Highlighting the importance of children’s peer cultures, Lew-Levy and Amir’s paper advocates that “(i) children are independent producers and maintainers of autonomous cultures, (ii) peer cultures are a source of community knowledge diversity, and (iii) peer cultures may be called upon to help communities adapt to episodes of social and/or ecological change (sect.1, para. 1).”
As mentioned in this paper, a long childhood is said to be a species’ characteristic of Homo sapiens and a major factor in the evolutionary and ecological prosperity (Nielsen, Reference Nielsen2012; Thompson & Nelson, Reference Thompson, Nelson, Meehan and Crittenden2016). This paper argues that in addition to each individual child learning about existing adult culture in that long childhood, groups of children actively and collectively shape their cultures, which leads to the success of the whole society. With these arguments, the core of the authors’ interest seems to lie in reconsidering evolutionary theory so far. Through the extensive literature review that examines the importance of children’s peer cultures, however, this paper not only succeeded in elaborating existing evolutionary theory but also contributed to the development of adjacent research domains as well.
In this commentary, I would like to consider the importance of this research, especially in the context of my expertise, namely, ethnographic research on children’s socialization and social changes. In many societies, it has been shown that high levels of teaching and learning occur while children engage in peer-to-peer interactions (Lancy, Bock, & Gaskins, Reference Lancy, Bock and Gaskins2010). Such peer-to-peer interactions play a major role not only in the transmission and development of “traditional” knowledge but also in its disappearance and replacement. Thus, socialization and social changes sometimes go hand in hand.
This is also true for the case of hunter-gatherer societies in contact with agropastoral societies. In the history of research on hunter-gatherer societies, many researchers have focused on subsistence activities mainly conducted among adults for considering the foundations of human sociality. As a result, many excellent studies have demonstrated how hunter-gatherer societies incorporate non-hunting and gathering activities, including agricultural and pastoral activities (e.g., Lee, Reference Lee2014; Tanaka, Reference Tanaka2014).
However, not only in such subsistence activities among adults but also in play activities, such as singing and dancing among children, hunter-gatherer societies have been shown to actively incorporate activities and cultural elements of agropastoral societies and reorganize their own peer cultures (e.g., Takada, Reference Takada2020).
As Takada (Reference Takada2020) showed, even seemingly unrelated activities, such as hunting-and-gathering and singing-and-dancing activities, are deeply connected to the underlying social structure. In addition, through the abundance of playful activities in childhood, children cultivate lifelong social relationships with each other. Structural changes that have gone into the deeper structure over a long period of time can bring about irreversible changes in the whole society, unlike knowledge and skills that have been adopted on the surface.
Play, therefore, is not an activity that can be positioned on the periphery, either for the individual members or for the whole group. Rather, it is a core activity that characterizes both. And it is in peer cultures, which children collectively generate, maintain, and innovate, that play is most active. Lew-Levy and Amir’s paper thus provides valuable empirical and theoretical support for this. The points (i), (ii), and (iii) shown at the beginning of this commentary are important for developing such arguments in a more analytical way.
These arguments also inspire new questions. Below are three interesting issues that I would like the authors to discuss further.
(1) The issue of age differences in peer cultures: Although large age differences, such as those between adults and children, often inhibit a playful atmosphere and reinforce authoritative relationships, a certain age range can also motivate activating interactions between them. As also discussed in this paper, forming multi-aged child groups is a key feature of childhood in hunter-gatherer societies (Konner, Reference Konner, Lee and DeVore1976, Reference Konner, Meehan and Crittenden2016). The desire to act like older children is the primary driving force that activates imitation and group activities of children. How do the roles of children with age differences and children of the same age differ and relate in peer cultures?
(2) The issue of transformation and resilience in peer cultures: Children’s peer cultures are often very flexible and open to new elements. Whether they are considered archaic elements (e.g., traditional hunting-gathering methods) or new elements (e.g., singing-dancing of agropastoral people’s origin) to the adult culture, these distinctions do not necessarily work the same way for the children. Children encounter them in their own contexts, and whether they are interesting is often more important for the children to adopt them. At the same time, children’s peer cultures often show commonalities across time and place (e.g., similar games found in faraway places and times). How can such flexibility and resilience be compatible?
(3) The issue of social justice suggested from peer cultures: As referenced in this paper, Malinowski noted the members’ determination among child groups and made the famous phrase “small republic of children” (Malinowski, Reference Malinowski1929). Lew-Levy and Amir’s paper further suggests that the members’ decisions based on their active discussion, which is the goal of the current political system, are in a way rooted in peer cultures. The contemporary republican form of government has shown serious social problems, such as the lack of minority recognition and fair distribution (Honneth, Reference Honneth1995; Takada, Reference Takada2022). To solve them and achieve better social justice, what can the characteristics of peer cultures presented in this paper suggest?
You have
Access
Highlighting the importance of children’s peer cultures, Lew-Levy and Amir’s paper advocates that “(i) children are independent producers and maintainers of autonomous cultures, (ii) peer cultures are a source of community knowledge diversity, and (iii) peer cultures may be called upon to help communities adapt to episodes of social and/or ecological change (sect.1, para. 1).”
As mentioned in this paper, a long childhood is said to be a species’ characteristic of Homo sapiens and a major factor in the evolutionary and ecological prosperity (Nielsen, Reference Nielsen2012; Thompson & Nelson, Reference Thompson, Nelson, Meehan and Crittenden2016). This paper argues that in addition to each individual child learning about existing adult culture in that long childhood, groups of children actively and collectively shape their cultures, which leads to the success of the whole society. With these arguments, the core of the authors’ interest seems to lie in reconsidering evolutionary theory so far. Through the extensive literature review that examines the importance of children’s peer cultures, however, this paper not only succeeded in elaborating existing evolutionary theory but also contributed to the development of adjacent research domains as well.
In this commentary, I would like to consider the importance of this research, especially in the context of my expertise, namely, ethnographic research on children’s socialization and social changes. In many societies, it has been shown that high levels of teaching and learning occur while children engage in peer-to-peer interactions (Lancy, Bock, & Gaskins, Reference Lancy, Bock and Gaskins2010). Such peer-to-peer interactions play a major role not only in the transmission and development of “traditional” knowledge but also in its disappearance and replacement. Thus, socialization and social changes sometimes go hand in hand.
This is also true for the case of hunter-gatherer societies in contact with agropastoral societies. In the history of research on hunter-gatherer societies, many researchers have focused on subsistence activities mainly conducted among adults for considering the foundations of human sociality. As a result, many excellent studies have demonstrated how hunter-gatherer societies incorporate non-hunting and gathering activities, including agricultural and pastoral activities (e.g., Lee, Reference Lee2014; Tanaka, Reference Tanaka2014).
However, not only in such subsistence activities among adults but also in play activities, such as singing and dancing among children, hunter-gatherer societies have been shown to actively incorporate activities and cultural elements of agropastoral societies and reorganize their own peer cultures (e.g., Takada, Reference Takada2020).
As Takada (Reference Takada2020) showed, even seemingly unrelated activities, such as hunting-and-gathering and singing-and-dancing activities, are deeply connected to the underlying social structure. In addition, through the abundance of playful activities in childhood, children cultivate lifelong social relationships with each other. Structural changes that have gone into the deeper structure over a long period of time can bring about irreversible changes in the whole society, unlike knowledge and skills that have been adopted on the surface.
Play, therefore, is not an activity that can be positioned on the periphery, either for the individual members or for the whole group. Rather, it is a core activity that characterizes both. And it is in peer cultures, which children collectively generate, maintain, and innovate, that play is most active. Lew-Levy and Amir’s paper thus provides valuable empirical and theoretical support for this. The points (i), (ii), and (iii) shown at the beginning of this commentary are important for developing such arguments in a more analytical way.
These arguments also inspire new questions. Below are three interesting issues that I would like the authors to discuss further.
(1) The issue of age differences in peer cultures: Although large age differences, such as those between adults and children, often inhibit a playful atmosphere and reinforce authoritative relationships, a certain age range can also motivate activating interactions between them. As also discussed in this paper, forming multi-aged child groups is a key feature of childhood in hunter-gatherer societies (Konner, Reference Konner, Lee and DeVore1976, Reference Konner, Meehan and Crittenden2016). The desire to act like older children is the primary driving force that activates imitation and group activities of children. How do the roles of children with age differences and children of the same age differ and relate in peer cultures?
(2) The issue of transformation and resilience in peer cultures: Children’s peer cultures are often very flexible and open to new elements. Whether they are considered archaic elements (e.g., traditional hunting-gathering methods) or new elements (e.g., singing-dancing of agropastoral people’s origin) to the adult culture, these distinctions do not necessarily work the same way for the children. Children encounter them in their own contexts, and whether they are interesting is often more important for the children to adopt them. At the same time, children’s peer cultures often show commonalities across time and place (e.g., similar games found in faraway places and times). How can such flexibility and resilience be compatible?
(3) The issue of social justice suggested from peer cultures: As referenced in this paper, Malinowski noted the members’ determination among child groups and made the famous phrase “small republic of children” (Malinowski, Reference Malinowski1929). Lew-Levy and Amir’s paper further suggests that the members’ decisions based on their active discussion, which is the goal of the current political system, are in a way rooted in peer cultures. The contemporary republican form of government has shown serious social problems, such as the lack of minority recognition and fair distribution (Honneth, Reference Honneth1995; Takada, Reference Takada2022). To solve them and achieve better social justice, what can the characteristics of peer cultures presented in this paper suggest?
Acknowledgements
N/A
Financial support
This study was financially supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (S) “Ecological future making of childrearing in contact zones between hunter-gatherers and agro-pastoralists in Africa.”
Competing interests
N/A.