Unless my memory is playing tricks on me (and at my age of more than 70, memory is likely to do that if it is functioning at all), I was taught as a child to believe that adults were in charge.  They not only controlled the money; they controlled the decision-making and the rules for behavior as well.  Oh, sure, they may have asked for my viewpoint occasionally, but that was a rare privilege, and I somehow knew that, if my viewpoint or preference did not coincide fairly well with what my parents had already decided, it wouldn't carry much weight.

I'm sure that I was not altogether happy with this arrangement some of the time, but I accepted it as the way the world worked.  Just about all of my peers suffered under the same adult "tyranny."  It wasn't anything we were taught; it was something we took for granted.  We all looked forward, of course, to the day when we would be "all grown up" (a time that often seemed very remote) and could do anything we damn well pleased.  It was quite clear to us, however, that this was not the prerogative of children.

The rules – if there are any at all – are apparently quite different now.  We are subjected to "the tyranny of the young."  Children behave like wild animals in public places; the adults accompanying them either ignore the misbehavior or voice occasional reprimands to which the children pay no heed.  When adults are talking, children may butt in at any time, blurting out whatever they like and expecting all attention to shift to them; rarely are such interruptions preceded by "Excuse me."  Teens are entitled to almost complete freedom; the idea of any kind of curfew is as old-fashioned as the horse and buggy.  This complete lack of restraint carries over into the classroom, where teachers spend more time trying to enforce discipline than teaching.  Self-discipline is unheard of; self-esteem is all that counts.

Naturally, whenever anyone over forty comments on such matters, he or she is said to be voicing the traditional lament of the older generation that the younger generation is going to hell in a handbasket.  Those of us who do express such concerns are treated like the grandfather who claims that he walked five miles to school every day, often in a raging blizzard.  Even when other adults grant that there is some evidence to support our observations, we are told that this may be true of other people's kids but not of theirs.  (It is not surprising that a generation raised with little responsibility tends to shirk responsibility in the raising of its children.)  While it is true that the older generation always has and always will find fault with the next generation – and that the younger generation will, in many respects, surpass its predecessors in creativity and achievement – such a defense does not disprove the evidence that out-of-control children are nowadays in control.

It is therefore notable that some experts, clinical psychologists who work with children and observe the dynamics of the family, are beginning to express concern about "an upside-down/inside-out power structure where, in simplest terms, kids rule."*  One of these psychologists, Dr. Beth Grosshans, thinks that this "power turnaround" began about four or five decades ago (that would be around the 1960s), when "experts started to encourage parents to pay attention to feelings, to make children's self-esteem a priority, and to offer unconditional love."  These, she admits, are all "laudatory goals," but she believes that they have been carried to extremes, resulting in children who are "indulged, unruly . . . self-absorbed and self-centered."  The emphasis on self-esteem rather than discipline or self-discipline has also penetrated the schools.

In my opinion, nobody who has observed children and teens today can deny that such a shift has occurred.  The reasons why youngsters are out-of-control and undisciplined, however, are undoubtedly more numerous than the above theory suggests – although undue emphasis on self-esteem is certainly a major factor.  As Dr. Grosshans notes herself, the trend toward inflating children's self-esteem and pampering them coincided with the increase in the number of working mothers and two-income families (and, on another front, an increase in single-parent households and divorce).  This was a formula for the decline of parental authority.  Many a mother was probably guilt-ridden about neglecting her children and probably pampered them all the more when she was around, and when both parents are working 40-hour weeks, there isn't much time or energy to exert parental authority and discipline.  Anyone who has raised children knows that the course of least resistance is to let them have their own way – and that essentially means turning the reins over to them.

That is not good for anyone.  Parents who believe that they are doing their children a favor by letting them do what they please, with fewer and fewer limitations on what that is, are setting them up for trouble.  Children, by definition, are not mature or experienced enough to make wise decisions.  To be sure, parenting involves guiding children gradually to the point where they can make mature choices, but we don't do that by giving them carte blanche.  Certainly, we must give children as they grow into their middle and late teens enough autonomy to make the kinds of mistakes that we all make so that they can learn from them; however, they won't learn if, on one hand, we allow them to run rampant and if, on the other, we insulate them from the consequences of their rampages.  How are they to learn that bad behavior has bad results or that self-centered, ego-driven actions can eventually turn them into arrogant, lonely, and antisocial beings if we don't show them early in their lives that such behavior and attitudes have negative consequences?

Of course, there is always the possibility that our society is being reshaped in such a way that many types of bad behavior are being tolerated and therefore have no dire consequences.  When courtesy and civility are no longer important, why should anyone bother to be courteous or civil?  When self-centered, ego-driven individuals rise to the top of the heap, often by trampling on others, aren't we giving our children the right lesson by teaching them to care only about themselves?  Indeed we are – if that's the kind of society we want them to live in and the kind of life we want them to live.

Perhaps we are already there.  We didn't intend to raise disobedient, unruly, and irresponsible children, but we have.  We wanted them to have self-esteem, so we refrained from being critical, even when what they did was foolish or wrong.  We wanted them to develop questioning minds, but we went too far and taught them to question all authority.  We wanted them to like us, so we adopted their immature values instead of leading by example.  We wanted them to be assertive, but we raised them only to be rude.  We wanted them to have what they needed to be independent, but by giving them everything, we ironically made them more dependent.  We wanted them to have what we did not have, so we gave them all the material things we could afford, asking for nothing in return.  We wanted them to succeed, but, instead of teaching them the rewards of hard work, we taught them how to play the angles.  Now, as we observe the fruits of this kind of parenting, we wonder where we went wrong.

We are sowing what we reaped.

*References are to an article headlined, "Going 'Beyond Time-Out with Kids," by Sally Friedman in The Lawrence Ledger (June 19, 2008).  The article summarizes views expressed by Dr. Beth Grosshans, a Princeton therapist, in Beyond Time-Out: From Chaos to Calm (Sterling: 2008).