Certain concepts in present-day discourse exhibit the interesting characteristic of being ostensibly unexceptionable, while at a deeper level having the potential to corrupt their own meanings.
"Human rights" is one such: because it has come to signify the rights of selected categories of humans, it can mean, in effect, the opposite of what it implies. Rights, properly, are not absolute quantities, but depend on a balance between conflicting claims.
Nowadays, "human rights" often means the claim of a particular "approved" group or individual to usurp the rights of those not so approved by the governing ideology. Likewise "equality" - on the face of it an admirable objective, but in practice denoting the "right" of certain listed "minorities" to exact retribution for alleged past wrongs. Another such weasel concept is "choice", a facility similarly extended to named groups, but often with the consequence of denying choices to others.
Abortion is an obvious example, childcare another.
In her response to my recent column on that subject, Dr Valerie Richardson wrote ("Investing in children is investing in their future - and ours," September 30th) that I had "missed the point" - that the provision of State childcare is "not just about providing workers for the economy" but about "choice". Dr Richardson claimed that "a comprehensive childcare policy" will provide "realistic choices for parents in relation to working inside or outside the home and how they wish to carry out their parenting functions". Current public policy, on the other hand, "reduces choice for many parents, particularly mothers, from working outside the home".
It is clear that the "choices" being promoted are mainly of the Hobson's variety. None of the solutions mooted by Dr Richardson or the women's groups monopolising this discussion are designed to make it easier for parents to "choose" to mind their children at home, never mind to contemplate giving up or reducing work commitments to do so.
No matter how it is dressed up, the present push towards, in effect, a nationalised system of childcare is geared to serve (a) the economy and (b) the employment-centred requirements of parents who "choose" - or are forced to choose - the economy before their children. Aside some ritualistic concessions to the concept of parental parenting, the thrust of the childcare paradigm proposed by Dr Richardson and the National Women's Council of Ireland (NWCI) is such as to maximise the time our children will be cared for by strangers.
These proposals are dressed up with weasel phrases like "universal access", "extended care" and "quality developmental supports", but at bottom amount to a prescription for the institutionalisation of the next generation of Irish children. The "choice" on offer, really, is this: put the economy first and let the State rear your children, or parent your children with minimal recognition or co-operation from society.
Yet, we find ourselves at a moment when real choices are available. The technological transformation of the workplace has created massive amounts of slack which, due to the sclerotic nature of employment culture, have yet to be redistributed. It is hardly beyond the wit of society to formulate a policy and culture whereby, for example, a father and mother can, if they must both work, at least stagger their working hours to minimise the involvement of outside parties in the rearing of their children. There exist countless possibilities for flexibility, which, if pursued with an enlightened carrot-and-stick approach to public policy, could give some real meaning to official platitudes about children (and relieve some other social blockages as well).
With a little creativity, Ireland could become the world leader in promoting genuinely enlightened parenting policies. But if those currently driving the discussion prevail, all such opportunities will be lost, the slack reeled in by employers, and families placed under greater pressure. Once the moment passes and we follow the logic of what Dr Richardson calls "best international practice", it will soon become impossible for parents to protest their unavailability to the corporation "just" because they have children to care for. All choice will have been abolished.
Dr Richardson observed correctly that this discussion is "not just about women". Childcare may hitherto have been perceived as a woman's issue because mothers mainly stayed home; but since the focus has shifted to the mother's right to work outside the home, day-to-day parenting now becomes a matter, equally, for both parents. It is therefore unclear why, for example, the NWCI continues to hold centre stage on this issue, since it represents but a small minority of mothers, and fathers or children not at all.
As parents we have just one "choice": we must choose our children's welfare over public or selfish considerations. It's time Irish fathers and mothers reclaimed the childcare debate from those who would use the pressures now bearing down upon them to further an opaque and indeed sinister agenda. Let us fear the Greeks when they seem to offer gifts.