Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gen X v Boomers

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #51
    Originally posted by Fussbudget View Post

    And from a French perspective the whole 'basking in the glory of the WWII triumph' or whatever is hilariously off as an explanation
    As it is in the rest of Europe, not to mention the rest of the world

    Comment


      #52
      I had a response to something Rogin said but keep getting a 403 error. Sorry, Rogin

      Comment


        #53
        Originally posted by ursus arctos View Post
        No, I think the entire concept is complete bullshit and that the idea that one is of a different generation that one's parents blindingly obvious.
        [tick]

        Originally posted by Bruno View Post
        For now I think it makes more sense to divide the "generations" between pre- and post-internet if you want to make big generalizations.
        Absolutely. Though, in the UK, WW2 was a similar huge division between my parents/grandparents generation and my own in the UK. It, and its legacy, pretty much defined my childhood. Which made the context for, say the Cuban Missile Crisis, very different from ursus's. For me/us as children there was always a war somewhere, Cyprus, Kenya, Malaya, Algeria, potentially Suez. All the post-colonial conflicts in fact. Because we just had the BBC (radio only) and daily newspapers, the effect was very much 'Keep Calm, Carry On.' Media fragmentation and proliferation, even prior to the internet, contributed to the erosion of that. Initially this was perceived as a "good thing." Now not so much. Later boomers, even in the UK, aren't going to share any of that context with me.

        My son is an early millennial, as I was an early boomer. Home computers arrived at about the same time as he did, the internet not much later. He doesn't remember a time without them. However they're not completely 'organic' for him. His childhood reference points (the most important kind) are TV and, especially, film. Ever since he was 11 or 12, he's asked me for 'viewing lists,' especially from the late sixties and seventies. The time just before he was born. I'm not sure he knows why exactly, I certainly don't. But I do know computerisation represents losses as as well as gains, so maybe the answer lies somewhere in there.



        Comment


          #54
          Originally posted by ursus arctos View Post
          No, I think the entire concept is complete bullshit and that the idea that one is of a different generation that one's parents blindingly obvious.
          Yes but….

          Sure 20 year cohorts acting as a group are bollocks. And obviously people at the different ends of Gen X grew up in very different settings. But it is obviously true that people of similar ages grew up in the same political and cultural environment, with broadly the same concerns and broadly the same approaches. So in the context of the story at the front of the thread it’s not a total surprise that different age groups have different breakdowns in the way they vote.

          Comment


            #55
            Originally posted by San Bernardhinault View Post

            But it is obviously true that people of similar ages grew up in the same political and cultural environment, with broadly the same concerns and broadly the same approaches.
            No.

            Thi8 is also complete bullshit, at least in the context of any diverse polity, let alone any region, continent or the world at large.

            Comment


              #56
              ua's inforgraphic puts my brother in Gen X and myself in the milennial camp. At Wembley yesterday, bro sang along to the national anthem, while I crossed my arms and tried not to audibly sigh. I think that means no more research needs to be done.

              Comment


                #57
                I think it's probably true that previous generations shared more cultural touch points, but I don't think they necessarily elicited the same generational response.

                Comment


                  #58
                  Originally posted by Patrick Thistle View Post
                  I had a response to something Rogin said but keep getting a 403 error. Sorry, Rogin
                  What I was trying to say is the background of events in childhood changes the way people approach the future.

                  My mum grew up knowing one of her dad's brothers died in World War II. She was named for him. But that loss was tempered by winning the war, and defeating the Nazis who were then known to be properly evil. So her dead uncle was a hero.

                  But if you grew up in the 70s and a family member died in Vietnam that would feel massively different.

                  So I suspect "Generation X" in the USA is different to "Generation X" in Britain, where the cynicism is just rooted in common British pessimism.
                  Last edited by Patrick Thistle; 22-05-2022, 21:05.

                  Comment


                    #59
                    My older brother embarrassed me by standing up for the english queen's song, when we were at Wembley for our playoff final. I don't think he went as far as singing along to the awful dirge, but still.

                    Comment


                      #60
                      For pop culture, which so many of these generational generalizations are about, it appears to make a difference if something happened when one was in high school vs just a few years later in college or wherever one went after finishing school and/or moved out of their parents home.

                      In that way, people just a few years apart will have a very different experience.

                      Comment


                        #61
                        Originally posted by Hot Pepsi View Post
                        For pop culture, which so many of these generational generalizations are about, it appears to make a difference if something happened when one was in high school vs just a few years later in college or wherever one went after finishing school and/or moved out of their parents home.

                        In that way, people just a few years apart will have a very different experience.
                        Yes, totally agree.

                        Comment


                          #62
                          Shows, films, cover bands, etc, are popular now partly because, in the 20th century, there was such a thing as “mass culture.” Kids, especially, were all largely consuming the same films, shows, songs, sports, etc. So even if only a fraction of that audience wants to remember it and only a fraction of the kids born later are interested in it, that’s still a huge audience.

                          I don’t know how that’s going to work in 30 years for stuff being made now for increasingly niche audiences across infinite channels. Then again, people are more passionate and loyal about their niches than they are for things that feel like they were made to appeal to everyone.


                          On the other hand, I get the feeling that bits of youth culture that were actually just local or regional used to feel more important to young people because they didn’t have social media telling them they were not important.

                          Like I was watching a YouTube of some very local TV coverage of high school lacrosse on Long Island in the early 80s. And the energy of the commentators, the players, the fans, etc, makes it feel like it’s the most important thing that ever happened, even though almost nobody not in that stadium cares about the outcome and very few people in the US, let alone outside of the US, even knew high school lacrosse was a thing.

                          Nowadays, I get the impression that kids are taught to believe that something like that only matters insofar as it connects to something that matters outside their immediate world - a national championship, college scholarships, Instagram fame, etc.

                          Perhaps my first point contradicts my second.
                          Last edited by Hot Pepsi; 22-05-2022, 22:05.

                          Comment


                            #63
                            The biggest bullshit of the lot is the generalisation that "you get more right wing as you get older". Can someone tell me when? Because as I head towards middle age, I'm finding the opposite is true.

                            Comment


                              #64
                              I've yet to see any decent evidence of that trope's being based in reality.

                              Comment


                                #65
                                What about voting patterns by age and the fact that more than 3x the percentage of people over 70 voted Tory compared to under 25, and that figure increases for every age group?

                                How Britain voted 2019 age-01.png

                                Comment


                                  #66
                                  That's not evidence of change, though, is it? Young people voted for Thatcher in 1979.

                                  I'd expect some increase in the average right-wingness of people, given that rich people live longer etc. And there might be some other effect too, but no-one even seems to think they need to show an effect, which for me would involve some longitudinal study.

                                  Comment


                                    #67
                                    Originally posted by ursus arctos View Post
                                    As people are continuing to use these flawed constructs without any attempt at definition, is there a general acceptance at the "generational" boundaries suggested by Pew?
                                    Feel like there are a number of historically definitive divides which do have an enormous impact on people's worldview.

                                    e.g. if you remember the second world war you're whatever is pre-boomer.
                                    if you remember the era preceding hegemonical neoliberalism in the west but not the second world war you're a boomer
                                    if you remember the cold war but not the era preceding hegemonical neoliberalism you're gen x
                                    if you remember the pre-smartphone era but not the cold war you're millennial
                                    if you don't remember the pre-smartphone era you're gen z or whatever it is.

                                    I think generational politics are mainly bunk and the main thing that impacts your politics is the assets you control and the resources you have access to - for example someone in their late twenties who owns their own house in Gresford is much more likely to vote Tory than someone in their seventies who lives in a Broadwater farm council flat.

                                    That said I do think memory of specific world events or political alignments in the world has an impact on how you relate to the world in a more interesting way than simply in terms of voting patterns. I was chatting to someone who was a long-standing member of CND and they mentioned that their CND chapter was like all in their 70s and 80s. And though I completely agree with nuclear disarmament I don't view it as the same sort of tangible existential threat that people born immediately after the second world war do.

                                    Comment


                                      #68
                                      Assuming broad awareness of "hegemonical neoliberalism" seems like a stretch to me -- a description of reality that most couldn't identify as such.

                                      Comment


                                        #69
                                        Though I think that demonstrates why BLT's taxonomy is more robust than simple age cohorts.

                                        Members of a cohort who are not only aware of hegemonic neo-liberalism but identify it as such will likely share a number of political beliefs.

                                        Comment


                                          #70
                                          Originally posted by 3 Colours Red View Post
                                          The biggest bullshit of the lot is the generalisation that "you get more right wing as you get older". Can someone tell me when? Because as I head towards middle age, I'm finding the opposite is true.
                                          Conservative( with a small c) rather than right wing. It's not quite the same thing

                                          Comment


                                            #71
                                            Originally posted by Bruno View Post
                                            Assuming broad awareness of "hegemonical neoliberalism" seems like a stretch to me -- a description of reality that most couldn't identify as such.
                                            Part of the thing about hegemony is it seems totally natural - just a facet of the way the world is.

                                            But the transition between the post-war social democratic consensus - which was cracking but still in tact in 1975 - of readily available state welfare, of secure employment, of mass trade union membership, housing as a universal service rather than an asset class - and the rampant individualism of Thatcherism/Reaganism - births two very different political worldviews.

                                            Comment


                                              #72
                                              Originally posted by ursus arctos View Post
                                              Though I think that demonstrates why BLT's taxonomy is more robust than simple age cohorts.

                                              Members of a cohort who are not only aware of hegemonic neo-liberalism but identify it as such will likely share a number of political beliefs.
                                              Yeah, I just assume most are unaware or indirectly aware at most. Of course it's potentially okay to describe a generation in terms they're unaware of, but the criteria BLT offered for the other generations are more concrete and universally recognized/recognizable.

                                              Neoliberalism broadly refers to deregulation, getting the state out of the economy (setting aside the foreign policy aspect that many have also in mind). In economic terms I would guess there's more of a perceived continuity from pre-Boomer all the way to Gen Z: the awareness of living in a commercialized, materialistic world where everything's for sale and money is the measure of all things. I see present-day neoliberalism as an intensification of that rather than a wholly new thing. Neoliberal forces aren't actually new, they're coterminous with capitalism itself.

                                              Comment


                                                #73
                                                Originally posted by Bizarre Löw Triangle View Post
                                                But the transition between the post-war social democratic consensus - which was cracking but still in tact in 1975 - of readily available state welfare, of secure employment, of mass trade union membership, housing as a universal service rather than an asset class - and the rampant individualism of Thatcherism/Reaganism - births two very different political worldviews.
                                                I think the socialist foothold was more divisive in the US than the UK due to our being the other superpower in the Cold War against a "socialist" enemy. It did make reality different for a lot of people of course, as has its decline, but if we're talking about "generations" with similar worldviews, we'd have to acknowledge that in the US many never accepted the socialist worldview, which is probably why Reagan had a fairly smooth time undermining it.

                                                Comment


                                                  #74
                                                  Yes. This is very much a British context.

                                                  Originally posted by Bizarre Löw Triangle View Post

                                                  But the transition between the post-war social democratic consensus - which was cracking but still in tact in 1975 - of readily available state welfare, of secure employment, of mass trade union membership, housing as a universal service rather than an asset class - and the rampant individualism of Thatcherism/Reaganism - births two very different political worldviews.
                                                  Individualism was pretty much baked in to the US from the beginning.



                                                  Comment


                                                    #75
                                                    The demonisation of "socialism" in the US is about as old as the existence of avowedly socialist parties and candidates here, with it being particularly virulent in response to the post-Civil War labor movement, the election of socialist mayors in cities like Milwaukee, Eugene Debs getting more than six percent of the popular vote for President in 1912, and the AMA's crazed campaign against "socialized medicine" beginning after WWII. Reagan plowed very well furrowed ground.

                                                    One of its many continuing effects is the continued promotion by the right of the idea that the Nazi were Socialists.

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X