the sociology of childhood as
Post on 02-Apr-2018
216 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/27/2019 The Sociology of Childhood As
1/22
http://chd.sagepub.com/Childhood
http://chd.sagepub.com/content/14/2/193The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0907568207078327
2007 14: 193ChildhoodMichael King
from a social systems perspectiveThe Sociology of Childhood as Scientific Communication: Observations
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Norwegian Centre for Child Research
can be found at:ChildhoodAdditional services and information for
http://chd.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://chd.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://chd.sagepub.com/content/14/2/193.refs.htmlCitations:
What is This?
- Jun 11, 2007Version of Record>>
at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 10, 2013chd.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/content/14/2/193http://chd.sagepub.com/content/14/2/193http://chd.sagepub.com/content/14/2/193http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.svt.ntnu.no/noseb/english/http://chd.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://chd.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://chd.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://chd.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://chd.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://chd.sagepub.com/content/14/2/193.refs.htmlhttp://chd.sagepub.com/content/14/2/193.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://chd.sagepub.com/content/14/2/193.full.pdfhttp://chd.sagepub.com/content/14/2/193.full.pdfhttp://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://chd.sagepub.com/content/14/2/193.full.pdfhttp://chd.sagepub.com/content/14/2/193.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://chd.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://chd.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.svt.ntnu.no/noseb/english/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/content/14/2/193http://chd.sagepub.com/ -
7/27/2019 The Sociology of Childhood As
2/22
THE SOCIOLOGY OF CHILDHOOD ASSCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATION
Observations from a social systemsperspective
This article begins by identifying a close relationship
between the image of children generated by several
sociologists working within the new sociology of
childhood perspective and the claims and ambitions of
the proponents of childrens autonomy rights. The
image of the child as a competent, self-controlled
human agent are then subjected to observation from
the perspective of Niklas Luhmanns social systems
theory. The new sociology of childhoods
constructivist approach is compared and contrasted
with Niklas Luhmanns theory of operational
constructivism. The article applies tenets of
Luhmanns theory, to the emergence of the new
childhood sociologists image of the child as a
competent, self-controlled social agent, to the
epistemological status of this image and, in particular,
to claims that it derives from scientific endeavour. The
article proceeds to identify two theoretical
developments within sociology sociology of identity
and social agency which have brought about
fundamental changes in what may be considered
sociological and so scientificand paved the way forsociological communications about what children
really are. In conclusion, it argues that the merging
of sociology with polemics, ideology, opinion and
personal beliefs and, at the level of social systems,
between science and politics represents in Luhmanns
terms dedifferentiation a tendency he claims may
have serious adverse consequences for modern
society. This warning is applied to the scientific status
of sociology its claim to be able to produce factsfor society, upon which social systems, such as politics
and law, may rely. Like the mass media, sociology
may now be capable of producing only information,
and not facts, about children.
193
MICHAEL KINGUniversity of Reading
Key words:children as agents, childrens autonomy,
childrens rights, Luhmanns theory ofsocial systems, new sociology of
childhood, sociology of identity
Mailing address:Michael King
School of Law, University of Reading,Foxhill House, Whiteknights Road,
Reading, RG6, 7BA, UK.[email: m.j.king@reading.ac.uk]
ChildhoodCopyright 2007SAGE Publications. Los Angeles, London,
New Delhi and Singapore, Vol 14(2): 193213.www.sagepublications.com
10.1177/0907568207078327
at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 10, 2013chd.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/ -
7/27/2019 The Sociology of Childhood As
3/22
The new childhood sociology
It would appear that academic sociology has now fully embraced into its fold
the theoretical approaches to issues concerning children known in English-
speaking countries as the new sociology of childhood. It is now over 10 yearssince this new perspective for the study of childhood and children first appeared
on the sociological scene. During that time, it has consolidated its position, not
only in the English-speaking world but also in Germany and Scandinavia, as the
dominant theoretical framework, for anyone seeking a sociological understand-
ing of childhood and children (see, for example, Corsaro, 1997; James and
Prout, 1997; James et al., 1998; Jenks, 1996; Qvortrup et al., 1994).1 For a meas-
ure of its success one has only to open any recent social scientific book or art-
icle on an issue concerning children, where one is sure to find acknowledgements
and references to theorists and researchers writing within this all-prevailingframework.
In this article I wish to focus attention on those theoretical aspects of the
new sociology of childhood that rely heavily upon the creation of a new image
of the child. It may seem strange that so far they appear to have escaped any
serious critical analysis from within sociology or social policy.2 This may in
part be due to the current enthusiasm for childrens rights in legal and political
circles. The suggestion here is that there may well be some disinclination gen-
erally to make adverse comments about any sociological account of children
and childhood that promotes and maintains an image of children, as people intheir own right, lest such criticisms are interpreted as encouraging a return to
paternalistic attitudes towards children with all their authoritarian connota-
tions. Moreover, anyone who subjects this view of children to critical com-
ment, may also risk being seen as doubting childrens competence to make
decisions for themselves or, worse still, as a childrens rights sceptic. As far as
sociological theorists specifically are concerned, there could also be some
reluctance to criticize a theoretical approach that had successfully dethroned
those functionalists and developmental psychologists who had for so long thor-
oughly dominated the study of children and childhood.One of the difficulties faced by the new sociology of childhood has been
that of establishing a clear demarcation line between what claims to be a new
theoretical understanding of children and the discourse of childrens rights.
Clearly, it would be naive to suggest that the simultaneous occurrence of this
renewed theoretical interest in childhood and the growth of childrens rights
as a global phenomenon was a mere coincidence.3 The two relate to each
other symbiotically in that, the more competent and autonomous children
appear to be, the more unjustified adults paternalism and the refusal to rec-
ognize childrens capabilities appear and the more appropriate it is for chil-
dren to be given similar rights to adults (see, for example, Alderson, 2000;
Lansdown, 1995, 2001). It is, therefore, not surprising to find some childhood
researchers welcoming this new sociological theory as a scientific bolster to
C H I L D H O O D 1 4 ( 2 )
194at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 10, 2013chd.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/ -
7/27/2019 The Sociology of Childhood As
4/22
the campaign for enhancing childrens rights and countering what they iden-
tify as societys mistreatment and undervaluation of children, for example:
. . . we need a sociology of childhood . . . to draw attention to certain neglected fea-
tures of childhood, to provide a better account of how the social order works; and to
use this knowledge as a basis for righting childrens wrongs. (Mayall, 2000: 246)
Such a blatantly instrumental use of theory may not be typical of those
researchers who apply this new approach to children and childhood. However,
it does typify their widely expressed belief that their theoretical approach is
able to provide a better understanding of childhood and introduce a firmer
scientific basis for policy issues based upon recognition of the capacity of
children for autonomy, competent decision-making and of their role as social
agents.4 Even if some of the new childhood theorists do attempt to distance
their theory of childhood from the rhetoric of childrens rights,
5
it cannot bedenied that in the writings of many English-speaking new sociologists of
childhood the two are intricately interconnected (see, for example, Alderson,
2000; Corsaro, 1997; James and Prout, 1990; James et al., 1998; Prout and James,
1997). Seen in the context of the widening of the boundaries of sociology and
the relaxation of its criteria for research validity,6 the closeness between
demands for childrens autonomy rights and the evidence of competence and
agency generated by the results of research applying a new sociology of child-
hood perspective might well raise concerns.
An interesting and original way of observing sociologically such rela-tionships between disciplines or discourses that has emerged in recent years is
Niklas Luhmanns theory of autopoietic systems. In the remainder of this art-
icle I present an account of aspects of this theory and the ways in which it
may be applied in order to observe, from a systems perspective, the develop-
ment within sociology of this particular theoretical stance with regard to
childhood and children. As a matter of shorthand, I continue to refer to this
theoretical stance as that of the new sociology of childhood, although I am
aware that some of those who work within the childhood sociology frame-
work may well reject in whole or in part the claims of the construction of anexplicit or exclusive image of childhood autonomy, competence and agency.
Social construction and Luhmannian systems theory
The social construction of childhood and children
Like so many social theoretical critiques of the taken-for-granted world, the
new sociology of childhood relies heavily upon a social constructionist
approach (see James et al., 1998: 8; James and Prout, 1997: 3). Indeed, one of
the new sociologists of childhood describes the social constructionist natureof childhood as one of the key features of the theory (James and Prout,
1997: 10). The notion that childhood is a constructed concept may well seem
uncontroversial. As Ian Hacking points out, it could mean simply that the idea
K I N G : S O C I O L O G Y O F C H I L D H O O D A S S C I E N T I F I C C O M M U N I C A T I O N
195at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 10, 2013chd.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/ -
7/27/2019 The Sociology of Childhood As
5/22
of childhood has been constructed, but it could also mean that a certain state
of person, or even a period in the life of a human being has been constructed.
Some thinkers, he adds, may even mean that children as they exist today
have been constructed(Hacking, 1999: 102). The new childhood sociologists
base their theory on this third proposition, that children should be regarded asconstructions of their particular society. Clearly, they are not suggesting that
children do not exist as physical entities or that their existence depends upon
whether or not people believe that they exist. Rather, the argument is that
what a society expects of children, the way that they are perceived, what is
seen as good or bad for them and what they are competent or incompetent to
perform depends upon the particular concept of childhood that society has
constructed. There is no definitive or universal account of what childhood is
or what children should be. All is relative and depends upon the particular
constructions of childhood of different societies or of the same society at dif-ferent times and the expectations associated with children (and adults) result-
ing from these constructions.
When this notion of a constructed childhood was first proposed by Aris
(1962), it may have been a surprising proposition, but it was seen as not an
unreasonable one. However, the new childhood sociologists, or at least some
of them, have taken the construction idea much further. They argue that by
revealing (or deconstructing) the artificial nature of these constructions and
the power interests that are being served by their existence, sociologists, such
as themselves, are able to gain access to the truth about childrens social rela-
tionships or, at least, to take themselves and us closer to that truth, independ-
ent of the perspective and concerns of adults.7 According to them, therefore,
the truth about childrens understanding of the world around them is access-
ible and, moreover, sociologists of childhood are able to assist in the task of
gaining access to it, first through its theoretical deconstructionist accounts
and, second, through the facts about children revealed in the research carried
out by those who apply their theory. According to them, therefore, the truth
about children is accessible and, moreover, sociology is able to assist in thetask of gaining access to it, first through its theoretical deconstructionist
accounts and, second, through the facts about children revealed in the
research carried out by those who apply their theory.
Luhmannian systems theory
Niklas Luhmanns theory of social systems also relies upon a constructionist
account of society (e.g. King, 1993; King and Schtz, 1994; Luhmann, 1995;
Mingers; 2002; Sciulli, 1994; Teubner, 1993; Vanderstraeten, 2000), but his
constructionism takes a very different form. His general approach portrayssociety as consisting, not of individuals, but of communications that are organ-
ized socially within societal systems. Society is the sum total of all meaningful
communications. The system of society consists of communications. There
are no other elements; there is no further substance but communications
C H I L D H O O D 1 4 ( 2 )
196at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 10, 2013chd.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/ -
7/27/2019 The Sociology of Childhood As
6/22
(Luhmann, 1990a: 100). Events in the world are random, contingent and chaotic.
Through these systems, and only through these systems, is the impression of
order, understanding and control within society possible. Each of societys sub-
systems (social systems) codes its otherwise inaccessible environment in ways
that enable it to formulate and generate meaningful communications.The organization of societys subsystems has been subjected to radical
change over the centuries. Modern society stands in sharp contrast to tradi-
tional societies in that it has no central core and no hierarchical structure;
instead it is organized according to functional differentiation. Each of those
systems that are functional to the organization of meaningful communications
for society (science, law, politics, economy, etc.) has its unique, non-replicable
function, which determines the form and nature of its communications. Each
exist within the environment of the other systems to be reconstituted within
those systems according to their own unique ways of processing their world.There can, therefore, be no direct, inputoutput, communication between them
only structural coupling, the co-evolution of different systems (King and
Thornhill, 2003: 323).8
Operational constructivism
One way of entering Luhmanns complex theory is through operational con-
structivism a concept which Luhmann sets out in his bookThe Reality of the
Mass Media (Luhmann, 2000: 6), but which is also to be found in various guises
throughout his theoretical writings. The approach to social phenomena that
Luhmann adopts in his theory of operational constructivism contrasts sharply
with that of the new sociology of childhood, which applies social construction
selectively. It claims access to the reality of modern childhood that corresponds
to the perceptions, beliefs, capacities and understandings of children themselves.
Luhmanns theory does not deny the existence of reality there is a world out
there, but it sees this world as accessible only through the medium of societys
social systems. In other words, it can never be observed directly. The world is
not an object but rather a horizon in the phenomenological sense (Luhmann,1990a: 32). What reality is depends entirely on the different ways that it can be
described and accounted for within a society consisting of social systems.
Operational constructivism does not attempt to present reality, but describes
rather how other systems undertake this task. It starts, therefore, from a very
different position both to that of social scientists, who accept the idea of ultim-
ately accessible truth, and that of the relativists, who believe that social reality is
a construct of those individuals, groups and cultures who believe in and rely
upon it, and see their task as exposing the myths and delusions that form the
basis of their constructions. Operational constructivism by contrast sees any sys-tems version of reality as a product of that systems operations. Moreover, it
treats these operations themselves as constructions of the system. Systems then
construct their version of the external environment reality using specific
codes and programmes, which they themselves construct.
K I N G : S O C I O L O G Y O F C H I L D H O O D A S S C I E N T I F I C C O M M U N I C A T I O N
197at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 10, 2013chd.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/ -
7/27/2019 The Sociology of Childhood As
7/22
From the perspective of operational constructivism, it is not possible for
society to communicate about childrens bodies or childrens minds without the
intermediary of some social communication system. Any observations of chil-
dren are always then second order observations (see next subsection), that is
observations by way of an observing system, which may then communicatewhat it observes. There can be no facts about children in society, only obser-
vations that may or may not be accepted by other systems in society as facts.
Observing systems
If one envisages a system observing the external world, reality for that system
consists of what it takes to be its environment, that is, the world, including
other systems and what it understands as its own identity within that environ-
ment. This means that it can observe itself and its own operations only from
within its own boundaries, that is from its own limited perspective. It requiresa second observing system to be able to see the first system observing its
environment, that is seeing both the system and environment from a position
outside the first observing system. Put another way, only a second observing
system can identify the ways in which the first system makes sense of its
environment. Yet even what a second order observing system may take to be
facts or reality is just as much constructed as the beliefs and assumptions of
the first system the system that it is observing. In other words, this second
order observer is no more entitled to claim access to objective reality than the
first. Indeed, it would be possible for a third observing system to identify the
limited vision of the second system in its observing operations. Its observa-
tions would appear no less an artifice of that systems own making as those of
the second observing system. No matter at what order or level observations
take place, therefore, there can be no all-perceiving, all-knowing system that
is able to provide ultimate truths about the world.
Communications and communicating
What then is the nature of the social systems upon which different versions ofsocial reality depend? As I have explained, within Luhmanns version of social
systems theory, society consists only of communication, where communication
means the process of transferring meaningful information; it occurs only when
someone watches listens, reads and understands to the extent that further com-
munication could follow on (Luhmann, 1990a: 4). Anything that takes place
outside society has necessarily to be transformed into a communication before it
can become part of society and society consists of the sum total of communic-
able meaning.
Social systems in the generic sense may be defined, therefore, as differ-ent ways of communicating, of giving communicable meaning to what other-
wise would be regarded as mere noise. The essential point is that anything
that takes place outside society, that is outside the universe of communicable
meaning, has necessarily to be transformed into a communication before it
C H I L D H O O D 1 4 ( 2 )
198at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 10, 2013chd.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/ -
7/27/2019 The Sociology of Childhood As
8/22
can become part of society and, as indicated earlier, this can be achieved only
by social systems.
Luhmann further distinguishes between different types of communica-
tion, depending upon the location in which they are uttered. These are:
1. Interactional the transient communications between individuals,
which may at some later stage be reconstructed in a more permanent
form (for example, writing, print, film or collective memory) as organ-
izational or societal communications.
2. Organizational these include communications within businesses,
universities, courts, ministries, factories, parliaments, financial markets
as well as less formal bodies such as families, sports teams, clubs, etc.
The communications within these organizations may go beyond mere
interactions and take on an institutional nature, that is they may conveyinformation that has significance for all members of the organization.
3. Societal that is uttered or produced by societys social function sys-
tems. These are very specifically those subsystems that at any one time
organize those meanings and understandings necessary for society to
exist as society and to reproduce itself. It is on these systems that the
continued existence of society depends. In modern society, they include
politics, law, economics, science and education. While these systems
(like all systems) are closed and self-referring, the operations of each of
them are dependent upon the communications produced by the other
systems. Of particular concern to the issues to be raised by this article, is
the dependence of both law and politics upon scientific communications,
on which they rely for facts. They need scientific facts to justify and
legitimate their own communications, which take the form respectively
of legal decisions and legislation.
Communications about children
In the terms of the theory, any communicable statements about children, theirnature, their capabilities and the difference between them and adults are neces-
sarily, therefore, products of a system. From a Luhmannian standpoint, such
communications concerning children could well be seen as emanating from a
system of pedagogy or (using the French term) ducation, which makes it pos-
sible to communicate about the specific period of life between birth and adult-
hood. Such communications are achieved by reducing and transforming the
myriad of complexities, contradictions and indeterminacies into a coherent
and consistent account of what children are, what they need, how they differ
from adults, what causes them to develop in different ways, and how adultsmay influence and control these causes, etc. The system of pedagogy thus
codes its environment into the binary code children/adults, so that everything
that it sees as existing in its environment enters the system in these binary
terms either it pertains to children or it pertains to adults. There are always
K I N G : S O C I O L O G Y O F C H I L D H O O D A S S C I E N T I F I C C O M M U N I C A T I O N
199at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 10, 2013chd.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/ -
7/27/2019 The Sociology of Childhood As
9/22
present within this system differing accounts of, for example, childrens true
nature, childrens needs or childrens abilities. These constitute the systems
programmes, enabling it to process its environment in a meaningful way to
produce understandable communications about children and their behaviour.
Its programmes may include any of a wide range of conceptual frameworks or,in Luhmanns terms, programmes. Examples range from psychoanalytic theor-
ies, religious constructs of children as inherently good or inherently bad, chil-
drens rights or, for that matter, any social theory that conceptualizes childhood
or children in particular ways.
Seen in these terms, the current discourse on childrens autonomy and
their rights to self-expression and participation in decisions represents one
such programme within modern society. It is a programme that emphasizes
childrens capacity for agency or to act in adult-like ways. In doing so it min-
imizes differences between them and adults, while at the same time retainingthe children/adults distinction as the binary code of the system. The new soci-
ology of childhood represents the reproduction within sociology, a reconstitu-
tion in scientific terms, of a programme of pedagogy, which generates images
of children as competent beings to whom autonomy is denied by adults. In
this way it hopes to be able to gain societal acceptance for its communica-
tions. Its image of children is accompanied by a parallel image of adults as
people who subject children to frustration and oppression by failing to recog-
nize and denying them their agency and autonomy.
The reconstruction of these images of children and adults within scien-
tific, sociological theory means that it cannot be dismissed merely as ideol-
ogy, idealism or polemic. As sociological theory, the notion of childrens
competence and potential for autonomy contained in these images is insulated
against counter-images from other disciplines, such as psychology or from
the subjective experiences of children expressed by parents, teachers and so
on. In Luhmanns terms, a self-referring theory need only take notice of evi-
dence that it itself regards as pertinent and legitimate to its own account of
reality, that is to communications that it recognizes as belonging to itself inthis case sociological communications about childhood and children.
Some readers may wish to ask at this point how this pedagogic pro-
gramme came to be accepted as scientific. Suffice it to refer at this stage to
the absence of any overriding authority in modern society and the consequent
ability of each function system to determine its own boundaries. Thus only
law can decide what law is, only politics can determine what is and what is
not a political issue and only science is capable of defining what is meant by
scientific. The definition of this new theory of childhood as sociology is
thus self-evident by its acceptance within sociological books and journals. Ifthe communications of sociology are treated by social science as scientific,
the theory and the results of research into childhood and children generated
by theory may also be treated as scientific. They may be taught and examined
in schools and universities and referred to in the media as existing within the
C H I L D H O O D 1 4 ( 2 )
200at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 10, 2013chd.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/ -
7/27/2019 The Sociology of Childhood As
10/22
scientific discipline of sociology. They become scientific communications
rather than political or legal communications or mere statements of personal
values or opinions. As scientific communications they may, in Luhmanns
terms, be relied upon to provide the truth and facts on which other systems in
society, law, politics, education, family, economics, depend.Indeed, the way in which childhood sociologists define their task cer-
tainly indicates that they believe themselves to be engaged in a scientific
enterprise. The new sociology of childhood is premised on a belief that it is
possible to acquire real knowledge and understanding of children, their
behaviour, perceptions, beliefs and capacity for rationality and autonomy
through the device of listening to and reporting on their communications. The
mission statementof this new sociology is thus,first, that of providing scien-
tific facts about children: what they are, the levels of decision-making compe-
tence they have achieved and are capable of achieving, and second, that ofexposing the obstacles to children fulfilling their capacity for autonomy.
The new sociology of childhood tells us that the concept of childhood
should be treated as a social construction that reflects the historical, culture,
values and the power structure of the particular society in which it occurs. It
explains how in todays society both the concept of childhood and the image
of the child have been formulated by developmentalists and structuralists,
whose insistence on treating children as passive objects or as human becom-
ings rather than human beings (Qvortrup et al., 1994: 4) has blinded society
to childrens true abilities and deafened it to their authentic voices. The fact
that there may serious doubts over, for example, the basic assumptions of the
theory and the generalizability of the evidence on which it relies do in them-
selves not make the theory itself any less sociological or scientific. Such con-
troversies occur within every system, including science, and can be resolved
only within the system itself.
Theories of childhood within sociology
Nothing that I have covered so far explains or accounts for the acceptance bysociology of the new sociology of childhood as sociological theory. At this
point I return in rather more detail to another aspect of Luhmanns theory, that
offunctionality. In Luhmannian theory this functional differentiation of mod-
ern society, with its closed systems, based on the distinct and unique function
of each one of them in disseminating or organizing communications is seen as
both an obstacle and a facilitator. On the one hand, it presents insurmountable
problems for putting into effect any concerted programme for social control
or steering. On the other, it helps to facilitate almost boundless creativity and
a capacity to manage rapid change, as each system strives to recreate andcommunicates about the others, but always on its own terms.
Systems functions relate, as I have explained, not to some notion of the
body politic, but to the organization of societys communications. Whereas for
Luhmannian theory the function of the political system is that of producing
K I N G : S O C I O L O G Y O F C H I L D H O O D A S S C I E N T I F I C C O M M U N I C A T I O N
201at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 10, 2013chd.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/ -
7/27/2019 The Sociology of Childhood As
11/22
collectively binding decisions and that of law, the stabilization of counterfac-
tual expectations over time, for science it is to establish facts for society (that
is other social communication systems) to rely upon. Furthermore, functional-
ity consists not only as a general facilitator for a society consisting of commu-
nications; but also, more specifically, each subsystem of society depends forthe effectiveness of its operations on the performance of other subsystems in
producing their function-specific communications.
The system of science will often play an essential role, therefore, in pro-
ducing communications that are able to be used in a reconstituted form within
other function systems. Yet What is decisively important [for scientific com-
munications] is that specific meanings can be isolated vis--vis uncontrolled
interferences from the sphere of truths generally accepted in the life-world
(Luhmann, 1984: 133). For science to be accepted as science, there needs, in
other words, to be a clear demarcation between subjective experience (thelife-world), moral beliefs or political opinions and what is claimed as scien-
tific objectivity (Luhmann, 1984: 133). To be accepted by society (that is, other
social function systems) as capable of producing facts, scientific knowledge
needs to be based on a different kind of quest for certainty than that based on
experience, law, morality or politics. The problem facing any set of beliefs,
which wishes to claim the privileged status of scientific respectability for its
way of seeing the world, is to how to distinguish itself from non-science. For
social sciences, this problem may be more severe than for the natural sciences,
but this does not make the task of policing its scientific borders any less
essential. Even the social sciences, or perhaps the social sciences especially,
need to maintain their separate identity, to distinguish themselves from their
environment, to reassure themselves that they are doing science a task that
other systems are unable to perform.
Let me return at this point to the concerns I expressed earlier in this article
over the emergence of a sociological theory about children that clearly has
much in common with the notions of childhood agency, competence and
autonomy disseminated by childrens rights activists. It is not sufficient in thelight of both social construction theory or Luhmanns theory of operational
constructivism to accept the contention that both the new sociologists of child-
hood and the childrens rights activists have in their own distinct ways stumb-
led across the same universal truths about children. If, in Luhmanns terms
specific meanings are to be isolated vis--vis uncontrolled interferences from
the sphere of truths generally accepted in the life-world (Luhmann, 1984:
131), one would expect some formidable obstacles to be erected by science to
keep polemics, unproven beliefs and superstitions about childrens true
nature out of sociology. As I argue in the next section, however, recent devel-opments within sociology have made it virtually impossible to erect any such
obstacles or formulate any clear demarcation between itself and its environ-
ment. I should add that what is being described in this section are events that
sociology itself identifies and defines as significant developments.
C H I L D H O O D 1 4 ( 2 )
202at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 10, 2013chd.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/ -
7/27/2019 The Sociology of Childhood As
12/22
Children, childhood and the recent evolution of sociology
Identity groups
A sociology or sociologies of identity: One of the most significant socio-
logical phenomena to emerge in the latter half of the 20th century has beenthat of identity politics (Calhoun, 1994). The grand ideologies and the politics
of commitment that they inspired appear to have given way to political group-
ings that reflect a particular aspect of the identity of the participating individ-
uals: feminist women, gays, black people, Muslims, born-again Christians, as
well as groups based on minority national, regional or linguistic identities
have campaigned for recognition, dignity, equality and the advancement of
what they see as their interests. The formation of these group identities and
the importance given to them in legal and political communications has co-
evolved with distinct groupings based on these identities being establishedwithin the social sciences. Racial, sexual, gender and religious divisions have
inspired their own theories and research. Feminists sociology, black socio-
logy, Islamic or Muslim sociology, Christian sociology and lesbian and gay
sociology, have all made their appearance within the social sciences within
recent years. Although these diverse groups within sociology may address
issues that go well beyond identity, what makes them distinctive is the fact
that the theories that they offer and the research based on those theories tend
to enhance the separate identity of their particular grouping, making that
group the centre and starting point of their sociological enquiry. They alsotend to be critical of other sociologies that, they claim, fail to give sufficient
recognition or attention to these identities.
The arrival of children as yet another such identity group may be seen as
an obvious or inevitable next step in the steady process of fragmentation into
identity groups. However, there is a fundamental difference between those
who press for recognition, dignity and equalityfor themselves and those who
campaignfor children, to be granted these privileges, where no discernible
benefits accrue to the campaigners themselves. Nor is the case of activists for
childrens rights quite analogous to that of campaigners who seek to makethings better for others such as those who want to free slaves, release political
prisoners or liberate laboratory animals. Unlike these other campaigners (or
the vast majority of them), childrens rights activists have actually experi-
enced what it is like to be in the position of those whose interests they wish to
promote. They have all been children.
Children as a group identity: In the case of the structural coupling of chil-
drens rights and sociology one finds a somewhat different relationship between
individual identity and social group membership, whether the group exists forthe promotion and protection of those possessing the identity or is a support
group existing in the social sciences. While identity group membership may
be nominally reserved for children, those who take it upon themselves to
protect and promote the interests of these members are predominantly adults.
K I N G : S O C I O L O G Y O F C H I L D H O O D A S S C I E N T I F I C C O M M U N I C A T I O N
203at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 10, 2013chd.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/ -
7/27/2019 The Sociology of Childhood As
13/22
For societal (or social system) communication, the identity group consists of
adults who identify with children. Indeed, the age constraints on entry into
higher education ensure that the academic support group that provides socio-
logical knowledge on the oppression of children and on ways of improving
their situation in society, consists entirely of adults. In general terms, it isadults, and not the children themselves, who promote childrens rights as a
movement and it is adults who theorize about children. Communications about
children may also come to represent a way for society to reformulate itself so
as to conform to idealized, but unrealized, self-images projected by the com-
municative systems of morality and religion. Children come to be seen as a
vehicle for social transformation, for the reinvention of society. There can
never be any consensus as to the precise form that this transformation or re-
invention will take or indeed for the society that will emerge at the end of the
process, just as there can never be agreement as to whose morality, which reli-gion or what image of human nature should prevail. But it is this very indeter-
minacy and agnosticism that makes possible the emergence of different social
groups, each claiming to promote the welfare and interests of children.
In the terms of Luhmannian theory, there is no possibility of society
gaining access to what children really are or where their needs or interests
really lie and even less possibility of gaining access to what the future really
holds for them! Furthermore, there is no ultimate or universal authority in
modern society, whether religious or secular, to decree on these matters.
Groups claiming to represent children, therefore, are free to stake their claims
in these matters with little fear of being proved wrong. Even if evidence is
produced that appears to go against them, they can always reinterpret this evi-
dence or find counter-examples that give the impression of supporting their
arguments.
Both the new sociologists of childhood and organizations promoting
childrens agency, autonomy and competence exist outside the political sys-
tem that is the communicative system that fulfils societys need for collect-
ively binding decisions. For Luhmann, the political system, like all othersocial systems, is closed and self-referring. Before any information, including
scientific information, can enter the political system, it is transformed by that
systems binary code of government/governed. The exercise of power, on
which the political system is functionally concentrated, is . . . only possible
for those who are in government, and who apply power to those who are gov-
erned (King and Thornhill, 2003: 71). Everything that takes place within the
political system today is structured by this opposition between government
and governed and to have any meaning within the system anything existing
outside the system has to be reconstituted in these terms (see King andThornhill, 2003: 712). Although organizations representing children may
campaign vociferously to redress the imbalance of power between children
and adults and sociologists of childhood may publish research findings on, for
C H I L D H O O D 1 4 ( 2 )
204at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 10, 2013chd.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/ -
7/27/2019 The Sociology of Childhood As
14/22
example, the disregard of childrens views in decisions about their lives, there
is no possibility of these organizations becoming the government, of their
members gaining political office, of the research findings giving rise to
changes in policy solely on the ground of their support for childrens auton-
omy. All that they can hope for is for oppression of children by adults to enterthe political agenda involving government and opposition and so be per-
ceived within politics as a matter on which votes (and thus power) may be
won and lost. Such a scenario is highly unlikely for, as recent history tells us,
children tend rather to enter the system of politics as threats to the social order
(young delinquents), as vulnerable creatures in need of protection (victims of
child abuse or deprivation) or as recipients of good or bad schooling.
I might add, in parentheses, that, paradoxically, it may be the ultimate
powerlessness of these organizations as a force within politics that accounts
for their endurance and popularity. There is virtually no opposition to con-front them, first because they exist outside party politics and, second, because
they speak, not for themselves and campaign not for their self-interests, but
for the benefit of children. If their claims are denied or ignored by govern-
ments and in legal decisions, therefore, there is every incentive to continue to
press for their acceptance always on behalf of the child, while every success
is greeted as if it were a triumph for children.
The rise of the social agent
The sociological divide between structure and agency: In the terms
that sociology applies to itself, there were until recently theories of structure
and theories ofagency with little or no dialogue or overlap between the two. In
their simplest terms, theories of structure direct attention to the institutions
operating within society and the effects of these institutions on the behaviour
of its members, while theories of agency are concerned with the ways in which
people, as social agents understand the world and affect changes in society.9
Since the 1970s, there has been little place for structural theories within
sociology. Mainstream sociology has moved from a position where it saw itselfas capable of improving society through the operation of social institutions to a
more modest role of discovering how people make sense of and exist within
their social world. It is people as social agents who are now the principal focus
of sociological theorizing (see Bauman, 1994: 823). According to this view, if
you wish to understand society sociologically, you need to study the ways in
which people understand their social world and operate within that world.
Anthony Giddens is of particular significance here, because his work on
agency is that most often cited by sociologists of childhood (see James et al.,
1998: 202; James and Prout, 1997: 5; Mayall, 1996: 53; Prout and James,1997: 27). Since the time that Giddens introduced the concept of structura-
tion, the traditional structure-versus-agency duality is discarded in favour of
an ever evolving and mutually penetrative dualism (Wilson, 1995: 121). For
K I N G : S O C I O L O G Y O F C H I L D H O O D A S S C I E N T I F I C C O M M U N I C A T I O N
205at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 10, 2013chd.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/ -
7/27/2019 The Sociology of Childhood As
15/22
Giddens, social structures are both constituted by human agency and yet at
the same time are the very medium of this constitution (Wilson, 1995: 121;
emphasis in original). Social structures provide the framework within which
people, as agents, act, but, at the same time, their actions may have the effect
of changing this framework. Yet, for Giddens, as for the other social theoristson whom he draws, the term social agent is something of a term of art (as
is the term structure). Social agents are not simply actors who affect the
behaviour of others within society. Much more significantly for social theory,
their actions, whether intentional or unintentional, must have caused or con-
tributed to social change or resistance to such change. The identification of
social agents has, necessarily, to be a retrospective exercise you cannot begin
to identify the social agents until you know what it is that their agency has
brought about or prevented from happening (Giddens, 1984: 11).
Children as social agents: The unlikely transformation from childrens
rights to a sociological theory that conceptualizes children as autonomous
actors within a social world dominated by adults would certainly not have been
possible without the ascendancy within sociology of theories of agency over
those of structure. Indeed, if the new sociologists of childhood were to fit the
distinction, child/adult, neatly onto the footprint of sociologys agency/structure
distinction, children somehow had to be transformed from the products of soci-
etys structures to social agents capable of influencing these structures through
their constructions of the external world. These child agents needed to be seen
in juxtaposition with the oppressive structures imposed by adults.
Having achieved this feat, it is a short step to creating within sociological
theory itself a space for childhoodsas the products of adults attempts to pre-
determine childrens lives and children as legitimate social agents. Once
established, this new theoretical version of childhoodand childrenboth con-
trasts with and offers a sharp rebuke to previous sociological accounts that con-
ceptualized the child only as existing within social institutions the family or
school the child . . . determined by structure . . . rather than pronounced throughthe exercise of agency (James et al., 1998: 25; emphasis added). The task, in
other words, was to recover children as social actors and their activity as a
source of social change (James and Prout, 1997: 27).
In the hands of the new sociologists of childhood, therefore, childhood
becomes a magnificent testing ground for th[e] dichotomy between agency
and structure and it is adult society which constitutes the structure and the
child the agent, and that the former determines or socializes the latter (James
et al., 1998: 202).
The reconstitution of the child from rights-holder, a citizen to be consulted,a voice to be heard to a fully-fledged theoretical concept that of the child as
social agent has thus been completed.
A Luhmannian operational constructivistobserver of this transformation
may wish first of all to question the use of the term social agent within this
C H I L D H O O D 1 4 ( 2 )
206at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 10, 2013chd.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/ -
7/27/2019 The Sociology of Childhood As
16/22
childhood sociology. Is it the same social agent as exists in social theory, that
is an agent capable of bringing about changes in social structures or has the con-
cept mutated in entering the pedagogical programme of childrens autonomy?
Among some new sociologists of childhood the claim is that children are
agents from their earliest days. They do things that make a difference to rela-tionships. They make assessments of events and relations, so children can be
properly understood as active agents, because, so it is claimed, sociology has
come to understand them as carrying out socially useful, indeed necessary
activities (Mayall, 2003: 9, 14). Similar accounts depicting children as social
actors, because they are able by their acts alone to change society, permeate
the writings of the new childhood sociologists. For example:
. . . our new discourses of childhood understand the child as being. The child is
conceived as a person, a status, a course of action, a set of needs, rights or differ-
ences in sum, as a new social actor . . . as an agent in its own construction and asnaturally an agent as any adult, in the sense of agency that concerns the initiation of
action by choice. (James et al., 1998: 207)
Yet, outside these self-referring sociological communications there is little in
other forms of communication about children that is congruent with this per-
ception of them as capable of taking an active agency role in bringing about
or resisting social change. One study, for example, specifically discredits
claims that children as witnesses should be seen as social agents within the
legal system. What one has here, it suggests,
. . . is a clear example of agency as dependency. This image of agency is at odds
with any essentialist image. Essentialist agency is precisely that which grants inde-
pendence. On the view presented here, agency is an effect of independence that
emerges from a fundamental dependency. (Lee, 1998: 472; emphasis added)
The fundamental dependency referred to is, of course, that of children upon
adult agency.
If one of the avowed purposes of the new childhood sociology is to draw
attention to the contribution that children make to society and to promote
awareness of childrens views and their understanding of their world, it would
seem that this could well be done outside the realm of social theory and with-
out any reliance on the theoretical concept of social agency. Indeed, the sug-
gestion, raised earlier in this article, that the sociology label may be being
used here to give scientific respectability and provide scientific support for
campaigns for childrens autonomy rights and against their oppression by adults
may be difficult to refute. Its accuracy is reinforced on reading the childhood
researcher cited earlier describing the task of a sociology of childhood as that
of drawing attention to certain neglected features of childhood, to provide a
better account of how the social order works; and to use this knowledge as abasis for righting childrens wrongs (Mayall, 2000: 246; emphasis added).
Within a society constructed by the new sociology of childhood, consist-
ing of a sedimented network of interrelationships or patterns of interaction
or what one might call social relationships (James et al., 1998: 201), it might
K I N G : S O C I O L O G Y O F C H I L D H O O D A S S C I E N T I F I C C O M M U N I C A T I O N
207at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 10, 2013chd.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/ -
7/27/2019 The Sociology of Childhood As
17/22
well be possible to envisage a direct causal connection between individual
actions (by children or adults) and social structures, even if the important ques-
tion as to how that relationship might operate in practice remains unanswered.10
From the perspective of Luhmannian social systems theory, by contrast, a direct
inputoutput influence of transient interactions upon social function systemssimply cannot exist, for societyand interactions, as I have indicated earlier,
represent two separate and distinct forms of communication.
This is not to say that the images of the child generated by these systems
have not changed in recent years. They clearly have, for example, in the ways
that law and politics perceive children. However, the changes that have occurred,
such as the Gillickdecision in the English courts and the legislation passed by
governments in many postindustrial countries directed against internet child
pornographers and child sex abusers, do not convey a consistent image of the
rational, self-controlled and autonomous child. On the one hand, children maybe seen in some situations as competent, of making decisions independently of
their parents and even of decisions about medical treatment and other important
matters. On the other, they are also portrayed in other situations as vulnerable,
inexperienced and in need of protection against such evils as sexual and physical
abuse and commercial exploitation. Yet, what is quite clear in these examples is
that neither the changes in the images of children nor the many diverse accounts
of what children are or are not capable of achieving that occur within the
communications of societys function systems have been brought about entirely
through the actions of children themselves. Indeed, there may well be plenty of
examples of children who carry out socially useful and necessary activities, but
these activities on their own do not bring about changes in the programmes of
social function systems. Children do not affect directly the way in which pol-
itics, law, economics and education communicate about children. Their influ-
ence is only indirect and whether or not it occurs depends on the operations of
these systems and not on the actions of children themselves.
Structural changes in Luhmannian terms may indeed happen, if childrens
actions become recognized by one or more of societys function systems, as aperturbation in that systems environment that needs to be addressed by the
system. However, here again the system is the social agent rather than children.
It is the system that selects the issue that needs addressing and reconstitutes it in
its own terms. Measures against youth crime or truancy are obvious examples.
There are also numerous examples of how changing perceptions of childrens
needs provoke changes in social systems, but it is hardly open to the new soci-
ologists of childhood to claim that children themselves are responsible for
generating these changes in perception. Even if one adopts Giddenss theory
of structuration, rather than Luhmanns systems theory as ones theoreticalperspective, the account ofthe childas social agent owes much more to the
new sociologists of childhoods preferred image of rational, competent, self-
controlled children than to any evidence that the social institutions on which
society depends actually change themselves as the direct result of childrens
C H I L D H O O D 1 4 ( 2 )
208at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 10, 2013chd.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/ -
7/27/2019 The Sociology of Childhood As
18/22
concerted actions and that these changes reflect what the children wanted or
intended.
Conclusions
It has not been my objective in this article to identify where the truth or real-
ity about children, their welfare and their capacities lie or who might have
access to them. Instead, I have used Niklas Luhmanns general social theory
and his more specific theory of operational constructivism as vehicles which
allow us to recognize in societys interactions and organizations the existence
of a specific system of communications about children and childhood.
My principal focus in this article, however, has been the introduction into
science of a perspective or programme for communicating about children, which,
while retaining the code children/adults, concentrates upon and magnifies thesimilarities between children and adults. This reconstitution within sociology
of accounts of what children are, their capacities, understandings, beliefs and
wishes, has become possible only because sociology itself has undergone major
transformations in recent years. This sociological revolution now allows different
identity groups to produce their own brand of sociology, sees individuals as
autonomous beings capable of changing the social structure and accepts as factual
evidence mediated and selective accounts of the ways that people see themselves
and understand their world.
Finally, two related set of questions emerge from my analysis. The first
relates to Luhmanns notion of differentiation into interdependent, yet autopoi-
etic social function systems as the distinctive feature of modern society. To what
extent is it still possible for other function systems, such as law, politics, health
or education, to rely upon communications emanating from sociology in the
form of theory and research results as providing facts for their own operations?
In the terms of Luhmannian theory, as I have already mentioned, the only way
that science is able to make a distinction between its own communications and
the life-world is to objectify the subject of its enquiry. The new sociology ofchildhoods denial of the very notion of objectivity (as well as that of several
other sociological identity theories) is to proceed as if science can be formu-
lated out of subjective beliefs and experiences and to suggest that everything
that calls itself research should be treated as generating scientifically approved,
factual evidence, just so long as it has been carried out within the auspices of its
own theoretical framework. This is of particular concern when much of the
research evidence on which sociological theories are based cannot be replicated
or verified and when sociology itself may at times lack any reliable criteria to
assess their validity. Furthermore, for sociology itself to deny that this subject-ificationof research poses any real problem to its own identity is to cast doubt
that sociology, as a subdiscipline of science, has the ability to police its own epi-
stemic borders. This concern, I should add, must not necessarily be seen as plea
for sociology to resurrect objectivity as the overriding criteria for sociological
K I N G : S O C I O L O G Y O F C H I L D H O O D A S S C I E N T I F I C C O M M U N I C A T I O N
209at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 10, 2013chd.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/ -
7/27/2019 The Sociology of Childhood As
19/22
research. My concern is rather that expressed by Niklas Luhmann and relates to
the dangers for society of dedifferentiation, the merging of social systems to a
point where it is no longer possible for each one to maintain its separate identity
and unique function. The problem is not that present-day sociology no longer
insists on objectivity or theories that are amenable to empirical testing. It israther that many of sociologys communications do not have even the appear-
ance of being able to convey facts or truth that can then be relied upon by other
social systems in their operations. They are only facts or the truth to those
who share the ideological orientation of the theory and the beliefs, values and
assumptions of the researchers. There is a real risk, then, that sociological com-
munications will be seen by other systems as undifferentiated from the commu-
nications of the mass media, that is, as able to provide information, but not facts,
for society. Just as the credibility of newspaper stories and television pro-
grammes depends on the pre-existing beliefs and values of their readers andviewers, so sociologists can expect their research reports to be judged not on
their methodological soundness but on whether they endorse, reject or ignore
the opinions, beliefs and values of those who read them.
The second related issue concerns specifically sociological communica-
tions concerning the competence and abilities of childhood emerging from
the new sociology of childhood. How much confidence can be placed on the
new sociological image of the autonomous, capable child agent? Is this new
image of the child to be accepted as a scientific fact for the purposes of gov-
ernment directives, legislation and courtroom decisions? Clearly, those who
wave the flag of childrens rights have no hesitation in regarding these com-
munications as factual and reliable. Take, for example Michael Freeman, a
leading legal advocate for childrens rights:
The sociology of childhood has much to teach those concerned with childrens
rights. The child as agent or social actor features strongly in these sociological studies
of childhood: it was key to an important research initiative funded by the ESRC in
the United Kingdom in the late 1990s. . . . Recognizing (and encouraging) chil-
drens agency (as in fact Article 12 of the Convention does) emphasizes that chil-
dren are social beings who can contribute to society . . . the work of Alderson . . .amongst others, has shown that children are much more competent than we choose
to believe, and at much younger ages too. (Freeman, 2004: xviiixix)
But what about ministers of state and judges, to say nothing of those anxious
parents, doctors, teachers and educationalists who seek assurance from scien-
tific research as to how to find the right way to meet the needs of children of
different ages or how much responsibility should be given to the child in a
wide range of decision-making situations?
Of course, accusations of lack of empirical verifiability could also be
(and, indeed, have been) directed against Luhmannian sociology. However,there are major differences between its theoretical concerns and those of the
new sociologists of childhood who have identified this revised image of the
child. Luhmanns theory does not make any truth claims other than those con-
cerning the ways in which society represents itself to itself. It does not seek to
C H I L D H O O D 1 4 ( 2 )
210at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 10, 2013chd.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/ -
7/27/2019 The Sociology of Childhood As
20/22
influence law, or social policies. It is not founded upon a priori assumptions
about human (or childrens) nature and, indeed, deliberately eschews the indi-
vidual subject as a valid unit of analysis for sociology.
Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the new sociology of childhood
presents one very specific aspect of society the division of the world into chil-dren and adults and necessarily ignores any accounts of events that lie outside
this narrow perspective. Luhmannian systems theory, by contrast, attempts to
offer a broad and complex account of the operations of different systems in
modern society and the relations between them. The enormous task that it sets
itself is to provide an account of how society transforms chaotic and contingent
environmental complexity into manageable system complexity. It is this fulfil-
ment of this task, rather than the impossible quest for ultimate truth about chil-
dren, childhood or anything else, that it sets itself and through which it hopes to
achieve what Luhmann optimistically terms a sociological enlightenment.11
Notes
1. Past editions of Childhoodhave contained many articles that have referred to or applied
the new sociology of childhood uncritically as a major theoretical advance in the sociological
understanding of children.
2. A notable exception is Lee (1998), who in an article titled Towards an Immature
Sociology questioned whether the new sociology of childhood had in fact achieved the theoretical
status that some of its proponents claimed for it.
3. Although the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which came intoforce in 1990, tends to emphasize childrens welfare rather than autonomy rights, Articles 14
and 15 identify certain individual liberties or freedoms which must be guaranteed by the state
in order to underwrite the concept of childrens autonomy, such as the right to freedom of
assembly and of thought, conscience and religion (Fortin, 1998: 21); Article 12 requires the
state to assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express
those views freely, in all matters affecting the child, the view of the child being given due
weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. Quite apart from the Convention,
there has been considerable disquiet expressed among lawyers, philosophers and political the-
orists over what is seen as paternalism towards children and the failure to recognize childrens
capacity to participate as citizens in their own right (e.g. Feinberg, 2004; Roche, 1999).
4. James et al. (1998: 21718) write, for example:
It has been our intention to present a broad account of the different ways in which child-
hood studies can, through careful theorizing, engage more effectively or incisively with
those policy or welfare debates which for so long have shaped the direction of research.
While James and Prout (1997: 10) specifically emphasize childrens self-determination as one
of the imperatives of the new sociology of childhood:
Children are and must be seen as active in the construction and determination of their
own social lives and of those around them and of the societies in which they live.
5. An example is contained in Chris Jenkss account of his major contribution to thedevelopment of the new sociology of childhood:
I had a need for real, active children, embodiment of agency, interactional partners,
constructors of worlds, competent social members. . . . Not actually, for this would
have simply been another naturalistic reduction.I had a sociologists need, not that
of a civil-rights campaigner. (Jenks, 2000: 65; emphasis added)
K I N G : S O C I O L O G Y O F C H I L D H O O D A S S C I E N T I F I C C O M M U N I C A T I O N
211at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 10, 2013chd.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/ -
7/27/2019 The Sociology of Childhood As
21/22
6. I refer here to the increasing use of qualitative methods and subjective narrative
accounts of social events, which have proved particularly attractive initially for feminist
researchers (see, for example, Denzin and Lincoln, 2000; Reinharz, 1992) and later for child-
hood researchers (e.g. Christensen and James, 2000). These methods have been subjected to
critical comments from Lazaraton (2003) and Overcash (2003) among others.
7. James and Prout (1997: 8); see Lee (1998: 273) for a criticism of these claims.8. For an account of Luhmanns general theory, see King and Thornhill (2003: Ch. 1).
9. Talcott Parsons is seen as the prime instigator of structural sociology.
10. No such direct relationship is proposed by Giddens in his theory of structuration.
11. Luhmann wrote four volumes titled Soziologische Aufklrung. For a discussion of their
significance, see King and Thornhill (2003: 1316).
Bibliography
Alderson, P. (2000) Young Childrens Rights. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Aris, P. (1962) Centuries of Childhood. London: Jonathan Cape.Bauman, Z. (1994) Sociology, in A. Kuper and J. Kuper (eds) The Social Science Encyclopedia,
2nd edn, pp. 81827. London, Routledge.
Calhoun, C. (1994) Social Theory and the Politics of Identity, in C. Calhoun (ed.) Social
Theory and the Politics of Identity, pp. 1136. Oxford: Blackwell.
Christensen, P. and A. James (eds) (2000)Research with Children. London and New York: Falmer
Press.
Corsaro, W.A. (1997) The Sociology of Childhood. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Denzin, N.K. and Y.S. Lincoln (2000) The Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd edn.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Feinberg, J. (2004) The Childs Right to an Open Future, in M. Freeman (ed.) Childrens
Rights,Vol.1, pp. 21342. Aldershot and Burlington, VA: Ashgate/Dartmouth.
Fortin, J. (1998) Childrens Rights and the Developing Law. London: Butterworth.
Freeman, M. (2004) Introduction, in M. Freeman (ed.) Childrens Rights,Vol.1, pp. xixlii.
Aldershot and Burlington, VA: Ashgate/Dartmouth.
Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gouldner, A. (1971) The Coming Crisis in Western Sociology. London: Heinemann.
Hacking, I. (1999) The Social Construction of What. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard
University Press.
James, A. and A. Prout (eds) (1990) Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood. London:
Routledge/Falmer.James, A. and A. Prout (eds) (1997) Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood, 2nd edn.
London: Routledge/Falmer.
James, A., C. Jenks and A. Prout (1998) Theorizing Childhood. Oxford: Polity Press.
Jenks, C. (1996) Childhood. London: Routledge.
Jenks, C. (2000) Zeitgeist Research on Childhood, in P. Christensen and A. James (eds)
Research with Children, pp. 6275. London and New York: Falmer Press.
King, M. (1993) The Truth about Autopoiesis,Journal of Law and Society 20(2): 119.
King, M. (2002) An Autopoietic Approach to the Problems Presented by Parental Alienation
Syndrome for Courts and Child Mental Health Experts, The Journal of Forensic
Psychiatry 13(3): 60935.
King, M. and C. Thornhill (2003)Niklas Luhmanns Theory of Politics and Law. Basingstoke:
Palgrave/Macmillan.
King, M. and A. Schtz (1994) The Ambitious Modesty of Niklas Luhmann,Journal of Law
and Society 21(3): 26187.
Klapp, O.E. (1969) Collective Search for Identity. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
C H I L D H O O D 1 4 ( 2 )
212at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 10, 2013chd.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/http://chd.sagepub.com/ -
7/27/2019 The Sociology of Childhood As
22/22
Lansdown, G. (1995) Taking Part: Childrens Participation in Decision Making. London:
Institute for Public Policy Research.
Lansdown, G. (2001) Childrens Welfare and Childrens Rights, in P. Foley, J. Roche and
S. Tucker (eds) Children in Society. London: Palgrave/Open Universty Press.
Lazaraton, A. (2003) Evaluative Criteria for Qualitative Research in Applied Linguistics:
Whose Criteria and Whose Research, The Modern Language Journal 87(1): 112.
Lee, N. (1998) Towards an Immature Sociology, The Sociological Review 46(3): 45882.
Luhmann, N. (1976a) The Future Cannot Begin: Temporal Structures in Modern Society,
Social Research 43: 13052.
Luhmann, N. (1976b) Generalised Media and the Problem of Contingency, in J. Loubser,
A. Effrat and V. Lidz (eds)Explorations in General Theory in Social Sciences:Essays in
Honour of Talcott Parsons, pp. 50732. New York: Free Press.
Luhmann, N. (1984) The Differentiation of Advances in Knowledge: The Genesis of Science,
in N. Stehr and V. Meja (eds) Society and Knowledge: Contemporary Perspectives in the
Sociology of Knowledge, pp. 10348. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Luhmann, N. (1988) The Unity of the Legal System, in G. Teubner (ed.) Autopoietic Law: A NewApproach to Law and Society, pp. 1235. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Luhmann, N. (1990a)Essays on Self Reference, Chs 1 and 2. New York: Columbia University Press.
Luhmann, N. (1990b) Political Theory in the Welfare State, trans. J. Bednarz Jr. Berlin and
New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Luhmann, N. (1993)Das Recht der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Luhmann, N. (1995) Social Systems, trans. J. Bednarz Jr and D. Baecker. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Luhmann, N. (2000) The Reality of the Mass Media, trans. K. Cross. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Mayall, B. (1996) Children, Health and the Social Order. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Mayall, B. (2000) The Sociology of Childhood in Relation to Childrens Rights, The International
Journal of Childrens Rights 8: 24359.
Mayall, B. (2003) Sociologies of Childhood and Educational Thinking. London: Institute of
Education.
Mingers, J. (2002) Can Social Systems be Autopoietic? Assessing Luhmanns Social Theory,
The Sociological Review 50(2): 27899.
Overcash, J. (2003) Narrative Research: A Review of Methodology and Relevance to Clinical
Practice, Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology 48(2): 17984.
Prout, A. and A. James (1997) A New Paradigm for the Sociology of Childhood, in A. James and
A. Prout (eds) Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood, pp. 733. London: Routledge/
Falmer.
Qvortrup, J., M. Bardy, G. Sgritta and H. Wintersberger (1994) Childhood Matters: Social Theory,Practice and Politics. Aldershot: Avebury.
Reinharz, S. (1992) Feminist Methods in Social Research. New York and Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Roche, J. (1999) Childrens Rights, Participation and Citizenship, Childhood6: 47593.
Sciulli, D. (1994) An Interview with Niklas Luhmann, Theory, Culture and Society 11: 3767.
Teubner, G. (1993)Law as an Autopoietic System. Oxford: Blackwell.
Vanderstraeten, R. (2000) Autopoiesis and Socialization: On Luhmanns Reconceptualization
of Communication and Socialization,British Journal of Sociology 51(3): 58198.
Wilson, D. (1995) Excavating the Dialectic of Blindness and Insight: Anthony Giddens
Structuration Theory, Political Geography 14(3): 30918.
K I N G : S O C I O L O G Y O F C H I L D H O O D A S S C I E N T I F I C C O M M U N I C A T I O N
top related