An American Mutant: A Three-Part Series on the Man-Child
Part One
Mapping Mutation: A Brief Social Overview
The rising rate of inequality in America is a scandal of epic proportions that should not only be the subject of lengthy discussion, but also borderline violent protest. It is shocking that the American populace has reacted so mutedly and meekly to wages stagnating for thirty years, exorbitant health insurance rates, astronomical costs of higher education, failing public schools, and outsourced living wage jobs, while the wealthiest, most parasitic, and destructive Americans continue to be awarded for their work in the form of tax breaks, bailouts, and bonuses.
The consequences of increasing inequality are as pernicious as they are pervasive—crime, weakening institutions, demoralization across poor and working-class communities. One of the fundamental principles of sociology is that inequality creates social division. The rich are likely to socialize and associate with the rich, middle-class are likely to socialize and associate with middle-class, and on an on. Disparate class groups are also less likely to empathize and identify with each other than those that maintain some form of connection. Considering that America is not much of a nation, but is more of a giant marketplace, there is very little solidarity. Citizens are pitted against each other in the gladiatorial competition for wealth, status, and prestige that takes place in an increasingly closed-off coliseum.
At least in comparable Western cultures, civic traditions, strong social services, and participatory democracy on a larger level abstractly connect citizens across class lines. In America, Social Darwinism is the model, and the political establishment is not only accepting, but approving.
This issue, which will be the critical issue for the modern era, looms large in the background of the mutation taking place across the country. In a strange comic book twist in sociology, men are becoming children and children are becoming men. The ladder is more easily understood and it breaks across gender lines more fluidly than the former. The relaxation of social mores, the decline in parental supervision, along with new communication and entertainment technology, has facilitated a nauseating sexualization in children who dress like pop stars and behave like porn stars. It is another toxic byproduct of allowing the market to replace the common good, public interest, and basic decency when governing a society.
However, its long-term impact on the culture is not as unavoidable or lamentable as that of the man-child. The man-child lives a bizarre lifestyle of combined adolescence and elderly behavior. The interests are adolescent: video games, comic book heroes, scatological humor, asinine behavior, pre-pubescent wardrobe. The recreational philosophy is elderly: settling into weekly routines, refusal to try or learn new things, obsession with comfort. Adolescents and senior citizens will have to forgive the sloppy generalizations. There are many people who fall into those categories who do not exhibit that pattern of behavior. Therefore, it can be said that the man-child happily chooses the worst examples of adolescent and elderly behavior to mimic.
The man-child species exists in highest number in the twenty-something, white, middle-class demographic.
Benjamin Barber writes in Consumed that the infantilzation of adults is largely a result of consumer culture. Karl Marx’s prophecy that capitalism will create false needs once it fills all the actual needs of people combines with the need for video game manufacturers, comic book movie marketers, and mindless entertainment makers to find an audience larger than their child consumer base, to plot a social garden where immaturity and arrested development can spring up like weeds.
George Will examines “men who won’t grow up” in the current issue of Newsweek and once again proves himself to be one of the smartest people to consistently miss the point. He blames rock ‘n’ roll (Bob Dylan? Bruce Springsteen?), permissive parenting (there is some strength to that point), and of course, 1960s liberalism. It is difficult to imagine the connection between civil rights, anti-war protest, the expansion of democracy, and the strengthening of social services and Jackass, Grand Theft Auto, and beer pong. A large part of ‘60s activism was self-education. The man-child demonstrates an allergic reaction to learning, reading, and thinking. Will’s argument is weak, even if one considers free love and the glorification of drugs, because the baby boomers who directly experienced these movements eventually grew up—many of them becoming Will’s ideal men—corporate capitalists, bloody eyed war supporters, and Brooks Brothers suck-ups.
The infestation of city cultural events—ranging from rock concerts to book readings—by thirty-something yuppies who wear their underwear a size too small and would like everyone else to do the same, also reveals that the man-child is generally a newly formed mutant. He has always been with us, but is now appearing in larger numbers. Fewer men are attending college. Fewer men have any career prospects, and more men are consuming youth-oriented clothing, entertainment, and recreational experiences.
On their own merits, there is nothing morally or philosophically wrong with obsessing over Final Fantasy or laughing hysterically at a man drinking urine. The potential disaster emerges when one considers that these are not only the hobbies of the man-child, but also the interests. There is no passing curiosity in politics, medicine, business, or the arts. The man-child consumes everything, and contributes nothing. As the man-child grows in number, the future for American men, and for America itself, grows bleaker.
Women are excelling at greater numbers than ever before in education, business, politics, law, medicine, and the arts. But, they cannot do everything by themselves. Interestingly and depressingly enough, women’s ambition and determination separates them from the men-children and produces wider gender segregation.
Barber and Will both miss the crucial change that may have poisoned the genetics of American men, and caused such a hideous mutation: Deindustrialization. Forty years ago there were essentially four groups of young men: (1) Those who wanted to go to college and did (2) Those who wanted to go to college, but could not afford it (3) Mature and serious men who preferred work or entrepreneurship over college (4) Potential Men-Children.
Before unions were busted, manufacturing jobs were outsourced, and small businesses were stomped on by the feet of behemoth chains, the men in group three had a diverse range of options and the men in group four could easily find a career after persistent parental encouragement and social pressure. In the contemporary, capitalistic zoo men in group three have very few options and men in group four are unreachable. Group one becomes smaller by the second as greedy, self-serving universities increase tuition and decrease need-based aid, and disgraceful public school systems leave less people intellectually qualified for higher education. Add to this an instant gratification, attention span dwindling, idiotic media, and the consumer culture that Barber rightfully indicts, along with permissive parenting that Will correctly condemns, and the man-child is in the friendliest environment for mutation.
The social distance that results from inequality will isolate the man-child in a lollipop flavored, flatulent scented world.
Will he have children of his own? How much will he pollute the collective environment outside of his cocoon? How long into adulthood will he continue to be an adolescent? How much influence will his existence have on the media and entertainment?
The questions are as daunting as they discouraging. However, to get a closer look at the man-child, I will write the second part to this series on a group of acquaintances I loosely associate with who have fully mutated into this uniquely American beast.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Great post.
Outstanding.
On their own merits, there is nothing morally or philosophically wrong with obsessing over Final Fantasy or laughing hysterically at a man drinking urine. The potential disaster emerges when one considers that these are not only the hobbies of the man-child, but also the interests.
Mouth-breathers with no interest in the arts, sciences, or current events are hardly new; such people have always been with us. In times past they drank themselves into stupors at the local watering hole, or followed professional sports or NASCAR. That they play video games is just a reflection of the maturing art form that video games have become, just like television or movies. Nobody would say now that the enduring popularity of the cinema means a whole lot of people are man-children. But people did say that, during the early days of movies – that they were illegitimate, not art, not anything worthy of the attention of “serious, mature” adults.
Are those the people you want to stand up with? Eons and eons of oldsters complaining about kids “these days”? Good luck with that, I guess; those guys are never ever right, why do you think you’ll be the first?
My wife and I raid four nights a week in World of Warcraft. But in the morning we get up and head into the lab to research insect populations genetics (her field) and gene regulation (mine.) I guess we’re “man-children”? Or, maybe, we’re adults with the capacity and prerogative to balance adult commitments with whatever leisure activities we choose and find rewarding?
I’m challenged in finding the connection between the widening inequality that you describe and the rise of the “man-child” phenomenon, especially with respect to the every-man-for-himself environment that a hyper-competitive society creates. If Social Darwinism is as pervasive as you assert, I don’t see how man-children can survive.
I acknowledge that there are a contingent of people who demonstrate these “man-child” characteristics. But, I’d also say that I have a lot of friends of various ages/stages of development who both exhibit some of the behaviors you describe and completely go against your caricature. The common characteristic between all of us is that we’re trying to “figure it out”, not waste away in some modern-day Margaritaville.
I look at myself and see parts of your caricature in my own behavior (sophomoric humor and a near-legendary record at beer pong), but I’m also an active member of my community, an entrepreneur, a mentor, a volunteer and a political animal. I wasn’t blessed with the trappings of middle-class life with an easy road to comfort, yet I’ve been able to take advantage of the many programs that have enabled me to finish undergrad and pursue my MBA.
Frankly, I find this analysis to be a bit sexist and see it as a consistent tendency over the last 20 years to belittle men (I would challenge anyone that each gender can get absorbed in what would generally be considered immature pursuits). I’m not saying that this behavior doesn’t exist, but I would say that there’s a whole lot more to the story, from other social dynamics to the degree to which people exhibit these tendencies.
There is a behavior that I like to call “productive goofing-off.” In years past, we’d go fishing, soup up cars, tinker with radios, build airplanes, climb mountains, bicycle across the country, and so on and so forth. One should be very careful to avoid ignoring the benefits that come from these “childish” behavior.
From the depths of this activity often come interesting tools, insights, and technologies that wouldn’t have happened if someone weren’t funding the push to improve the state of the art.
For instance, the desire to build better and better game consoles and computers has lead to some pretty interesting graphics cards which in turn can be tweaked to do massively parallel computing. The computers these game enthusiasts use are at the high end of personal computer performance.
Not everything has to have some serious business mogul with a suit and tie behind it. Some of us like to maintain a sense of play with our lives. Is that so wrong?
i, too, struggle to identify the “man-child” trend as a byproduct of class inequality generated from capitalism run amok. i do, however, acknowledge that excessive consumerism could lead to permissive parenting, thus impacting a person’s attitudes and values, which manifest themselves readily at major life decision points (e.g., college, career, etc).
i also disagree with the notion that this “mutation” is caused by outside (capitalistic) forces, such as deindustrialization, as if the man-child is being acted upon and does not have a choice in the matter.
within your social darwinistic view of america, shouldn’t these man-children simply adapt?
What if you play and write about video games and TV shows…for a living? Still qualify?
I don’t have a problem with the man-boy rant; I think there’s a lot to that. I also think, for the most part, that trend does originate with consumer culture. But I think it’s a massive stretch to blame society’s inequality on that. Inequality is created and reinforced at the top; it is merely acquiesced to (or ignored) at the bottom.
[The "bottom" being the 95% of the American population situated at the bottom of our wealth pyramid.]
If you want to say that America’s inequality can only persist through ignorance, make that point. But it would take a lot more than a (reverse?) conspiracy of narcissistic 20-something males to keep the powerful in power and the powerless powerless.
Some of these questions will be answered with more detail in parts 2 and 3. However, right now it seems necessary to point out that people simply play video games or beer pong do not fall into the Man-Child category. So, the commenters who volunteer in the community, work in labs, write about video games for a living, or earn MBAs do not qualify. As I said, quite explicitly in my post, the Man-Child does not have other interests outside of his narrow lifestyle. He also shows no interest in getting educated or building a career.
He, of course, is responsible for his own failures. However, social inequality creates conditions that make failure more likely and contribute to the spread of the man-child.
Finally, leisure and play are wonderful. Party ritual is a necessary component for a satisfying life. However, there are different forms of leisure–some troubling and others not.
These issues will be explored in parts 2 and 3.
But is there really a sudden increase in the number of people who live lives of stultification and incuriosity? From what basis should we conclude this? You seem to imply that the sales records for Grand Theft Auto IV are all the evidence we need. I guess I need a little more. It’s not hard to imagine David’s great-grandfather, walking in to one o’ them new-fangled movie-houses, seeing the crowds in rapt attention, and wondering about a new kind of American Mutant, morlocks afraid of the daylight, driven to caverns of flickering, silver images. Possessed of absolutely no appreciation for the “real” arts. Unemployed! Uneducated! Racially impure! How will the Union survive in the face of these morlock armies!?
I dunno, I guess we’re all looking forward to “parts 2 and 3″, which is maybe where you’ll prove this isn’t just all post-modern hysteria.
In response to another comment. See in context »Doesn’t recent history suggest that those with MBAs are the most destructive of all? Extremely shallow goals motivate some successful people as well.
In response to another comment. See in context »David -
As previous commenters have helped to illustrate, this attempt at defining the implications of the “Man Child” speaks pretty much to a binary classification of men. You’re either ALL of the above, or not the “Man Child” you’re speaking of.
The effect is that you’re addressing a very, very narrow scope of people here.
yea- I’m having trouble with your model too. Types 1-3 seem to have ambition: #2,4 don’t have money. I don’t doubt the existence of the man-child, but you seem to exclude them from college and work. Short of being excessively “mothered” (whether by actual moms or gfs/wives who take that role), I just don’t see how that’s really possible to the degree you’re suggesting here.
the more bottom 80% beta males drop out, the better.