Listening to the children who resist

It is remarkable how often adults express confusion or indignation when children, particularly children labelled pathologically demand avoidant or oppositionally defiant (note - those who resist and/or oppose), question authority based purely on age or position. There seems to be an enduring belief that adulthood itself guarantees wisdom, emotional maturity, and safety. That holding a title, a role, or seniority should automatically command trust and compliance.

Yet when we look at the world around us, it is difficult to ignore that many of the systems shaping our daily lives are led by adults who struggle to regulate their own emotions, who communicate through hostility or dominance, and who appear more invested in power than in connection.

Public discourse is saturated with conflict. Relationships between nations fracture in real time. Communities fracture in real time. The most vulnerable members of society are further isolated, shunned, and placed at greater risk. Racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia are increasingly visible, not necessarily because prejudice has suddenly surged, but because those who hold such views feel emboldened to express them openly.

If this is the relational landscape being modelled at the highest levels of society, it raises an important question. What does authority actually represent? Is it safety? Is it accountability? Is it emotional steadiness? Or is it often hierarchy without attunement?

Children are not insulated from this wider context. They observe it. They absorb it. They see adults contradict themselves, escalate conflicts, misuse power, and justify harmful behaviour. They see that age does not automatically equate to self awareness or compassion. In that light, questioning authority is not inherently oppositional. It can be a rational response to inconsistency and unpredictability.

For children who resist, oppose and 'defy', sensitivity to control and coercion is heightened. Their nervous systems are finely tuned to shifts in power dynamics. Environments that prioritise compliance over collaboration can feel unsafe, even when the intent is benign. School settings, therapy spaces, and even family homes can become sources of stress when authority is exercised without mutual respect or emotional regulation. What is often labelled as defiance may instead be a nervous system responding to perceived threat within hierarchy.

Drawing a parallel between global power dynamics and a child’s lived experience is not about equating scale. It is about examining patterns. When authority is exercised without accountability, when power is maintained through pressure rather than relationship, and when dissent is punished rather than explored, similar relational dynamics emerge whether in governments, communities, or classrooms.

If adults expect children to trust authority, then authority must be trustworthy. That means demonstrating emotional regulation, repairing ruptures, listening openly, and holding power with humility. It means recognising that respect cannot be demanded simply on the basis of age or position; it is cultivated through consistent, relational safety.

Our children, in many ways, illuminate this tension. Their resistance highlights where systems rely too heavily on control and too little on connection. Instead of asking why these children question authority, perhaps the more generative question is what kind of authority is being modelled, and whether it genuinely embodies the qualities we hope children will internalise.

Children are perceptive. They are acutely aware of incongruence between what adults say and what adults do. In a world where power is frequently misused, it is not unreasonable that some children would hesitate to surrender autonomy without first assessing whether the authority before them is safe.

KF