Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

'Kid Nation': CBS' New Reality Show Creates Little Capitalists

By Ellen Goodman, Washington Post Writers Group. Posted September 29, 2007.


When 40 kids were asked to create a new town, was it possible for them to escape the model of cutthroat competition, class divisions and unrelenting consumerism?
Advertisement

When they write the cultural history of childhood in 21st-century America, I hope they leave room for a few unkind words about "Kid Nation."

CBS' latest new reality show -- that wonderful oxymoron -- is about 40 kids from 8 to 15 years old who are dropped into a ghost town in New Mexico with only a production crew to call their own. The kids' task, we are told in the best go-team fashion, is to "try to fix their forefathers' mistakes and build a new town that works."

Their real job, of course, is to attract viewers who want to see what happens to the "first ever kid nation." Will kids left to their own devices create a democratic idyll or a savage anarchy?

There is nothing particularly new about the conflicting images of children as innocents and children as beasts. It's as old as mythology. It lives on in the heart of every parent who's seen her child turn from a screaming sociopath at the supermarket checkout to a philosopher king at the beach: "Who painted the sky blue?"

But the real founding fathers of "Kid Nation" leave little to chance or choice. It's the producers, not the so-called "pioneers," who determine the structure of the town called Bonanza. It's the adults who lay the cultural grid down the main street. And this makes "Kid Nation" an entry into the annals of childhood as it's now lived and argued about in America.

You see, this is what the adults brought with them from Hollywood to Bonanza: competition, class and consumerism. In the very first episode, the children were directed to form four armies for color war. And they did. They were told that victory would determine their class status. And it did. In a scenario Karl Marx couldn't have made up, the winners of the war were dubbed "upper class," the runners-up were labeled "merchants," then "cooks," and finally "laborers."

The little capitalists were allowed to use their very unequal paychecks for very unequal chores to pay for goodies at the town store. The producers did everything but deny the lower income children their health coverage.

Cutthroat competition, class divisions, unrelenting consumerism. Maybe it is reality programming after all. Aren't these the basic three C's of the culture in which we are all raising children? Parent bashing is the favorite indoor sport these days. It's behind the voyeurism that makes Supernanny popular and Britney Spears unpopular. It's why we cheered the judge assigning the sinking celebrity a parenting coach.

Ordinary parents are held responsible for protecting their children from every imaginable danger. They are fed a high-anxiety diet of horror stories about lead paint in toys, Crocs on escalators and killer cribs. If you google "danger" and "children," you get 21 million hits of everything from online predators to takeout junk food.

Yet even the most watchful parents are not immune to criticism. The latest villains are the helicopter parents. See them hover over their children's lives! Watch them pull the invisible apron strings of a cell phone, book their children's playdates and write their college entrance essays while squashing their sense of imagination.

Parents even have to protect kids from overprotection. The back story is that America has privatized child-raising. We regard children as the wholly owned subsidiary and responsibility of their families. Parents, in turn, can become so absorbed in worrying about the side rails on cribs that we lose focus on the cultural environment that encases all of us. And there is no bike helmet that can protect our children's brains from the three C's.

Before it premiered, "Kid Nation" itself was charged with endangering the children by violating child labor laws and even child abuse laws. Indeed, the consent form that the parents signed is as creepy as the ones you don't read before you go into surgery. Even creepier was the scene when two homesick children cried and not one adult had the impulse to drop a camera and offer comfort.

Nevertheless, the real trouble in Bonanza is not that the cast of mini-survivors was exposed to "serious bodily injury, illness or death." It's that the children urged to build a better town (read "world") than their forefathers were manipulated into the copycat media culture.

The reward is a gold star literally worth its weight in gold: $20,000. The only hero so far is 8-year-old Jimmy, the New Hampshire boy who had the good sense to go home. As for the rest? The children of Bonanza didn't make the rules. They inherited them. It's not a kid nation. It's our nation.

(c) 2007, Washington Post Writers Group

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: ellen goodman, cbs, kid nation

Ellen Goodman is a member of the Washington Post Writers Group.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Sound's like...
Posted by: TT5 on Sep 29, 2007 12:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
legal kiddy porn to my!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sound's like... Posted by: MAD
» RE: Sound's like... Posted by: richholland
Or reads like
Posted by: talkville on Sep 29, 2007 2:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lord of the Flies with a bit of Hobbes thrown in to make sure Leviathan, or the Big Fly-Swatter stands ready to bring Law and Order into The Program.

Lead (or Produce) by Example says the 'traditional wisdom'. But, they're just "Kids" -- all Good, no Bad. Kinda like Wall Street and Hollywood. After all, we need to re-produce this Great Society we currently are living in.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Or reads like Posted by: Livemike
4.6
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Sep 29, 2007 4:00 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well written. Great topic.

I recently read an interesting article on parenting: http://www.phillymag.com/articles/bad_parents/ One of the article's points is that if raising kids is a full-time job, then you may not be doing it right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Interesting article perhaps Posted by: jparsons
Thank you, Ellen Goodman, for explaining it so clearly
Posted by: sliver on Sep 29, 2007 4:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a great analysis of Kid Nation. I watched the first show with my eight-year-old daughter. We were also upset at the ridiculous class structure. First I started talking about why would they do that to the kids? and then she caught on.

But we did have some good discussions about what it takes to live in a society. In the second episode we were happy that they gave the gold star to the kid who was becoming the town sage and arbiter of truth. It showed a little bit of a higher level of thinking, that life is not about doing the most or getting the most, it is about people and working together.

But yes, I think they could have done that without the forced capitalism and created competition.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wonderama on Acid
Posted by: bookmonger on Sep 29, 2007 8:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The entire thing makes me think of Wonderama, the LSD version.

Kids are people too. I fear the show is but a microcosm of modern society. Still, better that than a dystopic vision of the coming post-apocalypse nightmare barreling down towards us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

still waiting for a rainbow team
Posted by: Seabrook on Sep 29, 2007 8:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i wonder if the kids will break out of the structure imposed by the network; maybe form a rainbow team, and share their wages evenly.

one criticism that i have of goodman's analysis is her reference to marx. what is being established on kid nation is not a class society in the way that marx understood the term -- there is no relationship of class domination or exploitation (because all of the wages are distributed by the network -- i.e. the merchants don't pay the laborers for their work). what exists -- from a marxist perspective -- is social stratification not a class society. this is why it would be so easy for the kids to socialize wealth; they wouldn't be disrupting any relationships of domination or exploitation.

but otherwise, i love the analysis. course, i also love watching the show....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One Lesson They are Sure to Learn
Posted by: alicelillie on Sep 29, 2007 8:52 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This kids were, some of them anyway, pretty young for this.

But, at any age, they are bound to learn one thing and that is that all individuals are different and have different abilities. This isn't a group thing, but each individual is unique.

They learned first off that one individual is really good at a certain task or the production of a certain good, while another individual is very poor at that but very good at something else.

For example: (I didn't see the show so these examples may not apply in this particular setting) wirey little Tim is very fast in the water and can catch fish with his bare hands, while pudgy Jane has a really good green thumb. He catches fish, some of which he swaps for her lettuce. Meanwhile, tall Fred can reach more berries and other fruit while 15-year-old Betty is very responsible and her dad taught her gun safety and she brings in some game to eat.

They swap all the stuff. There is an incentive to bring in more than you can use yourself because of the trading value. Everyone gets along fine.

If you have to put everything into a common till, the incentive is to bring in as little as you can get away with and take as much as you can get. Everyone is poorer, arguments begin, and some dominate others.

The pilgrims learned this the hard way (yes, I have a number of issues about their treatment of the Indians, etc. too) but they did learn after many deaths.

These kids certainly learned that. If they didn't then there was more adult influence than we like to think.

Sure, groups form as people make friends and prefer the company of certain people over that of others for *whatever* reason.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

creepy
Posted by: dlueth on Sep 29, 2007 9:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder about the parents who volunteered to put their children through this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I got distracted
Posted by: DaBear on Sep 30, 2007 12:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Goodman starts off with an analysis of Kid Nation then veers off into a thingy about parent protectionism kinda stuff... (holy upchuck, batman, you took that turn a bit hard!). Mmkay, that was fun... then lurches back for a finish on topic. Okey dokey.

Just finished re-reading Judith Levine's Harmful to Minors... pretty much says 'nuff on the imagined fears and societal pressures on parents to protect/innoculate offspring from every perceived or imagined threat or face stiff consequences... I get it.

But the show.... jeezuz h crapstick, why would we expect any different from a bunch of crass capitalistas than to simply stack the deck and then claim it's an "experiement"? Come on, tee vee like Kid Nation is as stoopid as 'Merkuh can be... kinda like Survivor and all the other craptastic stoopid-drivel that poses as our entertainments these days.

My real gripe is that it's only these types of dipshirt white rich asshats who are getting paid to produce this kinda hoohah these days. Everyone else who actually works on subtantive craft or storytelling is forced to fight for the crumbs these morons-of-stoopid leave off their table.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The key is not to watch or participate
Posted by: Sanglug on Sep 30, 2007 4:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm surprised at the previous posters who said they watched the first episode (one did so with his/her child!). The ultimate answer to combatting this corporate media crapola is to SIMPLY NOT TUNE IN. As Alternet readers, we should know better. Turn it off, cancel your cable service, kill your television, stop making conversational references to Britney and Supernanny. For enlightened citizens, the first principle should be to not subsidize or patronize this crap. The second principle should be to constructively use the time we'd previously spend participating in this garbage. If we don't start with this, where else do we possibly start?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Both genders are shallow in our commercial society
Posted by: mercianomad on Sep 30, 2007 10:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Generalizations follow. You have been warned.

Both men and women in our society are horribly shallow, and no feminist saying it's only men victimizing women will ever ring true to me.

When I was in Thailand, one of the most common and funny things about the ESL job scene was seeing the speedy exit of the western women who came there to teach. Very few would even last a year. I'd say it was something in the order of 85% who would just up and split. The primary reason they would leave - and they had no trouble saying so - was because they couldn't find western boyfriends, since most men who go there to teach quickly find a Thai girlfriend, and these western girls didn't want to have anything to do with Thai men.

Why would the western men want the Thai women instead? The feminist response would be that they want to control them, since Thai females are "more passive." But that's really not it. Most of us gleefully agreed about these Thai girls that they were nice, flirtatious, and not sexually inert. You could always find a nice one in short time. Yes, plenty of these Thai women have stars in their eyes for anything western, which they equate to success, but again - you can find plenty who don't think that way, and pasty nerds who wouldn't have a chance in the US or UK could be regularly seen walking around Bangkok with a beautiful, sweet Thai girl. And they are very nice...this I know.

But aren't there sweet gals in the US? Yes, but a hell of a lot fewer. American women overall are just as superficially judgmental as men, and as far as I can tell bitchiness is often seen as a virtue among our lot. Just look at the empty women in "Sex and the City" and note that they are considered a model of what to be here. There are many who get their jollies trying to emasculate men. How many times do we hear women say, "I want a REAL™ man." What do they mean by that? They might say it's about maturity, but what's the truth? I knew one girl who defined it as "owns his own house." Nice. Ever notice that the number 1 dating advice that both men and women give to guys looking to wow a woman is to "act confident"? If confidence is the best quality in a man, we're in sad shape.

America is full of people of both genders being trained to be egotistical asses towards each other and to treat each other as commodities.

Is this the fault of either gender? NO. We have been sold a national ideal by the advertising and marketing world, and even the 'enlightened' among us buy into it.

The qualities that are put forth as good ones in a man are equally superficial. American girls want a man with power, looks, ownership, cockiness, etc - though on dating sites nearly all girls will say "make me laugh" or "I want a nice guy," or "old-fashioned romantic seeks..." Do they? As far as I can tell, these are low-end needs. The age of romance has been co-opted and clichéd by our visual media. Guys feel like they have to do something clever with the engagement ring now. Hide it in her soup, man! And we're told that is what romance is. But it's not. It's a cliché all its own. Romance lies within, not without. I know plenty of very funny and nice men who are just plain alone here, especially the sensitive ones. Being an unapologetic nerd, I can say that most of my friends fall into this category.

I've been car-free for 7 years now (yes, on purpose, and it's improved my life massively over cars), and it hotly coincided with a decrease in available female partners in the US. Go figure. When you go online and see forum threads with the question, "Would you date a guy if you didn't like his car?" and the overwhelming answer from American women is "no," it's no wonder why I'm getting the hell out of this country ASAP. Is that misogyny? I don't think it is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

uhm...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Sep 30, 2007 4:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Easy one here... its insanity.

"build a civilization that works"... but you have to use the EXACT model of one that decidedly DOES NOT work.

... doing the same thing.. and expecting a different outcome. Thats insanity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Are you kidding me?
Posted by: sumwoman on Sep 30, 2007 5:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you hadn't said anything, I wouldn't have known.
: )
Yours was the best comment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Are you kidding me?
Posted by: sumwoman on Sep 30, 2007 5:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry, I'm referring to the comment above titled
"RE: Both genders are shallow in our commercial society"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How To Report Any Observed Child Abuse/Neglect
Posted by: sofla100 on Sep 30, 2007 6:01 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I did not watch this show, and will never do so. However, if you did, and you saw evidence of child abuse or neglect, please call New Mexico Child Abuse Authorities:

(800) 797-3260

If you can't connect or the above number does not work from where you are at, please call:

USA National Child Abuse Hotline
(800) 4-A-CHILD

New Mexico law requires them to investigate suspected or actual child abuse/neglect. Just tell them the truth about what you saw on TV. Abuse is not just physical, but can be emotional as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes, please report. Because this really is child abuse.
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob on Sep 30, 2007 9:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ellen doesn't see it from her pedestal of talking around the problem, old style liberal columnist fossil.

This show shouldn't even happen. What have we become? Oh yes, that's right, we don't rescue victims of hurricans, we torture people randomly picked up in raids, and we exploit children in a TV show setup. Sick.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We don't allow harmful psychological experiments on patients, yet TV does
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob on Sep 30, 2007 9:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
on children.

Where's Congress on this matter? Yoo hoo, Congress, another outrage that actually affects people. What's that you say? MoveOn made an ad?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What was to be expected,
Posted by: donl51 on Sep 30, 2007 10:15 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My wife and I'' we're ea. second go-arounds for one another'' really don't much care for kids ,they're needy,greedy and generally a pain in the butt,.We heard of this new reality show,why we need more reality I don't know ,I prefer this make beleive world we live in,where a village in texas is missing its idiot,well what I'M getting at is ,you ever read or see movie ''Lord of the Rings?''good story! about stranded kids creating a village,on an island, infrastructure, whole 9 yds. would i like to live under their rule or in that town on tv?...nope! all they are is little us's,only they'd still be enjoying the fine art of burning ants w/magnifyers !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What was to be expected, Posted by: LeeAnnG
Virtual reality
Posted by: LeeAnnG on Oct 1, 2007 6:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just like nearly every other "reality" show, Kid Nation is an artificial creation. (Apparently, there is one reality show in which the star films himself and really does all of it without assistance. I've heard about it, but never seen it and don't know the name of the program.) I have never watched even one episode of any reality TV, so my observation is only from promotional clips and ads for the shows. However, the promotions always depict shows like Survivor as if there is no one around to save the participants should something terrible happen. Obviously there's a TV crew there with them, so the isolation and danger are fabricated - at least to a large degree.

The same situation is true in Kid Nation. Those children are not alone in the world with no one to get them to a doctor or take them home should they decide to opt out, in spite of the promos for the show that say "NO ADULTS - THESE KIDS ARE ON THEIR OWN." Not only that, but they apparently were not really allowed to determine how they would approach being in charge of their own lives.

According to what I've read and heard, these kids were prompted and choreographed into a weird social structure that they very well might not have chosen for themselves. The whole thing is abusive, and the parents who allowed their children to participate are collaborators in that abuse.

It's twisted in the same way that other commercial ventures are twisted. For example, it's illegal to sell one's body for sex unless it's in front of a camera. A person cannot accept money to have sex with one other consenting adult in private, but he or she can accept money to have sex with multiple partners if the result will be witnessed by the public in a theatre or on a CD.

So it's also illegal for a parent or other adult to endanger a child physically or emotionally in a private setting (as it should be, of course), but it's not illegal to do it with cameras rolling and millions of people watching.

It's pretty sick.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Virtual reality Posted by: focus
Defense
Posted by: lynmarenjensen on Oct 1, 2007 12:00 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is Ellen Goodman discussing things only from a Marxist point of view and only staying on topic half the time, at that? Yes, I watch the show and, yes, I like it. Throw all the on-line vegetables at me you want.
The children (and their parents) volunteered to be exposed to this educational experience and the kids are free to leave anytime they want, which Goodman should know is very, very different from child abuse.
No, the show does not have the children fight wars, contrary to Goodman's hysteria. The children do compete in games where, unlike in the larger society, they may move up (or down) in class simply by winning the game--if only the larger society was so simple, right? I wonder if Goodman also calls baseball and football and tennis "war" if she sees children playing games as "war."
I like the way the childern show so much capability and independence. When they get sick or injured or homesick, they comfort each other--they don't need adults' help, and they knew when they came on the program that that would be the case. The one boy that didn't like the situation went home, as was his choice. The others continue, as is their choice. Why is it so hard for Goodman and so many other of the other narrow minds that posted here to grasp that minors may be capable of making free choices?
Yes, the show structures society by class--just like real life, duh! What is wrong with exposing children to the real-life choices our society offers, in a controlled educational environment? Aren't the inequities of real life likely to do them more damage than participating in a TV show?
Why is the fact that these children are experiencing freedom of choice so hard for even the Ellen Goodmans of the world to contemplate?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Watch for yourself because it's interesting
Posted by: focus on Oct 8, 2007 9:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've watched all the episodes and the minute they introduced the $20,000 gold star all bets were off. One thing is clear, power and money can be corrupting to children. The games are interesting, especially watching what the prizes the .town counsel chooses and why. However, the more difficult their tasks and the more hardships they must endure, the more the general population desires bread and circuses, pizza vs a microwave. This week they endured very high winds, (tornado or studio produced?). With that fearful reminder and its aftermath behind them, all but a few demanded the Pizza, NOW!!!

Yes, these children are manipulated, just like their parents, into believing they are actually calling the shots. Their community is beginning to suffer from, the tyranny of the leadership. The gold star winner this week was a sweet girl, but the reasons for her being awarded were stupid and sentimental. The oldest kid, Gregg deserves the award and is honestly working to win it, but he is denied it based on the vengeance of a few leaders. His response to this discrimination is honest.

There is the need for order and even some laws, but there are clearly some preferred camera stars so we don't really get to see or hear much from most of the others. On the one hand, I would suggest the naysayers watch the show and draw conclusions from what they witness. Skip or fast-forward through commercials if you don't want to support the advertisers. I would like to hear about these kids a few years from now, with their own blogs.

A much better show was the PBS production living like pioneers for 6 months. 40 days isn't a long time but a lot can be learned about human interaction in small communities and why they may thrive or become extinct. They are learning some lessons about life, about decisions, about humanity and cooperation and governance, both good and bad and it's fascinating to watch.


Finally, don't make the mistake of labeling these kids the model for all kids. They are a select 40 participating in an experiment in a material and survival-based environment. Most kids anywhere in the world don't have such opportunities to see what hardship might look like or how they would respond and then return to I suppose, safe and secure homes. I think all will have learned something about themselves and others and we voyeurs will learn something in watching them figure it all out.

I suspect FOX is working on something even more financially demoralizing than this program, they've stolen so many other ideas, Trading Spouses, Nanny 911.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]