The Question of the Grown Child

I was very recently reading an interesting article (as in about an hour ago, also it's more of a blog post in itself)(also: source). It broached the idea of the "emerging adult" stage of life. This is a proposed new stage of life in the post-adolescent, pre-adulthood idea. It is an interesting supposition that has gained popularity in recent years. It is something that I feel explains my own thoughts and feelings as well. However, the question is whether this is legitimate or if it's, as I've suspected for many years, a chronic laziness and reliance on my parents who despite how hard they try can't seem to motivate my apathetic self. You see, since I am in college and see myself running the course to this transient life-style, I worry constantly about hitting that point and becoming a disappointment. I feel like this kind of theory acts more as an excuse than explanation. But the question is, is it?

I am no psychologist by any means or stretch. However, I read that article and Arnett's theory of the "emerging adult" and end up feeling that it is more a chronic problem of the affluent class of kids who are being raised with the expectation to have what their parents have, out of college, with no work. Usually ending to the idea that they just won't leave home, or that they will continue education or travel abroad with the financial assistance of their parents. The end goal being to put off "real life" as long as possible. I'll admit, it's a very alluring idea to me. However, that's what makes me think that it's more a issue of entitlement we have developed over time. Arnett tries to say that it isn't exclusive to the more upper middle class, by explaining an example of a lower class, projects born girl out to change her life in her early 20's. This story has a much different tone than the theory of the "emerging adult" that he's been explaining though. The chief problem with this example is that this girl is working full time to support her mother and siblings while taking classes to work towards her AA, then Bachelor's, then, hopefully, PhD. I am still baffled as to how this compares to his idea of this lost and philandering "emerging adult" idea he propositions in his writing. To me they seem incomporable. I know people like this. They are some of the hardest working people I know, and they have my utmost respect for it. They are going far beyond anything I think I am even capable of. Under said pressure, I would be more likely to fold than thrive. I simply do not have the drive.

I think that is the underscore of this post-adolescent idea. I think it's a slowing in the maturity process due to never having to have worked truely hard for anything we have wanted in life. This is not my parents fault. They tried, and they raised my sister as a hard working, dedicated girl. However, I do not have the drive, and I believe this is the common denominator between myself and other "directionless" kids out there. You see, that's how I define this. While talking to one of those "hardest working people I know" we discussed the process of growing up. My conclusion was that since time that she had moved out of her house at 18 and started supporting herself, she had been adult. While, me, a person without a direction as well as living and attending college with the financial assistance of my parents, was still a child (or adolescent, whichever). I feel like that is the distinction. It is not some new emerging stage of life; rather, it is the reluctance to grow up and holding onto the previous stage.

This is all after a single quick readthrough of the article and about an hours worth of reflection. It is possible that upon further reading and reflection that these thoughts may change, but this is my gut reaction. Feel free to share your thoughts on the article as well. I'd love to get other feedback on this "theory."