Childhood Bodies: Construction, Agency and Hybridity

Prout, Alan

doi:10.1007/978-0-333-98363-8_1

Cited by 89 publications

(112 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…I concur with Prout's (2000Prout's ( , 2005 contention that although perceptions and experiences have bodily dimensions, they are not solely physically or biologically determined. Csordas' (1994) posits that embodiment is "perceptual experience and mode of presence and engagement in the world" (p. 12).…”

Section: Perspectives On Children With Esrd Embodimentsupporting

confidence: 61%

“…Finally, I share Prout's (2000) notion that children's bodies, like those of adults, are hybrid entities, "inseparable from, produced in, represented by, and performed through their connections with material objects" (p. 2). Additionally, James & Hockey (2007) remark on the need to acknowledge the potential of technologies, especially biomedical technologies, to radically transform human materiality.…”

Section: Perspectives On Children With Esrd Embodimentmentioning

confidence: 74%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Doing ‘technological time’ in a pediatric hemodialysis unit: An ethnography of children

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Perspectives On Children With Esrd Embodimentsupporting

confidence: 61%

Section: Perspectives On Children With Esrd Embodimentmentioning

confidence: 74%

Doing ‘technological time’ in a pediatric hemodialysis unit: An ethnography of children

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Accounts of the socially constructed child always privilege discourse. Some versions are distinctly idealist about childhood, whilst others are simply silent about the material components of social life (see Prout, 2000). At best there is an equivocal and uneasy evasiveness about materiality, whether this is thought of as nature, bodies, technologies, artefacts or architectures.…”

Section: The Dualisms Of Childhood Sociologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This approach, which Callon (1986) in another context refers to as a 'symmetrical' one, also allows materiality back into the analysis of childhood. It allows childhood to be seen not only as constituted through discourse but also as embodied and enmeshed with a huge variety of different material artefacts (see Prout, 2000Prout, , 2005, for a more extended account of this position).…”

Section: Symmetrymentioning

confidence: 99%

Taking a Step Away from Modernity: Reconsidering the New Sociology of Childhood

Prout

2011

Global Studies of Childhood

Self Cite

197

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores the conditions under which the sociology of childhood was created, suggests some of the problems encountered in this effort and points to some possible remedies. It is argued that the construction of a sociology of childhood entailed a double task. First, space had to be created for childhood within sociological discourse. Second, the increasing complexity and ambiguity of childhood as a contemporary, destabilized phenomenon had to be confronted. It is argued that, whilst a space for childhood has been created, this was accomplished largely in terms of modernist sociology, a discourse that was increasingly unable to deal adequately with the destabilized world of late modernity. An important aspect of this problem is apparent in the reproduction within the sociology of childhood of the dichotomized oppositions that characterize modernist sociology. Three of these oppositions (agency and structure, nature and culture, being and becoming) are explored. It is suggested that moving the sociology of childhood beyond the grip of such modernist thinking entails developing a strategy for 'including the excluded middle'. Inter alia this may necessitate greater attention to the interdisciplinarity and the hybridity of childhood; being symmetrical about how childhoods are constructed; attending to the networks, flows and mediations of its production, and the co-construction of generational relations.

show abstract

“…At the heart of these questions is an antagonistic relationship between an individual bodysubject/agent and the institutional/societal structures through which bodies are disciplined/governed. This tension between discourse/structure and agency/matter inflects work on embodiment across multiple disciplines (Prout, 2000) and reveals the dominance of an independent, bounded model of subjecthood within late 20 th and 21 st Century health policy. As Evans J et al (2008, 41) Lupton, 1997).…”

Section: The Embodied-subject In Health Pedagogiesmentioning

confidence: 99%