> Today’s experience of childhood, they wrote, was an “inner, solitary” affair, plagued by the proliferation of “obesity, anti-social behavior, friendlessness and fear.”
where "they" means a bunch of authors who wrote an open letter about modern childhood.
Then there follows a large amount of stuff about what these metaphors mean, how they relate to previous bits of the history ideas, etc. The Noble Savage makes a predictable appearance.
But there is absolutely zero engagement with the authors' actual argument! Like, are kids getting fatter or not? Are kids suffering more from antisocial behaviour or not? Friendlessness? Fear? These are real factual questions, not tropes in some novel.
In other words, this piece engages with vocabulary and metaphors, as a substitute for engaging with the argument. Not, in general, a good trade.
I see this style of argument a lot in work derived from the humanities. I think it very rarely adds light to any debate. Perhaps it needs a name, so it can be pointed out, and when appropriate, mocked.