No More Grown Ups?
by Candice Watters on 08/31/2007 at 12:30 PM
It seems the adults have left the building, or the society. Or maybe, in our generation, they never arrived. That's the premise of Diana West's new book, The Death of the Grown Up. In it she laments the growing popularity of perpetual adolescence, even among the elderly. And she's under fire from none other than the perpetual adolescents she criticizes. But it's not just the fool factor of an over-the-hill grandma still dressing like a twentysomething rock star. It's the consequence to society of everyone acting no better than rowdy teenagers.
In an interview with Newsweek West says,
What I'm mostly trying to define is the change in attitudes toward growing up. Reading Lionel Trilling, I was struck by what he saw. He noted the complete eradication of the notion of making a life with a beginning, middle and end. That would be the sea change, that aspiration has disappeared. It used to be a reflexive action to reject your growing years. People were expected to grow out of adolescence and lose certain traits such as the self-absorption, lack of identity and striving of a young person to find himself. We as a society no longer expect to find ourselves, it's become an open-ended process.
And it's not just thirtysomething guys spending a whole weekend playing Xbox or Wii. Women are complicit, too. She says,
Where womanhood stands today is deeply affected by the death of grown-up. I would say the sexualized female is part of the phenomenon I'm talking about, so I don't think they're immune to the death of the grown-up. Women are still emulating young fashion. Where sex is more available, there are no longer the same incentives building toward married life, which once was a big motivation toward the maturing process.
The New York Times review, "Dress Like Your Child, and the Terrorists Win," slammed the book, calling her theories "half-baked." But really, when has the Times liked anything that challenges self-absorbed Babyboomer culture?
I think West is onto something. It's not hard to find examples of a lack of respectable, responsible authorities (Larry Craig, anyone?) wherever you look. Isn't it time we grew up?
1. Anu said the following at 2:01 PM on Aug 31
If you actually read the New York Times review it slams the book for making huge leaps of logic from dressing like your kid to terrorism, not for calling out Babyboomers on self-absorption.
2. Candice Watters said the following at 2:15 PM on Aug 31
I read the review and I'm not surprised it slammed the book. The NYT is infamous for slamming what normal people would consider commonsense.
3. k. said the following at 3:26 PM on Aug 31
It sounds like Ms. West might have some good points. But I'm also prepared to believe that the NY Times also some good points--it IS hard to avoid making some huge leaps in logic when you cover everything from baseball caps to freak dancing to bin Laden, in only 256 pages.
4. Alex C. said the following at 5:19 PM on Aug 31
I would agree that "extended adolescence" has had some negative effect on young people today, but I also think part of what drives an article like this is mainstream cultures inhability to view some activities, commonly viewed as "childish", as something that older people can or should engage in. I think the comment "And it's not just thirtysomething guys spending a whole weekend playing Xbox or Wii." (and girls play video games too) is a perfect example, as if playing video games (or watching a "cartoon" or something like that) is an indication that the person doing this has yet to really "grow up".
5. Christy said the following at 9:32 PM on Aug 31
I found this fascinating: "We as a society no longer expect to find ourselves, it's become an open-ended process." This is sad.
Is it true? That's not a society of people who continually mature, from this stage in life, to that stage. It is a strange twist, for a culture that prizes individualism. Is there any solid "self" in that? How complete can we be, if/when we do not we know whose we are? Perhaps ours is a culture that needs a cornerstone.
It was interesting to get on Amazon and scan the endorsements for West's book. George F. Will ("this penetrating and witty book"), Paul Johnson ("vigorously argued"), Steven Emerson ("a book that will be read for generations"). Emerson's focus is national security, terrorism, and Islamic extremism.
The NYT got me interested in reading the book for myself. And after seeing those other reviews . . . Maybe the library will have it. :)
6. Leah said the following at 1:09 AM on Sep 1
I think you're missing something.
Babyboomers, in my opinion, *are* grown up. The babyboomers are those now in their 50s and 60s.
It's those currently in their 30s, and some in their 40s, who have begun the trend of not growing up. (Unless you count celebrities, and they stopped growing up a long time ago).
Fortunately I'm not seeing that happen much within church culture here. There are so many young marrieds and young families in my church that I can't think of anyone "not growing up". (Well, bar a select few perhaps... and they're only 18 and 19 year old guys, so y'know, they have a few more years ;P).
7. Hermes said the following at 1:11 PM on Sep 1
I agree with Diane West, and it's important to remember that as with all other liberal trends, this has affected even those of us who denounce it in ways we may not realize. For example, Boundless itself often refers to grown men and women using the juvenile terms "guys" and "girls". I think that if we want to restore true adulthood, we should start calling people over 18 men and womemn.
8. Jon said the following at 3:58 PM on Sep 1
I work with a lot of men in their 30's and 40's, and they tell me jokingly that they live vicariously through me since I'm young and single. There is a desire to be young and not have any responsibilities among those who are older. They love their families, but I can tell you that all they tell me is to not grow up.
9. Andrew (tlw) said the following at 7:29 PM on Sep 2
Leah, to suggest that all baby boomers are grown up adults is a generalised blanket description. It is about as useful (and as lacking in accuracy) as the tags attached to generations like “slacker” (to Xers) or “spoiled have-it-alls” applied to Ys. These deliberately provocative labels are used to inflame and incite the behaviours that will confirm them, an act that confirms the moral superiority of the generation currently holding the majority of cultural influences. But I think there is more to it than just dis-respectful name-calling for the sake of building up a falsely superior view of oneself and one’s generation.
Mentioning celebrities as being immature is interesting. Acting can be a notoriously fickle profession in which ability often does not correlate with achievement. Getting a lucky break can often be more important than years of hard work refining their craft. Why bother with notions of hard work, self-sacrifice and persistence? A lucky break, an appearance on TV or some similar chance may grant us the wealth and stardom we envy. Celebrities epitomise this thinking.
It is unfair and inaccurate to suggest that all those aged in their fifties and sixties are mature grown-ups. Without being too dis-respectful, there are matured-aged people who carry on like children. Think about this: what would you say to your friends if they insisted on carrying a photo album of their most recent vacation, showing it to whoever is interested? Or what would you say to a married friend whose sixty-five year old parent told them to grow up and provide some grandchildren – forgetting the medical condition that has made them sterile? Or what mature grown up talks incessantly about their next planned skiing vacation – spending their kids inheritances – to adults whose working careers suffered from chronic illness and premature redundancy, who have nothing to spend on elective travel?
I’m sorry for sounding negative … it is difficult to always rejoice with stories of the latest windfalls and vacations …
Westernised society is steeped in a short term perspective. An insecure job market and a depreciating currency (rising gas prices come to mind) discourage thrift. Why should we be loyal to an employer if we may not be working for them tomorrow? Why should we save if our money is worth less each day than the day before?
No Leah, you are very mistaken if you believe that short term thinking is a recent phenomena. Civilisations rise and fall over hundreds of years. Similarly, our late, degenerate capitalism is characterised by highly indebted citizens, a fraudulent fiat currency and short term consumption patterns (“amusing ourselves to death,” as boundless described it). We are encouraged us to keep spending, buy another new SUV and take another trip to the mall to keep the economy turning, right up until the last borrower is fully maxed out on their credit report. Then what will happen?
We will see a return to long term thinking … the return of thrift … the return of planning. Lives will be changed, working careers may be involuntarily lengthened … and generations may live under one roof, out of necessity.
In contrast to the current sea of choices, finding oneself would become so much easier in the face of hardship.
Short term thinking cares not for tomorrow, suggesting that today we should eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die. Long term thinking knows we may die tomorrow but still buys green bananas … just in case.
10. Chris said the following at 7:32 PM on Sep 2
Leah writes:
"It's those currently in their 30s, and some in their 40s, who have begun the trend of not growing up. (Unless you count celebrities, and they stopped growing up a long time ago)."
I'm curious as to why you think this. Is it anecdotal evidence? My experience has been that people my age (mid 30s) tend to have families, jobs, houses (e.g., all that "boring" adult stuff) regardless of religious affiliation. Yes, there are those who still act like juveniles in terms of maturity, but you'll find that in any generation.
I read the review and the interview, and I really don't see anything that indicates the author had hard data to back up her claims. Sounds like another one of those sensationalist books that people put out to champion one cause or another.
11. Andrew (tlw) said the following at 12:53 AM on Sep 3
Dear reader,
Profound impacts come in different shaped packaging. Mine came in an innocuous letter from a well-known government department.
I’d been excitedly planning to go on a short term mission trip at the end of my third year when it came. But with part time work and careful saving, my budget had not reckoned on the bombshell within.
Despite my being scrupulously honest, this well known section of Government had managed to misunderstand its own legislation for three years. Instead of sending the cheque I’d been promised over the phone, they sent me a bill for what was at the time almost a years’ income.
Not only was the mission trip now out of the question; the substantial deposit could not be refunded. My grade point subsequently dropped during the following year as I worked more hours than ever before just to cover living costs.
The letter meant that it was not one of my best summers.
The department in question designated the amount as a “debt.” Following a lengthy appeals process, it was eventually written off many months later (without affecting my credit rating) as being due to an “administrative error (never admitting they made the mistake in the first place).
I had always been truthful in my paperwork. It was never a debt and having it labelled as such was untrue; it was an amount calculated following the department-in-question suddenly changing its interpretation of its own legislation.
On the day the plane left with my fellow short term missioners on board, I was resting before beginning another night shift at my summer job. I had to be content with seeing the photos when the team got back and hearing the stories second-hand.
Thus was my sole experience with short term overseas missions.
12. Justice said the following at 11:35 AM on Sep 3
Why is it that when Ms. Watters posts there is always some sort of negative condescending moood to it and finds a way to attack people who enjoy video games?
Alex had a very good point about video games.
13. Patricia said the following at 10:36 AM on Sep 4
Andrew-I don't understand the juxtaposition of maturity with vacations. Spending more than you can afford on a vacation surely demonstrates lack of financial planning ability. However, I don't think there's anything wrong with parents not leaving money for their children and taking trips themselves with the money. My parents worked hard, raised three children, and paid for our private college tuitions. We don't deserve or expect anything else.
14. Justice said the following at 9:58 PM on Sep 4
What I think we really need is more things to complain out our generation! Please give us some more to complain about!
Jesus does say that you must have the heart of a child. IF you don't enjoy anything fun, what's the point. My step-dad is in his 50's and rides motorcycles, the same thing that 5 year old's do in our area... (mind baffles)
15. Andrew (tlw) said the following at 11:15 PM on Sep 4
Patricia,
Retired parents are entitled to do whatever they choose to with their savings. The post said nothing about advocating leaving money to children (despite this being a biblical principle). There are clear differences between facilitating a young adult’s career (like helping them out to finish college) and sustaining dependency (such as bailing them out of unwisely incurred credit card debt).
You are fortunate to have had your parents pay your college tuition; my own family was not financially in a position to be able to do that. Many other families would be in the same boat.
But getting back on topic, this posting specifically referred to the maturity (or lack thereof) that people display when they relate to others. Being mature in how we deal with our money includes not flaunting it so as to cause, tempt or facilitate our brother or sister to fall into sin from envy, jealousy and the like.
Say you are friends with a recovering inveterate gambler. You occasionally buy instant-win lottery tickets with your weekend newspaper and won $100 last weekend. Of course, you insist on telling everyone including your friend, who is tempted to go out and try and do likewise.
Would a mature person do this?
Or say you’re at church and the service is over. The church has a substantial ministry to – shall we say – the less financially well off. A cheaply dressed fellow parishioner casually asks what you’re up to this week. Do you …
(a) mention you’re off to the beach for a few days, as the resorts are SO less busy during the week; or
(b) describe in lengthy detail how your new Mercedes has developed a fault and needs to go back to the dealership for a check-up; or perhaps
(c) talk about the church building committee you’re involved in, and discuss something that might be of interest – like the fencing around the kids club that is showing signs of wear.
The point being made here is that we are called (there’s that word again) to treat our fellow believers with respect. This does NOT mean pandering to their weaknesses, always avoiding certain topics of discussion or never offering help (because you know that tough love is the best way of avoiding creating an ongoing dependency). Living in community is difficult. Treating each other with respect means being sensitive to people’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities in our words and actions.
In my opinion, regaling all and sundry at church about your latest vacation whilst reminding the non-retired adults that they have to go to work tomorrow is just plain crass, annoying and not at all helpful in building up the body of believers.
What it does do is maintain my frustration with certain people and teach me to avoid them, which is not always easy. Some of them are relatives. Unfortunately, I can’t go and talk quietly to them because the few others I’ve mentioned it to don’t see it as a problem, just as a quirk, and secondly, I would be labelled as the immature person in bringing it up. It’s a lose-lose scenario.
It is all about what you do with what you have. It’s not about the vacation, the car you drive, or financial planning strategies. It’s about who are you are and how you relate to others. If you are blessed with wealth (and your church has a substantial group of those that are not), do you wear expensive clothes, tell people about your recent overseas trips and park the new car prominently in the parking lot?
Or do you exercise good stewardship by donating clothes, quietly buying the church a new computer and helping out at the soup kitchen during the week?
Maybe we need to review what we mean when we refer to a ‘mature’ person.
16. Alex C. said the following at 11:32 AM on Sep 5
quoted from Andrew "...fraudulent fiat currency..."
As an Econ student, I would be interested to know why you reffer to our currency as "fraudulent".
17. Andrew (tlw) said the following at 11:42 PM on Sep 5
Alex,
As you probably know, the term fiat means by decree, in this case by the US government. The actual dollar itself has no intrinsic value. Its use as a currency within the US is enforced by the government in the payment of all debts.
Each new dollar created reduces the value of all existing dollars in circulation, resulting in continually eroding purchasing power, rising prices and positive inflation. Whatever measure of the money supply you use (M1, M2 or M3), the supply of dollars continues to increase, resulting in expansion of the monetary base and excessive credit creation made possible by the fractional reserve banking system. This results in the cycle of boom and bust.
A true currency would have intrinsic value, slowly gain in purchasing power (as production efficiencies make goods cheaper), be used voluntarily as a means of exchange and be free from manipulation and/or creation by a central authority. There is only one universal currency that meets this criteria, and modern technology could make it more accessible than ever.
All fiat currencies eventually end up as worthless. But you don’t have to take my word, just read history. Sometimes currencies lose their value quickly in a hyper-inflation, like the Weimar republic of 1923. And sometimes it takes hundreds of years, like the progressive devaluation of the coins of the Roman empire. But it eventually happens.
You should know I endorse the school of Austrian economics and the works of Ludwig von Mises. Contemporary economics is dominated by Keynes and his followers (who insist in telling us that in the long term, we’re all dead.)
The Mises website (www.mises.org) would be a good place to further your knowledge, if you are interested. In my view your economics training will be incomplete without at least knowing there is more to life than Keynes and his works.
18. Alex C. said the following at 9:13 AM on Sep 6
I took a class called "Liberty and Economics" last semester, where we read Mises and Rothbard. I thought a lot of what Mises said was very reasonable, but I didn't like Rothbard much at all ^^.
Would that universal currency be Gold?
I still don't think I understand why you would call it fraudulent. That word implies dishonesty or cheating, and I don't see where it is that the goverment is misleading us. Unless you mean that it's fraudulent because it has no value, but people think that it does.