A state in the state: parenthood

[God of Imperia]

I was wondering what anarchism thinks about the law we all know, the law of our parents ... They are kinda a state which tells you what to do or do you just accept that they control us till we are 18? Come on, don't tell you just agree with it and if you do, tell us why ...

[Saint-Just]

Whether its parents, or teachers, or guardians they are very much like the state. They resistrict us in what we can do and encourage us in what we think we cannot do and create an environment in which we can flourish. I agree with you.

[God of Imperia]

But then again, we are very manipulable at young age, we should trust our parents that they want the best for us, but at what age do we become adults, when can we think for ourselves? Some sooner than others, there might not be a suitable age ...

[Guest1]

You are always adult, should always be treated with respect at least. The idea that you are the property of your parents is a social construct of the society we live in.

[God of Imperia]

So you're against it, what do you suggest?

[Don't Change Your Name]

It depends.
I mean, parents should be responsible for children when they are kids, but once they are about 16/17 years old it's time to start being responsible.
It has to do a lot with education.
THe idea of parents threating children as stupid sheeps is, as CyM suggested, a stupid social idea, that holds that parents own their children for some reason.
It's hard to predict how things would be like in an Anarchist society as the environment, the education, the values, the society will be different.

I never really thought too much about the issue. I'll try to analize this a bit more tomorrow if you dont mind.

[The Mathias Rust Brigade]

On one hand you can simply say that parenthood in a capitalist state is hierarchal because capitalism itself is hierarchal, and leave it at that. But I think that's a bit over-simplified, because it assumes that some unspecified form of parenthood existed before capitalism, then capitalism came along and everything just sort of magically changed. I feel it's necessary to explore a) what parenthood was like before capitalism and b) how it changed.

As an answer to a), parenthood in pre-capitalist Europe (I don't want to speak for other, non-Western societies, those not being my area of study) didn't really exist insofar as children themselves didn't really exist -- there wasn't actually a concept of "childhood" as any sort of unique state; children were instead seen as nothing more than miniature versions of adults. Thus, children tended to work alongside adults (typically in an agrictultural setting, since this is a pre-industrial society we're talking about here) as if they were essentially one and the same; when a child works alongside their parents, it has the effect of "leveling" the relationship between the two, resulting in a dynamic totally different than the hierarchal and basically authoritarian structure of modern parenthood. (Despite this non-hierarchal structure, we shouldn't regard this relationship as any kind of model to aspire to, since it was, after all, built on the institutionalization of child labor.)

With that out of the way, we can move on to b), that is, how parenthood has changed under capitalism. With the advent of industrial capitalism, child labor persisted for a time (in an even more brutal form) but eventually fell out of favor in advanced capitalist societies (unfortunately, child labor persists to this very day in "underdeveloped" Third World societies, but in the West, at least, it has theoretically been eradicated and is opposed in principle by all but the craziest, most far-out "libertarians"/Randroids). Why? Because technological advancements allowed more to be produced with less work. As capitalism (and technology) progressed, it gradually became possible for the parents to provide for the family, and it was no longer necessary for every family member (the children included) to "pull their own weight" (literally and figuratively). With children were no longer needed to work, the focus now shifted to preparing them to work in the future by indoctrinating them into the system (it is hardly an accident that the rise of public education coincided with the rise of industrial capitalism). Since it was now the responsibility of the adults rather than the family as a whole to provide basic sustenance, the "equitable" relationship between parents and children that had existed in pre-capitalist society could no longer exist; the adults were now clearly the masters of the household. In this way the hierarchal structure of capitalism (adults sell their labor to the bosses to provide for themselves and their families) filters its way down to the parent-child relationship.

Obviously, in a non-hierarchal society, one in which people are no longer required to sell themselves to survive, some other relationship would have to be developed. The kibbutzim in Israel raise children communally; therefore the relationship between individual parents and their children is not as strong as it is in a capitalist society. What is required is a system in which children can become acclimated to their society more or less on their own, rather than the authoritarian approach practiced by schools and parents under capitalism. A communal system in which children experience society for themselves, in the company other children, rather than in the company of other children commonly subordinated to a boss figure of one kind or another (i.e. teachers) seems to be the best approach in my opinion. The issue, then, is not redefining the parent-child relationship specifically but rather redefining our entire attitude towards children, in the same way the parent-child relationship under capitalism did not involve the alteration of a preexisting relationship so much as a bottom-up reappraisal of what role children played in society (that is, the notion of children as "miniature adults" expected to work and provide in their own right giving way to the notion of childhood as a separate and unique state in need of close guidance and coddling) -- reappraisals that are inevitably bound up with whatever the overall structure of society is or is becoming at that time. Thus, a communal (socialist) society requires a communal approach to children and child-rearing; such a shift would obviously undermine the individualist approach to children taken in our contemporary society -- the "they're my children, I can do as I please with them" attitude lamentably taken by so many parents -- so any such radical restructuring would face an uphill battle. But then it's no more uphill than any other restructuring proposed by anarchists and socialists.

[captain anarchy]

i think that parents should let their kids chose their own way of life and paths in life i think all that the parent should do is raise the child till the child walks, talks and is able to make desitions for them selfs that are not going to in danger them selfs then the parent should step back and be there only for support and advice and by advice i mean asked for advice.

[redstar2000]

Children's Liberation and Communist Society May 12, 2003 (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/monthlytheoryarchives.php?subaction=showfull&id=1052699491&archive=1054467213&cnshow=archive&start_from=&ucat=&)

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Don't Change Your Name]

After thinking about this for a while and checking redstar's site, I have come to this conclusions (not definitive, i think i have forgotten many details and this isnt a very deep analysis):

1. A family is an example of "from each according to his skills to each according to his needs", but only when the situation allows it. Such families are very simmilar to stalinist regimes however.
2. A family where the ones working earn more than what they need end up with an authoritarian system where the parents (usually very conservative in economical issues) emphasize control over their children's expenses
3. Many parents are old-fashioned and their kids accept those values because they think their parents are some kind of "sacred" and "correct" authority.
4. The parents should take care of their kids until they are old enough to be "free", but a better relationship should exist between society and children. Society should understand that the future depends a lot on the welfare of those kids.
5. Parents should be more involved on their children's education on many aspects, and teach them to think and judge everything. They shouldn't "play the policeman", for example, by checking their rooms searching for drugs, but they should say something like "if you want to do x thing, do it, but before doing it think of the consequences doing that x thing can bring".
6. The family as the "institution" is what keeps capitalism from falling.
7. The worst mistake society can do nowadays is using the objectivist pseudo-philosophy for familiar issues. That would ruin everything, and if the crisis is deep enough we could see a rebirth of extreme conservatism (including fascism). In fact the concept of "family" goes against that flawed capitalist "thinking" system. I mean, it's not really a bad thing for family's members to try to benefit from their family for their self-interest, but i think that such interests will eventually clash and that would bring a deep crisis at home.
8. If the father threats the woman as property chances are his son will do the same with all women. It's wrong, especially nowadays where women have a much more important role in society, thanks to many struggles women had against the old crappy order.
9. Parents should promote activities that can help their kids survive in the future, such as teaching them basic "work's ethics" and many activities, but shouldnt force them to work or such things, only teaching them that if they work "hard" the collective might give them a big nice car, just to say an example.
10. Parents shouldn't enforce things to their kids for any reason. Parent's words aren't "holy" or the "absolute truth", so they should have a minimal influence on the kids.

What do you think?

[Raisa]

Originally posted by God of [email protected] 3 2004, 09:26 PM
But then again, we are very manipulable at young age, we should trust our parents that they want the best for us, but at what age do we become adults, when can we think for ourselves? Some sooner than others, there might not be a suitable age ...
Its sad to say, i dont think there is. Especially in this society. Im only sixteen and inside from my life i feel like a dirty old woman.

[dark fairy]

If we are over populated now i don't want to know what's it's like having a bunch of kids doing it and having a bunch of drama... there are many factors... kids need some sort of guidence whether it's the TV or the parents they'll get it from somewhere :unsure: