Discussions about child labor are incredibly complex, especially as the concept of childhood has been re-examined in recent years. This article will explore how the Western concept of childhood is crucial in a capitalist and heteronormative society, and how this limited concept of childhood influences child labor legislators. He will discuss how this legislature currently harms large numbers of children by perpetuating capitalism and heteronormativity. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an 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) links this to a recent explosion of media coverage of child abuse, which has challenged the idea that children are carefree, naive and protected. James and Prout (1990) state that childhood is a social construct. They argue that “the immaturity of children is a biological fact, but how this immaturity is understood and made meaningful is a cultural fact” (James & Prout, 1990: 7). For this reason, the meaning of childhood changes from culture to culture. In recent decades, organizations and governments have had a great deal of legislation with the express purpose of protecting children. A notable example of this 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 construction and is a concept informed by cultural context, a single piece of legislation cannot presuppose a universal understanding of what is meant by "child". If we were to impose a single notion of “child” on the entire world without exploring the nuances of childhood, a certain group of children will be protected while others will be marginalized (Stephens, 1992: 35). For this reason, it is imperative to take a careful look at 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 is instrumental in sustaining capitalism in Westernized countries (1992: 7). The child/adult dichotomy runs 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" behaviors, such as spontaneity, freedom, emotion and play. The public sphere, on the other hand, is a place for “adult” behavior: discipline, work, routine (Stephens, 1992:6). Stephens argues that capitalism is based on the construction of labor relegated to the public domain. It is also based on the idea that work and productivity are necessary; it's simply what you do when you're an adult. Therefore, 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 – are met with moral condemnation (Stephens, 1992:9). I would like to go a step further and say that children are an integral tool in heteronormativity. Heteronormativity refers to the propagation of heterosexual norms through various social, political, and cultural institutions, including religion, culture, law, and politics. These institutions present heteronormativity as normal and acceptable, as well as privileged. It also mandates certain types of "acceptable" heterosexual behavior, and thus not all heterosexual relationships areheteronormative (Berlant et al, 1998:548). Heteronormativity assumes that only certain types of sex are acceptable. Sex that is not done for reproductive purposes is not acceptable. Therefore, 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 assume 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). legislature 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 in 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 relationships. The Convention therefore may serve to marginalize some same-sex couples as well as family structures in some marginalized groups, including African families (Stephens, 1992: 37). There are numerous studies demonstrating 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 to consider how this discourse impacts children who do not come from heteronormative families, live in Western societies, and are poor. The topic of child labor is particularly complex and demonstrates the need for a deconstruction of the "naturalized" idea of ​​the child. A large number of scholars and theorists have explored how Western development experts and organizations have oversimplified ideas about childhood and child labor, to the detriment of children (Nieuwenhys, 1996:242-246). Condemnation of child labor means that children are not allowed to participate in the public sphere by working. This is rooted not just in concern for the well-being of children, but in the need to protect the wages and positions of adults: many theorists have pointed out that unions and social norms alike 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 must be relegated to the private sphere while adults must participate in the public sphere. There is a strong link between heteronormative ideals and the preservation of children as passive and economically dependent subjects. Nieuwenhys argues that the law emphasizes that laws aimed at eliminating child labor are rooted in a standard based on the "sacredness of the family unit" (1996:242). Condemnation of child labor means that children are expected to be passive and made dependent on family and state. Nieuwenhys argues that “the need to direct children into [economically useless] activities is linked to a system of parental authority and family discipline that has been instrumental in preserving 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 have a family of their own. This dependence on parents reinforces the heteronormative notion that children are the property of adults – and therefore subordinate to them. This centers the notion of family as vital to social life and marginalizesthose who have no family. The position of the family as the cornerstone of social life is therefore heteronormative. Legislation such as the UN 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 is, 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 those adults are willing and able to support them financially and, for this reason, children should not have to participate in child labor to survive. This marginalizes children from poor and non-heteronormative family structures, who are therefore destined to depend on the state. As Nieuwenhys notes, there is a discrepancy between the care a child is expected to receive and the care the state typically provides. (1996: 238). The result of this 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). Next, the article will discuss the case of children working in wineries in the Western Cape, which will demonstrate the link between child poverty and child labour. By perpetuating the view of children as passive and incapable of participating in the economy, we are reinforcing the idea that children cannot be economically productive. However, in several cultures around the world, babies are expected to go through labor. This "work" is usually invisibilized as it is considered play, education, socialization or training. In these cases, children are expected to do the work but not derive any economic dependence from it. Some anthropologists have pointed out that compulsory school systems could be considered a form of child labor, especially particularly strenuous ones (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 practice for girls to engage in economic activities in order to support themselves and their families. A common form of work for girls is domestic work. It is common for girls to live away from their homes, with extended (wealthier) family members, and perform 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 for very low compensation (Jacquemin, 2006:398). Most of these girls are under 15, which is the legal age to start working. Due to child labor laws, these girls are not protected by normal labor laws (Jacquemin, 2006:398-402). Although they do strenuous work, this is invisibilized and seen as a cultural tradition rather than a job, just as other children around the world are expected to work in school. Jacquemin points out that this work is “invisibilised” because most Western organizations and experts consider this domestic work as “family work”, and therefore do not consider it work (Jacquemin, 2006:401). This stems from a misunderstanding about kinship ties in non-Western cultures (Jacquemin, 2006:401-402). The heteronormative, Westernized notion of “family” is therefore imposed without nuance on marginalized cultures, to the detriment of children. While girls go through labor, they are still made economically dependent. Therefore, child labor laws contribute to their exploitation, not their protection. We can draw a similar conclusion by exploring the example furtherlocal children working on wineries in South Africa. In South Africa it is illegal for people under the age of 15 to engage in paid work. This, however, does not prevent children living in rural vineyard towns from engaging in work; rather, it makes children more vulnerable to exploitation in the workplace. Susan Levine points out that child labor laws fail to protect children – particularly poor black and colored children – from exploitation (Levine, 1999:139). Many children in Levine's research need money to support themselves and their families and therefore feel the need to work in the vineyards. Many 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 his peers who constantly worked in the vineyards (Levine, 1999: 147). This is not an unusual reaction to child unemployment: large numbers of poor children feel a sense of self-worth and independence when they are able to work. Niewenhys argues that this is linked to a capitalist mentality that assumes that a person's worth is tied 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, in the Western Cape, vineyard workers and their families receive "free" housing from their employers. Their employers expect women and children to do the work for them in return. Child labor is seen as social formation or reciprocity, and as such child labor is invisibilized (Levine, 1999:141). Large numbers of these children are exploited, not only because they are overworked and unpaid, but because they suffer abuse and intimidation from their employers, who see this as “disciplinary” against the children (Levine, 1999 :150). Children are particularly vulnerable to exploitation as 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 contributes to a large extent to the wine industry in the Western Cape, and indeed, to the local economy (Levine, 1999:142-149). However, children are still made economically dependent and vulnerable to exploitation. By criminalizing work for those under the age of 15, child labor legislation forces child workers underground, leaving them without access to protective laws and unions. Both Levine and many of the child workers he spoke with believed that eliminating child labor would not eliminate poverty. ; two child workers argued that “making child labor illegal would cause greater insecurity for poor children and their families” (Levine, 1999:150-152). Since poverty and child labor reinforce each other, we can conclude that the criminalization of child labor paradoxically ensures that there is a constant source of cheap labor for vineyard growers, thus forming a part of the capitalist economic system. Levine concludes that the criminalization of child labor perpetuates economic inequality, rather than eliminating it (Levine, 1999:143). Tom O'Neill's research on young carpet weavers is a case study that highlights the problems of assuming that children have no agency (O'Neill, 2013:93-94). The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child uses a fixed age to specify when certain rights and entitlements apply to people. This has been criticized as scholars have argued that maturity does not depend on a fixed age, but on a number of cultural variables and.