I was born in 63' and gave up long ago on determining what generation I was supposed to be part of. I never identified with Boomers and certainly not GenX. I've just floated between the two without much concern and determined that I was happy to do without one more identity label.
I think treating generations as arbitrary demarcations is silly. That’s magical thinking. On the other hand I think there is a lot we can learn about the last 75 years or so by the ebb and flow of generations. Especially because the 20th Century in the US featured a series of distinct generations that we can define by contrasting them with the elephant in the room. The post WW2 Baby Boomers were so numerous and (most of the white folks at least,) richest folk ever to spring up. They represent a huge wave of population growth. This was followed by the crash of the late 60’s and 70’s, the baby’s stopped booming and Generation X represents a period of low pop growth, which is why everybody forgets us. The Millennials, Zoomers and Alpha’s will probably see less and less difference I think, as they remove away from the precipitating event. Thus becoming less useful for study.
Just my rambling, you’ll have to visit Earth 3 to meet the Lou who was treated for his brain worms in the 70’s and actually has a phd in Sociology.
I've long-despised generation labels, and especially hate how people claim definitive boundaries for them. I recall being in high school when the term "Generation X" first hit the mainstream, and the Time and Newsweek cover stories made it clear that I didn't belong. (Xers were apparently in college or just out of college.) When I hit my 30s, I was surprised to discover that I was smack in the middle.
I too prefer to use decades as generation groupings. Or, even better, the Chinese Zodiac: If you accept that culture and society move in 12-year cycles (seems plausible), it makes a lot of sense that everyone born in your year, and the years 12 years earlier or later, go through life with similar political and cultural experiences at the same age. I have no hard evidence for this, but it seems a lot more intuitive to me than the Boomer/X/Millennial/Z discourse.
Part of the reason generation labels are so silly is that they seem to assume everyone is white and middle class, and will have a particular rate of personal and economic progress through life.
I have one millennial kid and one gen z kid. Though I’m a boomer, I often get mistaken for younger because I had to learn to speak their language; same thing at my job since I worked with multiple generations. I find that if you want to build trust learn the lingo.
Generational labels are for media to generalize about a age cohort.
I'm 56. I hang around with 30-40 somethings in my car club. There I'm the old man. I'm also a piano tuner/technician, where everybody at meetings and conventions is 70+ and I'm the kid.
I know 20 somethings who are bitter, grumpy, change adverse curmudgeons and 70 somethings who are wild, free spirited, optimistic butterflies.
“Generations labels and descriptors are often used by the current generation in power to casually sum up “kids today.” “ As always, you say it best.
My last full time job required me to train with a mentor and a binder full of discussion articles. The articles were compiled in the early 2000s, and one asserted that Gen X was a generation which needed regular praise for accomplishing the tasks that were their job, among other takes that were current assumptions about participation trophy Millenials by the time I got the binder. The description of Baby Boomers sounded spot on for how Generation X was then being portrayed (works within assigned hours only, doesn’t like team building). I already suspected generation labels were mostly trash, but those generational descriptions convinced me of how ridiculous the whole concept is. They were describing how people work when they’ve started a job recently, having been there a few years, and nearing retirement.
I believe there are a few historical events, technological changes, and cultural trends that mark those who live through them at certain ages (maybe at all ages, differently.) But the Faith Popcornesque insistence on psychological similarities within “generations” are usually just modern horoscopes or descriptions of life stages mistakenly attributed to birth years.
Kamala could be 35 or 85 as far as I am concerned and she would still be herself and a good candidate, no matter what generational label someone wants to apply to try to convince the youth not to vote.
"I should probably confess my own bias at this point: I think most generation labels are rubbish"
I'm with you on that one. Makes no sense to me. There are times when people of similar age cohorts experience common cultural events. It makes more sense to group them that way than by the year of their birth.
Generation Jones here. (I like it!) Born in 1955, we had a few years to get jiggy on the receding tide of the sexual revolution until AIDS/HIV dropped around 1981-82.
I remember being on tenterhooks for days while I waited for my first HIV test results mid-80s. While very active during the late 70s, early 80s (😉), as a heterosexual male I actually had little to fear. MTV was most of the music I loved (as a 30-something “adult”, I had cable and I bought cassettes of those artists you mentioned for the car, vinyl was still the way to listen to music at home).
Excellent analysis of the generations and their defining moments! Thanks!
I like the idea of Generation Jones. Works for me to be in a generation with Prince. Even though I *am* younger. ;-)
I was born in 63' and gave up long ago on determining what generation I was supposed to be part of. I never identified with Boomers and certainly not GenX. I've just floated between the two without much concern and determined that I was happy to do without one more identity label.
I think treating generations as arbitrary demarcations is silly. That’s magical thinking. On the other hand I think there is a lot we can learn about the last 75 years or so by the ebb and flow of generations. Especially because the 20th Century in the US featured a series of distinct generations that we can define by contrasting them with the elephant in the room. The post WW2 Baby Boomers were so numerous and (most of the white folks at least,) richest folk ever to spring up. They represent a huge wave of population growth. This was followed by the crash of the late 60’s and 70’s, the baby’s stopped booming and Generation X represents a period of low pop growth, which is why everybody forgets us. The Millennials, Zoomers and Alpha’s will probably see less and less difference I think, as they remove away from the precipitating event. Thus becoming less useful for study.
Just my rambling, you’ll have to visit Earth 3 to meet the Lou who was treated for his brain worms in the 70’s and actually has a phd in Sociology.
My grandmother had cable at the old folks apartments. MTV was a big impact on me. 1974 represent here.
They’re just pissy because their candidate is a Bummer.
Great essay.
I've long-despised generation labels, and especially hate how people claim definitive boundaries for them. I recall being in high school when the term "Generation X" first hit the mainstream, and the Time and Newsweek cover stories made it clear that I didn't belong. (Xers were apparently in college or just out of college.) When I hit my 30s, I was surprised to discover that I was smack in the middle.
I too prefer to use decades as generation groupings. Or, even better, the Chinese Zodiac: If you accept that culture and society move in 12-year cycles (seems plausible), it makes a lot of sense that everyone born in your year, and the years 12 years earlier or later, go through life with similar political and cultural experiences at the same age. I have no hard evidence for this, but it seems a lot more intuitive to me than the Boomer/X/Millennial/Z discourse.
"That was 46-year-old Barack Obama"
God, I'm almost as old as Barry was when he was first elected! I'm beginning to think I'm never going to be able to catch up with him.
Part of the reason generation labels are so silly is that they seem to assume everyone is white and middle class, and will have a particular rate of personal and economic progress through life.
Generation Jones is completely different from the Boomers. Night and day. The Ancient Sumerians had this exact same conversation...
I have one millennial kid and one gen z kid. Though I’m a boomer, I often get mistaken for younger because I had to learn to speak their language; same thing at my job since I worked with multiple generations. I find that if you want to build trust learn the lingo.
At least she's not part of Generation Weird.
Generational labels are for media to generalize about a age cohort.
I'm 56. I hang around with 30-40 somethings in my car club. There I'm the old man. I'm also a piano tuner/technician, where everybody at meetings and conventions is 70+ and I'm the kid.
I know 20 somethings who are bitter, grumpy, change adverse curmudgeons and 70 somethings who are wild, free spirited, optimistic butterflies.
It's weird, right? I'm 57, and I think the generation thing exists basically to sell shit.
“Generations labels and descriptors are often used by the current generation in power to casually sum up “kids today.” “ As always, you say it best.
My last full time job required me to train with a mentor and a binder full of discussion articles. The articles were compiled in the early 2000s, and one asserted that Gen X was a generation which needed regular praise for accomplishing the tasks that were their job, among other takes that were current assumptions about participation trophy Millenials by the time I got the binder. The description of Baby Boomers sounded spot on for how Generation X was then being portrayed (works within assigned hours only, doesn’t like team building). I already suspected generation labels were mostly trash, but those generational descriptions convinced me of how ridiculous the whole concept is. They were describing how people work when they’ve started a job recently, having been there a few years, and nearing retirement.
I believe there are a few historical events, technological changes, and cultural trends that mark those who live through them at certain ages (maybe at all ages, differently.) But the Faith Popcornesque insistence on psychological similarities within “generations” are usually just modern horoscopes or descriptions of life stages mistakenly attributed to birth years.
Kamala could be 35 or 85 as far as I am concerned and she would still be herself and a good candidate, no matter what generational label someone wants to apply to try to convince the youth not to vote.
"I should probably confess my own bias at this point: I think most generation labels are rubbish"
I'm with you on that one. Makes no sense to me. There are times when people of similar age cohorts experience common cultural events. It makes more sense to group them that way than by the year of their birth.
Kamala is a "cusper".
I have a lot of thoughts on this, but one of them is: Finally! Someone from my "cusper" generation!
Generation Jones here. (I like it!) Born in 1955, we had a few years to get jiggy on the receding tide of the sexual revolution until AIDS/HIV dropped around 1981-82.
I remember being on tenterhooks for days while I waited for my first HIV test results mid-80s. While very active during the late 70s, early 80s (😉), as a heterosexual male I actually had little to fear. MTV was most of the music I loved (as a 30-something “adult”, I had cable and I bought cassettes of those artists you mentioned for the car, vinyl was still the way to listen to music at home).
Excellent analysis of the generations and their defining moments! Thanks!