Story: Professor argues that children belong to the State, not to Parents. Also here (Washington Times) and here (Daily Caller).
Almost nothing infuriates me more than when persons like Professor Harris-Perry (see links above) argue that children are property of the community. What this notion really means at bottom, of course, is that children belong to the state, because it is
through and
in the state that communities act and structure themselves.
Of course, what she means by saying this is that because children will grow up one day and take our place in the community, the community has a vested interest in the cultivation of children. This is true, so long as we leave it at that. But Harris-Perry insists on taking it further and shifting the primary responsibility of child-rearing away from parents onto the community.
The idea that children belong to the state or community rather than to their parents is both wrong and dangerous
1) Parents are responsible for the birth of their children, and therefore are primarily responsible to raise and instruct them. This logic applies everywhere else in life. Why we wouldn't apply it here is baffling. If I make something, I'm responsible for it.
2) Just because society requires a certain type of citizen in order to function best as a society does not grant it the right to create that type of person. In other words, it's a violation of fundamental human dignity to cultivate a person
primarily for an end other than his own good. If the good of the individual is contrary to the good of society, perhaps we ought to take a close second look at society, rather than harming human beings through ostensibly good intentions.
Take slavery, for instance. It works wonders for society (which is always defined in terms of the free, and not of the slaves), but it violates individual human dignity and rights, and is therefore wrong.
3) To say that children belong to the state or community rather than belong to parents is a false parallel. Belonging to the state is not like belonging to parents. They are two different uses of the word
belong.
To say that children belong to the state (or the community) is to say that children are public property. They are possessions which the community holds in view of its own interests. But this is an inhumane position, treating children like cattle or real estate. Children are not merely potential adults or potential voters. They possess as much human dignity as anyone else and are therefore
ends in themselves, and not
means to an end (even if that end is a better society).
On the other hand, to say that children belong to parents is not to call children a material possession. Children belong to parents the way that acorns belong to oak trees or the way rain belongs to clouds, and not as a man owns a car or a dog. It's a belonging rooted in the natural order, in generation. I belong to my parents because I am
from my parents (see point 1 above).
There's also another difference to saying that children belong to parents. It is not a legal possession. It is a super-legal possession. That is, it isn't a belonging instituted by law, because children would still belong to their parents even if there were no laws making the relationship explicit. This is evident throughout history in all but totalitarian societies. All a law can do here is reflect what
already is the case by nature.
Nothing can be more evident than the natural bond between parents and children. A child is entirely dependent upon his parents for life, and at birth, dependent upon his mother for sustenance. As the child grows, he takes tremendous comfort in knowing that he belongs to his parents and that his parents also belong to him. You'll never see a lost child in the mall crying for his community leaders.
While the authority and possession that parents have over their children is based on the order of nature, it derives its power in love. It is true that some parents do not love their children, and some children do not love their parents, but this is a clear violation of nature, not its proper fulfillment. This is obvious in the fact that we call parents who do not love their children bad parents. It is also true that there are bad parents who love their children, but they are usually bad parents because they do not love their children more than they love themselves (and their own dreams and hopes).
4) Furthermore, it is only in the family unit that children begin to have a proper understanding of community. As G. K. Chesterton once pointed out, you don't choose your family. You're born into it. This means, of course, that there's no guarantee your family will suit your tastes. Nevertheless, you must learn to live with them.
Outside of our families, we have the freedom to choose those with whom we associate. I can surround myself with people that I like, and avoid with personalities and tastes different than my own. And this is exactly what we do. But we don't (or shouldn't, at any rate) foster a community by picking and choosing members. Communities (as Harris-Perry seems to mean the word) are groups of people who live beside each other and must therefore get along. But this isn't something we learn in community. Children hardly learn this art even in school; cliques form immediately because difference is uncomfortable. The art of living in community is cultivated in the family. After all, you'd never associate with Uncle Harry if you weren't related to him, would you?
Do we really think all of us who groan about family reunions will form better societies if we dismiss the very unit which forces us to settle our differences?
