The Languages of Psychology and the Science of Parenting

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Contemporary Philosophies and Theories in Education book series (COPT, volume 4)

Abstract

The focus of the first chapter, and the basis for the thematic discussion which we take up again in later chapters, is an account of the conceptual and ethical aspects of childrearing and the parent–child relationship that are suggested by and, more importantly, that are left out by, the current dominant ways of speaking about childrearing and the parent–child relationship. These dominant ways are, we argue, strongly informed by the languages of psychology – particularly by the languages of developmental psychology, behavioural psychology and, fairly recently, neuropsychology. Alongside this, they are also strongly informed by the idea that parents are somehow in need of education. Taken together, these two phenomena refer to what we discuss here as the scientisation of the parent–child relationship. What we are particularly concerned with is how, within the current discourses, rich notions that are inherent to the parent–child relationship such as parental responsibility are given a very narrow sense. By analysing recent prominent research and popular literature on parenting and policies on parent support, in both the UK and Flanders, we hope to ‘de-naturalise’ the current predominant ways of conceptualising childrearing and the parent–child relationship and to open up ways of seeing this arena in a different light.

Keywords

Parenting Style Child Relationship Secure Attachment Attachment Parenting Meeting Place 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

References

  1. Adriaenssens, P. (2010). Laat ze niet schieten. Geef de grens een plaats in het leven van jongeren. Tielt: Lannoo.Google Scholar
  2. Apple, R. (2006). Perfect motherhood. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Archard, D. (1993). Children: Rights and childhood. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Bailey, S., & Shooter, M. (2009). The young mind. London: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
  5. Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child Development, 37(4), 887–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75(1), 43–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bouverne-De Bie, M., Roose, R., Verschelden, G., Vanthyne, T., & Vandenbroeck, M. (2006). Van opvoedingsbelofte als maatschappelijke eis naar een maatschappelijk engagement in de opvoeding. In: HIG (Ed.) Van huwelijkscontract naar opvoedingsbelofte (pp. 60–66). Schaarbeek: Hoger Instituut voor Gezinswetenschappen.Google Scholar
  8. Briers, S. (2008). Superpowers for parents: The psychology of great parenting and happiness. London: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  9. Bristow, J. (2009). Standing up to supernanny. Exeter: Societas Imprint Academic.Google Scholar
  10. Bronson, P., & Merryman, A. (2009). Nurtureshock: Why everything we think about raising our children is wrong. Chatham: Random House.Google Scholar
  11. Buber (1947). The education of character. In Between man and man (pp. 104–117). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Burman, E. (2008). Deconstructing developmental psychology. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Buysse, A. (2008). Opvoedingsondersteuning. Ondersteuning van gezinnen vandaag: Een onderzoek [Parent support. Supporting families today]. Universiteit Gent. http://www.gezinsbond.be/images/stories/opvoeden/rapport.pdf
  14. Cunningham, H. (2005). Children and childhood in Western society since 1500. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
  15. Edwards, R., & Gillies, V. (2004). Support in parenting: Values and consensus concerning who to turn to. Journal of Social Policy, 33(4), 627–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Etelson, E. (2010). For our own good; the politics of parenting in an ailing society. Berkeley: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  17. Field, F. (2010). The foundation years: Preventing poor children becoming poor adults. London: HM Government. Accessed online: http://povertyreview.independent.gov.uk/media/20254/poverty-report.pdf
  18. Furedi, F. (2001). Paranoid parenting. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  19. Gerhardt, S. (2004). Why love matters; how affection shapes a baby’s brain. Hove: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Guldberg, H. (2009). Reclaiming childhood. Freedom and play in an age of fear. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Hardyment, C. (2007). Dream babies: Childcare advice from John Locke to Gina Ford. London: Frances Lincoln Ltd.Google Scholar
  23. Hugh, G., & De’Ath, E. (1984). The needs of parents (National Children’s Bureau). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  24. Kagan, J. (1998). Three seductive ideas. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Koops, W. (2007). Het kind als spiegel van de beschaving. In W. Koops, B. Levering, & M. de Winter (Eds.), Het kind als spiegel van de beschaving. Een moderne antropologie van het kind (pp. 13–25). Amsterdam: SWP.Google Scholar
  26. Lambeir, B., & Ramaekers, S. (2007). The terror of explicitness: Philosophical remarks on the idea of a parenting contract. Ethics and Education, 2(2), 95–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Latour, B. (2004). Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Levering, B. (2010). Hoed u voor de hersenhype. Pedagogiek in Praktijk, 16(3, no. 55), 8–11.Google Scholar
  29. Masschelein, J. (2008). Inleiding. In J. Masschelein (Ed.), De lichtheid van het opvoeden. Een oefening in kijken, lezen en denken. Leuven: LannooCampus.Google Scholar
  30. Phoenix, A., et al. (Eds.). (1991). Motherhood; meanings, practices and ideologies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Popkewitz, T. S. (2003). Governing the child and pedagogicalization of the parent. A historical excursus into the present. In M. Bloch, K. Holmlund, I. Moqvist, & T. Popkewitz (Eds.), Governing children, families and education. Restructuring the welfare state (pp. 35–61). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  32. Ramaekers, S. (2010). Pedagogy of the encounter? Philosophical notes on the idea of ‘meeting places’ as forms of parent support. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain. Retrieved October, 2010, from http://www.philosophy-of-education.org/conferences/Conference_details.asp?id=16
  33. Ramaekers, S., & Suissa, J. (2010). Wanneer is ‘goed’ ook ‘goed genoeg’? Enkele kanttekeningen bij de verwetenschappelijking van de ouder-kindrelatie. Signaal, 19(72), 4–21.Google Scholar
  34. Ramaekers, S., & Suissa, J. (2011a). Parents as ‘educators’. Languages of education, pedagogy and ‘parenting’. Ethics and Education, 6(1). (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  35. Ramaekers, S., & Suissa, J. (2011b, November 18–20). The parent-child relationship: The hidden normativity of developmental psychology. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Research Community Philosophy and History of the Discipline of Education, Leuven.Google Scholar
  36. Schaubroeck, K. (2009). Een verpletterend gevoel van verantwoordelijkheid. Waarom ouders zich altijd schuldig voelen. Breda: De Geus.Google Scholar
  37. Strahan, E. Y., Dixon, W. E., & Banks, J. B. (2010). Parenting with reason: Evidence-based approaches to parenting dilemmas. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Suissa, J. (2006). Untangling the mother knot: Some thoughts on parents, children and philosophers of education. Ethics and Education, 1(1), 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Suissa, K. (2009). Constructions of parents and languages of parenting. In N. C. Burbules & D. Kerdeman (Eds.), Philosophy of education (pp. 117–125). Champaign: Philosophy of Education Society.Google Scholar
  40. Sunderland, M. (2006). The science of parenting: How today’s brain research can help you raise happy, emotionally balanced children. London: DK Publishing.Google Scholar
  41. Timimi, S. (2005). Naughty boys. Anti-social behaviour, ADHD and the role of culture. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  42. Van Crombrugge, H. (2008). The upbringing pledge as a framework for the parent-child relationship. In H. Van Crombrugge et al. (Eds.), Shared pedagogical responsibility (pp. 5–15). Antwerp: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  43. Van den Bergh, B. (2003a). Opvoeding en ontwikkeling: Historisch-maatschappelijk perspectief en meta-theoretisch kader. In B. Van den Bergh, L. Ackaert, & L. De Rycke (Eds.), Tienertijd. Communicatie, opvoeding en welzijn in context: 10- tot 18-jarigen, ouders en leerkrachten bevraagd (pp. 25–46). Antwerpen: Garant.Google Scholar
  44. Van den Bergh, B. (2003b). Opvoeding en communicatie in gezinnen: Moderne kunde, postmoderne kunst? In B. Van den Bergh, L. Ackaert, & L. De Rycke (Eds.), Tienertijd. Communicatie, opvoeding en welzijn in context: 10- tot 18-jarigen, ouders en leerkrachten bevraagd (pp. 323–338). Antwerpen: Garant.Google Scholar
  45. Van den Bergh, B. (2010). To become or to be? The duality of neurodevelopmen has a perinatal and therefore also a societal dimension [Inaugural address]. Tilburg: Tilburg University.Google Scholar
  46. Vandenbroeck, M., Boonaert, T., van der Mespel, S., & De Brabandere, K. (2007). Opvoeden in Brussel. Gent-Brussel: UGent – VBJK – VCOK – VGC. http://www.vcok.be/media/docs/OpvoedeninBrusseldefinitief.pdf
  47. Vandenbroeck, M., Boonaert, T., van der Mespel, S., & De Brabandere, K. (2009). Dialogical spaces to reconceptualise parent support in the social investment state. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 10(1), 66–77. dx.doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2009.10.1.66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vincent, C., & Tomlinson, S. (1997). Home-school relationships: ‘The swarming of disciplinary mechanisms’. British Educational Research Journal, 23, 361–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Weisberg, D. S., Keil, F. C., Goodstein, J., Rawson, E., & Gray, R. J. (2008). The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 470–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Willems, J. C. M. (2008). What may parents be asked to pledge? In H. Van Crombrugge et al. (Eds.), Shared pedagogical responsibility (pp. 17–37). Antwerp: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  51. Winnicott, D. W. (1964). The child, the family, and the outside world. Middlesex: Penguin.Google Scholar
  52. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophische Untersuchungen/Philosophical investigations (G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  53. Woollett, A., & Phoenix, A. (1991). Psychological views of mothering. In A. Phoenix et al. (Eds.), Motherhood; meanings, practices and ideologies (pp. 28–46). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  54. Woollett, A., & Phoenix, A. (1996). Motherhood as pedagogy: Developmental psychology and the accounts of mothers of young children. In C. Luke (Ed.), Feminisms and pedagogies of everyday life (pp. 80–102). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences Laboratory for Education and SocietyKatholieke Universiteit LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.Faculty of Policy and Society Institute of EducationUniversity of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations