Essay on Childhood Development: Using Social Determinants of Health and Heather O’Neill’s Lullabies for Little Criminals

Many factors in society contribute to the overall outcome of an individuals’ childhood experiences, health, and wellbeing. An individual’s concept of societal norms and how they should behave are also heavily influenced by these factors. The novel lullabies for little criminals demonstrates how social determinants of heath influence the main character, Baby, to act in a self-destructing manner. These social determinants of health include housing and educational districts, income and poverty, and addiction. All of these can be used to evaluate Baby’s troubled childhood and how poor neighborhood condition and lack of positive opportunities motivated Baby’s unstable childhood development, poor health choices, and overall wellbeing. Baby, growing up being exposed to poverty and drug addiction was highly susceptible to become involved in the poverty cycle as it is extremely prevalent in her everyday life. I, however, was raised in a safe neighborhood with supportive parents and all the tools I needed to be successful. Mine and Baby’s different exposures to these social determinants of health had a major impact on how we behave socially and how we make decisions based on our ability to judge good from bad. The effects of one’s housing district on early childhood development, poverty’s impact on an individual’s health, and deteriorating well-being as a result of parental drug addiction all shaped how Baby behaves and how I was taught ‘how not behave’. In this essay, I will use the social determinants of health; housing, income and poverty, and addiction to compare and contrast the breakdown of mine and Baby’s life in terms of neighborhood conditions and opportunities.

There is typically a relationship between one’s education and one’s income, as stated by Wolla and Sullivan (2017). In lullabies for little criminals, Baby was raised in a poor area of Montreal where poverty was a social norm. Inconsistent housing conditions and locations was something Baby had grown accustomed to. Baby’s repeated relocations led to inconsistent education. Due to the fact that her housing districts were low income, poor education quality resulted. According to Lincoln Quillian, a Professor of Sociology at Northwestern University (2017), living in a low-income neighborhood has a larger negative impact on children and early childhood development because children are unable to understand and escape the poverty cycle in which they were involuntarily thrown into. Evidence suggests that being housed in a poor area makes it more difficult to access a better quality set of institutions which in turn makes it even harder for the poor to break away from the poverty cycle (Carter, 2004). Taking this information and applying it to Baby’s circumstances, it is easy to foresee how inconsistent education due to poor housing situations greatly impacted her early childhood development and overall concept that education is not a priority. In comparison to my early childhood development, I attended schools that my parents actively sought out as having a good provincial ranking before I was born. They planned that with the combination of their help and support and the strong educational district that I would get all of the necessities I would need to be successful.

According to World Vision (2018) the poverty cycle begins when a child in born into a family that lacks the basic necessities in order to live. Baby was born when her dad, Jules, was only 15 and was completely unprepared to raise a child. Jules (a single parent) often rejected Baby because he prioritized is an addiction to heroin (along with other drugs) over Baby’s well-being. Often children who lack attention and guidance from their parents are more likely to deviate from societal norms. However, parents are a child’s primary influence. For that reason, if the parent is being delinquent in their parental obligations it will increase the likelihood that the child will adopt their deviant behaviors (Trudeau et all., 2013). Therefore, Jules’ addiction impacts his quality of parenting which correlates with Baby’s well-being; even though she is making dangerous decisions for herself, those decisions made and actions performed are influenced by Jules’ behavior. Both Jules and Baby are extremely susceptible to addiction because of their class, income, education, and lack of opportunities also recognized as socioeconomic status. According to Catherine Spooner (2004) individuals who are born into a family with a low socioeconomic status are not likely to develop a high socioeconomic status over time. This is because of their typically lower educational achievements exposure to poverty and the resulting lack of resources. Baby is suffering the consequences of her father’s low socioeconomic status and overall is it negatively affecting her well-being and limits her exposure to opportunities. My personal experiences were wildly different than Baby’s. My brother and I were completely planned for. My parents made sure they had the income to support both of us and give us a good quality of life. I had a safe home to grow up in with healthy, stable living conditions. In comparison to Baby’s life, my parents influenced me to be healthy as neither of them are addicted to any drugs. This along with other factors contributed to my happy, healthy lifestyle, where I am able to set goals, have the resources available to achieve them, to be satisfied with my life and have a statistically greater chance for success and continued well-being than Baby.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

The array of social determinants of health are all linked together and effect one another. However, income is the main contributing factor that effects the other social determinants of health (Krisberg 2016). Baby and Jules lacked income and turned to illicit and dangerous activities such as fencing stolen items, drug dealing, and prostitution as their main source of income. Baby has been exposed to all of these risky activities since birth and therefore is comfortable with them; she was socialized in an environment in which these unhealthy activities and behaviours are the social norm. According to Mitchell J. Prinstein (2001) there is some indication that one’s peer group’s risky behaviours may be associated with an increase in an individual’s unhealthy actions over time. Baby’s neighborhood environment is relatively low-income, and populated with like-minded individuals. Therefore Baby’s peer group is likely influencing her poor decisions. These poor decisions are directly impacting her health in a negative way; drug use and unhealthy sexual relations are detrimental to her mental and physical health. These activities can also lead to psychological stress. Baby’s peers and primary role models have influenced her in a negative manner but because everyone around Baby is involved in the same activities, she is unable to recognize that they are putting her health at risk. An individual’s socioeconomic status is determined based on three main parts: income, education, and occupation. Many individuals that Baby surrounded herself with, or looked up to, are hurting for three of these attributes. This contributes to Baby’s failure to notice that she is associated with individuals who do not have a positive influence on her health.

Growing up, my parents put me in extracurricular activities that I thoroughly enjoyed; specifically gymnastics. This allowed me to associate myself with individuals who valued physical and mental health. This also exposed me to healthy eating, practicing positive behaviours, and goal setting. The entire environment was filled with positive role models and friends who were eager to practice a healthy lifestyle together. If Baby was surrounded by individuals who influenced her in a positive way, her behaviours could possibly be more beneficial to her mental and physical health.

Throughout the book is becomes unavoidably noticeable that Baby’s loss of opportunity, troubled childhood, poverty-stricken health, and overall wellbeing are the result of the unfortunate circumstances she had to live with in regards to the social determinants of health. The book lullabies for little criminals explores the cycle of poverty into which Baby was indoctrinated at birth and how the immediate environment of a person can shape who they are and determine their perceptions of social norms as well as influence their actions in either a negative or positive direction. The childhood development, health, and well-being of Baby and I differ due to the social determinants of health that were partially predetermined for us before we were born. It was partially predetermined because of how we were born into different families with different socioeconomic status. Lifestyle choices, neighbourhood surroundings and responsibility acceptance by our respective parents influenced our educational districts, peer groups and parental styles which in turn directly impacted our childhood development, health, and well-being.

References

1. Carter, T., Polevychok, C. (2004). Housing Is Good Social Policy. Canadian Policy Research Networks. Retrieved from http://www.urbancenter.utoronto.ca/pdfs/elibrary/CPRN_Housing-Good-Soc-Polic.pdf
2. Dubay, A. (2018). What is the Cycle of Poverty? World Vision. Retrieved from https://www.worldvision.ca/stories/child-sponsorship/what-is-the-cycle-of-poverty
3. Krisberg, K. (2016). Income inequality: When wealth determines health: Earnings influential as lifelong social determinant of health. The Nation’s Health. Retrieved from http://thenationshealth.aphapublications.org/content/46/8/1.1
4. O’Neill, H. (2006). lullabies for little criminals. New York: Harper Perennial.
5. Prinstein, M.J., Boergers, J. Spirito, A. (2001). Adolescents’ and Their Friends’ Health-Risk Behavior: Factors That Alter or Add to Peer Influence. Journal of Pediatric Psychology. Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/jpepsy/article/26/5/287/2951540
6. Quillian, L. (2017). Poverty, neighborhood, and school setting; Neighborhood and the intergenerational transmission of poverty. Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin. Retrieved from https://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc332e.pdf
7. Spooner, C., Hetherington K. (2004). Social Determinants of Drug Use. National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales. Retrieved from https://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/ndarc/resources/TR.228.pdf
8. Trudeau, L., Alex Mason, W., Kevin Randall, G., Spoth R., Ralston E. (2013). Effects of Parenting and Deviant Peers on Early to Mid-Adolescent Conduct Problems. US National Library of Medicine. National Institutes of Health. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3740509/
9. Wolla, S., Sullivan, J. (2017). Education, Income, and Wealth. Economic Research, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Retrieved from https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/page1-econ/2017/01/03/education-income-and-wealth/