It is a picture that sums up perfectly the dilemma of the well-meaning politician confronted by the disaffected young. David Cameron leans forward earnestly, brow slightly furrowed, as he addresses questions to his distracted audience. The distracted audience, a youth in a shell suit, lounges back, legs stretched out indolently, eyes semi-focused on the ceiling. No need to fill in the conversational details. They were almost certainly one-sided.
How to make contact with a generation that seems to grow steadily more detached from society’s mainstream is a cause of much soul-searching for all political parties, and it is driving Labour and Conservative into unexpected areas. Mr Cameron has moved back from the punitive stance of his predecessors. He says that antisocial behaviour is ultimately a matter of raising standards, and that, instead of interfering with parenting, schooling or social engineering, a “revolution in responsibility” should be launched, with people encouraged to take charge of their lives and those of their children rather than looking to government for the answers.
Tony Blair reaches for the big stick. He says you can spot problem children from an early age, and take action where it matters — in the family. Parenting orders, monitored by youth offending teams, mean that problem parents can be ordered to attend counselling sessions if their children become disruptive. They may be forced to attend meeting with teachers, and can be prosecuted if they fail to turn up. ASBOs crack down on young offenders, get them off the street corner and away from the areas where they are creating trouble. Mr Blair believes in interference — the earlier the better; he is a latterday Jesuit: “Give me the child until he is 7, and I will give you the man.”
Both agree on one thing: all trouble starts with the family. The more children grow up in a stable environment, the more they are likely to turn into model citizens. Restore family life and you restore the well-adjusted child. But what if that theory is wrong? What if the family has nothing to do with the way the young turn out, and the influences, for bad or good, lie elsewhere? What, in short, if the nurture part of the nature/nurture debate has been looking in the wrong place all this time?
That is the subversive argument that Judith Rich Harris, the American psychologist, has been pursuing for the past ten years or so, and which she has built into two books,
The Nurture Assumption and
No Two Alike. The theory she advances is that what influences behaviour is not so much the home or the family, or even the genetic make-up of a child, but the peer group in which they grow up. The survival instinct, which teaches the young either to conform with their contemporaries or to become their leader, kicks in early on and can result in huge variations in behaviour. One child may turn into a model conformist, while another, brought up in the same household, becomes a tearaway. To explain why, you have to look outside the family not inside it.
Ms Harris refines her case in the latest issue of
Prospect magazine, in the course of which she challenges head-on the assumptions behind Professor Robert Winston’s BBC documentary series
Child of Our Times, which is following 25 children from birth to the age of 20. She claims it will shed no light at all on the nature versus nurture argument because it is asking the wrong questions: “Observing children at home or in school, individually or in groups, is not the way to answer the question of why they turn out the way they do,” she writes. “Nor is interviewing their parents.”
She accepts that the genetic make-up of a child is important; she concedes that the home environment has a part to play. But neither on its own explains why identical twins, for instance, brought up in the same family, sharing the same genes and the same care and attention, can develop in completely different ways. She cites a case, ironically from the BBC series, where one male twin is developing into a macho character who is only interested in playing with boys, while the other is happiest with girls, and likes games involving dolls.
“The differences between them are nongenetic,” she says. “In fact, the nongenetic differences between them are as wide as the nongenetic differences between ordinary siblings.” What has influenced them more than the home, their parents, or their genes, has been their need to conform to the standards of their friends, their school mates, the role models they want to emulate.
It is not an easy conclusion to accept. It means that however much work is put into the home or school environment, it is the influence of life outside — on the streets or in the homes of friends and neighbours — that is ultimately the decisive influence. It can take two forms, according to Harris: “The socialisation system makes us want to fit in — to conform to our peers,” she says. “What I call the status system makes us want to stand out — to be better than our peers. We can see these motivations in people of all ages.”
For children this is the art of survival. It means that they must get along in the culture they are reared in rather than the one their elders and betters would like to instil; it means they pick up the accents and attitudes of their peers rather than their parents; it means they will compare themselves — their size, looks, behaviour and outlook — with their contemporaries rather than their teachers; it means that the outside influences to which they are subjected, such as pop culture, club life or street gangs, are likely to have a greater effect on them than anything learnt in the home.
This may be dispiriting for parents. It is even more so for politicians. It means that influencing the behaviour of a nonconformist generation is a far greater task than anyone had expected. It means that if you are to change the youth of today you have to begin with society itself.
I beleive that a lot of problems begin with the structure our current education system. I am an intellegent person and so were my group of peers during my school years. However, we all "underacheived" in our GCSE's. The importance placed upon acheiving high grades in the limited range of achedemic subjects availiable to us was huge. Many children who are not strong academically get the impression early on that the are failiures and will not be able to cut it in society. this is when disalusionment and frustration sets in, and later trouble and crime. It took me 4 years (22) after school to realise that there are many areas of life in which to acheive and build self esteem. these need to be identified or at least looked for earlier. Our education system is also failing in english and maths. You can pass and leave school with terrible literacy and numeracy (as i have found) until recently i didn't know what a noun was or when to use a comma.
ross, poole,
[...] growing up on a impoverished estate vs. a leafy suburb tends to give you a different set of peers [...]
Fred Caprivi, Manchester,
i think the effect of the physical environment is another important factor. in some countries, you have leafy suburbs and leafy estates. estates may be relatively financially impoverished, but in terms of the physical environment, they are just as rich as the suburbs. People in England don't think of this kind of thing, and even if they did, it would hardly help given the government's plan to cram more and more people onto this overcrowded island and get rid of all the trees. Peoples' contact with nature is cut and the result is a negative effect on psychological well-being and the worst case scenario is large gangs of feral youth fighting over dirty, polluted scraps of concrete territory.
Marco, bhm, uk
Why shouldn' we look to the government for a solution when they are the purpurators of the childs behaveour ?afterall it's because they have listened to do-gooders with no experience of raising children. It's only when you rereturn power to the parents, school teachers and police that you will get possitive results.
michael hewitson, cardiff, uk, south glamorgan
This is the best justification for private education I have ever heard. The problem is separating the factor out: growing up on a impoverished estate vs. a leafy suburb tends to give you a different set of peers; going to comprehensive does the same.
But the issue is wider: the UK is a country where blending in is a particularly strong social value. Perhaps one way to strengthen the child's resistance to peer pressure is to celebrate individuality more. Treat gender equally to race - any group reference is an offense because it undermines individuality; praise individuality not just group behaviour at school; try not to go to Centre Park or the Gym Club despite all your middle class friends going there with their children. Try not to drive everywhere and use public transport. Explain (and experience) difference - send your child on an exchange to the continent and, perhaps, consider learning about Europe from experience rather than from, uh, biased newspapers.
Fred Caprivi, Manchester,
Peer pressure can be seen at work in the current gang/street culture. Carrying knives, vandalism and causing nusiance all become more aggravated during a certain period of life - notionally between the ages of 11 and 22, although both ends of the scale can be stretched.
This 10 year period of finding one's self can be boom or bust for the individual. Take the wrong fork in life's road and it leads to a life of crime.
This period needs to be studied more by our experts so they can come up with a solution. Perhaps a drug like valium for a 10 year cycle could be the answer - effectively putting the youth out of action for the intervening years.
Tony, Birmingham, UK
I totally agree. I have two brother ,both brought up in a loving,caring home. One went off the rails completely and ended up in Bortal and cost my parent endless despair and heartache ,they other never caused my parents a moments worry. The' runaway' was totally influenced by his peers and wanted to fit in with th bad guys ,because he thought it would make him look hard.
Anne, London, UK
I think Judith Rich Harris has a point. The child away from their family gives them freedom to express themselves more, until that is when they realise that the friends they are with confirm to some sort of ideal with which they must adhere to to get along.
I can see now that the only reason why I continued studying was beacuse everyone assumed that I belonged to one of the elite group of students and hence spurred me on.
But I think the ingredient that is missing is in fact teaching ethics and morality at school, so that if the child does not want to belong to that partcular group of childern they can walk away easily. But the important point here is 'Choice' i.,e making informative choices.
Our social system is so hard wired that it reads like this: Go to Nursery,school,college, university and then go to work and finally have a happy family. Does life have to conform to this. Where is choice in the matter? Where is the freedom to express who you really are and want to be?
Jay, Harrow,
The influence of peers is something i'd over-looked. After reading Ms Haris' views I think it's certainly one of the main factors. But why are peers immoral, unresponsible, and disruptive in the first place?
I think it has to do with many things. Ultimately it's capitalism and securalisation, symptoms of which are rapid social change, great stress, a media which gives people wrong messages, drug use, breakdown of the family unit, etc etc.
Im afraid we've gone too far to go back now. We can try to treat the symptons but the root cause will never go. We can try to learn from America but nothing much will be done about it.
I think that in a hundered years or so we'll realise that capitalism as we know it doesnt work. A capitalism of a different sort is needed, maybe one with more regulation. We'll realise that too much liberalism and individualism doesnt work, because most people are too thick to have this freedom and live peacfully.
SAMIR, Huddersfield,
to Toby-
So you agree that peer groups are important, but you think locking up teenagers for 5 years will straighten them out? Have you considered the kind of peer group they will have while incarcerated?
Samuel, Missoula, MT
The importance of childrens' peer groups has been well-known for years.
It is what makes private schools "better" than state comprehensives. Private schools manipulate childrens' peer-groups to ensure that academic success is valued.
State schools cannot do this, as they don't have the power to exclude children who might encourage others to quit education at 16 or even earlier.
James, London, UK
I was born in 1940. From 6 yrs of age, (as far back as I can remember), all of my values, sense of right and wrong, appropriate behaviour in different situations, filial and social duties, table manners, quest for knowledge, sense of propriety and elegance, were all drummed into me - AT HOME! By aunts, uncles, grandparents, and a mother wiith 4 to 5 switches at her disposal.
All of my friends and associates outside of the home were selected based on these values, AND SELECTED THEY WERE! No one came into my life, nor could influence me if they did not pass certain tests. Today I am proud of who I was and who I am!
IT IS NONSENSE TO SAY THAT THE CRASS PUBLIC, OR PEER GROUPS AT LARGE, IF YOU WILL, CAN DETERMINE THE CHARACTER OF THE WELL BROUGHT UP CHILD!
RAF
Reginald Fryer, Seattle, WA
'Twas ever thus. In homes where parents are either apathetic or absent or both, children seek reassurance and status from others - their peers and the media. some of us remember the 'teddy boys', followed by the 'mods and rockers', and then by the 'skinheads'; now we have the gangs of various persuasions..
It is surely facile to suggest that anyone could begin to 'change society', which is an amalgam of influences from every corner of life. However it is quite possible for parents to rediscover their responsibilities and for the media to take a more responsible attitude to publicity about anarchical behaviour. If that is the first step towards a solution, maybe someone could come up with ideas to get through to the parents who clearly have no interest either in their offspring or the effects of their haphazard spawning..
wokrightinn, Rudkøbing, Denmark
to Toby-
What kind of peer groups do you expect teenagers to form while incarcerated for 5 years?
Samuel, Missoula, MT USA
There is much truth in Judith Rich Harris' theories, I believe. However, humans are rational also in such a way that if their parents and teachers teach them a rational philosophy, they will be able to recognize it as such, and internalize it.
The failure of modern schools and upbringing is not instilling a rational philosophy in young people's minds, out of fear of being politically incorrect.
William Hagerup, Trondhjem, Norway
It sounds terribly old fashioned but wasn't one of the ideas of organisations such as Guides and Scouts the creation of a positive peer group that would turn children into "model citizens"? If parents want to influence their children to grow up in a particular way they can enroll them into these sorts of organisations at an early age. However maybe the young people that Blair and Cameron are so anxious to change do not have the benefit of such forward-thinking parental support. Maybe it is all down to Mummy after all.
Tim, Derby, UK
Abolish free state education, and watch the revolution in responsibility.
Philippa Pirie, London, England
As I am sure you appreciate, certain people have realised and exploited this for a long time. It is comparatively easy for the strong to exploit the less robust and the drugs scene confirms the point. What is PC but peer group conformity on the grand scale? We live increasingly in a Big Brother world, governed by lottery, and the resulting attitude is bound to find it’s less inhibited expression on the streets.
Henry Percy, London, UK
Parents have all the power but constantly cede too much to kids. Society's ills can be overcome if parents do damage control early and often.
Tom, California, US
Bring back National service and instill some pride, moral values and skills into our younger generation. If a child at either 16 or 18 does not continue in education or do a sport for the country they should do National service!
Caroline, London,
What vague nonsense! It is common knowledge that children at school choose their friendships and cliques, and that their conformity to peer behaviour is itself deeply influenced by having or aspiring to a certain family background. It is influenced too by conformity to the school values that are demanded by adults. It is not accurate enough to talk about "the influence of the streets". Lord help us if going to school is like joining a drugs gang.
Michael, Surbiton, UK
Although strong family upbringing may not be totally sufficient for healthy social behavior by younsters, it is necessary. Without it virtually nothing is possible--or, rather, everything is possible, and likely. Much the same is true for good schooling. It guarantees nothing, but its absence does permit much. The failure of nerve among social and political elites in the Western world, now about a century in the making, leaves vacuums for young people, vacuums filled by forces of destruction and death for themselves and, sadly for others.
James, Jacksonville, Illinois U. S.
This seems so obvious to me. The sad thing is that are whole sections of our youth who feel that the only way of fitting in is through violence, intimidation, and a pride in their own thuggery. Ultimately, gangs of 14 year-olds don't pick on people and beat them up because they're crying inside ... they do it because they get a kick out of it and to show off in front of each other. I honestly don't know how you break through this. I think, as a first step, you need some very tough sentences (5 years or more) for assault, robbery, and carrying violent weapons. Strict sentencing needs to be a first step and then I think, eventually, the culture will start to change too. As for reaching out to disaffected youngsters... the job of politicians is not to make people feel good about themselves but to create a reasonably safe society in which people are free to pursue their own interests, whatever these may be, so long as they don't endanger others.
Toby Donovan, London,
Of course peer groups have a huge role to play in how children turn out. And left to their own devices and bombarded with information of questionable content some peer groups will make bad decisions.
Which is why it is so important for parents, families, teachers and local communities to take responsibility for pointing these peer groups in the right direction.
All roads eventually lead back to the parents - genetically and behaviorally.
Andy, New York, USA
The importance of children's peer groups has been well-known for years.
It is what makes private schools "better" than state comprehensives. Private schools manipulate childrens' peer-groups to ensure that academic success is valued.
State schools cannot do this, as they don't have the power to exclude children who might encourage others to quit education at 16 or even earlier.
James, London, UK
While i agree that the home/parent system does not guarantee that the child will grow up well adjusted, the peer group behaviour is directly affected by the extent of parental control over the individuals that make up that group.
Large groups of children/teenagers are allways more intolerant, and more agressive than smaller groups unless in controlled situations, that is organised games and activities groups, the lack of direct parental control is the initial point of deviation.
Lack of interest from parents and family directly affect all aspects of juvenile behaviour and attitude.
Crooks, Barnsley,
An age old discussion: «Le bon sauvage» that civilazation currupts or the savage that society civilizes?
Also important, I think, are questions like: For how long can a society withstand high unemployment rates and low activity amongst the young? What is the effect on a youth bought up in such environment? What happens after a generation? Can low perspectives and youth idleness cause serious disrupture on a social scale? [Meaning, a scale where it is not only an individual or family problem but a social problem that affects everyone].
Central, I believe, are the values that society rewards. Man being very adaptable he will act and react (consciently and not) to the value being rewarded. How do we explain the lowering of courtesy standarts and the rudeness we can find at the very highest social and economic positions?
Last, but not least, how is the credibility of institutions affecting behaviours? Are the rules what they seem or «I just can't win»?
Rui Duarte, Lisbon,
Sorry but it does not mean you have to change society itself - anyone with common sense(by that I have to therefore exclude everyone in the Labour party and all their politically correct liberal lackies) knows that indeed peer pressure plays a large part in things, however the incumbent government and its obsession for promoting single parent families, protecting the rights of the ill-behaved, inclusion in schools of known trouble-makers and its ludicrous social engineering by refusing to allow streaming or grading of pupils, means that the disaffected minority are treated with kid gloves and allowed to operate with impunity - these are the role models or peers that many children are exposed to, they remain the 'untouchable' rulers of the playground and Labour have spent a decade dreaming up every reason under the sun to excuse their behaviour - want to stop disaffected youth ? Replace all of the left wing social engineers who sit at the top of our education system with normal folk
Bryan, Bembridge,
I agree. Even though today's politicians are all too attached to the idea of patronising voters and trying to impose their ideas on them, this is one that probably won't work. Better families? Yep, would be nice. ASBO's? Yep, sounds good to get those youngsters off the street.
None of it addresses the root issues and it's basically just like poring millions of gallons of water onto a forrest fire, when someone is increasingly chucking more logs into it.
Labour is waisting their time, taking the easy route and trying to achive quick changes to a massive problem. They should be more realistic, but they have not got the courage to be honest.
I think the fact that the young feel alienated and not PART of society has got to do with it. We push them further to the fringes and giving them ASBO's won't make them anymore compliant.
We need to give them participation, empowerment and a voice. Would you want to live in a society that constantly patronizes you? No. I would rebel too!
Michel, Reading,
I think Ms Harris does have a valid point. Parental teachings on morals, manners, cultural norms etc. provide a hugely important base. However, they may not take permanent hold unless the rest of society reinforces them: teachers, youth leaders, TV, celebrities, friends. Since we now live in a rapidly changing and culturally diverse society, a child may well find his peer group and the media are totally at odds with what his family taught him. Society needs to speak with one voice, and provide the young with quality role models and teachers.
Janet, Sydney, Australia
This viewpoint has been given occasional prominence over the years, for example in New Scientist. It is perfectly obvious that teenagers take far more immediate notice of their peers...whilst they are teenagers and young adults. But parental and educational influences have a latent effect. By the time we are 35 most of us have turned into a version of one or other of our parents, and we get more like them with each passing year.
There is nothing wrong with the vast majority of the youth of today. The influence of their peers is largely conventional and healthy. Most of society's problems are actually being caused by their seniors, many of whom are degenerates.
al, london,
Society comprises the majority that sit underneath the centre of the statistical bell curve and the minorities that are on the fringes. The key task is not to lose the majority by concentrating on solutions that are relevant to the fringes, but do not adress the centre. We are currently in danger of losing the majority which respond to traditional reward and punishment techniques. These techniques when applied consistently and fairly will tend to flatten the bell curve and move more people into the centre. Modern day parents are too concerned with being "friends" with their children rather than guardians, mentors, role models, teachers and disciplinarians. Parents must accept these roles and make time for their children.
Once the majority is satisfied a number of variable techniques should be used to develop the fringes.
Colin MacMillan, Redditch, Worcs
Exactly. So ban television and hip-hop!
Problem solved
It all started with Grange Hill in the 80's you know. It was the top of a slippery slope.
George Rabbitt, Croydon, England
Recently, Channel 4 and ITV broadcast a number of programmes like Back To The 1950s, Brat Camp, Bad Lads' Army, which all have a common theme: take a bunch of unruly youngsters and turn them around in four weeks. If we can believe the outcomes, these are 95% positive. The girls and boys are introduced to their four-week stint and are soon rebelling, even kicking and screaming. At last they have come up against the brick wall of authority that will not take "no" for an answer. But as if by magic, after the four weeks are up, most participants are full of praise for the schemes they attended. Many want them to continue. They don't want to go home.
Why can't the State organise something like these schemes for all young people? Throw together a disparate group of people at random and teach them how to get along. Then that group will be able to impart some of what it has learned to younger siblings and their friends, in other words, set an example.
Britain needs a radical approach.
Mike Mitchell, Spalding, England
As a parent this is rather dispiriting but looking at my own childhood and that of my sister I can see that there may be much truth in this idea. I fell in with young criminal wannabees and she with math club types. We both excelled in school initially but she ended up in law school and I fled the country in the nick of time. We're both reasonably successful professionals now but our attitudes are very different and I can see how they were shaped by the people we emulated and ultimately led. I hope my boys make good friends. At least this makes me less worried about my own imperfections automatically transferring to my sons. Small comfort.
bob mologna, clarkdale, usa
There are worrying implications here from Judith Rich Harris’s findings.
The peer groups of past generations included adults (sometimes relatives or family friends and acquaintances), and role models frequently included teachers and mentors.
There are now powerful barriers within society to young people having close contact with such peers and potential role models, and the void is filled by contemporaries or others slightly older. These are likely to be selected by the groups to which the child belongs, rather than being chosen by the child itself. There is thus not only a large element of chance as to the type of company kept, but the learnings of maturity are less likely to be passed on by example.
The alienation now increasingly seen by the mid-teens may be reversed during further education as a result of exposure to a wider social group, but for early school leavers there is a dangerous gap which should be of great concern.
dr venables preller, Warminster, UK
But ultimately families can (and many do) control almost all the outside factors acting on children, by controlling where they live, what school they attend, who they are allowed to mix with, where they are allowed to go and when.
Many social and cultural groups, for example, make sure their offspring marry suitably not by arranging marriaged but by subtly controlling who they meet. It works.
For all parents to re-introduce such controls on young children instead of indulging themselves while for example allowing pre-teenage children to roam the streets in unsupervised packs in the late evening, would go a long way towards addressing all the problems.
alexandria, Sheffield, UK
Sounds like common sense to me.
John, Birmingham, UK
This is obvious isn't it? Kids and indeed all of us learn our behaviour from our peers.
It is also why parents with a choice don't send their kids to the local sink school - which further stigmatises these schools.
If you want to know whether a school is right for your kids ask to meet some average leavers from that school - chances are however good a parent you are your kids will turn out just like them.
Ben, London,
It's Pierre Bordieu's theory of "habitus," revisited, and rightly so.
Adrian Slatcher, Manchester,
It also means we should pay more attention to the corrosive effect of youth culture. Call me Mary Whitehouse, but I'm all for banning anything which encourages subversion and an unthinking disrepect for authority. Youth culture seems to be divisive by definition.
Will Duffay, London,
Judith Harris does say in her book that the peer group makes all the difference; but she also says that where parents matter is in this: the parents' peer group (friends/other family) means that the kids peer group is from that same bunch of parents. Hence, if a bunch of stable parents are all friends with each other, then the kids will be influenced by their peer group, ie a peer group that all comes from stable parents.
Pete, London,
Need is the great motivator. The need to do well in school to get a job. The need to do better than the rest to get a better job. The need to work harder than others to earn more money and the need to be an educated, hard working person to be respected to have a family. None of these things should come for nothing. Thus we need independent schools, independent examiners no benefits without work for the able bodied. Everyone who can should do something or get nothing.
R Mason, London, UK
What does he mean, "You have to begin with society itself"? What is it? Who is 'you'?
Dr J Findlater, Carnforth,
I'm sorry but this is completely obvious. Anyone who has been to school anytime recently will see how people in different cliques grow up to be similar, with similar interests and ideas of what's acceptable. Maybe instead of watching children people should actually talk to them.
gemma, york,
I dont agree with this, it´s very very important what you learn at home, and the thing is that what you learn at home is used to be what you require outside , in the society, if this is not so you have a problem because what you know it is not useful "outside" so you have to reorder your mind which is quite dificult because it comes from your earlies times, and that´s very dificult to change in your mind.
jorge lang-lenton lópez, Canarias, España