Search results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 31 items for :

  • "parent-child relations" x
  • All content x
Clear All
An exercise in pluralist political theory
Author: Allyn Fives

This is a book about parents, power, and children and, in particular, the legitimacy of parents' power over their children. It takes seriously the challenge posed by moral pluralism, and considers the role of both theoretical rationality and practical judgement in resolving moral dilemmas associated with parental power. The book first examines the prevailing view about parental power: a certain form of paternalism, justified treatment of those who lack the qualities of an agent, and one that does not generate moral conflicts. It proposes an alternative, pluralist view of paternalism before showing that even paternalism properly understood is of limited application when we evaluate parental power. According to the caretaker thesis, parental power makes up for the deficits in children's agency, and for that reason children should be subjected to standard institutional paternalism. The liberation thesis stands at the other end of the spectrum concerning children's rights. The book then addresses the counter-argument that issues of legitimacy arise in the political domain and not in respect of parent-child relations. It also examines the 'right to parent' and whether parents should be licensed, monitored, or trained children's voluntariness and competence, and the right to provide informed consent for medical treatment and research participation. Finally, the book talks about parents' efforts to share a way of life with their children and the State's efforts to shape the values of future citizens through civic education. The overall approach taken has much more in common with the problem-driven political philosophy.

Allyn Fives

assumption that, despite the plurality of relevant moral considerations and morally relevant features, we should transform parent–child relations so that priority is given to parents’ duty to care for their children. The alternative approach is problem-driven rather than theory-driven. Problem-driven political philosophy, or non-ideal theory, starts from practice and the problems that it throws up. According to this line of thought, political philosophers must first have a clear understanding of the practical reality of people’s lives, and only then can they go on to

in Evaluating parental power
Allyn Fives

underlying assumptions. For it would not be unreasonable to harbour doubts about the appropriateness of this whole enterprise. It could be argued that, up to this point, we have evaluated parent–child relations in the same way that we evaluate the power relations of adults in the wider society, that is, the power relations of the ‘political domain’, whereas the concepts and methods used when evaluating the power relations of the political domain are simply not appropriate to the normative evaluation of the relations between parents and children. I want to address and

in Evaluating parental power
Abstract only
Peter William Evans

includes no characters who are mothers. Without wishing to offer a psychopathology of Reed’s work, I have nevertheless sometimes relied on psychoanalytical models in the belief that these would help further elucidate Reed’s interest in character, behaviour, and human relations in films that are repeatedly concerned with parent/child relations. Psychoanalysis has of course been one of the dominant tendencies in film theory at

in Carol Reed
Abstract only
Philosophy, power, and parents
Allyn Fives

first address the counter-argument that issues of legitimacy arise in the political domain and not in respect of parent–child relations (Chapter 7). I then proceed to examine the ‘right to parent’ and whether parents should be licensed, monitored, or trained (Chapter 8); children’s voluntariness and competence, and the right to provide informed consent for medical treatment and research participation (Chapter 9); and finally, parents’ efforts to share a way of life with their children and the State’s efforts to shape the values of future citizens through civic

in Evaluating parental power
Abstract only
Allyn Fives

is that I treat parent–child relations as power relations requiring justification. Another important difference is that I have been sensitive to avoid liberal biases when employing an account of practical rationality developed from within liberal political thought. I first considered the conditions that should be attached to the ‘right to parent’, and, in particular, arguments for parental licences, the monitoring of parents, and the provision of parenting support programmes. I came down against parental licences and instead considered the merits of alternative

in Evaluating parental power
Abstract only
Alysa Levene

Pinchbeck and Hewitt, Children in English society, Vol. 1, pp. 181–89; George, London life in the eighteenth century, pp. 58–60. 15 For example, S. Wilson, ‘The myth of motherhood a myth: a historical view of European child rearing’, Social History, 9 (1984), pp. 181–98; A. James, C. Jenks and A. Prout, Theorizing childhood (Cambridge, 1998); L. A. Pollock, Forgotten children: parent–child relations from 1500–1900 (Cambridge, 1983). 16 Trumbach, The rise of the egalitarian family, pp. 230–1. 17 Sharpe, Population and society, p. 254. 18 R. Wall, ‘Leaving home and the

in Childcare, health and mortality at the London Foundling Hospital 1741–1800
Abstract only
Deborah Youngs

philosophers who were eager to offer parents advice on breast-feeding, teething, washing, coping with a crying infant and dealing with childhood diseases. These can help us to understand what certain sections of medieval society thought was the appropriate way of bringing up children, but cannot of course provide a clear window into actual practices. Parent–child relations belonged to a world where

in The life–cycle in Western Europe, c.1300-c.1500
Andrew Lynch

child–king that transfigures his own martyr and elevates the Marian piety of his poem onto a higher plane. Through the child Edward, placed between the two poets, and joining them ‘from afar’, Chaucer is claimed for ‘universal Christendom’ and consequently for England. Childhood and youthfulness of spirit continued to help refashion Chaucer as the century progressed. Continuing appreciation of Chaucer’s ‘pathos’ maintained his connection with childhood by highlighting intense parent–child relations in the Canterbury Tales:31 the Prioress’s Tale; Griselda and children

in Contemporary Chaucer across the centuries
Abstract only
Patsy Stoneman

’s principled rejection (R: 288). But the novel is inconsistent in its attitude to the causes of Ruth’s fall. Since harsh judgment is seen to derive from an authority/obedience model of parent/child relations, the approved non-judgmental attitude should be linked with the opposite belief in education for moral independence. Yet Ruth’s ‘fall’ is attributed, not to the protected upbringing which ‘disqualif[ies] her as a morally responsible person’ (Crick: 93), but, paradoxically, to a failure of parental vigilance. In Chapter 3 Bellingham tells Ruth to ‘judge for [her]self’ (39

in Elizabeth Gaskell