The Evolution of “Infantilization”
The term “infantilization” has gone beyond its original and specific meaning. Now, it is often applied to various situations. Primarily emerging from the discipline of psychology, it was originally used to define certain forms of emotional abuse. The abuse involves the unwarranted treatment of fully capable adults or young adults as if they were still children. Recently, however, the term has gained significant traction in popular discourse. It evolved into a ubiquitous buzzword. As a result, it is now used to describe a very wide range of phenomena.
Infantilization as a Tool of Oppression
In power dynamics, infantilization presents an interesting duality. It can serve as a tool of oppression and self-inflicted action. On the one hand, oppressors may view the oppressed as childish. The historical approach was exemplified by French physicians in the 19th century pathologizing indigenous peoples and attributing their cultural differences to biological deficiencies. Such a perspective positions oppressors as rational adults and legitimizes their control over “childish” and “uncivilized” groups.
Conversely, infantilization can be carried out by those in the dominant group. For example, white women may strategically display innocence and emotional purity. The infantilization of the self aims to deflect criticism of their potential complicity in the exploitation of people of color. Here, power dynamics become more nuanced.
But the question arises: when the act of infantilization becomes independent, who occupies the position of oppressor and oppressed? Is self-infantilization truly an act of self-suppression, or is there some other purpose? Furthermore, how do we distinguish between true infantilization and behavior motivated by other desires?
Blurred Lines: Self-Infantilization and Escapism
Consider the act of playing video games or wearing light clothing. The activities can be interpreted as a rejection of harsh reality and a retreat into a space of comfort and nostalgia. Economic decline, and political extremism, is it a form of self-deprecation weakening our institutions or is it simply a show of self-compassion and a necessary reprieve from endless hardship? There may be another explanation entirely.
At the same time, infantilization can be conceptualized as an instrument used by individuals to abdicate their responsibilities. Sometimes, the term is used to refer to certain phrases such as “boys will be boys” or as a way of referring to mass shooters in particular white male mass shooters.
For example, when Peyton Gendron was arrested for the 2022 Buffalo mass shooting, the Associated Press identified him as a white teenager. The description contrasts sharply with their previous characterization of Michael Brown (a victim of police brutality) as a black man. Notably, both individuals were 18 years old at the time the article was published.
The observation stems from a Choice 360 article titled We Must Stop Infantilizing White Mass Shooters and Treating BIPOC Youth as Adults. The article strongly opposes the differential treatment of young people based solely on their racial identity.
However, it is clear how the phenomenon (in its various manifestations) greatly deviates from the above situation. One scenario depicts the treatment of marginalized groups by their oppressors, while the other scenario depicts the treatment of the oppressors by their privileged classes. The fundamental differences between the two contexts require the use of different terminology.
Infantilization and Social Stratification
Paradoxically, the term “infantilization” remains used to cover both situations. Often, it is because infantilization is more than just the act of treating someone like a child. It is a form of social stratification that functions to maintain the existing social order. The concept does more than simply determine who is considered a child; it determines who is forced to occupy child roles and who is excluded from the appointment. Ultimately, infantilization functions as a mechanism for assigning agency within a constructed narrative and upholding the status quo.
Historically, acts of infantilization are closely linked to the marginalization of entire societies. In Fathers and Children, Michael Rogin conducts a careful analysis of how the parent-child dynamic served as a recurring thematic backdrop for the colonization of the Americas and the subsequent genocide perpetrated against indigenous peoples. Consistently, Rogin argues how white narratives depict Native Americans as “children of nature” and liken them to “children of the forest.” The characterization stems from a lack of self-control and an inability to separate oneself from nature. In the eyes of the colonizers, these native peoples were forever tied to “maternal bonds” signifying a state of perpetual dependency and undeveloped maturity. Besides reflecting the infantilization tactics used by French imperialists, the narrative became a well-known justification for carrying out a “civilizing mission.” It is a thinly veiled euphemism for cultural conquest and erasure.
Historical Examples of Infantilization
Additionally, the book emphasizes how people of color are consistently portrayed as incapable of self-management and in need of outside guidance. Often, they are framed as a form of “salvation” from their inherent weaknesses. However, the passage challenges the simple idea of how white imperialism was solely motivated by greed and a willingness to commit atrocities in its efforts. Instead, it provides a more nuanced perspective. The concept of the “White Man’s Burden” is presented not as a purely exploitative effort. Rather, it is a self-serving narrative that positions the colonialists as benevolent benefactors. The narrative depicts white people sacrificing their safety and wealth for the sake of those “willing to follow his rules” and assimilate into his constructed reality.
The Influence of Narrative
The influence of narrative on contemporary political discourse cannot be underestimated. The narrative has not only become a cornerstone of American foreign and domestic policy and underpinned suspicion of China through the lens of protecting America’s youth; it raises doubts about minority groups not adhering to societal norms and justifies invasions of oil-rich areas based on treaties under the guise of liberating oppressed communities. However, its influence extends even into left-wing ideology. The left’s popular narrative can be seen as paternalistic towards the working class and implies the need for education from superior, honest individuals to help them understand their circumstances.
The Dehumanization of Oppressor and Oppressed
Paulo Freire criticized the approach of adopting a narrative that naturalizes human limitations as a divisive approach. An approach like that fosters division because it isolates itself from the process of human empowerment. In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire distinguishes between “far-right sectarians” formerly called “born sectarians” seeking to impede historical progress and manipulate the passage of time for their ends. Ultimately, it controls the lives of others. Furthermore, he argues how “leftists turning sectarian” make a grave mistake when trying to interpret reality through a rigid dialectical historical lens. In the end, it fell into a position of fatalism.
Most importantly, the difference between the world we dream of and the world we live in is a major obstacle to our desire for social change. We aspire to imagine a utopian future, a future where we can break free from flawed societal structures. Even when we acknowledge the problems, we inadvertently perpetuate troubling sectarianism.
Additionally, our sources of information and discourse are often compromised. We rely on corporate social media platforms, proven to be influenced by authoritarian-leaning individuals for our news and discussions. Through its algorithm, the platform prioritizes content based on popularity rather than objectivity. Moreover, the foundation of our education and socialization comes from the same societal paradigm we want to dismantle.
It is in line with the ideas expressed by Freire. He argues how both the oppressor and the oppressed need liberation. The two groups are entangled in a process of dehumanization. The oppressor tries to exploit the dynamics to consolidate power, while the oppressed are subdued and become powerless as a result. Ultimately, the system of power thrives by ignoring the capacity of both parties to fully embrace their humanity.
When autistic individuals experience the process of infantilization, they are then considered an anomaly in the social order. The perception places them in the position of passive recipients of pity. Ultimately, it leads to their marginalization and exclusion from societal discourse.
The basic message conveyed through infantilization is the rejection of the need for introspection. We are freed from a critical examination of the structure of our society, the inefficiencies of our systems, or the possibility that how our affinity with life functions within a flawed system depends largely on factors beyond our control.
Infantilization as a Rejection of Introspection
The denial implies a false dichotomy and shows how the challenges faced by autistic individuals are entirely separate from the broader societal context. The narrative argues how society itself exists in a state of natural perfection and the form it exists today is an unavoidable consequence. It absolves the social order of any responsibility for the difficulties faced by those deviating from existing norms.
The consequence of such a perspective is the relegation of those considered “irregular” to systems designed to make improvements. Typically, it involves separation into a special educational setting and administration of various medications. The implied suggestion is how, through sufficient effort and compliance with the rules put in place, a return to “normal” might be achieved. It is a world defined by narrow and potentially arbitrary standards.
Infantilization of White Mass Shooters
When white mass shooters are portrayed through an infantilizing lens, they are reduced to mere anomalies in the social order. Public discourse condenses them into objects of pity and destined to be thrown away once the shock subsides. The framing fosters a dangerous illusion: that the act of violence is an aberration, completely divorced from the underlying currents existing in our society, our systems, and even our potential culpability.
Critically, the narrative we construct absolves us of the responsibility to examine social factors that may have contributed to the atrocities. It implies a false dichotomy, stating how “we” (considered normal and empowered citizens) have nothing to do with the propensity for mass violence. On the other hand, the perpetrator is positioned outside the scope of social influence as if his actions emerged from a vacuum.
The distorted perception perpetuates the myth of a natural social order, in which such tragedies are inevitable events. It frees our institutions and systems from any potential role in driving or failing to mitigate these events. Proposed reformative detention solutions reinforce the fallacy. The implication is that a brief period of isolation coupled with therapeutic intervention can effectively remove the underlying causes triggering violence. We are led to believe that through willpower and a prescribed rehabilitation process, offenders can be reintegrated into society as “normal” individuals.
The important difference we understand is how the exceptionalism argument made by both mass shooters and the police system that infantilizes perpetrators is dishonest. Both parties describe him to others as having a childlike mental capacity to absolve himself of responsibility for the consequences of his actions. Although the depiction may prove true in some cases, it is always inhumane.
Infantilization as Justification for Abuse
The tactic of infantilization is an often-seen form of abuse, often expressed with the phrase, “You are incapable of understanding; I know what is best for you.” Conversely, a form of self-infantilization can also be used as a manipulative tactic: “I cannot judge better; this is who I am; I am powerless to control my actions.” Whether the statements are truly expressions of the perpetrator’s beliefs is immaterial in either scenario. Infantilization functions as a process of justifying the abuse and exploitation of others in pursuit of personal gain.
Bibliography
- Epstein, R., Bock, S. D., & Drew, M. J. (2023). Infantilization across the life span: A large-scale internet study suggests that emotional abuse is especially damaging. Motiv Emot, 47.
- Hudson-Ward, A. (2022). We Must Stop Infantilizing White Mass Shooters and Treating BIPOC Youth as Adults. Choice 360.
- Reynolds, P. R. (2007). The “Pedagogy of the Oppressed”: The necessity of dealing with problems in students’ lives. Educational Horizons, 86(1), 53-60.
- Rogin, M. P. (2017). Fathers and children: Andrew Jackson and the subjugation of the American Indian. Routledge.