Generational Psychologies

[Chris]

If the perspective I advanced in the OP holds true, then the new generation will turn out to be a more conservative one. By "conservative" here I mean as in to say less idealistic, less politically inclined, and more survival-oriented. Of course, each generation has its own distinctions: being essentially survival-oriented appears to mean something different for today's younger people than it might have a generation or two or three ago. Where say in the 1950s it typically meant pursuing a safe, stable union job, being as those safe, stable union jobs no longer exist today, it now instead means being hyper-competitive and entrepeneurial. The specifics of course will be interesting to see as they begin to reach adulthood.

The impact of war was more strongly felt in the 2000s than today, being as we withdrew more than 90% of our troops from the fields of battle over the course of the Obama tenure, but at the same time, the Recession hit, which really impacted more people directly. But looking ahead today, with (more or less) stable economic conditions and concerns about war so far removed from the average American's list of concerns, it's no wonder the surveys of younger people today indicate a growing optimism about the future. That is the logical trajectory of a more conservative generation: growing up in harsh times and maturing into better conditions.

I'm kind of curious how one generation would deterministically generate or even influence the next generation to be its ideological opposite. It seems more like that a progressive generation would produce a progressive generation and that progress would prevail--under your view. How would one generation produce its ideological opposite.

Also, since Progresssivism emerged after the Enlightenment, where, in your view of things, where opposites cycle like Yin and Yang, did that collectivist postmodern ideology come from, and where Enlightened individualism for that matter? They didn't exist in pre-modern times. Which defeats your cyclical, deterministic, collectivist view.

[Chris]

If the perspective I advanced in the OP holds true, then the new generation will turn out to be a more conservative one. By "conservative" here I mean as in to say less idealistic, less politically inclined, and more survival-oriented. Of course, each generation has its own distinctions: being essentially survival-oriented appears to mean something different for today's younger people than it might have a generation or two or three ago. Where say in the 1950s it typically meant pursuing a safe, stable union job, being as those safe, stable union jobs no longer exist today, it now instead means being hyper-competitive and entrepeneurial. The specifics of course will be interesting to see as they begin to reach adulthood.

The impact of war was more strongly felt in the 2000s than today, being as we withdrew more than 90% of our troops from the fields of battle over the course of the Obama tenure, but at the same time, the Recession hit, which really impacted more people directly. But looking ahead today, with (more or less) stable economic conditions and concerns about war so far removed from the average American's list of concerns, it's no wonder the surveys of younger people today indicate a growing optimism about the future. That is the logical trajectory of a more conservative generation: growing up in harsh times and maturing into better conditions.

I'm kind of curious how one generation would deterministically generate or even influence the next generation to be its ideological opposite. It seems more like that a progressive generation would produce a progressive generation and that progress would prevail--under your view. How would one generation produce its ideological opposite.

Also, since Progresssivism emerged after the Enlightenment, where, in your view of things, where opposites cycle like Yin and Yang, did that collectivist postmodern ideology come from, and where Enlightened individualism for that matter? They didn't exist in pre-modern times. Which defeats your cyclical, deterministic, collectivist view.

[IMPress Polly]

Chris wrote:
I'm kind of curious how one generation would deterministically generate or even influence the next generation to be its ideological opposite. It seems more like that a progressive generation would produce a progressive generation and that progress would prevail--under your view. How would one generation produce its ideological opposite.

I don't view it deterministically, but just as a general pattern in American history that I have observed.

When you say that it makes the most sense that an idealistic generation would logically tend to reproduce its values (approximately, of course) in its own children and conversely a more survival-oriented generation would tend to reproduce those values (again, approximately) in its children, I agree with that assessment. What I think you're neglecting to account for is time lag between one generation's maturation and their raising of children. For example, my generation (Millennials, myself included) were mostly raised by Baby Boomers, not Gen Xers. Likewise, Gen Xers were mostly raised by the Silent Generation and are themselves raising today's kids (Generation Z, as they're being called). You see what I'm saying?

[Chris]

I don't view it deterministically, but just as a general pattern in American history that I have observed.

When you say that it makes the most sense that an idealistic generation would logically tend to reproduce its values (approximately, of course) in its own children and conversely a more survival-oriented generation would tend to reproduce those values (again, approximately) in its children, I agree with that assessment. What I think you're neglecting to account for is time lag between one generation's maturation and their raising of children. For example, my generation (Millennials, myself included) were mostly raised by Baby Boomers, not Gen Xers. Likewise, Gen Xers were mostly raised by the Silent Generation and are themselves raising today's kids (Generation Z, as they're being called). You see what I'm saying?

You say in the OP you don't view it determinstically, but your account is deterministic.

Time lag? There's no time lag between generations, children are being born continuously. Identifying generations, like baby boomers, Generation X, is a social construct to begin with and not really reliable for finding natural patterns in society. So I see what you're saying but question the notion of lag--and why that would account for one generation being the opposte the previous.

And there's a 300000 year gap between the emergence of man and the first Progressive generation back in the late 1800s.

[Chris]

I don't view it deterministically, but just as a general pattern in American history that I have observed.

When you say that it makes the most sense that an idealistic generation would logically tend to reproduce its values (approximately, of course) in its own children and conversely a more survival-oriented generation would tend to reproduce those values (again, approximately) in its children, I agree with that assessment. What I think you're neglecting to account for is time lag between one generation's maturation and their raising of children. For example, my generation (Millennials, myself included) were mostly raised by Baby Boomers, not Gen Xers. Likewise, Gen Xers were mostly raised by the Silent Generation and are themselves raising today's kids (Generation Z, as they're being called). You see what I'm saying?

You say in the OP you don't view it determinstically, but your account is deterministic.

Time lag? There's no time lag between generations, children are being born continuously. Identifying generations, like baby boomers, Generation X, is a social construct to begin with and not really reliable for finding natural patterns in society. So I see what you're saying but question the notion of lag--and why that would account for one generation being the opposte the previous.

And there's a 300000 year gap between the emergence of man and the first Progressive generation back in the late 1800s.

[Captdon]

My parents raised 8 children with Depression era values. Their children are conservative although mostly had a good middle class upbringing. The next should have been liberals and 90% aren't. 90% of the next one isn't either.

My family isn't uncommon. I don't see any of what you see. Why are there so many "conservatives" today? What are they protecting? We aren't very liberal are we? Yet, i never saw anything even close to bad times. The wars weren't fought here and I still lived the same. I had only a few, very small recessions. I had an improved standard of living.

I should be a flaming liberal and I'm not and, at the very least, half my generation isn't. Half sort of is. How to explain that? I think we just go through periods of time where we try things and periods where we see where we want to go, if anywhere.

Today the people are just deciding to do more or do a lot less. Doing more isn't winning as this time.

[Dr. Who]

My parents raised 8 children with Depression era values. Their children are conservative although mostly had a good middle class upbringing. The next should have been liberals and 90% aren't. 90% of the next one isn't either.

My family isn't uncommon. I don't see any of what you see. Why are there so many "conservatives" today? What are they protecting? We aren't very liberal are we? Yet, i never saw anything even close to bad times. The wars weren't fought here and I still lived the same. I had only a few, very small recessions. I had an improved standard of living.

I should be a flaming liberal and I'm not and, at the very least, half my generation isn't. Half sort of is. How to explain that? I think we just go through periods of time where we try things and periods where we see where we want to go, if anywhere.

Today the people are just deciding to do more or do a lot less. Doing more isn't winning as this time.

I think that where you live is also a factor. Smaller towns and cities tend to retain their more conservative perspectives, particularly in the south and the mid-west. Larger urban centers see more vacillation.

[Green Arrow]

Not buying it. You've merely associated what's good with progressivism and what's bad with conservatism.

Where in that post did she associate what's good with progressivism and what's bad with conservatism?

You did well to avoid the usual leftist deterministic argument with "it is rooted in not so much the circumstances under which one grows up themselves" but then came up with some rather meaningless: "so much as the directionality of the way in which they change as one matures into adulthood." The directionality? UNless that just another leftist way of saying the past determines who we are, a rejection of individual will and choice. Besides, the left is generally the war mongers Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Bush 2, Hillary.

Couple things here.

1) In three sentences you used "leftist" and "the left" three times. In none of those three sentences did you even bother to explain why that's even remotely important. Why does it matter if Polly, a leftist, is using "leftist" arguments (whatever those are)? Are you suggesting that the argument is bad purely because it is "leftist"?

2) You got two out of five right. Hillary and Bush 2 were not at all leftists. Both were center-right. LBJ was at most fringe-left. I still struggle to see how who is and is not a leftist is relevant to Polly's point.

3) You understand "deterministic" but not "directionality"? It's pretty clear from the context what she meant.

I would agree that one generation rejects and rebels against the previous generations values and such, but it's not merely left-right-left-right with history repeating itself. Each generation is educated enough to build onto the previous two or more generations and create something new. And that sodmething new can be god or bad or both. Postmodernism is something new, a rejection of both modernism and pre-modernism, a rejection, one might say, even of itself. Identity politics is something new. Snowflake safe spaces from ideas is new.

1) First of all, history is constantly repeating itself. There's virtually nothing new under the sun, and when something new does crop up, it's usually extremely closely related to something that occurred in the past, and will almost certainly be repeated in the future. That's just how history has unfolded.

2) Postmodernism is not something new at all, unless we're redefining "postmodernism." According to virtually any credible source you can Google, including Merriam-Webster (the most trusted dictionary of the English language in the world), postmodernism is just a concept in arts, architecture, and criticism that has "a general distrust of grand theories and ideologies." That sentiment has existed in one form or another for pretty much all of recorded history. In fact, I'd argue that by that definition we're all postmodernists to some degree, yourself included.

But, perhaps I'm not clear on the definition of postmodernism you are using. In what way are you using the word to mean?

3) Identity politics are not new. See Nazi Germany, circa 1932-1945.

4) "Snowflake safe spaces," as you very biasedly put it, are simply places where one can feel free to express their opinions without dickish behavior and outrightly hateful mindsets. The USA set itself up as a "snowflake safe space" for Jews and others during WWII. It's only characterized as a bad thing now because a certain subset of society that is used to being permitted to be as rude and inhumane can no longer spew their filth everywhere they go.

[Green Arrow]

I think that where you live is also a factor. Smaller towns and cities tend to retain their more conservative perspectives, particularly in the south and the mid-west. Larger urban centers see more vacillation.

Large urban centers are also typically where you most see the impacts @IMPress Polly was referring to, as well.

[Green Arrow]

I think that where you live is also a factor. Smaller towns and cities tend to retain their more conservative perspectives, particularly in the south and the mid-west. Larger urban centers see more vacillation.

Large urban centers are also typically where you most see the impacts @IMPress Polly was referring to, as well.