Arnold Gesell may have been an unknown entity to me until recently, but in the 1920s and 30s he was famous for his photography dome at the Yale Clinic of Child Development. Gesell was photographing children to observe, categorize and determine the “normative schedule” of child physical and mental development.

Up until the early 20th century, psychology’s focus had been on the “deviant” or the “pathological.” But normality would soon become its own research focus, as it was understood that “normal” and “optimal” child development was the key to the country’s envisioned future of wealth and success.

The push to define “normal child development” was strong, and Gesell and his colleagues at Yale were part of the movement to gather as much developmental data as possible. If the nation knew what normal was, they could make sure more children fit these norms and would ultimately turn into prosperous and civically fit citizens.

By the end of his career, Gesell and his colleagues created developmental milestones that were used universally to assess and compare children’s development. Ironically – even as Gesell ended up contributing significantly to the standardization of childhood behavioral and physical norms, he started out wanting to do the very opposite.

As the first school psychologist in the United States, Gesell pushed hard against the mainstream currents to determine “normal” from statistical group averages. He believed that children could not be adequately defined by averages, and that no normal really existed. Instead, he said children were too individual to be watered down to an average.

He and his colleagues developed the photographic study of children based on this belief. With incredible detail and analysis, they amassed an enormous amount of data from photographs taken of children moving and playing inside the specially-built photography dome. They wanted as little interference as possible, so parents stood on the other side, behind a one-way screen. The idea was that these photographs would exhibit the individuality of babies and children, and avoid the pitfalls of averages.

But paradoxically, even as Gesell rhapsodized on the individuality of children, he translated all of his data into developmental milestones pegged to ages in months. He created schedules for which children are expected to reach certain milestones, widely distributed via books for parents, films played in department stores, and developmental assessments that are the foundation of what we still use today.

Gesell developed the maturational theory – the idea that development unfolds in a biologically driven set of sequences. He also believed that the environment played a critical role in children’s development. He wanted parents to understand their child’s development would unfold on its own, while also emphasizing the unlimited opportunities to direct that unfolding toward good. He wanted them to relax, while also paying close attention to any signs that their child might be going off-path. Some say he wanted his cake, and to eat it, too.

As the concept of developmental milestones became embedded in the nation’s consciousness, and the perceived need to optimize development in order to ensure a bright democratic future became a noble cause, it shaped the role of early childhood service providers and parents significantly. Not only were we to support and raise children, but we were to assess risk and intervene early to steer the child closer to “normal”. And if the child was already “normal,” then we were to optimize development.

Arnold Gesell is undoubtedly an enormously influential figure in our history, and it cannot be denied that his documentation of child development has its usefulness. But I have complicated feelings about what we’ve inherited from him. 

Gesell’s samples from which he gathered all of his data about child development is incredibly narrow – children from a particular community (New Haven, Connecticut), mostly white. And yet, his work was written (and expanded upon) as though it reflected universal human child development. (Spoiler: it does not. To be discussed in a future essay).

And, as a prophet of individuality, his developmental norms have become the very thing he said he was against – a way of measuring children against statistical averages. Parents have not relaxed in terms of their child’s development. Arguably, their anxiety has only increased as they compare their child to developmental timetables and look for ways to optimize development.

This isn’t all parents, of course. But these are the parents that we often call the “good” ones. The ones “invested” in their child’s development. The “educated.”

And that is its own thing to sort through.

There is so much more to dig into on the American child study and scientific movement and how it’s shaped how we frame child development today. Far too much to go into in one blog post, but just the kind of thing we’ll be talking about in The Joy Collective, my upcoming small education + discussion group. If you love digging in deep to know more about yourself and your work, and you love doing so with other people who love it, too – then you don’t want to miss The Joy Collective. There’s limited seating. You can get on the interest list here.

As I’ll note in each post: 

These are not my original ideas, but rather a synthesis of what scholars in a variety of fields have learned and written. I often do not have answers to the tensions I see – my aim is not to be another expert in a field already over-run with them. Instead, I want to shine a light on knowledge we take for granted but shouldn’t.

In each essay I write, I’ll link the relevant sources when possible as well as cite them at the end. I hope you’ll join this conversation.

REFERENCES

Ossmer, C. (2020). Normal development: The photographic dome and the children of the Yale psycho-clinic. Isis, 111(3), 515-541. https://doi.org/10.1086/711127

Fuller, B. (2008). Standardized childhood: The political and cultural struggle over early education. Stanford University Press.

Hardyment, C. (2007). Dream babies: Childcare advice from John Locke to Gina Ford (updated ed.). Frances Lincoln.

Hulbert, A. (2004). Raising America: Experts, parents, and a century of advice about children. Vintage Books.