Bossard en Word

7/24/2019 Bossard en Word

1/5

. THE CHILD: WELFARE OBJECTIVE AND SCIENTIFIC CONCEPT JAMES H. S.BOSSARD The William Carter Fo!"atio! #!i$er%it& o' Pe!!%&l$a!ia

One of the striking differences between sociology and certain other of the life sciences

dealing with human relationships is to be found in the nature and degree of emphasis

placed upon the child and the processes of child development. Sociologists have shownlittle inclination thus far to consider childhood as a separate area for scientific

exploration. It is interesting and albeit significant to note how few times the words child

and children appear in sociological texts, including those with chapters on the family

and on personality development. In psychology, by way of contrast, from the beginning

of its development on a scientific basis, the child was the main center of interest. It is

significant to note that the late G. Stanley Hall was both a pioneer in merican

psychology and an outstand!ing specialist in child psychology. "oreover, the history of

the application of psychology to human problems has been largely that of its ap!

plication to child problems, first to problems which were chiefly pedagogical in nature,

and then later to the problems of child behavior. "uch the same can be said about the

evolution of psychiatry. Its initial emphases, once psychiatry left the mental hospital and

stepped into the arena of everyday life, have been largely upon the behavior processes

and problems of childhood and youth. In both of these sciences, the concentration upon

the child seemed inevitable as a matter of scientific se#uence and pedagogically sound

as an application of the pro$ect method. In addition to the example of these closely

related sciences, other factors combine to throw the sociological detour around the child

into even bolder relief. One of these has been the sociologist%s emphasis upon the family

as a social institution. &ourses dealing with the family are offered by virtually all

sociology departments in merican colleges and universities. 'he (ennedys haveshown% recently that such a course is one of the three or four standard courses in

merican sociology. lthough the child obviously is an integral part of the family, the

emphasis given to the child in sociological textbooks on the family tends to be

somewhat meager and incidental. 'wo notable exceptions to this are )rofessor Groves%

book on 'he *amily and Its Social *unctions, published in +-, and )rofessor

*olsom%s recent /+-01 book on 'he *amily and 2emocratic Society. nother related

fact in the development of merican sociology has been the recognition of specific

population elements as proper areas for scientific treatment, and the emergence of

standardi3ed courses dealing with such elements. *or example, among the earliestspeciali3ed courses given in merican departments of sociology were those dealing

with the 4egro, the immigrant, the criminal, the socially subnormal, and the like. "ore

recently, the terminology employed in some of these course headings has changed

somewhat, but the general population area or element covered has remained

substantially the same. In other words, a considerable part of the history of merican

sociology has involved the selection of a population group or a life area, and its

scientific ex! + 5aymond (ennedy and 5uby 6o 5eeves (ennedy, 7Sociology in

merican &olleges,7 'he merican Sociological 5eview /October, +-81, pp. 99+!9:9.

0: 'his content downloaded from +9-.:0.88-.8 on 'hu, +- 6an 8+9 +;0;


2/5

OB6@&'IC@ It is not unlikely that sociologists have been influenced in their attitude

toward childhood as an area for scientific exploitation by the way in which the child

came into their professional province. 'he child came to the serious attention of the

modern world as an ob$ect of tender solicitude and of organi3ed welfare endeavor. It

was as such that the child was first regarded by sociologists. 'his was wholly natural,

for the desire for social uplift was a part of the background out of which sociology

arose. Aith this original primary emphasis upon social amelioration, the welfare of the

child became an obvious and logical ob$ective. 'he emphasis in the scientific approach

to human welfare was upon prevention, and the prevention of social problems was

interpreted to mean, if it meant anything, the promotion of the well!being of children.

'hus naturally in the course of time, the child became the largest concern in the field of

social work, both in the number of workers employed and in the amount of moneys

expended. 'hus, too, courses in sociology which dealt with the child were of the

problem kind, and emphasi3ed ameliorative measures. 'hese have been referred to

customarily as courses in &hild Aelfare and they constitute an integral part of the

course offerings by sociology departments. 'he (ennedys have shown8 them to place

fourteenth in the general rank order of specific courses in sociology. 'H@ &HII2 S

S&I@4'I*I& &O4&@)' In recent years, another approach to child study and problems

has come to be made by social scientists, and sociology naturally has shared in this

development. 'his newer approach can be summari3ed most tersely perhaps by saying

that the child is regarded as a scientific concept rather than as a welfare ob$ective. In

other words, the child is seen as a functioning reality in whose development are

combined the various speciali3ed problems of particular groups of scientific students.

&hildhood, in short, serves as a pro$ect study, drawn from life rather than from thelaboratory or library, in which may be observed various personality and societal

processes. 'o say, then, that the child emerges as a scientific concept does not imply an

approach that is theoretic or academic, as the phrase might indicate, but an intensely

practi!cal one, especially for purposes of scientific research and analysis. It makes the

child%s sociali3ation and social development a distinctive and legitimate scientific area

for sociologists, $ust as it has been for psychologists and psychiatrists. SO&IO?OGD

42 'H@ 5@ O* &HI?2HOO2 'hinking in terms of the realities of a functioning

society, there are a number of reasons for sociologists to center much of their work

around the child. Ahether one begins from the point of view of group processes and

analy3es them in terms of their simple beginnings, or whether one makes a lengthwise

historical approach to the processes of personality formation and development, one is

led in either event directly to the area of childhood. Some of the more obvious relation!

ships between this area and the scope of con!temporary sociological thought will be

indicated in brief form. +. 'he Sociological &onception of )ersonality. &ontemporary

sociologists conceive of the human personality as a product of social conditioning. In

this process, two sets of conditioning factors are recogni3ed as of outstanding

importance. One of these is the interactive experience of life within the group.

Sociologists discuss this currently under the headings of 7social interaction7 or 7the role

of the group.7 But the influence of relationships with other persons is modified or#ualified constantly by what these other persons have learned, i.e., their cultural


3/5

heritages. 'hus we identify the second set of conditioning factors as the cultural ones,

comprehending the more or less accepted group ways of doing and thinking. 'hese, of

course, are sociological commonplaces today. 'hey are recalled here because of their

implications, not fully recogni3ed as yet by many contemporary sociologists. 'hree of

these implications are emphasi3ed here. 'he first is the obvious fact that the social

conditioning of the personality during the first years of life is of primary importance.

4ot only are the factors operating during this period the first to condition the individual

but there are no or few counter influences to overcome. ll this is but another way of

stating that the basic patterns of personality are laid during the period of childhood. 'he

second implication is that the sociological processes of personality formation can best

be 8 Ibid., p. 999. 'his content downloaded from +9-.:0.88-.8 on 'hu, +- 6an 8+9

+;0;


4/5

this in these words; 7Ahen society is conceived as a functioning process, a continuing

outgoiIng in a way suggestive of the individual consciousness which carries the past

into the present and establishes purposes directed toward the future, it is certain that the

relationship of adult with child has in this cultural flow a more pregnant meaning than

the contact of adult with adult.70 Such relative emphasis, it is at once apparent, is far

different from that which one finds in the literature of sociology. Once the foregoing

role of the child is grasped, it follows that the transmission of culture from one

generation to another is essentially the process of child rearing and indoctrination. 'hus

arises the conception of education as the whole process whereby the child is inducted

into his culture, and whereby through the child a cultural heritage is transferred from

one generation to the next. Such, for example, is the concept of education manifest on

every page in 6ohn 2ewey%s outstanding book on 2emocracy and @ducation or in every

article in the symposium on 7@ducation and the &ultural )rocess,7 as published in the

"ay +-0 issue of the merican 6ournsal of Sociology. 74o living culture,7 writes

Herskovits, 7exists that is not in a constant state of change.7- &ultural discontinuities, in

other words, are constantly occurring in the life of societies. 'here is, how!ever, this

revolutionary change in our recent attitudes toward them. Ahereas formerly they were

for the most part opposed or tolerated with slow and grudging assent, today we

welcome them and seek to promote them. 'he purpose of a great deal of the

contemporary educational process is to train children for cultural discontinuities. Ae

educate mostly to change and raise status, not to maintain it. Ae now study the wisdom

of the fathers to improve upon it. 'he lore of the past is on the agenda of education

mostly for purposes of revision. &hildren are trained beyond their families and class.

'he personalities of budding youth are to be recon! 0 @rnest 5. Groves, 'he *amily andIts Social *tunc!tions /)hiladelphia; 6. B. ?ippincott and &o., +-1, p. +9. -"elville 6.

Herskovits, 7@ducation and &ultural 2ynamics,7 merican 6ournal of Sociology /"ay,

+-01, p. :0:. 'his content downloaded from +9-.:0.88-.8 on 'hu, +- 6an 8+9

+;0;


5/5

attempted to assess their roleE while all the time, we might have started more

intelligently with the child and studied the normal processes of its development,

ultimately coming to an understanding of deviant behavior in social relationships. In the

medical field, the study of disease follows and is built upon an under!standing of bodily

structure and processE a similar procedure in sociology would make the study of

$uvenile delin#uency but an incidental postscript to the study of the sociali3ation of the

child. -. Group 5elations and the &hild. 'he sociology of child development is an

important part of the science of group relations. &hildren are a definite population

element. ll societies recogni3e the distinctive existence of groups organi3ed on an age

basis. nthropologists have shown the prevalence and importance of the age

classificatory device in primitive cultures,< and more recently sociologists have come to

emphasi3e its role in contemporary society. 9 'he ascription of the child%s status and the

ways for the child and youth to achieve status!these are the heart of the class system of

any societyE the status of the child element in the population, the factors affecting its

status, and its relationship to other population elements!these are a ma$or part of the

problem of group relations in sociology. 'here are other and important phases of a

sociology of childhood. 'he foregoing discussion is intended to be suggestive and

illustrative rather than exhaustive. )ossibly it will serve to indicate that a sociologist

speciali3ing in the field of child development is not merely a sentimental reformist, but

may even have the legitimate interests of a Brahmin sociologist. "ore important,

however, is the hope that this paper may serve as a part of the agenda for post!war

planning in sociology. It is dear, even now, that our colleges and universities are

undergoing important changes as a result of the war, and that the post!war period will

see significant changes in the curriculum in general and in the specific courseadaptations of particular departments. In such event, social scientists may find the child

a challenging pattern of operating actuality, and sociologists may see in the social

development of the child a ma$or area for scientific exploration and an intriguing pro$ect

for pedagogical exploitation. *or this is the stimulating challenge of the child as a

scientific concept, that in it so many of the basic principles of sociology and of the

unexplored problems of sociological research are combined into an operating pattern, at

a time in the life of the individual, and in a stage of simplified development, when they

may be most readily understood. < 5alph ?inton, 7ge and Sex &ategories,7 'he

merican Sociological 5eview /October, +-81, pp. !9-E and ?inton, 7 4eglected

spect of Social Organi3ation,7 merican 6ournal of Sociology /"ay +-1, pp. >:!

>>:. 9 ?eonard S. &ottrell, 7'he d$ustment of the Individual to His ge and Sex

5oles,7 'he merican Sociological 5eview /October +-81, pp. 9+:!98+E 'alcott

)arsons, 7ge and Sex in the Social Structure of the =nited States,7 ibid., pp. 9-!9+:E

@arl H. Bell, 7ge Group &onflicts and Our &hanging &ulture,7 Social *orces

/2ecember +001, pp. 80:!8-0. 'his content downloaded from +9-.:0.88-.8 on 'hu, +-

6an 8+9 +;0;

Documents

Bossard en Word