We must revisit the way in which we use dicipline in society, writes Tony Humphreys

The need for discipline arises when certain behaviours threaten the welfare and rights of others. Generally speaking, aggressive or "out-of-control" types of behaviour are the targets for disciplinary practices. However, what is often not appreciated is that "over-controlled" types of behaviour, such as passivity, also need to come under the umbrella of "ill-disciplined" behaviour.

Turning a blind eye - i.e. passivity - has resulted in the neglect of the welfare of many children and adults in this country. However, I feel we are a long way off applying sanctions to such behaviour in homes, schools, communities and workplaces. Nevertheless, the "demonstration" of aggressive behaviours needs to be balanced with the "de-santification" of passivity.

The empowerment of those who are passive (those who fear of showing power) is just as important as the empowerment of those who are aggressive and disruptive (which are attempts to overpower). When individuals are self-possessed and in touch with their "power beyond measure" (Nelson Mandela) there is no need to resort to the defen- sive behaviours of aggression or passivity. That is why in social systems where there are discipline difficulties, an anti-passivity campaign is just as expedient as an anti-bullying one.

Action on discipline problems is the responsibility not only of each individual member of a social system but also of the system itself. One of the myriad challenges that face us is the acknowledgment that most discipline practices are actually abusive in nature. A further challenge is to develop discipline procedures that do not violate the rights of those who perpetrate ill-disciplined conduct. Two wrongs do not make a right.

The discipline of old was ill-conceived. It was based on the false notion that children (and adults) are fundamentally bad and that bad should be beaten out of them (by word or deed) and good beaten into them. What is central to any effective approach to discipline is the sacredness of each human being and the belief in the fundamental goodness of each person. Certainly, difficult behaviours need to be dealt with, but in a way that does not demean a person's presence and threaten the rights of the person to physical, sexual, intellectual, emotional, social, creative and spiritual safety.

I was amazed to read recently of politicians in the North saying that parents should continue to be allowed physically to chastise their children. Violence breeds violence and parents who slap children give children permission to use physical force to get their own way in life. It is, therefore, not surprising that one in five women are still subjected to violence and violence between men still hits the daily headlines. Bullying in the workplace is still commonplace.

When adults slap, push, shove and pull children and other adults, they violate the person's physical rights. When discipline involves labelling - "you fool", "you thickhead" - you violate intellectual rights. When feelings are ridiculed or laughed at - "cry-baby", "weakling" - a person's emotional rights are violated. When a person is publicly humiliated, his social rights are violated.

It carries no weight to say that those who have acted aggressively have violated the rights of others (which indeed they have) and that they deserve the same treatment in return. This is the case of the kettle calling the pot black. All such responses are not disciplinary responses.

True discipline is not about control or punishment, but involves the vindication and safeguarding of people's rights and the restoration of violated rights. This responsibility lies with those who have been at the receiving end of ill-disciplined behaviour and the social system of which they are a member. Those who have perpetrated the undesirable actions are often not in a place to be responsible and, for that reason, the old discipline of emphasis on the perpetrator is not effective.

The use of sanctions is to provide sanctuary to those whose rights have been violated. The whole aim of discipline needs to focus on those who have been victimised and the steps needed to restore safety and protection for their rights.

Certainly, those who have lost control, particularly those who persistently offend, need help to discover and resolve the reasons why they have acted in such a way. However, this is beyond a discipline issue and must not dilute in any way the actions needed to restore violated rights to those who have been victimised.

• Dr Tony Humphreys is a consultant clinical psychologist and author of A Different Kind of Discipline