RAD YOUTH LIB: Dismantling the roots of all oppression.

Introduction.

Introduction.

"We seem to have with the subjugation of children, in short, the last stronghold of slavery, so deeply woven into our received way of being that we are unable, or unwilling, to see it"

-John McMurtry.

The child, since it has been conceptualized, has always been enslaved. So much that the very roots of the word "boy" and "girl" were and are still used to mean both a child and a servant. Adult slaves were called "pais" and "puer" in Ancient Greece and Rome because their slave status made them "like children" in relation to their masters. The roles of "child" and "slave" were conflated because both were property, chattel. Black men were called "boy" during slavery, and it remains to this day a racist slur. Frederick Douglass recognized the many similarities between the status of the minor and that of the slave and wrote: "I am but a boy, and all boys are bound to someone." He stressed this similarity when for example, he wrote about a white boy named Tommy growing into adulthood: "He had grown and become a man: I, though grown to the stature of manhood, must all my life remain a minor—a mere boy". The fact that expressions like "just a boy", "only a girl" come so natural to us, and to many young people feeling the need to shrink themselves before expressing an opinion in fear of upsetting their adult masters, demonstrates that we can't imagine ways of being child which do not imply being lesser. Not much changed since Douglass wrote that, minor status is still slave status. If you are a minor constitutional rights do not apply to you, you don't have many rights beyond the right not to be killed, and even then, you only have that right because the state needs to protect the adult you will become. And anytime a child is killed when their masters do it, their parents, you will never see anyone raging for their death. The number of children that are every year directly or indirectly killed by their parents is enormous, but their lives are seen as expendable. The loss of some future adults is an acceptable price for maintaining adultist structures of domination. It might even be beneficial, to remind all children to be grateful to their owners because the only reason why they aren't being killed or tortured is their benevolence. As Tommy Crow puts it: "If you had a good life under eighteen, it was by your parents' mercy and their mercy alone. Society doesn't deem you worthy of protection from these things. Your parents have dictatorial power over you, backed by the state, regardless of whether they choose to exploit it, and that should be enough to make you angry". Is anybody angry? Yes, children are angry. But it may seem that no one is angry, since children's voices are silenced by default and quashed when they challenge adult supremacy. They may not be fully conscious of their anger, they may be afraid to express it, they may not know to whom and what it is directed, but they are angry. Far from being passive victims of the adultist system, they daily resist and challenge adult power. No child is completely devoid of agency (this is an important concept of the "new sociology of childhood", which although important, still excludes children as researchers and stops short of making radical demands). This is not to shame children who are compliant and submissive; it's extremely risky and deadly even to be a non-compliant child. Noncompliant children risk violent abuse and institutionalization at every turn. Just being a child and waking up every morning, drowning in adult supremacy any second of your existence, is to be brave. But all children ultimately have a deep-seated rejection of tyranny and domination. They have been called, often disparagingly, "natural anarchists". To quote Douglass again, "I do not remember ever to have met with a boy, while I was in slavery, who defended the slave system". This has been interpreted as evidencing children's "natural goodness", the adult fantasy of the innocent child, which legitimizes phrases like "youthful idealism" and "you will get more conservative as you get older", and which legitimizes a view of children as naive and best served by paternalism (the word itself references the parent-child relationship), of power as just and of reactionary tendencies as "mature and rational" (adultist concepts). But what I mean by that is that children's own experiences of tyranny and domination, and the fact that they do not possess unrestricted authority over other living beings, makes them rejecting of tyranny and domination. To be a parent, guardian, or teacher is to be an enslaver in our society, and to be a good (if you are an adult, you will be judged by the measure of how good you are at oppressing children) parent, guardian or teacher is to be a "proper" enslaver — not sparing the rod (which shouldn't be seen as meaning only physical violence, but also psychological violence and control, as a minority of well-meaning adults have begun to challenge corporal punishment, more sophisticated forms of despotic parental rule develop. See "Beyond Anti-Smacking": Challenging violence and coercion in parent-child relations", Phillips, Alderson). Therefore, children aren't "natural" anarchists; there is nothing biological about the fact that youth is often opposed to authority; it's the conditions in which they live in which makes them so often question the benignity of authority and the ethics of paternalism. Some might feel that the comparison of children with slaves is going too far. I will not reply to this there because John McMurtry's articles give a satisfactory response, "for to be a slave is to have one's existence owned by another" (McMurtry, 1979). But, of course, how slavery is imagined today entails the exploitation of one's labor, and it seems wrong to compare nineteenth-century white children to slaves when many black children were slaves in the strict sense. But age was a vital component of slavery in the nineteenth century, "the majority of people living in slavery in the US were minors" (Mae Duane, 2018). To this day, the UNICEF figures indicate that 171 million children in majority world countries are exposed to the worst forms of coerced and slave labor. This is directly tied to their subordinate status as minors (Wall, 2016). In fact, most children in majority world countries are literally economic slaves, most children work, and they are made to do the worst jobs of all just because of their age and abused by adult bosses, co-workers, and clients, as well as forced by both law, violence and threats to hand the totality of their negligible earnings to their parents. Without even mentioning children who work for their parents on farms with no pay and girls whose domestic labor is taken for granted ("What do working children want?", Liebel). The UN's obsession with "eliminating child labor", rooted in the adultist and racialized construct of childhood prevalent in Europe and America from modernity on, makes the situation worse for these children. If their work becomes illegal, stopping is not an option, or they and their family would starve; the only option is even less regulated and more dangerous labor. Of course, the demands of working children are set aside, "in their best interests". Including their demand for the elimination of age-based discrimination in their homes and workplaces. It's necessary that the UN ignores this demand because legitimizing it allows for a politicization of childhood that would expose the idea of a different set of "rights" for children (the UNCRC, which wasn't even ratified in the US in fear that it would undermine "parental rights" and whose principles are mostly ignored around the world—article 12 is a perfect example of this disregard, it was off to a bad start in the first place since no child was involved in creating it. Even the most moderate claim for children's voices to be heard is bound to remain words written on paper and given no consideration by the adults who rule the world and adults who rule children's worlds) as inhumane, which it is. Children's rights should be human rights, but in liberal discourse, children's rights cannot be equal rights (Appell, 2009). Minority world children also labor for no (or little) pay. Even excluding the emotional labor children have to perform for their survival (Fraad, 2009), all European and American children work, with few exceptions—"unschoolers"—they do school work. The comparison between work and school doesn't even seem appropriate, not just because workers are paid. Most workers in modern Europe and America are not treated like children are in school, and if their boss dared to treat them that way, few would tolerate that. And most workers are not forced to work beyond their work hours like children are (homework). Workers who feel oppressed by their bosses might as well feel like they are being treated "like children" (as do all adults when they feel oppressed, tacitly acknowledging that child treatment is slave treatment). But not only do adults defend schooling by claiming it's for children's "own good" (despite plenty of evidence to the contrary), they also act like they're doing children a favor by granting them—as per UNCRC—"free and compulsory education", which is actually highly physically and emotionally taxing ("The Side Effects of School: A Crisis In Mental Health Can't Be Solved Through Therapy", Fisher) unpaid labor. Do children do other types of work other than school in Europe and America? Of course. Many teenagers work. But their minimum wages are meager, and many types of jobs that teens typically do are not subject to minimum wage. All jobs teenagers do are usually devalued, like working at Mcdonald's, which is the epitome of a "shit job", popular culture features many examples of classist prejudice against McDonald's workers (or fast-food workers in general), which are usually portrayed as very young. It doesn't even need to be stated that there are no teens in positions of command or in charge of anything or working "prestigious" jobs. They are, of course, paid less than older workers, and only a few (adult) voices raise to defend the principle of "equal pay for equal work" when we're discussing teenagers (but it would be unfair to say no voices: https://www.thecourier.com.au/story/6882095/shout-why-should-teens-get-paid-less-than-minimum-wage-this-must-stop/). Teenagers are collectively imagined as not deserving of money, because of course money could grant them some forms of independence, and open the possibility of some forms of rebellion (and this is why we see headlines like "Most minimum wage workers are not teenagers"). Adultist discrimination at work is the rule ("Welcome to your first job: expect to be underpaid, bullied, harassed or exploited in some way", Ruiz, Bartlett, Moir). Would you, adult reader, work in these conditions? And many teenagers who have jobs also go to school! How is that not slavery?1 Similar to how the UN seeks the abolition of child labor while refusing to tackle the demands of child workers in majority world countries, it is insisted that teenagers should only be in school and not work until much later. For many teenagers, of course, this is not a possibility, they have no choice. Yet they feel justified in creating moral panics over youth who sells sex. When working as a teenager looks like this, are there other options? It also appears that adults, be they employers, colleagues, supervisors, or customers, expect that from working teenagers anyway. Fineran's 2002 article reveals that in a sample of teenage part-time workers, 63% of the girls and 37% of the boys reported experiences of sexual harassment. That's one in two girls and one in three boys. And here too, they don't have a right to their earnings. "In the US, parents have a "right to the child's services and earnings" in forty-seven of fifty states...being able to order a child to work and then seizing their earnings is in effect a type of economic slavery" ("Against Parental Rights", Samantha Godwin). In fact, if I self-published this book as an underage person, I would have to do this under one of my parents' names, and they would have a right to all the profits. My owners would steal both my work and my money unless they were benevolent enough to admit that I did write the book and give up the money. But this would be a favor they're doing to me. Therefore the association between childhood and service or even slavery didn't die in 1700. According to Ariés, before 1700, childhood was defined by dependence. Many adults were considered "children". Childhood was less tied to age than to status. He wrote: "The long duration of childhood as it appeared in the common idiom was due to the indifference with which strictly biological phenomena were regarded at the time: Nobody would have thought of seeing the end of childhood in puberty. The idea of childhood was bound up with the idea of dependence: the words "sons", "varlets", and "boys" were also words in the vocabulary of feudal subordination. One could leave childhood only by leaving the state of dependence, or at least the lower levels of dependence", but Ariés too recognized the persistence of this language, "This is why the words associated with childhood would endure to indicate—in a familiar style, in the spoken language, men of humble rank whose submission to others remained absolute: lackeys, for instance, journeymen and soldiers. A little boy (petit garçon) was not necessarily a child but a young servant, just as today an employer of a foreman will say of a worker of twenty to twenty-five: "He's a good lad", thus in 1549, one Baduel, the principal of a college, an educational establishment, wrote to the father of one of his young pupils about his outfit and attendants: "A little boy is all that he will need for his personal service". There are hardly any words referring to children in English which aren't somehow associated with servility, it's not just "boy" and "girl" (Ryan, 2013). Both past societies (Plato stated, "it is for the elder man to rule and for the younger to submit") and different cultures (Lancy, 2018) are gerontocratic and present strong age hierarchies. But in these societies and cultures, submission is not just expected from those classified as "minors", but of all younger people when relating to an older person. Adult children are also expected to be submissive to their parents. The conceptualization of "minors" as a "special case", as innocent, incompetent, and needing supervision and others to make decisions for them, is exclusively the province of post-1700 Western societies. In contemporary Western society, all adults are seen as deserving of the same respect (at least in theory), with no consideration given to their age (unless perhaps if they're eighteen or nineteen), and while most people in positions of power are older (traces of gerontocracy are still, of course, visible), the gap is narrowing. Parents usually respect adult children as peers. While all "minors" are seen as deserving no consideration or freedom of any kind and as a different and inferior species. Both popular opinion and the law seem to insist that an infant and a sixteen-year-old are more similar than a twenty-year-old and a seventy-year-old are different. The law accords full equal rights even to the most "immature" (another adultist concept) adult, but there is no escaping childhood even for the most "mature" child. This is all in accordance with some spurious brain science and theories of "development" (the new justification, after Enlightenment philosophy, for the exclusion of children from egalitarian principles). But Piaget betrays them. One-half of all adults never achieve Piaget's stage of formal operational thought (Byrnes, 1988), while many young children prove themselves able to think that way (Lyon, 1993). And well, there's the fact that the man himself published his first article in a research journal at the age of eleven. This book won't be devoted to debating the absurd reasoning sustaining adult supremacy; it has already been done brilliantly by both Samantha Godwin and Jonathan Herring, who demonstrated convincingly that either paternalism isn't justified for anyone or for everyone, given the socially constructed nature of childhood. Adult supremacy is not a question of reasoning, though. It's a question of power. And power does not need to explain itself. We learn that early. "Because I said so". Of course, adults will produce adultist science which proves that they should have the right to own children. If children had a say, they'd say something different. Debating adult supremacy is fruitless because not all the evidence of the world would make adults want to give up their slaves. Adults won't just "give" children rights and give up their property and privilege. Relations between adults and children are ultimately the stuff of class struggle. I point to David Oldman's brilliant article in "Childhood Matters", "Adult-Child Relations as Class Relations": "My claim is that children constitute rather more than a minority group defined by an absence of rights, as is argued in the Italian report, although minority group status is certainly an emergent feature of childhood. I suggest that we might consider adults and children as constituting classes, in the sense of being social categories which exist principally by their economic opposition to each other, and in the ability of the dominant class (adults) to exploit economically the activities of the subordinate class (children)". Too much is at stake, not only adults will never be "convinced" of the importance of youth liberation, but will find any possible way of suffocating liberationist voices (if they're adult voices, as I've wrote they don't even allow child voices to make any sound). The most common today is perhaps ridicule; it's interesting to see how easy it is for an adult to lose their adult privilege when discussing youth liberation with another adult. It's like you betrayed your class, so you lose the privilege of belonging, of being an adult among adults and thus deserving of respect. You become a child. And an "immature" one at that. One who doesn't accept their subordination. The extent to which adult supremacy is insidious never fails to amaze. "Often, what adults mean by children's "maturity" is obedience, tractability and agreement with them" ("Equality Under the Constitution", A. Baer), since there's so much stigma tied to being perceived as "immature," of course children seeking to improve their status would dread to be perceived as that, and try to act "mature" as to get the ultimate compliment: "You're so mature for your age". Of course, the second most common strategy is to use the "fear of child sexuality," as it has been termed by Angelides, and label you as having predatory intentions towards children. The train of thought here is obvious, not only do they know the sexual purity of white children, imagined as an assault on their parents, analogous to the sexual purity of white women in the past, imagined as an assault on their husband, provokes strong reactions, they also believe that all children could possibly offer society if they were equal is the sexual use of their bodies. This is also congruent with how intergenerational friendships are imagined in society; what else could a child offer an adult? It's not like children are perceived to possess more than "cuteness," i.e., physical beauty in our culture. Adults fuck children. They're not friends with them. For adults, it's a defeat to see a peer siding with the class they oppress, so they project and protect themselves from the anger this causes them by attributing to that person a desire to manipulate children in a more sophisticated way, which they condemn because the use of the child's body is the right of the parent. Sexually assaulting a child is seen as robbery, not rape. You won't come out unscathed from an argument with another adult about youth liberation. You'll remain isolated. But while those arguments might be useless, not only do they force power to explain itself, but they remind adults that there is always room for resistance, that their hegemony may not be as absolute as they believed it to be, that to some people it isn't natural. Laura Purdy spent most of her academic career attempting to refute the claims of 70s child liberationists, an extremely small group, because they questioned whether her "superiority" wasn't just a pretense. They remind them that a revolution could come when they least expect it. And when the adult invariably loses control during the argument— the violence adults display in these contexts has to mean we're doing something right — you can laugh in their face. In the face of the autonomous rational subject, the Adult, the last "rightful" oppressor, reddened by rage, exhibiting little to no self-control and all the impulsiveness traditionally attributed to teenagers. But while teen rage is imbued with transformative power, adult rage is a reactionary force. Adult rage set off two atomic bombs. Teen rage is currently trying to stop those same adults from killing our planet (some might object that much good has come out of adult rage, even if I can't think of anything, and that teen rage has caused school shootings. While the average mass shooter's age remains thirty-three, let's take this objection seriously, yes, that is true, but it's exactly the exceptionality of those cases that shocks. Children and young teenagers aren't generally attributed a great capacity for actual violence, even while they may be stereotyped as petulant and obnoxious, and the kind of children we've seen perpetrating school shootings in the media have little to do with how the "juvenile delinquent" is usually fantasized, those are generally delicate-looking middle-class white boys. In contrast, the "juvenile delinquent" is collectively imagined as an older black youth. What adult society doesn't forgive the school shooter is not that he kills people; after all, most of those who die in school shootings are also children; it's what it hasn't forgiven Thompson and Venables, who also killed a younger child on an adult supremacist principle, the assault on their idea of the Child, with its associations of sweetness, innocence, and subservience. Ruining the fantasy of the gentle, docile child who is "too good for this, adult, world" and therefore requires protection, by adults themselves. If a child can be as bad as any adult, they can also be as good. The adult supremacist solves this by denying the violent child childhood while also denying them the privileges of adulthood (Joosen, 2016); the violent child thus exists outside those conceptualizations. They are neither "child" nor "adult". They're "criminal"2). This book is informed by this rage. It's informed by emotions. By the feeling of hopelessness caused by being a youth liberationist when children are possessions and adults are anxious of losing them. Postman thought television would have brought about the end of childhood, i.e., the end of the enslavement of children, and he was terrified of it. Today the same is believed of the Internet, the greatest achievement of youth liberation, as was already argued by Katz (1996). But I'm concerned it won't last long. Adults might as well be willing to sacrifice some privacy to restrict the only avenue in which children are rendered free by the power of anonymity. And part of why children have thrived on the Internet is that they knew more about it than their parents; for once, parents found themselves instructed by their children, and children had the possibility to lie (it was recognized even by early child protectionists that lying saves children's lives) to have access to more liberty. But younger adults' children won't have this possibility. This generation of children might as well be the last to have experienced the greatest youth liberation experiment up to date, to have had the possibility of escaping to a world where age doesn't matter unless you want it to. Online there are multiple communities of young people describing life as a "minor" and what it feels like. Thinking of the "abusive parents" tag on Tumblr makes me rejoice, these young people have a chance to discuss normalized forms of abuse they experience that would be dismissed by the people in their life. And despite this, it wouldn't be appropriate to exaggerate the benefits, technology has had some disastrous effects too on the liberty of children. Tracking devices are used by adults to track the movements of children who might have found just a chink of freedom. Unless we get to some radical change, we're going backward, not forward, and radical change can only be brought on by rage. It's also informed by pain, by the wound that not being seen as human for eighteen years leaves you with, a universal wound where the germs of all oppressions in history and present-day and in any country and culture were allowed to take root freely. Adam Fletcher wrote: "Racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, and other discriminations find it easy to take root and grow in the fertile soil of the mind that adultism has plowed ahead of them". It's about more than that; it's about, as Toby Rollo has shown, the oppression of children being the archetypical oppression and all other oppressions being based on the idea that the subject class resembles them. It's about all hierarchies and binaries being the product of adult society that children have to internalize through the process of "socialization". "RAD YOUTH LIB" is about going to the root of things, rebelling against all coercion and paternalism, and all the socially constructed differences among human beings based on inequality. Rebelling to "pedagogy", "education", and "socialization" which are all nice words for manipulation and indoctrination. Rebelling to "for your own good"s, "in their best interests"s, and all the constraints and monitoring adults impose on youth. "Our lives are considered the property of various adults. We do not recognize their right to control us. We call this control Adult Chauvinism and we will fight it", Youth Liberation of Ann Arbor. Year 1972. And most importantly, it's about the reality that while adults need children, their slaves (You reader of this book who thinks me disrespectful for stating the truth, do you know who made your shirt? Your shoes?), children do not need adults despite adults' panicked shrieking that the dependency of children as a class to adults as a class is natural, or that we're all interdependent (true, but the way interdependency is conceptualized today naturalizes both the child's reliance on the adult and the adult's exploitation of the unsalaried labor of the child, hence why moving beyond the gaslighting of scholars using "interdependency" as a "clever" way to detract from youth liberation, I will try in this book to build a youth liberationist theory of interdependency—among children, fully liberated from the chains adults have used to restrain them and more radically, fully liberated from the burdensome presence of adults in their lives). Separation here is not conceptualized as benefiting children because of any inherent differences between "children" and "adults", but because of the long history of atrocities and deprivation adults have committed and forced on children, and because no currently existing system in a world made by adults for adults can represent children correctly, probably even if they were to gain equal rights, which I am convinced is unlikely to happen. Separation, of course, is not intended to be total, as a total segregation of children from adults, which is how things work now, children belong to certain adults and are kept away from the rest of them. But what is meant by that is that children count on each other and not on their enslavers filled with misopedic hatred for a fulfilling life. RAD YOUTH LIB is modeled on radical feminism, which had, in turn, a strong youth liberation current, as many second-wave feminists were youth liberationists but seeks to avoid its mistakes. It's also heavily influenced by anarchism since it seems clear that there are no hopes of youth liberationist futures in any society that legitimizes hierarchy because all hierarchies are rooted in the adult-child relationship, particularly in the parent-child relationship. It wouldn't be possible for them to be made acceptable if it wasn't for childhood socialization. Anarchism has been, to this day, the only movement to take youth liberation seriously, and after the 70s, all powerful liberationist voices have been anarchistic. Still, I object to the model of communal child-rearing as it affords the misopedic community of adults too much power over its child members, neglecting the fact that youth oppression benefits all adults, not just those that are part of the child's biological family, and relying on their benevolence is inherently dangerous. Now, after this brief overview, a look at the chapters: In chapter 1, "Why we need a radical youth liberation theory," I discuss the failings of current literature, even the most liberationist literature, to model a radical youth lib theory, I tackle the problems of the "interdependence" approach, of the "different but equal" approach and also the "equal rights" approach, and I point to the violence of school and the ageist structure of the university as the cause for this lack of radical theory. In chapter 2, "Why collaboration with adults is not possible," I challenge the desire for collaboration with the oppressors and even the more liberationist idea of "adult allies" by pointing out that the gravity and magnitude of youth oppression leave room only for either revenge or separation. In chapter 3, "We can't reform the school and the family," I contend that there is no possibility for reforming what are, in fact, prisons where children find themselves jailed only for the crime of being children since the only purpose of these institutions is the taming of youth, just as there is no possibility of making the status of "minor" into something more humane by decreasing the age of majority or limiting the restrictions tied to it because the status of "minor" and the word itself symbol children's position as slaves in adult society. In chapter 4, "Solidarity among young people, killing the "Adult"" I discuss ways of being interdependent among young people and the destruction of the adult mindset that produces inequalities of gender, age, race, sexuality, and ability among children. Once this mindset has perished, a society of interdependent young people will look radically different from a contemporary high school. In chapter 5, "Freeing ourselves from the shackles of attachment," I see adult supremacy as a perfect system of domination built on perverse understandings of "love" and how we can move beyond the fifth commandment and our affection for our oppressors, to get truly free. In chapter 6, "Abandoning the lust for power," I recognize the humanity of young people that are conditioned to look up to the adult role and to aspire to have power over others while trying to imagine ways to prevent the reconstitution of hierarchies and mindsets based on coercing another person in the belief that they will benefit. In chapter 7, "The end of all oppression" I expose how the impossibility of doing away with deep inequality among adults has its cause in adult liberation movements neglecting youth liberation and seeking equality on the basis that the powerful were wrong in "infantilizing" them and that they are in fact not like children, and how the absence of any youth liberation movement up to date can be explained by the fear of the dissolution of all power dynamics.

This book has been thought because of a profound disillusion with anti adultist activism by adults up to this date and a realization of how total the suppression of youth is. Just a few months ago, I was writing articles on solidarity between adults and youth. But now, I recognize it as a mere illusion. Relying on adults' goodwill is a luxury children can no longer afford; it will get them ensnared in another million years of enslavement. And this without even considering that the vast majority of adults wish to make it worse for children, not better. Right now, it's hard to object to Firestone writing in "The Dialectic of Sex": "Childhood is hell". But adulthood is also hell, perhaps. Having your worth measured by how good an enslaver you are is dehumanizing. It must be tiring to be there all the time, to scrutinize and punish children's behavior. And this burden largely falls on the shoulders of women in a sexist society; as it is known, the patriarch usually leaves the task of keeping his children in check to a subordinate. The social role of adult is a heavy weight. You're always supposed to be "rational", "strong", "reliable", and "stoic" (in the adult-defined sense of those words), or you will face the abject humiliation of being compared to a child by another adult. Children live in fear of being beaten, but adults also live in fear of what is termed "infantilization". They can never forget what was done to them for eighteen years (or sometimes more), so I see their terror as something more than the fear of blows to their adult ego; I see it as fear of blows. I didn't add it to the dedication for obvious reasons, but yes, this book is for them too and especially the ones whose fury will be arisen by it.

Notes:

1.The same applies to children whose images and bodies are exploited by adults because of the cultural fetishization of youth like child actors and child influencers.

2. All of these situations are heavily connected to adult supremacist logic, see https://crimethinc.com/2018/03/20/gun-control-no-youth-liberation-mass-shootings-school-walkouts-getting-free, and "Destroying the Baby in Themselves: Why did the two boys kill James Bulger?".