Every few months, some public interest group or another highlights something most of us realize. Children live in a more violent world these days. It's not that the town they live in is more dangerous. But, since children tend to view the world through their imaginations, when the things that fuel their imaginations are more violent, their world is more violent.
Movies and music are more violent. There are more violent images, and those images are themselves more graphic. At the same time, that violence is more meaningless and random. The increase in violence in video games is off the charts. A generation ago people played "Pong" and "Space Invaders"; now it's "first person shooters" whose major purpose is to splatter as much realistic blood and guts across the screen as possible.
Interest groups that study the environment in which children grow up find themselves desperate for answers. There are few simple ones. A media columnist reported on one group's attempt to Do Something. "[C]oalition leaders acknowledged that 'legislation is rarely a perfect solution' – and yet they pressed for changes to the laws."
Changes, the columnist was probably correct to point out, that would almost certainly be ineffective. And what would be effective? Antonia Zerbisias wrote, "[T]he solution lies in one place alone." New paragraph for emphasis. "The power switch." Another new paragraph for emphasis. "You have the power." One more new paragraph for emphasis. "Use it."
I dispute the connection between the power switch and the power. The best illustration of that was at a conference a couple of months after one of Madonna's more outrageous creations was published. "How many of you are aware of Madonna's latest project?" the speaker asked the assembled parents and teachers. Dozens of hands — representing almost everyone in the room — went up. "How many of you are aware of it because you sought out information about it?" Only a couple of hands stayed up.
We don't have to turn on the power switch to pull the objectionable stuff into our families. It's so pervasive in culture, it pushes its way in uninvited. The solution lies in another place, one more difficult to reach than the power switch or the halls of government.
It lies in claiming the best meaning of the proverb "It takes a village to raise a child." Once we knew that meaning. Adults endured restrictions and inconveniences for the sake of children. Magazines were inconveniently stored behind counters. Etiquette kept us on our toes regarding deeds and words when children were present. There were many things in the "you can't do that on television" file.
Gradually life changed. "I'm entitled to my rights of self-expression." "When did
your kids become
my problem?" "Who do you think you are to stigmatize the things I choose to read?" Society became less concerned with the environment in which children were growing up and more concerned with maximizing the choices and options for adults.
Perhaps the best example of this is in efforts to regulate content on the Internet. Courts will not permit any regulation that encumbers adult access whatever adults want access to, no matter what the effect on children. And so the village has rejected its responsibility for its children.
We need to reclaim the best meaning of "it takes a village to raise a child." It's not a rationale for more government programs. It is a recognition that all the various choices we make affect the vulnerable children around us. It means we need to be willing to give up some things and endure a little inconvenience for the sake of the children.
If we can't make that choice in this generation, how will we live in the next?
