Normative Paradoxes of Child Welfare Systems: An Analysis with a Focus on Germany

IF 1.1 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY International Journal of Childrens Rights Pub Date : 2017-06-20 DOI:10.1163/15718182-02501014
Ferdinand Sutterlüty
{"title":"Normative Paradoxes of Child Welfare Systems: An Analysis with a Focus on Germany","authors":"Ferdinand Sutterlüty","doi":"10.1163/15718182-02501014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Child welfare systems often have unintended and undesirable consequences for children and their social environments. They will be analysed by applying the concept of “normative paradoxes” (Honneth and Sutterluty) and drawing mainly, but not exclusively, on Germany. The normative aim of child welfare legislation will be reconstructed and it will be argued that the law can be perceived as an institutionalisation of a single, albeit internally complex normative principle – i.e., the principle of the child’s autonomy or self-determination. Using this principle as a yardstick, three types of paradoxical effects will be identified. These counter-productive effects of the autonomy-centred welfare principle will be described as the “undermining”, the “subsumption”, and the “distortion” paradoxes. Because discourse in this field has always had some awareness of these paradoxes, legal developments can be interpreted as ongoing attempts to overcome them.","PeriodicalId":46399,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Childrens Rights","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2017-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15718182-02501014","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Childrens Rights","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718182-02501014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Child welfare systems often have unintended and undesirable consequences for children and their social environments. They will be analysed by applying the concept of “normative paradoxes” (Honneth and Sutterluty) and drawing mainly, but not exclusively, on Germany. The normative aim of child welfare legislation will be reconstructed and it will be argued that the law can be perceived as an institutionalisation of a single, albeit internally complex normative principle – i.e., the principle of the child’s autonomy or self-determination. Using this principle as a yardstick, three types of paradoxical effects will be identified. These counter-productive effects of the autonomy-centred welfare principle will be described as the “undermining”, the “subsumption”, and the “distortion” paradoxes. Because discourse in this field has always had some awareness of these paradoxes, legal developments can be interpreted as ongoing attempts to overcome them.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
儿童福利制度的规范性悖论:以德国为中心的分析
儿童福利制度往往对儿童及其社会环境产生意想不到的不良后果。它们将通过应用“规范悖论”(Honneth和Sutterluty)的概念进行分析,并主要(但不完全)以德国为例。将重建儿童福利立法的规范性目标,并将争辩说,法律可以被视为一项单一的,尽管内部复杂的规范性原则的制度化- -即儿童自治或自决的原则。以这一原则为准绳,可以确定三种类型的矛盾效应。以自治为中心的福利原则的这些反生产效应将被描述为“破坏”、“包容”和“扭曲”悖论。由于这一领域的论述一直对这些悖论有一定的认识,法律的发展可以被解释为克服它们的持续尝试。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Childrens Rights
International Journal of Childrens Rights SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
11.80%
发文量
39
期刊最新文献
A Rights-Based Approach to Child Poverty Measurement and Child Rights Realisation in Zimbabwe Barbara Bennett Woodhouse, The Ecology of Childhood. How Our Changing World Threatens Children’s Rights Privacy as a New Component of “The Best Interests of the Child” in the New Digital Environment Unregistered Children: a Systematic Literature Review of Explanations and Consequences Associated with Failure to Fulfil Children’s Right to Registration Lydia Bracken, Same-Sex Parenting and the Best Interests Principle
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1