Bulletin
 





Bulletin
Society
for
the
History
of
Children
And
Youth
Issue
#14
Fall
2009
To
Our
Readers:
This
is
the
conference
issue
‐‐
check
out
the
photo
album
of
events
at
Berkeley
in
July,
the
papers
on
critical
historiography
from
one
of
the
conference
sessions,
an
account
of
the
session
on
history
and
public
policy
(with
announcement
of
a
new
website),
and
the
summaries
of
the
keynote
and
presidential
addresses.
The
editors
have
changed
the
name
of
the
publication
to
the
SHCY
Bulletin.
We
have
also
shifted
the
publication
dates
to
Fall
and
Spring
issues;
the
new
Bulletin
will
now
appear
in
October
and
March.
And,
you
will
see
that
the
Bulletin
has
been
streamlined,
with
fewer
columns.
We
invite
volunteers
to
resurrect
the
missing
columns,
and
as
always,
we
invite
members
who
want
a
forum
for
their
interests
to
create
new
sections
of
the
Bulletin.
We
want
this
publication
to
be
reader‐driven.
Enjoy,
The
Bulletin
Editors
Table
of
Contents
(Issue
#14:
Fall,
2009)
Message
from
Steven
Mintz,
SHCY
President,
“The
Value
of
Interdisciplinarity”
Report
from
5th
Biennial
Conference,
University
of
California,
Berkeley,
July
10‐12,
2009
Keynote
Address
by
Peter
Stearns
Presidential
Address
by
Paula
Fass
Presentation
of
SHCY
Grace
Abbott
Book
Prize
and
Best
Article
Prize
Photo
Album
(not
included
in
pdf
download)
Conference
Sessions
Entering
into
the
Fray:
Historians
of
Childhood
and
Public
Policy
.
.
.
.
Julia
Grant
Check
out
the
new
website
that
emerged
from
this
session
The
Critical
Historiography
of
Childhood,
Essays
from
the
SHCY
Session,
July
10,
2009
Introduction
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.Harvey
J.
Graff
On
the
Role
of
Theory
and
Investigation
in
Critical
Childhood
Studies
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.Jim
Block
Critical
Historiography
of
Childhood
Roundtable
.
.
.
.
.
.
.Rebecca
de
Schweinitz
Round
Table
on
the
Critical
Historiography
of
Childhood
.
.
.
.
Colin
Heywood
Comments
for
Panel
on
the
Critical
Historiography
of
Childhood
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.Jennifer
Ritterhouse
History
and
Theory,
and
Whose
Side
We
Are
On
.
.
.
.
.
.Michael
Zuckerman
Pedagogy:
The
Interdisciplinary
Nature
of
Childhood
Studies
.
.
.
.
.Stephen
Gennaro,
ed.
Steve’s
introductory
essay
includes
a
link
to
a
powerpoint
presentation
on
the
need
for
theory
in
childhood
studies.
The
column
also
features
essays
from
the
Rutgers,Camden
Interdisciplinary
Childhood
Studies
Program
by:
Lynne
Vallone
Daniel
Thomas
Cook
Deborah
Valentine
Conference
Reports
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.Priscilla
Clement,
ed.
Bulletin
call
for
conference
reporters
Organization
of
American
Historians
Annual
Meeting,
“History
Without
Boundaries,”
Seattle,
Washington
March
2009
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.Leslie
Paris
American
Association
for
the
History
of
Medicine
April
23‐26,
2009
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Cara
Kinzelman
Children
and
War,
Philadelphia,
PA
and
Camden,
NJ
April
3‐5,
2009
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Patrick
Cox
Models
of
Childhood
and
their
Cultural
Consequences,
University
of
Sheffield
June
15,
2009
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Afua
Twum‐Danso
Expanding
Literacy
Studies:
An
International,
Interdisciplinary
Conference
for
Graduate
Students,
The
Ohio
State
University
April
3‐5,
2009
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Shawn
Casey
The
Political
Child:
Children,
Education
and
the
State,
University
of
Helsinki
15‐16
May
2009
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Karen
Stanbridge
Breaking
the
Boundaries:
A
Peer
Reviewed
Research
Conference
on
Radical
Children's
Literature,
University
of
British
Columbia
April
25,
2009
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Megan
Lankford
Omohundro
Institute
for
Early
American
History,
15th
Annual
Conference,
Salt
Lake
City,
Utah
June,
2009
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Rebecca
de
Schweinitz
Member
News
and
News
from
the
Field
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Nancy
Zey,
ed.
U.
Chicago
Press
Announces
New
Publication:
The
Child:
An
Encyclopedic
Companion
2
Opportunities
Calls
for
Conference
Papers
and
Journal
Submissions
Fellowship
Opportunity:
Hench
Post‐Dissertation
Fellowship
at
the
American
Antiquarian
Society
Dissertation
Abstracts
and
Dissertations
in
Progress
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.Colleen
Vasconsellos,
ed.
Contributors
~~~
Message
from
the
SHCY
President:
“The
Value
of
Interdisciplinarity”
This
is
a
tremendously
exhilarating
and
fertile
moment
in
the
study
of
childhood.
From
anthropology
to
archaeology,
linguistics,
psychology,
and
sociology,
a
series
of
paradigm
shifts
are
radically
reshaping
the
way
we
think
about
children.
One
key
shift
involves
a
growing
recognition
of
the
role
that
children
play
in
their
own
socialization.
For
example,
challenging
William
James’s
characterization
of
the
infant’s
mind
as
a
“blooming,
buzzing
confusion,”
the
psychologist
Alison
Gopnik
instead
depicts
newborns
as
scientist
and
philosophers—as
active
agents
engaged
in
a
process
of
discovery,
testing,
and
reflection.
Another
major
shift
involves
the
growing
emphasis
on
children’s
culture
as
mediator
between
the
individual
child
and
the
adult
world.
Especially
suggestive
is
William
Corsaro’s
concept
of
“interpretative
reproduction.”
Rather
than
conceiving
of
acculturation
as
a
process
in
which
children
internalize
adult
culture,
children
engage
in
intricate
negotiations
with
adults
and
participate
in
peer
cultures
which
creatively
reinterpret
and
comment
upon
adult
values
and
behavior.
Yet
another
significant
shift
involves
the
documentation
of
the
extraordinarily
varied
ways
that
children’s
lives
are
structured
across
and
within
cultures.
Drawing
on
primate
studies
and
ethnographies,
David
Lancy’s
The
Anthropology
of
Childhood
offers
a
particularly
insightful
look
at
variation
in
parenting
practices,
schooling,
and
the
pathways
to
adulthood
across
cultures,
and
helps
free
us
from
constricted,
culture‐
bound,
and
ethnocentric
conceptions
of
childhood
and
child
development.
Historians
of
childhood
have
a
great
deal
to
learn
from
the
anthropology,
archaeology,
psychology,
and
sociology
of
childhood—and
much
to
contribute
as
well.
One
challenge
is
to
reconcile
a
recognition
of
the
cultural
and
social
constructedness
of
childhood
with
the
insights
of
neuroscience
and
cognitive
psychology.
Another
is
to
wrestle
with
anthropological,
psychological,
and
sociological
theories,
including
those
dealing
with
initiation
rituals,
age
sets,
peer
cultures,
diversity
and
variation,
colonialism
and
globalization,
and
children’s
capabilities.
3
But
we
must
not
minimize
the
inputs
that
we
can
offer
to
cross‐disciplinary
conversations
about
childhood.
We
can
show
anthropologists
and
sociologists
that
childhood,
both
as
an
experience
and
as
a
cultural
category,
is
not
static
or
uncontested,
but
has
diachronic,
dynamic,
and
longitudinal
dimensions.
We
can
help
psychologists
understand
that
the
stages
and
transitions
of
childhood
must
not
be
viewed
in
excessively
rigid,
universal,
overspecified,
invariant,
or
teleological
terms.
Above
all,
we
can
illustrate
with
concrete
examples
from
the
past
how
learning
and
child
development
is
a
product
of
an
on‐going
process
of
negotiation
and
social
interaction
embedded
in
social
interactions
and
specific
cultural
contexts.
Steven Mintz, Columbia
University
~~~
Reports
from
the
Conference,
July
10‐12,
2009
SHCY
2009
Keynote
Address
by
Peter
N.
Stearns
Friday
afternoon,
in
a
crowded
hall
on
the
Berkeley
campus,
Peter
N.
Stearns,
Professor
of
History
and
Provost
at
George
Mason
University
presented
the
keynote
address
of
the
2009
conference.
Stearns’s
many
publications
include
American
Cool,
Constructing
a
Twentieth‐Century
Emotional
Style
(1994)
and
Anxious
Parents:
A
History
of
Modern
Childrearing
in
America
(2004),
and
editor
of
An
Emotional
History
of
the
United
States
(1998),
American
Behavioral
History:
An
Introduction
(2005),
and
Childhood
in
World
History
(2006).
Stearns
summarized
his
talk
for
the
Bulletin:
“In
my
keynote
address,
Defining
Happy
Childhoods:
Assessing
a
Recent
Change,
I
tried
to
identify
a
bit
more
clearly
when
the
idea
that
childhood
should
be
a
happy
time
gained
traction.
I've
long
been
interested
in
this,
after
hearing
colleagues
in
the
field
mention
what
a
novel
notion
this
is
(correctly,
as
it
turns
out).
My
interest
was
further
spurred
by
work
for
my
survey
of
childhood
in
world
history,
when
it
became
clear
how
many
agricultural
societies
assumed
that
childhood
was
something
to
be
endured,
not
a
particularly
sparkling
period
in
life.
“A
caveat:
this
is
not
an
argument
that
children
before
the
contemporary
era
were
necessarily
less
happy
than
they
are
now.
It
focuses
on
changes
in
adult
beliefs
(which
children
also
pick
up)
about
what
childhood
should
be.
“In
Western
culture,
the
gradual
abandonment
(in
majority
circles)
of
the
idea
of
original
sin
helped
prepare
the
transition,
but
19th
century
materials
on
childhood
still
rarely
mentioned
a
positive
happiness
goal.
This
occurred
only
from
the
1920s
onward,
when
it
became
a
major
focus.
This
chronology
also
allows
discussion
of
what
caused
the
shift,
from
the
new
demographics
to
consumerism.
4
“Beyond
identifying
and,
tentatively,
explaining
the
transition,
the
essay
explored
consequences,
in
terms
of
altered
parental
and
childish
expectations
alike.
Schools
are
affected
with
efforts
to
associate
learning
with
"fun",
and
other
institutions
for
children
show
the
imprint
as
well.
Consumerism
obviously
expands
the
emphasis,
but
downsides
may
include
the
growing
incidence
of
depression
for
children
aware
of
the
goals
but
unable
to
meet
them.
“This
particular
talk
focused
on
American
evidence,
but
comparative
work
is
amply
justified
to
see
if,
when,
and
how
other
societies
(partly
perhaps
reflecting
some
American
consumer
influence)
effected
similar
changes,
and
with
what
results.”
Paula
Fass
Gives
Presidential
Address
at
SHCY
Meeting
After
the
Saturday
evening
banquet,
outgoing
SHCY
president
Paula
Fass
challenged
the
audience
in
her
presidential
address,
“Childhood
and
Memory.”
Fass
urged
historians
of
childhood
to
consider
the
important
relationship
between
memory
and
children’s
history.
As
someone
who
has
just
completed
a
memoir,
Fass
argued
that
the
commitment
to
memory
work
and
acute
sensibilities
regarding
children
have
had
intersecting
courses
of
development
while
serious
studies
of
memory
and
about
childhood
have
developed
in
tandem
historically.
In
the
eighteenth
century,
Fass
argued
Enlightenment
thinkers
began
to
explore
both
how
memory
and
how
childhood
contributed
to
the
constitution
of
the
human,
domains
which
Jean
Jacques
Rousseau,
above
all,
brought
together
in
his
famous
Confessions.
In
the
late
nineteenth
and
early
twentieth
century,
new
insights
into
the
human
psyche
in
Vienna
and
in
the
United
States
emerged
just
as
scientists
began
to
pay
close
attention
to
children
and
childhood.
In
both
realms
of
investigation
there
was
a
new
effort
to
understand
how
distortions
in
these
arenas
influenced
the
human
personality.
Fass
also
included
in
her
discussion
the
imaginative
literature
of
the
time
where
writers
such
as
Marcel
Proust
and
Henry
Roth
were
newly
attuned
to
these
matters.
Finally,
Fass
urged
historians
of
childhood
to
consider
how
their
own
contemporary
enterprise—the
outpouring
of
a
serious
interest
in
children’s
history—comes
at
a
moment
when
the
memoir
has
come
to
the
fore
as
a
literary
genre.
Each
questions
grand
narratives
of
the
self
and
of
society.
And
both,
she
suggests,
are
related
to
a
“postmodern”
view.
In
the
memoir,
a
coherent
historical
vision
is
fragmented
while
in
childhood
studies,
the
unity
of
the
personality,
first
proposed
by
the
Enlightenment,
is
being
subtly
replaced.
Thus,
if
the
memoir
proposes
that
the
personal
and
fragmentary
is
more
authentic
than
a
unified
historical
narrative,
the
separateness
and
integrity
of
childhood
is
today
seen
as
legitimate
in
itself,
apart
from
its
contribution
to
adulthood.
5
Grace
Abbott
Prize
to
Catriona
Kelly
Julia
Mickenberg,
UT‐Austin
&
Chair,
Prize
Committee
The
Grace
Abbott
Prize
for
the
best
book
published
in
2007‐2008
on
the
history
of
children
and
youth
went
to
Children's
World:
Growing
Up
in
Russia,
1890‐1991
(Yale
UP,
2007)
by
Catriona
Kelly,
Professor
of
Russian
and
Fellow
of
New
College
at
the
University
of
Oxford
and
author
or
editor
of
numerous
books
on
Russian
history
and
culture,
including
Comrade
Pavlik:
The
Rise
and
Fall
of
a
Soviet
Boy
Hero
(2005).
Children's
World
offers
an
engaging,
compelling,
and
often
surprising
survey
of
childhood
in
Russia
over
100
years
of
dramatic
changes
and
transformations.
Drawing
on
sources
including
literature;
material
culture
such
as
toys,
games,
and
furniture;
architecture;
educational
materials;
legal,
medical
and
social
welfare
records;
photographs;
government
propaganda;
music;
film;
and
scholarship
in
several
languages;
as
well
as
an
extensive
oral
history
project
involving
a
number
of
researchers
and
hundreds
of
interviews;
Kelly's
synthesis
of
these
elements
is
nothing
short
of
a
tour
de
force.
The
book
will
be
useful,
certainly
to
scholars
of
Russian
history
and
culture,
but
also
a
model
for
historians
of
childhood,
especially
those
interested
in
the
relationship
between
children's
socialization
and
state
imperatives.
Julia
Mickenberg
served
as
chair
of
the
2007‐2008
book
award
committee
along
with
committee
members
Linda
Gordon
and
Colin
Heywood.
Best
Article
Prize
to
Susan
J.
Pearson;
Honorable
Mention
to
Marta
Gutman
Tamara
Myers,
University
of
British
Columbia
and
Chair,
Prize
Committee
The
committee
for
the
2007‐08
SHCY
best
article
award
included
Ning
de
Coninck‐Smith
(Danish
University
School
of
Education,
Rebecca
L.
de
Schweinitz
(Brigham
Young
University),
and
Tamara
Myers
(University
of
British
Columbia).
The
committee
received
16
articles,
many
prize‐worthy.
After
several
rounds
of
discussion
the
committee
decided
to
award
the
prize
to
Susan
J.
Pearson
for
“Infantile
Specimens”
with
an
honorable
mention
going
to
Marta
Gutman’s
“Race,
Place,
and
Play:
Robert
Moses
and
the
WPA
Swimming
Pools
in
New
York
City,”
Journal
of
Society
of
Architectural
Historians
(December,
2008).
The
committee
found
Pearson’s
article
superbly
rendered:
a
pleasure
to
read,
this
article
makes
a
significant
contribution
to
children’s,
women’s,
cultural,
and
social
history.
In
focusing
on
the
emergence
of
the
baby
show
in
the
nineteenth
century,
Pearson
locates
child
body
objectification
in
a
large
cultural
frame
that
speaks
to
domesticity
and
motherhood,
markets
and
consumption,
spectacle
and
classification,
while
showing
their
interrelatedness.
Gutman’s
article
was
similarly
impressive
–
well‐written
and
carefully
researched,
it
pays
particular
attention
to
children’s
place
in
the
history
of
urban
swimming
and
leisure.
Demonstrating
how
race
and
racism
fundamentally
shaped
the
location
of
New
York
City
pools,
Gutman’s
work
6
challenges
its
readers
to
integrate
thinking
about
childhood,
children’s
space,
neighborhood,
race,
and
urban
planning.
Photos
from
the
Conference
at:
http://www.history.vt.edu/Jones/SHCY/Newsletter
14/photoalbum.html
~~~
Conference
Sessions
Entering
into
the
Fray:
Historians
of
Childhood
and
Public
Policy
Julia
Grant,
Michigan
State
University
During
the
first
session
of
the
SHCY
conference,
at
8:30
sharp,
with
good
strong
coffee
in
hand,
my
colleagues
and
I
hosted
a
roundtable
entitled
“Entering
into
the
Fray:
Historians
of
Childhood
and
Public
Policy.”
All
of
the
participants
came
prepared
to
discuss
how
historians
might
contribute
to
public
policy
debates
about
children
and
what
lessons
can
be
learned
from
the
past
experiences
of
those
who
have
written
editorials,
made
presentations
at
gatherings
of
professionals
in
child
welfare,
or
have
had
their
research
made
use
of
in
policy
discussions
about
education
and
child
welfare.
The
panelists
included
Barbara
Beatty,
author
of
Preschool
Education
in
America:
The
Culture
of
Young
Childhood
from
the
Colonial
Era
to
the
Present
(Yale,
2007),
and
a
number
of
essays
and
opinion
pieces
on
early
childhood
education.
Beatty,
along
with
Julia
Grant
and
Emily
Cahan,
also
edited
the
volume
When
Science
Encounters
the
Child:
Perspectives
on
Education,
Child
Welfare,
and
Parenting
(Teachers
College,
2006).
Julia
Grant
has
written
Raising
Baby
by
the
Book:
The
Education
of
American
Mothers
(Yale
University
Press,
1998)
and
is
completing
a
manuscript
for
Johns
Hopkins
University
Press,
tentatively
titled,
The
Boy
Problem
in
American
Education
and
Society.
Tim
Hacsi
has
been
involved
in
the
world
of
historical
scholarship
and
advocacy,
serving
as
a
Postdoctoral
Fellow
at
Chapin
Hall
for
Children
and
a
Spencer
Fellow
at
the
(late
lamented)
Harvard
Children’s
Initiative,
and
authoring,
among
other
things
Second
Home
Second
Home:
Orphan
Asylums
and
Poor
Families
in
America
(Harvard,
1998)
and
Children
as
Pawns:
The
Politics
of
Educational
Reform
(Harvard,
2002).
Our
chair
and
discussant,
Roberta
Wollons,
has
edited
the
anthologies
Children
at
Risk:
History,
Concepts,
and
Public
Policy
(SUNY,
1993)
and
Kindergartens
and
Culture:
The
Global
Diffusion
of
an
Idea
(Yale,
2000).
During
the
session,
panelists
discussed
whether
we
should
focus
on
writing
good
history
that
also
appeals
to
policy
makers,
or
whether
we
should
write
in
more
than
one
mode:
the
mode
that
employs
traditional
historical
methods,
and
one
which
directly
speaks
to
policy
makers
and
boils
down
the
lessons
of
our
research.
One
of
the
problems
with
the
second
approach,
of
course,
is
that
there
may
be
no
easy
lessons
and
historians
may
need
to
over‐simplify
their
findings.
Others
noted
that
policy
makers
are
7
notably
resistant
to
referring
to
good
evidence
in
crafting
policies,
preferring
instead
to
forge
blindly
ahead
based
on
anecdotes
and
popular
opinion.
Nevertheless,
both
the
panelists
and
the
audience
felt
the
need
to
find
ways
to
disseminate
their
ideas
more
publicly,
in
the
interest
of
enabling
educators
and
advocates
of
children
to
make
more
historically‐informed
choices.
Ultimately,
we
would
like
historians
of
children
and
childhood,
ourselves
included,
to
hone
their
abilities
to
write
in
ways
that
capture
the
attention
of
policy
makers.
A
unique
feature
of
the
session
was
that
I,
as
a
novice
web
master,
created
a
website
prior
to
the
conference
to
provide
information
to
conference
goers
about
the
session.
http://sites.google.com/site/childhoodandpublicpolicy/
The
site
includes
the
abstract
for
the
session
and
information
about
the
participants.
We
have
also
posted
Barbara
Beatty’s
remarks,
“Mixing
History
with
Policy”
and
Julia
Grant’s
“Reflections
on
the
‘Boy
Problem’
and
its
Public
Implications.”
With
a
link
for
“visitor
comments,”
we
hoped
to
stimulate
discussion
before
and
after
the
panel.
Although
we
have
a
long
ways
to
go
in
terms
of
learning
to
craft
and
make
use
of
such
web
sites,
this
might
be
a
feature
of
future
conferences
that
could
be
promising:
online
conference
programs
could
provide
links
to
web
sites
or
further
information
to
use
in
helping
conference
goers
to
make
decisions
about
which
sessions
to
attend
and
host
initial
discussions
about
the
topic
at
hand
to
spur
conversation.
We
feel
that
more
interactive
sessions,
involving
online
conversations,
and
a
more
visible
role
for
participants,
would
make
our
already
dynamic
conferences
even
more
enjoyable.
Conference
Sessions
“The
Critical
History
of
Childhood”
Essays
from
the
Conference
Session,
July
10,
2009
The
Critical
Historiography
of
Childhood:Introduction…Harvey
J.
Graff
On
the
Role
of
Theory
and
Investigation
in
Critical
Childhood
Studies…Jim
Block
The
Critical
Historiography
of
Childhood
Roundtable…
Rebecca
de
Schweinitz
Round
Table
on
the
Critical
Historiography
of
Childhood…
Colin
Heywood
Comments
for
Panel
on
the
Critical
Historiography
of
Childhood…
Jennifer
Ritterhouse
History
and
Theory,
and
Whose
Side
We
Are
On…
Michael
Zuckerman
The
Critical
Historiography
of
Childhood:
Introduction
Harvey
J.
Graff,
The
Ohio
State
University
This
session
focusing
on
Critical
Historiography
of
Childhood
follows,
at
least
in
part,
from
a
session
at
the
2007
Norrköping
conference,
entitled
“How
can
the
history
of
children
grow
up?”
[aka
“What’s
wrong
with
the
history
of
children/childhood”]
with
Jim
Block,
Harvey
Graff,
Pavla
Miller,
and
Bengt
Sandin.
8
This
year
our
focus
falls
on
issues
related
to
critical
approaches
to
questions
of
“child
development”
in
a
critical
historiography
of
childhood.
Jim
Block
and
Harvey
Graff
developed
the
session
protocol
and
proposal
(and
the
questions
for
the
participants),
circulating
it
first
among
potential
panelists
and
then
to
the
SHCY
program
committee.
It
read:
If
there
is
no
such
thing
as
a
”natural
child,”
but
only
children
socially
generated
and
culturally
constructed
in
particular
societies
at
particular
historical
times,
how
can
and
do
historians
of
childhood
and
youth
understand
the
generational
cohorts
they
are
investigating
and
critically
evaluate
what
societies
do
to,
for,
and
with
their
young?
How
can
we
address
the
role
of
the
social
and
the
historical
in
examining
child‐rearing
and
socialization
practices
and
child
development
itself?
That
is,
are
there
standards
of
appropriate
practice
and/or
optimal
development
against
which
social
practices
and
their
consequences
are
or
should
be
compared?
How
might
they
be
measured
or
otherwise
determined?
If
so,
from
what
discourses
or
disciplines
do
they
arise,
and
what
clarity
and
persuasiveness
do
they
offer?
Is
there
a
place
for
the
discourse
of
nature
and
what
is
naturally
viable?
If
there
are
no
standards
applied
from
outside
the
historical
evidence
itself,
then
is
it
possible
to
locate
or
develop
alternatives
to
the
standards
applied
by
the
specific
society,
or
subculture,
or
family
being
investigated?
Does
holding
a
social
group
to
its
own
standards
constitute
sufficiently
critical
historiography?
Or
does
it
in
the
end
risk
validating
that
group’s
treatment
of
the
young
as
the
fulfillment
of
its
own
particular
social
claims?
This
effort
to
render
more
explicit
the
standards
historians
of
childhood
and
youth
bring
to
their
work
is
essential
to
the
issue
of
generational
interaction
and
social
change.
Michael
Zuckerman
has
argued
that
“childhood”
is
a
discourse
framed
by
adult
culture
to
specify
its
agenda
for
shaping
the
adults
it
wants.
At
the
same
time,
young
people
often
appropriate
the
ideas,
expectations
and
claims
adults
have
constructed
about
childhood
to
their
own
ends.
What
happens
when
generational
or
other
forms
of
social
conflict
over
treatment
of
the
young
are
an
explicit
dimension
of
the
investigation?
Does
the
evaluation
of
generational
relations
turn
into
a
discourse
on
institutional
power?
Are
the
standards,
expectations
or
anticipations
of
adults
a
better
or
worse
measure
of
the
treatment
of
the
young
than
the
young’s
own
aspirations?
Or
are
there
viable
ways
of
thinking
about
childhood
and
human
development
that
enable
historians
to
evaluate
a
social
group’s
socialization
and
integration
of
the
young?
As
historians
of
childhood
and
youth
examine
developmental
and
generational
issues,
can
they
bring
their
own
insights
to
shed
light
on
the
processes
that
might
not
be
accessible
in
other
fields?
Can
we
think
of
particular
ways
in
which
this
might
or
does
occur?
9
The
goal
of
this
panel
is
less
to
provide
firm
answers
to
these
complex
matters
than
to
open
up
a
dialogue
among
working
historians
and
theorists
in
the
field
about
their
practices.
Through
a
roundtable
discussion
of
our
work
and
its
assumptions
and
methods
as
well
as
extensive
conversation
with
the
audience
participants,
we
hope
to
help
historians
of
the
field
become
more
self‐conscious
about
the
assumptions
embedded
in
their
work.
By
encouraging
historians
to
make
our
assumptions
explicit,
and
to
consider
the
dangers
of
uncritical
approaches
to
theories
and
interpretations
we
employ,
we
believe
that
participants
in
this
field
will
move
toward
increasingly
reflective
readings
of
the
evidence
and
formulation
of
theses
regarding
childhood,
child
socialization
and
child
development.
No
small
goals.
Panelists
responded
to
these
questions,
and
especially
to
questions
1
and
5
in
5‐7
minutes
opening
statements,
followed
by
discussion.
Questions
for
SHCY
Panel
on
the
Critical
Historiography
of
Childhood
If
there
is
no
such
thing
as
a
“natural
child,”
only
children
social
generated
and
cultural
constructed
in
particular
societies
in
particular
historical
times,
the
concern
is
how
do
and
in
what
ways
should
historians
of
children,
youth
and
the
family
frame
their
inquiries:
1. Does
the
student
of
the
history
of
the
child,
history
of
childhood,
and
history
of
children
need
a
theory
of
childhood
and/or
child
development?
If
so,
why?
2. In
order
to
critically
evaluate
what
societies
do
to
socialize,
shape
and
integrate
their
young,
is
it
feasible
to
judge
social
practices
by
the
standards
of
that
group?
Or
does
this
risk
validating
those
practices?
3. What
does
a
historically
useful
and
rich
approach
to
a
theory
of
childhood
and
child
development
require?
From
what
discourses
and
disciplines
is
it
most
likely
to
arise?
What
discourses
are
more
problematic?
Can
historians
of
childhood
and
youth
bring
their
own
insights
to
shed
light
on
these
processes?
Examples?
4. How
should
generational
conflict
or
other
forms
of
social
conflict
over
the
treatment
of
the
young
be
framed?
Is
it
simply
a
discourse
on
institutional
power?
Given
that
the
young
often
appropriate
the
ideas,
expectations
and
claims
adults
have
constructed
about
childhood
for
their
own
ends
and
aspirations,
how
does
one
balance
the
perspective
of
the
different
generations
in
such
cases?
5. What
is
the
place
of
child
development
in
your
own
scholarship?
10
6. Are
theories
or
other
approaches
to
child
development
part
of
the
future
of
the
history
of
children
and
youth,
as
you
see
it?
What
possibilities
and
problems
do
you
see
emerging
in
such
a
discourse/s.
That
the
stakes
can
be
great
is
emphasized
in
the
recent
work,
for
example,
of
André
Turmel
on
the
construction
of
“normal”
and
“normality”
A
Historical
Sociology
of
Childhood:
Developmental
thinking,
categorization
and
graphic
visualization
(Cambridge
University
Press,
2008)—about
how
historical
sequential
development
and
statistical
reasoning
led
to
a
concept
of
what
constitutes
a
“normal”
child
and
resulted
in
a
form
of
standardization
by
which
we
monitor
children
“This
book
reveals
how
wrong
it
is
to
assume
that
childhood
is
either
a
natural
or
universal
entity,
which
amounts
to
an
inconsiderate
denial
of
its
historical
processes.
.
.
.
Childhood
is
neither
an
inevitable
consequence
of
the
historical
accumulation
of
western
societies’
public
policies,
be
it
in
the
form
of
infant
welfare,
compulsory
schooling
or
whatever,
nor
a
simple
outcome
of
experts’
advice
to
parents
and
others.
It
is,
rather,
the
product
of
the
complex
movement
of
cooperation,
conflict
and
resistance
between
a
broad
range
of
social
actors,
including
children
themselves,
in
a
historical
process
of
moulding
a
form
via
diverse
social
actions:
the
child
as
a
social
form
to
be
moulded
throughout
‘a
sequence
of
biographic
trajectory’
[Bourdieu]”
The
presentations
sparked
a
very
lively
and
bracing
set
of
exchanges
that,
in
one
way
or
another,
etched
the
borders
and
questioned
the
boundaries
and
limits
of
the
history
of
childhood
and
the
history
of
children.
This
included
recognition
of
the
different
approaches
and
meanings
of
child
and
psychological
development;
developmentalism
more
generally;
critical
historiography
and
critical
theory(ies);
“voices”
and
agency
of
the
young;
historical
change;
and
the
very
possibility
of
a
history
of
children
as
opposed
to
a
history
of
childhood.
On
the
Role
of
Theory
and
Investigation
in
Critical
Childhood
Studies
Jim
Block,
DePaul
University
As
a
theorist
of
childhood
and
particularly
child
development
in
history,
I
of
course
find
it
inconceivable
to
do
without
at
least
an
implicit
developmental
framework
–
or
at
the
minimum
to
be
in
search
of
one.
To
indicate
the
extent
of
my
bias
at
the
outset,
I
focus
on
societies,
prominently
the
U.S.,
and
eras
in
which
children
and
youth
have
taken
a
major
role
in
social
and
cultural
(and,
inferentially,
developmental)
change.
And
yet
if
I
may
(perhaps
dubiously)
offer
a
character
reference
on
my
behalf,
I
have
gained
new
perspective
from
my
talks
over
the
years
with
some,
including
members
of
this
panel,
amidst
the
profusion
of
our
disagreements,
and
the
searching
discussion
before
this
roundtable
has
similarly
complicated
my
thinking
to
the
good.
As
I
study
the
United
States,
I
witness
how
the
adult
world
and
younger
cohorts
working
in
tandem
create
ideals
of
human
potential
which
then
get
over
time
reduced
to
11
ideologies
and
manufacturies
of
the
normal,
which
as
its
mechanisms
of
compliance
tighten
and
misshape
growth
get
shattered
and
reworked.
In
this
process,
the
young
integrate,
appropriate
and
advance
adult
expectations
and
demands
at
the
same
time
they
continually
(most
of
the
time
under
the
radar)
resist
and
periodically
erupt
with
their
own
developmental
demands
and
expectations.
I
now
believe
that
as
a
nation
begun
in
youthful
rebellion
and
a
young
more
advanced
than
the
elders
(think
Bailyn
and
Paine’s
Common
Sense),
generational
struggle
has
formed
the
deepest
cleavage
in
our
national
history
[and
my
book
on
this
will
soon
be
out].
What
does
this
say
for
the
study
of
children
and
childhood?
I
see
a
dynamic
tension
between
the
socially
constructed
and
the
individually
unfolding.
What
is
their
relation?
Let
me
draw
on
an
(admittedly
highly
prejudicial)
metaphor
of
the
plant
with
which
Rousseau
begins
Emile:
at
once
it
can
by
devoted
arts
be
pruned
and
diverted
into
nearly
any
shape,
and
yet
if
watered
and
allowed
to
grow,
it
will
become
something
different
from
and
beyond
what
any
gardener
had
in
mind
–
how
could
you
–
the
adult
–
ever
have
that
plant/child’s
developmental
sequence
and
final
shape
in
mind
at
the
beginning?
Yet,
since
the
final
form
is
a
combination
of
the
gardener’s
ideal
and
the
plant’s
will
toward
its
own
shape,
let
me
address
those
arguing
either
that
there
is
no
“plantness”
or
“nature”
beyond
the
constructed
or
naturalists
who
believe
the
young
have
their
own
developmental
compass
from
the
outset.
Social
construction
does
not
seem
to
me
incompatible
with
a
view
that
children
develop,
nor
that
they
are
capable
of
resisting
shaping
regimens.
Explaining
how
the
young
come
to
understand,
form
attitudes
about,
disagree
with
parents
and
society
over,
act
upon
divergent
views
of
be
it
race,
social
oppression,
anything
including
the
role
of
conflict
and
normality,
has
–
must
have
‐‐
a
temporal
trajectory.
Social
history
can
bring
to
light
the
actual
experience
and
sequence
as
the
young
evolve
in
the
adaptive
process,
including
the
real
tensions
embedded
in
its
implementation
and
rationalization
of
adulthood
and
citizenship.
Instead
of
giving
society
a
pass,
it
can
reject
the
claim
of
most
communities
that
its
maturation
process
is
conflict
free
(I
have
seen
how
the
U.S.
has
made
adolescent
turmoil
go
away
–
several
times),
and
expose
how
socializing
institutions
muzzle
conflict
over
their
social
agendas,
including
the
use
of
theories
of
child
plasticity
designed
(Dewey
is
key
here)
to
deny
resistance.
Childhood
thus
becomes
a
compelling
site
to
examine
not
only
the
stages
in
the
social
construction
of
the
adult,
but
the
tensions
within
a
community’s
notion
of
the
normal
before
these
tensions
have
been
papered
over,
f.e.,
the
movie
The
Long
Walk
Home.
Unearthing
these
developmental
sequences
need
not
point
in
this
socially
constructivist
view
to
anything
deeper
than
socially
constituted
development
and
conflict.
But
once
one
has
laid
out
how
societies
normalize
attitudes
and
repress
conflict,
how
they
measure
using
their
own
objectified
social
indicators
their
very
process
integration
and
adaptation
and
calling
it
the
child’s
capacity
for
maturation
–
or
abnormality
if
it
fails
–
12
what
does
one
have?
What
is
the
constructivist
basis
for
questioning
that
normal?
What
lies
beyond
the
society
being
studied
besides
other,
equally
relative,
normals?
How
would
or
should
adult
feudalism,
or
the
feudalism
of
the
young,
including
the
No
Child
Left
Unmaligned
of
current
practice,
be
addressed?
Are
all
treatments
the
same?
Of
what
value
is
a
scholar’s
external
critique?
So
what?
While
this
work
is
important,
isn’t
there
a
limit
to
social
constructivism?
Why
is
it
that
children
in
no
society
turn
out
to
become
giraffes?
And
if
they
did,
we
would
I
hope
condemn
it
as
a
violation
of
their
humanness?
Aren’t
there
practices
that
risk
losing
the
plantness
of
the
plant
and
the
humanness
of
the
child?
Isn’t
the
cult
of
the
normal,
our
wish
for
standardized
adults,
a
giant
cover
for
our
violations
of
what
lies
beneath?
–
a
child
seeking
to
become
quite
itself,
and
resisting
social
compliance
in
part
from
the
call
of
its
being,
however
inchoate?
This
critical
historical
view
rejects
the
adult
presumption
that
child
construction
is
entirely
its
prerogative
and
project.
It
exposes
how
the
young
are
forced
into
reactivity
and
hiddenness,
and
labeled
for
resistance
as
developmentally
inadequate
or
recalcitrant.
The
danger
of
this
view
is
that
it
tends
to
tar
all
social
practice
with
misshaping
the
young,
and
gives
insufficient
attention
to
the
way
social
practices
can
promote
human
flourishing
by
developing
conditions
to
nurture
developmental
capacities
and
potentialities.
In
the
end,
social
history
and
critical
child
study
have
much
to
learn
from
each
other
about
how
the
young
balance
their
roles
as
social
absorbers
and
social
initiators.
Social
history
can
help
us
differentiate
practices
by
society,
group
and
era
and
delineate
their
impacts.
Critical
study
may
be
able
to
discern
patterns
that
limit
the
claim
of
social
constructivism
and
reveal
the
broader
potential
the
young
have
for
developing
competences,
activism
and
identities.
Both
vindicate
Children
and
Youth
Studies
as
a
realm
apart
from
history
from
the
adult
perspective,
particularly
when
each
is
attentive
to
the
realities
and
tensions
underlying
society’s
claim
of
unconflicted
adaptation.
This
dialogue
between
what
children
do
become
and
what
they
might
become
can
help
us
understand
the
young
as
they
struggle
for
space
and
place
in
a
world
they
are
told
–
errantly
–
is
already
fixed
upon
their
arrival.
The
Critical
Historiography
of
Childhood
Roundtable
Rebecca
de
Schweinitz,
Brigham
Young
University
In
my
research
I’ve
been
interested
in
both
shifting
ideas
about
childhood
and
youth
and
young
people
as
historical
and
political
agents.
Theories
of
child
development
have
played
a
role
in
helping
me
to
understand
both,
but
in
different
ways.
In
order
to
understand
how
historical
actors
understood
childhood
and
youth
and
then
used
or
applied
those
understandings,
I
think
we
have
to
understand
how
a
variety
of
13
scholars
(and
for
me
that’s
included
psychologists,
sociologists,
education
experts,
and
anthropologists)
thought
and
talked
about
child
development
at
the
time.
As
it
turns
out,
in
the
case
of
my
research,
the
National
Association
for
the
Advancement
of
Colored
People’s
(NAACP)
organizational
stance
toward
young
people
and
their
use
of
ideas
about
childhood
as
a
weapon
in
the
struggle
for
racial
equality,
closely
reflected
the
ways
that
contemporary
scholars
talked
about
child
development
and
development‐
related
issues.
So
I
saw
that
child
development
theories
help
to
explain
the
trajectory
of
the
civil
rights
movement
and
it
successes
and
limitations—which
is
to
say
that
attention
to
such
theories
can
be
quite
useful!
But
I’ve
been
less
interested
in
“a
historically
useful
and
rich
approach
to
a
theory
of
childhood
and
child
development”
than
in
examining
how
people
in
the
past
used
theories
and
ideals
(often
shifting)
to
judge
themselves
and
push
for
change
(or
to
keep
things
the
same).
As
historians
we’re
well
equipped
to
be
wary
about
any
one
child
development
theory
and
to
recognize
that
such
theories
don’t
exist
in
a
vacuum.
As
children’s
historians
I
hope
we’re
equipped
to
show
that
theories
about
the
young
are
sometimes
shaped
by
young
people
themselves.
So
in
my
research,
the
Great
Depression,
World
War
II,
and
the
Cold
War
(and
the
effects—or
fears
about
the
effects—of
those
events)
as
well
as
young
people’s
activism
serve
as
an
important
backdrop
for
helping
make
sense
of
shifting
views
of
children
and
youth
and
a
reassessment
of
their
agency
and
place
in
American
life
in
general
and
the
black
freedom
struggle
in
particular.
I
have
been
especially
struck
by
how
young
people
themselves
sometimes
stimulated
different
ways
of
thinking
about
childhood
and
childhood
development.
What
I’ve
seen
is
how
attention
to
young
people’s
developmental
needs
encouraged
young
people
to
become
more
politically
active,
which
then
resulted
in
greater
attention
to
their
needs,
which
further
encouraged
youth
activism,
and
so
on.
So
there’s
this
circular
or
dialectic
process
happening
whereby
young
people
are
both
acting
on
ideas
about
themselves
and
urging
a
reevaluation
of
those
ideas.
Young
people
have
also
been
among
those
who
are
adept
at
using
child
development
theories
to
challenge
the
status
quo.
In
my
research,
for
instance,
young
civil
rights
protestors,
bring
up
ideas
about
childhood
innocence,
children
as
victims
of
racism—how
prejudice
warps
their
personalities
and
makes
them
“unable
to
cope
with
society”—while
it’s
clear
that
the
young
people
who
are
employing
such
theories
are
hardly
dependent
victims.
[1]
I
also
found
child
development
theory
useful
in
trying
to
understand
generational
differences
and
the
proliferation
of
youth
activism
for
civil
rights
in
the
late
1950s
and
60s.
There
I
drew
on
ideas
from
William
Tuttle’s
Daddy’s
Gone
to
War,
Robert
Coles’s
work,
Erik
Erikson’s
theories,
and
the
work
of
social
theorist
Pierre
Bourdieu.
Tuttle
talks
about
how
age,
culture,
and
history
determine
individual
development
and
shape
social
change.
[2]
Coles
suggests
that
“a
nation’s
history
becomes
a
children’s
apparently
idiosyncratic
conscience.”
For
him,
and
he
was
an
observer/participant
in
the
14
movement,
young
people’s
stage
in
human
development
made
it
likely
that
they
would
be
successful
actors
in
American’s
racial
battles.
But
it
is
was
“this
very
time,”
as
he
put
it,
that
acted
as
“their
essential
catalyst.”
[3]
Erikson
similarly
argued
that
“in
youth
the
life
history
intersects
with
history,”
and
Bourdieu
posited
that
“conditions
of
existence
.
.
.
impose
different
definitions
of
the
impossible,
the
possible,
and
the
probable”
and
that
childhood
experiences
form
“the
basis
of
perception
and
appreciation
of
all
subsequent
experience”
and
account
for
generational
conflict
(or
differences).
[4]
What
I
found
useful
here
was
that
each
of
these
scholars
pay
attention
to
child
development
theory
but
see
it
working
in
specific
historical
and
cultural
contexts.
They
accept
the
idea
that
young
people
experience
things
differently
and
the
importance
of
an
individual’s
childhood—their
most
formative
years
to
later
life
choices
and
perspectives—but
time
and
place
matter,
too.
Age
plays
a
role
in
how
people
see
and
interact
in
their
specific
worlds—and
how
we
understand
(or
should
understand)
history.
So
for
me
I
think
this
means
we
can
say,
okay,
young
people
are
different.
And
maybe
we
don’t
know
exactly
how
or
why—but
there
is
a
general
consensus
that
childhood
is
a
significant
period
of
identify
formation.
The
task
then
becomes
identifying
what
influenced
young
people
of
a
particular
time
period
during
their
formative
years,
how
young
people
acted,
or
thought,
or
felt
differently
than
their
elders,
and
determining
if,
why,
and
how
that
matters.
I
would
also
like
to
warn
against
the
desire
to
see
young
people
acting,
thinking,
and
feeling
differently
when
they
don’t—developing
a
kind
of
obsession
with
discovering
agency.
We
don’t
want
to
let
child
development
theory,
the
idea
that
young
people
are
different
than
adults,
keep
us
from
seeing
the
ways
they
are
or
act
or
think
the
same.
This
danger
was
especially
clear
to
me
at
a
recent
early
America
conference
where
one
presentor
suggested
that
the
diaries
of
elite
eighteenth
century
Philadelphia
girls
show
them
challenging
gender
and
class
norms
and
asserting
personal
autonomy.
The
evidence,
however,
more
persuasively
shows
the
degree
to
which
these
young
women
internalized
class‐based
gender
prescriptions.
This
is
not
the
kind
of
argument
that’s
very
exciting
to
make.
But
just
like
women
and
gender
historians
have
emphasized
the
need
to
look
at
anti‐feminists
as
well
as
feminists,
or
women
who
supported
the
KKK
as
well
as
civil
rights
activists,
children’s
historians
need
to
recognize
young
people’s
collusion
with
socio‐political
norms
and
the
success
of
adult‐directed
socializing
processes
as
well
as
the
ways
young
people
exercise
agency.
On
the
other
hand,
just
because
young
people
have
similar
experiences
as
adults—
including
experiences
that
we
associate
with
adulthood
we
can’t
assume
that
those
experiences
are
actually
the
same
or
have
the
same
effects
on
young
people
in
history.
An
example
of
this
might
be
Jim
Marten’s
decision
to
not
look
at
boy
soldiers
in
the
Civil
War
in
his
(otherwise
brilliant)
study
of
children
and
the
Civil
War
because,
“military
service
made
them
de
facto
adults.”
[5]
At
the
same
early
American
conference
15
mentioned
above,
Caroline
Cox
gave
a
compelling
paper
on
Revolutionary
War
boy
soldiers
that
shows
that
war
did
not
necessarily
make
boys
men
(or
even
independent)
and
that
boys
experienced
war
service
decidedly
differently
from
their
older
counterparts,
and
not
because
they
were
relegated
to
being
fifers
and
drummer
boys.
[6]
In
my
work
I
found
that
many
scholars
of
the
civil
rights
movement
have
started
with
the
assumption
that
young
people
are
different
(and
I
would
suggest
that
even
if,
in
response
to
question
1,
we
say
we
don’t
need
a
theory
of
childhood
or
child
development,
most
of
us
usually
start
with
assumptions
that
look
like
one).
But
those
scholars
end
up
(along
with
many
people
at
the
time)
generally
taking
for
granted
young
people’s
activism
in
the
civil
rights
movement
of
the
late
1950s
and1960s,
suggesting
that’s
it’s
no
wonder
children
and
youth
were
on
the
front
lines—they
had
less
to
lose
and
were
rebelling
(like
young
people
are
wont
to
do)
against
norms,
etc.
But
by
not
looking
at
what
theories
of
child
development
meant
for
a
particular
cohort
growing
up
in
a
particular
time
and
place,
historians
of
the
movement
miss
much
of
the
story
(not
to
mention
not
being
able
to
explain
why
it
didn’t
happen
earlier).
Child
development
theory
then,
even
if
we’re
conscious
of
it,
isn’t
enough.
We
don’t
want
to
let
it
take
on
explanatory
power
that
it
doesn’t
really
have.
I
would
say,
too,
that
historians,
and
this
is
generally
true
in
civil
rights
scholarship,
also
start
with
the
assumption
that
what
adults
do
is
most
important
in
history.
So
here
again
I
think
we
see
assumptions
about
child
development
playing
a
role
in
historical
scholarship
without
historians
being
conscious
of
it.
In
this
case,
the
very
idea
that
childhood
is
a
developmental
stage
on
the
way
to
becoming
what
matters
(an
adult),
shapes
the
stories
we
usually
tell
about
the
past.
Here
again
I
think
children’s
historians
have
something
to
say.
Notes
1
Sermon
(Prince
Edward
County,
Virginia,
28
July,
1951)
by
the
Rev.
L.
Francis
Griffin
quoted
in
Richard
Kluger,
Simple
Justice:
The
History
of
Brown
v.
Board
of
Education
and
Black
America’s
Struggle
for
Racial
Equality,
480.
See
also
Rebecca
de
Schweinitz,
If
They
Could
Change
the
World:
Young
People
and
America’s
Long
Struggle
for
Racial
Equality
(Chapel
Hill:
University
of
North
Carolina
Press,
2009)
237‐39.
2
William
Tuttle,
Daddy’s
Gone
to
War:
The
Second
World
War
in
the
Lives
of
America’s
Children
(New
York:
Oxford
University
Press,
1993)
236‐41.
3
Robert
Coles,
The
Political
Life
of
Children
(Boston:
Atlantic
Monthly
Press,
1968)
62‐
71;
Robert
Coles,
“Children
and
Racial
Discrimination,”
American
Scholar
34
(Winter
1964‐65)
90‐92.
16
4
Erick
H.
Erikson,
“Youth:
Fidelity
and
Diversity”
in
Youth:
Change
and
Challenge
edited
by
Erik
H.
Erickson
(New
York:
Basic
Books,
1963)
20;
Pierre
Bourdieu,
Outline
of
a
Theory
of
Practice.
Translated
by
Richard
Nice.
(Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press,
1977)
72,
chapter
2.
On
these
points
and
those
from
notes
2
and
3
see
also
de
Schweinitz,
If
They
Could
Change
the
World,
chapter
5.
5
James
Marten,
The
Children’s
Civil
War
(Chapel
Hill:
University
of
North
Carolina
Press,
1998).
6
Caroline
Cox,
“Boy
Soldiers:
Citizenship
and
Patriarchy
in
the
American
Revolution,”
paper
presented
at
the
Omohundro
Institute
and
Early
American
History
and
Culture
Conference,
Salt
Lake
City,
Utah
(June
2009).
Round
Table
on
the
Critical
Historiography
of
Childhood
Colin
Heywood,
University
of
Nottingham
I
do
find
these
six
questions
intriguing,
making
us
reflect
on
the
yardsticks
we
use
to
assess
our
findings.
They
also
bring
to
light
the
way
our
approach
to
the
history
of
young
people
has
changed
over
the
last
few
decades,
under
the
influence
of
a
renewed
interest
in
the
study
of
childhood
and
children
among
social
scientists.
[1]
I
am
going
to
start
with
Question
5.
I
am
pretty
certain
that
I
did
not
have
a
theory
of
child
development
in
mind
when,
during
the
1970s,
I
started
to
research
the
history
of
child
labour
in
nineteenth‐century
France.
Or
rather,
I
would
have
taken
for
granted
our
modern
Western
version
of
a
‘protected’
childhood,
which
sees
children
as
innocent,
vulnerable
creatures
who
should
be
sheltered
for
as
long
as
possible
from
the
harsh
realities
of
adult
life.
Children,
from
this
perspective,
have
a
right
to
schooling
and
time
for
play
instead
of
pressure
to
earn
their
living.
[2]
Hence,
I
was
surely
predisposed
at
the
outset
to
favour
the
reformers
campaigning
for
child
labour
legislation,
and
to
condemn
out
of
hand
their
opponents.
[3]
It
follows
that
my
answer
to
Question
1
would
be
that
historians
will
have
a
theory
of
childhood
of
some
sort
in
mind,
even
if
they
think
they
don’t,
so
it
is
better
if
they
are
conscious
of
it.
With
a
later
project,
on
growing
up
in
modern
France,
it
was
necessary
for
me
to
get
to
grips
with
theories
on
the
nature
of
the
child
and
on
child
development.
I
was
conscious
of
having
luminaries
like
Jean‐Jacques
Rousseau
breathing
down
my
neck.
In
Emile,
or
on
Education
(1762),
Rousseau
organized
his
argument
around
successive
stages
in
childhood
and
adolescence
as
the
basic
framework
for
progression
in
a
new
system
of
education.
In
this
way,
he
justified
a
‘negative’
education,
as
opposed
to
that
of
the
schools
in
eighteenth‐century
France,
on
the
grounds
that
children
were
slow
to
develop
powers
of
reasoning.
[4]
The
notion
of
linking
the
physical
development
of
children
to
their
education,
to
help
parents
and
teachers
with
their
expectations
of
what
the
young
could
learn
at
successive
ages,
was
to
have
a
long
history.
Above
all,
the
period
running
from
the
late
nineteenth
century
to
the
middle
of
the
twentieth
century
17
brought
a
massive
acceleration
of
scholarly
effort
on
refining
the
stages
and
sequences
of
‘developmentalism.’
[5]
One
outcome
of
all
this
new
knowledge
during
the
late
twentieth
century
was
a
debate
over
whether
childhood
was
a
universal
or
a
culturally‐
constructed
stage
of
life.
This
is
largely
a
matter
of
divergence
between
disciplines.
On
the
one
side,
a
biologist
can
confidently
state
that
as
we
evolve
from
other
primates,
we
develop
new
stages
of
life.
So,
according
to
Barry
Bogin,
‘the
majority
of
mammals
progress
from
infancy
to
adulthood
seamlessly’
–
(neat
shades
of
the
Ariès
thesis
there
for
the
historian!).
[6]
But
Bogin
goes
on
to
assert
that
humans
have
evolved
extra
time
for
the
development
of
the
brain
and
learning.
He
discerns
five
stages
for
human
development
between
birth
and
reproductive
maturity,
taking
the
form
of
(1)
infancy,
(2)
childhood,
(3)
juvenile,
(4)
adolescence,
and
(5)
adulthood.
[7]
He
concludes
that
‘there
seems
to
be
a
pan‐human
ability
to
perceive
the
five
stages
of
human
postnatal
development
and
respond
appropriately
to
each.’
[8]
Rousseau,
as
it
happens,
set
out
five
stages
to
human
development
–
and
evidently
such
frameworks
are
‘good
to
think.’
Developmental
psychologists,
until
recently
at
least,
have
also
had
a
prominent
role
in
proposing
a
natural
path
to
maturity
as
an
adult.
If
we
were
to
accept
all
this,
the
answer
to
Question
1
would
be
relatively
straightforward
for
historians.
However,
such
a
framework
is
open
to
the
charge
of
‘biological
reductionism.’
We
are
aware,
for
example,
that
there
were
many
variations
on
the
way
these
stages
were
perceived
in
the
past,
notably
the
four
stages
based
on
the
four
humours,
or
the
seven
ages
linked
to,
say,
the
seven
days
of
creation.
Hence,
on
the
other
side
of
the
debate,
the
sociologist
Allison
James
could
assert
that
childhood
is
‘a
social
and
cultural,
rather
than
a
universal
phenomenon.’
[9]
Historians
are
likely
to
find
this
latter
type
of
argument
more
fruitful
as
a
starting
point
for
their
research,
rather
than
the
inherently
ahistorical
approach
of
the
biologist.
It
allows
them
to
range
freely
over
past
societies
investigating
the
different
ways
that
people
thought
about
the
early
years
of
life.
This
does
not
mean
ignoring
the
‘biological
facts,’
but
rather
discovering
how
people
in
the
past
interpreted
them.
[10]
For
my
purposes
as
a
historian,
therefore,
I
never
contemplated
using
the
stages
in
childhood
outlined
by
biologists
or
other
scientists
such
as
developmental
psychologists
–
the
specific
target
of
social
constructionists
–
as
a
template
for
‘growing
up’
in
France
during
the
eighteenth,
nineteenth
and
early
twentieth
centuries.
Instead
I
poked
around
in
the
‘dustbin
of
history’,
as
the
sociologists
would
have
it,
to
see
what
‘presociological’
ideas
influenced
people
at
that
time.
[11]
I
looked
at
past
conceptions
of
childhood
such
as
the
supposedly
‘natural’
evil
or
innocence
of
the
young,
as
depicted
by
philosophers,
priests,
poets,
painters
and
novelists.
However,
what
really
interested
me
was
how
French
people
attempted
to
make
sense
of
their
own
childhoods.
[12]
Much
of
my
primary
source
material
took
the
form
of
‘ego
documents’:
letters,
diaries,
childhood
reminiscences
and
autobiographies,
where
authors
set
down
their
thoughts
on
their
own
feelings
and
actions.
I
therefore
turned
to
the
various
rites
de
passage
that
marked
an
individual’s
journey
from
the
cradle
to
the
grave
in
village
society
before
industrialization
(baptism,
first
communion,
and
so
forth)
as
a
framework
for
my
18
autobiographical
material.
These
were
important,
we
may
assume,
as
a
way
of
helping
people
to
cope
with
important
transitions
in
their
life.
I
also
noted
changes
that
came
to
these
rites
during
the
nineteenth
century,
such
as
leaving
school
and
doing
military
service.
Finally,
I
also
thought
in
terms
of
an
individual
life
course,
borrowing
once
more
from
sociology,
to
set
beside
the
relatively
fixed
life
cycle
of
the
traditional
popular
culture.
[13]
Here
the
individual
could
identify
their
own
turning
points
in
life,
introduced
randomly
from
outside
or
a
matter
of
their
own
strategic
choices.
In
this
way
I
sought,
as
a
historian,
to
focus
on
childhood
in
a
particular
period
and
place.
Notes
1.
Here
one
might
cite
as
particularly
influential
on
historians
Viviana
A.
Zelizer,
Pricing
the
Priceless
Child:
The
Changing
Social
Value
of
Children
(New
York:
Basic
Books,
1985);
Allison
James
and
Alan
Prout
(eds),
Constructing
and
Reconstructing
Childhood:
Contemporary
Issues
in
the
Sociological
Construction
of
Childhood
(London:
Falmer
Press,
1990);
and
Chris
Jenks,
Childhood
(London:
Routledge,
1996).
2.
See,
for
example,
Harry
Hendrick,
Children,
Childhood
and
English
Society
1880‐1900
(Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press,
1997),
pp.
9‐15;
Steven
Mintz,
Huck’s
Raft:
A
History
of
American
Childhood
(Cambridge
MA
and
London:
The
Belknap
Press
of
Harvard
University,
2004),
pp.
75‐93;
and
Peter
N.
Stearns,
Childhood
in
World
History
(New
York
and
London:
Routledge,
2006),
pp.
54‐64.
3.
Colin
Heywood,
Childhood
in
Nineteenth‐Century
France:
Work,
Health
and
Education
among
the
‘Classes
Populaires’
(Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press,
1988).
4.
Jean‐Jacques
Rousseau,
Emile,
or
on
Education
(1762),
transl.
Allan
Bloom
(London:
Penguin,
1991).
See
also
Maurice
Cranston,
The
Noble
Savage:
Jean‐Jacques
Rousseau,
1754‐62
(Chicago:
University
of
Chicago
Press,
1991).
5.
André
Turmel,
A
Historical
Sociology
of
Childhood
(Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press,
2008),
pp.
2,9.
6.
Barry
Bogin,
‘Evolutionary
and
Biological
Aspects
of
Childhood’,
in
Biological
Perspectives
on
Children,
ed.
Catherine
Panter‐Brick
(Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press,
1998),
pp.
10‐44
(p.
17).
7.
Ibid,
p.18.
8.
Ibid,
p.
38.
9.
Allison
James,
‘From
the
Child’s
Point
of
View:
Issues
in
the
Social
Construction
of
Childhood’,
in
Panter‐Brick,
Biological
Perspectives,
pp.
45‐65
(p.
45).
19
10.
Note
that
specifying
a
link
between
the
biological
and
the
social
dimensions
to
childhood
remains
problematical
for
social
scientists.
11.
Allison
James,
Chris
Jenks
and
Alan
Prout
(eds),
Theorizing
Childhood
(Cambridge:
Polity
Press,
1998),
p.
9.
12.
Colin
Heywood,
Growing
Up
in
France:
From
the
Ancien
Regime
to
the
Third
Republic
(Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press,
2007).
13.
Alan
Bryman,
Bill
Bytheway,
Patricia
Allatt
and
Teresa
Keil
(eds),
Rethinking
the
Lifecycle
(Hounsmills:
Macmillan,
1987).
Comments
for
Panel
on
the
Critical
Historiography
of
Childhood
Jennifer
Ritterhouse,
Utah
State
University
I
want
to
thank
Jim
Block
and
Harvey
Graff
for
organizing
this
panel
and
inviting
me
to
participate
in
it.
I'd
like
to
address
the
question
of
whether
historians
of
children
and
childhood
need
a
theory
of
child
development
from
the
perspective
of
my
own
experience
trying
to
write
about
black
and
white
children's
racial
learning
in
the
Jim
Crow
South.
Let
me
begin
by
saying
that
I
did
not
set
out
to
write
about
children.
Instead,
I
found
myself
in
the
unusual
situation
of
having
an
interest
that
was
easier,
rather
than
harder,
to
study
in
relation
to
children‐‐a
very
different
story,
I
think,
than
that
of
most
people
who
attempt
historical
work
on
children
and
childhood.
That
interest
was
in
racial
"etiquette,"
the
widely
understood
conventions
that
guided
day‐to‐day
encounters
between
blacks
and
whites
before,
during,
and
after
the
period
of
legal
segregation.
From
my
reading
in
southern
and
African
American
history,
I
could
tell
that
both
contemporaries
and
historians
had
some
understanding
of
what
the
etiquette
entailed
and
why.
But
trying
to
study
racial
etiquette
was
like
trying
to
find
salt
in
the
sea‐‐it's
everywhere
but
still
hard
to
put
your
finger
on.
I
quickly
learned
that
one
place
where
racial
etiquette
often
appeared
in
a
distilled
form
was
the
autobiographies
of
blacks
and
nonconformist
whites,
both
of
whom
tended
to
describe
how
they
learned
the
code
of
behavior
expected
of
them
in
their
segregated
society.
I
initially
intended
to
focus
a
chapter
of
my
dissertation
on
these
kinds
of
autobiographical
stories.
I
ended
up
supplementing
autobiography
with
other
kinds
of
sources
and
making
children's
racial
learning
the
subject
of
my
entire
book,
Growing
Up
Jim
Crow:
How
Black
and
White
Southern
Children
Learned
Race.
Which
brings
me
to
my
main
point:
that
as
historians
we
are
dependent
on
sources,
which
are
rarely
as
plentiful
or
as
revealing,
especially
for
the
study
of
children,
as
we
would
like.
I
think
I
am
actually
rather
lucky
to
have
backed
into
my
work
on
children's
racial
learning
because,
had
I
set
out
with
more
knowledge
of
theories
of
child
20
development
or
the
social
science
literature
on
race
awareness
in
children,
I
think
I
would
have
considered
my
project
completely
impossible.
No
historian
can
go
back
in
time
and
ask
a
child
to
draw
a
picture
or
participate
in
an
experiment,
yet
I
found
that
even
the
relatively
rare
diaries,
letters
and
other
sources
produced
by
children
in
the
past
were
not
very
helpful
because,
by
the
time
children
were
old
enough
to
know
how
to
write,
they
had
already
learned
the
racial
conventions
of
their
society
and
seldom
had
any
reason
to
comment
on
them.
Race
and
racial
etiquette
had
become
for
them,
as
for
the
adults
around
them,
salt
in
the
sea.
Retrospective
sources
such
as
autobiography
and
oral
history
were
the
best
I
was
going
to
find,
in
the
sense
that
they
at
least
offered
some
insights
into
the
subjective
experience
of
growing
up
black
or
white.
But
these
kinds
of
sources
were
by
no
means
transparent
windows
even
into
the
minds
of
the
adults
who
produced
them,
much
less
the
minds
of
the
children
those
adults
once
were.
Thus,
in
Growing
Up
Jim
Crow,
I
tried
to
take
a
thoughtful
as
well
as
a
pragmatic
approach
to
the
use
of
retrospective
sources
in
the
study
of
children's
experiences
in
the
past.
Meanwhile,
once
it
became
clear
that
I
was
going
to
focus
my
entire
project
on
children,
I
tried
to
get
a
handle
on
the
existing
scholarship
in
the
history
of
childhood,
and
I
also
did
some
exploring
in
the
extensive
literature
on
children's
understandings
of
race.
I
did
not
gain
as
much
expertise
in
the
latter
as
I
would
have
liked,
but
I
did
find
one
new
study
that
helped
to
validate
my
historian's
approach
to
a
subject
that,
as
I've
said,
might
have
seemed
off‐limits
if
I
had
known
more
about
the
work
of
scholars
in
other
disciplines.
That
book
was
Debra
Van
Ausdale
and
Joe
R.
Feagin's
The
First
R:
How
Children
Learn
Race
and
Racism
(Rowman
&
Littlefield,
2001).
Trained
as
sociologists,
Van
Ausdale
and
Feagin
provide
a
helpful
overview
of
major
theories
of
child
development.
Then
they
challenge
the
conventional
wisdom,
associated
primarily
with
the
work
of
Jean
Piaget,
that
young
children
are
too
egocentric
to
think
in
racial
terms.
In
contrast,
Van
Ausdale
and
Feagin
offer
the
results
of
their
own
ethnographic,
participant‐observer
study
of
a
large
multiracial
preschool
in
the
1990s,
where
they
regularly
found
children
as
young
as
three
or
four
noticing
racial
differences
and
employing
racial
terms.
Sometimes
the
children
"did
race"
in
positive
ways
that
might
have
been
encouraged
by
the
school's
multicultural
curriculum.
At
other
times,
race
became
a
weapon
in
what
can
only
be
described
as
power
struggles
over
toys,
art
projects,
and
games.
Van
Ausdale
and
Feagin
stress
that
one
key
reason
the
children
allowed
Van
Ausdale
to
see
them
talking
and
acting
in
these
ways
is
because
she
worked
to
divest
herself
of
any
adult
authority
in
their
eyes.
Most
child
development
research,
on
the
other
hand,
examines
children's
behavior
only
in
the
presence
of
adults.
This
is
a
severe
limitation,
in
Van
Ausdale
and
Feagin's
view,
and
certainly
in
my
own
research
I
saw
evidence
that
children
were
very
sensitive
to
adult
expectations
when
it
came
to
matters
of
race.
Reading
The
First
R
as
I
worked
to
turn
my
dissertation
into
a
book
provided
welcome
validation
for
my
efforts
to
analyze
the
kind
of
evidence
I
had,
which
was
almost
entirely
anecdotal.
Many
of
the
episodes
Van
Ausdale
and
Feagin
recorded
at
the
preschool
are
21
similar
to
the
everyday
social
dramas
I
saw
in
autobiographical
and
oral
history
sources.
Beyond
this
convenient
fit,
however,
one
could
learn
from
Van
Ausdale
and
Feagin's
rejection
of
Piaget
(and
preference
for
the
work
of
Lev
Vigotsky)
that
the
conventional
wisdom
in
other
disciplines,
as
in
our
own,
is
subject
to
change.
I
think
historians
of
children
and
childhood
can
learn
useful
things
from
child
development
theorists
and
other
scholars,
but
I
am
skeptical
of
the
notion
that
any
historian
needs
"a
theory"
of
child
development
going
into
his
or
her
work.
Neither
the
singularity
of
the
word
"a"
nor
the
seeming
rigidity
of
the
word
"theory"
seems
to
me
compatible
with
the
nature
of
our
discipline,
which
is
so
dependent
on
analyzing
what
we
have
for
evidence
rather
than
what
we
might
wish
we
had.
Moreover,
while
it
would
probably
be
valuable
for
historians
to
gain
some
sensitivity
to
the
developmental
frameworks
operating,
often
unconsciously,
in
the
minds
of
past
actors
as
well
as
in
our
own,
I
worry
that
too
much
sensitivity
might
prove
enervating.
Like
the
poor,
like
people
of
color,
like
women,
like
gays
and
lesbians,
the
children
of
the
past
are
a
group
of
people
who
will
remain
"invisible"
and
"inarticulate"
until
historians
find
creative
ways
to
study
them.
Our
methods
might
be
improved
by
a
broader
knowledge
of
the
methods
of
other
disciplines,
but
they
will
necessarily
be
pragmatic
because
of
our
disciplinary
dependence
on
sources.
History
and
Theory,
and
Whose
Side
We
Are
On
Michael
Zuckerman,
University
of
Pennsylvania
So
I'm
looking
at
the
current
issue
of
the
Journal
of
the
History
of
Childhood
and
Youth,
and
it's
hard
not
to
notice
how
little
there
is
there
of
children
and
youth.
The
first
article,
on
a
colonial
Virginia
baptismal
bowl,
is
about
the
young
only
insofar
as
Mason
family
infants
were
passive
participants
in
rituals
of
refinement
and
ceremonies
of
status
that
concerned
adults,
not
the
newborn.
All
the
significances
that
Lauren
Winner
sees
in
the
bowl
are
adult
significances,
revelatory
of
religious
doctrines,
emotional
needs,
and
gentry
prerogatives
that
would
have
been
utterly
opaque
to
the
babies
who
were
baptized
in
it.
And
I
do
not
even
speak
of
the
secular
worldliness
of
the
bowl's
primary
use
as
a
wineglass
cooler.
The
next
article,
on
child
deathbed
scenes
in
Anglo‐American
literature
from
the
17th
century
to
the
mid‐19th,
uses
fictional
representations
of
precocious
converts
to
get
at
real
anxieties
and
ambitions
of
real
adults.
Exactly
as
Diana
Pasulka
says,
the
article
is
about
the
young
only
to
the
extent
that
their
alleged
dying
scenes
were
literary
tropes
that
conveyed
changing
cultural
meanings.
The
next
article,
on
idealizations
of
youth
in
British
child‐rescue
literature
a
century
ago,
is
entirely
about
affluent
adult
images
of
that
ideal
and
affluent
adult
analyses
of
the
enemies
of
that
ideal
among
the
poor.
As
Shurlee
Swain
admits
openly,
the
essay
is
an
inquiry
into
the
origins
of
the
concept
of
"the
best
interests
of
the
child"
that
underlay
22
much
of
the
20th
century's
child
welfare
law
and
practice.
Her
business
is
with
the
ambiguities
and
hypocrisies
of
the
politics
of
child‐saving.
The
next
three
articles,
on
seashore
hospitals
in
the
United
States,
Belgium,
and
Sweden
at
the
turn
of
the
20th
century,
present
intriguing
comparisons
of
national
character
manifest
in
divergent
dealings
with
the
plague
of
tuberculosis
among
children.
The
focus
in
all
three
pieces
is
on
the
reformers
who
built
these
asylums
‐
their
mentalities
and
motives,
their
beliefs
about
poverty
and
the
poor,
their
attitudes
toward
urbanization
and
industrialization,
their
views
of
the
role
of
the
state
in
protecting
children
‐
and
not
on
the
youngsters
who
actually
filled
those
sanatoriums.
As
the
editor
of
the
essays
in
this
section
concedes,
children's
voices
"are
hard
to
hear"
in
them.
The
last
article,
on
the
uses
of
ethnic
attachment
among
indigenous
people
of
the
Arctic
regions,
asserts
that
affiliation
with
one's
culture
and
awareness
of
one's
ethnic
history
promote
feelings
of
belonging
which
foster
psychological
resilience
and
well‐being.
But
Lisa
Wexler
does
not
argue
that
any
of
this
is
distinctive
to
the
young.
As
she
says,
the
benefits
of
enhanced
awareness
of
cultural
identity
obtain
across
all
ages.
As
she
might
have
added,
the
task
of
transmitting
that
heritage
is
inescapably
the
province
of
the
elders.
And
this
preoccupation
with
adults,
among
historians
of
childhood
and
youth,
is
not
confined
to
the
articles.
It
appears
equally
in
the
book
reviews.
The
first
review
examines
a
book
on
the
uses
of
personal
narrative
in
the
social
sciences
and
history.
The
reviewer
does
not
disguise
the
book's
definition
of
its
subject
as
life
stories
told
in
the
retrospect
of
adulthood
or
the
extent
to
which
that
definition
precludes
narratives
of
children
and
adolescents.
The
second
discusses
a
collection
on
ritual
in
children's
lives.
The
reviewer
dwells
on
what
he
calls
the
"larger"
issues
of
cultural
change
evident
in
such
rituals
and
on
the
ways
in
which
adults
adapt
rituals
to
changing
circumstances.
The
third
takes
up
a
book
challenging
the
secularization
story
in
American
history.
The
reviewer
struggles
to
tease
out
implications
for
children
in
an
argument
that
is
devoted
entirely
to
the
discourse
of
their
parents.
The
fourth
surveys
a
collection
on
queer
youth
cultures.
It
is
about
youth.
It
is
the
only
thing
of
its
kind
in
the
entire
issue
of
the
journal.
The
fifth
and
final
review
addresses
a
volume
on
Japanese‐American
beauty
pageants.
Neither
the
book,
apparently,
nor
the
review,
certainly,
says
anything
about
the
young
contestants
themselves.
The
focus
of
both
is
on
the
pageants
as
arenas
of
contestation
23
among
adult
Japanese‐Americans
over
nationalism,
feminism,
and
racial
purity
in
an
increasingly
multi‐racial
ethnic
community.
Taken
together,
these
articles
and
reviews
expose
our
dirty
little
secret.
We
may
call
ourselves
historians
of
childhood
and
youth,
but
we
do
not
deal
with
children
as
children.
The
evidence
of
this
issue
of
the
journal
is,
to
be
sure,
excessive.
Some
of
us,
some
of
the
time,
do
study
the
young
in
their
own
right.
But
in
our
preponderant
practice,
we
focus
on
how
the
elders
treated
their
offspring
and
on
what
such
treatment
can
tell
us
about
the
elders.
On
the
whole,
children
appear
in
our
work
as
registers
of
adult
views
and
values
or
as
indices
of
adult
ambivalences
and
aspirations.
We
seek
their
significance
as
idealizations
(or
demonizations)
that
serve
adult
purposes
and
projects
or
reveal
adult
concerns
and
conflicts.
Developmental
theorists
do
not
do
any
of
this.
Their
theory
is
naively
realistic.
It
takes
children
and
youth
as
(it
thinks)
it
finds
them.
It
is
in
fact
preoccupied
with
the
young,
for
themselves
rather
than
for
what
they
reveal
of
their
environing
culture.
It
is
symptomatic
of
this
preoccupation
with
actual
children
that
all
the
developmental
theorists
of
consequence
‐
from
Rousseau
to
Freud,
from
Gesell
and
Ilg
to
Erikson
to
Piaget
and
Kohlberg
‐
have
propounded
sequences
of
stages,
from
earliest
infancy
to
maturity.
They
have
all
had
a
holistic
interest
in
how
character,
or
health,
or
intelligence,
or
cognitive
functioning,
or
moral
reasoning,
or
human
completeness,
emerges.
Historians
of
childhood
simply
do
not
ask
the
questions
that
developmental
theorists
do.
Not
in
the
current
issue
of
our
journal,
and
not
more
generally.
If
we
worry
about
stages
of
development
at
all,
we
cherry‐pick:
a
single
stage
from
the
entire
sequence,
a
single
theory
of
that
stage;
something
from
Erikson,
perhaps,
if
we
are
studying
adolescence,
or
from
Coles,
if
we
are
studying
youth
activism.
Rebecca
de
Schweinitz
admits
as
much
quite
cheerfully.
Children
are,
for
historians,
means
to
an
end,
as
Jennifer
Ritterhouse
says
so
disarmingly:
a
way,
in
her
case,
to
get
at
the
etiquette
of
day‐to‐day
black‐white
relations
in
the
Jim
Crow
South.
Children
are,
for
developmental
psychologists,
ends
in
themselves.
Experimentalists
and
theorists
alike
observe
the
behavior
of
the
very
young
in
laboratories
deliberately
designed
to
facilitate
such
observation.
Even
if
their
specific
studies
are
confined
to
a
single
developmental
moment
or
issue,
those
studies
are,
tacitly
if
not
explicitly,
embedded
in
far
larger
theoretical‐sequential
ensembles.
Historians
cannot
get
at
children
the
way
that
developmental
psychologists
can.
We
have
no
laboratories
or
other
technologies
of
direct
access
to
our
subjects.
The
data
we
do
have
are
simply
too
scattered
and
fugitive
to
support
the
sorts
of
ingenious
and
systematic
experiments
and
interpretations
that
developmentalists
demand
as
a
condition
of
research
and
writing
in
their
field.
24
More
than
that,
I
doubt
that
historians
would
want
to
get
at
children
that
way
even
if
they
could.
Historians
not
only
see
the
young
refracted
through
adult
accounts
but
also
expect
to
see
them
through
such
uncertain
prisms.
Historians
expect
to
see
everyone
that
way.
When
they
are
attending
to
their
craft,
historians
are
not
naive
realists.
Their
business
is,
ineliminably,
with
the
denials
and
displacements
by
which
we
mortals
get
through
our
days,
and
the
prevarications
and
paradoxes
that
pervade
our
lives,
and
the
ironies
that
condition
our
existence.
The
very
essence
of
the
historical
endeavor
is
antithetical
to
the
theoretical
enterprise.
Theorists
seek
some
sphere
of
control
of
the
vagaries
of
human
life.
Insofar
as
they
succeed,
they
enlarge
our
precarious
purchase
on
our
affairs.
Good
theory
helps
us
to
do
better
in
life,
in
the
world.
It
grounds
the
ancient
and
honorable
Baconian
ambition
to
relieve
man's
estate.
Historians
do
not
do
that.
Not
at
bottom,
anyway.
They
do
not
aspire
to
control
‐
or
to
the
predictions
which
are
the
measure
and
test
of
control
‐
so
much
as
to
understanding.
And
understanding
does
not
increase
our
power
over
nature
so
much
as
it
augments
our
appreciation
of
human
diversity
and
thus
militates
against
control.
Understanding
enables
us
to
grasp
that
our
social
worlds
resist
generalization
and
elude
the
universal
predications
of
theory.
It
reminds
us
that
the
rest
of
the
world
‐
in
other
times
and
other
places,
and
by
extension
even
in
our
own
time
and
place
‐
is
not
and
was
not
as
we
ourselves
and
our
own
kind
are
now.
Understanding
does
not
enhance
our
dominion.
It
moves
in
a
very
different
direction,
toward
humility,
generosity,
and
caritas.
~~~
Pedagogy
The
Interdisciplinary
Nature
of
Childhood
Studies
Stephen
Gennaro,
ed.
In
the
last
edition
of
the
newsletter,
some
of
my
colleagues
from
York
University’s
Children’s
Studies
Program
weighed
in
on
how
to
get
students
to
“do
the
readings.”
One
of
our
findings
was
that
since
the
field
is
both
multidisciplinary
and
interdisciplinary,
students
and
teachers
of
Children’s
Studies
are
often
asked
wear
many
academic
hats.
Building
on
this
theme,
Lynne
Vallone,
Daniel
Thomas
Cook,
and
Deb
Valentine
at
the
Rutgers‐Camden’s
Childhood
Studies
Program
weighed
on
the
interdisciplinary
nature
of
teaching
in
the
field.
The
program
at
Rutgers‐Camden
is
interdisciplinary
at
its
core.
25
The
Department
of
Childhood
Studies
puts
the
issues,
concepts
and
debates
that
surround
the
study
of
children
and
childhoods
at
the
center
of
its
research
and
teaching
missions.
Through
a
multidisciplinary
approach,
the
Department
of
Childhood
Studies
aims
both
to
theorize
and
historicize
the
figure
of
the
Child
and
to
situate
the
study
of
children
and
childhoods
within
contemporary
cultural
and
global
contexts.
The
curriculum
in
the
Department
is
multidisciplinary
in
scope
and
purpose
and
provides
students
with
a
strong
background
in
both
humanistic
and
social
science
perspectives
on
children
and
their
representations.
This
approach
will
prepare
students
for
careers
in
many
areas
including
academics,
public
policy,
social
services,
youth
programming,
and
education.
(http://childhood.camden.rutgers.edu/)
As
Lynn
Vallone,
the
program
Chair,
explains
in
her
article,
the
pedagogy
and
practise
of
the
new
Doctoral
Program
in
Childhood
Studies
is
multidisciplinary
and
constructed
to
mesh
the
many
academic
approaches
in
the
field.
Of
course,
being
so
“interdisciplinary
and
open”
also
has
its
challenges
as
Daniel
T.
Cook,
the
program’s
Director
of
Graduate
Studies
explores
in
his
piece
“Refusing
to
Scratch
the
Itch.”
Finally,
Deb
Valentine,
both
a
graduate
student
in
the
program
and
teacher
at
the
undergraduate
level,
offers
some
insight
into
some
of
the
difficulties
(and
techniques
for
overcoming
these
difficulties)
in
maintaining
an
interdisciplinary
classroom.
The
positives
and
pitfalls
of
interdisciplinary
studies
are
exactly
as
Vallone,
Cook,
and
Valentine
express.
And
yet,
that
is
precisely
what
makes
the
field
of
Children’s
Studies
or
Childhood
Studies
so
exciting:
the
many
lenses,
approaches,
and
avenues
for
insight
that
if
offers
to
teachers,
students,
and
academics
alike.
In
my
own
work,
it
is
the
mixture
of
theory
and
action
in
studying
childhood
and
children
that
drives
my
scholarship
and
teaching
practices.
My
courses
are
structured
around
the
philosophy
that
each
course
takes
focus
on
the
importance
of
situating
children's
familial,
local,
national,
and
global
histories
in
larger
discussions
of
power
relations
by
making
connections
between
critical
theory
of
race,
class,
gender,
and
sexuality
with
historical
and
contemporary
studies
of
children
and
childhood.
Each
course
therefore
examines
children
and
childhood
from
a
global
perspective
and
compares
the
real
lives
of
children
to
representations
of
childhood
in
social
institutions
and
the
problems
raised
by
the
creation
of
a
universal
or
generic
child
profile.
As
with
all
courses
that
draw
their
base
from
cultural
studies,
there
is
a
particular
interest
in
whose
voice
is
represented
and
whose
voice
is
left
silent.
And
this
is
backdrop
against
which
I
ask
my
students
to
read
the
critical
social
theory
of
Karl
Marx
and
Friedrich
Engels,
Louis
Althusser,
and
Antonio
Gramsci.
As
I
demonstrated
in
the
last
edition
of
the
newsletter,
I
provide
the
students
with
reading
questions
to
help
guide
them
through
the
material
and
then
follow
up
with
a
lecture
and
activity/task
designed
to
reach
students
in
their
own
spaces.
Here
is
a
copy
of
the
PowerPoint
and
activity
from
the
accompanying
lecture
(note
that
the
activity
can
be
found
on
the
last
slide).
[Ed.
note:
Access
the
powerpoint
26
presentation
at:
http://www.history.vt.edu/Jones/SHCY/Newsletter14/NeedForTheory.pps
]
The
Need
for
Theory
in
Children’s
Studies
However,
the
interdisciplinary
approach
did
not
end
there,
course
readings
included
novels,
short
stories,
memoirs,
ethnographies,
television
sit‐coms,
critical
theory,
primary
and
secondary
historical
sources,
The
United
Nations
Convention
on
the
Rights
of
the
Child,
interviews
with
real
children,
and
articles
from
the
fields
of
anthropology,
education,
law,
sociology,
geography,
and
media
studies
(just
to
name
few).
And
then
the
question
on
the
final
exam
asked
to
engage
with
all
of
the
material
encountered
in
a
way
that
attempts
to
deal
with
the
problem
of
Children’s
Studies
interdisciplinary
nature:
One
of
the
goals
of
the
second
module
was
to
posit
the
need
for
a
critical
theory
of
childhood‐
that
views
age
in
the
same
fashion
as
other
social
variables.
Knowing
what
you
now
know
about
Children’s
Studies,
what
would
a
theory
like
this
look
like?
Be
sure
to
use
course
texts
to
help
make
your
point.
And
the
results
were
incredible!
So
perhaps
we
can
all
learn
from
the
folks
at
Rutgers‐Camden:
take
the
multidisciplinary
approach
that
emanates
from
your
own
scholarship
and
its
connection
to
Childhood
Studies
and
then
pass
that
on
to
your
students.
Examining
the
new
Childhood
Studies
Doctoral
Program
at
Rutgers
University,Camden
Lynne
Vallone
In
developing
a
coherent
multidisciplinary
Childhood
Studies
doctoral
program,
faculty
members‐typically
trained
in
Humanities
or
Social
Science
disciplines‐will
face
multiple
challenges
in
crossing
or
erasing
seemingly
inert
and
forbidding
disciplinary
boundaries.
Given
the
discomfort
attendant
upon
such
"border
crossing,"
we
have
found
that
establishing
a
firm
foundation
of
trust
between
faculty
members
was
a
crucial
precursor
to
assuaging
our
concerns
over
leaving
the
known
behind.
The
compromises
we
made
in
creating
the
examination
structure
for
the
doctoral
degree
provides
a
good
example
of
solutions
to
the
kinds
of
challenges
to
which
I
am
referring.
I
will
briefly
describe
one
aspect
of
that
exam
structure
here.
We
agreed
to
retain
the
conventional
two‐step
examination
process
of
qualifying
exam
and
preliminary
exam/proposal
hearing.
Yet
we
knew
that
a
"traditional"
qualifying
exam
(in
any
typical
disciplinary
usage)
would
neither
satisfy
the
needs
of
our
students
who
hail
from
a
variety
of
scholarly
backgrounds,
or
accomplish
our
goals
of
providing
an
integrative
and
interdisciplinary
program
of
study.
Rather
than
a
timed
examination
linked
to
a
pre‐determined
set
of
readings
and
outcomes,
we
instituted
a
more
personalized
dossier
review
keyed
to
each
students'
developing
interests.
The
dossier‐assembled
after
18
hours
of
Childhood
Studies
coursework‐consists
of
the
transcript,
statement
of
purpose
and
a
substantial
writing
sample
written
for
a
Childhood
Studies
seminar.
A
successful
review
requires
27
the
student
to
create
a
pre‐professional
presentation
of
self,
thoughtful
reflection
and
a
demonstration
of
the
growing
knowledge
base
and
critical
thinking
and
writing
skills
necessary
for
undertaking
doctoral‐level
work
in
Childhood
Studies.
The
dossier
is
read
and
voted
upon
by
the
entire
faculty.
If
the
student
passes
the
review,
he/she
is
retained
in
the
program
and
continues
coursework.
Although
this
structure
is
new
and
has
not
been
fully
tested
given
that
we
have
not
had
any
graduates
from
our
doctoral
program
to
date,
we
are
pleased
with
the
process
so
far
and
believe
that
this
non‐traditional
approach
to
a
qualifying
"exam"
both
adequately
reflects
a
student's
progress
in
the
program
after
one
year
of
full‐time
study
and
will
predict
future
success
in
writing
an
interdisciplinary
dissertation
project.
Refusing to Scratch the Itch: Keeping Problems Open
Daniel
Thomas
Cook
A
decisive
moment
occurred
toward
the
end
of
the
second
semester
of
a
two‐semester
seminar
required
for
entering
Ph.D.
students
in
our
newly
established
Childhood
Studies
program.
The
Proseminar
introduces
students
to
key
debates,
topics
and
approaches
comprising
that
somewhat
amorphous,
multidisciplinary
field
of
“childhood
studies.”
As
we
were
discussing
and
critiquing
yet
another
approach,
a
student
asked,
“When
are
we
going
to
start
tying
things
up?”
I
was
bit
transfixed
by
the
implication
that
all
these
approaches
and
paradigms
were
to
be
put
into
some
sort
of
internal
coherence
with
one
another,
an
expectation
apparently
shared
by
others.
In
the
ensuing
discussion,
I
endeavored
to
articulate
what
I
mistakenly
thought
had
been
previously
explicated—
namely,
that
the
point
of
multidisciplinary
scholarship
was
not
to
locate
the
one
overarching
framework
that
incorporates
all
others.
The
project
of
childhood
studies,
rather,
centers
on
creating
and
maintaining
the
“child”
and
“childhood”
as
problems
to
be
investigated
through
multiple
means.
For
at
least
some
of
these
students,
studying
childhood
in
a
“multidisciplinary”
manner
did
not
in
itself
disrupt
their
received
notion
that
there
must
be
one
underlying
truth
to
be
culled
from
the
different
perspectives.
This
presumption
of
a
“best
approach”—
though
not
necessarily
unique
to
childhood
studies—I
believe
acquires
considerable
conceptual
heft
when
children
and
childhood
are
at
issue
because
children
remain
emotionally
overdetermined
figures
in
social
life,
despite
the
insistence
on
problematizing
them
historically
and
culturally.
Students
often
apply
to
programs
like
ours
with
the
idea
of
finding
ways
to
help
children
and
improve
their
lives.
No
doubt
necessary
and
admirable,
this
impetus
can
contravene
efforts
to
keep
the
focus
on
engaging
problems
that
may
be
generative
of
new
insights.
28
Reflections
on
Creating
A
Safe
Place
in
Childhood
Studies
Deborah
Valentine,
Rutgers
University‐Camden
I
came
to
the
doctoral
program
in
Childhood
Studies
at
Rutgers‐Camden
with
teaching
and
administrative
experience
and
an
abiding
interest
in
issues
of
race
and
education.
Working
as
a
teaching
assistant
for
an
introductory
Childhood
Studies
course,
I
found
that
students'
presumptions
of,
and
emotional
attachments
to,
idealized
views
of
"the
child"
compounded
the
already
morally
and
emotionally
charged
landscape
of
race
relations.
When
presented
with
the
opportunity
to
teach
Amanda
Lewis'
Race
in
the
Schoolyard
to
a
racially/ethnically
diverse
lecture
class
of
100
students,
I
confronted
a
familiar
problem—namely,
how
can
one
enable
students
to
learn
material
that
involves
letting
go
of
cherished
beliefs,
memories
or
ways
of
understanding
the
world?
In
order
to
address
this
challenge,
I
began
the
lecture
series
with
my
own
story,
then
asked
students
to
reflect
on
their
personal
experiences
related
to
racial
identity
and
diversity
in
their
early
school
years.
Beginning
with
these
stories
allowed
students
to
develop
a
conscious
awareness
of
their
own
experiences
with
and
emotions
about
the
topic
prior
to
confronting
material
that
might
feel
threatening.
I
then
structured
my
lectures
around
the
stories
of
children
that
were
presented
in
the
text.
I
finished
the
series
of
class
sessions
by
requiring
students
to
fill
out
a
chart
answering
the
question
of
how
race/ethnicity
was
being
constructed
in
several
of
the
narratives
we
had
discussed.
By
making
room
for
student’s
personal
experiences
and
emotions
first,
this
method
helped
diffuse
emotional
barriers
and
pre‐empt
a
good
deal
of
defensiveness
that
had
stand
in
the
way
of
engaging
with
the
challenges
posed
by
new
material.
~~~
Conference
Reports
.
.
.
.
.
.
.Priscilla
Clement,
ed.
Call
for
Conference
Reporters
As
budgets
in
higher
education
continue
to
shrink,
the
Bulletin
hopes
to
keep
you
informed
about
the
conferences
you’d
like
to
attend
but
can’t
afford,
and
the
conferences
you
miss
just
because
time
doesn’t
permit.
Priscilla
Clement
is
the
editor
for
conference
reports.
Please
contact
her
to
share
with
SHCY
members
the
exciting
work
that
is
regularly
being
presented
at
the
conferences
of
national
organizations
and
at
smaller
specialized
meetings
you
are
able
to
attend.
We
are
especially
interested
in
hearing
about
the
history
of
children
and
youth
in
conferences
that
take
meet
outside
of
North
America!
Contact
Priscilla
at
p4c@psu.edu
29
Conference
Report
American
Association
for
the
History
of
Medicine
(AAHM),
April
23‐26,
2009
Cara
Kinzelman,
University
of
Minnesota
The
American
Association
for
the
History
of
Medicine
held
its
82nd
Annual
Meeting
in
Cleveland,
Ohio,
in
April.
Topics
related
to
the
history
of
childhood
and
childbearing
were
well
represented,
which
suggests
an
exciting
level
of
interest
in
the
field
among
historians
of
medicine.
One
of
the
conference
highlights
was
Katharine
Park’s
(Harvard
University)
Fielding
H.
Garrison
Lecture
titled
“Birth,
Death
and
the
Limits
of
Life:
Caesarean
Section
in
Medieval
and
Renaissance
Europe”.
Prior
to
the
sixteenth
century,
caesareans
were
performed
exclusively
on
women
who
were
already
dead
or
deemed
unable
to
survive
labor.
Dr.
Park
used
church
declarations
and
legal
documents
from
the
thirteenth
and
fourteenth
centuries
to
demonstrate
how
the
fate
of
unborn
children
was
linked
to
greater
religious
and
legal
considerations.
Due
to
the
belief
that
unbaptized
infants
were
doomed
to
suffer
in
the
afterlife,
parents
and
religious
leaders
began
to
stretch
the
limits
of
“life”
to
save
the
souls
of
unborn,
stillborn
and
miscarried
children.
Their
bodies
were
routinely
scrutinized
for
the
slightest
signs
of
life
so
they
could
be
baptized
in
haste
and
offered
a
Christian
burial.
To
this
end
French
midwives
received
emergency
baptism
training.
Tellingly,
most
of
the
surviving
documentation
regarding
caesareans
in
this
era
comes
from
legal
records.
If
a
child
survived
for
even
the
briefest
moment,
a
widowed
husband
was
entitled
to
his
wife’s
inheritance.
The
absence
of
a
living
child
meant
that
the
woman’s
dowry
and
her
property
would
automatically
revert
to
her
family.
Here
again
the
standards
for
what
it
meant
to
have
life
were
often
stretched
until
the
legal
and
religious
definitions
of
life
were
almost
indistinguishable
from
one
another.
Shannon
Withycombe
(University
of
Wisconsin‐Madison)
offered
a
related
paper
on
miscarriage
and
notions
of
death
in
nineteenth
century
America.
Withycombe
used
medical
journals
and
the
personal
letters
of
women
to
analyze
differing
perceptions
of
fetal
death.
While
physicians
tended
to
use
words
like
dead,
death
and
dying
when
referencing
a
miscarriage,
women
seemed
to
be
more
hesitant
to
describe
the
experience
as
a
physical
death.
The
idea
of
fetal
life
is
a
modern
understanding.
Nineteenth
century
women,
sometimes
most
profoundly,
felt
the
loss
of
a
possibility
rather
than
a
life.
Neither
doctors
nor
mothers
viewed
the
miscarried
material
as
a
corpse.
Families
did
not
engage
in
a
formal
mourning
process
and
typically
passed
the
fetus
to
the
physician
for
assessment
or
experimentation.
Jessica
Martucci
(University
of
Pennsylvania)
discussed
infant
feeding
and
motherhood
in
post‐World
War
Two
America.
Between
1945
and
1980
mounting
scientific
evidence
indicated
that
breast
feeding
was
nutritionally
superior
to
bottle
feeding,
but
American
mothers
were
hesitant
to
nurse
their
babies.
Martucci
presented
a
fascinating
30
exploration
of
factors
–
the
sexualization
of
the
breast,
the
need
to
simultaneously
tend
to
the
father’s
sexual
needs
and
the
child’s
physical
needs,
the
presumed
effects
of
breast
feeding
on
the
woman’s
figure
–
that
made
nursing
appear
to
be
at
odds
with
the
demands
of
sustaining
a
modern,
happy
family.
Other
papers
presented
at
the
conference
that
may
be
of
interest
to
SHCY
members
included
Joy
Newman’s
(University
at
Albany)
exploration
of
youth
drinking
and
drinking
law
debates
in
the
1950s
and
1960s;
Debra
Blumenthal’s
(University
of
California
–
Santa
Barbara)
discussion
on
the
legal
authority
of
wet
nurses
and
midwives
in
paternity
and
legal
age
cases
in
fifteenth
century
Valencia;
Deborah
Doroshow’s
(Yale
University
and
Harvard
Medical
School)
work
on
bedwetting
and
behavioral
conditioning
in
mid‐
twentieth
century
America;
Lisa
Pruitt’s
(Middle
Tennessee
State
University)
analysis
of
children’s
experiences
with
disability
since
the
mid‐nineteenth
century;
and,
finally,
Wendy
Mitchinson’s
(University
of
Waterloo)
discussion
of
childhood
obesity
in
Canada
from
1920‐1980.
Conference
Report
Children
and
War,
Philadelphia,
PA
and
Camden,
NJ,
April
3‐5,
2009
Patrick
Cox,
Rutgers
University,
Camden
The
Department
of
Childhood
Studies
(Rutgers‐Camden)
hosted
the
Children
and
War
Conference
in
April.
This
gathering
of
scholars
was
a
truly
interdisciplinary
event.
Those
who
presented
papers
came
from
a
broad
range
of
disciplines
and
represented
various
methodologies
and
from
their
various
papers
several
common
themes
emerged.
Some
scholars
historicized
children
and
war,
including
David
Rosen
(Farleigh
Dickinson
University).
Rosen
traced
a
shift
in
representations
of
child
soldiers
in
popular
discourse
over
the
past
two
centuries
from
loyal
citizens
and
patriots
to
a
“lost
generation.”
This
shift
entailed
a
change
in
perception
from
childhood
as
agentic
to
childhood
as
powerless
victimization,
and
also
parallels
the
abandonment
of
the
use
of
child
soldiers
in
Western
armies
and
the
emergence
of
“the
child
soldier”
as
a
social
problem
endemic
to
developing
countries.
Margaret
Higonnet
(University
of
Connecticut)
examined
memoirs
and
diaries
and
found
children
played
roles
in
military
service
during
World
War
I
with
surprising
frequency.
She
used
girl‐soldiers
as
the
paradigmatic
example
of
the
mobilization
of
children
in
wartime
to
call
for
a
rethinking
of
the
role
of
children
and
childhood
in
the
shaping
of
war
culture
and
our
understanding
of
childhood
itself.
Higonnet’s
examination
of
gender
identity
formation
in
the
extreme
circumstances
of
war
offers
possibilities
for
further
development
of
our
thinking
on
childhood.
James
Marten
(Marquette
University)
drew
on
his
research
into
the
American
Civil
War
to
describe
children’s
agency
in
actively
seeking
ways
to
participate
in
war.
He
used
the
31
peculiar
and
chaotic
situation
of
armed
conflict
as
a
window
to
provide
unique
and
enlightening
perspectives
on
family
dynamics,
child
rearing
and
childhood.
Other
scholars
conducted
ethnographies
of
children
in
armed
conflict,
beginning
with
keynote
speaker
Ismael
Beah,
former
child
soldier
and
author
of
A
Long
Way
Gone.
He
spoke
movingly
of
his
own
experiences
as
a
child
soldier
and
his
path
to
becoming
an
advocate
for
child
soldiers.
He
has
worked
on
their
behalf
at
UNICEF,
Human
Rights
Watch,
and
the
United
Nations
Secretary
General’s
Office
for
Children
and
Armed
Conflict
at
the
United
Nations
General
Assembly.
Jason
Hart
(University
of
Oxford)
reported
his
findings
on
the
day‐to‐day
experiences
of
children
living
in
the
Occupied
Palestinian
Territories.
Hart
examined
what
he
called
“checkpoint
education,”
the
cumulative
effect
of
daily
encounters
between
armed
Israeli
soldiers
and
Palestinian
children.
This
study
calls
into
question
the
efficacy
of
peace
and
human
rights
education
in
shaping
children’s
political
dispositions
in
places
where
children
must
undergo
the
humiliation
of
passing
through
armed
checkpoints
going
to
and
from
school.
Gillian
Mann
(London
School
of
Political
Science
and
Economics)
has
conducted
extensive
ethnographic
research
in
Dar
es
Salaam.
She
reported
on
undocumented
Congolese
refugee
children
and
the
psychosocial
impact
of
their
clandestine
and
impoverished
lives
in
Dar
es
Salaam.
Lacey
Gale,
of
Tufts
University,
drew
upon
15
months
of
ethnographic
fieldwork
among
child
refugees
in
post‐war
Sierra
Leone
in
describing
informal
child
fostering
during
war
and
post‐war
reconstruction.
Her
research
described
the
active
role
children
play
in
relationships
with
caregivers
and
the
responsibilities
children
take
on
for
their
families.
Thoughts
on
the
psychosocial
effects
of
armed
conflict
on
children
were
delivered
from
varying
disciplinary
perspectives.
Paul
Geltman,
MD
and
Professor
of
Pediatrics
at
Boston
University,
assessed
mental
health
counseling
and
other
health
services
of
Sudanese
refugee
minors
in
foster
care
in
the
US.
His
study
found
that
refugee
minors
received
high
levels
of
psychosocial
support,
but
neither
those
with
lower
functional
health
nor
those
demonstrating
post‐traumatic
stress
disorder
were
more
likely
to
receive
mental
health
counseling
than
their
peers,
suggesting
an
unmet
need
for
mental
health
diagnostic
and
treatment
services.
Dorothy
Morgo
(Yale)
reported
on
her
efforts
to
assess
psychosocial
effects
of
living
in
armed
conflict
on
children
in
Sudan.
The
research
team
used
multiple
and
unique
forms
of
assessment
to
uncover
widespread
post‐traumatic
stress
disorder,
depression
and
grief
among
Sudanese
children.
They
also
identified
the
16
war
experiences
that
proved
to
be
most
predicative
of
traumatic
reactions,
and
delved
further
into
the
complex
mechanisms
of
the
interactions
of
the
three
disorders.
Joseph
Rikhof
(University
of
Ottawa)
brought
his
expertise
as
Senior
Counsel
in
the
Canadian
Crimes
Against
Humanities
and
War
Crimes
Section
to
the
question
of
the
legal
status
of
former
child
soldiers.
Because
child
soldiers
are
minors
who
are
sometimes
compelled
into
military
service
and
do
not
always
fully
comprehend
their
own
actions,
child
soldiers
pose
unique
difficulties
when
determining
responsibility
for
war
crimes.
Rikhof
suggested
these
circumstances
make
child
soldiers
unsuitable
for
legal
punishments
given
to
adult
war
criminals.
He
explored
the
dilemma
of
punishment
32
for
children
in
war
in
both
a
historical
context
and
in
the
context
of
his
own
experience
in
the
Canadian
government
dealing
with
child
soldiers.
Richard
Williams,
Professor
of
Mental
Health
Strategy
at
the
University
of
Glamorgan
and
child
and
adolescent
psychiatrist,
spoke
on
psychosocial
resilience
of
children
and
families
involved
in
armed
conflict
in
the
face
of
post‐traumatic
stress
disorder.
Others
spoke
on
the
role
of
international
organizations
in
working
with
children
both
during
and
after
armed
conflict.
Neil
Boothby,
child
psychologist
and
Professor
of
Public
Health
at
Columbia
University,
spoke
on
the
need
among
humanitarian
workers
to
provide
rapid
responses
to
the
immediate
needs
of
children
in
emergency
situations
stemming
from
armed
conflict.
These
necessarily
immediate
actions
often
result
in
palliative
measures,
which
frequently
provide
little
long
term
protection.
He
dwelt
on
the
paradox
humanitarian
workers
face
in
attempting
to
address
immediate
needs
of
discrete
groups
of
children
in
emergency
situations
while
at
the
same
time
strengthening
protection
for
all
children.
Second
keynote
speaker
Michael
Wessells
(Columbia
University)
reported
on
the
failure
of
reintegration
programs
to
recognize
the
gendered
roles
and
experiences
of
girl
soldiers.
Girl
soldiers’
entry
into
and
experience
with
armed
conflict
takes
different
forms
from
their
boy
soldier
counterparts,
they
are
affected
differently
by
their
different
experiences,
and
their
integration
back
into
civilian
society
is
influenced
differently.
Yet
disarmament,
demobilization
and
reintegration
efforts
have
ignored
these
differences.
Siobhan
McEvoy‐Levy
(Butler
University)
began
with
children
as
agentic
in
war,
post‐war
violence,
and
war
and
post‐war
economies,
but
found
both
an
assumption
of,
and
a
desire
for,
the
suppression
of
that
agency
when
armed
conflict
ends.
The
tasks
of
peacekeeping
and
rebuilding
exclude
children
from
discourses
on
rights,
security
and
development.
McEvoy‐Levy
drew
on
a
number
of
case
studies
to
argue
for
a
productive
role
for
children
in
peace
building.
Others
dwelt
upon
the
representations
of
war
and
childhood
in
popular
culture.
Kimberley
Reynolds
(University
if
Newcastle)
examined
both
up‐market
and
populist
magazines
for
boys
in
the
decades
leading
up
to
World
War
I.
Previous
scholarship
has
suggested
that
such
publications
contributed
to
a
mythos
of
war
as
romantic
and
heroic,
thereby
contributing
to
boys’
desires
to
enlist.
She
discovered
attitudes
toward
armed
conflict
and
the
military
as
set
forth
in
these
publications
were
much
more
subtle
and
multi‐faceted
than
previous
research
has
suggested.
Gary
Cross,
historian
from
Penn
State,
spoke
on
the
development
of
war
toys
in
the
20th
century.
Looking
at
images
of
toys
and
toy
advertisements,
Cross
related
changes
in
the
design
and
use
of
war
toys
to
shifts
in
adult
attitudes
to
war.
Timothy
Shary
(University
of
Oklahoma)
examined
how
a
particular
sub‐genre
of
films,
American
teen
war
movies
produced
in
the
1980’s,
exploited
Cold
War
fears
and
patriotism
in
their
depictions
of
fictional
teens
rising
to
defend
the
nation
and
traditional
values
from
outside
forces.
Adrienne
Kertzer
(University
of
Calgary)
offered
a
comparison
of
the
Young
Adult
novel
The
Book
Thief
by
Marcus
Zusak,
about
a
child
growing
up
in
the
midst
of
World
War
II,
and
recent
memoirs
of
similar
experiences.
Kertzer
examined
changes
in
the
representation
of
the
33
Holocaust
as
fictional
accounts
necessarily
replace
first‐person
testimonials
as
more
and
more
child
survivors
die.
Charles
Watters,
Director
of
the
European
Centre
for
the
Study
of
Migration
and
Social
Care,
University
of
Kent,
offered
closing
remarks
and
observed
several
themes
that
emerged
from
the
presentations.
Among
these
were
a
historical
perspective
on
the
emergence
of
a
new
form
of
total
war
different
from
a
professional
war,
and
the
emergence
of
a
new
form
of
childhood
resultant
from
that
new
form
of
war.
Watters
was
also
stuck
by
the
diversity
of
methodologies
represented,
and
by
the
frequent
synthesis
of
qualitative
and
quantitative
data.
Much
of
the
research
struck
Watters
as
research
that
can
bring
about
change,
that
matters
and
that
is
contextualized
in
reality.
Conference
Report
Omohundro
Institute
for
Early
American
History
15th
Annual
Conference
June,
2009,
Salt
Lake
City,
Utah
Rebecca
de
Schweinitz,
Brigham
Young
University
In
June,
the
Omohundro
Institute
for
Early
American
History
15th
Annual
Conference,
held
in
Salt
Lake
City,
Utah,
included
a
panel
entitled:
Testing
the
Boundaries:
Youth
and
Authority
in
Early
America.
In
her
paper,
“’To
Venture
a
Little
Further:’
Freedom,
Danger,
and
Young
Female
Pedestrians
in
the
Eighteenth‐Century
City,
Katherine
Gray
drew
on
the
dairies
of
elite,
white,
young
women
in
Philadelphia
to
argue
that
young
women
used
city
streets
to
both
challenge
(to
some
degree)
and
reinforce
their
class
and
gender
identity.
They
may
have
even,
she
suggests,
used
their
walks
about
town
to
assert
autonomy
and
define
themselves
as
individuals.
SHCY
member
Caroline
Cox’s
paper,
“Boy
Soldiers:
Citizenship
and
Patriarchy
in
the
American
Revolution,”
used
the
stories
of
Revolutionary
War
boy
soldiers
to
suggest
that
military
service
in
this
period
did
not,
as
others
have
argued,
necessarily
correspond
with
increasing
independence.
Neither
did
it
fit
neatly
with
an
earlier
history
of
military
service
by
boys
under
the
age
of
sixteen.
Military
service
became
more
common,
she
argues,
for
a
number
of
reasons—including
the
increasing
familiarity
of
military
service
as
the
war
progressed,
family
networks,
short
service
options,
and
rising
bounty
payments.
Cox’s
paper
reminds
scholars
to
consider
boy
soldiers
on
their
own
terms;
and
it
turns
out
that
the
boys
themselves
stress
their
dependent
status
rather
than
their
independence.
And
in
the
last
paper,
“Working
Children
and
their
Parents
in
Rural
New
England,”
Gloria
Main
traced
broad
demographic,
economic,
and
social
changes—showing
that
a
peculiar
set
of
circumstances
led
southern
New
England
to
build
a
market‐capitalist
industrial
economy
as
reliant
on
child
labor
as
colonial‐era
farming
families
had
been.
In
some
34
places
children
made
up
71%
of
the
labor
force
and
contributed
53%
of
a
families’
wages
.
.
.
but
with
the
big
difference
that
the
young
people
who
worked
in
the
region’s
new
factories
had
few
opportunities
(because
of
a
limited
tax
base
for
schools
and
dead‐end,
unskilled
jobs)
to
better
their
lot
in
life.
Conference
Report
Expanding
Literacy
Studies:
An
International,
Interdisciplinary
Conference
for
Graduate
Students
The
Ohio
State
University,
April
3‐5,
2009
Shawn
Casey,
Ohio
State
University
The
Expanding
Literacy
Studies
conference
drew
nearly
250
participants
from
over
66
institutions
and
6
international
sites
to
the
Ohio
State
University
in
April.
The
interdisciplinary
conference
featured
research
on
literacy,
children
and
youth
in
presentations
by
graduate
students
in
departments
as
diverse
as
Art
History,
English,
Teaching
and
Learning,
Near
Eastern
Languages
and
Cultures,
Design,
Library
Science,
and
New
Media
Studies.
The
wide
range
of
participants
and
interests
evident
in
the
program
reflected
the
conference's
aim:
To
expand
the
conversation
about
literacy's
disciplinary
boundaries
and
to
create
a
space
where
graduate
students
share
research
and
insight
into
all
aspects
of
literacy.
The
theme
of
"expanding"
literacy
studies
also
posited
an
implicit
critical
question—how
can
the
multiplying
approaches
to
literacy
studies
be
brought
together
to
generate
a
framework
for
critical
investigation?
This
theme
was
reflected
in
the
range
of
methodologies
and
disciplines
exploring
the
literacy
practices
and
experiences
of
children
and
youth
at
the
conference.
For
instance,
one
panel
entitled
"Youth
Literacy
&
Global/Social
Change"
explored
connections
between
media
literacy,
student
activism,
and
literacy
ideologies
among
recent
high
school
graduates.
In
another
session,
“Classroom
Literacies”,
Allison
Volz
of
the
Ohio
State
University
School
of
Teaching
and
Learning
presented
a
video
created
in
collaboration
with
former
students.
The
video
addressed
race
and
the
implication
for
teaching
practices
of
differences
between
home
and
school‐based
literacies.
In
addition
to
panels
and
presentations,
the
conference
featured
several
dissertation
workshops
where
graduate
students
shared
dissertation
chapters
for
peer
response.
Topics
addressed
included
intergenerational
educational
literacies,
students’
experiences
with
writing
assessment,
and
literacy
skill
building
with
videoconferencing
in
kindergarten.
Dissertation
workshops
were
followed
by
participatory
roundtable
sessions
designed
to
fulfill
the
conference
directive
to
“extend
the
dialogue”
of
literacy
studies
across
disciplines.
Roundtables
included
a
demonstration
of
“drama
as
pedagogy”
and
a
discussion
of
religion
in
the
writing
classroom.
The
conference
closed
with
interactive
workshops
that
allowed
participants
to
interact
with
one
another
while
exploring
new
technologies
for
literacy
learning,
new
approaches
to
studying
literacy
in
35
the
classroom,
and
an
arts‐based
approach
to
imagining
the
“Field
and
Future
of
Literacy
Studies”
with
participatory
design
pioneer
Liz
Sanders.
The
keynote
panels,
consisting
of
three
graduate
students
and
a
noted
scholar
in
the
field,
connected
new
research
in
literacy
studies
to
work
by
leading
scholars
Harvey
J.
Graff
and
Shirley
Brice
Heath.
Patrick
Berry
(University
of
Illinois
at
Urbana‐Champaign)
spoke
as
part
of
Harvey
J.
Graff's
Keynote
Panel
celebrating
the
30th
anniversary
of
Graff's
The
Literacy
Myth.
Berry
presented
research
on
the
literacy
narratives
of
educators.
He
suggested
that
teachers’
memoirs
reveal
the
tension
between
personal
investment
in
literacy
“myths”
and
the
possibility
of
forming
critical
approaches
to
literacy
in
education.
Maria
Bibbs
(University
of
Wisconsin
at
Madison)
explored
the
origins
of
the
African
American
literacy
myth.
And
David
Olafsson
(University
of
St.
Andrews,
Scotland)
analyzed
the
function
of
post‐print
scribal
culture
in
the
context
of
some
of
the
legacies
and
myths
of
literacy.
The
keynote
panel
with
Shirley
Brice
Heath
featured
three
students
working
in
the
tradition
of
sociolinguistics
and
anthropology
and
focused
on
questions
of
“Youth,
Language,
and
Literacy”.
Heather
Loyd
(University
of
California,
Los
Angeles)
presented
on
the
role
of
cultural
literacy
skills
in
the
construction
and
decoding
of
collaborative
“moral
worlds”
among
children
in
Naples,
Italy.
Enid
Rosario‐Ramos
(Northwestern
University)
explored
intersections
between
critical
literacy
and
community
among
young
people
attending
a
Puerto
Rican
Alternative
School.
And
Darin
Bradley
Stockdill
(University
of
Michigan)
presented
research
designed
to
engage
the
purposeful
literate
practices
of
youth
outside
of
school
in
social
studies
learning.
For
more
details
on
the
conference,
including
the
full
program,
visit
the
conference
web
site,
www.literacystudies.osu.edu/conference.
The
site
features
an
audio
archive
of
the
keynote
presentations.
Conference
Report
Organization
of
American
Historians
Annual
Meeting,
“History
Without
Boundaries”
Seattle,
Washington,
March
2009
Leslie
Paris,
University
of
British
Columbia
The
Organization
of
American
Historians’
annual
meeting
took
place
in
Seattle
this
past
spring.
I
organized
and
presented
on
a
panel
about
1970s
childhood,
and
I
was
able
to
attend
two
other
youth‐related
panels.
Miriam
Forman‐Brunell,
Ilana
Nash,
Mary
McMurray,
and
Kelly
Schrum
led
a
panel
concerning
the
website
which
they
(and
various
other
contributors)
are
collaborately
developing,
Children
and
Youth
in
History.
The
site
(http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/)
provides
a
range
of
sources
and
strategies
for
incorporating
the
history
of
childhood
36
into
K‐12
and
university
teaching,
whether
by
supplementing
a
survey
class
with
primary
childhood
texts
or
by
introducing
a
new
course
specifically
on
children.
Already
the
site
offers
reviews
of
other
websites
whose
primary
sources
are
useful
for
scholarship
on
children;
annotated
primary
sources;
and
various
case
studies
that
model
strategies
for
using
primary
sources
to
teach
childhood
and
youth.
Near
the
end
of
the
session
we
broke
into
small
groups
to
discuss
a
few
primary
documents
(such
as
an
ancient
Egyptian
sock),
to
consider
the
process
of
creating
useful
documentation,
and
to
help
guide
the
website’s
further
development.
The
1970s
childhood
panel
included
three
papers.
Mine
explored
the
“child‐free”
movement
of
the
period,
at
once
a
sign
of
adult
liberation
ideals,
demographic
change,
and
political
activism.
Joe
Austin
suggested
that
black
adolescents
in
American
central
cities
often
appeared
in
news
reporting
in
the
more
loaded
guise
of
“youth.”
Karen
Ferguson
examined
the
Ford
Foundation’s
efforts
to
steer
the
course
of
racial
liberalism
through
its
endorsement
of
“affective”
educational
philosophy
in
the
1970s.
We
appreciated
William
Graebner’s
insightful
comments
afterwards.
Finally,
I
attended
a
“State
of
the
Field”
panel
on
School
Desegregation
and
White
Flight,
with
Tracy
K’Meyer,
Kevin
Kruse,
Thomas
Sugrue,
and
Brett
Gadsden.
These
papers
explored
a
historiography
that
has
essentially
judged
the
Supreme
Court’s
1956
Brown
v.
Board
of
Ed.
decision
to
have
failed
as
a
civil
rights
measure.
The
panelists
emphasized
the
differences
between
desegregation
and
integration,
explored
the
range
of
oppposition
to
Brown,
and
suggested
some
of
the
ways
that
schools
that
were
officially
desegregated
often
remained
internally
segregated
along
racial
lines.
In
thinking
about
these
three
panels
collectively,
I
found
it
striking
how
differently
they
spoke
to
the
field
of
children’s
history
and
to
their
somewhat
different
audiences.
At
the
first
panel,
I
noted
a
good
number
of
elementary
and
secondary
teachers
in
the
audience,
as
well
as
scholars
working
at
post‐secondary
institutions.
This
panel’s
papers
were
practical
in
emphasis;
those
who
stayed
for
the
small
group
discussions
seemed
committed
to
introducing
innovative
pedagogy
in
their
classrooms.
My
own
panel
drew
scholars
in
children’s
history
but
also
scholars
of
the
1970s
more
broadly,
many
of
whose
current
projects
have
nothing
to
do
with
youth.
The
last
panel
was
the
least
youth‐focused
in
terms
of
its
audience
and
its
panelists;
here
the
emphasis
was
on
adult
activism
and
policy,
rather
than
the
efforts
of
children
and
youth
to
desegregate
or
resegregate
their
schools.
Together,
these
three
panels
suggest
the
diversity
of
ways
in
which
childhood
and
youth
matter
to
American
historical
research
and
teaching.
37
Conference
Report
The
Political
Child:
Children,
Education
and
the
State
15‐16
May
2009,
University
of
Helsinki
Karen
Stanbridge,
Memorial
University
of
Newfoundland,
Canada
The
University
of
Helsinki,
Finland,
was
host
to
a
seminar
highlighting
research
exploring
the
intersection
of
children
and
childhood
with
the
political.
The
purpose
of
the
seminar
was
to
bring
together
historians,
historically
oriented
social
scientists
and
educators,
and
cultural
scholars
working
in
the
field
of
childhood
research
to
probe
the
various
ways
in
which
children
and
childhood
are
and
have
been
affected
by
political
processes
and
structures.
The
seminar
attracted
26
researchers
from
10
countries,
all
keen
to
discuss
their
research
and
create
connections
with
like‐minded
scholars.
The
synergies
emerging
from
our
meetings
confirmed
the
vitality
and
potential
of
this
area
of
childhood
studies.
The
seminar
began
on
15
May
with
a
welcome
to
participants
from
Marjatta
Rahikainen,
Professor
with
the
Department
of
Social
Science
History,
University
of
Helsinki,
and
principal
organizer
(with
Saara
Tuomaala)
of
the
seminar.
The
afternoon
proceeded
with
several
public
lectures
delivered
by
international
scholars,
including
noted
childhood
historian,
Colin
Heywood
(School
of
History,
University
of
Nottingham).
Karen
Stanbridge
of
Memorial
University
of
Newfoundland,
Canada
(and
co‐organizer
of
the
seminar)
spoke
on
the
neglect
of
theories
of
nationalism
to
elaborate
on
childhood
in
her
talk
Do
Nationalists
Have
Navels?
Where
is
Childhood
in
Mainstream
Nationalism
Theory?
Susanna
Hedenborg
Malmö
University
College,
Sweden)
discussed
the
political
and
historical
foundations
of
the
recent
growth
in
popularity
of
horse
riding
and
stable
work
among
girls
in
Sweden
in
her
lecture,
Children,
Sports,
Politics
and
Stable
Work
in
Late
Twentieth‐Century
Sweden.
Jane
Gray
(National
University
of
Ireland
at
Maynooth)
elaborated
on
her
research
that
reveals
state
education
in
the
Irish
Republic
to
be
as
much
a
class
project
as
a
nationalist
project
in
Lived
Experience,
Changing
Childhood
and
State
Formation
in
Twentieth‐Century
Ireland.
Colin
Heywood
pondered
the
changing
relationship
between
childhood
and
the
political
over
la
longue
dureé
in
his
address,
Battles
for
the
Mind:
The
History
of
Children
in
Politics.
The
lectures
were
followed
by
discussion
and
audience
response
with
a
panel
comprised
of
the
speakers
chaired
by
Saara
Tuomaala
of
the
History
Department
of
the
University
of
Helsinki.
Participants
then
retired
to
an
informal
(and
rather
lively!)
gathering
and
reception
for
seminar
participants
hosted
by
the
Department
of
Social
Science
History,
University
of
Helsinki.
Seminar
participants
set
to
work
early
(9:30
am)
the
morning
of
16
May
discussing
the
18
papers
submitted
for
the
workshop
portion
of
the
meetings.
Although
the
papers
were
mindful
of
the
main
themes
of
the
seminar
–
history,
education,
the
state
–
they
comprised
a
wide
range
of
topics,
from
theoretical
explorations
(an
analysis
of
Rousseau’s
Emile
in
the
context
of
the
philosopher’s
other
writings,
for
example)
to
38
policy
analyses
(how
state
policies
toward
children
in
Portugal
were
shaped
by
successive
regimes
in
that
country),
from
micro
investigations
(of
narratives
produced
by
a
classroom
of
children
soon
after
the
Finnish
Civil
War
of
1918)
to
more
macro
and
longitudinal
perspectives
(a
comparison
of
political
representations
of
children
during
Swedish
elections
in
the
1950s,
1980s
and
2000s).
The
breadth
of
interests
and
the
scholarship
and
creativity
evident
in
the
contributions
of
seminar
participants
bodes
well
for
the
future
of
“the
political
child.”
The
seminar
wrapped
up
with
a
relaxed
evening
of
wine,
food,
and
conversation
hosted
by
organizer
Marjatta
Rahikainen
–
a
lovely
end
to
an
absorbing
and
productive
conference.
For
a
complete
list
of
seminar
participants
and
titles,
please
contact
Karen
Stanbridge,
Department
of
Sociology,
Memorial
University
of
Newfoundland,
Canada,
at
kstanbri@mun.ca.
Conference
Report
Breaking
the
Boundaries:
A
Peer
Reviewed
Research
Conference
on
Radical
Children's
Literature
April
25,
2009,
University
of
British
Columbia
Megan
Lankford,
University
of
British
Columbia
This
one‐day
interdisciplinary
conference
brought
together
the
Department
of
Language
and
Literacy
Education,
the
School
of
Library,
Archival
and
Information
Studies,
the
Department
of
English,
the
Creative
Writing
Program
at
the
University
of
British
Columbia
and
the
Vancouver
Children's
Literature
Roundtable
to
create
a
comprehensive
exploration
of
children's
literature.
It
attracted
sixty‐five
participants.
The
conference
program
included
two
keynote
speakers,
concurrent
panel
sessions,
and
a
Creative
Writing
poster
session.
Over
the
four
simultaneous
panel
sessions,
the
participants
were
able
to
hear
twelve
papers
presented
by
both
current
students
and
alumni.
All
papers
focused
on
some
aspect
of
radical
children’s
literature
ranging
from
unconventional
research
in
the
field
to
revolutionary
narrative
conventions
in
popular
works
to
the
role
of
cultural
authenticity
in
multicultural
children’s
literature.
Topics
ranged
from
Bryannie
Kirk’s
paper
“Death
as
a
Narrator:
Markus
Zusak’s
The
Book
Thief”
to
Karen
Taylor’s
paper
“The
Representation
of
Nature
in
Vampire
Romance
for
Young
Adult
Readers:
An
Ecocritical
Exploration
of
Stephenie
Meyer’s
Twilight.”
The
first
keynote
speaker,
Dr.
Gisele
Baxter,
began
the
day
with
an
intriguing
discussion
of
the
nature
of
children’s
literature
and
more
specifically
the
inherent
problems
in
teen
fiction.
In
addition
to
teaching
Children’s
Literature
in
the
English
Department
at
UBC,
Dr.
Baxter
focuses
her
research
around
the
representations
of
near‐future
dystopias
in
literature,
the
production
and
reception
of
popular
culture,
and
the
gothic
inheritance
in
literature
and
popular
culture.
The
afternoon
session
opened
with
a
keynote
presentation
by
Dr.
Eliza
Dresang
of
the
University
of
Washington.
Recently
appointed
39
the
Beverly
Cleary
Professor
in
Children
and
Youth
Services
at
UW,
Dr.
Dresang
focused
her
presentation
on
her
theory
of
Radical
Change
which
she
explores
in
her
book,
“Radical
Change:
Books
for
Youth
in
a
Digital
Age”
(1999).
In
this
work,
Dr.
Dresang
examines
books
that
challenge
conventional
narrative
forms
while
also
creating
new
spaces
for
revolutionary
literature
for
children.
Conference
Report
Models
of
Childhood
and
their
Cultural
Consequences,
University
of
Sheffield,
United
Kingdom,
June
15,
2009
Afua
Twum‐Danso,
University
of
Sheffield
Introduction
Although
the
concept
of
childhood
as
a
social
construction
is
now
a
familiar
concept
within
the
social
sciences,
the
cultural
consequences
of
various
social
constructions
remain
an
area
that
has
not
been
sufficiently
explored.
Thus,
on
15th
June
2009,
the
Centre
for
the
Study
of
Childhood
and
Youth
(CSCY)
at
the
University
of
Sheffield
(UK)
organized
a
one‐day
international
workshop,
which
aimed
to
explore
the
practical
consequences
of
different
models
of
childhood
for
children
themselves.
To
achieve
these
aims
the
workshop
focused
on
three
contrasting
cultural
contexts
–
Norway,
England
and
Wales
and
Ghana‐
and
addressed
a
range
of
issues
such
as
responsibility,
competence,
participation
and
protection.
Professor
Allison
James,
the
director
of
CSCY,
chaired
the
workshop,
and
presentations
were
delivered
by
Dr.
Anne‐Trine
Kjǿrholt
(Norwegian
University
of
Science
and
Technology,
Norway),
Professor
Nigel
Thomas
(the
University
of
Central
Lancashire,
UK)
and
Dr.
Afua
Twum‐Danso
(the
University
of
Sheffield,
UK).
Childhood
in
Scandinavia
As
many
childhood
researchers
believe
Scandinavia
is
an
ideal
model
of
childhood
due
to
its
focus
on
‘children
as
being’,
not
as
‘becoming’,
Anne‐Trine
Kjǿrholt
kicked
off
the
presentations
section
of
the
day.
While
talking
broadly
of
Scandinavia,
most
of
the
case
studies
she
mentioned
focused
on
Norway,
which
is
predominately
a
rural
country
‐
an
important
fact
when
considering
how
childhood
is
perceived
within
this
context.
Having
said
this,
she
made
a
point
to
stress
early
on
in
her
presentation
that
there
is
not
one
model
of
childhood;
instead
there
are
several
ways
of
constituting
a
good
childhood
in
Norway
and
in
Scandinavia
more
generally.
Another
key
point
raised
in
this
presentation
was
that
as
Scandinavia
has
become
known
for
the
strong
emphasis
it
places
on
children’s
rights,
there
has
emerged
a
dynamic
connection
between
the
model
of
childhood
and
the
way
children’s
rights
are
interpreted.
This
can
partly
be
attributed
to
the
political
environment
in
Norway,
which
is
a
social
democracy
where
everyone
is
seen
as
being
equal
–
hence
the
recognition
of
children
as
already
‘being’,
rather
than
as
‘becoming’.
Thus,
this
illustrates
how
local
cultural
models
of
childhood
influence
how
rights
for
this
group
are
interpreted.
40
To
demonstrate
how
the
emphasis
on
children’s
rights
has
influenced
the
perception
of
children
in
Norway,
Kjǿrholt
put
forward
two
case
studies.
The
first
focused
on
a
project
that
was
undertaken
in
the
early
1990s,
which
sought
to
highlight
children’s
own
culture
and
demonstrate
the
ways
in
which
children
are
different
from
adults
while
at
the
same
time
highlighting
that
children
are
rights
claimers
in
the
same
way
adults
are.
The
second
case
study
was
a
project,
which
focused
on
children
as
fellow
citizens
in
a
kindergarten.
Within
this
sphere
of
their
lives,
children
were
given
the
freedom
to
do
what
they
wanted
when
they
wanted.
This
meant
that
children
were
allowed
to
decide
when
they
were
ready
to
change
their
nappies
and
inform
adults.
Children
were
also
able
to
eat
when
they
were
hungry
rather
than
being
made
to
eat
at
specific
times
of
the
day.
Since
2005
the
idea
of
children
as
participants
has
become
dominant
in
various
spheres.
The
Kindergarten
Act,
for
example,
stipulates
that
children’s
views
should
be
sought
in
the
way
kindergartens
are
constructed.
Thus,
children
are
often
consulted
in
the
design
of
their
kindergartens.
As
children
are
seen
as
responsible
for
their
own
learning,
many
kindergartens
hold
children’s
meetings
everyday
to
find
out
which
group
children
want
to
participate
in
for
that
day.
Therefore,
freedom
and
self‐determination
have
become
overarching
moral
values
in
the
current
discourse
on
childhood
in
Norway
and
Scandinavia
more
generally.
However,
in
concluding
her
presentation,
Kjǿrholt
argued
that
things
are
changing
somewhat.
An
example
she
offered
to
highlight
this
point
was
the
fact
that
many
early
childhood
education
institutions
are
moving
from
a
play‐oriented
curriculum
to
a
more
subject‐oriented
one.
Whereas
previously
the
emphasis
had
been
on
free
play
and
children
being
responsible
for
their
own
learning,
there
is
now
an
increasing
focus
on
more
constructed
learning
for
children.
Thus,
currently
we
are
witnessing
significant
change
as
well
as
continuity
in
the
discourse
on
childhood
in
Scandinavia.
Childhood
in
England
and
Wales
The
second
presentation,
delivered
by
Nigel
Thomas,
also
sought
to
stress
that
although
there
is
a
tendency
to
focus
on
the
dominant
discourse
on
childhood,
what
is
dominant
is
not
dominant
in
all
places.
Hence,
it
is
not
possible
to
talk
of
one
model
of
childhood.
Instead,
there
are
competing
discourses
on
childhood.
For
example,
the
various
discourses
in
England
and
Wales
tend
to
focus
on
children
as
either
angels
or
devils,
further
emphasing
the
fact
that
there
is
not
one
model
of
childhood.
Furthermore,
models
and
discourses
on
childhood
are
influenced
by
variables
such
as
culture
and
class,
which
means
that
society
perceives
children
of
the
underclass
very
differently
from
those
from
more
affluent
families.
Having
established
the
diversity
in
models
of
childhood,
Thomas
went
on
to
focus
the
remainder
of
his
presentation
on
the
key
themes
identified
for
the
workshop
–
participation,
responsibility
and
protection.
With
regards
to
children’s
participation,
he
argued
that
although
there
has
emerged
a
discourse
that
children
are
competent
beings
41
who
can
engage
in
dialogue,
which
has
led
to
a
growth
in
participatory
activities
in
recent
years,
children’s
opportunities
for
decision‐making
are
highly
variable.
At
home
many
children
have
a
significant
number
of
opportunities,
but
within
their
local
communities
they
have
very
few.
Within
the
school
environment
in
particular,
children
are
viewed
as
objects
and,
therefore,
they
have
very
little
autonomy
in
schools
except
at
break
time.
In
more
public
spaces,
children
and
young
people
are
seen
as
a
threat
and
thus
they
have
very
few
opportunities
to
organize
themselves
into
groups.
This
can
partly
be
attributed
to
the
feeling
that
children
should
not
be
seen
outside
the
home,
school
or
some
other
institution.
The
participatory
activities
that
have
been
initiated
in
other
spheres
of
children’s
lives
have
been
mainly
initiated
by
adults
and
are
often
very
divorced
from
children’s
daily
lives.
In
addition
many
of
these
activities
are
about
young
people
rather
than
children
per
se.
With
regards
to
responsibility,
Thomas
argued
that
children
benefit
from
low
levels
of
trust
and
high
levels
of
accountability.
Hence,
it
is
seen
as
inappropriate
when
children
are
left
to
their
own
devices.
In
addition,
children
are
not
seen
as
having
duties
–
not
in
terms
of
having
duties
to
their
families
–
but
they
are
seen
as
having
a
duty
to
work
hard
at
school.
In
relation
to
competence,
children
are,
on
the
whole,
seen
as
incompetent
because
they
do
not
have
sufficient
knowledge
to
contribute
to
the
world.
As
a
result,
they
need
close
supervision,
which
also
has
an
impact
on
the
low
levels
of
responsibility
granted
to
children.
In
terms
of
protection,
Thomas
suggested
that
children
in
England
and
Wales
are
well
protected.
Child
deaths
are
relatively
few.
Legally,
children
can
be
beaten
only
by
their
parents
who
are
restricted
in
various
ways
in
their
punishment
of
their
children.
Children
are
not
allowed
to
go
anywhere
without
adult
supervision,
which
makes
it
harder
to
organize
participation
in
any
formal
way.
This
may
partly
be
the
reason
why
many
participatory
activities
focus
on
young
people
instead
of
children.
There
is
also
increasing
prohibition
on
touching,
which
impedes
the
relationship
between
adults
and
children
and
also
prevents
children
receiving
comfort
from
adults
when
they
need
it.
Thus,
to
conclude
Thomas
suggested
that
England
and
Wales
are
increasingly
becoming
societies
where
children
are
heard
and
not
seen
and
certainly
not
touched,
which
has
implications
for
the
realization
of
their
rights.
Childhood
in
Ghana
Afua
Twum‐Danso
ended
the
morning
session
with
her
presentation
on
the
construction
of
childhood
in
Ghana
and
the
implications
of
this
construction
on
the
way
childhood
competence
is
perceived.
By
focusing
on
children’s
responsibilities
within
their
families
and
communities
and
the
lack
of
opportunities
for
participation
in
decision‐making
within
these
spheres,
she
argued
that
while
children
are
perceived
as
sufficiently
competent
to
engage
in
labour,
they
are
not
competent
to
participate
in
other
areas
of
family
or
community
life
such
as
decision‐making.
This
attitude
was
summed
up
by
a
participant
in
one
of
the
focus
group
discussions
she
organised
during
her
PhD
fieldwork
in
Ghana
who
said:
”Children
are
born
to
work,
not
participate
in
decision‐making.”
As
a
42
result
of
this
attitude,
children
assist
their
parents
in
all
tasks
that
will
be
expected
of
them
as
adults
–
be
they
in
the
household,
on
the
farm
or
at
sea.
Children
themselves
identified
their
responsibilities
as
running
errands
for
parents
and
other
adults,
contributing
to
the
maintenance
of
the
household
by
sweeping
the
compound
and
its
interior,
washing
utensils,
helping
mother
to
cook,
looking
after
younger
siblings.
Although
these
activities
demonstrate
that
children
are
competent
to
engage
in
various
types
of
labour,
Twum‐Danso
argued
that
they
are
not
perceived
as
being
competent
enough
to
participate
in
other
areas
of
family
life
such
as
decision‐making
and
expressing
their
opinions
even
on
issues
affecting
them.
In
fact,
those
children
who
do
express
their
views
or
show
signs
of
assertiveness
are
often
seen
as
social
deviants,
disrespectful
and
hence
are
punished.
Many
children
also
felt
that
they
did
not
need
to
participate
in
decision‐making
and
some
also
expressed
their
disapproval
of
those
children
who
are
able
to
express
their
views
as
it
is
thought
they
are
spoilt
and
hence,
are
not
trained
properly
in
the
values
of
society.
To
understand
this
double
standard
relating
to
children’s
competence,
Twum‐Danso
argued
that
we
must
explore
the
various
ways
childhood
is
constructed
and
defined
in
this
cultural
context.
During
her
research
in
Ghana
she
identified
five
components
of
the
childhood
and
child‐rearing
process,
which
limit
children’s
participation
in
decision‐
making,
but
facilitate
the
concept
of
children’s
duties
towards
their
families
and
communities.
These
included
dependency,
’having
sense’,
obedience
and
respect.
By
focusing
on
these
factors
Twum‐Danso
was
able
to
show
that
in
the
construction
of
childhood
within
this
context,
emphasis
is
placed
on
children’s
duties
and
responsibilities
while
their
potential
contributions
to
other
areas
of
family
and
community
life
are
overlooked
or
dismissed.
Therefore,
in
her
conclusion,
Twum‐Danso
stated
that
childhood
is
perceived
as
a
period
of
incompetence,
if
not
in
terms
of
children’s
ability
to
work
and
contribute
to
the
functions
of
the
household,
then
at
least
in
terms
of
children
being
seen
as
immature,
lacking
sense,
and
not
having
anything
valuable
to
contribute
to
their
families
and
communities.
This
perception
of
children
has
consequences
for
the
realisation
of
their
rights
within
this
cultural
context..
Creating
a
Space
for
Participants’
Reflection
and
Dialogue
The
afternoon
session
was
structured
to
enable
all
participants
to
reflect
and
engage
in
dialogue
on
the
issues
raised
in
the
presentations
of
the
morning
session.
To
this
end,
participants
were
divided
into
three
groups,
each
charged
with
examining
one
of
the
key
focus
themes–
responsibility/competence,
participation
and
protection.
Each
group
was
then
expected
to
present
the
key
points
raised
during
their
discussions
in
the
plenary
session.
When
giving
feedback
to
the
plenary,
the
group
which
focused
on
protection,
highlighted
the
following
points.
Drawing
largely
on
the
UK
context,
they
suggested
that
professionals
are
increasingly
taking
away
parental
rights.
The
parent‐child
relationship
has
now
become
about
parents,
children
and
also
professionals
rather
than
just
about
parents
and
children.
Part
of
the
reason
for
this
is
the
fact
that
children
are
43
often
constructed
as
victims,
which
reinforces
the
emphasis
on
protectionism.
Instead,
this
group
suggested
that
if
children
were
seen
more
as
participants,
child
victims
might
be
able
to
help
protect
themselves.
Another
issue
that
emerged
in
this
group
was
the
idea
that
children
are
often
given
the
freedom
to
choose
as
long
as
they
make
the
"right"
choice.
Therefore,
children’s
participation
and
agency
is
often
constrained,
reinforcing
the
importance
of
structure
in
the
discourse
on
childhood.
In
their
feedback
to
the
plenary,
the
participation
group,
noted
that
there
was
a
danger
of
dichotomising
participation.
This
is
because
there
is
not
one
type
of
participation
and
what
participation
is
often
depends
on
context.
Key
questions
they
asked
were:
what
is
participation
for?
What
types
of
participation
exist?
Whose
agenda
dominates
in
participatory
initiatives?
What
impact
do
children
have
when
they
participate?
And
how
can
we
make
participation
more
representative
and
more
meaningful?
The
final
group
which
had
explored
two
concepts
in
tandem
‐
responsibility
and
competence
‐
stressed
the
following
points
during
their
feedback
to
the
plenary.
Children
have
to
take
on
responsibility,
but
adults
have
to
yield
that
responsibility.
With
regard
to
competence
this
group
felt
that
there
are
different
types
of
competence
and
how
a
particular
competency
is
privileged
depends
on
the
cultural
context.
This
group
also
put
forward
a
number
of
points
about
participation.
They
argued
that
it
is
critical
for
us
to
foreground
context
as
participation
is
different
in
different
contexts
–
an
obvious
but
often
overlooked
point.
Thus,
the
key
question
for
us
to
explore
is:
how
can
we
take
into
account
different
contexts
in
our
theorising
of
participation?
After
these
group
presentations,
a
wider
group
discussion
followed
in
which
a
number
of
participants
expressed
the
view
that
we
need
a
more
holistic
approach
to
researching
childhood.
In
particular,
it
was
felt
that
we
need
to
place
childhood
in
a
broader
context
as
we
cannot
transport
models
of
childhood
from
one
context
to
another.
Context
is
key
as
the
models
of
childhood
presented
in
the
three
case
studies
existed/emerged
because
of
the
particularities
of
their
political,
social
and
cultural
contexts.
In
addition,
relationality
was
also
seen
as
important
for
understanding
models
of
childhood
as
they
can
only
be
understood
if
we
understand
the
models
of
adulthood
that
exist
in
any
particular
context.
Finally,
with
regard
to
participation,
it
was
felt
that
there
is
a
need
to
explore
very
different
notions
of
participation
and
expand
it
beyond
just
’having
a
say’.
The
day
concluded
with
all
participants
agreeing
that
they
would
welcome
another
day
to
explore
these
issues
in
greater
depth
through
presentations,
as
well
as
dialogue,
amongst
participants.
For
more
details
about
this
workshop
or
any
future
workshops
at
the
Centre
for
the
Study
of
Childhood
and
Youth
please
visit
the
following
website:
www.sheffield.ac.uk/cscy
44
News
from
the
Field
Member
News
and
News
from
the
Field
compiled
by
Nancy
Zey
(Sam
Houston
State
University)
Member
News:
Mary
Niall
("Molly")
Mitchell
(University
of
New
Orleans)
was
on
an
episode
of
“History
Detectives”
talking
about
The
Couvent
school
for
free
children
of
color
in
New
Orleans
in
the
19th
century,
and
a
manuscript
that
was
probably
a
student
copy
book
written
by
one
of
the
pupils.
The
segment
was
entitled
"Creole
Poems"
and
can
be
viewed
online:
http://video.pbs.org/video/1162509522/program/1138014438
Nathalie
op
de
Beeck
has
recently
started
a
new
position
as
Associate
Professor
of
English
at
Pacific
Lutheran
University.
“I'm
going
to
be
directing
the
program
in
children's
literature
and
childhood
studies,
which
we
are
in
the
process
of
naming
and
turning
into
a
minor
for
undergraduates.
There
will
be
a
strong
cultural
studies
and
history
component
to
the
minor,
and
I
will
let
you
know
more
information
once
I
have
the
program
up
and
running
this
fall.”
This
fall,
Amanda
H.
Littauer
is
starting
a
new
position
as
an
Assistant
Professor
of
Women's
Studies
and
History
at
Northern
Illinois
University.
She
will
teach
historical
and
interdisciplinary
courses
on
girls
and
girlhoods.
Gail
S.
Murray
(Rhodes
College)
is
trying
something
new
with
her
History
of
Childhood
in
America
class
this
fall.
“The
child
developmental
psych.
prof
and
I
required
co‐
enrollment
in
our
2
courses,
which
will
meet
back‐to‐back
in
the
same
classroom.
We
are
not
team‐teaching,
but
we
are
co‐supervising
an
experiential
learning
project
in
the
community.
Students
will
work
with
children
in
the
children’s
program
at
a
local
community
health
center
to
gather
family
stories
w/
photos
and
make
a
short
family
history
book.
We
two
instructors
have
selected
readings
for
our
separate
courses
that
we
hope
will
have
the
most
resonance
with
the
other
course.
I’d
like
to
end
with
William
Koop’s
essay
challenging
the
static
view
of
developmental
psychology!
I’ll
be
using
_Huck’s
Raft_
as
my
text,
Jabbour’s
_Major
Problems
in
the
History
of
American
Families
and
Children_
for
short
essays
and
documents,
Cahn’s
_Sexual
Reckonings_
,
Shor’s
_Born
to
Buy_,
and
Kozol’s
_Shame
of
the
Nation_
and
other
assorted
essays.”
E.
Wayne
Carp
(Pacific
Lutheran
University)
has
been
appointed
to
the
editorial
boards
of
Adoption
Quarterly
and
Adoption
&
Culture.
Susan
J.
Pearson
(Northwestern
University)
has
won
the
Best
Article
Prize
from
SHCY
for
2007‐2008
for
her
article,
"Infantile
Specimens:
Showing
Babies
in
Nineteenth‐Century
America,"
which
appeared
in
the
December
2008
issue
of
the
Journal
of
Social
History.
45
Corrie
Decker
has
started
a
new
position
in
the
History
Department
at
University
of
California,
Davis.
Heidi
Morrison
has
finished
her
PhD
at
UC
Santa
Barbara
and
is
starting
a
position
in
September
as
an
Assistant
Professor
in
the
History
Department
at
the
University
of
Wisconsin
(La
Crosse).
She
specializes
in
children
and
childhood
in
the
modern
Middle
East
and
will
be
teaching
a
course
called
"The
Global
History
of
Childhood."
Congratulations
to
all
these
members!
Member
Introductions
Welcome
to
new
member
Frank
DiCataldo,
who
wishes
to
introduce
himself
to
the
society:
“I
am
an
assistant
professor
of
psychology
at
Roger
Williams
University
where
I
teach
the
History
of
Modern
Psychology
course
which
devotes
an
entire
section
to
the
history
of
various
psychological
discourses
on
child‐rearing
and
childhood.
My
research
interests
is
the
history
of
thought
about
juvenile
delinquency,
specifically,
the
juvenile
reform
school
movement.
I
am
currently
working
on
a
book
documenting
the
closing
of
the
juvenile
reform
schools
in
Massachusetts
in
the
early
1970s.
I
have
recently
released
a
book
at
NYU
Press
entitled
The
Perversion
of
Youth,
which
is
not
primarily
a
historical
work
but
does
have
a
few
chapters
devoted
to
the
history
of
thought
about
childhood
sexuality.
The
book
may
be
of
interest
to
some
members
who
are
interested
in
childhood
sexuality.
An
interesting
blog
that
some
members
might
find
interesting
is
Advances
in
the
History
of
Psychology.
It
is
sponsored
by
York
University
in
Toronto
Canada.
They
often
have
really
interesting
postings
on
the
blog
about
the
history
of
childhood.
For
instance,
just
yesterday
they
had
a
few
postings
about
a
series
of
articles
and
radio
webcasts
about
Harry
Harlow
and
his
research
on
attachment
in
rhesus
monkeys
and
its
effect
on
child‐rearing
practices
in
America.
Excellent
stuff.
Here
is
the
link:
http://ahp.apps01.yorku.ca/”
Susana
Sosenski
wishes
to
introduce
herself
and
point
members
to
her
website,
which
lists
her
articles.
She
studies
the
history
of
childhood
in
Mexico.
http://sosenski.wordpress.com/articulos/
Benjamin
Roberts
became
a
member
of
SCHY
this
year
and
says
that
he
“thoroughly
enjoyed”
the
Berkeley
conference.
He
is
affiliated
with
the
History
Department
at
the
Vrije
Universiteit
of
Amsterdam
(the
Netherlands).
A
historian
of
childhood
and
youth
in
the
early
modern
period,
he
earned
his
Ph.D
from
the
University
of
Groningen
(the
Netherlands)
on
the
dissertation
“Through
the
Keyhole.
Dutch
Child‐rearing
Practices
in
the
17th
and
18th
Century”
(Hilversum:
Verloren
Publishers,
1998),
and
is
currently
finishing
a
manuscript
entitled
“Becoming
a
Man.
Masculinity
and
Youth
Culture
in
the
Seventeenth
Century.”
He
has
published
in
various
journals
such
as
the
History
of
Family
History,
Journal
of
the
History
of
Sexuality,
and
Men
and
Masculinities.
For
more
information
see:
http://www.bbroberts.com
46
New
Books
by
Members
Hamilton
Cravens
(Iowa
State
University)
reports
two
new
publications.
ABC‐Clio
has
just
published
Great
Depression:
Peoples
and
Perspectives,
which
he
edited,
and
for
which
he
did
the
introduction
and
all
the
reference
material;
two
other
SHCY
members,
Kris
Lindenmeyer
and
Ben
Keppel,
contributed
chapters,
Kris
on
adolescents
in
the
30s,
and
Ben
on
what
it
was
like
to
be
an
African
American
social
scientist
then.
Then,
in
November,
Oregon
State
University
Press
is
publishing
Race
and
Science.
Scientific
Challenges
to
Racism
in
Modern
America,
Paul
L.
Farber
and
Hamilton
Cravens,
editors,
which
includes
an
introduction
by
Ham
as
well
as
an
essay
on
race
and
IQ.
Lynn
Sacco
(University
of
Tennessee,
Knoxville)
has
a
new
book
out:
Unspeakable:
Father‐Daughter
Incest
in
American
History.
Baltimore:
The
Johns
Hopkins
University
Press,
2009.
For
more
information,
please
go
to:
http://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/ecom/MasterServlet/GetItemDetailsHandler?iN=97808
01893001&qty=1&viewMode=3&loggedIN=false
.
Miriam
Forman‐Brunell
(University
of
Missouri‐Kansas
City)
has
a
book
just
published
by
New
York
University
Press:
Babysitter:
An
American
History.
Boris
Gorshko
(Auburn
University)
has
a
new
book
out:
Russia's
Factory
Children:
State,
Society,
and
Law,
1800‐1917
(University
of
Pittsburgh
Press,
2009).
Stefania
R.
Van
Dyke
announces
a
new
book
from
Left
Coast
Press
in
November
called
"Connecting
Kids
to
History
with
Museum
Exhibitions,"
edited
by
D.
Lynn
McRainey
and
John
Russick.
“While
its
focus
is
more
about
making
history
accessible
FOR
minors
rather
than
the
history
OF
minors,
it
still
may
be
instructive
and
interesting
for
your
purpose.
In
fact,
there
are
some
case
studies
of
history
exhibitions
that
use
historical
children
and
youth
to
tell
the
stories
the
exhibitions
are
conveying.
Here's
a
link
to
more
information:
http://www.lcoastpress.com/book.php?id=222.”
The
University
of
North
Carolina
Press
has
published
a
new
book
by
Wendy
Rouse
Jorae:
"The
Children
of
Chinatown:
Growing
Up
Chinese
American
in
San
Francisco,
1850‐1920."
Revealing
the
untold
stories
of
a
pioneer
generation
of
young
Chinese
Americans,
this
book
places
the
children
and
families
of
early
Chinatown
in
the
middle
of
efforts
to
combat
American
policies
of
exclusion
and
segregation.
Jorae
challenges
long‐held
notions
of
early
Chinatown
as
a
bachelor
community
by
showing
that
families‐‐and
particularly
children‐‐played
important
roles
in
its
daily
life.
More
information
is
available
at:
http://uncpress.unc.edu/browse/book_detail?title_id=1662
47
Articles
and
Book
Chapters
by
Members
E.
Wayne
Carp
(Pacific
Lutheran
University)
has
published
“How
Tight
Was
the
Seal?
A
Reappraisal
of
Adoption
Records
in
the
United
States,
England,
and
New
Zealand,
1851‐
1955,"
in
International
Advances
in
Adoption
Research
for
Practice,
edited
by
Elsbeth
Neil
and
Gretchen
Wrobel
(Chichester:
Wiley‐Blackwell,
2009).
Boris
Gorshko
(Auburn
University)
has
three
new
articles
and
book
chapters
out:
"Child
Labor
in
Imperial
Russia"
in
G.K.
Lieten
and
Elise
Nerveen
Meerkerk,
Child
Labour's
Global
Past
(Peter
Lang
Publishers,
2009);
"History
of
Child
Labor
in
Imperial
Russia"
in
Child
Labor
World
Atlas:
a
reference
Encyclopedia
(Hugh
D.
Hindman,
ed.
M.E.
Sharp:
New
York,
2009);
and
"Teaching
Modern
Russian
History
in
European
and
Global
Context"
in
NewsNet:
News
of
the
American
Association
for
the
advancement
of
Slavic
Studies,
vol.
49,
no.
2,
March
2009.
David
Macleod
(Central
Michigan
University)
has
a
chapter
in
a
new
edited
collection:
“Original
Intent:
Establishing
the
Creed
and
Control
of
Boy
Scouting
in
the
United
States”
in
Scouting
Frontiers:
Youth
and
the
Scout
Movement’s
First
Century,
ed.
Nelson
R.
Block
and
Tammy
M.
Proctor
(Newcastle
upon
Tyne,
U.K.:
Cambridge
Scholars
Publishing,
2009).
It
includes
fourteen
articles
on
the
history
of
Scouting
and
Girl
Guiding,
mainly
in
Britain,
its
empire
and
commonwealth,
and
the
United
States.
The
range
is
quite
broad,
tracing
the
history
of
ways
in
which
Scouting
crossed
borders
of
nationality,
culture,
religion,
and
gender.
Ellen
Boucher
(Furman
University)
has
an
article
coming
out
in
the
October
issue
of
the
Journal
of
British
Studies
titled
"The
Limits
of
Potential:
Race,
Welfare,
and
the
Interwar
Extension
of
Child
Emigration
to
Southern
Rhodesia."
Conference
Presentations
Luke
Springman
(Bloomsburg
University)
delivered
the
paper
in
German,
taking
a
new
research
direction
from
his
2007
book,
Carpe
Mundum:
German
Youth
Culture
of
the
Weimarer
Republic.
The
title
of
the
paper
was
"Die
Vermarktung
des
“dunklen
Kontinents”
im
Afrikabild
der
Kinder‐
und
Jugendliteratur
der
Weimarer
Republik",
translated
as
"Marketing
the
"Dark
Continent"
in
Images
of
Africa
in
Children's
Literature
of
the
Weimar
Republic".
It
dealt
with
the
colonial
consciousness
of
the
time
in
Germany,
after
Germany
had
lost
all
its
colonies
after
WWI.
There
was
a
campaign
to
have
Germans
emigrate
to
Africa.
Almost
no
research
exists
in
History
or
in
literary
studies
about
colonial
movements
of
this
period,
even
though
it
had
a
significant
presence
in
the
popular
culture
(and
in
politics).
News
from
the
Field:
48
News
Flash
Jeremy
Trevelyan
Burman
(York
University)
reports
that
the
American
Psychological
Association
has
cut
its
contribution
to
the
funding
for
the
Archives
of
the
History
of
American
Psychology
from
$60,000
per
year
to
$30,000
per
year
(in
2009)
and
$20,000
per
year
(in
2010
and
thereafter).
“This
will
impact
all
those
scholars
who
rely
on
AHAP
for
archival
materials,
especially
those
interested
in
the
overlap
between
the
history
of
minors
and
the
history
of
psychology.”
There
are
more
details
here:
http://ahp.apps01.yorku.ca/?p=746
Museums
/
Exhibitions
/
Archives
Andrea
Pasztor
(Janus
Pannonius
Museum)
has
sent
word
of
a
school
history
database
and
virtual
photo
album
of
Pecs,
Hungary:
http://emu.jpm.hu/iskola/.
Marjory
O'Toole
(Little
Compton
Historical
Society)
announces
an
exhibition:
Time
to
Play
traces
the
history
of
children's
play
in
Little
Compton,
RI
from
the
1600s
to
the
present
day
with
a
special
emphasis
on
1900
to
1950.
“We
have
objects,
stories
and
images
on
display,
exhibit
panels
and
an
80
page
exhibit
pamphlet
with
some
nice
memoires
etc.
We
picked
a
boy
and
girl
from
each
decade
1900‐1950
and
highlighted
them
in
the
exhibit
with
a
display
of
their
childhood
belongings,
photographs
and
memories.”
For
more
information,
please
go
to:
http://www.littlecompton.org/.
a
Upcoming
Events
From
Shawn
Casey
(Ohio
State
University):
LiteracyStudies@OSU
has
announced
its
2009‐2010
schedule
of
public
lectures.
October
15,
2009:
Fall
Lecture
David
Nord,
Journalism
and
History,
Indiana
University,
will
give
a
talk
entitled
“Tracking
the
Readers
of
Journalism:
Elusive
Evidence
of
Ephemeral
Reading”
that
draws
on
research
in
the
history
of
reading
and
readers
of
American
journalism
from
the
1730s
to
the
1910s.
Nord's
research
interests
lie
in
the
history
of
American
publishing,
especially
journalism
history
and
the
history
of
the
religious
press.
His
recent
books
include
Faith
in
Reading:
Religious
Publishing
and
the
Birth
of
Mass
Media
in
America
(Oxford
University
Press,
2004)
and
Communities
of
Journalism:
A
History
of
American
Newspaper
and
Their
Readers
(University
of
Illinois
Press,
2001).
He
has
been
involved
for
many
years
with
the
Center
for
the
History
of
the
Book
in
American
Culture
at
the
American
Antiquarian
Society.
http://journalism.indiana.edu/about‐us/faculty‐
staff/bio/?person=164
January
28,
2010
The
Ohio
State
University
Lecture
in
Literacy
Studies
Wendy
Griswold,
Bergen
Evans
Professor
in
the
Humanities
and
Professor
of
Sociology
at
Northwestern
University,
will
present
a
lecture
based
on
her
new
book,
Regionalism
and
The
Reading
Class
,
and
related
research.
Griswold’s
research
and
teaching
interests
include
cultural
sociology;
sociological
approaches
to
literature,
art
and
religion;
49
regionalism,
urban
representations,
and
the
culture
of
place;
the
Federal
Writers’
Project;
and
comparative
studies
of
reading
practices.
Her
recent
books
include
Bearing
Witness:
Readers,
Writers,
and
the
Novel
in
Nigeria
(Princeton
UP,
2000),
Cultures
and
Societies
in
a
Changing
World
3rd
ed.
(Pine
Forge
2008),
and
Regionalism
and
the
Reading
Class
(University
of
Chicago
Press,
2008).
She
directs
the
Culture
and
Society
Workshop
at
the
Alice
Berline
Kaplan
Institute
for
the
Humanities.
http://www.sociology.northwestern.edu/faculty/griswold/home.html
May
6,
2010:
Spring
Lecture
Teresa
McCarty,
Alice
Wiley
Snell
Professor
of
Education
Policy
Studies
and
Professor
of
Applied
Linguistics,
Arizona
State
University
will
give
a
talk
that
draws
from
her
work
in
language
policy,
ethnography,
and
also
new
work
on
“biographies
of
language
revitalization.”
An
educational
anthropologist,
McCarty’s
research
and
teaching
focus
on
indigenous/language
minority
education,
language
education
planning
and
policy,
critical
literacy
studies,
and
ethnographic
methods
in
education.
Her
recent
books
include
Language,
Literacy,
and
Power
in
Schooling
(Erlbaum,
2005),
A
Place
To
Be
Navajo:
Rough
Rock
and
the
Struggle
for
Self‐Determination
in
Indigenous
Schooling
(Erlbaum,
2002),
One
Voice,
Many
Voices
‐
Recreating
Indigenous
Language
Communities
(with
O.
Zepeda,
Center
for
Indian
Education,
2006),
and
To
Remain
an
Indian:
Lessons
in
Democracy
from
a
Century
of
Native
American
Education
(with
K.
T.
Lomawaima,
Teachers
College
Press,
2006).
~~~
New
Publication,
The
Child:
An
Encyclopedic
Companion
Richard
A.
Shweder,
Editor
in
Chief
Edited
by
Thomas
R.
Bidell,
Anne
C.
Dailey,
Suzanne
D.
Dixon,
Peggy
J.
Miller,
and
John
Modell
The
University
of
Chicago
Press
announces
publication
of
The
Child:
An
Encyclopedic
Companion.
The
Child
is
a
one‐volume
encyclopedia
that
brings
together
for
both
parents
and
professionals
the
best
contemporary
scholarship
on
children
and
childhood
from
a
variety
of
disciplines.
It
covers
all
areas
of
child‐related
study,
from
pediatrics,
child
development,
and
psychology
to
law,
public
policy,
education,
history,
religion,
sociology,
and
anthropology.
While
presenting
certain
universal
facts
about
children’s
development
from
birth
through
adolescence,
the
entries
also
address
the
many
worlds
of
childhood
both
within
the
United
States
and
around
the
globe.
They
consider
the
ways
in
which
race,
ethnicity,
gender,
socioeconomic
status,
and
cultural
traditions
of
child
rearing
can
affect
children’s
experiences
of
physical
and
mental
health,
education,
and
family.
Alongside
the
topical
entries,
The
Child
includes
more
than
forty
“Imagining
Each
Other”
essays,
which
focus
on
the
particular
experiences
of
children
in
different
cultures.
In
50
“Work
before
Play
for
Yucatec
Maya
Children,”
for
example,
readers
learn
of
the
work
responsibilities
of
some
modern‐day
Mexican
children,
while
in
“A
Hindu
Brahman
Boy
Is
Born
Again,”
they
witness
a
coming‐of‐age
ritual
in
contemporary
India.
The
Child:
An
Encyclopedic
Companion
is
available
in
both
print
and
electronic
editions
Hardcover:
$75.00/£51.50
ISBN‐13:
978‐0‐226‐47539‐4
For
more
information
visit
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/presssite/metadata.epl?mode=synopsis&bookkey=400
991
Opportunities:
Calls
for
Papers
and
Journal
Submissions
Exploring
Childhood
Studies,
A
Graduate
Student
Conference
The
Department
of
Childhood
Studies
Graduate
Student
Organization
at
Rutgers
University,
Camden,
invites
submissions
for
paper
presentations
for
their
first
formal
graduate
student
conference
to
be
held
April
9,
2010
on
the
Camden,
NJ
campus.
Graduate
students
from
all
disciplines
who
are
engaged
in
research
relating
to
children
and
childhood
are
encouraged
to
submit
proposals.
The
field
of
childhood
studies
engages
in
both
theoretical
and
empirical
study
of
children
and
childhood
within
historical,
contemporary,
interdisciplinary,
multi‐cultural,
state,
national,
and
global
contexts.
The
interdisciplinary
nature
of
the
field
is
one
of
its
greatest
strengths
and
the
core
of
its
remarkable
potential
for
scholarly
advancement,
but
also
leaves
the
field
open
for
exploration
and
interrogation,
and
its
borders
difficult,
if
not
impossible,
to
define.
The
Exploring
Childhood
Studies
conference
proposes
defining
Childhood
Studies
by
"doing"
childhood
studies.
We
seek
papers
that
investigate
childhood
as
a
construct,
children
as
a
category,
or
the
child
as
a
real
living
human
as
their
central
focus,
providing
critical
thought
and
insight
while
locating
them
in
different
contexts,
fields,
and
ideologies.
We
invite
proposals
from
all
disciplines,
including
education,
literature,
economics,
psychology,
sociology,
anthropology,
law,
political
science,
history,
criminology,
philosophy,
medicine,
religion,
film
studies,
and
cultural
studies
as
well
as
multi‐
disciplinary
scholarly
work.
The
range
of
possible
topics
includes:
war,
health,
rights,
gender,
poverty,
wealth,
policy,
ethics,
popular
culture,
globalization,
school,
family,
home,
sexuality,
community,
social
constructions,
theorizations
and
representations
of
children
and
childhood
in
all
modes
of
fiction.
51
Submission:
250‐word
abstract
plus
cover
letter
with
name,
current
level
of
graduate
study,
affiliated
university,
and
email
address
tom_modica@vfcc.edu.
Include
the
words
"conference
abstract"
in
subject
line,
and
include
name
on
the
cover
letter
only.
Deadline:
October
31,
2009.
Accepted
presenters
will
receive
notification
by
January
10,
2010.
Contact
Patrick
Cox
at
ptcox@camden.rutgers.edu
or
Anandini
Dar
at
anandini@camden.rutgers.edu
if
you
have
questions
about
the
conference,
or
visit
http://crab.rutgers.edu/~bowman/conference/
Visit
the
Department
of
Childhood
Studies
here:
http://childhood.camden.rutgers.edu/
~~~
Call
for
submissions
to
the
premier
issue
of
Red
Feather
Journal,
an
online,
international,
interdisciplinary
journal
of
children's
media
culture.
The
first
issue
will
be
published
February
1,
2010.
Red
Feather
Journal
facilitates
an
international
dialogue
among
scholars
and
professionals
of
the
intersections
between
the
child
image
and
the
conception
of
childhood,
children's
material
culture,
children
and
politics,
the
child
body,
and
any
other
conceptions
of
the
child
within
local,
national,
and
global
contexts.
The
journal
invites
critical
and/or
theoretical
examination
of
the
child
image
to
further
our
understanding
of
the
consumption,
circulation,
and
representation
of
the
child
throughout
the
world's
visual
mediums.
The
journal
welcomes
submissions
that
examine
a
broad
range
of
medias:
children's
film,
Hollywood
film,
international
film,
Television,
the
Internet,
print
resources,
art,
or
any
other
visual
medium.
Some
sample
topics
include,
but
are
certainly
not
limited
to:
studies
of
images
of
children
of
color;
child
as
commodity;
images
of
children
in
Africa,
Asia,
Middle
East,
South
America,
etc.;
political
uses
of
the
child
image;
children
in
film;
children
in
advertising;
visual
adaptations
of
children's
literary
works;
child
welfare
images;
children
and
war;
or
any
other
critical
examination
of
the
child
image
in
a
variety
of
visual
mediums.
Red
Feather
Journal
is
published
twice
a
year,
in
February
and
September,
and
adheres
to
the
MLA
citation
system.
Authors
are
welcome
to
submit
articles
in
other
citations
systems,
with
the
understanding
that,
upon
acceptance,
conversion
to
MLA
is
a
condition
of
publication.
Interested
contributor's
please
submit
the
paper,
an
abstract,
and
a
brief
biography
as
attachments
in
Word
to
debbieo@okstate.edu
Deadline
for
submissions
for
the
premier
issue
is
December
15th
2009.
~~~
52
Sixth
Galway
Conference
on
Colonialism:
EDUCATION
and
EMPIRE
24‐26
June
2010
The
aim
of
this
interdisciplinary
conference
is
to
explore
the
role
of
education
in
shaping,
promoting,
and
challenging
imperial
and
colonial
ideologies,
institutions
and
processes
throughout
the
modern
world.
We
invite
papers
that
address
the
following
themes:
the
role
of
educational
institutions,
ranging
from
primary
schools
to
institutions
of
higher
education
such
as
universities,
missionary
colleges,
engineering
and
medical
schools,
and
so
on,
in
shaping
imperial,
colonial
and
global
processes;
the
relationship
between
imperialism,
colonialism
and
the
development
of
modern
knowledge
systems,
including
new
disciplines
and
new
techniques
ofrule,
particularly
in
areas
such
as
science;
the
development
of
curriculum
innovation
to
meet
the
needs
of
empire;
education
about
imperial
history
(during
and
after
empire);
education
and
imperial
and
(post‐)colonial
models
of
childhood;
education
and
the
creation
of
professional
diasporas;
types
and
patterns
of
knowledge
transfer
within
the
framework
of
empire,
including
publications
and
broadcasting
relating
to
education,
science,
technology,
health
and
government,
both
between
metropoles
and
colonies
and
within
and
between
colonies;
the
insecurities
or
failures
of
imperial
and
colonial
educational
and
knowledge
practices,
as
well
as
of
resistances
to
these
practices;
transitions
in
educational
practice,
either
from
pre‐colonial
to
colonial
or
colonial
to
post‐colonial
eras.
Since
this
conference
is
being
in
part
funded
through
a
grant
provided
by
the
Irish
Research
Council
for
the
Humanities
and
Social
Sciences
to
an
inter‐university
group
to
explore
the
relationship
between
empire
and
higher
education
in
Ireland,
papers
are
especially
invited
for
a
strand
exploring
the
particularity
of
Irish
institutions
of
higher
education
in
shaping
the
above
processes,
and
of
the
role
of
higher
education
in
shaping
Ireland's
ambiguous
coloniality.
Papers
should
be
no
longer
than
20
minutes.
Please
submit
an
abstract,
of
not
more
than
300
words,
to
Fiona
Bateman
and
Muireann
O'Cinneide
at
www.conference.ie/
before
31
January
2010.
~~~
Call
for
Papers:
Tenth
Annual
Country
School
Association
of
America
Conference
June
21‐23,
2010
Chickasha,
Oklahoma
Blazing
the
Trail:
Education
Among
the
Earliest
Americans
The
2010
CSAA
Conference
will
take
place
on
the
campus
of
The
University
of
Science
and
Arts
of
Oklahoma
on
June
21‐22
with
an
optional
bus
tour
to
several
one‐room
schools
in
the
Oklahoma
City
area
on
June
23.
Visit
a
fully
restored
African
American
one
room
school
in
Chickasha,
Oklahoma.
You
are
cordially
invited
to
participate
in
and/or
lead
a
panel
discussion,
present
a
research
paper,
conduct
a
workshop,
present
a
play,
organize
a
symposium,
or
give
a
demonstration
on
country
schooling.
Decide
53
which
topic
most
interests
you
and
submit
a
brief
proposal.
The
following
topics
may
spark
your
creativity.
Preservation:
Envisioning
the
restored
country
school,
raising
money,
recruiting
and
managing
volunteers,
promoting
the
project,
collecting
artifacts,
preserving
a
restored
school,
preparing
for
and/or
recovering
from
a
natural
disaster,
etc.
Research:
Native
American
and
African
American
one‐room
schooling,
teachers
and
the
rural
community,
the
process
of
digging
up
the
history
of
a
school,
oral
history‐making,
the
architectural
significance
of
one‐room
schools,
the
supervision
of
one‐room
schools,
teacher
training
for
one‐room
schoolteachers,
the
consolidation
movement,
educational
methods
(maps,
music
education,
nature
study,
reading
charts),
etc.
Programs:
Stories,
camp,
holiday
celebrations,
music
schools,
musical
instruments,
dramatic
reenactment
or
living
history
programs,
etc.
Videotapes
and
other
resources
are
welcome.
Memory
Makers:
Come
and
share
your
memories,
photographs,
artifacts,
books,
facts
and
fiction
related
to
country
schooling,
etc.
Presentations
related
to
the
conference
theme
will
be
noted
in
the
program.
Proposal
Formats
Proposals
should
not
exceed
three
double‐spaced,
printed
pages.
Add
a
cover
sheet
with
title
of
the
proposal,
names
and
affiliations
(if
any)
of
participants,
and
the
address,
email
address,
and
phone
number
of
each
participant.
If
you
want
to
discuss
your
topic
before
submitting
a
proposal,
contact
CSAA
Executive
Director
Lucy
Townsend
(815‐753‐
1236
or
ltownsend@niu.edu).
Proposals
are
due
March
1,
2010.
E‐mail
your
cover
sheet
&
proposal
to:
Loretta
Jackson
lyjackson1@suddenlink.net
and
Richard
Lewis
richard.lewis@nasa.gov
Or
send
2
copies
of
your
proposal
and
two
self‐
addressed,
stamped
envelopes
to
Loretta
Jackson,
P.O.
Box
2044,
Chickasha,
OK
73023.
For
updates
on
the
conference,
visit
our
website
at:
www.countryschoolassociation.org
Fellowship
Opportunity
Hench
Post‐Dissertation
Fellowship
at
the
American
Antiquarian
Society
Proposals
due:
Oct.
15,
2009
The
American
Antiquarian
Society
has
premier
collections
of
American
children's
books,
textbooks,
periodicals,
and
children's
diaries
issued
or
created
between
the
17th
through
late
nineteenth
centuries.
Scholars
who
are
no
more
than
three
years
beyond
receipt
of
the
doctorate
are
invited
to
apply
for
the
Hench
Post‐Dissertation
Fellowship,
a
year‐long
residential
fellowship
at
the
American
Antiquarian
Society.
The
purpose
of
the
post‐dissertation
fellowship
is
to
54
provide
the
recipient
with
time
and
resources
to
extend
research
and/or
to
revise
the
dissertation
for
publication.
Any
topic
relevant
to
the
Society's
library
collections
and
programmatic
scope,
and
coming
from
any
field
or
disciplinary
background,
is
eligible.
AAS
collections
focus
on
all
aspects
of
American
history,
literature,
and
culture
from
contact
to
1876,
and
provide
rich
source
material
for
projects
across
the
spectrum
of
early
American
studies.
The
Society
welcomes
applications
from
those
who
have
advance
book
contracts,
as
well
as
those
who
have
not
yet
made
contact
with
a
publisher.
The
twelve‐month
stipend
for
this
fellowship
is
$35,000.
The
Hench
Post‐Dissertation
Fellow
will
be
selected
on
the
basis
of
the
applicant's
scholarly
qualifications,
the
appropriateness
of
the
project
to
the
Society's
collections
and
interests,
and,
above
all,
the
likelihood
that
the
revised
dissertation
will
make
a
highly
significant
book.
Further
information
about
the
fellowship,
along
with
application
materials,
is
available
on
the
AAS
website,
at
http://www.americanantiquarian.org/post‐diss.htm.
Any
questions
about
the
fellowship
may
be
directed
to
Paul
Erickson,
Director
of
Academic
Programs
at
AAS,
at
perickson@mwa.org
The
deadline
for
applications
for
a
Hench
Post‐Dissertation
Fellowship
to
be
held
during
the
2010‐2011
academic
year
is
October
15,
2009.
Paul
J.
Erickson
Laura
Wasowicz
Director
of
Academic
Programs
Curator
of
Children's
Literature
American
Antiquarian
Society
American
Antiquarian
Society
508‐471‐2158
lwasowicz@mwa.org
http://www.americanantiquarian.org
~~~
Recently
Completed
Dissertations
and
their
Abstracts
.
.
.
Colleen
Vasconsellos,
ed.
"’And
a
child
shall
lead
the
way:’
Children's
participation
in
the
Jackson,
Mississippi,
black
freedom
struggle,
1946—1970,”
by
Daphne
Rochelle
Chamberlain,
Ph.D.,
The
University
of
Mississippi,
2009.
Guided
by
common
ideals,
diverse
groups
of
people
and
organizations
contributed
to
the
success
of
the
modern
civil
rights
movement.
African
Americans'
desire
for
social,
economic,
and
political
equality
spawned
a
massive
freedom
campaign
in
the
American
South.
Grassroots
activists
challenged
the
system
in
what
African
Americans
considered
the
most
segregated
and
most
repressive
state
in
the
country,
initiating
the
Mississippi
55
movement.
Children
were
at
the
center
of
this
movement.
This
dissertation
examines
the
roles
of
youth
as
political
activists
in
the
Jackson,
Mississippi,
struggle
for
civil
rights.
Although
children
played
a
pivotal
role
in
the
movement,
scholars
have
marginalized
their
participation.
This
dissertation
offers
a
narrative
account
of
youth
participation
in
Jackson,
while
providing
a
historical
context
for
their
activism.
Before
the
Birmingham
"Children's
Crusade"
in
May
1963,
before
the
crisis
in
Little
Rock
at
Central
High
School
in
September
1957,
and
before
the
landmark
Brown
decision
in
May
1954,
black
youths
in
Jackson
had
already
taken
the
initiative
to
challenge
the
system
of
Jim
Crow.
Youth
activism
during
the
pre‐movement
years
influenced
the
development
of
an
organizing
tradition
in
Jackson,
which
ultimately
helped
sustain
the
Mississippi
movement.
This
study
treats
a
youth‐led
1946
bus
boycott
in
Jackson
as
a
precursor
movement,
highlighting
youth
leadership
in
the
absence
of
a
significant
organizing
tradition.
Although
youth
involvement
declined
in
the
1950s,
the
local
branch
of
the
NAACP
sought
to
mobilize
children
for
community
activism
by
forming
a
Youth
Council.
In
the
early
1960s,
black
children
further
organized
and
participated
in
the
first
major
civil
rights
demonstrations
in
Jackson.
Even
as
ideals
shifted
from
nonviolent
direct
action
to
militancy,
Jackson
youths
remained
politically
active
until
1970,
when
the
public
schools
were
finally
desegregated.
Using
oral
testimonies,
manuscripts,
video
footage,
primary,
and
secondary
sources,
this
dissertation
reveals
the
significant
role
of
children
in
the
Jackson
movement.
As
successful
pioneers
in
1946
and
politically
conscious
activists
in
subsequent
years,
these
youths
worked
to
effect
positive
change
for
more
than
two
decades.
Their
sustained
involvement
demonstrated
that
children
could
lead
the
way
to
social
progress.
“Enslaved
children
in
urban
and
rural
Bahia,
Brazil,
1822‐1888,”
by
Charles
A.
Wash,
Jr.,
Ph.D.,
Howard
University,
2008.
The
examination
of
enslaved
children
in
Brazil
offers
a
relatively
new
and
exciting
aspect
of
the
study
of
slavery
in
the
Americas.
It
provides
us
with
a
more
complete
dimension
of
the
struggle
to
obtain,
exercise
and
maintain
the
various
forms
and
niches
of
relative
freedom
the
enslaved
sought
and
also
found,
including
childrearing
and
the
formation
of
families.
This
dissertation
posits
that
enslaved
children
during
the
nineteenth
century
played
a
very
important
role
in
the
overall
system
of
slave
production
in
both
the
rural
and
urban
environs
in
the
city
of
São
Salvador
da
Bahia
in
Northeastern
Brazil
during
the
period
between
1822
and
1888.
It
attempts
to
qualify
the
role
of
children
as
workers
for
the
purposes
of
discipline,
socialization
and
control,
as
opposed
to
only
producers
for
the
sake
of
quantifiable
profits
and
returns.
It
also
seeks
to
outline
the
everyday
lives
of
children
as
enslaved
people,
as
well
as
the
issues
they
faced
such
as
that
of
diet,
disease
and
even
mental
health.
Included
in
this
56
analysis
is
their
relationship
to
the
broader
enslaved
community
in
terms
of
the
learning,
creation
and
transference
of
a
new
Brazilian
culture.
“Mexican
Room:
Public
schooling
and
the
children
of
Mexican
railroad
workers
in
Fort
Madison,
Iowa,
1923‐1930,”
by
Teresa
Garcia,
Ph.D.,
The
University
of
Iowa,
2008
.
This
study
examines
public
schooling
and
the
educational
experience
of
the
children
of
a
colonia,
or
settlement,
of
Mexican
railroad
workers
and
their
families
at
Fort
Madison,
Iowa.
It
centers
on
the
years
from
1923,
when
the
local
district
initiated
a
classroom
for
Mexican
children
at
Richardson
School,
until
1930,
when
officials
approved
the
construction
of
a
detached
facility
that
would
ultimately
house
the
classroom.
Two
questions
are
considered.
First,
why
did
the
Fort
Madison
School
District
create
and
maintain
a
separate
classroom
for
the
children
of
the
Mexican
railroad
laborers
during
the
1920s?
Second,
what
function
did
it
serve
in
the
lives
of
students,
their
families
or
the
broader
community?
Research
for
the
project
entailed
the
examination
and
analysis
of
a
wide
range
of
primary
sources
such
as
school,
church
and
government
records,
newspapers
and
oral
history
interviews.
This
study
concludes
that
the
negative
perceptions,
fears
and
suspicion
of
Mexicans
advanced
by
government,
business,
social
and
civic
authorities
at
the
turn
of
the
20
th
century,
manifested
locally
in
the
decision
by
school
officials
far
from
the
U.S.‐Mexico
border
region
to
create
a
separate
classroom
for
Mexican
children
in
Fort
Madison,
a
program
the
district
maintained
for
more
than
30
years.
While
some
students
indicate
they
benefited
from
instruction
offered
in
the
room,
it
appears
the
class
did
not
provide
Mexican
pupils
a
real
opportunity
and
also
seemed
to
hinder
their
integration
into
the
school
community.
A
system
of
in‐class
promotions
and
inconsistent
decision‐making
regarding
the
transfer
of
pupils
out
of
the
classroom,
for
instance,
delayed
many
students'
introduction
to
the
broader
school
environment,
as
well
as
their
interaction
with
non‐Mexican
schoolmates
and
the
development
of
language
skills
necessary
to
navigate
the
institution.
The
existence
of
the
Mexican
Room,
along
with
restrictions
Mexican
students
experienced
after
they
left
the
class
reflected
broader
community
relations
that
supported
the
social
isolation
and
vocational
stratification
of
Mexican
residents.
The
eventual
success
of
some
Mexican
Room
pupils
in
graduating
from
high
school
may
well
have
contributed
to
ambivalence
about
the
purpose
and
success
of
the
program
among
former
students
and
community
members
alike.
“Reconstruction
through
the
child:
English
modernism
and
the
welfare
state,”
by
Roy
Kozlovsky,
Ph.D.,
Princeton
University,
2008
.
This
dissertation
explores
the
institutionalization
of
modern
architecture
in
England
during
1935‐1955.
It
focuses
on
a
selected
group
of
buildings
and
environments
that
were
designed
for
children,
such
as
playgrounds,
schools,
community
centers
and
neighbourhood
units,
as
well
as
discussions
of
urbanism
at
C.I.A.M.
By
examining
the
architecture
of
childhood
and
the
architects'
discourses
of
children,
it
points
to
a
shift
in
57
the
concept
of
functionalism
in
postwar
English
modernism
from
objective
to
subjective
definitions
of
human
"needs"
as
part
of
the
Welfare
State's
new
models
of
power
and
conception
of
citizenship.
Ultimately,
this
dissertation
argues
that
children
were
the
ideal
subjects
of
postwar
functional
architecture,
precisely
because
of
their
status
as
incomplete
citizens
who
by
the
nature
of
their
immaturity
are
constituted
as
in
need
of
observation,
guidance,
and
care.
Chapter
one
analyzes
the
architecture
of
the
Pioneer
Health
Centre
at
Peckham
in
order
to
relate
the
emergence
of
functional
architecture
in
England
to
a
new
model
of
power
designed
to
alter
the
everyday
habits
and
notions
of
the
self
of
the
population.
Chapter
two
historicizes
the
English
appropriation
of
the
adventure
playground
in
the
context
of
postwar
reconstruction
and
slum
rehabilitation
policies.
It
frames
the
rise
of
the
theme
of
play
in
architectural
discourse
in
the
psychologization
of
citizenship
as
a
response
to
the
failure
of
liberal
citizenship
during
the
interwar
period.
Chapter
three
examines
the
architecture
of
the
postwar
school.
It
links
the
attempt
to
redefine
architectural
practice
in
terms
of
an
environmental
science
to
educational
techniques
that
incited
and
observed
the
interaction
of
children
with
their
surroundings
as
a
way
of
modulating
their
physical
and
mental
growth.
Chapter
Four
examines
Team
10's
employment
of
photographs
of
children's
urban
play
in
C.I.A.M.
presentations.
It
links
the
postwar
critique
of
the
Functional
City
to
a
sociological
discourse
of
urban
subjectivity
that
was
appropriated
by
the
Welfare
State
for
social
reconstruction
“Contested
innocence:
Images
of
the
child
in
the
Cold
War,”
by
Margaret
Elizabeth
Peacock,
Ph.D.,
The
University
of
Texas
at
Austin,
2008.
This
dissertation
examines
the
image
of
the
child
as
it
appeared
in
the
propaganda
and
public
rhetoric
of
the
Cold
War
from
approximately
1950
to
1968.
It
focuses
on
how
American
and
Soviet
politicians,
propagandists,
and
critics
depicted
children
in
film,
television,
radio,
and
print.
It
argues
that
these
groups
constructed
a
new
lexicon
of
childhood
images
to
meet
the
unique
challenges
of
the
Cold
War.
They
portrayed
the
young
as
facing
new
threats
both
inside
and
outside
their
borders,
while
simultaneously
envisioning
their
children
as
mobilized
in
novel
ways
to
defend
themselves
and
their
countries
from
infiltration
and
attack.
These
new
images
of
the
next
generation
performed
a
number
of
important
functions
in
conceptualizing
what
was
at
stake
in
the
Cold
War
and
what
needed
to
be
done
to
win
it.
Politicians,
propagandists,
and
individuals
in
the
Soviet
Union
and
the
United
States
used
images
of
endangered
and
mobilized
children
in
order
to
construct
a
particular
vision
of
the
Cold
War
that
could
support
their
political
and
ideological
agendas,
including
the
enforcement
of
order
in
the
private
sphere,
the
construction
of
domestic
and
international
legitimacy,
and
the
mobilization
of
populations
at
home
and
abroad.
At
the
same
time,
these
images
were
open
to
contestation
by
dissenting
groups
on
both
sides
of
the
Iron
Curtain
who
refashioned
the
child's
image
in
order
to
contest
their
governments'
policies
and
the
Cold
War
consensus.
58
What
these
images
looked
like
in
Soviet
and
American
domestic
and
international
discourse,
why
propagandists
and
dissent
movements
used
these
images
to
promote
their
policies
at
home
and
abroad,
and
what
visions
of
the
Cold
War
they
created
are
the
subjects
of
this
dissertation.
This
project
argues
that
the
domestic
demands
of
the
Cold
War
altered
American
and
Soviet
visions
of
childhood.
It
is
common
wisdom
that
the
1950s
and
60s
was
a
period
when
child
rearing
practices
and
ideas
about
children
were
changing.
This
dissertation
supports
current
arguments
that
American
and
Soviet
parents
sought
more
permissive
approaches
in
raising
children
who
they
perceived
as
innocent
and
in
need
of
protection.
Yet
it
also
finds
substantial
documentation
showing
that
American
and
Soviet
citizens
embraced
a
new
vision
of
idealized
youth
that
was
not
innocent,
but
instead
was
mobilized
for
a
war
that
had
no
foreseeable
end.
In
the
United
States,
children
became
participants
in
defending
the
home
and
the
country
from
communist
infiltration.
In
the
Soviet
Union,
the
state
created
a
new
vision
of
idealized
youth
that
could
be
seen
actively
working
towards
a
Soviet‐led
peace
around
the
world.
By
using
the
child's
image
as
a
category
for
analysis,
this
project
also
provides
a
window
into
how
the
Cold
War
was
conceptualized
by
politicians,
propagandists,
and
private
citizens
in
the
Soviet
Union
and
the
United
States.
In
contrast
to
current
scholarship,
this
dissertation
argues
that
the
Soviet
state
worked
hard
to
create
a
popular
vision
of
the
Cold
War
that
was
significantly
different
from
the
"Great
Fear"
that
dominated
American
culture
in
the
1950s
and
60s.
While
in
the
United
States,
the
conflict
was
portrayed
as
a
defensive
struggle
against
outside
invasion,
in
official
Soviet
rhetoric
it
was
presented
as
an
active,
international
crusade
for
peace.
As
the
1960s
progressed,
and
as
the
official
rhetoric
of
the
state
came
under
increasing
criticism,
the
rigid
sets
of
categories
surrounding
the
figuration
of
the
Cold
War
child
that
had
been
established
in
the
1950s
began
to
break
down.
While
Soviet
filmmakers
during
the
Thaw
created
images
of
youth
that
appeared
abandoned
and
traumatized
by
the
world
around
them,
anti‐nuclear
activists
took
to
the
streets
with
their
children
in
tow
in
order
to
contest
the
state's
professed
ability
to
protect
their
young.
In
the
late
1960s,
both
the
Soviet
Union
and
the
United
States
struggled
to
contain
rising
domestic
unrest,
and
took
the
first
steps
in
moving
towards
détente.
As
a
consequence,
the
struggle
between
East
and
West
moved
to
the
post‐colonial
world,
where
again,
the
image
of
the
child
played
a
vital
role
in
articulating
and
justifying
policy.
Visual
and
rhetorical
images
like
that
of
the
child
served
as
cultural
currency
for
creating
and
undermining
conceptual
boundaries
in
the
Cold
War.
The
current
prevalence
of
childhood
images
in
the
daily
construction
and
contestation
of
public
opinion
are
the
legacies
of
this
era.
“Creating
consumers
and
protecting
children:
Radio,
early
television
and
the
American
child,
1930‐1960,”
by
Amanda
Lynn
Bruce,
Ph.D.,
State
University
of
New
York
at
Stony
Brook,
2008.
59
This
dissertation
examines
the
cultural
production
of
children's
radio
and
television
programming,
as
well
as
social
responses
to
broadcasters'
practices
in
the
United
States
between
1930
and
1960.
Commercial
broadcasters,
advertisers,
women's
organizations,
listener
groups,
and
child
experts
vied
with
one
another
to
shape
children's
radio
and
television
programming
during
this
seminal
period
of
American
broadcasting.
These
groups
debated
radio
and
television's
effect
on
children,
and
advocated
different
goals
for
children's
programming,
based
upon
conflicting
views
about
children.
Broadcasters
and
advertisers
had
the
upper
hand
in
this
cultural
contest,
and
successfully
utilized
radio
and
television
to
socialize
children
as
consumers.
However,
national
women's
organizations,
such
as
the
National
Congress
of
Parents
and
Teachers,
and
the
National
Association
for
Better
Radio
and
Television,
a
listener
group,
criticized
the
crime‐laden
nature
of
many
children's
programs.
Women's
organizations
largely
supported
children's
introduction
to
consumer
culture,
but
argued
that
broadcasters
should
protect
children
from
violent
content
and
offer
more
educational
and
uplifting
fare.
Child
experts,
including
the
parent
educators
of
the
Child
Study
Association,
stressed
children's
psychological
resilience,
and
argued
that
children's
programs
need
not
always
shield
children,
but
should
instead
introduce
them
to
issues
like
war,
as
well
as
racial,
ethnic
and
religious
intolerance.
This
study
examines
the
gender
tensions
that
influenced
women's
organizations'
reform
strategies,
and
largely
divided
child
experts
and
women's
organizations.
The
dissertation
argues
that
this
division,
coupled
with
a
lack
of
funding,
stymied
reformers'
efforts
to
significantly
change
children's
programming.
However,
women's
organizations
and
librarians
enjoyed
some
success
at
the
local
level,
where
they
cooperated
to
produce
educational
radio
and
television
programs
for
children.
Moreover,
the
dissertation
illuminates
the
formation
of
a
national
children's
culture,
the
growing
influence
of
child
experts
on
the
construction
of
childhood,
and
parental
attempts
to
impact
children's
media
production.
“The
war
inside:
Child
psychoanalysis
and
remaking
the
self
in
Britain,
1930‐1960,”
by
Michal
Shapira,
Ph.D.,
Rutgers
The
State
University
of
New
Jersey
‐
New
Brunswick,
2008.
My
research
concerns
the
socio‐cultural
effects
of
war
and
the
development
of
expert
culture
in
the
twentieth
century.
My
dissertation
studies
this
problem
by
exploring
the
impact
of
the
Second
World
War
on
the
conceptualization
and
practice
of
selfhood
in
Britain.
The
war
elevated
psychoanalysis
to
a
position
not
enjoyed
anywhere
else
in
the
world.
Britain
was
a
secure
destination
for
psychoanalysts
fleeing
Nazi
persecution
and
a
cosmopolitan
laboratory
for
the
development
of
new
theories
on
the
far‐reaching
meanings
of
total
war.
Under
the
shock
of
bombing
and
evacuation,
émigré
analysts
like
Anna
Freud
and
Melanie
Klein
and
native
analysts
like
John
Bowlby
and
Donald
Winnicott
were
called
upon
to
help
treat
men,
women,
and
especially
children
of
diverse
social
backgrounds.
These
children
were
key.
On
the
one
hand,
they
came
to
be
seen
as
vulnerable
and
in
need
of
protection;
on
the
other
hand,
as
anxious,
aggressive
60
subjects
requiring
control.
This
moment
turned
out
to
be
a
decisive
one
both
for
the
history
of
psychoanalysis
and
for
expectations
for
gender
roles,
citizenship,
and
the
welfare
state.
My
research
has
made
extensive
use
of
the
unexplored
archives
of
British
psychoanalysts,
nurseries,
women's
groups,
clinics,
courts,
government
committees,
and
the
BBC
to
trace
the
war's
unknown
intellectual
heritage.
It
shows
the
importance
of
thinking
about
ideas
on
the
self
in
their
historical
contexts
and
looking
at
experts'
practice
alongside
its
social
effects.
Psychoanalytic
experts,
my
work
argues,
had
a
profound
role
in
making
the
understanding
of
children
and
the
mother‐child
relationship
key
to
the
successful
creation
of
democratic
citizenry.
The
study
shows
the
extent
to
which
these
experts
informed
understandings
not
only
of
individuals,
but
also
of
broader
political
questions
in
the
age
of
mass
violence.
By
demonstrating
a
link
between
a
real
'
war
outside
'
and
an
emotional
'
war
inside
'
they
contributed
to
an
increase
in
state
responsibility
for
citizens'
mental
health.
Historians
have
seldom
looked
at
psychoanalysts
other
than
Sigmund
Freud
as
social
actors
in
their
cultures,
leaving
the
histories
of
psychoanalytic
movements'
influence
on
European
societies
understudied.
My
research
traces
the
work
of
the
second
generation
of
psychoanalysts
after
Freud
to
the
horrors
of
total
war
and
explores
its
decisive
postwar
impact
on
both
citizens
and
state
officials.
It
revises
the
characteristic
view
of
psychoanalysis
as
an
elite
discipline
confined
to
the
clinic,
and
adds
to
interdisciplinary
and
comparative
studies
of
history,
gender,
human
sciences,
war,
and
social
democracy.
“Transitioning:
The
history
of
childbirth
in
Puerto
Rico,
1948‐1990s,”
by
Isabel
M.
Cordova,
Ph.D.,
University
of
Michigan,
2008.
This
dissertation
documents
and
analyzes
the
dramatic
transformations
in
birthing
practices
that
accompanied
broader
economic,
political
and
cultural
shifts
in
Puerto
Rico
during
the
latter
half
of
the
twentieth
century.
Birthing
changed
from
being
a
home‐
based
event
assisted
by
midwives
to
a
hospital‐based
procedure,
attended
by
medical
experts,
in
fewer
than
20
years.
In
1950
the
number
of
registered
midwives
was
double
that
of
registered
doctors
and
they
attended
well
over
half
of
all
deliveries.
The
Puerto
Rican
government
grew
after
the
1950s
and
established
itself
as
a
colonial
welfare
system
looking
to
uplift
and
remake
itself
following
an
industrial
model,
informed
by
rational,
scientific
planning,
which
ideally
included
even
the
most
remote
sectors
of
the
island.
These
forces
coalesced
with
the
development
of
medical
education,
new
medical
technologies,
significant
improvements
in
the
overall
quality
of
life
on
the
island,
the
urbanization
of
Puerto
Rico,
and
a
new
faith
in
science,
and
moved
labor
and
deliveries
into
the
hospital
while
redefining
childbirth
and
its
practice
altogether.
I
argue
that
as
families
ventured
out
of
their
more
isolated,
home‐based
daily
lives
to
access
basic
needs,
became
active
in
public,
urbanized
spaces,
and
bought
into
a
system
based
on
colonial
state
panning,
led
by
scientifically
trained
experts
and
organized
by
bureaucratic
institutions,
they
also
restructured
their
birthing
practices.
Midwives
accepted
these
changes.
They
quietly
stepped
aside
as
the
next
generation
delivered
their
babies
in
hospitals.
Doctors
came
to
hold
the
authoritative
knowledge
about
the
61
female
body
and
its
path
towards
birthing
children
and
by
the
late
1970s
midwifery
disappeared.
By
the
1980s
and
1990s,
as
a
technocratic
model
of
birth
predominated
obstetrics
in
Puerto
Rico
and
cesarean
rates
skyrocketed,
five
newly
trained
midwives
began
delivering
babies
at
home
once
again.
The
practice
of
these
new
midwives
was
the
only
birthing
alternative
to
medicalized
childbirth
available
to
women
on
the
island
after
the
1980s.
“The
children
of
Catalhoyuk:
Examining
the
child's
role
in
Neolithic
ritual
life
through
burials,
wall
art,
and
material
culture,”
by
Sharon
Kay
Moses,
Ph.D.,
Cornell
University,
2009.
This
dissertation
examines
the
role
of
children
in
sacred
symbolism
and
ritual
practices
at
Çatalhöyük
during
the
Anatolian
Neolithic.
By
analyzing
differential
treatment
of
child
versus
adult
burials,
considering
multivocal
interpretations
of
material
culture
based
upon
contextual
deposition
and
wall
art
defining
the
house
with
sacred
narrative,
this
thesis
will
demonstrate
that
children
held
a
special
place
in
the
negotiation
of
sacred
spaces
and
rituals.
This
analysis
incorporates
ethnographic
analogy
rather
than
presenting
a
purely
statistical
study.
Native
American
views
regarding
the
spiritual
relationship
between
human
beings
and
their
environment
were
applied
in
the
interpretational
process
in
order
to
provide
an
alternative,
non‐Western
perspective
to
this
prehistoric,
pre‐literate
society.
Symbolism,
ritual
and
visual
mnemonic
devices
were
treated
as
part
of
the
religious
language
of
the
site
and
ultimately,
as
a
means
of
insight
into
the
daily
world
of
children.
“The
banning
of
international
adoption
in
Romania:
Reasons,
meaning,
and
implications
for
child
care
and
protection,”
by
Carolyn
Lisa
Norris,
Ed.D.,
Boston
University,
2009.
After
the
1989
fall
of
Communism
in
Romania,
the
world
became
aware
of
the
plight
of
the
country's
thousands
of
institutionalized
children,
and
an
international
adoption
system
saw
the
adoption
of
many
of
these
children
to
other
countries.
Thousands
of
children,
however,
remained
in
institutions
as
the
newly
Democratic
Romania
struggled
with
the
legacy
of
its
Communist
era.
During
the
process
of
applying
to
join
the
European
Union,
Romania
in
2000
initiated
the
eventual
banning
of
international
adoption.
Using
a
qualitative
approach
that
relies
on
interviews,
document
review,
and
observation,
this
study
finds
both
positive
and
negative
interpretations
of
the
ban,
with
subjects
pointing
to
Romania's
desire
to
join
the
EU
as
a
supposed
major
factor
in
its
decision
to
ban
international
adoption.
The
implications
of
the
ban
include
the
emergence
of
a
foster
care
system
and
domestic
adoption,
efforts
to
reunify
families
and
to
prevent
the
abandonment,
relinquishment,
and
removal
of
children
from
their
biological
families,
and
the
development
of
alternative
forms
of
care
in
tandem
with
a
new
deinstitutionalization
initiative
“Children
of
the
Mexican
Miracle:
Childhood
and
modernity
in
Mexico
City,
1940‐
1968,”
by
Eileen
Mary
Ford,
Ph.D.,
University
of
Illinois
at
Urbana‐Champaign,
2008.
62
During
the
post‐1940
period,
a
public
discourse
focusing
on
the
well‐being
and
protection
of
children
emerged
in
Mexico
within
a
complex
web
of
relations
between
the
state,
the
church,
and
civil
society.
Through
an
analysis
of
state‐designed
educational
programs,
church
programs,
and
cultural
productions
made
for
children,
I
demonstrate
that
various
sectors
of
society
recognized
the
importance
of
children
to
the
future
of
the
nation.
The
presence
of
children
and
discussions
of
childhood
in
print
media
attest
to
the
widespread
belief
that
children
needed
and
deserved
a
period
of
innocence
and
protection,
despite
the
differing
socioeconomic
circumstances
in
which
children
lived.
The
circulation
of
discourses
about
childhood
facilitated
social
cohesion
in
the
postrevolutionary
decades.
My
analysis
of
civil
society,
church‐state
relations,
and
popular
culture
through
the
lens
of
childhood
reveals
the
delicate
balance
of
state
power.
During
the
era
labeled
the
"Mexican
Miracle,"
the
child
population
grew
each
decade,
in
sheer
numbers
and
as
a
percentage
of
the
total
urban
population.
The
city
was
affected
by
the
increasingly
large
presence
of
children
and
the
urban
milieu
informed
the
generation
of
children
raised
in
the
decades
leading
up
to
the
important
watershed
moment
of
1968.
State
education‐‐through
the
kindergarten
movement
and
its
social
outreach
programs,
new
school
construction
campaigns,
and
the
development
of
standardized
obligatory
textbooks‐‐increased
the
presence
and
power
of
the
Mexican
state.
Yet,
the
state
was
forced
to
share
power
with
the
church
and
with
the
influence
of
various
domestic
and
foreign
cultural
productions
for
children.
The
church
reached
children
through
lay
organizations
and
children's
magazines
as
it
adapted
to
the
increasing
presence
of
secular
culture.
Mass
entertainment
designed
specifically
for
children,
like
Walt
Disney
films
and
Cri‐Cri
radio
broadcasts,
educated
children
and,
in
the
process,
expanded
the
definition
of
childhood
to
include
more
sectors
of
society.
Finally,
print
media
provided
a
forum
to
discuss
the
rights
and
needs
of
children
in
Mexican
society.
This
discourse
of
childhood
allowed
room
for
dissent
and
for
critiques
of
the
Mexican
state
and,
by
extension,
the
ruling
party.
Dissertations
in
Progress
Dissertator:
Sheila
Marie
Aird,
Howard
University
Dissertation
title:
“The
Forgotten
Ones:
Enslaved
Children
and
the
Formation
of
a
Labor
Force
in
the
British
West
Indies”
Advisor:
Selwyn
H.
H.
Carrington
Dissertator:
Amanda
Brian,
University
of
Illinois,
Urbana‐Champaign
Dissertation
title:
“Bonds
of
Empire:
Growing
Children
in
the
Kaiserreich,
1871‐1918”
Advisor:
Peter
Fritzsche
Dissertator:
Kathryn
Bridge,
Victoria
University
Dissertation
title:
“A
Whole
New
Voice:
The
Pioneer
Child
in
Western
Canada,
1849‐
63
1920”
Advisor:
Lynne
L.
Marks
Dissertator:
Tarah
Brookfield,
York
University
Dissertation
title:
“'Our
Deepest
Concern
Is
for
the
Safety
of
our
Children
and
Their
Children':
Maternal
Solutions
to
Cold
War
Fears
in
Canada
and
Abroad,
1950‐80”
Advisor:
Kathryn
McPherson
Dissertator:
Michael
Carriere,
University
of
Chicago
Dissertation
title:
“'I
Now
Pronounce
You
Children
of
a
New
Age':
Columbia
University,
Democracy,
and
Economy
in
New
York
City,
1960‐98”
Advisor:
Neil
Harris
Dissertator:
Jessa
Chupik,
McMaster
University
Dissertation
title:
“The
Institutional
Confinement
of
'Idiot'
Children
in
20th‐Century
Canada:
The
Case
of
the
Orillia
Asylum,
1900‐35”
Advisor:
Kenneth
Cruikshank
Dissertator:
Caroline
Collinson,
The
Ohio
State
University
Dissertation
title:
“'The
Littlest
Immigrants':
Adoption,
Migration,
and
Exploitation
of
Border
Crossing
Children
in
the
Americas”
Advisor:
Judy
Tzu‐chun
Wu
Dissertator:
Julie
Kay
De
Graffenried,
University
of
Texas‐Austin
Dissertation
title:
“Becoming
the
Vanguard:
Children,
the
Young
Pioneers,
and
the
Soviet
State
in
the
Great
Patriotic
War”
Advisor:
Charters
Wynn
Dissertator:
Jia‐Chen
Fu,
Yale
University
Dissertation
title:
“Society's
Laboratories:
Mapping
Children's
Health
in
Republican
China,
1928‐49”
Advisor:
Jonathan
D.
Spence
Dissertator:
Diana
Georgescu,
University
of
Illinois,
Urbana‐Champaign
Dissertation
title:
“'Ceausescu’s
Children':
Ideological
Scripts
and
Remembered
Experiences
of
Childhood
in
Socialist
Romania,
1965‐89”
Advisor:
Maria
Todorova
Dissertator:
Kevin
L.
Gooding,
Purdue
University
Dissertation
title:
“For
the
Children’s
Souls:
Interdenominational
Competition
and
the
Religious
Education
of
Children
in
Indiana,
1801‐50”
Advisor:
Franklin
T.
Lambert
64
Dissertator:
David
Greenspoon,
Pennsylvania
State
University
Dissertation
title:
“Children's
Mite:
Juvenile
Philanthropy
in
America,
1815‐65”
Advisor:
Lori
D.
Ginzberg
Dissertator:
Justus
G.
Hartzok,
University
of
Iowa
Dissertation
title:
“Children
of
Chapaev:
The
Russian
Civil
War
Cult
and
the
Creation
of
Soviet
Identity,
1918‐82”
Advisor:
Paula
Michaels
Dissertator:
Maria
Alexandria
Kane,
College
of
William
and
Mary
Dissertation
title:
“Training
Up
Children:
Gender,
Sexuality,
and
Race
among
Evangelical
Youth,
1970‐2000”
Advisor:
Maureen
Fitzgerald
Dissertator:
Daniel
Lee,
University
of
California,
Berkeley
Dissertation
title:
“Children
of
African
American
Soldiers
and
German
Women
Post‐
World
War
II”
Advisor:
None
given
Dissertator:
Karen
Lucas,
University
of
California,
Berkeley
Dissertation
title:
“The
Immigration
of
Unaccompanied
Children
to
the
U.S.
between
the
End
of
the
Civil
War
and
the
Immigration
Restrictions
of
1924
and
1925”
Advisor:
None
given
Dissertator:
Helen
E.
McLure,
Southern
Methodist
University
Dissertation
title:
“'I
Suppose
You
Think
Strange
the
Murder
of
Women
and
Children':
White‐Capping
and
Lynching
in
the
American
West,
1870‐1930”
Advisor:
Sherry
L.
Smith
Dissertator:
Leslie
Miller,
University
of
Georgia
Dissertation
title:
“The
Power
of
the
Privileged:
The
Model
of
the
White
Middle
Class
Family
and
the
Education
of
American
Children,
1820–1920”
Advisor:
Bryant
Simon
Dissertator:
Valerie
H.
Minnett,
Carleton
University
Dissertation
title:
“The
Prescription
and
the
Cure:
Children’s
Bodies
and
Ideal
Health
in
Canada,
1908‐50”
Advisor:
James
Opp
Dissertator:
Joselyn
C.
Morley,
Carleton
University
Dissertation
title:
“'Mother
Dead,
Father
Living,
A
Very
Useless
Man':
Children
in
Need,
the
Protestant
Orphan's
Home,
and
Municipal
Welfare
in
Ottawa,
1915‐29”
Advisor:
Dominique
Marshall
65
Dissertator:
Heidi
Morrison,
University
of
California,
Santa
Barbara
Dissertation
title:
“The
Development
of
the
Concept
of
Childhood
in
Modern
Egyptian
History”
Advisor:
Nancy
E.
Gallagher
Dissertator:
Sarah
Mulhall,
The
Johns
Hopkins
University
Dissertation
title:
“Treated
as
a
Child
Should
Be:
New
York
City
Orphan
Asylums
and
19th‐Century
Conceptions
of
Childhood”
Advisor:
Toby
Ditz
Dissertator:
Rachel
Neiwert,
University
of
Minnesota
Dissertation
title:
“Savages
or
Citizens?
Children,
Education,
and
the
British
Empire,
1899‐1950”
Advisor:
Anna
K.
Clark
Dissertator:
Jessica
Nelson,
Purdue
University
Dissertation
title:
“Policy
and
Sentiment:
Attitudes
and
Institutions
Concerning
Abandoned
Children
in
17th‐
and
18th‐Century
France”
Advisor:
James
Farr
Dissertator:
Wee
Siang
Margaret
Ng,
McGill
University
Dissertation
title:
“Childbirth
in
Late
Imperial
China:
Medical
Texts
and
Social
Realities”
Advisor:
Robin
D.S.
Yates
Dissertator:
Claire
O'Brien,
University
of
Southern
Illinois,
Carbondale
Dissertation
title:
“'A
Credit
to
Their
Race':
White
Authors
Look
at
African
American
Children,
1930‐60”
Advisor:
Kay
J.
Carr
Dissertator:
N'Jai‐An
Patters,
University
of
Minnesota
Dissertation
title:
“Deviants
and
Dissidents:
Ideologies
of
Children's
Sexuality,
Boston,
1972‐86”
Advisors:
Elaine
Tyler
May
and
Kevin
P.
Murphy
Dissertator:
Stacey
Patton,
Rutgers
University
Dissertation
title:
“Why
Black
Children
Can't
Grow
Up:
The
Construction
of
Racial
Childhood,
1896‐1940”
Advisor:
Virginia
Yans
Dissertator:
Jessie
B.
Ramey,
Carnegie
Mellon
University
Dissertation
title:
“Contested
Childhood:
Black
and
White
Orphans,
Poor
Families,
and
Institutional
Childcare
in
Pittsburgh,
1877‐1939”
Advisor:
Tera
Hunter
66
Dissertator:
Johanna
Ransmeier,
Yale
University
Dissertation
title:
“'No
Other
Choice':
The
Sale
of
Women,
Children,
and
Laborers
in
Late
Qing
and
Republican
China”
Advisor:
Jonathan
D.
Spence
Dissertator:
Andrew
Ruis,
University
of
Wisconsin,
Madison
Dissertation
title:
“School
Foodservice,
Children's
Nutrition,
and
Public
Health
in
20th‐
Century
America”
Advisor:
Judith
W.
Leavitt
Dissertator:
Carrie
T.
Schultz,
Boston
College
Dissertation
title:
“'Let
the
Little
Children
Come
to
Me':
Catholic
Children's
Moral
Development
in
the
United
States,
1920‐65”
Advisor:
James
O’Toole
Dissertator:
Jennifer
Sovde,
Indiana
University
Dissertation
title:
“Les
enfants
du
paradis:
Child
Performers
and
Delinquency
in
the
French
Third
Republic”
Advisor:
Carl
Ipsen
Dissertator:
Laurel
Spindel,
University
of
Chicago
Dissertation
title:
“From
Institution
to
Community:
Changing
Child‐Caring
Practices
in
Chicago,
1930‐Present”
Advisor:
William
Novak
Dissertator:
Andrew
K.
Sturtevant,
College
of
William
and
Mary
Dissertation
title:
“Onontio's
Children:
French
Detroit's
Native
Community”
Advisor:
James
L
Axtell
Dissertator:
Jennifer
Tappan,
Columbia
University
Dissertation
title:
“A
Healthy
Child
Comes
from
a
Healthy
Mother:
Mwanamugimu
and
Nutritional
Science
in
Uganda,
1935‐73”
Advisor:
Marcia
Wright
Dissertator:
Alexis
Tinsley,
Brandeis
University
Dissertation
title:
“Liberty’s
Children:
The
Changing
National
Identity
of
Children
in
New
England,
1700‐1827”
Advisor:
Jacqueline
Jones
Dissertator:
Kelly
Whitmer,
British
Columbia
University
Dissertation
title:
“The
World
of
the
Pietist
Orphanage:
Child‐Centered
Philanthropy,
Science,
and
Schooling,
1680‐1769”
Advisor:
Christopher
R.
Friedrichs
67
Dissertator:
Cari
Williams,
Emory
University
Dissertation
title:
“A
Nation
with
a
Child's
Face:
Images
of
National
Identity
and
Childhood
in
Brazil,
1922‐54”
Advisor:
Jeffrey
Lesser
Dissertator:
Angela
Thomas
Winkler,
University
of
Iowa
Dissertation
title:
“Can
German
Youth
Be
Saved?
Re‐Educating
'Hitler's
Children'
in
British
Occupied
North
Rhine‐Westphalia,
1945‐55”
Advisor:
Elizabeth
D.
Heineman
Dissertator:
Cassandra
Woloschuk,
Guelph
University
Dissertation
title:
“Cities
of
Children:
Pediatric
Medicine
in
Canada,
1950‐90”
Advisor:
Catherine
Carstair
Dissertator:
Marjorie
Wood,
University
of
Chicago
Dissertation
title:
“Children
in
the
Clutches
of
Capital:
Child
Labor
Reform,
the
Child
Consumer,
and
the
Moral
Legitimation
of
American
Consumer
Culture,
1870‐1930”
Advisor:
Thomas
C.
Holt
Dissertator:
Mary
Wunnenberg,
University
of
Wisconsin‐Madison
Dissertation
title:
“The
Lost
Children
of
Europe:
Images
of
Child
Shoah
Survivors,
1944‐
60”
Advisor:
Mary
Louise
Roberts
68
Contributors
to
the
Bulletin
#14
Jim
Block
teaches
political
theory
at
DePaul
University.
He
is
author
of
A
Nation
of
Agents:
The
American
Path
to
a
Modern
Self
and
Society
(2002);
The
Crucible
of
Consent:
American
Child‐Rearing
and
the
Forging
of
a
Liberal
Society
is
forthcoming.
Priscilla
Ferguson
Clement
edits
the
conference
reports
for
the
SHCY
Bulletin.
She
is
the
author
of
several
books
and
articles
on
the
history
of
American
children
in
the
19th
Century.
She
is
retired
from
Penn
State
and
is
currently
completing
a
novel
in
which
the
history
of
teens
in
the
1950s
figures.
She
can
be
reached
at
p4c@psu.edu.
Daniel
T.
Cook,
is
Director
of
the
Graduate
Studies
Program,
Associate
Professor
of
Childhood
Studies,
adjunct
in
Sociology
and
an
Associate
in
the
Center
for
Children
and
Childhood
Studies
at
Rutgers‐Camden.
He
serves
as
editor
for
Childhood:
A
Journal
of
Global
Child
Research,
has
authored
The
Commodification
of
Childhood:
The
Children's
Clothing
Industry
and
the
Rise
of
the
Child
Consumer
and
Children's
Consumer
Culture
(2004),
and
edited
Symbolic
Childhood
(2002)
and
The
Lived
Experiences
of
Public
Consumption
(2008).
Rebecca
de
Schweinitz
teaches
history
at
Brigham
Young
University
and
is
the
author
of
If
We
Could
Change
the
World:
Young
People
and
America’s
Long
Struggle
for
Racial
Equality
2009).
Stephen
Gennaro
edits
the
Bulletin’s
pedagogy
column is
a
cultural
historian
of
media
and
youth
at
York
University
in
Toronto.
His
main
areas
of
interest
is
“perpetual
adolescence”
which
examines
the
many
ways
that
the
culture
industries
market
“youthfulness”
to
young
and
old
consumers
alike.
Steve
has
over
10
years
of
teaching
experience
(teaching
all
levels
from
kindergarten
to
graduate
students)
and
almost
15
years
of
experience
in
curriculum
development.
Steve's
email:
sgennaro@yorku.ca
Harvey
J.
Graff
directs
the
Program
in
Literacy
Studies
and
is
a
member
of
the
Departments
of
English
and
History,
The
Ohio
State
University.
He
is
author
of
Conflicting
Paths:
Growing
Up
in
America
(l995);
and
editor
of
Growing
Up
in
America:
Historical
Experiences,
editor
(1987)
Julia
Grant
is
professor
of
history
and
public
affairs
at
James
Madison
College,
Michigan
State
University.
She
is
currently
writing
a
book
on
the
origins
of
the
“boy
problem”
in
urban
America
for
Johns
Hopkins
University
Press.
Her
email
address
is
grant@msu.edu
Patrizia
Guarnieri
is
associate
professor
of
contemporary
history
at
the
University
of
Florence,
Italy,
where
she
is
also
member
of
the
Equal
Opportunity
Committee.
She
was
a
Fulbright
Visiting
Scholar
at
Harvard;
Nato‐CNR
Fellow
at
The
Wellcome
Trust
Centre
for
the
History
of
Medicine
in
London;
Jean
Monnet
Fellow
at
the
European
University
Institute,
and
lecturer
in
the
Overseas
Program
of
Stanford
University.
Her
publications
69
include
Bambini
e
salute
in
Europe
1750‐2000/Children
and
Health
in
Europe
1750‐2000
(ed.,
Polistampa
2004)
and
In
scienza
e
coscienza.
Maternità
nascite
e
aborto
(ed.,
Carocci
2009
)
Patrizia
and
Kathleen
were
the
conference
photographers.
Contact
her
at
patrizia.guarnieri@unifi.it
Colin
M.
Heywood
teaches
history
at
the
University
of
Nottingham.
He
is
author
of
A
History
of
Childhood:
Children
and
Childhood
in
the
West
from
Medieval
to
Modern
Times
(2001)
and
Growing
Up
in
France:
From
the
Ancien
Régime
to
the
Third
Republic
(2007).
Kathleen
W.
Jones
is
associate
professor
of
history
at
Virginia
Tech.
She
is
the
author
of
Taming
the
Troublesome
Child;
American
Families,
Child
Guidance,
and
the
Limits
of
Psychiatric
Authority
(Harvard
University
Press,
1999).
Her
current
project
is
a
history
of
youth
suicide
in
the
United
States,
1870
to
the
present.
She
also
edits
the
SHCY
Bulletin
and
can
be
reached
at
kjwj@vt.edu
Julia
Mickenberg
is
associate
professor
of
American
Studies
at
the
University
of
Texas
at
Austin
and
the
author
of
Learning
from
the
Left:
Children's
Literature,
the
Cold
War,
and
Radical
Politics
in
the
United
States
(Oxford
UP,
2006),
which
won
the
Grace
Abbott
prize
from
SHCY
for
2005‐2006.
Steven
Mintz,
after
many
years
as
the
Moores
Professor
of
History
at
the
University
of
Houston,
became
the
Director
of
the
Graduate
School
of
Arts
and
Sciences
Teaching
Center
at
Columbia
University
in
2008.
The
creator
of
the
Digital
History
website,
he
is
a
member
of
Columbia's
History
Department
and
serves
on
the
Board
of
Advisors
of
the
Gilder
Lehrman
Institute
of
American
History,
Film
&
History,
the
History
Teacher,
the
Journal
of
Family
Life,
and
Slavery
&
Abolition.
His
13
books
include
Huck's
Raft:
A
History
of
American
Childhood
and
Domestic
Revolutions:
A
Social
History
of
American
Family
Life.
He
is
currently
writing
a
history
of
American
adulthood.
Email:
sm3031@columbia.edu
Tamara
Myers
teaches
history
at
the
University
of
British
Columbia.
Her
book,
Caught:
Montreal’s
Modern
Girls
and
the
Law,
1869‐1945,
was
published
by
the
University
of
Toronto
Press
in
2006.
Jennifer
Ritterhouse
teaches
history
at
Utah
State
University.
She
is
author
of
Growing
Up
Jim
Crow:
How
Black
and
White
Southern
Children
Learned
Race
(2006)
Deborah
Valentine
is
a
PhD
Candidate
in
Childhood
Studies
at
Rutgers‐Camden.
She
comes
to
Rutgers‐Camden
from
her
recent
position
as
Research
Associate
at
St.
Joseph
University's
Child
Development
Lab.
Lynne
Vallone,
Professor
of
Childhood
Studies,
is
Chair
of
the
Childhood
Studies
Department
at
Rutgers‐Camden.
She
also
teaches
in
the
English
Department
and
is
an
70
Associate
in
the
Center
for
Children
and
Childhood
Studies.
Her
research
and
teaching
interests
include
children’s
literature
and
culture,
the
visual
and
material
cultures
of
childhood
and
girlhood,
and
the
Victorian
Age.
She
is
the
author
of
Disciplines
of
Virtue:
Girls‚
Culture
in
the
Eighteenth
and
Nineteenth
Centuries
(1995)
and
Becoming
Victoria
(2001)
and
the
co‐editor
of
The
Norton
Anthology
of
Children‚s
Literature
(2005).
Colleen
A.
Vasconcellos
is
a
Visiting
Assistant
Professor
in
the
Department
of
History
at
the
University
of
West
Georgia.
In
addition
to
being
co‐editor
of
the
SHCY
Newsletter,
Colleen
is
also
an
editor
of
H‐Africa
and
H‐Caribbean
and
an
Advisory
Board
member
of
H‐Childhood.
Her
forthcoming
book
with
Jennifer
Hillman
Helgren
entitled
Girlhood:
A
Global
History,
is
scheduled
for
publication
in
early
2010
with
Rutgers
University
Press.
Email:
cvasconc@westga.edu
Nancy
Zey
is
Assistant
Professor
in
History
at
Sam
Houston
State
University.
In
May
2007,
she
completed
her
PhD
in
History
from
the
University
of
Texas
at
Austin
and
is
currently
working
on
a
manuscript
looking
at
child
welfare
in
early
republic
Natchez,
Mississippi.
She
has
recently
authored
two
publications
relating
to
the
history
of
children:
"Children
of
the
Public:
Poor
and
Orphaned
Minors
in
the
Southwest
Borderlands,"
in
James
Marten,
ed.,
Children
and
Youth
in
a
New
Nation,
New
York
University
Press
(2009)
and
"'Every
Thing
but
a
Parent's
Love':
The
Family
Life
of
Orphan
Asylums
in
the
Lower
Mississippi
Valley,"
in
Craig
Thompson
Friend
and
Anya
Jabour,
eds.,
Family
Values
in
the
Old
South,
University
Press
of
Florida
(2009).
Contact
Nancy
at
nancyzey@shsu.edu.
Michael
Zuckerman
teaches
history
at
the
University
of
Pennsylvania.
He
is
co‐editor
with
Willem
Koops,
of
Beyond
the
Century
of
the
Child:
Cultural
History
and
Developmental
Psychology
(2003
)
among
other
writings
about
American
childhood.
71
72