Ad spotlight too harsh for some child performers?
Ad spotlight too harsh for some child performers?
By Gedsiri Suhartono
JAKARTA (JP): Parents, pumped with pride at seeing their
children in advertisements, may not be willing to recognize the
potential dangers of exposing them to the spotlight.
But educators and children's rights activists warn parents
against the temptation to commercialize their children for short-
term benefits, which are outweighed by the potential for long-
term psychological damage.
It may seem alluring, but showbusiness is not a child-friendly
environment. It demands discipline, tenacity, hard work and long
hours that are not deemed suitable for any child's well-being.
"They would mostly be hanging out with adults, and therefore
run the risk of living in a different world than their own.
Children should interact with other children in their natural
environment," said Yaumil Agus Achir, professor of developmental
psychology at the University of Indonesia.
Having entered the workforce, a child performer would, among
other demands, have to modify his or her activities for work
responsibilities. In the process, undoubtedly they would lose
countless hours of sleep, play or study to adhere to the strict
shooting schedule.
In an ideal world, Yaumil contends that children should not be
earning any income at all because part of childhood means being
guided and preparing to be a hard worker and responsible adult.
Among other compelling reasons parents put their children up
to seeking fame and fortune through advertising is to earn extra
money to fill the family's coffers.
Educators and children's rights activists alike say that most
parents do not realize that by doing so they have deprived their
children of their rights, and perpetrated the exploitation of
their own children without fully knowing the consequences.
Deputy chairman of the National Commission of Children's
Rights Irwanto doubts if former child performers will be able to
continue their lives as other normal children. Holistic
development of emotional, psychological, educational aptitude and
personality would have to succumb to stringent measures of
working at a young age.
Public exposure can severely interfere with children's
development. Child celebrities who are used to receiving
excessive attention can crave the lack of it later on; this is
among the unhealthy signs of the development process on a child's
ego and self-confidence.
Once their confidence bubble has fully extended, these
children tend to be excessively self-centered, narcissistic and
vain. In other words, they may not be best equipped to enter
adulthood.
Once the charming child outgrows its adorability, so
evaporates the core of vanity. Most famous children do not
continue to enjoy their fame once they enter adolescence let
alone adulthood.
Such negligence evoke a sense of loss, which very likely will
lead to symptoms similar to postpower syndrome but at a very
young age.
"Whatever happened to Chicha Koeswoyo, or Iyut Bing Slamet? I
have not heard any mention of their fame," says Irwanto,
referring to two famous child singers of the 1970s.
According to Irwanto, the advertising industry knows exactly
what moves the market. Cute, innocent faces rate highly in
influencing consumers to purchase particular products.
Children's nondiscriminatory nature plays a big role in
influencing their parents' decision-making process. From the
recipient point of view, children, nondiscriminatory consumers,
are not trained to consume only the "good things".
Instead, children are easily lured by new items that catch
their attention, better yet goods, which come along with rewards.
There are increasing number of ads using children which bear
no relevance to children's needs and scope.
"I cringe when I hear consumer-oriented messages coming from a
child's supposedly innocent mouth. It just doesn't feel right,"
says Ibu Kasur, an educator who operates several preschools.
Some have called for more controls on the advertising
industry. Some would go as far as banning children from taking
part in advertising altogether.
Ibu Kasur, who used to appear on TVRI's educational programs,
takes a firm stance of saying "no" altogether to children in
advertising.
"Education should be a priority. Parents should know better
than teaching their child to neglect education. I do not believe
it for a second when parents say that shooting ads does not
interfere with school schedule. Let children grow as they would,
please don't turn them into a mouthpiece for commodities."
When all is said and done, where would the discussion go if
the subject of the exploitation is not even aware of being
exploited? The moralistic approach seems ever more futile
precisely because nowhere is there any legal document which
succinctly defines exploitation.
Critics have pitched in and said the circumstances should fit
individual cases. Irwanto, however, believes that there is a
definite line to define what is appropriate.
Economic considerations are perhaps the most obvious
measurement.
"It is easy to justify the seemingly harmless sacrifices
required of a child at the present state. However, what has yet
to be discovered are the social and emotional disturbances in the
children's later life that will prove how the two do not go
together. It is just not comparable because the degree of
severity is indefinite," Irwanto said.