Page 49 - Šolsko polje, XXXI, 2020, 3-4: Convention on the Rights of the Child: Educational Opportunities and Social Justice, eds. Zdenko Kodelja and Urška Štremfel
P. 49
j. vranješevič ■ convention on the rights of the child and adultism ...
receiver of influences from the outside and the development could follow
different paths, depending on positive or negative influences. The nativ-
ists, on another hand, insist on natural development, which is universal,
predetermined and fixed, such that adults (and the child as well) have al-
most no space to intervene and influence the development. Yet another
similarity is interesting, one related to contextual development. Within
the nativist orientation, the role of the environment and social context
of one’s development is evidently neglected, while the empiricists stress
its importance for the development, but only as a “better or worse frame-
work, not as a source of child’s development” (Matejić Đuričić, 2012, p.
272). Such understanding of development has greatly influenced the im-
age of the child which, according to sociologists, is dominant in western
societies: childhood is just a period in human development, children are
regarded as vulnerable developing beings deservedly surrounded by nour-
ishment and care for protection; children are valued in terms of what they
are to become as adults; they are seen as future adults rather than as beings
of today (Christensen and Prout, 2005, p. 45).
From vulnerability and risk discourse to oppressive practices
The socially dominant image of the child/childhood hugely influences
the attitudes to children and the way they are treated in a given socie-
ty. That image suggests certain acceptable models of the adult–child re-
lationship, the goals and the desirable forms of education and bringing
up, and represents an important regime of truth (Foucault, 1977) or a sys-
tem of social assumptions defining what could be accepted as truth, nor-
mality, the non-disputable fact, defining who can assess it and in which
ways. As part of the regime of truth, the child’s image becomes the basis
(and justification) for various manifestations of oppressive practices with
children since they are not disputed as normal social assumptions but ac-
cepted as such, as the only possible truth. These oppressive practices can
sometimes be very evident and explicit (for example, denying children the
right of expression of thoughts and freedom of association), and support-
ed by explicit biases (‘children are incapable of expressing their opinions’).
Sometimes, those oppressive practices can become exposed through less
evident, more subtle forms (for instance, adults do not inform children
about things that matter to them) rationalised by attitudes that are ex-
pressed as protection and an attempt to do something in the best inter-
est of the child (‘they should not be overburdened with superfluous in-
formation and spoil their carefree childhood’). In that way, the image of
the child becomes part of the regime of truth in society and a justifica-
tion for various manifestations of oppression on both the individual and
47
receiver of influences from the outside and the development could follow
different paths, depending on positive or negative influences. The nativ-
ists, on another hand, insist on natural development, which is universal,
predetermined and fixed, such that adults (and the child as well) have al-
most no space to intervene and influence the development. Yet another
similarity is interesting, one related to contextual development. Within
the nativist orientation, the role of the environment and social context
of one’s development is evidently neglected, while the empiricists stress
its importance for the development, but only as a “better or worse frame-
work, not as a source of child’s development” (Matejić Đuričić, 2012, p.
272). Such understanding of development has greatly influenced the im-
age of the child which, according to sociologists, is dominant in western
societies: childhood is just a period in human development, children are
regarded as vulnerable developing beings deservedly surrounded by nour-
ishment and care for protection; children are valued in terms of what they
are to become as adults; they are seen as future adults rather than as beings
of today (Christensen and Prout, 2005, p. 45).
From vulnerability and risk discourse to oppressive practices
The socially dominant image of the child/childhood hugely influences
the attitudes to children and the way they are treated in a given socie-
ty. That image suggests certain acceptable models of the adult–child re-
lationship, the goals and the desirable forms of education and bringing
up, and represents an important regime of truth (Foucault, 1977) or a sys-
tem of social assumptions defining what could be accepted as truth, nor-
mality, the non-disputable fact, defining who can assess it and in which
ways. As part of the regime of truth, the child’s image becomes the basis
(and justification) for various manifestations of oppressive practices with
children since they are not disputed as normal social assumptions but ac-
cepted as such, as the only possible truth. These oppressive practices can
sometimes be very evident and explicit (for example, denying children the
right of expression of thoughts and freedom of association), and support-
ed by explicit biases (‘children are incapable of expressing their opinions’).
Sometimes, those oppressive practices can become exposed through less
evident, more subtle forms (for instance, adults do not inform children
about things that matter to them) rationalised by attitudes that are ex-
pressed as protection and an attempt to do something in the best inter-
est of the child (‘they should not be overburdened with superfluous in-
formation and spoil their carefree childhood’). In that way, the image of
the child becomes part of the regime of truth in society and a justifica-
tion for various manifestations of oppression on both the individual and
47
