Childhood Then and Now 

Childhood Then and Now

A little hint from Glenn Reynolds--possibly something he's posted on before: in "science nerd" stories set in the 1960s and 70s, kids "seem a lot more independent and free-ranging than kids today."

I've had many conversations about this: can't we boomers all remember just wandering around with no adult supervision--especially in the summer? "Street" games were the rule, not the exception (they weren't something "lower class")? But for kids only? (I think I'm talking more about the 50s and 60s than the 60s and 70s, but still).

So I went looking for an article I read a few years ago--about how childhood has changed since the 50s. Here's some of what I remembered:

This is true, of course, for adults, too, as the line blurs between us and our children. Toys, as it turns out, are us. We display the same desires for instant gratification as our kids. We even play some of their computer games. We ferry them to their ballet lessons and sit for hours watching their exploits on the hockey rink or soccer field. When they score, we score.


For middle-class kids, this meshing of adult and child worlds is surely one of the biggest differences between today's childhoods and those of earlier times, say the 1950s.


Our parents never saw us play ball. They never knew that sometimes we hung out in the rail yards, or stole apples from neighbors' trees. They didn't know the games we played because they were ours. On summer mornings, we disappeared into neighborhood - kid enchantment, emerging only briefly for lunch before plunging back into our conspiracies. We had no play dates. It was assumed we'd return before dinner ? safely.


Now, middle-class parents feel the need to be all over their kids' lives. Rarely do you see middle-class kids playing unattended in city parks. Kids are tightly scheduled: ballet, swim team, computer camp. Postman writes about a scuffle that broke out among parents at a massive kids' soccer tournament, and then, afterward, about how parents congratulated one another for a wonderful event.


But Postman's question was this: What were 4.000 kids doing at a soccer tournament? Surely they couldn't have organized such an event themselves, for their own enjoyment. He concludes that kids' sports have less to do with children's fun than parents' gratification. Play has become serious business. As childhood disappears, so does a child's idea of play. And of innocence.


Wayne Gretzky, to his credit, has warned parents about the summer hockey camps which, combined with the quasi-military discipline of Rep hockey in the winter, keep talented kids in a very regimented version of their faourite sport year-round. Hockey--and a lot of other things, should be fun. Games are more spontaneous if parents are not constantly insisting on the rules (and watching).

The article I still haven't found said something like: kids no longer go off on their own to ask their friends to come out and play. Only adults (mostly dads) do that.

I'm not sure I agree with all the "Postman" thoughts in this article: that TV is inherently shameless, and teaches us all to be so; that adults are now in a hurry for kids to grow up cynical and disillusioned, at the same time they (adults) want to cling to childhood as much as they can. I question the idea that childhood was a wonderful post-medieval discovery (or invention?) I suspect we see all this a bit through Victorian eyes, and the Victorians had a knack for putting a thick layer of super-sweet icing (or frosting) over everything, especially childhood. "Let the little children come to me" is a Christian message--it's hard to believe it was completely lost in the Middle Ages; "Let all children, and all of us, have laughter and fun"--is very powerfully present, for example, in Dickens' Christmas Carol--a story which I believe makes no refernce to the actual Biblical Christmas story.

Return to Main Page

Comments

Add Comment




Search This Site


Syndicate this blog site

Powered by BlogEasy


Free Blog Hosting