Those who grew up in the 1960s and 1970s often remember afternoons without a fixed schedule. Children met on the street, in the yard, on the meadow, or at the playground and decided for themselves what to play.

In doing so, they sometimes had to set rules themselves, form groups, and deal with different ideas. Adults did not automatically provide a solution for every situation. It was precisely in this that opportunities lay to make independent decisions.

Psychological considerations of child development classify free play as a situation in which children can, among other things, gain social experiences. However, the present report does not imply that this form of upbringing was fundamentally better for every child.

Another difference was in dealing with boredom. Without digital entertainment, it was part of everyday life for many children not to know what to do at first.

From an apparently uneventful afternoon, their own ideas could emerge. A box became a toy, blankets turned into a hut, or new rules were invented for a new game.

The crucial point is not the tedium alone. Creativity did not arise automatically just because there were no screens. It also required enough time, space, and opportunities for independent experimentation.

Even in the household, many children took on age-appropriate tasks. These could include setting the table, tidying up, or running small errands.

Such activities could convey that one’s own contribution has concrete consequences. At the same time, no generalized image should arise from this. Living conditions varied greatly depending on the family, place of residence, and economic situation.

For some children, tasks were a part of everyday family life. For others, early work could significantly limit the space for school and leisure. Responsibility and being overwhelmed are therefore not synonymous.

Playing with others also brought conflicts. Disputes over rules, turns, or teams could not always be easily avoided.

If children wanted to continue playing together, they often had to find solutions themselves. This included waiting, negotiating, listening, or reconciling after a dispute.

Such everyday situations could foster social skills. However, the specific environment was crucial. Not every child had the same opportunities to freely form friendships or move independently in their living environment.

The image of a particularly free childhood in the 1960s and 1970s is therefore too simplistic. Whether children could play outside, how safe their environment was, and how much leisure time they had depended on their respective living conditions.

The absence of smartphones and social media does not automatically mean a happier childhood. Growing up without digital devices brought different conditions, but in itself says nothing about individual well-being.

The focus is therefore more on the question of which elements of that childhood can still be meaningful today: free playtime, age-appropriate responsibility, and the opportunity not to be dictated every minute by adults or digital offerings.

Children of today can also benefit from such experiences. Free playtimes do not have to look the same as they did several decades ago. Today, they can also mean that children organize a game themselves, take on household tasks, or find a solution to a conflict together.

How much freedom is possible depends, among other things, on age, environment, and family conditions. A blanket return to the childhood of the 1960s and 1970s cannot be derived from this.

Looking back mainly shows that independence often arises in small everyday situations. While playing, taking on a task, and also when no one is dictating what to do next.

(VIENNA.AT)

This article has been automatically translated, read the original article .