Op-ed
Children drain their parents’ resources and hamper their productivity. The paradox is that, on the one hand, they are longed-for children and prestige projects, while on the other hand, they weigh down the growth-driven society and are therefore left to a life in institutions.
Written by: Maria Reumert Gjerding & Helle Heckmann
September 9, 2011
This is a debate article. The article expresses the writers’ own opinions.
Growth or counter-growth
Part of the series
In a society where prosperity and consumption are the primary and all-encompassing goals, there is no need for children. Children serve no function, and in itself, childhood has no immediate value. From the perspective of society, childhood is something to be gotten over with as quickly as possible.
Consequently, little thought is given to the child’s needs in the way society is structured. In a growth-driven society where the working parents of children must constantly work harder and longer to sustain rising consumption, the children pay the price.
The paradox is that most children today are both planned and deeply desired. Having children is a status symbol for many. Having children has become a project. All parents want to give their children the very best, including a good and secure childhood. Yet, despite holding the status of longed-for children, most little ones spend more than half of their waking hours in institutions. The community that should occupy the largest space in a child’s life—life as a member of a family—is reduced to a few hours of so-called quality time.
This long time spent in institutions is fully accepted by society. It is necessary for children to spend many hours in day care because both parents must work. Today, two incomes are a necessity for most families.
Quality time without value
Full-time working parents are torn between two lives: On the one hand, life in the workplace, where they are in the middle of a career and part of a social context. On the other hand, life in the family and the role of parent, where the child makes very specific demands for community, closeness, and, not least, plenty of time.
However, plenty of time is the one thing modern parents in a growth-driven society struggle to give their children. This is why the concept of “quality time” has crept into the relationship between child and adult. This concept is built on the notion that children do not need a quantity of time, but rather time of a particularly high quality, where the child and adult are together in an intense way.
Yet, for a child, short and intense quality time makes little sense. On the contrary, it is the exact opposite of what a small child needs. A child does not need mom or dad to spend an hour every evening intensely dedicated to a train set or a puzzle. They need to be included in the social community by contributing to the daily chores that make everyday life function. It is crucial for the development of healthy self-esteem that the child feels appreciated and important to the community.
Come on, we’re busy!
However, involving the child on the child’s own terms takes time. A lot of time. It requires making it possible for cooking to take time, for dishwashing and cleaning to become a social activity rather than something just to be rushed through. There must also be plenty of time both morning and evening for the child to dress themselves, giving them the chance to test their skills in practice.
Such is everyday life in very few families. There is no time. Out of misguided love, everything is done for the child. As parents, one often feels forced to manipulate the child in order to get everything done. In the morning, for example, it may be necessary to make the child hurry because there is simply no time for it to take twenty minutes to put on a sock. In the time between day care and dinner, it is far easier, faster, and more efficient to pacify the child in front of a screen while dinner is being prepared and things are being tidied up.
The lack of time in everyday life stresses the child and denies them the opportunity to participate, immerse themselves, or experience the world at their own pace. In these repeatedly stressful situations, the child feels that they are not being taken seriously because there is no time to linger over the things they experience.
Forced to be social
The child’s long day in day care is characterized by close interaction with many peers. The child is pressured to be social for 8–10 hours. This happens during a phase of their development when they are only just learning how to be social.
Despite adults having completely different social skills than children, no adult could endure being social with 25 other adults every day for 8–10 hours without breaks and without the option to withdraw. Indeed, rules exist regarding how many hours at a time adult employees may spend in children’s institutions, but no such ceiling exists for the children.
When a child is forced to be social for so many hours and must relate to changing children and adults, there is a risk that they will shut themselves off from the outside world or exhibit aggressive behavior toward other children.
Child psychologists recommend that children spend a maximum of 5–6 hours a day in institutions—a recommendation that, if actually followed, would undermine the prerequisite for the continued expansion of the growth-driven society.
A high price
The fight for a good childhood is controversial precisely because a good childhood stands in stark contrast to the growth society’s demands for increasing prosperity, longer working hours, efficiency drives, and a faster pace.
Yet the price of doing nothing about the problem is high. Today, we are witnessing a worrying development that we can no longer ignore. Since the mid-1990s, the number of children with psychological problems has increased by more than 150 percent. More children are being diagnosed with behavioral disorders and placed on medical treatment. There are indications that children are not thriving in the high speed of the growth society.
As a society, we can no longer afford to ignore the essential significance of childhood. The pressured life, the long hours in day care, and the far-too-early start at school destroy not only childhood, but also people’s psychological well-being in adulthood.
It costs society billions to treat the damage inflicted on people by the harsh conditions of childhood. Children with psychological problems perform poorly in school and are frequently referred to special classes or outright special schools. They are often scarred for life and may struggle with higher education or establishing a normal life altogether.
If we want healthy, sound individuals with significant resources, it is necessary to invest in children and bring childhood back to the center.
Every human being should have the right to seven calm years where they are given the time they need to become a resourceful, creative person.
Rethinking the family
To achieve this, however, the prerequisite is a labor market designed so that people, during a part of their working lives, are given the opportunity to perform a different kind of socially relevant work: being parents.
This requires a labor market organized on the premise that children should not spend more than 5–6 hours a day in institutions, that children get sick and need their parents during illness, and that families need shared holidays.
Aiming to create healthy, well-functioning children by giving families the opportunity for less pressure and stress is expensive, but the effort will pay off manifold. Partly in the form of healthy, resourceful individuals, and partly in the form of savings on treating the damage that a missing childhood inflicts on people in the form of lost earnings, crime, etc.
This is not a return to an old hierarchical family structure, but rather a rethinking of the family as the absolute core in creating the foundation for the society of the future.
Helle Heckmann is a pedagogue and author of ‘Barn du er vores ansvar’. Maria Reumert Gjerding is a parliamentary candidate for the Red-Green Alliance (Enhedslisten). Both are co-authors of the anthology ‘Modvækst – omstilling til fremtiden’.
