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. ☺️
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. ☺️