The hot debate in the British media at the moment seems to be the 'death of childhood' and what we should do about. This was kick started by a letter to the Daily Telegraph last week, signed by everyone from Jonathon Porritt to Philip Pullman. Subsequently, other figures like the Archbishop of Canterbury of joined in.
At one level, it could be all too easy to criticise this as middle-class nannying, a desire to return to an idealised world that never ways. This is particularly the case given that some of the comments are maybe a little naive, as John Griffiths suggested in his post yesterday on Rowan Williams' call for all advertising to children to be banned.
At the same time though, we shouldn't be too quick to reject the thoughts of those who are maybe less 'expert' than us (intellectual snobbery and elitism spring to mind). A lot of true things can be spoken from a position of naivety.
So whilst there are some aspects of modern life that aren't as bad as all that for kids (the central theme of Steven Johnson's Everything Bad Is Good For You), there are clearly other aspects that no sane adult can view as good and healthy (the sexualisation of young girls for instance). Similarly, whilst the Daily Telegraph letter writers may be overly nostalgic for the world of Ovaltine and Enid Blyton, as John puts its, I think it's equally true that the technorati can fetishise technological development and see no wrong in it.
And despite being someone who works for an ad agency, the argument that because we live in a materialist, consumerist society our children need to trained in the ways of materialism and consumerism so they can cope, doesn't wash with. To switch to another contentious issue, that's like saying because of climate change we need to train our kids to live in warmer weather rather than train them to be more energy efficient. It's also fine to say 'let them eat cake' when you have the money to consume. But most don't, making the pressures on children and their parents to buy stuff just another cause of broader social deprivation and unhappiness. Kids will have enough opportunities to consume throughout their lives; they don't need to start the moment they pop out.
As a parent, I find myself agreeing with Micheal Morpurgo, children's author and ex-Children's Laureate, when commenting on why he endorsed the Telegraph letter...
"Kids cannot go out and play because you mustn't talk to strangers, you mustn't play in the street, you mustn't go near water. We're surrounding children with the anxieties that we have about the world, although this is the safest time we've ever had. As a result) they retreat into the house, where entertainment now is vastly more interesting than it ever was. We cannot do anything about the speed of life. We cannot turn clocks back or any of that nonsense…(But) we really need to give them the time and the room to grow. And while activities such as computer games can be sophisticated and creative, children need ‘real’ play rather than virtual tree-climbing or virtual conker-playing. I think scarred knees are rather good."
And as someone who many people will see as part of the problem, I do very much feel challenged to grapple with this problem; to sift the nannying middle class neurosis from the genuine truth of how childhood is being eroded to the detriment of children.
And to be open to the fact that the role played by advertising may well play its part in this.
