Second Treatise of Government: Chapter 6: Of Paternal Power Summary & Analysis

Paternal power, Locke explains, is the power parents have over children, and it is often assumed to reside only with the father. According to Locke, however, a mother has equal claim to paternal power, and it is thus better understood as “parental power.” Had this been considered, Locke says, perhaps it would have saved people from the many mistakes made concerning parents’ power. Especially as it is understood in terms of absolute monarchies. What would those people have thought, Locke asks, to discover that the absolute power they bestowed upon the father actually belonged to the mother as well? 

While Locke contends that everyone is born into a state of perfect equality, this equality does not extend to children. Children “are not born in this full state of equality, though they are born to it.” Parents have temporary jurisdiction over children, until they reach the age of reason. Adam was created a perfect man, but his descendants were all born infants, without knowledge or understanding. Adam and Eve were under an obligation to nourish and educate their offspring until they reached the age of reason. As people are now, Adam was governed by the “law of reason,” which assumes that no one can be held under a law they don’t understand.

Parents’ power over children is rooted in a duty parents have to care for their offspring, to teach and advise them until they become free. Until that time, a child is dependent on their parents to provide and understand for them. If a child’s parents should die without appointing a guardian for them, Locke says, the law must step in to care for the child. But after a child reaches the age of reason, they are just as free as their parents. If, by way of certain defects, one is never able to understand the law, they are not able to be free. As such, the mentally ill are never free from the government, Locke says.

The most ardent supporters of the monarchy, Locke  proclaims, who believe the king rules by right of fatherhood, must understand that if they invest absolute power in a monarch the way Sir Robert Filmer says, one can never be free. Humankind’s freedom is rooted in reason, which is why authority is placed in the parents of children, but there is no reason to arbitrarily give that power to the father. What of paternal power in parts of the world where women are allowed multiple husbands? And what of husbands and wives in America who can part, and the children remain with their mother? A mother has power over her children as well, and she can make rules and impose obligations the same as a father. 

Parents’ power over children, however, is temporary, and it does not extend to their life or property, Locke argues. Once a child arrives at the age of discretion, this power ceases. At this point, the child is free from their parents’ dominion, but they are still expected to honor them. Just as the laws of nature and God obligate parents to care for their children until adulthood, a child is expected to honor their parents forever. Nothing can absolve a parent from the responsibility of caring for their children, and nothing can absolve a child from honoring their parents. 

Parents are charged with educating their children, although they may put their child’s tuition in another’s hands. Furthermore, Locke says, if one’s child serves as an apprentice to another, a great part of that child’s obedience to their parents is discharged to their mentor. But, Locke claims, none of this enables a parent to make and enforce laws over a child that affect “limb and life.” If political power is paternal, and all the power is in the prince, then his subjects can have none of it. Thus, paternal power can extend no further than parent to child, as a parent has not the authority to govern.