Childhood Part 2

Here’s the second installment of my wadge of revision notes on childhood. This section of notes focuses on the sociological perspectives and I suppose they give you an example of how, if you’ve got enough knowledge of the perspectives, you can apply them to just about anything.

Applying some key concepts and sociological perspectives to childhood and age

In answering long questions about this topic, you may well also wish to draw upon the following theories and concepts

The nature/nurture debate. Sociobiologists focus on the nature side of this debate. Sociological views of childhood and age generally take the view that human beings are the outcome of both nature and social life – both are interconnected, it is nature and nurture, not one or the other. This means that whilst we have limits and constraints placed upon us by the nature of our biology, we also have various social rules, customs, and beliefs which help us make sense of these biological structures. However, this does not mean that the social rules etc are correct.

For example, a dominant set of assumptions in contemporary society, is that women are gentle and weaker than men. Sociologists would make several criticisms of this cultural view of women. Firstly, whilst there are indeed differences, the extent and importance of these differences, is vastly exaggerated in contemporary society. Some sociologists see this as the result of cultural values and beliefs while others see it as the result of economic factors (e.g. Marxists). Secondly, sociologists argue that nature and nurture become interwoven; because society says that women are weaker, all sorts of cultural rules exclude women from e.g. certain sports, and it therefore becomes true – in a sense –women do become weaker. This becomes a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. Of course, many will point out, that in this case, ideas about gender are changing. Sociologists are aware of this – norms and values never stand still. However, many sociologists would recognise that there are still firm boundaries and constraints on gender roles. A similar set of points can be made about childhood and age, so the example here of gender is not at all irrelevant.

You may also wish to apply your knowledge and understanding of theoretical perspectives to questions on age and childhood, but clearly you will need to use your judgment and show that this is relevant to a particular question. Sociological perspectives can be fairly easily applied to the social construction of age.

Functionalism – age stratification reflects value consensus and perhaps is the best way of organizing role allocation. There is general agreement (consensus) that the young need (it is a functional prerequisite) to be treated differently, because they have to be socialized into norms and values. Equally, the old have to be treated differently because they are physically less able to look after themselves.

Marxism- age stratification is a form of social control. It makes the young dependent on adult males, and it also helps to train and prepare a new cohort of labour power until it is time for them to move into the job market. It also creates a reserve army of labour – children can be seen as an emergency supply of workers, and by keeping them out of work for a long period, it means that capitalists can use the existence of a supply of cheap labour as a way of forcing workers to limit their pay claims or else face the danger of pricing themselves out of the market.

Interactionism-age stratification is much more flexible than both of the previous theories –they are structural theories of course – suggest. Age stratification is the outcome of negotiation and therefore varies a lot more than the previous theories acknowledge.

Conclusions
The case that childhood is a socially constructed category seems to be beyond question; the evidence of cross-cultural studies shows clearly how childhood varies over time and place. However, not all commentators would agree entirely with this view. Sociobiologists for instance, argue that childhood and old age are biologically determined categories, and that these phenomena can be understood solely by reference to biology. Prominent sociobiologists such as E.O. Wilson and scientists such as Matt Ridley and Richard Dawkins are sympathetic to this sort of viewpoint.

However, sociological views are easily misrepresented. No sociologist would say that nature and biology are insignificant factors. Rather the claim that childhood and old age are socially constructed, simply means that in order to understand these phenomena, we have to understand how they are regarded in different societies and cultures, and how certain social beliefs about childhood and age come to be influential in our society. In the case of childhood, those with power – adults – make rules about what child can and cannot and should not do, and have views about children’s capacities and abilities. The sociological viewpoint is that we should be sceptical of these social views, since adults clearly have various norms and values on these issues, and they may well construct and apply rules which benefit adults rather than children. A sociological view is also informed by a view of power. Children generally have very little say – many sociologists would claim – in the construction of the norms, values, and rules about childhood. So in any society, the cultural meaning of childhood, always has to be understood against the background of power relationships; it cannot be taken for granted as an ‘obvious’ assumption, as sociobiologists, and many others lacking a sociological perspective, assume.