'Childhood has become a major dystopia for the modern world. The fear of being childish dogs the steps of every psychologically insecure adult and of every culture which uses the metaphor of childhood to define mental illness, primitivism, abnormality, underdevelopment, lack of creativity, traditionalism. Hyper-adulthood, like hyper-masculinity and hyper-normality, has become the goal of most over-socialized human beings, and modern societies have begun to produce a large number of individuals whose ego-ideal includes the concept of adult maturity as defined by the dominant norms of the society.'
-Ashis Nandy, 'Reconstructing Childhood: A Critique of the Ideology of Adulthood'

The notion of adulthood, in Nandy's view, comprises a modern fallacy, by which 'reaching adulthood' is viewed as the end-stage of growth and development, rather than, at the very least, a new point within a human's continual development.

The concept of 'adult maturity' thus becomes a way of controlling thought and dissent, implying obedience to certain traditions, norms, and practices; questioned by children, accepted by adults.

interesting

Are you implying that the distinction between adulthood and childhood has no value? I am not sure what the point is supposed to be.

"The notion of adulthood, in Nandy's view, comprises a modern fallacy, by which 'reaching adulthood' is viewed as the end-stage of growth and development, rather than, at the very least, a new point within a human's continual development."

Is this true though. Does our society not distinguish between different levels of adulthood. Young adult, middle age, old age etc

Maybe I have missed your point. Perhaps if you could expand on this idea in your own words?

I'm not sure there's a singular point.

I wouldn't say that Nandy, or myself for that matter, is saying that a distinction between adulthood and childhood has 'no' value.

Certainly, there is the suggestion that the 'value' should not simply be taken to be a linear direction; that human beings only increase in value in adulthood, or that adulthood is inherently superior; in contrast to what Freud refers to as the 'straightjacket of normal adulthood and civility', where adulthood becomes part of a cultural ideology that glorifies work, performance, and productivity, in a way that implies obedience and uniformity.

The idea that childhood is unnatural and is culturally created sounds foolish to my ears. There are distinct biological differences between children and adults.

But, perhaps, a binary of childhood-adulthood is false or misleading because it doesn't really work that way.

At any rate, talking about 'childhood' and 'adulthood' is not to say that children and adults don't exist (it is not a question of biology), but a cultural question, to question the 'hood' element here, what it implies both ways, how its changed as a concept over time, how capitalism specifically interacts with a childhood-adulthood binary.

"The idea that childhood is unnatural and is culturally created sounds foolish to my ears. There are distinct biological differences between children and adults."

Hapapop -- that's the foolish thing to say right there -- because "childhood" is specifically not biological. Being a child biologically is of course a fact.

But experiencing "childhood" is indeed and exactly a cultural phenonmen. Compare the working-class Victorian child working in the mine to an aristocratic 17th-century child in France; or the child as warrior growing up in Sparta and the child soldiers in the Congo. 'Childhood' as a lived experience is not biological, it is cultural, and extremely varied.

@spyman: Hapapop's misconception that "childhood" is a fixed biological fact and meaning is certainly part of the point in opening up ideas to critique both what 'childhood' means and how we conceive of 'adulthood'.

"The idea that childhood is unnatural and is culturally created sounds foolish to my ears. "

I have read that supposedly the notion of adulthood is largely a modern conception. That in the middle ages children were viewed more as small adults.

However I think we can see in from the 1950s onwards, the creation of the notion of youth culture. And that notion of youth seems to be becoming extended further and further into the domain of what was previously adulthood. That is we are taking longer and longer to "grow up". I don't think this is a bad thing. The world is becoming increasingly complex. We need more time to grow up. Plus we increasing affluene don't have the sorts of pressures to grow up quickly and help provide for the family that previous generations experienced.

Another example would be the Jewish bah mitzvah, which sets 'age of maturity' at 13, but across Europe and North America it exists at 16 to 18, but then some particularly conservative areas set the age of maturity at 21.

The notion that childhood exists until 21 would certainly smack in the face of the child labourers in India, who have never entertained the notions of an American childhood complete with Playstations and time to pursue hobbies.

terrible typos above (I wish it were possible to edit posts).

Plus *with ever* increasing affluence don't have the *same sorts of pressures to grow up quickly and help provide for the family that previous generations experienced.

@spyman: "That is we are taking longer and longer to "grow up". I don't think this is a bad thing. The world is becoming increasingly complex. We need more time to grow up. Plus we increasing affluene don't have the sorts of pressures to grow up quickly and help provide for the family that previous generations experienced."


That's really interesting to read -- there's the suggestion, then, that with the more wealth and affluence we have, that actually this prolongs our state of immaturity and our "childishness". With more knowledge and wealth easily and readily available, one might not be foolish for thinking it takes less time to grow up and become a mature adult, equipped with the knowledge to act in the world. Contractorily, childhood, in capitalist society, thus seems bound to wealth; and the wealthiest of all can act like children much later in to their life (Donald Trump?).

It's a reflection of movement from an agrarian to an industrial/post-industrial society. "Childhood" is simply epiphenomenal to the time it requires to get an education for more technical, skill-based labor.

In part and places that's true -- but it's not 'simply' so, as the manifold cultural performance or ignorance of 'childhood' across the globe attests; not to mention the class inflection on the experience of childhood.

What does that mean?

I hope im understanding this correctly. Being a child is a biological fact. There gross biological differences in development until the mid 20s. How different cultures account, or fail to account, for that fact don't negate that fact.

My understanding of the original quote was that people hamper themselves psychologically by attempting to be "adults." This suggests that we shouldnt have different expectations for people based on their physical and cognitive development.

Childhood can be a biological fact and also a particular cultural construct of (certain) modern societies. It's not an either/or.

The way my phone screen cut off the title, I thought this was titled "Discussion: Rethinking the Notion of Adultery"