Sociologists and anthropologists view childhood more in terms of social construction, with each society expecting different things from the young, and to a certain extent getting back its expectations in return.

Children’s Childhoods Observ-ed and Experienced takes this latter view but also throws in the concept of political oppression. For the ten contributors to this collection of papers, ably edited and introduced by Berry Mayall, European children are sold short by the type of childhood imposed upon them. Blame for this is directed at a patriarchal, capitalist society, intent on fixing the way children live in favour of its own “adultist” needs.

Children have certainly always known more than they are generally credited for. In belated recognition of this, the Children Act now builds in consultation with the young in a way unimaginable before in British law.At school, hospital or at home, the needs of children may indeed sometimes come a long second to adult preconceptions about what must be. But even half-converted readers to increased children’s rights may gag at statements in this book such as “Most of children’s time is ordered in the interests of adults (day-care, school, supervision out of school.)” Is that really what pushing an infant on a swing in a freezing recreation ground is all about?

This type of over-statement is not uncommon. There is also a distinctly slippery use of the term “children” itself. Older children, as suggested here, should of course be consulted over the pros and cons of their treatment for serious illness. But this makes less sense in the case of tiny infants. Clearly here and elsewhere when children’s judgment is an issue there must be some age cut-off point.

Yet no contributor ever says what exactly this should be when discussing their own particular field, absolute cut-off points being so notoriously difficult to defend once established. Rather than face this dilemma, too many simply fall back on the term “children” when describing a young audience in need of change, denying the enormous range of age and ability this word covers.

For any conscientious parent, modern children are in fact expensive and extremely time-consuming. They are also inexperienced in many of the ways of the world, and physically and emotionally vulnerable to abuse. It is reasonable for adults to impose rules and conventions to protect this immaturity. Nor can parents be blamed for trying to get something pleasing and acceptable back on their long-term emotional and financial investment in the young. Neglect of children is surely worse than occasionally misplaced adult expectations, so long as these are not of undue or grotesque proportions.

“A political sociology of childhood, which could enlist the support of children” therefore seems to me a misconceived ambition. If children did rebel against what they are asked here to see as adult oppression in general, what could they expect instead?

No more families? An end to school? If they went for total reform of existing institutions of the type hinted at in these pages, how could there ever be a family or a school run solely in the interests of children?

Adults must always be involved too, with their own legitimate demands and needs. This book is stimulating and often justified when detailing times when adults do not pay enough heed to the young - witness Colin Ward’s excellent chapter on the loss of children’s traditional right to play outside in favour of the needs of motorists. But overall its vision of a childhood without constant and inevitable adult interference is vague and unconvincing.

Nicholas Tucker is a lecturer in developmental psychology at Sussex University.