«We idealise the past»

Mr Dornes, you deny that children and parents are under pressure. Why is that?

Pressure to perform has been cited again and again for decades as a reason for dissatisfaction at school and university, as well as for the alleged increase in mental illness, rising youth violence, alcohol consumption, computer addiction and so on. Obviously, this is a universal key that can be used at will.

What makes you so sure?

We were already dealing with allegedly increasingly exhausted children and adults in the past. The documented prevalence of vegetative dystonia, later also known as stress syndrome, was 30 to 50 per cent in the early 1960s, which puts all of today's burnout figures in the shade. As in 1890 for neurasthenia, which was later described as exhaustion depression, the cause was considered to be the «high-speed civilisation» with its many demands in work and leisure time.

A 1958 study in Hamburg found that 61 per cent of all 10 to 11-year-olds had at least one psychopathological symptom such as headaches, difficulty falling asleep, nausea or teeth grinding. The diagnosis of the time was: increasing traffic and street noise, mothers exhausted from reconstruction and «new» media - at that time American comic books. As early as 1978, sociologists identified «extreme pressure to perform» in our schools. However, when it comes to schools in particular, there is evidence that the performance requirements have not increased.

For example?

If 50 per cent of a year group in Germany today pass the Abitur - in my time it was 10 per cent - and the average final grade has improved with every year group over the last 15 years, the idea of relaxed performance requirements is obvious. It is also conceivable that too many children attend grammar school today who do not have the necessary qualifications and therefore feel overwhelmed.

The stress doesn't just start at grammar school. Experts such as paediatrician Herbert Renz-Polster complain that primary school is already degenerating from a place of learning to a labour market supplier.

I think that's a typical nostalgia thesis. It implies that school used to be a place of learning and no longer is. When did schools lose their glamour as a place of learning? The fact that economic and competitive interests dominate the school landscape is one of the many half-truths circulating about schools.

What society used to dictate, we can or must now find out for ourselves.

Most of the school reforms of the last 40 years have not been demanded by the economy, but implemented by politicians - mostly under the banner of emancipation, equalisation of disadvantages, support for the disadvantaged and inclusion. It is true that the importance of qualified school-leaving qualifications has increased and that parents want their children to take the Abitur or A-levels

This sometimes culminates in the much-discussed funding mania.

The schooling of childhood through excessive encouragement has been discussed for at least 35 years. As early as 1981, the US psychologist David Elkind wrote a book on the subject and put forward the theory that «college starts at two». Individual examples such as foreign language lessons from the age of two were cited as evidence. They always exist.

Educator, documentary filmmaker and non-fiction author Donata Elschenbroich, on the other hand, has visited dozens of early learning centres and daycare centres. Her conclusion is: «Our children, regardless of their parental background, are treated with more respect today than in any previous generation.»

Why don't we talk about it?

Tell us. If you ask adults about the state of youth, you will always hear predominantly pessimistic answers. However, if you ask them how their children or those of their friends are doing, the opposite is true.

The demands on school performance have not increased.

We also know from surveys and studies that the life satisfaction of children in German-speaking countries is very high. The youth researchers Hurrelmann and Albrecht, for example, state in their relevant work from 2016: «Most of them can deal with stress impressively well, even if they like to complain.»

However, Hurrelmann also speaks of a «generation under pressure» in the current Shell Youth Study. According to this, the unpredictable labour market in particular plays a role.

It is undisputed that expectations of employees have changed. In the past, employees were expected to put up with monotony on the assembly line and follow instructions, whereas today they are expected to be flexible and independent. Why should this represent increasing pressure?

Precisely because there is no predictability.

Expectations and requirements change, and this has always been the case. Between 1950 and 1970, most rural jobs disappeared and were replaced by industrial ones. There used to be plenty of stress at work: labourers suffered from heavy physical strain and long working hours. We idealise the past. Back then, Dad still belonged to his employer on Saturdays, not the family.

Today, parents are stressed because they have to manage everything on their own: Childcare, job, household. The fate of today's nuclear family?

This topos is overused. You often hear the African wisdom that it takes a whole village to raise a child. Or the reference to the fact that a grandmother used to stand by your side. The village and the extended family are idealised.

Most African villages are not idyllic and the relationship between the generations used to be tense. The mother wanted nothing more than to be left alone by her patronising grandmother.

Nevertheless, fixed structures and binding values also offered security. Today, everything is open. Alongside the many advantages, doesn't this also harbour the danger that a lack of orientation can overwhelm us?

What society used to dictate, we can or must now find out for ourselves. This undoubtedly increases the demands on the self-organisation and self-control skills of parents and children. This is mental work and sometimes exhausting. There is a risk that some people will not be able to cope with this increased self-control effort. Especially those who did not grow up in a negotiation-orientated home.

Partnership-based education is good preparation for life.

A rigid tree breaks in the wind, a flexible one does not. This makes it clear that former «securities» can no longer be a guideline for upbringing. In contrast, I consider the partnership-based or democratised upbringing that is widespread today to be quite good preparation for life.

But it is also said to lead to insecure parents.

It may be associated with some behavioural uncertainties; about what is allowed or required. However, uncertainty can also be productive; it encourages us to reflect on our actions. With all the debates about uncertainty, excessive demands and pressure, we are in danger of losing sight of the one historical achievement of the educational transformation: It is that we have pushed back violence from the parent-child relationship and are parenting in a more child-centred way. This advantage alone outweighs any possible disadvantages.