Delayed marriage and the lengthening path to adulthood
Posted By Jennie Chancey on June 16, 2010
A thought-provoking piece from the folks at Mercatornet:
It’s not exactly news, but a report from Princeton University and the Brookings Institution highlights the well-established trend of “delayed adulthood” as people in their twenties prolong their education and fail to reach the milestones of marriage and parenthood. Actually, this could be more a delay in financial and social independence than in an adult attitude to life: a twenty-something student or worker can be very responsible without having married or while still living in the family home. However, delayed economic independence and family formation have consequences not only for individuals and their families but for the whole of society, as research by the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Transitions to Adulthood shows.
Read the rest over here. And I’d love to hear your responses to this in the comments back here. I see a whole lot going on here that illustrates how failing to think of long-term consequences years back can seriously hurt the future. Greece, anyone?
About The Author
Jennie Chancey
Jennie is the wife of Matthew and mother of ten children, all of whom keep the household bubbling with life, learning, and levity. Jennie co-founded LAF in 2002 with Lydia Sherman and has been delighted to hear from women all over the world who enjoy their femininity and love to cultivate womanly virtues.Comments
12 Responses to “Delayed marriage and the lengthening path to adulthood”
Leave a Reply
Please note: Comment moderation is currently enabled so there will be a delay between when you post your comment and when it shows up. Patience is a virtue; there is no need to re-submit your comment.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Mrs. Chancey, did you see the similar article over at NY Times?
“Long Road to Adulthood is Growing Even Longer”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/us/13generations.html?src=me&ref=homepage
Sometimes it feels like this country is splitting into two totally different societies. One in which the traditional patterns of life are adhered to, in which a child matures towards adulthood between 14 and 20, usually marries and has a family, etc. The second society is the ever-increasingly common modern way of life in which adolescence lasts until 30-ish and the traditional markers of adulthood–serious work, marriage, children, homemaking–only arrive in the late 30s and 40s, if at all! Some of the economic reasons behind this are fascinating too.
I was reading up on this yesterday, and find the whole social shift absolutely fascinating, but very troubling. Scholars have documented such trends in shorter articles. Kay Hymowitz’s “Child-Man in the Promised Land” is particularly enlightening. Michael Kimmel’s Guyland makes similar points from a liberal perspective.
I’m sure that others can address the relevant theological issues far better than I can! From a social science perspective, I see several problems which contribute to the challenge of becoming an “adult.” These issues are not only highly politicized, but also touch on individuals’ personal experiences and thus can be intensely personal.
1. Popular ideas about what’s “normal” and “good” run counter to empirical data. For example, cohabitation is increasingly common among young men and women because of the idea that one must live with someone prior to marriage as a “trial run” or to make sure that the relationship “works.” In his report Cohabitation, Marriage, and Child Well-Being, available here, David Popenoe writes, “In a statistically representative national survey of young adults between the ages of 20 and 29, commissioned by the National Marriage Project in 2001, 43 percent agreed that “you would only marry someone if he or she agreed to live together with you first, so that you could find out whether you really get along.”” [3] And yet, “Cohabiting couples have a significantly higher dissolution rate than married couples, thus putting more children through the stress of family break up and the probable loss of one residential parent.” [4] The effects of the trauma of losing a biological parent or a parent figure are well-documented. See, for example, Cynthia Osborn, W.D. Manning and P.M. Smock, “Married and Cohabiting Parents’ Relationship Stability: A Focus on Race and Ethnicity,” Journal of Marriage and Family 69 (2007): 1345-1366; or, Mary Parke, “Are Married Parents Really Better for Children?” (Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy, 2003). James Q. Wilson documents similar ideas in his excellent piece, “Why We Don’t Marry, available here.
2. There has been a significant loss of confidence in traditional social institutions and a correlating increasing trust in government institutions. Data show that most people aren’t fond of Congress and government branches, but those stats are misleading, as they count the many people who feel that government institutions aren’t doing enough to provide social services and the like. Government institutions are now expected to replace the functions that were traditionally in the domain of social institutions. I will grant, of course, that many services are truly valuable, especially for children. (For example, in Washington, DC, the city government instituted a program whereby young people who received free or reduced-priced lunches at school were able to receive healthy, well-balanced meals during the summer.) However, data suggest that government attempts to address adult poverty are much less effective. See, e. g., Doug Besharov, “End Welfare Lite as We Know It,” New York Times, August 15, 2006; and, Kay Hymowitz, How Welfare Reform Worked .
More to the point, there are real public policy consequences to the extension of the period between the teenage years and “adulthood.”
One major item is the perception of children and fertility. Frank Furstenburg writes, “But as the transition to adulthood becomes more protracted, the increasing family burden may prove costly to society as a whole. Young adults themselves may begin to regard childbearing as more onerous and less rewarding. The need to provide greater support for children for longer periods may discourage couples from having additional children or having children at all.” [67] Many young women already postpone having children for a variety of reasons. This article is a great exposition of that trend.
I have known several women who put off having children until they were in their late 30s or early 40s, only to find that they were unable to do so. They went through multiple rounds of IVF and other fertility treatments but still failed to conceive. It was truly a tragic situation… my heart broke for them.
Changing social trends is never an easy process. It’s even more difficult when suggestions of change begin to resemble discourse about social values; it becomes easy to dismiss such recommendations as outdated or attempts to impose one’s own “morality” on others. However, I would have two recommendations:
1. Talk about marriage and family formation plans early. This is not to say that one must know at the age of 15 what one wants to do for the rest of his or her life, but certainly, by the age of 22, one should have spent a good amount of time determining prospective life goals, talking to people who work in his or her field of interest, and evaluating career options. Women, in particular, face the realities of biology. We see so many articles about celebrities who become pregnant in their 40s, but the truth is that women’s fertility declines with age. This is a fact that many feminist leaders downplay or dismiss, as documented by Newsweek here.
[A quick personal anecdote: I was well on my way to attending a top-tier law school and becoming a lawyer when I realized that the hours I’d have to work and the commitment such a path would take would greatly discourage me from having children and being committed to my family. I’d already been accepted at Chicago, Columbia, and several other top law schools when I had to re-evaluate everything. I remain thankful that God made me realize the problems I’d face before I started down that route…]
2. The current ways in which most colleges and universities operate simply must change. Frank Furstenburg, Rubén G. Rumbaut, and Richard A. Settersten, Jr., write, “…early adulthood is shaped much more by social institutions outside the family, particularly higher education.” They continue: “In a certain sense, they are virtual total institutions that provide shelter, directed activities, adult and peer support, health care, and entertainment. They are explicitly designed to bridge the family and the wider society and increasingly have been tailored to provide the sort of semi-autonomy that characterizes early adulthood.”
Such environments do not foster independence, initiative, or greater life skills. (Guyland documents this pattern in substantial detail.) If anything, they seem to foster dependence on others at a time in one’s life when one should be taking initiatives, being creative, and starting out on one’s own. A note: yes, the economy makes “starting out” more difficult right now. But the broader trends remain troubling and began long before the current recession.
Blessings,
Luci
This reflects the general failure of society to encourage a goal setting and an entrepreneurial spirit in youth. We as young people are consistently fed the lie that degrees lead to more money – I have seen many teens waste years getting mediocre grades in a degree that holds no job value whatsoever. They return home in their mid twenties to slave at poorly-paid drudge jobs.
It is nothing but a scam to allow secular universities to rake in money. Youth can very easily learn useful/marketable skills without giving secular colleges a dime – language tapes, conversing with friends who speak other languages, living in another country for a month, apprenticing with a master tradesman, reading cookbooks… the list goes on and on!
In the portin of the site where they characterize this generation’s view of marriage as “you + me = you + me” rather than “you + me = us” literally made tears well up in my eyes. This is MY generation, and I could not be more devastated to read these words…because I know how true they are. We have fallen so far in our understanding of marriage in this society that no one even seems to know what marriage IS anymore. This is tragic. Tragic.
And, I’m with LeeAnn. It is remarkable sometimes how very divided our nation is. I truly believe that this is the most ideologically divided our country has been since the Civil War. I shudder to think what may come of it.
As horrible as this trend is, think of the upside. People who do not value marriage and children will eventually be replaced by those who do value children. Eventually, we more tradition minded people will become more dominant just by being the only ones raising and influencing enough children to replace our current generation.
This article gets to the heart of what is driving my sister and I’s firm conviction and discussions on marriages or the lack there of. The Baby Conference (Hosted by Vision Forum) is a highlighting event on this topic as well. We desire more children, lots of them. Our question is: Is this generation of Christian homeschooling families really harnessing the real advantage that they already have won? The children that they already have fallowing in their footsteps of having large families? Raising up a new and improved replica of the last generationx10?
With the demographics that are spelled out in Demographic Winter and Demographic Bomb we have a window of opportunity that could close on us if we do not walk through it. If this generation does not pick up the torch and fallow God’s mandate of be fruitful and multiply, (not just the current marriages!!!) then we are throwing this opportunity to have a major world wide impact away. While the rest of the world’s population’s numbers are diving, we as Christians should be filling the gap and overtaking the fallen cultures. We can not do that if we are delaying the age of marriage and “limiting” the number of children that we could be having.
Yes, God is sovereign, but are we really taking what He has commanded us to do seriously??? Man has a responsibility before God to fulfill his precepts and commands or there will be curses and consequences. One of the ways that we can disregard His commands is by delayed marriages.
For Christians, singleness is a form of birth control. What has been the Conservatives answer to illegitimate and pre-marriage pregnancies? Abstinence. What is going to happen if there are not marriages happening the the Christian circles? “Birth control” through “abstinence”. Why would we want to cut ourselves off from God’s blessing this way??? I can’t figure it out. Yes, trust in God, but we need to use the means that he has given us to work out His ends. If Children and a new faithful and fruitful generation is the ends, the means would be marriage. Not only do we need to trust in God for our future spouses, but we need to be trusting in God to provide for the family that we desire to establish instead of wanting $— in the bank; prepared hearts for the heavy burdens and duties that come with raising children; wisdom to rebuild a culture from the ground up etc. – instead of trying to do all of the work for Him on our own as singles before we consider getting married.
Sorry for that rant. (Not:) Do I sound desperate for a husband yet? I hope not. I hope I just come across as passionate for the things of God, for His future Children.
Dedicated daughter, I appreciate what you’re saying, but the kingdom of God will never ONLY be furthered by good Christian families raising large numbers of good Christian children. The Christian faith has always needed, and will always need, those who sacrifice ALL for the sake of the kingdom. Leave your father, mother, possesions, home, the apostles were called to leave their *families* behind to follow Jesus. It’s true that not everyone can respond to such a radical call but there you have it. For those than can do it, we are called to sacrifice all…especially for those serving as missionaries, preachers, evangelists, etc.
I do agree though that those who enter into Christian marriage should work hard to put themselves in a position where they are able to receive and raise as many children as they are able. This means being careful not to be burdened with debts, avoiding a luxurious lifestyle, and so on. Every couple is unique and health and marital issues do come up that mean our families are often not as large as we would like, so it’s important not to judge any family on the number of children they have.
From my own anecdotal evidence, I think people of my generation (I’m 24, married at 22) are beginning to shift back towards marrying younger again. Many of my (non-christian) acquaintances are getting engaged and married, which has surprised me, as I assumed that many of my former grammar school-girl classmates would become your typical career women. I do think the tide is beginning to turn.
It’s hard to know what effect the recesssion has had/will have on this. On the one hand, I’ve noticed that some friends who can’t get jobs or at least, can’t get established in their chosen career because of the recession deciding to just forge ahead with marriage. The idea being, I suppose, well I can’t start a career so maybe I’ll get married and have kids first and have my career later when the economic climate has improved.
However, there are also those, noticeably men, who are still living with parents well into their twenties – they went to Uni, then went travelling/had fun, and then by the time they returned realised they’d missed the boat, the recession had hit and there were no jobs for them. I graduated in 2008 when the recession hadn’t yet hit the jobs market. People from that graduation year who went travelling would have started to try and get jobs in 2009/10 and the jobs just aren’t there anymore. I do feel deeply sorry for these people, and I do wonder whether marriage and children will be even further delayed for these types.
Not everyone who does not marry shortly after hight school is suffering, or missing the boat, sort of speak. It is simply not what some aspire to do. Many people would agree that what you may call “delaying marriage and children” is simply their choice not to do so. I don’t quite understand what a man living with his parents at 20 something, has to do with the topic of marriage and children. The point was that youth are prolonging independence. So, that could be true of the boy/man who does not look for his own place. But to assume he will “miss out” on marriage and kids is a little presumptuous. I am married, but it was not until I was 28 years old when I did so. The time you married was right for you. If one decides to never wed, that, too, is his/her choice. Please don’t assume yours is the only way, or that those who do not adhere to the way you live are damaging this country.
Hi, fedup!
I completely agree with your point that people marry at different times, and that’s a normal (and good!) phenomenon. Individuals meet their spouses at different times in their lives. I married at 23; my parents married at 33. I know many other women who have married at ages 20-50 and who have loving, wonderful marriages.
The issue of intentionally delaying marriage is one that’s been receiving substantial attention from commenters from a variety of political backgrounds. I linked to a few articles in my comment above (it’s the second one from the top) that I would highly recommend.
Guyland, in particular, documents why delaying marriage and having children is harmful to young men. It’s worth noting, too, that the author is quite liberal. His book is great; its numerous references to liberal and progressive sources show that the issue is a concern for people of different religious and political perspectives.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that people who delay marriage are “damaging the country.” But, I would say that the current trends don’t bode well for the welfare of society at large. We know from an abundance of scholarly research that family stability contributes to political stability and helps democratic institutions to flourish. Today’s period of “protracted adolescence” is a very new phenomenon. The existing social science research shows that the trend is detrimental to individual families as well as broader culture.
It’s hard to know how to address the problems. One of the perspectives I’ve seen among friends around my age (I’m 24) is that marriage and personal independence can’t go together. Certainly, being married might make certain decisions (where to live, etc.) somewhat more complicated. But, I’ve never felt like I gave up any independence when I got married. Quite the contrary!
Now, I have a permanent partner with whom I can travel, explore the world, enjoy discussions on topics in the news … the list goes on. He encourages my interests and I’m his biggest fan! 
Marriage has encouraged us to be independent as individuals and a couple — we can’t rely on our parents to pay for our meals, rent, gas, or expenses.
What do you think? I’d love to know your perspective on the issue of how people perceive marriage and independence.
Warmly,
Luci
Hey, Lucy. Good to hear from you. To be honest, I have to admit, I’m a little puzzled at the implication that family stability leads to political stability. I only say that because there have been more than a couple of “incidences” of infidelity, with both men and women, in politics. I don’t think it is the company of the man that makes him great, but the quality. Just a personal opinion. Things that seem to be one way, can be entirely different. Maybe we’d all just like to believe the perceived stability is the result of a stable family. ? Just a thought.
I don’t feel as though I am missing out on anything, either. I would venture to guess that those who do, might not be in the same type of relationship as we are. One where they feel secure to be themselves. But, I do strongly believe that there are some who simply want a different life. And to that, I say, to each is own.
Hi, Kate!
(Again, apologies for the delayed response. Sigh … this is such a busy week.)
I think I wasn’t clear in my last comment about family stability leading to political stability. You’re totally right that we’ve seen men and women in politics have affairs. Those aren’t only morally wrong, but also hurt our society in a larger manner — because we lose confidence in our representatives. What I meant to suggest was that family stability leads to wider social/political stability within a country rather than within a political group or party. Does that make more sense?
In other words — democracy flourishes when families are more stable. That was the gist of what I meant.
We’ve seen the reverse to be true as well: throughout history, family instability has engendered political instability.
I would gently disagree with the idea of “to each his own” — not in every single case, obviously!! — but with the idea that people should generally act however they desire. Yes, we CAN do many things … but can doesn’t always equal should. I think the bigger picture here is that we need to look at the broader ramifications of our personal actions. This is not to say that everyone should make the same decisions about every topic — far from it — but, rather, that we take a closer look at how our own personal actions affect others (our family, friends, and society at large.)
Warmly,
Luci