Originally Posted by Olaf Palme

I see the Bush twins as part of the swath of super feminine, vapid, pack-oriented Millennial females.

My nine-year-old daughter and her friends are not super-feminine or vapid, although I will grant that they are pack-oriented.

Originally Posted by Nomanissen Island

Originally Posted by Olaf Palme

My divide is even harder to call. I still think 81/82 is the divide, but who knows.

We may not have the answer just yet - where do you place Jenna and Barbara Bush (born 1981), for instance? Their behavior toward underage drinking reminded me of my (Xer) cohorts in high school but I don't think that's the whole picture.

If the Bush daughters appear as did Napoleon's sister, Pauline Borghese, after the election I'd say they are Xers.



Red Zoners (and the U.S. Attorney General) Click Here


Blue Zoners and Old Europeans Click Here

My son, born in '91, looks down on the pack-oriented behavior of many of his peers. He only has one or two friends but prefers to pursue his activities alone. He's a computer geek and hates team sports (but loves X-treme sports such as rollerblading and skateboarding). He takes pride in being "different," and is reading a book about abnormal psychology just because it interests him. He writes song lyrics that he refuses to show anyone. He says marriage doesn't interest him and he would rather stay single and maybe adopt a kid someday.

My daughter ('93) is very definitely pack-oriented but is not in any way vapid or a girly-girl. She loves team sports and wants a career (as a vet) before she settles down to have four children when she's 30. In her own words, getting married before 30 is "dumb."

My daughter, in spite of her tomboyishness and independence, seems very Millennial on the whole, but what about someone like Ian? I cant find many Millie traits in him at all. Of course, the GI generation had many rebels and oddballs as well--older people such as Arthur C. Clarke, Pete Seeger, Ken Kesey, Expressionist artists and others who motivated younger people during the 2T and encouraged them to separate themselves from the establishment.

How would you explain Millennials who refuse to run with the pack?

Originally Posted by Helio2

How would you explain Millennials who refuse to run with the pack?

They're called Introverts. :wink:

Originally Posted by Helio2

How would you explain Millennials who refuse to run with the pack?

Same way you do Boomers who don't care about religion or morality, Xers who believe in authority and the future, etc. The theory doesn't work on an individual level, only in mass or statistically.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Originally Posted by Helio2

How would you explain Millennials who refuse to run with the pack?

Same way you do Boomers who don't care about religion or morality, Xers who believe in authority and the future, etc. The theory doesn't work on an individual level, only in mass or statistically.

Indeed. Strauss and Howe spoke of three catagories within each generation in Generations: Directive, Directed, and Suppressed.

Directives are the tone-setters.

Directed those who more or less follow the tone.

Suppresseds are those whose individual characteristics more closely resemble that of another archetype outside of their own (like Ian, apparently). They are most likely to be on the edges of any given generation and resemble the characteristics of the temporally adjacent archetype. Thus "cusps".

But sometimes they can be found deep inside a generation (like '91 would be for Millies) and be even of the opposite (shadow) archetype (think Timothy Leary) let alone the adjacent ones.

Originally Posted by Helio2

How would you explain Millennials who refuse to run with the pack?

From the birthyears given, I am tempted to say that your children are going through phases common amongst pre-teens and adolescents. but I won't go declare that case so easily.

Heck, I don't fit the Strauss and Howe archetype of a Millenial like a glove in O.J.'s hand, so your children aren't all that unusual, given that there are about millions of Millenial-age people in this nation, there are bound to be significant numbers that aren't so archetypal.

One question though: what are your children's relationship with adults and authority?

That should probably say better about how much Millenial is in them.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Originally Posted by Helio2

How would you explain Millennials who refuse to run with the pack?

Same way you do Boomers who don't care about religion or morality, Xers who believe in authority and the future, etc. The theory doesn't work on an individual level, only in mass or statistically.

That is quite true Brian, however the number of people in society who fit more less roughly into their generation's archetype is huge.

I have observed with people born around my age in Australia, many of them fitted the Nomad archetype pretty comfortably, although there was the odd person who fitted the Hero archetype here and there. Which is not usual for a late wave Nomad cohort.

Originally Posted by mmailliw

Stung by their failure to recognize the unique features of then twenty-something X-ers, brand owners embraced Gen-Y as the next youth generation in the early 1990s. Gen-Y was identified at that time as the current crop of teenagers born between 1974 and 1980.

74 and 80? I thought it was 77 and 85!

Sounds like someone's been duped by reading S&H. Too much S&H isn't good for you, you know.

Violent crime by 12 to 17-year-olds is down by over 50 percent from its 1992-1993 peak (US Bureau of Justice Statistics).

hmm... while crime by 12 to 17 year olds peaked in 1992 and 1993, crime by 10 to 17 year olds peaked in 1994?

Must be those rapacious, violent, thieving 10-year-olds . . . the 10-year-olds born in 1984!

Despite media reports of casual sex "hookups" among college students, the late 1990s saw overall teen sexual activity decline and virginity rise (Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, US).

And the 2000's saw teen virginity fall. So what does that do to their little theory?

Smoking, drinking and drug use among 8th, 10th and 12th graders fell simultaneously in 2002 for the first time (University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research).

Just in time for the class of 2001 to miss it!

That's true. Not to mention the fact that they went back up again in 2003. At that time it was 1989 cohorts who were entering high school.

Today's kids are more apt to trust parents (86 percent), teachers (86 percent) and the police (83 percent) than music celebrities (35 percent) and athletes (30 percent) (Applied Research & Consulting LLC).

Why would we trust celebrities or athletes? Of course, I don't trust the police either... but how many of them trust themselves?

Neither do I. And they really have to stretch it by using a survey that polled children this time. Wouldn't that be Generation Z attitudes instead of Generation Y attitudes?

Are those police-loving children going to still trust the police after they've grown up a little bit and (a) decided that marijuana should be legalized, (b) watched them arrest protestors, (c) read about cops planting drugs on people, (d) learned about the Houston K-mart mass arrest in 2002 and (e) gotten stopped by a cop themselves?

Volunteerism is up. A University of California (UCLA) survey of college freshmen from fall 2001 showed an all-time high of 86.2 percent of students who reportedly engaged in volunteer work, compared to 66 percent in 1989.

Volunteerism? Sounds like Generation X to me. The generation that "would rather volunteer than vote"?

In 2002, the UC Berkeley Survey Research Center PACES project reported that 67 percent of teens supported federal aid to religious organizations -- versus 40 percent of adults ages 27 to 59.

Hmmm . . . that's 1943 to 1975. Sounds like Boomers and Xers.

I'm waiting to see if T&M use 90 as a boundary in a couple of years... while an argument can be made for 78-88 as a cusp zone (with 85-88 or 86-88 being the Millie leaners with the last few residual X traits), it is VERY hard to argue much past that

Well, now they've put 1989 in Generation Y. I can see the post-1985 group as sharing the alternative nature (leftist politics, not mainstream, not patriotic, anti-Bush) of Generation X, while in the 1981-1985 group this trait is joined by cynicism and jaded nature.

Unlike earlier generations, Millennials have a near-zero generation gap, and parent-child co-purchase decisions are common. Martin agrees, saying: "When you ask this generation who their heroes are, the majority say their parents." Brands seeking to appeal to this generation in the name of rebellion will increasingly fall flat.

What about rebellion against other Boomer authority figures?

Yeah, what about? Brands that advertise with rebellion against the police would certainly gain success.

Trash-talk pop culture may lose its influence with today's teens. The rise of Avril Lavigne -- an ordinary-looking, midriff-free, non-dancing singer hailed as the "anti-Britney" -- may presage this generation's backlash against over-hyped, X-treme 1990s culture.

Note that Avril's outfits are such that she comes REALLY close to exposing her midriff... a kind of tantalyzing torture that makes people forget that her 'music' sucks goat balls?

Avril also did the song "Sk8er Boi" . . . works well with the assumption that this is going to be a "more . . . skateboarding" generation referenced earlier in the article. (What do you dislike about her music though?)

Wasn't it not that long ago that S&H were heralding Slutney Spears as an example of the kind of music Millennials LOVED? Whatever happened to that? (Not that I ever thought Slutney and BS Boys/'N SUCK were a good example of Hero-Gen music, though . . . it was too sexual and the artists dressed so slickly.)

Edgy brand associations may fail to appeal to this increasingly conventional generation, which looks for social consensus instead of pushing the limits of taste.

http://www.villagestreetwear.com/pornstartshirt.html

By contrast: "The clothing driven by its shock appeal, non-conformist attitude and controversial name Porn Star is 'alternative' clothing that is in demand amongst today's risk-taking Gen X and Y crowd. "Porn Star is for the rebel in all of us, someone who has a sense of humor but wants to let loose on the weekends and make a statement."

William 1, Article 0.

If Millennials "look for social consensus", why didn't the members of the generation agree to all get together and sell their souls to Bush during the Iraq War? Where was the "we must have unity" movement among them?

If they're so conventional and seeking of social consensus, why don't members of this generation care when they see someone pissing on the sidewalk?

In contrast to ultra-individualist X-ers, Millennials are group-oriented -- meaning that they are less interested in an "army of one" and more interested in the "watch me become we" alternative.

"Watch me become we" sounds nothing like me... but at least it captures what the Army really IS ('army of one' sounds more like 'the trivial group of one element')

"Army of one" is a joke . . . the Army's always been more for people interested in marching-formation, lemming-like, massive-heap-of-borg duty-doing than people who say they're proud to be individuals. In my senior year of high school, the people who were going to join the Armed Forces knew who they were. They were not interested in being "different" or alternative.

This may, in the words of Howe, cause Millennials to rally around "a few big, bright and friendly" brands and trigger brand consolidation.

Delia*s, Hot Topic, Abercrombie & Fitch, Structure, Wet Seal, Counter Culture, Calvin Klein, Ralph Lauren, French Connection, Generation X (yes, an actual hip-hop clothier name), Fubu, Jnco . . . and counting. What brands do you see about Jarvard, William?

That's enough skewering of this article. I have to say, this decade hasn't been turning out the way a reader of S&H would imagine it in terms of the Millennials so far. Where was the move towards blandness we were supposed to see? The end of brand diversity and return of brand-loyalty? The academic achievement in college that would burst its buttons? The record lows in substance abuse and pregnancy among unmarried teens? The return of social conventions? The move by Millennials to rally around the president and celebrate the existing social order and status quo? Well, I'm heading off to bed now. It's going to be a long day. I'm turning 25 today.

Originally Posted by Jesse Manoogian

... Well, I'm heading off to bed now. It's going to be a long day. I'm turning 25 today.

As a data point of no particular value, Silent and radical folk singer Phil Ochs declared he was, "... a quarter century old but a half a century high".

Have a good and happy birthday.

*BUMP*

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Not to change the subject, but I had a flash of insight this morning.


Every now and then on this thread, someone ponders the Gen Boundary between Millennials and Xers, as well as the mood-shift trigger event that began the current Unravelling era. For example most of us are inclined to accept S&H's 1982 beginning year for the Millies, possibly because they comprise the High School Graduating Class of 2000. However, from time to time it is suggested that many/most 1981 cohort members seem to conform more to the Hero archetype than the Nomad.


Regarding the boundary between Second and Third Turnings, many of us have expressed skepticism over the 3T trigger event given in "The Fourth Turning"-- Ronald Reagan's truimphant landslide re-election in 1984. Since the outcome of the election was somewhat expected all along, E84 seems too anticlimatic an episode to begin the Unravelling of the entire post-war era. I'm inclined to agree.


I believe that it was Justin who most recently wondered "Can't there be a better one than that?" in regard to what event triggered the end of the Awakening. In response to his question, I offer you THE EXPLOSION OF THE SPACE SHUTTLE CHALLENGER!!!

Many if not most Americans remember exactly where they were on January 28, 1986. I for one have a vivid memory of that entire day-- the pin-drop stillness at the office, the eerie lack of traffic congestion on the drive home from Downtown L.A. to Pasadena (with Johnny Rivers' "Poor Side of Town" playing on the radio).

So I'll bet do most of the tens of millions of children who sat in school that day eagerly awaiting the launch of the first American schoolteacher into space, only to see her and her crewmates blown to bits 73 seconds after launch. To them, the Challenger tragedy would have confirmed what they were already beginning to suspect: that despite Mr. Reagan's cheerful "Morning in America" optimism, the adult world was definitely NOT working, that society was beginning to Unravel at the seams and spiral out of control. It is easy to understand how witnessing this disaster could have deepened -- or even formed -- the "whatever" cynicism of young Nomads, and how younger kids who weren't in school that day would be less encumbered in developing a "can-do" Hero mindset.

The youngest kids in school that dreadful would have been 5 years old, going on 6-- the 1980 birthyear cohort. Was Challenger, then, the event which firmly separated Generation X from the Millennials? Does the Millie Gen begin with the 1981 cohort rather than 1982? Did the Third Turning begin in January 1986 rather than November 1984?


I believe the answer to all three questions is a resounding "YES"!!!

Comments?

I'm bumping this thread because I am also starting to think that 1986, not 1984, was the first "fully" Unraveling year. The 2T-3T boundary (and the Boomer-Xer boundary, to a degree) seems unusually spread out and gradual in any case.

Here's an interesting thing. I bought two years ago a compilation of psychedelic music from Africa which was put together by David Byrne's Luaka Bop label.

The *thing* is that most of that music was recorded in the mid to late 1970s. So psychedelia in Africa was "delayed" by about a decade. It took five or six years for the Nigerians to "get hip" to Eric Clapton's wah-wah guitar solos. That makes me wonder about waves of "waves" if you will.

For example, in Europe, you could clearly see that there was still an optimistic surge in the first half of the 1980s. So much of our culture in North America was dominated by these Brits like Sting and Bananarama singing "Feed the world, let them know it's Christmas time." Or the Bob Geldof-organized "Live Aid."

Then that sort of died out, but in eastern Europe, the 1980s continued to be an immensely optimistic decade. I mean they tore down the Berlin Wall, chopped up the Soviet Union, shat on the Warsaw Pact. By 1994, all Soviet troops had been evacuated from what is now the eastern frontier of the European Union.

So whereas we Americans look at the 80s as a spiritually empty yet kitschy decade of Rubik's Cube and ghettoblasters and break dancing, they see it as a people-powered era where students shook societies.

They see the 80s, like we see the 60s! That's not to say that the went through an "awakening" or any of that mumbo jumbo, but that the 80s were different there than they were in the US. 1988 gave us NWA's "Straight Outta Compton" and Guns 'n' Roses singing "do you know where you are baby? you are in the jungle, and you are going to die!" Anthems to social detritus.

1988 in Eastern Europe gave people tear-inducing guitar rock about breaking free and tearing down walls. People will still cry when you play it for them.

So you randomly select 1986. Well, 1986 was a very mucky year. Sure, I was seven, but a seven year old watches a lot of TV and listens to a lot of music. To a 7-year-old, things like Garbage Pail Kids are not a passing fad. They are significant.

See, I just checked this fact and it happened in 1986 according to Wikipedia. That's how important a 7-year-old's memory is. Here's the fact. In 1986, Transformers, a wildly popular show among even teenagers that had to watch it with their younger siblings at the time, jumped the shark by killing off Optimus Prime in the Transformers Movie and replacing him with the super-lame "Hot Rod."

I cannot communicate the let down each of us in first grade had when we learned that one of our favorite TV shows had just replaced its charismatic leader with the ultra-schwag-sounding "Hot Rod." So what happened? We stopped watching. 't was the end of an era, Odin.

Meanwhile, staples of my youth were being cancelled or altered. Voltron, introduced in 1984, ended its airing in 1986. Diff'rent Strokes, who could fathom a world without Arnold, Willis, and Kimberly?, went off the air in 1985-1986.

Christine and Alasdair, the most important hosts on one of my favorite shows at the time You Can't Do That on Television, both left the show in 1986.

This holocaust in my TV watching was followed by, in 1988, the arrival of the cute and cuddly "Nick Jr" programming. That means that basically my young life in front of the TV was cut short by Millennial generation watchers, who then proceeded to take over MTV like clockwork in 1996 with the arrival of Hanson and the Spice Girls, and will no doubt kill the surviving Xer-themed pop trivia shows (like the ones involving Flava Flav and Vanilla Ice) on Vh1. Damn you, younger generation. Damn you!

But most importantly, I left out Star Wars. Star Wars is one of the sacred texts of my childhood. As a six year old, in the spring of 1986, I drew my very own cartoon book version of Empire Strikes Back. But by 1985 Star Wars was history. The Ewok Adventure of 1984 kept my hope alive, but sadly it disappeared into the mists of time, only to be resuscitated and destroyed by George Lucas as he "reached out to a younger generation" in the late 90s by adding crappy new parts to the old films and re-releasing them and then making three big budget suckathons to drive a stake through Mark Hamil's precious Jedi heart.

It was sad to see how people told me that the newer ones, particularly the final one, was "ok". We all know that it wasn't. Or maybe the magic just wasn't there.

Originally Posted by Uzi

Here's an interesting thing. I bought two years ago a compilation of psychedelic music from Africa which was put together by David Byrne's Luaka Bop label.

The *thing* is that most of that music was recorded in the mid to late 1970s. So psychedelia in Africa was "delayed" by about a decade. It took five or six years for the Nigerians to "get hip" to Eric Clapton's wah-wah guitar solos. That makes me wonder about waves of "waves" if you will.

For example, in Europe, you could clearly see that there was still an optimistic surge in the first half of the 1980s. So much of our culture in North America was dominated by these Brits like Sting and Bananarama singing "Feed the world, let them know it's Christmas time." Or the Bob Geldof-organized "Live Aid."

Then that sort of died out, but in eastern Europe, the 1980s continued to be an immensely optimistic decade. I mean they tore down the Berlin Wall, chopped up the Soviet Union, shat on the Warsaw Pact. By 1994, all Soviet troops had been evacuated from what is now the eastern frontier of the European Union.

So whereas we Americans look at the 80s as a spiritually empty yet kitschy decade of Rubik's Cube and ghettoblasters and break dancing, they see it as a people-powered era where students shook societies.

They see the 80s, like we see the 60s!

The European 2T went from 1968-1989, so that doesn't surprise me. Maggie Thatcher and Francois Mitterrand are typical hubristic elder civics in a 2T. The stuff culminating in the Mastricht Treaty in 1992 (When the EC formally became the EU) seems to be the Euro-GIs last gasp.

Ack, Uzi edited his post as I was quoting him!

Tristan wrote:
I would agree with you on that. The Millennial/X'er boundary is the least sharp of generations live right now, The GI/Silent, Silent/Boom and Boom/X'er boundary are much more sharp because of the dramatic nature that the turnings began or ended in those generations grew up and came of age in.

Originally Posted by Odin

*BUMP*
I'm bumping this thread because I am also starting to think that 1986, not 1984, was the first "fully" Unraveling year. The 2T-3T boundary (and the Boomer-Xer boundary, to a degree) seems unusually spread out and gradual in any case.

I tend to agree with Odin on this one. For 1961, there's of course Obama and Sean Hannity. For 1962, we have the famous Rosie Odonnel. Bon Jovi is another example.

“Nothing is as important as passion. No matter what you want to do with your life, be passionate.”
--- John Bon Jovi.

If that ain't Boom speak, I don't know what is. The other reference is on Wikipedia, where 1961/1962 are designated as "disputed". I think the problem is there are just some instances where drawing a solid line on a certain year doesn't convey the whole story. As for the Lost/GI boundary, that one seems really long. 1901-1905 is equally problematic.

The Lost/GI boundary is another fuzzy transition.

I Think the 2T/3T transistion was a fairly long one encompassing the period of 1981 all the way to 1992. The period of 1993 to 2002 were core 3T. Right now we're in a 3T/4T transition that should last until 2010/2011.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

I Think the 2T/3T transistion was a fairly long one encompassing the period of 1981 all the way to 1992. The period of 1993 to 2002 were core 3T. Right now we're in a 3T/4T transition that should last until 2010/2011.

The Gulf War part of a 2T/3T cusp? Whatcha been smoking?!

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

The Gulf War part of a 2T/3T cusp? Whatcha been smoking?!

Exactly. Was it CH who suggested the Rodney King riots as the last gasp of the Awakening? The media response to the King riots was pure 3T: race, in a "what will we tell the children?" PC kind of way, was suddenly a focus again for about two seconds, then the nation went back to its celebrity worship and culture wars routines.

Similar media responses: Columbine, Virginia Tech, Imusgate. Major social questions come to the fore, and are lightly touched upon before being forgotten in favor of 3T indulgences.

The Go-Go '80s and Greed Is Good were 3T phenomena. I think S&H picking 1984 was pretty accurate. Before 1984 there were still the occasional anti-tax revolts and feminist rallies gathering headlines. After 1984, only celebrities and politicians seemed to give a s*** anymore. 3T apathy was rampant well before I was born.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

The Gulf War part of a 2T/3T cusp? Whatcha been smoking?!

Since we're discussing "smoking". Did you try it, did you inhale?
I did both.

I just offered you some brilliant pop culture analysis of Voltron and Diff'rent Strokes, and we're back to the "no, no, no, when did the 3T [i]really[/] end?" routine?

Anyway, back to Voltron ...

But remember the most intense phase of the culture wars began with the congressional elections of 1994 which brought in boomer cons and the attempts to establish a one party state by republicans that continue to this day.

Originally Posted by Uzi

But most importantly, I left out Star Wars. Star Wars is one of the sacred texts of my childhood. As a six year old, in the spring of 1986, I drew my very own cartoon book version of Empire Strikes Back. But by 1985 Star Wars was history. The Ewok Adventure of 1984 kept my hope alive..

Well you were a kid and hope springs eternal, but Ewoks killed star wars. What should have happened was Luke and his father kill the emperor and rule the galaxy together (until episode 7 which features the power struggle between father and son). They even set this up in Empire with the cave scene and when Yoda hinted that "there was another". Episode 7 could feature a strike led by Leia against the Empire led by her father and brother. Episode 8 would see Luke kill his father in the beginning of the film (and yoda at the end) and threaten to win it all (like Empire on steroids). Then in 9 Leia could lead the counterattack, killing her brother in a battle of The Force. An epic story, and all sacrificed for frickin' Teddy Bears.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Well you were a kid and hope springs eternal, but Ewoks killed star wars. ... An epic story, and all sacrificed for frickin' Teddy Bears.

Naww... Lucas was being pre-seasonal. Ewoks were a sign that the Millie generation was soon to come. I mean really, Ewoks and Millies have so much in common.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Well you were a kid and hope springs eternal, but Ewoks killed star wars. What should have happened was Luke and his father kill the emperor and rule the galaxy together (until episode 7 which features the power struggle between father and son). They even set this up in Empire with the cave scene and when Yoda hinted that "there was another". Episode 7 could feature a strike led by Leia against the Empire led by her father and brother. Episode 8 would see Luke kill his father in the beginning of the film (and yoda at the end) and threaten to win it all (like Empire on steroids). Then in 9 Leia could lead the counterattack, killing her brother in a battle of The Force. An epic story, and all sacrificed for frickin' Teddy Bears.

HEY, I love the Ewoks! And Return of the Jedi is just fine the way it is!

Originally Posted by Odin

HEY, I love the Ewoks! And Return of the Jedi is just fine the way it is!

Good grief. I bet you like tribbles as well.