期望、管教與風險：兒少保護介入家長體罰之建制民族誌分析

Anticipation, Discipline, and Risk: An Institutional Ethnography of CPS Interventions for Parental Uses of Corporal Punishment

為實踐聯合國《兒童權利公約》中兒少免受體罰及其他不人道處罰之理念，台灣修訂《兒童及少年福利與權益保障法》，建置兒少保護介入專業服務，卻面臨受通報家長對介入的不配合。兒少保護政策自上而下推動，缺乏家長的經驗與觀點，亦無相關研究探究家長不配合的原因。本研究是以因體罰孩子被通報之家長教養實作為立足點、建制民族誌為方法學，從他們接受兒少保護介入服務的經驗出發，探究強調降低兒少再次受害風險的保護體制如何透過文本進行親職治理及其中的社會權力關係。研究結果顯示，時代教養論述的改變及家長認為兒少保護錯誤對焦，導致斷裂經驗。家長在與子女溝通無效後的體罰管教，目的不僅在預防孩子觸法，還期待他們走在正軌，更存在維持或翻轉社經階層的期望。兒少保護建制採取中產階級、雙親家庭的教養標準，中產階級家長因其階級秉性易受建制所相信；勞動階層家長因資源不足和經濟現實發展出不同教養模式，建制以「缺乏管教知識」或「習於體罰」等簡單分類，忽略親職教養和管教係鑲嵌在社會文化脈絡及家長之社會處境。問題界定和保護觀歧異，使家長與兒保建制處於對立面，建制「風險中的兒少」敘事製造風險中的父母，家長不再體罰並非為建制馴化，而是為自我保護而不想再管或轉換成不帶傷痕的體罰形式。文末依研究發現提供專業政策與服務實作建議。

To align with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which aims to protect children from corporal punishment and other degrading forms of punishment, Taiwan has amended“The Protection of Children and Youths Welfare and Rights Act”to enhance its child protection framework. Despite all the efforts, parents reported for corporal punishment often demonstrate reluctance to cooperate with the Child Protective Services (CPS) interventions. Given the predominantly top-down implementation of CPS policies in Taiwan, there is a notable lack of empirical studies exploring the perspectives of parents receiving these services, thereby making it difficult to identify factors contributing to their non-cooperation. This study, taking a standpoint of parents involved in the CPS due to uses of corporal punishment, adopts institutional ethnography as the methodology to explicate governance of the CPS interventions to parenting practices through texts and to examine social power relations embedded within them. The findings reveal that evolving parenting discourses and parents’perceptions of CPS misdirecting the problem contribute to significant disjunctures. Parents resort to corporal punishment as a final measure when communication with their children fail. The primary intent of parental corporal punishment is not only to prevent legal infractions by their children but also to ensure them remain on a trajectory aimed at maintaining middle-class status or moving up on the social ladder. The study highlights that the parenting ideologies promoted by CPS are aligned with middle-class child-rearing practices, resulting in greater trust from the system towards the middle-class parents. In contrast, the working-class parents develop parenting strategies suited to their social circumstances characterized by limited resources and financial challenges. Evaluative labels such as“lack of parenting knowledge”and“accustomed to corporal punishment”fail to acknowledge the socio-cultural contexts in which parenting and disciplinary practices are embedded. The divergence in the perspectives of problem and protection between the parents and the CPS creates an adversarial dynamics. The institutional narrative of“child at risk”inadvertently construct a parallel“parent at risk”scenario. The parents’cessation of corporal punishment is driven not by compliance resulting from the CPS interventions but by self-protection, either via taking a more hands-off approach to discipline or shifting to other forms of physical punishment that do not leave marks on skin. Implications for the policy and professional practice are then provided.