It's an intriguing analysis, and it certainly activates the part of me that likes to leave ranty comments. I'm 50/50 about what Howe says because while the analysis benefits from a stripped-down view of "generation-ness," for lack of a better term, it doesn't factor in (or at least not in this summary) the ideological character of Millennials. I don't think my socialist-minded generation is interested in building malls that symbolize "evil capitalism," and won't lend their efforts to anything that isn't socialisty. Though my generation is also very malleable, and sadly will kiss ass if they have too: you can see AOC do that in Washington. If anything, millennials want to downsize in the name of the environment. Hopefully Howe elaborated somewhat on minimalism in his book. But Howe is certainly right about one thing at least; there is a "turning" going on.
Still, I think it paints too rosy of a picture. I don't think the Boomers have a good history of being caretakers as a generation (not counting those individuals who did, of course): their legacy is one of dysfunction; vitriolic divorces and so on that psychological studies have shown are damaging to kids. If Millennials don't push back against Boomers, it's because of their generational trauma; the pain is acute, the dysfunctional parents will never admit to doing anything wrong and life is short. (At least until that life-extending tech arrives) Of course, nobody learns any lessons in this scenario except privately, and the impulse is to normalize dysfunction rather than counter it.
I think Boomers are also much more arrogant in their old age than previous generations, and this is explained by previous generations learning to respect their elders when they were young; the Boomers benefitted from rebellious times in the culture where they could give the middle finger to their parents. As GenX was also a rebellious generation, this arrogance is a risk they ought to watch out for as well as they grow older.
Still, I think there's an interesting point worth shedding light on here: the formative generational "moments" might well be pushed back, and the 20s of life might no longer be the defining era of a generation. If Howe is right, perhaps the moment for the Millennials was never meant to be the 2010s, but right now, or in the next decade. Perhaps it has something to do with our greater infantilization, where we don't leave "childhood" until we're twenty-five? In any case, life-extending tech will certainly consolidate that change. That's one consolation for Millennials: they have another bite at the apple. And it's true that they are passionate about tech. Too passionate, perhaps.
But god, I can't stand the collectivist mentality. No wonder there are people who believe individuality doesn't exist. They must be using my generation as their study sample.
Howe reminds us of the funny way Millennials exit a conversation with a non-listening Boomer by merely saying, "Okay, Boomer."
Fifty years later, our society is still reeling and recovering from the 1970s and early 1980s. Both Boomers and Xers have been trying to get back to something more functional -- and raise Millennials in it. But it's been a challenge.
You may be right. Looking back at the World War II Generation, which had millions of Socialists and even Communists in the 1930s, we see they got over that after World War II. Will Millennials ever turn more pro-capitalism? Hard to say. Climate-change pessimism may keep that from happening.
We Xers were almost all market-oriented and have always been astonished that anyone, much less half of our next-junior generation, would find socialism appealing.
I do think home ownership by Millennials needs to be a major focus going forward. Until I read this book by Howe, I didn't realize how dire the situation was.
A very astute response, Felix. Howe writes a great deal about political matters, while I only gave that a couple paragraphs. Yes, there are limits to the generational viewpoint, as we are all individuals. I'll reply more tomorrow or this weekend.
I'm very impressed with your analysis and presentation, even if I'm not in complete agreement. People of the same generation, say Boomers, of which I guess I'm one, born in '43, react differently to the events of their era. I just had lunch with nine of my classmates. They had the luxury of avoiding and/or ignoring Vietnam. At least on a personal level. I was in the service at the time, and at one point in danger of being sent there. I thought it an immoral war and wasn't certain what I'd do. Fortunately I skated by. I dare say I was the only one of my classmates who hit the streets in protest, and the swirling events of the 60's shaped the rest of my life, whereas I think it had little effect on theirs. I think generation, while important and interesting, comes in behind era.
Great analysis, Mike. The 4th Turning is a fascinating book, and I look forward to reading The 4th Turning is Here.
Very cool, Robin. Hope you find it interesting.
Very insightful- the books explain a lot of what's happening and why.
It's an intriguing analysis, and it certainly activates the part of me that likes to leave ranty comments. I'm 50/50 about what Howe says because while the analysis benefits from a stripped-down view of "generation-ness," for lack of a better term, it doesn't factor in (or at least not in this summary) the ideological character of Millennials. I don't think my socialist-minded generation is interested in building malls that symbolize "evil capitalism," and won't lend their efforts to anything that isn't socialisty. Though my generation is also very malleable, and sadly will kiss ass if they have too: you can see AOC do that in Washington. If anything, millennials want to downsize in the name of the environment. Hopefully Howe elaborated somewhat on minimalism in his book. But Howe is certainly right about one thing at least; there is a "turning" going on.
Still, I think it paints too rosy of a picture. I don't think the Boomers have a good history of being caretakers as a generation (not counting those individuals who did, of course): their legacy is one of dysfunction; vitriolic divorces and so on that psychological studies have shown are damaging to kids. If Millennials don't push back against Boomers, it's because of their generational trauma; the pain is acute, the dysfunctional parents will never admit to doing anything wrong and life is short. (At least until that life-extending tech arrives) Of course, nobody learns any lessons in this scenario except privately, and the impulse is to normalize dysfunction rather than counter it.
I think Boomers are also much more arrogant in their old age than previous generations, and this is explained by previous generations learning to respect their elders when they were young; the Boomers benefitted from rebellious times in the culture where they could give the middle finger to their parents. As GenX was also a rebellious generation, this arrogance is a risk they ought to watch out for as well as they grow older.
Still, I think there's an interesting point worth shedding light on here: the formative generational "moments" might well be pushed back, and the 20s of life might no longer be the defining era of a generation. If Howe is right, perhaps the moment for the Millennials was never meant to be the 2010s, but right now, or in the next decade. Perhaps it has something to do with our greater infantilization, where we don't leave "childhood" until we're twenty-five? In any case, life-extending tech will certainly consolidate that change. That's one consolation for Millennials: they have another bite at the apple. And it's true that they are passionate about tech. Too passionate, perhaps.
But god, I can't stand the collectivist mentality. No wonder there are people who believe individuality doesn't exist. They must be using my generation as their study sample.
Howe reminds us of the funny way Millennials exit a conversation with a non-listening Boomer by merely saying, "Okay, Boomer."
Fifty years later, our society is still reeling and recovering from the 1970s and early 1980s. Both Boomers and Xers have been trying to get back to something more functional -- and raise Millennials in it. But it's been a challenge.
You may be right. Looking back at the World War II Generation, which had millions of Socialists and even Communists in the 1930s, we see they got over that after World War II. Will Millennials ever turn more pro-capitalism? Hard to say. Climate-change pessimism may keep that from happening.
We Xers were almost all market-oriented and have always been astonished that anyone, much less half of our next-junior generation, would find socialism appealing.
I do think home ownership by Millennials needs to be a major focus going forward. Until I read this book by Howe, I didn't realize how dire the situation was.
A very astute response, Felix. Howe writes a great deal about political matters, while I only gave that a couple paragraphs. Yes, there are limits to the generational viewpoint, as we are all individuals. I'll reply more tomorrow or this weekend.
I'm very impressed with your analysis and presentation, even if I'm not in complete agreement. People of the same generation, say Boomers, of which I guess I'm one, born in '43, react differently to the events of their era. I just had lunch with nine of my classmates. They had the luxury of avoiding and/or ignoring Vietnam. At least on a personal level. I was in the service at the time, and at one point in danger of being sent there. I thought it an immoral war and wasn't certain what I'd do. Fortunately I skated by. I dare say I was the only one of my classmates who hit the streets in protest, and the swirling events of the 60's shaped the rest of my life, whereas I think it had little effect on theirs. I think generation, while important and interesting, comes in behind era.
We are individuals. The generational lens enables us to see things we can't see any other way. I think both things are very true.