The state and the Citizen

The State and the Citizen

Are analogies between the state/citizen relation and the parent/child relation robust enough to explain a citizen’s obligation to the state?

The relationship between the citizen and the state is a complicated matter though initially it can seem straight forward. The analogy of the state being like a parent to its citizens does provide some answers to our obedience to the state, but ultimately the analogy fails as the quality of the care offered by the state is not equal to the care a parent gives their child and the care is also delivered from a different perspective. To demonstrate this weakness, a comparison between the two is needed and I shall being looking at obligations, implicit contracts and how gratitude is used as a justification for obedience. As John Pike advises “looking at what obligations are justified in the case of the family and then mapping it across to the state situation.” (OU Book 6, p18)

To begin with a definition of parenthood is needed. When someone enters into parenthood they also undertake a duty of care towards their new born child. This duty of care is inherent within parenthood and is a natural phenomenon of the situation as the parent wishes the best for their child and this duty of care has different aspects. Firstly there is the need to protect the child and keep them safe and away from harm, then there is the need to nurture them, to ensure they are well fed, clothed, kept clean and healthy and then there is the need to educate them in morality, teaching them right from wrong, and to also ensure that they can use their own talents as they mature.

These three aspects of parenthood all have different qualities but they combine to produce an impression of gratitude from the child towards the parent and it is this sense of gratitude that produces obedience from the child to the will of the parent. This obedience from an early age does produce a strong bond between the parent and the child and ensures that this situation continues as both parties are benefiting, the child is constantly protected, nurtured and educated and the parent is fulfilling their duty of care. So it could be interpreted that there is an unwritten contract between the parent and the child, an implicit contract, that the parent continues to care for the child and the child will continue to be grateful and subservient to the parent as long as this situation continues. Both will continue to benefit from each other and this implied but informal contract will serve them well and also strengthens the bond between the parent and child.

To summarize then, the child is obliged to obey the parent because the parent has cared and nurtured for the child from birth and the child owes the parent a debt of gratitude. This takes the form of an implied contract between the two which helps to strengthen the bond between them and in turn strengthens the implicit contract. This implicit contract is beneficial to both the parent and the child, the child is cared for and the parent is fulfilling their obligation of their duty of care and as both are benefiting from the situation, the situation will continue.

So how does this parent and child relationship relate to the state and citizen relationship? To assess this we need to compare the analogy from the three points mentioned above, that parenthood provides protection, nurturing and education and to see how strongly these aspects feature in the citizen and state relationship.

To begin with I shall look at the first point, the state providing protection. This protection is apparent in various forms and is designed to keep me safe. One aspect of the protection offered by the state is in the form of the armed forces and this act’s as a deterrent to would be foreign aggressors that wish to harm our state and its citizens, and so consequently produces a sense of security and safety within our borders. Also, closer to home there is the police service which has been designed to keep and uphold the laws of the land and this also produces a sense of security and safety. Then there is also the protection of the law which produces a sense that justice is on the side of the law abiding citizen and is also protected from being harmed. Just these three aspects all offer security to the citizen and can produce a sense that a citizen is safe from harm whether it be from a foreign power or terrorist organisation, or closer to home in the sense of crime and punishment for the offenders. This can be seen as being analogous to the parent protecting the child, even with the use of violence if necessary, and wanting to keep the child safe and away from being harmed which leads to a feeling of security and protection.

The next point is that the parent nurtures the child from birth and that the state also helps its citizens to mature and prosper and the state provides this nurturing in the form of benefits. There are various types of benefits that are provided by the state that helps the citizen to be healthy and which offers support. For example the state provides a comprehensive welfare system, which is the welfare state, and provides financial support for its citizens in their time of need. There is also the National Health Service which provides free health care for citizens of the state and a reliable transport system making it easy for the citizen to commute from A to B. Another example is council housing where the state provides a system for housing some of the citizens that are in need. The similarity between the state and the parent on this point is very strong as parents want the best that is for their children and to be able to help where necessary and it is not unusual for the parent to offer support and guidance in their child’s time of need.

The final point to raise is the matter of education. Again the state provides a system of education for its citizens that initially stretches from infancy to through the teenage years. There is also the possibility of continuing the state education into the citizens twenties and the opportunity of returning to state education throughout the citizen’s life is always there. With having the state being able to constantly provide a system of education for its citizens demonstrates another similarity between parenthood and state because the parent initially is the teacher of the child and then the child will seek information from the parent throughout their lifetime in the form of advice. For example it is not unusual for the child to have similar attitudes and behaviours as their parents. Again, it is analogous that both the state and the parent are both offering lifelong learning to the child or the citizen.

So we can see how the state and citizen relationship does have some very strong similarities with each other. We can see how they both offer protection from harm, how they nurture the child or the citizen and also education and lifelong learning is offered by both. The next step is quite logical, that as there is an implied contract between the parent and the child, so there is an implied contract between the state and the citizen that is actioned through gratitude and makes the citizen subservient to the will of the state.

But this is where personally I think that the analogy of the citizen’s relationship to the state being the same as the relationship of the child to the parent begins to falter, that there is an implied contract between the state and the citizen that is built on the gratitude that I have towards my parents for my childhood and upbringing. This is because of the point raised at the beginning of the essay which is that the duty of care given to the child from the parent is inherent in parenthood and so consequently does not require a reaction of gratitude, but the gratitude is generated by the quality of the care and support received during childhood. As John Pike states “Those actions for which it is appropriate to feel gratitude are actions which go beyond the call of duty. There is a special term for them – they are supererogatory actions.” (OU Book 6, p24)

For instance, when I was a child my parents gave me emotional support and affection and also helped form certain affective attitudes. By performing these actions there was no benefit for either parent and can be interpreted as being outside of the duty of care. Again, John Pike has summarised this nicely with “the source of gratitude arises not from the provision of certain resources and opportunities, but from the possession and expression of the appropriate kind of affective attitudes by the appropriate moral agent.”

Another way to highlight the difference between the relationship of the parent and child compared to the state and citizen is the case of an orphan who is directly cared for by the state. The orphan is provided with shelter, health care, education, protection and the state does fulfil a duty of care towards an orphan but the orphan does not receive the supererogatory actions, which are love and attention that a child receives from the parent, and the state is unable to provide such an experience. This is because the state is incapable of providing supererogatory actions because it is an institution and is the wrong type of entity to provide such an experience. Indeed, the state itself recognises this shortcoming and has a system of adoption and fostering to provide the child with this experience.

So the relationship between the parent and the child is more on an altruistic understanding, where the parent is not looking to benefit but provides supererogatory actions where as the state provides for its citizens because of an implied contract. With the state I am in a position where I have entered into an agreement of where I have received benefits from the state and I contribute towards the state by paying my taxes, abiding by the law and taking part in political activities such as voting. For instance, the state provides a transport network for its citizens to use. But the citizens, by law, are required to pay road tax if they use a vehicle on the roads and this tax is then meant to contribute to the upkeep and maintenance of the roads. In this arrangement there are benefits for both sides, the citizens receive a transport network and the state receives money to fund the transport system, the state does not provide the transport network freely and so this creates the implied contract between the state and the citizen. The reason why the contract is implied is because the citizen does not physically sign a contract stating that they will abide by the law but they own and drive a vehicle on the implied understanding that they will abide by the law and pay their road tax.

Consequently my relationship with my parents is quite different to that between myself and the state. Firstly, on the point of gratitude towards my parents, the gratitude is for the supererogatory actions as it has enabled myself to live a relatively happy life. However I do not feel a debt of gratitude to the state because I have contributed to the state in the form of taxes, partaking in democracy by casting a vote and also by abiding by the law which has created the implied contract that enables my obedience towards the state.

So in conclusion, the analogy of the state and citizen relationship being similar to that of the parent and child relationship does have some very serious limitations. Initially it does appear to have a number of similarities but the state cannot provide the same quality of care as a parent can to the child in the form of supererogatory actions. It is this difference which weakens the analogy and ultimately leads to its failure as there is no implied contract between the parent and child but there is between the state and the citizen.

Bibliography.

Pike, J. (2011) ‘Plate and the Variety of Arguments for Political Obligations’ in ‘Political Philosophy’ OU course book 6, A22 Exploring Philosophy, Open University, Milton Keynes