1963 novella by Charles Webb
1967 film directed by Mike Nichols
In the past, existential crises typically arose after a certain age of maturity. Following a prescribed path, an adolescent would transition into adulthood. One must work diligently, persevere, and slog through challenges to realise his true potential. As the Peter Principle states, "In time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out its duties," they may attain the highest position for which they are ill-suited, leading to subsequent brooding. Only then do they begin to question the meaning of it all. What is the purpose of existence? What is one good for? What is their contribution to humanity, and what will be their legacy?
In the days when seeking knowledge was laborious, one had to be content with passive diffusion. Learning intimate biological know-how was peer-driven. Rightly or wrongly, that remained a go-to source for quick references. In the spring of youth, the doe-eyed youngster absorbs everything piecemeal. There was no time to contemplate abstract concepts such as mortality and the purpose of life.
The first contemplation may arise at the birth of the firstborn. Awed by the little one's possession of the grandmother's eyes and the dimples from his wife’s side, he may be intrigued by the greater forces of nature; however, the buck stops there. He is too busy making hay while the sun shines, as long as his body permits.
The children will become increasingly independent from their parents. Similarly, the other half will carve out time for essential reflection. Fears of helplessness, redundancy, and loneliness may begin to seep in. A personal crisis of existence will ensue. This unfolds after years of lessons taught by the unyielding School of Hard Knocks in Life.
Fast forward to the modern era. Instant access to a wealth of information at one's fingertips creates a false sense of security, leading one to believe they know everything. Matters that should be contemplated in mid-life suddenly swirl in the mind far too early, long before one has even entered young adulthood.
"What is the purpose of it all?" he asks. "What sort of legacy will he leave behind?" He develops a guilt complex from enjoying the good life that his parents worked hard for. He wishes to give it all up for the poor and live on little more than air and sunshine. He scorns the capitalist system world.
The end result is considerable confusion regarding what is expected of the youngsters. They believe their elders are too detached from the currents of contemporary life. Unfortunately, they lack role models to emulate. Consequently, they fumble in the dark, grasping at straws and occasionally making misguided choices that lead directly to disaster. This may be a consequence of information overload and the absence of a clear path for the young to follow.
This story challenged the status quo upon its release in the 1960s. A high-achieving recent university graduate from an upper-middle-class family with a clear path laid out before him harbours doubts about his future. He does not wish to follow in his father's career footsteps. During his graduation party, his father's business partner's wife embarks on an affair with him. Matters become increasingly complicated when he is introduced to and falls for the partner's daughter.
The classic book and film became literary powerhouses in their own right. The film later emerged as the 17th greatest American film of all time and is esteemed as one of the most significant and influential films ever made.
There was also a sequel to the book, Home School, set ten years after 'The Graduate', which did not perform particularly well. The film likely succeeded because it was the 1960s—a time of anti-establishment sentiment, hippie culture, and empowerment. This ideal representation of a generation is not limited to the 1960s. The feeling of not wanting to toil away in a seemingly meaningless job under the 'Man' is still experienced by the current generation. The notion of answering to the boss without any personal space is repugnant. Perhaps it is the leftist idea at play here—that individuals should spend equal time working for sustenance as they do for leisure, recreation, and family. Karl Marx believed that the working class should work no longer than necessary. Gone are the days when one was defined by one's profession.
P.S. Thanks, MEV, for the recommendation.