GUEST EDITORIAL
Doing Your Own Thing--Our Undoing Urie Bronfenbrenner, PhD CorneU University
There are many forces in our contemporary American society t h a t shape a child into an adult. But, at least at the beginning, almost all of them arise from, or are mediated by, the institution that bears primary responsibility for the care and quality of the next generation-the family. In recent decades, the American family has been falling apart. It is also becoming disconnected from the rest of society. Since World War II there has been progressive fragmentation and isolation for the family in its child rearing role. More and more mothers are going to work, but also significant is the fact that the extended families, those with adults other than parents, have been decreasing. But even more pronounced is the shrinkage in the so-called nuclear family, consisting of mother, father, and children. Today, more than one in every six children under eighteen is living in a single-parent family. A significant c o m p o n e n t in the growth of single-parent families has been a sharp rise in the number of y o u n g women who are postponing marriage but are having children nevertheless. It is unfortunate that statistics at a national level on the state of the child are neither as comprehensive nor as complete as those on the state of the family. In our census data, it is the taxpayer who counts, and gets counted. The available data, however, do suggest a pattern t h a t strikingly parallels the trend observed for changes in the family. This article is reprinted from M D Magazine, March 1977, with permission of MD Publications, Inc., New York, New York. Child Psychiatry and Human Development
Vol. 8(1), Fall 1977
3
4
Child Psychiatry and Human Development
Ironically, many of the trends find their strongest expression in the institutions of society bearing primary responsibility for the preparation of children for participation in adult society--the nation's schools. School vandalism is now as American as apple pie. Irrational Involvement In order to develop physiologically, mentally, emotionally, motivationally, socially, and morally, a child requires the enduring, irrational involvement of one or more adults in care and joint activity with him. This means that s o m e b o d y has got to be crazy a b o u t that kid! To go one step further: the psychological development of the child is brought a b o u t through his continuing involvement in progressively more complex patterns of reciprocal activity with persons with whom the child develops a strong and enduring mutual emotional attachment. By enduring mutual emotional attachment I mean a love affair that does not break up--that lasts a long, long time. But as Bruno Bettelheim has emphasized in the text, and title, of one of his books: "Love is not enough." Love must involve action, specifically care, and "progressively more complex activity with the child." The data indicate that the child's needs are being met less and less effectively. Each year there is less and less joint activity, therefore less care and less emotional involvement. Joint activity requires an occasion, progressively more complex joint activity requires not just one occasion, it requires time; above all, it requires som ebody to be there. And the development of an irrational, mutual, emotional attachment takes even more occasions, even more time, and, if the attachment is to be mutual, it n o t only takes s o m e b o d y to be there, it takes the same somebody. Now that is asking a lot nowadays. The conditions that determine h o w well children's needs can be met require social policies and practices that provide opportunity, status, encouragement, example, and approval for parenthood. Not only on the part of relatives or professionals, but friends, neighbors, work associates. And not only on the part of individuals, but also institutions serving children and families, health and welfare services, schools, and, finally, all the other major institutions of society, formal and informal. Cross-Cultural Research A few months ago after giving a lecture in Stockholm, I was invited for a meeting with Prime Minister Olof Palme. He spent more than
Urie B r o n f e n b r e n n e r
5
two hours discussing national policy on families and children. Much of our conversation dealt with two laws that had been introduced in the Swedish Parliament. The first, which passed by a wide margin, authorized sick leave for working parents whenever a child was ill, provided that half of the allotted leave time was taken by the father: The second law, which failed, would have permitted parents with a child under three to work a six-hour instead of an eight-hour day, with the remaining two hours paid for out of Social Security, again provided that half of the released time was taken by the father. The Prime Minister had spent the whole day talking with representatives of the groups that had defeated the bill, trying to persuade them to change their position on it. " T h e y do not," said the Prime Minister, "understand the crucial importance for the child's development of what y o u call 'irrational attachment.'" I replied that, nevertheless, his society had at least recognized the importance of the problem and was prepared to do something about it. " N o , " he responded, " y o u overestimate our progress. We still have a long way to go." He then recounted an incident that had occurred on the previous day. It had been his first evening off in m a n y weeks, and he was just settling down to enjoy it when the doorbell rang. There stood a worker from the local day care center with two young children and a tale of woe. The parents had failed to pick up the children at the closing hour, so the worker had taken them to their home only to find that no one was present except a teenage son and his friends, all of them drunk. The Prime Minister then took his 18-year-old son to the home, got the teenagers out, cleaned and fed the children, and left his son there to wait until the parents arrived home. " Y o u see, our people still do n o t understand that when y o u are dealing with children, y o u cannot expect to work on a fixed time schedule." As he finished a vision came to my mind. There is a knock at the front door of Mr. Kissinger's residence in Washington. When he answers, he sees the local day care worker with two young c h i l d r e n . . .
Child Watching in China Three years ago I was in a society with much lower levels of family income, much larger families, many more children per room, far lower levels of education of poorer quality, and much more parental ab-
6
Child Psychiatry and Human Development
sence than are f o u n d in the United States. We m e t m any b r o k e n families, b u t no b r o k en children. There were 13 of us, and I believe it is fair to say th at we saw some of t he most impressive preschoolers we had ever seen in our lives--healthy, c o m p e t e n t , resourceful, versatile, charming, helpful, happy, and possessed o f high self-esteem. We were in the People's Republic of China. I hasten to add t h a t all but two of us Americans were illiterate. We did n o t know the language, n o t to m e n t i o n Chinese history, culture, or even geography. But we were experienced child watchers, including those t o o young t o talk, and those we under s t ood about as well as a n y o n e else. When we asked ourselves what accounted for the impressive develo p m e n t o f the Chinese children, we came to an u n e x p e c t e d answer-one word: neighborhood. Everything t ha t was being done for children and families was being carried out on a neighborhood basis. During one o f our family visits I happened to glance o u t of the window t o the c o u r t y a r d below and observed a large group of old people assembled as if for some festive event. When I asked an interpreter what it was all about, he gave what f or me was an enigmatic answer: " T h e children are a b o u t to come h o m e f r om school." The enigma was soon dispelled, however, for I saw coming into view groups of y o u n g children running into the open arms o f the old men and women. The oldsters regularly meet the y o u n g and escort t hem home, listening to their tales of the day's activities, and, in turn, engaging in a national pastime o f China's older generation called "speaking bitterness"-comparing the " b i t t e r p a s t " to the "golden present." But do n o t be misled. The world of children and families in the People's Republic o f China is hardly one m os t o f us would choose for ourselves or our children. Parents are often separated for long periods o f time, as one or the other is sent for farm or fact ory work in a faro f f province, or assigned to one of the many 7th of May Cadre Schools for periodic political rehabilitation. No, we did n o t see any broken children in China, only broken intellectuals. It is an anti-scientific world, at least with respect to the st udy of h u m a n beings. I recall an occasion when I t h o u g h t I had a telling argument. We had visited a c o m m u n e where the peasants were doing experiments on the growth o f plants under different soil conditions. The n e x t day I p u t a question to our discerning escort, Mr. Hsieh: " T h e peasants are trying to find o u t what kinds of plants grow best in what kind of soil. Why don't y o u do research on what kinds of conditions are best for what kinds of children?" With a look o f compassion, he replied: "Mr. Bronfenbrenner, y o u
Urie Bronfenbrenner
7
do n o t understand. You see, every plant is different from every o t h e r plant, b u t it is i m p o r t a n t t o believe t h a t all children are the same." He went on to explain t ha t if y o u think one child m ore capable than a n o t her y o u begin to treat t he m accordingly, and t h e y b e c o m e as different as y o u t h o u g h t them, a self-fulfilling prophecy. The successes o f today's c o m m u n i s t China, and the m e t h o d s used to achieve them, are deeply r o o t e d in the experience of a five-thousand year-old culture. I was asked what our traditions are, and it was a painful experience, although the questioner could n o t have been m ore courteous. I had asked a teacher a b o u t the goals of child rearing in her country. Her answer ended with a query: " I n our society, we have a guiding principle; it is 'serve the people.' What is the guiding principle in y o u r s o c i e t y ? " An answer came quickly to m y mind, but I did n o t say it. "Do your own thing, baby! Let it all hang out. Don't let it hassle you. Do your own thing." And that is what we are doing. C a u s e a n d E f f ect
Family break-up is n o t the cause of br oke n children; it is an effect. Broken families, broken children are the pr oduct s of national neglect. And it is n o t just children; it is the old, the sick, the disenfranchised, any group th at is n o t young, sexy, and " m aki ng it." What I am saying is that we are n o t n ow a caring society. We want to do our own thing. We are willing to make irrational c o m m i t m e n t s n o t only in the family, b u t b e y o n d - - t o friends, neighbors, c o m m u n i t y , indeed, to our country. R e m emb er , " D o n ' t ask what y o u r c o u n t r y can do for y o u , ask what y o u can do f o r y o u r country." Since then, we have had Watergate. " D o y o u r own t h i n g ! " Why, as we celebrate our second centennial, should we also be celebrating " d o y o u r own t hi ng" ? It's n o t what our founding fathers had in mind. They said: E pluribus unum. What happened to the "unum"? Are we just "pluribus"----everyone for himself? When I describe what ot her societies are doing, m any people respond saying: "We couldn't do that. We have no c o m m o n goals, no shared values--we are all different." N ot so. One thing I have learned
8
Child Psychiatry and Human Development
f r o m cross-cultural research over the past t w o decades surprised me. Yes, we are d i f f e r e n t - - n o t f r om each other, but from every o t h e r mode m society. We are far out! Individualism is certainly one of our distinctive values--we have had it a long time, emblazoned on the Colonial flag of Massachusetts, " D o n ' t tread on me." A n o t h e r pr e oc c upa t i on is with guns. We are the only c o u n t r y in the world t hat allows tens of thousands of men, women, and children to be killed and maimed by guns. And, what is even more extraordinary, we get national apoplexy at the suggestion that the guns th at do the killing should be removed from easy circulation. The
Neighborhood
H o w come we as a nation can deliver men and survival systems to the moon, b u t we ca nnot deliver health care to the nei ghborhood? If we are so good at material technology, why n o t social t e c h n o l o g y as well? The problem, o f course, is one o f priorities, but it is also a m at t er o f approach. When we build a physical delivery system--a space vehicle, a new airplane model--we proceed systematically. There is a long planning phase followed by pretesting. And at each stage of testing, inadequate designs are sent back to the drawing board, oft en m a n y times. We k n o w that is the only way to make things work. That is Yankee ingenuity--or, as historians and social scientists have called it, American pragmatism. It, too, is as American as apple pie. But when we plan social programs, we just make a rough sketch and start building. There is no small-scale pretesting of the components, no field trials. We don't even look t o see if the pieces fit. We just launch the whole thing, and watch it fall apart, and leave hum an beings stranded. Our welfare system is a case in point. If one set about deliberately to design a system t ha t could not work, one could hardly do better. Why do we succeed so brilliantly in one sphere and fail so spectacularly in the other? This is a difficult question, but one t hat has made me aware o f a paradox in our national outlook. As pragmatists, we say, and we believe, that every problem has a solution. We can fix anything--no m a t t e r how complicated. If existing techniques will not work, we will invent new ones and get the job d o n e u m a k e an H Bomb, get to the m o o n ! " T h e difficult we do t oday; the impossible takes a little longer." But when it comes to hum an beings, we have a different view: "You: can't change h u m a n nature." People are good or evil, weak or strong,
Urie Bronfenbrenner
9
and y o u cannot do very much about it. In fact, y o u should n o t even try; it might weaken their moral fiber. It is a strange, uniquely American form of the Protestant ethic t h a t pervades all segments of our society, across religious and ethnic lines. The underlying credo reflects another, sterner facet of our individualism: Each person is responsible for himself. If he succeeds, it is mainly to his own credit; if he fails, it is his own fault and he is only getting what he deserves. Helping him will n o t work. He should n o t be coddled. He has to learn to " t r y harder," to "stand on his own feet." Witness the American ideal, the Self-Made Man. But there is no such person. If we can stand on our own feet, it is because others have raised us up. If, as adults, we can lay claim to competence and compassion, it only means t h a t someone else was willing and able to commit their competence and compassion to us as children. What my discipline teaches is that there is no other way. It is important to believe not that all children are the same--they are not!--but that every human being has the potential to become a person--someone who can contribute to the lives of others and to the c o m m u n i t y in which he lives. If he does not, it is because he is prevented by existing circumstances. If these circumstances are changed, the h u m a n potential can be fulfilled. And we do not really believe that. How can we change our beliefs? In the good old American way--by being pragmatic: " T r y it, you'll like it." As pragmatists, the first thing: y o u should do is find out the facts. You can do this by conducting a c o m m u n i t y audit of what is happening to the children in y o u r town and to all other persons who need care. And, equally important, what is happening to their caretakers--parents, teachers, friends, neighbors, and all others who care or have the potential to care for us when we need it. The audit should be conducted by all segments of the community. And do n o t forget the children themselves. They could help do the interviewing, house to house, When y o u get the results, have them reported in the local newspapers, on television and radio stations. You will discover many problems. But, being American pragmatists, y o u will also think of solutions. Some will require action at the national level, but most will not, for we are a pluralistic society t h a t recognizes the necessity and strength of local initiatives matched to local needs. What will these problems and solutions turn out to be? That I cann o t tell you. I am a researcher, n o t a prophet. But I can anticipate five general areas in which families are likely to experience severe
10
Child Psychiatry and Human Development
stress, and suggest some possible areas for action: Basic health care for both children and parents; the need for e m p l o y m e n t and a minim u m family income; family support systems; problems and solutions in the world of work; building neighborhoods in the service of families. When families become as important to America as football or firearms, the divorce rate will take a deep plunge, non-readers will cease to be a national problem, juvenile delinquency will experience dropouts, and neighborhoods will once again become a place for people of all ages to live together.
Doing Your Own Thing--Our Undoing Urie Bronfenbrenner, PhD CorneU University
There are many forces in our contemporary American society t h a t shape a child into an adult. But, at least at the beginning, almost all of them arise from, or are mediated by, the institution that bears primary responsibility for the care and quality of the next generation-the family. In recent decades, the American family has been falling apart. It is also becoming disconnected from the rest of society. Since World War II there has been progressive fragmentation and isolation for the family in its child rearing role. More and more mothers are going to work, but also significant is the fact that the extended families, those with adults other than parents, have been decreasing. But even more pronounced is the shrinkage in the so-called nuclear family, consisting of mother, father, and children. Today, more than one in every six children under eighteen is living in a single-parent family. A significant c o m p o n e n t in the growth of single-parent families has been a sharp rise in the number of y o u n g women who are postponing marriage but are having children nevertheless. It is unfortunate that statistics at a national level on the state of the child are neither as comprehensive nor as complete as those on the state of the family. In our census data, it is the taxpayer who counts, and gets counted. The available data, however, do suggest a pattern t h a t strikingly parallels the trend observed for changes in the family. This article is reprinted from M D Magazine, March 1977, with permission of MD Publications, Inc., New York, New York. Child Psychiatry and Human Development
Vol. 8(1), Fall 1977
3
4
Child Psychiatry and Human Development
Ironically, many of the trends find their strongest expression in the institutions of society bearing primary responsibility for the preparation of children for participation in adult society--the nation's schools. School vandalism is now as American as apple pie. Irrational Involvement In order to develop physiologically, mentally, emotionally, motivationally, socially, and morally, a child requires the enduring, irrational involvement of one or more adults in care and joint activity with him. This means that s o m e b o d y has got to be crazy a b o u t that kid! To go one step further: the psychological development of the child is brought a b o u t through his continuing involvement in progressively more complex patterns of reciprocal activity with persons with whom the child develops a strong and enduring mutual emotional attachment. By enduring mutual emotional attachment I mean a love affair that does not break up--that lasts a long, long time. But as Bruno Bettelheim has emphasized in the text, and title, of one of his books: "Love is not enough." Love must involve action, specifically care, and "progressively more complex activity with the child." The data indicate that the child's needs are being met less and less effectively. Each year there is less and less joint activity, therefore less care and less emotional involvement. Joint activity requires an occasion, progressively more complex joint activity requires not just one occasion, it requires time; above all, it requires som ebody to be there. And the development of an irrational, mutual, emotional attachment takes even more occasions, even more time, and, if the attachment is to be mutual, it n o t only takes s o m e b o d y to be there, it takes the same somebody. Now that is asking a lot nowadays. The conditions that determine h o w well children's needs can be met require social policies and practices that provide opportunity, status, encouragement, example, and approval for parenthood. Not only on the part of relatives or professionals, but friends, neighbors, work associates. And not only on the part of individuals, but also institutions serving children and families, health and welfare services, schools, and, finally, all the other major institutions of society, formal and informal. Cross-Cultural Research A few months ago after giving a lecture in Stockholm, I was invited for a meeting with Prime Minister Olof Palme. He spent more than
Urie B r o n f e n b r e n n e r
5
two hours discussing national policy on families and children. Much of our conversation dealt with two laws that had been introduced in the Swedish Parliament. The first, which passed by a wide margin, authorized sick leave for working parents whenever a child was ill, provided that half of the allotted leave time was taken by the father: The second law, which failed, would have permitted parents with a child under three to work a six-hour instead of an eight-hour day, with the remaining two hours paid for out of Social Security, again provided that half of the released time was taken by the father. The Prime Minister had spent the whole day talking with representatives of the groups that had defeated the bill, trying to persuade them to change their position on it. " T h e y do not," said the Prime Minister, "understand the crucial importance for the child's development of what y o u call 'irrational attachment.'" I replied that, nevertheless, his society had at least recognized the importance of the problem and was prepared to do something about it. " N o , " he responded, " y o u overestimate our progress. We still have a long way to go." He then recounted an incident that had occurred on the previous day. It had been his first evening off in m a n y weeks, and he was just settling down to enjoy it when the doorbell rang. There stood a worker from the local day care center with two young children and a tale of woe. The parents had failed to pick up the children at the closing hour, so the worker had taken them to their home only to find that no one was present except a teenage son and his friends, all of them drunk. The Prime Minister then took his 18-year-old son to the home, got the teenagers out, cleaned and fed the children, and left his son there to wait until the parents arrived home. " Y o u see, our people still do n o t understand that when y o u are dealing with children, y o u cannot expect to work on a fixed time schedule." As he finished a vision came to my mind. There is a knock at the front door of Mr. Kissinger's residence in Washington. When he answers, he sees the local day care worker with two young c h i l d r e n . . .
Child Watching in China Three years ago I was in a society with much lower levels of family income, much larger families, many more children per room, far lower levels of education of poorer quality, and much more parental ab-
6
Child Psychiatry and Human Development
sence than are f o u n d in the United States. We m e t m any b r o k e n families, b u t no b r o k en children. There were 13 of us, and I believe it is fair to say th at we saw some of t he most impressive preschoolers we had ever seen in our lives--healthy, c o m p e t e n t , resourceful, versatile, charming, helpful, happy, and possessed o f high self-esteem. We were in the People's Republic of China. I hasten to add t h a t all but two of us Americans were illiterate. We did n o t know the language, n o t to m e n t i o n Chinese history, culture, or even geography. But we were experienced child watchers, including those t o o young t o talk, and those we under s t ood about as well as a n y o n e else. When we asked ourselves what accounted for the impressive develo p m e n t o f the Chinese children, we came to an u n e x p e c t e d answer-one word: neighborhood. Everything t ha t was being done for children and families was being carried out on a neighborhood basis. During one o f our family visits I happened to glance o u t of the window t o the c o u r t y a r d below and observed a large group of old people assembled as if for some festive event. When I asked an interpreter what it was all about, he gave what f or me was an enigmatic answer: " T h e children are a b o u t to come h o m e f r om school." The enigma was soon dispelled, however, for I saw coming into view groups of y o u n g children running into the open arms o f the old men and women. The oldsters regularly meet the y o u n g and escort t hem home, listening to their tales of the day's activities, and, in turn, engaging in a national pastime o f China's older generation called "speaking bitterness"-comparing the " b i t t e r p a s t " to the "golden present." But do n o t be misled. The world of children and families in the People's Republic o f China is hardly one m os t o f us would choose for ourselves or our children. Parents are often separated for long periods o f time, as one or the other is sent for farm or fact ory work in a faro f f province, or assigned to one of the many 7th of May Cadre Schools for periodic political rehabilitation. No, we did n o t see any broken children in China, only broken intellectuals. It is an anti-scientific world, at least with respect to the st udy of h u m a n beings. I recall an occasion when I t h o u g h t I had a telling argument. We had visited a c o m m u n e where the peasants were doing experiments on the growth o f plants under different soil conditions. The n e x t day I p u t a question to our discerning escort, Mr. Hsieh: " T h e peasants are trying to find o u t what kinds of plants grow best in what kind of soil. Why don't y o u do research on what kinds of conditions are best for what kinds of children?" With a look o f compassion, he replied: "Mr. Bronfenbrenner, y o u
Urie Bronfenbrenner
7
do n o t understand. You see, every plant is different from every o t h e r plant, b u t it is i m p o r t a n t t o believe t h a t all children are the same." He went on to explain t ha t if y o u think one child m ore capable than a n o t her y o u begin to treat t he m accordingly, and t h e y b e c o m e as different as y o u t h o u g h t them, a self-fulfilling prophecy. The successes o f today's c o m m u n i s t China, and the m e t h o d s used to achieve them, are deeply r o o t e d in the experience of a five-thousand year-old culture. I was asked what our traditions are, and it was a painful experience, although the questioner could n o t have been m ore courteous. I had asked a teacher a b o u t the goals of child rearing in her country. Her answer ended with a query: " I n our society, we have a guiding principle; it is 'serve the people.' What is the guiding principle in y o u r s o c i e t y ? " An answer came quickly to m y mind, but I did n o t say it. "Do your own thing, baby! Let it all hang out. Don't let it hassle you. Do your own thing." And that is what we are doing. C a u s e a n d E f f ect
Family break-up is n o t the cause of br oke n children; it is an effect. Broken families, broken children are the pr oduct s of national neglect. And it is n o t just children; it is the old, the sick, the disenfranchised, any group th at is n o t young, sexy, and " m aki ng it." What I am saying is that we are n o t n ow a caring society. We want to do our own thing. We are willing to make irrational c o m m i t m e n t s n o t only in the family, b u t b e y o n d - - t o friends, neighbors, c o m m u n i t y , indeed, to our country. R e m emb er , " D o n ' t ask what y o u r c o u n t r y can do for y o u , ask what y o u can do f o r y o u r country." Since then, we have had Watergate. " D o y o u r own t h i n g ! " Why, as we celebrate our second centennial, should we also be celebrating " d o y o u r own t hi ng" ? It's n o t what our founding fathers had in mind. They said: E pluribus unum. What happened to the "unum"? Are we just "pluribus"----everyone for himself? When I describe what ot her societies are doing, m any people respond saying: "We couldn't do that. We have no c o m m o n goals, no shared values--we are all different." N ot so. One thing I have learned
8
Child Psychiatry and Human Development
f r o m cross-cultural research over the past t w o decades surprised me. Yes, we are d i f f e r e n t - - n o t f r om each other, but from every o t h e r mode m society. We are far out! Individualism is certainly one of our distinctive values--we have had it a long time, emblazoned on the Colonial flag of Massachusetts, " D o n ' t tread on me." A n o t h e r pr e oc c upa t i on is with guns. We are the only c o u n t r y in the world t hat allows tens of thousands of men, women, and children to be killed and maimed by guns. And, what is even more extraordinary, we get national apoplexy at the suggestion that the guns th at do the killing should be removed from easy circulation. The
Neighborhood
H o w come we as a nation can deliver men and survival systems to the moon, b u t we ca nnot deliver health care to the nei ghborhood? If we are so good at material technology, why n o t social t e c h n o l o g y as well? The problem, o f course, is one o f priorities, but it is also a m at t er o f approach. When we build a physical delivery system--a space vehicle, a new airplane model--we proceed systematically. There is a long planning phase followed by pretesting. And at each stage of testing, inadequate designs are sent back to the drawing board, oft en m a n y times. We k n o w that is the only way to make things work. That is Yankee ingenuity--or, as historians and social scientists have called it, American pragmatism. It, too, is as American as apple pie. But when we plan social programs, we just make a rough sketch and start building. There is no small-scale pretesting of the components, no field trials. We don't even look t o see if the pieces fit. We just launch the whole thing, and watch it fall apart, and leave hum an beings stranded. Our welfare system is a case in point. If one set about deliberately to design a system t ha t could not work, one could hardly do better. Why do we succeed so brilliantly in one sphere and fail so spectacularly in the other? This is a difficult question, but one t hat has made me aware o f a paradox in our national outlook. As pragmatists, we say, and we believe, that every problem has a solution. We can fix anything--no m a t t e r how complicated. If existing techniques will not work, we will invent new ones and get the job d o n e u m a k e an H Bomb, get to the m o o n ! " T h e difficult we do t oday; the impossible takes a little longer." But when it comes to hum an beings, we have a different view: "You: can't change h u m a n nature." People are good or evil, weak or strong,
Urie Bronfenbrenner
9
and y o u cannot do very much about it. In fact, y o u should n o t even try; it might weaken their moral fiber. It is a strange, uniquely American form of the Protestant ethic t h a t pervades all segments of our society, across religious and ethnic lines. The underlying credo reflects another, sterner facet of our individualism: Each person is responsible for himself. If he succeeds, it is mainly to his own credit; if he fails, it is his own fault and he is only getting what he deserves. Helping him will n o t work. He should n o t be coddled. He has to learn to " t r y harder," to "stand on his own feet." Witness the American ideal, the Self-Made Man. But there is no such person. If we can stand on our own feet, it is because others have raised us up. If, as adults, we can lay claim to competence and compassion, it only means t h a t someone else was willing and able to commit their competence and compassion to us as children. What my discipline teaches is that there is no other way. It is important to believe not that all children are the same--they are not!--but that every human being has the potential to become a person--someone who can contribute to the lives of others and to the c o m m u n i t y in which he lives. If he does not, it is because he is prevented by existing circumstances. If these circumstances are changed, the h u m a n potential can be fulfilled. And we do not really believe that. How can we change our beliefs? In the good old American way--by being pragmatic: " T r y it, you'll like it." As pragmatists, the first thing: y o u should do is find out the facts. You can do this by conducting a c o m m u n i t y audit of what is happening to the children in y o u r town and to all other persons who need care. And, equally important, what is happening to their caretakers--parents, teachers, friends, neighbors, and all others who care or have the potential to care for us when we need it. The audit should be conducted by all segments of the community. And do n o t forget the children themselves. They could help do the interviewing, house to house, When y o u get the results, have them reported in the local newspapers, on television and radio stations. You will discover many problems. But, being American pragmatists, y o u will also think of solutions. Some will require action at the national level, but most will not, for we are a pluralistic society t h a t recognizes the necessity and strength of local initiatives matched to local needs. What will these problems and solutions turn out to be? That I cann o t tell you. I am a researcher, n o t a prophet. But I can anticipate five general areas in which families are likely to experience severe
10
Child Psychiatry and Human Development
stress, and suggest some possible areas for action: Basic health care for both children and parents; the need for e m p l o y m e n t and a minim u m family income; family support systems; problems and solutions in the world of work; building neighborhoods in the service of families. When families become as important to America as football or firearms, the divorce rate will take a deep plunge, non-readers will cease to be a national problem, juvenile delinquency will experience dropouts, and neighborhoods will once again become a place for people of all ages to live together.
