![Sample our Education journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5932/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Education.jpg"})
Abstract
To what extent does the common claim that childhood is ‘socially constructed’ affect the ethical debate on the ‘intrinsic’ and ‘special’ goods of childhood? Philosophers have referred to this kind of goods in their critique of overly adult-centred and future-oriented conceptions of childhood. The view that some goods are child-specific, in the sense that they are only good for children, not for adults, seems to presuppose an understanding of what children ‘are’, and how they differ from adults. However, if the social-constructionist view is accepted, it cannot be assumed that childhood is a given. This essay claims that the social-constructionist understanding of childhood does not undermine the debate on the moral status and the goods of childhood, but that nevertheless important lessons can be drawn from the insight that childhood, as we know it, is not a natural and universal phenomenon.
Notes
1. Here, I refer to the type of moral philosophy that has developed since the publication of John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice, in Citation1971. The work in the philosophy of childhood mentioned in this essay is to be situated within this tradition, that is, within a broadly ‘analytic’ philosophical framework. It should also be noted that the authors who have recently written on the (special) goods of childhood are mostly unfamiliar with the debates in the philosophy of education.
2. The view of childhood as a predicament is defended by Tamar Schapiro (Citation1999), and Sarah Hannan (Citationforthcoming).
3. See also Sarah Hannan’s talk of the ‘bads’ of childhood (Hannan, Citationforthcoming).
4. So, for instance, to say that children have an interest in unstructured play is tantamount to the claim that unstructured play is a good for children.
5. For a recent critique of these ideas, see Hannan (Citationforthcoming).
6. On the role of constructionist ideas in the sociology of childhood, see also the remarks of Leena Alanen (Citation2015).
7. A similar terminology is used by the child sociologist Leena Alanen (Citation2005, 40). She distinguishes ‘natural childhood’ and ‘natural children’ from ‘social childhood’ and ‘social children’. Surprisingly, Alanen does not use this distinction in a recent handbook article on the concept of childhood (Alanen Citation2014).
8. This view is confirmed by Leena Alanen in an early paper (Alanen Citation1988, 63, 64; my emphasis):
A more thorough analysis of Ariès’ historical method and his mostly implicit social theory, however, helps to produce another view for thinking about childhood. In this reading childhood emerges, not as an idea of the child in the first place, but as a particular social status within specially constituted institutional frames.
9. An alternative route that could be taken from here leads into relativism. The relativist position might be put as follows: There are different conceptions of childhood, and we cannot determine whether one of them is more adequate than others. In this regard, Graf (Citation2015, 31) writes: ‘Even if childhood is socially constructed, it is important to acknowledge that some constructions might be more adequate than others. From the fact of diversity does not immediately follow that all conceptions of childhood are of equal value’.
10. I do not deny, that many constructionist will see it differently – they consider normative discourse as some sort of social construction that might be analysed and criticised.
11. This point is also discussed by Brighouse and Swift (Citation2014, 68).
12. Further inspiration for this debate might come from Friedrich Schleiermacher’s pedagogical lectures (held in 1826). Schleiermacher (Citation2000, 54) states that future-oriented educational activities in childhood must also have their satisfaction in the present. In cases where immediate satisfaction is lacking, Schleiermacher adds, it might suffice that the child consents to an educational activity.
13. Interestingly, Brennan (Citation2014, 42) mentions ‘opportunities to meaningfully contribute to household and community’ among the goods of childhood.