NationStates Jolt Archive

The way we think about child-rearing is clearly shaped by our culture. Although perhaps the term 'clearly' is misleading, since the dialogue surrounding child-rearing, and the responsibility for such, is anything but clear.

So what if we changed the way we, as a society, and we as individuals, thought about child-rearing? Right now, it is characterised as an individual choice, and an individual responsibility. The way our businesses are run, the way we organise ourselves, the way we interact with one another, is all influenced by this view.

If we had some reason to shift our view, to look at the issue of child-rearing as a shared responsibility, how do you think this would affect our society? What changes would have to be made? What impact would this shift have on our day-to-day living?

Well, I look forward to the bright day when I can buy stock in people's genes. "I own 56% of Steve Martin" has a nice ring to it. It takes a village to raise a child, more specifically, a global village, connected by the internet superhighway.

If the rest of us are going to be responsible for every person's children they better require testing and licensing to have them, if not, forget about it.

Well, in some ways we do conceive of child-rearing as a communal responsibility...education as an example. We have created a system where education is universal, and 'free' up to a certain level, and even those past child-bearing years, or those who never had children of their own pay taxes to subsidise those schools. As a result, all of society has a 'say' in the development of curricula, whether or not each individual participation in its development has children or not.

We make no demands on parents to ensure their children use this communal resource in a particular way, other than making attendance mandatory.

You equate having to pay taxes with having a 'say'? I don't get it.

so as long as i am in another country i can have children in that country have no responsibility and have none of my Tax dollars go to said children. sweet no more need of condoms.

You equate having to pay taxes with having a 'say'? I don't get it.
The extent to which a society dictates the curriculum of an education system is everyone "having a say." The extent to which taxpayers can exert pressure on government to alter or advance that curriculum, or make it mandatory or voluntary for individual families, is everyone "having a say." The extent to which a society, reflecting the expectations of its members, even provides for a standard of education to its citizens -- and what kind of education and which citizens get it -- is everyone "having a say."

You equate having to pay taxes with having a 'say'? I don't get it.

No, I think that's one way of looking at it. If we as society feel strongly enough about education that we're willing to subsidise it's universal existence via public funds, then one would assume we'd feel strongly enough (as a society if not as individuals) about it that we'd be involved in the shaping of how and what that education delivers. That is, in fact, the way it plays out.

We could go about it in different ways...we could, as an example, volunteer our time as educators in various capacities. There are quite a few models one could come up with that would also reflect a focus on education being a communal responsibility (either as a part of child-rearing, or not).

We simply happen to do it in this way. We could, of course use public funds and keep the content and delivery out of the hands of the people...but it seems we feel we all have enough of a stake in education that such a system would not go over too well.

To the OP, I'm not sure whether you're putting the cart before the horse a bit or not. Taking Western European/North American culture for example, are we sure that our individual-based social organization, in business, social interaction, etc., stems from how we raise our children? Or does how we raise our children also arise along with all those other things out of an individualistic cultural matrix?

If we were a society that saw childrearing as a communal activity and, perhaps, saw children as "belonging" to the society rather than to their parents, I'm sure we would be vastly different from what we are in many other ways, too. But would that be because we raise our children differently? Or would we have to be different from what we are now in some other, fundamental way in order to raise our children differently, in which case different childrearing attitude would be just another effect of that fundamental difference?

In other words, is childrearing style a cause or another effect?

The extent to which a society dictates the curriculum of an education system is everyone "having a say." The extent to which taxpayers can exert pressure on government to alter or advance that curriculum, or make it mandatory or voluntary for individual families, is everyone "having a say." The extent to which a society, reflecting the expectations of its members, even provides for a standard of education to its citizens -- and what kind of education and which citizens get it -- is everyone "having a say."

It is? Ok then, live and learn. I always thought "having a say" meant having a say. "The extent" you present is almost laughable. It would be like mugging somebody at gun point and saying they "have a say" because they speak while it's happening. Maybe society as a whole "has a say", but individual tax payers don't.

No, I think that's one way of looking at it. If we as society feel strongly enough about education that we're willing to subsidise it's universal existence via public funds, then one would assume we'd feel strongly enough (as a society if not as individuals) about it that we'd be involved in the shaping of how and what that education delivers. That is, in fact, the way it plays out.

Sure, if enough people are willing to shape it. I don't know how it is where you come from, but in the USA, public school generally is not education, it's kid warehousing under the delusion of education. And me as an individual have absolutely no "say" in actually shaping anything. In fact, arguments like mine are generally dismissed and ignored, hence the delusion. I still have to pay taxes towards the delusion though.

To the OP, I'm not sure whether you're putting the cart before the horse a bit or not. Taking Western European/North American culture for example, are we sure that our individual-based social organization, in business, social interaction, etc., stems from how we raise our children? Or does how we raise our children also arise along with all those other things out of an individualistic cultural matrix?

If we were a society that saw childrearing as a communal activity and, perhaps, saw children as "belonging" to the society rather than to their parents, I'm sure we would be vastly different from what we are in many other ways, too. But would that be because we raise our children differently? Or would we have to be different from what we are now in some other, fundamental way in order to raise our children differently, in which case different childrearing attitude would be just another effect of that fundamental difference?

My question is not so much, why are we the way we are...it's rather, how might we be different if we, for whatever reason, suddenly decided that it was imperative to think of child-raising as a communal responsibility. Considering our history, and that individualistic cultural 'matrix', what would have to change on a practical level for us to be able to express that responsibility?

We can of course look at child-rearing in historical perspective, but I'm more interested in the exercise of trying to imagine how life in North America (in particular) might look with even a little shift in attitude.

I understand what you're saying...what sorts of things would have to change before even such a communal outlook would be possible...I recognise there are massive limitations to this even as a thought experiment. Nonetheless I'm not convinced that most people have a good understanding right now of the way we as a society approach child-rearing, so if for nothing else than to gain such an insight, I think any way you want to approach this issue would be helpful.

It is? Ok then, live and learn. I always thought "having a say" meant having a say. "The extent" you present is almost laughable. It would be like mugging somebody at gun point and saying they "have a say" because they speak while it's happening. Maybe society as a whole "has a say", but individual tax payers don't.
Having a say =/= getting your way or even being paid attention to at all. After all, who the hell are you that anyone should give a flip what you think? (rhetorical "you")

You have a say. You have as much of a say as I described. If you want more, tough.

It is? Ok then, live and learn. I always thought "having a say" meant having a say. "The extent" you present is almost laughable. It would be like mugging somebody at gun point and saying they "have a say" because they speak while it's happening. Maybe society as a whole "has a say", but individual tax payers don't.

Then explain to me what 'having a say' would look like to you.

Sure, if enough people are willing to shape it. I don't know how it is where you come from, but in the USA, public school generally is not education, it's kid warehousing under the delusion of education. And me as an individual have absolutely no "say" in actually shaping anything. In fact, arguments like mine are generally dismissed and ignored, hence the delusion. I still have to pay taxes towards the delusion though.
I'm Canadian.

What are your arguments?

My question is not so much, why are we the way we are...it's rather, how might we be different if we, for whatever reason, suddenly decided that it was imperative to think of child-raising as a communal responsibility. Considering our history, and that individualistic cultural 'matrix', what would have to change on a practical level for us to be able to express that responsibility?

We can of course look at child-rearing in historical perspective, but I'm more interested in the exercise of trying to imagine how life in North America (in particular) might look with even a little shift in attitude.

I understand what you're saying...what sorts of things would have to change before even such a communal outlook would be possible...I recognise there are massive limitations to this even as a thought experiment. Nonetheless I'm not convinced that most people have a good understanding right now of the way we as a society approach child-rearing, so if for nothing else than to gain such an insight, I think any way you want to approach this issue would be helpful.
The point I was trying to make is that what would have to change in order to make such a communal outlook possible might depend on the "why" of the way we raise our children. If our childrearing style is the cause of our general cultural outlook, then potentially the change could be imposed by an experiment in social engineering, which would mean we'd have to change little in advance, though experience huge changes as a result.

Or if our childrearing style is a result of the influence of other, relatively superficial cultural trends -- the historical equivalent of fashions -- then we might not have to change much to establish a communal approach, either.

On the other hand, if our childrearing style is a result of an ingrained individualism that underlies all of our cultural outlooks, then we would pretty much have to have an entirely different culture to establish a different childrearing style. Or wait many more centuries for such a change to come up naturally.

As to what social changes would result from adopting a more communal approach to childrearing, I have no idea what would change. I cannot imagine a Western culture that would be different in that way, unless I can find a historical or contemporary example for comparison, so I can see where we diverge from that model and, from that, speculate about what else might change in our culture if we adopted that other way of childrearing.

What are your arguments?
I hope they're not along the lines of "tax is theft" or an indictment of the whole concept of public education on financial or "personal responsibility" lines, because that would be off topic, as I understood your OP.

Having a say =/= getting your way or even being paid attention to at all. After all, who the hell are you that anyone should give a flip what you think? (rhetorical "you")

You have a say. You have as much of a say as I described. If you want more, tough.

You think I don't know that? Still language is a funny thing, it can be interpreted however you want if you really try. "Having a say" implies your input on a matter having a realistic meaning, at least to me it does. Not to you? Fine. Still what the OP presented implied actually having a meaningful say, not just a mock say, since it had a serious tone to it, I thought.

It can mean a mock "say" as populism often works, it doesn't have to mean anything else to you.

Then explain to me what 'having a say' would look like to you.

Choosing to waive taxes or enjoying cuts in taxes that are meant towards kid warehousing ("education"). One sample concept.

What are your arguments?

Well I made my main argument about it already pretty much in a nutshell. The American public school system is generally a kid warehouse, not education. And the teachers unions are unskilled bums just promoting their gigs.

What would this "communal" child rearing look like?

You think I don't know that? Still language is a funny thing, it can be interpreted however you want if you really try. "Having a say" implies your input on a matter having a realistic meaning, at least to me it does. Not to you? Fine. Still what the OP presented implied actually having a meaningful say, not just a mock say, since it had a serious tone to it, I thought.

It can mean a mock "say" as populism often works, it doesn't have to mean anything else to you.



Choosing to waive taxes or enjoying cuts in taxes that are meant towards kid warehousing ("education"). One sample concept.



Well I made my main argument about it already pretty much in a nutshell. The American public school system is generally a kid warehouse, not education. And the teachers unions are unskilled bums just promoting their gigs.
Oh. *is disappointed*

Well I made my main argument about it already pretty much in a nutshell. The American public school system is generally a kid warehouse, not education. And the teachers unions are unskilled bums just promoting their gigs.

I keep hearing this arguement, but have yet to see anything to substantiate it.

As to what social changes would result from adopting a more communal approach to childrearing, I have no idea what would change. I cannot imagine a Western culture that would be different in that way, unless I can find a historical or contemporary example for comparison, so I can see where we diverge from that model and, from that, speculate about what else might change in our culture if we adopted that other way of childrearing.

Well if we look at superficial changes...let's focus for example on Maternity leave. You have what...two? Three years in France, compared to a year in the US and Canada? If we moved towards that sort of model, what would that mean for us?

Mayonnaise on our fries?

What would this "communal" child rearing look like?

Like the fourth circle of hell.

I hope they're not along the lines of "tax is theft" or an indictment of the whole concept of public education on financial or "personal responsibility" lines, because that would be off topic, as I understood your OP.
Indeed they would be, and I too hope (though I'm not holding my breath).

That topic gets done all the time...I'd like THOSE people to attempt for once to try on a different hat.

I keep hearing this arguement, but have yet to see anything to substantiate it.

Nearing the bottom in global testing standards not enough for ya? Or perhaps you've even been in a school recently?

What would this "communal" child rearing look like?

Thank you for summing up my essential question :D

I keep hearing this arguement, but have yet to see anything to substantiate it.
I hear it all the time as a libertarian talking point ("talking point" meaning an unsupported assertion that is supposed to carry an argument by its very utterance, no explanation needed; apparently rightwingers are not the only ones who use talking points).

But it is also completely off topic, I think. Neesika will clarify this, I hope, because I read the OP as inviting a cultural analysis and speculation discussion, which I would be very interested in.

Another bitch-fest about the US school system -- not so interesting.

Nearing the bottom in global testing standards not enough for ya? Or perhaps you've even been in a school recently?

Some schools suck, some are great. The problem is not "public schools" but the states. But thats for a different thread.

And I was in high school not too long ago.

I hear it all the time as a libertarian talking point ("talking point" meaning an unsupported assertion that is supposed to carry an argument by its very utterance, no explanation needed; apparently rightwingers are not the only ones who use talking points).


Thats all it is, libertarian sermons about the greatness and divinity of Our Lord The Free Market. They ignore the fact that the problem is the states, whose rights they all too often champion.

But this is all off topic. I apologize.

Nearing the bottom in global testing standards not enough for ya? Or perhaps you've even been in a school recently?
If all you're going to do is yak about individualism and the 'tax is theft' argument, do it elsewhere.

If you're willing to really try to think about things in a different way, by all means, please stay. At the end of the day you'll probably still hold on to your fundamental principles, so it's not as though participating in this discussion in the manner I've asked will harm you.

Some schools suck, some are great. The problem is not "public schools" but the states. But thats for a different thread.

And I was in high school not too long ago.

Most public schools are shoddy in the education department, that's why I said "generally". If you went to good schools, good for you. And blaming states is circular logic. Blame is irrelevant and won't fix anything by itself. Only solutions will. The dismantling of public school districts in favor of charter schools and/or even a voucher system. Anything is better than the mass we have now, which does more harm than good.

Well if we look at superficial changes...let's focus for example on Maternity leave. You have what...two? Three years in France, compared to a year in the US and Canada? If we moved towards that sort of model, what would that mean for us?

Mayonnaise on our fries?
Yes, mayo. First step towards Frenchyfication. :D

Though the nominal prevalence of mayo over ketchup in France predates, I believe, their maternity leave policies. And France is still a Western culture, where children belong to their families and are raised by their parents or other single or pairs of private caregivers.

I believe there are non-"western" cultures that raise children communally, or at least think of children as belonging to the whole social group, not just their birth families, but I can't think of which ones at the moment. I'll have to devote some time to that -- it's been so long since this topic has come up for me.

If all you're going to do is yak about individualism and the 'tax is theft' argument, do it elsewhere.

If you're willing to really try to think about things in a different way, by all means, please stay. At the end of the day you'll probably still hold on to your fundamental principles, so it's not as though participating in this discussion in the manner I've asked will harm you.

You're skimming and dismissing stuff, and putting words in people's mouths. I never said "tax is theft". And you're basically whining absurdly since you're trying to dismiss what I say for not conforming to your posting protocol. Ok, sure, whatever.

Education should probably be off the table in any sort of discussion about community-organized childcare. Public school teachers, even substitute teachers, are tested, certified, unionized, etc. to protect their jobs and to obviate legal problems - not only would a volunteer (even a well-qualified volunteer) be seen as a threat, but their mere presence would mean all kinds of liability problems. Unless you run background checks, psychological evaluations and health/CPR/etc. clinics for every parent, you couldn't let anyone volunteer. So I'd scratch that one. Ditto for choosing textbooks or curricula - you need a sheet of paper saying you're qualified to do almost anything when it comes to government, and if you don't have it, you might as well beg someone to sue you. A monkey could do my job, for example, but as long as I have all my papers and vaccinations and the monkey doesn't, I can't be dislodged. :p

You're skimming and dismissing stuff, and putting words in people's mouths. I never said "tax is theft". And you're basically whining absurdly since you're trying to dismiss what I say for not conforming to your posting protocol. Ok, sure, whatever.
What you are saying is off topic. Please re-read the OP and try your hand at the thought experiment Neesika poses.

Or if you prefer to debate about the US school system's failings and related issues, please start another thread, because that is not what this thread is about. It would be polite to the thread host to respect her topic.

So one thing I often wonder about...

The way we organise ourselves physically, in terms of neighbourhoods. How would that change if we began to see child-rearing as a communal exercise?

Right now, we already have community playgrounds, daycares and schools... areas for children...because most neighbourhoods have children. There are some gated communities for seniors, or adults without children that do not organise themselves in this manner, but these are still not the norm.

If child-rearing were more communal, would we create more physical spaces for children, or would we alter our existing physical space to include children in more of our daily activities?

I try to conceive of how that might look...perhaps instead of centralised daycares, daycares that are integrated into the work environment? Would we see more childless volunteers at community centres and schools? Would we do things like block off more residential streets to ensure the safety of our children, as well as providing more social space for children and adults to interact? Or would we come up with something even more radical in terms of physical space?

What might our homes look like? Would the family 'unit' become more extended? Including even non-blood relatives?

You're skimming and dismissing stuff, and putting words in people's mouths. I never said "tax is theft". And you're basically whining absurdly since you're trying to dismiss what I say for not conforming to your posting protocol. Ok, sure, whatever.

I'm telling you straight out, do not derail this thread. If you want to participate in the manner I've explained in the OP, do so. If not, leave.

What you are saying is off topic. Please re-read the OP and try your hand at the thought experiment Neesika poses.

Or if you prefer to debate about the US school system's failings and related issues, please start another thread, because that is not what this thread is about. It would be polite to the thread host to respect her topic.

No, actually. What actually happened is I posted something that any common sense would say is on topic, you initially engaged, got rebuffed, backpedaled, and are now trying to make yourself look nobler than thou while doing it. Bollocky that nobody's buying.

So one thing I often wonder about...

The way we organise ourselves physically, in terms of neighbourhoods. How would that change if we began to see child-rearing as a communal exercise?

Right now, we already have community playgrounds, daycares and schools... areas for children...because most neighbourhoods have children. There are some gated communities for seniors, or adults without children that do not organise themselves in this manner, but these are still not the norm.

If child-rearing were more communal, would we create more physical spaces for children, or would we alter our existing physical space to include children in more of our daily activities?

I try to conceive of how that might look...perhaps instead of centralised daycares, daycares that are integrated into the work environment? Would we see more childless volunteers at community centres and schools? Would we do things like block off more residential streets to ensure the safety of our children, as well as providing more social space for children and adults to interact? Or would we come up with something even more radical in terms of physical space?

What might our homes look like? Would the family 'unit' become more extended? Including even non-blood relatives?

I would see more of an entire public sector becoming devoted to this, as opposed to childcare becoming integrated into everything else. If childcare was communal, instead of individual, I see it from a capitalist perspective becoming an industry unto itself than a part of everyone's lives. Unfortunately, I cannot see our society progressing to a point in which anything, even childcare, would not be thrown to the free market like a piece of, (dare I say), bacon, to a bunch of hungry dogs.

So one thing I often wonder about...

The way we organise ourselves physically, in terms of neighbourhoods. How would that change if we began to see child-rearing as a communal exercise?

Right now, we already have community playgrounds, daycares and schools... areas for children...because most neighbourhoods have children. There are some gated communities for seniors, or adults without children that do not organise themselves in this manner, but these are still not the norm.

If child-rearing were more communal, would we create more physical spaces for children, or would we alter our existing physical space to include children in more of our daily activities?

I try to conceive of how that might look...perhaps instead of centralised daycares, daycares that are integrated into the work environment? Would we see more childless volunteers at community centres and schools? Would we do things like block off more residential streets to ensure the safety of our children, as well as providing more social space for children and adults to interact? Or would we come up with something even more radical in terms of physical space?

What might our homes look like? Would the family 'unit' become more extended? Including even non-blood relatives?
I don't think the neighborhood construct would change much because "neighborhoods" tend to be of a geographical and population size that maintains a manageable social cohesion. I don't think that kind of social organization into functional units within functional units is related to the sort of cultural outlook you are talking about. Rather it is a matter of practicality, even simple logistics. I base this on the fact that functional unit organization similar to "neighborhoods" occurs in every society, regardless of its communal or individualistic outlook.

I'm also not sure that the segregation of age groups -- separating children from adults, and elders from younger adults -- is necessarily related to or resulting from an individualistic or "private" approach to childrearing/family structure, or to other issues of social roles and status.

However, I suspect that, if we had a more "they're all our kids" attitude, we would actually NOT see more physical spaces FOR children, as opposed to a greater integration of children into "adult" spaces, like work, restaurants, etc. Also, that in no way implies that society would necessarily make itself "safer" for children (as with blocked off streets). Historically, and in most places, children had to take their chances in the rough and tumble world right alongside the adults. The notion of "protecting the children" from the bangs and bruises and runaway buses of life is relatively brand new. I don't think adopting a communal childrearing attitude would necessarily lead to a more protective attitude. It would depend on how fundamental the protective attitude is, as opposed to a cultural "fad."

My mom recently retired from a company that runs hundreds of infant and toddler daycare centers in three countries, both stand-alone community-based centers and workplace-based centers sponsored by corporations for the use of their employees. The idea of child care services being integrated into daily adult life already exists, via organizations like this company (which is scary huge). Also "volunteerism" is a relatively small part of the service. The staffers are paid, and their work is an accredited profession with college degress devoted to it, and many adults who have no children of their own working in it. Not sure how that affects your vision, but just mentioning it.

So one thing I often wonder about...

The way we organise ourselves physically, in terms of neighbourhoods. How would that change if we began to see child-rearing as a communal exercise?

Right now, we already have community playgrounds, daycares and schools... areas for children...because most neighbourhoods have children. There are some gated communities for seniors, or adults without children that do not organise themselves in this manner, but these are still not the norm.

If child-rearing were more communal, would we create more physical spaces for children, or would we alter our existing physical space to include children in more of our daily activities?

I try to conceive of how that might look...perhaps instead of centralised daycares, daycares that are integrated into the work environment? Would we see more childless volunteers at community centres and schools? Would we do things like block off more residential streets to ensure the safety of our children, as well as providing more social space for children and adults to interact? Or would we come up with something even more radical in terms of physical space?

What might our homes look like? Would the family 'unit' become more extended? Including even non-blood relatives?

Speedbumps tend to pop up like mushrooms after a rain, once the first child is killed in a new neighborhood - I've noticed that everywhere I've lived. It might be worthwhile to just include the damned things in the city plan to begin with and save someone some grief. I'd be in favor of that.

As to childless people or couples as volunteers, would you really be in favor of that? In my experience, most parents wouldn't. Most people don't want you interacting with their kids in any capacity, even if you work in a public library (which are, in effect, daycare centers in many cases) and are trained to help. I dunno. Maybe I just have an untrustworthy look to me, but I *really* don't miss that. That said though, a more trusting society would be beneficial, certainly.

Yes, mayo. First step towards Frenchyfication. :D

Though the nominal prevalence of mayo over ketchup in France predates, I believe, their maternity leave policies. And France is still a Western culture, where children belong to their families and are raised by their parents or other single or pairs of private caregivers.

I believe there are non-"western" cultures that raise children communally, or at least think of children as belonging to the whole social group, not just their birth families, but I can't think of which ones at the moment. I'll have to devote some time to that -- it's been so long since this topic has come up for me.

I brought France up precisely because they are still a Western culture and they do not diverge so radically in terms of child-rearing from us...but even there we can see that there is enough of a shift somehow that they have come up with a more comprehensive social system of support for the raising of children, even if the mother (or father) is still the primary caregiver.

It suggests to me that one model which we in the West might pursue is to approach child-rearing as a communal responsibility in terms of the allocation of resources, while maintaining the role of the primary caregivers. It would be more meaningful to also integrate children and their caregivers into the social realm by shifting fundamental attitudes about having and raising children...so that we view having and raising children as an essential societal function rather than an individualistic and selfish choice.

For a more radical picture of communal child-rearing, we can look at some aboriginal societies. The Cree, for example, continue to have an extended kinship system where aunts and uncles function as co-fathers and co-mothers and where cousins are regarded more as siblings than more distant relations. While there have been fractures in the operation of our kinship systems, you still have a more 'communal' style of child-rearing where it's not uncommon to spend just as much time at your aunt's house as at your mom's house.

How that played out in the old days was that rather than have a centralised system of education or training for children (ie, leave the family and go to school), children were taught and trained 'on the job', with various members of the community. Not an apprenticeship model, but rather a less formal and very complete integration into the community according to one's need and level of skill.

Clearly, in our age of increasing specialisation, we are not going to be bringing our kids to work in order to educate and train them, because we want our children to have a more broad education to start with...but if other facets of education besides those formalistic aspects were tackled on a communal level...i.e if you had more of the old-school rural 'nosy neighbour' teachings even in an urban setting, I wonder how that would play out.

In many aboriginal communities, almost all social activities include children...in non-aboriginal communities, including children seems to be the exception. I'm not sure why, as it often has the effect of also excluding their caregivers.

Speedbumps tend to pop up like mushrooms after a rain, once the first child is killed in a new neighborhood - I've noticed that everywhere I've lived. It might be worthwhile to just include the damned things in the city plan to begin with and save someone some grief. I'd be in favor of that.

As to childless people or couples as volunteers, would you really be in favor of that? In my experience, most parents wouldn't. Most people don't want you interacting with their kids in any capacity, even if you work in a public library (which are, in effect, daycare centers in many cases) and are trained to help. I dunno. Maybe I just have an untrustworthy look to me, but I *really* don't miss that. That said though, a more trusting society would be beneficial, certainly.
Yes, but what if we had a different attitude towards childrearing?

It is true that NOW, in our current culture, people don't want other adults interacting with their kids in any capacity. But what if, as the OP asks, we had a more communal attitude towards children? How might that affect the relationship between parents and other adults in regards to their children? How might it affect the responsibility of people towards other people's children?

This is an extremely interesting topic, Nees. Such a shame my brain is fried. I'm going to get some sleep and check in on this again over breakfast, and hopefully, have some better comments to make.

Yes, but what if we had a different attitude towards childrearing?

It is true that NOW, in our current culture, people don't want other adults interacting with their kids in any capacity. But what if, as the OP asks, we had a more communal attitude towards children? How might that affect the relationship between parents and other adults in regards to their children? How might it affect the responsibility of people towards other people's children?

Funding for education would increase; taxpayers would become more insistent that social problems be solved where they affect children; volunteerism might even rise. We'd internalize the externality, to use the $3 phrase. It's the same dilemma that my friends in criminal justice/corrections face - if we accepted that 95% of criminals *will* leave prison in their lifetime, and *will* be back out there, interacting with us, then we'd want counseling and we'd want drug treatment and employment training and results, but we don't. If we accepted that spending the $2 now on kids would earn us $4 later (as I expect it could be shown) then we'd spend the $2, but we don't because we think that the system is broken, which it is to some degree. It's a culturewide problem.

However, I suspect that, if we had a more "they're all our kids" attitude, we would actually NOT see more physical spaces FOR children, as opposed to a greater integration of children into "adult" spaces, like work, restaurants, etc.
That's my suspicion as well. Making more spaces for kids actually seems to be what we are doing...which hasn't meant a better integration, it's meant more segregation. Here you people with kids! Quit whining! You can go hang out with other parents, with your kids, and not annoy the rest of us!


Also, that in no way implies that society would necessarily make itself "safer" for children (as with blocked off streets). Historically, and in most places, children had to take their chances in the rough and tumble world right alongside the adults. The notion of "protecting the children" from the bangs and bruises and runaway buses of life is relatively brand new. I don't think adopting a communal childrearing attitude would necessarily lead to a more protective attitude. It would depend on how fundamental the protective attitude is, as opposed to a cultural "fad."Also agreed. The phenomeom of 'childhood' in the way we now conceive of it is pretty recent. I'm not saying we should have our kids working in the factories again, but the way we seem to want to ensure our kids do no work, and 'play' as much as possible (but only in trivial ways, not doing anything too serious) seems so bizarre...especially when we then thrust them into the world at some arbitrary age and go, "okay you had your fun, now work damn you!"

Anyone who has had kids knows how eager they are to learn your skills, and to help you (as annoying that is). Having kids more integrated into every day life would expose them to a wide range of skill sets that they would sponge up much more effectively than being taught those same skills in a more artificial environment.

My mom recently retired from a company that runs hundreds of infant and toddler daycare centers in three countries, both stand-alone community-based centers and workplace-based centers sponsored by corporations for the use of their employees. The idea of child care services being integrated into daily adult life already exists, via organizations like this company (which is scary huge). Also "volunteerism" is a relatively small part of the service. The staffers are paid, and their work is an accredited profession with college degress devoted to it, and many adults who have no children of their own working in it. Not sure how that affects your vision, but just mentioning it.
I don't want to see it turn into a purely business model...because some of the bigger daycares are certainly run that way and the amount of 'caring' that is directed at the children is minimal at best. I don't think that's particularly healthy.

However, I don't think there's anything inherent in being childless that makes a person unable to relate to children, or care for them, and plenty of people make a good living in fields related to childcare. I'm glad that it's a more respected profession, but it certainly needs to be a better paid one...and part of the problem there is the way that society undervalues the raising of children. IMO.

This is an extremely interesting topic, Nees. Such a shame my brain is fried. I'm going to get some sleep and check in on this again over breakfast, and hopefully, have some better comments to make.

I'm feeling dull as well, I've been working all day on a paper, and needed to think about something else...but I'm unable to really analyse it well as foggy as I am. Still, there are some good minds here, I'm hoping they'll make up for my lack.

Funding for education would increase; taxpayers would become more insistent that social problems be solved where they affect children; volunteerism might even rise. We'd internalize the externality, to use the $3 phrase. It's the same dilemma that my friends in criminal justice/corrections face - if we accepted that 95% of criminals *will* leave prison in their lifetime, and *will* be back out there, interacting with us, then we'd want counseling and we'd want drug treatment and employment training and results, but we don't. If we accepted that spending the $2 now on kids would earn us $4 later (as I expect it could be shown) then we'd spend the $2, but we don't because we think that the system is broken, which it is to some degree. It's a culturewide problem.
Very good points.

<snip>
However, I don't think there's anything inherent in being childless that makes a person unable to relate to children, or care for them, and plenty of people make a good living in fields related to childcare. I'm glad that it's a more respected profession, but it certainly needs to be a better paid one...and part of the problem there is the way that society undervalues the raising of children. IMO.
In my O as well. And I think in both this and TPC's points above there is something potentially very foundational to think about in reference to your OP questions. I'm going to sleep on it now. Later.

I'm feeling dull as well, I've been working all day on a paper, and needed to think about something else...but I'm unable to really analyse it well as foggy as I am. Still, there are some good minds here, I'm hoping they'll make up for my lack.
Sleep followed by coffee, that's what we need. *nods*

Well, I look forward to the bright day when I can buy stock in people's genes. "I own 56% of Steve Martin" has a nice ring to it. It takes a village to raise a child, more specifically, a global village, connected by the internet superhighway.

I own 100% of Mr. T. and I only spent 10 bucks!

Sleep followed by coffee, that's what we need. *nods*

And with this sage advice, I'm off to snuggle with my kids and warm up my icy feet on their little legs.

Anyone who has had kids knows how eager they are to learn your skills, and to help you (as annoying that is). Having kids more integrated into every day life would expose them to a wide range of skill sets that they would sponge up much more effectively than being taught those same skills in a more artificial environment.

I agree and think this is a fundamental point.

We have Disney'd children to some extent, we coddle and protect them and worry about letting them do anything that might conceivably cause harm. This means we cosset them from the outside world, carefully monitoring what they see, hear and more. To some extent we're very focused on shielding ourselves from the realities of life, either through purchase or denial - we present a front.

I sometimes feel that the [developed] world is becoming more and more of a front, we project an illusion of our lives to other people and I suspect it's something to do with either the migration towards cities or possibly the suburban image so often provided by TV, 2.3 children...

I watched what must have been a 5 or 6 year old girl gut and fillet a fish at her (I guess) father's store and I wondered at how that would come across in the West.

We forget that children are extremely capable, it's really only judgement they need to acquire yet we protect them so much, spoon-feed them, how can they acquire that judgment?

So communal child-raising, I think humans naturally work best in groups of about 30-45 people. I'd say that there should be a movement to create micro-communities within society, far more sharing of costs, care and more.

I doubt a government would bother, it would have to be up to individuals to organise for themselves.

In Soviet Russia, child rears you!









Sorry. I had to..it was just too easy.

i think if store workers had a right to spank children who take things off the shelf and throw them arround with no intention on their or their parents part to buy them, a lot more of them might grow up to be more responsible and better self diciplined adults.

just as a guess.

or at least confine them in a time out room with a good child pshrinque until their parents are through the check out stand and ready to leave the store.

I keep hearing this arguement, but have yet to see anything to substantiate it.

Don't hold your breath. Dimesa's not too fond of evidence.

They tried communal child rasing in the Kibbutzim if I recall

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz

Thank you for summing up my essential question :D

I didn't mean to, I'm just.... I can't even fathom what it would mean. Can you give examples or something? Can you illustrate areas where you feel a more communal approach would benefit society?

I didn't mean to, I'm just.... I can't even fathom what it would mean. Can you give examples or something? Can you illustrate areas where you feel a more communal approach would benefit society?
seconded!

all i can think is that common values in the US suck and i wouldnt want my child raised the way it seems that most people raise their own children.

seconded!

all i can think is that common values in the US suck and i wouldnt want my child raised the way it seems that most people raise their own children.
I agree.

I didn't mean to, I'm just.... I can't even fathom what it would mean. Can you give examples or something? Can you illustrate areas where you feel a more communal approach would benefit society?

An area I see a serious need for a more communal approach to child-rearing would be in the workplace. Right now, when a working parent takes maternity or parental leave, this usually adversely affects their chance of advancement, and in effect 'stalls' them.

If instead of 'punishing' people who have children, we conceived of child-rearing as an essential societal function, we would hopefully create more supports for parents and their children, and therefore encourage more long-term retention in the workforce. If we thought about child-rearing as essential, and natural, rather than a speedbump, the way we organise our businesses would have to change. I look at law firms as an example. Women rarely make partner, and earn substantially less than their male colleagues who were called to the bar at the same time. Often this is because women are the main caregivers of either children, or elderly relations.

This is seen as a logical outcome, because we as a society do not value the work that caregivers do in terms of raising children. Change that value system, and we start to come up with ways to retain these caregivers, rather than watch them burn out, or change careers out of frustration.

This isn't 'other people raising your children', this is society as a whole pooling resources to deal with a natural, and essential aspect of being human...reproduction. It's understanding the very simple, yet often overlooked fact that the children of today are the ones running the show tomorrow...and if we denigrate child-rearing by segregating parents into low-paying, low-prestige 'family friendly' jobs or actively supporting a system that financially punishes people for having children, then we create long term social disfunction.

An area I see a serious need for a more communal approach to child-rearing would be in the workplace. Right now, when a working parent takes maternity or parental leave, this usually adversely affects their chance of advancement, and in effect 'stalls' them.

If instead of 'punishing' people who have children, we conceived of child-rearing as an essential societal function, we would hopefully create more supports for parents and their children, and therefore encourage more long-term retention in the workforce. If we thought about child-rearing as essential, and natural, rather than a speedbump, the way we organise our businesses would have to change. I look at law firms as an example. Women rarely make partner, and earn substantially less than their male colleagues who were called to the bar at the same time. Often this is because women are the main caregivers of either children, or elderly relations.

This is seen as a logical outcome, because we as a society do not value the work that caregivers do in terms of raising children. Change that value system, and we start to come up with ways to retain these caregivers, rather than watch them burn out, or change careers out of frustration.

This isn't 'other people raising your children', this is society as a whole pooling resources to deal with a natural, and essential aspect of being human...reproduction. It's understanding the very simple, yet often overlooked fact that the children of today are the ones running the show tomorrow...and if we denigrate child-rearing by segregating parents into low-paying, low-prestige 'family friendly' jobs or actively supporting a system that financially punishes people for having children, then we create long term social disfunction.
that seems to me to be supporting parents rather than communally raising children.

not that i have a problem with doing that.

The way we think about child-rearing is clearly shaped by our culture. Although perhaps the term 'clearly' is misleading, since the dialogue surrounding child-rearing, and the responsibility for such, is anything but clear.

So what if we changed the way we, as a society, and we as individuals, thought about child-rearing? Right now, it is characterised as an individual choice, and an individual responsibility. The way our businesses are run, the way we organise ourselves, the way we interact with one another, is all influenced by this view.

If we had some reason to shift our view, to look at the issue of child-rearing as a shared responsibility, how do you think this would affect our society? What changes would have to be made? What impact would this shift have on our day-to-day living?

Child-rearing is, when one comes right down to look at it (and I'm not a parent), a work of the entire community. By that I mean that parents, teachers and adults all over do have an effect in how a child will shape up before he/she becomes an adult. We may think of it as just an individual's responsibilty, but it's, actually, more of a community thing.

that seems to me to be supporting parents rather than communally raising children.

not that i have a problem with doing that.

That would only be the case if you believed that the way we currently treat parents, and children, has nothing to do with underlying social attitudes about whose 'job' it is to raise children.

There are other ways I could imagine society as a whole being more involved in the entire process of raising children, this is simply a specific area that I think is one that is currently being examined, and has been found to be profoundly lacking, both from a social and an economic perspective.

Child-rearing is, when one comes right down to look at it (and I'm not a parent), a work of the entire community. By that I mean that parents, teachers and adults all over do have an effect in how a child will shape up before he/she becomes an adult. We may think of it as just an individual's responsibilty, but it's, actually, more of a community thing.

It would make sense to view child-rearing in a more comprehensive manner...but it's also a sort of scary view. Looking beyond parents and teachers, what other social forces help 'raise our children'? Media, the way we organise our social spaces and our physical spaces...

Right now we try very hard to pretend that these things are of minimal influence and importance...mostly because the whole 'think of the children' refrain is raised not to actually think of the children, but instead, to force other adults to do what a certain group of adults thinks they should do (ie: not play violent video games etc).

What if the refrain was 'include the children'?

If we had some reason to shift our view, to look at the issue of child-rearing as a shared responsibility, how do you think this would affect our society?
I'm finding it a little tricky to follow your train of thought. If you mean "how would the event that changes how we look at children, such that we might think about raising them communally, also influence society in general", then I would say that there are so many potential ways in which that might come into being that it wouldn't be reasonable to speculate.

We might go down the "kid farm" route, where we basically pay adults to raise them in batches as a form of efficient use of resources. We might be in the position whereby people don't naturally have children, and the need to raise them communally is governed by the fact that there are no "parents" any more. We might be naturally socialist, and child-raising might be part of the general ownership of property. Children might be sparse, such that the ratio of adults to children naturally lends itself to each child having multiple guardians. We might have been overcome by environmentalist guilt, such that the idea of pampering our children with industrial commodities seems so immoral that we have to provide entertainment by more natural (and hence communal) methods...

Even the lesser question of "how might a communal approach to child-rearing influence our society" is dependent on the reasons and route by which we adopt the idea. The prospect of more childhood play areas might not be important if we start to view kids as economic growth potential, but it would be vital if we view having children as a personal convenience and source of entertainment. We might not need an explicit literary education if we intend to go back to nature, or a skills education if we embark upon an artistic utopia. The establishment of a child military would be met with a higher birth-rate among nationalists; the creation of eco-communes might reduce the birth-rate in favour of limiting produce to support the (smaller) community.

It's not hard to come up with systems that would facilitate communal child rearing, but each would doubtless respond to children in a manner consistent with the rest of the construction. In many respects, we are the anomaly in that our society is, by and large, completely inconsistent. In my opinion, the effect of the idea of communal raising would be treated the same as any other new idea in Western Liberalism; if it's practical, it'll be done, and things will otherwise go on entirely unchanged.

The way we think about child-rearing is clearly shaped by our culture. Although perhaps the term 'clearly' is misleading, since the dialogue surrounding child-rearing, and the responsibility for such, is anything but clear.

So what if we changed the way we, as a society, and we as individuals, thought about child-rearing? Right now, it is characterised as an individual choice, and an individual responsibility. The way our businesses are run, the way we organise ourselves, the way we interact with one another, is all influenced by this view.

If we had some reason to shift our view, to look at the issue of child-rearing as a shared responsibility, how do you think this would affect our society? What changes would have to be made? What impact would this shift have on our day-to-day living?

Our church views it as a communal responsibility. Are you implying somehow that there's only one culture you know of that views it in this way?

Our church views it as a communal responsibility. Are you implying somehow that there's only one culture you know of that views it in this way?

Huh? Views it in what way? What culture are you referring to? The post you quoted specified an overal individualistic approach to child-rearing in 'our' society (meaning western, industrialised society).

Can you make your question clearer please?

The development of the modern, nuclear family is largely related to the development of mobile, industrialized populaces. The pre-industrialization European family unit was, largely the rural extended family, and because people within any given village or clutch of farms were usually related, the extended family tended to be how society functioned.

But, because of the need for increased mobility in the industrial world, as well as the increasing likelihood that your neighbors would not be your cousins, the nuclear family developed. The child-rearing social unit tends to be constructed on a functional and a genetic basis (and there's evidence towards that fact, with the classic example being that of biological versus adopted daughters, and the onset of puberty).

Industrialization created the nuclear family, which seems to be the unit we're hardwired to develop in this type of world. In alternative situations, maybe not, but right now and in the foreseeable future, definitely so.

Huh? Views it in what way? What culture are you referring to? The post you quoted specified an overal individualistic approach to child-rearing in 'our' society (meaning western, industrialised society).

Can you make your question clearer please?

I said the members of my church view it as a communal responsibility. We even take an oath together every time someone has a baby. We happen to live in a western industrialized society.

I asked you if you were implying that you knew of a culture that viewed it as a communal responsibility.

It would make sense to view child-rearing in a more comprehensive manner...but it's also a sort of scary view. Looking beyond parents and teachers, what other social forces help 'raise our children'? Media, the way we organise our social spaces and our physical spaces...

Right now we try very hard to pretend that these things are of minimal influence and importance...mostly because the whole 'think of the children' refrain is raised not to actually think of the children, but instead, to force other adults to do what a certain group of adults thinks they should do (ie: not play violent video games etc).

What if the refrain was 'include the children'?

I always say that children do have a thing or two to say, even if we don't want to pay attention. Their simple minds can come up with so many things, and they're not afraid to say things as they them.

I first imagine a world where we do not separate our children from our lives. You know, take them with us wherever we go. To our work. On trips. To raucuous parties where we get drunk and high (while making sure that there are some responsible adults around). To rock concerts (bring hearing protection).

If we had some reason to shift our view, to look at the issue of child-rearing as a shared responsibility, how do you think this would affect our society? What changes would have to be made? What impact would this shift have on our day-to-day living?

This is a very interesting set of questions. The first thing that comes to mind is that we'd have to be more trusting of others (including our children). It seems that the individualistic take on child-rearing often stems from the idea that other people having much of an influence on the children would be a problem in and of itself. If child-rearing were more communal, we'd really have to trust other people to help impart the right lessons and we'd need to trust our children to be able to pull the good from the diverse parental figures they'd be exposed to.

Actually, I have no idea if any of that made sense, but I'm going to go read the rest of the thread now.

How that played out in the old days was that rather than have a centralised system of education or training for children (ie, leave the family and go to school), children were taught and trained 'on the job', with various members of the community. Not an apprenticeship model, but rather a less formal and very complete integration into the community according to one's need and level of skill.

Clearly, in our age of increasing specialisation, we are not going to be bringing our kids to work in order to educate and train them, because we want our children to have a more broad education to start with...but if other facets of education besides those formalistic aspects were tackled on a communal level...i.e if you had more of the old-school rural 'nosy neighbour' teachings even in an urban setting, I wonder how that would play out.

Have you ever read a book named Ishmael by Daniel Quinn? It may be in that book or it may be in the sequel, but there was a discussion somewhat like this in the book. The possibility brought up there was one in which children would be more free to learn skills they were interested in by wandering and watching/helping the adults at their jobs. IIRC, the model used in many tribal societies was specifically brought up as a starting point.

Of course, to do that, we'd have to have a fundamental change in the way most of society views children helping in this manner. Instructing an interested child as to what you are doing and allowing them to help would certainly slow the job down. So our current society would likely see the child as a nuisance and a worker who took the time to instruct the child while on the job would likely be punished for lower productivity.

Of course, if we as a society saw such instruction as useful, then the slowed productivity wouldn't be seen as such a horrible thing...

Here's how I see a possible future.

Take something like, amm..., Ebay but instead of, or with, goods, you also offer services. This could be anything from legal to accounting to marketing to engineering, anything. The client * rates your work for quality & efficiency and the more you do, the better you do, the higher up the pay bracket you go. A form of online accreditation would also be required but this is all details.

So a group of friends could hire an office space/house and simply click for jobs as and when they need in an online auction site/s.

Some people would be good money earners, some would be good household organisers, some would be great entertainment, a very fluid type of atmosphere.

Major companies would benefit from downsizing on costs, some companies already have online labs where they pay for various solutions, look up GLG Councils as well - can type Gerson for one of the Gs - they pay for advice on different industries.

It's already possible, there are hundreds of opportunities.

You might even pool together and buy a coffee shop, work from there and also have other people both working and contributing to your bottom line.

All this would help to create the kind of communities that would change both how we live and how we care for children.

I'd call it Tribes, perhaps it's been done, perhaps I should write one of those books laying out what's possible, what the trends are and what the future possibilities are.

I first imagine a world where we do not separate our children from our lives. You know, take them with us wherever we go. To our work. On trips. To raucuous parties where we get drunk and high (while making sure that there are some responsible adults around). To rock concerts (bring hearing protection).

'Zactly.

I'm happiest when I can have an active social life that includes my children. It seems so bizarre how excluded children are from our everyday tasks and interactions.

Wait, so it does take a village to raise a child?

'Zactly.

I'm happiest when I can have an active social life that includes my children. It seems so bizarre how excluded children are from our everyday tasks and interactions.

Well what makes you think they want to be included in your everyday tasks? Working at a job, paying bills, having extramarital affairs? When I was a kid I didn't exactly feel left out if my parents didn't take me along to see just how exciting their day was.

Well what makes you think they want to be included in your everyday tasks? Working at a job, paying bills, having extramarital affairs? When I was a kid I didn't exactly feel left out if my parents didn't take me along to see just how exciting their day was.

My kids bug me all the time to come to school with me. I took my eldest to a three hour seminar on Restorative Justice. I was falling asleep and she thought it was awesome.

Ideally, we adults would sit back and let our children do all the real work. *nods*

Wait, so it does take a village to raise a child?

Which is why you're so hooped if you grow up urban. I mean, how many moms and dads can one kid have? Gets so confusing!

My kids bug me all the time to come to school with me. I took my eldest to a three hour seminar on Restorative Justice. I was falling asleep and she thought it was awesome.

Ideally, we adults would sit back and let our children do all the real work. *nods*

That I can agree with. We need children to polish the insides of those anti-aircraft shells.

That I can agree with. We need children to polish the insides of those anti-aircraft shells.

Hahahaha. Little fingers.

That's my dad's favourite part of that movie.

In the Bagpuss thread I wondered what the effect of children's programming might be and I was going to post this in there but it might be more suitable here...

In one essay, entitled Does Children's Television Matter?, Postgate wrote: "Suppose, if you will, that I am part of a silent Martian invasion and that my intention is slowly to destroy the whole culture of the human race. Where would I start? I would naturally start where thought first grows. I would start with children's television. My policy would be to give the children only the sort of thing that they 'already know they enjoy', like a fizzing diet of manic jelly-babies. This would no doubt be exciting, but their hearts and their minds would receive no nourishment, they would come to know nothing of the richness of human life, love and knowledge, and slowly whole generations would grow up knowing nothing about anything but violence and personal supremacy. Is that a fairytale? Look around you."

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/10/comment-postgate-bagpuss-television)

What would this "communal" child rearing look like?

I didn't mean to, I'm just.... I can't even fathom what it would mean. Can you give examples or something? Can you illustrate areas where you feel a more communal approach would benefit society?

While not as expansive as what Neesika envisions, when I have seen people argue that childrearing should be seen as a communal responsibility they refer to a number of "family friendly" public policies. This includes generous universal child allowances, free or heavily subsidized childcare, universal preschool, universal portable healthcare, publically funded parental leave(generally divided with both parents if they are involved with the child so that mothers are less discriminated against in employment), flexible hours(at least in the public sector), ect.

Thinking about Dempublicents' and Neesika's comments about trusting others, including our children, and about how including children in work life would affect the productivity of a worker, etc., it occurred to me:

One thing that would definitely have to change at a fundamental level of society for childrearing to be seen as a more communal responsibility is that our culture would have to stop viewing and treating human beings as property.

Think about how people relate to their children and think about other people's children. Oh, they talk about the children's wellbeing and experience and how it's all about the child, etc, etc., but in real practice, they are jealous of their control over their children as they are over their houses, cars, money. In any instance of controversy about who gets authority over children, whether it is social or interpersonal, within or outside the family, arguments about parental rights are nearly indistinguishable from arguments about property rights. Obviously, this varies from family to family, but at the level of social attitudes, it is pretty much universal. And when the children themselves start to exert their own independence -- although the variation is even more pronounced from family to family in this instance -- the wars over power and control in the child's life can become personally devastating.

For a society to truly accept a communal responsibility for childrearing -- as opposed to a mere spreading of blame and costs around -- it would first have to have the attitude that parents do not "own" their children and do not have automatic prior rights over them. They may have preferred or privileged rights, by virtue of the personal family bond, but they would not automatically get the last word on such things as what their children will learn or how they'll get medical treatment or who they'll lawfully associate with or marry or what church they'll attend, if any, etc.

The expectation would have to be that the parent/primary caregiver would be the team leader of the whole community in instilling the common values and knowledge base of the whole community into the children. As it is now, the expectation is that the parent does or should get to set all the standards of how the child would be raised and to what end. In a more communal model, it would be the common values and traditions of the society as a whole that set those standards, to which the parents would be expected to conform, more or less, enforced by the peer pressure of neighbors and service providers (teachers, doctors, police, etc) who would also be seen as people participating in the children's lives.

But the pendulum should not be allowed to swing too far the other way, either, so that the child becomes the "property" of society, not just his/her parents. We absolutely do not want a totalitarian dystopia in which human beings are born and raised solely to exalt the social vision of the state, or to fulfill the desires of others who claim some kind of social authority.

That's why I talked about our society treating people as property, to include both children and adults. Because the worker (or the progressive-minded company) that is blamed for losing productivity/profitability for the sake of being responsible for/to children is also being treated as property -- the property of the employer or the owners/shareholders. They are being treated as if they have no purpose in life but to serve the interests of the employer/owner, as if that person's profits are all that matter -- not just during the day, but in the world -- as if they are more important than a child's upbringing, or the future needs of society, as well as more important than what is important to any given worker. A company that is driven only to keep churning out more and more profit, as opposed to allowing some slack for the human needs of its employees and for the community needs of the society that supports it is one that just is not geared for treating the people who work for it as anything but property, whose value is to be judged solely by how many widgets they rivet in an hour, or whatever. There is no give-and-take in the relationship between such a company and either its workers or its society. There is only taking on the part of the company and its owners, bolstered by a lack of regard for the quality of human life or any sense of responsibility to other living beings, an attitude that people are tools/property to be used until they can't be used anymore. And any such tool that does anything but what you specifically want it to do, is not a good tool.

Ownership attitudes over people pop up all over our society, and very prominently in our attitudes towards children and towards work. It may very well be related to the social-role segregation we engage in, too. But that would have to change drastically for a more communal, shared-responsibility model to work and not veer off towards totalitarianism.

What we would need is an attitude that sees people as independent entities. As soon as a person is born into the world, breathing and eating on their own, etc., they cease to be anyone's property -- not just according to the law, but in the minds of the people around them, too. And these independent entities would have to be seen as equal members of a team that is called society, so that all the other members of that cooperative team will share an equal interest in seeing the new member fully develop their skills and potential in order to contribute to the social team.

I think, maybe, that only if we view others as part of "us", not as part of "you" or "them", but "us" and also as socially and morally equal to ourselves, as individuals, can you have a society which would allow full participation of children in the public spheres of life in a meaningful way (not just all that plastic toy make-believe stuff), but still guard against abuse and exploitation of children who are not yet strong or experienced enough to protect themselves.

To sort of tie in things a few people have said, I think that the reason we raise children the way we currently do today is a function of capitalism. Therefore, in order to fully implement such a system of childrearing as Neesika is talking about, we would need a different economic system.

To sort of tie in things a few people have said, I think that the reason we raise children the way we currently do today is a function of capitalism. Therefore, in order to fully implement such a system of childrearing as Neesika is talking about, we would need a different economic system.
Or would it be the other way around? Would a change in childrearing attitudes drive a corresponding change in economic attitudes? Or would changes in how we do both things naturally result from a change in how we think about interpersonal social relationships in general?

To me, it's an interesting "chicken or egg" type question.

To sort of tie in things a few people have said, I think that the reason we raise children the way we currently do today is a function of capitalism. Therefore, in order to fully implement such a system of childrearing as Neesika is talking about, we would need a different economic system.

It's more a function of urbanization. In rural small towns in the US, you see more of a communal approach to raising children.

In urban areas, this approach is seen as "getting involved in other people's business".

There are a lot more communal things in rural small towns. For example, if a neighbor dies, people actually give a shit, and will come over and help the bereaved.

I remember going to help a friend up up a TV antenna mast in Bridgewater, Virginia (a rural small town), and after we started digging the hole for the telephone pole we had delivered, some men came by and just started helping us. In an hour, women and children arrived with food, and were handing out food and drink. The whole antenna was up and working by nightfall, and there were about 50 people there, welcoming my friend to the town (he had just moved in the day before). When I asked why so many people had come and helped, the answer I got was, "This is God's Country."

Now, that would have stranged a lot of you out, but I was happy for the help, and my friend was happy for the welcome.

Or would it be the other way around? Would a change in childrearing attitudes drive a corresponding change in economic attitudes? Or would changes in how we do both things naturally result from a change in how we think about interpersonal social relationships in general?

To me, it's an interesting "chicken or egg" type question.In this instance, I would suggest that the economic situation led to the change in child-rearing.
For example, some people have said that they would like to see a situation where children can watch adults work and ask the adults questions. Others commented that this would lessen worker productivity - and it would. Therefore, worker productivity would have to be valued less than it is today. Could capitalism be sustainable if worker productivity isn't a very high priority?

It's more a function of urbanization. In rural small towns in the US, you see more of a communal approach to raising children.

In urban areas, this approach is seen as "getting involved in other people's business".

There are a lot more communal things in rural small towns. For example, if a neighbor dies, people actually give a shit, and will come over and help the bereaved.

I remember going to help a friend up up a TV antenna mast in Bridgewater, Virginia (a rural small town), and after we started digging the hole for the telephone pole we had delivered, some men came by and just started helping us. In an hour, women and children arrived with food, and were handing out food and drink. The whole antenna was up and working by nightfall, and there were about 50 people there, welcoming my friend to the town (he had just moved in the day before). When I asked why so many people had come and helped, the answer I got was, "This is God's Country."

Now, that would have stranged a lot of you out, but I was happy for the help, and my friend was happy for the welcome.I suppose it could be a correlation, yes. Capitalism and urbanization were cyclical, influencing each other.
Could capitalism function without urbanization?

I suppose it could be a correlation, yes. Capitalism and urbanization were cyclical, influencing each other.
Could capitalism function without urbanization?

That question would prompt an analysis on urbanization.

Wait, isn't it supposed to be urbanism? :confused:

Communal childcare/rearing makes perfect sense to me - although I've been brought up mostly by me Mum I can definately see the benefits of communal childcare.

I'm not going to spend too much time on this today because I have a final tomorrow I haven't studied for yet.

But I really like what Mur'v had to say about not treating other people like property. I think that is an essential and needed shift in perception, in particular towards children. The best advice on child-rearing I ever got was from an aboriginal comedian. He suggested that if we behave in a certain way towards our spouse (Be quiet! Right now! Or else!) then we probably shouldn't be behaving that way towards our kids. He highlighted this by having us imagine dragging a husband around a shopping mall the way many parents drage their kids around. It was a disturbing thought.

Anyway. I'll think about it more later.

For a society to truly accept a communal responsibility for childrearing -- as opposed to a mere spreading of blame and costs around -- it would first have to have the attitude that parents do not "own" their children and do not have automatic prior rights over them. They may have preferred or privileged rights, by virtue of the personal family bond, but they would not automatically get the last word on such things as what their children will learn or how they'll get medical treatment or who they'll lawfully associate with or marry or what church they'll attend, if any, etc.

The expectation would have to be that the parent/primary caregiver would be the team leader of the whole community in instilling the common values and knowledge base of the whole community into the children. As it is now, the expectation is that the parent does or should get to set all the standards of how the child would be raised and to what end. In a more communal model, it would be the common values and traditions of the society as a whole that set those standards, to which the parents would be expected to conform, more or less, enforced by the peer pressure of neighbors and service providers (teachers, doctors, police, etc) who would also be seen as people participating in the children's lives.


This is what I was afraid of. The common values of my community suck. I don't want them to have any say in how my children are educated or what health care they receive. I don't know that moving would change my mind either.

In this instance, I would suggest that the economic situation led to the change in child-rearing.
For example, some people have said that they would like to see a situation where children can watch adults work and ask the adults questions. Others commented that this would lessen worker productivity - and it would. Therefore, worker productivity would have to be valued less than it is today. Could capitalism be sustainable if worker productivity isn't a very high priority?

I am not certain your assumption about how productivity works is correct. It may be based on an incorrect and outmoded model of capitalism. For almost a decade now, if not longer, productivity studies from various academic, government and private sources, have been saying pointblank (not just suggesting) that the more flexible a company is, the more time off it gives workers, the more accommodating it is to their human needs, the more productive those workers will be. Productivity -- i.e. the amount of work completed -- turns out not to be tied to how many hours per day a worker keeps at the grindstone, but rather how satisfied and happy the worker is about his/her relationship to the job. Happy workers will be MORE productive per week than unhappy workers, even if the happy workers are at it fewer hours over all. Their positive attitude causes each hour/half hour of work to be more productive. Counterintuitive though this may seem, the idea that if you let the workers do other things, you'll get less work product out of them seems to be false.

I suspect that the whole expectation that productivity = hours at the grindstone is based on the assumption that productivity is a constant, that humans produce work the way copy machines produce copies. And that is, in turn, based on a mindset that sees humans as being like machines. In other words, like objects or property.

Apparently, however, if you treat humans like humans instead of like machines/property, they work better -- and better than machines. This makes sense, if you remember that, in fact, humans are humans, not machines.

EDIT: Also, the suggestion that children be included in work was only one idea floated. A change in societal attitudes about the place of children in society does not have to be tied to a "bring your kid to work" pattern.

Another point is that you and some others seem to be assuming that involving children in the work place would mean having kids around as student/auditors of some kind, contributing nothing to the company's work but just requiring the worker to act as both worker and teacher, essentially trying to fill two separate functions at once.

I would remind everyone that, by age 13, Alexander Hamilton was operating almost as an executive of a shipping company in Jamaica. There is no reason at all to assume that children could not be actively contributing to a social economy.

Now, of course, I would not want to see us wander anywhere near the abusive child labor conditions of past generations. But my personal experience is that my high school, which focused on vocational training in the commercial arts, had a student internship program that sent students who signed up for it out of the school to serve internships at graphics/advertising/publishing/theater/fashion/film/etc offices/agencies/companies part of the week for class credit.

I see no reason why such internships cannot be introduced as early as junior high/middle school age for some kinds of jobs. Especially if the companies that were within such a program had employees/executives/owners who were also parents with children attending the local school, or if the company would let the school or schoolboard put a accredited person on site to oversee the underage interns.

This is what I was afraid of. The common values of my community suck. I don't want them to have any say in how my children are educated or what health care they receive. I don't know that moving would change my mind either.
I also would hesitate to let the vast majority of the world's fucking morons get even within earshot of any kid of mine.

On the other hand, though, how sheltered from reality can we afford to keep our kids? If you remember a while back a thread about some bible-thumping family who made a youtube video about how horrible it was that public schools were treating families with same sex parents as if they were "normal" and how they, as parents, should have a right to shield their children from any mention of gays that they disagreed with.

But do they really have that right? Do they have a right to tell their kids that gay families are not acceptable and leave out the part about how much of the rest of the society they live in disagrees with them? Even if they want their kids to grow up rejecting and hating gays, are they helping that goal by keeping their kids ignorant of what the rest of society is doing?

By that same token, if I wanted my kids to grow up only exposed to good thinking and a full history of ideas and vigorous exercise of critical judgment, would I be helping them cope with and participate in society as full members of it, if I protected them from exposure to a real world dominated by drooling idiots who can barely wipe their own asses without seeking therapy, let alone make business or governmental decisions that could affect my kids' lives and goals?

That pretty much sums up my life experience, which is what I base my opinion on. I came from a family that, for all its considerable and often shocking faults, valued intellectual rigor and practical competence very highly. But I went through a public education system that I got to see collapse from one of the best in the world to one that was so paralyzed by bureaucratic dysfunction that it barely kept the school buildings standing (literally). If I had not come from such an aggressively self-educating family, I would have been royally screwed because the schools sure as hell couldn't teach much, but as it was I was lucky enough to maintain my educational level in spite of the school system, while at the same time gaining a valuable life lesson from that school system about how to deal with bureaucrats and dysfunctional social systems. The whole rest of my life has been pretty much a cakewalk in regards to dealing with officialdom since then. As horrible as my last several years in the social system were, in hindsight I'm grateful to have had that experience early on.

My point is that, even if the social standards are not up to your snuff, maybe it would be better to interact with them in the manner of teaching your child dissent and knowledge of the "enemy" as it were, rather than to shield them from that kind of knowledge, leaving them potentially unprepared when they have to go out into that world on their own.

I also would hesitate to let the vast majority of the world's fucking morons get even within earshot of any kid of mine.

On the other hand, though, how sheltered from reality can we afford to keep our kids? If you remember a while back a thread about some bible-thumping family who made a youtube video about how horrible it was that public schools were treating families with same sex parents as if they were "normal" and how they, as parents, should have a right to shield their children from any mention of gays that they disagreed with.

But do they really have that right? Do they have a right to tell their kids that gay families are not acceptable and leave out the part about how much of the rest of the society they live in disagrees with them? Even if they want their kids to grow up rejecting and hating gays, are they helping that goal by keeping their kids ignorant of what the rest of society is doing?

By that same token, if I wanted my kids to grow up only exposed to good thinking and a full history of ideas and vigorous exercise of critical judgment, would I be helping them cope with and participate in society as full members of it, if I protected them from exposure to a real world dominated by drooling idiots who can barely wipe their own asses without seeking therapy, let alone make business or governmental decisions that could affect my kids' lives and goals?

That pretty much sums up my life experience, which is what I base my opinion on. I came from a family that, for all its considerable and often shocking faults, valued intellectual rigor and practical competence very highly. But I went through a public education system that I got to see collapse from one of the best in the world to one that was so paralyzed by bureaucratic dysfunction that it barely kept the school buildings standing (literally). If I had not come from such an aggressively self-educating family, I would have been royally screwed because the schools sure as hell couldn't teach much, but as it was I was lucky enough to maintain my educational level in spite of the school system, while at the same time gaining a valuable life lesson from that school system about how to deal with bureaucrats and dysfunctional social systems. The whole rest of my life has been pretty much a cakewalk in regards to dealing with officialdom since then. As horrible as my last several years in the social system were, in hindsight I'm grateful to have had that experience early on.

My point is that, even if the social standards are not up to your snuff, maybe it would be better to interact with them in the manner of teaching your child dissent and knowledge of the "enemy" as it were, rather than to shield them from that kind of knowledge, leaving them potentially unprepared when they have to go out into that world on their own.
I agree, but taking away my power as a parent to teach them dissent, or to keep them from going to the indoctrination private school down the street, you are ensuring that everyone must agree with the majority.

Some kids will get sheltered, some kids won't be supervised or guided at all, but most of us fall in the middle somewhere. Taking away my rights isn't going to benefit my children.

That being said, the low-key version of this with more free education and better working conditions for families I can get behind.

I am not certain your assumption about how productivity works is correct. It may be based on an incorrect and outmoded model of capitalism. For almost a decade now, if not longer, productivity studies from various academic, government and private sources, have been saying pointblank (not just suggesting) that the more flexible a company is, the more time off it gives workers, the more accommodating it is to their human needs, the more productive those workers will be. Productivity -- i.e. the amount of work completed -- turns out not to be tied to how many hours per day a worker keeps at the grindstone, but rather how satisfied and happy the worker is about his/her relationship to the job. Happy workers will be MORE productive per week than unhappy workers, even if the happy workers are at it fewer hours over all. Their positive attitude causes each hour/half hour of work to be more productive. Counterintuitive though this may seem, the idea that if you let the workers do other things, you'll get less work product out of them seems to be false.

I suspect that the whole expectation that productivity = hours at the grindstone is based on the assumption that productivity is a constant, that humans produce work the way copy machines produce copies. And that is, in turn, based on a mindset that sees humans as being like machines. In other words, like objects or property.

Apparently, however, if you treat humans like humans instead of like machines/property, they work better -- and better than machines. This makes sense, if you remember that, in fact, humans are humans, not machines.If this is true, then in order for children to not affect the productivity of the workers, the workers would have to not feel unhappy that they are guiding the children. (Remember it wouldn't just be the children's biological parents that are doing this.)

EDIT: Also, the suggestion that children be included in work was only one idea floated. A change in societal attitudes about the place of children in society does not have to be tied to a "bring your kid to work" pattern.True, but it seems that a major change would affect the work lives of parents, though not necessarily in that particular way.

Another point is that you and some others seem to be assuming that involving children in the work place would mean having kids around as student/auditors of some kind, contributing nothing to the company's work but just requiring the worker to act as both worker and teacher, essentially trying to fill two separate functions at once.

I would remind everyone that, by age 13, Alexander Hamilton was operating almost as an executive of a shipping company in Jamaica. There is no reason at all to assume that children could not be actively contributing to a social economy.This is true, I've seen children working on Take Your Son or Daughter to Work Day.

Now, of course, I would not want to see us wander anywhere near the abusive child labor conditions of past generations. But my personal experience is that my high school, which focused on vocational training in the commercial arts, had a student internship program that sent students who signed up for it out of the school to serve internships at graphics/advertising/publishing/theater/fashion/film/etc offices/agencies/companies part of the week for class credit.

I see no reason why such internships cannot be introduced as early as junior high/middle school age for some kinds of jobs. Especially if the companies that were within such a program had employees/executives/owners who were also parents with children attending the local school, or if the company would let the school or schoolboard put a accredited person on site to oversee the underage interns.I think we'll probably see this increasing in number, but I wouldn't call this communal child-raising.

I agree, but taking away my power as a parent to teach them dissent, or to keep them from going to the indoctrination private school down the street, you are ensuring that everyone must agree with the majority.

Some kids will get sheltered, some kids won't be supervised or guided at all, but most of us fall in the middle somewhere. Taking away my rights isn't going to benefit my children.

That being said, the low-key version of this with more free education and better working conditions for families I can get behind.
First of all, there is no "this" to have a low-key or other kind of version of. This conversation is just speculation about general social attitudes and their imaginable effects, not a plan for social engineering.

Second of all, I earlier raised questions about the concept of "rights" over children in my remarks about a society that, on some levels, treats people as someone's or something's property. What are your opinions about that? Just curious.

If this is true, then in order for children to not affect the productivity of the workers, the workers would have to not feel unhappy that they are guiding the children. (Remember it wouldn't just be the children's biological parents that are doing this.)

True, but it seems that a major change would affect the work lives of parents, though not necessarily in that particular way.

This is true, I've seen children working on Take Your Son or Daughter to Work Day.

I think we'll probably see this increasing in number, but I wouldn't call this communal child-raising.
Why wouldn't you call it that?

Why wouldn't you call it that?Because we already have internships and the like for high schoolers. Many of the people I'd gone to high school with left school early in their senior years to work.

Because we already have internships and the like for high schoolers. Many of the people I'd gone to high school with left school early in their senior years to work.
So? How is it not a form of communal childrearing if (a) we start it younger than high school, and (b) the rationale behind it is to socialize children via broad, practical social interaction with adults within the community but other than their parents? And what does leaving school early to work have to do with anything?

So? How is it not a form of communal childrearing if (a) we start it younger than high school, and (b) the rationale behind it is to socialize children via broad, practical social interaction with adults within the community but other than their parents?I suppose it could be based upon that rationale, but I wouldn't say that social interaction itself is the same as childrearing.

And what does leaving school early to work have to do with anything?How else would the children be interning other than leaving school early? Would it be in addition to their regular school activities?

I suppose it could be based upon that rationale, but I wouldn't say that social interaction itself is the same as childrearing.
Why not? How so?

For instance, let's say a kid of 12 or 13 takes a summer job working in a grocery store in his neighborhood. If his boss is a good boss, that kid is going to learn a lot from an adult who is not his parent. He's going to learn about work habits and work ethic, about the physical and time demands of a job, about cash handling and related math, about time management, inventory tracking, how a grocery story business operates, where the merchandise comes from etc., how to deal with customers, how to talk to strangers some of whom may be difficult, how to get and handle his own wages. And that's not including whatever personal role model, positive or negative, the grocery store owner might turne out to be in the kid's life.

How is all that skill learning and social learning at such a young age not related to childrearing?

How else would the children be interning other than leaving school early? Would it be in addition to their regular school activities?
If you mean quitting school as in dropping out, no, they would not be doing that. If you mean leaving the school building a little early on some days, yeah, that's what it is.

Student internships are in addition to regular school activities. Internships during the school year sent students out of the school building two or three days a week to work in an office at whatever their major was (in my high school, which had majors). The intern supervisor at the company would evaluate the student-intern's performance for the sake of school grade evaluation. There was also a summer intern program, where you'd work full or part time while school was not in session, and get credit to apply when school came back in session. Nothing at all about giving up school.

Why not? How so?

For instance, let's say a kid of 12 or 13 takes a summer job working in a grocery store in his neighborhood. If his boss is a good boss, that kid is going to learn a lot from an adult who is not his parent. He's going to learn about work habits and work ethic, about the physical and time demands of a job, about cash handling and related math, about time management, inventory tracking, how a grocery story business operates, where the merchandise comes from etc., how to deal with customers, how to talk to strangers some of whom may be difficult, how to get and handle his own wages. And that's not including whatever personal role model, positive or negative, the grocery store owner might turne out to be in the kid's life.

How is all that skill learning and social learning at such a young age not related to childrearing?Correct, if the boss is a good one. It wouldn't necessarily be the case. So the focus would be not only be on providing the child with work-related education, but also on being a good role model. It would take a different kind of commitment by adults to do this.

If you mean quitting school as in dropping out, no, they would not be doing that. If you mean leaving the school building a little early on some days, yeah, that's what it is.Yes, I meant the latter, not about dropping out. I meant they left school earlier in the day, not early as in before graduation.

Student internships are in addition to regular school activities. Internships during the school year sent students out of the school building two or three days a week to work in an office at whatever their major was (in my high school, which had majors). The intern supervisor at the company would evaluate the student-intern's performance for the sake of school grade evaluation. There was also a summer intern program, where you'd work full or part time while school was not in session, and get credit to apply when school came back in session. Nothing at all about giving up school.Ah, I see, I could see this being the different type of commitment.

It would probably be an increased amount of communal child-rearing, but not to the extent that I was thinking communal child-rearing would be.

Correct, if the boss is a good one. It wouldn't necessarily be the case. So the focus would be not only be on providing the child with work-related education, but also on being a good role model. It would take a different kind of commitment by adults to do this.
No, it wouldn't. Life experience is life experience. Is every school teacher a good role model? No. Is every parent a good role model? No. But we don't make a commitment to be a good role model a prerequisite for being a parent, do we? Nor does it need to be a prereq for owning a grocery store and taking on summer help. Again using my personal experience just for illustration, I would estimate that, for every good role model in my life, I dealt with three bad ones, but I learned from all of them. And regardless of whether our hypothetical grocery store owner is a good boss or a bad one, our hypothetical enterprising kid is still going to learn from the job.

Yes, I meant the latter, not about dropping out. I meant they left school earlier in the day, not early as in before graduation.

Ah, I see, I could see this being the different type of commitment.

It would probably be an increased amount of communal child-rearing, but not to the extent that I was thinking communal child-rearing would be.
How are you defining childrearing? I mean what does it entail, to you?

Because to me, childrearing is part keeping the kid alive and part extensive socialization to prepar the kid to participate in society. And what I'm talking about, I think, is a strong contribution to that.