Sociological Perspectives of Childhood

The sociology of child development

We'll be looking at the sociology of child development and how it has changed over time.

Psychological developments dominated childhood studies for most of the 20th century. Child developmental psychologists are concerned with how certain behaviours develop, how and when they develop and to some extent, the influence of the environment on development. Much of the psychology of child development was built upon what was seen as ‘normal’ expectations within Western societies (Woodhead, 1999).

Woodhead (2011) developed this position by exploring how children were increasingly defined in terms of age-related competencies.

Let's now go through the sociological perspectives of childhood.

Types of sociological perspectives of childhood

We'll now be looking at the types of sociological perspectives of childhood.

Children come in a variety of ages, genders, and ethnicities, and experience different socioeconomic circumstances. As a social group, children need to be understood in relation to other groups. Many sociological perspectives depart from Talcott Parson’s view of socialisation, which is a functionalist view.

Functionalist view of childhood

Functionalists (think Talcott Parsons, George Murdock, Émile Durkheim) see the family as one of the building blocks of society. They argue that through the family, children learn social order.

George Murdock (1949) compared 250 societies and claimed the nuclear family was a universal type. Murdock argued that one of the main roles of the nuclear family is to socialise future members (children) of society. Within the family, children experience primary socialisation, which prepares them for integration into wider society.

If children are not socialised effectively, they may struggle to establish what Émile Durkheim called social solidarity. This makes people feel as though they are part of something bigger than themselves.

Functionalists ultimately believe the family benefits all of those who comprise it. The family as a unit provides economic, social, and emotional support. Talcott Parsons would argue that one of the main roles of the family was to maintain the health of its members. Therefore, a child within a family could be sure their health issues would be identified, treatments received, and their health prioritised to reduce the likelihood of a health scare in the future.

Talcott Parsons' view of socialisation

The functionalist Talcott Parsons (1954) viewed the family and education system as bridges for socialising children into the dominant norms and values of society.

Primary socialisation refers to the socialisation process which takes place within the family. It is worth noting that the dominant family structure during the time of Parsons's writing was the traditional nuclear family.

Secondary socialisation occurs within the education system, through religion, the media, and peers. Parsons argued that within schools, children learn to accept unequal distributions of reward and status.

Criticisms of Talcott Parsons' view of socialisation

• Marxists are critical of Parsons' views on socialisation. Althusser (1998) argued that the family was one of the best places to learn how to think and behave in a capitalist system.
• Mitchell (1971) criticised Parson's male-focused view of the family. By the 1970s, across the western world, a variety of family structures (single parent, lone person, extended, etc.) had emerged to rival the traditional nuclear family.
• Within this traditional sociological paradigm, children are seen as passive recipients of culture. The 1990s saw work emerge which criticised the then dominated notions of child development and socialisation, where children were seen as the passive recipients of socialisation (Burman, 1994).

Fig. 2 - Parsons believed that the family and education system are bridges for socialising children into society.

Marxist view of childhood

The Marxist position on childhood ignores the positive sides of the nuclear family pushed by functionalists. Marxists argue the family performs an ideological function. They argue the nuclear family pushes the values necessary to reproduce capitalist society.

Eli Zaretsky held that through the family, proletariat men were given something they could control; a place where the man could be 'boss' over his woman and children. Within capitalism, this served a function whereby individuals would accept exploitation, as they could exploit it at the end of the day.

That said, not all Marxists agree. Take Louis Pierre Althusser as an example. For him, the family acts as part of the ideological state apparatus.

Althusser argued ideological state apparatuses contribute to the reproduction of inequality in capitalist society. For him, the family would teach children how to submit to the bourgeoisie and accept hierarchy and inequality. The most important role of the family was to reproduce what the capitalist system needed most, a submissive workforce. At home, the child learns how to be a worker by, for example, learning to accept authority and wearing a uniform. These traits will be replicated once they enter the workforce.

Friedrich Engels (1884) argued the family was created for the sole purpose of private inheritance. The bourgeoisie wants to ensure that wealth stays in their hands. They can ensure their wealth and private property will be passed to the next of kin by establishing a family. For most of history, the next of kin would have been a male heir.

The social construction of childhood

One key sociological perspective is the social construction of childhood. This refers to the notion that childhood is not part of natural human development.

The sociology of early childhood

How do sociologists see early childhood?

Phillipe Ariès (1986) argued childhood is a relatively new phenomenon; it only arose in modern times.

One example Ariès used was that children used to dress like miniature adults, and could be executed for the crimes they committed.

Even once Britain entered the full swing of the Industrial Revolution, childhood was not as it is today. Children worked as chimney sweepers, shoe polishers, and factory workers. Opinions began to change following the passing of the Factories Act 1833, which limited where, and the number of hours, children could work in the UK.

Clarke (2003) developed on Ariès' position, arguing that childhood was 'created' between the 17th and 20th centuries. Much of the new paradigm of sociology that developed from the late 1980s onwards builds on this notion of childhood.

Fig. 3 - Children were not a protected group in society, especially during the Industrial Revolution.

Contemporary sociological perspectives on childhood

Let's look at contemporary sociological perspectives on childhood, including how sociologists perceive the nature and experience of childhood.

Neil Postman and the disappearance of childhood

Neil Postman (1998, 1992) argued that, as children have been exposed to the adult world of television, they are more likely to mimic adult behaviour. The lines are blurred between adulthood and childhood.

Postman went on to argue that the lack of adult supervision means children are exposed to and learning about topics that may not be deemed age-appropriate. New technologies provide children with an array of sources. Hence, childhood as we once knew it is disappearing.

Another flip side to this argument is 'kidults' - adults who act like children.

Sue Palmer and toxic childhood

Toxic childhood is a perspective that is critical of the idea that more products for children will necessarily benefit their childhood. Sue Palmer (2006), a former headteacher, argues children are experiencing psychological and physical damage due to modern parenting.

Parents are increasingly keeping their children quiet through the use of television, junk food, and gifts. More often than not, these parents are hyper-focused on consumerism themselves.

Palmer particularly singled out the decline in outdoor play, exploitation by advertisers, and screen saturation, which is reducing face-to-face time. She also called out the increased focus on testing within education, which raises anxiety in children.

Allison Pugh and consumption in childhood

Allison Pugh (2002) confronted the issue of parents who have money but not time to spend with their children. She argues they provide 'consumption as compensation'. This could take many forms, like trips to sporting events, designer clothing, Halloween costumes, and even a weekly allowance.

She also noted pathway consumption, which refers to the ways in which parents make decisions on which experiences and activities their children should partake in as a way to navigate their pathways of life.

Philippe Ariès and children as consumers

The media and advertisers now target children as consumers in their own right. Philippe Ariès argued the media has a stronger influence on children than on their families. Consider pop stars and their public personae; these often frame a child's conception of what they want to be like more than their mother or father.

This viewpoint has been supported by other sociologists such as Peggy Ornstein (2011) who argues princess culture has taken a hold of girls.

A new sociology of childhood

The new sociology of childhood has highlighted that what was once thought of as childhood was, in fact, constructed and difficult to universalise (Corsaro, 2005). The shift moved towards seeing children as competent actors with their own social agency (James et al. 1998).

By understanding children as a social group, attention could be directed at children’s rights and structures that enable or restrict their lives (Alanen and Mayall, 2001). Some feminist literature emerged that viewed children as a minority group with the potential of being exploited by adult populations (Mayall, 1994).