Friday, January 8, 2010

food for thought

+
Just finished a thought provoking book, The Nurture Assumption, by Judith Harris. It proposes that parents are less influential on the personality and behavior of older children and adolescents than we tend to think (the 'assumption' of the title), and peer groups have more influence. Not that parents and adults have no influence on personality, but they have less power than the culture that children and adolescents share. And that culture is often coherent with the parent's culture, so kids turn out rather like their parents. But at times the culture of children and especially adolescents can be 'contrary' to parent's values - then we have the generational war.

She wrote this more than 10 years ago, and I certainly can see the generation gap growing in the last 10 years. This concept speaks to me on so many levels.

On the personal level, our son's choice of friends, which we didn't control, didn't intervene about, does seem to have done more to shape his current malaise than our values. He just didn't accept what we were showing/speaking/living out. He admits we weren't bad parents (at least when he's calm) and that we have shown him what it means to work hard, be brave during tough times and have a good relationship/marriage. He even says he wants those things for himself, but none of his friends or their families really are strong in those elements.

Harris suggests that the culture of the peers parents/'the neighborhood' has a lot to do with shifting values over generations. I think it is one of the pieces for DS's issues. Parents who act to control their children's friends, through careful attention to their schools, etc., are fighting a hard battle, but one that may pay off.

As an occasional teacher of adolescents, I found her analysis of 'groupness' very interesting. 'Groupness' is her term for the sense that individual have when they identify themselves as a group against some other group. For teens, the major overarching definition that they are not adults. Being 'not adult' means, even when they fall into smaller groups when they get together, they first recognize (sub-consciously, probably) a pressure to remain as a 'group' against the visible adults.

Ah - confirmation class. It IS us vs. them! People in the group that see themselves as the majority, but without power (confirmation students) will always desire to resist (as a group, not as individuals) the control of the group by the minority, more-powerful adults (confirmation teachers). Even learning, and accepting the values put forth by those adults (the curriculum and the behavorial standards) is resisted by the pressure of 'groupness.'

This is what I fear I have learned. In America, we no longer use adolescence as a period for 'training' to be an adult in any real sense - there is no real life connection/valid skills/importance for real life (to the kids) for much of what we teach (especially in the church) - we have lost them before we start. Basically, we've had a 'liberal arts' approach to religious learning (it's good for you, it's fun (it was for me!), it just has to be done, and this is nothing you'll need to apply in real life), when maybe we should have a tech school approach (you will need this skill, focus on productivity, go out and do). We aren't doing anything that matters for the group.

All this doesn't mean that individual cases may be different. Yes, some kids love this learning, find it significant, find Jesus, live spiritually, etc. But look around, for each one that sticks, how many others are lost?

I don't know if I have any answers, just more questions. This raises so many issues for me, in the church, in the larger culture, in so many of the stories I heard.

Continuing to ponder.
+

No comments: