Cult of the Child at 3:00 PM

My freshman year professor either coined or brought my attention to the idea he called "The Cult of the Child." It's probably not the most popular idea and runs directly against the values most hold, and possibly for these two reasons deserves some honest consideration. The most popular opinions deserve the most criticism and scrutiny.

In American society the child holds an almost sacred place; a position not all societies bestow on children. When a child dies or is killed there is an even greater sense of loss. So much potential and possibilities unable to be realized. An innocence stolen from the world. The memorial in Oklahoma city has a special area dedicated to the children killed there.

When viewed however from a rational, unemotional point of view this value is entirely misplaced. What is lost when a child dies? Possibilities and future actions of that individual. Other than that, society isn't out much. Children are a renewable resource that take less than a year to mature from conception. Their place above adults seems backward. An adult takes at least 21 years to mature, from a legal definition, and large amounts of funds to bring up before they are independent. In addition, adult hold positions and functions in society that require training even of the most remedial type. Even the most basic skills to function in society require years of learning. I don't wish to argue that children have no purpose or function, but rather that their value and role is more easily replaced or filled.

Think of all the social and structural networks an adult takes part in. The jobs and roles they must fulfill daily. Greatly outnumbering those of a child.

One pointed out that the fact I'm young and have no children of my own makes my observation and opinion irrelevant and that I couldn't possibly know the value of a child or how much pain losing one would cause. Both these arguments don't change the validity of my observation. Correct I don't have children. This fact however allows for a more unbiased opinion. A parent thinks of a child as part of them and often values them more than their self. I value my right arm rather highly and exponentially more than others value MY right arm. This fact however doesn't mean that society would be harmed greatly by the loss of my right arm. The second argument put forth by this statement confuses pain, suffering, and a sense of loss with societal value. While these can harm society, an individual's pain often does not have far reaching implications.

As stated above, what is lost is possibilities when a child dies. "What if the little girl grew up to cure cancer?" This argument assumes the validity of fate or destiny. Only through these explanations could one assume only one individual in all time could achieve a certain goal or purpose.

I am not proposing that children aren't valuable or necessary. They hold important structural and emotional positions in the health of a society. While gifts, the almost holy status they enjoy in our society needs to be questioned. What values have lead to this current state and what in America's history and ideals places the value of a child over the life of an adult? Is it simply that they have not lived a "full" life or been able to experience as much as an adult? Are we prepared to evaluate a life based on experience and live with the implications of such criteria?