Without a Centre that Holds: The Redefinition of Contemporary Adulthood Harry Blatterer A Thesis Submitted in Fulfilment of the Requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Sociology and Anthropology University of New South Wales — February 2005 — Aileen. Thank you my friend, my love. More than you know, your intellect, your care, your wisdom, love and patience have carried me through. This is for you. ii Abstract Adulthood holds a paradoxical position in sociology. It is a central category in so far as it provides the unarticulated background to a majority of social inquiries, but it is largely defined by default, as the taken‐for‐granted status of the social actor, and the middle stage of life. The meaning of adulthood is only rarely addressed directly. This thesis explores a way to fill this lacuna in sociology. An emerging lag between the prevalent normative ideals of adulthood and contemporary social trends is identified as the core of the ‘prolonged adolescence thesis’ ― a dominant view in the social sciences and everyday discourse, which holds that many twenty and thirtysomethings are deferring or rejecting adulthood. My thesis argues that this approach is informed by a model of adulthood that is losing its empirical validity. I further argue that the practices of these young people are congruent with salient features of current social conditions. Drawing on theories of social recognition and the analysis of interview material, I hold that even though the form social recognition takes is subject to pluralisation, recognition of individuals’ full membership in society is the meaningful constant of adulthood. I also propose that the redefinition of contemporary adulthood is marked by an intersubjectively constituted ‘recognition deficit’: commentators and social scientists often misunderstand young adults’ practices, notwithstanding the structural rewards which these practices reap. At the same time, young adults themselves eschew the conventional markers of adult status. In so doing they forge their own, radically different, adulthood. Underpinned by an ideology of youthfulness, and subject to the fluid social relations of contemporary modernity, this adulthood eludes fixity. Its normative criteria flow from the everyday practices of individuals who, far from prolonging their adolescence, are the new adults of today. iii Acknowledgements Maria Markus has inspired, taught and supervised generations of doctoral candidates. I consider it a privilege to be counted among them. It is not for me to praise her many virtues ― those are too well known to require affirmation here. It is for me to state, however, that her guidance always went far beyond formal requirements, and that my apprenticeship in sociology as a whole was enriched immeasurably by her teaching and supervision. I am also indebted to Mira Crouch who never let me doubt her belief in this project. With her always thought‐provoking comments and questions, her erudition and incisiveness, she provided invaluable assistance on the way. My thanks go to Michael Pusey for his advice, support and mentorship. I thank Monika Ciolek for her priceless help with the final manuscript. Her love for language is only exceeded by her generosity. My gratitude goes to the respondents for so freely opening windows into their lives. I cannot do justice to the richness of their accounts. Thanks go to Phil Dekoning. Our friendship made my own coming of age a journey for which I could have wanted no better fellow traveller. I thank Mr and Mrs Woo, as well as Jemima Woo, for their support and encouragement. iv Contents Abstract iii Acknowledgements iv Contents v Part I BACKGROUND AND CONCEPTS 7 1 Introduction: Investigating Adulthood 8 2 Representations of Adulthood 19 1. History and concepts 19 2. The prolonged adolescence thesis 36 3. Adulthood, common sense and sociology 42 Part II TRANSFORMATION 47 3 Living in Modernity: Tradition, Individualisation and Choice 48 1. Tradition in modernity 53 2. Individualisation in modernity 58 3. The proliferation of options in modernity 71 4 Blurring Boundaries: Adulthood and the Modern Life Course 82 1. The integration of life course and biography 82 2. Devolving life course, fragmented biographies 89 3. The choice biography and its limits 102 v Part III REDEFINITION 108 5 Reconceptualising a Social Category: Adulthood and Recognition 109 1. Social recognition: a selective overview 110 2. Adulthood and personhood 117 3. From prolonged adolescence to a new adulthood 130 6 From Adulthood as a Goal to Youth as a Value 135 1. Adolescents, teenagers and youth culture 136 2. Expansion of youth and the new adulthood 148 3. Expansion of youth and market recognition 153 7 Conversations about Adulthood: Experiences, Views, Perceptions 166 1. What does it take to be an adult? 169 2. Two adulthoods 189 3. New fatalism 195 4. Remaining norms 202 5. Self-centredness or self-centring? 209 8 Conclusion: The Rise of the New Adulthood 213 Bibliography 223 Appendix I The interviews: method and limits 249 Appendix II New adults in the Australian press: select headlines and excerpts 255 vi PART I BACKGROUND AND CONCEPTS Chapter 1 Introduction: Investigating Adulthood In 1976 the journal Daedalus dedicated an issue to adulthood for which its then editor‐in‐chief, Stephen R. Graubard, wrote the preface. He expressed the concern that the word ‘adulthood’ figures rarely in the scientific literature of our time; it has none of the concreteness that attaches to terms such as ‘childhood’ or ‘adolescence,’ and indeed seems almost a catch‐all cry for everything that happens to the individual human being after a specific chronological age ― whether eighteen, twenty‐one, or some other … We are insufficiently informed about how concepts of adulthood have changed over time, about how adult behavior is culturally conditioned … [and thus] more substantial inquiry is called for. (1976: v) A few years afterwards, in a volume co‐edited with Erik H. Erikson, Neil Smelser observed: ‘Why the adult years, arguably the most productive and in some ways the most gratifying years in the life course, should have gone unattended for so long is a mystery’ (Smelser & Erikson 1980: 2). Jane Pilcher echoed Smelser’s sentiments when she referred to ‘the neglect of adulthood as a social category’ (1995: 82), as did Côté when he noted that ‘although adulthood … constitutes the longest period of the life course, it is the least understood’ (2000: 53). Most recently, returning to the topic in 2003, Pilcher and colleagues summarised the state of affairs concerning adulthood in sociology: 8 Introduction It seems odd that while sociology is largely concerned with the practices and experiences of adults, there is as yet no convincing ʹsociology of adulthoodʹ equivalent to the established areas of sociologies of childhood, of youth and of old age. Moreover, each of these major stages of the life course is defined, in cultural practices and in sociological theories, largely in relation to adulthood. (Pilcher et al. 2003: 1) This thesis is an attempt to attend to adulthood in its own right ― to go some way toward filling a lacuna which has been identified in sociological research. It is an inquiry into the meaning of a concept that simultaneously has normative force on the ideological level as well as diminishing relevance in practice, especially for those young adults with whom this study is concerned. This is the central theme of the thesis. For most people today who consider themselves ‘grown‐up’, adulthood is no mystery; it is the taken‐for‐granted middle period of their lives. Its taken‐for‐ granted status is evident in the representations and practices through which it is reproduced: working nine to five and beyond, dinner parties, movies with ‘adult themes’ and ‘adult’ book stores, jury duty and voting, marriages mortgages and children, the family sedan, adultery and divorce, investment portfolios, nest eggs, life insurance, writing a will. At the same time, there is considerable confusion concerning adulthood, particularly as an idea that normatively frames individuals’ practices. Statements such as ‘young people don’t grow up anymore’ and ‘kids grow up too fast today’, are evidence of this perplexity. This is compounded by the fact that modern societies tdo no provide definite answers as to when adulthood begins. This is so with respect to officialdom as well as everyday life. 9 Introduction Even a cursory glance at the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) ― Australia’s equivalent to Britain’s National Statistics, the U.S. Census and Germany’s Statistisches Bundesamt ― confirms that there is no official agreement as to what age marks the beginning of adulthood. Definitions and delimitations vary according to specific areas of analysis and their relevant publications. Thus the Western Australian Statistical Indicators (ABS 2001a) differentiate between ‘young people’ (15–24), ‘population 25–64’, and ‘older persons’ (65+). Year Book Australia (ABS 2004), on the other hand, refers to those under 35 as ‘young people’ without further differentiation, while Population by Age and Sex, Australian States and Territories (ABS 2003) terms ‘adult’ all those 15 and over. In everyday life too we may wonder what marks the beginning of adulthood. Is it the 21st birthday? Or perhaps reaching the age of majority at 18? Is it a process of development rather than crossing one threshold or another? Perhaps self‐ perception is the key? Or marriage, parenthood, work, independent living? The only aspect