Some day, humanity may view the way that we generally treat our children today in the same way as societies of the past once treated women or supposedly inferior races. One cannot guarantee that such a realization will dawn, but one hopes that it does.
If this sounds overly dramatic, consider the ugly facts. With few exceptions, in daily interactions with adults, most children end up as inferior, second class citizens. They are continuously talked over, their perspectives are routinely ignored or dismissed, and they are viewed as incomplete beings who have to grow up before they can lay full claim to a voice to be heard in a world full of big bossy adults. Furthermore, many parents and adult caregivers still implicitly hold a sacred and righteous expectation that their children owe them something in return for being birthed and raised. Yet, one does not and cannot consult with children for their opinions in the matter of their being brought into this world. This supposed debt is held as a unilateral contract deep in the psyche of caregivers. The child’s burden is openly proclaimed for the child to hear and absorb at vulnerable moments, or left unstated but still implied in behavior. Compliance with adult expectations is extracted via acts of shaming, criticism, neglect, punishment, and even violence directed towards a defenseless and dependent child. Even if such overt acts of hostility are avoided, there is always guilt, a powerful mechanism which operates effectively over far distances, long after the child has left home to become an adult themselves.
Imagine a thought experiment. A big, powerful, and intimidating stranger approaches an adult and offers them a contract of providing them with the basics – food, water, shelter, etcetera – in return for which the adult would find themselves in a state of lifelong indebtedness to the stranger, the exact terms of which are left somewhat open ended. Would the adult accept? Should they? Perhaps the adult laughs nervously, upon which the stranger leans over with a pen and amends the contract by adding a clause that, time permitting and dependent on the stranger’s own psychological development, they will also throw in some love for the adult. Come on, man! cries the stranger. I’m offering you the basics of life for twenty years. In return for that, you won’t even consider just feeling obligated to me for all your life? We haven’t even said anything about what you will or won’t need to do to repay that debt! That’s the deal that most children find themselves in, without having signed up for it.
Everyday language and choice of words reveal our implicit values. Our biases are laid embarrassingly bare when we examine the way we talk about children, whether to adults or to children themselves. When someone, usually an adult, is too emotional, we tell them to ‘stop acting like a child’. When someone acts like a jerk, we tell them to ‘grow up’. Children are also repeatedly reminded that they will ‘grow up’ some day, two words each pointing towards an arbitrary goodness that they apparently lack, since to grow as a person means to become a better human, and the directionality signified by up is invariably better than down. We belittle the intelligence of children with statements such as ‘My 5 year old could have figured that out’. No counterbalancing expressions such as ‘My 45 year old could have seen that sadness flicker across her face’ point out the relative insensitivity of adults. We contrast adulthood favorably by saying things such as ‘We are all adults here’. We refer to going from childhood to adulthood as ‘development’, as if all things are better when the child is older. We interrogate children with questions such as who they want to be when they grow up, as if they are incomplete and inadequate until then. Nobody bothers to inquire in reverse time and ask adults what kind of child they wished to have been when they were a child. Finally, dozens of slang words denigrate ordinary children, from anklebiters to brats to shitlings, but no parallel set of insults exist for ordinary adults. What does it do to a child when he or she encounters such language and absorbs the implied inferiority?
Children’s rights organizations such as the UNICEF have been evolving their agenda over the years. The early struggle was just to ensure the bare essentials of existence (clean water, food, shelter, education, and prevention of abuse, neglect, violence, and discrimination) for children globally. Achieving this continues to be a challenge in large parts of the impoverished planet, but progress is being made. More recently, these organizations have begun to enshrine a fourth principle that goes beyond a child’s rights to healthy life, well-being, and development, and calls for respect for “The Views of the Child”. This more broader objective applies to all children, even those in situations where the basics are assured. Article 12.1 of the UNICEF charter states that “…parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the rights to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the view of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.”
While this is a laudable step in the right direction, it is still pussyfooting around the main issues. Let’s pick this principle apart a bit.
“…parties shall…” What parties? Overwhelmingly, those are the parents and relatives, for the most part, dismissing or suppressing the child’s views. Why can’t we call them out explicitly? Who else is the bully in the house terrorizing the child?
“…in accordance with the maturity of the child…” But wait, what if the adults aren’t mature themselves? If the child is immature, that’s understandable. Age appropriate. If the adult is acting immature, there is nobody keeping watch. Who’s calling them out at the dinner table?
“…to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views…” Must we wait until these views are capable of being formed to respect them? What about a child too young to express views clearly, who can’t speak long sentences but can definitely listen and understand the parental agenda as per by the body language and words of those lumbering giants? What about those same children who one day are old enough to speak, but don’t realize until much later that they can have views of their own?
Most children are treated as inferior, second class citizens, whose perspectives are routinely ignored or dismissed
How might a parent go about doing right by the child who isn’t old enough to express views? It isn’t complicated. Would the adult want to be in the position of the child, and treated as they are? Would they want to be told selective truths or outright lies to have their lives controlled? Would they want to be manipulated or bullied into doing things? If the answer is no, then the adult must take the trouble to imagine swapping places with the child via the mental exercise called empathy in daily interactions, and act accordingly. And when the child is older and starts to express themselves, a good habit might be to explain available choices and trade-offs for decisions as best as possible, solicit their views, disclose one’s own preferences transparently, and try to reach a consensus. Yes, this will require time, patience, and honesty on the part of the adult, and a willingness to bear with situations where occasionally one does not get to do exactly what one wants. The parent gets veto rights only for matters that truly affect the health and safety of the child or others in the family; for complicated matters of education, transportation, finances, laws, and long-term planning that adults excel in, and generally for any critical areas that expose the child’s limited knowledge and experience about how the world operates. Differences of opinion about how exactly to spend the Sunday morning as a family do not qualify as an example for application of veto rights. Most times, for most matters, a household might then operate as a democracy with even the smallest child participating in proportion to their awareness.
It goes without saying that if a child is being a total brat, hitting others, or being willfully destructive towards everything around him, he needs to be set right immediately. Pandering to a child behaving in this manner does him lasting harm, and in the long run is just as bad as being abusive to him.
The teenage years are universally and openly despised in the society of adults. Teenage rebellion is a much hated, much dreaded, universal phenomenon that we take as a given, as if it has always existed and must exist in all societies and under all circumstances. The conventional view is that rebellion is a necessary but ugly phase in the development of the human animal. Is it though? The adolescent rebellion is not a mere whim. A teen may indeed challenge norms and test the limits of authority in striving for self-expression and in seeking to establish a unique individuality as befits their generation. But does that automatically lead to rebellion, or does the rebellion actually arise from having to reject the authority of an oppressive and over-controlling parental micromanager over their lives? In primates, the juveniles don’t necessarily ‘rebel’ against their parents when they reach adolescence. True, many primate species don’t have the typical two parent setup of the human nuclear family. Promiscuity ensures that fathers remain hidden, while mothers collectively rear all the children in a big group. Perhaps the rebellion might be directed against the whole tribe then? No, that isn’t what is observed. Sure, the primate youths are energetic and brash and take risks and do crazy things like taunting the lions from the trees and trying to cross rivers in full flood and participating in gangs. However, what part of that behavior can we label as rebellion, if the primate parents are out of the picture as individuals controlling every aspect of their lives?
Yes, modernity is different from life in the jungle. Kids in the past only had to deal with fire, sharp implements, poisonous things, wild animals, murderous men, falls, and drowning. They mastered those dangers with the adults keeping watch but never discouraging exploration. There were no such addictive things as sugars, screen time, or social media to worry about. Certainly, a total lack of rules will impair a child’s future, since they need some structure to guide them towards a healthy lifestyle that balances food and activity, play and study, wakefulness and sleep. One wonders though, how many of the constraints imposed on modern perils are simply justifications for self-interested adults to use rules as mechanisms to control the child, while doing what they want? Most adults have no problem watching crap on TV way too late into the night themselves after the kids are conveniently in bed. They warn the kids about the dangers of the internet, yet are themselves guilty of warping their minds with a daily dose of porn, news, and social media. They conveniently forget about the dangers of junk food or sugar when they privately dig into pizza or ice cream. Are children blind to such hypocritical behavior? Far from it. They are observant little creatures, yet they are too nice and forgiving to point it out, lest they face the wrath of a big outraged human. While they are still dependent, maintaining good relationship terms with caretakers is a critical issue for survival. Everyone alive today is descended from children who chose not to antagonize adults around them, because in the wild plains, a hyena would snatch in the blink of an eye any truant child left unattended for even a moment out of spite.
How kids view their place in the world, when allowed to speak freely
Seen in this light, teenage rebellion is an act of reclamation of the lost agency of childhood. The child starts out helpless and completely dependent, but continually gets stronger, more skilled, and better informed. Compared to the parent who is increasingly out of touch, they grow up close to the present world, with more recent and relevant learning experiences. If the parental figure insists of stamping their old view of life upon the child even when it is patently obsolete, what else is the child expected to do, as an individual desiring to reach their full potential, but rebel? After years of being managed and controlled by their parents, at some point every child realizes that portions of the standard parental agenda is mostly bullshit, they’ve had enough of it, and furthermore, they can do something about it. That’s when the power struggle starts, and it runs its course until a new equilibrium is established. In the beginning the revolt is conducted out in the open, as crude, in-your-face tantrums. Later, it may evolve into more efficient yet passive forms of resistance, relying on layers of excuses, splendid lawyerly arguments, and endless delays for non-compliance. Finally, if the parent still fails to cede control, the rebellion goes underground in its most sophisticated form, using the same deception, manipulation, and selective information sharing that the child was once exposed to. Over time, the manager becomes the managed. No young adult delivers a memo to their elderly parents though, stating the new terms. The power dynamic just flips one day, and that’s that.
Consider a second thought experiment. Imagine that some nation, perhaps one of those wealthy Scandinavian socialist democracies, decrees that some parents just cannot be trusted to consistently care for their children, so as a failsafe measure, the state intends to participate in caretaking every individual from birth until the age of self-sufficiency. Dystopian as this may sound, good intentions win out over the concerns of Big Brother, and they embark on this ambitious program. Starting from day one, every newborn receives a daily package containing all their needs, from meals to diapers. A nurse comes by to ensure that the child is properly fed, bathed, and changed, and plays with the tot as long as is necessary. Night nurses are available to stay for the sleeping hours. Parents are welcome to assist in any manner, but they are not obligated to, and if they fail to meet the set standards of care, the nurse is there to take over, and will. Pediatricians and psychologists show up periodically to check on the health of the child. Transportation shows up at designated times to take the child to daycare or to a friend’s place. As the child grows older, the caretaking evolves accordingly. Regular deliveries bring age appropriate clothing, toys, and educational materials, customized to the child. Perhaps a software monitors their interests and abilities, and suggests what will feed their curiosity and fuel their development. In this manner, the child is raised until they make it to college and acquire a job. One day, they graduate from the state’s caretaking program, and move out of the parental home into their own place.
What would be the role of the parents in such a world?
Stripped of any levers to hold the child dependent, subservient, and build up a lifelong obligation, what else might the parents have to offer? When all the basics are taken care of, would they just offer their support and unconditional love? Maybe yes, maybe no. That is their choice, but the child can at least be freed of the brainwashing that renders them feeling the need to erase a servitude not of their choosing. Lest it be missed, the parents also gain tremendously in the process of raising children, almost as much as they wish to gain. The personal growth that comes from having to care for another human being, from learning to love unconditionally, and from the joy and meaning they derive from witnessing the development and flourishing of another human, are priceless. Of course, there are many roads and avenues to attain personal growth that don’t involve or require becoming a parent. And there are many parents who should never have become one, and stay stuck in regressive personality states despite being called upon to mature. Nevertheless, the difficult task of raising children is a golden opportunity to enrich one’s own life, and simultaneously also the crucible in which one can forge oneself into a slightly more evolved human being.
Most children come into this world as joyful, light-hearted, and well-intentioned beings. Yes, they arrive with some predilections and personalities nearly fully-formed, yet they are ready to adapt too. The circumstances they find themselves in shortly after birth though are far from neutral. Often, they land in oppressed positions, and presume that’s how the world is, since it’s the only one they know. As a coping mechanism, they grow up to be hardened adults who view life with a bit of compensating hostility. Is that a necessary trait for dealing with a harsh world? But wait, isn’t the harsh world harsh largely because it consists of similarly harsh adults? Consider that the vast majority of misery on this planet is largely self-inflicted, by human beings upon other human beings. Whether we are talking about wars, poverty, famines, injustices, inequalities or all sorts, those evils originate in human nature. The way out of those messes isn’t going to be technological or political. Those surface manifestations hide the fundamental issue, that the average person grows up feeling justified in being in opposition to the hostile world that they encountered growing up. It doesn’t have to be that way. Children are born with a capacity to turn out in myriad ways, depending on how they themselves were treated. Freed of the need to grow up in an environment of dependent inferiority and the poisonous attitudes surrounding that dependency, how might they turn out themselves? How might they treat others? How might that world be?
Children are not consulted prior to being brought into existence. They cannot at birth already be in lifelong obligation
As the author and psychologist James Hollis wrote, what would happen to our lives and our world if the parent could unconditionally affirm the child, saying in effect “You will always have my love and support, you are here to be who you are; try never to hurt another, but never stop trying to become yourself… you are always welcome, but you are also here to leave us, and to go onward toward your own destiny without having to worry about pleasing us.” Children unconsciously absorb and then feel compelled to repeat the patterns that their parents could not overcome. Carl Jung once claimed that the greatest burden each child must bear is to live out the unlived life of the parents. If each child were freed of the parent’s narcissistic needs to live through the child, they could explore, experiment, falter, and try again, without shame, without derogation, knowing they are supported by unconditional love, loved as they are, not as they are wished to be. The history of humanity would change forever.
In order to create something new, one must first imagine it. Here’s a set of principles that might apply to children in that imaginal reality. Perhaps we can call it Children’s Universal Rights Explained (CURE), with the hope that such an elucidation might in a way cure humanity of some of its ills.
- Children are complete and perfected beings at all stages of their life
- Children are complete beings, to be beheld and treated as such. They do not merely represent partial progress towards an end goal adult.
- Children are already perfected beings. Although their minds, bodies, and capabilities change over time, all stages are equally significant. They aren’t deficient of some arbitrary standard realized only as an adult. An oak is not better than an acorn.
- Children are not simply ‘training for life’, to ‘become somebody’. Such adult-centric views condescend them as inferior beings – unseen, unheard, and on probation until grown up – and justify a dismissal of their rights and opinions.
- Children bear no enduring obligations towards any person in return for care
- Children are not and cannot be consulted prior to being brought into existence. Therefore, they cannot at birth already be in debt for ensuing care. They don’t choose a position of obligation, any more than an adult would voluntarily enter lifelong servitude to strangers.
- Children are not property. Children and the act of child rearing are not an insurance policy or an investment made by the parents and caregivers to provide financial, emotional or physical support in their own old age.
- Children owe nothing beyond the expected norms of age-appropriate interpersonal conduct and decency to their parents and caregivers. No child rearing related debt exists to be cleared by children, either while they are children or when they are themselves adults.
- Children are to be free of abuse, neglect, and undue physical or psychological control
- Caring for children is a simultaneous responsibility and privilege, arising from the act of bringing them unbidden into existence. Aside from meeting all their basic needs, care ideally manifests as unconditional love, irrespective of reciprocation.
- Relative to adults, children lack knowledge, experience, judgement, strength, skill, and self-control, aside from access to wealth, power, and legal rights. They excel in authenticity, creativity, sensitivity, learning, openness, and forgiveness. Appropriate care takes differences into consideration but does not justify undue physical or psychological control for adult-centric needs and norms.
- No circumstances justify acts of physical or verbal abuse, neglect, isolation, denigration, bullying, punishment, or manipulation with deceit, temptation, or threats directed at children.
They say that the world would be a much better place if we only could see children as the adults they will one day be, and adults as the children they once were. What kind of world might we create if, having committed the momentous act of bringing new life into being, we relinquish any possessive ownership claim upon them? If we just let the children be?
