When a routine childhood mishap turned into a whirlwind of medical over-caution, one parent began to question the prevailing wisdom of immediate intervention for children’s issues. A chipped tooth at the zoo led to an emergency room referral and a suggestion for general anesthesia for a two-year-old, all based on a minor speck on an X-ray. This experience sparked a realization: are we, as a society, becoming too quick to medicalize and pathologize normal childhood experiences?
This question is at the heart of Abigail Shrier’s new book, Bad Therapy: Why the Kids Aren’t Growing Up. Shrier, a Yale, Oxford, and Columbia educated writer, known for her critical examination of societal trends affecting children, delves into the impact of modern therapeutic culture on child development. Following her previous work, Irreversible Damage, which explored the phenomenon of rapid-onset gender dysphoria, Shrier now turns her attention to what she argues is the detrimental effect of excessive therapy and therapeutic language permeating parenting and education.
Shrier’s central thesis is that the current therapeutic approach, often involving school counselors, therapists, and a widespread adoption of therapeutic language in parenting, is inadvertently harming children. She posits that by over-validating every childhood fear and anxiety, and by swiftly labeling normal childhood distress as pathological, we are fostering helplessness rather than resilience in young people. This argument, while potentially resonating with a broad spectrum of parents, is presented with a sharp, critical edge characteristic of Shrier’s writing style.
Shrier points to alarming statistics, noting that a significant proportion of young children in the U.S. are diagnosed with mental, behavioral, or developmental disorders. She argues that this over-diagnosis, coupled with the normalization of identifying with these diagnoses on social media, encourages children to perceive their negative emotions as pathological. This, in turn, may increase the likelihood of seeking external solutions, such as drugs, rather than developing internal coping mechanisms.
The book traces the roots of this issue back to a well-intentioned shift away from authoritarian parenting styles. Driven by Gen X’s embrace of therapy, parenting became focused on maximizing children’s immediate happiness and avoiding any form of discomfort or perceived trauma. Shrier argues that this pursuit of a pain-free childhood has paradoxically led parents to seek expert intervention – testing, diagnosis, and medication – when faced with inevitable childhood challenges.
One of the most compelling arguments in Bad Therapy is the idea that we are pathologizing normal childhood distress while simultaneously limiting children’s opportunities for independence and risk-taking. This concept, however, is not entirely new. Wendy Mogel, in her book The Blessing of a Skinned Knee, published over two decades ago, similarly advocated for allowing children to experience and learn from minor setbacks. The idea that children need more freedom and less coddling is a recurring theme in contemporary discussions about parenting, appearing frequently in publications like The Atlantic. The challenge, as many parents recognize, lies not in acknowledging the problem but in finding practical solutions in a society that often discourages child autonomy.
While Shrier acknowledges the current youth mental health crisis and the increasing rates of childhood diagnoses, she pinpoints therapy, and specifically social-emotional learning (SEL) in schools, as a primary driver of these issues. It’s important to note that, as Shrier herself concedes, most American children are not in regular, individual therapy. Instead, they are increasingly exposed to therapeutic concepts through SEL curricula implemented in schools.
SEL programs aim to develop interpersonal skills and self-awareness in children, with the intention of improving their academic performance and overall well-being. Proponents point to research, like a report from the Yale School of Medicine, suggesting that SEL can have significant positive impacts. Many parents also report witnessing benefits, such as improved conflict resolution skills in their children.
However, critics like Shrier argue that SEL inadvertently encourages children to over-focus on their emotions, fostering a sense of fragility rather than resilience. She cites examples, such as a fifth-grade classroom activity that prompted emotional breakdowns among students, and teachers openly sharing personal traumas to model emotional vulnerability. Shrier expresses concern that such practices, implemented without proper training or confidentiality, may blur the lines between education and therapy, potentially causing more harm than good. While acknowledging the potential benefits of emotional literacy, especially for boys who may be socialized to suppress emotions other than anger, Shrier fears that SEL, in practice, often veers into excessive focus on emotions at the expense of other crucial developmental areas.
Shrier extends her critique to the broader therapeutic culture influencing parenting, particularly targeting “gentle parenting.” She argues that the emphasis on validating children’s feelings and avoiding direct discipline, often promoted by parenting influencers and online communities, undermines parental authority and leads to children who are ill-equipped to handle real-world boundaries and consequences. She contrasts the direct approach of traditional discipline with the feelings-centered language of gentle parenting, suggesting that the latter can be ineffective and even enable unruly behavior.
However, it is important to consider counterarguments and nuances. While the concerns Shrier raises about over-pathologizing childhood and the potential pitfalls of SEL and gentle parenting are valid points for discussion, it is crucial to avoid generalizations. The youth mental health crisis is a real and pressing issue, and therapy, when administered appropriately by trained professionals, can be invaluable for children facing genuine mental health challenges. Emotional literacy is also a vital skill, and the intention behind SEL is to equip children with tools for navigating their emotional lives and building healthy relationships. The problem may lie not with the concept of SEL itself, but with its implementation in some educational settings.
Similarly, gentle parenting, while sometimes misconstrued as permissive parenting, aims to build connection and understanding between parents and children. Like any parenting approach, it requires balance and nuance, and its effectiveness depends on various factors, including the child’s temperament and the parent’s ability to implement it consistently and appropriately.
Ultimately, the goal, as both Shrier and her critics would likely agree, is to raise capable, confident, and resilient children. Finding the right balance between acknowledging and validating children’s emotions and equipping them with the resilience to navigate life’s inevitable challenges is a complex task. The discussion sparked by Bad Therapy is a valuable contribution to this ongoing conversation, urging parents, educators, and society as a whole to critically examine the prevailing therapeutic culture and its impact on the younger generation.
