Most of the social developments come from how an individual was raised by their parents, what type of environment they was raised in, and what type of group of people that they tend to hang out with. The reason why I choose this topic and article is, because it explains everything exactly what to expect out of individual that just begins adulthood and what the outcomes are if an individual decides to take the wrong road in life by getting into trouble or being peer pressured into doing certain type of drugs that can affect an person when they hit adulthood.
This article also explains the evaluation of young people when they hit adulthood to see if they would put their selves into a particular social category that can really tell exactly how they life will urn out in the long run based on some of the decisions that an individual makes when they make adulthood. “The most interesting comparisons for modern young people are with young people in other societies that had two social features. First, they were class-based, which means that people at different status levels had not only different resources but also different styles of life.
Second, nuclear-family households were the norm, meaning that the young couple set up house separate from either set of parents. ” (Schlemiel, Alice Seep-Deck 1998). If had to write an research paper on this topic, would I choose this article that selected, yes I would, because it gives me a break down on how the study of young people can determine how each one of those individuals turns out once they hit adulthood and this article contains some important information that I could use to write an research paper on how the social development in adulthood can play a role into what social category that a particular individual decides to get into.
There are a number of different social categories that a young person can get involved in some positive and mom are negative, but by them getting the proper parental teaching skills from their parents the outcome could be towards the positive side to prevent them from being involved in the wrong decision making process. So I my opinion this article is a good credible source of the social development in adulthood that I would be able to use to conduct a research paper about this particle article that I choose to share with everyone else.
Original article: Aren’t has looked into the self-evaluations of young people to determine their understanding of adulthood and whether they would put themselves into hat social category. Marriage and comparable markers of transition no longer apply; rather, self definition of adult status depends on responsibility for self, independence in decision making (both psychological variables), and financial independence (an economic one). Since these features may vary independently, it is not surprising that a number of Earnests respondents were not sure whether they were or were not adults.
The criminal justice system has no such uncertainty: at such-and-such an age, depending on the state and the type of crime, the defendant is an adult. The same is true for there legal matters, like age of voting and purchase of alcoholic beverages, in which reaching a certain age presumes the ability to make reasoned judgments. Nevertheless, widely held public opinion probably agrees with the respondents that there is no single status-transition marker the way marriage used to be for most people.
If pressed, some might say that graduation from college, or getting a full-time job, or some other major event, is at least equivalent to marriage as a status-transition marker. The respondents who had children saw the birth of a child, in retrospect, as boning them into adulthood. This is also a marker in some traditional societies, where adulthood is assumed in steps – marriage, the birth of one or more children – rather than in one fell swoop.
Even where marriage is the conventional marker, no one gives the 1 area-old bride or the 18-year-old groom the same degree of respect that is given to older social adults. Youthful marriage only takes place where newly married couples live with one or the other set of parents and continue to work in the family enterprise. There is no question Of independence, financial or any other kind. The most interesting comparisons for modern young people are with young people in other societies that had two social features.
First, they were class-based, which means that people at different status levels had not only different resources but also different styles of life. Second, nuclear-family households were the norm, meaning that the young couple set up house separate from either set of parents. Although class-based societies have existed for centuries throughout Eurasia, and nuclear-family households are found in various parts of the world, these two features have coincided in parts of stern Europe at least since the end of the Middle Ages.
It is to the earlier periods of history in England, northern France, some regions of other European nations, and of course America, that we can compare the present age. I propose that the present uncertainty over adult status is not especially new, but is a broadening of an uncertainty that characterized a large number of people in previous times. These were the individuals who were physically mature but unmarried, except for those who were in the celibate clergy or monastic orders.
The assumption of a religious vocation was probably the equivalent to marriage; nuns actually became brides of Christ’ and were thereby elevated into social adulthood. Most mature but unmarried people Were financially independent but Were too poor to marry. This included vast numbers of persons in such occupations as the noncommissioned military, the merchant navy, domestic service, agricultural labor, unskilled labor in or out of factories, and the lowest ranks of clerical work. Many of these people never married or only did so later in life.
Most of the illegitimate children born to women of this class probably went on to live lives not much different from heir parents. Since financial independence could begin as young as 14, the movement from adolescence into youth and finally adulthood must have been ill-defined and highly dependent on personal characteristics of appearance, perceived maturity of judgment, and social skills. T In the time from the 1 7th century to the early 20th, emigration to the colonies or moving onto the American frontier was the best chance to set up an independent household for many such people.
It was not only the poor, however, who must have found the transition to adulthood ambiguous. In Europe, younger ions of aristocratic or patrician families with limited resources, who could not count on much beyond personal maintenance, would also have found it impossible to marry unless they were lucky enough to find a dowered bride whose family would have them, or were able enough to advance themselves in such acceptable occupations as the military, diplomatic service, or international trade and finance.
For them, also, adulthood was acquired gradually. They were, so to speak, on hold, for it was generally assumed that they would marry if and when they could. Men were considered eligible well into their ass. The unmarried daughters of the aristocracy or patrician – girls who would not get sufficient dowry or inheritance to attract a suitable husband – had no such career options; for them, the transition into adulthood must have accompanied the bitter acceptance of a life of spinsterhood sometime in their late ass.
Here girls of a lower social status, the skilled workers, were more fortunate, for they could often earn their own dowries. Although one can be a social adult in today’s world without being married or having been married, it is probably the case that all, or almost all, married people are considered to be social adults, whether or not they define themselves as such. (Exceptions might be some obviously teenage couples, or young married full-time undergraduate college students; but with later marriages the norm, such incongruities are rare. That is, marriage still is a sufficient but not necessary criterion for social adulthood. The difference today is that other criteria such as a full-time occupation or a separate residence, formerly restricted to the very poor or the younger children of elite families that could not afford to divide their holdings, are now much more roadway applied. There has been another major change as well. Formerly, marriage was almost inevitable for those who could afford it and, except for celibate clergy, it was clearly better to be or have been married than not.
That feeling is not so strong today. Nevertheless, to reach one’s late ass or early ass without ever having been married, unless one is openly homosexual, is to raise questions that all too often are directly put. Anyone in this situation may have been confronted with “Why isn’t a nice girl/boy like you married? ‘ (Note the child form of address, girl rather than woman, etc. This questioning now applies equally to both sexes.
It is not only the elders of the single individual who wonder: have heard married people in their late ass ask this question about their unmarried friends. To sum up, it is much more acceptable to remain unmarried than it was earlier, when being unmarried usually meant that you were too poor, or your family resources were too meager, to attract a suitable spouse. But while the change in attitude toward marriage as a marker of full adulthood has declined, I am not convinced that it has entirely disappeared.