The Case Against Adolescence: Rediscovering the Adult in Every Teen

by Robert Epstein

This groundbreaking book argues that adolescence is an unnecessary period of life that people are better off without. Robert Epstein, former editor-in-chief of "Psychology Today," shows that teen turmoil is caused by outmoded systems put into place a century ago which destroyed the continuum between childhood and adulthood. Where this continuum still exists in other countries, there is no adolescence. Isolated from adults, American teens learn everything they know from their media-dominated peers--"the last people on earth they should be learning from," says Epstein. Epstein explains that our teens are highly capable--in some ways more capable than adults--and argues strongly against "infantilizing" young people. We must rediscover "the adult in every teen," he says, by giving young people adult authority and responsibility as soon as they can demonstrate readiness. This landmark book will change the thinking about teens for decades to come.

Genres: Psychology, Parenting, Nonfiction, Education, Childrens, Unfinished, Sociology

512 pages, Hardcover

First published March 1, 2007

About the author

Robert Epstein is a senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology in California. He is the author of 15 books, and the former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today.

Reviews

[Private Account · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is almost identical to Escape From Childhood. There are a few extra recommendations in the end since this book was written a few decades after Escape From Childhood, but otherwise they say the same things, just in opposite ways. EFC appeals to common sense, fairness, and rationality; this book uses scientific studies to justify the exact same ideas. Epstien even says at the end something along the lines of how he is not all emotional and crazy like John Holt, which is extremely entertaining as he goes to on to propose almost exactly what Holt did. The main difference, why Epstein doesn't think he is crazy, is because he thinks all children and teens should be given thorough "competency" tests before they are given the basic human rights both he and Holt think they should have. Though this idea appeals to me as I imagine I am the person writing the competency tests, the truth is... it won't be me. It will be some awful government bureaucrat being manipulated by giant corporations similar to when I was studying nutrition and had to answer on a test that aspartame is not dangerous to humans and sugar isn't bad either.

[Nathan Qi · Rating 3 out of 5]

As a 25-year-old, I find it interesting that adolescence, for much of history, was a much shorter stage of life and that young people were integrated into adult society much earlier. I certainly disagree with many people in 2023 who mindlessly believe that anyone under age 25 is a child with an underdeveloped brain.

However, my main criticism is that Epstein shows little understanding of other cultures outside of the West. His thesis is that American teens are troubled because of infantilization (treated as children well past puberty). While he has lots of evidence to support his thesis that teens are competent (and early 20s as well), Dr. Epstein shows little understanding of other cultures. He is unaware of the fact that most other cultures outside of the West are much more collectivist in nature and place much less emphasis on individual rights and autonomy.

Dr. Epstein's argument is very American in nature, emphasizing the need for freedom, autonomy, and rights. While I agree that teens should definitely NOT be overprotected and that proposals to raise the legal age to 21-25 are absolutely disgusting, Epstein seems to have a poor understanding of other cultures. He cites the fact that over 100 cultures around the world do not have words for adolescence and that adolescent turmoil is non-existent in most of these places. While that may be true, Epstein seems to not understand the reasons as to why. It is true that in many other cultures (outside the West, especially in poor countries), young people are integrated into adult life well before age 18.

However, this is largely due to economics. A technologically advanced Western World simply requires more education to survive as an adult. Not obtaining a HS diploma closes off most doors for you. This is what Epstein misses out on; he ignores the economic side of a highly developed country such as the United States (the Western World in general). I certainly have criticisms about the education system and perhaps we could make changes to help young people start transitioning into adult life in their early-mid teens instead of starting at 18.

Epstein seems unaware that most other cultures outside of the West do NOT emphasize freedom and individuality. While he rightfully cites the examples of teens in history and in the rest of the world performing great feats, he is unaware of many barbaric practices that many non-Western cultures practice such as forced/arranged marriage. Epstein endorses early marriage, not aware of the fact that many cultures that practice such usually force young women into marriages against their will.

The worst part? Epstein's solutions. Aside from a few reasonable changes (education, criminal justice system), Epstein offers TERRIBLE solutions. His solution to the problem? Replace age limits for adult rights with COMPETENCY TESTS. He wants everyone to have to pass a COMPETENCY TEST before being allowed to have sex, drink alcohol, smoke, and get emancipated (recognized as legal adults). His definition of a legal adult? One who has passed a competency test.

I cannot tell you just HOW MUCH WORSE and HOW MUCH MORE COMPLEX things will become if we adopt Epstein's proposals. He does not take into account that some people have learning disabilities and have trouble taking tests. How will we deal with people in their 20s, 30s, and beyond who CANNOT pass emancipation tests? In many ways, his solutions will only WORSEN the infantilization crisis.

[Grandt White]

My conscience doesn’t allow me to give this book a positive rating. Nor does my logical side. I sympathize with what Robert Epstein is trying to do here but he makes a few grave mistakes.

1.) with a straight face, he sits here and essentially says that we as a society don’t treat teens like humans, but rather we treat them like children. He doesn’t use these exact words but in any case that is really the premise of this book. And that begs the question, why is being treated like a child in this society bad? Upon even the slightest examination one will realize that being treated as a child in this society means to have so many freedoms stripped away, and to be treated as property of one’s parents. Perhaps we should address this fact before we seek to filter teens into adulthood (adulthood, by Epstein here, is almost being used as a stand in for human here).

2.) another thing that Mr Epstein essentially says, is that we as a society see teens as children. He also says that adults and teens should be allowed to have sexual relations without repercussions to the adult. But this begs another obvious question: if adults see teens as children, then what kind of adult wants to have sexual relations with a teen? Oh, a pedophile? Well shit, seems like Robert Epstein is just defending pedophiles. I believe his counter would be that these specific adults must be treating teens as adults, otherwise why would they desire sexual relations with them? This is remarkably naive.
He is not wrong when he asserts that teens who are in love are seen by society as experiencing a type of love best described as puppy love. I think a more accurate, albeit much more disturbing reading of adults who desire sexual relations with teens is that they too see teen love as puppy love, and they have a thing for being the recipient of this kind of love. When society sees teens who are in love, we see it as infatuation, and, again, I think the type of adults who are sexually interested in teens also believe the type of love teens experience to be infatuation and they, in fact, like the feeling of having someone be “infatuated” with them. And, also, what if the kind of adults who want sexual relations with teens do not in fact see those teens as adults but rather like the fact that said teens are children. What if they are just pedophiles. I don’t know, food for thought. Epstein simply ignores the type of adults who want sexual relations with teens. He doesn’t examine their motives at all, which is a grave mistake.

3.) HE ATTACKS CLUELESS. He repeatedly uses the perfect film Clueless as a negative example of media trying to keep teens infantalized and like, no. As if! Cher Horowitz is actual very smart and competent, I don’t even think Robert Epstein watched the film I think he just saw the title and made assumptions.


One point for him though: he admitted that Bobby Fischer, chess legend, was super antisemitic. And that’s more than I can say for some. Cough cough, drunk history, cough cough. Anyway, I’m wasting everyone’s time, there’s a lot more I could say about Robby Eps but I’ll leave it here.

[Jessica Zhang · Rating 4 out of 5]

Amazing book, and I'm glad to have read it. This book is a must-read for all parents, teachers, psychologists, psychiatrists, and anyone who works with teens on a regular basis. Dr. Robert Epstein is one of the few who has taken a stand against the infantilization of teens, and has taken notice of the fact that today's teens are subject to tremendous amounts of restrictions and government control.

Epstein presents loads of evidence in this book to support his arguments against harmful teen myths, such as teen brains and teen recklessness. In most societies, teen turmoil is non-existent as teens are integrated into adult society early on in life. They get married and have children. Common sense tells us our teens are far more capable than we think. If our ancestors had children shortly after puberty, this means our teens are extremely capable. Otherwise, humanity would have died out.

This book is packed with evidence, and the author is careful to back up everything he says with evidence. It saddens me that Epstein's views are not shared by the majority of mental health professionals. Although Epstein and a few others have stood up against the teen brain theory and have published compelling studies to debunk teen brains, it seems that the teen brain theory is the dominant view. Epstein has admitted that his views are not shared by most other professionals, and why?

Simply because of financial interests. If we admitted the truth of Epstein's words that teens are capable, we'd have to tear down the entire system. At the end of the book, Epstein lists the enemies of teens. Who are they? Everyone. School system, politicians, religions, NGO's, mental health professionals, and of course, parents. In short, everybody.

Far too many people are earning their livelihood with the current system. Teachers, mental health professionals. Mental health professionals especially have financial interest in promoting the fraudulent teen brain, and G. Stanley Hall's idea that teens are irresponsible and stupid. Why? That allows them to sell their services. After all, defective brains causing bad behavior is grounds for treatment, correct?

My only disagreement with Epstein are his solutions. His solution to the problem? Competency tests. He wants teens to take tests to prove they're competent enough to be adults, to smoke, drink, drive, have sex, get married, etc. This will cause untold amount of complexities.

My solution is simply to outright abolish age restrictions and allow teens to join the adult world.

[Nancy · Rating 1 out of 5]

I picked up this book because I agree with what I thought to be the author's premise that adolescents are capable of much more than they generally have the opportunity to demonstrate and that adolescents are, to their detriment,too strictly isolated into same-age peer groups. However, many of Dr. Epstein's arguments are laughably offensive. Using notorious cases of adult/teen statuatory rape is not an effective way to promote the concept that teens are capable of mature sexual relationships! From the introduction, where the author cites his teenage son, who, he admits, has stolen his car on multiple occasions and uses recreational drugs, as an example of a mature teen capable of adult responsibilities to his advocacy of corporal punishment in schools and at home, this book is not worth the time it took to read it.

[Yupa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Non secondo l'età, ma secondo le capacità

Commento bello lungo, ma il libro è grosso e denso e i temi che tratta meriterebbero molte molte altre parole...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Le quattro stelle sono per l'intento del libro, che preso nella sua globalità condivido. E che compensa, a mio avviso, tutti i suoi difetti (ce ne sono) e diverse premesse che, diversamente dall'intento, non condivido o mi lasciano dubbioso. Ma fatta la tara, le quattro stelle rimangono.

Le quattro stelle rimangono, perché quella di Epstein è una tesi coraggiosa, e decisamente controcorrente rispetto a tendenze così radicate nel nostro tempo da essere quasi inavvertibili, se non con un grande sforzo per coglierle, e (se lo si vuole) contrastarle.
Già questo merita un elogio, quand'anche non si condividesse una briciola del pensiero dell'autore: il pensiero alternativo permette di inquadrare meglio quello dominante, di metterlo alla prova e ridiscuterlo, quand'anche l'esito della discussione fosse una riconferma di ciò che già si credeva.

Il nucleo della tesi di Epstein è molto semplice: l'adolescenza così come ora è vissuta nei paesi più industrializzati (il cosiddetto "Occidente") è inutile e dannosa. Se ne può fare a meno, e farne a meno sarebbe assai vantaggioso per tutti (individui e società).
L'adolescenza "occidentale" qui significa due cose:
1) Il periodo in cui, terminata l'infanzia, si rimane ancora esclusi dal mondo del lavoro (perché vietato) e rinchiusi in quello della scuola (perché è scuola dell'obbligo)
2) Il periodo del malessere esistenziale, della frustrazione, della trasgressione, dello scontro col mondo adulto e genitoriale.
Epstein osserva che questo periodo, nell'ultimo secolo, è stato progressivamente espanso verso l'alto: dai 14 anni ai 16, poi ai 18, e così via. Sempre tramite le due leve, quelle dell'obbligo scolastico e del divieto al lavoro.
Questo processo Epstein lo chiama "estensione artificiale dell'infanzia".
In pratica il Mondo attuale starebbe sempre più trattando gli adolescenti (e ormai anche chi arriva alla soglia dei vent'anni, se non oltre) come bambini, cioè come persone incapaci di badare a sé stesse.
Ciò sarebbe controproducente, perché gli adolescenti non dovrebbero essere considerati bambini cresciuti, ma giovani adulti, molti dei quali già dotati delle capacità di prendersi in mano una propria autonomia.
L'autore chiama a supporto della sua tesi dati e testimonianze provenienti da diverse discipline, principalmente storia, antropologia e psicologia. La storia mostrerebbe che lungo tutta la storia umana, ad esclusione dell'ultimo secolo e mezzo, gli adolescenti sono stati sempre considerati giovani adulti in grado di lavorare, sposarsi, agire in maniera autonoma e venire puniti dalla legge al pari degli adulti. L'antropologia mostra che la stessa cosa avviene in culture contemporanee non "occidentali", cioè ancora in tutto o in parte sottratte ai processi di industrializzazione e scolarizzazione di massa. Quindi l'adolescenza come periodo di incapacità concreta e di instabilità emotiva (e quindi da sorvegliare in maniera paternalistica) sarebbe un'invenzione recente avvenuta in una parte limitata del Mondo: ovvero, l'adolescenza sarebbe un'anomalia.
Infine, la psicologia. Epstein stesso è uno psicologo, e a questo aspetto dedica una delle parti più corpose del volume. Attenzione, che qui per 'psicologia' si intende lo studio scientifico della mente umana: scienze cognitive, neurologia e simili. Niente fuffa freudiana o postfreudiana, quindi. Ebbene, Epstein riporta tutta una serie di ricerche, sia da laboratorio che sul campo, che mostrano come tutte le capacità logiche, cognitive, creative, emotive e via dicendo abbiano i loro picchi e la loro massima performance proprio negli anni dell'adolescenza, e siano destinate a calare dai vent'anni in poi, e quindi a precipitare dai trenta e quaranta in poi. Le capacità cognitive, logiche, ecc dei cinquantenni e oltre, nella maggior parte dei casi, sarebbero invece comparabili a quelle di bambini pre-adolescenti.
A questo punto Epstein va a rispondere alla domanda più ovvia: se gli adolescenti sono così competenti ed equilibrati, perché la maggior parte, oggi, sembra comportarsi in maniera immatura, illogica, trasgressiva, distruttiva e autodistruttiva, inaffidabile e incompetente?
La risposta è in parte presente in quanto già detto. Gli adolescenti si comportano in maniera 'discutibile' proprio perché vengono compressi in un'infanzia prolungata che non si accorda per nulla con la loro esigenza di autonomia, un'esigenza che nella maggior parte dei casi è già paragonabile a quella degli adulti, un'esigenza che chiede di venire in contatto col Mondo senza essere messa sotto la proverbiale 'campana di vetro'.
Le potenzialità ci sono ma non si esprimono perché non è concesso loro di esprimersi. Di conseguenza moltissimi adolescenti sono frustrati, rabbiosi e riottosi perché il mondo adulto li considera poco più che bambini, quando bambini ormai non lo sono più.
Frustrati, rabbiosi e riottosi come succederebbe a degli adulti che venissero privati della propria autonomia senza una sufficiente giustificazione (tra l'altro Epstein mostra tramite una serie di ricerche che, attualmente, di norma un adolescente è sottoposto a molte più restrizioni di un adulto in carcere o nell'esercito... con l'aggravante che chi si trova in prigione o sotto le armi almeno conosce e/o accetta le ragioni del suo stato).
C'è inoltre da chiedersi quale società potrà mai generarsi, in futuro, da individui che hanno trascorso gli anni in cui maggiormente avrebbero il bisogno e le capacità di vivere attivamente nel Mondo, che hanno trascorso questi anni praticamente segregati e monitorati ancora come infanti incapaci. Forse una società composta in gran parte da adulti frustrati, sfiduciati e cronicamente indecisi?

Quel che è altamente provocatorio è la proposta di Epstein per superare questa situazione. Giustamente, invece di limitarsi a un appello alle coscienze del tipo 'trattiamo con più rispetto i nostri giovani figli', appello che lascerebbe il tempo che trova, le proposte di Epstein sono più che pragmatiche e concrete, anzi, concretissime.
Detto in breve: la società si deve sbarazzare di tutti i limiti che vincolano arbitrariamente gli individui alla propria classe d'età (età per votare, per richiedere la patente, per lavorare, per studiare, ecc); questi limiti in parte possono essere completamente rimossi: ad es. il diritto alla libertà di parola andrebbe assegnato fin dalla nascita a tutti gli individui, incondizionatamente. Altri diritti, invece, vanno assegnati non in base a un'età arbitraria ma alle competenze individuali. Ad esempio, chi desidera ottenere la patente, dovrebbe poter accedere al test in qualunque momento della sua vita, e non solo dopo una determinata età; chi desidera lavorare potrebbe farlo in qualunque momento, una volta superati determinati test che accertino adeguate capacità fisiche e psicologiche, e venire pagati adeguatamente e non con salarî inferiori a quelli adulti. E così via.
In pratica, la società deve giudicare gli individui per ciò che sono individualmente, e non per i gruppi a cui appartengono. Stiamo imparando a farlo rispetto all'appartenenza sessuale o etnica, è giunto il momento di farlo anche rispetto all'età.
In questo modo, l'età adolescenziale come età della noia, dell'odio, della frustrazione, della depressione, delle tendenze suicide, della trasgressione (con relativa criminalità giovanile) si dissiperebbe da sé. E verrebbe restituito alla società quel patrimonio di capacità, creatività, ingegno, industriosità, voglia di fare e di vivere presenti in molti adolescenti, patrimonio che attualmente viene represso e mortificato, se non distrutto (soprattutto dal sistema scolastico di massa).

Da notare che la posizione di Epstein taglia l'erba sotto ai piedi all'annoso dibattito tra permissivismo e severità, lasciandoselo alle spalle. Epstein rifiuta entrambe le posizioni, perché per lui sono due facce della stessa medaglia, quella dell'infantilizzazione dell'adolescenza. Epstein non afferma, ad esempio, che vanno tolti i divieti per i minori di accedere ad alcool o fumo perché i ragazzini, poverini!, non vanno oppressi. Tutt'altro! I divieti vincolati all'età vanno tolti perché gran parte degli adolescenti, tanto quanto gran parte degli adulti, sanno già agire in maniera responsabile, se la responsabilità viene loro concessa. Responsabilità che ovviamente implica anche saper rispondere delle conseguenze delle proprie azioni, cioè pagare quando si abusa di responsabilità e autonomia. La punizione, però, almeno per gli adolescenti che si siano già resi emancipati, non dovrebbe più essere quella arbitria del genitore che ti vieta di uscire dalla camera per una settimana (o che magari non fa niente a parte qualche rimbrotto), ma è la punizione dall'autorità della legge, quella che già vale per ogni adulto.
A questo proposito Epstein osserva che questo servirebbe anche a riportare gli adolescenti che violino la legge entro le garanzie offerte dai tribunali ordinarî, dacché, come fa notare, attualmente i tribunali minorili agiscono in maniera assai discrezionale e arbitraria nei confronti dei giovani imputati, cioè contrariamente ai principî del "processo giusto" (in questo aumentando la conflittualità tra minori e società).

Ovviamente gli adolescenti ancora sotto la potestà dei genitori verrebbero da questi trattati ancora 'come bambini'.
La grossa differenza rispetto all'oggi sarebbe che, come detto, togliendo gli attuali limiti d'età per l'obbligo scolastico e il divieto al lavoro, e tutti gli altri divieti basati su limiti d'età, qualunque persona potrebbe emanciparsi nel momento in cui lo riterrebbe maggiormente opportuno. Ed Epstein pensa che sarebbero molti più di quanti si crede i minori che saprebbero dimostrare di riuscire a farlo.

L'autore ritiene poi che i primi segni di questa 'rivoluzione' siano già visibili, e che l'impulso a valutare gli individui in base alle capacità e non a un'età arbitraria stia venendo soprattutto dalle tecnologie di rete, cioè da internet. Entro dieci o vent'anni, sostiene l'autore, la finzione chiamata adolescenza, durata poco meno di un secolo e mezzo, si dissolverà da sé.
Personalmente la ritengo una previsione troppo generosa.
Le due forze di base che hanno prodotto l'adolescenza come oggi la conosciamo, cioè la scolarizzazione obbligatoria di massa e l'esclusione dal mondo del lavoro, a me sembrano ancora estremamente forti e, anzi, penso aumenteranno ancor più la loro presa negli anni a venire. Per quanto l'idea della formazione permanente e la dissoluzione dei confini tra lavoro e svago possano effettivamente mettere in questione diverse cose. Ma è ancora tutto da vedere.
Soprattutto, Epstein non calcola un fattore che, secondo me, in tutto questo gioca un fattore cruciale, cioè la struttura demografica della società attuale.
La finzione dell'adolescenza è mantenuta innanzi tutto da un patto implicito, per cui lo Stato, per motivi economici e sociali, da una parte ha sottratto i figli ai genitori rinchiudendoli nelle scuole (mentre i genitori andavano a rinchiudersi nelle fabbriche e negli uffici), ma dall'altra ha consegnato agli stessi genitori un controllo sulla vita privata dei figli fino a età che un tempo sarebbero state impensabili. Imprescindibile dunque cogliere il nesso tra, da un lato, uno Stato che si propone come 'difensore della Famiglia' (cioè del controllo genitoriale sui figli) e, dall'altro, la Famiglia stessa che, in cambio, offre i suoi figli in sacrificio sull'altare della scolarizzazione di massa.
In secondo luogo, viviamo in società vecchie. Epstein stesso mostra come, al termine di un lungo declino dopo i settant'anni, nella maggior parte dei casi le capacità cognitive, emotive, ecc. degli individui siano tornate ai livelli di bambini di sette/otto anni. Eppure sono ancora oggi questi anziani a controllare le leve della società: a differenza dei bambini, a loro non viene sottratto se non in casi rarissimi, il diritto di voto, di possedere proprietà, di decidere di se stessi e così via. È anche facendo leva sulle paure, ansie e frustrazioni irrazionali di una popolazione sempre più vecchia, che si forgia la necessità di un controllo paternalistico nei confronti delle fasce più giovani della società: oggi gli adolescenti, domani i ventenni, e più avanti chissà.
Temo che finché non sarà stata demograficamente smaltita la massa dei baby boomers, i nati negli anni Cinquanta e dintorni, la società in cui viviamo sarà una società sempre più diffidente e sclerotizzata, per non dir terrorizzata, e soprattutto invidiosa e impaurita dalle capacità e potenzialità dei suoi più giovani componenti, cui si cercherà di stringere sempre più le catene di uno Stato paternalista e invadente nella privacy e nelle autonomie individuali.

[Shaun · Rating 3 out of 5]

While I don't agree with everything Epstein says, I think he builds up an interesting case on why adolescents have been seen as a problem, specifically in America. His solution is to give them more responsibilities instead of extending their childhood, even into adulthood. Since they still consider themselves as not fully adults, they still act as children. Moreover, culture does not see them as adults, and so adults do not give adolescents enough responsibilities even though they may be competent to handle them.

So far, I think Epstein is on to something, but I did find two major problems with it.

1. If Epstein is correct, I doubt society will even accept a young teen over a 30-year-old for a career. It's because, typically, people will choose the 30-year-old because of her experience, and not just the competency. Epstein argues again and again that competency is the key. I think that's only one factor. Yes, competency is a major component. And yes, many people have misplaced teens as being incompetent, but competency isn't the sole factor to determine whether a teen, even a competent one, can readily compete in the world because this teen is lacking experience. The only way to gain experience, typically, is age. Sure, you will have exceptions, but I don't see this going away anytime soon.

2. I think Epstein conflates "competency" with "maturity." Epstein has a test at the end of the book where one can measure competency, but what about maturity? Some of the features (such as relationships, love, marriage, and sex) does deal with competency, but they also deal with maturity too. Only once does Epstein mention maturity and that's in the context of viewing pornography. What about for the other features? Surely, a manager would want to hire a mature adult rather than an immature adolescent, even if they're both competent. Epstein needs to separate those two terms out.

[Margie Sanderson · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great read. I don't agree with all his assertions and I think he sells younger young people pretty short by focusing all his energy on teens. I think some of his language continues to perpetuate the ageism he seems to be fighting against, and his recommendations at the end of the book are weaker than I would have liked. That said, great analysis on the rise of adolescence and what it means, and great to see it coming from a conventionally respected author.

[Duncan McAlister · Rating 5 out of 5]

The author’s case revolves around a few key arguments: adolescence in its current form is a peculiarity of US post-industrial culture, the US conception of adolescence is damaging to adults and teens alike, societies which have not been heavily influenced by US culture have a much smoother and less fraught transition from childhood to adulthood, teens respond well to being imbued with responsibility and authority and they should be imbued with certain rights when they pass competency tests rather than when they reach a certain age. There is some interesting original research to make this case, in particular a competency test in which teens score only slightly below adults in most metrics (slightly above in some cases).

The conclusion is radical and provocative - young people should be able to pass competency tests to exercise the freedoms that are currently granted at particular ages. Nothing is spared - the ability to drive, leave school, sign contracts, own property, start a business, drink alcohol, smoke, marry and have sex with any partner of their choice should all be based on competency not age. A few points of contention:

What would a society look like where certain ADULTS were unable to pass these competency tests? Would it be morally right for a government to withhold the ability to marry and start a family indefinitely for these people? And some areas surely cannot be left to competency alone - there are sound medical reasons for young bodies not to be subject to alcohol, tobacco or sexual intercourse. I would also liked to have seen more discussion of Europe which has many similarities with America in the way it treats its young people, but also differences.

Aside from these few issues I agree with the author’s conclusions and feel arguments like these should receive much more exposure. Treating young people the way Epstein argues rather than the current way could go a long way toward bridging the growing generation gap in the US and the West and repairing the many social and personal ills that develop during the adolescent phase.

[Javier · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book absolutely blew my mind and changed a lot of the ways in which I thought about teens. If you do any kind of youth work, this is definitely a must read.

[Dawn · Rating 4 out of 5]

For the most part I thought this was an excellent book - I had a few disagreements with the author but they were relatively minor in the scheme of things and not necessarily unexpected. I would have liked, however, to see a section on specific things that parents and families can do to counter the infantilization of teens in addition to what society in general should do. This is especially true in light of the fact that parents are still legally responsible for the actions of teens living under their roof, and in light of the fact that not everyone has the financial resources to homeschool their children. Establishing a competency-based system for "emancipation" regardless of age makes a lot of sense, but what things can we do in the meantime to encourage a smooth integration of teens into the adult world, especially if they are still attending public school with all its concomitant issues? The drastic societal change the author advocates in his book may not come quickly, especially with all the societal forces that are arrayed against it.

Update: I just realized that this book is an earlier edition of the book Teen 2.0 which does contain an appendix detailing the information I wanted to see above. I would certainly have bought the later edition had I known it existed.

[Mike · Rating 3 out of 5]

Author argues that the extension of childhood that began in the era of Jane Addams and which has lengthened in the last 30 years has infantilized our teens. They spend all their time with their peers and none of their time with adults, and are given no responsibility, which is the worst outcome possible.

He believes a massive change in mindset towards teenagers is necessary. His most aggressive prescription is that teens should be able to take a competence test to be allowed to leave school, work earlier, marry, vote, etc.

[Anna · Rating 2 out of 5]

Robert Epstein, Ph.D., former chief editor of Psychology Today, compellingly argues that American society artificially delays adulthood through its systems of compulsory education, strict labor laws, and juvenile justice. His thesis that teens are forbidden to exhibit their adult competencies when they are isolated along with their peers from adults compels those of us that work with them to try and figure out how to apprentice them into the adult world.

[Beth · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was a book required for school. In the hands of a skilled editor, it could have been a lot stronger, but Epstein relies far too heavily on anecdotes about exceptional teens to illustrate his points. Also, his argument that teens should be offered a test to demonstrate competencies in particular areas lacks objectivity, as he and Diane Dumas designed it together. Skip it.

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a really interesting book. It's saying that we have so many problems with children and teens because we treat them like children instead of intelligent human beings capable of taking on responsibility.

I saw a blog recently with a similar take on the subject. http://freerangekids.wordpress.com/

[Melissa (UnreliableHeart) Mulvihill · Rating 4 out of 5]

I always enjoy books that challenge the way I see the world and this book was no different. The history of the concept of childhood and adolescence in our country is interesting and the way our culture responds to and shapes adolescence is absolutely deserving of a creative overhaul. Great book and well worth the read.

[Daniel]

I'm right in the middle of it but it's very interesting and a bit disturbing.

[Susie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very interesting. Epstein makes the case that we artificially keep our adolescents out of the adult world, and that take away from them the chance to grow up and take on what they are ready for.