Chuck Colson, a popular teacher on the importance of forming a Christian worldview and intellectual life, has often warned about the same phenomenon. “A World of Their Own,” a BreakPoint commentary, offered an excellent explanation of the isolated teen culture, which happens to precisely coincide with my own observations as a highschool teacher. After explaining one of the many school shooting tragedies that have happened in our country, Mr. Colson says,

If you’re wondering “Where were the adults?” it’s clear you don’t know how most American teenagers are growing up today. American teenagers operate in what has been called a “parallel culture” that operates free of adult interference.

As Leon Botstein, the president of Bard College, wrote in the New York Times, American high schools are the site of something unique in American society: “a gang in which individuals of the same age group define each other’s world.” This definition includes the imposition of standards that have no relationship to what’s needed for success in the real world.

Ironically, the claim by proponents of those who support “traditional” schooling is that children need to go to school in order to learn how to deal with social conflict and with the complexities of the social world. They fear that homeschooled children will grow up sheltered from the real world, and will therefore be unprepared for adulthood. What they fail to see is that the school culture is not a reflection of the real adult world. It is a unique culture that is often reminiscent of Lord of the Flies, devoid of adult rules and guidance. This culture produces such head-scratching cultural anomalies as “sexting” (sending nude photographs of yourself by cell phone), as well as increased risky behaviors involving alcohol, drugs ans sex. And the worst part of this teen culture is that adults are afraid of it. Or, at least adults think that they have no right to interfere in it. As Chuck Colson says,

So we’ve got American kids operating from an artificial set of rules unrelated to real life; they’re going to schools where adults don’t question those rules, watching media that validates those rules, and being wooed by advertisers who tell them how insightful they really are. Worst of all, their parents are complicit in the creation of the parallel culture.

Whether it’s because of a lack of time, or a desire not to “repress” their children, American parents have adopted a hands-off approach to parenting. Instead of direct supervision they get what’s called “guilt money” — money given in lieu of real parental involvement. The lack of supervision and the money reinforce the parallel culture. It’s created a creature I call the “autonomous teenager.”

The immediate result of the teen culture is alienated young adults who see themselves as alien to the adult world, who are incapable of relating to their parents, and who don’t have the first clue how to interact with the civilized world. Most young adults don’t even greet you when you enter their place of employment, and sometimes don’t even serve you with any sense of politeness or interest.

The long-term results of the teen culture are going to be even more serious. We already see people from my generation, currently in their thirties, who have never grown up. This trend is going to get even worse if it doesn’t turn around. We are losing sight of the purpose of culture and society, creating societies that alienate and isolate us rather than bringing us together in true social interaction. Raising a generation unable to socially interact within an adult world, incapable of true conversation (vs. the empty, shallow communication they are almost constantly engaged in), disinterested in intellectual discourse, independent rather than interdependent and ignorant of politeness and civility, is only going to damage it more.

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Radhakrishnan forwards the concern that globalization is actually nationalism in disguise, a system in which the powerful nation-states force the rest of the world into conformity. To build his case, he uses the so-called “benevolent” actions of the G7, the IMF and the World Bank toward “third-world” countries. Such benevolence, Radhakrishnan argues, is not intended to help lift third-world countries into the realm of independent nation-states and equal partners in the world community. Rather, it is intended to keep these countries in a continuous state of “dependence and heteronomy.” Radhakrishnan makes a great point – that you never hear politicians speaking of “human” jobs. They are always speaking of “American or Canadian or Mexican or Indian jobs.” Radhakrishnan asks, “When was the last time that an American president showed concern or altered foreign trade policy in response to dire job losses in Mexico or in the Philippines?” Recently on CNN, I almost heard President Bush express such a concern. Defending himself against criticisms that he was promoting unemployment in America by opening the door wider for American companies to take jobs overseas, Bush commented, “I understand that unemployment is a problem in America, but I don’t see that as a valid reason for retreating from the world market.” A Bush supporter could certainly make the argument that his ambiguous phrase meant that American economic might should be spread out to benefit people of the entire world. However, I don’t think suspicion that Bush is really looking out for American big business interests would be too paranoid. Radhakrishnan makes another valid point using nuclear weapons as an example. Powerful nation-states punish “subaltern” (weaker, subordinate) countries for wanting the same things that dominant nation-stages “have successfully monopolized.” I agree with Bush to the extent that I really don’t want Muslim dictatorships or oligarchies to have nuclear weapons. After all, the self-stated purpose of Islam is to conquer the world for Allah. However, it strikes me as odd that there should be comfort with any country having nuclear weapons. These weapons by their very nature are antithetical to the ideologies that America claims to stand for. The argument is often made that the dominant nation-states have proven their right to have nuclear weapons because of the restraint they have shown in their use. However, if the right to have such weapons is proven by not using them, then why have nuclear weapons at all? This is a clear example of hypocrisy (a word that is too often misapplied, but really does fit in this case).

Radhakrishnan forwards the philosophical bedrock for a possible solution. Third-world countries continue to be victimized by the dominant nation-states because they imagine that a relationship with the dominant powers within the context of globalization will eventually given third-world countries what they want – a piece of the power pie. However, the dominant nation-states are influenced by a technological progress vision of the world (which I take to come from enlightenment philosophy’s ideal of progress), in which power is seen as an end-sum game. The only way for third-world countries to gain power would be for the leading countries to lose power. Since this is undesirable for the countries who dominate the process of globalization, their-world countries are hoping for the impossible. Radhakrishnan claims that third-world countries need to shift their philosophical outlook. They need to reject the technological progress model and instead embrace a postmodern philosophy. According to such a viewpoint, there is no objective definition of reality. “Reality” is not a single entity, but a complex interaction of a multiplicity of realities. Therefore, definition of reality is dependant on the perceiver of reality. It is “important that people invent their own realities rather than dwell passively and reactively in realities invented by others.” So how do people interact when their perceptions of reality differ? Radhakrishnan states, “But the real and intricate challenge is how to imagine one’s reality not in egocentric isolation, but relationally with other imaginings.” In other words, we have to find a way to allow our reality to harmonize with other realities, without passively sacrificing our reality for theirs. One suggestion for doing this on the world stage is for third-world countries to stop seeing themselves as “developing” nations, a term forced on them by the technological viewpoint of progress. In its place, they need to find their own self-definition and their own reality. Radhakrishnan recommends that third-world countries see themselves as “suffering” nations, rather than “developing” nations. They should become “a representation of the victims of man-made suffering everywhere in the world and in all past times.” They could then unite themselves to others who suffer throughout time and space, dissolving the geo-political limitations that define them as “developing nations” and instead defining themselves as people who suffer. They could then relate to globalism on their own terms, seeking relationships of “reciprocal rehabilitation” with the dominant countries. They could direct the efforts of globalism toward a new kind of utopia in which each member would be free to find its own reality in harmony with the realities of other members, and therefore in which suffering would be eradicated.

Does the postmodern perception of reality really have the power to do this? The greatest mystery of postmodernism is where the moral imperative for harmonious coexistence comes from in the ebb and flow of individual realities? If the dominant nation-states see power as an end-sum game, and believe that the harmonious coexistence of realities demands that they act as stewards of the power and look out for their subordinate brother-countries, who is to say that their vision of harmonious realities is any worse than the vision of reciprocal rehabilitation? I understand that the latter fits the postmodern worldview better than the former, but if reality is really so fluid then there can be no standard by which to judge opposing realities. Fortunately, I don’t believe that it is necessary to believe in postmodern deconstruction of objective reality to see that Radhakrishnan’s practical solution is a good one. However, it would be necessary for me to find a new philosophical groundwork to lay it on.

That philosophical groundwork begins with the objective answer to Radhakrishnan’s question, “If going global means acknowledging a certain connectedness, what is the basis for such a connectedness?” Radhakrishnan argues against the basis of “blood” – or nationalism. However, there is a legitimate basis for connectedness. We must first understand that nationalism and globalism are subjective “imagined” associations. However, they are human attempts to satisfy the objective reality of the need for human connection. Historically, this need was satisfied on a loca
l level. Human beings banded together into communities to make it easier to meet each other’s needs, and because humans are naturally drawn to community. Here we find the authentic bases for all human connection: interdependence and solidarity. Nations took this local sense of connectedness and attempted to expand it over greater geographical areas. While there are benefits to doing this, there are also detriments. Human beings do not naturally bond with people that they do not have regular personal contact with. To make nationalism work, artificial bases for association had to be created. Cultural commonalities, national pride, a sense of “us” vs. “them,” and an organizing government all added to the natural sense of interdependence and solidarity to expand the “village” into a “nation.” Likewise, in globalization artificial bases for association will have to be added to the authentic bases in order to bind together people who do not share the same culture or language. The key to success for nationalism and for globalization is to put more focus on the natural, authentic bases for association than on the artificial ones. Nationalism goes astray when national pride or cultural ideologies trump interdependence and solidarity as the nation’s teleology. The same will be true of globalism. The problem Radhakrishnan points out is an authentic one. America and the other dominant nations are using globalization to forward nationalistic agendas to the detriment of “subaltern” countries. However, if the dominant countries remember that international relationships need to reflect the authentic bases for human association, they should begin to act for the authentic good of all human beings, not simply for the good of their own ideologies and political and economic constituencies. An appeal based on the demonstrable objective reality of human association has to be more powerful than the groundless appeal to harmony between individually perceived realities.
[ad#seasonal]

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The most difficult issue our Catholic school deals with, without a doubt, is dress code. Dress code seems to anger teachers, parents, and students without prejudice. I recently gave a talk to a small group of parents and teachers defending out dress code. From the comments and looks of appreciation I received, I think I may have opened some minds a little bit, but I doubt I softened many hearts. My main point was that the dress code was an integral part of our Catholic school mission. It is a teaching tool that teaches self-respect, respect for others, and self-discipline. It is unfortunate that terms such as these tend to elicit the polite smiles that say, “how nice of you to still believe in such idealistic notions; some day you will grow up and come to reality.” It is the same smile given to most things Catholic in a Catholic school by many teachers and parents. I say that it is unfortunate because this smile reveals that so many people have given up on these ideals when these ideals have hardly moved beyond our reach! People have assumed that self-discipline is no longer possible, or at least no longer desirable, in today’s culture. We see this same attitude when dealing with other areas of discipline in schools. Shouldn’t we give teenagers contraception instead of expecting them to control their sexual desires? Isn’t it easier to label someone with a behavioral disorder or an “oppositional defiance disorder” rather than expecting him or her to control anger and obey authority? In addition, who can deny the anti-authority messages in our music, movies, and television programs? We have lost sight of a couple of the most important and rewarding moral principles that Catholic morality has to offer us. These principles deal with the joys of self-discipline and the purpose of authority.

What is self-discipline all about, anyway? Why would it be something for which it would be worth working? The main theme of Catholic morality is to become the kind of people who habitually choose that which can bring us true, eternal happiness. Only God can bring us true, eternal happiness. All created goods either fail to perfectly satisfy, or decompose due to their temporary nature. Only God is perfect and eternal. Furthermore, God is the creator of all other good things. When we possess God, we possess the perfect source of perfect happiness, and the source of all other sources of happiness. God wants us to enjoy created goods, but in a way that does not make us selfish or enable the created good to hold power over us. When a created good becomes too important to us, our free will becomes a slave to it. Therefore, we become less free. Being self-disciplined means being able to identify and attain the greatest good in every situation. It means making constant progress toward the eternal possession of God in love. Being self-disciplined means being truly free, never enslaved by obsession over a created good. Self-discipline brings true joy in this life and perfect happiness in the eternal life of heaven. However, such lofty benefits do not make self-discipline an impossible ideal. It is a virtue that we can help each other to attain. That’s where authority comes in.

Most people readily pair the word “authority” with the word “oppression.” Authority is seen in opposition to freedom. It surprises people if they ever learn that the Catholic Church (which is often also paired with the word “oppression”) pairs “authority” with “authentic freedom.” The Church teaches us that the primary purpose of authority is to teach us self-discipline. Laws, and the authority that legislates and enforces them, lead us to the greatest authentic good. Well-balanced laws serve to protect us against our fallen human nature without destroying our freedom. We must find a balance between too little authority, which fails to guide us to the greatest good when we need guidance, and too much authority, which destroys our freedom and makes true goodness impossible. What about those times we do not understand the purpose for a law? Both civic and religious authorities often propose laws that seem to make no sense to us. If the authority is a legitimate authority and the law does not contradict that moral law it was designed to protect, then we must follow even laws that we do not understand out of respect for and trust in the authority. We must acknowledge that we do not always know what is best. Authority often has more knowledge and a greater perspective than we do. Obedience to authority flies hand-in-hand with the virtue of humility. Humility is the virtue of accurately assessing your place, neither exaggerating it nor overestimating it. Humility helps us to trust authorities placed over us instead of foolishly asserting a false kind of freedom that comes out of pride. The ability to cooperate with authority as it guides us to the greater good leads us to true freedom by teaching us to overcome our fallen human nature and choose the greater good ourselves.

In recent history, authority has been vilified. It has been judged the enemy of freedom. Parents have been told not to discipline their children for fear of stifling their natural creative impulses. Teenagers are repeatedly told to rebel against authority for the same reasons. In fact, the main complaint against the dress code is that is stifles the students’ free expression. The truth is that the dress code shapes the students’ expression to help them express what is best and most noble about themselves. Its main goal is to help students express their inner beauty instead of focusing so much on their bodies, as modern fashion does. The same is true of all authority. We must teach our children, not only to respect and honor authority, but to value it. Of course, once we learn self-discipline, we no longer need authority to tell us how to attain the greatest good. That is freedom in every sense of the word.

Wild Willy is not to be apprehended alone. Leave him to the authorities.

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.