|
Life Without Boundries By Katherine Kersten Every night on the news, we see evidence of the grave ills that result when parents abandon their responsibilities to their children. In the inner city, in particular, we hear of massive pathologies: gangs, schools with metal detectors, drugs and violence that permeate whole neighborhoods. As we shut off the TV, many of us in the suburbs sigh with relief. Unlike our inner-city neighbors, we reflect, we have a host of advantages to offer our children: stable homes, good incomes, decent schools. Thank God, we say,our kids have so much more to look forward to. But folks, there's "trouble in paradise." The latest evidence appears in an essay in the May 17 Sunday New York Times Magazine. The essay, "Being Thirteen," focuses in part on two Edina middle schools, South View and Valley View. Its subject is the "trend setters" there-the "Tier I kids" most in tune with the popular culture, who allegedly "set the pace" for all the others. As a record of the problems besetting our youth, the pictures in the Times essay are worth several thousand words. They include shots of pubescent 13-year-olds-barely out of elementary school-decked out in cocktail dresses and expertly applying makeup. We see children basking in a tanning salon, hanging on each other at a dance, living it up during spring break in Florida, and juggling $10 bills as they debate what to tip manicurists. We hear from them too. A suntanned boy comments: "Spring break rules at 13! At this point, I'd rather go on vacation with my friends than with my family. You have no limits, no boundaries; you just do what you want, get as tan as you want, party as long as you want. People that don't go on spring break, they just sit at home and watch TV and just go to the tanning booth so it looks like they've been somewhere." And this from a girl, gazing absorbedly at herself in a mirror: "Whether you think clothes are important sort of places you in a group.... Our group sort of has their own kind of fashion. We shop at about six different stores and we all kind of keep up with the trends.... Our group tends to wear a lot more makeup than other people." The Times essay highlights a problem of national dimensions, affecting all social classes. It is the problem of a youth culture that takes materialism and personal pleasure as the highest goods, and aspires, above all, to a "life without boundaries." Perhaps this problem appears in boldest relief in our society's most affluent sectors. Every year, in the Twin Cities, we hear stories of well-heeled high school kids off to prom in luxury coaches, thoughtfully stocked by Mom and Dad with enough liquor for a wedding reception. Many kids at elite private schools reportedly go on spring break-sometimes to foreign countries-with welllined pockets, but minus chaperones. Parents are not very visible in the New York Times photo essay. Obviously, they are somewhere in the background, toting the credit cards. Most likely, however, they also put in many hours driving to flute lessons, cheering at hockey games, and decorating the gym for the big dance. And yet, one suspects, many of these parents-so diligent in certain respects-may often be absent from their children's lives in another, more important sense. Looking at the Edina kids, we get a strong sense that-for all their "star status" and apparent cocksureness-they are far less than they could be at this point in their lives. When it comes to moral direction, they seem to be adrift: on the fast track to shallow, materialistic and self-absorbed lives. Rather than leaders, they seem more like slaves to the popular culture-prisoners of the latest fad in nail color, the latest hormonal surge. "Hold it right there," many parents are likely to respond. "You're blowing this way out of proportion. It's natural for kids this age to act this way and have these interests. They'll grow out of these adolescent preoccupations. Just wait, they'll go on to Georgetown and Vassar, and become doctors and lawyers." One mother, interviewed by the Edina Sun Current after the Times essay ran, seemed to suggest as much. Her daughter, a subject of the essay, had been embarrassed by it, she noted. "I said, 'You're 13 years old. These are the things you're supposed to be interested in. I never dressed better than when I was 13 years old.'" It's true. A preoccupation with oneself and one's pleasures is natural. It is completely understandable that a 13-year-old would center her life on clothes, makeup and "in-group" chatter, if no one teaches her differently. What is our primary job as parents? Is it to see that our children become doctors and lawyers? Or is it, first and foremost, to see that they become good people? If we allow kids to develop flawed habits, expectations and attitudes about life in their formative years-success is the seventh-grade equivalent of a Rolex watch and a country club membership-aren't we increasing the odds that they will become adult versions of their teenaged selves? When inner-city parents step out the door, the streets move in to get their kids. When parents in Edina do the same in a moral sense, a vapid and spiritually stunting youth culture may fill the vacuum. We may never see our kids on the nightly news. But the New York Times essay reminds us that we re not as far from the inner city as we think. -- Katherine Kersten is a director of Center of the American Experiment in Minneapolis and a commentator for National Public Radio's "All Things Considered." |