What do you think?
Rate this book
Freaks, Geeks, and Cool Kids: American Teenagers, Schools, and the Culture of Consumption
In this timely and insightful book, award-winning sociologist Murray Milner tries to understand why teenagers behave the way they do. Drawing upon two years of intensive fieldwork in one high school and 300 written interviews about high schools across the country, he argues that consumer culture has greatly impacted the way our youth relate to one another and understand themselves and society. He also suggests that the status systems in high schools are in and of themselves an important contributing factor to the creation and maintenance of consumer capitalism explaining the importance of designer jeans and designer drugs in an effort to be the coolest kid in the class.
320 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2004
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
August 19, 2018
In Freaks, Geeks, and Cool Kids: American Teenagers, Schools, and the Culture of Consumption, Murray Milner, Jr. examines the relationships that lead to the formation of school cliques while, at the same time, attempting to tackle the problems of caste-like divisions and the increase in alcohol and drug use and casual sex among teens.
Milner argues that traditional explanations for teenage behavior, such as hormones, psychological development, parenting styles, and social background, are less important than the way adults have used schools to “organize young people’s daily activities” and the systems that teens have constructed in response to that organization. Milner also explores the role of consumerism in teen identity formation.
Generally, the formation of school cliques boils down to one concern: status. Why are teens in the United States so concerned with status? “It is because they have so little real economic or political power,” Milner explains. Teens have very little say over what happens in school or the subjects they study, so they concentrate on the one area where they do have power: the power to create their own status systems.
In order to maintain status, “insiders” must make it difficult to gain that status, so they frequently change and complicate the norms. That is, according to Milner, the source of teenage concern over possessing the latest fashions, music, and lingo. Businesses have spun this concern into a multi-billion dollar industry.
Milner proposes a relatively simple solution: stop segregating young people from the rest of society. “…reforming the curriculum and teaching techniques… will not change the structures that produce and sustain the patterns of behavior we associate with teenagers,” he warns. Milner’s theory is compelling but not without its faults.
The case could be made that teenagers, especially those under the age of 17, have more power and influence today than at any other point in history, especially when it comes to life choices and disposable income. For the first time, the majority of adolescents can look forward to at least having the opportunity for a higher education.
Questions remain: are children and teenagers more “segregated” from adult society today than they were in the previous century? Do they have less independence and opportunity? If Milner’s theory is correct, but the answer to these questions is “no,” we should see less social cliquishness and status-obsession among teens today than in the past, not more.
While there is less pressure to conform to social norms in adolescence as there was even a decade ago, targeted marketing has exacerbated cliques by dividing teenagers into groups based on narrowly-defined interests. Teens may not have political power, but they certainly have economic power. According to Statisticbrain.com, total U.S. teen spending in 2016 amounted to $258.7 billion. Advertisers compete to tap into that lucrative revenue stream, which means they are, at least to some extent, responding to teenager’s needs and desires.
First released in 2006, Milner has recently published a revised edition of Freaks, Geeks, and Cool Kids emphasizing the role of social media and standardized testing. I have not read the new edition, but it would be interesting to see if he has reconsidered some of his earlier conclusions, especially since teen pregnancy rates and drug use are on the decline (teen pregnancy in the U.S. is at historic lows). Still, Freaks, Geeks, and Cool Kids remains an insightful and thoroughly-researched book on contemporary youth culture.
Milner argues that traditional explanations for teenage behavior, such as hormones, psychological development, parenting styles, and social background, are less important than the way adults have used schools to “organize young people’s daily activities” and the systems that teens have constructed in response to that organization. Milner also explores the role of consumerism in teen identity formation.
Generally, the formation of school cliques boils down to one concern: status. Why are teens in the United States so concerned with status? “It is because they have so little real economic or political power,” Milner explains. Teens have very little say over what happens in school or the subjects they study, so they concentrate on the one area where they do have power: the power to create their own status systems.
In order to maintain status, “insiders” must make it difficult to gain that status, so they frequently change and complicate the norms. That is, according to Milner, the source of teenage concern over possessing the latest fashions, music, and lingo. Businesses have spun this concern into a multi-billion dollar industry.
Milner proposes a relatively simple solution: stop segregating young people from the rest of society. “…reforming the curriculum and teaching techniques… will not change the structures that produce and sustain the patterns of behavior we associate with teenagers,” he warns. Milner’s theory is compelling but not without its faults.
The case could be made that teenagers, especially those under the age of 17, have more power and influence today than at any other point in history, especially when it comes to life choices and disposable income. For the first time, the majority of adolescents can look forward to at least having the opportunity for a higher education.
Questions remain: are children and teenagers more “segregated” from adult society today than they were in the previous century? Do they have less independence and opportunity? If Milner’s theory is correct, but the answer to these questions is “no,” we should see less social cliquishness and status-obsession among teens today than in the past, not more.
While there is less pressure to conform to social norms in adolescence as there was even a decade ago, targeted marketing has exacerbated cliques by dividing teenagers into groups based on narrowly-defined interests. Teens may not have political power, but they certainly have economic power. According to Statisticbrain.com, total U.S. teen spending in 2016 amounted to $258.7 billion. Advertisers compete to tap into that lucrative revenue stream, which means they are, at least to some extent, responding to teenager’s needs and desires.
First released in 2006, Milner has recently published a revised edition of Freaks, Geeks, and Cool Kids emphasizing the role of social media and standardized testing. I have not read the new edition, but it would be interesting to see if he has reconsidered some of his earlier conclusions, especially since teen pregnancy rates and drug use are on the decline (teen pregnancy in the U.S. is at historic lows). Still, Freaks, Geeks, and Cool Kids remains an insightful and thoroughly-researched book on contemporary youth culture.
January 12, 2026
People can be influenced by 3 kinds of sanctions:
1. Force—Political power: President of the US
2. Goods and services—Economic power: Head of a large corporation
3. Expressions of approval and disapproval—Status power: Pope
Each of these is a basic element of a type of power: political, economic, and status power.
Typically, individuals and groups attempt to influence and control their environment by the type of power that is most readily available to them.
a. Those who are physically strong but short on money and respect, like dictators in poor countries and young males in poor urban neighborhoods, use force more often than others.
b. Those who are rich usually oppose moral or political restrictions on what can be bought and sold
c. Those who are cultured or pious disdain mere money or political power.
Status is the accumulated approval and disapproval that people express toward an actor or an object. It is more or less synonymous with notions of prestige and honor-dishonor.
Status is the sum of the evaluations that are “located” in the minds of other people with whom a person interacts.
One of the conditions under which status tends to increase in importance is when people are losing economic and political power. It is when the aristocracy or the old upper class are threatened by the newly rich that they emphasize their ancestry and gentility. In contrast, when groups are excluded from economic and political power and given little respect, they may build a new identity rooted in a new status system. The black power movement and most forms of multiculturalism emerged from this condition. Those who are not respected in terms of the dominant norms and values embrace norms that value the attributes they do have. Often they reject the values of the established order. Different values are emphasized.
Why this near obsession with status? It is because they have so little real economic or political power. They only have the power to create an informal social world in which they evaluate one another. That is, they can and do create their own status systems. In short, the main kind of power teenagers have is status power.
Why are the latest fashions so important to teenagers? To gain status in any group you have to conform to their norms. But this means that insiders, especially those with high status, have an interest in making conformity difficult for outsiders. Hence, they frequently elaborated and complicated the norms. (Fashions, clothes, music, the “in” words and phrases”)
Why are teenagers frequently mean and petty toward one another? It is because status is relatively inexpansible. If everyone receives an A or has a cell phone, these have little value as status symbols. If someone moves up, someone else will have to move down. But the reverse is also true; you can move up or stay on top by putting others down…“put-downs” are small cruelties are all too common
Status groups: Max Weber used the term status group to refer to social formations that were based on differences in status and lifestyle. In the Hindu caste system, higher status tended to minimize contact with lower castes and expected to be treated with deference by those from lower castes. [Did not eat with or marry them]. These patterns are common for teenagers.
Members of a status group share a common lifestyle, that is, elements of a common culture that may include a common language or religion, shared symbols or rituals, or similar patterns of consumption.
Main elements of the theory of status relations:
1. Conformity to the norms of the group. Those with higher status tend to complicate the norms to make it harder for outsiders and upstarts to confirm and thereby become competitors. Also do this to reassure themselves that they are accomplished and sophisticated and hence deserve their superior status. Therefore, where status is important, there are usually complex, subtle systems of norms and rituals. These often concern behaviors that are learned early in life—accent demeanor, body language, and notions of taste and stye—
Because these are all very difficult for outsiders and upstarts to copy.
2. Social associations: If you associate with those of higher status your status increases, and if you associate with those of lower status your status decreases. This is especially true for intimate , expressive relationships such as close friendships, in contrast to impersonal and instrumental relationships. Not only do sexual partners affect one’s status, but status increases sexual attractiveness. It is one of the reasons that status symbols are often linked to sexuality: The beautiful car will supposedly attract the beautiful women. Eating is also a near universal symbol of intimacy. Hence eating clubs at Princeton, corporate executive dining rooms, etc. Associations with objects are also important. If those with new wealth want upper-class respect, they learn to buy art, antiques, and “historic” homes and avoid kitsch. Teenagers associate with the right brands and hang out in the cool places. Dissociation is also important and low status things must be avoided or even denigrated
3. Status is relatively inalienable: It is “located” primarily in other peoples’ minds. Hence, in contrast to wealth or political position it cannot be appropriated. Conquerors or parents may be ablet o take away your economic resources, but to change your status they have to be able to change the opinion of other people—often your peers. Typically, it takes a generation for the newly wealthy to acquire status associated with old wealth. Once status systems become institutionalized they are relatively stable compared to other forms of stratification. Inalienability helps protect the status of those at the top. Conversely, it perpetuates the stigma of those at the bottom.
4. Status is relatively inexpansible. Per capital economic resources can be expanded, but status is a relative ranking. If a thousand Nobel prizes were awarded each year or every soldier received the Medal of Honor, the status value of these would be greatly diminished. Because status is relatively inexpansible, when the status of some is increased, the status of others will eventually decrease; if someone moves up, someone will eventually have to move down. Consequently, where status is the central resource, mobility tends to be highly regulated and restricted. This is common for educational credentials and consumer commodities. To some extent, multiple status systems can expand status. Instead of one set of elites, there can be multiple elites. There is, however, a strong tendency to start ranking the different systems relative to one another, thus limiting expansion of status.
Conformity: … “but once you became popular, you could dress sloppy and no one cared.” If you are confident you have status, you can relax on the pressures to conform. This is true for individuals, and also for class and ethnicity. “Groups who are most confident about their status can be more relaxed about conformity while those whose status is less secure are often preoccupied with fashions. Minority groups are frequently quite concerned with fashion.”
Rituals create solidarity and also the boundaries. Special handshakes or greetings such as “high-five” is the positive affirmation of a common social identity.
A modicum of power can be gained by taking on an air of seeming indifference to the superior power. This is resistance in a subtler way. Especially important is the creation of new cultural forms. These forms usually express indifference and thinly disguised disrespect of established conventions and authority structures. The resistance is communicated not primarily by explicit content, but implicitly by style.
…resistance to some set of norms that are seen as imposed, usually by parents and schools.
Although there is racial segregation among friend groups, 10% if groups are mixed. Public conflicts along racial lines are rare at the high school. Even in incidents in which the combatants are from different races, they mobilize little racial solidarity per se.
Status relations are not different in catholic schools vs secular. It’s irrelevant
For recent students as opposed to those decades ago: With cellphones, text messages, and the internet many people are almost constantly communicating. Hence, “keeping” up increasingly means having led the latest message rather than having the latest fashion. What is required to conform to the norms of the group is to be “in the know” by sending and receiving messages, pictures, videos, and postings
As “normals” and “alternatives” in high schools often reject grades and popularity as measures of self-worth, working class men often reject economic and occupational ambition and success as the primary measures of moral worth. In contrast, New York professionals and managers expressed alternative definitions of success, and most measured freedom of consumption, for instance, as being able to buy a house in a good neighborhood, or take off regularly for a weekend skiing in Vermont.
The current generation of teenagers value grades significantly higher than the previous ones
1. Force—Political power: President of the US
2. Goods and services—Economic power: Head of a large corporation
3. Expressions of approval and disapproval—Status power: Pope
Each of these is a basic element of a type of power: political, economic, and status power.
Typically, individuals and groups attempt to influence and control their environment by the type of power that is most readily available to them.
a. Those who are physically strong but short on money and respect, like dictators in poor countries and young males in poor urban neighborhoods, use force more often than others.
b. Those who are rich usually oppose moral or political restrictions on what can be bought and sold
c. Those who are cultured or pious disdain mere money or political power.
Status is the accumulated approval and disapproval that people express toward an actor or an object. It is more or less synonymous with notions of prestige and honor-dishonor.
Status is the sum of the evaluations that are “located” in the minds of other people with whom a person interacts.
One of the conditions under which status tends to increase in importance is when people are losing economic and political power. It is when the aristocracy or the old upper class are threatened by the newly rich that they emphasize their ancestry and gentility. In contrast, when groups are excluded from economic and political power and given little respect, they may build a new identity rooted in a new status system. The black power movement and most forms of multiculturalism emerged from this condition. Those who are not respected in terms of the dominant norms and values embrace norms that value the attributes they do have. Often they reject the values of the established order. Different values are emphasized.
Why this near obsession with status? It is because they have so little real economic or political power. They only have the power to create an informal social world in which they evaluate one another. That is, they can and do create their own status systems. In short, the main kind of power teenagers have is status power.
Why are the latest fashions so important to teenagers? To gain status in any group you have to conform to their norms. But this means that insiders, especially those with high status, have an interest in making conformity difficult for outsiders. Hence, they frequently elaborated and complicated the norms. (Fashions, clothes, music, the “in” words and phrases”)
Why are teenagers frequently mean and petty toward one another? It is because status is relatively inexpansible. If everyone receives an A or has a cell phone, these have little value as status symbols. If someone moves up, someone else will have to move down. But the reverse is also true; you can move up or stay on top by putting others down…“put-downs” are small cruelties are all too common
Status groups: Max Weber used the term status group to refer to social formations that were based on differences in status and lifestyle. In the Hindu caste system, higher status tended to minimize contact with lower castes and expected to be treated with deference by those from lower castes. [Did not eat with or marry them]. These patterns are common for teenagers.
Members of a status group share a common lifestyle, that is, elements of a common culture that may include a common language or religion, shared symbols or rituals, or similar patterns of consumption.
Main elements of the theory of status relations:
1. Conformity to the norms of the group. Those with higher status tend to complicate the norms to make it harder for outsiders and upstarts to confirm and thereby become competitors. Also do this to reassure themselves that they are accomplished and sophisticated and hence deserve their superior status. Therefore, where status is important, there are usually complex, subtle systems of norms and rituals. These often concern behaviors that are learned early in life—accent demeanor, body language, and notions of taste and stye—
Because these are all very difficult for outsiders and upstarts to copy.
2. Social associations: If you associate with those of higher status your status increases, and if you associate with those of lower status your status decreases. This is especially true for intimate , expressive relationships such as close friendships, in contrast to impersonal and instrumental relationships. Not only do sexual partners affect one’s status, but status increases sexual attractiveness. It is one of the reasons that status symbols are often linked to sexuality: The beautiful car will supposedly attract the beautiful women. Eating is also a near universal symbol of intimacy. Hence eating clubs at Princeton, corporate executive dining rooms, etc. Associations with objects are also important. If those with new wealth want upper-class respect, they learn to buy art, antiques, and “historic” homes and avoid kitsch. Teenagers associate with the right brands and hang out in the cool places. Dissociation is also important and low status things must be avoided or even denigrated
3. Status is relatively inalienable: It is “located” primarily in other peoples’ minds. Hence, in contrast to wealth or political position it cannot be appropriated. Conquerors or parents may be ablet o take away your economic resources, but to change your status they have to be able to change the opinion of other people—often your peers. Typically, it takes a generation for the newly wealthy to acquire status associated with old wealth. Once status systems become institutionalized they are relatively stable compared to other forms of stratification. Inalienability helps protect the status of those at the top. Conversely, it perpetuates the stigma of those at the bottom.
4. Status is relatively inexpansible. Per capital economic resources can be expanded, but status is a relative ranking. If a thousand Nobel prizes were awarded each year or every soldier received the Medal of Honor, the status value of these would be greatly diminished. Because status is relatively inexpansible, when the status of some is increased, the status of others will eventually decrease; if someone moves up, someone will eventually have to move down. Consequently, where status is the central resource, mobility tends to be highly regulated and restricted. This is common for educational credentials and consumer commodities. To some extent, multiple status systems can expand status. Instead of one set of elites, there can be multiple elites. There is, however, a strong tendency to start ranking the different systems relative to one another, thus limiting expansion of status.
Conformity: … “but once you became popular, you could dress sloppy and no one cared.” If you are confident you have status, you can relax on the pressures to conform. This is true for individuals, and also for class and ethnicity. “Groups who are most confident about their status can be more relaxed about conformity while those whose status is less secure are often preoccupied with fashions. Minority groups are frequently quite concerned with fashion.”
Rituals create solidarity and also the boundaries. Special handshakes or greetings such as “high-five” is the positive affirmation of a common social identity.
A modicum of power can be gained by taking on an air of seeming indifference to the superior power. This is resistance in a subtler way. Especially important is the creation of new cultural forms. These forms usually express indifference and thinly disguised disrespect of established conventions and authority structures. The resistance is communicated not primarily by explicit content, but implicitly by style.
…resistance to some set of norms that are seen as imposed, usually by parents and schools.
Although there is racial segregation among friend groups, 10% if groups are mixed. Public conflicts along racial lines are rare at the high school. Even in incidents in which the combatants are from different races, they mobilize little racial solidarity per se.
Status relations are not different in catholic schools vs secular. It’s irrelevant
For recent students as opposed to those decades ago: With cellphones, text messages, and the internet many people are almost constantly communicating. Hence, “keeping” up increasingly means having led the latest message rather than having the latest fashion. What is required to conform to the norms of the group is to be “in the know” by sending and receiving messages, pictures, videos, and postings
As “normals” and “alternatives” in high schools often reject grades and popularity as measures of self-worth, working class men often reject economic and occupational ambition and success as the primary measures of moral worth. In contrast, New York professionals and managers expressed alternative definitions of success, and most measured freedom of consumption, for instance, as being able to buy a house in a good neighborhood, or take off regularly for a weekend skiing in Vermont.
The current generation of teenagers value grades significantly higher than the previous ones
January 8, 2013
Decent introductory text for sociological method. Has some interesting things to say about youth culture; I particularly agree with his main point, which is that, so long as you bar kids from actual power and responsibility, they'll obsess over pointless shit and snipe at each other. Limited by the excessive epistemological modesty that is characteristic of the field. Also, not exactly a thrill ride. High time I resubscribe to the New Yorker, since I'm getting desperate for bathroom reading
Read
June 18, 2020For the March book club I read Freaks, Geeks, and Cool Kids: American Teenagers, Schools, and the Culture of Consumption by Murray Milner, Jr. I actually first heard of this book when I was studying in Australia and writing a paper on consumer culture for a Sociology class; however, the library didn’t have the book so I wasn’t able to read it at the time. I stumbled upon the book again when visiting a former professor and browsing her bookshelves, so I decided to give it a try.
I’ve always been interested in adolescence and its sociological theories, but it is even more fascinating now that I work with high school students and witness the social interplays between status and consumerism within my group of students. The after-school program I work with is interesting in the fact that it is made of high school students from across Saint Paul whose only required similarity is an interest in media production. This means that we have a pretty diverse group of youth - who might not have chosen to spend time together otherwise. While some of the students know each other through friends or previous classes together, they are no longer in their normal social settings and they have to reevaluate their status amongst each other.
While reading Freaks, Geeks, and Cool Kids I couldn’t help but think of my group of students as Milner explored the various answers as to “Why do American teenagers behave the way they do?” Milner looks at the influences on teenagers’ lives, such as parents, schools, and social class and concludes that while all those factors are influential, it is actually peers which have the most impact on teenagers and their behavior. Throughout the book Milner uses status groups and the example of “adolescence as a caste system” to provide explanation to his main questions. One of his most important points is that status is so important to teenagers because after spending the majority of the time being told what they can and cannot do by adults, “in one realm...their power is supreme; they control their evaluations of one another...the kind of power they do have is status power: the power to create their own status systems based on their own criteria” (25). Milner explores the different variables in how the status systems are created by attending different high schools, observing and interviewing the students.
I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in sociology, especially that of adolescence. Milner does a nice job of putting social theories in simpler terms to explain his findings. If you currently work with teenagers this book may provide some insight into the behavior of the students, although some of the information seems like it could be derived from common sense.
I’ve always been interested in adolescence and its sociological theories, but it is even more fascinating now that I work with high school students and witness the social interplays between status and consumerism within my group of students. The after-school program I work with is interesting in the fact that it is made of high school students from across Saint Paul whose only required similarity is an interest in media production. This means that we have a pretty diverse group of youth - who might not have chosen to spend time together otherwise. While some of the students know each other through friends or previous classes together, they are no longer in their normal social settings and they have to reevaluate their status amongst each other.
While reading Freaks, Geeks, and Cool Kids I couldn’t help but think of my group of students as Milner explored the various answers as to “Why do American teenagers behave the way they do?” Milner looks at the influences on teenagers’ lives, such as parents, schools, and social class and concludes that while all those factors are influential, it is actually peers which have the most impact on teenagers and their behavior. Throughout the book Milner uses status groups and the example of “adolescence as a caste system” to provide explanation to his main questions. One of his most important points is that status is so important to teenagers because after spending the majority of the time being told what they can and cannot do by adults, “in one realm...their power is supreme; they control their evaluations of one another...the kind of power they do have is status power: the power to create their own status systems based on their own criteria” (25). Milner explores the different variables in how the status systems are created by attending different high schools, observing and interviewing the students.
I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in sociology, especially that of adolescence. Milner does a nice job of putting social theories in simpler terms to explain his findings. If you currently work with teenagers this book may provide some insight into the behavior of the students, although some of the information seems like it could be derived from common sense.
September 23, 2024
for a soci class, honestly really interesting!
September 16, 2016
This was more than the fun description of status systems in U.S. high schools this nerd was hoping for--it had a couple of really fascinating insights: 1) Part of (the book seems to argue "all of," but I really only believed "part of") the reason social status competition is so intense in high schools is that social status is about the *only* form of status available to students in high schools (there's restricted or no access to professional, political, etc. status). So of course social status is hotly contested. I also think we are just wired to be extra sensitive to status during these years when we're biologically becoming adults and in other societies would be busy sorting out who should be taking up which up adult roles, but whatever. 2) The "prep" (sosh/popular/etc.) group is at bottom characterized by a "work hard/play hard" (be a cheerleader who drinks on the weekends but doesn't get caught) ethos that mirrors the adult-world success norms of yuppies (work 80 hours a week and then get wasted). All while conspicuously consuming in other ways as well. The author points out that this lifestyle necessitates a sort of cynicism that arguably is a necessary defense mechanism for a "successful" life in our society. And suddenly I finally realized this is what Twin Peaks is all about! And it made total sense why that show came out of the eighties, when this type of pressure and corresponding need for adaptation was most intense, and why it's trendy again these last couple of years, when it is again! So, this blew my mind.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 30, 2015
I read this book for a high school sociology project. I loved it for many reasons, but I think I mostly enjoyed the book because of how relatable it was to my own life and the lives I see among my peers. I think it was extremely well written, with factual evidence as well as real life stories, and there would be an interesting section for any teenager, or adult, to relate to from some point of their life. It did begin to become a bit repetitive with the ideas towards the end, but was still interesting. I loved the sections on rebellion, and how much adults influence teenagers and their choices, and I have chosen to further my sociology project on these ideas because of this amazing book. It is definitely worth reading if you have any interest in teenagers and why they do the things they do.
July 11, 2008
This book is written by my colleague Murray Milner. I gave this book 5 stars because it is good sociology. Murray has a tight methodology and he develops a lucid theory of status groups based on his data. This book is intended for an academic audience so it may not entertain a broad audience. It makes some really important points about how adults unwittingly set teenagers up to become status mongering consumers. I like Murray's big picture approach to thinking about social problems.
July 10, 2007
Very interesting analysis of why young kids and teens shop using brand recognition.
Read
May 10, 2010An interesting thesis about how status plays out among teens.
Want to Read
July 15, 2015Lizz mentioned this
June 2, 2009
I helped this professor edit this book!
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews