The 'Death of Adulthood' Is Really Just Capitalism at Work
http://www.alternet.org/death-adulthood-really-just-capitalism-work
In this weekends New York Times Magazine, film critic A.O. Scott writes an extended and provocative diagnosis of what he calls The Death of Adulthood in American Culture. Its a topic Scott addresses with considerable erudition and impressive range, stretching and shaping the idea so that it encompasses the final half-season of Mad Men, Leslie Fiedlers critical study Love and Death in the American Novel a reference that marks Scott (as it marks me) as a literary nerd of a particular generation the rise of underappreciated TV feminism, and the inarguable fact that young-adult fiction has become a deceptive term of art, since its widely read by actual adults.
Scott is too smart to get trapped by the most obvious pitfalls in this kind of borderline-reactionary cultural jeremiad, a set of pitfalls that can be summarized with the brain-deadening phrase David Brooks. Hes aware that by rooting his essay in the (presumed) impending demise of Don Draper, Jon Hamms character in Mad Men, he risks defining adulthood in terms of a certain model of mid-century masculinity, a model simultaneously mocked and idolized by that show and the model that men of Scotts generation and mine were raised to aspire to, or to reject, or to do both at once. Scott includes several paragraphs on the transformative force of feminism in contemporary culture, and correctly notes that in retrospect Sex and the City may have been the most important TV series of the 2000s. (I should say here that Im on cordial terms with Scott, but dont know him all that well.)
You can almost feel Scott manfully struggling to resist lamenting the fact that no one knows how to dress for dinner anymore, or how to mix a cocktail that isnt some funny color. Even as he complains about middle-aged men wearing flip-flops, or female colleagues wearing plastic barrettes in their hair (the horror!), he tries to fend off charges that hes a scold, snob or curmudgeon with self-mockery, admitting that his instinctual responses to such phenomena are absurd, impotent and out of touch. His piece is full of astute aha moments I particularly admire the connection he draws between the man-child heroes of classic American literature, the anxious bro-comedies of Judd Apatow et al., and the critique of male privilege embedded in the persona of Louis C.K. But by the end he finds himself pinned on the horns of a dilemma, clearly displeased with the general immaturity of contemporary culture but not quite willing to reject its ethos of perennial liberation, borderless exploration and perpetual flux, no doubt for fear of looking like a hopeless troglodyte.