Formulations of children＇s rights rest on assumptions about the nature of childhood yet conceptions of childhood are not stable across time and space. Such conceptions can be understood as placing different emphases ...Formulations of children＇s rights rest on assumptions about the nature of childhood yet conceptions of childhood are not stable across time and space. Such conceptions can be understood as placing different emphases among three different factors： the child as subservient to parents and ancestors （Child 1）, as a young person requiring special protection and having characteristics distinct from adults （Child 2） and as a novice （Child 3）. Different social arrangements place relatively different emphases on these three factors in their overall conceptions of childhood. Adopting the distinction between Will and Interest rights （Archard 2002）, the paper considers how an emphasis on Child 1, 2 or 3 presupposes and demands a distinctive consideration of children＇s rights. The argument concludes with a reflection on how children＇s rights might be construed if the nature of adulthood is problematised alongside that of childhood. In this case, capabilities （as means to enable functionings） may prove a more fruitful concept than rights （as actual or possible existential conditions）.展开更多
文摘Formulations of children＇s rights rest on assumptions about the nature of childhood yet conceptions of childhood are not stable across time and space. Such conceptions can be understood as placing different emphases among three different factors： the child as subservient to parents and ancestors （Child 1）, as a young person requiring special protection and having characteristics distinct from adults （Child 2） and as a novice （Child 3）. Different social arrangements place relatively different emphases on these three factors in their overall conceptions of childhood. Adopting the distinction between Will and Interest rights （Archard 2002）, the paper considers how an emphasis on Child 1, 2 or 3 presupposes and demands a distinctive consideration of children＇s rights. The argument concludes with a reflection on how children＇s rights might be construed if the nature of adulthood is problematised alongside that of childhood. In this case, capabilities （as means to enable functionings） may prove a more fruitful concept than rights （as actual or possible existential conditions）.
