Generation Z (I’ll be damned surprised to see numbers here.)
0voters
03.19.07.2020
Thanks to a recent thread regarding Generations, my interest has been sparked to do some research regarding how people think based on what year era they were born in.
[i]I’d like to have a case study here at ILP to see which age groups all members of this fine forum fall into for the sake of a psychological impact study. For example, a Baby Boomer will certainly have more quarrels with a Generation Xer than with a Silent Generationist, while experience a dismal passivity with Generation Ys.
If you’re curious just which Generation you may just happen to fall into, well… find out for yourself: (I’ll only go as far back as Silent Generationists… I can’t imagine anyone being older actively posting on this site. Also, when I use the word “roughly”, I am referring to the range of years given plus up to three years on both ends. There are no generational gaps… all generations tend to overlap at some point or another for the creation of “spinoff” generations.)[/i]
[i]Silent Generation: Born between 1925-1945 (roughly). A good number of them have bit the dust already; many still live.
Baby Boomer: Borne between 1945-1965 (roughly). They are the group entering their senior years, expecting grandchildren, and obsessing about staying young.
Generation X: Born between 1965-1975 (roughly). They are mostly cynics with a nihilistic attitude towards authority and the traditional values held by their Baby Boomer parents.
Generation Y: Born between 1975-1995 (roughly). It’s difficult to explain this generation in a brief sentence; call it a lost generation if you will… the words “dismal optimism” comes to mind. Despite what Wikipedia lists, the Boomerang Generation, MTV Generation, and Echo Boom Generation are branches/sub-names of Generation Y.[/i]
There is the future… Generation Z, also known as The New Silent Generation because of predictions that they will backlash from the social and economic problems of their parents and rebuild a better, stronger America much like the original Silent Generation (post Great Depression) did. Anyway, they’re born between 1995 and supposedly up until 2015.
I would suggest altering your birthdates for the generations as follows:
Boomers: 1943-1960
Gen-X: 1961-1980
Gen-Y (I prefer the name Millennials): 1980-1999
And let’s not worry about after that, as wee small children are unlikely to be posting here.
The reason I suggest the change is that “Baby Boomers” has two different meanings, only one of which is relevant for your subject. On the one hand, it refers to the generation which has no memory of World War II, but was old enough to take part in the demonstrations, experimental lifestyles, and restructuring of consensus values that occurred from the mid-1960s through about 1980. On the other hand, it refers to the demographic fertility bulge that began after World War II and continued until the mid-60s. These two groups overlap largely, but not perfectly. In terms of mindset, the last few years of the baby boom should be considered Xers, in my opinion.
born in 1979, I guess I am Y by that definition. So I’m the lost generation huh? Well, I like to think I am of the generation who got the internet while in high school, that isn’t very lost to me, that is discovery.
We should be the discovery generation.
Every new group is ridiculed at first by the “older” dogs. puhhhh…leeasee…
Nav, I didn’t want to get real picky with the clean-cut specifics. I understand your argument about the “late” Baby Boomers not actually counting as Baby Boomers. I should have compensated for that by adding Generation Jones which covers that gap between 1954-1965 which basically shows that people born in this time range are almost Gen Xers, but still relatively close with Baby Boomers.
As for your date changes, I still think my formula works better for the “overall” perspective to include most possible branches related to the main generational eras. I did explain the use of the word “roughly” to any necessary changes to the dates as they should be “implied”. I also disagree about your point regarding the Baby Boomer generation. With the Second World War over, the first thing troops did from getting back from Europe was have kids… lots of kids.
I will admit that, as a boon, Generation Y has the advantage of adapting the quickest to the change in technology… most specifically from hardline or analog to wireless. Technology is a rapidly advancing trend, and no generation is keeping up with it faster than the Gen Y-ers.
the lost generation…that has a nice ring to it. Doesn’t really bother to pin us down with cliche’s…not reactive like X, yet didn’t necessarily adopt social norms like baby boomers…
I also enjoy that drug use is prevalent but we’re not characterized by it. It is not a sub-culture, but the culture.
Navigator is right about the generations. I am X (63)my husband is a boomer(55) 9 yrs difference between us. And a huge difference in alot of things about us.
Kris…again, enter the word “roughly”… it takes care of all those cross-over years.
Did I or did I not use the words “dismal optimism”? Generation Y does have within itself a fairly large group of young adults that are constantly attempting to climb their way out of the hole that society has led them to fall into. I disagree that drug use should be the prime characterizer of that generation, however you are correct that it is prevelant. Perhaps if I restate “dismal optimism” as “dismal, yet hopeful”?
Generation Y is in a unique position to teach the next generation a thing or two about the real world out there and how not to make the same mistakes they have made.
Anyone here familiar with Strauss and Howe’s generational cycle theory? Someone is; I saw the word “reactive” applied to Gen-X above.
The idea is that the generations repeat in a consistent pattern, and both drive and are driven by the recurrence of periods of cultural “Awakening” and civic “Crisis” that reshape, respectively, our values and beliefs, and our economic and political institutions. We are in the early stages of a Crisis era right now; the period from 1964 to roughly 1982 was an Awakening. We saw our cultural values overhauled in those years (suppressed racism, advanced feminism, added environmentalism, dropped sexual puritanism, became more skeptical about nationalism). We should see our political and economic institutions equally overhauled over the next 20 years or so, comparable to what happened in the Great Depression and World War II, the Civil War and Reconstruction, or the American Revolution and Constitution debate. (I’m speaking in American terms because that’s what I know best.)
If we take Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations as our vantage point and accept his seven stages of civilization then it is logical to assume that man and his disposition is a creation of his reaction to these stages.
Indeed… how else could I have referenced the upcoming Generation Z to coincide with the previous Silent Generation? Generation Y experienced the shift in technology, much like what the Lost Generation & Interbellum Generation witnessed by a fundamental economy shift between, what Fitzgerald called, “old money” and “new money” at the turn of the century; not to mention a shift in social and economic policies with the Great Depression that can be compared (only marginally) with the stock market bubble of 2000 for Generation Y (in general) that resulted in rising unemployment up into 2004.
The “awakening” you’re referring to is the Conciousness Revolution (which could also be termed as the Fifth Great Awakening). I disagree that we are in the “early stages”, but the “middle” of the crisis you refer to that is a culture war. A nation is divided and opinions are split concerning economic, social, and international policies.
I’d like to think that Generation Z will look back on this period and think: “Our grandparents (Baby Boomers) really messed up and our parents (Generation X & Y) didn’t really know how to deal with it… now we have to clean up this mess.”
I feel sorry for them, it is going to be a pain in the ass for them. Every social problem from environmental to classism to ethics will all be in their hands to try to clean up.
My apologies if I came off a little harsh. I took your words as meaning that my initial explanation was wholly negative. The problem with Generation Y (statistically) is that a great deal of the pie is still wound up in their downward spirals, while still a good number are beginning to learn how to live on their own feet. Most, like Generation X, go to college and have an abundance of education that gets them no where in life.
One thing I think is interesting is the connection with religious thinking. Some crowds, in their dismal downward spiral, flock to the new Christian revivalism (contemporary services), others explore relatively new spiritualities such as Wicca or Asatru; and then others go into the direction of agnosticism and full-blown atheism. I like to look at this in a way that people are trying to find their own sense of comfort by either pushing forward (atheism), sticking with current trends (new Christianities), or stepping backwards (“old” religions such as Asatru). Of course… we can blame the Baby Boomer generation for this mix up in theological and non-theological thought. We all know why.
I would agree, but then again, I have a sense of optimism about this new contemporary Christianity. It seems like a last ditch effort on the part of the religious… trying every trick in the book to lure the young minds into their flock. The optimism comes in when you think that eventually, these young minds will find some fact that effectively disillusions their beliefs enough for them to be skeptical about the “truth” of Christianity; and that’s the first step of moving on.
Up to this date, we’ve got 15 votes… 3 Boomers, 3 Xs, and 9 Ys. It would appear the majority of ILP is packed with Generation Y people… is this the final verdict?
I find that Millennial-heavy population pretty surprising. I would have expected more Boomers and Xers.
Here’s why I think we’re in the early stages of the Crisis, Sage.
Look at past Crises, and what they accomplished in terms of changes in the civic order, and you will find that although they were all influenced by their respective “culture wars,” none of them were defined by them. Again, I’m going to focus on American history because that’s what I know best.
American Revolution/Constitution crisis (1773-1794). Before: a collection of English colonies, each with its own more-or-less democratic government, united by a common loyalty to the Crown, with the British government providing such unified governance as existed. During: a conflict over taxation and Parliamentary sovereignty exploded into full-scale war, in the course of which the colonies won independence from Britain and crafted a very loose, very weak central government that soon developed unacceptable problems; a debate ensued over the creation of a stronger central government, resolved by the adoption of the U.S. Constitution and the swearing-in of the first Washington administration. After: An independent federal republic founded on principles of democracy and separation of powers.
Civil War/Reconstruction crisis (1860-1878). Before: a weak central government, strong states, and a nation divided by multiple issues regarding industrial and commercial development versus agrarian economic dominance, most searingly that of slavery. During: the election of a moderate from an anti-slavery party to the presidency sparked the secession of southern slaveholding states, which formed their own confederacy; a civil war was fought, initially over the issue of secession itself, but in the end over slavery as well, resulting in the conquest of the south, manumission of the slaves, and the imposition of martial law; the Constitution was amended to greatly strengthen the federal government at the expense of the states, and to extend protection of basic rights (however tentatively and imperfectly) to African Americans. After: A far stronger central government presided over a much more tightly knit confederation of states, and the issues of industry and commerce versus agrarianism were settled in a complete victory of the former.
Great Depression/World War II crisis (1929-1946). Before: an economy run largely on the principle of laissez-faire capitalism, stressed by periodic panics and struggle over workers’ rights, and a nation that, in international terms, deliberately shunned great-power status by maintaining the smallest and weakest military force it could get away with and avoiding international involvements. During: the greatest panic in the nation’s history plunged the U.S. (and eventually the world) economy into what seemed like permanent depression; the government, after some reluctance, abandoned laissez-faire and adopted many measures advocated by socialists, including support for labor unions and the first social-welfare programs; Europe and Asia exploded into war, triggered by economic troubles that propelled militaristic regimes into power in aggressor nations; the U.S. was drawn into the war by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor; after winning the war, the U.S. saw a need to maintian a larger military than had been the case pre-war in order to prevent a Soviet takeover of Europe, and to involve itself more aggressively in foreign affairs. After: A nation with a mixed capitalist-socialist economy, that maintained a strong military and embraced great-power status in full.
Note that in each case, what primarily changed was not the culture or the values, but the civic order that expressed them. In every case, the values debate that fed the conflicts had begun much, much earlier. For example, the debate over slavery grew to serious dimensions as early as the 1820s, yet we do not date the Civil War as beginning at that time, but only when the states actually seceded and (strictly speaking) only after the attack on Fort Sumter by the Confederate States in 1861.
The “Culture War” is not Crisis material, although it does have a bearing. The event that seems most likely to form the dividing line was the September 11, 2001 destruction of the World Trade Center. Yet the issues of this go-round are not clear to most people, and very obviously the “Gray Champion” leadership comparable to Lincoln or FDR has not come to power. If you look at what is coming our way, it seems likely to me that the issues are nationalism versus internationalism, in economics, politics, and the environment. Bush has approached all three in a strongly nationalistic and pro-corporate vein, and this has led us into a severe bind. It remains to be seen where we will go, but it is clear enough that we cannot remain on the course we are now. Regarding the current Crisis era, I think I can say this:
Before: a superpower nation attempting to dominate the world through economic, diplomatic, and military strength, and provoking increasing resistance in doing so, with an increasingly globalized economy strongly in service to corporate interests to the point that human rights, workers’ rights, and the environment all suffered, and stalked by looming environmental and natural resource problems on a global scale, including the oil production peak, overpopulation, declining fresh water sufficiency, and global warming.
During: the dramatic attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001 sparked a turn to nationalism on the part of the U.S., leading the Bush administration into the failed attempt to create a pro-U.S. democracy in Iraq; the popularity of this nationalistic approach declined as the failure of that attempt became clear to the public, resulting in . . .