At the Horizons of the Subject: Neo-liberalism, neo-conservatism and the rights of the child Part Two: Parent, caregiver, state

Abstract

This paper is the second of two that examine the paradoxical relationship of the child to the liberal notion of the subject. Together they explore the range of contexts in which children's relationship to parents and other caregivers raise questions about the nature of the subject qua individual, and highlight the potential for a ventriloquist discourse around the child in which political projects are mobilized by neo-liberal and neoconservative groups that purport to speak for the child. The first paper examined the emergence of two contradictory images: the 'knowing' fetal subject and the confused child; the second paper explores particular forms of presencing and absencing of the child in relation to parental rights and questions of social entitlements. Both papers speak to the contorted somatography and topography of the child-as-subject that is emerging at an historical juncture when children's rights are being mobilized to undermine the gains made by a range of heterodox subjects. They point to the limits of liberal constructions of the subject in struggles for emancipation.

‘Change4Life for your kids’: embodied collectives and public health pedagogy

“…It is valorised, but treated as a given but previously overlooked attribute of children.' In a similar vein, Ruddick (2006;2007a;2007b) has argued that simply asserting children's agency without questioning the model of subjecthood to which 'agency' is attributed has led to an increasing responsibilisation of children within contemporary policy. Moreover, Ruddick (2007a;2007b) goes on to argue that failing to question the notion of agency/subjecthood within which children are being fitted, leaves a situation whereby women's and children's rights are antagonistically positioned.…”

“…In a similar vein, Ruddick (2006;2007a;2007b) has argued that simply asserting children's agency without questioning the model of subjecthood to which 'agency' is attributed has led to an increasing responsibilisation of children within contemporary policy. Moreover, Ruddick (2007a;2007b) goes on to argue that failing to question the notion of agency/subjecthood within which children are being fitted, leaves a situation whereby women's and children's rights are antagonistically positioned. Here, she states that the unacknowledged problematic relation of the child to a neoliberal (bounded, individual) concept of the subject allows a ventriloquist politics whereby the 'rights' of the child are used by those who claim to speak on behalf of the child to 'undercut the rights of children themselves and a range of 'unruly subjects'; and to reestablish neo-conservative, patriarchial and neo-liberal boundaries of the subject ' (2007a, 514).…”

“…Also clearly evident here is that the child-parent relationship surrounding food is positioned antagonistically, a battle laden with guilt and blame. As Ruddick (2007aRuddick ( , 2007b explains, the persistence of a neoliberal independent, bounded subjecthood allows the child-caregiver relation to be constructed in this way, preventing recognition of the inter-subjectivity of these relations.…”

“…To counter this, it has been suggested that a relational approach offers an alternative way to challenge the conceptualisation of children as partial/non-subjects, by questioning the notion of a bounded, independent embodied-subject for all adults and children. The consequence of such a call has been explorations of the lived dynamics of age by centring relational concepts such as intergenerationality and intersectionality (Hopkins and Pain, 2007;Vanderbeck, 2007), intersubjectivity and intercorporeality (Ruddick, 2007a;2007b;Hörschelmann and Colls, 2009). This includes research on collective responsibilities for children's food consumption (Colls and Evans B, 2008) and the dynamic relations of care within families (Robson 2000, Evans R 2005, Evans R and Becker 2009, Holloway 1998.…”

Searching for safe space: the absent presence of childhood sexual abuse in human geography

“…Starting with the work of Lindberg and Distal (1985), Jehu et al (1988) and Finkelhor (1988), the literature has developed to include survivor accounts (Malone et al 1996) In the past twenty years her call has been partially answered, with a few geographical studies touching on the role CSA plays in discourses of power. Most recently this has focused on the enrolment of CSA in socially conservative, far right discourses about the dangerous, potentially-paedophile other (Ruddick 2007b;Caluya 2011;Cooper 2011;Ghertner 2011;Howlett et al 2011;Howitt et al 2012) and in the control of the spaces of sex work (Hubbard 2005;Hubbard and Whowell 2008;Mai 2013;Yea, 2013). It is also present in studies that examine the silencing of those who protect children from harm, including sexual abuse (Ruddick 2007a).…”