strategy, but I haven't (at least not consciously) ascribed to it the depths and shades of meaning you read into it. But perhaps that's only to be expected. Unlike you I don't analyse people or what people do very deeply. To me, people (and I'll count myself in this) are illogical entities whose behaviour is unpredictable.

Analysing illogical unpredictable systems is a waste of time. Worse still it can be dangerous. You can get involved, and if you get too involved you can get hurt. Far better to stick to real systems with (hopefully) logical design and predictable outcome, be it an operating system, somebody's PC, a bicycle, a car or even a set of climbing gear. Yes such systems will have faults and will sometimes require changes. Dealing with these can sometimes be fascinating, sometimes frustrating and sometimes both at once. But at least the estate car in your life doesn't suddenly change into a sports car because it met this high powered saloon at the weekend. Your ailing and overloaded PC won't get the notion that its a supercomputer because you said its led indicators looked pretty. Equally your supercomputer won't turn into an ailing PC because you said its console looked a bit tatty. Not so people though!

Some points from your excellent analysis. I'll use blue for my quotes, italics for yours:

As to the Red lists, well the beauty of this , certainly in those days, is , that unless you were an inquisitive, annoying , persistent ,cantankerous and tenacious little b****r like me you would have been oblivious of the issue of lists at all

Now interestingly, though my approach to things is clearly very different to yours, I have been described in exactly those terms by people who know me very well. I've said here before that workwise at least, the same thing was quoted as my greatest strength and my greatest weakness. Once I've got my teeth into something I don't let go!

This punishment, as a participant in a mixed age group leg smacking in front of what was, for me at least, a mixed class of older children, made such an impression on me that, young as I was (just short of 7), I resolved afterwards never to be punished at school again!

Now this statement really is interesting. What shines through is that the effect on you of this experience was mainly psychological , and yet there is no sense of 'magnitude' in the decision. It is an absolute. You state it as an absolute.

Hmm, well, yes you are correct, certainly in retrospect the effect was mainly psychological. But 'magnitude', 'absolute' I'm not happy with. Said by a 67 year old and reviewed by a person of your age those terms may be appropriate. But what we are talking about is a 7 year old who decided that wasn't going to happen to him again. Does a 7 year old understand 'magnitude' and 'absolute'? No, I don't think so. By the time I could have understood my deecision in those terms I think I would have been running with it for at least as many years as I'd lived when I made it!

You reacted in a way that were it not for Lacan or Foucault we might have described your action as direct submission to an exemplary penalty....Why? Because you did not engage either that day or any other in the strategies, covert discourses or ruses that exemplify the 'chatter ' and ' subterranean business' of any social institution , such as a school which is built on a complex of informal power relations. Rather you submitted ....or did you? Power was exercised from above , without particular concern for legitimacy and yet you submitted. Why or is this a misreading ? I think it is a misreading . Very much so.

Hmm again, I'm afraid! I'd already submitted to the 'exemplary penalty' - I'd had the punishment. Engage in strategies, covert discourses, chatter, subterranean business, complex of informal power relations! I'm a 7 year old, I haven't got a clue what you are talking about! And since I'm not very interested in that sort of thing anyway I probably didn't even become aware of it until I was employed by a large organisation where far too much of it went on, to the detriment of everybody and everything. By that time my tactics at school were ancient history. As regards 'Power was exercised from above , without particular concern for legitimacy' this was the late 1940s. For school children power was certainly exercised from above, and it was legitimate because your parents and your school teachers, to say nothing of the local policeman and every other adult in a position of authority, said so! If you didn't agree and took determined steps to demonstrate that you didn't agree (and the occasional child did) you'd be 'sent away' - and it wasn't to a nice place with computer games and a TV in your room!

Two points. Firstly the feelings of embarrassment clearly trumped the pain. Your response was no different to anyone else's (you were all in tears) yet I guess they didn't make the absolutist decision you did! Why not ? the answer lies in your next extract:

I can't dispute that that is a substantially correct analysis and you may well be correct that the following was a very important element:

I remember being absolutely mortified though as our teacher took the opportunity to deliver a little homily.

She made us stand in front with our hands on our heads while she explained to the rest of the class that we'd been very naughty and that we'd been spanked, and that they must all behave when they moved up to the top class very soon, or they might be spanked too.

The real influence here wasn't the 'Polish Lady' whom I assume was pretty cold to you and vice versa, but your form teacher, whom you clearly held in respect and whose view of you was important to your self esteem. The fact you went from hero to zero in one second flat, in front of your classmates, and thus in your eyes were denigrated by her , and thus clearly had lost your approval rating was far far worse than what the Polish lady had done.

This is the bit that really makes me try to reprise my sentiments at the time. Difficult though, it was, bar a few months, 60 years ago. If I try to delve even deeper into the interperson relationships at that distance am I not in danger of remapping them to define a new and fictitious situation? You are certainly correct about my then relationship with Miss B, the teacher with the Polish name. She wasn't Polish, she'd married a Pole. Very common then, there had been lots of Polish airman based locally in the war. My much loved class teacher also had a Polish name, also married to a Pole. We'll call her Miss S. All female teachers were Miss, irrespective of marital status.

Miss B was much younger than the other Infant School teachers, and relatively new to the school and the town. Miss S had been at the school for some years and was well known locally as her Father owned half the town. In fact I got to know Miss S very well about 4 years later, when I was friendly with her son for several years. I also met Miss B again in my teens, she was the aunt of a boy I was friendly with. In neither case was the incident ever discussed or mentioned.

So to revise. It was NOT the exemplary nature of the punishment which had pregnancy ; it was what Lacan would call 'micro powers' the interpersonal relationships , spoken and unspoken, in Foucault's terminology the 'gaze' of discipline. Teachers often forget that they are managers of collective space. Psycho-social power is formed 'spatially' as well as personally. In your case A.L. you probably internalised her disapproval personally , whereas her intention was to operate spatially.........She probably never noticed or knew your distress.

I think you are probably correct, but again I have to say that I was only 7. I don't believe that I looked at it in those terms, then or any time until I read your post.

Some young 'harridan' got out of bed the wrong side, and decided to enforce a rule strictly ( which I guess from your casual behaviour - you didn't remember what you said- was not always so rigidly enforced) . There appears to have been no warning or reminder to you all of what you should do before the 'strict' enforcement. . (At that age positive reinforcement is vital)

Sorry, no, Miss B was no 'harridan'. Arbitrary and sudden decisions about what rules were going to be enforced strictly were common. No child then would have thought it strange. I don't think 'positive reinforcement' had been invented in 1949, except possibly in the military, where I gather the mantra was always 'tell them what you are going to tell them, tell them, tell them what you've told them - and heaven help them if they then forget'.

You were 'hauled out' ( THAT phraseology to a Lacanian would be pregnant with meaning), and punished. You had no opportunity to speak for yourself : not even to apologise, or promise not to sin again. That might not, arguably should not have affected the punishment in any way, but it would have evened up the guilt.

I said 'hauled out' because that's what I meant. Grabbed and half dragged, half carried across and dumped with the other 'naughty' children to await your fate. Physical contact with children, for chastisement or for comfort, was still what teachers, and indeed most adults did then. Would that explanation make the phrase any less pregnant with meaning to a Lacanian? As regards opportunity to speak for yourself, apologise or promise not to sin again, the norm, in schools as in society, was crime, apprehension, punishment in quick succession. Not a lot of apologies etc. went on then.

Worse was to come . the teacher you relied upon, you liked, related to then had a second round , shaming and exemplifying you as 'bad'. For goodness sake , yes, you had broken a rule. Yes you had been punished, some may say quite severely, and with no concern for your individual record or needs. Furthermore there seems to have been no 'drawing of a line' under the incident the ' Its over now we wont talk of this again.... ' phase of 'forgiveness' wasn't actioned, you were left feeling upset and demoralised.It appears your teacher didn't even notice. She could have made her point without exhibiting you all as prize marrows. It appears she didn't even take the time later to talk to you individually. More uncontrolled , misdirected raw power.

I can't disagree with your conclusions if judging by today's standards BUT it wasn't today, it was 60 years ago. The past is another place in another time. We cannot, and must not, judge it by our standards now. If we do we shall simply perpetuate an error, and we in turn will be judged and found wanting in the future.

Primary schools are not examples of well controlled power.They lack management and control. They are discontinuous, rambling systems with little grasp by those in management of the singular details which define the students. In these schools power was, and sometimes still is, is exercised over the constituent social groups by exemplary intervention. They are incapable of individualizing strategies suitable for single pupils. In short they damage their cargo far more frequently and seriously than secondary school ever can...even Bacon's.

I'll agree with you that this holds for some current primary schools. I won't agree with you that it held for my infant and junior school. Few if any children left that school illiterate or innumerate. I don't think many, if any, left damaged. I certainly don't think I was damaged. I've had a very happy, if somewhat unconventional life. Despite doing very little proper work until my late 20s I was able retire comfortably before I was 50. The education I got at that primary school set me up for my secondary school, and that in turn set me up for life. Where's the damage?

All in all, a lesson in real life at a young age, and one I now think was on the whole good for me. Those who think a few canings are an essential rite of passage for lads (and girls for that matter - never let it be supposed that I'm frightened of Jenny) would probably disagree though.


first sentence. I'm glad you do !!!!- I don't know I would agree!!!

The next sentence is very difficult indeed. I don't know I would say they are essential. I think they WERE essential for self esteem and social standing in certain types of schools in the past, certainly if you were to achieve your potential. In my case as I've said many times Miss f gave the game away with her phrase' All I've done is let this cat cut his claws and take his rightful place in the pride. ' She didn't HAVE to cane : she chose it as a punishment for what she will now admit were primarily psycho-social reasons. This takes us into the realm of social anthropology and beyond present issues.

I have no doubt that it your secondary school caning was an essential . rite of passage. It wasn't at mine - day school, boys only, Headmasters' Conference (our beloved Minister of Education is an old boy - but then I've seen your opinion of him in other threads - compare and contrast him with D H Lawrence and Ken Clarke, lots more available ). The headmaster did cane, but not often. Maybe for some groupings having had 'beats' from the prefects was essential to status. It certainly wasn't in the circles I moved in though.

Even if I hadn't taken the trouble to make sure I wasn't punished I think it's unlikely I'd have been caned there other than by the prefects. I might have been slippered a few times, and I'd certainly have got lines and detentions. But none of these, with the possible excepion of being slippered in the first year, when our Form Master was a feared and formidable wielder of a leather soled size 12 sandal, carried any sort of status. So, all in all, unless I'd wished to indulge in S&M in later life I don't think the fact that I was never caned at school has done me the slightest harm! Your mileage may differ though!

You applied understanding so as to develop an absolutism to never allow this position , of powerlessness, worthlessness and lack of control ever manifest itself again. A logical response. But we know you to be a logical man.your career alone tells us that !

Thank you. I think I'm reasonably logical - but like all human beings my operating system is deeply flawed, why else would I be posting here in the small hours?

Hi Another Lurker,

I must thank you for such a fulsome and frank response. Here I'll just mention a few points on reflection ,but first

Burns is appropriate , for several reasons ( and not just the schoolboy joke that he was the most appropriately name poet for a schooling system based on the labours of Philps, Dick and McRostie.....) . Don't forget A.L.that, as my S.O. is a teacher of Scottish extraction, a copy of the said texts are not far from hand, It could, of course, well be that one of our current illustrious contributors, to whom I'm sure any similarity with the lady in the poem is purely coincidental, may have developed slightly different views had she sampled schooling north of the border..........!!!!!!

However to turn to your interesting comments :-

To me, people (and I'll count myself in this) are illogical entities whose behaviour is unpredictable.

Analysing illogical unpredictable systems is a waste of time. Worse still it can be dangerous. You can get involved, and if you get too involved you can get hurt.

Well to an extent I'd agree, but even the 'ground-breaker'(Freud) admitted this wasn't a classic science , but he did make a rigorous statement about the unconscious, and this is his subject and object., and that of his followers such as Jacques Lacan.

Hmm, well, yes you are correct, certainly in retrospect the effect was mainly psychological. But 'magnitude', 'absolute' I'm not happy with. Said by a 67 year old and reviewed by a person of your age those terms may be appropriate. But what we are talking about is a 7 year old who decided that wasn't going to happen to him again. Does a 7 year old understand 'magnitude' and 'absolute'? No, I don't think so. By the time I could have understood my decision in those terms I think I would have been running with it for at least as many years as I'd lived when I made it!

No consciously a 7 year old doesn't understand that , but the unconscious is a different matter. In hundreds of places in his work Freud admits he is a theoretician. He compares his new theory , of which his 'practice ' is only one part,not an exhaustive exposition of the science.

Analysis and practice are linked by the underlying theory : without this theory they would not be 'authentic'. The theory gives to analysis and practice ( techniques and applications) the right to authenticity , through rigorous proof , not assertion. Freud compares his idea to those of , for example Galileo . Practice and technique and not valid in themselves, but only in as much as they draw from and are supported by , the theoretical . And that is rational not intuitive : it concretises the abstract at a given moment, frozen in time ( Hence can time stand still???? well never in the present?)

So a sociologist looking at this gives priority not to the individuals ( that would be psychoanalytic practice) , for nothing can be said with CERTAINTY about them , except through such clinical practices ( and there are more than one mutually exclusive approaches), which are not our concern.

Rather a sociologist concentrates upon HOW the individuals are inserted into the SPACE within which socialisation takes place, and what power relations impact on them and are mediated within the power relations of the institutions which which they interact.

This is the territory of both Lacan and Foucault. I'm sorry that's rather lengthy but it I hope places my comments in a context.

Hmm again, I'm afraid! I'd already submitted to the 'exemplary penalty' - I'd had the punishment. Engage in strategies, covert discourses, chatter, subterranean business, complex of informal power relations! I'm a 7 year old, I haven't got a clue what you are talking about!

So I'm not talking consciously. You were ,like it or lump it, for the years at school inserted into a field of socialisation defined and regulated by the power relations extant within the institution of school- whichever school at whatever time.

Because you didn't want to cross a red line, you didn't want to be punished you avoided tangling ,as far as possible , I assume, with the representations of power in the school , whether by abiding by rules, doing your homework, not engaging in insolence or sass,and interacting with your mates, but avoiding the gaze of authority. That's all it means!!

So I'm not saying you consciously THOUGHT in this way, but rather that your actions , in a scientific sense were bounded by the limits of institutional power and spatially bounded by your location in that hierarchy, and then society generally. By the time you got beyond primary, you didn't need to push boundaries, t you'd already done that.

In fact I got to know Miss S very well about 4 years later, when I was friendly with her son for several years. I also met Miss B again in my teens, she was the aunt of a boy I was friendly with. In neither case was the incident ever discussed or mentioned.

Its a great pity, in a sociological sense, you never did raise it ...of course you wouldn't then, but a pity nonetheless in that great teat tube called life.........


Arbitrary and sudden decisions about what rules were going to be enforced strictly were common. No child then would have thought it strange. I don't think 'positive reinforcement' had been invented in 1949,

Just because I can be pedantic some times (!!) , the first papers were in about 1935.....but it well might no have reached the colleges of education as a 'practice'. After all they have known how to paddle safely in Texas for 40 years and it still isn't universal.

I said 'hauled out' because that's what I meant. Grabbed and half dragged, half carried across and dumped with the other 'naughty' children to await your fate. Physical contact with children, for chastisement or for comfort, was still what teachers, and indeed most adults did then. Would that explanation make the phrase any less pregnant with meaning to a Lacanian?

No that's exactly what I thought and that's what would make the subconscious ( as well as conscious) impression.

I can't disagree with your conclusions if judging by today's standards BUT it wasn't today, it was 60 years ago. The past is another place in another time. We cannot, and must not, judge it by our standards now.

I accept the time and space thing, but even then she should have been aware of the distress you were showing ( and believe me it would be radiating off you). I guess some were thick skinned and were not aware, others did and didn't know what to do, and then some would be aware and wouldn't care ( I came across those in the 70's!), even worse in those days some would think it came with territory....deal with it!


I'll agree with you that this holds for some current primary schools. I won't agree with you that it held for my infant and junior school. Few if any children left that school illiterate or innumerate. I don't think many, if any, left damaged

First sentence agreed, BUT psychiatric practice, and this is where I'm dependent on another professional area would see things differently. There were more damaged kids from primary in the post war period than now, BUT we have more kids exhibiting behavioural problems in secondary today, but of course diagnosis and therapy has changed beyond recognition. I wouldn't differ with you on the academic comments,but that's not what I'm considering.

I have no doubt that it your secondary school caning was an essential . rite of passage. It wasn't at mine - day school, boys only, Headmasters' Conference (our beloved Minister of Education is an old boy - but then I've seen your opinion of him in other threads - compare and contrast him with D H Lawrence and Ken Clarke, lots more available happy.gif). The headmaster did cane, but not often. Maybe for some groupings having had 'beats' from the prefects was essential to status. It certainly wasn't in the circles I moved in though.

Your school appears to have been quite unusual for the period. We were seen as quite 'liberal' in the 70's . That , I would suggest was a good thing from your point of view!


Finally two issues. ''Damaged'' children don't necessarily become failures ( except on Oprah and Trisha!!!) some may become over achievers some have difficulty in adjustment after failure, some may just be quite happy. you can't produce a causal connection , but tendencies are clear....that's all I'm saying!!!

Secondly, this all stems from my lifelong interest in Foucault . I became interested in Foucault at 16/17 which is quite unusual. I saw my mentor(?) miss F over a school council issue. She was a bit cross and impatient as she was busy and didn't want to spend time on it , so she pushed me off by passing me copies of papers by this guy Foucault on the nature of discipline.... looked boring....)and also , in case these did look remotely interesting 'The Order of Things'( subtitle An archeology of the human sciences) - definitely up there with the best sellers list! - which most certainly didn't. and saying when I had read certain chapters come back and she would discuss it ....believing vainly that it might discourage me. However I saw the editor of the latter text was R.D. Laing, so I persevered.....When I'd read it ( with the aid of a good social science dictionary)- she should have realized I would - I was an even more persistent little bxxxxr than before, and more difficult to fob off, now I had access to 'knowledge'!!!!!

The moral of this story is, as I'm sure our good doctor knows, its always unwise and even dangerous to give students the keys to the chemical cupboard!

Anyway thanks again for telling us your thoughts!

And to finish with Burns and hope?

But if I must afflicted be
to suit some wise design
Then man my soul with firm resolves
To bear and not repine

'Prayer : under the pressure of violent anguish'
Commonplace book of Burns'

Hi prof.n. Thank you for the additional information. Your two posts have caused me try to think about the decision I took as a seven year old and the effects it may or may not have had on my life. Sadly I find I lack the techniques or language to do so. To me it was, and indeed I guess still is, a sensible response to an experience I found deeply unpleasant. Simply take steps to ensure it doesn't happen again. No more, no less. To see it clothed in the language of the Social Scientist is rather startling, to say the least!

I wish I understood more of the language and practise of the Social Sciences, but to me it is as exotic and outside my experience as the language and practice of Neuro-Linguistic Programming in which a friend is expert. In the latter case I can see the startling and beneficial results when he uses it on himself, but to me it is still messing about inside the brain, an area best left alone! In the same way I find what you were able to explain and define about what to me was just a simple case of survival at school rather disturbing. Can there really be all that complexity of relationships and reactions involved, or was it, as I'd much prefer to be able to believe, just a little lad trying to make sure he didn't have to go through such an undignified process again?

I think, prof.n, I shall seek your informed comments on another incident in my school life. In this case I wasn't the victim, but it was an illustration of the abuse of power at Junior school, so it is within the remit of this thread. Or was it an abuse of power? I certainly thought it was when I posted it, and indeed I attributed my presence here to it. Now though, I really don't know. I've almost come to the conclusion that an interest in the subject of this estimable Forum and related matters may even be genetic, or how do people who've never encountered CP in school or home get the bug, which they sometimes do? Maybe the punishment in question was just a somewhat over-zealous teacher doing what he felt was necessary at the time. Certainly the victim didn't seem to read anything exceptional into it. Our esteemed and sadly absent contributor JJ agreed with my original analysis, but then he was likely to view it from that viewpoint, in view of his own activities! Anyway, if you get time, click on the space at the end of this sentence, I'd be very interested in your comments.  I'm afraid it is rather long, so skip the first 11 or so paragraphs if need be.

Hi Another lurker,

In the same way I find what you were able to explain and define about what to me was just a simple case of survival at school rather disturbing. Can there really be all that complexity of relationships and reactions involved, or was it, as I'd much prefer to be able to believe, just a little lad trying to make sure he didn't have to go through such an undignified process again?


In the language of social,science or whatever .........I believe both are correct and mutually compatible!!!!


On the other issue I will happily look at it and get back to you!!!!

Sorry this post is a whopper! but I have to reprint enough of AL's second story to enable it to make sense. If you can't stick the theory at the start , read from act one scene 1 !!

Hi Another Lurker.

Well, you do like knotty problems. Anyway here goes.....first a health warning and some comments on source materials ... I suppose my first eleven paragraphs...........

I am not a psychiatrist , nor a clinical psychologist. This is necessary to be stated , although you all know it , purely because at least one part of this analysis needs completion by the application of that type of analysis. Why? Because here we are at one point in the story talking about the adaptive response of one individual to a precise situation. From clues given in the text, as we deconstruct it , so it becomes clear there are issues that go well beyond the descriptive, into the attribution of motive and what in earlier years , before Laing, would have universally been called deviancy or at least pathology Today , maybe not..........but these are areas into which I am not going to tread, and which therefore still will remain partially veiled. Each to his own.

I actually doubt a practitioner in these areas could comment except at a level of generality ,because although lurkers picture is detailed it cannot by nature be complete....and that takes me to the second health warning.

We must consider very briefly a painting, actually a less than life size portrait of the Empress of Austria by Francois Clouet in the Louvre. This painting is renowned for one thing and one thing only the the brilliant rendition of the fine lace work on the Empress's collar. Clouet, like many artisans through the ages deals with life by reducing it. The small becomes the clear...a clear and singular message . It is a reversal of our usual process of understanding. Normally, if we want to examine complexity we split to into parts. , these parts can be dissected and elements are modelled. From this modelling springs knowledge.

Miniaturization reverses this process. Dissection and modelling 'elements' of the whole reveals an objects totality from its parts ; Reduction in scale , quantitative diminishment reduces complexity and thus leads to knowledge through allowing man to grasp , assess and apprehend the notion at a glance. Why do we replay battles by using miniaturisation, because the logic is clearer , the terrain can be assessed in the glance. A miniature soldier is neither an enemy or rival , or even an interlocutor -in it and through it the issue and the tactics are made the subject of enquiry.......just as chess represents war without bloodshed.

What Lurker witnessed was process of miniaturization , a simultaneous reduction of social power to a simple 'play' enacted before the crowd, but curt down stripped of all its ritualistic formalism in the panoply of institutional power. A simple relationship between two people , one dominant but with responsibility ; one dependent but still trusting and with obligation. Two people , one crowd. Participants : observers. The play was significant , just as the plays of the Easter pageants were of old, but this play was concrete, not representational , and in that lay both its power, and its inherent danger.

Just one further point 'miniaturization' isn't a homologue, it requires made made intervention, it is a representation.....an experiment. Just as much as if it were on a bench in a science laboratory. And there are strict rules for this experiment . The understanding of how the miniaturization is made adds to the understanding of the object itself. The method is important because there are several solutions to any one problem . Our method will prioritize and sort these for us. So to the play.....



ACT I Scene I stage directions ..........
A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away - yes, I know that's someone Else's line but, in my opinion at least, 1954, when this happened, is just as remote from today's world as is the Star Wars universe. In the small working class English town in which I lived there was still quite a lot of poverty, and I don't mean today's state funded pseudo-poverty, I mean real, grinding, not enough of anything ever poverty.

Possibly as a result of this awareness of how close most people were to a very hard life there was a discipline (some might well now call it subservience) in the way people interacted with authority. Policemen were all over 6 foot (1·83 metres for younger readers), there were lots of them, and they were quite likely to give a youngster who stepped out of line a good hiding without troubling either magistrates or social workers or, for that matter, parents. Of more relevance to this account, school teachers were very significant and highly respected figures in the community, and for the most part could do no wrong.

Most younger children were in awe of all their teachers, and rather frightened of some of them. A parent disputing any decision or action of a school or a school teacher was rare event. The law held teachers to be 'in loco parentis' - in place of a parent - whilst children were in school. Just as parents then could get away with almost anything short of murder or outright brutality in dealing with their children, so too could teachers. Happily very few parents, and even fewer teachers, went to extremes. However corporal punishment was certainly the norm and most children would be slapped, chastised with implements such as slippers or plimsolls, and possibly even caned for transgressions at both home and school both before and after they reached their teens.

Just so everybody understands the setting................

The incident which so imprinted itself on me, and which I am sure triggered a life-long mildly prurient interest in school corporal punishment as applied to the opposite sex, happened near the end of my time in junior school. Like the unfortunate girl concerned and a few of our classmates my birthday meant I'd had to spend two years in the top class waiting to attain the age necessary to sit the 11+ examination, which at that time determined subsequent educational fate for all children. We were thus nearly 12, the oldest pupils in a class of around 50 children. That's right, I did say 50! Shock, horror if you subscribe to the modern theory that 20 is about the limit for any sort of successful education.

Well actually if you are Ed Balls I think by secondary it is about 35 in reality..........but I take the point. Actually the numbers depend on the teaching techniques to a great extent, and for today's about 25 is maximum but using large group methods 9 which is less individual and rougher on those who can't keep up) you can manage up to 50 . they still do in many ex 'Empire' nations where cash is short , and in many cases get better results than us ( and they still retain the cane !!!!sorry!).

You already see her as unfortunate ( actually I'd agree, but lets press on)

And so to the main event, doubtless much to the relief of those who've got this far! Towards the end of my last term at the junior school our normal lady teacher was absent for a few days. Presumably it was pre-arranged, as a male teacher arrived to take us. I'll call him Mr Ford, although that wasn't his name. He normally took one of the classes below us, back at the main school. He was very young, by the standard of teachers at that time, probably in his mid twenties. He hadn't been at the school long, and although he stayed in the area he left teaching a year or two later.


This is why I made the comment at the beginning. Mr. ford stood out to you. Young, and you recall him leaving teaching. OK perhaps the money was , perhaps he didn't feel comfortable, there may be some evidence for that, and perhaps there could be a myriad of other reasons. But I'm not qualifies to speculate. None the ;less I fund it significant. Another interesting aspect of this was passed over very quickly by you

The school was very short of space, and our class had been outstationed for two years in a makeshift classroom in a local public building a short walk from the school.
. .
So here we have a not very experience teacher , left with 50 kids in an annex. He is the sole arbiter of what goes on, and the sole 'law' in the place. Spatially this makes it his kingdom, but he is remote from the normal power and gaze of the school . Remember this , Victorian school buildings were often contructed with internal glass windows , ( into the hall etc) for good reasons. Here is Foucault's interpretation of this innovation :

'And ,in order to be exercised, this power.........had to be like a faceless gaze that transformed the whole social body into a field of perception, thousands of eyes posted everywhere' . (Foucault Discipline and punish the Panopticon p 214 (Sheridan Edn.).

The young teacher was almost like the medieval monarch, lord of all he surveyed. This was the antithesis of the aim and structure of modern education ( post 1815) which like prisons, hospitals , asylums , now had moved into the light. It e was the gaze of management , of inspection , of regulation , and the physical effect of opening the classroom to the gaze of others which provided the framework for discipline.

Foucault continues ;-

'One day we shall see how intrafamily relations, especially in the parents -children cell have become 'disciplined' by the state apparatuses.....(op cit p216)( New Zealand government, please note !).

So essentially every power relation will be controlled by the breakdown of the old direct power and the intervention of the gaze of the inspector, the bureaucrat and the will be reinforced, not only by codification by the state , but by the very spatial and structural forms of the institutions. The very architecture......

In this case our young teacher is cut off isolated from that ever present gaze......and reverts to the pre enlightenment discipline of exemplary punishment......but I'm running ahead. ..Our miniaturization process , lays bare the essential nature of the power relations.......

Usually PT was done in the school hall in bad weather or in the playground in good weather. In our little outstation we used the public hall upstairs in bad weather and the grounds outside in good weather. This particular day was a glorious so we were outside..............

As I've said we stood in rows and columns for PT, maybe 5 across and 10 deep. Mr Ford stationed himself in front at one corner of the formation facing us. I was in the middle, one row back and immediately in front of me in the front row was a girl called Jennifer - again not her real name. As noted previously Jennifer, like me, was one of the older children in the class. She was a very pretty girl, indeed retrospective scrutiny of the class photograph indicates that she was certainly the prettiest girl in the class. She had blond hair and very attractive facial features. In particular, and this is what I think sealed her fate, she came from a fairly affluent family. Her parents lived in the best part of the town and had been more than able to give her the best possible nutrition and environment. She positively glowed with health compared to the pallor then carried by many children, and, most important of all, she was considerably more comely than many of the girls, some of whom were fairly emaciated by modern standards.

Remember in a modern education , under the even gaze of the overlooker, the issue is (in terminology I'm familiar with from the States) 'a consequence based regime'. You control your 'body ( in the widest sense of the word) and are set in a power relation by the 'gaze'. If you cross the line that is a DELIBERATE act. You cannot take it back, you cannot apologise, ( well you can and it may be appreciated in inter personal sense , but it wont alter your fate) however, just as the red line is fixed , so is the penalty, it should be even and fair.

Pre enlightenment philosophy would stress the arbitrary nature of offending. , and the exemplary penalty which would be demanded. Unlike the continental countries with administrative systems largely derived from versions of the 'Code Napoleon', British discipline was largely still wedded to the church school movement, and the works of men like Matthew Arnold. There was a constant tension between the demands of the modern state, and the demands of an educational system designed to develop leadership at the expense of the working classes.

AL gives us an opinion that this even-handedness did not apply in this case.But perhaps the social and ex economic status of the girl played a role, again a revisionist position.

Bear in mind that Mr Ford was the only adult present. There was no one else, teachers or otherwise on the premises. The back of the building, where we did PT, wasn't overlooked from anywhere. Apart from Mr Ford himself there were only children to observe what happened next, and he would have been well aware that those children would probably not read anything out of the ordinary into what on the face of it was a punishment for a perceived naughtiness, a severe punishment maybe, but a punishment nonetheless.

Again the conditions for modern observation were not present. There was no chance of the decisions taken by Mr. Ford being subject to peer review or observation. Let penalties be be regulated and proportioned to the offences. That was the first of the judicial demands of 1789.In 1954 the system was still not robust even in a junior school.

You weren't supposed to talk during PT. Back then silence was imposed on children a great deal more than it is now. However we did chatter a little between ourselves and usually in PT teachers didn't take any action. Mr Ford bided his time, ignoring the first few chatterers. Fairly quickly he struck lucky. Jennifer part turned and asked me if I'd seen John, one of the other lads in our group of older children, almost trip himself up, which she obviously found amusing. Instantly Mr Ford struck. He shot over and asked if Jennifer had spoken. Very honestly, but probably foolishly she said she had. He quizzed her as to what she had said and to whom, and she told him. Quite a few teachers would have punished me as well, if they were going to punish anyone, on the grounds of guilt by association, but in retrospect I'm now fairly sure that at that stage Mr Ford wasn't in the least interested in punishing me, or any other lad for that matter.


Now we see the conditions for the excessive use of power all come together......no supervision, freedom of action, spatial separation, and structural isolation. Moreover he may have realised he e had an atypical student as well. To make Jenny's point from elsewhere, if a teacher gains satisfaction from an action taken as a representative of the school administering disciple for the school this is one thing....however could this incident be seen as that , or something else? This is where my analysis stops in that it may be an exemplary punishment ? I would suggest that this has such an impression that it cannot have been seen as 'routine' . Moreover in the scheme of things the girl has been honest, with a denial Ford would have been stuck, unless he was prepared to up the stakes and call her a liar..... Certainly in AL's account he gives her no credit but proceeds to humiliate her in a way which sits uncomfortably with her behaviour. In my view . Because ford is at the very far outpost of school authority , he loses the plot and lets personal motivation ( on which I am not qualified to speculate) take over . The constraining power of the institution has been lost.

We should also note this isn't a moment of anger, every act is premeditated, and carefully orchestrated. Mush of the act from now on is not related to punishment as such, or is ,but is highly ritualised. This latter condition is again a feature of exemplary punishment, but there appears to be no predisposing factor to militate for this approach in this case, in fact the opposite.

He pulled Jennifer out to the front and made her stand hands on head with her back to us. Next he surveyed the assembled ranks, picked a lad with big feet and ordered him to hand over one of his gym shoes. Gym shoes had very flexible, but fairly thick black rubber soles. They stung mightily over the ordinary clothes on which they were normally used, but in this case the intended recipient only had thin cotton gym knickers as protection, which in itself made the circumstances unusual. Even more unusual things were to follow though.

He next ordered Jennifer to pull up the waistband of her knickers as far as it would go (the shirts were worn tucked into the knickers) and bend over and touch her toes, still with her back to us, both of which she duly did. I doubt if anyone twigged the purpose of the waistband bit at the time, I certainly didn't, but of course it both stretched the material tighter over the target area and exposed a little more leg. Much more unusual, and therefore notable, to me at least, and possibly to others, was the touching the toes posture. To be slippered you bent over a desk facing the class. The sight of a girl bent over touching her toes meekly awaiting punishment certainly excited me, and doubtless some other lads. Normally you only saw the recipient's face, with any associated grimaces and possibly tears, during a slippering. You didn't see their bottom, and certainly not tightly bent over.

Mr Ford still wasn't finished however. Jennifer's feet had to be just so far apart, no more, no less. Her knees had to be straight, and the tips of her fingers had to be touching the fronts of her shoes, not halfway to her ankles. Her back had to be arched, and her head had to be up, and so it went on. It seemed an age before all was as he wished. It must have seemed an age to Jennifer too. In reality it probably wasn't that long. Probably not even long enough to arouse any suspicion amongst children further back in the group who, frozen in position as we were, most likely couldn't fully see what was happening anyway. I however, effectively now at the front, and virtually close enough to feel the draught from the slipper when the punishment finally commenced, could see exactly what was happening, and I was hooked. The ritual, the tension, the enforced humiliation of the victim, all these played their part. I remember feeling very sorry for Jennifer, but I was still hooked! Doubtless Mr Ford felt something along the same lines, but without the sympathy for the victim.

The drama eventually moved into its concluding act. Mr Ford was of what I've since seen referred to as the one buttock at a time persuasion. Jennifer got four swipes, two to each cheek. For the record she yelped at the first two, sobbed almost inaudibly after the third and only cried openly after the fourth. A pretty brave performance I thought, especially as it was by no means unknown for girls, and sometimes even boys, to be reduced to tears by the more usual one or two strokes in much less trying circumstances! There might have been longer than usual between the strokes but I can't be sure. I didn't have a stop watch, and anyway I was concentrating on trying to turn myself into a slow motion camera so that I could replay every detail. The approach of the slipper, the impact, the victim's reaction, the lot!

After the punishment Mr Ford made Jennifer stay in position for a finite time, certainly longer than a few seconds. On being allowed to stand up she had to resume her hands on head posture in front of the class, and she stayed like that, sobbing quietly, until the end of the session, which wasn't very long.


The Final Act.

At every stage Mr. Ford becomes more confident of his position and the role as judge , jury and executioner. Again Foucault and Lacan separate the process of disciplinary enforcement in elements. There is a productive element which determines what and how correction ( of whatever type) is to achieve its aim , this is a functional requite of the system . But there are two other elements symbolism and dressage

These twin elements are progressively eliminated in a functional bureaucratic system. Why because they are display not rationality. In any issue of enforcement it is clearly the best use of scare resources to concentrate on the functional the positive, reformist - the heart of the process. You do not worry about the fripperies of show and crowd baiting, but these are the aspects that Ford appears to relish. It is perhaps the abiding myth of the 18th and 19th century reformers that the mob do not want to be engaged in the spectacle of public correction. So once the penetrating 'gaze' is removed..........

Actually Foucault suggests that Nuns and Fathers were one of the last groups to be forced to accept this reorientation of discipline in the school, factories and workhouses.........but I digress

Mr Ford is inefficient with time, and what , if any lesson are the class to take away? Why is this punishment exceptional....it will not deter for that very reason, but then pedagogically this is not in that league, a poor girl makes a minor slip. The whole matter should have been over in seconds.......this is clear discrimination , but to what end and purpose. Certainly there appears to be nothing in the power relations of the class at the micro level , nor for that matter indiscipline in the school generally, we are forced back on psychoanalytic practice for an answer.

Mr Ford does not act rationally within the context of the diffusion of power delegated to him. the whole spectacle , the Roman circus, serves no functionality to the school , or rationality in terms of consequences flowing from the act At this point sociology begs its leave, and the clinical psychologists and psychiatrists need to take the centre stage, for as R.D Laing reminds us all people are pigs.....

Afterwards Jennifer didn't talk about it,


If the function of a teacher is ,at least partly, if not greatly to promote and exemplify the ideology of the state and system , to replicate the social and induct the power relations of society, perhaps this was best, as by any standards this exemplar failed its objective test.

To answer more clearly we need to move to the personal and to Freud , and that is where this search ends.....

Probably doesn't help you much ,AL, but you did ask .

Thank you Prof.n. An extremely detailed and most interesting response. I had second thoughts after I had asked for your comments, but I am very glad now that I did so.

I am struck especially by your explanation of the great importance of the location and the total absence of any controlling observation of Mr Ford's actions. You say:

So here we have a not very experience teacher , left with 50 kids in an annex. He is the sole arbiter of what goes on, and the sole 'law' in the place. Spatially this makes it his kingdom, but he is remote from the normal power and gaze of the school . Remember this , Victorian school buildings were often contructed with internal glass windows , ( into the hall etc) for good reasons. Here is Foucault's interpretation of this innovation :

'And ,in order to be exercised, this power.........had to be like a faceless gaze that transformed the whole social body into a field of perception, thousands of eyes posted everywhere' . (Foucault Discipline and punish the Panopticon p 214 (Sheridan Edn.).

I have always been conscious that this played a significant part in what happened. Your analysis convinces me that it was probably the determining factor. I have been back on a couple of occasions to the location as a public walkway now goes straight through it. Many of the trees have gone and behind where the drama was enected as we watched what was a disused tennis court is now a car park. But it is still not overlooked, either from the buiding itself, or from any other buildings or public areas. The main school buiding was, exactly as you suggest, constructed so that it was possible to see into all the classrooms either from the school hall or from corridors and outside areas.

The miniturisation concept is also a new one for me. You say:

What Lurker witnessed was process of miniaturization , a simultaneous reduction of social power to a simple 'play' enacted before the crowd, but curt down stripped of all its ritualistic formalism in the panoply of institutional power. A simple relationship between two people , one dominant but with responsibility ; one dependent but still trusting and with obligation. Two people , one crowd. Participants : observers. The play was significant , just as the plays of the Easter pageants were of old, but this play was concrete, not representational , and in that lay both its power, and its inherent danger.

I think that is an excellent description of the essence of what took place.

You appear to think that something other than just severe and unjustified punishment for a trivial offence was involved. You say:

Because ford is at the very far outpost of school authority , he loses the plot and lets personal motivation ( on which I am not qualified to speculate) take over . The constraining power of the institution has been lost.

We should also note this isn't a moment of anger, every act is premeditated, and carefully orchestrated. Mush of the act from now on is not related to punishment as such, or is ,but is highly ritualised. This latter condition is again a feature of exemplary punishment, but there appears to be no predisposing factor to militate for this approach in this case, in fact the opposite.

JJ, whose analysis is here certainly agreed with you on that point. In the face of two expert opinions I shall cease my attempts to convince myself otherwise. The incident probably is what brings me to this estimable Forum.

Happily, as I note in the original posting, the girl concerned, now retired after a teaching career spread around the world according to her entry on Friends Reunited, makes no mention of the incident in that entry. I could get in touch with her, her entry indicates that we have someone I would have sound cause to contact as a mutual acquaintance. However I doubt any ghosts can be laid via that route, so I shan't.

And finally you say:

Probably doesn't help you much ,AL, but you did ask

On the contrary, it helps a great deal. Thank you again for a most illuminating analysis.