Monday, February 28, 2011

TV and Internet and Video Games, Oh My!

We used to be (almost) TV-free. My girls had a handful of videos that they could watch, and they could occasionally get on the computer to play a few games or watch educational online videos, but we had no cable and screen-time was very limited. It was a nice time. 

Now we're the opposite - free-with-TV - and it's still a nice time.

I don't regulate my children's use of media - the computer, cable television, and video games are all there for them to access. There are some built-in limitations, mostly those that come with having five children and two adults in the home, all sharing those resources. I do advise my children if something is going to be something that might be too intense for one or more of them; I also don't give my X-Box loving 4 yo free access to the rated M games. I talk to my kids about the shows and movies they watch and about the games they play. Sometimes I sit with them and watch their shows and play their games.  

I've read the points of view on why media is damaging and shouldn't be a part of kids' lives. I've read why it's harmful if it's not carefully regulated, and why it should be limited and controlled for our kids to be healthy and well-adjusted. TV viewing and video games have been linked to physical, social, emotional, cognitive, and social problems, and it is no wonder to me when parents decide to take their children's media exposure very seriously.

Obviously, I care if my children are physically, mentally, and psychologically well. I want them to grow in their full potential, with nothing hindering that. Choosing to not control their media use isn't because I'm too lazy to enforce the rules, or because I'm too afraid they won't "like me" anymore. And it's definitely not because I don't really care how they turn out.

(A little after-bath couch time)

It's like anything else: I watch my kids. If something isn't working, we work to change it. If it is working, then it doesn't really matter what anyone else thinks, or if that doesn't work in their family. I can't parent my children in the shadow of fear of what might happen when they're teenagers, and ultimately most of the strictures against media call on that fear. I can't assume the worst of my kids' teen years, and make parenting decisions now based on that. The idea is that if, for instance, I don't control my son's video gaming now when he's so little and impressionable, in 10 years he might be an antisocial, and possibly violent, recluse who is so addicted to video games that he suffers in all areas of his life, and is not on the path to becoming a functioning, engaged member of society. He won't have any other interests or abilities. His health will suffer. He will not have a relationship with me or anyone else, because the games will dominate his world; his brain will have been hardwired the wrong way. If I don't regulate my daughters' media, they will grow to be shallow, materialistic, gullible, desperate consumers, obsessed with external appearances and peer-focused; unable to make moral judgments, and unable to separate themselves from the peer group.

Which is, of course, not what I want for my sons and daughters. I want them to be able to both function well in society and question its trappings and mores. I want them to be able to have healthy relationships, and a solid core identity. If I thought that media exposure truly did take that from them, I would limit or remove it as needed. 

When we first began to allow more media into our lives, I had doubts and fears. I made a conscious decision to watch my children. To - as much as I was able - remove the judgments that I had and to simply see what it was for them.

So, we watch TV. We watch videos and play games on the computer. We listen to music. We watch movies. We play video games. We read books and magazines, play with dolls and blocks and action figures, we glue construction paper together and decorate it with glitter, we wrestle and chase and run and jump. We cook, we talk, we play, we live.

In any given day, it's almost like the house is made of "stations." The children float between the TV and the computer and different types of play. They engage in activities or games as a group, in pairs, and alone. Sometimes they choose to do activities that are considered to be "educational" and activities that are "play" or "just fun." I watch them, and rather than being headed toward the antisocial teen boy and shallow teen girl, what I see unfolding is quite different. 

I've watched my son work through to self-regulation on the video games. It took a long time, longer than many parents anticipate. But he's not-quite-five, and he is able to shut down the game when he's done, he's able to have fun doing other things, and he's able to negotiate the niceties of sharing the screen with his siblings. He's becoming quite considerate. He plays a considerable amount of video games each day, and I imagine that another parent would say that because of that, he has not learned to self-regulate. My belief is, that just because his self-regulation didn't result in playing 1 hour or less, doesn't mean it's not self-regulation. 

That's where releasing our own expectations and judgments comes into play. That doesn't mean not wanting what's best for our kids, and it doesn't mean abdicating our own moral responsibilities as parents. It does mean becoming aware of our assumptions, and learning to be objective about them. One assumption - one that feels like concrete fact - is that video game playing, unless it is blatantly edutainment, is a less valid way to spend time than reading a book, playing with toys, or doing somersaults. Any of those activities is a more desirable way for a child to spend his time, and any time playing video games is time away from more worthwhile pursuits. It's junk food; those other things are real nutrition. This assumption seems sound; it seems to be based firmly in research and in the experiences and perceptions of parents near and far.

But is it? The premise of unschooling, whatever variations it takes, is that children will learn what they need to learn, when they need to learn it. It isn't that they will learn what we think they need to know, when we think they need to know it. If we enter into unschooling with that expectation, then it is almost inevitable that you will end up saying: "Unschooling just didn't work for us. He didn't learn on his own." Unschooling is predicated on trust in the ability of the child to learn - and in their drive to absorb, assimilate, and organize information. In their inborn inherent need to make sense of the world around them and their place in it. 

In some ways, this means that we need to be very careful about the messages we send our children about themselves, other people, their community, and the world they live in. Because they take in that information, and build the framework for all other learning with it. This is one of the priorities of many parents who choose to limit or eliminate media access for their children; they don't want the messages of commercialism, violence, and other things that are contrary to their values to be what their children internalize.

I choose instead to see my relationship with my children as their foundation, the values I model and share with them as the lens through which they will process the images, through which they will make choices about what they want in their lives and how much.  Rather than being a copout, this puts a great deal of responsibility on me (and my husband) to do the internal work necessary to ensure that the framework I am giving them is built on the messages I want them to take into their being and build the rest of their lives on.

I believe that if a child learns that they are worthy of compassion and able to give compassion, that they are respected as an autonomous individual and valued as an integral and irreplaceable part of the family unit, that interpersonal problems can be solved with communication, that connection is a priority over material concerns, then they can admire Hannah Montana's sparkly wardrobe, laugh at the banter on iCarly, and play Lego Batman on the X-box without compromising their core beliefs about themselves and others. They learn these things from how they are treated by us, and how they see us treat others. They learn them from discussions with us, and seeing how we live our lives. The choices we make teach them how to make choices. 

Once I became less convinced that my children's moral and ethical development wasn't going to be derailed by media, I challenged my belief that even if it wasn't intrinsically harmful, it was a waste of time that could be better spent on other pursuits. As a lifelong avid reader, it was incomprehensible to me that watching some random television show could possibly be as valid as reading anything. Any reading would be a more worthy pursuit than any media, to my thinking. But again, this comes back to those assumptions, that I believed deeply. 

When I took that step back from that thinking, and decided to trust that my children would learn and grow if allowed to follow their interests, wherever they may lie, I found over time that learning takes many forms. My daughter learned to read, partly in the usual "phonics readers" way, but also beginning with learning to type BARBIE into the search engine and making her way to following along with scrolling Hannah Montana lyrics on YouTube. All my children use the cable television menu to choose programs, they figure out unfamiliar words on video games. When I was convinced that TV-free was ideal, I would have looked at that as less-than, as "fake" learning. I'm amused at that now - that I would have thought that using media to learn to read was wrong and, somehow, not as valuable. 

From media, as well as from books and workbooks, as well as from living in a world that is saturated in words and numbers, where reading and calculations are part of regular life, they learn. When they follow their interests, and have access to a rich environment that supports them in that interest, they will learn. Sometimes the learning is academic. Sometimes it's social, sometimes its intrapersonal. Sometimes it's physical. Sometimes it looks like what we expect learning to look like; sometimes we have to take it on faith that learning is happening, even if it doesn't look like it. 

So I watch my children.

If at some point it begins to be a negative force for anyone in our home, we will address that then. In the meantime, they are creative, active, connected, caring, affectionate, inquisitive, funny little people. I would not suggest that having free access to media has made them more delightful than they would have been otherwise, but I will say without hesitation that it certainly has not hindered any aspect of their development. If we didn't have media, I have no doubt that they would still be their wonderful selves. But we do have media, and we do value it, and we have found it to bring a lot of enjoyment and information into our lives. I enjoy what it brings - even the video games - just as I enjoy the books and crafts and toys and games and activities that enrich our lives. It's a tool, among many, that allows us to investigate our interests, interact with each other, connect with the larger world, discover new fascinations, explore other points of view, address tough and complex issues, be inspired by the creativity and ingenuity of others, as well as enjoy entertainment.  

So far, so good.

2 comments:

  1. I followed you up until "glitter." Glitter is the devil in a sparkly package that will infiltrate every crevice of your home, your body, your mind.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Okay, maybe the glitter was a bad call. You make a valid point. :-)

    ReplyDelete