Recent examples of horrific child cruelty are ammunition for those who defend interventions into family concerns. For those who see it as rationale for expanding the scope of the state, do you advocate interventions here? If not why not?
I'm sorry, maybe I'm being obtuse here, but what on earth is your point? Are you saying that the state has no role in trying to prevent a child's death in Birmingham? And what intervention are you assuming supporters of such state action won't approve of in Brazil that you feel will mark them as hyprotites? Please explain, do. It's probably my fault, but frankly I'm at a loss.
Posted by: Quinn | May 30, 2008 at 11:21 PM
To be consistent, I think that people who advocate social services taking children from their parents in Birmingham should now be trying to remove any children from the tribe in Brazil. If people think the state should intervene in Birmingham but not in Brazil, I'd like to know why.
Posted by: aje | May 31, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Are their any concerns for the children in Brazil?
Are you saying that you believe the state shouldn't have intervened in Birmingham?
Posted by: Quinn | June 01, 2008 at 10:58 AM
I meant "Are there any concerns for the children in Brazil?"
Posted by: Quinn | June 01, 2008 at 10:59 AM
And I meant to close the "bold" tag after there. I'm a bit hungover and not having a good day.
Posted by: Quinn | June 01, 2008 at 11:01 AM
I'm the one asking the questions!
Ok - as far as I'm concerned there's two basic models to choose from: collectivism or individualism. When it comes to child cruelty the danger with the former is a Type 1 error and the latter is a Type 2. Any reasoned criteria I can imagine that a collectivist would have for intervention, would apply in the Brazil case (in other words if children were found in Bristol in those conditions they'd be taken in by social services). Any reasoned criteria that an individualist would have would permit neglect in Birmingham (ahead of taking the child by force).
I'm sure many people will think "non intervention in Brazil, intervention in Birmingham" but where is that coming from? Instinct?
I understand that my question exposes an unsavoury and distressing outcome of individualism see here, but I also feel it exposes the same about collectivism.
I'm challenging those who support social services to do one of the following:
1. Admit that you're support doesn't stem from reasoned consideration - it's ad hoc
2. Support attempts to intervene in Brazil and remove any children
3. Explain the rationale for intervention such that it doesn't apply in Brazil
Posted by: aje | June 02, 2008 at 02:49 AM
I imagine that the reason many people will say "non intervention in Brazil, intervention in Birmingham" is because Birmingham appears to be a case of child cruelty and neglect, whereas in Brazil there is no reason to suspect such things. Children are not removed from carers just because they live in poor conditions, but if their carers are not considered fit to look the children; I have no reason to believe that the children in Brazil are not being looked after to the best of their parents’ ability.
But if you are arguing that we should be consistent in our approach then I am interested in where you stand. Presumably, for consistency you believe either
a) the state should intervene in both situations, so should be now separating parents from their children in Brazil because they live in “poor conditions”, or
b) the state should intervene in neither situation, so shouldn’t try to prevent a child from starving to death from neglect when they a made aware of such a case in Birmingham.
Which is it?
Posted by: Quinn | June 02, 2008 at 09:02 AM
You honestly think that if a kid living in Bristol didn't go to school, never visited a hospital, had no central heating or running water in the house, didn't have any modern clothes... that they wouldn't be taken by social services? I don't think people can combine relative definitions of child cruelty *and* support state intervention (otherwise it's pure xenophobia/snobbery).
You are keen to pin me down on my own personal opinions (which is irrelevant to the discussion) but as you well know, I am a liberal and an individualist (option B) rather than a collectivist (A). However, I fully regocnise the unpleasantness of this position. *If* I was aware of a child in genuine danger then I might abandon my liberal inclinations but in doing so would be faced with a dilemma - either do so on no reasoned basis (i.e just because it "feels" the right thing to do), or do so because individualism is inadequate and collectivism is a more human system (in which case I should also support intervention in Brazil)
I'm not convinced that the two cases are substantively different. It sounds more like our mutual repulsion over Birmingham and our laissez faire attitude to Brazil stem from intuition rather than reasoned belief.
Posted by: aje | June 02, 2008 at 12:33 PM
I don't think the individualist/collectivist distinction is particularly helpful in this instance, since some 'collectivists' might say that the family unit takes precedence and that parents know what is best for their children, while some 'individualists' might say that everybody (including children) deserves protection from abuse. I do believe the latter but I'm not sure that makes me an individualist in the sense you believe in.
It seems to me there are good grounds to say that the Brazil case is not as clear cut. Seizing children from that village could endanger their health as well as that of the other villagers by exposing them to diseases they have no immunity against, and could be highly traumatic for the children as well as punishing people (their parents) who have done no wrong and committed no crime that we or they know of.
Believing that some form of 'collective provision' is helpful in many cases does not require that you also believe such provision should be enforced if necessary against the will of the recipients or their families, so this collectivist/individualist distinction is a bit of a false opposition really.
Posted by: Jim | June 02, 2008 at 02:04 PM
How can "collective provision" occur without being enforced against the will of the parents? I'm not talking about people who voluntarily give their children up for adoption because they can't cope, I'm talking about a conflict between what the parents want and what the collectivity wants.
When you say "committed no crime" this is highly culturally dependent. Let's say a family in Bristol practices FMG as part of their religious beliefs. The point is that collectivists by definition enforce their moral principles upon others. As far as I'm concerned a weakness of classical liberalism is that it must tolerate such activity. A weakness of progressive socialism is that it enforces one set of moral principles upon others.
You and Quinn both seem to be claiming a middle ground that justifies intervention in one case but not in the other. I'm asking you to spell out where that belief is coming from. With references if possible.
I don't think the Brazil case is clear cut at all, but I'm claiming that if children were raised under those conditions in the UK, social services would intervene.
this collectivist/individualist distinction is a bit of a false opposition
Perhaps, but if these concepts don't help us to decide the circumstances in which we intervene what alternative do you propose? Intuition and gut feeling?
Posted by: aje | June 02, 2008 at 02:38 PM
I'll get back to the rest of your comments later, but I have to ask - do you consider the idea of a system of laws that apply to all members of a community 'collectivist'? I mean, I can see why you would, but it does suggest that anyone who doesn't think that people should be able to pick and choose what laws apply to them is a collectivist, which casts the net wider than I had previously imagined.
Posted by: Jim | June 02, 2008 at 05:28 PM
Depends on how you're defining "laws". If it's the sort of legal system required to maintain a classically liberal state (e.g. you can't commit murder) then obviously you're not a "collectivist" for demanding that a particular murderer is bound by the law. But if we're using "laws" to things like "ban on smoking on public places", then yes, if someone might want the right to choose not to subscribe to that particular rule an individualist would let them whilst a collectivist would use state force to intervene.
Not sure if that's shed any light on things, but I'm not saying that collectivism = socially responsible. Individualists can have deep sense of communitarianism but on a purely voluntary basis.
Finally, I'm a little uncomfortable about Quinn and yourself trying to pin down what I think. Why does that matter? This post is a confession that I don't understand this issue (from the perspective of a collectivist) and an appeal for enlightenment. My opinion is irrelevant. (Unless you just want to point score by getting me to admit that the political philosophy I subscribe to would tolerate FGM, which I've freely admitted)
Posted by: aje | June 02, 2008 at 06:31 PM
Sorry if I wasn't clear - I was referring to 'collective provision' of public services etc in the wider sense, to highlight the fact that we can believe some service to be welfare enhancing without believing that people should be forced to avail of it. In other words, aspects of what you call 'collectivism' can be motivated by a welfare criterion at the same time as it is implemented in a voluntary or individualism-friendly fashion (leaving aside compulsory taxation).
Taking children away from parents is obviously different - firstly it's not done with parental consent, but more importantly it can be justified for me when the actions of parents violate not just a welfare criterion but also the rights of the individual child. In other words, rules you might see as 'collectivist' are often motivated by the desire to protect the individual. The various things we require of parents - that they do not abuse their children, deliberately expose them to harm at the hands of others, and that they allow them to be educated - are there because we think the children would choose them themselves if they could. No dout this is problematic in some ways, stemming from the fact that humans are not born as fully functioning adults, so various decisions have to be taken for them, which means they have negative rights (the right to be protected from abuse) but fewer positive rights (the right to drive, etc). I don't agree that this should necessarily be called 'individualism' when parents do it and 'collectivism' when states do it.
So where do the Amazon jungle-dwellers fit in? As I said, I'm not sure that taking the children away would necessarily enhance their welfare, and while their right to education may well be harmed through ignorance of the alternatives it's not clear to that the responsibility to do something about this outweighs the right of these people to live in peace as long as they don't deliberately harm others.
If this was happening in Bristol as per your example I think it would be more clear-cut: the parents would be knowingly depriving their children and we would have a clearer idea of the welfare consequences of the intervention. I don't think that's relativism - it's applying similar principles (more than one, importantly) to quite different situations and getting different results.
Finally, I'm still not clear on your distinction between 'collectivist' laws and the good sort. By seeking to out-law murder aren't you 'enforcing your moral principles on others'?
PS I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with the middle of the road, or that deriding people for being insufficiently fanatical is a very clever rhetorical strategy.
Posted by: Jim | June 02, 2008 at 08:24 PM
so various decisions have to be taken for them
If there's a conflict between what the state thinks should happen and what the parent thinks should happen then advocating the former is collectivism/socialism and the latter is individualism/classical liberalism. I shouldn't have used the term "individualism" originally.
I'm not sure that taking the children away would necessarily enhance their welfare
If this was happening in Bristol as per your example I think it would be more clear-cut: the parents would be knowingly depriving their children
I don't follow this. Either a child has a right to primary education, healthcare etc of they don't. To say otherwise strikes me as either being xenophobic (British children have greater rights than Brazilian ones) or elitist (they're "natives" and don't know what they're doing).
Regardless of whether the parents are "aware" of universal primary education, *we* are, and must decide whether that is a universal right or not. To argue that there's a cultural conflict and that we shouldn't impose "our" concept of rights on groups who are ignorant of that concept (and perhaps wouldn't subscribe to it anyway) is the classically liberal position.
It strikes me that your argument for not intervening in Brazil is classically liberal. But you're a socialist when it comes to Birmingham. There's a problem there right? Can you either explain why my characterization is incorrect or accept that you're beliefs are irrational.
By seeking to out-law murder aren't you 'enforcing your moral principles on others'?
I just view murder as a rights violation, whereas most of what I'd put into the category of "people should be able to pick and chose" as not involving genuine rights.
I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with the middle of the road, or that deriding people for being insufficiently fanatical is a very clever rhetorical strategy.
I'm not arguing against being middle of the road, I'm asking whether people's positions are based on reason or on intuition. It's not "fanatical" to subscribe to a coherent political philosophy due to reasoned consideration - it might be extreme, but it's not fanatical. And again, this post is me confessing to ignorance on a particular issue. My rhetorical strategy is to issue a challenge by posing a simple question. If that offends I apologise.
Posted by: aje | June 02, 2008 at 09:13 PM
AJE, I'm happy for Jim to pick up the baton here as he writes far better than I do, but I will just go back to where you say
"You honestly think that if a kid living in Bristol didn't go to school, never visited a hospital, had no central heating or running water in the house, didn't have any modern clothes... that they wouldn't be taken by social services?"
That could easily describe the children of travellers in the UK, and they are not routinely taken into care simply because of the above. The only thing on that list that I would immediately be concerned about would be the lack of running water for hygiene reasons, but there are simple solutions there that fall short of taking a child into care.
As for
"Finally, I'm a little uncomfortable about Quinn and yourself trying to pin down what I think. Why does that matter? This post is a confession that I don't understand this issue (from the perspective of a collectivist) and an appeal for enlightenment. My opinion is irrelevant."
Your post doesn't read like a confession, more a straight criticism of a view you feel is inconsistent. If you are accusing others of inconsistency then it seems only fair for the consistency of you own views to be challenged. Also, I was puzzled as to how you could apparently feel there was no role for social services in the Birmingham case you linked to, and I was curious about how you could defend such a position. I certainly wasn't trying to point score; I will freely admit that my opinions can be inconsistent and hypocritical. It comes with the territory of being human I reckon.
Posted by: Quinn | June 02, 2008 at 09:22 PM
That could easily describe the children of travellers in the UK, and they are not routinely taken into care simply because of the above.
Good point, but that just moves the question to whether the children of travellers *should* be taken into care. Again, either outline the grounds on which you don't think they are suffering from child cruelty, or acknowledge your support for the classically liberal position and thus the inconsistency.
a straight criticism of a view you feel is inconsistent. If you are accusing others of inconsistency then it seems only fair for the consistency of you own views to be challenged
In the original post I was asking for those who don't feel they're being inconsistent to demonstrate why. If you fully acknowledge the inconsistency of your personal position then you're like me.
I certainly wasn't trying to point score; I will freely admit that my opinions can be inconsistent and hypocritical. It comes with the territory of being human I reckon.
It's human to suffer from imperfect capacities to reason but the question is whether you throw your hands up in the air and say "let's take children from their families on an ad hoc basis" or whether the acknowledgment of human limitations is the spur to try to understand the issue at hand.
Given that we're both inconsistent and hypocritical wouldn't you also be interested in discovering a coherent framework that makes sense of this important issue? You're entitled not to, but I think it's a little rich to chide me for asking a pretty simple question.
Or, I'm quite happy to rephrase the question, "Should social services have different criteria for judging whether a child is suffering from neglect, dependent upon the religious and cultural choices of the parents? And if so, what is that criteria?"
For me, there's two possible answers. (a) we take into account conflicting customs and refuse to supersede the rights of the parents (the classical liberal position). (b) we say that there is some basic rights that children possess irrespective of their parents and the state has an obligation to enforce them (the socialist position).
If there is a middle ground that plumps for a in some cases and b in others, then as Jim points out my distinction isn't helpful so what's the alternative?
If you're a consistent classical liberal than you accept the potential for Type II errors, such as what occurred in Birmingham
If you're a consistent socialist then you accept the potential for Type I errors, and my challenge is to outline why "basic rights" you'd support that doesn't apply to Brazil or travellers.
Posted by: aje | June 03, 2008 at 11:30 AM
I wasn’t chiding you, I was seeking to understand you position. Your original post was very brief, appeared to be rhetorical, and sought to accuse those who supported state action in the UK but not in Brazil of inconsistency. Implicit in that, it seemed to me, was that you felt your own position was consistent, or else you wouldn’t feel the need to ask others to explain their own reasoning. As I was pretty sure you wouldn’t support an intervention in Brazil, that suggested you didn’t feel there should have been an intervention in Birmingham to prevent a child from starving to death. I thought this odd, which is why I questioned you on it; if you are now admitting that your feelings on the matter are inconsistent then fine, but there is no hint of such doubt (eg. you don’t ask “why do we not advocate intervention in Brazil”) in your original post.
Perhaps the decision to take child into care is an ad hoc decision; no two circumstances are exactly the same and someone has to take the decision. The only way to be entirely consistent is for all children to be taken into care or for no children to be taken into care. In Birmingham a child died as a result of neglect, and that suggests to me a role for the state to intervene if possible; in Brazil, on the limited information I have to hand there are no such concerns, and so I don’t support action. For a matter such as education it is more nuanced for sure; I would personally support travellers, or people who live in communes, or self-sufficient tribes in Brazil, a great degree of flexibility with regards educating their own children if their parents’ intention is for them to grow up in an alternative environment to the mainstream. That is not the same as a family who are part of what you could term “mainstream society” and who don’t allow their children to learn to read and write because they can’t be bothered, so compromising their children’s future in that mainstream society that they are part of, and where the act of not sending the children to school could be an indicator of further neglect. There are no simple answers of course; I wouldn’t allow commune dwellers carte blanche to ceremonially sacrifice their child for instance, and taking a child into care from an abusive parent is not an ideal solution by any means.
Personally I feel I am pretty consistent in my approach, but I think it is hard to be too prescriptive. I have rambled on and I know I haven’t addressed your points or satisfied you. By all means try to view things through a coherent framework, but not to the extent that you have to shoehorn your beliefs into an ill-fitting slot just so you can have the pleasure of being consistent; otherwise you could end up in a situation where you have to justify to yourself and others why it is that you like peas when you don’t like beans.
Posted by: Quinn | June 03, 2008 at 01:39 PM
I'm not imposing theoretical frameworks on anything, I'm trying to uncover the causal reasoning that *exists* independent of my efforts, as a researcher, to investigate them. I'm not trying to force fit things into boxes or justify things - we cannot help but derive out views from some form of reasoning and I'm simply trying to shed light on what that is.
In Birmingham a child died as a result of neglect, and that suggests to me a role for the state to intervene if possible; in Brazil, on the limited information I have to hand there are no such concerns, and so I don’t support action
Obviously the difference between the two is that in the former we have a dead body. The issue though is do we think it's likely that in Brazil children are suffering from what you mean by "neglect". Do you think their babies are more likely to die after birth that if they were born in a hospital? What do you think the average life expectancy is in that tribe? Is it less than if the child had access to modern healthcare, education, etc?
I would personally support travellers, or people who live in communes, or self-sufficient tribes in Brazil, a great degree of flexibility with regards educating their own children if their parents’ intention is for them to grow up in an alternative environment to the mainstream
I'm uneasy with the distinction between "mainstream" and an alternative. Would you support the right of an educated and well-intentioned parent to withdraw their child from the school system (i.e. homeschooling)?
Personally I feel I am pretty consistent in my approach, but I think it is hard to be too prescriptive.
There's little point being consistent if you can't be prescriptive!
At the risk of repeating myself (but hopefully this clarifies things), I understand the classical liberal prescription - tolerate intolerance. Don't impose moral systems on others, even at the risk of Birmingham. I *think* I understand the socialist prescription - if in doubt take care of children at risk of neglect, regardless of any "rights" parents might have to raise their children in their own way. But by any criteria of "neglect" that is used in such cases, Brazil qualifies so although it's legally and politically difficult, it would be morally right to intervene. Similarly, we have a moral duty to intervene in the case of travelers. Although the prescription might not be to send helicopters and bring them into UK foster homes, it would be to intervene and prevent them from living as an isolates, self-sufficient community.
Whilst there's an inconsistency in "my position", there's not (to my mind) an internal inconsistency in either political philosophy. There's no point me writing a post asking myself to acknowledge my own inconsistencies, since I can have that conversation with myself. If there's an asymmetry it's because I'm aware of my own position, but am ignorance of other peoples. All i'm trying to ascertain is whether socialists feel they have a coherent rationale for intervention and abide by it, or whether they have a coherent rationale but base their practical opinions on something else. In which case, what is it based on?
Posted by: aje | June 03, 2008 at 03:02 PM
Look, I'm trying to take into account two things which as far as I can see you are then claiming to be irrelevant: the actual outcomes for the child in terms of welfare, and the laws of the society in question. I'm baffled why you think the former shouldn't matter, and as for the latter, well different systems of laws may have different cultural roots but that doesn't mean that the idea that the law in each society in question is relevant is some form of 'cultural relativism', which seems to be what you're driving at. If you want to know whether I would expect social services to act differently towards a lost Amazonian tribe if they happened to have lived all their lives in Bristol, then yes, I would, but then they wouldn't be a bloody lost Amazonian tribe would they? And this would affect the judgement of anyone dealing with the case because it would alter the welfare impacts of an intervention on the child, the culpability of the parents (which is important because it indicates their capacity to improve when their mistake is pointed out to them) and the simple tractability of the problem (can we intervene without making other things worse?).
From the point you asked the question you seem to have completely ignored the actual circumstances of the people in question, but I simply don't agree that this is as irrelevant as you think it is. You seem to want to be able to decide whether an intervention is 'morally right' whether or not it's actually a good idea (e.g. "But by any criteria of "neglect" that is used in such cases, Brazil qualifies so although it's legally and politically difficult, it would be morally right to intervene") but to me that's just incoherent. Anyone who has ever worked in or near social services (or read Anna Karenina) knows that every case of troubled families is different and the individual circumstances in question have a very important bearing on what is the 'right' outcome. You can still try to apply similar principles but *you will not always get the same outcomes*. It will never be as simple as you seem to want it to be.
Finally, the case of travellers is an interesting one but so much of the deprivation in those families is down to sheer discrimination, hostility and racism on the part of 'mainstream' society (e.g. kids relentlessly bullied at school until they beg to not have to go) that I'm not sure it represents a suitable test case for this kind of question.
Posted by: Jim | June 03, 2008 at 07:43 PM
the actual outcomes for the child in terms of welfare, and the laws of the society in question
I'm speculating about the underlying mental frameworks being used, and different frameworks have different notions of "welfare". I don't think we can objectively agree on welfare implications independent of whether we've addressed the issue of cultural relativism. In other words, whether you believe that defined "welfare" standards should be universally upheld, or whether "welfare" is a function of a prevailing cultural tradition, will influence the assessment.
Regarding the latter point I am using the real case to prompt a thought experiment. You're quite right to reply to the original question, "no, there's no legal basis for intervention" but then I'd simply ask, "should it be?"
You can still try to apply similar principles but *you will not always get the same outcomes*. It will never be as simple as you seem to want it to be
That's a fair point, but whilst I appreciate that there's an immense amount of judgment made by care workers and it's highly dependent on specific circumstances, there is *some* principles that apply. From my limited personal knowledge there are situations that would prompt such judgment. But again that just shifts the question - I accept social services don't have enough evidence yet to declare that these children should be taken into care, but who's advocating that an investigation be made? It's rash for me to claim that a consistent socialist would advocate immediate intervention, but there seems to be a common attitude of "leave them to it, they have a right to be left alone".
Posted by: aje | June 05, 2008 at 01:19 AM
Hello. A chess genius is a human being who focuses vast, little-understood mental gifts and labors on an ultimately trivial human enterprise. Help me! It has to find sites on the: Brochure printing on. I found only this - brochure and catalog printing. Brochure printing, these insert around the discovery center, a bridge with brochures and men existed to know content events to rear languages of ideal and newspaper foxholes. Brochure printing, it is traditionally of clash the challenge to favourite color text closed reader oddities. Waiting for a reply :eek:, Thad from Macedonia.
Posted by: Thad | February 12, 2010 at 06:38 PM