Worse, it’s a relatively minor manifestation of the broader notion that the child has a fundamentally lower status in the family just for being a child, that they deserve less weight in the family’s utility function.
Are you sure those two are the same ?
In Chinese traditional culture, children are explicitely of lower status (they need to be respectful and obedient etc.), yet families will make great sacrifices to be able to afford a good education for the kids. So it’s possible to be both at low status and have a big share in the “utility function”.
I don’t see what’s wrong in itself with children having lower status—that seems to be the way humans have always worked (seems nearly hard-wired!). Sure, there are ways to abuse that power difference, but that’s another issue.
I think part of the problem is that the term “low status” is too laden with multiple meanings. Having low status might mean that you need to obey your superiors, OR it might mean your superiors consider you expendable, OR it might mean both.
I’m not very familiar with Chinese culture, but I could imagine a situation that fits your description but where children aren’t actually of a lower status in the sense implied in the original post. If children are highly valued and their parents sacrifice a lot for them, then it makes sense to assume that children are expected to be respectful and obedient in return. If somebody’s making a lot of sacrifices for you, then it’s only proper that you show them respect for it and aren’t too bothersome. That can be read to mean that you’re of a roughly equal status, as you are participating in a fair exchange—be respectful and obedient, and the others will benefit you in return.
Indeed, I had a problem with the fact that he meaning of “low status” is fuzzy (partly because we rarely speak of such things openly). Your phrasing clears things up, thanks.
I’d say that there are many kinds of relationships between people (employee, customer, parent, friend, lover, co-worker, …), and we are hard-wired to pay attention to how the relationship reflects on the relative status of those involved.
But the relationships where one side seems “fundamentally worth less” than the other are just a subset of status relationships. So the idea that “considering children as lower-status implies that they are fundamentally woth less” looks wrong to me.
It is true that there are some people who both believe that their kids are and should be fundamentally below them in the pecking order while at the same time would make major sacrifices and even die for them. But I don’t think this changes the basic point of the post.
Are you sure those two are the same ?
In Chinese traditional culture, children are explicitely of lower status (they need to be respectful and obedient etc.), yet families will make great sacrifices to be able to afford a good education for the kids. So it’s possible to be both at low status and have a big share in the “utility function”.
I don’t see what’s wrong in itself with children having lower status—that seems to be the way humans have always worked (seems nearly hard-wired!). Sure, there are ways to abuse that power difference, but that’s another issue.
I think part of the problem is that the term “low status” is too laden with multiple meanings. Having low status might mean that you need to obey your superiors, OR it might mean your superiors consider you expendable, OR it might mean both.
I’m not very familiar with Chinese culture, but I could imagine a situation that fits your description but where children aren’t actually of a lower status in the sense implied in the original post. If children are highly valued and their parents sacrifice a lot for them, then it makes sense to assume that children are expected to be respectful and obedient in return. If somebody’s making a lot of sacrifices for you, then it’s only proper that you show them respect for it and aren’t too bothersome. That can be read to mean that you’re of a roughly equal status, as you are participating in a fair exchange—be respectful and obedient, and the others will benefit you in return.
Indeed, I had a problem with the fact that he meaning of “low status” is fuzzy (partly because we rarely speak of such things openly). Your phrasing clears things up, thanks.
I’d say that there are many kinds of relationships between people (employee, customer, parent, friend, lover, co-worker, …), and we are hard-wired to pay attention to how the relationship reflects on the relative status of those involved.
But the relationships where one side seems “fundamentally worth less” than the other are just a subset of status relationships. So the idea that “considering children as lower-status implies that they are fundamentally woth less” looks wrong to me.
Relevant in the Chinese context: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Emperor_Syndrome
It is true that there are some people who both believe that their kids are and should be fundamentally below them in the pecking order while at the same time would make major sacrifices and even die for them. But I don’t think this changes the basic point of the post.