Even less-formed and more rambly: The implied power dynamic in saying “my child”
I have a lot of love and affection towards the human being who would be conventionally labelled “my child”. But, why is that? Is it because he carries some of my genetic material? I am not concerned about my genetic material propagating in the gene pool and I don’t think my affection would be any different if we had adopted. It may have been different for my wife - but it is not necessarily the case that a mother loves the child that she gives birth to (eg in cases of rape) so even pregnancy doesn’t guarantee love. I consider that the love that we have in our family arose out of a series of interactions and expectations, and likewise the love in every family with offspring - with some aspects in common because we have certain expectations in common (Families don’t necessarily have to have offspring but this is about children so I’m ignoring families without children for this)
Some of these common social expectations are a narrative of the nuclear family. It is the only form of family that most of us know. Perhaps if we lived in extended families / tribes without an expectation of property inheritance defaulting to biological offspring, and without a hierarchy between adults and children, there would be a different relationship between offspring and the others around them? Maybe a default breastfeeding role for the biological mother but apart from that the offspring is nurtured and supported by the entire family (and also if the biological mother is unable to breastfeed for any reason that is also provided by the community) - and then the offspring is seen simply as a member of the tribe rather than the child of the biological parents. There would be some recognition that at certain stages certain members need specific assistance (an infant human would need assistance for mobility, but so would someone with an injury; a toddler may need food to be provided to them, but perhaps also the warriors who protect the tribe from attack need food to be provided to them) but without ageist discrimination.
I don’t want to disown “my” child. But I would like to move away from the concept of owning a child at all. I don’t know what that would look like, but “my child” conveys on parents an authority that I wish didn’t exist - it always allows to fall back on “I am your father and you must do as I say”. No matter how much we try to avoid resorting to that, we all know that the possibility of that exists.
I know some people talk about “the child in my life” and I understand that. I agree that we do not own our children, in the same way they do not own us. But I just think it’s semantics, to an extent. Because I say “my husband” or “my sister in law” and it’s understood that I don’t own them but they have a relationship with me. I wonder what it’s like in other languages? Like if there are languages that don’t use the possessive pronoun in this context? That would be interesting to know. Appreciate you reading and bringing up your thoughts and I will reflect on them!
That my child can say “my father” was one of the counter arguments in my head; but it’s also how this language is embedded in our society.
If you saw a wallet on the floor of a mall, you would wonder whose wallet it was. If you saw an unattended young child on the floor of a mall, you would wonder whose child it was (again, possession). But if I was on the floor of the mall unconscious nobody would ask “whose father is this”. Just maybe “does anyone know this person”
Also noting how children typically get their fathers name at birth (in Spanish, both parents) and then women take husbands name at marriage.
Also, I would like to hear what young people and children think. Do they want to be referred to as “my child”? That would be interesting to know and perhaps the most salient reason I would consider reallly changing the way I refer to my children. Maybe I will ask them!!
Yep, the counter argument isn’t exactly the same I suppose, given the power imbalance and the fact adults are responsible for children and also have rights as parents (another issue, that often conflicts with children’s rights). Still, I just think that parents are very often, not always, but often, better placed to love and care for children than a random adult or the state/government, and so while I understand the issues with this language, and while I also agree we should question the assumption of ownership embedded in it, I also feel that most children are better off under their parent’s care and if families had better support then children would also do better. It’s complex! I’m not sure that doing away with the language is really going to affect the actual issues. But I suppose everyone is free to use the language they prefer!
An unconnected caregiver (like a professional carer in a day care) is an awful solution.
We used to live in extended families where newborns formed bonds with multiple carers (who had a personal, not professional, relationship) of different ages is a more humane way to distributing the work of child care than abruptly placing a child in an environment where a few professional adults are expected to care for a large number of similar aged children
Changing the language - might help change the paradigms and assumptions around it. I was uncomfortable with the word “parenting” because it suggests something done to children (“raising” is even worse, as if they were livestock). When I spoke about it at EUDEC I found there is an option in Spanish to say “accompany” - my child and I are accompanying in each other in a shared journey in a life experience that is pivotal for both of us.
I also don’t use “parenting”! Agree that changing the language can sometimes help. I just wonder whether it would be confusing to start saying “the child in my life” or whatever. But perhaps it wouldn’t! I’m not averse to trying if my children care about this, of course.
“The child in my life” sounds like describing an intruder. A nice alternative doesn’t come to mind but if a sufficient number of people look for one I guess we will figure something
On hierarchy; I wouldn’t consider the example of the airport as a hierarchy - that is perhaps a role you performed where you were in service of others. There was a period where my son was in service of making tea for the family and I wouldn’t consider that a hierarchy either.
When humans interact, there will always be some means of distributing the tasks that the community needs done. If all participants freely consent to the distribution, even if it is largely a static distribution, then I suggest it is not a hierarchy.
But if someone can impose on another a task that the other does not consent to, that is due to having authority over the other. And when you organize all the authority relationships together, you have a hierarchy.
Ok interesting, thanks for that feedback! I’ll have to sit with that one I think. I see what you mean, but I think even when it is consensual there is a degree of hierarchy if someone is chosen to be in a position of authority. But perhaps I’m wrong and perhaps it is more like service than authority.
Even less-formed and more rambly: The implied power dynamic in saying “my child”
I have a lot of love and affection towards the human being who would be conventionally labelled “my child”. But, why is that? Is it because he carries some of my genetic material? I am not concerned about my genetic material propagating in the gene pool and I don’t think my affection would be any different if we had adopted. It may have been different for my wife - but it is not necessarily the case that a mother loves the child that she gives birth to (eg in cases of rape) so even pregnancy doesn’t guarantee love. I consider that the love that we have in our family arose out of a series of interactions and expectations, and likewise the love in every family with offspring - with some aspects in common because we have certain expectations in common (Families don’t necessarily have to have offspring but this is about children so I’m ignoring families without children for this)
Some of these common social expectations are a narrative of the nuclear family. It is the only form of family that most of us know. Perhaps if we lived in extended families / tribes without an expectation of property inheritance defaulting to biological offspring, and without a hierarchy between adults and children, there would be a different relationship between offspring and the others around them? Maybe a default breastfeeding role for the biological mother but apart from that the offspring is nurtured and supported by the entire family (and also if the biological mother is unable to breastfeed for any reason that is also provided by the community) - and then the offspring is seen simply as a member of the tribe rather than the child of the biological parents. There would be some recognition that at certain stages certain members need specific assistance (an infant human would need assistance for mobility, but so would someone with an injury; a toddler may need food to be provided to them, but perhaps also the warriors who protect the tribe from attack need food to be provided to them) but without ageist discrimination.
I don’t want to disown “my” child. But I would like to move away from the concept of owning a child at all. I don’t know what that would look like, but “my child” conveys on parents an authority that I wish didn’t exist - it always allows to fall back on “I am your father and you must do as I say”. No matter how much we try to avoid resorting to that, we all know that the possibility of that exists.
I know some people talk about “the child in my life” and I understand that. I agree that we do not own our children, in the same way they do not own us. But I just think it’s semantics, to an extent. Because I say “my husband” or “my sister in law” and it’s understood that I don’t own them but they have a relationship with me. I wonder what it’s like in other languages? Like if there are languages that don’t use the possessive pronoun in this context? That would be interesting to know. Appreciate you reading and bringing up your thoughts and I will reflect on them!
That my child can say “my father” was one of the counter arguments in my head; but it’s also how this language is embedded in our society.
If you saw a wallet on the floor of a mall, you would wonder whose wallet it was. If you saw an unattended young child on the floor of a mall, you would wonder whose child it was (again, possession). But if I was on the floor of the mall unconscious nobody would ask “whose father is this”. Just maybe “does anyone know this person”
Also noting how children typically get their fathers name at birth (in Spanish, both parents) and then women take husbands name at marriage.
Also, I would like to hear what young people and children think. Do they want to be referred to as “my child”? That would be interesting to know and perhaps the most salient reason I would consider reallly changing the way I refer to my children. Maybe I will ask them!!
Yep, the counter argument isn’t exactly the same I suppose, given the power imbalance and the fact adults are responsible for children and also have rights as parents (another issue, that often conflicts with children’s rights). Still, I just think that parents are very often, not always, but often, better placed to love and care for children than a random adult or the state/government, and so while I understand the issues with this language, and while I also agree we should question the assumption of ownership embedded in it, I also feel that most children are better off under their parent’s care and if families had better support then children would also do better. It’s complex! I’m not sure that doing away with the language is really going to affect the actual issues. But I suppose everyone is free to use the language they prefer!
An unconnected caregiver (like a professional carer in a day care) is an awful solution.
We used to live in extended families where newborns formed bonds with multiple carers (who had a personal, not professional, relationship) of different ages is a more humane way to distributing the work of child care than abruptly placing a child in an environment where a few professional adults are expected to care for a large number of similar aged children
Changing the language - might help change the paradigms and assumptions around it. I was uncomfortable with the word “parenting” because it suggests something done to children (“raising” is even worse, as if they were livestock). When I spoke about it at EUDEC I found there is an option in Spanish to say “accompany” - my child and I are accompanying in each other in a shared journey in a life experience that is pivotal for both of us.
I also don’t use “parenting”! Agree that changing the language can sometimes help. I just wonder whether it would be confusing to start saying “the child in my life” or whatever. But perhaps it wouldn’t! I’m not averse to trying if my children care about this, of course.
“The child in my life” sounds like describing an intruder. A nice alternative doesn’t come to mind but if a sufficient number of people look for one I guess we will figure something
Some semi-formed thoughts / ramblings:
On hierarchy; I wouldn’t consider the example of the airport as a hierarchy - that is perhaps a role you performed where you were in service of others. There was a period where my son was in service of making tea for the family and I wouldn’t consider that a hierarchy either.
When humans interact, there will always be some means of distributing the tasks that the community needs done. If all participants freely consent to the distribution, even if it is largely a static distribution, then I suggest it is not a hierarchy.
But if someone can impose on another a task that the other does not consent to, that is due to having authority over the other. And when you organize all the authority relationships together, you have a hierarchy.
Ok interesting, thanks for that feedback! I’ll have to sit with that one I think. I see what you mean, but I think even when it is consensual there is a degree of hierarchy if someone is chosen to be in a position of authority. But perhaps I’m wrong and perhaps it is more like service than authority.