It’s time to retire generation labels
GENERATION labels mean nothing. It’s time to retire them
Consider these facts: The tennis champion Williams sisters are a generation apart, according to the Pew Research Centre. Venus, born in 1980, is part of “Gen X”; Serena, born in 1981, is a “millennial”. Meanwhile, Donald Trump and Michelle Obama are both in the same generation. The former was born in 1946 while the latter was born in 1964, making them both “baby boomers”.
Before you start wracking your brain to cram these diverse personalities into generational stereotypes, let me stop you there: Just don’t. That’s the position I and about 150 other demographers and social scientists have taken in an open letter to the Pew Research Centre, urging them to stop promoting the use of generation labels (the silent generation, baby boomers, Generation X, millennials and now Generation Z).
Generation labels, although widely adopted by the public, have no basis in social reality. In fact, in one of Pew’s own surveys, most people did not identify the correct generation for themselves.
This is not surprising since the categories are imposed by survey researchers, journalists or marketing firms before the identities they are supposed to describe even exist. Instead of asking people which group they feel an affinity for and why, purveyors of social “generations” just declare the categories and start making pronouncements about them. That’s not
how social identity works.
There is no research identifying the appropriate boundaries between generations, and there is no empirical basis for imposing the sweeping character traits that are believed to define them. Generation descriptors are either embarrassing stereotypes or caricatures with astrology-level vagueness. In one article you might read that millennials are “liberal lions”, “downwardly mobile”, “upbeat”, “unaffiliated, anti-hierarchical (and) distrustful” – even though they also “get along well with their parents, respect their elders and work well with colleagues”.
Ridiculous, clearly. But what’s the harm? Aren’t these tags just a bit of fun for writers? A convenient hook for readers and a way of communicating generational change, which no one would deny is a real phenomenon? We in academic social science study and teach social change, but we don’t study and teach these categories because they simply aren’t real.
With the arrival of “Generation Z”, there has never been a better time to get off this train.
The Pew Research Centre replied to our letter, saying the organisation plans to have internal discussions about generational research, which will involve consulting with experts.
Beyond the role of one organisation, however, we as readers, writers, researchers, teachers and students have a role to play in thinking beyond the stale generation categories that undermine our understanding of social change. |