Childhood Sociology

Moreover, the research on childhood should be based on individual’s experiences, needs, recollections and personal and social encounters involve in a weighted and expressive style (Treacher, 2016). Hence, a much better recognition of approaching childhood has perpetually been recreated and extricated according to children’s social and geographical region and socio-economic background as well (Hendrick, 1997).

Childhood is a pretty inconclusive position, as much as it is within a time frame and place. Children are usually challenged, by dealing with and often exhibit creative joy in discovering various forms of childhood at home, at school, and places in the neighbourhood, with its differences in terms of multi-ethnic and city-like context.

The experience of childhood should include the geographical location and the family situations that children live in. The ideology of family in childhood studies seems to claim the supremacy of the family in such a way that the transformation in societal growths had no relation with children and their lives (Qvortrup, 2005). It appears that the political or theoretical perspectives were not appreciated to think that this belief has several repercussions for children and the construction of childhood. One implication is the consistent depreciation of children’s value in the society. This is a crucial finding achieved from concentrating straightforwardly on children instead of the family. Sgritta (1994) states that there is extensive evidence which is accessible to explain that children on average and contrasted with other age groups to be part of the lower economic class. Certainly, this could be a contradiction as no one would want children to be somewhat impoverished; but it can be interpreted in terms of two main aspects: one aspect is the expansion of children’s time through society and the other aspect is the emphasis on the family culture. This causes children from lower income families to experience a different kind of childhood as compared to the middle-class or the upper-class children within the society. Another issue of the power of family ideology involves children’s transient

It questions that the primitive society do not have the concept of education; it has no knowledge of the modern education too. Yet, there was a minor section of people who were keen in the idea of moral reform of society and acknowledged the significance of education. It was assumed that due to these people, it shaped the isolation of children from adults. Furthermore, schools were influential in this evolution because it detached children from the adults and lengthened the span of childhood – basically establishing an independent experience of childhood. As cited in Jenks (2005a), Mitteraeur and Sieder (1977) propose that there is a certain relation between the elaboration on schooling for children and the growing concern to cater to the urgency and issues of young persons in their families (Ozment, 2009). Similarly, Pinchbeck and Hewitt (1974) concede with Aries (1962) that the development of education policy was primarily accountable for the rise of thoughts in childhood; the compliance of formal education in institutions where there is constant separation of children from the adults, was a precondition of the evolution of contemporary sociological and psychological perceptions of childhood (Payne, 2008). As for the development of family,