Fictional Scenario

Sociologist Dr Lena Shah carried out a mixed-method study of childhood in a large English city called Westford. She wanted to explore whether childhood today is becoming more protected and child-centred, or whether it is increasingly shaped by inequality, pressure and adult control. Her research focused on 11 to 15 year olds from different social class, ethnic and family backgrounds. She selected pupils from two contrasting schools: one in an affluent suburb and one in an inner-city area with higher levels of poverty.

Dr Shah was interested in the idea that childhood is socially constructed. She argued that what counts as a “normal” childhood changes across time and place. Drawing on Aries, she noted that in the past children were often seen as mini-adults, while modern societies tend to separate childhood from adulthood much more clearly. Pilcher’s idea that childhood is associated with innocence, protection and adult responsibility also shaped her research. However, Shah did not assume that all children experience this in the same way. She used interviews, focus groups and diary tasks to compare how childhood was understood by children themselves, parents and teachers.

In the suburban school, many parents organised children’s lives around clubs, homework, screen-time limits and carefully supervised leisure. Several parents spoke about “quality time”, emotional wellbeing and future opportunities. This seemed to support the march of progress view, linked to writers such as Aries and Wagg, because children were often treated as emotionally priceless and central to family life. Parents frequently referred to social policies such as compulsory schooling, child protection procedures, restrictions on child labour and laws around age-rated media as evidence that childhood is now better protected than in the past.

Yet the inner-city school revealed a more uneven picture. Some pupils described caring for younger siblings, translating for parents or travelling alone across the city. A number of students from low-income households said they worried about money, safety and cramped housing. Dr Shah linked this to CPAG research on child poverty and argued that social class differences still shape childhood experiences strongly. Children from better-off homes were more likely to enjoy private space, organised activities and adult monitoring, while poorer children often had greater responsibilities and fewer resources. Bhatti and Brannen were used to show how culture, locality and class can produce different expectations of independence and family duty.

Gender differences also emerged. Girls were more likely to report restrictions on going out, especially in the evening, and greater pressure around behaviour, appearance and online reputation. Shah used McRobbie to argue that girls are often socialised into tighter expectations and moral judgement. Boys, meanwhile, were more often described by teachers as “boisterous” or “risky”, which shaped how adults monitored them. These patterns suggested that childhood is not experienced equally across gender.

Ethnic differences were also important. Some South Asian and African heritage pupils described stronger family expectations around respect, helping at home and representing the family well in public. Others said extended family support gave them more security than some of their peers had. Shah used this evidence to argue that there are cultural variations in childhood. This challenged any simple idea of one universal British childhood. Womack and Bhatti were especially useful in helping Shah think about how ethnicity, locality and family structure shape children’s lives.

At the same time, children across both schools described heavy exposure to social media, online comparison, consumer pressure and anxiety about appearance, popularity and future success. Some teachers argued that childhood innocence was being eroded by digital culture. This echoed Postman’s view of the disappearance of childhood, because boundaries between childhood and adulthood seemed weaker when children could easily access adult knowledge and media. Palmer’s idea of toxic childhood also appeared relevant, as several pupils described stress, overstimulation and reduced face-to-face play.

However, Dr Shah did not fully reject the march of progress view. She found strong evidence of child-centredness in many families, especially in how parents prioritised children’s emotions, education and safety. She also drew on Mayall and Gittins to argue that adults still hold power over children through age patriarchy. Children remained legally and economically dependent on adults, and many said they had little say over school rules, family routines or digital monitoring. Shah concluded that childhood today is both more protected and more controlled. It is shaped by social policy, class, gender and ethnicity, and it cannot be understood without recognising that childhood is socially constructed rather than fixed by nature. Jenks helped frame this final argument by showing that modern societies hold competing images of the child, as both vulnerable and troublesome.