Candidate No. 161216
1
Introduction to Childhood and Youth Studies (893L5)
Essay 1: Contingency
Word count: 865 of 1500
Tensions within the contingency of childhood
This essay seeks to explore the theme of childhood as contingent. The paper first considers
how childhoods are subject to change over time and space, then uses contingency to
understand childhood as a social construction, and finally, discusses the tensions
surrounding the plurality of childhood.
I. The contingency of childhood
Imagine a boy, working. How old is the boy? What is he doing? The imagined child was
most likely influenced by pre-existing notions and imageries of children. Additionally, the
immediacy of a specific image reveals the often limited nature in our perception of
childhood. That is, choosing to imagine a child one way automatically ‘mutes’ the versions of
children not imagined. Thus, it would not be difficult to consider how countless versions of
childhoods have existed over the vast expanse of time and space.
For instance, Hendrick (1997) outlines how dominant ideologies, religion, technology,
politics, as well as legislations and policies, have all played a role in shaping the different
childhoods which have existed in Britain over the past two centuries. While childhood
experiences can certainly change from one generation to the next, the same historical context
can also be experienced differently, depending on factors such as social class (Brannen,
2004).
On the other hand, views on what childhood should entail have seen increasing
conformity as a result of growing interconnectedness. Certain conceptions, such as the “safe,
happy and protected childhood”, have been exported from parts of Europe and the United
States, resulting in an internationally-shared perception that condemns children who do not fit
into the mould (Boyden, 1997, p. 168). International legal mechanisms, such as the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Labour Organization’s
conventions on child labour, are further examples of how views of childhood can (attempt to)
become unified in an increasingly globalised world.
The contingency of childhood is inseparable from the idea that childhood is a social
construct, which has become one of the primary drivers in advancing the field of childhood
studies.
II. The social construction of childhood
Two of the central tenets within the sociology of childhood are that: childhood is marked
by the distinction between children and adults and childhood is a social construction (Prout
and James, 1997). The latter can be traced to historian Phillipe Ariès, who notably argued
that childhood was a modern construction, as medieval society had lacked the “awareness of
the particular nature of childhood, that particular nature which distinguishes the child from
the adult” (1962, p. 125). Although a range of scholars supported his argument to varying
degrees (see Koops, 1996), Ariès was criticised for relying on an interpretive analysis that
was not substantiated. Linda Pollock asserted that the absence of the contemporary Western
conceptions of childhood does not preclude the absence of a conception of childhood. She
asks,
Candidate No. 161216
2
[Why] should past societies have regarded children in the same way as Western
society today? Moreover, even if children were regarded differently in the past, this
does not mean that they were not regarded as children. (1983, p. 263)
Archard further conceptualises the contingency of socially constructed childhoods by
applying the Rawlsian differentiation between the ‘concept of justice’ and the ‘conception of
justice’ to childhood. He states that “to have a concept of ‘childhood’ is to recognise that
children differ interestingly from adults; to have a conception of childhood is to have a view
of what those interesting differences are” (2015, p. 32). This distinction is useful in seeing
childhood as both universal and relative. The unavoidable recognition of a concept of
childhood—that the child is at least biologically different from the adult—crystallizes
childhood as a universal constant. At the same time, this universality subsumes the multiple
conceptions of childhood which exist (or have existed) in relativity.
III. The plurality of childhood
The study of childhood as a social construct “involves a tension between recognizing
human variation—which carries the risk of allowing unjust attributions to be made—and
discounting human variation—which carries the risk of overemphasizing the ability of
imagination to shape the world” (Lee, 2005, p. 2). However, increasing emphasis on the
plurality and complexity of childhoods, by those supporting the social constructionism view,
has created an imbalance in theory and practice, possibly undermining children as a
marginalised group (James, 2010). While the focus on multiplicity may be due to the
relatively young and less established status of childhood studies, Qvortrup reminds us that,
The important point here is of course that we cannot start proliferating into a
plethora of childhoods until we have got a grasp of what childhood is – and one
good proposition to this effect is that children are as a collectivity set aside from
adults. (2008)
Contingency has not been a novel concept, nor is it unique to childhoods; yet, what
seemingly complicates the contingency of childhood is the involvement of children. Amidst
the changing conceptions of childhoods throughout history, one constant has been the role of
adults as the main decision-making authority. The paradox—that adults will probably always
remain involved in the affairs of children—is also precisely why the challenges presented
within childhood studies need to be addressed with careful consideration.
Candidate No. 161216
3
References
Archard, D. (2015) Children: rights and childhood, Third edition. Abingdon, Oxon; New
York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Ariès, P. (1962) Centuries of childhood: a social history of family life. New York: Vintage
Books.
Boyden, J. (1997) ‘Childhood and the Policy Makers: A Comparative Perspective on the
Globalization of Childhood’, in James, A. and Prout, A. (eds.) Constructing and
Reconstructing Childhood: Contemporary Issues in the Sociological Study of Childhood.
London: Falmer Press, pp. 190-229.
Glausner, B. (1997) ‘Street Children: Deconstructing a Construct’, in James, A. and Prout, A.
(eds.) Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood: Contemporary Issues in the
Sociological Study of Childhood. London: Falmer Press, pp. 145-164.
Hendrick, H. (1997) ‘Constructions and Reconstructions of British Childhood’, in James, A.
and Prout, A. (eds.) Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood: Contemporary Issues in
the Sociological Study of Childhood. London: Falmer Press, pp. 34-62.
James, A. L. (2010) ‘Competition or Integration? The Next Step in Childhood Studies?’,
Childhood: A Global Journal of Child Research, 17(4), pp. 485-498.
James, A. and Prout, A (1997) ‘A New Paradigm for the Sociology of Childhood?
Provenance, Promise and Problems’, in James, A. and Prout, A. (eds.) Constructing and
Reconstructing Childhood: Contemporary Issues in the Sociological Study of Childhood.
London: Falmer Press, pp. 7-33.
Koops, W. (1996) ‘Historical Developmental Psychology: The Sample Case of Paintings’,
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 19, pp. 393–413.
Lee, N. (2005) Childhood and society: growing up in an age of uncertainty. Reprint.
Maidenhead: Open Univ. Press (Issues in society).
Pollock, L. (1983) Forgotten Children: Parent–Child Relations from 1500 to 1900.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Qvortrup, J. (2008a) ‘Diversity’s Temptation – and Hazards’, paper presented at ‘Representing Childhood and Youth’, Centre for the Study of Childhood and Youth, University
of Sheffield, 8–19 July.