Developmental Psychology

Camp Sociology

I guess if you put a couple that are Jewish, trained as Social Workers, in charge of creating their own personal camp vision, you get something on the liberal perspective. But I’m sure that that liberal label really describes anything about camp. I’m also sure that many of the families were affluent liberals, doctors, and professionals. And the camp staff clearly colored the experiences as well. But the social structure of camp, the developmental ideal for children, of playing and exploring, and engaging in items of their own choices, was central to camp’s social system.

The first twenty-four hours at camp were exactly the same year in and year out. After my many sessions I could predict within a few feet where I’d be and what’d I be doing. This formed the base, the welcoming, Irv’s Toilet Paper speech (a really great metaphor), visiting the nurse’s station to get your weight and temperature taken—waiting on the log in your swim suits, the riding and swimming tests, spending time with your cabin group. Bonding to camp, to the first circle, cabin mates and counselors. This structure was extreme, and hardly liberal in the free for all of some versions of liberalism. No choices, highly programmed schedule, invariant, consistent and supportive.

This was then followed by Cabin Choice where the whole group would program its day. Swimming and riding were prescheduled, if the group wanted, but it was a semi democratic process within the group—counselors had a lot of influence I’m sure. The idea was to bond your to camp, to the group, to have a place, a home away from home. For many campers homesickness kicked in about this time (no phone calls for the first three days.). I remember that we even did an overnight for the older boys. Campers got a sense of what camp was about—off course after something like 20 sessions at camp this part wasn’t as important. I wasn’t bored, that was interesting.

Then came free choice. For the next couple of weeks each campers scheduled their own world—there were riding and swimming groups but other than that you could choose what you wanted to do, or at least you could have a first, second or third choice. Maybe this was common but part of the developmental process at ERN was free choice. At each step you built up a competency, and you could begin widening the world as well. You could schedule with other cabin mates or not, your choice.

Then there was the Robsian, “Free/Free” choice. So after 10 days you didn’t have to schedule at all—except if you wanted to take swimming and riding, still grouped. As long as there was room, almost always was, you could wonder between archery, arts and crafts, lawn games or simple relax in your own way. By the end of the summer I think I spent much of the afternoon sleeping.

And it was through this developmental process that you gained control and competence. Irv used to talk about development stages.

Unconscious Incompetence
Conscious Incompetence
Conscious Competence
Unconscious Competence

Another element was the constancy and structure—that we create something solid, intelligent, supportive, and that this provides for children a sense of safety, of security. Children see these development boundaries as supportive, as a sign of our adult presence and caring, that they matter enough to set limits. To stay with them when they visit the edges, as they look for attentions and definition.

So much of camp was about preparing young people to become adults. Accepting their stages and then creating a sequence that supported their development. And this was the underlying liberal perspective—you weren’t training children, they were growing, and they were learning. I remember one of the arguments with Irv was about teaching—a staff member wanted to teach about nature, and wanted more materials to support this. Irv reinforced that the learning was about the experience, not about the knowledge. Take the children on a creek walk.

And somehow this really was enough.