socofpowerСоциология властиSociology of Power2074-04922413-144XThe Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration10.22394/2074-0492-2023-4-21-47socofpower-76Research ArticleСТАТЬИARTICLES«Интересы ребенка»: проблема определения в социальных науках“The Best Interests of the Child”: the Problem of Definition in Social Scienceshttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-8561-3006МартыненкоА. А.MartynenkoA. A.

Мартыненко Александра А. — младший научный сотрудник, Лаборатория антропологической лингвистики.

Санкт-Петербург

Alexandra A. Martynenko — junior researcher, Institute for Linguistic Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences.

Saint Petersburg

amartynenko@eu.spb.ruИнститут лингвистических исследований РАНРоссияInstitute for Linguistic Studies, Russian Academy of SciencesRussian Federation2023300120253542147Copyright © Мартыненко А.А., 20252025Мартыненко А.А.Martynenko A.A.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://socofpower.ranepa.ru/jour/article/view/76

В статье анализируются подходы к определению «интересов ребенка» как понятия и принципа, возникшего в контексте международного применения Конвенции о правах ребенка. «Интересы ребенка» не имеют четкого определения и становятся открытым к наполнению и интерпретации понятием. Представления о том, что значит действовать в «интересах ребенка», могут заключаться подчас в противоположных практиках в зависимости от того, кто именно исполняет действие. В статье рассматривается возникновение понятия «интересов ребенка» в качестве одного из принципов Конвенции о правах ребенка, отмечено различие между «мнением» ребенка и его «интересами», которые соотносятся между собой в зависимости от подхода к осуществлению детских прав. Дается краткий обзор критических работ, посвященных понятию «интересов ребенка»: это понятие критикуется за бессодержательность и умаление прав детей относительно прав взрослых. Еще одна линия дискуссии связана с возможной заменой этого понятия другими более точными и релевантными концепциями. Одновременно с этим теоретические разработки из области социальных наук позволяют контекстуализировать детство и представления об «интересах детей» во временных, социальных и культурных рамках. Внимание уделено и российской практике инкорпорирования понятия и принципа «интересов ребенка» в рамках политического контекста. Автор соотносит «интересы ребенка» с понятием рационализированного мифа, предложенного Дж. Мейером и Б. Роуэном для исследования необходимых структурирующих элементов для деятельности организаций. «Интересы ребенка» в этой перспективе предстают необходимым элементом рационализации действий разных акторов в отношении детей.

The article analyzes some possibilities of defining the "best interests of the child" as a concept and principle that arose in the context of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The "interests of the child" do not have a clear definition and become open to different interpretations. Ideas about right actions towards the "interests of the child" can vary on the level of practices, depending on the actor or group of actors. The article examines the emergence of the concept of "the interests of the child" as one of the principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and notes the difference between the "opinion" of the child and their "interests", which relate to the implementation of children's rights. The article provides a brief overview of critical works on the concept of "child interests" — and discusses findings from the field of social sciences — that help contextualize “childhood” and ideas about "children's interests" through a social and cultural framework. The author suggests conceptualizing of the "interests of the child" as a rationalized myth in the terms of J. Meyer and B. Rowan.

защита детейдетствоинтересы ребенкарационализированный мифchild protectionchildhoodthe best interests of the childrationalized mythReferencesАрьес Ф. (1999). Ребенок и семейная жизнь при Старом порядке, Екатеринбург: Издательство Уральского университета.Aries Ph. (1999). The Child and Family Life under The Old Regime, Ekaterinburg: Ural University Publishing. — in Russ.Ловцова Н. (2003) «Здоровая, благополучная семья — опора государства»? Гендерный анализ семейной социальной политики. Журнал исследований социальной политики, 1(3-4): 323-339.Lovtsova N. (2003) “A Healthy, Prosperous Family — Support of The State”? Gender Analysis of Family Social Policу. The Journal of Social Policy Studies, 1(3-4): 323-339. — in Russ.Маккарти Дж. Р., Эдвардс Р. (2018) Исследования семьи: основные понятия, M.: Издательский дом Высшей школы экономики.McCarthy J. R., Edwards R. (2018) Key Concepts in Family Studies, M.: Publishing House of the Higher School of Economics. — in Russ.Мейер Дж., Роуэн Б. (2011) Институционализированные организации: формальная структура как миф и церемониал. Экономическая социология, 12 (1): 43-67. https://doi.org/10.17323/1726-3247-2011-1-43-67Meyer J. W., Rowan B. (2011) Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. Economic Sociology, 12 (1): 43-67. https://doi.org/10.17323/1726-3247-2011-1-43-67 — in Russ.Мид М. (1988) Культура и мир детства: избранные произведения, М.: Наука.Mead M. (1988) Culture and The World of Childhood: Selected Works, M.: Nauka. — in Russ.Миролюбова О. (2012) О семейно-правовом понятии «интересы ребенка». Вестник Ярославского государственного университета. Серия Гуманитарные науки, 4: 56-58.Mirolyubova O. (2012) About The Family Legal Concept of “The Interests of The Child”. Bulletin of the Yaroslavl State University. Humanities Series, 4: 56-58. — in Russ.Российская семья и благополучие детей (2021). Отв. ред. И. И. Елисеева, M.: ФНИСЦ РАН.Russian Family and Children Well-Being (2021). Ed. I. Eliseeva, M.: Federal Center of Theorethical and Applied Sociology of the Russian Academy of Science. — in Russ.Archard D. (2003) Children, Family, and The State, L.: Routledge.Archard D. (2003) Children, Family, and The State, L.: Routledge.Alston P. (1994) The Best Interests Principle: Towards a Reconciliation of Culture and Human Rights. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 8(1): 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/8.1.1Alston P. (1994) The Best Interests Principle: Towards a Reconciliation of Culture and Human Rights. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 8(1): 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/8.1.1Ainsworth F., Hansen P. (2009) The “Best Interests of The Child” Thesis: Some Thoughts from Australia. International journal of Social Welfare, 18(4): 431-439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2397.2009.00673.xAinsworth F., Hansen P. (2009) The “Best Interests of The Child” Thesis: Some Thoughts from Australia. International journal of Social Welfare, 18(4): 431-439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2397.2009.00673.xBoyden J. (1997) Childhood and the Policy Makers: A Comparative Perspective on The Globalization of Childhood. Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood: Contemporary Issues in the Sociological Study of Childhood.Boyden J. (1997) Childhood and the Policy Makers: A Comparative Perspective on The Globalization of Childhood. Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood: Contemporary Issues in the Sociological Study of Childhood.Dixon R., Nussbaum M. (2012) Children’s Rights and a Capabilities Approach: The Question of Special Priority. Cornell Law Review, 97: 549-591. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol97/iss3/3Dixon R., Nussbaum M. (2012) Children’s Rights and a Capabilities Approach: The Question of Special Priority. Cornell Law Review, 97: 549-591. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol97/iss3/3Elster J. (1987) Solomonic Judgments: Against the Best Interest of the Child. Chicago Law Review, 54 (1): 1-45. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclrev/vol54/iss1/1Elster J. (1987) Solomonic Judgments: Against the Best Interest of the Child. Chicago Law Review, 54 (1): 1-45. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclrev/vol54/iss1/1Eekelaar J. (2002) Beyond the Welfare Principle. Child and Family Law Quarterly, 14(3): 237-249. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2086558Eekelaar J. (2002) Beyond the Welfare Principle. Child and Family Law Quarterly, 14(3): 237-249. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2086558Finch J. (2007) Displaying families. Sociology, 41(1): 65-81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038507072284Finch J. (2007) Displaying families. Sociology, 41(1): 65-81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038507072284Fortin J. (2006) Accommodating Children’s Rights in a Post Human Rights Act Era.Fortin J. (2006) Accommodating Children’s Rights in a Post Human Rights Act Era.Modern Law Review, 69(3): 299-326. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2006.00586.xModern Law Review, 69(3): 299-326. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2006.00586.xGnydiuk O. (2021) Defining the “Best Interests” of Children During the Post-1945 Transformations in Europe. Journal of Modern European History, 19(3): 292-306. https://doi.org/10.1177/16118944211020460Gnydiuk O. (2021) Defining the “Best Interests” of Children During the Post-1945 Transformations in Europe. Journal of Modern European History, 19(3): 292-306. https://doi.org/10.1177/16118944211020460Goldstein J., Solnit A., Goldstein S., Freud A. (1996) The Best Interests of the Child: The Least Detrimental Alternative, N.-Y.: Free Press.Goldstein J., Solnit A., Goldstein S., Freud A. (1996) The Best Interests of the Child: The Least Detrimental Alternative, N.-Y.: Free Press.Hanson K. (2012) Schools of thought in children’s rights. Children’s rights from below, (1): 63-79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230361843_5Hanson K. (2012) Schools of thought in children’s rights. Children’s rights from below, (1): 63-79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230361843_5Herring J. (2005) Farwell Welfare? Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 27(2): 159-171. https://doi.org/10.1080/09649060500195989Herring J. (2005) Farwell Welfare? Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 27(2): 159-171. https://doi.org/10.1080/09649060500195989James A., Prout A. (1990) Constructing and reconstructing childhood: New directions in the sociological study of childhood, Oxford: Routledge.James A., Prout A. (1990) Constructing and reconstructing childhood: New directions in the sociological study of childhood, Oxford: Routledge.Kagitcibasi C. (2007) Family, Self, and Human Development Across Cultures: Theory and Applications, Oxford: Routledge.Kagitcibasi C. (2007) Family, Self, and Human Development Across Cultures: Theory and Applications, Oxford: Routledge.King M. (ed.) (1990) Moral Agendas for Children’s Welfare, Oxford: Routledge.King M. (ed.) (1990) Moral Agendas for Children’s Welfare, Oxford: Routledge.Korbin J. (1977) Anthropological Contributions to the Study of Child Abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 1(1): 7-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(77)90042-4Korbin J. (1977) Anthropological Contributions to the Study of Child Abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 1(1): 7-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(77)90042-4Korbin J. (1980) The Cultural Context of Child Abuse and Neglect. Child Abuse & Neglect, 1(4): 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(80)90028-9Korbin J. (1980) The Cultural Context of Child Abuse and Neglect. Child Abuse & Neglect, 1(4): 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(80)90028-9Korbin J. (1987) Child Abuse and Neglect: The Cultural Context. The battered child, (1): 23-41.Korbin J. (1987) Child Abuse and Neglect: The Cultural Context. The battered child, (1): 23-41.Piper C. (2000) Assumptions about Children’s Best Interests. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, (22): 261-276. https://doi.org/10.1080/01418030050130176Piper C. (2000) Assumptions about Children’s Best Interests. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, (22): 261-276. https://doi.org/10.1080/01418030050130176Qvortrup J. (ed.) (2009) The Palgrave handbook of childhood studies, L.: Palgrave Macmillan.Qvortrup J. (ed.) (2009) The Palgrave handbook of childhood studies, L.: Palgrave Macmillan.Rose N. (1990) Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self, L.: Taylor & Frances/ Routledge.Rose N. (1990) Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self, L.: Taylor & Frances/ Routledge.Reece H. (1996) The Paramountcy Principle: Consensus or Construct. Current Legal Problems, (49): 267-289. https://doi.org/10.1093/clp/49.1.267Reece H. (1996) The Paramountcy Principle: Consensus or Construct. Current Legal Problems, (49): 267-289. https://doi.org/10.1093/clp/49.1.267Ryrstedt E. (2012) Mediation Regarding Children: Is the Result Always in the Best Interests of the Child? A View from Sweden. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 26(2): 220-241. https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebs005Ryrstedt E. (2012) Mediation Regarding Children: Is the Result Always in the Best Interests of the Child? A View from Sweden. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 26(2): 220-241. https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebs005Smeyers P. (2010) Child Rearing in the “Risk” Society: On the Discourse of Rights and the “Best Interests of a Child.” Educational Theory, 3(60): 271-284. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2010.00358.xSmeyers P. (2010) Child Rearing in the “Risk” Society: On the Discourse of Rights and the “Best Interests of a Child.” Educational Theory, 3(60): 271-284. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2010.00358.xSempek A., Woody R. (2010) Family Permanence versus the Best Interests of the Child. American Journal of Family Therapy, 38: 433-439. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2010.522492Sempek A., Woody R. (2010) Family Permanence versus the Best Interests of the Child. American Journal of Family Therapy, 38: 433-439. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2010.522492Whiting B. (ed.) (1963) Six cultures: Studies of child rearing, N.-J.: John Wiley & Sons.Whiting B. (ed.) (1963) Six cultures: Studies of child rearing, N.-J.: John Wiley & Sons.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.