The Role of Peers in the Mental Development of the Child

Abstract

In the European cultural tradition with its super-values of freedom, equality, autonomy, and independence, an adult’s position in relation to a child is always ambiguous. While leading children toward freedom, adults inevitably restrict their freedom, given that children are incapable of self-restraint, being not so much free as willful, incapable of harmonizing their own will with that of someone else. Planning and managing a child’s life (ideally in the gentlest, most democratic, hands-off way) is the direct responsibility of adults, and equality in this work between a child and an adult is, in principle, impossible. When adults insist on the equality of their relations with children, they mean a completeness and reciprocity of feelings, as well as unconditional, absolute respect for the unique identity of each person, regardless of age. But if an adult insists on equality with a child in everything, this is either sentimental selfdeception, or follows the logic: “On the possibility of breaking the law of universal gravitation on Thursdays.” Alas, the famous aphorism of G. Orwell applies to relations between children and adults: “All are equal, but some are more equal than others.” Unlike the “adult–child” relationship (in principle, equal–unequal), relations with peers are, first and foremost, based on equality. (Only those children’s groups in which a child begins to play the adult role of the boss, leader, or dictator are built on a “control–subordination” relationship.) What do association and collaboration with peers do for the mental development of children? This question seems self-evident only at first glance. But can someone who is ignorant and incapable teach? Can someone who is imperfect improve someone else? Let us cut off in advance any attempt at a superficial, quantitative solution. We will not discuss peer relationships as relationships of those who are slightly more or less skillful, knowledgeable,