Infanticides: The unspoken side of infantologies

Abstract

Infanticides is the third article in a collective writing project that includes ‘Infantologies’ and ‘Infantasies’. It is designed to develop a philosophy of the infant, which is not tied to either developmental psychology or neuroscience but rather links itself to history and philosophy. It looks to develop a perspective on the world, beginning from the infant, that is critical, historical, and from the bottom up, so to speak. At the same time, the series of articles aims to create a thematic philosophical view that does not take for granted the normal set of conventions and assumptions made about the infant and about infancy, an important aspect given that infants and babies have a huge number of experts in medicine, law, education, religion, social work, and baby organizations like Plunket that have developed accepted bodies of knowledge, procedures, and routines about the infant and what is in the infant’s best interests. Historically, we have good reason to doubt this expertise. Also, women who give birth and parents, and other family members, all assume opinions and practices based on actual lived experience. Everyone, it seems, speaks for the infant saving the infant herself who cannot speak or, at least, is not able to articulate verbally their experiences or their expectations or requirements. This series has tried to provide fresh perspectives on these matters through the process of collective writing based on an approach to educational philosophy.

Keywords:

• philosophy of education
• early childhood
• infanticides

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 It is unclear why Demant Hatt uses the word “epper” rather than “eahpar” or “ähpar”. It may be a difference in the Pite Sámi dialect, but it may simply be that the orthography of the Sámi dialects and languages were not set when Demant Hatt published her collection of stories in which Bengtsson’s story is a part.