Evaluating Parental Power: An Exercise in Pluralist Political Theory PDF
Preview Evaluating Parental Power: An Exercise in Pluralist Political Theory
Evaluating parental power SOCIAL AND POLITICAL POWER Series editor: Mark Haugaard Power is one of the most fundamental concepts in social science. Yet, despite the undisputed centrality of power to social and political life, few have agreed on exactly what it is or how it manifests itself. Social and Political Power is a book series which provides a forum for this absolutely central, and much debated, social phenomenon. The series is theoretical, in both a social scientific and normative sense, yet also empirical in its orientation. Theoretically it is oriented towards the Anglo-American tradition, including Dahl and Lukes, as well as to the Continental perspectives, influenced either by Foucault and Bourdieu, or by Arendt and the Frankfurt School. Empirically, the series pro- vides an intellectual forum for power research from the disciplines of sociology, political science and the other social sciences, and also for policy-oriented analysis. Already published Power, luck and freedom: Collected essays Keith Dowding Neoliberal power and public management reforms Peter Triantafillou Evaluating parental power An exercise in pluralist political theory Allyn Fives Manchester University Press Copyright © Allyn Fives 2017 The right of Allyn Fives to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Published by Manchester University Press Altrincham Street, Manchester M1 7JA www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data applied for ISBN 978 1 7849 9432 7 hardback First published 2017 The publisher has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for any external or third-party internet websites referred to in this book, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. Typeset by Servis Filmsetting Ltd, Stockport, Cheshire For Anne Marie and Joanna Contents List of tables viii Series editor’s foreword ix Acknowledgements xiii Introduction: philosophy, power, and parents 1 Part I: Paternalism and its limits 9 1 Paternalism 11 2 Caretaker or liberator? 33 Part II: Conceptual and methodological issues 53 3 Moral dilemmas 55 4 Children’s agency 81 5 Parental power 98 6 Normative legitimacy 124 Part III: The moral legitimacy of parental power 145 7 Legitimacy in the political domain and in the family 147 8 Licensing, monitoring, and training parents 176 9 Children and the provision of informed consent 197 10 Sharing lives, shaping values, and voluntary civic education 222 Conclusion 243 References 249 Index 263 Tables 1.1 Two definitions of paternalism 16 1.2 The necessary and possible qualities of an agent 25 2.1 Whether receipt of care can conflict with a right to liberty 43 4.1 Four parenting styles 83 5.1 Glossary of power concepts 112 5.2 The forms of power 113 8.1 Hypothetical predictive instrument with high sensitivity/ specificity and 1 per cent prevalence of child abuse in 1,000 families 179 9.1 Legally relevant criteria for decision making capacity and approaches to assessment of the patient 204 Series editor’s foreword Bertrand Russell once argued that power is to social science what energy is to physics (Russell 1938: 10). While power is one of the most impor- tant concepts in the social sciences, it is also one of the most complex and elusive to research. Weber’s analysis of power and authority (1947 and 1978) is one of the first social scientific discussions of power and it influenced the US power debates, which developed post-Second World War. In these debates Dahl’s careful analysis stands out for its clarity in providing us with a conceptual vocabulary of power (Dahl 1957 and 1968). This includes an agency- based, exercise and decision-making definition of power; conceptualized in terms of powerful actors (A) making subordinates (B) do something that they would not otherwise do. This exercise of power is distinct from resources (that may or may not be exercised) and it provides power-holders with power of specific scope. However, while providing a new set of con- ceptual tools to analyse about power relations, Dahl’s work was subject to sustained critique from Bachrach and Baratz and others, who argued that power is also exercised through structural biases that are not necessarily reducible to overt decision-making (Bachrach and Baratz 1962). Lukes followed this critique with his theorization of the third-dimension of power (Lukes 1974), which concerns the mobilization of belief and ideology to legitimize power relations of domination. The three-dimensional model was applied in a richly textured empirical study of Appalachian mining communities (Gaventa 1982). Overall, as the three-dimensional power debates develop, the focus shifts from actions of the dominating actor A to the counter-intuitive and fascinating phenomenon that subordinate actors B often appear to actively acquiesce or participate in their own domination. In a qualified critique of Lukes, Scott argued that appearances are often deceptive (Scott 1990). The relationship between public and private dis- course renders the working of three-dimensional power more complex
The list of books you might like
