Read on Twitter
A thread on the task that lies ahead for historians of childhood. Partly inspired by @cgsloan's recent thread, partly a response to the recent AHR exchange (Oct 2020). #histchild
In short, the original AHR challenge to the history of childhood boils down to the idea that children are inadequate historical agents, only good to 'think with' rather than to think alongside.
Like other historians of childhood (I was especially impressed with Ishita Pande's & Bengt Sandin's AHR responses), I disagree that there are any particular methological limitations inherent to the history of childhood that are holding the field back.
Instead, I would argue that it is the oppression of children and young people that makes their histories seem marginal, and the inability to believe that children can speak in their own right that leads to their voices being challenged.
Children have a history, but while we still believe that they are unable to think or reason for themselves before they reach biological and psychological maturity, we will be unable to write or access those histories.
We can't do the history of childhood, therefore, unless we are committed to challenging these assumptions, and until we recognise that adulthood is a constructed category with its own history, rather than an ideal against which other age-groups are judged and found wanting.
As long as children are patronised, mocked and belittled, so will be the history of childhood.
