As previously promised, this is a post, musing on the premise put forth by A.O. Scott in the New York Times a month or so ago. Here’s a link to the piece:

The Death of Adulthood in American Culture

A.O. is the film critic for the Times, so he kind of sees everything through the lens of media. But in this article, he goes beyond media to explore some ideas that I would argue now have a profound impact on the rest of the world. But I’ll get to that. Each of the following five paragraphs starts with a quote from Scott’s essay.

The supremacy of men can no longer be taken as a reflection of natural order or settled custom.

Here’s the notion he discusses in the first quarter of his essay. Using characters from television as examples, he posits that patriarchy is, for all intents and purposes, a mind set no longer operable. Tony Soprano and Walter White – two white males struggling to hold on, and failing to do so. Tony is suffering from anxiety, and Walter has terminal cancer, and has not properly provided for his family, including a not-yet-born child. In the case of Tony, he seeks help from a tough, female therapist, who either treats him like a child fears him. Tony’s last name is the title for a female opera singer, likely not a coincidence. We watch his behavior, alternately fascinated and repulsed. Walter White – stereotypical middle-class ‘white’ guy – immediately goes from a position of no authority to one of great authority through becoming a murdering monster meth cooker, a rather drastic way to maintain the illusion of authority. But I think the interesting thing – and throwback to traditional literature – is how the two of them end – badly. So the message here is: guys, you can try to be in charge, but in the end, you’ll go too far and end up dead.

Adulthood as we have known it has become conceptually untenable

Untenable as a concept. What? So if Tony and Walter are trying to be the grown-up in the room, what’s everyone else doing? Trying to avoid growing up and being responsible. According to Scott, and a professor from Montana named Leslie Fiedler, referenced extensively by Scott, American literature is full of characters avoiding responsibility.

From the start, American culture was notably resistant to the claims of parental authority and the imperatives of adulthood

Here Fiedler and Scott go back to reflect on popular characters from American literature, Tom Sawyer, Huck Finn, Ishmael and Queequeg from Moby Dick. Tom and Huck are, in fact, children who avoid any form of responsibility, fleeing civilization and conformity. Ishmael, an alter ego of Melville, goes to sea to break away from the shackles of mundane life, dominated by women and order. I could name some others – how about Holden Caulfield? He’s struggling with the requirements of adulthood and ends up becoming a hero to real teens struggling with the same issues. Or more recently, Theo Decker in The Goldfinch. He reacts to orphanhood in his early teens with drug use, theft and sociopathic tendencies he does not understand. Theo prevails in the end, but only through the acts of another male, another one cast in the same genre as Tony and Walter. I suppose the only way for men to be noticed these days is to become criminals.

Maybe nobody grows up anymore, but everyone gets older

What happens to men caught up in perpetual responsibility avoidance? Scott uses Louis CK as his prime example, with some additional commentary on the films of Judd Apatow and the Adam Sandler-type bromance comedies. These are men really too old to engage in these kinds of behaviors, yet they continue to act this way because they’re stuck, still needing to avoid the responsibility of adulthood but too long in the tooth for their earlier antics to be believable. But are there archetypes from anywhere other than comedy? How about real life characters who serially cheat on their wives? We’ll talk about another famous cheater a little further down in this blog post.

I do feel the loss of something here, but bemoaning the general immaturity of contemporary culture would be as obtuse as declaring it the coolest thing ever

So Scott sort of gives up on his own argument, saying it’s a shame this is the new reality, but whaddaya gonna do? His use of the word ‘obtuse’ is interesting. The dictionary definition is tactless, boorish or insensitive. I don’t really think that’s the word he should have used. Maybe ‘pointless’. You arrive at the same conclusion (whaddya gonna do?) but this has nothing to do with sensitivity. It’s really all about ‘be careful what you ask for, ’cause you’re liable to get it.’ And I really think that old saying sums it up nicely.

The struggle between the sexes over the ages has been about control, and that’s the long and the short of it. To differing degrees, men have had it and women have wanted it. From a man’s perspective, they had it, felt challenged by women to give up some of it, did so, found it freeing to do so, and now they don’t want to stop giving it up. Let somebody else be in charge for a while. We’re gonna take a break.

But what’s left when the smart ones decide to take a break? This is what’s left: the tea party pinheads. The vast majority of the Tea Party members are men, and they are desperately trying to bring back patriarchy, with their positions and policies on equal pay and abortion. Maybe that’s why Washington is perceived as so out-of-touch with the rest of the country. But they’re not out of touch – they’re out of synch, and subconsciously they know it. That’s why they alternate between being angry and fearful. It must be how the dodo bird felt, just before becoming extinct. But what’s the impact of this? Ah ha…that’s the thing, gentle readers.

The rest of the world is watching our peregrinations, and frankly they’re confused and distressed. When our patriarchy defeated the Soviet Union’s patriarchy, we were supposed to step up to the plate and take over, to benefit the rest of the world ’cause we were the good guys. That was the script. But did we do that? Uh, nope. We spent the early 90’s worrying about the state of the economy, then when it was booming, worrying about whether or not Bill Clinton had sex with an intern in the White House. The Newt era was just a hint of what was to come with the tea partyites.

Bill’s affairs were his attempt to get away from the controlling world of presidential responsibilities and his wife, i.e. a retreat from adulthood and patriarchy. The Newts wanted to administer patriarchal (or maybe matriarchal?) punishment by shaming Bill through impeachment. The cynics – especially Newt, the cynic-in-chief – knew it would end with naught. In fact, the failure to impeach Clinton built up such frustration amongst the faithful, it led to the next Republican revolution. Newt was dumped, and the party evolved to the two-headed hydra you see today: men trying to look reasonable on the one side and men trying to look disagreeable and unreasonable on the other. But men, nonetheless. The unreasonable side was unable to effect the change they wanted, because the Senate was in the hands of the Dems. Next Tuesday, that will more than likely change. With both houses of Congress under their control, which head will prevail?

So what’s the impact of all this on the rest of the world? If we’re not willing to be in charge – and clearly we’re not – who is? Nobody is willing or able to take over the reins of world dominance. So back to that ‘be careful what you wish for..’ thing. We wished to defeat the demon known as the Soviet Union, and succeeded in doing so. The two Bushes tried world dominance through war. The first succeeded but didn’t finish the job. The second failed to succeed, and only succeeded in alienating most of the rest of the world. Remember – we were the good guys. Under Buscheney, we revealed to the world that we really were the same as the bad guys. And through drones, torture and constant eavesdropping, America continues to reinforce the message that we can’t be trusted or relied upon when things get tough. We will protect ours, and as for the rest of youse guys – fahgettaboutit. Tony and Walter would approve. But the results are unfortunate for many in the rest of the world. You can ask the million-plus Syrian refugees about that. They are hopelessly caught between failed attempts at patriarchy from Assad and ISIS, with no grown-up to intervene and save them. And I fear this misery will spread to other places caught in the same trap. Putin’s Russia immediately comes to mind.

Interesting footnote – here’s a diagram of the comments on Scott’s essay. Half the comments reject his thesis outright, clinging to the current or old ways. The other half agree with his thesis, and half of those who agree say they have no desire to act like adults. Guess that says it all, huh? Where are you on this, gentle reader?