As I wait for The Prophets of Doom to come out, my thoughts have started to turn to the final book in the trilogy that started with The Populist Delusion: namely, The Boomer Truth Regime. This is still very much in early gestation, and I am not yet clear which direction it will take. However, one thing I am clear on is the extent to which generational theory which pits, say, Zoomers against Boomers, is getting some pushback. Before going on, it is worth noting that generational theory is core to the cyclical history with which
I'm Gen X, and in my early 50s. Hating Boomers is cringe. It is the old trope of hating your dad because he wasn't (or isn't) there for you. It sucks, but at some point, you need to be your own man while simultaneously follow Christ.
It is true that younger generations were denied healthy lives due to a civilization whose citizens (especially the ruling elite) discarded their honor & duty for lifestyle. Honor as a personally held value is seldom if ever mentioned in our society, and it is the only possession which cannot be taken away.
I'm a very early Gen X, and I do buy into the thesis that the times mould the person(generation). However like always we tend to get caught up with the American perspective. Life for the American boomer was very different to a UK boomer. The USA had a thriving economy, the UK still had rationing until 1954. The sixties in the UK were not that different to fifties. The whole sixties thematic was really restricted to a few square miles of west London, for most English people it was still utterly depressing and crap. The seventies just nailed it home until we had the actual boom of the mid eighties to late nineties. The English Gen X had a very different experience growing up than the American or Canadian Gen X. I include Canada because I moved there in 1999, to escape Blair. My peer group here will talk about their experiences growing up from the sixties onwards and they may as well have been living on another planet. I still don't think they realise how different it was for an English family trying to make ends meet in what is now one of the most expensive areas of England (SW London, I think you know it well AA) it wasn't always hipster cafes and yummy mummies. I still think the generational paradigm exists, it is just different for North America than it is for the UK. As for Rhubba, well I also listened to Pink Floyd and thought new wave was gay, but there were lots of us in that group. This did not make me an individual. My individualism comes from being born cynical, contrary and generally thinking that if the masses are for something then it must be wrong, kind of an anti lemming . This doesn't mean that I can't see that most of my generation are moulded by their times. You' were either pro Thatcher or anti thatcher, pro Falklands war or anti Falklands war, and you thought you were edgy if you liked The Young Ones. This is quite different to an American Gen X.
I am a bona fide Gen X-er and find generational theory basically irrefutable. Also, I am _really_ looking forward both to the Prophets of Doom as well as to The Boomer Truth Regime. Don´t keep us waiting for too long!
Generational theory? How could people belonging to the same time and place not to that extent be identical? What 'theory' could affirm or refute such a perennial, biblical thing as inter/intra-generational strife? Are there "theories" for sibling rivalry, spousal quarrels, playground fights?
"Boomer truth regime" resembles nothing so much as SJW's similarly standing in judgement over their forebears over slavery or potato famine: "*We'd* never have done that". Every generation blames its antecedents for not being gifted with its own wisdom, One wonders what future generations will make of those who've presided over the huge influx and blanket negrification with barely a whimper.
In 1968 watching students in Paris hurling rocks at the police, Roger Scruton discovered that whatever the students were for he was against. In England, students were demonstrating against Enoch Powell's "immigration" speech. While London dockers and Smithfield meat packers descended on Westminster to rally in his defence.
It's generally accepted that Powell had overwhelming popular support. Nonetheless LibLabCon/Establishment/Regime/Intelligentsia held their nerve. If to a lesser extent than today, in mostly unenriched England the principal political rivalry was between officialdom and populace.
A few years later Powell ended up defecting from Conservatives and canvassing for Labour as the only party offering a way out of 'Europe' after the far-left won a conference vote against the leadership mandating an In/Out referendum.
At that time it was an article of faith for "the Left" to be for Out/Leave. Whereas forty years later Remain is a rallying call for that identity. Which gives the lie to the notion of politics as determined by "power" or "material interests" / 'economics' - which is orthodoxy for economic rationalists of all stripes Marxist and Classical Liberal alike.
In fairness to Marx what he names "commodity fetishism" gives the lie to "materialism". But by his own lights it's "false consciousness". If you're more concerned with owning a better car than a colleague over and above the car's *objective* attributes, you're 'wrong' / 'deluded': a victim of "false consciousness" or "ideology" .
In 1970s, Remain was 'right wing'/capitalist, Mrs T's Conservatives selling Common Market membership as 'Good for Britain'. Roll on a few decades with Racism displacing Capitalism as animating principle, licensing 'struggle' i.e. violence against natives, Africans, proletariat/'victim', 'Europe' is now *left*. A complete reversal understood "politically"/"economically".
But the foe remains constant: inherited loyalties, symbols of nationhood; the victim structure identical only one victim group in exchange for another. All political or 'economic conflicts share this rivalrous victimage character.
Even 70s strikes were never about economics or even "politics" as conventionally understood but "differentials", i.e. rivalry between different sets of workers all claiming to be victims of "capitalism" while fighting like rats in a sack among themselves.
No different to right wingers today who similarly can't stand each other. No more "political" or "ideological" than sibling or spouse rivalry. Proximity of itself creates conflict. Whoever heard of a school playground that wasn't a cauldron of rivalry, that without supervision wouldn't eventually descend into Lord of the Flies...
"Darwin of human sciences" Rene Girard compares schoolchildren ganging op on a peer with some distinguishing feature separating him from the rest, with predatory beasts on the Savannah targeting the weakling of the herd. Not an exact comparison - his point is the primacy of human violence.
He defines ideology as "machinery for legitimating conflict". The post-Christian predicament as "omnipresent victim". Christianity having "demythified" archaic or primitive religion, we're now bound to persecute others in the name of the victim. In 1970s the victim being "working class" today non-whites. Nothing to do with conventional ideas of "power" or "wealth" whatever at least as motive force.
Girard "The crowd today is the same as ever including most Christians... But the fact that we cannot scapegoat people as freely as Islam is becoming gigantically obvious, even if we think we are anti-Christian... Islam is normal man."
'Normal man' meaning pagan or archaic/sacrificial religion where the group is reconciled at the expense of an innocent victim convicted by the force of their own violent unanimity. He could have said it equally of black Americans but then he'd have ended up a sacrificial victim himself.
The Gen Xer struggles to say "I love you" with a straight face, but will have no problem keeping one when quoting Method Man. That's not a dig, as I'm a paid-up member of that lost tribe myself and one who exhibits all of the traits. There is no good generation to belong to, currently. The chosen ones systematically dismantled each in a different way and all look beyond fixing. As for boomers, Steve is right when he points out how daft it is to hate your Dad. Just remember not to listen to him either though, as he probably doesn't speak with his own voice.
I was born in 1969 as a deaf kid and have Boomer parents who are still married and I grew up in an extended family with both families within 30 min ride. My mom was a housewife until I went to middle school and Dad was a Scoutmaster. I have 10 cousins to look after while growing up. I know this is a rare case as I have many friends from broken families.
That said, there is no question that there is indeed a generation character even in my parents. Even if strength varied in different people (I suspected my family’s Polish-Irish roots played a big role in how they received influence). It’s true in my case as I was always very independent, because my folks didn’t wanted me to feel bad about my disability.
As to why the Boomers turned out like this? It’s my observation that they have a serious dependency on the Big Daddy who will take care of their problems so that they can continue their fun. This continues in college and corporations where there are mentors looking to retire early and wanted someone to continue their work. Reagan was the Big Daddy who helped licked the inflation and restored pride. My father grew up in a broken family so he didn’t have this. Instead, he was very close to me growing up. But even in politics, my parents have a deep faith in authority in church, science, and politics. This faith blinded them to a need for fraternalism and mentorship, because, hey, what’s their taxes for? I argued with them in school about college, school, Iraqi war, and stuff because their faith was very strong. This faith is what made them the Inattentive Generation. They really do believe everything will turn out right if we just have faith in authority. Since Big Daddy will fix it eventually, kick back and watch football. Faith that created naivety.
They knew something was wrong but couldn’t decided what it was. Some went back to nature as hippies. Some pursue natural cures. Some preach Jesus. Some embraces Civil Rights. My parents and I worked on Reagan ‘84 in VA. That and more. The crackdown on crime and GOP Revolution of 1994 were a sign that they are trying to fix things. The Tea Party of 2008 and Trump of 2016 were a sign of their anger and optimism. But because they have faith in Jesus and authority of, say, GOP, their energy were wasted. They still were holding on to the old ideas of 1960 and 1980. What they didn’t have was the elite who understood the times and how to solve it and to speak to them in language they can understand.
We have no control over our conditioning but we do have control over breaking our conditioning. But this requires a warrior spirit who is not afraid of questioning old beliefs and to subject himself to ruthless self-criticism. Most people don’t have this, irrespective of which generation. So, the question become, how do we reach them? A good marketer would answer, you must go deep inside their spirits to see what make them click and them talk to them about their concerns in their own language. This will improve the chance of creating real change.
This is all self evident. Not sure why there's a debate. All my old school friends are 100% Gen X. They literally bully each other to be more Gen X if anyone steps out of line. What I find interesting is that the sarcasm seems to stop when it comes to post 2010 cynicism. So they buy climate change and covid pretty much. They apply the Gen X sarcasm to ridiculing 'conspiracy theorists'.
Its these sorts of sentiments that give me a bit of hope. I see those of GenX who care righting the ship, so to speak. Won't be many, but in the spiritual environment to come, small flames will be enough to fight the darkness.
While I wouldn't deny that people in the main can be profoundly effected by their social environment and that this has explanatory power, but it doesn't follow that each generations therefore have a unique singular character. Generations, like society in general (and ruling elites as well) are not homogeneous. People are different (within generations and out) because they have different psychological characteristics and different life experiences. How the evolved institutions of our society select some psychological types over others is of greater significance than whatever general character may be ascribed to each generation as whole. Democratic institutions, which force individuals competing for constituted positions within the ruling elites to play a game called an election, tend to select clever, voluble types at the expense of stronger, one might even say more aristocratic types. When individuals of the "democratic" psychological type end up dominating your ruling class over multiple generations, you'll usually wind up with a demagogic plutocracy incapable (among other deficiencies) of keeping the ever expanding hordes of the congenitally maladapted (and hence chronically discontented) in check. All this, I would suggest, is better explained by focusing on individual psychological tendencies rather that vague characteristics attributed to a generation as whole.
Are we truly in the winter of civilization? It seems that we may be transitioning out of autumn into winter. The west has food, few marauding highwaymen, people aren’t losing their homes en-masse and selling their children into slavery as has happened at the fall of previous civilizations... yet.
As one born in 1968 I have to admit finding this uncomfortable! One personal observation is that I had a family very young and I think this protected me somewhat, but far from entirely, from falling for the “but I’m an individual!” trap. Also, would love to see your take on Generation X by Douglas Coupland :-)
Generalizations are a good way to ignore those things that don't support what one may want to believe. In regards to those referred to as "boomers", these generalizations have more to do with media myths that are used in no small part to get younger folk to turn on "boomers" rather than turning on those who have real power, be the members of that latter group in their 80's, their 60's their 40's or whatever.
Those who bought into all that happy crappy, hippie Woodstock bs were a minority, even in its heyday (circa 1967-1968), and some of those original hippies were too old to be "boomers".
I'm Gen X, and in my early 50s. Hating Boomers is cringe. It is the old trope of hating your dad because he wasn't (or isn't) there for you. It sucks, but at some point, you need to be your own man while simultaneously follow Christ.
It is true that younger generations were denied healthy lives due to a civilization whose citizens (especially the ruling elite) discarded their honor & duty for lifestyle. Honor as a personally held value is seldom if ever mentioned in our society, and it is the only possession which cannot be taken away.
I'm a very early Gen X, and I do buy into the thesis that the times mould the person(generation). However like always we tend to get caught up with the American perspective. Life for the American boomer was very different to a UK boomer. The USA had a thriving economy, the UK still had rationing until 1954. The sixties in the UK were not that different to fifties. The whole sixties thematic was really restricted to a few square miles of west London, for most English people it was still utterly depressing and crap. The seventies just nailed it home until we had the actual boom of the mid eighties to late nineties. The English Gen X had a very different experience growing up than the American or Canadian Gen X. I include Canada because I moved there in 1999, to escape Blair. My peer group here will talk about their experiences growing up from the sixties onwards and they may as well have been living on another planet. I still don't think they realise how different it was for an English family trying to make ends meet in what is now one of the most expensive areas of England (SW London, I think you know it well AA) it wasn't always hipster cafes and yummy mummies. I still think the generational paradigm exists, it is just different for North America than it is for the UK. As for Rhubba, well I also listened to Pink Floyd and thought new wave was gay, but there were lots of us in that group. This did not make me an individual. My individualism comes from being born cynical, contrary and generally thinking that if the masses are for something then it must be wrong, kind of an anti lemming . This doesn't mean that I can't see that most of my generation are moulded by their times. You' were either pro Thatcher or anti thatcher, pro Falklands war or anti Falklands war, and you thought you were edgy if you liked The Young Ones. This is quite different to an American Gen X.
I am a bona fide Gen X-er and find generational theory basically irrefutable. Also, I am _really_ looking forward both to the Prophets of Doom as well as to The Boomer Truth Regime. Don´t keep us waiting for too long!
Generational theory? How could people belonging to the same time and place not to that extent be identical? What 'theory' could affirm or refute such a perennial, biblical thing as inter/intra-generational strife? Are there "theories" for sibling rivalry, spousal quarrels, playground fights?
"Boomer truth regime" resembles nothing so much as SJW's similarly standing in judgement over their forebears over slavery or potato famine: "*We'd* never have done that". Every generation blames its antecedents for not being gifted with its own wisdom, One wonders what future generations will make of those who've presided over the huge influx and blanket negrification with barely a whimper.
In 1968 watching students in Paris hurling rocks at the police, Roger Scruton discovered that whatever the students were for he was against. In England, students were demonstrating against Enoch Powell's "immigration" speech. While London dockers and Smithfield meat packers descended on Westminster to rally in his defence.
It's generally accepted that Powell had overwhelming popular support. Nonetheless LibLabCon/Establishment/Regime/Intelligentsia held their nerve. If to a lesser extent than today, in mostly unenriched England the principal political rivalry was between officialdom and populace.
A few years later Powell ended up defecting from Conservatives and canvassing for Labour as the only party offering a way out of 'Europe' after the far-left won a conference vote against the leadership mandating an In/Out referendum.
At that time it was an article of faith for "the Left" to be for Out/Leave. Whereas forty years later Remain is a rallying call for that identity. Which gives the lie to the notion of politics as determined by "power" or "material interests" / 'economics' - which is orthodoxy for economic rationalists of all stripes Marxist and Classical Liberal alike.
In fairness to Marx what he names "commodity fetishism" gives the lie to "materialism". But by his own lights it's "false consciousness". If you're more concerned with owning a better car than a colleague over and above the car's *objective* attributes, you're 'wrong' / 'deluded': a victim of "false consciousness" or "ideology" .
In 1970s, Remain was 'right wing'/capitalist, Mrs T's Conservatives selling Common Market membership as 'Good for Britain'. Roll on a few decades with Racism displacing Capitalism as animating principle, licensing 'struggle' i.e. violence against natives, Africans, proletariat/'victim', 'Europe' is now *left*. A complete reversal understood "politically"/"economically".
But the foe remains constant: inherited loyalties, symbols of nationhood; the victim structure identical only one victim group in exchange for another. All political or 'economic conflicts share this rivalrous victimage character.
Even 70s strikes were never about economics or even "politics" as conventionally understood but "differentials", i.e. rivalry between different sets of workers all claiming to be victims of "capitalism" while fighting like rats in a sack among themselves.
No different to right wingers today who similarly can't stand each other. No more "political" or "ideological" than sibling or spouse rivalry. Proximity of itself creates conflict. Whoever heard of a school playground that wasn't a cauldron of rivalry, that without supervision wouldn't eventually descend into Lord of the Flies...
"Darwin of human sciences" Rene Girard compares schoolchildren ganging op on a peer with some distinguishing feature separating him from the rest, with predatory beasts on the Savannah targeting the weakling of the herd. Not an exact comparison - his point is the primacy of human violence.
He defines ideology as "machinery for legitimating conflict". The post-Christian predicament as "omnipresent victim". Christianity having "demythified" archaic or primitive religion, we're now bound to persecute others in the name of the victim. In 1970s the victim being "working class" today non-whites. Nothing to do with conventional ideas of "power" or "wealth" whatever at least as motive force.
Girard "The crowd today is the same as ever including most Christians... But the fact that we cannot scapegoat people as freely as Islam is becoming gigantically obvious, even if we think we are anti-Christian... Islam is normal man."
'Normal man' meaning pagan or archaic/sacrificial religion where the group is reconciled at the expense of an innocent victim convicted by the force of their own violent unanimity. He could have said it equally of black Americans but then he'd have ended up a sacrificial victim himself.
"one Thomas Sowell does not disprove the essential proof of 13/50"
Every civilization must be judged by its Lizzo to Sowell ratio.
Every Gen is infected, nothing to be ashamed of. The based BAP pirate gen is what we must strive for.
The Gen Xer struggles to say "I love you" with a straight face, but will have no problem keeping one when quoting Method Man. That's not a dig, as I'm a paid-up member of that lost tribe myself and one who exhibits all of the traits. There is no good generation to belong to, currently. The chosen ones systematically dismantled each in a different way and all look beyond fixing. As for boomers, Steve is right when he points out how daft it is to hate your Dad. Just remember not to listen to him either though, as he probably doesn't speak with his own voice.
Born in 79 I'm a young Gen-Xer, but I'm a Gen-X supremacist. We're the one generation capable of both coding and spelling.
Thiel/Musk are the most illustrative examples.
I was born in 1969 as a deaf kid and have Boomer parents who are still married and I grew up in an extended family with both families within 30 min ride. My mom was a housewife until I went to middle school and Dad was a Scoutmaster. I have 10 cousins to look after while growing up. I know this is a rare case as I have many friends from broken families.
That said, there is no question that there is indeed a generation character even in my parents. Even if strength varied in different people (I suspected my family’s Polish-Irish roots played a big role in how they received influence). It’s true in my case as I was always very independent, because my folks didn’t wanted me to feel bad about my disability.
As to why the Boomers turned out like this? It’s my observation that they have a serious dependency on the Big Daddy who will take care of their problems so that they can continue their fun. This continues in college and corporations where there are mentors looking to retire early and wanted someone to continue their work. Reagan was the Big Daddy who helped licked the inflation and restored pride. My father grew up in a broken family so he didn’t have this. Instead, he was very close to me growing up. But even in politics, my parents have a deep faith in authority in church, science, and politics. This faith blinded them to a need for fraternalism and mentorship, because, hey, what’s their taxes for? I argued with them in school about college, school, Iraqi war, and stuff because their faith was very strong. This faith is what made them the Inattentive Generation. They really do believe everything will turn out right if we just have faith in authority. Since Big Daddy will fix it eventually, kick back and watch football. Faith that created naivety.
They knew something was wrong but couldn’t decided what it was. Some went back to nature as hippies. Some pursue natural cures. Some preach Jesus. Some embraces Civil Rights. My parents and I worked on Reagan ‘84 in VA. That and more. The crackdown on crime and GOP Revolution of 1994 were a sign that they are trying to fix things. The Tea Party of 2008 and Trump of 2016 were a sign of their anger and optimism. But because they have faith in Jesus and authority of, say, GOP, their energy were wasted. They still were holding on to the old ideas of 1960 and 1980. What they didn’t have was the elite who understood the times and how to solve it and to speak to them in language they can understand.
We have no control over our conditioning but we do have control over breaking our conditioning. But this requires a warrior spirit who is not afraid of questioning old beliefs and to subject himself to ruthless self-criticism. Most people don’t have this, irrespective of which generation. So, the question become, how do we reach them? A good marketer would answer, you must go deep inside their spirits to see what make them click and them talk to them about their concerns in their own language. This will improve the chance of creating real change.
This is all self evident. Not sure why there's a debate. All my old school friends are 100% Gen X. They literally bully each other to be more Gen X if anyone steps out of line. What I find interesting is that the sarcasm seems to stop when it comes to post 2010 cynicism. So they buy climate change and covid pretty much. They apply the Gen X sarcasm to ridiculing 'conspiracy theorists'.
Its these sorts of sentiments that give me a bit of hope. I see those of GenX who care righting the ship, so to speak. Won't be many, but in the spiritual environment to come, small flames will be enough to fight the darkness.
While I wouldn't deny that people in the main can be profoundly effected by their social environment and that this has explanatory power, but it doesn't follow that each generations therefore have a unique singular character. Generations, like society in general (and ruling elites as well) are not homogeneous. People are different (within generations and out) because they have different psychological characteristics and different life experiences. How the evolved institutions of our society select some psychological types over others is of greater significance than whatever general character may be ascribed to each generation as whole. Democratic institutions, which force individuals competing for constituted positions within the ruling elites to play a game called an election, tend to select clever, voluble types at the expense of stronger, one might even say more aristocratic types. When individuals of the "democratic" psychological type end up dominating your ruling class over multiple generations, you'll usually wind up with a demagogic plutocracy incapable (among other deficiencies) of keeping the ever expanding hordes of the congenitally maladapted (and hence chronically discontented) in check. All this, I would suggest, is better explained by focusing on individual psychological tendencies rather that vague characteristics attributed to a generation as whole.
Are we truly in the winter of civilization? It seems that we may be transitioning out of autumn into winter. The west has food, few marauding highwaymen, people aren’t losing their homes en-masse and selling their children into slavery as has happened at the fall of previous civilizations... yet.
A truly bussin essay, ong, fr fr.
As one born in 1968 I have to admit finding this uncomfortable! One personal observation is that I had a family very young and I think this protected me somewhat, but far from entirely, from falling for the “but I’m an individual!” trap. Also, would love to see your take on Generation X by Douglas Coupland :-)
Generalizations are a good way to ignore those things that don't support what one may want to believe. In regards to those referred to as "boomers", these generalizations have more to do with media myths that are used in no small part to get younger folk to turn on "boomers" rather than turning on those who have real power, be the members of that latter group in their 80's, their 60's their 40's or whatever.
Those who bought into all that happy crappy, hippie Woodstock bs were a minority, even in its heyday (circa 1967-1968), and some of those original hippies were too old to be "boomers".
These folk were also "boomers".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsZ4XIOEKLY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9FkQLjOSZ8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3YbedLa5I0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wubb8pEdiAU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4i71jnG-BWE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o927nBd1ilM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3ae6flEFrY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtK6pdUKmio
You want smirks?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rggg9mdGdNU
And let's not forget this crazy wanker.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTc7uqFRTDI