Research which has been about the children has considered children through numerous theoretical instances- shaping up of a child as a growing individual within a family, the conceptualization of a child in other backdrops and within perspectives and the child as a social group and a social actor. Each instance deviates in the importance it puts on the social framework and social organization. In the novel sociology of childhood, children’s rights are to be considered as reflexive.
Social actors are regarded as a political point of view and from a theoretical context. As the feminist project identify with the aim of pursuing knowledge by women, similarly, the principles of new sociology of childhood identify its objective to be the formation of a group of knowledge which is not only about the children but also for the children. This aim both reproduces and contributes to the influx of children and the childhood on the political platform as the novel minority group (Silva and Smart, 1999, p.
145; David, 2001, p. 93; Alanen and Mayall, 2001, p. 12-13). Allan Prout and Allison James debated that a new pattern for the sociology of childhood has cropped up over the last decade. This novel sociology of childhood intends to bring the study of childhood to the mid-level of sociology and is perceived by its advocates as a counterweight to the domination of psychology in the domain of childhood studies. The appearance of sociological importance in childhood is to be welcomed; however, it is not uncomplicated.
One key within this novel childhood structure is the perception that children and the youngsters should be considered as agents or social actors who are making themselves in the series of diverse social scenarios. This eliminates children from the role of objects to be examined and stresses that their opinions and experiences could offer insight into the nature of childhood. In this perspective, research is not performed on them but rather for them. The insinuation of such an approach is that our techniques of investigation need to place children as the central spotlight.
At the heart of this context is the opinion that the children must be acknowledged as precise correspondents of their own worlds. The stress is upon listening to their voices and employing this substance as the centre of any assessment (Goldson, Lavalette and McKechnie, 2002, p. 43-44; Smart, Neale and Wade, 2001, p. 2-6). The psychology of child advancement has controlled the research domain of children’s socialization. The kid is conceptualized individualistically with respect to his/her age and platform in the lifetime of biological, cognitive, and emotional growth.
Dominated by strong normative ideas of what comprises of proper advancement, children’s location in family perspective is normally taken as given. However under the strong manipulation of psychoanalysis, child improvement also unites children organization but provides little analysis of the stipulations under which it is provoked. For, with this instance, the prospects and the limitations of gender, class, race, culture and ethnicity are situational rather than person centered and thus, excluded from the framework.
As an alternative, family associations, particularly the attachment of child to the mother are viewed as the major influence on the child’s progress. However, some advocates recommend that theories of learning and education consider children as passive; children are also regarded as the active members in decision making (Jenks, 2005, p. 70; Greene and Hogan, 2005, p. 48). By contrast, children’s socialization has been considered more deterministically within a functionalist structure in sociology.
In large scale surveys, children have been downgraded to the status of household dependent. In rigorous studies of family life, mothers are the major representatives of social communication and social control and the children are conceptualized as containers of their care rather than donors who are mutually engaged in socialization procedure. It is useful to believe that political values strengthen child progress and socialization theories. Whilst theoretical viewpoints differ, their political principles need not however be adversative.
In the majority of Scandinavian communities, children’s requirements which have been fulfilled through publicly supported daycare, have been closely related to the mother’s entrance into the labor market, however, unlike in the United Kingdom, these diverse sets of interests and related value standpoints have been accommodated (Silva and Smart, 1999, p. 145-146; Buckingham and Willett, 2006, p. 109). In UK, child progress has had more persuasion than other regulations on policy and professional practice regarding children, through its associations with medicine and education.
Considering the attachment theory, the policy has been maintained that the young children should be accompanied by their mothers. Indeed, since war, UK administrative policy has disregarded the requirements of working parents and in a similar manner, those of their children (Silva and Smart, 1999, p. 147). British community has become even more unfriendly to their children. These alterations have major implications in the lives of the children. The political principles strengthening the novel sociology of childhood reproduce this state of affairs.
The principles of this novel stratum of childhood investigation dwell in the developing UK politics of children’s rights rather than in the policy schema of child security, which is still presently pre-distinguished in UK public policy or in the previous politics of critical social evaluation. The right of children and youngsters to have and to demand a life of their own is said to engage the dislocation of traditional types of participation on the part of youngsters via the stipulation of traditional welfare agencies, towards the pursuit of political actions based upon children and youngsters taking initiative.
This procedure also indicates a shift away from the ideas of rights as types of entitlement to welfare- concerning the impartial allocation of provision by means of the bureaucracy of state- towards the concepts of rights to political participation, and related responsibilities, in which the obligation is on the person to make correct claims. However, in spite of the magnetism of individualization, this idea does not sufficiently address the issue of adult responsibility. As children should have right to security, care and contribution, similarly the adults also must have responsibilities to children.
Nor does it deals with the experiences of all groups of children and youngsters. Confrontations remain in evaluating differences among children, including the methods in which the childhood is structured by age, gender, class and race. It is comprehendible that the new instance of childhood studies has not yet adequately distinguished the social category of children in UK (Silva and Smart, 1999, p. 150; Lewis, 2006, p. 14; Franklin, 2005, p. 208). An issue that needs to be discussed is that is it likely to decide whether work has positive or adverse effect on education, or in fact, if it has any considerable impact at all.
Research on this front is restricted; however, it does provide some evidences to an answer to this question. The most apparent issue is the association between employment and educational performance which is generally evaluated in terms of grades accomplished during evaluation. However, it is also likely to consider employment influencing education in a number of other manners. For instance, achieving employment may influence learner’s attitude toward school, either strengthening the requirement for qualifications and school success or offering an alternative source of remuneration for the learner.
The impact of employment may also be evaluated by considering the length of time that the learner obligates to education (Hutchby and Moran-Ellis, 2001, p. 14). The new sociology of childhood is bothered by the fact of taking into consideration the issues of organization and capability of children and making children more noticeable. However, the movement of children’s rights strikes in with the echoes of previous emancipatory movements. This is not to say that the movement of children’s rights is similar to the women’s movement or the movement of civil rights.
Rather, additionally, to the above focus on voice and participation, there are some questions which need to be asked, for instance, whether human rights are provided to the children. The official discussions are themselves conflicting. For instance, the application of United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), with its importance on the need to inquire about the child’s view, serves to advance the idea that, in matters of participation, security and provision of services, appropriate account has to be taken of the opinions of children.
Child welfare legislation in England has ever more highlighted the significance of listening to children when decisions are being taken about their welfare. Recently, attempts have been taken by several governmental departments to incorporate children in decision making and to reinforce children’s right by means of independent support. However, encouragement of children’s says and their rights have been a potholed progress. Children’s interests are easily lowered to the political priorities of the administration (Hallett and Prout, 2003, p.
116; Johnson, 2010, p. 66). In the domain of education, the lingo of children’s rights and participation is absent to a greater extent. What is also found is that some nations in UK have supported the values within the UNCRC to a much greater extent than England (Hallett and Prout, 2003, p. 117; Leira and Saraceno, 2008, p. 267; Prout, 2005, p. 24). References: 1. Alanen, L, Mayall, B, 2001. Conceptualizing child-adult relations. Routledge (London). 2. Buckingham, D, Willett, R, 2006.
Digital generations: children, young people, and new media. Routledge (London). 3. David, T, 2001. Promoting evidence-based practice in early childhood education: research and its implications. Emerald Group Publishing (West Yorkshire). 4. Franklin, B, 2005. The new handbook of children’s rights: comparative policy and practice. Routledge (London). 5. Goldson, B, Lavalette, M, McKechnie, J, 2002. Children, welfare and the state. SAGE (London). 6. Greene, S, Hogan, D, 2005. Researching children’s experience: methods and approaches.
SAGE (London). 7. Hallett, C, Prout, A, 2003. Hearing the voices of children: social policy for a new century. Routledge (London). 8. Hutchby, I, Moran-Ellis, J, 2001. Children, technology and culture: the impacts of technologies in children’s everyday lives. Routledge (London). 9. Jenks, C, 2005. Childhood: critical concepts in sociology, Volume 1. Taylor & Francis (Oxford). 10. Johnson, H. B, 2010. Children and Youth Speak for Themselves. Emerald Group Publishing (West Yorkshire).
11. Leira, A, Saraceno, C, 2008. Childhood: changing contexts. Emerald Group Publishing (West Yorkshire). 12. Lewis, J. E, 2006. Children, changing families and welfare states. Edward Elgar Publishing (Cheltenham). 13. Prout, A, 2005. The future of childhood: towards the interdisciplinary study of children. Routledge (London). 14. Silva, E. B, Smart, C, 1999. The new family? SAGE (London). 15. Smart, C, Neale, B, Wade, A, 2001. The changing experience of childhood: families and divorce. Wiley-Blackwell (Oxford).