Employing narrative ways of inquiry, this study interrogated how a reform action--legal banning corporal punishment in schools, which was intentionally introduced into Taiwanese society by advocates as a social movement strategy at a time when the incidence rate of school corporal punishment was high--could contribute to ending educators' use of corporal punishment. From the narratives of the teachers who believed in corporal punishment, we see how the school system itself contributed to passing, mostly without educators' consciousness of doing so, from one generation to another, a punitive mind that deems punishment a necessity and humans to be incapable of self-regulation without extrinsic force. It is this punitive way of thinking, deeply rooted in Taiwanese culture that was challenged by the legal ban. The transformation of the punitive mind requires a psychological subject-object perspective move that allows the mind to break the identification with a previously built teacher identity submitting to coercive authority. Alternative values, beliefs, and ideas--particularly the caring, trusting, respectful and persuasive approaches to interpersonal relationship--must be brought into personal experiences in order to transform the punitive mind. However, the availability of alternatives does not guarantee transformation, nor does a pure logical reasoning of the alternatives make true transformation to happen. Transformation was discovered to happen in those moments, either in narrative critical reflection or in action, when the mind sees those stories of others or themselves that were once familiar but can be realized, interpreted, retold, or recreated if using a new set of assumptions and perspectives. The effects of the legal ban were mixed. It contributed to the decline of the most well-recognized form of corporal punishment--hitting students by sticks--and offered teachers who disbelieve corporal punishment, previously questioned and crowed out by their colleagues who hit, a strong backup to justify their opposition to sticks. And the ban created opportunities for teacher to learn alternatives. Nevertheless, because the wrongdoing-punishment disciplinary framework still dominates school campuses, the ban also led to the increase or creation of new forms of coercive and humiliating measures that could not be constrained by this legal ban.