Analysis of Statement that the Development of Childs Identity Is Best Understood as Development in Context - Assignment Example

It has been argued that the development of a childs identity is best understood as development in context. With reference to THREE areas covered in this module, critically evaluate this claim. In the given essay, I concede with the statement that the development of child’s identity is best understood as “development in context”. Cultural setting of a child is a very important aspect of his life where his developmental context is concerned. There have been claims asserting universality, yet they can be refuted as developmental accounts are of and again linked with cultural assumptions. Thus, it can still be debated that the “nature” of a child is directly related to his cultural environment. (See Burman, 2008). The essay throws light on this concept and explains how the development of a child’s identity is a co-linked phenomenon. The essay will look at different dimensions to this point. It will reflect this perspective by throwing light on childhood, gender and sexuality. However, it is important to understand the concept of “development in context” and its relation with identity formation first. Berk (2006) claims that identity construction includes defining who one is, what one values and the directions one wishes to pursue in life. (p.456) Erik Erikson was the first one to bring to light the idea of identity as a big personality achievement and a concept which is important to producing productive and content adults. (See 1950, 1968) Erikson referred to Freud’s psycho sexual framework and argued that identity formation takes place through a myriad of developmental stages. Each of these stages need a certain conflict to be sorted out and resolved for a “healthy” identity to emerge. (Erikson, 1950) Erikson proposed the idea of development at every stage. Thus, his psychosocial theory of identity was a relatively different interpretation compared to Freud’s. He believed that ego is not just a mediator between id impulses and super ego demands but it was also a healthy force in helping the child to develop. (Erikson, 1950) He also placed importance on development within the cultural context in which it takes place, unlike Freud. For instance, Berk asserts, Erikson during the 1940s pointed out Yurok Indians residing in the States, would deprive their babies of breast feeding post-birth, and later, when they are 6 months old, the infants would be hastily weaned. Even though, this kind of treatment may be considered as harsh by American Standards, Erikson explained that Yuroks lived in a world, where fish could be seen in the river only once a year. This rarity prompted the development of self restraint for survival to take place. (Berk, 2006). It was, thus, through such examples that Erikson explained and demonstrated the importance of social and cultural context for viewing development and identity formation in children. (Berk, 2006) However, most literature, pertaining to the context of development and identity formation, conveniently ignore the social context within which understandings arise. These accounts treat development and identity formation, as a natural and inevitable phenomenon which has no connection or relation with the social and cultural context of the child’s development process. They don’t believe that a child’s identity is in any way linked to the specific social and cultural contexts. (Burman, 2008) This view has been pointed out by Burman (2008) as well. He claims that in most texts, the concept of development has traditionally been represented uniform and universal, while “cross cultural perspectives” have only been considered as secondary options in order to create the “content” of development. It can be debated over that the entire idea of separating the main accounts from their “application and issues”, maintains the assumption that developmental psychological knowledge is not value-laden. (Burman, 2008). However, the case is otherwise. There is a clear agreement and realization of the stage models around identity formation, tend to prefer greater independence. This is a widely believed notion of healthy development within the Western circles. Marcia (1980) has voiced out her approval of Erikson’s theory. She supports commitment to an identity where an individual is completely clear of his goals and greater independence later in life. Marcia (1980) is quick to position “identity achievement”, as the most important achievement during the course of development of an identity. It goes unsaid that, main stream opinion and views on identity formation have been severely criticised time and again. (See Sugarman, 2001) Notwithstanding is the main criticism of the notion that believes in the status quo by assuming that constructive development eventually falls in line with the norms that run in the society. As put by Burman (2008), in most main stream literature, the course of development is considered as uniform and universal, sometimes at the cost of the particular, namely the political, the historical or the cultural. In these texts, identity is mostly regarded as a culmination of biological forces where there is little or no regard of the fact that biology has been appraised and given meaning due to human activity in the first place (Burman, 2008) Irrespective, there is a strong realization that human beings are born social in the first place. Therefore, people need to wean away from the idea that biology is a wayward concept. The social context of a child’s development is just as important as the biological context as explained by Burman (2008) This concept is central to the notions supported by social constructionist accounts. Green (1985) clarifies that the understanding and comprehension of different phenomenon that people have of the world they live in, is a result of the social interchange of their cultural context. In light of this view, it is thus culture and not biology that makes up the human life and mind. It is culture which gives meaning to action by juxtaposing the underlying intentional states with an interpretive system (Bruner, 1990; p. 34). In addition to this, as Green (1985) put it, social constructionist inquiry is an attempt to construe normal forms of understanding as they exist today, as they have existed in the past and how they may exist in the future. The concept of fluidity and movement can inevitably be seen connected to childhood. It is this concept that we will focus on now. Burman (2008) explained that the discourses revolving around childhood are central to the way we perceive ourselves and the positions of those related to us in this world. Thus every notion of childhood is important to the cultural narratives. These narratives claim who we are and the way we live. (Burman, 2008) Subsequently, this part of the essay will reflect on the range of ways in which childhood and ergo, what it is like to be a “child” have so far been understood and perceived in most mainstream accounts. Later it will be established that most notions related to childhood are primarily linked with specific texts in which they are defined. However, let us first see, how childhood is currently perceived in the Western society and therefore in most mainstream texts. As Godson(2004) put it, in the Western societies today, childhood is ideologized as a world which is full of innocence, joy, fantasies, freedom, imagination and limitless opportunities. Specifically speaking, Goldson (2004) asserted that the child-adult proximity is denoted as one that gives the required protection: which is catering to the “best interests of the child” and meeting their needs. This perception is widely believed and thus written about in most developmental texts. Woodhead (2005) further elaborated on this notion by explaining how childhood is considered to be a carefree time, where most of the time is spent with the family, within their context and this eventually, places even more importance on learning, teaching, play and care. These persistent and clear constructions and expectations of what it feels like and means to be a child have greater implications, for how we consider the development of a child’s identity. According to Burman (2008) most mainstream texts related to childhood and child’s identity have focused on the biological definition and notions. They have conveniently ignored the social and political context of their setting. He feels that the entire childhood and whatever it means to be a child cannot be separated from the culture he is brought up in. The two are thoroughly infused and embedded. Aries (1962, cited in Jenks, 1996), was one of the few people, who focused on the socially constructed aspect of childhood. He argued that children exist in every culture and their presence different cultures are different and so it has been historically as well. Aries observations had more to do with greater awareness of the diverse rather than the universal nature of childhood. He helped develop an understanding that childhood is more just a biological given. It is a socially constructed phenomenon. (James & James, 2004) Let’s further explore this notion that childhood is socially constructed in lieu of child workers in order to present the flexibility and the dynamic nature of the identity of the child. As Woodhead put it that there are at least 220 million children under the age bracket of 15 who are working today. There are millions others who work part time with their schools. It should be noted that these estimates do not include the domestic chores undertaken by most children round the globe. (Woodhead, 2005) Irrespective of these figures and such hard hitting facts, most main stream account continue to ignore the global contexts for child development and identity and persist upon the so called normal “childhoods”. (Woodhead, 2005). As Burman (2008), put it that child workers are presented as children who are deficient and have been “robbed” of their childhood. They are deprived. Thus, the main stream text continues to stigmatise child labour as something which is not proper. They don’t reflect on the overall notion of societal context where child development is concerned but treat it as something world apart. However this is not right and these differences should alarm us and alert us to the to the importance of considering context when understanding the development of child’s identity. (See Burman, 2008; Woodhead, 2005). In a gist, this part of the essay tried to elaborate on the importance of context by 2 ways. First it looked at the dominant expectations of what it felt like to be identified as a child and second through demonstrating that identities are peculiar to some cultural contexts. Context surrounding the development of a child’s identity can also be studied from the perspective of gender and sexuality. This part of the essay will focus on this relation. As Berk (2006) gender identity, is an individual’s self perception of what they consider themselves to be. If they consider themselves to be masculine or feminine in their traits? But what is the sway of the traditional development texts where development of gender identity is concerned? Social-cognitive model is the most dominant popular theory till today where development of gender identity is concerned. (e.g. Bussey & Bandura, 1999). In this light, gender identity is considered as an amalgamation of biological forces, the societal pressures and the gender stereotypes imbibed in the environment the child lives. Golombok and Fivush (1994) explained the concept of gender stereotypes. They explained that gender stereotypes are simply certain characteristics which we consider as appropriate and relevant to males and females. Let us delve on the concept of gender identity beyond this. Within the paradigm of social cognitive model, it is assumed that gender in itself is a biological notion. For instance, the part played by prenatal hormones which have a partial role in the overall development of gender roles. (Golombok & Fivush, 1994). It should be noted that in most of these developmental accounts, gender identity has been attributed as a result of various prenatal pre-dispositions. Obviously, this is not the complete picture and gender identity as perceived by the main stream text, is considered to be a result of socialisation only. In this context, gender is learnt and understood via observation of peculiar gender related behaviour and patterns of reinforcement. (See Golombok & Fivush, 1994). Berk (2006) explained that, there is a lot of evidence that substantiates the importance of environmental and social factors where development of gender identity in children is concerned. Baby X studies give a strong insight on the impact of social influences on the development of gender identity. In the research conducted, it was found that the adults reciprocated differently to child they were seeing was a boy or a girl. (Condry & Condry, 1976). The study is important for it brings to light the respective roles of gender knowledge, hidden gender stereotypes, the schemas and the scripts. All this now takes us to the cognitive aspect of gender. Golombok and Fivush (1994) pointed out that all theorists taking the cognitive developmental perspective believe that child’s identity making varies qualitatively at different times throughout his development. On the whole, main stream accounts claim that gender identity is made of three parts: the biological forces, the social pressures and the internalisation of gender roles. Irrespective of all those, most main stream developmental accounts of gender identity fail to underpin the complex cultural context within which ideas about gender development arise in the first place. Given this point, it’s time that gender identity is understood from the perspective of a social constructionist. Lorber(2004) explains, social construction marks the beginning of its journey at birth. This is via assignment of a sex category to the child base on his genitalia. As children grow up, the start identifying themselves as members of that particular gender, as they embrace traits and characteristics of their biological sex. (Lorber, 1994) According to Lorber (1994), it is important to realize that gender itself is a social institution to be able to understand that gender is constructed from birth. Thus, put in another way, gender is central to the way humans arrange and organize their social surroundings. Human society is highly dependent on the expected labour division and gender roles within the society. (Lorber, 1994) In addition to this, while most theory places men and women as equals the societal system in which gender functions, positions men at a higher position compared to women. (Lorber, 1994). Ergo, given the society’s point of view, while one gender is dominant, typical, the standard, the other gender is inferior, subtle, deviant and different. As Lorber (1994) puts it, within Western culture, man continues to dominate while woman does not. Kohlberg’s theory of moral development (see Berk, 2006) explains the “masculine” forms of moral interpretation as the ideal. This notion of male dominance can thus be seen from this type of literature. (Burman, 2008). As rightly pointed out by Burman (2008), that the biggest criticism of Kohlberg’s development theory, are the stages that he has used are biased against girls and women. He has projected them as morally deficient and incapable. Carol Gilligan (1982) on the other hand has argued over how the model of moral development by Kohlberg is an interpretation of the differences between both the genders in the western society and culture. This idea of different gender roles has been depicted in her reproduction of “Heinz Dilemma”. In this account, a man, Heinz, ponders and wonders if he can steal a drug to save his sick. (See Gilligan, 1982) In this account, the two children, Jake and Amy were questioned if Heinz should steal the drug or not. During the course of the interviews that followed, gender differences clearly arose. Jake thought of the entire dilemma as some complex math problem trying to make logic and rationale out of it, while Amy thought otherwise. For her it was not a math problem, but a matter of relationships and her answers were central to compassion and care, demonstrating a clear awareness of the relation between people while realizing the importance of being responsible for one another. (Gilligan, 1982) Gilligan had further argued that even though both sexes are surrounded and faced with the same issues, the way they approach them is very different. Men mostly have logical perspective while women get emotionally carried and focus on compassion, care, and the importance of commitment to one another. Whilst this research can be criticised on its idealisation of certain women’s trait, this research is extremely powerful in establishing the importance of context. That is, the research brings to light how gender differences map onto and bring out culturally masculine and feminine stances in different situation. It is thus helpful, in promoting the idea that children consider their identity as male or female within particular cultural contexts only. Gender which is the way we conceive ourselves, want to identify ourselves also has a huge role to play in the way understand present our sexuality to the rest of the world. There is a clear cut line and sense of realization in which normative constructions of masculinity and femininity are heterosexualised (e.g. Butler, 1999). Given this backdrop, it is now time to shift the light on sexual identities. As Berk (2006) put it, at least 3 to 6 % of today’s adolescents claim to be lesbian or gain. They say that they feel differently from the children of their age very early in their life. These texts, have called ordinary sexuality (i.e. heterosexuality) as normal and unproblematic from a biological perspective. On the other hand, this text has called other sexualities as problematic and is something which needs more explanation and foresight. (See Berk, 2006). Irrespective, from all this and the biological back drop, sexuality and ideas regarding what it feels like to develop sexually are linked and related to the specific cultural and social contexts in which these ideas crop up. Put in another way by Weeks (1986), sexuality is a result of the society in intricately complex and complicated ways. Sexual identities can further be understood through changing social practices and norms which have given another meaning to human activities. (Weeks, 1986). It is thus not surprising to see that ideas revolving around sexuality and “acceptable” sexual identities vary considerably from one culture to the other. For example, as Weeks (1986) had pointed out that in most Western culture, norms of sex are interpreted in conjunction with their relation with reproduction is a product of Christian dominance. However in other cultures, the case is on the contrary, with some cultures not even accepting the relation between copulation and reproduction (Weeks, 1986). Thus, in this regard, the development of a child’s sexual identity can best be understood when studied within a specific context in which such ideas were conceived. As I conclude the paper, I strongly agree with the statement that the development of a child’s identity is best understood as “development in context”. I hope that while presenting different areas of childhood from the point of view of gender and sexuality, I have been able to establish that irrespective of claims to universality, developmental accounts are strongly related to the cultural surroundings. And hence most discussions revolving around the nature of the child are highly indicative of the dominant cultural context (see Burman, 2008). Thus, as a result of all this, the development of a child’s identity simply cannot be understood and studied separately from its context. Word Count: 3,199 References Berk, L. E. (2006). Child development (7th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education. Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Burman, E. (2008). Deconstructing developmental psychology (2nd Ed.). London: Routledge. Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106, 676-713. Butler, J. (1999). Gender trouble. New York: Routledge Press. Condry, J., & Condry, S. (1976). Sex differences: A study of the eye of the beholder. Child Development, 47, 812-819. Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton Gergen, K. J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist, 40(3), 266-275. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Goldson, B. (2004). What is childhood? Some preliminary thoughts. In P. Scraton, “Childhood” in “crisis”? London: Routledge. Golombok, S., & Fivush, R. (1994). Gender development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. James, A., & James, A. L. (2004). Constructing childhood: Theory, policy, and social practice. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Jenks, C. (1996). Chilldhood. London: Routledge. Kohlberg, L. (1966). A cognitive-developmental analysis of children’s sex- role concepts and attitudes. In E. E. Maccoby (Eds.), The development of sex differences (pp. 82-173). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Lorber, J. (1994). Paradoxes of gender. New York: Yale University Press. Marcia, J. E. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In J. Adelson (Eds.), Handbook of adolescence psychology (pp. 109-137). New York: Wiley. Spelman, E. (1990). Inessential women: Problems of exclusion in feminist thought. London: The Women’s Press. Sugarman, L. (2001). Life-span development: Frameworks, accounts, and strategies (2nd Ed.). Hove: Psychology Press. Weeks, J. (1986). Sexuality. London: Routledge. Woodhead, M. (2005). Early child development: a question of rights. International Journal of Early Childhood, 79(3), 79-98. Read More