Girls working in Guatemala. Photo by amslerPIX
What is a “normal” childhood? Childhood, child-rearing and care-giving are all areas of human development which are largely taken for granted from within a single culture. However, approaches to childhood and children vary greatly across countries and peoples around the world. Cross-cultural research using the eHRAF World Cultures and eHRAF Archaeology databases allows us to compare and contrast aspects of childhood between cultures.
Since the 1950s, cross-cultural researchers have studied cultural variation in the treatment of infants and children and have produced numerous publications on the possible causes and consequences of these variations. But the anthropology of childhood has recently gained more prominence in academia, perhaps aided by Professor David Lancy’s (2015) book, The Anthropology of Childhood: Cherubs, Chattel, Changelings (updated second edition). His text provides a comprehensive review of the literature on children from an anthropological perspective. Using past and present examples from all regions of the world, Lancy reveals alternate cultural notions of children who can be treated by parents and care-givers as innocent beings, annoying inconveniences, or commoditized possessions.
Recently featured in a Sunday review in the New York Times, his book has captured parental fascination beyond academia by challenging what is so familiar about childhood in Western society. As Lancy explains: “I’ve had some success at weakening the intellectual monopoly that western, middle class culture holds on ideas about child rearing and child development. A very through review of childhood—aided immeasurably by eHRAF— from the ethnographic archives has allowed me to offer a cross-cultural and distinctly different account of “normal” childhood.”
Normal or just WEIRD?
In so-called WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic) societies, the responsibility is largely placed on parents or parental figures to not only nurture their children, but also teach them and guide their intellectual and social development from as early on in the lifespan as possible – including attempts to influence the fetus in utero (Lancy 2010: 80). This proactive and instructive approach, which can involve singing to a baby in the womb and providing educational toys with parental guidance throughout childhood, contrasts sharply with the approach to child development found in many non-WEIRD societies.
Ethnographic examples from the eHRAF World Cultures database effectively illustrate some of the ways that culture influences childhood development. While Western parents may be more familiar with the cultural notion that child-rearing demands a hands-on approach from caregivers until the child is self-sufficient, other cultures might leave children to explore freely as a form of self-education. They may be left to “find their own way” from a much younger age than Westerners are accustomed to. Furthermore, a child’s personhood status may be acknowledged earlier or later on in the life-cycle in some societies compared with others.
Among the Igbo of Nigeria, for instance, Basden (1966: 65) finds that “from the age of about three years, the Ibo child is reckoned as sufficiently advanced to be left more or less to its own devices. It begins to consort freely with children of its own age or company (otu) and to take its share in work and play.”
How children are treated can depend on cultural factors that include subsistence type, economic activity, family or community structure, and residence patterns. In some societies, children are protected and insulated by parents for long periods; while in others, independence and strength is encourage from a young age and children are not actively excluded from daily adult life.
For the Semai, a hunter-gatherer people from Malaysia, parents do not programmatically teach their children specific life or work skills, and, in fact, specifically avoid it as detrimental to the child:
Besides being coercion that might make the child sick, training is unnecessary because “our children learn by themselves”. Children tag along after adults, especially parents or grandparents, imitating their activities in ways that shade imperceptibly into helping out. … When no adults are around, children often play at adult activities by themselves (Dentan 1978: 126-127).
Similarly, in not all societies is it the task of parents to keep young children safeguarded from all the potential dangers of day-to-day life – at least as they may be perceived by outside observers – in the relatively safe confines of settlements. Here, daily adult activities are not seen as harmful to children and are therefore not off-limits to them. For the San (hunter-gatherers) in Southern Africa:
The relationship between children and adults is easygoing and unselfconscious. Adults do not believe that children should keep to themselves: be seen but not heard. The organization of work, leisure, and living space is such that there is no reason for confining children or excluding them from certain activities. Everyone lives on the flat surface of the ground; hence there is no need to protect children from falls or from becoming entrapped behind doors. With the exception of spears and poisoned arrows, adult tools do not constitute a hazard to children. Those weapons are simply kept hanging in trees or wedged on top of a hut, safely out of reach. When the men are making spear and arrow points, they do not attempt to exclude children … from the area (Draper 1976: 205-6).
Naturally, hunger-gatherer parents need to be more cautious and restrictive outside the settlement, where their children likely face danger from predators and can have little water. The two above examples from hunter-gatherer societies show some common traits; namely that the type of subsistence and resulting structure of society along with close proximity to extended family and other community members enable “teaching” to happen communally. The lines between work and play as children learn and grow are not especially clear and corrective behavior is likewise not always monitored or forced.
In societies where the division of labor is more rigid, however, we might alternatively find that children are expected to do their full share of grown-up work as soon as it is possible for them to contribute.
In pastoralist Kurdish society in Iraq, Hansen (1961: 49) finds that children play a role in the differentiation of labor, with jobs specifically designated for them: “The woman who makes the tea has nothing to do with serving it, and never moves from her position behind the samovar… As a rule it is children’s work. From the time they are able to balance across the floor with a tea glass and saucer in the one hand they take part in this ceremony.”
Similarly, Tongan children grow up in a horticulturalist society where they “begin to practice tasks before they are expected to be capable of doing them. Toddlers try to sweep up leaves, cut the grass with a machete, or peel vegetables and are usually allowed to handle the tools required for such tasks” (Lee 1996: 160).
Young girl from the Maniq tribe in southern Thailand. The Maniq are one of the few hunter-gatherer groups in Southeast Asia.” photo credit: Khaled Hakami (Anthropologist, University of Vienna), September 2014.
Other parents may intervene in more specific ways to help their children to develop. For example, Caughey (1977: 42) explains how Chuuk parents in Micronesia intend to foster desirable character traits in their children:
This concern is partially reflected in the earliest socialization techniques, such as administering magical medicines to infants. For example, one secret concoction known as “bravery medicine” (sáfeyen pwara) is supposed to help produce this trait in a child’s character. An elder whose grandson had been treated with such medicine observed proudly that the two year old child did not “laugh a lot like a woman”, liked to play with a huge machete, and did not flinch when the medical expert experimentally jabbed knives at his face.
That the visual of a small child waving a machete can cause discomfort for those living in WEIRD societies reveals how very different concepts of a “normal” childhood exist throughout the world. What is normal, ordinary, or extreme varies from place to place and culture to culture. Cross-cultural research supported with rich ethnographic context like that found in eHRAF World Cultures database not only enables us to discover differences between cultures, but, equally importantly, to find commonalities that may hold true universally across human populations.
Basden, George T. 1966. Among the Ibos of Nigeria: an account of the curious and interesting habits, customs and beliefs of a little known African people by one who has for many years lived amongst them on close and intimate terms. London: Cass. eHRAF World Cultures Database http://ehrafworldcultures.yale.edu/document?id=ff26-006, accessed 05 Feb 2015.
Caughey, John. 1977. Fa’a’nakkar cultural values in a Micronesian society. Philadelphia: Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania. eHRAF World Cultures Database http://ehrafworldcultures.yale.edu/document?id=or19-026, accessed 05 Feb 2015.
Dentan, Robert K. 1978. “Notes on childhood in nonviolent context: the Semai case”, in Ashley Montagu, Learning non-aggression. New York: OUP. pp. 94-143. eHRAF World Cultures Database http://ehrafworldcultures.yale.edu/document?id=an06-016, accessed 05 Feb 2015.
Draper, Patricia. 1976. “Social and economic constraints on child life among the !Kung” in Richard B. Lee and Irven DeVore, Kalahari hunter-gatherers: studies of the !Kung San and their neighbors. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. pp. 199-217. eHRAF World Cultures Database http://ehrafworldcultures.yale.edu/document?id=fx10-049, accessed 05 Feb 2015.
Hansen, Henny H. 1961. The Kurdish woman’s life: field research in a Muslim society, Iraq. Kobenhavn: Nationalmuseet. eHRAF World Cultures Database http://ehrafworldcultures.yale.edu/document?id=ma11-004, accessed 07 Feb 2015.
Lancy, David. F. 2008. The Anthropology of Childhood: Cherubs, Chattel, Changelings. New York: Cambridge.
— 2010. Learning ‘From Nobody’: The Limited Role of Teaching in Folk Models of Children’s Development. Childhood in the Past 3: 79-106.
Lee, Helen M. 1996. Becoming Tongan: an ethnography of childhood. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. eHRAF World Cultures Database http://ehrafworldcultures.yale.edu/document?id=ou09-107, accessed 06 Feb 2015.
Ember, C. and C. Cunnar. 2015. “Children’s Play and Work: The Relevance of Cross-Cultural Ethnographic Research for Archaeologists.” Childhood in the Past 8(2): 87-103. http://www.maneyonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/1758571615Z.00000000031
As economics becomes more globalized, the issue of gender roles remains central to the understanding political and economic evolution. IN order to understand cross-cultural differences related to gender, it is important that appropriate research instruments be developed. These research methodologies will support social scientists in the task of better understanding the nature, place, and contribution of gender roles to culture and society.
Keywords Androgyny; Cross-Cultural; Culture; Ethnicity; Gender; Gender Role; Gender Stereotype; Norms; Psychometrics; Sex; Socialization; Society; Subject; Survey
Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Gender
In terms of Western historical tradition, the concept of gender - or the psychological, social, cultural, and behavioral characteristics associated with being female or male – has traditionally been considered unalterably defined by physiology. Males, being the bigger and stronger of the sexes, were taught that they had a biological imperative not only to propagate the species, but to protect it. As a result, boys were taught from an early age to be aggressive, independent, dominant, and achieving. Women, on the other hand, were thought to be limited by their reproductive biology, in particular the constraints placed on them (or believed to be placed on them) by menstruation, pregnancy, childbirth, and lactation. As a result, girls were taught from an early age to be nurturing, sensitive, emotional, and passive. Of course, there have been exceptions to these gender stereotypes throughout history, and many well-known examples of men and women who eschewed accepted gender roles and made their own way in the world. However, such examples were typically looked on as aberrations - exceptions that proved the rule rather than broke it.
Cultural Gender Perspectives
Considerations of gender roles and identity were greatly impacted by the work of Margaret Mead and her research with the native peoples of New Guinea. Her work helped overturn the notion of the biological imperative for gender stereotypes. In the Tchambuli culture of New Guinea, gender roles for women include doing the fishing and manufacturing, as well as controlling the power and economic life of the community. The Tchambuli women also take the lead in initiating sexual relations. On the other hand, Tchambuli men are dependent, flirtatious, and concerned with their appearance, often adorning themselves with flowers and jewelry. In addition, Tchambuli men have a great interest in art, games, and theatrics (Coon, 2001). If gender roles were completely biologically determined, the wide variation between American and Tchambuli gender roles would not be possible, because the physical biology of males is the same in both cultures. In response to the work of Mead and other sociologists, most social scientists reached the conclusion that culture and socialization also play a crucial role in gender role acquisition.
Not all cross-cultural gender role differences are quite as glaring as the comparison between traditional Western culture and the Tchambuli, however. Chuang and Cheng (1994), for example, performed a cross-cultural study to examine differences in gender role attitudes between Chinese and American students. Specifically, the researchers were interested in whether or not these were gender differences in attitudes towards women and gender roles and whether or not they were cultural differences in these attitudes. Subjects in the study came from a predominantly white state university in North Carolina and from the national nniversity in Taiwan. The subjects were given a set of survey instruments (translated into Chinese for the Chinese subjects) that examined attitudes towards women, marital roles, social interaction, male preference (for female subjects only), and expressivity (for male subjects only). Consistent with previous work in this area, the researchers found that all female subjects in both cultures desire to be more equal whereas males desired to continue playing a dominant role in society. The study also found that the Chinese subjects tended to be more conservative than the American subjects and that the Chinese women preferred masculine, dominant males more strongly than did their American counterparts.
International boundaries are not the only parameters that define cultures. Different generations have their own gender cultures as well. To this end, Franco, Sabattini, and Crosby (2004) explore the associations among gender-related ideologies, values, and behaviors and Latino and White families in the United States. Their work examines the correspondence among attitudes, values, and behaviors from two different ethnic groups in order to determine whether or not daughters perceive that their mothers and fathers differ in their gender-based ideology and commitments to gender roles. Subjects were given a survey that asked them to report on their perceptions of their mothers' and fathers' ideologies, values and behaviors. Other standard instruments were used to measure perceived gender role ideology, perceived personal values, perceived commitment to roles, and perceived behaviors of the parents. The results of the study indicated that Latinas were more likely than white respondents to indicate that they believe that their parents had traditional gender roles. Similarly, Latinas also believe that their parents exhibit a more traditional division of household labor. However, Latina participants did not differ significantly from white participants in their perceptions of the amount of time that their mother spent on parenting, although white participants did believe that their father spent more time parenting than did Latino participants.
The Effects of Time on Gender Perspectives
Gender roles also change and evolve within societies. If, as assumed by many theorists, gender role is largely a product of socialization and culture, it would be reasonable to assume that gender roles also will evolve to support these changes. Marini (1990) traces some of the changes between gender roles and the evolution of society from hunter-gatherers to industrialization. Prior to industrialization, the structures of work and family in societies were closely integrated. In such societies, large families were an economic asset because more children meant more workers within the family to plant, cultivate, and harvest. As a result, the reproductive role and productive work of mothers was valued in such societies. However, with the trend toward urbanization, gender roles also shifted. As agricultural productivity improved with greater dependence on tools and animals, women's labor was no longer as necessary for the success of the family farm. As a result, women shifted their focus to other activities, primarily within the home. With the onset of industrialization, institutions outside the family became the centers of productivity and workers left the home for employment. As new labor rights legislation limited the employment of children, they became more dependent on adults as caretakers. Combined with the fact that there was little demand for women's labor outside the home, this led to a greater degree of differentiation of labor within the role, which was absorbed into the gender roles.
Difficulties in Gathering Data
Gathering data in the social sciences can be a challenging task. This is due in part to the fact that although one can in many cases observe and even quantify data regarding an individual's behavior, knowing only what the end behavior is does not explain why the individual behaves that way. For the most part, social scientists are interested in why behavior occurs so that they can better understand the underlying processes that resulted in that behavior and be better able to explain and predict future behavior. For example, suppose that two people are window-shopping on a lazy summer afternoon and the one person turns to the other asks if s/he would be interested in getting an ice cream. The second person politely demurs, and the two continue their leisurely stroll. As social scientists observing this interaction, all we know for certain is that the second person refused to get an ice cream. What we do not know is why that person refused. We could, for example, interpret this response to mean that the second person was not hungry at that time. However, a host of alternative explanations are...