This seems to complement Twenge's argument about children's lack of free play. Apart from school, when a child's primary means of connecting with others and developing social skills is through social media, where their frames of reference on how to treat themselves and others is presented in the most superficial and histrionic ways, how much of their growth is stunted thanks to these fast food substitutes?
Anecdotally speaking, I find myself preferring to text people instead of calling them, to have random conversations instead of scheduling a dedicated time to connect with them. It's so gosh darn easy to use these shortcuts when you have a smartphone! Lately I've been trying to encourage friends to text me less and either meet up with me in person or at least have a video chat so we can give each other our full attention. For some, it's very foreign to them!
If smartphones are here to stay, let's make sure we're using this technology intentionally and with discipline so it doesn't use us. If it's hard for a 31 year old like me to do this, I can't imagine how hard it is for young teenagers with much more on their plates!
Social media may not be real life, but the behaviors it and smartphones encourage (fragmented multi-tasking, constant notification checking, social comparisons) are seeping into our real lives whether we like it or not.
I live in Europe and I grew up in the sixties: we only spent time at home to eat and sleep. We walked unsupervised back and forth to school, (30 mins treks, with even younger siblings in tow), always played outside after school (small house). My mother never knew exactly where we were and we only came home when it got dark and for dinner. Sure, accidents happened: I broke an arm, was severely sexually assaulted by a vagrant when I was 5, I saved my 4y younger brother from drowning, kids from another, poorer area raided our yards and one day hit me over the head with a rooftile, etc. But I have not become traumatized, instead, I became a resourceful, self-reliant person. I raised my childen in the exact same way.
So when I read, I think some 10/15 years ago, that american children were no longer supposed to walk to and from school unsupervised, were no longer allowed to roam free and play outside and that neighbors snichted on parents who dรญd allow their children these things and who got demonzide when they did, I felt very suspicious about the agenda behind this obviously undesirable change. Cui bono? Who wanted children to stay cooped up inside all day, in cars, class-rooms and homes? Without free physical activity, but wรญth permanent supervision (part of the programming for Big Government) รกnd permanent access to a kitchen filled with junkfood and a fridge filled with sugar-loaded, easy snacks. (good for big medicine and big Pharma).
What would they fill their time with for the rest of the day? Exactly: watch the MSM-propaganda, play stupid, violent, pre-programming computergames and connect with tjeir peers trhough their so-called "smart"phones" with the exact, disastrous effects as described in the article. Disastrous for their whole being: physically, mentally and psychologically. They become fat, develop diabetes and eczema, they become depressed, they become mentally ill.
Thank you blondbraids. It reminds me of the beautiful letter from FairPlay to Mark Zuckerberg that parents, teachers, politicians, and world leaders should read daily:
It may be tempting to ride the wave of cultural commodification and optimistically tout social media as a useful โtool.โ But with 72% of teens on Instagram and 20% on social media for more than five hours a day, an exercise in spiritual discernment becomes necessary. After much meditation and prayer, we assert that social media platforms that target immature brains, practice unethical data mining, and are inspired by profit motives are not a tool for the greater good of children. Indeed, from the secular side, it is already well established that social media use poses emotional, physical, and psychological harms to children. From increases in depression, anxiety, suicide, sexualization, narcissism, access to pornography, loneliness, and cyberbullying to disastrous impacts on attention, sleep, and healthy development, it is undeniable that social media is irrevocably altering the landscape of childhood. ....
Primarily, the social media struggle is one against presence, attention, and stillness. Amidst Lao Tzuโs proclamation that โIn stillness all under heaven restsโ(Ch. 37) and the Psalmsโ beloved "Be still and knowโ (46:10), countless faith communities emphasize the importance of time spent without distraction. Be it Sabbath, silence, yoga, meditation, or prayer, these moments of reflection offer us a path to something deeper, serving as our foundation for love of a higher power and love of neighbor. Social media โ with its intentionally addictive algorithms, incessant communication systems, and mass commodification of attention โ explicitly counteracts these values. As the Sufi poet Rumi wrote,โsilence is the language of god, all else is poor translation.โ Mother Teresa, too, proclaimed that โWe need to find God and He cannot be found in noise and restlessness. See how nature, the trees, the grass grow in perfect silence โ see the stars, the moon and sun, how they move in silenceโฆโ5Children, with growing minds and bodies, need this time for reflection, unprompted encounters, and mindful, attentive play. If not now, then when?
We believe, too, that this essential childhood play is enhanced when experienced outdoors."
That is exactly what it is. We nรฉรฉd silence, and the outdoors, and play, and interaction,, all in their own measure.
We don't need all the "apps" that make life so easy but come at a heavy cost. They are useful, sure, sometimes, but they are also weapons in a bigger game, that has nefarious goals that are only now becoming visible. We have become isolated, vulnerable and dependent on out "tools"
Where did the small stores go? The small banks? With them so many seemingly unimportant activities disappeared as well. We don't know or speak with the carrier, we don't meet acquantainces on thรฉir errands. We don't walk, bike, drive to the stores anymore. I like my GPS, but we used to be able to find our way in the past: we (women) asked for directions ๐, men read maps.
Without us realizing it, the structure of our civilization has unravelled and it has harmed our children.
One of the most socially poisonous phenomena of the post-Cold War era has been the destruction of local businesses by the gods of globalization (like Mitt Romney and his Bain Capital and McKinsey among many others), in which we sold off our middle class to Wall Street for vague promises and "the good of the economy".
The fact that in every neighborhood now the local coffee shop, hardware store, clothes store, supermarket etc are owned by global corporations has hollowed out our communities and deracinated our people.
Our business class bought off our political and media class and together they helped sell off our country and siphon away the wages and pensions of the middle class, while they split the profits.
Elsewhere in this comment section, I posted a response explaining that there seems to be some confusion here between causes and factors that just happen to be present when something collapses. I agree that the factors you all here have mentioned are important, but it is bias that makes us see these last few recent problems as the crucial ones.
It was like this in the US in the 1970s as well. Walk unsupervised across town to school as a 6 year old. Although for me, swap the sexual assault (yikes!) for getting in fights with the locals. When we came back from a fight, parents were interested in who won BTW, not calling the cops or suing the other parents.
Hahahaha, yes, indeed! Although my dad dรญd go after the children/parents who had hit me with the rooftile and caused me to need stitches. They scolded their children, case closed.
As a homeschool educator I have been fortunate to connect with lots of children who have abundant free play and who tend to connect with each other in real life relationships rather than online. However, they face a challenge when trying to integrate with others who are continually on social media which can be alienating and isolating as well.
It will require the modelling of parents, no phone rules at school (this has been successful in France, Australia, and some US states), and getting back to reality.
Stepping out of the vice grip of social media is only a notion if there is something better to step into. Thus the time otherwise spent on phone devotions must be filled with real life counterparts:
Thank you Ruth, you are making a very good point; if the mine is toxic taking the canary out is a first step but as you pointed out short-termed, if it is meant to go back in the toxic mine.
As far as France is concerned: I lived there and have two nieces in the French school. Not sure it was a successful initiative given the research results and the recent bill of the National Assembly to ban social media below 15.
I am also observing here in Italy very brave initiatives like the "Digital Pact" between a group of parents and schools to delay the smartphone until kids are 14 years old.
But like you described, no matter how amazing parents and educators can be, even if it works for their first years, kids will be maladapted once they mix with social-media raised kids. It makes me think about the book "This perfect day" from Ira Levin (1959!!) If they don't get the "dose" they don't fit.
Systemic problems require systemic solutions.
If one puts in the market system a privileged ACTOR entitled to operate and get rich outside the rule of law, through wild private data collection (privacy=free will) and by using malignant algorithms on children (too) - it's a recipe for disaster.
Individual and group initiatives are a great and commendable first step but higher level decision have to be made, decision requiring we give up a lot of convenience and comfort and cheap entertainment. We must cut down consumption of screens in a society model driven by digital toxic model that is multiplying reasons, also in cooperation with States, to be exposed to screen. Are we adults ready for that?
They say in France you can't have the butter and the money of the butter.
Thank you for sharing Donald. As a digital minimalist and Italian-survivor (as I notice Italians around me have undergone a sad market-led technology anthropological mutation) I can only appreciate that the message of digital minimalism is being spread. The perversion of the digital system designed by greedy market players (layers of perversion!) is that people who are virtuous users will be considered "anti-modern" or "unfit" instead of healthy people preserving their physical, mental and relational health who deserve respect. Of course "Big Tech Network" codes of behavior are entering our real lives, they were designed to do exactly that by thousand briliant (evil) minds. The questions is, is a toxic business model going to build a healthy society model? Don't we owe it to our ancestors to use a little of the wisdom and courage they passed on to us to change things?
Yes, I have thought this for some time. And now I see it happening. A digital minimizing movement could possibly change the entire landscape. It is hopeful.
I am just back from Slovakia where I ditched the women's conference I was there for and instead sat on the sidewalk and listened to people, as I started doing in San Francisco 8 years ago for Sidewalk Talk. And my second day listening only high schoolers sat down and talked. Not a representative sample because they self selected to come to talk to me, were out of the house at a street food market, but they were one generation out of communist rule. So they had a focus that was about thriving rather than social comparison. And that felt marked to me.
But I am write this as a psychotherapist getting ready to go into a day of sessions after another shooting of young school age kids. And I know it will be a topic of conversation. I am readying a paper by psychoanalytically oriented therapists here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/15289168.2023.2167045 And what they highlight that I want to bring in is loneliness as an add on to safetyism and social comparison. And I don't mean run-of-the-mill loneliness but existential terrifying loneliness. This paper suggests teens are being incredibly let down, by us grown ups and authority figures. We have left them to their own devices (pun intended) as a kind of existential abandonment and have not demonstrated any true capacity to help them hold the complexity of their terrifying feelings. We are bubble wrapping them instead of sitting in the muck with them. We are ourselves lack the skills to regulate our own feelings and instead polarize. What signals are we giving teens that the grownups can help them? My teen sons love calling everyone "Boomer" and I hear it is a thumbing the nose at the grown ups who are to blame. They are both angry at the grown ups and also simultaneously need us to act like grown ups, I think. Not by bubble wrapping them but by sitting in the feelings, setting good boundaries and tending human connection as value.
No psychologist or politologist here, but this is most certainly a very valid point.
It seems that many adults have gotten to the point of letting kids do their own growing up - which of course kids can not possibly do. I certainly do not mean to push authoritarian child rearing, but children and adolescents depend on adults for setting limits and examples.
Then again, we have half a generation of middle class parents from 30 to 40 who were taught in college/university that there is no such thing as reality anyways, and that the notion of objective reality or truth is really just a tool of domination. How do you think they raised their kids? And no, I don't even blame these parents, they themselves were fed this viewpoint.
I blame Rousseau, ultimately, the โman born free yet everywhere in chainsโ lie about the human condition. Itโs infected philosophy, psychology, politics, public policy and parenting for over 2 centuries now.
Show me one place where man is not in chains, figuratively speaking, in one way or another. We are a species with contradictory qualities, and each and every one of is. It is the human condition to be aware of it and to struggle with it. That is not particularly to defend JJ Rousseau, but to see us as both born free and restricted by social conditions is per se a pretty accurate analysis. As is the analsysis that we are a social species and could not do with social interaction and social dependency - a point which Rousseau did not stress as much.
What is wrong is blaming much of what has gone wrong in the past 200 years on just one man. From a cynical point of view we could say that all social and political experiments in the past 200 years have largely failed in one way or another. But so have all others before them. By which I certainly do not mean to endorse those kinds of social experiments the liberal-identitarian crowd is pushing for and which are based on ultimately religious beliefs and which have no basis in reality.
Well, I am engaging in a bit of hyperbole, but only a bit. Rousseau was a major thinker and his ideas held huge appeal and still do, whether people are aware or not. He upends Christianity and 'original sin' completely, which the progressives especially like. He assumes unlimited human potential, the 'blank slate' assumption that invites all manner of utopianism, including communism and fascism. The key point about 'chains' is not that his analysis on that score is incorrect, it's the assumption that 'chains' are wholly negative and can and should be thrown off or actively opposed. Like any sort of parental authority, our topic at hand. So that's true, just that it's totally one-sided, not seeing value or necessity of societal traditions or mores, or that there might be a need for some authority. But the actual 'lie' is the statement that man is 'born free'. Clearly, this is nonsense. Human beings are born wholly dependent, not just on parents for survival, but on whole cultures and generations that have past that ensure our well-being. The notion of 'liberation' in the absolute sense that is the legacy of Rousseau is pernicious myth that sets us adrift and leads us into the nihilism of the current moment. Liberation from our own biology! Born free! Of course, in practical terms, it's the mindset we must confront, not necessarily blaming one philosopher or another. That exercise won't reach too many people, but it does help us with understanding where our underlying assumptions come from, or how they evolved.
Chris Baumgarten (above) writes โ It seems that many adults have gotten to the point of letting kids do their own growing up - which of course kids can not possibly do. I certainly do not mean to push authoritarian child rearing, but children and adolescents depend on adults for setting limits and examples.โ
My cynical reaction is this: letโs replace Soc8al Media safety wrapping with Parental unit safety wrapping. Sure: change the wrapping, expect different result โ presto, Changi!
No. People and psych researchers must re-think this entirely. The real โteacherโ is hovering and helicoptering parenting. Read Bret Easton Elliโs recent non-fiction book on his life in the 1970s-80s, growing up in SoCal in โThe White Album.โ Once toddlerhood is gone, neighbourhood explorations began for him. โPlayโ like this was ordinary and expected. You were responsible only to check in with parents periodically. And as teens, almost not at all!
Ellisโ SoCal youth was no different than my Upper-Midwest youth โ with the sartorial difference of huge boots, layers and thermal dressage, because of snow and the elements. LET YOUNG PROPLE range freely, from one neighbourhood to the next! This used to be normal! Today, itโs almost all virtual and freighted with angst. No - explore and deal with other people, children and adult! Thatโs how adolescence gets back to normal and capable instead of frozen and ridiculous.
I read "The Coddling" early last year. It opened my eyes surely, but also confirmed something I'd already seen happening in my classroom (I'm now a retired high school teacher). I saw before my eyes a new addiction emerge -- the addiction to smart phones, specifically social media ... especially Instagram and TikTok.
So Dr. Haidt et. al. have seen the correlation with overall teen mental health (i.e. depression, anxiety, self-harm).
I'd be most curious to see if the exponential rise in gender dysphoria correspondes with the mental health data. In 2005, one in 2000 adolescents identified as trans. Now I've seen figures as high as one in five. That's a 2,000 percent rise in gender dysphoria. 2000 percent!
I'd like to see data analysis on the meteoric climb in trans identity, which seems to correspond directly to Dr. Haidt's et. al. research on mental illness.
What we certainly have is a remarkable temporal correlation. "Trans" was not a thing until after 2010, with the sharpest rise after 2015. And again, it disproportionately affects girls - almost all of whom have documented prior mental health issues in one way or another, and about a third of whom have an autism spectrum disorder.
Let's also keep in mind that the symptoms of some mental health problems heavily underly fashions - to a degree where they form their own syndroms. Public awareness and attention play a huge role in this. See the Dance Fever/Dancing Plague of 1518, see the symptoms befalling the girls that started the Salem Witch Trials, see the sharp rise in eating disorders in teenage girls in the 1990's.
So, claiming that the absurd rise in gender dysphoria in adolescents is somehow unrelated to the mental health crisis of adolescents happening at virtually the same time, is actually a rather extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary evidence.
Thank you for your thoughtful response, Chris. I see you're a journalist. I was a journalist in another life (70s and 80s). I now also write on Substack.
Have you covered this topic before?
Anyway, I think the parallels (cell phones > social media > mental health > gender dyspori) are more than coincidence. In fact, remarkable. But I assume the data would have to back this up.
One more thing: I taught Arthur Miller's "The Crucible" when teaching American Lit. So your reference to Dance Fever/Dancing Plague lines up perfectly. "The Crucible" begins with Abigale Williams and other girls under the "spell" of Tituba (Samuel Parris' slave). They dance wildly around a fire, presumably under the grips of Satan, thus beginning the saga of the Salem Witch Trials.
I asked a similar question in the comments without seeing you both have same thoughts. Jim, I would be interested in reading your research piece when you are done! As an educator, I believe that the trend to move away from free play into more non developmentally appropriate expectations in schools at much younger age has also contributed to the mental health crisis...
Thank you, DC. The new piece is an extension/follow up piece from a two-part series I did in Dec. 2021 on Men's Mental Health. My 33 year old son was the "ghost" figure (Average Joe) upon which the series was based.
Here's a link to Part 1. There's a link to Part 2 at the bottom.
And thank you for your initial remark and your kind reply.
No, I haven't covered this issue before, but I'm a dyed in the wool skeptic and have read up on it quite a bit - which hasn't exactly helped me be less skeptic of this development.
Interesting. My Twitter profile reads: "Friendly skeptic." Kindred spirits.
I'm currently working on a research piece about "What's wrong with men and boys?" ... how society has left men struggling and behind on every social measure, and the demonization of traditional masculinity.
> "Trans" was not a thing until after 2010, with the sharpest rise after 2015.
"Transsexuals" have existed for over a hundred years. What's concerning is the drastic recent change in the cohort. It used to be primarily males and that's flipped completely on its head recently.
""Transsexuals" have existed for over a hundred years." Erm... No.
Unlike what transactivists claim, transsexuals did not exist until the early 20th century, when "sex change" surgeries became a possibility. Like practically always in Western societies - or possibly even all societies - supply created demand.
There are some phenomena that look similiar on the surface, such as "Two Spirits" found in some Native American societies, and by no means all, but a thorough analysis always shows that these are quite different things. Usually, these phenomena are ways to interpret some forms of male homosexuality within a highly patriarchal and typically religious framework. Btw, this usually wasn't very nice for those "feminine" gay men shoved into social roles such as "Two Spirits", even though it may have had some benefits as well.
It is always very tempting to connect different phenomena from different societies and in different times when they look somewhat similar, and we all tend to do that. It's just not a very rational way to do that, and it leads to erroneous conclusions more often than not.
The idea that human beings can actually change sex or should do so, is a very Western idea, and if you trace it back to its origins, it is very much connected to how Western societies viewed homosexuality in the early 20th century and to esoteric ideas that were around at the time.
Thank you, Josie, for articulating your experience so thoughtfully. I witnessed some of this as a high school teacher, but not as intimately as you've described.
Dr. Haidt and Greg Lukianoff covered some of these issues in "The Coddling," and Dr. Haidt will further deliniate with his upcoming book "Kids in Space."
My 18yo college freshman girl (homeschooled k-12) told me in a phone conversation that she misses the times in her life when phones were not allowed, meaning that the adults required their absence. Her homeschool enrichment program wanted the kids to interact and prohibited them from campus, as did her summer camp where she was a counselor. She regards those times as peak experiences of friendship and interaction.
My daughter also just started university and was homeschooled K-12. She was looking forward to interacting with new people on campus and is dismayed how little genuine social interaction happens - most are glued to their phone, uncommunicative, introverted, or just superficial when they do interact. The homeschool co-op I organized also had an explicit no phone rule for both students and parents, which led to rich and real relationships.
My two daughters were 12 and 15 in 2012. Thank goodness, my girls didnโt experience the worst of this, but it explains what was going on with many of their peers. Instinctively, I didnโt like cell phones for them at that age, but had no idea how harmful they could be. There was so much peer pressure on them to have iPhones. I resisted for awhile, but by their mid to late teens I had given in--Iโm regretful about that. I hope that this information will go viral among todayโs young parents and there will be a broad effort to change childrenโs access to these platforms, but Iโm pessimistic about getting that genie back in its bottle.
This happened SO quickly - my oldest was born in 2003 and didnโt get a phone until midway through middle school, which was about the average time for our area. I have twin girls who were born in 2009, and they were literally the only children in their 5th grade class not to have phones. So we did get them phones in middle school, but I donโt allow them to have social media accounts. Iโve talked to my children about how quickly things have changed, and how much theyโre living in a world that has technology run amok without really understanding how to deal with it.
Question: This data all clearly points to devastating rises in both absolute and relative terms for our youth and their mental health. Girls are generally most affected. How does this square with recent work published by Richard Reeves highlighting issues of boys and men, mental illness, and suicide, indicating that males are generally tracking worse than females at a population level. Would love to see an integration of these two lines of research if you're able/willing. Thanks so much for your amazing research.
I am curious about that too. Since I've read boys tend to act out in response to stress, I was wondering if reckless behaviors were tracked and if increases have been seen.
While the smart phone is the key inflection point, it's what the smart phone enabled rather than the hardware that is the correlation. The platforms and apps available on a mobile phone are also available on tablets and laptops. It's the mobility of the device, and the ability to access platforms, apps, and forums forf communication in a very private manner - there are many ways around parental security controls and monitoring - combined with the global ease of being a dipshit online, which is not confined to the young or female.
Indeed. Although digital meth might be more apt. Beautiful illustrations.
It was a different time, not long ago, yet feels a great deal more distant.
A fictional idea I'm toying with includes a passing mention of digital dementia - I coined it, I'm bagging copyright - perhaps it's not such a fanciful fictional invention.
I look forward to seeing the differences between Anglo and other areas (e.g., Western non-English-speaking, non-Western, etc.). I wonder whether one contributing factor (intertwined with content consumed on social media) is the historical make-up of Anglo vs. non-Anglo countries.
The โReverse CBTโ theory approach could explain why young adults have become more anxious over time. Some have argued that an increased emphasis on disadvantages, injustices, group disadvantages, etc., triggered this reversal. While those social ills are certainly not new, and while their presence has not increased, their visibility started paradoxically increasing around 2012.
But, could this trend be particularly pronounced in Anglo countries; and, specifically, those countries with a history of โoriginal sinsโ?
In particular, Anglo countries are considered guilty of the โoriginal sinsโ (e.g., one versus many acts of colonialism, slavery, indigenous tribe erasure, or WWII in non-Anglo Germany). These single acts with salient victims and perpetrators might make it cognitively easier to see the world as a battle between good and evil. If one country became concerned with those issues, other countries with similar pasts might follow.
I wonder if one potential rise in girlsโ anxiety could be cultural and roughly traced to differences between those who - either through availability cascades or their own experience - more readily identify social injustices (and group identity-based victims and perpetrators), and those who believe the world is far more complex.
If matters pertaining to these original sins (e.g., discrimination, social injustices) started receiving more attention in 2012, those who reside in Anglo countries (and Germany) might be particularly troubled by those injustices. They might also experience self-degradation if they are told they indirectly benefit from their perpetrator status.
Young women in such environments might be particularly concerned and inclined to do what they can to alleviate these significant social problems. Or, they might feel powerless to do anything.
In contrast, many other places (largely non-Anglo) have far more complex histories, where an observer cannot identify the good and the bad guy, as all have committed atrocities against the other (e.g., see Balkan region). There are no single original sins there, as its whole history is a series of atrocities.
As a result, it is more challenging to accept that the world is comprised of oppressors and the oppressed (and that our country or our group is uniquely malevolent). In these countries with messy pasts, young women might not feel the same emotional burden as their sisters in "original sin countries".
Add to that the public discourse has shifted towards more identitarian explanations and attributions of guilt and victimhood, laden with religious rethorics in the past 20 or 30 years, and most of all in the Anglosphere.
This has come at the cost of analysis and empirical evidence, both of which activists of liberal identitarian movements (aka social justice movements) consider tools of oppression anyways.
It is no surprise that this return of Original Sin affects girls more than it does boys, as girls are still socialised to me more accomodating and more accepting of blame than boys are.
(And it may be added: So called Critical Race Theory, Critical Whiteness and Queer Theory, among many others, have done little to identify the causes of racism or sexism or even its consequences. They just attribute everything and anything to their main talking point, and thus do a tremendous job at obscuring racism, misogyny and other actual social problems, and actively combat people who try to identify and address these problems.)
I have had the same thoughts on the demoralizing and pernicious impact of what I call neo-Marxist critical theory which has made its way into the classroom over the past 5 to 10 years. This educational praxis focuses on how the Oppressors - primarily white and white-adjacent, Cis, male, heteronormative, Christian people - have created and written our global history and how their oppression and colonization have made life worse for the Oppressed class. Then throw in the BLM movement and queer theory and โclimate extinctionโ - made possible because of capitalism and our neglect of the planet and the lives of the frontline oppressed workers - and you get the perfect brew of a mindset sure to create anxiety and despair and self-loathing among the youth in the largely white โfirst worldโ.
It's only that this isn't neo-Marxist at all. This is, in fact, anti-Marxist to the core. These theories are a lot more similar to historical Fascism than to anything ever emanating out of Marxist theory, and these theories share a lot of approaches and basic assumptions with Neo-Fascism.
Oh, another one... While the Nazis called themselves socialists for propagandistic purposes, they were not socialists by any stretch of the imagination. They were also rather outspoken anti-Marxists. They also called themselves as workers' party which they were not. This is the scientific consensus among historians, and you'll find no respectable historian who says otherwise.
You can not understand fascism without socialism inasmuch as fascism was an ideology and movement that specifically arose to squash the workers' movements and socialism. A point can be made that fascists partly copied the structures of socialist parties as mass movements, but that is a structural similarity, not one of intent or policy. And actually, you'll find rather pronounced differences in terms of membership structures. Socialist parties all over Europe were workers' parties, i.e. their members were largely workers. Fascist party members overwhelmimgly came from the petty bourgeoisie, so you'll find lots of shopkeepers, upper level white collar workers, mid-level public service employees, while blue collar workers were starkly underrepresented in their memberships. This is even more true of the Nazis than of the Italian fascists. The same can be said of their voters. As long as there were democratic elections, i.e. before they came to power in early 1933, the Nazis never did very well in areas with a large working class electorate. Nor did they ever make any headway in overwhelmingly Catholic areas, with the exception of Bavaria.
Maybe fascists and socialists can both clarify their goal, and just call themselves "totalitarians". Two flavors of totalitarians, the Socialist Totalitarians and the Fascist Totalitarians. Different roads with different tour guides, but they both take you to the same destination.
Itโs my understanding that critical theory began with the Frankfurt School, which were a group of neo-Marxist scholars who were expelled from Germany as Hitler came to power
Well, what they may call Critical Theory now has little in common with what Critical Theory originally. They at best kept some buzzwords.
Most crucially, Critical Theory never rejected the idea that there is such a thing as material reality, and that we can relate to and describe it, at least in principle. That there is an objective material reality and that it can and actually must be described in the clearest terms available, is actually the core principle of Marxism. While you don't need to be a Marxist to apply or even expand CT, it sorta feels the gaps of classic Marxist theory in terms of cultural theory.
As happens with concepts all the time, it branched out, and some of these branches broke away from the main tree and started their own thing that has little in common with the original - up to the point where you can at best spot some very weak personal continuitiy between say CT and Queer Theory. Such as: Oh, that and that thinker was somehow involved with CT before doing something else and then got into Queer Theory.
Saying that's all the same thing is like saying Christianity is just a branch of Judaism, or Islam just a branch of Christianity. And actually, in terms of their core assumptions, those three religions are a lot closer related than say Queer Theory or Critical Race Theory and original Critical Theory.
One other factor for adolescent girls is an increase in objectification. Female influencers have to post very revealing pictures of themselves on instagram, and the recent TV shows that feature middle/high school protagonists frequently contain X-rated content. These days, almost every female influencer has an onlyfans -- that's as objectifying as you can get. There's a good amount of literature that indicates that being exposed to objectifying content (mostly in the context of music videos) damages young girls' mental health and changes how they view themselves. Is this a key underlying factor in why girls' mental health is tanking? I think this definitely warrants investigation.
This certainly makes for a depressing read. But sometimes reality is ugly, and it's certainly a lot less ugly for us adults who read your post than it is for the teenagers caught up in this mental health crisis.
Note also that we most likely see the fallout from this development in politically highly charged areas, where, ironically, (neo-)liberal demands just make it worse for those teenagers concerned, and again, it is mainly girls - up to the point of sanctioning self-harm of teenage girls obviously struggling with their mental health and shutting down every criticism of it.
It's not that I doubt that the proliferation of smartphones and the subsequent increasing importance of social media as the main cause of and contributor to this crisis - but I also think that there are a number of prior changes in public discourse that make this the perfect storm.
I think it's clear that smartphones and social media in particular have a central role to play here. However, blaming this epidemic on "social media" feels too broad for me. What element of social media is at the heart of this rise in mental health issues?
Is it the algorithms and the way they rob people of any sense of agency over how to spend their time and focus their energy? A loss of agency could surely be a path towards depression and anxiety.
Is it a rising culture of navel gazing, self obsession and living under a constant public scrutiny? We see high rates of depression and anxiety when people acquire fame. Could social media be creating a culture where users are thrust into a micro-fame experience from a young age?
Is it the constant comparison and voyeurism which feeds into cycle of self loathing and low self esteem?
Could it be the "likes" and "follows" which quantifier our self worth and leave us craving external validation?
Is it simply the time suck which then interferes with our exploration of life, relationship and self?
Or, lastly, are young people so over saturated with Dopamine from the constant bombardment of media, that our Dopaminergic systems are completely dis regulated and we are all in a compromised state neurochemically?
There is a lot to unpack here> perhaps it's a bit of everything? Maybe all of these elements combine to make a poisonous cocktail. I for one look forward to seeing how the research delves into the specifics to unlock some much needed answers. Thank you to everyone doing the hard work.
In our holistic healing spa 1997 - 2010 we saw ten's of thousands of people overwhelmed and stressed by the loss of free time and the onslaught of information in digital form. We talked about modeling self-care for our benefit and the sake of our children. Kids were seeing adults untether from Nature and positive self-care choices. Oprah magazine grew thick with ads for pharmaceutical solutions. Celebrity spirituality promised joy for the price of weekend seminar enclosed in an auditorium.
In the mid-1800's there was a diagnosis for depression, irritability, anxiety and nervous tension. The illness was called neurasthenia; the cause was due to overexposure to manmade environments. The cure included sending the sufferer to a ranch out West where they could learn to rope horses. Walt Whitman, Theodore Roosevelt and Thomas Eakins were among those that took this "cure".
The multi-modal, multi-sensory, multi-dimensional richness of Nature cannot be imitated by narrow digital bandwidths.
Too much exposure to manmade digital structures layered on top of mandmade dwellings and vehicles does more harm to our minds, emotions and bodies than we realize.
For these very young people suffering today we need ways to help them experience their potential in being alive and connected to the natural world. Most would be amazed at the wisdom and insights hidden all around us. Guidance, direction and courage can be discovered in the silence of walking, breathing, and sensing the next turn on the path, the next crashing wave, in the shady greens of an aspiring tree, the glorious colors of a fallen leaf, drizzling rain and on and on.
There isn't a medication to cure the illness that comes from a "phone-based" childhood.
What are we going to do about it? What are we going to do to protect our children and save ourselves? It is high time - as the new Chat GPT fad is pushed through our throat - we say no to a world ruled by angorithms.
It will require the modelling of parents, no phone rules at school (this has been successful in France, Australia, and some US states), and getting back to reality.
Stepping out of the vice grip of social media is only a notion if there is something better to step into. Thus the time otherwise spent on phone devotions must be filled with real life counterparts:
Conversation - whatever version of โconversationโ texting and social media burps masquerade as, they are not real. True conversations require bodies, faces, voices.
Boredom - the swipe of a finger on the phone kills boredom - or so many think. It actually is an abyss that spawns boredom, breeding an ever increasing feeling of dissatisfaction and ennui.
Movement - given the range of motion necessary to use phones, our bodies could technically make due with a head, palm, and thumb. It seems blatantly absurd to forego the marvel of our physical bodies for digit swiping. Get active. Walk, run, swim, exercise, play tennis, ping pong, go sledding, bike, etc.
Creation - cruising social media is the antithesis of creating. My daughter refers to social media as โcreative suicideโ. She noted that university students who are glued to their screens rarely seem to actually do anything of interest, they just watch others. Get creative. Use your hands for crafts, knitting, kneading, planting, cooking, drawing, writing, anything that creates and brings ideas to life.
Nature - training eyes on the phone, experiencing reality mainly via a digital filter, deprives the body and the mind of their most basic home - nature. Richard Louv points out that, โThe more high tech our lives become, the more nature we need.โ
Relationship - people who give โlikesโ or contribute to viewer count are tokens, they are not people that we are in relationship with. Surround yourself with actual people. Relationships are sustained not because we uploaded the perfect picture or said just the โright thingโ, but because we invest time, give part of ourselves, make sacrifices, demonstrate faithfulness, share in others pain, joy, struggles, hope, and care enough to do it again. At times virtual connections can act as a surrogate, but they are not the real thing. Strive to make relationships real, because relationships are at the core of what makes us human.
Nagging suspicion here that it isn't the smartphone & parasocial connectivity per se but a conjunction with an emergent political culture that valourises guilt, shame and a righteousness that no ordinary person can really attain. These phenomena interweave and feed each other.
This would make the smartphone downstream of the 'real' problem, rather than its origin. So I fear that (rather as with America's focus on guns) we overlook the biggest problem.
Although I sense that somehow restricting smartphone use would help, just as making assault weapons harder to acquire would too, there's still a problem in western liberal culture.
Fascinating and important work! Convinced social media plays a huge role, but I'd add climate anxiety to the list of stressors on our young. What if, like most human phenomena, there's an evolutionary adaptive function to social contagion among girls and young women? So if they don't feel safe, they don't have kids and that regulates or decreases population in times of fear or scarcity. Think of the breasts on fertility symbols of our ancient ancestors, representing plenty and motherhood, and the fact that girls today are increasingly binding or removing their breasts. Are they like lemmings, instinctively so terrified of an uncertain future that they want no part of continuing the species?
I recently finished Cal Newport's "Digital Minimalism", and there were a few passages I found really insightful:
"๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฃ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ฎ ๐ช๐ด ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ถ๐ด๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ด๐ฐ๐ค๐ช๐ข๐ญ ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐ช๐ข ๐ฅ๐ช๐ณ๐ฆ๐ค๐ต๐ญ๐บ ๐ฎ๐ข๐ฌ๐ฆ๐ด ๐ถ๐ด ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ฉ๐ข๐ฑ๐ฑ๐บ...๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฌ๐ฆ๐บ ๐ช๐ด๐ด๐ถ๐ฆ ๐ช๐ด ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ถ๐ด๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ด๐ฐ๐ค๐ช๐ข๐ญ ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐ช๐ข ๐ต๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ด ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ต๐ข๐ฌ๐ฆ ๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ฐ๐ฑ๐ญ๐ฆ ๐ข๐ธ๐ข๐บ ๐ง๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฎ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ข๐ญ-๐ธ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ญ๐ฅ ๐ด๐ฐ๐ค๐ช๐ข๐ญ๐ช๐ป๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต'๐ด ๐ฎ๐ข๐ด๐ด๐ช๐ท๐ฆ๐ญ๐บ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ท๐ข๐ญ๐ถ๐ข๐ฃ๐ญ๐ฆ. ๐๐ด ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐จ๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ท๐ฆ ๐ด๐ต๐ถ๐ฅ๐ช๐ฆ๐ด ๐ช๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ญ๐บ, ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฆ ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ถ๐ด๐ฆ ๐ด๐ฐ๐ค๐ช๐ข๐ญ ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐ช๐ข, ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด ๐ต๐ช๐ฎ๐ฆ ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ต๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ท๐ฐ๐ต๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ฐ๐ง๐ง๐ญ๐ช๐ฏ๐ฆ ๐ช๐ฏ๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ๐ข๐ค๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ, ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ง๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ธ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ด๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ช๐ด ๐ท๐ข๐ญ๐ถ๐ฆ ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ง๐ช๐ค๐ช๐ต ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ด - ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ข๐ท๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ข๐ท๐ช๐ฆ๐ด๐ต ๐ด๐ฐ๐ค๐ช๐ข๐ญ ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐ช๐ข ๐ถ๐ด๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด ๐ฎ๐ถ๐ค๐ฉ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ญ๐ช๐ฌ๐ฆ๐ญ๐บ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ฃ๐ฆ ๐ญ๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ญ๐บ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ฎ๐ช๐ด๐ฆ๐ณ๐ข๐ฃ๐ญ๐ฆ...๐๐ง๐ง๐ญ๐ช๐ฏ๐ฆ ๐ช๐ฏ๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ๐ข๐ค๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ช๐ฏ๐ค๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐ช๐ฃ๐ญ๐บ ๐ณ๐ช๐ค๐ฉ ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ค๐ข๐ถ๐ด๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐บ ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฒ๐ถ๐ช๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ณ ๐ฃ๐ณ๐ข๐ช๐ฏ๐ด ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ค๐ฆ๐ด๐ด ๐ญ๐ข๐ณ๐จ๐ฆ ๐ข๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ต๐ด ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ช๐ฏ๐ง๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฎ๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ข๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ต ๐ด๐ถ๐ฃ๐ต๐ญ๐ฆ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ข๐ญ๐ฐ๐จ ๐ค๐ถ๐ฆ๐ด ๐ด๐ถ๐ค๐ฉ ๐ข๐ด ๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ฅ๐บ ๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐จ๐ถ๐ข๐จ๐ฆ, ๐ง๐ข๐ค๐ช๐ข๐ญ ๐ฆ๐น๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด, ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ท๐ฐ๐ช๐ค๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ฆ. ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ญ๐ฐ๐ธ-๐ฃ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ธ๐ช๐ฅ๐ต๐ฉ ๐ค๐ฉ๐ข๐ต๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ด๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ต๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ฃ๐บ ๐ฎ๐ข๐ฏ๐บ ๐ฅ๐ช๐จ๐ช๐ต๐ข๐ญ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฎ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ช๐ค๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฐ๐ฐ๐ญ๐ด...๐ญ๐ฆ๐ข๐ท๐ฆ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ด๐ต ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ณ ๐ฉ๐ช๐จ๐ฉ-๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ง๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฎ๐ข๐ฏ๐ค๐ฆ ๐ด๐ฐ๐ค๐ช๐ข๐ญ ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ค๐ฆ๐ด๐ด๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ต๐ธ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฌ๐ด ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ถ๐ด๐ฆ๐ฅ."
This seems to complement Twenge's argument about children's lack of free play. Apart from school, when a child's primary means of connecting with others and developing social skills is through social media, where their frames of reference on how to treat themselves and others is presented in the most superficial and histrionic ways, how much of their growth is stunted thanks to these fast food substitutes?
Anecdotally speaking, I find myself preferring to text people instead of calling them, to have random conversations instead of scheduling a dedicated time to connect with them. It's so gosh darn easy to use these shortcuts when you have a smartphone! Lately I've been trying to encourage friends to text me less and either meet up with me in person or at least have a video chat so we can give each other our full attention. For some, it's very foreign to them!
If smartphones are here to stay, let's make sure we're using this technology intentionally and with discipline so it doesn't use us. If it's hard for a 31 year old like me to do this, I can't imagine how hard it is for young teenagers with much more on their plates!
Social media may not be real life, but the behaviors it and smartphones encourage (fragmented multi-tasking, constant notification checking, social comparisons) are seeping into our real lives whether we like it or not.
I live in Europe and I grew up in the sixties: we only spent time at home to eat and sleep. We walked unsupervised back and forth to school, (30 mins treks, with even younger siblings in tow), always played outside after school (small house). My mother never knew exactly where we were and we only came home when it got dark and for dinner. Sure, accidents happened: I broke an arm, was severely sexually assaulted by a vagrant when I was 5, I saved my 4y younger brother from drowning, kids from another, poorer area raided our yards and one day hit me over the head with a rooftile, etc. But I have not become traumatized, instead, I became a resourceful, self-reliant person. I raised my childen in the exact same way.
So when I read, I think some 10/15 years ago, that american children were no longer supposed to walk to and from school unsupervised, were no longer allowed to roam free and play outside and that neighbors snichted on parents who dรญd allow their children these things and who got demonzide when they did, I felt very suspicious about the agenda behind this obviously undesirable change. Cui bono? Who wanted children to stay cooped up inside all day, in cars, class-rooms and homes? Without free physical activity, but wรญth permanent supervision (part of the programming for Big Government) รกnd permanent access to a kitchen filled with junkfood and a fridge filled with sugar-loaded, easy snacks. (good for big medicine and big Pharma).
What would they fill their time with for the rest of the day? Exactly: watch the MSM-propaganda, play stupid, violent, pre-programming computergames and connect with tjeir peers trhough their so-called "smart"phones" with the exact, disastrous effects as described in the article. Disastrous for their whole being: physically, mentally and psychologically. They become fat, develop diabetes and eczema, they become depressed, they become mentally ill.
Thank you blondbraids. It reminds me of the beautiful letter from FairPlay to Mark Zuckerberg that parents, teachers, politicians, and world leaders should read daily:
It may be tempting to ride the wave of cultural commodification and optimistically tout social media as a useful โtool.โ But with 72% of teens on Instagram and 20% on social media for more than five hours a day, an exercise in spiritual discernment becomes necessary. After much meditation and prayer, we assert that social media platforms that target immature brains, practice unethical data mining, and are inspired by profit motives are not a tool for the greater good of children. Indeed, from the secular side, it is already well established that social media use poses emotional, physical, and psychological harms to children. From increases in depression, anxiety, suicide, sexualization, narcissism, access to pornography, loneliness, and cyberbullying to disastrous impacts on attention, sleep, and healthy development, it is undeniable that social media is irrevocably altering the landscape of childhood. ....
Primarily, the social media struggle is one against presence, attention, and stillness. Amidst Lao Tzuโs proclamation that โIn stillness all under heaven restsโ(Ch. 37) and the Psalmsโ beloved "Be still and knowโ (46:10), countless faith communities emphasize the importance of time spent without distraction. Be it Sabbath, silence, yoga, meditation, or prayer, these moments of reflection offer us a path to something deeper, serving as our foundation for love of a higher power and love of neighbor. Social media โ with its intentionally addictive algorithms, incessant communication systems, and mass commodification of attention โ explicitly counteracts these values. As the Sufi poet Rumi wrote,โsilence is the language of god, all else is poor translation.โ Mother Teresa, too, proclaimed that โWe need to find God and He cannot be found in noise and restlessness. See how nature, the trees, the grass grow in perfect silence โ see the stars, the moon and sun, how they move in silenceโฆโ5Children, with growing minds and bodies, need this time for reflection, unprompted encounters, and mindful, attentive play. If not now, then when?
We believe, too, that this essential childhood play is enhanced when experienced outdoors."
https://fairplayforkids.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/FaithIG.pdf
wow, this is amazing. so useful, and powerful. thank you
That is exactly what it is. We nรฉรฉd silence, and the outdoors, and play, and interaction,, all in their own measure.
We don't need all the "apps" that make life so easy but come at a heavy cost. They are useful, sure, sometimes, but they are also weapons in a bigger game, that has nefarious goals that are only now becoming visible. We have become isolated, vulnerable and dependent on out "tools"
Where did the small stores go? The small banks? With them so many seemingly unimportant activities disappeared as well. We don't know or speak with the carrier, we don't meet acquantainces on thรฉir errands. We don't walk, bike, drive to the stores anymore. I like my GPS, but we used to be able to find our way in the past: we (women) asked for directions ๐, men read maps.
Without us realizing it, the structure of our civilization has unravelled and it has harmed our children.
Amen!
One of the most socially poisonous phenomena of the post-Cold War era has been the destruction of local businesses by the gods of globalization (like Mitt Romney and his Bain Capital and McKinsey among many others), in which we sold off our middle class to Wall Street for vague promises and "the good of the economy".
The fact that in every neighborhood now the local coffee shop, hardware store, clothes store, supermarket etc are owned by global corporations has hollowed out our communities and deracinated our people.
Our business class bought off our political and media class and together they helped sell off our country and siphon away the wages and pensions of the middle class, while they split the profits.
Mammon is the last god left standing.
Elsewhere in this comment section, I posted a response explaining that there seems to be some confusion here between causes and factors that just happen to be present when something collapses. I agree that the factors you all here have mentioned are important, but it is bias that makes us see these last few recent problems as the crucial ones.
It was like this in the US in the 1970s as well. Walk unsupervised across town to school as a 6 year old. Although for me, swap the sexual assault (yikes!) for getting in fights with the locals. When we came back from a fight, parents were interested in who won BTW, not calling the cops or suing the other parents.
Hahahaha, yes, indeed! Although my dad dรญd go after the children/parents who had hit me with the rooftile and caused me to need stitches. They scolded their children, case closed.
Happy days!
ohh the good old days, KB77 ๐๐ผ
i'd like to put my latest post (re: digital heroin) on your radar.
https://opentochange.substack.com/p/growing-up-before-digital-heroin
My spouse is KB76 ... white rose?
Well said
As a homeschool educator I have been fortunate to connect with lots of children who have abundant free play and who tend to connect with each other in real life relationships rather than online. However, they face a challenge when trying to integrate with others who are continually on social media which can be alienating and isolating as well.
It will require the modelling of parents, no phone rules at school (this has been successful in France, Australia, and some US states), and getting back to reality.
Stepping out of the vice grip of social media is only a notion if there is something better to step into. Thus the time otherwise spent on phone devotions must be filled with real life counterparts:
I have been writing about this on my substack - TikTok brain cure with three ingredients https://schooloftheunconformed.substack.com/p/tiktok-brain-cure-with-three-ingredients
Thank you Ruth, you are making a very good point; if the mine is toxic taking the canary out is a first step but as you pointed out short-termed, if it is meant to go back in the toxic mine.
As far as France is concerned: I lived there and have two nieces in the French school. Not sure it was a successful initiative given the research results and the recent bill of the National Assembly to ban social media below 15.
I am also observing here in Italy very brave initiatives like the "Digital Pact" between a group of parents and schools to delay the smartphone until kids are 14 years old.
But like you described, no matter how amazing parents and educators can be, even if it works for their first years, kids will be maladapted once they mix with social-media raised kids. It makes me think about the book "This perfect day" from Ira Levin (1959!!) If they don't get the "dose" they don't fit.
Systemic problems require systemic solutions.
If one puts in the market system a privileged ACTOR entitled to operate and get rich outside the rule of law, through wild private data collection (privacy=free will) and by using malignant algorithms on children (too) - it's a recipe for disaster.
Individual and group initiatives are a great and commendable first step but higher level decision have to be made, decision requiring we give up a lot of convenience and comfort and cheap entertainment. We must cut down consumption of screens in a society model driven by digital toxic model that is multiplying reasons, also in cooperation with States, to be exposed to screen. Are we adults ready for that?
They say in France you can't have the butter and the money of the butter.
yes Ruth ๐๐ผ
i'd like to put my latest post (re: digital heroin) on your radar.
https://opentochange.substack.com/p/growing-up-before-digital-heroin
Thank you for sharing Donald. As a digital minimalist and Italian-survivor (as I notice Italians around me have undergone a sad market-led technology anthropological mutation) I can only appreciate that the message of digital minimalism is being spread. The perversion of the digital system designed by greedy market players (layers of perversion!) is that people who are virtuous users will be considered "anti-modern" or "unfit" instead of healthy people preserving their physical, mental and relational health who deserve respect. Of course "Big Tech Network" codes of behavior are entering our real lives, they were designed to do exactly that by thousand briliant (evil) minds. The questions is, is a toxic business model going to build a healthy society model? Don't we owe it to our ancestors to use a little of the wisdom and courage they passed on to us to change things?
Yes, I have thought this for some time. And now I see it happening. A digital minimizing movement could possibly change the entire landscape. It is hopeful.
yes Sara ๐๐ผ
i'd like to put my latest post (re: digital heroin) on your radar.
https://opentochange.substack.com/p/growing-up-before-digital-heroin
Thank you Darren, I just saved it for my weekly "screen reading time" . Kind regards
๐
i look forward to your impressions, Sara ๐๐ผ
Great work Darren! I was impressed by this creative effective and touching message. Thank you for sharing.
my pleasure, Sara ๐๐ผ thanks for reading...
I am just back from Slovakia where I ditched the women's conference I was there for and instead sat on the sidewalk and listened to people, as I started doing in San Francisco 8 years ago for Sidewalk Talk. And my second day listening only high schoolers sat down and talked. Not a representative sample because they self selected to come to talk to me, were out of the house at a street food market, but they were one generation out of communist rule. So they had a focus that was about thriving rather than social comparison. And that felt marked to me.
But I am write this as a psychotherapist getting ready to go into a day of sessions after another shooting of young school age kids. And I know it will be a topic of conversation. I am readying a paper by psychoanalytically oriented therapists here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/15289168.2023.2167045 And what they highlight that I want to bring in is loneliness as an add on to safetyism and social comparison. And I don't mean run-of-the-mill loneliness but existential terrifying loneliness. This paper suggests teens are being incredibly let down, by us grown ups and authority figures. We have left them to their own devices (pun intended) as a kind of existential abandonment and have not demonstrated any true capacity to help them hold the complexity of their terrifying feelings. We are bubble wrapping them instead of sitting in the muck with them. We are ourselves lack the skills to regulate our own feelings and instead polarize. What signals are we giving teens that the grownups can help them? My teen sons love calling everyone "Boomer" and I hear it is a thumbing the nose at the grown ups who are to blame. They are both angry at the grown ups and also simultaneously need us to act like grown ups, I think. Not by bubble wrapping them but by sitting in the feelings, setting good boundaries and tending human connection as value.
No psychologist or politologist here, but this is most certainly a very valid point.
It seems that many adults have gotten to the point of letting kids do their own growing up - which of course kids can not possibly do. I certainly do not mean to push authoritarian child rearing, but children and adolescents depend on adults for setting limits and examples.
Then again, we have half a generation of middle class parents from 30 to 40 who were taught in college/university that there is no such thing as reality anyways, and that the notion of objective reality or truth is really just a tool of domination. How do you think they raised their kids? And no, I don't even blame these parents, they themselves were fed this viewpoint.
I blame Rousseau, ultimately, the โman born free yet everywhere in chainsโ lie about the human condition. Itโs infected philosophy, psychology, politics, public policy and parenting for over 2 centuries now.
Show me one place where man is not in chains, figuratively speaking, in one way or another. We are a species with contradictory qualities, and each and every one of is. It is the human condition to be aware of it and to struggle with it. That is not particularly to defend JJ Rousseau, but to see us as both born free and restricted by social conditions is per se a pretty accurate analysis. As is the analsysis that we are a social species and could not do with social interaction and social dependency - a point which Rousseau did not stress as much.
What is wrong is blaming much of what has gone wrong in the past 200 years on just one man. From a cynical point of view we could say that all social and political experiments in the past 200 years have largely failed in one way or another. But so have all others before them. By which I certainly do not mean to endorse those kinds of social experiments the liberal-identitarian crowd is pushing for and which are based on ultimately religious beliefs and which have no basis in reality.
Well, I am engaging in a bit of hyperbole, but only a bit. Rousseau was a major thinker and his ideas held huge appeal and still do, whether people are aware or not. He upends Christianity and 'original sin' completely, which the progressives especially like. He assumes unlimited human potential, the 'blank slate' assumption that invites all manner of utopianism, including communism and fascism. The key point about 'chains' is not that his analysis on that score is incorrect, it's the assumption that 'chains' are wholly negative and can and should be thrown off or actively opposed. Like any sort of parental authority, our topic at hand. So that's true, just that it's totally one-sided, not seeing value or necessity of societal traditions or mores, or that there might be a need for some authority. But the actual 'lie' is the statement that man is 'born free'. Clearly, this is nonsense. Human beings are born wholly dependent, not just on parents for survival, but on whole cultures and generations that have past that ensure our well-being. The notion of 'liberation' in the absolute sense that is the legacy of Rousseau is pernicious myth that sets us adrift and leads us into the nihilism of the current moment. Liberation from our own biology! Born free! Of course, in practical terms, it's the mindset we must confront, not necessarily blaming one philosopher or another. That exercise won't reach too many people, but it does help us with understanding where our underlying assumptions come from, or how they evolved.
> Show me one place where man is not in chains, figuratively speaking, in one way or another.
Some chains are heavier and tighter than others.
That is certainly true and I never meant to say otherwise.
thanks for your comment, Traci ๐๐ผ
i'd like to put my latest post (re: digital heroin) on your radar.
https://opentochange.substack.com/p/growing-up-before-digital-heroin
Chris Baumgarten (above) writes โ It seems that many adults have gotten to the point of letting kids do their own growing up - which of course kids can not possibly do. I certainly do not mean to push authoritarian child rearing, but children and adolescents depend on adults for setting limits and examples.โ
My cynical reaction is this: letโs replace Soc8al Media safety wrapping with Parental unit safety wrapping. Sure: change the wrapping, expect different result โ presto, Changi!
No. People and psych researchers must re-think this entirely. The real โteacherโ is hovering and helicoptering parenting. Read Bret Easton Elliโs recent non-fiction book on his life in the 1970s-80s, growing up in SoCal in โThe White Album.โ Once toddlerhood is gone, neighbourhood explorations began for him. โPlayโ like this was ordinary and expected. You were responsible only to check in with parents periodically. And as teens, almost not at all!
Ellisโ SoCal youth was no different than my Upper-Midwest youth โ with the sartorial difference of huge boots, layers and thermal dressage, because of snow and the elements. LET YOUNG PROPLE range freely, from one neighbourhood to the next! This used to be normal! Today, itโs almost all virtual and freighted with angst. No - explore and deal with other people, children and adult! Thatโs how adolescence gets back to normal and capable instead of frozen and ridiculous.
I read "The Coddling" early last year. It opened my eyes surely, but also confirmed something I'd already seen happening in my classroom (I'm now a retired high school teacher). I saw before my eyes a new addiction emerge -- the addiction to smart phones, specifically social media ... especially Instagram and TikTok.
So Dr. Haidt et. al. have seen the correlation with overall teen mental health (i.e. depression, anxiety, self-harm).
I'd be most curious to see if the exponential rise in gender dysphoria correspondes with the mental health data. In 2005, one in 2000 adolescents identified as trans. Now I've seen figures as high as one in five. That's a 2,000 percent rise in gender dysphoria. 2000 percent!
I'd like to see data analysis on the meteoric climb in trans identity, which seems to correspond directly to Dr. Haidt's et. al. research on mental illness.
What we certainly have is a remarkable temporal correlation. "Trans" was not a thing until after 2010, with the sharpest rise after 2015. And again, it disproportionately affects girls - almost all of whom have documented prior mental health issues in one way or another, and about a third of whom have an autism spectrum disorder.
Let's also keep in mind that the symptoms of some mental health problems heavily underly fashions - to a degree where they form their own syndroms. Public awareness and attention play a huge role in this. See the Dance Fever/Dancing Plague of 1518, see the symptoms befalling the girls that started the Salem Witch Trials, see the sharp rise in eating disorders in teenage girls in the 1990's.
So, claiming that the absurd rise in gender dysphoria in adolescents is somehow unrelated to the mental health crisis of adolescents happening at virtually the same time, is actually a rather extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary evidence.
Thank you for your thoughtful response, Chris. I see you're a journalist. I was a journalist in another life (70s and 80s). I now also write on Substack.
Have you covered this topic before?
Anyway, I think the parallels (cell phones > social media > mental health > gender dyspori) are more than coincidence. In fact, remarkable. But I assume the data would have to back this up.
One more thing: I taught Arthur Miller's "The Crucible" when teaching American Lit. So your reference to Dance Fever/Dancing Plague lines up perfectly. "The Crucible" begins with Abigale Williams and other girls under the "spell" of Tituba (Samuel Parris' slave). They dance wildly around a fire, presumably under the grips of Satan, thus beginning the saga of the Salem Witch Trials.
Again, thank you for your reply.
I asked a similar question in the comments without seeing you both have same thoughts. Jim, I would be interested in reading your research piece when you are done! As an educator, I believe that the trend to move away from free play into more non developmentally appropriate expectations in schools at much younger age has also contributed to the mental health crisis...
Thank you, DC. The new piece is an extension/follow up piece from a two-part series I did in Dec. 2021 on Men's Mental Health. My 33 year old son was the "ghost" figure (Average Joe) upon which the series was based.
Here's a link to Part 1. There's a link to Part 2 at the bottom.
https://jimgeschke.substack.com/p/part-1-male-mental-health-masculinity
I believe Part 2 speaks directly to your concerns.
And thank you for your initial remark and your kind reply.
No, I haven't covered this issue before, but I'm a dyed in the wool skeptic and have read up on it quite a bit - which hasn't exactly helped me be less skeptic of this development.
Interesting. My Twitter profile reads: "Friendly skeptic." Kindred spirits.
I'm currently working on a research piece about "What's wrong with men and boys?" ... how society has left men struggling and behind on every social measure, and the demonization of traditional masculinity.
thanks for your comments, Jim ๐๐ผ
i'd like to put my latest post (re: digital heroin) on your radar.
https://opentochange.substack.com/p/growing-up-before-digital-heroin
> "Trans" was not a thing until after 2010, with the sharpest rise after 2015.
"Transsexuals" have existed for over a hundred years. What's concerning is the drastic recent change in the cohort. It used to be primarily males and that's flipped completely on its head recently.
""Transsexuals" have existed for over a hundred years." Erm... No.
Unlike what transactivists claim, transsexuals did not exist until the early 20th century, when "sex change" surgeries became a possibility. Like practically always in Western societies - or possibly even all societies - supply created demand.
There are some phenomena that look similiar on the surface, such as "Two Spirits" found in some Native American societies, and by no means all, but a thorough analysis always shows that these are quite different things. Usually, these phenomena are ways to interpret some forms of male homosexuality within a highly patriarchal and typically religious framework. Btw, this usually wasn't very nice for those "feminine" gay men shoved into social roles such as "Two Spirits", even though it may have had some benefits as well.
It is always very tempting to connect different phenomena from different societies and in different times when they look somewhat similar, and we all tend to do that. It's just not a very rational way to do that, and it leads to erroneous conclusions more often than not.
The idea that human beings can actually change sex or should do so, is a very Western idea, and if you trace it back to its origins, it is very much connected to how Western societies viewed homosexuality in the early 20th century and to esoteric ideas that were around at the time.
> Unlike what transactivists claim, transsexuals did not exist until the early 20th century, when "sex change" surgeries became a possibility.
The first surgical transition was 1921. It's 2023. That's 102 years, ie. over a hundred years.
Thank you, Josie, for articulating your experience so thoughtfully. I witnessed some of this as a high school teacher, but not as intimately as you've described.
Dr. Haidt and Greg Lukianoff covered some of these issues in "The Coddling," and Dr. Haidt will further deliniate with his upcoming book "Kids in Space."
Warmest regards.
My 18yo college freshman girl (homeschooled k-12) told me in a phone conversation that she misses the times in her life when phones were not allowed, meaning that the adults required their absence. Her homeschool enrichment program wanted the kids to interact and prohibited them from campus, as did her summer camp where she was a counselor. She regards those times as peak experiences of friendship and interaction.
My daughter also just started university and was homeschooled K-12. She was looking forward to interacting with new people on campus and is dismayed how little genuine social interaction happens - most are glued to their phone, uncommunicative, introverted, or just superficial when they do interact. The homeschool co-op I organized also had an explicit no phone rule for both students and parents, which led to rich and real relationships.
so sad Ruth.
thanks for your comment, Tricia ๐๐ผ
i'd like to put my latest post (re: digital heroin) on your radar.
https://opentochange.substack.com/p/growing-up-before-digital-heroin
My two daughters were 12 and 15 in 2012. Thank goodness, my girls didnโt experience the worst of this, but it explains what was going on with many of their peers. Instinctively, I didnโt like cell phones for them at that age, but had no idea how harmful they could be. There was so much peer pressure on them to have iPhones. I resisted for awhile, but by their mid to late teens I had given in--Iโm regretful about that. I hope that this information will go viral among todayโs young parents and there will be a broad effort to change childrenโs access to these platforms, but Iโm pessimistic about getting that genie back in its bottle.
This happened SO quickly - my oldest was born in 2003 and didnโt get a phone until midway through middle school, which was about the average time for our area. I have twin girls who were born in 2009, and they were literally the only children in their 5th grade class not to have phones. So we did get them phones in middle school, but I donโt allow them to have social media accounts. Iโve talked to my children about how quickly things have changed, and how much theyโre living in a world that has technology run amok without really understanding how to deal with it.
thanks for your comment, Estra ๐๐ผ
i'd like to put my latest post (re: digital heroin) on your radar.
https://opentochange.substack.com/p/growing-up-before-digital-heroin
Question: This data all clearly points to devastating rises in both absolute and relative terms for our youth and their mental health. Girls are generally most affected. How does this square with recent work published by Richard Reeves highlighting issues of boys and men, mental illness, and suicide, indicating that males are generally tracking worse than females at a population level. Would love to see an integration of these two lines of research if you're able/willing. Thanks so much for your amazing research.
I am curious about that too. Since I've read boys tend to act out in response to stress, I was wondering if reckless behaviors were tracked and if increases have been seen.
While the smart phone is the key inflection point, it's what the smart phone enabled rather than the hardware that is the correlation. The platforms and apps available on a mobile phone are also available on tablets and laptops. It's the mobility of the device, and the ability to access platforms, apps, and forums forf communication in a very private manner - there are many ways around parental security controls and monitoring - combined with the global ease of being a dipshit online, which is not confined to the young or female.
thanks for your comment, Caz ๐๐ผ
i'd like to put my latest post (re: digital heroin) on your radar.
https://opentochange.substack.com/p/growing-up-before-digital-heroin
Indeed. Although digital meth might be more apt. Beautiful illustrations.
It was a different time, not long ago, yet feels a great deal more distant.
A fictional idea I'm toying with includes a passing mention of digital dementia - I coined it, I'm bagging copyright - perhaps it's not such a fanciful fictional invention.
๐
I look forward to seeing the differences between Anglo and other areas (e.g., Western non-English-speaking, non-Western, etc.). I wonder whether one contributing factor (intertwined with content consumed on social media) is the historical make-up of Anglo vs. non-Anglo countries.
The โReverse CBTโ theory approach could explain why young adults have become more anxious over time. Some have argued that an increased emphasis on disadvantages, injustices, group disadvantages, etc., triggered this reversal. While those social ills are certainly not new, and while their presence has not increased, their visibility started paradoxically increasing around 2012.
But, could this trend be particularly pronounced in Anglo countries; and, specifically, those countries with a history of โoriginal sinsโ?
In particular, Anglo countries are considered guilty of the โoriginal sinsโ (e.g., one versus many acts of colonialism, slavery, indigenous tribe erasure, or WWII in non-Anglo Germany). These single acts with salient victims and perpetrators might make it cognitively easier to see the world as a battle between good and evil. If one country became concerned with those issues, other countries with similar pasts might follow.
I wonder if one potential rise in girlsโ anxiety could be cultural and roughly traced to differences between those who - either through availability cascades or their own experience - more readily identify social injustices (and group identity-based victims and perpetrators), and those who believe the world is far more complex.
If matters pertaining to these original sins (e.g., discrimination, social injustices) started receiving more attention in 2012, those who reside in Anglo countries (and Germany) might be particularly troubled by those injustices. They might also experience self-degradation if they are told they indirectly benefit from their perpetrator status.
Young women in such environments might be particularly concerned and inclined to do what they can to alleviate these significant social problems. Or, they might feel powerless to do anything.
In contrast, many other places (largely non-Anglo) have far more complex histories, where an observer cannot identify the good and the bad guy, as all have committed atrocities against the other (e.g., see Balkan region). There are no single original sins there, as its whole history is a series of atrocities.
As a result, it is more challenging to accept that the world is comprised of oppressors and the oppressed (and that our country or our group is uniquely malevolent). In these countries with messy pasts, young women might not feel the same emotional burden as their sisters in "original sin countries".
I am looking forward to the next analysis.
maja graso
There is probably something to it.
Add to that the public discourse has shifted towards more identitarian explanations and attributions of guilt and victimhood, laden with religious rethorics in the past 20 or 30 years, and most of all in the Anglosphere.
This has come at the cost of analysis and empirical evidence, both of which activists of liberal identitarian movements (aka social justice movements) consider tools of oppression anyways.
It is no surprise that this return of Original Sin affects girls more than it does boys, as girls are still socialised to me more accomodating and more accepting of blame than boys are.
(And it may be added: So called Critical Race Theory, Critical Whiteness and Queer Theory, among many others, have done little to identify the causes of racism or sexism or even its consequences. They just attribute everything and anything to their main talking point, and thus do a tremendous job at obscuring racism, misogyny and other actual social problems, and actively combat people who try to identify and address these problems.)
I have had the same thoughts on the demoralizing and pernicious impact of what I call neo-Marxist critical theory which has made its way into the classroom over the past 5 to 10 years. This educational praxis focuses on how the Oppressors - primarily white and white-adjacent, Cis, male, heteronormative, Christian people - have created and written our global history and how their oppression and colonization have made life worse for the Oppressed class. Then throw in the BLM movement and queer theory and โclimate extinctionโ - made possible because of capitalism and our neglect of the planet and the lives of the frontline oppressed workers - and you get the perfect brew of a mindset sure to create anxiety and despair and self-loathing among the youth in the largely white โfirst worldโ.
It's only that this isn't neo-Marxist at all. This is, in fact, anti-Marxist to the core. These theories are a lot more similar to historical Fascism than to anything ever emanating out of Marxist theory, and these theories share a lot of approaches and basic assumptions with Neo-Fascism.
But of course the most famous fascists were the National SOCIALISTS. Two sides of the same coin.
Oh, another one... While the Nazis called themselves socialists for propagandistic purposes, they were not socialists by any stretch of the imagination. They were also rather outspoken anti-Marxists. They also called themselves as workers' party which they were not. This is the scientific consensus among historians, and you'll find no respectable historian who says otherwise.
You can not understand fascism without socialism inasmuch as fascism was an ideology and movement that specifically arose to squash the workers' movements and socialism. A point can be made that fascists partly copied the structures of socialist parties as mass movements, but that is a structural similarity, not one of intent or policy. And actually, you'll find rather pronounced differences in terms of membership structures. Socialist parties all over Europe were workers' parties, i.e. their members were largely workers. Fascist party members overwhelmimgly came from the petty bourgeoisie, so you'll find lots of shopkeepers, upper level white collar workers, mid-level public service employees, while blue collar workers were starkly underrepresented in their memberships. This is even more true of the Nazis than of the Italian fascists. The same can be said of their voters. As long as there were democratic elections, i.e. before they came to power in early 1933, the Nazis never did very well in areas with a large working class electorate. Nor did they ever make any headway in overwhelmingly Catholic areas, with the exception of Bavaria.
Maybe fascists and socialists can both clarify their goal, and just call themselves "totalitarians". Two flavors of totalitarians, the Socialist Totalitarians and the Fascist Totalitarians. Different roads with different tour guides, but they both take you to the same destination.
Itโs my understanding that critical theory began with the Frankfurt School, which were a group of neo-Marxist scholars who were expelled from Germany as Hitler came to power
Well, what they may call Critical Theory now has little in common with what Critical Theory originally. They at best kept some buzzwords.
Most crucially, Critical Theory never rejected the idea that there is such a thing as material reality, and that we can relate to and describe it, at least in principle. That there is an objective material reality and that it can and actually must be described in the clearest terms available, is actually the core principle of Marxism. While you don't need to be a Marxist to apply or even expand CT, it sorta feels the gaps of classic Marxist theory in terms of cultural theory.
As happens with concepts all the time, it branched out, and some of these branches broke away from the main tree and started their own thing that has little in common with the original - up to the point where you can at best spot some very weak personal continuitiy between say CT and Queer Theory. Such as: Oh, that and that thinker was somehow involved with CT before doing something else and then got into Queer Theory.
Saying that's all the same thing is like saying Christianity is just a branch of Judaism, or Islam just a branch of Christianity. And actually, in terms of their core assumptions, those three religions are a lot closer related than say Queer Theory or Critical Race Theory and original Critical Theory.
You have an interesting theory. This is something I have been wondering about, but could not articulate as clearly as you have. Thank you for sharing.
One other factor for adolescent girls is an increase in objectification. Female influencers have to post very revealing pictures of themselves on instagram, and the recent TV shows that feature middle/high school protagonists frequently contain X-rated content. These days, almost every female influencer has an onlyfans -- that's as objectifying as you can get. There's a good amount of literature that indicates that being exposed to objectifying content (mostly in the context of music videos) damages young girls' mental health and changes how they view themselves. Is this a key underlying factor in why girls' mental health is tanking? I think this definitely warrants investigation.
This certainly makes for a depressing read. But sometimes reality is ugly, and it's certainly a lot less ugly for us adults who read your post than it is for the teenagers caught up in this mental health crisis.
Note also that we most likely see the fallout from this development in politically highly charged areas, where, ironically, (neo-)liberal demands just make it worse for those teenagers concerned, and again, it is mainly girls - up to the point of sanctioning self-harm of teenage girls obviously struggling with their mental health and shutting down every criticism of it.
It's not that I doubt that the proliferation of smartphones and the subsequent increasing importance of social media as the main cause of and contributor to this crisis - but I also think that there are a number of prior changes in public discourse that make this the perfect storm.
I think it's clear that smartphones and social media in particular have a central role to play here. However, blaming this epidemic on "social media" feels too broad for me. What element of social media is at the heart of this rise in mental health issues?
Is it the algorithms and the way they rob people of any sense of agency over how to spend their time and focus their energy? A loss of agency could surely be a path towards depression and anxiety.
Is it a rising culture of navel gazing, self obsession and living under a constant public scrutiny? We see high rates of depression and anxiety when people acquire fame. Could social media be creating a culture where users are thrust into a micro-fame experience from a young age?
Is it the constant comparison and voyeurism which feeds into cycle of self loathing and low self esteem?
Could it be the "likes" and "follows" which quantifier our self worth and leave us craving external validation?
Is it simply the time suck which then interferes with our exploration of life, relationship and self?
Or, lastly, are young people so over saturated with Dopamine from the constant bombardment of media, that our Dopaminergic systems are completely dis regulated and we are all in a compromised state neurochemically?
There is a lot to unpack here> perhaps it's a bit of everything? Maybe all of these elements combine to make a poisonous cocktail. I for one look forward to seeing how the research delves into the specifics to unlock some much needed answers. Thank you to everyone doing the hard work.
insightful comment, Julia ๐๐ผ i'd like to put my latest post (re: digital heroin) on your radar. https://opentochange.substack.com/p/growing-up-before-digital-heroin
Really lovely and powerful images. Thank you for sharing.
thanks Julia ๐๐ผ my pleasure
come join us @ open to change
In our holistic healing spa 1997 - 2010 we saw ten's of thousands of people overwhelmed and stressed by the loss of free time and the onslaught of information in digital form. We talked about modeling self-care for our benefit and the sake of our children. Kids were seeing adults untether from Nature and positive self-care choices. Oprah magazine grew thick with ads for pharmaceutical solutions. Celebrity spirituality promised joy for the price of weekend seminar enclosed in an auditorium.
In the mid-1800's there was a diagnosis for depression, irritability, anxiety and nervous tension. The illness was called neurasthenia; the cause was due to overexposure to manmade environments. The cure included sending the sufferer to a ranch out West where they could learn to rope horses. Walt Whitman, Theodore Roosevelt and Thomas Eakins were among those that took this "cure".
The multi-modal, multi-sensory, multi-dimensional richness of Nature cannot be imitated by narrow digital bandwidths.
Too much exposure to manmade digital structures layered on top of mandmade dwellings and vehicles does more harm to our minds, emotions and bodies than we realize.
For these very young people suffering today we need ways to help them experience their potential in being alive and connected to the natural world. Most would be amazed at the wisdom and insights hidden all around us. Guidance, direction and courage can be discovered in the silence of walking, breathing, and sensing the next turn on the path, the next crashing wave, in the shady greens of an aspiring tree, the glorious colors of a fallen leaf, drizzling rain and on and on.
There isn't a medication to cure the illness that comes from a "phone-based" childhood.
beautiful comment, Rhana ๐๐ผ
i'd like to put my latest post (re: digital heroin) on your radar.
https://opentochange.substack.com/p/growing-up-before-digital-heroin
Indeed, "Nature Deficit Disorder" is the real root of the problem. Everything else is downstream from that.
Donโt forget the worst outcome of all in highest numbers: death by suicide. And include gender breakdown of male/female ratio
thanks for your comment, Dr. Paul ๐๐ผ
i'd like to put my latest post (re: self harm) on your radar.
https://opentochange.substack.com/p/not-waving-but-drowning
What are we going to do about it? What are we going to do to protect our children and save ourselves? It is high time - as the new Chat GPT fad is pushed through our throat - we say no to a world ruled by angorithms.
I have been writing about this on my substack - TikTok brain cure with three ingredients https://schooloftheunconformed.substack.com/p/tiktok-brain-cure-with-three-ingredients
It will require the modelling of parents, no phone rules at school (this has been successful in France, Australia, and some US states), and getting back to reality.
Stepping out of the vice grip of social media is only a notion if there is something better to step into. Thus the time otherwise spent on phone devotions must be filled with real life counterparts:
Conversation - whatever version of โconversationโ texting and social media burps masquerade as, they are not real. True conversations require bodies, faces, voices.
Boredom - the swipe of a finger on the phone kills boredom - or so many think. It actually is an abyss that spawns boredom, breeding an ever increasing feeling of dissatisfaction and ennui.
Movement - given the range of motion necessary to use phones, our bodies could technically make due with a head, palm, and thumb. It seems blatantly absurd to forego the marvel of our physical bodies for digit swiping. Get active. Walk, run, swim, exercise, play tennis, ping pong, go sledding, bike, etc.
Creation - cruising social media is the antithesis of creating. My daughter refers to social media as โcreative suicideโ. She noted that university students who are glued to their screens rarely seem to actually do anything of interest, they just watch others. Get creative. Use your hands for crafts, knitting, kneading, planting, cooking, drawing, writing, anything that creates and brings ideas to life.
Nature - training eyes on the phone, experiencing reality mainly via a digital filter, deprives the body and the mind of their most basic home - nature. Richard Louv points out that, โThe more high tech our lives become, the more nature we need.โ
Relationship - people who give โlikesโ or contribute to viewer count are tokens, they are not people that we are in relationship with. Surround yourself with actual people. Relationships are sustained not because we uploaded the perfect picture or said just the โright thingโ, but because we invest time, give part of ourselves, make sacrifices, demonstrate faithfulness, share in others pain, joy, struggles, hope, and care enough to do it again. At times virtual connections can act as a surrogate, but they are not the real thing. Strive to make relationships real, because relationships are at the core of what makes us human.
Great Ruth, I will follow. I sometimes write about the issue. (For example here: https://open.substack.com/pub/historyisnow/p/revenge-of-the-nerds?r=29bmr&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post). My perspective is different, as my field is history (of ideas). My last piece was a specific reflection on what The Righteous Mind might teach us about our experience the past few years, but I do not want to spam it here, again.
Yaaas this!
Nagging suspicion here that it isn't the smartphone & parasocial connectivity per se but a conjunction with an emergent political culture that valourises guilt, shame and a righteousness that no ordinary person can really attain. These phenomena interweave and feed each other.
This would make the smartphone downstream of the 'real' problem, rather than its origin. So I fear that (rather as with America's focus on guns) we overlook the biggest problem.
Although I sense that somehow restricting smartphone use would help, just as making assault weapons harder to acquire would too, there's still a problem in western liberal culture.
Fascinating and important work! Convinced social media plays a huge role, but I'd add climate anxiety to the list of stressors on our young. What if, like most human phenomena, there's an evolutionary adaptive function to social contagion among girls and young women? So if they don't feel safe, they don't have kids and that regulates or decreases population in times of fear or scarcity. Think of the breasts on fertility symbols of our ancient ancestors, representing plenty and motherhood, and the fact that girls today are increasingly binding or removing their breasts. Are they like lemmings, instinctively so terrified of an uncertain future that they want no part of continuing the species?