Discussions around child labor are incredibly complex, not least because the concept of childhood has been re-examined in recent years. This article will explore how the Western concept of childhood plays a determining role in a capitalist and heteronormative society, and how this limited concept of childhood informs legislation on child labor. He will discuss how this legislature is currently harming large numbers of children while perpetuating capitalism and heteronormativity. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay James and Prout (1990:2) note that in recent decades, scholars have begun to problematize the notion of “child” and the adult/child dichotomy. Stephens (1992:7-8) relates this to a recent explosion of media coverage around child abuse, which has challenged the idea that children are carefree, naive and sheltered. James and Prout (1990) argue that childhood is a social construct. They argue that “the immaturity of children is a biological fact, but the way in which this immaturity is understood and made meaningful is a cultural fact” (James and Prout, 1990: 7). For this reason, the meaning of childhood changes from one culture to another. Over the past several decades, organizations and governments have had many legislative powers with the express purpose of protecting children. A notable example is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which has been ratified globally. In light of the fact that childhood is a social construct and a concept informed by cultural context, a single piece of legislation cannot assume a universal understanding of what is meant by " child ". If we are to impose a single notion of "the child" on the entire world without exploring the nuances of childhood, a certain group of children will be catered for while others will be marginalized (Stephens, 1992: 35). For this reason, it is imperative that we closely examine the social structures implicit in the construction of the idea of ​​childhood in order to explore the problems with current child labor laws. First, Stephens argues that the construction of the child/adult dichotomy plays a determining role in the maintenance of capitalism in Westernized countries (1992: 7). The child/adult dichotomy is parallel to the private sphere/public sphere dichotomy. Children are relegated to the domestic sphere – the home – while adults are expected to participate in the public sphere. The private sphere is seen as the place of so-called “childish” behavior, such as spontaneity, freedom, emotion and play. The public sphere, on the other hand, is a place of “adult” behavior: discipline, work, routine (Stephens, 1992: 6). Stephens argues that capitalism relies on the relegation of the construction of work to the public domain. It also relies on the idea that work and productivity are necessary; It’s just what you do when you’re an adult. Thus, constructions of childhood in the West lend themselves to supporting capitalist ideologies. Children who participate in the public sphere – including through work, which this essay focuses on – face moral condemnation (Stephens, 1992: 9). I would go further and say that children are an essential tool in heteronormativity. Heteronormativity refers to the spread of heterosexual norms through various social, political, and cultural institutions, including religion, culture, law, andpolicy. These institutions present heteronormativity as normal and acceptable, as well as privileged. It also imposes certain types of “acceptable” heterosexual behavior, and therefore not all heterosexual relationships are heteronormative (Berlant et al, 1998: 548). Heteronormativity posits that only certain types of sexual relationships are acceptable. Sex that is not done for reproductive purposes is not acceptable. Thus, children are seen as the desirable outcome of sexual relations, and an integral part of the family. The idea of ​​the “nuclear family” is an extension of heteronormativity. Many queer theorists posit that heteronormativity governs not only sexual relationships, but also family relationships: heteronormativity supports the idea that certain types of families are acceptable and those that fall outside the norm are not (Rubin , 1984: 154-158). legislators intended to protect children can sometimes perpetuate heteronormative values. A key example is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, whose preamble describes the family as "the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members" ( Stephens, 1992: 37).The Convention appears to assert that biologically based relationships – particularly those between parents and children – are more important than any other relationship. The Convention can thus serve to marginalize certain same-sex couples as well as the family structures of certain marginalized families, notably African families (Stephens, 1992: 37). There is a plethora of articles which demonstrate that the concept of the “nuclear family” – and indeed heteronormativity – is a Western intrusion (Rubin, 1984: 154-158). If much of the discourse around "childhood" is heteronormative, capitalist, and deeply influenced by Western ideology, it is imperative that we consider how this discourse affects children who do not come from heteronormative families , who live in Western societies and who are poor. The subject of child labor is particularly complex and demonstrates the need for a deconstruction of the “naturalized” idea of ​​the child. A large number of academics and theorists have explored the ways in which Western development experts and organizations have oversimplified ideas around childhood and child labor, to the detriment of children (Nieuwenhys, 1996 : 242-246). The condemnation of child labor means that children are not allowed to participate in the public sphere by working. This is not only rooted in a concern for child protection, but also in the need to protect the wages and positions of adults: many theorists have pointed out that unions and social norms both aim to protect the economic well-being of adults by excluding children from the labor market (Myers, 1999: 15). This reinforces the aforementioned idea that children should be relegated to the private sphere while adults should participate in the public sphere. There is a strong connection between heteronormative ideals and the preservation of children as passive and economically dependent. Nieuwenhys argues that laws aimed at eliminating child labor are rooted in a norm based on the “sanctity of the nuclear family” (1996: 242). The condemnation of child labor means that children are expected to be passive and made dependent on their families and the state. Nieuwenhys argues that "the need to direct children towards [economically useless] activities is linked to a system of parental authority andfamily discipline which was decisive in the preservation of the established bourgeois social order” (1996: 247). Indeed, children are expected to depend on their parents until they are old enough to work and, soon after, old enough to start their own families. This dependence on parents reinforces the heteronormative notion that children are the property – and therefore subordinate – of adults. This centers the notion of family as vital to social life and marginalizes those who do not have family. The position of the family as the pivot of social life is therefore heteronormative. Legislation such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child reinforces the idea that a child's (biological) parents are expected to care for the child before the state does. which makes a heteronormative assumption about the child's family situation. The assumption here is that a) children have adult parents who will care for them and b) that these adults are willing and able to support them financially, and for this reason children should not have to participate in child labor. children to survive. This marginalizes children from poor, non-heteronormative family structures, who are therefore expected to be dependent on the state. As Nieuwenhys notes, there is a gap between the care a child is supposed to receive and the care the state usually provides. (1996:238). The result is growing child poverty. Anthropologists have highlighted the link between child poverty and child labor – poor children are often forced to work to survive (Nieuwenhys, 1996: 238-240). Later, the article will discuss the case of children working on wine farms in the Western Cape, which will demonstrate the link between child poverty and child labor. By perpetuating the idea that children are passive and incapable of participating in the economy, we reinforce the idea that children cannot be economically productive. However, in a number of cultures around the world, children are expected to do work. This “work” is generally invisible because it is considered play, education, socialization or training. In these cases, children are expected to perform work but do not derive any economic dependence from it. Some anthropologists have pointed out that compulsory schooling systems could be considered a form of child labor, especially those that are particularly arduous (Stephens, 1992: 15-16). Anthropologist Mélanie Jacquemin explored the issue of young domestic workers in Abidjan, Ivory Coast. In a large number of communities in Abidjan, it is common for young girls to engage in economic activities in order to provide for themselves and their families. A common form of work among young girls is domestic work. It is common for young girls to live away from home, with (richer) members of their extended family, and to carry out domestic work for their family in exchange for care (Jacquemin, 2006: 390-392). However, as Jacquemin points out, a large number of girls are expected to work around 11 hours a day with very little pay (Jacquemin, 2006: 398). Most of these girls are under 15, which is the legal age. to start working. Due to laws surrounding child labor, these girls are not protected by regular labor laws (Jacquemin, 2006: 398-402). Although they perform hard work, it is invisible and seen as a cultural tradition rather than work – much like other children around the world are expected to work at school. Jacquemin emphasizes that this workis “invisibilised” because most Western organizations and experts qualify this domestic work as “family work”, and therefore do not consider it as work (Jacquemin, 2006: 401). kinship ties in non-Western cultures (Jacquemin, 2006: 401-402). The heteronormative and Westernized notion of “family” is thus imposed without nuance on marginalized cultures, to the detriment of children. Even if girls work, they remain economically dependent. Thus, child labor laws contribute to their exploitation, not their protection. We can draw a similar conclusion by looking at the more local example of children working on wine farms in South Africa. In South Africa, it is illegal for people under the age of 15 to engage in paid work. However, this does not prevent children from rural wine towns from working; on the contrary, it makes children more vulnerable to exploitation in the workplace. Susan Levine points out that child labor laws fail to protect children – particularly poor children of color and black – from exploitation (Levine, 1999: 139). Many of the children Levine studied need money to support themselves and their families, and for this reason they feel the need to work in the vineyards. A large number of children also participate in this type of work because they feel it gives them value and a sense of self-worth. Levine mentions that a certain child, Noluthando felt inferior to her peers who constantly worked in the vineyards (Levine, 1999: 147). This is not an uncommon reaction to child unemployment: many poor children experience a sense of self-worth and independence when they are able to work. Niewenhys argues that this is linked to a capitalist mentality which posits that a person's worth is linked to their productivity. Without money and economic value, in a capitalist society, it is difficult to feel valuable and worthy (Nieuwenhys, 1996: 248). In Rawsonville, Western Cape, wine growers and their families receive “free” accommodation from their employers. Their employers expect women and children to do work for them in return. Child labor is seen as training or social reciprocity and, as such, is invisible (Levine, 1999: 141). Many of these children are exploited, not only because they are overworked and unpaid, but also because they are mistreated and intimidated by their employers, who view this as "disciplining" the children (Levine , 1999: 150). Children are particularly vulnerable to exploitation because they are not protected by labor laws because their work is made illegal because they are children (Levine, 1999: 142). Levine points out that child labor is a major contributor to the Western Cape wine industry and indeed the local economy (Levine, 1999: 142-149). However, children remain economically dependent and vulnerable to exploitation. By criminalizing the work of people under the age of 15, child labor laws push children to work underground, leaving them without access to protective laws and unions. Levine and many of the working children she spoke with believed that eliminating child labor would not eliminate poverty. ; two child workers argued that “making child labor illegal would lead to greater insecurity for poor children and their families” (Levine, 1999: 150-152). Because poverty and child labor are.