_Generations_ redux

[solarbird]

Having dragged my way further through Steve Bannon's favourite book, Generations, I am amused to report that the authors' prognosis for the Boomers was hilariously - and often tragically - wrong on the most important levels. They got the authoritarianism right, but that's about it - and knowing when this was written, they were putting on some severely rosy glasses to write this even at the time.

There's a quote on the back, from the Oakland Tribune: "Generations might change the world as much as Darwin's Origin of Species."

I can confidently say that no, no, it will not.

I can say that the severe shortcomings of their historical sections are directly related to many of the complete failures of vision in the sections attempting to project forward. (See also: I've read better histories on the backs of cereal boxes.) That part - the connection there - is kind of interesting. The complete abrogation of any attempt to address any part of American systematic racism, the complete failure to take the fundamentalist movement seriously (particularly in conjunction with authoritarianism and the role that waves of authoritarianism have shaped American history), a comprehensive inability to even recognise the role of outright misogyny in sexism (and a definite "all sides" approach to dealing with it when they reference the oppression of women at all - which they do, once) - these all inform their bad projections in fundamentally destructive ways.

(Also, they dramatically underestimated the Boom's utter refusal to consider anyone outside their cadre as valid, and their intent on holding onto power as forever as possible.)

Their treatment of Generation X is even more hilariously misread, continuing as it does the Boomer mid-80s "darwinian hyper-predator generation" theme. And they didn't see computers/technology coming at all.

That said, some of the economics they apply to Generation X have shown up, but more for Millennials, and for completely different reasons than they laid out for GenX.

As for the section on Millennials themselves... well. I just started laughing out loud, put down the book, took a moment to type what made me laugh, to wit:

"The Millennial youth culture will be more clean-cut and homogeneous than any seen since that of the circa-1930 G.I.s."

It gets worse from there - "Where Boomers and 13ers had once seen computer as a force for social individuation, Millennials will see them as a force for social homogenization" and "From music to fashion to cinema, the adolescent culture will accentuate, even celebrate, sexual distinctions" provide a bit of a look into how it goes.

Maybe they were writing this for incels. No wonder Bannon likes it so much.

There is one bit at the very end which includes a bit of insight both into what's gone wrong with the book and with life:

"As these examples make clear, the scripts awaiting both generations [Boom and GenX] are markedly at odds with their recent phases of life. Future generations of Americans must rely on aging Boomers to build a very unyuppielike ethic of community responsibility and principled self-sacrifice. Where their G.I. parents were heroes young, history warns Boomers to expect their greatest test in old age."

The Boomers aren't facing a test.

The Boomers are the test.

As for Generations, well, I'm glad I didn't waste my time actually reading it back when. It's a quote seen rather often, but it's true here:

"It is not a book to be lightly thrown aside. It should be thrown with great force."

Comments

[gingicat]

Thank you for reading it so that we don't have to.

[armiphlage]

Agreed.

[solarbird]

It wasn't that bad - difficult - to read. That doesn't make it a better book, but means it wasn't a terrible experience, just... disappointingly shallow. I was hoping to be surprised, I think.

[kathmandu]

"Community responsibility and principled self-sacrifice" does sound kind of reminiscent of Occupy / Black Lives Matter / Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone /etc. I know a lot of that is people young enough that their bones don't ache, but it is happening now.

[solarbird]

The context is that the Boomers must develop this within themselves in order to face the crises at hand.

As a collection, in the sense described by the book as fitting the pattern of history, they have not. (Indeed, one of the developments they mention as possible - and called out as likely by someone else they don't bother to name - is described as both a worst-case scenario and ahistorical and not going to happen. I can't recall at the moment exactly which characteristic it is at the moment, but I read it and thought, "well, that's spot on. Too bad you're dismissing it as impossible.")

[jreynoldsward]

Boomers have also eaten their own. The difference in circumstances and opportunities between being an early Boomer and a late (Jones) Boomer are pretty darn striking. I find that I have more in common with GenX in a lot of ways than the Boomer generation as a late Boomer. I've experienced too many situations where I've arrived at opportunities that earlier Boomers had only to have the door slammed in my face because it's been used up.

[solarbird]

As always when dealing with such large collections of people, all of whom have their own individual experiences, very few of which will exactly fit the mass averages they're talking about, one size does not fit all, your mileage may very, etc.

I suspect one of the reasons Bannon like it is that elides such subtleties. Kind of like racism does.

[arethinn]

I find that I have more in common with GenX in a lot of ways than the Boomer generation as a late Boomer.

I find the same as a late Gen X -> Millennial, probably enhanced by the fact that my family was early-adopter on things like having computers (we had one per capita by, mmm, the late 80s? Certainly by 1990) and net access (in the form of CompuServe).

[solarbird]

Yes, both of these are fairly common. In the case of GenX->Millennial, the date in particular is still very fuzzy, and I think the dividing line is "have computers basically always been in homes." (And I'd say dialup terminals count.) I think that's a genuinely important experience division.

Plus, of course, everything the Boom did economically to Millennials, they started doing to GenX first. So that's also a big overlapping set of experiences, even if Millennials had it worse just because the Republican Boom had more time to go at it. Plus of course Seattle in the 70s was just an economic implosion thanks to the Boeing bust, which brought what the Millennials have generally faced more fully home to GenX.

And all that's part of why Seattle has a lot of GenX who look and act a lot like Millennials. Same experiences.

(Millennial->Zoomer is "...and have the computers always talked to each other" which is an even bigger division, and, again, Seattle started that early. Tho' since someone may squawk I will say "and is not unique in that," and that codicil applies to GenX->Millennial as well.)

[peristaltor]

I liked the book, perhaps because I identify so completely with the kinderfeinlichkeit (sp?) they identified against Gen X. Yeah, there were shortcomings and outright omissions; but they did note well the turn against the young as a reaction against (go figure!) Boomers, one Gen Xers like myself felt keenly.

It also jived quite nicely with observations from Coupland's Generation X, published the same year.

That said, it is fun to see reactions running from Good to Terrible, with very little in between.

[solarbird]

Well, sure. They identified that correctly, but that's facts on the ground, and I'll certainly say that they correctly saw that. But they first saw it, then I would argue partially engaged in it in their darwinian-hyperpredatoresque projections, which is just another example of "just because I acknowledge a bias doesn't mean I will successfully act against that bias."

But all that aside, the big thesis of the book is that generational alignment is so important, that most of the time it overrides all else, and given that, this is how the next cycle will play out. And the many, many things they completely discounted from history (key amongst these everything to do with white supremacy and racism, but also misogyny) skewed their projections of outcome so very badly that it's seriously undermined their own thesis. And we know that outright from out history has played out. Their projections aren't recoverable - not even close to correct - and the history they declined to discuss is largely why.

And one might suggest that it's because generational identity isn't the single overriding factor in how society plays out.

[gwydion]

Maybe they were writing this for incels. No wonder Bannon likes it so much.

I adore you. :)

[solarbird]

It was a cheap shot, but Bannon's a cheap political theorist, so it's appropriate. xD