Int.f. ofEarly Childhood, 1981 , 13 , 1, 104-112

War toys or the organization of hostilityChristian Buettner, Germany(Translated by Aurel Ende)

Thomas (11 years) is playing with soldiers andtanks in his room. He accompanies his gamewith sounds which have a striking resem­blance to war. In the course of the game theintensity of war sounds is increasing:

“ We need reinforcements, folks ... here’sthe supply . . . General, you have to realizethat you’11 be held responsible .. . we needmore support ... General, Sir, I have to get inthere . . . but I want. . . Fire - over there. . .the others are corning, hey, you: stay there

. over there, they are attacking again .fire. . . it’s burning. . . hurry up, another tank... but I’m German , I can ’t handle that thing

. God , it’s heavy ... quick, away with thejeep ... alarm , faster, alarm ... fire, come on

hey, you, handle the flak theAmericans are running short of men nomore men, gee ..."

As a child Thomas has often played withwar toys. From books and movies he learnedwhat war looks like, which weapons are usedand which kinds of conflicts are decided byforce of arms. In his opinion war toys and realwar have nothing in common. He does notlike the idea of joining the Bundeswehr,* andimagining he might live to see a war he isstruck with fear.

His middle class parents are not particu­lar1y enthusiastic about their son’s war games.Nevertheless they allow him to play with wartoys because it is their point of view, that it isimportant for him, that he wants to expresssomething and that he needs it. They thinkthat their behaviour towards the son has astronger impact on his later behaviour thanthe war toys now have. A parental attitudelike this, concerning their children playing wargames, certainly is rarely to be found. Apartfrom parents who want to prepare their chil­*Translator’s note: West Germany has a compulsorymilitary service.

dren for life with war toys, my common ex­perience is that there is a contradictionbetween the antimilitaristic attitude of parentsand their children’s war games which they areunable to come to terms with or to explain. Inmy opinion the following report of a mothervery clearly characterizes the pedagogicalhelplessness:

“ One day - my son may have been aboutthree years old - it happened. He plantedhimself before me, pointed his fat, little fingerat me and happily shouted: ‘Bang, bang'!Then he smiled at me and explained: ‘Mummyis dead, Mummy must fall. ' A little later - henow was going to the kindergarten - whiletaking a walk, he looked for a stick thenkneeled down behind a bush and from there‘fired’ a volley from a machine gun at passers­by. It took quite another while for me - aftermany talks with educators and extensivereading of pedagogical literature to toleratethe first toy gun in his play-room. At thattime, the beginning of the seventies, we asparents were still engaged in the fascinatingtheories of· an anti-authoritarian and non­violent education. As the generation of war­children we had planned to let our childrenknow from the outset what it meant when con­flicts are decided by force of arms. We toldthem our own experiences, played games withthem that were concerned about alternativesolutions of conflicts, read stories to them andin disputes we tried hard to reach settlementsof understanding and partnership in order toprove that violence is not necessary. Ourchildren listened carefully and appeared tohave understood what we were trying to teachthem. But gradually and evidently independently of our endeavours their armouryin the play-room multiplied. We did not buythe plastic monsters of the Western or warkind for them, but they themselves took care

104

WAR TOYS 105

of this ‘increase of power' with their spending The mother listened pleased: how nice, themoney and swapping, just to roam the streets child is full of imagination. Well, what does

.and playgrounds in hordes , fully weaponed the car look like? It is the ‘Stalinorgan’ withand wildly gesticulating - being sheriffs, TV rockets and placed on both sides are mobiledetective heroes, cowbows or gang leaders. batteries of machine guns with a gun in theAt least we were happy in the knowledge that back. He had been First Lieutenant, his friendchildren generally differentiate between such too had been a German in the war and theygames and real conflicts and are able to act had shot themselves ‘free’. All of the enemiesappropriately - but recently a reaction of my had been killed. He looked at me with brightnow nine-year-old son showed how little they eyes. ‘Bang, bang!’ I remembered the three-understand of the non-violence we were trying year-old boy, ‘everybody drop dead! ’ I did notto explain to them in all those years. That know what to say. He noticed my perplexityevening we were three of us. Three genera- and quickly explained, being a little bittions: 70,40 and nearly 10 years old. The TV troubled: ‘But that was only a game, Iwas announcing a film on the battle of Stalin- wouldn’t do it in reality, shooting at people’ ”grad. We switched off - I did not want to see (Frankfurter Rundschau: April 8, 1978).the film. But then between us adults a dis- The helplessness of this mother is shared bycussion started. We talked about the his- many educators, whose endeavours to get thetorical meaning of the battle and its final con- children to disarm their playrooms are mostlysequences. The child lis.tened with close atten- fruitless. Educators too are of differenttion. Suddenly we had the idea of watching opinions when it comes to the question of warthe film together, to be able to show the child toys and other toys of violent nature and howwith an historical example what war really these are related to possible militaristicmeans , what it was like in those days, when attitudes of children and to what extent thehis mother was still a child and witnessed how readiness of aggressive behaviour is increased.senselessly hundreds of thousands died by I will have to disappoint those educators orbullets and bombs. When the TV screen lit up parents who are hoping for a clear help fromsome vigorous words of German officers science to make a deci

Experiments with children: no explanations ofthe internal discord

Whether war toys have effects on thebehaviour and attitudes of children, and ofwhat kind they might be, is still obscure. It isstill controversial whether the effect can bestudied experimentally at all, and if thequestion of cause and effect has not been putthe wrong way:

“ When children play cruel games (andpeople are participating in brutal activities onthe television screen), will they bepurified ofdeep-lying aggressions? Do these emotionsthen find a harmless outlet? Or do people justlearn to be cruel? Are they getting used toasocial behaviour by means of these activitiesand pictures?" (Flitner 1973 , p. 15). In otherwords , are war toys making children moreaggressive or are aggressive children wantingwar toys?

Concerning this question Bernhard Kronerhad to state in a recent review of literature onthe subject, published in the Christmas edition(!) of “ Psychology heute" (“PsychologyToday"): there is no clear proof of the in­fluence of war toys on subsequent or evenmilitaristic behaviour of children.

Hanne Birckenbach would like a restriction of war toys however , these being“ Material, clearly discernible as being miniatures of war instruments, as noninterchange­able elements of a matching scenario; whichmeans, not all of the objects used as weaponsby children with help of their fantasy orserving as instruments in aggressive games"(Birckenbach 1977 , p. 111-142). To ElfriedeIrlbeck , educator in the preschool-area, tanksand cowboy-colts are , without exception ,weapons in aggressive games of children(1976). And Donata Elschenbroich dif­ferentiates between civilized and uncivilizedplaying behaviour which is marked off by theadult ’s so called “ threshold of embarrasment": campaigns against weapons are notdirected against traditional toys but against

106 CHRISTIAN BUETTNER

rarely seen girls playing with war toys. modern equipment in toy shops and playPerhaps my ideas may be an indication of the rooms , against tanks , bombers , machine gunsreason for the different behaviour. and rockets (1973, p. 70). The state of know

ledge on the effects of war toys seems to me,roughly speaking , to be like the knowledge onthe effects of presentations of violence on televIsion.

From research done on both subjects , onemight assume that there is an effect of presentations of violence and war toys on theaggressiveness of children , just as there arestudies providing arguments against thisassumption. The contradiction is partlyexplained by the way questions like this arescientifically explored: in laboratory tests , forexample , a group of children, whose level ofaggression had previously been guessed bytrained observers, is offered normal toys aswell as war toys. A control group onlyreceives normal toys. After fixed timeintervals the “ new" behaviour of the groups iscompared to see whether and to what extentthe level of aggression of the war-toy group isincreased compared to the control group.What is it that the observers consider to beaggressive behaviour? Where does the alreadyexisting aggressiveness of children originate?Scientists mostly construct their experimentsin a way that enables them to prove their ownpreconceived hypothesis: their only way toachieve success in science. Experimentalresearch does not only lack life-historical in­formation about the children , which mightadd to the understanding of their aggressiveness, but the subject “ war" also lacks arelation to social-historical events , althoughsuch events have an impact on the playingbehaviour of children.

Historical comparisons of various modelsof education as well as comparisons of coun­tries with different military tradition and socialorder lead to the conclusion that the moremilitaristic the structure of a society is, andthe more militarism is deeply rooted in indivi­dual attitudes towards social life, standardsand values , the more militaristic and tendingto violent solutions of problems is thecountry’s educational method and the moreopen and legitimate are war games and wartoys.

WAR TOYS 107

Children from various European countries children adopting reality by games or are theywere offered playthings , belonging to a test, playfully acting out their internal conflicts? Ifthat included animals and people as well as today children who never witnessed a war arewar toys. The children from σaditionally mili- playing with war toys, are experiences withtaristic countries, as for example Austria , games of children made during war able tochose remarkably more often toy soldiers than give information about the questions menchildren from traditionally anti-militaristic tioned above? I will try to characterize thecountries like Holland (Hoehn 197 1). In the contradiction between the “ psychic reality" oftime prior to and during World War I German children and their actual conditions oflife withchildren were taught war games in school: two examples of World War II.“ Cardboard soldiers and even men, dressed The first example is from a report byup as infantrymen , gave intuitive instruction Dorothy Burlingham and Anna Freud , whoin the classroom" (Katalog des Historischen during World War II took care of children atMuseums (Frankfurt): Ein Krieg wird aus- the age of just a few weeks up to ten years in agestellt, S. 159). During World War II , after nursery. 까1e children’s parents were either inPearl Harbour had been attacked , children in military service, working in the war industry ,Hawaii were mainly playing scenes of war. had died during war or were otherwise unableBoys were playing “destruction" , girls “ took to care for their children:care" of wounded and refugees (Bonte and “ The children of the nurseries wereMusgrove 1942 , quoted by Kroner 1977). recruited from the most endangered parts of

However, in traditional military education London. All of them, born before the Lo ndonwar toys are only of secondary importance. Blitz (September-December 1940), are warThe substantial factor of military fruitful veterans. Fifteen children were from destroyededucation is the training of certain social con- houses; all the others were from flats andducts: subordination to a hierarchy , uncon- houses with different damages. Some of theditional execution of orders and requests, children had been bombed out of lodgingsobservance of strict disciplines, especially three times one after another; some had beenthose which are impossible to observe, and a living for months behind n

Many educationalists hold the view that toysoldiers and guns are providing children withthe possibility to act out their internal discordin a more or less harmless way. Others goeven further and assume that games with toysof violence and aggression have a catharticcharacter, that play indicates a self-healingprocess of the child and should be seen as ananswer to feelings of limitation and inferiority, that children get rid of their“ natural" aggression by means of war andcowboy games.

Psychoanalysts even start from theassumption of a natural instinct of aggression,an instict that needs to be sublimated in a suc­cessful education - most successfully bymeans of mastery and efficiency. Theycaution against the readiness of instinctualdesires that easily might be tied to presentations of violence and war, that these areindeed searching for them.

In order to be able to handle aggressions ofchildren and raise these to a more socia11evelof “ psychic maturity", toy guns and tanks areoften to be found in the play rooms of child­therapists. As part of a project of the PeaceResearch Institute , Frankfurt, we, too,offeredwar toys in play-lessons (one hour per weekduring the normal lessons) in an elementaryschool (see: Buettner and Koester 1979). Thetoys were taken along from their homes by thechildren. But what about the acting out ofchildren’s aggressions by means of violentgames? Are these aggressions indeed natural ,innate? An d why is it that even children ofloving parents are playing war , children offamilies where one at first sight would notsuspect a violent education? I cannot imaginethat in our “ civilised" circumstances even asingle child is existing who in his (her) life­history has no experience of vi이ence. Mostlythese experiences are considered to be of noimportance, are hidden behind the anxiety tohave made an educational mistake or even arein the sense of parental love considered asjustified educational methods. At this point Iam not even talking about an upbringing thatincludes punishment. Most of the time

108 CHRISTIAN BUETTNER

conditioned - why some of the children The origin of violent fantasiesnearly stay free from fear during bombard­ment, many of them only show little fear whilea few others vehemently react with outbreaksof fear."

The following episode shows that it is firstof all the anxiety of parents , transferring to thechild:

“ A little boy and his mother had takencover in a dug-out and at first were timidlylistening to the noise of exploding bombs.After a while he could not wait any longer andhe started to bury himself in a story-book hehad taken along. Again and again the motherdisturbed his reading with nervous outcries.After short breaks he always turned back tohis story until at last the mother lost herpatience, rebuking him - just as κ he wasneglecting homework - he should finally ‘putthe book away and pay attention to thebombs' " (p. 31).

With further examples Dorothy Burling­ham and Anna Freud report how intenselyemotional reactions to war experiences andthe consciousness of the particular situationare connected to the mother ’s emotionalreactions. Hence , emotional experiences chil­dren are having with parents - first of allexperiences of separation - have thestrongest bearing on the reality of children.Experiences of that kind have a serious effecton small children whilst older children act outtheir experience of separation. This indicatesthat even children who have witnessed a warcannot be provided with an extensive intellec­tual awareness about war. But it also seemsthat childhood aggression shows itself amongother things in war games, and is connected toemotional interactions with parents , above allwith mothers. Consciousness and psychicreality of small children are to a great extentobviously located in the affective sphere ratherthan in verbal messages.

But why is it that hostile feelings , internaldiscord and war games of children appear intimes of peace? Isn't it possible thataggressions of children might be somethingnatural , something which can be metpedagogically, or even may be controlledtherapeutically in a playful kind of acting out?

Unfortunately parents and educators them­selves provide children with patterns ofhandling tensions arising from shut-in feelings.They obviously have not finished with theirfeelings, above all with their aggressive feel­ings. Often they do not know how to settletheir conflicts except by violence. Adults longfor the tension they get by conflicts, fights oreven a battle , all of these containing thesymbols of their hostility. Adults , too , arecrammed with such feelings. The “ Spiegel­Report" on violence in television finished withthe following resolution:

“ The ARD (the first of three West GermanTV programmes) commission is about todraw up a list of one month’spresentations ofviolence in all programmes; afterwards theprogramme supervisors are to be given re­commendations. Chief of the commission ,Felix Schmidt , programme supervisor inBaden-Baden comments that, to someviewers, the ‘clean’ screen now is too sterile.An other programme supervisor reports:‘Suddenly it is said we are producing a secureworld'. Mass media researcher Hans-JoergBessler from Suedfunk Stuttgart is increas­ingly recording requests of spectators to havesomething telecasted again ‘with peoplegetting killed, some action', such as warmovies - well, somewhat more violent" (DerSpiegel 51/1977).

Thus , concerning the question of anindividual significance of war toys and its con­sequences I have no other choice than tounderstand the longing of our children for wartoys as one expression among others of lockedup aggressive feelings, necessary for thosechildren who are not able to find acceptablechances of acting out or of getting approval inother spheres of his (her) personality. Bernd,for example, was at the beginning of our play­lessons unable to play calmly and peacefully.During the whole lesson he was dashingaround the classroom with another boy ,romping and disturbing other children. Afternine months he started to draw war scenesand battle ships, and today he is copying birds

WAR TOYS 109

parental love is what parents consider to be Guides and scapegoats: the adult ’s worldlove, no matter whether the reaction of the organizes hatredchild is showing the opposite. At the beginningof their existence this misunderstanding ishitting children especially hard. Not yet beingable to talk they , especially at that time, needto be understood. At a time when they mostlydepend on help and empathy they are makingthe basic experiences with the world.

Human beings, continuing after birth to livefor a long time in unity with the mother ,already have as newborns to helplessly sufferthe vital consequences or the lack of empathyof their situation without being able to react toit with anything else than archaic anger orthreatening illness. Day by day I witness thatnot even crying and tears are understood as acry for help by “ caring" parents. One is gladwhen crying stops: “ There he goes, cryingagain ..."; one is glad when tears dry up:“ Now, stop crying , aren ’t you a big girl (boy)..”, “ Boys don ’t cry ..." or even “ If you

don ’t stop crying at once , you just get anotherwhacking". And if after all a child is gettingaggressive, definitely no one has any under­standing! For what reason should healthychildren cry and weep if not out of feelings ofdeepest pain and hurt? Don’t adults cry whenthey are in grief, aren ’t they angry when theyfeel hurt, and when overcharged, don ’t they,too , react with illness? No experience ofearliest unkindness remains without reaction ,even if the adult ’s consciousness has sealed upany remembrance about it. Even to childrensuch σaumatic experiences are accessible onlyin the process of a long, laborious therapy.They are rarely able to define determinativeexperiences of their childhood as the elevenyear-old Hans-Joerg does:

“ The grown-ups are always telling us not tofight and squabble and to be good. At nights,when I’m in my bed my parents arequarrelling and fighting, you can hear itthrough the walls. The volley of invectivesthey ’re aiming at each other are exactly thosethey forbid us to say. I would really like tojump out of the bed and shout: ‘Stop it’, butI’m not able, I feellike paralysed" (Steinwedeand Ruprecht 1974 , p. 47).

110 CHRISTIAN BUETTNER

of prey from photos. Peacefully sitting at histable he is engaged with it for the wholelesson.

In this sense war games are not more dan­gerous than all other games of violentcharacter. On the other hand they are notmore harmless either:

“ Anyone who has really observed the wargame of ordinary children must admit that itdoes not contain any more aggression thanother games. As in all other collective gamesone can here take different attitudes, act dif­ferent roles. One can be a leader or a fol­lower, he who co-ordinates or he who disrupts, the one who always must be right or theone who can give in. Are these roles not moreimportant to take notice of than the toy thatthe child carries in his hand? If a child really isremarkably aggressive, it can hurt its friendswith the softest of teddy bears. On the otherhand, if the child is well adjusted, it can bekindly reconciling in full armour." (Hammar1970, p. 76).

However, this is only one side of the prob­lem, the individual, the pedagogical one.Every father, every mother and everyeducator has to take the responsibility for theway he (she) reacts to the child’swar game. Inthis sense, children understand best what warreally means when they ask about it out oftheir own interest. Their war game certainly isno occasion! On a parents' meeting concern­ing war toys a father reported that during aweekend auto ride his son out of the blue hadquestioned him about war. He said that heconsidered this a better opportunity of helpinghis son than simply taking away his war toys.

The uncertainty concerning a child’s wargame should concentrate on the child’s feel­ings and on his problems. Openness to hisown feelings and an empathic understandingof aggression might take away the child’surgency for making use of war games.Furthermore, a restriction or a prohibitionjust might be able to create the urgency.Experience shows that in case of prohibitionschildren are finding ways to get hold ofweapons.

The powerlessness of several parents andpedagogues concerning toy tanks and soldiers

still refers to another level. As far as war is theshifting of individual aggressions to a level ofstruggle between social systems, war games ofchildren cannot be separated from organizedoffers to consume socially produced war toysand models. The opportunities children availof to handle their aggressions, the offers theypick up and the way their hostile feelings arebeing organized, are to a large extent not up toparents and pedagogues. In this respect DieterRichter writes:

“ I am not against children like Nico andPavel, who like many others are playing withwar toys. The real problem about war toysseems to be on another level: war toy industryand social system are guiding and making useof needs of children (for tenderness, com­munication, aggression, self-respect) in a mostdecided way. No fanciful use can be made ofthe war toys they are offering - the enemiesare delivered as well. Roles are being acquiredthat are supposed to last for a life-time;fantasies of aggression are not set free but arechannelized and bound to a conformity ofsocial values" (Richter 1978, p. 25 f.).

Feelings of hatred and the existence ofsocially produced and legitimized symbolsas they are mediated in structures of play andplay materials - might form a totalliaison:aggressions, collectively shifted on to thesesymbols, at the end of childhood keep up thegap between reality and fantasy on the level ofpolitics:

“ In case the assailant is convinced of thedefender’s superior system ofweapons, it doesnot matter whether rockets are made of card­board and atom bombs stuffed with chewinggum, the aim (discouragement) would be:achieved" (Nicklas and Ostermann 1979).

Rockets and atom bombs in play andearnest and the collective projection of hatredare finding their inner-social equivalent inpower structures , which in turn produce newhatred that is carried into the relations ofparents and their children. As an adult itwould be a pedagogical shortcoming to fightagainst the problems of war toys exclusivelyon the level of children. The “ daily objectteaching of politics" shows that it is adultswho are deciding which symbols of hostility

…피

W엉$rk

썽

따

뼈

따·mm

따

얘

，띠

ar

3

j

u

3

,;”4

d

”ι

i

객

K

nm이‘H

h

·m

없πn

삐K

J짜

0·m

πV

야

하

·야

앵싸mJω띠

·m‘

““

LE

I

3

d

α

j

잉

·.히

암

u

」

·

π·%j

·m

이

짜·따J

E

팡

D

m

땅

댄

얘Rμ

e

,m

%I

c

d

%

，서때

”때짜매빠

%-없‘t“L씨

삐

ιNm

핑리

i

태사u%

W

P

dm

k

1

·멘

mKK

M

N“%

,T

nμ

뻐

m”센

떠

m

리

(αItW맨p

a·빼

뼈‘E

m【따‘

떼

v

R

I7

ω

삐r’·”z

C

떠

o

n

%4따

따빠·야빼

띠κι씨뼈

A객

·mV

·때

””]

띠재생l

@

mw&

‘

l”H·떠H

없&바

찌냐F에빼애싸때

·때νν때2떼삐빼κ

·빼mm빼

때째mpd빼빼m

사따km따m

삐빼

버6EU않

삐””뼈때υm없따

Mιm싸뼈ij‘았m잉이

N깨바V”nn

개

2이

$·페

$

po

mb

”ν

Z

b

Cdν땅·야’·맑m

떠있;

?’X피Fik

n

·뼈D

S

잉‘S

J

α

A

끼

7L%

에

I

SO

앉

밍

d

싸

j‘미‘‘TH

떠

WaLhD

겐’

￡빼샤씨μMEmι따ιFk{뼈Bm”

찌otmw삐m

me•

·

때빼·때비

n…·”“η’χ떼하낀잃밟때때m뼈하”없뼈껴

써J

뻐C’때써뼈RFμ뼈F에mι떠AmπnmM따티

·mU

qu

κν

·un

센m

1L

P‘

mH

H

H

“K

N

G

R

앉

뼈뼈mυ뼈빼빼뼈없빼빼빼

m뼈빼빼빼

鋼니쩨빼

빼뼈따써떤쉰總빼뼈

없파짧歐떠빼

뼈뺑

Rri--

‘mm

y·μ[

K

m이」us3

M

U

파

없

Uι·π

qj

υm，쇄t

，ιoh

멍않

O

mh

‘T·g

yU

FJ찌h

b

j

씬”mm“S

매

￠

α·젠

않

따찌따

앙

앉

‘때없

멤

이‘νT·m

때

t뻐

삐πυ.따

b빠내

mhj「”빠뼈c

π바”삐삐，히때em

C뼈

때.떼

입·m“‘wb

없m

m”없↑μ띠uF

짧

아때·뼈

·m빼때뼈“&맨때·때내

U%

m

짜너·야짜

”입m

.이Lm빼

·뻐없띠댔뼈비빠앉뼈·따

않잃때잃s-eιumψν뼈0.M

패’@R

탱N뼈mm

f

뼈

빼빼d

nm없π‘mema

”lfK

m맹”‘

뻐빼mw

m

없

때빠·삐mbo

뎌0·빼M

dmm

‘ν짧m·m

M·빽mRh

야m때때때m

m잉M

떼·mwk패’A

없n

니사빠ms

빼I빼m

mt

짧빼씨뼈%빼d없，까

mK

$비빼m이H빼빼때￠m”뼈뼈빼바따뻐“뼈mt

뼈빠삐nm

m

없없뼈mm

빼떼

gL

짜7·m

빼띠hu

mW시씨·앉·mω야rmj샤ω빠

-m

때「내M

J」새ωvm파m사Fmhmιαnu--

h떠“““ψ맨.mμ“n이O

Um·n”m뼈삐”m.앉야mV

W

M·m

M

댔m

얘h--야뼈아N

·κ뼈

뼈빼빼뼈빼…

뼈빼m때뼈때빼빼때뼈m

따뼈總μ빠빠빼뼈빼빼빠빼뼈

뼈뼈뺑원빼빠꺼”

‘ι”4

·R

1·I.씨

i

s

ηuy

ιv

e

이-R…”1

U

e”“b

이

uωU

I

F

a--k

)O

Sιmg

mg

mNF

…ι빼대”삐%떼@@mm

M싼mn

섭새μ”maE·U

때때

.mυm%

%·새샌mFMt셔씨v”m

페”뼈m麻빼歐縣때」μ”빽m

빠m

鋼따뻐빼”獅”때

v뼈많써쩨

m땀대mM샤Mm따빠빠따熾p따mm뼈

없”뼈mm“W

새비뼈mmnR

떼뼈바없때때때때n않?g

”밍샤M

”mφmι뼈·m새ωm1mi

M

Mmmm

찌

REFERENCES

Birckenbach, H. Ueberlegungen zum Kriegsspielzeugund zu Aktionen dagegen. Ami 8-9/77 , o. III , 140­146

Buettner, C. , Koester, U. Spielstunden im Unterricht­Schueler sind auch Kinder. Die Grundschule 1979.

Burlingham, D., Freud , A. Kriegskinder. Lo ndon 1949.Der Spiegel. Femsehgewalt: “Leidtragende sind die

Kinder". No. 51/1977, p. 46-60.Elschenbroich, D. Spielen und Spielzeug. Kursbuch 34

Berlin 1973.F1itner, A. Spielen - lemen. Muenchen 1973.

Parece haber una contradiccion entre la actitud anti­militarista de los padres y los juegos de guerra de sus hi­jos , a los cuales no son capaces de adaptarse. Loseducadores, asimismo, tienen opiniones distintas encuanto hasta que punto juguetes belicos est따1

relacionados con actitudes mi1itaristas en los ninos y enque grado aumentan el comportamiento agresivo de estos. Comparaciones hist6ricas sugieren que, cuanto masprofundamente enraizado esta el militarismo en ac­titudes y aolores individuales, t때to mas los metodoseducativos de un pais tenderan hacia la aplicaciδn demedidas violentas para la soluci6n de problemas,y tantomas divulgados estaran los juguetes belicos. Sin em­bargo, el comportamiento mi1itarista y sus actitudesdependen mas de una educacion politicamenteorganizada que de juegos belicos.

Otro sector en el que las opiniones de los educadoresse encuentran divididas es el elucidar si los nifios ex­teriorizan sus conflictos intemos por medio del juego, 0

tratan de adoptar la rea1idad a traves de el. El autorsugiere que el uso de juguetes l>elicos es una de lasformas de expresi6n que emplean los niδos para a1iviarla acumulaci6n de sus sentimientos de agresividad,imitando el comportamiento de los adultos que recurrentambien a la violencia para resolver sus conflictos.

Padres y educadores que buscan una respuesta a esteinterrogante deben concentrarse en ayudar al nino a ad­ministrar de forma adecuada sus propios sentimientos yproblemas, ya que tensiones infanti1es sin resolverpueden facilmente transferirse y representarse por mediode simbolos socia1mente aceptables, como fusiles y tan­ques de juguete. La industria de juguetes belicos debeaceptar parte de esta responsabilidad, ya que su actitudpuede anular los bien intencionados esfuerzos de padresy educadores para resolver este problema.

Finalmente, seria tortuoso el combatir 리 uso de

112 CHRISTIAN BUETTNER

juguetes beIicos concentfllndose solo en los niδos.

Mientras los aduItos continuen resolviendo sus con­flictos de forma vi이enta， los niiios continuarim“ haciendo guerra" a su manera, y la unica soluci6nposible es la de revelar los conflictos y reso이Ive앙rlos

a빼b비ier야tamer뼈nte.

II semblerait qu’i1y 외t une contradiction entre I'at­titude anti-mi1itaristedes parents et les jeux ‘a la gueπe’

des enfants qu' i1s ont du mal a accepter. Les educateursaussi ne sont pas d’accord sur la fa~on dont les jouets deguerre sont lies aux penchants mi1itaristes des enfants etdans quelle mesure i1s augmentent leur comportementagressif. Des comparaisons historiques suggerent queplus Ie militarisme est profondement enracine dans lesvaleurs individuelles, plus les methodes educatives d’unpays tendent vers des solutions violentes aux problemeset plus les jouets de guerre sont repandus. N"anmoins ,comportements et attitudes mi1taires dependent plus dela politique de I’education que des jeux de guerre.

Un autre domaine d’opinions divergentes chez les e­ducateurs est de determiner si les enfants, dans Iejeu ,expriment leurs conflits internes ou s’ils essaient d’embrasser la realite. L’auteur suggere que I’usage des jouets deguerre est un des moyens que les enfants emploient poursoulager leur agressivite reprimee, imitant les adultes quieux utilisent la violence pour resoudre leurs conflits.

Les parents et les educateurs qui cherchent des reponses devraient plut6t concentrer leurs efforts a aiderl’enfant a faire face a ses propres sentiments etproblemes car les tensions non resolues de I’enfance peu­vent fort bien se traduire par des symboles socialementacceptes te1s les jouets de guerre. Cependant I’industriedes jouets de guerre a aussi sa part de responsab i1ite, carelle peut rendre inutiles les efforts conjugues des parentset des educateurs.

Finalement, il serait malhonnete de combattre I’usagedes jouets de guerre en concentrant ses efforts sur les enfants. Aussi longtemps que les adultes continueront aresoudre leurs conflits par la violence, les enfants joueront ‘a la guerre’, la seule solution serait de prendre con­science des conflits et de les r잉oudre ouvertement.