[Hero of Freedom]

Quite an interesting article. I notice there's some similarities between what would have been labelled as the 20th century counterpart of generation z and y. From your personal experiences or what you've seen do you think any similarities in these comparisons?

The article suggests that there is a generation cycle: Starting from the Missionaries, going from: The Lost Generation, GI Generation and finally to The Silent Generation.

Generational Cycles

"Millennials Rising by Neil Howe & William Strauss fleshes out a theory that generations have a cyclical nature, with four generational types.

Here is the basic idea:

An era starts with an Idealist generation, focused on social issues, and question/challenge the morals of institutions. Idealists are born and grow up in a societal ‘high’- when crime is low, optimism is high, and children are indulged.

Next, is the Reactive generation, focused pragmatic-solutions, and survival. They are usually rebellious, independent, and cynical. The are born during an ‘awakening’- when society is focused on ‘self’ rather than community. Crime starts to rise, and children are under-protected. They are usually branded a “bad” generation.

Next, is the Civic generation, focused on ‘how to clean things up’, and finding consensus in a divisive ‘unraveling’ culture. They gear toward rebuilding institutions, and value optimism and team-work.

Next, is the Adaptive generation. They are born during a societal ‘crisis’. They are over-protected, and value fairness, sensitivity, cooperation. They tend to be conformists, and are usually labeled as a “good” generation.

So based on this cycle it’s fairly easy to identify these archetypes in the present era:
Boomers (Idealists)
GenX (Reactives)
Millennials (Civics)
still cooking… (Adaptives)"

Link: http://socalledmillennial.com/generational-cycles/

So if the millennials of this cycle are the civics if it means generation y, could they be the ones to potentially dismantle the careerist and money-driven mood created by the previous one for a more socialistic(people orientated) one? If you don't see this article was very accurate you may post your own comparison and reasons.

Would Generation Z be late civics, adaptives or reactives like its 90's born generation counterpart of the previous century that fought and perished in world war 1 during mostly their late teens to their 20s? We are the ones who have unemployment issues currently along with maybe some late generation Y's because some of us don't want to conform to the system according to some people's opinions. Some have gone on to defy to a point like with the young adults in Greece who looked to Socialism or Far-Left Leaning Social-Democracy and elected Syriza.

I'm not sure if I am the only one in Gen Z who is like this but I tend to think outside of the box and favour out of the box thinking, preferring not to stay within the framework because it doesn't really lead to any real progress/change. In my school the Gen Z'ers of my year are extremely rebellious but collectivist and often have authority problems, only thing stopping them from joining things like Communist movements which oppose the current order of things is because they think it means that they want everyone getting paid the same which is not true at all.

If you disagree with this order feel free to post your one and why you think.

 

[knife]

I have noted more than once that the Millennial zeitgeist is a subtle sense of unraveling, a feeling that things are coming to an end. "Here we are at the end of all things" is a good quote to sum things up.

A big part of that is that we recognize that we grew up in this incredible affluence, the likes of which we might never touch for ourselves. The Millennials who seem to be doing best for themselves have been incredibly skilled at creating opportunity where our forefathers saw only poverty -- the ones who are busy making urban farms, buying and fixing up down-and-out housing, building small businesses out of little more than an idea and sweat and skill -- while ones like me who didn't abandon the ship before it started sinking, are saddled with unimaginable debt and limited prospects -- are the ones who are struggling more.

This is probably at the heart of our social libertarianism and livability concerns. We don't have the means to go back where we came from and so we are just trying to make the best of it we can.

 

[Blazkovitz]

This theory is definitely interesting and has a lot of truth in it. But there are all kinds of people in all generations; there are always idealists and civic-minded people and withdrawn sensitive artists. Still, the zeitgeist does make some types of people more prominent during a certain period of time, for example idealists during the Romantic era in Europe or civic types during the World Wars period.

If the cycle works as predicted, we will have a peaceful 1950s-like period in the late 2020s and '30s and then an 'awakening' in the middle of the century which could coincide with discovering sentient life on other planets and beginning of colonisation of Mars. I would very much to live to see this awakening. But I fear the cycle could be delayed by a prolonged crisis, as suggested by growth of populist tendencies in Europe and aggressive Islam in the neighbourhood.

 

[Miss Thevious]

Thanks for sharing this framework. I read something on it a few years ago and think about it every so often. Whether I agree with the theory, I don't know. It may be one of those things that has to be examined in retrospect. Even if the flow of generations were to naturally move this way, I tend think that environmental factors would inhibit it. I think that for this to work in a clean cut fashion, there would have to always be certain events at certain times. Imo it just doesn't seem to work out that way. There's always going to be sudden new tech, econ issues, etc, that don't necessarily match. And it will be different depending on geographic location.

I guess I don't choose to view history in a super linear timeline and prefer to look at it as an amalgam of past events. I'm not sure if anything can happen exactly the same way again, though I do think pieces get frequently repeated. I think we can resemble different eras on different issues, altogether forming a unique era all its own.

I can see this cycle theory being quite accurate regarding attitudes though. After so long the status quo begins to feel antiquated and needs shaking up; that I can't argue with. This can happen in smaller doses too though, and in some segments of society without affecting others. But still at large I can see it reasonably following this pattern.

I too hope we're in for that awakening soon :happy:

 

[Blazkovitz]

Apart from what I have already written, I think your attitude depends not only on the zeitgeist of the time you grow up in, but also on the atmosphere at your home. My parents created an atmosphere much like a 'societal high' at home, so became an idealist.