Parenting in famine

In most famine households, an order develops, and the order is not random. Smallest children often eat first because their reserves are thinnest. Pregnant and nursing mothers eat second, because they are feeding another body. Older children and working adults eat third. The elderly often eat last, sometimes by their own insistence. The order is not always followed and the failures are often gendered, with girls in some cultural contexts receiving less than boys. Parents enforce or break these orders consciously, and the enforcement is one of the most morally weighted activities of their day. There is no clean answer for how to ration love through calories. There is only the answer that was made, this time, in this kitchen.

A parent learns to read the signs early, because reading them late is fatal. The change in the child's skin, the swelling of the belly that is not fullness, the thinning hair, the apathy that replaces the usual fight. The parent who has seen famine before reads these faster. The parent who has not learns under pressure, often after the first child has been lost. The knowledge spreads through the community by word, by silent comparison at the well, by the conversation with the health worker who comes through. Once seen, the signs cannot be unseen; they will be read on every child the parent encounters for the rest of the parent's life, including grandchildren who will never miss a meal.

Famine markets behave strangely. Grain prices rise faster than wages, which is the technical mechanism by which entitlement collapses. The parent who used to buy a week of food with a day's labor now needs a week of labor to buy a day of food. Some markets see hoarding, some see speculation, some see the arrival of traders from distant cities who buy up local grain to ship to higher-paying buyers. Parents become small-scale market analysts because the alternative is being a victim of the market without understanding why. The parent who can predict the price spike by a day or two and buy ahead is feeding their family with knowledge as much as money. This is a skill that does not appear on any resume but that decides whether children live.

The aid convoy arrives, or it does not. When it arrives, the queue is long, the distribution is uneven, the rules are unclear. Parents wait in heat with children on their backs for rations that may or may not match what the family needs. Some aid is well designed and some is poorly designed, and parents have opinions about which agencies do which. Aid is also political: the regime sometimes blocks it, sometimes diverts it, sometimes uses it to reward loyal areas and punish disloyal ones. Parents navigate this political layer while pretending to the child that the system is simpler than it is, because the child does not need to know yet that survival depends on the moods of officials in offices the parent will never see.

Many families try to move toward food. Toward the city, toward the aid camp, toward the relatives in the next country. The decision is heavy. Movement costs calories the family does not have. The destination may not deliver what was promised. The road may be unsafe. Children may not survive the walk. Parents make this call with what information they have, and the call has been made differently in different famines: in Ireland the boats, in Bengal the city, in Ethiopia the camps, in Somalia the long walk. The parents who decide to stay and the parents who decide to go are both betting the family on the decision, and both are sometimes right and sometimes wrong, and the verdict is rendered by the bodies of the children some weeks later.

What gets cooked changes. Foods that were animal feed become human food. Wild plants that were not in the diet enter the diet. Bark, in extreme cases. The cooking takes longer, because cheaper substitutes require more processing, and the fuel for cooking is itself scarce. Mothers spend hours preparing food that delivers fewer calories than the food it replaced. This labor is rarely counted in famine accounts because it is invisible, performed mostly by women, mostly in spaces no one is documenting. The recipes that emerge survive into later generations as cuisine, often without anyone remembering that they were invented in starvation. The cookbook of every poor region contains the famine, if you know how to read it.

Some children do not survive. The parent buries the child, or watches the child be buried in a mass distribution that does not allow individual graves, or never finds the body because the child died on the road. This loss is not assimilable to ordinary bereavement, because ordinary bereavement happens in conditions where the parent did everything possible. Famine bereavement carries the additional weight of trade-offs the parent made, of food given to one child and not another, of decisions to leave or to stay that turned out wrong. Parents carry this for life. The honest accounts of famine survival from grandparents to grandchildren almost always include a sentence about a child who is not there. The grandchildren remember the sentence and rarely ask follow-up questions. Some questions cannot be asked.

Children who survive famine carry the metabolic record forever. Their bodies were programmed to expect scarcity, and when food returns they often store fat differently, regulate appetite differently, respond to abundance with a dysregulation that medical systems centuries later are still mapping. The parent who fed the child through the famine did not know about the metabolic programming, and could not have done otherwise even if they had. The grandchildren of the famine sometimes inherit metabolic patterns through epigenetic mechanisms that the grandparents did not consent to and could not have prevented. The famine reaches forward into bodies that never went hungry. Parenting through famine, in this technical sense, is parenting of generations not yet born.

In famines, neighbors sometimes share and sometimes do not. The decisions are agonizing. The mother who has half a meal can give a portion to the child next door, or hold it for her own, and the choice may decide which child lives. Parents do not all make the same choice, and the choices are not legible from outside. The sharing that does happen, in spite of everything, is a moral fact that famine analyses tend to underreport because it is harder to quantify than the failures. The community kitchens, the village funds, the church distributions, the secret packets of grain passed from one mother to another at the well: these are the substrate of the survival that does occur, and they deserve more recognition than the dominant narrative of pure desperation allows.

Famine carries a shame that hunger should not produce, but does. The household that runs out of food experiences it as a failure, even when it is the result of forces no household could have resisted. Parents hide the emptiness of the kitchen from visitors, dilute the porridge with extra water before serving, send the children outside so they will not be seen eating less than they should. The shame protects nothing material but it protects something psychological that the parent feels is necessary, which is the family's standing in its own eyes. Long after the famine, the silence persists. Grandparents do not talk about it. Aid workers note that interviews about famine experience are among the hardest to conduct, not because the memories are absent but because the shame is still active.

Famines end, in a sense. The harvest comes, or aid stabilizes, or the war pauses, or the migration relieves the population pressure. The parents and the surviving children return to something that is called normal life. But the household has been remade. The children eat differently. The mother cooks differently. The father, if he is still there, looks at his children differently. The relationships among siblings carry the memory of who ate first and who ate last. None of this is talked about, mostly, but all of it is operative. The family is the family, and is not the family it was. Famine parenthood does not end when the famine does. It continues as a quiet substrate of everything the household does for the next several decades.

Almost no famine in the modern era has been a pure act of nature. Every one has involved political choices: to export food when it was needed locally, to deny aid access to disloyal regions, to maintain economic policies that pauperized rural populations, to wage war that destroyed harvests, to operate a siege that prevented food entry. Parents who lived through famines knew this, often. Their children inherit this knowledge as a political education. The famine generation tends to produce a particular kind of political consciousness, which is skeptical of official narratives, attuned to the distance between rhetoric and food, and capable of holding the long memory that allows accountability to be sought, sometimes decades later. This consciousness is part of the inheritance, and it is one of the things that makes the next famine slightly harder to engineer than the last, when the inheritance is preserved and transmitted.

A society that has produced famines owes the survivors more than commemoration. It owes the structural changes that make recurrence less likely: entitlement protections, transparent food markets, rapid aid access, accountability for the political decisions that produced the previous failure. Parents who fed their children through the famine are not asking for medals. They are asking for the next set of parents, often their own children's generation, not to have to do what they did. This is the modest, almost embarrassed, request that famine parenthood makes of the polity. The fact that the request is so often unmet is the central indictment, and the central reason the work of parenting in famine continues to be required of new families in each generation.

1. Sen, Amartya. Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981. 2. de Waal, Alex. Mass Starvation: The History and Future of Famine. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2018. 3. de Waal, Alex. Famine Crimes: Politics and the Disaster Relief Industry in Africa. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997. 4. Sen, Amartya. Development as Freedom. New York: Knopf, 1999. 5. Roy, Sara. The Gaza Strip: The Political Economy of De-development. 3rd ed. Washington: Institute for Palestine Studies, 2016. 6. Enloe, Cynthia. Maneuvers: The International Politics of Militarizing Women's Lives. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. 7. Young, Iris Marion. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990. 8. Abu-Lughod, Lila. Do Muslim Women Need Saving? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013. 9. Menjívar, Cecilia. Enduring Violence: Ladina Women's Lives in Guatemala. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011. 10. Press, Eyal. Dirty Work: Essential Jobs and the Hidden Toll of Inequality in America. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2021. 11. Shah, Sonia. The Next Great Migration: The Beauty and Terror of Life on the Move. New York: Bloomsbury, 2020. 12. Vince, Gaia. Nomad Century: How Climate Migration Will Reshape Our World. New York: Flatiron Books, 2022.