The main functional benefit of modern hands-on parenting is not that it makes kids smarter but that it makes them better at sitting still and sticking with the irksome tasks that schools, colleges, and employers will assign to them throughout their lives. On one hand, we’ll be reassured that, if we’re parenting in this way, we’re giving our kids a marginally better chance at a successful life. On the other hand, we might be a little chagrined at the idea that the selection needs of college bureaucrats and the behavioral preferences of corporate managers have come to inform our parenting methods, that their priorities have somehow taken up residence in our home lives, as our priorities.
This quote seems to capture the Big Idea of Feeney’s book (at least, from what I gather so far): namely, that various mediating institutions outside the home—often billed as “voluntary”—end up having an involuntary quality to them, as families become more conformed to the demands and expectations of these institutions. (Families, particularly parents, are willing to conform themselves to these outside demands because these institutions are perceived as necessary in gaining competitive advantage for future academic and career success.) I detect more than a little Illich in Feeney’s argument. I can see why Matt Crawford so enthusiastically endorsed the book, as it overlaps with many of his concerns.