Jay Griffiths Q&A on childhood/child wellbeing

When are we going to get the promised answers from Jay ?

"There is a space around a child where even the air seems sensitive". You obviously haven't met my grandchildren!

Seriously, isn't this hopelessly romantic? I adore my children and grandchildren but they are human beings like anyone else and they need a degree of (self) discipline as much as a degree of freedom.

You are right, I'm sure, that children don't get out enough these days on their own (though my GS roams around London on public transport very happily at the age of 11) but don't you think your idealisation of childhood does your argument no favours?

Isn't your book actually in a romantic (and fanciful) tradition which looks back to an Eden that never was and has a lot to do with eg William Blake but very little to do with 21st century children?

I wondered what kith actually means in your book? I thought it meant wider family.

I wanted to add one too!

There are no accounts of any actual children in your book (other than generalised accounts of indigenous children, or imprisoned Western ones). Do you have children, or is it all theorising?

Hello Jay, I hope I'm not too late...

As women we are brought up nowadays to have autonomy and control over our lives. Isn't the logical extension of your position that we end up treating children as little gods and dancing attendance on them? If there's no routine and we're not socialising them into modern life, just letting them run wild and follow their natures, how are adults to have lives? And this is true of women, particularly, because you can bet your life it won't be men dancing attendance.

I've managed to put some photos of our 'lovely day' on my profile.

I think my DD is dreading the day when DGS is old enough for playdates, icequeen!

That's something else that was so much simpler in the old days. Children either knocked for each other or 'came round for tea' and the guest would happily disappear off with DD and Co. It seems to be so much more formal nowadays and it does seem a shame.

I was at my DD's last week when she had my DGS and his mates round for a playdate. They were having a ball running around the garden and just generally being boisterous. But my poor DD was beating herself up because the previous day the kids had been at another mum's house where the kids had done structured educational games and activities all afternoon (and come away with the homebaked - organic! - cookies they'd made too). It sounds like the kids had a ball both days. So what's better, structured educational activities? Or chaotic but fun playtime?

It's fine now the sun's out but honestly during the winter, none of enjoys standing in arctic winds, trying to find leaves and hedgehogs, no matter how 'fun' you try and make it and especially if they're ill. What do you suggest we do for days like that? Fresh air is all well and good but pneumonia is not so fun.

That's a good point actually, Wiggle. I know that technology is an important part of the modern world (hello Gransnet!) and I certainly don't think my GDs should be cut off from the internet or TV altogether. I just think that there has to be a balance, and that parents often have to enforce that balance.

I do agree that outdoor and imaginative play is vital - but surely it can't be entirely at the expense of everything else? I might not like it but the world revolves around technology these days so surely having some understanding of that is essential from - say - school age if they are to keep up? And while I'm not the biggest fan of TV I still remember the kids who didn't have tellies getting teased for not having heard of stuff everyone else knew about. That was in the 70s - now I imagine it would be far far worse?

As Cheese says though, what about the children who are happy to sit reading a book? I was! Is it really fair to force them outside?

Hello Jay

Space and time is all very well, but given the choice, my two GDs (aged 8 and 13) would spend all the time staring at screens. The only time when they're actually out and doing, as far as I can tell, is when they're at their weekly Brownie and Scout groups or when DS and DIL take them on a family walk, which (to their credit) they do most weekends.

I agree that it's ideal for children to be roaming independently outside, but how do you resolve that with children who aren't especially interested?

It's all very dependent on surroundings, isn't it?

When my DD was small we lived in a cul-de-sac full of young families, with a small wood at one end. From the age of about 4 it felt completely normal and safe to wave the children out in the morning and call them back in for food, because they were safe, happy and we knew where they were. Also, every mum (and it was mums in those days!) would pop out to check on them all during the day.

It sounds like another world now, doesn't it? My 3-year-old GS is growing up in a city and while they have lovely parks and many exciting places to visit, I think he will be well over 4 before DD and SIL feel happy to wave him off for the day.

What would you suggest, Jay?

I've read that you think the risk-averse society enfeebles children, robbing them of the physical freedom they both want and need - but are you honestly saying it's ok to let a 7 or 8 year old roam free on their bikes all day the way we did when we were kids? Isn't there a big difference between being risk averse and downright foolish? Some risks are worth taking - in my mind this definitely is not.

Out of interest do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing for children to have pets? It's all very well saying it teaches them empathy and responsibility but show me a parent who hasn't ended up taking sole care for a gerbil or a goldfish or a puppy once the novelty has worn off. I know very few exceptions to this

It's all very well to make a stand and let one's child (or grandchild) play and enjoy a life free from constantly scheduled activity - but if all the other children in the class can play tennis, swim, play the piano etc and yours can't aren't you then putting them at a disadvantage after all?

Maniaceight year olds have vivid memories. Don't for one moment think he will have forgotten. It will be what he tells his grandson one day.

A day to remember -in Mar 2006 I had the care of my GS (age 6).Packed drinks/ snacks for lunch and walked to the nearby woods in Bristol.What an adventure we had!
We 'looked out for wild animals ',gathered twigs and logs to build a bridge,made a camp and see-saw.It was a fine sunny day-most of the action was directed by my GS.I just followed instructions -helped moving logs etc.
Time flew by - we saw very few people and spent no money.
Jay how does this fit into your thoughts of freedom and creativity?
This is the kind of activity grandparents can do so well with GC.

I hope GS remembers this day also .I have been denied contact with him for over 2 years!

I'll try to post some photos of that day on my profile.

Elegran your playgroup sounds just like the one my own children attended. They loved it and learned valuable lessons in how to share not only toys, but also the attention of the adults, which was useful when they went to school.

That is a case of "the letter of the law" ! I think in that position I would get a mirror and say "Oh! you have written it so that it can be read in a mirror. Look!" and also show him the same thing written the right way - not, of course, that you dare say right or wrong these days. You can only say "I write it this way". What is the betting even that is outlawed too?

Of course Leonardo Da Vinci could write equally well with either hand, but he was a genius. Would he be interested in hearing how L Da V used his mirror writing to write secret messages that no-one else could understand? That might get the message over that if you want people to read what you write, it pays to conform.

I can understand them not wanting them to half-learn one way of doing subtraction, say, and then getting confused when they start "real school" and a teacher does it another way.

Elegran, I see what you mean about the duck example, but DS's nursery workers have said to me that they're not allowed to teach pre-school children anything. DS can write his name, but since he's been practicing at nursery in my absence, he's been writing it in mirror. Apparently, they're not allowed to correct him and tell him the right way to do it!

Do you think it could also be said that children have too much time to lose themselves in play - to perhaps the point of neglect - because nowadays both parents are too busy working to spend one-to-one bonding time with their children? Perhaps scheduling activities is just a way for parents to interact with their children.

Two typos - they, not thay, and running has two Ns.

Why should it be either/or? Why should it be a classroom for children of nursery age and not a playroom with incidental learning? And what age were the children in the nursery who were running around with no purpose? How do we know thay had no purpose? Should purpose be imposed by adults?

When I ran a playgroup for 30 two and a half to nearly-five year olds, we had many activities going on at the same time. There was a sandpit, a water tank, a table with clay (not plasticene) on it, a climbing frame, a corner to dress up and play houses with table/chairs/cooker/dolls/cot, jigsaws, drawing materials, books, and a mini woodwork bench with mini real tools. Was this lacking in purpose? They were learning all the time, about the nature of different materials, size, shape, volume, imagination, working together.

The children moved from one thing to another as they wished, except for the workbench which was restricted to two at a time, by having two canvas carpenters' aprons which must be worn, and an adult stationed there at all times to supervise and make sure no-one used the hammer or saw as a weapon. This was a very popular occupation, and children would play with something nearby while keeping a lookout for a discarded apron - then move smartly in. They were learning a valuable lesson - taking turns and waiting patiently. And not braining a friend with a hammer.

At intervals we had whole-group sessions. Story time was one, elevenses was another - everyone, including the youngest, sat at tables and sang songs and nursery rhymes while the milk and snacks were brought out. They could leave the table and go back to playing, but without taking food with them. We would say "You are finished with this, then?" If they were not, they came back to the table for it. They were learning still - civilised eating habits. They did not run around. That was gently discouraged and anyone with energy to burn off was directed to climbing frame or woodwork table. Banging in nails burns off a lot of frustration. In good weather, we all went outside for part of the morning where runing around was OK.

Not all the parents went along with all this, of course. When one child (no more than a toddler) had proudly taken home a yellow scribble which he said was a duck, his mother asked me why I was not teaching him how to draw a duck properly. My reply was that he had drawn his interpretation of a duck, I could only teach him to draw my interpretation of a duck. His artistic skill would develop as he grew, but he would have been stuck with my "correct" duck..