Generations

[Gene]

I've just been wondering recently . . .

How does one define one generation from another. Something Maegan said struck a chord: she defined it as around 20 years, from the birth of a child to when they themselves have children. Whilst this seems fine, the problem I have with it is that people are being born all the time. There's no direct point when you can say 'this Generation has ended, and this new one has begun'.

So my question is, how does one define a generation, or separate one from another? Thanks for any answers.

[Einna]

I thought about this myself a couple of years ago 'cause in the Buffy show (One slayer in each generation) there were dozens of girls all of the same age, all potential slayers. This is, of course, because people are being born all the time. All it takes is for one family to reproduce 4 or 5 years earlier than another family in each generation, and they'd have an extra generation in every 4 or 5.

As for how I'd define it...it depends on what the scale is. "Todays generation" reffering to people generally tends to go in 10 or 20 year gaps, and anyone who fits into that time period is part of that generation. With family, it's more literal.

[Orion283]

I suppose it has to do with the culture of the time, which seems to cycle on a roughly 10-year basis. Every decade or two ya look around and see things are a lot different than they used to be. Especially in America, the people born in each decade had very different lives. The optimisim of the 20s, the downtrodden 30s, gung-ho 40s, old-school 50s, rebellious 60s, experimental 70s, funky 80's, radical 90's, and the technological 2k.

Come to think of it, music can define a generation as well. Music is an interesting way of leaving a message of how things were and what people were like when the song was written.

[Hippie]

I think Orion summed up what I was going to say nicely. :D *high-fives*

[Ariella]

Yeah, I was going to say "around every decade" but Orion got there before me.

But even so, it's not that clear-cut; I was born in '91 and would consider myself to be in the same generation as my sister, born in '89, but not of the same generation as some of my tiny cousins, who were born in the mid/late '90s. I guess it's different for everyone? And changes depending on what age group you associate with the most.

Maybe it's more of a "who you can relate to" thing more than chunks of ten years. For now, my generation is pretty small -- teens within a year or two of me -- but as I get older and am no longer confined to immediate peers (via grades in school), maybe I'll consider my generation to be anyone born from '86 to '96? It's all relative.

[Orion283]

Woo *returns high five, distributes waffles*

[Periwinkle]

Hm...I was going to say 30 years, but then I read what Orion said about 10 years and now I'm not sure. I was going to say 30 because that's approximately the age people have children, allowing for those who have them younger/older.

[butterfly]

I think they define "generation x, y" etc in blocks of about 10 years. But in families, it varies in every strand of family. For example, my great grandmother died recently, and the my-age children in my grandmother's older sister's family lost their grandmother. So in just 45 years (from when my mother was born) our strand of the family has jumped ahead a generation.

[Lord of Fools]

^ It's sometimes more than ten years. The Baby Boomers went for almost 20 years (1945-64). I can't remember exactly, but supposedly I'm in generation W, which really doesn't get the media attention the two preceding ones (Boomers and Gen X), or Gen Y did/are getting, but meh. The whole 'generational' thing is just marketing talk really. Television programmers and advertisers are always trying to appeal to certain age demographics, and its easier to label them, and the social trends following them or instigated by them. Sweeping statements like 'Baby Boomers are more conservative than Generation X' very rarely apply in a context outside of sociological query. Often they are completely inaccurate, like the one above (let's not forget the so-called Baby Boomers were the hippies and anti-war protestors of the 70s, and quite often the racial equality marchers of the 60s). Not everyone in Generation X is going to be cynical and media-savvy- that's a general trend.

My point, anyway, is that regardless of when generations start, the whole idea that a person can be defined by the decade (or whatever) in which they were born isn't as applicable as some would have it. I'm not saying the idea doesn't have any credence, but it should be taken with a grain of salt.

[MelancholyBliss]

LONG POST WARNING

Originally, "generation" referred more to what Maegan defined it as. It's a general 20 year span between the births of people within a society which mirrored the typical procreation practices of most families. Grandparents are one generation, parents are the next, children following, etc. Biologically, it still refers to pretty much that.

Sociology-wise, that definition is different. Society no longer reproduces at a predictable rate. While there are often trends in the median age of when people reproduce, it's too sporadic in the grand scheme of things to really coincide with another definition of a "generation", one that is used more in sociological studies and that is a group of like individuals' influences and environment. Though it is first dependent on a change in the amount of babies being born within a time span it is then defined by certain characteristics that mold and influence the people in a given amount of time. That time can be a matter of 5 years or 10 years or more. It considers a number of aspects from politics to environment to arts and entertainment, etc. And that is why the clearly defined "20 year gap" clashes with sociological ideas of what a generation is.

My personal example: This whole Generation X idea. Its origins refer to a time after the baby boomers when people were not producing as much as the generation before. First it referred to people born in the early 60's. It started to change to encompass a still higher rate of reproduction with those born anywhere from the mid 60's to the late 70's, 1975/76 usually being the cut off year. Generation X began to describe an attitude of those people that is hard to really wrap your mind around. Throw Coupland's book into the mix and it begins to get even more hazy. It's difficult to define.

I am cleary born too late to be defined as a Gen X'er. However, if you look at some of the defining characteristics of that generation, you're talking about a big chunk of my teen years. The things I like most and associate with my upbringing have been defining characteristics of Gen X'ers despite the fact that I was much younger. Then consider gen Y which actually only refers to people born in a small clump of 5 years in the late 80's/early 90's. Significant events and traits of this generation are my memories from my late teens/early 20's. I was effected by these changes and certainly remember them, but I don't consider them the defining characteristics of "my time". I remember when Clinton wasn't president, when only one girl in my junior class at high school had internet and reality TV was a novel idea that was still kind of interesting.

So where does my generation fit? It comes after gen X and before gen Y. How are people my age classified into a generation? The thing is, we're not in the typical sense because it didn't show a strong sense of decline or increase of births. We were born on the cusp. Both X and Y showed a difference of characteristics from each other but the ten years between the two (people like me) is usually left undefined. When given any notice, we are defined as the MTV generation. Yeah, thanks. That's a GREAT defining characteristic now. Although, people need to take note that those of us of that generation remember when MTV played music, when we learned the dance moves to Thriller in our living rooms, watched Liquid Television and Beavis and Butthead, and we angsted out to Headbanger's Ball and Alternative Nation. I think we are also called the Boomerang generation for our tendency of ending up back on our parents' couches after setting out on our own for college or work, becoming an adult, not being able to do it our own or excusing our need to take down time and find ourselvs and flying back to the nest.

So yeah. There really isn't a clear definition of what a "generation" is. In a cultural sense it really cannot be confined in a nice box set clearly pointing out where any person actually fits.

[adelaidejane]

Orion and MB are very articulate and wise.

[Gene]

Probably comes from being from the generation they are. (Laughs uproariously.)


Anyway, thanks for all the discussion, guys. It's ironic how many generations are tied to whatever US president is in power, isn't it. Even over here, people say the 'Blair/Bush' generation, rather than just the 'Blair' generation.

(Actually, 'New Labour' generation is more common, but now I'm just nit-picking.)

[Hippie]

I don't know what generation I'm in... can anyone enlighten me?

[MelancholyBliss]

Hippie - It depends. The generation information I cited in my previous post referred mostly to trends in reproduction rises and declines. But still, depending on where you look, who you ask or what you're talking about, different people will say different things.

Taking rise and declines of reproduction out of the equation sometimes makes these titles dependant on cultural definitions. Gen Y'ers tend to encompass more than the original 5 years of a rise in reproduction. Culturally, Generation Y refers to those who are growing up during the turn of the millenium and are usually born between the early 80's and late 90's. Its subsets are the Echo boom in the beginning and that still is a part of the whole reproduction thing, Echo boomers reflecting a rise in reproduction as the children of the Baby Boomers born in the late 40's, early 50's. Culturally, they are those who were coming of age during the change into the digital revolution and politically, culture wars and a rise in terrorism. After that is the iGeneration, those born in the 90's who probably don't remember a time before internet technology, also called the Myspace generation or Generation Now.

I don't know what year you were born in, but if you only consider the influences around you and what you define as the world you live in now and have been for the past 10 or so years, you'd either place yourself as an Echo Boomer or a iGen'er.

(references: some book by William Strauss and someone else that was part of my course material a couple of years ago for a Sociology class. I read it last night because of all the talk of defining generations but I forgot what it's called. It might just be called Generations.)

[Hippie]

I'd actually be a Generation Y, in the iGeneration half, being born in 1990. Which makes me sad. I don't like most of my generation ANYWAY. *sulks* (But thank you for explaining, MB! :D)

I know my brother belongs to that part, though, in late '91. The computer was his reason to learn to read. Because my dad was sick of having to read everything to him at the computer. @_@

[MelancholyBliss]

Well, with the loose definitions and hazy lines, you could still consider yourself an Echoboomer. Do you know when your parents were born? If they were babyboomers, you'd technically be an Echoboomer.

Also, do you remember a time in your life getting by without computers? When you didn't know much about terrorism?

Screw it... I say if you want to call yourself an Echoboomer you can.

And again, what are YOU complaning about? I am the MTV Generation. Though I reiterate, MTV was once cool. Even if it did kill Rock n Roll.

[Hippie]

They aren't, they're really young. I'm close to 18 and my mom just turned 40. My dad would have been... uh... 44? Yeah. Not old for parents of kids my age, at least at my school.

And I can *sort of* remember no computers. I remember when Clinton had the scandal. I remember when Bush was elected to office (I knew enough even then to be mad about that. If an eleven year old girl without a political bias can figure it out, why can't a whole country?) and I remember 9-11. I was just starting sixth grade, so that'd mean I was 11 years old then, too. I do remember a time not knowing was terrorism was. I remember asking my mom "Why do they think it's some group of people. What if it was just a bunch of stupid teenagers?" and her reaction, looking at me as if I was *stupid*. Which, well... I was. But I was optimistic that there wasn't a group specifically out to hurt America.

Oh how naive I was... So! Technically, I'm part of the iGen. And there's no way I can be classified as an Echoboomer, but I'm okay with that.

I'm just going to... disassociate myself with the whole generation scheme.

[MelancholyBliss]

Actually, you can be classified as an Echoboomer because 1990 was when the rise in reproduction peaked. 1990 saw an almost extreme rise in babies being born which is what that whole generation was supposed to be about, sociologically. 1990 is about when the Echoboom went over the edge and stopped. iGen saw a decline and plateau and usually starts in 1991 even though, culturally, there's barely a difference between babies born in those two years.

Cuturally, you are probably more of the iGen.

Your parents are another part of a cusp group after the boomers and hippies but before the X'ers. We "cuspers" are supposed to be like the middle children of generations. Nothing clearly defining us, never fitting in to one group or another, always wondering where we belong, etc.

It's so much easier for me to just say "I was an 80's child."

[MelancholyBliss]

Hehe... I am now sitting in my pop culture class and we are discussing the course material we'll be studying in two weeks.

The books? Generations: The History of America's Future, 1584 - 2069 by William Strauss and Neil Howe and The Fourth Turning by William Strauss and Neil Howe.

The subject matter? The differences between generations and their influences both from and on popular culture.

We are basically going to be discussing exactly what we're talking about in this thread.

[Aquamonet]

*hugs Hippie* I was born in 87 so we can be both Generation Y. I see you as the same generation as me anyway.

My parents were born in the early 1940s (pre babyboom) so I suppose there's a serious generation gap between us.

[Thuriel]

I'm an echoboomer! :D

...Felt like sharing. *cough*

My parents just sneaked into the end of the baby boomers... my mother doesn't actually consider herself one; she was born at the end of '64.

I'm of the opinion that a generation can't really be defined except retroactively, so for example the baby boomers can be because they're all old and set in their ways now (hee! ^^) but whatever those generations are that are the people still going up in the world... we have to wait for those. Especially for the people who were born '90s-on--we're all still teenagers or younger, people; you can trace the development of us as a generation from how we were when we were teenagers but you can't look ahead to what we'll be like in the future because you don't know!

I'm not making sense, am I? Hmm.

[Dwiesel McAllister]

Wow. Aqua, we were born in the same year, and Hippie, you were born in the same year as my sister!
Well, my dad was born in 1944, and my mom was born in 1952. That puts them at about 8 years apart. My dad was kind of between the beatnik and hippie generations, and the hippie generation was between my mom and my dad. Each era has its own specific characteristics, but some are confined to a four-or five year period, like the hippies and beatniks.
Also, generations tend to alternate between conservativism and liberalism. My great-grandmother grew up in the Roaring 20s, and she was pretty wild. My grandma was really conservative, and my mom's generation, though not entirely comprised of hippies, was definitely more liberal. I was kind of born between generations, because while all the other women in my family started reproducing at age 20, my mom had me when she was 35.

[MelancholyBliss]

Well, the Hippies and the Beatniks refer to two cultural phenomenons that took place during the same time. Both of them are considered the same sub-generation of the Generation Jones. Both took place between the late 50's - early 60's although the Hippie Sub-gen lasted a bit longer.

From the year your dad was born in, he'd actually be a part of the Baby Boomers. When you consider what generation you were a part of, it's easiest to go by what was going on when you were a teen as those are almost the most developmental years of your life sociologically. Your dad would have already been entering adulthood during the genesis of the Beatnik/Hippie Sub-gen. Your mom would be part of Gen Jones. Though it would have a lot more to do with her cultural influences when it comes to generation consideration. Beatniks and Hippies kind of evolved in different parts of America and came together during the drug induced, free love party that was San Francisco.

These are all generational definitions put forth by Strauss who most sociological circles prescibe to. However, there are other definitions depending on authors. The lines are blurred and they mostly describe the same things, though.