With the upcoming Presidential election rapidly approaching, the Democratic side really depends on whether future voters are young or old in age. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has swept a nation of college students and college graduates off their feet, while former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seems to fit the wants of Gen Xers who were around for the former Clinton presidency.
While this divide might come as a surprise, it seems as though this generational schism has been around for a while; it's just being put on a graph. And although the youngings don't have Woodstock, they do have the internet, which can get much crazier.
You can find some articles on the internet, even on Odyssey, specifically pertaining to defending Millenials from Gen X scorn. Just type in "millennials" in the search bar and see exactly what I mean. While Gen Xers say that Millennials are spoiled, illiterate and addicted to technology, Millennials fight back, saying that they're progressive, dynamic and always seeking the truth.
And while I don't find either of these arguments to be exactly false, I've come to the conclusion that neither Millennials nor Gen Xers "have it better" than the other. This is not because one fails to position itself as superior to the other, but instead because one does not try to learn from the other.
I've found that the criticisms made of either generation have something in common, and each attribute the same: these generational tendencies are not something that individuals consequently made the conscious decision in a mass setting, and these generational tendencies are not something that each generation decided to do out of the blue. These generational tendencies are a product of said generation's environment, and while these tendencies are very susceptible, a conscious decision could be made to cut back from negative tendencies, best done through following the path of the other generation.
Did you just say "English, please?" Fine. I will simplify it. In other words, each generation does what they do because of the time they live in, and they can step away from it by looking at what the other generation is doing.
Let's attack this problem head-on with millennials and technology. This is it, the number one argument. Millennials collectively are more in tune with technology than adults are. However, can you really blame them? This is everything these kids have ever known. They have learned these skills at an early age. Gen Xers, on the other hand, have only learned these skills at a later age. "You can't teach an old dog new tricks" comes to mind. If this generation was more willing to learning technology, there's a chance they would find it extremely beneficial as well.
I don't think that's the main reason, though. It's simply that Gen Xers grew up on leaving the house with just a wallet and keys. They spent days outside and had to find ways to socialize. It's no accident that they are less dependent, and it's no more surprising that millennials are more dependent than their older counterparts.
On the other hand, not necessarily Gen Xers but more so older people, carry more intolerant tendencies toward race. In the past, this was unfortunately just the way of life. The anger and hate toward African Americans in the 1960s was similar to the anger and hate toward the LGBT community 50 years later. This was something that not only a culture had, but more importantly in my opinion, these people's parents had.
In modern day, millennials are born into a more diverse, more accepting America. Being racist is being an outlier, accepted in only select communities and presidential campaigns. It's so much easier to be tolerant.
My last example will include both positive and negative tendencies of both generations: music. A trademark of Gen X is music, and you can find them through classic rock radio stations because of not only their dismissal but intolerance for today's music. Likewise, you won't often hear millennials play any really old music (maybe it's because millennials have listened to so much in the cars of their parents.) The only old music you'll tend to hear among millennials are pop hits from the 90s.
It's come to my attention only recently that each generation has had good music and bad music. You see a Pitchfork best bands of the 80s review, and you see The Smiths, Bruce Springsteen, and The Cure. But do you know what also a product of the 80s? "Wake Me Up Before You Go Go." "Never Gonna Give You Up." "Mickey." Pop music was essentially invented in the 80s.
Today, you have the generic pop filler. The Justin Biebers. The Jason Derulos. The Taylor Swifts (people are not going to like that last one.) But you also have all this great music that everyone is talking about not in person but on the internet. Just read one "Daily Music Discussion" on /r/Indieheads to get you started.
Millennials weren't there when "Dark Side of the Moon" came out, but Gen Xers are too sick of today's pop hits to hear of "Meriweather Post Pavilion." And while each generation could either give the album that is their generational tendencies (I'm making a metaphor here) to the other generation to give a metaphorical listen, they instead go both on a defensive and offensive, not owing up to their mistakes nor learning the lessons of the other's virtues.
Not only are these generations susceptible to respective issues, but, when it comes to a universal topic that transcends generations, like music, even then is there a divide. And, looking even deeper, is there any remedy to this? In what way could there be a whole generational overhaul of something like staying off of technology? A movie? A current event that sweeps the imaginations of the millennials and gets them off of their phone? Of course, this is something that's possible. It's the kind of thing you would find in a movie itself, the idea of a whole group of people changing. However, is it plausible? It isn't, for one reason: it hasn't happened before.
A generation has never worked on the initiative of another generation before. Quite the opposite; they have only worked on the initiative against another generation. Woodstock can prove that. When someone complains that millennials are addicted to technology, is it a complaint that is trying to warrant a response? If so, the idea of an entire generation making a change as a unit thanks to a suggestion is ridiculous itself.
I'm not saying that change can happen on an individual level, however. In fact, that's where the change happens: at a grassroots, individual level. Since we're talking about cell phones, I'll make an analogy related to it. There are two kinds of smartphones: iPhones and Androids. iPhones are the standard. They are the most accessible and most prevalent in our society. They are the go-to and are default first smartphone. The iPhone is the metaphorical tendency of the generation.
Then you have the Android. The Android, in my opinion (though I think that there is more fact than opinion in this case), is a better cell phone. Its platform is much more helpful for the user, its design is sleaker and, just overall, it's better, and I think that there is professional bolstering to this argument. Look up online for professional reviews or go to the Geek Squad in any Best Buy, and you will see that they have an Android on them. The Android is the metaphorical alternative of the generation.
Even though the Android is better than the iPhone, why is the iPhone still the cell phone of the U.S.? Because it's the default cell phone of the U.S., and change is difficult. It's how it's been. It's no mistake that young people are (no pun intended) the poster children of the Bernie Sanders campaign. Why? Because any adult Bernie Sanders supporter has more likely than not switched their support from Hillary Clinton. That means that these people were already supporting someone, and they had to choose that they weren't going to stick to what they already knew.
On the other hand, people 21 years and younger have not voted before and have only heard of Hillary Clinton in passing. To them, Hillary Clinton is as much of a new face as Bernie Sanders is, and there is no conversion to be done. They are on the same playing field to Millennials. And now? Bernie Sanders has become the standard for young people. If there was a young person that was unsure who to vote for, they will hear it from their number one source of information, other young people, that that young person should vote for Bernie.
To summarize this ironic argument, these generations have standards, and there is no real movement from outside of that generation that can throw off the standards, even if the standard isn't good. I don't believe that iPhone users have bad taste. One, because I don't really care what cell phone you use as long as, when I text you, you text me back on it in a timely fashion. Second, because these people are products of the standard. From most Android users I've talked to, they are iPhone converts, and they are glad for it.
What I'm trying to get at, as I wind down this lengthy article (if you're a millennial, congrats to you for going against the stereotype that millennials' only gratification is instant gratification. This is a long article, you should give yourself a pat on the back), is that any huge, generational subversion not only hasn't happened but can't happen. However, just like with technology and racism (one sure sounds less harrowing than the other when you put them together, right?), that doesn't mean that you can't make the switch to Android. The only change happens on an individual basis. You can't make the switch based on the call from another generation. They're not going to put your phone away for you. The responsibility belongs to you. Millennials are often dubbed a generation in which the self is the most important, but a big part of the self that is left out is the individual decisions of the self. If only millennials could pivot this often negatively perceived trait into one that focuses on the power of the individual instead of the isolation. But that would be tough to do on a grand scale, anyway. Right?
