The "Adult Child" Crisis Reflects Generational Disconnection, Not Individual Defect

Forward

I’ve had the real pleasure, and challenge, of working with both young adults and their parents, sometimes starting with the child and eventually guiding the parent, sometimes the reverse. I’ve also supported many adults who don’t name their family system as central to their struggle, but who quietly, and often painfully, share that they don’t feel like they’ve lived up to what their parents or society expect of them. One pattern has become unmistakable: we are collectively wrestling with what it even means to be an adult.

Lately, I’ve been fed a growing number of ads from psychologists and family counselors targeting older parents, promising strategies to “deal with” their so-called “Adult Child.” There’s a thick, diagnostic tone to it: “Adult Child” being treated like a personality disorder or developmental failure. And it’s not lost on me that, in this framework, I too would be labeled an “Adult Child.” The irony doesn’t make me chuckle. It feels more like a punch; the guilt and shame, then the anger, and a trip around resentment. And eventually, I land in a more grounded place; a knowing that all of us have been doing the best we can given the awareness, resources, and relational or cultural trauma we’ve experienced.

That doesn’t mean we don’t have work to do. It means we start from compassion. And from a commitment to connection. Even just looking at the last 100 years (not ancient wounds or mythic legacies, just recent history) we have more than enough data to map the flow of resources, trauma, and survival. We can trace who has been set up to “win” and who has been set up to be blamed. And we can say, with clarity and honesty: adulting in isolation is not a realistic task for human beings.

So why do we still expect under-resourced, over-traumatized people to bootstrap themselves out of collapse? Why are spiritual teachers, therapists, and coaches still peddling the same linear maturation arc: that to become spiritually awake is to take full responsibility for yourself, by yourself?

“Nobody is coming to save you.”

“As you evolve, you stop expecting others to meet your needs.”

“Real awakening is radical self-responsibility.”

I’ve heard this too many times from people I otherwise respect. But this story is only half true. Yes, we all must become responsible. Yes, no one can heal for us. But if we lose the other half...if we sever our responsibility from our relational nature...we risk spiritual bypass at best and systemic gaslighting at worst.

We’ve lost the capacity to hold bothness: that personal responsibility includes honoring our need for connection. That growing up doesn’t mean becoming self-contained. It means becoming integrated—with our communities, our ancestors, our nervous systems, and the world around us. No matter how advanced our technologies become, our bodies are still wired for resonance, for mutual holding, for the kind of support that doesn’t make us weaker; rather, makes healing possible.

We are not evolving away from this. We are remembering it. And, we are doing so under real stress.

Since the early 2000s, the economic gap between cost of living and income potential has widened significantly. In 2000, the average U.S. income was just under $42,000/year, while the median home cost hovered around $120,000. Today, incomes have risen modestly (to about $60,000), but housing prices have more than tripled in many areas, with national averages exceeding $400,000. Healthcare costs, education debt, and basic needs have all inflated, leaving young and middle-aged adults with far fewer safety nets and exponentially more debt and anxiety.

And despite living in what is statistically the most peaceful era in modern history, we are more afraid than ever. Why? Because we are bathed in a media culture that profitably distorts reality. Mass shootings, global unrest, environmental collapse—they are real, yes. But, the coverage is engineered for dysregulation. Manufactured violence has replaced embodied truth. Fear is ambient. And chronic fear, unrelieved by relational safety, becomes illness.

This is the backdrop for the “Adult Child” discourse.

It is not just a family problem. It is a political, spiritual, cultural mirror. And if we want to break the cycle, not just the label, we have to stop asking how to fix the adult child and start asking what conditions allow any of us to grow.

This essay is an offering toward that deeper question.

---

The "Adult Child" Crisis Reflects Generational Disconnection, Not Individual Defect

Across many families today, a growing number of parents aged 50 to 80 are wrestling with confusion, frustration, and concern about their adult children, many in their 20s to 50s, who appear to be "failing to launch." In response, the label "Adult Child" has increasingly been co-opted into a pathological diagnosis, which is framed not as a relational or systemic phenomenon, but as a personal defect. This framing has become a booming late-stage marketing niche for therapists, especially those trained in Western or Christian institutional models, who are increasingly targeting aging parents as clients. These parents are encouraged to ask, "What’s wrong with my child?" rather than, "What happened in our family?" or, "What larger systems shaped all of us?"

But this isn’t a story of personal failure. It’s a story of intergenerational wounding, unmet needs, and societal conditioning. The “Adult Child” is not a broken archetype. It is a symptom of a broader disconnection: from the body, from Earth-based kinship, from intuitive parenting, and from emotionally honest community structures. And both generations are entangled in it.

Systems: Who Shaped What

Christianity, education, capitalism, medicine, and the justice system are not separate systems; rather, they are interwoven institutions that have operated under the disembodied shadows of unhealed patriarchy and (thus) matriarchy. Each is a reflection of what happens when the embodied wisdom of the father and mother is replaced with god-figures, principals, doctors, judges, and bosses...external authorities demanding obedience, order, and conformity over curiosity, intuition, and relational repair.

Christianity—especially in its colonial and authoritarian expressions—taught that humans are sinful from birth, that hierarchy is divine, and that redemptive suffering is virtuous. It positioned itself above the family, discouraging embodied self-trust and replacing felt connection with moral performance. Its alignment with medicalized and carceral systems historically sanctioned institutionalization, punishment, and exclusion for non-conforming behaviors, often labeling distress as moral failing.

Schooling built on this template: training children to sit still, suppress instinct, regurgitate authority, and accept age and certification as unquestioned markers of truth. It reinforced the idea that value is external—graded, approved, and institutionally conferred. Questioning the system itself was never part of the curriculum. Schools often served as sites for early diagnostic labeling, discipline, and tracking, particularly for neurodivergent, disabled, or racialized students, preparing them more for systems of control than creative contribution.

Capitalism capitalized on this infrastructure—monetizing compliance, devaluing rest, and defining success as rugged self-sufficiency. It conditioned parents to see financial provision as the core of responsibility, sidelining emotional, relational, and spiritual nourishment as extras. Inheritance (emotional and material) was weaponized: withheld until obedience was proven, worth was validated, or performance was perfected. The result? Generational shame, disconnection, and confusion about what real care even looks like. Medical systems mirrored this model by pathologizing non-productivity, pushing pharmaceutical fixes for social distress, and framing healing as a privatized, billable outcome rather than a communal process.

The justice system has long upheld these frameworks—responding to rupture with punishment rather than restoration, and defining accountability in terms of compliance rather than connection. It criminalizes survival behaviors and medicalizes dissent, using diagnosis and correction as tools for containment. Families navigating distress are often funneled into carceral logics: school suspensions, psychiatric holds, mandatory reporting, custody battles. These pathways are rarely about repair—they are about managing discomfort for the dominant culture.

Each generation absorbed different elements, but it’s not just generational...it’s also archetypal. Different expressions of survival, orientation to authority, and response to rupture show up across all generations. Yet culturally, patterns emerge:

• WWII-era and Boomers: Many adopted the archetype of the loyal soldier or dutiful provider—good servants of state and church, surviving through compliance, discipline, and suppression of self.

• Gen X and Millennials: Often embodied the archetype of the over-functioning bridge builder—tasked with doing it all, translating between old values and new realities, holding responsibility without the tools for collective repair.

• Gen Z and younger: Frequently hold the archetype of the disruptor or orphan—feeling the full weight of the rupture, but with minimal inherited tools for repair. They are the ones asking, "WTF is going on?" while intuitively sensing that something foundational has always been off.

  
  

These archetypes aren’t fixed to age. There are Gen Zers who try to fix and Boomers who are now disrupting. But the dominant cultural conditioning of each era imprinted certain survival strategies. Naming this complexity opens space for compassion (for self and other) and for releasing rigid expectations of who is supposed to lead healing.

To support clarity, the metaphorical archetypes of the “soldier,” “bridge builder,” and “orphan” can be understood through the lens of clinical and developmental psychology:

• The “soldier” reflects attachment adaptations rooted in survival—often associated with avoidant or anxious styles, shaped by environments that prioritized obedience and productivity over attunement.

• The “bridge builder” echoes the burden of relational trauma—those who over-function in response to emotional parentification, conflict avoidance, or generational expectation, often with limited tools for repair.

• The “orphan” represents disruptions in functional maturity—not as a flaw, but as a response to ruptures in belonging, safety, and continuity of care, especially in systems that never supported full emotional development.

  
  

Likewise, when we speak of a resonant field, we mean more than co-regulation. We refer to an embodied, intuitive relational space where presence and attunement arise organically—not through control, but through mutual availability. This field is not achieved through performance, but through the quiet honesty of connection that feels safe enough to reveal what’s real.

Archetypal repair, whether healing the internalized soldier, the burned-out bridge builder, or the abandoned orphan, doesn't happen in isolation or opposition. It unfolds through right relationship: with self, with one another, and with a world that is finally safe enough to support repair instead of demanding performance.

Delayed Development is Not a Fluke

Delayed development doesn’t occur in a vacuum. Children don’t just fail to thrive. They adapt to survive. Many adult children today carry undiagnosed neurodivergence, compounded by chronic invalidation, parentification, emotional or physical neglect, divorce, and the psychological weight of systems that prioritize control over connection.

When we use terms like delayed development, we must ask: delayed by what? Development into what? And according to whom? Because “development” itself is often narrowly defined in terms of autonomy, achievement, and self-regulation. But from a relational and nervous system-informed perspective, development includes emotional literacy, capacity for repair, adaptability, and embodied relational intelligence...not just functional independence.

We refer to development here not as a fixed path of normative milestones, but as the cultivation of relational capacity, embodied trust, and mutual attunement. Emotional maturity in this context includes the ability to remain present under stress, to repair ruptures, to discern projection from truth, and to remain connected without collapsing into compliance or control. These capacities develop unevenly—not because of failure, but because of disconnection.

In HETA, we frame healing not as a linear ascent but as a spiral of receiving, discerning, and responding. First, we receive the signals: sensations, emotions, disruptions; that alert us to something being off. Then, we discern what these signals mean, where they originate, and how they are shaped by both personal and collective fields. Only then do we respond...through boundary, repair, or rest. This framework allows us to honor the body's wisdom without reducing healing to performance.

Western psychological frameworks (particularly attachment theory, polyvagal theory, family systems theory, and relational neuroscience) have helped us better understand these dynamics. They offer language and maps for naming when “something isn’t right here.” However, when these tools are applied without relational context, they risk becoming just another layer of control. Diagnostics can illuminate, but they can also pathologize. When we reduce delayed development to an individual failure to meet standardized milestones, we miss the opportunity to ask what has been denied or unavailable to the body, the relationship, and the larger collective.

This is where the adaptive function of diagnosis must be honored. Many people find real relief in having a name for their struggle. It can validate experience, build community, and open access to services. Diagnosis becomes harmful when it is weaponized against connection...used to fix or contain behavior rather than understand and support the whole being. We must hold both: the usefulness of diagnosis and its limitations.

This is also where de-medicalization of distress becomes crucial. We must shift our gaze from solely individual dysfunction to collective responsibility. We must recognize cultural trauma and expand trauma therapy beyond the clinic and into the realms of social and ecological justice.

Neurodivergence becomes pathology. Trauma becomes victimhood. And now, the “Adult Child” is becoming a diagnostic identity in itself—marketed by a growing number of therapists to aging parents desperate for relief. This feedback loop reinforces blame: the adult child’s resistance becomes proof of dysfunction, not a signal of unmet safety. Diagnosis begins to harm where it once helped.

Even some of the more promising models (Internal Family Systems, somatic therapy, and generational repair work) can fall short when they’re abstracted from power dynamics, collective context, or relational accountability. From a HETA perspective, what’s missing is the emphasis on mutual resonance: that healing is not just internal parts work, but the cultivation of present-moment, body-based trust between people. It’s not just about exploring the Self, but about restoring the field in which the Self was fractured.

Within HETA, we’ve developed a model called the Rainbow of Resonance to support embodied healing across relational landscapes. It traces a seven-part arc:

1. Awareness – Recognizing when we are receiving the world through fear, shutdown, or confusion.

2. Connection – Re-establishing internal and external safety through somatic presence and relational anchoring.

3. Discernment – Naming emotions, locating unmet needs, and distinguishing past from present.

4. Compassion – Meeting ourselves and others with context, not blame, while honoring boundaries.

5. Expression – Communicating truth in a non-controlling, non-performative way.

6. Observation – Listening without losing ourselves and tracking others' capacity without over-functioning.

7. Integrity – Resting into the felt sense of coherence: safe enough, connected enough, honest enough.

   
   

This map is not a ladder to climb. It’s a cyclical process that supports growth and reconnection after rupture. It doesn’t bypass complexity; it orients us within it.

The Rainbow of Resonance and HETA are built from the scaffolding of polyvagal theory, somatic self-inquiry, and nonviolent communication (with respect for what each contributes, and discernment for what each omits). Historically, polyvagal theory has emphasized “regulation,” which can be a useful tool but sometimes suppressive lens. Somatic practices often prioritize energy release without story integration, risking re-pressurization or further dissociation. Many self-inquiry models neglect the fundamental precondition of safety and don’t offer tools for navigating the relational consequences of new awareness. And while Nonviolent Communication (NVC) offers a powerful language for repair, without a grounded somatic foundation it can become mechanical, even performative.

To support deeper integration, we can draw on the pioneering work of thinkers and clinicians like Stephen Porges (polyvagal theory), Bessel van der Kolk (trauma and the body), Bonnie Badenoch (relational neuroscience), Gabor Maté (trauma and compassion), Resmaa Menakem (somatic abolitionism), and Thomas Hübl (collective trauma). Their contributions point to a necessary evolution: from the treatment of isolated individuals to the reweaving of a frayed social fabric.

So when we use terms like delayed development, we must ask again: delayed by what? Development into what? And according to whose standard? Because, the point is not to meet standardized timelines, but to reclaim the ability to feel, connect, and choose in real time, within real relationships.

Healing delayed development doesn’t mean accelerating someone toward independence. It means restoring the safety and connection that allow relational capacities to emerge. This requires a dual commitment from the parent: to their own inner healing and to cultivating a community container capable of relational repair. When the parent is doing this deeper work (rebuilding trust, honoring boundaries, addressing intergenerational wounds) and the adult child still resists or punishes, it is often a signal that safety or connection has not yet been re-established. In such moments, the parent's task is to continue tending to both personal alignment and communal context while discerning, through the body, when to hold space and when to rest. Sometimes, the call is no longer to effort, but to integrity: the quiet clarity of having done enough. Without a more evolved collective field, even our most sincere healing may not be enough to restore a fractured bond. And that, too, must be held without blame.

Repair isn’t an individual achievement. It’s a co-created space. And maturity is not control. It is relational integrity. The capacity to stay connected while staying whole. The capacity to remain honest without collapsing into performance. The capacity to honor the dignity of all involved—even when the path to healing is incomplete.