Benedict has suggested that in simpler pre-industrial societies there are three main differences in the ways that children are treated compared to modern western societies, claiming that responsibility is taken at an earlier age, for example Punch’s study in Bolivia found that children from around the age of 5 are expected to work. One sociologist, Aries, found the changes throughout history of childhood. Aries found evidence that children had the same values as adults, from evidence he found from paintings before the 1600 to children being shown no affection in the 1700-1800. But from the 1800 children’s rights in the work place were changed along with education, which became compulsory, and child protection laws were all changed for the better. Aries believes that we now live in a child centred society due to these changes.
For example children in simpler, non-industrial societies are treated differently from their modern western counterparts, especially in Asian countries where children have more responsibility at home and work, and less value is placed on obedience to adult authority. During the industrialisation, children weren’t seen as children but young adults, therefore they were put to work at an early age, especially in factories to work on big machines where they’re suitable to get into machines if there was problem. Children who work in factories often had injury and accidents that result in high child death rates. This encourages indifference and neglect, especially towards infants. This results in the modern notion of childhood, which began to merge when they introduce the factory act (1860) protecting children in factories.
If on organ ceases to function correctly the body would shut down, similarly if one agent of socialisation was to stop functioning society would break down in terms of socialisation. However, this theory is criticised for being outdated as many households do not live in a nuclear family structure. In contemporary Britain, there are many other structures such as Beanpole, Extended, Single parent, civil partnerships etc. These children are still adequately socialised to interact with the world. Another view of functionalists is Seer, this is the idea that the family have different roles.
A number of explanations for this data has been put forward by sociologists and they can be divided into ‘internal’ and ‘external’ factors, although in reality they do intertwine with each other. External factors are factors that occur outside the education system which possibly have an effect on the educational achievement of pupils. The first main external factor is cultural deprivation. Cultural deprivation argue that many working class families fail to perform one of their main functions- primary socialisation of children- and therefore their children are unable to acquire the basic values, attitudes and skills that are needed for educational success. They grow up ‘culturally deprived’, lacking the cultural equipment needed to do well at school, thus underachieving.
Also the iron and textile industries benefited greatly with the revolution. Before the revolution, I had mentioned that manufacturing was done in private homes, the revolution expanded factories and then instead of making products at home which took several months, factories could produce a mass production. The Revolution also boosted the transportation, communication and banking systems. How did the Industrial revolution transform families? The industrial revolution improved the standard of living for some people; however it also made employment and living conditions for the poor and working classes very tough.
Generational poverty usually passes on the lack of motivation, money and education from one generation to the other. Children affect by poverty usually don’t receive quality education as well as healthcare. There are many families solely but incorrectly depended on welfare for their source of income. We can think of several ways to break this cycle. One way is to get something to do for income.
Social action theorists believe that illusion of a stable and constant society is slightly more than hundreds of individual interactions each carried out by choice and interpretation. Max Weber a famous social action theorist put forward his view that humans are fundamentally different from the subject of matter of the natural sciences, due to the fact that they have free-will; in that they make decisions, attach meanings, hold intents and harbour motives. Therefore, the ultimate aim of sociology should be inevitably to individual decision and thoughts, rather than social structure. Weber takes on a completely different viewpoint from Durkheim, who put forward his theory that individual behaviour is constrained by determined by natural laws. Nevertheless, one major criticism of these structuralist approaches, i.e.
Due to the Industrial Revolution, children’s role in the family and society began to change. Although children have always contributed, in some way, to the family’s economy or life, their role in society and economy changed. However, although the amount of time family spent together change; the importance of religion in society stayed the same. In the 1700’s, before the Industrial Revolution had taken place, England was a typically calm and peaceful environment. Most English families owned some land; most of the landowners were wealthy farmers while the poorer farmers depended on the commons to support their families.
We developed independently, as nature intended us to be and our social environments have a minimal impact on this development, (Howe, 1995). A nurture viewpoint however, asserts that it is the environments in which we are raised, in particular our social environments that shape and influence our development, personalities and character traits (Crawford, 2003). Our understanding and knowledge of the world and people develops as we experience and interact with them. As Howe (1995: 11) states; “We are the products of our experience.” In recent years and according to Howe et al (1995) theories of development have become increasingly seen in the light of a ‘psychosocial domain,’ A perspective that takes nature and nurture viewpoints together, focusing on the
And we are bombarded with adds that tell us to buy our way to security, happiness, friendship, and sex” (Lankford 8), but are there other reasons as to why we, and our children, become this way? School, church, peers and the mass media can affect anyone in negative ways (Achenriener 3). Children have not really been the center of study for materialistic research. "Materialism has long been interest to consumer researchers but research has centered on adult consumers not children or teens" (Chaplin 2). In recent studies it was theorized that because a lot of behavior is learned at a young age then it may be children, not adults, that are becoming more