The Concept of Childhood History and Studie - Essay Example

Childhood Studies Childhood and difference Introduction The concept of childhood history and studies is a fundamental phenomenon inthe contemporary societies. The establishment of a deeper understanding of the history of this phenomenon will enhance the acknowledgement of the past and the forces that surround the current problems and conditions. The ideology of childhood history was coined by Philippe Aries, a French scholar. Aries posited the pre-modern context of the Western community that lacked a childhood concept. They viewed children to be small adults without a particular legal or emotional allowance. The approach postulated by Aries was later amplified and to some extent misinterpreted by intellectuals who noticed the appalling characteristics of the pre-modern childhood. For instance, the increased death rates, harsh discipline muted to the children, and the idea of child labour. Additionally, some patterns were observed to be surrounding the childhood concept. For example, societal naming system that derives names of the dead in naming newborn children. Indeed, the system was a cavalier approach to the death of the infants and individuality of the children (Stearns, 2005, p.4). Morrison (2012, p.28) argues that in the attempt to find answers to the overarching problems that face the children in the contemporary world, there is a need to focus on the academic works. The global history of children adds to the advancement of the conditions of numerous children in today’s world. Professors and scholars can greatly inspire their learners to focus care on the rights of children, provide critical thinking perspectives and problem-solving techniques as a necessity to turn care into actions. Essentially, global childhood historians can serve the purpose of consultancy for policy-makers and activists who seek the parallels of history regarding children issues. Further, historians can trace the root causes of the problems that faced children including child labour and violence. Therefore, the disadvantaged and destitute children must not receive blame for existing conditions. Scholars, for example, Shulamith Shahar critiqued and proved wrong Aries’ theory that childhood had no abode in the medieval world. In his book Childhood in the Middle Ages, Shahar claims that the theory postulated by Aries is erroneous since no community can physically survive in the absence of child nurturing traditions, channels of knowledge transmission, and rich avenues for the young to socialize. Further, Shahar maintains that just because the middle-aged children were involved in adult community, it does not translate to the inexistence of the childhood concept. Recognizing children needs and ensuring survival of the society are among the fundamental universal elements. Colin Heywood, a European historian, notes that people tend to assume their thoughts and practices regarding childhood and term them natural only to realize that divergent views exist in the society. The notion of childhood existed in the middle ages, but its outset was different from the one observed later in the West. For example, James A. Schultz, a child historian, found out that in German the high middle-aged adults failed to think the treatment given to children affects their outcomes as adults (Morrison, 2012, p.32, 33). The cultural childhood history encompasses turning points but still meander over the centuries. Children can be thought to be depraved at the beginning of the twentieth century and the Middle Ages. The middle ages whether in the industrial revolution in Britain or twelfth-century in Italy conceded a need for a comprehensive education and separation of young individuals from adults (Heywood, 2013). Thus, it is of paramount importance to understand the differences in the labels among the children, origin, and their major implications The Use of the Labels Throughout the special education history, the system of categorically using labels to define and describe differences among children has greatly aroused concern. Seemingly, the use of such labels on the contrary facilitates consistency in research and communication in relation to the differences and disabilities among the middle aged individuals. Conversely, labelling is associated with stigma, isolation, and stereotypes to children with behavioural, learning, and physical differences. Additionally, placement, evaluation, testing, and assessment are issues related to labelling of children as normal, difficult, different or special (Thomson, 2012, p.158). The professionals of mental health often look at the children’s behavioural problems as conditions that can be medicated, altered or controlled. Problems in behaviour often communicate something that needs to be noted. If there is a failure to examine conscientiously the purpose of the behaviour, there is always a missed opportunity to impart genuine change that last. For example, an ordinary approach to hyperactivity explains normalcy solely as a mere outcropping disorder in the child’s neurophysiology. For instance, a kid’s hyperactivity is caused by the compromised development of their brain. It is arguable that for individuals with hyperactivity, behavioural control, human interventions, and medication are necessary to avert the situation. However, most children may exhibit the hyperactivity behavior for a number of reasons. It might be a way of communicating to their caregivers about the sedentary demands experienced by the homes and schools that leave them desperate for more kinetic plays and experiences. It is, therefore, critical to understand the multiple meanings a child is trying to put across via the hyperactivity behavior. More importantly, context is pivotal in understanding behavior in children. Viewing the behavior of children as symptoms to be checked by specialists and failure to inquire the daily conditions under which they occur, brings about skewed pictures of the children’s functioning (Gnaulti, 2013) According to Diller (2006, p.15) problem children have always existed. Every community has vast methodologies to explain these children and also manage them. In the western culture, spiritual and religious differences are thought to be the major causes for the misbehavior of children and poor learning. It was believed that, physical punishments and prayer could be the actual remedies for these ills. Freud argues that, children’s problems result due to the unresolved internal conflicts that arise from stress in the relationships with their mothers. Freud’s ideas came to be a main theoretical framework in the understanding of children and in treating their problems. Diller notes that the society has chosen to make the kids’ struggle or coping mechanisms into ones of diagnosis. He adds that, the active or absent-minded children become children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), the shy turn to generalized anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, or social anxiety. He claims that, children testing their limits are said to have oppositional disorder while those act up are suspected to have the bipolar disorder (Diller, 2006, p.16). Due to the concerns of the language power, the leaders are questioning the use of labels and consequently the importance of labelling. The leaders argue that a challenge exists to research and implementation, which is aiding to deliver effective and comprehensive services to children regarding their educational needs as opposed to labeled disability. To curb the ideology of mislabeling the kids, it is allowed to use the development delay category for the children from delivery through the age of nine. The use of the developmentally delayed terminology explains some of the difficulties that relate to mislabeling. There is the replacement of the developmentally delayed label by specific one as the child age while clearly identifying the disability or dropping it if there are responses to early interventions (Deiner, 2010, p.10). Deiner adds that, all children have unique features, but also bear a lot in common. When the children exhibit a diversity in their needs, either permanent or temporal, a danger exist only to focus on how the different needs mold them. Normally, the educators may lose foci on how much these children resemble others. To a larger extent, they may forget these kids and use the normal basic education and individual needs as their colleagues. Labelling children as subnormal or handicapped is no longer valid. It leads to a focus on specific disability and conceals the children’s unique characters, determination and personality. Further, children cannot be able to walk but be determined and confident. Therefore, labelling these kinds of children as handicapped only focuses on their disability and reveals nothing about the coping strategy applied to that difficulty (p.8). Assertions by Dare et al. (p.35) entail that all kids are equal. Thus, they should be loved, valued, accepted, and respected by the people they are. Origin of the Labels According to Thomson (2012, p.159), the term label originates from the social labelling theory. In relation to labelling, deviance is used to elucidate and analyze the disabled persons’ experiences. In this context, labelling is the connection of a name that is deviant to some attributes of individuals. It is expressed when individuals fail to fit into the society’s definition of what is considered normal, and, therefore, deviance is a social construct that results from judging other people. The ideology of labelling is seen as inevitable due to the classification and identification of students having special needs. The situation then leads to affiliating the students with categories of disabilities and finally results in labelling. Further, the Theory of Mind (ToM) investigates the particular abilities of the humans to relate the mental status to themselves and to others to be able to elucidate and predict child behavior. Understanding the mind is most important attainment in the childhood stage. It allows them to function in the social context and to distinguish intended and accidental behavior, reality and wishes besides deception and truth. The theory of mind is, therefore, vital to the understanding of the world social context and the interactions involving the humans (Lonigro et al., 2013, p. 581). Lonigro et al (2013, p.581) notes that, children having more advanced ToM abilities usually receive lower negative behavior from their peers and decreased teachers’ aggressions relating to evaluation hence a rise in the social abilities in the classroom context (Ryan, & Townsend, 2010, p. 44). Lonigro et al., (2013, p. 582) asserts that the model of social skills deficit, the children who are aggressive fail to correctly read and interpret the social cues resulting to attribute hostile bias. Indeed, the model lays stress on the cognitive aspect of the human social life and information processing. It has been eluded that, the social behavior of children often predict the ToM abilities. Aggression in connection with children are noticed to be negative social behavior as opposed to cooperative playing, sharing, and helping, which mark positive behavior in the social context. Additionally, ToM permits sharing of the individuals’ minds with the others. The development of ToM occurs mainly in the milieu of age and is backed by various cognitive factors like memory. In addition, social factors such as availability of opportunities to converse freely with people of like-minds also add to ToM development. Implications of the Labels In regard to Marsh (2008, p.16) labelling is bound to cause limited perceptions, thinking, prejudgment and predetermined behavior. Marsh adds that students identified to have substantial impairments in development suffer consequences of educational and social stigma that is appended to labeling (Hains and Smith, 2012, p. 357). Assigning a special education label to a student is done after the student has been subjected to assessment, and determined that eligibility criterion for a specific disability is achieved. For instance, to assign the label of significant development delayed, there must be an achievement of 1.5 standard deviations that are below the mean in the areas of communication, motor, cognition, motor, and adaptive skills to varied tests. The label aids in the delivery of suitable services and enable a successful education pathway. Additionally, the label represents the eligibility decision and is usually used for tracking students. The labelling of students in this manner proves to be restrictive and causes students, parents, educators, and law-maker to consider the suitability of the label. When labels are identified, children with disabilities are often stereotyped and targeted for discrimination (Marsh, 2008, p.2, 3). Teachers use labeling of their students to take note of the varied additional needs required by the learners. It helps the teachers to identify those learners that are particularly keen and those that are inattentive, which is a good gesture to guide the teachers to tailor particular efforts to the children. Different teachers have different sets of informal classifications that they apply to ensure effective delivery of content to the learners. These labels at the end of the continuum may be privately applied and not shared among the other teachers. Moreover, the labels can influence the teacher’s response to given children affecting their future perceptions. For example, the labelling becomes vital if the tutor is using labels as a reminder concerning a group of students to target and motivate (Armstrong & Squires, 2012, p.25, 26). Negative labelling lowers the learners’ self-esteem. More often than not, self-esteem is lowered if there is a consistent failure, rejection, and criticism. Early studies reveal that, low self-esteem is associated with varied personal problems and difficulties in psychology. These problems and difficulties encompass loneliness, depression, and behavioural disorders intertwined with academic failure. Education and schooling systems act as decisive factors that mold, maintain, and promote labelling in relation to students with disabilities. Thomson (2012) asserts that, schooling is an impeding agent for social and intellectual growth in relation to the labeled students. For instance, placing students with disabilities in special schools and programs resembles a de facto label. Indeed, many of the labels used in association with special education demean students and are seen as imprecise descriptions in regard to the children’s needs (p.161). Within the public education context, there is a desirable consideration regarding the people to be involved in labelling and the categorization of the students in the schools. More often, the educational psychologists are part of the labelling. Additionally, during the production of the cognitive profiles, these psychologists are always the ones to make recommendations that are particular to school placements and services. The system seems inherently biased concerning the decisions of placing the students in various schools or in the provision of the service that may be awarded due to a specific need. It is also argued that, by providing the labels to schools and services provided, the needs that need support are not easily missed. Conclusion As noted by several scholars, childhood history faced neglect in the medieval world leading to children’s problems and concerns not to be highlighted. Through the works of Aries, critics and the other academicians were able to build on the little available information regarding the childhood history. The situation led to the development of history that is vast in information concerning the way the children are regarded in the society. It is vital that more works built Aries studies to bring into the limelight the difficulties that face the children. For instance, in the medieval context, children faced forced labour and harsh discipline. The history of childhood therefore positively contributed into the survival of the children by gaining a focus of resources into their betterment. The theory of special education facilitated the process of labelling to allow the classification of students into groups to tailor specific resources to the needy students. On the other hand, the theory of mind (ToM) enables the individuals to apply their cognitive abilities into the social context. Those children that can interpret the social cues are better suited while those that do not are neglected and devalued. The situation brings about labels in the society that consequently elucidate the negative labelling. According to the social labelling theory, deviance is the major attribute that classifies the children. Those children that do not meet the ascribed standards of socialization within the society are termed deviant and labeled to alienate them from that are properly integrated into the social construct of the society. Further, the skill illustrated by the ToM aid the children in aligning themselves in regard to the social aspect. Lastly, there are many implications of labeling the children both in the society and in the school setting. Within the educational set up, teachers are capable of grouping the students to allow particular attention to monitoring and help the students in learning. The policy makers also use the label aspect to driving a wider base of resources towards the special education program and the special schools. The communities are also able to differentiate between the children that align themselves with the definition provided for by the specific societies. For example, they can determine children with special needs, though, this is accompanied by discriminations. Regarding the literature provided, it is critical to differentiate between positive and negative labeling to avoid discrimination among the children. Discrimination due to negative labelling resulted in isolation and lowered self-esteem, which have deleterious negative consequences to the individuals affected. Additionally, it is vital to trace the historical problems and difficulties associated with labelling to in a position to choose labels that contain positive repercussions to the children. Bibliography Armstrong, D. & Squires, G. 2012. Contemporary issues in special educational needs considering the whole child. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Dare, A. & Donovan, M. (2002). Good practice in caring for young children with special needs. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes. Deiner, P. 2010. Inclusive early childhood education: development, resources, and practice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. Diller, L. 2006. The last normal child: essays on the intersection of kids, culture, and psychiatric drugs. Westport, Conn: Praeger. Hains, B, & Smith, B., 2012, Student-Centered Course Design: Empowering Students to Become Self-Directed Learners, Journal Of Experiential Education, 35, 2, pp. 357-374, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 20 April 2015. Heywood, C. 2013. A History of Childhood Children and Childhood in the West from Medieval to Modern Times. Oxford: Wiley. Marsh, S. T. 2008. Effects of Labelling: teacher perceptions and Attitudes Towards Students with Special Needs. Walden University, USA. Morrison, H. 2012. The global history of childhood reader. London: Routledge. Ryan, PA, & Townsend, JS., 2010, Representations of Teachers and Students Inquiry in 1950s Television and Film, Educational Studies, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 44-66. Available from: 10.1080/00131940903480258. [20 April 2015]. Stearns, P. 2005. Growing up: the history of childhood in a global context. Waco, Tex: Baylor University Press. Thomson, M. M. 2012. Labelling and Self-esteem: does labelling exceptional students impact their self-esteem? British Journal of Learning Support, 27(4). Wright, B, & Mahfoud, J 2014, A teacher-centered exploration of the relevance of social factors to theory of mind development, Scandinavian Journal Of Psychology, 55, 1, pp. 17-25, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 20 April 2015. Read More