Childhood as Serfdom
An analysis
(Or: I'm on my soapbox, enjoy/suffer the consequences)
I was gonna write a funny post about how being a child is kinda like being a medieval serf, but then I thought about it longer and actually it's not funny. So, be prepared.
People have a lot of resistance to the idea that children, legally and societally, are serfs. There is a visceral unwillingness to put together and see what the whole of laws and customs concerning minor persons actually amounts to, and I actually think that unwillingness is at the root of what makes so much "think of the children/protect the children" right wing rhetoric so effective.
In English, the word "serf" mostly brings to mind medieval peasants, but in Dutch it touches a little more on what it actually is. Lijfeigene, literally translated, "body-owned-one". A serf is not the same as a slave -he is not considered a tradeable good or personal possession, and cannot be murdered or raped with impunity. He can have property and this property is protected by the same laws that protect the possessions of free people. But similarly to a slave, a serf does not have self-determination over his own body, freedom of movement, or ownership of the fruits of his own labour. He is not legally considered an individual person so much as a part of an estate, a condition we'd still commonly describe as "unfree". In the medieval system of serfdom (at least in England) a serf had to pay for a "license" from his Lord to do just about anything, from marrying to repairing a fence. So we can say that medieval serfdom was a system where fundamental freedoms were paywalled rather than fundamentally denied, as in the case of slavery. There were ways to receive permission to do things, but the necessity of receiving (and, in the medieval use case, paying for) this permission was a fundamental aspect of the system.
Now.
Let's entertain this thought. Does childhood meet the criteria of serfdom?
Well.
Children have no freedom of movement.
You perhaps wouldn't look at the permission slip to go on a school trip as something in the same vein as a medieval serf's license to visit a cousin on a neighbouring estate, yet that is exactly what it is. "Where are your parents?", local police in suburbia giving a child a ride home if they get spotted walking alone, "No unaccompanied minors", parents being sued for leaving their kids home alone, the entire concept of "familial kidnapping" and the fact that custody is a matter of legal regulation when a couple divorces. Children's lack of freedom of movement is everywhere if you care to look.
When people get annoyed at "loitering" teenagers, they are contesting children's right to be in public spaces, unaccompanied and without specific purpose or permission.
When people judge parents for their children being a nuisance, they are explicitly acknowledging that the child's movements could be curtailed and controlled by the parents -indeed, they are stating such control to be the correct course of action.
Explicitly and implicitly, our society accepts and supports children not having natural freedom of movement, and places -for better or worse- the responsibility for their movement on the parents. In this, the parents are the Lord of the estate, and the child is a serf attached to this estate. Additionally, as the entire concept of custody shows, we have in fact codified the rights of parents to continued access to any children that were part of an estate that was legally split between them in a divorce.
Children do not have right of self-determination.
Children have precious little protection to their bodily integrity. From birth, they can be circumcised, have their genitals surgically "corrected" if they look too ambiguous to the eye of parents and doctors, have their ears pierced, be baptised or initiated in a religion, have cosmetic surgery performed on them, etcetera.
I am specifically not listing life-saving medical measures here, because yes -children are different from mature adults, and especially babies have no capacity to self-determine in matters of their own survival. We will address this matter of capacity later on. For the purpose of this exercise however, it is worth pointing out all the non-life-saving, non-essential actions that would be considered highly invasive if performed on an adult, yet can be freely performed on the body of a child with zero input or consent from the child itself.
Compared to that, all the less invasive ways in which children are typically allowed little to no self-determination, from choosing their own clothes to eating when and what they want to, seem less impactful. But they add up, and you should keep them in mind.
(And even in the context of life-saving measures; there are some hotly contested legal cases of parents wanting to deny life-saving or life-improving medical intervention to their children for religious reasons, that illustrate just how important our society considers the rights of the parent over a child's body. If these rights weren't considered almost inviolable, there would be no contest between them and a person's survival.)
When we look at what things children can and cannot do legally, the underlying assumption is always that children are in a form of diminished capacity with regards to self-determination, and must therefore be protected from decisions made in this diminished capacity. Hence we have concepts like statutory rape, child labour prohibitions, and laws that protect children from, for example, signing contracts. Most people will agree that children are not adults and do not have the same capacity to make fully informed decisions for themselves. So, it makes sense that there are laws that protect them from being taken advantage of.
In the context of childhood as serfdom it is more interesting to consider the conditions under which these protections can be circumvented.
Let me elaborate:
In the US, parents can take out loans and credit cards in the name of their child -while a child cannot legally sign a contract, a parent can essentially sign for them and saddle a child with debt long before they can even comprehend what that is. In some circles it even gets recommended to take out a credit card in a child’s name and diligently keep a good credit score with it so they can have a better financial start when turning 18.
In 37 states of the US, child marriage is legal if a parental waiver is provided, and in 20 of them there is no minimum age for marriage at all under these conditions. (Look, there it is again, the serf's license!) So while legally a child cannot consent to be married or sign a valid marriage license, a parent can consent for them. For additional context here; the "statutory rape exception" that allowed underage sexual activity if the participants were married was only amended in federal law in 2022, and similar exceptions are to this day still encoded in US military law.
But…Child labour is still actually prohibited, right? Right?
Well… no. Not really.
Children in the US can be employed in non-agricultural jobs from the age of 14 with parental permission, whereas for agricultural jobs the allowed age of employment varies between states and isn't federally determined, but can be as young as 10. Additionally, minors of any age may be employed by their parents at any time in any occupation on a farm owned or operated by his or her parent(s).
There are technically laws about how many hours and in what type of labour children can be employed, yet in practice there are a lot of potential exceptions, and these laws are (unfortunately) continually under attack. Which leads to my next point…
Children do not own the fruits of their own labour
Children can own property, in the legal sense. They can "hold title", as one says, of most items (except motor vehicles in some states in the US -remember this in connection to freedom of movement!), be the beneficiary of an inheritance, and receive gifts.
However.
Holding title does not mean they have the usufruct of the property, nor that they cannot be denied access or usage of it by their parent. More importantly…
In the US, a child does not have an automatic right to their own wages. Let me share you a couple excerpts of law:
Banks v. Conant, 14 Allen 497:
Whatever therefore an infant acquires which does not come to him as a compensation for services rendered, belongs absolutely to him, and his father cannot interpose any claim to it, either as against the child, or as against third persons who claim title or possession from or under the infant.
Cyclopedia of Law and Procedure:
As a general rule any property acquired by the child in any way except by its own labor or services belongs to the child, and not to the parent
Wheeler v. R. Co., 31 Kan. 640, 3 P. 297, 300:
As a matter of law a minor may own property the same as any other person. He may obtain it by inheritance, by gift, or by purchase; and there is nothing in the law that would prevent even a father from giving property to his minor child. A father may also so emancipate his minor child as to entitle him to receive his own wages.
So…
A child can be employed, with an employment contract signed by their parents, and any wages they earn automatically belong to their parents.
That is literally what it means to be a serf.
I am not saying that all children are exploited in the manners I described above. But it is an illustration of the culture we live in, that all these types of exploitation are in fact legal.
Almost any attempt to legally protect children in their developmental condition of diminished capacity leaves loopholes for parental exemptions. The right of a parent to make decisions about a child's life, body and movement is entrenched in our society and legal system.
Which leads to… "protect the children".
What we talk about when we talk about protecting the children
Endeavours to "protect children" come in multiple shapes.
There are the initiatives to improve the legal framework that protects the rights of children - such as the Californian law that forces parents of child actors to keep the child's wages in trust rather than automatically own them, or the amendments that removed the marital exception from the statutory rape law. They can be characterized as movements to chip away at the serfdom status of children, while still respecting the fact that children are in fact a vulnerable class of people who require protection.
Then, there are initiatives that aim to protect the rights of parents over children. Lately, many of those are essentially extensions of children's current serfdom status into the plane of the immaterial. Think, laws that aim to limit children's freedom of movement in cyberspace as well as public space. Laws that dictate what information children are allowed free access to. Laws that limit children's privacy from their parents, under the guise of protecting their privacy from strangers.
This latter category will often wrap itself in a layer of fearmongery anecdotes and moral panic language in order to gain support and justify exerting additional power over children. The reason this works is that to have a meaningful defence against it, someone has to consciously acknowledge the serfdom status of children, and consider it harmful.
Now, most parents aren't actively exploiting their child's labour, racking up debt in their name, or arranging their underage marriage. But almost all parents have exerted power over their child's freedom of movement, denied them privacy, taken their possessions as punishment or simply out of convenience, and forced their will on them in a million unimportant ways where letting the child self-determine would not have had any real impact on their wellbeing or safety. Acknowledging the serfdom status of children means acknowledging all of that as a kind of authoritarian lordship rather than benevolent custody.
Clearly, people have resistance to seeing themselves as -even mildly- villainous in any story, and the urge to defend one's parenting decisions is a strong one. As such, it's easy for someone to defensively think, "This power I have over my children is good, actually. I should have more of it, for their own good." And that is, at its heart, a fascist idea.
We will never dismantle fascist rhetoric as long as we remain comfortable with categories of people who are unfree for our convenience. And that doesn't just include children -I'd posit that it actually starts with children.
(Have mercy on me, I wrote this at work. Will add sources/bibliography later.)
