Applying material from Item A, analyse two changes in the position of children in society over the last 100 years.

Item A: Parents today spend a great deal of time and money trying to make sure that their children enjoy a comfortable upbringing. They want their children to have opportunities that they themselves never had. ‘March of progress’ sociologists argue that these changes in family life have led to an improvement in the position of children in society.
As stated in item A, individuals in modern society want their children to “have opportunities they themselves never had”, creating not only a more child-centred family, but also a child-centred society. As a result, greater time and money is spent creating products designed specifically for children, leading to the perception of childhood as a designated period of vulnerability, whilst simultaneously commercialising it. Though ‘march of progress’ sociologists would consider this “an improvement in the position of children” (i.e a child-centred society leads to increased spending on child welfare/healthcare); Firestone and Halt deem it a subtle form of oppression and control, wherein children are forcibly segregated to make them further dependant and powerless. Such a claim is supported by Palmer’ study of toxic childhood, wherein she identifies the commercialisation of childhood as leading to the exploitation of children by advertisers. As a result, it can be argued that the perceived benefits of a child-centred society are not necessarily beneficial in their entirety, a fact which is overlooked on the basis of improvements such as child labour and school leaving laws.
In addition to this, the position of childhood has shifted in the sense that children no longer act as an economic asset, but rather as an economic liability. Following industrialisation, modern industries grew to require a more skilled and educated workforce, hence the period of childhood became, in modern society, socially constructed as a period of learning and acquiring such skills. As stated in Item A, this can be viewed as a method of ensuring children have a “comfortable upbringing” and enabling “children to have opportunities” in an industrialised society – therefore supporting the march of progress view that the position of children has improved. This can, however, be criticised both on the basis of toxicity, as well as the disappearance of childhood. Though Palmer’s study would indicate that the ‘schoolification’ of childhood reinforces blind obedience and increases stress/anxiety at early ages (hence contributing to the experience of ‘toxic childhood’ and opposing the march of progress view); Postman’s work acts as further evidence against this. By examining the contribution of digital media towards the disappearance of an ‘information hierarchy’, Postman suggests that childhood is disappearing on the basis that children now have access to ‘adult’ information. It can therefore be argued that, in spite of legal changes which segregate the two groups, children in modern society are increasingly denied the privileges of innocence and naivety associated with childhood.