Arrested Adulthood: How Trauma, Patriarchy, and High-Pressure Societies Keep Adults from Growing Up

Introduction

Modern societies confront an unsettling paradox: although most individuals reach physical adulthood, many continue to operate from psychologically or emotionally adolescent states. Across disciplines, observers have noted pervasive patterns of arrested maturity in adult behavior—tantrum-like reactions, low stress tolerance, black-and-white thinking, and an overreliance on external authority. These patterns are not merely anecdotal quirks of personality; they reflect deeper structural conditions that shape, distort, or interrupt the developmental process itself. A “trauma-based society” can be understood as one in which childhood adversity, oppressive forms of socialization, and chronic systemic pressures undermine the natural progression toward psychological integration. In such contexts, patriarchal family structures and high-pressure educational or economic environments frequently obstruct healthy emotional growth, leaving many adults functioning from unintegrated or developmentally arrested parts of the self.

Emerging research in psychology, sociology, and trauma studies demonstrates how early experiences of abuse, neglect, or chronic stress can “freeze” aspects of development, locking individuals into coping strategies more appropriate to earlier developmental stages. Patriarchal family systems—defined by authoritarian parenting, rigid hierarchies, and restrictive gender norms—constitute one major source of such developmental trauma. Likewise, social environments organized around relentless competition and conformity (visible in especially intensified form in contemporary China) can systematically stunt growth by rewarding compliance or aggressive dominance while suppressing creativity, empathy, and independent thought.

This essay examines how these forces intersect and why they produce widespread patterns of arrested adulthood. Drawing on developmental psychology to clarify what mature functioning entails, trauma theory to explain how development is derailed, and social critique to analyze the cultural infrastructures that perpetuate immaturity, the essay argues that unresolved collective trauma plays a central role in shaping adult behavior and public life. Understanding why so many adults “never fully grew up” allows us to see more clearly the logic of trauma-organized societies—and the profound consequences this logic carries for mental health, social cohesion, and cultural development.

Psychological Development and Emotional Maturity

What does it mean to “grow up” psychologically? Developmental psychologists argue that maturity is not defined by chronological age but by the attainment of key emotional, cognitive, and social capacities. A mature individual exhibits psychological integration—that is, impulses, emotions, and values are organized into a coherent whole—and can respond to life’s challenges with autonomy and proportion. In Erik Erikson’s psychosocial theory, adulthood is marked by the movement beyond adolescent identity concerns toward the capacity for intimacy, generativity, and the consolidation of a stable sense of self. Core markers of maturity include emotional self-regulation, sound judgment, empathy, and a secure identity not overly dependent on external validation.

A central aspect of maturity is the shift away from psychological guardianship: the ability to self-soothe, make independent decisions, and act according to internalized values rather than the directives or approval of authority figures. Mature adults demonstrate flexibility and resilience; whereas children and adolescents often react impulsively or egocentrically, adults are expected to manage instinctive urges, delay gratification, and consider long-term consequences. As one commentator has noted, maturity involves “taming primal impulses” and embracing the “unglamorous, frustrating work” of responsibility and coexistence. In essence, psychological maturity reflects emotional balance, autonomous reasoning, empathy, and an integrated identity capable of navigating both inner and outer demands.

Yet development does not unfold seamlessly for everyone. Classical theory already acknowledges that progress can be disrupted, prolonged, or uneven. Erikson noted that unresolved developmental conflicts—such as identity formation—may persist into adulthood and shape later functioning. Contemporary research in adult development expands this view, observing that many individuals remain in a state akin to prolonged adolescence, struggling with identity diffusion, emotional volatility, or limited perspective-taking. These difficulties are not simply personal shortcomings; they often reflect disruptions caused by adverse experiences during formative years. Trauma, emotional neglect, chronic stress, or environments that suppress autonomy can divert developmental energy away from growth and toward survival. When a child’s basic needs for safety, exploration, and secure attachment are not met—or are actively violated—the trajectory toward mature functioning is derailed.

The next section explores how trauma can arrest emotional development, leaving adults with unintegrated childhood states that surface in maladaptive or immature patterns of behavior.

Trauma and Arrested Development

Trauma researchers have long noted that early trauma can interfere with the attainment of emotional maturity. Traumatic events or chronic toxic stress in childhood overwhelm a child’s developing regulatory systems and can effectively halt aspects of psychological growth. When a young person is meant to be learning trust, autonomy, or emotional self-control, trauma redirects developmental energy toward basic survival. As a result, the individual may “not outgrow childlike patterns” but carry early coping strategies into adulthood. Psychologists refer to this as arrested psychological development: a portion of the psyche remains functionally “stuck” at the age when the trauma occurred. Under stress, an adult may react with the panic, rage, or helplessness that originally formed in childhood, as if certain emotional circuits never had the opportunity to mature.

Clinical evidence supports this mechanism. Trauma specialists note that unhealed childhood trauma becomes encoded not only as memory but as patterns in the brain, nervous system, and hormonal responses. As Dr. Carla Manly explains, early trauma can “impede healthy development” because it becomes implanted in the body’s regulatory systems. Later in life, even subtle reminders may activate these circuits, causing the individual’s “entire way of being” to revert to the earlier coping modes formed around the trauma. In practice, this may manifest as an adult responding to perceived slights with disproportionate anger, or as excessive dependence, emotional volatility, or difficulty self-soothing—behaviors that echo the unmet needs of childhood. Clinicians often observe forms of emotional regression in trauma survivors: tantrum-like outbursts, impulsivity, or the use of childlike comfort-seeking rituals. These behaviors, while adaptive at the time they were formed, reveal how parts of the self remain anchored in earlier developmental stages.

The concept of age regression helps clarify this process. Age regression refers to temporarily thinking, feeling, or behaving as though one were at a younger age, typically triggered by stress or reminders of past harm. Research shows that such regression can occur in both children and adults, particularly in individuals with unresolved trauma. For example, a person who experienced abandonment at age five may, in adult relationships, respond to minor rejection with intense fear or desperate clinging—the emotional reaction of the five-year-old whose world once collapsed. They may function competently in many areas of life, yet under relational stress become governed by the wounded child within. As trauma expert Melissa Lapides observes, “the trapped emotions [of trauma] unconsciously dictate your behaviors and relationships” until the trauma is processed. Regression is thus not literal time travel; rather, under duress, the emotional system defaults to the developmental stage at which it was overwhelmed.

Biologically, such patterns are unsurprising. Chronic childhood trauma—often captured under the framework of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs)—disrupts the maturation of brain regions responsible for emotional regulation, attention, and stress response. Hyperactivation of the stress system, diminished capacity for self-soothing, and heightened vigilance can become ingrained. Psychologically, trauma forces children into primitive survival strategies (fight, flight, freeze, or appease), which may harden into personality traits or habitual defenses if never updated. Population-level studies show that childhood adversity is widespread: in the U.S., approximately 61% of adults report at least one ACE, and 16% report four or more. Each additional ACE increases the likelihood of anxiety disorders, depression, substance use, and impaired stress tolerance—difficulties that significantly intersect with challenges in adult functioning and maturity. In societies where a large share of adults carry such histories, it is inevitable that collective patterns of behavior will reflect unresolved developmental wounds.

When trauma impedes emotional growth, the effects extend into all domains of adult life. In intimate relationships, unresolved childhood trauma is associated with difficulty trusting others, fear of abandonment, or conversely, tolerance of harmful dynamics because they feel familiar. In work contexts, individuals may struggle with authority, procrastination, conflict management, or self-worth—echoes of earlier developmental disruptions. Even civic life is affected. Social psychologists have argued that large-scale patterns of emotional immaturity—such as low frustration tolerance, authoritarian dependency, and reactive thinking—can weaken democratic deliberation and civil discourse. Public commentators have captured this worry with the observation that “the adults are not in the room,” reflecting a civic culture increasingly governed by impulsivity, denial, and short-term gratification. These features are characteristic not of individual failings but of a trauma-organized society: when large numbers of adults have not fully resolved the psychological tasks of childhood, the society itself displays juvenile patterns of conflict and governance.

Having outlined how trauma can arrest development, we now turn to two major social structures that generate such trauma on a broad scale: patriarchal family systems and high-pressure competitive environments. These are the environments in which children’s emotional growth can either be supported or derailed. In many societies, they have become engines of developmental trauma, producing generation after generation of adults who, emotionally, never fully grew up.

Patriarchal Family Structures and the Interruption of Maturity

Family is the first environment in which psychological development takes shape. A nurturing and responsive family supports the child’s gradual movement toward emotional autonomy, whereas a rigid, punitive, or oppressive family structure can derail this process. Patriarchal family systems—defined by paternal dominance, strict hierarchy, and prescriptive gender roles—have long been associated with developmental risk. In such systems, obedience is privileged over curiosity, conformity over emotional expression, and family honor over the child’s psychological needs. These patterns can plant the seeds of trauma and systematically interrupt the maturation process.

A central mechanism in patriarchal families is authoritarian parenting. Authoritarian parents demand unquestioning obedience, enforce rigid rules, and rely heavily on punishment rather than explanation or dialogue. This style—common in strongly patriarchal cultures—has well-documented developmental consequences. Although it may produce superficially “well-behaved” children in the short term, research consistently shows that authoritarian upbringing impairs autonomy, social competence, and emotional regulation. Children raised in such environments may follow instructions yet struggle to make independent decisions, having had few opportunities to practice choice or self-governance. Studies, including research on schoolchildren in Beijing, show that children from authoritarian households are often rated as less socially adept and more anxious. Ironically, a parenting style that emphasizes control tends to produce adults who are either chronically submissive—waiting for others to take charge—or chronically rebellious, reacting against all authority because they never internalized stable discipline. Neither pattern reflects genuine maturity, which requires both self-regulation and autonomy.

Beyond parenting style, the content of patriarchal socialization often limits or harms development, especially along gendered lines. Children are taught early to conform to narrow scripts of masculinity or femininity. For many girls in traditional patriarchal settings, socialization involves chronic devaluation: brothers receive preferential access to food, education, and medical care, while girls are treated as secondary or destined for marriage into another household. Such treatment communicates that a girl’s needs, desires, and ambitions matter less—a form of repeated relational trauma. Internalizing these messages can suppress self-esteem and agency, core components of adult maturity. By adolescence, many girls in patriarchal environments perceive self-silencing, self-sacrifice, or tolerating mistreatment as “normal,” and in adulthood may struggle to advocate for themselves or build equitable relationships.

For boys, patriarchal expectations produce a different but equally limiting developmental trajectory. From an early age, boys are rewarded for toughness and emotional suppression; vulnerability is shamed, sensitivity dismissed. This fosters emotional neglect, where a boy’s natural needs for comfort or reassurance are minimized or mocked. Over time, he may learn to express distress only through anger or withdrawal—responses that mirror immature coping modes. Patriarchal ideals often valorize aggression as strength, reinforcing entitlement and impulsivity rather than empathy or self-restraint. The result is that both genders are constrained: men are permitted to remain emotionally underdeveloped, and women are pressured into dependency. The system keeps individuals in roles that resemble childhood positions—dominant child vs. compliant child—rather than allowing them to grow into integrated adults capable of mutuality and self-responsibility.

The psychological consequences of patriarchy are increasingly visible in empirical research. A 2023 psychiatric review emphasized the “pernicious and long-term mental health effects of patriarchy,” noting that patriarchal norms and power dynamics become internalized early and shape personality development. Analytical psychology offers an additional lens through concepts like the father complex: an overbearing father may produce adults who either compulsively seek approval from authority figures or reflexively distrust them. Both reactions show that the individual remains psychologically organized around the childhood father—either still seeking his direction or still fighting his dominance. In either case, adult self-governance is compromised; the person relates to authority from a childlike position rather than a grounded adult stance.

Patriarchal environments also expose children to more direct forms of trauma. Domestic violence, coercion, and the threat or reality of sexual abuse occur at higher rates in rigidly gendered households. For girls, witnessing their mother being abused or learning that female bodies are unsafe environments contributes to chronic hypervigilance and attachment instability. Even without overt violence, simply growing up knowing that one’s gender is devalued or that elders must be obeyed without question creates toxic socialization, shaping a false self oriented around compliance. Drawing on the work of Winnicott and contemporary trauma theorists, such environments force children to abandon authentic expression in order to survive. The true self—curious, spontaneous, emotionally present—withdraws, while a fragmented, defensive self manages daily life. When many individuals in a society operate from these armored selves, the culture becomes one in which interactions are driven less by conscious maturity than by unprocessed childhood adaptations.

In summary, patriarchal family structures interrupt psychological maturation through multiple pathways: authoritarian control that prevents autonomy, gender norms that restrict emotional development, and trauma or chronic stress that fractures the developing self. Girls may have their agency stunted; boys may have their emotional range blunted. Both are denied essential components of adult maturity. As these patterns accumulate across generations, they create societies populated by adults who continue to reenact childhood dynamics—in workplaces, in politics, and in intimate relationships. Patriarchy, in this sense, is not merely a system of gendered power but a developmental environment that systematically produces emotional immaturity.

High-Pressure Social Environments and Systemic Stunting: The Case of China

Beyond the family, broader social environments—schools, peer cultures, workplaces, and media—play a powerful role in either supporting or constraining psychological development. In many rapidly changing and competitive societies, high-pressure environments have become pervasive. Children and young adults are subjected to intense academic and social demands, with success narrowly defined through test scores, elite admissions, or occupational prestige. Such contexts can constitute chronic developmental stress, even without any single catastrophic event. Over time, the relentless expectation to perform and the fear of failure can inhibit exploratory learning, creativity, and self-reflection, effectively keeping individuals in a psychological “survival mode” rather than fostering a growth-oriented developmental trajectory.

China provides a particularly illustrative example of these dynamics, although similar patterns appear in other high-achievement cultures. From an early age, Chinese students confront the gaokao—the high-stakes university entrance exam—as a defining event for the entire family. Academic achievement is culturally emphasized as the primary path to mobility and security. As a result, students typically endure long school days, extensive tutoring, and packed weekend schedules under close parental monitoring. While this system produces strong academic outcomes on international assessments, it also carries significant costs for mental health and socio-emotional development.

In recent years, concerns about youth mental health in China have intensified. Although national suicide rates have declined overall, several reports indicate rising psychological distress among adolescents, with some urban regions showing upward trends in youth suicide. Public discussions have highlighted individual tragedies—such as the case of an 18-year-old who described feeling “broken by relentless exams” in a widely circulated farewell letter—but these stories resonate because they mirror broader pressures felt by many students. Additional cases involving bullying, exam anxiety, or school-related stress underscore the precariousness of youth well-being in highly competitive environments. While such incidents cannot be taken as representative of all young people, they reveal how extreme pressure can become a life-or-death matter for vulnerable individuals.

Even for those who do not experience crisis, the psychological toll of chronic pressure is substantial. Surveys show high rates of depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms among Chinese students. The emergence of cultural terms such as neijuan (involution) and tangping (“lying flat”) reflects a collective awareness of systemic overload: young people articulate feeling trapped in an accelerating contest with diminishing returns. These expressions indicate not personal weakness but structural conditions that undermine psychological resilience.

From a developmental perspective, extreme pressure can stunt growth in several ways. First, it restricts the essential developmental tasks of exploration, experimentation, and identity formation. Psychologist Jerome Bruner emphasized that playful exploration is critical for cultivating creativity and problem-solving. In China’s exam-centered system, however, free play and open-ended inquiry are often displaced by regimented academic routines. Educators themselves have noted this gap. A MERICS report found that many Chinese teachers perceive a tension between conformity and creativity, with over half believing it will take decades to meaningfully foster innovation within current constraints. When children spend most of their time mastering prescribed content under evaluative scrutiny, they have limited space to develop internal motivation, independent thinking, or a stable sense of self—capacities central to adult maturity.

Second, high-pressure environments encourage external validation over internal coherence. Children learn that self-worth hinges on scores, rankings, and approval from teachers or parents. This dynamic can produce fragile self-esteem: individuals may become risk-averse, overly dependent on praise, or fearful of making independent choices. Research on the One-Child Policy generation—the so-called “Little Emperors”—observes such tendencies. Compared to earlier cohorts, only-children raised under intense academic and parental expectations were found to be more risk-averse, less trusting, and less willing to compete or collaborate. Lower conscientiousness in this group suggests difficulties with initiative-taking and personal responsibility beyond structured tasks. These findings do not indict a generation but illustrate how overcontrol and pressure can impede the development of psychological maturity.

Third, systemic pressure shapes which traits are rewarded or discouraged. Schools often reward compliance, rote mastery, and efficiency—behaviors aligned with short-term survival within competitive systems—while originality, critical thinking, and empathy receive fewer structural reinforcements. Jack Ma’s public lament that young people lack creativity echoes concerns raised by scholars: studies show that students who succeed in reaching elite universities sometimes score lower on creativity measures than peers at less prestigious institutions. In a trauma-informed framework, one might argue that chronic fear of failure narrows cognitive openness, much like how trauma constrains emotional flexibility. Students gravitate toward “safe,” predictable methods rather than risk the uncertainty inherent in creative or independent thought.

These dynamics extend beyond education into the workplace. Elements of China’s corporate culture—seen in the promotion of “wolf culture” or the normalization of 996 working hours—valorize aggression, endurance, and hyper-competitiveness. Employees who operate in fight-or-flight mode, prioritizing performance over well-being, may be praised as dedicated or “hungry,” but such environments also activate primitive survival strategies. Collaboration, empathy, and balanced decision-making—hallmarks of mature adulthood—are harder to sustain under chronic stress. In extreme cases, workplace relationships resemble schoolyard hierarchies, and leadership mirrors authoritarian family structures, reproducing developmental dynamics from childhood.

It is notable, however, that young people in China have begun to resist these pressures. The “lying flat” movement functions as both critique and coping strategy. Rather than striving endlessly, some youths opt for minimalism and disengagement as a means of self-preservation. Psychologically, this can be read as an adaptive response to an environment perceived as unwinnable. Yet research suggests that chronic withdrawal may undermine long-term fulfillment, reflecting a deeper developmental bind: individuals are asked to assume adult responsibilities while being deprived of the psychological conditions necessary to grow into them.

In summary, China’s high-pressure educational and work systems illustrate how systemic stress can inhibit psychological maturation. These environments cultivate dependence on external evaluation, suppress exploratory learning, and reward compliance or aggression over balanced development. The resulting patterns are visible in mental health trends, cultural expressions of fatigue, and the oscillation between overexertion and withdrawal. Although this section focuses on China as a vivid case study, similar mechanisms operate in other societies organized around relentless competition. Such systems generate adults who struggle to imagine alternatives, thereby perpetuating the same structures that constrained their development. A trauma-organized society reproduces itself unless intentional efforts are made to shift the developmental environment toward one that supports genuine maturity.

Consequences of a Trauma-Based Society

When a significant portion of adults operate from developmentally arrested or unintegrated emotional states, the consequences extend far beyond individual suffering. The term “trauma-based society” signals that trauma functions not merely as a private experience but as a structuring logic: its effects appear in institutions, norms, interpersonal dynamics, and collective behavior. The outcomes manifest across multiple domains—mental health, relationships, organizations, civic life, and cultural patterns—creating a feedback loop that reinforces the very conditions that produced the trauma.

One of the most visible consequences is the heightened prevalence of mental health difficulties. Research on Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) demonstrates strong associations between childhood adversity and adult depression, anxiety, substance use, and chronic physical conditions. Societies with widespread early stress therefore face substantial public health challenges. These trends were noticeable even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, as medical organizations in several countries warned of escalating psychological distress among adolescents and young adults. When these individuals enter adulthood, they often carry unresolved stress responses and underdeveloped coping capacities. This can manifest in compulsive behaviors, addictions, or chronic overwhelm—attempts to self-regulate in the absence of secure early emotional foundations. As Gabor Maté argues, many modern pathologies reflect adaptations to environments that suppress vulnerability and valorize performance; what is normalized in such cultures—emotional numbing, overwork, or disconnection—may in fact be symptoms of a deeper developmental injury.

The consequences also appear in the erosion of relational maturity and social cohesion. Trauma that interferes with emotional development often reveals itself in adult relationships, leading to difficulties with trust, fear of intimacy, or tolerance of unhealthy dynamics that echo early experiences. When these patterns occur at scale, they contribute to a fraying of social cohesion. Communities marked by widespread developmental wounding may experience rising isolation, relational instability, and weakened interpersonal trust. Studies of certain demographic cohorts in China, such as the generation raised under the One-Child Policy, suggest decreased levels of trust and cooperativeness. In Western contexts, scholars have described a “culture of narcissism,” in which unmet developmental needs fuel self-protective individualism. Across settings, the outcome is similar: relational capacities essential for adult maturity and community life become compromised.

These developmental constraints also shape organizational cultures and leadership. In workplaces, emotionally immature dynamics can become institutionalized, especially in contexts that reward aggression, hyper-competitiveness, or emotional detachment. Such environments amplify primitive stress responses rather than fostering mature collaboration. Burnout, incivility, and bullying are common features in organizations where leaders operate from unresolved insecurity or narcissistic defenses. Organizational psychologists emphasize that toxic cultures often originate from this kind of emotionally underdeveloped leadership. Over time, these patterns suppress innovation, erode psychological safety, and perpetuate stagnation, making it difficult for mature, reflective leadership to take hold.

In civic life, the consequences manifest in heightened polarization and susceptibility to authoritarian tendencies. Mature civic engagement requires tolerance for ambiguity, capacity for dialogue, and the ability to prioritize long-term collective wellbeing. A trauma-organized society, by contrast, gravitates toward black-and-white thinking, reactivity, and a dependence on strong authority figures—psychological modes reminiscent of unresolved childhood states. Scholars have drawn connections between these tendencies and the rise of authoritarian populism, the spread of misinformation, and the erosion of democratic norms. When adults engage politically from developmentally constrained positions, public discourse becomes brittle; disagreements are interpreted as threats, and individuals retreat into ideological enclaves. In such conditions, the skills needed to address complex societal problems—patience, nuance, cooperation—become difficult to sustain.

Cultural patterns reveal another layer of consequence. A trauma-based society often exhibits empathy deficits, heightened self-protection, and the normalization of narcissistic or performative identities. When individuals do not have opportunities to integrate emotional experiences, cultural narratives tend to valorize achievement, self-promotion, and image management over authenticity or relational depth. Celebrity culture, relentless productivity norms, and curated online identities can all be understood as expressions of deeper developmental insecurity. These patterns do not reflect moral failings of individuals but the cultural imprint of environments that make emotional attunement difficult.

Finally, trauma that remains unaddressed tends to move forward through families and institutions, creating intergenerational patterns that can persist for decades. Parents who experienced instability, violence, or chronic fear may inadvertently transmit heightened vigilance, harsh survival strategies, or emotional unavailability to their children, even when their external circumstances have improved. In China, scholars have documented how experiences from the Cultural Revolution continue to echo in parenting styles. Globally, cycles of domestic violence, addiction, and poverty are frequently rooted in accumulated layers of unprocessed trauma. Without trauma-informed systems—whether in education, healthcare, or social policy—each generation inherits constraints that undermine psychological development, making the society as a whole more vulnerable to immaturity and instability.

In this sense, the consequences of a trauma-based society are systemic. Individuals struggle with self-regulation and wellbeing; relationships become fragile; organizations reward reactivity; political life becomes polarized; cultural narratives normalize self-protection over empathy; and generations replicate the developmental constraints of the last. Recognizing these patterns is not about assigning blame to individuals but about diagnosing environments that fail to support the full arc of human development. Understanding these consequences highlights the urgency of trauma-informed approaches in education, policy, parenting, and social systems—approaches that could help shift societies toward genuine maturity and collective flourishing.

Conclusion

The analysis above has traced how trauma, patriarchy, and high-pressure social environments interact to impede psychological development, producing widespread patterns of arrested maturity in contemporary societies. Patriarchal family structures disrupt the early developmental foundations of autonomy and emotional integration by reinforcing fear, obedience, and suppression. High-pressure environments—illustrated here through the case of China’s competitive educational and work systems—further channel individuals into survival-oriented modes of functioning, rewarding conformity or aggression while undermining the conditions necessary for exploration, inner coherence, and mature self-regulation. The result is that many adults, despite outward achievements, continue to operate from fragmented or unintegrated psychological states, carrying forward unprocessed childhood experiences that shape their responses to stress, relationships, and collective life.

In such environments, conditions that should signal systemic dysfunction—such as chronic anxiety, burnout, polarization, or widespread loneliness—become normalized as the expected price of modern existence. Yet these phenomena can be more accurately understood as expressions of collective developmental arrest. When large numbers of adults struggle with emotional regulation, perspective-taking, or relational stability, the consequences are visible not only in personal suffering but also in cultural and political life: creativity and critical thought decline, empathy and trust erode, and societies lose the capacity to engage complexity with wisdom. As long as developmental needs remain unmet or actively thwarted, societies tend to reenact their unresolved traumas through their institutions, public discourse, and interpersonal dynamics.

Recognizing this pattern, however, also reveals potential pathways toward repair. If oppressive family structures and chronic societal pressure contribute to developmental stunting, then shifting those structures can foster renewed growth. More egalitarian and emotionally attuned forms of parenting, educational systems that emphasize socio-emotional learning and creativity, and workplaces that prioritize psychological safety over relentless performance can all help create environments that support maturation rather than inhibit it. Trauma-informed practices in clinical, educational, and organizational settings likewise acknowledge the persistence of early wounds and aim to integrate, rather than pathologize, the vulnerable parts of the self. Evidence from therapeutic and developmental research demonstrates that psychological growth can resume at any age when individuals are given sufficient safety, reflection, and relational support.

Ultimately, the logic of a trauma-based society is not fixed. It reflects choices—social, political, and cultural—that have historically privileged control over connection and performance over personhood. Because these conditions are produced through human systems, they can also be transformed by them. The first step is recognizing that patterns of adult immaturity are not isolated personal failures but symptoms of structural environments that have constrained development. By naming and understanding these patterns, societies equip themselves to change them. A future in which adults are able to “grow up” in the fullest psychological sense would be one that values healing, nurturance, relational integrity, and genuine human development from the earliest stages of life. Moving toward a trauma-informed—and ultimately, trauma-healing—society would replace the logic of fear and fragmentation with one of empathy, integration, and collective flourishing.

References

Arendt, H. (1951). The origins of totalitarianism. Harcourt.

Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritarian parenting on child development. In StatPearls. National Center for Biotechnology Information.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. Basic Books.

Cameron, L., & Meng, X. (2013). Little Emperors: Behavioral impacts of China’s One-Child Policy. Science, 339(6122), 953–957. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1231635

Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mothering. University of California Press.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press.

Gupta, M., Madabushi, J. S., & Gupta, N. (2023). Critical overview of patriarchy, its interferences with psychological development, and risks for mental health. Cureus, 15(6), e40216. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.40216

Lasch, C. (1979). The culture of narcissism: American life in an age of diminishing expectations. W. W. Norton.

Lu, H., Wang, J., & Kong, F. (2025). Does “lying flat” lead to greater life satisfaction? Evidence from empirical research. Behavioral Sciences, 15(8), 1067. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs150801067

Luthar, S. S., & Kumar, N. L. (2018). Youth in high-achieving schools: Evidence of vulnerability. The Future of Children, 28(3), 145–163. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2018.0010

Maté, G. (2022). The myth of normal: Trauma, illness, and healing in a toxic culture. Avery.

OECD. (2017). PISA 2015 results (Volume III): Students’ well-being. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264273856-en

PsychCentral. (2022). Can you get ‘stuck’ at the age you experienced trauma? PsychCentral. https://psychcentral.com/trauma/can-you-get-stuck-at-the-age-you-experienced-trauma

Sanvictores, T., & Mendez, M. D. (2022). Types of parenting styles and effects on children. In StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing.

South China Morning Post. (2025, June 9). Chinese teen’s suicide puts crushing academic pressure in the spotlight (J. Ma, Author). https://www.scmp.com

Schore, A. N. (2003). Affect dysregulation and disorders of the self. W. W. Norton.

van der Kolk, B. (2014). The body keeps the score: Brain, mind, and body in the healing of trauma. Viking.

Yang, C. (2024). Research on China’s adolescent mental health policies: Analysis based on PMC index model. Frontiers in Public Health, 12, 1408991. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1408991

Yehuda, R., & Lehrner, A. (2018). Intergenerational transmission of trauma effects: Putative role of epigenetic mechanisms. World Psychiatry, 17(3), 243–257. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20568

Zhao, S. (2019). Manufacturing creativity and maintaining control: China’s schools struggle to balance innovation and safeguard conformity (D. K. Tatlow, Author). MERICS China Monitor. https://www.merics.org

Zhu, Y. (2021). Psychological immaturity threatens our democracy. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com