Spock: “Is it possible that we two, you and I, have
grown so old and so inflexible that we have outlived our usefulness?”
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.
I have
never posted a blog entry on my birthday. In and of itself, I suppose that
doesn’t matter. Still, this is my 30th birthday, and the decade mark is another
milestone. I’m remembering how a friend of mine felt when he passed the 30 mark
about fifteen months ago. He was complaining about aging as many people do,
bemoaning the coming of his thirties. What I didn’t understand is what was supposed
to be so bad about it. He told me to wait a while, to wait until I saw 29
vanishing into 30. Then, he added, I might understand.
Well, after
366 days of being 29—since that year was a leap year--it has vanished into 30,
and I’ll tell you this much, I still don’t get it. For a long time I have
wondered about our western, and particularly our American, obsession with
youth, with being and with staying young or at least trying to. I found an
August 2010 NY Times article on this topic quite revealing. The writer, one
Robin Henig, opens the article with this question, “Why are so many people in
their 20’’s taking so long to grow up.” [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/magazine/22Adulthood-t.html]
It’s quite a lengthy piece, as you’ll see. Henig’s basic assertion is that
people, both men and women, are taking longer to achieve those milestones of
adulthood long held to be the traditional markers of adults, and the author
cites five: completing school, leaving home, becoming financially independent,
marrying and having a child. Some people don’t complete all five in the same
order or at all depending on their preferences and circumstances. I’ve been in
school for twelve years because it has taken exactly that long to finish this
humanities doctorate and that’s without any time off for rambling around to
“find myself,” as the expression goes. What I’m focusing on right now are those
who put off most or all of those milestones by choice. The median age for
marriage has risen five years in only a generation, with many opting not to
marry because, the reporter even admits, our society has become so accepting of
other types of relationships outside of marriage. Indeed, I have many friends
and acquaintances content to live for years on end with a partner, walking away
with no fuss and no bother when they decide it’s not working anymore.
I find it
interesting that two people’s views, both psychologists, are distinctly at odds
in this piece. Jeffrey Arnett argues that the 20’s should be considered a form
of extended adolescence; ‘emergent adulthood,’ he calls it, in which people are
exploring and finding themselves and basically taking the whole of their 20’s
to decide who and what they want to be. He points to feelings of restlessness
in folks in their 20’s and to a general desire to see what’s out there, a
resistance to settling down. Arnett suggests that, just as we recognize
adulthood and childhood as separate developmental stages of life, we ought to
recognize the 20’s as its own distinct stage of life. His close friend Richard
Lerner, who admires and respects Jeffrey both professionally and personally,
claims this view is nonsense. Many people, Lerner points out, don’t go through
this protracted self-discovery quest, and if you’re going to call it a ‘stage
of life’ like childhood or old age, then, developmentally speaking, everybody
goes through it or everybody doesn’t. End of options. He also adds that his
friend Jeff, as a developmental psychologist, should really know better than to
play around with the term ‘stage of life’ so sloppily. That’s my tongue in cheek
paraphrase, of course. Lerner’s argument goes something like this: the fact that Joe’s 20’s are marked by
focusing on himself and that he screws around with whoever and that he holds
seven different jobs in six years is, for example, balanced out by his neighbor
John, who at age 26 is settled into his job after grad school and has been
married for a year and who has a baby on the way. So the fact that some people
experience this delay while others don’t, and that in many parts of the world
this so-called life stage doesn’t seem to happen at all, invalidates Arnett’s
claims in the eyes of his fellow psychologist. In mine too, I might add. I add
too that Arnett seems to have done a bit of rambling in his own 20’s if his
biographical sketch is to be believed, so perhaps he is better equipped to
cater to it in others.
I don’t
take a psychological view of the question. I take a historical one. Looking
back at old TV and radio ads, you find something interesting. Ads targeting
teenagers didn’t start appearing in large numbers until the 1950’s. There were
certainly people between 12 and 20 before the 50’s, to be sure, but that
marketing demographic was created in the 50’s. Now we talk about teen
pregnancy, teen violence, teen drugs, teen psychology, teen everything, and we
talk about ‘teens’ per se, as though the notion of a teen per se has always
existed. I’m neither condoning or condemning the rise of the teen demographic.
I simply acknowledge it. Rock music and the word ‘teenager’ itself came out of
the 1950’s, after all. In fact, though, adolescence itself is something of an
invented demographic. The concept of an adolescent dates back to 1904, when G.
Stanley Hall first published his ideas on the younger adults flooding the rapidly
growing populations of America’s industrializing cities. In fact, research psychologist
Robert Epstein, an outspoken critic of Arnett’s proposals, points out that adolescence
as we understand the concept doesn’t exist at all in quite a few cultures,
where children’s transition into adulthood is marked entirely differently from
our western cultural paradigm. [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=yet-another-stage-of-life]
Notice I say adolescence isn’t universal, and I mean adolescence as a life
stage as distinct from puberty, the biological transition into adulthood with
its hormonal and other physical changes, which undoubtedly is. What folks like
Jeffrey Arnett want us to believe now is that ’20-somethings’ comprise just
another life stage group whose needs, wants and feelings should be acknowledged
and coped with like those of children, adults and the elderly.
My question is, what next? Perhaps
30-somethings should be considered as being in a distinct life stage. We could
talk about the median age of divorced people and going back on the dating
market again. Why not. We could create special branches of therapy and
counseling devoted to counseling those dating divorced parents with kids.
Actually, those services may already exist. Then—because why should we stop
there—the 40-somethings can have their own life stage. We can talk about
workaholism, second and third marriage breakdowns, the in-office affair as a
cultural norm and so on. For the 50-somethings, … but do I really need to go
on? Am I the only one who finds this bordering on the absurd? I certainly hope
not. I actually laughed when I read this article about two years ago. Now
that I am 30, I simply wonder.
One thing that came out of Henig’s
article is that Arnett, the psychologist who advocates emergent adulthood, was
inspired by the work of another earlier psychologist, Ken Keniston, who
observed some aspects of this emergent adulthood phenomenon in the young baby
boomers back in the early 1970’s. Again, to take the historical point of view,
the baby boomers were a unique generation. They grew up in a time of peace and
prosperity. They had everything they wanted especially compared to their depression
era parents, and they were the ones who set off the 60’s counterculture
movement and everything, again I say everything, that came with it. It doesn’t
surprise me one bit that the descendants of the baby boomers display some of
their parents’ same early 20’s behaviors. After all, where does behavioral
learning usually take place? It starts at home, of course. That’s not to say
the baby boomers learned to be so carefree from their own parents. After all,
as any sociologist or historian can tell you, cultural rebellion and upheaval
often stems from frustration with the status quo. What I am saying is that
since the upheavals of the 60’s, the behaviors that got started among the young
have simply been passed down and have become quite the accepted thing. It will
take a similar revolution in attitude amongst those of the younger generations
for this trend in our society to be reversed.
It’s one thing if you don’t decide
to have kids or get married. Not everybody is suited for those things. It’s one
thing if you’re becoming a college professor or a medical doctor and your 20’s
are eaten up by school. That school has a purpose, a purpose you presumably
chose. Fair enough. Yet, feelings of wanderlust or general optimism about your
burgeoning set of options do not comprise a life stage to me, and I cannot take
this seriously. If you feel you have too many options, draw a tree diagram and
put your favorites at the top.
What I have observed in my
demographic, or perhaps I have to now say in my former demographic, is a lack
of goal setting and planning. Like I said in my New Year’s resolution’s blog
post a few weeks ago, setting a goal is one thing. Finding out the steps needed
to achieve it and then doing those steps—that’s a whole other discussion. I
will be the first to admit to not being goal obsessed on a day-to-day basis. I
don’t get up every morning—as I have known some folks in grad school to do—an
set out a list of that day’s goals, and if I don’t meet the goal I had for the
day, I usually shrug, figure out why and meet it the next day along with that
day’s goal as well. All that to say this: the reason my demographic is feeling
at such loose ends is a distinct lack of willingness to first set goals and
then to slog through the nasty work necessary to meet them.
It’s not for lack of intelligence
and it’s not even because of laziness most of the time that all this has come
to be. It’s a matter of what we are telling our younger adults. Our society is
sending the young two messages. First, that it’s ok to put off life’s milestones.
It’s quite acceptable. If you don’t want to do X right now, then don’t. You’ve
got time. That’s the first message. The second is that we are societally
obsessed with marketing youth. Youth is the prime stage of life in this
country. You see it everywhere. You rarely see product ads targeting the middle
aged or the retired or the elderly. What you do often see are companies seeking
to hire “young and innovative” employees. “Young and innovative,” a phrase I’ve
seen in various forms in many places. Never mind that older folks are capable
of being innovative too, and never mind the fact that older employees or
colleagues might be equipped with wisdom and insight that the young lack. We
worship being young and staying young.
It’s time to rethink the whole
mindset. Often, the only way to come by wisdom and insight is to live long
enough and see much of life. That being said, the desire for the new and
innovative you usually see among the young is a good one. Yet, it should be
complimented by respect for the wisdom and the types of insight that often can
only come with greater age. I don’t think I’ve obtained any particular wisdom
at age 30, but I respect the benefits that age and more life experience can
bring. I have lived through all of my 20’s, a decade of turbulent change as I
continued marching through school and towards my chosen career path. Not
marrying while in the throes of grad school was a good idea, and I have no
regrets about marrying at 30. That being said, I can’t identify with giving control
over to wanderlust and this inability to cope with so many options and choices
that Arnett talked about. They were there in my own life, but I suppose I
always had a different perspective than a lot of 20-somethings. What we need is
not a new life stage. What we need is a new perspective.