Resistencia a la Polarización Lineal (RPL)

Traditional Western social science theories of children were dominated by individual and developmental psychology (W.A. Corsaro, 2005; Handel et al., 2007). As Corsaro (2005) explains, these theories see children as “consumers of cultures established by adults” (p. 7). Children are viewed as being “apart from society” and as those who “must be shaped and guided by external forces in order to become … fully functioning member[s]” (p. 7). This task is accomplished through socialization. Chinoy (1961) explained that socialization

130 prepares the individual for the roles he is to play, providing him with the necessary repertoire of habits, beliefs, and values, the appropriate patterns of emotional response and the modes of perception, the requisite skills and knowledge. (p. 75)

Socialization is defined by Corsaro (2005) as “the processes by which children adapt and internalize society” (p. 7). He describes two models of socialization proposed by traditional theories: a deterministic model, and its successor, a constructivist model.

The earlier deterministic perspective explained by Parsons, one of its principle advocates, is such that “[i]n a cyclical process of dealing with problems and through formal training to accept and follow social norms, the child eventually internalizes the social system” (Parsons & Bales, 1956, p. 202). The actual process by which this is done however was not clear (W.A. Corsaro, 2005; Prout & James, 1997). The theory nevertheless implies that children have a “passive role” (W.A. Corsaro, 2005, p. 8) and are moulded by society (Prout & James, 1997). Childhood is seen as a preparation stage in which children learn to be adults, and the predominant trait of being a child is then “not yet an adult” (Shamgar-Handelman, 1994, p. 250). Such a view of children leads to the idea that children are “human becomings” (J. Qvortrup, 1994, p. 18). According to Corsaro (2005), the “overconcentration on the outcomes of socialization” was one of the theory’s “weaknesses” which drew criticism (p. 9). Another weakness he observes is that it “limits children’s involvement to cultural participation and reproduction while ignoring children’s contributions to cultural refinement and change” (p. 10).

This latter limitation was partially addressed by the constructivist model based on Piaget and Vygotsky’s theories of human development. It “stressed children’s active role” such that “children, through their acquistion and use of language, come to produce a culture that contains the knowledge of generations” (W.A. Corsaro, 2005, p. 13). Its opponents counter that the focus still remains “on individual development” offering a “somewhat lonely view of children” (W.A. Corsaro, 2005, p. 16) that fails to recognize the process’s “largely collective and communal character” (Handel et al., 2007, p. 18), despite Piaget and Vygotksy’s highlighting of the importance of social interaction in an individual’s development. The persistent emphasis on the end goal of socialization also “acts as a kind of suppressor of childhood’s present tense, orientating analysis either towards the past (what went wrong with socialization) or the future (what the goals of socialization should be)” (Prout & James, 1997, p. 28).

131 If these traditional views were to be adopted for the purposes of this research, it would mean that the long-term effects of natural disaster events on children’s lives are of greater concern than the short-term impacts. On the other hand, it could be argued, through this lens of child-becoming-adult, that alleviating suffering for the child also mitigates psychological, physiological or social damage in the future; a significant benefit from an international or community development perspective.

Even so, two additional criticisms of the concept of traditional socialization challenge its acceptance as a research framework. First, it neglects the voice and agency of children (Pufall & Unsworth, 2004). Prout & James (1997) describe the history of the study of childhood as having “been marked not by an absence of interest in children … but by their silence” (p. 7). Similar remarks have also been made by disaster researchers with respect to children (Jabry, 2002; Peek, 2008). In order “to give a voice to children” and not regard them simply as future adults, it is necessary to “regard them as people to be studied in their own right” (Prout & James, 1997, p. 8). Second, the recognition that “meaning attached to the category ‘child’ and ‘childhood’ might differ across time or in space” is in contrast with traditional theories which Prout and James (1997) believe to contain a “implicit [Western] cultural bias” (p. 14). Cultural variability of childhood must be accounted for if an approach is to be suitable for this study, if not for more than the fact that the children involved are from a non-Western country.

Reference has not been made to Indonesian sociological theories of children and childhood because of the limited availability of translated information on the subject. Even though it is also limited, the cultural theories of family and children presented in Section 2.2.5 and 2.2.6 offer some insight into how Javanese society views children and help inform this discussion. In examining the traditional Western theories, Shamgar-Handelman’s (1994) statement that the predominant trait of a child is “not yet an adult” (p. 250) is reminiscent of the Javanese notion of a child being “during Djawa or ‘not yet Javanese’” (Peacock, 1978, p. 57). The Javanese concept differs, however, from traditional Western concepts of children in that a Javanese child becomes “a cultured Javanese” after the age of five or six (Peacock, 1978, p. 57) and is treated as an young adult (K. W. Yuniarti, personal communication, March 4, 2010). Western societies typically view individuals as children until the age of thirteen (Frønes, 1994), and not adults until the age of eighteen (Manyena et al., 2008). The extent of the influence of this view of children in the disaster context is

132 difficult to ascertain given the limited information available. The thought that children above the age of five or six are considered as adults, however, does suggest that they would be seen to have ‘adult’ responsibilities and capabilities, which is more in line with new Western sociological theories that recognize children’s active nature and their contributions to society.

In response to traditional Western theories, critics of socialization proposed a new sociology of childhood that addresses the role and status of children in research and theory (James & Prout, 1997a). Some proponents of this new paradigm are careful to note that there is not a complete rejection of socialization, but merely a rejection of its focus.

[R]e-presenting childhood does not mean the complete rejection of socialization and social re-production theories. On the contrary they both remain important areas. But what is vital is to focus on children not only as protoadults, future-beings, but also on children as beings-in-the-present. The importance of some contemporary accounts of socialization lies therefore in the way they see the future shaping of a child’s adult life in and through present adult constructions of childhood. (James & Prout, 1997b, p. 245)

Corsaro (2005) on the other hand asserts that “the problem is the term socialization itself. It has an individualistic and forward-looking connotation that is inescapable. One hears the term, and the idea of training and preparing the individual child for the future keeps coming to mind” (p. 18). He proposes the term “interpretive reproduction” in its place (p. 18). Interpretive “captures the innovative and creative aspects of children’s participation in society” while reproduction, such as sub-cultural development, establishes “the idea that children are not simply internalizing society and culture, but are actively contributing to cultural production and change” (p. 19).

Handel et al. (2007) responds to both of these critiques by saying that many critics have “overreacted to those approaches’ shortcomings” (p. 18) and those involved in the study of children “were moving beyond” the traditional approaches before these “became popular targets” (p. 19). Handel et al. instead raise the idea of using symbolic interactionism to study children and childhood, which others (James, Jenks, & Prout, 1998) contend provides a “softer version” of socialization which still marginalises the voice and agency of children’s voice (p. 25).

133 This research is more apt to embrace the idea of “interpretive reproduction” proposed by Corsaro (2005, p. 18) to look at children and childhood as it is free of connotation and promotes the creative and productive nature of children. Nevertheless, both contemporary socialization and interpretive reproduction ascribe to the ‘new’ theory of childhood, which advocates for the agency of children and the variability of childhoods across cultures.