‘What? Ideology? But children’s books aren’t ideological – that would be propaganda, it would be sacrilegious, it would be brainwashing!’
Literary criticism has shown us in the past century that no text can ever be devoid of ideological content, that is to say of a system of values, beliefs, fears, worldviews, which are closely linked to certain conceptions of power and order. Ideology is embedded in language.
And children’s literature is no exception to the rule.
Children’s books are made of words, and they are created in specific historical, political, social and cultural contexts. When David McKee writes Tusk Tusk, a political fable on racial war, he is talking from the viewpoint of a second-half-of-the-twentieth-century-man with the heritage of post-war pacifism and awareness of racial conflicts. It would make no sense to Enid Blyton. It would make no sense to White American supremacists.
Actively ideological children’s literature
Tusk Tusk is actively ideological – that is to say, it is actively denouncing the issues of racism and violence. Other books that try to promote certain behaviours, values or beliefs are, for instance, Babette Cole’s picturebook Princess Smartypants – an anti-fairytale which attacks the ideal of marriage for girls – Anthony Browne’s Zoo – which begs the reader to consider the condition of animals imprisoned for our entertainment – or Armin Greder’s The Island – which denounces the situation of immigrants. 
These children’s books, of a very high quality, 
exist partly for the purpose of instructing readers – not only children! – about the realities of our world, and, sometimes, about how to change them. They are political, because their very existence threatens the existing distribution of power by showing that it is flawed and unfair.
Passively ideological children’s literature
But don’t huff and puff if you’re against giving children ideological children’s literature. Because then you might as well take away all their books.
The most dangerous ideological content in children’s literature is the hidden one – the assumptions about the world that author, illustrator and/or publisher make when they release one book, and that the child reader is led to accept as fact.
Feminists have long denounced children’s books that represent doleful, obliging mothers, not because they are actively promoting male domination, but because they are normalising male domination. And that’s a much more insidious issue to get rid of. Because it’s inscribed, unquestioningly, everywhere the child looks to.
Passively ideological children’s literature represents 90% of all children’s literature (don’t quote me on this, it’s a rough estimate). And most often its ideology is conservative. Because conservative ideology, logically, tends to preserve itself. Passively ideological children’s books will normalise values and beliefs that have made their existence possible.
Next time you open a children’s book, ask yourself what worldviews, what conceptions of power, what ideals of education it conceals. It is not obvious – because the creators of the books themselves are unaware of it, and because it’s likely that they think more or less like you. But it is there. It cannot not be there.
And if you really can’t notice these assumptions, it means you’re so bathed in them that you take them for fact. It’s in your bones, in your brains, in your identity.
It’s ok, don’t freak out. We’re all like that.
by Clementine
I have a question. Clementine, you say in the podcast : “Children Literature is all about entertetaining whilst educating…”
Is it really? You are probably right about today children’s literature : it is a editorial genre, even if the lines are sometimes very blurry in what constitutes the limit between children and adult material.
However, there is a historical, literary and sociologicak question : a lot of books are read by children (and almost children or teens), and yet where never really intented for them. Dumas for instance, Pagnol, Moby Dick, White Fang, Jules Verne… Can you ignore the fact that it is not really a literature for adults, and yet it is not really intended solely for children either, since I am assuming that at the time, there was no such thing a children’s book (I may be completely wrong there…).
If I am right about that, can you say that “the purpose to educate” is a generic definition which can cover every children’s book?
And even about today’s children’s book? Is it really always the case? Can you find children’s books that are described as such and yet have no other purpose than being literature? And do they alays aim at educating somehow?
Thanks for the comment/question Miss Mérat 😉
Yes, you’re right to say that there are a lot of books that have a dual readership, and it’s true that ‘children’s literature’ is a fairly recent concept but still older, arguably, than all these authors.
So, personally, when I talk about children’s literature, I’m generally not taking into account books written and published for adults which are sometimes read by children, unless they become specifically published for children. This is for convenience really – you have to draw a line somewhere. What’s particularly interesting about children’s literature – the reason why I’m interested in it as an object of study as opposed to just ‘general’ literature – is that it’s written and published by adults, for children. So I look at books that have this characteristic. Doesn’t mean children don’t read books written and published for adults. But I need to know what I’m talking about – like when you study ‘women’s fiction’, you’re interested in this specific range of books for a specific reason, but obviously not all women read and write them, and lots of women read and write lots of other types of fiction (!).
Secondly I do think that the purpose to educate is inherent to any book that is written and published for children by adults, which doesn’t mean that it’s always conscious (I think it is rarely conscious). The imbalance in age and power which is the nature and definition of children’s literature means, according to me, that there can never be a children’s book that is not transmitting values, beliefs and patterns of behaviour from a position of superiority – and that, to me, is what education does.
By the way, these are my views but I can say fairly confidently that they are widely shared (and that I get them largely from) most children’s literature critics.
Clementine
“like when you study ‘women’s fiction’, you’re interested in this specific range of books for a specific reason, but obviously not all women read and write them, and lots of women read and write lots of other types of fiction (!).”
Oh, OK, I understand better this way! Thanks a lot!
Although I find children’s literature fascinating, I find I have trouble separating my point of view from my personal experience – much more than when I talk about literature in general.
) deeply affected me, much more than any kind of literature, I think.
The books I read as a child (were they children’s books or just books read by children…
They had so much more effect on me than books I read later, an effect that still resonates with me.
I read a little book when I was very young, about a little boy who couldn’t sleep because he saw “Shadows” in his room > badly drawn blobs of grey with big teeth. I still can’t read it, the book, which is around 6 pages, still terrifies me like when I was 4. Strange, huh?
I had a very strong emotional and intellectual response to books. I mostly think Aristoteles theory of catharsis is crap, but if I had to put a word on the experience I had with books, it would be some kind of extreme mimesis.
When you’re read to and learn to read before you learn to distinguish reality and fiction, the experience of fiction becomes something very different from the one you enjoy as an adult.
And somehow, I understand your argument very well, but as I am not a academic, especally not in this field, I have trouble separating “MY chilhood literary experience” from “Chilhood”. The way I talk about children’s literature is basically me re-reading and re-enjoying my literary experiences with better vocabulary.
“So, personally, when I talk about children’s literature, I’m generally not taking into account books written and published for adults which are sometimes read by children, unless they become specifically published for children. This is for convenience really – you have to draw a line somewhere.”
And I guess what is interesting in it is that you draw that line, and then recognise quality from the books that somehow escape to that definition…
Philipp Pullman is probably more interesting than Noddy!
“The books I read as a child (were they children’s books or just books read by children…
) deeply affected me, much more than any kind of literature, I think.
They had so much more effect on me than books I read later, an effect that still resonates with me.”
YES! thank you. That’s absolutely right. I do think that children’s literature has a very peculiar and emotional impact on people and that’s one of the reasons why it’s so fascinating.
“When you’re read to and learn to read before you learn to distinguish reality and fiction, the experience of fiction becomes something very different from the one you enjoy as an adult.”
Absolutely, though I would contest that it stops when you’re an adult, and that all children are like that. Adult readers are by no means guaranteed to distinguish between reality and fiction, cf Mme Bovary…
“And somehow, I understand your argument very well, but as I am not a academic, especally not in this field, I have trouble separating “MY chilhood literary experience” from “Chilhood”.”
The French educational system that we were both brought up in NEVER mentions childhood as an object of study, NEVER mentions children’s literature as an object of study, NEVER mentions children as an object of study. That’s why you’re finding it difficult, as everyone does. But it is possible to study childhood objectively, and using a wealth of different perspectives – philosophically, psychologically, historically, sociologically, economically and of course literarily and artistically.
Philippe Ariès, L’enfant et la vie familiale sous l’Ancien Régime peut être un point de départ au point de vue historique
“And I guess what is interesting in it is that you draw that line, and then recognise quality from the books that somehow escape to that definition…
Philipp Pullman is probably more interesting than Noddy!”
No, I don’t think I do! I don’t think this definition can be ‘escaped’ in any way. I recognise quality in complexity and ambiguity, and I draw the line at the writing/publishing stage when the audience is defined as ‘children’. I don’t think the two are linked in any way- I would apply these criteria to adult literature too
I read Philippe Ariès, actually, but thanks anyway! :p
It is true that the French system does not recognise children’s literature as a worthy topic. It’s even more complex than that, this notion of what is worthy and what is not.
There are books, or authors, which are not necessarily children’s books from the definition you gave me, which would never be mentioned at the Sorbonne (it might be different in other universities). I remembered once an old man at a XVIIth century conference who mentioned Pagnol. There was a definite feeling of uneasyness and disdain in the room. If we were children, we would have laughed and pointed fingers, but adults don’t do that. And my first reaction was also kind of “WTF?!”, but I realised it would stupid. And Pagnol is awesome, anyway. I re-read it after that.
“Absolutely, though I would contest that it stops when you’re an adult, and that all children are like that. Adult readers are by no means guaranteed to distinguish between reality and fiction, cf Mme Bovary…”
I did not mean to say that it stopped, but that generally adults are more aware of the frontier between imagination and the world. It does not mean that they don’t ignore it, but it’s more present.
BTW, I find absolutely awesome that in a argument to contest that adults see the difference between fiction and reality, you use a FICTION about how people can see the difference between fiction and reality as scientific argument! Mégalol.
Anyway, I don’t know if all children are like that. It was my personal expreience, but I dare say I’m not alone here. Actually, this is one the main things which attracted me to Harry Potter. The way it lingered and grew with me for so many years allowed me to keep that kind of naiveté towards this fictional world, a feeling I had lost with other books. I open it and it is like being 9 again.
It is not the same with every book I read again as an adult ; sometimes I saw the flaws in the plot, the weakness of the writing, the corny and overused tricks…
I guess a great children’s book is a book which make adults forget they’re adults.
(That was the midnight epiphany of the day. It is probably very trite and stupid.)
“I do think that children’s literature has a very peculiar and emotional impact on people and that’s one of the reasons why it’s so fascinating.”
Do you think, however, that a children’s book can be read by an adult for the first time and still have the same effect as it would on a child?
Sorry, I’m over-psychologizing everything, I understand this is NOT what literary theory is about, but I find the effect children’s literature has on a child’s intellectual and emotional growing quite fascinating.
“I did not mean to say that it stopped, but that generally adults are more aware of the frontier between imagination and the world. It does not mean that they don’t ignore it, but it’s more present.”
I would add that growing out of childhood is mainly about chaining up one’s imagination.
haha to be fair I’m not the person who invented the word ‘bovarysm’ :p
“Do you think, however, that a children’s book can be read by an adult for the first time and still have the same effect as it would on a child?”
Do you know, I’ve always wondered. I’m not sure it’s possible. And I think studying children’s literature makes it even harder 😀 but I read Tobie Lolness recently and it was a bit like that. And some picturebooks. Obviously (thankfully!), I adore children’s literature and I’m always reading children’s books. Whether it’s the ‘same’ effect – don’t think so.
“Sorry, I’m over-psychologizing everything, I understand this is NOT what literary theory is about, but I find the effect children’s literature has on a child’s intellectual and emotional growing quite fascinating.”
Oh it definitely is – these days, literary theory is going exactly in this direction, and children’s literature criticism has always taken into account educational theory and psychological research. It’s a cool time to be studying the Word 😉
“No, I don’t think I do! I don’t think this definition can be ‘escaped’ in any way. I recognise quality in complexity and ambiguity, and I draw the line at the writing/publishing stage when the audience is defined as ‘children’. I don’t think the two are linked in any way- I would apply these criteria to adult literature too :)”
I wrote a very long and confused answer, but I think I get it. What is interesting is not necessarily in finding a DEFINITION of children’s literature and being able to say “This is children’s literature and this is not”, but in understanding WHY this book is intended for children ; WHICH children ; WHAT KIND of children ; HOW they are supposed to read it, what they’re supposed to understand. In a nutshell, what the author meant when he declared “This is a children’s book”.
Am I right? (Or not? Be lenient, it’s late…)
That’s absolutely right, that’s pretty much what I think! (and there are lots of other questions to be asked)
Other children’s literature critics have different viewpoints on this question, however, and many have come up with definitions. But I think that very often they boil down to ‘whatever literature a given society gives its children at a given time’.
“Do you know, I’ve always wondered. I’m not sure it’s possible. And I think studying children’s literature makes it even harder 😀 but I read Tobie Lolness recently and it was a bit like that. And some picturebooks. Obviously (thankfully!), I adore children’s literature and I’m always reading children’s books. Whether it’s the ‘same’ effect – don’t think so.”
Yes, it sort of escapes you, this feeling, does it not? Without you noticing. Growing up sucks.
“Oh it definitely is – these days, literary theory is going exactly in this direction, and children’s literature criticism has always taken into account educational theory and psychological research.”
Oh oh, NOT IN FRANCE, dear!
😀
OK, I had to turn my computer back on, I have another thing to say (sorry I’m a bore, I know).
I understand how you define children’s literature ; it is based on the intention of the author or publisher. On Twitter earlier this evening I mentioned a lot of books which were not at all written for children but that are now published for children. From Huck Finn to Les Misérables, which I discovered in a drawing book when I was five, with games, stuff to colour and draw between the chapters, to a lot of classical literature. I read a lot of this kind of books when I was young ; not so much children’s literature as such, but classics which were somehow published for children. From shorter versions, to stories made into comics (I read Eugénie Grandet that way, Poe, Zola, Maupassant), a lot of classical literature is aimed at children now.
Can it still be an object for the academic in children’s literature? Or does it becomes to general to aknowledge every new edition which might just be a way to sell (Bella and Edward’s favourite book, I’m looking at you)?
Yes, sure, it’s interesting to study, especially as you can have a look at what they took out (because it means that they thought it was either too difficult or inappropriate for children, which gives a good idea of the conception of childhood they want to promote and preserve)
One of our lecturers works specifically on Shakespeare adaptations for children, in all shapes and forms.
Nicely put!
… (Also very happy to see reference to Babette Cole and her Princess Smartypants: Yay!)
thank you J.! it’s also a favourite of ours
Hi, I have to do a paper on the ideologys in the childrens book Moon Over Manifest. if you, or anyone has read that book, what ideologys would you say are present in that text?