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