Brain science and early years policy: hopeful ethos or ‘cruel optimism’?
Brain science and early years policy: hopeful ethos or ‘cruel optimism’?
Ideas that the quality of parental nurturing and attachment in the first years of a child’s life is formative, hard-wiring their brains for success or failure, are reflected in policy reports from across the political spectrum and in targeted services delivering early intervention. In this article we draw on our research into ‘Brain science and early intervention’, using reviews of key policy literature and interviews with influential advocates of early intervention and with early years practitioners, to critically assess the ramifications and implications of these claims. Rather than the ‘hopeful ethos’ proffered by advocates of the progressive nature of brain science and early intervention, we show that brain claims are justifying gendered, raced and social inequalities, positioning poor mothers as architects of their children’s deprivation.
early intervention, infant brain, mothering, neuroscience, social class
167-187
Edwards, Rosalind
e43912c0-f149-4457-81a9-9c4e00a4bb42
Gillies, Val
9c9bcf7c-be6d-4fce-bc64-4df1c1953db1
Horsley, Nicola
e1ee0dd8-f81a-471d-9a92-ebabb9036edf
May 2015
Edwards, Rosalind
e43912c0-f149-4457-81a9-9c4e00a4bb42
Gillies, Val
9c9bcf7c-be6d-4fce-bc64-4df1c1953db1
Horsley, Nicola
e1ee0dd8-f81a-471d-9a92-ebabb9036edf
Edwards, Rosalind, Gillies, Val and Horsley, Nicola
(2015)
Brain science and early years policy: hopeful ethos or ‘cruel optimism’?
Critical Social Policy, 35 (2), .
(doi:10.1177/0261018315574020).
Abstract
Ideas that the quality of parental nurturing and attachment in the first years of a child’s life is formative, hard-wiring their brains for success or failure, are reflected in policy reports from across the political spectrum and in targeted services delivering early intervention. In this article we draw on our research into ‘Brain science and early intervention’, using reviews of key policy literature and interviews with influential advocates of early intervention and with early years practitioners, to critically assess the ramifications and implications of these claims. Rather than the ‘hopeful ethos’ proffered by advocates of the progressive nature of brain science and early intervention, we show that brain claims are justifying gendered, raced and social inequalities, positioning poor mothers as architects of their children’s deprivation.
Text
CSP article for upload.doc
- Accepted Manuscript
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 30 January 2015
e-pub ahead of print date: February 2015
Published date: May 2015
Keywords:
early intervention, infant brain, mothering, neuroscience, social class
Organisations:
Sociology, Social Policy & Criminology
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 373963
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/373963
ISSN: 0261-0183
PURE UUID: 35faec5e-de61-4bab-9746-37622a2a5356
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 03 Feb 2015 14:57
Last modified: 15 Mar 2024 03:37
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Val Gillies
Author:
Nicola Horsley
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics