"The
State of the History of Childhood and Youth"
Melissa R. Klapper
Rowan University
I’ve just returned from the 2003 Society for the History
of Children and Youth Bi-Annual Conference in Baltimore. This
was one of the more enjoyable conferences I’ve attended.
The smoothly running program, the obviously new UMBC (University
of Maryland, Baltimore County) facilities, and the comfortably
casual atmosphere all made the event a success. Thanks to the
program and local arrangement committees and to everyone else
who worked so hard to pull it all together. It is clear from
even a cursory look at the program that there are people from
literally all over the world concerned with the history of children
and youth. Jan Richter (of the Benton Foundation) also reminded
us that this history has real implications for the state of
childhood and youth today.
The papers I heard at this conference were interesting and thought-provoking.
I also think some of them were just plain fun–in fact,
at one panel I attended, the chair told a presenter that her
research on representation of juvenile delinquent girls in 1950s
men’s pulp magazines was “too much fun!” The
presenter and audience members could barely control their laughter
at some of the material. This pleasant mood lasted throughout
the conference. After all, where else could you learn about
the eroticization of Shirley Temple, the American advertising
industry’s response to changes in dating and courtship
practices, and the relationship between youth and national identity
in post-war France? It’s fascinating stuff.
However, I did note something that my examples above illustrate,
which is the preponderance of papers and panels about the representation
of youth rather than the lived experiences of youth. This definite
tendency in part reflects the stated theme of the conference,
which was “Childhood and the State–The State of
Childhood.” I think there’s something more to it
than that. As historians, we are all aware of the unavoidable
tension between the prescriptive and the descriptive. Many of
us find the most rewarding history to lie in the intriguing
spaces between representation and lived experience. Still, the
conference program makes me wonder if the field of the history
of childhood and youth may be a bit too heavily focused on institutions
or abstractions at the expense of individuals and groups. No
matter how tantalizing the trail of past representations of
children and youth are, it would be a mistake to erase the identity,
experience, and agency of children and youth themselves. If
we do that, we are replicating the very tendencies of people
of the past to use children for their own purposes that so many
of us evaluate with a critical eye when thinking historically.
I don’t mean to suggest that none of us are paying attention
to children and adolescents themselves, nor that representation
and experience are always distinct. There were certainly papers
that made creative use of a variety of sources to examine lived
experience. Research on girls’ romantic friendships or
children’s playthings or adolescents’ reading practices
demonstrates that cultural and statist histories of childhood
and youth have not completely banished social histories. My
point is just to suggest that since there obviously is material
available, even if it requires more digging around, we should
remember to pay attention to the kids playing on the beach and
not only the strategies used to market their pails and shovels
to them. For that matter, tot-sized pails and shovels themselves
are artifacts no less subject to historical analysis than diaries,
memoirs, or marketing reports. Since material culture is so
tightly bound to ideas about children and to children’s
lives, we might also profitably spend our time exploring the
literal stuff of childhood and youth.
The other thing I noticed about this conference, which was also
pointed out an audience members in one of the sessions I attended,
was the conspicuous absence of Philippe AriPs from the official
proceedings. Even at the first SHCY conference in Washington,
D.C. a few years ago, AriPs loomed over the proceedings. Apparently
no one came to Baltimore to bury him, much less to praise him.
This may demonstrate the development of the field. We no longer
have to defend the very idea of a history of childhood but can
now go about our business of doing it, and doing it well.
Finally, as a “younger scholar” I would also like
to note the fact that the SHCY conference–and the organization
in general–is a really positive model for interaction
among scholarly generations. Senior scholars, many of whom are
prominent in other fields as well, are just as likely to give
papers as graduate students. Junior scholars have the opportunity
to shape the program, chair panels, and offer comments rather
than waiting to pay their dues as they must in many other scholarly
organizations. The informal nature of the communal meals and
activities provides ample opportunity for mingling across all
kinds of boundaries. The interdisciplinary nature of much of
the research and of the personal and professional backgrounds
of the people associated with SHCY is another strength of the
group. I’m sure we all look forward to watching where
the history of children and youth goes next. There’s nothing
like being involved in an organization in its infancy.
