Essay: The Philosophy of Childhood

The key aspects of my evolving understanding of childhood can be divided by ideas of the agency, ability, qualities of children. Entering into the semester my ideas about childhood and children were largely informed by literary and cultural norms I had been exposed to, as well as my own experiences with young relatives. The popular belief that children are inherently innocent and vulnerable certainly has had a powerful influence on how I see and interact with children, but is now tempered in my mind by an understanding of how this conceptualisation has been constructed in my upbringing, education, class, race, and age.

 

In my initial statement written early in the semester, I recorded my understanding of childhood as being the time from birth to late adolescence during which a person develops under the guidance and protection of parents or guardians. I continued by stating that children should not carry the burdens or responsibilities of adults, though should feel like valued members of a family and community, and in this context gain life skills and develop their personalities. I concluded that children are fundamentally vulnerable due to their inexperience and innocence, and ideally should be looked after but also have the freedom to explore, imagine and create as they please. My descriptions of childhood were quite normative, perhaps even conservative; as a time of innocence, play, learning, development, and gentle engagement with the world around them; concluding that abuse, neglect, and the imposition of adult responsibility or oppression are unnatural. I wrote “Childhood should be like a walled garden – children should be free to roam, explore, develop and interact with the world around them, but within the protection of a family or community that can guide and shield them when necessary. A combination of freedom to be themselves, have their ideas and viewpoints heard, tempered with adult knowledge and wisdom.” My beliefs were largely informed by material I had read and my own experience of childhood, and subsequent memories of it.

Being exposed to other theories, particularly post-modern and constructivist ones, lead me to re-analyse these assumptions through new lenses. While some of the ideas raised in this course have influenced and even changed my initial preconceptions of childhood, there are others which have not fully incorporated into my evolving views. The concept I have grappled with the most has been that of agency, due to both the idea of responsibility that accompanies it and the vulnerability that I still believe must be protected in children and youth. I do however believe that children are involved in constructing their own childhood, and often take cues from parents as to how they should act and feel about their lives; “For… childhood has been primarily a cultural invention and a site of emotional projection by adults.” (Brown, 2002) If children are agenic beings, should they then be held responsible for all their actions? Countries differ in their treatment of child criminals, but even within countries there are contradictions in the amount of agency children and minors are afforded; “When does a child stop being a child? It certainly varies from place to place. Even in the UK we contradict ourselves. A child may not vote; you are only old enough to vote at 18. But you can marry at 16, and be tried and imprisoned… before you are a teenager.” (Penn, 2008) However there is a general consensus that children cannot be held to the same standards of behaviour as adult citizens. In the cases of child soldiers and child prostitutes I would argue that their lives simply cannot be treated as freely and willingly chosen, and they must be seen as victims of a system, failed by the adult world. However, how much agency can really be prescribed to adults with similar fates? Coercion of labour is hardly limited to children, and in the case of prostitution, conscription, and sweat shop labour, it cannot be described as a free choice when it is in fact done under the full weight of economic desperation.

Many, if not most, recent and current theories regarding childhood are derived from a constructionist perspective, “namely a view derived from post-structuralists including Barthes, Foucault, and Lacan that human subjects are socially constructed and historically variable, and that there is no essential human nature outside society and the mediation of language.” (Brown, 2002) While some aspects of constructivism are evident and discernible, such as the particular time, place, and context of a person’s upbringing, I still believe that a person’s earliest years have an essential nature that transcends the surroundings they are born into. The placement of children into categories is a clear construction however, and one that effects adults as much as their offspring. When children are positioned as innocent, responsibility and culpability for their behaviour and development is placed onto their parents, guardians and teachers. However when the child is positioned as deviant or evil, pressure is still placed on the adults around them curb and curtail their “bad” behaviour. Thus moral standards for children inevitably end up policing the adults in their lives as much as the children themselves.

The post-modern theory that the current construction of children is a Western, capitalist invention is appealing in many ways, especially when one looks at how this age bracket is constructed and commercialised by advertising, education systems, the media and broader society. Brown states that while legal reforms helped the plight of children working in industrial factories, at the same time “capitalism discovered in middle-class children and their parents a ready-made consumer class. A burgeoning industry of children’s toys, books, magazines, songs, clothes, and advice manuals for parents helped market the child as a symbol of progress and the future.” (Brown, 2002) This is more apparent than ever, and while perhaps not actively to the detriment of children, it certainly adds nothing essential to the lives of them or their parents.

Another question to grapple with is the role of adults in the lives of children. In relationships of teacher and pupil, parent and child, there is an assumed superiority of the adult, which positions the child as inferior. There are many other such polarities in the adult-child relationship, such as division between ignorant and educated, emotional and rational, immature and mature, wild and civilised, even rude and polite. Children are positioned as a problem to be dealt with, an irrational force to be reasoned with, an impressionable person to be moulded. With all these broad, and perhaps unfair, generalisations stacked against them, the issue of children’s own voice becomes important, and integral, to forming a true understanding of them.

Rousseau’s contention that a rural environment is the best place for children to be in their formative years has been deeply influential in Western society, and on my own values. In my early response to the questions posed at the beginning of semester I wrote that I believed children required both protection from the harshness of wider society and the freedom to roam and grow in whatever manner they like, and this naturally aligns with Rousseau’s theories regarding childhood. I believe that humans in general have a deep and vital need to spend time in green spaces and have a relationship with the natural world, and I would argue that this is particularly necessary for children, and can act as a physical introduction to the planet. Removed from this, children’s chief engagement with the natural world is through screens and their development, in my opinion, is hindered by this alienation. However the romanticism and idealism of his position is unrealistic and impractical. A sentimental picture of childhood is ultimately unhelpful and inaccurate in ascertaining and giving young people what they truly need, which may differ for each individual child.

However, I still believe there is merit in the ideas outlined by Rousseau for two reasons. Firstly, I believe that in the time of rapid growth and discovery that marks childhood, it is best that they can experience the world in a safe and stimulating environment. Jones states that “Country childhoods are seen powerfully in terms of a synthesis of innocence, wildness, play, adventure, the companionship of other children, contact with nature, agricultural spaces and practices, healthiness, spatial freedom and freedom from adult surveillance.” (Powell, Taylor & Smith, 2013) This idyllic perception of it is undoubtedly
somewhat romanticised, and applies more to young children than to adolescents, who are more likely to express boredom and frustration with life in the country; “Rural communities are seen as being better places for children than young people.” (Brown, 2002)

Ultimately I maintain my initial position that children are “becoming” beings. This should not lead to them being treated as incompetent, silly or irrational, or denied their individual rights, but should rather shield them from the full weight of the adult world while they are in the process of learning, developing, and becoming. The concept of becoming becomes muddied as they enter adolescence, however, and it is this stage in their development that requires further investigation and exploration, and which perhaps should be studied as both related to and distinct from early childhood.