In Karen Wells’ book, Childhood
in a Global Perspective, she writes that, in liberal theory, the government
has no right to intervene in the raising of children because the family is part
of the private life. Despite this popular notion, the government seems to be
trying to do just this, by intervening in the family lives of not just its
citizens, but citizens of other countries as well. This government intervention
is a very controversial concern – and a difficult topic in general, one that challenges
both my Westernized values and my optimism about the future of the world – in two
specific and overarching areas especially: the situations of working children
and street children.
I’ll begin with the topic of working children. While the
definitions of working children vary, I’m not focusing on any one type of work
(that is, I’m not emphasizing hazardous work) so I’m using the
simplified definition of a child under the age of 18 who is working. While it
is commonplace for children in Western countries to consider getting a
part-time job as they enter their teen years, it is much less common for them
to be working before the age of 12 or 13. As such, when people in these
countries hear about children even younger than this age across the globe working,
sometimes nearly all day every day, they are often outraged, or at the very
least, concerned. This outrage is the reason international conventions, such as
the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child,
often decide to step in and intervene. However, it’s often argued that these
conventions are made to reflect Western ideals. For example, according to
Western ideas, children should not be working, and if they have to be working,
it should be restricted so as to not interfere with their time for education or
play. Because of Western values, children across the globe are pulled from
their work and forced to receive an education that they believe will be useless
to their future life and career.
Moving onto street children, we see the same sort of controversy
surrounding the topic of intervention. From a Western perspective, it is a
tragedy to see children living on the streets. Children should live with their
families in warm homes; they should not sleep in subways with other children. Children should
be fed by their parents; they should not have to beg and steal and fend for
themselves. Children should spend their free time playing and working in
school; they should not fall victim to the drugs that plague the streets.
Because we have such strong ideas of how children should grow up, we often
ignore the feelings of the children themselves, and return these street
children to homes that don’t or can't care for them - not considering the possibility
that they feel much safer and happier living on the streets, not considering
the fact that these children should have the right to choose and further, the
right to freedom.
Now, I understand that the reason that the topic of
intervention in the lives of children is so controversial is because it is a
morally grey area. There is no clear right answer here, because intervention
often represents Westernized ideals and ignores the wishes of the child, but
abolishing intervention means that the many children who do need help will
never get it. As such, I propose that we stop viewing government intervention
as a black and white problem. I propose that we quit arguing about whether it
should happen. And I propose that we work towards a better form of it, one that
fights for the health and safety of the children while also fighting for what
the child wants, instead of what we decide the child needs.
In the meantime, I encourage readers to help in any way that
they can, no matter how small. Here is a website where you
can improve your knowledge while providing food to those in need!
