To what extent has childhood been viewed as a social and cultural process rather than a natural process?

To what extent has childhood been viewed as a social and cultural process rather than a natural process? Illustrate your discussion with reference to Book 1, Chapter 1, ‘Children and Development’.

In this essay I will be examining the concept of childhood and outlining some of the historical approaches towards childhood and development, before discussing the influence that society and culture have on childhood itself.

Childhood is a complex concept. It varies both between and within cultures and is in a constant state of flux. For this reason it is difficult to definitively describe childhood and we can only talk in very general terms. In the western economically affluent world childhood is generally seen as a time when children are carefree and cared for. In an ideal situation they are encouraged to play, have fun, learn and develop ideally at their own pace. Distinct from adults, they are viewed as having different needs and wants. In developing countries however, childhood is not commonly viewed in the same way. There is less distinction between adult and child, with children being taught useful skills from an early age. Children are encouraged to be contributory to the family unit in their own right. They are cared for but perhaps are less carefree than western children. This distinction will be discussed in more detail later in this essay.

When we look at what influences the process of childhood a good starting point is the view of James and Prout who stated:

“The immaturity of children is a biological fact but the ways in which that immaturity is understood is a fact of culture… childhood is…constructed and reconstructed both for and by children.”

This is a constructionist stance which assumes childhood itself cannot be understood in one way and that each child’s experience should be explored for itself and in relation to the society in which they live rather than in terms on universal notions. External factors such as gender, race, class, and ethnicity shape and guide the process of childhood together with the influence of the child themselves. The child is seen as an active participant and not simply a passive receiver. James and Prout’s view shows us that childhood as a concept can be viewed in a variety of ways. Childhood is a process of development, continually changing according to external and internal influences.

Historically developmental researchers have tried to explain the process of childhood and they can be broadly grouped into two main camps: the nativist and the environmentalist. Nativist theories highlight the natural processes of maturation and believe childhood development is genetically determined. The emphasis is firmly placed on nature’s influence – biology, inherited gene patterns - simple natural processes are what mould our childhood development.

In stark comparison environmentalist theories believe childhood development is determined through the external factors of learning and experience. The common expression ‘the child is like a sponge’ illustrates this viewpoint, with the child simply soaking up whatever is around them and this then shapes how they mature. These two standpoints illustrate the two extremes in theories on development and we will now go on to examine some historical approaches to development that both incorporate these extremes and provide the basis for more contemporary theories.

Traditionally there have been four different approaches to childhood development. Described by Woodhead (2005) ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Traditionally there have been four different approaches to childhood development. Described by Woodhead (2005) the first is development through control and discipline. This approach states that children are born naughty and must be moulded into fine upstanding young adults through parental or caregiver control and discipline. Thomas Hobbes was an early proponent of this stance which later received support from Freud. Freud’s theories on the ego, id and superego seem to align themselves with this approach, the id being the pleasure driver which in a child has not yet been curbed by their conscience (the super-ego). Nature is therefore seen as a strong but negative influence that must be controlled.

The second theory is development as natural stages, proponents of this view included Jean Jacques Rousseau and believed children were born inherently good. Jean Jacques Rousseau called them ‘nobles savages’ and saw nature as a positive influence. External factors were not good influences and society was the main cause of corruption. This approach respects a child’s natural development and believes children should be left alone to be children before they have to become restricted like adults. This view has been the basis for what blah blah in blah bah chapter 1 calls developmentally appropriate practice, which is concerned with the balance of play and teaching in early years.

The third argument challenges the idea of children being born as either good or bad and believes they are simply neutral. John Locke called it a ‘blank slate’. The child will absorb and be shaped by whatever external factors are at play in their lives. The parents are the teachers and should nuture their children in a stimulating, caring and educational way so that the child can become a fully mature adult. This view is clearly in the environmentalist camp making no mention of natural processes and can be seen as the basis for the social constructionist view.

The final approach places itself firmly in the middle ground and believes that both nature and nurture are influential factors in childhood development. Kant was traditionally a main supporter and he found a way of reconciling nature and environment with his theory that learned knowledge – external factors – shape us but we are born with the facilities to process this knowledge. Children are born with a framework into which external factors such as society and culture are organised and understood. Development is a two way process and the child is active not passive.

The approaches outlined above provide the basis for contemporary theories that emphasis the role of society and culture on childhood development. One such theory is that of Super and Harkness. They proposed something called the ‘Developmental Niche’ which the diagram below illustrates:

Super and Harkness (1986)

Super and Harkness created this theory as a way of attempting to understand how common features of childhood development diversify according to culture.

As we can see in the diagram, the developmental niche believes the most important influences on development include their habitat – where they live, who they live with, how wealthy they are, whether they go to school, general structure of their days, their culture of parenting – how they are raised, how the parents treat the child and finally what they called the ‘ethnotheories’ of the parents – how well the parents want to the child to do in life and whether they can actually affect this.

Super and Harkness believed that cultural influences had a huge effect on development of mental, physical and social capacities. These skills do not follow a universal pattern in accordance with biological factors, instead the development of these skills depends on both biological and social and cultural interplay. Children in developing countries develop and hone skills which are economically advantageous to the family unit / themselves. Hart and Tyrer’s working paper on Children in Conflict cites an interview with a young boy who took part in a study by Brett and Specht (2004).

“Our school time was 8 – 12 in the morning and in the afternoon we were free so I went to the medical clinic of the French doctors. There I began to learn first aid such as injection, dressing of a wound and so on, and I became a first aid helper with the Mohajedin.. That time I did support and worked as medical helper behind the strongholds. I gradually learned some advanced medical skills. When I was 12 and 13 I attended courses in surgical operation room and I did work as a surgical assistant. When my knowledge developed and after a few months MSF held some medical courses to teach medical helping, surgery and general medecine and I took part. So now I am familiar with many medical and surgical skills. For instance I know orthapedics and I can bone set when needed.”

This is an extreme example that demonstrates how the child’s culture has guided their development. The child’s circumstances dictated his need and indeed interest in developing particular skills that will be useful both to him, those he lives with and those he works with. The boy’s development was tailored in a particular way by the culture he lives in. The way he learned his skills was also tailored by his culture, he learned in a ‘work’ environment, in a ‘serious’ setting. He didn’t practice through play, he learned the skills in a real hospital environment.

In contrast children in less extreme cultures and certainly in the western world tend to develop skills through play and through structured learning at school, i.e in ‘pretend’ settings. Their development could be seen as progressing along at a more leisurely pace. Their lack of adult responsibilities mean that there is no particular pressure to develop adult skills quickly. Western society and cultures tends to assume a certain lack of responsibility in children and doesn’t generally expect them to be able to demonstrate the same level of skills as adults. Children are therefore allowed to develop at their own pace with no particular pressure from society (although certain basic skills such as reading and writing are taught and are expected to be evident from a fairly early age).

Cross cultural studies help us to examine whether there are any universal truths about childhood development and it’s influences. Woodhead (2005) describes the ‘Six Cultures’ study carried out by Beatrice and John Whiting. They looked at childhood development within six different cultures and found that perhaps unsurprisingly development varied greatly in each one with different emphasis and meaning given to work and play during childhood. They found cultures in the developing world gave their children more responsibility within the family and prepared them more in terms of skill for adulthood. The transition from child to adult was not as marked as it is in western countries.

In western countries children are classed as that until the age of 18, and there is a fairly recent ‘phenomenon’ of extended adolescence where childlike qualities are displayed and accepted well into a person’s twenties. Children do not tend to work in western countries as they do in developing ones and therefore do not have the opportunity to acquire useful and adult skills until much later in their development.

Cross cultural studies appear to show that society and culture greatly influence childhood development. The variations found in different cultures support the social constructionist viewpoint that the pattern of development is firmly dictated by the culture and society they inhabit. Society gives the framework for development and cultural influences shape how it happens. If this were not the case then the differences in development would not be so marked between cultures and more universal truths, if any, would be found about development.

Thinking about universal truths in childhood development, we can draw comparisons in the way that children use play as a learning tool no matter what culture they are in. We could say that the way they develop is similar, learning through imitation, necessity and by example.

If these universal truths are accepted then we must accept that nature does play some part in childhood development. What they learn may vary according to what their society needs them to learn but the way they develop is the same, shaped by natural processes.

It seems that, as ever, the more acceptable approach would be the middle ground, in this case the views of Kant seem particularly valid. It could be argued that the pattern of development itself is a universal truth, that children develop in the same way, the only difference is what they develop. Account therefore should be given to nature as well as society and culture.

To conclude, society and culture appear to greatly influence childhood development. They provide the background, the input and shape the result of development. However it seems acceptable to suggest that nature provides the starting point and framework for this development and so this essay concludes that although society and culture provide the major influences, nature plays a minor but essential part too.

References:

Woodhead, M (2005) ‘Children and Development’, in Oates,J., Wood, C and Grayson, A (eds) Psychological Development and Early Childhood, Oxford, Blackwell / The Open University.

Hart, J and B, Tyrer, ‘Research with Children Living in Situations of Armed Conflict: Concepts, Ethics and Methods’, RSC Working Paper No. 30, University of Oxford.

Brett, R. and I. Specht (2004 cited in Hart, J and B, Tyrer, ‘Research with Children Living in Situations of Armed Conflict: Concepts, Ethics and Methods’, RSC Working Paper No. 30, University of Oxford.

Super, C. and Harkness, S. (1986) ‘The developmental niche: a conceptualization at the interface of child and culture’, International Journal of Behavioural Development.

Page of