According to Keenan (2002), a theory is defined as an interconnected, logical system of concepts that provides framework for organizing and understanding observations. The function of theories is to allow for understanding of some aspect of the world and in this case the theoretical anchor of my thesis provides an understanding of the lives of children in ECCD in Makululu. My research has been informed by theories that are embedded in the sociology of childhood. The sociology of childhood saw its rise as a critique to the dominant discourses about childhood that were rooted in psychology and sociology (Prout and James, 1990). Citing Jenks (1982), they note that the developmental approach to childhood that psychology provides is based on the idea of natural growth with childhood representing the period of apprenticeship. Childhood is seen as a biologically determined stage on the path to full human status. Embedded in this view of children is the idea of their naturalness and therefore universality of childhood.
According to Corsaro (2005), sociology’s thinking relegates the child to a passive role leading to children being marginalized in sociology whereas the sociology of childhood is a critique to such arguments which render the child as passive. Instead the argument is that the child is active in its everyday life as a ‘thinker’ and a ‘doer’. I will now turn to discuss the view of the child and childhood as argued by the sociology of childhood.
4.2.1 Socially Constructed childhood:
The assertion of socially constructed childhood is that rather than being facts of nature, children and childhood are social constructs (Woodhead and Montgomery, 2003). The implication of this is that children and childhood are viewed, understood, interpreted and experienced differently in different societies and are a product of human meaning- making (ibid). This view is one of the anchors of the sociology of childhood as postulated by James et al. (1998) who argue that childhood does not exist in a finite and identifiable form and consistent with the argument forwarded by Qvortrup (1994:3) that childhood is the life-space which our culture or society limits it to be.
To note that a particular culture or society defines childhood is to argue for a variety of childhoods as opposed to a universal childhood. Children in every society have unique experiences and as such can speak of having different childhoods. This view is important in abandoning the view of children as ‘natural’ and moving towards viewing the natural as cultural (Gullestad 1989, cited in Nilsen; 2008). Every society or context has what is taken for granted and perceived as the norm or natural but the perspective that is offered by social constructionism allows for the taken for granted to be re-constructed culturally and thematized thus understanding the specific context (Ibid). Hence, James et al. (1998), argue that childhoods are variable and intentional and refute that there is no ‘universal child’ with which to engage. In this study, I use this approach because it ascribes to the idea of a variety of childhoods. As I mentioned earlier, children in Zambia are affected by a number of factors due to the country’s socio-economic position among other issues. Echoing the argument forwarded by Qvortrup (2002) that childhood is what a particular culture constrains it to be, Evans and Myers, 1994 argue that children grow up in a wide variety of different physical, social and cultural circumstances. They further argue that within cultures, there is diversity and those practices patterns and beliefs define childhood in that particular society. A review of studies on childrearing practices in Namibia, Zambia, Malawi, Nigeria and Mali found similarities in beliefs and practices across all studies which indicated that parental and community goals for children are centered around social and human values of respect, self-reliance, being helpful, cooperative and obedient(Evans, 1994)
As I mentioned earlier, Zambia is multiethnic and multicultural society (Kelly, et al, 1998). In Zambia, children are seen as members of a collective rather than individuals and belong to the family. Emphasis is placed on family relationships and kinship ties. Obedience, respect and hard work is expected for the Zambian child who is trained through chores how to grow into a responsible and respectful adult and work for the collective good. The CRC State Party Report notes that in Zambia, respect for children’s views may be one of the difficult principles to comply with and though children are heard in different forums, their views may not receive the degree of seriousness they deserve. The report further notes that Zambia is still a society in which adults are perceived as being always wise and children as immature. As such, the cultural practice is such that obedience and responsibility are emphasized in the raising of children. Aside from cultural values of obedience and respect, religion plays an important role in Zambian childhood. Children are raised according to the faith and religious beliefs of the parent and family with Christianity being the dominant religion. Religion is an integral part of the society and as such children are expected to adhere to Christian values.
The idea of socially constructed childhood is mirrored in my research as it ascribes to the view of children and childhood as social constructs. Children and childhood are understood differently in different contexts and at different times. By noting the ideas and views of children and adults about childhood, my study explores how childhood is conceptualized in Makululu. Childhood is also affected by other socio-cultural and economic aspects of Makululu as a particular context which I will discuss and explore in my analysis chapters.
4.2.2 Children as social actors:
Through the course of history and intellectual discourses, children’s activities are viewed as purposeless and when viewed as purposeful, they are seen as preparation for adulthood (Qvortrup, 2002). However in the shift in theorizing children that came with the sociology of childhood, children are seen as active in the construction of their lives. Wartofsky (1981) cited in Qvortrup (2002) notes that children are active in their own right and their actions are not imitations. This is consistent with the following argument;
Children are and must be seen as active in the construction of their own lives, the lives of those around them and the societies in which they live. Children are not just the passive subjects of social structures and processes James and Prout, (1990) cited in James (2008 p.40)
As a social actor, the child is seen as capable of making meaning of their life, the lives of those around them and the society in which they live rather than being seen as a passive subject of social structures and processes James and Prout (1990) cited in (Qvortrup Corsaro & Honig 2009). In view of the above, childhood studies is concerned with doing research with children rather than on children. The view that the child is active in the construction of their life entails that we seek their active participation in research because children lead lives worthy of study (Qvortrup, Corsaro, & Honig, 2009). As noted by James (2007) citing Children’s Rights International (2005, p.27) children must be approached as knowing subjects and there is need to ensure that the voices of children are prominent in explorations about what is going on in their lives.
Rooted in this idea of children as social actors is the concept of ‘agency’ which Robson, Bell, and Klocker (2007) define as an individual’s own capacities, competencies and activities through which they navigate the contexts and positions of their life worlds. Through this, the individual is able to fulfil many economic, social, and cultural expectations while at the same time charting individual and collective choices and possibilities for their daily and future lives (ibid). When we conceptualize children as agents, we view them as ‘doers’ and ‘thinkers.’ According to Robson et al. (2007), agency can take many forms including creative and reactive agency. Children demonstrate creative agency by making things happen while reactive agency is demonstrated by resisting expectation and by bargaining. Thus, James (2009) argues that on the one hand studying children as social actors entails seeing them as ‘active’ in the construction of their lives and leading lives worthy of study. Looking at children as ‘agents’ regards them as having a part to play in the lives of others in the society in which they are living. My study subscribes to this view of children by presenting their views on what childhood is where they recognize and value their contribution within the family collective.
This is consistent to what Abebe (2013) argues as interdependent agency when he notes that in most non-western societies, the rights and individual capacity of children tie in with familial, social and economic transformations in which their lives unfold. This view of children is important in this study as it identifies children conceptually as part of the family collective and hence recognizes the role they play in the family.