Screen Time: Not Inherently Bad for Kids
Thursday, June 04, 2020
At Let Grow, Tracy Tomasso urges parents to stop flagellating themselves and shaming others for letting their kids have "screen time."
Indeed.Broadly dismissing kids' screen time as "bad" fails to recognize the utility these devices have become and the acceptable offline pastimes they've replaced. We wouldn't think to demand our children spend less time reading, or looking at photo albums, or finding out what frogs eat. Rather than condemning screens outright, we ought to be having a more nuanced dialogue. Let's look at the things our children are doing with them... [bold added]
Image by Annie Spratt, via Unsplash, license.
Back in Baltimore, my wife worked long hours (especially when she was on call) and had a long commute. I had little choice but to lean harder on screen devices than I really wanted to. But I never became too worried about it. For one thing, I noticed that the kids didn't just passively stare at them forever: They'd get bored or interested in something else eventually. For another, I noticed they'd learn things from them. Many kids' shows are educational, and I'd hear my vocal son shouting out answers all the time, back then. (And no, I wasn't telling him what to watch or do.)
In fact, that continues now. For a recent example out of many: My son was listening to a simplified explanation of DNA on YouTube the other day. (He searches for and learns about things he's curious about this way all the time.) In fact, my main "worry" with him is of having my thunder stolen, as happened during our recent visit with my in-laws, who have a place on a beach.
A prop plane flew overhead, reminding me of the Wright Brothers, so I pointed it out to my son as an example of what most planes used to be like. Then, I attempted to tell him about the Wright Brothers, and how people would laugh at them because they thought the idea that heavier-than-air machines could fly was stupid.
"I already know about that," he said.
"Really? How?"
I watched a show about them on YouTube.
For a brief instant, I felt wistful, but that quickly passed, and I smiled a little at the thought: It's really neat that my son is so curious and is learning about things like this on his own.
Sure, he watches his share of what I might dismiss as junk, but I see many of the lessons of Steven Johnson's Wonderland here: Play and the pursuit of delight are crucially important to human development (and on many scales at that). Most people would cheer the educational content, but I wouldn't stop there. I think that includes some of the "junk:" I often see him honing his aesthetic judgement and his sense of humor with some of that.
I sure am glad we had these devices when I was alone most evenings with my very young children, and I'm glad we have them now.
Dare I say it? Screen time can actually be good for children.
-- CAV
2 comments:
The emphasis on educational content is one of my pet peeves. The emphasis on teaching children has overtaken the concept of entertainment in children's programming, meaning that children are not taught to appreciate art. From an early age they are taught that "good" art (movies, TV, music, books) is art that emphasizes the message over the story. In other words, they are taught PROPAGANDA is the proper role of art!!
I remember watching "Darkwing Duck" as a kid. My older sister and I loved the show (it's still entertaining), and would talk about it. Darkwing is a hero, but only because heroes get better press than bad guys. He's in it to inflate his ego, and to have the public adore him. Is that heroic or vile? Does the fact that he saves people trump his reasons (and are his reasons good or bad)? Pretty deep stuff for a kid's show! This, among other things, led us to ethical philosophy; I remember several of our discussions as teenagers including Aristotle and Plato. Drove my mother nuts, because we were young and passionate and tended to throw reference books at one another over obscure bits of philosophy she'd never heard of.
The point, though, is that we were allowed to find our own path. The show never answers the question, or even addresses it beyond playing it for laughs. We had the freedom to explore these ideas, and to play with them. This lead us both into a much wider world.
Contrast that with much of children's TV today. The message is clear. Doesn't matter what the message is (though it's always leaning far Left)--the problem is that the kids don't get a choice. They can't explore, or form their own opinions. They accept what they're told, and that's the end of it.
Legos were similar. My sister had Barbies, I had Legos. We wanted to play together. This lead to complex and nuanced discussions of race relations and how to address people who have clear physical differences (such as disabled people) rationally and with compassion. No one had to tell us this; it was a natural consequence of Lego people being 1/16 the size of the average Barbie doll. If someone had told us "Now you need to address the difference in income between these classes of people" we'd have gotten bored out of our minds. But if it came up in play, we'd address it whole-hog (the history of the Ford Motor Company was our favorite source for those discussions).
G. K. Chesterton made the argument that Penny Dreadfulls were good because they were (in modern terms, not his) a low-cost point of entry into the world of literature. The stories weren't good; they were churned out for kids to read. But they got kids reading. If your goal is "Get kids to read" you write books kids want to read, and as a teacher gradually steer them towards deeper and more meaningful works. Similarly, TV, movies, and games for children should entertain first and foremost, as that provides a point of entry into these forms of art. And art serves, for many, as a point of entry into philosophy as such.
Combining the two--education and entertainment--is of course good. I have no problem with Octonauts, for example. The story is good, it shows examples of clear leadership and times when leadership must be questioned, and the educational aspects are delivered, not as propaganda, but as elements of the story. This is exactly what Vern did in his sci-fi works; as long as it adds to the story, new facts are all to the good. But the story has to come first.
Sorry. I'll stop ranting now....
Dinwar,
Yes. Although I am glad my son seeks out educational material, I am with you on the need so many people apparently feel to "educate" kids 24/7. They need to explore on their own, and I am glad mine do.
My daughter loved Octonauts and still occasionally watches them. She also introduced me to SpongeBob SquarePants, which my son and I like.
I really like that story about the Legos and the Barbies. That is exactly how I hop my kids grow into discussing the kinds of issues they brought up for you and your sister.
Gus
Post a Comment