The Story of Childhood Read Free Page A

creation of the modern family form, changes to productive relations, the role of the state – and how these affect the perceptions of and attitudes to children, and the children’s responses to all this. Finally, while childhood is not static, it is not the case that there are an infinite range of ‘reconstructions’ of childhood – indeed, today’s childhood in Britain is recognisable as the childhood established for working-class children at the turn of the twentieth century.’The psychology camp has countered that their endeavours have been misrepresented, that development is crucial and that sociologists risk lumping children together as a homogenous group. This is not the place for a conscientious examination of interdisciplinary wrangling. But what was novel about the sociology of childhood, and the broader childhood studies movement that developed out of it, was a fresh emphasis on rights. The broad consensus was that children should be treated as a minority, and defined as a disadvantaged, excluded group who deserve greater social, political and economic rights. It should also be noted that both psychologists and sociologists are now calling for a more integrated and less discipline-oriented approach to the study of childhood.
    Most advocates of children’s rights take the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, finalised in 1989, as their guide. It provides for rights to provision, protection and participation for children in all parts of the world, and is designed to take into account their vulnerability, particular needs and ‘evolving capacity’. It is also the most widely ratified treaty ever – only Somalia and the United States have not signed up.
    Although the UK voluntarily ratified the convention in 1991, it took this country another decade to concede that an independent body was needed to monitor its application. Following appointments in Wales and Scotland, Professor Al Aynsley-Green, the first Children’s Commissioner for England, only came into post in July 2005, to widespread disappointment that he was not actually charged with promoting children’s rights.
    The convention has not been without its critics. It does, after all, present children’s needs as defined by adults because, ironically, it was drafted without any consultationwith children. Some believe that it presumes that all children experience a Western indoor childhood, and so fails to acknowledge that the capacities invested in children and the transition to adulthood vary widely across different societies. But it remains an essential template, given that children throughout the world continue to be denied fundamental rights that adults take for granted.
    In Britain, perhaps the most basic inequality is that children cannot make decisions about their own circumstances – their care, their education, their health. Indeed, it can be argued that to be young is to meet the definition of social exclusion without trying – existing outside the political process, unable to contribute directly to the economy, criminalised for offences determined by your status rather than your actions, vilified by the media.
    The body of research which already exists on children’s participation indicates that when young people are included in decision-making they don’t just demand free Smarties, but respond with often astonishing maturity according to the circumstances in which they find themselves. Studies of children’s ability to consent to medical treatment, for example, have shown that young people with chronic illnesses can reason in ways that far outstrip the developmental standard for their age.
    But to suggest that there exists such a thing as ‘childism’ is to risk ridicule. The notion of children’s rights is inevitably greeted with hostility in a political climate where young people are most often maligned for their lack of respect for the rights of