The dearth of children in public spaces is too often decried purely in terms of The! Obesity! Crisis!!1! But there are much better reasons to encourage children back into the public world, and they’re reasons not readily addressed by a cycle-driven videogame or standing-desks in classrooms.
Seen And Heard: Reclaiming the public realm with children and young people is a new report out of Demos UK, which bills itself “The think tank for everyday democracy”. From the blurb:
Until now, action to improve the lives of children and young people has tended to focus on the institutional spheres of home and school. Yet quality of life also depends on the access to and quality of shared resources such as streets, parks, town centres and playgrounds. And here, in the everyday spaces of our towns and cities, we increasingly exclude and marginalise the young. In the pursuit of sustainable communities and urban renaissance, children and young people are too often left out of the script.
Children and young people have limited independence – both financially and spatially –and depend on shared spaces more than others. With trends in Britain pointing towards less outdoor play, increased parental anxiety and less tolerance for children and young people, the impact of an unwelcoming public realm on their health and well-being is becoming increasingly clear.
Seen and Heard: Reclaiming the public realm with children and young people draws on six case studies to explore the everyday experiences of children in public. It argues that we need a paradigm shift in the way we think about the built environment- one which addresses the deepening segregation between generations. The needs of the young are not opposed to those of other users of public spaces, but closely aligned. With a range of recommendations designed to empower frontline professionals and young people, this pamphlet offers practical steps to create communities that are welcoming for all.
I think we should start welcoming children into public space because it’s good for their brains as well as their bodies. Because manipulating little plastic things under artificial light isn’t the be-all and end-all of education. Because contact with nature, life, and a variety of humans and spaces is essential for normal development. Because kids need an escape from corporate mediation, from the saturation of malls and television and fast food joints. Because everyone deserves opportunities for independent discovery. Because no person should be forced to experience the world purely through a screen, from behind a window, or strapped into a carseat.
And above all, because learning that you are part of humanity is an essential precursor to social and political engagement.
“Children Playing”, by David Boyd. [Image source: Art Equity.]
Wonderful thought, wonderfully put. :D
I certainly mourn the contrast between my childhood and that of my kids in many ways. I lived just down the street from a major park, and the local tribe of kids ranging from ages 4 to 14, roamed around it together, sometimes with local adults helping us construct forts and treehouses.
This was largely possible because we came from single income families, back when a single income could support a family to a middle class standard. Our mums could watch us from the kitchen window, or at yell from the yards for us to come home, so we were all free to roam within broad boundaries (including regularly walking 2km to the beach as a group on weekends).
This is not to say that a return to the gender roles of who stayed home at that time is the answer (as some traditionalists would have it), but it would be a great improvement in work/family balance if family life were structured to make it easier for parents to alternate after-school time with the offspring, and feeling confident in allowing them to run around with other kids from the neighborhood.
The other issues are traffic density and the overhyping of stranger-danger, of course. All aspects of a society which has allowed itself to treat child-friendly spaces as a luxury rather than a necessity and a social benefit.
Tangentially related, in that it discusses what we expect of and impose upon children in constraining ways: “He’s Such A Boy” at Feministe.
Edited to add: I find this related because the corporatised culture that we want our kids to succeed in wants people who sit down and shut up when presented with an authority figure, and the rewarding of stereotypically constrained feminine traits seems to match up with the idea that kids shouldn’t be seen or heard freely being kids in public spaces – it’s all about rewarding quiet compliance and pushing kids away from anything boisterous or rowdy.
[...] been photomusing on children and public open space over at my eljay. Yes, it’s mostly an excuse to take pictures of the lad. My favourite [...]
I always struggle just a little with the framing of that particular argument (though not its thrust – I totally agree that more movement and flexibility in schools can only be a good thing for all children). It would seem more accurate to say not that boys are harmed by stereotypically feminine behaviour being rewarded, but that children exhibiting stereotypically masculine traits are harmed (no matter what their sex).
Going a step further, I can’t help thinking that the children “exhibiting stereotypically feminine traits” are being harmed by constraining, repressive environments also. Just because they’re the ones submitting to the “sit down and shut up” instructions instead of fight them, doesn’t mean they’re learning lifelong skills for success. Learning to silently submit to whatever crap is flung your way, and ultimately to believe you deserve it, doesn’t necessarily get a kid anywhere in life in the long term.
The stranger-danger part, as you’ve noted, is so tightly bound up in this. I can picture a neighbourhood in which each parent takes one or two afternoons, gathering children from several families under their wing, instead of needing every afternoon off work. Yet over and over on parenting forums I read notes from people who won’t let their kids go to other people’s houses without them present until they’re in their teens, unless they are a very close family friend. And I can’t help but sympathise: with rates of child molestation so horrifically high, how can you ever know your child is safe with the parents next door (or a random visiting uncle, or whoever)? Heck, how can you know they’re safe even with a close family friend?
That’s exactly what I meant to say, and how the discussion at Feministe went too.
This is a great post, I can’t believe I’d missed it until now somehow.
The school my eldest will attend next year has daily PE, and the uniform is polo shirts, shorts (and tracksuits for winter) and joggers so that kids can participate everyday. I just have to remind myself that this doesn’t let me off the hook for doing stuff with him after school.
Mindy: I was pleased to find out that the school my boy will attend next year offers that also. In addition to the standard PE classes, and instead of paid third-party Before-School care, the Principal leads various fitness activities on the school oval from eight a.m. daily, taking kids right down to pre-primary level.
A fair bit of running around before class is also a good setup for a more calm and focussed day for my energetic boy, so it’s all good.