Is There Really Such a Thing as an Ideal Childhood?

The definition of “normal” and “normal childhood” is defined differently based on context, culture and era. But is this question even one that needs to be debated?

When we consider the area of child development, we need to recognize we are viewing childhood from an adult point of view. This is the obvious point of view, as adults are the ones who are creating these discussions and developing definitions of different aspects of childhood. But could it add accuracy and a more complete understanding if we first look at things from a slightly different perspective? I want to consider the experiences of children based on what’s considered to be “normal” expectations of what children should be like. This is based on several different factors and perspectives including those of the children themselves.

But first, let’s consider a different question. It’s a basic question at least on the surface. However, if you stop to think before answering you may discover there have been things you didn’t take into account when asked previously. Times when you may have responded automatically with an answer you’d been using for quite some time with no thought at all. The question is simply this: Did you have a normal childhood?

Take a minute and really think about it. See if anything comes to mind that you hadn’t really thought about before. Did you discover you automatically answered without ever reconsidering if it was entirely true? Or perhaps you realized that an answer you believed to be true in childhood doesn’t seem entirely accurate at this age? Did you possibly come up with anything in regards to the question itself you’d never previously considered? But how about the most fundamental question of all: Who gets to define “normal”?

How Do We Define “Normal Childhood” and Who Defines It?

So then, it appears what we have to do before we can answer anything posed above is to define what is considered “normal” in terms of childhood. But that’s tricky as it changes depending upon what is being considered as the criteria. Definitions of “normal” change based on time and place as well as on a child’s class, race, and gender. Also, it should become evident that the “ideal” childhood experience is relative.

The study of childhood is unique in that childhood is one social category we all have experienced albeit differently. It is also one of the few social groups that everyone eventually passes out of and looks back at through the lenses of our personal histories. This touches on how we have traditionally conducted research on childhood issues. Childhood was traditionally studied by examining changes that occurred throughout childhood. Specifically, characteristics specific to children, or particular populations of children who changed over time differently from other populations were analyzed.

Yet historically those used to provide the data that was expected to demonstrate this changing world of childhood were adults. While we found children worthy of study in order to gain a better understanding of this crucial time in development, we didn’t trust them to tell us about it accurately, though they were the ones actually experiencing it first hand. Thus, initially large research studies were retrospective — adults were asked to recount experiences from their childhood.

A New Way of Studying Childhood

However, obviously, the way adults think and evaluate events is quite different from how children do so for many reasons. A primary explanation utilized is that of cognitive maturation. This factor was used as a defense for why children were left out of the equation — they were too immature to understand their experiences and more so to express these experiences descriptively. Yet it soon became clear despite this concern having adults tell the story of childhood was less than ideal, and investigators began designing longitudinal studies. These follow the same children over time to document actual changes in each individual as they occur. Yet this method poses another difficulty — the cohort of children followed at one time may not have the same experiences as a cohort of children followed at another time.

Childhood is something that most of us have taken for granted as a phase of biological changes that lead to adulthood. But it is much more than that. To understand the way a society makes meaning of the period we call childhood is vital to understanding society. Childhood is as much a social phase as a biological one; the way that we make meaning of both tells us a great deal about ourselves. So understanding the method we are using to study this era of development, and what factors may alter the findings for different groups of children is paramount if we are to ever understand children in a fluid manner as opposed to viewing childhood as a static construct that all children have in common.

There is not complete agreement on the understanding children have of the world around them and the interpretations and judgments children make about their world. Because of this, many of the most intense social and political debates surround attempts to determine what goes on in the mind of a child. Without knowing these things, answers to questions considered crucial can be hard if not impossible to agree upon.

For example, should children be kept away from information about sex as long as possible? If not, who should teach them and what should they learn? Are same-sex couples a threat to children? What about divorce? Single parenthood? Violence on T.V. or playing violent video games?

Take the last one, for example. A question that was raised when school shootings began to become more commonplace: Are school shootings linked to playing violent video games? The anecdotal evidence suggested that there seemed to be an association between the two. So for years that was used to suggest that while some had previously suggested that playing such games was cathartic, this was false. Instead, violent video games or television were pointed to as a potential negative influence on children which could lead to violent outbursts.

Later studies refuted these findings, showing that it was more likely that it was children who already displayed certain characteristics such as preferring to be alone, anger outbursts, or some sort of instability that might be potentially affected by violent games or television. We all probably have opinions about these issues. Yet it is important to hear the voices of young people themselves through research that places children fully in the center.

What is the Preferred Meaning of Childhood?

So think again about the initial question did you have a normal childhood? Were you able to come to a conclusion as to how you would define normal? Where your experiences of childhood the same as your parents? Grandparents? Did you have a lot of contact with your grandparents or great-grandparents? Did they ever describe their childhoods? If so, what were their experiences like? How different were they from yours?

As you think about this, you can probably start to see some important changes that have already taken place. The experiences children have and our perceptions of childhood overall, shift based on economic, political and social changes. Our ideas of what constitutes an “ideal” childhood changes to meet the needs of our culture or society.

Although children are active in constructing the meaning of their experiences and their lives, the construction of the broader meaning of childhood is largely created by and for adults. For example, when a large proportion of children were needed in the American labor force in the 19th Century, work was defined as normal while leisure was defined as wasteful. By contrast, most children now are expected to be in school, as our economy now requires a highly educated labor pool.

Growing up it was not unusual to hear stories told by friends about grandparents who left school before high school to work and help support the family. Many of them were immigrants coming to a new country with their relatives. One of my own grandfathers left school after 8th grade to work at his family’s business. We’re not sure when the other one, who immigrated from Russia with his family, left school to work but we know he did not attend high school.

From today’s perspective, these individuals would be considered dropouts, doomed to lives of poverty and possibly put in prison. Or perhaps we’d consider the parents abusive for requiring such a thing. But at the time, most children in this country left school well before high school graduation to help their families, so my grandfathers and those of my friends were considered good sons for doing what was needed and expected of them, as opposed to delinquents.

So when we think about the “ideal” childhood we have to keep in mind our construction of meaning of childhood based on many factors; the economic needs of society, beliefs about gender–my grandmothers didn’t go out to work in business but stayed at home to help their mothers with the running of the household– socioeconomic status, ethnicity, religion and where we live. Ultimately childhood is a Social Construction, something to which we ascribe meaning to which is the basis of our views and definitions. This doesn’t mean childhood is an illusion though; It’s a very real experience that we view through the lenses of specific ways of seeing children and childhood itself.

Natalie Frank has a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology. She specializes in Pediatrics and Behavioral Medicine.

If you enjoyed reading this article, you might also like these:

You can find links to my other work on Medium and follow me here. Thanks for reading!