Adolescent stage of development

In the previous post Anon makes the comment that people don’t need two decades to fully form but they could be fully formed by age 12 - 15. I had previously stated that in my view it takes about 2 decades to fully form.

I think we are both right depending on where you look. The less affluent societies will tend to ‘force’ the youth to grow up quicker whereas the more affluent allow them longer to fully form at least at a psychological level. Consider this diagram:



In Australia, the stage of adolescence has at least doubled in length of time over the past 40 years. It used to be 4 or 5 years and now is 10 to 15 years long. For a person to reach the psychological stage of adulthood they are often in their early 20s. That is for the adolescent stage psychological issues to have largely dissipated takes much longer now.

Why would this be so?



There are a number of possible reasons for this.

1. As a general rule the more educated a society is the longer adolescence will be. If one is receiving schooling then one is not working. If one is not working then one does not have economic independence which is a key feature in finishing adolescence - no longer being financially dependent on others, usually the parents.

2. Marriage is tending to occur later. One does not hear much about weddings occurring with 18 and 19 year olds as they did not so long ago. So in this way people do not have to be ‘grown up’ so early.

3. Related to this child birth is occurring later and numbers of children is reducing. This allows people to be more irresponsible in this sense, all they have to do is look after self and not a child.

4. As a society we tolerate this period called adolescence more so than in the past. In the city where I live every year there is a week or fortnight called ‘schoolies week’. This is where those who have just completed high school (17/18 year olds) go on vacation as soon as their last examinations end. On this vacation they drink too much alcohol, take drugs and engage in gratuitous sex. Whilst I am sure there are many who do not do such things, this is what is highlighted in the press year in and year out. In general it is tolerated by society and even viewed with amusement by some. I would imagine that there are many societies around the world who would not tolerate such things at all.



5. As some societies becomes more affluent they do not need the group of ‘adolescents’ to be working so as to maintain a functioning society. This allows for more navel gazing. As food and shelter become more certain people start to look at their psychological needs and adolescence is a prime example of where such navel gazing can occur.

6. Life span increases. Over that past 50 to 70 years the average life span has increased by about 20 years. So in this sense there is less of a need to hurry through the developmental stages. As people can now be adults for longer they can then proceed through adolescence at a slower rate. And there are more older people to maintain a functioning society so the young are not needed so much to be out there working for the society to survive.

Experts in the area of adolescent development have used the following phrases to describe teenagers in this stage of development:




Graffiti

Marriage counselling and the rise of individualism.

In Australia at the moment the number of people living single in a dwelling by them self is at a record high. There has never been a time when so many have lived single and not in a family unit or a group of some kind.

I have talked before about society, psychology and the rise of individualism.

I made mention that psychological theory over the past 150 years has promoted individualism as the psychologically healthy state. Since the contemplations of Freud, psychology has been very influential in directing governments to structure societies such that individualism thrives. To my mind this has gone too far and the individualism which psychological theory promotes has indeed become a neurotic condition itself.



This is no where better demonstrated than in marriage. The divorce rate in Australia hovers around the 50% mark and of those who don’t get divorced probably half of them would if they were not under pressure from religion, family and friends, financial pressure and so forth.

Anthropological studies show that as societies evolved originally you had to live in groups. People found that if you lived in a group your chances of survival were much better. This is no better demonstrated than in the basic family unit. When a male and a female produce a child, that child had a much better chance of survival if the mother and father stayed together.

Thus the psychology of these people one could postulate, was about the survival of the group rather than a focus on the ‘psychological survival’ of the individual. In addition to just survival people would have also discovered that if you lived in groups you could achieve things and create a much better lifestyle than if one simply existed on their own.



As societies mature and become more affluent then the basic survival needs become more predictable and guaranteed. People feel more secure about their basic survival. When this happens instead of feeling relief along comes Freud and the navel gazing starts. People start focussing on their own individual psychology and happiness. This now has progressed over generations of psychologists to the point where individualism is seen as the zenith to be achieved.

This change of focus from survival of the group to the pursuit of individual happiness is reflected of course in how therapists ply their trade, especially in marriage counselling. This quote comes from a psychology text book on marriage counselling that is used in universities and training institutes for psychologists.


If there was ever a need for a collectivist mindset for survival it is between comrades in a theatre of war.




“The client who, out of his own feeling of need, seeks marriage counselling obviously has some dissatisfactions with that relationship. Some of his needs are not being met, or for some reason his life pattern is not providing adequate satisfaction.”

Yikes!!!

out of his own feeling of need
some dissatisfactions with that relationship
some of his needs are not being met


Sometimes in couples counselling clients say to me, “This relationship is not meeting my needs.”

When I hear this I get a sort of flummoxed look on my face, and think:

Hello! Marriage is not a happy pill. Marriage is not this thing that is to meant make you feel better about yourself.

No wonder the divorce rate is what it is.

Individualism riding roughshod over the collective. And we are training our psychologists and marriage counsellors to espouse that very view to the public by putting such ideas in the very text books we use to train them.

My counselling of married couples has changed somewhat over the years. I was trained on those textbooks as well. My approach besides exposing the underlying dynamics of the relationship would promote behavioural negotiation between the couple such that both parties can get their needs met more comprehensively.



Now I do more along the lines of the acceptance of the other person for who they are. Not so much about getting my needs directly met by the other, more about accepting the other for who he/she is.

However I feel this is a superficial response to the shift away from individualism to a more collective approach in marriage counselling. I feel a more basic change is needed but I am not too sure what that is at the moment. It needs to involve more of a change in the philosophical outlook on marriage that can be woven into the therapeutic process.

Graffiti