 |
 |
I want to clarify my previous message in response to the question about "raising the profile" of the history of childhood. My questions were not directed towards the _content_ of the history of childhood, nor some theoretical advice to help _me_ (though that is always useful and interesting) - rather, I was asking about how to succinctly explain the field to those outside of it, who, I find, frequently misunderstand. I think the Davin quote that Bernice relayed gets at part of my frustration: > "The boundaries of childhood are inconstant and contradictory. Although in > any culture or society childhood is ultimately defined in relation to > adulthood, what has been seen as appropriate, at what age, for which > children, has varied between societies, within them and over time. Even the > pace of physical and psychological development has differed. Conventions > based on gender difference intersect with those based on age, and both > operate within larger socio-political structures, so that much also depends > on the specific situation of child and adult." If, as Davin suggests, the boundaries of childhood are so variable, and always operating within larger structures, then doesn't that mean that the history of childhood is always both about childhood and about other things? Family, labor, gender, the state, philosophy, science, war, etc. Wouldn't "raising the profile" have to involve raising the understanding of people _outside the field_ about the significant connections between the history of childhood and other historical "topics?" Should Bernice publish her work on childhood during WWII in a journal that focuses on the history of childhood/the family, or one that focuses on WWII? Wouldn't the latter reach more people outside the field? Would that kind of effort to "raise the profile" be workable? I have not yet published nor given professional conference papers. I have attended conferences (in the US) and it seems the audience for panels relating to the history of childhood is limited and consistent (the same audience for different panels). It seems historians of childhood communicate well enough with one another (and it often intersects with interest in women's history), but other academics' interest is not raised. It was in this vein that I asked just what the "profile" seemed to be, meaning, to those outside the field. Of course, this may be true for every historical "field" or "topic"... Barbara Fox %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%