ABSTRACT

The dominant and prevailing western representation of childhood conceptualizes an idealized world of innocence and joy; a period of fantastic freedom, imagination and seamless opportunity. Children are thought to occupy the space provided by a ‘walled garden’ which protects them from ‘the harshness of the world outside’ (Holt, 1975:22). The adult-child relation is said to provide protection: serving the ‘best interests of the child’ and meeting ‘children’s needs’. The adult is guardian and is charged with responsibility for the child’s welfare. Such popular understanding and cultural representation is underpinned by a particular form of what Shamgar-Handelman (1994:250) refers to as ‘emotional, value-laden and moralistic rhetoric’ which accommodates an ‘unquestioning, complacent acceptance of whatever social, educational and political arrangements have arisen to cope with them [children]’ (Scarre, 1989: x). This childhood ‘reality’ is questionable, demanding critical evaluation. Accordingly, concepts such as the ‘good of the child’, the ‘best interests of the child’ and ‘children’s needs’ have been challenged (Rodham, 1976), as have idealistic representations of childhood as an unproblematic period of innocence, freedom, limited responsibility and minimal obligations (Postman, 1982; Winn, 1983). Moreover, the very nature and application of power which characterizes the child-adult relation and the uncritical acceptance of the protective imperative cannot be sustained.