Conclusion

In an article on ‘Changing images of aging and the social construction of the life course’, Tamara K. Hareven describes the ‘complex process’ of ‘the “discovery” of a new stage of life’ (121). Such a ‘discovery’ begins, according to Hareven, with individuals’ awareness of the distinct character of a particular stage of life. As professionals formulate the distinctive features and popular media publish respective statements or images, the discovery is then popularized. In a next step, the particular conditions of the stage of life are associated with social problems, whereupon they become institutionalized, for example through legislation or by establishing institutions that are particularly intended for that stage. All this finally influences the ‘experience of individuals going through such a stage [of life]’ (Hareven, 121-2). Although I tend to agree with the individual parts Hareven names for the process of distinguishing a new stage of life – or, more generally, a new social group – I doubt whether the conceptual metaphor of a discovery has not tempted her to devise too linear a narrative. The previous chapters have shown that the process of identifying and framing a stage of life, for example childhood, hardly proceeds in such a sequential pattern. For one thing, it is almost impossible to decide on the actual starting point of the process. research can scarcely grasp the awareness of individuals, as suggested by Hareven, but can only rely on manifestations of this awareness in verbal or visual representations. Besides, my study on eighteenth-century childhood concepts has illustrated that the association of a distinct social group with particular social, political or economic problems informs the emergence and proliferation of the concepts from the very beginning. Taking into account the constructive power of mass media and their impact on the creation of cultural images, I would therefore suggest that the relationship of different stages in the process described by Hareven is a reciprocal one. rather than assuming a sequential, evolutionary development of childhood concepts in the eighteenth century, these concepts may be more adequately approached via a spatial perspective, by describing how different frames of reference intersect and how they are transformed to create new spaces for childhood and new cultural images. Situated within such a flexible space, childhood cannot be simply discovered or lost. Instead, periodicals and prints provide evidence of the contingency of different childhood concepts in eighteenth-century mass media, thus resisting the homogenizing view that pervades the greater part of critical studies on children and childhood in the eighteenth century. By frequently representing children or issues pertaining to childhood, eighteenth-century print media establish a communicative space where childhood is identified as an important topic for eighteenth-century society. Through different thematic selections, which focus on particular aspects

of childhood and which are frequently interrelated, certain conceptualizations of childhood are consolidated; and by confirming and generalizing these concepts, the print media create a professedly legitimate childhood identity in distinction from supposedly illegitimate versions.