In all species, the play of the young is practice for the essential survival tasks of the adults. Human children play at many things, but the most important is the play of culture. Out of sight of adults, children learn and practice the rhymes, rituals, and institutions of their own culture, distinct from that of adults.
The Western child today is mostly kept inside his own home, associating with other children only in highly structured, adult-supervised settings such as school and sports teams. It was not always so. Throughout history, bands of children gathered and roamed city streets and countrysides, forming their own societies each with its own customs, legal rules and procedures, parodies, politics, beliefs, and art. With their rhymes, songs, and symbols, they created and elaborated the meaning of their local landscape and culture, practicing for the adult work of the same nature. We are left with only remnants and echoes of a once-magnificent network of children’s cultures, capable of impressive feats of coordination.
Iona and Peter Opie conducted an immense study of the children’s cultures of the British Isles. The Lore and Language of Schoolchildren (1959) is comparable in richness to Walter Evans-Wenz’ The Fairy-Faith in Celtic Countries (1911) on the fairy faiths, or to Alan Lomax’ collections of American and European folk music.
These children of the recent past observed what the Opies call a “code of oral legislation” – cultural institutions for testing truthfulness, swearing affirmation, making bets and bargains, and determining the ownership of property – the adult legal code in miniature. These codes universally included a subject absent from adult law, however – that of asking for respite, what we recognize as “calling time out,” and what today’s children reportedly call “pause,” a usage imported from video games.
They had call-and-response shibboleths and rhymes about Mickey Mouse and Shirley Temple, but they also performed the rites of a calendar full of ancient meaning. In the northern countryside, they wore oak apples or oak leaves in their buttonholes on May 29 to commemorate the escape of Charles II – on pain of being whipped with nettles by other children. In the south, however, the children spent October preparing bonfires and making elaborate “guys” – effigies for burning on Guy Fawkes Day.
These children’s cultures recognized the existence of terrible monsters, and they were able to organize against these threats. In 1954, “hundreds of children in the Gorbals district of Glasgow were reported to have stormed a local cemetery, hunting for a ‘vampire with iron teeth.’ According to press reports at the time, they said that the vampire had ‘killed and eaten two wee boys.'” (Sandy Hobbs and David Cornwell, “Hunting the Monster with Iron Teeth,” in Perspectives on Contemporary Legend Vol. III, 1988). This incident was one of at least eight “hunts,” documented in newspaper articles and interviews, from the 1930s and continuing until the 1980s. Hundreds, or in one case thousands, of children participated in monster hunts that often lasted several nights – militias called up not just against the vampire with iron teeth, but also against such characters as Springheeled Jack, an unnamed banshee, and ghosts known as the “White Lady” and the “Grey Lady.” Adults in 1954 blamed horror movies and horror comics for the vampire hunt (much as video games would be blamed today), but Hobbs and Cornwell trace the children’s adversary back much further. Nineteenth-century parents (and perhaps generations before them) had threatened their misbehaving children with the fearsome Kinderschreck known as “Jenny wi’ the airn teeth,” and her characteristic dentition is displayed by ancient bogeymen from Yorkshire (Tom Dockin) to Russia (Baba Yaga).
In order to develop and express their culture and achieve such feats of coordination, children require time and space apart from adult supervision. In the West today, outside of tiny pockets, this independence is almost exclusively the prerogative of poor children surrounded by crumbling cultures that lack the will to monitor and protect them. Groups of these children still attempt organization and armed resistance (Act Two, “Your Name Written On Me”) to protect themselves from ubiquitous violence when adults refuse to do so.
Outside of pockets of extreme deprivation, children’s society is severely restricted by our practice of placing children under the equivalent of house arrest. In only three generations, children in the British Isles as well as the United States have lost their freedom to roam, their independently explorable territories shrinking from hundreds of acres to the dimensions of each child’s own back yard. This is not an accusation toward parents; their decisions reflect their judgments about their children’s safety in the world. Specifically, parents judge that there is no community beyond their doors that they can rely on to keep their children safe. Christopher Alexander’s Pattern 57: Children in the City (A Pattern Language) states that “If children are not able to explore the whole of the adult world around them, they cannot become adults. But modern cities are so dangerous that children cannot be allowed to explore them freely.” Unfortunately, this has become the case not just in large cities, but in small towns and even rural areas.
As a result, children’s society has less and less to do with the land around them – land which, anyway, they are unlikely to occupy when they become adults in our hypermobile society. Children’s society exists on the internet if at all, with raids in video games and chat rooms replacing geographically colocated monster hunts. (This is increasingly the case with adult society as well, which also lacks architectural and geographic support.) It should be noted that the internet is not the cause of these problems. Rather, the internet is the precarious reservation onto which culture has been driven, bleak and uncanny, inhuman in scale. And even the internet is increasingly monitored and reshaped by the same malignant tiling system that drove culture here in the first place. What will happen to culture when even this frontier is closed?
The failure of adult culture, both its physical architecture and its social institutions, has impoverished children’s culture. And in return, children no longer avidly train, in their play, to take over the burden of preserving and remaking adult culture. Somewhere a child alone in his room, wearing headphones, is fighting Jenny wi the airn teeth, a computer-controlled enemy in a video game. But perhaps at least it is a multiplayer game, and he has his fellows with him.
Readings
Barry, Linda. The Greatest of Marlys.
Opie, Iona and Peter. The Lore and Language of Schoolchildren.
Carcinisation 
[CITATION NEEDED]
http://news.discovery.com/human/psychology/stranger-child-abductions-actually-very-rare-130514.htm
You are giving the parents far, far too much credit here. If children aren’t allowed to play alone outside, the problem is that their parents are superstitious cowards, full stop.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Don’t just think about abduction by private citizens; think about abduction by the government. My unschooler friends live in fear that the government will take their children, and their fears are not groundless. Even something as minor as taking their kids to the doctor risks abduction. Many children have been abducted by the government because the parents allowed them excessive freedom as determined by cultural norms.
LikeLiked by 1 person
(Still, I think it IS the case that there actually is no community beyond the nuclear family watching out for kids.)
LikeLike
(Also: Rotherham. Not exactly stranger abductions, but clearly barriers to maximally knowledgeable, caring parents letting kids run free nonetheless.)
LikeLike
Correction, they are superstitious busybody cowards, who not only don’t want their kids alone outside but are willing to retaliate against parents who do allow this, often by involving law enforcement. This makes it very hard to defect from the consensus of keeping kids Safe at all times, even if they agree factually with you.
The weird thing is that the busybody attitude doesn’t extend to actually looking after kids as they wander the neighbourhoods, or to keeping them in line if they misbehave elsewhere. If my kid is in the next street causing trouble, the neighbours there will EITHER ignore it or call the police, but they’d never think of yelling at him. Since there is no even broad consensus on appropriate discipline, they don’t know how I would react to their ministrations, so the safest thing is to “mind their own business”, and failing that, call the cops – very little middle ground.
Also worth noting how pedestrian-unfriendly modern cities tend to be, and how few spaces kids have to be out of sight of adults (forests, etc.).
LikeLiked by 3 people
Stranger abduction is obviously not the only concern. Traffic is much heavier than it was in previous decades and, thanks to mobile devices, drivers are much more likely to be distracted. Rabid animals are much more common than stranger abductions. (As are abductions by non-strangers, come to think of it.) Children in urban areas are sometimes gunned down in crossfires resulting from gang rivalries. Other children might be considered a danger, especially since children who are wandering around unsupervised at this point in history likely do so as a result of a dysfunctional family environment and thus might be perceived as more prone to violence.
None of which is to argue that parents aren’t cowards. But the assumption that stranger abduction is the number one concern is a straw man as far as I can tell.
The question of whether such parents are superstitious is an interesting one. We use the word “superstitious” to describe people who buy into cultural narratives that we don’t believe; but our own cultural narratives would likely strike others as superstitions. I’d argue that people who get their cultural narratives from cable news are no more or less superstitious than anyone else, although their superstitions may be less useful for navigating reality than, say, superstitions about faery folk.
Also I see no harm in being charitable when it doesn’t really affect the conclusion of the argument. The sort of emotionalism that causes people to resort to pejoratives like “superstitious cowards” isn’t, in my opinion, particularly useful for understanding the motivations of other people.
LikeLiked by 1 person
these kids are playing at and being trained for their adult roles within this culture, that of individual (passive?) consumer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It should be the natural thing for parents to invest part of their free time and go to nature and explore it with their children. It’s part of parents duty, full stop.
Nature is not necessary harmful it can be, on the contrary, a harm relieve for both, the parent and the child. Nature is every where it is a matter of searching a bit and willing to share with our children. Parenthood is a demanding and very often not accounted job, but it is paradoxically the most important job for whom have decided to have children. Not allowing our kids to roam is like not doing our duty in the job place.The big difference is that in the job place we will be fired whereas our children will never ever fire us, they always love and seek for us. Sometimes we take that for granted! My kids are already big ones but I did devote lots of time taking care they could gather outside and hunt their monsters in the wild with me being seemingly present; hiding somewhere behind the woods while they were confronting their fears developing courage and strength which they now use in their adult life.
LikeLike
Fascinating! As terrifying as mobs are, there’s something tremendously inspiring about kids uniting against a common threat and self-organizing to take proactive measures.
LikeLike
Why do we fear mobs? Because we’ve been fed cultural narratives that they form to target enlightened but powerless people like medicine women (“she’s a witch!”) or backyard inventors (Frankenstein). I’ve been part of many group mobilizations that could be described as “mobs” and the target was never powerless individuals, but powerful institutions that can’t safely challenged or fought as an individual or small group (eg the WTO).
One person’s “mob” is a another person’s (or group of people’s) political participation. In some ways, the key practical difference between a dictatorship and a democracy is whether or not the people can riot without getting shot at. Open revolt being open as a final channel of appeal if all other attempts to make representatives actually represent have failed. By this criteria, the US is no more a democracy than Russia or China. Food for thought.
LikeLike