WBR: The Price of Privilege
Today’s book is The Price of Privilege, by Madeline Levine. Levine is a psychologist in Marin county, California, and she writes about how she’s seeing more and more affluent teenagers who are depressed, anxious, anorexic, using drugs, cutting themselves, or otherwise acting in self-destructive manners. She argues that this isn’t in spite of their privileged backgrounds, but because of them.
In particular, Levine suggests that affluent communities are characterized by:
- intense pressure to perform, in both grades and extra-curriculars
- materialistic values
- very busy parents who don’t have time for their kids (whether or not they work outside the home).
- isolation and lack of social supports.
She claims that the result is kids who don’t have a real "sense of self." They know what is expected of them — and depending on their personality, may either conform or do precisely the opposite — but don’t know who they are and what they really value in life. Or, as the subtitle says, "How Parental Pressure and Material Advantage Are Creating a Generation of Disconnected and Unhappy Kids."
Levine argues that parents need to both take a step back from their kids’ lives — let them make more decisions on their own, and learn to deal with the consequences — and be more connected with them as persons and let them know they love them for themselves, not just their accomplishments. This rang true to me. I know that my husband is still dealing with the message that he got from his parents as a teenager that they believed that if he was left to make his own decisions, he’d ruin his life.
The book also helped me articulate some of my irritation with the Post magazine article on "toxic parents" from a couple of weeks ago. The article seemed to suggest that the only parenting alternatives were to a) let your kids do whatever they wanted, including buying alcohol for them and letting them have unsupervised parties, and b) to track their whereabouts every minute. I’m pretty sure that the right choice is c) set clear expectations, provide freedom within reasonable limits, and let there be consequences if the kid screws up. (Levine admits that in spite of her best efforts, some of her son’s friends snuck alcohol into a party at her house, and she got busted by the police.)
That said, I’m not convinced that the people who read this book will be the ones who need to, or if they do, that they’ll recognize themselves. I suspect it’s more likely to be read by people who enjoy tssking at other people’s bad parenting, and feeling virtuous by comparison. (And who wouldn’t feel virtuous compared to the dad who wanted Levine to fix his kid’s drug problem, but wouldn’t give up using himself?)
August 31st, 2006 at 9:10 am
I am not a parent yet, but I agree that C is the right option (and am thankful that it is the way my parents dealt with me as a teen). Hopefully, it’s a parenting style I will put into practice if I become a parent.
August 31st, 2006 at 10:17 am
I’m so glad to hear you felt the same way about that toxic parents piece. I read that and immediately felt that my instincts (which sound like they are much like yours) must have been totally off base.
My question really becomes: could it be that these parents are bad at teaching “sense of self” because they themselves don’t have a sense of self, apart from their accomplishments? In the US hyper-work-oriented culture, I find it a constant battle to not define myself through my work. (Or alternatively, to define myself by my kids and view them not as people but as “work product” — thus the “my kid’s an honor student” bumper stickers.) I am definitely guilty of taking too much pride in my kids’ accomplishments, and not always openly sharing their weaknesses.
August 31st, 2006 at 3:53 pm
When this book came out, there was an interview in the Post Health section with the author. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/31/AR2006073100643.html) I remember reading that and thinking that my single biggest goal as a mother was to not end up with a pampered, overscheduled kid. It gave me the strength to resist the push of a neighbor to put our 3-year-olds in ballet class.
August 31st, 2006 at 4:37 pm
This book sounds like the parenting version of Doing School, by Denise Clark Pope, which looks at how “good” suburban schools are responding to similar pressures. Highly recommended.
August 31st, 2006 at 6:10 pm
I read an excerpt of this book in the SF Chronicle magazine. Its message felt right to me, also, though I agree with Elizabeth that people will have a hard time seeing themselves in the book. I would not in a million years consider myself to be one of the parents in question – I come from a working class cultural background and though educated, I’m neither affluent nor materialistic in my values. But I share a lot of Jen’s questions. I’m not aiming for money, but I do have career goals and ambitions. We’re sending our 2-year-old to preschool this week, two mornings a week, one of the best and most expensive preschools in the city (my wife works at the institution, which is how we got in and how we can afford it). We sign him up for classes (music, swimming, etc.) right and left. Believe me, I measure his cognitive development against what I see in other people’s kids. So maybe I do need to see myself in the book.
August 31st, 2006 at 10:21 pm
I moved into an affluent neighborhood and as a new parent am shocked at the community pressure that surrounds me. The school system, one of the best in our county, places heavy emphasis on academic excellence, I believe to justify raising our taxes. There are more social activities available for every age it is unbelievable. I have met parents whose 18 month year olds have activity schedules that reflect school hours. Dance schools that have 2 year old programs, which according to dancer friends of mine is quite risky with the children’s physicality at that age. I am not sure what motivates people or kids to be overscheduled and academically pressured to succeed, but I am not following this path. I just noticed that these issues tend to be a community philosophy in affluent areas.
September 1st, 2006 at 12:12 am
So Elizabeth — was the book worth the read? I read the interview of the author, and though I worry about the “price of privelege”, I couldn’t tell what the book would tell me that I didn’t already know. I want tips for implementation, rather than exhortations against what people choose now.
We’re sending our daughter to a academically rigorous school, where I can see that lots of parents have their kids heavily scheduled. I participate in a mailing list for “highly capable’ children (well I read the mailing list, but never post). The parents refrain in both places is that the activities and overscheduling and competitiveness are child-driven.
I read the “over-scheduled child” because I think it’s a lament that we need to listen to in thinking about our children and their lives, but I haven’t found it practically useful.
bj
September 1st, 2006 at 9:47 am
In response to Christine’s question of how kids end up overscheduled, I can give my perspective. (For context let me say I live in the city of Chicago in a mixed-income but rapidly gentrifying neighborhood.)
I tend to overschedule my kids. Why?
a) I get bored staying home. Scheduling them into things is a way to get me out of the house and save my sanity.
b) I am battling the TV. When they’re at home all they want to do is watch Arthur.
c) I am very concerned about obesity and getting them enough exercise. We have a small back yard; if the kids are not in the fenced back yard I do not feel they are safe simply walking out the door to play. If we go to the playground on our own they often have to play alone. But if we join an activity there will be other kids their own age present, and they are more likely to stay longer and play harder.
As my girls have gotten older we’ve trended away from formal activities and more towards play dates and child care swapping with friends. This makes me wonder if people aren’t taking part in formal activities because their social networks are either new or fragile? It’s true that having kids can cause you to make entirely new sets of parent friends, and that takes a while.
There’s a big difference between scheduling play dates and pressuring your kid to be in a competitive program. But all the “don’t overschedule” messages sometimes bother me, as I think the speakers don’t always consider parents’ reasons. You’ll note that if my kids gained too much weight I would then be evil for having fat kids. So if I’m evil either way, I choose to be evil for overscheduling.
September 1st, 2006 at 11:15 am
Elizabeth’s post and the comments here remind me of a book by Mel Levine, M.D. I bought after listening to an interview on public radio. In *Ready or Not, Here Life Comes*, Levine explores why some kids readily make the transition to adulthood and “productive careers” and others have a tougher time of it. I remember Levine cautioned against the parental quest for well-roundedness in their kids, that it was more important to encourage kids to pursue whatever strong interests or passions that arise along the way (eg without fear that 13-year-old Janie’s interest in hanging out with the auto mechanic uncle was going to lead to the “wrong” career decision but instead was going to help her understand she enjoyed mechanical things).
Levine ran into all too many young adults who hadn’t developed any kind of ability to recognize their own strengths and weaknesses and/or were entirely dependent on others’ feedback about their choices that they ended up completely divorced from an awareness of what they enjoyed doing or satisfied their own souls. Or they had problems coping in a work environment where feedback isn’t necessarily forthcoming at all never mind offered with “helpful” intent. While Levine’s focus in this particular interview and book was worklife readiness, I recommend the book for his analysis of four growth processes, “the four I’s” which he defined in his book as:
“inner direction, or self-awareness;
“interpretation, or understanding the outside world;
“instrumentation, or the acquisition of mental tools; and
“interaction, or the ability to relate to other people effectively.”
Another book that made me think was Linda Perlstein’s *Not Much, Just Chillin’: The Hidden Lives of Middle Schoolers.* This served as a compelling reminder that I’ll never know all that is going on in my young son’s mind – regardless of the level of communication we are able to maintain through his adolescence. Not an easy read for the problem-solver in me!
September 4th, 2006 at 9:26 pm
Nancy and Marj, thanks for the book suggestions.
bj, the book doesn’t really have concrete parenting suggestions, other than staying involved in your teenager’s lives, even as they push you away, and letting them experience the consequences of their actions.
Interestingly, the most direct advice in the book is in the last chapter, and it’s about how parents, especially mothers, should take care of their own emotional needs. Levine argues that parents who don’t have real friends, who can’t show vulnerability to their peers, are likely to have unhealthy boundaries with their children, either trying to be their friends instead of their parents, or treating them as trophies.
September 5th, 2006 at 1:54 am
As a teenager I hung with kids who did drugs (mostly pot) and drank etc. That was in the 80s, when the big anti-drug campaigns appeared on TV. I remember telling my mom that kids do drugs because they’re bored. What I meant was, kids do drugs because nothing concrete is required of them — nothing they do actually matters (or feels to them like it does). If they get poor grades, it affects only themselves; if they’re fantastic in the school play, it affects only themselves. No one is counting on them. As an adult, someone is always counting on you, even if it’s just a manager you dislike…
My kids are only 2 and 4 so I haven’t thought too much about how I might apply this thinking to my parenting — except to, maybe, require that they cook one dinner a week, when they’re old enough.
March 4th, 2007 at 7:54 am
Brand new acronym, at least to me: DIOKS, dual income one kid. This WSJ article is about what our betters spend on their kids: http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB117288281789725533-dJgZoSU8iFMud5NuudceiFBmWPc_20080302.html?mod=blogs
and it’s frightening. We are striving for your option ‘c’ – and having more than one kid does ensure that they will at least struggle with each other!