Childhood, nature ang culture Introduction By the last two decades of the twentieth ci derstood study's modem beginnings in Darw paediatrics developed various addi nature-nurture revolved around the diffe to go into the mixture. However, fror nurture side of this debate was in d cence of a dent social followed a separate track and only 0 debate of the 1970s discussed below (see p. 86) (or more usually shouting) distance with the social sc With the upsurge of research in genetics, the seems to be su hood seu ae ence of social constructionism. The imps Childhood studies through the new paradigm Cha fature of this view was that, while the snifen may be a fac, the real interest and fture FM Tog: $f how cleus interpret such mesesreapreted as a reverse discourse. The idea ¢ we is met with the counter od, opening up new areas of question ives. However, it did so atte the body and even materiality» that is importane abot $0 t00 does one-sidedly prioritizing culture over ‘1 childhood and the sociology of th Science and society js to move beyond the dl gow culture and nate 3 cof this : Ponition were set o Of Latour's (1993) account of how moderi (ts work of purification) % gage in the study of nature and the rel sro engage in tl relationship between and society/culture, ip between this fforts to look at thi pled the “weak proganme \d exemplified by the writings of Robert Merge ral sciences to stand outside social and cultort 1 the production of univers scientists to c s ism would be an example of this. However, the weg programme became an untenable position when social studies af Rience’, work that could not be accused of being overtly dioreed logy, were also shown 0 be influenced by hey took place. nigh not determined by these in any simple way, it became clear whether good, bad or indifferent, s ‘shaped’ by the soc nstances of its time, This is the so-c ¢ studies, which is based on the veri fic work ~ that it is a h Te cannot cut of this predicament by pretending. tha ly be divided into error and truth, or that iy arses from local prejudice. Scis onatories, which are every bit as “soci id factories, It involves rivalries, contestation and the ma as institutions such as school, ly conducted through rational means (see, for example, Wajeman, 1985; Pickering, 1992), Above all, science involves repre n various ways. The discourse, concepts and vocabulary 2¥ are historically and socially located and they shape what th sayable at a given time and place. Repeesen sguage and by other means, is a form of mi ‘Mediations are + they also add fo and take away fiom that being represcited, They re not always intended or even apparent ro those bey area eee W Fepresenting. So science ce nature, it abso constructs it (for 4 Mocs not simply eget mature, it abo contac rl philosophical discussion of such a. posit these constructions are obviously ideoloy m and Nazism. However, most of the inthe examples gical si ime they are more ee joned be A) encoded and les visible, drawing on the age waueones he horizon of a culture and a historical petiod. FA equally WOigh nature is understood Ne to all represe " more than othe tht there is anny jorocal rela sft fa reciprocal rel “'Salways a. dual figure in scienceses more. this applies filly t0 the other side of the aur, What rr neue and clue. We thus have a four-con rt which nature, representations of nature, omted se sre are all mutually implicated. nd each has effects. They ate all complexly fer, The ramifications of each one reaches into the others unpicked. How, for example, could oy ed way wgand see how much Je, very few peor! in pariclar ways (See ako Chapter 5). Computer science has metaphor into culture and it now forms a common speech. Or how could one claim that culture does not the face of global warming, fish populations in decline, waterways and genetic engineering? ‘This understanding of how science works can also be exemplified by the the po science, though she is clear that there are sometimes # o by hostility to it. On the contrary, she readily concedes that work on ites has produced some of the best science of the ewe! and it ba greatly incresed our wnderstanding of animal behav uuman evolution. Its stories are developed in critical debate a the best evidence that is available. Nevertheless, the weaves are deeply Porary capitalist economics and patriarchal practices. The legacy of the sociobiology episode Latour and. Haraway’ aaway's ide Complex entanglements of resents a promising way 10 3 eure and culture, However, recorstit\ 10h hich biology and culture can be understood dire ' oppositional, is not an easy task. There is no area of era {Rca siences mote contentious or rancorous than that 2 SP biologi thnk cultural life. The history fa eres 8 pron uk ife over the last one-and-a-I Abaoogh ig don’ 880d reasons for distrusting the entire © erp the frre stn feeFeNEE Point for this debate in eee bed in 1975, ne E-O: Wilson's (1980) book Se "St apply biological ideas, parti md yan bel The self-serving nd early-twentieth-century Social Darwinism, snely be dismissed as a distor hinking. They base themselves, for examy ear idea of evolution that categorizes so-called and linethis idea #8 in fact quite foreign to Darwis Fo oy its contemporary form, sees evol rchical process. Evolutionary biology docs not endow evel "ha goal or direction towards which it is ne It does not provide a set ‘sr an individual ean be judged. Si 3s those of Konrad Lorenz (1970) to dhe concept of “instinct”, have utterly foundered bec: ‘sion of the fort co justify what is acceptable becau cen biology and social behiviow st this historical background that .. Wik behavioue. W their po nal claims about this are made in the fi Land and Brown (2002) point out, the vast 1 ofa discussion of behaviour. Only to human society, where he claimed that, while of choice about their behaviour, they are others. Genes, he declared, bold « na leash and this means that all human Gerain predisposed traits. Such traits the sexes, bondin dominance, Explanati spreciate how provocative these claims were, € tical environment of the 1970s, His ertics leapt uch fervour. They suggested that they were 3 Darwinist type. masking meee BERUIMIENES oF the So Jd ciatt® 4 claim to scientific legitimacy and promoting His the go's Pisce, tn some ways these political aspects o¥e™ Sate such hat each side caricatured the other. Th so that to be ‘left wing’ was (0 ‘was to believe in natur.4 Vohiog ma chard Wil (2000) argues that human societies vje equality and cooperation adaptive survival adapted for equ id it is the breach of thy wal societies of the capitalist world that best exphing nequality, itis argued, makes us ill bes spins our nature. However, such a position (whatever onc make ely availble in t a logy was fist discussed. and the fic elements of the sociobiology Since the Second World War the pr her tham nature view of human development had guned ‘ways the social science orthodoxy. Ths we 1g and ex lity. It was highly ¢ c hereditarian view to be so starkly prochinid. et their political persuasions, were alo on ied the scientific logic of 1970s soc they were right to point out that, forall ch debate their disciplines possible is the separate ontological status of culture. Although this idea is weakening, for example chrough the realize ife cannot he separated from the ecological processes of hold e Gand, to be sure, their equivalent, mirror al scientists) it is hardly surprising that the uth @ sceptical reception among social sc came downright hostility is explained largely by the umes extremely. careless wa h Wilson extended his apters that deal with 3 eearded as an important ndmark, coe are sociobiology is Mi id se ectaiy mive and insensitive about social 3 al trait vod, mature and ee i comes wha em 1e sociobiology episode took ‘However, the sociobiology 10st 30 years ago. In i generated Very npicking the « ‘not simple of ‘most indefatigable opponents of Wis nas about sim ich most so to human social cl compon the list three decades evolutionary biologists have eure plays a large and even partially social scientists. In ger because the oppositions that dominated moderist ‘ led by Haraway at the head of this chi ng and non Ey tionary biology remains a complex, di riven by ies (See Brown, 2000, for a However, whe ns of earlier sociobiology and address the Ps 32.2 Seious and sustained way. The ‘dea tha culture could be be se ot the picture, while allotting biology most of the explant fhman social behaviour, has been largely revised i 2 mony coming ffom the sociobiology taion. OF coun Sit the ideas and formulations now dices "RY Some of the same problems of ea wean € Lalanc! and Brown (2002) four main Pach e¥olutionary biology: human behaviour e917 TT “RY: memetics; and gene-culeure co-evolutionbehaviour accords optimal strategies predicted by ev cs such as foraging st mber J reared (see, for example, Bogethotf Mu «to view stable cultural practices as adaptive to hropologists, nore oF less autonomous cly claim chat this is a spec wt So! stories t0 which 197th sociobiology was $0 P s based on dubious assumptions about th: il, From a social science perspective evolutionary PSY"! vi nce perspective iy processes, Of course discredited reputation i? Childhood, nature and ” sce, forall biologists) che basic unit of bi ic unit of biolog. which he chine a god, a pe ANSE oF, jc reason. He makes no claim about the content an} ut only the process of meme evol r | evolution, mal eed through x in this sense ate inherited) ere great variety of them at any one time; and they ae subject ext-related fitness pressures, However, Dawkins to dilfere 1 es that memes may replicate 18 a Way more autonomous than tha : the case of the gene. In effect he arg may spread rapidly simply because it is very good 3¢ re ht almost be a tongue-in-cheek i ists who make ns for the se re, except at the deep level of processual ighly autonomous role, e-culture co-evolun 2 of + inhe re (Lumsden and Wils processes reorganized the human bri jon. Once this evolutionary m great adaptive flexibility and the pos! diversity. The interaction of ge bilities. For example, genetic inheritance may snl cure an individual is predisposed Co Team, At the same tic biases can be culturally amplified or diminished ‘weight and i weak pects of evolutionary psychology) concern itself solely with genetic and/or cute ehi : © be adaptive. On the contrary it quite clay alow #98 ty that cultural traits will anise and Ao} ne 2 Hot adaptive to the en . lution studies have suggested tha, cOntary ° dy farming developed tse and created selection pressures Tate, sis for lactose absoepion Becoming ln and Mace, 1997) In te pel view won bold spear Ning these four approaches Laland and Brown) i bs we tt SPprochement between the “nature! View and the ‘culture’ view of the social scienees92 Child Advocates of gene-culure py Fx sien injects of the e100 “i uitted n-based proper ce rapidly, €o propagate a novel be ‘This is clearly a forward from the entrenched and polemical os tions of the sociobiology war of the 1970s, and the possi ng process. Their belief is that science, if i ‘of ideological deformations such as the pol us ‘hip away’ at problems until they are solved. They ware of more contemporary understandings of how ‘sien ly constitutive. As already noted above, 2 wi such as Haraway (1991) does not argue that current sociobiolony is an ideological mask for social interests. Rather she shows how evolution ary biology shares, draws on and contributes culeure-bound metphon for speaking its subject matter, Second, they defend what they sce 35 n method of scientific enguiry af mpatient with holistic thinking, ‘This eapres themselves as ‘stken for although holism can lapse into obscurantsm (and ev ) the ideas of complexity theory, which are a form of he (see Chapter 3 and pp. n shows, they are content with a view of = ins dualistic, Memeties and gene-culture theories hve ‘Mec sew of culture and nature that assumes theit ‘urth there sa strong tendeney to methodologic: the approaches of the s ply an aggregate of individ Features of hunian societies, whether azclcts that ply a crucial role in 0 of the relationship beewee” lestions, Ie was noted above thet Mis 70s Sociobiology came from biolosis’s 1 ‘chard Lewontin, for example, Wa do address these qu erties of 19704 soc biologi x ee reyes the methodologi ere that soc a = the outcome of the activit ce takes place n historically gent wander the space of possibilities’ (2000: 88). The develops ‘ongaism is the result of bot the whole process is folded produced by orga The relations of as in which all chree elemei environments are both causes of orga of environny nplicated with each other. “ n is just one example of applying what Gray call developmental systems’ to evolutionary processes. O¥ “ung the ie terms oF c ton "=Y Processes, spells out the mm of both the presenting tions, ' Fesponses, and integrations, suntJn be con 3, Rather th that are then brought ins these levels: the molecul the society. Reciprocal relations take place bers Tevels and the system (and its various level, and st teleologiclly) over time, Thus an individu scale, th of the whole, can be thought of ++ The impact of ay tor will vary depending on the develops reciprocally, the effect of a gene b the state of the rest of the developmental system mporal contingency of developn n of a genetic and an environmen st therefore be conceptualised in system rather vector (Gray, 1992: 175-6) 1 set outa way of adapeing Bronfenbrenner’s ida of to the macto social system via a meso level uly constructed through the networks and flows that travese them, flows cha con : wdeed chemico-physica s molecules, genes, the physical envionment and living oF All these oo id according to the history of the system, pathway. idee what biology, spec to say that is of more direct ae to child ation in terms of 2 cone to the study of childhood, athore 's rarely used (but see Bogin, 1998, and below) “juvenility’ (Pereira, 2002). This i ference. ‘Juvenility’ refers to a widesP! which an individual is sexually imma absence of parental care (because it is no longer amphibians, rept ty 8. not restiked by these ot species with a huge variety of modes of existence which spend two or three years feeding ng their epic journey to reproduce, and die, in their freshe rounds, is well known. The periodic cicadas, that enter jal chirruping, can spend 17 years feeding under- reac sexcal materi yeas 0 feach onary perspective the delay in reproductive capaciy that g, Natural selectio within the life Mem to favour the earliest possible reproduc nimal. Early reproduction would therefore scem to provide species perpetuating itself. The life span of a ion and disease and it would seem that the sooner 4s physiologically capable of reproduction then the better nces of actually producing offipring, Early reproductive of reproductive succes, it reduces the length of a generati eof geometric jon growth. All of this would seem to mitigate against extended wok cry of an aD a species benefit from delaying m n evolutionary biologists have revealed the wonderful processes and their intricate imbrication with research is to toanswer this ques Hexity of biologi xy and sociality. The general framework of the ictors that maximize reproductive potential across the whole individual. Such factors include species-specific ones sch cubation and gestation, offspring size and number as we 1s sich as seasonality and the abundance of food. I is argued ow resources are allocated to growth, maintenance and reproduction, a story of a species, is crucial to the emergence of that maximize reproductive potential. The life history of a species becomes the object of evolutionary processes. In a given €O" wvolving a longer of shorter, secologial that : ern, ind. to be selected because it tend to be s = "nt, period of juvenility wi survival of the organism. The overall picture is summary etal fonction of animal juvenil I fimetion of animal juvenility is mod wt Of reproduction. In’many cases it fi nares and/or extend the duration of growth, therefore allowing the ramortality rate, fecundity, or juv 1ees are important, We expect age at the point set by selection It body size... Much of 1g for size is probably attribut- © during their ry strategy alongside © error to suppose th: ss who are better fitted to survive. This may be part of wn of contemporary biologists 56) argues: d serve to enhance social and cognitive 3 But not because play prepares a but because the benefit ne that is competent prese , not necessarily one that will be better able £© ms that beset adults <, ect the prese! I models comparing how life-history variables (2002: 20) history, this dcusion of juvenibey his concerned on-um relation to social HY provess that both links it to the animal kingdom a until recently much of the 1 speculative and has stressed the ce jour rather than ad docietes. Howevst made by Dani o¥et nthe modern ARCA ofthe fol 669" in, Pagel and Haves 'o. thatthe similarities between humans 1 a the sates between hs a common ancestor. Stuwman and ape DNA have the case. The story that scholar ng one. At the pre on yeas a cies thrived, a bri vasa it, Ley was ape. The anatomy of her ior and other evidence sho 4 ity to walk uprighs ing of gestures or ipedalism must have ns that by had emerged, Hon These, 26 already 7 sugeste ly decen play an childhood an re breaking down nel our nearest biological ure is diverse and prol nanzees it has been tool use among 4" ey of ‘thods (for example, (0 be socially learnt, , to make complex, abstract represent mity co do this is at the level of a evo number sequences, sums sanford, 200 that attempts fo ¢ n the effort co underst ford re ate far less important erween chimps themselves. This is ly understood at all. Be th. yoment is hi does uot poses. Perhaps... i is time €© abandon Sons and think of complex behaviours as exist degzes product much greater than the 5 136). Tool use among humar ‘red from the archaeological record up to fwo ural symbol inca t emergence of the human species sion of the hand and the mouth n oF inten ; neurological, cognitive, and struct '8¢ and tool-use may have mutual feedback ms... Many anthropologists have r ferrclationships. beew. naking endeavours and speech. Gibson, 1993:record suggests a J development concentrated logis (for a di mammals, Non sgrovith soo 2 few days or weeks after birth a duction|of hypoth age terms as between two lity. His argument rests on a umber rather than quantitative, betweet the are ako organized differ sion of speech childhood with However, though interes yee is not a well understood evo dr of yeas and the archaeological record sug 1993: 457-67) « body that give it greater power, reach and eff the construction of soc in Chapter §, contemporary el Wd handedness, This evolutionary strategy tay over ely me either eas © speech i slow, gradu developm around the generation to the nes of growth qui {go through a pei growth in young primates slows dow this slow rate of growth persis wt puberty, when there is a growth spurt associated with the newed o> of ierences, limed 25 qa pattern of growth of rim 8 yas most primates ine to grow ae ag ks ed parental it temains somewbst se 5 years of modern afer 38-year ret vente period Hise or deed sex atari ‘ 7 best distinguishes the order Primate (Perreira and Fai Hee is something else that biology and sociology share. Soc Jee is 50 . S htdhood have ako had to overcome the resistance of the sie nine wih long Beary nee eh funtonks have to address and rebut very simular assumptions flog that (adult-centric) sociologists make about human children, They * example, at pains to show that juvenile primates are not innocent rules for behaviour, and at times and appe WB to operate them" ale to reproduce, They are also energetic and curious. And among the ngers they face is the fact that they must live in a world that is 1Rago recognized that there is a general relationship berween wmber of offspring, their survival and the intensity of we evolved a survival strategy based oF who are given a high level of support and cate by Th debate among evolutionary biologists about the feats th Could give rise to this as an evolutionary pathway. A basic chine tis seems to be that primate pathways are invested in the devel. of, large brain. The sis is that the he Fein gee iM The hyphen is ta and bebe i growth implies are outweighed b love of Oual advantages hat ehis brings, especi ‘ate by parents and other 50 Nxt of development is emerging as a more and more import : primate evolution, The development ofa large br which seem to occupy an especially ‘Porn rte that gt bea dan ena pF ONS One 00. Se 'Y is nor an adaptive behaviour thatns £0 O€CUT in Wayy I way. The peaks of different types lopment is most plast e young and to the await fi evolut types of soci cp of its growth prising, therefore, to ise thought ly that associated (conceived on ely as a symbolic proces) nbolic and textual terms). However, ry. This work i was ako strongly i social heory. The re 984, 1992). His central ted in human eulores The body meen rt its most basi, foundationalists assume tht there iso fput perhaps changing) which functions independently ofthe rg oar tias eae iaiae ea rate recognize. The body (and its processes of change) fom an iy is experienced and lived. What is prioritized in his pespece phenomenological. The tsk of sociologss co experienced and interpreted by uct on 2 social constructionist position. They are unw a between the body and its representations (sce Ars n extreme form acon that there is no matenal body ~ only aderstandings of it. Less extreme, but also les consstent, if che materiality of the body is conceded we tave acess to it through discourse of various kinds. It is these dicounes, 1 the body, that structure and shape 0 anti-foundat cfined in opposition to the other. Tuer’ suagested wa thodological eclecticism: that isto ay he SugBO eellectoal lyatinacy of both approaches, sing ech hen itis appropriate and seeing them asin somte WY ddtferent ary, Whi I lexiblity and diversity ly coherent: ditfer 7 ¢ about the material character of the body. In aking w er fails in his ambition to synthesize ndationalist approaches hese terms) that this is because of apps 1g 1993: AU ips between the body ly Shilling ateemps to smtsie He OO ei ‘velops a position that is of great potential fF SN, © eusence nie aggro is thatthe Boma PO Cand ally ished at birth, Over the bie cou ™ fo be a crucial stage, it changes through P* evo approuces TNcate sets of symbols (aces, sewer y Mt hy the doctors and nurses body is ordered, exten scribed by both corporeal ogeal) elements, becoming in Pt Joctors, a6 well a5 the pare n the integrity of the body. res? On the basis of his part ns whereby they are held together the work of the ld data yy a general culeural shi nesses, Rather there was a dual shi it device, video arranger 2 speaking ive a fresh perspective on Ti foundational views: the 98; Latour from d logy of tr +3), concemed with the nd the practices by whi much in common with forms of socio Moeucted snd proce! charcer ose yet in one crucial and radical respect i at an pny undermines a sharp distinction between Casey network of mediations between them, The sociology EY Which empha ejects he fae society is constructed through human action and rots ore i shar dient fom mesa me foc censuctivit— but 2 racy generaaed way; and ees erst SoctO}ORY but in a way which places the material in relation id through patterned networks of herer fXten man ce humans and the rest of the material ra be seen as hybrids ~ what Latour (1993) has negotiated and empitical plimatory work resue in some form of edu foundat ndency ro do. Actor-network theory wou Il phenomena, as constructed not or jeractions, not only from human bodies citi focuses om the “translations! ~ Swen these diferent entities. Iti concerned 0 Th these heterogeneous entities mutually © other, processes which always involve somet taken away. ct material hosation and hybridization See ate fo be seen as a prion equal (or 'on of society ~ or more propety “the subjects’ — where the boundary between the b ie cannot, therefore, be reduced either tothe ‘pute? Sroologal approaches which try fo make one kind of ey do al approaches to snco artefacts of many symmetric networks er elements that constitute society. In fict ‘society’ is sen a rogeneous materials it world that all termed “quas-objecs! an and the body ld see childhoods and ly from human minds ud their ineractons, igh an unending mutually constcusing interacon of 3 the network of meditions = trace the process bY eonscute and order 5 being reed, some- Bovis are incised jromment,inlasis rent 7 cof the social ly the pheno! ‘meaning a Io the patterns of material fzaniztiO0 mutt * Jing. childhood bodies in this view PEON ig hee "ing through the sss igh the materials, practices and FPOpod, nate ate uo oi cand in some circumstances thei unravel lig ston ae it enae dn isi Recent tem csi cithood 35 2 sciolgil topic ep era socal penomenen i least two ways: by pointing tothe, sass on a a dscusve formation and by ethnogar cose pean te ccs of ie 0 op ne conto nthe ocala eae ee te fhe a sede ite eta CE Boh ce shige wo nan cl Ws pone hoa he hea coils n Summa 2 fran ntraton between the hod a ain of hay ary beeen mate ar ule nce scl a ee fi approached with caon Dui bene atch, aro Shing was necesary. The hear whch co ree emo he wedkeing ofthe eultae/ntare dn co fae modifetion inthe aenion to chiens om ‘ev ec anneal detail this work revealed the comecon a thle aaa and the bodys, tough emergent ht terampneos composition coat swith Conclusion Bolg wee marie about nature, Eventhough many ces mi fr twee nota sudh manages both draw on and conmbute Calta rescures within their historical time horizon. The complex byt ‘of nature and cule through which science is consiuted isthe conten ofall human lie, even if we are not able to understand exactly how { Sti genera ete to exh nr AES man at on i em of lgy ae doomed to rections bar eet etn ar scene eprom o ate do mt Br gop, and smcines more than that of OW a0 BSS ors ha bce ns pe ey es an portant part in understanding human behaviour he 1 es evn ro dc dle gi fe com a portantly whe is recognized that biology and cule ty wo era on ea to eco ef 8 orl way doth comply sen the develop 6 6 25 Fe sown clouding the hig of oma SR Se rare TH move kes ws away from the adive SMH ya ar dc. tbe to recogni an lade ee 8 of wich nour ap of y Chiles, nan Cchiluhood stais, if they are t0 bea genuine “ein step beyond the nature-calre da They asin rp ecatora and bracket oot all at Rah ha re espe ofthe socal men ee BE Rete that volved n making a ar antes ed telpgocd” and “biological imac” Far tac mens searey of childhood such a reconsideration doe nor we ed side been Teart about elldhood fom the cane me isd culture open. Ie mens, for example aprecgrhe t jen forms pat of ou Hiory 2 8 pei ah sath sa Myre with other primates, and perhaps even more disantly with eher se oi wears ction sat eke ma hilogy but 2b warlation of i into cute. Al ches ee scanned Hough sch extended juve al ae rae renegotiate with it. Because is ration ita cl an be ao Finke in many dierent ways, which act and ae tae duh or Fae hildhod emerges 362 very diverse phevomnon. Waa the rep tiaye am important role, bo working on a gw fn err te body Belongs purely to neither cure noe nau, opel hen ewe atonggide the technology tht ow thrush i nth ex Teper T wil discuss examples of sich biosoculehned hsb ‘eon 0 childhood.