What does "it takes a village" mean to you?

It means, in my household, that my children are raised by my husband and myself and my aunt, grandmother, mother and the bio-dad of my oldest all watch them at some point and when they do, they inevitably raise them, discipline them, etc. – same goes for the educators at the pre-school, people I trust to develop my child. While parents are a very important influence, they will never be the only one. As far as what’s appropriate for the village to do, that varies, especially by culture. Because my family is Russian-Armenian, the older generation believes they are the ones to raise my children and that I’m a secondary force (a source of conflict, often)...because my husband’s family is American, they take a background role and though they provide advice and their opinions, they know the decisions are up to us. I believe each parent should be clear when giving the child over to the village as to what they expect of them. The village, imo, has a responsibility to never override the parents unless they truly and honestly believe the child to be in immediate danger.

Since we don’t really live in the anecdotal village anymore, the interpretation has to mean the social community we live in. The taxpayers have to maintain the schools, the leaders have to see that there is adequate recreation facilities, and the extended family and neighbors have to be on the guard to help, when necessary.

I take it to mean that the whole surrounding cultural setting a child grows up in helps shape what sort of adult they become. Certainly schools play a vital role. But it is far more than just schools.

Imagine a child brought up in a neighborhood where people know each other, greet each other with genuine friendship when they meet on the street, and often volunteer to help those in the neighborhood who suffer some disaster like a house fire or becoming disabled. Now imagine a neighborhood with bars on the windows and triple locks on every door, a place where drive-by shootings are so commonplace they hardly make headlines, and gang activity is the norm for every kid. Wouldn’t you expect those two “Villages” to effect kids growing up in them in very different ways?

It means the entire community has an interest in its children, not just the child’s family. I live in such a community. In my denomination, when a child is Christened, the entire Church takes an oath regarding the nurturing and well-being of the child. That’s the best example of which I know.

@perspicacious So what does that look like? Are members required to watch the child? Feed the child? Do you give advice to the child?

It looks like an extended family.

That parents and especially single parents in many cases can’t do the job on their own. The Africans who came up with this saying were very wise. Good parenting requires a functioning extended family and good neighbors and friends. Above all, we should not expect teachers to be able to fix the problems.

It is a nice sentiment, but it has two possible meanings.
The most obvious meaning is that, if you need help raising a child, you might reasonably expect relatives and friends to be available for council and even physical assistance. In most cases, friends and relatives will do this because they highly value you and your children as a result of the obvious intimacy (in the familial sense) of the relationship.
The second meaning is in the context in which I think HC meant it, which has a sinister componant.
In that case it means that you have a moral obligation to somebody whom you do not know or care about and this obligation can and should be enforced by a central authority, the “village” which of course in this case is a euphemism for the federal government.
You have no such obligation.
So in that context it may be interpreted as a call for a form of social slavery, which indenifies some people as “needy” and others as “providers”. The “providers” of course are assigned this duty, they do not choose it based on their relationship to the “needy”.
Assuming that the phrase is intended to appeal to people’s emotions and not their good sense, I protest.
There is a difference between relationships within a total civilization, and those within a small African village. Just like there is a difference between the relationships of the mass of Americans and the relationships between local neighbors. Respect and affection for family and neighbors is a strong basis for willfully being helpful. Being assigned as a “provider” for a stranger is, in some cases anyway, a source of resentment.
There will be an argument that the “needy” are also resentful. No doubt they are. But I did not make them needy and I can prove it .
The problem is either them, or somebody else, but not me. Perhaps it does take a village, but that does not mean that I will willingly be assigned to a particular role in a particular village. You pick yours, I will pick mine.

@josie I’m not old enough to be familiar with this second meaning – any chance you have a link to some sort of cliff notes on it, perhaps a wikipedia page or something?

@papayalily
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp
Here are quotes by Mrs Clinton. I have included the Snopes.com analysis of their context in order to be completely fair. EVEN WITH THE TOTAL CONTEXT, the numerous references to things being taken away, restructured, regulated etc. imply application of force by the federal government. Her book, It Takes a Village, is nothing more than an endorsement for just about every federal program in the last half century. It is clear what her principles are. It is clear what she meant by the phrase “It takes a village to raise a child”. By the way, this little homily is attributed to some ancient African proverb, but nobody can actually validate that it has such an origin. Sort of like saying you need to drink 8 glasses of water per day. Everybody takes that advice at face value, but nobody can find any real scientific basis for it.

I interpret it as getting involved and helping with the childcare even if it is not “your” problem. Smart people realize it will become your problem sooner or later. Help now while it is easy and makes the biggest difference.

@worriedguy Can’t disagree with the logic. As long as your actions are voluntary and not forced.

To me, it means:

It is unreasonable to expect parents to raise well-rounded children without support.

In order to function intelligently in the world, a child needs to learn first-hand that people can be very different from one another, and that it doesn’t mean that a particular person is right or wrong/better or worse. This is done by safely (and graciously) growing up around people of different ways of life, age groups… and yes, religion/belief systems, etc. Seeing how different people treat each other, themselves, and how they react in certain situations teaches the child that they have a choice in how they live their lives, and they begin to practice making those choices in a safe environment.

If there are enough people to provide day-to-day support of a family with a child, there is less stress, less fear, less anger, less resentment and more joy, more gratitude, more learning, and more love to go around because experiences will vary, which always makes life more interesting, and provides something new to talk about at the dinner table, and so on.

A parent, when beginning to become stressed, or is too tired, or is dealing with some state of mind or other incapability that interferes with their ability to focus on the child can easily and quickly find a brief reprieve without having to resort to some electronic babysitter; and the child ends up gaining experience with interacting with another person, the care-giver has an opportunity to offer assistance and enjoy sharing time with a child, and the parent avoids frustration and burn-out.

It means that there are many people the parents trust with the life of the child because the child is truly important to everyone else, and they want to support the family.

It means that a child has a view of the world that is as realistic as possible to prepare them for adulthood when they will have to form and maintain relationships and perhaps raise children of their own.

This probably doesn’t answer all your questions exactly, but I imagine that if such a village existed, there would be an understanding of who was responsible for what, because it would largely depend on the specific abilities, availabilities, and extent to which an individual wanted to participate (even the parents – not every human who procreates knows everything about everything!). For example, some people would rather care for babies, when others would rather help with teaching a particular skill, or help them deal with emotions, or whatever.

This type of village means that there’s always someone to go to when help is needed, or some time is needed away from the family, but in a way that everyone knows that everyone is safe.

Unfortunately, this is not the norm in our society, if it’s even possible.
Fortunately, humans are very adaptive and resilient and end up being able to survive somehow. ;)

To me it means my community has my back. If my kid is being a rude bawly brat in public and I tell him to calm down, go quiet and be still then I expect others around me are going to give him the stern faces and nod at what I’m saying to him instead of giving him a thumbs up, a wink or telling me I should let him “just be a kid”.