"
"Ruminations
Ξ October 22nd, 2003 | → 3 Comments | ∇ Current Events, Philosophy |
Here’s a question for you:
How have we changed?
To be more specific: How have the young adult population’s attitudes changed over the years with regards to this population segment’s role within American society?
First off, I know young twenty-somethings who still think of themselves as young adults — people who are gradually taking on greater responsibilities, but they don’t call themselves fully adult yet in some way. Their reasons and reservations for or against calling themselves “adults” are almost definitely unique to each one of them.
It seems like people consider themselves grown-up at a younger age the farther back in time we go. I have the vague impression that people considered themselves to be grown-up by 18 or 21 at the latest back in the ’70s and ’80s. It was tentatively 15 or 16 back around the Civil War. It was even younger back in medieval times — I hazily recall accounts of girls married at age 12 or 13 (with the expectation of bearing children then, as opposed to political marriages among nobility at more absurd ages). But certainly some boys among the Norse went viking (trading expeditions as well as raids) to become men at age 14 or 15.
Of course, education, affluence, and other societal factors and opportunities alter the equation. Another vague recollection: I think people today consider themselves to be grown-ups when they’ve acquired a full collection of firsts — first car, first house, first self-supporting job (usually full-time), getting married. Getting a graduate degree or two pushes the grown-up labelling back a few years, usually. The relative significance of these events varies from person to person, but I know a couple thirty-somethings who still in some way feel like they can put off the clock by not being married. For them, I get the sense that they’ll consider themselves downright old the moment they get married — thereby going from not-grown-up-yet to catastrophically old-and-established in one great leap. Oddly enough, they’re extremely ambitious and/or energetic, but none of the ones I know own their own homes yet (or even live on their own).
Mind you, I’m not saying that anyone’s wrong for avoiding marriage or home ownership — there’s enough freedom of choice in our society that people can seek fulfillment through other means.
Enough about age. I just heard the “Oh Yeah” song, and that got me thinking about Ferris Bueller. Does the young adult population still idealize and idolize the slacker — the guy who does nothing and yet somehow has everything? I know the truth is that you don’t have anything if you do nothing, or at least you don’t have everything for long. Old money doesn’t stay in a family longer than a generation if the young scions do nothing to nurture their capital — or at least delegate it to competent subordinates. Or do I know anything?
I haven’t exactly kept up with teeny bopper movies. Who’s all the rage these days? The young Romeo-esque character? The grungy rebel with a heart of gold?
On the topic of stereotypes, are we witnessing the revenge of the nerds? For all that the geeks and brainiacs were lampooned in the ’70s and ’80s as slide rule-toting social incompetents sporting taped glasses and pocket protectors, guess who owns the hottest companies and drives the nicest cars today? Not the jocks (except for those who were closet geeks). On another note, entertainers like Bruce Springsteen used to idealize the hard-working American blue collar laborer. In the ’50s, you might hear someone proudly say, “I work in construction.”
Who do we glorify today? I’m just throwing out random bits here: the young professional; a white-collar job with good career prospects; drives a Honda, VW, or BMW, perhaps; or else someone who pursues a passion and thinks/lives outside the box a little or a lot — an artist, a musician, a social worker, a teacher. It’s a somewhat schizophrenic ideal. Many of us still value becoming “successful” and established, though this is tempered by a strong undercurrent of desire for self-expression in our life and work. Often, though, I see people who value that freedom of expression to the detriment of their ability to pay the rent. Some of them are quite driven, motivated, capable, whatever, and have accomplished great things.
So is that good or bad? Both? Or maybe it just is. If / when they’re one day forced to pay their own rent, they’ll find a way to manage it then, perhaps. What about when they’re 65 or 70, and not so active as they are now? Will they have a plan for their retirement (such as that might be)? These days, it costs a lot to be old. Or rather, it costs a lot when you try to maintain your younger quality of life.
And the quality of life is undoubtedly rising — how many of our parents had what we have now when they were in their early twenties? A car for each person, a fabulous computer, a barbeque grill, cable TV, a cell phone… Some of it simply wasn’t technologically available then, but our buying power has increased as well. Going to the movies used to be a big deal. Now, big-name concerts or theater shows are big-deal dates. The average decent date costs about $80: dinner for two, movie tickets, overpriced theater rubbish — er, refreshments. A nice date might run about $100 for concert tickets and a nicer dinner. Budget dates are still possible, mind you, and can be more original and interesting (photography jaunts, rockclimbing, etc.) than the high-priced route. But the average (sub)urbanite is still quite wedded to the age-old misconception that more money must be nicer, and these days goes on more “nice” dates than his parents might have. But that’s a symptom of our reduced savings rates rather than buying power. Speaking of which, what’s the latest stat on that? Are we still saving at a rate of -0.8% per capita? What’s the average debt load? Still $10,000?
[And yes, I note that Mario still needs his coins. Spending too little can be as bad as spending too much.]
For that matter, how many of us had what the students have now at Rice? I’ve seen two M3s (one a brand-new model) with student stickers now. The number of new sporty Hondas, VWs, BMWs, cars with aftermarket bling-bling, and beefed-up trucks is astonishing. I remember we were still piling Wiessmen clowns into cars as juniors. These days, most of the freshmen have cars (acc. to anecdotal reports).
I know I’ve put a lot of seat-of-the-pants analyses up lately, with undoubtedly a lot of specious reasoning. So call me on it, fix my facts and educate my readership. ;) On my end, I promise to get back to the debate on the provenance of evil and God’s role in it (though it seems like Doug and Britton have presented a sufficiently robust theological explanation for the non-polar nature of good and evil and why God’s not responsible for the evil in His creation. It’s a hard pill for me to swallow, but I think it’s a sound argument that doesn’t resort to any rationalization or tricks of logic.).
