THIS IS a photo of a young girl who was taken in by a charitable organization in 1890 in Bristol, England. She had been either living on the streets or in a state of extreme poverty and was taken into a home run by the Waifs and Strays’ Society, which cared for more than 22,000 children across England between its founding in 1881 and the close of World War I. Due to rapid urbanization, industrialization and population growth, there were a significant number of children living in grinding poverty in England of that day. Children worked in coal mines, factories and poorhouses. They toiled at jobs that would be unthinkable and illegal for children today. Others were pressed into domestic service or hired as chimney sweeps. Homeless children roamed the streets of cities and lived as beggars.

All of these things are unimaginable today.

Without dismissing the terrible hardship and duress these waifs and child laborers suffered, I would like to suggest to you that childhood as an institution was actually healthier then than it is today. That’s right. In general, the culture of childhood was much better. That does not mean every single child living in that time was better off than any single child alive today. It means that childhood as it was understood by Western society at that time was better at keeping children from premature adulthood and safeguarding their development.

I will elaborate on this theme in future posts. Before I do, I will simply leave you with this image below. It is a recent album cover for the pop star Taylor Swift, who is adored by millions of very young girls today, many of whom are the age of the waif above. This image is not meant to be a complete argument for the thesis I have stated, only one small bit of evidence. There are many factors that go into the degradation of childhood.

                                                          — Comments —

A grateful reader writes:

You wrote: “It means that childhood as it was understood by Western society at that time was better at keeping children from premature adulthood and safeguarding their development.” 

The modern waif mirrors all the activities of unhealthy adulthood (namely, promiscuous sexual activity, abuse of alcohol or drugs, vain adornments such as coloring the face, hair, skin, or piercings and tatoos). The old-fashioned waif mirrored some of the activities of a healthy adulthood (namely, hard work on farm or factory or in serving others) and perhaps was exposed to some of the activities of an unhealthy adulthood. 

Because the modern waif is praised by the masses (including adults), the modern child is encouraged by his parents to copy the modern waif, thereby taking on some of the activites of an unhealthy adulthood. Because the old-fashioned waif was pitied by the masses, the old-fashioned child was protected by his parents from such vagaries and encouraged to become a healthy adult.

Laura writes:

 Those are brilliant insights.

Because the modern waif is praised by the masses (including adults), the modern child is encouraged by his parents to copy the modern waif, thereby taking on some of the activites of an unhealthy adulthood. Because the old-fashioned waif was pitied by the masses, the old-fashioned child was protected by his parents from such vagaries and encouraged to become a healthy adult.

A profound truth.

Gail Garrasi Aggen writes:

I would first like to tell you how much I liked Mr. Jacka’s historical poetry. Thank you for sharing his work with us.

Regarding the waifs, I stand utterly amazed at the double-mindedness of modern, middle-class people. Women ensure that they have the best prenatal care, the best nutrition, exercise and oh, such fancy gear for their babies. They go to classes, insist on as natural a child-birth as possible, breastfeed and buy tons of educational toys for the little ones. They agonize over whether to vaccinate or not, fight tooth and nail to get their little wonders into the “best” preschool, etc.

Then at some point, they pretty much drop their children off a moral cliff. Whether by inattention and thoughtlessness or deliberately, the kids are exposed to and often participate in adult, deviant behavior. The first thing is to dress young children like little thugs and harlots. For instance, they even make baby clothes designed like biker duds, complete with the “Sons of Anarchy” logos. I watched that show once and along with all the other murders and treachery of that episode, got treated to watching a close-up of a character get stabbed and slashed to death, and a woman getting her brains blown out.

While the “kids” are in front of the TV they also get to play video games. Enough said about that mess.

I live in suburbia where, by the time these precious little ones are in high school, many of them are drug-addicted, promiscuous, and often suicidal. The parents who work two and three jobs in order to keep them in these big homes in the best school district are housing adolescents who use the same amount of drugs and carry the same STD’s as the crackheads downtown.

I am just saying, why the disconnect? How can we be so careful and overprotective up to a certain point and then just let them lead or even lead them ourselves into the abyss?

Laura writes:

As Neil Postman brilliantly argued in his book, The Disappearance of Childhood, electronic culture, even at its best, has opened up a whole new world of adult knowledge to children and aged them before their time. A television world does not differentiate between adults and children. It feeds all. Children have the mental capacity to take it all in. Even those children who have been protected from the worst of television and popular culture know far more than most children since the Middle Ages, when there was little differentiation between the culture of children and adults. From commercials and the news alone, they take in illness, financial worry, sexuality, marital strife, crime, and violence. But most children are not protected from the worst of television and popular culture, especially as they mature and parents relax their standards.

N. W. writes:

I don’t quite see why you’re picking on little Miss Swift. She’s a bit sappy sometimes, but by and large she’s singing about your typical American girl. Lyrically she isn’t far of from a lot of pop songs in the fifties. There are for more threatening teen idols out there in the current pop pantheon. For instance, the other day I heard a seventh grade girl singing along with the latest Rihanna song, S&M,

“Cause I may be bad but I’m perfectly good at it
Sex in the air, I don’t care, I love the smell of it.
Sticks and stones may break my bones
But chains and whips excite me

Somehow, I don’t think she’s referencing the struggle inherent to the african-american experience, a’la Alex Haley’s Roots.

I realize of course that we shouldn’t have to settle for the lesser of two evils, but I still don’t quite see how Miss Swift just got pegged (or, for that matter, what exactly you are critizing her for, since she isn’t a child but a young woman, age 21.)

Laura writes:

I didn’t say anything about Taylor Swift’s music and I realize it is much more wholesome than other pop stars. It was the album cover I was referring to. I think it speaks for itself.

Anna writes:

I love your blog, which I have only just discovered but alas, I must really disagree about Victorian children.  OK, the children weren’t sexualised as children are today BUT in England anyway, they were horribly exploited and cruelly treated. It was a different kind of abuse to the kind they have today but still appalling and much worse.  Poor Victorian children had to WORK, from the age of six very often, long hours and with severe punishments.  They worked down mines and in factories.  The rich children often had cruel nannies and were almost ignored by their parents, and the schools were horrific.  Raad Oliver Twist, David Copperfield and Tom Brown’s Schooldays. 

As I told you last time I wrote I love your blog, which I have only just discovered but alas, I must really disagree about Victorian children. OK the children weren’t sexualised as children are today BUT in England anyway, they were horribly exploited and cruelly treated. It was a different kind of abuse to the kind they have today but still appalling and much worse. Poor Victorian children had to WORK, from the age of six very often, long hours and with severe punishments. They worked down mines and in factories. The rich children often had cruel nannies and were almost ignored by their parents, and the schools were horrific. Read Oliver Twist, David Copperfield and Tom Brown’s Schooldays. 

The sexualisation of today’s children appals and saddens me, but it cannot be compared to the suffering of Victorian children. 

I hate disagreeing with you, but I feel so strongly about this topic.

Laura writes:

Obviously, many children suffered terribly then. Who could deny it? You mention Dickens, who gave vivid accounts of the hardships and corruption of poor children. He also vividly described the good people who helped them and the healthy middle and upper class life that existed in Victorian England.

Neil Postman argued that the institution of childhood itself was much healthier then, with family and parental authority relatively intact, with the segregation of children from the knowledge and complexities of adult life relatively secure.

“Not since the Middle Ages have children known so much about adult life as now,” he wrote. “Not even the ten-year-old girls working in the mines in England in the eighteenth century were as knowing as our own children. The children of the industrial revolution knew very little beyond the horror of their own lives. Through the miracle of symbols and electricity our own children know everything anyone else knows – the good with the bad. Nothing is mysterious, nothing awesome, nothing is held back from public view.”

I agree with him. When I say that, I am not simply commenting on the sexualization of children today.

As I said, I will elaborate on this idea in further posts so please bear with me. In the meantime, I would like to show you another image from the Waifs and Strays Society, one of many organizations in Victorian England devoted to improving the lives of the poor. These are children taken off the street or from poor homes.

Please follow and like us: