Listen to thisLast month I described my version of a logical consequence where the worker was punished, not theyouth. I also suggested that we have all accepted this term, logical consequence, without any critical analysis, making it part of our professional jargon. So I think I should spend more time on this idea.
The term consequence is a saccharin version of the word punishment. We do not like to describe ourselves in negative ways, so we avoid unpleasantries and sugar-coat the truth. Punishment is a behavioural concept, and it merely means a stimulus that tends to decrease the behaviour that it is applied to. So any time that we respond to a behaviour and our response results in a decrease in that behaviour, we are punishing the behaviour. Unfortunately, when we inflict some painful response on a youth and it does not result in a decrease in the behaviour targeted, then we are merely being wrong.
So the consequence part of our jargon term is intended to decrease the behaviour that it targets.The adjective logical is also important to think through clearly. In our use, it means the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from events or circumstances. If you have read my previous columns, you already know that what is logical to an adult CYC practitioner is almost never logical to a neglected and abused youth (or their family).
When a punishment is applied to any behaviour, the person being punished must own the behaviour (feel responsible), and also see the punisher as fair or neutral, not arbitrary or punitive. Most adults getting a speeding ticket when in a hurry do not respond to the arresting officer this way.
Without repeating previous examples, the youth in CYC settings typically do not accept responsibility easily and often do not have clear cause–effect beliefs. They also do not view all staff as being fair and neutral, and struggle with our protestations that we are here to help them.
The embracing of logical consequences as a therapeutic construct came from the work of Rudolph Dreikurs and his book, Children: The Challenge (1964). This concept has done more to impede good CYC practice than any other concept has done to improve it. Dr. Dreikurs is guilty of creating a very negative view of children’s motivations and the bad CYC approaches that have arisen resulted mostly from a misapplication of his description of what a logical consequence actually is. For example , he states clearly (p.84), “There is no logical connection if Mother denies Bobbie a favourite television program because he failed to take out the garbage.”
The use of punishments which create resentment and anger clearly should not be described as “logical”, yet we continue to protect our self-image as nice people by insisting that our consequences are clearly logical. This is one bit of CYC jargon that we can easily be rid of, and the sooner the better.
