From Hunger to Love

A worth reading writing was Manderson’s “From Hunger to Love”, which truly was a thought-provoking article that because of its complexity and sarcastic fashion fed mind with anti-parallel arguments.

According to his point of view, children's upbringing is a miniature re-enactment of the development of modern civilization and therefore, child’s significance in a society is worth-discussing. The anecdote idealizes a situation in which Max in reciprocation to his dissatisfaction warns his mother to eat her up.  This setting being rare or impossible, gives us a chance to analyze the umbrella of law over children and the role of regulations in taming an entity.

One society’s taboo could be another’s norm and this statement haywires the barrier between the idea of legal and illegal. The natural law stating parents to be lawful guardian of children, impositions from their side are suited under decreed job and sometimes the restrictions extended, bars any possibility of diversity in a relationship. Alongside, his writing portrays a natural desire of obedience from the opposite party.

The great debate here is what do we mean by the word ‘obedience’ in a civilized and nurtured society. Can obedience be acceptance of laws against human rights as the only mode of sustenance? Can a child being under the fellowship of parent question their rights and requirements for living? Here the law under the harm principle could be deceiving for either parents or the child. The process of domestication calls for strictness and scrutiny, and sometimes blindness of law configures the turns in social customs and norms.

Since centuries, societies have differed in defining a child – some label child to be extremely feeble, whereas, some argued on existence of such biological stage. As constitution of rules is not a truly living part of the society, labeling few successful jurisdictions, as an evidence of success is in it a mischievous blunder. Whereas, if Max would have eaten his mother, common law – quote of judge would have justified it as an action for survival and betrayal for established entitlements.

The latest argument worth linking here is the “Asylum Seeker issue” in Australia. A great problem is the single word to describe a diverse population called “Refugees”. Taking into account a cohort of different ages with children, claiming them as a single unit is against human rights. According to many associations against the cause of giving refuge to asylum seekers say that children are being used as a tool to blackmail government to allow entry to refugees. Unlike the claim written before, organizations supporting refugees call the government action in this case to be inhumane and putrefying.

Manderson says, 'We ought to honor the law not just obey it', which vividly portrays law as a royal section of humanity (whether or whether not in benefit of the humanity). Discussing the factor of children, I surely agree that individuality of child and his/her persona is at sincere risk under a violent and strict control of law over personal life. Law is restricting here exposure, experience and exotics of life, whereas, claiming itself to be a mechanism for achieving civilized society when applied over young populace. In a nutshell, lenient or strict application of law over children for the sake of evolving a law-abiding nation is the best methodology to murder individuality and creativity.