Source of Rebellion

One thing I've noticed as a teacher and coach is that many teachers/coaches practice the mantra: "Do as I say, not as I do." I have taught with teachers who chastize students for their disorganized backpacks and lost homework, willfully ignoring the hypocrisy of piles of mis-matched, months-old projects and papers strewed about their own classrooms. I have coached with coaches who scream at kids for lack of communication and discipline, only to cancel practices at the last minute and show up late for meets. So much of the rebellion of youth is directed at this hypocrisy, I believe.

As adults, we expect imperfection from one another. We're adults, after all, and we recognize that we ourselves are flawed. So perhaps part of the adolescent reaction is disappointed idealism. As adults, we are also generally on the same footing--even in hierarchical relationships, such as those between boss and employees, there is at least an appearance of equality. All bosses in the modern western world at least attempt to convey openness and approachability, even if all they really want is complete dominance and servile employees. Teenagers, however, are expected to live by the same rules that have been around for generations: they must obey and respect authority without complaint. All this at a time when they are finally becoming aware that the world is not the rosy picture of story books and sitcoms, that reaching the age of accountability doesn't equate to instant wisdom, and that even the finest people and the most inspiring leaders have glaring inconsistencies of character.

Isn't the least we can do to ease this transition keeping up with our piles of grading and showing up on time for meets? And when we inevitably do fall short, why is it so difficult to apologize and acknowledge what went wrong? I'm with the teenagers on this one.

A New Party Hobby

You know how in Jane Austen novels characters sit around at social gatherings for what seems like hours? Accepted activities include playing the piano and cards, but there are also books out on display for people to read. In Pride and Prejudice, Bingley's sister chides Elizabeth for preferring reading to cards; it is, however, perfectly socially acceptable for her to be sitting on the sofa reading while Darcy writes a letter to his sister and the others play cards.

I mention this because my mother recently teased me for reading my book while we were at my sister's house after dinner. I completely understand why it was considered rude and felt correspondingly sheepish: it is like signaling that the company is too boring for me to bother with conversation.

I have to confess that I am often tempted to read in the middle of social gatherings. Maybe it is because I am an introvert with mild social anxiety. I was recently at a party where I found myself alone in the living room perusing the host's shelves; what I really wanted to be doing was just sitting on the couch and reading. It is not that I dislike conversation or social interaction, but when it gets overwhelming or I feel like I have nothing to contribute it seems harmless enough--at my sister's house, she and her husband were putting the kids to bed while my parents talked and I felt I was out of the loop and wouldn't be missed.

Why is it acceptable to watch T.V. or a play video games in a group but not read? Presumably because watching T.V. is at least a shared activity, while reading is a solitary experience. Something I love to do however, is read my book while other people are scooting around doing other things--cooking, checking work email, or reading themselves--and then make them listen to my favorite excerpts. How annoying am I? I confess I wouldn't mind reverting to Austen's time when you could have your cake and eat it (or have your book and read it, har, har) by sitting in a social environment and reading away: converse when it pleases you, read when you need distraction or to have something of substance to converse about. The perfect marriage of activities for both introverts and extroverts!