Childhood in the Middle Ages and Global Standards of Childhood Today - Literature review Example

Introduction Many historians argue that the concept of childhood is essentially a western concept formulated in the nineteenth century and, its relevance and validity are still questionable in developing and under-developed nations. The definition of childhood claims that any child who is treated differently from the laid standards is maltreated. On the other hand cultural relativism implies that all beliefs and systems remain valid w.r.t to their cultural settings therefore a single definition cannot serve the purpose in different cultural settings. Following study is an analysis of the definition of childhood with respect to different cultures, historical beliefs, economic functions, psychological and legal settings. The concept is analyzed in light of the theory of cultural relativism and a conclusion is made in the end. Methodology Articles, books and websites have been referred for the study. No primary data is used for analysis. Studies by Phillip Aries, Shulamith Shahar, Jean Jacques Rousseau and Sigmund Freud have been used extensively. Childhood . “Motivated by morality, politics, economics, and compassion, reformers and politicians constructed a jungle of laws regulating the lives of children, founded organizations and institutions to train and to protect them, and fashioned a model childhood”(Marten, n.d). These organizations differ in their approach and standards. Even though written standards are available but, no single accepted global definition of childhood has been established so far. The concept of childhood has been varying with time and cultural settings. Studies by various historians indicate that before sixteenth century children and adults were treated in a similar manner; a practice that still continues in some cultures today. Developed, developing and underdeveloped nations differ in their childhood policies. Children in developed countries are expected to behave and are treated as per laid standards that apply differently to various stages defined by adults. The stages start from toddlers, play school and culminate at school. During these stages the exposure is confined to secure and isolated settings of home and school away from the adults. On the contrary, children in the underdeveloped countries are treated like miniature adults. Both are different in their psychological and behavioral development. The differentiation further applies in terms of legal and cultural aspects. Historical differentiation Historians’ perspective Almost all historians agree that children were treated as “miniature adults” in past however the extent of this consideration still remains controversial. Making a historical differentiation, historians have indicated childhood as a recently established western concept. Phillip Aries was the first one to demonstrate that in medieval period children acted and were considered as “miniature adults” once they crossed infancy. Their needs and exposure were not different from those of adults in the society. Sexual acts and executions were open to them. Shulamith Shahar contradicts Aries analysis by saying that the “conception of childhood” differed in the past but, “they dwelt on the status and duties of children and on the rights accorded them at various stages of maturity concept of childhood”(Shahar,1990). However, they both agreed that the concept differed. Plumb studied life in the sixteenth century and concluded that “Certainly, there was no separate world of childhood. Children shared the same games with adults, the same toys, the same fairy stories. They lived their lives together, never apart “(Mook, 2007). Jean Jacques Rousseau formally introduced the concept of Childhood. Victorians further established the sanctity of childhood. Development In past children lived in a homogeneous society sharing identical beliefs, values, expectations and choices with adults. Change started in sixteen century with upper class boys when they were isolated from adult activities. The distinction was further applied to upper class girls in late sixteenth century. Later in seventeenth century the middle class also accepted the view point and secluded children from sexual and violent conducts. It was only in late nineteenth century that the view started to permeate to all levels and children were entirely excluded from adult activities. The division was triggered by increased school hours and years of education. Increased life expectancy (with improvements in medical science) played an important part in defining early years as childhood. Cultural differentiation Different cultures define childhood differently. Again, cultural practices are non-uniform and are used differently by different people under various circumstances. Where in Western culture the maturity age extends much after puberty, in Islamic culture a child is considered mature at reproductive maturity. In other words western concept takes psychological factors into consideration while arriving at a crisp definition of childhood. Whereas children in developing countries live in “diverse and varied” (Liddell, 1998) settings and no crisp definition exists for them. Applicability of norms In many underdeveloped countries children experience armed conflicts, natural disasters and poverty. More than 250,000 children work as child soldiers, a great number of them in Africa. These children differ from the children in developed nations in their emotional, social and psychological setup. Therefore similar laws cannot be applied to these children. Religious beliefs and standards in many Islamic and Christian countries differ on their opinions on abortion, sex, marriage, education and health. These countries specify childhood as parent’s job and any intervention from external agency is unwelcomed. In such a case it becomes difficult for any agency to establish uniform norms. Legal differentiation “Childhood is legally defined as a state of dependency on adults or as the status of those excluded from citizenship on the grounds of their youth” (“Childhood”, 2003). This forbiddance from citizenship is made in light of cognitive and physical incapacity to take adult “rights and responsibilities”. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child has benchmarked this age to eighteen years. However, this criterion differs in other countries and cultures as per their own laws and social obligations and varies from 13 to 18 years. In “Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Croatia” (Franklin,2009) children under 18 can vote. Married children of any age can vote in “East Timor, Indonesia.. North Korea, Sudan, Seychelles.. and Israel”( Franklin,2009). Economic differentiation Economic factors play an important role in treatment and acknowledgement of childhood. Children in poor localities are expected to work and behave like adults at a very young age. Basic developmental facilities remain unavailable for them. Low income families resort to ceasing education, favoring non-clinical interventions and taking child labor. Immigrant children in America work in farms, shops and streets. Facilities and schooling for black children do not match the facilities for white children in the same geographical location. Young girls also known as “little mothers” either don’t attend or leave schools early to take care of their siblings. Psychological differentiation Jean-Jacques Rousseau's and William Blake’s assertion of childhood as an innocent and pure stage of life is countered by Sigmund Freud’s analysis. Freud studies of powerful unclear sexual drives in children undermine the view of cultural and legal differentiation of childhood and, go in line with the historical systems. These contradictory views continue to exist simultaneously. Moreover, it has been argued that the modern standards relate more to the “normative behavior” than the “actual behavior”. There is a clear understanding of deliverables from children however expectations of children have not been taken into account. Cultural relativism “Cultural relativism is the view that no culture is superior to any other culture when comparing systems of morality, law, politics, etc”(Cultural-relativism,2010). It promotes the fact that truth is relative and all cultural beliefs remain valid. In other words all beliefs circle around the pivot of an individual in a particular cultural setting. What is considered wrong in one particular setting can be considered right in another and, both could be equally relevant. Relativism includes moral relativism that sets the conducts as per the culture, situational relativism that considers situation in isolation and cognitive relativism that takes different forms and objective approach. In many Islamic and Christian countries moral relativism takes precedence where people including children are bound by moral obligations. With cultural relativism a new form of “pluralism and tolerance”(Cultural-relativism,2010) has arrived where it is getting difficult for the legal authorities to demarcate a clear line between universal rights and wrongs. Many philosophers including Immanuel Kant explained in his studies that it is almost impossible for a human mind to work without intervention of its universal settings. The argument was extended by his student Johann Gottfried Herder who said that the experience also differs with cultural settings. Boas has explained this with reference to Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theory .It is only since the development of the evolutional theory that it became clear that the object of study is the individual, not abstractions from the individual under observation. We have to study each ethnological specimen individually in its history and in its medium .... By regarding a single implement outside of its surroundings, outside of other inventions of the people to whom it belongs, and outside of other phenomena affecting that people and its productions, we cannot understand its meanings .... Our objection ... is, that classification is not explanation (Ingold, 1986, p.36). Childhood and cultural relativism The concept of childhood is a 20th century concept and it strikingly differs in the developed, developing and underdeveloped countries because of their differing cultures. Under-developed nations remain closer to the medieval times when children and adults were not considered entirely different. Children in upper-middle class of United States are in every way different from “street children in Argentina, boy soldiers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and child AIDS victims heading households in Southern Africa”(Mook,2007). In view of cultural relativism none of them can be taken as inferior or inappropriate. Conclusion Considering the above arguments it can be stated that a single definition can only be applied when the moral, situational and legal definitions match. “Global standards (on children's rights, on unacceptable or intolerable forms of children's work, etc.) require universal notions of (ideal, normal or `tolerable') childhood, while cultural relativism stresses the idea that notions of childhood are themselves socially constructed and therefore specific to time, place, nation and culture”(White,1999,p133). Even though UNCRC is trying to formulate and establish global standards for childhood, its growth and implementation largely depend on the domestic law and policies that again depend heavily on culture. In view of variations in the laid concept and the existing conditions, it can be argued that childhood is not a universal and uniform concept. Allison James and Adrian L. James recommended that instead of taking childhood as a universal concept it will be best to “concentrate on exploring the local diversities and cultural variables”(James and James,2004,p 48). Acceptance of law by people is possible only if the law is in accordance with the local culture. And acceptance is important for establishment and maintenance of legal policies. Allison James and Adrian James have countered the concept of generalization of childhood by presenting that unlike the best interests presumed by the development bodies, the interests of children are best served when laws are made keeping in view the cultural context of selected region. Childhood is more a cultural distinction than a natural phenomenon. Child rights Caucus have extended this study and suggested that “the analysis of various types of discrimination - on the basis of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status - must be conducted at all levels”(“A Child rights agenda”,2000) and then best practices should be arrived at. These factors should then take into account the commonalities that unite children. Until then the current definition will remain a western concept only. The political and economic criterions for childhood have changed while the basic criterions (marriage and occupation) remain more or less the same. References A Child rights agenda for the coming decade 2000, Child right caucus, viewed online on 19th Oct 2010 Ariès, P 1962, Centuries of childhood, Jonathan Cape, London Childhood 2003, International Encyclopedia of Marriage and Family. The Gale Group Inc.. HighBeam Research. 13 Oct. 2010 Cultural-relativism 2010, cultural-relativism.com, viewed online on 16th Oct 2010 Franklin, B 2009, ‘Right to vote: Children’s right means citizens’ rights, Child rights information network, viewed online on 15th Oct 2010,< http://www.crin.org/resources/infoDetail.asp?ID=22837> Ingold, T 1986, Evolution and social science, University of Cambridge, Australia James, A & James, A 2004,’Constructing Childhood’, Palgrave Macmillan, China Liddell, C 1998, Conceptualizing Childhood in developing Countries, University of Ulster Northern Island, viewed online on 15th Oct 2010, < http://pds.sagepub.com/content/10/1/35.short> Marten, J (n.d),Childhood, answers.com, viewed online on 16th Oct 2010, Mook, B 2007,The Changing Nature of Childhood and Boyhood: A Metabletic Study, HighBeam Research, viewed online on 14 Oct. 2010 Shahar, S 1990, Childhood in the middle ages. Routledge & Kegan Paul ,London White, B 1999, ‘Defining the intolerable Child work, Global Standards and Cultural relativism’, Institute of Social studies, vol. 6, no. 1,pp. 133-144. Read More