From the 'kids today are so F'd up' department—

The sociologist Philip Cohen argues that the categories are essentially valueless and do not line up with any useful distinctions; they’re just “irregular categories without justification”, “marketing names that promote stereotyping and confirmation bias”. Most people, when asked to give their own “generation”, get it wrong.

For another: all this dividing people up into generations (boomers, Gen X, millennials, iGen/Gen Z) is at best arbitrary and at worst meaningless. I’m apparently Gen X, but I obviously have more in common with a millennial born two months after me than I do with someone born in 1965. ~ from a link by Crid at May 20, 2021 9:21 AM

I've always thought the dividing line should be experiential, not chronological. Born, technically, at the tail-end of the Baby Boom, I have nothing (or very little) in common with the cohort known as "Boomers" and a great deal of common experiences often credited with shaping Gen-X.

My milestone experiences are not Kent State, Woodstock, and the Kennedy assassination (too young for those), but the Challenger explosion, working parents, inflation and gas lines, Three-Mile Island, the Iran Hostage Crisis, and the rise of MTV. I was old enough to witness Nixon's resignation, but too young to appreciate its import.

Strauss and Howe put the end of the Baby Boom at around 1960. I think that divide better reflects the experiences of kids born in the sixties who grew up in the seventies.

Strauss and Howe put the end of the Baby Boom at around 1960. I think that divide better reflects the experiences of kids born in the sixties who grew up in the seventies.

Conan the Grammarian at May 20, 2021 9:43 AM

Since history is a continuum. I don’t think arbitrary generational dividing lines serve any purpose at all.

I was born to an older World War II vet and a woman who was in college during the War.
Many of my school contemporaries and other boomers, had parents who were too young to have served. In fact if both of your parents were too young to have seen World War II from an adult perspective I don’t think you should consider yourself a boomer at all. After all, you know where the term comes from right? Delayed family formation after a long separation because of war.

Strauss and Howe put the end of the Baby Boom at around 1960.
______________________________________

Funny, most sources I've seen put it at 1964 or 1965.

At any rate, I find the divisions useful, if only because you know that people born after a certain date can't be expected to have tangible memories of - or emotional appreciation for - certain events or technologies. (Music and books are another matter - after all, there's a reason SOME music and literature from past eras stay in print! Anyone who makes constant efforts to appreciate either the old or the new, will eventually be seen as a sophisticate. Example: Film critic Pauline Kael - 1919-2001 - was not easy to please, but she did in fact praise movies you might not have expected her to, such as the Talking Heads' "Stop Making Sense." She was well into her 60s at the time.)

In fact if both of your parents were too young to have seen World War II from an adult perspective I don’t think you should consider yourself a boomer at all. ~ Isab at May 20, 2021 12:20 PM

Yes I'm aware of where the term comes from.

My parents were born in the mid '30s. They were too young to have experienced World War II from anything but a child's perspective.

The chronological organization of generational cohorts (and biology) still allows those who saw World War II from a non-adult perspective to have children during the so-called Baby Boom.

The generational cohorts are generally accepted to break down like this:

• 1883-1900 (7) - Lost Generation (fought World War I)
• 1901-1927 (26) - Greatest Generation (fought World War II)
• 1928-1945 (17) - Silent Generation
• 1946-1964 (18) - The Baby Boom
• 1965-1980 (15) - Generation X
• 1981-1996 (15) - Millennials
• 1997-2012 (15) - Generation Z
• 2013-2028? (15) - Generation Alpha

I think there is a tendency by demographers to try and squeeze the later generational cohorts into consistent stretches of time - 15 years. However, an experiential divide would probably have more meaning and better explain the cultural zeitgeist of each cohort.

Such a divide would probably result in smaller generational cohorts and cast some doubt Strauss and Howe's 4-generation cycle of history theory (laid out in their book, The Fourth Turning); at least the part of the theory that says generational differences cause the cycles.

Parenting styles still have to be considered in building generational cohorts. Where Boomers and Gen-X children were mostly free range, Millennial and Gen-Z children have been closely supervised and their lives micro-managed. Those styles are a reflection of the fears and concerns of the parent generations.

“Anyone who makes constant efforts to appreciate either the old or the new, will eventually be seen as a sophisticate.”

Is this important to you?

In a way. It's all about bridging the generation gap, after all. No point in alienating a whole generation. (Whereas Pablo Casals - 1876-1973 - once called rock music an "abomination" and "poison put to sound." What was the point of that, when he could have simply refused to comment? Charlie Chaplin was more open-minded; he once said, of Elvis Presley: "he must have something - you can't fool the public.")

Or, as my father once said (I don't remember the exact subject): "you can never brag about what you AREN'T doing, only about what you ARE doing."

So, if you're young and you consume music and books that your peers take pride in ignoring completely, they might sneer at first, but eventually they'll respect you for being adventurous, even if it takes years.