I saw a short AI clip where a child’s clothes gradually changed starting in about 1920 until the present day. It was really interesting from a fashion point of view. The background was of a playground, until the modern day. The last few clips were of a child in an empty bedroom holding a cell phone gazing at the camera with big empty eyes.
If it was meant to shock you and pull you up, it worked. But then I got to thinking, is it really the phones? Or was the actual culprit rising security concerns. When I say security concerns it could be broken down even further, overly enthusiastic ‘health and safety’, and then the more serious concerns like abduction and other crimes.
My thought process goes something like this: did parents buy their kids phones because they were stuck at home, or did they get a phone and therefore wanted to be stuck at home? There are so many avenues of thought here; is the root cause no parent at home and why is that the case, etc. But let’s see if there’s any connection between safety concerns and cell phones for kids.
On the surface, cell phones would help a safety risk. You can track your child through their phone; a child can call their parent or 911 when they are in trouble; a parent could leave a child at home for a short period if they have a phone to contact them.
All those things fall quite nicely into the ‘pros’ column for kids having cell phones. The addiction that comes with them is undeniable. We’re all addicted to our phones, and our kids are too, which falls heavily into the ‘cons’ column.
Historically, and up to recent times, children did not spend the majority of their day at home. Of course, there is school, but let’s put that aside for now and look at days when children are home, the weekend for example, after school, or school holidays.
The decline in kids going out on their own has been a gradual cultural shift, taking place over the last few decades, particularly in Western countries. Pre-1970s it was common for children to play outdoors unsupervised, walk to school alone, or go to friend’s houses on their own. The streets were seen as relatively safe, and children had more freedom. This environment continued in the countryside longer than it did in cities due, I imagine, to lower crime rates and more community awareness.
In the late 1970s and into the early 1980s, high profile abduction cases, which gained growing media attention, and public safety campaigns because shifting parent’s perceptions of risk. Stranger danger became a concern, despite most crimes against children being committed by people they know. Regardless of these incidents being statistically rare, the rise in media attention spread and increased concern.
As cities grew, and more families moved to suburban areas, neighborhoods became less walkable. This is another reason why children’s freedom was preserved for longer in the countryside where nature is their playground; they’re never very far from it. One thing Aberdeen in particular falls guilty of is streets being designed more for cars than for pedestrians.
The lack of a town school bus route does two things for the safety of children in town. On the one hand it makes it more likely children will walk to school, but on the other, the lack of sidewalks and the increase in vehicles taking their children to school increases the danger for those walkers. A general, drastic increase in vehicle ownership also means it is less safe for children to use roadways. I imagine it was easier to avoid the occasional horse and cart than it is to avoid the constant stream of traffic!
Parenting norms have changed significantly over the last few decades. In the 1950s and 60s, into the 70s, it was normal for kids to be out on their own, exploring the neighborhood and playing unsupervised either on their own or with friends. More recently, there has been a cultural shift toward close supervision and organized activities. Parents who allow their children to be out unsupervised face social judgment or even legal repercussions.
Economic changes could be a whole other topic, but the undeniable increase in dual-income households means fewer stay-at-home parents. For some reason it is more socially acceptable to have your children return to an empty home and fend for themselves, than to be walking around town or exploring nature. This stigma even exists in our community. The assumption is that because they are within four walls with a lock on the door, they are safe. There are obvious dangers in a home it is amazing more tragedies don’t occur from that. But then there are hidden dangers of unlimited screen time and its effect psychologically as well as the concerns of internet safety and virtual abuse and crimes.
As a society we have become blind to the subtle dangers. Child pedestrians mixing with traffic, abduction, and physical injury from unsupervised outdoor play are obvious and most parents would admit to being concerned about these things. But the dangers of screen time, internet security, psychological damage from lack of parental interaction and movies, physical damage due to lack of exercise and fresh air – all these are so much more subtle and although everyone is aware of them to some extent, we find them easier to ignore.
The solution would be incredibly complex to find and would vary depending on the environment. This is the main reason I would rather raise children here than in a big city like I grew up in. I’d rather find that my children have crossed one low-traffic road and are up to their ears in mud in a field, than find my child in an empty bedroom with big hollow eyes and a broken brain.
Let’s keep this a safe place where kids can have their freedom and that long lost education in the school of real life.
Thanks for reading! Read more in this week's print edition.Subscribe Today! |