Aries suggests that evidence for childhood being a social construction exists in the artwork of of the medieval times. He concluded that childhood did not exist in those times, and that children were seen as mini adults. In the copious paintings he analysed, he noted how children were dressed as mini adults as well as drawn like them. Aries argued that the concept of childhood did not come about until the industrial evolution, emerging with ‘housewife’ role. Children were increasingly being seen as in need for specialist care and parenting from the mother. He referred to this as the ‘cult of the child’. This image of childhood goes beyond artistic representation, where children were treated and punished exactly the same as adults. This unsentimental approach to children can be explained through the demographic reality at that time. Very little children made it beyond infancy, and parents often had as many children as they can, due to this high mortality rate. Shorter (1985) found that children were often not named until they surpassed infancy to reduce emotional attachment if they died. This high death rate encouraged indifference and neglect.
However, both Aries and Shorter were criticised for their over generalisations from their research. Pollock (1983) argues that childhood did exist; it was just different than our concept of it today. Aries views also lacks in the fact that his only evidence was in portraits. These provide unrealistic representations of society at that time, where the majority of the people drawn were the upper class. And even then they would not represent the true nature of childhood at that time, as families might have dressed them up for the occasion in adult like clothes. Shorter’s findings on infant death were also criticised. Midwives were allowed to baptise sickly babies to save them from limbo, suggesting that parents did still strongly care for their children.
But is today the death or the century of the child? Postman argues that childhood is disappearing with the growing trends of giving children the same rights as adults. Such as the conviction of murder (an ‘adult crime’), to two ten year old boys. He argues that the distinction between childhood and adult was fuelled by the ability to read. And this separation is now decreasing through the mass increase of literate children and the invention of the internet. Recently there has been a collapse of adult authority. Parents are much more likely to give in to children emotionally as well as financially, causing the gap between child and adult to further decrease. However, even with consideration of these factors childhood today is still seen as a time of protected innocence. This can be seen in the western ideology of children. Childhood is not disappearing, simply changing in its forms and values. The fact that childhood has changed since the Middle Ages, and is still changing today is even more evidence that it is a social construction.
In conclusion culture, class and demographic research suggest that childhood is not a biologically valid phase, but a social construction. This leads to the point that childhood in our culture has been created through the adoption of consensus reality. But where does that leave us now? Do we allow childhood to remain as a phase of innocence and vulnerability, when it is clearly irrelevant. Or do we adopt the perception similar to other cultures, and allow children to be more mature and independent. However our society would drastically change because of this. We would no longer need compulsory education if children were seen as mature enough to decide their own futures, and the starting age of work would decrease. Although this stance seems to be logical, our society depends on this separation of childhood and adulthood, the economy is reliant on educated individuals and childhood products and services. This need for the current view on childhood only further strengthens the concept as a social construction.
