Download Corinne Stevens

Corinne Stevens. P5577126
TMA01
To what extent has children’s development been seen as a
social process?
Child development refers to the biological and psychological changes occurring
during period between birth and adulthood, where individuals progress from
immature dependency to mature independence. Much debate has been provoked over
whether development is a natural or social process, or a combination of both, with
past and present theories arguing that it is not solely a natural process, as suggested by
nativist theorists, but rather, a creation of society, where knowledge gained from
experience and interaction with other individuals or the environment is the integral
force for development. An example of this is the natural process of childbirth being
affected by a combination of social factors such as quality of the mother’s diet,
availability of emotional and healthcare support, thus impacting on child development
before birth.
In Western society today, child development research recognises distinct
psychological and physical differences between children and adults. However,
historically, this has not always been the case, thus raising questions on whether
childhood is a “recent invention”. Historian, Philippe Aries argued that Western
European, medieval images of children displayed no distinction between child and
adult, whereas post fifteenth century images became increasingly focussed on their
“special natures and needs”, therefore demonstrating a change in awareness and
attitude towards children during this time. Sahar (1990) and other historians rejected
this, accusing Aires of generalising from limited evidence, exclusive to the
aristocratic community. Nonetheless, Aires noted that there had been a visible change
in attitudes towards children and their development which, consequentially, could also
be responsible for stirring interest in the origins of, and historical explorations of child
development now.
“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” (James and Prout, 1997, p.15)
James and Prout’s statement acknowledges the natural aspect of development but also
pays attention to variables, such as culture, other individuals and children themselves
being also active in development. Historically, the principal theories regarding child
development stem from four conflicting viewpoints which attempted to characterize
the fundamental nature of humankind as personified in the newborn child. These
arguments were based on development as “control and discipline”, “natural stages”,
“experience” and “interaction”. I aim to discuss and evaluate these theories and their
contributions to modern day practice in order to ascertain just how much development
has been viewed as a social process.
Firstly, English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) adopted the nativist
viewpoint that children were born “inherently sinful”, with a natural urge to be
impulsive and reckless, believing that development should be controlled by
“discipline and strict training”. This was a predominantly religious viewpoint where it
was believed that obedience to God was achieved via obedience to the parents, thus
resulting in the severe punishment of children in order to make them “good” and
“obedient”. A letter sent by Susanna Wesley to advise her son John Wesley (founder
of Methodism) in 1732 stated “Break their will betimes;…make him do as he is bid, if
you whip him ten times running to effect it” thus maintaining this view. Nineteenth
century evangelist and philanthropist, Hanna More upheld the nativist perspective by
describing children as individuals with naturally “corrupt natures” and “evil
dispositions” requiring correction via education. However, unlike Hobbes, she argued
that education of children was better attained if children “were engaged in kindness”,
(Smith. M. K, 2002), therefore offering small bribes as a method of control, rather
than strict discipline. This demonstrates a shift in attitudes regarding affection for
children and how they develop, with opinions also changing concerning the very
controversial methods used to control, employed by Hobbes and Wesley, therefore
supporting James and Prouts claim.
French philosopher and nativist, Jean- Jacques Rousseau (1718-1778) believed
children to be born inherently innocent, describing them as “noble savages” with a
natural sense of right and wrong until corrupted by society, which he regarded as a
negative influence on development. In his book Emile, or On Education (1762) he
also acknowledged differences between children and adults, suggesting an “Age of
Nature that lasts from birth to twelve years of age, when children’s natural innocence
should be respected; they should be able to play and run all day”. Kindergarten
movement pioneer, Friedrich Froebel, also supported “natural stages” theory, arguing
that “The child, the boy, man, indeed, should know no other endeavor but to be at
every stage of development wholly that this stage calls for…” (1885). Woodhead
(1998) states that the scientific concept of development as natural stages still impacts
today for recommendations and advice on “developmentally appropriate” procedures
within early years education. Regardless of this, the fact that Rousseau’s recognised
the negative impact of society on development suggests that he could have also
foreseen that development could be a social process too.
The English philosopher and physician, John Locke (1632-1704) in his “Essay
Concerning Human Understanding” (1690), considered children to be born neither
sinful nor innocent, but rather, a ‘tabula rasa’ (blank slate) with the capability to
progress into mature citizens. This, according to Locke, was conditional on what
nurture and environmental experiences a child received during development. Locke
acknowledged personal astuteness and disposition, but believed that an individual’s
knowledge came from experience via an interactive process with people and
environments, and it was these experiences that fashioned the outcome of
development for better or worse. He added that the provision of appropriate
environments for the development to take place was a parent’s responsibility, arguing
parents to be the best teachers to assist a child’s understanding in how to make
sensible choices and decisions on reaching adulthood. Locke’s theories are still
debated and applied to the failings in parenting and teaching today, with those
influenced by him, insisting that the dominant aspect of development is experience.
Locke’s Theory is categorized as empiricist, where all knowledge is dependent on
experience, thus upholding child development to be a social process.
German philosopher, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), disagreed with the empiricist
views of John Locke, despite agreeing that experience was a vital factor for learning.
Kant believed children naturally possessed mental structures or categories of
understanding, designed exclusively to decipher information from the environment,
with the dual interaction between child and environment being the motivating force of
development. Furthermore, he argued that children are neither passive recipient’s of
sensory stimuli, nor passively following a predetermined, biological sequence.
Instead, he claimed that children have the capacity to make their own choices, in
addition to being able to select their own environments as they mature, which both
consequentially, can affect how others respond to them, hereby supporting the two
way process of interaction. In today’s society it is widely acknowledged that children
are active agents in their own development, and Kant’s theory has become influential
in researching this interaction between nature and nurture. As a result, this has set the
tone for the ‘transactional models’ of development, where researchers are
investigating the complex duality of “cause and effect” to which the development
process is observed as neither exclusively natural nor exclusively social, but instead, a
combination of both.
The continuous evolution of the hypothesis of childhood in our culture is
demonstrated by changes to government legislation, both currently and historically.
For example, The Factory Act 1833 implied the beginnings of legal child protection,
challenging working conditions for children and the exploitation of children in the
work place, eventually contributing to a rise in schools for factory children to attend
instead. Prior to this, it was customary for poorer families to encourage children from
as young as five to contribute to the family income by either doing chores in the home
or going out to work long hours either in factories or away from home as servants.
Economic changes and trade union influences, also contributed to the worse forms of
child labour being abolished by end of the nineteenth century, thus demonstrating that
attitudes had shifted to childhood being a time for play and education rather than work
and being “useful”. School eventually became compulsory as a result and has
remained so to this day.
Today, the emotional appeal of child rearing is appreciated far more than the
economic benefits. Children’s physical, social and emotional progression is now
subject to continuous monitoring and manipulation by parents, teachers and an
assortment of other people who associate with, or advocate on behalf of children,
resulting in future social and economic competencies being predicted by an
assortment of tests and exams. Furthermore, implementation of various, frequently
revised legislations, designed to protect or inform about children, demonstrates that
concepts surrounding child development are frequently evolving and changing. This
has resulted in a craving for information pertaining to both the natural and social
processes of development, not only in Western societies, where much of the research
has taken place, but also in the poorer, more rural countries around the world where
child labour is still commonplace.
The Six Cultures Project, initiated by Barbara and John Whiting in 1976 provided
comprehensive details on children’s behaviour, work, play and social interactions, in
addition to evidence of adult attitudes towards children in poorer countries. Their
findings revealed differentiated customs and beliefs shaping children, therefore
presenting a variety of different childhoods globally. Some beliefs emerged from
nativist standpoints, such as children being deemed as vulnerable and weak
dependents, lacking awareness and knowledge, whereas children being viewed as
fundamental economic resources evolved from the social perspective. The Gusii tribe
in Kenya who viewed children as economically essential was highlighted in the
research, with observations showing an equal value placed on work and play as
integral to development.
The Development Niche Framework, presented by Super and Harkness (1986) to
compare cross cultural development of communities within the USA and Kenya
displayed similar findings. Concentrating on the physical and social settings of a
child’s everyday life, culturally dominated traditions and child rearing procedures,
and the psychology of the caregivers and others within the community, results showed
the framework to be useful in demonstrating the treatment of, and the physical and
social progression of individuals interacting within the cultural constraints of their
own environments. For example, the seemingly “natural” process of motor
development also has social objectives, dependent on the cultural initiatives displayed
within the development niche. In Western society niches that omit the concept of
work, children’s motor skills may develop playfully within the confines of a safe
environment, therefore protecting them from any dangers. In poorer countries
however, the same skills may be acquired by engaging in the same activities as the
adults, exemplified by the Bangladeshi girl’s recollection, “When I was a child, I used
to cry for the hammer. So my mother bought me a hammer and I started breaking
bricks.” (Woodhead. 1998). Despite demonstrating how development may occur, this
statement exhibits weakness in the “framework” for ascertaining what constitutes as
work, play or learning in poorer communities. Furthermore, the dangerous nature of
the work raises moral debate regarding child rights and protection. Nonetheless,
Woodhead highlights the continuing importance of work, which in poorer cultures is
viewed to enhance development, equipping children with valuable skills, thus
enabling them to contribute within the family, the community and eventually to the
overall economy, therefore verifying that social processes are contributory to
development.
To conclude, knowledge gained from observing natural processes of development has
contributed to massive improvements in the care and treatment of children globally.
Conversely, others argue that child development, until recently has been observed
exclusively and selfishly from an adult perspective, without seeking the child’s
opinion. The influence of the UNCRC has challenged some theories and presumptions
regarding development to be ethically unacceptable, especially “control and
discipline” theories which would now raise serious safeguarding concerns.
Furthermore, “ages and stages” theories that do not take into consideration the child’s
right to respect and consultation on issues concerning them have also been
disregarded. Consequently, the UNCRC has now made child development research a
global priority, promoting children’s rights and encouraging children to become
active participants in their own development and the decisions that may affect it. This
strengthens James and Prout’s claim of development being “constructed” and
“reconstructed” by social processes.
2018 words.
Sources:
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.
Smith, M. K. (2002) 'Hannah More: Sunday schools, education and youth work', the
encyclopedia of informal education, http://www.infed.org/thinkers/more.htm.