We turn today to the self-esteem curriculum that Jean Twenge, in her fine and important book, Generation Me: Why Today's Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled--and More Miserable Than Ever Before
, sees as one of the culprits for some of the issues we see in what she calls "Generation Me" or "iGens."Why she asks did children's self-esteem increase -- according to social science studies about self-esteem -- so dramatically in the 1980s and 1990s? "The short answer is that they were taught it." The Boomers thought children should always feel good about themselves. The iGens are "the first generation raised [reared, Jean, reared] to believe that everyone should have high self-esteem" (53). She illustrates this with a book called The Lovables in the Kingdom of Self-Esteem. In this book the gates swing open if you say "I'm lovable!" three times. She mentions Al Franken's character Stuart Smalley.
How do we teach self-esteem without it turning into self-preoccupation, self-importance, or narcissism?
It's at least clear to me that Twenge is not against healthy self-esteem and self-confidence. She's concerned with it leading to narcissism. "Boomer children," she notes, "in the 1950s and 1960s gained self-esteem naturally from a stable, child-friendly society; GenMe's self-esteem has been actively cultivated for its own sake" (55). It's inherent now to public education -- she found 308,000 items on Google in January 2006 for "elementary school mission statement self-esteem." The educational trend, she observes, is on self-esteem regardless of accomplishment.
Twenge also questions that there is any data that support the view that adolescent girls lose self-esteem. The major study on this concluded that the difference in self-esteem between adolescent boys and girls is less than 4%. Her own study of 105,318 people showed that the difference is more that male self-esteem rises a bit faster in adolesence than does that of females. By college the differences are minimal. She thinks adolescent girls do not have a self-esteem problem (61).
Twenge critiques educational programs that don't offer enough critical feedback to children out of fear of damaging self-esteem. One expression: grade inflation. In 2004, 48% of American college freshmen -- reported having an A average in high school. In 1968, that number was 18%. 70% of college freshmen said their academic ability was above average -- "an amusing demonstration of American youths' self-confidence" (64).
Do you think this matters?
Kids with high self-esteem do not get any better grades. In fact, and this is big for her, good grades enhance self-esteem and this leads to one of her major points: self-esteem (as she seems to be using it) needs to be rooted more in performance. Self-esteem "isn't linked to academic achievement, good behavior, or any other outcome the [California] Task Force was formed to address" (65).
She thinks it is better to focus on skills. She believes we should forget self-esteem and focus instead on self-control and self-discipline. Self-esteem is an outcome not a cause.
She admits that the self-esteem curriculum might help a small minority of kids who have bad self-esteem.
Her conclusion is that the self-esteem curriculum is producing too much narcissism. Her studies show increasing scores in typical narcissistic behaviors and attitudes. In 2006, the average college student scored higher in narcissism than 65% of students in 1987. She's worried about training an army of narcissists than building self-esteem.
Twenge also questions that there is any data that support the view that adolescent girls lose self-esteem. The major study on this concluded that the difference in self-esteem between adolescent boys and girls is less than 4%. Her own study of 105,318 people showed that the difference is more that male self-esteem rises a bit faster in adolesence than does that of females. By college the differences are minimal. She thinks adolescent girls do not have a self-esteem problem (61).
Twenge critiques educational programs that don't offer enough critical feedback to children out of fear of damaging self-esteem. One expression: grade inflation. In 2004, 48% of American college freshmen -- reported having an A average in high school. In 1968, that number was 18%. 70% of college freshmen said their academic ability was above average -- "an amusing demonstration of American youths' self-confidence" (64).
Do you think this matters?
Kids with high self-esteem do not get any better grades. In fact, and this is big for her, good grades enhance self-esteem and this leads to one of her major points: self-esteem (as she seems to be using it) needs to be rooted more in performance. Self-esteem "isn't linked to academic achievement, good behavior, or any other outcome the [California] Task Force was formed to address" (65).
She thinks it is better to focus on skills. She believes we should forget self-esteem and focus instead on self-control and self-discipline. Self-esteem is an outcome not a cause.
She admits that the self-esteem curriculum might help a small minority of kids who have bad self-esteem.
Her conclusion is that the self-esteem curriculum is producing too much narcissism. Her studies show increasing scores in typical narcissistic behaviors and attitudes. In 2006, the average college student scored higher in narcissism than 65% of students in 1987. She's worried about training an army of narcissists than building self-esteem.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I am not sure I understand who the audience is for this book? It sounds very "white bread" or "suburban" to me, and like there are some broad general statements applied to "everyone." This sounds like one of those books by and for white people. From my standpoint, it only addresses part of the K-12 American culture.
I have not read the book; have only read this discussion board. So, I do not like to think this is an exhaustive study either. Correct me if I am wrong.
Further, I know from my studies in higher education, significant numbers of young women decline in their self-esteem/self-worth/self-confidence during their college years. Many do not persist through in the math and sciences...so I do not agree with her broad swath statements.
God looked at what he created and called it good. There's the foundation for self esteem.
I've been critical of some of the discussions in other posts on Twenge's book, but I found this one helpful -- particularly the points about teaching our kids to find self esteem in being created in God's image, and in doing the things he has tasked us with doing. My wife and I have young kids, and we struggle with how to balance the way we build self esteem in them. We try to do things like following the rules of board games, even if it means our daughter loses. And praising them for a job well done, but not all the time, and not excessively. We worry that we won't get the balance right, or miss issues.
It is interesting to juxtapose this post regarding self-esteem along side the other post regarding Genesis 2 and 3. My thoughts:
Some worry that the emphasis on self-esteem taught to the “Generation Me” (where we only play games with no winners, etc.) discourages achievement and undermines “real” self-esteem based on performance and outcomes. While this may be true from a worldly perspective, it misses the point from a Christian perspective. From a Christian perspective, whether or not my self-esteem is healthy or appropriate depends on the extent to which my self-esteem corresponds with this two-fold reality:
Reality # 1 (The Fall):
I am a sinner. The feeble arrow of my life “falls” pitifully to the ground. It does not even hit the target, much less the bulls eye in the middle of the target. In broader anthropological terms, the Fall is a metaphor for the enduring distance between the human condition in its evolutionary struggle to transcend its animal instincts and the teleological bulls eye of the human condition “in Christ”. In terms of Creation as a whole, the Fall is a metaphor for the distance between the state of the Creation in its frustration and futility (waiting with eager expectation) and the teleological bulls eye of the Creation “brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God”.
Reality # 2 (The Garden):
God loves me. As a member of the human race, I am the beneficiary of a Creation Covenant pursuant to which: (a) in addition to lovingly and graciously giving to Creation the ongoing gift of existence, God would give to Creation the perfect gift of God’s Self; and (b) all of Creation, by and through the “sons of God”, by and through Christ as their representative, would accept God’s gracious gift of God’s Self in perfect and transparent obedience and love, all to the glory of God. The Garden is a metaphor representing the fulfillment of this covenant -- the teleological bulls eye.
The only absolute value is God. The only value that exists in Creation is the purely subjective value that attaches to Creation by virtue of God’s covenants and dealings with Creation. God chose to enter into the Creation Covenant in sovereign freedom (i.e., “election”), from the foundation of the world (i.e., before I existed), knowing that the fulfillment of this Creation Covenant would come at a cost to God. Thus, my value, as a created being, is grounded in the sovereign, free and gracious election of God himself. Accordingly, my subjective value to God is impervious to the petty judgments of any created being, including the judgments of Satan and/or myself (which may be indistinguishable). This includes any mental exercise by which I attempt to define myself as “good” or as “evil”.
Thus, my attempt to get self-esteem by eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is completely off the mark. When I judge myself as “good”, I deny Reality # 1. When I judge my self as “evil”, I deny Reality # 2 (for God does not love evil). Moreover, my attempt to get self-esteem from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is inappropriate and unhealthy. It leads to endless cycles of self-serving judgment, self-defeating judgment, self-preoccupation, guilt, self-importance, defensiveness, self-hatred, and narcissism. It leads to death.
However, if my self-esteem is grounded in God’s love (the Tree of Life; Christ), I have no need to judge my self as “good” or “evil”. I can embrace the truth of Reality # 1 without feeling the need to defend myself. And I can stop searching for something in which to ground my worth or value or “goodness” and simply accept the truth of Reality # 2.
Thus, healthy and appropriate self-esteem, from a Christian perspective, is grounded in God, not in achievement, performance and outcomes. But this sort of self-esteem is not completely divorced from outcomes. Self-esteem that is properly grounded in God results from accepting God’s gracious gift of God’s Self (which includes the gift of God’s Spirit dwelling in us) which results in works of Love.
"In 2006, the average college student scored higher in narcissism than 65% of students in 1987."
I can't figure this out. How significant is it? If the average in 2006 is skewed by just a few highly narcissistic students, there could be fewer 2006 students rating themselves highly than the 35% who apparently did so in 1987. Can you give more details?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.