I agree with a lot of what you argue here, especially that “generations” are typically assigned too broad a span of dates. I would point out, though, that it’s not “the media” that came up with some of these ideas and tried to define repeating cycles of generational characteristics (which implies that there are generational characteristics, and requires one to take a stab at identifying them). I think much of the way we talk about generations, including the name tags, is actual rooted in Strauss-Howe generational theory. “Generations” was their first book on this topic, and as far as I know the first use of most of the generational nicknames other than the baby boomers. Their main claim is that American history shows a consistent pattern of 80 year cycles in society, which they explain as the result of predictable cycles in the parenting models (if I recall correctly). The notable exception was due to the Civil War.
It’s interesting that this rather specific (and somewhat dubious) hypothesis has permeated so thoroughly that its origin and original point seems to have been lost. Anyway, if you haven’t read any of their books, you might try “Generations” or “Turnings”—it would at least give you more specifics to push back on!
Thank you for your comments. 1991 was an interesting year because that year both Strauss & Howe and Douglas Coupland published books establishing the "Generation X" label. It's fair to say that Coupland's novel had greater influence on popular culture.
I have not read Strauss & Howe directly, but have read several analyses of their theory, including this very thorough one: https://www.cdamm.org/articles/strauss-howe. I find their timeline a little too self-referential, by which I mean it has internal consistency but is lacking in supportive data from the world. The biggest problem I have with their theory is I don't see how their adaptive generations transform into their idealist generations. Nevertheless, what they wrote is interesting to consider.
My article is mostly thinking of how the idea of generational demographic cohorts are used in popular culture--media and marketing. Within that sphere, I'm disturbed at how the use of such labels ignore people in their individuality and their lived experiences. Strauss & Howe's books are something I should have mentioned, so thinks for adding that.
I did read Strauss and Howe (though it’s been a long time, and I’m dating myself here!) and as I recall, it did feel like they were cherry-picking history a bit to fit the theory. I missed Copeland, so thanks for that one. I’m a Gen X myself and never felt there was any uniformity in our “generation”, so I completely agree—except in very specific cases (baby boom), the start and end points are arbitrary, and the shorthand phrases become stereotypes. I think we are in violent agreement. ☺️
I agree with a lot of what you argue here, especially that “generations” are typically assigned too broad a span of dates. I would point out, though, that it’s not “the media” that came up with some of these ideas and tried to define repeating cycles of generational characteristics (which implies that there are generational characteristics, and requires one to take a stab at identifying them). I think much of the way we talk about generations, including the name tags, is actual rooted in Strauss-Howe generational theory. “Generations” was their first book on this topic, and as far as I know the first use of most of the generational nicknames other than the baby boomers. Their main claim is that American history shows a consistent pattern of 80 year cycles in society, which they explain as the result of predictable cycles in the parenting models (if I recall correctly). The notable exception was due to the Civil War.
It’s interesting that this rather specific (and somewhat dubious) hypothesis has permeated so thoroughly that its origin and original point seems to have been lost. Anyway, if you haven’t read any of their books, you might try “Generations” or “Turnings”—it would at least give you more specifics to push back on!
Thank you for your comments. 1991 was an interesting year because that year both Strauss & Howe and Douglas Coupland published books establishing the "Generation X" label. It's fair to say that Coupland's novel had greater influence on popular culture.
I have not read Strauss & Howe directly, but have read several analyses of their theory, including this very thorough one: https://www.cdamm.org/articles/strauss-howe. I find their timeline a little too self-referential, by which I mean it has internal consistency but is lacking in supportive data from the world. The biggest problem I have with their theory is I don't see how their adaptive generations transform into their idealist generations. Nevertheless, what they wrote is interesting to consider.
My article is mostly thinking of how the idea of generational demographic cohorts are used in popular culture--media and marketing. Within that sphere, I'm disturbed at how the use of such labels ignore people in their individuality and their lived experiences. Strauss & Howe's books are something I should have mentioned, so thinks for adding that.
I did read Strauss and Howe (though it’s been a long time, and I’m dating myself here!) and as I recall, it did feel like they were cherry-picking history a bit to fit the theory. I missed Copeland, so thanks for that one. I’m a Gen X myself and never felt there was any uniformity in our “generation”, so I completely agree—except in very specific cases (baby boom), the start and end points are arbitrary, and the shorthand phrases become stereotypes. I think we are in violent agreement. ☺️