Naughty – The New N-Word?

In the continuing storm of Supernanny controversy, some experts have taken exception to the word “naughty.” The concern is that calling a child naughty will damage the child’s psyche and self-confidence.

Part of the rational behind the concern is a self-fulfilling prophesy argument. Call a child naughty often enough, and they will undoubtedly end up being naughty. Verbal abuse has the ability to beat down and break a child as surely as a fist. But does calling a child naughty constitute verbal abuse?

I think it’s a fine line. We use the word naughty in our house; it’s been assimilated from the Supernanny lexicon. But we try to be very aware of how we apply the word. Behavior is naughty; our children are not. You might say this is semantics, but I believe there is a world of difference between, “That was naughty,” and, “You are naughty.” (If the word “naughty” feels awkward to you, substitute your own reprimand, and you’ll see the same thing.) The former defines the action or behavior; the latter defines the child. My recollection of Supernanny episodes is such that I think Jo is aware of this subtle difference, too.

At some point we become adults, and ought to be able to withstand this sort of labeling. If a person acts foolishly with enough regularity, I have no problem calling them a fool. But children are another matter, and I believe we ought to err on the side of caution.

What do you think?

Zoe Taylor takes exception to the experts in a Daily Telegraph editorial.