Although these days it might seem like the whole world is having a midlife crisis, for many baby boomers, and even some Generation Xers, the normal midlife issues are being exacerbated by externally imposed, job transition choices. Thus, at such a time, knowing how to deal with these midlife issues is critical. Yesterday, I mentioned a book and blog by Diane Wilson.
Today, I am going to review a book by Eda Goldstein entitled “When the Bubble Bursts: Clinical Perspectives on Midlife Issues.” This book deals with midlife and also the narcissistic vulnerabilities that arise during this life stage. Although an excellent treatment of midlife transition issues, this book definitely comes from a psychoanalytic perspective. There is also a great deal more description of the problems of midlife than of what to do about such problems. The issues dealt with are not limited to work and are illustrated with numerous case studies.
Given the lack of literature on this topic, the book does make a contribution for those looking for psychological explanations for the problems of midlife. However, this book is probably not for beginners, whether it is in its treatment of midlife issues or narcissism. In the end, the book is probably better at chronicling the crisis of midlife than at exploring narcissism as a disorder to be overcome.
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
We have several decades of research on “subjective age” behind us now. By “subjective age”, we mean the answer to the question “How old do you feel?”. For that portion of the literature I’ve seen (and I lost touch with it about 15 years ago, I’m afraid), the general pattern was that people who felt fabulous, alive, etc., typically described themselves as feeling somewhere in their 40’s, often early 40’s, even if actually 30 or more years older than that. Those who were depressed, functionally limited, fiscally constrained, etc., described themselves as feeling “their age”, or even older (whatever their age happened to be). What stood out for me in this literature was “Why is 40 perceived as the apex? Why not 20?”.
I got to thinking about it and thought that, for those age cohorts who had provided the data in question, that period in their early-to-mid 40’s represented the intersection of many things. For many, it meant their children were relatively self-sufficient and less demanding of their time. It meant their major life-stage expenditures (home, car, kids, kids’ education) were often either out of the way, or at least well under control, such that they now had money to spend on themselves. It meant their earning power was rapidly approaching its zenith, and that they had acquired a reasonable degree of respect in their roles, be it paid work or something else. In many instances, they had acquired about as much clout and power as they were ever going to have. And last, but far from least, their health was still excellent, and lust was still in their hearts (but in a good way, Pres. Carter).
Now, some of that is undoubtedly biological (health, parenthood, libido), but some of that is also social. As a late boomer (and late bloomer), having deferred many life stages until later on (last child at 44, first “real” job at 45, first home at 50) as a result of post-graduate education (a socio-cultural influence on life course, embedded within historical change), that constellation of co-occurrences that made 40-45 so sweet and emblematic of the best life has to offer, for so many, is….well….not on my radar at all.
I mention this not to evoke sympathy. Rather, I mention it to illustrate that the experience of mid-life that we have documented over the past 50 years of research on life-course and adult development is a constantly shifting target. “Mid-life” may be defined chronologically, but what it consists of phenomenologically is a function of what is behind, what is in progress, and what is yet to come. And much of that is a function of social and cultural, and sometimes technological (e.g., in the case of 60 year-old mothers using IVF), change. And, of course, as we’ve also found out of late, the “readiness” for next stages can often be a function of the ups, downs, and jitters, of people’s investments.
Ironically, the expectations of the past still have carry-over effects to the present. The late Bernice Neugarten, one of the guiding lights in the study of the life-course (and a Google search for her name will lead you to wondrous things), offered the concept of “on-time” and “off-time” life-events. Life events that occurred either earlier or later than expected (or “supposed to”) were more stressful than those which occurred “on-time”. The non-occurrence of expected on-time events (I’m 29. Why aren’t I married yet?) Is also stressful. Those expectations, of course, are based on the experience of previous cohorts. In a culture that stands relatively still – Margaret Mead’s postfigurative culture – such expectations can be very accurate; what your parents and grandparents experienced is highly predictive of what your own life will be like. But contemporary industrialized societies aren’t like that. The life-timetables that dictate on-time and off-time are likely to be calibrated wrong. That doesn’t necessarily stop people from *treating* such timetables as a benchmark, though, and therein lies one of the reasons why mid-life is such a source of perplexity for both those experiencing it, and those studying it.
Mark. Thanks for all the thoughts. I am told that my writings on generational issues attract a great deal of attention and that the topic of generations and career stages is still a critical one in human resources. Your comments bring that home again.
Harvey Sterns often reminds me that one of our most cited papers is the one where we dealt with the multiple definitions of age and the changing nature of age definitions. Your comment is a reflection on similar themes. As academics we often over rely upon undergraduate students for our research and this leads to blind spots in terms of our knowledge of issues at midlife. I think the term “tsunami” has been over used enough, so I will keep it simpler and say that there is a unique interaction right now of economic and demographic shifts. These shifts appear to be having an especially large impact on older and midlife workers.
Thanks, Dennis.
I’m reminded of the Twisted Sister video that was popular in the very early days of MTV, “We’re Not Gonna Take It”. The prelude to the musical part consists of a father viciously berating his teenage son, and ends with the father screaming at the son (around the 1:20 mark here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-jsgousZcA&feature=related), “What do you want to do with your life?”, to which the son replies “I wanna rock”.
Really and truly, the same sort of question can be posed to those in mid-life, and the answer just might be “I wanna work!”. It seems to me that the new role of pensions these days, is to disconnect fiscal necessity from occupational choice. Engaging in meaningful work IS important to people, particularly those in the professions and doing knowledge work, but also to those who once upon a time wished to be in the arts or social action in some capacity. For them, what mid-life holds is the promise of pension as a kind of subsidy to go and pursue the sort of work they would have really like to have done…if only it paid enough to cover the bills. One has to wonder what the current economic meltdown has faced those people with. They may not have planned to withdraw from the workforce, but they may have had other work-related plans than continuing attheir current employment (assuming their current employment wants *them*).
I believe Harvey Sterns is looking at that issue right now. Will be interesting to see what he comes up with. It is strange how quickly things change…just a short time ago we were discussing how organizations would be under great pressure to keep older workers.