People talk of the Nanny State when they believe that governmental authorities are creating rules to impose behaviours which they consider should otherwise be choices made by mature adults. But a bigger problem these days seems to be an attitude and culture of expecting others to relieve us of our duties.
However, unless it is accepted as a desirable life principle that generally people should take responsibility always for themselves and indeed others such as their children and perhaps sometimes other close family, more and more “nannies” will be needed. There is learning to be gained by us all from suffering the consequences of our own poor choices and behaviours, so that we change for the better. But if those consequences are avoided or removed and a comfort blanket or cushion provided in substitution, the learning may never happen, and the poor choices and behaviour become the norm.
ARE PARENTS ENTITLED TO NANNYING SERVICES?
The duties of a parent are surely universally understood. In all nations are not parents responsible for ensuring the health and safety of their children; to feed and water them with nourishment; to bring them up to be decent and capable citizens who can not only manage life for themselves but also contribute to the lives of others; and who have a sense of right and wrong? Others may have variations on these themes and might proscribe more or less duties, and of course there will always be a number of situations where these are not applicable or possible. However, in this country a recent survey suggests that half of parents do not consider that it is they who are responsible for even toilet training their child.
If they believe that, then it is reasonable to conclude that the things they consider themselves responsible for is somewhat wide of the benchmark suggested above. Apparently too, a large number of parents do not consider they have a responsibility to help their child to read. These attitudes explain why high percentages of children arrive at primary school not just unable to use a toilet, but unable to dress themselves, or to begin real learning.
At a guess, not so long ago would-be parents had an idea that having children meant taking responsibility for their upbringing, and what that meant was in large part learnt from their own parents. Now there are generations with a number of people not so learning. Is it not time to wean the nation off schools as the parent substitute rather than adding duties such as teeth brushing? Does this require plain speaking and action? There seems to be a fear of plain speaking that it is primarily the parent who must ensure the wellbeing and proper upbringing of their child, not the State.
THE RISE OF THE THERAPISTS
There have always been and will always be some people who suffer deeply from mental trauma, depressions, extreme disorders, like extreme ADHD or OCD. These are highly disabling and require serious support maybe physically and mentally. It is also good that today people are less stigmatised in the UK by mental health problems than in the fairly near past, and there is greater willingness to discuss openly such issues. But this country, and others, are experiencing a new cultural shift towards self-indulgence and self-examination and self-diagnosis than ever before. Combine that with a dangerous tendency to box things up together with labels as if one size fits all and there is a severe risk of self-responsibility, self-help and resilience being not just diluted but disdained. There are different levels of disorder, and everyone suffers some disorder, and a reasonable level simply is part of living mostly to be overcome without therapy.
Words such as “catastrophe”, “crisis”, “depression”, “traumatic” used to be applied to highly extreme circumstances only. The Ukraine war is causing a catastrophe, as is the Hamas/Israel war. But the other day a politician described tax cuts as potentially catastrophic. Really? It used to be the case that a trauma was a life-threatening injury, now people talk about the trauma of just going to work. Delabelling and dialling down language to describe situations and conditions which are not in fact extreme in order to maintain perspective would help, as otherwise it tends to be forgotten that there are levels of seriousness of mental states such as anxiety and depression.
People staying home are self-diagnosing harm to mental health and doctors seem to find it hard to disagree. Children feeling anxious are being referred to therapy. But anxiety, even to a significant level, should be seen as something we all sometimes get and learn to cope with, perhaps with support of friends and family. But there are calls for a lot more therapists. Employers are questioning whether some not coming to work are simply work shy. Journalists are writing for example “The contagion of idleness is rampant. It is an evil in need of a cure”.
For children and students and younger people suffering from anxiety and worry who lack personal resources to handle their feelings, whether due to Covid experiences or social media or other outside forces, many again call for more therapists and NHS support, to mitigate the disease rather than prevent it. Perhaps for the most extreme cases, that is needed. But tackling the causes would be far better, and so educational establishments, and mature family members, particularly parents and grandparents, could perhaps work together to give consistent messaging: thus, enabling coping, controlling social media influences and teaching useful skills. After all, being able to employ skills usefully can bring a satisfaction and so hope for the future. Could it perhaps be more therapeutic to go to work or school, mixing with other people than festering at home?
In any event, calling for the therapists is all very well, but plenty of research bears out that, except for extreme cases, making young people dependent on psychotherapists is not equipping them for the future. Referring adults for therapy seems only fruitful if the therapists are highly competent. Might it be the case that many who become therapists need therapy themselves? And is it likely the country could ever produce enough capable therapists as are being called for?
The malaise of failing to understand that work is necessary for every person is illustrated by a quote in A Sunday Times article on 23 March concerning the epidemic of people feeling work is not for them: “If I was to go back to work, I could only do it part-time,” said Claire. “But the money I’d earn is basically what I am getting now and I wouldn’t have the benefit of having things like (the cost of) my prescriptions covered. Is it really going to be worth it?” How notable it is that there is no mention made of the importance of making a contribution, and how inappropriate it is to be subsidised by the work of others. The biggest issue to be corrected might be attitude to work.
SOCIAL MEDIA – TIME FOR SERIOUS CHALLENGE AND PERHAPS A STATE NANNY
Social media is the creature of big tech firms who use it for a single purpose , to make money. They have no social conscience. Information manipulated by the platforms to give recipients a sugar rush on their own preferences, whether truthful or complete fiction, or absolutely useless, is pumped into social media users every day. The drug takes hold. The phone is the owner’s best friend, with relationships with people often a distant second. How many parents use the media device to shut up the child? How many parents spend time glued to social media themselves, neglecting people around them including their children?
Instagram is nearly entirely egocentric. Social media is largely about caring for “me”, not other people, the opposite principle of life that most value systems aspire to. Perhaps a look at Tik Tok tells a salutary tale. In China, which produces Tik Tok, one expert (ex Google) says the Chinese version of Tik Tok is like spinach, whereas in the U.S. the version is like opium. The Chinese version is not available outside China. There “If you are under 14 years old, they show you science experiments you can do at home, museum exhibits, patriotism videos and educational videos” and children are limited to 40 minutes a day on the app. On the contrary, in the U.S. and indeed in the UK the app is used for unlimited useless opiate trivia. China will not allow its people to be damaged by the addiction. It is also well known that China is happy for the Western world to degrade itself and its people. And that is what all social media is doing.
Tik Tok has an addictive, personalised and predictive algorithm apparently, as do all major social media apps.. And as they gather data, Tik Tok discerns what drug a child likes and feeds it more. Is this and other social media obsessives the modern information fentanyl perhaps? Yet Western adults and parents use it and happily feed it to children.
The damage to future generations is potentially mind boggling. But it can be controlled. Here, while we do not want a Chinese Communist Party approach, perhaps we will need the State to regulate to save the young from themselves, as well as grown ups who understand this evil (and it applies across the social media airwaves) to stand up and take control. Ideas such as banning the iPhone for younger children will perhaps acquire real support.
TAKING BACK CONTROL
The State must generally step back and cease its nannying through pandering and a benefits system which rewards not working. Should for example those (except the most disabled) in receipt of benefits contribute with some form of work as is the case in many countries? Let people take responsibility and work out their own problems, make choices and take the consequences. The culture of reliance on others and rejection of the notion of duty needs reversal. Nannying could bankrupt countries financially and morally. But where the State may be needed is where people are killing themselves physically or mentally, with, for example, bad diet and social media. This needs thinking through and bold decision making. But it cannot be left to just see how things work out or to unrestrained market forces, or some Royal Commission to take 10 years to recommend changes, which are then ignored. Cross party, and cross expertise, scientific, medical and technical, consensus to hire the right “nannies” is required. Control largely rests today with purveyors of junk for profit, and the junkies they create are wasted lives. Control must be wrested back.
