"It Takes a Village to Raise a Child"

[Sunstone]

Some decades ago, Hillary Clinton, an aspiring politician at the time, penned a short book in which she advanced the notion that children are best raised in and by communities of people rather than raised by their mom and pop alone.

Unbelievable as this might sound to those of us living in this current age of abundant fair-mindedness and over-flowing rational discourse, hordes of people immediately -- miracle of miracles! -- turned overnight into experts at child rearing and at once took Clinton to task along such unpredictable lines as that she was advocating socialism, communism, and even the very destruction of the family and civilization!

Even such notably childless individuals as Rush Limbaugh suddenly discovered themselves to be awesome authorities on child rearing and with ample reasons to denounce her notion that children are best raised in and by communities. “The town doesn't raise a child, village, or what have you,” He groused, "That was just code word for the parents don't really matter." One time presidential candidate Bob Dole pronounced, “And after the virtual devastation of the American family, the rock upon which this country was founded, we are told that it takes a village, that is collective, and thus the state, to raise a child. And with all due respect, I am here to tell you it does not take a village to raise a child. It takes a family to raise a child.”

Lesser well known pundits had their day too. Andrea Tantaro -- employing a logic that was then, and will eternally remain, inscrutable to all rational people -- blamed the phrase, "It takes a village to raise a child" for all the horrors of rampant teenage sexuality.

Yes, incomprehensible as it might be to us in this enlightened age, there was actually more than a wee bit of self-serving misinterpretation and distortion of Clinton's message!

I know! Unbelievable!

Thank the gods such barbarity is well in our past nowadays. So I am confident I can now tell the following truths about my own childhood as a prelude to asking a few questions that, no doubt, will be calmly and fairly discussed without prompting too many mindless partisan knee-jerks.

I was raised in a small, Midwestern town where during my childhood, unrelated adults who had no official reason to take an interest in me (such as by virtue of their being my official teachers) nevertheless took an almost proprietary interest in my well-being and in seeing that I "turned out right".

I cannot more than begin to tell you how often that happened to me. In one instance alone, I almost bicycled into the path of a car. The driver, a man on his way home from work, and possibly hungry for his dinner, pulled over, sat down with me on the curb, and then proceeded to spend about a half hour with me getting to know all about me, before gently explaining to me how reckless I'd been, how much he feared that I might be as reckless again, and making me promise him that I would look both ways before crossing a street again. All that effort just to make sure he got his message across!

It would not be too much of an exaggeration to call such incidents "typical" or -- at the very least -- "unsurprising".

I grew up accustomed to strangers giving me advice to study hard in school, to play fair in sports, or on one occasion, how to fight dirty if -- and only if -- I desperately had to fight dirty. And the people who were actual friends of the family were even more caring. Friends of my mothers would ask to "borrow" me and/or my brothers to take us swimming, duck-hunting, to concerts, or just to dine out at some fancy restaurant they thought we should be "exposed to".

Although it didn't happen to me, when a friend of my family was widowed with two young teenage daughters, her neighbor undertook (with her permission) to now and then invite the underage girls to dinner at his house where he served them wine in order to teach them how to responsibly drink before they came of age. But such things were typical in my community.

Did such "attentions" ever undermine my mother's authority in my eyes?

Hell no. How could they have? That they might have strikes me as so absurd as to be just as imaginary as a boogie man lurking under a bed.

But did they prove to be beneficial to me? I can only tell you some of the best experiences and most formative advice I got as kid came from people of no relation to me. And yes, there were even times when some stranger's intervention in all likelihood prevented me from going down the wrong path -- although I am certain some of you reading this will now be thinking, "Sunstone? Our sterling Sunstone? Ever in serious danger of going down the wrong path? Why, the very thought of it is absurd!"

Based on my own experiences, I think today's kids -- at least, those that are not raised in genuine, working communities -- most likely miss out on a whole lot of formative experiences that could benefit them years later as life lessons. That's to say nothing -- absolutely nothing -- of the sense of security and confidence it gives a kid to be able to think so many people are looking out for him. The early maturity and self-responsibility that comes to a kid who is able to safely go anywhere and everywhere within bicycle range of his home -- "just so long as you're home for supper" -- cannot be duplicated by any amount of parental "hovering".

So, are children best raised in and by communities? Is there anything essential that a community provides a kid with that cannot be so easily or efficiently provided by mom and pop alone? What, if anything, do you see as the advantages or benefits to being raised by a community?

Comments? Questions? Dire warnings Clinton -- Clinton who? -- might run again? Lonely tales of being dumped by true first loves? Fond memories of your kitten's first hairball?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

So, are children best raised in and by communities? Is there anything essential that a community provides a kid with that cannot be so easily or efficiently provided by mom and pop alone? What, if anything, do you see as the advantages or benefits to being raised by a community?

Yes.

Corporal Punishment used to be a thing until families started getting involved in each other's business. I remember at Baptist Christian schools we used to get paddled, now they call cops and arrest people. Discipline in my time is a thing of the past.

 

[SomeRandom]

Aren't children already raised by a community? I mean parents throw their kids into daycare so they can work to pay the bills, a neighbor might babysit from time to time, teachers from K - 12 have to act as de facto parents, kids might stay the weekend at a grandparents' house etc. Granted this involvement can run the gamut from single parent households to a family of like 1000, but unless a kid is literally homeschooled with little to no interaction from society, I don't see how it's only the parents influencing and indeed raising a kid (albeit indirectly.) They learn from their peers, from societal attitudes, teachers, guardians, mentors, even employers. Given that we're a social species, that makes sense to me.

 

[LuisDantas]

So, are children best raised in and by communities? Is there anything essential that a community provides a kid with that cannot be so easily or efficiently provided by mom and pop alone? What, if anything, do you see as the advantages or benefits to being raised by a community?

Comments? Questions? Dire warnings Clinton -- Clinton who? -- might run again? Lonely tales of being dumped by true first loves? Fond memories of your kitten's first hairball?

You know, Hillary may have had a point there. I used to think in extended family terms, but that may well be aiming too low. It is very clear to me that a couple of people can not possibly be enough to truly raise a child. At least, not in a healthy way.

Yes, there is IMO very clearly something that a nuclear family can't possibly provide by itself: perspective. The ability to learn about various people's viewpoints and how to deal with genuine peace and awareness towards them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am sorry. Still laughing at the idea of Rush Limbaugh as a child raising expert.

 

[Sunstone]

Aren't children already raised by a community? I mean parents throw their kids into daycare so they can work to pay the bills, a neighbor might babysit from time to time, teachers from K - 12 have to act as de facto parents, kids might stay the weekend at a grandparents' house etc. Granted this involvement can run the gamut from single parent households to a family of like 1000, but unless a kid is literally homeschooled with little to no interaction from society, I don't see how it's only the parents influencing a kid. They learn from their peers, from societal attitudes, teachers, guardians, mentors, even employers. Given that we're a social species, that makes sense to me.

I think you're technically correct that kids are still raised by communities. But what kind of "communities"? How many communities today are safe enough to raise kids "free-range"? How many kids are safe wandering anywhere and everywhere they want to just so long as they're back by meal time?

What I've seen nowadays are parents who guard their kids more closely than prison wardens. Who don't even allow them to walk to school alone, and who limit their contacts to people they know well and who are usually in official positions of responsibility such as babysitters, teachers, and tutors. That's all well and good, but I don't think it even begins to substitute for the valuable lessons a kid can learn freely interacting with his or her peers, older and younger children, and even adults.

Plus, even though one might call today's social environments a "community" such communities are no where near as inclusive as the one I grew up in -- and that used to be much more common I know people in the suburbs today who have lived five or ten years next to families whose name they don't even know. They might or might not have a circle of friends at their church, but they don't know their neighbors. Such communities scarcely produce the sort of people who feel responsible for each other's children.

 

[Sunstone]

Yes, there is IMO very clearly something that a nuclear family can't possibly provide by itself: perspective. The ability to learn about various people's viewpoints and how to deal with genuine peace and awareness towards them.

You nailed it, Luis! That's a beautiful summary of one the most important lessons one gets from being raised by a community. Perspectives. And how to weigh between them.

 

[Terese]

I agree with Clinton. Karl Marx also advocated for such a system. My family isolates themselves from the "community". Talking to strangers is a big no no and would get me in trouble, so my parents say. This has stayed with me today, as i get rather nervous when strangers ask me something or strike up a conversation with me, especially if they are male. Parental shenanigans aside, i do wish i was raised by a community, and not just my parents, since it would have taught me valuable things like the OP had mentioned.

 

[Sunstone]

I am sorry. Still laughing at the idea of Rush Limbaugh as a child raising expert.

I know, right? Thank the gods those days are behind us and folks today don't purposely distort each other's messages in order to score political points with the gullible masses!

 

[Sunstone]

I agree with Clinton. Karl Marx also advocated for such a system. My family isolates themselves from the "community". Talking to strangers is a big no no and would get me in trouble, so my parents say. This has stayed with me today, as i get rather nervous when strangers ask me something or strike up a conversation with me, especially if they are male. Parental shenanigans aside, i do wish i was raised by a community, and not just my parents, since it would have taught me valuable things like the OP had mentioned.

Even though I was a shy kid, embarrassed to talk to strangers, the lesson that strangers usually don't bite was ingrained in me, and surely gave me some of my adult confidence when meeting new people. Plus, I learned the warning signs for when a stranger might indeed be likely to bite, and techniques to avoid or defuse such situations.

 

[Terese]

Even though I was a shy kid, embarrassed to talk to strangers, the lesson that strangers usually don't bite was ingrained in me, and surely gave me some of my adult confidence when meeting new people. Plus, I learned the warning signs for when a stranger might indeed be likely to bite, and techniques to avoid or defuse such situations.

Well it's good that strangers don't usually bite! At the risk of derailing this thread, what techniques did you use against gnashing strangers?

 

[Sunstone]

At the risk of derailing this thread, what techniques did you use against gnashing strangers?

Best to clear out of there the moment you realize the stranger is of the gnashing kind, and not a moment later. But if you fail that...

Then the main and most effective thing to do -- if you can -- is simply walk away from a hostile stranger. Don't argue with them, don't even try to explain yourself, and certainly don't try to get in the last word or score any points. At most, say something like 'You win" or even "Nice chatting with you." and leave. You might be surprised how many fights that can prevent. In fact, it has prevented so many fights that I almost never need to go further.

In your case, I can imagine a more serious situation, such as when someone is testing you to see if you're a push-over, but isn't yet so obviously aggressive that you'd feel justified in raising holy hell in your loudest possible voice.

If that case, get out your phone, and without telling them what you're up to, call the police. Don't tell them, let them figure it out for themselves, so they might not have the time or wits to stop you. Then without waiting a moment more, start walking towards the nearest people.

If they try to stop you, do everything you can to call attention to them, and start fighting like a banshee. Go for their eyes, if you can, and hard enough to gouge them out but without throwing yourself off balance. As they block your attack (because they almost certainly will), knee them in the nuts -- perhaps two or three times if you're quick enough -- then slam your foot down on their instep as hard as you can, or kick them in the shins. Rinse and repeat until you can get away, or until they get bored fighting you.

Terese the key to any fight is to hit hard, fast, furious, and relentlessly. NEVER back off for even a spit second to see if you're doing any damage or if they are giving up. NEVER. Go at them like a dog and remember that 70 pound dogs overwhelm 200 pound men by the sheer, all-out ferocity of their attack. So channel your inner dog and attack without pause or hesitation.

But fighting is the last thing you want to do because, frankly, you're not practiced in it, and they might be. Best to scream like hell and fight only to get away.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Here in the UK, the effects of the 'stranger danger' panic has rather dented any of the good that might come from such interactions. I think it has also been shown that many are less likely to help a child these days because of fears from being perceived wrongly, and even in schools we seem to have a 'no contact' policy between teachers and pupils because of similar concerns. I can remember a time when adults didn't hold back from telling you exactly what they thought if you misbehaved as a child, but these days it seems that subsequently getting the wrath of a parent (if around, or later) might dissuade many, and hence the lack of discipline we often see in schools perhaps. Kids these days are often seen as too precious to have their individual space violated by genuine criticism and rebukes - as if this might harm them irreparably. Cor, what next.

 

[Sunstone]

Here in the UK, the effects of the 'stranger danger' panic has rather dented any of the good that might come from such interactions. I think it has also been shown that many are less likely to help a child these days because of fears from being perceived wrongly, and even in schools we seem to have a 'no contact' policy between teachers and pupils because of similar concerns. I can remember a time when adults didn't hold back from telling you exactly what they thought if you misbehaved as a child, but these days it seems that subsequently getting the wrath of a parent (if around, or later) might dissuade many, and hence the lack of discipline we often see in schools perhaps. Kids these days are often seen as too precious to have their individual space violated by genuine criticism and rebukes - as if this might harm them irreparably. Cor, what next.

"Stranger danger" is of course very real, but it can be overblown -- and I think it has been. There were most likely just as many perverts lurking around when I was growing up in that small town as there are today in the same town, and yet I never encountered any. Call it "luck", but I think the odds were in my favor. So I guess the real question is whether your neighborhood or community is a reasonable safe one for children.

Those two are interrelated to my thinking. Strong communities tend -- I believe -- to be safer communities.

It seems to me that these days we so often refuse to think that any amount of risk is justified. We don't want a reasonably safe environment for kids, we want a perfectly safe environment. And that is not only an impossibility, but it also in my view deprives kids of the optimal sort of environment the need to learn how to assess and deal with dangers, how to take responsibility for themselves, and in which they can explore and discover so many valuable life lessons.

It is so hard to describe in words the value of your first all day journey into the countryside with your brother or on your own, and what it taught you about yourself, your abilities, and your capacity for self-reliance.

 

[SomeRandom]

I think you're technically correct that kids are still raised by communities. But what kind of "communities"? How many communities today are safe enough to raise kids "free-range"? How many kids are safe wandering anywhere and everywhere they want to just so long as they're back by meal time?

I was doing that back in the 90s during the takeoff of helicopter parents, in a "rough" neighborhood, thanks to my friends' more lenient minded parents. It all depends on where you live and how "liberal" the parents are.

What I've seen nowadays are parents who guard their kids more closely than prison wardens. Who don't even allow them to walk to school alone, and who limit their contacts to people they know well and who are usually in official positions of responsibility such as babysitters, teachers, and tutors. That's all well and good, but I don't think it even begins to substitute for the valuable lessons a kid can learn freely interacting with his or her peers, older and younger children, and even adults.

Well with heightened awareness of sickos comes a heightened protectiveness, I suppose.

Plus, even though one might call today's social environments a "community" such communities are no where near as inclusive as the one I grew up in -- and that used to be much more common I know people in the suburbs today who have lived five or ten years next to families whose name they don't even know. They might or might not have a circle of friends at their church, but they don't know their neighbors. Such communities scarcely produce the sort of people who feel responsible for each other's children.

Again depends on where you live.

 

[Jumi]

You know there are good and bad communities, and the people within them also good and bad. I would have been better off if some of the folks who tried to "raise me" beside my parents had never said or done anything.

 

[Curious George]

So, are children best raised in and by communities? Is there anything essential that a community provides a kid with that cannot be so easily or efficiently provided by mom and pop alone? What, if anything, do you see as the advantages or benefits to being raised by a community?

Comments? Questions? Dire warnings Clinton -- Clinton who? -- might run again? Lonely tales of being dumped by true first loves? Fond memories of your kitten's first hairball?

This is not a topic that is as easy to tackle as it appears at first glance. While yes, a village should and to some extent does raise children, the distribution of power and authority are not so easily resolved. A child's parents are naturally in a position to receive such authority. Our system of laws is firmly designed around this concept. So we see that power passed to the child's guardians in the parents stead. Whole court cases are fought over this guardianship precisely because of the authority we do not argue over the little stuff but rather over guardianship which entails the authority to decide the little stuff.

When multiple individuals are involved there is disagreement. When there is disagreement we need a system to resolve that disagreement. Altering the distribution of authority would upset the current system. I see no better system to resolve disagreement. Do you?

But it is not really the system that you are challenging here. It seems that you are challenging the culture. But what exactly is it about the current culture that you are challenging? You haven't really laid bare any actual claims. We have some vague concept that more people should care. Well yeah, but that is true in almost all things. People should be more exposed? Less protected? If that is the thrust, then I would think it turns on how so. Should kids experience more violence? Should kids experience less supervision? Those are pretty general statements.

From your posts over the years, I would think that you are attacking the "mind your own f#cking business" mentality some people exhibit. This push towards isolationism in every aspect of life. And while I agree to some extent with challenging this concept, I think it is also important to note that the authority to decide for children must fall somewhere. It is a tragedy when a daughter won't let her mother see her grandchildren for instance. Sometimes, however, it is a tragedy when she does.

 

[Woberts]

she was advocating socialism, communism,

Only in America would that be a bad thing.

 

[Stevicus]

So, are children best raised in and by communities? Is there anything essential that a community provides a kid with that cannot be so easily or efficiently provided by mom and pop alone? What, if anything, do you see as the advantages or benefits to being raised by a community?

Comments? Questions? Dire warnings Clinton -- Clinton who? -- might run again? Lonely tales of being dumped by true first loves? Fond memories of your kitten's first hairball?

I think it makes a good deal of sense, although a lot of it depends on the parents and whatever community they're living in. At least for the sake of the kids, there needs to be some checks and balances, since the damage caused by bad or abusive parents can last a lifetime - and can even have a ripple effect throughout society or even the world.

Both Hitler and Stalin were raised by abusive parents. Think of how different the world might be today if someone had intervened and taken them away from those environments early enough and put them on a different path in life.

The idea that parents "own" their children and have absolute authority over them is an idea that must be abandoned at all costs.

 

[Curious George]

I think it makes a good deal of sense, although a lot of it depends on the parents and whatever community they're living in. At least for the sake of the kids, there needs to be some checks and balances, since the damage caused by bad or abusive parents can last a lifetime - and can even have a ripple effect throughout society or even the world.

Both Hitler and Stalin were raised by abusive parents. Think of how different the world might be today if someone had intervened and taken them away from those environments early enough and put them on a different path in life.

The idea that parents "own" their children and have absolute authority over them is an idea that must be abandoned at all costs.

While I understand your point, I think that the problem is overstated. There is a reason why we presume parents choices are in the best interest of their children. Who is in a better position to know the child's best interest? Who is likely to care more for the child?