Must Moms Be Everything to Their Kids?

No wonder the birth rate is going down. If I were a young woman today, I would think long and hard before setting out on the journey of birthing a child. [Of course, I’m not a young woman; I’m an old man. But one can imagine.]

Today, if you read what the “experts” say, parents (and you would usually not be mistaken to read that as "mothers") are supposed to not just feed, shelter, and comfort their offspring, but also be their conversation partners (even when they are newborns and have no idea what you are saying), playmates, security detail (guarding them always until they are, what, 12, 14, or 17 years old?), shuttle drivers (to and from school and all sorts of other “enrichment” activities), homework monitors, and on and on. You are either expected to do all that or, if you are rich enough, hire someone else to do it while you monitor that someone else in whatever ways you can to make sure they do it right. If anything goes wrong, it’s your fault.

The problem is, we’ve destroyed most of the child’s natural social world, so parents (moms) feel called upon to take on what others, in a normal human environment, would have taken on. I got to thinking about all this recently when I read a new article, by anthropologist Gabriel Scheidecker, entitled: "Parents, caregivers, and peers: Patterns of complementarity in the social world of children in rural Madagascar,” in Current Anthropology, Vol 64, #3.

Infant and Toddler Life in a Madagascar Village

Scheidecker’s research focused on the activities and social companions of children in their first three years of life in a subsistence farming village in Madagascar. Here is a summary of some of the major points he makes in the article:

• For the first six months of life, the children were in close proximity to their mothers in more than 60 percent of the observations. This was short-lived, however. The 2- and 3-year-olds on average spent 90 percent of their daylight time out of sight of their mother.
• Mothers unanimously explained that their exclusive capacity to breastfeed their own children was the only reason for their prominent role in their children’s first few months of life. They considered weaning, usually at the end of the second year, as the end of their special role.
• Even while being held and nursed by their mother, infants were far more likely to be looking at and amused by other children in their vicinity than to be looking at their mother. Other children were nearly always around.
• Beginning around age 15 months, all the toddlers had regular caregivers who themselves were children, anywhere from 6 to 18 years old, though most often between 10 and 14. These were usually siblings or cousins of the cared-for toddler.
• Mothers and other caregivers described care purely in physical terms. Their job was to feed and calm the child, to promote physical growth. When Scheidecker tried to get mothers to talk about their role in the child’s mental development, they would deny any role. In their view, children’s minds “develop well enough without their help, as children play and explore the world around them with other children, who are constantly around and naturally interested in play.”
• Although the adults recognized the value of play for children’s mental growth, they viewed play as entirely the children’s activity. They did not play with children or create special play settings or toys for them, and did not intervene in children’s play. As an illustration of how independent even the very young children were in play, Scheidecker gives the following description of a scene he observed of little children playing on a door lying on the ground over something that served as a fulcrum: “The six children were between 1 and 4 years old and related by kinship. They took turns jumping on one side of the door in order to rock the children sitting opposite. They laughed together, occasionally looked at each other, and exchanged words. After a while a 10-month-old boy came by and was invited by his 3-year-old brother to join in. Although he was obviously attracted by what he saw, he did not dare take a seat on the makeshift seesaw. Except for me, no adult was around— and no one had purposefully created this seesaw. As in this case, the partners in egalitarian interactions were hardly equals, given variations in age and competency. Yet their participation, even of the 10-month-old, depended on their own agency, and their interactions followed a reciprocal pattern. Playing jointly with objects, communicating face-to-face, and laughing together all imply reciprocity through sharing or turn taking.”
• Toddlers made little use of language and were emotionally restrained with parents or other adults, or even with older children in the context of care from those children, but they were very talkative and emotionally expressive--of the whole range of emotions--with other children in play.

Scheidecker concludes from his observations that among these people caregivers and peers have very different but complementary roles in a child’s development. Caregivers provide what the child needs to grow physically, but children provide what the child needs for all the rest of growth—cognitive, linguistic, social, and emotional.

Can We Find a Middle Way?

The social group that Scheidecker studied represents an extreme on the dimension of little reliance on parents and great reliance on natural interactions among children in children’s development. It is more extreme in this way than most other indigenous societies that I have read about. It is more extreme than I personally would desire, and my guess is that the same is true for you.

I presented this work not to illustrate the ideal arrangement but to illustrate how amazingly competent children are in supporting one another’s development when given the opportunity. Children really are much better play partners for children—and thereby facilitators of one another’s cognitive, linguistic, social, and emotional development—than are we adults. My own desire for more social interaction with my child is probably selfish. I would want it even if my child didn't need it. But our culture has gone way too far in the direction of relying on adults and excluding peers from children’s social lives. What we have done is harmful to children and parents alike.

In our culture today—more so than has ever been true in the past anywhere—children are deprived of a world of other children. Almost the only place where they are in contact with other children (aside from siblings, and many don’t have siblings) is in school and other adult-controlled settings where their freedom to interact in their own ways with one another is suppressed. As I have expounded upon elsewhere, I am convinced that our adult domination of children and exclusion of them from freedom with peers is a major cause of the high rates of anxiety and depression among children today.

Some years ago, I met a young woman who had come to the United States from a rural community in Kenya at age 16. She told me that the first impression she had of the U.S. is how unhappy the children are compared to those in the impoverished village in Kenya she had left. “They are all on leashes here,” she said. “Nobody wants to be on a leash.”

Something to think about.

---------

And now, what do you think about this? … This blog is, in part, a forum for discussion. Your questions, thoughts, stories, and opinions are treated respectfully by me and other readers, regardless of the degree to which we agree or disagree. Psychology Today no longer accepts comments on this site, but you can comment by going to my Facebook timeline, where you will see a link to this post. If you don't see this post near the top, just put the title of the post into the search option (click on the three-dot icon at the top of the timeline and then on the search icon that appears in the menu) and it will come up. By following me on Facebook you can comment on all of my posts and see others' comments. The discussion is often very interesting.