The current generational model that many pop-sociologists, newspaper columnists and marketers cling to may be a convenient framework, but it is one that is not fit for purpose in an ever shrinking and ever fracturing and more complex world. The most robust academic work in the field, the grandly titled Strauss-Howe generational model is, even to its champions, an Anglo-American-centric tool for historical framing and to its critics, a vast generalization with little empirical evidence to support its core thesis. As appetizing as an academic deep-dive on this may be, I shall limit this to thinking about recent generations and their utility (or otherwise) as a tool for understanding people, cultures from a brand perspective
The idea of these 20-year monocultural blocks in human time was born out of the post war baby-boom, particularly in the united states and were the beneficiaries of the post-war American high, rapid growth of mass culture and mass consumerism as well as a marked increase in living standards and leisure time. They were also the first group to be dissected from the outside by marketers, and in many respects it the reinforcing messages made the idea of a ‘generation’ and its particular spirit and outlook a self-fulfilling prophecy.
That the ‘boomers’ and then after, the Gen-Xer, in the US were the two most convincingly coherent cohorts and that may be no coincidence, not just because they were researched, written about and sold to in a way that molded them into a coherent whole, but also, economically speaking, in the west, they were more ‘whole’. On the ‘soft side’ you have a golden age of mass broadcast media and on the hard side you have, what is in the long history of pre-industrial, industrial and post-industrial capitalism an anomaly – a decrease in inequality. Now, not to get all Piketty about it, but with good working class wages and earnings doing better than assets, there was a chance for people of the same age across a broadly similar cultural backdrop to have similar experiences, and similar possibilities open to them, socially, professionally, educationally. Historically, this is a aberration, as the young country squire and the young peasant would have never felt part of a similar generational identity, but with decreasingly inequality, relative prosperity, mass media and a world that still felt big and un-PC enough to forget about those defined as the ‘other’ – non-capitalist, non-white, non-EU/US, we could lull ourselves into thinking that this was a world where neat 20-year blocks of people could be in it together.
Of course if we had of take a global view in the 70s when the idea of the ‘boomer’ the first marketable generation was being popularized we may have seen the fallacy of that, but we didn’t, it stuck and now in an ever shrinking world we can somehow post-rationalize the theory because we all have smartphones. Of course, we cant, and in fact, everyone doesn’t have a smartphone at all. The world is smaller for those who can afford to shrink it, which is a self-selecting and self-confirming sample. The reality is, birth year is a very poor proxy. A 24 year old urban Jakartan vs. a 24 year old in an agricultural area of Sumatra will be very different. The Jakartan may have a lot in common with a 24 year old in downtown Sao Paulo, but likewise he may have with a digitally saavy 53 year old in Berlin. Likewise the our son or daughter of the soil in Sumatra might have more in common with a middle aged Bavarian farmer.
An age based- monocultural theory works in a monoculture, as the post-war US was to a large extent ( god forbid anyone do anything as pluralistic as declare themselves a socialist, or be black and ask for rights, for that matter) but so the what was age acting as a proxy for in that self-selecting blinkered process. What are some of the key axes, the indicators that can allow us to start forming some useful cohorts, that we can map against populations?
Urban vs Rural
A key indicator, which has a huge bearing on your views, outlook and interaction with the world – shapes the kind of influences that you are expose to, the amount of risk and reward available to you and the kind of stimulus you have to shape your view. A rapidly urbanizing world offers us a dangerous confirmation bias to the idea of homogenous aged-based international cohorts…
Which itself acts as a proxy for many things, including affluence and even more strongly, political inclination – the higher your educational attainment, generally the more liberal you lean, at least within the normative framework for your cultures political spectrum
Key Life stage Markers
Another where Age was a useful proxy, but longer, less linear lives and changes in aspiration (when it comes to kids and settling down) and hard headed reality, especially when it comes to urban housing mean that it is not an accurate or useful global proxy any more)
Marriage, parenthood and Home/property ownership are all massive deciding factors shaping someone outlook and view. Where many of the western-centric generalizations about Millennials fall down in Asia is that it fails to remember how much younger people still have children and that, particularly in less equal, more patriarchal skewed set-ups, as 24 year old without a child is more different to a 24 year old with than she is to a 40 year old without
One that,, if Google and many over tech utopians have their way, will eventually disappear as a discerning factor, but the reality is that globally we are not yet at a stage when this can be disregarded. Access is uneven, can be patchy and often for many as a proportion of income (another key factor) too expensive to be ‘always on’
Optimistics vs. pessimistic
How do you see our future? How do you see the world? Naturally this will be influenced by any number of things, but it is important to take into account. There are many with huge advantages in developed nations who are negative in their worldview, and the converse is true in many more difficult to live in cultures and situations. The importance of outlook should not be overlooked
Of course, taking a mapping based on these, you would expect to see age, driving certain clusters in certain countries, but interesting to see is how that matched up against other groups else way. A Vietnamese urban 20-something might really tally with an affluent, upbeat suburban boomer on America’s east coast…!
Of course the danger here is veering in the opposite direction, but the point is we must realize that time and age are a poor proxy and no guarantee of some kind of universal human generational experience
In the name of objectivity, I should probably lay out my stall. I am not a huge fan of Margret Thatcher. Not just for the predictable ‘I work in the creative industries’ so I complain about Third World exploitation and think of myself as enlightened while wearing my Nike owned Chuck Taylors and waiting for my next pay rise for the killer break-out strategy I developed to help flog blood diamonds from the Congo into the burgeoning Chinese luxury market. I hate her on so many other levels. Working in London, and having grown up in south London, (unlike every other ‘Londoner’ I meet’- again, that is another rant for another day…) I saw how horrid this city was in the early nineties.
My memories of walking round the streets of Streatham then was a city that was very grey, very ugly and very unloved- a city where some people had spent the last ten years doing well, and hang the rest.
Now of course, there are many nuanced arguments about Thatcher, and if you want to understand them fully, ( and I promise to offer no more glib faux-analysis today) I would highly recommend the magnificent book written by my late tutor at Magdalen, Ewen Green.
One of the glib accusations that my fictional Chuck be-Taylored colleague may level at the Iron Lady was that she wanted to destroy society- that Bristol, Toxteth and Brixton were all part of her socially divisive agenda. I disagree with this ( I wrote my undergraduate thesis on the Brixton riots and Lord Scarman’s report- home office policy and policing has a lot to answer for though), but it is interesting to hear this misinterpretation.
She was quoted in a 1987 ‘Womans Own’ interview as saying that for those who feels that society owes them a certain standard of life, in her conception there is ‘no such thing as society’. In many ways she encouraged family values rather than state nannying and this can be seen again in the up to 50% reduction of the state that the current government expects to cover with the fig leaf of ‘big society’. The point is that Thatcher gets distorted, just like her rubber-faced doppelganger above.
I still hate her, but I will leave that on the shelf for now.
Thatcher’s liberalisation of economic policy and reduction of (at least in ideological terms, the extent to which the state was actually rolled back is debatable) the role of state created the ‘Loadsamoney’ phenomenon, as brilliantly parodied by Harry Enfield. Brash, self-serving, and interested in actualisation through acquisition, they were always going to be destined to be a little rough round the edges as they were the first to experience this seismic shift, let loose in the sweetshop of deregulated capitalism.
A quarter of a century later, it is web generation, those who have always grown up online, those in their late teens and early 20s now who are really fulfilling Thatcher’s dream. The number of 20-somethings who have opened a shop or a gallery, who have built pop-up bars or founded record labels, converted warehouses, lived in artist collectives or squats is huge. They all see themselves as iconoclastic, break-out individuals, but they are really part of a new nation of shop keepers. Growing up online meant that they always took for granted the idea that you could do anything for next to nothing- the start up costs were minimal, and everything became scalable. You could suddenly, though not surprisingly, find yourself running a music or arts festival.
Thatcher didn’t want us to be held ransom by labour (note small ‘l’)- the unions, the mines, the factories, she wanted to see a successful atomisation of what she felt was a needlessly public vision of society that represented barriers to her individual-centric (but not without responsibility) vision for Britain.
If ‘call me Dave’ wants to energise his ‘Big Society’ it is the galleries of Peckham and the club nights of Hackney he should go to to learn how he can get people to take things on for themselves- to become social entrepreneurs.
Personally I think there is still an important role of the state if those who have best managed to heed Thatcher’s call to arms are a bunch of Bethnal Green Ket-Trolls…