Arlo -
I voted for Obama more because he was young than because he was
not-white.
He is young compared to most presidents, but JFK and Teddy
Roosevelt outflanked him, and nobody can go younger than 35 (I don't
believe the 30s-40s barrier has been breached yet). Not that it matters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_age
gave me some interesting info, including the fact that Bill Clinton was
younger than Obama (at inauguration). I always was lead to believe that
JFK was closer to the magic "floor" age of 35 than his almost 44 and was
surprised at Teddy R's 42! Thanks for the history lesson.
- I think two 42-year-olds can relate to each other as much or as
little as a 25- and a 55-year-old; what depends more is interests,
and their living situation.
I do agree that on an individual level, age is only one differentiator
among many.
However, the /perception/ of age still seems to matter to people for
whatever reason. You may notice that when Obama wants to look like
the fresh new face (whenever I think of that expression, I think of
how acne is predominantly a teenage affliction) of America, hope and
change and all that (as seen in election campaign events), he dyes
his hair black...when he wants to look put-upon, as when dealing
with Republican leadership, he dyes it greyer. Probably it is
naturally somewhere in between.
Age is a reasonable positive correlate for experience. The 25 year old
in question will have had 5-15 years of "adult-like" experiences to draw
from where presumably the 55 year old will have at least 30 or more...
no matter their circumstance. Age is also a reasonable negative
correlation for innocence which can translate into naivete (for better
and worse) while the loss of naivete can lead to various forms of
cynicism (read the FRIAM archives?) and negativity. Not hard
connections, just correlations. You don't have to be old to be wise
nor to be cynical, but it seems to help.
I want my children's generation
I recognize that it is a colloquialism, but is there really any
good reason to use the concept of 'generations'?
I'll offer two arguments for this. The first is simple and personal. I
am much more able/comfortable tracking my children's cohort than I am
people younger or older, because I am in regular contact with them and
have been since they were born. So, "my children's generation" is
probably more aptly "the cohort of people born within roughly 5 years of
my own children (1975-1985). The second argument is that while
generations in the sense of a labeled X, Y, Z or "greatest" is a bit
trite and seems contrived, there is often (maybe more historically than
contemporarily) a natural oscillation between parent and child. The old
adage "some things skip a generation" is apt in my experience... for
example, my own father rebelled against certain aspects of my
grandfather's nature which I in turn rebelled against, roughly returning
full circle to certain aspects of my grandfather's nature (e.g. My
grandfather was an avid journaler and correspondent while my father
probably wrote no more than 3 letters in his life, each one fitting onto
less than a single sheet of paper). It also seems (anecdotally) true
that parents try to give *their* children what *they* didn't have...
again leading to an oscillation in many dimensions with a time constant
of roughly the age of reproduction.
I may have said this before on this list, and have definitely said
it elsewhere, and will doubtless say in in the future. After all,
humans are not born in batches, and most societal changes either
happen gradually or affect people of all ages. And there is the
question of how generations are defined: for example, my parents
born circa 1950 are solidly in the Baby Boomer generation, so as
their child I might fall in Generation X - but many Generation Xers
have children or even in some cases grandchildren my age. And what
generation they are called is uncertain also...are they Generation
Y? Generation Next, as the New Mexican seems to call them? The
Internet generation (Vince Cerf, Doug Engelbart, Tim Berners Lee et
al. should feel a bit ignored for that)? What was the 'Me'
generation again? Some people are calling the youngest members of
society right now 'Generation Z' - once we run out of Latin
characters do we switch to Greek, like hurricanes?
There *is* some batching, first correlated with the staging and
returning-from wars... and the second is simply the second order effect
of THOSE children coming of age and having their own 15-30 years later.
I agree that there is huge skew among individuals based on many
features, but you pointed out specific examples, some of which are
notable. My parents grew up with a post-WWI cohort who missed the
roaring 20's, lived through the depression (as children), participated
in WWII (cheering, waiting, fighting, assembling, etc.), enjoyed a very
hopeful and prosperous 50s when they all began to have children in
record numbers (with lower infant/birthing mortality), then suffered the
60's in their middle age with *their* children who defined themselves
through sex, drugs, rockNroll, and social justice causes. Which leads us
to the "baby boomers" who shared not only *parents* of this former
"greatest" generation and all the experiences above, but also a boom in
populations... new schools being built everywhere for them,
neighborhoods afloat in the flotsam and jetsam of largish families with
limited infant and birthing mortality or debilitating ilness, and excess
time (urban/suburban youth without the kinds of chores and
responsibilities rural youth had).
I resented being referred to as a "baby boomer" as I happened to come in
on the tail end, (late 50s) and lived rurally, missing the bulk of the
unrest of the 60's (by my age and isolation). Most "boomers" I knew were
hippies (or wannabes) and I tended to associate more with the folks
in-between... those born *during* the depression or war. Had they been
more cosmopolitan, they would have been of the "Beat" generation.
Instead they were a smaller cohort "lost" between "generations"
(supporting your point of course).
So, I agree that the broad brush of "generation this or that" is a
convenient shorthand at best and a harmful fiction at worse.
Basically I think it is a silly arbitrary system, but would welcome
any and all arguments to the contrary.
I'll grant you that it can be very dismissive and can also miss
important nuances. There are also many "outliers" in the
distribution(s) that do not classify easily. Some of the distinctions
are arbitrary and others are silly. Both of my daughters would be GenX
I guess, but neither of them exhibit the stereotypical traits , but much
of their cohort does seem to fit the stereotype (lazy, incompetent,
lost?) to some extent. The difference might just be that I am close to
them and not to most of their cohort. Personal situations *do* matter.
If (big IF) we acknowledge any validity to the "greatest", "boomer",
"X", "Y", "Z" or "YY" classifications I would insist that they are
projections of multi-dimensional inclusion sets as well as deserving
"fuzzy" membership operators.
In contrast, I was born on the cusp of Aquarius leading to Pisces. I
don't hold much belief that there are only 13 kinds of people and/or
that you can distinguish them by what stars or planets were in the sky
when they were born... however, I do suspect there *may* be some
correlation (especially as is my harp, pre/extra urban-modern era) with
the time of year one is conceived, gestated and then born into the
world... Whether your mother was malnourished during your first, third
or all three trimesters or during nursing, and whether you learned to
crawl in fresh green grass under blue skies or in snow under grey. But
probably not what the heavens looked like that time of year or any
metaphysical properties embued by the odd mythological creatures or
characters our ancestors identified in their configurations.
Returning to the original context of my suggestion that it is time for a
younger generation than my own to take up the reins, I hold to that. We
"boomers" have proven on average to have a certain kind of narcissism as
well-earned as the "greatest" generation had a simple-minded
selflessness. Despite Obama's shortcomings, I am glad he is younger
than me rather than older and I hope whomever follows to pick up *his*
mess (left to him and created by him) has at least as fresh of a view as
he claimed in the hopey-changey campaign. A young(er) leader *should*
have many senior advisers and probably a *very young* staff...
Or I could just be in reaction to the Cheney-Rumsfeldt-Wolfawitz
oldschool gang with Bush as puppet and Rice and Powell as token
smart-black-people. Or I just don't trust my own cohort, I feel I know
them too well...
- Steve
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
