What exactly is ‘youth’?

Question

What characteristics define ‘youth’ in different cultures and eras; which social factors have a particular influence on ‘youth’? What differences exist between the various cultural and historical understandings of ‘youth’?

Claudia Opitz Belakhal · Accepted Answer

‘Youth’ from a historical perspective

The German Youth Institute defines ‘youth’ as follows: ‘The period between childhood and adulthood is one of upheaval and transition: finding one’s identity, puberty, first love, leaving the family home, finishing school, starting a career, political orientation and reaching voting age are just a few key aspects of this.” (https://www.dji.de/themen/jugend.html)

However, this definition cannot be applied across different times and places, as social conditions, institutions, practices and values always play a part in determining what is meant by ‘youth’ – and whether there is even a phase that could be described as ‘youth’ at all. Here, however, I can only provide information on historical changes – cultural variations in what is meant by ‘youth’ and how young people live are an entirely different topic.

Antiquity

‘Youth’ was already a concept in antiquity among the Greeks and Romans. A clear distinction from adults seems to have already existed. However, today’s notions of youth cannot be directly applied to the past. The modern concept of youth as we know it today emerged gradually during the 17th and 18th centuries.

A characteristic feature of antiquity was a strictly systematic and mathematical classification of the age groups of childhood, youth (and adult life): infantia up to the age of 7, pueritia up to 14, adolescentia up to 21, juventus up to 35; in this context, male development was primarily aligned with social roles, whilst for women the focus was on physical development (sexual maturity).

The Middle Ages

Even in the Middle Ages, despite cultural conditions that differed considerably from those of antiquity, there were relatively precise conceptions of youth. Two very different conceptions of age phases and groups predominated:

1. The scholarly and clerical world, like the Romans before them, divided the life stages into ‘infantia’ up to the age of 7, ‘pueritia’ up to 14, ‘adolescentia’ up to 21/28, ‘juventus’ up to 28/35, again based primarily on a male life course.

2. Particularly in literature, the seasons served as a guide: spring = childhood, summer = youth, autumn = maturity, winter = old age

Differences between the rural population and the elites

Clear differences can be observed between the rural population and the elites (nobility/clergy). Among the general population, most people did not know exactly how old they were, as their date of birth was not recorded anywhere. Here, people tended to be categorised according to their roles or social position: infants, children, young men and women of marriageable age, newlyweds, fathers and mothers, widowers and widows, and the elderly. Each role fulfilled its specific duties within the community. Children and young people in rural areas were illiterate and integrated into the adult world of work at a very early age. The children of townspeople and the nobility were more likely to benefit from a formal education, either in urban schools or in monastic schools. In these cases (for example, among students or apprentices), it is more accurate to speak of youth groups with their own behaviours and practices. With a few exceptions, students and journeymen were not permitted to marry until their financial circumstances allowed it – until then, they were also regarded as ‘children’ or ‘adolescents’ and minors.

Differences between the sexes

The age of majority also varied depending on the region and gender; girls were usually ‘of marriageable age’ from the age of 12, as they were sexually mature, whilst boys were only considered so from the age of 15 or, in some places, from the age of 21. They, too, were only regarded as adults once they had established their own household, either by taking over their father’s farm or by marrying into a family.

Early modern period

Waiting period before establishing one’s own household

Even in the early modern period, there was no distinct ‘adolescence’, but rather a kind of adulthood in a state of limbo. In the 16th and 17th centuries, the term ‘youth’ was also used to refer to those who could not yet be held fully responsible for their actions. Where childhood ended and youth began was not precisely defined and depended above all on the respective social circumstances – including, for instance, the opportunity for education and university study (for boys), or an apprenticeship or period of service in a household or on a farm (for both sexes). The end of youth was generally marked by marriage and the establishment of one’s own, independent household. In Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries, between half and two-thirds of men and around half of women remained unmarried during this ‘waiting period’ until well beyond the age of 20.

Late puberty

Physical growth also played a role. In pre-industrial society, the onset of puberty occurred later than it does today. Even in the mid-19th century, physical changes typically associated today with 12- to 13-year-olds occurred three to four years later. The figures for the 19th century are not clearly defined, but it can be assumed that the onset of menstruation for the majority of girls in rural areas occurred at around 16 years of age, whilst in towns it was slightly earlier.

Youth groups

In the early modern period, youth often meant leaving the parental home and entering into new social bonds, particularly within various youth groups (boys’ clubs or fraternities). These were not strictly organised groups, yet there were still controls over social and sexual life (customs, festivals, etc.). In university towns, there were student associations based on regional origins (with initiation rituals, etc.). Towards the end of the 18th century, these gave rise in Germany to new student fraternities (often champions of nationalist aspirations).

The dawn of the modern era

Youth culture in the city

In the 19th century, as a result of strong population growth, the prospects for young people in rural areas to find employment deteriorated. At the same time, industrialisation created numerous new jobs in the factories of the cities. As a result, many young people migrated to the cities. This led to rapid urban growth, and the age structure also changed: the urban population became younger, whilst the rural population became older on average. With the influx of young people, lifestyles in the cities also changed. As private living space was scarce and expensive, sometimes up to three workers would share a bed; life increasingly shifted into public spaces. Consequently, new forms of everyday and leisure culture emerged in the cities, whilst traditional values continued to prevail in the countryside. Gradually, a distinct ‘youth culture’ began to take shape, with its own way of life, its own clothing, its own rituals and values, which also received public attention and recognition for the first time.

Labourer or family member

Three distinct, gradually emerging social groups of adolescents can be identified: rural youth, working-class youth and middle-class youth. Children and adolescents in rural areas were brought up with a focus on their duties on the farm; their participation in daily chores was taken for granted. The phase of growing up served the purpose of social integration into the existing order, which was predetermined by the adult world and the village community. Young workers in the cities, by contrast, were increasingly removed from the direct control of their former social environment. Even working-class children born there grew up without the firm social ties that had previously been taken for granted: because both father and mother had to work, they were left to fend for themselves from an early age and had to contribute their share to the family’s livelihood. The experiences of young people from the middle classes, in turn, were entirely different from those of rural or working-class youth. They grew up in a sheltered environment, strictly separated from young people from the lower classes; they had little contact with the world of work and were more strongly shaped by school, education and a private family life. In general, the family took on a new role in middle-class households: the focus was no longer on the children’s labour, as had been the case in artisan households of the early modern period, but rather the family became a community centred on consumption, upbringing and leisure.

Young people as a problem

Adults and the authorities generally took a critical view of the newly emerging ‘youth’. Above all, they lamented the loss of existing norms, as well as the coarsening and disrespectful behaviour of ‘youth’: The term originally stemmed from the ‘rescue home movement’ and, at the end of the 19th century, referred to ‘neglected’, ‘criminal’ or ‘godless’ adolescents, most of whom came from the urban working-class milieu. Fears of the radicalisation of young workers also became increasingly apparent. Young people were perceived primarily as a social problem, and their way of life as ‘neglect’ resulting from industrialisation and modernisation. In response to this, from the end of the 19th century onwards there was a wave of new associations and organisations being founded to take care of these young people. Churches, political parties and associations sought to win over young workers in particular. Gymnastics and sports clubs attracted the largest numbers of members.

Youth as a Cult

In the 20th century, and particularly after the Second World War, the situation changed fundamentally once again in that youth, for various reasons (the youth movement, the sexual revolution, the cult of youth), came to be seen as an increasingly positive phase of life. In particular, age-specific cultural activities, forms of expression and behaviour now also became of interest to adults, and specific ‘youth cultures’ (for example in music or fashion) could be commercialised and exploited for economic gain. They also played – and continue to play – an important role in politics (hippie culture; the ’68 and student movements; ‘Last Generation’, ‘Fridays for Future’).