I’m glad Abby Sunderland has been found, adrift but safe in the Indian Ocean. As a parent and a sister, I empathized with her family and worried that they’d never see her again.
I will admit that I also had a moment or two of wondering: “What were they thinking? How could her parents let her sail around the world?”
Then again, just a few days ago I watched my little Tiger dangle from the monkey bars where he broke his humerus last winter. I felt my stomach clench and tumble. I checked my overprotectiveness. I cheered him as he swung from one end to the other. I imagine Abby’s parents went through something similar in deciding to let their beloved daughter try to become the youngest person to sail solo around the world – with, however, one difference. They had pretty good reason to assume Abby was up to the challenge. The Tiger, by contrast, has a very dicey record on the monkey bars.
That’s why I have to agree with Hugo Schwyzer’s thoughtful post on how not all 16-year-olds are equally mature, and how Abby’s parents likely made a reasonable decision based on her capabilities. I especially appreciate his point that 18 is not a magic age of reason, nor does it revolutionize the way parents see their babies:
On the one hand, I can’t imagine being comfortable sending my own child off around the world on a sailboat by herself. But if I’m honest, I know full well that protectiveness won’t vanish when my Heloise [Hugo's baby daughter] turns 18; I’d worry just as much if she were 18 as if she were a few months younger. Lines of demarcation don’t have much effect on the heart.
But here’s where I part ways with Hugo, and with the other commentary I’ve read: I don’t think parenting is the real issue here. Yes, American culture is riven with divides between parents like me who let our ten-year-olds bike to the local libarary, and those who think this is lunacy; parents who let their four-year-olds wander the neighborhood, and parents like me who worry that such small persons will be crushed under a car.
The issue in Abby Sunderland’s situation is, rather, this: Why does anyone feel compelled to set records at the cost of life and limb? Why do so many people still feel called to climb Everest, despite the fact that not only they but their local sherpas may well expire before they reach the peak? (This happened again just recently to a British climber, though he did get to the top first. Cold comfort, I say.)
I understand the impulse to explore and discover. In junior high, I dreamed of being an astronaut. That dream died forever in 1986 along with the passengers of the Challenger. But I can see why scientists still go to wild places. I have a friend who travels to Antarctica to research low-temperature life forms, and I completely understand why she does it, even though such expeditions always involve modest risk.
What I don’t understand is the desire to set records – to push one’s body beyond its healthy boundaries – to embrace risk just for its own sake. Sailing solo around the globe makes as much sense to me as playing chicken with a train, or drag racing on the freeway.
But drag racing and playing chicken are the desperate sports of poor kids. Setting records is the province of the privileged. The assumption is that no effort will be spared in trying to save you if your boat runs awry.
I’m not saying that Abby Sunderland should have been left to drift endlessly on the open seas. Of course not. I am truly glad and relieved she was found.
And yet. Every time an extreme athlete runs into trouble, massive resources are deployed to rescue him or her. Clueless skiers go into the Sierra backcountry and get stranded in a blizzard. Mountain climbers underestimate the danger of avalanche. Solo pilots fly into oblivion. The “resources” deployed aren’t just financial; human beings often risk their own necks in hopes of saving a life.
Just to underscore how much this is a function of privilege: In the last several days, tens of thousands of children have died of preventable disease: malnutrition, dysentery, malaria, typhus, etc. ad nauseam. How many could be saved with the money spent on rescuing people (children and adults) who – from a place of tremendous economic privilege – challenge themselves to break records, or simply assume that they will be “safe” in the wild because their lives have always been safe? Again, I’m not saying in any way that Abby should have been abandoned. Not at all. Only that we should question this cultural impulse to take risks and set records just because.
Once upon a time, parts of the globe were untouched by human exploration. Perhaps the urge to explore was extraordinarily adaptive a few million years ago – even a century ago. Today? We’d be wise to ask when exploration and adventure truly serve human knowledge, and when they’re only yoked to ego.
And I’m not saying this only because I’m so cautious, I only ever climbed one tree in my childhood. Perhaps that makes me an unreliable narrator – or just a chicken. Still, I think the larger point about risk and privilege is still valid.
Patron cat of Kittywampus (1985-2001)
Thanks. Beautiful post.
“Just to underscore how much this is a function of privilege: In the last several days, tens of thousands of children have died of preventable disease: malnutrition, dysentery, malaria, typhus, etc. ad nauseam. How many could be saved with the money spent on rescuing people (children and adults) who – from a place of tremendous economic privilege – challenge themselves to break records, or simply assume that they will be “safe” in the wild because their lives have always been safe? Again, I’m not saying in any way that Abby should have been abandoned. Not at all. Only that we should question this cultural impulse to take risks and set records just because.”
Word.
Rich people and able bodied people have the privilege of choosing to put themselves in harm’s way.
Also, this makes me think of how parents are condemned bitterly for all sorts of culturally unacceptable things that supposedly negatively affect the health of their children – such as simply existing as an overweight individual, like me. But, allowing their children to engage in potentially dangerous activities that also may endanger their health, such as being involved in competitive sports, are glorified.
Yeah – in the realm of competitive sports, (American) football comes to mind, with its relatively high risk of concussion. Even in soccer, which has a pretty harmless reputation in the U.S. due to the way little kids play, there are oodles of injuries, including head trauma from headers. I love the game but have to be honest that I wouldn’t want my kids to play it at the highest levels; it’s just too hard on the body.
Abby Sunderland’s parents have defended their decision to allow their daughter to undertake her dangerous record-making-attempt by saying they know her and her abilities. Two things have made me question that:
1) If she and her father know so much about sailing, they wouldn’t have had her launch when she did. As one Gawker commenter put it: “It’s BS that she did it for the sake of “just to do it”. If so, she would have set off from Cali in our summer, putting her in the Southern Indian Ocean in its summer, when THERE WOULDN’T BE THIRTY FOOT WAVES.
Nobody, except for million dollar+ battle-tested sailboats and crews go into the southern indian during winter. It’s storm fucking city. But if she had left this summer, she wouldn’t be in line to break a record, and thus, wouldn’t have anything to sell.”
2) Why did they need that record so badly? So they could use it as leverage to get a lucrative TV show deal.
These people are no better than that despicable Balloon Boy Dad.
I agree with erniebufflo. There’s self-serving behavior that is larger than the egomaniac involved and there’s the grubby attempt the Sunderlands have tried to effect. An example of the former is Christopher Hitchens having himself waterboarded; sure, Hitchens is a publicity-hound but at least he gave us a first-hand retort to the likes of Hannity and O’Reilly. The Sunderland story is just a cynical attempt to harness the “you go, girl!” factor and parlay it to big money.
What gets me is the idea of blaming Obama for something that he can’t control. It wasn’t Obama, or his party that campaigned on ‘drill baby drill,’ Yes, the Dems and Obama are complicit. They have fallen far short on making the case for alternative energy. But to hold them accountable for the impossibility of this task is not fair.
Keith, I think you meant this to appear under the BP post – it landed under Abby Sunderland, instead!
Very well said. Would her trip have been any smarter if she’d done it at 18? No. Would parenting have been an issue if she’d done it at 18? No. Would the personal accomplishment have been the same? Yes. The ego of setting a record (and, perhaps, making some money selling the story) is the issue, not what her parents chose.
I’m having a hard time getting a fix on exactly what happened with the reality show. There are conflicting versions of events. But regardless of what the Sunderlands planned, and when, my position is that it’s never okay to involve one’s children in a reality show. It’s a violation of privacy. So quite aside from the risks Abby undertook, I have an issue with parents even entering into negotiations for a reality show featuring their kids. For that, I *would* fault them.
Erniebufflo: Interesting point about the seasonal ocean conditions, It underscores the problems of ego and privilege. It sounds like you’d have to be ignorant, or arrogant, or probably both to set sail under those conditions.
Sorry about that, Sungold. That’s the way my week is going. Great blog, though!