Page 50 - 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. 50
šolsko polje, letnik xxxi, številka 3–4
institutional levels. The image of the child as a vulnerable human being re-
duces the child to the object of adults’ interventions and results in a denial
of the child’s competencies to participate in decision-making relevant to
him/her, including his/her own protection and security (Boothby et al.,
2012; Kennedy, 2010).
The image of the child defines the relations of adults and children,
too. According to some authors, the pattern of relations in societies where
the child is defined as an emerging human being is one of protection, con-
trol and marginalisation (Qvortrup, 1998). A protective attitude stems
from the idea of incompetence and irresponsibility of the child who has to
be (over)protected. Control is reflected in the system of relations where the
obedience and submission of children are encouraged, rather than their
independence that is important for securing the developmental continu-
ity between the role of child and of adult. Marginalisation is reflected in
the child’s invisibility, based on the assumption of their incapacity to ar-
ticulate their perspective and/or express their opinion (observed as a rule,
and different from the incompetence of the adult, which is assumed as
an exception). It is thus assumed that the child’s opinion is non-binding
and that respect of the child’s rights or meeting their needs is exclusively a
matter of the care of adults.
Discrimination of children and adults’ expectations of children sub-
stantially influence the way the children perceive themselves and their
capacity to actively participate. The mechanism of self-fulfilling prophe-
sy (Rosental and Jacobson, 1968) explains why children internalise the
adults’ image of themselves and demonstrate behaviour fully in line with
that image. In other words, the image of the child as vulnerable really in-
fluences the resilience of children and decreases their resources to defend
and resist various oppressive factors (Smith, 2016).
Participative rights: Deconstruction of the oppressive practice
One way of questioning an oppressive practice is to make its assumptions
evident and explicit, to criticise and reconsider these assumptions and to
then think about possible alternative opportunities for the (re)organisa-
tion of social relationships (Freire, 2005).
The socio-constructivist paradigm of the child’s development con-
tributed significantly to a different perception of the child, where they
are no longer seen as immature, incompetent and passive. Within this
paradigm, the child is observed as an active participant in the process of
their own development, one who constructs/rationalises the surrounding
world and the relationships within it. The child is a creator of meaning
(Bruner and Haste, 1987) who, like a scientist, tends to actively conceive
48
institutional levels. The image of the child as a vulnerable human being re-
duces the child to the object of adults’ interventions and results in a denial
of the child’s competencies to participate in decision-making relevant to
him/her, including his/her own protection and security (Boothby et al.,
2012; Kennedy, 2010).
The image of the child defines the relations of adults and children,
too. According to some authors, the pattern of relations in societies where
the child is defined as an emerging human being is one of protection, con-
trol and marginalisation (Qvortrup, 1998). A protective attitude stems
from the idea of incompetence and irresponsibility of the child who has to
be (over)protected. Control is reflected in the system of relations where the
obedience and submission of children are encouraged, rather than their
independence that is important for securing the developmental continu-
ity between the role of child and of adult. Marginalisation is reflected in
the child’s invisibility, based on the assumption of their incapacity to ar-
ticulate their perspective and/or express their opinion (observed as a rule,
and different from the incompetence of the adult, which is assumed as
an exception). It is thus assumed that the child’s opinion is non-binding
and that respect of the child’s rights or meeting their needs is exclusively a
matter of the care of adults.
Discrimination of children and adults’ expectations of children sub-
stantially influence the way the children perceive themselves and their
capacity to actively participate. The mechanism of self-fulfilling prophe-
sy (Rosental and Jacobson, 1968) explains why children internalise the
adults’ image of themselves and demonstrate behaviour fully in line with
that image. In other words, the image of the child as vulnerable really in-
fluences the resilience of children and decreases their resources to defend
and resist various oppressive factors (Smith, 2016).
Participative rights: Deconstruction of the oppressive practice
One way of questioning an oppressive practice is to make its assumptions
evident and explicit, to criticise and reconsider these assumptions and to
then think about possible alternative opportunities for the (re)organisa-
tion of social relationships (Freire, 2005).
The socio-constructivist paradigm of the child’s development con-
tributed significantly to a different perception of the child, where they
are no longer seen as immature, incompetent and passive. Within this
paradigm, the child is observed as an active participant in the process of
their own development, one who constructs/rationalises the surrounding
world and the relationships within it. The child is a creator of meaning
(Bruner and Haste, 1987) who, like a scientist, tends to actively conceive
48
