Children’s Work in Sweden : A part of childhood, a path to adulthood

(1)

Children’s Work in Sweden

A part of childhood, a path to adulthood

Tobias Samuelsson

Linköping Studies in Arts and Science No. 442 Department of Child Studies, Linköping University

Linköping 2008

Children’s Work in Sweden

A part of childhood, a path to adulthood

Tobias Samuelsson

Linköping Studies in Arts and Science No. 442 Department of Child Studies, Linköping University

(2)

Linköping Studies in Arts and Science x No. 442

At the Faculty of Arts and Science at Linköpings universitet, research and doctoral studies are carried out within broad problem areas. Research is organized in interdisciplinary research environments and doctoral studies mainly in graduate schools. Jointly, they publish the series Linköping Studies in Arts and Science. This thesis comes from the Department of Child Studies at the Tema Institute.

Distributed by:

The Department of Child Studies Linköping University

581 83 Linköping, Sweden

Tobias Samuelsson Children’s Work in Sweden

A part of childhood, a path to adulthood

Edition 1:1

ISBN 978-91-7393-845-7 ISSN 0282-9800

The Department of Child Studies, 2008 Print: LIU-Tryck, Linköping 2008

Linköping Studies in Arts and Science x No. 442

At the Faculty of Arts and Science at Linköpings universitet, research and doctoral studies are carried out within broad problem areas. Research is organized in interdisciplinary research environments and doctoral studies mainly in graduate schools. Jointly, they publish the series Linköping Studies in Arts and Science. This thesis comes from the Department of Child Studies at the Tema Institute.

Distributed by:

The Department of Child Studies Linköping University

581 83 Linköping, Sweden

Tobias Samuelsson Children’s Work in Sweden

A part of childhood, a path to adulthood

Edition 1:1

ISBN 978-91-7393-845-7 ISSN 0282-9800

The Department of Child Studies, 2008 Print: LIU-Tryck, Linköping 2008

(3)

Acknowledgements

A number of people have contributed to this study and I would like to thank all of you. To begin with, I want to thank the children that participated in this study. Without their help, this study would never have been possible.

There are a few people that have influenced the final text more than others. First among them is my supervisor Gunilla Halldén. Gunilla has always been very supportive and encouraging when it comes to my work. I am very thankful for this and I owe you a great debt of gratitude.

Second, I want to thank my colleagues at Tema Barn. My colleagues have been very helpful by giving comments on papers and drafts that I presented in seminars at the department. Moreover, they gave me the opportunity to take part in a number of rewarding everyday conversations that presented me with new perspectives on, among other things, epistemology, ontology, film, literature, cooking and TV-shows. In particular, I would like to thank Kjerstin Andersson, Disa Bergnéhr, Lucas Forsberg, Cecilia Lindgren and Michael Tholander. I also want to give my warmest thanks to “Soffa-gruppen” for the inspiring discussions of which many have had a direct and crucial influence on my research. I also want to direct my thanks to the participants in the Deleuze reading group.

Throughout the years a number of people have contributed to my work in various ways. I want to thank Karin Aronsson and Bengt Sandin, both of whom have read and commented on substantial parts of the text presented in this book. Kajsa Ellegård, Barbro Johansson and Elisabet Näsman have also made valuable comments on different parts of this text at various stages. For this, I am grateful. Furthermore, I want to thank the participants in the Anthropological seminar at Linköping University, Antro-forum for many insightful comments on my work throughout the years. Moreover, I want to thank Kristina Engwall, Christina Florin, Mats Sjöberg and Ingrid Söderlind, all members of the ”Childhood and Work” project, for letting me be a part of a very enriching cooperation from which I learned a lot. I gratefully acknowledge The Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research which financed this work.

I also want to offer many thanks to family and friends for taking their time to discuss my work and to help out with the everyday problems

Acknowledgements

A number of people have contributed to this study and I would like to thank all of you. To begin with, I want to thank the children that participated in this study. Without their help, this study would never have been possible.

There are a few people that have influenced the final text more than others. First among them is my supervisor Gunilla Halldén. Gunilla has always been very supportive and encouraging when it comes to my work. I am very thankful for this and I owe you a great debt of gratitude.

Second, I want to thank my colleagues at Tema Barn. My colleagues have been very helpful by giving comments on papers and drafts that I presented in seminars at the department. Moreover, they gave me the opportunity to take part in a number of rewarding everyday conversations that presented me with new perspectives on, among other things, epistemology, ontology, film, literature, cooking and TV-shows. In particular, I would like to thank Kjerstin Andersson, Disa Bergnéhr, Lucas Forsberg, Cecilia Lindgren and Michael Tholander. I also want to give my warmest thanks to “Soffa-gruppen” for the inspiring discussions of which many have had a direct and crucial influence on my research. I also want to direct my thanks to the participants in the Deleuze reading group.

Throughout the years a number of people have contributed to my work in various ways. I want to thank Karin Aronsson and Bengt Sandin, both of whom have read and commented on substantial parts of the text presented in this book. Kajsa Ellegård, Barbro Johansson and Elisabet Näsman have also made valuable comments on different parts of this text at various stages. For this, I am grateful. Furthermore, I want to thank the participants in the Anthropological seminar at Linköping University, Antro-forum for many insightful comments on my work throughout the years. Moreover, I want to thank Kristina Engwall, Christina Florin, Mats Sjöberg and Ingrid Söderlind, all members of the ”Childhood and Work” project, for letting me be a part of a very enriching cooperation from which I learned a lot. I gratefully acknowledge The Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research which financed this work.

I also want to offer many thanks to family and friends for taking their time to discuss my work and to help out with the everyday problems

(4)

facing a busy researcher. I especially want to thank Fredrik Bonander, Lars Kåreklint, Stefan Rygfelt and Marcus Samuelsson. Finally, I want to direct a special thank to Andrea Honegger who not only shared great parts of these years with me, but was also forced to read and comment on drafts and, not least, to discuss my research ideas over and over and over again.

Linköping, a summer day 2008

Tobias

facing a busy researcher. I especially want to thank Fredrik Bonander, Lars Kåreklint, Stefan Rygfelt and Marcus Samuelsson. Finally, I want to direct a special thank to Andrea Honegger who not only shared great parts of these years with me, but was also forced to read and comment on drafts and, not least, to discuss my research ideas over and over and over again.

Linköping, a summer day 2008

(5)

1 Introduction

Do children in Sweden work? Children in Sweden sell products for companies at a value of several hundreds of millions SEK every year (Åkerberg 2003). According to articles in the Swedish’s papers “Dagens Industri” (Åkerberg 2003), ”Svensk bokhandel” (Schmidt and Olsson 2004) and “Svenska Dagladet” (Roxvall 2006), 100,000-120,000 children in Sweden in the age range 9-14 years sell “Christmas magazines” every year, starting a couple of months before Christmas. According to the same articles, this business has an annual turnover of between 200 and 250 million SEK. The Christmas magazine companies are not the only ones that have large turnovers from business activities in which the main workforce is children. According to the “Dagens Industri” article, numerous children in Sweden sell underwear, cookies, lottery tickets, socks, salami and tulips through their school and spare time associations, and all this generates big money for companies that have children working for them (Åkerberg 2003). Moreover, 150,000 schoolchildren in Sweden, in the age group 9-12, collected 46 million SEK by selling May-flowers, Majblommor1_{, for} the philanthropical organization Majblommans Riksförbund during the spring of 2007 (www.majblomman.se). This is not a situation particular to Sweden. In fact, the United Nations Children’s Fund, UNICEF, claims that, “In most industrialised countries, children routinely start earning money before reaching the minimum age for full-time employment (variously set at 14, 15 or 16)” (UNICEF 2005:31).

One of my premises for setting out on this ethnographic study was

1_{Small artificial flowers that children in Sweden sell for charity in April and May every}

year. See further in note 93.

1 Introduction

Do children in Sweden work? Children in Sweden sell products for companies at a value of several hundreds of millions SEK every year (Åkerberg 2003). According to articles in the Swedish’s papers “Dagens Industri” (Åkerberg 2003), ”Svensk bokhandel” (Schmidt and Olsson 2004) and “Svenska Dagladet” (Roxvall 2006), 100,000-120,000 children in Sweden in the age range 9-14 years sell “Christmas magazines” every year, starting a couple of months before Christmas. According to the same articles, this business has an annual turnover of between 200 and 250 million SEK. The Christmas magazine companies are not the only ones that have large turnovers from business activities in which the main workforce is children. According to the “Dagens Industri” article, numerous children in Sweden sell underwear, cookies, lottery tickets, socks, salami and tulips through their school and spare time associations, and all this generates big money for companies that have children working for them (Åkerberg 2003). Moreover, 150,000 schoolchildren in Sweden, in the age group 9-12, collected 46 million SEK by selling May-flowers, Majblommor1_{, for} the philanthropical organization Majblommans Riksförbund during the spring of 2007 (www.majblomman.se). This is not a situation particular to Sweden. In fact, the United Nations Children’s Fund, UNICEF, claims that, “In most industrialised countries, children routinely start earning money before reaching the minimum age for full-time employment (variously set at 14, 15 or 16)” (UNICEF 2005:31).

One of my premises for setting out on this ethnographic study was

1_{Small artificial flowers that children in Sweden sell for charity in April and May every}

(8)

that children in Sweden do in fact work.2_{However, not everyone in} Sweden seems to agree on this, and not everyone recognizes that the phenomenon of working children is also alive in our part of the world. One widespread and popular opinion seems to be that working children is only a historical phenomenon, a thing of the past or at least something only existing in poor countries in the south, in developing countries. Let me give you two examples. In the social services in Vikåsa3_{, one of the two} communities in which my fieldwork was undertaken, one civil servant whom I talked to during my fieldwork asked me with surprise “so you really think children under the age of sixteen work?” when I presented my research idea to her. Similarly, I often got surprised looks and comments when presenting my research idea in the field. One day, while having coffee in a teachers’ staff room in a school in Ekköping, the other community in which my fieldwork was undertaken, a teacher, Elsa, and I had a conversation regarding my research. Because she had been on vacation, Elsa had missed the information on my research project, and she was a bit curious and asked me why I was hanging around at the school. When I told her that the project was about working children, Elsa looked a bit confused. After a while she said, “child labour you mean, that’s illegal”. These reactions are interesting in different ways. They are interesting because they underline that work is a multi-faceted concept. In Swedish society, the term work is used in many different ways and is given various meanings in different contexts. Two of these, work and labour, can be seen in the civil servant’s and Elsa’s comments presented above. In this study, I have chosen to use the term “children’s work” rather than “child labour”, the term used above by the teacher Elsa.4_{The category children’s} work is, I argue, more useful if a researcher wishes to study and describe the work children undertake, presumably on the children’s own initiative and fully voluntarily. The term child labour has negative connotations, as it generally refers to work activities that are considered to harm children’s

2 Thinking back on my own childhood in the southern part of Sweden, I remember that I used to do quite a lot of both paid and unpaid work as a child. On a reflexive note, I must admit that I, at least to some degree, possibly expected to find something similar, several years later, in the Sweden of today.

3_{The names of places and persons are fictitious to prevent identification of the}

participants in the research project.

4_{In Swedish, the difference then is between “barns arbete”, children’s work, and}

“barnarbete”, child labour.

that children in Sweden do in fact work.2_{However, not everyone in} Sweden seems to agree on this, and not everyone recognizes that the phenomenon of working children is also alive in our part of the world. One widespread and popular opinion seems to be that working children is only a historical phenomenon, a thing of the past or at least something only existing in poor countries in the south, in developing countries. Let me give you two examples. In the social services in Vikåsa3_{, one of the two} communities in which my fieldwork was undertaken, one civil servant whom I talked to during my fieldwork asked me with surprise “so you really think children under the age of sixteen work?” when I presented my research idea to her. Similarly, I often got surprised looks and comments when presenting my research idea in the field. One day, while having coffee in a teachers’ staff room in a school in Ekköping, the other community in which my fieldwork was undertaken, a teacher, Elsa, and I had a conversation regarding my research. Because she had been on vacation, Elsa had missed the information on my research project, and she was a bit curious and asked me why I was hanging around at the school. When I told her that the project was about working children, Elsa looked a bit confused. After a while she said, “child labour you mean, that’s illegal”. These reactions are interesting in different ways. They are interesting because they underline that work is a multi-faceted concept. In Swedish society, the term work is used in many different ways and is given various meanings in different contexts. Two of these, work and labour, can be seen in the civil servant’s and Elsa’s comments presented above. In this study, I have chosen to use the term “children’s work” rather than “child labour”, the term used above by the teacher Elsa.4_{The category children’s} work is, I argue, more useful if a researcher wishes to study and describe the work children undertake, presumably on the children’s own initiative and fully voluntarily. The term child labour has negative connotations, as it generally refers to work activities that are considered to harm children’s

2 Thinking back on my own childhood in the southern part of Sweden, I remember that I used to do quite a lot of both paid and unpaid work as a child. On a reflexive note, I must admit that I, at least to some degree, possibly expected to find something similar, several years later, in the Sweden of today.

3_{The names of places and persons are fictitious to prevent identification of the}

participants in the research project.

4_{In Swedish, the difference then is between “barns arbete”, children’s work, and}

(9)

health and are forced upon them.5

Moreover, I argue that these short descriptions neatly summarize two widespread and popular conceptions regarding working children in Sweden. First, it is illegal for children to work, and second, children, or more precisely people under the age of 16, do not work. This appears to be somewhat contradictory. On the one hand, children’s contributions to companies and associations obviously generate large amounts of money. On the other hand, people claim that children do not work. I argue that this contradiction is based on the variation in the work concepts that are used side-by-side in our society. Moreover, it is an effect of the way children and childhood are perceived in Swedish society.

Hidden and Invisible Work

Scholars sometimes describe children’s work as “hidden” and/or as “invisible” (e.g., Hungerland et al. 2005; James et al. 1998; Mizen et al. 2001; Qvortrup 1997). Children’s work, these scholars argue, is hidden and invisible because it is not counted (Freidson 1978; Hungerland et al. 2005; Qvortrup 1997; Wadel 1979). Children’s activities are not counted as work,

5_{The category children’s work is useful because, as Nieuwenhuys (1998:77) puts it,}

“children’s work, by opposition to child labour, is not only the damnation of the poor but also the way socially valued goods and services are produced and fundamental institutions come about and are maintained”. However, the distinction between these two categories is not waterproof. Rather, this seems to be a distinction that is “primarily a moral one” (James et al. 1998:110) and a distinction that is “essentially political” (Myers 1999:22). Scholars such as Fyfe (1989) and Schildkrout (1980) have pointed to the problem of making any kind of clear-cut distinction between child labour, i.e. work assignments that are exploitative, and children’s work, i.e. work assignments that are non-exploitative. The researchers argue that the area is too complex to make such a clear-cut distinction. When it comes to children, the distinctions that are made in regard to labour and work often seem to be solely based on a moral presupposition about what a good childhood is supposed to be like. Given this, we can neither condemn nor praise the work different children undertake (Boyden et al. 1998; Fyfe 1989; Schildkrout 1980). Rather, “we must look in more detail at the nature of the specific cultural and social contexts in which it occurs, and evaluate the nature of children’s work, case by case” (Schildkrout 1980:480). Overall, I argue that this calls for use of the term children’s work rather than child labour.

health and are forced upon them.5

Moreover, I argue that these short descriptions neatly summarize two widespread and popular conceptions regarding working children in Sweden. First, it is illegal for children to work, and second, children, or more precisely people under the age of 16, do not work. This appears to be somewhat contradictory. On the one hand, children’s contributions to companies and associations obviously generate large amounts of money. On the other hand, people claim that children do not work. I argue that this contradiction is based on the variation in the work concepts that are used side-by-side in our society. Moreover, it is an effect of the way children and childhood are perceived in Swedish society.

Hidden and Invisible Work

Scholars sometimes describe children’s work as “hidden” and/or as “invisible” (e.g., Hungerland et al. 2005; James et al. 1998; Mizen et al. 2001; Qvortrup 1997). Children’s work, these scholars argue, is hidden and invisible because it is not counted (Freidson 1978; Hungerland et al. 2005; Qvortrup 1997; Wadel 1979). Children’s activities are not counted as work,

5_{The category children’s work is useful because, as Nieuwenhuys (1998:77) puts it,}

“children’s work, by opposition to child labour, is not only the damnation of the poor but also the way socially valued goods and services are produced and fundamental institutions come about and are maintained”. However, the distinction between these two categories is not waterproof. Rather, this seems to be a distinction that is “primarily a moral one” (James et al. 1998:110) and a distinction that is “essentially political” (Myers 1999:22). Scholars such as Fyfe (1989) and Schildkrout (1980) have pointed to the problem of making any kind of clear-cut distinction between child labour, i.e. work assignments that are exploitative, and children’s work, i.e. work assignments that are non-exploitative. The researchers argue that the area is too complex to make such a clear-cut distinction. When it comes to children, the distinctions that are made in regard to labour and work often seem to be solely based on a moral presupposition about what a good childhood is supposed to be like. Given this, we can neither condemn nor praise the work different children undertake (Boyden et al. 1998; Fyfe 1989; Schildkrout 1980). Rather, “we must look in more detail at the nature of the specific cultural and social contexts in which it occurs, and evaluate the nature of children’s work, case by case” (Schildkrout 1980:480). Overall, I argue that this calls for use of the term children’s work rather than child labour.

(10)

or not even counted at all. De Coninck-Smith, Sandin and Schrumpf (1997) have identified two correlated factors in this process: “empirical ignorance” and “cultural blindness”.

De Coninck-Smith, Sandin and Schrumpf (1997) claim that child labour is often seen as something that disappeared in the Northern industrial countries as a result of labour regulations, technological development and the introduction of widespread schooling. They argue that this is a historical misunderstanding. What is more, they suggest that this misunderstanding might be explained by “empirical ignorance” (de Coninck-Smith et al. 1997:9). Little has been written on the matter, which in turn could be explained as resulting from the scarcity of sources in the form of public records. According to Dahl (1984:129), studies on work in general have often been “male centred” and “market centred”.6_{Too much} research has been devoted to work in industrial environments and on paid work and gainful employment, phenomena that do not easily fit with the work children do (Dahl 1984; de Coninck-Smith et al. 1997; Hengst and Zeiher 2000; Leonard 1998). Put together, this has strengthened the idea that working children is a thing of the past in Sweden. This in turn has created a sort of “cultural blindness” (de Coninck-Smith et al. 1997:10) when it comes to the question of children’s work in our society (see also Dahl 1984; James et al. 1998; Morrow 1994; Qvortrup 1985; Thorne 1987). Qvortrup (1994a) has argued that children’s work outside the home could be seen as a public secret; everyone knows about the existence of children’s work, but no one knows under what circumstances and to what extent children actually work. I am prepared to agree with Qvortrup when it comes to the knowledge problem regarding children’s work outside the home. I would like to add, however, that there exist general knowledge problems also concerning children’s work at home and concerning informal and unpaid work in general. As I pointed out above, many children in Sweden take part in lucrative business activities that create large profits for many companies and organizations. Moreover, previous research in Sweden has shown that children take part in a number of productive and reproductive activities in and outside the home (Johansson 2005; Justegård 2002; Näsman and von Gerber 2003). Thus, the information flow regarding children’s work has increased from the mid-1990s, when Qvortrup argued

6_{My translations from original Swedish.}

or not even counted at all. De Coninck-Smith, Sandin and Schrumpf (1997) have identified two correlated factors in this process: “empirical ignorance” and “cultural blindness”.

De Coninck-Smith, Sandin and Schrumpf (1997) claim that child labour is often seen as something that disappeared in the Northern industrial countries as a result of labour regulations, technological development and the introduction of widespread schooling. They argue that this is a historical misunderstanding. What is more, they suggest that this misunderstanding might be explained by “empirical ignorance” (de Coninck-Smith et al. 1997:9). Little has been written on the matter, which in turn could be explained as resulting from the scarcity of sources in the form of public records. According to Dahl (1984:129), studies on work in general have often been “male centred” and “market centred”.6_{Too much} research has been devoted to work in industrial environments and on paid work and gainful employment, phenomena that do not easily fit with the work children do (Dahl 1984; de Coninck-Smith et al. 1997; Hengst and Zeiher 2000; Leonard 1998). Put together, this has strengthened the idea that working children is a thing of the past in Sweden. This in turn has created a sort of “cultural blindness” (de Coninck-Smith et al. 1997:10) when it comes to the question of children’s work in our society (see also Dahl 1984; James et al. 1998; Morrow 1994; Qvortrup 1985; Thorne 1987). Qvortrup (1994a) has argued that children’s work outside the home could be seen as a public secret; everyone knows about the existence of children’s work, but no one knows under what circumstances and to what extent children actually work. I am prepared to agree with Qvortrup when it comes to the knowledge problem regarding children’s work outside the home. I would like to add, however, that there exist general knowledge problems also concerning children’s work at home and concerning informal and unpaid work in general. As I pointed out above, many children in Sweden take part in lucrative business activities that create large profits for many companies and organizations. Moreover, previous research in Sweden has shown that children take part in a number of productive and reproductive activities in and outside the home (Johansson 2005; Justegård 2002; Näsman and von Gerber 2003). Thus, the information flow regarding children’s work has increased from the mid-1990s, when Qvortrup argued

(11)

that children’s work outside the home could be seen as a public secret. Despite this, the popular opinion in Sweden seems to be that children do not work. A “cultural blindness” seems to prevail. The tasks children perform for the companies and organizations I mentioned above are not recognized as work. Consequently, the children taking part in the activities are not recognized as workers. Similarly, children’s, often informal and unpaid, activities in and outside the home are categorized in less auspicious terms than work.

De Coninck-Smith, Sandin and Schrumpf (1997:9) argue that the idea that work is not part of childhood has created a blind spot and that the history of child labour is thus, in a way, the “history of the adult world’s reluctance to accept children as social and cultural agents”. There is a reluctance to acknowledge children’s participation when it comes to work. My claim is that it is not only adults who are reluctant to accept children as social and cultural agents in this field. Many children in Sweden are also, at least in part, reluctant to accept children as social and cultural agents when it comes to work. In the present study, I will take a closer look at this conundrum. The overreaching aim of the study is thus to apply a child perspective and to study children, childhood and work to find out how childhood is constructed in the Sweden of today.

The Research Perspective

This study can be placed in the tradition of the “New Social Studies of Childhood”, or the Social Studies of Childhood, as I prefer to call it.7_In this tradition, researchers try to see children as individuals and foreground their different competences, capabilities and strategies. Within this approach, childhood is to be understood as a social construction (Boyden et al. 1998; James et al. 1998; James and James 2004). This implies that the

7 Worth underlining is that this research approach has been around since the late 20th century and is in that regard by no means “new” any more. Given that, this field is nowadays more often referred to as the Social Studies of Childhood. This is how I will henceforth refer to it in this book.

that children’s work outside the home could be seen as a public secret. Despite this, the popular opinion in Sweden seems to be that children do not work. A “cultural blindness” seems to prevail. The tasks children perform for the companies and organizations I mentioned above are not recognized as work. Consequently, the children taking part in the activities are not recognized as workers. Similarly, children’s, often informal and unpaid, activities in and outside the home are categorized in less auspicious terms than work.

De Coninck-Smith, Sandin and Schrumpf (1997:9) argue that the idea that work is not part of childhood has created a blind spot and that the history of child labour is thus, in a way, the “history of the adult world’s reluctance to accept children as social and cultural agents”. There is a reluctance to acknowledge children’s participation when it comes to work. My claim is that it is not only adults who are reluctant to accept children as social and cultural agents in this field. Many children in Sweden are also, at least in part, reluctant to accept children as social and cultural agents when it comes to work. In the present study, I will take a closer look at this conundrum. The overreaching aim of the study is thus to apply a child perspective and to study children, childhood and work to find out how childhood is constructed in the Sweden of today.

The Research Perspective

This study can be placed in the tradition of the “New Social Studies of Childhood”, or the Social Studies of Childhood, as I prefer to call it.7_In this tradition, researchers try to see children as individuals and foreground their different competences, capabilities and strategies. Within this approach, childhood is to be understood as a social construction (Boyden et al. 1998; James et al. 1998; James and James 2004). This implies that the

7 Worth underlining is that this research approach has been around since the late 20th century and is in that regard by no means “new” any more. Given that, this field is nowadays more often referred to as the Social Studies of Childhood. This is how I will henceforth refer to it in this book.

(12)

definition of childhood, and how children are supposed to behave, depends on the social and cultural context. Researchers in this field also try to study the child as an agent, as a social being and as a co-creator of its own position (Caputo 1995; James et al. 1998; Thorne 1987). This is in opposition to earlier ideas on socialization put forward by sociologists like Parsons, who have argued for a perspective in which the individuality of actors can be explained solely by a top-down approach focusing on the society and the form of socialization rather than on the individual’s actions (James et al. 1998; Jenks 2005). Furthermore, it is also in opposition to ideas in developmental psychology in which the child tends to be objectified and placed in an order of succession from an unfinished ”becoming” to a fully grown adult (Jenks 2005). Connected to these theories was the sociological idea in which children were mainly seen as formable objects that were part of a parental project.8_{In the Social Studies} of Childhood, children are perceived as people who are already part of society. Thus, children are not merely outcomes of social processes, but actors within them (Corsaro 1997; James et al. 1998; James and Prout 1997; Jenks 2005; Mayall 2002; Qvortrup 1994b).

The paradigm shift that occurred with the Social Studies of Childhood did not only deal with the ontological understanding of children. Rather, the “new” ideas about ontology also have consequences for the epistemology. Prout and James (1997:8) summarize the key features of the Social Studies of Childhood in a few points:

1. Childhood is understood as a social construction. As such it provides an interpretative frame for contextualising the early years of human life. Childhood, as distinct from biological immaturity, is neither a natural nor universal feature of human groups but appears as

8 Different scholars have discussed the categories ”Becoming”, ”Being” and ”Project” in various ways in regard to children, childhood, parents and parenthood over the years. Halldén (1991) uses the categories “Being” and “Project” to distinguish between different parents’ approaches to their children’s development, their ideas on the appropriate level of involvement in the developmental process, etc. Qvortrup (1994a) uses the category “Being“ in opposition to “Becoming” to underline an interest in children’s activities here and now, as participating members of the society of today, and not only as coming members of a future society. Lee (2001) problematizes the dichotomization between “Being” and “Becoming” regarding the division between adulthood and childhood. Connecting this debate to theories of a new “lifelong learning”, Lee ends up arguing that we are all “becomings”. See also Johansson (2005) for a similar discussion.

definition of childhood, and how children are supposed to behave, depends on the social and cultural context. Researchers in this field also try to study the child as an agent, as a social being and as a co-creator of its own position (Caputo 1995; James et al. 1998; Thorne 1987). This is in opposition to earlier ideas on socialization put forward by sociologists like Parsons, who have argued for a perspective in which the individuality of actors can be explained solely by a top-down approach focusing on the society and the form of socialization rather than on the individual’s actions (James et al. 1998; Jenks 2005). Furthermore, it is also in opposition to ideas in developmental psychology in which the child tends to be objectified and placed in an order of succession from an unfinished ”becoming” to a fully grown adult (Jenks 2005). Connected to these theories was the sociological idea in which children were mainly seen as formable objects that were part of a parental project.8_{In the Social Studies} of Childhood, children are perceived as people who are already part of society. Thus, children are not merely outcomes of social processes, but actors within them (Corsaro 1997; James et al. 1998; James and Prout 1997; Jenks 2005; Mayall 2002; Qvortrup 1994b).

The paradigm shift that occurred with the Social Studies of Childhood did not only deal with the ontological understanding of children. Rather, the “new” ideas about ontology also have consequences for the epistemology. Prout and James (1997:8) summarize the key features of the Social Studies of Childhood in a few points:

1. Childhood is understood as a social construction. As such it provides an interpretative frame for contextualising the early years of human life. Childhood, as distinct from biological immaturity, is neither a natural nor universal feature of human groups but appears as

8 Different scholars have discussed the categories ”Becoming”, ”Being” and ”Project” in various ways in regard to children, childhood, parents and parenthood over the years. Halldén (1991) uses the categories “Being” and “Project” to distinguish between different parents’ approaches to their children’s development, their ideas on the appropriate level of involvement in the developmental process, etc. Qvortrup (1994a) uses the category “Being“ in opposition to “Becoming” to underline an interest in children’s activities here and now, as participating members of the society of today, and not only as coming members of a future society. Lee (2001) problematizes the dichotomization between “Being” and “Becoming” regarding the division between adulthood and childhood. Connecting this debate to theories of a new “lifelong learning”, Lee ends up arguing that we are all “becomings”. See also Johansson (2005) for a similar discussion.

(13)

a specific structural and cultural component of many societies. 2. Childhood is a variable of social analysis. It can never be entirely divorced from other variables such as class, gender, or ethnicity. Comparative and cross-cultural analysis reveals a variety of childhoods rather than a single and universal phenomenon.

3. Children’s social relationships and cultures are worthy of study in their own right, independent of the perspective and concerns of adults. 4. Children are and must be seen as active in the construction and determination of their own social lives, the lives of those around them and of the societies in which they live. Children are not just the passive subjects of social structures and processes.

5. Ethnography is a particularly useful methodology for the study of childhood. It allows children a more direct voice and participation in the production of sociological data than is usually possible through experimental or survey styles of research.

6. Childhood is a phenomenon in relation to which double hermeneutic of the social science is acutely present (…). That is to say, to proclaim a new paradigm of childhood sociology is also to engage in and respond to the process of reconstructing childhood in society.

James, Jenks and Prout argue that what they describe as “the practice of childhood” is often produced by a separation between the world of adults and the world of children (James et al. 1998; see also Nieuwenhuys 2003; Näsman 1998). Traditionally, studies on children and childhood have often been based on research conducted in settings that are dominated by children (James et al. 1998; Prout and James 1997). According to Reynolds (1991:xix), “Studies of children continue to be relegated to sealed-off areas where specialists focus on aspects of childhood in isolation from the analysis of broader social, economic and political forces”.9_{Scholars in the} Social Studies of Childhood argue in favour of widening the research focus on children and childhood. One of the areas outlined as neglected and in need of more research is the area of children and work (Prout and James 1997).

Regarding research on working life, it is normally concentrated only on the activities of adults. In the present study, the angle is somewhat different. In line with the ambitions of the Social Studies of Childhood, the

9_{As we will see in the section on previous research, this has changed somewhat since}

that time. However, I argue that the predominant focus, concerning studies on children and childhood, is still the one outlined by Reynolds (1991).