In fact I have seen "Summer of Sam" Justin - along with all the "Godfather" movies and the ultimate Italian-American Boomer saga, "Goodfellas." (And yes, the scene you describe sounds totally familiar!)

This brings up an interesting point: There is a "movement" on to boycott the sponsors of "The Sopranos" because it "stereotypes" Italians. Among those on board are Marge Roukema (New Jersey Congresswoman), Andrew Cuomo and Bob Toricelli (New Jersey Senator) - all Boomers. Funny how Italian-American Busters like Valerie Bertinelli, Madonna or Quentin Tarantino aren't getting involved in this ridiculous campaign (and James Gandolfini, who of course plays Tony Soprano, is himself a Buster, born 1961). Certain people need to get a life!

Right now if you go to http://www.babybusters.org you will see an "Under Construction" message. Try back again in a couple of days and the real thing should be up by then!

The SILENT-BOOMER BOUNDARY

In her autobiography "Somebody to Love?"
Grace Slick (born 1939) makes the following statement.

"I notice that I don't even feel comfortable with people my own age, let alone those who are older. The post fifty-five set seems deadened by something or soured by the constant intrusion of reality."

The biography, published in 1998, would place that boundary at 1943. I guess this might dispel the idea that the Boom started in 1939.

Recently I have started to see 40 year olds as being not authority figures, but equal to me. This started when I got an album by Manu Chao, an international singer whos 40, and hung around my Uncle Bob and his friends (all early to mid 60s cohorts)We have the same viewpoints on alot of things, but all feel very impotent about solving the worlds problems.

As for this weekends murder of a protestor at the G8 summit in Italy, all the quotes i read were from people 40 and under, except for veterans of the 60s and 70s protests that show up to train younger people.
I think the anti-consumer ethic that is the clarion call of this movement is the fruition of our generations perceptions.
As adbuster Kalle Lasn wrote of my generation in 1999.
"The North American Generation born between 1965 and 1980 (what the French call the malaise generation) know whats wrong with this consumer culture, they just arent willing to do anything about it."
We proved you wrong Kalle.

So that's now four errors S&H made in "Generations" - because they had Grace Slick as being born in 1943. They also misidentified Robert Moses as a G.I., when in fact he was born in 1888! The other two can be characterized as "Freudian slips" - in the index in the back they have Ed Koch listed as Silent (he was actually born in December 1924; though at least arguably, his persona is more Silent than G.I.); and they include Ice-T (born 1958!) in the "Thireteenth Generation" chapter (as "Ice-T" raps about "bitches").

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Anthony '58 on 2001-07-22 01:02 ]</font>

What Justin says about the 2T/3T mood shift occurring over a period of time, 1984-86, rather than a fixed, precise moment, make alot of sense. S&H do mention in T4T that a catalyst need not involve a single event, could in fact be a series of (possibly) unrelated events occuring over several months or years.

Perhaps this is what happened here. Instead of a mood shift like that which occurred on November 23, 1963; or on October 30, 1929 (exactly 30 years before I was born by the way!)-- there could have been a series of events that together triggered the Unravelling. Those 3T "mini-triggers" which undermined the idea that government and culture was still "working" might have started as far back as 1980-81, with the Disco Backlash, Reagan's initial election, and the freeing of the hostages in Iran. After these events came a serious recession, the Tylenol scare (1982) and the downing of Korean Airlines Flight 007 (1983). We had Reagan's "Morning In America" landslide reelection the next year, but then came the Challenger explosion (1986) and finally the Black Monday market crash (1987).

The pattern I see here is one of great hopes for a rebounding America being raised to new heights (by Reagan's grandfatherly optimism and routine space shuttle launches), then cruelly dashed. It is this pattern which I believe pushed us into the current Unravelling. As to when the scales actually tipped from 2T to 3T, I still think Challenger is a surer bet than Reagan II. Another possibility is that the 1981-82 recession was actual trigger of 3T (which I believe Mike A. feels is true)-- and that Challenger was the "social moment" at which all of society realized that the old Awakening was finished.

I suppose we will not know the answers to these questions for sure until the current Turning is long over and we are neck deep in the Crisis.

Hang on.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin Parker '59 on 2001-07-22 19:57 ]</font>

Yo,
The awakening didn't just happen on November 23,1963. Even a look at my Mom's 65 yearbook reveals a very High looking crowd (not on pot!)
It was really by 1966 that the hair started growing, which by 1968 had become the norm.
So you could see 1964-67 as one of those transitional peroids as well.
It took til 1967 or 68 for San Francisco to reach Des Moines in some Mild Form.

I would agree, Justin-- sort of. Recalling some discussions that Susan B. and I had last year, our early childoods in N.J. in the mid- to late-1960s, were both very much High-era experiences, right down to the campfire-esque songs we sang on our day camp bus. What we felt happened was that the big cities like New York went 2T before the smaller cities and their suburbs, at least with regard to the child's world.

In the adult world, however, there were definite Awakening-esque stirrings in the air well before 1966-- the Beatles and Stones on Ed Sullivan and the Watts Riots to name just a couple major ones. Hence, the Awakening seemed to manifest itself completely within about 2 years of Dallas. Conversely, the Unravelling-type events I described above occurred over a 6-7 year period from 1980-87. So, it still seems like the Awakening-- on a national level-- began far more suddenly than the Unravelling did, even if neither was exactly instantaneous.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin Parker '59 on 2001-07-23 11:25 ]</font>

The Web site is finally up!

http://www.babybusters.org

I checked out the new babybuster website-well done Anthony! Now that the baby boom has been exposed as the generational myth that it is, I suggest that S&H rename the Prophet generation in future editions of the books. Somebody once posted the moniker of "Woodstock Generation." This would bypass the baby boom myth, and the general public should be able to relate to this name. Of course, the Boom Awakening should be renamed the "Woodstock Awakening." ~*~ ~*~ ~*~

Kudos for the effort in creating a website, Anthony, but it does seem rather misguided. The "Baby Buster" moniker is just horrible (for multiple obvious reasons) and the birth years are off as well. It seems like you are trying to replace the Generation Jones moniker, but what you are doing is way too little, way too late--GenJones is here to stay. Speaking of which, I saw a very interesting piece about Generation Jones last week on MSNBC, which had among other things some footage of Prez GWBush talking about the importance of Generation Jones and how if the Baby Boomers don't lead, GenJones is right behind waiting to take over. Also, I saw this article in the local paper a couple days ago (from the Newhouse News Service on Tuesday which means it probably has run in lots of neswpapers this week). It came complete with a chart of generations that went from Baby Boomers to Generation Jones to Generation X. Here's the article:

As Life Speeds Up, Should We Rethink How We Define Generations?

By MICHELE M. MELENDEZ

c.2001 Newhouse News Service




Before baby boomers flooded the postwar scene, generations were merely branches on the family tree.

Now that Americans routinely sort each other by age, some experts are rethinking how we define generations. Many still argue that generations are rhythmic, that they churn in cycles of about 20 years and follow patterns. But dissenters say that technology and other forces are accelerating this process, that children are exposed to a host of remarkably different experiences at shorter intervals.

"I don't know it's an exact science to begin with," said Charles Schewe, professor of marketing at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and co-founder of Lifestage Matrix Marketing, a research and consulting firm. "You don't come out of the placenta with a certain set of values."

Generational experts often disagree on the details. They bind America's generations by different years. Traditionally, boomers were born from 1946 to 1964, but researchers have played with those lines. The demarcation for Generation X has varied, too: Does it end during the mid-1970s or the early 1980s? And experts are divided on what to call the youngest generation. They've been dubbed Generation Y, Millennials, N-Gens and Echo Boomers.

In a strict sense, a generation is a group of people born within about 20 years of each other. When the first children of that set reach adulthood and begin to have the next wave of babies, a new generation begins. The elements of history -- social, cultural and political events -- during a generation's formative years leave distinguishing marks.

Authors William Strauss and Neil Howe, who have written several books together, have mapped America's generations, starting with the 16th century.

Strauss and Howe found a cycle: Traits and attitudes repeated every four generations. An idealistic generation gave rise to a reactive generation, which bred a civic generation, which produced an adaptive generation.

So, in Strauss and Howe's theory, the boomers are idealistic, Generation X is reactive, and the youngest generation, which the authors call "Millennials," is civic-minded. The authors predict next will come an adaptive generation, like the children of the Great Depression four generations ago.

In that arrangement, generations run 20 to 25 years.

"Generations are not shrinking; that's a conceit of the present," Strauss said. "Technological change was far more profound in the 1920s than now, and generations didn't speed up then, either."

Ann Fishman, founder and president of the New Orleans-based consulting firm Generational Targeted Marketing, accepts the 20-cycle, but regards marking generations as a flexible art.

"If there were defining historical events that cause shifts in a generation, you would be a fool to say, `No, I have to stick to a 20-year cycle,"' she said. "It's done through observation and probably an ability to put randomly occurring events in perspective."

Some experts argue that a generation is fluid, guided more by personal identification than time frames or marketing labels. History, technology, fashion and media all have a say, even though their measurements are unclear.

Jonathan Pontell believes it. He was born in 1958, in boomer territory. But he felt too young to be a boomer and too old to be an Xer. In 1997, he coined the name "Generation Jones" -- as in "jonesing for his own generation," using the slang term for a strong craving. It stamps a splinter generational group born during the late boomers and early Generation X years: 1954 to 1965.

"The idea that a generation is 20 to 25 years seems to me, frankly, laughable," said Pontell, who runs a generational organization called The Jones Group in Marina del Rey, Calif. "How could somebody who's 35 today, raised during Watergate, finishing her doctorate, how could she be in the same generation as a 55-year-old father, now a member of AARP considering retirement?"

Generation Jones represents the real children of the '60s, Pontell said. They were raised during a decade of idealism but grew up during the escalating pessimism of the 1970s. They saw the first astronauts on the moon in 1969, but they also crawled through an oil crisis, the Vietnam War and Watergate at an impressionable age.

Pontell said his generation -- born within a 12-year span -- mixes the idealism of boomers and the cynicism of Xers.

Dennis Trinkle, history professor at DePauw University in Greencastle, Ind., said the discussion of generations has been transformed since post-World War II optimism and the appearance of the estimated 77 million boomers. Before that massive generation emerged, Trinkle said, the general public didn't talk about generations.

In recent years, especially in the media, it has been hard to escape generations. Fictional space exploration evolved on television with "Star Trek: The Next Generation." Pepsi hawked its cola with a campaign called "Generation Next." Telecommunications giant WorldCom named "generation d" to mark a "digital" generation "unlike any generation that preceded it, because it's not characterized by one's age, but by one's attitude." AARP launched a magazine called My Generation.

As talk about generations has expanded, some experts have dropped the 20- to 25-year demarcation, Trinkle said.

"In the last 20 years, in discussing generations, the focus has moved much more to the shared outlook of youth," he said. "Because technology has accelerated the pace of change in culture experience, we now are drawing generational distinctions every 10 or 15 years," he said. "If you stress technology, some make generations five years."

According to some time frames, Paul Miller, 21, of Columbia, Md., and Kari DeHoff, 9, of Laurel, Md., share a generation. Miller said he doesn't think much of the term "Generation Y" or being categorized into such a group, and Kari couldn't tell you what a generation is.

But in a video arcade, among the pixels, lights and electronic music, the two are equals. On a recent day at Jillian's, a Hanover, Md., entertainment complex, Kari held her own against Miller, the son of her godmother.

They met technology at different ages. Miller got his first e-mail address at age 16, Kari at 8. She can't remember life without personal computers and video games; he recalls simpler times.

Do these two young people represent different generations?

Robert Thompson, a professor of television, radio and film and director of the Center for the Study of Popular Television at Syracuse University in New York, said it might be best to divide people into smaller groups who are closer in age.

"Perhaps it's time to quit carelessly using the term `generation' and refer to these periods simply as `periods' or `eras' or `decades,"' he said. "The mass confusion created by the definition of Generation X, for example, shows how problematic these terms can be -- older Generation Xers have much more in common with baby boomers than they do with the younger members of their so-called generation."

Trinkle said a way to skirt the debate is to think like marketers and educators. Both groups have long divided people into "cohorts," sets of individuals who live through similar historical events at about the same age. Cohort groups can span any number of years.

Some experts prefer focusing strictly on life stages, rather than generations.

In 1976, journalist and author Gail Sheehy published "Passages: Predictable Crises of Adult Life." She popularized life stage theory for adults, much as Dr. Spock did for children. As children go through the "terrible 2s," adults experience the "trying 20s" and the "forlorn 40s," according to Sheehy.

Nancy Snow, associate director of the Center for Communications and Community at the University of California, Los Angeles, said life as a series of stages makes sense. She said splitting the population into generations with fancy names hinders cooperation among age groups.

"We need to redefine generations as youth, middle age and older instead of all this Gen X ... baby boomers, Generation Jonesers, Echo Boomers, et cetera," said Snow, a political science professor.

She continued, "These categories are convenient for marketing purposes, but for social and economic development and public policy matters, we need to recognize that we have got a battle for the hearts and minds of our youth and aged generation."

Whether it's called a generation, a cohort or a life cycle, experts agree that looking at people through the events that happened during their formative years matters to social science, business, public policy and pop culture. The process, they say, has value.

"It's incredibly important to do it, because it tells us a lot about people," said Richard Thau, president of Third Millennium in New York City, a group monitoring the interests of Generation X and younger. "Generational changes have a huge influence on American life."

(Michele M. Melendez can be contacted at michele.melendez@newhouse.com)



E-mail the Author

I think Strauss and Howe DO break generations down into "eras"
They're called waves, but I don't think they put enough importance on them.
For example I have two jobs.
One is with people that I definitely consider to be in my generation.
The eldest is 29, the youngest 20.
Perceived membership is important, its people you consider your peers and feel you have a common age location.
At my other job however I work with a 63 and 66 cohort--supposed members of my generation as well. I have met many mid 60s cohorts and feel a i have alot in common with them, but I dont feel like I have a percieved common age location with this group. These guys have families, and are in their mid 30s, I am in my early 20s. They say my generation is BAD(mine???) but their kids and the kids they teach (one is a high school teacher) are GOOD. But its got to be one or the other, Im either in a generation with them, or Im in one with their kids, (the eldest is 14) so which is it gonna be?
The answer is pretty obvious.
I am in the generation of people in their 20s and 30s. Although the 60s wave is far different from the 70s wave, we have more in common with each other than with the 50s wave or the 80s wave.
These guys arent that much older than me anyway. The younger guy was 25 in 1991, and to me, 1991 doesnt seem that long ago or different at all. While we are very different waves, we have more in common with each other than with other generations.
Oh yeah, none of us vote :sad:

Anthony, those birth years are neither the demographic "baby bust" nor in any sense a generation. To repeat what Neil and I have said many times before, to describe a generation as being 10 or 12 years reflects a misunderstanding of the relationship between generations and history. And the actual "baby bust" began either in 1965 or in 1971, depending on how you define "bust." There were quite a lot of babies born between 1958 and 1964 (through 1970, actually). The main birth trough extended from 1971 throug 1976.

Anthony, just came back from visiting your website http://www.babybusters.org. Great job! The site is informative, well written, and makes some good points.

Again, the only problem I have is your unfortunate choice of the label "baby busters" for our cohort group. I agree with the person above who says that "Generation Jones" is here to stay. The other problem (which can be easily fixed) is that there are many typos and misspelled words. Of course, the site is brand new and I'm sure you will catch these and correct them. Also, you should add a bulletin board feature to make it interactive--or at least a guest book.

Glad you liked the site, Susan. And I know all about the typos - they are on the "Debunking The Baby Boom Myth" page no doubt - my "webmaster" had someone type it out on a word processor, and that's how the errors got there; they will be corrected, hopefully in the next day or two. And I have retained a message board for the site and that too, should be linked up within a couple of days.

And sorry if you're cross-eyed from reading the printing - a scanner was used to publish most of the pages; I do plan on having it re-done "properly" soon.

Anthony, I also cruised your Web Site. Very clever!

One quibble with your cohort names (and I do see your age groupings as cohorts rather than true "generations"). Calling those born in the 1900's "antebellum"??? That term conjures images of Gone With The Wind (the opening scene). That name is worse than "Busters" for my juniors (I was born in 1956 so I just missed being a Buster, although some would put me in the Joneser group and I consider myself a late-wave Boomer.

Well Anthony, according to your numbers
Kurt Cobain (1967)
Eddie Vedder (1964)
Courtney Love (1964)
Chris Cornell (1964)
Thom Yorke (1968)
Anthony Kiedis (1962)
and countless others are too old for the Mosh Pit.Mosh as a word was actually invented by an Early 60s cohort, HR from Bad Brains, an early 80s DC based punk/reggae/hardcore act.
I guess they were all confused.

Justin, you are, of course, correct about the origins of "mosh;" however, the concept has been stereotypically attached by the media to the 1970s cohorts - just like the term "Gen X" has, come to think of it. This is what I was getting at with my intro on the home page.

And Jenny, the term used on the site for the 1900-1910 cohort-group is "Interbellum" - not "Antebellum." "Interbellum" means between the (two World) wars, when this generation's formative experiences occurred. (I also had considered including two Lost "mesogenerations" on that page - the first one was going to be designated the "Edwardian Generation" born 1883 to 1891 and the second the "Lost Generation" born 1892 to 1900 - but since virtually all of these cohorts are now deceased this was not proceeded with).

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Anthony '58 on 2001-07-28 00:44 ]</font>

I have noticed something this year that I never have before: the explosion of "black balloon" or "over the hill" parties for people turning 40. This week alone I have seen two of these: one at a nearby house, where black balloons festooned the walkway and front porch, and another for someone at work.

This seems to reflect a rather sharp shift in attitude toward this pivotal age, from the somewhat embarrassed, I-never-want-to-grow-old Boomer attitude, to a more positive, humorous and even joyful one shown by Xers turning 40. When i turned 40 three years ago, I was rather embarrassed about it, and would not dream of calling attention to it. In fact, I distinctly remember not even telling anyone it was my birthday. Even now, I look at being "fortysomething" as an unavoidable fact of life, but certainly not something to celebrate or be proud of. Newly 40-something Xers, however, seem not to mind at all, and are likely to tell everyone and even celebrate it with black balloons and "over the hill" jokes. I think this is a positive thing that just might, in time, spill over to the Boomers, who still hate being thought of as "old." I think much of this attitude on the part of Xers has to do with a sort of relief at finally being able to slow down and lessen the frenetic pace--turning 40 gives you a great excuse to do so.

My parents turned 40 in 1987. They threw this huge party which I wasn't supposed to attend but did, which wound up with about 100 people jumping into our pool drunk. The next spring when we reopened the pool I still found stuff, like lighters etc, that had fallen out of their pockets that night. 40 was a big deal for them. 40 to me now doesnt seem AS old. My brother as well as many friends are hitting 30, so I feel that when I hit 30 it will be an acceptable age to be. so I guess 40 will feel the same. I never understood why Boomer women went to such great lengths to conceal their age. I always thought that gray hair was dignifying and cool looking---gave you character...I beg my mom to let hers grow out...but NO. And I think Boomer women are way more accepting of plastic surgery than Xer women.

Justin, turning 30 is great. It is a much more confident age to be than 20, and your "star" is still rising. Physically, you are still in much the same shape as at 20--perhaps a little heavier but maybe even a little healthier (ie., some learn to pick up some healthy habits such as sleep, excercise, and cutting back on the pizza and beer diet). Energy level is probably a bit lower at 30. You are more likely to emit a louder-sounding "ahhhhh" after sitting down after a long day at age 30. You are less likely to pull an "all nighter" of partying and studying and get through the next day on an extra cup of coffee. Instinctually you feel like crashing for the night at about 11 during the week--certainly no later than midnight.

Emotionally, you are less shocked or battered by things, and people give you more respect. Chances are, you've figured out what goals are realistic and which ones aren't, and made peace with them. You still have dreams but you begin to notice your feet on the ground.

Mentally...hmm...at 30 it is demanded of you to be more fascile with language and better able to communicate, so most people meet this challenge and develop a better "presence" and ability to "think on one's feet." Due to the accumulation of life's complexity, there is a sensation of "time speeding up" from year to year, and a longer delay in grasping details from memories.

Do I feel old? Nah. Maybe there are some gray hairs sprouting here and there, a few wrinkles creeping around the eyes. But most people are still likely to be somewhat older, statistically speaking.

Turning 30 WAS great! I look young for my age and therefore feel compelled to broadcast it at every chance I get. As I think I have previously posted, most Boomers I know still think they are 25, and so they think that Xers are children and treat us as such. So, most thirtysomething Xers I know are constantly reminding Boomers, especially at work, that we are in our 30s. I think it will be a huge relief when we all turn 40. No-one will treat us like children when we are in our 40s. Of course by then rising Millies will treat us like old fogeys. I think I will enjoy that.

Turning 40 a couple years ago was one of the best birthdays i ever had. 30 was a lot more difficult, I think because I hadn't yet learned how to accept this aging thing. At this point, though, this "old" Joneser has learned how to live life in a way that I never knew how to when younger.

What did I do when I turned 40? Bought myself a brand-new 2000 BMW 3-series! The 2-door coupe version-- definitely not the sedan. At 41 I STILL cannot see myself driving a boring 4-door sedan, although my wife's VW Passat is a rather cool exception.

Anyway, turning 40 was very traumatic for me. At the time I was still living a been-there-done-that single life but without the correct youth-number (age) that attracts chicks :smile: Buying an upscale, sporty yuppiemobile was my way of putting the most positive spin possible on the event. A coping mechanism, if you will.

I would agree with Susan's point that being 40-something is an unavoidable fact of life, but not something to be proud of, celebrate, or be happy about. It simply IS.

God, I went out tonight in my old hometown and there were all these Millie teens out and about. They frighten me, but inside i laugh at them because theres all this tough Limp Bizkit/Eminem posturing going on, but underneath all I can think is Barney/Mighty Morphine Power Rangers and chuckle at them. Today as my friend and I were drunk and walking down St Marks Place we also talked about Mille teenagers and how they freaked us out. I think we actually yelled Pokemon once or twice, faking like we were those robotic millie children.
We are such losers, already old men at age 21.

Susan says: I have noticed something this year that I never have before: the explosion of "black balloon" or "over the hill" parties for people turning 40. This week alone I have seen two of these: one at a nearby house, where black balloons festooned the walkway and front porch, and another for someone at work.

Jenny replies: These black balloon parties have been a staple at my office for at least 10 years. We have a package of "over the hill" items that we hand off from staff member to staff member as each one turns 40. I remember our division director getting one 10 years ago. Last month, for his big 50, we festooned his office again with black balloons and crepe. However, I have never heard of people inflicting the black balloon treatment on themselves -- its usually a second party (office mates). Maybe the home party was a surprise from a spouse. If it was the person's own initiative, that is a new development.

About Boomer women dying hair. Many of us boomers waited until our thirties or even forties before completing our families. Compared to earlier generations, many Boomers at 40-something are healthier and appear younger than their parents or grandparents certainly did. But hair still grays at the same age. And if you have young kids, you don't want to be the gray-haired Mom that everyone thinks is the grandma! So I can perfectly understand the 45-year-old mother of a young kid who uses the dye kit.

I had a playdate arranged for my daughter and went over to the parents' house. The mother and I then took our children to a water park for the afternoon.

When I went into the house, it looked very Boomerish. Rather disorganized and cluttered, in a friendly way. Various vegetarian books in the kitchen. Indeed, the mother, who I didn't know well before, turned out to have New Age tendencies and strong opinions -- she fit the Boomer profile pretty well. (by the way, I liked her a lot).

So I was a bit surprised when she mentioned that she just turned 40 that year. That meant she was born in 1961. But wait a minute -- later on it came out that she graduated from high school a year ahead, in 1978, along with the cohort of 1960.

Hmm. Does graduating a year early from high school tip a cusper into the earlier archetype? Or did having Boomer siblings make the difference? Something to ponder over.