Lesnik-Oberstein article
Because of the lack of participation and a lack of diverse class discussion in Monday's class, I would like you to answer one reading question from the Lesnik-Oberstein article in this week's blog. These questions can be found on the following website: http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/cmartin/AML2410/LesnikOberstein.htm
Please cite page numbers from the article when you are answering a question and fully engage with the text.
posted by cmartin @ 2:41 PM
25 Comments:
Amanda Schafer
In response to the reading question for Lesnik- Oberstein’s question about constructivists and essentialists. I chose this question because I thought it was one of most central arguments of the article. The article relates the constructivist view as one that is uniquely dependant on culture, history and politics (Textuality, 2). Thus the whole concept of childhood has been more or less created not by genetics but by society. The essentialist view on the other hand is one that is based on the genetics of every child. It is something that is an inherent characteristic of every child no matter what color, creed, or economical status (2). Accordingly, children play because of an internal drive that tells them to. I related this argument much alike to the nature versus nurture argument. Both concepts compare biology to social influence. Lesnik- Oberstein does not address which she thinks is a better argument but does offer that there is more support for that of the constructivists.
In response to Kadler post:
I think that the best point that you emphasized was that it is a blend of all sorts of social sciences that makes up the best definition of childhood. The real child is one that lives in the constant present, thus is in constant contact with all the current trends of society. That is if we look at childhood from the constructivists. I am interested in Lesnik- Obersteins relation to the interdisciplinary approach. It seems to me that although she is mostly unbiased in her examination of childhood, we see a little in her stance that it should be a multidisciplinary field. I thought that you addressed the question very well, as it was a very difficult read.
Amanda Schafer
QUESTION: How does this article's discussion of medieval childhood differ from Kline? What does this difference mean to us as scholars? How can the reading of these two articles impact the way you as a student researches and discusses material for this class?
ANSWER: Although both articles discuss the lack of any distinct childhood as compared to adulthood, there are differences in the way the two authors present the issue. Lesnik-Oberstein focuses on the fact that the lack of childhood in the medieval era was that the culture failed to act upon the psychobiological instincts of nurture and parenthood. (Childhood and Textuality, p. 16) On the other hand, Kline views the changes from the medieval period to present-day childhood as the development of a legal and social framework over the centuries that was virtually unknown at that time. (The Making of Children's Culture, p. 97) As scholars, this difference means that there is no clear answer as to why childhood has evolved as it did. There are a vast number of possible reasons as to why this change occurred, and the real reasons behind it, be it a single reason or a combination of all of them, is forever up for debate among scholars. The reading of both of these articles can open a young scholar's mind to the many viewpoints that are held on this issue and, more broadly, show the depth of different ideas that are contributed from many well-respected experts in the field.
Response to amanda:
I agree with your idea of more support for the constructionists. It seems that there might be a few elements of biological drive in childhood and a desire for the playful and whimsical, but by-and-large, childhood is a purely social construct. From the medieval times to today, we have seen a shift from children as miniature adults to children as a completely different kind of human than adults. They now have their own books, clothing styles, television networks, and music, just to name a few things. Additionally, the modern idea of childhood does not really extend outside the realm of western society and first-world countries, whereas most third-world countries maintain the ideas of medieval times. Though Lesnik-Oberstein addresses both sides of the argument in her article, I would agree that there is much stronger support for constructivist childhood than for essentialism.
***I accidentally forgot to put page numbers for reference in my response so here is the same post again, just with citation.***
QUESTION: Return to the question of Lesnik-Oberstein's central argument. What essentially does she try to demonstrate? Explain in your own words.
ANSWER: Lesnik-Oberstein explains that our society commonly sees and positions childhood and the child from two paths (constructivist and essentialist), however there are multiple approaches to looking at and dissecting children. She also conveys that several factors are deemed of relevance to this discussion such as sociology, anthropology, psychology, economics, law, education, modernism, theology, and more (3). She stresses that whichever direction one takes, it is most beneficial to employ a multi-disciplinary (3) study in which you look at the ‘real child’. Most embrace this topic and frequently defend the ‘real’ as an identifiable, impulsive, and constant world (26). This language is better for displaying childhood, rather than an intangible, altering, manipulated language which often results in an inaccurate portrayal (26). She parallels her central idea of an interdisciplinary method towards childhood by having an interdisciplinary article. The text has disparate opinions and facts that demonstrate the advantages of diversity rather than “disciplinary isolation” (3).
In response to Amanda…
At the beginning of her article, Lesnick-Oberstein bluntly states that “children and childhood have in many ways become one of the central concerns of our time in terms of political and public policy and the media in Western culture” (1). She also offers two disparate ways of looking at the concept of the child and childhood, the constructivist view and the essentialist view. I agree with Amanda that this is a main focus of the article and that Lesnick-Oberstein is unbiased, although the author does say, “the theoretical framework underlying the discussions is in almost all cases constructivist in character” (2). I am impressed with Amanda’s relation of the constructivist versus essentialist argument to the nature versus nurture argument because it is a great comparison. While the constructivist and nurture view has to do with a child’s environment such as history, culture and politics; the essentialist and nature view is more focused on biology and brain-development. I personally support the constructivist or nurture argument.
Question: How does this article's discussion of medieval childhood differ from Kline? What does this difference mean to us as scholars? How can the reading of these two articles impact the way you as a student researches and discusses material for this class?
Answer: Lesnik-Oberstein's quote from Hugh Cunningham is very different from the view that Stephen Kline takes in his article. Cunningham states, " ...that a concept of childhood existed in the Central and Late Middle Ages, that scholarly acknowledgement of the existence of several stages of childhood was not merely theoretical, and that parents invested both material and emotional resources in their offspring ..."(Lesnik-Oberstein 9) Kline, in his article, does not believe that there was much different between adulthood and childhood in the Middle Ages. Children were essentially little servants, apprenticing or working along side adults at a very early age. (Kline 97) The opinions of both authors widely differ and are a good reminder to scholars to remember that an important key to researching is to allow all information to help form your opinion not be your opinion and use the differences to help you understand why there might be a difference of opinion.
Question:
-Is childhood the area of one discipline? What are some different ways to approach childhood?
Answer:
Childhood is regarded in many different disciplines such as politics, literature, law, education, and economics (5). In all these different disciplines childhood is analyzed theoretically and methodologically. They all are interconnected and can be used in conjunction with one another to explain certain aspects of childhood. Take for example, the connections between a historian, a lawyer, and a doctor. The historian is concerned with “studying the treatment of children through history” (5). The lawyer is concerned with “the validity of children’s testimony in court” (5), and the doctor is “confronted with… the child’s ability to express judgement in medical matters affecting itself” (5). All these considerations can be used together to come up with a solution to a problem or question of childhood and why the child is the way it is.
QUESTION: What is the constructivist view on childhood? How does it differ from the essentialist view?
ANSWER: According to Lesnik-Oberstein article, the constructivist view of childhood is based upon the idea that the definition of childhood is based up the social constraints of the time. For example, children at one time were considered adults because life expectancy was very short. In turn, the age of adulthood came earlier in order to compensate for the lack of "adult" help. In today's society, there is no need for child labor and the average life expectancy is in the upper 70s to 80s. There are a greater number of real adults so the age of childhood increases. The social constraints of society define what really childhood is. On the other hand, you have the essentialist view of childhood. Childhood is defined by set biological plateaus. Once a child reaches a particular age, they can no longer be considered a child because their development has reached the plateau. In summary, constructivism is the idea that society determines the definition of childhood based upon the social, economic, and legal constructs of the times. Essentialism is a biological definition of child, where chemical and organic events set the boundaries of the age of childhood. (Answer referenced from pages 2-3)
RESPONSE TO ALEJANDRA: I only had one issue with the idea of forming "opinions" based on your research. The goal of doing research is to form a conclusion. You might research childhood in the middle ages and you conclude this is how life for young children was.
Q:How does this article's discussion of medieval childhood differ from Kline? What does this difference mean to us as scholars? How can the reading of these two articles impact the way you as a student researches and discusses material for this class?
A: Lesnik-Oberstein takes a devil’s advocate approach to the discussion of essential and constructive views in childhood. She cites Aries’s common belief that medieval times lacked the existence of a childhood as the benchmark for most constructive views. (9)
Kline, as I feel most scholars would, looked at everything through a psychological and social lens. This lens lends to the belief of nurture over nature.
However, to contrast this perceived ignorance in analysis; Lesnik-Oberstein brings up historian Shulamith Shahar who asks scholars to look at a more universal childhood – one that has parents ensuring the survival. Shahar argues that constructivists look to literature and toys to determine the modern childhood, while the parent-child safety net has manifested itself in less traceable, medieval forms previously. Lesnik-Oberstein even asks if Aries overlooked this aspect. (10)
This dichotomy in Lesnik-Oberstein’s article reminds us as students to remember that history is written with bias and that all things should be viewed critically.
RESPONSE:
Alejandra, I disagree. Kline did believe that there was a difference in modern and medieval childhood. He argued, while briefly, that the modern childhood was a creation of parental protectiveness and moral didactic that existed less (if it existed at all) in the medieval time.
Lesnik-Oberstein spends a significant portion of her article on “Childhood and Textuality” advocating the need for interdisciplinary and multi-disciplinary studies on childhood. She almost immediately introduces this by the way of addressing the constructivist versus essentialist debate, noting how the supporters of each come from different fields and emphasizing the advantage of being able to “compare them to each other” (Textuality, 3). Lesnik-Oberstein states that “interdisciplinary and multi-disciplinary then, are also a key aim…of this book” (3). Childhood is stated as truly belonging to several disciplines, however usually only as a sub category. Only in education is childhood the main focus, while adult-education can “be seen to be the sub- or super-specialism” (3). By promoting this need, Lesnik-Oberstein clearly argues against that childhood is the area of one discipline. Rather, she calls for studies and debates in developmental psychology, sociology, and anthropology, to name just a few disciplines lacking such. Lesnik-Oberstein discusses different ways to approach childhood through the examples of a lawyer dealing with a child in court, a historian studying child treatment, and a doctor conflicted over a child’s participation in medical matters. Through this, she demonstrates not only the several methods of approaching childhood in varying disciplines but also the “enormous fruitfulness…of rigorous interdisciplinary work” (3).
Is childhood the area of one discipline? What are some different ways to approach childhood?
Lesnik-Oberstein spends a significant portion of her article on “Childhood and Textuality” advocating the need for interdisciplinary and multi-disciplinary studies on childhood. She almost immediately introduces this by the way of addressing the constructivist versus essentialist debate, noting how the supporters of each come from different fields and emphasizing the advantage of being able to “compare them to each other” (Textuality, 3). Lesnik-Oberstein states that “interdisciplinary and multi-disciplinary then, are also a key aim…of this book” (3). Childhood is stated as truly belonging to several disciplines, however usually only as a sub category. Only in education is childhood the main focus, while adult-education can “be seen to be the sub- or super-specialism” (3). By promoting this need, Lesnik-Oberstein clearly argues against that childhood is the area of one discipline. Rather, she calls for studies and debates in developmental psychology, sociology, and anthropology, to name just a few disciplines lacking such. Lesnik-Oberstein discusses different ways to approach childhood through the examples of a lawyer dealing with a child in court, a historian studying child treatment, and a doctor conflicted over a child’s participation in medical matters. Through this, she demonstrates not only the several methods of approaching childhood in varying disciplines but also the “enormous fruitfulness…of rigorous interdisciplinary work” (3).
In response to Alejandra...
I agree with the distinction between Kline and Cunningham and I think that perhaps what this could to mean to scholars is that they formed their opinions from different research which obviously led to quite different views. As Alejandra pointed out, Kline’s research showed him that “children were essentially little servants” (Kline 97) while Cunnigham took from his research that “parents invested both material and emotional resources in their offspring” (Lesnik-Oberstein 9). Therefore, clearly a range of literature is present regarding childhood in Medieval times, and they each took different viewpoints from it. This gap between their opinions suggests to me that each scholar did not thoroughly look at all the material available and, like Alejandra said, it is important to read other people’s opinions when researching in order to gain a full understanding of the subject.
What is the constructivist view on childhood? How does it differ from the essentialist view?
Lesnik-Oberstein discusses both the constructivist and essentialist views of childhood and, in addition, explains that many other factors are important to these views such as sociology, anthropology, psychology, economics and so on (3). The constructivist view on childhood is focused on culture and how it shapes children. This also has to do with the social constraints at the time. For example, children a few hundrew years ago had many of the same responsibilities as adults. Now, children have harldy any responsibilities except for going to school. The essentialist view, on the other hand, is based on biological characteristics. Essentialists relate childhood to genetics. Once a child reaches a certain age, they are not considered to be a child any more, but an adult. I believe that childhood is a mixture of both the essentialist and constructivist viewpoints. I also appreciated that Lesnik-Oberstein added that outside factors are important. I think its important to look at childhood and other areas even, from an unbiased standpoint in order to get the best and most rounded outlook.
In response to Lydel:
I definately agree that I feel the author in a way "pressures" her audience into choosing a side. By presenting both sides of the argument the reader is going to understand or agree more with one. I found myself siding with the view of the constructivists. I also think the childhood identity constructed by adults or children question is impossible to answer. I think it is constructed more by adults because children do not come into the world knowing that they are children, they are told. Still, like you said there are way too many factors involved to come to an agreement.
In response to amanda’s post…
I agree with you that this comparison of the constructivist view and the essentialist view is very much like the nature vs. nurture argument. On the one side, the constructivist side, you have nurture, and on the essentialist side you have nature. Both arguments are well supported, but I believe it is the combination of the two that is the closest to actuality. You can not have only society influencing children, and it can not only be genetics either. A balance of the two is ideal. I think that is also Lesnik-Oberstein’s opinion also, but instead she only states that there is more support for the constructivist point of view.
Q: What is the constructivist view on childhood? How does it differ from the essentialist view?
A: Constructivists believe that children are influenced by their surroundings. A child's identity "is created and constructed differently within various cultures, historical periods, and political ideologies." (2) Children are not universally the same according to constructivists. Each child's identity is basically formed from what is called a "tabula rasa," or blank slate. With the presence of culture, time, and many other influences, identity and personality are created. In contrast, essentialists believe there is a "consistency of human emotional experience and response" (2). I consider this concept to be based more upon predestination. Before children are born, essentialists will give characteristics which they believe all children will obtain no matter their location, personality, etc. The essentialist and constructivist views on childhood differ in that constructivists view childhood as being unique for each individual, whereas the essentialists view childhood as a set of common characteristics which can be found in all children.
How does this article's discussion of medieval childhood differ from Kline? What does this difference mean to us as scholars? How can the reading of these two articles impact the way you as a student researches and discusses material for this class?
This article had a very different view on medieval child than what Kline described in his article. Kline made medieval childhood seem very harsh and unappealing. He described how a child's life was like that of an adult and that they were treated as such. They had to work hard, manual labor and bear the same oppresions as the adults. Because child mortality was so high, he made it sound like parents did not get emotionally attached to their children. In Lesnik-Oberstein's article, it makes it seem as though kids in medieval times were loved and cared for just as kids are today."Pollock found 'no change in the extent of parental grief over the centuries and no support at all for the argument that parents before the eighteenth century were indifferent to the death of their young offspring, whereas after the eighteenth century they grieved deeply...'"(page 11)
This difference to us as scholars is good because it gives us a well-rounded view for us to develope our own opinions.
The reading of these articles impacts the way we research and discuss material because after the readings, we are knowledgable on both sides. The research for us as students can be impacted because we know that we can find information supporting either argument.
Question: What is the constructivist view on childhood? How does it differ from the essentialist view?
Answer: In Lesnik-Oberstein’s article “Childhood and Textuality: Culture, History, and Literature,” the author discusses two views on childhood: the constructivists view and the essentialists view. The constructivist view on childhood is shown by many of the authors that Lesnik-Oberstein discusses in her book, “child as an identity which is created and constructed differently within various cultures, historical periods, and political ideologies.” (P. 2) Constructivists believe that it is your environment that is one of the biggest factors of raising a child and that there is a larger spectrum of social construction. Essentialists on the other hand believe that “children are here therefore not regarded in the essentialist mode as trans-historically and trans-culturally consistent beings…biology and brain development.” (P. 2) The two views are different because one is viewed as an environmental idea and the other is viewed as a biological idea. I believe the constructivist view is more plausible however biology does have something to do with it.
In response to danielle e:
I agree with what you are saying about childhood being regarded in many different disciplines. Childhood can not be focused into one discipline because as we have discussed in class, childhood is something we made up and can not take such a broad idea and categorize it into one discipline. All of the disciplines you discussed are definetly interconnected and I think your point was very well put.
In response to kadler...
I agree with what kadler said about Lesnik-Oberstein's central argument. I believe that the text was difficult to understand due to the complexity of the subject. So many different ways to interpret childhood exist. I believe that Lesnik-Oberstein's central argument is that all areas of childhood must be examined. Childhood is a multidisciplinary study. Like most things in life, when approached with an open mind (rather than merely a constructivist or essentialist view) childhood can be better understood and the characteristics which combine to create childhood can be better seen and studied. Once we learn to embrace childhood as a whole rather than arguing about how to dissect it, we will truly be able to understand what childhood is.
in response to danielle e:
I agree that there is more than one area of discipline regarding childhood. In almost every field and/or profession there is a specific part designated for children. In medicine, there is the study of pediatrics. In law, there is family law with specialties toward children. In class however, we talked about how the only field that was solely dedicated to children was education. Adult education and learning is a field of its own.
Because there are specific areas dedicated to childhood in every field, we can conclude that there is more than one area of discipline.
QUESTION -What is the central argument that Lesnik-Oberstein examines in the chapter? (Again, this question is addressed early in the chapter, but finish reading the chapter and then return to it.)
ANSWER:
"In considering how, and when, ideas about children and childhood are employed in the cultural realm - in literature, in film, in history, in psychology, in phiosophy, in politics, and in education - these articles illumniate further some of the curcial and complex ways in which ideas and discussions about children and childhood operate."(1)
This thesis sentence, albeit abstract, does point the reader in the direction of the main body of the article. Lesnik-Oberstein is attempting to discern the modern cultural image of the child. The author cites much evidence, although part of it was somewhat conflicting, as to how and why the modern image of the child and childhood has developed the way that it has been.
I believe that much of what the author argues is that adults have historically had difficulty percieving childhood because they often rely upon a falsified view of children as a whole whilst being unable to fathom childhood as they have forgotten their own childhood and it's, at the time, extraodinary experiences. Society has had an evoloving view of children dating back to the Middle Ages when childhood is believed to not have been as widely recognized at it is today:
"argued that because infant mortality was so high, parents reduced the amount of emotional capital that was involved for prudent investment in any single individual, especially in such ephemeral creatures as infants" (11)
. With the selective marketing of millions of products and literature designed for youths, the idea of childhood and what it entails has taken on a whole new signifigance. The author tries to promote that the idea of childhood is very abstract and children can be very complex creatues, eventually there should come a point when adults accept this.
In response to Jhunt:
WHiel i believe that the nurturing of a childhood does play a very big part in their overall character, one must also consider that humans are still animals and very much predisposed to our instinctive habits. I can spite many examples of when the nurturing of a person fails and the person does something horribly wrong, something they knew they were never supposed to do. Obviously, some people are the way they are, and do not respond well to the teachings of the nurturer, everybody is different.
QUESTION: What is the constructivist view on childhood? How does it differ from the essentialist view?
ANSWER: The constructivist and essentialist views differ in many ways. The constructivist view looks at things like culture, environment, and upbringing. Regarding the article, Lesnik-Oberstein states that the “united viewing of the child” is done constructively (Lesnik-Oberstein 2). Meaning that the definition of a child has different variations between different cultures. Constructivists look at society’s definition of a child and childhood, whereas essentialists have more of a scientific approach to the subject. Essentialists focus on topics like biology and brain development when forming the definition of a child (Lesnik-Oberstein 2). The problem with this is that it has no historical consistency. I believe Lesnik Oberstein offered more support for and was more partial to the constructivist view because it has a more creative quality. Not everything is set in stone like the essentialist states.
In Response to Amanda….
I completely agree with your statements, especially your nature versus nurture comparison. When answering the question I thought of that also. I agree that Lesnik-Oberstein does not fully come out and state which side she’s on, but because of the fact that there is so much more information for the constructivist view I can’t help but conclude that she agreed with that more.
Post a Comment
<< Home