The authors of "Man-Child" placed the blame on industrialization, stating that since the industrial revolution each generation has become more infantile than the previous one. They also discussed what they termed "adult" cultures, such as the traditional Inuit who could survive harsh conditions without a complex support system, as compared to our modern system where we have become so infantile that we depend on others to feed, clothes and shelter us. (As the book stated, "Adults milk the cow. Infants need to have the cow milked for them.") Indeed, we have become so infantile that we even depend on others to keep us entertained.
These last forty years have borne out the premise put forth in "Man-Child", to be sure!
Thank you for the reading recommendation. I will do my best to find a copy.
On 80s talk shows, there was a lot of talk about the Peter Pan Syndrome. The author of a book by that title made the circuit—for a couple of years, if I recall correctly.
Specialisation rather than generalisation results in dependency and immaturity due to lack of wider experience.
This issue has been ongoing since the development of agriculture and cities, but it has accelerated in recent times because the school system is indoctrinating children with the idea that creativity, independence and innovation are dangerous and that they should seek an authority figure to provude credentials before doing anything. At the same time technology has developed sufficiently to prevent this infantilisation from destroying society.
I maintain that there is a difference between technological development and obsession with relying on technology.
Our current generation couldn't possibly survive without the technology we currently have, of this there is no doubt.
In its absence, society would have long ago collapsed and the people would have been forced to be more independent and learn more life skills.
But that doesn't mean that technology is to blame, for people could learn to be self reliant even now.
In short, it is stupidity that will lead to ruin, not the convenience of the tools that kept these broken people alive so long.
If we removed the tech and caused all the deranged people to die, we could bring it back again without causing any problems in the sane people who are left.
If you want to stop this shit from happening again, then you devise a test to ensure that every person can survive on their own for a set time period, and that they are physically and mentally healthy.
Schools can only do so much if parents don't raise children who are capable of taking care of themselves. I would also argue that looking for an outside force such as "education" to fix what parents should have never allowed to happen in the first place is simply a further sign of an infantile culture.
In my view, the current model of education where teachers replace parents is a mistake.
Parents need to take part in their child's education exactly as you say.
When I said education system, I meant in general, not the institution we have now.
The institution we have now is beyond saving. I would never suggest using it for anything, in fact, I would go so far as to argue that everyone involved in creating and maintaining it should never be allowed to teach children ever again.
I think that is what has bothered me over the past few years, people's acceptance of diminished control over their lives and the eagerness to have authority figures tell them how to behave and even what they should say or think. I was completely oblivious to this pre 2020 but it has been brought into shocking stark relief for me over the past few years, Infantilisation is an excellent description of it, where it will lead I do not know but it will not be an easy fix like going to museums or rejecting emotional politics, I wish it could be so easy. Thank you for the article.
Glad you enjoyed it. I think contemporary adults would find it staggering how much freedom and liberty their great grandparents enjoyed in many ways, but freedom comes with the emotional responsibility to make choices and accept consequences...
Thanks for this very good article. Roger Scruton blames it on oikophobia:
An extreme and immoderate aversion to the sacred and the thwarting of the connection of the sacred to the culture of the West appears to be the underlying motif of oikophobia; and not the substitution of the culture by another coherent system of belief.
The paradox of the oikophobe seems to be that any opposition directed at the theological and cultural tradition of the West is to be encouraged even if it is "significantly more parochial, exclusivist, patriarchal, and ethnocentric". (Mark Dooley, Roger Scruton: Philosopher on Dover Beach (Continuum 2009), p. 78.)
Scruton defines it as "the repudiation of inheritance and home," and refers to it as "a stage through which the adolescent mind normally passes." (Roger Scruton, ''A Political Philosophy'', p. 24.)
There could also be a connection to the rise of bohemianism in the 19th century. Bohemiansim being neither Classical nor Romantic; but emerging from Realism which moved towards an objectification of the world and life itself. The bohemians also mocked, or pretended to mock, the middle class concern for material things which is kind of odd since they themselves were/are materialists. There are books like David Brooks, Bobos in Paradise, 2000. https://www.amazon.com/Bobos-Paradise-Upper-Class-There/dp/0684853787
Roger Scruton detested Trump for these reasons as background, but he also thought banks had souls. (doesn't mean he is wrong on both counts). You can read my take on him, first here
I like the idea but I don’t know how to quantify it to evaluate the premise. You could go back to the 1920s and find middle class adults collecting and crafting miniatures, railroads, dolls and dollhouses. Even comics in the US were often read by adults before standards made them kid safe in the 1950s. What’s the difference between grown men setting up toy trains vs putting together $200 adult marketed Lego sets? Is one more infantile than the other?
I understand the critique and I don't agree with him on certain things, such as satire - its always been childish and lowbrow even centuries ago. I think with something like Lego vs model trains he would say that they are supposed to exist within a certain life stage - ie toy trains for children, model trains for adults, and the dissolving of that barrier when both kids and adults play with the same Lego is what is different. In that, the adult Lego enjoyer is actively looking to behave more childishly
There isn’t that much actual difference, you’re right, what seems to be different is that previously child-focused companies have pivoted to their invented Kidult market (I work at one such company so I’ve seen it in action). A lot of older marketing books talked about hooking kids young to keep them brand loyal for life seems to have come to fruition as well at this point.
People use the buzzword impact instead of affect or effect. Almost no one says mothers, fathers, or children anymore, preferring the colloquial and overly-familiar moms, dads, and kids. All of our language has been dumbed down like that, but I don't think anyone notices, even professional writers and editors.
And in 1968 in France the May-June '68 wildcat general strike stopped the country in its
tracks... The Situationist International, agitators par excellence, had 'predicted' such an event, one not based on some 'economic crisis', but on Quality of Life dis-satisfaction - TV promoted
post-WW2 consumerism wasnt the full life it promised...
Jungian psychoanalysis is for psychologically accomplished individuals in midlife. It might be misunderstood by extremely immature individuals, but so is everything.
Let me guess, you do jungian psycho analysis and are therefore by your own definition are “psychologically accomplished” to such an extent that you need to boast about it in a substack post. Nothing immature or indeed infantile about that. Daddy Jung would be proud.
Labelling all informality as infantilising is a rash moment, especially when the real infantile behaviour and tantrums of narcissists are not policed and are allowed to become presidents. A lot of formality arises in sucking up to strong men and tyrants, in order to survive, that's why I say it is a rash framework or lense to use to broadly.
In his 1957 book "Hidden Persuaders" Vance Packard outlined how, via daytime television, USA
corporate advertisement agencies (aka - 'Madison Avenue') plugged into housewives discontents to get them to want more, more, more; to be more, more, more...
In her 1963 book "The Feminine Mystique" Betty Friedan documented the very discontent the admen had sought to manipulate; most women felt discontented about their lot; and, around the same time youth were rebellious because of The System's failure to live up to its Promise...
Perhaps Herbert Marcuse's notion of 'repressive desublimation' might apply ?
In 1965 The Rolling Stones released "(I Cant Get No) Satisfaction".
In 1966 The Rolling Stones released "Mother's Little Helper".
Some forty years ago, I read a book with a similar premise titled, "Man-Child; A Study of the Infantilization of Man". You can find it here... https://archive.org/details/manchildstudyofi0001unse
The authors of "Man-Child" placed the blame on industrialization, stating that since the industrial revolution each generation has become more infantile than the previous one. They also discussed what they termed "adult" cultures, such as the traditional Inuit who could survive harsh conditions without a complex support system, as compared to our modern system where we have become so infantile that we depend on others to feed, clothes and shelter us. (As the book stated, "Adults milk the cow. Infants need to have the cow milked for them.") Indeed, we have become so infantile that we even depend on others to keep us entertained.
These last forty years have borne out the premise put forth in "Man-Child", to be sure!
Haywood does tip his hat to those previous authors who tried to address the problem, including 'Man-Child'. Seems like a v prescient book!
Thank you for the reading recommendation. I will do my best to find a copy.
On 80s talk shows, there was a lot of talk about the Peter Pan Syndrome. The author of a book by that title made the circuit—for a couple of years, if I recall correctly.
We are way beyond Peter Pan Syndrome now.
Yes indeed.
Specialisation rather than generalisation results in dependency and immaturity due to lack of wider experience.
This issue has been ongoing since the development of agriculture and cities, but it has accelerated in recent times because the school system is indoctrinating children with the idea that creativity, independence and innovation are dangerous and that they should seek an authority figure to provude credentials before doing anything. At the same time technology has developed sufficiently to prevent this infantilisation from destroying society.
Seems to me that technology is making people more infantile and that this may be what destroys society.
I maintain that there is a difference between technological development and obsession with relying on technology.
Our current generation couldn't possibly survive without the technology we currently have, of this there is no doubt.
In its absence, society would have long ago collapsed and the people would have been forced to be more independent and learn more life skills.
But that doesn't mean that technology is to blame, for people could learn to be self reliant even now.
In short, it is stupidity that will lead to ruin, not the convenience of the tools that kept these broken people alive so long.
If we removed the tech and caused all the deranged people to die, we could bring it back again without causing any problems in the sane people who are left.
If you want to stop this shit from happening again, then you devise a test to ensure that every person can survive on their own for a set time period, and that they are physically and mentally healthy.
In other words, you fix the education system.
Schools can only do so much if parents don't raise children who are capable of taking care of themselves. I would also argue that looking for an outside force such as "education" to fix what parents should have never allowed to happen in the first place is simply a further sign of an infantile culture.
In my view, the current model of education where teachers replace parents is a mistake.
Parents need to take part in their child's education exactly as you say.
When I said education system, I meant in general, not the institution we have now.
The institution we have now is beyond saving. I would never suggest using it for anything, in fact, I would go so far as to argue that everyone involved in creating and maintaining it should never be allowed to teach children ever again.
They are mentally ill.
We agree.
I think that is what has bothered me over the past few years, people's acceptance of diminished control over their lives and the eagerness to have authority figures tell them how to behave and even what they should say or think. I was completely oblivious to this pre 2020 but it has been brought into shocking stark relief for me over the past few years, Infantilisation is an excellent description of it, where it will lead I do not know but it will not be an easy fix like going to museums or rejecting emotional politics, I wish it could be so easy. Thank you for the article.
Glad you enjoyed it. I think contemporary adults would find it staggering how much freedom and liberty their great grandparents enjoyed in many ways, but freedom comes with the emotional responsibility to make choices and accept consequences...
Thanks for this very good article. Roger Scruton blames it on oikophobia:
An extreme and immoderate aversion to the sacred and the thwarting of the connection of the sacred to the culture of the West appears to be the underlying motif of oikophobia; and not the substitution of the culture by another coherent system of belief.
The paradox of the oikophobe seems to be that any opposition directed at the theological and cultural tradition of the West is to be encouraged even if it is "significantly more parochial, exclusivist, patriarchal, and ethnocentric". (Mark Dooley, Roger Scruton: Philosopher on Dover Beach (Continuum 2009), p. 78.)
Scruton defines it as "the repudiation of inheritance and home," and refers to it as "a stage through which the adolescent mind normally passes." (Roger Scruton, ''A Political Philosophy'', p. 24.)
There could also be a connection to the rise of bohemianism in the 19th century. Bohemiansim being neither Classical nor Romantic; but emerging from Realism which moved towards an objectification of the world and life itself. The bohemians also mocked, or pretended to mock, the middle class concern for material things which is kind of odd since they themselves were/are materialists. There are books like David Brooks, Bobos in Paradise, 2000. https://www.amazon.com/Bobos-Paradise-Upper-Class-There/dp/0684853787
Roger Scruton detested Trump for these reasons as background, but he also thought banks had souls. (doesn't mean he is wrong on both counts). You can read my take on him, first here
https://whyweshould.substack.com/p/mark-dooleys-roger-scruton-and-my
and last here
https://whyweshould.substack.com/p/bad-worldbuilding-roger-bad
Wells Fargo just changed their email subject from "Direct deposit is available" to "You just got paid!"
I hate it.
It could be worse; it could be “🤑”, which is probably coming in short order.
I like the idea but I don’t know how to quantify it to evaluate the premise. You could go back to the 1920s and find middle class adults collecting and crafting miniatures, railroads, dolls and dollhouses. Even comics in the US were often read by adults before standards made them kid safe in the 1950s. What’s the difference between grown men setting up toy trains vs putting together $200 adult marketed Lego sets? Is one more infantile than the other?
I understand the critique and I don't agree with him on certain things, such as satire - its always been childish and lowbrow even centuries ago. I think with something like Lego vs model trains he would say that they are supposed to exist within a certain life stage - ie toy trains for children, model trains for adults, and the dissolving of that barrier when both kids and adults play with the same Lego is what is different. In that, the adult Lego enjoyer is actively looking to behave more childishly
There isn’t that much actual difference, you’re right, what seems to be different is that previously child-focused companies have pivoted to their invented Kidult market (I work at one such company so I’ve seen it in action). A lot of older marketing books talked about hooking kids young to keep them brand loyal for life seems to have come to fruition as well at this point.
The USA began the curve.
People use the buzzword impact instead of affect or effect. Almost no one says mothers, fathers, or children anymore, preferring the colloquial and overly-familiar moms, dads, and kids. All of our language has been dumbed down like that, but I don't think anyone notices, even professional writers and editors.
And in 1968 in France the May-June '68 wildcat general strike stopped the country in its
tracks... The Situationist International, agitators par excellence, had 'predicted' such an event, one not based on some 'economic crisis', but on Quality of Life dis-satisfaction - TV promoted
post-WW2 consumerism wasnt the full life it promised...
Excellent review! Reminds me a bit of Neil Postman's Disappearance of Childhood, which is on my list.
Reconnect actions with consequences. Too many social safety nets.
Great find! Have you read The Sibling Society? it was written in the 90s and very presciently forsaw what was to come.
No, but it is referenced in this book, so I'd probably enjoy it. Postman's other works are almost unique for their insight and clarity
Jungian psychoanalysis is for psychologically accomplished individuals in midlife. It might be misunderstood by extremely immature individuals, but so is everything.
Let me guess, you do jungian psycho analysis and are therefore by your own definition are “psychologically accomplished” to such an extent that you need to boast about it in a substack post. Nothing immature or indeed infantile about that. Daddy Jung would be proud.
Labelling all informality as infantilising is a rash moment, especially when the real infantile behaviour and tantrums of narcissists are not policed and are allowed to become presidents. A lot of formality arises in sucking up to strong men and tyrants, in order to survive, that's why I say it is a rash framework or lense to use to broadly.
In his 1957 book "Hidden Persuaders" Vance Packard outlined how, via daytime television, USA
corporate advertisement agencies (aka - 'Madison Avenue') plugged into housewives discontents to get them to want more, more, more; to be more, more, more...
In her 1963 book "The Feminine Mystique" Betty Friedan documented the very discontent the admen had sought to manipulate; most women felt discontented about their lot; and, around the same time youth were rebellious because of The System's failure to live up to its Promise...
Perhaps Herbert Marcuse's notion of 'repressive desublimation' might apply ?
In 1965 The Rolling Stones released "(I Cant Get No) Satisfaction".
In 1966 The Rolling Stones released "Mother's Little Helper".
I enjoyed The Hidden Persuaders and have returned to it several times over the years.
This was a great review. Thank you for writing!
the valenciaga stuff was very creepy
Good contrast with the book "Holocaust of the Childlike" by Daniel Schwindt