“Taking Children Seriously is not about being kinder to the inmates, it is more like seeing that they are innocent people who should no more be incarcerated than you or I.”
– Sarah Fitz-Claridge
Parents understandably in effect ask:
“Given that the old paternalistic view of children is true, what would you do differently to solve this parenting problem?”
But Taking Children Seriously is a new view of children, not merely a new ‘do’ (parenting strategy).
From a new-view perspective, the old paternalistic view assumed in the question is mistaken, and may even be itself causing or contributing to the problem.
So Taking Children Seriously answers can’t be of the form: Do this, this and this, instead of that. They have to address the difference in premises—the difference in view.
Suppose parents (understandably!) ask what a person taking children seriously would do about such-and-such a problem (i.e., one commonly encountered by conventional parents viewing children through the lens of paternalism).
If I just say what I would do differently, instead of addressing the difference in view, the parents are left with the misconception that Taking Children Seriously is just a different set of ‘do’s. And then the parents are thinking in terms of which ‘do’s to implement first, and what percentage of ‘Taking Children Seriously’ they are ‘doing’ or not ‘doing’. And Taking Children Seriously, the new view of children, is nowhere to be found in that way of thinking.
It is as if the answer to the question is not permitted to question the legitimacy of the parent’s authority and position as ruler, it may only make suggestions for how the ruler could rule more benevolently, be a little kinder. In other words, I must join in the adult conspiracy against children.
It is as though people’s conception of Taking Children Seriously is that it is about how to be kinder to the ‘inmates’, as opposed to freeing them altogether. Indeed, Taking Children Seriously is more like correcting the unexamined mistaken assumption that the ‘inmates’ are ‘criminals’ in the first place.
If the ‘inmates’ are not the ‘criminals’ everyone assumes them to be, that has different moral implications from if they are ‘criminals’. If they are ‘criminals’, then there is nothing wrong with the ‘prison warden’ and ‘officers’ thinking about how to treat the ‘inmates’ better while still keeping them ‘incarcerated’ (depriving them of liberty and their normal everyday rights as sovereign people). But if they are not actually ‘criminals’, then just thinking in terms of which of the ‘prison’ rules to relax in which order, and how to make ‘prison’ life nicer for them (a different, kinder set of ‘do’s), is not even beginning to right the wrong of their ‘incarceration’. (And incidentally, although I am using quotation marks here, it is not actually true that children are only metaphorically incarcerated, they are actually incarcerated often throughout their childhoods.)
Children are sovereign individuals whose lives are their own. They are just as entitled to the normal rights and freedoms of our culture as we are. Children have rationality and creativity just like we do. Taking Children Seriously is a new view of children, not just a kinder set of ‘do’s.
See also:
- “If children are people just like adults, why should we treat our children any differently from how we treat adults?”
- Experimental evidence
- Coercion is irrational
Sarah Fitz-Claridge, 2025, ‘Taking Children Seriously is a new VIEW of children, not merely a new “do”’, https://takingchildrenseriously.com/taking-children-seriously-is-a-new-view-of-children-not-merely-a-new-do
What is this “new view”? Why the mystery? Reaks of Strawman analogy. Do better.
I asked Claude about this blog and here’s the result.
This is a thought-provoking piece about the “Taking Children Seriously” philosophy and its fundamental challenge to conventional parenting approaches. The author makes several key points:
They argue that “Taking Children Seriously” represents a paradigm shift in how we view children, not just a different set of parenting techniques or strategies.
The author uses the metaphor of prison/inmates to illustrate how conventional parenting views children as inherently needing control and restriction, while “Taking Children Seriously” rejects this premise entirely.
They suggest that when parents ask for specific actions or tactics within the “Taking Children Seriously” framework, they’re still operating under the old paradigm that assumes parental authority and children’s subordination.
The core philosophical position appears to be that children are “sovereign individuals” with the same entitlement to rights and freedoms as adults, and with comparable rationality and creativity.
This perspective challenges deeply held cultural assumptions about the parent-child relationship and the nature of childhood itself. It’s arguing for a fundamental reconceptualization of children as equals rather than as developing beings in need of guidance and boundaries.
The prison metaphor is particularly striking, suggesting that conventional parenting literally “incarcerates” children by restricting their autonomy and decision-making power.
This philosophy raises important questions about balancing respect for children’s autonomy with the reality of their developing capabilities and need for protection. It also challenges us to examine whether our parenting approaches are based on genuine needs or merely unexamined cultural assumptions about authority.
FTR, I would never use the word “literally” when I mean “figuratively/metaphorically/not literally”! I meant that children are not merely figuratively incarcerated/detained against their will, but literally. Most parents ground their children and prevent them from leaving home. They lock them in their rooms for time outs. They stop them going out to play with their friends until they have done their homework, using force or the threat of punishment to force compliance. And then there is school. I myself was once caught trying to sneak out of school during the school day, and the Head of Year teacher dragged me by the ear back into the school and into his office, where he detained me against my will for the rest of the afternoon. I meant literally, not just metaphorically.