My daughter was brought up between the ages of seven and eighteen in Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands. One day I was even more smug than usual when I read a report listing these three countries among the leading five in the world for bringing up children. I could understand why that was.
The key to the culture in these countries was that the child would be offered agency as early as possible, so the child would get involved in decisions earlier than in most cultures. A consequence is some degree of risk, since the child may not be fully mature to make good decisions, but the reward of earlier learning and independence was deemed to be worth it. I agree.
I became accustomed to seeing seven-year-old kids cycling through city streets with a heavy backpack. At first this not only reckless but also cruel, and we were always on the cautious side with our daughter. But I came to realize that few kids were injured, and all developed skills and maturity more quickly. By the age of sixteen my daughter had experimented with all the teenage vices that are frowned upon by conservative parents and are often illegal in other countries. She worked out the pros and cons for herself and had moved on already from things where danger outweighed passing thrills. Of course such lessons became more embedded for having been discovered rather than enforced. But I have to confess to a few sleepless nights along the way.
Recalling this and linking it with some observations about different societies has led me to a new four box model. We can call the dimensions tools and scope. The tools dimension considers how much children, or whole societies, are encouraged to develop a toolkit for life. Education is the most obvious component of this dimension, but it needs to be defined widely and supplemented by other elements. The toolkit grows if formal education encourages questions, and if parents and other caregivers have the chance (and take it) to teach wider life skills.
There are other, more complex influences. Does society make learning simpler or more complicated? How much misinformation is out there? How much genuine debate? I found Sweden and the Netherlands excellent in all of these respects.
The second dimension of the model is scope. In a child, how much are they encouraged to explore and to find their own way? The seven-year-old cyclist is the poster child for high scope. A high scope society offers many paths without too much cultural or parental or governmental baggage in the way.
Progress can be seen as navigating a path whereby both tools and scope are expanded in parallel. Not even the Dutch think that newborns should be cycling, or that five-year-olds should choose careers. Parents should initially choose, before gradually stepping back to roles as a safety net and then a coach. The issue is whether tools or scope have the higher emphasis and how fast the overall development is allowed to move.
There are risks when tools and scope become out of balance. A child with many tools but no scope may become frustrated, rebelling against perceived limitations. A child with lots of scope and few tools will make many costly mistakes by taking on challenges he or she is not equipped for.
It may be a bit of a stretch, but we can extend the model from children to whole societies. We can also define the boxes by low tool and low scope, high tool and low scope, high tool and high scope, and low tool and high scope.
An example of a low tool, low scope society would be Saudi Arabia. Religious doctrine confines education and the family and the mosque have a big input towards acceptable choices for everybody. High tool and low scope could be China or Japan. Education and knowledge is prized, but culture sets limits for exploration. High tool and high scope would be the Netherlands. High low tool and high scope could be the USA or Brazil. Here education is mixed, knowledge sources are chaotic, but ambition is unlimited.
I could characterize the boxes by C words. Low-low is controlled or closed. High-low is conjoined or conflict focused (like an army). High-high is collective, but can be coddled or complacent. Low-high is competitive (between individuals), and chaotic.
There are no guarantees. Children or societies and all the boxes can fail spectacularly. The four boxes can respectively create the jihadist, the fascist, the mad scientist and the angry lone killer.
Most of us would agree that navigating carefully to develop both skills and scope is of benefit, to both kids and societies, so long as disasters can be averted. It might also be the case that deviating too far in one direction is especially dangerous. High-Low demands compliance and may cause a desire for rebellion to grow, such as the Arab spring. Low-High can become very unequal and exploitative and tough for the weak.
For most of my life, I have been indoctrinated to believe that low-high is better than high-low. Low-high allows democracy, and innovation, and individual liberty, while High-low can lead to Hitler. But the respective states of China and the USA at the moment cause me to challenge my assumption. High-Low is clear, efficient and focused, so long as there is no capture by a tyrant or loss of credibility.
Look at Covid. The societies that have performed the best are generally High-Low. China, Korea, Taiwan and even Germany have managed to gain support from an informed and educated public for policies to contain the spread. It does not surprise me that Sweden (and the Netherlands to an extent) was an outlier, delaying lockdowns and relying on intelligent public response. The closed societies have performed well, partly because people move about less. And the Low-Highs have seen the worst outcomes. Misinformation, distrust in institutions, inequality and a perceived value in personal liberty have all hampered efforts to suppress Covid. Perhaps Covid is merely a symptom of a general malaise in these places: is the Low-High model unsustainable?
Whether we lean towards High-Low and Low-High is determined by cultural factors and the starting point. A classic example is the fall of the Iron Curtain, where High-Low societies were encouraged to become High-High or even Low-High overnight. The change was initially highly counter-productive. Perhaps the same could be said of the Arab spring. Societies should move cautiously in this particular four-box-model. The same could apply to families: rapid attitudinal change by parents, perhaps following a divorce, can be too difficult to absorb by a growing child.
This model is far from clean, but I am finding it interesting to think through. Anything that can seem to draw links between Covid response, parenting and the advantages of US or Chinese models is of interest to me. I will enjoy developing this idea.
No comments:
Post a Comment