Childhood

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

>In response to my:
>
>>  >1) We live in an industrialized/fragile environment which makes it
>>>almost impossible for children to be children....to have energy and
>>>to expend their energy.
>
>You wrote:
>
>>Isn't it only richly industrialized societies such as the USA that
>>make it possible for individuals to have "childhood & adolescence as
>>we think we know them"?  Production of social relations that give
>>rise to _long_ periods of childhood & adolescence (during which
>>individuals are not asked to take on social roles & tasks aside from
>>being children/adolescents, playing, learning, etc.) among the
>>working class, beyond the offsprings of the bourgeois & the
>>petit-bourgeois, is part of the democratizing process of capitalist
>>development.
>>
>>In contrast, in pre-industrial societies, even the very young (if
>>they survived the period of infancy) worked & therefore had social
>>roles that went with work, as they still do in many poor nations.
>>
>>In other words, childhood & adolescence are erstwhile luxury goods
>>that have become cheaper through mass production, though they are
>>still too pricey for all the young people in the world to enjoy.
>>
>>Yoshie
>
>
>What I was trying to say is that we (in the US) live in a 
>"non-natural" environment which, from the stand point  of a child, 
>is difficult to live in sanely and healthily. The extreme 
>alienation/specialization of industrial/technological work 
>automatically excludes children from 1) contributing to the social 
>good 2) understanding what their parents do.
>
>What is left for the children to do right now in the USA is to play 
>with each other and to consume toys and entertainment. Playing with 
>each other is becoming more of a problem because the days of going 
>outside and seeing who you could dredge up are gone (in the Bay area 
>anyway). So if you have parents who will drive to play dates, you're 
>OK. Otherwise, you're screwed. So there's a lot of toy and 
>entertainment consumption and the concomittant production of a 
>nervous energy and disatisfaction because there is very little 
>actual interaction with reality and natural processes.
>
>I know that this sounds abstract, but if you have a child, nephew, 
>younger sibling, etc. ask yourself what it is that this child is 
>relating to all day long; chances are that it is some kind of 
>super-processed object or experience. Why do kids destroy their 
>toys? Probably because the only thing that an intelligent kid can do 
>with something is that detailed and finished to that degree is to 
>take it apart. Everything that is served up to kids today is 
>processed to the nth degree: from the junk food to the junk toys to 
>the junk culture.  This superprocessing is the very opposite of 
>freedom though it looks like luxury and choice.
>
>What we have done is to provide a bubble for our kids to live in; 
>that is the best that can be done under capitalism. What we all hope 
>is that, by protecting them from the alienating forces of this 
>society, they will be able to grow up happy and healthy enough to 
>withstand the annihilating experience of working and living as 
>(unprotected) adults in a capitalist economy.
>
>So basically, I think I agree with everything you're saying, except 
>I don't see that the children of the West are as lucky as you make 
>them out to be. I came to the US as a child of 9 from a relatively 
>poor country (Romania) to a relatively rich place (LA), but I was 
>much, much unhappier here. LA seemed like an infinite, empty desert 
>to me so far as social relations between people went, and so, though 
>my family was materially richer, my experience of life was much, 
>much poorer.
>
>I agree that it is better for children/adolescents to be able to 
>make an actual contribution (through work) to their family and 
>society; but I think, the way that is done is also very important.
>
>Also I don't understand what you mean by "democratizing" in the following:
>
>"Production of social relations that give
>rise to _long_ periods of childhood & adolescence (during which
>individuals are not asked to take on social roles & tasks aside from
>being children/adolescents, playing, learning, etc.) among the
>working class, beyond the offsprings of the bourgeois & the
>petit-bourgeois, is part of the democratizing process of capitalist
>development."
>
>Thanks,
>
>Joanna B

I'm not making any value judgment comparing the past & the present; 
I'm simply saying that the past (when the young were treated merely 
as small adults with their own social obligations, instead as 
"innocent children" & "confused adolescents" who should be protected 
from the corrupt & dangerous world) is alien to us, so we may better 
understand that what we have now in the present -- mass production of 
long periods of childhood & adolescence in rich nations & among some 
classes of poor nations -- is a historically _new_ phenomenon, which 
would not have been possible without capitalist development with its 
drive toward innovation, high productivity, etc.

It is high productivity in agriculture & industry that allows so many 
-- young or old -- to live without producing what they eat, wear, 
etc., letting a large number of the young become children & 
adolescents, play, go to school, and so on, instead of working to 
produce food, carry water, etc.

The process of mass production of childhood & adolescence has been 
"democratizing" in the sense that it has spread literacy for 
instance.  Literacy used to be an exclusive preserve of the ruling 
class & clergy before the rise of capitalism; industrial revolution; 
& class struggles for the shorter working day, prohibition of child 
labor, etc.

Unlike Wojtek, I think that too many American children & adolescents 
-- even those from well-off families who can probably afford not to 
work -- work for wages for too many hours.  In Japan & Europe, youth 
employment is much more limited than in the States.

Yoshie