Parents try to present a “good and adequate parent self” by publicly disciplining their children ( Brown, 1979) or demonstrating their moral responsibility through apologising to others present or accounting for their children’s behaviour ( Ryan, 2008). This could explain why parents view children’s public misbehaviour as an “emergency situation” ( Brown, 1979). Most people internalise social norms and values across the life course and develop strategies and means of maintaining what Goffman (1967) calls ‘poise’ during encounters with others.Ĭhildren’s behaviour in public places directly reflects on the perceived competence of their parent or caretaker: “Through smiles, glances and other subtle indications, other adults continually remind children’s public caretakers that their charges’ public behaviour is a reflection of their own moral character” ( Cahill, 1987, p. Our ability to put ourselves in the shoes of others and imagine how they perceive us is a powerful tool for facilitating social cohesion in public places though, of course, people’s perceptions may often be distorted and influenced by their life experiences, assumptions and prejudices. It is the outcome of a very rigid form of informal control ( Goffman, 1967) operating in public places ethnomethodologists would argue that the preservation of orderliness matters more than the communication of meaning ( Jenkins, 2009).įor interactionists, the self arises in social experiences and is sustained through social interaction ( Cahill, 1987). As Cloke and Jones (2005) suggest, soft criminality is often inferred from the disruption of adult order. Running around, screaming or shouting, cannot be described as criminal activities and yet the collective strength attached to the rules governing behaviour in public places makes such behaviours unacceptable. Of course, the children’s behaviour in public places is often not, in and of itself, particularly problematic. Here we are concerned with the surveillance tactics of those present their use of stares, glares or comments to inform children and their caretakers that their behaviour is not acceptable. Several layers of disciplinary actions and surveillance, explicit and implicit, underline the position of children in public places. This socialisation occurs ‘on the job’ so to speak as children are ‘instructed’, ‘coached’ and ‘primed’ by their caretakers about the ceremonial rules that govern public spaces ( Cahill, 1987). This work suggests that the streets belong to adults and children are permitted into public spaces only when they have been socialised into appropriate adult ways of behaving ( Valentine, 1996). While it has been argued that the traditional authority of parents to discipline and control their children has been eroded ( Valentine, 1996 Jamieson and Toynbee, 1989), much literature highlights the significance attached to children becoming competent social actors in public places, and the role parents play in this development ( Cahill, 1987 Valentine, 1996 Matthews and Limb, 1999 Philo, 2000 Ryan, 2005). Here an analysis of data from interviews with 46 parents of children with ASD focuses on the emotion work parents do in public places and highlights how covert emotion work masks the emotional intensity of public encounters for those present. Previous research has considered the role parents play in managing public encounters involving children with ASD (for example, Gray, 2002 Ryan, 2005, 2008 Farrugia, 2009), but the emotional management this involves has not been fully examined. This can cause particular tensions in public places. Whilst the difficulties experienced by children with ASD can often be significant, there is often no outward sign of the condition. For children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders (ASD), the assimilation of normative ways of behaving is often problematic because of the social, intellectual and sensory difficulties the children may experience. Recent work considers the concern surrounding children’s presence in public places and underlines the disquiet associated with the unruly behaviour of children ( Valentine, 1996 Matthews and Limb, 1999). While such transgressions are often tolerated in very young children, there is an expectation that children are ‘becoming adults’ and will learn the requirements of adulthood ( James et al., 1998). Children create disorder in public space when they transgress social, spatial or temporal boundaries ( Cloke and Jones, 2005).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |