Though it can be little contested that youth identity varies widely across cultures, there is the possibility of youth being united by their unique age-constrained situation in the same way that women are united by their societal limitations such as the ‘glass ceiling’ and the ‘public-private’ divide (also socially constructed). Norman Kiell wrote, as far back as 1969, in The Universal Experience of Adolescence, that ‘the great internal turmoil and external disorder of adolescence are universal and only moderately affected by cultural determinants.’

He argued that adolescence is a psychological state, and that while cultures differ in their traditions and rules, sources of friction affecting youth such as family, marriage, money, jobs, religion, etc., are universal. Kiell accepts that the intensity of the adolescent experience is dependent on a variety of factors that form the general societal attitude towards adolescence, but contends that the human adolescence everywhere is in a socially recognized period of transitional status,

‘Transitional periods by their very nature share many properties in common and generate characteristic constellations of psychological problems that inevitably arise when individuals are confronted by radical changes in their biological status,' he writes.

In addition to being united by their common transitional status, youth are finding themselves connected by evolutions in new media, notably the internet, which allow them to communicate and share information and resources like never before. The increasingly integrated global economy facilitates trade between cultures and further fells borders. Though the idea of globalisation is a debate that this essay will not undertake, there can be little doubt that youth are able to connect on a global scale much more easily than in the past.

Authors Bradford Brown, Reed W. Larson and  T.S. Saraswathi in their book The World’s Youth: Adolescence in Eight Regions of the Globe, use the image of a kaleidescope to describe their conception of the term adolescence. “We spin together the related but distinctive features of life for youth around the world and discern a common image of their movement from childhood into adulthood. At a superficial level the pictures coalesce to give the impression that young people worldwide share the same challenges, interests and concerns.” Here they are referring to the emergence of a global youth culture ‘in which young people - at least in the middle class - wear the same clothing and hair styles, listen to some of the same music, and adopt similar slang expressions…We emphasize the commonality of experience among youth as opposing ideologies falter and economic systems begin to meld.’

Upon comparing cultures of youth across the world in a modern era, it would appear that there is an interesting phenomenon taking place. Youth are connected as never before – not only through the internet, but through their shared desires: materialistic and often professionally. Many youth want to take their lives to the next level. If their parents had little means of providing for them, they often have aspirations to have affluent and successful families. They are all exposed to similar advertising, and the newest innovations in technology often top most young people’s wish lists. They are able to connect over the internet or over telephone or just through the increased ubiquity and ease of traveling. They see that they are different from their parents’ generation and identify with those their own age, who grew up facing similar international affairs and climates.

However, this shared international youth culture has its limits. There also seems to be a very strong nationalism that rears its prominent head in the youth movement. For example, in India, there is a very strong desire to identify with a global youth culture (they are particularly fond of American materialism), combined with an overlying desire to maintain a strong sense of ‘Indianness’. This is referred to by Salman Rushdie as the “chutnification” of identity. It exists not only in India, but in many cultures.

Therefore, it can be argued that there is a common youth culture forming, and it is two-tiered. The first is the connection with youth on a global level – an understanding that the new generations have strong ties across cultures. The second is a youth connection on the national level – one that is perhaps a closer-knit connection for more values, and common identity are shared within the same borders.