遲至1970 年代，西方兒童史的研究才剛剛開始萌芽。以往兒童史研究會被忽略的原因有：過去兒童不受重視，不值得研究；傳統的歷史研究，將兒童排除在外；兒童缺乏政治上的籌碼，為自己爭取在歷史舞台上的發聲機會；小孩本身留下的資料非常少，造成研究上的困難。近來兒童興起的原因，包括受到社會學研究典範轉變的影響，此一新典範構成1970 年代兒童史研究的主要取向；加上歷史研究重心的轉移，1970 年代社會史的擴充。造成學術界對過去歷史上的兒童，產生極大的興趣。兒童史研究的開拓者為法國史家菲立普．阿利斯(Philippe Ariès)，他出版《兒童世紀》一書，刺激了其後有關兒童與家庭的歷史研究。不過阿利斯所受到的批評也很多，包括史料的使用以及解釋上的「現代心態」。之後兒童史的研究，主要循著兩條軸線：一是1970 年代開始的「社會建構論」；一是1980 年代奠基於批評社會建構論的「生活經驗論」。兒童史研究未來的任務，包括進一步開發不同的兒童史議題；針對研究證據，進行方法論的討論；承擔批判及解構主流歷史的責任，賦予被遺忘的族群新的生命。

Until relatively recently, children and childhood have been missing dimensions in historical writing. Why were children so neglected by historians? First, children in the West were merely thought of as imperfect adults, and there was a feeling that children were not worth studying. Second, as with women, the history of children and childhood was ignored primarily because historians focused on societies’ elites. One consequence has been that children in history were rarely accorded the importance they deserve. Third, in the past historians ignored the working class, women, black people, and gay men, although since the 1960s (and much earlier in the case of the working class), each of these groups has begun to have a recorded history, largely as a result of their political struggles. Children, however, lacked such political significance, so historians tended to remain uninterested in them as historical subjects. Finally, a particular problem is to unearth source material on past childhoods. Children themselves leave few records, and even artifacts designed for them, such as books and toys, have a poor survival rate. Nonetheless, gradually historians have recognized the importance of the history of childhood and children. On the one hand, a new paradigm―a social construct for the sociology of childhood emerged—and influenced historical writing about childhood. On the other hand, the remarkable upsurge in social history in the 1970s produced an array of publications on neglected historical topics. Philippe Ariès was one of the pioneers of the history of childhood and children. Philippe Ariès’ Centuries of Childhood (published in French in 1960 and in English in 1962) offered a historiographical example for the topic. The history of children is now, along with women’s history, rescued from oblivion. Many writers of children’s history, however, challenged Ariès’ theories of modernity. One camp, led by Lloyd deMause and others, accepted Ariès’ approach to the history of mentalities but emphasized that the concept of childhood is socially constructed. Some eminent social historians, such as Linda Pollock and Keith Wrightson, moved beyond the history of mentalities to reconstruct children’s experiences in history, relating how they really lived. Some historians proposed a useful framework for investigation, suggesting that historians of children should explore more issues. It is critical that scholars working in the field debate methodological questions. For those of us who see ourselves as historians of childhood, one way forward is to draw two lessons from the methodologies and programs of feminist historians. First should be giving history an “age” dimension. Second, as women’s history has been defined as “critical history,” so, too, should be that of children. My aim in this article in part is to trace the development of the history of childhood in Western society.

阿利斯；兒童史；心態史；家庭史

Ariès; the History of Children; the History of Family; the History of Mentalities