To what degree do you think generational titles are useful? Particularly Baby Boomers in comparison to others

In My Humble Opinion
1

This will be a pretty US-centric topic from my end, but if you want to comment on your own country, please do.

I think the first thing is to acknowledge that the titles are used for grouping people are, if not stereotypes, at least broad generalities and of course don’t apply to everyone. The second in that there are lots of stereotypes (about Boomers, at least) that were actually only ever the minority that got attention.

The third thing is to determine how or in what context such terms might be useful? Broader sociological trends? Music tastes? Fashion at a given age? Spending habits (ie, useful to advertisers)? I’m really talking about something broader than advertising.

I’ve seen it argued that Baby Boomers were the only ones that really merited a generational name. That they represented/lived through/caused a huge break sociologically with norms very different from their parents’ generations. Whether or not that’s true may depend on what you are measuring and where your start point is. Nonetheless the “generation gap” as viewed through the lens of pop history (which I cannot comment on the accuracy of) certainly seems larger than today’s, but is that because it really was or because we have much more nuance when looking at the present? Or simply because there were so many more of them that they either could move the needle of norms more or control the narrative more?

Example on nuance - casual clothing like jeans for daily wear didn’t start with the boomers. But I don’t know to what degree the teens of 1948 kept wearing them as adults. Rock and roll started with those pre-boomer demographic, but it was different than the rock of the sixties, and then there’s when it went from “youth music” to just “music.” The anti-Vietnam-war movement is associated with boomers, but of course, many leaders were much older. Civil rights for African Americans again is something where huge strides were made by the pre-boomers (though it’s worth pointing out the different methods and goals used in different time frames, I’m not sure how age-dependent those were - I lack nuanced knowledge there). Sexual mores, feminism, etc. - I just don’t how much of the older population changed alongside younger people (as in recent time with same sex marriage we see that older people changed opinions rather than just dying off while younger ones with different opinions replaced them).

Also some further divide that because the experiences of an early boomer and late boomer were very different - does that mean “boomer” gets narrowed or that “boomer” isn’t that useful as a catchall. Some say being old enough to be drafted to Vietnam is a cutoff point. Others would tie it to non-political aspects like music or age when birth control pills or AIDS arrived on the scene.

Later divides we see as generation-defining might be fall of the USSR, the end of hair metal, growing up with internet, coming of age after smart phones or social media, remembering the rise of hip hop and/or rap, graduating during the great recession, whether or not one was born for 9/11 (or old enough to remember it). Maybe in the future remembering the pandemic will be an issue or the as yet unknown consequences of current military actions or work from home movements or demographic shifts.

2

They identify eras. The identities wouldn’t persist if there wasn’t noticeable commonality among people reaching stages of life in those eras. It’s a little better than using decades to identify these eras because eras don’t align all that well with decades.

3

The major norm broken by baby boomers was simply the boom in population they represented. Birth rates were declining in industrialized countries in the “West” since the mid-late 19th century. But this long-term trend was temporarily reversed after World War II: people started having more babies than before. People will date the boom differently, but roughly 1946-1966 constitutes that generation. You’re quite right to be skeptical of broad generalizations; someone born in 1956 would have little in common with someone born in 1946 or 1966, and gender, class, race, and more would likely be more significant than year of birth in understanding their experiences. Much of the “generations” theory is really just about marketing to a sliver of the population: “Gen Xers like this but not that” is really “a certain segment of this demographic with disposable income likes this.”

4

We may or may not have been much more different than other randomly-defined generations were from their parents’ generation.

But at the time, we defined ourselves as being on the other side of a gap from the older generations, and they reciprocated.

Not every teenager or 20-something sits around listening to Led Zeppelin or Kansas or Pink Floyd, but not many of them turn away in revulsion. But take a time machine to 1973 and try putting on a Frank Sinatra or Doris Day song at a teenagers’ party and you’d see lots of kids reacting as if you’d physically assaulted them. Hair, clothes, language, politics, religion, sexual mores, economic and professional goals, attitudes towards children and parental authority, television & movies & literature, and (yeah) music for sure, a lot of us walked around with a strong US vs THEM polarized worldview and so did a lot of the parents and police and teachers and the rest of the older-generation folks.

This is, of course, a generalization, but I’m gonna stick by it as a valid one. I laugh when I see someone my age complain about the “OK boomer…” dismissive contempt from some younger folks. The polarization was so much stronger when I was considered “young”.

5

Given that it’s entirely possible for a Baby Boomer to be the parent of a Baby Boomer . . . not all that useful.
Also, that the childhood years of a Baby Boomer could be the 1950s, 1960s, or 1970s, again, not all that useful.

6

I find the Boomer stereotypes or first-thought-of-in-pop-culture very much defined by the earlier Boomers - the ones in their mid-teens to mid twenties in the 1960s (born 1945 to 1955). Also, as least before the more recent aforementioned “OK boomer” - to be very much defined in popular culture by the events of their youth rather than the mid 70s onward.

Of course, I’ve read articles about them in the their 40s and 50s (with associated stereotypes of them not wanting to be thought of as not young anymore, though I can say that’s not generation specific - I’ve also seen articles from the 1950s about persons that age with similar attitudes). But when it’s been THE babyboomers in pop culture/fiction until recently, it’s always been the 60s (particularly the second half) that had the greatest share of attention. But then, I admit, it’s not something I’ve paid a great deal of attention to.

7

True! The stereotypes were already in place when I was in upper elementary school in 1968. Surprisingly (perhaps), a lot of 10 year old kids identified with their babysitters’ generation nevertheless. When I was in 4th grade there was a shitload of peer pressure on me to grow my hair “long” (meaning 60’s Beatles long not 70’s Beatles long… over my ears and with bangs in front, not long down over my shoulders or anything, no male folks were doing that yet), to wear bellbottomed pants and make peace signs with my fingers and say that things were “cool” or “groovy”. The whole “conform or be a pariah” thing was probably a violation of the “do your own thing” motto but 4th graders aren’t great on nuance.

Not too terribly many years later, more kids were rebelling against the expectation that kids were irresponsible hedonists embracing trendy so-called countercultural stuff, but most kids my age (DOB in 1959 plus or minus) were still considering “us” to be a part of the modern generation, same one as the folks graduating high school in 1969.

8

Stereotyping people based on subjective birthdate ranges is lazy, denies individuality and is frequently grossly inaccurate.

The “Greatest Generation” included plenty of people who finagled their way out of serving their country, committed fraud during wartime and engaged in vicious political bickering. “Baby Boomers”/Gen X/Gen Z include tons of human beings who defy stereotypical caricatures of presence/lack of social consciousness, personal ambition, greed, dependence on parents etc.

Toss out the labels, screw phony generational conflict intended to stimulate subscriptions and clicks but which is an impediment to understanding each other.

9

Take a thousand upvotes.

Generational titles are far too often (practically always) just stereotypical “othering“ of people older or younger than oneself.

While there are no doubt statistically measurable differences between people born at various times, the differences are small (often barely statistically significant), The actual takeaway from most long-term studies is that “people mostly stay the same“ but that doesn’t provide management consultants and the media and others desperate for something to talk about with useful material. So instead they play up the tiny differences as if they are key.

95% of all crap about generational titles can be summarised as older people thinking that “younger generations are feckless and lazy unlike I was when I was their age” and younger people thinking that “older people are conservative, over-wealthy, fuddy-duddies, and I’m not gonna be like that when I’m old”.

It is trash.

10

As highlighted above, baby boomers could have had kids that were “baby boomers.” If you search it, the baby boomer generation was 1946-1964.

Culturally, I would argue the baby boomer generation ended with those that could have been drafted for Vietnam, which was 1955. That was a defining moment. My big brother was born in 1952, went to Univerisity (deferment) and quit ROTC right after the draft was eliminate. To be accurate, ROTC kicked him out right after the draft ended. And, you youngun’s that don’t know what ROTC is, look it up. :wink:

There is a huge generational shift between those born after 1955. I was 1961, and really have no connection with someone from those earlier boomer years.

My era barely remembers

  1. the Vietnam war as active hostility, much less tried to avoid it
  2. White boys clubs were already fading when we joined the workforce. Sure women and minorities were still small % of university graduates, and we benefited from less competition than now, but it was already the corporate norm for me to absolutely prove myself to be a defensible hire from my first corporate job
  3. 2 martini lunches, golf and rotary were already in steep decline
  4. Music had stagnated into the bland 70’s, and to be innovative it was the American hardcore scene (y’all might call it punk rock)
  5. Reagan vs Carter was our first presidential choice, and some of us learned what the difference was with what someone said to get elected vs how they governed.
  6. Inflation was high (mortgage rates peaked ~18%); with the middle class starting to shrink and unions were starting to get knee capped

My generation didn’t have the post WW2 boomer economic expansion, consumer gains, pensions, white right, university diploma as a ticket to the promised land, ad nausem. Hey Zoomers, we ain’t “boomers” y’all.

11

The label “boomer” makes a little bit of sense. It’s measurable to specific dates (by the number of births) and it did coincide with some profound social changes. (changes which probably would have happened anyway.)

What is even less useful is the compulsion to constantly create new labels every 6 years: Millennial, Gen X,Y,Z, Alpha etc.

There ain’t that much difference, folks.
Change happens. Life goes on.

(Also, your music sucks. And get off my lawn. :slight_smile: )

12

I think there’s some utility in being able to gauge where cohorts of the population were/are in relation to certain watershed moments in history.

For example, Gen-X was the first generation to grow up post-desegregation. Millennials were the first to grow up with computing technology/internet access from birth. Baby Boomers were the first to grow up during the Cold War, and so forth.

It’s not very useful in terms of being able to collectively describe a group or predict their actions, but it’s useful to keep in mind when you consider the differences in outlook between groups.

And in general, the groupings tended historically to be a group (say Greatest Generation), their children (Boomers), their grandchildren(Gen-X), great-grandchildren (Millennials), and so on. And I know that it doesn’t necessarily hold- I’m Gen-X, and my kids are what is apparently called Gen- α, whatever that means.

13

1981 is generally (but not universally) considered the start of Millennial territory. I was born in 1981 but during Carter’s administration. If I had been born a few weeks earlier, I would have changed generations going by strict cut off dates. That’s enough for me to say that they’re pretty useless.

14

Whatever. I often have a lot in common with people 30 years younger or 30 years older than me.

I don’t pay attention to the generational BS.

15

And, similarly, I don’t have a lot in common with about 50% of people born around the same time as me.

16

As usual: People skip the Silent Generation — generally defined as people born between 1928-1945. The generation between the “Greatest Generation” and the Baby Boomers. People too young to fight in WWII but born before the post-war boom.

They are the parents of many late Bloomers: those born after 1960. My own family is a perfect example. Both my parents were born in the 1930s and I am an early Boomer.

17

I do think this is true to a degree. Its not just a term invented by the media with amorphous start and end dates, based on generic cultural trends. The baby boomer generation started at the end of WW2, which was the biggest changed in society in modern history (from the instability of the great depression then WW2, to the stability) and is associated with a spike in birth rates unlike anything seen since. So there is a well defined beginning (1945) and a fairly well defined end (when birth rates returned to their pre-war levels in the 1960s.

18

You can definitely find identifiable periods for births. I think what is being discussed if whether you can appropriately assign descriptive characteristics to people in each group. In my experience, you can’t. Just because I grew up before cell phones and watched the Brady Bunch, doesn’t mean I’m like Lindsay Graham in any meaningful way.

19

It’ should be noted that some of the names one might think of when talking about what might be the definitional event for ‘Boomers’, the war in Vietnam and the opposition to the war, were from . . . the Silent Generation!

20

Well, I mentioned that (or rather, mentioned they weren’t boomers) in my opening post. Though I didn’t use the term “silent generation.”