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.
No comments:
Post a Comment