What I meant by "societal changes" was more along the lines of what you mention here: That paranoia isn't being propagated by the kids themselves, is it? To me it seems like this culture of paranoia very harmful to everyone and as it has increased from one generation to the next, it does seem like it will influence a generation's ideas on how things should be. I haven't really read anything on that topic, so this is really just my perception, but I think there's something to it. Well, I'd like to point out that the "everyone's a winner" culture is something that very much seems to clash with American professional and university culture. For a while, my father was an associate dean and would have to deal with kids raised thinking that they were capable and deserving of top marks every time. The rude awakening they received in university to a reality they weren't used to, wasn't their fault, but they were the ones that had to deal with it. For a person who is already trying to formulate an identity, that could be a pretty big monkey wrench. One day they're sure that they're #1, the next they realize that they're just another 1 out of 7,000,000,000,000. Or to put it another way, one day they're a winner, the next they're quite possibly a loser. I'm aware that it's not just American kids who are feeling isolated, but it does seem that at the very least, more attention is paid to the American teenagers who do feel isolated. Also, I don't have much experience with non-American teenagers, except for Vietnamese teenagers, who very much seem to subscribe to the winner/loser mentality. Maybe the attitude of "winning" and "losing" doesn't have much to do with it, but I have certainly met people who have felt alienated by it and from what I've seen, it seems like it might well be a factor in how people feel about how they're doing. I'll admit that there is necessarily an element of "don't ask, don't tell" in the parent/child relationship, but with the advent of IMing, there was suddenly a lesser need to use the phone. Sure, a parent could look over my shoulder to try to see what I was typing, but there was much less of that dreaded exchange of calling a girl's house, having her mother answer the phone, asking who is calling and all that. Though my father is probably more tech savvy on some fronts than I am, I don't think that he would have known how to set up a keylogger in the '90's or early '00's. Anyway, my point was, kids have fewer of those "phone type" experiences now and I'm not entirely sure that's a good thing. Learning to express interest in things or other people while not defaulting to embarrassment is something that is beneficial, in my mind. Edited for stuff and stuff.1) For the past three generations, societal changes have been driven from the teenagers up, not the other way 'round. Tony Judt makes a pretty compelling argument in Postwar that children with no adult responsibilities and a disposable income (however modest) were a new thing in the world, and that the Baby Boomers were really the first generation of "teenagers" the world had ever seen. The social movements of the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s were all driven by teenagers. I don't think you can say social changes "hit teenagers the hardest" when they're the ones with the baseball bats.
Parents follow societal cues - as they say, kids don't come with an instruction manual, so most parenting is guided by peer pressure. And peer pressure has, increasingly, been about paranoia.
3) I'm not sure "winning" has much to do with it. Consider - it isn't just American teens that are finding themselves isolated. I'd also point out that the culture of "everyone's a winner" has been thriving for the past 20 years. This is also the first time in my long memory that the necessity of college is being questioned. And it's being questioned mercilessly. There sure wasn't no Khan Academy back in my day.
4) Parents are easy to sneak stuff by. In part, it's because lots of parents would "rather not know" - plausible deniability is a powerful thing. You don't need ICQ to pull a fast one on the 'rents, it's just another way of doing stuff. On the contrary, if I wanna throw a keylogger on your laptop you have no secrets from me. There is, therefore, a tacit approval of all the sneaking. I sure as fuck didn't walk around with an Apple LoJack 4S in my pocket when I was a teen.
We're talking about two things here - parents' unwillingness to let children roam, and childrens' willingness to roam the internet. The paranoia is definitely being driven by media through parents - "white virgin in peril" as trope translates to neighborhood watches and 8pm curfews. The abandonment of socialization in favor of online is more of a mixed bag - if the kids weren't satisfied with the outcome, they wouldn't push so hard into it. CB radio was big back in the late '70s, but not with teenagers. That's an alternate form of communication, too. So there's something about the Internet that works for kids well enough that they're willing to forego the social stuff. Totally agree. Basic problem is most people aren't very thoughtful. Statistics that point out that we're living in ever-safer times are really easy to come by. I'ma let my kid wander free and wild but I know that's gonna make me a total weirdo. For sure. But pragmatically speaking, by the time you hit college you're at the cusp of adulthood. The damage has been done. The experiences of college do not shape the behaviors of teen years. Media remains an overwhelmingly American phenomenon. Despite that, Hikikomori sure have been in the news a lot. That's a good point. The fact that the default modes of communication are so poor is definitely a contributing factor.That paranoia isn't being propagated by the kids themselves, is it? To me it seems like this culture of paranoia very harmful to everyone and as it has increased from one generation to the next, it does seem like it will influence a generation's ideas on how things should be.
t does seem like it will influence a generation's ideas on how things should be.
Well, I'd like to point out that the "everyone's a winner" culture is something that very much seems to clash with American professional and university culture.
but it does seem that at the very least, more attention is paid to the American teenagers who do feel isolated.
Anyway, my point was, kids have fewer of those "phone type" experiences now and I'm not entirely sure that's a good thing.
That's a point I hadn't thought of and that certainly seems true. You know, my dad was very much a "let the boy make his mistakes" kind of dad and I thank him for it. Someday, if kids are in the cards, I plan on being the same kind of dad. I hope that more people will see the wisdom in letting their kids get scrapes and get into things. The best lessons come from making mistakes. Human beings are not nearly as delicate as our current society would have us believe. To curb a kid's curiosity is to remove their claws and I really think that kids need those claws. Yes, that's true. What do you think though, about this "prolonged adolescence" that some are worried about? In some ways, I think that if people are living longer and expected to stay in school longer, that the desire for a prolonged adolescence makes sense from the point of view of a college kid who is experiencing freedom for the first time in their lives.The abandonment of socialization in favor of online is more of a mixed bag - if the kids weren't satisfied with the outcome, they wouldn't push so hard into it. CB radio was big back in the late '70s, but not with teenagers. That's an alternate form of communication, too. So there's something about the Internet that works for kids well enough that they're willing to forego the social stuff.
Totally agree. Basic problem is most people aren't very thoughtful. Statistics that point out that we're living in ever-safer times are really easy to come by. I'ma let my kid wander free and wild but I know that's gonna make me a total weirdo.
For sure. But pragmatically speaking, by the time you hit college you're at the cusp of adulthood. The damage has been done. The experiences of college do not shape the behaviors of teen years.
This is an interesting point and one that has sort of "clicked into place" for me recently. I built a car from scratch, as I've mentioned. I built it at my granparents' house. They were old school - Okies blown out of their cattle ranches by the Dust Bowl who moved to Los Alamos after the war, neither of them having finished 8th grade. But that's the thing - most people didn't finish 8th grade back then. My grandmother castigated me once for showing up after 10am on a Friday, starting in with "when I was your age…" (picture it in the deepest okie drawl you can imagine, from a short woman in her 80s). My grandfather said (same basic drawl) "leave him alone! When you were his age you had two kids!" I'm reading this book at the moment. He spends a lot of time talking about the rise of education and prosperity in the 50s and 60s of Europe. One point he makes is that up until education reforms of the 60s, nobody went to college. Compulsory schooling in Italy went from age 12 to age 14; in Germany it went from 12 to 16. That's a bunch of kids that normally would be working in shops and starting up families who were in school all of a sudden. Combine that with a rise in incomes and suddenly you have teenagers, which Mr. Judt emphasizes were something new under the sun. So really - when we talk about "the prolonged adolescence of teenagers" we need to understand that we only really have three generations of teenagers to compare with: Boomers, Boomers' kids, Boomers grandkids. Here, check this out: - If you were 15 in 1930, you were working and done with school forever, unless you were a total egghead (Ph.D class these days). - If you were 15 in 1940, you weren't looking at college, you were looking at military service. - If you were 15 in 1950, you were going to finish high school for damn sure and maybe go on to college. - If you were 15 in 1960, your choices were about to be college or Vietnam. - If you were 15 in 1970, it was college and maybe grad school. - If you were 15 in 1980, not going to college was a let down and grad school was normal. - If you were 15 in 1990, not going to college was officially deviant and chances were good you'd need a grad degree to accomplish anything. - If you were 15 in 2000, you knew your employment prospects were shit unless you had an advanced degree. - If you were 15 in 2010, you know that not only are you going to need an advanced degree, you're going to have to put in a couple years of unpaid internship in order to even make your money back. "Prolonged adolescence?" More like "prolonged dependence." A middle-class kid in 1930 could start a life as soon as he was done with school - was expected to, in fact. A middle-class kid in 2014 is looking at real unemployment for his age group of pushing 27%, exorbitant prices for a degree that guarantees him nothing, a high school diploma that barely counts for anything, a military engaged in endless war for as long as he can remember, and a peerage system that basically requires him to apprentice to his trade after blowing five or six figures spending five years learning nothing even vaguely applicable to his future life. Much like the retreat to the internet, I think a "prolonged adolescence" is a wholly rational response to a wholly irrational situation. I've said before - for the cost of what a 4-year private degree for my daughter is projected to cost, I'll buy her a couple Starbuck's franchises and call it a day. Friend of mine has a girlfriend. She's a dermatologist. One of her colleagues did a breakdown of the cost of a medical degree and the salary of a specialist after completing residency… vs. the cost of buying a Fedex Home Delivery truck. Fedex has the edge for over 20 years. There you go. Prolonged adolescence. Maybe the plumbers have the right idea...What do you think though, about this "prolonged adolescence" that some are worried about? In some ways, I think that if people are living longer and expected to stay in school longer, that the desire for a prolonged adolescence makes sense from the point of view of a college kid who is experiencing freedom for the first time in their lives.
God, this is too true. I was quite unmotivated in highschool. Here in the Netherlands we have a different (imho better but I'm probably biased) education system where you take a standardized test at the end of elementary school. The teacher's advice combined with the test score decides what level of highschool you go to. The highest level (VWO) gets you into universities. I aced the standardized test with 86/88 points. What this system meant for me that all I had to do was ride it all out. I knew that my high school diploma is basically worthless, only getting it meant I could go to universities. On top of that, I had high school one or two years longer than most of my peers from elementary school. So now that I'm a university student I finally get to learn what I love, and if all goes well without any debt. I think I'm one of the lucky. It's even one of the more practical studies, giving me software skills (GIS) besides a better world perspective, which is not that applicable to life yet. I see the dooming unemployment rates appearing on the horizon, but I'll fight it with a killer CV that I'm building now. There is no guarantee, unless you're into engineering or IT. At the same time I see multiple of my friends with the future you described. People who are racking up massive debts, not really interested in the subject, not going out of their way to learn something practical. Riding it out like I rode out highschool. They haven't realized that the freedom of the 'real world' is already upon them; that they can shape their lives right now. Instead, they patiently wait orders and make finals. I wonder how they'll feel when they're let into the 'real world', where you're not dragged along to the next hoop to jump through.A middle-class kid in 2014 is looking at real unemployment for his age group of pushing 27%, exorbitant prices for a degree that guarantees him nothing, a high school diploma that barely counts for anything, a military engaged in endless war for as long as he can remember, and a peerage system that basically requires him to apprentice to his trade after blowing five or six figures spending five years learning nothing even vaguely applicable to his future life.
Yeah, this part is pretty terrifying. I'm fortunate to be in a program that requires a full year of paid, 40 hour work week internships in order to graduate (making it a 5-year undergrad program), and the level of debt is well into the 5 figures, but won't hit 6 figures (yay?). The great part about this is that I'll have work experience with 3 different STEM companies prior to graduating college, which should work out well for a full-time position. Case in point: Prior to this year getting an internship was awfully difficult, even with some work experience. But with two STEM jobs, managerial positions in College organizations and some other factors, I had a 50% interview/application ratio going on this year which was an absurd change. Hopefully that will continue and I'll be able to get a job that will allow me to pay off this debt as fast as possible. As for 4 year programs that don't have the luxury of the paid internship, or don't require as much of it, that's where the scariest part is. It seems as though you pretty much have to have the work experience prior to leaving college in order to get a decent job after college. A friend of mine studied New Media Design and was damn good at it, but is still unemployed almost 8 months later, and is now moving to Brooklyn. Another friend of mine who is a great photographer has been doing apprenticeships since graduating, and has only recently found a steady job. Despite the level of debt that I'm at, I feel lucky to have the work and managerial experience heading into post-undergraduate full-time employment. Hopefully I'm right about that.- If you were 15 in 2010, you know that not only are you going to need an advanced degree, you're going to have to put in a couple years of unpaid internship in order to even make your money back.
- If you were 15 in 2010, you know that not only are you going to need an advanced degree, you're going to have to put in a couple years of unpaid internship in order to even make your money back.
Good for you. This has been an interesting discussion to follow (still reading it) because, you know, my mom's kind of psycho. One of the ways in which she is irrational is how she is, I guess, overprotective. I'm a full-grown adult and if I'm at my parents' (in very white, safe, upper-middle-class suburbia) and want to go for a walk around dusk or after, my mother is all about "Oh but it's not safe." It's all paranoia and "white virgin [although a laughable claim] in distress" and, yes, craziness and maybe control on her part. Never mind the things she chooses not to realize: I have spent lots of very wee hours wandering streets in areas with higher crime rates. I started sneaking out and wandering our neighborhood at night when I was 15. (Eventually caught.) An anecdote: all three of us kids were going out for a walk at night, and she protested "But it's not safe to go out alone!" Alone? Three is a pack. I feel she exemplifies irrationality at these times. It is funny because my younger, prettier sister does not experience this treatment. Apparently if I go out alone at night I'm a walking target. Sure. Her intentions may be good. But they're also based out of irrational fear. It is exactly the parental paranoia this thread addresses. (Except I'm an adult, not 10.) I am impressed by all the reading you've done about kids that's coming through in this thread. If I were to become a parent I'd research the fuck out of it too. I am of the "kids should be allowed to get hurt" mentality. Let her burn her hand on the stove, that's the only way she's going to really know why she shouldn't touch it. Of course, no one would wish harm on their own kids and such - but small pains? They're part of life. Plus, you shouldn't really be afraid of small pains, and you get rid of that fear by experiencing them and realizing they're not so bad. Plus, no matter how you control your kid, they are going to find other ways to get into trouble that you don't want them to find. Can't go out at night? Cool, talking to (cybering with) strangers on internet forums. Or cool, sneaking out while you're asleep. Or playing with matches in the basement or huffing glue because they're curious or I don't know. Kids will find a way. Let your kid wander and walk all over. Let your kid take risks. I don't know about buying her an iPhone ;) but certainly, giving her enough personal freedom so that she can make mistakes and learn from them.I'ma let my kid wander free and wild but I know that's gonna make me a total weirdo.
By way of comparison, my mother didn't give the first fuck so long as I hadn't committed suicide, wasn't doing something she could confuse for suicidal ideation, or doing something that she could twist around inside her head into suicidal behavior. Her brother sucked a tailpipe his Freshman year at Harvard, making her the oldest at 14. Her parents, who hated each other a lot, began a 40-year run of blaming each other for his death. His suicide, combined with her parents' ejection from Harvard and Radcliffe for "sexual indiscretion", required her to go to Swarthmore instead of Harvard. And thus, "suicide" became "the root of the world falling apart." Oddly enough, my sister didn't have to deal with any of it - she could pretend to overdose on Tylenol and it was big laughs. Me? Fall asleep in my locked room and not hear a gentle knock? time to break the door down. Balance that out with the fact that I could make Friday night calls that went like "Hi, I'm in Dallas, back by Sunday night" and that my sister was released into my custody three times during High School. Here's the point - there's "normal crazy" and there's "crazy crazy." I think when one kid gets it vastly more than another, it's "crazy crazy." It's empowering, if I may be so bold, to wrap your head around someone else's crazy and recognize that irrationality is not something that needs to be explained or understood - it just is.This has been an interesting discussion to follow (still reading it) because, you know, my mom's kind of psycho. One of the ways in which she is irrational is how she is, I guess, overprotective.