Socialization and Childhood in Sociological Theorizing

The critique of the functionalist paradigm of socialization was one of the key arguments in the early work of what came to be called the new sociology of childhood. Dissatisfaction with the usual ways of explaining children within social sciences is at the root of the proposals that different authors, from different schools of thought, possessing different academic backgrounds, and teaching or researching in different parts of the (Western) world, began conducting in the 1980s (Qvortrup et al. 2011). This critique was greatly important, at least in the field of sociology, as it addressed the essence of dominant sociological thinking about the role attributed to children in society, where children are viewed as a plastic mould into which habits and thoughts may be poured at an early stage to facilitate the maintenance of order and the achievement of a functional society. The brevity of the infant stage, along with the high expectations placed on the effectiveness of good socialization, justified the efforts of an army of teachers, educators, social workers, and psychologists. This army assumed as axiomatic principles the functionalist view of childhood as a privileged time in the life of human beings, where patterns could be learned that would guide the performance of social roles. However, the paradigm of socialization was not only solidly positioned within the “professions of the child,” it also had crossed the academic threshold, becoming an accepted part of common sense and, of course, the adult way of thinking which governed the rules, design, and implementation of the different types of policies for children. In light of this, the new sociology of childhood, with its introduction of children as social actors and childhood as a social construction and a part of a permanent and stable social structure, was entirely heterodoxical (Blitzer 1991)