423
‘‘WE ARE ONE BIG, HAPPY FAMILY’’: BEYOND NEGOTIATION AND COMPULSORY HAPPINESS Bruno Vanobbergen, Michel Vandenbroeck, Rudi Roose, and Maria Bouverne-De Bie Department of Education and Department of Social Welfare Studies Ghent University
ABSTRACT. Much recent scholarship on changing educational practices in Western families focuses on the idea that negotiation has become the dominant approach to family household management. In this essay, Bruno Vanobbergen, Michel Vandenbroeck, Rudi Roose, and Maria Bouverne-De Bie examine the idea of the negotiation model functioning as a directive. To illustrate this process, they demonstrate how the contemporary vocabulary about parental education affects the construction of parental beliefs and the concepts that define research. The authors first present a genealogy of negotiation by looking at constructions of childhood and parenthood, as well as the educational practices that shape, and are in turn shaped by, these constructions. They then turn their attention to the concept of the autonomous self and its implications for family relations and family household practices.
In reviewing the literature on changing educational practices in Western families, one inevitably encounters the idea that we have transitioned toward a family household in which negotiation has become the dominant principle. The general thesis is that since the 1970s, the management style within family households has emphasized negotiation rather than command. Recently, historians of education have expressed doubts about the tenability of the negotiation hypothesis, pointing to the difficulty of configuring breaks within our Western history. In this article, we do not focus on the question of whether today’s households are more embedded in a sphere of negotiation than yesterday’s households. Our starting point lies rather in the idea of how the negotiation model functions as a directive. This directive is not solely important in terms of the functioning of families, but in terms of how social structures in general operate.1 The idea of negotiation is important to all sorts of mediation in society — as in the case of restorative justice, for instance. In this essay we will illustrate the negotiation model as a directive by articulating how the contemporary vocabulary about parental education affects the construction of parental beliefs and concepts of research. After a brief overview of negotiation as an educational concept and practice, we will present a genealogy of negotiation by looking at constructions of childhood and parenthood as well as the educational practices these constructions are shaped by and, in turn, are shaping. We will focus in particular on the concept of the autonomous self and its implications for family relations and family household practices. In the end we argue that the development of the negotiation model has resulted in a kind of educational relation that is characterized by an increasing individual autonomy. However, at the same time, the negotiation hypothesis has in fact affirmed
1. Nikolas Rose, ‘‘The Death of the Social? Re-figuring the Territory of Government,’’ Economy and Society 25, no. 3 (1996): 327–356. EDUCATIONAL THEORY j Volume 56 j Number 4 j 2006 Ó 2006 Board of Trustees j University of Illinois
424
E D U C AT I O N A L
THEORY
VOLUME 56 j NUMBER 4 j 2006
predominant educational practices within their broader social context in which parents are still held responsible for a good education, without taking into account the actual educational practices of parents and the meanings they derive from these practices. CHANGING PRACTICES IN FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS: THE NEGOTIATION HYPOTHESIS The identification of discrete periods in the history of educational thinking and practices is a significant contribution to our knowledge of pedagogy. Since the 1970s, researchers studying the history of education and socialization have described the main pattern of change that has taken place in family management style as a transition from management by command to management by negotiation. This analysis draws on the paradigm of civilization theory, which relies on the psychological model of personality and personality development that Sigmund Freud devised. Norbert Elias used Freud’s psychoanalytical theory to explain the way in which the changing conditions of social interaction between people are responsible for changing structures of personality in history.2 Elias’s study of the civilizing process covers the late Middle Ages and early modern period up to the French Revolution. He insisted that the macro- and microsociological changes that took place in Europe over the course of several centuries had gradually changed the whole apparatus of human relations. He introduced the notions Fremdzwang (constraints imposed by others) and Selbstzwang (internal constraints) as indicators of the change in how people controlled their emotions. Abraham de Swaan was one of the many social scientists captivated by the question of how Elias’s ideas could be applied to the developments of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.3 Changes in family life and the upbringing of children seem, he claims, to result from two psychosocial figurations: (1) changes in the relations among the generations and (2) changes in gender relations. According to de Swaan, the trajectory of these two
2. Ju¨rgen Zinnecker, Negotiating Relations between Generations: Family Education and Socialization in ‘‘Civilizing’’ Western Societies. An International Debate and the Empirical Case of German History (paper presented at the SISWO Symposium, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 1999). ¨ ber neuere Verschiebungen im 3. Abraham de Swaan, ‘‘Vom Befehlsprinzip zum Verhandlungsprinzip. U Gefu¨hlshaushalt der Menschen,’’ in Der unendliche Prozess der Zivilisation. Zur Kultursoziologie der Moderne nach Norbert Elias, eds. Helmut Kuzmics and Ingo Mo¨rth (Frankfurt am Main: Campus, 1991), 173–198. BRUNO VANOBBERGEN is Assistant Professor in the Department of Education at Ghent University, Department of Education, Henri Dunantlaan 1, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium; email \
[email protected][. His primary areas of scholarship are childhood studies and the history and philosophy of education. MICHEL VANDENBROECK is Assistant Professor in the Department of Social Welfare Studies at Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000 Ghent, Belgium; email \
[email protected][. His primary areas of scholarship are child care and social welfare studies. RUDI ROOSE is Professor in the Department of Social Welfare Studies at Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000 Ghent, Belgium; email \
[email protected][. His primary area of scholarship is youth care. MARIA BOUVERNE-DE BIE is Professor in the Department of Social Welfare Studies at Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000 Ghent, Belgium; email \
[email protected][. Her primary area of scholarship is social welfare studies.
VANOBBERGEN ET AL.
Beyond Negotiation and Compulsory Happiness
figurations in Western societies during the past few decades can be characterized as follows: the balance of power between genders has changed in favor of women and the balance of power between generations has changed in favor of the younger generation. This double shift describes the sociohistorical tendency that has been called the transition from a command household to a negotiation household: ‘‘A new educational ideology and practice has emerged, which we here call the negotiation household, that has made the ‘old’ style of upbringing, the command household, obsolete.’’4 During the last one hundred years and especially in recent decades, women and children have gained more power to shape their lives and to have a say in personal and social matters. In addition, as power balances become more equal, standard life-course models weaken, making room for more options and less gender-bound life perspectives. This process is accompanied by a leveling of class differences as well. Nowadays parents represent a generation of ‘‘negotiators’’ with their children. This means, on the whole, more communication between parents and children and also more reflection by parents on their educational aims and strategies. From the 1960s onward, parental educational values and behavior have shifted from the traditional authoritarian approach to more liberal and tolerant attitudes because of the general social trends toward secularization and cultural and moral modernization in the West. The tremendous influence of an increasingly protracted educational period and, as a consequence, the rising influence of the peer group in the lives of young people, along with a loosening of the bonds of social class as well as local and church traditions that guided parents in the past, are responsible for liberal parental attitudes today. During the 1980s and the 1990s much sociological and educational research was focused on finding empirical evidence in favor of the negotiation hypothesis. This research can be divided into two general categories: comparative research between more and less developed countries in the present time (synchronic research) and research on long-range developments within one or more regions, countries, or continents (diachronic research). For example, Manuela du Bois-Raymond developed an empirical typology of parent-child relations that proved of value in describing German as well as Dutch families.5 Among the families participating in her study, she found that in the grandparent’s generation a command style predominated, whereas the parents themselves practiced a much wider range of childrearing styles. Diachronic empirical research findings point to historical tendencies such as increased restrictions in parental punishment methods (a rejection of spanking, for instance), new balances of learning processes among the generations (for example, an increased willingness of parents to learn from the child), growing participation of children and youngsters in family decisions (as in participating in planning what to do on holidays), and new modes of negotiation among the generations. The overall trend toward an increased number of negotiating households is confirmed by nearly all empirical indicators. 4. Manuela du Bois-Raymond, ‘‘Negotiating Families,’’ in Childhood in Europe, eds. Manuela du BoisRaymond, Heinz Su¨ncker, and Heinz-Hermann Kru¨ger (New York: Peter Lang, 2001), 70. 5. Ibid.
425
426
E D U C AT I O N A L
THEORY
VOLUME 56 j NUMBER 4 j 2006
Research within the history of education, however, has recently called into question the negotiation hypothesis. This doubt does not relate to the concept of negotiation itself so much as to the possibility of change. Marc Depaepe and Hans van Crombrugge’s starting point lies in the complex process of educationalization — ‘‘the implicit set of rules that has grown inexorably stronger throughout modern history and which concerns an ‘educationally correct’ way of dealing with children, especially the ‘soft’ but simultaneously firm ‘psychosocial’ approach, which is geared towards the interiorization of socially desirable or bourgeois norms.’’6 They question the situated demarcations assumed by the advocates of the negotiation hypothesis by stating that binding affection from the child remains the determining factor in educationally correct behavior, even after the turbulent, revolutionary year of 1968. According to them, the fundamental rule of educationalization continues to dominate parents’ child-rearing behavior to this day. This does not mean that nothing has changed, but that, at their core, the patterns of interpersonal relations characterizing childrearing have remained remarkably stable over the years: ‘‘On the basis of our research into ‘educationalization,’ which set out to map the growing role of child-rearing and education in modern society since the eighteenth century, we believe that the ‘context’ of child-rearing has altered fundamentally, but that the ‘text’ has not.’’7 Nelleke Bakker agrees with this idea of order in progress.8 In her study of the Dutch advice literature for parents published during the second half of the twentieth century, she concludes that parents have always received the same old message of the need for tender and loving discipline — that is, of achieving the proper mix of control, support, and an appropriate amount of patience, tact, trust, and understanding. She further notes that Dutch experts have always advised parents against the extremes of either giving commands or discrediting their authority by negotiating things that cannot be negotiated in parenting, such as mutual trust, love, and respect. Finally, Depaepe touches upon another weakness of the negotiation hypothesis: it supports a view of history as an inevitable march toward progress.9 In this approach history is seen as an ever-improving evolution based on psychological changes in successive generations. Illustrative of this viewpoint is the psychogenetic theory of evolution of Lloyd deMause. According to deMause, the history of relations between parents and their children can be conceived as a gradual progression toward the empathic mode of interaction, starting with infanticide and ending with the helping mode. Educational practices have to be understood in terms of educational ambitions that are embedded within all educational acting and that become alive through
6. Marc Depaepe and Hans van Crombrugge, Parent-Child Relationships in the Post-War Flemish Family: A Shift from Command to Negotiation? (paper presented at the SISWO Symposium, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 1999), 4. 7. Ibid. 8. Nelleke Bakker, Child-Rearing in the Netherlands: Changing Styles or Changing Standards? (paper presented at the SISWO Symposium, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 1999). 9. Marc Depaepe, De Pedagogisering Achterna. Aanzet Tot een Genealogie van de Pedagogische Mentaliteit in de Voorbije 250 Jaar (Leuven: Acco, 1998).
VANOBBERGEN ET AL.
Beyond Negotiation and Compulsory Happiness
different kinds of educational activities. These educational ambitions reveal what is seen as important and valuable in educational theories. The realization of these ambitions is not only a concern of formal educational institutions; they are also a concern of parents and children. In their contact with formal educational institutions, parents and children work to realize their personal educational ambitions. At the same time, these ambitions express an overall picture of parenthood and childhood. In this way, parenthood and childhood are not arbitrary, discursive products; instead, they refer to a discursive practice or set of practices. Analyzing these generational practices should enable us to get an idea of what parenthood and childhood mean today. So studying parenthood and childhood requires multiple perspectives applied to the research goal of mapping the ‘‘kulturelle Grammatik’’ that structures the social and generational relations between children and adults in a society.10 The goal of this relational approach is to arrive at a perspective on parenthood and childhood that takes into account the social, economic, and cultural contexts within which images of parents and children are currently shaped. In the next section, we will contextualize the negotiation model and will analyze and problematize the concepts that underlie it, such as ‘‘children’s agency,’’ the ‘‘autonomous child,’’ and ultimately ‘‘negotiation’’ as the dialogical educational promised land. A GENEALOGY OF THE FAMILY Constructions of childhood are inevitably connected to constructions of adulthood in general and parenthood in particular. They mirror each other, are inextricably bound together, and therefore have to be viewed as one conceptually. However, they are not to be seen — as is often believed — as each other’s opposites or as antagonists. The mirror image of the fragile, powerless, and silenced child (a characterization that is rightly criticized within the literature of the sociology of childhood) is obviously not a strong, powerful, and silencing adult.11 On the contrary, historical research reveals that they are both deeply embedded within local and international political and social contexts. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, the family has developed as a key function within western European democracies and has formed the basis for social order. The model of middle-class family life has been represented as the answer to social problems such as poverty, child mortality, and criminality. By setting its own behavioral repertoire as an example for the working class, the middle class has not only functioned passively as a role model, but it has also deliberately tried to influence the behavior of the working class. Within this model, the head of the family — that is, the man — economically supports the nonactive family members, such as his wife and children. Problems with the upbringing of workingclass children that middle-class advocates attributed to ‘‘dangerous’’ and ‘‘familyundermining’’ employment of women in factories were taken care of by private 10. Michael Sebastian Honig, Entwurf einer Theorie der Kindheit (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1999). 11. See, for example, Allison James, Chris Jenks, and Alan Prout, Theorizing Childhood (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998).
427
428
E D U C AT I O N A L
THEORY
VOLUME 56 j NUMBER 4 j 2006
initiatives such as care-giving for mother and child. It is well documented how, during late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the rise of statistical, hygienic, and eugenicist sciences; the spread of industrialization and urbanization; the abolition of child labor; and other measures meant to ‘‘protect’’ the child ‘‘in need’’ were underpinned by the discursive construction of fragile children.12 With child mortality and youth criminality being major social concerns, philanthropic and charitable organizations for the very young emerged in all western European countries, bringing about a massive campaign for the enculturation of the working class. It is also quite clear that this construction of the fragile child in need of protection went hand in hand with the construction of a mother with a dual responsibility. Working-class mothers were believed to be responsible for their children’s well-being and child mortality was perceived as an offense of the mother toward her child as well as toward society at large. A close analysis of official reports and policy recommendations in Belgium from this period reveals that child mortality was never attributed to the context the families were living in, but always either to the neglect or to the ignorance of those mothers.13 Children needed protection — provided not by the adults in general, but by the bourgeoisie — against their working-class parents. The bourgeois philanthropic initiatives made it possible to intervene within the working-class families when they deviated from the middle-class family model, while this model continued to accentuate the inviolability of the family life. The private family was seen as a necessary counterpart to a harsh outside world — that is, as a ‘‘haven in a heartless world.’’14 With the privatization of the family, the care for the family also became institutionalized. Families were seen as being unable to provide for their own needs without the supervision of trained experts. This resulted in the first child protection law in Belgium, passed on May 15, 1912, concerning the protection of the child against his or her ‘‘unworthy parents’’ by entrusting the child’s care to private initiatives in such cases. Because the proper upbringing of the child within the family was seen as an important measure for preventing future social problems, the family became liable to social sanctions. The purpose of this transition was to change deviant family patterns and to introduce new educational perceptions. Unlike the earlier charitable care, ‘‘modern’’ care had to be methodologically substantiated and directed toward preventive educational actions meant ‘‘to help families help themselves.’’ Self-control became a key word: social service agencies had to ‘‘make themselves redundant’’ by teaching people to change their behavior and to deal with problematic situations more effectively. The central place of the family in society has two principal effects: (1) the concept of ‘‘the family’’ makes it 12. See, for example, Hugh Cunningham, Children and Childhood in Western Society since 1500 (London and New York: Longman, 1995); and Harry Hendrick, ‘‘Constructions and Reconstructions of British Childhood: An Interpretative Survey, 1800 to the Present,’’ in Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood, eds. Allison James and Alan Prout (London and Washington D.C.: Falmer Press, 1997), 34–62. 13. Michel Vandenbroeck, ‘‘From Cre`ches to Childcare: Constructions of Motherhood and Inclusion/ Exclusion in the History of Belgian Infant Care,’’ Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 4, no. 2 (2003): 137–148. 14. Christopher Lasch, Haven in a Heartless World: The Family Besieged (New York: Basic Books, 1977).
VANOBBERGEN ET AL.
Beyond Negotiation and Compulsory Happiness
possible to control social problems through social-political interventions, and (2) it also provides the structure for the design and legitimization of those services that undertake such interventions. This understanding of the family and its educational task has helped to shape the field of ‘‘social work’’: a totality of institutional social services concerned with the family and the education of a productive, qualified work force.15 The construction of childhood as fragile is thus clearly bound to a specific construction of the responsible mother and of the family as reproductive of social order, but, as Hugh Cunningham rightly observes, the identification of childhood as an area for state policy was accompanied and to some extent caused by declining confidence in the family’s ability to fulfill its social function.16 After the Second World War, the two-income family became materially and culturally (again) a standard model. Developmental psychology in general and attachment psychology in particular gain importance during periods in which child mortality decreases and the attention shifts to securing children’s ‘‘mental health.’’ Many scholars have criticized developmental and attachment psychology for silencing children and reinforcing the older paradigm of the fragile child in need of adult protection and education (understood as secure attachment and developmental stimulation).17 Moreover, they have shown how these approaches also reinforced the construction of the ‘‘responsible mother’’ and employed their ‘‘expert knowledge’’ of children to silence this mother. Again, the Belgian case is a good example, where massive governmental investments in infant and toddler consultation schemes were justified as measures necessary for educating young mothers in the new scientific insights about childrearing. Substantial reductions in poverty were the material consequence of the evolving life circumstances (that is, the reemergence of two-income households), but these changes also had cultural consequences: when both partners in a marriage are wage earners, this affects the division of tasks and corresponding role patterns within the family. As with society in general, the family became more individualized from the 1960s onward. As a result, emphasis shifted from the economic welfare of the family to the well-being of relations among family members. The heightened attention on family relations increased the demand for self-development opportunities for all members of the family. A wider range of behavior came to be considered acceptable, and, in turn, these behaviors became subject to new conventions, such as the necessity for mutual consultation and reciprocal agreement. The interaction between partners, and between parents and their children, was less subject to rules that dictated the result than in the middle-class family model, but it played a more compelling role in shaping family relations: this happened through personal interaction and negotiation among members, and emphasized the importance of respecting the rights of each individual family member. At the same time, social policy toward the family 15. Jacques Donzelot, La Police des Familles (Paris: Editions de Minuit, 1977). 16. Cunningham, Children and Childhood in Western Society since 1500. 17. See, for example, Erica Burman, Deconstructing Developmental Psychology (London: Routledge, 1994); and Gaile Canella, Deconstructing Early Childhood Education: Social Justice and Revolution (New York: Peter Lang, 1997).
429
430
E D U C AT I O N A L
THEORY
VOLUME 56 j NUMBER 4 j 2006
became emancipatory, with eliminating gender discrimination and recognizing the children’s rights as central points of focus. These were related to the development of new social services, including institutions and facilities providing support to families and education on such topics as interpersonal relations, sexuality, and birth control. The ‘‘new’’ Belgian law on child protection, adopted on April 8, 1965, exemplifies the shift to an emphasis on the quality of family relations in family policy. Assistance in the upbringing and education of the child was an important area of focus. It was viewed as a means to ‘‘activating’’ parents to fulfill their educational responsibility. A new facility — the ‘‘social protection’’ agency — was established to assist in this task of activating parents. Parents’ recognition and implementation of their educational role has long been seen as an important condition for good social integration of the children. This was already a crucial element of the 1912 child protection law. In the context of the individualizing society with a diverse range of family forms and careers, however, this task could no longer be forced onto families, but needed to be activated through negotiation. Therefore, a basic principle underlying the 1965 law on child protection is the need to educate parents about the importance of negotiation as a methodological tool for realizing ‘‘good’’ education. The effect of the new law was to increase state intervention within families. The postulated ‘‘democratic’’ family model assumes that all individual members will demonstrate relational and parental competency, and that this will be realized regardless of social conditions, including differences in available family time, in living accommodations, and in cultural capabilities or empathy for emancipation demands. The paradoxical position of the family that results from the contrast between these high demands and the differences in potential for individual families to fulfill them has made the family into a ‘‘nourishing institution.’’ Because the family is viewed by society as a shelter where one can be oneself, away from the tough outside world, this outside world has for the most part not been discussed within the debate concerning the family. At the same time the family is viewed as problematic when it fails to fulfill certain predetermined ambitions and is perceived as the cause of growing social problems. For these reasons, a number of educational facilities have been established, and these have increased the control over families. FAMILIES AS NEGOTIATED INSTITUTIONS The present-day focus on negotiation as an educational norm can be observed through the construction of a specific vocabulary that shapes the way we think about parents; through the growing interest in government-funded research on the practices characteristic of parental education, aimed at informing policies; and through shifts in parental beliefs about what qualifies as ‘‘good education.’’ Throughout the 1990s, for instance, du Bois-Raymond studied how negotiation operated in families under the authority of a Dutch governmental organization.18 She observed that in many of the publications around this issue, negotiation is depicted 18. Du Bois-Raymond, ‘‘Negotiating Families.’’
VANOBBERGEN ET AL.
Beyond Negotiation and Compulsory Happiness
as the ultimate ‘‘good.’’ This is made explicit by the construction of a typology of parenting modes that uses labels such as authoritarian and permissive or ‘‘laissezfaire’’ (that bear clearly negative connotations) and the more positive sounding ‘‘authoritative’’ label for negotiating parents. At present, this vocabulary has become hegemonic in academic research on parenting in the field of psychology as well as in the field of education.19 It is not only used as the ultimate label for ‘‘good parenting’’ but it is also assumed to be an accurate predictor of adolescent and adult behavior. Du Bois-Raymond’s research is just one of a growing number of studies that national governments have commissioned or funded in order to monitor the negotiation processes within families. Similar ethnographic research was undertaken during the same period in several Scandinavian countries, also in close connection to their governments.20 In 1999, the Flemish (Belgian) governmental organization responsible for children and families produced a large survey on this topic, concluding that within families negotiation is generally accepted as the norm for education. The vast majority of children live in families where the parents say that they favor the child’s autonomy and that decisions are primarily made in consultation with them. Our concern here is not so much to determine whether the majority of Flemish families indeed do negotiate with their children but to note that they perceive negotiation as the educational norm for them as parents. Recently, the Flemish Children’s Rights Commissioner ordered a large-scale study on negotiation within the family, interviewing children as well as their parents. The research findings seem to show that parents more often report that they negotiate with their children (on subjects such as holidays, television, clothing, leisure time, and the like) than their children do. The researchers assume that the difference in opinion is due to an overestimation by the parents and not an underestimation on the part of the children, although no field observations have been carried out to substantiate this assumption. They conclude that parents have certain problems and insecurities about their educative role in the family and that they are in need of parent support programs.21 Research suggests that this conclusion is largely accepted by parents themselves.
19. For an example of this trend in psychology scholarship, see Paula Villar, Maria Angeles Luengo, Jose´ Antonio Gomez-Fraguela, and Estrella Romero, ‘‘Assessment of the Validity of Parenting Constructs Using the Multitrait-Multimethod Model,’’ European Journal of Psychological Assessment 22, no. 1 (2006): 59–68. For an example of this trend in education scholarship, see Jelani Mandara, ‘‘The Impact of Family Functioning on African American Males’ Academic Achievement: A Review and Clarification of the Empirical Literature,’’ Teachers College Record 108, no. 2 (2006): 206–223. On the broad reach of this trend across cultures, see Marwan Dwairy and Kariman E. Menshar, ‘‘Parenting Style, Individuation, and Mental Health of Egyptian Adolescents,’’ Journal of Adolescence 29, no. 1 (2006): 103–117. 20. Oleg Langsted and Hanne Haavind, ‘‘La Garde Durant la Journe´e et la Famille: La Vie Quotidienne des Enfants en Scandinavie,’’ in Rapport de la Confe´rence sur l‘Emploi des Parents et la Garde des Enfants, ed. Ministe`re danois des Affaires Sociales (Copenhagen : Ministe`re danois des Affaires Sociales, 1993). 21. Lieven De Rijcke, ‘‘Beleving van het Gezin: De Relatie Tussen Ouders en Kinderen,’’ in Kom je dat thuis eens vertellen? Visies van ouders en kinderen op het dagelijkse leven in het gezin, eds. Leen Ackaerts, Peter Brants, Lieven De Rijcke, and Bea Van den Bergh (Leuven: ACCO, 2003), 53–84.
431
432
E D U C AT I O N A L
THEORY
VOLUME 56 j NUMBER 4 j 2006
This ‘‘history of the present’’ perspective reveals how constructions of childhood/parenthood are conceptually united and how both children and their mothers are weakened or silenced by the dominant discourse on the family. Power relations have a much more subtle and reciprocal nature than is often recognized, as Michel Foucault and Pierre Bourdieu have shown. To avoid a reductionist view of power relations, according to Bourdieu, one needs to take into account the perspective of the actors as being fully part of the social world. The subjectivist vision considers social reality as a fragile and continuous realization of competent actors constructing their social world.22 This perspective can be seen as a plea for research on how discourse is spoken into practice, or, to put it in Foucauldian terms, to look at how both discourses and techniques operate in the construction of subjectivities.23 A closer analysis indeed reveals how parents themselves have contributed to their own silencing by taking over a lay version of the expert discourse on developmental stages and parental responsibility from an educationalist’s perspective. We might also conclude that these constructions are historical and that childhood cannot be studied in isolation from society as a whole, notwithstanding the fact that contextual issues are not addressed when educationalists discuss the family. Arguably, the factors that have most affected childhood, both as a set of ideas and as a phase of life, have been economic and demographic, followed closely by political factors. There is no obvious reason to believe that things are significantly different today. Indeed, let us return to the present-day discourse on negotiation. If it is true that there is a new paradigm of an autonomous child and of educational practices (inspired by a dialogical pedagogy and negotiating educators), and if it is true that we can look upon this paradigm as empowering — or, better still, ‘‘liberating’’ — children, this raises the following question: liberating them from what, or from whom? The shift in paradigm is often described as a significant turn. For instance, Allison James, Chris Jenks, and Alan Prout coined the term the ‘‘presociological child’’ to describe the construction of the fragile child and maintained that on this view the child served as ‘‘the dustbin of history.24 This seems to be a remarkably modernistic understanding of postmodernism. Many scholars state that the end of the millennium is more than the change of an arbitrary date. They suggest that, historically, changes in millennia have been accompanied by deep changes in the relation of individuals to authority and in the way social life is organized. Ulrich Beck uses the concept of the post-traditional society, in which the classic division of individuals into groups (based on such differences as gender and class) is no longer sufficient to understanding how people think and feel, what their convictions are, and how they relate to the authorities.25
22. Pierre Bourdieu, Homo Academicus (Paris: Les Editions de Minuit, 1984). 23. Michel Foucault, Politics, Philosophy, Culture: Interviews and Other Writings, 1977–1984 (London: Routledge, 1990). 24. James, Jenks, and Prout, Theorizing Childhood, 9. 25. Ulrich Beck, ‘‘Democratization of the Family,’’ Childhood 4, no. 2 (1997): 151–168.
VANOBBERGEN ET AL.
Beyond Negotiation and Compulsory Happiness
Because the old borderlines are fading (for instance, between men and women, laborers and clerks, and so on), the individual has more choices. For Foucault, too, the most important characteristic of our modern rationalism is that the integration of individuals in a social totality originates from a continuous simultaneity of their steadily increasing individualization and the reinforcement of this totality.26 Many decisions concerning the construction of a family — to get or to remain married, whether and when to have children, what school to choose — are individual decisions, at least in our perception. The connection with former traditions is unclear. Autonomy, freedom of choice, and independence are the new values. In this light, the individual is his or her own entrepreneur in a regime of self-governance. These new norms also stress fostering the development of the autonomous self as an educative objective in childcare.27 This tendency also has a drawback, however: the individual decision coincides with an individual responsibility. ‘‘Not to choose’’ has become impossible; we are now responsible for the consequences of the choices we make. This de-traditionalized individual coincides with the construction of the autonomous self, which accentuates two values, namely, openness and honesty. On this understanding, self-analysis of one’s feelings and thoughts is a value in itself; moreover, all this needs to be discussed. ‘‘Deliverance’’ from traditions, moral norms, and gender roles does not necessarily lead to freer individuals, as Foucault made clear.28 The individuals freed from traditional constraints discover that they are dependent on the labor market, training offers, and social welfare regulations and benefits. This development reinforces families as negotiated institutions. The birth of a child, for instance, is a negotiation of the single mother or of the married or unmarried heterosexual or homosexual couple living together. The negotiation does not only concern the relation between the partners, but their relation with the child as well. Since the 1960s, there has been a demand for negotiation as an educative ideal, and, in the last decades of the twentieth century, this ideal became elevated to the norm. This shift is well illustrated by the success of books such as Thomas Gordon’s popular Parent Effectiveness Training, which, since its first appearance in 1970, was in its twentieth edition in Dutch by 1998.29 To a much greater extent than in previous centuries, child-rearing has become a matter of negotiation between parents and children, with the state and other agencies monitoring and inspecting the process. In this process, ideas about childhood that exist in the public domain act as a framework within which adults and children work out ways of living. There are indeed many examples of state-commissioned
26. Foucault, Politics, Philosophy, Culture. 27. Peter Moss, ‘‘Getting beyond Childcare: Reflections on Recent Policy and Future Possibilities,’’ in Rethinking Children’s Care, eds. Peter Moss and Julia Brannen (Buckingham: Open University Press, 2003). 28. Michel Foucault, L‘Herme´neutique du sujet. Cours au Colle`ge de France 1981–1982 (Paris: Seuil/ Gallimard, 2001). 29. Thomas Gordon, Parent Effectiveness Training: The Proven Program for Raising Responsible Children (New York: Three Rivers Press, 1970).
433
434
E D U C AT I O N A L
THEORY
VOLUME 56 j NUMBER 4 j 2006
research that investigates — or monitors — negotiation practices in families in different countries, including The Netherlands, Scandinavian countries, or Flanders in Belgium. Poststructuralist researchers have claimed that the pedagogical focus on the autonomous child and its attention to self-expression are typically linked to the liberal, free market–oriented society that is always in need of autonomous, entrepreneurial individuals.30 The conclusion that self-expression and individuality rank higher on the educational agenda than solidarity or discipline is a rather recent social and historical construction, in line with theories of globalization and neoliberalism, not only in the West, but also in the East. Erica Burman explains that the attention paid to the autonomous child is linked with the rational, unitary subject that is so central in psychology because it represents the self-regulating, responsible citizen in late industrialized society — that is, the individual taxpayer, the bearer of legal responsibilities, the rational individual of the free market economy.31 Nikolas Rose similarly observes that the language of self-realization is one of therapeutic individualism.32 In Anthony Giddens’s Third Way, he sees the trend toward individualizing social phenomena as linked to neoliberalism in the international economy and to a naı¨ve enthusiasm for the mantras of managerial gurus.33 Indeed, it is paradoxical that the politics of the Third Way may involve efforts for social inclusion that actually create systems of exclusion, and attempts to expand civil society that ultimately serve to enhance the regulating powers of the state, including practices for individual empowerment that in fact diminish popular control. One could argue that the autonomous, entrepreneurial individual has been constructed in reaction to the weakened nation-states in the era of globalization and, therefore, represents how changes in a specific mode of thought and governing, rather than inevitably creating more freedom for the child or the adult (as assumed in the view of history as progress), instead create a specific form of freedom.34 We can indeed observe some specific changes in governing, including the fact that the intimate participation of the state in the lives of its citizens appears to have been replaced by a more distant form of governance. The relation between the state and the individual is evolving toward a partnership built on mutuality and reciprocity, with a commonsense feeling that there are no rights without responsibilities. Social services in this context are no longer simple
30. See, for example, Joseph Tobin, ‘‘The Irony of Self-Expression,’’ American Journal of Education 103, no. 3 (1995): 233–258; and Canella, Deconstructing Early Childhood Education. 31. Burman, Deconstructing Developmental Psychology. 32. Nikolas Rose, ‘‘Community, Citizenship, and the Third Way,’’ The American Behaviorist Scientist 43, no. 9 (2000): 1395–1411. 33. Anthony Giddens, The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998). 34. Jan Masschelein and Maarten Simons, ‘‘An Adequate Education in a Globalised World? A Note on Immunisation against Being-Together,’’ Journal of Philosophy of Education 36, no. 4 (2002): 589–608.
VANOBBERGEN ET AL.
Beyond Negotiation and Compulsory Happiness
entitlements, but entail personal responsibility and self-sufficiency on the part of the individual. The individual is supposed to commit him- or herself to lifelong learning, and he or she is in this (Third) way partly responsible for the (individualized) risk of unemployment. As Tom Popkewitz argues, policies affecting the new child are made in the name of democracy and liberty in a global world: ‘‘The salvation theme is of future economic progress and the promise of equity and justice in schools..The redemptive language of modern pedagogy is to help children become good citizens, better adjusted people, and active learners.’’35 Jan Masschelein and Maarten Simons draw the conclusion that the entrepreneurial self, as they call it, is expected to take charge of his or her own future.36 The reverse side of the new freedom that is supposed to be created is the obligation to inform oneself of different possibilities, to balance them in a cost-effect analysis, and to make rational decisions about the best possible investment (in children, in one’s own education, and so on) for the future. In this sense, the discourse on the autonomy of adults as well as children constructs a responsible citizen as one who has individual responsibility over his or her lifelong learning course, his or her own employment and social integration, the education of his or her own children, and so on, thus masking structural inequalities. A close look at the way family education has evolved over time shows that the history of modernity cannot simply be written in terms of growing freedom for children or for any individual. On the contrary, the concept of freedom seems to have evolved into compulsory happiness, where specific techniques of the self function as techniques for governing freedom. It also shows how constructions of childhood and parenthood are interconnected with the wider political and social structures. The focus on children’s agency and negotiation as educational norms is closely intertwined with globalization, neoliberalization, and a renewed conceptualization of the welfare state in which social problems tend to be individualized. Interest-based negotiation is perceived to be preparation for the adult’s life in a modern democracy that favors individual autonomy over interdependency. In this vein, the liberation of childhood seems to be another salvation theme — one that functions as a regime of truth. Salvation themes encompass certain educational and cultural practices that relate to social exclusion as well as inclusion. Within these practices, normalized qualities of the child and parent inscribe systems of exclusion by constituting children and parents who do not fit the distinctions and dispositions of reasonable people. On this analysis, looking at children as a separate category — in contrast to adults — may lead to a better understanding of and recognition for children, but it may at the same time mask some commonalities in how specific groups of children and their parents are marginalized and silenced.
35. Tom Popkewitz, ‘‘Partnerships, the Social Pact, and Changing Systems of Reason in a Comparative Perspective,’’ in Educational Partnerships and the State: The Paradoxes of Governing Schools, Children and Families, eds. Barry M. Franklin, Marianne Bloch, and Tom Popkewitz (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), 37. 36. Masschelein and Simons, ‘‘An Adequate Education in a Globalised World?’’
435
436
E D U C AT I O N A L
THEORY
VOLUME 56 j NUMBER 4 j 2006
THE EDUCATIONALIST AS NEGOTIATING EXPERT Social and educational facilities have their own specific place in this development. On the one hand, they contribute to an increase in the capacity of parents. Not only do they fulfill the wish of parents to raise their children in the best way possible, but they also meet the social demand for preventing deviant behavior and guaranteeing all children a good education. On the other hand, by profiling themselves as educational experts, these same social and educational facilities contribute to parental insecurity and to a negative perception of those parents who choose not to participate in educational facilities considered socially necessary or desirable. This process is reinforced by the focus on an evidence-based approach and by the emphasis on efficacy and efficiency of educational interventions, as seen, for instance, in the popular managerial framework of ‘‘total quality care.’’ Currently, a lot of attention has been given to the organization of parental training, and these initiatives have been represented as highly effective. But the claim that such initiatives are effective considers only those parents who have had positive experiences and who agreed with the definition of the problem in the first place. Furthermore, it suggests that parents who do not participate in such initiatives (for instance, those who view their situation as a problem of poverty rather than an educational problem) are to blame for social problems. Put another way, parents who do recognize themselves in the facilities and therefore experience them as supportive are often regarded as responsible parents; parents who do not cooperate are labeled as irresponsible and are often treated in a more repressive manner. To take one example, the mayor of a Flemish city recently proposed fining parents whose children committed a crime if the parents did not subsequently participate in a parental training course. This kind of parental support is a good illustration of the type of educational practice that includes as well as excludes.37 The development of the negotiation model in education goes hand in hand with a change in the educational relation that has moved us toward an increased focus on individual autonomy. The approach of educational practices within their broader social context, also the basis for the structure of families, has not changed. The marginalization of parents in educational discussions is a natural outgrowth of the historical development of educational practices in which experts have taken a dominant position. As a result of this development, educational discussion is mainly controlled by experts’ discourses, which are then adopted by parents in a mutual dependency. Consequently, there is need for more contextualized research that not only looks at actual educational practices in a wide range of families, but also takes into account the ways in which parents make meaning of these practices. This may be beneficial for constructing dialogues that bridge expert and parental discourses and for taking into account the realities of diverse parents, as well as their various interpretations of these realities, in constructing educational concepts. When we reduce parental participation to applying a narrow methodological
37. Barry M. Franklin, Marianne Bloch, and Tom Popkewitz, ‘‘Educational Partnerships: An Introductory Framework,’’ in Educational Partnerships and the State, eds. Franklin et al., 1–23.
VANOBBERGEN ET AL.
Beyond Negotiation and Compulsory Happiness
principle (that is, negotiation) in order to realize ‘‘good’’ education,’’ families remain vulnerable to state intervention when their educational practice deviates from the currently dominant educational model. CONCLUSION The centrality of social practices and relations in the construction of educational models leads us to the question of how educationalists handle the negotiation of these practices and relations, and, in this, how they construct an image of themselves in relation to parents and children.38 One way to handle this question is to define the educationalist as an expert who holds the answers to many problems. When faced with complex and contextual problems (and their own perceived inadequacy for dealing with these), educationalists tend to reduce and compartmentalize those problems. In doing so, they reconstruct their clients’ problems to fit their own educational vision. By taking this approach, educationalists, whether intentionally or not, promote the homogenization of education. Educationalists present their efforts as empowering and participatory, pointing to client satisfaction as the desirable outcome that legitimizes their actions.39 A contrasting approach would be based on the idea that dialogue with families is embedded in a powerful relation. From this standpoint, the empowered position of educationalists obliges them to justify their interventions and to reflect on the effects they produce. Because educational practices are uncertain, parents, children, and educationalists must struggle together with how best to solve concrete problems. In this approach, fundamental change in educational practice is seen as the result of such a partnership — one in which reflection on and discussion about societal developments and the changing position of families are viewed as important and serve as the starting point for a dialogue between educationalists and parents about their reciprocal roles and responsibilities.
38. Arnon Bar-On, ‘‘Restoring Power to Social Work Practice,’’ British Journal of Social Work 32, no. 8 (2002): 997–1014. 39. Christopher Hall, Kirsi Juhila, Nigel Parton, and Tarja Po¨so¨, Constructing Clienthood in Social Work and Human Services: Interaction, Identities and Practices (London and New York: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2003).
437
