Z, from Millennials to Baby Boomers…Why are we so conscious of “generations”?

You’re probably aware of the dissatisfaction specific to each generation. Millennials (born between 1981 and 1996, according to the Pew Research Center) are lazy, self-centered, and slow starters. Baby boomers (born between 1946 and 1964) are authoritarian, selfish, and basically the root of social evil. Generation Z (born between 1997 and 2012) is technologically inclined, mentally fragile, and either hyper-conscious or not-so-conscious (though the jury is still out on this). And no one cares about Generation X (born between 1965 and 1980)…oh no.

The idea of ​​generations was born about 100 years ago. Sociologist Karl Mannheim proposed the concept of individual “generational units” in his 1928 essay “The Problem of Generations.” Mannheim argued that when a group experiences historical and cultural events during its formative years, that group develops a sense of its own, which becomes part of a shared identity.

In a New Yorker essay published in 2021, Louis Menin connects this idea to the explosion in high school enrollment rates in America during the war. The rate of American 14- to 17-year-olds enrolling in college increased from just 14% in 1910 to 73% by 1940. Menin argued that the high school enrollment boom created an entirely new social category and marketing demographic: the “teenager.”

Although the idea of ​​generations has been around for decades, the modern obsession with age cohorts can be traced back to the 1992 publication of Generations. In a recent paper, sociologists Andrew M. Lindner, Sophia Stellboom, and Azizul Hakim of Skidmore College argue that the book’s authors, William Strauss and Neil Howe, argue that “pseudoscientific and romantic historical generational thinking It was said that it helped to draw a “long lineage” and popularize modern generational terminology. The term “millennial generation” even appears in the book. Lindner et al. point out that:

“Since Strauss and Howe’s seminal book was published, generational labels such as ‘Baby Boomers,’ ‘Gen headlines and all over social media.

Each of these labels is associated with psychological characteristics, behavioral patterns, and political commitments typical of each generation (e.g., being a narcissist, parting your hair in the middle, destroying the world economy).

The clothes worn by the character Portia in the second season of HBO’s The White Lotus can be seen through the lens of a generational culture. This is not a case of an indiscreet 20-something making a mistake in choosing clothes, but rather a sign of how the sense of an entire generation has been destroyed by social media.

Consulting firm McKinsey’s predictions for the future of work focus not only on technological advances, but also on the generational divide in the workplace between Gen Z and other generations. Declining birth rate? It’s a generational issue. Climate change issue? This is also a generational issue. There is no end to the number.

But social scientists have long balked at the idea of ​​using generations to understand changing cultures. There are many problems with using the generational framework too much. For one thing, there’s only so much information you can glean about a person from a randomly drawn period of about 20 years that includes the year of the person’s birth.

Furthermore, generational theories tend to ignore important variables such as race, educational background, and gender. As Pew Research Center researchers point out, generational stereotypes are clearly biased toward the upper class.

Moreover, rather than reflecting commonalities between groups, they often amplify perceived differences. Baby boomers, Gen

Generation theory is popular primarily because people are interested in what children are interested in. But still, polls on Gen Z attitudes generally leave out important context. Parker says:

“The problem is that young people change as they get older, so without historical data we can’t assess how unique young people’s attitudes and behaviors are.”

For example, if researchers wanted to see how young people’s views on work actually differ from those of older people, they would need longitudinal data on young people’s views on work. However, such longitudinal data are unfortunately lacking. As a result, it’s difficult, if not impossible, to compare Gen Z’s work outlook to how Gen Xers looked at work when they were the same age as Gen Z today.

In the absence of such longitudinal data, the reality is that we are comparing the work views of people in their 20s with those of people in their 50s.

“Young people these days”

Whether artificial or not, generational tensions have become an easy shorthand for advertisers, writers, and consultants. Popular coverage of generations tends to fill information gaps with generalizations that apply catchphrases to diverse groups.

But sociologist Philip N. Cohen of the University of Maryland, College Park points out that this reflex isn’t necessarily cynical or malicious (or at least not 100% sarcastic or malicious). It comes from true compassion as human beings, wanting to understand each other.

Talking about generations, Cohen says, can help satisfy people’s desire to understand each other, especially in times of rapid social and technological change.

“Whether we like it or not, stereotypes are very powerful. People click on articles about generational theory only because they are offended or find the stereotypical view in the headline funny. This is because I also want to understand how culture is changing, and I’m sure that desire is strong.” (Cohen)

Despite this, Cohen has recently become a leading voice in criticizing generational labeling in social research, explaining that what he sees as the biggest myth in social science in general persists. It blames the Pew Research Center.

Cohen published a Washington Post op-ed and an open letter in 2021 urging think tanks to “do the right thing” and “end the arbitrary and misleading use of ‘generation’ labels and names. “We asked them to cooperate with us.” It was signed by over 200 social scientists.

At the same time that Cohen’s letter gained attention, a book entitled The Generation Myth was published. The author is Bobby Duffy, director of the Policy Research Institute at King’s College London. In his book, Duffy argues that “generational thinking” confuses the factors that actually influence people’s views and behavior over time.

Duffy classified these into three categories:

• era effect: A major, era-defining event that affects everyone, such as the coronavirus pandemic.
• life cycle events: Typical milestones in the life of an average person in a given society, such as marriage or the birth of a child
• cohort effect: Overlapping experiences of people in the same age group

According to Duffy, the problem with generational thinking is that it focuses on cohort effects while ignoring other important mechanisms of social change.

Overall, Cohen agrees with Duffy that the generational label makes it difficult for both experts and laypersons to distinguish between generational characteristics and universal or multifactorial events.

“Wars, recessions, pandemics. If these events were to change everyone’s circumstances, they wouldn’t be called generations, and the changes that followed wouldn’t be examples of generational change.

However, we may be so obsessed with the label of generation that we end up believing that it is a generational shift. You might say, “Well, young people these days,” but the reality is that everyone these days is different, and young people are young people.” (Cohen)

Labeling generations doesn’t just simplify the complexity of demographic diversity, Duffy, Cohen, and the signatories of Cohen’s open letter believe. By placing rigid boundaries around research, labels hinder the potential for scientific breakthroughs. It also risks distorting the data and producing conclusions that don’t capture the full picture.

To the Pew Research Center’s credit, it freely acknowledges the impact that generational labels have on its analysis.

In a recent blog post from the center, researchers reiterated a 2017 report that found that “millennials are less likely than older generations to relocate within the next year.” Are considering.

The researchers, who ran this data set through a new statistical model that separated generation from age and time period, found that “apparent differences between generations are more clearly explained by other factors in the model rather than by generation.” I’ve come to a new conclusion.

I want to understand each other

How do such arbitrary and often unscientific categorizations exist in our lives?

Here’s the simple answer: Despite some negative reviews, the way it is divided into generations seems to resonate with people. In their paper, Lindner, Stellboom, and Hakim wrote that after “decades” of exposure to “heavily marketed” generational labels, Americans have generally become less aware of the categories they belong to. He says he has become more in tune with the situation.

This is especially true for those born at the center of a generational cohort. In other words, Millennials born between 1986 and 1990 are more likely to consider themselves “millennials” than those born in the five years before or after that.

Also, in some cases, generational labels may be beneficial.

Parker told me that the Pew Research Center “believes that generational research can be a useful tool in the right circumstances.”

“[Generational research]helps us capture changes in society in a way that the general public can understand and empathize with. They will also be able to understand generational change on a deeper level: that their generation is different than their parents and grandparents were, and that their young adult children interact with the world differently than they did. (Parker)

But Parker and colleagues point out that young people have always faced different social situations than their parents did when they were the same age as they are now.

Michael Dimock, the center’s director, said in a blog post that older people “express some concern and alarm” when young people’s behavior deviates from the social norms of their elders’ time. He points out that this has been the norm since ancient times. That’s why the stereotypical expression “young people these days” is, well, stereotypical.

No matter what generation is labeled in the future, the elders of 2123 will pick on the younger ones for their perceived flaws (perhaps work attitudes and self-centeredness), while the young will pick on the mistakes of their elders. We are concerned about the challenges caused by this. It is destiny for this to happen. Although times may change, the essence remains the same.