Lifespan Development text
Lifespan Development text
YES: Scholar Linda Hirshman identifi es as a feminist, but is frustrated
with fi ndings suggesting that successful and well-qualifi ed women
have put themselves in situations where it makes sense to prioritize
parenthood over work.
NO: Sociologist Pamela Stone interviewed a different but also very successful
sample of women who sacrifi ced careers for parenthood and
found that while they perceived themselves to be making a choice,
in fact they were tightly constrained by traditional gender roles and
infl exible workplaces.
In his seminal stage theory of life-span, Erik Erikson identifi ed the primary
challenge of social development during adulthood to be negotiating between
generativity and self-absorption. The concept of generativity has continued to
be useful in the study of adult development: once people have begun careers
and families, how do they think about generating something meaningful for
future generations? Though generativity can take many forms, for many adults
opportunities to generate something meaningful come primarily through work
and through having children. But negotiating between devotion to one’s work
and to one’s children is another common challenge in adulthood, and one that is
particularly constrained by the changing dynamics of gendered social roles.
In recent decades, there has been a dramatic infl ux of women into career
tracks previously reserved for men and a signifi cant increase in two-career families.
And while overall these changes have helped fulfi ll ideals of equal opportunity,
they have also created new challenges in both work and family domains. To
deal with those challenges some professional women on elite career tracks seem
to be choosing family responsibilities over work, leaving scholars with new social
dynamics to consider and interpret.
340
One interpretation of these new social dynamics is that feminism has
given women the power to “choose” family over work, and a surprising number
of well-educated women are availing themselves of this option. This interpretation
was the basic premise of an infl uential and controversial New York Times
article describing an “Opt-Out Revolution” among professional women. Provoked
by that article and related claims that women may not really want to
devote themselves to powerful careers even when given the option, in recent
years scholars interested in adult development have investigated what sociologist
Pamela Stone calls “The Rhetoric and Reality of ‘Opting Out’.” While
there is some agreement that many professional women are prioritizing family
responsibilities over their careers, there is much debate as to the scope of and
rationale for those priorities.
Linda Hirshman in her article “Homeward Bound” thinks “opting out” is a
real phenomenon, but disagrees with popular media suggestions that it indicates
feminism was misguided. In fact, she thinks the problem is that feminism did not go
far enough. Though women have an increased number of professional options, they
still tend to choose less powerful careers than men and still accept that many men
will “opt out” of family responsibilities because they are the primary wage earner.
While Pamela Stone also thinks feminism still has much work to do,
she thinks that work should focus on changing social conditions rather than
women’s choices. The workplace, Stone argues, is still structured to cater to an
imaginary “ideal worker” who devotes him or herself entirely to their career—
and because of lingering gender roles women are more likely to be constrained
by that unhealthy structure.
In terms of adult development, while generativity can take many forms—
through work, or family, or community—it is interesting to consider how much
choice we really have towards that end. While generativity may be a useful
marker of successful adult development, it may not really be up to us.
POINT