Why I Read David Brooks

Yes, it's true, his column's invocation of Pink and Avril Lavigne is clumsy and unconvincing, and the precise claim he's making about pop music trends breaks down on any number of levels. You can see Ezra Klein, and several posts from Dana Goldstein having good sport with some of these issues. That said, Brooks' observation here is true and, I think, not made often enough:

Now young people face a social frontier of their own. They hit puberty around 13 and many don’t get married until they’re past 30. That’s two decades of coupling, uncoupling, hooking up, relationships and shopping around. This period isn’t a transition anymore. It’s a sprawling life stage, and nobody knows the rules.

This is a much more sensible entry-point into the endless "hooking up" disputes than the standard "what's with all these sluts these days" fare that you usually get from the right. The reality is that technological and economic change has raised the age at which people -- particularly more upscale people -- do things like get married and have children. But biology stays the same. Consequently, people in their teens and early twenties engage in a lot of courtship-related program activities that don't really entail a good-faith search for a spouse.

This is a real and meaningful change from the recent past, that, like any significant, change, is going to have some downsides. Downsides that people are going to notice and talk about, and that deserve a more thoughtful treatment than what you get from Laura Sessions Stepp. Now, I do wish Brooks had spent less time on Pink and more time on trying to reach some kind of conclusions about this, but as far as observations go, it's not a bad one. There just ought to be a maximum age above which you can't casually opine on pop music trends.

UPDATE: Much more from Dana who notes, among other things, that "traditional" patterns of American family life are actually of relatively recent (i.e., post-WWII) vintage rather than representing the timeless wisdom of the ages.

Comments

" early twenties engage in a lot of courtship-related program activities that don't really entail a good-faith search for a spouse."

You mean cruising around on friday nights looking for floozies. Don't pretend that you don't do it M-Dawg.

Posted by JFD | July 10, 2007 8:20 PM

Ah, old man keeps his hand curiously low in his lap while trying to figure out how the kids should handle new expansions in sexual mores. You're right: that is new. If there were a past we could look at--say, something like changed assumptions about appropriate female behavior, or even the invention of a magic pill that prevented pregnancy--I suspect that we might see that the kids ended up having to figure it out themselves, and for the most part did so.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 10, 2007 8:22 PM

Should Brooks really be in the conclusions business on a subject like this? Should anyone?

Posted by AlanC9 | July 10, 2007 8:26 PM

and nobody knows the rules.

That seems like a big exaggeration. The rules are pretty basic:

1. Avoid pregnancy
2. Avoid STDs
3. Don't coerce people into having sex
4. Don't engage in sex if you don't want to

There are probably others.

Posted by blah | July 10, 2007 8:33 PM

"But biology stays the same."

Isn't it true that biology has not stayed the same -- that puberty has been coming earlier than in the past?

Posted by Barry | July 10, 2007 8:39 PM

So why are the kids settling down later and later? As you mention, part of the reason that they feel it more important to establish career stability first than in times past. Meanwhile, biology marches on, as it always has and always will. So why aren't we talking about the changes which make career focus more important than it once was? Why is it always about the sex?

More importantly, just what should a liberal policy wonk propose to support people as they navigate this change? Bring back Joycelyn Elders?

Posted by idlemind | July 10, 2007 8:46 PM

This is a real and meaningful change from the recent past

Only by a fairly relaxed definition of 'recent,' Matt. I was born in 1954, and my crowd didn't start getting married in appreciable numbers until around age 28, with a decent number of us getting married in between the mid-30s and early 40s. (Gomez: "See the world, find an old-fashioned girl...." Worked for me.) So IME, this has been going on for thirty-some years already.

Still, I think it's useful of Brooks to define it as a stage of its own, because it is.

There just ought to be a maximum age above which you can't casually opine on pop music trends.

I'll tell you when I reach it. I don't do teeny-bop pop - my tastes run more towards the stuff WRNR in Annapolis plays, like The Shins or Amy Winehouse - but my soul needs periodic infusions of new music to stay healthy.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | July 10, 2007 8:53 PM

Very good point.

Where can one find statistics on divorce-by-marriage-age? IE - do people who marry later have a lower percentage of divorces? (One would think later = more experienced at choosing a compatible mate and proportionately less hormonally driven.)

Posted by Skip | July 10, 2007 8:59 PM

"Only by a fairly relaxed definition of 'recent,' Matt. I was born in 1954..."

Yup. I'd say 1950 is the cutoff birthdate date for those who've come of age in the hookup culture.

Posted by Petey | July 10, 2007 9:02 PM

Yup. I'd say 1950 is the cutoff birthdate date for those who've come of age in the hookup culture.

Ah, so once again it is the Boomers who are to blame.

Posted by idlemind | July 10, 2007 9:19 PM

I don't quite understand -- I've been reading arguments about this topic for 20 years now. What does Brooks add to the discussion, besides being gracious enough to notice what the plebes are doing with their culture?

Posted by El Cid | July 10, 2007 9:20 PM

The age limit for pop culture commentary probably wouldn't do much for Brooks, who isn't really old (Wikipedia says about to turn 46) and who more importantly was probably the same fuddy-duddy he is now when he was 16 years old.

Posted by kth | July 10, 2007 9:21 PM

There is no good reason to read David Brooks. The guy is a thoroughly disingenuous shithead of the highest order. What was true then is true now.

Posted by ed | July 10, 2007 9:25 PM

Isn't looking to Lavigne or Pink for insight into contemporary sexual mores equivalent to looking to, I don't know, ABBA or Andy Gibb for insight into 1970s sexual mores?

Posted by blah | July 10, 2007 9:30 PM

This feels an awful lot like the soft bigotry of low expectations: people who get almost everything almost all the time--and who have sold their souls to the right-wing slime machine--don't deserve praise just because in one column not everything is wrong.

I thought the best line was Rising Hegemon's:

"Imagine, if you will, the worst possible combination of topics possible for a David Brooks column and see if you can top these: 'Women's sexuality, female popstars, these kids nowadays.' It's like he broke into Maureen Dowd's progesterone..."

Posted by Brad DeLong | July 10, 2007 9:41 PM

Good post. My only question, speaking as a 37 year old, is what is this alleged age at which you shouldn't be casually opining on popular music anymore? At least 38, right?

Posted by Al | July 10, 2007 9:48 PM

Skip - yes, when people (first) marry later, they are generally less likely to separate or divorce. Its one of the most consistent findings in social science research regarding divorce.

As Atrios points out though, the low age at marriage in the (particularly mid-) 20th century is a historical aberration. People today are not marrying at appreciably higher ages than they did prior to the 20th century. The bigger change is in the lack of family control over the lives of the unmarried. Unmarried individuals have greater personal independence now than in the past.

Posted by tlb | July 10, 2007 9:55 PM

Good God Matt,

Get a grip. This is another stupid misogynistic column from a guy who takes nerddom to new heights. People have been living in the hookup culture Brooks describes since before you were born. I was born in 1960 and most of my peers did not marry until they were in their 30s and some much later than that if at all.

As for the angry young women singers, try listening to The Pretenders debut album or Marianne Faithfull's Broken English, both of which were staples on my turntable in 1979.

There is nothing new about this phenomenon. Only a guy like Brooks who seems like he was listening to Pat Boone all his life could make these useless observations. Don't give him any creidt.

Posted by Klein's Tiny Left Nut | July 10, 2007 9:57 PM

el cid and prof delong largely say what i intended to say, but i think the point needs reinforcing anyhow: there is nothing new in what david brooks says. sociologists, family historians, cultural historians (and, i'm sure, plenty of others), have been making this point for several decades now.

and brooks added exactly nothing new to it, because he's incapable of doing so. it's not impossible that at one point in his career he was, but that was then, this is now.

petey, i'm not sure why you think "hookup" culture began with the baby boomers. what has changed over time is that it's easier to prevent unwanted pregnancies, which probably means that more people participate in "hookup" culture, but that's a different matter. (when i was a teenager, long ago and far away in the '60s, my first awareness of the fact that my generation hadn't discovered sex was reading fred exley's a fan's notes, which i read because i'm a new york football giants fan; loads of books, both serious and popular, demonstrate that pre and extra marital sex have a very long human history.)

al, the age at which you shouldn't be opining on popular music anymore is the age at which you say "i don't understand the music these kids listen to nowadays." for some people, that comes at 25; for some people, it never happens. (speaking as a baby boomer, for instance, i know it happened for a number of my peers when punk rock came along and they couldn't stand it: i mean, what kind of stick in the mud couldn't get the ramones, the sex pistols, the clash, the dead boys, and other first-generation punks?)

Posted by howard | July 10, 2007 9:57 PM

Anyone know how old Brooks was when he got married? (If he's married?)

Posted by Tom Ames | July 10, 2007 10:00 PM

"Because I'm a hopeless wonk helplessly compelled to fatten the Times Select coffers" is a much briefer answer to the Brooks question.

Posted by norbizness | July 10, 2007 10:03 PM

"petey, i'm not sure why you think "hookup" culture began with the baby boomers"

I'm operating from Matthew's definition:

Consequently, people in their teens and early twenties engage in a lot of courtship-related program activities that don't really entail a good-faith search for a spouse.

I think that particular revolution clearly dates to 1965, not 1995.

Posted by Petey | July 10, 2007 10:08 PM

I refuse to accept that I am older than David Brooks. To use a quote from the crazy music you kids listen to today, he's "so monochrome and so lukewarm."

Posted by Klein's Tiny Left Nut | July 10, 2007 10:10 PM

petey, my point is in the other direction: not 1965 vs. 1995 but much earlier vs. 1965....

Posted by howard | July 10, 2007 10:13 PM

In the mid-90s, you could not turn on the radio without hearing Alanis Morissette dig her claws into the guy from Full House. Did Brooks miss this? (I hope he missed Liz Phair; his head would explode.)

How are these artists and songs anything new under the sun?

Posted by ear | July 10, 2007 10:15 PM

ear,

I beieve one spin of "Fuck and Run" ["even when I was twelve"] would indeed induce cardiac arrest in our Mr. Brooks. Although Derbyshire might be intrigued.

Posted by Klein's Tiny Left Nut | July 10, 2007 10:18 PM

"petey, my point is in the other direction: not 1965 vs. 1995 but much earlier vs. 1965...."

The existence of premarital sex obviously dates back to the introduction of marriage.

But the mainstreaming of hookup culture that Matthew is discussing doesn't really predate the mid-60's.

Posted by Petey | July 10, 2007 10:24 PM

well, petey, now we're into tricky grounds: i don't really know what "mainstreaming" means in this context.

the key issue, in my estimation, is the risk of pregnancy. there are loads of historical studies that demonstrate that there were lots of births 6-7 months after marriage long before 1965. there are loads of novels and memoirs and short stories that make clear that version of "hookup" culture existed long before 1965 (hence my reference to fred exley's book, which is where my awareness started in, roughly, 1965!).

now, does that make it "mainstream?" you got me; as i noted above, i'm sure readier access to birth control (and legal access to abortion) convinced more people into a non-good-faith search for a spouse, but speaking as a baby boomer, i'm hesitant to award my generation any merit badges on anything, and certainly not on pioneering "hookup" culture by this definition.

Posted by howard | July 10, 2007 10:30 PM

"Consequently, people in their teens and early twenties engage in a lot of courtship-related program activities that don't really entail a good-faith search for a spouse."

Did you make the cut-off "early twenties" so Sara doesn't question your "good faith"?

Seriously, I think you are wrong here. I think a non-trivial percentage of people in their early twenties (and earlier) are looking for a potential Mr. or Miss right, whether or not it takes years to find him or her. The issue about having children is separate: You could meet "the one" at 26 or 28, and then wait until you are in your thirties to have kids.

Posted by Fred | July 10, 2007 10:30 PM

PS; petey, that's what i get for striving for a cute line and not checking: a fan's notes came out in 1968....

Posted by howard | July 10, 2007 10:32 PM

I agree with Brad DeLong, and used the same phrase in discussing Ramesh Ponnuru a little while back.

Just because Brooks isn't a Hewittesque slavish mouth-breather, or a Limbaugh-style blowhard, does not mean that he's worthy of praise or hope. See Larry Johnson's column at TPM about Brooks' recent anti-Plame article to refresh your memory as to his fundamental commitment to dishonesty on issues of importance.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | July 10, 2007 10:40 PM

There is an age when you figure out that you shouldn't opine casually about pop music: the age you realize you don't care enough about it to have a real opinion. Wanna talk about Kronos Quartet?

Posted by masaccio | July 10, 2007 11:10 PM

"The existence of premarital sex obviously dates back to the introduction of marriage."

I read somewhere recently that the nookie started at 'betrothal' or engagement (probably often enforced by sharp pointy things), which came before the actual marriage.

Posted by Jon H | July 10, 2007 11:20 PM

The existence of premarital sex obviously dates back to the introduction of marriage.

But the mainstreaming of hookup culture that Matthew is discussing doesn't really predate the mid-60's.

I think the observation that for the past fifty years people have had a long time to screw around between puberty and marriage is just as interesting as the less accurate observation that for the past twenty years people have had a long time to screw around between puberty and marriage. The status quo circa 1907 was much older than the status quo circa right now, and there are some people to the left of David Brooks who think that the real and meaningful changes from the recent past have some downsides that deserve thoughtful treatment.

jenny

Posted by jenny | July 10, 2007 11:45 PM

There just ought to be a maximum age above which you can't casually opine on pop music trends.

Is this the new: "Hope I die before I get old?"

Posted by Kit Stolz | July 10, 2007 11:56 PM

Europeans (and, thus, Americans) have had a relatively late marriage culture for many hundreds of years, especially compared to say the Chinese, who mostly married in their late teens. Thus, population tended to rise (and fall) faster in China than in Europe.

Posted by Steve Sailer | July 11, 2007 12:28 AM

The issue about having children is separate: You could meet "the one" at 26 or 28, and then wait until you are in your thirties to have kids.

Hell, you can meet "the one" at 20 and wait until you're 35-40 to have kids. It's a brave new world, folks - marriage doesn't equal kids anymore.

Anyway -- this whole article strikes me as yet ANOTHER iteration of "what's the matter with the kids today - MY generation wasn't like that." Which is as old as Socrates, at least. This whole "hook up" generation thing might have been spurred on by effective birth control, but you don't have to read too many Victorian novels or Greek plays to see that the "hook up" culture was alive and well long before effective birth control was around -- just that eventually it ended in marriage (or in accidentally killing your father, those wacky ancient Greeks).

Posted by NonyNony | July 11, 2007 12:45 AM

"Much more from Dana who notes, among other things, that "traditional" patterns of American family life are actually of relatively recent (i.e., post-WWII) vintage rather than representing the timeless wisdom of the ages."

To my reading, Dana's definition of "relatively recent" here is since the development of agriculture, not since WWII...

Posted by Petey | July 11, 2007 12:49 AM

Petey -- glad I'm not the only person who noticed a relative lack of dates in what was supposed to be a historical critique.

Posted by Klug | July 11, 2007 1:07 AM

Seems to me it's a well-worn right wing strategy to claim that some sort of behavior has never occurred before (and thus is a sign of moral degeneracy that has never before been seen in our culture) when in fact said behavior is as old as the hills. Perhaps this goes without saying.

But I do think that it's entirely wrong to claim that biology hasn't changed. If there is any single new development, it is the proliferation of reproductive aids like IVF. Just from observing my own cohort (urban 30-something professionals), it seems like lots of couples are having kids later in life than ever before (i.e., 35 and older) and are also having an enormous number of fraternal twins and triplets, all thanks to the new technologies.

So basically I think there's a dramatic development occurring with respect to the point at which parenting begins for us urban types, as well as the number of twins and triplets we're having. But that's it. This may well be beginning of a profound cultural development, or it might not ... I suspect we won't know for another decade or two.

Posted by SV | July 11, 2007 2:19 AM

A few things...

1. Regarding the divorce rate, yes, marriages begun later in life have a lower divorce rate than those begun earlier on. It's worth noting that the divorce rate, while high by any standards, is inflated by "starter marriages", first time marriages by people in their early to mid twenties that last less than 3 years. The divorce rate for second marriages is significantly lower than that of first marriages.

2. As someone pointed out, girls are entering puberty at an earlier stage, with it not being uncommon for a 9 year to start a mensis. It is a matter of debate, however, if this is a change from a historical norm, or if the age when puberty starts (for girls) fluctuates broadly.

3. I would submit that, however bleak things look for abortion rights at this moment, the fact of a (seemingly here to stay) period of short term or casual sexual relationships in most people's lives makes the prospect of an abortion-free America less likely.

4. I woke up in the bushes again.

Posted by Freddie | July 11, 2007 7:34 AM

I'm pretty sure Goldstein is referring to post WWII, and the "nuclear family" ideal which is, for sure, a freak aberration in the history of marriage. But the bizarre part is the earlier:

But early monogamous marriage between sexually inexperienced peers carries not only a higher risk of divorce (about double the risk for couples under 25)

What is the possible basis for making sexual inexperience the key variable here, rather than the much more intuitively obvious emotional maturity? I find a curious disconnect when I talk to many people about this -- simultaneoulsy contending that sex isn't that important (casual hook-ups are fine) and extremely important (sexual "incompatibility" seen as the thing to be avoided at all costs.)

Posted by nolaboyd | July 11, 2007 8:44 AM

So, rampant sexual insincerity and repeatedly risking starting a child (women can get pregnant who use spermicidals, take the pill, wear a diaphragm or IUD, or even have had their tubes tied) is just a stage?

Sexual conservative societies have their downsides, but nothing quite like that.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 11, 2007 8:45 AM

"Annus Mirabilis"
Philip Larkin

Sexual intercourse began
In nineteen sixty-three
(which was rather late for me) -
Between the end of the "Chatterley" ban
And the Beatles' first LP.

Up to then there'd only been
A sort of bargaining,
A wrangle for the ring,
A shame that started at sixteen
And spread to everything.

Then all at once the quarrel sank:
Everyone felt the same,
And every life became
A brilliant breaking of the bank,
A quite unlosable game.

So life was never better than
In nineteen sixty-three
(Though just too late for me) -
Between the end of the "Chatterley" ban
And the Beatles' first LP.

Posted by JM2 | July 11, 2007 8:52 AM

So, rampant sexual insincerity and repeatedly risking starting a child (women can get pregnant who use spermicidals, take the pill, wear a diaphragm or IUD, or even have had their tubes tied) is just a stage?
Sexual conservative societies have their downsides, but nothing quite like that.

Sure they do. The stage is called 'the first couple of marriages' or 'the extra-marital affair'

Posted by apm | July 11, 2007 9:10 AM

What in the world is "rampant sexual insincerity "?

Let me guess -- Expressing affection for a spouse who has gained 50 pounds?

Posted by Don Williams | July 11, 2007 10:46 AM

Petey and Klug, while a more permanent marriage was a result of agriculture, the suburban ideal of a wife who does nothing but sit at home all day and care for the children until they go to school is completely a product of post-WWII prosperity. Of course this was made possible when industrialization took work outside the home. Prior to the Industrial Revolution families worked together and dads were stay-at-home too.

I get tired of people on both sides of the aisle bemoaning the demise of the family. If you look at history, people have been thinking the family is collapsing for most of recorded history. One example that comes to mind is Reformation Germany's marriage courts.

Posted by Jadon Nisly | July 11, 2007 11:46 AM

Well, historically speaking, MEN have gotten married late in life in the past, but women . . . well, I can't tell you how happy I am to be living independently, esp. when my mom tells me about her days as a single woman teaching school in a small town -- no drinking or smoking in public, and no appearing alone at a place where you might drink or smoke. And then there was the thing that happened after she got married -- 4 kids in 5.5 years (alas, birth control was not all that reliable before the Pill -- I'm sure some of it was user error, but . . . ).

So I don't really care what the rules are nowadays. And maybe I'm being uncharitable, but I suspect people like David Brooks are not very happy about people like me being happy to be independent.

Posted by mary | July 11, 2007 12:51 PM

Did Brooks forget about the Roaring 20s?

But biology stays the same. Consequently, people in their teens and early twenties engage in a lot of courtship-related program activities that don't really entail a good-faith search for a spouse.

You seem to be buying his premise that one must have a spouse to be a Serious Person or an adult. Or that there's something wrong with adults having sex with other consenting adults to whom they are not married.

Mind you, this is a natalist who thinks women should give up on their career aspirations and separate checking accounts so they can have lots of babies young. Don't buy into his worldview.

In any event, "hookup culture" is such a broad term as to be utterly meaningless. For people like Laura Sessions Stepp, it means everything from kissing on the first date to FWB arrangements. And the problems that arise with such arrangements typically have to do with the shame heaped upon the participants and the cultural conditioning that tells women that they're supposed to feel guilty, or dirty, about wanting an occasional roll in the hay without being in twoo wuv or at least in the "good-faith search for a spouse."

Posted by zuzu | July 11, 2007 12:59 PM

I’m Afraid "the idealized marriage I remember from the precise moment when I was a kid must be the optimal form of family relations" line of non-reasoning is about the most empirical, studied, and confirmed consensus we have on the considerable data.

Far from being solipsism and nostalgia , traditional family forms are the undisputed gold standard for healthy children, relationships, and society.

If one is looking for “unjust or irrational social institutions” , one need go no further than the very time period when the social left launched its sexual revolution and America "lost its innocence"

Rather than erect a ridiculous straw man of - “fear of sex and women's liberation, especially in combination." ; perhaps such formulations are really a not-so-clever attempt to shift accountability.

Stephanie Coontz basic approach is fundamentally flawed. In her book (Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage) she collapses thousands of years of human history into 448 pages of agenda driven obfuscation. It is standard operating procedure for scholars in the contemporary academy to elevate the particular over the universal. By examining the institution of marriage through this lens, Coontz distorts its core meaning and value.

Of coarse marriage has always served a variety of social functions; this or that culture or class has sought to harness its power for this or that end. At this particular time, it is the agenda of gay & feminist activists to harness its power to normalize homosexuality, promote androgyny, and (in many cases) weaken marriages normative power.

None of this says anything about marriages essential purpose. She continually ignores its primary function of bringing men & women together in stable households for the successful rearing and education of their children. By focusing instead on the particulars of everything from the 16th century aspirations of romantic love, to feudal landed aristocracy’s ambitions of greater wealth and power, Coontz is able to distract the reader away from these universal timeless truths. In much the same way Coontz previous book (The Way Never Were: American Families and the nostalgia Trap) was able to use the straw man of 1950,s Ward & June Clever imagery to convince her audience that marriages essential features are a fanciful shibboleth of mere nostalgia.
Feminists assertions to the contrary, marriage has never failed to promote this core normative function.

Coontz has dismissed intellectual integrity and moral vision by using her work to foment an evolutionist paradigm that views progress as whatever happens next. She is merely another apologist for contemporary family breakdown. Coontz attempts to shift attention from the grave problems of modern society in its struggle to bring men and women together in lifelong monogamy; for the good of themselves, for the good of their children, and for the good of all society.

Posted by Fitz | July 11, 2007 2:31 PM

Re: Coontz attempts to shift attention from the grave problems of modern society in its struggle to bring men and women together in lifelong monogamy; for the good of themselves, for the good of their children, and for the good of all society.

Are you on the wrong thread? The issue being discussed here is not that people are not coming together in matrimony at all (a strawman), but rather they (or at least women) are doing it later in life. Do you see that as a problem an if so what would you propose to do about it.

Posted by JonF | July 12, 2007 6:28 AM

Gez, Fitz, I don't know where to begin with that mess. But could you clarify something about the gays and lesbians? You seem to be saying that they're trying to getr married, not because they want to be married, but because they want to destroy marriage. Am I reading this right?

Posted by AlanC9 | July 12, 2007 4:18 PM