The Family, Civil Society, and the State

It is nearly universally recognized that families make two indispensable contributions to society. First, they propagate the species, and second, they are the primary socializing agents for children. When families fail in either of these tasks, civilization itself is imperiled. I will leave discussion of how families propagate the species to others. My remarks today will address how families socialize children and why the state is a poor substitute for the family.

The Socialization Process

Socialization is the process whereby an individual acquires the behaviors, attitudes, values, and customs regarded as desirable and appropriate by society. For proper socialization to occur, children must develop the capacity to delay or inhibit impulse gratification. Children must learn, for example, not to strike out at others to get what they want; to listen to and obey the directions of legitimate authority figures, such as parents and teachers; and to cooperate and share with others.

Much of what is described as good character or virtue reflects this ability to delay or inhibit impulse gratification. When, for example, you tell the truth despite the near certainty that in doing so you will experience negative consequences, you are inhibiting the impulse to lie to avoid unpleasantness. When you show charity to others, you are inhibiting the impulse to behave selfishly. When you abstain from sexual intercourse outside of marriage, you are inhibiting the impulse to obtain sexual gratification. In sum, good character reflects a well-socialized individual, and a well-socialized individual is able to inhibit or delay impulse gratification.

A civil society is totally dependent upon most of its adult citizenry having developed this capacity to self-regulate impulse gratification. Absent a significant majority of such well-socialized adults, storekeepers would have to post armed guards in front of every display counter, every woman would live in constant fear of being raped by roaming bands of marauding men, and children would be left to fend for themselves or be exploited for the gratification of their parents.

Fortunately, well-socialized children generally become well-socialized adults. Unfortunately, under-socialized children frequently do not. There are few statements one can say with certainty, but here is one: When families fail to socialize their children, civil society is not possible. Herein lies the awesome responsibility of parenting.

The Importance of Parenting

Parents socialize children through two mechanisms. First, children are told how they should behave, and then reinforced for following the rules and punished for disobedience to the rules. Second, children learn by observing others.

Of the two processes, observing others is by far the more important. Indeed, most complex human behavior is acquired not through direct instruction, but through observation of others. The fact is, and as a parent I sometimes wish this weren't so, children are much more likely to do as a parent does rather than as a parent says. The best sermon is, indeed, a good example.

For proper socialization to occur, children also need long-term, consistent, reciprocal interactions with at least one reliable and nurturing adult. In part, that's because children are much more likely to model their own behavior after the behavior of adults with whom they have warm, close, and nurturing relationships.

But for children to develop well, they also need to know that day in, day out, there is someone upon whom they can rely, in both good times and bad. Simply put, children need to know that there are people in this world who care enough about them that they will put their interests above their own. As the noted child psychologist Urie Bronfenbrenner has written:

In order to develop intellectually, emotionally, socially, and morally a child requires participation in progressively more complex reciprocal activity, on a regular basis over an extended period in the child's life, with one or more persons with whom the child develops a strong, mutual, irrational emotional attachment and who is committed to the child's well-being and development, preferably for life.1

Or, as Dr. Bronfenbrenner has more colloquially put it, what is needed is "someone who is crazy about that kid."

Who is most likely to have such an irrational emotional attachment to a child Clearly, the answer is a parent; not a teacher, or a child care provider, or a social worker, but a parent. This is not to denigrate the important work done by teachers, child care providers, and social workers, but rather to acknowledge an important reality: Only parents can reasonably be expected to put the interests of their children above their own to be "crazy about that kid."

Notice that I did not assert that the state, or in today's euphemism the "village," is most likely to put the interests of children above its own. I said parents. As the bipartisan National Commission on Children noted in it's final report:

The family is and should remain society's primary institution for bringing children into the world and for supporting their growth and development throughout childhood... Parents are the world's greatest experts on their own children. They are their children's first and most important caregivers, teachers, and providers. Parents are irreplaceable, and they should be respected and applauded by all parts of society for the work they do.2

Unfortunately, for much of the 20th century, this has not been the working assumption of government in the United States, and increasingly of governments throughout the world. As early as 1901, the Indiana State Supreme Court in the U.S., in a ruling upholding the state's compulsory education law, stated,

"The natural rights of a parent to the custody and control of his children are subordinate to the power of the state.3"

By 1960, one social worker, writing in the prestigious trade journal Child Welfare, noted that "daycare can offer something valuable to children because [italics added] they are separated from their parents.4" Even more recently, former Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley summed up this belief in the superiority of the state with chilling succinctness when he said, "we take them as early as we can get them in elementary school and keep them in that school setting, that formalized training and motivational setting, away from their parents." The message is clear: Government good; parents bad. The more we, the state, have our hands on your children, the better off your children will be.

The Dangers of an Intrusive State

Today, far too many take for granted that the state should have great authority over the upbringing of children believing that the state is in the best position to ensure the well-being of children. From school-based condom distribution programs to policies allowing children access to abortion without parental consent, government has been operating under the assumption that what children primarily need is to be protected from their parents.

The damage that such policies do is that they communicate to children that the very people they count on most in this world their parents can not actually be trusted to act in their best interests. In essence, the state is saying to children, "do not trust your parents we don't." What has been the result of the state's intrusion into family life? The family today is in crisis more profound than at any time in recorded history. Birth rates are declining to below replacement levels. Divorce rates have skyrocketed. Ever increasing numbers of children are being born out-of-wedlock. And much of the world's population is retreating from family life, with an emphasis on responsibility and obligation toward others, toward individualism and crass consumerism.

Ironically, the biggest victims of the state's intrusion into family life on behalf of the children have been children themselves. Over the past several decades, childhood rates of abuse and neglect, emotional and behavioral problems, drug and alcohol abuse, sexually transmitted diseases, and adolescent pregnancies have all soared. Today in the United States, on nearly every measure of child well-being one can imagine, things are worse for children than they were just forty years ago.

Some cynically point to the declining well-being of children as the rationale for further state intervention into family life. But there is very little evidence that further abdication of authority over children to the state will enhance the well-being of children. Rather, what is needed is a return of authority for child rearing back into the hands of parents. In everything it does, government must assume that it is parents, and not agents of the state, who are in the best position to raise children well, precisely because they are the ones most likely to put the welfare of their children above their own to be "crazy about that kid."

This does not mean that all parents will always put their children's interests above their own. Some parents, often under the influence of drugs or alcohol, even physically or sexually abuse their children. In such cases, the state can, and must, intervene. But just because some parents, some time, do not put the interests of their children first, does not mean that the state should act as if no parents are likely to do so. Rather, government should always assume that because parents are generally in the best position to make decisions about the welfare of their children, they must retain maximum decision-making authority when it comes to raising their children.

Parenting as a Fundamental Right

One way to ensure that parents have maximum decision-making authority is for nations to codify in law the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. The state would then have to demonstrate a compelling interest before contravening parental authority. And parents would have the right to refuse their children's participation in state sponsored activities which they deem objectionable.

So, for example, if parents did not want their child provided with free condoms at school, they could object by asserting their fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their child. Or, if a government school implemented "values clarification" classes in which children are frequently taught there are no absolute rights or wrongs, parents could opt their children out of these classes, again by asserting their fundamental right to guide the upbringing of their children.

Children's Rights Versus Parents' Rights

Unfortunately, much of today's international debate is not focused on strengthening parental rights, but on strengthening children's rights. On the surface, much of the children's rights rhetoric seems reasonable and compassionate. All to frequently, however, children's rights advocates are far too insensitive, sometimes even downright hostile, to the rights of parents.

A case in point is the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. While some of its articles are laudatory, such as its prohibitions on child slavery and child prostitution, Articles 12 through 16 enumerate a series of high-minded-sounding children's rights which could be used to drive a wedge between parents and their children.

Article 13, for example, reads: "The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice." Incredibly, there is no limitation whatsoever on this right. Hence, if a 12-year-old child wants to view pornography on the internet, under this Article, his parents would be powerless to stop him.

Similarly, Article 15 asserts that children have a right to freedom of association. While some degree of freedom of association, under the watchful eye of caring parents, is certainly to be encouraged, what if a 13-year-old wanted to "freely associate" with known drug dealers or pimps? Given that there is no articulation of the right of parents to enforce reasonable limitations on this right, the child's parents would be powerless to stop her.

Perhaps most pernicious of all is Article 16 which asserts a child's right to be protected against "arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy." The use of the word "arbitrary" could easily be used to justify all sorts of curtailments of the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. For example, this wording could be used to void parental notification laws in cases of minors seeking abortion, or prevent parents from searching their child's room if they suspected their child was involved in drug or alcohol use, or was contemplating suicide.

The danger that the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child poses is not merely theoretical. As early as 1995, an evaluation report from the United Nations to the government of Great Britain, a signatory to the Convention, noted:

In relation to the implementation of Article 12, the Committee is concerned that insufficient attention has been given to the right to the child to express his/her opinion, including in cases where parents in England and Wales have the possibility of withdrawing their children from parts of the sex education programmes in schools. In this as in other decisions, including exclusion from school, the child is not systematically invited to express his/her opinion and those opinions may not be given due weight, as required under Article 12 of the Convention. ~

In other words, parental desires to opt their child out of government-sponsored sex education should be treated merely as an opinion, to be given equal weight with the opinion of the child. The state is elevated to the position of arbitrator between the competing opinions of parents and children, essentially infantilizing the parents. More recently, civil libertarians in Australia are using the language included in Article 15 to void teenage curfew laws enacted in response to high rates of teenage vandalism and crime.

Attempts to erode the autonomy and authority of parents do not stop at such major life decisions as whether or not to use contraception or to have an abortion. Incredibly, under Maryland state law in the U.S., if a child has his or her own library card, library staff are prohibited from divulging to parents information about their child's borrowing record, even though the parents are financially responsible for any lost books or overdue fines. The message the state of Maryland is sending to parents is clear: we the state, and not you the parent, are in the best position to determine what books your child can read. We will monitor what books your child takes out of the library; indeed, we will protect your child from any antiquated notions you might have as a parent about what books your child can read.

This is the danger of the children's rights movement. If left unchecked, there will be a gradual erosion of parental authority over children as the number of issues grows in which a child's desires outweigh parental wishes. As oversight for the behavior of children erodes to the state, parents will grow increasingly disconnected from, and hence less invested in, their children. The result: Fewer and fewer parents will be "crazy about that kid." And as parents grow increasingly disconnected from their children, it is their children who will ultimately pay the price.

Conclusion

The relationship between the state and the family has been debated since at least the time of Aristotle and Plato. It was Aristotle's contention that since the state is made up of a collection of pre-existing households, the family must take precedence over the state. Aristotle was right then, and he is right now. The critical question for those who would have it otherwise is this: If government intervention into family life works, why is it that as we have spent more and more on social programs, has almost every social pathology grown worse?

If we wish to improve the well-being of children, it is imperative that government again comes to understand the critical and preeminent role parents play in the successful rearing of children. A good start would be to restore the fundamental right of parents both mothers and fathers to direct the upbringing of their own children, for it is only by assuming that parents are the ones most likely to be committed to their children's best interests that we can best ensure children grow up both loved and encouraged to become persons of good character. Ultimately, it is also the only way we can ensure a civil and just society.

1 Urie Bronfenbrenner, "What do Families do?", Institute for American Values: New York, NY, Winter/Spring, 1991, p. 2.

2 Final Report of the National Commission on Children, Beyond Rhetoric: A New Agenda for Children and Families, National Commission on Children: Washington, D.C., 1991.

3 State of Indiana v. Bailey, 157 Indiana 324 (1901).

4 Quoted in Margaret O'Brien Steinfels, Who's Minding the Children?: The History and Politics of Day Care in America (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1973, p. 78.

5 Committee on the Rights of the Child, Eighth Session, Concluding Observations of the committee on the Rights of the Child: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, CRC/C/15/Add.34, Convention on the Rights of the Child, United Nations, February 15, 1995.