An Ontological Turn for Childhood Studies?

Abstract

The so‐called ‘ontological turn’ in the social sciences has brought with it yet another layer of theoretical concerns, except that this time the interest is in ontology rather than epistemology. New materialist thinking which has emerged in recent years promises to rethink the task of social theory in ways that circumvent modernist dualisms. In this paper, I explore what this might entail for childhood studies. What might such an ontological shift which emphasises among others relationality, connectedness and materiality mean for the further development of childhood studies? How would a decentring of children and the field's overpowering concerns for studying children's perspectives/voices/standpoints help rethink childhood studies and its remit? How, in short, would a shift from the child as an independent unit of analysis and of childhood as a categorical identity to a new ontology of emerging phenomena which implicate children, adults and non‐human forces affect the field's direction in the future?

Babies’ engagements with everyday things : An ethnographic study of materiality, movement and participation

“…The second wave of child and childhood studies is what, for example, have been referred to as 'the new wave of childhood studies' (Ryan 2011) or the 'ontological' turn in childhood studies (Spyrou 2019). The second wave of child and childhood studies can be described as trying to move beyond dualism, for example the bio-social, and acknowledge childhood as made up of a range of both human and non-human entities (Prout 2005 While different authors might mean slightly different things depending on which names they use when referring to either child and childhood studies more generally, or the first or second wave more specifically, I have chosen a terminology that gathers together these different ways of describing the field primarily for two reasons.…”

Childhood Studies and child psychology: Disciplines in dialogue?

“…Or as Spyrou et al (2018, p. 1) more elegantly put it: ‘the constructed, agentic, knowing child — regularly enfolds back on itself, often reappearing as the solution to the problem it poses.’ The solution, Spyrou and his colleagues argue, is not to focus even more directly on the child but instead to decentre the child and move beyond a fixation with children's voices, agencies and perspectives and explore children's everyday experiences in relation to other human and non‐human entities across diverse socio‐spatial and political contexts (see also Kraftl, 2020). This requires embedding studies of childhood more explicitly within the political, cultural and philosophical realms (Spyrou, 2019; Spyrou et al, 2018). Although the decentring of the child as subject may at first glance appear challenging to psychology, which typically takes the lens of the individual, this more explicit commitment to contexts and interdisciplinarity presents opportunities for exploring dialogue with other disciplines of childhoods that are potentially congruent.…”

Initiating decolonial praxis: childhood studies curricula in an English university

“…However, integrating these disciplines has not been straightforward. CS is currently at crossroads seeking to clarify its focus on the child (Hammersley 2017;Prout 2019;Spyrou 2019). A difficulty with centring the child is a lack of coordination between disciplines where academics, practitioners and policy makers hold different views (Punch 2016).…”