Scott Hardie | August 27, 2001
We're reading Willa Cather's O Pioneers! in one of my lit classes, and the protagonist, Alexandra Bergson, is forced to grow up too fast because she is the oldest child on a poor farm and must supervise her siblings. We were analyzing a quote from the book, 'There's still a bit of the child left in people who had to grow up too fast,' that describes the usually serious Alexandra (at 24) displaying some spontaneous playfulness. This quote caused the teacher to go off on an angry tangent about how there's no such thing as childhood.

I don't know how old my teacher is and I'm not even going to speculate, but she said that when she grew up, prior to the 1950s, children had to do as much work in the household as parents did. Girls were expected to do domestic work in the house, and boys were expected to do yardwork outside. Once the fifties came and the child became the focus of the family, this changed, and children were expected to grow up with many hours of play-time each day and few chores (if any). My teacher did not object to the notion of childhood being a time of innocence, but instead to the notion of childhood being a time of playfulness. She said that it's a myth that children are naturally playful, and that we impose the notion of playfulness upon them, as well as the notion that play-time is important.

I don't care for some of my teacher's opinions (and the way that she launches into them with vitriol and interrupts whichever student is speaking), but I couldn't help but ruminate over this one today. Do we give children too much time to play? Do they deserve it? Does it harm them or help them or neither? I'd never thought about it before.

My initial conclusions are that play-time and chores are both important. If I had been given any chores at all when I was a kid, I think I'd be a lot more responsible now. I intend to give my kids chores and let them earn their allowances instead of getting it for free. But play-time is also important in the same way that playground equipment is important, because kids have a lot of energy (in this case, creative and physical) to work out of their systems, and they should be given a chance to do so. If nothing else, the fact that O Pioneers! was published in 1913, well before the 1950s, and argues in favor of childhood playfulness, shoots a hole in my teacher's theory.


Want to participate? Please create an account a new account or log in.


Other Discussions Started by Scott Hardie

Pixels Perfect

The World Video Game Hall of Fame just announced its first six inductees: Pong, Pac-Man, Super Mario Bros., Go »

Trillions

The most experience any of us has with a bank error is drawing that community chest card in Monopoly. But one poor guy got an automated letter from his bank saying that he owed $211,010,028,257,303.00. Go »

That Damn Eel

Two neat things I read today about video games: Computer games are effective for treating phobias. That's neat, and it's no surprise to me: I used to have a fear of swimming in deep bodies of water, which made me anxious that some unseen creature would r Go »

Help Me Keep My Cat

This is a plea for advice from other cat owners. When I moved in here two months ago, I started catching my three-year-old cat urinating under the dining table. Go »

Critical Consensus

EW's critic Owen Gleiberman wrote a clever article this week about whether film critics subconsciously seek consensus, especially for "bad" movies. I enjoyed Gleiberman's sense of humor, but as for his main idea, I think the Internet may be the one major Go »

28 Thoughts on Michael Jackson

There's an excellent deconstruction of Michael Jackson's celebrity by Hank Stuever of the Washington Post. (article here) Stuever says the things we've all thought for years, under the surface. Go »