Children at Work

On November 3, an article out of the Acton Institute was published bearing a rather strange title: "Bring back child labor: Work is a gift our kids can handle."  Referring to an article by Jeffrey Tucker, "Let the Kids Work," the writer, Joseph Sunde, attempts to expand a theory as to why kids need to work as opposed to be lazy and ignorant.

It's those words "child labor," which are naturally grating. We think of the children at the turn of the 20th century working in factories and coal mines and God knows where else.  Conditions were deplorable for adults, let alone for children.  Although I do not think that Sunde necessarily advocates "child labor" in its historical meaning sense, it is still a very bad title.

Both Tucker and Sunde seem to acknowledge the harsh and inhuman conditions, but the acknowledgement is quickly squashed by a nostalgia for the time they haven't even lived through.  Tucker writes:

"But I also think about their inner lives. They are working in the adult world, surrounded by cool bustling things and new technology. They are on the streets, in the factories, in the mines, with adults and with peers, learning and doing. They are being valued for what they do, which is to say being valued as people. They are earning money."

It is clear from this that Tucker equates value of a human being with earning money.  How do we really know they were valued?  In what way?  Learning and doing?  Exactly what?  

Commenting on Tucker's words, Sunde writes:

"They [photographs of children laborers] also represent the faces of those who are actively building enterprises and cities, using their gifts to serve their communities, and setting the foundation of a flourishing nation, in turn."  

How can we possibly say that "gifts" of these children are being used when they haven't even developed properly, both intellectually and physically?  And who IS benefiting from their labor?  

It gets better.  Here's Tucker again:

"All those photos dig deep into the past and conjure up weird dystopian scenarios, none of which have anything to do with today. If kids were allowed to work and compulsory school attendance was abolished, the jobs of choice would be at Chick-Fil-A and WalMart. And they would be fantastic jobs too, instilling in young people a work ethic, which is the inner drive to succeed, and an awareness of attitudes that make enterprise work for all. It would give them skills and discipline that build character, and help them become part of a professional network."

First of all, kids are allowed to work.  They are free to work wherever they choose to apply.  Second of all, what professional network?  Working for Wal-Mart only sets you up for a career at another Wal-Mart.  That is the truth.   Tucker lives in another time dimension entirely because today, it is very difficult to move from one job to the next.  Employers, for the most part, expect that one gives their entire life to a mediocre job. 


Sunde briefly mentions words connected to the meaning of work, namely, "dignity, meaning, freedom, virtue, creativity, character, and neighbor love."  But they are, unfortunately just that - words devoid of meaning.  He calls for a revolution of sorts:  "Let us not just teach our children to play hard and study well, shuffling them through a long line of hobbies and electives and educational activities. A long day’s work and a load of sweat have plenty to teach as well."

I can hear the Soviet labor song right now in the distance amidst the sounds of tools.

The problem here is that both Sunde and Tucker romanticize manual labor.  The children have to know why they are doing what they are doing, even if it's yard work.  They need a bigger connection to the work itself, and reasoning.  Otherwise such an endeavor promotes collectivist and conformist psychological state. In other words, they will only learn that they should "put their nose to the grindstone" and any creativity and actual human flourishing will be outside of the realm of possibility.  They will become followers.

It also depends what kind of child we are talking about. Some children in their development do not benefit from manual labor at all, and it builds false work ethic. I agree that there needs to be a change in how children are reared, and they need some more grit.

Although I think that the intent is liberty and freedom, both Sunde and Tucker exhibit collectivist tendencies in their arguments.  Their brand of capitalism is actually very collectivist and conformist.  On one hand, they want to create a Randian universe of work, on the other hand, they are practically talking about compelling children to do manual labor.  This is a huge intellectual conflict.

Their arguments are also oddly anti-intellectual.  The truth is that every act of labor is different.  Yes, the problem with schools is leftist indoctrination.  But, to fix that, we should not just hand the kid a shovel!  

We have to be careful not to regress.  Society needs to change and certainly whiny kids need to stop whining.  The obsessive emphasis on "feelings" must stop.  But let us not go into Stone Age!  Children are children, and they should be given responsibilities according to their age.  These propositions of Tucker and Sunde are "one size fits all," and surely children are not like that. If we affirm uniqueness of each individual, then we really can't impose a cookie cutter solution to that individual's development.  There is no virtue in that.