Plantation owners often described the master-slave relationship in terms of paternalism
If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website. Show
If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked. For the process of promoting and supporting the development of a child, see Parenting. Paternalism is action that limits a person's or group's liberty or autonomy and is intended to promote their own good.[1] Paternalism can also imply that the behavior is against or regardless of the will of a person, or also that the behavior expresses an attitude of superiority.[2] Paternalism, paternalistic and paternalist have all been used as a pejorative for example in the context of societal and/or political realms and references.[1] Some such as John Stuart Mill think paternalism to be appropriate towards children, saying:
Paternalism towards adults is sometimes thought of as treating them as if they were children.[4] Etymology[edit]The word paternalism derives from the adjective paternal, which entered the English language in the 15th century from Old French paternel (cf. Old Occitan paternal, as in Catalan, Spanish and Portuguese), itself from Medieval Latin paternalis.[5] The classical Latin equivalent was paternus "fatherly", from pater "father".[6] Types[edit]Soft and hard[edit]Soft paternalism is the view that paternalism is justified only if an action to be committed is involuntary. John Stuart Mill gives the example of a person about to walk across a damaged bridge. One cannot tell the person the bridge is damaged as he does not speak our language. According to soft paternalism, one would be justified in forcing him to not cross the bridge so one could find out whether he knows about the damage. If he knows and wants to jump off the bridge and commit suicide then one should allow him to. Hard paternalists say that at least sometimes one is entitled to prevent him from crossing the bridge and committing suicide.[1][clarification needed] Pure and impure[edit]Pure paternalism is paternalism where the person(s) having their liberty or autonomy taken away are those being protected. Impure paternalism occurs when the class of people whose liberty or autonomy is violated by some measure is wider than the group of persons thereby protected.[1] Moral and welfare[edit]Moral paternalism is where paternalism is justified to promote the moral well-being of a person(s) even if their welfare would not improve. For example, it could be argued that someone should be prevented from prostitution even if they make a decent living off it and their health is protected. A moral paternalist would argue that it is ethical considering they believe prostitution to be morally corrupting.[1] Criteria for effective paternalism[edit]Thomas Pogge argues that there are a number of criteria for paternalism.[7]
Opponents[edit]In his Two Treatises of Government, John Locke argues (against Robert Filmer) that political and paternal power are not the same. John Stuart Mill opposes state paternalism on the grounds that individuals know their own good better than the state does, that the moral equality of persons demands respect for others' liberty, and that paternalism disrupts the development of an independent character. In On Liberty, he writes:
Mill, however, disregards his own analysis when it comes to colonial subjects. In On Liberty, he writes:
Mill above declares barbarians to be in need of paternalism. But he narrowly defines barbarism historically, geographically, and economically insofar as to declare it fit to describe the people he intends to describe as such. Contemporary opponents of paternalism often appeal to the ideal of personal autonomy.[citation needed] In society[edit]
Paternalism and slavery[edit]A concept of paternalism functioned as a tool of justification during the slavery era, and the concept promoted the institution of the slavery. Masters, who were the owners of slaves, believed themselves that the concept of paternalism can justify their wrongdoings such as trading of slaves and punishment of their slaves. The masters believed that they are helping and rescuing slaves from poor conditions; therefore, the masters believed themselves as parent or savior of their slaves. Masters used the concept of paternalism to show that their behavior is not wrong or unethical. Not only by the masters, but slaves also exploited the concept of paternalism for their own benefit. For instance, slaves believed that enslavement would be better than the freedom. Slaves believed that they would be treated better as long as they build good relationship with their masters. Slaves also believed that they could get basic human needs such as food from their masters. Thus, the concept of paternalism for slaves was the tool that made slaves feel more comfortable and free. Walter Johnson introduces a concept of paternalism in Soul by Soul: Life Inside the Antebellum Slave Market that mentions "Slave-market paternalism thus replayed the plots of proslavery propaganda and fiction: the good hearted slave at the side of the dying master; the slave who could be trusted to master himself; the slaveholder's saving interventions in the life of the unfortunate slave".[10] Even though slaves could benefit from the concept of paternalism by receiving abundant food and medical care, the concept can never justify the institution of slavery. See also[edit]
References[edit]
Further reading[edit]
How did both slaveholders and slaves use the concept of paternalism to their advantage?Slaves often used this misguided notion to their advantage: By feigning ignorance and playing into slaveholders' paternalistic perceptions of them, slaves found opportunities to resist their condition and gain a degree of freedom and autonomy.
What is plantation paternalism?Planter Paternalism consisted of the belief that slavery was for the good of the blacks, not simply the benefit of the whites. (Introducing them to salvation through religion.
What is paternalism slavery?The ideology of paternalism meant that the masters took care of their slaves because they were personally attached to them. Genovese believes that this was especially true because slaves were given an abundant supply of food by their masters, and they retained a plentiful, if not nutritionally, balanced diet.
How did planters paternalism serve to justify the system of slavery?Southern whites frequently relied upon the idea of paternalism—the premise that white slaveholders acted in the best interests of slaves, taking responsibility for their care, feeding, discipline, and even their Christian morality—to justify the existence of slavery.
|