Thank you to everyone for contributing to the great discussion we had today on children’s literature. We outlined several key points and raised some interesting questions, such as:
1. Children’s literature emerged relatively recently during the 18th century when the idea of childhood as a separate developmental state became more and more clear. John Locke and his ideas of the Tabula Rasa (or “blank slate”) were crucial in this development. Our notions that we have today about childhood are distinctly different from historical concepts of childhood which are reflected in the time period’s literature and its paintings.
2. One of the major features of 18th century children’s literature was its emphasis on instruction. Authors wanted to teach children certain concepts, specifically behavioral concepts (as in “Rules for Behaviour”) or moral concepts for boys (“Dirty Boots”) and girls (“The Female Choice”). However, we noticed that the lessons being taught in these stories were a bit peculiar. For example, “Dirty Boots” does not teach you to be independent and not to rely on other people, but rather, its lesson is that you should not insult the people whose services you rely on because it can inconvenience you. Hmmm…
3. As a sort of synthesis between these two points, it can be said that our modern perceptions of children’s literature inflect the way in which we understand children’s literature of the 18th century. The lessons (if any) we learned from the stories we read growing up were very different from those of the 18th century (I don’t think there is a modern equivalent to “The Female Choice’s” moral of settling down and becoming a housewife!). However, just because they were different does not mean that we should discount them. Rather, we should be interested in exploring the cultural paradigm that existed and the way society imagined its children.
Some questions to consider: 1) Is there a true, natural state of childhood or is it a socially invented concept? 2) What other factors may have caused the enormous growth in children’s literature during the 18th century? 3) How effective is children’s literature in its didactic intent? Is it too, maybe even harmfully effective? 4) From this week’s readings, what were the most important concepts or morals that adults wanted children to learn, and why? 5) What do you think is the biggest difference between children’s literature from the 18th century to that of the 21st century?
Please use this blog to raise any other questions or comments that were left unsaid or never truly fleshed out during class.
2 comments:
The first question is a bit challenging but surely provokes me to ponder for a bit. I would say there was no true nature of childhood because the adults imposed all kinds of activities on the children. Readings from Monday are evident of adults meddling with their growth. Jefferson instructed her daughter to learn French, dance, play music, draw and read literature with no mention of leisure or social time. Hester's toddler knew things I didn't know at the same age (and still don't know!) and this implies she underwent lengthy training to be able to recall these things (such as the entire map/globe). Rather than letting the children be curious beings or channel their energy towards any particular interests they may have, they are stripped of their chance to develop any skills they may be exceptionally good at. Instead, the adults are in control of challenging their energy towards topics/activities they choose and potentially draining the children.
Even the children's stories, despite being a fun read, can still be exhausting if they realized what was being done to them. The stories were causing them to have a preconceived notion of what they were expected to be. Kids had no chance of simple fun that had no training required (at least not the amount ours do today) They couldn't be curious or ask questions. No chance of their "own intellectual journey" or "finding the white bear". :) Thus, I found it harmfully effective. I wonder if they were just constantly trained throughout their childhood until they went away to school....is that when they began to think more and more for themselves? Choose the field of study they wanted to be in?
To answer the fourth question, I believe that this weeks readings implied that beauty and pleasure are not a lasting component of life. They are each not as important as the gratification of a long lasting life and composing a great world around children not just one that looks at them. I would describe the two decisions in "the Female Choice" to either be a Ford (built to last) or a poorly built and popular designer car like a pinto.
Post a Comment