THE MEANING OF "FAILURE TO LAUNCH"

The term "failure to launch" (in humans) is applied to young adults who do not successfully enter roles in society.  There is an article describing this "syndrome" in Scientific American (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/failure-to-launch-syndrome/).  And a study has been initiated at Yale department of Psychiatry, enrolling "patients" to evaluate interventions. (https://www.spacetreatment.net/forum-1/professional-forum/new-failure-to-launch-treatment-study-at-yale-child-study-center     https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504878/).  Parent training has been recommended (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36047938/).  ( https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/991190?ecd=mkm_ret_230506_mscpmrk_psych_anxiety&uac=75012BG&impID=5403082#vp_1) And there is a special outdoor program for men (https://fortestrong.com/landing/?gad=1).  

This is not entirely an AMERICAN phenomenon.  The Japanese "lost generation" refers to young men who could not enter the employment cycle during the downturn of Japan's economy in the mid 90s-2000's.  They often retreated to their rooms and were eventually described as the Hikikomori (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hikikomori).  They have a serious impact on the pension system of elderly in Japan.   Similar trends are observed in the EU,  and these issues occur despite the changing demographic profile which is producing fewer young persons, while expanding the elderly survival.  

Nor is it an entirely NEW phenomenon.  Kenneth Keniston wrote about it in THE UNCOMMITTED: ALIENATED YOUTH IN AMERICAN SOCIETY.  Entering society is the last "aspect" of adolescent development  usually through entry into employment.  (The adolescent developmental stage includes five transitions that impact social adaptation: The physiologic changes of adolescence combine rapid somatic growth with the changes of puberty associated with a general increase in emotional intensity. The cognitive changes associated with abstract thinking. Personal gender identity is different from physical puberty and builds on childhood experiences of sexual identification, normal and abusive childhood sexuality, and other pre-adolescent issues. Social development is the transition from dependence on family for emotional and physical support of childhood to using the peer group in adolescence. Adolescents may have difficulty separating from the family and ambivalent autonomy. Social identity is the task of becoming a productive member of society.  SEE NEUROMIND: A CONTEMPORARY APPROACH TO MENTAL HEALTH Ch 6) Interfering with the development of one's role in the larger society can result from many different processes.  Severe physical incapacity,  cognitive disability, head trauma, emotional trauma/PTSD, and mental health disturbances may all result in failure to achieve family autonomy.  But none of these factors explain the sudden increase in the number of failures, either in Japan or the US.

It is only possible to understand and address the "failure to launch" when considering it as an indication of social and economic problems that impact the individual.  Two specific features must be considered in the US: 1) The role of youth in American society in the last twenty plus years is primarily the role of consumer.  All media, social and non-social aimed at American youth are designed to direct the motivation to be consumers.  The goal to enhance the desire to acquire goods and services that stimulate the economy does not emphasize the skills needed to be productive.  Even traditional roles like athletic success have been transformed into their importance for economic impact.  and  2) The failure to enhance the funding and development of the education for productive skills.  All the evidence suggests that public education is declining in its ability to produce students with effective skills needed in the general society.  This is due in part to the disappearance of training in non-academic skills in high schools, etc.  and also the declining quality of learning primary skills (the 3 Rs).  It is also a consequence of the failure to develop teachers and curricula for the new digital skills needed in modern society.  Everyone, liberal and conservative, agrees on these changes,  but they do not agree on the solutions, and so none have occurred.  Instead  conflicts about social values and the historical accuracy of information distracts the energy from teaching productivity.

At the same time that the education process has been less successful in preparing students for work skills,  several changes in the work environment have made entry less desirable or more difficult.  Companies frequently complain about the lack of commitment of young workers and their self centered expectations.  But no consideration is made of the companies' failure to assure lifelong employment to workers.  Why should young workers be committed to companies that are not committed to them?  The lucky ones take entry jobs and then "climb the ladder" of opportunities across companies who hire workers away from other companies to avoid the costs of training.  The unlucky ones do not find good entry opportunities, and become quickly disillusioned.  Complicating this is the failure of contemporary education to train students in the digital technical skills needed to perform the basic operations of modern corporations efficiently.  Most older teachers do not have these skills.  Most older leaders in corporations do not have these skills.  The ability to advance in tech companies depends on highly specialized skills.  The desire to enter or advance in less appealing and poorer compensating jobs has little motivation for young people who see the social emphasis on technology and the digital world.  Making "failure to launch" a mental health issue leads to suitable outcomes in selected persons,  but makes the individuals the problem in all cases,  without addressing the social factors.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ADDRESS THE VARIOUS ISSUES IN FAILURE TO LAUNCH WITHOUT INCORPORATING THE ROLE OF EDUCATION AND SOCIAL REWARD IN THE CONSIDERATION.

WHAT IS SCHOOL FOR?

 Covid has interrupted a year or more of  the continuity of education withe unknown consequences for the children affected,  but it helps them  appreciate the importance of engaging in school;  an appreciation that is difficult to convey in any other way. Perhaps the major benefit of the Covid epidemic is recognizing that American schools are not appreciated or supported.  

Today's NYT  (9/4/22) has a special section on schools (https://www.nytimes.com/section/todayspaper#sundayreview).  Contributors ask is school for: "everyone",  "social mobility", "learning to read",  "care", "us" (minorities),  "merit", "wasting time and money", "making citizens",  "hope", "connecting to Nature", "becoming school activists", and 12 teachers comment on the situation of public schools.  A simple answer is that schools are the institution of a complex society to prepare the younger members to take on the adult roles of the society.  This answer fits with all societies, large and small,  a necessary social function of every community. A problem with this answer is that not all children engage with school in the same way, or receive the same benefits,  and so schools prioritize what they provide to students with inconsistent results.   The many purposes of school that the writers identify are all included in the education of private funded schools,  so it seems clear that the question of priorities is not about what schools should do,  but what schools should be paid to do, and who should pay?  

The simple answer,  like private schools,  is that the local community should agree on what to pay for their schools, and what to provide in services and instruction.  Property taxes and school boards seem to answer this problem until it becomes clear that many services can only be provided effectively in large school populations,  and so "unified school districts" extend over large regions and conflicting interests impact school boards.  This should solve the problem of size and scale but it doesn't.  People complain about the cost of schools and blame teacher's salaries (and their unions) and the lack of adequate teachers,  but the bottom line is really money and exclusion.  Despite efforts to integrate and balance districts with different economic groups,  school districts still are separated by their included population, and parents intentionally move to areas and districts with "a better class of people" and "better schools".  This is a racial and social class issue,  but it is really a money issue: people do not want to dilute their school taxes to include people who pay less for their schooling.  This issue has never been effectively solved anywhere in the country.

But even better funded school systems are having trouble affording a wide range of educational services.  The disappearance of arts,  music, and other "special programs" indicates that in order to prioritize the "three Rs" other educational components must be sacrificed.  Though teachers get the blame,  it is hard to imagine that this low paid group is really the problem.  

The deeper problem is capitalism and "human resources".  Any society that is solely motivated by the accumulation of capital and the ROI (return on investment) of capital,  will see "human resources" not as a separate source of value but as a component in the process of ROI.  This is obvious to anyone who has ever worked in a large corporate setting, but is often unappreciated by the general public.  For the average homeowner,  the tax that pays for schools is a cost of ownership with no direct ROI.  Yes, it helps property values,  but these are varying and unpredictable and cannot compensate for the accumulated loss in taxes.  Does anyone ever say: "I want to pay more school taxes to improve the quality of public education in my region."? If they have,  I have not found any record of it.

The most ludicrous intervention is Federal Education policies.  The idea that a small group of bureaucrats in Washington DC can intuit how to distribute income tax money  to differentially benefit multiple school systems is ridiculous.  The assumption that Federal Education policies insure a general level of quality education is a laudable ideal with no evidence that it has ever been accomplished.  Placing deVos as the head of Education in the last administration is a clear indication that at least some people see this as merely an opportunity for facilitating private investment.

What is School For?  is part of a greater issue in contemporary society: What are children for?  It appears that the major role of children and teens is to become socialized to consume goods and services that drive the economy, to train them to become aggressive consumers by having them watch as much advertising as possible,  and buying, or motivate their parents to buy, as much disposable product,  including media,  as possible.  The tasks of preparing children to become leaders,  scientists,  spiritual guides,  and most important,  effective parents,  are secondary.  This is also how youth are exploited in for profit education programs that pretend to provide alternative education opportunities,  but are empty promises.  (Not all, but most are.)

Recent US history exemplifies leaders whose major priority is enriching themselves,  and this is also characteristic of many of the wealthiest in our country who care more about putting their money into super-yachts and grand estates,  and not  returning wealth to enhance the education of the society, as occurred in earlier generations.  America has succeeded in educating a group of people to believe that the only important value is accumulating more capital.  I do not think this is a long term basis for any society.