12
Jul
Jul
Notes for the Psychology of Childhood Identity
- Image via Wikipedia
- At the risk of oversimplifying what is a robust and complex body of interdisciplinary work (see, for example, Jenks, 2005; Prout, 2005; Corsaro, 2003;Mayall, 2002; James, 1993; James and Prout, 1990), there are two key themes raised by the ‘new’ sociology of childhood relevant to our purposes here. First, it has developed as a corrective to what were, in studies of childhood, the dominant biologically-informed theoretical approaches, for example those promoted by the broad corpus of development psychology (Prout, 2005). In this respect, it is a reaction to tendencies in developmental perspectives to objectify children, rendering them as immature adults in the making, captured and propelled by an inevitable telos of cognitive, physical, emotional and social development towards some idealised and imagined end.
- The identity of the (putative) child constituted and propelled in social policy. Policies are, amongst other things, discursive practices which, in their development and in their applications and operations, promote particular subject identities (McDonald, 2007).
- Social policies are deeply implicated in creating and sustaining both positively and negatively valued identities (Taylor, 1998 cited in McDonald, 2007).
- Nevertheless, policy developed about and for children does promote identities which may or may not reflect those taken up and/or valued by children (McDonald, 2007).
- Ultimately, this justifies a lowered regard for children’s status in respect of adults and legitimises the exertion of adult power over children (McDonald, 2007).
- There is an identity theory which directs attention to the social relations (McDonald, 2007) practices and techniques through which human beings acquire the characteristics and attributes of a particular type of person. It is a body of theory which draws upon such classical authors as Norbert Elias (1978 cited in McDonald, 2007). and particularly for my purposes here, the work of Erving Goffman (1969; 1968 cited in McDonald, 2007).). It also relies on contemporary theorists such as Pierre Bourdieu (1987) and Nikolas Rose (1998; 1996; 1989 cited in McDonald, 2007).
- Furthermore, and as suggested above, through acknowledging the dialectical and interactional nature of the process of identity formation, the sociology of identity provides us with a conceptual framework for fuller appreciation of the centrality of children’s agency (McDonald, 2007).
- Goffman’s (1969 cited in McDonald, 2007) notion of impression management encapsulates this. We all, children included, engage in active negotiation of our identities.
- This, in turn, is reflected in the notion promoted by McLaughlin (2007: 72 cited in McDonald, 2007) specifically in relation to social policy; that of assumed identity - that is, ‘the social traits or group memberships we ascribe to ourselves’. And it is these assumed identities, the manner in which they are both informed and taken up, and the consequences of being taken up that should be of core interest to those who would like policy.
- Further, as McLaughlin notes, assumed identity can be contrasted with ascribed identity - ‘that which is attributed to individuals by others’ (op cit). All identities are consequential (Bourdieu 1988; Rose (1999; 1989), but unlike assumed identities, ascribed identities are not necessarily (or at a minimum, less) susceptible to manipulation by individuals. In this way, they have serious consequences for material outcomes in and on people’s lives, including those of children. In similar manner to the notion of Goffman’s ‘spoiled identity’ (1968), Rose (in the tradition of Foucault) pointedly illustrates that certain identities (‘subject identities’ in his terms), constituted discursively within particular regimes of power and ‘truth’, are subsequently authorised by those same regimes to inhabit social spaces and locations in which they access very particular sets of experiences (cited in Mcdonald, 2007).
- Bourdieu (1988 cited in McDonald, 2007) on the other hand, illustrates the material outcomes of ‘habitus’ – that constellation of personal attributes, dispositions, and characteristics which constitute an identity. ‘habitus’ reflects a curious mix of both assumed and ascribed identity, acknowledging that the agency invoked via assumed identity is, nevertheless, bounded. In particular, it is bounded by social structures which moderate access to different forms (and quantities) of economic, cultural and social capital. His work suggests, for example, that cultural capital would moderate the manner of children’s engagement with forms of recreation and leisure which, in turn and in combination with differential access to the other forms of capital, would ‘fix’ children in particular class locations.
- As Jenkins (2004: 50 cited in McDonald, 2007) suggests: ‘The world is not really everyone’s oyster….some identities systematically enhance or diminish an individual’s opportunities…The materiality of identification in this respect, and its stratified deprivation or affluence, cannot be underestimated (italics in original)’.
- Appreciating the importance of identity – how it is constituted and understood at both the technological and ontological levels – clearly has implications for the impact and outcomes of policy on and for children (McDonald, 2007).
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=0cfc9493-0e13-4fce-852d-32dc7c3b160e)
