Understanding Children’s Participation through an Eliasian Lens: Habitus as a Barrier to Children’s Everyday Participation Rights
In: The International Journal of Children's RightsSearch for other papers by Sally Hester in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Allison Moore in
Current site
Google Scholar
In spite of the rhetoric of children’s participation in the public sphere, in their everyday life interactions young children’s rights continue to be denied or given entitlement on the basis of assumptions about the social category to which they belong, and opportunities continue to be missed to make links between the everyday and the societal, political and legal contexts by those wishing to further children’s participation rights. Drawing on the sociology of Norbert Elias, particularly his concept of “habitus” and “drag effect” we will explore the dissonance between the public and private status of young children’s rights and suggest ways that this might be remedied. The paper will conclude by arguing that it is important to work towards young children’s increased participation rights in their everyday lives because adults must acknowledge young children’s moral competence to participate in decisions about their everyday lives in order to develop children’s agency to do so.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Aronsson K. , and Cekaite A. (2011), “Activity Contracts and Directives in Everyday Family Practices”, Discourse and Society 22(2), 137–154.
-
Beck-Gernsheim E. , and Beck-Gernsheim P. (2002), Reinventing the Family: In Search of Lifestyles ,Cambridge: Polity Press.
-
Callinicos A. (1999), Social Theory A Historical Introduction Cambridge, Polity Press.
-
Clark A. and Moss P. (2001), Listening to Young Chidlren: The Mosaic Approach ,London: National Children’s Bureau.
-
Corr H. and Jamieson L. (1990), “Shifting Patterns of Parental Authority”, 1900–1980 in Corr H. , Jamieson L. , and Gwinn K. (eds.), Politics of Everyday Life ,London: Palgrave Macmillan, 86–113.
-
Edwards R. and Mauthner M. (2002), “Ethics and Feminist Research: Theory and Practice” in Mauthner M. et al. (eds.), Ethics in Qualitative Research London, SAGE Publications.
-
Elias N. (1970), What is sociology?, New York, Columbia University Press.
-
Elias N. (1991), The Society of Individuals Continuum, New York.
-
Emerson L. , and Lloyd K. (2016), Measuring Children’s Experience of Their Right to Participate in School and Community: A Rights-Based Approach, 31(2), 120–133.
-
Foley P. , Parton N. , Roche J. and Tucker S. (2003), “Contradictory and Convergent Trends in Law and Policy Affecting Children in England” in Hellet Christine and Prout Alan (eds.), Hearing the Voices of Children: Social Policy for a New Century ,London: Routledge Falmer, 106 –120.
-
Gabriel N. (2017), The Sociology of Early Childhood, London: Sage.
-
Giddens A. (1991), Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age, Cambridge: Polity Press.
-
Hart R. (1992), Children’s Participation: From Tokenism to Citizenship, Florence: UNICEF.
-
Herbots K. , and Put J. (2015), “The Participation Disc: A Concept Analysis of (a) Child (’s Right to) Participation”, The International Journal of Children’s Rights ,23(1), 154–188.
-
Hester S. , and Moore A. (2016), “Reflections from the Classroom: Towards a Radical Pedagogy for Early Years”, Global Studies of Childhood 6(1), 155–166.
-
James A. , and Prout A. (1990), Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood, Cambridge: Polity Press.
-
Jamieson L. (2011), “Intimacy as a Concept: Explaining Social Change in the Context of Globalisation or Another Form of Ethnocentrism?”, Sociological Research Online ,16 (4) 15.
-
Jenkins R. (2002), Pierre Bourdieu (Revised Edition) London, Routledge.
-
Jones P. , and Welch S. (2010), Rethinking Children’s Rights ,London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
-
Kjorholt A.T. (2001), “The participating child”, Nordisk pedagogikk, 21(2): 65–81.
-
Lansdown G. (2005), The Evolving Capacities of the Child ,Florence: Unicef.
-
Levinas R. (2003), “Introduction: The Elusive Idea of Utopia”, History of the Human Sciences, 16(1), 1–10.
-
Mayal B. (2000), “The Sociology of Childhood in Relation to Children’s Rights”, The International Journal of Children’s Rights ,8, 243–259.
-
Moore A. (2013), “For adults only? Young people and (non)participation in sexual decision making” in Global Studies of Childhood 3(2), 163–172.
-
Morgan D. (2011), “Locating ‘Family Practices’” Sociological Research Online, 16 (4) 14.
-
Moss P. (2014), Transformative Change and Real Utopias in Early Childhood Education: A story of democracy, experimentation and potentiality, London: Routledge.
-
Moss P. , Clark A. , and Kjorholt A.T. (2005), “Introduction” in Clark A. , Kjorholt A.T. and Moss P. (eds.), Beyond Listening: Children’s perspectives on early childhood services ,Bristol: Polity Press.
-
Rinaldi C. (2006), In Dialogue with Reggio Emilia: Listening, Researching and Learning. London: Routledge.
-
Roose R. , and Bouverne-de-Bie M. (2007), “Do Children Have Rights or Do Their Rights Have to be Realised? The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child as a Frame of Reference for Pedagogical Action” in Journal of Philosophy of Education 41(3), 431–443.
-
Shier H. (2001), “Pathways to Participation: Openings, Opportunities and Obligations”, Children and Society 15(2), 107–117.n.
-
Smart C. (2007), Personal Life: New Directions in Sociological Thinking, Cambridge: Polity Press.
-
Thomas N. (2007), “Towards a Theory of Children’s Participation”, International Journal of Children’s Rights 15, 199–218.
-
Treseder P. (1997), Empowering Children and Young People ,London: Children’s Rights Office and Save the Children.
-
van Krieken R. (1998), Norbert Elias, London, Routledge.
-
Waksler F.C. (1991), Studying the Social Worlds of Children: Sociological Readings, London: Falmer Press.
-
Young I.M. (1997), “Feminism and the Public Sphere: Asymmetrical Reciprocity: On Moral Respect, Wonder, and Enlarged Thought” in Constellations 3(3), 340–363.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 807 | 146 | 17 |
| Full Text Views | 280 | 33 | 2 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 286 | 49 | 0 |
Understanding Children’s Participation through an Eliasian Lens: Habitus as a Barrier to Children’s Everyday Participation Rights
In: The International Journal of Children's RightsSearch for other papers by Sally Hester in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Allison Moore in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
In spite of the rhetoric of children’s participation in the public sphere, in their everyday life interactions young children’s rights continue to be denied or given entitlement on the basis of assumptions about the social category to which they belong, and opportunities continue to be missed to make links between the everyday and the societal, political and legal contexts by those wishing to further children’s participation rights. Drawing on the sociology of Norbert Elias, particularly his concept of “habitus” and “drag effect” we will explore the dissonance between the public and private status of young children’s rights and suggest ways that this might be remedied. The paper will conclude by arguing that it is important to work towards young children’s increased participation rights in their everyday lives because adults must acknowledge young children’s moral competence to participate in decisions about their everyday lives in order to develop children’s agency to do so.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 807 | 146 | 17 |
| Full Text Views | 280 | 33 | 2 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 286 | 49 | 0 |