Seeing as I just left my 20s five months ago, I feel a certain authority in commenting on them. I just read an article titled
What Is It About 20-Somethings? in the New York Times. You probably don't have the time to read it (10 internet pages) so I'll summarize it for you.
There is talk about a 'new life stage' among psychologists, and one of the leading voices is psychology professor Jeffrey Arnett, at Clark University in Worcester, Mass. He calls this new stage 'emerging adulthood'. He claims that the social and economic changes of today are causing psychologists to take a step back and say, "hey, there's something to this", similar to what happened with the 'discovery' of adolescence in the early 1900's.
Key features of this 'new life stage' are a sense of angst over identity, a delay in a number of important moments in life (marriage, children, steady job - i.e. career), more self focused, and less certain and yet more optimistic about the future.
This is paralleled (in the article) with research on brain development, indicating that the brain may not be fully developed until around age 25. Some brain-ologists suggest that development, or at least change, may continue throughout one's whole life, as the brain develops patterns that make thinking easier (and learning new tricks more difficult, for an old dog).
There is some precedent for this new life stage in an article that appeared in the 70s by Yale psychologist Kenneth Keniston. Keniston called this period of life "youth", and now Arnett is calling it "emerging adulthood."
Arnett recognizes his debt to Keniston, though he says Keniston's terminology was not very precise, and he "considers the ’60s a unique moment, when young people were rebellious and alienated in a way they’ve never been before or since." Ironically, those were the formative years for many of the parents of the 20-somethings of today. Is it possible that there is a connection?
Not until page six does the article's author introduce dissenting voices, and they seem fairly strong. Introducing a new 'life stage' into the development of a person is a fairly earth-shattering moment.
Richard Lerner, Bergstrom chairman in applied developmental science at Tufts University and very good friend of Arnett, says, that although he highly respects Arnett as a scholar and an all around good man, Lerner criticizes him for ignoring some of the basic tenets of developmental psychology. According to the classical stage theory, in order to identify a new 'stage' of development it must be both universal and essential, both criteria of which Arnett's theory lacks.
Arnett is very clear that this 'emerging adulthood' stage is neither universal, nor essential. The article says, "It’s rare in the developing world, he says, where people have to grow up fast, and it’s often skipped in the industrialized world by the people who marry early, by teenage mothers forced to grow up, by young men or women who go straight from high school to whatever job is available without a chance to dabble until they find the perfect fit. Indeed, the majority of humankind would seem to not go through it at all."
[Interestingly, I read another article in the NYT just yesterday that coincides with some of this, on the lopsided nature of psychological research in America. It exposes the extremely one-sided nature of most psychological research. Although psychologists claim that their findings are supposed to represent universal human nature and be applicable to all people everywhere, their research populations are so narrow as to bring them into question. The article says, "Psychologists claim to speak of human nature, the study argues, but they have mostly been telling us about a group of WEIRD outliers, as the study calls them — Westernized, educated people from industrialized, rich democracies."
Although Arnett is claiming to be studying THAT particular subgroup, his generalizations that this should be a stage applied to all people everywhere becomes highly suspect.]The article closes with dreamy thoughts of social programs that might be offered this 'special segment' of society to help them along in their 'quest for self-discovery'. One particular attempt at this is a "residential program" called Yellowbrick (does this bring to mind images of flying monkeys, tin men, and a little dog named Toto?) in one of America's richest suburbs, Evanston, Ill. It's creators have dubbed it "the only psychiatric treatment facility for emerging adults". The full cost for one
month of residency is a whopping $21,000, and likely not to be covered by insurance.
The big question at the end is, is this a good thing or a bad thing? Should we allow these 20-somethings to wander aimlessly like a cloud driven by the wind, until they finally settle somewhere? Should they be allowed to drift between their parent's spare bedroom and their girlfriend's apartment?
Mark Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, has a strong opinion about this, particularly related to men. In an
Op Article in the Washington Post on August 22 he challenges men to stop being cowardly complainers and childish consumers, and to become creators and cultivators as God intended men to be. He closes his article with this challenge to 'young', 'emerging adult' men: "Men, you are to be creators and cultivators. God is a creator and a cultivator and you were made to image him. Create a family and cultivate your wife and children. Create a ministry and cultivate other people. Create a business and cultivate it. Be a giver, not a taker, a producer and not just a consumer. Stop looking for the path of least resistance and start running down the path of greatest glory to God and good to others because that's what Jesus, the real man, did."
A comment below Driscoll's article offers a link to another intriguing website by Dr. Leonard Sax,
www.boysadrift.com. On his website he mentions Five Factors that strongly contribute to the issues young men face in America today: Video Games; Teaching Methods; Prescription Drugs (particularly those for ADHD); Endocrine Disruptors; and Devaluation of Masculinity. Sax also has a number of good articles that shake some of the 'common knowledge' about boys and girls, gender development, and how we should go about raising boys. He's also the founder and executive director for the
NASSPE (National Association for Single Sex Public Education).
- - -
But I digress from the original article. What is it that we need? What do boys and girls need to know about themselves as they grow to maturity as men and women, and where do you find such direction and instruction? If we don't have the answers to these questions, I can only postulate that our country will slowly go the way of the Aztecs.
What do you think?
