New Possibilities?
It will be clear that the modern Western child, construed in the 18th and 19th centuries – the Enlightened child – disappeared in the second half of the 20th century, marking the end of the historical process of infantilization. Traditional upbringing, which was based on this infantilization, was referred to as “Bringing up by keeping small” in a much‐quoted publication of Dasberg (1975). In essence, it boiled down to setting the child apart from the adult world and leading it step by step into that adult world by what was called upbringing. This style of upbringing has become outmoded: infantilization is behind us in the sense that borders between childhood and adulthood are less strict and vaguer than ever. Mainly through electronic media, today’s children have access to the adult world from the beginning, including the world of violence and sex, areas in which children on the basis of the then current pedagogy were not allowed access for two and a half centuries. Given the child’s access to the internet, it is an improbable atavism that American parents as late as in 2006 pressed charges against teachers who persisted in marking school work with red ink (Stearns, 2009). The parents feared that the feeble self‐esteem of their vulnerable children would be damaged.
Raising children will have to be re‐invented. We are assisted by a tremendous amount of sophisticated and splendid studies on child behavior and on that of their up‐bringers. However, I would like to point out that all this research will only prove advantageous if we know what our objective is with regard to children, and that is what we are in the dark about. Worse still, modern academic pedagogy is hardly occupied with it. People who like me, who are followers of Kant’s much maligned successor, the educationalist Johann Herbart (1776–1841), are convinced that pedagogy as a science cannot do without ethics at the one hand and (developmental) psychology on the other (Herbart, 1841). The first helps to formulate objectives, the latter offers the means to achieve them. An evolutionary view like Bjorklund’s (2007), however relevant, will not help out. Bjorklund explained why a lengthy human youth is necessary to be able to adapt to an ever‐changing culture. This view only makes clear why we should cherish an extended explorative childhood, but not if and how it should be oriented.
Let us return for a final time to the example set by Rousseau. His incredibly effective book on education was a book on a new ethical person in a Utopian society. This very context turned his book into such a success. Of course, we are not in a position of again starting a revolutionary vision on child development. Nevertheless, we could – as Rousseau did – develop a vision of an ideal society in the spirit of which we would like to raise our children. In doing so, I recommend a restoration of the Enlightenment principles of rationality and autonomous and critical thinking; high‐grade ethical principles forming the basis of a modern “Contrat Social” (Rousseau, 1762); and commitment to a democratic society in which freedom of speech and inter‐human respect are balanced. All this needs to be worked out. However, it is good and reassuring to know that we can fall back on enlightened classical literature. But only when we have clear normative notions will we be able to profit from the rich modern empirical developmental psychology, that is today at our disposal.
This chapter hopefully demonstrates that understanding of childhood and child development is not fully and satisfyingly possible without studying the cultural historical context. Empirical analytical research is necessary, but not sufficient. Historical framing and reframing is the key to the contextual understanding of children. In short: what we need is a Historical Developmental Psychology (Koops & Kessel, 2017).
Acknowledgement
This chapter builds on a book of the author, published in the Dutch language (Koops, 2016).
References
1 Ariès, P. (1960). L’enfant et la vie familiale sous l’ancien régime. Libraire Plon.
2 Ariès, P. (1962). Centuries of childhood: A social history of family life. Vintage Books.
3 Baggerman, A., & Dekker, R. (2005). Kind van de toekomst. De wondere wereld van Otto van Eck (1780–1798). Wereldbibliotheek.
4 Baggerman, A., & Dekker, R. (2006). Verlichte pedagogiek rond 1800: ideaal, praktijk en doorwerking. De opvoeding van Otto van Eck (1780–1798). In N. Bakker, R. Dekker, & A. Janssens (Eds.), Tot burgerschap en deugd. Volksopvoeding in de negentiende eeuw (pp. 35–47). Verloren.
5 Bjorklund, D. F. (2007). Why youth is not wasted on the young: Immaturity in human development. Blackwell.
6 Bloom, A. (1979). Introduction. In Jean‐Jacques Rousseau, Émile, or on Education. Basic Books.
7 Brugmans, H. (1951). De révolte van het gemoed. Rousseau en het sentimentalisme. Van Loghum Slaterus.
8 Burgelin, P. (1952). La philosophie de l’existence de J.‐J. Rousseau. Plon.
9 Cassirer, E. (1932). Das Problem Jean‐Jacques Rousseau. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie.
10 Cassirer, E. (1955). The philosophy of the Enlightenment. Beacon Press.
11 Dasberg, L. (1975). Grootbrengen door kleinhouden als historisch verschijnsel. Boom.
12 De Swaan, A. (2004). Zorg en staat. Welzijn, onderwijs en gezondheidszorg in Europa en de Verenigde Staten in de nieuwe tijd. Bert Bakker.
13 Elias, N. (1939). Uber den Prozessder Zivilisation. Soziogenetische und psychogenetische Untersuchungen. Haus zum Falken.
14 Farson, R. (1974). Birthrights. Vintage.
15 Finkielkraut, A. (1987). La défaite de la pensée. Gallimard.
16 Finkielkraut, A. (1988). De ondergang van het denken. Contact.
17 Fukuyama, F. (1989). The end of history? The National Interest, Summer.
18 Fukuyama, F. (1992). The end of history and the last man. Free Press.
19 Gläser, J. (Ed.). (1920). Vom Kinde aus. G. Westermann.
20 Gopnik, A. (2009). The philosophical baby: What children’s minds tell us about truth, love, and the meaning of life. Picador.
21 Hanawalt, B. (1993). Growing up in Medieval London. Oxford University Press.
22 Herbart, J. F. (1841). Umriss Pädagogischer Vorlesungen (2nd ed.). Dieterich.
23 Hirschfeld, L. A. (2002) Why don’t anthropologists like children? American Anthropologist, 104, 611–627.
24 Holt, J. (1976). Escape from childhood. Vintage.
25 Illich, I. (1973). Deschooling society. Penguin.
26 Israel, J. I. (2001). Radical enlightenment: Philosophy and the making of modernity. Oxford University Press.
27 Israel, J. I. (2005). Radicale Verlichting. Hoe radicale Nederlandse denkers het gezicht van onze cultuur voorgoed veranderden. Uitgeverij Van Wijnen.
28 Kant, I. (Ed.) (1799). Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklärung. In Imanuel Kant’s vermischte Schriften. Johann Heinrich Tieftrunk.
29 Kessen, W. (1979). The American child and other cultural inventions. American Psychologist, 34, 815–820.
30 Kessen, W. (1993). A developmentalist’s reflections. In G. H. Elder Jr., J. Modell, & R. Parke (Eds.), Children in time and place: Developmental and historical insights (pp. 226–230). Cambridge University Press.
31 Koops, W. (1990). A viable developmental psychology in the nineties by way of renewed respect for tradition. In P. J. P.Drenth, J. A. Sergeant,