Miss

Examining Childhood, essay

Sociologists view childhood as being socially constructed; which in other words, means something that is created and defined by society. They believe, that what people mean by the term “childhood” and the position that children have in society is not fixed, but varies between different times, (historically specific), places and cultures. We can see this, by comparing the western view on childhood today with childhood in the past and in other societies. In childhood today, it is generally accepted that it is a special time of life and that children are fundamentally different from adults. Jane Pilcher (1995) argues that the most important factor in today’s idea of “childhood” is separateness. Childhood is also viewed as a “golden age” of happiness and innocence however with this innocence comes vulnerability meaning they are in need of protection from the adult world, meaning they are to be kept “quarantined” (separate) from adults. Children’s live in a sphere of the family and education, where adults provide for them and protect them from the outside world, similarly children lead lives of leisure and play and are excluded from paid work. However, this view of childhood is not found in all societies, it is not universal, an example of someone who disagrees with this idea is Stephen Wagg (1992) who believes that childhood is “socially constructed” meaning that it is what members or particular societies, at particular times and in particular places say it is. The anthropologist Ruth Benedict (1934) argues that children in simpler, non-industrial societies are more likely to be treated differently from their modern western counterparts in three main ways; firstly, they take responsibility at an earlier age. For example Samantha Punch (2001) found that in rural Bolivia when children are about five, they are expected to take work responsibilities in the home and the community. Similarly, Lowell Holmes (1974) studied a Samoan village and found that “too young” was never used as an excuse for not permitting a child to undertake a particular task. Another point is that less value is given to children showing obedience to adult authority. For example, Raymond Firth (1970) found that among the Tikopia of the western Pacific, doing what you are told by an adult is regarded as a concession and should not be a right of the adults. Lastly, sexual behaviour is often viewed very differently. For instance, Bronislaw Malinowski (1957) found that in the Trobriand Islands, adults took on an attitude of “tolerance and amused interest” towards children’s sexual explorations and activities - Benedict argues, that in many non-industrial cultures there is much less of a divide between the behaviour expected by adults and children. The positions of children differ over time as well as between societies and many sociologists and historians argue that childhood is understood today, as a recent “invention”. Philippe Aries (1960) says that in the Middle Ages “the idea of childhood did not exist”. Children were not seen to have a different nature and shouldn’t have to depend on adults. Children in the middle Ages began working at an early age often in the household of another family. In effect, children were viewed as “mini-adults” with the same rights, duties and skills as adults. Evidence of Aries’ views, would be, that he uses works of art from the period, in the paintings he looked at, children appeared to be without “any of the characteristics of childhood: they have simply been depicted on a smaller scale”. Edward Shorter (1975) argues that high death rates encouraged indifference and neglect between parents and children, especially towards infants. However, according to Aries, elements of the modern view of childhood slowly began to appear from the 13th century onwards; for example, schools began to specialise in education of the young, and this reflected the influence of the church. Secondly, there was a growing distinction between adults and children’s clothing; by the 17th century, an upper-class boy would be dressed in an outfit for his own age group. Thirdly, by the 18th century handbooks on child-rearing were widely available. Aries argues that we have moved on from a world that did not see childhood as special, to a world that is obsessed with childhood. 20th century to him, is “the century of the child”. On the other hand, Linda Pollock (1983) argues that it is more accurate to say that in the middle ages society simply had a different notion of childhood from nowadays. There are many reasons for the changes in the position of children, for example during the 19th and 20th century, law restricting child labour and excluding children from paid work meant that children were no longer economic assets, who earned a wage, they were an economic liability who were financially dependant on their parents. Compulsory schooling in 1880 meant that children no longer had to work and gained better qualifications so could become part of the skilled workforce. Child protection and welfare legislation such as the 1889 Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act and then exactly a century later in 1989 the Children Act both made welfare of children a fundamental principle. Next, the growth of children’s rights, for example the Children Act defines parents as having “responsibilities” rather than “rights” over their children. Declining family size and lower infant mortality rates encouraged parents to make a greater financial and emotional investment in the fewer children they had; children’s health and development also became the subject of medical knowledge, for instance Jacques Donzelot (1977) observes theories of child development relating to supervision and protection of children. Finally, laws and policies that apply specifically to children, such as the minimum age for sex, smoking and more, have reinforced the idea that children differ from adults and so therefore different rules have to be enforced for their behaviour. In contrast to these views on the changes in the position of children, is the march of progress view. These differences raise the question of whether the changes in the status of childhood have improved. This view, argues that, over the past few centuries, the position of children in western societies has gradually improved and that today it is better than ever. Lloyd De Mause (1974), states that “The history of childhood is a nightmare from which we have only recently begun to awaken” and he also goes onto say how the further back we go in time, the lower the level of childcare is (child abuse, terrorisation, sexual abuse). Writers such as Aries and Shorter have a “march of progress” view, and they believe that today’s children are more valued and better cared for overall and have more rights than those in previous generations. For example children in today’s society, are protected from harm and exploitation by laws against child abuse and child labour. Better healthcare and higher standards of living also mean babies have a higher chance of surviving, and higher living standards and smaller family sizes mean that parents can afford to provide for their children’s needs properly. March of progress sociologists also argue, that the family has become child-centred, and that children are no longer to be “seen and not heard”, as they would have been in Victorian times. Instead they have now become the centre point of the family, and parents invest a great amount in their children emotionally as well as financially and often have high aspirations for them for the future. Society, likewise, has now also become child-centred, for example a large amount of media output and many leisure activities are designed specifically for children. Conflict sociologists on the other hand, argue that the “march of progress” view of modern childhood is based on a false and idealised image that ignores many important inequalities, for example, they say there are inequalities between children in terms of opportunities and risks they face; they also say, that inequalities between adults and children are greater than ever and that children today experience greater control, oppression and dependency, not greater care and protection. Examples of inequalities between children would be that not all children share the same status or experiences, for instance children of different nationalities are likely to have limited chances in life. Conflict sociologists, also believe that there is a gender divide between children, for example Mayer Hillman (1993) argues that boys have more freedom from a young age whereas girls are more restricted as to when they go out and have to do more domestic labour. Ethnic differences are also seen by conflict sociologists, and Julia Brannen’s (1994) study of 15-16 year olds found that Asian parents were more likely to be strict towards their daughters. Likewise, Ghazala Bhatti (1999) found that ideas of family honour could be a restriction, particularly towards the behaviour of girls. There are also important class inequalities, such as poor mothers are more likely to have low birth-weight babies, also according to Caroline Woodroffe (1993) children from an unskilled background, are more likely to suffer from hyperactivity, and finally according to Marilyn Howard (2001), children born into poor families are also more likely to die in infancy of childhood, to suffer longstanding illness, be shorter in height, do badly in school and be placed on the child protection register. Critics such as Shulamith Firestone (1979) and John Holt (1974) argue that many of the things the march of progress writers view as positive such as care and protections, are in fact just new forms of oppression and control. These critics believe it is right to free children from adult control and their view is described as “child liberalisation”. Adult control takes a variety of forms such as neglect and abuse – they believe, that adult control over children can result in physical neglect or physical, sexual or emotional abuse, and in 2006, 31,400 children were on the child protection register, such figures indicate a “dark side” to family life. Controls over children’s space are also acknowledged by these critics, for example shops may display signs such as “no schoolchildren” and there is increasing surveillance over children in public spaces such as shopping centres. Similarly fears about road safety and “stranger danger” have led to more and more children being driven to school rather than travelling independently. According to Hugh Cunningham (2007), the “home habitat” of 8 year olds has shrunk dramatically over the last 25 years. In contrast to this, Cindi Katz (1993) describes how rural Sudanese children roam freely within the village and several kilometres outside of it. Lastly, controls over children’s time has been observed by these critics, and they believe that adults in modern society control children’s daily routines including the time they get up, go home and go out to play. Adults also are seen to control the time in which their children “grow up” and they define whether a child is too young or too old for a particular activity. Finally, controls over children’s bodies and over children’s access to resources have also become a concern for the march of progress critics. Neil Postman (1994) on a different note, argues that childhood is “disappearing at a dazzling speed” and says this is down to a number of reasons, for example children being given the same rights as adults, the disappearance of children’s traditional unsupervised games, similarity of children and adults clothing and even to cases of children committing adult crimes such as murders. Postman believes these changes are a result of television culture. He believes that unlike the Middle Ages where most people were illiterate, television has now taken over and that it has blurred the distinction between childhood and adulthood by destroying the information hierarchy. TV in his eyes does not require special skills to be accessed so therefore information is available to children and adults likewise. Along with the disappearance of childhood, comes the disappearance of adulthood where adults’ and children’s tastes and styles become almost identical. On the other hand, Iona Opie (1993) argues that childhood is not disappearing and along with her husband Peter Opie they both believe, there is still strong evidence of the continuation of a separate children’s culture over many years. Their studies show that children can and do create their own independent culture separate from adults. Child liberationalists also believe, that western beliefs about childhood are being globalised. For example campaigns against child labour in Third World countries reflect western views about how childhood “ought” to be whereas; such activity by children may simply be the norm for the culture. Some writers also suggest that children in the UK today are experiencing what Sue Palmer (2006) describes as a “toxic childhood”. She argues that technological and cultural changes in the past 25 years have damaged children’s physical, emotional and intellectual development. Concerns about young peoples behaviour have also been raised, for instance Julia Margo and Mike Dixon (2006) reported that the UK youth are near the top of international league tables for obesity, self-harm, drug and alcohol abuse, violence, early sexual experience and teenage pregnancy. Sarah Womack (2007) says that rather than childhood being generally miserable, certain groups of people such as the poorer families live desperate lives while others have a better quality of life. Secondly, they say, it depends on which aspect of childhood we look at. For example children today have more rights, but not equal rights with adults, there are now growing similarities between children and adults in dress codes, diet etc and many more; however, children now have greater access to means of communication and many adults remain concerned about children’s behaviour and discipline. Finally, childhood may be disappearing due to falling birth and death rates, these two trends are producing an ageing population with more old people and less young ones. Jen Qvortrup (1990) believes, that as the number of people who are parents with dependant children falls, there will be fewer voices calling for resources to go to children To conclude, there are many sociological explanations of changes in the status of children, although it is difficult to see how our views on childhood will develop in the future, we can still see how there are a number of trends that may re-shape children’s future position. From these changes of childhood, we learn that childhood is not fixed, but is a status that is socially constructed. So ultimately more and more explanations of changes in the status of children will be discovered in the future and it is down to us as individuals so decide which one we are going to believe and follow.