The Coddling of the American Mind
Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt’s The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas are Setting Up a Generation for Failure (2018) came out five years ago and yet its message seems even more relevant today. Published before pandemic fueled parents and youth to even greater levels of anxiety and fear, The Coddling scrutinizes the generational shift on the part of society, schools, and parents that matches the advent of smart phone technology and the rise of social media. Those cultural transformations, the authors argue, led to a generation that equates physical safety with freedom from differing opinions and world views. Their thesis, that American families, universities, and society generally have lost sight of three fundamental truths when it comes to youth; in so doing we have fostered a climate of fragility and safetyism that undermines human resilience and encourages anxiety, us-vs-them culture, and rebrands discomfort and disagreement as unsafe. If their book was a must-read pre-pandemic, it is utterly imperative today.
While this contemporary nonfiction pairs philosophy and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) techniques with ample social science research to paint a gloomy state of today’s coming-of-age generation (iGen), they conclude this book with three inspiring chapters full of guidance and solutions. Essentially this is a book that argues for greater freedoms in childhood (to make mistakes and experience discomfort), more robust education systems that foster debate rather that group-think, even when divergent ideas and perspectives make some or most students/faculty uncomfortable, and society that emphasizes our common humanity rather than our common enemies. It is a book for parents, teens/young adults, and educators. It is a book, in fact, that I’m placing on my must-read for all Americans list.
In The Coddling, I found evidence of some of my worst nightmares for our society and university culture specifically; thankfully, I also noted so many incredible resources, ideas, and solutions. And I, like so many middle-of-the-road Americans, long for solutions. My husband and I have noted with increasing concern the call-out culture that our nearly-eleven-year-old daughter brings home. Like most of her peers, she has learned, at ten, to claim that anything about physical bodies might be “body-shaming;” that any discussion of race is “racist;” and that any distinction made between genders is “sexist.” Not only that, she voices those thoughts defiantly and without reflection, as do nearly all her friends. Over the past decade or so, any inkling of cultural discomfort, of language that inspires critical thought, of reference to uncomfortable themes, seems to have been branded with some pejorative “ism” and all related conversations shelved (or shamed). Twenty-first-century coming-of-age, as I’m witnessing with my daughters and their friends, in the schools I work in, and in the pages of books like The Coddling of the American Mind, has increasingly become a state of citizens policing other citizens. Culture encourages youth to watch for moments to call out others’ insensitivities; the more public the call-out, the greater the applause and validation. Pejorative terms like “a Karen” or “a Boomer,” are thrown around like the bully-terms of the 1980s playgrounds on which I played as a child; sadly, this name-calling is modeled by adults as well as children and youth. As authors Lukianoff and Haidt demonstrate, the logical end is an intolerant monoculture that suppresses free-speech, particularly among liberally-minded youth and educators, for fear of saying the wrong thing. Thus, we arrive at a moment when allies say nothing rather than mistakenly say something that might be perceived as offensive, insensitive, or unself-consciously privileged.
That is certainly not to say that the concerns that underlie these “isms” are not valid, constructive, and needed. On the contrary, I would be the last to argue that a “mansplainer” should not be challenged to reflect upon his repeated and unnecessary explanations of the obvious (particularly when directed to women). I cringe just as much as anyone when someone misspeaks or reveals racist perspectives. Conversation and honest reflection are necessary; unfortunately, call-outs create a culture of defensiveness that does not lend itself to growth. Like Haidt and Lukianoff, I believe our culture can only progress as we acknowledge and identify these moments of discomfort and find charitable ways to educate and support one another to be better. Yet, the call-out culture and the heightened sensibilities around any issues pertaining to individual bodies (weight and shape, gender identification, mental/physical ability, race. . . the list goes on and on) draws smaller and smaller circles around each of us rather than one big circle of common humanity that encompasses us all. The logical end place for this cultural trend is lonely, and by extension anxious and depressed; we will all exist with our tiny tribes on islands of fiercely guarded identity fearful of everyone else.
The Coddling identifies a shift that emerged in identity politics and social justice movements in the second decade of the twenty-first century. No longer is intent the bottom line when it comes to instances of perceived slight; rather impact has become the standard. If individuals perceive another’s words, emails, social media posts, etc. as negatively impacting them, they now have grounds to publicly call out that assailant, to rally, to demand retribution. In extreme, cases some have found grounds to riot (and in some disturbing instances, the powers legitimized those grounds by failing to criminalize riotous actions, even when individuals were physically hurt and property seriously damaged). With this shift, Haidt and Lukianoff argue, social justice movements shed the “common humanity” model of successful twentieth-century movements like the Civil Rights movement, and assumed a “common enemy” model. When anyone and everyone is a potential enemy, is it any wonder that we are witnessing a growing trend of hate speech? There are those who have always rallied around “common enemy” movements (white supremacists or the Nazis come to mind), but, of late, American progressivism seems to have adopted a similar model: there are oppressors in the world who are our enemy and, therefore, it is our duty to publicly call any perceived slights out. The tribalism at work on both sides of the political spectrum, The Coddling points out, lead to a cultural milieu in which critical thought diminishes, replaced by silence or group-think terms that through overuse threaten to become meaningless.
The Coddling begins by looking at diminishing freedoms of speech on university campuses across America, particularly those located in the most liberal of communities. As the authors make their case, they dive deeper into the roots of this growing trend toward safetyism and away from resilience. They examine the shifts in parenting and schooling since the 1990s. Haidt and Lukianoff use examples like the restrictive response many schools imposed in the face of increased peanut allergies among students in the early aughts to point out times when well-intentioned reactions only exacerbated the problem. We now know that allergies increase as contact with various substances decreases; hence, school responses to peanut allergies demonstrate the hygiene hypothesis: “the leading explanation for why allergy rates generally go up as countries get wealthier and cleaner” (21). As The Coddling acknowledges, anaphylactic allergies present real concerns for physical safety and it is appropriate for schools and families to take those concerns seriously; yet, even when physical safety is on the line, sometimes our best intentions lead to the opposite of intended outcomes. Then, The Coddling compares that response to the increase in microaggression training and “safety” culture, all of which focuses on language. What’s more, cognitive behavioral therapists have proven that to heal from trauma, individuals must face it, not hide from it. One person’s words cannot physically harm another person; insisting that they can misrepresents the power another’s thoughts and verbiage need have on anyone. This is the fundamental belief underlying the culture of fragility within which iGen youth have come of age. In an attempt to protect individuals from moments of discomfort, from hateful speech and ideas, we have sent the unintentional message that what doesn’t kill us makes us weaker, that our wellbeing and self-worth depends upon external factors, not internal ones.
Ultimately, The Coddling hones in on three Great Untruths, as they term them: “[T]he Untruth of Us Versus Them: Life is a battle between good people and evil people—a worldview that makes them fear and suspect strangers. [. . . ;] the Untruth of Emotional Reasoning: Always trust your feelings [. . .; and] the Untruth of Fragility: What doesn’t kill you makes you weaker” (177). Lukianoff and Haidt make a very compelling argument that these untruths act as the foundation for paranoid parenting, the growing culture of safetyism, and the resultant (and crippling) call-out culture that lacks tact, charity, and a focus on growth. Anyone familiar with the state of American culture, politics, and schools can certainly agree that we have work to do; the current state of affairs is unsatisfactory. The Coddling of the American Mind presents an excellent framework through which change becomes more tangible and less overwhelming. Just as cognitive behavioral therapy provides individuals with the ability to move out of trauma, anxiety, and self-limiting mental loops, The Coddling of the American Mind may present Americans with the tools needed to reclaim our resilience and avoid the trappings of fragility in the future.
Bibliography:
Haidt, Jonathan and Greg Lukianoff. The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas are Setting Up a Generation for Failure. Penguin Press: 2018.
A Few Great Passages:
“[O]verprotection is just one part of a larger trend that we call problems of progress. This term refers to bad consequences produced by otherwise good social changes. It’s great that our economic system produces an abundance of food at low prices, but the flip side is an epidemic of obesity. It’s great that we can connect and communicate with people instantly and for free, but this hyperconnection may be damaging the mental health of young people. It’s great that we have refrigerators, antidepressants, air conditioning, hot and cold running water, and the ability to escape from most of the physical hardships that were woven into the daily lives of our ancestors back to the dawn of our species. Comfort and physical safety are boons to humanity, but they bring some costs, too. We adapt to our new and improved circumstances and then lower the bar for what we count as intolerable levels of discomfort and risk. By the standards of our great-grandparents, nearly all of us are coddled. Each generation tends to see the one after it as weak, whiny, and lacking in resilience. Those older generations have a point, even though these generational changes reflect real and positive progress” (13-14).
“Sages [they give Buddha, Epictetus, Milton, Shakespeare, and late Roman Boethius as examples] in many societies have converged on the insight that feelings are always compelling, but not always reliable. Often they distort reality, deprive us of insight, and needlessly damage our relationships. Happiness, maturity, and even enlightenment require rejecting the Untruth of Emotional Reasoning and learning instead to question or feelings. The feelings themselves are real, and sometimes they alert us to truths that our conscious mind has not noticed, but sometimes they lead us astray” (34-35).
“Identity can be mobilized in ways that emphasize an overarching common humanity while making the case that some fellow human beings are denied dignity and rights because they belong to a particular group, or it can be mobilized in a ways that amplify our ancient tribalism and bind people together in shared hatred of a group that serves as the unifying common enemy” (60).
“Social media amplifies the cruelty and ‘virtue signaling’ that are recurrent features of call-out culture. (Virtue signaling refers to the things people say and do to advertise that they are virtuous. This helps them stay within the good graces of their team.)” Mobs can rob good people of the conscience, particularly when participants wear masks (in a real mob) or are hiding behind an alias or avatar (in an online mob). Anonymity fosters deindividualization—the loss of the individual sense of self—which lessens self-restraint and increases one’s willingness to go along with the mob” (73).
“In an optimally functioning dignity culture, people are assumed to have dignity culture, people are assumed to have dignity and worth regardless of what others think of them, so they are not expected to react too strongly to minor slights. Of course, full dignity was at one time accorded only to adult, white men; the rights revolutions of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries did essential work to expand dignity to all. This is in contrast to the older ‘honor cultures,’ in which men were so obsessed with guarding their reputations that they were expected to react violently to minor insults made against them or those close to them – perhaps with a challenge to duel. In a dignity culture, however, dueling seems ridiculous. People are expected to have enough self-control to shrug off irritations, slights, and minor conflicts as they pursue their own projects” (209).
“You cannot teach antifragility directly, but you can give your children the gift of experience—the thousands of experiences they need to become resilient, autonomous adults. The gift begins with the recognition that kids need some unstructured, unsupervised time in order to learn how to judge risks for themselves and practice dealing with things like frustration, boredom, and interpersonal conflict. The most important thing they can do with that time is to play, especially in free play, outdoors, with other kids. In some situations, there may need to be an adult nearby for children’s physical safety, but that adult should not intervene in general disputes and arguments” (237).
