Child development in an ideological context: Through the lens of resistance and accommodation

Abstract

Every aspect of child development—from cognition to relationships—is shaped by macrolevel ideologies (e.g., white supremacy, patriarchy) that reflect the social hierarchies and embedded power structures of society. While ecological theories have long underscored the impact of macrosystems and cultures on humans, the field of child development has tended to overemphasize microsystems and often overlooks how ideologies of power shape developmental processes. In this article, we situate child development within and in response to the ideological context, which directs the field’s attention away from “fixing” individuals and microsystems and toward disrupting the macro‐ideologies that shape them. We ground this article in research on resistance and accommodation to such ideologies, revealing that humans have a natural capacity to resist what gets in the way of their ability to survive and thrive. We discuss questions that are necessary to address when integrating resistance and accommodation in the study of child development.

From promoting healthy masculinities to nurturing healthy humans and societies: Commentary on Di Bianca and Mahalik (2022).

“…They state that “RCT addresses how systems of oppression silence authenticity, keep people isolated, and maintain injustice” (Di Bianca & Mahalik, 2022, p. 322), and they argue that authentic relationships—with each other and ourselves—are a pathway to healing. This framing is well aligned with my research in human development and focus on how young people develop their identities and relationships in cultural context (Rogers, 2018, 2020; Rogers & Way, 2018, 2021; Rogers, Versey, et al, 2021). In this commentary, I bring a developmental perspective into focus with discussion of Carol Gilligan’s landmark scholarship on human development in a patriarchal society (1982, 1993, 1995, 2011; Gilligan et al, 1990, 2018), which is largely overlooked in Di Bianca and Mahalik’s article.…”

“…Listening to mostly Black and Brown children and adolescents over the past decade, I have learned that youth negotiate multiple social hierarchies and cultural ideologies, related to gender, race, sexuality, class, as they form their identities and relationships (e.g., Rogers, 2018; 2020; Rogers et al, 2020; Rogers, Versey, et al, 2021). Moreover, young people do not simply accept or accommodate cultural “norms,” they often question and challenge such ideologies, rejecting harmful expectations and stereotypes, crafting liberating counternarratives, and affirming their identities in ways that disrupt oppressive cultural narratives—in society and developmental science (Rogers & Way, 2018, 2021). This research is not only for or about youth of color, it is about how humans develop within and in response to a cultural ideological context (Rogers, Niwa, et al, 2021; Rogers & Way, 2021).…”

“…Moreover, young people do not simply accept or accommodate cultural “norms,” they often question and challenge such ideologies, rejecting harmful expectations and stereotypes, crafting liberating counternarratives, and affirming their identities in ways that disrupt oppressive cultural narratives—in society and developmental science (Rogers & Way, 2018, 2021). This research is not only for or about youth of color, it is about how humans develop within and in response to a cultural ideological context (Rogers, Niwa, et al, 2021; Rogers & Way, 2021).…”

Gender segregation in culturally feminized work: Theory and evidence of boys’ capacity for care.

“…In addition, focusing exclusively on eliminating the structural advantages of men who have already taken up HEED work addresses only a narrow sliver of contributors to labor segregation on the whole. As developmental scholars have stressed, complicated social problems require the integration of knowledge from multiple levels of the ecological system (Rogers & Way, 2021). Guided by this framework, men's peer environments and workplace cultures are valid entry points for structural intervention along with promotion reform, wage equity, and equal access to parental leave.…”

Expanding the social psychological study of educators through humanizing principles

“…For example, cognition and thinking become privileged over emotionality and connection and these capacities are assigned to particular groups, which are then used to justify dominance and inequality. In this example, men, wealthy people, and white people are thinkers and women, poor people, and people of color are feelers , therefore those assigned “thinkers” dominate those assigned to be “feelers” when in fact all humans think and feel and both capacities are innately and equally human (Rogers & Way, 2021). Humanization places the range of human needs, desires, and capacities on equal footing and thus makes space for people to also find equal footing.…”