Elisa's Journal

Given their many strengths, can we parents sit back, relax, and watch our children take on life with one hand tied behind their backs? Before we pick out our Lazy Boys and get comfy, we should know that their enthusiasm, ambition, self-confidence, optimism, and idealism don’t always necessarily hold up well to the hard knocks of reality.
For example, suppose you waltz out your front door thrilled at the prospect of a day cavorting around with your best friends, only to be met at the door by a cantankerous mother-in-law whose sour expression and three piece luggage set can’t mean good news. Under this unpleasant new reality, would your enthusiasm survive? I can guarantee mine wouldn’t.
This is the phenomenon we often see in today’s young. When they no longer enjoy the carefree days and nurturing support of their parents, their positive attributes often crumble faster than a chocolate chip cookie in a baby’s fist. And once that cookie crumbles, it becomes a liability that can prevent them from thriving in the real world as heroes.
Many children today are holding these crumbling cookies, or, worse yet, a fist full of crumbs. According to a 2002 survey conducted by Public Agenda, most Americans say they are disappointed with “kids these days.” A strong majority describes teenagers negatively, using words such as rude, irresponsible, and wild. Most believe that kids today lack basic values. More people today than two years ago say that “failing to learn values such as honesty, respect and, responsibility” is the most serious problems affecting kids. A majority, including both adults and teens, says that youngsters will not make America a better place to live. Child and adolescent experts, parents, grandparents and yes, even kids, report the flip side to too much attention and ease: a host of negative qualities that are increasingly common in kids, qualities that can block a child’s journey to inner heroism, such as:
Learned helplessness and dependency inappropriate for their age and the resulting incompetence in practical skills
A lack of the introspection skills necessary for problem-solving, conflict resolution, self-control, creative expression and imagination, and discerning the reasonable from unreasonable
A poor sense of reality about themselves and their world. The first weakens their sense of self so that they become confused about their own true identity. The second encourages an over-bloated sense of entitlement that perpetuates self-centeredness, conceit, and an unhealthy need for material goods.
Frustration and boredom intolerance and the inability to delay gratification effectively, all of which contributes to addictive behaviors
Unhealthy risk-taking behavior as a result of poor introspection skills, reality sense, impulse control, anger control as well as insufficient exposure to consequences for past mistakes and misbehaviors
A high incidence of depression, anxiety, and eating and body image disorders
A poor sense of responsibility, accountability, work ethic, and overall moral judgment; moral decisions tend to be based on conditions rather than absolutes
A winner/loser mentality that encourages unhealthy competitiveness. This, along with a penchant for the material, inspires many kids to pursue occupations that promise wealth and status. Despite their lofty goals, however, they often lack the reasoning skills necessary to align their ambitions with their educational expectations and to come up with a clear life plan for reaching their aspirations.
Overly fluid friendships, a casualty of their over-structured lives and their lack of free play. The result: underdeveloped social skills such as making and sustaining friendships and resolving interpersonal conflicts.
A tendency to conform and to succumb indiscriminately to peer pressure
We mustn’t lose heart! After all, no child has every one of these traits and some have just one or two. Many children consistently make wise and responsible choices day after day. But the fact that many do not may have a significant impact on the lives and futures of every human being—adult or child—who crosses their paths.
Just what’s at the crux of these negative qualities? Is it genetics? Luck of the draw? Could it be (gulp) a result of poor parenting? Many factors come in to play, but the biggest culprit is something called external direction: relying on outside sources rather than their own objective reasoning to find direction. Since many children today tend to make important life choices based on external pressures rather than their own internal sense of right and wrong, they can’t cope with challenges well.
How can children benefit from the many wonderful qualities brought on by transformations in parenting when they don’t reach within themselves to appreciate, understand, and apply those qualities to their lives? To do so requires clear and confident introspection. It requires the ability to consciously filter external influences rather than aimlessly let those influences control their decisions and, ultimately, their lives. These are skills children today do not possess.
External direction is certainly not a new phenomenon. Children, as well as many adults, have been externally directed for generations. So, what sets today’s youth apart? The answer is on every billboard, in every magazine ad, in every television commercial, and in every other message spit forth from the mass media and the pop culture it influences. Our kids are the first generation to be raised in a media-driven world. This means they face more external pressures than ever before—pressures that, you will see, make it difficult for them to think objectively about consequences of their decisions and recognize, let alone tap into, their repertoire of assets. No wonder many kids don’t develop and rely on an inner compass! There’s just too much going on out there!
If external direction is the root of the problem facing kids today—the stumbling block between children and their heroism—what, then, is at the root of external direction? The true source of the problem of external direction is imbedded in our most primordial human attributes and can be traced back through the millennia. Yes, I’m happy to report, with great relief, that none of us started this whole shebang. But it’s essential to identify that root, because once we do, we can examine how our detour to external direction helped cultivate and perpetuate parenting practices that encourage our children to make choices based on forces over which they have little or no control.
Once we understand the forces behind externally directed behavior, we parents have the power to change. And once we see how these patterns developed over time, we’ll feel more empowered and more confident about using the simple, effective parenting solutions I recommend later on.
The evolution of external direction
Humans are similar to wolves and other pack animals in that we are driven by an instinctive urge to belong to a group—to feel accepted by others. Behavior driven solely by this instinct with little regard for our own principles and values is, by definition, externally directed. When our internal beacon is so weak or poorly nurtured that it fails us as an effective tool for guidance, many of us panic and resort to gaining acceptance by, in effect, begging for it. In other words, we conform to the standards and values of “the pack” rather than creating and following our own. So, everyone vies for the most favorable spots in the pecking order, and each person is sorted into “winners” and “losers.” To assure winner status for ourselves, all our choices must be contingent upon fulfilling our need for pack acceptance rather than our own sense of right and wrong. As a result, we’re sometimes required to cast aside the values nearest to our hearts in favor of those of the group whose acceptance we seek, whether the group is mainstream or part of a subculture.
Fortunately, as reasoning beings, we have the ability to temper our instincts with our personal needs and values. Finding a way to satisfy both our internal (reasoning) and external (instinctive) needs is essential to leading balanced lives. For example, a person may earn acceptance by creating a unique contribution or meaningful role for himself that benefits others and still satisfies personal principles. In this case, the reward of pack approval is a pleasant side effect rather than the driving force behind these contributions.
These individuals are motivated by a “benevolent selfishness” that results in acceptance into “the pack.” In other words, they make choices to preserve their own interests. Before you ask, “how can selfishness be a good thing?” take note that this definition of selfishness differs greatly from the one in Webster’s Dictionary, because, by preserving their own best interests, the benevolently selfish can’t betray their own values or principles. So, they will not further their own agenda by making others sacrifice in their behalf. Why? Because it makes them feel rotten about themselves. Harboring unpleasant feelings is certainly not in their best interests. That said, the choices benevolently selfish individuals make are often motivated by the good feelings they produce, and their self-restraint is a product of their desire to avoid feeling bad. So, subsequent pack acceptance is a happy afterthought rather than a dangling carrot motivating their behavior. Practicing benevolent rather than conventional selfishness requires both self-control and a keen awareness of inner thoughts and feelings. Even more importantly, it requires a steadfast self-honesty that keeps excuses, rationalizations, and denial at bay.
Benevolently selfish people use this strong inner awareness to filter and process outside cues, standards, and messages internally. So, they consider the pros, cons, alternatives, and potential consequences for every choice—but they do so under conscious control, so that the ultimate decision is truly their own. In effect, these people are self-directed—the quintessential quality of an everyday hero. Heroes use the fruits of their own reasoning, lessons learned from past experiences, their repertoire of strengths and talents, and their system of beliefs and values as internal beacons to guide them through all influences in the outside world, both harmful and helpful.
The evolution of parenting practices: from demanding dictatorship to rescuing democracy
Children are subjected to enormous social pressures to follow standards set by their peers and the pop culture. Whether they navigate these pressures by using their inner compass or by following external beacons is largely determined by their upbringing. Before we feel so guilt-ridden that we put our kids up for adoption, we must remember that all parenting traditions, along with the distinct child-rearing mistakes inherent to each, have been evolving over the centuries. So, both have become deeply enmeshed in our culture.
Of all the mistakes handed down from earlier generations, two are responsible for the legacy of external direction that keeps our children from becoming the heroes they have the potential to be. In the broadest terms, these mistakes are:
1. We raise our children to shape their choices according to their need for outside approval—they become approval seekers.
2. We stifle the natural development of their reasoning abilities.
Sure, some of us are heaving a sigh of relief, thinking, “Only two mistakes! That’s not as bad as I thought!” But since guilt and parenthood are often attached at the hip like Siamese twins, most of us are probably beating ourselves over the head with Dr. Spock’s book—the hardback edition, no less. The very thought of raising our kids “the wrong way” is enough to give us the dry heaves. After all, we take our jobs as moms and dads seriously. But before you phone the family therapist for an emergency session, take comfort in the fact that some manifestations of these mistakes are so common and well-camouflaged, they don’t seem much like mistakes at all. It’s hard to fix something that doesn’t seem broken.
In the next few sections, you’ll get to know these two types of parenting faux pas inside and out, and when you do, you’ll have a much better understanding of your own parenting behavior, the attitudes that help produce certain habits, and the factors that can trigger mistakes. You’ll see why some child-rearing techniques foster external direction and its accompanying negative traits and how some strategies hinder the development of skills crucial to a child’s being an everyday hero.
You may ask, “Why should I be bothered with the whys and wherefores? Can’t you just tell me what to do and be done with it?
Explaining why we act the way we do has to do with your sense of conviction. If I were to advise you that logical consequences work better when a child misbehaves than lectures do, you might be motivated to try logical consequences for awhile. But, without understanding why they work and lecturing does not, you’re unlikely to feel completely confident that logical consequences will bring about positive changes in your child’s behavior. Without that sense of conviction, you may easily fall back into your old lecturing ways. That’s why I want to explain why we parents do as we do, so that we can understand both the need to change and the way we can make those changes.
Although the relationship between children and adults has changed profoundly over the course of history, those two broad categories of mistakes have remained constant. In their own distinct ways, all traditional parenting practices foster approval seeking and discourage reasoning. So, regardless of their unique styles, traditions, attitudes, advantages, and disadvantages, each parenting era has contributed to the external direction in youth. Let’s look at the last few generations:
Until the early 1960s, the accepted parent-child relationship was autocratic: the father was the authoritarian dictator, the child his obedient subject. The mother was the nurturing housekeeper whose jurisdiction was limited. “Children are to be seen and not heard” meant that communication consisted of unilateral commands and judgments passed from adult to child, rather than dialog. Clear expectations, rigidly enforced, included values such as a sense of responsibility, a strong work ethic, high integrity, and respect for elders.
One of the significant advantages of this era was that much of children’s free time was spent in spontaneous, unstructured play, free from the expectations and demands of adults. This free time allowed children to form deep and lasting bonds with siblings and neighborhood friends. It provided an arena in which they could develop sound problem-solving skills, exercise their creativity, expand their imagination, and hone the social skills necessary to sustaining strong interpersonal relationships—skills like cooperation, leadership, compromise, negotiation, and conflict resolution.
Despite the advantages of free play and serious parental expectations, children still grew to be externally directed for two reasons: First, they made choices based on fear—of parental punishment, criticism, or disapproval. Second, the autocratic parenting style, with its commands, doesn’t lend itself well to the development of inner reasoning. This parenting style resulted in the attitudes and behaviors of the baby boom generation. The strong need for approval and the solid work ethic boomers inherited from their GI generation parents caused many of them to seek acceptance through monetary and career success.
Things were beginning to change, however. In 1946, Dr. Benjamin Spock published his famous and influential Baby and Child Care, which encouraged parents to listen to their children, respect them as individuals, and allow them to develop at their own pace. By the 1960s the Western world experienced a cultural revolution; baby boomers, now teens, had a penchant for testing boundaries in all areas of life, including the family. Their experimentation, coupled with Spock’s now-common child-rearing practices, caused the pendulum to swing to the other extreme; as young parents, boomers paved the way to the permissive parenting era in which we now live. An over-emphasis on listening, explaining, and negotiating overtook our children’s need for guidance and limits.
Just as democracy has replaced totalitarian governments around the world, it has replaced the autocratic hierarchies in families as well. When women asserted their equality, fathers were no longer the rulers. (My husband is still licking his wounds.) Naturally, this was a necessary change to the rigid traditional structure, but without a clear system to replace it, parents faltered. As fathers began to lose their unquestioned power over the family, parents began to lose their authority over their children.
In an anti-establishment age in which authority figures were not popular, many new parents were uncomfortable setting and consistently enforcing rules and boundaries. They strove instead to win their kids’ affections by sparing them firm and consistent discipline. In short, they wanted to be their children’s friends rather than their guides.
Some boomers, due to their preoccupation with financial achievement, neglected marriages and families in favor of careers. In many families, both parents chose to work so that more could be accumulated: bigger houses, fancier cars, more exotic vacations. And when marriages struck obstacles, many boomers didn’t persevere to resurrect them; they got divorces. As a result, forty percent of their offspring were brought up by single parents. These two factors: a lust for material goods and a high divorce rate ushered in the age of the “latchkey kid.”
Later, in economic downturns, family pressures skyrocketed further. The certainty of a two-parent, financially secure household evaporated, leaving children feeling skeptical about the existence and sanctity of all absolutes. Although this skepticism served as a defense against disappointment, it also bred a generation of kids who were cynical, apathetic, self-pitying, and suspicious of both authority and institutions.
This “un-parented generation,” also known as Generation X, wasn’t subjected to stifling autocratic supervision. They had to come home from school and fend for themselves, solve their own problems, and handle their own mistakes. In short, they lived as mini-adults. Maybe this explains why Xers tend to be self-reliant, independent, street savvy survivors who are accustomed to and comfortable with uncertainty and change. But, because they were often deprived of the nurturing, support, and guidance so crucial to turning challenges into valuable lessons, many are inexperienced in important life skills such as interpersonal relations and conflict resolution.
Nevertheless, these kids were able to learn from the mistakes their parents made. As witnesses to parents who lived in fear of layoffs and pay cuts despite their job loyalty and the personal sacrifices they had to make to succeed in their careers, Xers recognize the importance of finding balance between work and life. They understand that there is more to life than work, wealth, and materialism, and they aren’t afraid to find it.
Entering the workforce at a less prosperous time, later baby boomers, born from the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s, were more focused on family. When the economy once again became stable and gained momentum, many moms (both baby boomers and generation Xers) stayed home, because they could afford to do so and because it was now socially acceptable—even enviable. But the stay-at-home mom movement encouraged us to become more child-centered, protective, and determined, not only to avoid repeating the mistakes of our parents, but to raise flawless children.
The disapproval of some working mothers and their own feelings of inferiority made many moms defensive about their decision to abandon their careers to stay home with their children. As a result, they strove to attain the same social status and sense of accomplishment they enjoyed as working women by tackling their parenting as though it were a career—complete with goals and indicators of success.
Vast resources for leisure, education, and other parent-child activities along with the often over-abundant time to devote to their children helped transform this new professional motherhood into the intrusive and overly protective vocation it is today. The general consensus is that parents spend less time with their kids. This is not true. New cultural norms demand that parents constantly supervise their children. According to a study published by the University of Michigan in 2001, children between the ages of three and twelve in two-parent families have increased time spent with their mothers from twenty-five hours a week in 1981 to thirty-one hours per week in 1997. That same study reports time with fathers increased from nineteen to twenty-three hours. Much of this extra time, however, is devoted to structured activities rather than free play. As you will see later in this book, replacing free play with organized and scheduled activities further stifles our children’s independence and resilience.
Those moms who didn’t stay at home often adopted parenting practices built around assuaging their own guilt. I know a number of working parents who try to make up for the lack of time spent with their kids by handing them an occasional hundred-dollar bill, showering them with expensive gifts, or being too lenient in their discipline. Whenever the guilt-o-meter hits new highs, so does the indulgent and permissive parenting.
From the 1990s to the present, this heightened youth centeredness, the high degree of parental involvement, the democratic nature of the parent-child relationship, and the ever-growing competitiveness in our culture combined to give children many advantages without the guidance to truly profit by them.
The reluctance of many parents to exert authority over their children and their desire to be friends with them has robbed some parents of the power to guide and set limits. Many mistakenly believe that a disciplining parent is an unreasonable tyrant.
This permissiveness, often exacerbated by guilt over by increased work obligations, has encouraged parents to spoil their children. In divorced families, this tendency can be even stronger, because some children learn to pit one parent against the other to get what they want, and because discipline is looked upon as an unpleasant task that might earn that parent a reputation as the “bad guy.”
Lastly, the frenetic, stuck-on-fast-forward pace of life today leaves many parents with little time or energy to discipline consistently or to wait patiently while their children take care of their responsibilities and practice new skills. They vacillate from being their children’s manager to running as a candidate for “the most popular person in my child’s life” campaign. Autocratic commands, ultimatums, and judgments have been replaced by soft “discipline” like negotiations, pleading, and explanations. Clearly, neither extreme works effectively.
As the differences between Xers and today’s children suggest, neither coddling nor neglecting children is the answer. They become heroes when they are allowed to explore the world around them and experience life—hardships and all—while surrounded by loving support and guidance. If we deny them these challenges, we deny them the lessons that build character and inner strength. If we deny them the encouragement and feedback necessary to transform these challenges into life lessons, they grow to become insecure, distrustful, and lacking in important skills.
This transformation from autocratic parenting to “hyper-parenting” is responsible for our urge to rescue and shelter our children. Of course, not all parents rescue their children, but exactly what motivates the ones who do? To kick bad habits successfully, we first need to figure out how they are precipitated. Some of the provocations might include:
Feelings of guilt
An effort to avoid inconvenience
A fear of being considered negligent as a parent
A belief that their children’s successes are a measure of their own
The misconception that their job is to ensure their children’s happiness and comfort at all costs

That said, many children today fall short of their full potential, because they are cocooned, indulged, and rescued in a world that requires them to have the very skills we stifle by such parenting, including those skills necessary to filter and resist the ever-present external pressures they face every day. After all, the true road to heroism is paved, not with rose petals and cushions, but with defeat, hardships, obstacles, and challenges.