In this piece, I examine who molds the next generation: family or the broader society. I describe how modern forces like media and institutions often displace familial guidance under the guise of freedom. Reflecting on my own experience, I see this shift as a loss of rooted identity. I challenge readers to ask not just who shapes children today—but why, and to what end.
At the heart of every civilization lies a quiet but foundational struggle: who gets to shape the next generation? It’s a question that hides beneath debates about education, media, gender, freedom, and even technology. But at its core, it’s a contest between two forces—individual family and societal influence—about who gets to sculpt the soul of a child.
In traditional societies, especially those rooted in conservative or religious values, the answer is clear: the family raises the child. Parents, elders, and tightly-knit communities pass down not just culture but a sense of identity, duty, and meaning. Children are viewed not as blank slates, but as heirs to a lineage—a moral, cultural, and often spiritual inheritance.
Modern liberal societies flip this script. They champion the child’s right to choose, to self-define, to break free. On the surface, this looks like empowerment. But beneath it lies a paradox: when the influence of parents diminishes, it doesn’t disappear—it’s simply displaced. And what fills the vacuum isn’t always neutral. It’s often institutions, media, corporations, ideologies, or anonymous social currents. The child’s “freedom” becomes a handoff from familial legacy to systemic influence.
I grew up in the 1980s, and I may belong to one of the first generations where larger social forces—school systems, pop culture, media, marketing—had more influence on me than my own immediate family. Looking back, I believe this was a net negative. Many of the identity-based tangents I adopted in youth felt empowering at the time, but later proved to be irrelevant or even detrimental. They distanced me from my roots, confused my values, and introduced friction into my family. The very unity that gave me security was undermined by forces that had no real investment in me, only in what I might consume, believe, or support.
This isn’t entirely sinister. A society has a valid stake in shaping its members, especially if it hopes to avoid regression into tribalism or exclusion. But it’s also not entirely benign. Because the larger the force shaping the child, the harder it becomes to resist it. Children raised more by algorithms, institutions, or marketing departments than by family are less raised than standardized.
And so the fundamental choice of a society becomes this: Do we believe that the moral and cultural programming of children belongs to their families, or to the society at large? And if we say “society,” are we ready to examine who actually makes those decisions within society—and why?
…