Can the effects of boundary-crossing behavior by powerless parents on their children be compared to those of powerless leaders on their citizens?
Powerless Parents
How do children respond to dysfunctional parents? Some parents are unable to provide their children with the love, attention, and stability they require. At times, this powerlessness takes boundary-crossing forms: neglect, emotional or physical violence, intimidation, or a prolonged state of uncertainty.
Children almost invariably relate this powerlessness to themselves. They cannot choose their parents, nor can they leave them, and are dependent both materially and emotionally. The child confronted with boundary-crossing parental powerlessness internalizes the experienced pain: “Dad is so angry — I must have done something wrong.” Guilt is felt where it does not belong, while responsibility rests with the parent.
Precisely because of this dependency, children are often strikingly loyal. That loyalty not infrequently increases as the parent becomes more powerless. It is in the child’s interest to counterbalance the chaos and keep the system — however fragile — intact. The commonly heard observation that children “adapt so easily,” for instance to far-reaching demands such as wearing face masks, fundamentally misunderstands this mechanism. Adaptation here is not a sign of resilience, but of necessity.
The child who is consistently subjected to unreasonable demands finds itself in a classic catch-22. It can comply and do violence to itself, or break the rule and be punished. The aggression that arises within such a system rarely targets the parents themselves — the dependency is too great — but is displaced outward, for instance onto siblings or peers, or turned inward, leading to a negative self-image or even self-harm. The child becomes obedient — or it becomes “naughty”.
Powerless Leaders
It is plausible that this systemic dynamic also manifests itself in so-called adult systems, that is, within parts of society, particularly when leadership becomes more authoritarian and democratic reciprocity and empathy come under pressure. At the systemic level, the parent-child relationship is reproduced, amplified by the regressive effects of collective fear.
A government that legitimizes its policies by appealing to the support of “the majority of the population” — determined through limited and fleeting samples — fails to recognize that the traumatized child remains loyal to the parent not by free choice, but out of dependency. Loyalty here is not an expression of consent, but of adaptation. The more frequently the child is reproached for its shortcomings, the more diligently it strives to be exemplary.
A government that addresses its citizens in a pretentious and moralizing tone about their allegedly irresponsible behavior will therefore not cultivate autonomous and responsible citizens, but rather a compliant population that — adult though it may be — declares that it acts “out of concern for others.” That this concern arises under pressure remains unacknowledged.
As policy becomes more erratic and less intuitively comprehensible, more individuals and institutions feel compelled to affirm its self-evidence. The media occupy a particular role here: they invoke authorities that, in good Catholic fashion, are not meant to be questioned. The eldest son, normally unwilling to comply, suddenly discovers his sense of responsibility.
Aggression and Displacement
A government that generates chaos, moralizes, and admonishes groups does not immediately provoke resistance or revolution, but rather internal conflict. Citizens correct one another: over face masks, distancing, vaccinations, group sizes. Aggression is displaced sideways, not upwards.
When such conflict escalates — in riots or in the hardening of public discourse — renewed admonition follows. Above all, the disobedient child, the “naughty citizen,” is dealt with harshly. The powerlessness of leadership has by then grown so great that little room remains for distance, understanding, or self-relativization.
By imposing rules — such as a maximum number of visitors during the holidays — with a directiveness and arbitrariness that would no longer be tolerated in any daycare center since the 1970s, citizens are deprived of their reason and capacity for judgment. They are thereby made complicit in a potential failure. The child either loses its sense of self-worth — or acquires the label “naughty.”
Powerlessness and Responsibility
The term powerlessness is used deliberately here to avoid simplistic blame. Governments faced an extraordinary challenge, and much of their conduct is understandable in that context. But understandability does not absolve responsibility. Powerlessness does not preclude accountability — no more than it does in the case of parents.
Precisely where powerlessness is neither acknowledged nor contained, but instead compensated for through governmental overreach — through wearing trousers that are too large, through moral pretension and control — systemic damage with long-lasting psychological consequences arises. Whether the powerlessness is plausible or the intentions are good is largely irrelevant. What is operative is the fact of the asymmetrical power relationship, not the moral self-image of those who wield power.
Final thoughts
It is striking that, despite the volatility of policy and the persistent ministerial irritation at our allegedly irresponsible behavior, compliance among the vast majority of the population — including young people — remained high. Just as the child feels guilty when it does not “listen,” so many citizens experienced guilt when they hesitated or doubted.
The limited attention paid to this psychological and systemic dimension of the health crisis is a serious omission. Not because leaders acted in bad faith, but because powerlessness that is neither endured nor bounded inevitably causes harm. That is the hypothesis of this essay — and perhaps also its most uncomfortable conclusion.