European Childhood

European Childhoods
Cultures, Politics and Childhoods in Europe
Edited by
Allison James and Adrian L. James
European Childhoods
Also by Allison James and Adrian L. James
CONSTRUCTING CHILDHOOD: Theory, Policy and Social Practice

THE POLITICS OF CHILDHOOD: International Perspectives, Contemporary
Developments (joint editors with J. Goddard and S. McNamee)
European Childhoods
Cultures, Politics and Childhoods
in Europe
Edited by
Allison James and Adrian L. James

University of Sheffield
Selection, editorial matter, Preface, Chapters 1 and 6 © Allison James and
Adrian L. James 2008; all other chapters © the individual contributors 2008
All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this
publication may be made without written permission.
No paragraph of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted
save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence
permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90
Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 4LP.
Any person who does any unauthorised act in relation to this publication
may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages.
The authors have asserted their rights to be identified as
the authors of this work in accordance with the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
First published in 2008 by
PALGRAVE MACMILLAN
Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS and
175 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10010
Companies and representatives throughout the world.
PALGRAVE MACMILLAN is the global academic imprint of the Palgrave
Macmillan division of St. Martin’s Press, LLC and of Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.
Macmillan® is a registered trademark in the United States, United Kingdom
and other countries. Palgrave is a registered trademark in the European
Union and other countries.
ISBN-13: 978–1–4039–9750–0 hardback
ISBN-10: 1–4039–9750–0 hardback
This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully
managed and sustained forest sources. Logging, pulping and manufacturing
processes are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of
the country of origin.
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08
Printed and bound in Great Britain by
CPI Antony Rowe, Chippenham and Eastbourne
Contents
Preface vii
Notes on the Contributors viii
1 European Childhoods: An Overview 1

Adrian James and Allison James
2 Children as New Citizens: In the Best Interests of

the Child? 14
Anne Trine Kjørholt
3 Children in Nature: Cultural Ideas and Social

Practices in Norway 38
Randi Dyblie Nilsen
4 Children’s Cultures and New Technologies: A Gap

between Generations? Some Reflections from
the Spanish Context 61
Ferran Casas
5 Children at the Margins? Changing Constructions

of Childhood in Contemporary Ireland 82
Dympna Devine
6 Changing Childhood in the UK: Reconstructing

Discourses of ‘Risk’ and ‘Protection’ 105
7 Institutional Upbringing: A Discussion of the Politics

of Childhood in Contemporary Denmark 129
Eva Gulløv
8 Education and the Cultural Politics of Childhood

in Cyprus 149
Spyros Spyrou
9 Children’s Culture, Cultural Education and

Policy Approaches to Children’s Culture:
The Case of Germany 172
Heinz Hengst
v
vi Contents
10 Work and Care: Reconstructing Childhood through

Childcare Policy in Germany 198
Michael-Sebastian Honig
11 Childhood in the Welfare State 216

Jens Qvortrup
Index 234
Preface
In 2003, we had the pleasure of spending nearly two months working at

the University of Trondheim in the Norwegian Centre for Child
Research (Norsk Senter for Barneforskning – NOSEB), during which time
we put the finishing touches to our book, Constructing Childhood. In the
course of many discussions with our friends and colleagues at NOSEB,
we tested out the soundness and applicability of our ideas and, in the
process, refined our thinking about some of the main theoretical con-
cepts that underpin the book, such as the notion of ‘the cultural politics
of childhood’.
Out of this dialogue came a conviction that if such analytical perspec-
tives were indeed valid, they would be capable of shedding light on the
social construction of childhood throughout Europe and from this con-
viction came the idea for this book. As editors, we would like to thank
all of our friends and colleagues who have contributed to this volume,
not only for writing their chapters, but being so accepting of our some-
times considerable demands as editors. The final collection is, we hope,
one to which they are proud to have contributed and that will make a
real contribution to the development of childhood studies within
Europe and beyond.
ALLISON AND ADRIAN JAMES

Department of Sociological Studies, University of Sheffield and
the Norwegian Centre for Child Research, University of Trondheim
vii
Notes on the Contributors
Ferran Casas is Senior Professor of Social Psychology in the Faculty of

Education and Psychology at the University of Girona, Spain. He is the
director of doctoral studies on Psychology and Quality of Life, and since
May 1997 has been Director of the Research Institute on Quality of Life
in the same university. He is also co-ordinator of the Catalan
Interdisciplinary Network of Researchers on Children’s Rights and
Quality of Life. During the last ten years he has produced numerous arti-
cles and eight books, including Psychosocial Perspectives on Childhood
(1998). His main topics of research are well-being and the quality of life,
children’s rights, adolescents and audiovisual media, families’ quality of
life in city environments and intergenerational relationships.
Dympna Devine is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Education and

Lifelong Learning, University College Dublin, Ireland. Her recent books
include Flexible Childhood? Exploring Children’s Welfare in Time and Space
(co-edited with Helga Zeiher, Harriet Strandell and Annetrine Kjorholt,
2007); Equality, Diversity and Childhood in Irish Primary Schools (co-edited
with Jim Deegan and Anne Lodge, 2004); and Children, Power and
Schooling – How Childhood is Structured in the Primary School (2003). Other
publications include chapters in edited collections and journal articles
in Childhood; Children and Society; International Studies in Sociology of
Education; and Irish Educational Studies.
Eva Gulløv is a Senior Lecturer at the Department of Educational

Anthropology at the Danish University of Education, Copenhagen,
Denmark. She is the author and editor of numerous publications on
children, childcare institutions and methodology in ethnographic child
research, including the co-edited book Children’s Places: Cross-cultural
Perspectives (2003).
Heinz Hengst was Professor of Social and Cultural Sciences,

Hochschule Bremen, Department of Sozialwesen, Germany. His work
has focused on childhood for more than 25 years, with his research
interests mainly concerning questions of contemporary childhood, chil-
dren’s culture and changing generational relations. He is author, co-
author, editor and co-editor of numerous articles and books on
childhood, including Kindheit als Fiktion (1981), Kindheit in Europa
viii
Notes on the Contributors ix
(1985), Die Arbeit der Kinder (2000), Kinder, Körper, Identitäten (2003), Per
una sociologia dell’infanzia (2004) and Kindheit soziologisch (2005).
Michael-Sebastian Honig is Professor of Educational Science at the

University of Trier, Germany, and was scientific assistant at the German
Youth Institute (DJI), Munich from 1976 to 1997. In 1986 he became
Dr. rer. soc., investigating violence within families. He qualified as a pro-
fessor in educational science in 1996 with a discourse on the theory of
childhood. He is co-editor of Zeitschrift für Soziologie der Erziehung und
Sozialisation (Journal for Sociology of Education and Socialization). His work
and projects concentrate on the theory and history of social pedagogy,
early childhood education, ethnography in educational settings and
changes in generational ordering.
Adrian James has researched and published widely in the field of

socio-legal studies, including the completion of two ESRC-funded proj-
ects on aspects of child welfare in divorce. He was a Special Adviser to
the House of Commons Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor’s
Department for its scrutiny of the work of CAFCASS. Appointed as
Professor of Applied Social Sciences at the University of Bradford in
1998, he became Professor of Social Work at the University of Sheffield,
in September 2004. His latest book, co-authored with Allison James and
published by Palgrave Macmillan, is Constructing Childhood: Theory,
Policy and Social Practice (2004).
Allison James is Professor of Sociology at the University of Sheffield. As

one of the pioneers of the new social studies of childhood she has carried
out empirical and theoretical research into children’s culture, children as
social actors, child health, children’s time use and the cultural politics of
childhood. She also has research interests in identity, the life course and
food. Her current research projects include children’s perceptions of hospi-
tal space and children’s perspectives on food. The author of numerous
books and articles on childhood, her most recent work is Constructing
Childhood: Theory, Policy and Social Practice (with Adrian James, 2004).
Anne Trine Kjørholt is Director and Associate Professor at the

Norwegian Centre for Child Research, Trondheim, Norway. She has
research interests in a number of areas, with publications relating to dis-
courses on childhood, children’s rights, childhood as a symbolic space,
children’s cultures and early childhood education and care. Her current
research centres on the modern child and the flexible labour market,
children as citizens, and children’s and young people’s local knowledge
in Ethiopia and Zambia.
x Notes on the Contributors
Randi Dyblie Nilsen is Professor at the Norwegian Centre for Child

Research, Norwegian University of Science and Technology where she
lectures on the international MA and PhD programmes. Her research
interests in childhood studies are broad, and include a continuing inter-
est in ethnographic approaches at day-care institutions together with
theoretical and methodological issues. One of her latest articles in
English is: Searching for Analytical Concepts in the Research Process:
Learning from Children. International Journal of Social Research
Methodology 8 (2005) 2: 117–35.
Jens Qvortrup is Magister and PhD in sociology at the University of

Copenhagen, Denmark. His areas of interest include the sociology of
generations, childhood, welfare research and comparative sociology and
has published extensively in these fields. He was among the first to
engage in the sociology of childhood and was founding president of
ISA’s Sociology of Childhood section (1988–98) and director of the pio-
neering study Childhood as a Social Phenomenon (1987–92). He is cur-
rently co-editor of the journal Childhood.
Spyros Spyrou is Director of the Centre for the Study of Childhood

and Adolescence and Assistant Professor of Anthropology and Sociology
at Cyprus College, Cyprus. His research interests include childhood,
education and identity construction. He is particularly interested in the
role of nationalism and racism in children’s identity constructions. He
has worked with and been a consultant to a number of international
organizations, including the United Nations, the Sesame Workshop and
Search for Common Ground. He is currently working on an EU-funded
project on integrating into policy-making the perspectives of children
from single parent families about poverty and social exclusion.
1
European Childhoods: An
Overview
The publication by UNICEF (2007) of a report comparing children’s wel-

fare in 21 Western states has triggered an important debate about children
and their childhood in different countries. Whilst attracting some criti-
cism as a consequence of the subjective nature of the data on which some
of the judgements are made, the report nonetheless has enormous sym-
bolic value, drawing attention as it does to apparently significant differ-
ences in the physical and emotional well-being of children. In making
comparisons between the daily lives of children based on six dimen-
sions of welfare, which highlight major disparities within Europe – with
the Netherlands appearing at the top of the league (followed closely by
Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Spain, Switzerland and Norway) and the UK
at the bottom – it provides an important and timely context in which to
begin to ask questions about the political, cultural and social factors that
underpin the construction of such different childhoods within Europe.
With the growing global political awareness of the significance of chil-
dren’s rights and perspectives, following the almost unanimous accept-
ance and ratification of the United Nations Convention of the Rights of
the Child (UNCRC), it is also important to explore the extent to which
children’s interests are, in practice, finding common expression in dif-
ferent societies, since this is arguably a profoundly important indicator
of the way in which different societies understand and view children
and childhood. This volume proposes to do this in the specific context
of Western Europe: its aim is to compare the ways in which social and
welfare policies on childhood are being framed within the social, politi-
cal and legislative context of different European societies and being real-
ized, for children, in and through forms of cultural practice. If, as is
frequently argued, ‘the child is a nation’s future’, such a comparative
project is timely, not least because of the drive for a common European
1
2 Adrian James and Allison James
political identity. It is also the case, however, that the ambitions for
achieving this identity have been frustrated, for the time being at least,
by the recent failure of a number of Member States to endorse the pro-
posed European Constitution, a failure that is perhaps, at least in part, a
reflection of concerns about the potential impact of such a shared polit-
ical identity on the different social and cultural identities of the peoples
of Europe, some of which are reflected in the findings of the UNICEF
report.
In drawing together perspectives from a number of European coun-
tries, this volume sets out to explore the ways in which ‘culture’ is pro-
duced and reproduced through policies for children and to identify any
commonalities or differences among them, which might be relevant to
the European debate. Drawing on a variety of empirical evidence, rang-
ing from the analysis of policy documents in different European states
to a consideration of the ways in which ‘childhood’ is constructed and
represented through to the exploration of the local impact such policies
have for children themselves, this book offers an analysis of the ways in
which children are positioned by such policies in Member States and
asks about the significance of these for childhood and for the adult citi-
zens that today’s children will become.
It is inevitable that a major contextual element of this analysis is pro-
vided by the UNCRC, given the impact this has had on the global dis-
course about children’s rights. Part of the motivation for putting
together this collection, therefore, was to consider whether there has
been any harmonization of policies and practices across Europe as a
result of the perceived universalizing of ideas of childhood or whether,
as seems likely given the influence of the cultural politics of childhood
in different countries (James and James 2004), there are still significant
if subtle political and cultural differences that work against such a har-
monization, despite the UNCRC.
A key feature of this volume is therefore a comparison between the
social and welfare policies for children developed in avowedly child-
centred states such as Norway and Denmark, and others such as
England, Germany, Ireland, Spain and Cyprus, where children are posi-
tioned rather differently in their welfare politics. In each context, cul-
tural ideas about what is a ‘good’ or ‘proper’ childhood are explored and
the ways in which these are given effect through social and welfare prac-
tices that shape children’s everyday lives are examined. In particular, a
key focus is on the various ways in which the concept of ‘the best inter-
ests of the child’ are expressed and how Member States provide for the
participation of children in determining this. As a result, comparisons
European Childhoods: An Overview 3
can be drawn about the relationship between cultures, politics and

childhoods in different European societies and the extent to which a
European childhood is emerging. In the process, the chapters con-
tribute, both individually and collectively, to wider theoretical debates
about the globalization of childhood, children’s needs and the universal
rights of children.
A number of common themes and issues emerge. In asking the ques-
tion ‘What is a good or proper childhood?’ the contributors reveal sig-
nificant differences between the way in which childhood is understood
in the context of child-centred states, such as Norway and Denmark,
and those in other states. This comparison reveals, in particular, stark
contrasts in the ways in which what is ‘good’ for children is framed and
what a ‘proper’ childhood is thought to be like, framings that produce
very different outcomes for children’s everyday experiences. Importantly,
what also emerge are the connections between how such ideas are
framed and the growing awareness of concerns about, and the need to
reinforce, more abstract notions of national identity through such
(re)constructions of childhoods.
The chapters also reveal differences in the ways in which the future for
children is envisaged and the impact of the pursuit of such futures on
children in terms of their daily lives. Such differences are clearly
reflected in the policy documents in which children’s futures are articu-
lated, highlighting the role of policy as discourse in the construction
and reconstruction of childhood, and therefore in the production and
reproduction of culture. Many of these differences centre on the distinc-
tions between concepts such as ‘pedagogy’, ‘socialization’ and ‘educa-
tion’ as different ways of teaching children, distinctions which produce
different mechanisms for the transmission of cultural knowledge and
which therefore lead to different outcomes for children’s everyday expe-
riences and their futures. The role of schooling, to use a more generic
term – literally, the action of teaching – in the production of these
futures is therefore crucial, the nature of this schooling providing a clear
reflection of the different cultural politics of childhood in each country.
The impact of such schooling also represents a powerful challenge to the
intentions of the UNCRC, for if children’s understanding of themselves
in the context of their national identities is shaped so forcefully, it
severely limits their ability to think freely about who they are and who
they want to be, and thus their right to participate in decision-making
about their future.
A further theme of the book is how different Member States1 provide
for the ‘best interests’ of children through different constructions of
children’s rights, and in particular of the right to be involved in deci-

sions concerning their future (UNCRC Article 12), based on sometimes
widely differing assumptions about children’s competence and their
roles as social actors in society. As each chapter illustrates, children’s
experiences are profoundly and differentially shaped by these framings
of their ‘best interests’ and the assumptions on which these are based;
and these are firmly rooted in adults’ perspectives on and values in rela-
tion to children and childhood, which are, once again, a product of the
cultural politics of childhood. In this context, the relationship between
children, the family and the state emerges as being of critical impor-
tance in terms of the extent and ways in which the state is involved with
families in the joint project of producing a ‘good’ childhood, through
the provision of different kinds of institutional arrangements for chil-
dren/childcare and welfare policies to support parents.
Such constructions provide us with important information about the
way in which children’s rights are perceived and therefore about the way
in which their citizenship is understood. Not surprisingly, we can see
that children are also differently positioned throughout Europe with
regards to citizenship, their participation in decision-making and policy-
making, and their involvement in shaping ideas of cultural belonging.
Here a continuum can be seen between, at the one end, countries in
which children are recognized as social actors, with their own ‘children’s
culture’ (e.g. Scandinavia) and as the carriers of national culture (e.g.
Scandinavia and Cyprus) and, at the other, those in which children are
increasingly seen primarily in terms of the reproduction of labour and
the workforce of the future (e.g. the UK).
Crucially, this continuum serves to highlight the complex interrela-
tionship between structure and agency in the context of childhood, by
identifying the connections, made through the conduit of inter-
generational relations, between the state and the family, the market and
culture, and therefore between the reproduction of labour through insti-
tutional practices and the reproduction of culture through social prac-
tices. The growing perception and awareness of children as social property
and as human capital that emerges in this context places renewed empha-
sis on children’s futurity. Thus, whilst Qvortrup, argues persuasively in
chapter 11 for the incorporation of childhood into thinking about and
analysis of the role of the welfare state now that the ‘new’ social studies of
childhood has established childhood in its own right, we must not lose
sight of the powerful impact that such emerging perceptions can have on
the lived experiences of children and on the struggle to establish them as
bearers of rights, which is illustrated by the other chapters.
In chapter 2, Anne Trine Kjørholt explores the contrast between two

very different experiences of childhood and children’s participation in
Norway – that of children in kindergartens compared to that of asylum-
seeking children – and the dilemmas raised by trying to reconcile these
two very different sets of experiences with ideals of what constitutes a
‘good childhood’. In doing so, she implicitly identifies a number of
issues that are faced by every country in Europe, revolving around the
ever-present global problem of military conflict and the resulting dis-
placement of civilian populations, which results in large numbers of
people seeking asylum in the comparative peace and prosperity of EU
Member States. In particular, she draws attention to the uncomfortable
realities of life for asylum-seeking children and especially to the crucial
question of the extent to which their rights under the UNCRC are guar-
anteed and protected, both in absolute terms and relative to the chil-
dren of the states in which asylum-seekers hope to be granted residence.
For Norway, as the first country in Europe to incorporate the
Convention into its domestic law, this is a particularly acute and sensitive
issue, since the implications of every aspect of the Convention must now
be considered in the light of its implications for Norwegian law. In addi-
tion, this process will necessarily raise important issues for every aspect of
childhood in Norway, including the complex and difficult questions that
arise from a consideration of the relationship between rights and citizen-
ship. That Norway is in the vanguard in confronting the challenges raised
by the incorporation of the UNCRC into its domestic legislation does not
make these questions any less acute for other Member States, however, for
as the other chapters in this volume reveal, the relationship between chil-
dren’s rights, children’s citizenship and children’s futures is fundamental
to debates about childhood throughout the EU.
In an interesting and revealing chapter, Randi Dyblie Nilsen draws on
data from her research to describe the Norwegian construction of a
‘good’ and ‘proper’ childhood, as evidenced in policy and practice, in
the context of the fostering of a positive relationship between children
and nature, through the expansion of nature day-care centres.
Significantly, however, embedded in the experiences of such centres
are important cultural values and expectations, including the child’s
right to participate and the encouragement of children to exercise
their agency and their autonomy, issues which are also at the heart of
Kjørholt’s chapter.
More than this, Nilsen argues that this particularly Norwegian con-
struction of childhood suggests that the construction of a national
identity is at stake, with a particular emphasis on the independence of
children. This contrasts sharply with current developments in England

and Wales (see James and James, chapter 6), which seem to emphasize
dependence on and control by adults. Indeed, it is difficult to envisage
the events described by Nilsen occurring in England, let alone being
encouraged by parents or politicians – the notion of young children
being allowed and encouraged to use sheath knives would be almost
certain to spark a public outcry and lead to yet another spate of health
and safety legislation! Yet, as other chapters reveal, Norway is far from
being the only European state that is currently engaged in the process
of identifying and reinforcing a national identity through policies
aimed at shaping children and childhood.
Turning to developments in southern Europe, Casas considers the
importance attached in Spain to the notion of responsibility in children
and its links with participation. Importantly, however, he highlights the
tensions between the official position adopted by the state and what
happens in practice, and between what happens in the public and pri-
vate spheres. Unlike the Scandinavian countries, his analysis suggests
that there is no shared view of what constitutes a ‘good childhood’ in
Spain and that although the official position is one of a clear commit-
ment to the promotion of children’s rights under the UNCRC, social
practices are at odds with this, reflecting clearly the influence of the
Spanish cultural politics of childhood. This, he suggests, is partly
because of the relatively recent development of a welfare state in Spain
following its return to democracy in 1979, and the fear of many Spanish
adults, in which they are by no means alone, that children’s participa-
tion will undermine parental authority.
In this context, he goes on to explore the recent impact of informa-
tion and communication technology on relationships between adults
and children, partly as a consequence of the effect they have had in
strengthening youth culture and increasing peer-group influence in the
process of socialization. This in turn has had the effect of weakening
their dependence on and thus the influence and authority of adults;
however, it is also because it gives children access to authoritative
sources of knowledge that are different from those traditionally con-
trolled by adults, thereby challenging ideas about parental authority
and inter-generational relationships. In such a context, Casas argues
that determining what is in ‘the best interests of the child’ becomes
more than usually problematic and represents a major challenge for
adults in terms of how to realize the ambitions of the UNCRC in a con-
text in which children and young people are showing themselves to be
ever more active in creating their own cultures, from which adults are
largely excluded.
In looking at recent changes in the social construction of childhood

in Ireland, Dympna Devine also focuses on the challenge that children
as active social agents represent to adult hegemony and the key role of
power in the cultural politics of childhood. The historical similarities
with Spain, described by Casas, in terms of the strong emphasis on the
traditional authority of parenthood and an absence of welfare polices
for children until very recently, are compelling. Equally compelling,
however, is Devine’s analysis of the evolving role of education in instill-
ing Irish cultural values (cf. Norway), an understanding of Irish nation-
hood and the identification of what constitutes an Irish ‘good
childhood’, with its focus on shaping (and reshaping) childhood and
the very recent emergence of a recognition of the role of the state in fos-
tering children’s participation and children’s rights, rather than national
identity.
This new emphasis, however, has seen a growing tension between the
advocates of children’s rights and the traditional sources of adult power
in Ireland and, as in Norway (cf. Kjørholt, chapter 2), it is children at the
margins, such as Travellers and asylum-seekers, who put government
commitments to children’s rights and participation to the severest test.
Thus, as with the analysis of developments in Spain (Casas, chapter 4),
Devine points to the tensions and discrepancies between official polices
and institutional practices, and to the challenge the construction of chil-
dren as bearers of rights represents to the traditional power-knowledge
relationship between adults and children. Mirroring the discussion of
recent developments in the UK (James and James, chapter 6), her analy-
sis also demonstrates a willingness on the part of government to use the
rhetoric of children’s participation but to deny them any effective
involvement, which, she argues, ‘raises key questions related to the
political commitment to realize children’s rights in practice’.
In chapter 6, James and James explore similar themes and issues,
reflecting the ambiguities that currently permeate relationships between
adults and children elsewhere in Europe. On the one hand, driven by
the imperatives of the UNCRC, government policies employ the rheto-
ric of participation whilst, on the other, they reflect an apparent desire
to re-establish a more traditional relationship between adults and chil-
dren, a relationship based on the authority of adults and the protection
and ‘safeguarding’ of children’s futures as citizens and as the next gen-
eration of labour. Such changes are deeply rooted in the prevailing cul-
tural politics of childhood in the UK, with its strong emphasis on
children’s futurity, although unlike developments elsewhere in the EU,
their rationale is much more obviously rooted in the growing awareness
of and sensitivity to the impact of the ‘risk’ society and related discourses
of protection. Because such protective measures are so ‘obviously’ in the

child’s best interests, they provide a robust basis for legitimizing the
extension of control over children and their childhoods, making the risk
and protection paradigm central to government thinking and policy
formulation.
As we argue, ‘In a political environment such as this, the identifica-
tion and allocation of “risk” becomes a mechanism to give authority to
the state to intervene in the lives of groups who are deemed to be “dan-
gerous”, such as children.’ The significant shift that is evident, however,
is that the emerging strategy identifies not just some groups of children
(e.g. offenders, school drop-outs, single mothers, etc.) as being in need
of safeguarding, but all children. Moreover, under this strategy and
under the direction of the state, all adults and professionals working
with children, rather than just teachers, social workers and doctors,
become responsible for safeguarding them. Thus relationships between
adults and children are being fundamentally reconfigured as childhood
itself is (re)constructed as being at risk.
Such developments are, however, not unrelated to broader issues of
citizenship and national identity, particularly, although not exclusively,
as far as children are concerned, since successive UK governments have
struggled, to a greater extent than elsewhere in Europe, to identify what
aspects of ‘Britishness’ comprise national identity. This has culminated
in the announcement of plans for the radical overhaul of teaching in
order to give pupils aged 11–16 a better understanding of ‘Britishness’
and to teach them about ‘traditional British values’, such as respect for
other cultures and tolerance of religious and sexual differences.
Endorsing these proposals, the Education Secretary, Alan Johnson, is
quoted as saying: ‘The values our children learn at school will shape the
kind of country Britain becomes’ (The Independent, 26 January 2007). In
addition, it is becoming increasingly likely that proposals will be intro-
duced compelling all young people to remain in full-time education
until the age of 18. Such developments are also part of the government’s
response to ‘risk’ by safeguarding children’s futures.
As Gulløv argues (chapter 7), with the development of modern
European states, the rearing of children has become more and more pro-
fessionalized and subject to state responsibility and authority, albeit that
this process has not been uniform across the EU Member States. As a
consequence, she argues, childhood and childcare institutions have
become increasingly politicized, becoming objects of intense discussion
concerning investment and societal outcomes, a process that has been
particularly evident in Denmark where there has been state involvement
in the construction of a ‘good childhood’. Thus, current policies aimed

at reinventing national culture have been pursued through heavy
investment in public day-care institutions for pre-school children aged
between six months and seven years, the age at which compulsory edu-
cation begins (cf. Kjorholt and Nilsen on Norwegian developments).
Indeed, she argues that ‘day-care has become so much a part of the nor-
mal trajectory of the child that being at home is interpreted as poten-
tially damaging for a sound development’.
As in Norway and Ireland, however (see Kjørholt and Devine, respec-
tively), not all children in Denmark are embraced by the Danish version
of ‘the good childhood’, including children from ethnic minorities who
are unable to display the same competence in and mastery of the Danish
language. This has become an indicator of capability to participate in
democratic decision-making, its importance being exemplified by the
introduction of legislation requiring the testing of Danish language flu-
ency among pre-school minority children and singling out competence
in Danish as an area for special educational intervention, for the sake of
the individual child as well as the state. In addition, pre-school institu-
tions aim to teach children the right way to behave, how to manage
themselves and how to be co-operative and considerate towards others –
in short, to be ‘civilizing agents’.
In this way, a Danish version of ‘risk’ emerges, in which children not
enrolled in day-care institutions are considered to be ‘at risk’ of not
learning how to behave in socially sanctioned ways. Ironically, there-
fore, unlike in Spain (see Casas, chapter 4), it might be argued that in
Denmark the authority of parents has been challenged by the state
rather than by children. Gulløv also clearly demonstrates the cultural
politics of childhood at work, however, and the fact that children are
not only embedded in societies with specific historical and cultural ideas
about childhood and the proper treatment of children, but also in fields
of social relations (cf. Bourdieu), in which agents in different positions
try to consolidate and extend their status and influence. As a result, as
Gulløv argues, ‘dominant conceptions of childhood reflect the distribu-
tion of power and dominance between the positions in the field’.
Chapter 8 explores similar themes and issues in terms of the role of
education policy and practice in Cyprus as part of the process of cultural
reproduction in a divided society, drawing on recent empirical data that
illustrate how children respond to such processes. In exploring the role of
the school as part of the apparatus of the state and how children are con-
trolled by both the school and the family, Spyrou illustrates how children
nonetheless become active participants in the process of creating a
national identity. This they do at least partly through their interactions

with their teachers, who act as mediators between policies and children.
As Spyrou also shows, however, children’s identities are never totally
determined because of their ability to find ways to exercise their agency
and to challenge or escape from some of the constraints imposed on
them by external agencies.
Following Bourdieu, however, he concludes that the process of educa-
tion in Cyprus has, until recently, as in so many other parts of the world,
been one of exerting symbolic violence on them. In spite of official dec-
larations about the liberating role of education and students’ participa-
tion in the educational process, children are, more often than not, told
what and how to think, what kind of children they should be and what
kind of adults they should aim to be when they grow up. Latterly, how-
ever, following the accession of Cyprus to the European Union, a much
more liberal influence has been exerted on education policy, in an
attempt to move it away from its narrow ethnocentrism towards a sys-
tem that will work to cultivate respect for diversity and pluralism. In
spite of such changes, the impact of large-scale recent immigration has
highlighted the difficulties faced by non-Greek-speaking children in
Cypriot schools, giving further cause for reflection on the issues raised
by Gulløv (chapter 7) concerning the emphasis placed by the Danish
government on the language proficiency of the children of immigrant
families.
Moving to the German context, Hengst explores how cultural peda-
gogy has developed outside the school as a result of the relative short
hours of school attendance for German children, exploring its impact
on notions of children’s culture. Comparing this with the emergence of
children’s culture policy in Denmark in the 1970s, he observes that a key
concern of such developments was, and continues to be, that children
should be encouraged to play an active cultural role outside the family
and the school, an emphasis that reflects a characteristic of such policies
in the Nordic countries – that they are designed as policies of equality
and pursued with the intention of enabling children to live their own
lives independently of their parents’ economic and cultural resources
and as citizens with equal rights.
The increasing importance of developing an explicit cultural policy in
Germany, not only in general terms but, in particular, for children and
young people, is in marked contrast to the approach of other EU states,
such as Britain and Ireland, to childhood. It reflects, Hengst argues, the
search for re-integration in the face of the perceived breakdown of social
institutions and is based on an understanding that children are, and
have always been, autonomous participants in the cultural process. This

approach assumes from the outset that children are independent beings
and the policy questions that then arise centre on the areas in which
children’s independence should be suppressed, restricted, prevented or
obstructed.
The German approach, which is largely extra-curricular and therefore
not under the immediate control of the state, thus emphasizes the rights
of children to their own culture, the advantages of the focus on cultural
education processes being argued to lie in the fact that ‘they are very
powerful in helping individual sensitivities to express themselves, and
in fostering in children and young people a conscious relationship to
their own person, their own biography and future’. It can be argued that
the development of the Third Way and the influence of communitari-
anism in British politics under New Labour reflect a similar concern with
social re-integration. However, the British approach is predicated on a
very different understanding of childhood and has produced a very dif-
ferent policy response in which the role of the state is of central impor-
tance (see James and James, chapter 6).
In a complementary chapter, offering another facet on childhood in
post-unification Germany, Honig draws attention to the massive expan-
sion in pre-school education, which he attributes primarily to changing
economic and demographic factors. Not only is this important in terms
of the development and welfare of children, Honig also argues that a
reconstruction of childhood as an institution is taking place, which is
making possible a re-contextualization of childhood and a realignment
of the responsibilities of, and the relationships between, the state, the
family, children and the market. In the process, he argues that ‘child’
has become ‘an age-differentiated status where rights and responsibili-
ties are subject to more detailed regulation than in any other phase of
life’, a description that also reflects the cultural politics of childhood in
Germany today and that sounds very similar to the developments
described by James and James in the UK (see chapter 6), particularly in
terms of the shifting balance between risk, protection and control.
Importantly, however, his analysis focuses on the relationship
between the detail of day-care arrangements for children and the macro-
forces of socio-economic change and the demands of the labour market.
Such issues go hand-in-hand with discourses relating to education,
social and economic policies, which variously highlight the educational
aspects of day-care arrangements, the role of day-care facilities in creat-
ing more equal opportunities in life and work, and the provision of
childcare as it relates to the need to bring more women with children
into the labour market. Empirical data demonstrate, however, the rich-
ness and complexity of the care arrangements made by many families,
who expend significant resources to provide their children with a
diverse and stimulating world of experience. Indeed, in many cases they
go outside traditional childcare structures, thereby highlighting the
duality of family and public education for the experience of children
growing up in post-reunification Germany. More importantly, he argues
that in the context of far-reaching economic and social changes, the
structure of care arrangements and socio-cultural patterns of what com-
prises a ‘good childhood’ are linked and that by making explicit ideas
about what a child needs or what additional support children ought to be
given within certain social milieus, we can gain an insight into how the
notion of what constitutes ‘a good childhood’ in Germany is changing.
In the final chapter, Qvortrup provocatively argues that children and
childhood are not logically and necessarily a part of welfare state think-
ing, since children do not ‘belong’ to the state, let alone have any legit-
imate rights as claimants. This, he argues, is due to the fact that, in the
main, children’s status is that of dependants, and so they are subsumed
under the household or, more specifically, the family – a view that
explicitly echoes the position of children in Spain (Casas, chapter 4) and
implicitly that in many other European countries. Consequently, any
benefits they do receive do not accrue to them as a right but as an effect
of targeting benefits at their parents. Indeed, Qvortrup goes further to
ask whether children are really even the subject of the principle of need,
or whether this too is delegated to someone else.
Importantly, however, he argues that even in advanced welfare states,
such as the Nordic countries, the demands of the labour market on
adults take precedence over child-rearing. Nonetheless, as he also points
out, there are huge variations in the financial and service provisions
made by different European countries, reflecting similarly large varia-
tions in the extent to which children’s social citizenship is recognized as
a legitimate claim. Since educational investments are for the common
good, however, and thus of equal significance for all members and sec-
tions of society, Qvortrup argues that these investments must count as a
contribution to maintaining and reproducing society as a whole, under-
lining the importance of schools and the education of children as the
key mechanisms in cultural reproduction. As he points out, society has
in effect colonized children’s labour, leaving the costs to be paid by the
family, with the consequence that ‘those who are obliged to care for
children do not benefit from it economically, while those who are prof-
iting from children being brought up, do not contribute’. His analysis
also suggests that children are, in fact, doing useful work in school and
are therefore part of a new societal division of labour. Thus, by implica-
tion, children should be considered as members of society – as citizens –
who deserve, as a right, a just proportion of societal resources.
Such observations not only mirror the major themes and issues raised
in this volume, they also highlight the importance of the cultural poli-
tics of childhood in defining some of the major issues for social policy in
relation to European childhoods and the relationship between children,
their parents and the state. At the heart of this lies a question of funda-
mental importance to the analysis and understanding of childhood and
more importantly to the lives of children, not only in Europe but
throughout the world – what should be the balance between childhood
as an end in itself, and childhood as a mean to an end?
Note
1 Norway, of course, is not a EU Member State.
References
James, A. and James, A. L. (2004) Constructing Childhood: Theory, Policy and Social
Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
UNICEF (2007) Child Poverty in Perspective: An Overview of Child Well-being in Rich
Countries. Innocent Report Card 7. Florence: Innocenti Research Centre.
2
Children as New Citizens: In the
Best Interests of the Child?
Anne Trine Kjørholt
Nadia is two years old. She lives with her three siblings who are aged
between five and twelve and her parents in an asylum seekers’ recep-
tion centre in Norway. They are Sunni Muslims and their country of
origin is Iraq, from where they were forced to flee for political reasons
in 2005. When they first arrived as refugees in a country in southern
Europe, they were met with violence and because they felt threatened,
they continued on to Norway to apply for permanent leave to remain
there. Nadia’s father was detained and tortured in his home country
and he is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. The family
has been there for four months, waiting for a decision to be made
about whether they will be interviewed by the Directorate of
Immigration (UDI) and thereby get permission to apply legally to be
asylum seekers in Norway.
Close to the reception centre is where Mari lives. She is the same
age as Nadia and like the majority of pre-school Norwegian chil-
dren, Mari attends kindergarten from 8 am to 4 pm while her par-
ents are at work. Mari has two older siblings, aged eight and
fourteen. Her mother was born in the same place as they live today
and one of Mari’s grandparents lives nearby. After school, Mari’s
sister and brother spend a lot of time participating in leisure activ-
ities, such as football and music. Oscar, who is fourteen, was
recently invited to take place on the local youth municipal council,
established to give children and young people the chance to take
part in the political life of their communities. Though he was flat-
tered, he turned down the offer and decided instead to give priority
to his football team.
14
Children as New Citizens 15
Introduction
This chapter discusses the dynamics between local notions of a (good)

childhood, children’s rights to participation and the principle of the
‘best interests of the child’ as stated in the UN Convention of the Rights
of the Child (UNCRC), in the Norwegian context. According to the
UNCRC, both Mari and Nadia and their siblings are rights-holders, but
what are the implications of this for their day-to-day life and well-being?
The Convention asserts that all children are independent individuals
endowed with many of the rights that adults have, as well as enjoying a
number of special rights linked to their status as children. Participation
is one of these and one of the three ‘P’s on which the UNCRC is based
(the other two being provision and protection; Cantwell 1993). Thus,
Articles 12, 13, 14 and 15 provide children and young people with the
right to participate actively in society and to take part in decision-
making in the family, the school and the community.
The decision made by the Norwegian government to incorporate the
UNCRC into its Human Rights Act in 2003 represented a legal strength-
ening of the UNCRC in Norway since it means that domestic law con-
cerning children and family is now subordinate to the Human Rights
Act and consequently these laws had to be changed in order to embrace
the intentions of the UNCRC regarding children’s rights. This chapter
reflects on the implications of this for children and their well-being,
focusing on the impact that the incorporation of the UNCRC into
Norwegian domestic law might have on policy and practice, on notions
of children as citizens and on changing what it means to be a child and
an adult in contemporary Norway.
A core issue that this chapter addresses, taking Norway as its case-
study, is how, and the extent to which, children’s participation rights
are interpreted and practised in different national and local contexts.
For example, the degree to which children are regarded as subjects
with participation rights is relative to their age and maturity, and
depends in part on the emphasis put on other rights in the UNCRC,
such as protection, since ‘the best interests of the child’, enshrined in
Article 3, is an overarching principle. However, there is no universal
yardstick by which children’s best interests can be measured.
Moreover, the degree to which children’s rights, as stated in the
Convention, will be guaranteed is dependent on how these are
emphasized in different contexts and the extent to which they are
consistent or come into conflict with other political interests and
aims in any society.
16 Anne Trine Kjørholt
Children’s participation rights under the UNCRC have been used as a

tool and frame of reference for policy-makers, NGOs and child researchers
to assert that children are citizens or co-citizens. Governments around
the world, on behalf of the states they represent, have taken on the
responsibility of providing the conditions necessary for children and
young people to exercise rights of participation, the expression of which
increases as the child matures. However, it has been argued that rights to
active social participation and citizenship are among the more funda-
mental rights and that they should embrace all age groups, including
the very young. A central question to be addressed here then is what it
means for children to be participating citizens in Norway and, further-
more, whether the recognition of children as citizens will contribute to
their empowerment as social actors and to the improvement of their
well-being and quality of life. The aim of this chapter is, therefore, to
discuss the dynamic relationship between discourses on children and
childhood, and the interpretation and practice of participation rights in
the field of child policy in Norway in the context of the overarching
principle of the ‘best interests of the child’. The analytical point of
departure is that before the UNCRC can become part of children’s lives,
it must be interpreted on the national level and rewritten as regulations
that will determine local practices.
Until recently, the relationship between children and citizenship was
largely un-theorized. However, over the last five years, researchers have
contributed to the development of new theoretical approaches to chil-
dren and citizenship, anchored in feminist and postcolonial thinking
(Cockburn 1998; Jans 2004; Kjørholt 2004; Moosa-Mitha 2005). The
construction of children as subjects with participation rights will be dis-
cussed with reference to these theoretical developments. In particular, I
will argue that the construction of children as social participants in the
context of rights discourses developed in a late modern Western context
reflects moral values of what it means to be a child; that the relationship
between participation rights and the principle of the ‘best interests of
the child’ contains certain paradoxes and dilemmas that are often hid-
den due to the hegemonic character of the global rights discourses; and
that the relative status and relationship between the different rights as
formulated by the so-called three ‘P’s in the UNCRC are vague and
ambiguous, resulting in confusion and inconsistency in the implemen-
tation of the UNCRC in different contexts.
In addition, there is a complex relationship between, on the one hand,
participation rights and the child’s best interests, which are claimed to be
universal, and, on the other, the interpretation and practice of these
rights in a local context. An important question to be addressed is what

implications rights discourses have for children’s well-being and quality
of life, interpreted within the framework of the concept of ‘the best inter-
ests of the child’. Related to this is the question of notions of childhood
and the construction of the child-subject in rights discourses. Moreover,
the construction of children as subjects with rights and as autonomous
actors makes it imperative to consider the nature of the relationship
between children and adults, and the extent to which the emphasis on
children as new citizens also implies making children responsible for
their own lives and choices. Provocatively, the following question can be
formulated: ‘Is the construction of children as citizens in “the best inter-
est of the child”’?
This chapter explores the complex and dynamic interrelationship
between global discourses on children’s rights, which are claimed to be
universal, and the politics of childhood at a national and local level,
which is a complex and multi-directional process. Norwegian social pol-
icy on family issues and children’s welfare has a long history and thus
the new claims relating to children’s rights meet this history in the con-
text of established institutions, policy arrangements, norms and ideas.
International regulations are therefore not simply enforced at the
national level, but must be ‘negotiated’ into national and local arrange-
ments (Rantalaiho 2004). This theoretical discussion of children as new
citizens will therefore be related to two empirical contexts in Norway –
children as citizens in the context of the kindergarten and child refugees
in the context of asylum-seeking – using Mari, Nadia and their siblings
to illustrate the discussion.
Children as new citizens?
The UNCRC has been described as revolutionary when compared to ear-

lier declarations on children’s rights, which did not recognize the child’s
autonomy and the importance of children’s views (Freeman 1992;
Verhellen 1997). The emphasis on participation rights in the UNCRC has
been used by researchers, as well as by child rights advocates and politi-
cians, as a frame of reference and a tool for treating children as fellow or
co-citizens (de Winter 1997). However, it has also been argued that the
rights to participation in the UNCRC are limited since they deny chil-
dren political rights, such as the right to vote, and thus fail to recognize
them as full citizens (Freeman 1992; Sgritta 1993; Opdal 1998).
In spite of this, much of the literature on children’s participatory
rights is characterized by universalizing and normative assumptions
about the self-evident value of children’s participation (see review in

Kjørholt 2004), rather than providing a critical scrutiny of political dis-
courses around the implementation of particular projects, or focusing
on the actual experiences of child participants in these projects.
International comparative studies are rare and consensus on common
terminology and theory at the international level is lacking (Riepl and
Wintersberger 1999), but those studies that have been done urge further
empirical investigation of how national law and politics related to chil-
dren’s rights to participation affect children’s lives and welfare, and how
universal rights are implemented in different national and local cultural
contexts.
In traditional citizenship theories (e.g. Marshall 1964) children are
not seen as citizens in the formal political sense of the term since they
are excluded from citizenship because they do not have political rights,
such as the right to vote. What they do have are certain civic and social
rights. Thus, a focus has been developed on the citizenship of children
and young people in the social and legal sense (de Winter 1997) in
which participation rights are seen as a fundamental part of children’s
citizenship (Hart 1992). Nonetheless, the use of concepts of rights to par-
ticipation or citizenship that work in favour of giving children rights as
citizens (see Kjørholt 2004) are issues that have only been touched on by
the great majority of researchers and child rights advocates. Therefore,
until recently, children have been largely excluded from theoretical
discussions of citizenship and democracy (Kjørholt 2001, 2002). Giving
children citizenship rights, however, raises fundamental questions asso-
ciated with notions of citizenship, childhood and social and democratic
participation. What does it mean to be a citizen? What is social and
democratic participation? And what does it mean to be a child?
In recent years, some researchers have started to discuss these issues
(Cockburn 1998; Jans 2004; Kjørholt 2004; Invernizzi and Milne 2005;
Moosa-Mitha 2005), generating a body of literature that represents a
valuable development in the theoretical and conceptual clarification of
the meaning of citizenship and, as a consequence, prompting further
discussion of children as subjects with rights of participation in society.
In turn, this means that the social rights attached to citizenship are grad-
ually receiving greater emphasis. This is important since giving children
rights as citizens challenges traditional theories of citizenship based on
liberal notions of democratic participation and the ideal of the rational
autonomous individual.
As a consequence, new perspectives on children and citizenship are
beginning to emerge. Thus, for example, Jans (2004) argues in favour of
an alternative conceptualization of citizenship, a ‘child-friendly citizen-

ship’, consisting of one or more of the following dimensions:
1. Citizenship as rights (I get to vote).

2. Citizenship as responsibilities (I have to be decent).
3. Citizenship as identity (I am Norwegian).
4. Citizenship as participation (I feel involved and can participate in
community life) (Jans 2004).
Jans argues that a ‘children-sized citizenship’ is a dynamic and continu-

ous learning process, demanding both participation and involvement.
As part of this, citizenship as an identity, which places children in a posi-
tion as contributing social actors in a community, represents a positive
approach to the representation of children as citizens. Combined with
an emphasis on citizenship as participation, it enables the identification
of the variety of different ways in which children and young people par-
ticipate in society.
Other researchers focus on the interdependency of children and
adults, arguing for an alternative and relational model of citizenship
(Cockburn 1998; Moosa-Mitha 2005). Such a relational approach, as
conceptualized within difference-centred models, broadens the mean-
ing of participation, challenging a dualistic split between the public and
private spheres, placing citizens in many different subject positions in
different contexts whilst at the same time coming together in solidarity
(Moosa-Mitha 2005; Bjerke 2006).
Giving children rights as citizens is not unproblematic, however, and
critics of children’s social participation warn against the danger of plac-
ing a heavy burden on children by giving them too much responsibility
and exposing them to inadequate care and protection (Nijnatten 1993,
in de Winter 1997). They argue that adults have overall responsibility
for creating an environment that ensures children have a good quality
of life and for developing appropriate contexts for children’s participa-
tion (Mollenhauer 1986, in de Winter 1997). Others have argued that
citizenship is a tool that can be used to incorporate children in the social
structure of society, to strengthen their influence and agency in society,
and to educate them as future adult citizens (de Winter 1997).
It has also been argued that not only does children’s participation in
civil society benefit the child directly, it also has long-term significance
for their community, their nation and the world because it encourages
the development of knowledge, skills, values and attitudes that are
fundamental in sustaining a democracy (Flekkøy and Kaufman 1997;
Kaufman and Rizzini 2002; Limber and Kaufman 2002; Smith et al.
2003). It has further been argued that encouraging children to express
their opinions and feelings about their lives and events in their world and
to participate actively in the world signals a respect for children as human
beings (Weithorn 1998; Morrow 1999). Based on studies of asylum-
seeking children’s participation rights in Norway, Rusten also argues
that there is a close connection between protection rights and participa-
tion rights in the sense that participation rights are essential for the real-
ization of other rights and that, in order to meet children’s protection
rights, adults need to listen to children to understand their situation,
their needs and what is in their ‘best interests’ (Rusten 2006). It is
against this background that this chapter will discuss children’s partici-
pation in Norway, beginning with an outline of the legal position relat-
ing to children’s participation in Norwegian society.
The legal status of the UNCRC in Norway
Discourses that construct children as competent social actors with rights

to participate in society and to have a voice in matters that affect their
lives have been flourishing over the last 15–20 years among childhood
researchers, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and actors within
the field of international and national child policy (McKechnie 2002;
Halldén 2003; Kjørholt 2004). The position of children as social partici-
pants still depends, however, on the extent to which changed political
and social practices eventually emerge from this incorporation. Thus,
for example, the lack of incorporation of the UNCRC into the Human
Rights Act when it was first adopted in Norway in 1999 illustrated
ambivalence about the willingness to take children’s right to participa-
tion seriously (Kjørholt 2004).
This lack of incorporation was met with criticism from both the UN’s
Expert Committee on children’s rights (in their response to Norway’s
status report on activities connected to the implementation of the
UNCRC in 2000) and from various political actors in Norway. A working
group consisting of representatives from different ministries was there-
fore set up to discuss the issue further. As a result, in September 2003,
the UNCRC was incorporated into the Human Rights Act by the
Norwegian parliament. This was an expression of the political will to
take children’s rights in general, and their rights of participation in par-
ticular, more seriously. However, incorporation meant that national
laws affecting children had to be redrafted in order to conform to the
framework and the various articles of the UNCRC. Thus, for example, as
a result of incorporation, the age limit in Norwegian law for children’s

rights to be heard in decisions concerning them was lowered from
twelve to seven years. This has, however, created tension between the
child’s right to autonomy and participation on the one hand and, on
the other, the extent to which the child is to be made responsible for dif-
ficult decisions (Sandberg 2004).
From a legal perspective, the impact of incorporation on the potential
implementation of participation rights in different contexts is highly
significant. Thus, for example, refugee and asylum-seeking children are
protected with reference to two international conventions: the UNCRC
and the Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol. Thus, in 1993, the
UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) adopted a Policy on
Refugee Children that implemented the UNCRC as its ‘normative frame
of reference for UNHCR’s action’ (Rusten 2006). As noted above, the
UNCRC endows children with three types of rights; provision, protec-
tion and participation. However, the relationships between, and relative
weight given to, these different rights are discussed only briefly such
that within policy and research literature, participation rights are often
presented in terms of a dichotomous understanding of the child as
either vulnerable or as a competent social actor (Kjørholt 2004). The for-
mer, which implies children’s dependency and vulnerability, has been
associated with the developmental paradigm and has been criticized for
being adult-centric and as failing to recognize children as right-holders,
which is implied by acknowledging them as competent social actors
(Kjørholt 2004). The latter movement for empowering children that is
anchored in universal discourses on children’s rights, by contrast, seems to
lack any concepts and approaches that can take account of children’s
dependence on the cultural and political context that they are part of. It
is to a discussion of these opposing ideas, as they unfold in Norwegian
society, that the chapter now turns.
Play and freedom of choice – in ‘the best

interest’ of the child?
As stated in the introduction, Mari like the majority of pre-school

Norwegian children attends kindergarten every day. The kindergarten,
which is in a new building, is claimed to have a modern architectural
style in line with ‘new knowledge’ about ‘the modern child’. The new
architecture is part of a policy aimed at improving the quality of the
kindergarten by creating flexible places: more openness, more effective
use of the locality and promoting active participation and freedom of
choice for children as well as adults (Kjørholt and Tingstad 2007). This
‘new knowledge’ reflects prominent discourses in policy and research
conceptualizing children’s competence and autonomy from an early
age, and rejecting earlier discourses on the developing and vulnerable
child: the ‘modern child’ is asserted to be an individual with freedom of
choice and the right to influence their everyday lives (Kjørholt and
Tingstad 2007).
Mari attends a ‘child meeting’ in the kindergarten every morning after
breakfast in order to exercise her rights, to take her own decisions and to
influence everyday life in the kindergarten. This meeting is not obliga-
tory, but it is a common practice in many Norwegian kindergartens.
Forty children aged between 21⁄2 and 6 years attend. As part of the
agenda, children have to decide which room and what kind of activity
they want to take part in during the next two hours. Once a child has
made its choice, it is not allowed to change its mind, reflecting a moral
value that it is important for children to learn responsibility and to
accept the consequences of their decisions.
The implementation of participation rights for children in kinder-
garten is related to notions of what it means to be a child and notions of
(a good) childhood in Norway. The construction of ‘the tribal child’ – as
a group with a common, authentic culture – has been prevalent in child
policy as well in research in Denmark and Norway since the 1990s
(Kjørholt 2001, 2004; Kampmann 2001). The child’s right to choose
activities and with whom to play is emphasized in day-care institu-
tions as well as in after-school activities in Norway and Denmark, and
the emphasis on the opportunity for individual children to make their
own choices and decisions in contemporary discourses is significant
(Gulløv 2001).
Since the 1990s, the concept of ‘children’s own culture’, referring to
play and peer-cultural activities initiated by children themselves and
representing a particular understanding of childhood, has had increas-
ing discursive power among researchers and various professional groups
in both Denmark and Norway. Former as well as contemporary notions of
‘a good childhood’ in Norway are connected to the right to move freely in
the physical environment and to the potential for children to structure
their time according to their own needs. Thus, autonomy, freedom and
play with peers in the immediate neighbourhood and, in particular, in
natural settings are promoted (Gullestad 1997; Nilsen 2000; Kjørholt
2001): childhood and nature are seen as closely intertwined. The cultural
meaning of ‘free play’, practised among peers, is stressed especially when
it takes place outdoors, preferably in a natural setting (see Nilsen, this
volume). In this cultural context, children are constructed as a collective

group with a common interest: the right to play together.
Commentators present the position as representing a shift from a
focus on the developing child to the competent child, from pedagogy to cul-
ture, which are presented as dichotomous and opposite positions.
Gulløv, for example, asserts that comparable discourses connected to
day-care centres in Denmark are characterized by ‘moral assumptions
and understandings concerning individual autonomy, social coherence
and conceptions of children and childhood’ (Gulløv 2003: 24). These
centres also emphasize the significance of individual children’s capacity
to make their own choices and ability to decide, and an analysis of
changing practices in Danish day-care centres within the project
‘Children as co-Citizens’ reveals that the idea of citizenship is closely
connected to practising participation rights. In this context, children’s
rights to participation are interpreted in terms of the exercise of individ-
ual autonomy and self-determination (Kjørholt 2005).
Since ratification of the UNCRC in early 1991, discourses on chil-
dren’s rights to participation have been powerful in Norwegian chil-
dren’s policy relating to school reform, political participation and local
planning. However, it is only recently that these discourses have spread
to the field of early childhood education and care. A government policy
document (‘Kindergartens in the Best Interests of Children and Parents’)
produced by the Ministry for Children and Family Affairs in December
1999, describes the political aims of kindergartens in Norway and illus-
trates how children’s right to participation is interpreted:
Children have to be children on their own terms, based on their own

interests, and they must be protected against ‘adult control’.
(Government declaration to the Parliament,
Stortings-melding – 27/2000:73)
As we can see, adults are thought of as a threat to children, the relation-

ships between them being constructed only in the light of the concept
of power.
In an article entitled ‘Participation or Reactive Pedagogy’, Pernille
Hviid characterizes practices in Danish day-care institutions as a ‘what
do you want pedagogy’, linking notions of ‘the best interests of the
child’ to children’s freedom of choice and ‘free play’ in daily life within
the institutions. This pedagogy has the individual child’s perspective
as its starting point and relates to particular notions of ‘freedom’,
‘desire’, ‘self-determination’, ‘diversity’ and ‘freedom of choice’ (Hviid
1998). Self-determination is primarily understood as the individual’s

ability to ‘decide for herself’ and, she argues, to have as many oppor-
tunities for individual choice as possible. This is prevalent in different
Danish institutions, from the early age of toddlers up to school age
(Hviid 1998). Hviid is critical of this practice for a number of reasons,
one of her arguments being that such practice makes children unduly
accountable, since they are put in a position of taking responsibility
for their own life and development, and also of being responsible for
this choice (Hviid 1998: 213). She argues that the practice of encour-
aging individualism was introduced in the 1990s, and is different from
pedagogical practices of the 1970s and 1980s. Writing at the end of the
1990s, she argues:
the Danish day-care institution probably stands at the threshold of

another kind of pedagogy, putting more emphasis on the social and
learning aspects.
(Hviid 1998: 208)
In the national curriculum for kindergartens, adopted in 2005, similar

rights to participation are included. In the national law on kinder-
gartens, rights to participation are emphasized in the following way:
Children have the right to express their views on daily life in kinder-
garten. Children should regularly get the opportunity to active par-
ticipation in planning and assessment of the activities. Children’s
views should be given due weight according to children’s age and
maturity.
(Kindergarten Act 2005: 3)
Do these participation rights imply that Mari and other children in the
kindergarten are constructed as citizens? According to recent theorizing
about children and citizenship presented earlier in this chapter, we
might argue that the recognition of children as competent actors with a
right to have a say in everyday life in the kindergarten means including
them as citizens. It can further be argued that the particular child-
subject connected to play and child culture means including the ‘differ-
ent citizen’ represented in difference-centred theories on citizenship
(Misha-Mootha 2005).
There is an explicit reference to the UNCRC in the Framework for
kindergartens, underlining Article 12 of the UNCRC. After an elabora-
tion of the content of p. 3 in the National Framework, it is emphasized
that children should have the opportunity to experience belonging and

community, to exercise self-determination and to express their inten-
tions. The National Framework does not fully link participation to self-
determination and freedom of choice, however: individuality and the
right to express an opinion are also connected to the ability to be empa-
thetic and care for others. Furthermore, a relational approach is
included, emphasizing the importance of adults listening to children
and of their being responsible for all the children in the kindergarten.
It remains to be seen, therefore, how children’s right to participation
as outlined in the Kindergarten Act 2005 and the national Framework
will be interpreted and practised in different kindergartens. Preliminary
results from the Norwegian Centre for Child Research indicate that
autonomy and individual choice are central issues in the practices that
are developed (Seland 2006). The practice of participation rights fur-
thermore presupposes a human subject who is able to make her own
choices and to express her views verbally in a deliberate and rational
manner. For Mari and the other children in the kindergarten this con-
stitutes a particular challenge because their language skills are not fully
developed at such a young age; desire and needs are often embodied, but
are not always conscious, and are expressed more through body lan-
guage than verbally. Thus, there is a danger that the new practices, rep-
resenting the promotion of individual choice and self-determination
consistent with the ‘best interests of the child’, will omit a discussion of
related moral values.
There are, however, different and even competing discourses about
childhood and the aims and content of the kindergarten and, as argued
by Pernille Hviid regarding Danish day-care centres, there are similar
trends in Norway that reveal a new emphasis on knowledge and learn-
ing. An illustration of this is that the name of one of the rooms in Mari’s
kindergarten has been changed from the ‘building block room’ to the
‘maths room’, underlining the point that using building blocks is not
primarily a ‘play activity’ but is a ‘maths learning’ activity. Thus current
Norwegian discourses are characterized by two different and competing
positions; play, freedom of choice and an emphasis on ‘children’s cul-
ture’ on the one hand, and learning, competence and knowledge on the
other. This situation is reflected in the national administrative authority
of the kindergarten. Until 2006 the Ministry for Children and Family
Affairs was responsible for kindergartens; now they are administered by
the Ministry of Knowledge. The new emphasis on learning, compe-
tence and knowledge, however, challenges ‘traditional’ discourses on
(good) childhood in Norway. It remains to be seen how this will affect
the content of everyday life in the kindergarten, as well as the normative

assessment and moral values embedded in the practice of participation
rights in everyday life in this setting.
Refugee children, citizenship and ‘the best

interests’ of the child
In April 2006, approximately 2,000 children were living in Norwegian

reception centres (Rusten 2006). Nadia is one of them. In contrast to
Mari’s day, Nadia spends most of her time with her parents at the tran-
sit asylum reception centre. If her parents want her to, she has can meet
other pre-school children and their adult carers for a couple of hours a
day. The children are of different nationalities and speak a variety of lan-
guages, however, which makes it difficult for them to communicate
with each other. In relation to exercising participation rights, Nadia’s
situation contrasts markedly, therefore, with Mari’s everyday life at the
kindergarten.
There are potential problems in relation to the exercise of her legal
rights. According to the Dublin Convention, which articulates the so-
called ‘first country practice’, Nadia’s family will probably not be
allowed to tell their story in an interview and to apply for asylum:
because they entered another country before fleeing to Norway, that
country has the responsibility for handling their asylum applications.
However, if an adverse decision is made, under the provisions of the
Children’s Act (adopted 8 April 1981, revised 7 April 2006), Nadia’s two
siblings will have a right to express their views in the proceedings: once
they reach the age of seven their views should be given significant
emphasis. As noted above, this lowering of age was made in 2003, with
the Act also stating that children below seven years of age, who are able
to express themselves, should be given the opportunity to do so.
In a case such as that of Nadia and her sisters, an important question
arises about how the principle of ‘the best interests of the child’ should
be determined when dealing with asylum applications. For example, do
refugee and asylum-seeker children have their rights to express their
concerns realized in immigration cases? In the Norwegian youth report
to the UN on the Convention on the Rights of the Child in 2003,
refugee children said:
The interview is the only time we get to describe why we apply for
permission to stay in Norway. At that time we’re often anxious and
tired after a long journey. The interview should either take place later,
or there should be more interviews.
(Sanner and Dønnestad 2003)
Evident here is the fact that fulfilling rights to participation requires

time and communication; it involves the development of social rela-
tions characterized by mutual trust, something that is absent from the
life of refugee children at reception centres in Norway. Indeed, this
life has been characterized as a ‘liminal phase’, in which children and
their families are placed in a situation of insecurity, often for a long
period, having questions about their future ‘answered’ with silence
(Knutsen 1998). This ‘liminal phase’ has further been characterized as a
rite of passage for asylum seekers, who have the status of non-citizens
(Archambault 2006).
Based on the argument that citizenship is a tool with which to include
children in the social structure of society, strengthen their influence and
agency in society, and educate them as future adult citizens (de Winter
1997), policies and practices which can improve the right of asylum-
seeking and refugee children to express their views and to influence
their daily life and society become extremely pertinent. Indeed, in their
report to Norway in 2000 related to Article 12 of the UNCRC, the UN
Committee stated that children’s views in general were insufficiently
heard and taken into consideration. It was therefore recommended that
Norway should ‘continue its effort to inform children and others, includ-
ing parents and legal professionals, of children’s rights to express their
views and of mechanisms and other opportunities which exists for this
purpose’ (Supplementary Report 2004: 11). The conditions of children in
families seeking asylum was made a particular issue in the report, and
Norway was criticized for paying too little attention to asylum-seeking
children’s rights to participate in the proceedings or considering their
views in the decision-making process (Report UN Committee 2000).
Though the practices regarding children’s participation rights had
improved, the Forum for UNCRC (FFB) in their supplementary report to
the Committee claimed that children were still rarely heard in immigra-
tion cases (Supplementary Report 2004).
A recent study (Rusten 2006) of children’s right to participate in
Norwegian asylum proceedings revealed that the authorities had
addressed few of the problems and ethical dilemmas inherent in con-
ducting interviews with children. Many respondents found it difficult to
communicate and time-consuming, compared to conducting similar
interviews with adults, while some respondents questioned the usefulness
of talking to children when they believed the outcome would be that the
parents had their application rejected.
In the Norwegian youth report to the UN, refugee children also
claimed that they did not get the psychological support they needed to
cope with difficult and traumatic experiences. They underlined the fact
that they miss adults who care, with whom they can share their
thoughts and feelings and with whom they can discuss their lives and
aspirations for the future. One of the main wishes expressed by unac-
companied under-aged asylum seekers was to move in with a Norwegian
family as soon as possible after arrival. Summarizing asylum-seekers’
experiences in Norwegian reception centres, Sanner and Dønnestad
(2003) conclude that: ‘It is tough living with foreigners of the same age
who speak different languages. There is little privacy and there are few
adults in the reception centre. They [the children] say that the centre is
an education in loneliness’.
It has been argued that ‘children from minority groups constitute a
double minority … being considered as a minority group themselves,
both as minors and as being members of any visible minority group’
(Wintersberger, Bardy and Qvortrup 1993: 26). Wintersberger et al. also
argue that ‘children from minorities often display capabilities and com-
petences that their parents do not have, which means that they are
brought into a predicament as far as their relationships to authorities are
concerned’ (1993: 21). For example, their double minority status may
place these children in a situation of conflicting social, cultural and gen-
erational relations, where authority relations between adults and chil-
dren, as well as gender relations, become contested. Refugee and
asylum-seeking children therefore often face additional challenges, hav-
ing to reconcile traditional norms and values related to being a child in
a particular ethnic minority with the new and different norms for child-
hood in Norwegian society.
Refugee children in Norway seem, therefore, to be a particularly mar-
ginalized group with regard to participation rights, since the process of
applying for asylum often takes a long time, sometimes years. The wait
means being involved in bureaucratic processes including interviewing
and tracking of their journey (Archambault 2006). It leaves children in a
situation of insecurity, with no control over their lives and, according to
Forum for the UNCRC in Norway (FFB 2004), children are scarcely heard
in immigration cases. Unaccompanied minors are especially vulnerable
in Norwegian reception centres, where they are denied even the basic
rights set out in the UNCRC (Save the Children, Norway 2004). In their
recommendation to Norway in 2000, the UN Committee stated that the
state party should ‘review its procedures for considering applications for
asylum from children, whether accompanied or unaccompanied, to
ensure that children are provided with sufficient opportunities to
participate in the proceedings and to express their concerns’
(Supplementary Report 2004: 27).
These reports, and the experiences of refugee children cited above,
clearly reveal that there are groups of children in Norwegian society who
are denied the right to have a say in matters that affect their lives. They
also expose the connections between different rights in the UNCRC: an
asylum centre that is felt by children to be a place for ‘an education in
loneliness’ is a place where children feel they are being excluded from
society and deprived of relationships with others, socially, culturally
and emotionally. Having an identity as a citizen in the present and in
the future requires a sense of belonging, anchored in inclusive rela-
tionships with others. Being marginalized and excluded from social
relationships and belonging means being deprived of the possibilities
to practise citizenship. As difference-centred theoretical perspectives
on citizenship underline (Misha-Mootha 2005), inclusion, regardless
of age or group membership, is dependent on a sense of self being
derived through active participation with, and belonging, to other
human beings.
‘The best interests of the child’
The comparison made between Mari’s and Nadia’s access to exercising

their rights to citizenship and participation also highlights the difficul-
ties that arise in relation to the idea of ‘the best interests of the child’:
outlined in Article 3, it is an overarching principle of the UNCRC, but
there is no universal standard defining what constitutes children’s best
interests. It is therefore a concept that is differentiated and dependent
on normative and cultural evaluations made by different bodies and
actors within the contexts in which the UNCRC is implemented. The
welfare programme of the Norwegian Research Council clearly illus-
trates this point when it argues that:
Many arrangements in the welfare society have children as users.

Children’s needs and interests often have to be interpreted and rep-
resented by parents and professionals. Everybody wants to realise the
best interest of the child, but how do we know what this is?’
(2004: 14)
So, for example, various studies focusing on court disputes over chil-
dren’s custody and visiting arrangements (Smart et al. 2003; Ottesen
2004; Skjørten 2004) argue from different viewpoints that the notion of
the ‘best interests of the child’ is ambiguous, interpreted in different
ways in different contexts, and that in many cases children are not
heard. In Norway, children’s role in divorce procceedings, for example,
has been located firmly within the welfare discourse and is linked only
to a ‘caretaking’ version of children’s rights. So in mediation, which is
primarily an adult-oriented process, the voice of the child is expressed
almost entirely through its parents. The extent to which this accords
with the provisions of Article 12 of the UNCRC is therefore questionable
(Rantalaiho and Haugen 2004). In relation to immigration, Norway’s
third report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child in 2003 argues
as follows:
There is always emphasis on the best interests of the child in immi-

gration cases that involve children. Many residence and work permits
that are granted on ‘strong humanitarian grounds’ are justified on
the basis of consideration for the children. Nevertheless, considera-
tion for the child/children is not always decisive, nor is it always clear
what the best interests of the child are.
(para. 145, quoted in Rusten 2006)
Indeed, it has been argued that part of the state’s obligation is to define
the best interests of the child and that it is a matter of will, resources and
procedures as to whether children’s views, experts’ views and parents’
views are sufficiently heard and taken into account (Rusten 2006). In
addition, it has been argued that rights discourses, constructing children
as individual right-holders, and the assessment of ‘the best interests of
the child’ might also contribute to children being used strategically as
instruments to undermine principles in Norwegian immigration poli-
cies (Lidèn 2005).
Thus, the principle of the best interests of the child is not a neutral
and global standard; rather, it is one that involves normative and eth-
ical assessments, anchored in cultural contexts and notions of (good)
childhood and quality of life. Although constructed as competent
actors and individual rights claimants in Norwegian society, specific
groups of children are nonetheless marginalized, which makes these
children a target for different interest groups to use in the context of
their own agendas. ‘Best interests’ is a standard with different mean-
ings in different cultures, influenced by class, ethnicity, gender and
other structural factors. Alston (1994) points out that, whereas a child’s
individuality and autonomy may be valued as being consistent with
the principle of the ‘best interests of the child’ in Western societies,
this may conflict with traditions and values in other cultures. The
absence of standards defining the ‘best interests of the child’ therefore
makes it possible to use this principle to legitimize a practice in one
culture that in another would been seen as detrimental to children
(Alston 1994). Notions of ‘the best interests of the child’ are therefore
closely intertwined with cultural notions of a (good) childhood in a
particular local context.
It is also important to clarify how the child’s right to participation is
to be linked with ‘the best interests of the child’. Sandberg (2004) argues
that in order to understand this, we must consider the degree of coinci-
dence between the child’s opinion and what is interpreted as the best
interests of the child in different legal contexts. Alongside ‘the best
interests of the child’, the concept of children’s participation rights is
also dependent on cultural interpretation, since there are no specific
standards connected to the implementation of participation rights, a
point which empirical studies clearly illustrate (Kjørholt 2004). Due to
the universal character and hegemonic position of the discourses on
children’s rights, this is seldom discussed openly, since the dynamics
between the global discourse on children’s rights and national politics is
a complex and multi-directional process. Thus, international regula-
tions cannot simply be enforced at the national level, but must be nego-
tiated into the form of national and local arrangements that can be
reconciled with the perspectives, norms and practices of established
institutions (Rantalaiho 2004: 3). This makes the universality of chil-
dren’s rights inherently problematic.
Human rights discourses have also been criticized for being rooted in
the idea that human dignity and worth can only be realized by indi-
vidual rights and by disregarding the alternative, that human worth
may be rooted in care, interdependence and mutual needs (Diduck
1999). Rights discourses are anchored in the Anglo-American liberal
tradition, which constructs human beings as legal subjects capable of
speaking for themselves and acting in their own interests. The subject
is constructed as a rational, autonomous individual, with the con-
sciousness to formulate his or her own needs and wishes. It has been
argued that there are some ‘needs that are not easily expressed in rights
claims – like the need to be loved, to receive emotional support and so
on’ (Mortier 2002: 83): care, dependencies, affection, affiliation, inti-
macy and love are therefore silenced by discourses on children’s rights.
An important question that arises is what consequences this silence

has for both children and children’s citizenship. For example, studies
of children’s experiences of participatory projects reveal that they do
not construct their autonomy as a counterpart to dependency: the con-
struction of identities as competent social participants in their local
communities derives from intertwined processes of autonomy and
belonging to various kinds of communities, inter-generational as well
as age-related (Kjørholt 2004).
Meanwhile, the studies of refugee children in Norway cited above
reveal that children are only treated as autonomous, individual right-
holders to a limited degree, indicating that their status as citizens may
be questioned despite the change in Norwegian law. Indeed, Rusten con-
cludes that children arriving in Norway as asylum-seekers are not fully
treated as individuals in the administrative proceedings and that the
principle of ‘the best interests of the child’ is not taken into considera-
tion sufficiently. She asserts that:
although the implementation of the UNCRC this far may not have
had any major practical implications for the asylum administration;
its status as Norwegian law has generally led to more focus on chil-
dren’s issues and shed light on the problems inherent in not treating
children as individuals in the asylum process.
(Rusten 2006: 72)
However, Rusten also argues that the asylum procedures with respect to
child interviews are still not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of
Article 12; that there is resistance among employees in UDI to listen to
children’s views and to give these sufficient weight in decisions that are
made; and that the degree to which the principle of the ‘best interests of
the child’ is taken into account when decisions are made by authorities
is unclear (Rusten 2006).
Conclusion
The case studies considered in this chapter have explored the implemen-
tation of the UNCRC in the context of Norwegian kindergartens and
they illustrate how the interpretation of participation rights is linked to
notions of self-determination, play and individual choice, as well as to
particular cultural notions of (good) childhood. The emphasis on free-
dom of choice and child autonomy in certain aspects of everyday life in
the kindergarten, however, is riddled with ambiguity and paradoxes. Like
the other children in the kindergarten Mari, aged 21⁄2, is obviously

dependent and vulnerable, and her ability to express her views verbally
regarding daily life in the kindergarten and to make conscious decisions
is limited. In order to be recognized as a competent social actor in the
kindergarten, she needs to have her autonomy regarded in a relational
perspective, taking into account the close interrelationship between
autonomy on the one hand, and dependency and vulnerability on the
other.
Fulfilment of participation rights in such a context is complex, requir-
ing adult caretakers who do not construct autonomy and dependency as
opposites but as mutually dependent, dynamic and fluctuating. In this
sense, protection rights and participation rights are closely intertwined;
a difference-centred approach to citizenship that broadens the concept
of participation, relating the practice of participation rights to belonging
and community, is therefore fruitful. It opens the way to recognizing
children as citizens in manner that includes their vulnerability and
dependency in the concept of citizenship.
As we have seen, however, Nadia and the other children at centres for
asylum-seekers are not recognized as autonomous individual rights-
holders, who have their participation rights fulfilled in decision-making
processes. Their marginal position, the result of their belonging to differ-
ent groups and communities, also indicates that their citizenship status
may not be recognized and thus participation rights in decision-making,
which are closely related to competence, inclusion and belonging in
everyday life, may also be lacking.
As yet few empirical studies have been done since the incorporation of
the UNCRC into the Human Rights Act in 2003 that explore how global
discourses about children’s participation rights are practised and inter-
preted in the context of Norwegian policy relating to refugee children.
Thus if, as noted above, tensions and conflicts exist between practices
relating to Articles 3 and 12, it is important to discover how children
experience participation rights in their daily lives. Indeed, this has been
underlined in a report about research on human rights in Norway,
which recommends empirical investigation of children’s experiences
and perspectives related to policy and practice at both the local and
national level (Lomell, All, Hvinden and Grøholt 1999). A central con-
cern of such research must be to generate knowledge about if and, in the
case refugee children, how children are constructed as subjects with
rights to participate in society, and what consequences this construction
(or lack of it) has for children, their relations to adults and other chil-
dren, and for their inclusion in Norwegian society.
References
Alston, P. (1994) The Best Interest Principle: Towards a Reconciliation of
Culture and Human Rights. In Alston, P. (ed.) The Best Interest of the Child:
Reconciling Culture and Human Rights (pp. 1–25). Oxford: UNICEF and
Clarendon Press.
Archambault, J. (2006) Refugee Children and Their Rights: Is Citizenship a
Concern? Paper presented for the PhD course on Children’s Rights. Trondheim:
Norwegian Centre for Child Research, NTNU.
Bjerke, H. (2006) Conceptualizing Citizenship in Childhood. Working paper,
unpublished. Trondheim: Norwegian Centre for Child Research, NTNU.
Cantwell, N (1993) Monitoring the Convention through the 3 ‘P’s. In
Heiliø, P. L. Lauronen, E. and Bardy, M. (eds), Politics of Childhood and Children
at Risk. Provision, Protection, Particiapation. Eurosocial Report 45. Vienna:
European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research, pp. 121–6.
Cockburn, T. (1998) Children and Citizenship in Britain. A Case for a Socially
Interdependent Model of Citizenship, Childhood 5(1): 99–117.
de Winter, M. (1997) Children as Fellow Citizens. Participation and Commitment.
Oxford and New York: Radcliffe Medical Press.
Diduck, A. (1999) Justice and Childhood: Reflections on Refashioned Boundaries.
In King, M. (ed.), Moral Agendas for Children’s Welfare (pp. 120–38). London and
New York: Routledge.
Flekkøy, M. G. and Kaufman, N. H. (1997) The Participation Rights of the Child:
Rights and Responsibilities in Family and Society. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Freeman, M. D. (1992) The Limits of Children’s Rights. In Freeman, M. D. and
Veerman, P. (eds.), The Ideologies of Children’s Rights (pp. 29–46). International
Studies in Human Rights. Dordrecht, London and Boston, MA: Martinus Nijhoff.
Gullestad, M (1997) A Passion for Boundaries: Reflections on Connections
between the Everyday Lives of Children and Discourses on the Nation in
Contemporary Norway. Childhood 1(4): 19–42.
Gulløv, E (2001) Placing Children. Paper presented at the research seminar,
‘Children, Generation and Place: Cross-cultural Approaches to an Anthropology
of Children’, 19–21 May. University of Copenhagen, Network for Cross-
Cultural Child Research.
Halldén, G. (2003) Barnperspektiv som ideologiskt eller metodologiskt begrepp.
In Barns perspektiv och barnperspektiv. Pedagogisk forskning i Sverige 8(1–2),
Institutionen för pedagogikk och didaktikk. Gøteborgs Universitet, Gøteborg,
12–23.
Harris, J. (1996) Liberating Children. In Leahy, M. and Cohn-Sherbok. D. (eds.),
The Liberation Debate, London: Routledge.
Hart, R. (1992) Children’s Participation. From Tokenism to Citizenship. United
Nations Children’s Fund. Innocent Essays 4.
Hviid, P. (1998) Deltakelse eller reaktiv pædagogik. In Brinkkjær, U. et al. (eds.),
Pedagogisk faglighed i dagistitusjoner (pp. 207–26). Rapport 34. København:
Danmarks pædagogiske universitet.
Invernizzi, A. and Milne, B. (guest eds.) (2005) Children’s Citizenship: An Emergent
Discourse on the Rights of the Child? Journal of Social Sciences Special Issue 9.
Jans, M. (2004) Children as Citizens. Towards a Contemporary Notion of Child
Participation. Childhood 11(1): 27–44.
Kampmann, J. (2001) Hva er børnekultur? In Tufte, B. Kampmann, J. and

Junker, B. (eds.), Børnekultur. Hvilke børn og hvis kultur? København:
Akademisk Forlag A/S.
Kaufman, N. and Rizzini, I. (eds.) (2002) Globalization and Children: Exploring
Potentials for Enhancing Opportunities in the Lives of Children and Youth. New York:
Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Kjørholt, A. T. (2001) ‘The Participating Child’ – A Vital Pillar in This Century?
Nordisk Pedagogikk/Nordic Educational Research 21(2): 65–81.
Kjørholt, A. T. (2002) Small is Powerful. Discourses on ‘Children and
Participation’ in Norway. Childhood 1(9): 63–83.
Kjørholt, A. T. (2004) Childhood as a Social and Symbolic Space. Discourses on
Children as Social Participants in Society. PhD thesis. Trondheim, NTNU.
Kjørholt, A. T. (2005) The Competent Child and the ‘Right to be Oneself’:
Reflections on Children as Fellow Citizens in a Day-care Centre. In Clark, A.,
Kjørholt, A. T. and Moss, P. (eds.), Beyond Listening. Bristol: Policy Press.
Kjørholt, A.T. and Tingstad, V. (2007) Flexible Places for Flexible Children?
Discourses on the New Kindergarten Architecture. In Zeiher, H., Devine, D.,
Kjørholt, A. T. and Strandell, H. (eds.), Flexible Childhood? Exploring Children’s
Welfare in Time and Space. Cost Action A19: Children’s Welfare, Vol. 2. Odense:
Southern University Press.
Knudsen, John Chr. (1994) ‘Hvis jeg hadde vært en fugl.’ Asylsøker- og flyktningbarn
i statlige mottak. Rapport. Senter for samfunnsforskning (SEFOS), Universitetet i
Bergen.
Lidèn, H (2005) Barn og unge fra nasjonale minoriteter. En kunnskapsstatus. Rapport
7. Oslo: ISF.
Limber, S. and Kaufman, N. H. (2002) Civic Participation by Children and Youth.
In Kaufman, N. and Rizzini, I. (eds.), Globalization and Children’s Lives. New
York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Lomell, H. M., Aall, J., Hvinden, B. and Grønholt, B. (1999) Forskning om
Menneske- rettigheter i Norge. Oslo: NFR.
Marshall, T. H. (1964) Class, Citizenship and Social Development. New York: Anchor
Books.
McKechnie, J. (2002) Children’s Voices and Researching Childhood. In Goldson,
B., Lavalette, M. and McKechnie, J. (eds.), Children, Welfare and the State
(pp. 42–58). London: Sage.
Mollenhauer, K. (1986) Vergeten Samenhang. Over cultuur en opvoeding. Meppel:
Boom.
Moosa-Mitha, M. (2005) A Difference-centred Alternative to Theorization of
Children’s Citizenship Rights. Citizenship Studies 9: 369–88.
Morrow, V. (1999) ‘We are People too’; Children and Young People’s Perspectives
on Children’s Rights and Decision-making in England. The International Journal
of Children’s Rights 10: 149–70.
Mortier, F. (2002) The Meaning of Individualization for Children’s Citizenship. In
Mouritsen, F. and Qvortrup, J. (eds.), Childhood and Children’s Culture
(pp. 79–102). Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark.
Nijnatten, C. H. C. (1993) Kinderrechten in discussie. Meppel: Boom.
Nilsen, R. Dyblie (2000) Livet i barnehagen. En etnografisk studie av sosialiser-
ingsprosessen. PhD dissertation. Trondheim: NTNU, Fakultet for sam-
funnsvitenskap og teknologiledelse. Pedagogisk institutt.
Opdahl, P. (1998) Barnet – et menneske uten krav på fulle menneske-rettigheter?

In Barn 3–4, Trondheim: Norsk senter for Barneforskning, 26–39.
Ottosen, M. H. (2004) Samvær til barnets bedste? København
Socialforskningsinstituttet, 04.
Qvortrup, J. et al. (eds.) (1994) Childhood Matters: An Introduction. In Childhood
Matters: Social Theory, Practice and Politics (pp. 1–23). Brookfield, VT: Avebury.
Rantalaiho, M. (2004) Childhood’s Ambiguity – Politics and Practice on Children’s
Rights in Context of Family Change. Unpublished paper. Trondheim: Norwegian
Centre for Child Research.
Rantalaiho, M. and Haugen, G. M. (2004) Family Change and Children’s Rights
to Participation in Comparative Perspective. Unpublished paper. Trondheim:
Norwegian Centre for Child Research.
Riepl, B. and Wintersberger, H. (1999) Towards a Typology of Political
Participation of Young People. In Riepl, B. and Wintersberger, H. (eds.), Political
Participation of Youth below Voting Age (pp. 225–38). Eurosocial Report 66.
Vienna: European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research.
Rusten, H. (2006) Making Children Visible to the Immigration Administration: A
Study of the Right of the Child to Participate in Norwegian Asylum
Proceedings. Submitted in partial fulfilment of the MA in the Theory and
Practice of Human Rights, Norwegian Centre for Human Rights, University of
Oslo, Department of Law.
Sandberg, K. (2004) Inkorporeringen av barnekonvensjonen i norsk rett, In Kritisk
juss. 316–29.
Sanner, M. and Dønnestad, E. (2003) Life before 18. Dreams, Ideas, Life.
Norwegian Youth. Report to the UN about the Convention on the Rights of the
Child. Oslo: The project ‘Life before 18’. Norwegian Department of Children
and Family Affairs.
Seland, M. (2006) Kindergarten as a Bazaar. Paper presented at the third interna-
tional seminar: The Modern Child and The Flexible Labour Market.
Institutionalisation and Individualisation of Children’s Lives in Modern
Welfare Societies. Lofoten Island, 27–29 September, Norwegian Centre for
Child Research.
Sgritta, G. (1993) Provision: Limits and Possibilities. In Heiliö, P. L., Lauronen, E.
and Bardy, M. (eds.), Politics of Childhood and Children at Risk. Provision –
Protection – Participation. Eurosocial Report 45. Vienna: European Centre for
Social Welfare Policy and Research.
Skjørten, K. (2004) http://program.forskningsradet.no/vfo/nyhet.
Smart, C. et al. (2003) Residence and Contact Disputes in Court. Centre for Research
on Family, Kinship and Childhood. University of Leeds. Research series no. 6/03.
Smith, A. B., Nairn, K., Sligo, J. Gaffney, M. and McCormack, J. (2003) Case Studies
of Young People’s Participation in Public Life – Local Government, Boards of Trustees
and the Youth Parliament. Dunedin: Children’s Issues Centre.
Verhellen, E. (1993) Children and Participation Rights. In Heiliö, P. L., Lauronen, E.
and Bardy, M. (eds.), Politics of Childhood and Children at Risk. Provision,
Protection and Participation (pp. 49–64). Eurosocial Report 45. Vienna: European
Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research.
Verhellen, E. (1997) Convention on the Rights of the Child. Leven and Apeldoorn:
Verhellen and Garant.
Weithorn, L. A. (1998) Youth Participation in Family and Community Decision-

making. Family Futures 2(1): 6–9.
Wintersberger, H., Bardy, M. and Qvortrup, J. (1993) Children from Minorities.
Draft report prepared for the Government of Canada.
Forum for the Convention on the Rights of the Child (FFB)/Save the Children
(2004) Supplementary Report 27.
The welfare programme of the Norwegian Research Council (2004).
Kindergarten Act, Norwegian Parliament, enacted 16 June 2005.
Children’s Act, Norwegian Parliament, enacted 8 April 1981, revised 7 April 2006.
3
Children in Nature: Cultural Ideas
and Social Practices in Norway
Randi Dyblie Nilsen
While spending the day outside as usual, one of the staff at the
nature day-care centre initiates a game of snowballing with four
boys. The boys run around and throw snowballs at the staff and at
each other; one of the boys uses a sledge board [akebrett] as a shield.
The member of staff laughs out loud when he scores a hit, and so do
the children. When he throws a snowball at a colleague who has a
girl sitting on his lap, the latter uses the girl as a shield. When she is
hit by the snowball, she also laughs.
Introduction
This chapter explores constructions of a ‘good’ or ‘proper’ childhood in

Norway, focusing on traditional cultural values and social practices
relating to nature and outdoor life and their interconnection with val-
ues of independence/autonomy (Gullestad 1997, 1992). In a Norwegian
cultural context, outdoor environments in the fresh air, preferably ‘in
nature’, where children engage in self-governed play, are central in tra-
ditional and contemporary constructions of ‘a good childhood’
(Telhaug 1992; Gullestad 1997). This chapter spells out the significance
of such beliefs, with particular reference to day-care services and politi-
cal issues, which also accord with the family context and beliefs among
many parents (Nilsen 1999): as has been noted ‘[t]he majority of parents
[in Norway] seem to hold the belief that happy children are children
playing outside most of the day irrespective of season and weather’
(Borge, Nordhagen and Lie 2003: 606).
Recently, support for such ideas has been manifested in the popularity
and growth of nature day-care centres (naturbarnehage). The scene
described above is drawn from a study of one such centre where two
38
Cultural Ideas and Social Practices in Norway 39
groups of twelve children and two adults set out from the base to walk
and spend half the day (10 am–2 pm) in various locations in the nearby
woodland area, regardless of the weather. These centres, which have
proliferated in recent years, have chosen to stress ‘nature and the out-
door life’, which are already a traditional and important feature of
Norwegian day-care centres (cf. OECD 1999); whatever the weather and
in all four seasons, spending at least two hours a day out of doors is part
of children’s daily routine, in addition to occasional outings into the
countryside. As will be illustrated, this provision and experience of a
childhood spent outside in nature centres is backed by state policy and
local initiatives.
Cultural analysis and discourse analysis (cf. Søndergaard 1999) direct
our attention to the subtle, implicit and mundane – to what is taken for
granted in specific contexts. Thus, the seemingly ‘natural’ is viewed as
‘cultural’ and thematized (Gullestad 1989). These are central approaches
in this study, which takes as its starting point the social studies of child-
hood and the understanding that childhood is socially constructed, a per-
spective which requires that the view of children as ‘natural’ beings is
abandoned. ‘To describe childhood, or indeed any phenomenon, as
socially constructed is to suspend a belief in or a willing reception of its
taken-for granted meanings’ (James, Jenks and Prout 1998: 27). In
addition, various constructions of children and childhood are part of
ongoing processes of cultural production and reproduction, acted out
by agents at all ages, in different ways and in different contexts
(cf. Jenks 1996).
Moving beyond the statement that childhood is socially constructed,
James and James argue that the cultural politics of childhood requires
that we be concerned ‘with the precise ways in which this occurs in any
society and the specificity of the cultural context to that construction’
(2004: 12). It is therefore necessary to pay considerable attention to con-
textual issues and thus this chapter highlights the cultural values and
practices of the Norwegian national context in which children are living
and participating and which they help to (re)produce. Ideas of what is
‘good’ for children and the constructions of what constitutes a ‘proper’
childhood, which are the focus of this chapter, are thus shown to mirror
core cultural values, both contemporary and historical (Gullestad 1992,
1997; Borge, Nordhagen and Lie 2003). These wider issues will be
discussed later.
Before addressing the relationship between politics and the social
practices of everyday life for children in the nature day-care centre that
I studied, it is necessary to set the stage in terms of policies relating to
40 Randi Dyblie Nilsen
Norwegian day-care and outdoor life. In this respect, as I show, the

everyday practices among children and staff that relate to ‘nature’ and
outdoor life, and the ways children are constructed through these prac-
tices, illustrate continuous processes of cultural (re)production, which
involve an understanding of children as active agents. In order to illus-
trate and highlight significant dimensions of ‘children in nature’, I will
therefore present an empirical account of how what I term a ‘robust’
child subject is constructed in the nature centre.1
Although the particular subject explored in this chapter offers a local
picture, it is also a part of a European context and of the much wider,
multiple and complex mosaic that constitutes childhood in diverse con-
texts through the interweaving of different discourses, such as those
related to ‘the rights of the child’ and other global processes. This chap-
ter therefore discusses how a rational child subject is also being actual-
ized through these practices and how this raises questions related to ‘the
child’s best interest’ in the Norwegian context.
The ‘rights of the child’ discourse
In recent years the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)

has contributed to the formation of a powerful and global discourse
with a range of consequences for policy and social practices in European
societies and beyond (James and James 2004; Kjørholt 2004; Moss, Clark
and Kjørholt 2005). However, before the term became associated with
the rhetoric of the UNCRC, ‘the child’s best interests’ was a principle
that was taken into account in the development of the Nordic welfare
state, particularly during that latter half of the 1900s (Sandin and
Halldén 2003). The Nordic countries are well known for their relatively
long-standing and strong commitment to child-centredness, manifested
for example in schooling, day-care and other aspects of the law and
institutions, such as the establishment of a Children’s Ombudsman
(1981 in Norway). Both the family and the idea that a good or proper
childhood should be secured by the state and local authorities have
been to the fore in these developments. Childhood has therefore gradu-
ally become established as a distinct social category in the formal sense,
with children becoming relatively separate from their parents in law and
public regulations (Kjørholt 2004).
Since 2003, however, the UNCRC has been an explicit part of the
domestic legal framework and the principle of ‘the best interests of the
child’ is therefore widespread in law and policy. However, the notion of
‘best interests’ brings with it a range of problems. Being highly flexible
and wrapped in consensus and universality has the consequence that

the powerful normative and culturally-specific contents comprising a
child’s ‘best interests’ in different societies are easily overlooked (Sandin
and Halldén 2003; Kjørholt 2004). In Beyond Listening, Kjørholt et al., for
example, question the impact of a universal rights discourse that is
based on Anglo-American liberal tradition, which constructs human

beings as legal subjects capable of speaking for themselves and acting
in their own interest. The subject is constructed as a rational
autonomous individual, with the consciousness to formulate his or
her own needs and wishes.
(2005: 171)
In contrast with the idea of ‘the natural and innocent child’

(Jordanova 1989; Cunningham 1995), the children’s rights discourse in
Norway has undoubtedly had an impact on changing the qualities con-
temporary children are ascribed with (e.g. ‘participatory’, ‘competent’,
‘rational’, ‘autonomous’, ‘independent’). This is also seen in the changes
that have taken place in discourses about (young) children’s needs and
development that, to some extent, have been exchanged for, or
extended to, a rights-based rhetoric (Kjørholt 2005). This can be wit-
nessed in the newly revised2 Day-care Institution Act of 1975, in which
there is a paragraph about ‘children’s right to participation’. It is inter-
esting to note, therefore, that the legal language and rights rhetoric is
beginning to provide a new frame of reference for children’s social posi-
tion which, in Norway and the other Nordic countries, is traditionally
derived from child-centred pedagogy (cf. Sandin and Halldén 2003).
Children and (nature) day-care centres in the

cultural politics of Norway
In spite of the fact that increasing numbers of mothers with young chil-
dren have joined the workforce in Norway since the late 1960s, the
expansion of institutional day-care has been slow.3 Although during this
period social and educational policy supported traditional constructions
of a good childhood as being situated in the family home, encompass-
ing free play outdoors in the neighbourhood, preferably in a natural
environment, a recurrent theme in political and public debates was the
question of the best place for young children: family and home, or an
institutional setting of day-care with professional adults?4 (Telhaug
1992; Korsvold 1997).
Alongside such ambiguities, a present paramount concern in Norwegian

state and local policy is how to expand the number of day-care centres in
response to demands from parents and repeated political promises since
late 1980s (Ellingsæter and Gulbrandsen 2003). Currently, many new day-
care centres are being established by local authorities, which are given the
responsibility (and some financial support) to translate national policies
into action. There is substantial state funding of both privately and pub-
licly run care centres, which is aimed at all children below the age of six
rather than targeted groups. The vast majority of this provision is what
policy documents refer to as ‘ordinary’ day-care centres (St.meld. nr. 27
(1999–2000): 64) and in order to increase the capacity rapidly, some cen-
tres have been set up at temporary locations, although now more nature
centres/groups are being established.5 This is similar to the situation in
Denmark in the early 1980s where a lack of places meant that economic
arguments were mixed with health, developmental and pedagogical issues
(Eilers 2005). Thus, in Norway (Christiansen 2005: 82), recent arguments
for establishing new centres/groups ‘in alliance with nature’ can be seen as
a response to several current policy imperatives: the need to increase
capacity faster, to obtain quality, variety and flexibility and to reduce costs
compared to ordinary centres. It therefore appears as if traditional cultural
ideas of a good childhood outdoors in nature are being neatly woven into
current policy concerns.
Nature centres as well as variations6 are subsumed under the same law
and National Framework Plan,7 which outlines the aims, content and
pedagogical methods of ordinary centres. According to the newly revised
Framework Plan (p. 13) all day-care institutions must aim at integrating
care, upbringing, play, learning and social and linguistic competence,
and provide an arena for transmitting culture and facilitating children’s
participation in creating their culture. In this way, children are defined
as social actors, acknowledging present childhood and children’s cul-
ture, as well as children as future citizens.
Children’s rights are explicitly underscored in the revised plan and
five subject fields are described in the Framework Plan. While balancing
various child- and adult-initiated activities, learning is thought of as
integrated into everyday life and activities. The following extract from
the discussion of the subject ‘Nature, environment and technique’ illus-
trates the high value put on ‘nature’ and outdoor life for children in
Norwegian day-care centres (cf. Korsvold 1997).
The day care institution has to contribute to familiarizing children

with plants and animals, landscape, seasons and weather. The
ecological perspective is paramount. An objective is to develop chil-

dren’s love of nature, an understanding of the interplay in nature and
between man and nature.
Nature accommodates a multitude of experiences and activities in
all seasons and in all weathers. Ample opportunities for play and
learning are present in the outdoor areas and adjacent countryside.8
(Ministry of Children and Family Affairs 1996: 16)
The plan further states that outdoor life and contact with nature are
important for pre-school children’s ‘overall development’ and that
nature and outdoor play are a part of everyday life in the institution.
Although the number of nature day-care centres is not specified in the
national statistics, there are indications of a sharp increase in recent
years (Borge et al. 2003; Lysklett 2005a9) and the main difference
between ordinary centres and nature groups/centres10 is the additional
emphasis given to nature and outdoor life, which makes up both the
dominant content and space at the latter. The first such centre in
Norway opened in 1987; both Sweden and Denmark had established
similar services earlier in the 1980s (Rantatalo 2000; Eilers 2005).
Although the history of this type of day-care in Norway has not been
systematically studied, it seems to have developed as a result of both ide-
alism and local initiatives in urban and rural districts, with representa-
tives from the pre-school teaching profession and colleges as central
agents (Lysklett 2005b). Thus, if policy-making is regarded as an ‘impor-
tant cultural, rather than simply, [a] political process’ (James and James
2004: 46), the public debates and policy concerning young children,
day-care and nature reveal interesting ideas and ambiguities in beliefs
about a ‘proper’ childhood in Norway (cf. Gulløv 2003 for Denmark).
Children as core agents in state policy
To gain a greater insight into national policy on children, youth and

nature in general, and (nature) day-care centres in particular, a
Ministry of the Environment White Paper on outdoor life (friluftsliv)
(St.meld. no. 39 (2000–1)) and the related parliamentary debate is
informative. Both environmental and health issues are high on the
agenda. For example, it is stated that the government will work to
‘enhance children and young people’s opportunities to develop phys-
ically, mentally and socially through playing and walking about in,
and experiencing, nature’ (St.meld. no. 39 (2000–1) p. 11; author’s
translation). Although the focus on health has been stepped up in
recent years, just as interesting is the focus on children and youth with
respect to cultural (re)production processes. This is evident in the fol-
lowing quote from the document, in which children are positioned as
core agents in the present and future:
To maintain outdoor life [friluftslivet] as an important leisure activity

in the future, subsequent generations must experience nature and
have the opportunity to develop skills, in order that they will want
and be capable of walking about in the woods and fields.
(St.meld. no. 39 (2000–1) p. 11; author’s translation)
Framed by a discourse of worry (see below), this illustrates the way in

which children and young people are positioned as necessary agents in
(re)producing traditional outdoor life in Norway where there is a law of
common access (loven om allemannsretten), which gives everybody the
right of access to the natural environment, whether this is privately or
publicly owned. Those living in Norwegian towns (and many
Scandinavian cities) are only a relatively short distance from the coun-
tryside and there is easy access to areas of woodland (Gundersen 2004).
Along the coast, the seashore is easily accessed and there are vast moun-
tain areas in which many people own or rent a simple cottage.
There are many opportunities for families and individuals to practise
the Norwegian version of the ‘love of nature’: by locating themselves ‘in
nature’ for a day, a weekend or a longer holiday, they can ski, walk, pick
wild fruits or mushrooms, fish, swim or hunt if they wish, or simply
enjoy being outdoors and building a camp fire to make coffee or grill
sausages. Such practices illustrate what Norwegians think of as impor-
tant aspects of outdoor life (Gullestad 1992, 1997; Repp 1996, St.meld.
no. 39 (2000–1)). In this context, however, it is worth noting that
‘nature’ has multiple meanings that relate to different cultures and prac-
tices (Williams 1976a; Olwig 1989). Thus, in English, the terms ‘coun-
try’, ‘countryside’ and ‘rural’ seem to be used interchangeably (e.g. Jones
1999), but in Norway ‘nature’ has a wider – and wilder – meaning than
that of the cultivated countryside, although in the Norwegian context,
‘nature’ can also encompass the rural and the countryside.
Thus, apart from the family, day-care and schools are highlighted in
the White Paper as important arenas in which to acquire the skills nec-
essary to experience nature and increasing attention has been given to
such activities in these institutions. The government aims at stimulating
this, and encouraging the growth of nature centres is viewed as one step
on the way to achieving the ideal of ‘offering all children in all day-care
centres the opportunity for daily play in nature’ (St.meld. no. 39

(2000–1) p. 84; author’s translation). It is claimed that, by offering such
experiences, these centres can also serve as a valuable resource to tradi-
tional day-care centres. In relation to this White Paper and other parlia-
mentary debates, boosting nature centres (and nature schools) has been
proposed, with one of the arguments being the belief that positive ‘atti-
tudes to nature and outdoor life must be established from an early age,
ideally in the preschool years’ (author’s translation).11
When the White Paper was debated in parliament it received wide sup-
port: the focus on children and youth won approval, and (nature) day-care
centres and their role in outdoor life activities were praised. The following
extract from one of the speakers is interesting and illustrates several aspects
of the debate, such as the importance of both outdoor life and children in
the national context, as well as the assumed value of nature.
The White Paper on outdoor life, which we are debating today, has
the subtitle ‘A way to a higher quality of life’. This is exactly what the
outdoor life means to us in Norway.
We are given the opportunity to enjoy fantastic nature for recreation
and [other] experiences. But this also teaches us and gives is humility
about the ecological cycle in the natural world. For our children this is
an important part of growing up in this country, because nature is so
close to us and because we have passed laws that make it possible. To a
far greater degree than in many other countries closeness to nature is a
shared value, which is an important part of being Norwegian and a
natural part of our children’s upbringing [våre barns oppvekst].
(author’s translation)12
Such images of ‘the child’ and ‘childhood’ are not natural, but cultural,
just one of many possibilities. However, some understandings predomi-
nate and, in the above extract, the Member of Parliament draws on
nature as a central cultural value, a key ingredient of Norwegian
national identity (cf. Gullestad 1992, 1997). Thus, although not explic-
itly referring to it, one may speculate that the politician is expressing
what is ‘naturally’ in ‘the best interests’ of Norwegian children.
A discourse of worry
Within a widespread discourse of worry, (post)modern childhoods are

associated with many negative influences, the result of children’s partic-
ipation as consumers in a global (child) market (Tingstad 2003;
Buckingham and Bragg 2004). Thus, combined with the growth in

sedentary indoor leisure pursuits (‘screen’ activities such as television,
computer games, etc.), this is providing a negative contrast to the tradi-
tional image of an active, happy and healthy outdoor childhood (cf.
Nilsen 1999). Not only is the natural environment seen as important for
the development of good motor skills (Fjørtoft and Reiten 2003), and
underscored as promoting health for both young and old (e.g. St.meld.
no. 37 (1992–3); St.meld. no. 39 (2000–1)) but, as noted above, a key
ingredient in Norwegian outdoor life and love of nature is experiencing
nature for pleasure, as an end in itself. Thus, related to health, but going
beyond that, one can observe a discourse of worry that the traditional
outdoor life is in decline (e.g. St.meld. no. 39 (2000–1)). Anxiety has
been expressed that family days out combined with picking wild fruits
seem to be decreasing (Gundersen 2004) and that, snowboarding is gain-
ing in popularity among young people at the cost of the traditional (and
national) sport of cross-country skiing. Global processes, with spectacu-
lar activities like extreme sports, are also seen as encroaching on tradi-
tional outdoor activities in Norway.
Thus, in the White Paper (St.meld. no. 39 (2000–1)), nature and out-
door life are repeatedly defined as being of value for all, and children
and young people in particular are positioned as promoters of outdoor
life. Framed by this discourse of worry, children and educational institu-
tions have been given the task of stimulating and motivating families
that do not, or only seldom, take part in outdoor life. In other words, the
cultural values and practices of nature and the outdoor life are assumed
to fit into cultural constructions of the good life for children and other
generations, now and in the future.
The study and further contextual indicators
As outlined above, the emphasis on nature and an outdoor childhood is

a traditional and common aspect of all Norwegian day-care centres and
indeed featured in the two ordinary centres where I did fieldwork in
1990–1 (Nilsen 2000). However, in order to study these issues in more
depth, more recent fieldwork was carried out in a nature day-care centre
with children aged 3–6 years. The methodological approach in the pre-
vious and present studies are the same, but fieldwork in the latter was
carried out by an assistant (Line Hellem) between October 2003 and
June 2004. Participant observation was the main approach to provide
‘thick descriptions’ (Geertz 1973). Field experiences were mainly docu-
mented in notes (sometimes using audio equipment) and some video-
recordings were made.
Line focused on the practices of children and staff concerning ‘nature’

and outdoor life. Apart from making observations at the centre’s prem-
ises, she concentrated on joining the groups on their regular visits to the
nearby woodland, both on skis and on foot.13 The boundaries of these
areas, within which the children can run freely, are verbally defined by
landmarks (trees, boulders, etc.). There are no buildings or other services
(e.g. toilet facilities) here and everything children and staff need for the
day they must carry in their rucksacks. They never bring any toys, but
activity equipment and tools the children may use (e.g. a saw, sheath
knives, magnifying glasses, binoculars, a bag for gathering things from
‘nature’ and fact books about flora and fauna). The mornings or after-
noons and one day a week are spent at the centre’s playground and
house (with rooms and equipment like ordinary centres but to a lower
building standard).
At this point it is necessary to provide a sketch of the kind of environ-
ment the children and adults are in. After a short walk, the terrain is
mainly hilly woodland with some small streams, ponds, lakes, marshes
and uncultivated grassland. Many narrow paths criss-cross the area,
which, in addition to rocks, consists mainly of vegetation – heather,
moss, grass, some flowering plants (and some wild berries). The mixed
woodland is made up of many large evergreens (mainly spruce and some
pines) and hardwoods (e.g. birch). This is an environment for birds and
animals (e.g. hares, beavers, squirrels and moose). The woods are culti-
vated but only to a limited degree, and the area can be used by anyone
for leisure, as well as by schools and other day-care centres (cf. the law of
common access).
Constructing a robust child subject in ‘nature’
It is worth noting that even within such specific locations as the nature
day-care centre, diverse constructions of different child subjects are at
play that are not necessarily in harmony with each other, as they can
reflect different and sometimes contradictory aspects of the multiplicity
and complexity of constructed childhoods. At the same time as children
are perceived as acting subjects (or agents), other child subject positions
are constructed and made available in both child and adult practices.
From readings of the field notes made during the winter, what I term a
robust child subject seems to be constructed between children and adults,
as well as among children. The robust child signifies competence in this
context and expresses adult expectations and challenges, which the
children both encounter and participate in. These reflect practices and
values at work in everyday life in nature, including physical and mental
aspects, as well as knowledge, which are interwoven and coloured by

endurance, resilience and vigour. In addition, a rational child subject,
acting independently with agency, feeds into constructions of a robust
child subject.
Bodily and mental aspects

The bodily aspect of ‘the robust child subject’ is explicitly illustrated in
children’s practices during the winter – viz. playing with and in the
snow. I will therefore illustrate a few of a wide range of such possible
practices in which, as illustrated in the introduction, adults are also
actively involved.
One December day the branches of the [spruce] trees are covered with snow.
A boy is standing under one of the trees and another boy asks him if he
would like him to ‘shower’ him with snow. The offer is accepted and the
first boy has a lot of snow dumped on his head. Later, a girl also takes part
in this ‘snow shower’ activity.
In another episode both adults and children are playing rough and tum-
ble in the snow. One of the adults rubs snow on the face of a girl so that she
is all white. She laughs. When Line [my assistant] wipes some of the snow
off the girl’s face, the adult comments with a smile that the children are
expected to put up with that sort of thing. The girl throws snow at the adult
and he in turn throws snow at the other kids.
When children are playing with and in the snow we can clearly see their
agency in constructing a robust child subject. Such vigorous activities
inevitably lead to various degrees of (wet) snow on clothes and skin, but
the children put up with it, and even enjoy it, in order to be able to ini-
tiate and participate in rough physical play.
Adequate material resources and ‘expert’ knowledge

These are needed in order to avoid freezing when daily life is spent out-
doors in all kinds of weather, and they are particularly important during
winter time. There is a saying in Norway: ‘There is no such thing as bad
weather, just bad clothing.’ Knowledge and expertise about how to
dress and what equipment to bring are prerequisites to feeling comfort-
able (both physically and mentally) and to avoiding illness. Thus, each
child brings spare clothes (e.g. dry gloves) in their rucksack, and
changes of warm woollen socks to wear next to the skin, while the
adults make a fire and provide hot drinks. However, while parents and
staff are responsible for providing the children with the necessary mate-
rial resources, it is partly each child’s responsibility to learn to actively use
their body to keep warm. This is a ‘side-effect’ of the vigorous rough-and-
tumble play in the snow, but it can also be the main objective, as will be
illustrated later when we describe a situation in which one of the adults
went for a walk with a few children and instructed an allegedly freezing
boy (Edward) to take part in a catch and run game. The staff at the centre
also encourage the children to go to the toilet soon after lunch, explain-
ing that this will save energy necessary to warm up the body mass.
A rational child subject?

On the first day of fieldwork Line was told by one of the male staff that
the adults in the centre teach the children not to whine, but rather to
express their needs verbally: ‘to whine is to make a victim of oneself’, he
stated, and the staff want to prevent victimization. The children, he
said, will benefit from this in later life and he added that it is bad to have
children in the group who whine, since it makes the staff’s job more dif-
ficult and unpleasant; it might also make life for the other children less
enjoyable.
In explaining the approach of staff in this way, in addition to dealing
with the present situation, the teacher draws on a future orientation to
argue for rejecting whining: constructions of the present (in)competent
child and the future child (as an older child or as an adult) are com-
bined. We might ask, therefore, whether in this case the construction of
the ideal and competent child subject draws on ideas from within a
child’s right’s discourse, in terms of a rational child who is or should be
capable of stating her/his needs explicitly (cf. Kjørholt 2005). Here, a
whining child is placed outside the ideal of a competent, robust and
rational child subject. Thus, if children do whine, they are encouraged
to adopt alternative strategies: to talk and take action.
To illustrate this I will refer to an incident on a day in November when
the group, as usual, were going on foot to one of their places in the
woods. Among others, this episode involves a three-year-old, Edward,
who is in his first term at the centre. Each autumn the staff make special
efforts to make the socialization expectations and rules of the centre
clear and explicit to newcomers, something that is apparent in the
following account:
It is about zero degrees [Celsius], wet and changing weather with snow and
rain. The children and adults are eating their packed lunches and have hot
drinks by a fire. Then Edward starts to cry and one of the adults tells him
that he shouldn’t cry, but talk and do something about his problem. The
adult asks the boy repeatedly what is upsetting him and if his hands are
cold, but he just cries. Another boy tries to help and he opens Edward’s
rucksack to get his mittens, but the adult stops him and says that Edward
has to say what his problem is. The adult tells Edward that if his hands
are cold, he must look for his mittens in his rucksack, but the boy keeps on
crying. Another staff member approaches them, finds Edward’s mittens
and helps him put them on. After lunch the first adult takes Edward and
a girl on a short walk because he thinks they are cold. When the three of
them return Edward starts to cry again and the adult asks him what the
matter is. Edward is still crying, and says he wants to go indoors. The
adult replies that there is nowhere to go here. Edward cries more and more,
and soon he is wailing loudly. The adult again asks the boy if he is cold,
and Edward answers no, but continues to cry for a long time. The adults
start to organize a run and catch game (‘All My Chickens’). Edward does
not want to join in but is told he must and after a while he stops crying,
even smiles, and joins in the game. Afterwards they all return to the fire
and an adult changes Edward’s socks, to put the warm woollen ones next
to the skin.
In this example, Edward is acting against the expectations of a robust

child subject. We can observe how one of the adults in particular is try-
ing to make him verbalize ‘what his problem is’, but he does not
respond as a ‘rational’ subject. The adult wants Edward to act for himself
and when another boy tries to help and care for Edward, he is prevented,
the adult stating that Edward should find his mittens himself.
Expectations of coping as an independent subject are put forward,
although this is later overridden by another adult. Another aspect of the
robust child subject therefore seems to be independence.
A robust, rational child subject acting independently

with agency and ‘expert’ knowledge
Particular children may or may not act according to the ideal of a robust
child subject. In the next example a robust child subject is constructed
in the interaction between two girls.
Theresa is crying when they all are skiing back to the centre in a long line.
Another girl, Rebecca, approaches her and asks Theresa several times in a
caring voice if she is cold, if she is freezing, and Theresa says she is. Rebecca
says that Simon [one of the boys] has borrowed the adult’s mittens and that
means Theresa cannot use them. Then Rebecca suggests that they should
run to the centre and, supported by Line, they do so.
Children’s agency is clearly illustrated here when one child helps

another to act for herself, in accordance with the expectations of a
robust child subject. The girls did not involve any of the staff in solving
the problem and demonstrated their independent use of adequate skills,
knowledge and reasoning during this episode. Alerted by the emotional
expression of crying, Rebecca helps Theresa to verbalize her problem.
Further, Rebecca obviously knows the importance of dry mittens and
she refers to a caring adult practice: they may lend their mittens to chil-
dren who need them. However, Rebecca reasons, this is not an option at
the moment but the activity of running fast on skis is a way of helping
Theresa to warm up.
In sum, Rebecca acts according to, and participates in, the construc-
tion of a robust, rational child subject, who acts independently with
agency and ‘expert’ knowledge. However, when children fail to or only
partly fulfil such expectations, they are also participating in the process
by providing a contrast, which makes adult demands and expectations
explicit to all the children – and to us. These children are not protected
from the cold and wet weather, but rather are exposed to it as part of
everyday life. The practices of playing with, and in, the snow manifest
Norwegian cultural ideas where there are ‘strong ideological associa-
tions among childhood, nature and rough, self-governed play’
(Gullestad 1997: 29). That the adults kept so firmly to the theory that
Edward (described in the earlier episode) was crying because he was
cold, rather than for any other reason, highlights the construction of
the robust child as a subject who should endure bad weather without
whining, and be able to verbalize and do something about her/his
needs: a rational and independent child is thus intertwined with a
robust child.
Childhood and nature in time and space
As argued in the introduction, it is important that we consider the precise

ways in which childhood is socially constructed in any society and the
specificity of the cultural context of that construction (cf. James and
James 2004: 12). The analysis of constructions of a robust child subject
and the policy issues related to (nature) day-care centres will serve, there-
fore, as a sounding board in the following discussion, in which I will
explore further how nature and outdoor life, and their interconnection
with ideas of independence, are not only central in constructions of a

‘proper’ Norwegian childhood, but are consistent with cross-generational
issues and historical events within the national context.
Nostalgia and romanticism?

In the context of a Nordic country, the above analysis suggests nuances
of a legacy from (continental European) Romanticism, in which ideas of
childhood and nature interconnect with constructions of an innocent,
ignorant, vulnerable, dependent, authentic and sweet child subject (cf.
Cunningham 1995). Such understandings seem to clash, however, with
the competencies required of the child subject that I have conceptual-
ized as ‘robust’. Thus, although authenticity might be of relevance to a
contemporary Norwegian context (Gullestad 1997), the understandings
of children in nature in the above analysis involve the rational and
independent subject that the global child’s rights and participant dis-
courses are currently forging.
However, there is widespread recognition that constructions of an
ideal past childhood feed into contemporary ideas of a proper child-
hood (Hendrick 1994; Midjo 1994; Korsvold 1997). In this context it
could be said that nature centres create a place that offers images related
to memories of a happy, active and self-governed childhood in
‘unspoiled nature’ (e.g. Mjaavatn 2005), images on which constructions
of a robust child subject might also very well be projected without
inconsistency.
The current celebration of nature centres (e.g. St.meld no. 39
(2000–1); Lysklett 2005b) might also serve as a continuation and height-
ening of the idea, firmly rooted in Norway, that outdoor life and in par-
ticular ‘nature’ is an ideal setting for (young) children to act out their
childhoods (Borge et al. 2003). Following on from this, one can specu-
late how nature centres might mediate some of the ambiguities noted
above surrounding the placing of young children in institutions since,
though the framing of family and home have changed, children can,
nonetheless, spend everyday life outdoors ‘in nature’ and thus tradi-
tional cultural ideas of a good childhood are (re)produced in social prac-
tices, albeit within an institutional setting.14
The environments (actual and imagined) that children and child-
hoods move about in differ widely across Europe and beyond. I would
certainly not suggest any material/environmental determinism, but
such variations may well interact with different constructions of chil-
dren and childhoods (cf. Jones 1999). The images embedded in ideas, as
well as in the social practices that help to shape a Norwegian childhood
‘in nature’, are supposedly (but not solely) connected with ‘unspoiled’
nature of a more ‘untamed’ and different kind from national geogra-
phies with more widespread and systematic urbanization. Thus, for
example, the physical natural environment for constructing a ‘robust
child subject’ is different in the more cultivated and pastoral country-
side of the UK (cf. Jones 1999).
‘Love of nature’ – the Norwegian version

The value of nature and spending time in the fresh air is not just con-
nected to constructions of a proper childhood. As noted, it is generally
accepted that special ideas about and a close relationship with nature are
culturally dominant in Norway (and other Scandinavian countries)
(Gullestad 1992; Repp 1996, 2001; St.meld no. 39 (2000–1)). The positive
value of this is taken for granted but, nevertheless, selective processes are
at play in order to identify
that which within the terms of an effective dominant culture, is

always passed on as ‘the tradition’ the significant past. But always the
selectivity is the point; the way in which from a whole possible area of
past and present, certain meanings and practices are chosen for
emphasis, certain other meanings and practices are neglected and
excluded.
(Williams 1976b: 205)
Thus, spending time outdoors, preferably in (unspoiled) nature, as an

unquestionably good thing, is based on culturally selected meanings and
practices. Speaking from ‘anthropology at home’ and not particularly
with children in mind, Marianne Gullestad describes the traditional ver-
sion of experiencing nature in Norway:
To be ‘out in nature’ is both a question of flora and fauna and a

question of climate and seasons. Nature makes both body and soul
hardier and fresh air gives new strength. Nature trains independ-
ence and the ability to cope in the wild. Nature offers harmony,
peace of mind and distance from the hustle and bustle of society.
Being out in the so-called fresh air offers solitude and freedom from
society, as well as good friendship. This is how Norwegian men and
women think, and to a greater or lesser degree this marks the
upbringing of their children, their Sunday trips and holidays in
primitive cottages.
(Gullestad 1992: 204)
Nature and outdoor life are a part of the selective tradition in Norway
which therefore replicates itself with astonishing force in different
domains, including those of children and older generations.
Conclusion: constructing a national childhood?
The White Paper about outdoor life referred to in this chapter (St.meld.
no. 39 (2000–1), and the related parliamentary debate, illustrate the fact
that, with respect to the significance of nature and outdoor life, children
are seen as important citizens and bearers of national culture (cf.
Kjørholt 2002). Nature day-care centres (and schools) are viewed as
important sites which (should) participate in such a cultural (re)produc-
tion process. Supported by national and local policies, and in line with
traditional constructions of a proper childhood, nature and outdoor life
are selected from the national cultural ‘curriculum’ to be a part of chil-
dren’s everyday life in ordinary day-care centres and, as illustrated, are
emphasized particularly in nature centres. As a part of the process of cul-
tural (re)production, the present emphasis on an outdoor childhood ‘in
nature’ points to cultural domination processes and one may speculate,
therefore, if constructions of a national identity are at stake here. The
robust child subject fits well within the national context: to become and
be a subject who loves the Norwegian version of ‘nature’ encompasses
an independent subject with the competence necessary to roam about in
‘unspoiled’ nature. The children in the nature centre learned through
experiences how to handle the necessary tools for coping in such envi-
ronments, whilst also learning about flora and fauna and environmen-
tal issues that reoccur in daily life.
Gullestad draws attention to the fact that ‘[i]ndependence has long
been a key notion with much rhetorical force in the upbringing of chil-
dren, as well as in many other contexts in Norway’ (1997: 32). She fur-
ther elaborates on national independence as a central feature of
contemporary politics: for example, two referendums have rejected
membership of the European Union and in 2005, public institutions
(e.g. public broadcasting, the government, newspapers, etc.) were loudly
celebrating Norway’s 100 years of independence from the union with
Sweden. Establising itself as independent nation has been a very signifi-
cant part of Norwegian history since the 1700s and to this end
(unspoiled) nature and the independent freeholder (odelsbonde) have
become culturally selected key symbols (Christensen 2001).
What were selected as particularly Norwegian characteristics, how-
ever, such as celebrating the wilderness and practices of nature and
outdoor life, are historically tied to trends in European science, art and
philosophy and as such, one may view the development of nature cen-
tres as a renewed continuation of these trends, with a touch of modern
ecology, philosophy and environmental concerns thrown in (Borge
et al. 2003). Constructing a national identity related to nature has
therefore been a long process, particularly during the nineteenth cen-
tury. National romanticism in art and literature was a part of this
(Sørensen 2001), as were the polar expeditions with national heroes
like Fridjof Nansen, who is considered to be the founding father of
(modern) outdoor life for all social classes (Repp 2001).
In the formation of nation states in previous centuries, constructions
of a national identity and the question of what became selected as
‘Norwegian’ were on the agenda. Thus, the contemporary discourse of
worry might point to a renewed debate and interest in issues of national
identity which, being now located in the context of globalization,
makes this a much more complex issue (cf. Kjørholt 2002). Constructing
national identities is still part of ongoing cultural (re)production and,
although more explicitly formulated in political documents and
debates, it is also something that people as social agents do in everyday
life, as well as on special occasions (e.g. celebrating national days), with-
out necessarily reflecting on it as such (Frykman 1995).
Thus, past, present and future interconnect in complex ways.
Sustaining (traditional) outdoor life in nature for ‘future generations’
with the help of ‘the future generation’ was a clearly stated aim of the
White Paper (St.meld. no. 39 (2000–1)). Whether this is ‘in the best
interests of the child’ is, however, an open question – it depends on the
child, the contexts of their childhood and, not least, the values that
frame this question. Children in (nature) day-care centres are experienc-
ing the Norwegian version of ‘love of nature’ and are clearly envisaged
as bearers of the national culture in political documents and debates.
This involves constructions of a robust, rational and independent child
subject, which ties in well to the global discourse of the Rights of the
Child.
Notes
1 This chapter is based in the research project Natural Childhoods in Norwegian
Day-care Centres? A sub-project within the larger project The Modern Child and
the Flexible Labour Market. Institutionalization and Individualization of Children
in the Light of Changes to the Welfare State. I thank the Norwegian Research
Council Welfare Programme for funding this research.
The analysis of the ‘robust’ child subject is based on presentations and

papers at: The Modern Child and the Flexible Labour Market, second inter-
national seminar, Norwegian Centre for Child Research, 3–5 June 2005;
Internal Seminar at the Norwegian Centre for Child Research, 31 August
2005; The Seventh Conference of the European Sociological Association
(ESA), Sociology of Childhood Stream, 9–12 September 2005. I thank the
participants of these events for inspiring and helpful comments and discus-
sions.
2 Barnehageloven av 17.juni 2005 nr.64, ß 3 Barns rett til medvirkning (cf.
Kunnskapsdepartementet 2006). This revised Day-care Institution Act
(‘barnehageloven’) came into force in January 2006.
3 The percentages of children aged 0–6 years in day-care are: 1968: 3%, 1978:
15%, 1988: 33% (Korsvold 1997: 419). In 1997 the age for starting school was
reduced to six years, therefore the following data deal with children aged
1–5 years, 1998: 61% (St.meld. no. 27 (1999–2000) ), 2003: 69% (Statistical
Yearbook of Norway 2005).
4 During November 2005 the debate cropped up again. For the record: day-
care in policy document is stated as a supplement to the family. The debates
and promises made by both conservative and left-wing parties during the
autumn 2005 election campaign revolved around: whether to provide a cash
for care system for children aged 1–3, giving all children the opportunity to
attend a day-care centre, funding questions and reducing the fee. The new
left-wing/centre coalition government has reduced the fee, made a minimal
decrease of cash for care, and are repeating the promises of increasing the
capacity of day-care dramatically.
5 This is, for example, reported, in articles in the main paper for mid-Norway,
Adresseavisen, 5 August 2005, p. 6 and 18 February 2006, p. 6.
6 One variation is family centres where a teacher or assistant and a maximum
of five children make up a satellite group of an ordinary centre.
7 A Framework Plan was for put into action the first time in 1996. The day-care
institution policy has recently been transferred from the Ministry of
Children and Family Affairs to the Ministry of Education, which has since
revised the plan (to be implemented from August 2006). Five subject fields
are extended to seven and made compatible with school subjects
(Communication, language and text; Body, movement and health; Art, cul-
ture and creativity; Nature, environment and technology; Ethics, religion
and philosophy; Local environment and society; Number, space and form)
(Kunnskapsdeparte mentet 2006, author’s translation).
8 Extract from the presentation of the subject field ‘nature, environment and
technology’, which is one of the seven subjects in the revised plan (cf.
Kunnskapsdepartementet 2006). (The other five subject fields in the 1996
plan are: Society, religion and ethics, Aesthetic subjects, Language, text and
communication, and Physical activity and health.
9 This author notes an increase from approximately 30 units in 1999 to over
250 in 2004.
10 Apart from the kind of nature day-care centre described in this chapter, there
are ordinary day-care centres which have ambulant nature groups: two
groups alternate in being located indoors or in a natural environment. Some
nature groups/centres are using a ‘lavo’ (a Saami tepee) to provide ‘indoor’

areas while spending time in the woods.
11 The proposals (in relation to the White Paper on Outdoor Life in 2002 and
budget negotiations for 2006) were rejected by a narrow margin. The quota-
tion is from the last event (Innst.S.no. 228 (2004–5). The proposals were put
forward by the parties that in the late autumn 2005 formed a left-wing cen-
tre government.
12 Conservative MP Øyvind Halleraker. Parliamentary meeting, 11 April 2002.
www.stortinget.no (at this time there was a Conservative/Centre coalition
government).
13 No doubt this has been a great challenge doing fieldwork under different
temperature and weather conditions and I am grateful to Line Hellem.
14 Such an argument parallels the earlier politics of making the family and
home a model for Norwegian day-care services in policy and practices from
the 1950s (Korsvold 1997; Nilsen 2000).
References
Borge, A. I. H., Nordhagen, R. and Lie, K. K. (2003) Children in the Environment:
Forest Day-care Centres – Modern Day Care with Historical Antecedents.
History of the Family 8: 605–18.
Buckingham, D. and Bragg, S. (2004) Young Pople, Sex and the Media. The Facts of
Life? New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Christensen, O. (2001) En nasjonal identitet tar form. Etniske og nasjonalkul-
turelle avgrensninger. In Sørensen, Ø. (ed.), Jakten på det norske. Perspektiver på
utviklingen av en norsk nasjonal identitet på 1800-tallet (pp. 51–73). Oslo:
Gyldendal Akamedisk.
Christiansen, T. (2005) Ett skritt på veien mot full barnehagedekning i en
naturskjønn kommune. In Lysklett, O. B. (ed.), Ute hele dagen! (pp. 79–82).
DMMHs publikasjonsserie no. 1. Trondheim: Dronning Mauds Minne.
Høgskole for førskolelærerutdanning.
Cunningham, H. (1995) Children and Childhood in Western Society since 1500.
London: Longman.
Eilers, C. (2005) Den Danske skovbørnehave – hva er det? In Lysklett, O. B. (ed.),
Ute hele dagen! (pp. 41–3). DMMHs publikasjonsserie nr.1. Trondheim:
Dronning Mauds Minne. Høgskole for førskolelærerutdanning.
Ellingsæter, A. L. and Gulbrandsen, L. (2003) Barnehagen – fra selektivt til universelt
velferdsgode. NOVA Rapport no. 24. Oslo: Norsk institutt for forskning om
oppvekst, velferd og aldring.
Fjørtoft, I. and Reiten, T. (2003) Barn og unges relasjoner til natur og friluftsliv. En
kunnskapsoversikt. HiT skrift nr. 10/2003. Porsgrunn: Høgskolen i Telemark and
Friluftslivets fellesorganisasjon.
Frykman, J. (1995) Nationell och annan kulturell identitet, Tradisjon 25(1):
17–30.
Geertz, C. (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Gullestad, M. (1989) Kultur og hverdagsliv. På sporet av det moderne Norge. Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget.
Gullestad, M. (1992) The Art of Social Relations. Essays on Culture, Social Action and
Everyday Life in Modern Norway. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
Gullestad, M. (1997) A Passion for Boundaries. Reflections on Connections
between the Everyday Lives of Children and Discourses on the Nation in
Contemporary Norway. Childhood 4(1): 19–42.
Gulløv, E. (2003) Creating a Natural Place for Children. An Ethnographic Study of
Danish Kindergartens. In Fog Olwig, K. and Gulløv, E. (eds.), Children’s Places.
Cross-cultural Perspectives (pp. 23–38). New York: Routledge.
Gundersen, V. S. (2004) Urbant skogbruk. Forvaltning av skog i by- og tettsted-
kommuner. Aktuelt fra skogforskning. Rapport 3/4: 1–33.
Hendrick, H. (1994) Child Welfare. England 1872–1989. London: Routledge.
Innst.S. no. 228 (2004–5).
James, A. and James, A. L. (2004) Constructing Childhood. Theory, Policy and Social
Practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
James, A., Jenks, C. and Prout, A. (1998) Theorizing Childhood. London: Polity Press.
Jenks, C. (1996) Childhood. London: Routledge.
Jones, O. (1999) Tomboy Tales: The Rural, Nature and the Gender of Childhood.
Gender, Place and Culture, 6(2): 117–36.
Jordanova, L. (1989) Children in History. Concepts of Nature and Society. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Kjørholt, A.T. (2002) Small is Powerful. Discourses on ‘Children and
Participation’ in Norway. Childhood, 9(1): 63–82.
Kjørholt, A. T. (2004) Childhood as a Social and Symbolic Space: Discourses on
Children as Social Participants in Society. PhD dissertation. Trondheim:
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Social Sciences
and Technology Management.
Kjørholt, A.T. (2005) The Competent Child and the Right ‘to be Oneself’:
Reflections on Children as Fellow Citizens in an Early Childhood Centre. In
Clark, A., Kjørholt, A. T. and Moss, P. (eds.), Beyond Listening. Children’s
Perspectives on Early Childhood Services (pp. 149–70). Bristol: Policy Press.
Kjørholt, A. T., Moss, P. and Clark, A. (2005) Beyond Listening: Future Prospects.
In Clark, A., Kjørholt, A. T. and Moss, P. (eds.), Beyond Listening. Children’s
Perspectives on Early Childhood Services (pp. 171–83). Bristol: Policy Press.
Korsvold, T. (1997) Profesjonalisert barndom. Statlige intensjoner og kvinnelig
praksis på barnehagens arena 1945–1990. PhD dissertation. Trondheim:
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Arts.
Kunnskapsdepartementet (2006) Forskrift om rammeplan for barnehagens
innhold og oppgaver [Revised Framework Plan for Day-care Institutions in
Norway by the Ministry of Education].
Lysklett, O.B. (2005a) Uteleik året i rundt i kjente omgivelser. In Lysklett, O. B.
(ed.) Ute hele dagen! pp. 15–22. DMMHs publikasjonsserie nr.1. Trondheim:
Dronning Mauds Minne. Høgskole for førskolelærerutdanning.
Lysklett, O. B. (ed.) (2005b) Ute hele dagen! DMMHs publikasjonsserie no.1.
Trondheim: Dronning Mauds Minne. Høgskole for førskolelærerutdanning.
Midjo, T. (1994) Den nye barndommen. Individuering og subjektstatus. In
Aasen, P. and Haugaløkken, O. K. (eds.), Bærekraftig pedagogikk. Identitet og kom-
petanse i det moderne samfunnet (pp. 88–114). Oslo: Ad Notam Gyldendal.
Ministry of Children and Family Affairs (1996) Framework Plan for Day-care
Institutions. A Brief Presentation.
Mjaavatn, P.E. (2005) Natur- og friluftsbarnehager – et gode for barn? In

Lysklett, O. B. (ed.), Ute hele dagen! (pp. 51–6). DMMHs publikasjonsserie nr.1.
Trondheim: Dronning Mauds Minne. Høgskole for førskolelærerutdanning.
Moss, P., Clark, A. and Kjørholt, A. T. (2005) Introduction. In Clark, A.,
Kjørholt, A. T. and Moss, P. (eds.), Beyond Listening. Children’s Perspectives on
Early Childhood Services (pp. 1–16). Bristol: Policy Press.
Nilsen, R. Dyblie (1999) Fysisk aktivitet, helse og oppvekst. Report no. 53.
Trondheim: Norwegian Centre for Child Research.
Nilsen, R. Dyblie (2000) Livet i barnehagen. En etnografisk studie av sosialiser-
ingsprosessen. PhD dissertation.Trondheim: Norwegian University of Science
and Technology, Faculty of Social Sciences and Technology Management.
OECD (1999) OECD Country Note. Early Childhood Education and Care Policy in
Norway.
Olwig, K. R. (1989) Nature Interpretation: A Threat to the Countryside? In Uzzell, D.
L. (ed.), The Nature and Built Environment (pp. 132–41). London: Belhaven Press.
Parliament Meeting 11 April 2002, 10 am, www.stortinget.no.
Rantatalo, P. (2000) Skogmulleskolan. In Sandell, K. and Sörlin, S. (eds.),
Friluftshistoria. Från ‘härdande friluftslif’ till ekoturism och miljöpedagogik.
Stockholm: Carlsson Bokförlag.
Repp, G. (1996) Norwegian Relationships to Nature through Outdoor Life. In
Neuman, J., Mytting, I. and Brtnik, J. (eds.), Outdoor Activities. Proceedings of
International Seminar, Prague 1994, Charles University. Lüneburg: Verlag edi-
tion erlebnispädagogik.
Repp, G. (2001) Verdier og ideal for dagens friluftsliv. Nansen som føredøme?
PhD dissertation. Oslo: The Norwegian University of Sports and Physical
Education.
Sandin, B. and Halldén, G. (2003) Välfärdsstatens omvandling och en ny barn-
dom. In Sandin, B. and Halldén, G. (eds.), Barnets bästa – en antologi om barn-
domens innebörder och välfärdens organisering. Stockholm/Stehag: Brutus
Östlings Bokförlag Symposion.
Statistical Yearbook of Norway 2005.
St.meld. no. 37 (1992–3) Utfordringer i helsefremmende og forebyggende arbeid. Oslo:
Sosial- og helsedepartementet [White Paper on Health Policy].
St.meld. no. 27 (1999–2000) Barnehage til beste for barn og foreldre. Oslo: Barne-og
familiedepartementet [White Paper on Day-care Policy].
St.meld. no. 39 (2000–1) Friluftsliv. Ein veg til høgare livskvalitet. Oslo:
Miljøverndepartementet [White Paper on Environment Policy].
Søndergaard, D.M. (1999) Destabilising Discourse Analysis – Approaches to
Poststructuralist Empirical Research. Working paper no. 7, Insitut for
Statskundskab. University of Copenhagen.
Sørensen, Ø. (2001) Hegemonikamp om det norske. Elitenes nasjonsbygging-
sprosjekter 1770–1945. In Sørensen, Ø. (ed.) Jakten på det norske. Perspektiver på
utviklingen av en norsk nasjonal identitet på 1800-tallet (pp. 17–48). Oslo:
Gyldendal Akamedisk.
Telhaug, A. Oftedal (1992) Den moderne barndommen som utvidet institusjon-
alisering. In Aasen, P.and Oftedal Telhaug, A. (eds.), Takten, takten. Pass på tak-
ten. Studier i den offentlige oppdragelsens historie. Oslo: Ad Notam Gyldendal.
Tingstad, V. (2003) Children’s Chat on the Net. A Study of Social Encounters in
Two Norwegian Chatrooms. Doctoral dissertation. Trondheim: Norwegian
University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Social Sciences and

Technology Management.
Williams, R. (1976a) Keywords. A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. Glasgow:
Fontana.
Williams, R. (1976b) Base and Superstructure in Marxist Cultural Theory. In
Dale, R., Esland, G. and MacDonald, M. (eds.), Schooling and Capitalism.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
4
Children’s Cultures and New
Technologies: A Gap between
Generations? Some Reflections
from the Spanish Context
Ferran Casas
If we analyse the answers from the adult samples of the Eurobarometer

34 and 39 surveys for Spain (Commission of the European Communities/
Commission des Communautés Européennes 1990; 1993), we find that,
as in other European countries, the most important value the Spanish
place on the education of their children is responsibility. In fact, in 1993
Spain had the highest preference for responsibility of all European
countries.
Debates on how to teach responsibility to children have often con-
cluded with practical recommendations, such as how to create spaces
where responsibility can be exercised, an idea that allows a link to be
made with the ‘participation’ principle contained in the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child. Promoting responsible partici-
pation programmes has even become a goal for some local authorities
in Spain, for example, by the means of the Child Friendly Cities
programme.
There is a marked difference, however, between local initiatives and
mainstream welfare policies in Spain. The latter are restricted to social
protection policies that target the most marginalized groups (e.g. abused
and neglected children) or social problems highlighted by public opin-
ion (e.g. violence against women). In general, however, policies relating
to public services and programmes for children focus principally on
children as students and users of paediatric services.
At present, neither the national government nor most of the regional
governments recognize children as active social participants, a view
61
62 Ferran Casas
that, as will be explored in this chapter, reflects the attitude of many

Spanish parents. As this chapter will show, most parents think of them-
selves as having primary responsibility for children’s socialization into
future adults, even when their children reach adolescence, a view that is
challenged by children’s use of ICTs (information and communication
technologies). This reveals the existence of a new and strong peer cul-
ture in Spanish society that may represent a challenge to the authority
relations characteristic of relationships between parents, teachers and
children, and which have traditionally been regarded as representing
the ‘optimum model’ from the adults’ point of view.
Family and child policy in Spain
According to OECD reports (2004), Spain spends the least on families

and has the lowest family services rates among the Member States.
Public expenditure on the family, as a percentage of GDP in 2001, was
0.5 per cent, while the OECD (30 countries) mean was 1.8 per cent and
the EU (19 countries) mean was 2.1 per cent. Allowances for families
with newborn infants are also among the lowest in the industrialized
West, which is probably not unrelated to the fact that the fertility rate in
Spain is one of the lowest in the world.
Spain also has no national Children’s Ombudsman; only one of the 17
Comunidades Autonomas into which the country is divided for adminis-
trative purposes has an independent Ombudsman for children and one
other has a Deputy Ombudsman for children with powers derived from
the General Ombudsman.
Over the past 20 years, policies in Spain have given priority to devel-
oping a competitive economy as the principal way to raise the country’s
standard of living. In this context children have had no priority in terms
of public policy; furthermore, in the social arena more generally, few
voices have been raised in support of improving their position in soci-
ety. Children’s NGOs are few and in general are neither large nor well
funded. Thus people engaged in children’s welfare and rights are a small,
although very active, minority. Consequently, it is NGOs, together with
some municipalities and a few provincial authorities, that have taken
most of the initiatives in promoting children’s rights and social partici-
pation programmes.
In contrast to public policy in Spain, children have become increas-
ingly important in the private life of families. Most couples have just
one or two children (in 2000 the fecundity rate was 1.23, the lowest in
the EU) and the trend is for them to have them increasingly later in life.
Children’s Cultures and New Technologies in Spain 63
So when a Spanish couple have a child, it is usually a carefully planned

event, couples being acutely aware of the economic and time costs of
childrearing. Because measures to help couples balance their work and
family responsibilities are still very scarce (in 2002 only 11 per cent chil-
dren under the age of three in Spain was offered a place in public child-
care, with all over three year olds having a place), parents also need to
organize the extended family (particularly grandmothers) to help with
childcare, and they tend to buy many material goods for their children
as a way of compensating for the lack of time spent with them.
The low priority given to children in public policy is in marked con-
trast to the increasing interest that advertisers have shown in recent
years. Companies have become aware of the desire of Spanish parents to
spend on their children and since children receive pocket money from
an early age, they have become consumers in their own right and a very
important target group for advertisers.
In such a context, the question of what is good or proper for children
must be analysed along two different axes: the official version versus
what happens in practice; and the private versus the public version. In
the official version, Spanish authorities are working for children’s rights
and quality of life, and reports to the Committee on the Rights of the
Child (CRC) underline the substantial volume of legislation intended to
guarantee such rights. In practice, however, public investment is aimed
at ensuring (a) a well-educated workforce, and (b) healthy children,
thanks to the public health service. In private life, enormous efforts are
made by parents to get ‘the best’ for their child – for example, if they can
afford it, many families prefer the services of a private paediatrician,
because they believe private health care offers better quality, and they
use public services only for emergencies or very expensive treatments.
They also spend substantial sums on extra-curricular activities. In terms
of the public sphere, however, nobody feels responsible for children –
they are mostly ‘other people’s’ children for whom there is no collective
sense of responsibility.
Furthermore, although experts (developmental psychologists, educa-
tionalists, paediatricians and other professionals) tend to focus on what
is good for child development and what is in ‘the best interests of the
child’, there is no consensus about what this means and the standards
that should be applied. It is popularly believed that experts often
change their mind. In addition, parents may disagree with them and, in
a society with a large immigrant population from different cultures, it
is also becoming apparent that there are no viable cross-cultural criteria
against which such issues can be determined. Consequently, there is
64 Ferran Casas
increasing awareness that there are important (cultural) differences (or

diversities) in determining what is good for children in the Spanish
context (Casas 1997).
Quality of life and children’s best interests
Improving ‘quality of life’ has emerged as the new social aspiration

offered by all kinds of advertising and all political parties in Spain.
However, the concept is understood very differently by the various
social groups and all too often is hardly more than rhetoric and bears lit-
tle relationship to research findings on the subject.
In Western societies during the first half of the twentieth century, the
standard of living was widely regarded as the best indicator of well-being
and of progress in terms of welfare and the quality of life. However, from
the 1960s onwards, social scientists increasingly argued that what is
important is how people experience their lives and that material condi-
tions may therefore reveal little about people’s worries and needs
(Campbell, Converse and Rodgers 1976). As a result, different conceptu-
alizations of and scientific models for the quality of life (QOL) started to
be developed, which sought to articulate both material (‘objective’) and
non-material (‘subjective’) aspects of the human and socio-cultural
environment. However, it was very easy to demonstrate that in many
situations these two components of QOL do not correlate and that, for
example, experts’ ‘objective’ measures and the ‘subjective’ satisfaction
of service users may not correlate at all, triggering debates about who is
right. Thus, it took some years to become aware that what is scientifi-
cally relevant is not Who is right?, but Why do they disagree?’
During the 1980s and 1990s, a clear consensus began to emerge that
how people experience their lives is a crucial psychosocial component of
QOL. Such non-material and ‘subjective’ phenomena as perceptions,
evaluations and aspirations have therefore become of key scientific
value and are now taken into account in most serious QOL studies
(Campbell et al. 1976; Casas 1996).
There are several lessons to be learned from these debates about how
to define and evaluate QOL and how to understand the meaning of
quality in terms of children’s lives. When different social agents (e.g.
children and parents) do not agree about what is good or best for chil-
dren, we must now consider whether Who is right? is the question we
should be asking.
When we review the research exploring children’s quality of life, how-
ever, we find very few publications in which the question has been put
to children themselves. Typical research in this field is about the attri-

bution of needs, or the perceptions of quality that adults (experts or par-
ents) have about children. This is, however, a misuse of the concept
‘quality of life’ as it is now understood, since it undermines its very
foundations – the centrality of people’s own perceptions, evaluations
and aspirations. So, in practice, what is referred to as research on chil-
dren’s QOL is often not about their perceptions of the quality of their
lived experiences but about adults’ perceptions of, or opinions about,
children’s lives.
Traditionally, what is considered good or best for Spanish children, as
elsewhere in Europe, has been decided by their parents or experts.
Experts ‘know’ about children’s needs because of their expertise; thus, it
has also been assumed that experts take into account the perspective of
the child, because this may be different from that of an adult. But even
though this change of perspective is very important, it has still been
taken for granted that children themselves should not be asked, because
they do not know (or are not yet capable of knowing or competent to
know or understand) what is good for them: who is right and who is
wrong. In short, who knows and who is not capable of knowing has
been decided in advance.
When we do ask children, however, we find that sometimes they agree
and sometimes they disagree with adults, which in turn raises a question
about the reasons for any disagreements from which we might learn.
Such disagreements – between children’s perspectives on their own lives
and adult’s perspectives on children’s lives – are an important dimen-
sion of social life. For example, adolescents and young people in general
are well known for being greater risk-takers than adults; having new and
challenging experiences and discovering their limits are very important
to them. For adults, however, ‘security’ has a much higher priority. But
for young people, the protective measures imposed on them by adults in
their ‘best interests’ may be perceived and experienced as adults seeking
to control their lives or limit their freedom – something not considered
by adults to be of sufficient importance to take into account.
We must not forget, however, that the psychosocial context in which
such perspectives emerge is based on both adults and young people
defining each other as belonging to different social groups or cate-
gories, something that social psychologists call processes of inter-group
categorical differentiation (Casas 1995). A major challenge that arises
from this is the struggle to understand why, as adults, ‘we’ are so ‘inter-
ested’ in keeping children and teenagers as a completely differentiated
social category, instead of trying to build a social consensus with the
66 Ferran Casas
younger generations. The answer is also likely to help us to understand

why many adults often feel uncomfortable when we speak about the
need to increase children’s social participation (Casas 1994).
Children’s rights as traditionally understood (e.g. the right to the pro-
vision of key services such as health and education, and to protection)
are an attempt to increase children’s QOL. In this regard the universal
and growing consensus about the importance of children’s rights must
be seen as a positive step. However, we must not forget that it is adults
who have formulated these rights. When we ask children, they usually
agree (although there are some problems, for example, with the right not
to work), but often children will express ‘rights’ in different terms. When
we explore the question of children’s civil rights (freedoms) or their right
to participation, however, many adults waver (as became clear in Spain
from Aguinaga and Comas’s survey results (1991)) and the difference
between adults’ and children’s perceptions can be surprising.
Traditional conceptions of children and childhood

in Spain and the audio-visual media contradiction
In Spain, traditional conceptions of children and childhood are deeply

rooted in the fabric and principles of Roman law: children were histori-
cally regarded as the property of their parents (originally, the property of
who had the patria potestas) and did not figure in public policy consid-
erations until recently, when the concept of social protection was
adopted. In fact, social policies in general did not seriously appear in
Spain until a democratic constitution was again adopted in 1979.
However, childhood and family policies, as noted, have not been a pri-
ority in recent history and consequently the Spanish welfare state is still
far from achieving the level reached in Northern Europe, which is often
taken as a standard for comparison.
As a result, although general attitudes towards children in Spain have
undergone rapid change at the level of interpersonal relationships –
from authoritarian to more democratic and tolerant – the fundamental
perception of and belief in adults’ authority over children is still evident
as a kind of miasma, present everywhere in the context of intergenera-
tional relationships. Thus in recent televised debates (e.g. TV3, 24
January 2006), the risk of losing parental authority clearly emerged as
the main reason for many adults’ opposition to children’s participation,
in both family life and society more generally.
In the last two decades, however, a new phenomenon – audio-visual
media – has started to destabilize adult–child relationships, initially in
subtle ways but more recently in very obvious ways. First, in the 1980s,
videos and video games appeared in homes and often the person pro-
gramming the video was the child. This could be for practical reasons –
children’s familiarity with the technology meant that they could do this
faster and without using the instruction manual – but this was consid-
ered unimportant by adults. Second, children showed impressive mas-
tery of the video games, although these too were dismissed by adults as
‘childish’ and most parents did not want to play or even to talk about
video games with their children. For example, in a sample of Spanish
parents, 53.9 per cent reported never talking about video games with
their children and 60.2 per cent admitted never playing video games
with them (Casas 2000, 2001). Those who did were often unable to out-
perform their children, which for proud adults was an unsettling expe-
rience. Computers started to penetrate Spanish households in the
mid-1990s, and the Internet at the end of the 1990s; since then the
mobile phone has appeared (Casas et al. 2005). As in most European
countries, the presence of a child in the family was likely to facilitate the
early introduction of computers and the Internet (Suess et al. 1998;
Livingstone and Bovill 2001).
However, the ways in which new information and communication
technologies (ICTs) have dramatically increased in Spanish households
in such a short period is not the aspect of these changes we want to
analyse here; crucially, it includes human interaction and the creation
of non-material products. We therefore need to understand much better
what roles new technologies are playing in human relationships, in the
socialization of children, in parent–children interactions and in inter-
generational relationships if we want to improve them.
It soon became evident, for example, that the attitudes of children to
ICTs were different from those of adults and that ICTs play a key role in
children’s, adolescents’ and youngsters’ cultures. Recent research explor-
ing the use of and attitudes towards ICTs amongst children aged 12–16
years and their parents revealed the following (Casas et al. 2001):
● children’s use of audio-visual media shows them to be competent

social actors;
● access to information through ICTs makes children less dependent
on adults as sources of knowledge;
● the knowledge and skills related to the use of ICTs are more often
acquired from peer groups than from adults; and
● children’s conversations about audio-visual media-related activities
with adults tend to be unsatisfactory but very satisfactory with young
68 Ferran Casas
people, particularly with peers. Dissatisfaction with intergenerational

communication seems to be related (amongst other things) to a gen-
eration gap in the evaluation of activities related to ICTs.
The importance of peers in children’s lives is not new. However, ICTs

are making this more evident and everyday life seems to lend increasing
support to the hypothesis that socialization is more peer group-dependent
than we have traditionally accepted (Harris 1995). Such evidence threat-
ens adults’ traditional and deep-rooted beliefs about how children are
dependent on them and, of course, adults are reluctant to abandon such
beliefs.
In highlighting these issues, however, it is the ICTs that become the
‘problem’, although as in other European countries Spanish adults’
opinions on this point are divided, a phenomenon that has been
labelled binary determinism: optimistic vs. pessimistic (Sefton-Green
1998). Optimists believe that computers themselves (and other ICTs) will
improve people’s lives and facilitate global communication; they there-
fore view them as having enormous potential for children, the challenge
being to maximize their positive use. Pessimists, by contrast, think that
the growth in ICTs will result in more control over our lives and greater
dehumanization and, as a consequence, they see them as a risk for chil-
dren and argue that they should be strictly controlled or even banned.
In addition, many parents and teachers feel they are losing control,
not only because they feel unskilled in relation to ICTs and are reluctant
to change traditional methods of knowledge transmission, but also
because ICTs give children access to alternative authoritative sources of
knowledge, which differ from those that adults have traditionally con-
trolled. Thus, not only are ideas of parental authority changing but, as
elsewhere in Europe, there is growing concern in Spain that schooling is
being deposed from the top of the tree of knowledge (Sefton-Green
1998). Indeed, although school has traditionally been considered as the
prime means of securing entry into democratic society, far-reaching
questions are now being asked about how this will happen in the future.
The next section presents empirical data that flesh out these issues.
The ‘problem’ of the new technologies as new

socializers: a generational misunderstanding
Data from adolescents’ use of different audio-visual media and about

their relationships related to media were collected in Spain in successive
biennial surveys (1999, N ⫽ 1,634; 2001, N ⫽ 3,424; 2003, N ⫽ 1,936)
from samples of 12–16-year-olds. As described below, the results make
interesting reading (Casas et al. 2005) in revealing considerable differ-

ences between parents’ and children’s views about ICT ownership, use
and value.
Adolescents were asked, from a list of four items of audio-visual equip-
ment (television, computer, console and mobile) and some of their facil-
ities (educative CD-ROMs, the Internet and games) if they had access to
them at home and if any of them were their own. Television emerged as
by far the most common piece of equipment that adolescents have
access to. However, during the period 1999–2003, there was an impres-
sive increase in the availability of all the items, with the fastest increase
being access to the Internet, with the percentage more than doubling in
1999–2001, from 23.15 per cent to 49.5 per cent. It is also worth men-
tioning that mobile phones were not included in the 1999 question-
naire because at the time they were scarcely used by Spanish teenagers.
However, the landscape changed so fundamentally in such a short time
that when they were asked about mobile phone ownership in 2001, they
were found to be used by more than three-quarters of the adolescents in
the sample.
Differences are evident between boys and girls in relation to consoles
and console games, with the percentage of availability much higher for
boys than for girls in the three samples. In contrast, more girls than boys
have educational CD-ROMs and access to a mobile phone. Ownership
percentages are always higher for boys than girls with the exception of
mobile phones, and girls’ and boys’ responses differ in relation to the
equipment they report using the most when visiting friends: the highest
percentage for girls is TV and for boys games. In short, if we consider
children’s access to ICTs, not only at home but in friends’ homes, at
school and elsewhere, their potential for facilitating increased social
interaction is impressive and has increased dramatically – much faster
than for the large majority of adults.
In the 2003 survey, adolescents were asked to what extent they were
interested in different audio-visual equipment and in their facilities at
present. They were also asked whether they were concerned about being
well-informed about each of these pieces of equipment or facilities. The
same questions were asked of their parents, who were also asked to
report on the degree of interest in and information they believed their
own child had.
Both in terms of present degree of interest and of considering them-
selves well-informed about what they could watch or do with the differ-
ent audio-visual media, the highest mean rate for adolescents was in
relation to TV, whereas CD-ROMs scored very low. By gender, the high-
est mean rates for boys were for computer and Internet use, followed by
70 Ferran Casas
TV, while the highest for girls were the mobile phone, followed by the
Internet. The lowest mean scores for boys were for educational CD-
ROMs, whereas for girls they were for games. Overall, however, and
despite these differences, young people reported a high degree of inter-
est in and knowledge about ICTs.
Parents’ reported own interest in all audio-visual media was lower
than that reported by their own child, except in relation to girls’ inter-
est in video consoles. In fact, most parents reported having more inter-
est in and information about games than their daughters did.
Additionally, parents reported having more information about televi-
sion then their own child, while they reported less information than the
child about other audio-visual media.
When parents were asked about the interest they thought their child
had in each medium, they tended to slightly overestimate the interest
their child reported about games and, more specifically, their daughter
reported about computers, and they tended to underestimate their
child’s interest in all other media. When they were asked about the
information available to their child about each medium, they tended to
overestimate the child’s responses for all media, except the Internet.
Different usage of computers and the Internet was also explored.
Parents reported doing any of the possible activities with the computer
less frequently than their child, except writing, in the case of parents of
boys. When we asked about the frequency of activities on the Internet,
parents only reported searching for information more frequently than
their child; all other possible activities were less frequent, with the
exception of sending emails, in the case of parents of boys.
Another topic explored were parents’ and children’s estimates of dif-
ferent audio-visual media use. We found that parents frequently
regarded their children as gaining greater entertainment from using
computers or video games than did the child, while they attributed
them with higher levels of boredom in relation to television viewing
and Internet use than their children reported.
In terms of learning, therefore, TV seems to be regarded by adoles-
cents as much more learning-related than by parents, while parents tend
to overestimate learning from computers in comparison with their chil-
dren’s answers: watching TV was generally considered by parents as less
useful than it was by their children, while exactly the opposite applied
in relation to computer use. Adolescents also reported feeling more
actively involved in front of the TV than their parents perceive them to
be, while the opposite was reported in relation to the computer and the
Internet. Similarly, children felt that using a computer was a more
lonely activity than their parents thought it was for them, while they
reported feeling more in company in front of the TV and using the

Internet than their parents believed.
However, in the case of TV, differences are very important. TV contin-
ues to be the medium showing clearer or even more extreme discrepan-
cies between parents and children when any evaluation about it is
made. As in previous research (Casas and Figuer 1999), therefore, impor-
tant and significant discrepancies appear when parents and children are
asked separately about their attitudes towards and evaluations of the use
of different audio-visual media, but in the case of TV clear discrepancies
are observed in more then 45 per cent of the families, while extreme dif-
ferences are observed about the ‘utility’ of TV in more than 20 per cent
of the households. Differences in the evaluations of ITCs, particularly in
relation to TV, are often very important, suggesting a generational gap in
attitudes (see Table 4.1).
Adolescents were also asked how much they liked to talk about things
they watch or do with audio-visual media. In a 5-point Likert scale (from
I don’t like it to I like it very much), it is beyond doubt that their level of
satisfaction is much higher in talking to peers or friends about their use
of audio-visual media than in talking to parents or teachers.
Table 4.1 Concordances and discrepancies between children and parents when
evaluating different audiovisual media (%)
Coincidences Discrepancies
Negative Neutral Positive Sub-total Clear Extreme Sub-total
Computer
Learning 1.4 4.2 50.3 55.9 34.8 9.2 44
Wasting time 2.8 7.2 43.6 53.6 36.2 10 46.2
Utility 0.9 2.8 73.7 77.4 17.4 4.4 21.8
Console
Learning 61.9 5.1 0.4 67.4 25.8 6.7 32.5
Wasting time 51.8 4.8 1.4 58 26 16.1 42.1
Utility 45.6 4.7 1.3 51.6 23.8 17.3 41.1
Television
Learning 8.4 21.8 10.2 40.4 47.3 12.3 59.6
Wasting time 19.3 19.8 3.3 42.4 46.9 10.6 57.5
Utility 6.3 15.6 10.9 32.8 45.7 21.4 67.1
● Concordance ⫽ the child and the parent score the same, only ⫾1 point difference in a 5-point
Likert scale is observed.
● Clear discrepancy ⫽ ⫾2 or ⫾3 points difference in the scores.
● Extreme discrepancy ⫽ ⫾4 points difference in the scores.
Spanish sample N ⫽ 1,634.

Source: Casas and Figuer (1999).
72 Ferran Casas
In the 2003 sample, talking about what they have watched on TV with
their father was the conversational activity they liked the most, a similar
result to the 1999 sample; console and computer games and educational
CD-ROMs are among the topics children liked least to talk about with
their father. In 2001 and 2003, boys’ mean satisfaction of reporting how
much they liked to talk with their fathers about any equipment was
higher than girls’, with the exception of talking about the computer.
Responses to the question about how much they liked talking to their
mothers showed similar patterns to talking with the father in all samples,
with TV scoring the highest and video games the lowest. In general, girls
were more likely to report that they prefer talking with their mothers
about any audio-visual activity than boys, with the exception of console
and computer games, where girls scored even lower than boys.
Questions about how much children liked talking with teachers pro-
duced the lowest mean scores in all samples; computer and Internet use
scored best, and CD-ROMs, console and computer games the worst.
Boys’ and girls’ responses were very similar across the samples.
When considering the mean scores obtained in relation to how much
they liked talking with peers, we found the highest satisfaction rates in
talking with anyone regarding any of the equipment and facilities,
although TV was the medium that obtained the highest percentages and
CD-ROM the lowest. Some gender differences were found in that boys
generally preferred to talk with peers about console games and girls
about TV.
Overall, parents tended to overestimate their child’s satisfaction with
talking to their father or mother about such activities, with the excep-
tion of TV, although an exception to this is boys’ satisfaction with talk-
ing to their fathers about computer use, which was clearly underestimated
by parents. In addition, parents greatly overestimated their child’s levels
of satisfaction with talking about these activities with their teacher. Last
but not least, parents tended to underestimate their sons’ levels of satis-
faction with talking with their peers about any media-related activity,
while they seem to overestimate girls’ satisfaction from talking with
peers, except in the case of TV.
ICTs, interpersonal relationships and

children’s cultures
Although it seems likely that communication between parents and chil-

dren about audio-visual media cannot be separated from their commu-
nication about other topics, and that some parents talk to their children
about many things whilst others talk to their children very little, the
high levels of enthusiasm that can be observed among children in rela-
tion to audio-visual media suggests that these media may be a good
starting point for trying to understand parent–child communication in
a volatile environment, in which adults are not always and necessarily
‘competent’. To make sense of this, we must take what children say – the
perspective of the child – more seriously.
As the data show, parents’ perceptions and evaluations often reflect
gender stereotypes, as well as stereotypes about the value of different
forms of ICTs: parents tend to believe that children are very interested in
educational CD-ROMs, whereas children do not express any great
enthusiasm for them, particularly if we compare them with other media.
Both boys and girls like computer games, even violent ones (Casas
2000), but parents tend to deny this in relation to their own child.
Probably the most surprising aspect of our results concerns the ques-
tion of to whom children like to talk about what they watch or do with
ICT media. From the point of view of many of the children in the three
samples, the least popular choice of an adult with whom to talk about
audio-visual media is their teacher. This offers an important reflection
about how schools connect with the ‘real world’. Mothers and fathers
are also not a popular choice – young people clearly prefer their peers,
followed by siblings and older friends. One implication of this is that
adults in general do not seem to be taking advantage of the opportuni-
ties created by these media to establish relationships with children in
new ways.
These results reinforce the belief that Spanish children are construct-
ing their own culture – one that is separate and distinct from adults’ cul-
ture, or at least has little dialogue with adults. The range and volume of
information and discourses in the media that contain contrasting values
constitute another point for critical reflection. It would appear that
many children in contemporary Spanish society are being socialized
through the mediatory influences of ICTs without much (or any) adult
input, relying solely on the interpretations of their peer group, in the
context of their own culture. What has happened to the many adults
who, from their children’s perspectives, no longer have a credible voice
or views in terms of discussions about audio-visual media and related
values? This question requires further research but, from the evidence
outlined above, many children are dissatisfied with the competence of
adults to discuss their activities with ICT media.
Clearly we cannot think about children only as the ‘future’; they are
also a vital and relevant part of the ‘present’, as active members of
74 Ferran Casas
society. We must therefore ‘understand’ how children themselves

think about new media and technologies, how they are using them
and how they are relating them to their own futures, through present
expectations, wishes and value-related aspirations. What Llull (1980)
said about the six different types of social use of TV by parents may be
a useful starting point for analysing children and young people’s cur-
rent use of other media. Llull argued that audio-visual media:
● may act as an environmental resource;

● can be used for regulating daily activities;
● may facilitate communication by offering common topics for talk;
● can be used for seeking or avoiding contact with other people;
● may be means for social learning; and
● may be used for demonstrating competence or dominance.
The potential of new technologies for children

as competent social actors and participating citizens
Adults traditionally attribute children with less competence than them-

selves. This implies that they have less capacity for knowledge and lower
levels of information and understanding of the world ‘as it is’ (Postman
1982). Adults have also traditionally taken the view that it is self-evident
that some information should not be given to children and that other
information can only be given if adapted to their more limited under-
standing.
These assumptions about children were, however, challenged by the
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which
included the child’s right to information amongst its provisions:
Art. 13. The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this
right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information
and ideas of all kinds …
…
Art 17. States Parties recognize the important function performed by
the mass media and shall ensure that the child has access to informa-
tion and material from a diversity of national and international
resources, especially those aimed at the promotion of his or her
social, spiritual and moral well-being and physical and mental
health. To this end, States parties shall:
(a) Encourage the mass media to disseminate information and mate-
rial of social and cultural benefit to the child …
Lack of information on the part of children does not now seem to be the
problem, however. The real ‘problem’, thanks to TV, seems to be just the
opposite: children have a huge amount of information, sometimes more
than adults, about all topics, because they tend to spend more time
watching TV than adults (Von Feilitzen 1991). This information
includes a range of topics traditionally considered inappropriate for chil-
dren, including those where there is a broad consensus that they are
prejudicial to children’s well-being (e.g. violence, unlimited con-
sumerism, and so on). If different amounts of information (or knowl-
edge) were an important element for the differential categorization of
children therefore, as proposed by Postman (1982), the old categories
must now be in crisis!
In the light of the Spanish data discussed above, it would seem that it
is adults who must adapt, who must accept and understand children’s
enhanced capacities and competences as a consequence of the emer-
gence of new ICTs. By doing so, we will be able to explore ways of pro-
moting and using ICTs in different contexts: improving children’s
situation in the world is not only about protecting them, but also
enhancing their quality of life. However, in our postmodern, iconic soci-
eties, we also have the challenge of developing new images of children
and childhood, and the new media certainly have the potential to
change the traditional social representations of children in ways that are –
but also may not be – in the best interests of the child.
In the international macro-context in which child research takes
place, the UNCRC has posed challenges for the international research
community and gives strong support to changes in the focus of child
research. Indeed, as many authors have pointed out, the UNCRC
opened a new historical period for children across the world (see
Verhellen 1992) as, in both a sociological and a psychosocial sense, the
Convention has started to frame a ‘new childhood’, a new image of
what children are as a social group or social category (Qvortrup 1990;
Casas 1991, 1998). However, the consequences for the international
research community remain uncertain, a situation that parallels the
ever-quickening pace of social change in relation to ICTs and childhood
in Spain. It is becoming increasingly clear, therefore, that both new
technologies and new social and cultural phenomena are taking us
towards a very different society but, as yet, we do not know what it will
be like.
These rapid changes not only demand that people understand one
another across countries and across generations but also that the
increasing cultural diversity of European nations requires more young
76 Ferran Casas
people to understand and work with people who have different perspec-
tives. It is clear that children’s democratic socialization is extremely
important if we are to develop a citizenry that is flexible, cooperative,
responsible and caring. What is not clear is how we should socialize our
children so that they can live responsibly in a world where many of its
parameters are still unknown.
Authors debating modern socialization processes in Europe have been
arguing for many years that children’s socialization is dependent on
three major social agents: the family, school and television. But, as
revealed by our Spanish data, we must also consider the effect of the
‘new screens’ – videos, computers, the Internet and mobile phones
(Barthelmes 1991; Casas 1993, 1998) – and the influence these are hav-
ing on the impact of the peer group. Indeed, other recent European
research has shown that the importance of peer influence in this area
may have been underestimated. Suess et al. (1998) suggest, for example,
that TV and other new technologies seem to play an important and
influential role through peer relationships among children aged 6–16
years in many European countries. In addition, in the broader interna-
tional arena, new theories are emerging that seek to explain why it is
that, as in Spain, parents’ influence on their children’s socialization is
lower than expected (Harris 1995).
The influence of media interacting with the influence of peer groups
suggests, therefore, that we may be seeing the emergence not only of
new children’s cultures, but also of children’s and young people’s cul-
tures that are very often very different, and increasingly autonomous,
from adults and adults’ cultures. Although adolescents have always
wanted to have their own identity, one that is clearly differentiated from
adults’, this psychosocial process seems to be starting ever earlier in chil-
dren’s lives in much of Europe. Thus young people are moving into and
occupying spaces in our cities and our social life, when adults are absent.
In the summer, in the squares and bars of many Spanish towns, for
example, we find hundreds of young people concentrated in places
where adults prefer not to go at night. Even if they do not feel able to
occupy such spaces physically, young people often do so symbolically –
for example, with graffiti.
This indicates that in Spain, as elsewhere, children and young people
are becoming evermore active social agents. A classic example, reported
in the scientific literature, is that some years ago, when Son-Goku car-
toons first appeared on a Spanish TV channel, a merchandising mistake
meant that children could not find products related to the cartoon char-
acters in Barcelona’s shops. As a consequence, many parents of under
12-year-olds were urged by their children to go to one of the Sunday

morning markets (Mercat de Sant Antoni). Here children had organized
themselves to swap photocopies of their own designs of the cartoon
characters (Munné and Codina 1992). Demonstrating that they could be
active and organizing their own spaces and interests proved to be so
motivating for children that it can still be observed in the market. It also
served to demonstrate the power of children as highly competent social
actors, with the potential to build new relational networks for the
future, rather than remaining passive, responding only to changes led
by adults’ interests.
Conclusion
Children have the chance to reinvent communications, culture and

community, to address the problems of the new world in new ways.
(Katz 1996, in Sefton-Green 1998: 1)
In much of European society there is a growing concern and awareness

that the child population as a whole is demanding more attention from
us in the immediate future at all social levels. We can therefore perceive
a great challenge ahead: new ‘methods’ are required so that children will
be able to face and take responsible decisions about new issues in new
situations (Council of Europe 1996).
Change already requires a debate about the new rights and responsi-
bilities of children, since the UNCRC (especially in Articles 12–16) estab-
lishes civil rights for children. Taken as a whole, the recognition of such
rights creates new forms for children’s presence in society, new means
for children to assume social responsibilities, new ways for adults to be
with children and to listen to them as competent people and as subjects
with rights.
The implementation of such rights is arguably one of the most pro-
found challenges which the UNCRC poses to European society and
probably to all industrialized countries. Those who have direct responsi-
bility for children, or for childhood policies, understand its importance
whilst also appreciating the profound doubts and uncertainties that it
creates, which reflect, above all, the lack of any tradition of giving a
leading social role to our child population.
As this chapter has argued, using data from Spain, we now have pow-
erful tools with which to address such challenges: new media and com-
munication technologies have opened up opportunities for children to
78 Ferran Casas
create their own cultures, independent of adults’ cultures and even from
youngsters’ cultures. Spanish data show that by their use of ICTs, chil-
dren are developing such cultures. In this context, children’s own moti-
vation and enthusiasm for using these technologies and for developing
skills and competences are enabling them to create novel forms of
interpersonal relationships and to modify existing ones. New commu-
nication technologies are also giving some adults innovative ideas
about how to improve children’s social participation and ‘suggesting’
to us how important it is that children are listened to and taken into
account in all areas of social life. Children’s cultures are offering us new
kinds of potential for participation and for improving human relation-
ships, which are, in fact, the major contributors to our quality of life
(Casas 1996, 1998).
Most important of all, however, is that children are now presented
with opportunities to exercise real responsibilities in practical situations.
They are demonstrating their ability to be very active as social agents –
for example, by creating new communication codes and new ‘lan-
guages’ using the mobile phone or SMS messages in the Internet. We
should therefore try to develop new participative experiences with chil-
dren, to put into practice other desirable values, both trans-nationally
and trans-culturally – co-operation, solidarity, democracy, and so on –
and thereby try to contribute, with children, to improving the quality of
life of many other children in the world.
According to Bressand and Distler (1995), most of the old, well-
known social utopias were reactions against something. Now that we
have ‘R-tech’ (relational technologies), we have an historic opportunity
to develop utopias without an enemy (Breton 1992), because new tech-
nologies can be harnessed to the task of developing social aspirations
and making them real. We must remain clear, however, that such tech-
nologies are not ends in themselves; rather, they offer the means to an
end. Aims and goals must be defined and appropriate tools for each goal
must be chosen.
In some European fora (e.g. the Council of Europe 1996) it has been
suggested that we cannot continue to analyse and try to understand
new social phenomena with old theories and perspectives; that the con-
tinued understanding of children as a social category who are ‘not yets’,
‘becomings’ and not ‘beings’, can no longer be defended and that there
is a need to adopt new ways of relating to children as citizens.
The research results reported here have, for example, clearly shown
that there are important gender-based differences in relation to the
degree and style of use of ICTs. Since 2003 girls, for example, have
shown a spectacular increase in their interest in mobile phones and in

Internet chatrooms and emailing: over a short period, they have over-
taken boys in terms of enthusiasm for the ‘media world’. Boys’ and girls’
different interests in and sensibilities towards ICTs might therefore be a
fruitful departure point for any intervention or programme. In addition,
carefully planned intervention will be needed to reduce the potential for
the emergence of inequality of access to ICTs among different groups
(e.g. children of immigrant families, in rural areas, or those from fami-
lies in the lower socio-economic groups).
These issues need to be situated in a context in which new and differ-
ent kinds of research perspectives are being developed, which place chil-
dren at the centre and that ask children about their lives, experiences
and standard of living. Such developments, which are promising initial
steps at the start of a new stage of exploring children’s ‘real’ quality of
life, are helping us to understand a different interpersonal and social
world and to engage with the idea of ‘children’s cultures’. We can only
make sense of this, however, when we understand how children them-
selves form their opinions, experiences, evaluations and aspirations, and
that these are no longer necessarily constructed in interaction with
adults. Such a changed understanding is demanded by the findings of
research on the use of audio-visual media and on the interpersonal rela-
tionships related to or mediated by these technologies.
References
Aguinaga, J. and Comas, D. (1991) Infancia y Adolescencia: La Mirada de los Adultos,
Madrid: Centro de Publicaciones. Ministerio Asuntos Sociales.
Barthelmes, J. (1991) Infancia y Cultura, Infancia y Sociedad 7: 13–32.
Bressand, A. and Distler, C. (1995) La Planète relationnelle, Paris: Flammarion.
Breton, P. (1992) L’Utopie de la communication, Paris: La Découverte.
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E. and Rodgers, W. L. (1976) The Quality of American
Life: Perceptions, Evaluations and Satisfactions, New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Casas, F. (1991) El Concepto de Calidad de Vida en la Intervención Social en el
Ámbito de la Infancia, III Jornadas de Psicología de la Intervención Social, 2:
649–72, Madrid, November 1991: M.A.S., 1992.
Casas, F. (1993) Medios de comunicación e imagen social de la infancia,
Intervención Psicosocial 6(II): 55–65.
Casas, F. (1994) Children’s Participation in European Society, Proceedings of the
Conference on Evolution of the Role of Children in Family Life: Participation and
Negotiation, Madrid, 1–3 December, Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Casas, F. (1995) Social Representations of Childhood. European Intensive Course in
Children’s Rights, ERASMUS Programme, Salerno.
Casas, F. (1996) Bienestar Social. Una Introducción Psicosociológica, Barcelona: PPU.
80 Ferran Casas
Casas, F. (1997) Quality of Life and the Life Experience of Children, in Verhellen,
E. (ed.), Understanding Children’s Rights. Second International Interdisciplinary
Course on Children’s Rights, Ghent: University of Ghent.
Casas, F. (1998) Infancia: Perspectivas psicosociales. Barcelona: Paidós.
Casas, F. (2000) Perceptions of Video Games among Spanish Children and
Parents. In von Feilitzen, C. and Carlsson, U. (eds.), Children in the New Media
Scopes, Göteborg: The UNESCO International Clearinghouse on children and
violence on the screen.
Casas, F. (2001) Video Games: Between Parents and Children. In Hutchby, I. and
Moran-Ellis, J. (eds.), Children, Technology and Culture. The Impacts of
Technologies in Children’s Everyday Lives, London: Routledge/Falmer.
Casas, F., Alsinet, C., Pérez, J. M., Figuer, C., Leiva, E., González, M. and Pascual,
S. (2001) Information Technologies and Communication between Parents and
Children, Psychology in Spain 5: 33–46; http://www.psychologyinspain.com.
Casas, F. and Figuer, C. (1999) Usos del ordenador e interacción padres/hijos en la
adolescencia. III Congreso de Investigadores Audiovisuales. Los Medios del Tercer
Milenio, Madrid: Facultad de Ciencias de la Información. Universidad
Complutense de Madrid, July.
Casas, F., González, M., Figuer, C., Malo, S., Alsinet, C. and Subarroca, S. (2005)
The Penetration of Audio-Visual Media in Adolescents’ Cultures in Spain
between 1999 and 2004: Its Use at Home, School and at Friends’. Childhoods
2005. Oslo.
Commission of the European Communities (1990) Public Opinion in the
European Community, Eurobarometer 34, August, Brussels.
Commission des Communautés Européennes (1993) Les européens et la famille,
Eurobaromètre 39. December. Brussels.
Council of Europe (1996) Documents for the Closing Conference of the Childhood
Policies Project, Leipzig, 28 May–1 June, Strasbourg: CDPS – Council of Europe
Publications.
Harris, J. R. (1995) Where is the Child’s Environment? A Group Socialization
Theory of Development, Psychological Review 102(3): 458–89.
Livingstone, S. and Bovill, M (eds.) (2001) Children and Their Changing Media
Environment. A European Comparative Study, London: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Llull, J. (1980) The Social Uses of Television, Human Communication Research 6(3):
197–209.
Munné, F. and Codina, N. (1992) Algunos Aspectos del Impacto Tecnológico en el
Consumo Infantil del Ocio, Anuario de Psicología 53: 113–25.
OECD (2004) Social Expenditure Database (SOCX), 1980–2001;
http://www.oecd.org.
Postman, N. (1982) The Disappearance of Childhood, New York: Dell.
Qvortrup, J. (1990) Childhood as Social Phenomenon. An Introduction to a Series
of National Reports, Eurosocial 36.
Sefton-Green, J. (1998) Digital Diversions: Youth Culture in the Age of Multimedia,
London: UCL Press.
Suess, D., Suoninen, A., Garitaonandia, C., Juaristi, P., Koikkalainen, R. and
Oleaga, J. A. (1998) Media Use and the Relationship of Children and Teenagers
with their Peer Groups. European Journal of Communication 13(4): 521–38.
Verhellen, E. (1992) Los Derechos de los Niños y las Niñas en Europa. Infancia y
Sociedad 15: 37–60.
Von Feilitzen, C. (1991) Influencia de los Medios de Comunicación en los Niños
y Jóvenes. I Congreso Internacional sobre Infancia, Juventud y Comunicación
Audiovisual (pp. 217–34). Valencia: Generalitat V.-M.A.S.
5
Children at the Margins?
Changing Constructions of
Childhood in Contemporary
Ireland
Dympna Devine
Irish society has undergone significant change in the past 30 years, char-
acterized by membership of the European Union, rapid economic and
social development and changing patterns of immigration. Social
change inevitably brings with it changes in both the lived experience of
childhood and in the construction of childhood itself within society. In
Ireland, investment in education has been pivotal to social and eco-
nomic change, with the schooling of children in line with particular
goals central to the project of modernization. When such change is
explored through the lens of broader legislative and educational policy
contexts, key shifts in adult thinking about the role and position of chil-
dren in contemporary Ireland are evident. In this chapter it will be
shown that the concept of children’s participation has varied meanings,
mediated by the role of powerful ‘adult’ stakeholders who often have
competing interpretations of what it means to act in the ‘best interests
of the child’.
The chapter begins by providing a brief overview of central theoretical
concepts used in the analysis, in particular how concepts of children’s
participation in the social order are mediated by dominant discourses
related to their rights and status within society. This is followed by a
consideration of the evolving constructs of children and childhood in
Irish society and how such constructs are both produced and repro-
duced through key legislative and policy texts. Particular reference is
made to the educational context, given its predominance in the process
of social (re)production in society (Bernstein 1975; Bourdieu and
82
Constructions of Childhood in Contemporary Ireland 83
Passeron 1977; Bourdieu 1993). Finally, consideration is given to the

current context with reference to the shifting terrain in the cultural con-
struction of childhood. Conclusions are drawn by highlighting the
implications of recent trends in government policy for the empower-
ment of all children in Irish society.
Discourse, power and practice – conceptualizing

children as participants
The proliferation of research into children’s lives in recent years, cou-

pled with the growing awareness of children’s rights and status as a
social group, is deeply implicated in what has been referred to as the
‘cultural politics of childhood’ (James and James 2004). Politics is itself
intertwined with the exercise of power and Michel Foucault’s emphasis
on the impact of disciplinary power in modern societies provides a use-
ful framework within which to explore the exercise of power between
adults and children (Devine 2003). Foucault’s (1979) analysis draws our
attention to the significant role of discourse in mediating disciplinary
practices, framing our very understandings of what is normal and
‘other’ and, in so doing, contributing to the process of identity forma-
tion and subjectification (1979: 194). Discourses themselves form part of
the backdrop to the structural condition of society, framing the norms
and expectations, rules and regulations that govern social behaviour
and practice.
Applied to child–adult relations, particular constructions of childhood
become embedded in the way in which adults think about and relate to
children, and importantly, in the way in which children think about
and position themselves. Such constructions are integral to a cultural
politics of childhood and are reflected in the laws that regulate social
behaviour (both children and adults) as well as the practices that per-
meate institutions in which children spend much of their time. Here the
question of power becomes paramount: in the capacity of adults to exer-
cise control over both the definition and experience of childhood, and
in children’s own capacity, as reflective agents, to resist, accommodate
to or subvert such control. The remainder of this chapter structures the
discussion of the cultural politics of childhood in Ireland in terms not
only of changes in the discourse surrounding children and childhood,
but also the key role of power in this process and the differential access
to resources by various stakeholders in shaping the nature of change in
both the experience and structuring of childhood, and debates that give
rise to it.
84 Dympna Devine
‘Cherishing children of the nation equally’?

Constructing childhood in contemporary Ireland
The construction of childhood in contemporary Ireland cannot be sep-

arated from the political and economic context of Irish society over the
past century. This has been a period of significant change for a country
located on the fringes of Western Europe, with the establishment of a
republic for three-quarters of the island in 1922, membership of the
European Economic Community in 1972 and the shift from a rural-
based economy to one now commonly referred to as the ‘Celtic Tiger’ –
a post-industrial liberal market economy of the 1990s. Broadly speak-
ing, however, three distinct phases in the cultural construction of child-
hood from the earlier years of the foundation of the state, to the
present can be identified: 1920–1960, 1960–1990 and 1990 onward.
Key social policy and legislative frameworks are evident in these phases
that signal a gradual shift in the discourse surrounding children and
childhood coinciding with economic and political developments in the
broader sphere.
1920–1960
The first phase marked the transition from a colonial to a postcolonial
society and attempts to consolidate the position of the new republic in
a relatively unstable and war-torn Europe (Garvin 2004). As a nation
with a strong Roman Catholic tradition, the mix of nationalism and
Catholicism had significant implications for the construction of child-
hood in particular terms. Initial aspirations within the declaration of the
Irish Republic in 1916, that the state would ‘cherish all the children of
the nation equally’, gave way to the subsidiary role of the state in fam-
ily – hence the way in which children were addressed in the Irish con-
stitution of 1937, strongly reflecting Catholic social teaching and the
powerful role of the Catholic hierarchy in the fledgling republic
(Duncan 1996; Inglis 1998; Kennedy 2001). Thus Article 42.1 asserts
that the state will:
Respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, accord-

ing to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual and social
education of their children.
Prioritizing the responsibility of parents/the family in the upbringing

of their children resulted in a laissez-faire approach by the state to the
development of any systematic child policy, reflected in the absence
of any significant legislation concerning the welfare of children

between the Children’s Act 1908 until the Childcare Act 1991 (Devine
et al. 2004).
The absence of any distinct provisions for the rights of children
within the constitution reflected a wider discourse that viewed children
as subordinates, the property of their parents, there to serve adult needs
and demands. Ethnographic research into childhood in rural Ireland up
to the 1960s (Curtin and Varley 1984) reveals a general discourse on
children that defined them in terms of their capacity to fulfil three
major functions: generational continuity; a source of cheap labour on
farms and in urban centres; and security in old age. While this func-
tional definition of childhood did not preclude emotional involve-
ment with children, especially with mothers (Arensberg and Kimball
1968; Curtin and Varley 1984), it did result in a highly instrumental
orientation to children, with an emphasis on reinforcing status differ-
entials between themselves and adults. Children were expected to be
relatively silent and passive in adult company, and were frequently
assigned the terms ‘boy’ and ‘girl’ to denote their lower status. The
capability of adults, especially fathers, to exercise such power over
their children was underpinned by patterns of property inheritance
and social norms which instilled in children a respect for authority
and an unquestioning acceptance of the roles assigned to them by
their parents.
Such norms in turn were legitimated by religious/Catholic ideology,
which constructed childhood as a period of ‘uncontrollable passions
and instincts’ (Inglis 1998: 151), which could only be civilized through
a process of strict adherence to the rules and regulations laid down by
those in authority (i.e. parents and local priests). State policy towards
children was very much predicated on this process of civilization and
normalization in line with Catholic and nationalistic ideals. Within
the school system this was particularly evident, where a radical change
in education policy took place, reflecting the nationalistic fervour of
political leaders of the time (Farren 1995). Curricular experience in the
new republic became redefined in terms of adherence to Catholic
teaching and the re-establishment of Gaelic civilization (Coolahan
1983; Hyland and Milne 1992). Inspired by the ideology of cultural
nationalism and a heightened patriotic fervour, a central role was
accorded to the Irish language with an Irish emphasis on courses in lit-
erature, history, geography, mythology, games, music and dancing.
Through schooling, a cultural revolution was envisaged that would
provide a solid grounding in nationhood, conceptualized in terms of
86 Dympna Devine
Gaelic rituals and ideals. As Akenson states:
In defining the goals of the schools, the successive governments paid

little attention to actual children. As long as the collective political
purpose was being served by the school curriculum, the development
of the individual bore scant notice.
(1975: 60)
This absence of a distinct child focus had negative implications not

only for the status of children and childhood within Irish society gener-
ally, but also for any attempt by the state to address differences in status
between groups of children themselves. In this sense children were
viewed predominantly as a homogeneous group, with little or no atten-
tion given to the needs of those at the margins of society, including
Traveller children and those with a range of (dis)abilities. While efforts
were made to develop a child health service through school medical
inspections and school meals, the provision of such services was on an
ad hoc basis, reflecting a level of indifference by the state to frame social
policy in general and, more specifically, in relation to children (Breen
et al. 1990; Richardson 2005).
Structural definitions of children up to the 1960s clearly constructed
them as ‘other’, in need of normalization in line with nationalistic and
religious ideals. The principle of subsidiarity endorsed in the constitu-
tion precluded the state from any serious attempt to address inequalities
between children and adults, or among groups of children at a national
policy level. This had disastrous consequences in subsequent years for
the life chances of those who did not conform to the dominant norm
and/or for those whose parents did not have the economic, cultural
and/or social resources to safeguard their interests.
As a group, children had little power. They were constructed as pas-
sive recipients of adult mores and norms, their agency exercised
through adaptation and accommodation to such norms, with severe
consequences for those who resisted or questioned adult authority
(McCourt 1996). Cultural constructions of the ‘good’ child centred on
obedience and subservience at home and in school, with children,
through their labour, fostering the production of a Gaelic and
Catholic Ireland. Institutionalized practice within schools, for exam-
ple, reflected this policy in the structuring of the school experience
around a highly subject-centred and traditional curriculum, as well as
patterns of teacher–pupil relations, which were hierarchical and
authoritarian in tone.
1960–1990
A change in discourse in relation to children and childhood in Irish soci-
ety is evident from the 1960s onwards. The period 1960–1990 was
marked by rapid change, expressed in a move towards an industrialized
economy, membership of the European Community and a greater open-
ness to international influences (Garvin 2004). The implications of such
change for children were twofold. First, the breakdown in traditional
neighbourhood and kinship structures characteristic of the move
towards industrialization and urbanization led to a reappraisal of the
role and function of children in the family (Hannon and Katsiouni
1977). Life chances were no longer determined solely by property inher-
itance, but increasingly by the acquisition of educational credentials –
the primary basis on which allocation to position was made in the rap-
idly changing social structure.
The resultant decline in average family size (Devine et al. 2004), given
the long-term commitment of time and money by parents for their chil-
dren’s education, paved the way for a less authoritarian and more emo-
tionally supportive family environment. While there was still minimal
intervention by the state in family life, the implementation of both the
Adoption Act 1952 and the Guardianship Act 1964, in spite of resistance
from the Catholic Church, signalled the first sign of recognition by the
state of the need to safeguard the interests of children, independently of
their biological parents (Richardson 2005).
More substantively, however, state intervention in children’s lives was
directly reflected in a radical shift in education policy (O’Sullivan 2005).
Industrialization led to calls for a more technically proficient and liter-
ate population, reflected in a greater willingness to invest in education
generally and a greater onus on those responsible for education to bring
about change. The highly instrumental view of education articulated by
influential economists of the time portrayed a view of children as vital
to serve the future needs of the industrializing economy. This instru-
mental orientation mirrored the views of parents, who saw education as
a means of improving the life chances of their children. The interrela-
tion of these trends is evident in the rhetoric surrounding the move
towards a child-centred curriculum in primary schools, where explicit
recognition is made of childhood as a distinct period of human devel-
opment and of children having distinct and individual needs:
All children are complex human beings with physical, emotional,

intellectual and spiritual needs and potentialities … because each
child is an individual he deserves to be valued for himself and to be
88 Dympna Devine
provided with the kind and variety of opportunities toward stimula-

tion which will enable him to develop his natural powers at his own
rate to his fullest capacity.
(Department of Education 1971: 13)
The emphasis on sensitivity to children’s needs and a less authoritar-

ian approach to their education highlighted an openness to interna-
tional discourses on children that called for a more supportive and
sensitive approach to their education. Equally, the highly individualistic
emphasis inherent in progressive education, and the essentialist and
meritocratic orientation that informed the writing of the Irish primary
school curriculum, ensured that it gained approval from those who
pointed to the importance of maximizing the development of individ-
ual talent for the betterment of the economy. The curriculum itself was
broadened, with a greater emphasis on active learning and, while prior-
ity was still accorded to learning the Irish language, oral skill rather than
literacy was increasingly stressed. Changes in pedagogical and discipli-
nary practices were recommended (although corporal punishment was
not outlawed in schools until 1982) with sensitivity to children’s needs
and capacities emphasized.
Despite this changing orientation, however, educational discourse of
the period continued to be influenced by Catholic ideology:
Each human being is created in God’s image. He has a life to lead and
a soul to be saved. Education is therefore concerned not only with
life, but with the purpose of life
(Department of Education 1971: 3)
The moralization of the young through religious instruction was now to

be implemented in a child-centred and integrated manner, and Catholic
feast days and rituals remained central to the structuring of the school
experience. While the curriculum continued to be grounded in Gaelic
traditions and customs (e.g. in dance, music, literature) patriotic fervour
and cultural nationalism evident in the earlier period of the state were
curtailed in favour of a less directive and more open approach to chil-
dren’s learning.
This incorporation of a child-centred ideology into discourse on primary
education, at a time of rapid social change, resulted in a broader approach
to framing the activities of children within what remained a predomi-
nantly instrumental framework (O’Sullivan 2005). While changes were
envisaged in the nature of teacher–pupil relations, in practice this resulted
in a move towards a less authoritarian approach to interaction, while keep-

ing traditional structures of domination (Giddens 1984) between teachers
and pupils intact. In terms of the construction of childhood, structural pat-
terns of adult–child relations continued to focus on the normalization of
children in line with goals for economic growth and development,
although these were now expressed in terms of the fulfilment of children’s
‘needs’. Thus, the discourse of the period failed to challenge the ‘other’ sta-
tus of children in any serious way. What did change was the manner in
which their ‘otherness’ was expressed.
The investment in children through their education was limited how-
ever, with the state reluctant to invest substantially in safeguarding the
interests of those outside the dominant norm (e.g. children with special
needs), underpinning the predominance of a welfarist rather than a
rights-based approach to the construction of childhood in Irish society
of the time. While discourse in relation to child protection became more
widespread, following the publication of the Kennedy Report (1970)
into children in care in industrial and reformatory schools, it was pre-
dominantly the voluntary sector rather than statutory services that
filled the gap in provision for children in need of community care
(Richardson 2005). The period can also be noted as one characterized by
the absence of any specific legal provisions for children, including a lack
of coherence over the exact legal definition of a child (Nic Ghiolla
Phadraig 1990; Richardson 2005).
1990 onwards
A marked change is evident after 1990 in the discourse about, if not nec-
essarily practice with, children. National and international develop-
ments have spearheaded such change. At the national level, publicity
concerning child abuse scandals in state industrial schools over a period
of 40 years (Kilkenny Incest Report 1993) signalled a growing recogni-
tion of the rights of children to bodily integrity and privacy, although
the discourse surrounding such abuse rarely focused on the position and
status of children per se within society at large. The past 15 years have
heralded a number of government-sponsored reports and the publica-
tion of national guidelines in this area, although government policy has
fallen short of the introduction of mandatory reporting.
This shift towards a more proactive stance on child welfare issues was
indicated through the publication of the Child Care Act 1991. Described
as a watershed in childcare policy in Ireland (Richardson 2005), this Act
consolidated the responsibility of the state, through the health service,
to safeguard the welfare of children through child protection, care for
90 Dympna Devine
children who cannot remain in the home and the provision of family
support. In so doing the Act signalled the intention of the state to
become more proactive in the lives of children, a direction which in
itself was underpinned by commitments made through the ratification
of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child by the
Irish state in 1992.
Criticisms over the fragmented implementation of the Convention
indicate, however, the serious shift that had yet to be taken at govern-
ment level in relation to the implementation of the Convention as a
whole. The Report of the UN Committee (CRA 1998) highlighted the
predominance of a welfarist and paternalistic discourse in state policy
on children, with legislation (e.g. the Child Care Act 1991/1997 and the
Children’s Bill 1997) defining the rights of children negatively in terms
of protection from abuse and inadequate care, rather than in terms of
the empowerment of children within society as a whole.
In this sense, dominant constructions of childhood as a period of vul-
nerability and innocence eschewed consideration of the construction of
children as citizens, with the right and capacity to make a more active
contribution to shaping their everyday lives. This absence of a fully artic-
ulated rights discourse in relation to children was noted by the UN in
their criticism of the lack of a national policy on children’s rights, under-
pinning criticisms made two years earlier related to the position of chil-
dren in the constitution (Duncan 1996). Criticisms were also expressed
in relation to the rights and welfare of specific groups of children includ-
ing those in poverty, children with disabilities and Traveller children.
Shifting terrain in the cultural construction of

childhood – The National Children’s Strategy
Such criticism provided the impetus for a significant shift in the cultural
construction of childhood in Ireland, evident in the publication of the
National Children’s Strategy in 2000. Developed as a response to the UN
Committee’s Report (1998), the Strategy outlines a coherent and inte-
grated policy in relation to children’s rights and welfare in the new mil-
lennium, placing at the core of its focus three major goals that signal
changing constructs in relation to a ‘good’ and ‘proper’ Irish childhood.
They are:
1. Children will have a voice.

2. Children’s lives will be better understood.
3. Children will receive quality supports and services.
As a policy document the Strategy is significant in the emphasis that is

placed on children’s voice and participation, challenging traditional
constructs of children solely in terms of their vulnerability and depend-
ence. Discourse related to the ‘whole child’ permeates the strategy, such
discourse being clearly grounded in national and international studies
of childhood, as well as the UNCRC itself:
The strategy has adopted a ‘whole child’ perspective, which provides

a more complete understanding of children’s lives. It draws on the
most recent research and knowledge about children’s development
and the relationship between children and family, community and
the wider society … this perspective anchors the Strategy to a coher-
ent and inclusive view of childhood … The perspective is endorsed as
good practice underpinning legislation and policy and service devel-
opments internationally. It is also compatible with the spirit of the
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
(Government of Ireland 2000: 24)
The complexity of children’s lives is illustrated through consideration

of nine core dimensions related to their well-being: physical, mental,
emotional, behavioural, intellectual, moral and spiritual, identity, self-
care, family relationships, social and peer relationships and social pres-
entation. Policy commitments are specified in relation to children’s
health and well-being, learning and education, play, leisure and cultural
opportunities, children in crisis, poverty and homelessness, children
with disabilities, discrimination in children’s lives and concern for the
environment. A ‘good’ childhood as presented in the Strategy is one in
which children’s rights as citizens are acknowledged and supported in
an integrated manner through experiences which are child-centred,
family-oriented, equitable and inclusive (Government of Ireland 2000:
10). Diversity in culture, lifestyle and need among different groups of
children is recognized, the best interests of the child now being defined
in social, affective and developmental terms, rather than solely in terms
of the fulfilment of economic or national goals for development. The
very development of the Strategy is justified on the grounds that
‘Children matter … Children deserve to be highly valued for the unique
contribution they make through being just children’ (Government of
Ireland 2000: 6).
Such discourse signals a radical shift from unitary constructs of chil-
dren, defined as cultural products to be moulded in line with national-
istic/Gaelic ideals (pre-1960s), to key forms of human capital serving the
92 Dympna Devine
needs of a developing economy (1960s onwards). Absent from the

Strategy is any specific indicator of national identity to which children
are encouraged to subscribe. Rather, the Strategy embraces constructs
that acknowledge the diversity within childhood while holding central
key values related to the importance of family and local community in
children’s lives. Such constructs are embedded in the rapidly changed
context of the modern ‘Celtic Tiger’ Ireland and an acknowledgement
not only of the diversity such change brings, but also of children’s right
to benefit from the fruits of economic development:
Especially at a time of major social and economic change every effort

should be made to enhance children’s status and improve their qual-
ity of life.
(Government of Ireland 2000: 6)
At the level of discourse the Strategy represents an important step for-

ward in the promotion of children’s rights and, as a policy document,
reflects a construction of childhood that is far removed from what pre-
vailed in the past. While there is still a strong welfarist thrust in the doc-
ument, this is counterbalanced by a clear acknowledgement of children’s
voice and a willingness (not yet realized) to consider the legal position of
children as a group in the Irish constitution. Children themselves actively
participated in the development of the Strategy through a series of public
consultations, and their comments are interspersed throughout the docu-
ment. In so doing, the document challenges the ‘other’ status of children
in Irish society and, for the first time, lays down a coherent framework for
placing children’s welfare, in the broadest sense, at the heart of govern-
ment policy. Furthermore, the appointment of the Ombudsman for
Children in 2004 provides an important mechanism within which the
rights and welfare of children can be advanced, not only for individual
children but also for children as a group.
Empowering children – empowering childhood(s)?

At policy level it is clear that a change has taken place in the manner in
which childhood is being constructed in modern Ireland. Valuations of
the ‘good childhood’ (Kjorholt 2004) are increasingly made with refer-
ence to international norms. The development of a national set of child
well-being indicators (NCO 2005a) is a prime example, coupled with the
framing of legislation relevant to children, in line with commitments
under the UNCRC (1989) to act in the ‘best interests’ of the child,
broadly defined.
Analysis indicates the emergence of tensions and contradictions in

the implementation of the strategy in practice, however, as the new chil-
dren’s rights agenda competes with traditionally more powerful (adult)
interests in Irish society and continual battles ensue between child advo-
cates and government agencies over how children’s best interests are
being safeguarded. This is especially the case where the rights of chil-
dren at the margins of Irish society (e.g. migrant children, children of
the Traveller community, children with special needs and children who
are economically and socially disadvantaged) are concerned.
Thus, in spite of government commitments to act in ‘the best interests
of the child’, legislation governing aspects of children’s lives (e.g.
Education Act 1998; Education for Persons with Special Educational
Needs Act 2004) is not rights-based. Commitments made are continu-
ously framed in aspirational terms (e.g. ‘as resources permit’), in spite of
the unprecedented economic growth in the economy in recent years. It
is also reflected in the protracted debates that took place over the imple-
mentation of ASBOs (Anti-Social Behaviour Orders) in contravention to
provisions in the Children’s Act 2001 for more community-based
approaches to juvenile crime, as well as debates about the removal of the
automatic right to citizenship of all children born in Ireland, irrespec-
tive of the citizenship status of their parents.
While the discourse regarding childhood may be changing, the extent
to which such discourse permeates practice in institutions of direct rele-
vance to children’s everyday lives is also open to question. Here the
question of power becomes paramount and, with it, the access to
resources that power implies. In this context Giddens’s (1984) distinc-
tion between allocative and authoritative is useful, providing a frame-
work within which to consider differences in the access to resources, and
hence to power, between adults and children in Irish society. In terms of
authoritative resources (i.e. the capacity to control the social environ-
ment through organization of life chances, time, space and the body),
for example, while the adult voice clearly predominates in Irish society,
a number of important initiatives have been taken to strengthen the
voice of children in policy-making and to prioritize areas of specific
interest to children themselves. The establishment of the National
Children’s Office (now Office of the Minister for Children) to oversee
the implementation of the National Children’s Strategy provides a sig-
nificant resource in moving the agenda for children’s rights and welfare
forward. This is reflected in its overseeing role regarding the launch of a
national play policy (2004) and the establishment of a national longitu-
dinal study for children.
94 Dympna Devine
Furthermore, a number of initiatives to improve the political partici-

pation of children have been instigated through the establishment of
Dáil Na nOg (the Children’s Parliament) and, at local level, Comhairle
áitiul na nOg (local youth committees), although both initiatives are
very much in the early stages and not yet accessible to the majority of
children in Irish society. The Children’s Office has also published guide-
lines to facilitate the active involvement of children in decision-making
across a host of organizations (NCO 2005b). Such initiatives, while very
much in their infancy, signal the strengthening position of children as a
social group with the right to involvement in decisions affecting their
everyday lives. They suggest a move towards a concept of the social cit-
izenship of children, with the accompanying rights of participation this
implies (Marshall 1950, 1981; Roche 1999).
While respect for and recognition of the distinctiveness of children
and childhood as part of the life-course underpins this more broad-
based approach to children’s welfare, issues of distribution (access to
allocative resources) are equally core to the advancement of children’s
rights. This applies to the rights of children as a group distinct from oth-
ers (e.g. adults), as well as to different groups of children in relation to
one another. As in most countries, it is difficult to gain an accurate
measure of the resources that are allocated to children in Ireland, or
indeed children’s own active contribution to the economy, given the
adult-centred focus of much survey research (Qvortrup 1995; Fitzgerald
2004). Recent data confirm, however, that while there are fewer children
living in poverty in Ireland than hitherto, the risk of poverty is still
greater for a child than an adult, especially among more marginalized
groups (Nolan 2001; Devine et al. 2004; Combat Poverty Agency 2005).
This is all the more serious when one considers that, in spite of the
level of sustained growth and economic stability in Ireland in recent
years, child poverty rates are the third highest among developed coun-
tries (UN Human Development Report 2005). Crises over childcare and
the absence of a coherent child-centred policy in this area, coupled with
increasing urban expansion, often without appropriate infrastructural
support for children and their families (e.g. schools, youth facilities,
etc.), are indicative of the ad hoc approach of the state to investment in
areas that directly affect children (Brooke 2004; CDI 2005/2004;
Ombudsman for Children 2005).
While the establishment of the office of Ombudsman for Children
demonstrates a positive commitment to the promotion of children’s
rights and welfare, delays in the appointment as well as the allocation of
sufficient funding to the office suggest a lack of urgency in moving the
agenda for children’s rights forward. With increasing immigration, con-

cerns have been expressed at the absence of a coherent immigration pol-
icy that would provide stability and greater rights for immigrants and
their children (Immigration Council of Ireland 2004), while the position
of Traveller children remains one of considerable marginalization and
exclusion (Kenny 2001; McDonagh 2004; Pavee Point 2006).
While substantial investment is being made in children through edu-
cation (to the long-term benefit of the society), the concentration of
such investment in that part of the system which yields a more imme-
diate labour market return – the higher education sector (Clancy 2005) –
has given rise to a primary school system that struggles under larger
than European average class sizes (OECD 2005) and poorly equipped
buildings, which have been the subject of recent negative media atten-
tion. Furthermore, progress on the development of a fully integrated
service for children with special needs remains slow and the expansion
of the fledgling school psychological service inadequate (Shevlin and
Rose 2003).
The capacity of government to make a qualitative difference to the
lives of all children rests on the state’s willingness to invest substantively
in the implementation of the National Children’s Strategy (2000), rather
than in a piecemeal fashion as currently prevails. Tensions and contra-
dictions between policy regarding children’s rights and welfare and
institutionalized practices are fundamentally linked to issues of power
and control and the willingness by adult stakeholders to take the issue
of children’s rights and welfare seriously.
For example, given the amount of time spent by children in schools,
many of the structural dynamics between adults and children are crys-
tallized in the practices that permeate schools as institutions. In this
sense schools are central to the cultural politics of childhood – produc-
ing, reproducing and resisting dominant constructions of childhood
that exist within the broader sphere. Thus conceptualizations of a good
Irish childhood as one where all children are guaranteed an experience
of inclusion and equality in the education system are enshrined in the
provisions of the Education Act 1998. However, research consistently
highlights the reproduction of inequalities related to social class, gender,
disability and ethnicity at all levels of the school system (Clancy and
Wall 2000; Lynch and Lodge 2002; Deegan et al. 2004; DES 2005; Devine
and Kelly 2006; MacRuairc 2006), which suggests that a ‘good’ child-
hood is not available to all.
While the reproduction of inequalities in and through education is a
multifaceted and complex phenomenon (Bourdieu 1993; McLaren
96 Dympna Devine
1993; Apple 2001; Baker et al. 2004), the marginalization of certain

social groups through insufficient access to both economic and cultural
capital cannot be divorced from the ad hoc nature of government policy
in relation to children and the absence of co-ordinated and sustained
investment in the area. Not surprisingly, in the first annual report of the
Ombudsman for Children (2005) over half of the complaints related to
education issues, one fifth of these concerning access to resources for
children with special needs.
Fundamentally, conceptualizations of children in terms of their rights
challenges the traditional power–knowledge relationship between
adults and children, and the former’s authority and positioning that
enables them always to act in and define the ‘best interests’ of the child.
Nowhere is this more clearly seen than in the school system. In terms of
the authoritative resources of children and their capacity to exercise
some influence over the experience of schooling, concepts of children’s
active participation in decision-making are also reflected in the
Education Act 1998. However, provisions that accord children consulta-
tive rights in relation to their schooling experience are positioned
alongside others that clearly define adults (teachers, parents, the school
inspectorate, etc.) as the primary stakeholders in education, with the
capacity to exercise greater control over what happens in the classroom.
Thus, for example, protracted discussions were required with the
teachers’ unions over the wording of the Act, limiting the rights of con-
sultation of children in schools (Devine 2003). Furthermore, student
councils are only required to be established at second level and are sub-
ject to board of management (all adult representatives) approval, while
grievance procedures can only be taken by a child who is 18 years of age –
a relatively meaningless provision given that this is typically the age of
the final year of schooling.
Such conditionalities suggest that children’s rights remain con-
strained within boundaries set by adults, encouraging them to assert
themselves in relation to bullying (among peers) and child abuse, but
failing to allow them to make a meaningful and relevant contribution to
the organization of school life. The revised primary curriculum (1999),
developed after extensive consultation with education ‘partners’, makes
welcome reference to the construct of the child as an ‘active agent’ –
incorporating changing constructs of childhood that emphasize notions
of participation and agency – yet the process of consultation leading to
its formulation did not include children at any stage.
While the development of critically reflective skills is emphasized
throughout the curriculum, nowhere in the lengthy document is the
education of children with respect to their own rights mentioned. While

citizenship is included in the new curriculum area of Social, Personal
and Health Education (SPHE), it is framed in terms of the preparation of
children for active and responsible citizenship (i.e. as future adults) and
has undertones of the more moral and social control aspects of citizen-
ship studies noted in similar programmes in the UK (Bailey 2000; Osler
and Starkey 2005; see also James and James, this volume). More recent
policy documents directed at improving practice in schools and further-
ing accountability and transparency in education (e.g. School
Development Planning and Whole School Evaluation) eschew reference
to the potential of children’s active contribution to these processes.
The education system which judges, monitors and evaluates children
on a daily basis is not open to scrutiny and evaluation by children, sug-
gesting that in spite of provisions in the Education Act, they are not yet
taken seriously as partners in education. That representatives of the chil-
dren’s parliament (Dáil Na bPaisti) recently met the Minister for
Education (www.nco.ie) signals the potential of future approaches to
dialogue with children about their experience of school at a more formal
level. While the Department of Education and Science has produced
guidelines for second-level schools on the effective running of student
councils (DES 2002), research at both primary and second level suggests
that issues of power, status and democracy in teacher–pupil relations are
key concerns children retain about their experience of school (Lynch
and Lodge 2002; Zappone 2002; Devine 2003). More recent research
into the operation of student councils in second-level schools indicates
concerns over the extent to which the councils are taken seriously by
teaching staff and of the absence of real influence of students at school
or board of management level (Children’s Research Centre 2005).
Such findings suggest, therefore, that in spite of legislative provision
and an awareness by policy-makers of the discourse about children’s
rights, the gatekeepers of key institutions in children’s lives (in this
instance teachers) can draw on their more authoritative position to min-
imize the effects of policy changes in practice. As Devine et al. (2004)
note, the silence and invisibility of some groups cannot be divorced
from the power and dominance of others. Notwithstanding the rights of
children as articulated in the UN Convention 1989 and the Education
Act 1998, teachers, concerned for their own professional standing in a
time of rapid social change, can draw on a discourse of discipline break-
down (DES 2006), fear of student rule and a weakening of their authori-
tative position in schools, to minimize the impact of measures which
accord students greater rights of consultation in schools. In the absence
98 Dympna Devine
of a concerted effort by the state to encourage a cultural shift in schools

(through greater publicity regarding children’s rights and appropriate
support and in-service training to teachers on the potential merits and
benefits of student consultation), the involvement of children in the
organization of school life in practice remains a matter of choice for
teachers rather than a matter of the right of children to have their voices
heard and their views taken into account.
Conclusions
It appears that the cultural politics of childhood in Ireland is at a point

of transition, the child being positioned discursively somewhere
between ‘other’ and citizen, with children’s capacity for transformative
action limited in both potential and practice. The idea that children
may be considered as competent actors and have rights which need to
be safeguarded is gaining momentum, although the manner in which
this is given constitutional recognition remains to be seen (CRA 2007).
Nonetheless, structural recognition is being given to children’s rights as
the discourse of familialization, which traditionally framed child pro-
tection issues, is increasingly being replaced in both policy and legisla-
tion by a broader understanding of children’s needs and welfare,
including their rights (Richardson 2005). Children’s greater access to
authoritative resources through the office of the Ombudsman for
Children and the work of the office of the Minister for Children, for
example, points the way to a significant potential for change in their
subordinate positioning within Irish society. However, initiatives to
include the voices of children in policy-making remain ad hoc and dis-
persed, and children do not yet constitute a sufficiently formidable con-
stituency that politicians and policy-makers are unable to ignore them.
Tensions and contradictions at the broader level are reflected in insti-
tutionalized practice on the ground. Within education, for example,
provisions related to the greater participation of young people in sec-
ond-level schools are being implemented, some with greater success
than others (Children’s Research Centre 2005). That the issue of partici-
pation by primary school children is entirely ignored is indicative of a
discourse that continues to determine competency and rights of partici-
pation in terms of age criteria alone. While considerable curriculum
development has taken place at all levels of the education system,
reflecting the intention to make the system more relevant and mean-
ingful to young people’s lives, children on the whole lack any real and
meaningful input into the organization of their schooling.
Furthermore, substantial differences remain between groups of chil-

dren in their capacity to access and participate in the education system –
inequalities which are all the more serious given the strength of the
economy over a sustained period. New inequalities are being com-
pounded upon old, as migrant children are distinguished from others in
their right to Irish citizenship and their access to educational supports is
on a limited and predominantly narrow basis (Devine 2005; Devine and
Kelly 2006). Substantively, in spite of the rhetoric of commitment to
children’s welfare as children, the absence of a rights-based focus in safe-
guarding the best interests of each child raises key questions related to
the political commitment to realize children’s rights in practice.
For their part children exercise their agency according to the material,
cultural and social resources to which they have access, as well as by
their positioning as children within the interdependent context of their
lives with adults. While there are some examples of children actively
bringing about change through their own initiatives and self-mobiliza-
tion (e.g. the establishment by students of a union for secondary stu-
dents to articulate their interests in the wake of a protracted industrial
strike by teachers), their position as a group is at best ambiguous in rela-
tion to the adult group as a whole. Thus, while the discourse of citizen-
ship is increasingly incorporated into policy on children, the
actualization of children’s rights through their participation in policy-
making in all aspects of their lives remains fragmented and as yet rela-
tively tokenistic.
At the level of practice there are some notable examples of real con-
sultation with children who, through exercising their agency, challenge
misconceptions adults may have about their competency. Richardson
(2005), for example, notes the surprise expressed by senior civil servants
over the process of including children in the selection panel for the posi-
tion of Ombudsman for Children, while research by McLoughlin (2004)
on the operation of a student council in a primary school confirms the
positive nature of the experience for teaching staff and children alike, in
spite of reservations of teachers that such a council could work.
In spite of such examples, a discourse of children’s rights is not wide-
spread and has not filtered into common-sense understandings of what
it is to be a child and the experience of childhood in Ireland. Debates
over children’s rights in the public sphere become crystallized in the
main over issues of protection and safety, with popular media frequently
referring to the ‘loss’ of childhood in modern Ireland, reinforcing con-
structions of childhood rooted in notions of the vulnerability and inno-
cence of the child. Such debates are rarely framed at an ideological level
100 Dympna Devine
to include issues related to the rights and status of children, relative to

adults, in society at large.
It is clear, however, that some changes are occurring in the cultural
construction of childhood in Irish society. Globalized discourses have
merged with local circumstance as the issue of children’s rights and par-
ticipation has become increasingly prevalent in public policy-making.
However, relations of power between adults and children, which are
themselves complex and differentiated, mediate the instantiation of
these constructions in practice. Thus, although traditional structures of
domination between adults and children are being challenged and grad-
ually replaced by more democratic forms of interaction (Whyte 1995),
instances appear to be predicated on individual and local initiatives,
rather than through prescribed, system-wide recognition of the rights of
children to be consulted in all matters which affect them. Nowhere is
this more clearly seen than in the education system, a key mechanism
for the cultural (re)construction of childhood, but one in which often
opposing interests (religious groups, parents, teachers, the state) have
traditionally sought to speak ‘on behalf of’ the child.
More broadly, the availability of a national data-set on all aspects of
children’s lives is required to highlight the diversity of childhood in
Ireland and to move government policy beyond reaction to pro-action
in tackling the considerable inequalities that exist. In the midst of rapid
cultural and social change, underpinned by a neoliberal market econ-
omy, serious questions need to be asked about the experience of identity,
belonging and participation of all children. Although important progress
has been made in recent years, bringing children in from the margins in
public policy and practice is a challenge that has yet to be met.
References
Akenson, D. H. (1975) A Mirror to Kathleen’s Face: Education in Independent Ireland
1922–1960. Montreal and London: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Apple, M. (2001) Educating the ‘Right’ Way – Markets, Standards, God and Inequality.
New York: Routledge/Falmer.
Arensberg, C. and Kimball, S. (1968) Family and Community in Ireland. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Bailey, R. (2000) Teaching Values and Citizenship across the Curriculum. London:
Kogan Page.
Baker, J., Lynch, K., Cantillon, S. and Walsh, J. (2004) Equality from Theory to
Action. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bernstein, B (1975) Class Codes and Control, Vol. 3, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bourdieu, P. (1993) Sociology in Question. London: Sage.
Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J. C (1977) Reproduction in Education, Society and
Cutlure. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Breen, R., Hannan, D., Rottman, D. and Whelan, C. (1990) Understanding

Contemporary Ireland. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan.
Brooke, S. (2004) Children and Housing Problems. Dublin: Children’s Research
Centre.
Childhood Development Initiative (CDI) (2004) How are our Kids? Children and
Families in Tallaght West, Co Dublin. Childhood Development Initiative and
Dartington Social Research Unit, Devon.
Childhood Development Initiative (CDI) (2005) Experiencing Childhood
Citizenship – Consultations with Children in Tallaght West, Childhood
Development Initiative. Jobstown, Dublin.
Children’s Research Centre (2005) Second Level Student Councils in Ireland: A Study
of Enablers, Barriers and Supports. Dublin: Trinity College Dublin.
Clancy, P. (2005) Education Policy in Ireland. In Quin, S. P., Kennedy, A.,
O’Donnell, A. and Kiely, G. (eds.), Contemporary Irish Social Policy. Dublin: UCD
Press.
Clancy, P. and Wall, J. (2000) Social Background of Higher Education Entrants.
Dublin: Higher Education Authority.
Clarke, M. (2000) Creating Listening Schools. In Pearce, N. and Hallgarten, J.
(eds.), Tomorrow’s Citizens: Critical Debates in Citizenship and Education. London:
Institute for Public Policy Research.
Combat Poverty Agency (2005) Ending Child Poverty, Dublin, Combat Poverty
Agency.
Coolahan, J. (1983) Irish Education: History and Structure. Dublin: Institute of
Public Administration.
CRA (Children’s Rights Alliance) (1998) Children’s Rights – Our Responsibilities –
Concluding Observations of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. Dublin:
Gentian Press.
CRA (Children’s Rights Alliance) (2007) The Constitution and Children – A
Position Paper on the Proposed Referendum, www.childrensrights.ie; accessed
8 February 2007.
Curtin, C. and Varley, A. (1984) Children and Childhood in Rural Ireland: A
Consideration of Ethnographic Literature. In Curtin, C. et al. (eds.), Culture and
Ideology in Ireland. Galway: University Press.
Deegan, J., Devine, D. and Lodge, A. (2004) Primary Voices – Equality, Diversity and
Childhood in Irish Primary Schools. Dublin: IPA.
Department of Education (1971) Curaculum Na Bunscoile. Dublin: Stationery Office.
Department of Education and Science (DES) (2002) Student Councils: A Voice for
Students. Dublin: DES.
Department of Education and Science (2005) Literacy and Numeracy in
Disadvantaged Schools: Challenges for Teachers and Learners. Dublin: Government
Publications.
Department of Education and Science (2006) School Matters – Report of the Task
Force on Student Behaviour. Dublin: DES.
Devine, D. (2002) Children’s Citizenship and the Structuring of Adult–Child
Relations in the Primary School. Childhood 9(3): 303–21.
Devine, D. (2003) Children, Power and Schooling – How Childhood is Structured in the
Primary School, Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham.
Devine, D. (2005) Welcome to the Celtic Tiger? Teacher Responses to Increasing
Ethnic Diversity in Irish Schools. International Studies in Sociology of Education
15(1): 49–71.
102 Dympna Devine
Devine, D. and Kelly, M. (2006) ‘I just don’t want to get picked on by anyone’ –
Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion in a Newly Multi-ethnic Irish Primary
School. Children and Society 20(2): 128–39.
Devine, D., Lodge, A. and Deegan, J. (2004) Activating Voices through Practice –
Democracy, Care and Consultation in the Primary School. In Deegan, J.,
Devine, D. and Lodge, A. (eds.), Primary Voices – Equality, Diversity and Childhood
in Irish Primary Schools. Dublin: IPA.
Devine, D., Nic Ghiolla Phadraig, M. and Deegan, J. (2004) Time for Children –
Time for Change? – Children’s Rights and Welfare in Ireland during a Period of
Economic Growth. In Jensen, A., Ben-Arieh, C., Conti, D., Kutsar, M., Nic
Ghiolla Phadraigh, M. and Warming Nielsen, J. (eds.), Children’s Welfare in
Ageing Europe. Trondheim: Norwegian Centre for Child Research.
Duncan, W. (1996) The Constitutional Protection of Parental Rights in
Government of Ireland. Report of the Constitution Review Group, Dublin:
Government Publications Office.
Farren, S. (1995) The Politics of Irish Education 1920–1965. Belfast: Institute of Irish
Studies.
Fitzgerald, E. (2004) Counting our Children – An Analysis of Official Data Sources on
Children and Childhood in Ireland. Dublin: Children’s Research Centre, Trinity
College.
Foucault, M.(1979) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York:
Random House.
Garvin, T. (2004) Preventing the Future – Why was Ireland Poor for so Long? Dublin:
Gill and Macmillan.
Giddens, A. (1979) Central Problems in Social Theory, Action, Structure and
Contradiction in Social Analysis. London: Macmillan.
Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society – Outline of the Theory of
Structuration. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
Government of Ireland (2000) National Children’s Strategy. Dublin: Stationery Office.
Hannon, D. and Katsiouni, L. (1977) Traditional Families? From Culturally
Prescribed to Negotiated Roles in Farm Families. Dublin: Economic and Social
Research Institute.
Hyland, A. and Milne, K. (1992) Irish Educational Documents, Vol. 2. Dublin:
Church of Ireland College of Education.
Immigration Council of Ireland (2004) Voices of Immigrants: The Challenges of
Inclusion. Dublin: Immigration Council of Ireland.
Inglis, T. (1998) Moral Monopoly. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan.
James, A. and James, A. (2004) Constructing Childhood: Theory, Policy and Social
Kennedy, F. (2001) Cottage to Creche: Family Change in Ireland. Dublin: Institute of
Public Administration.
Kenny, M. (2001) Traveller Childhood in Ireland. In Cleary, A., Nic Ghiolla
Phadraig, M. and Quin, S. (eds.), Understanding Children. Vol. 2: Changing
Experiences and Family Forms. Dublin: Oak Tree Press.
Kjorholt, A. (2004) Childhood as a Social and Symbolic Space: Discourses on
Children as Social Participants in Society. PhD thesis. NTNU, Trondheim:
Norwegian Centre for Child Research.
Lynch, K. and Lodge, A. (2002) Equality and Power in Schools. London:
Routledge/Falmer.
Marshall, T. H. (1950) Citizenship and Social Class. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.
Marshall, T. H. (1981) The Right to Welfare and Other Essays. London: Heinemann.
MacRuairc, G. (2006) Schools and Teachers and all them Poshies’ Language,
Culture and Class: A Comparative Examination of Cultural and Linguistic
Experiences in School Space and Non-School Space. PhD thesis, UCD. Dublin:
School of Education and Life Long Learning.
McCourt, F. (1996) Angela’s Ashes – Memoirs of an Irish Childhood. London:
HarperCollins.
McDonagh, W. (2004) Travellers and Education: A Personal Perspective. In
Deegan, J., Devine, D. and Lodge, A. (eds.), Primary Voices – Equality, Diversity
and Childhood in Irish Primary Schools. Dublin: IPA.
McLaren, P. (1993) Schooling as Ritual Performance: Towards a Political Economy of
Education. London: Routledge.
McLoughlin, O. (2004) Citizen Child – The Experience of a Student Council in a
Primary School. In Deegan, J., Devine, D. and Lodge, A. (eds.), Primary Voices –
Equality, Diversity and Childhood in Irish Primary Schools. Dublin: IPA.
National Children’s Office (2005a) The Development of a National Set of Child Well-
Being Indicators. Dublin: National Children’s Office.
National Children’s Office (2005b) Dail Na nOg Delegate Report, http://www.
nco.ie/upload_documents/DNN_2005-final.pdf.
National Children’s Office (2005c) Young Voices – Guidelines on How to Involve
Children and Young People in Your Work. Dublin: National Children’s Office.
Nic Ghiolla Phadraig, M. (1990) Childhood as a Social Phenomenon. National Report,
Ireland. Vienna: European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research.
Nolan, B. (2001) Children and Poverty. In Cleary, A., Nic Ghiolla Phadraig, M.
and Quin, S. (eds.), Understanding Children. Vol. 1: State, Education and Economy.
Dublin: Oak Tree Press.
OECD (2005) Education at a Glance – OECD Indicators, www.oecd.org.
Ombudsman for Children (2005) Annual Report, Dublin: Millenium House;
www.oco.ie.
Osler, A. and Starkey, H. (2005) Changing Citizenship: Democracy and Inclusion in
Education. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
O’Sullivan, D. (2005) Cultural Politics and Irish Education. Dublin: IPA.
Pavee Point (2006) Assimilation Policies and Outcomes – Travellers’ Experience.
Dublin: Pavee Point Traveller Centre.
Phillips, A. (1999) Which Equalities Matter. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Qvortrup, J. (1995) From Useful to Useful: The Historical Continuity in
Children’s Constructive Participation. In Amber, A. M. (ed.), Theory and
Linkages Between Theory and Research on Children/Childhood. Special volume of
Sociological Studies of Children. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Richardson, V. (2001) Legal and Constitutional Rights of Children in Ireland. In
Cleary, A., Nic Ghiolla Phadraig, M. and Quin, S. (eds.), Understanding Children.
Vol. 1: State, Education and Economy. Dublin: Oak Tree Press.
Richardson, V. (2005) Children and Social Policy. In Quin, S., Kennedy, P.,
O’Donnell, A. and Kiely, G. (eds.), Contemporary Irish Social Policy. Dublin: UCD
Press.
Roche, J. (1999) Children: Rights, Participation and Citizenship. Childhood 6(4):
474–93.
104 Dympna Devine
Shevlin, M. and Rose, R. (eds.) (2003) Encouraging Voices. Dublin: National

Disability Authority.
Tovey, H. and Share, P. (2003) A Sociology of Ireland. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan.
UN Development Report (2005) UN Human Development – International Co-
Operation at a Crossroads. UN Development Programme, New York:
Hoeschstetter Press.
Whyte, J. (1995) Changing Times: A Comparative Study of Children – Belfast, London,
Dublin. Aldershot: Avebury.
Young, I. (199I) Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Zappone, K. (2002) Achieving Equality in Children’s Education in Primary Education:
Ending Disadvantage – Proceedings and Action Plan of National Forum. Dublin: St
Patrick’s College.
6
Changing Childhood in the UK:
Reconstructing Discourses of
‘Risk’ and ‘Protection’
Introduction
The study of childhood, it would seem, has finally come of age. No

longer confined to the traditional disciplinary straitjackets of sociology
or developmental psychology, social science is engaging with childhood
in a variety of new and interesting ways. Multidisciplinary and,
although perhaps less frequently, interdisciplinary inputs from sociol-
ogy, anthropology, social policy, social geography, history, law and
social work are now making their mark on our understanding of child-
hood and children’s everyday lives. Since the paradigm shift of the
1980s–1990s (James and Prout 1990), it is no longer remarkable to speak
of children as social actors or, more properly as Mayall (2002) puts it, as
social agents – that is, people who make things happen; nor does it seem
novel to describe children as competent informants about issues that
matter to them.
Recent policy developments that seem to reflect a desire to re-establish
a more traditional relationship between adults and children therefore
merit close attention. In seeking to understand such developments, it is
to the ‘cultural politics of childhood’ that we turn (see James and
James 2004), since these are central to any account of childhood
change. In sum, what this theoretical construct facilitates is an explo-
ration of the relationship that exists between ideas about childhood, as
embodied and reflected in various politico-cultural discourses, the
experiences of children as a social category and the impact that both of
these have on the everyday life of any individual child. To engage with
the cultural politics through which the social space of contemporary
105
British childhood is currently being mapped requires us to explore the

discursive politico-cultural parameters of this process, which therefore
involves not only untangling the ways in which ideas about childhood
come to shape the everyday lives of children and children’s responses
to and experience of those ideas, but also a consideration of the mech-
anisms and processes through which this dance of ongoing social con-
struction takes place.
For us, law and policy are key elements in this process. As we have
argued (James and James 2004), the framework and operation of law as
a socio-legal institution in large part shapes the interactions that take
place between, on the one hand, the political, economic and social
structures and institutions that constrain children’s lives and, on the
other, the different kinds of agency that children as individuals choose,
or are allowed, to adopt. As Ewick and Silbey (1998) argue in their per-
ceptive analysis of ‘the commonplace of law’, law does not just exist
‘outside’ of social life as an external agent to shape what we can or can-
not do; rather ‘it operates through social life as persons deliberately
interpret and invoke law’s language, authority and procedures to organ-
ise their lives and manage their relationships’ (1998: 20).
This conceptualization of the cultural politics of childhood, in our
view, provides a theoretical space in which we can locate and consider
the production and reproduction of childhood and, in doing so, allows
us to account for changes in the forms and ways in which childhood
unfolds in any society. Thus, as we shall discuss, changes in law and
policies relating to childhood reflect the dynamic process through
which children’s everyday lives are experienced and conceptualized. As
we shall show, recent years have seen an increasing determination on
behalf of the government to reverse the evolutionary changes that have
taken place in the cultural politics of British childhood, which have
become increasingly liberal with the greater recognition of children’s
social agency.
This development, which has met with little effective opposition from
adults in general or from those who work on the behalf of children
(since children are seldom if ever able themselves to mount effective
opposition against adult hegemony), has seen the government encour-
aging the stricter enforcement of existing laws, alongside the creation of
new ones, in order to maintain the status quo for children and young
people and to resist changes that children might seek in fashioning their
own childhoods. It is through this process of redefining and reordering
the everyday practices of children that the cultural politics of childhood
operates, as concepts of ‘childhood’ and ‘the child’ begin to change and
Discourses of ‘Risk’ and ‘Protection’ in the UK 107
these changes feed back into the everyday lives and experiences of chil-
dren. (For a more detailed discussion of this theoretical proposition, see
James and James 2004: chapter 3.)
In order to further this theoretical approach and to reveal its explana-
tory potential in practice, this chapter examines the interplay between
three different, but complementary discourses that are shaping the con-
temporary cultural politics of childhood in the UK. The first is commu-
nitarianism; the second the notion of risk and, closely related to this,
the idea of protection; and the third moral panic (Cohen 1973).
The communitarian agenda revisited (and revived!)
As we have argued elsewhere (James and James 2001) the policies of the
New Labour government, which came to power in 1997, have sought to
revitalize social democracy in the UK. Based on an approach elaborated
by Giddens as the ‘Third Way’, which embraces many of Etzioni’s ideas
on communitarianism, the principles that emerge from this political
philosophy, and New Labour’s political practices, are still very much in
evidence in a range of social policy developments aimed at revitalizing
civic society and developing social capital.
As we also suggested, however, many of these policies can be seen as
attempts to increase social control over children since their effect has
been to restrict children’s agency and rights. Thus, in spite of an appar-
ent increase in measures to enable children’s participation (see Children
and Young People’s Unit 2001a and b; Wade et al. 2001; Wyness 2001;
Combe 2002; Kirby et al. 2003), children have continued to be margin-
alized. As we argued:
the control of children’s behaviour is increasingly a focus for policy

initiatives under New Labour for it is through shaping the form that
‘childhood’ takes that the socialisation of children can be most effec-
tively regulated. And it is through the regulation and control of chil-
dren in the present that a particular kind of future, adult community
can be produced.
(James and James 2001: 215)
Such developments, although evident across the social policy board, are
particularly significant in relation to what is seen as the anti-social
behaviour of children and young people. This is perhaps inevitable since,
as we suggested (James and James 2001), childhood constitutes a prime
site for managing the tensions between conformity and autonomy.
These are tensions that a communitarian agenda has to manage, and the
way in which this is usually done is through censure of different kinds.
As Etzioni points out, censure represents
a major way that communities uphold members’ commitments to

shared values and service to the common good – community order.
And indeed, community censure reduces the reliance on the state as
a source of order.
(1996: 5)
In the context of children and childhood, such censure is particularly

important since it is children who are envisaged as the community’s and
the nation’s future. It has, however, reached unprecedented levels: as the
Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights comments in a
recent report, the UK has witnessed
the introduction of a series of civil orders aimed at reducing urban

nuisance, but whose primary effect has been to bring a whole range
of persons, predominantly the young, within the scope of the crimi-
nal justice system and, often enough, behind bars without necessar-
ily having committed a recognisable criminal offence.
(Gil Robles, 2004: para. 83)
In relation to children, childhood and the communitarian agenda,

there is much more of interest and relevance in this report, which has
the particular merit of presenting an external perspective that offers a
mirror in which we can see reflected a rather different view of develop-
ments in the UK from that presented by the government. In a tacit
acknowledgement of the communitarian agenda, the report argues:
What is so striking, however, about the multiplication of civil orders in

the United Kingdom, is the fact that the orders are intended to protect
not just specific individuals, but entire communities. This inevitably
results in a very broad, and occasionally, excessive range of behaviour
falling within their scope as the determination of what constitutes anti-
social behaviour becomes conditional on the subjective views of any
given collective … At first sight, indeed, such orders look rather like per-
sonalised penal codes, where non-criminal behaviour becomes criminal
for individuals who have incurred the wrath of the community.
One cannot but wonder, indeed, whether their purpose is not more
to reassure the public that something is being done – and, better still,
by local residents themselves – than the actual prevention of the anti-

social behaviour itself.
(paras. 110–11)
As a recent front-page article in a national newspaper pointed out:
Children are the subject of more anti-social behaviour orders than

adults, leading some commentators to warn that the Government is
in danger of making it a ‘crime to become [sic] a child.
(The Independent, 20 June 2005)
Such an analysis of contemporary developments justifies our concern

(James and James 2001) that the communitarian principles underpin-
ning the broad-based political agenda of New Labour would result in a
significant extension of control over children. What is new, however,
and what is central to our specific focus here, is the contemporary
framing of such measures through discourses of risk and protection. At
least part of the significance of this discursive framing lies in the fact
that it makes more problematic any critique of such policies, since what
right-minded adult can be critical if new measures are taken in order to
protect children?
Risk, protection and moral panic
A signal feature of the changing cultural politics of childhood in the UK

is that the languages of welfare and of risk are being transmuted, not to
say hijacked, as part of an apparently growing ‘moral panic’ about child-
hood. However, this is part of a process that has been evident since the
late 1960s, when the separation between welfare and justice, treatment
and punishment, was at its clearest. Thus, for example, during this
period and in the context of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969,
children in trouble were regarded as deprived rather than depraved.
They were therefore considered deserving of adult understanding and
treatment through a range of compensatory mechanisms. Such a con-
cern for children’s welfare was based on recognition of the structural dis-
advantages faced by many of those children whose behaviour was
defined as criminal or anti-social. Far less emphasis was placed at that
time on the notion that children might choose to behave in such ways
and that they were therefore in need of punishment.
Over the next three decades, however, successive governments sought
increasingly to deny, or at least to obscure, the links between structural
disadvantage and anti-social or delinquent behaviour, preferring instead

to emphasize choice, thereby justifying the use of increasingly punitive
measures against children and young offenders. This shift towards indi-
vidualism in respect of responsibility and punishment could be regarded
as an ironic feature of postmodernity since it appears to have gone
hand-in-hand with the increasing recognition of children as ‘social
agents’, normally regarded as a positive indicator of empowerment.
There has also been an increasing politicization of crime, through its
figuration as an increasingly prominent election issue since the early
1990s as politicians sought to gain party political advantage out of the
public’s fear of crime and disorder. This process was clearly evident in the
2005 general election and was reflected in the recent widespread media
attention given to the banning of young people wearing ‘hoodies’ from
an Essex shopping mall. This move received very public support from the
newly elected Labour government, even though recent evidence from
the Greater Manchester Police, one of the largest police forces in the
country, showed that only 1.2 per cent of robberies in the previous
12 months involved someone wearing a hooded top (Barrett 2005).
If, as Stanley Cohen argued in his seminal book Folk Devils and Moral
Panics, a moral panic can be said to exist when
[a] condition, episode, person or group or persons emerges to become

defined as a threat to societal values and interests; its nature is pre-
sented in a stylized and stereotypical fashion by the mass media;
[and] the moral barricades are manned by editors, bishops, politi-
cians and other right-thinking people
(1973: 9)
then contemporary UK perspectives on childhood might reasonably be

argued to constitute just such a moral panic.
One of the key ways in which this moral panic is currently being
inflamed is through the deployment of the language of ‘protection’ in
relation to childhood across an increasingly wide range of perceived
risks as a feature of the changing cultural politics of childhood in the
UK. In sum, discourses of risk and protection are becoming increasingly
important in providing a populist political justification for what is a
growing raft of measures that work to control and discipline children.
The communitarian agenda, underpinned by the tougher enforcement
of existing laws and the introduction of new laws, draws on the dis-
course of risk to amplify a growing moral panic amongst adults about
children.
What is of particular interest and concern, however, is that in the con-

text of this moral panic, it is not just a particular group of children or
young people, such as the Mods and Rockers Cohen wrote about, who are
the focus of this moral crusade. It is, we suggest, childhood itself and
therefore, by implication, all children. Such a perspective has gradually
crystallized through the tendency, in recent years, to present childhood as
a time of risk, in which children are defined as being in need of protec-
tion, in their best interests, in order to fulfil their potential as adults. From
stranger-danger through to the banning of games of conkers in school
playgrounds, childhood is presented by adults, and to adults and chil-
dren, as a time of risk (see Freeman 1992; Scott et al. 1998; Scott, 2000).
What is particularly noteworthy about this development, however, is
the bowdlerizing of the language of child protection. By promoting
strategies as being in children’s best interests through offering them pro-
tection against various risks, a semblance of welfare is recreated. As
Parton (2005) argues, however, whilst such a reformulation of the con-
cept of protection is entirely consistent with the emphasis placed by the
Children Act 1989 on safeguarding and promoting children’s welfare, it
has a whole variety of intended and unintended consequences.
Therefore, as we argue in our discussion of the strategy that has emerged
around the recent Green Paper, Every Child Matters (Chief Secretary to
the Treasury 2003), this reformulation must also be understood in the
context of a developing cultural politics of childhood that is fostering
polices that are actually less about the welfare of children and more
about the protection of adult communities, in both the present and the
future. Before looking in detail at this, however, the issues of risk and
protection merit some further consideration.
What exactly is ‘at risk’? Discourses of risk

as protection
The significance of the concept of ‘the best interests of the child’ in the
context of the cultural politics of contemporary childhood lies in the
fact it constitutes a central rhetorical plank in many of the decisions
made in determining children’s welfare. Indeed, as we have shown
(James, James and McNamee 2004a), it is the site of, and therefore
reflects, some of the main struggles over the social construction of child-
hood: in the process of defining what is in the best interests of any indi-
vidual child, the best interests of children as a category are also defined
and thus the dominant (and changing) views of adults towards children
also become apparent.
‘The best interests of the child’ is, however, premised on the notion of
children as ‘becoming’ rather than ‘being’, as part and parcel of a welfare
commitment to a predominantly developmental and psychological
understanding of children (James, James and McNamee 2004a). Such a
perspective plays down any diversity between children, as well as mask-
ing their individuality: the ‘best interests of the child’, a phrase that
implies a high degree of individuality, is in fact used in relation to all
children and, as a recent study of family court welfare practice showed
(James, James and McNamee 2004a, 2004b), the developmental para-
digm and its prescriptions for what children need can easily overshadow
any divergent wishes and feelings expressed by an individual child.
Interestingly, then, within these discourses of ‘protection’ and ‘best
interests’, children are most often regarded collectively and most often
valued as proto-adults. Just so with risk. The discourse of children at risk
is, like that of protection, similarly oriented to the future and, like that
of protection, is linked to a set of unknowns in adulthood: the being of
the child in the present has to be safeguarded against risk in order to
protect the future adult s/he will become.
This overlap between risk and protection is therefore interesting and
important and, lest our argument be seen simply as a critical commen-
tary by two cynical academics, we need to unravel the ways in which
risk and protection are being deliberately entwined: we need to ask why
references to risk in government policies continually accompany those
to protection, best interests and welfare; why, on occasion, concern with
risk, rather than protection, gains the upper hand; and we need to
understand what advantage this might offer to government, and what
disadvantages this might bring to children.
We turn first to Ulrich Beck’s classic account of the linkages between
processes of individualization and reflexive modernization in the risk
society, a thesis usefully summarized by Taylor-Gooby and Zin as
follows:
the key cultural shift among the citizens of risk society is towards
‘reflexivity’: individuals are conscious of their social context and
their own roles as actors within it. Managing the risks of civilization
becomes both a pressing issue and one that is brought home to
individuals. At the same time, however, confidence in experts and
in accredited authorities tends to decline as people are more aware
of the shortcomings of official decision-makers and of the range of
alternative approaches to problems available elsewhere on the planet.
The breakdown of an established traditional order in the life-course
provided by work, marriage, family and community leads to greater

individualization and increased uncertainty and anxiety. In this con-
text, the individualized citizens of world risk society are increasingly
conscious of the responsibility to manage the risks they perceive in
the context of their own lives, and, in this sense, self-create their own
biographies.
(2005: 6)
However, in relation to changing perspectives on childhood, such an

apparently emancipatory outcome for children simply does not apply.
Instead, as we shall see, by virtue of their supposed need for ‘protection’
against risk, children are not permitted (or are less and less so) to make
choices and take risks. The institutional structures that ‘protect’ them
also prevent them from making their own choices and constructing
their own biographies as good, postmodern individuals and citizens.
They are instead ‘freed’ from risk-taking, under the guise of protecting
them and their future status as adults, whilst running the risk of coercive
control and punishment if they continue to take risks. In consequence,
in that children’s ‘becoming’ – their childhood – is being entrusted to
adults rather than to children themselves, this risk-free cultural envi-
ronment turns out to be one that is highly governed and controlled: it is
certainly not an environment that nurtures reflexive individuality!
One reason for this is the government’s failure to engage effectively
with many of the structural underpinnings of the problems that con-
tinue to face a significant number of children and young people today
and their preference instead to curtail or deny them their agency
through the restoration of adult control. With the important exception
of agentic individuals who offend, and who are therefore punished as
fully competent individuals, children and young people are, in the con-
temporary cultural politics of childhood, being rendered less rather than
more able to manage the risks (and opportunities) they face.
Beck’s thesis has, of course, been widely criticized (see Taylor-Gooby
and Zinn 2005), but one reason why his thesis appears wanting, espe-
cially in the case of children and young people, is that it disregards the
impact of the imbalance of power between children and adults. In part
a function of their generational relationship, it is a power imbalance
that rests on adult judgements about children’s development and social
competence. The effect of this is that, as Every Child Matters (hereafter
referred to as ECM) clearly illustrates, far from being enabled to become
reflexive and responsible individuals by the choices available within the
‘risk society’, children are being increasingly ‘disabled’ through recourse
to a developmental paradigm that casts them as in need of protection

from risk as they grow up.
Published by the Treasury in September 2003, ECM has much to say
about risk and childhood. The Foreword, written by Tony Blair (indicat-
ing the importance the government attached to the document), frames
the Green Paper by making reference to Victoria Climbié, a young child
who was seriously abused and murdered, as an illustration of children
whose lives are filled with ‘risk, fear and danger’. The Foreword con-
cludes that ‘Sadly, nothing can ever absolutely guarantee that no child
will ever be at risk again from abuse and violence from within their own
family’ (2003: 2).
ECM goes on to outline a range of measures to reform and improve
children’s care because, it argues, ‘child protection cannot be separated
from polices to improve children’s lives as a whole’ (para. 4). This exten-
sion by fiat of the notion of child protection from one that focuses on
particular risks, for particular children, to one that embraces the lives of
children and children’s lives as a whole allows ECM to set out a frame-
work for ‘protective’ services that cover children and young people from
birth to 19 years, the aim of which is to ‘reduce the numbers of children
who experience educational failure, engage in offending or antisocial
behaviour, suffer from ill health, or become teenage parents’ (para. 4).
Thus it would seem that the ‘risk’ from which all children are to be pro-
tected is the risk that, in the absence of such services, there will be vari-
ous negative outcomes for children as they develop, which will blight
their lives as future adults.
Five positive outcomes are therefore identified by ECM to underpin
services for children, outcomes relating to aspects of children’s physical,
psychological and emotional well-being that are seen as central to their
‘successful’ development and which ‘Everyone in our society has a
responsibility for securing’ (para. 1.4), as follows:
● Being healthy: enjoying good physical and mental health and living
a healthy lifestyle, which will include concerns about smoking, obe-
sity, teenage conception, suicide.
● Staying safe: being protected from harm and neglect and growing up
able to look after themselves. Indicators associated with this outcome
include numbers on child protection registers, numbers cautioned or
convicted of an offence, victimization and domestic violence.
● Enjoying and achieving: getting the most out of life and developing
broad skills for adulthood, the focus being on educational perform-
ance, truancy, children not in education or employment.
● Making a positive contribution: to the community and to society and

not engaging in anti-social or offending behaviour, part of the con-
cern being about low participation in voting by young people.
● Economic well-being: overcoming socio-economic disadvantages to
achieve their full potential in life, the focus being on improving rates
of employment and reducing the number of children living in low-
income families.
From this list it is clear that one of the traditional authorities over
childhood – the developmental perspective – far from being challenged
by the ‘risk society’ as Beck’s analysis might suggest, is being sustained
and indeed reinforced. Thus, although the academy may be challenging
the thrall of traditional developmental psychology over understandings
of childhood, and is now arguing for models of child development that
are sensitive to social context (Woodhead 1996), within the cultural pol-
itics of childhood in the UK there remains a vested interest in sustaining
the traditional, more universalizing model. One reason for this may be
that it is a model that justifies concerns about protection and risk, which
in turn legitimates the control of children by adults.
The cultural politics of risk in childhood – discourses

of control
Returning to the list of welfare outcomes identified in ECM, the juxta-

position of positive and negative potential outcomes is apparent, as is
the explicit use of the language of social control. Thus, for example, in
measuring the outcome of ‘staying safe’ – which is phrased in terms of
children being protected from harm and neglect and being helped to
grow up to be able to look after themselves as adults – we find the gov-
ernment proposing the use of indicators linked with criminal and/or
anti-social behaviour. ‘Staying safe’ means being protected from harm
and neglect; however, the proposed indicators of ‘not being safe’ include
the number of children cautioned or convicted of an offence, as well as
levels of victimization and domestic violence. This is surely an instance
of gamekeeper turned poacher! The child at risk is, at the same time, also
the child who can be identified as a risk to others.
Thus the notions of being ‘at risk’ and in need of ‘protection’, once
central to the welfare lexicon of child abuse and child protection, seem
to have become subsumed within a more embracing discourse of social
control, in the best interests of the child. Thus, along the way, the
meanings have subtly but substantially altered. The result of this is to
minimize children’s vulnerability to adult mistreatment (either by the

considered actions of individual adults, as in the case of Victoria
Climbié, or by the unconsidered effects of structural disadvantage) and
to emphasize the waywardness of children and young people, and the
responsibility that adults have to control this.
What this analysis suggests therefore, in terms of understanding con-
temporary childhood, is that Beck’s thesis of the ‘declining role of social
structures and the importance of personal and active choice’ (Taylor-
Gooby and Zin 2005: 8) simply does not work: it cannot address the cul-
tural complexity of the structural processes through which childhood
and adulthood are currently held in tension as a generational relation-
ship by the range of new government initiatives. Embracing both ‘risky
children’ and ‘children at risk’, childhood is subject to the government’s
double-edged sword of care and control.
To understand fully the contemporary cultural politics of childhood,
therefore, we have to address notions of governmentality that pay atten-
tion to the cultural processes and social responses that both sustain and
legitimate the state’s demonization of the young, through the produc-
tion of new forms of ‘risky ‘childhood. Such an approach requires us to
identify ‘structures of culturally based power [that are] … complex and
intersecting, involving axes of faith, gender, employment relations, as
well as property, the rule of law, particular democratic traditions and
political institutions’ (Taylor-Gooby and Zin 2005: 8).
One of the clearest examples appeared in March 2003, when the
Home Office published a White Paper that trailed the publication of
ECM, describing it as a Green Paper
which will propose radical options to improve services for children

who are at risk of a wide range of poor outcomes. These outcomes
include anti-social behaviour and offending; educational under-
achievement; abuse, neglect and victimisation; teenage pregnancy;
and ill health.
(Home Office 2003: 21; emphasis added)
In this, the government intended to set out how it would ‘identify chil-
dren and young people at risk’. In setting the scene for the proposals in
ECM, the White Paper makes an initial passing reference to the more
commonly understood construction of ‘risk’ by referring to young peo-
ple as the victims of crime and anti-social behaviour (para. 2.3).
However, in the context of the overall thrust and content of the White
Paper this is disingenuous, since the proposals that follow are unrelated
to this: children as victims of crime effectively disappear. What the

White Paper actually goes on to explore are ways to manage children
who offend. For example, although the White Paper states that
a new Identification, Referral and Tracking system (IRT) is being

developed across all services working with children to enable a speed-
ier and more joined up response to problems [that will] enable all
agencies to share information about young people at risk
(Home Office 2003, para. 2.5)
it gives as an example someone who is committing anti-social behaviour,

rather than an example of a child who is in need of protection as a vic-
tim or through being especially vulnerable.
Consistent with this slippage between the language of ‘protection’
and that of ‘risk’ is the proposal to use a mechanism traditionally asso-
ciated with child protection for dealing with children’s behavioural
problems:
We will be taking powers to enable intensive fostering to occur as an

alternative to custody … At the same time it is essential to work with
the family to enhance their parenting skills with a view to the child
returning home.
(Home Office 2003, para. 2.24)
Here again protection is elided with risk: rather than foster care being a
resource that can be used to protect children from abuse, it becomes
redefined as an alternative to custody for children who, through their
own misbehaviour, put at risk their development into adulthood.
Moreover, in spite of gestures in the direction of children at risk and
their need for protection, the underpinning principle of the White
Paper is communitarian in that it is the community that is at risk from
the actions of children. Indeed, this is made explicit when it is argued
that ‘the protection of the local community must come first’ (para. 2.51).
This is not to say, of course, that there are no risks attached to becom-
ing an offender, to becoming a teenage mother, to smoking, to obesity
or to truancy. Nor it is to say that it is not in children’s best interests to
encourage them to adopt behaviours that may have less deleterious con-
sequences: any and all of these risks can have a profound effect on a
child’s future as, indeed, such outcomes for children can have a negative
impact on communities. It is to point out, however, that the discursive
conflation of the objectives of protecting children from the risk of abuse
and protecting them from the consequences of structural disadvantage

is both politically convenient and disingenuous.
It also ignores evidence concerning the statistical ‘normality’ of
offending behaviour in young people and the fact that only a small
minority go on to become serious and persistent adult offenders. By
focusing on such potential outcomes for all children, however, and by
utilizing the language of risk, a discourse emerges that defines child-
hood itself as a problem. In turn, by relying on the rhetorical power and
appeal of ‘the best interests of the child’, the White Paper justifies as a
‘protective measure’ a raft of policies that are intended to control chil-
dren by rendering their childhood risk-free – to children and, impor-
tantly, to adults.
Theorizing risk in the cultural politics of childhood
To understand the complex relationship between the discourses of risk

and protection that pervade current British conceptions of childhood,
Mary Douglas’s work proves insightful. Her cultural perspectives on
managing risk and uncertainty pinpoint some of the processes at work
in what she calls the social control of curiosity that underpins notions
of risk. She argues that
Most institutions tend to solve some of their organizational problems

through public allocation of blame. Naturally these problems and
blaming procedures vary according to the kind of organizations.
Lastly, some machinery for renewing members’ commitments to the
institution’s objectives is activated by the threat of disaster.
(1986: 56)
For Douglas the allocation of blame is quite distinctive, with ‘nature’

being used to ensure conformity:
well-labelled, natural vulnerabilities point to certain classes of people

as likely victims: their state of being ‘at risk’ justifies bringing them
under control. In modern, industrial society the poor are nutrition-
ally at risk and pregnant, poor women especially so.
(1986: 57)
Douglas gives as an example the theories of maternal deprivation

offered by Bowlby which, through the emphasis placed on the impor-
tance of attachment, led to women staying at home for fear of ‘causing
their child loss of identity and incapacity to love if they persisted in

what working-class mothers had long been used to doing – going out to
work’ (1986: 58). With respect to children, as we have seen, the empha-
sis on development and on children’s ‘becoming’ represents a compara-
ble example of the ‘naturalizing’ of risk. The invocation of ‘nature’ as a
key component of social processes Douglas describes as a political act,
which is enabled through the ‘use of risk as a technique of coercion’
(1986: 59).
As part of the strategy to deliver the five positive outcomes for every
child, ECM proposes, for example, a common assessment framework
to ensure that information is collected and shared across services for
children. This covers special educational needs, Connexions, YOTs,
health and social services. The ostensible aim is for core information to
follow the child in order to reduce duplication and enable the better
management of risk: ‘we want to see a local information hub devel-
oped in every local authority consisting of a list of all children living
in their area and basic details …’ (para. 4.3; emphasis added). It goes
on to argue that,
In order to capture fully the concerns of a range of professionals over

time, there is a strong case for giving practitioners the ability to flag
on the system early warnings when they have concerns about a child
which in itself may not be a trigger or meet the usual thresholds for inter-
vention. The decision to place such a flag of concern on a child’s
record … lies with the individual practitioner.
(para. 4.5; emphasis added)
The potential reach of such thinking is evident in such initiatives as

the Pan-London Protocol for Sexually Active Under-18s (London Child
Protection Committee 2005), which encouraged a range of profession-
als, including the police, to share information about teenagers in
London who are, or are likely to be, sexually active. The protocol,
drafted in response to the Bichard Inquiry Report (2004) into the double
child murder at Soham, and based on the legal position that sexual
activity under the age of 16 is illegal, was
designed to assist professionals to identify where children and young

people’s sexual relationships may be abusive and the children and
young people may need the provision of protection or additional
services. It is based on the core principle that the welfare of the child
is paramount and emphasises the need to accurately assess the risk of
significant harm when a child or young person is engaged in a sexu-

ally active relationship.
(para. 1.1)
The protocol went on to state that
When a professional becomes aware that a young person is, or is

likely to be, sexually active, an assessment should be made of the
young person’s physical and emotional health, education and safe-
guarding needs – in the context of the sexual relationship.
(para. 2.1)
Under this protocol, assessments were required to be carried out even

when a teenager is in a relationship with another young person and
they are both over the age of consent.
That these guidelines have been criticized as not being in line with the
recommendations of the Bichard Inquiry1 might be taken as indicative
of both the moral panic surrounding childhood and the significance of
the dimension of risk in determining the social response to such issues.
Moreover, although such proposals may appear well intentioned, we
must also be alert to their dangers for, as Masson has recently argued,
The assessment of risk in child protection cannot be a completely

objective matter. Child protection work places social workers under
considerable stress, not least because of the culture of blame that has
operated when mistakes are made. It is well recognised that different
social workers differ in their understanding of particular circum-
stances … and this leads to different responses by local authori-
ties … It is commonly suggested that local authorities are more likely
to intervene to protect children shortly after publicity of child pro-
tection failures, such as occurred during the Climbié Inquiry.
(2005: 84)
This illustrates well Douglas’s analysis of the role of blame in the

organizational management of risk outlined above. In addition, the sug-
gestion about the raising of ‘flags of concern’, regardless of issues con-
cerning the criteria for and the variability of professional judgements,
illustrates the core principles of a form of governmentality through
which ‘risk’ is managed under the guise of protection. This strikes a
chord with Taylor-Gooby and Zin’s suggestion that, moving away from
Beck’s thesis, new approaches to risk are revealing the shift ‘towards
greater emphasis on social regulation through expectations and assump-

tions about individual behaviour’ (2005: 11).
Indeed, ECM goes on to say that the government is ‘consulting on the
circumstances (in addition to child protection and youth offending)
under which information about a child could or must be shared, for pre-
ventative purposes, without the consent of the child or their carers’ and that
they would welcome views on whether warning signs should include
‘factors within the family such as imprisonment, domestic violence,
mental health or substance misuse problems amongst parents and car-
ers’ (para. 4.6; emphasis added). This clearly suggests that children of
parents who have, for example, been in prison or have had mental
health problems might become the target of preventative interventions
by a range of agencies. This would be on the basis of potentially highly
variable professional judgements about the risk of a child from such a
background developing such problems, regardless of whether or not
there is any current evidence of problems.
What matters to children?
On a more positive note, it might be argued, not entirely without justi-

fication, that the government went to considerable lengths to involve
children and young people in formulating the policies being advanced
under ECM. Indeed, the government states categorically that ‘children and
young people have told us that [the above] five outcomes are key to well-
being in childhood and later life’ (DfES 2004a: para.1.1) This statement is
based on a consultation process conducted between November 2001
and March 2002 in which the government spelled out its vision for all
children and young people and encouraged their participation with the
words ‘We hope you will share it’ (Children and Young People’s Unit
2001b: para. 1.5) One of the key principles of this vision was that it was
‘centred on the needs of the young person [and that] [t]he best interests
of the child or young person should be paramount, taking into account
their wishes and feelings’ (Children and Young People’s Unit 2001b, para.
2.3; emphasis added). In the consultation itself, however, those involved
were asked to ‘structure’ their thoughts into a series of categories that
bear a striking resemblance to the five outcomes that subsequently
appeared in ECM, although it should be noted that issues of anti-social
or offending behaviour were not brought up, either in the framing of
the consultation or in the responses of those children and young people
involved.
When ECM was published (containing the five outcomes that chil-
dren and young people had ‘told’ the government were crucial), a fur-
ther sample of over 3,000 responded to a consultation document aimed
specifically at children and young people (DfES 2003), while others
attended a series of 62 meetings across England. Their responses, which
were subsequently published (Every Child Matters – Children and Young
People Responses: Analysis of responses to the consultation document. DfES),2
merit careful reading. Thus, for example, in response to the question
‘When do you think services should talk together about a child without
the child knowing or saying it is OK?’ the almost immediate response
from most of the groups that met was ‘never’. The report goes on to
note, however, that ‘when pushed a little further on this’, most con-
ceded that there were circumstances when this would be appropriate.
Of the approximately 3,000 written replies to the consultation, 39 per
cent said that if there was a risk of the child being in extreme danger,
services should be able to talk about child without their knowledge.
However, 24 per cent said this should never happen and that children
should always be consulted; 19 per cent said children and young people
should always be involved in discussions and that no decision should be
made without the child knowing or giving consent; 12 per cent agreed
that where possible children and young people should be involved if the
child was old enough to understand; and a further 6 per cent said that
every case should be treated individually.3 Thus, over 80 per cent of
children and young people indicated clearly that they thought that such
issues should not be discussed without their knowledge. In a subsequent
publication, however, their views were juxtaposed with those of adults
who had indicated that ‘[w]orrying about confidentiality can stop us
working together to protect children … [i]nformation should be shared,
about children and their families when it is in the best interests of the
child’ (DfES 2004b: 11).
The government has subsequently taken powers under the Children
Act 2004 to require the establishment of a database (or databases) to
enable practitioners accurately to identify a child or young person who
is at risk. At this stage, the details of how such a database is to be man-
aged and how issues of consent will be dealt with are not clear, having
been relegated to secondary legislation or, more probably, statutory
guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State. It remains to be seen
therefore whether the concerns about the sharing of information
expressed by the children and young people who participated in the
consultation exercise will be reflected in whatever regulatory framework
is established. As section 12 of the Act makes clear, this may include
information as to the existence of any cause for concern. Here indeed

are very powerful examples of the systems of internal and external con-
trol that Douglas (1986) identified in the management of risk and of the
gap between the rhetoric of children’s participation and its reality in the
context of the cultural politics of childhood.
Managing risky childhoods?
Such policies are a clear product of the development of a political cul-

ture in which there is a highly positivistic approach to risk management,
which cannot identify individuals at risk but only the probability of cer-
tain outcomes occurring within particular social categories (see also
Feeley and Simon 1992, and their discussion of the new penology). As
France and Utting point out, although this approach has been used in a
number of fields to identify statistical ‘predictors’, ‘these risk factors do
not predict future behaviour in the commonly accepted sense’ (2005:
79). Despite this, this culture of ‘riskfactorology’ (France forthcoming) is
driving policies (e.g. Sure Start and On Track) and political structures (e.g.
the Children’s Fund, the Children and Young People’s Unit and now the
Children, Young People and Families Directorate at the DfES) that seek
to ‘manage’ the risks posed to society by certain social groups, such as
offenders and children (and in particular that symbolically most potent
of all groups, children who offend), on the grounds of prevention.
Herein are the key components of the changing cultural politics of
contemporary British childhood for, as Freeman has observed, ‘preven-
tion in these terms is a moral and political project whose definition is
shaped by the prevailing cultural context in which it is considered’
(Freeman 1999, cited in France and Utting 2005). In the context of the
prevailing ‘cultural politics of childhood’, the risk and protection para-
digm is integral to the government’s commitment to developing an epi-
demiology of social problems by, in effect, ‘pursuing a public health
model to prevent problems at community level’ (France and Utting
2005: 80) as part of its continuing but implicit commitment to the pre-
cepts of communitarianism and the Third Way.
As part of this project, ECM identifies the need to change professional
and cultural barriers to information-sharing, which is central to the
development of such an epidemiological approach. By way of illustra-
tion, it cites recent government guidance (What to Do if You’re Worried a
Child is Being Abused) which ‘made it clear that professionals must con-
sider the risk of not sharing information about children with other pro-
fessionals, alongside concerns about respecting a child or family’s right
to privacy’ (para. 4.8) Once again, this evidences the use of arguments
that support a rationale for intervention in the name of the prevention
of risk, developed in the very particular context of child abuse and pro-
tection, to justify much broader agenda for the social control of children
and young people.
As France and Utting note, a number of writers ‘warn that there are
real dangers that the ‘“risk factor paradigm” can be used for anti-liber-
tarian purposes by the state … [and] that “high risk” populations … may
be subject to more intensive monitoring and control by the state’ (2005:
81). It is interesting to note, therefore, that in a recent case (heard
20 July 2005), the High Court ruled in favour of a 15-year-old boy, who
sought to challenge new police powers to detain and forcibly return
home any child venturing into a designated curfew zone after 9 pm.
After the hearing, in which this aspect of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act
2003 was ruled to be unlawful, the boy commented: ‘Of course I have no
problem with being stopped by the police if I’ve done something wrong.
But they shouldn’t be allowed to treat me like a criminal just because I’m
under 16’ (The Independent, 21 July 2005).
It is perhaps more interesting to note that the government immedi-
ately declared its intention to challenge the ruling in the Court of
Appeal.
Conclusion
In a political environment such as this, the identification and allocation

of ‘risk’ becomes a mechanism to give authority to the state to intervene
in the lives of groups who are deemed to be ‘dangerous’, such as children.
It comes as no surprise, therefore, that, as our discussion of Every Child
Matters illustrates, such developments are taking place in the context of a
raft of policies aimed at controlling children and their childhoods.
Moreover, this is being pursued by a government that, as we have noted,
has recently been criticized by the Council of Europe’s Human Rights
Commissioner (Gil Robles 2004) for its record on human rights and its
illiberal policies for tackling a range of issues, including anti-social
behaviour, policies that, the report warns, are criminalizing children.
Douglas writes that ‘a community can take a bold public policy decision
in favour of risk-seeking if it is strong enough to protect the decision-mak-
ers from blame’ (1986: 61). It remains to be seen whether the government
has the courage to do this. To lift the veil of protective control that sur-
rounds risk and children, and to allow children to be individuals and to
take on responsibility for the choices that they make, would seem to be
too risky a venture when the state, in order to safeguard its ‘future’, is
working increasingly in its present to demonize and thereby control
children and childhood.
The moral panic that has been generated around childhood needs to
be understood in this context for, as Cohen argues, at a more funda-
mental level
a theory of moral panics, moral enterprise or moral indignation

needs to relate such reactions to conflicts of interests – at community
and societal levels – and the presence of power differentials which
leave some groups vulnerable to such attacks. The manipulation of
appropriate symbols – the process which sustains moral campaigns,
panics and crusades – is made much easier when the object of attack
is both highly visible and structurally weak.
(1973: 198)
There can be little doubt that a moral crusade is being conducted by

the government against the ‘yob culture’ and its symbols, alongside a
clear sense of growing moral outrage at the lack of respect that some
young people are seen to have for both for their elders and the author-
ity they seek to wield. Indeed, it might be argued that such a crusade
constitutes a key component of its aim to revitalize civic society. In this
context, there is certainly a conflict of interests between adults on the
one hand, and children and young people on the other, over issues such
as the use of public space and of leisure time. It is also clear that the
power differentials between adults and young people are considerable
and that they are highly visible, whether on street corners and wearing
hoodies or not, and structurally weak. Children are, therefore, as Cohen
suggests, particularly vulnerable to such attacks.
Our analysis of the cultural politics of childhood in late modern
Britain suggests that although our understanding of the nature of child-
hood has increased in recent decades and the rhetoric of children’s par-
ticipation trips easily off the tongues of politicians, the position of
children has not improved significantly. The current moral panic is not
just about a particular group of children and it is not just about crime
and anti-social behaviour: rather, we suggest, it is about childhood as a
category and all of its aspects, hence the strategy4 that is emerging
around the pursuit of the policies adumbrated in Every Child Matters. By
amplifying (or not trying to defuse) this moral panic, the government is
able to pursue the policies that provide the means by which children
can be prevented from becoming too powerful (through the exercise of
their individual rights and agency) and through which there can there-
fore be a re-inscription of authority through the stronger definition and
regulation of childhood.
Governments stay in power by being strong, identifying risks and
providing a strong response to and protection from those risks, be
they terrorists or unruly children: hence the moral panic about child-
hood and the policy/legal measures taken in response to it. As part of
this response, the government wants to enhance choice for adults but
not for children. This is a means of rebalancing the power between
adults and children and ensuring that adults can construct and there-
fore control not only present childhoods, but also future adulthoods.
As a consequence of the sequestration of childhood by the state, Every
Child Matters seems set to usher in an era in which childhood and chil-
dren are ever more closely regulated, and in which the exercise of
choice by children is likely to bring them increasingly into conflict
with those who would deny their individuality in the name of protec-
tion and defending the child’s best interests. Our concern, expressed
several years ago (James and James 2001), that the net might be tight-
ening around children and childhood seems fully justified.
Notes
1 The guidelines were criticized by Sir Michael Bichard, who chaired the
inquiry, because they were not in line with his recommendation that social
workers should report cases of adults having sexual relationships with under-
18s to the police. In the same week, the charity Action on Rights for Children
lodged a complaint with the Information Commissioner claiming that the
guidelines breach the Data Protection Act 1998 (Community Care,
30 June–6 July 2005, 1579: 11).
2 http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/publications/?asset⫽document&id⫽
15513, updated 21 July 2005, accessed 21 July 2005.
3 Children were able to answer more than one question, so the percentages do
not necessarily add up to 100.
4 It is important to recognize that this is, indeed, a strategy rather than a loosely
related series of policy initiatives. The five outcomes for children and young
people are given legal force by the Children Act 2004, whilst Every Child
Matters: Change for Children (DfES 2004a) has spawned a series of closely
related policy documents (DfES 2004c, 2004d, 2004e and 2004f). As the DfES
states, their agenda for reform is nothing less than ‘a ten-year programme to
stimulate long-term and sustained improvement in children’s health and
well-being (DfES, 2004a: para. 1.5).
References
Barratt, S. (2005) Hoodies Ban Disguises a Bigger Problem. Young People Now 283: 15.
Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.
Bichard Inquiry Report (2004) House of Commons. HC653: London.
Chief Secretary to the Treasury (2003) Every Child Matters, Cm 5860. London: TSO.
Children and Young People’s Unit (2001a) Learning to Listen: Core Principles for the
Involvement of Children and Young People. London: Department for Education
and Skills.
Children and Young People’s Unit (2001b) Building a Strategy for Children and
Young People: Consultation Document. London: C&YPU.
Cohen, S. (1973) Folk Devils and Moral Panics. St Albans: Paladin.
Combe, V. (2002) Up for it: Getting Young People Involved in Local Government.
Leicester: JRF/National Youth Agency.
Department for Education and Skills (2003) Every Child Matters: What Do You
Think? London: DfES.
Department for Education and Skills (2004a) Every Child Matters: Change for
Children. London: DfES.
Department for Education and Skills (2004b) Every Child Matters … and Every
Young Person: What You Said … and What We’re Going to Do. London: DfES.
Department for Education and Skills (2004c) Every Child Matters: Change for
Children in Social Care. London: DfES.
Department for Education and Skills (2004d) Every Child Matters: Change for
Children in the Criminal Justice System. London: DfES.
Department for Education and Skills (2004e) Every Child Matters: Change for
Children in Health Services. DfES: London.
Department for Education and Skills (2004f) Every Child Matters: Change for
Children in Schools. London: DfES.
Douglas, M. (1986) Acceptability According to the Social Sciences. London: Routledge
& Kegan Paul.
Etzioni, A. (1996) The Responsive Community: A Communitarian Perspective.
American Sociological Review 61: 1–11.
Ewick, P. and Silbey, S. (1998) The Common Place of Law. London: University of
Chicago Press.
Feeley, M. and Simon, J. (1992) The New Penology: Notes on the Emerging
Strategy of Corrections and its Implications. Criminology 30(4): 449–74.
France, A. (forthcoming) ‘Riskfactorology and the Youth Question’.
France, A. and Utting, D. (2005) The Paradigm of ‘Risk and Protection-Focused
Prevention’ and its Impact on Services for Children and Families. Children and
Society 19(2): 77–90.
Freeman, R. (1992) The Idea of Prevention: A Critical Review. In Scott, S.,
Williams, G., Platt, S. and Thomas, H. (eds.), Private Risks and Public Dangers.
Aldershot: Avebury.
Gil Robles, A. (2004) Report by Mr Alvaro Gil Robles, Commissioner for Human
Rights, on his visit to the United Kingdom, 4th–12th November 2004, CommDH
(2005)6. Strasbourg.
Home Office (2003) Respect and Responsibility – Taking a Stand Against Anti-Social
Behaviour, Cm 5778. London: TSO.
James, A. L. and James, A. (2001) Tightening the Net: Children, Community and
Control. British Journal of Sociology 52(2): 211–28.
James A. and James A. L. (2004) Constructing Childhood: Theory, Policy and Social
James, A. and Prout, A. (eds.) (1990) Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood.
Lewes: Falmer Press.
James, A. L., James, A. and NcNamee, S. (2004a) Turn Down the Volume? Not
Hearing Children in Family Proceedings. Child and Family Law Quarterly 16(2):
189–203.
James, A. L., James, A. and NcNamee, S. (2004b) Family Law and the
Construction of Childhood in England and Wales. In Goddard, J., James, A.
and McNamee, S. (eds.), The Politics of Childhood: International Perspectives,
Contemporary Developments. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kirby, P., Lanyon, C., Cronin, K. and Sinclair, R. (2003) Building a Culture of
Participation. London: Department for Education and Skills/National Children’s
Bureau.
London Child Protection Committee (2005) Working with Sexually Active Young
People under the age of 18 – a Pan-London Protocol, April. London: LCPC.
Masson, J. (2005) Emergency Intervention to Protect Children: Using and
Avoiding Legal Controls. Child and Family Law Quarterly 17(1): 75–96.
Mayall, B. (2002) Towards a Sociology of Childhood. Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Parton, N. (2005) Safeguarding Childhood: Early Intervention and Surveillance in a
Late Modern Society. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Scott, S. (2000) The Impact of Risk and Parental Anxiety on the Everyday Worlds
of Children. Children 5–16. Research Briefing, no. 19. Swindon: Economic and
Social Science Research Council.
Scott, S., Jackson, S. and Backett-Milburn, K. (1998) Swings and Roundabouts:
Risk, Anxiety and the Everyday Worlds of Children. Sociology 32(4): 689–705.
Taylor-Gooby, P. and Zin, J. (2005) Current Directions in Risk Research:
Reinvigorating the Social. Working Paper 4, SCARR: University of Kent.
Wade, H., Lawton, A. and Stevenson, M. (2001) Hear by Right: Setting Standards for
the Active Involvement of Young People in Local Democracy. London and Leicester:
Local Government Association/National Youth Agency.
Wyness, M. (2001) Children, Citizenship and Political Participation: English Case
Studies of Young People’s Councils. Paper presented at the Children in their
Places conference, Brunel University, 21 June.
7
Institutional Upbringing: A
Discussion of the Politics of
Childhood in Contemporary
Denmark
Eva Gulløv
During the last 150 years in most European societies, growing numbers
of professionals have defined themselves by reference to children, draw-
ing attention, amongst other things, to children’s needs for care and
education for the sake of both the individual child and society. Political
concerns for children have changed accordingly as childhood has been
redefined – depending on the political standpoint – as an investment in
cultural and social coherence, economic development and innovation,
or national security and peace. Universal institutions, such as schools
and other educational facilities, day-care and health services, have been
established to prepare new generations for societal challenges. Thus,
with the development of modern states, the raising of children has been
more and more professionalized and subject to state responsibility and
authority. In this process childhood and childcare institutions have
become politicized, as objects of intense discussion concerning invest-
ment and societal outcomes.
This is particularly true in Denmark where state involvement in the
making of a good childhood is pronounced, not least with regard to pre-
school children. The investment in public day-care institutions for pre-
school children is much higher than most other countries in Europe
(Bennett 2005), as is the number of children enrolled, and a growing
number of professionals are employed to take care of and educate chil-
dren, since the majority of pre-schoolers spend their day in childcare
institutions. Thus, public care takes a high political priority and day-care
institutions for children have become an integral part of society,
129
130 Eva Gulløv
accounting for an increasing proportion of municipal budgets

(Borchorst 2000: 56).
In this chapter, I will discuss the role of the state in the making of a
‘good’ Danish childhood. I will do so by analysing day-care institu-
tions as they represent state engagement and regulation, where spe-
cific notions of children, childhood and proper development are
articulated. I will argue that childhood is defined through public poli-
cies, practices and ideologies and in this process, these institutions
play a fundamental role. As official sites of public childcare, they
greatly influence understandings of children’s needs: the professional
supervision and input they provide stand as a guarantee for sound
child development and these institutions thus appear to be in the best
interests of the child.
Characteristically, contemporary day-care institutions in Denmark, in
their legal framework1 and everyday regime, stress the notion of the
child as an active and self-managing human being. In accordance with
Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
(UNCRC) it is of prime importance that children are able to influence
the manner and timing of their own activities, and participation in deci-
sion-making and everyday planning appear central to ideological
visions of a democratic upbringing. However, the ways in which partic-
ipation is understood differ among different groups, as do educational
ideas of the best interests of the child. The emphasis the state places on
children as competent participants, combined with an ideological con-
cern with being Danish, have resulted in a strong focus on language abil-
ities. Fluency in Danish has become a mark of a child’s ability to
participate in democratic decision-making and is thus regarded as an
important vehicle for ensuring a ‘good childhood’. As I will show, there-
fore, the ‘participating child’ is defined in accordance with dominant
perceptions of social norms and proper language skills, which means
that institutional staff do not perceive all children as capable of living
up to these ideals of participation. Consequently, not all children are
expected to be able to decide for themselves.
Drawing on findings from ethnographic research on ethnic minority
children in two Danish day-care institutions,2 I begin with a discussion
of how childcare institutions are empowered with the right to define
and control normality and the correct way of behaving. The analysis is
based on seven months’ ethnographic fieldwork in two pre-school insti-
tutions and their intake area. Participant observation, interviews (both
formal and informal) with children, parents, pre-school teachers as well
as with local authorities, provided the data.
The Politics of Childhood in Contemporary Denmark 131
Based on these findings, in this chapter I aim to show how institu-

tions come to define the best interests of the child and proper childhood
in accordance with current policies aimed at reinventing national cul-
ture, exemplified by legislation requiring testing of Danish language flu-
ency levels among pre-school minority children. Testing language skills
marks and defines distinctions that reinforce images of deviance that, in
turn, legitimize initiatives to enrol children, specifically minority chil-
dren, in childcare institutions. The testing of language can be seen as a
way to define the individual needs of children in accordance with the
overall demands of the state, singling out competence in Danish as an
area for special educational intervention for the sake of the individual
child as well as the state.
In order to understand political efforts to institutionalize childhood
and control how children are brought up, it is necessary to emphasize
that children are simultaneously individual subjects, with their own per-
spectives, interpretations and intentions, as well as being political sub-
jects and cultural symbols, invested with different meanings by social
agents in various positions. Thus, children are symbols of the caring
society and a desirable future, symbols to invest in and with. The poli-
tics of childhood, including decisions made on behalf of children that
organize and frame their lives, concern not just specific children but
children in general, who are seen as symbolic expressions of normal
development and life trajectories, social coherence, proper citizenship
and visions for the future. Such ideas are constant elements in profes-
sional negotiations of what children should be like, what they can and
must do and learn, and what counts as a normal childhood. To examine
further the social mechanisms of political processes regarding children
in Denmark, I will begin by describing the role of day-care institutions
for children in contemporary society.
Early care institutions in Denmark
Early childcare in Denmark is an integral part of the institutional foun-

dations of society. Public authorities provide childcare for children from
six months to seven years of age, when compulsory education begins.
The Ministry for Family and Consumer Affairs administers a system of
non-obligatory, early childhood programmes, which includes vuggestuer –
nurseries that serve children from six months to three years – and børne-
haver – kindergartens for children between the ages of three and six or
seven. These day-care institutions are publicly funded, albeit through
different providers.
132 Eva Gulløv
Municipalities regulate and fund institutions, most of which are pub-

lic, but private non-profit institutions receive public funding as well
(from local taxes and central governmental grants) covering approxi-
mately 67–70 per cent of expenditure, as long as they comply with reg-
ulations and standards set by local authorities (OECD 2001: 161). Fees
paid by parents cover the rest – approximately 30 per cent. Over the last
30 years, the number of pre-school children enrolled in the Danish day-
care system has greatly expanded: 64 per cent of all children between
the age of one and three, and 91 per cent of all children between three
and five (compared to 34 per cent in 1975) are enrolled in day-care
(OECD 2000: 25). Almost all children are enrolled full-time, although
in practice attendance varies between 5 and 11 hours a day (Winther
1999: 7). As a result, day-care institutions are a fundamental part of the
lives of almost all pre-school children in Denmark.
The Danish model of childcare differs from that in most other
European countries, as the market and especially the family play less
influential roles in the care of pre-school children (Borchorst 2000: 55).
This may be ascribed to the country’s relatively long history of out-of-
family care; institutional expansion began as early as the 1960s, corre-
lating with a situation of almost full employment. Unlike most other
countries, Denmark’s increasing need for labour was met by women
rather than by large-scale immigration, and by 1970, about half of all
women of working age had entered the labour market (Borchorst 2000:
60–1).3 The great expansion of childcare institutions during the 1960s
and 1970s allowed women to fill the gap in the labour force. During this
period, the status of the day-care sector changed as it became of general
societal concern as part of the expanding welfare state (Kampmann
2004: 132).
Ever since the watershed law on child welfare in 1964, which turned
day-care into a universal provision, the state has subsidized childcare
institutions to provide pedagogically sound opportunities for all chil-
dren, regardless of their parents’ income. Institutions provide care free
of charge for children from low-income families, whilst everybody else
pays graduated, means-tested fees (up to a certain level). Thus, all fami-
lies in Denmark have the option of having their young children looked
after during the day by professionals. The high percentage of children
enrolled in publicly subsidized day-care confirms the success of this
arrangement. Mirja Satka and Gudny Björk Eydal have noted that in all
of the Nordic countries, this policy is based on the strong belief that
the welfare state can redress social wrongs and create equality among
citizens (2004: 41).
Concurrent with the expanding day-care enrolment of pre-school

children, however, new kinds of arguments concerning institutions are
entering public debates. Thus, for example, Satka and Eydal argue that,
by the 1990s, public day-care had come to be regarded as a child’s right
rather than a practical arrangement for parents (Satka and Eydal, 2004:
40–1). Concerns, common around 1970, about whether or not it was
better for small children to be at home rather than in public care were,
by the end of 1980s, no longer part of the mainstream debate (Jerlang
and Jerlang 1996: 226–30). Instead, discourses were primarily concerned
with what kinds of stimulation day-care should offer. As Jan Kampmann
has argued:
The day-care institution has become such an incorporated part of

children’s ordinary conditions that institutional socialization is seen
as essential to a ‘normal socialization’ of children. This new type of
‘normalization’ means that it also becomes a more central state func-
tion to be actively involved in the definition of the socialization qual-
ities of this public institution. Currently this is shown in a Danish
context i.e. in the form of a considerable increased state and munici-
pal interest in the development of national (or municipal) curricula
for kindergartens.
(2004: 138)
The day-care institution thus stands as society’s guarantee that chil-

dren will be brought up properly from the very first year of life. Whereas
the debates 30 years ago concerned possible emotional distress brought
on by institutionalization, often by reference to Bowlby’s attachment
theory, contemporary discourses reflect concerns about parental over-
protection and the social under-stimulation of small children who are
not in public care. As a consequence, day-care has become so much a
part of the normal trajectory of the child that being at home is inter-
preted as potentially damaging (Gulløv 2003: 30). In Kampmann’s
words:
While day-care institutions as mentioned were regarded as a ‘supple-

ment’ to the upbringing in the home of the family in the 1970s, it is
now clear that the socialization functions of the institutions are seen
to a much greater extent as connected with the child’s basic individ-
uation process, and thereby in a more far-reaching sense in the con-
struction of the modern child.
(2004: 138)
134 Eva Gulløv
This is particularly evident in legal definitions of the purpose of day-

care as stated in the Social Services Act 2005, s. 8, which defines the
needs and requirements of each child as the main focus of child-care
institutions. In accordance with Article 12 of the UNCRC, it further
stresses that day-care institutions are obliged to support the learning
and development of each child with a special focus on developing
independent children, who can take responsibility for their own
lives in collaboration with others (Social Services Act, LBK nr 280,
05/04/2005). Key words in the Act are openness, tolerance and respect
for others, all aspects to be considered when teaching a child to cope
on its own. Creating active children, who participate in daily institu-
tional activities and thereby contribute to their own social, cognitive
and motor development, appears to be the statutory objective of con-
temporary childcare pedagogy. Thus, day-care is not regarded as sec-
ondary or supplementary to the home, but as an integral and necessary
part of the development of every child. The day-care institution is thus
a prerequisite for individuation processes, for social integration and
societal coherence and for the social formation of future citizens. In
some important respects, therefore, day-care institutions have taken
over the task, previously the responsibility of families, of bringing up
children and teaching them how to manage on their own in accor-
dance with collectively defined behavioural norms. On the whole,
institutions must endeavour to create autonomous and responsible
individuals, prevent social failure and ensure homogeneity by bringing
up children in accordance with dominant norms of behaviour, social
responsibility and independence.
Looking in more detail at daily day-care practices, it is, however, pos-
sible to identify variations in the way children are treated, variations
related not only to individual characteristics but, as Palludan (2005) has
noted, also to more general aspects of class, gender and ethnicity. Day-
care institutions may provide the means to individuate children but, as
I will argue, staff do not consider all children capable of managing by
themselves. With regard to children whose behaviour differs from
expected and acceptable standards, institutional objectives shift – from
supporting the development of ‘the self-managing being’ to regulating
the behaviour of the ‘person to become’, in order to prevent any poten-
tially negative trajectories. Support and regulation reflect the dilemma
of institutional upbringing, where the desire to produce a sound demo-
cratic environment for all children clashes with the need to teach some
children to express themselves and behave in ways that are socially
acceptable.
Supporting and regulating thus stand as two co-existing pedagogical

practices but, when carefully analysed in practice, they tend to be used
in relation to different types of children. Whereas democratic engage-
ment primarily concerns middle-class children who speak Danish flu-
ently, regulating practices are more commonly used with lower-class
children who are less articulate, particularly ethnic minority children
whose parents are not in the labour market. As illustrated in the next
section, the government as well as the municipality ascribes early child-
care institutions a central role in the process of integrating immigrants
by imbuing them with the legitimate power to socialize children in
accordance with norms of dominant groups in Danish society.
Institutions as civilizing agents
In his discussion of the ‘civilizing process’ in Western Europe, Norbert

Elias points out how the ability to control drives and emotional out-
bursts is ‘cultivated in individuals from an early age as habitual self-
restraint by the structure of social life, by the pressure of social
institutions in general, and by certain executive organs of society (above
all, the family) in particular’ (2004 [1939]: 158). In Denmark today day-
care institutions, as organs of society, have taken over the task of social-
izing children in some important respects by teaching them socially
acceptable ways of behaving, particularly in cases where professionals
doubt the socializing skills of the family. Such doubts seem to be most
evident in relation to children of marginalized, non-educated and
unemployed immigrant parents, which explains why these children are
given priority access to day-care as early as possible.
Institutions are political mechanisms, regulated by law and instructed
through political documents and debates. They are also formed and
informed by social practices, through the activities of employees,
municipal officials and institutional staff in their daily work in profes-
sional upbringing. As official sites of upbringing, institutions represent
dominant perceptions of normality, sociality and visions for the future
of society. Childhood in Denmark therefore reflects the role of institu-
tions in negotiating and organizing children’s lives, interpreting and
defining norms for a proper childhood and ways of being a child, and
thus their penetration into the lives of every child. This was clearly the
case in the municipality where the fieldwork was carried out.
Bringing children into institutions was stated as an explicit political
goal in interviews with local authorities during the fieldwork. Several
officials were asked to describe the political visions for the day-care
136 Eva Gulløv
institutions of the municipality, and enrolling children of minority eth-

nicity in public day-care appeared to have high political priority. The
leader of the municipality’s Family Department emphasized the great
efforts being made to enrol such children in pre-school institutions,
into what she termed ‘the official socializing system’. She described
how the municipality had established procedures to check automati-
cally the ages of children in every family and, when the children reach
day-care age, to write to the families informing them of the different
institutional care and opportunities available in their district.
Health visitors, who visit all families with babies and toddlers regu-
larly, are given the role of informing ethnic minority families of the ben-
efits of enrolling their children in day-care, where they will have daily
contact with other children and learn to speak Danish properly.
Municipal officials are sent to families and the district’s day-care centres
are also asked to inform families in the neighbourhood of the advan-
tages of public day-care for their children. Through such efforts, nearly
85 per cent of the district’s ethnic minority children were enrolled in
public child-care, and this was seen as a success.4
When asked why it was so important to have minority children
enrolled in ‘the system’, the official answered that it is meant to be sup-
portive of the families, who ‘of course, have an interest in improving the
language skills of their children’. Day-care institutions, she continued,
improve their skills in spoken Danish and, more importantly, familiarize
the children with common norms of social interaction with other peo-
ple, norms they will be expected to know and practise later. The aim of
the pre-school institution is, she stated, to teach children appropriate
ways of behaving, of managing themselves and of being co-operative
and considerate towards others. Thus, language stimulation is only one
part of the municipality’s desire to enrol ethnic minority children in
public day-care: from an official perspective, day-care provides norma-
tive social training that minority children do not necessarily receive at
home, training that should be undergone prior to the more intellectual
demands placed on them in schools. She stressed that knowing how to
relate to other people and behave according to group norms are by far
the most important educational outcomes of day-care and that the ear-
lier children are enrolled, the fewer problems there are later.
The official responsible for integration within the municipality
echoed and supported these views. She anticipated that starting public
socialization at an earlier age than previously might actually prevent at
least some of the problems currently being experienced by the munici-
pality with minority teenagers. She added that it was important to teach
immigrant children Danish traditions, such as celebrating Christmas

and Easter, as well as other communal seasonal activities. From this per-
spective, institutions play a key role in teaching children behavioural
norms and in transmitting national traditions that comprise and con-
struct a collective system of values and reference points.
These official accounts encapsulate the role of public pre-school day-
care institutions as civilizing fora. Support and regulation are tightly
interconnected, since what represents the best interests of a child is
politically defined. In line with the aims of these institutions, municipal
objectives promote the social development of children, cultural famil-
iarity and language skills (Social Services Act, LBK nr 280, 05/04/2005;
Vejledning 2001; Integration af tosprogede småbørn) – in short, cultural
hegemony. This in itself is not remarkable, since aspects of socialization
are an inevitable part of the aims of any social institution. Systems of
tutelage build on moral regulation, with the aim of cultivating succes-
sive generations in line with dominant understandings of traditions,
values and social norms.
The statements referred to here, however, go further by giving the
impression that children left in the care of their families are not neces-
sarily in the right hands. In a radical change from earlier views on pub-
lic day-care, young children who stay at home now seem to be outsiders,
particularly if their parents are immigrants or refugees, uneducated,
unemployed and do not speak Danish fluently. The official socializing
system in Denmark is organized to teach children to ‘be social’5 in
appropriate ways. The responsibility for their upbringing is therefore, at
least in part, transferred to institutional settings and children not
enrolled are considered to be at risk of not learning how to behave in
socially sanctioned ways. The municipality’s efforts to enrol ethnic
minority children in day-care bear witness to the socializing power
attributed to the public day-care system and the societal interests that
are seen to be at stake with regard to children.
Regulating language – an example of a social policy
Being enrolled in day-care, however, is not sufficient in itself. When

looking more carefully at the practices in the institutional setting, one
sees a range of efforts to regulate children’s behaviour. Language testing
is one specific example. There is great political focus on language in day-
care, as fluency in Danish is seen as a prerequisite for positive educa-
tional outcomes in school. The Ministry of Education has published a
number of guidelines concerning the early language stimulation of
138 Eva Gulløv
bilingual children. One recommendation is to have a specialist visit

families shortly after childbirth, to inform them about the language
requirements and other challenges the child will encounter in Danish
society, especially in the educational system (Ministry of Education
2000). Since 1998, it has been part of the law on compulsory schooling
that immigrant children whose parents do not have Danish as their
mother tongue have to be offered support to learn Danish in day-care.
Children who do not attend public day-care must be enrolled in special
language classes from the age of three (Law Regarding Strengthened
Integration of Children of Refugees and Immigrants, LBK 486§4a). Thus,
language stimulation provision for immigrant children is now manda-
tory and day-care institutions are one of the means by which local
authorities can comply with this political priority.
The municipality in question – as in others – requires annual testing
of the linguistic abilities of every bilingual child over three years of
age. The term ‘bilingual’ refers to children who are regularly con-
fronted with two different languages, typically because the home lan-
guage is different from the official language of the host society (see
Holmen and Normann Jørgensen 1993: 53; Gitz-Johansen 2004: 203–7
for a more critical discussion of the term). As discussed in more detail
elsewhere, municipal authorities have issued a questionnaire to help
ensure standardized testing of the children (Bundgaard and Gulløv
forthcoming). In practice, the questionnaire is extensive, evaluating
not just the individual child’s linguistic performance and comprehen-
sion, but also his or her social and cognitive skills, as well as motor co-
ordination and emotional maturity. These assessments are based on
staff observation and are recorded along with more general informa-
tion about the status and situation of the child and family.
Institutional staff are instructed to complete the questionnaire, show it
to the parents, who are expected to sign it but may refuse to do so, and
then return it to the municipal authorities who, once a year, read
through all the approximately 150 questionnaires submitted by the
different institutions in the district.
The official responsible for these points out that their purpose is pri-
marily to find out which institutions should be given more resources. In
addition to the main funding, extra resources can be obtained if they are
needed to deal with problems with specific children. Although the ques-
tionnaire is intended to provide a detailed evaluation of ethnic minority
children, it also functions as an application form. When asked whether
the municipality used the questionnaires to obtain a general overview of
the district’s minority children, the official stressed that it is primarily
used for allocating resources and secondarily for estimating how many
children will need special education upon entering school. Children
who, according to the tests, do not speak Danish fluently enough are
channelled into special reception classes.
These questionnaires are often the subject of intense negotiations
between parents and staff, and to some degree between staff and local
authorities (see also Bundgaard and Gulløv forthcoming). In general,
minority parents complain that only their children and non-ethnic
Danish children are tested. In addition, they express uncertainty and
scepticism regarding the purpose of the tests and why municipality offi-
cials need to know and record tests of their children’s motor develop-
ment, as well as their emotional, cognitive and social skills. Some
parents suspect that the real purpose is to separate their children from
ethnic Danish children, since the questionnaires often demonstrate
the need for special education, and that records are kept by the
municipality to determine which children should be sent to special
classes, fearing that such records represent a systematic way of segre-
gating children. Others worry that the tests mark and stigmatize their
children within the day-care centre itself. Staff try to convince them that
the questionnaires serve only as vehicles for distributing resources, but
most of the parents interviewed said that they were not convinced and
do not find this a satisfactory explanation for why their children are
tested, not just on their language ability, but also on other aspects like
motor development.
Thus the process of documenting children’s language reveals con-
flicting interests. Some parents refuse to sign the questionnaire; some
even begin to cry when staff go over it with them. Others simply
resign themselves to the process and sign, while a small group has no
objection to signing. Confronting parents with the results is difficult
and raises many emotions. Some staff feel so uncomfortable that they
try to avoid such meetings and leave the task to their colleagues. The
discomfort expressed by the most sceptical parents may be interpreted
as a form of protest against the process itself as well as the fact that
staff are classifying their children, and as a fruitless attempt to control
the classification. Well aware of the unequal power in this situation,
the most vocal parents fear that marking their children has conse-
quences they cannot foresee: the fact that only minority children are
tested makes them suspect discrimination. One young Muslim
mother who spoke fluent Danish suggested, while pointing at her
head: ‘I don’t think my boy would have been tested if I wasn’t wear-
ing the scarf.’
140 Eva Gulløv
The example of evaluation shows how conflicting interests are at stake

when it comes to the power to define children and their problems. The
parents’ reactions in this case may be seen as a protest against the defini-
tions made, first by municipal officials and then by the teachers who are
responsible for observing and testing the children. Negotiations, objec-
tions and refusing to sign the evaluation represent a struggle over the right
to define children’s needs but also over who has legitimate authority to
bring up children, to intervene in their lives and to deal with any problems
they may have. Parental authority has been challenged by the general
institutionalization of childhood which requires sharing the responsibility
of children’s upbringing with professionals (and bureaucrats). Day-care
professionals have the right and duty to evaluate children’s competencies
and development and, where there are serious problems or suspicions of
neglect, they must, by law, intervene. In the worst cases, this may lead to
the removal of children from their homes. Several of the parents inter-
viewed interpreted the observations and questionnaires as a mistrust of
their ability to bring up their children properly and they feared that they
were losing control over their children’s upbringing.
At this micro level, the language evaluation policy reveals conflict-
ing interests and the monopoly of power that allows the municipality
to disregard parental protests and authorizes staff to evaluate children
in detail. Parents may complain and refuse to sign, but the question-
naire will nevertheless be returned to local authorities, stored and used
in making local departmental decisions that will have consequences
for both the children and their families. Struggles to challenge the
legitimacy of these evaluations may be seen as a more general struggle
over the right to control how children are brought up. Parents and
staff, officials and politicians, take different positions and exercise dif-
ferent degrees of influence on the framework of childhood, and thus
on children’s lives.
The example of language evaluation presented here reveals an
unequal distribution of influence and control over the classifications
and trajectories of children, and the powerlessness felt by some parents
as they confront the authority behind institutional practices. As civiliz-
ing agents, public day-care institutions are given the legitimacy to artic-
ulate children’s best interests and to define proper childhood. In so far
as early day-care is not obligatory, parents may withdraw their children
and some do, either keeping the children at home or sending them to
private institutions, thus precluding them from ‘the official socializing
system’. However, the majority accept the institutional project and send
their children to day-care.
Problem children as a resource
This policy example illustrates that several interests intersect when

problems are pointed out. On the one hand, the municipality’s goal is to
increase Danish language fluency among minority children before they
enter school. From that perspective, language tests and evaluations are
regarded as a means to educational action, to improve the linguistic
competencies of minority children. On the other hand, the municipal-
ity allocates resources in accordance with the number of children with
language problems in any one day-care centre. At this particular
moment, with funding for day-care being routinely cut, staff are, of
course, keen to obtain extra resources. As a category, the presence of
‘problematic bilingual children’ leads to the allocation of additional
public funds and thus the identification of such children is often
rewarded with extra resources. In an interview, the leader of one of the
district’s more economically affluent institutions speculated: ‘We have
more problematic children here than in any other institution in the dis-
trict – I wonder how it can be?’ Her puzzlement may be interpreted as a
reflection of her capacity to describe problems in an adequate, recog-
nized way. It also raises the question of whether being ‘problematic’ is a
‘real’ characteristic of the children in day-care or whether it is an ele-
ment of an institutional logic that converts the category of problematic
children into economic capital.
The objective of day-care institutions is to ensure each child’s cultural,
social and personal competencies is in line with dominant perceptions of
how to behave and how to develop. This objective calls for assessments
of normal and abnormal development in different areas, with specific
pedagogical consequences whenever a deviation from the norm is high-
lighted. However, the logic of distributing day-care resources in accor-
dance with the number of children with problems has resulted in much
more explicit attention being paid to indicators of deviance than would
normally be the case. The language test, for example, includes questions
concerning each child’s emotional, cognitive, motor, linguistic and
social skills, thus detailing a range of issues and characteristics requiring
staff attention. The questionnaire supposedly reflects issues defined as
those most important for child development but, as we have seen, these
are often also issues of greatest significance when it comes to applying
for further resources.
Although it does not figure as a separate category, importance is also
indirectly attached to a child’s ability to ‘manage oneself’ in accordance
with the norms of the day-care setting (cf. Ellegård 2004; Kampmann
142 Eva Gulløv
2004). Analysis of staff comments on the questionnaires reveal that staff

note when a child depends on adults’ initiatives, does not join in activ-
ities with other children or is judged to have difficulties in verbal com-
munication – e.g. in stating intentions or verbalizing emotions
(Bundgaard and Gulløv 2006; cf. Nilsen, this volume). From this it fol-
lows that an unproblematic child is one that expresses its feelings and
intentions in Danish, participates in negotiations over activities, and
‘manages itself’ properly in relation to its peers. The normal child thus
participates in group play and activities in recognized ways, which
means that the child is able to express clear wishes and intentions in
comprehensible Danish.
That public day-care institutions aim to bring up children in accor-
dance with the dominant society’s norms is not in itself remarkable; nor
is their interest in Danish language fluency, their focus on early lan-
guage stimulation and on children’s capabilities to engage in social
interaction. The interesting aspect is their stress on and definition of
problems – the fact that politics concerning children and childhood are
preoccupied with defining and classifying different kinds of problems,
diagnosing causes and proposing remedial measures. A very important
aspect of the contemporary politics of childhood in Denmark thus
appears to be pointing out, as early as possible, which children need
help and by what means society should intervene.
Politics works through a complex set of social logics that define prior-
ities and problems, place responsibility and distribute resources. The
work of defining problems, distributing means and placing responsibil-
ity is present in all kinds of politics, but in this case it has the conse-
quence of constituting a dominant conception of the normal child as
one fluent in Danish and able to participate in activities and interac-
tions in linguistically well-orchestrated ways. To participate ‘as a child’
in a Danish day-care setting requires being able to verbalize intentions
and articulate viewpoints in a manner comprehensible to and recog-
nized by the staff. Thus, it is ironic that one of the results of the effort to
integrate minority children by enrolling them in the institutional sys-
tem is the emergence of a definition of normal childhood that does not
encompass these children. As a result, the process of allocating addi-
tional resources to the very children that the system is so eager to nor-
malize works by identifying them as deviating from the norm.
I have argued that ethnic minority children are at once a resource and
a target for Danish day-care institutions. Pointing out acknowledged
problems, such as social or linguistic deviance, stresses the need for
institutions, for civilizing initiatives, and helps to legitimize the official
socializing system. Professionals uphold their legitimacy by indicating

problems and proposing solutions, while the process of documenting
the fact that problem children exist helps obtain additional resources.
Socially legitimated judgements about children justify interventions in
their lives by identifying the actions needed to resolve the defined prob-
lems. The politics of childhood in this context thus concerns articulat-
ing both problems and proper solutions. This practice is particularly
evident with regard to well-established areas of public concern such as
the integration of children of ethnic minorities. The definition of prob-
lems by those in authority leads to the construction of dominant con-
ceptions of childhood and normalcy, the very definitions that critical
parents in the above example oppose.
Childhood is defined in social struggles
It is not my intention to dispute the justice of allocating resources to

children in need or to indicate that public resources are not properly dis-
tributed. Nevertheless, the case presented here illustrates how the differ-
ent interests of parents, staff and the municipality intersect as a result of
the structural logic of allocation procedures. Different interests reflect
the range of social positions from which people interpret and define
children’s best interests. Children are therefore embedded not only in
societies with specific historical ideas about childhood and the proper
treatment of children, but also in fields6 of social relations, where agents
in different positions try to consolidate their own status and influence.
The politics of childhood is thus the outcome of social struggles over the
right to define problems and distribute resources, and therefore over the
right to define the best interest of the child.
The social world is comprised of relations; it is a configuration of rela-
tions between objective positions that define the possibilities and influ-
ences of the agents (Bourdieu 1996: 84). In any given social field,
influence and power are distributed differentially among such positions,
so that various statements and definitions do not have the same impact
or importance. Dominant conceptions of childhood reflect the distribu-
tion of power and dominance between the positions in the field; it is
through the struggles over these positions and their legitimacy that chil-
dren and childhood are defined. Day-care settings, institutional prac-
tices, political attempts to enrol children in kindergarten and mandatory
language questionnaires, may all be seen as outcomes of negotiations
(institutional, verbal or practical) among agents seeking to sanction
their viewpoints and their right to define childhood.
144 Eva Gulløv
In this sense, perceptions and definitions of childhood and children’s

best interests are the result of social processes, where some understand-
ings have gained influence over others. Thus, to be raised at home with
unemployed immigrant parents is not perceived as appropriate for a
child. The outcome of social struggles over influence has turned institu-
tions into political solutions as places for raising children of families not
regarded as appropriate. The social construction of childhood is the
result of a process of dominance where power relations among different
social actors have an important say.
Enrolling children in day-care and testing their emotional, cognitive,
social and linguistic skills with regard to a specific standardized scheme
may be interpreted as a means of control, and as a political strategy at
once legitimized by and legitimizing positions of influence. Defining
aspects of children’s lives as problematic, deciding on interventions and
allocating responsibilities are fundamental aspects of the politics of
childhood, and thus form part of the social struggle for legitimate social
positions and authority. Institutional settings are important forms of
sociality and can be seen as battlefields in the social struggles over the
upbringing of children, visions of the future and social positions related
to children. The quest for civilization is part of a social game over influ-
ence – one which, in the case of contemporary public institutional
upbringing, produces a paradoxical result: children are characterized in
terms of problems and childhood becomes a highly politicized project.
Day-care institutions in Denmark have a long tradition of emphasiz-
ing tolerance and social responsibility in conjunction with the develop-
ment of the individual child. Democratic values have a key place in
public upbringing and the Social Services Act stipulates that children in
day-care shall participate and share the responsibility for their own lives
(Social Services Act, LBK no. 280, 05/04/2005, section 4, §8; Vejledning
om dagtilbud m.v. til børn1998). More recently, this emphasis seems to
have been overshadowed by another agenda: in a political climate in
which dominant groups, in reaction to global influences, argue for the
reinvention of national culture, ethnic minority children are legitimate
targets for particular Danish civilizing initiatives. Although it is beyond
the scope of this chapter to go into further detail here, this re-invention
has manifest consequences for the childcare sector in the form of cur-
riculum change, more emphasis on Danish language skills, quotas for
ethnic minority children in various institutions, and revised ways of
allocating resources. The politics of childhood reflects the power rela-
tions at play among different social groups in society with the result that
institutional civilizing programmes are explicitly directed at ethnic
minority children.
In this discursive atmosphere, ethnic minority children become ‘oth-

ers’, as children and as ethnic outsiders, and as such are considered obvi-
ous objects of nationalized institutional upbringing. Thus, analysis of
the practices related to ethnic minority children within institutional set-
tings sheds light on the dominant notion of a proper childhood in con-
temporary society. In general, stress is placed on the ‘participating
child’, who is able to exert an influence on the kind of activities he or
she engages in. Children who deviate from expected linguistic and
behavioural standards are thought to need more specialized training.
Being ‘others’ in relation to ethnic Danish children means becoming the
object of educational interventions, and not being left to ‘manage one-
self’ (Ellegård 2004; Palludan 2005). To sum up, ethnic minority families
are pressured into enrolling their children in pre-school institutions, so
that in these settings they can experience how to ‘be social’ in ways con-
sidered proper by the groups empowered to decide what this means.
Conclusion
Over recent decades, the raising of pre-school children in Denmark has

changed. Whereas this used to be principally a family concern, it has
developed into a responsibility shared between families and childcare
institutions. In accordance with the general move of mothers and pri-
mary caretakers out of the home and into the labour market, pre-school
institutions have become an intrinsic part of a normal childhood, sim-
ply because no adults are at home during the day to look after the
young. In the process, institutions have taken on some of the civilizing
duties and rights, including the right to intervene in families who are
not bringing up their children according to acceptable norms.
Although parents can reject institutional socialization by withdraw-
ing their children, overall institutions play a central role in the daily
lives of children. Although peripheral oppositional voices occasionally
argue that the family is the right place for children, the dominant role
of institutions is rarely discussed in this social climate. Thus, most chil-
dren aged 3⫺6 spend the day in institutions, while children not in care
are closely watched by local authorities, especially if their parents are
not in the labour market and are not fluent Danish-speakers. This is the
situation for some of the ethnic minority families followed in this study.
Parents who, for various reasons, are not in the labour pool and there-
fore do not need day-care are currently contacted by the local authori-
ties who try to persuade them to enrol their children in pre-schools.
Public day-care institutions have an important say in the organization
of pre-school children’s lives in Denmark. The fact that more than
146 Eva Gulløv
90 per cent of children aged between 3 and 6 spend their day in out-of-
family care makes such institutions an important starting point for an
analysis of contemporary childhood. Day-care institutions regulate chil-
dren’s daily lives and, as official sites of public upbringing, greatly influ-
ence conceptions of children’s needs and development. Childhood is
defined through public policies, practices and ideologies – what I have
termed the politics of childhood – and in this process, these institutions
play a fundamental role.
It has not, however, been my intention to postulate that childhood is
undisputed or unequivocal. Rather, I have tried to argue that struggles
between social agents – especially various kinds of professionals – result
in dominant understandings, expressed in the legal and political initia-
tives that frame institutional practices. It is, for example, not necessarily
the teacher’s personal conviction that it is important to test and evalu-
ate minority children on a variety of criteria, but the logic of the domi-
nant belief system makes it necessary to do so, whatever the individual
teacher may think. The politics of childhood is an expression of social
dominance, of the struggles among various professionals, resulting in
dominant definitions of childhood. Institutions reflect the politics of
childhood as the dominant notions and visions are implemented in the
statutory objectives of pedagogical work. The juridical and political
injunctions and definitions therefore clearly and explicitly frame the
institutional practices and express dominant notions of proper child-
hood. Childhood cannot be reduced to structural logic or system defini-
tions, but analysing institutional upbringing is an attempt to indicate
the social forces at play in the social construction of childhood.
Notes
1 Day-care institutions are regulated under the Social Services Act, and are for-
mulated in accordance with the principles laid down in the UN Convention
on the Rights of the Child.
2 The project was based on seven months’ ethnographic fieldwork from August
2002 to February 2003 in two pre-school institutions and their intake area in
a suburb of Copenhagen. The fieldwork was conducted with Associate
Professor Helle Bundgaard, of the Institute of Anthropology, Copenhagen.
3 In 1994 Denmark had the highest rate of all European Community (EC) coun-
tries of working mothers with young children – approximately 79 per cent
(Stenvig, Andersen and Laursen 1994).
4 About a quarter of all ethnic minority children in Denmark aged 0–2 years
have a place in a day-care facility. In the 3–6 age group about 65 per cent have
a place. The percentage for all children in this age group is 90 per cent (OECD
Background Report 2000: 39).
5 ‘Being social’ is a widely used expression in the data covering the ability to
behave well and show consideration for other people’s viewpoints and feelings.
6 With inspiration from the work of Pierre Bourdieu I use the notion of field as
a structured space of positions determined by the distribution of different
kind of resources. See Bourdieu (1991: 229–31) for a definition of field.
References
Bennett, J. (2005) Where Does Denmark Stand? Paris: OECD/BUPL.
Borchorst, A. (2000) Den danske børnepasningsmodel – kontinuitet og foran-
dring. Arbejderhistorie 4: 55–69.
Bourdieu, P. (1991) Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1996) Symbolsk makt. Oslo, Pax Forlag A/S.
Bundgaard, H. and Gulløv, E. (2006) Children of Different Categories.
Educational Practice and the Production of Difference in Danish Daycare
Institutions. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 32(1). Brighton: Centre for
Migration Studies, University of Sussex.
Bundgaard, H. and Gulløv, E. (forthcoming) Targeting Immigrant Children.
Disciplinary Rationales in Danish Pre-schools. In Dyck, N. (ed.), Exploring
Regimes of Discipline. New York: Berghahn Books.
Elias, N. ([1939] 2004) The Civilizing Process. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Ellegård, T. (2004) Self-Governance and Incompetence: Teachers’ Construction of
‘the Competent Child’. In Brembeck, H., Johansson, B. and Kampmann, J.
(eds.), Beyond the Competent Child. Exploring Contemporary Childhoods in the
Nordic Welfare Societies. Roskilde: Roskilde University Press.
Gitz-Johansen, T. (2004) The Incompetent Child: Representations of Ethnic
Minority Children. In Brembeck, H., Johansson, B. and Kampmann , J. (eds.),
Beyond the Competent Child. Exploring Contemporary Childhoods in the Nordic
Welfare Societies. Roskilde: Roskilde University Press.
Gulløv, E. (2003) Creating a Natural Place for Children: An Ethnographic Study of
Danish Kindergartens. In Fog Olwig, K. and Gulløv, E. (eds.), Children Places.
London and New York: Routledge.
Holmen, A. and Jørgensen, J. N. (1993) Tosprogede born i Danmark. En grundbof.
København: Hans Reitzels Folag.
Integration af tosprogede småbørn i dagtilbud, vejen til integration i det danske
samfund. Socialministeriet Departementet, 2001.
Jerlang, E. and Jerlang, J. (1996) Socialisering og habitus. København: Munksgaard-
Rosinante.
Kampmann, J. (2004) Socialization of Childhood: New Opportunities? New
Demands? In Brembeck, H., Johansson, B. and Kampmann, J. (eds.), Beyond the
Competent Child. Exploring Contemporary Childhoods in the Nordic Welfare
Societies. Roskilde: Roskilde University Press.
LBK no. 280 af 05/04/2005 – Social Service Act. The Ministry of Social Affairs.
Ministry of Education (2000), Vejledning om sprogstimulerende tilbud for
tosprogede børn. http://pub.uvm.dk/2000/tosprog/5.htm.
OECD (2000) Background Report: Early Childhood Education and Care Policy in
Denmark. Copenhagen: The Ministry of Social Affairs.
148 Eva Gulløv
OECD (2001) Starting Strong. Early Childhood Education and Care. Paris: OECD
Publishing.
Palludan, C. (2005) Når børnehaven gør en forskel. PhD dissertation.
Copenhagen: Danish University of Education.
Prout, A. and James, A. (eds.) (1997) Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood:
Contemporary Issues in the Sociological Study of Childhood. London: Falmer Press.
Satka, M. and Eydal, G. B. (2004) The History of Nordic Welfare Policies for
Children. In Brembeck, H., Johansson, B.and Kampmann, J. (eds.), Beyond the
Competent Child. Exploring Contemporary Childhoods in the Nordic Welfare
Societies. Roskilde: Roskilde University Press.
Stenvig, B., Andersen, J. and Laursen, L. (1994) Statistics for Work and the Family
in Denmark and the EC. In Carlsen, S. and Larsen, J. E. (eds.), The Equality
Dilemma: Reconciling Working Life and Family Life, Viewed in an Equality
Perspective. Copenhagen: Danish Equal Status Council.
Vejledning om dagtilbud m.v. til børn efter lov om social service af 6. marts 1998,
Socialministeriet.
Vejledning om ændring af vejledning om dagtilbud m.v. til børn,
Socialministeriet, 14. juni 2001.
Winther, Ida W. (1999): Småbørnsliv i Danmark – anno 2000. København:
Danmarks Pædagogiske Institut.
8
Education and the Cultural
Politics of Childhood in Cyprus
Spyros Spyrou
Introduction
Political entities such as nation states must, if they wish to reproduce

themselves and maintain control over their subjects, find ways to incul-
cate in children understandings of the meaning of ‘good’ and ‘proper’
citizenship, in order to produce the kind of citizen who will believe in
the state’s ideological legitimacy and who will work towards serving its
interests. The formal education of the young is the primary way by
which states seek to inculcate in children those virtues and values that
are deemed necessary for becoming a good citizen, a process of social
and cultural reproduction that is much more tightly controlled in
divided societies such as Cyprus, in which political realities often give
rise to specific political and ideological agendas that are promoted
through public education.
This chapter is concerned with educational policy and practice at the
primary school level in Cyprus and the tensions that arise when ideas of
a ‘good’ childhood and citizenship that are presented to children
through educational practices are responded to in different ways by chil-
dren. This encounter provides us with insights into the ways in which
culture, politics and childhood intersect in the contemporary world.
The ethnographic data presented in this chapter come primarily from
two periods of fieldwork. The earlier, year-long study (1996–7) examined
ethnic identity construction among Greek Cypriot elementary school
children in two communities, one urban and one rural. Much of the
data came from participant observation in classrooms, school play-
grounds and neighbourhoods as well as in-depth interviews with chil-
dren, parents and teachers. The more recent study was carried out in
2004 and included three months’ fieldwork in Greek Cypriot schools
149
150 Spyros Spyrou
attended by Turkish-speaking children, which focused on identifying

the educational needs of these children. The data of this study also
mainly came from participant observation in schools and interviews
with children, teachers, school administrators and government officials.
I first turn to the earlier piece of fieldwork in order to discuss how
educational policy and practice shape children’s school lives and experi-
ences and how the children themselves respond in their everyday
worlds.
The cultural politics of childhood in Cyprus: an

ethnographic example
On 15 November 1996, as on every other day of the school year, I

arrived early at the school where I was carrying out my fieldwork to
make sure I did not miss anything that took place. My research focused
on Greek Cypriot children’s constructions of ethnic identity and though
I was interested as much in the mundane, everyday aspects of the
process of identity construction, I knew very well that that day was not
like any other day1 because it was the anniversary of the declaration in
1983 by the Turkish Cypriot authorities of the Turkish Republic of
Northern Cyprus (TRNC) as an independent state. Greek Cypriots refer
to the TRNC as a pseudo-state, for not only do they not recognize it, no
other country (apart from Turkey) recognizes it as a state either.
Every year on 15 November demonstrations are organized by Greek
Cypriots to denounce the declaration, and schools often organize their
own activities in support of this. The first activity organized by the school
I was attending was the creation of a banner by the children bearing slo-
gans against the declaration of the TRNC; one could see children writing
‘We don’t want the Turks in Cyprus’, ‘Cyprus is and will remain Greek’,
‘NO, to the Pseudo-state’, ‘I want Cyprus to be free’, and so on. While the
children were making their banner, I saw two boys in the school play-
ground who were in the 1st grade of secondary school and who had grad-
uated from elementary school the previous year. I asked them whether
they were going to the demonstration organized by their own school, but
they said they would not because there might be ‘troubles’.
A few minutes later, I noticed another group of children (two boys and
one girl, all of whom also attended the 1st grade of secondary school
and were graduates of my field site school) walking past the school.
Each of them was holding and waving a Cypriot flag. They told me they
were going to demonstrate at Ledra Palace, a landmark on the buffer
zone where many demonstrations take place. They told me that while
Education and the Cultural Politics of Childhood in Cyprus 151
secondary schools were meeting elsewhere, the three of them decided to

go to Ledra Palace where it was mainly adults who would be demon-
strating. A little later, I saw two of the children from my field school, a
4th grade boy named Stathis who was carrying a big Greek flag on his
shoulders and Elena, a 6th grade girl. They joined the three secondary
school children and then all left together. As they passed the school,
Elena and Stathis broke into a run so their teachers would not see them,
since their decision to demonstrate at the Ledra Palace meant that they
did not intend going to school that day. Elena, however, made a point of
attracting my attention and making sure that I noticed her.
As I discovered later from the teachers, other children did not attend
school that day because they (or their parents) feared that it would be
dangerous for them to attend the demonstration. One of the teachers
told me that a 6th grade boy who had not come to school had actually
called other children the day before and tried to discourage them from
going to the demonstration because of the risk of violence. The rest of
the children proceeded to the Statue of Liberty,2 however, where the
school principal read out the customary message from the Minister of
Education; they then recited poems, sang patriotic songs and placed a
laurel wreath at the foot of the statue. Their demonstration ended with
singing the national anthem. They then returned to school.
The particular incidents I describe here, and my focus in this chap-
ter, are illustrative of what James and James (2004) call the cultural pol-
itics of childhood, a conceptual area of inquiry in childhood studies
which the two authors attempt to theorize by engaging productively
with what social scientists have been debating for a number of decades –
the tension between structure and agency. For James and James, the
cultural politics of childhood is concerned with the processes of conti-
nuity and change we see in childhood and with ‘both the many and
different cultural determinants of childhood and children’s behavior,
and the political mechanisms and processes by which these are put
into practice at any given time’ (2004: 4). At the same time, they argue,
the cultural politics of childhood takes seriously the role children
themselves play in the construction of childhood, irrespective of
whether the outcomes of their actions are intended or unintended. In
that sense, the cultural politics of childhood is centrally concerned
with the implications that particular social constructions of childhood
have on children themselves and with the various responses that chil-
dren have to these constructions and structures which control and
constrain them (James and James 2004: 12–13; see also Coles 1986;
Stephens 1995).
152 Spyros Spyrou
Ideas of a ‘proper’ or ‘good’ childhood require that children become

particular kinds of children, ‘proper’ and ‘good’ being defined by the
state’s political and ideological agendas. Children, as members of soci-
ety, are embedded in these kinds of understandings, which seek to shape
them as future citizens. But in reality, ideological prescriptions rarely
result in unproblematic adherence and full support. Hence, the tension
between officially sanctioned ideas of childhood and children’s lived,
everyday experiences. What children actually do may end up reproduc-
ing these ideas, but it may also help reconstitute them since children, as
members of families and other social units, have their own agendas and
interests that they might choose to pursue even when these oppose or
contradict official notions of ‘proper’ and ‘good’ childhood.
Returning to the events surrounding the 15 November anniversary, I
suggest that what we see here is the cultural politics of childhood at
work. On the one hand, the entire structure and emphasis of the school
programme on that day is primarily the outcome of the larger educa-
tional policy of the Republic of Cyprus, which seeks to inculcate in the
younger generation the need ‘to fight for the liberation of their half-
occupied homeland’. This necessitates shaping their education in such a
way that they can grow up with this aspiration in mind. On the other
hand, what really happens on that day is not entirely predictable, sim-
ply and precisely because children have agency and sometimes choose
to exercise it, even if this happens in relation to the constraints of the
school that they happen to attend. What the specific example also illus-
trates is that children manage to act on their worlds through their own
initiative, even in relation to the school setting, which is a tightly adult-
controlled context and which largely constrains what a child can be and
do. Thus, the fact that some children chose not to attend the demon-
stration while others chose to attend an alternative one suggests that
children (and their parents in the case of the former) did not passively
accept the school’s programme but rather responded to it. The children
who did not attend chose not to do so because they (and their parents)
interpreted it as being potentially risky. The children who attended the
demonstration at Ledra Palace, however, also responded to the school’s
programme, but for a very different reason: they wanted to participate
in a more dynamic demonstration where they would be able to express
their national identities in a new and, for them, more appropriate fash-
ion than the rest of the children would be able to do with the school.
Elena, for example, explained to me later that she preferred to go to
the Ledra Palace because she would have the opportunity actually to go
to the buffer zone. On their way there, she said, they shouted slogans
like ‘Cyprus is Greek!’ and ‘Attilas, Out of Cyprus!’ although they also
shouted other slogans that she admitted she could not understand. This
is how she described what they did at the demonstration:
Elena: First, we threw pepper at the policemen.

Spyros: Why?
Elena: I don’t know. Because they would not let us go in [i.e. enter
the buffer zone]. They told us that we could not go in – to go
through the buffer zone – and because someone [a demon-
strator] wanted a lot to go through, he attacked them, and he
said to the policemen: ‘You will tell me where to go? I will go
to my village,’ he told them. And there was a quarrel there
and things like that. But they were peaceful. Just some fights.
Spyros: Did you want to pass through [the buffer zone] and go [to
the other side]?
Elena: Yes.
Spyros: ‘Why? The policemen were saying ‘No’!
Elena: Eh, I wanted to go and see my mother’s village.
As the daughter of refugee parents, attending a demonstration against

the pseudo-state was an important event for Elena. Her participation
was motivated by her status as a refugee and by her desire to see her
mother’s occupied village. She hoped that she could do so by attending
this alternative and, in many ways, more passionate demonstration,
which took place right on the buffer zone, rather than going to the
school demonstration which was much more closely monitored by the
teachers and relatively predictable. Her defiance of the school and her
pursuit of an alternative course of action allowed her to construct and
express her identity in a context of her own choosing, from which chil-
dren of her age were mostly absent. Elena reflected and acted upon her
world; she worked around the constraints associated with her status as
an elementary school child essentially to increase her social age by par-
ticipating in a predominantly adult event (see Solberg 1990).
The children who stayed at home because they or their parents feared
that it was too risky to take part in the school demonstration similarly
resisted the school’s agenda. They juxtaposed their own agendas and
interests with those of the school and also made their own choices; their
decision to stay at home was also expressive of their agency, their ability
to reflect and act upon their worlds.3
154 Spyros Spyrou
‘The best interests of the child’ and the dominance

of the Cypriot family
The state in Cyprus treats childhood as a category that is subsumed in its

entirety under the institution of the family. Following Makrinioti’s
(1994: 268) argument in relation to more general processes, what we see
in Cyprus is children’s familialization, whereby childhood becomes
fused with or subsumed under the institution of the family to such an
extent that to talk about children is really to talk about families. In this
way, children’s particular needs and interests are defined as coterminous
with those of the family; the state only intervenes when the family is
seen to be failing to perform its proper role in relation to children. State
laws are one clear and powerful way through which this particular dis-
course on childhood finds expression in Greek Cypriot society.
Consider three of the most important laws concerning children: the
Parents and Children Relations Law 1990; the Violence in the Family
Law 1994; and the Adoption Law 1995. All three frame children’s rights
in relation to the family and thus indirectly reinforce the boundaries
between childhood and adulthood. At the same time and in line with
the UNCRC, these laws stress the importance of taking into account the
best interests of the child. Thus, for instance, the Parents and Children
Relations Law changed the law, giving responsibility for supporting the
child to the father, to the current provision in which both parents are
given the right and responsibility for providing for and supporting the
child, bearing in mind the best interests of the child. In cases of divorce
or separation, the courts decide which parent will gain custody of the
child, having taken into account ‘the best interests of the child’ as well
as the child’s opinion.
In the educational context, similar declarations, at least in principle,
are made to pinpoint how Greek Cypriot society is aligning itself with
the globalization of child law and the provisions of the UNCRC, which
help reconstitute the notion of childhood at a global scale (James and
James 2004: 215). In a circular sent by the directors of primary, second-
ary and vocational education (12 October 2005), school principals were
encouraged to organize celebrations on 20 November, the day of the UN
Convention for the Rights of the Child; among other things, the circu-
lar notes the importance of giving primacy to the child’s interests when
decisions affecting the child are made.
Thus although adults and parents in particular have jurisdiction over
their families (i.e. they are responsible for the welfare of their children),
it is the state that ultimately takes responsibility if parents fail to perform
their duties in relation to their children. The state’s intervention in the

case of Cyprus ranges from giving advice to parents on how to provide
proper parenting to removal of the child from the family. In such cases,
when the state considers it necessary to protect the child from the fam-
ily, the Department of Social Welfare Services intervenes. Similarly, in
cases of adoption the court appoints an officer from the Department of
Social Welfare Services whose task is to make sure that during the court
proceedings ‘the best interests of the child’ are served.
Although the above changes in the law, which undoubtedly bring it
more in line with the principles of the UNCRC, are intended to pro-
vide for the best interests of the child, it is adults such as parents and
Welfare Department officers who are expected to ensure that the deci-
sions made actually provide for the children’s best interests. And
although some of the laws take into account children’s opinions when
reaching decisions that affect them, it is adults who ultimately enforce
these provisions. As Kouloumou (2004: 637) argues, in Greek Cypriot
society, ‘cultural values designate adults as experts in decision making
even on issues that affect directly children’. It is not surprising, there-
fore, that one of the concerns expressed by the UN Committee that
monitors the implementation of the UNCRC, in their response to the
Greek Cypriot report in 1999, was that the state was not doing enough
to ensure the participation of children in decision-making processes
affecting them, including decisions taking place in the family, in
schools and in courts (Report of Cyprus to the UN Committee for the
Implementation of The Convention for the Rights of the Child 1999:
105). It is paradoxical therefore that, through this formulation, chil-
dren’s best interests seem to be ‘served’ without their input on how
this can be done. As James and James (2004: 211) have aptly put it: ‘As
a giver of rights, it [the law] does have the potential to acknowledge the
child as a social actor, a person with agency, although as a provider of
protection, it can also deny that agency.’
The tensions outlined above between the UNCRC’s provision for the
best interests of the child on the one hand, and the dominant role that
the family plays in terms of giving substance to the ‘best interests’ prin-
ciple on the other, are illustrative of the larger tensions that come about
as a result of the globalization of childhood and its simultaneous con-
tinuing shaping by local, cultural forces. Formal education, as a key
institution in constructing citizenship, exhibits similar tensions
between ideology and praxis and it is to the role of educational policy
and practice that I now turn in order to discuss how they help constitute
each other.
156 Spyros Spyrou
An education in nationalism
Despite Cyprus’s entry into the European Union in 2004, the education
of Greek Cypriot children remains highly nationalistic. Although the
ethnocentric focus of educational policy and practice is problematic, it
is not difficult to understand why it is the dominant ideological frame
on the island: Cyprus is a country that is politically divided between the
occupied north (where Turkish Cypriots reside) and the south, where
Greek Cypriots live and which is under the official control of the
Republic of Cyprus. The recent history of Cyprus, revolving primarily
around the ethnic conflict that erupted between Greek and Turkish
Cypriots in the 1960s, as well as the coup and the Turkish invasion of
1974 which resulted in the de facto partition of the island between north
and south, created a climate of opposition and enmity between the two
major communities on the island, something which is clearly reflected
in their respective educational systems.4
In this section, I shall examine how children and childhood are con-
ceived through educational policy and practice at the elementary school
level in the Greek Cypriot community of Cyprus. More specifically, and
of especial interest, is how a particular kind of child is constructed
through educational policy and practice – the national citizen – who
will develop a strong sense of national identity that will serve to sustain
both the state and the Greek nation at large. At the same time, however,
it is important to consider how children themselves contribute to, and
shape, the process of the cultural politics of childhood; how, in other
words, they both help to produce and reproduce what it means to be a
national citizen.
The public educational system of Cyprus is highly centralized and both
curriculum and textbooks are centrally prescribed for all schools. This
highly centralized educational system implies that educational policies
are national and all children who attend public schools in Cyprus will be
educated in the same way. As in so many other educational contexts,
what we see in Cyprus is a process which more or less aims to provide the
same to all. To summarize Qvortrup (1994: 10), through a process of insti-
tutionalization (i.e. putting children in schools) and the accompanying
individualization (i.e. regarding children as individuals rather than as rep-
resentatives of other groups), we get the individuation of children (i.e. the
means by which all children are treated the same way because they are all
children, and in order to bureaucratically control them).
The school in many ways complements the family, as an institution
that supplements and extends the control of society on children and
further contributes to the separation between childhood and adulthood.

But unlike the family, which serves its own agenda, the school becomes
a ‘state apparatus’, to use Althusser’s (1971) terminology, for the effec-
tive transmission of ideology on children. In this way, the school helps
to produce the kind of citizen who will sustain the legitimacy of the
nation-state. Though the extent of control used in schools does vary, it
is deemed necessary that the school exercises sufficient control to ensure
the production of the right kind of child who will become the right kind
of citizen.5
In such a regimented and tightly controlled environment, children’s
agency is quite limited. The power of adult authority constrains the
extent to which children themselves can work to produce new mean-
ings within the conceptual space of the school; instead their role is
deemed successful to the extent that they manage to reproduce its ide-
ologies. Ideological reproduction is achieved through the right kind of
learning – in this case, largely nationalistic learning – and the right kind
of development, maturation and discipline, which guarantee that the
child is above all a Greek, irrespective of whatever else she or he may be
(James, Jenks and Prout 1998: 38; see also Levinson and Holland 1996).
This, to the extent it is successful, ultimately allows nationalism and the
nation state to reproduce and sustain themselves in the long run.
Constructing the national citizen: the curriculum

as ideology6
As Bourdieu and Passeron (1977) and others have shown, schools are not
neutral grounds for the objective transmission of knowledge, but rather
institutions set up to reproduce the privileges of certain groups. School
curricula are similarly selective constructions of the world, the aim of
which is also to legitimate the otherwise subjective knowledge and inter-
ests of certain privileged groups and to objectify what is socially con-
structed. Thus schools are implicated in questions of power and identity,
through making assumptions about children’s development and poten-
tial; ultimately, they are about producing the proper kind of children and
the proper kind of childhood, as defined by the state (James, Jenks and
Prout 1998: 41–2; see also Apple and Weis 1983; Apple and Christian-
Smith 1991; Mayall 1994; Reed-Danahay 1996; Luykx 1999).
In her prologue to the curriculum guidelines (1994), which are still in
use, the then Minister of Education, Claire Angelidou, stressed the
important role of education in ‘our half-occupied homeland which is
struggling today to preserve its Greek and Christian roots, under such
158 Spyros Spyrou
adverse conditions’. She proceeded to emphasize the need to instil in

children ‘the will for freedom and return to our occupied territories’. In
his introductory note to the volume, the General Director of Elementary
Education stated that one of the main objectives of Greek Cypriot ele-
mentary education is to help in
the establishment of national and cultural identity and of the feel-

ing of belonging, both to the state of the Republic of Cyprus as well
as to the broader Hellenism,7 to preserve unquenched the memory
of our occupied territories, and to prepare [students] for struggles of
vindication.
The minister’s message emphasizes the ideology of Hellenism [(i.e. that

Greek Cypriots are above all else Greeks) while the General Director’s
message incorporates elements of both Hellenism and Cypriotism – i.e.
we are Greeks who live in an independent country, the Republic of
Cyprus (see Mavratsas 1997). Yet despite the difference in emphasis, this
is broadly speaking the educational ideology of citizenship: largely
Greek-centred, with Cyprus being an integral cultural segment of
Hellenism, whilst also being politically independent. To the extent that
the particularities of Cyprus are emphasized, it is within the larger
framework of the Hellenic world. Thus, despite the re-evaluation of the
nationalist model of education following the 1974 war, education
remains essentially nationalistic, at least in the sense that its primary
emphasis is on a strong identification with the Greek nation. As
Persianis (1981: 81–2) pointed out several years ago, in an observation
that still holds true today,
National instruction continues to be the most important educational

duty of the primary and secondary school teachers. This is stressed
not only by the circulars of the Educational Authorities but also by
the oath which all teachers take in a special ceremony shortly after
their appointment. In this oath they make a solemn promise that in
the practice of their teaching profession they will ‘remain faithful to
the Christian and national ideals of Greek people as these have been
shaped through the religious and national life’.
This ideology constructs citizenship primarily on two categorical ascrip-

tions of belongingness: our Greek identity and our Christian Orthodox
identity. In this formulation, to be Greek necessarily implies being
Christian Orthodox and thus a main goal of Cypriot education is the
preservation of the national, religious and cultural traditions of the

island. The anomaly created by the Turkish invasion of 1974, however,
necessitates a more firm ideological position: children need to learn
about ‘our enslaved land’ and ‘to preserve the memory of our occupied
territories’ and what is more important, to realize their duty towards
‘our Turkish-held homeland’, which basically means doing all they can
for the application of human rights in Cyprus so that one day it is liber-
ated from Turkish rule (Curriculum Guide 1994: 19, 20).8 At the same
time, the curriculum encourages the development of ‘democratic’ and
‘autonomous citizens’ – that is citizens who are immersed in the European
orientations of education,9 whose lives are directed by universal values,
and who can function in a continuously changing world (Curriculum
Guide 1994: Message of Director of Primary Education).
Although it is curriculum guidelines and textbooks that outline the
official ideology on citizenship, this is not to suggest that there is one
monolithic ideology that is promulgated in a uniform fashion; in fact,
there may be several official ideologies, expressed through a variety of
state agents. Nevertheless we may, in broad terms, identify some basic
themes that constitute an official position on citizenship and which are
frequently and repeatedly encountered in the official documents of state
education, such as curriculum guidelines and textbooks. The official
position on identity can be briefly outlined as follows:
We are essentially Greeks though we reside in Cyprus which happens to

be an independent state. This means that we share Greek culture and
history with the rest of the Greeks. We are one people and all the his-
torical evidence points to that. We have an ancient civilization which
the whole world looks up to. Though we have been repeatedly enslaved
by multiple conquerors we have managed to preserve our identity – as
Greeks of Cyprus and as Orthodox Christians – unchanged through the
centuries. As Greeks we are peaceful and civilized people, but we also
love freedom and will do everything possible to remain free. As Greeks
of Cyprus we are an integral part of the European civilization to which
Hellenism has contributed immensely. Currently, we are in danger of
disappearing as a people because of Turkish aggression and occupation
of Cyprus. It is imperative, therefore, that we preserve our national
identity. We must remember our occupied territories, teach the younger
generations about them, and do everything possible to return to them
one day. With half of our homeland under Turkish occupation, the cur-
rent situation is unacceptable. We refuse to give up our homeland to the
Turks and we will fight until all the refugees return back to their homes.
160 Spyros Spyrou
We have lived for centuries in peaceful coexistence with Turkish

Cypriots and desire to live peacefully side-by-side with them once
again. But not with the Turks who have no right to be in Cyprus and
who have proven to be the most barbaric people of all. History proves
that the Turks have always been our enemies and the present situation
is another example of that.
But what kind of child-student and future citizen does the curriculum
wish to construct? The Curriculum Guide imagines the child at the cen-
tre of the educational process: ‘the child reflects, asks questions, thinks,
experiences and acts’; ‘whatever is carried out at school must be for the
benefit of the child and take place with his/her own free and willing par-
ticipation and personal effort’ (Curriculum Guide 1994: 27).
In its outlining of the basic principles of learning and development,
the Curriculum Guide explains that children differ because of different
degrees of biological maturity, different experiences due to family,
socioeconomic and other environmental factors, and the degree of sup-
port and encouragement that children receive from adults, as well as
idiosyncratic differences, differences in intelligence and differences in
other abilities. It goes further to explain that there are differences even
within the same age category and explains that it respects each child’s
uniqueness (Curriculum Guide 1994: 21). Nevertheless, it proceeds to
outline Piaget’s stages of cognitive development, focusing on their age
parameters and the associated abilities that children are expected to
have during each stage.
To sum up, one detects in the curriculum a clear effort to promote a
Greek-centred education and to help children become loyal members of
the Greek nation while at the same time, there is an effort to promote
broader European and global values and principles. Similarly, the cur-
riculum encourages teachers to see the uniqueness of each child, while
at the same time the assumption is that children will develop in more or
less the same way. Such contradictions bring into sharp focus the prob-
lem of aligning identities operating at different levels (e.g. a local
Cypriot identity, a national Greek identity and a European or global
identity) and with diverse value orientations (e.g. nationalism vs. multi-
culturalism/interculturalism).
The power and the limits of the curriculum
In such a context, a key issue when examining the cultural politics of

childhood in relation to educational policy is how children react to the
curriculum. Is it a curriculum that determines what kind of children

they are and what kind of adults they become? Is it a curriculum that
serves its intended purpose, which is to craft the next generation of cit-
izens of the Republic of Cyprus who will also, but above all, be loyal to
the Greek nation and the Greek Orthodox religion?
To start with, it is important to understand that educational policies
are implemented by educators who act as mediators between the poli-
cies and the children, and that the extent to which they do this influ-
ences the extent to which such policies ultimately affect children.
When, in the course of conducting fieldwork during 1996–7, I asked the
teachers to reflect on the official curriculum, they responded in a variety
of ways. In general, the most of them did not disagree with the ideology
outlined in the curriculum and although some were critical of the impli-
cations of such an ideology, which emphasizes homogeneity and
excludes difference, most did not feel constrained by the curriculum.
Rather, they saw it as flexible ‘guide’ offering suggestions, which they
could decide whether to use or not. They pointed out that they felt free
to work creatively within the general framework provided by the cur-
riculum. Thus, with regard to the emphasis placed on remembering the
occupied territories, one teacher said:
In a circular, the Ministry [of Education] says that emphasis should be

put on this objective. But from there on, how you work, in which
way you work, how you pursue it, what actions, what activities, and
so on [you carry out], is up to the school, it is up to the teacher. It is
a general objective for the children to get to know the occupied terri-
tories, to not forget them.
Although some teachers mentioned that they frequently consulted the

Curriculum Guide, the majority said that they did so only occasionally;
some followed it only for certain subjects, others only with regard to the
very general guidelines outlined in it, while others never consulted it at
all. Some of the latter explained that they preferred to focus on the book
and the teacher’s guide (for the particular course they taught) rather
than the general Curriculum Guide. Added to this is the whole set of fac-
tors that constitute each and every teacher’s identity and which, in turn,
influence what she or he ends up selecting or emphasizing from the cur-
riculum – in other words, what they decide to do with it. To illustrate by
reference to one key variable – a teacher’s political loyalty (i.e. with
which political party she/he identifies) – we may say that a right-wing
teacher is much more likely to favour and emphasize Hellenism and
162 Spyros Spyrou
nationalistic ideas, drawing a sharp distinction between ‘us’ and ‘them’

when teaching, compared to a left-wing teacher, who is much more
likely to favour and emphasize Cypriotism and the need for coexistence
with those who are different from ‘us’. From my classroom observations,
I noticed on several occasions that certain teachers either played down
or emphasized certain aspects of the curriculum in line with their ideo-
logical preferences and political affiliations.
Returning to the role of children themselves in the cultural politics of
childhood, we should not underestimate the larger ideological con-
straints that limit the extent to which children can exercise their agency
in relation to the school. After all, the school is a privileged social space
for the systematic transmission of ideology; it is an institution that is
often credited with knowledge and authority, and with the legitimate
right to impart to children society’s values. It is therefore no accident
that although we often hear people criticizing the educational institu-
tion for its ineffectiveness in doing what it is supposed to do, we rarely
hear criticisms about its right and legitimacy to carry out its educational
role.
As part of the state apparatus (Althusser 1971), the school seeks to
implement educational policy and to construct and reproduce the
state’s own ideas of ‘good’ childhood, which will uphold its agendas
and interests and sustain its ideological legitimacy in the long run.
Children’s own responses – whether accepting, rejecting or negotiating
(see Hall 1980) – to educational policy give rise to a more complex and
dynamic encounter between policy and practice, and often a less deter-
mined outcome. Here, however, the focus will be on one particular
aspect of educational policies – the emphasis given to nationalistic
constructions of ‘self’ and ‘other’ – in order to illustrate not only the
extent to which policies constrain the construction and expression of
children’s identities, but also the fact that children’s identities are
never totally determined and that children are able to find ways to
exercise their agency and escape, even temporarily, the constraints
imposed on them.
During both lessons and other school-related activities, most teachers
from my observations resorted to an ‘us’ vs. ‘them’ frame – Greeks vs.
Turks – to explain the past, present and future of Cyprus (see Spyrou
2006). In these formulations, the teachers spoke most of the time with
the authoritative voice of nationalistic discourse: the Turks have always
been our enemies, they have always been barbarians, and nothing will change
their future behaviour. Consider the way one teacher from a geography
class with the 5th and 6th grades frames this understanding of the Turks
in a way that ultimately leaves children with little room to dissent:
From what we read, were they [the Egyptians] people with a civiliza-
tion? Were they – let’s put it this way – barbarians like the Turks, the
Ottomans, who have always been barbarians?
On countless occasions, I have heard teachers ask children questions

that would confirm for everyone in the class the very well-known and
understood cultural assumptions about the inferiority of the Turks as a
people and, by implication, ‘our’ superior nature. All questions that
affirmed the existing nationalistic framework were rewarded by the
teacher, and in fact many children played a key role in reproducing
such understandings. Thus, when children contributed to class discus-
sions with alternative understandings that challenged nationalist
assumptions, the teachers dismissed such opinions as invalid. Consider
the following example from a religious instruction class with the 6th
grade, where a teacher readily and decidedly rejects a child’s input
because it challenges the patriotic ideal of fulfilling one’s duty to the
homeland:
Nikiforos: Sir, what about the children and the women if there is
war?
Teacher: We said that only those who can fight will fight in a war.
Marinos: Adults say that if war takes place they will go and hide.
[Here, the student is referring to cynical statements occa-
sionally made by men about their disillusionment with
politics and their unwillingness to fight for their country.]
Teacher: Marinos, you should not listen to what they say in the
neighbourhood.
In this case, the teacher defined the classroom as a setting where only
certain kinds of knowledge are appropriate, a setting in which personal
knowledge is inappropriate: it is seen as inferior and potentially harmful
because it contradicts the ‘right’ kind of attitude towards the homeland,
namely, that one should be ready to die for it whenever called on to do
so. The teacher refuses to allow a change in the use of speech genres
from an instructional, patriotic genre, which is authoritative and clear
in its declarations (e.g. ‘one should fight and if necessary die for the
homeland’), to one based on personal (and hence defined as non-
authoritative) knowledge, which seeks to challenge the clear injunctions
of the former. In the end, as James and James (2004: 136) aptly put it,
164 Spyros Spyrou
‘any difference risks reconstruction as deviance’; the resolution is simply

to dismiss the personal in preference of the collective.
However, this emphasis on nationalism – on ‘our’ Greekness, ‘our’
Greek identity – worked against other stated goals of the educational
policies, such as the need for children to develop a sense of belonging
and loyalty to the Republic of Cyprus and a desire to live peacefully with
Turkish Cypriots. Thus my classroom observations revealed that
although teachers talked to the children about Turks all the time, they
rarely talked to them about Turkish Cypriots, with the result that only a
small minority of children actually knew who Turkish Cypriots are.10
This certainly makes problematic the development of a civic identity
and the possibility of finding a solution to the Cyprus problem that will
reunite the island, by bringing Greek and Turkish Cypriots under one
political roof.
But there were also occasions, which were certainly fewer but never-
theless important, when children actively reflected on the curriculum
they were confronted with and challenged its nationalistic framework.11
Thus when, in a 4th grade history class, the teacher celebrated the heroic
patriotism of the Spartan women who, according to legend, threw their
disabled babies over a cliff ‘so that only strong and healthy children who
could become warriors would be raised’, one of the girls challenged the
teacher by pointing to one of the integrated special needs children in
the classroom saying, ‘If they continued to be like that, some children
like Makis would not be alive.’ The student in this case identified the
conflicting set of values included in the curriculum – the value of com-
mitment to the nation and the value of commitment to one’s family
and children in particular – and openly challenged the teacher, who was
herself a mother, leaving her with little room to respond (see Spyrou
2000).12 What might have gone unnoticed in another classroom setting
became an issue for critical reflection for this classroom and for pene-
trating, however minimally, the established nationalistic common
sense. Thus, despite their common experiences in the face of adult
authority, children’s experiences in school result in a diversity of lived
childhoods which, over time, contribute in their own way to disconti-
nuity and ultimately change (see James and James 2004: 47; see also
Giddens 1979: 72; Shilling 1992: 79).
Discussion
Cultural discourses of childhood are often informed by, and overlap to

some extent with, other discourses, be they local discourses on the family
or global ones about children’s rights, like the UNCRC. As discourses, they
are part of a process; they have pasts, presents and futures. They are there-
fore implicated in both the continuity and change of childhood as an
institution and play a key role at any particular time in defining (some-
times clearly, sometimes contradictorily) what kind of children the society
wishes to have (James and James 2004: 74). Educational policies, explicated
principally through school curricula, play this role in relation to formal
schooling and through the process of educating (or more appropriately,
socializing) children. By regulating and controlling children and their expe-
rience of schooling, educational policies seek to produce the kind of adults
that the state desires, or, as James and James (2004: 115) put it, ‘the state’s
current interest in childhood is very much out of self-interest’.
The process of educating children in Cyprus, as in so many other parts
of the world, is one of exerting symbolic violence on them, to use
Bourdieu’s (1977) term. Contrary to official declarations about the liber-
ating role of education and students’ participation in the educational
process, children are, more often than not, told what and how to think,
what kind of children they should be in the present and what kind of
adults they should grow up to be (Bourdieu 1974; James and James 2004:
124). Yet, change is as much a characteristic of this process as continuity.
In 2004, a report was issued by an Educational Reform Committee,
appointed by the Ministry of Education and Culture, to analyse the edu-
cational system and to make proposals for its reform. The report argued
that there was a need for a fundamental reform of the educational sys-
tem of the country, by incorporating new trends in education and by
moving away from the Greek-centred approach, which it characterized
as ‘narrowly ethnocentric and culturally monolithic’ (Report 2004: 4).
The report recommends that the teacher becomes a professional and
democratic pedagogue who will educate citizens rather than a labour
force, while it recommends that the system as a whole must work to cul-
tivate respect for diversity and pluralism and develop a European out-
look. In line with this, the report recommends the reinforcement of the
civic education course and the formation of a team of scientists to
rewrite school history texts. Similarly, the report recommends coopera-
tion with Turkish Cypriot schools, common teacher training for Greek
and Turkish Cypriots, and the implementation of anti-racist educational
programmes.
A careful survey of the circulars sent to all primary schools by the
Ministry of Education and Culture since 2004 reveals a definite turn
towards a more inclusive, less nationalistic and more open educational
system. This can be seen, for example, in a circular dated 2 January 2004,
166 Spyros Spyrou
in which the Director of Primary Education outlines in detail the various

approaches to democratic citizenship that primary education must fol-
low. He lists and analyses five such approaches: education for human
rights; civic education; intercultural education; global education; and
peace education. It is no coincidence that these ideological changes
have coincided with Cyprus’s recent entry into the EU (May 2004, and
the accession period preceding that) and with the declared objective at
all levels to become fully integrated into the ‘European family’. This
integration process implies also the adoption of policies that reflect the
multiculturalism and interculturalism of the EU as an institution.
The arrival in Cyprus of large numbers of immigrants during the last
10–15 years has also confronted schools with a new reality, which has
forced the educational authorities to rethink their policies. The new
‘European family’, which Cyprus entered in 2004, has had to confront
the challenge of cultural ‘otherness’ in education for a lot longer than
Cyprus has, and although the directives of the EU on education distin-
guish between citizens of EU Member States and third country nationals
(demanding more integrative measures in the case of the former), they
nevertheless exert pressure on Member States to confront the issue and
take steps to address it. Greek Cypriot public schools are no longer
mono-cultural; they are increasingly heterogeneous and demand trans-
formation to a more open, multicultural European outlook which will,
at least in principle, cater for the educational needs of all children and
not just Greek Cypriots.
The assimilationist and exclusionist model used by the state since its
establishment in 1960 has come under a lot of pressure as more and
more students from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds have
entered the republic’s schools, and the system has not been able to
accommodate them successfully. In a study of schools attended by
Turkish-speaking children carried out in 2004 (including Turkish
Cypriot children residing in the south, as well as other Turkish-speaking
children such as Roma and Kurdish), I identified a range of serious prob-
lems encountered by these children, their parents and teachers, and the
educational authorities of the schools in question. The inability of the
system to integrate these children successfully has meant that most of
them were simply incorporated into the appropriate grade for their age,
irrespective of their knowledge of Greek, in the hope that they would
eventually be assimilated. Most of these children were, as a result,
unable to communicate in Greek and thus to participate in their classes,
many of them failing to attend school, and those who did show up often
resorted to disruptive behaviour in the classroom. The study also
revealed that conflicts and other forms of tension arose during particu-
lar lessons when the Turkish-speaking children reacted to what was
being taught. As one teacher explained to me:
Sometimes in the history class for the 6th grade, as I am teaching, the
Turkish Cypriots react when they hear the word ‘Turk’. History for
the 6th grade is the history of the Greek revolution of 1821 [against
the Ottomans who are however referred to as ‘Turks’ in Greek Cypriot
school texts]. I face this issue every day. They tell me: ‘You should be
afraid of the Turks.’ When I talk about Athanasios Dhiakos [a Greek
national hero], who was skewered [by the Ottomans], they tell me:
‘He deserved it.’
Some teachers also felt that the education of Greek Cypriot children was
suffering as a result, since they could not give them sufficient time to
cover the syllabus, whilst others felt that they lacked adequate materials
(e.g. materials in both Greek and Turkish or with appropriate transla-
tions, or materials that could support intercultural education, such as
books and videos) that would be appropriate for the Turkish-speaking
students and their particular needs. Prejudice and racism expressed by
Greek Cypriot children towards them has also, in many cases, resulted
in aggression and violence between the two groups.
For this reason, as well as a result of the pressure exerted on the edu-
cational system from the country’s integration into the EU, the educa-
tional authorities have developed programmes to address these changes.
One of these developments has been the establishment of ‘Educational
Priority Zones’, whose overall aim is to help underprivileged students
and to bring about more equality in education. The main criterion used
to designate such a zone is the low socioeconomic level of the commu-
nity, which in many cases goes hand-in-hand with the high concentra-
tion of immigrants in the area. Consequently, to note one policy change
since March 2004 that is illustrative of the changing climate in educa-
tion, Turkish-speaking children are now offered Turkish language classes
when the rest of the Greek Cypriot children attend [Greek] history and
[Greek Orthodox] scripture classes.
Like their Greek Cypriot counterparts, who engage with the curricu-
lum they are presented with through their relationships and interac-
tions with their teachers and peers, immigrant and minority children
came to constitute and reconstitute educational policy and practice,
thereby indirectly contributing to both their reproduction and change
(James and James 2004: 57). The influx of children from immigrant
168 Spyros Spyrou
families and their reactions to a closed, nationalistic system of educa-

tion that could not accommodate them successfully has resulted, albeit
unintentionally, in changed notions of childhood among the adults
involved in the educational process and has ultimately resulted in new
policies aimed to address the issue of diversity in education (James and
James 2004: 105). These policy changes reflect a stark contract to the
way that public elementary schools operated during the 1990s, when
the cultural homogeneity of schools was taken more or less for granted.
Ideas of Cypriot childhood are therefore being reconstituted through
changes in educational policy and practice, changes to which children
have also contributed, not through any formal consultation or right to
participation but through the exercise of their own agency.
Notes
1 Ethnographic fieldwork for this project extended from September 1996 to
August 1997 and was carried out in two communities, one urban near the
buffer zone in Nicosia and one rural to the south-west of Nicosia. The project
examined both the school processes involved in children’s ethnic identity
construction and extra-educational processes taking place in other contexts
such as the home, the neighborhood and the playground (see Spyrou 1999).
2 The Statue of Liberty is a monument which consists of the statues of those
who fought for the liberation of Cyprus from the British during the 1955–59
anti-colonial war.
3 Of course, when the decision to stay at home was primarily the parents’, the
constraints normally placed on the children by the school were simply
replaced by those of the home.
4 In 1960 Cyprus gained its independence from the British following five years’
anti-colonial guerrilla warfare by Greek Cypriot nationalists. The last official
census of the entire population of the island showed that Greek Cypriots
accounted for 80 per cent and Turkish Cypriots for 18 per cent of the total
population.
5 The fact that education is mandatory (until the age of 15) rather than volun-
tary implies that the state is not strictly speaking serving children, but is also
serving its own goals, though no one would deny the benefits accruing to
children (see Qvortrup 1994: 9–10).
6 All my references to the Curriculum Guide are with regard to the 1994 issue
which is still in use.
7 Broader Hellenism refers to Hellenism or Greek culture wherever it is found,
whether in mainland Greece, the Greek islands, Cyprus or anywhere else
where one finds the Greek diaspora.
8 Many messages sent to elementary schools by the Minister of Education and
Culture end with the minister’s conclusion that the children, as the new gen-
eration, are the hope for the future who will continue fighting for the libera-
tion of Cyprus from Turkish occupation.
9 In recent years, following Cyprus’s application for full membership of the

European Union and its subsequent entry, a so-called ‘European orientation’
is evident in education. Such an orientation implies the adoption of what are
seen as European standards, values and mentality. The EU ideology, which
aims to establish a European identity among member countries, emphasizes
the need to preserve the traditions and identity of the various peoples that
comprise it while at the same time encouraging communication, under-
standing and co-operation. In Greek Cypriot elementary education,
European civilization is presented as a continuation of Greek civilization.
The implication, of course, is that since Cyprus is part of Greek civilization it
is also part of European civilization. Europe has played a civilizing role in the
history of human kind and continues to be the center of intellectual and cul-
tural development. European countries are highly developed and what is of
great importance, they are democratic countries. Cyprus, as a member of the
EU is part of this European civilization (see Philippou 2005).
10 Many children offered fanciful explanations when I asked them to explain
who they thought Turkish Cypriots are (see Spyrou 2001).
11 Prewitt (1970: 619), in his study of political socialization among African
schoolchildren, has warned against the tendency to make inferences about
children’s values by analysing the content of educational policies.
12 See Billig et al. (1988) who rather than viewing ideology as coherent and
internally consistent wholes, have argued for a view of ideology as essen-
tially inconsistent and made up of contrary themes which give rise to dilem-
mas and dialogue (see also Giroux 1983: 285).
References
Althusser, L. (1971) Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses. In Lenin and
Philosophy and Other Essays (pp. 127–86). London: New Left Books.
Apple, M. and Christian-Smith, L. K. (1991) The Politics of the Textbook. In
Apple, M. and Christian-Smith, L. K. (eds.), The Politics of the Textbook
(pp. 1–21). London and New York: Routledge.
Apple, M. and Weis, L. (eds.) (1983) Ideology and Practice in Schooling.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Billig, M. et al. (1988) Ideological Dilemmas: A Social Psychology of Everyday
Thinking. London: Sage.
Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J.-C. (1974) The School as a Conservative Force:
Scholastic and Cultural Inequalities. In Eggleston, J. (ed.), Contemporary
Research in the Sociology of Education (pp. 32–46). London: Methuen.
Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J.-C. (1977) Reproduction in Education, Society and
Culture. Trans. R. Nice. London: Sage.
Coles, R. (1986) The Political Life of Children. Boston and New York: The Atlantic
Monthly Press.
Committee on Educational Reform (2004) Manifesto of Educational Reform.
Nicosia: Ministry of Education and Culture.
Cyprus Ministry of Education and Culture (1994) Curriculum Guide for Elementary
Education. Nicosia.
170 Spyros Spyrou
Giddens, A. (1979) Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and

Contradiction in Social Analysis. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press.
Giroux, H. (1983) Theories of Reproduction and Resistance in the New Sociology
of Education: A Critical Analysis. Harvard Educational Review 53(3): 257–93.
Hall, S. (1980) Encoding/Decoding. In Hall, S., Hobson, D., Lowe, A. and Willis,
P. (eds.), Culture, Media, Language (pp.128–39). London: Hutchinson.
James, A. and James, A. (2004) Constructing Childhood: Theory, Policy and Social
Practice. Palgrave Macmillan.
James, A., Jenks, C. and Prout, A. (1998) Theorizing Childhood. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Kouloumou, T. (2004) Children’s Welfare and Everyday Life in Cyprus: A Family
Affair with Intergenerational Implications. In Jensen, A. et al. (eds.), Children’s
Welfare in Ageing Europe (pp. 591–647). Trondheim: Norwegian Center for Child
Research.
Levinson, B. and Holland, D. (eds.) (1996) The Cultural Production of the Educated
Person: Critical Ethnographies of Schooling and Local Practice. New York: SUNY
Press.
Luykx, A. (1999) The Citizen Factory: Schooling and Cultural Production in Bolivia.
New York: SUNY Press.
Makrinioti, D. (1994) Conceptualization of Childhood in a Welfare State: A
Critical Appraisal. In Qvortrup, J., Bardy, M., Sgritta, G. and Wintersberger, H.
(eds.), Childhood Matters: Social Theory, Practice and Politics (pp. 267–83).
Aldershot, Brookfield, Hong Kong, Singapore and Sydney: Avebury.
Mavratsas, C. (1997) The Ideological Contest Between Greek-Cypriot
Nationalism and Cypriotism 1974–1995: Politics, Social Memory and Identity.
Ethnic and Racial Studies 20(4): 717–37.
Mayall, B. (1994) Children in Action at Home and School. In Berry M. (ed.),
Children’s Childhoods: Observed and Experienced (pp.114–27). Lewes: Falmer
Press.
Persianis, P. (1981) The Political and Economic Factors as the Main Determinants of
Educational Policy in Independent Cyprus (1960–1970). Pedagogical Institute of
Cyprus. Dissertation Series 1. Nicosia.
Philippou, S. (2005) Constructing National and European Identities: The Case of
Greek-Cypriot Pupils. Educational Studies 31(3): 293–315.
Prewitt, K. with Okello-Oculi, J. (1970) Political Socialization and Political
Education in the New Nations. In Sigel, R. (ed.), Learning About Politics: A Reader
in Political Socialization (pp. 607–21). New York: Random House.
Qvortrup, J. (1994) Childhood Matters: An Introduction. In Qvortrup, J., Bardy,
M., Sgritta, G. and Wintersberger, H. (eds.), Childhood Matters: Social Theory,
Practice and Politics (pp. 1–23). Aldershot, Brookfield, Hong Kong, Singapore,
Sydney: Avebury.
Reed-Danahay, D. (1996) Education and Identity in Rural France: The Politics of
Schooling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Report of Cyprus to the UN Committee for the Implementation of the
Convention for the Rights of the Child (1999). Nicosia.
Shilling, C. (1992) Reconceptualising Structure and Agency in the Sociology of
Education: Structuration Theory and Schooling. British Journal of Sociology of
Education 13(1): 69–87.
Solberg, A. (1990) Negotiating Childhood: Changing Constructions of Age for

Norwegian Children. In James, A. and Prout, A. (eds.), Constructing and
Reconstructing Childhood: Contemporary Issues in the Sociological Study of
Childhood (pp. 118–37). Lewes: Falmer Press.
Spyrou, S. (1999) Small Ethnic Worlds: Identity, Ambiguity, and Imagination in
Greek Cypriot Children’s Lives. PhD Dissertation. Binghamton: Anthropology
Department, State University of New York.
Spyrou, S. (2000) Education, Ideology, and the National Self: The Social Practice
of Identity Construction in the Classroom. The Cyprus Review 12(1): 61–81.
Spyrou, S. (2001) Those on the Other Side: Ethnic Identity and Imagination in
Greek Cypriot Children’s Lives. In Schwartzman, H. (ed.), Children and
Anthropology: Perspectives for the 21st Century (pp. 167–85). Westport, CT and
London: Bergin & Garvey.
Spyrou, S. (2006) Constructing ‘the Turk’ as an Enemy: The Complexity of
Stereotypes in Children’s Everyday Worlds. In Theodossopoulos, D. (ed.), When
Greek Think About Turks: The View from Anthropology (pp. 95–110). London and
New York: Routledge.
Stephens, S. (ed.) (1995) Children and the Politics of Culture. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
9
Children’s Culture, Cultural
Education and Policy Approaches
to Children’s Culture: The Case
of Germany
Heinz Hengst
This chapter deals with the processes of the ‘de-schooling of learning’,

or what might be called a ‘de-schooled learning’, that have occurred
within and outside the school in Germany during the past 35 years, the
period to which many social and cultural theoreticians refer when
analysing the impact of modernization. The specific focus of this chap-
ter is on developments in the Federal Republic of Germany in a field
that encompasses culture, aesthetics, ‘cultural pedagogics’, cultural
work with children, cultural education and ‘artistic education’, and
what work in this field reveals about our understanding of childhood
and ‘the child’.
The concept of cultural pedagogics is closely related to the German
concept of Bildung,1 namely that cultural-aesthetic processes are at the
same time ‘educational’ (in the sense of Bildung). It is implicitly assumed
that anyone speaking of Bildung is also, and has always been, speaking of
aesthetics. In Germany, this notion has been manifested in the focus
placed on aesthetics in art education, following Friedrich Schiller, and in
the debates and controversies surrounding children’s and youth culture
since the first art educationalist conferences and educational reform
movement of the early twentieth century. As this chapter argues, the
same idea appears in the updated and revised educational concepts that
have been dominant in Germany since the early 1970s.
In the decades following the Second World War, the humanities, edu-
cational sciences and educational policy-makers were unable to formu-
late an up-to-date and rational German school system, based on a
172
Approaches to Children’s Culture in Germany 173
central educational authority. At the same time, traditional youth asso-

ciation work and extra-curricular work with young people lost some of
its raison d’être. It was possible, therefore, for a new form of cultural edu-
cation to emerge from this ‘educational vacuum’. This aspired to the
more general educational nature and qualities provided by voluntary and
informal cultural activities and thus aesthetic experiential environments
became increasingly important for extra-curricular (educational) work
with children and young people. In the case of Germany, the special
importance attached to the extra-curricular domain is linked to the fact
that German children and young people, unlike their peers in virtually
every other European country, attend school for half the day only and
therefore have a relatively large amount of free time at their disposal.
In exploring these issues about art, education and German childhood,
this chapter illustrates how this cultural pedagogical field has developed
outside the school, and explores its impact on our ideas of children’s cul-
ture, cultural education (a term often used in Germany synonymously
with cultural work and cultural pedagogics) and children’s cultural pol-
icy more generally. Here, cultural policy is understood to comprise the
mix of laws, programmes and activities that are legitimated by adopting
educational and social policy objectives, as a form of policy-making that
is broadly similar to educational policy. Taking ‘de-schooled’ cultural
education as its specific focus, the chapter explores the implications that
processes of democratization, and cultural democratization in particu-
lar, have had for the conceptualization of children as subjects and tar-
gets of cultural policy and government initiatives. It also considers the
opportunities for participation that this process has given children with
regard to shaping their own lives, and also for their participation in the
public sphere. Attention is centred on the representations of ‘the child’
invoked in these processes and on the social frameworks to which these
representations relate, including the semantic significance of concepts
such as self-determination, co-determination, self-responsibility, self-
assistance and self-help.
For the period up to German reunification (from the late 1960s until
1989), the analysis presented in this chapter relates to trends in West
Germany only, since in the former GDR, ‘cultural pedagogics’ was
unknown. After reunification it was simply exported, at first as a term
and then as a discipline and a field of work, usually without reference to
anything analogous. Although in eastern Germany there were indeed
examples of expert cultural educational praxis, these were hierarchically
structured, with doctrinaire norms and objectives dictated by the state.
However, after unification ‘cultural education’ and ‘socio-culture’ became
174 Heinz Hengst
keywords and fields of work in the new Bundesländer as well. This was
both a pragmatic response to problematic areas of regional support, and
a conceptual bridge aimed at preventing everything from the old regime
being simply thrown overboard.
Since the early 1970s, other countries in north-western Europe have
been working systematically at establishing children’s culture in a de-
schooled sense.2 Policy programmes and measures therefore aimed at
providing a range of cultural activities and infrastructures outside school
and, from a very early stage, a common element in these political initia-
tives was the development of a separate policy-making field relating to
children’s culture. A key concern of children’s culture policy was, and
continues to be, that children should be encouraged to play an active
cultural role outside the family and the school. This emphasizes the
importance of the traditional institution of ‘childhood’ as a separate
social space, while also reflecting a feature characteristic of children’s
culture policy in the Nordic countries – that child policies are designed
as policies of equality and pursued with the intention of enabling chil-
dren to live independently of their parents’ economic and cultural
resources and as citizens enjoying equal rights.
While national policies on children’s culture with a shared basis in
egalitarian policies (‘egalitarian individualism’; cf. Therborn 1993) can
be identified in the Nordic countries (cf. Hengst 1995), however, it is
much more difficult to identify and reconstruct anything typically
‘German’ in the comparable programmes, intervention schemes and
institutions found in Germany. The field of activities is more heteroge-
neous and in many respects more confusing since, in contrast to
Scandinavia, it has to a significant degree developed organically, out of
everyday practice. That said, it is possible, nonetheless, to identify typi-
cal discourses and intervention strategies in the fields of cultural policy
and education, especially during the 1970s and 1980s, which address
the same problems and activities as in the Nordic countries and which
are framed by similar social challenges.
A fin-de-siècle mood in education: 1960s–1970s
In order to explain the cultural climate in which children’s culture pol-

icy developed in the Federal Republic of Germany, I would like to begin
by briefly describing the situation and ‘images’ of education and culture
in the 1970s. Two things are worthy of note as far as education was con-
cerned: first, a trend towards anti-authoritarianism in children’s educa-
tion and upbringing, with elements of a children’s rights movement
emerging; and second, anti-pedagogical mentalities in ‘virtually all prac-

tical fields and areas of life’ (Zinnecker 1996: 45).
The critique of education and schooling was expressed in both theo-
retical terms and in practical activity. Referring to the ‘children’s centres’
(Kinderläden) and ‘schoolchildren’s centres’ (Schülerläden) set up in the
late 1960s – self-governing units conceived of as a radical alternative to
conventional facilities and dominant educational thinking – the educa-
tionalist Klaus Klemm spoke in terms of a new ‘participatory political
culture’ (2003: 52).3 The children’s and schoolchildren’s centres were
supplemented in the early 1970s by a wave of newly established alter-
native schools, characterized by an anarchic scepticism towards domi-
nance, state authority, centralism and bureaucratic organization.
Alternative schools (some of which still exist), which aimed at achieving
an element of Utopia – ‘to live and not be schooled’ (Klemm 2003: 79) –
were another product of the children’s centre movement.
‘Childrearing’s great turn away from schools’ (von Hentig 1971: 13)
was accompanied in the late 1960s and early 1970s by Cuernavaca and
CIDOC (Centro Intercultural de Documentacio). The latter, founded by
Ivan Illich in Mexico in 1960 as a centre for training aid workers and
missionaries for work in South America, became the epicentre of a global
debate on de-schooling. For the first time, this centre reflected system-
atically on the idea of de-schooling and endeavoured to debunk the
‘central myth-forming ritual of industrial society’ (Illich 1972: 11).
Books like Ivan Illich’s Entschulung der Gesellschaft (De-schooling of
Society) (1972) and Schulen helfen nicht (Celebration of Awareness) (1970)
became much-debated bestsellers, in (West) Germany in the early 1970s
and, indeed, elsewhere. Paulo Freire’s Pädagogik der Unterdrückten (The
Pedagogy of the Oppressed) (1971) was greeted with similar acclaim.
A specifically German phenomenon, however, albeit heavily influenced
by the children’s rights movement in the US, was Antipädagogik (anti-ped-
agogics). This term encompasses all the initiatives whose central aim was
to overcome educational relations based on the traditional model of homo
educandus – that is to say, it was a rejection of the education system on prin-
ciple, by anti-educationalists. Their concern was not to devise an educa-
tional alternative to conventional pedagogics, but to abolish them entirely
in order to achieve a fundamental change in generational relations.
Democratizing educational relationships
By the beginning of the 1980s, the theoretical concept behind anti-

pedagogics, as presented to the educational public in the second half of
176 Heinz Hengst
the 1970s (Braunmühl 1975, 1978), had been developed into a practical
philosophy for everyday life (Schoenebeck 1982, 1985). The core postu-
late of this philosophy is an ‘everyday life free of education’ and the
encouragement of a ‘post-educationalist’ quality of life in which every-
one, children and adults alike, is conceived of as a ‘person responsible
for him- or herself’. The ealier ambiguous term ‘anti-pedagogics’ was
replaced, accordingly, by ‘post-pedagogical’ (Schoenebeck 1992).
This description could also be applied to a more general tendency in
Germany during this period which has been outlined by Jürgen Zinnecker
(1996). In an attempt to explain the crisis afflicting the socialization para-
digm in Germany, he referred (among other things) to ‘deep currents of
anti-pedagogical mentality … [that] have been affecting virtually all prac-
tical fields and areas of life since the historical watershed of 1968’ (1996:
45). Zinnecker provides a number of examples: hitherto acknowledged
models of socialization have lost their significance and there is now less
confidence in the idea that children ‘learn by example; parents today pre-
fer to ‘live with children’ rather than educate them; to an increasing
extent, it is not adults who are deemed to have the skills necessary for the
future, but adolescents and young people (e.g. in media or in relation to
environmental issues); and there is a public debate over ‘educational objec-
tives and methods’. Zinnecker summarizes these developments as follows:
‘Anti-pedagogical’ mentalities determine first of all … everyday life

and everyday practices; this is especially true for the privileged edu-
cational elites in urban centres. Mediated through this social group,
corresponding mentalities penetrate into (social) scientific discourses
and programmes. This mostly occurs unawares, meaning the collec-
tive carriers of such mentalities do not usually understand themselves
as anti-educationalists …
(1996: 45)
An idea of the (perhaps) specifically German aspects of the changes

that have been taking place since the early 1970s can be obtained when
one considers how differently the French translated into practice the
desire, common after 1968, to reform the education system. Beatrice
Durand (2004), an expert in cultural studies who is well acquainted
with the trends in Germany and France, has emphasized that in the
1970s and 1980s efforts in Germany were focused primarily on
democratizing educational relationships. She points out, explicitly,
that experiments ‘at the periphery of state schools’ contributed to
changes in teaching styles in the schools themselves as institutions,

whereas the reforms taking place at the same time in France were aimed
at a different form of democratization. Getting rid of the old authori-
tarian style of teaching was not the primary aim in France, but rather
establishing equality of opportunity by abolishing traditional schools,
which merely reproduced and reinforced the social stratification of
society. Durand refers to the marginalization of experiments like
Freinet pedagogics,4 which were used as pilot projects. However, she
also notes that democratization in France (compulsory education in
standard schools until the ninth form, doubling the percentage of bac-
calaureate candidates) has something to do with the retention of author-
itarian styles of teaching and education. In describing the paradoxical
result, she identifies these styles as being a result of social democratiza-
tion (Durand 2004: 66ff.).
My argument in the next section is that anti-educationalist emotions
and mentalities, in the sense described by Zinnecker, became established
to a certain extent in the discourses, programmes and practices relating
to children’s (culture) policy and cultural work with children in
Germany, and that they found a new home there for a period during the
1970s and 1980s. This was possible because the fin-de-siècle mood in edu-
cation in Germany coincided with the heyday of the cultural. As I shall
argue, however, since the 1990s there has been an observable reversal in
these trends, with a modified attitude towards the school as an institu-
tion in political discourses and practices, a trend that is associated with a
new framework that locates ‘the school’ within a ‘culture of growing up’.
Thus the importance of de-schooling has become less important.
The heyday of the cultural: 1970s–1980s
The 1970s and 1980s saw a new interest in culture at both the national
and international levels. It had become apparent that economic and eco-
logical developments were difficult to control (see e.g. Meadows et al.
1973). Faced with this situation, many, politicians among them, hoped
for a cultural contribution to solve the ‘great challenges of our time’ and
for ‘coping with the world’s problems’ (cf. Kramer 1988: 65). In Germany,
commentators noted a growing interest in culture and observed that the
drivers of social change had become a renewed focus of attention, but
that there had been a shift in emphasis. The line of argument was that,
although the fostering of technology and technology transfer had not
really been played out to the full, the process of modernization was also
cultural, requiring support from and through culture.
178 Heinz Hengst
Kurt Biedenkopf, a leading CDU (Christian Democrat) politician,

appealed for ‘broad and unregimented support for all cultural areas,
initiatives and institutions – with no exclusion of ‘dreamy Utopianists’
(1986: 19). Lothar Späth, prime minister of Baden-Württemberg and
also a member of the CDU, until then a pioneer of technology promo-
tion, demanded not only basic research but above all, support for cre-
ative and artistic development. Jürgen Möllemann, the German
Minister of Education and an FDP (Freie Demokratische Partei – Free
Democratic Party) politician, wrote, in 1987, that he considered the
‘free cultural education’ work being performed in socio-cultural cen-
tres to be a ‘key integrational factor in our society’ (cf. Treptow 1988:
82). And the former Austrian Chancellor, Fred Sinowatz, a Social
Democrat, provided perhaps the clearest expression of the cultural
understanding on which (new) cultural policy was to be based. For
him, cultural policy was the ‘generic term for all political activity’,
something that was aimed at ‘the sum total of life references, ideas and
facts in this life, the standard and quality of life, welfare and well-
being’ (Sinowatz 1987: 308).
The flourishing of cultural policy in West Germany has been
addressed by sociologists such as Gerhard Schulze, who drew attention
to the special situation in German cultural policy. He emphasized that,
although ‘the aura of grand politics’ was (still) absent and that remote
academic conferences and publications were still the only places where
an integrational debate relating to the whole of society was taking place,
it was also a fact that, ‘despite its confinement to the local community,
the increased importance and institutionalisation of cultural policy is a
phenomenon affecting society as a whole, and one requiring sociologi-
cal analysis’ (Schulze 1992: 495).
Schulze reconstructed the history of cultural policy thinking in the
Federal Republic using a typology of cultural policy motives that also
aids understanding of the enhanced importance of policies for chil-
dren’s culture, work in children’s culture, cultural pedagogics and cul-
tural education. He distinguishes (in ideal-typical terms) among several
basic or guiding motives in the cultural sphere that appeared succes-
sively in post-war West Germany: the ‘high culture’, ‘democratization’
and ‘socio-cultural’ motives, and a secondary, ‘economic’ motive
(Schulze 1992: 499ff).
The high culture motive dominated the period immediate post-1945
until the 1960s. The aim of the policies based on this particular leitmotif
was the preservation and safeguarding of high culture: ‘the policy goal
of guaranteeing art’s existence is complemented by the educational
goal of making people capable of ‘high culture’ (Schulze 1992: 499).

The democratization motive (emerging in the 1960s), on the other hand,
signifies a departure in the sense that it resulted in policies that marked
a transition from a compensational cultural policy aimed at workers and
the ‘small people’ in favour of a cultural policy for all. This implied
that more social groups should be involved, including children and
young people, and, at the same time, the idea of a compensatory cul-
tural policy was incorporated in the all-embracing notion of an equal
cultural policy. Thus, alongside the compensatory variant of the equal-
ity postulate – cultural policy compensating for social inequalities –
there was a needs-based variant: something for everyone (or for every
social group).
Since the 1970s the socio-cultural motive has signalled increasing
attention to a cultural critique of the problems of everyday life that
result from the expansion of the consumer society. Here the focus has
been on the social milieu with the aim of bringing people driven by
individualization back to communicating: ‘in place of the pedagogical
idea of the educated person in the high culture approach, the sociocul-
tural approach applies the pedagogical idea of the self-realising person’
(Schulze 1992: 500). The socio-cultural motive is thus closely associated
with self-help and self-determination. It takes its subjects’ cultural inter-
ests and forms of expression seriously and seeks to assist cultural self-
help by means of establishing specific initiatives and projects.
Characteristic features of its political intentions are the key terms self-
determination, decentralization and co-operation. They indicate that
the goals of socio-culture are the further democratization of society
through culture (Wiepersdorfer Erklärung 1992: 7ff).5
Establishing children’s culture as a distinct field of political interven-
tion and activity in Germany from the 1970s to the 1990s (something
which Schulze himself does not discuss) coincides in time and content
with the assertion of democratization and socio-cultural motives.
Indeed, children’s culture was part of the cultural boom. For example,
protagonists of the new departures in cultural education noted in 1988
that ‘culture is booming’ and referred to the phrase coined by Hilmar
Hoffmann (at the time, cultural secretary of Frankfurt) that begins his
foreword to the second edition of a much-discussed and cited book,
Kultur für alle (Culture for All) (1979): ‘even children’s and youth culture
are booming’ (1988: 11).
The term ‘children’s culture’ (always used by advocates in conjunction
with youth culture) serves to bracket many schemes, activities and fields
of practice that were established at the time. The following definition
180 Heinz Hengst
can be found, for example, in a publication by the Federal Association

for Cultural Education of Youth on ‘Planning Children’s and Youth
Culture’:
Children’s and youth culture work refers here to all activities aimed at
extensive aesthetic and creative experience with the aid of various
artistic means (e.g. theatre, music, dance, literature, play, graphic arts,
film, photography, video). At the same time, they reflect and include
the social and political conditions for the everyday life of children
and youths.
(Kolfhaus 1992: 9)
What this definition makes clear is that work with children and young
people was conceived of as an open and autonomous field of experi-
ence, within everyone’s range, occupying a place ‘between school and
social work, art education and youth associations’(cf. Zacharias 2001:
76). The practice is not confined to art, the spectrum of activities reach-
ing from theatre, music and museum projects to environmental proj-
ects, community work and historical learning. Art is understood as a
special case, however, and again and again it is a highlight of cultural
work with children. Cultural pedagogy aims at forging links between art
and (social) life.
Despite the authority in cultural matters that the different federal
states (Länder) in Germany wield, some key programmatic and organiza-
tional steps in the field of children’s culture policy were effected at the
national level. Mention should be made, for example, of the ‘central
lobby’ provided by the Federal Association for Cultural Education
(Bundesvereinigung kulturelle Jugendbildung – BKJ), set up in 1963, and the
Society for Cultural Policy (Kulturpolitische Gesellschaft), both of which
became driving forces behind the development of cultural pedagogics
with their congresses, conferences and publications. Another strong
partner was the German Culture Council (Deutscher Kulturrat), which
presented concepts for cultural education (using the term kulturelle
Bildung) in 1988, 1994 and 2005.
In work aimed at developing this field, reference is repeatedly made to
a document issued in 1977 by the Bund-Länder Commission for
Educational Planning and Research Promotion, entitled the Supplement
to the Education Plan. This document was a co-ordinated government
recommendation intended as a guideline for national, regional and
local government bodies regarding the fostering of cultural education.
One special aspect was that the Supplement proposed an organizational
concept for cultural education at the local community level. The prime
task of the cultural education services (the cross-cutting coordination
units in local government) was, first and foremost, to develop concepts
and programmes that would ensure cooperation not only between cul-
tural and educational institutions, but also with youth and leisure facil-
ities. The aim of these services was to broaden the scope and impact of
cultural events and facilities, and to improve interdisciplinary skills
among those working in the cultural education field in various institu-
tions (see e.g. Eichler 1988: 110ff.).
Culture with children, based on the culture of children
The growing importance attached to culture and the reorientation of cul-

tural work with children in Germany, from the 1970s to 1990s, was ulti-
mately connected to the search for ‘re-integration’ (Ulrich Beck’s term, cf.
Beck 1986), given the breakdown in both sense and meaning that had
affected traditional social institutions. What used to confer identity –
family, work, social morals, school and the education system – had
largely lost self-evident cultural meaning. Children’s culture too could no
longer be confined to its conventional products, places, expressions and
activities. Instead, greater significance was attributed to its redesign,
mainly through emphasis being given to the importance of the ‘social’.
Thus, the idea of cultural work at this time departs from the cultural sec-
tor in its narrow sense, and acquires key significance for the entire life-
world. People planning or doing cultural work with children and young
people now saw their contribution as a largely de-traditionalized enter-
prise that took place outside school. Above all, their work could no
longer be reduced to the unilateral transmission of culture from adult to
child. Adult culture was no longer deemed to be a ‘guide’ to be emulated.
Instead, children’s creativity had to be valued in its own right.
This approach is informed by an understanding that children are (and
have always been) autonomous participants in the cultural process and
that they develop specific ways of appropriating culture that can be cul-
tivated or wither away. Thus, ‘this normative definition surmounts the
notion of a culture merely for children, in favour of cultural work with
children that is based on the culture of children’ (Klein 1993: 163). It
links into the arguments of the children’s rights debate, according to
which children have their own worth as human beings, not some
abstruse, derived kind of rights. It asserts that children have a right to
develop their personality, a right that they must also exercise in their
own interest. Children’s weaknesses and need for protection are not
182 Heinz Hengst
denied, but the ‘onus of proof’ is reversed. It is not children’s lack, which
has to be dismantled by adults in a protracted education process, that
defines childhood – for in this view, entertained by adults, the decision
as to what is in the best interests children must be taken in advance.
Instead, children are assumed from the outset to be independent, and
questions then centre on where their independence is suppressed,
restricted, prevented or obstructed. This position thus emphasizes the
rights of children to their own cultures. Another basic assumption is
that children have a potential for creativity that is unique to them. The
point is to explore that potential with sensitivity and commitment,
‘without projecting specific characteristics into childhood from a
romanticised, utopian perspective based on semi-ontological images of
children’ (Klein 1993).
For those who planned and framed cultural work outside the school,
it was considered important to be on an equal footing with those they
addressed. A key principle they propounded, therefore, ‘proximity’ to
the everyday routines of children, who are themselves to be accorded
the space and the time needed for the formation of self. Within this
approach, representative symbols are the main tools (unlike in school,
where the discursive dominates), the aim being to help create meaning
through the sensuous (Sinn durch Sinnlichkeit).
The emphasis on socio-culture can thus be summarized as an effort
to establish contexts and milieux that generate or at least foster chil-
dren’s participation. As far as the de-hierarchization of the inter-gener-
ational dimension is concerned, the appeal of cultural pedagogics is
thought to consist not only in its being able to link into the real inter-
ests and needs of children and young people, but ‘that the field is also
appealing to adult experts, because they have usually chosen their
occupation due to precisely such interests and they have developed
their occupational identity from that field’ (Fuchs 2002: 114). Compared
to the usual debates about childhood, in which the convergence of
legal and economic options are foremost, the particular benefits and
opportunities of focusing on cultural education processes are seen in
the fact that they are very powerful in helping individual sensitivities
express themselves, and in fostering in children and young people a
conscious relationship to their own person, biography and future.
Strengthening the self-experience and self-awareness of children and
young people in this way is seen as essential to the assertion of inde-
pendence in a pluralist society, with its diversity of potential identifi-
cations, and is also necessary for standing up effectively for one’s own
rights.
The culture of the self – 1990s to the present
The pedagogical idea of the ‘self-realizing human’, which Schulze iden-

tified as a leitmotif of the socio-cultural approach of the 1970s, can be
said to be the idea informing cultural pedagogics and education in
Germany to this day. It is an idea that centres on what I call the ‘culture
of the self’ (in the sense of Selbstbildung, formation of the self) and the
social framework within which such processes of ‘self-realisation’ and
the ‘culture of the self’ are conceived in cultural policy discourses is
marked by conceptual terms such as ‘individualization’, ‘reflexive
modernity’, ‘second modernity’ and ‘postmodernity’. Moreover, ideo-
logical backing for this expanding activity in the field of children’s and
youth culture pedagogy in Germany (evident in the congresses, confer-
ences and publications of the respective lobbies) comes from analyses of
society that reflect a gradual shift in interest in the social sciences since
the 1970s. There has been a move away from the classical theories of
social inequality towards culturally based concepts centred on terms like
‘everyday life’, ‘lifeworld’, ‘lifestyle’, milieu and – later – the ‘art of liv-
ing’. This trend, ushered in by the turn to theories of everyday life,
makes the focus of interest ‘one’s own life project’. The assumption is
that individuals are bombarded by new challenges, against a back-
ground of extensive and intensive de-traditionalization processes and,
by asserting a trend towards ‘individualized forms and situations of exis-
tence that compel people to make themselves the centre of their own
life planning and way of life’, Beck (1986: 116ff.) defined the paradigm
that was, and still is, important for the (broad) debate on lifestyle.
The Bundesvereinigung Kulturelle Jugendbildung (BKJ – Federal
Association for Cultural Youth Education) deserves particular mention
in this context since it focused intensively on the importance of chil-
dren’s and youth culture work for the development of individuals’ con-
trol over their lives. Their Lernziel Lebenskunst (‘art of life as a learning
objective’) was a Federal pilot project and, in an overview of the new
cultural pedagogics in Germany, the ‘art of living’ (Lebenskunst) is
described as a ‘paradigmatic buzzword’. The issue or goal is ‘education
through self-aware control of one’s life’ (Zacharias 2001: 219).
Thus, for instance, one of the conferences that the BKJ organised in
2000 in connection with this project was entitled ‘Participation –
Education – Art of Living. Models of Participation in Cultural Youth
Education’. The proceedings of the conference give a good impression of
the special role to be played by children’s ‘participation in cultural edu-
cation’ and reference is made to the model provided by the Lernziel
184 Heinz Hengst
Lebenskunst project. The proceedings clearly showed that the conference

was not about participatory projects in the field of political involve-
ment, or pursuing specific interests – for example, in relation to the res-
idential environment of children and young people, in which
discussions with politicians, children’s centres and local government
officials responsible for children’s affairs are key mechanisms. Rather,
the point was to demand, and actively promote, opportunities and ways
to ensure participation and independent action by young people
beyond any political framework in the narrower sense. There are,
nonetheless many points of contact.6
Participation and exclusion
Work on the Lebenskunst concept is being done at a time when poverty

is again becoming the subject of public debate, and many studies are
being published on childhood poverty in Germany (see, in particular,
the anthologies on children and poverty by Klocke and Hurrelmann
1998; 2001; Mansel and Neubauer 1998; Butterwegge 2000; Butterwegge
and Klundt 2002).
Moreover, it is occurring at a time when German sociology is drawing
attention to the fact that, although the social climate is characterized by
conflicts of interest and rivalry, society is not being torn apart and it is
precisely this ability of society to incorporate and integrate that which
threatens it that is brought into focus by the concept of exclusion, a
term imported from debates in France and England (see e.g. Bude 2004).
This term functions as a counter-concept to participation, describing the
slow or sudden falling through the social safety net, and the isolation
and inaccessibility of those excluded in this way. Eliminating the inter-
nal and external restraints and barriers with which people seeking
upward mobility are confronted was one of the principal motives of
social and education policies in the 1960s. The goal of equal opportu-
nity always related to an essentially open space. By contrast, the term
‘exclusion’, characteristic of the 1990s onwards, centres not on
upward, but on downward mobility. It not only focuses (in respect of
poverty and homelessness, for example) on ways that the ‘majority
society’ shields itself against ‘losers’, it also highlights the risk of drop-
ping out of society, as fundamental within mainstream society. It is
becoming clear, therefore, that ‘the fat years’ turned Germany into a
‘trade union and social welfare state for the middle classes’ and in the
debate about the old and new mechanisms of a class society, the ques-
tion of interrelationships between economic, social and cultural capital
is one that is acquiring new and explosive relevance. It is education pol-

icy that is treated as the most important area for intervening in these
interrelationships.
This analysis implies a twin challenge for the idea of cultural work
outside school: one the one hand, it reinforces doubts that such work
can to reach everyone; and on the other, it raises the issue of how such
work can accept the cultures of those who pursue self-exclusion through
their cultural interests and activities. In the 1990s, as outlined above,
criticism was increasingly voiced against the concept of cultural work
which, as an extra-curricular endeavour, competed from the outset with
social work, where reservations were expressed from the beginning.
As far as the first challenge is concerned, protagonists of cultural ped-
agogics have emphasized repeatedly that focusing purely on the supply
side and the provision of participatory options is not sufficient to get all
social groups involved. The results of empirical studies on stratum-
specific perception of infrastructural provision can be applied without
difficulty to cultural participation. As regards the second challenge,
reservations about cultural work have always been voiced by the social
work camp, which has pointed to ‘preferences in taste specific to the
underclass’, preferences that lead to exclusion of various kinds as soon
as aesthetics come into play (cf. Treptow 1988: 89f.). Culture workers
have countered this by saying that all people have capacities for cultural
expression, but these are neglected if we concentrate on their problems
and disadvantages. They argue that selectively looking at deficiencies
and limited competencies blocks the very de-stigmatization that helps
to achieve integration and that this is the core issue. I do not wish to
examine these problems further here, but would merely conclude that,
however one conceives the tension or polarity between the social and
the cultural, it is at this juncture that the limited scope of pedagogics
outside school becomes apparent.
Departing from the primacy of the extra-curricular
Since the 1990s – and especially since German schoolchildren per-

formed so poorly in international comparisons7 – extra-curricular peda-
gogics has been at risk of being isolated and ignored even though it has
been assigned great importance in Germany until now (as already men-
tioned) because of the tradition of the half-day school. This has led to a
relatively well-developed range of schemes outside school that perform
educational tasks in the wider sense. Besides the (new) cultural peda-
gogics, on which this chapter focuses, there are youth associations,
186 Heinz Hengst
sports, Church-based and environment activist organizations, all of

which compete for the leisure time of children and young people. The
Youth Welfare Act, in force until 1991, signified a commitment as early
as 1922 to institutionalize social and extra-curricular pedagogics. The
law which succeeded the Youth Welfare Act, the Children’s and
Adolescents’ Aid Act 1991 (Kinder- und Jugendhilfegesetz), reiterated this
commitment.
Social and cultural pedagogics – the former traditionally dealing with
the problems and deficiencies, a sort of societal repair company, the lat-
ter intending to realise cultural and social education for all – have in
common the fact that they both define themselves in opposition to
school. To that extent they are called into question by current efforts in
Germany to establish all-day schools (like those which have existed
almost everywhere in Europe for decades), but also ultimately because of
their specific understanding of pedagogics, the roots of which reach
back far into the past. Max Fuchs (2005: 215) identifies the extended
influence of a highly reformist approach to pedagogics outside school,
as characterized by the certainty that one is pursuing (only fitting) real,
child-related pedagogics.
The relationship of both institutions (cultural and social pedagogics
outside school) to school is, therefore, undergoing a remarkable change
of perspective. It is claimed, for example, that the theory and practice of
work outside school must align with schools, in contrast to the initially
necessary distance maintained by play- and culture-based initiatives and
projects in the 1970s and 1980s (with the exception of schools of music
and art for the young): ‘cooperation and networking with everyday
schooling and school culture, as well as holistic and life-world
approaches to everyday life and the aesthetic and cultural learning of
children and youths is sorely needed and necessary’ (Zacharias 2001:
162). Collaboration between cultural education and schools is
demanded by the German Cultural Council in its ‘Concept for Cultural
Education’ (1994). Kultur macht Schule is the title of a national assess-
ment of co-operation and networking of school-based and cultural ped-
agogical learning with artistic and aesthetic goals.
Indeed, the Federal Association for Cultural Education of Youth
organized a dialogue on this issue between schools, cultural education
workers and youth workers, with the aim of exploring ‘general educa-
tion’ at a variety of levels (BKJ 1997: 15ff). In contrast to the earlier
approach, representatives of cultural education now emphasize with
increasing frequency the common characteristics of school and cultural
pedagogics: shared target populations, shared conditions and problems
of growing up, a shared social context in which pedagogics takes place,

in school and outside school; and shared responsibility for supporting
people in their education. Efforts are made to generate scale and synergy
effects by linking school practices and cultural pedagogics. But it is
emphasized that co-operation with schools makes sense only on the
basis of differences, because it is the differences that form the real basis
for co-operation. The desired partner is a school that, in the words of the
chairman of the German Cultural Council, ‘is at the centre of education
for adolescents, but strives for fair cooperation with other venues of edu-
cation as part of a broader educational network’ (Fuchs 2005: 236).
Thus, the broadly defined concept of culture in the 1970s and 1980s
has been replaced by a ‘broadly defined concept of education’ (in the
sense of Bildung) ‘that respects the fact that very many more competen-
cies, skills and attitudes are needed than are addressed by concentrating
on the purely cognitive’ (Fuchs 2005: 245). This is bound up with the
acceptance that other agencies and venues are needed besides school.
Under such conditions, a school can be well integrated into a local edu-
cational network in which various bodies take responsibility for differ-
ent educational tasks. However, this requires ‘a major internal reform of
school’ (Fuchs 2005: 245). Reference is also made in this connection to
‘schools centred on the social space’ (Fuchs 2005: 246). ‘The agenda
includes qualitative control over the development of a local educational
infrastructure in the sense of a local educational landscape’ (Lindner
2004: 8ff.). Such an approach demands, and fosters, co-operation
between the various players in child and youth aid in the locality, and
the forms of participation they practise. The realization, long present
and implemented among representatives of cultural pedagogics, that
participative cultural work depends on decentralized schemes based on
social space, is now embracing school as well.
The expectations that cultural and social pedagogists have of schools
being partners in Germany are, however, limited. Radical critics of
neoliberal tendencies in education reform preach caution when assess-
ing the merits of all-day schools. Bernhard, for example, after an ideo-
logical critique and review of learning cultures as recommended by
neoliberals, recommends that the intensive linking of school pedagogics
and social work be ‘reflected upon anew, instead of devaluing its useful-
ness for emancipatory action with the killer argument that it installs
total educational control’ (Bernhard 2004: 321). Equally, the cultural
pedagogics side is dominated by scepticism towards the changes that
will occur in the relationship between cultural work (outside school)
and school practice, if school and education policy-makers in Germany
188 Heinz Hengst
take steps to establish all-day schools. Scepticism is expressed regarding

the likelihood that a school, which is primarily concerned with its own
affairs and has other concerns, will start opening itself up to more social
issues during this radical change.
Likewise, teachers are expected to have other priorities than co-operation
with those in the field of cultural work with children and youths. Recent
empirical studies (Behr-Heintze and Lipski 2005) show that, so far, co-
operation on the part of schools has mainly been concentrated on serv-
ices that address problems or deficiencies – parental counselling, general
and occupationally related social work, educational psychology services.
Despite this bad starting point and a framework in dire need of
improvement, Lindner (2004) calls on those doing cultural work with
children and young people to focus on pragmatic co-operation with
schools – even to accept half-baked compromises.
In the 1970s and 1980s, ‘culture is booming’ went unquestioned in
Germany. Ever since the results of the first PISA study were announced,
however, it would now be more accurate to say that ‘Bildung is booming’ –
in public discourse at least. In his address to a conference entitled
‘Bildung is More! The Significance of Different Learning Venues’ (2002),
the Mayor of Nuremberg said, ‘this conference is being held at a time in
which – if we ignore football – there is only one topic, and this is
unusual: the topic is Bildung’ (Förther 2003: 23).
This does not mean, though, that culture is no longer playing a role in
public discourses or politics. Indeed, German cultural policy even expe-
rienced a boost in the late 1990s.8 Representatives of the SPD and the
CDU/CSU (the two largest political parties) have, for example, empha-
sized that future culture policy will attach considerable importance to
the cultural education of children and young people. If the term ‘cul-
tural education’ (in contrast to children’s culture, cultural work and cul-
tural pedagogics) has become largely established in more official
documents and announcements (and in the ever more frequent opening
addresses – the symbolic expressions of support – by ministers and other
politicians), then one can view this as an indication that the field has
gained in importance.
A revaluation of culture applies also to new emphases in policy pro-
grammes concerning children. For example, in the 10th Children and
Youth Report (BMFSFJ [Federal Ministry for Family, Senior Citizens,
Women and Youth] 1998), which is also designated as the first children
report of the Federal Republic of Germany, a culture of growing up is
defined as the political objective, the intention being to ensure that chil-
dren, and the task of taking care of them, are considered to be a primary
social obligation. Childhood is not understood in a familialistic manner,

but as embedded in a social network and in the culture of growing up, a
culture that promises support for the respective individual education
and development processes of children. It is conceptualized as a culture
where the individualism of children and diverging development have
their place, just like frictions, conflicts and crises, because children also
develop through conflicts and crises. The culture of growing up is evi-
dence for the image of the child as a ‘self-active, individual subject’.
Cultural education, circular subjects and the

primacy of the Eigenwelten
At conferences and in publications about culture policy, in the sense

used in this chapter, the work performed to date is also analysed and
evaluated. It is pointed out, for example, that since the cultural upswing
in the 1970s, efforts to expand supply-side provision and to improve the
broader conditional framework have been very successful. Christina
Weiss, the Federal Government Commissioner for Culture and Media,
said in her opening speech to the 3rd National Culture Policy Congress
on the topic publikum macht kultur (the public makes culture) that
‘“Culture for All” is a reality. The financial and ritual barriers to access
have been ground down’ (Weiss 2005: 32). The conclusion she drew
generally applies equally to the younger generation. If one compares the
results of the ‘Youth Culture Barometer’ for 2004 with a study dating
from 1973, what we find is not a decline in the participation of young
people in art and culture, as was feared, but a trend towards greater par-
ticipation (cf. Keuchel 2005: 12ff).
However, if we look more closely, we find that the positive results
relate only to a small section and that not even 8 per cent of school-
children in or leaving secondary school take advantage of aesthetic and
cultural projects and schemes. Even when it comes to informal activities
like graffiti spraying and the like, the proportion of young people with
minimal school education joining in is a mere 18 per cent. Thus, what
the PISA study discovered for school-based education – namely a blatant
lack of equal opportunity – applies equally to cultural activities outside
the school. But what the Youth Culture Barometer also shows clearly –
which the advocates of a new form of cultural pedagogics, who are criti-
cal of schooling and teaching, had assumed and that greatly inspired
their efforts – is that school has little success in awakening children’s cul-
tural interests using the tools of conventional art and music classes. This
holds true even when lessons are enjoyed by the children concerned.
190 Heinz Hengst
One aspect that is at least as important as the non-participation of the

socially disadvantaged is a change in cultural interests, not only among
social groups with less education but also among relatively well-
educated households – i.e. those who still make use of available cultural
offerings more or less as a matter of course. Such a finding is all the more
noteworthy in that the conditions for cultural participation have not only
improved considerably as a result of the disproportional increase in cul-
tural offerings in recent decades, but also due to more leisure time, greater
purchasing power and higher levels of formal educational attainment.
Conclusion
In discourses on the cultural education of children and young people in

Germany today, arguments dating from the 1970s and 1980s continue
to play a major role. Since the 1990s, culture and cultural education
have also been viewed as an instrument against economization and the
neoliberal Zeitgeist, and are still under discussion as a vehicle for re-
integration.9 The spectrum of co-existing and competing aims, motives
and approaches is likely, therefore, to be greater in Germany today and,
indeed, is matched by a broadening of the field of activity, such as the
various initiatives and projects, run in some cases by schools and teach-
ers, that extend into the leisure time of children and youths.
What is noteworthy here, as far as basic and guiding motives are con-
cerned, is that the critique of the ‘high culture’ motive has virtually
faded away. Anti-authoritarian and other perspectives critical of educa-
tion have also evaporated, at least from public discourse. This does not
signify, however, any relapse into authoritarian patterns of thinking in
general. Rather, it is assumed that anti-authoritarian currents and infor-
malization tendencies have (finally) become established in everyday
culture. Moreover, the greater the distance from the intense de-
traditionalization arguments of the 1970s, the more clearly the conse-
quences for everyday life and habitus, which arise from welcome gains
in liberalization, are articulated in public discourse.
The cultural capital that contemporaries in general, and young peo-
ple in particular, are injecting into (cultural) learning processes is like-
wise viewed more sceptically (and is seen more in need of cultivation
than in the 1970s and 1980s). Schulze (1999) coined the term ‘circular
subject’ to illustrate his view that cultural perception, and perception of
the world in a very general sense, is adjusted to the subjective spectacles
of one’s own world, or Eigenwelt. Thomas Ziehe (2005) describes these
Eigenwelten, constructed under a fusion of normal everyday life and
popular culture, as ‘relevance corridors’ that are no longer niches like
the Eigenwelten of previous generations of youth, and which no longer

have to be defended against the demands of the environment. They are
perceived instead as ‘the mental centre of one’s own way of life’; they
radiate into all spheres of life and give them a specific hue; and there-
fore they are not only a socially accepted parallel world, but have
become a genuine ‘leading culture’ (Ziehe 2005: 202).
It is only logical, therefore, that when Ziehe demands the ‘decentring
of Eigenwelten’ he is asking that the search for a reality beyond one’s own
horizon be made a core issue in learning and cultural work. So it is no
coincidence that, in critical contributions to the practice of cultural
work, there is more emphasis on the argument that the aesthetic does
not gain its real significance in affinity but in opposition to everyday
culture and everyday life (see e.g. Jäger and Kuckhermann 2004).
Generally, the authors adhere to the necessity of subject orientation in
(cultural) learning processes but simultaneously emphasize the Janus-
faced character of this orientation; under the conditions of neoliberal-
ism and globalization, educational options that aim at strengthening
subjectivity are always in danger of being undermined.
Participating in the consumption of their everyday worlds, it is
argued, they have the chance to shape their subjectivity, but not at all in
the sense of the formation of the self (Selbst-Bildung). But there are also
more structurally-oriented critics in current educational discourses who
register a cult of self-learning as a reflex of modernization imperatives,
which represent an invitation to a ‘laissez-faire-attitude’ (Bremer 2004:
195ff.). Such critics complain that the emphasis on self-learning and
informal learning outside educational institutions shifts attention away
from how education is framed – for instance, from the institutions of
education, from the structural conditions and the teaching personnel –
to the cultural actors as constructors of their own educational biographies
(Bildungsbiographien). What is demanded instead of mainly short-term
and often one-off measures are ‘reliable’, ‘consistent’ and ‘long-term’
educational offerings. These would need to be accompanied by cultural-
political curricula and programmes considering especially the require-
ments of open all-day schooling and following an integrated (school-
and culture-) pedagogical approach. They would also need to be built in
the developing ‘culture of growing up’.
Notes
1 Bildung (education in the formative, cultural sense) is a very complex term
confined to the linguistic regions of Germany and Scandinavia. In German, it
has a specific relationship with the concept of Erziehung (education in the
192 Heinz Hengst
sense of upbringing and rearing). In German, a distinction is made between

Erziehung and Bildung, two terms with different connotations that are sub-
sumed in English under the single term ‘education’. One characteristic fea-
ture of Bildung is the autonomy of the educational subject. Bildung is
understood to be a process involving the self-formation of personality. This
self-formation is not directed at any materialist objective, but occurs for its
own sake. Wilhelm von Humboldt believed that the need to ‘form’ or educate
oneself (sich zu bilden) is inherent in people and need only be wakened.
According to Humboldt, education in the sense of Bildung is the stimulation
of all of people’s energies in order that they develop and unfold through men-
tal appropriation of the world and progress to a self-determining individual-
ity and personality. The modern, holistic concept of Bildung (education in the
formative sense) stands for a never-ending process in which people expand
their intellectual, cultural and practical skills, as well as their personal and
social competencies.
2 Vinterberg (1985), for example, has pointed out that the first reference in the
Danish language to ‘children’s culture policy’ was in 1971, both in the public
debate and at ministerial level. It was Scandinavians who brought children’s
culture as a topic and political task into the European debate (cf. Liljestrøm
1980). The importance to be attributed to Danish policies on children’s cul-
ture can be seen in the fact that, through its foreign embassies and consulates,
the Danish Foreign Ministry disseminates fact sheets in several languages on
‘Danish themes’, one of which is about ‘Children’s culture in Denmark’. The
authors explicitly identify with the work programme of the Nordic Council of
Ministers, thus underlining the supranational basis of these children’s culture
policies. The Swedish Institute (Svenska Institutet), a government institute
assigned the task of informing people in other countries about Sweden, has
published a paper entitled ‘Swedish Children’s Culture’ as part of its ‘Culture
in Sweden’ series. To quote from that paper (February 2002): ‘The right of
Swedish children to have culture and access to culture has become fully inte-
grated with the concept of childhood.’
3 Kinderläden (literally children’s shops, so called because they were often set
up in empty shop premises) are self-organising, self-governing (‘alternative’)
kindergartens or day centres, attended by children of pre-school age
(between about 3 and 61⁄2 years). By self-governing is meant that the ‘chil-
dren’s shops’ were totally unregimented at first, then later organized by
small, not-for-profit associations comprised of the parents and in many
cases the teachers (Erzieher). These associations are largely self-governing.
However, although they operate along self-governing lines, and it is possi-
ble for children’s parents to become directly involved, the supervisory
authority is the same as for conventional kindergartens, namely the Youth
Office (Jugendamt). The specific tasks and responsibilities discharged by par-
ents and teachers/educators differ from one ‘shop’ to the next.
Administrative and maintenance work is usually done on a voluntary basis.
As far as cooking, cleaning and deputizing for personnel on sick leave is
concerned, there are almost as many models as there are children’s centres.
The voluntary commitment of all those involved makes it possible for the
children to be assured a more individual form of care in these relatively
small children’s centres than is the case in larger institutions. The form of
education striven for aimed at freedom from repression. The aim and intention
was that children should develop their own independence, critical-mindedness
and creativity at as early a stage as possible. The same principles of organiza-
tion, management and education applied in ‘schoolkids’ shops’
(Schülerläden) as in ‘children’s shops’: small, self-governing centres for
schoolchildren, mostly run by private associations. Primary school children
go to such centres after school (which can be any time from 10 or 11 in the
morning until late in the afternoon).
4 Célestin Freinet wanted to reform the school system from within. Based on
his work and experience as a teacher, and on the reformist educational ideas
and ideals of 1920s reformers, he developed a concept of schooling now
referred to as ‘Freinet education’. The basic principles of Freinet’s educational
philosophy include the free development of personality, critical interaction
with the environment, children’s self-responsibility, as well as cooperative
learning and shared responsibility. In Freinet education, teacher-controlled
lessons are replaced with self-determined lessons by and for the schoolchild-
ren themselves. Classes are organized as cooperatives that are self-governing
in every respect. Schoolchildren and teachers each have one vote in the gov-
erning body, the Class Council. The children decide for themselves, by and
large, what they want to learn, and arrange among themselves who they want
to work with and what objectives they will pursue. They report to the class as
a whole on the work they have been doing. Key techniques and methods of
Freinet education are the school printing press (documentation of work per-
formed, free expression, class newspaper, demystification of the printed
word), correspondence, free work, class councils (allocation of posts, drawing
up work schedules), exploration and trips outside the classroom.
5 A statement made in 1991 in favour of ‘Structural Assistance for Socio-cul-
ture’ declared that the new political and economic freedom in the eastern
states of the Federal Republic needed fields of cultural experimentation so
that involvement, commitment, creativity, imagination, the ability to engage
in discourse and tolerance could develop as essential resources for building a
democratic society and for meeting the challenges that lay ahead. ‘Socio-cul-
ture’ also provides a programme and tested practices that are flexible enough
to be adapt changing social conditions (see Zacharias 2001: 84f.)
6 Children and young people’s participation in decision-making concerning
themselves has been on an upward trend in the FRG for several years and is
now embodied in the KJHG (Children and Youth Welfare Act). Early in the
1990s, participation was talked about as a ‘primary cultural technique’ (cf.
Wiebusch 1991). In recent decades, numerous forms and methods of partici-
pation have been tried and practised at various levels. In this connection, spe-
cial mention should be made of local politics where children’s interests get a
hearing and young people learn about democratic structures at an early stage
(not least) in order to participate actively in social processes in the future.
Participation includes children’s parliaments, children’s hearings and special
consultation hours for children with local politicians; exploration of inter-
ests, town planning, development of playgrounds and the residential envi-
ronment have become established areas. There are many points of contact
with activities within the scope of cultural work in a narrower sense.
Moreover, both areas have been inspired by the children’s rights movement
194 Heinz Hengst
and the 1989 UN convention. Many participation projects are located in the
field of political co-determination and enforcement of concerns relating to
the environment of where children and young people live. Discussions with
politicians, children’s offices and child commissioners in communes are
important.
7 After the publication of the results of the PISA (Programme for International
Student Assessment of OECD) 2000 study even the general public knew what
had been well known to experts for many years: the German school system is
suffering from a striking lack of quality, an extreme lack of motivation and an
excessive amount of injustice (cf. Deutsches Pisa-Konsortium 2001). PISA
2000 is part of a project, divided into three four-year research cycles, which
ran from 1998 to 2007. During the first cycle (1998–2001) literacy, mathe-
matics and the natural sciences were tested. Of the 180,000 15-year-old male
and female pupils from 32 countries, 5,000 came from Germany. Germany
came almost at the bottom (20th out of 21 places), far behind the
Scandinavian, Anglo-Saxon and some Asian countries.
8 In 1998, Chancellor Schröder’s Social-Democrat/Green Party coalition gov-
ernment created the post of Federal Government Commissioner for Culture
and Media, and parliament established the Committee for Culture and
Media. In addition, the Enquete Commission on ‘Culture in Germany’ pro-
posed anchoring culture as a state goal in the Basic Law or constitution of
Germany. The intention here is to make it the state’s duty to protect and pro-
mote culture as a constitutional principle, and so put culture on a par with
other state goals.
9 Renate Schmidt, Federal Minister for Family, Senior Citizens, Women and
Youth, wrote in a statement setting out the reasons for youth-cultural com-
petitions: ‘Especially under conditions of social change – where points of
orientation cease to exist – culture, as a sense and direction, becomes more
and more important and supports imagination, creativeness, sensitivity and
identity, critical faculties and commitment to a vision of a better world. The
youth-cultural competitions are a reflection of these cultural education offers’
(Schmidt 2005: 29). She points out that it is indispensable for a vibrant
democracy to give children and young people a platform where they can
present themselves and express their points of view.
References
Beck, U. (1986) Risikogesellschaft. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Behr-Heinzte, A. and Lipski, J. (2005) Schulkooperationen. Stand und Perspektiven der
Zusammenarbeit zwischen Schulen und ihren Partnern. Forschungsbericht des DJI.
Schwalbach/Ts.: Wochenschau Verlag.
Bernhard, A. (2004) Neue Lernkultur und die marktkonforme Zurichtung der
Bildung. Das Argument 44: 311–24.
Biedenkopf, K. (1986) ‘Kultur für alle’. Kommunalpolitische Vereinigung der
CDU. In Nordrhein-Westfalen (ed.) Der Mensch lebt nicht vom Brot allein. Kultur
für alle oder Träume von Spinnern. Düsseldorf: 11–32.
Braunmühl, E. von (1975) Antipädagogik. Weinheim: Beltz.
Braunmühl, E. von (1978) Zeit für Kinder. Frankfurt: Fischer.

Bremer, H. (2004) Der Mythos vom autonom lernenden Subjekt. Zur sozialen
Verortung aktueller Konzepte des Selbstlernens und zur Bildungspraxis unter-
schiedlicher sozialer Milieus. In Engler, S. and Krais, B. (eds.), Das kulturelle
Kapital und die Macht der Klassenstrukturen. Sozialstrukturelle Verschiebungen und
Wandlungsprozesse des Habitus. Weinheim and München: Juventa: 189–213.
Brenner, G. (2005) Bildung und Lernen. Anmerkungen zur Ambivalenz der
Subjektorientierung. In Hafeneger, B. (ed.), Subjektdiagnosen. Subjekt,
Modernisierung und Bildung. Schwalbach/Ts.: Wochenschau Verlag: 223–49.
Bude, H. (2004) Das Phänomen der Exklusion. Der Widerstreit zwischen
gesellschaftlicher Erfahrung und soziologischer Rekonstruktion. Mittelweg 36
4/2004: 3–15.
Bundesvereinigung Kulturelle Jugendbildung e.V. (ed.) (1997) Kultur macht Schule.
Remscheid: BKJ.
Bundesvereinigung Kulturelle Jugendbildung e.V. (ed.) (2000a) Kulturarbeit und
Armut. Konzepte und Ideen für die kulturelle Bildung in sozialen Brennpunkten und
mit benachteiligten jungen Menschen. Remscheid: BKJ.
Bundesvereinigung Kulturelle Jugendbildung e.V. (ed.) (2000b) Partizipation und
Lebenskunst. Remscheid: BKJ.
Bundesvereinigung Kulturelle Jugendbildung e.V. (ed.) (2002) Kultur leben lernen.
Bildungswirkungen und Bildungsauftrag der Kinder- und Jugendkulturarbeit.
Remscheid: BKJ.
Butterwegge, C. (2000) Kinderarmut in Deutschland. Ursachen, Erscheinungsformen
und Gegenmaßnahmen. Frankfurt and New York: Campus.
Butterwegge, C. and Klundt, M. (eds.) (2002) Kinderarmut und
Generationengerechtigkeit. Opladen: Leske & Budrich.
Deutsches PISA-Konsortium (ed.) (2001) PISA 2000. Basiskompetenzen von
Schülerinnen und Schülern im internationalen Vergleich. Opladen: Leske & Budrich.
Durand, B. (2004) Die Legende vom typisch Deutschen. Eine Kultur im Spiegel der
Franzosen. Leipzig: Militzke.
Eichler, K. (1988) Alles nach Plan – Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der
Kulturentwicklungsplanung. In Müller-Rolli, S. (ed.), Kulturpädagogik und
Kulturarbeit. Grundlagen, Praxisfelder, Ausbildung. Weinheim and München:
Juventa: 105–18.
Förther, H. (2003) Die Gestaltung einer Bildungslandschaft als kommunalpolitis-
che Aufgabe. In Prölß, R. (ed.), Bildung ist mehr! Die Bedeutung der verschiedenen
Lernorte. Konsequenzen aus der PISA-Studie zur Gestaltung einer kommunalen
Bildungslandschaft. Nürnberg: Emwe-Verlag: 23–6.
Freire, P. (1971) Pädagogik der Unterdrückten. Rowohlt: Reinbek.
Fuchs, M. (2002) Kulturelle Bildung in der Jugendhilfe. In Münchmeier, R., Otto,
H.-U. and Rabe-Kleberg, U. (im Auftrag des Bundesjugendkuratoriums) (eds.),
Kinder- und Jugendhilfe vor neuen Aufgaben. Opladen: Leske & Budrich: 107–17.
Fuchs, M. (2005) Kulturpädagogik und Schule im gesellschaftlichen Wandel –
Alte und neue Herausforderungen für die Theorie und Praxis von Bildung und
Erziehung. Ein Versuch. In Deutscher Kulturrat (ed.), Kulturelle Bildung in der
Reformdiskussion. Konzeption Kulturelle Bildung III. Berlin: Deutscher Kulturrat:
155–276.
Grüneisl. G. and Zacharias, W. (1988) PA. Die neue Kinder- und Jugendkulturarbeit.
Kulturpädagogisches Lesebuch IV, Teil 1–3. München: Pädagogische Aktion.
196 Heinz Hengst
Hengst, H. (1995) Von und mit Kids – Aktive Kinderkultur in Westeuropa.

Kunstschule im Kontext. 10 Jahre Landesverband der Kunstschulen Niedersachsen
e.V. Hannover: Landesverband der Kunstschulen: 56–65.
Hentig, H. von (1971) Cuernavaca – oder: Alternativen zur Schule. Stuttgart: Klett.
Hoffmann, H. (1979) Kultur für alle. Frankfurt: Fischer Verlag.
Illich, I. (1970) Schulen helfen nicht. Rowohlt: Reinbek.
Illich, I. (1972) Entschulung der Gesellschaft. Rowohlt: Reinbek.
Jäger, J. and Kuckhermann, R. (2004) Ästhetische Praxis im gesellschaftlichen
Kontext. In Jäger, J. and Kuckhermann, R. (eds.), Ästhetische Praxis in der
Sozialen Arbeit. Wahrnehmung, Gestaltung und Kommunikation. Weinheim and
München: Juventa: 249–80.
Keuchel, S. (2005) Kunst und Kultur im Aufwind? Ergebnisse aus dem Jugend-
Kulturbarometer 2004. Infodienst Kulturpädagogische Nachrichten 3: 12–13.
Klein, A. (1993) Kinder, Kultur, Politik. Perspektiven kommunaler Kinderkulturarbeit.
Opladen: Leske & Budrich.
Klemm, U. (2003) Zur Relevanz und Rezeption antiautoritärer Erziehungsmodelle
und der Antipädagogik für die Bildungsreform. In Bernhard, A., Kremer, A. and
Rieß, F. (eds.), Kritische Erziehungswissenschaft und Bildungsreform. Programmatik –
Brüche – Neuansätze. Band 1. Theoretische Grundlagen und Widersprüche.
Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren: 50–82.
Klocke, A. and Hurrelman, K. (eds.) (1998/2001) Kinder und Jugendliche in Armut.
Umfang, Auswirkungen und Konsequenzen. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Kolfhaus, S. (1992) Kinder- und Jugendarbeit als Querschnittsaufgabe. In
Bundesvereinigung kulturelle Jugendbildung (ed.), Kinder- und
Jugendkulturplanung. Remscheid: Akademie Remscheid: 9–15.
Kolland. D. (2005) Kultur gegen Armut und Ausgrenzung. Über eine Europäische
Initiative zur gesellschaftlichen und kulturellen Teilhabe. Kulturpolitische
Mitteilungen III: 72–3.
Kramer, D. (1988) Zum Kulturbegriff der öffentlichen Kulturarbeit. S. Müller-Rolli
(ed.), Kulturpädagogik und Kulturarbeit. Grundlagen, Praxisfelder, Ausbildung.
Weinheim and München: Juventa: 65–79.
Landesarbeitsgemeinschaft Spiel- und Kulturpädagogik Bayern (ed.) (1990)
Kinder- und Jugendkulturarbeit in Bayern. LAG Werktstattbücher Nos. 1–3.
München.
Liljestrøm, R. (1980) Children and Culture. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Lindner, W. (2004) ‘Genug ist nicht genug’. 12 Anmerkungen zu Stand und
Perspektiven der Kooperation von Jugendarbeit und (Ganztags-)Schule.
http://kultur-macht-schule.de/.
Mansel, J. and Neubauer, G. (eds.) (1998) Armut und soziale Ungleichheit bei
Kindern. Opladen: Leske & Budrich.
Meadows, De., Meadows, Do., Zahn, E. and Miling, P. (1973) Die Grenzen des
Wachstums. Bericht des Club of Rome zur Lage der Menschheit. Reinbek: Rowohlt.
Schmidt, R.. (2005) Infodienst Kulturpädagogische Nachrichten, 3: 29.
Schoenebeck, H. von (1982) Unterstützen statt erziehen. München.
Schoenebeck, H. von (1985) Antipädagogik im Dialog. Weinheim: Beltz.
Schoenebeck, H. von (1992) Die erziehungsfreie Praxis. Münster: Votum.
Schulze, G. (1992) Die Erlebnisgesellschaft. Kultursoziologie der Gegenwart. Frankfurt
and New York: Campus.
Schulze, G. (1999) Kulissen des Glücks. Streifzüge durch die Eventkultur. Frankfurt
and New York: Campus.
Sinowatz, F. (1987) Das Alltägliche ist die Heimat. In A. Wiesand (ed.), Kunst ohne
Grenzen? Kulturelle Identität in Europa. Köln.
Therborn, G. (1993) Children’s Rights since the Constitution of Modern
Childhood. A Comparative Study of Western Nations. In Qvortrup, J. (ed.),
Childhood as a Social Phenomenon. Lessons from an International Project. Vienna:
European Centre: 105–38.
Treptow, R. (1988) Kulturelles Mandat. Soziale Kulturarbeit und kulturelle
Sozialarbeit. In Müller-Rolli, S. (ed.), Kulturpädagogik und Kulturarbeit.
Grundlagen, Praxisfelder, Ausbildung. Weinheim and München: Juventa: 81–103.
Vinterberg, S. (1985) Kinderkulturforschung? Kann man das essen? Ansätze zur
Diskussion der Kinderkulturforschung in Dänemark. In Hengst, H. (ed.)
Kindheit in Europa. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp: 280–301.
Weiss, C. (2005) Das Publikum ist die Macht der Kultur. Kulturpolitische
Mitteilungen, III: 32–4.
Wiebusch, R. (1991) Mehr Politik für Kinder wagen? – Perspektiven einer Politik
für Kinder, mit Kindern und für Kinder. In Aktion & Kultur mit Kinder e.V.
(ed.), betr.: Kindheit ‘90. Düsseldorf: Akki: 61–76.
Wiepersdorfer Erklärung (1992) Forderungen und Empfehlungen für eine Strukturhilfe
Soziokultur in den neuen und alten Bundesländern. Dortmund et al.
Zacharias, W. (2001) Kulturpädagogik. Kulturelle Jugendbildung. Eine Einführung.
Ziehe, T. (2005) Schulische Lernkultur und zeittypische Mentalitätsrisiken. In
Hafeneger, B. (ed.), Subjektdiagnosen. Subjekt, Modernisierung und Bildung.
Schwalbach/Ts.: Wochenschau Verlag: 193–222,
Zinnecker, J. (1996) Soziologie der Kindheit oder Sozialisation des Kindes? Über-
legungen zu einem aktuellen Paradigmenstreit. Honig, M.-S., Leu, H. R. and
Nissen, U. (eds.), Kinder und Kindheit. Soziokulturelle Muster – sozialisationstheo-
retische Perspektiven. Weinheim and München: Juventa: 31–54.
10
Work and Care: Reconstructing
Childhood through Childcare
Policy in Germany
Michael-Sebastian Honig
The Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic

were not only two opposing political systems; pre-school childcare and
education in the two states were also based on opposing beliefs. In West
Germany there was traditionally little support for the idea that childcare
should be provided for by the state. However, since German reunifica-
tion in 1989 the ‘old federal states’ in West Germany have been under-
going a quantitative increase in institutional pre-school care, which
would have been unthinkable during the Cold War years. Today, virtu-
ally every child attends pre-school, at least in the year prior to school
enrolment. However, this development is not so much due to the appeal
of the East German model; more important are the cultural and eco-
nomic changes in West German society itself, in particular the growing
number of women, including mothers, in paid employment, as well as a
diversification of family types.
What is more, this change is to no small degree a result of political
action, motivated by concerns about demographic changes, which aims
to facilitate the decision to have children and in particular highlights the
significance of the pre-school years in promoting child development. The
traditional idea that institutional pre-school childcare education performs
only a supplementary support function to the family is thus being
eclipsed. Educational institutions for children between 3 and 6 years of
age (kindergartens) are being called upon to re-examine their traditional
self-conception as a ‘world of the child’, in order to enable mothers and
fathers to combine family and work as well as to promote the social and
cognitive development of children. The pedagogical quality of these insti-
tutions is subject to scrutiny and assessment, and quality management is
198
important. The transition from pre-school to elementary school has also

considerably increased in importance and parents are now expected to
participate in the work of pre-school institutions.
Whilst these changes are the subject of lively and controversial debate
in Germany from a number of perspectives, their effect on children, and
on childhood as a structural element of society, is rarely discussed. My
argument, explored in this chapter, is as follows: not only is the quanti-
tative increase and changing pedagogical nature of non-family-based
pre-school childcare and education important in terms of the develop-
ment and welfare of children, but a reconstruction of childhood is also
in progress, a process that is involving a re-contextualization of child-
hood in terms of the relationship between family, market and state
(Honig and Ostner 2001).
In this context, the term re-contextualization refers to the reconstruc-
tion of childhood as an institution, which is leading to a more flexible
categorization of ‘child’ and ‘family’ and redefining the responsibilities
of the state and the family towards children (Honig and Ostner 2001:
294; cf. Brannen and O’Brien 1996). Public pre-school childcare is, how-
ever, not the only relevant arena here. For example, what lies at the
heart of the widespread discussion concerning child poverty in
Germany at present? Reference to children and child poverty reflects, I
suggest, a new approach to social policy that sets out to readjust priori-
ties: for instance, from compensation to prevention, from passive
finance to active measures, from the assignment of privileges to certain
groups in the labour market to a redistribution of employment opportu-
nities. ‘The child’ has now become an age-differentiated status where
rights and responsibilities are subject to more detailed regulation than
in any other phase of life; Nauck 1996: 26; (Proksch 1996) and in the
process, new collective patterns of childhood have evolved.
Such changes comprise a new development – what I term a socio-
genesis of childhood. This chapter therefore deals with the processes
through which a new definition of childhood is being institutionalized
by asking how childhood is changing as a result of childcare policy in
Germany. What are the principles of a ‘good childhood’ and how are ‘the
child’s best interests’ being addressed? These issues will be explored by
placing the main elements of the argument in an institutional-theoretical
context: outlining the empirical changes in institutional childcare in
Germany that have given rise to these reflections; providing a more con-
crete description of childcare arrangements based on institution theory;
considering empirical findings from my own research; and summarizing
the results and drawing conclusions in terms of future tasks for research.
200 Michael-Sebastian Honig
Theoretical framework: the institutionalization

of childhood
‘Childhood’ offers the ideal starting point for a readjustment of social

benefits since, by definition, in a Western European context, childhood
is a phase of life in which there should be no need for paid employment.
It therefore attracts welfare benefits. Indeed, the twentieth century was
the age in which childhood and childcare became ‘welfarized’. For this
reason, any analysis of the reconstruction of childhood must begin by
examining the mobilization of adults’ earning potential.
The reconstruction of childhood occurs at two levels, which can be
illustrated by means of two triangles (cf. Honig and Ostner 2001). The
first is the well-known welfare triangle of market, state and family,
which represents the framework of social policy in relation to a child’s
living conditions and development. This triangle allows us to show the
readjustment of responsibilities towards children. I call the second tri-
angle the ‘children’s well-being triangle’; its poles are the child’s degree
of freedom, vulnerability and development. This second triangle repre-
sents the normative standards of care between adults and children and
it can be used to show readjustment in the mode of social integration of
childhood. The welfare triangle and the children’s well-being triangle
are in a state of mutual dependence determined by the tension between
a childhood which is at risk from society and in need of protection on
the one hand, and a childhood which is dangerous to society and in
need of control on the other (Donzelot 1980). The re-contextualization
of childhood as an institution can be analysed as a process of shifts
within and between these two triangles.
Adopting such an approach, I will trace the re-contextualization of
childhood as an institution in Germany by focusing directly on the
process of institutionalization itself, while illustrating the flexible cate-
gorization of ‘child’ and ‘family’ in line with the current political trend
towards a redistribution of responsibilities between state and family. The
current reconstruction of childhood in Germany can be explored by ask-
ing three general questions that relate to these processes:
1. What criteria are used to determine the expenditure of taxpayers’

money to be spent on children? (Which children in which families
should receive funds? Under what conditions? How much? For how
long? And in what form?)
2. What should parents – or rather mothers and/or fathers – be expected
to ‘deliver’ for ‘their’ children?
3. What can legitimately be expected of children themselves?
Such an approach allows a child-oriented position and a structural

perspective to emerge that treats children as a social category. In the
context of the question of childcare, therefore, the term ‘institutional-
ization’ is not being used to refer to the act of putting children in insti-
tutions or facilities created by adults, supposedly in the best interests of
the child. Though this is what the concept of institutionalization is
often taken to mean, this narrow interpretation reduces schools or pre-
school institutions to their organizational function and sees them as
‘containers’ for children. Rather, in this context ‘institutionalization’ is
used, following a long sociological tradition, to capture the dynamic
processes involved in the creation, shaping and continuing develop-
ment of social orders. Social orders are a rational form of social relation-
ships characterized by a tendency towards maxims and rules (Walter
1999). Processes of institutionalization are thus processes by which
social orders are formed on the basis of value orientation; an example is
Leena Alanen’s (2001) school-forming concept of generational ordering.
To consider schools and pre-schools as ‘institutions’ in this sense means
seeing them as social arenas of ‘childhood’ rather than as places where
children go. In this sense, then, ‘the child’ is not institutionalized;
instead, childhood is itself an institution, a particular kind of social
order (cf. James and James 2004).
This conceptualization of the process thus provides the insight that
childhood is no longer automatically, and naturally, institutionalized by
what Zinnecker (2000) has described as ‘the pedagogical moratorium’.
Pedagogical moratoriums are preparatory arenas that implement a prin-
ciple of integration by means of separation (cf. Herrmann, 1986). Thus,
younger members of society are liberated from their obligation to repro-
duce (via both a ban on child labour and the cult of ‘innocence’) which
allows them to learn. For Zinnecker, the concept of pedagogical morato-
rium describes an historical process that initially was no more than a
utopia, but later became a privilege, and by the twentieth century was
established as the typical pattern of childhood, a process that involves
the principle of achieving the social integration of children by separat-
ing them from adults.
The moratorium concept can be seen, therefore, as a special case of
generational ordering, embedded within a specific generational rela-
tionship, which is itself structured by substitutional inclusion (cf.
Baecker 1994) – a concept originally derived from systems theory and
applied to generational orders. Thus, it is pedagogical experts (teachers
or parents) who interpret the distinctive qualities of their novices, con-
veying the adult world and its cultural traditions to them. In the twen-
tieth century, family and school were the most important agencies of
substitutional involvement of the next generation in the social system,

which are assigned to specific phases only in the lives of young people.
The greater the increase in the significance of formal institutions of
care and education for the reproduction of society, the more these are
extended in individual biographies. Thus the pedagogical moratorium
provides children and teenagers with a space for self-regulation,
although this space is also determined by structural ambivalence. After
all, the principle of ‘integration through separation’ bears within it the
contradiction between institutionalized immaturity and independence.
Substitutional inclusion is thus manifested, historically and empirically,
just as much in measures for protection and advancement as it is in
strategies for the disciplining and standardization of children and young
people (cf. Herrmann 1986). Structural ambivalence is responsible for
the extension of institutional moratoria, which now face a powerful ten-
dency towards erosion; not only young people but children too are
acquiring the status of citizens and consumers. In Germany, child policy
has responded to this with a participation debate; markets and the
media target children as independent consumers and emancipate them,
albeit with some ambiguity, from their traditional status as novices in
adult culture (cf. Hengst 1996).
Development trends in institutional childcare and

education in Germany
When the subject of pre-school childcare outside the family is debated

in the German context, the theoretical and historical background –
whether consciously reflected or not – is not necessarily shared by the
US, Britain or the Nordic countries. In contrast to social policy research
and research on educational systems, comparative research on the vari-
ous structures of non-familial institutional care for young children is
underdeveloped, despite some important studies (cf. Lamb et al. 1992;
Roßbach 2005; Einasdottir and Wagner 2006); there is thus very little
comparable data. This applies especially to comparative research from
the perspective of systematic theory as would have been necessary for
the line of enquiry pursued in the present study.
From an historical point of view, pre-school childcare in Germany is
inconceivable without the influence of the British social reformer
Samuel Wilderspin and his conception of ‘infant schools’. From the
mid-nineteenth century, however, it was Friedrich Fröbel’s idea of a
‘kindergarten’ (‘children’s garden’) which became so universal that the
word ‘kindergarten’ is still in use beyond the German-speaking world.
Nonetheless, it has very varied associations. Fröbel’s core idea was that
he recognized the importance of early childhood for overall develop-
ment. He elaborated a theory of early childhood which aimed to stimu-
late the development of human potential in a comprehensive manner.
In the tradition of Fröbel, the kindergarten was always a ‘child’s world’ –
a concept expressive of the unity of care, education and personality
development. In the Anglo-Saxon discussion, a combination of the twin
concepts of ‘early education’ and ‘care’ would come closest, perhaps, to
defining the all-embracing nature of the kindergarten and the ‘best
interests’ of the ‘good childhood’ that it embodied.
However, Fröbel’s ideas had only a limited effect on the social reality
of institutional childcare. The latter was in reality determined by a dual
motive: in terms of social policy, the aim was to prevent poverty, while
the goal in terms of educational policy was to promote child develop-
ment. This is not to say that the two motives were equally weighted;
from a conceptual point of view, they were not explicitly related to one
another until the so-called Volkskindergärten (people’s kindergartens)
were established at the turn of the twentieth century, and legally
anchored in the social legislation of the Weimar Republic. Gertrud
Bäumer, a leading figure in the fledgling German welfare state, empha-
sized in a famous essay (Bäumer 1929) that this fulfilled not only the
right of the child to education but also the right of society to well-edu-
cated offspring. Bäumer’s point implicitly raises the question of who
bears responsibility for infant education, thus accentuating a line of
conflict that is equally characteristic of the German tradition as Fröbel’s
unity of care, education and personality development – the tension
between family and state.
While this was initially characterized by class differences, after the
experience of National Socialism it acquired a clearly anti-totalitarian ten-
dency. The family policy of the young Federal Republic of Germany may
seem conservative or patriarchal today, but in the 1950s and 1960s the
autonomy of the family was regarded as fundamental to a free society.
Only a third of children aged between 3 and 6 attended a kindergarten,
and institutions for children aged under three (crèches) hardly existed in
the 1950s–1970s. Children attended kindergarten during the morning
but attendance was, and remains, voluntary and parents pay fees which
are means-tested and vary by region. All three elements distinguished
West German pre-school infant education fundamentally from school.
From the educational reform of 1970 onwards, however, kinder-
gartens have fulfilled something of a hybrid role. They were to support,
or at least supplement, family care on the one hand, yet at the same time
act as the elementary stage of the educational system. Since the 1970s,
day-care institutions for children have evolved from providing this kind
of supplementary pedagogical support to the family to becoming part of
a more general infrastructure for families and children, while at the
same time adopting an increasingly educative function. In the former
East Germany, priority has been given to enrolling women in the labour
force and therefore a nationwide system of all-day care and education
was provided for children aged 0–6 (i.e. from birth until school enrol-
ment) and what is more, the kindergartens came under the responsibil-
ity of the Ministry of Education.
German unification was a landmark. The Children and Young
People Support Act 1990 laid down the unified principle of care,
upbringing and education as the task of day-care institutions; it is a
federal law, although all 16 states must pass their own regulatory
statutes on labour and material resources, for example. Although it is
the municipalities that are responsible for providing the institutions,
they do not determine what happens in them: this function is per-
formed by publicly accredited private associations, from local parental
initiatives to large-scale, ideologically-based welfare associations.
Since 1992, characteristically in the context of a reform of abortion
legislation, every child in Germany aged between 3 and 6 has had the
right to a kindergarten place, although even during the decade prior
to this, the percentage of children attending kindergarten had
increased to over two-thirds. Today, virtually every child attends a
kindergarten, at the very latest one year before entering school, and
there are as many specialist staff employed in day-care institutions for
children as in primary schools.
The publication of the PISA studies in 2000 provided a powerful
impulse for the reform of the educational system in Germany, but
although considerable forces have been mobilized to reinforce the sig-
nificance of the kindergarten as a preparation for school, at the same
time the service function of the kindergarten has been emphasized. The
aim is to make it easier for mothers and fathers to be in paid work,
reflecting the fact that the mobilization of female labour and concerns
about a rapidly ageing society are currently powerful driving forces
behind childcare policy in Germany. One cannot fail to notice, however,
that the old conflict between the various functions of the kindergarten –
in relation to family, social and educational policy – remains potent. The
key question is: what happens in these institutions? The latest develop-
ment is an initiative by the Federal government to increase the avail-
ability of institutional care for children aged between 0 and 3 from
around 5 per cent to 20 per cent in five years, by means of a major

injection of financial resources; at the same time the Federal govern-
ment and a number of state governments have made concrete decisions
to make day-care institutions for children free to parents.
Consequently, the role played by day-care institutions in the life of
children has changed considerably; when virtually every child attends
kindergarten, childhood as a phase of life takes on a new quality, whilst
the merging of the service-oriented and educational functions of the
kindergarten (Joos 2002) has made institutional pre-school childcare an
agent of the ‘de-familialization’ (Huinink 2002) of childhood. The vari-
ous strategies of ‘cash for care’, ‘parental leave’ and ‘institutional care’
promoted by family and social policy currently also being pursued cre-
ate a range of options which exercise a significantly differentiating influ-
ence on the patterns of a child’s everyday life and on the ideas of what
is ‘childlike’ and on what a ‘good childhood’ is, including the role of
family, peers and professional educators.
Conceptual elements of a description of

care arrangements
In order to analyse these developments in educational and social policy

in Germany as processes of the re-contextualization or institutionaliza-
tion of childhood, the thesis of the erosion of the male breadwinner/female
homemaker family is helpful (Janssens 1998). In very simple terms, it is
as follows: the male breadwinner family secures care and support for the
children and adults by releasing women from paid employment so that
they can devote themselves to childcare: the woman and children are
supported, in return, by a working husband. In comparative social pol-
icy research, it is generally recognized that the male breadwinner norm
is particularly strong in Germany (see Ostner 1998). The premise of the
male breadwinner family as both the norm and an empirical reality has
not been considered in terms of childhood theory, even though this
family type provides the institutional framework for childhood as peda-
gogical moratorium. If the model of the male breadwinner/female
homemaker family loses its normative force and significance in every-
day life, however, this must have consequences for childhood as a mora-
torium. These consequences can be studied empirically by looking at
changes in the care arrangements for children.
What makes this change significant beyond changes in the circum-
stances of children’s lives is the fact that the male breadwinner model is
a specific solution to the problem (from the parental perspective) of
securing a living by means of paid employment and looking after chil-

dren at the same time. That is to say, the male breadwinner family was
determined by the necessity to combine two different forms of work –
the need to secure material subsistence and the need to care for those
who are not yet or no longer able to work. The logic of the labour mar-
ket and the requirements of family welfare production do not supple-
ment each other harmoniously, however; on the contrary, employees
face the dilemma of not jeopardizing their chances of employment due
to their obligations to provide care for the children or the elderly. The
male breadwinner/female homemaker model offers a solution. However,
this is at the expense of women’s opportunities to secure their own
living – a price which has found less and less acceptance in Germany
since the 1980s. However, this raises the question of who looks after
children and old people, since a family in which both parents are in
gainful employment offers no answer to the question (the so-called care
crisis; cf. Michel and Mahon 2002). Instead, the answer comes from
social and family policy, although here the concern is less with gender
equality than with demographic development: it is the extension and
qualification of institutional care and education of children at pre-
school age. The attribution of childhood – especially early childhood –
to the family therefore becomes looser, while the structural position of
children within the family, and as citizens within society, is changing,
becoming more dependent on changes in the labour market.
Seen in this light, a theory of changing childcare arrangements is a
theory of how structural incongruities are overcome. The model of the
two triangles (‘welfare’, ‘children’s well-being’ – see above) helps us to
analyse such changes in terms of which protagonists and which norma-
tive standards these processes involve: in other words, it provides an
instrument to describe processes of the institutionalization of child-
hood. In what follows, the focus will be on a specific aspect of this
process, namely on the question of what values mothers and fathers
themselves seek to implement when they attempt to overcome these
structural incongruities, and what the consequences for children and
childhood are.
A study by Jane Lewis gives rise to a provocative theoretical idea. Lewis
analysed strategies in British social policy, because in her view the care
crisis demands a response in terms of the welfare state and socio-ethics
(Lewis 2001). She notes that British social policy has responded to the
change in economic conditions that sustained the male breadwinner
model by changing the model to one that demands paid employment for
men and women, fathers and mothers. However, the reality – parents’
coping strategy in these changed economic circumstances – is different:

it is more like a 11⁄2 worker model – at least in Britain. Lewis found six pat-
terns of male and female paid work and arrangements for care (Lewis
2001: 157; for Germany, see Wieners 1999). She proposes that the reality
of the range of family responses that has emerged following the erosion
of the male breadwinner model is not simply a phenomenon of inequal-
ity or due to the fact that women have simply not yet caught up, so to
speak. Instead, she sees these varied forms as differential manifestations
of an unavoidable relationship between processes of family care and
those of work. This suggests that families, and parents in particular, are
subject to a moral economy of work and care, which is difficult to restrict
solely to a microeconomic common denominator of optimized individ-
ual benefits (Huinink 2002). The issue here is not simply a lack of facili-
ties and the need for measures to reduce the compatibility costs of work
and care to parents: it also refers to the aspirations parents (and the state)
have for the creation of a ‘good childhood’ and a life with children.
In order to describe the institutionalization of childhood empirically,
we must focus on care arrangements and the relationship between
action orientation and coping strategies, childhood norms and socio-
cultural reproduction, since care arrangements are social practices that
set out to solve the problems caused by the structural care dilemma for
parents. Returning to the example of the male breadwinner model, what
becomes clear is that this is not an ideal type but rather a normative con-
struct that influences reality to varying degrees. At the empirical level it
is, in effect, a patterned solution.
Thus, any analysis of the dimensions of care arrangements needs to
take cultural indicators into account as well as socio-economic ones: that
is to say, it needs to take account not only of the legal and economic
determinants of children’s position, but also the wider socio-cultural
milieu that determines children’s potential experience and scope for
action. Beyond any pedagogical programme, care arrangements thus ful-
fil a cluster of societal expectations. The debate on educational policy
highlights the educational aspects of such arrangements; in terms of eco-
nomic and labour market policy, however, the priority given to the pro-
vision of childcare reflects the need to bring more women with children
into the labour market. But in terms of social, family and women’s policy,
the focus is on how child day-care facilities create more equal opportunities
in life and work (Honig, Joos, and Schreiber 2004).
This approach goes beyond exploring a narrow pedagogical concept
of care in relation to the institutionalization of childhood, to consider
the specific dimension of children’s everyday living conditions. Here it
is important to distinguish between care arrangements in a narrower

sense and care milieus. The concept of care arrangements in this sense
does not just refer to statutory care facilities, though these may be an
element of such arrangements. Instead, care arrangements can include
the social network of the family (especially relatives, neighbours,
friends), the recreational facilities market (clubs, groups, classes) and
care provided by domestic staff and other paid individuals (the care mar-
ket; Schreiber 2004b). Moreover, while care arrangements are generally
made by parents/guardians, at the same time as making these arrange-
ments, they also create the settings within which children grow up –
children’s everyday life contexts.
The multifunctional nature of care arrangements finds its match in
the perspective of care milieus (Joos and Betz 2004) by revealing a ten-
sion between ideas and behaviour, and focusing on the meaning of
social relationships. In an extension of Bourdieu’s class concept in
socialization theory, Betz depicts this as follows:
It is essential to the milieu concept … to map the interweaving

economic, cultural and social structural inequalities and unequal
socialisation contexts onto their corresponding socialisation and
education processes, i.e. to match up the differences in the practices
of families and children.
(Betz 2004)
Mothers and fathers cope with the structural care dilemma by work-
ing out particular types of care arrangements, and milieus manifest
themselves in these solutions; they become determined by the values on
which parents base their actions, by professional attitudes/expertise and
milieu-related ‘subjective’ orientation of day-care professionals, as well
as the care policies of the welfare state itself. Unlike the expression ‘care
arrangements’, the term ‘care milieus’ emphasizes the fact that the
description of childcare, from the point of view of childhood sociology,
shows that in the arrangements made for care, both in and outside the
family, child-rearing and education are linked within a social structural
and socio-cultural context whereby the child’s life is embedded in are-
nas of experience and life opportunities that provide milieu-specific
structures and norms. Care arrangements and care milieus thus create
the matrix for the central elements of young children’s life situation. In
the morphology of a child’s everyday life, childhood patterns emerge
that are created by the daily routines of care arrangements, as experi-
enced and co-determined by children. In the next section, some aspects
of these considerations will be underpinned with empirical findings in

relation to care arrangements in Germany.
Re-contextualization of childhood –
empirical findings
Tietze and Rossbach (1991) published a pioneering study on the care of

pre-school children. The categorization of care types upon which they
based their study are ‘core family’, ‘social network’, ‘paid persons’ and
‘institutions’, reflecting the classic structure of childhood distributed
between family, relatives and institutional care.
According to the findings of the German Youth Institute’s (Deutsches
Jugendinstitut – DJI) longitudinal study on the current care situation, only
4 per cent of children aged 5–6 do not attend kindergarten. This is quite
well known, but what is surprising is the finding that parents actively seek
a mix of care arrangements themselves which links private and public serv-
ices. In addition to the parents and the kindergarten, there is an astound-
ing variety of care arrangements. Almost one in four children receive care
from three people in addition to parents and a kindergarten (cf. Alt, Chr.
nd). This ‘care mix’ refers to a multiplication of classic family and institu-
tional forms of care described by Tietze and Roßbach (1991).
Schreiber (2004b) subjected these data to a more detailed analysis and
has been able to show that parents actually look beyond relatives and
neighbours and use the services of the leisure market to a significant extent
in providing care for their children, although the leisure market does
not refer to paid entertainment for children in this context. Similarly, in
a parent survey conducted in 2001, we found that the emphasis was on
sporting activities. According to our survey, 61 per cent of kindergarten
children (3–6-year-olds) take part in organized leisure activities after
kindergarten:
The parents questioned reported the following organized activities in

which their 3–6-year-old children were involved: ballet, child–parent
groups, recorder, foreign languages, early learning, football, piano,
riding, swimming, play group, dance, therapy, tennis, gymnastics.
Programmes offered by aid organizations for children were also men-
tioned (e.g. fire service).
(Schreiber 2004b: 5)
While the data of our parent survey relate to Rhineland Palatinate and
Saarland, Schreiber based his typology of private care arrangements on
the data of the first and second wave of the DJI longitudinal study,
which has been available since 2004. According to this, private care of
5–6-year-olds generally falls into four categories:
1. 31 per cent of parents use social networks and leisure market offerings in
addition to the core family;
2. 23 per cent of parents care for their child mainly themselves and use
the offerings available in the leisure market;
3. 21 per cent of parents organize private child care solely via social net-
works; and
4. 21 per cent of parents do not use any other care services apart from the
core family (Schreiber 2004b: 21f.).
These findings reveal that the significance of the leisure market in terms
of children’s care has been considerably underestimated. Thus care
arrangements for children can only be accurately described if use of the
leisure market is included. The leisure market as a form of care did not
feature at all in Tietze and Roßbach’s study and children’s networks were
also virtually ignored as forms of care by that study. At the same time it
is obvious that the function and significance of care must be redefined
to do justice to these changes. Not only has care left the traditional set-
tings of the pedagogical moratorium, it also includes an element of the
agency of children.
From such data it is clear that multidimensional patterns of childhood
are generated by the functional, normative and interactive dimensions
of care arrangements. These create different arenas of experience and life
chances for children. From the child’s point of view, care outside the
family is not an isolated phenomenon but interacts with changes in
other areas of the child’s living context, including changes in family life;
children move between the worlds of family, day-care and child culture.
From a child’s perspective, care institutions fit into the general horizon
of a broader living context, the quality of which would be better
described as a cultural moratorium rather than a pedagogical one
(Bundesministerium für Familie 1998). Dencik (1989) formulated a con-
cept of dual socialization in this connection, attaching key importance
to the duality of family and public education for the experience of grow-
ing up in postmodern societies.
But what do these findings signify in relation to the re-contextualization
of childhood as an institution? First, they provide a strong indication
that the childhood moratorium is open to non-familial and non-
institutional determinants, even at pre-school age. Indeed, it is the
parents themselves who play an active role in this process: mothers in

particular make use of the afternoon to supplement their children’s
development with programmes on offer in the leisure market. This does,
however, require investment of money and personal effort in terms of
transport. Here we see an important change in the aspirations of signifi-
cant numbers of parents in relation to child support, as well as higher
aspirations in relation to their own role as the educators of their children.
This, therefore, qualifies the significance of day-care institutions in chil-
dren’s everyday lives and the attitudes of parents towards institutional
facilities since the data cited indicate that the structure of care arrange-
ments and socio-cultural patterns of what comprises a ‘good childhood’
are linked. Clearly, ideas about what a child needs or what additional sup-
port children ought to be given within certain social milieus are also
highly significant, which is an indication that care milieus are acting as a
normative influence in children’s care arrangements.
Findings relating to the need for all day care also reflect how impor-
tant parental values are for the structuring of care arrangements. The
Trier study attempted to depict care as (among other things) a parental
demand for institutional childcare (see Schreiber 2004a). However, here,
a careful distinction was drawn between the current need for public
childcare and the desire for such care. Of the 3,300 families questioned,
90 per cent gave precise details of the times at which they required
childcare outside the family and only 18 per cent said they required con-
tinuous care from the morning through the afternoon. This group gen-
erally wanted closing times of 4 or 5 pm, and in most cases a hot lunch
for their child. Surprisingly, only 60 per cent of women working more
than 40 hours a week claimed to want all day care: exactly 41 per cent of
mothers with a 40-hour week required all day care. Clearly most families
surveyed are able to resolve the problem of child-care with half-day pub-
lic facilities, even where the mother (or father) works eight hours a day.
One might criticize these results by saying that they describe a con-
dition in which mothers’ desire for paid employment is not explored,
a criticism that is relevant to the linking of care needs with value-
based ideas regarding life with children. However, the Institute for
Labour Market and Occupation Research of the Federal Employment
Office (IAB) carried out a representative survey on this subject in 2000
(Beckmann and Engelbrech 2002). This showed that the majority of
mothers with children requiring care in the new and old federal states
of Germany are in favour of a model in which women reduce their
professional commitments temporarily for the purposes of child-rearing;
these results are reminiscent of Lewis’s study.
Thus, if the many mothers not working today because of the lack of
available jobs were able to fulfil their wish to work part-time, our find-
ings indicate that there would be no significant increase in the
demand for all day childcare facilities; and that if the structural care
dilemma were merely a problem of the costs of having children, both
parents – particularly women – would want all day care and there
would therefore be a demand for the relevant facilities. According to
our data, however, this is not the case. What is more, all day care
would by no means be the only option for many families, even if avail-
ability in Germany were to be increased. Thus, the demand for all day
public care probably depends to some extent on how well it fits in with
the private care arrangements and care aspirations of the families con-
cerned and more public childcare during the afternoon would espe-
cially benefit children who are not able to take part in organized
leisure activities due to a lack of financial resources, since these incur
additional costs.
Conclusion: the social value of children – research

perspectives
The aim of this study is to analyse the major expansion of the system of
publicly organized care and education of pre-school age children, which
has been taking place in Germany since the 1980s, from the point of
view of whether or not it has brought about a change in the definition
of childhood. The theoretical framework of this analysis is provided by
the idea that work and care are mutually dependent within the context
of family welfare production and that the institutionalization of child-
hood is significantly influenced by the way in which this relationship is
organized. The argument is derived from the idea that the erosion of the
patriarchal family model has brought about a recontextualization of
childhood. A model is proposed which attempts to describe this change,
allowing for a realignment of responsibilities for children and a read-
justment of the mode of social inclusion of children.
The decline of the male breadwinner/female housekeeper model of
the family confronts parents with a structural dilemma: how can they
combine family life, including responsible care of children, with the
need to secure their material existence, at the same time as realizing
equal life opportunities for father and mother? The structural dilemma
facing parents in paid employment thus encourages parents not to have
children at all – an option being chosen by increasing numbers as the
significant drop in Germany’s birth rate testifies.
In contrast to the 1970s, when childcare outside the family was criti-
cized as being disadvantageous to children’s development, the expan-
sion of institutional care for infants is now in vogue in Germany in
terms of family policy, social and educational policy. Empirical findings
on value orientations practised by mothers and fathers in organizing
extra-familial care show that a large proportion of those who have chil-
dren expend significant resources in terms of finance and time to pro-
vide their children with a diverse and stimulating world of experience.
They make use of the infrastructure provided by the state to organize
extra-familial care for their children independently. One might describe
this paradox by concluding that many parents pursue pedagogical
motives in taking their children beyond the limitations of the tradi-
tional pedagogical moratorium.
The ideas of the value of a child reflected here deserve closer study.
How are these ideas formed, and how important are they in regulating
relationships between the generations? Are these ideas connected with
notions of a ‘good childhood’? Do they go hand in hand with invest-
ments in ‘cultural capital’, representing a strategy which has a long tra-
dition among the middle class? Whatever the answer to these questions
is, the care arrangements for children are a focus of change in which the
relationships between family, childhood, market and state are being
redefined, opening up new worlds of experience and options to children
which 35 years ago would have been regarded as ‘inappropriate’ for the
child.
References
Alanen, L. (2001) Explorations in Generational Analysis. In Alanen, L.and
Mayall, B. (eds.), Conceptualizing Child–Adult Relations (pp. 11–22). London and
New York. Routledge/Falmer.
Alt, Chr. (nd) Erste Befunde des DJI-Kinderpanel. Präsentation beim
Parlamentarischen Abend des Deutschen Jugendinstituts. Berlin.
Baecker, D. (1994) Soziale Hilfe als Funktionssystem der Gesellschaft. Zeitschrift
für Soziologie 23(2): 93–110.
Bäumer, G. (1929) Die historischen und sozialen Voraussetzungen der
Sozialpädagogik und die Entwicklung ihrer Theorie. In Nohl, H.and Pallat, L.
(eds.), Handbuch der Pädagogik. Fünfter Band: Sozialpädagogik (pp. 3–26).
Langensalza. Beltz.
Beckmann, P. and Engelbrech, G. (2002) Vereinbarkeit von Familie und Beruf:
Kinderbetreuung und Beschäftigungsmöglichkeiten von Frauen mit Kindern.
In Engelbrech, G. (ed.), Arbeitsmarktchancen für Frauen (pp. 263–81). Nürnberg.
Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung der Bundesanstalt für Arbeit.
Betz, T (2004) Bildung und soziale Ungleichheit: Lebensweltliche Bildung in

(Migranten-)Milieus. Universität Trier, Zentrum für sozialpädagogische
Forschung, Arbeitspapier II-16.
Brannen, J. and O’Brien, M. (eds.) (1996) Children in Families. Research and Policy.
London: Falmer Press.
Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend (1998) Zehnter
Kinder-und Jugendbericht. Bericht über die Lebenssituation von Kindern und die
Leistungen der Kinder- und Jugendhilfe in Deutschland. Bonn.
Dencik, L. (1989) Growing up in the Post-modern Age: On the Child’s Situation
in the Modern Family, and on the Position of the Family in the Modern Welfare
State. Acta Sociologica 32(2): 155–80.
Donzelot, J. (1980) Die Ordnung der Familie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Einasdottir, J. and Wagner, J. T. (eds.) (2006) Nordic Childhoods and Early Education.
Philosophy. Research, Policy, and Practice in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and
Sweden. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Hengst, H. (1996) Kinder an die Macht! Der Rückzug des Marktes aus dem
Kindheitsprojekt der Moderne. In Zeiher, H., Büchner, P. and Zinnecker, J.
(eds.), Kinder als Außenseiter? Umbrüche in der gesellschaftlichen Wahrnehmung
von Kindern und Kindheit (pp. 117–34). Weinheim und München: Juventa.
Herrmann, U. (1986) Die Pädagogisierung des Kinder- und Jugendlebens in
Deutschland seit dem ausgehenden 18. Jahrhundert. In Martin, J. and
Nitschke, A. (eds.), Zur Sozialgeschichte der Kindheit, (S.661–683). Freiburg im
Breisgau/München: Karl Alber.
Honig, M.-S., Joos., M. and Schreiber, N. (2004) Was ist ein guter Kindergarten?
Theoretische und empirische Analysen zum Qualitätsbegriff in der Pädagogik.
Weinheim und München: Juventa
Honig, M.-S. and Ostner, I. (2001) Das Ende der fordistischen Kindheit. In Klocke,
A. and Hurrelmann, K. (eds.), Kinder und Jugendliche in Armut. Umfang,
Auswirkungen und Konsequenzen. 2., vollst. überarb. Aufl. (pp. 293–310). Opladen:
Westdeutscher Verlag.
Huinink, J. (2002) Polarisierung der Familienentwicklung in europäischen
Ländern im Vergleich. In Schneider, N.and Matthias-Bleck, H. (eds.),
Elternschaft heute. Gesellschaftliche Rahmenbedingungen und individuelle
Gestaltungsaufgaben, Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, Sonderheft 2 (pp. 49–73).
James, A. and James, A. L. (2004) Constructing Childhood. Theory, Policy and Social
Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Janssens, A. (1998) The Rise and Decline of the Male Breadwinner Family? An
Overview of the Debate. International Review of Social History 42, Supplement.
1–23.
Joos, M. (2002) Childcare zwischen Dienstleistung und Bildungsanforderungen.
Zeitschrift für Soziologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation 22(3): 229–46.
Joos, M. and Betz, T. (2004) Gleiche Qualität für alle? Ethnische Diversität als
Determinante der Perspektivität von Qualitätsurteilen und -praktiken. In
Honig, M.-S., Joos, M. and Schreiber N. (eds.), Was ist ein guter Kindergarten?
Theoretische und empirische Analysen zum Qualitätsbegriff in der Pädagogik
(pp. 69–118). Weinheim und München: Juventa.
Lamb, M. et al. (1992) Child Care in Context: Cross-cultural Perspectives. Hillsdale,
NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lewis, J. (2001) The Decline of the Male Breadwinner Model: Implications for
Work and Care. Social Politics 8(2): 152–69.
Michel, S. and Mahon, R. (eds.) (2002) Child Care Policy at the Crossroads. Gender
and Welfare State Restructuring. New York and London, Routledge.
Nauck, B. (1996) Beitrag zur Reform des Kindschaftsrechts aus sozialwis-
senschaftlicher Sicht. In Evangelische Akademie .Bad Boll (ed.), Kindheit in
Deutschland. Interdisziplinäre Beiträge zur Reform des Kindschaftsrechts
(pp. 23–32). Bad Boll (Protokolldienst 21/96).
Ostner, I. (1998) Quadraturen im Wohlfahrtsdreieck. Die USA, Schweden und die
Bundesrepublik im Vergleich. In Lessenisch, S. and Ostner, I. (eds.), Welten des
Wohlfahrtskapitalismus. Der Sozialstaat in vergleichender Perspektive, (pp. 225–52).
Frankfurt and New York: Campus.
Proksch, R. (1996) Die Rechte junger Menschen in ihren unterschiedlichen
Lebensaltersstufen. Recht der Jugend und des Bildungswesens 44(4): 473–91.
Roßbach, H.-G. (2005) Vorschulische Erziehung. In Cortina, K. S., Baumert, J.,
Leschinsky, A., Mayer, K. U. and Trommer, L. (eds.), Das Bildungswesen in der
Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Strukturen und Entwicklungen im Überblick,
(pp. 252–84). Reinbek: Rowohlt.
Schreiber, N. (2004a) Jenseits pädagogischer Qualität? In Honig, M.-S., Joos, M.
and Schreiber, N. (eds.), Was ist ein guter Kindergarten? Theoretische und
empirische Analysen zum Qualitätsbegriff in der Pädagogik (pp. 101–18).
Weinheim und München: Juventa.
Schreiber, N. (2004b) Private Betreuungsarrangements für Kinder – Entwicklung
eines Betreuungsindexes mit Daten des DJI-Kinderpanels und Vorschlag eines
Erhebungsinstruments für zukünftige Befragungen. Universität Trier, Zentrum
für sozialpädagogische Forschung, Arbeitspapier II-17.
Tietze, W. and Roßbach, H. G. (1991) Die Betreuung von Kindern im vorschulis-
chen Alter. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik 37(4): 555–80.
Walter, W. (1999) Die drei Ordnungen der Familie. Zur Institutionalisierung von
Lebensformen. Unpublished paper. Universität Konstanz.
Wieners, T. (1999) Familientypen und Formen außerfamilialer Kinderbetreuung heute.
Vielfalt als Notwendigkeit und als Chance. Opladen: Leske & Budrich.
Zinnecker, J. (2000) Kindheit und Jugend als pädagogische Moratorien. Zur
Zivilisationsgeschichte der jüngeren Generation im 20. Jahrhundert. Zeitschrift
für Pädagogik 42. Beiheft: 36–68.
11
Childhood in the Welfare State1
Jens Qvortrup
This chapter discusses the position of children in the modern European

welfare state and children’s legitimate access to cash and services made
available by the welfare state. Whatever the welfare regime, following
Esping-Andersen’s (1990) typology, however, its historical context in
Europe is invariably that of a capitalist economy, which was eventually
tempered by welfare measures to alleviate the crude effects of the unfet-
tered market. The reality of such a capitalist economy-cum-welfare state
does not, however, tell us much about the ways in which children and
childhood are constructed. For this reason this chapter will address the
following questions:
● What is children’s market status before state intervention?

● Are children, objectively speaking, in need of welfare state provisions?
● What is the place of children in welfare state theory and practice?
● Who, in terms of groups, institutions and agencies, is primarily
responsible for children’s welfare?
As we shall see, children and childhood are not necessarily part of the
welfare state or of welfare state thinking, even if children are necessar-
ily members of the welfare society and capitalist society, because the
idea of ‘a good childhood’ was never an intrinsic part of the welfare
state. I shall argue that this is still, in principle, the case. When ideas
and impressions in Europe about the state as the main acknowledged
agent of welfare were conceived, and the state was upheld in terms of
its neutrality and impartiality in serving and protecting its members,
in particular the weaker among them, it was far from obvious that chil-
dren belonged to the state, let alone had any legitimate rights as
claimants.
216
Childhood in the Welfare State 217
Whether one prefers to find the rationale for the welfare state in
Bismarck’s politics, and thus see it as an instrument for preventing the
threat of unrest among the working class, or in Beveridge’s, and thus
understand it as a mechanism for ensuring fairness to losers in the mar-
ket economy, it is possible to identify the redistributive effects of state
interventions, in cash or in kind. It is also possible to establish that
strong welfare state regimes are different from those regimes that believe
that market forces overall are a blessing rather than a curse. What is
demanded, basically, is patience on the part of those who are asked to
believe that if they wait long enough, they too will enjoy the benefits.
This is particularly true for children who, as rights-holders and
claimants, are late-comers in a double sense.
First, and historically, children are arguably the only group who
have not yet been recognized as claimants of current political and
societal resources. The political and industrial revolutions of the West,
according to Bendix, ‘led to the eventual recognition of the rights of
citizenship for all adults, including those in positions of economic
dependence’ (1977: 66; emphasis added) – but not for children who, as
subjects, have not been able to benefit from these changes. In a sense,
following Bendix, they are still – politically and economically – part of
a feudal system, which accords no immediate rights ‘to subjects in posi-
tions of economic dependence such as tenants, journeymen, workers
and servants: at best they are classified under the household of their mas-
ter and represented through him and his estates’ (Bendix 1977: 66–7;
emphasis added).
It would, of course, be outrageous to suggest that there has been no
change in the position of children over the last 500 years, but it is inter-
esting to note that formally children remain, by and large, classified
under the household – or perhaps more precisely the family – without
individual rights as subjects; and despite the considerable progress made
recently as a result of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child,
children still lack economic and political rights as autonomous citizens.
Second, children are also lagging behind from a life-phase perspective.
Thus, it has been argued that it is not necessarily unfair if children expe-
rience differential treatment; viewed from a life-long perspective there
is, it has been suggested, some justice in this since sooner or later they
will reach adulthood and therefore, ‘if we treat the young one way and
the old another, then over time, each person is treated both ways. The
advantages (or disadvantages) of consistent differential treatment by age
will equalize over time’ (Daniels 1988: 88). Children will, in other
words, in due course, obtain the right and the opportunity to compete
218 Jens Qvortrup
equally with adults in the market or become a target for redistributive

measures if they fail.
According to this reasoning children as a social group are not seen as
legitimate beneficiaries of resources and thus childhood remains a site in
which rights and the ability to make claims are absent. Such an argu-
ment is, however, tantamount to proposing that it is the fate of children
to be treated differently from adults and that the failure to acknowledge
child poverty (or wealth for that matter) as a problem is inevitable. In
effect, the logic of this position is that one should not be concerned if
children are relatively more exposed to hazards than adults and elderly
people: sooner or later they will get their rights as beneficiaries. In
addition, denying children the right to access necessary resources will
also delay any attempts to give them citizenship rights on an equal
footing with other groups. Finally, as Sgritta (1994: 358) argues, it sug-
gests that society is ‘immutable, stable, ahistorical’ and thus overlooks
the reality of rapid change that may very well – and in fact does –
leave persons born at different times exposed to varying conditions. In
other words, the likelihood that conditions will not even out over time
is overwhelming.
However, children’s lack of access to claims and rights does not neces-
sarily affect their material situation because resources are channelled to
them in a welfare state and there is no doubt that some of the redistrib-
utive effects of welfare state measures do benefit children. Yet the ques-
tion remains to what extent this is intentional as opposed to merely
being an effect derived from resources being targeted at other groups,
such as children’s parents. It can therefore be argued that such benefits
do not ensue from legitimate or constitutional claims made by children
and that, as Bendix argues, such claims can only be made once they
become adults.
This is the precarious status of childhood in a European context, irre-
spective of its welfare state design. It has indeed become increasingly
unacceptable for them to be hurt, abused, deprived; yet the idea that
they should be taken seriously as rights-holders is not yet rooted among
the European populace. It may well be an empirical reality that children
have access to the most relevant resources along with other groups, but
their precarious situation is highlighted by the fact that their access to
welfare measures is not guaranteed by law. Indeed, their current welfare
status is the result of incidental amendments at the discretion of day-to-
day policy-making. Therefore, children are, in principle, more exposed
to market forces than other groups, a situation that is only exacerbated
by their status as dependants under the (almost exclusive) guardianship
of their parents. This makes children by and large a private matter,

something that is reflected in the fact that interventions on their behalf
by extra-familial bodies or agencies are frequently seen as unwarranted
or illegitimate.
The market: children’s inclusion and exclusion
All Europeans – children, youths, adults and the elderly – live in a capi-
talist market. For the sake of clarity, however, let me briefly consider
children’s role in this society before state intervention.
Basically, children are included in the market in two ways First, they –
or at least some of them – occupy a waged job outside of school hours.
This is allegedly their only acknowledged economic contribution and
adult society looks on it with ambivalence. Although it may loom large
for the children involved, for their families and for some niches in the
economy it remains (as I have argued elsewhere; see Qvortrup 2000) too
minuscule a part of a modern industrial society’s production to be con-
sidered separately.
Second, children are included in the market as consumers by means of
their own, but mainly their parents’ (and sometimes their grandpar-
ents’) money. As such, children are an important target for commercial
advertising and a variable to be reckoned with in the budgets of many
trades. However, since this is merely an effect derived from incomes
available to them, I shall not follow this strand either (see Cook 2000;
also Casas this volume). Much more important, I think, is that children,
as individuals and as a group, are largely excluded from the market.
There are four principles according to which goods are distributed in
our society (see Rubinstein, 1988):
1. the fair exchange, which means that ‘the net rewards, or profit, of each
man be proportional to his investments’ (Homans 1961: 75);
2. the meritocratic, which in our society is established mainly in terms of
educational achievements;
3. the entitlement, according to which assets are distributed due to for
instance inheritance or seniority; and
4. the need, which has been introduced relatively recently in historical
terms.
The first two principles pertain to the market in terms of achievement.

This implies the de facto exclusion of children, who are seen neither as
investors nor as contributors. They therefore have no basis for claims in
220 Jens Qvortrup
terms of reciprocity, nor do they possess educational merits on the basis

of which they might legitimately demand a share of societal resources. It
is worthwhile in this context to note that children, in terms of the con-
ventional definition of their situation, are also effectively prevented
from having their school achievements assessed as a valuable input to
the social fabric (see below).
As to entitlement, which is not strictly speaking a market principle,
children may have a right to inheritance, but this will typically be
administered on their behalf by their guardians. Only when it comes to
need are children recognized, and this principle is the only one that is
definitely beyond the realm of the market. Children do qualify as needy
recipients due to their age, and thus this principle is formulated in terms
of ascription, as is also, by and large, the entitlement principle. The ques-
tion remains whether children really are the subject of the principle of
need, or whether even this is delegated to someone else.
Whether the exclusion of children in their own right from a market-
based distributive system is just or not is another matter. The fact that
they are excluded from the market and destined to rely on a needs crite-
rion, by implication, classifies them as dependants and therefore con-
tributes significantly to portraying them as non-deserving members of
the system. From this perspective, their needs are, accordingly, supposed
to be met by other agents, among which the most important is their
family, while the welfare state features only as a secondary agent, should
this become necessary.
Since welfare state considerations and measures, in terms of both
intentions and outcomes, must be assessed as expressions of distributive
justice, let me briefly resume the discussion of justice alluded to above.
As we saw, a philosopher like Daniels does not see a problem in discrim-
inating against children since, he argues, they will catch up later in life.
It is characteristic of discussions of social justice, as a legal or economic
problem, that children are excluded from considerations, as pointed out
by Bojer, who makes a meritorious effort to bring them into a Rawlsian
chain of argument, although the word ‘child’ does not occur in the
index of Rawls’ famous work (1973).
It is Bojer’s view that the Rawlsian contract ‘implies concern also for
children as subjects in themselves’ (Bojer 2000: 24), which deals with
children from a lifecycle perspective. Yet, as I understand it, her major
argument is that overlooking children in terms of distributive justice
may jeopardize the rational choices they make as adults, and since no
one can choose their own childhood, a lack of consideration in provid-
ing for children to give them equality of opportunity severely hampers
their ability to involve themselves in risk-taking in adult life on equal

terms with others. One might add that the inequality this entails has
implications for children whose fate is determined by parental choices
that have, in turn, been determined in and by their own childhoods.
This raises questions about social arrangements for children, even in the
advanced welfare states of the Nordic countries.
Everywhere, the workplace and production of material wealth com-

mand priority before the nurture and rearing of children. Economic
incentives are certainly not geared towards making child care a mate-
rially rewarding profession. Parental leave is considered disruptive to
the workplace.
(Bojer 2000: 36)
Bojer is concerned with children’s rights and conditions. Due to the

interconnectedness of child and adult conditions from a lifecycle per-
spective, she has a point, even if her justification for making primary
goods (love, security, material resources, opportunities to grow and
develop) available to children is that they enhance adults’ opportunities
to make rational choices. It is indeed important to bring children explic-
itly into these significant debates, as Bojer does; however, the future of
children remains the yardstick. One might therefore ask: what does dis-
tributive justice for children look like without the prospect of human
capital-building, i.e. without a perspective on their adult future? (see
Esping-Andersen et al. 2002; Lister 2003; Olk 2006).
In addition, in the Rawlsian scheme it remains difficult to include
children as subjects, given that (a) the arguments are based on rational
choices made by adults, and (b) that children are not considered able to
make such choices. This is a discussion I shall not take up here, however
(see Mortier 2000).
Children’s objective needs for welfare measures
Although the needs criterion is not part of market vocabulary, the mar-
ket does not completely ignore children. This is partly because it leaves
its imprint in practically every corner and aspect of our life, including
children’s everyday lives. It is also, however – and most importantly in
the context of our economic-political system – partly because children
are ideologically regarded as belonging to their parents, which means
that it is parents who are responsible for them, including economi-
cally. And since parents’ capacity to care for their children is highly
222 Jens Qvortrup
dependent on the market, children will inevitably also be affected by

the market, albeit indirectly. It follows from this that children’s well-
being, short of state intervention, is basically dependent on their par-
ents’ class, which again is contingent on their ability to obtain a fair
exchange for their investments or contributions on the one hand and
their educational qualifications on the other.
Parents’ market dependence has other implications. For example, the
whole family benefits economically for it has two incomes rather than
one; on the other hand, both parents working creates a problem to be
solved, namely childcare during the working day. In addition, qualifica-
tions having a high market value, which lead to high net rewards, seem
historically to be connected with individualism and secularization,
which in turn is likely to be one reason for the rise in the divorce rate;
this, in turn, creates a whole new set of needs in terms of children’s well-
being that consequently have to be covered. Many others issues could be
identified.
There is ample evidence to document the outcome of the interaction
of these factors for the material well-being of children. Most dramati-
cally, this can be seen in the developing nations, as attempts are made
by bodies such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank
to solve economic problems by means of austerity measures, implying
exposure to the market at the same time that cuts in health and educa-
tional programmes are deemed necessary. Evidence for developed coun-
tries is also clear (see UNICEF 2000). Before taxes and transfers – i.e. in a
pure market situation – child poverty ranges from 15.8 per cent in
Norway to 36.1 per cent in the UK; in Germany it is at 16.8 per cent,
while in Sweden it is a surprising 23.4 per cent.2 Unfortunately, there is
no comparison with other age groups as far as these pre-tax and pre-
transfer incomes are concerned.
Parents’ labour market participation leaves them with little choice –
their children, up to a certain age, are obliged to attend some kind of
institutional arrangement, be it kindergarten, school, after-school clubs
or the like (see the contributions to this volume for examples). This in
turn implies a more or less rigid schedule for children and constraints on
their mobility. At the same time, in countries where the demand for
such arrangements is far from met, parents and children are faced with
the no less severe problem of making parents’ work fit in with children’s
need for care.
There are, in other words, a number of internally connected factors
that provide a framework for children’s life worlds even before the state
intervenes to ameliorate their effects, and it is important to bear these in
mind when we address the question of responsibility for children’s wel-

fare. As the Canadian economist Harry G. Johnson reminds us:
since the society is founded on the belief that individual freedom to

introduce change serves the social good, the society and not the indi-
vidual member should assume the costs that this freedom may
impose on other members when these costs become unreasonably
high. Beyond a certain point, the society collectively should bear the
economic risks imposed on the family by dependence on the sale of
its services, because society itself creates those risks.
(Johnson 1962: 191)
So far I have dealt with children’s position as a result of the market

and, by and large, one can conclude that children themselves are not
thought of as market actors. Nonetheless, however good the intentions,
children cannot escape the massive influence of the market particularly
because of their dependence on their parents’ market value. The family
is often portrayed as a ‘haven in a heartless world’, as if the two were dis-
crete, and one should certainly not overlook a family’s protective impor-
tance for children; I wonder, however, if a greater danger does not lie in
underestimating the impact of the ‘heartless world’ on the family?
Therefore, in considering the extent to which society responds to the
needs of children and their parents through the welfare state measures it
adopts, one should not forget the interests of society as a whole in such
interventions and indeed, its interests in both the family and children.
Children’s place in welfare state theory and practice
Although children are often mentioned, the question of how they are
represented in traditional welfare and citizenship theory remains unan-
swered. A preliminary search shows quite meagre and inconclusive
results. Apart from cases where children are accounted for empirically
(see Titmuss 1968; Townsend 1970; Ringen 1997), one has to say that to
the extent children are considered at all, the literature reveals consider-
able inadequacy in dealing with them and they therefore remain diffi-
cult to incorporate into any all-embracing analysis (but see Kränzl-Nagl,
Mierendorff and Olk 2003; Alanen 2007; Olk and Wintersberger 2007).
Thus Dahrendorf (1996: 35) talks about ‘the vexing issue of children
in the scheme of citizenship’, but is apparently unable or unwilling to
accept it as a serious issue. In Welfare, intended as an introduction to
and overview of the field, Norman Barry (1999) does not mention
224 Jens Qvortrup
children at all. For Marshall too children remain invisible, as Bulmer

and Rees (1996) note in a book on Marshall’s classic work, Citizenship
and Social Class. They explicitly list children among the ‘omissions
from Marshall’s schema’, which identifies three main categories of
citizenship:
1. legal citizenship or civil rights such as ‘liberty of person, freedom of

speech, thought and faith, the right to own property and to conclude
valid contracts, and the right to justice’;
2. political citizenship in terms of the franchise and right of access to pub-
lic office; and
3. social citizenship in terms of social rights ranging from ‘the right to a
modicum of economic welfare and security to the right to share to
the full in social heritage and to live the life of a civilised being
according to the standards prevailing in society’.
These types of citizenship correspond to four sets of public institutions:

the first two are the courts (for protection of civil rights) and the represen-
tative bodies (to secure access to participation in decision-making). The
other two are the social services, which are there to ensure minimum pro-
tection against poverty, ill-health and other misfortunes, and schools, so
that all members of the community to receive at least a basic education
(Table 11.1).
Following the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, there is
more to say about the first two sets in the political and the legal realms;
nevertheless, it is my contention that both continue to be largely mar-
ginal as far as children are concerned. I shall therefore concentrate on
the other two institutions corresponding to Marshall’s third category:
social citizenship.
As mentioned above the market leaves children vulnerable finan-
cially as well as in terms of services. I do not intend to comment in any
detail about the comparative situation of children in different coun-
tries, if for no other reason than because space does not allow more
Table 11.1 Marshall’s basic scheme
Categories of citizenship Corresponding institutions
Legal Courts
Political Representative bodies
Social Social services
Schools
than a superficial discussion of the tremendous complexities in these

areas (see Rostgaard and Fridberg 1998). If, however, one looks at the
rules and the realities of children’s ‘social citizenship’, to use Marshall’s
term, there are at least three striking facts as far as Europe is concerned:
1. Everywhere there is a basic minimum below which children are

unlikely to fall; as far as poverty and deprivation are concerned, for
example, data on child mortality, nutrition and health care suggest
that some protection is provided compared to a pure market situation
(as can be found in the US but much more commonly and extremely
in the Third World).
2. In terms of services, all European countries regard schooling as a
social right, although it is not always clear who its main beneficiary
is – the family, the child or society? On the other hand, nowhere are
services such as crèches, kindergartens and after-school care seen as
something that the community is obliged to provide free of charge.
3. There are such huge differences in financial and service provisions
among European countries that a remarkably high level of political
discretion must exist in terms of recognizing children’s social citizen-
ship as a legitimate claim.
Despite trends to privatization and deregulation since Reaganism,

Thatcherism and the dismantling of the Soviet bloc, there remains some
belief in the idea of the welfare state, not least in continental Europe and
particularly in the Nordic countries. In most European nations, it is part
of the programmes of most influential political parties to secure a decent
standard of living for families with children, and nowhere is it regarded
as acceptable to deny the existence of child poverty. In all these coun-
tries, therefore, there are measures to ease this burden. Public discourse
about the reality of child poverty is vague, however: while on the one
hand there are few institutionalized and obligatory means for eradicat-
ing it, public opinion regards it as a scandal – even more so than poverty
in general. As the German political scientist Christoph Butterwege has
observed: ‘In the public debate, children eventually count as deserving
poor while fit-for-work receivers of social assistance are perceived as
undeserving poor, who can safely be harassed’ (quoted in Niejahr 2001;
my translation). The general attitude is thus expressed in clearly moral-
istic terms, while a moral standpoint would require institutional mech-
anisms for the eradication of child poverty.
Although there are huge differences among EU Member States, how-
ever, measures are taken in all of them to alleviate the burden of poverty.
226 Jens Qvortrup
In the league tables quoted above, the effects of policy measures were
given: from a pre- to a post-tax and transfer situation (i.e. as a result of
public intervention in a pure market situation) the poverty rate in
Sweden was reduced by 89 per cent, in the UK by 45 per cent, in Norway
by 75 per cent, and in Germany by 36 per cent. This varied picture
reflects the fact that not only are there different and often quite efficient
policies, but also, and most importantly, that nowhere do states have a
clear obligation to eradicate child poverty. This becomes even clearer
when we look at the differences in the incidence of poverty between
children of lone-parent families and children of two-parent families
(Table 11.2).
In each case, there are reasons for this dispersion. As is well known, in
each country there are different administrative units responsible for
implementing welfare measures and it may well be that what is granted
at one level is clawed back at another. A well-intentioned decision at the
national level – for example, to extend kindergarten coverage – may
cause problems at the municipal level if they have not been granted suf-
ficient means by central government. Thus parents may be asked to con-
tribute to the cost, which in turn implies a reduction in their disposable
income. This apparent conflict between administrative levels might be
contained if families (or children) were given rights to certain services
such as kindergartens, but children typically do not have such rights.
The most important example of what appears to be a right for chil-
dren is education. Thus in all European welfare states, children’s enrol-
ment in schools is more or less 100 per cent and it is also, by and large,
free. As far as schooling is concerned, however, there are some intrigu-
ing problems. First, it is often said that children have a right to attend
school or, more precisely, to receive an education. In fact, not even this
Table 11.2 Child poverty: before tax and transfer for all children; after tax and
transfer for all children, for children in lone-parent families and in other families
Post-tax and transfer

Pre-tax and
transfer, All children Children of lone Children in
all children parents other families
UK 36.1 19.8 45.6 13.3

Ireland n.a. 16.8 46.4 14.2
Sweden 23.4 2.6 6.7 1.5
Germany 16.8 10.7 51.2 6.2
Norway 15.9 3.9 13.1 2.2
Source: UNICEF (2000).

is true in most countries: parents have an obligation to make sure that

their children receive an education, and children are obliged to receive
this education. What is interesting is that not even here are welfare
measures targeting children; it is the parents who are targeted. To the
extent that children have rights, it is a right they are forced to receive.
Second, it is questionable whether it is reasonable to regard schooling
as a welfare measure for parents and/or children at all. As suggested by
the German Fifth Family Report, the cost of schooling might better be
regarded as a societal investment, in line with other measures to provide
for societal infrastructure in general (Bundesministerium 1994: 291).
From this perspective, schooling is seen not primarily as an individual’s
right but as a collective service for society as a whole. This has important
implications.
It suggests that since investment in education is for the common good
and thus of equal significance to all members and sectors of society, this
investment must count as a contribution to maintaining and reproduc-
ing society as a whole. This must be the case, since educational invest-
ment is borne by the public purse. One should recall, however, that
parents are also heavily involved in their child’s education and therefore
contribute to the reproduction of the labour force, and not merely to the
child’s becoming an adult. From the point of view of fairness, therefore,
the implication of the German Family Report’s proposition is that com-
pensation to the family for parents’ contributions would also be a pay-
ment to the common good. This was the Report’s conclusion, but it was
accepted with reluctance by the German government because of the
tremendous costs that its implementation would incur. This is under-
standable from a political point of view, but is hardly consistent with
the view that children’s welfare and well-being are important to main-
taining and reproducing society.
Nobody doubts that schools are indispensable; this being the case, it
would only be logical if schools were regarded unequivocally as an
inseparable part of what is understood to be ‘a good childhood’. The par-
adox is that even if we all agree that schooling is a societal project, we
fail to perceive that children are embedded as a part of this reciprocal
equation at the contributors’ end.
The argument about schooling as a prerequisite for societal reproduc-
tion, and not merely one of individual reproduction serving children in
their quest for personal futures, has been raised by several writers includ-
ing Margaret Wynn in her classic book on family policy (Wynn 1972).
More recently Folbre has made a similar point, but in more general
terms, arguing that ‘parents should be compensated for their efforts … for
228 Jens Qvortrup
raising children’ (1994: 89). Johnson goes even further, assuming that
schooling (and thus a new relationship between children and adults) is
not the responsibility of individual parents and therefore not one that
should be shouldered by them alone, but by society in general. He sug-
gests that ‘society should be ready to assume the financial burden of
maintaining school children as well as of paying the costs of teaching
them’ (1962: 190).
Johnson does not explain in detail what he means by ‘maintaining
school children’, but links the point with children themselves as actors:
it needs to be recognized that in the opulent society an increasing

part of the real costs of education is the earnings forgone by going to
school instead of to work, a cost which may put severe pressure on
poor children to drop out of school even though the advantages to
themselves and society of further education are great.
(Johnson 1962: 190)
Written over four decades ago, this now may sound a bit old-fashioned.
The principle, however, remains true and accords with Kaufmann’s
(1996) uncompromising dictum, that society has colonized children’s
labour and left the costs to the family.
The debate initiated by Johnson and Kaufmann brings into focus an
argument in favour of compensating not just parents but also children
themselves. As Johnson indicates, children are not only incurring
opportunity costs, more importantly, they are doing useful work in
school. As such they are performing as ‘achievers’ in a new societal divi-
sion of labour and therefore, by implication, should be considered as
members of society who deserve, as a right, a fair proportion of societal
resources (see Qvortrup 1995, 2000).
From the point of view of children, it is a significant step forward in
recognizing them as social citizens that their main activity – school
work – should be acknowledged on a par with other endeavours that
contribute to the social fabric. Most important is that, from this per-
spective, children’s school work is regarded as being as much for the
benefit of the collective as for the individual, a perspective that may
influence discussions about who should bear the costs of investment in
children and childhood.
Johnson mentions an additional principle of social policy in modern
society – raising the ‘standards of services and amenities provided col-
lectively, and of the quality of the environment’ (1962: 190). An opulent
society can hardly claim ‘to be employing its opulence wisely’ (Johnson
1962: 191) if, among other things, ‘the schools look like factories used to
look and factories like schools ought to look’ (1962: 190), i.e. that chil-
dren’s workplaces have deteriorated compared with those of adults.
Schools are thus an example of institutions for children in which the
buildings and equipment do not meet a reasonable standard. In many
countries (Denmark, UK and Norway), complaints are voiced about run-
down school buildings and the fact that politicians have allowed them
to deteriorate. Calculations have been made of the costs for bringing
them up to a standard commensurate not only with a decent standard
of living, but also with the health needs of children. This serves to illus-
trate the argument outlined above that no demands can be made by chil-
dren and parents in order to improve their living conditions; it remains
a question of political discretion. In addition, it is an example that indi-
cates a generational gap: only old people’s homes compete with chil-
dren’s institutions in terms of poor standards, whereas such standards
would never be tolerated in public buildings or corporate offices.
Agents of responsibility for the welfare of children
In terms of prevailing family ideology in Europe, there is no doubt that

parents are considered responsible for children’s welfare, morally as well
as economically, whilst the state has a legal obligation to safeguard chil-
dren’s welfare only in cases where parents fail to fulfil their responsibil-
ities. The question is not whether this state of affairs is morally
defensible or not; it is more about the extent to which it is rational in
view of the goals of society, such as the maintaining social order and
balance, safeguarding short-term desires for the welfare of children and
their families, and long-term aims of maintaining and reproducing the
labour force and pension schemes. What we are currently seeing instead
in all developed nations are unintended, undesired and even adverse
trends, such as low fertility rates, ageing populations, child poverty and
a failing ability to reproduce the labour market – to mention only the
most conspicuous examples relevant to this discussion.
The family and the state do not always have interests in common;
indeed, they often compete as far as children are concerned.
Nevertheless, it is remarkable that it is only these two agents that seem
to be recognized as responsible partners in addressing such questions of
importance for society as a whole. It is my thesis that the major problem
since the beginning of the twentieth century is that, for the first time in
history, we have come to face a situation in which those who are obliged
to care for children do not benefit from doing so economically, while those who
230 Jens Qvortrup
are profiting from children being raised, do not contribute. It is this major
paradox which arguably accounts for the imbalances we are presently
facing, and this paradox is all the more astonishing since it runs counter
to the very idea of the market principle of fair exchange, according to
which each receives in proportion to his or her investment.
To restore an appropriate balance the re-establishment of the principle
of fair exchange in investments and benefits is required. This implies
that families with children are compensated for their outlay for repro-
ducing the labour force (see Johnson 1962; Wynn 1972; Folbre 1994).
The state is also a partner in making investments, but only in the sense
that it is redistributing its income. The crux of the matter therefore is the
need, through fiscal and other policies, to make other potential partners
responsible – i.e. the current free-riders who are benefiting without mak-
ing proportional investments.
Among the actors having an interest in the results of family and state
investments is corporate society, or the world of business and trade in its
many forms. Corporate society, which in the long run is dependent on
a well-educated and healthy labour force, has by and large been eclipsed
or managed to exclude itself from any responsibility for producing the
labour force.
A third important group are people in households without children,
in particular childless persons,3 and others who have not been willing or
able to reproduce themselves. They are eventually establishing them-
selves as free-riders – both in practice and as an interest group (cf. child-
free zones, gated communities, and the like) – most of whom are men.
As Folbre states:
Increases in the private costs of raising children … are exerting

tremendous economic pressure on parents, particularly mothers.
Economists need to analyze the contributions of non-market labour
to the development of human capital: as children become increas-
ingly public goods, parenting becomes increasingly public service.
(Folbre 1994: 86)
It is therefore important for any discussion of children’s welfare to

seek to identify potentially interested parties (whether these interests are
recognized or not) as well as the nature of the interests they hold. In
some countries, the conflict of interests between families with children
and those without is already apparent: this is the basis for discussions in
Germany about ‘equalizing the family burden’ (Familienlastenausgleich),
supplemented by the complementary notion of ‘equalizing family
achievements’ (Familienleistungsausgleich), meaning that ‘achievers’ in

raising children have a right to be supported by relieving them of some
of their burdens.
There are, however, other areas of conflict that need to be discussed.
Any discussion about children seems to bring forward at least two inter-
est groups: defenders of the family (e.g. Kaufmann) and advocates of
gender equality (Folbre). In each camp ‘the best interest of the child’ will
be postulated, as suggested by Wintersberger (2000: 186–7); but the
question that needs to be addressed by childhood research is what is
meant by this. Can we, in other words, take it for granted that the inter-
ests of families and the interests of women are identical with the inter-
ests of children or childhood, however these are defined?
Conclusion
The analysis of childhood in the welfare state has a long way to go and,
as I have sought to demonstrate, children’s claims on resources in soci-
ety are weak. In a pure market, they have only their parents to rely on,
who are not proportionally reimbursed for their investment in their
children. Even under welfare state regimes, the status of children as
rights-holders is doubtful since they are seldom targeted and are typi-
cally at the mercy of discretionary policies.
As has been the case in social science theory in general, children have
also been neglected in the theory of welfare analysis (see Kränzl-Nagl,
Mierendorff and Olk 2003) and, as used to be the case in the new social
studies of childhood, there is again an urgency in establishing child-
hood in its own right, this time as a component of welfare state theory.
The prevailing view that only a needs criterion is relevant for making
welfare provisions available to children has a number of drawbacks.
Not only does it lead to individualization of the problem, it also ren-
ders children as undeserving without legitimate claims in their own
right. Only if a dialectic is established between children and their par-
ents as deserving claimants and rights-holders on the one hand, and
society on the other, as being critically in need of children, can a
rational, inter-generational basis for welfare policies be imagined and
made real.
Notes
1 This chapter is based on a previous publication: (2003) Kindheit im mark-
twirtschaftlich organisierten Wohlfahrtstaat. In Kränzl-Nagl, R., Mierendorf,
232 Jens Qvortrup
J. and Olk, T. (eds.), Kindheit im Wohlfahrtstaat. Gesellschaftliche und politische

Herausforderungen (pp. 95–120). Frankfurt a.M.: Campus Verlag.
2 Poor in this context means people who have income below 50 per cent of the
median; the equivalence scale is the modified OECD scale, which implies that
the first person is given a value of 1, the second 0.5, while others – typically
children – 0.3.
3 Involuntary childless couples constitute a particular problem in that they
demonstrably wish to share both the burdens and joys of having children. It
would therefore be inappropriate to include them among those shirking
societal responsibility.
References
Alanen, L. (2007) Theorising Children’s Welfare. In Wintersberger, H., Alanen,
L., Olk, T. and Qvortrup, J. (eds.), Childhood, Generational Order and the Welfare
State: Exploring Children’s Social and Economic Welfare. Odense: University Press
of Southern Denmark.
Barry, N. (1999) Welfare. 2nd edition. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Bendix, R. (1977) Nation-building and Citizenship: Studies of Our Changing Social
Order. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Bojer, H. (2000) Children and Theories of Social Justice. Feminist Economics 6(2):
23–39.
Bulmer, M. and Rees, A. M. (1996) Conclusions: Citizenship in the Twenty-first
Century. In Bulmer, M. and Rees, A. M. (eds.), Citizenship Today: The
Contemporary Relevance of T. H. Marshall (pp. 269–83). London: UCL Press.
Bundesministerium für Familie und Senioren (1994) Familie und Familienpolitik
im geeinten Deutschland – Zukkunft des Humanvermögens. Bonn: Fünfter
Familienbericht.
Cook, D. T. (2000) The Other ‘Child Study’: Figuring Children as Consumers in
Market Research, 1910s–1990s. The Sociological Quarterly 41(3): 487–507.
Dahrendorf, R.(1996) Citizenship and Social Class. In Bulmer, M. and Rees, A. M.
(eds.), Citizenship Today: The Contemporary Relevance of T. H. Marshall
(pp. 25–48). London: UCL Press.
Daniels, N. (1988) Am I My Parents’ Keeper? An Essay on Justice between Young and
the Old. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990) Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Esping-Andersen, G. et al. (2002): Why We Need a New Welfare State. Oxford and
New York: Oxford University Press.
Folbre, N. (1994) Children as Public Goods. The American Economic Review 84(2):
86–90.
Homans, G. C. (1961) Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Johnson, H. G. (1962) Money, Trade and Economic Growth. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Kaufmann, F.-X. (1996) Modernisierungsschübe, Familie und Sozialstaat. München:
Oldenbourg Verlag.
Kränzl-Nagl, R., Mierendorff, J. and Olk, T. (2003) Die Kindheitsvergessenheit der

Wohlfahrtsstaatsforschung und die Wohlfahrtsstaatsvergessenheit der
Kindheitsforschung. In Kindheit im Wohlfahrtsstatt: Gesellschaftliche und politis-
che Herausforderungen (pp. 9–55). Frankfurt and New York: Campus Verlag.
Lister, R. (2003) Investing in the Citizen-workers of the Future: Transformations
in Citizenship and the State under New Labour. Social Policy & Administration
37(5): 427–43.
Mortier, F. (2000) Rationality and Competence to Decide in Children. In
Verhellen, E. (ed.), Understanding Children’s Rights (pp. 67–87). Ghent:
Children’s Rights Centre.
Niejahr, E. (2001) Die grosse Not der Kleinen. Die Zeit 51, 13 December.
Olk, T. (2006) Children in the ‘Social Investment State’. Key note lecture at the
concluding conference of COST A19 Children’s Welfare, Roskilde, June.
Olk, T. and Wintersberger, H. (2007) Welfare State and Generational Order. In
Wintersberger, H., Alanen, L., Olk, T. and Qvortrup, J. (eds.), Childhood,
Generational Order and the Welfare State: Exploring Children’s Social and Economic
Welfare. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark.
Qvortrup, J. (1995) From Useful to Useful: The Historical Continuity in
Children’s Constructive Participation. In A.-M. Ambert (ed.), Sociological Studies
of Children. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Qvortrup, J. (2000) Children’s Schoolwork: Useful and Necessary. In Brood and
Rozen, Tijdsschrift voor de Geschiedenis van Sociale Bewegingen, 4: 145–61.
Qvortrup, J. (2001) School-Work, Paid Work and the Changing Obligations of
Childhood. In Mizen, P. and Pole, C., Hidden Hands: International Perspectives on
Children’s Work and Labour (pp. 91–107). London: Routledge and Falmer.
Rawls, J. (1973) A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ringen, S. (1997) Citizens, Families and Reform. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Rostgaard, T. and Fridberg, T. (1998) Caring for Children and Older People – A
Comparison of European Policies and Practices. Social Security in Europe 6.
Copenhagen: The National Institute of Social Research.
Rubinstein, D. (1988) The Concept of Justice in Sociology. Theory and Society
17(4): 527–50.
Sgritta, G. B. (1994) The Generational Division of Welfare: Equity and Conflict. In
Qvortrup, J., Bardy, M., Sgritta, G. B. and Wintersberger, H. (eds.), Childhood
Matters: Social Theory, Practice and Politics (pp. 335–61). Aldershot: Avebury.
Titmuss, R. (1968) Commitment to Welfare. London: Unwin University Books.
Townsend, P. (ed.) (1970) The Concept of Poverty. London: Heinemann.
UNICEF (2000) A League Table of Child Poverty in Rich Countries. Florence: UNICEF.
Wintersberger, H. (2000) Family Citizenship or Citizenship for Children?
Childhood Perspectives and Policies. In Cavanna, H. (ed.), The New Citizenship
of the Family. Comparative Perspectives (pp. 174–88). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Wynn, M. (1972) Family Policy. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Index
The index is in word-by-word order. Publication titles are indicated in italics

eg: Every Child Matters
Adoption Act (1952 – Ireland) 87 children’s rights 29–30, 99

Adoption Law (1995 – Cyprus) 154 day-care institutions 131, 140,
adults’ perspectives 4, 65, 68 201, 203
advocates 17, 18, 93 different cultures 2, 3, 6, 31
agency 5, 10, 106 education 182
all-day care 204, 211, 212 family 154–5
anti-pedagogics 175, 176 freedom of choice 23
anti-social behaviour 107, 108–9, good childhood 199
110, 124 immigration 144
arts 178, 180 kindergarten 21
aspirations 74, 78, 79, 84, 93 legislation 40–1, 93, 122
asylum-seekers 5, 7, 14, 17, 21, 32 participation 82
children 28, 29 political concept 111–12
participation rights 20 politically defined 137
reception centres 26, 27, 28, 33 politics of childhood 143
audio-visual media protection 8, 20, 117
adult–child relations 66–7 quality of life 45, 64–5
children’s culture 73–4, 79 refugees 26, 31
survey of child use 68–72 research 231
authority 62, 129, 162 rights discourses 2, 17, 55, 115
adults 6, 7, 66 social representations 75
parental 7, 9, 66, 68 Bichard Inquiry (UK) 119–20
of the state 8 Bourdieu 9, 10
autonomy buffer zone (Cyprus) 151, 153
children 5, 11, 17, 22, 32 Bund-Länder Commission for
children’s culture 76 Educational Planning and
children’s rights 23, 25, 41 Research Promotion
culture 31 Supplement to the Education Plan
family 203 180
independence 38, 134, 159 Bundesvereinigung Kulturelle
perspective 33 Jugenbildung (BKJ – Federal
Association for Cultural Youth
bearers of rights 4, 7 Education) 183
behaviour 9, 134, 137
best interests of children Casas, Ferran 6, 7, 9, 12, 61–81,
according to adults 4, 96 94
according to UNCRC 15, 92 child abuse 89, 96, 114, 124
child development 63, 91, 130 Child Care Act (1991 – Ireland) 89
child policy 16 child development 115, 198, 203
234
Index 235
child policy children’s competence

children’s culture 22 asylum-seekers 28
Germany 202 audio-visual media 74
Ireland 84 conceptualization 22, 187
Norway 16, 23 development 140
political discourses 20 ICT 75, 78
Spain 62 language skills 141
child protection 120, 121 participation 99, 130
childcare political discourses 25
arrangements 11, 206, 207, 208, rights 98
209, 222 rights discourse 49
day-care institutions 4 social actors 33
in day-care institutions 205 children’s culture
development 201 extra-curricular activities 10, 174,
within the family 63 182, 188, 210
leisure activities 210 ICT 73, 78
policy 204 media 76
politicization 8, 129 play 25, 42
public provision 199, 212, 213, policy 177, 178–81, 183, 189
225 research 79
structures 12 rights 11
welfare policies 200 Scandinavia 4
Childcare Act (1991 – Ireland) 85 Children’s Office, The (Ireland) 94
childhood Children’s Ombudsman (Norway) 40
conceptions 66, 118 Children’s Ombudsman (Spain) 62
concepts 106 Children’s Parliament (Dáil Na
globalization 3 bPaisti – Ireland) 97
policies for children 2 Children’s Parliament (Dáil Na
political discourses 5 Nog – Ireland) 94
socially constructed 39, 47, 51, 52 children’s perspectives 1, 23, 65, 73
childhood sociology 208 children’s rights
children children’s culture 11
in care 89 citizens 17, 30, 83, 91, 174, 181
citizens 16 citizenship 5
as consumers 63 civil rights 66, 77
and nature 5 consultation 96
as property 85 education 203, 226, 227
role in society 219 global discourse 2, 40, 49, 52, 100,
status 86 165
views 17 information 74
Children Act (2004 – UK) 122 lack of 216, 217, 218
Children and Young People Support participation 4, 21, 94
Act (1990 – Germany) 204 policy 42, 107
Children and Young Person’s Act political agendas 93, 95
(1969 – UK) 109 political awareness 1, 63
Children’s Act (2001 – Ireland) 93 political discourses 92, 97
Children’s Act (Norway) 26 promotion 6
Childrens’ and Adolescents’ Aid Act protection 21, 90
(Germany) 186 provision 21, 85
236 Index
children’s rights – continued political agendas 110, 117, 123

quality of life 66 political discourses 107
role of the state 7 community
school 98 children belonging to 32, 77, 91
universal 3 decision-making 15
welfare 221, 231 participation of children 19, 25,
choices 33, 92
adults 126 community order 108
children 22, 23, 110 competence
freedom of choice 23, 25, 113 of adults 73
individuality 25, 32 robust child 47, 52
citizenship computers
children 4, 10, 24, 32, 54, 202 adolescent use 69, 70, 71, 76
children as future citizens 7, 17, children 67, 73
78, 152, 160 at home 68, 72
children’s rights 91, 174, 217, conceptualization
218 children 83, 173, 201
conceptualization 19 children’s competence 22
constructions of childhood 90 children’s rights 96
democracy 166 cultural politics of childhood
education 155, 157 106
educational ideology 97, 158 quality of life 64, 95
ideology 159 consoles 69, 70, 72
immigration 99 construction of childhood
legal 18 cultural 83, 84, 85, 100
models of 19 day-care institutions 133
national identity 8, 156, 165 Ireland 84–90
participation 23, 33 national identity 3
political agendas 149 policies for children 92
politics of childhood 131 school 95
position of children 206 social 82, 96, 111, 144, 151,
refugees 27, 29 157
right to citizenship 93 consultation 98, 121–2
rights 5 consumers 202
social 12, 16, 94, 224, 225, 228 children as 63, 219
traditional theories 18 contexts
welfare theory 223 asylum-seekers 17
cognitive skills 160, 187 childhood 55
Comhairle áituil na nOg (local youth cultural 18, 30, 51
committees – Ireland) 94 economic 84
Committee on the Rights of the Child education 82
(CRC) 63 family 38
communication 27, 74, 77 legal 31
between adullts and children 72, national 39, 45, 52, 54, 64
73 Norway 15, 40
global 68 political 84
verbal 142 use of ICT 75
communitarianism contextualization 200, 209
in British politics 11, 108, 109 childhood 199, 205
Index 237
control cultural interpretation 31

by adults 6, 115 cultural policies 178
of children 11, 107, 109, 131, 157, cultural policy 10, 179, 188
200 cultural practice 1
coercive 113 cultural relations 28
over children 8 cultural theory 172
social 124 cultural traditions 201
Council of Europe cultural values 5, 38, 39, 46
Commissioner for Human Rights history of policy 178
crime Irish cultural values 7
children as offenders 117, 118, national 54, 131
124 national identity 53
children as victims 116–17 Norwegian cultural values 7
politicization 110 policies for children 2
cultural politics of childhood policy 189
adults’ perspectives 4 reproduction of culture 3
Cyprus 150 and tradition 31
different countries 2 youth 6
educational policy 160 curriculum
Germany 11 Danish kindergarten 133
Ireland 98 Denmark 144
moral panic 110 educational policy 165
national identity 156 guidelines (Cyprus) 159, 160
Norway 39 Ireland 98
participation 123 Irish primary 88, 96
policies for children 105, 111 nationalism 157, 161, 164
power 7 political affiliations 162
research 83, 151 Cyprus 4, 9, 10, 149–71
risk 118
school 95, 162 Dáil Na bPaisti (Children’s
social policy 13 Parliament – Ireland) 97
Spain 6 Dáil Na Nog (Children’s Parliament –
UK 107, 109, 115, 116, 125 Ireland) 94
cultural reproduction daily routines 39
day-care institutions 40, 44, 54 day-care 44
education 9, 12, 149 arrangements 11
national identity 55 professionals 208
culture services 38
activities 174 Day-care Institution Act (1975,
analysis 39 Norway) 41
children’s culture 22 day-care institutions
cultural belonging 4 access 132, 211
cultural capital 213 children’s rights 23
cultural differences 63 competence of children 141
cultural education 173, 181, 182, conceptualization 146
186 education 23, 25, 54, 129, 136,
cultural expectations 5 204
cultural identity 2, 158 equal opportunities 207
238 Index
day-care institutions – continued development

Germany 198 childhood 200
immigration 137 children 140, 198
language fluency 142, 144 cognitive skills 134, 138, 139, 141,
nature 46 144, 198
nature day care centres 38, economic resources 129
39–40, 47 emotional maturity 138, 139, 141,
play 22 144
policies for children 143 motor skills 134, 138, 139, 141,
professionals 140 144
provision 9, 42, 131, 205 social 137
regulations 130 social skills 134, 138, 139, 141,
resource allocation 139 144
socialization 135 Directorate of Immigration (UDI)
stimulation 133 Norway 14
UNCRC (United Nations disabled children 86, 90, 91, 93, 95
Convention on the Rights of discrimination 139, 220
the Child) 134 diversity
debate childhood 92, 100, 112
child poverty 199 education 10, 165, 168
parliamentary 54 families 198
political 55, 83 pedagogy 23
quality of life 64 domestic law
de-familialization 205 child-centred state 40
democracy kindergarten 24
children 78, 100 politics 18
citizenship 18, 19 refugees 32
cultural 173 UNCRC (United Nations
education 68 Convention on the Rights of
socialization 76 the Child) in Cyprus 154
Spain 6, 66 UNCRC (United Nations
student councils 97 Convention on the Rights of
democratization 178, 179 the Child) in Norway 5, 15, 20
Denmark 129–48 Dublin Convention 26
child-centred state 3
child policy 22 ecology 42–3, 45, 55
childcare 8 economics
children’s culture 10 changes 12
day-care institutions 23, 42 policies 11
ethnic minorities 9 resources 10, 11
nature day care centres 43 education
Department of Education and Science achievements 220
(Ireland) 97 artistic 172
Department of Social Welfare Services asylum-seekers 27, 29
(Cyprus) 155 authorities 166
dependency best interests of children 154, 182
children 6, 21, 32, 33, 67, 220 childcare 206, 208, 210, 211, 212
economic 217 children’s needs 129
de-schooling 177 children’s rights 66, 96, 225,
‘de-schooling of learning’ 172 226–7
Index 239
education – continued ethnic conflict 156

citizenship 149, 155, 224 ethnic identities 149, 150
costs 228 ethnic minorities
critique 175 asylum-seekers 28
cultural 172, 173, 181, 190 childcare 134
cultural in Germany 11 day-care institutions 130, 135,
cultural values 7 136
different policies 3 inequality 95
discourse of worry 46 integration 142, 143, 167
early childhood 23 language fluency 9, 131, 138, 141,
ICT use 70 144, 146
importance to children 68 state intervention 145
inequality 99 European Constitution 2
intervention 9, 131 European Union
investment 12, 89, 95 Cyprus accession 10, 156, 166, 167
kindergarten 203, 205 European Community 87
language fluency 141 European Economic Community
nationalist curriculum 156, 158, (EEC) 84
159, 160–2, 167, 168 Irish membership 82
participation 183 Every Child Matters
pedagogy 199 childcare 114
policies 41, 213 consultation 121–2
policies for children 168, 185, 203, controlling children 124
207 information sharing 119, 123
policy 9, 10, 204 moral panic 125
policy in Cyprus 10, 152 protection 113, 116
policy in Ireland 82, 85, 87, 91 regulation 126
policy in Norway 40 UK Green Paper 111
policy in the UK 8 welfare outcomes 115
political discourses 88, 191 experiences 12
qualifications 87 of children 3, 12
reconstruction of childhood 100 extra-curricular activities
reform 165, 176, 187, 203 childcare 63
reproduction of society 202 creative experience 180
responsibilities of children 61 cultural education 11, 173, 181,
school 189 185
social learning 74 de-schooling 177
socialization 165 Norway 22
special 139 political initiatives 174
system 138, 204 public debates 188
transparency 97
and the workforce 63 family
Education Act (1998 – Ireland) 95, childcare 12, 132, 145, 210
96, 97 contextualization 11
employment 198, 200, 205, 206 education 225
environment 43, 54, 55 experiences 160
equality extended 63
equal rights 10 good childhood 4
opportunities 11, 177 institutionalization of
ethical dilemmas 27, 30 childhood 154
240 Index
family – continued children’s rights 91

nature 44, 46 construction of childhood 9, 38,
nature day care centres 52 46, 90, 213
policies 66 cultural construction 86
policy 62, 204, 213 cultural context 30
private lives 62 cultural notions 2, 31, 32, 52
relationships 91, 199 education 149, 227
responsibilities 63 Ireland 7
social actors 152 Norway 5, 15, 22
social agents 76, 135, 201 parental aspirations 207
social network 208 policies for children 41, 42,
social policy 17, 41, 84 92, 162
state intervention 40, 87, 94 political agendas 152
support 90, 204 quality of life 63
tensions 203 research 95
UNCRC (United Nations role of the state 130
Convention on the Rights of Spain 6
the Child) 15 state provision 40, 129
welfare 212 traditional discourses 25
welfare triangle 200 welfare policies 216
family policy 205, 206 government
Federal Association for Cultural agencies 93
Education of Youth 180, 186 commitment 7, 123
Federal Republic of Germany (West cultural politics of childhood 113
Germany) 172, 173, 174, 178, day-care institutions 205, 226
financial resources 12 initiatives 173
free play 22, 23 moral panic 125, 126
freedom 65, 200 national 61
freedom of choice 23 officials 150
Fröbel, Friedrich 202–3 policies 7
policies for children 16, 83, 89, 96
games 69, 70, 72, 73 policies in the UK 107
General Director of Elementary policy 100
Education (Cyprus) 158 regional 61
German Culture Council 180, 186, UNCRC (United Nations
187 Convention on the Rights of
German Democratic Republic (East the Child) 15
Germany) 173, 198, 204 welfare policies 112
German Youth Institute (Deutsches Great Britain see United Kingdom
Jugendinstitut – DJI) 209 Greek-Cypriots 149, 164, 167
Germany 10, 11, 12, 172–215 Guardianship Act (1964 Ireland) 87
global communication 68
globalization 45, 55, 154 health
of childhood 155 needs of children 229
good childhood see also proper policies for children 43, 114, 121
childhood promotion 46
child-centred state 3 public health 63
childcare 4, 12, 199, 205, 211 services 61, 66, 89, 129
Index 241
health – continued institutionalization of childhood

services for children 86 206, 207
UNCRC (United Nations integration 136, 143, 166, 184,
Convention on the Rights of 201, 202
the Child) 74 social 134
Hellem, Line 46–7, 48, 49 interdependency 31, 99
Hellenism 158, 161–2 of adults and children 19
human capital 4, 91 intergenerational relations
human rights 124, 159 asylum-seekers 28
Human Rights Act (Norway) 20, 33 communication 68
construction of childhood 83, 89
identity 10, 83, 100, 157 cultural pedagogics 182
children 76, 162 ICT use 67
civic 164 interdependency 19
national 54 parental authority 6, 66
ideological agendas 152, 157, 159 policy development 105, 116
political 159 power imbalance 113
ideologies 130, 161 reproduction of culture 4
immigration international regulations 17
best interests of children 30 Internet
Cyprus 10, 166, 167 access 67, 69
Denmark 132, 135, 137, 138, 144 children’s use 70, 71
Ireland 82, 95, 99 communication 79
Spain 63, 79 language 78
independence peer groups 76
children 10, 11, 38, 50, 55, 134 interpersonal relationships 66, 78,
construction of childhood 79
5–6, 52 intervention 119, 124, 140, 219
national identity 54 educational 145
nature 53 political 179
rights discourse 41 Ireland 7, 9, 10, 82–104
society 182
influence 9 Johnson, Alan
adults 143, 144 Education Secretary (UK) 8
global 144
international 87 kindergarten
information and communication childcare 131, 202–3, 209, 222, 225
technology (ICT) citizenship 17
availability 67, 79 day-care institutions 133
children’s use 62, 71, 78 education 25, 198, 204, 205
competence of children 75 language fluency 143
impact on relationships 6 Norway 14
information 75 participation 5, 21, 22, 26
knowledge 70 political aims 23
socialization 68, 73 provision 226
views about ownership 69 social actors 33
institutional childcare 4, 199, UNCRC (United Nations
203, 206 Convention on the Rights of
institutional practices 7, 17 the Child) 32
242 Index
Kindergarten Act 2005 local authorities see also municipal

(Norway) 25 authorities
knowledge childcare 40, 145
capacity for 74 children’s rights 62
development 19 day-care institutions 130, 135
education 162, 163 language fluency 138
information 75 participation 61
learning 25, 48 policies for children 42
power 96 local initiatives 39, 43, 61, 100
reasoning 51 local youth committees (Comhairle
sources 67, 68 áituil na nOg – Ireland) 94
transmission 68
market 4, 11, 199, 200, 213
labour market 11, 12, 145 Minister of Education (Cyprus) 151,
language 26 157
bilingual children 138 Ministry for Children and Family
competence 9, 42, 135, 141 Affairs 25
evaluation policy 140 Ministry of Education and Culture
fluency 130, 136, 137, 139, (Cyprus)
141, 142 Educational Reform Committee
immigration 10 165
skills 25, 130, 136, 137 Ministry of Education (Denmark)
standards 145 137–8
testing 137, 138, 141, Minstry of Education (German
143, 144 Democratic Republic – East
laws Germany) 204
cultural policy 173 Ministry of Family and Consumer
day-care institutions 135 Affairs (Denmark) 131
moral panic 110 Ministry of Knowledge 25
policy 106 mobile phones 69, 70, 76,
policy initiatives 146 78, 79
social behaviour 83 modernization 82, 172, 177
state intervention 140 moral panic
welfare 132, 218 perspectives on childhood 110,
Ledra Palace 150–1, 152 111, 125
legislation protection 107, 126
education policy 82 risk 120
language 131 welfare policies 109
legal definition 134 municipal authority see also local
legal framework 130 authorities
policies for children 92, 97 day-care institutions 130, 132
rights 63 ethnic minorities 136
secondary 122 resource allocation 138, 143
social policy 84, 90, 91, 203 testing 140
welfare policies 85
leisure activities 14, 190, 212 National Children’s Office (Ireland)
facilities 181 93
indoor 46 National Children’s Strategy
Lewis, Jane 206 (2000 – Ireland) 90, 95
Index 243
national culture 4, 9, 144 Norwegian Centre for Child

national curriculum Research 25
cultural 54 Norwegian Research Council 29
kindergartens 23
National Framework Plan Office of the Minister for Children
(Norway) 42 (Ireland) 93
national identity Ombudsman for Children (Ireland)
citizenship 8 92, 94, 96, 98, 99
construction of childhood 3, 5, 92 outdoor life
cultural reproduction 54 day-care institutions 39, 40, 47
education 10, 156, 158 good childhood 51, 52
nature 45, 55 leisure activities 44, 46
policies for children 6 national culture 54
national law see domestic law national identity 55
nationalism pre-school children 38, 43
cultural identity 158 quality of life 45
Cyprus 160
education 156, 162, 163–4, 165 Pan-London Protocol for Sexually
nation states 157 Active Under 18s 119–20
nationhood 7, 85 parental authority 6, 66, 68, 85, 140
natural settings 22, 41 parents
nature 38, 39, 40, 42–3, 51, 53 authority over children 6, 66, 68,
nature day care centres 85, 140
national identity 55 childcare 199, 208
nature 47 children’s use of ICT 72
Norway 5, 54 citizenship 219
outdoor life 38, 43, 44, 45, 46, 52 day-care institutions 130
policies for children 51 education 149
state policies 39 ethnic minorities 143, 166
state provision 42 parental authority 6
needs of children 3, 88, 89, 140, 154 perceptions 73
Nilsen, Randi Dyblie 5, 6 socialization 62
non-governmental organizations state intervention 155
(NGOs) 20, 62 welfare policies 218
Norway 14–60 workforce 41, 206
asylum-seekers 26 Parents and Children’s Relations Law
child-centred state 3 (1990 – Cyprus) 154
children’s rights 21 participation
ethnic minorities 9 autonomy 21
good childhood 22 children’s rights 7, 15, 100, 107
national identity 6 citizenship 23
nature day care centres 5 competence 47
participation 5, 20 consumers 45
policies for children 23 cultural education 183–4, 185, 190
refugees 33 day-care institutions 23
social policies 17 debate 202
UNCRC (United Nations decision-making 130
Convention on the Rights of education 82, 98, 145, 160, 165
the Child) 15, 30 kindergarten 5, 22, 26
244 Index
participation – continued planning 23, 24

language fluency 9 play 22, 32, 42, 91
national identity 39 free play 22, 23
policies for children 91 physical 48, 49
political 23, 94, 175 right to play 23
political discourses 18, 52, 123, 125 self-governed 38, 51
rights 31, 32, 33, 41, 66, 94 policies for children
self-management 29 asylum-seekers 27
social 16, 62, 173, 181 childcare 43, 89, 129, 204, 208
social actors 61, 96 children’s independence 11
social relations 27 children’s rights 77, 95
society 19, 66 citizenship 99
UNCRC (United Nations controlling children 124, 125
Convention on the Rights of cultural policies 173, 178
the Child) 16, 17, 155 day-care institutions 130
partition (of Cyprus) 156 different countries 2
pedagogical moratorium 201, 202, education 82, 87, 172
205, 210, 213 empowerment of children 83
pedagogy government 107, 112
all-day schooling 191 intergenerational relations 105
child-centred 41 kindergarten 21
childcare 134, 198, 199, 204 lack of 63
children’s needs 88 legislation 85, 90, 91, 98, 106, 144
cultural 10, 180, 188, 189 local initiatives 54
cultural politics of childhood 185 national 54, 86
culture 172, 173, 178 national culture 131
day-care institutions 141 national play policy 93
education 3, 187 nature day care centres 39, 51
experimental 177 poverty 199
focus 23 refugees 33
National Framework Plan social policies 66
(Norway) 42 social protection 61
pedagogical moratorium 213 teachers 10
policies for children 135 UNCRC (United Nations
self-determination 179, 183 Convention on the Rights of
state provision 132 the Child) 6, 15, 40
peer groups 67–8, 71, 72, 73, 76 welfare policies 17, 132, 230
culture 62 policy documents 3, 42, 82, 91,
influence 6 92, 97
perceptions 64 policy-making
adults 65, 66, 68, 73 children’s culture 174
of childhood 144 children’s rights 93, 97, 98, 100
children 66 different countries 4
dominant 135, 141 education 187–8
perspective 76, 108, 111 protection 8
on childhood 113 UNCRC (United Nations
children 23 Convention on the Rights of
structural 201 the Child) 16
philosophy 55, 176 welfare policies 218
Index 245
political discourses ethnic minorities 143

authority 93 Norway 17
children’s culture 25 population displacement 5
children’s rights 17, 31, 40, 41, position of children 82
90, 97 poverty
children’s status 82, 85, 87 children 225
citizenship 99 children’s rights 93
cultural policy 183 ethnic minorities 94
culture 39, 164–5, 182, 190 Germany 184
day-care institutions 133 social services 224
economic development 84 state intervention 226
education 88, 177, 191 welfare policies 199, 218, 225, 229
legislation 135 well being 91
parliamentary debate 54 power
participation 18, 33 between adullts and children 83,
protection 105, 109, 118 93, 113
relations between adults and authority 7, 157
children 83 culturally based 116
risk 109, 118 practices 15, 27, 33, 95
UNCRC (United Nations insitutional 98
Convention on the Rights of social 135
the Child) 91 prejudice 167
welfare 30 pre-school children 9
of worry 44, 45, 46, 55 pre-school education 11
politicians 6, 17, 184 pre-school institutions 199,
politics 3, 142 201, 202
ideologies 156 primary schools 204
political action 198 privacy 28, 123–4
political agenda 109 production of culture 3
political agendas 149, 152, proper childhood see also good
153 childhood
political awareness 1 best interests of children 131,
political commitment 7 140
political conditions 180 child-centred state 3
political culture 123 citizenship 149
political documents 55, 135 construction of childhood 5,
political ideologies 159 39, 90
political initiatives 174 contemporary ideas 52
political interests 15 cultural ideas 2
political issues 38 cultural values 38
political parties 64 day-care institutions 135, 146
political philosophy 107 different agendas 152
political practices 107 ethnic minorities 145
political priority 136 nature 53, 54
politicization of crime 110 policies for children 43
politics of childhood quality of life 63
authority 144 school 157
day-care institutions 146 state provision 40
Denmark 131, 142 property inheritance 85, 87
246 Index
protection public 40
best interests of children 65, 111, social behaviour 83, 121
112 state 130
children 7–8, 19, 75, 89, 114, 126 relationships
children’s rights 99, 113 between adults and children 6, 12,
education 181–2, 202 62
Every Child Matters 114, 115 religion 157–9, 161, 167
family 223, 229 research 79, 83, 202, 231
legislation 117 international 75, 91
moral panic 107, 110 researchers 16, 17, 18, 20, 65
parents 133 resource allocation 139, 141, 142, 143
participation 33 responsibilities 110, 129
policies for children 11 adults 25
rights 20 child age limit 21
UNCRC (United Nations child welfare 223
Convention on the Rights of of children 17, 19, 22, 23, 77, 134
the Child) 15 to children 137, 144, 200
welfare triangle 200 family 63
pseudo-state 150 state 199
public debates 41, 43, 64, 92, 133 reunification 204
public funding 131–2 Germany 198
public health 63 of Germany 173
public services 61 rights 5
punishment 109, 110, 113 asylum-seekers 29
best interests of children 31
quality of life childcare 133
best interests of children 64–6 to choose 22
children’s culture 79 citizenship 32
children’s use of ICT 75 civic 18
culture 30 civil rights 77
participation 19 consultation 96
relationships 78 education 97, 98, 203
well being 16, 17, 178 kindergarten 22, 26, 226
legal 26
racism 167 participation 15, 27, 33, 41, 66, 94
reconstruction of childhood 3, 11, play 23
199, 200 political 17, 18
recontextualization of childhood 11, political discourses 40, 55
205, 210, 212 protection 33, 89
recreational facilities market 208, social 18
209, 210, 211 state provision 85
refugees 21, 26, 28, 137, 153, 159 status of children 100
children 17, 27, 29, 32 UNCRC (United Nations
regional support 174 Convention on the Rights
regulations of the Child) 4, 16, 41, 90,
of children 85, 107, 126, 137, 199 154, 165
day-care institutions 132 to vote 17, 18
education 165 welfare policies 216, 217, 218
international 17, 31 well being 17
Index 247
risk self-governed play 38

Children Act (2004 – UK) 122 self-management
children as risk takers 65, 113 ethnic minorities 145
children’s use of ICT 68 independence 134
control 116 integration 136
cultural politics of childhood 110, participation 142
118–19 pedagogy 179
day-care institutions 9 quality of life 176
identification 124 social skills 141
management 123 UNCRC (United Nations
moral panic 107, 111 Convention on the Rights of
protection 11, 109, 112, 114, 120 the Child) 130
social services 121 self-regulation 202
society 115 siblings 73
risk and protection paradigm 8 skills 51, 67, 78
risk management 123 development 19
rules 85 social actors
autonomy 17, 32
safety 114, 115 children’s culture 42, 77–8
Scandinavia 4, 6, 10, 12, 53, 174 children’s rights 61, 98
school children’s use of ICT 67
all-day schooling 188 citizenship 19, 24, 73–4
attendance 10, 12 competence 33, 99, 105
authority 157 construction of childhood 96, 144
best interests of children 96, 201 contexts 112
children’s rights 98 education 228
citizenship 97 nature day care centres 47
cultural education 190 participation 16, 20
curriculum 86 UNCRC (United Nations
de-schooling of learning 172 Convention on the Rights of
education 189, 222, 227, 228 the Child) 4, 21, 155
education policy 85, 95, 175 social agents
ethnic minorities 136 adult control 113, 157
extra-curricular activities 186 best interests of children 64, 155
immigration 138 children as offenders 110
meals 86 children’s rights 126
medical services 86 competence 105
nature 44 construction of childhood 39,
participation 47, 155 47, 96
pedagogy 187 cultural politics of childhood 7,
political agendas 153 106, 162
quality of life 176 cultural reproduction 40, 44
reform 23 education 152
schooling 3 national identity 55
social agents 76 participation 61, 78, 168
segregation 139 pedagogical moratorium 210
self-awareness 182 politics of childhood 146
self-determination 23, 23–4, 25, 32, socialization 76
173, 179 social arenas 201
248 Index
social aspirations 64, 78 good childhood 4, 40

social changes 12, 82 intervention 8, 154, 155, 216,
social coherence 23, 131, 134 217, 222
social conditions 180 investment 94, 95, 230
social control 115, 124 involvement 129
social democratization 177 language fluency 131
social groups 65 policies for children 39, 42
social institutions 10, 181 position 6
social integration 134, 200, 201 protection 124
social interaction 69 provision of childcare 198
social networks 208, 209, 210 responsibilities 8, 11
social norms role of 7, 9, 11, 130
dominant perceptions 130 UNCRC (United Nations
social orders 201 Convention on the Rights of
social participation 16 the Child) 90
children 66 welfare policies 12, 229
social policies welfare triangle 200
childcare 205, 206, 213 states 149
children’s rights 2 status 9
communitarianism 107 children 41, 82, 83, 86, 100
education 41, 173, 204 statutory care facilities 208
legislation 84 strategy 8, 93
political discourses 11 student councils 97, 99
poverty 199, 203 supervision 130
research 205 supporting parents 4
state intervention 86 Sweden 43
social practices 4, 6, 38, 39, 135
social protection policies 61 teachers 163, 166, 190, 201
social relations 9, 27, 28, 29, 143 communication 72, 73
social reproduction 82, 149 teaching 3, 8, 10
social science 105 technology 67, 74
Social Services Act (2005 – Denmark) television (TV)
134, 144 children’s use 69–72, 74–6
social work 185, 187 tensions
socialization 3, 135, 136 adults and children 116
children 62, 67, 76, 133 among adults 7
theory 208 in the classroom 149, 167
society 83, 129, 225 conformity and autonomy
Society for Cultural Policy 180 107–8
socio-cultural patterns 12 cultural politics of childhood 151,
socio-economic change 11 200
socio-legal institutions 106 family and state 203
Spain 6, 7, 9, 12, 61–81 pedagogy 185
standards 132 policy and practice 6
state between policy and practice 93, 95
childcare 213 testing language skills 131
contextualization of theoretical debates
childhood 199 children’s rights 41
Index 249
theoretical debates – continued vulnerability

citizenship 16, 18 children 21, 22
construction of childhood 105 of children 116, 224
cultural politics of childhood 107 construction of childhood
globalization of childhood 3 90, 91
participation 82 kindergarten 33
Travellers 7, 86, 90, 93, 95 protection 117
Turkish Cypriots 160, 164, 167 well being 200
Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
(TRNC) 150 welfare
Turkish-speaking children 150, children 154, 199, 229, 230
167 welfare associations 204
welfare benefits 200
UK (United Kingdom) 4, 7, 10, 11 welfare policies
UN Expert Committee on children’s best interests of children 112
rights 20 child-centred state 2
UN High Commissioner for Refugees childcare 4
(UNHCR) for children 7, 11
Policy on Refugee Chidren 21 children’s rights 17, 62, 98
UNCRC (United Nations Convention children’s status 92
on the Rights of the Child) construction of childhood 89
Article 3 29, 33 cultural politics of
Article 12 4, 15, 24, 27, 30, 33, 134 childhood 111
Article 13 15, 74 education 85
Article 14 15 family 206
Article 15 15 moral panic 109
Articles 12–16 77 political commitment 99
asylum-seekers 5, 26, 29 political discourses 90
best interests of children 6, 15, 92, power 95
154, 155 protection 61, 66, 119–20
Child Care Act (1991 – Ireland) 90 quality of life 64, 178
children’s rights 1, 165 resource allocation 94
citizenship 224 UNCRC (United Nations
education 3 Convention on the Rights of
Human Rights Act (Norway) 20 the Child) 29
kindergarten 32 well being 227
participation 7, 16, 23, 61 welfare states
policies for children 2 childcare 132, 206, 208
political discourses 40 children’s rights 221, 231
political rights 17, 217 children’s status 12, 217,
research 75 218
UNICEF 1, 2 citizenship 223
United Kingdom (UK) 4, 7, 10, 11, family 220
105–29 good childhood 216
kindergarten 203
videos 67, 70, 76 poverty 225
Violence in the Family Law role of the state 4
(1994 – Cyprus) 154 Spain 6
250 Index
welfare states – continued UNCRC (United Nations

UNCRC (United Nations Convention on the Rights of
Convention on the Rights of the Child) 92
the Child) 40 welfare policies 227
welfare triangle 200
well being youth associations 173, 180, 185–6
children 206 youth culture 6
economics 115 youth facilities 181
health 74, 91 youth municipal council 14
quality of life 16, 17, 64, 178 Youth Welfare Act (Germany) 186
state intervention 222
television (TV) 75 Zinnecker, Jürgen 176, 177, 201

European Childhood

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

European Childhood

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

European Childhood

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

European Childhoods

Cultures, Politics and Childhoods in Europe

CONSTRUCTING CHILDHOOD: Theory, Policy and Social Practice

Allison James and Adrian L. James

Notes on the Contributors viii

1 European Childhoods: An Overview 1

2 Children as New Citizens: In the Best Interests of

3 Children in Nature: Cultural Ideas and Social

4 Children’s Cultures and New Technologies: A Gap

5 Children at the Margins? Changing Constructions

6 Changing Childhood in the UK: Reconstructing

7 Institutional Upbringing: A Discussion of the Politics

8 Education and the Cultural Politics of Childhood

9 Children’s Culture, Cultural Education and

10 Work and Care: Reconstructing Childhood through

11 Childhood in the Welfare State 216

In 2003, we had the pleasure of spending nearly two months working at

ALLISON AND ADRIAN JAMES

Ferran Casas is Senior Professor of Social Psychology in the Faculty of

Dympna Devine is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Education and

Eva Gulløv is a Senior Lecturer at the Department of Educational

Heinz Hengst was Professor of Social and Cultural Sciences,

Michael-Sebastian Honig is Professor of Educational Science at the

Adrian James has researched and published widely in the field of

Allison James is Professor of Sociology at the University of Sheffield. As

Anne Trine Kjørholt is Director and Associate Professor at the

Randi Dyblie Nilsen is Professor at the Norwegian Centre for Child

Jens Qvortrup is Magister and PhD in sociology at the University of

Spyros Spyrou is Director of the Centre for the Study of Childhood

The publication by UNICEF (2007) of a report comparing children’s wel-

can be drawn about the relationship between cultures, politics and

children’s rights, and in particular of the right to be involved in deci-

In chapter 2, Anne Trine Kjørholt explores the contrast between two

children. This contrasts sharply with current developments in England

In looking at recent changes in the social construction of childhood

of protection. Because such protective measures are so ‘obviously’ in the

in the construction of a ‘good childhood’. Thus, current policies aimed

national identity. This they do at least partly through their interactions

have always been, autonomous participants in the cultural process. This

This chapter discusses the dynamics between local notions of a (good)

Children’s participation rights under the UNCRC have been used as a

rights in a local context. An important question to be addressed is what

Children as new citizens?

The UNCRC has been described as revolutionary when compared to ear-

about the self-evident value of children’s participation (see review in

an alternative conceptualization of citizenship, a ‘child-friendly citizen-

1. Citizenship as rights (I get to vote).

Jans argues that a ‘children-sized citizenship’ is a dynamic and continu-

The legal status of the UNCRC in Norway

Discourses that construct children as competent social actors with rights

a result of incorporation, the age limit in Norwegian law for children’s

Play and freedom of choice – in ‘the best

As stated in the introduction, Mari like the majority of pre-school

volume). In this cultural context, children are constructed as a collective

Children have to be children on their own terms, based on their own

As we can see, adults are thought of as a threat to children, the relation-

1998). Self-determination is primarily understood as the individual’s

the Danish day-care institution probably stands at the threshold of

In the national curriculum for kindergartens, adopted in 2005, similar

that children should have the opportunity to experience belonging and