Temporary truths and the history of childhood

 As a PhD-student I came in contact with the writings of Lynn Hunt, whose writings actually helped me overcome some problems brought forth by the more post-modern perspectives. In short these perspectives sometimes highlight that we really can not know anything, since knowledge in itself is a social construct and a outcome of power relations. As a young researcher this was a rather depressing insight; since if all we ever produce is just social constructs then why is research worth it?

The solution to this problem was presented in the writings of Lynn Hunt's book "History: Why it matters" which highlights that science can produce temporary truths. These truths can be seen as state of the art on what we can claim to know about the world right now, but that these truths are also subject to change. Therefore, we never make a claim that can last for centuries. 

This is a conclusion that I have drawn in to my teaching and in the current course I teach on the history of childhood it have actually been an interesting point of depature. Amongst the most famous scholars of childhood history is Philippe Ariés who in the 1960's published his ground-breaking book centuries of childhood. In it Ariés argues that it before the shift between medieval and early modern times did not exist a concept of childhood. Instead, drawn to it's extremes, children were seen as small adults from around three years of age and therefore part of the adult world. This is a conclusion Ariés draws from studying paintings of the period. 



Ariés thesis were soon challenged by a wide number of scholars. Many highlighted that the conclusions of the study were based on a rather few paintings, all belonging to the same genre. Others challenged Ariés conclusions by utilizing written records. In the end, few historians today believe in Ariés work when it comes to the history of childhood. What Ariés however did, and deserve recognition for, is that he launched the idea of the childhood as a construct. With this, childhood is constructed in different societites and social classes throughout history, with different meaning for each specific historical situation. This is something that at the time was a radical insight. 

In my teaching I have utilized Ariés writings and the subsequent debate quite a bit. I have started the second lecture on the courses with a description of Ariés life and the school of thought he belonged to. After that I presented his research and then challenged it by the writings of for instance Colin Heywood. The hope for this was to illustrate an important point in the era of post-modernism:

History can only produce temporary truths. But in these temporary truths there might exist a grain of real truth.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The use of history and why historians should mind the gap

Image
 Around two decades ago we can to some extent see how a paradigm hit Swedish history science in full force. This paradigm consisted of studies on how history was used in society and often came with a theoretical luggage from the German and English tradition. After having supervised student theseses on this area I still remain somewhat doubtful as too how students, and historians, often uses these theories. Perhaps this is also due to my PhD-thesis containing a similar approach when it comes to putting the past into neat little boxes. My criticism towards this paradigm is that it have come to be utilised as a way to only package uses of history, rather than what these packages contains. Let us for instance take the form of studying uses of history as narratives or if one so wishes, tropes. The idea here is to study how certain forms are expressed as stories of trauma, grief or “from darkness to light”. What this actually is about in the more theoretical work is to study how history ...
Read more

Contemporary Sexual Politics: Efforts to Silence Sexuality in Politics

Image
Following up on last week’s post, we can ask ourselves where questions of sexuality are being challenged in politics. From a contemporary perspective, I would argue that we are currently witnessing global attempts—particularly from conservative actors—to banish issues of sexuality from public discourse. In Foucauldian theory, we can speak of several forms of the exercise of power. Foucault uses the concept of biopower to analyze social views on sex, capitalism, and power. One of the central aspects of biopower is that it often operates through the individual, who is expected to internalize social norms rather than be externally forced to accept them. Yet, in the case of sexuality, we have over the past decades witnessed rather forceful attempts to silence it, thereby making people unaware of important aspects of their own sexuality. In such cases, the effort seems to lie in banishing "unwanted" expressions from public discourse, thereby limiting the individual’s scope for a...
Read more

Contemporary Sexual Politics: a Background

Image
This is the first part in a series of three posts in which I aim to discuss contemporary sexual politics from a more theoretical and research-based perspective than in my other posts. It forms part of a broader discussion on how sexuality can—and perhaps should—be understood as constituted by a multitude of actors. Therefore, we might not be able to speak of a single contemporary politics of sexuality, but rather of a range of political positions. During the 20th century, numerous philosophers and researchers attempted to write “the history of sexuality,” but the one who has influenced me the most is the French philosopher Michel Foucault. I have actually read all three of his original works on sexuality, but I believe the first book covers the essential foundations for discussing and understanding sexuality. Broadly, this can be said to consist of two levels of particular interest to this series of posts: a) the repressive hypothesis b) the discussion on power/knowledge and the multi...
Read more