Digital Archive of PSYCHOHISTORY Articles & Texts [Books texts] [Journal Articles] [Charts] [Prenatal] [Trauma Model] [Cultic] [Web links] [Cartoons] [Other]

Is There Any Such Thing As "Evolution Of Childhood"?

By: Friedhelm Nyssen in cooperation with Marion Bornhoff
Special Issue "On Writing Childhood History"
The Journal of Psychohistory 16 (2) Fall 1988

To write a history of childhood - is that possible? The more specialized one's subjects are, the easier is it to write their ''history.'' Thus we can talk about a history of children's rights (C. Zenz), about a history of school punishments (K.-H. Gunther), or about a history of children's wear (Weber-Kellermann). For all these three special fields one can claim "progress" without too much difficulty-progress in the sense of an increasing considerating of the needs of the children by society in general.

In the last 200 to 300 years there exists a tendency to formulate children's rights and to effect their realization, a tendency to decrease school punishments more and more, and a tendency towards increasing liberty of movement for the child's body, which in the past had been heavily restricted by its clothing. When we turn to the far less specific subject "childhood," it becomes a lot more complex to write its history. A lot more complex, because we arc confronted with different opinions on whether there is any such thing as progress or evolution.

Some authors reject totally any ideas such as these, for instance Aries, HeinsohnlSteiger, Th. Disser and K. Rutschky. Yet we find authors, too, who are relatively close to the idea of evolution in the field of history of childhood. These are, for instance, the works of H. Boesch, R. Dirx, S. Weber-Kellermann, F. Johansen and of M.L. Flessenip. von Zahn. They state that children received increasing attention over the course of history. S. Weber-Kellermann assumes an increasing regard for the child from the 16th century on. She cites the coming into use of children's fur-niture (walking devices for children, special children's chair, cradle), the development of special children's fashions and the setting up of play-rooms.

To her mind adults developed with the beginning of "civilization'' specific concepts of childhood which led to an augmented observation of the child and in its wake to an enlarged attention to the child. Ruth Dirx discovers in the course of history an increasing attention to children in the same measure as the adults progress from the unconscious to consciousness. However, this progress, she says, began with the nineteenth century, and was extended by the emergence of psycho-analysis. When the adult detected an infantile experience of his self in the context of his present situation as an adult person, he undertook to turn to the develop-ment of the child in a more serious and conscientious way.

Still, prior to the 19th century, there had already been taken sociopolitical steps preparatory to these processes. We could mention reforms in favor of the child, the establishment of public foundling hospitals and protective measures for the handicapped. H. Boesch, too, makes out reforms in his treatise on the history of childhood. In the early history (from the 12th century on) these reforms had been initiated by individuals, like for instance the electress Anne of Saxony who 1560 founded a midwife school. Because, in the opinion of Hoesch, parental love is potentially always in existence, these reforms were supported by the parents, so that a progress promoting interdependent correlation of public action and parental love was established.

We don't find presumptions such as these about parental love in F. Johansen. For her the child was without rights from time immemorial and subject to the respectively prevailing aims. Still F. Johansen sees improvement too. It is manifested especially in protective rights for the child (in particular the protection of labor). Only these rights brought about a certain social position for the child which was in keeping with its development.

Plessen/Zahn point out the almost absolute authoritarian relationship between parents and their children. This relationship reveals itself in educational concepts which are useful in ruling the child. Only from the Age of Enlightenment on, a transformation from a purely power oriented interest in education towards an interest in the development of the entire human being was in the offing. But the decisive positive impulse for the understanding of the child came from the findings of psycho-analysis. All these conceptions have in common that they suppose a tendency towards improvement of the situation of the child in the course of childhood.

This point of view brings them near to deMause's theory of evolution. But there exist differences because his theory supposes an explicit psychogenic drive of evolution, In the above-mentioned conceptions, the impulse for betterment comes from "society," which of course in each case finds agents who are wilting to realize the respective improvements. To my mind it is a credit to Lloyd deMause's psychogenic theory of evolution that, for the first time, the tabu of "treat your parents gentle" (Alice Miller) has consequently been disregarded, which in one way or another had partly continued to exist in the above-mentioned conceptions, in spite of a critical basic attitude towards terms like "authority," "patriarchate," etc. For this reason deMause succeeded in revealing the great importance of the evolutionary potential, which is an imminent product of the parent-child relations of successive generations.

To write the history of decreasing projective reactions of the parents towards their child has as a prerequisite that these projections are first of all fully recognized. This analysis, which is, as I see it. very painful too, constitutes to my mind a paradigmatic new beginning in the field of history of childhood. At the same time I began to tackle with a certain bias of' this paradigm and I do it still today. I ask, aren't there, time and again, powers emerging which are not covered by the assumptions formulated by the psychogenic theory and which work against the evolution produced by the succession of the generations? With regard to tile more comprehensive subject of understanding "childhood," it is again and again difficult to maintain progress and evolution in particular fields, like "children's rights," "school punishments" and "children's wear," etc. The moment we try to formulate progress, we are beset by counter-arguments and opposing ideas which arise from even more general levels as "childhood," levels that could be designated by terms like "political circumstances'' and similar abstractions.

Is it progress when we note that every day 40,000 children starve to death (see Beiderwieden / Windaus / Wolft)? Does the gradual removal of school punishment mean evolution of childhood, when we notice at the same time that the school system and the pressure to produce achievements at school expose children to an extreme school stress? Does the increasing liberty of movement for the child's body, which is set free from restrictions, become less important because the space to exercise this liberty of movement is more and more impaired by environmental influences?

We don't want to fall prey here to the prevailing misunderstanding about deMause's "evolution of childhood" of which many of his critics are victim: that is to say, the idea of evolution in the field of history of childhood is reduced to absurdity by these objections, or that because of them, as Heinson suggests, a retrogression is more likely. Yet: the theory of evolution has to face up these arguments. How can we counter them without having to abandon deMause's paradigm?

My provisional solution is based on two points First: In accordance with John Bowlby I proceed from a behavioral system of care inborn in the mother and of attachment inborn in the child. Second: In the history of mankind these two systems could only be restrictedly actualized DeMause's theory offers a paradigm by which the change of actualization in the course of European history can be studied. The advantage of this paradigm is that it makes palliation impossible, which seems likely if Howiby's theory is applied in a wrong way to history.

In fact, mother-child ideologists of the past adopted the fundamental idea which is implicit in Bowiby, and tried to correct the "nightmare" of the history of childhood (deMause). What matters is which causes have historically obstructed the actualization of care and attachment.

Also, one must differentiate between the sociological and psychogenic models of explanation. The advantage of the sociological models is that they are able to specify reasons for the immediate obstruction of the actualization of the attitude of care or the attitude of attachment. Even my psychogenic orientation doesn't permit me to disregard that material-existential misery means an obstruction for the actualization of the at-titude of care or the attitude of attachment. In this sense we can without doubt, for example, refer to pauperization as an immediate reason for child labor at the beginning of the industrialization.

Compared to that the psychogenic model has the advantage that in a sense it fathoms far deeper and specifies the psychological foundations for obstructions of the actualization of the attitude of care or the attitude of attachment. This is the great importance of deMause's concepts "projective reaction,'' "projective care," "reversal reaction" and "double image."

We must not ignore the indisputable finding that history of childhood, as history in general, is the result of an "unknown mixture" (Bemfeld cited in Schuster-Keim/Keim) of social and psychological components. Yet it seems reasonable to explain (he social facts, which historically obstructed the actualization of the attitude of care or the attitude of attachment, by the psychogenic foundation of these facts. The psychogenetic model seems, in spite of this obvious onesidedness, reasonable to me, because it helps, as no other, to understand those "unknown mixtured" processes. Without this understanding any scien-tific finding is alien to the field of the history of childhood, leaves this relation uncomprehended, which has been put under a taboo for millenia, yet has been powerful in history, and of which we today can slowly become aware: the parent-child relation.

Friedhelm Nyssen, Ph.D., is author of Die Geschichte der Kindheit bei L. DeMause.. Quellendiskussion, and teaches childhood history at the University of Frankfurt.

Special Issue "On Writing Childhood History"
The Journal of Psychohistory 16 (2) Fall 1988

REFERENCES
Below

Digital Archive of PSYCHOHISTORY Articles & Texts [Books texts] [Journal Articles] [Charts] [Prenatal] [Trauma Model] [Cultic] [Web links] [Cartoons] [Other]

I know these are in bad shape I'll be back in here to clean them up - soon! In the mean time please contact [email protected] if there is a cite you need that you can not read. Thank you.

I. Aries, Philippe, "Geschichte der Kindheit" Munchen/wien, 1975
2. Reiderwieden, lens v.a., "jenseits der Gewalt~Hilfen rQr tniah~ndeltc Kinder," Frankfurt am Main/nasel, 1986.
3, Boesctn, Hans, "Kinderleben aus der deutschen Vergangenheit," Leipzig 1900, Naclidruck DtisseIdorfCKoIn, 1979.
4. Bornhoif, Marion, "'Geschichte der Kindheit' bei Lloyd 1eMause~diskutiert anhand anderer Literatur zur 'Geschichte der Kindheit' und an Aurobiograpllien," Diplomarbeit an der Johann-Wolfgang-G0elh~ Universitit Frankfurt am Main, l9S6.
5. BowIhy, John, "Rindung-Fine Analyse der Mutter-Kind~Beziehung," Frankfurt am Main, 1984.
6. Bflttner, Christian/Ende, Aurel (Hrsg.), "Gef~rdert und mihandelL~KinderIeben zw'.schen 1740 und heute," Jahrbuch der Kindheit, Rand 4, ~einheirn/Ba5el, 1987 (darin: F. Nyssen und R. Scheck).
7 Dirs, Ruth, "Das Kind, das unbekanme Wesen," Gelnhausen/Berlinlstein 1964, Nachdruck 1981.
8. Disser, Thomas, "Ceschichte und Kindheit-zu ciner Knuk an LLoyd deMause:
'Evolution der Kindheit'," fliptomarbeit an der Johann-Wulfgang.C;0~~~~ Univer. sitar Frankfurt am Main 1986.
9. Otinther, Karl-Heinz, "Geschichte der Erziehung," Berlin/DDR, 1971, 10. Auflage.
10. Heinsohn, Gunnar/Slciger, Otto "Die Vernichiung der 'weisen Frauen," Herrasbach tiber Weinheim, 1985.
11. johansen, Erna M., "Betrogene Kinder," Beriin/DDR u. Frankfurt/Main. 1978.
12. Miller, Alice, "Am Anfang war Erziehvng," Frankfurt am Main, 1980.
13. Nyssen, Friedhelrn, "Zur Gesehichie der Kindheit bei L. deMause," Quellendiskus-sion, Frankfurt am Main 1987.
14. Ptessen, Marie-Louise/Zihn, Peter von "Zwei iahrtausende Xindheit," KoIn, 1979.
15. Rutschky, Katharina, "Deutsche Kinder-Chronik,'' Kd In, 913.
16. Schuster-Keim, Ute/Keim, Alexander, "Zur Cesohichie der Kindheit be Lloyd deMaust. Psychoanalytisehe Rcflexion,'' Frankfurt am NlaLn, 988.
17. Weber-Kellermann, Ingeborg, '~Die Kindheit," Frankfurt ant Main, 1979.
18. Zcnz, Cisela, "Kindesmisshandlung ui~d Kindesrechte," Frankfurt alt Main, 1979.

Special Issue "On Writing Childhood History"
The Journal of Psychohistory 16 (2) Fall 1988

Digital Archive of PSYCHOHISTORY Articles & Texts [Books texts] [Journal Articles] [Charts] [Prenatal] [Trauma Model] [Cultic] [Web links] [Cartoons] [Other]

To report errors in this electronic
transcription please contact:
[email protected]