Men and Adolescence Anthropological Inquiry

Men and Adolescence

Anthropological inquiry into male-female relations has somewhat evolved around debates concerning sexual inequality. Gender roles are complex and clearly vary by culture and time-period, and are often misunderstood based on individual societal bias. Modern contemporary research shows that there were so many contradictions and odd conflicts within the data that the idea of gender role responsibility has been confusing even for scholars. (Stasburger, 2008). Since culture is so abstract, and based on so many individual and fleeting factors, many scholars now believe the relationship of the sexes to each other is best discussed in terms of the conflicts, tensions, and paradoxes that are at the heart of daily life in many societies (Sanday, et.al., 1990).

Gender roles are the way that male and female individuals perceive their differences, similarities, and norms. An early definition of the gender/role system calls it, "The set of arrangements by which a society transforms biological sexuality into products of human activity, and in which these transformed needs are satisfied" (Reiter, 1975, p. 159). Gender is not as simple, though, as defining masculine and feminine -- those are physiological terms; instead, gender can best be expressed by differences in attitudes, behaviors, and place that form an individual's identity within their own cultural group -- one orients or associates oneself with either masculine or feminine, or a combination of the two depending on internal and external stimuli. Modern scholarship, however, admits that an individual's expressed behavior is a consequence of two primary factors: 1) socially enforced rules and values and, 2) innate behavior, be that genetic, unconscious, or conscious. Moreover, cultural values are dynamic and change over time and place, and so does the perception of gender. For modern scholars, even those with a feminist perspective, the study of gender is, by necessity, multidisciplinary and dynamic (Connell, 2009).

It is also important to understand the process by which individuals form their roles, or the concept of socialization. Socialization is the scientific study of human behavior and activities. It is concerned with how human beings think and act as social creatures. Socialization is the process through which we become human and then male or female. It is through our interaction with society that we learn what is necessary to live in each society. In the modern world, there are four main agents of socialization: family, school, peers, and mass media. This is especially true in the contemporary world -- media influences gender and culture more than ever (Witt, 2000).

Family, however, is one of the most continual modifiers or gender roles within society. Different cultures have different organizations for family: some are mother/father/children, others more extended. For the purposes of socialization, though, most sociologists believe that children are socialized into their gender roles and hence in their gender identities by the family as a whole using manipulation and canalization. Manipulation consists of encouraging behaviors that are viewed as normative by the family, at the same time discouraging behaviors seen as aberrant. Canalization is an ongoing process, somewhat an offshoot of manipulation holds that the family channels the child's interests into activities that are considered by them to be gender appropriate -- be that colors of dress, activities, language use, or other behaviors (Brewer, 2001).

Once the child leaves home, though, other factors, often utilizing the same structures of manipulation and canalization, begin to appear within peer groups. Oddly enough, this whole rubric is not simply limited to the developed world. As soon as most children are old enough to interact with their peers, they are immediately pressured to conform to the dominant culture- and adapt to a hierarchical status quo (Hartup, 1999). Add to this the tremendous power of the media in all but the most primitive societies, and the fluctuation within the socialization model becomes as complex as string theory -- pervasive, definable in some ways, yet enigmatic in others (Stasburger, 2008).

Human Development- Human development is quite complex in nature. We are one of the only species who takes almost two decades to move from a child to what we term as an "adult." -- After spending approximately 9 months in a warm, softly lit environment where all needs were handled, sounds muted, and warmth assured, the infant is now born into the world. The newborn is completely vulnerable and dependent upon care in order to survive this new, seemingly hostile environment. Like a seedling slowly pushing its way to the light, so the infant spends time learning to breath, to digest food, and to react to stimuli. The toddler moves from being completely helpless and dependent upon the caregiver to being 90% dependent. This is the stage between infancy and childhood in which there are rapid physiological and psychological changes, typically between 8-12 months and 24-30 months. During this stage, the child learns to crawl, then walk. Also during the toddler stage, the child learns about social roles and expectations, develops motor skills, and begins the grounding of language communication. Usually between 2-6, depending on how rapidly the individual matures, there is a rapid period of socialization, combined with self-accountability. While certain parts of the body grow faster than others, genetic characteristics become apparent and there is an increase in cognitive activity. This group experiences life more holistically than at any other stage, and learning is rapid and ongoing. Children learn cooperative play, develop imaginary companions, and glean enough sense of self that they begin to "own" their own things and activities (e.g. dressing, etc. What is known as the "school aged child," roughly age 6 to the beginnings of puberty, is both a lengthy and complex stage. So much happens during this time, so much individual difference and expression, we can liken this to a bud beginning on a flower and even some individual flowers. Creativity improves the cognitive ability to hold multiple thoughts, make comparisons, judgements, moral and ethnical decisions, and the process of amassing language, numerical skills, improved eye-hand coordination and self-actualization of interests (art, music, and sports). Early in this period genders separate, but closer to puberty they are able to work together. Strong personality traits become more apparent (stubbornness, kindness, etc.), and the ability to learn empathy. Toward the end of this stage there are again rapid spurts of physical growth, especially in the bones and teeth. The world becomes important, social groupings develop and change, and ideological development moves from pure imitation to actual creative composition. Varying in time, but increasingly early, adolescence is the time in which children begin to develop adult sexual characteristics, body shape, and increased hormonal activities that turns the child into the adult. A very difficult, yet rewarding period of time, numerous changes become apparent that allow one, at the beginning of the stage (11-13 years of age) to the later part (late teens) to see flowers bloom, and finally form into a mature set of blossoms -- at once individual and integrated. This transitional stage has numerous physical, emotional, and intellectual / psychological bursts within development -- most not happening to the same individual on a regular or patterned basis. Instead, the wonderful variation of humanity acknowledges and begins to celebrate individual differences in sexual preference, cognitive and physical tastes and preferences, and the chemicals necessary for the survival of the species (sexual hormones, muscle development, problem solving). Because the prefrontal lobes are still underdeveloped, though, judgement is often impaired and the adolescent vulnerable to substance abuse and addiction. Mood changes, often for no reason, are the result of hormones, particularly during mid-adolescence, with most of the issues finding some resolution toward ages 17-19. It is during this period that a unique identity is established, and the basis for the individual solidified. Changes, of course, continue to occur, but the basic template of the "person" is defined during this period (Kail and Cavanaugh, 2008; LeDoux, 2003).

Perpetual Adolescence- Therein lies the crux of the social dilemma now facing contemporary culture -- that men in general seem to be "stuck" in perpetual adolescence, the stage in which 50% of the population continues to act as if their pre-frontal lobes had not fused, their hormones continue to rage, they seek to consistently gratify themselves with food, liquor, gambling, and sex, and they postpone any semblance of responsibility and acumen for as long as possible. And to what does society owe this newfound reversal in maturation? According to Manhattan Institute for Policy Research's Kay Hymowitz, it is a combination of the cultural and societal changes brought about by femininism and the 20-somethinger mentality of instant gratification and a displaced view of what adulthood really means (Clark-Flory, 2011).

Hymowitz sees such drastic changes in culture as part of the evolution of women's roles, on the job and at home, changing expectations and definitions of roles and responsibilities. What does it mean to be an "adult" in late-20th and early 21st century society? Are we measuring roles based on Ward and June Cleaver; that after High School or College one simply changes their life to "more mature" aspects -- no skateboarding, extreme sports, rock music, evening with friends at the local pub? And is the role responsibility of masculinity to become stable, work and provide a home; do "certain" tasks with the children, and work one job - now to much later retirement age? Perhaps that is the issue that defines the argument about what constitutes perpetual adolescence and/or what it means to become an adult in modern society. In the historical world, there seemed to be fewer choices in life for many, and roles as adults were more stringent -- and defined as adult meaning very structured cultural templates. There must then be a bit of a Catch-22 when it comes to the advances made in gender thinking, family, and actualization since the end of World War II. Improvements in education, lifting of the gender-based glass ceiling at work, in politics, and in academia; goals towards equalization of pay and responsibility; and even more opportunities for both sides to consider jobs and careers that have been essentially gender decided for decades. Too, the process of globalism -- in terms of communication and sharing of ideas -- has changed culture to one in which defined roles are seen as old-fashioned rather archaic paradigms of rural or under-developed society.

The Workplace- Contemporary working age Americans fall into four main generational groupings, a generation being defined as an grouping by age, geography, and commonality of significant events while growing up. Depending on the scholarship, and sometimes the age of the researcher, differing views emerge regarding generational differences within the workplace. A major presumption holds that the events individuals share influence and define the manner in which they react as they age and become part of the workplace. These may manifest as cultural values, thoughts, and even behaviors based on the climate they shared during formative years. (Zemke, Raines and Filipszak, 1999). Furthermore, one assumes that these values, reactions, and behaviors presumably differ across generations. The alternative view holds that although there might be some variations throughout an employee's life cycle or career stage, ultimately employees are far more "generic" in what they want from their jobs and trying to bifurcate employees by generations may be misguided (Jurkiewicz and Brown, 1998, 29).

However, the two generations identified by Hymowitz and others that seem to carry a different attitude regarding roles and responsibilities, particularly by gender, are Generation X and Y. - Generation X, or those born roughly between 1968 and 1979 (Gen X). This generation is also called the "Baby Busters," because of its smaller size in comparison to the Boomers. Some of these Xers are children of older Boomers who grew up in a period of insecurity -- social, family and financial. They witnessed a stagnating job market, corporate greed and then downsizing, and are the first generation predicted to earn less than their parents. Most grew up in single parent homes or, because of the economy, homes in which both parents were forced to work, had high divorce rates, and had to fend for themselves. They were heavily influenced by MTV, the AIDs and STD epidemic, and a conservative backlash. They also became accustomed to continual and instant feedback -- the kind they receive when playing video games (O'Bannon, Karp). X'ers saw what work did to their family and will have nothing of it -- they strive for balance, but are also more self-reliant and autonomous than their parents. They are not overly loyal to their employers, but are to family and friends. They do value continuous learning and stimulation and have strong technical skills (they grew up with computers). Money is not the motivator, but absence of money is -- even though most say they are more rewarded by a sense of accomplishment than fiscal bonuses. They are more adaptable to change than the previous two generations, prefer flexible schedules that allow them family time, and insist that work remain fun (Zemke).

Generation Y, those born after 1978-1980, are also known as Generation www, Millenials, the Digital Generation, and the Net-Gens. These individuals are definitely anti-nuclear family, little is sacred, and the idea of searching for the feel good identity. Shaped by cell phones, the Internet, and dramatic technological improvements, they embrace diversity like no other generation and have far less prejudice about race, religion, or sexual preferences. They are independent and strive for a balanced life. Because of their upbringing, they are multi-taskers. Most employers believe this generation is rather selfish, demanding to the extreme, and rarely loyal. However, they are also educated, entrepreneurial, and love training. Data does not yet exist on how this generation will characterize itself during middle age, but these decision makers of tomorrow will likely change the fabric of modern business (Glass, 2007; Kersten 2002).

These basic generational differences actually typify the argument about postponing adulthood, at least based on how society tends to define many of the differences between adolescence and adulthood. For instance, many see the typical "post-adolescent" worker as someone who is rarely impressed by authority, who works "when the spirit moves them" who wants their opinion noted at all times, prefers peer interaction, and insists on a number of breaks, extracurricular activities, and even wishes to change jobs and tasks more often based on the degree of boredom they feel (Leading the Four, 2007).

The Paradigm of Lifelong Learning? One of the changes in the literature regarding the postponement of adulthood is the idea of the cycle of learning. Traditional cultural modicum of the past had learning only for the elite (up until at least the 1930s in the Western World), then limited degrees or professional training, when the "adult" decided on a career. What is education? A seminal question that has been raised since ancient times. Certainly, the ancient Greeks (Athenians) had an idea of how education worked -- take your upper class males, teach them to read, write, quote literature, play and instrument, and become a proficient athlete. The purpose was to study to become an effective citizen, not for a trade. Females learned basics enough to manage a household, rarely more (Konstam, 2003, 94-5). Educating became the way to ensure the status quo of the elite; women were given only what information was necessary; others, only what would perpetuate the system. Trades were apprenticed; education was for those who were destined for more. Of course, as the population increased, so did the desire for education, and after the Industrial Revolution, the great Socialist and Democratic Revolutions, the philosophy of pedagogy changed as well (Robinson, 2006). Traditionally, education in the United States holds that it is facts that are important, as opposed to a way of thinking and utilizing those facts. The teacher lectures, the student reads, the student regurgitates, passes, and the cycle continues. Are there alternatives to this approach that will push educational theory beyond the bounds of such a narrow focus? And if so, why are these theories seen as delaying adulthood?

In the modern era, it is the process of education that must be continually reinvented to be relevant for society. These demands are more robust that those of a century ago -- workers at most levels must have not only basic skills but technical acumen, flexibility, creativity, independence, judgment of quality, and certainly subject matter knowledge. This theory is actually based on two basic assumptions: 1) all learning includes two different types of processes -- external interaction between the individual learning and the environment (social, individual, etc.) and 2) an internal psychological process of internalization and cognitive acquisition in which past knowledge, present stimuli, and future possibilities are all connected (Illeris, 2001). globalism has had a profound effect on the central theme of lifelong learning. Not only are developing nations being asked to rethink and revamp their economic and political systems; their populations are finding that in order to be more successful within the developing global economic paradigm, they must acquire skills throughout their adult lives. What has not necessarily changed is the manner in which learning is imparted from the educational system. Similarly, there is a paradigm shift in the type of learning that is necessary and desirable for global citizens or to improve at one's career. Instead of simply being competent in a subject or a technical skill, managers increasingly want individuals who are able to think outside the box, sometimes even have so-called thinking skills that are not always seen as marketable (humanities, etc.), and general personal and life skills that are often missing with technocrats (e.g. empathy, timeliness, loyalty, interpersonal communications). This becomes even more important when one looks at the changing demographics in the job market. This tends to produce people who are able to learn new job skills quicker, to perform their jobs with a higher degree of acuity, and to have the skills to train and develop others as well. Because technology and communication so rapidly changes, this is the type of worker needed that will both allow the organization to flourish while tapping into their own principles of learning and improving self (actualization).