A book written by a psychologist that challenges your assumptions about adolescence. 
Teen 2.0, like all books that I try to reserve for my small group of “Best Youth Ministry Books,” is a game-changer. On reading this post by Mark Ostreicher, I decided it was time to pick up this book by psychologist Dr. Robert Epstein. The premise of the book is pretty simple: adolescence, defined as a period of turmoil (and that word is particularly important to the definition) between childhood and adulthood, is an unnecessary social construct and not a required developmental or biological life stage. He goes even further, and spends 400 pages arguing, to say that not only is adolescence not necessary, but it is actually harmful. For those, like me, in youth ministry who have devoted lives to ministry with people in this very stage of turmoil, that’s a pretty big assertion.
Assuming we accept his thesis, how did we get here? How did we create a life stage called adolescence? In Chapter 2 Epstein gives his account, saying that adolescence as we know it today did not exist until modern industrialization, between 1880 and 1920. Child labor laws and public education systems began to isolate teens from adults, causing the aforementioned turmoil that is common during adolescence. When teens started acting out, the reaction was further laws, further restrictions, and further separation between teens and adults. We have lived in a society with this vicious cycle ever since. Epstein says that for most of human history people have gotten married and started working to support themselves soon after puberty. We have come to the point in America when the median age of first marriage is 27.7 for males and 26.0 for females (p. 30). By treating teens like children (Epstein calls this infantilization), we are creating this stage of turmoil. In one of the most provocative sections of the book a study is given which says that modern teenagers have less significantly freedom than prison inmates or soldiers (p. 11), a recipe for rebellion and turmoil.
Each chapter of the book seems to debunk myth after myth, mostly based on competency tests:
- A high percentage of adolescents score above the average adult on a test of “adultness.”
- Intelligence peaks in the teen years and steadily declines throughout life.
- Teens are just as capable as adults to love each other, and there are no studies which indicate getting married at a young age is more likely to lead to divorce.
- Peak physical condition often occurs in the teen years and then diminishes for the rest of life.
- Creativity peaks in early childhood, diminishes slightly, and then peaks again in the teen years, again to decline steadily throughout life.
- Young people have the potential to be as responsible as adults when it comes to things like employment.
In sum, we are not utilizing the capabilities of our most intelligent, strongest, most creative, most responsible citizens by limiting teens to a life where they are required to go to less-than-ideal schools, are not allowed to be significantly employed, and cannot legally make any decisions for themselves. We are not treating teens according to their potential, but are restricting them in a way that is harmful.
Against this, Epstein wants all people to be judged not on age, as in our current system, but on competency. If someone has the wherewithal to work 40 hours a week, they should be able to, regardless of age. If someone is able to understand contracts, they should be able to sign them, regardless of age. If someone understands how our country works, they should be able to vote. I think you get the idea. The implications and suggestions in the book are staggering.
If you are thinking, like I did, about all the research devoted to adolescence and all the studies that talk about the development particularities in adolescence, Epstein provides a fairly broad rebuttal to that body of evidence: almost every single study out there shows correlation, not causation (195 ff). Of particular interest in adolescent research is brain development, and Epstein spends a few pages dissecting a fairly typical teen research study. He concludes with these words:
But it’s also the case that a wide variety of behaviors–meditating, reading, drinking, having sex and so on–literally change the brain. It’s fundamentally wrong to say that all behavior is caused by the brain, and it’s fundamentally wrong to blame all teen behavior on a teen brain. (p. 197)
I’ve only touched on a few of the assertions and implications that Epstein gives in his book. There are many more worth pondering, not the least of them dealing with our education system (if you want a chapter-by-chapter review and discussion, you can go to Joel Mayward’s blog). I need to do a bit more research on my part before jumping in and assenting to everything Epstein says, but he does give some weighty arguments that challenge almost every popular preconception our culture has of teenagers. If you are someone who works with teens, you simply must read this book. We must. There may be a bounty of untapped potential just waiting to bust forth.
I agree that the book is a game changer. As I’ve worked through it my only thought is that Epstein seems to be taking the pendulum from one extreme to another when perhaps a centrist view is probably correct. At the same time, it takes the extremes to move the pendulum weight… so if he did that it is a success.
I thought about that as well, but practically a pendulum swing might be just what we need. A society that looks like the one Epstein suggests is wholly different than our current system. If we are going to move towards the kinds of things which Epstein suggests, it will surely occur in slow and measured steps. Even one area of critique, say education, will take a mammoth effort in itself to change the system. So, the practical implementation of any of this will be slow and steady.
What excites me is that I think that churches have the potential to implement most of these changes immediately and comprehensively. We are often our own mini-societies with out own sets of governance, rules, leadership, etc. Maybe the church could be a microcosm of what the rest of society could look like if we valued teens for the abilities and potential.
I think this is a theologically sound way to move forward in multiple areas as well. This speaks volumes to those of us who seek to do inter-generational ministry.
Thanks for the link love, this book is definitely challenging tons of preconceived notions I had about teens, while also affirming a few I’d been pondering for a long time. I agree with Adam about the extreme pendulum swing–I’m only 5 chapters in and Epstein’s assertions are quite strong and pointed.
I also agree with Matt’s idea that the church can lead the way in influencing the greater culture by creating its own kingdom culture. A culture where teens and young adults are valued as disciples created in the image of God, not as an age demographic or future disciples. A culture where adults and teens love, serve, and worship alongside each other instead of requiring separate venues to accommodate generational differences. It’d have to be a culture of grace and patience, I suppose.
3 points:
1) Correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but the only way to accurately study for causation is to do a double blind study with a strong control group. This is practically impossible for human studies. the best we can do is to imply possible causations. To say that correlation does not equal causation is nice, but doesn’t appreciate the complexity of psychological studies (Hey, i did learn one thing in statistics).
2) Surely societal paradigms are to blame for much of the “adolescence as turmoil”, but that is primarily due to our desire to legitimize our programs for the common good. Rather than wholistically developing family units, governments, churches, and schools desire to be seen as THE place for healthy child/family/society development. In other words, we cannot but help build our own little kingdoms because of our pride.
3) Epstein convincingly argues that adolescence is a social construct, I think many third world cultures demonstrate how constructed it is. That does not change the fact that adolescence is a perceived time of inner turmoil. We can better understand how we got here through Epstein, but need to also recognize that current cultural norms are the water in which we swim.
Out of curiosity, what does Epstein say about current brain research showing physical brain turmoil a la “The Primal Teen”?
1.) Yes. I don’t think Epstein would disagree. But that does mean that correlation can be misleading (think Freakonomics), so he can make room for his argument. His “control group,” for lack of a better term, is non-industrialized third world societies. And, according to him, adolescence doesn’t exist there. It would be interesting to see some brain studies on this group and see if there are differences between brain development in western teens.
2.) I think he’s trying to say that we’re fooling ourselves about working for the common good. And it’s exactly because each little kingdom desires to be THE place that we are in a mess. He’s just diagnosing the issue.
3.) Yes, and Epstein is saying that the turmoil, while real, is not necessary. And in fact, we are significantly under-utilizing a large segment of our population by delaying productivity and meaningful participation in society until age 25 or so.
On The Primal Teen, Epstein would probably say exactly what I quoted above: “But it’s also the case that a wide variety of behaviors–meditating, reading, drinking, having sex and so on–literally change the brain.” Therefore, it is possible infantilization changes the brain. The Primal Teen itself documents research in mice which show that brain development can be altered by not using various portions of the brain. It is not completely genetically controlled. There are important environmental factors at work. Whereas Barbara Strauch reads the correlation in one direction, Epstein appears to be reading it in another. This is why I would like to see some research on brain development of teens in non-industrialized cultures. I haven’t seen any. But I haven’t looked too hard. Seems like that would help to put some more clarity on this debate.
Thanks for contributing to the conversation.
On another note, what is it with JBU grads and Denver Seminary? Melissa Earle and Aaron Elmore are there, I think. Any others?
Oh, and tell your lovely wife hi.
I”m not actually at Denver Seminary at the moment (i did take a year worth of online courses, but they ran out of courses for me to take). Laura Kielbach and Heather Dewberry attend as well. I think people just like Colorado, plus the school is very similar to JBU in it’s doctrine, focus on mentorship, and overall feel. Plus, it has a great counseling program.
p.s. I might be able to score some 3rd world adolescent brains to study 😕 . I’ll probably get thrown in jail for saying that, but I thought it would be funny. Enjoying your blog.
Ahh, I just saw the Denver Seminary thing when I did the facebook stalker thing. You’re right, Colorado wouldn’t be bad.
Please don’t tell me how you will get those brains. I don’t want to know.