Children vs. adults (similarities/ are they really that different?)

Are they really that different?

I think what really made me think about this topic is my Russian lit class from this past semester, semester II. I loved the way Anton Chekhov writes from the child’s perspective. Perfect examples include the short stories “Grisha,” “Vanka,” or “The Steppe”-novella.

In “Grisha” it is from the perspective of a toddler. Grisha describes a room has having four walls (you are probably thinking, “duh”, right?). To him it’s a new detail. To an adult it’s common sense. An adult wouldn’t notice such a thing, because it would be weird if a room didn’t have four walls. In fact that’s what it would take, something other than four walls, for an adult to notice and go, “that’s strange. What’s off with this room?” As if a room cannot have any other number but four walls. Adults have rules. Children, not so much. They are too new to the world. They are just learning.

Obviously Grisha is also shorter than an adult. So he sees things under the bed.

What’s interesting is that Grisha, as a regular child, is egoistic. He doesn’t have the capacity to think about anyone but himself or in terms of himself. I have written about this on this blog before. But perhaps never given examples as perfect as the ones I am about to give right now or am in possession of now after this Russian lit class. Grisha knows what mama and nanny are for. They clothe him. They feed him. But what is papa for? Grisha doesn’t know. Because papa doesn’t interact with him in the same way. He doesn’t fulfill his needs. Grisha just catches glimpses of him in rooms and always sees him leaving. So what is his purpose? Or, another example, is Grisha’s aunt. He doesn’t understand where she disappears to, so he looks for her.

It’s like the peekaboo game. Like “now you see me; now you don’t.” That’s called object permanence.

It’s all about associations. And what he associates with her is that when she is there, she gives him a gift. Mama nanny = clothes, food. Aunt = gift. Papa = yeah what is his purpose???

Freud’s “id.”

Children are simple-minded. Kind-of like animals, a little, at first. More concerned with themselves and survival. Like eating. In “The Steppe,” Egorushka is very creative. A common way he sees things is windmills as “waving” their arms. Personification, I guess. Relatability. He is trying to relate to them. Or psychologically, perhaps, trying to assimilate it in what he already knows?

But then there’s another character in “The Steppe.” Except this character is, you could say, an adult. However he reminds one of a child with certain things that he does. Vasya. He has amazing vision. With his vision, he can see things others don’t. Like animals in their natural habitats. In this way, he is like a child, he has his own world, and his own way of seeing things. Just like Grisha was in his own bubble with his vision of the room, the four walls, the toys, and the specific way in which he viewed people, Vasya could see things in a way others couldn’t. He was even childlike in other ways, too. Vasya acted as if an animal sometimes. He would eat raw fish, and be unafraid of things that maybe he should’ve been. Almost like he couldn’t think twice, or think rationally. It was childlike the way he acted on his impulses, made rash decisions for a grownup, and “couldn’t think.” And it all reminded me of Freud even more. Like he was on a survival animal like instinct. Maslow’s basic hierarchy of needs.

Up until now I have discussed differences and started to discuss similarities. Based on the Chekhov works mentioned above. But there are even more considerations when considering similarities.

Both children and adults can be creative. Children are very creative in the way they view the world. As seen above, with Egorushka. The way he views the windmills. Or Grisha. They have to make up their own ideas, because they don’t know anything. Adults are creative too, because their minds are developed. They have seen more, and have inspiration. It’s interesting to think about who could be the most creative. On one hand, is one more creative without having seen much of the world, to think for themselves, find their own ways? But adults can be creative in ways children could never. Like engineering, simply because children do not know enough. In this way, adults have more tools for creativity. Yet they are compromised by having seen too much. Perhaps in some ways, they don’t have to think for themselves as much anymore. Imagination, is a word often associated with children, not adults. Could this all be the reason?

Both have insecurities. Are just trying to find their way in the world. Figure out who to be. Who they are. What their values are.