Just Before the Family Meal

Family meal times are getting a lot of press right now, and high time. Recent articles in The Christian Science Monitor by Mary Beth McCauley and the New York Times by Susan Dominus as well as the Huffington Post’s on-going series “Family Dinner Table Talk” extoll the virtues of this time-honored (but oft neglected) family ritual, give various resources, and explore the methods famous people from the Obamas to Gwyneth Paltrow employ.

As an advocate for and facilitator of tailor-made strategies for each household toward intentional use of media and family time, I’m delighted to see there is not a “one size fits all” approach in discussions about how to make the most of the opportunity family meals afford.

The cerebral brawls of the Emmanuel family cited by McCauley might have produced some powerful actors on the world stage, but quiet reflection on the day’s ups and downs, the things accomplished and left unfinished, may be more your cup of tea. They are not mutually exclusive, either. Each group, together for that moment (even if some live part-time elsewhere) can find ways to connect and enjoy their evolving questions and relationships.

A phrase in McCauley’s piece caught my attention. One of the symptoms she cites of an “obligatory” family dinner, everyone present physically but not really, she says is: “the thing that looks like grace but really is heads bowed, hands fervently texting.”  She goes on to say that this is the kind of routine enlightened parents are trying to avoid in various ways. As Laurie David says in the Susan Dominus article:

“A big part of the challenge is teaching your kids how to have a real conversation, not a texting conversation,” said Laurie David, a producer of “An Inconvenient Truth,” who has since devoted her considerable advocacy skills to encouraging more stimulating mealtimes. “If they’re not sitting down at the table, the art of conversation is going to go.”

The underlying assumption that a head bowed will not be in “grace,” is relevant here and, while I haven’t done exhaustive research on the current articles on this subject, I don’t see evidence that this part of the family dinner ritual is currently explored. There are probably good reasons for that. In my view, there is nothing to be gained from a rote recitation of a prayer. And, anything relating to religion is tough to talk about. But that pause before the meal deserves consideration as one of the little “sticks in the wheel” of the momentum of daily life in a “digital world.”

After giving my own presentation at the Media Ecology Association’s convention earlier this month, I stopped in on a panel about the influence of Jacques Ellul (1912-1994) French philosopher and Christian anarchist. Ithaca College Professor Raymond Gozzi, Jr. spoke on “Ellul on Prayer vs. la Technique.”*  Gozzi outlined the ways in which Ellul explored prayer as an antidote to the overwhelming effects of a technological society, especially in his book Prayer and Modern Man. I think Ellul was onto something. What can that bowed head be doing rather than texting that can enrich family time? As always, I don’t have a template in mind, but rather invite a look at what this could mean.

For some of us, it is the pause to change gears that matters. In my own ecumenical home, we have a small rod chime. The youngest person present strikes it and we listen silently, holding hands, until its sound can no longer be heard, an acknowledgement that we are together for this time, sharing that moment and that sustenance. A tiny ritual, but one that is, for us, a “keystone habit” as described in Charles Duhigg’s important book: The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do in Life and Business, those sometimes miniscule habits around which other habits orient and a culture can evolve. It, too, could be formulaic and we try to be sensitive to that.

Some think of prayer literally as thanking God, but take turns, varying the actual form. Some traditions give thanks to the earth and the source of food. One image that comes to mind is the scene in the film The Gods Must Be Crazy where the hunter thanks the animal that has just been killed for giving its life to sustain humans.

It was one of those serendipitous moments when, as I was preparing this post, the catalog from the Zen Mountain Monastery came in the mail (we have gotten it since we bought that little chime) and I opened to the Meal Gatha, a reminder that there are many forms of “grace before meals” that households with ties to faith communities find to be a meaningful touchstone.

What are your thoughts and experiences?  Let’s share; this is the place for it.

Mary

P. S.: If your work situation means you’re tag-teaming with other adults in the household so sitting down together is a rare experience, please weigh in here too, and look for my next post re: what if we can’t sit down for meals together?

Tagged with: , , , ,
Posted in Alternative Stories, Family, Parents, Rituals

Lillian Firestone, Author of The Forgotten Language of Children

Link to transcript

Excerpts from the book (not included in the transcript are read at the end of the recording

The work described in The Forgotten Language Language of Children: A Journey in Living Authentically is based on the ideas of G. I. Gurdjieff, a teacher who appeared in Europe in the early 20th century with, Lillian Firestone says:  “An idea that was completely revolutionary at the time – that people were capable of different stages of consciousness and that everything depended on a person’s level of consciousness at the moment that he was speaking or acting.”

The insights expressed here span traditions and address the core need for relationship between between ourselves and our children. Firestone describes the effort as one of encouraging spiritual experience without pointing to a particular tradition.  She describes moments that will be familiar to anyone who lives with and/or works with young children. The book gives the perspective of an adult following her own search, alongside others. Those others include the children, whose integrity is respected.

Posted in Alternative Stories, Parents

Mary Catherine Bateson on the “Age of Active Wisdom”

You can hear Mary Catherine Bateson and I  speak about her latest book:

Composing a Further Life: The Age of Active Wisdom       HERE.

It may seem counter-intuitive to speak about the later stages of life on a site dedicated to addressing the need for intentionality about media and young children. Mary Catherine Bateson, however, sheds light on relevance of what she calls “Adult II:” the approximately twenty years of relatively healthy, active life that have been added for those of us in “developed nations” over the past century. For one thing, the role of the grandparent is transformed and, if we are intentional, could be more dynamic and meaningful than ever.

Dr. Bateson describes herself as a “Catholic who believes that God loves all people and reaches out through all traditions. A full answer (about religious background), she says, would include “all I learned of the Hebrew Scriptures and Hebrew literature in Israel, graduate work on Islam and Islamic history, many years in the Episcopal Church, and the privilege of learning from and sitting with Buddhist friends.” Add that she is the daughter of Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson and it is clear that, in her, we have a unique and seasoned voice.

The insights she brings speak to the question behind and around those about media: what are we modelling for our children? One implication of Bateson’s findings is that children will see the full life span as being laced with action and inquiry. That’s all to the good, but there is a note of caution that comes to my mind: does that mean that grand parents and great grandparents who are  absorbed in and pursuing their own interests need to be more intentional about communicating with the young children in the family and giving them a sense of the family and cultural stories that are so important for resiliency?

Reading Composing a Further Life… and speaking with Bateson have made me more aware of stereotypes in my own thinking and in what I read and see around me.

Reading Escaping into the Open: The Art of Writing True by Elizabeth Berg (a book I enjoy and find useful), I noticed her references to old age. When speaking about the sense of smell (p. 97), she says “One of the reasons old people lose their appetities is that they lose their sense of smell.” An article I found in Scientific American would indicate that this is an over-generalization. A writing exercise suggestions  “Who did the old lady with ten cats used to be?” (p. 67) Again: “Don’t tell the reader someone is old; show it by describing the dime-size age spots, the saga of th cheeks, the see-through hair, the spiderlike spread of veins at the back o the knees. Are the nylons falling down? Are blts too big? Are there greasy thumbprints on the lenses of the bifocals: Is the posture stooped or sttubbornly erect? Is there a periodic squeal from a hearing aid?…Do medication bottles rattle in his front poscket? Does she keep nitroglycerine in a silver monogrammed case?” (p. 90-91)  I  don’t mean to pick on Berg, but that’s pretty depressing stuff.  These examples, and others we can see all around, bring Bateson’s comments about the stereotypes around aging, and what various media must do to adjust them, to life. All of this contributes to the life view of young children and how they affirm those around them.

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Aging, Commentary, Grandparents, Interview, Parents, Stereotypes

Richard Lewis on Seeing Children

Richard Lewis understands how to see children, to come under the influence of a focused attention with  them so that he can facilitate the journey into their own imaginations and develop their own voices.He also knows the results of the alchemy of that attention: poems and exchanges that show how children, and all of us, are capable of “turning the telescope around” and seeing the exterior world, including the inner feelings, sensations and thoughts.

No matter what cultural or belief background you and I come from, don’t we recognize that action, that gathering of attention so that we see the world in a way that goes beyond factualization, as an essential action for touching the divine?

The website for The Touchstone Center is www.touchstonecenter.net

This was originally aired on the Healthy Media Choices Hour on Brattleboro Community Radio, www.wvew.org.  Witness for Childhood is a sister site to Healthy Media Choices, a 501c3 organization,  is at www.healthymediachoices.org and is a collaboration with Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood.

Posted in imagination, Interview, poetry

Screen-Free During Passover and Holy Week

Next week, April 18-24, is both Screen-Free Week, and a week that is sacred for both Jews and Christians. This convergence presents a unique opportunity for members of those faith communities, as well as others who perceive spring as an appropriate time for renewal, to go on a “technology and media fast,” to the extent that one can, and look at whether media has an appropriate place in the life of the community and its households, with special attention to young children.

In an interview on The Healthy Media Choices Hour, Lance Strate, Executive Director of the Institute of General Semantics, touched on the need for a “Media Sabbath.” The group Sabbath Manifesto encourages and supports a weekly media fast. Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood (CCFC) provides resources for those who want to experience what being “unplugged” can bring them and their families.

One question is: to what extent can we “turn off?” What is necessary and what is simply habit?

Tremendous societal forces influence our habits. We are in a time when marketers talk about “the first five pillars of religious beliefs that could be applied to brand building” and Frito Lay has used Hillel the Elder’s revered saying: “If not now, when?” to sell Doritos.  At the summit in 2010, some at a panel on media awareness in faith and humanist communities saw their congregations as too media-friendly, too ready to accept the premise that they must “go where the people are,” sidestepping the questions of conscience and the issues of human development that the American Academy of Pediatrics notes in its recommendations for limits. One example now is a church that is holding a “video contest for young people to promote interest in the sacrament of confession…The grassroots digital campaign, called i-confess.com, is soliciting videos of 30 to 60 seconds. The first-prize winner will receive $25,000 for himself or herself and $25,000 for their parish or school. Other cash prizes will be awarded.” This is not intended to single out that community out at all. This is just an example of what is going on in many places. It may even produce good effects. Making media is part of becoming aware of media tools and impact, but it is just one part

In Healthy Media Choices workshops, people say they are hungry for their families to be reminded to listen to conscience. There is a wish to step back from the technology “connection,” to see the difference between necessity and mechanical habit, and to discern how to use time intentionally so they can be centered and communicate better with others with whom we share the planet, and with the planet itself.

It is time for faith and humanist communities to take a step back, ask some basic media literacy questions, (especially about young children) and see where they wish to go, with or without technology, and what actions to take for education, witness, and advocacy. They are treasure troves of stories and resources – antidotes and alternatives to the elements in popular culture that undermine the spiritual well being of young children and their families. If questioning the pervasive influence of media and commercialism is not the work of communities in whom many entrust their highest aspirations, whose job is it?

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Commentary

Peggy Orenstein: What was (and was not) in “Cinderella Ate My Daughter”

Peggy Orenstein is gracious and open. In this transcript of my interview with her in late January, you’ll see that she does not stand above the fray. As a parent of a young child herself, she knows the pressures that are brought to bear by commercial interests and says that she didn’t realize how much time she’s spend as a mother just defending her child’s right to a childhood.  Good stuff.

For me, the interview highlights important research about the public health implications of separating the sexes early by narrowly defined definitions.  It then goes deeper than the book does into what Peggy’s family is trying in order to offer narratives from Greek Mythology and their Jewish heritage as alternatives to those of the popular culture.

This is relevant for Witness for Childhood, since Peggy models the ways in which the effort to bring those alternative stories – what we’re all about here – fosters connection and joy for the child and the whole family.  Enjoy – I did.

********************************************************************************************

Transcript of interview with Peggy Orenstein January 26, 2011 (Parenthesis are used for clarification where there is a cut-off sentence or cross-talk)

M. R.: Thank you for taking time for this conversation this morning about Cinderella Ate My Daughter: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the New Girlie-Girl Culture. I’m happy to have an early conversation with you about your book, Peggy.
This book is a very empathetic look at the struggles parents face in raising girls to be whole and healthy in today’s culture. I particularly appreciated that you were non-judgmental about other parents….
P .O.: That was very important to me. I’m a mom. I have a daughter who is now 7 and I’m working through these things just like anybody else and I felt that having someone hectoring me or telling me I was doing the wrong thing – I had enough of that in my life and didn’t want to do that to anyone else.  The reason I gave the book that over-the-top title was to signal that I’m as exasperated as the next mom and also that I believe you have to fight fun with fun.
M. R.: We are on the same page about this. We do not need more guilt. As parents, it comes with the territory. We have plenty of it no matter what.  I raised two daughters, now adults. They were born ten years apart, one before deregulation of children’s programming and one after, so I am in agreement that we need to be deadly serious, yet compassionate toward ourselves and others and have a sense of humor.
One thing I found very valuable was the quote from the Sanford Harmony Program about the public health implications of this very narrow gender definitions we have for girls and boys and the separation that begins in early childhood.
Could you elaborate on that?
P .O.: I’m glad you brought that up. Few people have asked me about that, which is a shame. For me, it was one of the most profound findings in the book. I spent a day with Carol Martin and Rick Faves who are among the foremost psychologists working on gender development. They are doing this program. I felt you really couldn’t talk about all these issues without addressing nature vs. nurture head on. Because, what you run up against when you’re talking about marketing and a girls and the overwhelming influence of pink is: “Girls just like that stuff, it’s encoded in their DNA.”  I wanted to look at: is that true. Guess what: no. What is encoded in their DNA is a desire in that preschool age to assert their sex (male-female). Because they’re not completely on board with the whole anatomy thing yet, they don’t get it, what makes you a girl or a boy is wearing a dress or barrettes or what you play with, that sort of thing.
That’s why your daughter throws a huge fit when you’re trying to wrestle her into pants when she is three years old. So, in that way, these products that target our daughters when they’re 2-3-4 years old with these extreme images of commercialized femininity are right on target and they say they are developmentally appropriate. They are developmentally appropriate but they ‘re unhealthy. They’re exploiting the developmental stage.  The other slice of it, which I didn’t realize and what the Sanford Harmony Program was about is that when the children are the most extreme, the most rigid  – they are the “gender police” – their brains are the most plastic and they’re laying down the tracks for what it means to be male what it means to be female. If you think about language and how we’re born with the capacity to make all these sounds but in the first few years of life we learn which ones our language uses and those are the sounds we can make. We become unable to make the others – you can’t roll your “R’s” for example.
Similarly, when girls and boys are brought up in completely separate cultures, the differences between them, which are small, other than toy choices (one of the big ones across the life span). Cognitively, emotionally, all the sorts of differences (whether they’ll ask for directions, for instance), those differences are small but they become large when they are allowed to stay in their own boy and girl cultures and those cultures are amplified. time they have an opportunity, not in a forced way but in a natural way, to play together and that’s reinforced, it makes a difference for their intellectual development, for their psychological development and even, it has been shown, it makes a difference in terms of their relationships in the workplace and in the home. So, if we want our kids to have healthy relationships, which I think we all do, it’s really important that they not be shoved down a road where they’re in separate cultures.
M. R.: I was glad to see that here, because conversations (about the public health aspects of media) are confined to obesity or attention issues. It was refreshing  to see that domestic violence, all kinds of things, come from the inability to speak to each other.
P. O.: It’s about communication.
M. R.: You expose a lot of things, expose the “dots”. Trying to connect them , for me, particularly in relation to my own work with parents and teachers of young children about the narrative that is being brought and how we can bring an alternative narrative to children – is the “aspirational” aspects.  You say Disney and Mattel consider the Princesses and, by extension, the Miley Cyruses and the rest, as “aspirational.”
You do a good job of showing the seamless transition that happens between innocent naïf and red-hot pole dancer. One of the things that is important to see is the billion dollar industry that is under there. You quote Blumberg, author of The Body Project as comparing the new year’s resolutions of girls at the end of the 19th century with those of girls at the end of the 20th century. What those girls at the end of the 19th century aspired to were personal qualities.  Can you elaborate on the fact that there is no accident that there was a shift to getting better contact lenses or  looking better, losing weight, at a fairly young age.
P .O.: That’s my point.
M. R.: Yes, but the question I came away with was: why this acceptance of the media culture as our common culture? I don’t buy it. I feel it is because we allow it to be, but there are alternatives.
P .O.: One thing that happened last night that reinforced it for me was that a woman who ha not read the book raised her hand and said “What concerns me is my daughter’s class – her daughter is 7 – was writing their New Year’s resolutions, my daughter wrote  I want to be a better girl. “When they asked what that meant, she said ‘I want to get makeup, etc.“ almost verbatim what was in my book and what Blumberg had written.
Sometimes, when you write a book, it is a very passionate experience but you’re also alone in a room and its intellectual. So, when somebody actually says the words out loud that you have written as the problem  – you go “that’s weird, I wrote that exact thing about new year’s resolutions, the way they change from being about character to being about cosmetics and you remember again and again how widespread and deep this is. Our job as parents is to help our daughters navigate their way through it because it is so pervasive and you can’t avoid it and you have to react some way, whether that’s to completely remove your child from it, completely embrace it or, like most of us, try to go somewhere in between. But it is confusing. I think there are places where the lines, for many of us, are quite clear and there are many, many places where it’s intentionally mushy.  When you’re living in a culture and you’re living day to day, especially as a parent. You don’t pay attention to what’s going on before you’re a parent.
It’s interesting to hear you say that your children are ten years apart, because ten years ago I didn’t know what was going on with four year olds. Why would I? I wasn’t a mom. Ten years from now, I may not be paying attention either, because my daughter will be heading off to college or something. It’s a very present-tense experience to raise a child.  So, it’s easy to not connect the dots and not to realize that things have not always been this way and not to say : “Well, we had  TV when  we were little.” We had four channels; we didn’t have a satellite dish  That’s the comparison I use with the culture (shift).
M. R.: that’s really important to point to out. I’m someone who remembers being seven years old and the television coming into the house. Some of us have institutional memory or early childhood without television, all the way through parenting, then working with parents and seeing this unbelievable shift. That shift is very well summed up by the late George Gerbner, who was head of the Annenberg School of Communication at University of Pennsylvania.  He noted that for the first time in human history we have given our stories, the stories we tell our children, over to commercial interests. We have invited commercial interests into our home, instead of telling our own stories.
I watched the Today Show interview you did and was glad to see that, when asked what you bring to your daughter, you said “The Greek goddesses.” The marvelous, powerful, female stories that act as antidotes, well, not antidotes (one of those negative words), but alternatives to the (the popular culture story).
As you say, when you have a young child, it is so “present tense.” You’re so tired and trying to juggle so many things, it is difficult to remember, unless you have some education. I feel parent education when the child is born (about the impact of media and popular culture) is what is needed.   By the time the child gets into school and you’re becoming more aware the horse is pretty much out of the barn. The child has already been exposed to a lot of (impressions).
I want to explore the influences that are bringing this narrative of consumerism and, as you said, being the objectified, sexualized person is a rite of passage, that it is required.
P .O.: Self-objectification is a rite of passage
M. R.: It is important to realize. This isn’t from your book, but I want to get your perspective as a parent and as someone who has (written about this).  You do a great job with the Bratz dolls: showing how the perspective has shifted with the sexualization of the toys children pay with, particularly the Bratz dolls, highly sexualized dolls. Scholastic, one of the most trusted names in publishing for children, really brought the Bratz dolls materials into the schools  in school fairs. It wasn’t until the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood initiated a campaign to get parents to write letters, etc., that it stopped.
P .O.: I wasn’t aware of that.
M. R.: CCFC has done a lot in terms of targeting these moments when a shift  in the threshold (is taking place) and bringing action. I can still remember the smell of the Scholastic booklets that came home and choosing books. It’s  a wonderful  device for children to get good quality, inexpensive books. But this influence has come in even there. So,  what do you see as the parent of a now seven year old child. What are parents seeing as the influences?  What are they bringing as alternatives? Are they aware of  Hardy Girls, Healthy Women in Maine (or New Moon Girls)?
P .O.: I live in Berkeley. We’re a little different. One would assume a greater awareness. In the school community we’ve chosen  and are blessed, since we only have one child, to be able to afford, is one where the parents are like-minded.  We’re raising our daughter in a community I feel great about and supported in.  That being said, someone just told me that, in Berkeley there is a father-daughter ball with pre-school girls dressed in their princess garb and he fathers in tuxedos.  I don’t know what’s going on there, in my town.
I wouldn’t say that it is surprising that the book has evoked the response I had hoped for is that parents really do get it and are looking for some kind of alternative and they don’t know where to look.  The main thing you’re going to find if you walk into Target, Walmart or Macy’s or Toys R Us  or Pottery Barn Kids, whether it is high-end or low-end on the economic spectrum , you’ll find pink, princess, diva, sexualized, kind of in that order.  To try to find a sense of agency and choice in that is really hard. To me, I liken it to the food movement. Fifteen years ago, who knew what trans-fats are? Who knew where their food came from? Who cared whether your produce was in a can or whole food? Who cared about free-range? Now, we care. Not everybody cares, but a lot of people care and the Congress has been looking at this bill to re-vamp the school lunch program to make it healthier and McDonald’s has healthier choices because parents   have realized this is a health issue, that their children were growing up with unhealthy nutrition. It is the same thing. Our daughters are growing up in a world that is giving them junk food for the mind and junk food for the body that can result in some  – not will result, but can result in some very unhealthy choices and unhealthy syndromes like eating disorders, negative body image, depression, not using contraceptive, not understanding they can say “no,” not knowing what “yes” means. I cannot say your daughter waves a magic wand and she’s not going to use birth control. Obviously,. But, it is kind of a flume ride for girls that increasingly tells them that the way they look is not only how they feel, but who they are, defining themselves from the outside in rather than the inside out.
I feel that, if we could make McDonald’s blink, we can make Disney, Mattel and Scholastic blink.
M I use the same analogy. I say we feel like Prevention Magazine twenty-five years ago, a voice crying in the wilderness. Not so much anymore, though.  There are more voices now than there used to be.
The power of these media companies is pretty extraordinary and  ( in terms of legislation) a lot o legislators are not going to be up for alienating the media. So, it works to a certain extent, but we have an entrenched media culture in our political sphere, so we’ll see what happens.
(I’d like to get back to) the essential narrative that children learn. Children learn by story. The commercialized story that is brought to them is really brought with permission from the parents. I don’t want guilt but, the fact is, we have to see where our responsibility lies. If a child spends a certain number of hours a day absorbing this information, we have to look at that. That can be difficult.  We’re tired….
P .O.: Yes, it can also be empowering. Parents have been feeling that they can have no power in this culture; it was inevitable. It’s just the way it goes. We have to reclaim our right to say “No!” Especially when kids are three, four, five years old, “no” is a fine word to have in your vocabulary. They use it a lot. We can use it, too. The other piece is that you can’t convince your daughter that you’re offering her more choices about how to be if you’re always saying “No!” If you’re going to say “No!” as I did  – we did not have that stuff in our house – some Disney princess stuff inevitably did infiltrate. But we didn’t let her go to the princess birthday parties when people had them. We don’t let her watch Disney channel or Nick. We don’t let her watch TV at all. She watches Netflix that we choose. She doesn’t watch America’s Top Models like some of her friends do at the age of seven. You can say “No!” You can let them know your values and what you think. Sometimes, I do that properly and sometimes I just babble or I’m hypocritical or inconsistent or contradictory. I do my best.
Wonder Woman Barbie: is that a good thing or a bad thing? I’m not sure; but she has it. You have to do the work to find something that’s below that first slice of culture that’s being thrown at you. That’s why I said the Greek myths. Some of them, you have to find child-appropriate versions.  Hercules slays all his children, and such, that’s not really three-year-old fare.  Greek myths have great characters.  We ended up doing this whole thing at Passover with the story of Miriam. I didn’t know the story of Miriam. Turns out, there wouldn’t be a Passover without Miriam. As far as Daisy is concerned, Miriam is the hero of Passover and, in a way, she’s right. When we went to Seder at my brother’s house with twenty-five people or so, none of them knew the story of Miriam. So, she didn’t want to stand up in front of everyone, she told my brother the story of Miriam and he read it verbatim in her words.  It was not only wonderful for her to have heard that story, but  she got to teach it to my whole family and they all got to learn about this important, strong character that had been buried by history from the six year old. What could be more wonderful?
M. R.: I do believe Miriam gets banished (for being uppity).
P .O.: We didn’t put that part in. It is temporary. She was only six years old. Miriam was a midwife at six . She helped birth the Jewish babies and helped hide the boys, protecting them from the Egyptians who were going to kill all the baby boys. She was heroic. She prophesized the birth of Moses and got her parents back together. They had gotten divorced because the father did not want to risk having a boy. They were leaders and all the Jewish men had followed suit. Miriam said: “No, you’ve got to get back together. You’re going to have a son who is going to save the people.” They did. She’s the one who brought him over to the bull rushes and gave him to the princess and got his mother to be the wet nurse. We never hear about Miriam.  It was great for me. Yes, it was work. Yes, it’s another thing to add to my plate. But I can’t tell you how much I got out of learning that story. I didn’t know about that.
M. R.: This is one of the keys, I think – intentionality. Being intentional, even if you decide to let all the Princess stuff in.  Whatever you decide for your family, being intentional makes all the difference in the world. The child (senses it).
P .O.: That’s actually a great way for me to put it, so I appreciate your telling me that.  When I talk about it, I’m going to say that, if you don’t mind. I can’t tell you what decisions to make for your child but, whatever you do, to provide context. I wanted to start a conversation and I wanted to provide some context and information so that parents could make their choices more wisely, but  I guess what that does mean is make them intentionally. If you’re going to let your daughter get the twenty-one-piece Disney Princess makeup kit, know what you’re doing. That’s fine. That’s your choice. That’s your right, but know what you’re doing.
M. R.:. I’m glad I gave you that nugget, but it would be great if you could attribute it.

P .O.: I will. I will.
M. R.: Thank you. I’d love to talk to you again, because another project I coordinate is Witness for Childhood, which is trying to bring the voices of people in communities, either religious or humanist about this issue: the questions they have the, so to speak “spiritual” formation of their children and how the commercial culture is impacting that, but also what resources they bring. One of the biggest resources is the stories: Miriam, Mary, Mary Magdalene: also, the Greeks.
For so long, any time you talked about media and religion, the religious right owned this issue.  The perception was that you were from that (narrow perspective) – fine for them to articulate that belief. I am not in that camp, yet I feel strongly that this is of interest to those who invest their highest aspirations for themselves and their children in a belief system with other people in community, whatever the beliefs. The progressive voices need to come forward and look at this as an issue. That really hasn’t happened.  I’d love to speak with you again about that aspect.
P .O.: You’re right. It was cool to be in Darien, Connecticut last night, a community I would not typically be in, and see how concerned the moms were. What’s great about the public speaking and the readings is that it does create a kind of electricity, a connection and a community of people who then start talking.  It’s hard to do it in isolation. Insofar as we have very intentionally made choices around media an playthings and all that that come in, we do live in a community, a school community anyway, (the larger community has surprised me) of parents who are very concerned about that and encourage their children to do so many other (fun)…
I really didn’t realize when I became a mom how much of my job was going to be protecting my child’s childhood.  It is different. The barrage of outside forces that are trying to raise your child for you, the marketing: the products, the media, the internet and the pressure – not exactly a girl thing – but the pressure for them to be perfect little children is so intense that you’re doing them a favor if you’re taking them to the park, for goodness sakes. So, community is vital.
M. R.: Community is vital. I don’t think it is an accident that the general population has been becoming more aware at the same time as they are also taking more action around play and putting free play back into schools. They’re connected.
P .O.:  Yes. The head of (the advocacy organization) “Kaboom!” is coming out with a book soon in defense of play.
M. R.: Thanks for letting us know and thanks for your time, Peggy.
O.: See you on Twitter!

(Copyright Healthy Media Choices 2011)

Posted in Alternative Stories, Interview

Looking back – and forward

Now that my  first – month -of – the – year  cold has passed and my head is clear, I look back at 2010 and realize how much I learned about engaging progressive communities in relation to the pros and cons of media and technology in young children’s lives and the implications of that involvement for their development.  I also see how much I have to learn and how much there is to do.

Interviews with Susan Linn of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, with Muslim, Jewish and Humanist parents and teachers and with Lance Strate, Executive Director of The Institute of General Semantics illuminated assets in those groups that those individuals tap and that can be models for others.

Gnawing question arise.  Listening to parents, even in casual conversation, reveals a deep concern with the influence of popular culture in children’s lives. Parents of older children lament the inability to connect with their children, who seem to be constantly  “plugged in” to some sort of media. We know that these habits start young and grow incrementally if parents are not pro-active.

A focus on early childhood makes sense because of the importance of that time developmentally. The movement to restore play focuses on having, at least, a healthy balance between screen time and active imaginative play. The American Academy of Pediatrics just re-affirmed their recommendation of no screen time from birth to age two and a maximum of two hours of educational programming after that.

Parents, especially those who work from home or who need to use their Smart Phones frequently when they are with their children, are concerned about the models they are providing for their children.

Yet, in speaking with progressive community leaders about members who might like to share their questions through Witness for Childhood, I am often directed to those who have resolved the question of media in their homes, either by eliminating it or restricting it severely. Having come to terms, at least temporarily, with this influence, they no longer have a burning question for themselves or the society in which their children are growing and will live out their lives.

While I see that publishing these “alternative stories” is a legitimate role for Witness, there are many stories of struggle that can be shared to our advantage.

Where are those with a burning question? Is media and popular culture influence on young children considered a “conservative” issue? Since the first, most vocal, voices of faith communities to address the subject were from the “religious right,”  perhaps that is the perception.  That is, from my point of view, tragic.

The goal of progressives examining and engaging in a conversation about the consequences of the intrusion of popular culture into early childhood development is fundamentally different from those who restrict in order to ultimately control. The parents I interviewed may appear to be conservative, since they restrict their children’s access to media, but their lifestyles are pluralistic and open to the interaction with those who are not like themselves. They are not acting out of fear, but out of a sense of having something better to do with their time.

This is also a peace issue. The connection between children’s exposure to  violent imagery and their subsequent behavior has been established. The work of Dave Grossman, detailed in his book On Killing shows that our children are, effectively, being trained to kill each other in the comfort the living room – with the implicit permission of parent.

Are there progressive communities who engage parents and the community at large in the conversation about this issue?  If so, you know where you can reach me: mary@witnessforchildhood.org. Let’s work together to share resources, insights and – questions.

Tagged with: , , ,
Posted in Background
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.