Skip to Content

Youth Resources

Articles, Blogs, and News

DANCING RESOURCES

 

 

Sullivan, J. (1990, March). A jarring step into the world of slam dancing. Boston Globe.

 

 

DANCING RESOURCES

ORGANIZATIONS

Read more

5 Against the World


Crowe, C. (1993, October 28). 5 Against the World. Rolling Stone, p. 50.

 

OVERVIEW

 

Read more

The Maria paradox

Gil, R.M. & Vazquez, C.I. (1996). The Maria paradox. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Son.

OVERVIEW

Latina women often experience a profound clash between values and culture and the opportunities and expectations they find in America. The Maria Paradox, written by two Hispanic American women—a psychotherapist and a psychologist—addresses this issue, seeking to help Latinas "merge old world traditions with new world self-esteem." At the heart of the book is the concept of " ‘marianismo,’ " the Latina equivalent of what machismo is for Latino men. The authors state that just as the role of the man is determined by the rules of machismo, so is the woman’s determined by those of marianismo. In their home country, this social role provides women protection as wives and mothers. It also offers women respect and a life free from loneliness and wants. However, in the new country, marianismo binds Latinas in a no-win situation, as it insists that they live in a world that no longer exists and it perpetuates a value system that equates perfection with submission.

Marianismo is the ideal role for Hispanic women, viewing the Virgin Mary as the role model. The authors number the ten rules of marianismo. Among the list is the following:

  • Do not forget a woman’s place.
  • Do not be single, self-supporting, or independent-minded.
  • Do not put your own needs first.
  • Do not be unhappy with your man, no matter what he does to you.
  • Do not forget that sex is for making babies, not for pleasure.
  • Do not ask for help.
  • Do not discuss personal problems outside the home.
  • Do not change.

Using exercises and case studies, the authors thoroughly consider the marianismo’s impact for Latinas in the United States. They present avenues for change and acculturation by integrating the good of the home culture with the good of the new one, encouraging Latinas therefore to become " ‘new marianistas.’ "The Maria Paradox is a great book that all Latinas, those working with them, or those married to them should read. It sheds light into those dark, fussy areas and exposes the "invisible yoke" (marianismo), thus opening a window of hope.

QUOTATIONS

 

 

…if machismo is the sum total of what a man should be, marianismo defines the ideal role of woman…taking as its model of perfection the Virgin Mary herself. Marianismo is about sacred duty, self-sacrifice, and chastity. About dispensing care and pleasure, not receiving them. About living in the shadows, literally and figuratively, of your man-father, boyfriend, husband, son-your kids, and your family.

Traditional marianismo says that women are spiritually superior to men and capable of enduring all suffering.

Veneration may be the reward tendered to ‘la mujer buena’, but in actuality you end up feeling more like a servant than a subject of adoration. Indeed, the noble sacrifice of self (the ultimate expression of marianismo) is the force which has for generations prevented Hispanic women from even entertaining the notion of personal validation.

 

 

QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION AND DISCUSSION

  1. Do you think that marianismo is compatible with life in America? Why or why not?
  2. After looking at some of the rules of marianismo, how would any one of these create a conflict in the life of a Latina in America?
  3. Do you see the effects of marianismo within any Latina teens in your youth group?
  4. Since the concept is so inbred within the culture, can Hispanic American mothers prevent the future pain of their growing daughters? If so, how?

IMPLICATIONS

  • If mothers, teachers, counselors, youth workers, etc, become aware and understand the concept of marianismo and how it plays to various degrees in the life of Latinas, it would greatly aid in the difficult process of acculturation and moving toward self-esteem.
  • Latinas can use this book as a launching board toward freedom and wholeness.

Ana Reid cCYS

Models and issues of English-speaking Korean-American ministry

Program for Asian-American Theology and Ministry. (1991). Models and issues of English-speaking Korean-American ministry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Theological Seminary.

OVERVIEW

This review reports a 1991 colloquium of Korean American ministry models. The ten participants originated from various denominations and religious structures. Overall, the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. and the Asian-American Program Center at Princeton Theological Seminary have shown keen interest in the needs of Korean American and Korean Canadian ministries. They gathered to discuss five contemporary models and ministry issues in the burgeoning spectrum of Korean American ministry.
The first two sections describe the breadth and scope of Korean American ministry models. They present five models of Korean American English-speaking models and discuss issues and concerns on each. Every issue and concern reflects the tensions of Korean American Christian growing, maturing, and flourishing in the intergenerational circle of various Korean American ministries. Each model and issue demands in-depth study as needs and ministries increase in the future.

MAIN POINTS

Large percentages of Korean American youth attend church and participate in English-speaking Sunday School, junior high, and high school groups. For college, most of these students leave home and head for the autonomy of college life. However, at the college level they find very few attractive English-speaking ministries to join. Moreover, they do not seem to comfortably participate in or understand the Korean language-based adult congregations. They generally shy away from Korean and Korean American churches. Nevertheless, they eventually return.
"There needs to be a new kind of ministry specifically designed for English-speaking Korean Americans. The fact that these people are coming back to Korean churches..." suggests that English language-based programs and ministries must be nurtured for Korean Americans.
Language differences and difficulties have created apparent communication and relational problems fueling divisions in ministries and enlarging the generation/language gap. A constant dilemma facing Korean American congregations is the relationship between Korean-speaking first generation parents and English-speaking Korean youth and young adults. In addition to the usual tension between older adult parents and the younger youth population, language barriers heighten tension and dissuade healthy, on-going communication. Various Korean American leaders have emerged to bridge the gap and mediate the two parties. Yet, among thousands of youth workers, a fraction have the necessary language skills, rapport, and cultural experiences facilitate change. Without understanding the dynamics, structure, and nuances existing within the Korean American family, counselors can only listen to the woes of a family or young person; they do not have the skills to offer culturally based solutions.
The growth of the Korean American population is significant. Korean Americans in 1986 numbered about 750,000, and the projected number of Korean Americans by the year 2000 is two million. The Church has been and will continue to be a focal point of Korean American life.

SUMMARY OF APPENDICES ASIAN AMERICAN THEOLOGY

The first paper addresses the theological orientation that emanates from Korean and Korean American issues in America. There is something unique to the Korean American experience that reflects back to theology. When considering other ethno-reflective theologies (e.g., black, Asian, etc.), Korean American theology, too, emerges as a distinct subculture. The writer endorses the need to study and understand Christian theology in light of intra- and intercultural experiences and contexts.

A PERSPECTIVE FOR SOCIO-CULTURAL UNDERSTANDING OF KOREAN AMERICAN YOUTH

The second paper pertains to youth ministry. It discusses the Korean and Korean American situation that embraces parents, culture, and the Church. The paper reviews previous research on a sample Korean American youth population. With statistical data and results, the study reveals findings of "Korean-American youth in the areas of their (1) aspirations, (2) conflicts, (3) help seeking preferences, and (4) view of the church."

THE KOREAN AMERICAN COMMUNITY

The final paper notes the formation and existing patterns of Korean and Korean American communities in the U.S. The paper projects future community growth issues, such as: "What will become of the Korean community?"

REFLECTION

Korean Americans are prone to ethnocentrism in their church membership; they do not feel comfortable in non-Korean churches. A second generation of Korean Americans is entering college in large numbers. For illustration, consider 1975 the zero-year. Korean American young people entering college in the fall of 1992 must be at least 17-years-old-born sometime around 1975. Plenty more were born in Korea, immigrated with their parents, and feel most comfortable in English-speaking contexts. Though they feel comfortable speaking English, those who originate from the first Korean settlements were most likely born abroad.
The report poses a question deserving investigation and serious consideration. How are Korean churches responding to the needs of their English-speaking members? The needs of these young people-starting careers or in college, high school, junior high, and elementary-are growing with the population. The five models of ministry are the first forms of ministry designed specifically for the English-speaking groups. But because of their newness, the models have not yet formed a cohesive response to the English-speaking Korean American's needs or fully addressed the issues and concerns of the Korean in America.
Currently, Korean American church leadership consists of first generation pastors who have learned English as a second language and the 1.5 generation of Korean Americans (born in Korea but grew up mostly in the U.S.). Those trying to serve Korean Americans must accept highly Westernized members and unique ministry forms. They must bridge the first generation, 1.5 generation, and 2.0 generation (Koreans born and raised in America). They must understand from where the Korean American community derives, how it forms, its patterns, and its culture. To understand the first generation necessitates a study of Korean heritage and culture. To understand Western ideas, one must discern America and its youth environment. And to minister to the 1.5 generation-those caught in the middle-young leaders must solidly understand one's own identity and the Korean American culture.

QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION AND DISCUSSION

  1. What are the history, current status, and future of the Korean American Church? Where is the Korean American community and how far has it advanced in American socialization?
  2. What are some of the second generation's differences and tensions with the first? How can a youth worker reconcile the two?
  3. Is Asian American theology-or Korean American theology-a viable, relevant study for Korean American ministry today?
  4. What are the perspectives of Korean American youth? How do they feel about parents, school, and church? What are their needs? How can you guide and challenge them?
  5. What are the pressures for Korean American college and career population?
  6. For those who attended church in high school with their parents, what are the reasons why they now are or are not involved in church? If not, will they consider returning to the church in the future?
  7. How do you perceive the future of Korean American ministry in churches? In para-church organizations? In other social or service organizations? Where do you see yourself as a leader in the spectrum of English-speaking Korean American outreach?

IMPLICATIONS

  1. The report allocates a single paragraph on para-church ministries. Of the five models of ministry, the para-church offered the least study. It is possible that the colloquium participants were not aware of activities in collegiate centers across America.
  2. The generation and growth of these groups indicate one's perspective, interest in spiritual matters, language-orientation, and group needs.
  3. Without understanding each group, those working with Korean Americans may unintentionally promote and tolerate ineffective service.

Jun Kyung fuji Kim cCYS


AFRICAN YOUTH RESOURCES

 

AFRICAN YOUTH RESOURCES

 

ORGANIZATIONS

 

African Youth Alliance

 

African Youth Foundation

 

African Youth Parliament

 

Amani Center
Westlands Nairobi, Kenya

Gethsemane Prayer Partnership Ministries and Fellowship
Founded and directed by

Elipokea Urio, GPPMF is a non-denominational ministry which seeks to mobilize a prayer network throughout Africa and the rest of the world. Locally, this ministry works in Tanzania with youth and children to educate them on HIV/AIDS, and help them overcome poverty in their community, avoid drugs, alcoholism and prostitution through prayer and counseling.

 

UNICEF—United Nations Children’s Fund
(Kenya office - Gigiri Road, P.O. Box 44145, Nairobi, Kenya)

 

BOOKS

Abbink, Jon. et al, eds. (2004) Vanguard Or Vandals: Youth, Politics And Conflict In Africa

. Brill Academic Publishers, 300 pp.

Ogbu, Osito M. and Paschal Mihyo, eds. (2000) African Youth on the Information Highway: Participation and Leadership in Community Development

. IDRC, 130 pp.

Dean Borgman cand Christen B. Yates CYS


Paul Harvey commentary on Columbine High School

Paul Harvey commentary on Columbine High School.

OVERVIEW

What follows is a commentary offered by Paul Harvey, following the 1999 Columbine High School shootings:

For the life of me, I can’t understand what could have gone wrong in Littleton, Colorado. If only the parents had kept their children away from the guns, we wouldn’t have had such a tragedy. Yeah, it must have been the guns.

It couldn’t have been because half of our children are being raised in broken homes. It couldn’t have been because our children get to spend an average of 30 seconds in meaningful conversation with their parents each day. After all we give our children quality time.

It couldn’t have been because we treat our children as pets and our pets as children. It couldn’t have been because we place our children in day care centers where they learn their socialization skills among their peers under the law of the jungle while employees who have no vested interest in the children look on and make sure that no blood is spilled.

It couldn’t have been because we allow our children to watch, on average, seven hours of television a day filled with the glorification of sex and violence that isn’t fit for adult consumption.

It couldn’t have been because we allow (or even encourage) our children to enter into virtual worlds in which, to win the game, one must kill as many opponents as possible in the most sadistic way possible.

It couldn’t have been because we have sterilized and contracepted our families down to sizes so small that the children we do have are so spoiled with material things that they come to equate the receiving of the material with love.

It couldn’t have been because our children, who historically have been seen as a blessing from God, are now being viewed as either a mistake created when contraception fails or inconveniences that parents try to raise in their spare time.

It couldn’t have been because we give two year prison sentences to teenagers who kill their newborns. It couldn’t have been because our school systems teach the children that they are nothing but glorified apes who have revolutionized out of some primordial soup of mud.

It couldn’t have been because we teach our children that there are no laws of morality that transcend us, that everything is relative and that actions don’t have consequences. What the heck, the president gets away with it.

Nah, it must have been the guns.

QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION AND DISCUSSION

  1. How do you respond to Paul Harvey’s thoughts on the Columbine situation? What do you agree with? What do you disagree with?
  2. Are his thoughts fair? Explain.
  3. Do any of his comments offend you? Why?
  4. Does it matter why the tragedy occurred? Will understanding why it happened solve anything, or make it better?
  5. What do you think are good solutions to the gun problem in America? What is America’s gun problem?

IMPLICATIONS

  1. Paul Harvey’s statements are provocative. They may shock or offend, but it is good to be encouraged to think through and respond to such complex situations.
  2. There is not a single solution to the gun problem.
  3. Many institutions—families, churches, schools, governments, media, businesses—must acknowledge their responsibilities to the issue of a violent, gun-ridden society. These institutions must commit to minimize and even eliminate this current societal epidemic.
  4. Young people need to talk about their fears and knowledge of guns. Communication may be the strongest weapon against gun violence.
Kathryn Q. Powers cCYS


Teen parents urge peers to think first

 

Young, E. (1995, April 23). Teen parents urge peers to think first. San Diego Union Tribune.

OVERVIEW

When Vincent Dekker’s 18-year-old girlfriend told him she was pregnant, he thought he was too young to have a child. He was like many other teenagers in high school. He liked to party with friends. His future was open. But Dekker and his girlfriend, Stacie Berardini, decided to have the baby. Life has changed dramatically. Dekker sometimes works 12 hour days as a security guard to make ends meet, while Stacie, now his fiancee, studies to become a nurse. Says Dekker, ‘I wear myself out a lot.’ Says Stacie, ‘There isn’t time for anyone. It’s her (the couple’s daughter) and no one else.’

The young parents’ story of trying times was echoed by other teenage parents at a forum on adolescent pregnancy prevention and the risk of unprotected sex. The key point of the teenage panel is that people have an alternative to teen pregnancy; intimacy without sex is possible. At the same time, panel members acknowledge that sex is a fact of life for some teens, and thus advocate the use of condoms and other types of birth control to prevent pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted disease.

In addition to the panel, a troupe of young actors organized by Planned Parenthood performed three skits dramatizing the hazards of sexually transmitted diseases and underscoring the option of abstaining from sex. The discussion and skits, with frank and poignant messages regarding teenage sex, illustrate how the discussion of young adults and sexual intercourse has evolved. Dadisi Elliott, who began a program called, "Developing Adolescent Dads for Success," says the issue of sex and its consequences is ‘really out of the closet.’ He adds, ‘It’s imperative that we talk directly to teens about this. The realization is that teens are having sex, and we need to address the consequences of teen sexuality.’

About 1 million female teens get pregnant each year in the United States.

QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION AND DISCUSSION

  1. Was Vincent Dekker’s response to his girlfriend’s pregnancy unusual? How would you have counseled Vincent and Stacie?
  2. How do you respond to Planned Parenthood’s dramatic presentation to a teenage audience—many of whom are sexually active?

IMPLICATIONS

  1. Jesse Jackson has spoken frankly and effectively about kids having kids.
  2. There is strong evidence that a significant segment of the adolescent population is considering this crisis and making commitments to eliminate life-limiting consequences.
  3. We have a responsibility to sexually active and pregnant teenagers in a society that has strongly encouraged sexual activity.

Sheila Walsh cCYS

The importance of parents and friends in adolescent decision making

Wilks, J. (1986). The relative importance of parents and friends in adolescent decision making. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 15 (4).

OVERVIEW

In decision making, adolescents draw on the experience and advice of different reference groups and significant others. Of particular interest to researchers and educators has been the relative influence of parents and peers during adolescent development. While differences of opinion and disagreements about various issues are expected between adults and young people, the stereotype of fundamental conflict has not been supported by recent studies (Coleman, 1980). Instead, parents and peers may influence adolescent behavior in different ways, depending on the relationships a young person has with each and the particular topics investigated (Biddle, et al., 1980). One popular research methodology used to investigate the relative importance of these two reference groups has been to create hypothetical situations or dilemmas involving choices between conflicting parent-peer expectation. While these studies have granted a number of interesting findings, Larson (1972) concluded that they provide limited insight into the structure of parent and peer orientations during adolescence. Contrasting past research in which information about the normative standards and behaviors of their significant others was usually obtained from adolescent respondents (e.g., Biddle et al., 1980), the present study also directly gained the opinions of fathers, mothers, and friends. This match sampling technique offers a unique perspective. By questioning students, both parents, and a close, same-sex friend about situations in which the advice and opinions of either parents or friends would be sought, it becomes impossible to test for real cross-pressures and to assess the relative importance of each group of adolescent current and future oriented decisions. Also of importance was the identification of particular areas in which the groups would generally agree that a young person should seek the advice of either parents or friends.

DESIGN

One hundred seventy-five students in an Introduction to Psychology course at The University of Queensland participated in this study. Prior to agreeing to participate, students were told that the research focused on family and friends, and that both parents and a close, same-sex friend would be requested to complete a short, confidential questionnaire. The final sample consisted of 700 respondents—175 fathers, 175 mothers, 83 sons and male friends, and 92 daughters and female friends. Several measures were employed to investigate the relative importance of parents and friends to this sample of teenagers.

First, students were asked to list as many people as they wished in response to the question, "Whose opinions are important to you personally?" Then they were asked to rank those people in order of importance. Also included were questions about how often adolescents discussed their problems with their parents and friends (1, never; 4, always). In addition, the entire sample of parents, their sons and daughters, and friends responded to a scale that consisted of 18 situations where parents’ or friends’ opinions might be sought as part of adolescent decision making. The questions were taken from Sebald and White (1980) and modified slightly to fit university rather than high school students. Sebald and White reported acceptable levels of validity and reliability for the measure.

FINDINGS

In response to the open-ended measure about important significant others there are important findings:

  • Mothers were nominated as the most important referent other (94%).
  • Fathers were mentioned less often, especially by daughters (88%).
  • Friends were mentioned by more students (98%) than were parents (95%), siblings (75%), or other adults (63%).
  • Parents’ opinions were generally considered more important to this group of young people (as measured by their nominations and rank ordering of importance), but when problems arose they were more frequently discussed with the closest friend. This would suggest that adolescents might seek parents’ and friends’ opinions in quite separate situations, and furthermore, that strong cross-pressures may be exerted as both groups expect to be consulted as part of any decision making.

To identify those areas of decision making where parents’ or friends’ advice would be most important, a multiple discriminant was conducted on all 700 responses to the 18-situation questionnaire. It was possible to identify situations in which a general consensus was or was not achieved.

Parental consensus. Parental guidance was most valued in educational and vocational decisions. A less expected result was the consensus that parents’ opinions would be most important in money matters and choosing a spouse—future oriented decisions.

Friend consensus. A pattern of agreement also emerged in six areas in which friends’ opinions and feelings were considered more important. These areas can be loosely defined as "current situations," since the decisions involved are fairly short-term and most involve direct interaction with age peers rather than family members. The six areas include which social events to attend, clubs to join, how to dress, hobbies to undertake, magazines to buy, and books to read. One area of potential conflict arose concerning how to dress. Fathers, in particular, believed parents’ opinions would be most important in this area.

Marginal cross-pressures. There was disagreement on whom to consult for advice on personal problems and information about sex.

Areas of possible conflict. The study identifies five areas in which parents’ and adolescents’ choices of important referent others are in direct opposition. For decisions related to drinking and various aspects of dating, parents strongly believe that their opinions and feelings are most important. The young people, on the other hand, report that the opinions and feelings of their friends would be most important.

CONCLUSION

Overall, this study supports suggestions that adolescents seek their parents’ advice and opinions for longer-term, important, and difficult decisions, whereas friends’ opinions and feelings are more important for decisions in short-term, less important, and less difficult areas. In some areas of decision making, parent or peer consensus is clearly established; in others, conflict likely exists. In a number of areas, young people no longer seek parental advice for the decisions they must make. On the other hand, parents and other family members are still seen as very important in the lives of these young Australians.

CRITIQUE AND EVALUATION

 

The study was conducted in Australia; therefore, there may be cross-cultural implications. Also of importance is that 66% of the students were still living at home with their parents, so the importance of family members is not surprising. Moreover, Musgrove (1967) has suggested that "the crisis of transition to university, and a period before university friendships have had time to form, may temporarily emphasize the significance of parents in your people’s lives" (p. 80). Also the study does not indicate the types of family situations the sample groups lives in—two-parent, single parent, step family, etc. These factors may have influenced the results of the study.

IMPLICATIONS

Youth leaders must build good, solid relationships with kids. Youth leaders must also provide positive experiences for youth so that they may have values on which they can rely. Parents need to know and accept that kids develop their own independent identities and experiment with various roles as they transition into adulthood. Parents should exhibit patience, knowing that they do have a place in their children’s decision making. At the same time, give them the freedom to seek advice from friends and significant others. In particular, it is important for parents to know that their children expect parents to offer advice on vocational and educational decisions. Educators will find this study particularly important, since the sample groups generally agreed that a young person should seek the advice of parents about vocational and educational decisions. Educators and university recruiters need to employ strategies for college recruitment that include both parent and child.

Julie Scott cCYS

The needs of at-risk youth being met through the spiritual dimension. Straight Ahead Ministries, Inc

Larson, S.J. (1997). The needs of at-risk youth being met through the spiritual dimension. Straight Ahead Ministries, Inc.

(Download this review as a PDF)

OVERVIEW

Often when social workers, clinicians and youth advocates hear of trying to use Christian principles to rehabilitate at-risk youth they get nervous. Thoughts of "jail house religion" and "the devil made me do it" excuses; not to mention the potential of presenting of a simplistic, one-dimensional approach to the multi-dimensional problems youth face are just too risky.

Yet, many leading adolescent theorists see the necessity of not ignoring the spiritual dimension when treating young offenders. According to Professor James W. Fowler, "God is built into the healthy development of individuals. Faith constitutes our life wager," says Fowler. "It is the only thing which gives real meaning to life’s conditions" (Fowler 1981).

Similarly, Charles Shelton states:

[It is our] supposition that God’s grace is at work through the developing nature of the adolescent. We must therefore pay attention to this developing nature, for without it we are left with a theory that has very little significance for what adolescents actually experience (Shelton 1983 viii).

Well-known child psychologist Dr. Robert Coles says the essential question is "How do we teach another person character?" He points out that even if a person gets an "A" in a class on moral reasoning, he may well flunk out in the life issues which demand morality. Coles points out the need for more than cognitive ability, he needs a strength from a spiritual dimension (Coles, 1995).

The issue then becomes, do we ignore the spiritual aspects of at-risk youth or do we try to develop that spirituality as part of a holistic approach to treatment? A review of several studies seems to point to the latter. For instance, Teen Challenge, a nationwide drug and alcohol rehabilitation program incorporating evangelical Christian principles underwent a study by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare in 1976. Dr. Catherine Hess, Study Director states:

Whereas treatment for a drug addict in a detoxification facility results in a 1% cure rate and the therapeutic community’s rate is about 10%, the Teen Challenge program had an 84% success rate for addicts tested seven years after completing the program. The Teen Challenge program is the best I know of to get a person off drugs.

Similarly, Dr. John A. Howard, member of the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse states, "Of all the drug programs reported to the Commission, the most successful is the religiously-based program conducted by Teen Challenge."

Prison Fellowship, a national Evangelical Christian prison ministry recently underwent a study conducted by the Center for Social Research (CSR), examining the impact of Prison Fellowship programs on the behavior of inmates in four New York state prisons. For those inmates who participated in at least ten Bible studies in one year, CSR found that only 14% were rearrested within a year of their release, compared with 36% of those who had never attended a Bible study program.

Our own organization, Straight Ahead Ministries, serves juvenile offenders in 76 juvenile facilities in seven states and provides aftercare through an intensive mentoring program in Boston and two aftercare homes. The recidivism rate for those completing the mentoring program is 12%, and for those who have gone through the aftercare homes the rate is 8%. The Massachusetts Department of Youth Services rate of recidivism is 51% (American Correctional Association).

It is not the intent of this paper to present a simplistic approach to the needs of youth, or to assume that the only issues in a troubled young person are spiritual. Rather, we acknowledge that the needs are in fact critical and complex; treatment needs to encompass every dimension of a young person’s life—including the spiritual. Because we operate Christian programs in state-sponsored juvenile facilities this paper reflects spirituality from a Christian perspective.

In researching the basic needs of at-risk youth, we examined Brendtro’s, Brokenleg’s, and Van Bockern’s Circle of Courage (belonging, mastery, independence, and generosity) (Brendtro et al., 1990); Dwight Dean’s Alienation Scale (normlessness, powerlessness, and social isolation) (Dean, 1961); and Erik Erikson’s first five Psychosocial Stages of Development (trust, autonomy, initiative, industry, and identity) (Erikson, 1982). Below is the synthesis of what we believe to be five essential virtues for healthy adolescent development, and how they are developed, at least in part, through the spiritual dimension:

FIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF HEALTHY ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT

TRUST

Trust involves a sense of acceptance and belonging which yields openness in relationships and hopefulness about the future. Trust emerges as one develops a core feeling of acceptance and a deep sensation of belonging (Brendtro, et al., 1990). In the context of nurturing relationships characterized by consistent, sensitive, need-meeting care, a person learns to trust. The mother-infant relationship is the prototypical relationship which establishes trust as the dominant mode of relating. A well developed sense of trust enables a person to have hope for the future as well as a willingness to enter vulnerably into relationships. When the need for trust is met, a person can be vulnerable because at the root, he knows himself to be loved just as he is. Everything of himself that he now opens to others has already been validated, accepted, and embraced.

When trust does not develop, a person may become despondent, disheartened, discouraged, and dejected. A trustless person lacks the capacity for hope and the willingness to let others see his core. Because hope and genuine relationships are lacking, the very foundation of a healthy, vibrant life is missing. (Erikson 1982)

It is not surprising that when one observes the actions of at-risk youth, it is this most basic need for trust has often been neglected. At a Bible study I was leading in a detention center some years ago, I asked if any of the boys had ever felt rejected growing up. Five of the seven relayed stories of how someone in their immediate family had tried to kill them when they were younger. It is no surprise to those working in the field that many of the issues of at-risk youth stem from their families. Eighty-four percent of the boys who become serious juvenile offenders have parents with criminal records (Craig and Glick 1978), and less than 5% of families are responsible for nearly half of the criminal convictions in the United States. (West et al, 1977)

Lack of trust often can be seen in how at-risk youth view relationships with others. One of the boys at the home we live in could articulate well his life philosophy, "I’ll hurt you before you have a chance to hurt me." If you were to ask him how it was growing up, he would likely recall to you his mother telling him, "I wish you’d never been born." Any wonder that he’s not able to trust people when they get close to him? How will healing come to such a life?

The words of the Apostle Paul in the New Testament take on a contemporary application here: "Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel." (1 Cor. 4:15 NIV). Trust cannot be taught in a classroom; it must be experienced in the context of a significant, long-term, loving relationship—like that of a father or mother. The young person must be re-parented.

Yet this is certainly not an easy task. A young person will often subconsciously transfer the anger that they have for one in a parental role onto whoever begins to move into that role in their life. The person entering into that new parental role must be willing to make a long-term commitment to the relationship in order to help the child rebuild a positive definition for that role of a parent. Only through such a new definition will the child have the hope of passing on a positive parental role to their own children. This is especially true in the role of a father. Nearly every juvenile offender I have met over the past ten years, when asked about his father, says either he hates him or dislikes him greatly. When trust has been broken at that earliest phase of a child’s life, a deep-seated anger and hatred for authority almost always emerges, spilling over into nearly every other relationship. On the other hand, the power of one committed, long-term relationship in the life of a troubled young person is incredible.

When John, a boy who had lived with us for two years, left our home to go to college we had the usual departing ceremony. Each of us in the home said what John had meant to us, and John said what each of us had meant to him. When it came to me, I wondered what John would say. We had been through many things together. He said:

Two things really stick out in my mind. The first is watching you and Hanne’s marriage. I’ve never really seen a marriage up close. I never thought I would get married, because I’ve never really seen one work. But now I want to be married some day, and I want to have a marriage like yours. The second thing is that you wrestled with me. My dad never wrestled with me, but you would wrestle with me. If I ever have kids I’m going to wrestle with them. I want to be a dad like you some day.

In orthodox Christian faith, God is viewed as the perfect Father. God is the One who ultimately promises to be trustworthy, to love unconditionally, to be the father to the fatherless (Psalm 68:5), a friend who sticks closer than a brother (Proverbs 18:24). God is the One who meets our deepest need for love and trust. But before one can get his ultimate need for love and trust met, he must first see it displayed in a real live person.

POWER

Power is the ability to both decide on and shape the course of events upon which one’s life and happiness depend. Personal power is often referred to as independence or autonomy. (Brendtro et al., 1990) This is true, but it is only healthy if it is developed within the context of deep, relational belonging. Power, properly understood, emerges directly out of embracive, binding relationships. Consequently, it may appear as a form of rebelliousness as the young person is attempting to take for himself the decision-making and authority roles previously held by loved elders.

Power, properly developed in an individual, produces the ability to make prudent decisions even in the face of compelling outside pressures. Undeveloped, a powerless person harbors strong suspicions of self-doubt. He feels impotent. At the extreme, he feels too weak to effect even simple changes he would like to see occur in his life. (Erikson, 1982)

This struggle of power and independence is what adolescence is all about. In dealing with troubled kids, our definition of success is usually getting them to do the right thing. The young person’s definition of success is invariably quite different—it is to be independent.

We experienced this reality when we had grounded one of the boys in our home. Jason had come home one night very drunk, showing that he could not handle the amount of freedom we had given him. For a few weeks he was restricted to the house unless he was at work, school, or with somebody else from the house.

Later, in recounting those two weeks, Jason told us that numerous nights he would get up at 1 or 2 a.m., when everyone else was sleeping, and walk around the streets of our town. When asked why, he said, "Just because I was told I couldn’t." He further said that he didn’t really do anything on his hour-long walks, "I just wanted to do my own thing." Prior to the grounding Jason had never gone on midnight strolls, nor did he take them after those few weeks of grounding were over. Yet in Jason’s mind, he had succeeded. He was independent. Unfortunately, this search for independence is most commonly known as rebellion.

The task, then, for caretakers of troubled young people is a giant one. How do we keep enough structure and restrictions around a destructive teen, and yet empower him to make decisions, fail at times, and gain confidence? Giving young people the power of choice in as many areas as possible is crucial. Kids are often recognized only when they do bad, while the good they do goes largely unnoticed. One boy told me, "The only time anybody ever pays any attention to me is when I get in trouble." It’s important that we catch kids doing good as much as possible.

It has been said that young people need to hear seven positive things for every one negative thing if they are to develop healthily. While the numbers may be anecdotal, the point is not: strongly emphasize the positive. A review of Biblical commands shows that the emphasis of Christian faith is on the positive. Jesus commanded His followers to do certain acts (love one another, love God, etc.), at least seven times as much as He commanded them not to do something.

Recently one of our residents came to us with a dilemma about a particular girl he was beginning to date. We knew this girl as one who was involved in several negative behaviors, that she would be a negative influence on him, and that the sooner he broke away from her the better. Yet I resisted the temptation to give him my own "definition of success." I said, "Shawn, I’ve seen you make some very wise decisions, and the fact that you’re even wanting to talk with me about this shows me that you really want to do the right thing. I’m proud of you, and I know you’ll make the right decision here, too." After discussing the situation at some length, Shawn decided to break off the relationship. In that case anyway, we both succeeded.

When a young person feels powerless they will often project those feelings onto their definition of God, seeing Him either as a controlling policeman or as a helpless, little old man. It’s important for them to understand that God desires to fill them with His genuine power, "For God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love and of self-discipline" (2 Tim. 1:7 NIV).

PURPOSE

Purpose is the motivation to act derived from a conviction of truth. To give someone purpose is tantamount to giving him meaning. (Dean, 1961) It is to give him a reason—a reason for living, being, and moving. To say someone has purpose in the generic sense is really to say that he receives great pleasure in acting, doing, and expressing. This type of person needs very little stimulation to motivate him.

Conversely, purposelessness arises out of reasonlessness. It is the equivalent of meaninglessness. This person finds no real reason to do anything. He lacks values, goals, or truths which grip his life and compel him to action. At the extreme, a purposeless person is a clinically depressed person (Erikson, 1982).

A few years ago I read a survey (though I can’t remember its source) of high school students whereby they were asked to identify the biggest problems among high school students. Their top responses were: "loneliness" and "having nothing important to do." How much more is this true for troubled kids? I asked a group of kids in a detention center if they had any dreams for the future. One responded, "No...that’s why we’re here."

Several years ago I was asked to attend a state-sponsored training on safe sex in order to be an instructor of the curriculum for incarcerated youth. Late in the day, a clinician interrupted, "Listen, these kids don’t make decisions based on the future. They don’t even think they’re going to live to be 21. We’re crazy if we think we’re going to convince them to use condoms!" To this the instructor replied, "You’re right, we have to give them a sense of purpose...just think maybe some day one of them could be an assistant manager at a Burger King." Somehow I don’t think that prospect in itself is going to be enough.

But, when a young person gets a grasp of God’s purpose for their life, it can do more than anything else in giving them a reason to want to change. A young person who develops their faith often simultaneously develops a purpose in their life. The Bible is repleat with calls for God’s followers to put other before themselves in concrete ways. Jesus tells His followers to store up treasures in Heaven rather than on earth (Matthew 6:19). His call is to help others and ourselves, not through inate altruism but through a love and desire for God.

To help develop that purpose we require all of the kids in our homes to be involved in service projects where they are giving out to others. One night per week they feed the homeless on the streets of Boston. This one thing alone has had such an impact on both the homeless and our kids. Eddie said after going in his first time, "Wow, I used to kick those guys when I’d walk by them on the streets, and tonight I was giving them food and getting to know them. After tonight I know I’ll never treat a street person the way I used to."

Additionally, the kids go on summer mission trips. John went to work at a Christian camp for disabled people. When he returned he said, "That’s the first time in my life I felt like I was really needed, and doing just I what I was made to do. Now, I know what I want to go into."

MASTERY

Mastery is defined as confidence in one’s ability to complete tasks successfully. Whereas power is the will to make decisive choices that regulate one’s life, mastery is the overarching sense of dominion or supremacy over one’s world. It is akin to a strong sense of self-esteem, self-value, and self-confidence. Through successful completion of even small tasks, a person acquires an inner sense of competence—a confidence in his ability to solve problems (Brendtro et al., 1990).

Beginning usually in the early school years, a person presented with things beyond himself, learns that he has the capacity to stretch himself to the degree necessary for a solution to the problem. Unrealized, a person feels incompetent, inferior, or just plain ineffective. Rather than a sense of sway over his environment, he feels mastered and manipulated by it. His efforts seem futile (Erikson, 1982).

At-risk youth have typically experienced so much failure that they no longer believe they can succeed at anything. Steve had a real gift for art. One day while in his cell I asked if he would make a painting for me. He agreed, and within a couple of weeks he had created a real masterpiece. When I reached for it, he said I couldn’t have it because he wasn’t finished with it yet.

"What do you have left to do?" I asked. "Oh, I haven’t signed it yet," he responded. "I’ll give it to you next week." Several weeks went by. Each week I would ask if he had signed it yet. The response was always the same. "Not yet, but by next week I’ll have it finished." It finally dawned on me why Steve was afraid to complete the painting. As long as he wasn’t finished with it, nobody could criticize it. After all, he wasn’t finished with it yet. As soon as Steve signed it and gave it to me, it would be open for inspection, posing the possibility of failure.

While Larry was locked up, he went with our mentoring program on a white water rafting trip. It was strange that he would sign up for it, for the whole way up there he was saying how he wasn’t going to go on the river. Even while we were carrying the raft down the path to the river, Larry was still insisting that he wasn’t getting in the boat. Finally, left without options, he hesitantly entered the raft. He was very nervous the entire day.

On the way home Larry kept asking when we could do that again. He said he had never had so much fun. When we asked why he was so negative at first he told us that the last time he was in a boat, his friend drowned. Larry was convinced that if he ever got into a boat again, somebody in the boat would drown because Larry was there. That small success became a big one in Larry’s life.

As a young person gains a sense of purpose from their creator, this also gives them confidence to rely on God to empower them to carry out the tasks set before them. The goal is not to instill in the person an unhealthy sense of autonomy, but rather to teach them to rely upon the power of God, knowing that [they] can do all things through Christ who gives (them) strength (Phil. 4:13).

SELF-SACRIFICE

Self-sacrifice is the true giving of oneself to a larger cause. Self-sacrifice is the giving away of oneself for the sake of others. Akin to generosity, it is the sacrificing of one’s own interests for the sake of a larger cause. (Brendtro et al., 1990) Jesus’ words perhaps describe it best, "For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it (Luke 9:24 NIV)."

A person without a developed sense of self-sacrifice and a willingness to actually make sacrifices for a larger cause has an immature character. He will seem selfish, disloyal, or narcissistic. More superficially, he will tell you that he doesn’t care about anyone or anything. He has no identity (Erikson, 1982).

The Greek word used throughout the New Testament, Koinonea means "fellowship." It’s definition: to give, contribute, share; to be initiated into the mysteries of Christ; participating in the deeds of others, being equally responsible for them. While this was originally the definition of the early church, for many young people today it more closely parallels their definition of a "gang." If we didn’t have such a deep need for self-sacrifice, gangs would not exist.

It has been exciting for us to see the process of self-sacrifice come about in the lives of kids. When they first come to our home, it seems as though they are always saying to themselves, "How can I make sure I don’t have to do any more than is absolutely necessary?" When anyone needs a ride or any assistance we are automatically expected to do everything. Recently we saw Brian demonstrate that he has come to look beyond "What’s in it for me?" to "How can I contribute to the rest of the group?" One of the guys who does not have a license needed to be to work at 5 a.m., and we assumed that it would be our responsibility to get him there. Instead Brian said, "Hey you don’t need to get up that early, why don’t you let me do it this time."

A couple of weeks ago all of the guys in our home were either gone or working on the evening when they normally feed the homeless. We found this out at the dinner table and said we would need to cancel the event that night because nobody was available to drive the van. A few moments later Felix spoke up, "We can’t just cancel this, I’ll cancel my plans for the night and drive the van." Usually Felix gains a sense of purpose from going in with the other guys to feed the homeless, but this night he demonstrated the higher virtue of self-sacrifice.

Both Felix and Brian have been involved in our programs for a few years. As they’ve experienced their other needs being met through the spiritual dimension, they don’t have the same outstanding needs and can afford to give to the larger cause, even if it personally costs them something.

SUMMARY

It is not our recommendation that juvenile treatment centers try to become churches, that would be a grave mistake. Nor do we believe that these five emerging needs are met exclusively through spiritual means. Yet, we see the spiritual component as necessary for the needs of young people to be fully met. As juvenile caretakers acknowledge the legitimacy of spiritual development, they can provide opportunities for the outside involvment of individuals from the religious community as the effort to offer more holistic rehabilitation. The names of young people in this article were changed.

Scott Larson of Straight Ahead Ministries, Dave Van Patten of Dare Mighty Things, and Alexander Dunlop with funding from Prison Fellowship Ministries, have recently completed a research project entitled, "The Spiritual Development of Juvenile Offenders." This article contains some of the findings of this research.

An edited version of this paper appeared in the Fall 1996 issue of Reclaiming Children and Youth: Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Problems (pp. 166-172), published by PRO-ED, 8700 Shoal Creek Blvd, Austin, TX.

REFERENCES

  • American Correctional Association. (March, 1990). Unlocking juvenile corrections. On the Line. San Francisco: NCCD Publications
  • Brendtro, L.K., Brokenleg, M., & Van Bockern, S. (1990). Reclaiming youth at risk: Our hope for the future. Bloomington, IN: National Education Service
  • Craig, M.M. & Glick, S.J. (1978). School behavior related to later delinquency and non delinquency. Criminologia, 5.
  • Coles, R. (1990). The spiritual life of children. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
  • Coles, R. (1995). The profile of spirituality of at-risk youth. The Ongoing Journey: Awakening Spiritual Life in At-Risk Youth. Nebraska: Boys Town Press.
  • Dean, D.G. (October, 1961). Alienation: Its meaning and measurement. American Sociological Review, 26(5), 753-758.
  • Engel, J.F. (1979). Contemporary christian communications: Its theory and practice. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
  • Erikson, E.H. (1982). The life cycle completed: A review. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
  • Erikson, E.H. (1980). Identity and the life cycle: A reissue. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
  • Fowler, J.W. (1981). Stages of faith: The psychology of human development and the quest for meaning. San Francisco: Harper and Row.
  • Shelton, C.M. (1983). Adolescent spirituality: Pastoral ministry for high school and college youth. Chicago: Loyola University Press.
  • West, D.J. & Farrington, D.P. (1977). The delinquent way of life. Crame Rissay, NY.
  • Westerhoff, J.H. (1976). Will our children have faith? New York: The Seabury Press.

Please send any comments or questions to:

StAheadMin@aol.com
Copyright © 1997 Straight Ahead Ministries, Inc.
9 Charles St, Westboro, MA 01581

Scott J. Larson cCYS


The nurture assumption: Why children turn out the way they do: Parents matter less than you think and peers matter more

Harris, J.R. (1998). The nurture assumption: Why children turn out the way they do: Parents matter less than you think and peers matter more. New York, London, Toronto Sydney: The Free Press.

OVERVIEW

How important are family and parental instruction? This book attempts a bold refutation of the deeply held belief that nothing is more important to children’s future than what is given them by their parents. In fact this book labels as cultural myth the idea that parents are the crucial instructors of children; it calls this myth the nurture assumption. Judith Harris challenges opinions held—and advice given—by doctors, counselors, and developmental psychologists. She says children do not turn out the way parents bring them up; in fact, they never have in the traditional societies of history. Experts say parents matter most, but I (the author) say nature (or genes) matter much and peers (and the outside world) matter more.

Judith Harris takes some pride in her role as an iconoclast. She enjoys telling how she was rejected for doctoral studies in psychology at Harvard but went on to win a prize (in the very name of the man who wrote the letter of rejection!) for the article which preceded this book. She gladly takes on Freud, developmentalists like Arnold Gesell, behaviorists, John B. Watson and B. F. Skinner, and most socialization researchers. (pp. 5-8, 12)

Harris is arguing against psychological researchers and a host of "advice givers" who see human behavior as determined primarily from nurture—or lack of nurture—provided children by parents. This nurture assumption has turned children into "objects of anxiety...introduced an element of phoniness into family life," heaped loads of blame on hapless parents, and stifled scientific study of the family. Harris writes to relieve parents of unnecessary guilt. (p. 352)

Harris’ alternative position she calls the "Group Socialization Theory."

 

Experiences in childhood and adolescent peer groups modify children’s personalities in ways they will carry with them to adulthood. Group socialization theory makes this prediction: that children would develop into the same sort of adults if we left their lives outside the home unchanged—but switched all the parents around. (p. 359)

 

Three observations impressed her and turned her from widely held theories:

  • Kids of Russian immigrants living in Cambridge, Massachusetts didn’t look, act, and certainly didn’t talk like their parents, but like the kids with whom they hung out.
  • English upper class boys raised by nannies and sent off to boarding schools grew up to act, not like the nannies, but like their fathers.
  • The fact that we do not allow children to act like their parents; they watch us doing all sorts of things we tell them they can’t do.

Here, in her own words, is what Judith Harris is saying: "The nurture assumption—the notion that parents are the most important part of a child’s environment and can determine, to a large extent, how the child turns out—is a product of academic psychology. Though is has permeated our culture, it is not folklore. In fact, folks didn’t use to believe it" (p. 15).

Children are born with certain characteristics. Their genes predispose them to develop a certain kind of personality. But the environment can change them. Not "nurture"—not the environment their parents provide—but the outside-the-home environment, the environment they share with their peers (p. 147):

 

Socialization research [which leans away from nature to the nurture side of the classic argument] is the scientific study of the effects of the environment—in particular, the effects of the parents’ child-rearing methods or their behavior toward their children—on the children’s psychological development. It is a science because it uses some of the methods of science, but it is not, by and large an experimental science...since socialization researchers do not, as a rule, have any control over the way parents rear their children...cannot do experiments. (p. 15)

 

To relieve parents of "problem kids" of guilt and those with "good kids" of pride, Harris explains what the researchers have put on us. "Socialization researchers start out with a preconception: the idea that there are good child-rearing styles and bad child-rearing style, and that parents who use a good child-rearing style will have better children than those who use a bad child-rearing style...the results come in the form of correlations, and correlations are intrinsically ambiguous" (pp. 17, 18).

Knowing her thesis will be contested, Harris buttresses her argument with examples besides those given above (the three observations). Evidence has built up regarding identical twins separated at birth. When brought together in their twenties, thirties or forties, they find they are amazingly similar in characteristics, choices, and interests.

 

Study after study shows the same thing: almost all the similarities between adult siblings can be attributed to their shared genes. There are very few similarities that can be attributed to the home in which they both grew up.

 

Growing up in the same home does not make siblings alike. If there really are "toxic parents," they aren’t toxic to all their children. Or they aren’t toxic in the same way. Or, if they are toxic in the same way, each child reacts to the toxicity differently, even if they are identical twins. (p. 37)

Another example is taken from deaf culture.

 

Most deaf people marry other deaf people, but more than 90 percent of the babies born to these couples have normal hearing. These babies miss out on some of the experiences we consider crucial to normal development. No one comes running when they scream in terror or pain. No one encourages their coos and babbles or makes a big deal of our their ‘mamas and dadas.’ Nowadays most deaf parents use sign language to communicate with their hearing children, but there was a period when the use of sign language was frowned upon, and during that period some deaf parents didn’t communicate with their young children at all, except in the most rudimentary ways. And yet, these children suffered no harm. Despite the fact that they didn’t learn any language...from their parents, they became fluent speakers of English. (p. 70)

 

Harris draws extensively from the exhaustive review of socialization research by Stanford professors, Eleanor Maccoby and John Martin (1983). The concluded that "either parental behaviors have no effect, or that the only effective aspects of parenting must vary greatly from one child to the other within the same family" (p. 38).

Harris sets out three options: "either (1) the parents’ child-rearing style has no effects on children, or (2a) the parents do not have a consistent child-rearing child, or (2b) they have a consistent style but it has different effects on each child" (p. 48).

Harris herself does not believe that "parents have a consistent child-rearing style, unless they happen to have consistent children...It’s not that good parenting produces good children, it’s that good children produce good parenting" (p. 48).

Styles of parenting differ as to the character of the child and the culture, Harris believes.

 

Here’s what I think. Middle-class Americans of European descent try to use the Just Right parenting style, because that’s the style approved by their culture...If the kid has problems, the Just Right parenting style might not work and the parents might end up switching to the Too Hard method, So,...parents who use a Too Hard child-rearing style are more likely to be the ones with problem kids. This is exactly what the style-of-parenting researchers find.

Among Asian and African Americans...cultural norms differ. Chinese Americans, for example, tend to use the Too Hard parenting style...not because their kids are difficult, but because that’s the style favored by their culture. Among Asian and African Americans, therefore, parents who use a Too Hard child-rearing style should not be more likely to have problems kids. Again, this is exactly what the researchers find.

What they find, in fact is that Asian-American parents are the most likely of all parents to use the Too Hard style and the least likely to use the Just Right style, and yet in many ways Asian-American children are the most competent and successful of all American children. (p. 49)

 

STUDIES OF SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF PARENTING

Do children whose mothers’ work suffer ill effects? Developmentalist Hoffman reviewed studies and concluded, "few consistent differences emerge" between children whose mothers worked and those who stayed at home. (Hoffman, 1989:289)

Both rich and poor use day care. "Do infants suffer long-term detriments from early non-maternal care?" This question was asked by developmentalist, Scarr. "Recent studies," she concluded, "have demonstrated that the answer is ‘no.’ The surprising conclusion from the research literature is that variation in quality of care, measured by experts, proves to have little or no impact on most children’s development." (Scarr, 1997b:145; see also Anderson, 1992 and Roggman, Langlois, Hubbs-Tait, & Rieser-Danner, 1994)

How do the children of unconventional marriage arrangements fare? Citing a study by Weisner (1986) Harris concludes that intentional lifestyle changes, living on a hippy commune, having an "open marriage," or being born or adopted by a single mother leaves children as well adjusted as those in conventional families. But where the change from a conventional family is not intentionally planned for the good of all (such as changes by death, divorce, or failure to marry) children experience higher risk and failures. (p. 50)

Studies by Flaks, Ficher, Masterpasqua, & Joseph (1995), Patterson, (1992, 1994), and Gottman (1990) indicated that children of same sex parents do as well as those with parents of different genders. And they found girls raised by homosexuals to be as feminine and boys as masculine as those raised by heterosexual parents. It has not yet been determined if the biological children of homosexuals are more prone genetically to become homosexual.

From this evidence Harris concludes that "major differences between families have no predictable effects on the children reared in them" (p. 52). She does admit the evidence that dysfunctional families can produce dysfunctional kids but argues that genes and another factor (peers) are what really matters. (p. 53)

A Swedish study (Rydell, Dahl, & Sundelin, 1995) found a third of the sample were picky eaters either at home or at school, but only 8% were picky eaters in both places. (p. 62) "It is common for immigrant children to use their first language at home and their second language outside the home" (p. 65). Another example of learning in two separate contexts is swearing with friends and eliminating such expressions with family and teachers. (p. 66)

So there is strong tendency for children to keep their home lives apart or secret from their lives outside the home and visa versa, although the desire to keep their home lives secret from the world is stronger than keeping their outside lives hidden from the home. The media helps them to understand how normal is their home life. But if television, for instance, portrays family life far different from the reality of family life in the neighborhood, they will accept the reports from friends over the picture offered them by TV. Kids get nervous when parents come out from home into the world of their peers, lets somehow they appear abnormal.

Parents are usually blamed by teachers and others if kids misbehave; there are even laws that punish parents for the misdemeanors of their children and adolescents. But according to Harris: "if children fail to transfer things their parents taught them to other social contexts, it is not their parents’ fault" (p. 73).

An old study showed that children can act differently in different contexts. A child or teenager may be honest and well-socialized at home but dishonest and "unsocialized" in another context. Hartshorne & May (1928) "gave children opportunity to cheat or steal in a variety of settings: at home, in the classroom, in athletic contests; alone or in the presence of peers. They discovered that children who were honest in one context were not necessarily honest in others. The child who was honest at home might lie or cheat in the classroom or on the athletic field" (p. 73).

This book is not all research; folklore and stories keep the reader’s interest. Harris uses the story of Cinderella (in Ch. 4, "Separate Worlds") to show how treatment (abuse) Cinderella received in her home was countered by her brief neighborhood experiences (she did not spend all her time in the house). Her household demeanor was abject, submissive, unattractive. But her fairy godmother (a neighbor?), and the prince, recognized another way she was outside the home...attractive and a potential queen. Her sisters did not recognize this beautify lady at the ball, nor did the prince recognize her in her home—the fit of the glass slipper was his only clue. The real Cinderella was not what she had been taught at home, but what she learned elsewhere.

Bringing together the observations of many cultures from several ethnologists, Harris makes the point that babies in traditional societies are kept with the mother but not taught much. When weaned at about the age of three, these children were usually handed over to older siblings and gradually joined the play groups of the village or farm. It was in this context they really began to learn...language, rules, and consequences. And children of traditional societies seem to turn out quite well.

 

Parents in our society try so hard to get their children to love each other and what they get is constant squabbling. Parents in traditional societies make no effort to get their children to love each other and it happens as a matter of course. There are two reasons, I believe, for this difference. (p. 93)

 

  • Children don’t have so much to fight over and play with what’s available.
  • Older children in traditional societies are allowed to dominate younger ones.

The central question of this book is "How do children get socialized—how do they learn to behave like normal, acceptable members of their society?" This question is based on the assumption that in every culture "children have to learn to behave in a way that is appropriate for the society they live in" (p. 168). Harris adds good caution to the term "socialization." It is not primarily something adults or adult systems do to children. "What I am talking about," she says, "is something that children, to a large extent, do to themselves" (p. 169).

One of Harris’ most important contributions is highlighting the importance of peer groups—not just adolescent peer groups, but even more importantly, she says, the play groups of children.

 

We tend to think of adolescence when we hear the term "peer pressure," but pressure to conform is most intense in childhood...Those who will not or cannot conform to the rules, or who are different in any way, may be excluded, picked on, or made fun of...The nyah-nyah song is heard all over the world...By the teen years it is seldom necessary to punish the nonconformer. Teenagers are not pushed to conform—they are pulled, by their own desire to be part of the group. (p. 133)

 

Feminists will take no pleasure in Harris’ insistence on the essential difference of boys and girls. It is not nurture nor society that makes the difference; it is the Y chromosome. (p. 220)

 

Boys and girls are alike in many more ways than they are different, but there are differences...In every society we know of, the behavior of males and females differs. It differs far more in most societies than in our own. And the pattern of the differences is the same all over the world. Males are more likely to be found in positions of power and influence. Females are more likely to be found tending to other people’s needs. Males are hunters and warriors. Females are the gatherers and nurturers. (pp. 221, 224)

 

From many studies and in many ways, Harris has shown that personality is strongly shaped in the same-sex play years. (p. 173, etc.) Children prefer same-sex playmates because they are different, and according to their gender category, they are further socialized.

The author intends to free parents from unnecessary guilt...to foster a more natural and realistic kind of parenting and family life. Here concluding argument as to why people grow up thinking their parents were more influential then their childhood friends is one of the weakest of the book.

 

I believe the human mind has at least two different departments for dealing with social behavior. One has to do with personal relationships, the other has to do with groups...The department of the brain that keeps track of relationships is accessible to the conscious mind. The department of the brain that adapts your behavior to that of your group is no less important but it is less accessible to the conscious... (p. 361)

The bond between parent and child lasts a lifetime...our childhood friends have scattered to the winds and we’ve forgotten what happened on the playground. When you think about childhood, you think about your parents. Blame it on the relationship department of your mind, which has usurped more than its rightful share of your thoughts and memories. As for what’s wrong with you; don’t blame it on your parents. (p. 362)

 

So ends this challenging book. It is important, not only for parents, but for teachers, youth workers, and all involved in the socialization of the young.

QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION AND DISCUSSION

  1. What do you consider the main influences on children growing up?
  2. What point do you find most convincing from this description of the book?
  3. Where do you disagree with this author?
  4. How can insights about the socialization of children be helpful to you?

IMPLICATIONS

  1. This book brings up, in a fresh and provocative manner, important issues about socialization and child rearing.
  2. It makes important points about peer influence from childhood on, gender differentiation, and the limitations of parental nurture.
  3. Despite its cogent arguments and appeal to research, its use of research is highly selective and it oversimplifies the complex issue of socialization.
  4. The book is a corrective which seems to go too far in minimizing the important role of parents in the nurture and growing of children.

Please see the following article reviews within this topic: Begley, "Parents Matter Less," and Kagan, "A Parent’s Role is Peerless."

Dean Borgman cCYS

Volunteer Opportunities: Youth

Postal Code

Audio: Youth