Camp as an institution of socialization: Past, present, and future

Changes in camp practices are designed to promote access, equity, and inclusion

This paper explores issues of access, equity, and inclusion within the institution of camp in the United States. Three case studies are used to demonstrate how some camps address these issues. This paper also includes a historical review of camp practice and a discussion of how socialization can perpetuate cycles of power and oppression. The term socialization as used in this article refers to “the layered processes by which an individual is taught how to believe and behave in the culture into which they are born.”

Early camps were designed to promote cultural ideals valued by the dominant class (primarily White and masculine). These ideals included order, discipline, and self-reliance. This system helped the dominant class maintain power and subjected subordinate classes to a role that maintained the social order. Even camps designed specifically for marginalized groups adhered to the same socializing processes. The outdoors was used as a context for promoting character through exercise, chores, and discipline. Camp activities and imagery tended to idealize the colonial history of the US. This system allowed some groups to attend camp while others could not. This system also allowed some who did attend camp to thrive “as a part of the normative social order” while others would not. Many camps today are working to make their programs more equitable and inclusive.

Camp Aranu’tiq is an example of a camp designed to meet the needs of transgender and gender-variant youth and their families. Goals of the program include building confidence, resilience, and community for children and youth who do not fit into the norms of society prescribed for gender. Virginia 4-H, a state-level camping program, is an example of a camp addressing issues relating to the appropriation of Native American culture. Many camps, including Virginia 4-H, have traditionally integrated elements of Native American culture into their programs. The intent in doing so was to encourage youth to emulate such perceived Native American traits as courage, independence, vigor, and a close relationship to nature. This was done, however, without acknowledging the injustices experienced by native and indigenous cultures. Additionally, some of the Native American customs and rituals integrated into camping programs were not based on historically accurate information and tended to perpetuate the marginalization of Native Americans. These concerns prompted Virginia 4-H to work with Native American representatives to assess their historic practices and ultimately to discontinue the use of Native American cultural elements in their camps. There are multiple examples of camps and organizations supporting camps that address income barriers to camp participation. The John Austin Cheley Foundation, for example, provides equipment, transportation, and spending money to help low-income youth participate in camping programs. Additionally, 94% of camps in the US offer tuition scholarships. Yet, for children and youth living in disadvantaged situations, simply removing financial barriers to camp fails to address systemic inequities that created their situation in the first place. This concern has prompted some U.S. camps to develop programs that promote empowerment, equity, and justice for people of all cultural backgrounds.

While there is still much that needs to be done to make camps accessible and inclusive for all children and youth, the case studies presented in this paper demonstrate specific ways camps can address social justice issues that have been too long ignored. Implications and lessons learned from each of these case studies are offered as steps towards increasing access, equity, and justice through camp practice.