The documentaries “Seven Up” and “7 plus Seven”, follow a group of children representing different social classes in Britain in the 1960’s and 1970’s. The themes compared and contrasted in the documentaries, are the influences of class, age, gender, religion, race, and happiness, on a child’s perception of the world around them. How do these themes influence the development of a child? How do internal and external stimuluses impact a child’s view of the world, and the view of themselves? How much does socio-economic conditions and class predict the possibilities of the future? The children of the 1960’s and 1970’s, show a segment of the population representative of today’s child. What is evident from the "Seven Up" and "7 plus Seven" documentaries,
…show more content…
They each are incredibly perceptive of their class differences, and are intolerant and critical of children outside of their class. The school system in Britain segregates children by the type of school they attend, which I believe negatively accentuates a child 's sense of self. The children attending primary or comprehensive school are perceived as disadvantaged, with less opportunity presented to them. While the children attending public or preparatory school, are viewed as advantaged, have an inflated sense of self, and endless opportunity. This lack of inclusion is unfortunate, as the school system is structured so children are not given the same opportunities. There is zero chance for equal opportunity, which establishes a hierarchy within the social dynamics of these children. The children are simply embracing the language, clothing, and culture, they are exposed to within their class. Tony, who attends primary school, at seven years old, believes the rich children to speak differently and should be punched for doing so. By contrast the three boys who attend preparatory school, sing in Latin, discuss how poor children are to be made fun of, are dirty, and are “sissies”. The children are not taught to celebrate diversity but to reject …show more content…
How a child will feel about race, sexuality, religion, political views, and class, will all have origins in the parental belief system. All of the children demonstrate this. John for example, has been greatly influenced by what his parents perceive to be as important. Education and literacy hold great value, as he discusses that his seven year old self reads "The Observer" and "Financial Times". Common sense would assume, such reading is not taking place, rather John is posturing who he thinks his parents want him to be. Children crave acceptance and validation by their parents. What does the role of parental attachment play in this need to please? The preparatory children discuss parental attachment and how it is viewed differently. I believe it could be argued, the parents of the middle and upper class children are more involved in advancing their children in education, regardless of their physical involvement. These children demonstrate the knowledge of parental expectations for the future when discussing anticipated university endeavors. The seven year old primary and comprehensive children also have future plans, although seemingly more generic and not as concrete. What is defined as important in early childhood becomes magnified in adolescence. As an adolescent, John has strong opinions about politics, the working class, and what defines success. This
They each are incredibly perceptive of their class differences, and are intolerant and critical of children outside of their class. The school system in Britain segregates children by the type of school they attend, which I believe negatively accentuates a child 's sense of self. The children attending primary or comprehensive school are perceived as disadvantaged, with less opportunity presented to them. While the children attending public or preparatory school, are viewed as advantaged, have an inflated sense of self, and endless opportunity. This lack of inclusion is unfortunate, as the school system is structured so children are not given the same opportunities. There is zero chance for equal opportunity, which establishes a hierarchy within the social dynamics of these children. The children are simply embracing the language, clothing, and culture, they are exposed to within their class. Tony, who attends primary school, at seven years old, believes the rich children to speak differently and should be punched for doing so. By contrast the three boys who attend preparatory school, sing in Latin, discuss how poor children are to be made fun of, are dirty, and are “sissies”. The children are not taught to celebrate diversity but to reject …show more content…
How a child will feel about race, sexuality, religion, political views, and class, will all have origins in the parental belief system. All of the children demonstrate this. John for example, has been greatly influenced by what his parents perceive to be as important. Education and literacy hold great value, as he discusses that his seven year old self reads "The Observer" and "Financial Times". Common sense would assume, such reading is not taking place, rather John is posturing who he thinks his parents want him to be. Children crave acceptance and validation by their parents. What does the role of parental attachment play in this need to please? The preparatory children discuss parental attachment and how it is viewed differently. I believe it could be argued, the parents of the middle and upper class children are more involved in advancing their children in education, regardless of their physical involvement. These children demonstrate the knowledge of parental expectations for the future when discussing anticipated university endeavors. The seven year old primary and comprehensive children also have future plans, although seemingly more generic and not as concrete. What is defined as important in early childhood becomes magnified in adolescence. As an adolescent, John has strong opinions about politics, the working class, and what defines success. This