Gen Z: The parents who shaped them?

Major historical events have effects beyond their immediate consequences. War, famine, economic crisis, migration, or political oppression change the way people experience security, relationships, authority, and the future. When these people become parents, their experiences enter the family.

This does not mean that a historical event is simply “transmitted” from a parent to a child.

War is not transmitted.

What is transmitted is the way the war changed people.

A parent who grew up amid scarcity may place particular value on security. A parent who experienced chaos may emphasize order. A parent who lost loved ones may become highly protective. A parent who grew up in an authoritarian system may want to give their children more freedom than they themselves had.

That is precisely why intergenerational transmission is not simply repetition.

It can be continuity, but also a reaction.

Research on the intergenerational transmission of parenting shows that parenting patterns can be passed down through generations, while at the same time, there is significant room for change. People do not necessarily repeat the parenting they experienced from their own parents. Sometimes they consciously change it.

Research on families affected by World War II shows this complexity particularly clearly. In Dutch families, war experiences can be associated with difficulties that appear in later generations, but resilience and adaptive patterns can also be transmitted. Family relationships and communication between generations play an important role in this process.

Therefore, history does not reach the child directly.

It enters the relationship between parent and child.

The survival generation

European parents who raised children after World War II largely lived in societies where scarcity, physical labor, discipline, and insecurity were immediate realities.

In such a context, the importance of obedience is easy to understand.

When the world is dangerous, predictability becomes a value.

When resources are scarce, delaying gratification becomes a necessity.

When a family has to function under difficult circumstances, rules can serve a very specific purpose.

Such a parenting model should not be romanticized. Authority often came with harshness, emotional unavailability, physical punishment, and very little room for children’s autonomy.

However, it is important to understand its function.

A parent did not necessarily say “You must obey me” simply because they enjoyed exercising power.

Sometimes, they lived in a social system where obedience was linked to security.

The generation that decided to do things differently

This highlights one of the most interesting psychological mechanisms of intergenerational transmission.

Children of such parents may come to the conclusion:

“I don’t want to be like my parents.”

This is a well-known form of reactive process: A person constructs their identity, in part, in opposition to the patterns from which they emerged.

If the previous generation was strict, the new generation becomes more tolerant.

If feelings were not expressed, the new generation emphasizes emotional openness.

If children were not listened to, the new generation begins to listen to them.

If decisions were not explained, the new generation begins to explain them.

Something important is happening here: The change in parenting is not simply the result of new theories about children. It is also the emotional response of a generation to the experience of their own childhood.

In the second half of the twentieth century, this process coincided with a much broader societal change.

The family became less hierarchical.

The opinions of children gained greater legitimacy.

Parents increasingly explained rules, rather than simply imposing them.

Decisions were increasingly negotiated.

Research in various European societies documents precisely this long-term change. In Sweden, a comparison of three cohorts showed a significant decrease in directive parental control and a development towards more egalitarian family relationships.

Analyses of values in France, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Sweden also show a long-term trend towards greater acceptance of the priority of the child’s well-being.

This was an important civilizational change.

The child was no longer simply an object of parental decisions.

The child became a subject within the relationship.

But it is here that an important distinction begins.

Autonomy is not the same as the absence of boundaries

Contemporary developmental psychology gives us no reason to view a child’s autonomy as a problem.

Quite the contrary.

A large meta-analysis, published in 2026, included 404 studies from 53 countries and found that parental support for autonomy was associated with a lower level of internalizing and externalizing problems in children and adolescents.

In other words, a parent who allows a child to make decisions, encourages initiative, and respects the child’s opinion is not doing anything wrong.

The problem arises when a different equation is set up:

Autonomy = no boundaries.

That is not the same thing.

A parent can say:

“I understand that you want this.”

and then:

“But I have decided that it is not possible at this time.”

That is not authoritarianism.

It is parental responsibility.

From “I decide” to “You decide”

This is perhaps the most important point in the entire process.

Traditional authority says:

“No, because I am the parent.”

The democratized parent says:

“I want to hear what you think.”

However, there is also a third possibility:

“You decide.”

At first glance, this sentence seems like the culmination of democracy.

However, a child is not automatically capable of making every decision simply because they have the right to participate in decision-making.

Development involves the gradual assumption of responsibility.

When a parent offers a child choices within a structure that is appropriate for the child’s age and stage of development, they are supporting autonomy.

When a parent abandons this structure because they do not want a conflict, they may be doing something completely different.

This is no longer simply supporting autonomy.

It can become a transfer of responsibility.

Why would a parent do that?

One possible mechanism is the avoidance of conflict.

Setting a boundary almost inevitably creates a certain amount of frustration.

The child may become angry.

They may cry.

They may say that the parent is unfair.

The parent then has to accept that the child is temporarily dissatisfied with them.

This is a psychologically demanding skill.

If the parent interprets the child’s frustration as evidence that they are harming the child, the boundary becomes emotionally threatening.

Then a sequence can arise:

The child becomes frustrated → the parent feels guilty → the parent gives in → the conflict subsides → the parent experiences relief.

If this pattern repeats, negative reinforcement can occur.

The parent learns that giving in is the quickest way to reduce their own discomfort.

At the same time, the child learns something else:

An increase in emotion can change the parent’s decision.

This does not mean that parents consciously manipulate their children, nor that children consciously manipulate their parents.

It is a learning process that takes place within a relationship.

And that is precisely why it is more helpful to talk about an interaction pattern than about the parent’s fault or the child’s fault.

When protection becomes overprotection

A similar mechanism can operate through the parental protective function.

A parent who has experienced insecurity themselves may want their child to never experience what they experienced.

This can lead to a very warm and protective parenting style.

However, protection can cross a line.

When a parent systematically removes obstacles, frustrations, and consequences from the child’s life, the child has fewer opportunities to develop their own ability to cope with them.

This is one reason why contemporary literature distinguishes between supporting autonomy and excessive involvement and control.

The paradox is that a parent can be strongly involved while simultaneously being very weak when it comes to setting boundaries.

This is a characteristic of contemporary parenting that cannot be adequately described by a simple distinction between “strict” and “lenient.”

Intensive parenting and the fear of doing it wrong

The contemporary parent also faces a completely new problem: near-unlimited access to information about parenting.

Psychology, pedagogy, social media, parenting websites, and expert advice can create the impression that there is a “right” answer to every parenting decision.

Parenting can thus become a project aimed at optimizing the child.

The parent is no longer responsible only for the child’s safety.

They may begin to feel responsible for the child’s emotional state, self-esteem, education, social relationships, future career, and psychological resilience.

In such a context, setting a boundary can become frightening.

What if I’ve made a mistake?

What if I’ve hurt the child?

What if it has long-term consequences?

What if I’m not a good enough parent?

Paradoxically, the more a parent believes they are responsible for a child’s well-being, the more likely they are to try to remove anything that the child might experience as unpleasant.

Generation Z is therefore not a generation that can be explained by a single characteristic.

It is a generation that has grown up in a society where autonomy, individuality, emotional expression, and personal choices have become strong cultural values.

This is not simply the product of their parents.

It has also been influenced by digital technology, social media, changes in the education system, economic uncertainty, individualization, and the broader social context.

Parenting, however, is one of the central microsystems in which these societal changes are implemented on a daily basis.

If a member of Generation Z grew up in a family where their opinion was consistently taken into account, that in itself is not a problem.

If they learned to negotiate, that is not necessarily a problem.

If they had the right to say “no,” that is not a problem.

However, if they also learned that every frustration must be eliminated, every decision is negotiable, and every parental “no” can be reconsidered, then we are dealing with a completely different developmental context.

And that is precisely what should be investigated.

Therefore, it would be methodologically flawed to conclude that certain characteristics of Generation Z are the result of “bad parenting.”

Such a conclusion would ignore the complexity of development.

It is much more interesting to ask:

How has the historical change in parental authority changed the experience of growing up?

And more specifically:

What happens when a historically based correction of authoritarian parenting continues to move towards a model in which it becomes increasingly difficult for parents to make those decisions that are part of their responsibility for development?

This question does not require nostalgia for the old form of authority.

Quite the contrary.

We can reject authoritarianism while defending parental authority.

We can recognize a child’s right to their own voice while also recognizing the parent’s right and responsibility to say “no.”

We can support autonomy without abandoning structure.

Major historical changes do not automatically produce a specific type of person.

War does not produce “strict parents.”

Peace does not produce “lenient parents.”

Democratization does not produce “spoiled children.”

Such claims would be far too simplistic.

However, history does change the conditions under which people become parents.

War can change attitudes towards security.

Scarcity can change attitudes towards discipline.

Authoritarian systems can change attitudes towards obedience.

Democratization can change attitudes towards hierarchy.

The development of psychology can change attitudes towards children’s feelings.

Children’s rights can change attitudes towards children’s autonomy.

And individualization can change attitudes towards personal choices.

These influences then interact within the family.

There, history becomes a relationship.

Parents bring into this relationship what they have learned, what they have experienced, and what they have decided to reject. Children experience this relationship, internalize it, and one day use it to develop their own understanding of the relationships between themselves and others.

Therefore, intergenerational transmission should not be understood as copying.

Sometimes, the strongest form of transmission is precisely a reaction against the previous generation.

A parent who was not listened to gives their child a voice.

A parent who was controlled gives their child freedom.

A parent who was not allowed to show emotions teaches their child emotional openness.

All of this can be a valuable correction.

But every correction can exceed its own limits.

The moment a parent no longer says:

“Your opinion is important to me”

but instead says:

“You have to decide”

the nature of the relationship changes.

Because a child does not need a parent who makes decisions for them throughout their entire life.

But a child also does not need a parent who asks them too early to make decisions in the parent’s place.

Perhaps one of the greatest challenges of contemporary parenting lies precisely between these two extremes:

How can one raise an autonomous child without abandoning one’s own responsibility for the child’s development?

And perhaps that is the most important lesson we can learn from the history of parenting: The goal is not to restore the authority of the past, but to find a new form of authority that is based neither on fear nor on the abdication of responsibility.

Note

This text does not claim that there is a single “typical” parent of Generation Z, nor that the characteristics of Generation Z stem from a single parenting model. Historical, cultural, economic, and familial factors are intertwined, and their effects vary among individuals and societies. Terms such as “reactive parenting” and “abandonment of parental responsibility” are used in this text as analytical concepts for further consideration, not as established clinical or diagnostic categories.

Perhaps the history of parenting is not moving from authority to its disappearance, but to the question of what kind of authority we can have when we no longer want a child to fear a parent in order to respect them.

When a parent fails to assume a responsibility that is necessary for a child’s development, the child does not cease to develop the ability to adapt. On the contrary, the child must organize their own functioning as effectively as possible, utilizing the resources available to them. What results from this is not solely determined by parenting, but by the interplay of numerous factors: temperament, relationships with other important people, peers, school, socioeconomic conditions, culture, the historical moment, random life events, and the individual’s own active ability to adapt. Parenting is therefore an important factor, but never the only one.