Adolescence: When Once is Enough

     When one is just chatting with people, two related topics come up on occasion. They are two aspects of the same thing. Would you like to live forever and would you like to be young again? There is no “right” answer but, being me, I always respond with a question (my universe will never run out of questions) — “would I have to go through adolescence again? There is no way that I would go through adolescence again.”

     People are unique. I am sure there are those who had a fantastic adolescence and would go into a perpetual loop for those years over and over again. But I, personally, have never met such a person. I believe the odds are heavily against there being a lot of people who go through such an ideal period.

     Why? Humans change all through their lives. The first aware collision (after birth) between the maturing human and their environment is often called “the terrible twos”. This doesn’t mean the child is necessarily terrible but much adaptation is required on the part of the child and the part of the guardian. Both need to adapt. If neither adapts, it is difficult for the child to continue healthily on their unique path. This, however, usually occupies only a few months within our lives. (Admittedly, there are those who do not appear to have ever fully graduated this stage.)

     Change during adolescence may be better likened to that of a caterpillar metamorphosing into a butterfly. So many changes. Some authorities (what is an authority — I don’t really know — only Google and other search engines know) indicate that adolescence should be extended until through about 24. I believe that this is because of the greater complexity of “growing up” and being able to fit into society. I suspect that “authorities” would have shortened the adolescent period in the 1700s or 1800s because you were expected to launch into the world much earlier than today.

     These changes can be grossly grouped as biological, psychological, and social. A person may encounter difficulties, and roadblocks, in one of these areas — or in all. As I said above, it is possible that there will be no difficulty for a person but I have never met that person.

     For me, I was fairly lucky (but still would never want to repeat it). I had severe acne but the worst was on my back and shoulders. I was moderately depressed in childhood so I benefited physically from the emotionally created sleep. I was tolerated amongst many different social niches — though I was still lonely as I was not part of any of them. And I was so aware of the power of women that I was scared s..tless of even approaching them much less run into the minefields of dating (which has gotten even worse over the years). (I did ask — and was refused by — three young women to the senior prom.)

     But my mild case of adolescent navigation is not the norm. As stated above, some focus on one area of changes and few (I believe) in all. Out pacing others — or lagging behind — in the class in terms of physical growth and changes activates the anxiety of those who are scared of the changes. This anxiety often is reflected in passive or active bullying. The attraction of the mythical “normal” becomes absolute. It is why some jeans commercials advertise being unique by everyone dressing the same.

     School districts (or superintendents) seem to be deliberately obtuse about the need for high schoolers to sleep later and start classes at not-so-early hours. Even when the parents of a district pummel the district enough to follow through on what is reasonable, it can be diverted. In our younger sons’ school district, it was planned to change schedules to ones better suited for the different ages. But the superintendent changed and the wealthy parents of the district succeeded in clobbering the plan. Back to square one for all.

     Biological changes and differences from the average have the advantage of being visible — there is something to point to. But the psychological and social changes are much more long lasting. Of course, some of that may be initiated by physical changes. Feelings of inferiority can arise out of comparisons to others — either ones that we make ourselves or by others about us.

     It’s not my belief that children are inherently malicious but they can be quite insecure. Insecurity and fear can lead to very poor behavior with other children. One would think that a feeling of solid support from the family would offset the outside pressure. Unfortunately, all too often, the negative feelings that can be experienced during adolescence are locked inside and unable to be shared with the family (assuming that one is lucky enough to have a supportive family). Not shared, not helped.

     In the United States, sexuality is still considered to be a bad thing. Not just the acts of sexuality but even discussing it or the feelings associated with sexuality. This may result from religious roots (mistaken beliefs about the Garden of Eden and exile) or a general puritanical desire to hide away all aspects of the physical body. But, with hormones shifting and surging, adolescents need help and guidance especially when they won’t admit it. The US (and even worse in some other areas of the world) has shifting, unhelpful, attitudes about dating and gender roles. Confusing to adults, even more confusing to adolescents.

     Fear of the future during changes, fear of exposure of feelings of weakness and uncertainty. In the idyllic past, children passed through this stage by being part of a small local group. Within a small peer group, the dynamics could be sorted out, albeit with difficulty. Today, the adolescent is confronted with a world of their peers. Shaming goes from one-on-one to hammered attacks. A physical ideal expands from 1 out of 20 to 1 out of a 100,000 so that almost no one can even approach it. The anonymity of the Internet removes personal responsibility and the group mind of the folks of the “Lord of the Flies” situation can arise.

     With all of these myriad changes arising within a flood of humanity, individuals may give up. They may feel it’s hopeless. They need support.

     Are we lost? Never. But a shift of importance is needed. A shift from quantity to quality. Experienced, knowledgeable people (and not AI for the foreseeable future) need to be available to those going through the minefields of adolescence. Anonymity on the Internet is a new phenomenon — though closely related to the old “poison pen” anonymous letter in the mail or telephone call in the middle of the night. Precise identification of individuals may not be necessary but the ability to block them should be possible. Some individuals are trolls, bent to poison others and society. (Trollbots also exist though I am unaware of them targeting adolescents.) Banning books and knowledge has never, throughout all of history, been a positive response to chaos — but that urge is tied to the need for guidance of those in the search for identity.

     Particularly in the US, if something doesn’t generate profits it isn’t really considered important. (Lip service (but not the reality) is given to social workers and educational workers.) But the coming generations are the foundation of future workers (and even profits). Society, as a whole, needs the coming generations to be supported in all the ways we can. Parents and guardians can take up more of the support load but only by being supported themselves in their own needs.

     We need to shift from short-term goals and results to that of generational needs and long-term effects on each other and the planet.

“Make it so.”

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Labor Day: We sometimes forget that companies are a convenient illusion. People do the work.

     Here in the United States, we have a holiday called Labor Day. It is close in purpose to the International Workers’ Day. Supported initially by the various States, it became a Federal Holiday in the United States in 1894.

     In spite of some (to me) irrational decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States, companies are NOT people. They are convenient definitions which encompass all the employees and their resources who join their efforts for a common cause (usually commercial).

     Companies use resources to make a product which then brings in money and the income is distributed. The income is distributed to what is called salaries & bonuses, material structures (tools, buildings, utilities, etc), working capital, and (the remainder) profits. All of the amounts, within the capitalist economic structure, are determined by the people who control/”own” the material structures and working capital (called the capital, as a whole).

     These controllers of the capital of a company can be divided among the owner(s), investors/shareholders, and employees. Depending on the legal structure within which the company is organized, specific restrictions may be placed upon the distribution. An “employee-owned” company places the control within the “hands” of the employees who determine salaries & bonuses, what equipment/buildings/land to buy, rent, or lease, and how the remaining amount (profits) are to be distributed. On the other end of such arrangements, a sole ownership private (no public issuance of stocks) company places all of the control within the hands of the owner(s). Investors may have input into decisions according to various agreed-upon contractural requirements. In a “public corporation”, stockholders act as investors and express their input into the decisions through a “corporate board”. And so forth.

     Both capital (material structures and working capital) and employees are needed to make the company function. Neither can be effective without the other. However, the “company” does not truly do anything.

• The company does not produce products.
  The employees produce products making use of the capital

• The company does not create profits.
  The employees create the profits making use of the capital

• Companies do not make decisions.
  The controllers of the capital make the decisions

     And here we come to the crux of Labor Day. (Little of this applies to employee-owned companies.) If more people need work than there are positions within the corporate structure then the controllers of the capital can make the salaries & benefits of employees as small as possible. This can continue until the salary & benefits are so small that no one wants to work for the company. Uncontrolled capitalism places no limits, or restrictions, on the decisions of those controlling the capital. In many ways, it is only a little different from feudalism where the employees/workers are included as part of the property owned by the controllers of the capital.

     As the qualifications, that the employees must meet to be useful, increase the pool of potential employees shrink. If that pool is greater than the number of positions then the controllers of the capital continue to have the same power to control the salaries & benefits of those employees — but the lower limit may have to be higher as the general pool is smaller. If the number of positions is greater than the number of qualified potential employees then the employees determine the minimum salary & benefits they will accept (or they will go to a different company).

     Unions provide an aggregation of influence for potential, and actual, employees. Grouping together, they can determine whether or not products (and profits) can be created. They negotiate with the controllers of capital for conditions for the employees. These conditions may include salaries, tenure, benefits, working conditions, and other items specific to the type of work. The primary method of “leverage” that they can employ is that of the strike — where the employees refuse to continue to work unless guaranteed certain conditions — often concerning wages, working conditions, or benefits.

     Governmental, or legislative, support is needed to make sure that other, non-union, people cannot “volunteer” to become employees without being in the union. “Right to work” laws try to eliminate collective bargaining by requiring that non-union people be allowed to seek work without joining the union. Early unionizing efforts were strongly opposed by existing oligarchs (people who have accumulated both capital and political power) who, in turn, had out-of-proportion influence upon legislators. Much of the conflict ended up violent until laws started moving towards granting protection to the non-capital-possessors (or “labor”).

     Labor Day is directed towards honoring the vast number of workers in the United States, without whom there would be no products, services, or profits. It is directed towards the unions which allow collective aggregation of efforts to maintain influence over the power of the controllers of capital. Although both employees and controllers of capital are required for the system to work, unions and/or legislative support is too often needed to keep that awareness present. A worker who does not make enough to live is unable to live long enough to produce. A well-treated employee provides longer and better service, products, and profits. Short-term views on profits cripple long-term viability.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.