January 14, 2008: In West Philadelphia, 10 girls attack two other female teens who are waiting for a school bus. Using what is either a box cutter or a straight-edge razor, the attackers slash 15-year-old Shakia West, severely wounding her in the face.

January 10, 2008 In Des Moines, Iowa, a 15-year-old girl is sentenced for a murder. Four months earlier, she had plunged a knife repeatedly into the neck of a 16-year-old acquaintance who died at the hospital soon after the stabbing. When the Judge asked what had provoked the killing, the girl answered, "I stabbed him after I lost my temper and he called me disrespectful names."

If Brown, Chesney-Lind and Stein are correct and girls have always been this way, one can only muse that it's about time such behavior became criminalized, just as it should be for boys. However, if they have not always been this way, why do we see, internationally, such increases in youth violence? Why have so many teens forgotten who they are?

"Almost every day the news carries a story about a stabbing or shooting perpetrated by the young on those more vulnerable," says Vision publisher David Hulme in a recent article titled "Rediscovering the Language of Values." He adds, "It seems obvious that an increasingly materialistic, self-absorbed and morally ambivalent society is failing its children."

On the other hand, wonders the American Psychological Association (APA) on their Web site, "Is youth violence just another fact of life? Are some children just prone to violence?"

To rephrase: Is society really failing its children, or can we place the blame on genetics or emotional immaturity?

As the APA answers its own rhetorical question, Hulme gains an ally. "There is no gene for violence," say these experts, "violence is a learned behavior, and it is often learned in the home or the community from parents, family members, or friends."

Children learn best from people with whom they have secure emotional connections. Neuroscience now confirms what psychologists, parents, theologians and teachers have known all along: strong family relationships and good role models contribute to the formation of the brain, mind, personality and character.

"Mirroring" is one of the first teaching tools available to children. From infancy, we imitate others around us, and each mirroring episode makes a particular neural connection that much stronger. If our role models are compassionate caretakers, we learn compassion and empathy.

But when children experience negligence or witness violent acts, they are more likely to become aggressive and to consider violence an appropriate response when they are angry. As the APA puts it, "The home is the most fertile breeding place for this situation."

In other words, what a child hears, observes and learns in the home is of critical importance.

Hulme writes that among other factors missing in this arena are the building blocks of moral teaching: what he calls the language of values and the terms of ethical discourse.

The APA concurs. "The process by which violence is taught is circular," it says. "It begins in the family, expanding through the culture of the larger society in which a child grows and matures and then again is reinforced or discouraged in the family."

Because we know there is no gene for violence, a society with a violent youth culture must therefore ask some searching questions. Do we as parents know who we are? Do we spend enough time with our children to pass along this understanding? Do our children know who they are?

If they don’t, perhaps we are failing our children. And a society that fails its children fails itself.

Page 2 of 2 :: First | Last :: Prev | 1 2 | Next