The ‘first three years’ movement and the infant brain: a review of critiques

Jan Macvarish*, Ellie Lee, Pam Lowe

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This article reviews a particular aspect of the critique of the increasing focus on the brain and neuroscience; what has been termed by some, 'neuromania'. It engages with the growing literature produced in response to the 'first three years' movement: an alliance of child welfare advocates and politicians that draws on the authority of neuroscience to argue that social problems such as inequality, poverty, educational underachievement, violence and mental illness are best addressed through 'early intervention' programmes to protect or enhance emotional and cognitive aspects of children's brain development. The movement began in the United States in the early 1990s and has become increasingly vocal and influential since then, achieving international legitimacy in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the UK and elsewhere. The movement, and the brain-based culture of expert-led parent training that has grown with it, has been criticised for claiming scientific authority whilst taking a cavalier approach to scientific method and evidence; for being overly deterministic about the early years of life; for focusing attention on individual parental failings rather than societal or structural problems, for adding to the expanding anxieties of parents and strengthening the intensification of parenting and, ultimately, for redefining the parent-child relationship in biologised, instrumental and dehumanised terms.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)792-804
Number of pages13
JournalSociology compass
Volume8
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 30 Jun 2014

Fingerprint

infant
brain
neurosciences
educational poverty
parents training
structural problem
parent-child relationship
Social Problems
child welfare
mental illness
politician
New Zealand
legitimacy
parents
Canada
expert
violence
anxiety
evidence
literature

Cite this

@article{77939084338c499694c9a3ab8b0dee2e,
title = "The ‘first three years’ movement and the infant brain: a review of critiques",
abstract = "This article reviews a particular aspect of the critique of the increasing focus on the brain and neuroscience; what has been termed by some, 'neuromania'. It engages with the growing literature produced in response to the 'first three years' movement: an alliance of child welfare advocates and politicians that draws on the authority of neuroscience to argue that social problems such as inequality, poverty, educational underachievement, violence and mental illness are best addressed through 'early intervention' programmes to protect or enhance emotional and cognitive aspects of children's brain development. The movement began in the United States in the early 1990s and has become increasingly vocal and influential since then, achieving international legitimacy in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the UK and elsewhere. The movement, and the brain-based culture of expert-led parent training that has grown with it, has been criticised for claiming scientific authority whilst taking a cavalier approach to scientific method and evidence; for being overly deterministic about the early years of life; for focusing attention on individual parental failings rather than societal or structural problems, for adding to the expanding anxieties of parents and strengthening the intensification of parenting and, ultimately, for redefining the parent-child relationship in biologised, instrumental and dehumanised terms.",
author = "Jan Macvarish and Ellie Lee and Pam Lowe",
year = "2014",
month = "6",
day = "30",
doi = "10.1111/soc4.12183",
language = "English",
volume = "8",
pages = "792--804",
journal = "Sociology compass",
issn = "1751-9020",
publisher = "Wiley-Liss Inc.",
number = "6",

}

The ‘first three years’ movement and the infant brain : a review of critiques. / Macvarish, Jan; Lee, Ellie; Lowe, Pam.

In: Sociology compass, Vol. 8, No. 6, 30.06.2014, p. 792-804.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The ‘first three years’ movement and the infant brain

T2 - a review of critiques

AU - Macvarish, Jan

AU - Lee, Ellie

AU - Lowe, Pam

PY - 2014/6/30

Y1 - 2014/6/30

N2 - This article reviews a particular aspect of the critique of the increasing focus on the brain and neuroscience; what has been termed by some, 'neuromania'. It engages with the growing literature produced in response to the 'first three years' movement: an alliance of child welfare advocates and politicians that draws on the authority of neuroscience to argue that social problems such as inequality, poverty, educational underachievement, violence and mental illness are best addressed through 'early intervention' programmes to protect or enhance emotional and cognitive aspects of children's brain development. The movement began in the United States in the early 1990s and has become increasingly vocal and influential since then, achieving international legitimacy in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the UK and elsewhere. The movement, and the brain-based culture of expert-led parent training that has grown with it, has been criticised for claiming scientific authority whilst taking a cavalier approach to scientific method and evidence; for being overly deterministic about the early years of life; for focusing attention on individual parental failings rather than societal or structural problems, for adding to the expanding anxieties of parents and strengthening the intensification of parenting and, ultimately, for redefining the parent-child relationship in biologised, instrumental and dehumanised terms.

AB - This article reviews a particular aspect of the critique of the increasing focus on the brain and neuroscience; what has been termed by some, 'neuromania'. It engages with the growing literature produced in response to the 'first three years' movement: an alliance of child welfare advocates and politicians that draws on the authority of neuroscience to argue that social problems such as inequality, poverty, educational underachievement, violence and mental illness are best addressed through 'early intervention' programmes to protect or enhance emotional and cognitive aspects of children's brain development. The movement began in the United States in the early 1990s and has become increasingly vocal and influential since then, achieving international legitimacy in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the UK and elsewhere. The movement, and the brain-based culture of expert-led parent training that has grown with it, has been criticised for claiming scientific authority whilst taking a cavalier approach to scientific method and evidence; for being overly deterministic about the early years of life; for focusing attention on individual parental failings rather than societal or structural problems, for adding to the expanding anxieties of parents and strengthening the intensification of parenting and, ultimately, for redefining the parent-child relationship in biologised, instrumental and dehumanised terms.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84902585842&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/soc4.12183

DO - 10.1111/soc4.12183

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84902585842

VL - 8

SP - 792

EP - 804

JO - Sociology compass

JF - Sociology compass

SN - 1751-9020

IS - 6

ER -