Whoever invented the term “rebellion phase” must have been a genius. The term is brilliant because it gives parents and schools a perfect excuse for their failed education. It implies that kids’ disobedience isn’t caused by adults at all—just like Alzheimer’s, it’s a natural and uncontrollable phenomenon.
Traditionally, the “rebellion phase” refers to teenagers around fourteen who become disobedient, resist authority, and deliberately go against their parents. As a result, many parents believe teens at this age are mentally “unstable” or at least “not normal.”
But that raises a key question—what does rebellion actually mean? What exactly is a “rebellion phase”?
Taken literally, both “rebellion” and “defiance” carry a negative tone. They are labels assigned from the perspective of those in power. If we used a more neutral term, it would be “a period of resistance.” Which leads to the real problem: What are kids resisting, and why?
We all know the line: “Where there is oppression, there will be resistance.”
If parents complain that their children are “rebellious,” then by definition there must have been a long period of oppression beforehand. Otherwise, why resist at all? It would make no logical sense.
So today, we’re going to analyze the causes and consequences of so-called rebellion, and why adults fundamentally misunderstand this concept.
1. Why Ancient Societies Had No “Rebellion Phase”
The term “rebellion phase” is modern. You won’t find it in ancient texts. Does that mean ancient teenagers were always obedient? Of course not. The real reason is that ancient societies didn’t view teenagers as children.
Formal education was short, if it existed at all. By age seven or eight, children were working—herding livestock, gathering firewood, doing household labor. By their teenage years, boys worked in the fields, and girls wove cloth and managed household tasks. Teenagers were treated as slightly weaker adults, not minors.
Even in scholar families, children began studying at four or five and spent a decade preparing for exams. If they passed, they gained high social status and certainly weren’t seen as “kids.”
Across classes, marriage and childbearing in the teen years were normal. In both East and West, this pattern was common before modernity.
In other words:
There was no rebellion phase in ancient times because teenagers were already adults. There was no authority controlling them, so there was nothing to resist.
Interestingly, the concept of “adolescence” as a distinct social category did not become mainstream until the 20th century.
2. How Modern Progress Created the “Rebellion Phase”
With industrialization came higher standards for labor, requiring literacy and extended education. Mass education was a sign of societal progress, but it also produced a side effect:
Longer schooling → longer financial dependency → more parental control → stronger desire for autonomy
Meanwhile, teenagers’ bodies mature earlier, and their worldview expands. Naturally, they begin testing boundaries and claiming agency. This is a healthy developmental process.
But adults attach negative labels to it:
“You’re disobedient” = rebellious
“You want equality” = disrespectful
“You express emotions” = immature
This framing itself comes from a position of power.
3. Rebellion Isn’t Against Family, But Against Asymmetric Power
Many parents believe they work hard, so children should be “understanding.” But what they actually want is not empathy—it’s compliance.
In many families, the implicit logic is:
All achievements belong to the parents.
All failures belong to the child.
This is a classic mix of emotional manipulation, moral pressure, and power imbalance.
Worse yet, some parents remain psychologically stuck at an infantile stage—adult babies who require minors to regulate their emotions, fulfill expectations, carry family honor, and avoid shame.
The moment children resist, they get labeled as “rebellious,” followed by shaming, control, emotional coercion, or even violence.
As teenagers grow, gain knowledge, and form independent identities, they inevitably start asking:
“What kind of life have I been living?”
“Why must I tolerate all this?”
And that’s when the so-called rebellion begins.
4. The Flawed Argument: Immature Brains and Blind Obedience
Some people cite neuroscience:
“Teenage brains aren’t fully developed, so they are impulsive, therefore rebellious.”
But if impulsiveness = rebellion, then younger children, who are even more impulsive, should be considered even more rebellious. Yet no one uses that label.
Conversely, are impulsive adults in their forties still “in rebellion”? Obviously not.
Others define rebellion as simply “not listening.”
But if obedience is the standard, then almost no human on Earth passes the test. Are all 8 billion people permanently rebellious?
5. The Essence of Rebellion: A Request for Basic Equality
The truth is surprisingly simple:
Rebellion is just a request for a minimal degree of equality.
Not financial independence.
Not dominance.
Just basic dignity in front of authority.
However many socially disadvantaged adults desperately seek power within the family, because they lack it elsewhere. Unable to control the world, they control their children—a typical behavior of the weak using borrowed authority.
The ironic twist is that life eventually reverses this power dynamic:
Today, the child relies on the parent.
Tomorrow, the parent will rely on the child.
If parents insist that power determines righteousness, they are sawing off the very branch they will one day need to sit on.
6. Adolescence Is Not Rebellion — It’s the Last Chance for Repair
If parents never treat their children as autonomous individuals, and turn “education” into orders, shame, and coercion—then confrontation in adolescence is inevitable.
If the child “wins,” it may be a comedy or tragedy.
If the parent “wins,” it is always a tragedy.
Most families end up drained by years of meaningless conflict.
From the child’s perspective, the so-called “provocation” and “irrationality” of adolescence is simply the chaotic search for self—often a final distress signal to parents:
“You still have one last chance to fix this relationship.”
If parents cannot see it, hear it, or accept it—nothing can save the family afterward.
Fair enough—everyone reaps what they sow.
原文
叛逆期是父母的幻觉：压迫与反抗的真实逻辑
不知道是哪位“大聪明”发明了“叛逆期”这个词。这个词真是很妙，它给了那些教育失败的家长和学校一个完美的借口：孩子不听话不是大人的问题，而像阿尔兹海默病一样，是一种无法抗拒的自然现象。
传统定义里，“叛逆期”指人在十四岁前后开始不服管、抗拒权威、故意和家长对着干。所以很多父母认为这个阶段的孩子精神状态“不正常”，至少“不够听话”。
但问题是——什么叫叛逆？所谓叛逆期到底是什么？
如果按照字面理解，“叛”和“逆”本身就是贬义，是站在上位者视角给出的一种评判。如果换成中性一点的词，它应该叫“反抗期”或“抗争期”。那么问题来了：孩子到底在反抗什么？为什么反抗？
我们都听过一句话：哪里有压迫，哪里就会有反抗。如果家长哀嚎“孩子叛逆了”，那就意味着在此之前一定存在长期的“压迫期”。不然孩子凭什么反抗？逻辑上根本说不通。
今天，我们就来探究“叛逆”的前因后果，再看看成年人如何错误理解了这个概念。
一、古代没有“叛逆期”，不是因为少年更听话
“叛逆期”是一个近现代词汇，在古代典籍中并不存在。难道古人从来没有不听话的少年？当然不是。问题在于古代社会根本不把青少年当成孩子。
古代教育周期短，甚至不用上学。七八岁就要放牛捡柴，十几岁男孩要下地干活，女孩要纺织做工。在那个社会语境中，十几岁就是劳动力，是“弱一点的成年人”。
读书人家庭也一样——四五岁启蒙，十几年寒窗苦读，考上功名者甚至拥有超越常人的社会地位，谈不上“儿童”。
而无论贫富，十几岁谈婚论嫁、成家立业都很常见。
换句话说：
古代没有“叛逆期”，因为那个年纪早已是成年人，没有人能管，也无需被管，自然也不会反抗。
西方历史也是类似——“青少年”作为一个独立社会概念，是20世纪才普及的产物。
二、现代叛逆期，其实是社会进步的副产品
随着工业化到来，社会对劳动力的知识水平要求提高，于是受教育年限变长。教育普及是文明进步，但带来一个副作用：
孩子被家庭供养的时间变长 → 管控时间变长 → 自主意识变强
与此同时，身体发育已接近成人，见识也增加，自然会去尝试突破边界，探索自我权利。这是成长中正常且必经的过程，但成年人把它贴上了贬义标签：
“不听话”=“叛逆”
“要求平等”=“胆子太大”
“表达情绪”=“不懂事”
这个定义本身就站在权力视角，是一种压制。
三、叛逆的真相：反抗的不是家庭，而是不对称的权力
很多父母自认为自己“很辛苦”，所以孩子应该“体谅”。但他们所谓的“体谅”往往不是理解，而是屈服：
家庭所有荣耀归父母
所有糟糕归孩子
这是典型的自我感动 + 情绪勒索 + 强权逻辑。
更糟的是，有些父母在心理上停留在婴幼儿阶段——巨婴化。他们需要未成年人来照顾自己、承接情绪、完成面子工程、承担期待。而一旦孩子反抗便被贴上“叛逆”的标签，随之而来的是羞辱、控制、暴力甚至道德绑架。
当孩子逐渐长大、见识增加、形成自我认同时，就会开始思考：
“我到底在过什么日子？”
“为什么必须继续忍受？”
于是，成年人定义下的“叛逆”就开始了。
四、错误解释：把大脑发育和服从划等号
有人喜欢搬出科学说法：“青少年大脑皮层发育不成熟，所以冲动，所以叛逆。”
但如果“冲动=叛逆”，那更小的孩子更冲动，为什么不叫叛逆？
如果一个四五十岁的人依旧冲动，难道还处在叛逆期？
还有人说：“孩子不听话就是叛逆。”
那么世界上除了孩子，还有谁会真正听话？难不成80亿人都处于叛逆期？
五、叛逆的本质：平等请求
叛逆的真相往往只有一句话：
孩子要求一定程度的平等。
不是要求经济独立，不是要求人格压倒父母，而是要求在权威面前拥有最低限度的尊严。
但许多社会弱势群体，在家庭中拼命寻找权力感。他们无法掌控世界，只好掌控孩子——这是弱者的强权逻辑。
而真正讽刺的是，生命早晚会反转：
今天孩子依附父母，未来父母需要孩子。
若父母坚持“权力即真理”，最终只会砍断自己未来的桥。
六、青春期不是叛逆，而是父母最后的机会
父母从未把孩子当成平等个体，把“教育”变成“命令”，仗着自己的暂时强势进行羞辱、压迫、打骂、绑架——那么到了青春期，冲突是必然的。
孩子赢了，也许是喜剧，也许是悲剧；父母赢了，必定是悲剧。
更多情况下，是漫长无意义的拉锯战，彼此消耗。
从孩子的角度看，青春期的所谓“挑衅”与“不讲理”，其实只是在混乱中寻找自我，是向父母发出的最后求救信号：
“你还有最后一次机会修补这段关系。”
如果父母看不见、听不见、也不愿改变——那就没有人能救了。
很公平——种什么因，得什么果。
