Several days ago, I began a series of posts based on
the op-ed by Bill Lichtenstein in the New York Times on Sept. 9, 2012. Lichtenstein’s piece described the
subjection of his then five-year-old, language-delayed daughter to behavior
management by seclusion-- in the form of
being locked up in a closet with one light bulb in the basement of her public
school. Further investigation showed me that in spite of regulation of
restraint and seclusion as used in psychiatric facilities, there is much less
regulation of restraint in schools, and little or no discussion or training
about the use of seclusion itself.
To me, the use of seclusion in a locked room for
young children and those with developmental delays signals not so much cruelty
as a failure of imagination-- an
inability to put oneself in the place of a child left alone (to the best of his
or her knowledge) and without the ability to communicate in case of either real
or social danger (like needing to go to the bathroom). Five- and six-year-olds
regularly demonstrate their fear of being alone and unable to contact a trusted
adult. Going to bed every night involves ritual farewells and promises that
parents will look in regularly, along with leaving the door ajar and checking
the closet for monsters. Emotional empathy or imagination should surely enable
us to generalize from those bedtime fears to the terror produced by being
locked up alone.
As I thought about the child’s experience in
seclusion, something was tugging at my mind--
something someone had written a long time ago that described a similar
situation. And I found it: it’s a statement written to a newspaper by Oscar
Wilde in 1897, describing his observation of children in prison. Here’s what he
said (you can read the whole thing at www.oscarwildefanclub.com/oscar-wilde-prison-letters/):
“People nowadays do not understand what cruelty is.
They regard it as a sort of terrible medieval passion [but]…. Ordinary cruelty
is simply stupidity. It is the entire want of imagination. It is the result in
our days of stereotyped systems, of hard-and-fast rules, and of stupidity. What
is inhuman in modern life is officialism. Authority is as destructive to those
who exercise it as to those on whom it is exercised….The people who uphold the
system have excellent intentions. Those who carry it out are human in intention
also. Responsibility is shifted onto disciplinary regulations. It is supposed
that because a thing is the rule it is right…
“ The terror of a child in prison is quite
limitless. I remember once in Reading… seeing in the dimly lit cell opposite
mine a small boy. Two wardens—not unkindly men-- were talking to him, with some sternness
apparently…One was in the cell with him, the other was standing outside. The
child’s face was like a white wedge of sheer terror. There was in his eyes the
terror of a hunted animal. The next morning I heard him at breakfast-time
crying and calling to be let out. His cry was for his parents…”
Readers may point out, correctly, that seclusion in
school is not prison, and that the child Wilde described was suffering from
many other discomforts in addition to isolation. To the adult, it is clear that
there are many differences between being locked for an hour into a basement
closet and spending much longer times in Her Majesty’s prisons in 1897. Yes,
that’s all true, but I ask you : Does the
child know that? Does a five-year-old, who probably cannot tell time by the
clock very well, and who has only fairly recently learned what “tomorrow”
means, have the capacity to understand that being locked up for an hour does not
mean that the isolation will go on all day and all night? Does a child in
seclusion know that adults can see or hear her? Does she understand that if she
were in extreme distress adults would, or at least could, come and help her? Is
she aware that if she wet herself (having no access to a toilet) no one could
possibly blame her?
If the answers to these questions are “no”, which I believe
they are, I submit that the experience of the young or handicapped child in
seclusion is not substantially different than that described by Oscar Wilde. It
is terror, and it is justified only by that officialism Wilde referred to, not
by any evidence of a positive effect on later behavior.
No comments:
Post a Comment