Childhood in Children's Eyes: Analysis of a Discourse among Middle Income Sectors in Santiago, Chile
13
0
0
Texto completo
(2) 82. Ana Vergara et al.. For their part, discourses have been understood as social expressions rather than purely individual ones, and that in some cases tend to reproduce or help to transform the social positions assigned to children and adults (Alldred and Burman, 2006). The investigation was based on undirected interviews with groups of children, in order to facilitate an eventual discursive positioning of a generational (Mayall, 2002) or gender nature. We worked with one mixed group and two single-sex groups, each of them composed by eight children, and the same number of boys and girls in the mixed group. Half of the children were 10 years old and the rest 11. The socioeconomic sector was defined according to the ‘ADIMARK Index’”, within the context of a nation that had the 14th most unequal income distribution in the world, from a list of 177 countries (UNDP, 2008). This index divides the population into five strata: upper middle-income (11.3% of households of Santiago), middle-income (20.1%), lower middle-income (25.6%), poverty (34.5%) and extreme poverty (8.5%). In the case of the middle-income sector considered in this study, the children’s families had household heads with an average schooling of 14 years (complete technical education or incomplete university education), an average of 7.2 goods out of a total of 10 (shower, colour television, refrigerator, washing machine, water heater, microwave, cable or satellite television, internet and vehicle), and a monthly family income in the range of CLP 600 000 and 1 200 000 (between $1276 and $2552) (ADIMARK, 2004). In addition, the families of these children are composed of both parents and one or two children, with fathers and two-thirds of mothers working in commerce and services (the remainder of the mothers do not have a paid job). This coincides with the socio-demographic parameters of the general population: a majority of bi-parental families, although decreasing in number, and a third of women working outside the home. Children attend a State-subsidised private school, common in this stratum (the poorest are mostly in municipal schools and the wealthiest in paid private schools). These families do not have permanent domestic service but sometimes contract it on an hourly basis or for specific tasks. It is important to note that Chilean people express an intermediate level of acceptance of cultural changes in age/generational and gender patterns of relationship. Among them, younger people, the most educated, those belonging to upper socioeconomic strata and those living in Santiago accept age/generational and gender equality more easily (Agencia Mori, 2006; Lehmann, 2003).. Childhood and discourse Following James and James (2004, 2008), childhood was thought of as a social and historical institution built on the sedimentation of meanings and material processes (relations of power, body, time and space) concerning children. In this sense, childhood is an abstract notion, to be distinguished from children, the latter being individual historical actors inhabiting the social space of childhood, reproducing it and at the same time contributing to its structural transformation over time. Simultaneously, from Mayall’s (2002) perspective, childhood does not refer to a particular subject but is a relational concept, in that it accounts for the historically configured relations between children and the adult world. © 2012 The Author(s) CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 28, 81–92 (2014) Children & Society © 2012 National Children’s Bureau and Blackwell Publishing Limited.
(3) Childhood in Children’s Eyes. 83. Children’s discourses in the study were understood in terms of the theoretical distinctions just presented. Thus, the investigation focused on discourses about childhood as an abstract concept and about children as concrete historical subjects. From a relational perspective, the study also incorporated the subjects’ conception of adulthood, concrete adults, and the relations between adults and children. Gender differences in the responses of the children were also analysed. Studies of the discourse of children carried out in Chile, whether from a medical or psycholinguistic perspective, have focused on children’s ‘speech’ as a cognitive acquisition in the individual’s evolution (see, for example, Farkas, 2007; Ibañez, 2000; Schonhaut and others, 2008). In addition, UNICEF Chile (1995, 1996, 2004, 2005 and 2008) has developed a series of quantitative studies based on fixed-choice questionnaires and entitled ‘The Voice of the Children’, which explore the attitudes and opinions of children about a series of aspects of social life. Without questioning the interest this type of study may have, from a discourse perspective they have little to offer in exploring in depth the meanings conjured by children or their use of language and linguistic categories, or in contextualising children’s responses within the everyday scenes and research interaction in which they occur. We believe, therefore, that there is a need to pioneer in Chile research aimed at understanding the perspective of children as expressed in social discourses, an area hitherto undeveloped in the country, as well as using undirected methods that allow the children’s discourse emerges in all its complexity and subtlety. Following Alldred and Burman (2006), discursive investigation is particularly appropriate in working with children, given their explicit interest in questioning conventionally accepted categories and assumptions, an aspect which is indispensable for the social studies of childhood. With respect to the notion of discourse, the approach adopted in critical discourse analysis is pertinent because of its interest in studying the forms by which language contributes to the legitimisation of power differentials, whether arising from class relations, gender, ethnicity or the generation gap, as well as to transforming them. Moreover, users of this approach have shown interest in investigating and interpreting the process of discursive ‘colonisation’ (Fairclough, 2001) of a range of areas of social life (subjectivity, public policies, press, etc.) by the logic of the free market and free competition. This aspect is particularly relevant in Chile, which has been described in the international literature as the first country in which neo-liberal policies were applied and in which their application has been most extensive and systematic (Harvey, 2005; Moulián, 1997; Taylor, 2006).. Analysis of results Play and innocence During the group interviews the children gave a very fluent account of their perspectives and argued their points of view energetically, using both their own experiences as well as abstract references.. © 2012 The Author(s) CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 28, 81–92 (2014) Children & Society © 2012 National Children’s Bureau and Blackwell Publishing Limited.
(4) 84. Ana Vergara et al.. The question that opened the group interviews was about their perspective on childhood. In all the groups (mixed, only girls and only boys) this question was made time-dependent: both boys and girls would say ‘when one is a child’, or also ‘when one is small’, thus defining a period in life that involves them and is established in relative terms, depending on the linguistic context. In this sense, at several moments they themselves were the ‘big ones’ in comparison with babies and in other moments they were the ‘little ones’, when compared with young people or adults. To be ‘small’ corresponds to a way of acting, basically to play and mischief-making, and whoever no longer does that or is prevented from doing it has stopped being a child. In this sense and unlike many dominant discourses childhood is configured as relational from the start: it is about acting as a ‘child’ who needs the adult world to generate the conditions that make that possible. Why does a child stop playing and making mischief? Mainly due to the demands of the adult world which requires them to ‘grow and mature’. For me childhood is like…most of all to play, do things that grown-ups can’t do…do more naughty things. (Girls’ Group, Girl No. 6) We used to get up (in class) and all that and as we were small people understood, the teachers understood, but now… we have to adapt to having to be bigger and we have to mature. (Mixed Group, Girl No. 3). To be a child is, at the same time, ‘to do the things that grown-ups can’t do’, restricted as they are by work and parental pressures. It is a curious fact that these same impotent adults (impotent because of being unable) have the power to decide what a child must and must not do. Adults don’t like playing with toys, anyway they don’t have time because they are either working or doing things for us. (Mixed Group, Boy No. 2) I think that childhood is something to be enjoyed, because afterwards when one is big one has to work and all that…I’d like to be a child forever because I will never have to work, and I’ll spend more time at home with my family. (Boys’ Group, Boy No. 4). In order for play to be play, the girl or boy must not be concerned about the consequences of their actions or being punished by adults if they break an object or make a noise as part of the activity. In this sense, play is a child’s ‘right’, at the same time as it defines and constitutes their status as children. In this way, the discourses make reference to two types of action which are reflected in the reaction of adults: action without thinking of the consequences, accompanied by adults’ tolerance and permissiveness in regard to the consequences, and a measured and calculated action accompanied by the penalties imposed by adults if there are negative consequences. At stake here is a question of reflexivity in regard to the moral judgement to be expected in a child and the conditions under which a subject can be punished or ‘pardoned’ for their conduct. In Foucault’s (1995) terms, it is a question of the degree of responsibility of the subjects in a modern context in which judicial practices extend beyond the court-room and form part of the criteria by which everyday relations are organised When you are a child you are more innocent and parents and teachers forgive you a bit more. For example, you can damage a computer by mistake and when you are small you don’t know what you are doing and the parents say ‘Well it doesn’t matter, we’ll get it fixed’. (Girls’ Group, Girl No. 7) © 2012 The Author(s) CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 28, 81–92 (2014) Children & Society © 2012 National Children’s Bureau and Blackwell Publishing Limited.
(5) Childhood in Children’s Eyes. 85. When we were small we did things without thinking, silly things and we didn’t know what consequences they would have, now we hardly do anything that could affect us socially…. (Mixed Group, Boy No. 4). Nostalgia and oppression Children cast a nostalgic eye towards their past, a past in which their needs and desires seemed to be fully satisfied by adults who were always available and bought them anything they wanted. At the same time, as we just saw, they could act with freedom and without fear of the social or material consequences of their actions, as they did not ‘know’ what was right or wrong. They refer back to this idealised condition as if it were a sort of expulsion from the Garden of Eden, as told by one who has been expelled and will never return as he now ‘knows’, and knowing deprives him of his innocence. This biographical turning point occurs at the moment of entry into primary education; the rupture is even more intense when children begin fifth grade, which in Chile corresponds to the start of the so-called Second Primary Cycle, between the fifth and eighth grade of a total of eight grades, and in which disciplinary and learning demands increase. When you are small (…) you have fun, you have a good time all day, and when you start school it’s like you have more responsibilities and you can’t play so much or watch so much telly, and you have to do the homework they give you in school. (Mixed Group, Girl No. 2) I’m in fifth grade; so when I got to fifth grade my life changed because there are more teachers telling you to… giving you homework in each subject… and even so, sometimes we behave badly and all that because we are not really used to it…. (Mixed Group, Girl No. 3). Thus, schooling landmarks are engraved in their discourse like biographical markers demarcating different periods. One of the central features of the modern school is its sequential organisation, the assignment of children to different courses according to their age, which in turn is based on the assumption that there are qualitative differences between children from each period (Ariès, 1987). In this study, by contrast, the children never alluded spontaneously to different ages unless they were explicitly asked, and then they did hazard some age groups, thereby sparking a debate between them to define them but without being able to reach a consensus. They explain that as their recent entry into fifth grade in particular school takes up a good part of the day and by the time they get home they don’t have time to play or watch television as they have to do extra school work. Even at weekends they wake up early automatically even though they don’t need to as they don’t have to go to school. In school they feel under academic and disciplinary pressure to ‘pull their socks up’, as if there were some external energy they have to find and incorporate. When you enter fifth grade, the change is very sudden from fourth to fifth…you straight away have to pull your socks up in order not to have to repeat the year. (Mixed Group, Boy No. 2). At the same time both in their speech and in the emotional climate generated in the group interviews, the children transmit a powerful feeling of oppression in regard to their present life. Although at some moments they refer to growth as a physical or biological process and © 2012 The Author(s) CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 28, 81–92 (2014) Children & Society © 2012 National Children’s Bureau and Blackwell Publishing Limited.
(6) 86. Ana Vergara et al.. ‘growing up’ as a psychological process, in general both growth and growing up are seen as demands of parents and teachers, who question them about it. They ‘have to grow up’; there is no alternative.. Doing things alone The children say that their parents began to behave differently towards them after they entered fifth grade, as if school criteria had the power to redefine all their social relations. Their parents began to insist that they ‘be independent’, meaning that they should do things for themselves that before they did not, like prepare their tea, make their bed or organise their time on their own. They resent this independence as a lack of help and a sensation of loneliness. Being independent means having to do things on your own, having to be sometimes alone in the house or to serve yourself food on your own, things like that with help from nobody. Sometimes you feel like you need somebody and you stick to your Mum or Dad, and when you begin to live alone you begin to miss them. (Mixed Group, Girl No. 4). The debate that took place in the boys’ group on the connotations of Independence is interesting. For some, it seems reasonable to be ordered to do domestic chores because of the need for mutual support and reciprocity between the members of the household. For others, it is an attack on the very notion of childhood as a ‘lack of responsibilities’. They say to me, come on, dry the plates, and I say, ‘But Mum, I’m tired’, and she says ‘go on dry them, right now’, and if I don’t she punishes me. I think that this is something that adults didn’t like being made to do either when they were children. So I think if they didn’t like it, why they do this to us now…? (Boys’ Group, Boy No. 1) It’s just about tidying up, nothing more! You can’t be in your house and not do anything, I do things too! (Boys’ Group, Boy No. 6). Dirt and skills The type of television programme chosen, the radio station selected or the kind of music listened to are also used by children as discursive references to distinguish between ‘little ones’ and bigger children. They base such distinctions on the nature of the content; those that are ‘dirty’ — that refer to sexuality or homosexuality, apart from including obscenities — belong to the bigger children. They detect historical differences in that children now understand and access contents ever earlier that in their time they could neither follow or understand. They appear, indeed, to be somewhat scandalised by what they see as the early exposure to sex or premature loss of innocence of the smallest children, just as the press is. So the discourse they install is normative and prescriptive, and deals with what ‘children should not do’ or, in this case, find out about things related to sexuality or use obscenities: The thing about children these days is very different (…) from how we were (…) There’s a song by Justin Bieber which is dirty but I don’t understand how children of fourth grade can understand that. When I was in fourth grade I had no idea what that song meant…. (Girls’ Group, Girl No. 7). On the other hand, they value the fact that the new generations are increasingly skilled in their use of new technologies, creating a gulf between them and their own parents, whom © 2012 The Author(s) CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 28, 81–92 (2014) Children & Society © 2012 National Children’s Bureau and Blackwell Publishing Limited.
(7) Childhood in Children’s Eyes. 87. they often have to help and advise — a role that fills them with pride. Thus, an exercise of historical reflexivity can be observed in regard to their own generation and succeeding ones and their relation to technological know-how and patterns of cultural consumption.. Ambivalence with respect to growing up Being young is seen, by the children interviewed, as attractive and undesirable, at the same time. Young people are described as physically appealing and more respected as interlocutors by adults than they are. In addition, parents give more freedom to young people while continuing to accompany and help them. However, the young have more academic responsibilities and less free time than children. My cousin has been in the university for three years. I think that when he was smaller, when he was in school, they didn’t treat him the same way…they don’t take much notice of the opinion of little children. Now he his big and they let him… I mean he gives his opinion more. (Mixed Group, Boy No. 4) (The good thing about being a young person) are the permissions (which parents give them). It’s like half the time you decide and half the time your parents decide. On other hand, you need the support of your parents. (Girls’ Group, Girl No. 8) (The young people) don’t play with us any more. When we get home we start to play. They don’t have much time now. They have more obligations to do. (Boys’ group. Boy No. 3). Simultaneously, young people are characterised as debauched and self-degraded, the counterpart of their newly gained freedom as well as an expression of the stereotyped representation of youth in the press during the last decade. A sort of ‘moral panic’ (Goode and Ben-Yehuda, 2009) is present in these children’s discourse with respect to the young and their (supposedly) generalised transgressions of the restrictions on drugs and alcohol even to the detriment of their own physical integrity, as well as of the gender imperatives of motherhood and decency, in the case of young women. Like in adolescence, most adolescent girls just give their children away. (Girl No. 5) They abort them or chuck them in the rubbish! (Girls’ Group, Girl No. 7) It’s like when they are eighteen…they’ve got their car and that, they become more irresponsible, they go to parties, get drunk, are out on their own in the streets, the girls too! And then they end up crashing the car and getting hurt. (Mixed Group, Boy No. 2). There is no ambivalence, in contrast, with respect to adulthood, which is clearly marked by loss of pleasure, play, diversion, authenticity, physical health, beauty, imagination, the possibility of sharing time with the family and dedicating time to oneself, while ‘gaining’ in overload and exhaustion, economic pressures, work, domestic and parental obligations, weariness, physical deterioration and ugliness. Their discourse, then, reveals no trace of that urge to be an adult that the adult world thought it perceived and tries to stimulate in the world of children. The children of the mixed group and the girls’ group appeared to accept this transition and these losses and not to rebel against them, at least explicitly. Rather, they convey a sensation © 2012 The Author(s) CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 28, 81–92 (2014) Children & Society © 2012 National Children’s Bureau and Blackwell Publishing Limited.
(8) 88. Ana Vergara et al.. of something that is inevitable, of a destiny, of something that is a feature of ‘life as it is’, rather than of something specific to a period in time, a way of life, or particular circumstances. In the boys’ group, on the other hand, there is greater effort to identify the structural conditions that make the life of adults so ‘crushing’, and it is these conditions that, on a second glance now stripped of ingenuousness, show the ‘promise of adult freedom’ to be a deceptive illusion. At time I would have liked to be bigger because, yes, there are benefits and things like that; but after thinking about it and seeing my parents so stressed out, working, then…I have realized it with my mum, sometimes, when she arrives all tired out. (Boys’ Group, Boy No. 8) There are times when the bosses are completely inconsiderate with their workers. Like they say they are going to pay them on a certain day and they say: ‘No. we don’t have the money’, and they have tons of money in their (bank) account…! (Boys’ Group, Boy No. 6) When you are small you think you will have a house, you’ll be able to drive and all that, but when you are big to have a house you have to pay the electricity, the water, you have to pay everything…. (Boys’ Group, Boy No. 3). Some gender nuances Below, only a brief reference will be made to the differences between discourses according to the gender context in which they were produced (mixed group, girls’ group and boys’ group). The three groups expressed similar views along the lines of those already discussed. The differences had to do with the emphasis placed on certain points and fundamentally with the contexts of interaction and the emotional tone of the discourse. In the mixed group, a feeling of oppression with regard to their everyday life and the demands imposed by the adult world prevailed at first, but in a second moment the discourse turned ironic, sarcastic and irreverent towards adults, mainly towards their parents. In the case of the girls’ group, the dialogue took on a tone of secrecy, of a ‘conversation between women’ which included the interviewers and in which formulas and suggestions were exchanged on ‘how to deal with’ men and their fathers. The girls’ group, moreover, was the forum in which the discourse had an explicit tone of advocacy, by insisting directly that adults respect their right to be listened to and validated as interlocutors, and as people who require and are able to provide explanations of their behaviour and that of others. In the case of the boys’ group, they seemed to approach the initial questions with a certain phenomenological detachment and adopted a philosophical and more abstract debating tone, in which the need to see childhood in perspective and the nature of freedom were discussed. At the same time, as noted previously, they showed awareness and compassion in taking into account the working conditions of adults and the injustices present in them, as well as the difficulty of combining work outside the home with their domestic and parenting responsibilities.. Final discussion Within the framework of a qualitative and small-scale study, there is no pretension to generalise directly from these findings, but despite their limitations they do contribute to a better © 2012 The Author(s) CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 28, 81–92 (2014) Children & Society © 2012 National Children’s Bureau and Blackwell Publishing Limited.
(9) Childhood in Children’s Eyes. 89. theoretical-empirical understanding of children’s discourse, which can only be the product of cumulative research (Vasilachis de Gialdino, 1992). The children of this study gave expression to several dominant representations which are available to any member of the culture, as well as engaging in some subtle exercises of what Ruth Wodak (2001b) calls ‘discursive resistance’, in which novel contents and linguistic resources appear which directly or indirectly weaken the hegemonic interpretations. These children show awareness of one aspect of the cultural representation of childhood that has been decisive in modern societies: an association between childhood and innocence. This innocence implies ignorance and incapacity to ‘understand’ impure and somewhat murky topics like sexuality itself and sexual diversity. It also implies incapacity to foresee and take responsibility for one’s own actions and their consequences, which has had in our societies important consequences in areas like the notion of citizenship and criminal responsibility. The same innocence absolves children of labour and domestic responsibilities by associating childhood with a period of play, entertainment, schooling and preparation for adult life. As is evident and several authors have observed (Lavallette and others, 2002; Punch, 2001), these representations conceal the real living conditions of the majority of the world’s children, being an idealisation of the protected childhood more typical of the elites and middle classes of Western societies, particularly of the North. It could be argued that the model of childhood the subjects of the study described is close to their own reality, as belonging to a middle-income sector of a nation with a great percentage of children in primary school (93.2% according to the 2009 CASEN survey) and a low number of working children compared to other Latin American countries. This is true, but what is more relevant is that the discourse of these children speaks of the rupture of that idealised situation, so that their life is ‘not what it should be’ or how they would like it to be. In the first place, unlike what an adult might imagine, innocence or the absence of responsibilities (with the exception of labour responsibilities) seemed to last very little, only during the pre-school period or at most until they enter the fifth grade of primary school. Like many present-day adults, as well as the communications media and the disciplinary discourse of mainstream psychology, the children of the study searched in their own life histories and those of previous generations for the preservation of the ‘lost essence of childhood’. In the second place, like many adults, the children in the study seem to express nostalgia for a historical moment in which the supposed innocence of children was upheld by adult control over the information and images circulating socially to which children could have access, such control being no longer practicable in the context of contemporary telecommunications (Steinberg and Kincheloe, 1997). These children are from a socioeconomic stratum that has progressively increased its access to computers, internet and cable television over the last decade (Velasco, 2010), regarding which adult control has become more and more difficult. In the third place, the supposed innocence of children does not come without a price. Whoever does not know or answer for his acts is not considered by adults to be a valid or rational interlocutor, and is denied explanations. The girls’ group resent this more openly, as noted previously, but resentment appears also in the mixed group, expressed in irony and by ridiculing their parents and their inconsistencies. © 2012 The Author(s) CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 28, 81–92 (2014) Children & Society © 2012 National Children’s Bureau and Blackwell Publishing Limited.
(10) 90. Ana Vergara et al.. In the fourth place — here a subtle exercise of resistance can be seen — they resent having less and less moments to play, a decisive action in their representation of childhood, while school seems to colonise the major part of their daily life, disciplining their body even beyond week days. This could be related to the tendency towards institutionalisation and over-schooling of daily life in Western societies that have been observed in Chile (OPECH, 2006) and in other countries (Mayall, 2001). At the same time, this could also be related to one of the effects of the introduction of neo-liberal principles into Chilean education, in which children and parents, as well as teachers, have come under enormous pressure to improve individual performance, which is measured by standardised tests in order to ensure competition between schools. By attributing integration into society to individual ability and skills, school performance seems to have acquired, in Chile, a tragic connotation as it can predict a person’s future, whether defined as a ‘success’ in the market, or condemned to a growing marginalisation (Redondo, 2005). In the fifth place, the children of the study also seemed to express cultural nostalgia for a historical moment in which the living conditions of middle-class families helped sustain a cultural image of a ‘correct’ family and a protected childhood. For Valdés (2008), it was a short period in Chile’s history between the 1950s and the beginning of the 1970s that is associated with the high point of a ‘social state’, with strong social policies, greater job security (mainly for State employees) and with an institutionalised nuclear family. In present-day Chile, the middle-income and lower middle-income sectors are faced with a precarious employment situation, a high rate of indebtedness (Moulián, 1997), long working hours, a weakening of universal social policies (Arriagada, 2008), long travel times in a city characterised by unregulated growth, and an excessive domestic and care-giving workload for adult women (Reyes and others, 2007). Within this context, adulthood holds little attraction for the children in the study, above all when they see their parents overwhelmed and exhausted and far removed from their own desires and pleasures. Now it is the adults who are defined as lacking (in freedom, time and creativity) in an exercise of discursive resistance or ‘stigma inversion’ similar to that described in other discursively marginalised groups (Sepúlveda, 2003). In summary, their discourse was complex, tinged with nuance and ambivalence, both regarding childhood and adulthood (and even youth). This could be understood as the expression of a wider cultural ambivalence about these constructs and the simultaneous presence of discursive dominance and resistance in actors’ discourses. Nostalgia and burden are the predominant discursive tone, with respect to persons who are presented as overwhelmed by the obligations of the present and the risks of the future. This could be related to the context of the neo-liberal individualisation of Chilean society already mentioned, although the small scale of the study calls for prudence with respect to the explanations of the discourses. Between 2012 and 2014, the other socioeconomic strata are to be incorporated in a further study, which will provide more solid bases for comparison and interpretation.. Acknowledgements We are grateful to FONDECYT for financial support to the project. We also thank Erica Burman for her assistance and collaboration.. © 2012 The Author(s) CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 28, 81–92 (2014) Children & Society © 2012 National Children’s Bureau and Blackwell Publishing Limited.
(11) Childhood in Children’s Eyes. 91. References ADIMARK. 2004. Mapa socioeconómico de Chile. Nivel socioeconómico de los hogares del paı́s basado en datos del Censo. Available at http://www.adimark.cl/medios/estudios/Mapa_Socioeconomico_de_Chile.pdf [Accessed 1 April 2009]. Agencia Mori. 2006. Informe de prensa: Estudio Mundial de Valores 2006 (World Values Survey 2006). Available at http://www.ideas.cl/intranet/recursos/14624653484ef866794b2.pdf [Accessed 8 May 2007]. Alldred P, Burman E. 2006. Analysing children’s accounts using discourse analysis. In Researching Children’s Experience: Approaches and Methods. Greene S, Hogan D (eds.). Sage: London; 175–198. Ariès P. 1987 [1960]. El niño y la vida familiar en el antiguo régimen. Taurus: Madrid. Arriagada I. 2008. Presentación de la Coordinadora del Libro. In Futuro de las familias y desafı́os para las polı́ticas. Arriagada I (ed.). Serie Seminarios y Conferencias No. 52. CEPAL: Santiago; 163–165. Fairclough N. 2001. Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientific research. In Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. Wodak R, Meyer M (eds.). Sage: London; 121–138. Farkas Ch. 2007. Comunicación Gestual en la infancia temprana: una revisión de su desarrollo. Relación con el lenguaje e implicancias de su intervención. Psykhe 2: 107–115. Foucault M. 1995 [1978]. La verdad y las formas jurı́dicas. Gedisa: Barcelona. Giberti E. 1997. La niñez y el hacer polı́tica. In Polı́ticas y niñez. Giberti E (ed.). Losada: Buenos Aires; 23–113. Goode E, Ben-Yehuda N. 2009. Moral Panics. The Social Construction of Deviance. Blackwell Publishing: Malden and Oxford. Harvey D. 2005. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford University Press: Oxford and New York. Ibañez N. 2000. El Lenguaje en el Niño: una nueva mirada. Estudios Pedagógicos 26: 51–67. James A, James AL. 2004. Constructing Childhood. Theory, Policy and Social Practice. Palgrave Macmillan: London. James A, James AL. 2008. Changing childhood in the UK: reconstructing discourses of “risk” and “protection”. In European Childhoods: Cultures, Politics and Childhoods in the European Union. James A, James AL (eds.). Palgrave: Basingstoke; 105–128. Lavallette M, Cunningham S. 2002. The sociology of childhood. In Children, Welfare and the State. Goldson B, Lavalette M, McKechnie J. (eds.). Sage: London; 9–28. Lehmann C. 2003. Mujer, trabajo y familia: realidad, percepciones y desafı́os. Análisis sobre la base de la encuesta CEP de Diciembre de 2002. Centro de Estudios Públicos: Santiago. Mayall B. 2001. Understanding Childhoods: a London study. In Conceptualizing Child–Adult Relations. Alanen L, Mayall B (eds.). RoutledgeFalmer: London; 114–128. Mayall B. 2002. Towards a Sociology for Childhood. Open University Press: Maidenhead. Moulián T. 1997. Chile actual: Anatomı́a de un mito. LOM: Santiago. OPECH. 2006. Jornada escolar completa: la divina tragedia de la educación chilena. Documento de Trabajo No. 3. Available at http://www.opech.cl/inv/documentos_trabajo/JEC.pdf [Accessed 2 August 2011]. Punch S. 2001. Negotiating autonomy: childhoods in rural Bolivia. In Conceptualizing Child–Adult Relations. Mayall B, Alanen L (eds.). Routledge: London; 23–36. Redondo J. 2005. El experimento chileno en educación: ¿conduce a mayor equidad y calidad en la educación? Ultima Década 22: 95–110. Reyes N, Paz C, Todaro R. 2007. Chile: Servicios de cuidado y división de responsabilidad de cuidado dentro del hogar. Red Internacional de Género y Comercio-Capı́tulo Chileno: Santiago. Schonhaut L, Maggiolo M, Herrera M. 2008. Lenguaje e inteligencia de preescolares: Análisis de su relación y factores asociados. Revista Chilena de Pediatrı́a 79: 600–606. Sepúlveda M. 2003. El aguante o la consagración de la pasión guerrera: territorio, masculinidad y violencia en dos barras bravas chilenas. In Esa oscura vida radiante. Juventud, infancia y nuevas identidades culturales. Vergara A, Bustos J (eds.). Escaparate y Universidad Diego Portales: Santiago; 87–123. Steinberg S, Kincheloe J (eds.). 1997. Cultura infantil y multinacionales. Morata: Madrid. © 2012 The Author(s) CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 28, 81–92 (2014) Children & Society © 2012 National Children’s Bureau and Blackwell Publishing Limited.
(12) 92. Ana Vergara et al.. Taylor M. 2006. From Pinochet to the “Third Way”. Neoliberalism and Transformation in Chile. Pluto Press: London. UNDP. 2008. Human Development Report, 2007–2008. Fighting Climate Change: Human solidarity in a divided world. UNDP: New York. UNICEF (Chile). La voz de los niños (Studies carried out between 1995 and 2008). Available at http:// www.unicef.cl [Accessed 3 May 2009]. Valdés X. 2008. Notas sobre la metamorfosis de la familia en Chile. In Niños y jóvenes en el Chile de hoy: su lugar en los nuevos contextos familiares. Vergara A, Barros P (eds.). Universidad Diego Portales: Santiago; 19–40. Vasilachis de Gialdino I. 1997. La construcción de representaciones sociales: discurso polı́tico y prensa escrita. Un análisis sociológico, jurı́dico y lingüı́stico. Gedisa: Barcelona. Velasco J. 2010. GSE. Dónde vivimos y con cuánto. Foco 10: 25–35. Wodak R. 2001a. The discourse: an historical approach. In Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. Wodak R, Meyer M (eds.). Sage: London; 63–94. Wodak R. 2001b. What CDA is about – a summary of its history, important concepts and developments. In Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. Wodak R, Meyer M (eds.). Sage: London; 1–13. † Correspondence to: Ana Vergara, Diego Portales University, Irarrázabal 3301, Depto. 1005, Ñuñoa, Santiago, Chile, Tel.: 56 2 6762562; Fax: 56 2 6762502. E-mail: [email protected]. Accepted for publication 10 February 2012. © 2012 The Author(s) CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 28, 81–92 (2014) Children & Society © 2012 National Children’s Bureau and Blackwell Publishing Limited.
(13) Copyright of Children & Society is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use..
(14)
Documento similar