The New York Times has come full circle, from reporting that today’s young people are listless, narcissistic losers to finally embracing more of a lifespan perspective on development in their magazine for this weekend. Basically, the lifespan perspective says that observations of college grads delaying adulthood can be explained by a new phase of development called “emerging adulthood.” I’ve read a persuasive argument for this new stage written by Dr. Jeff Arnett at Clark University, in case you are interested in learning more. The opposing viewpoint says that our culture today has corrupted young people and turned them into a bunch of narcissists. This argument has been put forth (though not well supported) by Dr. Jean Twenge at San Diego State University. News media usually picks one side or the other or plays the two sides as a great debate raging to try to explain if and why young people are different today when compared to other young people of the past.
But what if both perspectives are wrong? What if there aren’t real major differences in young people today compared to young people of the past, thus striking down the narcissism argument? And what if there isn’t a life stage of emerging adulthood? Indeed, is it possible that the entire phase of “adulthood” is a fabrication? It seems like these questions are worth considering. Here’s why.
First, let’s consider the entire concept of a phase of development. The thinking behind such a perspective says that variation within people of a certain age (say, five and six year olds) is smaller than variation between people of similar ages (three and four year olds compared to five and six year olds). Thus, it is acceptable to group people together by ages and claim that there are phases of development.
Further, because we know that the body and brain undergo certain physical changes and develop new ways of thinking that can be explained above and beyond simple education, it is valuable to do this kind of grouping. For example, we know that children have a period of time in which is it very easy for them to learn new languages. After a certain age, this ability declines supremely. Thus, having two stages of development centered around this ability makes sense.
But what happens to variability within age groups as we age? Consider infants. By and large, there is very little variation in the ability of newborns. All newborns can do basically the same things – suck, cry, et cetera. It’s hard for even the most wide-eyed parents to marvel at the abilities of their 2-week-old. As people age, this variability increases. Anyone who has spent time around a group of kids in the same grade can tell you there are sometimes worlds of difference within that group. Some kids seem smart as a whip; others can’t even compete against a horse. And while most everyone will get caught up in areas like basic math and reading though the process of education, there are still exceptional differences as these kids head toward their teenage years. Fast forward to late in life and we see very dramatic variation. Take 80 year olds for example. Some are leading vast investment empires (like Warren Buffett) and some are comatose. There is no comparison between these two types of people, even though they are the same age.
So is there a certain period of time after which a “life stage” perspective is no longer useful? Can there really be a life stage of 70-90 year olds? First, is there less variation within the group than there is between this group and others? There would have to be some vast differences between groups to overcome the variation within. Second, is defining this stage valuable? 20 years is a huge amount of time, especially when compared to the rapid changes occurring in children, which necessitates that a child’s early life stages are relatively short. At the end of life, it seems that having a life stage based in years is not especially valuable.
But does that mean that the end of life is not more similar for people facing it? Wouldn’t we say that an 80 year old suffering from cancer is probably having a more similar experience to a 50 year old going through the same thing, compared to an 80 year old running marathons? The end of life would seem to offer a reasonable stage in which we would expect to see more similarities than differences. Indeed, in the developmental literature, there is widespread consensus that the end of life is a meaningful time, especially when considering how close individuals feel they are to the end of their life (regardless of how much longer they will actually live). This gives us a new option when looking to find fitting ways to categorize people.
This new option also gives us good guidance for how to consider the lives of college grads. I argue that there is widespread variability in today’s youth and that this accounts for the difficulty in categorizing the nation’s youth. For any recent college graduate, consider your classmates. Some have probably gone off to get married. Others have found full time careers. Still more may have gone on for more schooling, or gotten a job to bide their time, or decided to travel before “settling down,” or have moved back in with their parents, or become a parent unexpectedly, or any number of other options. There is a lot of variation, and these options are all in recent college grads that I know. I’m certain there is even more variation when you consider everyone aged 22.
The reasons that there is so much variation in this group of people is less important than recognizing that there is such variation. Specifically, this recognition renders moot arguments for cultural forces creating a bunch of narcissists. (I’ll offer no apologies for this to Dr. Twenge.) The fact is that the only cultural forces worth recognizing are those that can explain increased variability. Neither a lifespan perspective nor the “everybody gets a trophy disaster” folks can explain why there is such variability.
This returns us then to the original question about the value of a life stage associated with this time. With so much variability and so many difference choices being made, I argue that the entire concept of a life stage of emerging adulthood is misconstrued. Indeed, I call into question the concept of “adulthood” itself! Adulthood may be constructed from a set of experiences, but it should not be based on specific developmental or age-based perspectives. You are an adult when you feel like how you think being an adult feels. Thus for all people getting married or starting a family, we could categorize them together. There is likely less variation within this group than between this group and others, regardless of age. But there is little value in grouping by age alone after puberty.
For the record, I feel like I am an adult. But I am certain there are plenty of other 26 year olds (perhaps living at home with no job, as is one of my former roommates) who don’t feel that way at all. Such vast variability makes categorization overly reductive and often downright impossible. For those scholars struggling to do so regardless of the challenges, it may be best to consider another route entirely.