Showing posts with label NY Times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NY Times. Show all posts

Monday, March 23, 2015

The Case for Free-Range Parenting

The Opinion Pages | Contributing Op-Ed Writer  -- New York Times


Photo

Credit Rebekka Dunlap
BETHESDA, Md. — ON her first morning in America, last summer, my daughter went out to explore her new neighborhood — alone, without even telling my wife or me.
Of course we were worried; we had just moved from Berlin, and she was just 8. But when she came home, we realized we had no reason to panic. Beaming with pride, she told us and her older sister how she had discovered the little park around the corner, and had made friends with a few local dog owners. She had taken possession of her new environment, and was keen to teach us things we didn’t know.

When this story comes up in conversations with American friends, we are usually met with polite disbelief. Most are horrified by the idea that their children might roam around without adult supervision. In Berlin, where we lived in the center of town, our girls would ride the Metro on their own — a no-no in Washington. Or they’d go alone to the playground, or walk a mile to a piano lesson. Here in quiet and traffic-safe suburban Washington, they don’t even find other kids on the street to play with. On Halloween, when everybody was out to trick or treat, we were surprised by how many children actually lived here whom we had never seen.

A study by the University of California, Los Angeles, has found that American kids spend 90 percent of their leisure time at home, often in front of the TV or playing video games. Even when kids are physically active, they are watched closely by adults, either in school, at home, at afternoon activities or in the car, shuttling them from place to place.
Such narrowing of the child’s world has happened across the developed world. But Germany is generally much more accepting of letting children take some risks. To this German parent, it seems that America’s middle class has taken overprotective parenting to a new level, with the government acting as a super nanny.

Just take the case of 10-year-old Rafi and 6-year-old Dvora Meitiv, siblings in Silver Spring, Md., who were picked up in December by the police because their parents had dared to allow them to walk home from the park alone. For trying to make them more independent, their parents were found guilty by the state’s Child Protective Services ofunsubstantiated child neglect.” What had been the norm a generation ago, that kids would enjoy a measure of autonomy after school, is now seen as almost a crime.

Today’s parents enjoyed a completely different American childhood. Recently, researchers at the University of Virginia conducted interviews with 100 parents. “Nearly all respondents remember childhoods of nearly unlimited freedom, when they could ride bicycles and wander through woods, streets, parks, unmonitored by their parents,” writes Jeffrey Dill, one of the researchers.

But when it comes to their own children, the same respondents were terrified by the idea of giving them only a fraction of the freedom they once enjoyed. Many cited fear of abduction, even though crime rates have declined significantly. The most recent in-depth study found that, in 1999, only 115 children nationwide were victims of a “stereotypical kidnapping” by a stranger; the overwhelming majority were abducted by a family member. That same year, 2,931 children under 15 died as passengers in car accidents. Driving children around is statistically more dangerous than letting them roam freely.

Motor development suffers when most of a child’s leisure time is spent sitting at home instead of running outside. Emotional development suffers, too.


“We are depriving them of opportunities to learn how to take control of their own lives,” writes Peter Gray, a research professor at Boston College. He argues that this increases “the chance that they will suffer from anxiety, depression, and various other mental disorders,” which have gone up dramatically in recent decades. He sees risky, outside play of children among themselves without adult supervision as a way of learning to control strong emotions like anger and fear.

I am no psychologist like Professor Gray, but I know I won’t be around forever to protect my girls from the challenges life holds in store for them, so the earlier they develop the intellectual maturity to navigate the world, the better. And by giving kids more control over their lives, they learn to have more confidence in their own capabilities.

It is hard for parents to balance the desire to protect their children against the desire to make them more self-reliant. And every one of us has to decide for himself what level of risk he is ready to accept. But parents who prefer to keep their children always in sight and under their thumbs should consider what sort of trade-offs are involved in that choice.

At a minimum, parents who want to give their children more room to roam shouldn’t be penalized by an overprotective state. Cases like the Meitivs’ reinforce the idea that children are fragile objects to be protected at all times, and that parents who believe otherwise are irresponsible, if not criminally negligent.

Besides overriding our natural protective impulses in order to loosen the reins of our kids, my wife and I now also have to ponder the possibility of running afoul of the authorities. And we thought we had come to the land of the free.

Clemens Wergin is the Washington bureau chief for the newspaper Die Welt.

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Justification: TRAVELING and LIVING ABROAD





If you are in politics or public life, you probably had some moment of spine-tingling transcendence. Maybe you read the Declaration of Independence or watched the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s mountaintop sermon, or read Nelson Mandela’s 1964 speech from the dock.
Suddenly, your imagination was inflamed beyond its normal scope. You were enveloped by this epic sense that public life could be truly heroic. The people who issue these statements brought their lives to a glorious point, pledging their sacred honor, offering to sacrifice their lives for some public mission.
You got into public life inspired by something like that. But how do you execute that sort of vision? How do you translate the poetry of high aspiration into the prose of effective governance? This is the common problem today. Most people go into public life for the right reasons, but government doesn’t work. The quality of the people is high, but the quality of leadership is low.
I’d suggest three responses.


First, apprentice yourself to a master craftsman. Find yourself a modern version of Ted Kennedy cobbling together a Senate majority. Find yourself some silent backstage official, who knows how to slide ideas through the bureaucracy. Glue yourself to that person in order to learn the craft of governance.
Schools are good at transmitting what the philosopher Michael Oakeshott called technical knowledge. This is the sort of knowledge that can be expressed in rules and put down in books — like the recipes in a cookbook. 
But craftsmen possess and transmit practical knowledge. This sort of knowledge, Oakeshott says, exists only in use. It cannot be taught, only imparted by imitation and experience. It’s knowing when to depart from the cookbook; how much, when running a meeting, to let the conversation flow and how much to rein it in.
Practical knowledge is hard to see, but it is embedded in traditions of behavior. It is embedded in the lives of older legislators and public servants, and it is passed down by imitation to the younger ones. This craft of governing well has been forsaken and disrespected, but you will not be effective in public life unless you find a wise old person who will teach you the tricks of the trade, hour after hour, side by side.
Second, take a reality bath. Go off and become a stranger in a strange land. Go off to some alien part of this country or the world. Immerse yourself in the habits and daily patterns of that existence and stay there long enough to get acculturated. Stay there long enough so that you forget the herd mentality of our partisan culture.
When you return home, you will look at your own place with foreign eyes. You’ll see the contours of your own reality more clearly. When you return to native ground, you’re more likely to possess the sort of perceptiveness that Isaiah Berlin says is the basis of political judgment.
This sort of wisdom consists of “a special sensitiveness to the contours of the circumstances in which we happen to be placed; it is a capacity for living without falling foul of some permanent condition or factor which cannot be either altered, or even fully described.” This wisdom is based on a tactile awareness of your country and its people — what they want, how they react. You don’t think this awareness. You feel it. You experience a visceral oneness with culture and circumstance — the smell of the street, tinges of anger and hope and aspiration. The irony is that you are more likely to come into union with your own home culture after you have been away from it. You have to walk away from the partisan tunnel vision to see how things really are.
Finally, close off your options. People in public life live in a beckoning world. They have an array of opportunities. They naturally want to keep all their options open. The shrewd strategists tell them to make a series of tepid commitments to see what pans out. Hedge your bets. Play it smart.
But the shrewd strategy leads to impotence. You spread yourself thin. You dissipate your energies and never put full force behind any cause. You make your own trivial career the object of your attention, not the vision that inspired you in the first place.
The public official who does this leaves no mark. Only the masters of renunciation leave an imprint, only those who can say a hundred Nos for the sake of an overwhelming Yes. Only the person who has burned the ships and committed to one issue has the courage to cast aside the advice of the strategists and actually push through change.
We live in a nation of good people and ineffective government. I don’t know if these tactics will improve the quality of the nation’s leadership, but something has to.

Thursday, September 26, 2013

Duden -- mit Englisch

NY TIMES 25 Sept 2013  
By ANNA SAUERBREY  OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

How Do You Say ‘Blog’ in German?


WE Germans owe the English language a debt of gratitude. If English didn’t lend us one or two little words every once in a while, we would probably call blogs “digitale Netztagebücher” and apps “Anwendungen für mobile Endgeräte.” Even for German speakers, those don’t exactly roll off the tongue.
Such linguistic borrowing has been increasing, as technology both creates its own new words and facilitates the global spread of newfangled cultural terminology. Recently the editors of the Duden dictionary, the German equivalent of the Oxford English Dictionary, added 5,000 new words to its 26th edition, many of them English or of English origin, including “digital native” and “flashmob.”
The Duden has been around since 1880, and this isn’t the first time English words have been added. But the new edition has caused an uproar among linguistic conservatives. After the additions were announced, the German Language Society, an unofficial organization that has tasked itself with protecting the German language, voted the editors of the Duden the “language adulterers of the year,” accusing them of legitimizing the demise of German.
Most Germans are more liberal in their linguistic views and generally agree that the idea of protecting a country’s language is as megalomaniacal as it is futile.
It certainly doesn’t represent the view of the majority of my generation, the 20- and 30-somethings, who generally have a relaxed relationship with both languages. Our parents associated German music with Nazi propaganda and opted for Springsteen-only musical diets, but we embrace the renaissance of German pop and rap lyrics. At the same time, we see no harm in integrating English words into our language.
But the society’s stance has nevertheless touched a chord across German society, particularly among people you might call anti-cosmopolitans: those who feel unable to keep up with an internationalization they feel is being imposed on them.
That the reaction should come now, in a rapidly homogenizing Europe, is unsurprising. The feeling of speaking increasingly marginalized languages is vivid in many parts of Europe, even in countries with large populations of native speakers like France and Germany.
Of course, the motives for defending one’s language differ from country to country. In France, it is part of a quest to bolster the country’s self-perception as a still-functioning colonial power. It is government policy that radio stations must play a certain minimum amount of French music.
In Germany, the driving force comes from the opposite direction. Refusing to accept the internationalization of the German language is a way of rejecting internationalization as a phenomenon. It is a nativist attempt to stand up to globalization.
Walter Krämer, the president of the society, articulated this point of view when he lambasted the Duden for including Anglicisms commonly used by “braggers” — what in previous generations might have been called yuppies. There is some truth in that. The frequent use of English words has become a status symbol, not unlike a pair of pearl earrings or shopping at Whole Foods, a way of showing off your education. A way of saying that your world is bigger than that medium-size country in the middle of Europe that doesn’t even have the guts to support military action in Libya or Syria.
In Germany as in America, it is easy to make fun of such people. But as the German sociologist Ulrich Beck noted recently, cosmopolitanism is a reality, not a willfully chosen identity. There are those who will continue to embrace it and those who will see it as a threat, but it can’t be turned back, even if one insists, as the German Language Society does, on calling a laptop a “Klapprechner.”
As any English speaker fond of the term “schadenfreude” knows, German has its own share of wonderful, untranslatable words. One of those, “Zeitgenossen,” is particularly apt for the moment. If you look it up in a German-English dictionary, you will find that it means “contemporaries,” those who happen to live in the same day and age. But it means more than that. The German word “Genosse,” meaning “comrade” or “associate,” also implies a mutual responsibility.
Thus “Zeitgenossen” share a responsibility toward one another as well as toward the age they live in. It is an attitude that sees languages as complementary, not competitive, and sees the world as a continuum of cultures, rather than a set of distinct borders. It is an attitude I wish more of my fellow Germans would adopt.
Again, English, thanks for “digital natives.” In return, you can have “Zeitgenossen.” It’s yours. Take it. It is a wonderful linguistic paradox that one of the nations that currently struggle with the idea of cosmopolitanism should be able to express it best.

Anna Sauerbrey is an editor for the opinion page of the daily German newspaper Der Tagesspiegel

Thursday, May 9, 2013

NYTimes: Germany at the Fore


New York Times
MEMO FROM BERLIN

One More Field Where the Continent Trails Germany


Ina Fassbender/Reuters
Soccer fans in Dortmund, Germany, on Saturday. Before the final game, Germany has secured the European championship.


Europe’s equivalent of the Super Bowl does not kick off for more than two weeks, but in a development that feels all too fitting under the current circumstances here, Germany has already won.  Two German clubs, one from Dortmund in the Ruhr Valley and the other from Munich in deepest Bavaria, will face off for the European title, which means the nationality of the champion is already assured.
The local news media are calling it the “dream final.” The daily newspaper Berliner Kurier summed up the mood in Germany perfectly in a front-page headline last week that read simply, “We versus us.” “One thing is certain,” Chancellor Angela Merkel said. “Germany wins.”
Of course, a game is just a game, but when the game in question is European soccer, it tends to be viewed as a Rorschach test for the health and confidence of nations. The success on the field of German teams has helped reinforce the broader narrative of Teutonic dominance that has emerged during the long-running debt crisis.
Germany’s stock market is riding high, its unemployment rate has remained stubbornly low and the Continent’s best and brightest are moving here in droves. Attitudes toward Germany in Europe are more complicated than they would seem from the images of angry protesters waving signs with swastikas on the streets of Athens.
Germany, Europe’s largest economy, is viewed not only with resentment but with a mixture of apprehension, envy and admiration, informed by a belief that the Germans have cracked the code of how to compete in the globalized world, coupled with an uncertainty about whether their efficient, export-driven economic model can be replicated.
Much the same is true currently with soccer.  After Bayern trounced Barcelona for the second time in a row last week, the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera wrote that “the lesson of order and talent goes beyond soccer.” In Britain, the cover of the New Statesman magazine this week shows photographs of Angela Merkel and the German soccer star Bastian Schweinsteiger with the question, “Why can’t we be more like Germany?”
Just this past weekend Spain’s Socialists discussed the German model for helping companies pay for idled workers to stay home without laying them off. “There is resentment at the current austerity policies attributed to Merkel,” said Jordi Vaquer i Fanés, a political scientist and director of the Open Society Initiative for Europe in Barcelona, “but Germany still comes out at the top of the most admired countries.”
Europeans are voting with their feet:  Germany’s government statistics office reported Tuesday that the net gain in migration here in 2012 was the largest in 17 years.  Nearly 1.1 million people moved to Germany last year, with rising numbers of job seekers arriving from crisis-stricken countries and Eastern Europe. Nationwide, unemployment is just 5.4 percent, and on Tuesday Germany’s main stock index, the benchmark DAX, hit an all-time high.
Spain is losing not just engineers and software designers to Germany, but players and coaches. Pep Guardiola, Barcelona’s former coaching genius, announced this year that he would move to Germany to coach Bayern. A decade ago the idea of a coach like Mr. Guardiola leaving Spain for Germany would have seemed absurd.
That is because not so long ago the positions were reversed. Germany was struggling to regain its footing after unification, and its soccer fortunes declined badly. The economy was stagnant and, with its rules against foreign ownership and insistence on keeping debts low, the professional soccer league Bundesliga seemed downright old-fashioned.
German teams, it was believed, would never keep up with the Russian oligarchs and Arab billionaires sinking untold millions into their investments in England’s Premier League. The Spaniards, meanwhile, were flush and booming, like much of Europe’s periphery.
Long before the financial crisis brought high-flying economies like Spain’s back to earth, Germany began plotting a comeback, economically speaking, instituting labor reforms aimed at making the economy more competitive. On the soccer side, it began building up a new youth training system.

“I don’t want to point the moralizing finger, saying, ‘We’re super; we’re saving the euro,’ ” said Martin Nolte, a professor of sports law at the German Sport University Cologne (SpoHo).  “We make mistakes here in Germany, too, but the professionalism and management from the economic side leads to a solid athletic effort.”
The daily newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), in a self-congratulatory front-page editorial last week, credited an openness to the world and a willingness to learn from others, matched with “German virtues” like fighting spirit and solidarity. “Professional soccer is also a mirror of economic possibilities,” the paper wrote. “In this manner the Bundesliga benefits from Germany’s economic strengths over Europe’s crisis countries.”
Rightly or wrongly, a sense here and abroad of German teams and businesses as farsighted and built for stability has taken root. In his State of the Union address this year, President Obama even praised Germany’s dual-education system, mixing hands-on training at businesses with course work.
But the easy comparisons between economic and soccer success can be overdone, many experts say.
“Everyone wants to hold up Germany as the perfectly run antidote to the sloppiness of the southern Europeans, and the Bundesliga is kind of treated as this analogue to the German national economy,” said Franklin Foer, editor of The New Republic and author of the book “How Soccer Explains the World.”
“There’s some truth to it, I think,” Mr. Foer said, though he cautioned that “many of the great clubs and the great national teams come from countries in which the economies are run in slipshod ways and the local systems are a mess.”
John Springford, an economist at the Center for European Reform in London, said the winner-take-all aspect of soccer could also be troublesome for Europe as it battles the debt crisis.
“The euro crisis has been dominated by that narrative of competitiveness,” Mr. Springford said. “That kind of zero-sum thinking that is analogous to the football mentality is one of the reasons why it’s been so difficult to create a lasting solution to the euro crisis.”
Germany may have won the championship before the opening whistle, but it is not clear that it will be a “dream final” for the rest of the Continent.
“Because the league is so well managed it means there’s less flashy expenditure,” Mr. Foer said. “There’s a little less internationalism there. The modesty and competence that underlie the whole thing also constrain it from being as sexy as Spain or England.”


Chris Cottrell contributed reporting from Berlin, Elisabetta Povoledo from Rome, and Raphael Minder from Madrid.