Paternalism

Paternalism refers usually to an attitude or a policy stemming from the hierarchic pattern of a family based on patriarchy, that is, there is a figurehead (the father, pater in Latin) that makes decisions on behalf of others (the "children") for their own good, even if this is contrary to their opinions.

It is implied that the fatherly figure is wiser than and acts in the best interest of its protected figures. The term is used derogatorily to characterize attitudes or political systems that are thought to deprive individuals of freedom, only nominally serving their interests, while in fact pursuing another agenda.

Forms of Paternalism

Family

Paternalist attitudes in a family are typically used to restrain children from activities the parents perceive to be dangerous, immoral or otherwise inappropriate. These may include punishment of various sorts, such as corporal punishment, curfew, denial of food or money, obligation to carry out certain chores in the house, etc. in order to correct the behaviour of the child.(Elsworth, T aka Gio (2006)

Activities that parents may seek to restrain include suicide, drug abuse, premarital sex, theft, exposure to "bad company", refusal to eat food, etc.

Which paternalist attitudes are deemed acceptable varies greatly in different cultures. The activities that the children must avoid varies even more greatly, depending on country, region and on the single family's microculture. Deciding which activities must be restrained and how is a classical cause of disagreements among parents.

In some countries, some forms of paternalistic restraint are illegal, such as corporal punishment in Scandinavian countries.

Government

Laws that force citizens to conform to a certain set of rules, that are in name thought for their own safety, can be defined paternalistic. Some citizens feel that they can look after themselves, and that the government should not tell them what is best for them; hence the negative connotation that the word "paternalism" has in such a context.

Laws that can be perceived, to varying degrees, as paternalistic are:

Laws to make usage of seatbelts and bike helmets compulsory
Bans on gay marriage and Laws against sodomy
Anti-abortion laws
Curfews and daylight saving time
Laws banning drugs such as cannabis, or alcohol
Social welfare programs

These laws are usually passed by the lawmakers to ensure that a certain behaviour, deemed by the lawmakers to be harmful to society, is banned or reduced.

The arguments of opponents of such laws are usually about the inherent reduction in the citizens' freedom caused by such laws; the citizens should, in the view of the critics, be responsible of their own actions. However, it is possible that citizens are indeed ignorant of some danger, and a law imposing a certain conduct is beneficial to society: in many countries, seatbelts were not much used in cars until they became compulsive by law. Some critics argue that if the citizens are ignorant then they should be informed of the dangers somehow, and that if they still want to take the risk they should be allowed to do so. In other cases, such as smoking, the single citizen's conduct (smoking in public places) is negatively affecting others.

One of the most famous examples of paternalistic legislation is the era of Prohibition in the United States, when alcohol was deemed an illegal substance.

Economy

Paternalism can be found also in an economic context. A large corporation may make decisions that have large social costs—such as pollution—in the neighborhoods of its operations and worldwide. The corporation may argue that the benefits of corporate activities, including the polluting ones, will lead to net benefits for those affected, that the benefits will trickle down to others, etc.

Employers can use paternalistic arguments to justify rules and restrictions on their employees' activities. International institutions such as the International Monetary Fund are perceived by some to be paternalistic when they suggest some course of action to certain governments, even if that could lead to negative short-term consequences, suggesting it will result in long-term benefits.

Philosophical Background

Among many family-state paradigms in traditional cultures, that expressed in some Greek philosophy is particularly familiar in the West. The family as a model for the organization of the State is an idea in political philosophy that originated in the Socratic-Platonic principle of Macrocosm/microcosm, which states that lower levels of reality mirror upper levels of reality and vice versa. In particular, monarchists have argued that the state mirrors the patriarchal family, with the subjects obeying the king as children obey their father.

The family-state paradigm was often expressed as a form of justification for aristocratic rule as justified in observations of the cosmos.

Plutarch records a laconic saying of the Dorians attributed to Lycurgus. Asked why he did not establish a democracy in Lacedaemon (Sparta), Lycurgus responded, "Begin, friend, and set it up in your family". The Doric Greeks of Sparta seemed to mirror the family institution and organization in their form of government.

Aristotle argued that the schema of authority and subordination exists in the whole of nature. He gave examples such as man and animal (domestic), man and wife, slaves and children. Further, he claimed that it is found in any animal, as the relationship he believed to exist between soul and body, "which the former is by nature the ruling and the later subject factor" . Aristotle further claimed that "the government of a household is a monarchy since every house is governed by a single ruler". Later, he said that husbands exercise a republican government over their wives and monarchical government over their children, and that they exhibit political office over slaves and royal office over the family in general.

Arius Didymus in Stobaeus, 1st century A. D., wrote that "A primary kind of association (politeia) is the legal union of a man and woman for begetting children and for sharing life". From the collection of households a village is formed and from villages a city, "So just as the household yields for the city the seeds of its formation, thus it yields the constitution (politeia)". Further, he claims that "Connected with the house is a pattern of monarchy, of aristocracy and of democracy. The relationship of parents to children is monarchic, of husbands to wives aristocratic, of children to one another democratic".

Modern thinkers have taken the paradigm as a given in societies where hierarchical structures appeared natural.

Louis de Bonald wrote as if the family were a miniature state. In his analysis of the family relationships of father, mother and child, De Bonald related these to the functions of a state: the father is the power, the mother is the minister and the child as subject. As the father is "active and strong" and the child is "passive or weak", the mother is the "median term between the two extremes of this continuous proportion". Like many apologists for family-state paradigm, De Bonald justified his analysis by quoting and interpreting passages from the Bible:

"(It) calls man the reason, the head, the power of woman: Vir caput est mulieris (the man is head of the woman) says St. Paul. It calls woman the helper or minister of man: "Let us make man," says Genesis, "a helper similar to him." It calls the child a subject, since it tells it, in a thousand places, to obey its parents" .

Louis de Bonald also sees divorce as the first stage of disorder in the state (the principle of macrocosm/microcosm). He insists that the deconstitution of the family brings about the deconstitution of state, with The Kyklos not far behind .

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn draws a connection between the family and monarchy.

"Due to its inherent patriarchalism, monarchy fits organically into the ecclesiastic and familistic pattern of a Christian society. (Compare the teaching of Pope Leo XIII: 'Likewise the powers of fathers of families preseves expressly a certain image and form of the authority which is in God, from which all paternity in heaven and earth receives its name— Eph 3.15') The relationship between the King as 'father of the fatherland' and the people is one of mutual love".

George Lakoff claims that the left-right distinction in politics reflects a difference between perceived ideals of the family; for right-wing people, the ideal is a patriarchial family based upon absolute morality; for left-wing persons, the ideal is an unconditionally loving family. As a result, Lakoff argues, both sides find each others' views not only immoral, but incomprehensible, since they appear to violate each sides' deeply held beliefs about personal morality in the sphere of the family .

Opponents of Paternalism

Opponents of paternalism, such as John Stuart Mill, claim that liberty supersedes safety in terms of actions that only affect oneself. Advocates of paternalistic policies claim that an overarching moral system overrides personal freedom in some circumstances, such as a religious, ethical, or philosophical doctrine, and will argue that while it is not moral to deprive someone of their liberty in a general situation, it is correct in that specific instance.

In favour, it could be said that every state is "paternalist" to a degree. Even the state's creation and protection of individual property rights might be interpreted as "paternalistic". The descriptions of the origin of the state by Aristotle see it as an extension of the family, and this description seems a lot more realistic than the social contract analogies of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Rawls.

Libertarians are seen as generally being opponents of paternalism. Few political theorists, even Libertarians, have ever completely rejected paternalism. Robert Nozick, who is generally seen as a founding father of modern libertarianism, still talked of exceptional cases of immoral behaviour where society should intervene. John Stuart Mill said that some offensive behaviour that could take place in private should be banned in public (e.g. sexual acts). Mill also said that anyone who commits a crime whilst drunk should be banned from drinking thereafter. Schopenhauer wrote that the state should be restricted to "protecting men from each other and from external attack".

References

Plutarch: The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans, trans. by John Dryden and revised by Arthur Hugh Clough, The Modern Library (div of Random House, Inc). Bio on Lycurgus; pg 65.
Politics, Aristotle, Loeb Classical Library, Bk I, §II 8-10; 1254a 20-35; pg 19-21
Politics, Bk I, §11,21;1255b 15-20; pg 29.
Hellenistic Commentary to the New Testament, ed. By M. Eugene Boring, Klaus Berger, Carsten Colpe, Abingdon Press, Nashville, TN, l995.
Hellenistic Commentary to the New Testament, ed. By M. Eugene Boring, Klaus Berger, Carsten Colpe, Abingdon Press, Nashville, TN, l995.
On Divorce, Louis de Bonald, trans. By Nicholas Davidson, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, l993. pp 44-46.
On Divorce, Louis de Bonald, pp 88-89; 149.
Liberty or Equality, Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, pg 155.
George Lakoff, What Conservatives Know That Liberals Don't, ISBN 0226467961

External links

Paternalism, by Peter Suber. From Philosophy of Law: An Encyclopedia, edited by Christopher Berry Gray, Garland Pub. Co., 1999, vol. II, pp. 632-635.
Paternalism, by Gerald Dworkin. From The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Politics | Family

Gourt Home::Gourt :: Paternalism