Commercialisation of Childhood - 09/06/07
COMMERCIALISATION OF CHILDHOOD: WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
Imagine a child sitting in front of the TV watching an ad. Behind the screen are perhaps 30 adults: actors, child psychologists, behaviourists, musicians, financiers working for 6 months to craft a message to seduce the child. Note the passive role assigned to the child. It is clear that things are unbalanced; that the adults are not interested in the child’s welfare and that we need controls.
Recently I saw another child playing on the beach alone. For a whole hour she devoted her attention to a half a tree which had been washed up: first it was a monster she dragged around; finally it became a ship which she took into the waves and launched. This child was transforming the natural world with her own imagination.
Which picture do you prefer; the passive child or the active child?
I believe we can do something about this. The situation is not inevitable. It is worth taking time to think and reflect.
Advertising is a bit like an old smoke stack industry, it creates social environmental pollution which should be controlled at source.
This is an international phenomenon – with international capital behind it.
Naomi Klein, the author of No Logo, looked at how this phenomenon took off in the early 1990s.
As she says; “The quest for cool is by nature riddled with self doubt (‘is this cool?’ one can hear the legions of teen shoppers nervously quizzing each other’ Do you think this is lame?’”)
Even The Wall Street Journal runs articles on how wide legged jeans or mini-backpacks affects the stock market.
When something is described as a global phenomenon, this often leads to despair. But the recent Unicef report shows that child wellbeing in rich countries varies hugely.
The Netherlands and Sweden came top with the US and UK bottom of the OECD rankings. And the US and UK fared particularly badly on material well-being; family and peer relationships, behaviours and risks and subjective well-being.
It is difficult not to think that the cultural environment has something to do with these problems. The famed ‘Anglo-Saxon’ economic model does not seem to deliver for children and should be contrasted with Sweden – a country where TV advertising to children has been banned for years.
I believe commercialisation of childhood is pernicious and contributes to the following problems:
(1) Stress, unhappiness, low self-esteem and poor mental health
(2) The sexualisation of children, especially girls and unnecessary gender stereotyping
(3) The obesity epidemic – the marketing of unhealthy snacks, drinks and food
(4) Excessive amounts of time spent on sedentary, screen based pursuits and the loss of outdoor free play opportunities
(5) Deteriorating family and peer relationships with excessive competitiveness, envy and pestering
(6) The experience of poverty is more acute for those living on low incomes in an apparent world of plenty.
So what has been done?
(1) A voluntary ban on TV ads of HFSS foods during programmes watched mainly by children
(2) Improve facilities and support for parents of young children. Longer maternity leave and pay and right to request flexible hours if you child is under 6
(3) £155m of Lottery money for playgrounds.
What is needed?
Comprehensive policies in 3 areas
(1) Protecting children from all forms of adverts, including a TV ban up to the watershed.
(2) Recognition that outdoor play is essential for every child and provision to watch
(3) More time for parents to spend with children.
Over the past 6 months with the support of Compass a group of voluntary sector organisations working with children and parents has set out a Charter for Change and today I am writing to Gordon Brown asking him to look at these for the new government.
I hope you will consider signing.
