Saturday, August 17, 2019
Evolution of the Concept of Childhood: Evidence from Children’s Literature Essay
Zohar Shavit’s discussion of the development of the concept of childhood takes into consideration the literature that has been developed for children. Shavit’s goal was to explain how the concept of childhood evolved as it is shown along the lines of children’s literature. This essay will attempt to provide criticism regarding the manner by which Shavit argued his case. Focus and attention will be towards the development of the argument. Furthermore, each section of Shavit’s article will be analyzed and critiqued in terms of how it contributed to the strength of the author’s argument.            Shavit begins his article by discussing the beginnings of the concept of childhood. He described how up until the seventeenth century, children lived in an adult world and were not considered as distinct from their adult counterparts. (Shavit, 318) In other words, the world had no concept of what a child was. Every aspect of a child’s life was that of an adult as well. He cited various reasons for such including the fact that there was a high mortality rate among children and the poor survival of children during the time. Moreover, children did not really enjoy a childhood as it is now defined for early in life, they were made to do things that adults do. Some marry at a very tender age while others are thrust into a working life. (Shavit, 318) Shavit then discussed how in the seventeenth century the unity between the lives of adults and children shifted to polarization. (Shavit, 319) He described how children began to develop their own way of life including the emergence of clothing and educational games. (Shavit, 319) Basically, at this time, a distinction between adults and children began to be established. The concept of childhood developed out of the polarization between the adult’s and the child’s world.            Shavit moved on to discussing the emergence of children’s literature specifically to meet the new educational needs of children as defined by the perceived need to mold children who were seen as delicate creatures. (Shavit, 320)            Having established how children’s literature emerged, Shavit then discussed the evolution of the one of the most commonly analyzed children’s tales, â€Å"Little Red Riding Hood.†He discussed how the story evolved just as the conception of childhood evolved as well.            Shavit’s main argument and the thesis of his article is that the concept of childhood and its evolution through time shapes the literature that has been developed for children. Basically, as the concept of childhood is altered so is the literature for children. Shavit’s thesis is quite general. His analysis lies along the general lines. (Shavit, 317) Furthermore, based on his thesis, one can see that the evolution and history of both the concept of childhood and of children’s literature are necessary elements of his argument. As such, in order to prove his thesis, Shavit had to lay down the history of the concept of childhood and how children’s literature emerged from the development of the concept.            Shavit’s argument is well structured. He lay down the foundation of his argument by providing historical insights in both the concept of childhood and of children’s literature. From this foundation, Shavit was able to show the relationship between children’s literature and the evolution of children in society. More importantly, this foundation was integral in his discussion of the primary source for readers are able to relate the concept of childhood in the text with the perception of childhood in society at the time the text was published. Shavit’s article moves on along a time line making it logical and sound.            Shavit utilized an analysis of the text, â€Å"Little Red Riding Hood†to demonstrate how the concept of childhood evolved. More importantly, Shavit used a comparison between two versions of the text to show that a difference in the conception of childhood existed between the two different time periods. Shavit compared Perrault’s version with that of The Brothers Grimm in order to illustrate how the concept of childhood influences the story. He quoted both versions to demonstrate how the two differed in particular parts of the story. For instance, Shavit quoted Perrault’s and The Brothers Grimm’s versions to show the difference between the two particularly in the part where the grandmother’s love is expressed in the story. (Shavit, 330) Shavit did no divert from either text and ensured that both were properly quoted. Shavit’s use of the quotations was specifically for the purpose of showing the difference of the two versions in demonstrating family ties in the text. Other than for such purpose, Shavit failed to utilize the primary texts. Shavit’s arguments could have been strengthened by more use of the primary sources. Although he was able to extensively compare the two texts, he was not able to make readers appreciate the comparison since he insufficiently quoted the two versions. Shavit likewise compared the endings of the two versions of the story. He noted that the difference in endings led to a change in the meaning and moral of the story. (Shavit, 329) The moral of Perrault’s story was intended for the gentlemen since it emphasized the wolf. On the other hand, the Brothers Grimm’s version â€Å"stresses Little Red Riding Hood’s learning a lesson.†(Shavit, 329) The difference in endings thus provides evidence that the two versions were intended for distinct audiences.            Shavit’s discussion entailed the use of two versions of the â€Å"Little Red Riding Hood†to show how the concept of childhood evolved. However, as mentioned earlier, Shavit failed to utilize the texts adequately. Instead of quoting the texts, Shavit used his own perception and analysis to demonstrate the difference in the two versions. In other words, Shavit’s arguments lacked sufficient backing from primary sources.            In his recount of the history of the concept of childhood, Shavit failed to cite sources for his descriptions. He mainly utilized his own descriptions and understanding of history in his explanations. In his discussion of the two concepts of childhood that emerged in society, he failed to cite sources for it. His explanations were logical and easily understood. However, without enough evidence from sources, a shadow of doubt is seemingly cast over the authenticity and validity of his arguments. His arguments may be seen as subjective for he was unable to use historical sources. Shavit’s comparison of Perrault and The Brothers Grimm’s versions of â€Å"Little Red Riding Hood†were very extensive. He was able to cover several elements of the story including tone and ending. However, he was unable to justify most of his comparisons by quoting the texts.            In general, Shavit was able to show how the concept of childhood evolved. He was able to demonstrate how a different concept of childhood emerged in Perrault’s and The Brothers Grimm’s versions. More importantly, he was able to show that at the two different times, children were thought of differently. In this light, Shavit was successful in proving his arguments but there is room for improvement. More historical sources will make Shavit’s arguments stronger and more sound. It will increase the validity of his statements. Works Cited Shavit, Zohar. â€Å"The Concept of Childhood and Children’s Folktales: Test Case-‘Little Red Riding Hood’.†The Classic Fairy Tales. Ed. Maria Tatar. Norton, 1999. 317-332.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.