MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2007797833 · doi:10.1353/aq.2007.0014

American Studies and Childhood Studies: Lessons from Consumer Culture

2006· article· en· W2007797833 sur OpenAlexfundno aff
Julia L. Mickenberg

Notice bibliographique

RevueAmerican Quarterly · 2006
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueThemes in Literature Analysis
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesUniversity of OxfordHarvard UniversityYork UniversityJohns Hopkins UniversityUniversity of MinnesotaYale University
Mots-clésCommodificationCulture of the United StatesAmerican studiesCharacter (mathematics)SociologyClothingPopular cultureHistoryMedia studiesArt historyArtLiterature

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

American Studies and Childhood Studies:Lessons from Consumer Culture Julia L. Mickenberg (bio) Babes in Tomorrowland: Walt Disney and the Making of the American Child, 1930-1960. By Nicholas Sammond. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2005. 472 pages. $89.95 (cloth). $24.94 (paper). The Commodification of Childhood: The Children's Clothing Industry and the Rise of the Child Consumer. By Daniel Thomas Cook. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2004. 211 pages. $74.95 (cloth). $21.95 (paper). Raising Consumers: Children and the American Mass Market in the Early Twentieth Century. By Lisa Jacobson. New York: Columbia University Press, 2004. 320 pages. $37.00 (cloth). $24.00 (paper). Why is the field of childhood studies relevant to American studies? As R. Gordon Kelly pointed out in a seminal American Quarterly essay in 1974, studying childhood and the culture surrounding it provides crucial insights into core values and practices of our society, revealing how American culture reproduces itself in the younger generation.1 Classic inquiries into "American character" recognized this basic fact: anthropologist Margaret Mead, for instance, observed in 1942 that "just as one way of understanding a machine is to understand how it is made, so one way of understanding the typical character structure of a culture is to follow step by step the way in which it is built into the growing child."2 Scholars of certain historical eras—perhaps most notably the post–World War II period—have paid special attention to children as "barometer[s] of American life" (to use Richard Pells's formulation), but only relatively recently have works with children as their focus begun to gain the sustained attention of American studies scholars.3 However, a strain of exciting scholarship by people such as Karin Calvert, Katharine Capshaw Smith, Gary Cross, Paula Fass, Miriam Forman-Brunell, Sherrie Inness, Henry Jenkins, Kenneth Kidd, Lynne Vallone, and others, in what has come to be called "childhood studies" should be of interest to all scholars of American studies.4 [End Page 1217] The three books reviewed here implicitly or explicitly suggest that we cannot understand consumer culture as a defining feature of twentieth-century America without examining its development in relation to children and childhood. Yet even as Americans increasingly define themselves by the goods they buy, own, and consume, we often view children as somehow apart—or ideally apart—from the crass realm of commerce. As Daniel Cook notes in the introduction to The Commodification of Childhood, "in various ways . . . childhood stands apart from the market even as children are born, live, and grow in tandem with commercial culture" (7). The irony of this false separation is compounded by the fact that "bad" consumption tends to be corrected not by limiting consumption, but by introducing "beneficial" consumer goods. As one nursery school educator argued in the 1920s, "[if] our stimulation is to compete with Satan's . . . we must provide legitimate thrills."5 These three books argue that the tension between consumerism and childhood in the modern era was not simply reconciled but actually employed in service of their mutual development.6 Growing emphasis on providing edifying activity, entertainment, and goods for children marked not simply a new relationship between children and consumer culture but also crucial transformations in both phenomena at the beginning of the twentieth century. During the same period that the United States underwent a profound shift from a production-oriented economy to a consumer-oriented economy, childhood was likewise redefined. As the nation shifted from its agricultural roots to an urban, bureaucratized economy, the child, removed from the labor force, was sacralized: valued for sentimental rather than instrumental reasons.7 This "priceless" child was also increasingly studied, codified, regulated, and protected through the new fields of pediatrics and child psychology, new agencies devoted to child welfare such as the Children's Bureau (established in 1912), and the rise of compulsory schooling, child study programs, and "scientific" regimes of parenting. All of these new patterns of study and regulation shifted public attention away from the immigrant/working-class child in need of "saving" and toward the "normal" child whose development parents would want to emulate in their own offspring, and whom advertisers would...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,012
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,067
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,133

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0120,012
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0070,011
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0120,049
Communication savante0,0140,017
Science ouverte0,0020,006
Intégrité de la recherche0,0060,008
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,016
Tête enseignante GPT0,280
Écart entre enseignants0,265 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2006
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAmerican QuarterlyMême sujetThemes in Literature AnalysisTravaux en français237 207