Um, like we measure how anything alters a person’s psyche? The fields of sociology and social psychology are all about doing this type of study. They gather data from surveys, tests and observations and apply statistical methods to draw conclusions. People study differences between men and women, differences based on birth order, regional differences, urban/rural differences …
I can easily envision a scenario in the 2010s wherein the docile, follow-the-leader Millennials fall in line under a cynical right-wing Boomer demagogue, who blames all the world’s woes on the slacker moral relativism of Gen X (much as today’s rightists tend to blame the '60s for anything that comes to mind).
If said demagogue plays his cards right – and is helped along by history, say a wave of mass terrorism or the failure of Social Security – he could start a civil and/or culture war that might wipe out decades of social and economic progress.
But I’m not, like, hoarding canned soup or anything. :rolleyes: 'K?
Well, I “want” to becuase my Mom wants me to call her everyday, and I’ll take 5 minutes out of my day to make her happy. That’s pretty much my point. I’d put my money down on it being the parents driving this new trend, not my generation. You say that parents are more involved in their children’s life. Do you think it’s a bunch of 19-22 year olds saying “Mom/Dad, please come and interfere in my life”? I’d put my money down on it being pushy parents instead of needy students.
You’re scaring me.
I’ve had an idea that events just as you describe might take place in a decade or so. I’ve been thinking this ever since I started teaching at a University a couple of years ago. But I chalked the idea up to my tendency toward paranoia.
But your post and others in this thread are confirming my paranoia. This doesn’t help me become less paranoid.
-Kris
The upcoming generation (which is called Generation M, for “Millennium” I think) is the first generation in history to come of age fully connected to the Internet – not just with home computers, but with cell phones / text messaging / file-sharing, etc. (GenY grew up with the Internet, but it wasn’t nearly as pervasive and all-encompassing as it is today.) This means, our current crop of children have access to alternative ideas from all around the world, and they’re able to form their own opinions based on sources unaffected by family, church, and community.
This means, we’re due for a MAJOR cultural shift in the next twenty years – imagine the idealist liberalism of the 60’s, tempered by the cynicism of GenX and the work ethic of GenY. Impossible to predict what kind of social changes are in store for us, but this generation might, just might, be the one that FINALLY breaks the back of Christian Fundamentalism. And it almost seems like the “Fundies” currently in power are frightened to death, passing ultra-restrictive laws willy-nilly, because they know their days are numbered.
Don’t take it too much at face value. I’m a bit paranoid myself, and what’s more, I’m dramatizing about it. It helps blow off frustration sometimes to give out with an apocalyptic rant.
On reflection, I’d consider **KGS’**s scenario, utopian though it is, to be more likely than mine.
One thing though: Nothing will EVER break the back of Christian fundamentalism. At this point even Christ Hisownself would probably put His head in His hands and weep.
If history changes the facts, then some social changes are going to follow.
If Social Security fails, then that would already constitute a pretty serious wiping out of decades of progress, don’t you think? Why do you fear a “Right-wing demogogue” ? The failure would be due to retiring boomers whose liberalism with government handouts was nice, but failed to meet the needs of reality.
And if there is a wave of mass terrorism, then it won’t be a right-wing demogogue who wipes out decades of social progress. It will be a genuine need to fight terrorism that makes people realize that those boomers had nice progressive ideas, but those ideas failed to stand up to the new reality.
The decades of social progress we’ve enjoyed since the sixties have been great–but by 2020 the real world may have changed so much that the Gen X, Y , M -ers will be willing to adapt to the new reality.
So don’t worry about the “docile follow-the-leader” generation. Worry about real facts that you’ll have to live with-- if the Social Security budget runs dry, or the terrorists become a real threat.
Don’t start hoarding canned soup—but do save for your retirement, and recognize that the Patriot Act isn’t so bad.
oops–I just realized this thread is still in GQ. Sorry 'bout my rant.
OK, it’s early and the coffee’s still brewing so maybe I’ve missed it, but has anyone mentioned the fact that despite fluctuating numbers, children are being born in a continuum and not in separated 20-year lumps, so that all of this is necessarily quite fuzzy and vague and not really all that helpful? Does anyone really think that a kid born in 1962 really has much more in common with his alleged fellow Baby Boomer born in 1946 than with a supposed Gen-Xer born in 1966? Or that my upbringing (born in 1965 to parents of the World War II generation) is going to be similar to my peers next door born to parents who were hippies? Add in the fact that all these generational descriptors always seem written to apply mainly to middle-class suburban people more than anything else and for me the whole thing sounds about as scientific as astrology.
I’m not pretending that certain timely social factors and pop culture don’t have a factor on how personalities develop. Yes, having computers (or television, or electricity) around your entire life is going to have an effect on you. But I would think other factors in your upbringing – rich or poor? small town or big city? Hispanic, Asian? only child, youngest of 4, oldest of 3? – would be much more important than stuff like that. I mean, it’s like like the Boomers starved by the millions and had to learn to forage for berries because there were so many of them. I’d say by and large most of them did the same kind of stuff their parents did (farmed, got jobs, started businesses, lived off daddy’s millions, picked lettuce, went to jail, whatever) and mostly their kids did the same.
Of course, a person won’t necessarily fit into their “generation”, but there are some big differences in attitude. I just had some training which was partially based on “Generations at Work.” Nearly everyone who wasn’t a Traditionalist (the group before the Boomers) by birth year said the Traditionalist description fit them best for one reason- they couldn’t quite grasp the idea that people might leave a job just because they didn’t like it. (Of course, we work for a government agency , so the sample was a little biased). I’m sure that the Boomers and later generations would have equal difficulty grasping the idea that a person might work for the same employer for 40 years, even if they didn’t particularly like the job or the way they were treated.
Wait… he wasn’t joking? 
I think that this is overstating it more than a bit. I’m a Gen Yer (born 1984) and in my experience, most of my peers haven’t the least regard for or interest in politics or mass movements. I just don’t see anyone or anything spurring us into a civil and/or cultural war (keep in mind most of us were raised to be a lot more sensitive than past generations, and we’re probably the generation most likely to have friends and lovers of different ethnic and religious backgrounds). I see Gen Yers being primarily concerned with living neat, tidy little lives rather than starting revolutions, fighting wars, or upheaving society into a Handmaid’s Tale style Christian theocracy.
Well, there you go again.
But that’s not Strauss & Howe’s thesis. Their argument is that the generational differences are the result of changing parenting styles.
For example, “Reactive” kids (like Generation X) are raised in a time when society is culturally liberal and adult-focused (not very kid-friendly). So they tend to grow up fast, and be more independent and distrustful of authority. They’re wilder as young adults, but more family-focused when they settle down to have families of their own.
Their kids, in turn, will be growing up in a time when society is culturally conservative and kid-friendly. If they follow the pattern of other “Adaptive” generations like the Silent Generation (born during the 30’s and 40’s), they’ll be sensitive, serious and respectful of authority. But when they have kids of their own they’ll adopt a more laissez-faire attitude toward raising them. And the cycle starts all over again.
Did I apologize? Noooo.
The coming crisis (if Strauss & Howe are right) won’t be a cultural war. The cultural war that started 40 years ago is over except for some mopping up operations. Instead it will be a crisis brought on by all the real-world problems that we’ve ignoring because of the culture war: the end of cheap energy, global warming, out of control deficits, fundamentalist Islam. Generation Y won’t choose to fight a revolution. A revolution will be thrust upon them as changing real-world events make “business as usual” impossible to sustain.
And I’m not worried a theocracy. We’ve been down this road before. The televangelists of the 1920’s and early 1930’s – Aimee Semple McPherson, Father Coughlin and their ilk – lost influence as the crisis worsened. A generation later they were forgotten.
And, in all likelihood, they’ll use it to download ringtones.
TLD, you made a better point with that throwaway line than I could have with a paragraph of argument.
Aw crap, I didn’t think of that…
Way to blow my vision of a utopian future…I guess we’ll be stuck with the Xtians for a long time coming. 