#99. Protecting Children by Empowering Them, Not Depriving Them
Knowledge is power. Can you avoid “no” and choose “know”?
Dear friends,
This will be a relatively brief letter, but I see it as a lead-in to one or more possible letters to follow. It has to do with how to keep children safe, with an eye to the much-discussed problem of how to keep children safe today, in the digital age.
Concern for a child’s safety can be expressed in two different ways.
The No Approach to Safety
The first way, and seemingly simplest, is to just ban activities that involve risk. “No, you can’t use that sharp knife.” “No, you can’t light the fire in the fireplace.” “No, you can’t take your bike by yourself to your friend’s house.” No in such cases may (arguably) promote short-term safety, but it often has undesirable long-term effects:
It may set up an antagonistic relationship between you and your child, in which your child sees you as against them rather than for them, in which your child may sneak to do what they want to do rather than consult you, or may do dangerous things that even they don’t want to do, just to spite you.
It may lead the child to be overly afraid of the world, as you may be transferring your own, possibly overblown fears to your child.
It may lead the child to feel untrusted and untrustworthy, a belief that could become a self-fulfilling prophesy.
It may deprive the child of enjoyable and growth-promoting experiences endemic to the banned activity.
It may reduce your child’s opportunities for connections and friendships, if it is an activity that peers are engaged in.
It may reduce long-term safety by preventing the child from developing the skills and sense of agency required to be safe.
Here’s a tragic societal example of the harm of no. In the 1980s (and to some degree in the decade before)—in response to over-hyped, media-promoted fears—many parents began to say no to children’s desires to go out and play or move around the neighborhood independently of an immediate adult guard. Over time, that no evolved from what at first was a free parental choice to a moral imperative (see letter #54). Parents who allowed their children the outdoor freedom that they (the parents themselves) had enjoyed as children began to be seen as bad parents.
The moral imperative subsequently became, to some degree, a legal imperative, as state-run child protective services began accusing parents of neglect if they allowed their children out without an adult guard. Today many parents who would like their children to have more outdoor freedom are afraid to allow it (see Letter #53). They’re afraid that someone will call 911 to report a loose child, which will be followed by a visit from the police or child protective services with possible serious repercussions.
So, the world for children has changed over time from one of outdoor freedom to one of largely indoor imprisonment except when accompanied by an adult guard. The result, as I have explained with numerous sources of evidence, in many publications (e.g. here and here), has been a huge decline over generations in children’s happiness and sense of agency and huge increase in their anxiety and depression.
I’m not saying there is never a time for a straightforward no. What I am saying is that no should be used with caution. In the short run it may seem easy, but in the long run it could be dangerous. I suggest it should rarely if ever be used in a reflexive, thoughtless way. If no eventuates (assuming the child is four years old or more), it should follow a respectful two-way discussion about why the child wants to do it, what you see as the dangers, and a possible compromise to at least partly satisfy the child’s desire. Discussion means listening as well as talking.
The Know Approach to Safety
There are several types of knows in the know approach. They have to do with what the parent and child each or both know or should try to learn. If you are the parent, what do you know about the activity your child wants to do? What do you know about why your child wants to do it? What do you know about the realistic dangers involved? What does your child know about what they want to do and why? What does your child know about the dangers involved? And, perhaps most relevant, what do you and your child know about how to engage in the desired activity while minimizing the dangers?
This approach requires respectful, thoughtful, back and forth discussion, and maybe some research that you and your child could do together.
So. Why does your daughter want to take her bike by herself to her friend’s house a few blocks away? Why do you think that’s dangerous? What does your daughter know about such dangers? Does she know, and can she follow, the safety rules of bicycling? What are the safety rules? What are the specific dangers of the route from your house to the friend’s house? Maybe as research, you and your daughter would walk the route together, sharing thoughts about potential dangers along the way. If you are still nervous, you might want to ride the route with your daughter once, to see that she handles the bike well and follows safety rules, and then free her to ride it herself. With time, one would hope, you would gain confidence enough in your daughter’s skill and judgment that you wouldn’t have to go through all this with each new bike trip. This is how you allow your daughter to grow up.
But now here’s a more challenging example, given the most prevalent fear messages of our time. Suppose your daughter wants her own smartphone, with connections to the social media platforms that her friends use most regularly. Do you just say no, as is recommended by some these days if she is under a certain age? (What age?) Or do you take the know route and begin a respectful dialogue with your daughter, followed, possibly, by joint research into questions raised?
In my next letter (Letter #100) I’m going to play with this problem. How might an autonomy-supportive but appropriately protective parent respond to a young teenager who wants his or her own smartphone with internet access? If you were such a parent, and you avoided the reflexive no, what would you want to know and what would you want your child to know?
Preparation for My Next Letter
As preparation for Letter #100, I’m asking you here, if you are willing, to list (a) what you think might be the benefits to a young teenager in today’s world of owning a smartphone with internet access, and then, separately, (b) what you think might be the dangers in that. Please do so in the comments section below. These lists will give us some clues about how a dialogue between parent and child might go and the research the parent and child might conduct together.
Concluding Thoughts
I got the idea of no vs. know from Jessica Alexander, author of The Danish Way of Parenting and co-founder of Raising Digital Citizens. She has developed what seems to me to be a brilliant way of stimulating respectful discussion between parent and child about the digital world and provoking research that parent and child might conduct together. I will say more about her method in my next letter.
And now, please do create, in the comments, the two lists I suggested: (a) What are the benefits of a smartphone with internet access for a young teen in today’s world, and (b) what are the dangers?
With respect and best wishes,
Peter
NOTE: An audio version of this letter is available to paid subscribers, HERE.
I'm writing this from the perspective of being a UK parent who has raised two children (a boy and girl) to adulthood with a fair degree of freedom from adult guard. As you say this started in the 80s. But, in the UK, it became more extreme after the 'Soham murders' in 2002. My son was 8 at the time. He was asking for more freedom outside the home and I was glad to allow this. Your description of trialling a route (on a scooter and to school) is quite accurate!
I will come to social media but first want to address the issue of legal responsibility for your child. There is a widespread idea that parents are not 'allowed' to let their children do things on their own or with their peers. But there is no legislation on this or even advice. From time to time I would get comments from friends or neighbours along the lines of 'We saw your son/daughter out on their own' (it was always just stated like that as though it was obvious it was 'wrong') and I did get anxious if they were gone longer than I expected but the only official challenge I ever had was from my daughter's school. They wrote me a letter saying she should not be walking to school on her own. I ignored it but did get some nasty comments from fellow parents. Apparently, their children wanted the same freedom!
But, one thing I noticed, is that my relationship with my kids was a lot more 'equal' than many other parents. Without the need to police them we could have real shared experiences where we all wanted to be involved or do things separately when we didn't. I think this meant that they have felt able to share and discuss any problems with the online world as well as the real world.
One particular incident comes to mind. She was 11 when, on holiday, she asked me to take a photo of her sitting on a rock near the sea. It was a good photo of a young girl dressed normally in T-shirt and shorts with the sea behind her. But, somehow, when it was shared on Facebook (this was 2009, pre TikTok) there were a number of comments which suggested some sexual intent. This was pretty mild but she was, of course, quite upset by this. I was glad she shared this with me and asked how to deal with it. We talked about blocking people, not engaging and being careful what was shared. We changed her privacy settings as well so fewer people could see her posts.
My feeling is that, when we allow our kids to engage with the real world, it builds up trust. This is both trust in themselves and in their parents. This is essential if we are to help them navigate the world, including the online world.
Thank you for this message and for opening this discussion. This is the type of discussion that I want to see taking place about how to navigate and manage time in the digital world.
As I say this, I feel like I need to note that there are potentially two discussions taking place here: how to manage the digital world, and how to manage having the digital world accessible at all times while you walk around in physical space (i.e. the smartphone). Each of these is potentially its own discussion. This post focuses on smartphones, so I’m going to talk more about the latter than about navigating the internet in general.
I’m speaking from a position of relating to the kid. I grew up on the internet, though before smartphones, and I admit to not liking smartphones or using them much more than I have to. However, I do also admit that they have many functions that I use regularly.
(a) Benefits: My teenage coworkers (and actually all of my coworkers) communicate with me by smartphone outside of work. We discuss and negotiate schedules by text message. I suppose this is easier than calling or having a pager, though I do think another method could serve the same purpose. Nevertheless, having a smartphone means being connected to the currently used/preferred method of communication. People sometimes have jobs, and therefore need to communicate for work, at the ages of 14-17.
Many workplaces nowadays are switching to clocking in via apps, making it actually necessary to have a smartphone in order to clock in without hassle. Many other services require you to verify an SMS code via smartphone in order to participate. I’m not a huge fan of how many things require you to have a smartphone in order to use the service, because it does create an entry barrier to people who may not be able to afford a smartphone. Nevertheless, having a smartphone allows you to access many services, including shopping and banking, and to clock in at work. Some places have alternate options if you don’t have a smartphone; some do not.
GPS is extremely useful for navigating the world. The ability to look up directions to local places and events is something I use all the time, and has resulted in me going to events I wasn’t even planning to, because I was able to look up the information online and find out about it while I was in the area.
If you encounter someone who doesn’t speak your language, you can use online translators to find out what to say to them in order to roughly communicate if necessary. This is something a teenager suggested to me, which blew my mind because it had never even occurred to me.
You can use downtime in the physical world (like while sitting in the waiting room for an appointment) to read, write, check and send messages and maintain relationships, and get things done that you otherwise would have to wait till you were sitting at a desk to do.
Using the phone for entertainment isn’t necessarily bad, either; you can use it to catch up on shows or movies you wanted to watch while riding the bus or train, which gives you something to talk about with people. It can also give you access to things that calm you down if you feel upset or overwhelmed.
You can look up information on things you encounter in the physical world and how to handle them, such as whether a plant you’re considering buying is an annual or a perennial, or how to safely dispose of a type of battery you have just found.
Of course, this can be useful in emergency. Having a mobile phone is generally useful in case of urgently needing to get in contact with someone, though a flip phone/dumb phone can serve this basic purpose as well as a smartphone.
(b) Dangers: The most obvious danger is that when you are moving around in the physical world while looking at your phone, you can miss something happening around you. Texting while driving is the obvious example. I admit that when I am driving and I get a notification sound on my phone, I have to fight the urge to check it. I am able to ignore the notifications, but I have had other people tell me they’re texting me while driving, and I am upset to find this out; I don’t want to unknowingly be a distraction for people when they have more important things going on.
When you walk around looking at your phone, you appear unapproachable and shut yourself off from face-to-face interaction with people around you. I have often had someone I was talking to turn away from me and start looking at their phone, and then I feel like I’m intruding on them and/or assume they’re not interested in talking to me anymore, so I give up and stop talking—even though I have found that when I talk to people who are looking at their phones, they usually look up from it and start responding to me. It requires extra effort to talk to someone who doesn't appear interested, and often doesn't seem worth the trouble.
We had to do a whole group meeting with customer service staff because of repeated complaints from customers that the teenage workers were looking at their phones on the job at every opportunity, and ignoring customers. We have a policy of not using phones during work hours, but people ignore it. (I’m not in a management position, so it’s not my problem to solve, but it is frustrating to watch it happen around me. I actually do think the phones should just not be allowed during work hours for customer-facing staff—and I personally do not use mine because I don’t want to miss interacting with clients—but we don’t have personal lockers or anything where we could store our phones during work.)
And just like the phone can help you calm down from something stressful in the physical world, it can also cause you stress that distracts you from the physical world. You might read an upsetting message while at work, and then have difficulty concentrating on your job.
These things can be avoided by simply exercising the discipline and self-control to not look at your phone when it’s inappropriate, but the phone is specifically designed to grab and hold your attention (such as by pinging you with notification sounds at all times of the day, prompting you to check them as soon as possible). I personally wait until I am alone and seated in a place where I don’t have to pay attention to other things before using my phone, but it seems that many people do not, and/or have difficulty doing so.
I think one of the biggest dangers of replacing face-to-face interaction with social media interaction is that social media interaction often is not a back-and-forth discussion or exchange of ideas with a person we are building a relationship with. When we post on social media, often the only response we can expect to get is “likes” and maybe a few comments, sometimes from strangers we have never interacted with before.
We start to crave the attention and validation of getting “likes” and occasional comments from people we don’t know and have never even had a full conversation with. We may not even respond to them. We just make another post, hoping to get more likes and comments. It’s very easy for our entire mode of socialization to become this kind of one-sided exchange, where we don’t actually talk to each other and often don’t even know if anyone will respond to what we say.
I can use this space as an example of this. I’ve just spent hours writing a long comment expressing my thoughts. When I post it, I don’t know if anyone is going to like or respond to my message. I know I can’t expect to get any kind of response. As a human, I have a social need to feel like my contribution to a conversation is understood, valued, and heard in some way. On social media, we get that in the form of likes and comments, often just likes. We start to crave that attention and response from people we don’t even know or have actual conversations with, yet we can never expect it. It is not a mutual/personal relationship, but we can mistake it for one, and invest our time into it without building and maintaining genuine relationships.
Maybe what I say here will make some kind of difference, but I may never know. I’ve just spent hours making a post saying things to strangers on the internet who may never say anything back to me, respond, or acknowledge me in any way. I did it because this discussion is interesting to me, and I found it rewarding to be able to express my thoughts and feel like I was contributing something. That can be a good thing, and it is possible for this type of thing to lead to deeper and more meaningful discussion and connections. But this by itself is not emotionally or socially fulfilling in the long term.
The danger is in replacing actual back-and-forth human interaction with something that was never meant to be that, and cannot fill the same needs.