Family Relationships and the Self-Esteem of Hidden Youth

Abstract

The transmission of power requires the presence of an interpersonal network as a medium; however, the nature of the relationship in the effect of power exertion is seldom discussed. In view of this research gap, this study aims to examine whether the degree of the relationship determines the impact of discipline over hidden youth, which subsequently affects young people’s level of subordination. Hidden youth (N = 363) participated in the quantitative part of this study, whereas 42 participated in the qualitative phase; surveillants included 21 parents, 11 teachers, 16 social workers or counselors, and three police officers. Using hierarchical regression analysis, moderation analysis, and qualitative verbatim accounts, this study shows that the degree of relationships “catalyzed” the effect of power and control. When the degree of relationship was higher, the effect of power exertion would be higher.

Keywords

discipline family hidden youth power relationship self-esteem

Introduction

The phenomenon of “hidden youth,” also known as “hikikomori” (Saito, 2002b), was first recognized in Japan. In Japan, the phenomenon is used to describe young people who “seclude themselves for more than six months at home” (Isobe, 2004, p. 27) and “withdraw from most social activities and retreat into their living spaces” (Ogino, 2004, p. 120). In 2004, this phenomenon was uncovered in Hong Kong (Wong & Ying, 2005) and was also found in other countries (Kato, Shinfuku, Sartorius, & Kanba, 2011), such as Oman (Sakamoto, Martin, Kumano, Kuboki, & Al-Adawi, 2005), Spain (Garcia-Campayo, Alda, Sobradiel, & Sanz Abos, 2007), and Korea (Lee, Koo, Kim, & Lee, 2001). In Hong Kong, hidden youth are referred to as those who have withdrawn from society and retreated from social connections or participation for at least 3 months (Wong & Ying, 2006). They are viewed as a group of youth deviant from the mainstream society, as they do not fulfill societal expectations. They are NEET (i.e., people without employment, education, or training), poor, and suffer from discrimination or marginalization (Wong & Ying, 2006).

In 2004, it was announced at a conference that the number of hidden youth in Hong Kong had reached 6,000 (Wong & Ying, 2005). In 2007, the number increased to about 18,500 young adults and 540 students (Hong Kong Christian Service, 2007). In view of the increasing severity of the problem, researchers have attempted to investigate the causes of hidden youth. They argue that the pressure-based education and career system (Dziesinski, 2004; Saito, 2002a; Wong & Ying, 2006), bullying (Dziesinski, 2003), overdependent parent-child relationships (Saito, 2001; Saito, 2003), poverty, social discrimination (Wong & Ying, 2006), exaggerative media reporting (Lewis, 2004), and coping with emotional neglect of parents (Hattori, 2005) were important reasons for the phenomenon, with many of the causes implying that this group of young people had low self-esteem (e.g., Olejarz, 2011; Saito, 2002a; Wong & Ying, 2006).

However, according to the empirical observation of the investigators, not all hidden youth have low self-esteem; rather, those who maintain a good relationship with close family have a high level of self-esteem. Besides, becoming hidden youth is a long developmental process that cannot be accounted for by separate causes and factors; instead, hidden youth experience different situations and power dynamics during this process. It is doubtful that their self-esteem might be related to their relationships with others. To investigate this association, this study examines whether relationships, especially family relationships, influence the level of self-esteem of hidden youth, as well as how family relationships affect the self-esteem of hidden youth.

The Power Dynamics Between Surveillants and Hidden Youth

In order to show the significance of the degree of relationships in the impact of power exertion, this paper adopts Foucault’s concepts of power and discipline. Foucault (1980a) suggested that power is everywhere and not owned by a particular party, but operates within unequal power relations. Power “excludes,” “represses,” and “censors” (Foucault, 1975, p. 194). Various surveillants, including teachers, parents, social workers, and police officers are in these types of unequal power relations with hidden youth. The surveillants are generally in a powerful position over hidden youth to enforce social control over them by supervising, managing, signifying them as “bad” and “outlawed,” and differentiating them from the “good” and “legal” (Roberts, 1993, p. 171), while hidden youth are subordinate, being exposed to continuous management and regulation from the surveillants. Thus, power flows from the powerful adults to the powerless hidden youth, with the aim to mold hidden youth into bodies compliant with the indoctrination and discipline (Foucault, 1975).

However, as resistance coexists with power (Foucault, 1980b), hidden youth can engage in different forms of resistance to show their discontent with the adults’ disciplinary power. This implies that the difference in the levels of power between any two parties does not necessarily bring out a successful exertion of power over the powerless; rather, the powerless can resist against the flow of power and indoctrination over them. Foucault (1980b) further asserted that it is not essential for power to be exerted in a top-down manner; it could be transmitted via interpersonal networks to achieve its purpose. A relationship must be present as a medium for the transmission of power and knowledge between the two parties in an unequal power relation.

The Significance of Relationship in the Exertion of Power Over Hidden Youth

Because power is exercised rather than owned (Su, 1994), interpersonal relationships need to be present as a medium to allow the flow of disciplinary power from the powerful to the powerless. Although the dominant parties are undoubtedly more powerful within a relation, they may not necessarily enjoy more power. As suggested by Su (1994), the effect of power operation varies with the differences in positions that allow them to exercise power. This implies that the powerless group in a particular relation can be the powerful one in another relation. As claimed by Yang (2004), the more information an individual possessed about another person, the higher ability of the individual to exert influence over that person; besides, whether other people can guide a person’s behavior depends on the person’s willingness to enter into power relations. Using social security system as an example, Moffatt (1999) argued that when a person agrees to sign a consent form regarding the disclosure of personal information, the social security staff gains the legitimatized right and power to collect the recipient’s personal information and examine the truthfulness of the information; however, if a person refused to disclose any personal information, the person would not be eligible to receive social security, and would not benefit from the social security system. This example illustrates that if a person refuses to enter into a power relation, the person will become insignificant in the power relation, causing the disability of the flow of power over him or her.

From the above notions, it is seen that it is not absolutely true for a powerful person to be able to transmit knowledge and exert influence exactly as Yao (2002) had asserted; rather, the effect of power exertion should be determined by the closeness of the relationship between the two parties, as well as the willingness of a person to receive power and control from the powerful party. Hence, when examining the power dynamics experienced by hidden youth, all surveillants should not be assumed as homogeneously powerful; instead, the uniqueness of each group of surveillants, as well as their level of importance in the eyes of hidden youth, should be carefully considered.

During the process of becoming hidden youth, the young people participate in relations with different surveillants, in which the interactions vary in degree and level of importance in their eyes. When young people withdraw and have detached connections with external society, only the family remains as their main group of surveillants. Hence, the family is viewed as having a major role in hidden youth’s daily life.

The Significance of Family in the Power and Control Over Hidden Youth

Among all relationships, family is widely regarded as a highly important institution that affects an individual’s development as it is the most fundamental socializing agent (Macionis, 2006). Hidden youth become “deviant” in the first place because they want to escape surveillants’ control. This is coherent with the notion that “where there is power, there is resistance” (Foucault, 1980b, p. 101). Parents initially urge them to connect with society, but when youth insist on staying in the prolonged seclusion, many parents start to respect their choice.

As one of the surveillants of hidden youth, the family serves as the closest executors to discipline youth. Although parental monitoring is stated to be effective in preventing maladaptive behaviors such as drug taking and misconduct (Byrnes & Miller, 2012; Parker & Benson, 2004), it is pointed out that use of punitive discipline, such as corporal punishment, might only be able to generate compliance on a short-term basis and might even increase the likelihood of aggressive behavior (Fletcher, Walls, Cook, Madison, & Bridges, 2008). To nurture individual’s optimal development, family relationship is said to be essential and family support is viewed as important in young adults’ lives (Riggio, 2004; Riggio & Kwong, 2011). According to Oliphant and Kuczynski’s (2011), parents who show intimacy with their children are likely to promote children’s compliance with parental rules and expectations. Also, authoritative parenting—family with warmth, support, and control (Baumrind, 1991) has been widely asserted as promoting positive outcomes including prosocial values (Barry, Padilla-Walker, Madsen, & Nelson, 2007), positive behavior (Bowen, Rose, Powers, & Glennie, 2008), fewer problematic behaviors (Karre & Mounts, 2012), and psychosocial well-being (Bean & Northrup, 2009). Hence, the above notions suggest that without a relationship, the sole existence of disciplinary power in the family is not enough for achieving social control and positive behavior.

The Present Study

In view of the importance of family closeness in individual development, the present study aims to investigate whether the degree of relationship with significant others, especially the family, does determine the effect of power exertion over hidden youth. Based on the above literature, it is hypothesized that (1) the degree of relationships influences the impact of power exertion, and (2) family relationship moderates the power exertion over hidden youth. Power exertion was measured by the label of deviance, as well as supervision and management of parents and teachers, who are the adults whom hidden youth interact with during the process of becoming socially withdrawn, as they constitute a deployment of discipline aimed at suppressing individuals (Foucault, 1980b). Relationships were measured by hidden youth’s relationships with parents, siblings, teachers, and peers; these relationships were tested since they are the significant others who greatly influence young people. The impact of power exertion was measured by hidden youth’s level of self-esteem, as it reflects the condition of their subordination under power and control.

Method

This study was composed of two parts: quantitative and qualitative study. The quantitative study was conducted by a questionnaire survey to investigate the factors affecting young people’s self-esteem and how the relationships with various parties moderated the effect of label of deviance on young people’s self-esteem. The qualitative study was conducted by means of semistructured in-depth interviews. They were mostly held at participants’ home. Each interview lasted for about one and a half hours. During each interview, only the hidden youth participant was present. (For details of the interview guideline, please refer to the Appendix.) The verbatim accounts were used to explore the degree of relationships of hidden youth with different surveillants and the responses of hidden youth to different surveillants’ control and discipline. This might shed light on the association between the degree of relationships and the degree of impact of disciplinary power from each group of surveillants. Both the quantitative and qualitative parts of study were conducted face-to-face with the participants. In total, 363 hidden youth took part in the questionnaire; 42 of them participated in the qualitative interviews.

Participants

As shown in Table 1, the withdrawal period of the 363 participants ranged from 6 months to 96 months. Males comprised 67.2% of the participants; 32.8% of them were female. The age range of the participants was 14 to 27; the average age of the participants was approximately 21 (M = 21.11). More than half of the participants had an education level of matriculation (year 13) or above (54.8%), and a family income of more than $20,000 (70.8%). Nearly half of them (49.3%) reported having earning ability, and a few had full-time jobs (15.2%). Information about hidden youth’s residence with parents was also sought; 206 (56.7%) of them lived with both parents, whereas 30 (8.3%) and 70 (19.3) of them lived with either father or mother, respectively. The demographic information of the participants reflects that although they retreated from school or work, most of them maintained interactions with their parents. It should be noted that it is possible for the participants to develop relationships with their partners via the Internet and engage in home-based work to earn a living.

Table 1.

Participant Characteristics (N = 363).

Variables	%	N
Gender
Male	67.2	244
Female	32.8	119
Age
14-15	4.2	15
16-20	36.6	133
21-25	56.5	205
26-27	2.8	10
Mean (SD)	21.11 (2.93)
Education
Junior secondary (Year 7-9)	11.3	41
Senior secondary (Year 10-11)	33.9	123
Matriculation (Year 13)	30.6	111
College/university	24.2	88
Family Income (USD$1 = HK$7.8)
Below HK$10,000	10.2	37
HK$10,001–20,000	19.0	69
HK$20,001–30,000	21.5	78
HK$30,001 or above	49.3	179
Residence with parents
With both parents	56.7	206
With father only	8.3	30
With mother only	19.3	70
With neither parents	15.7	57
Earning ability
Yes	49.3	179
Having full-time jobs	15.2	55
Social withdrawal period
6-24 months	28.1	102
25-47 months	37.2	135
48-72 months	12.1	44
73-96 months	22.6	82

Sampling

The present study used purposive sampling to locate the hidden youth respondents. From January 2007 to November 2010, the investigator initially contacted hidden youth by means of the Internet, including ICQ, MSN, Facebook, weblog, and especially online games, including Ragnarok Online, Perfect World, and World of Warcraft. The investigator is also an online game player who regularly participates in online games and understands the operation of the gaming platform. After initial contact with the potential participants and rapport-building, the investigator disclosed identity and invited them to take part in the study. The investigator contacted them via the Internet or telephone to explain the aim of the study, reconfirm whether they had met the sampling criteria, ask for consent, and make appointments with them for conducting interviews. Consent forms were directly given to participants age 18 or above, and for those under 18, to their parents. The interviews lasted for about an hour, and participants were not compensated for their participation in the study.

In order to exclude inappropriate subjects, hidden youth participants had to meet the following criteria: (a) residents of Hong Kong; (b) within the age range of 12 to 30; (c) withdrawn for at least 6 months without maintaining most face-to-face social connections or participation except with closest family members; and (d) free from any psychiatric diagnoses or treatments. The investigator adopted the definition similar to that used in Japan (Saito, 1998), in which hikikomori is referred to young people having retreated from social connections except the closest family for more than six months and are not primarily caused by psychiatric illnesses, and modified it to suit the local context.

Measures Used in the Questionnaire Survey

Background information

This includes demographic variables of hidden youth participants, including their age, gender, education level, and family income.

Power variables

The power variables assess the power exertion over hidden youth by the adults. These include label of deviance (29 items), supervision and punishment by teachers (4 items), and parental supervision and punishment (13 items), which enable the measurement of the level of management and discipline from society and surveillants. Label of deviance was assessed by using an adopted version of the Internalized Stigma of Mental Illness (ISMI) scale (Ritshera, Otilingama, & Grajalesa, 2003) (e.g., “People discriminate against me because I am a hidden youth”). It was suitable to assess the effect of labels on hidden youth through examining how hidden youth participants think and respond when experiencing the stigmas imposed on them by society. Supervision and punishment by teachers (S.P. Zeng, 2000) (e.g., “Having done something that will be punished by teachers”) explored the degree of disciplinary regulation from teachers. For the measurement of the degree of disciplinary regulation from parents, Parental supervision and punishment (S.P. Zeng, 2000) was used (e.g., “Father / Mother timely corrects me when I have done something wrong”). The two scales that measure the disciplinary power from teachers and parents were adopted from Taiwanese research due to their strong applicability into Hong Kong’s cultural context.

Relationship

The variables were Relationship with parents (S.P. Zeng, 2000; Y.H. Zeng, 2000) (8 items, e.g., “I maintain good relationships with Father / Mother”); Relationship with siblings (S.P. Zeng, 2000; Y.H. Zeng, 2000) (7 items, e.g., “My siblings and I are concerned about each other’s lives”); Relationship with teachers (Deng, 2001; Xu & Ma, 1997) (7 items, e.g., “You and your teachers maintain harmonious relationships”); and Relationship with peers (Deng, 2001; Xu & Ma, 1997) (9 items, e.g., “You maintain harmonious relationships with your schoolmates”) (Deng, 2001; Xu & Ma, 1997), which were assessed and compared to see which kind of relationship exerted the greatest moderating impact of power and control over hidden youth.

Hidden youth’s self-esteem

This variable represents the level of subordination and subjectivity under the power exertion by the adults. This was measured by the 10-item Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) (e.g., “On the whole, I am satisfied with myself”). It was incorporated in this study because of its high empirical support in the assessment of individuals’ self-esteem. For details of alpha coefficients of the measurement scales, please refer to Table 2.

Table 2.

Number of Items and Alpha Coefficients of Measurement Scales.

Measurement scales	No. of items	Alpha coefficients (α)
Internalized Stigma of Mental Illness (ISMI) scale	29	0.95
Supervision and punishment by teachers	4	0.90
Parental supervision and punishment	13	0.89
Relationship with parents	8	0.98
Relationship with siblings	7	0.98
Relationship with teachers	7	0.96
Relationship with peers	9	0.98
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale	10	0.84

Analyses

In order to explore which block of variables has the highest significant predictive power of hidden youth’s self-esteem, hierarchical regression was performed. In this analysis, apart from the effect of the relationship with parents, siblings, teachers, and peers on self-esteem, power variables and demographic information were also tested. The reason for including demographic information of the participating hidden youth was that it consists of individual factors that might cause individual differences in self-esteem among the participants. This statistical method enables the entrance of variables in the regression model in blocks, so as to determine which type of variables is the most significant predictor of a particular dependent variable. In addition, effect size (d) was introduced to give a supplementary measure of the degree of variance in the relationship between variables. To test the applicability of the hierarchical regression analysis, correlation analyses were conducted.

In addition, in order to explore whether the relationship between surveillants’ indoctrination of hidden youth through the label of deviance and their sense of self are dependent on the relationship with significant others, moderation analysis was performed. Label of deviance was used as the predictor in this analysis as it reflects the dominant societal expectations and judgments in Hong Kong, which constitute power exertion. Self-esteem as the outcome of the moderation analysis can be viewed as an indicator of the degree of impact of power exertion. To avoid the problem of multiple linearity, the investigator standardized the predicting variable and the moderating variable respectively, and multiplied them. If the mutual interaction causes a significant effect on the outcome variable, the moderating effect exists. In this case, the investigator further designed a diagram to represent the mutual interaction among the variables.

Results

Relationships With Significant Others and Hidden Youth’s Self-Esteem

As shown in Table 3, relationship with parents (r = .73****), siblings (r = .66****), teachers (r = .13*), and peers (r = .16*) were all significantly positively correlated with hidden youth’s self-esteem. This signifies that relationships with family members and others in external society are associated with self-esteem. Better relationships with other people are associated with higher self-esteem. On the other hand, label of deviance (r = −.60****), supervision and punishment by teachers (r = −.43****), and parental supervision and punishment (r = −.57****) were all significantly negatively correlated with self-esteem. This reflects that exertion of disciplinary power is associated with negative self-esteem. In addition, age (r = .38****), education level (r = .18**), and family income (r = .35****), but not gender, were all significantly positively correlated with self-esteem. This demonstrates that higher age, education level, and family income are linked to higher self-esteem.

Table 3.

Correlations Between Background Information, Power Variables, Relationship and Hidden Youth’s Self-Esteem.

Variables	Self-Esteem
Age	.38****
Gender	.10
Education level (EL)	.18**
Family income (FI)	.35****
Label of deviance (Deviance)	−.60****
Supervision and punishment by teachers (SPt)	−.43****
Parental supervision and punishment ( SPp)	−.57****
Relationship with parents (RelPar)	.73****
Relationship with siblings (RelSibs)	.66****
Relationship with teachers ( RelTea)	.13*
Relationship with peers (RelPeer)	.16*

Note. N = 363. *p < .05, **p < .01, ****p = .0000.

In order to find out which of the above variables are most relevant in predicting self-esteem, hierarchical regression analysis was conducted. Altogether, there were five steps. Among the five models, changes in the predictive power of variables as indicated in the coefficients were observed. As shown in Table 4, model 1 only included demographic information of hidden youth participants. Age (ß = .43****) and family income (ß = .27****) were significant. Next, in model 2, when power variables were incorporated, demographic information became insignificant in predicting hidden youth’s self-esteem, but label of deviance (ß = −.32****) and parental supervision and punishment (ß = −.28****) were significant. In model 3, when relationship with teachers was incorporated, label of deviance (ß = −.32****) and parental supervision and punishment (ß = −.28****) became significant in predicting self-esteem. In model 4, when relationship with peers was incorporated, label of deviance (ß = −.35****), parental supervision and punishment (ß= −.30****), and relationship with peers (ß = .13*) remained significant in predicting self-esteem. Label of deviance and parental supervision and punishment predicted lower self-esteem, whereas a good relationship with peers predicted higher self-esteem. In model 5, when relationships with parents and siblings were incorporated, family income (ß = −.16*), parental supervision and punishment (ß = −.16*), relationship with peers (ß = .14**), relationship with parents (ß = .58****), and relationship with siblings (ß = .28**) were significant in predicting self-esteem. These results show that self-esteem in hidden youth is affected by not only the deployment of discipline (Foucault, 1980b), but also relationships with other people. Relationship with parents is especially important in affecting self-esteem. In model 5, relationship with parents (ß = .58****) was the strongest predictor of self-esteem among all variables. This implies that parents are the significant others that play the most important role in affecting self-esteem.

Table 4.

Mitrarchital Regression Analysis Predicting 11 itltlcn Youth’s Self-Esteem.

	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Model 4		Model 5
	B	SE	B	SE	B	SE	B	SE	B	SE
Background information
Age	.43****	.02	.13	.02	.13	.02	.12	.02	−.03	.02
Gender	−.003	.11	.002	.09	.006	.09	.00	.09	.04	.08
EL	−.17	.08	−.02	.07	−.02	.07	−.03	.07	.02	.06
FL	.27****	.05	.02	.05	.02	.05	−.01	.05	−.16*	.05
Power variables
Deviance			−.32****	.07	−.32****	.07	−.35****	.07	−.004	.07
SPt			−.10	.05	−.09	.05	−.06	.05	.12	.04
SPp			−.28****	.05	−.28****	.05	−.30****	.05	−.16*	.04
Relationship
RelTea					.04	.09	.01	.10	−.02	.08
RelPeer							.13*	.05	.14**	.04
RelPar									.58****	.06
RelSibs									.28**	.06
R	.48		.67		.67		.68		.78
R ²	.23		.45		.45		.40		.61
Adjusted R ²	.21		.42		.42		.43		.58
R ² change	.23		.22		.001		.02		.14
F	13.05		20.11		17.58		16.51		23.92
Sig.	.0000		.0000		.0000		.0000		.0000

Note. N = 363. EL= Education level; FI = Family income: Deviance = Label of deviance: SPt = Supervision and punishment by teachers: SPp = Parental supervision and punishment: RelTea Relationship with teachers: RelPeer Relationship with peers; RelPar = Relationship with parents; RelSibs = Relationship with siblings.

p < .05, **p < .01, ****p = .0000.

All the five models were significantly predictive of self-esteem (p = .0000). Of the five models, model 5 showed the strongest predictive power of self-esteem. About 58% of variance of hidden youth’s self-esteem was accounted for by model 5 (F = 23.92****). A large corresponding effect size (d) of 1.39 was derived from model 5. In addition, the above regression analysis shows that relationship with parents is crucial in affecting the impact of power exertion as its incorporation in the model greatly diminishes the predictive power of other variables causing them to become insignificant. To summarize, the results suggest that the relationship of hidden youth with family, especially with parents, largely predicts self-esteem.

Relationships With Significant Others and the Impact of Power Exertion

To further explore how relationships with significant others influence the impact of power exertion over hidden youth, moderation analysis was conducted. It is assumed that either a good or poor relationship with parents may affect the impact of power exertion. As shown in Table 5, label of deviance was negatively associated with hidden youth’s self-esteem (β = −.34****), indicating that a higher level of label of deviance predicts lower self-esteem. The relationship between label of deviance and hidden youth’s self-esteem was significantly moderated by relationship with parents (β = .19***).

Table 5.

Results of Regressing Relationship With Parents, Relationship With Siblings, and Moderators.

Variable	Self-esteem ß
Predictor
Label of deviance	−.34****
Moderator
Relationship with parents	.19***
Interaction term	−.21****

Note. N = 363.

***

p < .001, ****p = .0000.

As shown in Figure 1, a higher level of self-esteem was noted when there was a good relationship with parents than when there was a poor one. As label of deviance increased, the level of self-esteem dropped regardless of how good or bad the relationship with parents was, but dropped at a faster rate when there was a good relationship with parents (t = −7.16****) than when there was a poor relationship with parents (t = −2.25*). The results indicate that the negative association between labels of deviance and hidden youth’s self-esteem becomes more apparent when there is a good relationship with parents.

Figure 1.

Relationship With Parents as a Moderator of the Relationship Between Label of Deviance and Hidden Youth’s Self-Esteem (N = 363).

Qualitative Analyses

To further explain these results, qualitative verbatim accounts were used to explore the greater significance of family relationships for hidden youth compared with other relationships. Throughout the process of becoming hidden youth, young people are disciplined by different people, including teachers, peers, siblings, and parents. In the eyes of hidden youth, these people have different levels of importance. Teachers and peers are far less important when compared with close family. The following verbatim accounts shed some light on the reasons why relationship with teachers is not a significant predictor of self-esteem:

Youth 18: “I don’t think so. I’m afraid of my mother most. I’m just afraid that my teacher will tell my mum. I’m not afraid of her [teacher].”

Youth 26: “I’ve never worried about that…they [teachers] are nothing in my life. They [teachers] affect my parents, not me.”

Youth 35: “[Are you afraid of being punished by the teachers if you don’t go to school?] What should I be afraid of? It’s the teachers who feel afraid. So I don’t go to school. It’s different when I’m at home…my father can do anything to me, here, in my home. My parents are in charge of this place…they [teachers] can’t bother me. Actually they [teachers] are only doing what they should do. They [teachers] can’t do anything if my family does nothing. Want to bother me? No way. They [teachers] are not qualified. If they [teachers] want to teach me, teach my father first.”

The above verbatim accounts show that teachers are significant to hidden youth when compared with the hidden youths’ parents (Youth 26). They are afraid of the teachers not because of the teachers themselves, but the fear of negative consequences brought about by their family (Youth 18). This shows that in their views, teachers’ power comes from the parents, not from the teachers themselves. As hidden youth retreat from school to home, they have detached from the outer circle and their social status as a student is removed. This frees them from being controlled (Youth 35). Even though teachers continue to control them, they feel free to act rebelliously toward them as a form of “revenge.” The following accounts highlight some key aspects:

Youth 03: “They [teachers] just mildly persuade us not to do that [being deviant] anymore.… At that time I was not listening…and so I am now.”

Youth 09: “Sure [If we have poor results] they [teachers] will feel stressed. They are afraid of being scolded. So they will force you by all means, to see if you can show some improvement…but…how to say…I think that what they do is foolish. If I do want to study then I’ll do so. It’s useless to force me. Just like in our school. They [teachers] asked us to attend remedial classes because we had poor academic results. But I didn’t go. Why should I go there?”

Youth 21: “They [social workers] can’t force me to talk to them…so I can simply have my door shut all day! Then they really give up finding me to talk. So good!”

The above accounts show that facing discipline from teachers or social workers, hidden youth simply ignore them (Youth 03; Youth 09), or rebelliously resist (Youth 21) in order to force them to give up control. Because of low importance of teachers in their eyes, they feel comfortable cutting off the connections with the teachers to escape from their disciplinary control. In Youth 21’s case, he succeeded. The fact that teachers have almost no impact of power over hidden youth can be explained by the theoretical concepts of power. As youth retreat from society to home, they change from students to individuals without social status. Since the strength of power is determined by the strategic positions within relations in a particular historical context (Mao, 1992), this change in social status brings young people a change in the strength of power exercised within the relations with teachers. Their active refusal to be disciplined by teachers indicates a withdrawal from the power relations with teachers. Hence, the flow of disciplinary power from teachers becomes obstructed, and thus hidden youth become unaffected by teachers.

Peers also have less significance in the life of hidden youth. The following accounts show that hidden youth seldom find good, intimate friends at school:

Youth 18: “If I have good friends who share common interests with me, I think I’ll have an enjoyable life at school…and I won’t refuse to go to school.”

Youth 29: “Actually my friends are not my classmates. They are friends whom I met outside school and on the Internet. I don’t think they view me as problematic; I don’t think that it [being withdrawn] is a barrier between us in our friendships.”

Youth 37: “What’s the problem? My friends [met outside school] are similar to me. It’s ok if we’re happy.”

The above accounts show that difficulty in finding good friends may push them to engage in school refusal, or even social withdrawal (Youth 18). Since they mainly find close friends outside school, or even from the hidden youth subculture, they are more willing to be influenced by these friends and build up friendships with them (Youth 29; Youth 37). This illustrates why peers may not significantly affect their self-esteem: when relationships with peers at school are not close enough, they remain unaffected by those peers in terms of behavior and psychological adjustment.

However, within their family, they adopt a very different attitude if they have good relationship with their family. In young people’s eyes, the family is of the utmost importance due to the inseparable, inborn kinship, and attachment (Bowlby, 1969/1982). The following accounts serve as an example:

Youth 04: “What makes me feel unhappy is not the harsh words from other people.

… I don’t care…what I can’t accept is the harsh words from my parents.… I feel hurt.”

Youth 13: “[If you believe that no one can understand you, why did you tell Miss Chan [social worker] about your unhappiness? I’m curious.] I don’t want to. Actually it’s because I have poor conduct. My class teacher asked me to see the social worker. I didn’t do so. But she [class teacher] called my mum. I was scolded by her [mother] severely. Also, she [mother] deprived me of pocket money for two weeks. Anyway, I won’t see them [social workers] if my mum doesn’t force me.”

Youth 37: “I think I only have to be responsible to my parents.… I know my situation [being hidden] makes them suffer from pressure and be blamed by others…maybe they have adapted to it or they understand why it happens…they [parents] can be viewed as supporting me spiritually.”

As shown above, the hidden youth care about their parents’ feelings (Youth 37). Although they receive discipline from their parents, they tend not to view them as annoying; rather, they view the disciplinary control as parents’ caretaking responsibility. Hence, they feel they are obliged to fulfill their responsibility as a son or daughter and feel their parents’ support and care (Youth 37), suggesting that they value the relationship with their family. Therefore, they tend to accept their prompting (Youth 13) and hope to receive their recognition (Youth 04).

Despite the uniqueness of the relationship between the youth and their family, some maintain a poor relationship with their family. This makes them become immune to the power of family, as shown in the following accounts:

Youth 02: “She [mother] only concerned about whether I had brought disgrace on her. She only used me to keep my father’s love. She is concerned about everything except me. In this case, why should I be concerned about her? I feel good when I make her lose face!”

Youth 09: “They [parents] won’t beat me or scold me. So what? I won’t care anyway.”

Youth 16: “They dumped me when they [parents] got divorced. Since then, I was taken care of by my grandmother. My grandmother was old and she was not rich. They [parents] gave her [grandmother] no money. They were not concerned about how hard her life was. Now I have grown up. My grandmother died. Nobody takes care of me now. So that’s why they [parents] have to take care of me and shoulder the caretaking responsibility? Go to hell! It’s none of their [parents’] business. They haven’t taken care of me since I was small…I don’t think that they have the power to control me now.”

The above accounts show that when the youth have a poor relationship with parents, characterized by lack of affection and support (Youth 09; Youth 16), they are less likely to be affected by their parents, even though they are severely disciplined by them. They do not care about their parents’ negative evaluations, and therefore they do not suffer from poor self-esteem (Youth 02). This supports the results of the moderation analysis that a good relationship with parents highly moderates the impact of power exertion.

To summarize, young people have the closest relationship with their family throughout the process of becoming hidden youth. Because this relationship is of the highest level of importance for hidden youth, they are mostly affected by their parents’ disciplinary control. Although parents’ discipline may be severe, they are more willing to respect their demands when compared with other surveillants. Although they receive negative evaluations from their family, they still hope to be valued and recognized by family members. These findings show that the degree of relationship with significant others plays an important part in influencing the impact of power exertion.

Conclusions

The above results show that of all types of relationships, hidden youth’s relationship with parents is the one most related to the impact of power exertion. This finding signifies that the degree of relationship is essential in affecting the effectiveness of disciplinary control. In addition, this finding sheds light on the important role of the family. Being regarded as the fundamental agent of socialization (Macionis, 2006), the family is the most significant in terms of the transmission of societal norms to offspring.

Surveillants are executors enforcing disciplinary control over hidden youth so as to serve the aim of social control (McLaughlin & Muncie, 2001). During daily interactions, the deployment of disciplinary power over hidden youth is allowed (Foucault, 1980b). Nevertheless, the effect of the exercise of power is demonstrably dependent on the degree of relationships. As asserted by Yang (2004), the effect of disciplinary power deployed by an individual over another person is dependent on the understanding of that person; also, as noted by Moffatt (1999), whether the exertion of power is successful is determined by the person’s willingness to participate in the power relations. The findings of the present study show that Moffatt’s (1999) analogy of the social security system where the applicant and the social security staff form unequal power relations, as mentioned in the literature review, is applicable to the context of hidden youth. As young people have an innately intimate and inseparable relationship with family (Bowlby, 1969/1982), hidden youth view them as the most important significant others, and thus are more likely to yield to their parents’ expectations and indoctrination. That they respond to their family symbolizes their engagement in power relations with their family, which allows a further flow of disciplinary power and the exertion of influence by their family over them. In contrast, as people from the outer circle, such as teachers, are not significant others, hidden youth can simply cut off social connections with them to escape disciplinary control. As a result, the flow of disciplinary power over them is blocked; they then become immune to their discipline, and become invisible within the power relations with adults in the outer circle.

To conclude, the hypothesis of this study is fully supported. The results show that self-esteem of youth comes after the experience of relationships with parents. This justifies that the effect of power exertion is moderated by the degree of relationship: The closer the relationship, the higher the impact of power exertion. Since hidden youth, who are in prolonged seclusion, reject most forms of social participation and stay only in the family, family becomes the only group of surveillants who interact with the youth. When the youth maintain good relationships with the family, they thus become more susceptible to the labels of deviance imposed by family members. On the contrary, when hidden youth have poor family relationships, the strategic positions between hidden youth and the family would change. The youth are more likely to resist and ignore the labels of deviance imposed by the family, thus weakening the effect of power exertion.

The present study strengthens current understanding of hidden youth by stressing the crucial role of relationships in influencing the effectiveness of power and control over deviant youth. It should be advocated that helping professionals should view hidden youth as a phenomenon rather than a problem. Instead of helping them eliminate their social withdrawal behavior, re-engaging them into society, and helping them regain social status, they should be concerned about youth’s needs and feelings, and underpinning meanings of their social withdrawal behavior. When hidden youth view themselves as a problem, helping professionals should help them externalize the problem and to enhance their self-esteem. Also, as it is their socially unrecognized capabilities that push them into marginalization, helping professionals should recognize their potentials and encourage them to develop their abilities to the fullest, so as to increase their self-esteem and self-efficacy. For parents, helping professionals should provide family education, as parents need to embrace diversity, and recognize the strengths and dreams of their children. The abilities that hidden youth possess are valuable resources and assets, only that they are not traditional ones and are not accepted by society. In addition, family counseling can be provided for families with hidden youth in order to equip them with the communication skills needed for maintaining harmonious parent-child relationships.

The major limitation of this study is its sampling method. As the investigator recruited the participants based on relative accessibility and proximity, the participants may have come from one single source and be highly homogeneous, which may have resulted in sampling bias hindering the representability of the sample to the entire hidden youth population. Further studies should recruit participants by using other sampling methods to determine whether there are different findings. Moreover, since resistance of hidden youth is an intervening factor in the complicated relationships among different variables: family relationships, labeling, power, and self-esteem, it is worthwhile to conduct further investigation into such dynamics.

Footnotes

Appendix: Qualitative Interviewing Guideline for Hidden Youth

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Barry

C. M.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Madsen

S. D.

Nelson

L. J.

(2007). The impact of maternal relationship quality on emerging adults’ prosocial tendencies: Indirect effects via regulation of prosocial values. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 581–591.

Baumrind

(1991). Effective parenting during the early adolescent transition. In Cowan

P. A.

Hetherington

E. M.

(Eds.), Family transitions (pp. 111–163). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bean

R. A.

Northrup

J. C.

(2009). Parental psychological control, psychological autonomy, and acceptance as predictors of self-esteem in Latino adolescents. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 1486–1504.

Bowen

G. L.

Rose

R. A.

Powers

J. D.

Glennie

E. J.

(2008). The joint effects of neighborhoods, schools, peers, and families on changes in the school success of middle school students. Family Relations, 57, 504–516.

Bowlby

(1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York, NY: Basic Books. (Original work published 1969).

Byrnes

H. F.

Miller

B. A.

(2012). The relationship between neighborhood characteristics and effective parenting behaviors: The role of social support. Journal of Family Issues, 33, 1658–1687.

Deng

W. F.

(2001). An investigation of the association between the factors of school drop-out and deviant behavior of junior high school students. Taoyuan, Taiwan: Department of Crime Prevention and Correction, Central Police University.

Dziesinski

(2003). Hikikomori: Investigations into the phenomenon of acute social withdrawal in contemporary Japan. Retrieved from http://towakudai.blogs.com/Hikikomori.Research.Survey.pdf

Dziesinski

(2004). Hikikomori as a gendered issue. Analysis on the discourse of acute social withdrawal in contemporary Japan. Retrieved from http://towakudai.blogs.com/Hikikomori_as_Gendered_Issue.pdf

10.

Fletcher

A. C.

Walls

J. K.

Cook

E. C.

Madison

K. J.

Bridges

T. H.

(2008). Parenting style as a moderator of associations between maternal disciplinary strategies and child well-being. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 1724–1744.

11.

Foucault

(1975). Discipline & punish: The birth of the prison. London, England: Vintage, p. 194.

12.

Foucault

(1980a). The history of sexuality: An introduction (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Vintage Books.

13.

Foucault

(1980b). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings. New York, NY: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

14.

Garcia-Campayo

Alda

Sobradiel

Sanz Abos

(2007). A case report of hikikomori in Spain. Medicina Clinica, 129(8), 318–319.

15.

Hattori

(2005). Hikikomori to kazoku torauma [Hikikomori and family trauma]. Tokyo, Japan: NHK Shuppan.

16.

Hong Kong Christian Service (2007). The current phenomenon of hidden youth. Retrieved from http://www.hkcs.org/commu-z/press-pdf/p070114youth.pdf

17.

Isobe

(2004). On publication of denominational precious volumes (Jiao pai xi Pao juan) in late Ming and early Ch’ing as seen in, “niwatazumi”. Studies of publishing culture in East Asia, 8, 27, 187–226.

18.

Karre

J. K.

Mounts

N. S.

(2012). Nonresident fathers’ parenting style and the adjustment of late-adolescent boys. Journal of Family Issues, 33, 1642–1657.

19.

Kato

T. A.

Shinfuku

Sartorius

Kanba

(2011, September 17). Are Japan’s hikikomori and depression in young people spreading abroad? The Lancet, 378(9796), 1070.

20.

Lee

K. M.

Koo

J. G.

Kim

E. J.

Lee

S. H.

(2001). The psychosocial characteristics of oiettolie adolescents (in Korean). Korean Journal of Counseling and Psychotherapy, 13, 147–162.

21.

Lewis

(2004, November 11). Family hermits turn killer. The Times. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=747078881&Fmt=7&clientId=17557&RQT=309&VName=PQD

22.

Macionis

J. J.

(2006). Society: The basics (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

23.

Mao

R. F.

(1992). Foucault: Defining the pedigree of power/knowledge. In Ye

Q. Z.

(Ed.), The leading figures of contemporary social thoughts (pp. 158–187). Taipei, Taiwan: Zheng Zhong Publisher.

24.

Mclaughlin

Muncie

(2001). The sage dictionary of criminology. London, England: Sage.

25.

Moffatt

(1999). Surveillance and government of the welfare recipient. In Chambon

Irving

Epstein

(Eds.), Reading Foucault for social work (pp. 219–142). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

26.

Ogino

(2004). Managing categorization and social withdrawal in Japan: Rehabilitation process in a private support group for hikikomorians. International Journal of Japanese Sociology, 13, 120–133.

27.

Olejarz

S. M.

(2011). Quality of life in the context of social withdrawal in Japan. Current Problems of Psychiatry, 12, 301–303.

28.

Oliphant

A. E.

Kuczynski (2011). Mothers’ and fathers’ perceptions of mutuality in middle childhood: The domain of intimacy. Journal of Family Issues, 32, 1104–1124.

29.

Parker

J. S.

Benson

M. J.

(2004). Parent-adolescent relations and adolescent functioning: Self-esteem, substance abuse, and delinquency. Adolescence, 39, 519–530.

30.

Riggio

H. R.

(2004). Parental marital conflict and divorce, parent-child relationships, social support, and relationship anxiety in young adulthood. Personal Relationships, 11, 99–114.

31.

Riggio

H. R.

Kwong

W. Y.

(2011). Paranoid thinking, quality of relationships with parents, and social outcomes among young adults. Journal of Family Issues, 32, 1030–1049.

32.

Ritshera

J. B.

Otilingama

P. G.

Grajalesa

(2003). Internalized stigma of mental illness: Psychometric properties of a new measure. Psychiatry Research, 121, 31–49.

33.

Roberts

(1993). Social control and the censure(s) of sex. Crime, Law and Social Change, 19, 171–186.

34.

Rosenberg

(1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

35.

Saito

(1998). Shakaiteki hikikomori: Owaranai shishunki [Social withdrawal: A neverending adolescence]. Tokyo: PHP Shinsho.

36.

Saito

(2001). “Hikikomori” no hikaku bunkaron [Comparative cultural debates from the perspective of “hikikomori”]. Chūō Kōron, 1401, 124–133.

37.

Saito

(2002a). Hikikomori kyoshutsu manyuaru [How to rescue your child from “Hikikomori”]. Tokyo, Japan: PHP Kenkyojo.

38.

Saito

(2002b, March). “Hikikomori (social withdrawal)” and Japanese youth culture. The Journal of Japanese Scientists: The Bulletin of JSA. Retrieved from http://members.jcom.home.ne.jp/jsa-bull/82.html

39.

Saito

(2003). Hikikomori bunkaron [On hikikomori culture]. Tokyo, Japan: Kinokuniya Shoten.

40.

Sakamoto

Martin

R. G.

Kumano

Kuboki

Al-Adawi

(2005). Hikkomori, is it a culture-reactive or culture-bond syndrome? Nidotherapy and a clinical vignette from Oman. International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, 35, 191–198.

41.

F. S.

(1994). Introduction to discourse analysis. Newsletter of Educational Sociology, 54, 18–31.

42.

Wong

Ying

(2005, December). Young people and social withdrawal: A social exclusion perspective. Paper presented at 7th International Conference on Asian Youth Issues: Opportunities and Challenges of Youth in New Era, Macao, China.

43.

Wong

Ying

(2006). Social withdrawal of young people in Hong Kong: A social exclusion perspective. The Hong Kong Journal of Social Work, 40, 61–91.

44.

C. J.

C. Z.

(1997). An investigation of early prediction of youth’s deviant behavior. Taipei, Taiwan: National Youth Commission.

45.

Yang

S. L.

(2004). Violent delinquency: Reasons, types and measures. Taipei, Taiwan: Wunan.

46.

Yao

R. D.

(2002). Foucault’s works: “Power.” Contemporary, 175, 70–95.

47.

Zeng

S. P.

(2000). Self-control and youth’s theft: Verification of the general theory of crime (master’s thesis). Department and Graduate Institute of Criminology, National Chung Cheng University, Jia Yi, Taiwan.

48.

Zeng

Y. H.

(2000). Analyzing the climax of juvenile delinquency: A re-discussion of “low self-control” and “maturity gap” (master’s thesis). Department of Psychology, National Chengchi University, Muzha, Taiwan.