A quiet anxiety shadows many adults today, the persistent sense that life is not unfolding “on time.”
By a certain age, specific milestones are expected to have been achieved: education completed, careers firmly established, marriage secured, children born, financial stability attained.
When these markers are delayed, interrupted, or abandoned altogether, the emotional response is rarely curiosity or compassion. More often, it is self-blame.
Yet this feeling of being “late” is not merely personal. It is deeply social.
Sociology and psychology offer a useful framework for understanding this experience through what is known as the social clock; a powerful but largely invisible force that governs how people evaluate the timing of their lives.
The social clock refers to the culturally constructed timetable that dictates when major life events should occur.
These age-based norms are not universal or fixed; they vary across societies, generations, and historical moments.
However, within a given cultural context, they exert immense influence, shaping how individuals assess their progress, their legitimacy as adults, and ultimately, their sense of self-worth.
From early childhood, people internalise these expectations through everyday interactions, family conversations that praise early achievement, media narratives that glorify youthful success, religious and community norms that elevate early marriage, and constant peer comparison amplified by social media.
Over time, age becomes inseparable from identity. Being “on time” signals responsibility, discipline, and success.
While being “late” is often framed as personal failure, regardless of circumstance.
Why, then, do people adhere so rigidly to the social clock, even when it causes distress?
Research suggests that the social clock provides structure and predictability in an uncertain world. It offers a script for adulthood, a sense of order amid chaos.
However, that same structure becomes oppressive when treated as a moral standard rather than a social guide.
In rapidly changing economic and social conditions, rising unemployment, delayed financial independence, shifting gender roles, global crises, and unstable housing markets, traditional timelines have become increasingly unrealistic.
Yet the expectations remain stubbornly intact, sadly.
The life course perspective in sociology challenges the idea of fixed deadlines.
Instead of viewing life as a checklist tied to age, it understands human lives as sequences of transitions shaped by historical moments, economic conditions, social class, gender, health, and access to opportunity.
From this perspective, timing is not a measure of virtue or failure; it is a social outcome.
Two individuals may reach the same milestone at vastly different ages, not because one worked harder or wanted it more, but because they began from unequal starting points or navigated different constraints. Merit alone does not determine timing.
The true danger of the social clock lies in its rigidity.
When success is measured solely by age, people may rush into marriages they are unprepared for, remain trapped in unfulfilling careers to avoid “falling behind,” or dismiss gradual but meaningful progress as insufficient.
In such cases, punctuality replaces purpose.
Perhaps it is time to redefine what progress truly means.
Life is not a race against a universal clock, but a journey shaped by context, seasons, resilience, and growth.
Some paths are direct; others are winding. Both are valid.
Feeling “late” may say less about failure and more about the limitations of the timeline we have inherited.
Trust the process, don’t forget the purpose for starting in the first place.
There’s a popular jargon, particularly in West Africa that says “We’re not hustling to outshine anyone. We’re hustling so my family can eat in peace.”
“Finally, don’t let those eating their harvest today, pressure you into eating your seed”
By Hellen Grace Akomah
