Childhood is a Modern Invention of the West - Essay Example

Name : xxxxxxxxxxx Institution : xxxxxxxxxxx Title : Childhood is a modern invention of the West Tutor : xxxxxxxxxxx Course : xxxxxxxxxxx @2010 Introduction Questions on the subject of childhood have in the recent years troubled a number of historians, most noticeably in their arguments regarding whether or not the present ideas about childhood are merely a modern invention. A number of writers have even argued that present ideas regarding childhood were simply non-existence. These views imply that during the period between 1600 and the 20th century the ideas regarding childhood were simply invented and what we currently visualize as childhood would not have made any sense to our ancestors (Harvey 1989). This particular paper therefore seeks to analyze the notion whether childhood is a modern invention of the West. The scope of the analysis will be grounded on providing view points that support the fact that childhood is indeed a modern invention of the west. The essay will further provide view points that are against the notion. According to Squidoo (2010), the idea of childhood was non-existence throughout history just as it seems today. Squidoo (2010) claims that; the concept of childhood did not exist during the Middle Ages. Childhood was an aspect of very little significance, the concept was perceived as a different category that did not deserve any unique representation. The child was simply invisible, meaning that a distinction could not be made between them and adults as far as age or physical maturity was concerned.Additionally, children would go to work immediately they walked and socialized with adults even in public places. Squidoo (2010) came to this conclusion after various studies involving representation of children in art from the 13th to the 18th century. Children did not exist in the paintings created during the middle ages and in few cases, where they did appear as a necessity, they were only portrayed as miniature adults, without any of the physical characteristics of the child familiar to us today. Also, during this period children went through great amounts of brutality. In most cases, children who were born with disabilities were discarded and were more often than not left to die. Moreover, parents had no strong emotional attachments to their children during the middle ages, though this may have been attributed to the high death rates among children during this period in history. In general, Heywood (2001) highlights that medieval society failed to recognize the transitionary era between childhood and adulthood. Heywood (2001) argues further that the medieval society perceived children as small-scale adults, who did not deserve any emotions. As a result without emotions it difficult to present Art in its finest way, therefore during this period childhood was not at all effectively featured artistically. The few paints made were horrendous; they consisted of images such as those of dead children. According to Heywood (2001), the discovery of childhood had to wait until the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries. It is during this period that there was a gradual understanding of children as being “different”. Only until then that it was recognized that children needed particular treatment before they were able to join the world of adults. This was actually the foundation of the view that childhood was that age of innocence. Fass (2003) claims that one of the modernity fundamental features come out from the special significance it has contributed to childhood in the discourse on being human. This came to be reflected also in art, for instance by begging to represent normal children in pieces of work. The transformation of sentiments about childhood occurred in two faces, children began to take a more central role in the family and parents began to more interested in their children by pampering and watching them play. Secondly writers and moralists also began to revive an idea that children were fragile beings who required to be reformed and be safeguarded. It can therefore be argued that the development of the idea of childhood was actually gradual within the limits of modern western society. Another factor to back the notion that childhood is a modern invention of the west is that with the rise of acknowledgement of the fact that children have rights in the contemporary society. The development of children’s rights has majorly been an initiative of western ideas. Harris-Short, (2001) brings to light the fact that western biasness has been integrated in the formulation of children’s rights in contemporary society. It is evident that international human rights laws have the element of universality. However as Harris-Short, (2001) puts it, in the context of children’s rights, we can not fully state that the legitimacy of considering cultural differences is practiced. Children exist in different societies were cultural and political conditions are different. As a result there are Scholars who have raised arguments that universal declarations of human rights are purely a construct of western ideology. This is essentially because there is a clear historical and philosophical rooting of the integration of western liberal view points and social economic experiences into the United Nations. The scholars further argue those ethoses that are right based and individualistic are usually foreign to societies that are non- western. Furthermore it is very precise that many cultures that are non- western have an understanding that is very different concerning how the dignity of children as human beings is secured. Their understanding is majorly embedded in their own cultural and philosophical traditions, which frequently includes their own cultural and philosophical traditions which are basically different from those of the western society (Harris-Short 2001). Ryan (2008) argues that one of the special features of modernity include the special significance it has accorded to childhood in the discourse of being human .And thus the apparatus available in modern state is devoted to unprecedented levels of regulation, service and protection of children, which basically involves modern ideas such as the conditioning, development and the innocence of children. Ryan (2008) further highlights that over the past two decades, their has been a rise of a group of dedicated researchers, mostly sociologists who have developed a rising self-conscious writing body which most commonly deals with view points about youth and children. This leading researcher’s claim that their work majorly consists of a breakthrough or what is referred to as a “new wave’’ in the study of the concept of childhood. The rise of the new social studies which is also perceived as a paradigm shift propagates new ways in which the concept of childhood should be studied through the construction of new pragmatic and interdisciplinary calls. The new shift constructed in modern western society in particular portrays children as social actors in social sciences and humanities. This rise of modern researchers and the notion of paradigm shift on the study of childhood can thus be referred as an aspect that backs the motion that childhood is indeed a modern invention of the west. Stephens (1997) also supports the notion that childhood is a modern invention of the west by asserting that as Benedict Anderson stated; in the modern word every individual has a nationality, a gender and a childhood. Similarly the contemporary constructions of childhood and gender are neither natural nor inevitable reflection of biological age and sex. While every society has accorded meaning to physical variations associated to age and sex, the modern notions of female and male, adulthood and childhood are historically and culturally specific. This implies that the specific contents are based on western cultural assumption, for instance age or sexual differences are dichotomies which are used to define the exclusive identity of childhood, just as the boundaries of a nation are used in to make a clear definition of natives and foreigners. Contemporary western politics also indicate that childhood is a modern invention. Stephens (1995) outlines that many political discussions in modern society focus on the responsibility that the nation has towards its children. As a result childhood has been redefined as a discourse of measuring political commitment. For instance in the heat of many American presidential campaigns, the political class have always laid the focus of their campaigns childhood issues. A lot of debates have been raised concerning the capabilities of mothers in raising children or about how the state will fund education for both native and immigrant children. Such notions indicate how significant the child is to fundamental policies of the state (Allison & Adrian 2004). On the other hand it can be argued that Childhood is not a modern invention of the West. Ellen (2000) highlights that in despite of the increasing debates about when interest on childhood were first initiated, scholars virtually do agree to the fact that childhood as a social category and experience , has been part the historical process and a subject of change over time . Ellen further argues that the allegations that childhood is a relatively modern discovery or invention that was rooted or initiated in the seventeenth centaury and firmly developed in the eighteenth centaury and flourished in the nineteenth centaury is a time scheme or plot. This is because studies of western culture begun during ancient Roman times and the concept of childhood also formed a major part of elements to be studied then, Ellen (2000). Jack Donnelly and Rhoda Howard also raise an argument against the fact that the development of human rights which also includes children’s rights is a discourse formulated within the context of modern western culture (Ryan 2008). The two authors further argue that in a particular political and economic environment, the role of human rights is to only to provide an effective mechanism for an individual to secure human dignity, due to the fact that without human rights, the individual is left to the venerable hands of the state. As a result the basis of the formulation of human rights can not only be linked to modern western culture, because the social evaluation of the world is also dependant upon individual states as opposed to state actors. In other words what the two authors are trying to put forward is that the absence of rights in small traditional societies is due to the type of states that govern those societies as opposed to the fact that children’s rights are just products of modernity from the west. The two authors further argue that in reality, more traditional communities are progressively becoming societies that are modern state centered, thus the recognition of children’s rights is becoming more universal as opposed to being a product of modernity from the West (Ryan 2008). Stephens (1997) also argues that even as we begin to associate identities such as gender, the nation and childhood to modernity, we should not forget that these particular identities were actually transmitted from the past. Common memories, customs, dialects, dance, songs and superstitions concerning the aspect off childhood were mostly derived from historical culture and later handed down from one generation to another. As a result we can not entirely link or describe the concept of childhood as a modern invention of the west. Heywood, (2001) brings to light the fact that even non – western cultures had their forms of identification and description of the aspect of childhood. Various non –western societies have also recognized childhood as an important stage of human life. For instance even in the non – western political debates, the concept of childhood has also become as significant element in policy formulation. Therefore we can not entirely link the discourse of childhood to being an attribute of the modern culture of the West. Conclusion From the analysis above the notion that childhood is a modern invention of the west can argued using various perspectives. In order to support the motion, various facts have been raised such as the idea of childhood did not exist historically it just become profound in contemporary western society, also the rise of children’s rights in contemporary western societies, childhood has also been perceived as a significant discourse of research and the linking of childhood to nationality and politics are some factors that supported the motion. In opposition of the notion, various aspects have also been raised such as childhood has been part the historical process and a subject of change over time. Also the evaluation of human rights is dependant upon every state and not the western state only. Additionally an identity such as childhood was transmitted from the past and lastly non- western cultures also have their own criteria of identification and description of the concept of childhood. In summary the aspect of childhood can be described as a significant element of human development which requires further research. References Allison and Adrian J, 2004, Constructing Childhood: Theory, Policy, and Social Practice, London, Sage. Ellen ,P, 2000, Demon or doll: images of the child in contemporary writing and culture, University of Virginia Press. Fass, P, 2003, Children and globalization. Journal of Social History Summer,963-977. Heywood, C, 2001, A History of Childhood: Children and Childhood in the West from Medieval to Modern Times. Themes in History, Wiley-Blackwell. Harvey, D, 1989, The condition of post modernity, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press. Harris-Short, S. 2001. Listening to ‘the other’? The Convention on the Rights of the Child, Melbourne Journal of International Law 2, 304-350. Squidoo, 2010, The Invention of Childhood - A Brief History, Retrieved on 19 December from Stephens, S. 1997, Editorial introduction: Childhood and nationalism. Childhood 4(1): 5-17. Stephens, S, 1995, Children and the politics culture, Princeton, Princeton University Press. Ryan, P, 2008, ‘’How new is the ‘new’ social study of childhood? The myth of a paradigm shift’’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18 (4): 553-576. Read More