The Decline of Adulthood

Warning --this article contains adult themes and may not be suitable for all family members. Does this not suggest that I'm going to corrupt your eyes and brains with something pornographic, or perhaps lurid descriptions of violent deaths? The fact is, the word "adult," and everything it implies, has acquired a questionable reputation during the last couple of decades. It is tempting to dismiss this as a question of mere semantics, or perhaps etymology. Word usage does change over time, and we could look at the evolution of the meaning of "adult" as an example of such change. I think, however, that more is at issue in this case (not that semantics and etymology are not important in themselves). In this case, there is ample evidence that what has changed is not simply the word "adult," but widespread attitudes about many of the ideas, behaviors and beliefs that have traditionally been associated with adulthood. In other words, it isn't simply the word "adult" that is in decline, but the very notion.

The most common connotation of adult today is, of course, pornography. Think of the adult section of a video store, adult films or those dreaded web sites with adult content. When not referring to something pornographic, "adult" is often tagged on content that is objectionable for its language or depiction of violence, as in NC-17 rated films. These films, incidentally (we are told) are meant for "mature" audiences, which is close to a synonym for adult. Of what does this mature content consist? Let's see...sex, of course, curse words, and violence in all its permutations, such as shootings, beatings, explosions, decapitations and so forth. Maturity and adulthood have become rather frightful. Finally, there is a more innocent but equally limited usage of "adult" and "mature" -- elderly, as in "adult home" or community, Modern Maturity, etc. What I am wondering is what happened to plain old adulthood --you know, the period following adolescence that includes but is not confined to our final years. For someone living an average life-span, this period represents a large, usually the longest stretch of our lives, yet it is becoming increasingly neglected, marginalized, even demonized.

To find the increasingly elusive adult portion of society --at least the part that is not fixated on gratuitous sex or violence, we must examine what has become the antithesis of the "adult," at least in the euphemistic world of modern language --the "family friendly". The usage of "family" has become at least as complex and, arguably, corrupted as "adult," with all sorts of political and cultural connotations that have little to do with the word's original meaning. In the most simplistic sense, "family" has become a euphemism for the kind of political conservatism that advocates a strict regime of nationalism, monotheistic religion and heterosexual monogamy. I actually find this usage less troubling than some people do simply because its intentions are so transparent. After all, as countless writers, activists and commentators have pointed out, families can exist well outside these narrow ideological parameters. What is more subtle and potentially more dangerous, is the widespread, less obviously political way in which "family" has become an at once idealized and insipid symbol for all that is good, fun, pure and innocent; in short, all that is not adult. When we really get down to it, what "family friendly" --whether it applies to movies, restaurants, airlines or resorts-- usually means is "child friendly." Even more pervasive than right-wing plots to turn back the cultural clock on issues like race, feminism and sexual preferences, references to something being family friendly simply means that it's okay, even encouraged, to bring the kids. Now is it just me getting older and more cantankerous, or has nearly every place become family friendly during the last decade or so? Did people always bring infants, toddlers and pre-adolescents into bookstores, cafes, upscale restaurants and college campuses? The point here is not to launch a tirade against children or their parents. The question is whether it is truly appropriate, healthy or even "normal" for all of society to be family friendly in this regard. Is not a certain segregation based on age, experience and maturity simply natural?

In many cases, the motive behind the "family-friendly" culture is economic. Many people today simply cannot afford to pay someone, whether a parent, babysitter or other paid child care provider, to supervise their children, so in many cases the only solution is to take them along. Some argue that this is beneficial for everyone, especially the children; others would argue the opposite. This is, however, a digression that is best left for another discussion. The relevant point here is that very often "family friendly" carries a connotation of virtue, distinguishing itself from the elitist, exclusionist or shady world of the "adult." Does this not carry the seldom stated message that our society is no longer "adult friendly?" Are activities, events and places that are only appropriate for adults intrinsically morally suspect? A popular syndicated radio program boasts "if a nine-year old can't listen to it, you won't hear it on this program." Is this really something that society as a whole should be aiming for --a culture devoid of subject matters and activities that exclude children?

To examine these assumptions and definitions more closely, there is no better place to look than movies. For better or worse, movies are now the art form that most closely reflects and influences society as a whole. It is also where we so often find warnings of "adult content." Most video stores now have a "family" section. Although family-friendly films are sometimes distinguished from films that are specifically geared to children, the two genres often overlap. In general, family friendly films contain little or no sex, profanity or violence. Yet, this isn't all. They often have traditional and sentimental story-lines in which children, young teenagers or animals play a central role. These family friendly movies are, again, contrasted to the more numerous PG-13 and NC-17 rated films that are filled with "adult content" --sex, violence, etc. What about films that fit neither category, that, for example, have artistic or intellectual themes? Or romantic stories that are neither sentimental romantic comedies nor mere excuses for attractive stars to display their naked bodies on the screen? Usually, these are marginalized as "art house," "independent" or "alternative," although the majority of independent films today overlap a great deal with "adult" especially since the rise of Quentin Tarantino and his imitators. The very notion of art films has a pretentious or elitist connotation for many. Furthermore, it is in many cases not really accurate. Many European (and some American) films are "arty" in the sense of putting visuals and atmosphere ahead of traditional plot. But many movies with linear plots also get put into the art category for lack of a viable alternative.

What all of this seems to imply is that movies that deal with serious, adult-centered themes are for the intelligentsia. Often the most pronounced difference between "art" films and mainstream is the pace; the former are often much slower paced. Mainstream movies seem to be speeded up every few years, reflecting the shortening attention span (or at least as perceived by Hollywood) of popular audiences. Now here we run into an apparent contradiction. Most movies that allegedly contain adult or mature themes are in fact geared towards audiences with very short attention spans, almost a defining characteristic of children and teenagers. Come to think of it, are not most "adult" themes best suited for teenagers? Think of the non-stop action of most modern suspense thrillers --the car chases, explosions, improbable fight scenes and special effects. As for the sexual content, pornography is arguably an adolescent perception of sex. So what mainstream movies really offer is a choice between material that is suited, on the one hand to young children and pre-teens and, on the other, to older teenagers. Those truly geared towards adults are pushed into non-mainstream categories. One reason for using films as an example is the simple fact that movies and other popular entertainment are extremely representative of the culture at large. More importantly, the sort of attitude exemplified by film ratings and categories is largely reflective of more general sentiments. The overall atmosphere of mainstream society, as found in malls, fast-food restaurants, theme parks and other popular destinations seems bent on not only being family or child friendly but on appealing to the childlike aspects of everyone. The mania for instant gratification, whether in the form of junk food or the ubiquitous hype for consumer products may be driven by profit, but the result is a kind of candy-store culture that extends from the internet to the mall to Main Street (in so far as it still exists).

The seemingly family-oriented bent of mainstream society is, perhaps inevitably, quite superficial. Lurking just beneath the surface, and often right alongside all this innocuous family dominated culture are the dark waters of the "adult" world. If we consider that the family and child-oriented is artificially light and saccharine, we can see the "adult" as a kind of adolescent reaction against the innocence and restrictions of childhood. So while children (and families) are preoccupied with cartoons and other Disney characters and family friendly activities, adults on their own are free to cut loose and indulge their mature taste for sex, violence, gambling and drinking (whether vicariously in movies, online or live). This adult vs. family opposition has the largely invisible affect of excluding an entire realm of thought, action and possibility --what might be called the Truly Adult (TA). It's not that the TA no longer exists, but that it is mainly marginalized to a kind of counterculture that is a blend of apparent elitism and quirkiness. Much of what is labeled "arty," "offbeat" or "alternative" fits this description. This is not to say that everything so labeled is part of the disenfranchised world of TA. Much of the "alternative" world truly is trendy, elitist, pretentious and ephemeral, as mainstream culture is inclined to regard it. Yet mainstream culture, with its ever more centralized mode of operation (especially in the realm of media and entertainment) is now constructed according to a paradigm that almost necessarily pushes everything that does not fit into the neat family vs. adult spectrum off into the fringes.

To come up with a precise definition of TA is probably counterproductive (I doubt if the term even deserves to survive beyond the scope of this essay), but one of its basic characteristics is a general curiosity about life, whether from an aesthetic, philosophical, spiritual, scientific or historical point of view. This, unfortunately, makes TA sound a bit serious and stodgy, suggesting perhaps the insulated halls of academia. Yet TA can also embrace humor, especially satire, the exploration of relationships, a sensuality that is non-mainstream yet not pornographic, and a bohemianism that is not merely reactive but a search for new vistas of thought and experience. When mainstream culture does grapple with such issues, it tends to provide traditional and often unoriginal answers. If childhood is characterized by a general acceptance of authority and the status quo, adolescence often brings with it many questions, and sometimes rebellion. TA can then be seen as a synthesis of these two previous states. An adult has seen enough of life to accept certain things, to reject others and, ideally, to make some positive contributions. This analysis, of course, relies upon the cliches of childhood innocence and teenage rebellion, which barely scratch the surface of these periods, but even this simplification has enough truth in it to convey at least a general notion of TA. According to this model, most of the "culture wars" of today involve conflicts between the childlike and adolescent standpoint, excluding the TA. Examples of this would be court battles between conservatives and people fighting for their right to burn flags or display vulgar renditions of Christ on the cross. I am not trying to minimize the importance of such issues. From the point of view of the law, they are important, for, as civil libertarians point out, censoring one mode of expression endangers the rights of everyone. Yet such public arguments usually exclude the TA, and reinforce the notion that our choice is between a narrow-minded traditionalism and an angry, anarchistic reaction to tradition.

The ubiquitous embracing of the "family" and the near demonization of the "adult" is perhaps best understood as a symptom of an increasing homogenization and blurring of distinctions in modern liberal (so-called) societies. The usually unstated assumption that what is strictly meant for adults is in some way morally suspect implies that society should be all-inclusive. Yet is it really good for children (not to mention their guardians) to be always in the company of adults? This is, after all, a central aspect of family-friendly environments. Several decades ago, children (such as myself) often used to have to rely on their own resources and each other to a far greater extent than today. I remember going to the schoolyard and choosing sides for games such as punch-ball, handball, basketball and so forth. There were, of course, Little Leagues and such, but these were not nearly as widespread as they are today, when most parents even marginally middle class feel it their duty to structure their children's' every hour with an adult-supervised activity. Has it become hopelessly anachronistic or un-PC to suggest that many children suffer not from too little but too much adult attention? Or that one aspect of growing into adulthood means graduating to at least some activities that are not appropriate for children? The world is vast enough to encompass children, teenagers, adults and families. In some cases, these categories can nicely overlap; at other times they should remain separate or something is taken away from everyone.