Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Nurturing constructive boredom


“I’m bored.” I think of those two words as summer words. I can hear myself saying them as a child, sunk into a chair at our cottage in northern Wisconsin, too hot to move. I’d already been swimming, I didn’t have a book to read, my brothers were annoying: “I’m bored.”

My mother’s response: “Good.” Her one word beat my two every time. “Good” could mean that I was about to help her shuck corn or do the dishes. Or it could mean that I was going to have to think of something new to do. Maybe it was after such an exchange that I first canoed into the swamp or made a fort in the woods or worked up the courage to meet the kids two cottages down.

Now it’s my turn to see a frowning child flop onto the couch and announce, “I’m bored.” I’ve noticed that I often hear it, usually from Virgil, within minutes of returning from having been somewhere or after he’s spent time online or watching a video. I’m surprised by how quickly he seems to fall into boredom.

I came upon a possible explanation for Virgil’s behavior while reading Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder. Author Richard Louv describes an “insidious, new kind of boredom” that arises from over-stimulating yet mind-numbing (and often violent) entertainment that children can easily find on computers, televisions, and movie screens. “Like a sugared drink on a hot day,” Louv writes, “such entertainment leaves kids thirsting for more — for faster, bigger, more violent stimuli” — and increasingly being prescribed medication to deal with “the loss of interest and joy in their lives.”

Louv’s wonderful solution is to fight boredom with boredom. He offers three steps for helping our children get rid of negative, mind-numbing boredom by nurturing constructive boredom:
  1. Try spending more time with a bored child: “Parents need to be there for their kids . . . to help them detach from electronics long enough for their imaginations to kick in.”
  2. Turn off the TV. And the computer. And the video games.
  3. Find a balance between adult direction and child boredom. If a child’s days are heavily scheduled, parents may need to schedule “unstructured time” to make room for creative boredom.

Thinking back over the last week, I can identify times that I followed Louv’s advice, like when I asked Virgil to pick me some mint from the backyard to make mint tea or played a game with him before sending him outside. And of course, I still have my mother’s one-word mantra at the ready.

Learn more
Find more ideas for encouraging “constructive boredom” on the Children & Nature Network. Richard Louv is the chairman of the non-profit network, which supports people and organizations working to reconnect children with nature.

Great Kids, Great Outdoors” is an AMC Outdoors blog, written by Kristen Laine.

2 comments:

Mike Vandeman said...

Last Child in the Woods ––
Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder,
by Richard Louv
Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
November 16, 2006

In this eloquent and comprehensive work, Louv makes a convincing case for ensuring that children (and adults) maintain access to pristine natural areas, and even, when those are not available, any bit of nature that we can preserve, such as vacant lots. I agree with him 100%. Just as we never really outgrow our need for our parents (and grandparents, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, cousins, etc.), humanity has never outgrown, and can never outgrow, our need for the companionship and mutual benefits of other species.

But what strikes me most about this book is how Louv is able, in spite of 310 pages of text, to completely ignore the two most obvious problems with his thesis: (1) We want and need to have contact with other species, but neither we nor Louv bother to ask whether they want to have contact with us! In fact, most species of wildlife obviously do not like having humans around, and can thrive only if we leave them alone! Or they are able tolerate our presence, but only within certain limits. (2) We and Louv never ask what type of contact is appropriate! He includes fishing, hunting, building "forts", farming, ranching, and all other manner of recreation. Clearly, not all contact with nature leads to someone becoming an advocate and protector of wildlife. While one kid may see a beautiful area and decide to protect it, what's to stop another from seeing it and thinking of it as a great place to build a house or create a ski resort? Developers and industrialists must come from somewhere, and they no doubt played in the woods with the future environmentalists!

It is obvious, and not a particularly new idea, that we must experience wilderness in order to appreciate it. But it is equally true, though ("conveniently") never mentioned, that we need to stay out of nature, if the wildlife that live there are to survive. I discuss this issue thoroughly in the essay, "Wildlife Need Habitat Off-Limits to Humans!", home.pacbell.net/mjvande/india3.

It should also be obvious (but apparently isn't) that how we interact with nature determines how we think about it and how we learn to treat it. Remember, children don't learn so much what we tell them, but they learn very well what they see us do. Fishing, building "forts", mountain biking, and even berry-picking teach us that nature exists for us to exploit. Luckily, my fort-building career was cut short by a bee-sting! As I was about to cut down a tree to lay a third layer of logs on my little log cabin in the woods, I took one swing at the trunk with my axe, and immediately got a painful sting (there must have been a bee-hive in the tree) and ran away as fast as I could.

Foe the rest: home.pacbell.net/mjvande/louv

Kristen said...

Hi Mike,

Thanks for your comment. You make a very good point — that as we think and talk about our interactions with the natural world, we also want to consider, as best we can, the needs of that natural world with respect to us.

While it’s true that we can’t predict that every child who spends time outside will grow up to protect the environment, all research to date (and common sense) tells us that child is much more likely to act in an environmentally responsible way than if he or she had not spent time in nature. I don’t think we need to refrain from any interaction with wild nature – or that we should refuse to let our children build the occasional fort. After all, my daughter’s “fort” is merely downed branches placed against the trunk of our old apple tree...

Thanks for posting. I hope you enjoy Great Kids, Great Outdoors.

Kristen Laine

Post a Comment