TeteeAtu To hit or not to hit

Is there room for a third space?

Peggy Fairbairn-Dunlop

Abstract The starting point for this paper is concern in that physical methods of discipline may contribute to the undesirable increase in violence of Samoan youth behaviour. The paper asserts that finding a solution to this problem must derive from active searching, by Samoans themselves, for understanding of the causes and effects of the hitting behaviour, and the development of culturally appropriate and acceptable modifications of it. An account is given of Tetee Atu, a research and training programme put in place by Samoa's National Council of Women. Preliminary results are derived from self-reports made by some mothers and grandmothers about who hits, how and how often, and why. Emerging from the self-reports and the discussions they generated is a definite sense that women are thinking through their present disciplinary practices and actively seeking for alternatives. The paper closes with some observations on effects of the conflict in Samoan culture between the individual and the communal society. Though this is only a partial and preliminary report, a case is made for the wider application of the self-report as a valuable tool for many social, behavioural and psychological investigations.

The Journal o/Pacific Studies, Volume 25, no.2, 2001, 203-230 © by JPacS Editorial Board (SSED, USP) 203 204 The Journal ofPacific Studies Vo1.25 no.2, 200 I

As a young teacher in Porirua in the1960s I remember colleagues advising me, 'You have to hit that child [a Pacific Islander} because that is the only behaviour they know ' and 'They will think you are weak ifyou don 't hit . . . they will take advantage of you '. I also remember Samoan parents advising teachers, 'If he plays up, just whack him! ' These days are long past.

Introduction In every Pacific country the hitting of children (sometimes to extreme levels) is a major issue that sits at the very heart offamily, community and national development. We are reaping the harvest of this practice, first, in youth who feel they cannot discuss their concerns with their parents and who say they 'hate' thefaaSamoa (associating it with inflexibility, unrelenting calls to obey and physical violence) and second, in the reported increase in antisocial behaviour among Pacific youth and children. In the past it was largely 'outsiders' who said 'Pacific Islanders are a violent people'. Today we are saying this ourselves: 'This is not the way things were in the old days' and 'This is not the way things should be'. The message is to be found in the stories of Albert Wendt and , and through newspaper reports and television debates. We have also begun workingto find our own solutions to this problem. The Tetee Atu programme of Samoa's National Council of Women discussed in this paper is one such initiative. Undoubtedly, the hitting ofchildren-lest sparing the rod mean spoiling the child-is still regarded by many as a natural part of child rearing. But more and more, compelling research findings document the emotional and psychological effects ofcorporal punishment, including its negative influence on general educational progress and the child's developing self-esteem, sense ofsecurity and belonging, and feelings that life is worth living. Rather, the evidence is that hitting children teaches children to be violent and to be accepting of violence as an appropriate way of asserting one's will. At the same time, universal theories ofhuman rights andjustice-such as the Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child-now emphasise children's right not to be hit. Every Pacific country is party to these conventions and so has a commitment to To hit or not to hit: is there room for a third space? 205

these goals. Nevertheless, it is also the case that the language of human rights can be at odds with the communal values of Pacific kinship-based societies and their emphasis on the 'consocial' person (Lieber 1990). In 1979 Sweden took the lead as the first of seven European countries to ban all forms of physical punishment of children. By way of contrast, parents may use reasonable physical force to discipline their children (s.59 of the Crimes Act). The law does not specify what 'reasonable force' means but by default it includes smacking. Who or what determines what constitutes 'reasonable force' and at what point a smacking becomes a beating and a beating a thrashing remains obscure. New Zealand's growing anti -smacking lobby is now calling for all forms of . physical punishment to be declared illegal. A major premiss for this paper is that while the physical abuse of children is a global issue, there are no global solutions. There is no one programme that will fit all times and all places; programmes that work in New Zealand or Sweden may not be workable in Samoa or other Pacific countries. To be acceptable within the society in which they are to be applied, solutions must be culturally and socially appropriate, and based on informed agreement and commitment to mutual action. To this end, there is a need for research in Samoa to establish how much physical punishment of children, and of what kind, is occurring, who is doing it and why. Questions to be answered are various. For instance, are Samoans hitting their children because 'that's the waywe are', 'because the Bible tells us this is the right way to raise our children' or 'because this is the only way we know (i.e. I was raised that way . .. and I turned out all right)'? Or does hitting relate to cultural values? Does something in the Samoan (and Polynesian) chiefly system accept and reinforce heavy discipline? If so, the function ofthese cultural norms merits examination. But if the effects of such social and cultural change as raised aspirations, the cash economy, urbanisation, new forms ofrecreation and the progressive adoption ofthe nuclear family structure are influential, solutions ofdifferent kinds may be called for. A first step in the process of understanding and addressing the hitting of children is to be found in the Tetee A tu research and training programme of the National Council of Women (NCW) in Samoa. The programme provides a forum where women discuss these issues, review their own use 206 Th e Journal of Pacific Studies Vo l. 25 no.2, 2001 of physical punishment and make decisions about their future practices. Information derived from the self-reports provides a useful database. To date, Samoa has made little effort to accumulate other data on hitting children. For example, the Police Department, medical practitioners and the Public Hospital make no attempt to collect and/or disaggregate such data (Cox & Fairbairn-Dunlop 1999). The NCW decision to undertake this programme is a landmark one. The issue is highly sensitive. It is firmly grounded in ideas of power and status and reflects ideas about appropriate roles, child rearing practices, human rights and justice, and public and private responsibility. But cutting across this base is the present reality that through this programme women are becoming the agents of change, identifying a need, and working to find solutions. As in New Zealand-and perhaps elsewhere in the region as well­ mothers in the Tetee Atu programme, educational practitioners, teachers and policy makers are seeking answers as to what disciplinary techniques are appropriate for Pacific Island students. However, educationalists have the added dilemma that they are part ofa system that stresses ' home-school partnerships in education' and the belief that 'schools must build on home values and practices'. For example, what does the teacher do if research shows Pacific disciplining norms to be vastly at odds with mainstream 'no­ hit' ideals? Should the school mirror home values? Does the school, accepting a duty to act as a behavioural change agent, champion the-no­ hitting policy? Should our schools begin a dialogue with parents, thus starting the process ofdeveloping a third space? In a context such as Samoa, where a no-hit policy may not be a realistic option for many parents at this time, do teachers even have the cross-cultural communication skills and attitudes such a task would require? This paper reports on the Tetee Atu programme and presents data collected during its initiation. The principal purpose is to contribute to the process ofunderstanding Samoan expectations about hitting and disciplining practices. However, there is an important sub-text: the very existence of such a process of data collection signifies that Samoan parents have recognised the urgency of reviewing this aspect of child rearing practice. Willingness to discuss represents a major step forward in home- school relations. To hit or not to hit: is there room for a third space? 207

The paper begins with a description of the Tetee Atu research and training programme. Initial findings from the study are then presented, focusing particularly on the self-report strategy that was designed and piloted in this study. A short concluding section indicates issues raised by the research.

The TeteeAtu programme, initiated in 1999

Beginnings In 1998 Samoa's National Council of Women (NCW) ran a series of seminars on how women and chi ldren were being affected by development changes. During discussion of children's needs (physical, intellectual, emotional and spiritual) the issue ofchild abuse was raised because there had been a particularly gruesome case ofchild beating reported in the paper that week. Inspector Annie Eves-Laumea ofthe Police Force was invited to talk about physical and sexual violence against women and children, and child neglect. Her talk was based on data backed by anecdotal accounts of incidents she had witnessed. What was supposed to have been a one-hour discussion session continued into the late afternoon, during which time it became very clear that NCW members were deeply troubled by these tales and the trends they indicated. Three questions kept recurring:

Why do we hit? What will we do ifwe don 't hit? Why is hitting wrong?

The women said that from being exposed to films, TV and radio programmes they were aware that physical hitting is regarded as 'wrong', but they had no clear idea why this was so. They discussed an incident reported on New Zealand television in which a Samoan woman had beaten a youngman. This incident was perceived to be 'bad', but largely because it brought shame to Samoans as a people. There was little mention of the effects this action might have had on the boy. This discussion marked the beginning of the NCW commitment to a national campaign to reduce the amount of physical violence against 208 The Journal ofPacific Studies Vol. 25 no.2, 2001 children. While the members agreed that reducing the level of physical violence was something they could do and' something mothers should be doing', they were frankly uncomfortable with a 'no-hit' goa\. So, following extensive discussion, the aims ofthe programme became a) to reduce the amount of hitting of children and b) to stop all hitting around the head. The members added a further aim-to reduce the use of bad words to children (negative words, swearing, demeaning words) because in their view bad words are as damaging to children as is hitting, ifnot more so (see Annex 1).

The strategy The selection of a strategy for this programme was very important. A number of factors guided it. We were adamant that we did not want the programme to be a top-down, one-off talk show. It was agreed that the strategy itselfwas to be people-based, giving women the chance to review their own behaviour and devise their own solutions. Desirably, the strategy was to combine research with training-because the need for base data was appreciated. Again, there should be sufficient time for women to think about and debate the issues-because attitudes do not change overnight. Finally, participation was to be voluntary. While all committees would be expected to attend the national seminars, local committees would choose whether or not they wished to proceed to the village training stage. Issues ofprogramme ownership and sustainabilitywere stressed throughout the planning stages, with emphasis given to the desirability of committees' continuing the programme after the first training phase, by their own choice. A research and training strategy based on self-reports seemed to meet these requirements. The self-report was chosen not only because it is a sound data collection method but because it can be a powerful learning tool involving several different mental activities. For example, in this case, the women would need to recall their behaviour, record what they had done, evaluate their behaviour and decide on a further course of action. A self­ report sheet covering a seven-dayperiod was prepared and trialled (Annex2). To address the need for thinking time, it was decided that the community training programme would be designed to run over a three-week period (see box 1). In the first week issues would be discussed and women would learn how to fill out the self-report sheets. The intention was that the women would set aside a time each evening to fill in their sheets. In the To hit or not to hit: is there room/or a third space? 209 second week women would bring back their completed forms for discussion on how they did them, what they felt, what their families thought about the programme and any other matters arising. As the women shared their views in the group discussions, the trainer was to pick up key issues to become the subsequent points of discussion. The same process was to be followed in the third week, during which input by the trainer would be guided by the questions raised by the group.

Box I Design for three-week community training programme

Three programme steps

• National campaign comprising: national seminars and awarenessraising through the media

• Community-level campaign based on :

A training package of three one-day workshops, over a three-week period

Week I discussion of issues and distribution of self-report forms for that week Week 2 return of week's self-reports, discussion of issues and planning of next steps Week 3 as for week 2 and based on feedback from week 2

• (Local) committees' community outreach programmes, supported by coordinator as required

Programme in action At the time of writing [late 1999], five villages had been through the community training stage and six more were planned for the following year. However, the data reported here were collected from a sample drawn from one Upolu and one Savaii village over a six-month period (October 1998- March 1999). The sample numbered 16 for the self-report data and 21 for the group discussions. The age range was 18 years to 77, the majority of the women being over 30 years of age. A significant number of the sample were grandmothers, raising their grandchildren and/or children not their own descendants. The median number of children each respondent was responsible for was 8, although the range was 1 to 12. Two characteristics of the sample have some bearing on the findings, and warrant further research: 210 Th e Journal o/Pacific Studies Vo l.25 no.2. 200 I

• the large number of children by household (implying significant economic and social pressures on parents and caregivers);

• the significant number of children being raised by a person who was not the birth mother. Global research suggests that adopted children are a group most vulnerable to neglect, though data for Samoa have not been gathered. J

Findings

Self-reports data Gi ven the small size ofthe sample, a caveat is needed. These findings do not warrant any degree of generalisation to a wider population or sub­ population. Nonetheless, because they have some face validity, they may be indicative of circumstances that, under broader examination, might prove veridical. Incidence of physical punishment The first finding was that not all women hit their children. Seven of the 16 (43 %) had hittheir children that week (table 1). Indeed, one respondent who had not done so noted emphatically in capital letters: 'NO ONE SHOULD EVER SMACK CHILDREN! , Nor was hitting necessarily a daily occurrence. Ofthose who hit, only one reported hitting every day. The average incidence of reported hitting was 3-4 times a week. There were also variations by age. Younger mothers appeared more inclined to hit, while older women commented, 'I used to do that . .. but not any more'. One older mother spoke very movingly about how her child had been blinded in one eye as a result ofher hitting. That had been a turning point for her. To hit or not to hit: is there room for a third space? 211

As seen in the table, the main instruments used for administering punishment were thesalu (coconut broom), stick, belt and hands, and in one case a piece of2 x 4 wood. Two mothers added qualifYing comments about their actions: one reported that she increased her hitting when children 'talked back' (* in table); and the remorse ofa second mother is seen in her words' I feel very bad about this; I smacked without really thinking, I think I should not smack '. One mother indicated the use ofalternative disciplinary techniques (** in table).

Why did you hit? Generally speaking, hitting appeared to be a response to what mothers perceived to be poor or inappropriate social behaviour, such as not obeying, or showing a lack of respect (18 responses). This may be in contrast with Western families, where punishment would probably be given more for behaviour likely to cause danger to person or property, rather than for poor social skills. This warrants further research. Table 2 classifies the thirty­ seven responses to this question in a very rudimentary way. When asked their views on the practice of smacking, fifteen of the 16 (94%, including the 43% who had not hit) said they believed in smacking. Smacking was described as an act of love and duty and was supported by Biblical sayings such as 'spare the rod' ,and 'it is appropriate to hit the back ofa bad man'. Comments of ' to teach them the right way' (mentioned 5 times), 'so they know what is right and wrong' and ' so they will learn from their mistakes' showed that this group associated hitting with learning, especially of appropriate behaviour (see table 3). A typical response was, 'We must beat the children so they learn how to behave and we should give them good advice ' (mother, 46 years). Table 1 The use of hitting as a punishment (N = 21) (Did you hit your child today?) ...... Age/No.ofchildren No. of times Reason for How and/or how often Comments ..... cared for hitting used hitting and/or how long hittingadministered Vill age One 68 years Nil (8 children) 69 years Nil ~ (IOchildren) '" i:>;;: 64 years Nil ;:,~ (8 children) !:?.. 36years 3 Le usiusitai I Malosi Ie 3 times (usually) ~ (6children) paie I Bad behaviour I:l"" I match the amount to 'S" Late home from school ! match the bad behaviour ~" roaming the streets ;;: I:l.. Le alu i Ie lotu ~ . Tuai Ie usu e fai Ie umu ~ :- 76 years ..... v. (I 2 children) 2 Tafaovale Sasa i leamo ;:, () Mixing with bad friends ...... from other families ..... He took offin our truck <::> <::> without asking With a piece of2 x 4 wood ...... 58 years Nil (7 children) VilJageTwo 36 years (I child) 7 Naughty Salu Palau vale Telefua A minute Not working Walking roads Holding stones 74 years Nil (5 children) ~ 60 years ~ Cl (7children) 3 Le usitai Aoaiorfaatonu ... Not going to church ;:, Q. 33 years (4children) 2 Didn' t want to go to school Broomstick 0- 52 years Nil NO ONE SHOULD EVER ~ (8 children) SMACK CHILDREN t:; . 4 I Years 4 Faalog°feata . Belt :;. (8 children) Palauva e Ie gutu Hands ... Leusitai Hands '" Taei ai tioata Hands a'" 48 years Cl:. (9children) Nil ~ 70 years 3 Faalogogata Faasa video.* E tele au sasa, aua, ... I:l (2 children) Le tapena Ie pusa 3 times with laau ua~ ep e ou gutu e {ai ia they talked bac , :;. Very hard an I increased)* ~ 20 years {j (1 child) 3 Television-watching I feel very bad about I:l Playing, not doing this. <'> schoolwork I smacked without .'"" Not tapena Ie pusa really thinkin~ . Not reading Bible I think I shou d not smack. 27 years 4 Hit pipe with maa 3 times with salu I never hit on the (3 children) Walking road 3 hits across the mouth Sunday. Palauvale Ie gutu twice with belt Tagitau mulimuli '".....-- 214 The Journal o/Pacific Studies Vol. 25 no.2, 200 1

Table 2 Reasons for smacking' Reason Times mentioned · Behaviour-related Faalogogata (playing up, not listening or obeying) 6 Le usitai (not obeying) 5 Palau vale (bad words, lack of respect) 2 Ulavale (bad behaviour) 2 Mixing with bad friends I Roaming the road (not being at home) 2 · School-related Not wanting to go to school I Late home from school I Not doing homework 3 · Church-related Not going to church Not reading the Bible · Other specified actions Slow in doing the umu 2 Taking the family truck without asking I Breaking the mirror I 'Because I said he couldn't watch video' I Watching too much television 2 Not washing 2 Throwing rocks I Nakedness I Crying (unwarranted) I

, Multiple responses accepted.

Table 3 Why do we smack? (N = 16)

Reason Times mentioned Teach them the right way 5 Learn from their mistakes I This is the way they will learn respect 3 They only listen to their fathers I Make them listen I This is the way we learned respect 3 This is the way we were raised I Act as an example (deterrent) Lifestyle changed so much we have to be strict Love for children To hit or not to hit: is there room/or a third space? 215

Data from group discussions of self-reports These data comprise the discussion points raised as women reviewed their experiences with the self-reports. As already mentioned, the issues brought to light in this way became teaching foci for subsequent sessions.

Who is hitting? Women reported that they were not the ones who were doing the ' big hitting'. In many cases it was the men [fathers] who hit 'bad' [sic] especially when ' he loses his temper'. 'Older brothers and sisters' also appeared to be major hitters of younger children (and each other), one mother saying, 'I can't stop them doing that'. Comments indicated that this group of women was thinking hard about the parameters of behaviour coming under the faaSamoa practice of making older brothers and sisters responsible for younger family members.

/s hitting wrong? Respondents differentiated between what they considered to be big hitting and little hitting, concluding that little hitting was all right. Answers to the question of why hitting was wrong focused on what could be termed 'outer' , 'social' and/or ' short-term' consequences. All told, more attention was given to the perceived social consequences of hitting children-what other people will think- rather than to consequences to the child or to child­ parent communication. Representative examples include: Hitting is wrong because it damages his skin ... thatdidn 't look very nice. People will see the bruises. What will people think about our family [me] when they see the bruises? [shame to family]

There was no mention of potential longer-term outcomes of hitting such as permanently damaged limbs or the impairment of intellectual development through damage to the head. Nor was there mention of the emotional effects of hitting, such as how this might affect self-concept or self-esteem, or parent-child relationships. One woman, though, did mention the way hitting might affect her relationship with her children, with the words, 'The children will start to fear me '. (There is of course some ambiguity, in the written response, about whether this is a desirable goal.) Significantly, there was no mention ofa right ofchildren not to be hit at all. 216 The Journa/ o/Pacific Studies Vol. 25 no.2, 2001

It is clear that in Samoa the emotional or psychological effects ofhitting are yet to be appreciated let alone understood. To these parents the social consequences of hitting took clear precedence over consequences for the individual child.

Are we hitting more today than in the past? The group emphasised that individual families were different. However, the majority of the women (20, or 94%) believed Samoans were hitting more today than in the past. Children's poor behaviour was the most common reason for the perceived increase. However, some mothers recognised that they (and fathers) were 'over-hitting' as a result of pressures they themselves were under. In their view, there was more hitting today because of the nature and pace of social and economic change. This is exemplified in the following types of explanation of increased hitting: the influence of drugs and alcohol on children's (and parents') behaviour; the evolution of different ways of behaving (children are 'too old for their age', 'immature girls are acting like women' and' children are not listening'); larger families to care for-'we didn't have so many children before' (mentioned 3 times); and changes taking place in basic needs and aspirations, and insufficient cash.

Discussion showed this group of women had real difficulty in understanding their children's behaviour and how they might deal with it. Further, they considered that rising aspirations also increased personal pressure on them. A sizeable number said their hitting arose not because of the children's naughtiness but as a reaction against pressures they themselves were experiencing. This is seen in responses like: Husband spends all the money, doesn't give. My daughter came from school and said, 'Mum I need this '. I didn 't even think, I know we don't have the money for that. So I hit her ... I just hit her . .. and I knew she hadn't been bad. To hit or not to hit: is there room for a third space? 217

With this type of response we see once again the signalling of a breakthrough in this group's thinking about their own behaviour.

Should women intervene if others are hitting? One concern expressed was whether women had a duty or a right to intervene if they saw children being thrashed. First answers favoured a straight 'No!' followed by, 'That is not our business, that is that/amity's business' and 'If we intervene th ey will turn on us!' In the course of the discussions, though, a larger number of women began saying they would intervene because '/ can never stand by and see that happening without doing something '. These were mainly the older women. The dilemma with regard to private and public domains of behaviour was obvious. These women agreed, however, that intervention depended on circumstances, which in tum raises questions about the conditions under which intervention might occur (see Annex 3). Answers to this question also reinforced the impression that a concern for right social behaviour (' it is not my place ') took precedence over a concern for the individual (the child being beaten).

'No-hit ' and alternatives Like the women at the national meeting, these women were not comfortable with a no-hit policy. But they were trying to find alternatives to hitting. Fi nding alternatives that worked in Samoa was not as easy as one might at fi rst expect (see box 2).

Box 2 Responses on alternative methods of discipline (Will other disciplining methods work in Samoa ?) Suggested method Samoan response

Withdraw to another room Fale don 't have another room (Is anoth er house a possible alternative?)

Give more jobs to do Our children are already over-burdened with jobs

Withdraw privileges Main privilege is for them to go to the Youth Group. We want them to attend! 218 The Journal ofPacific Studies Vol. 25 no.2, 2001

Table 4 reports on responses to probing about alternatives to hitting. As it demonstrates, all the women claimed they 'tried to talk with their children'. Just over half of the discussion group practised a fonn of time out, telling their children to go away and come back when they (the children) were willing to see reason. One resorted to assistance from the police.

Table 4 Alternatives to hitting

Alternative method No.of % of responses' responses' Talk with children 25 100 Tell them to go, ' until you can come back and be over this' 13 52

Police 4 • Multiple responses accepted

However, it must be noted that there were very serious fears about the use ofa time-out technique, as demonstrated in these words: 'What happens if I tell them to go, and they do something bad to themselves? (This is a real fear.) The women recalled incidents ofsuicide cases that, in their opinion, had been the result of using a time-out strategy. One said she preferred a quick hit 'and get it over with' rather than the worry of a time-out strategy. Nor is fear ofsuicide as an outcome unjustified in this context. Research through the 1980s showed Samoa to have one of the highest rates of suicide in the world. Young males comprised the majority of cases and acts associated with disapproval and alienation from family were major causes (see UNDP 1995 ' Urban Youth Study' ). To hit or not to hit: is there room for a third space? 219

Finding new solutions After every session the women were asked what they were going to do as a result of the day's training. Usual comments included 'we'll pray about this' and 'we'll try not to hit '. Then, in what seemed to be a breakthrough, one lady gave an answer that indicated serious consideration of different ways of communicating with her children. She said:

When I get home, and we have our prayers tonight, [ am going to sit down and talk to my husband and my children. I will say, 'At our seminar today we talked about hitting our children. ' Then I will share what we talked about. I will say, 'This is very important. [ have decided I am going to try not to hit you this week. This is going to be hard. You will have to help me. Even if other women are hitting their children I am going to try not to, and not to use bad words to you. '

Many members of the group liked this suggestion and decided to try it. One said: 'This is a good idea . .. we are sharing the responsibility with our children. We only hit when they are bad . . . if they decide to be good, we will not hit! '

Further questions raised by the research This research and training programme is delving deeply into issues that warrant more research. They include the following: the individual in a communal society; gender and hitting; adoption and hitting; and what factors trigger the 'big' hit? Although these areas all require and deserve thoroughgoing attention, comments here are confined to the first.

The individual in a communal society Research shows that Samoans perceive two fundamental categories of human action: the selfish personal (amio) and the socially accepted (aga) (Shore 1982). These are distinguished in box 3. 220 The Journal ofPacific Studies Vol. 25 no.2, 2001

Box 3 Samoan categories of human behaviour

Amio Aga (personal behaviour; guided by (social action or conduct, conditioned internal judgment) by external judgment)

Individual will or drives are seen Such behaviour is prescribed,having as the source of such behaviour its source in external expectations and judgments

Describes actions of particular Suggests categories of abstract (individual) people behavioural styles appropriate to certain socially defined statuses

Refers to socially unconditioned The focus is on the degree of'fit' between aspects of behaviour actual behaviour and social norms

May be either virtuous (lelei) or bad (leaga) but the term is generally used to refer to disruptive social behaviour, aggressive acts driven by personal impulse This term focuses on the particular actor, rather than on social types of behaviour

The underlying view of human nature is pessimistic. As documented, Samoan actions are conceptualised as being predominantly governed by amiD (selfish, potentially socially disruptive impulses): individuals will not act 'well' from choice or from freedom ofwi II. So there is a need for society to have many rules and impose strict laws to help control the amiD and direct people's behaviours into socially accepted channels. Shore writes:

As Samoans understand it, this protection is not simply from malevolent outsiders, or even from others in the villages ... village law and authority are understood to protect people from themselves- from passions and desires that uncontaminated by culture and customary authority, would lead to moral and social chaos. (1982) To hit or not to hit: is there room for a third space? 221

Given these assumptions, the extent of public authority over private behaviour in daily life is not surprising. An incident reported in box 4 illustrates the point:

Box 4 Pri vate tolerance of patronising public instruction

Making cocoa

One day a woman making cocoa for the duty team of women at Siumu was given 14 separate admonitions on how to do this, regardless of the fact that she had probably been making cocoa since she was a child. The woman listened as she . worked, nodding and giving a little smile now and then, but didn 't say a word. As I watched the woman's face I tried to gauge the level of annoyance, but her face was expressionless; in fact I wondered if she were actually listening.

' Is this advice meant to be taken, or is it the expected assertion of seniority?' I pondered. Did the woman's demeanour indicate that she knew that this was the spirit in which the advice was given, and therefore it didn't worry her? Then I thought that perhaps it was a case of any attention is better than none: was this her moment of'attention'? I asked her later what she felt about all the advice. She shrugged her shoulders and laughed, saying, 'That's the way, it's not important'. (Fairbairn-Dunlop 1991 : 266)

The other side of the desire for socially correct behaviour is the suppression/control of 'individual' desires. Mead argues that Samoan socialisation processes replace purely personal and asocial impulses with a set of socially derived conventional norms. Further, she suggests that socialisation is accomplished by a strong condemnation of individual forwardness (or fiasili, acting above oneself) and the equally forceful reinforcement of actions associated with correct social conduct.

Proficiency in some technique must set him off a little from his fellows . . . with this goes the continual demand that he should not be too efficient, too outstanding, too precocious. He must never exceed his fellows by more than a little. He must arouse neither their hatred nor the disapproval of his elders, who are far readier to encourage and excuse the latter than to condone precocity. (Mead 1966: 35) 222 Th e Journa/ ofP acific Studies Vo/.25 no.2, 2001

Others argue that it is the display of individuali ty that is constrained. People's behaviour outside the formal context shows considerable resourcefulness and a high standard ofleadership (Fairbairn-Dunlop 1991). Shore (1982:29) claims that the complex truth is that Samoan children undergo a kind of double socialisation: values asserted in one context are undercut systematically in a different set of contexts in the service of radically different values. More recent research tends to highlight the link between on the one hand, the suppression ofthe individual and emphasis on conforming, and on the other, psychological stress, helplessness, musu, suicide and other violent acts. This relationship would seem to bear directly on the question of corporal punishment as it has been discussed in this paper. Much more research is needed to clarify such matters, as well as dimensions such as those noted earlier (gender and hitting, adoption and hitting, and the factors triggering the ' big' hit). No doubt other questions will also emerge. The understanding that develops wi II provide a b,!-sis , perhaps, for the modification of hitting behaviour. Only solutions that people themselves devise, on the basis of informed understanding, will lead to the acceptance of modified patterns of behaviour suitable for people in the present, as they cope with that rapidly changing present and prepare for the ever-changing future.

Some conclusions This paper has devoted particular attention to the self-report strategy because it was specially devised and piloted in this study. As hoped, the self­ reports did prove to be a powerful device to help women to learn about themselves and shape their own solutions. The strategy shows promise for use in research investigations on other issues and in other places. The limited amount ofdata previously available indicated that Samoan parents have long regarded the home-school relationship as a 'we-they' one, as the following comments reflect: To hit or not to hit: is th ere room/or a third space? 223

Parents are liable to regard the village school as the place where their children learn the ' foreign ' skills that will enable them to compete in a wider community where such skills are becoming increasingly necessary for the earning of a living. It is assumed that family and elders, priest or pastor, and the customs and ceremonies ofthe village or the tribe will inculcate the deeper values that give life its meaning. (Beeby 1966: 42)

This beliefin a separation was also emphasised in Fairbairn-Dunlop's 1981 study. The Samoan parents there advised their children to' leave their pa/agi ways at school'. Implicit also is the assumption that should changes be needed, it is the school that should change. Fairbairn-Dunlop quotes one parent's explicit statement of this dichotomy:

'The standards of behaviour at the school should match those of the home, otherwise there will be trouble between the two, and children will come with their bad ways that they learn at school.' (1981)

For the forty parents in this 1981 study, a· further dilemma having relevance for the present study was that while they disliked teachers' smacking chi ldren (they labelled this' doing things the Samoan way') they could not abide what they perceived to be disorganised and undisciplined classrooms:

'I can 't stand some of the kids' behaviours .. . I can't stay in the room .. . probably 'cause the way we are brought up in Samoa, and the way they are learning here. They are not respecting the teacher. You know, they are jumping up and answering back. In Samoa you have to raise your hand.' (Fairbairn-Dunlop 1981 : 237)

In the present study, 75 per cent (30 parents) agreed that the strap should be used when necessary-that is, they preferred smacking to disorder (see Annex 4). A no-hit policy may not be a realistic option for all Samoan parents today-either in their homes or, for that matter, in the schools their children attend. What is needed are chances for parents and schools to discuss their 224 Th e Journal o/Pacific Studies Vol. 25 no.2, 200 I expectations about behaviour and discipline, and work to create a third space that is mutually acceptable and workable. The opening of this issue for public discussion through the Tetee Atu programme has been very powerful. The present research and training programme is raising awareness amongst parents about the negative effects of hitting- for themselves, their children and their relationship with their chi ldren. The programme is also teaching a variety ofalternative disciplinary techniques that parents can adapt and use. It is giving parents choices. Atthe same time, hitting does nottake place in isolation. The programme is forcing an examination ofthe wider influences ofthe social and economic changes taking place in Samoa today and how these affect family life. Like parents all over the world, Samoan parents want the best for their children. For Samoans, 'best' means building the future on thejaaSamoa ways. It is clear that some aspects ofthejaaSamoa child rearing patterns must be examined for their purpose and appropriateness in today' s circumstances. Some are undoubtedly at odds with modern theories of human rights and justice,just as they may also be providing inadequate preparation ofchildren for adult life in the twenty-first century and the global conditions that beset it. The TeteeAtu programme and the data it provides constitute a valuable starting point for dialogue about parent-child relations, school- parent relations and how Pacific Island parents can give their children the best chances in life. While 'No hitting' may not be the answer for Samoan parents today, the question ofhow it might become a goal towards which to work remains. It may be necessary to create third spaces for Pacific Islander students today. To hit or not to hit: is there room/or a third space? 225

Note Although thi s paper reports on th e earl y stages of a project initiated in 1999, there is every in di cati on that the problem with whi ch it deals is still a long way from resolution. On 7 March 2003 a story appeared in the Samoa Observer and was distributed by PINA Nius (the Pacific Islands News Association) under the dramatic headline, 'Child bashing fuels Samoan debate'. The story found its beginning in the case of an ll-year-old boy in Apia severely beaten with a broomstick by his father. The paper describes th e case as ' fuelling an on-going debate on ways children are treated in Samoa'. Also highlighted by the newspaper report is the depth of the division within Samoan society on this question:

The TV Samoa talk show Vaa 0 Manu has for the past two weeks been featuring a heated debate over the disciplining of children through physical punishment. Church ministers appearing on the programme cited the bible and traditional Samoan child-rearing practices. They have been steadfast in their view physical punishment is needed to rai se responsible Samoan children and ' good citizens'. Opponents pointed to needs of children, the increasing incidents [sic] of child abuse, and argued for a change in attitude. Groups working to reduce the level of child abuse and violence in the home fear recent cases, including the killing of a five-year-old girl, may be part of a bigger p'roblem. Samoa is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This is being promoted through the Ministry of Women' s Affairs. But community activities by the ministry to explain and discuss the convention have often met strong opposing views. Ministry staff have been told what they are promoting is incompatible with Samoan culture and the teachings of the bible.

In the light of this news report, lPacS is encouraged to proceed with publishing the report prepared by Fairbairn-Dunlop, in the interests of informing the debate and keeping it going. Indeed, we apologise to the author and to our readers for the endless production delays that have rendered this publication so much later than it should have been. It is sobering to find that the paper should still be so timel y. [Ed.] I See Mills & Davies (\998) for further discussion of data. 226 ThelournalofPaciflcStudies Vol. 25 no.2, 2001

Annex 1 Tetee Atu Aims

To reduce violence and harsh words against children through: • opening up national discussion about the culture of hitting and abuse through words, and taking a national stance on issues of violence against children;

• examining our own perceptions/practices of disciplining behaviour, and reducing the use of physical abuse;

• clarifying a Samoan concept of abuse and factors affecting this, especially social, economic and cultural factors and the effects of the changing times; and

• using this information, to develop and pilot an advocacy, research and training programme on these issues for of the NeW, which can be replicated elsewhere. To hit or not to hit: is there room for a third space? 227

Annex 2 The self-report

Self Report sheet - Fono Aoao Tina, Samoa, 1998 1. Igoa...... Tausaga ...... Toafialoufanau(numera) ...... Nuu ...... Vaiasoolelipoti ......

Day Did you smack Why? What did How hard? Comments anyone in your they do wrong? household today? Ifso, who? Aso Sa e sasa se Ai se a? 0 Ie a o lea Ie tamaitiiti i lou Ie mea leaga na mamafa aiga i lenei aso? faia e tamaiti? o Ie sasa? Lisi uma? Aso Gafua Aso Lua ...

2. What do you think about smacking children as discipline? o Ie a sou manatu i Ie sasa 0 tamaiti e aoao ai Ie amio? 3 Any other comments on smacking children? E iai nisi ou manatu e uiga i Ie sasa 0 tamaiti? 228 The Journal ofPacific Studies Vo l. 25 no.2, 2001

Annex 3 Intervention examples (collected during 6 months of research)

To intervene or not to intervene

• I (pa/agi female) went next door and told him to stop hitting his wife. My husband was not comfortable with this. He said I shouldn't go. • I (a Samoan female doctor) went next door and told him to stop--you could hear the stick hitting the boy's bones. He has stopped • (A truck at the wharf) . .. I (a Maori male) am sitting with a Samoan (doctor, company director, matai) and a whole crowded wharf, watching this mother beating her child senseless. I wait for the matai to intervene. He does nothing. I go to get out of the truck. He says 'Leave it' . I get out and go and stand next to the lady. I don't say a thing, I just look at her. She stops. I get back in the truck. The worker sitting on the back says, 'He probably gets beaten like that every day' . • The father is in the pick-up and the baby is crying in the front. The ' father has been hitting, but putting the hand over the mouth. The father then cuddles the baby and says ' Stop crying', then puts him in the back seat and continues to beat him. The mother (pa/agi) comes out of the shop. Then the mother and father have an argument, and then drive away. • The baby is crying, needs some attention. The adults are all talking­ not one ofthem wants to get up and fix up the child-they want to keep on with what they are doing- smack the child and keep it quiet. Is there an element of intending to build the strength of the individual­ of fostering the ability to withstand pain? Otherwise, why are they belting and telling them to keep quiet at the same time? All that pent up emotion expended on the child. To hit or not to hit: is there room for a third space? 229

Annex 4 Samoan parental preferences for disciplinary methods to be used by schools, 1981

Action 1st 2nd 3rd Times preference preference preference mentioned Strap 6 1 5 12 More homework 11 13 5 29 Withdraw privileges 5 0 0 5 TeJl children off 2 2 4 8 Contact parents 12 16 10 38 Teacher sit and 4 8 16 28 talk over with child 230 The Journal o/Pacific Studies Vo1.25 no.2, 2001

References and select bibliography Beeby, C E 1966, Th e Quality of Education in Developing Countries, Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Cox, E and Fairbairn-Dunlop, P 1999, Project Review of Child Abuse and CRC Sa moa, AusAID, Canberra .. Davidson, J W 1967, Samoa mo Samoa, Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Fairbairn-Dunlop, M [P] 1981 , Samoan parents and the primary school, unpublished MA thesis, Victoria University, Wellington. -- 1985, Aspects of Samoan personality', Pacific Perspective, (South Pacific Science Association, ) 12(2): 24-30. - - 1991 , E au Ie inailau a tamaitai: Women, education and development, Western Samoa, unpublished PhD thesis, Macquarie University, Sydney. -- 1999, Tetee Atu: Contain your words and your harsh hands, paper presented to the Pac Vis Conference, Auckland, July. Figiel, S 1996, Girl in the Moon Circle, Mana Publications, Institute of Pacific Studies UPS), USP, Suva. Freeman, D 1983, Margaret Mead and Samoa: Th e making and unmaking of an anthropological myth , Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Lieber, M 1990, 'Lamarckian definition of identity on Kapingamarangi and Pohnpei', in Cultural Identity and EthnicilY in the Pacific, eds J Linnekin & L Poyer, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Mead, M 1966, Coming of Age in Samoa, Penguin, New York. (First published 1928). Mills, G and Davies, M 1998, 'The marginal chiid: a study of socially disaffiliated childeren in the South Pacific', Journal of Pacific Studies 22(112): 97- 119 Ritchie, J and Ritchie, J 1979, Growing up in Polynesia, George Allen & Unwin, Sydney. I Shore, B 1982 , Sala'ilua, a Samoan mystery, Columbia University Press, New York. Turner, G 1989, Samoa A Hundred Years Ago and Long Before, 3rd reprint IPC, Suva. (First published London 1884.) Wendt, A 1979, Leaves of the Banyan Tree, Longman Paul, Auckland. (Reprinted Penguin, Auckland, 198 1; Univ Hawaii Press, Honolulu, 1994.)