The Crisis of Super Generations
Are we in a civil war of the ages?
Most are familiar with the classification of the generations. Many may be surprised that the structure in which we follow in popular culture today stretches far beyond the confines of the Baby Boomer, Gen X, Millennial, and Gen Z demographics. The latter classifications of generations is only the most recent grouping or Saeculum of generations in Anglo-American history. The mapping of the social generations has been constructed as far back as the early 1400’s. The Post Black-Death Generation being the first defined to catalyst our society into a cycle of generations and their respective causes, adversities, and triumphs. Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, authors William Strauss and Neil Howe developed the structure of the American generations we use presently. The authors’ works are often criticized by academia for a variety of reason; however, the emergence of their structure and terminology into our ideas and language make them unavoidable.
The phenomenon of social generations has been studied for much longer than the lives of Strauss and Howe. The idea began its development in 19th century France, alongside the development of the Social Sciences. French philosophers Auguste Comte and Emile Littre are most notably recognized as the first to explore theories of the generations.
Besides Strauss and Howe, German Sociologist, Karl Mannheim, is the most prevalent figure to be recognized for his work with the generations. In his 1923 essay, The Problem of Generations, Mannheim deepens the definition of a generation and constructs the guidelines for which any given generation can be identified and isolated as such. He also clarifies the difference between a generation and affiliations formulated based on a singularity of purpose and proximity. Mannheim acknowledges that while these consciously formed concrete groups can exist within a generation, they do not define or comprise an entire generation. Mannheim lists a conscious act of will and bond over a singular purpose as differentiating factors in membership of a concrete group vs. a generation. He compares generational boundaries to class status in that there is no proclaimed membership, it can not be abandoned, and they exist objectively.
Mannheim’s perspective of generations was incredibly useful for the time in which he lived. In the remaining of his essay, Mannheim focuses on the importance and relevance of the life cycle, transmission of knowledge and tradition between generations, and the changing perspectives and adversities of newer generations. His elementary facts regarding the phenomenon of generations were written in necessity and have been proven useful, factual, and relevant.
A new problem, however, has become apparent. Mannheim could not have predicted this problem to comment on it. Throughout his essay, Mannheim stresses the importance of location in the definition of generations. He correctly emphasizes that a generation is only as relevant as the shared experience of its members, thus requiring any named generation to exist in a close general location. This restriction was applicable in 1923, and when Strauss and Howe did their research in the 1990s; however, today, the boundaries have been blurred.
We exist in a world of the world wide web. The internet and advancements in social media has given us all one location beyond our physical one. We now have access to not only each other, but the causes, adversities, and triumphs that live close to home of any given individual. Furthermore, we now have the phenomenon of individuals who self identify as members of their named generation. This concept would have been foreign to Mannheim. The differentiating factors between a concrete group and generation are thinning by the number of Tweets and soon may be obsolete.
There heeds a caution in ignoring the research and prophecy Strauss and Howe laid out for the American generations. Academia is not the reality in which we all live. The use of their terminology and generational boundaries makes them noteworthy. The phenomenon of individuals identifying as members of such a carefully constructed generation pool deems their prophecy relevant and deserving of continuous observation.
Strauss and Howe observed a pattern in Anglo-American history surrounding the generations. They first asserted that a single generation is produced across roughly twenty years. Secondly, they acknowledge that a minimum of four generations exist together at any given point in history, filling the span of the average natural human life. The latter facts are hardly disputable nor new revelations. Strauss and Howe lay forward an eighty to one hundred year pattern that they define as taking place in four stages or Turnings; a High, Awakening, Unraveling, and Crisis. Assuming their timeline is correct, we are currently in a state of crisis. The current state places Millennials center stage as an archetype Hero generation destined to perpetuate a new High and eventually fall under attack as elders in a coming Awakening period.
It is hard to ignore that our society has seen a fair share of crises in the recent past — War, social divide, climate change, and controversial elections, to name a few. We must ask the question: what will happens next?
Awareness is a responsibility. Pop culture has already aided in cementing the concept of generational divide in our consciousness. We are more then well aware of which generation we belong to and the battle we have with the others. In a sense, modern technology has created four super generations. The line differentiating a concrete group and generation is thinning, and the generation archetypes are forming a community as such. A new crisis for the generations is the battle among the generations. The discontent, disapproval, and rivalry across the Baby Boomer, Gen X, Millennial, and Gen Z spectrum is prevalent in our society and left fought at mass proportion over media. A new awareness is in need.
The cycle of generations is beneficiary to growth as a society and individuals. As time elapses, our problems, priorities, and circumstances change. We must adapt to overcome. Mannheim eludes, in his essay, that a society in which everyone lived forever would risk never progressing. In our current state of affairs, we risk wasting time in a stagnant cold war battling to find who is right and who is wrong. This mindset is bringing about petty quarrels and distracting us from the bigger picture. As ageism attacks the young and old, we further divide our culture, and the risk is higher as our access to one another increases through media. There are plenty of issues at hand and justice to be had across society. We risk self-fulfilling a prophecy of continuous high prosperity and destructive crisis. We are creating a crisis of the generations themselves.
