Thursday, 25 November 2021

The End of Childhood

 

Recorded history is the history of adults–generals, statesmen, explorers and scientists–but all of those adults began their path as children. And running beneath this official history is the unofficial history of children, who inhabited a separate universe of traditions, contests, solemn rituals and codes of honour, like a Viking horde living in your house unnoticed. 

It was in this world that every future general first learned to lead, every future scientist first turned over logs to delight in the tiny nightmares underneath, and every future explorer first plucked up the courage to enter the haunted woods. Elderly people here in Ireland, who grew up without electricity or many cars, still remember the feral exploration and creative play that was once the birthright of every child.

“Children today don’t have to think much about games given to them – we made up our own,” said one elder. “We played spin the top, marbles, hoop the hoop, hop scotch, conkers, kick the can, scut the whip, jackstones, and box the fox. Hop scotch has survived to some extent, but only among girls … Even when the dark evenings closed in we played ‘Battle In, Battle Out,’ and ‘Jack jack show the light.’”

The games varied widely from person to person; villages only a few miles away could apparently have very different game-traditions. City streets, perhaps because they drew families from so many rural villages, seem to have been a vast melting pot of such games; when British novelist Norman Douglas published his whimsical overview of the children’s games of London in 1916, he spent dozens of pages–most of the book–just listing games. Not dozens of games, mind you–dozens of pages of lists of games, any of which could be as complex as any video game today and most of which were known to most children.

The games, rhymes, and rituals children invented were so ubiquitous, and so often out of sight of adults, that they were little remarked upon or recorded, and only now, when they have almost disappeared, can we look back and see how remarkable they were. In the 1950s the husband-and-wife team of Peter and Iona Opie interviewed children on playgrounds around the UK and found that, instead of being silly and spontaneous, children’s rhymes and stories actually preserved historical traditions their parents had lost.

“Boys continue to crack jokes that Swift collected from his friends in Queen Anne’s time,” Opie wrote. “They ask riddles which were posed when Henry VIII was a boy. . . . They learn to cure warts . . . after the manner which Francis Bacon learned when he was young. . . . They rebuke one of their number who seeks back a gift with a couplet known in Shakespeare’s day. . . . and they are [perpetuating stories] which were gossip in Elizabethan times.” They re-discovered the observation of Queen Anne’s physician John Arbuthnot, who said that “nowhere was tradition preserved pure and uncorrupt but amongst school-boys, whose games and plays are delivered down invariably from one generation to another.”

This is especially remarkable since most of these rituals were not taught by parents or grandparents, who might have learned them decades earlier, but by other children who could only have known them for a few years. Since they were re-transmitted over years rather than decades, their transmission signal should have decayed more quickly. Instead, the children proved stronger at retaining historical knowledge than most adults–not in the sense of reciting facts, but in treasuring their past.

Some of their superstitions, like a blister as proof of lying, date back at least to the 1500s, and they chanted a rhyme that apparently dates back to the era of France’s Henry IV in 1610. Most interestingly, country children still wore oak leaves or an acorn in their button-holes on 29 May to remember the return of Charles II in 1651–and could explain why they did so–at a time when few adults remembered the date.

Keep in mind, also, that few people were writing in the 1500s, most writing was not about children’s games, and much of what was written then has been lost–so if a ritual was first recorded in the 1500s, it could well be much older. Oral traditions can endure for thousands or even tens of thousands of years; Australian Aborigines have traditions about the sea level changing that seem to date from the last Ice Age. No one knows if any children’s rhymes and games date back so far, but Douglas believed that one chant stretched back to the time of Nero, and the Opies seemed to agree.

Their games and rituals were still very local, even in the 1950s when mass media was already washing away the local cultures of villages and neighbourhoods. “While some children roll eggs at Easter,” the Opies wrote, “or nettle the legs of classmates on the 29th of May, or leave little gifts on people’s doorsteps on St. Valentine’s Day, or act under the delusion that they are above the law on a night in November, other children, sometimes living only the other side of a hill, will have no knowledge of these activities.”

Here, too, Ireland held onto this heritage later than most countries, and a radio documentary of children playing in a Dublin school-yard in 1977 showed them using their own complicated musical chants. They weren’t all local traditions–one chant cited Shirley Temple, “the girl with the curly hair”–but even that showed the staying power of these songs, as this was two generations after she had been famous.

The Opies also noted that children spontaneously adopted a “code of oral legislation”–cultural institutions for testing truthfulness, swearing affirmation, making bets and bargains, and determining the ownership of property–the adult legal code in miniature. These codes universally included a practice absent from adult law, however–that of asking for respite, what we recognize as “calling time out,” and what today’s children reportedly call “pause,” a usage imported from video games.

“Throughout history, bands of children gathered and roamed city streets and countrysides, forming their own societies each with its own customs, legal rules and procedures, parodies, politics, beliefs, and art,” the blog Carcinisation pointed out. “With their rhymes, songs, and symbols, they created and elaborated the meaning of their local landscape and culture, practicing for the adult work of the same nature. We are left with only remnants and echoes of a once-magnificent network of children’s cultures, capable of impressive feats of coordination.”

This seems to have been true of all human cultures–anthropologists report it in hunter-gather tribes, and Zechariah 8:5 said that “the streets of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing.” Certainly it was true among people I knew in Ireland or the USA in living memory. To see how recently outdoor play was assumed, look at a map of most American cities; anything built before World War II is typically a grid for easy transport, but post-war suburban streets curl like tossed spaghetti and end in cul-de-sacs in order to do the opposite, to slow and discourage traffic to be “safe for families.” The sprawl that covers much of America looks the way it does because it was made to be safe for children to play in the street–which in 1945 was exactly what they would be doing.

If the returning GIs who first moved into these homes could be transported to the present day, however, they would be puzzled. Aside from the fact that the future never happened–no flying cars or robot butlers–the most glaring difference would be the absence of any children. To a time traveler it would seem like the beginning of a Twilight Zone episode, and they’d would demand to know what happened–was there a plague? An alien invasion? Are the children grown from pods now? Are they marched to an altar and sacrificed to a dark god? Or is this some horrific science-fiction future where children grow up staring at glowing rectangles, and are drugged when they get restless?

“Even the idea of a children’s game seems to be slipping from our grasp,” Neil Postman wrote in 1982. “A children’s game, as we used to think of it, requires no instructors or umpires or spectators; it uses whatever space and equipment are at hand; it is played for no other reason than pleasure. . . . Who has seen anyone over the age of nine playing Jacks, Johnny on the Pony, Blindman’s Buff, or ball-bouncing rhymes? . . . Even Hide-and-Seek, which was played in Periclean Athens more than two thousand years ago, has now almost completely disappeared from the repertoire of self-organized children’s amusements. Children’s games, in a phrase, are an endangered species.”

The decline began a few generations ago, when television steamrolled over children’s cultural traditions, and that screen has now multiplied into a billion hand-held ones. When children everywhere carry all the world’s pornography in their pocket, as well as electronic games psychologically designed to addict people as powerfully as heroin, few future leaders will organise their mates, and few budding scientists will turn over any logs. Moreover, children today grow up under effective house arrest, as local ordinances, paranoid neighbours and police conspire to prohibit children from venturing far outside. They grow up learning no lessons, organising no peers, and exploring no territory, unless it be shifting electrons around a screen, and the screen becomes their world.

This unnatural state takes all the power of modern society to maintain, and it does not have to be inevitable or permanent; even now some parents keep their children unplugged and gather with other parents who do the same. If they don’t live near the country themselves, they might visit family who do. They teach small children some games from old books, and let the children take it from there. How this guerrilla action proceeds will depend on the situation, but it needs to be done. Otherwise, today’s children will live in a country filled with the most dependent and least self-sufficient humans who ever lived, polarised and paralysed by their screens, and facing a difficult future. We will need a generation of people who can explore, negotiate, and work together again, and to do that we need children to experience childhood once more.

 

 

Thursday, 7 January 2021

Published at Grit Magazine, Front Porch Republic


 

Happy New Year, everyone! To all my American friends and family, I'm sorry about the current upheaval, and after everything we've been through, I hope we all get a lull in the Long Emergency to let us regroup and prepare for the next round.  

Ireland rang in the New Year by going back into its third total lockdown. On the good side, this monastic interlude has taught me to be grateful for my friends and family, and to find joy in simple moments, and to not forget them so easily; I walked around an empty Dublin this morning, watching the dawn light ripple across the river, listening to Haydn's magnificent 45th Symphony and the lovely prose of the book "My Father's Wake," both of which I recommend.

 I'm delighted to report that Grit Magazine has published my piece on St. Necklace Day, which you can see here

Also, the amazing publication Front Porch Republic, which you should really check out, has published my article on the end of children's games. Check it out here.

Wednesday, 17 June 2020

Twice now I've seen my old neighbourhood on the news



Of the planet’s 7,500 million, about one-thirty-seventh of one percent of one percent come from in or around Ferguson, Missouri, which saw massive riots six years ago as a result of police killing a black man. Only about a quarter of a percent of a percent come from in or around South Minneapolis, whic h saw the same thing happen a few weeks ago. I’m probably not the only person who has lived in both neighbourhoods, but I think I’m one of the few.

Twice now I’ve been in another country, watching violence break  out in peaceful neighbourhoods I knew well. Twice now I’ve had to call friends or family to make sure they’re not in the middle of it. And most people I know – already stressed because of the pandemic, the quarantine and the sudden blow to the economy – are feeling anger and despair like they’ve never felt before. 

So I want to speak carefully on this; of course I’m not there on the ground right now, and I’m not black, and I don’t pretend to speak for anyone else. But twice now I’ve received reports from friends and family on the ground as it happened, and it might not seem like it, but I think there’s a lot of good news here. 

Virtually everyone is united on this. I check out multiple news sources – what are considered far-left, far-right, and mostly people who go beyond the stereotypes of the political spectrum. Everyone agrees these police were terrible, and everyone is celebrating that they are going to prison. Think of any other issue that has so many people agreeing.

You got things done. In a lot of times and places people might have looked the other way or been afraid to speak up, and that’s still the case across much of the world today. But here, as a result  of the massive and immediate public outcry, these officers were fired almost immediately, charged swiftly, and are now in jail. I used to be part of the Minneapolis political scene, I can tell you that this response happened because people there are so politically active, and so prepared to take action. The famously scrappy French labour movement doesn’t have so many strikes and marches because conditions there are worse; rather, conditions there are better because they take to the streets.

The media is getting better. I’m seeing a lot of news outlets point out something very important, something that should have been talked about in Ferguson; the rioters are not the protesters. I knew some of the Ferguson protesters; they were locals. The Ferguson police were locals. But some of the rioters came from thousands of kilometres away. As a former newspaper reporter I was incensed by the news coverage, which neglected to make this the lead story, or ask questions about where these people came from.

I heard stories of protesters helping police protect businesses from rioters ... but most journalists didn’t make those important distinctions. In Minneapolis, I’m seeing news agencies make those distinctions. Business Insider – not a radical publication -- has run articles about this. That’s important.

We don’t see most of the good people are doing. For every tragedy highlighted by social media, there are tens of thousands of people not just protesting, but babysitting kids, looking after each other, helping clean up, donating to bring back the businesses that were destroyed, all volunteers. This is what happens in a crisis; people pull together. They won’t be on the news, but they are, in their own way, heroes.

Many cops are good. In a recent survey most Americans believed that a police officer fires their gun in the line of duty at least once, and 30% guessed they shoot someone a few times a year. In fact, it’s the opposite; three-quarters of US police have never fired a gun once in their careers. I’m not implying that shooting their gun is always bad, or that they can’t do wrong even without shooting – that negligent police officer didn’t need a gun to kill George Floyd. My point is that almost all the time, police defuse life-and-death situations peacefully.

If officers defuse violent situations, say, once a week – and for some it’s every day – that’s 200 violent situations over a career, and I don’t mean that 75% of those are defused without shooting. I’m saying that for 75% of officers, 100% were defused peacefully.

That doesn’t make the exceptions okay, or imply that there’s no problem with police in America. It does mean that police aren’t all one thing. A lot of news coverage depicts conflicts of police vs African-Americans, but it’s important to note that nine of ten African-Americans oppose even cutting the number of police, almost half rate their local police highly, and of course a lot of police – a third in my native St. Louis – are black themselves. 

That said, there are a few other things to remember:

Police are civillians. As more of our social fabric has broken down, as I hear more people talk about their neighbours with fear and loathing, we put more of a burden on police to take care of neighbourhood disputes, mental health crises, and all kinds of issues that aren’t their job.

Some activists are talking about “de-funding police,” which if they mean getting rid of all police, is idiotic. But in fairness, what a lot of them mean are taking some of the burden off police and passing it to people trained in family disputes, mental health, and so on. Depending on how it’s done, that has possibilities.

Most articles I read from the USA talk about police vs. civilians, and no one – not even the protesters I know – think this is strange. As far as I know, that’s not the language that was used in the USA decades ago, or in most Western countries today. Police are civilians. I cannot stress how important this is. If you think of them as soldiers, what country are they occupying, and what enemy are they fighting?

Anger makes you vulnerable. I keep seeing memes passed around that people should get angry. Anger is easy. I were one of the people in power, I’d want people to get angry; angry people are easier to manipulate. 

How many Americans would have accepted their government launching a war in the Middle East, had they not witnessed the middle of their greatest city levelled by a terrorist attack? The US government wasn’t attacking a country that was behind the 9-11 attacks, but it was difficult to say that at the time to people so filled with anger, however justifiable. If you want to defuse a situation, you calm people down enough to listen to the better angels of their nature. Angry people do stupid things that get everyone hurt.

Don’t pick a side. I see a lot of slogans about how everyone needs to pick a side, you’re either with us or you’re against us. I’ve heard that before, both in my own life and in history, and that’s when things really go south.

I hear more and more people talk gleefully about shutting down anyone who says anything they don’t like. But that’s not how people learn. That’s how civilisation breaks down.

I hear more and more people talk about doing anything to defeat hatred. But hatred is always other people; it’s never you.

This could get a lot worse. I see a lot of memes about how the people need to rise up, for they have nothing to lose. If you live in a modern Western country with ample food, relative safety, and some vestigal trappings of democracy, you have a lot to lose. Again, in movies like V for Vendetta or the Hunger Games, riots and insurrection are how you take down an authoritarian rule. In real life, they’re how you start authoritarian rule. And remember that these memes are started and spread by people with an agenda, some of whom might gain from violence breaking out.

Beneficial movements in the past succeeded, not by lashing out in anger, but by talking with neighbours, listening to each other, pooling resources, creating a logical plan, and negotiating practical solutions. The marching down the street? That’s the one percent that was filmed – most of it was behind the scenes, done by people you’ve never heard of. And things got better. It can happen again.