We have several friends with young children, and some of them have the rule that their kids may not own battery-operated toys. At some level, this makes sense to me. It seems that most battery-operated toys are noisy, aggravating affairs that drive parents crazy.
However, I don't think this rule of thumb is absolutely right.
One of my favorite toys as a kid included batteries. It was a modular robotics set called Capsela, and I would fully consider getting something similar for a kid.
To me, the "no battery-operated toys" rule is an easier-to-enforce version of a deeper rule: "no passive entertainment".
Often, battery-operated toys are to little kids what television is to adults. They entrance with blinking lights and direct the kids through some pre-defined experience. This passive entertainment is easy. It expects nothing from the viewer (other than the viewing). Of course, it doesn't give a whole lot back in return, but that's to be expected. And what more pleasant way to idle away the hours than to let others entertain us?
In contrast, active enterttainment gives the "viewer" a higher position: the role of "participant". In the domain of toys, wooden blocks inspire the creative juices of kids all the time. Paint sets allow kids to create works of art they couldn't otherwise do. And robotics sets (in my opinion) allow kids to develop mechanical and spatial abilities, something that will come in handy in any endeavor.
Generalizing away from the toys debate, there are lots of activities I pursue that fall somewhere along this spectrum. Here is a (somwhat) sorted list of activities, based on how I perceive them, active to passive.
* Writing (I contribute all of it, and I get clarity of thought in return)
* Reading books (I contribute my imagination and my experience, and I get fulfillment and enlightenment)
* Reading insightful blogs (I contribute my experiences and get newly synthesized ideas in return)
* Television (I contribute empathy for characters and get occasional catharsis)
* Inane time-waster Internet sites like Failblog (I contribute nothing and get only some cheap laughs)
In trying to be happier and more fulfilled, I'm trying to reduce the number of my life's "battery-operated toys".
As one of those parents, somewhat at least, let me explain a little more... My actual thinking on the issue is similar to yours, I think. The point is to encourage imagination and not stifle it. The no battery rule is a way to explain it and set a standard that works for now. It's an easy way for people to grasp it--something to tell our parents, for example, that creates some sort of line. I would never buy a big pink plastic play kitchen (though it doesn't have batteries) but I do let her play with a flashlight and we explore things by shining the light onto them. So I know the nuances of my preferences, but it's awfully hard to say it briefly to anyone else. The "rule" is also most useful for toys marketed to the baby/toddler/young preschool age, which is what I actually mean it to apply to. I don't think toys meant for kids that young need to have batteries, and actually probably do more harm than good. As kids get older that changes because their thinking and interests change, too. I still think you need to be mindful of what entertainment you encourage, but there are certainly worthy toys that do use batteries or electricity. When the batteries add a real benefit to the usage, it's different. But, again, that's for older kids. At this age (13 months) I think those sorts of toys are best left on a store shelf. :)
ReplyDelete