There is a particular stubbornness in the way people born after 1980 tell the story of childhood independence as if it were invented by apps and helicopter parents gone mad. That is not true. The 1960s and 1970s taught independence at an early age in practical and strange ways and not only as a slogan on a poster. This is not nostalgia. It is a case for rethinking the messy lessons of a half century ago that shaped how entire cohorts learned to handle risk responsibility and self reliance.
Growing up without thin safety nets
Children in the sixties and seventies often encountered situations adults today would label avoidable. They walked alone to school across busy roads. They took part time jobs at younger ages. They navigated crowded public transport in cities that felt less forgiving. For many families routine independence was less theory than necessity. Takeaway lessons were acquired through repeated small decisions made away from adult supervision. Those decisions taught boundary testing and pragmatic problem solving more efficiently than contrived exercises in resilience.
A generation taught by the city
The urban environment in Britain then was rawer and more porous than it is now. Streets were social classrooms. Children learned not to freeze when faced with a stranger asking a question or a sudden interruption in a plan. They learned to calculate what could be trusted. Those calculations were not always correct and sometimes they left scars. That complexity is essential to remember because independence is not only triumphant stories of solo success. It includes small failures learning to ask for help and recalibrating expectations.
Different cultures different forms of early autonomy
Not everyone experienced the sixties and seventies the same way. Immigrant families followed different rhythms. Youth in rural areas discovered freedom in empty fields while urban adolescents discovered it in commuter trains. But across those differences one common thread emerges. The social structures of the time permitted children to take responsibilities earlier in life than many modern middle class narratives accept. Some of that was systemic inequality. Much of it was cultural pragmatism. The result was an uneven apprenticeship in adulthood.
When necessity became education
For a startling number of young people the lessons of independence arrived because their households demanded it. Older siblings cared for infants. Teenagers blended part time income with schoolwork. I grew up with a neighbour who left school at sixteen to help provide because the family needed someone in a job. He got practical skills faster than his peers who stayed on at school but he also missed out on certain structured learning. The trade off was clear and it still exists: independence gained early comes at cost and benefit in unequal measure.
Political and social movements as a hidden curriculum
Protest culture and new social programmes of the era taught a different kind of independence. Young people were asked to think collectively and act individually. The civil rights movement anti war protests and nascent feminist campaigns made independence feel like both a personal and public act. These movements thrummed through school corridors and youth clubs. Kids borrowed slogans and adapted them into day to day choices. That education in agency mattered as much as any formal course because it offered models of being responsible for a belief and also for the people beside you.
Nobody has ever before asked the nuclear family to live all by itself in a box the way we do. With no relatives no support we’ve put it in an impossible situation. Margaret Mead cultural anthropologist Columbia University.
That line from Margaret Mead captures a paradox. The era both reduced and redistributed immediate family control. The removal of extended networks pushed independence onto kids. Yet the abundance of communal movements offered alternative scaffolding. Independence was less solitary than popularly imagined.
Lessons that feel oddly modern
There is a temptation to romanticise the past. I resist it. The 1960s and 1970s also left many children exposed and underresourced. That said some lessons from that time look startlingly applicable now. Risk estimation when crossing a road translates to judging misinformation online. Negotiating a job with an early employer maps to managing a first freelance gig. The form of independence changes but the skillset overlaps. We could learn from the era how to teach autonomy without abandoning care.
What we miss when we sanitise youth
Overprotection can produce a brittle competence. Kids who are rarely allowed to fail lose opportunities to learn how to recover. That is not to advocate reckless exposure. It is to argue for a deliberate space where responsibility is scaled up, where mistakes are tolerated and where youngsters are offered real stakes. The sixties and seventies provide models both good and bad. We should take the calibration rather than the mythology.
Not all independence is liberating
There were young people forced to grow up too fast because of structural failures. Windrush generation children and those from migrant families often had to assume adult roles in precarious circumstances. Independence in these cases was a wound and a survival strategy. The story here is uncomfortable because the word independence oscillates between empowerment and abandonment. Discussing it requires that tension to remain visible rather than smoothed over.
Where authority and autonomy intersect
Adults in the era sometimes chose to step back. Other times they were pushed out by work migration or housing pressures. My view is not neutral here. We undervalue the intelligence that forms when youngsters manage complexity under guidance. The best model borrows the era’s willingness to let children make choices and couples it with deliberate mentorship. That pairing produces durable independence without needless harm.
Why this matters now
Contemporary debates about childhood resilience often swing between extremes. I argue for a middle path informed by history. The sixties and seventies were messy laboratories. They allowed experimentation with independence at scale. We can mine that past for policies and parenting practices that build competence and maintain safety. This requires nuance bravery and above all honest acknowledgement of the unequal burdens the era imposed.
If you want a single take away it is this. Independence learned early is not a single attribute. It is a compound skill formed by repeated public tests private failures and communal contexts. The sixties and seventies taught those lessons with all their contradictions and sometimes we should pay attention to how they did it rather than simply passing judgement.
Summary table
| Theme | What the era taught | What to take forward |
|---|---|---|
| Practical autonomy | Everyday tasks taught risk assessment | Offer real responsibilities with safety nets |
| Communal scaffolding | Movements and communities provided alternate support | Design group based learning and mentorship |
| Unequal burdens | Some children were forced into adult roles | Recognise and reduce structural causes of early burdens |
| Resilience through failure | Failure was common and instructive | Allow controlled failure and guided recovery |
Frequently asked questions
Did children really have more independence in the sixties and seventies than today
In many contexts yes but not universally. The picture depends on class geography and family structure. For some children independence looked like walking unsupervised to school for others it meant working to support a household. Across Britain there was a broader tolerance for unsupervised activity but also less institutional protection. The difference is not simple nostalgia but a complex trade off between exposure and autonomy.
Were these early freedoms beneficial or harmful
They were both. Some young people developed practical skills and confidence earlier than later cohorts. Others suffered from lack of parental presence or from unsafe conditions. The important point is that benefit and harm coexisted which means any contemporary lesson must be carefully calibrated to reduce harm while preserving growth opportunities.
Can modern parenting learn from that era without repeating injustices
Yes. Use the era as a source of techniques not as a prescription. Give children meaningful responsibilities scale them to age provide mentorship and ensure social supports are in place so independence does not mean abandonment. That is doable and does not require reviving every old practice wholesale.
What role did schools and communities play
They played a central role. Schools were less litigious and communities functioned as looser safety nets. That allowed children to practice autonomy in semi public spaces. Recreating that today would involve community programs smarter school design and a culture that tolerates appropriate independence.
How should policymakers respond
Policymakers should prioritise community resources youth employment and safe public environments that permit responsibility. Support structures like affordable childcare and accessible youth centres reduce the pressure that pushes children into premature adulthood. The aim should be to enable agency not to offload risk onto minors.
