Posted on 10/01/2008 4:06:00 AM PDT by equaviator
I recently read a manuscript about Gen X in the workplace, and as I did so, I was struck by how much of a transitional generation we are. Perhaps because of all the flux that has occurred (and continues to occur) in our time, we have always struggled to have a positive identity; so many of the experiences we share are negatives. In no particular order:
-3 Mile Island -AIDS -Tylenol scare -Drinking age went up from 18 to 21 -Existential self-awareness of grunge -Emo bands before them -Cobain’s suicide -Bush’s famous broken promise, “No new taxes” -Clinton’s impeachment
Even positives are often construed as negatives: -The Berlin Wall fell; communism failed -The Gulf War: military victory, social and geopolitical mess -Wall Street (“Greed is good…” Don’t expect loyalty!) -Political Correct movement… which stamped out discrimination on its face, and also gutted fearless, honest dialog -Dot com boom… and bust
And what’s the hallmark of our generation? Arguably, it’s our snarky, ironic, self-awareness-laden sense of humor. From the Church Lady to Colbert, with guest appearances by Garafalo and Spade, our humor has a dark overtone.
What does it mean? I dunno, maybe nothing. But as I was reading through the manuscript and cataloging for myself all the things that define us, I struggled… I interpreted the negative definitions to mean that we are not defined… we are so used to be neither this nor that, it only seemed fitting to then ascribe that same “neither” quality to our trends… hence language framed in the negative. Indeed, most of the major trends I could think of had us either a little ahead of the curve or a little behind it… very few had us right in the middle. I thought that the absence of a defining characteristic was maybe in our genes (remember “slacker?”), sort of like a collective egolessness.
Then I thought about Sherpas.
Like Gen X, Sherpas have long been part of incredible journeys, but they’ve always been just a step to the side, never in the limelight and never really part of the action. Defining the Sherpa who carried Sir Edmund Hillary’s pack for him up Mt. Everest would have taken the spotlight off Sir HIllary… and that might have ruined the the romance and majesty of the trek. Focus too heavily on Tonto, and the mystique of the “Lone” Ranger falls apart. I felt like maybe society on the whole needs us to be undefined. We’re the ones laying the ladders over the crevasses, scoping the paths, installing the ropes… taking over for the Boomers who were happy to establish base camp and prepping the pass for the Yers who we already know want to hit the peak.
But unlike the work of the mountaineering, Nepalese Sherpa, the infrastructure we are laying is far more subtle. And disruptive:
-Technology: We put together Web 1.0. Most of us who were in it knew full well we were pushing these technologies beyond their capacities, that the collapse was only a matter of time, but we also knew that we needed to lay the infrastructure hard and fast in order to force corporate America (the driving force of change in our society) to take notice. -Management: We have been flattening organizations for over a decade. Along with the Dot Com Boom came another important trend: flatter organizations. That era ushered in the idea of the meritocracy like none other: don’t like your job? Leave for a better one across the street. You’re the best programmer in the city? You could command salary and perks commensurate with your capabilities despite not being a management muckety-muck. -Values: We have been putting a torch to wanton commercialism since day one (though this trend seems to be becoming undone). One morning when my dad and I had breakfast in 1997, he was stunned to see me in a swag t-shirt and ripped jeans. “You should dress like the CEO,” he said. “I do,” I replied. Nice suits? Brand names? Not necessary. We had our fill when Guess and Girbaud had us wearing acid wash jeans and ballon-y cotton pants. We learned early that being a slave to fashion could make you look dumb, and we haven’t forgotten the lesson.
The analogy is not perfect, but the idea seems to fit. And as we enter roles of real responsibility, it’ll now be our job to shepherd society through radical change in the economy overall, from a capitalism as we used to know it to something more fluid, global, and (de)centralized. Something that, like us, has yet to be defined, that retains elements of what preceded it and includes elements of a future that is still taking shape.
We’re not in the old world, and we’re not yet in the new. We are very much in between, and it’s up to Gen X to lay the foundation that gets us from the former to the latter.
Generation X...the first truly overrated generation since WWII?
If they’re smart, they’ll start trying to figure out how to pass the tab on to Gen-Y.
It won’t be long before this thread turns into boomer bashing free for all.
“Generation X...the first truly overrated generation since WWII?”
That title would go to the self-congratulating aging hipsters of the baby-boomer generation
Ping!
For your Gen X ping list
Sorry, I couldn’t resist. Every generation has its problems.
goaty!
BARF!
If anything, the PC movement created a whole new brand of discrimination: reverse discrimination.
“Sorry, I couldn’t resist. Every generation has its problems.”
Thanks! I knew it was coming. It happens in every one of these threads when people start talking about generations.
Aging hipsters? No one born after 1952 or ‘53 could ever really have been a “hipster”. I’m 1959...I never felt that I was in the same league with the ‘43 to ‘53 league of boomers. I’d have been kidding myself.
“If anything, the PC movement created a whole new brand of discrimination: reverse discrimination.”
Good eye, Lou L...good eye!
I’ve always heard that the “Baby Boom” generation were the ones born between 1946 and 1964, and that “Gen X” was born between 1961 and 1981. I was born in 1961 (same year as 0bama, yuk) so I’m never sure which annoying bunch of losers I’m supposed to belong to.
Emo came several years after grunge. Maybe the writer is thinking of “dreampop”.
No such thing - discrimination is discrimination. What it did do is attempt to frame the argument in such a manner so that the only people "capable" of discrimination are whites. As I've pointed out to several of my black friends, that's actually an insult to them because of the implication that they are incapable of discrimination. To say that is to say that they are less human than you or me.
Technically, BB’s were between ‘46 and ‘64...X between ‘65 and ‘??...?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.