This came up in a discussion on the movie Big and whether I'd go through adolescence again in order to be with my true love.
Though I have to say, aspects of the movie dealing with age of consent seem different to me now, thanks in part to a synopsis of the movie Birth that someone shared with me. Anywho... my theory.
When I was a kid it was a long time since anything had changed in the world. No one had been assasinated for me to wish for a time machine. No great events had changed the world. We were in the cold war and that was that. Perpetual impending mutual destruction. The Greenhouse effect, AIDS; the wars on crime, poverty, cancer, drugs were all seemingly unwinnable.
It was something I disliked about the framing of the war on Terror, because it sounded like on of those unwinnable wars. Though it differed in being an actual war type of war apart from having fewer casualties than many battles of the Civil War. Sorry to digress, I just want to head off complaints that I don't care about the individual sacrifices of the War on Terror.
Though now that I think about it, a lot of Hatrack is on the younger verge of the slacker cohort, which I tend to think of as people who were born during Vietnam. I mean maybe it all boils down to growing up in an America that had lost a "war" (though the real war opponents insisted it was a police action and not war.)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That makes no sense. You are attributing an eternal and international phenomenon like the existence of slackers, to a transitory period like the Cold War? Get a grip; your generation is not that special.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Yeah, but what is it that makes us so not special?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I was going to post a really long and interesting reply to this thread. But I'm just too lazy.
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
Um, what is a slacker, exactly?
I think that the cultural expectation that everyone has to be chasing after a high level of social status is probably the culprit. KOM is right, there have always been slackers...but for most of history that was regarded as the norm. The people who tried to significantly (rather than incrementally) improve their social standing were considered exceptional, whether derided as "ambitious bastards" and "usurpers" or lauded as "champions" and "revolutionaries".
The expectation that most people should be constantly improving their social lot probably has a lot to do with economic upheaval during WWII and the G.I. Bill. The movement of large numbers of women and agricultural laborers into industry during the war was an important factor in jump-starting the woman's movement. The agricultural laborers, combined with veterans enrolling in college, contributed significantly to the momentum of the Civil Rights movement. But the effect on the larger society was also significant. The expectation that each generation would enjoy a substantial increase in prosperity and social standing (which had aready begun to penetrate the upper and middle class) became almost general very quickly.
But this didn't change fundamental human nature. So what would previously have been considered perfectly normal behavior began to emerge and challenge the new cultural expectations. And eventually gained a label that had never been needed before because it was previously understood to be the baseline.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
So if a slacker is someone who lies around on the sofa instead of hustling...surely slackers are slackers because it's more comfortable?
Also, it's safe for them to be slackers. They aren't going to freeze or starve.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I don't know. I think the people of this generation are slackers not because they aren't working hard (I might be wrong, but hasn't productivity been going steadily up?) but because all of their efforts are devoted to their individual benefit. Protests and grassroots organizations are a lot less common now. In my three years at college, there has been one protest on my campus, and it was routinely ridiculed. Compare that to my mother's college years, when every day there was some protest or another.
People now just don't care about anything beyond themselves. They are willing to hustle to get more money, a bigger house, but heaven forbid you ask them to hustle for something that won't directly benefit them.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Also, it's safe for them to be slackers. They aren't going to freeze or starve.
Quasi-related anecdote: one of the guys I work with relayed a story at lunch the other day (he and another coworker are, I'd guess, 50 to 150 pounds overweight, each) about a neighbor of his who'd been struck by a car while jogging and died shortly thereafter. The message being, apparently, that eating chile cheese fries on the couch is healthier than jogging, because if you jog you might get struck by a vehicle and die.
*sigh*
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
pooka -- are you using the term "slackers" to relate to just a overall feeling of apathy (about the world outside of themselves) with this generation? Are you saying "slackers" in thought, or "slackers" in actual physical deed?
FG
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Exactly what is a slacker anyway? Why do people insist on LABELING things and then making these large sweeping generalizations about what they labeled? It's really starting to make me insane. Like that whole generation X thing. What does that stuff MEAN? It's just some label some media person uses or some so-called expert and when it comes to the real larger world, those things are completely meaningless. Especially when you look at individual circumstances.
Take stuff like this
quote: People now just don't care about anything beyond themselves. They are willing to hustle to get more money, a bigger house, but heaven forbid you ask them to hustle for something that won't directly benefit them.
I'm sorry to pick on you, but this sort of thing is making me go out of my mind! You can't make a statement like this about all people. People are individuals with their own reason for doing things and their own struggles and using simple terms and labels isn't going to make things clearer...
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I think she is talking about just the overall feeling of "society as a whole", Syn -- realizing, of course, that there are exceptions -- but just the general feeling one gets about general society's viewpoint.
FG
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Zeitgeist Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm not sure that this idea of everyone only being out for themselves in any more the spirit of the times than the "epidemic of school shootings" are the spirit of the times.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Oooooo Zeitgeist is a cool word, mph. Thanks for giving me a new word.
FG
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Oh man, wiki can be cool sometimes. I want to hear a Japanese person say "Zeitgeist".
In one sense, slackers are as I mentioned before children of the vietnam era. I'd expand that to include Watergate.
School shootings are the spirit of the times because that is what the media wants to cover. The relationship between media-perpetuated anxiety disorder and the learned helplessness of slackers is integral to my theory. (Learned helplessness is a psychological phenomenon discovered when broken equipment punished animals no matter what they did).
So yes, I'd say slackerness is a psychological condition. One of the wiki entries dealing with this generation called it a "lost" generation and noted that there are "lost" generations with fair regularity.
Of course there is no reason a slacker can't decide to "arise from the dust and be a mensch", or someone who matters. That's basically what we see in Serenity, Malcolm laying aside his little follow-the-star-of-my-belly ethic to be shown what it is he is willing to die for, and lay down the lives of his crew for. Maybe that's why Serenity did not take off. Sure we loved the show and were thrilled to have a movie, but it held a conclusion we didn't want to share with anyone who might hold us accountable for its message.
Ambition is a funny word. It means the ability and the desire to do a thing, but to fault someone for ambition is nearly always criticizing the desire half of the equation. Perhaps it is because in our culture we have been taught that all people possess the ability to do anything they desire. But is it power that corrupts or the love of power? That is where the slacker beliefs herself virtuous, because she is respecting other people's boundaries, and not grasping for power.
Maybe gifted magnet programs are to blame. Detect bright kids before they come to even know they are bright and put them in a room full of other bright kids to scrap it out. Well, as one man said there is no numbering the ways in which people can go wrong. What matters is how they get right, and that is integrity- personal indivisibility. Being of one heart and one mind. But it's just so frightening.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: Oooooo Zeitgeist is a cool word, mph. Thanks for giving me a new word.
FG
I like the word purveyor more.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
I think if all slackers started hustling, the world would have a lot less slackers in it.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Zeitgeist, by Bruce Sterling. Recommended reading.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: I think she is talking about just the overall feeling of "society as a whole", Syn -- realizing, of course, that there are exceptions -- but just the general feeling one gets about general society's viewpoint.
FG
But is it a viewpoint the general society shares or one that is fausted on people by the media? I keep trying to make sense of that...
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:But is it a viewpoint the general society shares or one that is fausted on people by the media?
Those two are not mutually exclusive.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:Maybe gifted magnet programs are to blame. Detect bright kids before they come to even know they are bright and put them in a room full of other bright kids to scrap it out.
I don't understand what your point is supposed to be. If it's that gifted magnet programs make slackers, I think that's very false.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia:
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: I think she is talking about just the overall feeling of "society as a whole", Syn -- realizing, of course, that there are exceptions -- but just the general feeling one gets about general society's viewpoint.
FG
But is it a viewpoint the general society shares or one that is fausted on people by the media? I keep trying to make sense of that...
I've never noticed this viewpoint in the media, I've noticed it in the people I talk to around campus, conversations I overhear, people here and on other forums.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
How's this for a theory:
The "Greatest Generation", which is credited with winning World War II and creating the foundations on which the United States is considered the greatest country on earth, frequently states that "Gen X" couldn't possibly match it's achievements in creating foundations.
The "Boomer Generation" frequently states that "Gen X" couldn't possibly match it's accomplishments in challenging those foundations.
Meanwhile, "Gen X" itself watches the previous two and those who idealize them constantly hurl invective on what each views as the others' accomplishments, and realizes that it can either attempt to equal the previous generations on their own terms, likely fail, and confirm those generations' expectations... Or simply not join the race, with the same result.
I recognize that that's painting with an extremely broad brush. Just a thought.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
"Hard work often pays off over time, but laziness always pays off right now."
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer:
quote:Maybe gifted magnet programs are to blame. Detect bright kids before they come to even know they are bright and put them in a room full of other bright kids to scrap it out.
I don't understand what your point is supposed to be. If it's that gifted magnet programs make slackers, I think that's very false.
I've seen this happen, though I would also say it doesn't happen often.
--j_k
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
People respond to the needs of the time. People are people: some good, some bad, and most affected strongly by peer pressure. With another world war (God forbid) that required CLEAR action needed in response to CLEAR and expansionist tyranny, and we'd have the Greatest Generation ReduX.
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
Really?
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
Doubtful. That would be like a former star athlete who stops competing, lets himself go and keeps telling himself that if he ever needs to, he can get be just as good as he used to be. Except when he lets himself go far enough, he realizes he can't anymore. There is such a thing as a point of no return.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
Gen X was Gen X because it didn't HAVE to accomplish anything. The so-called Greatest Generation had WWII to win and then the building of the great American empire. Babies to have, houses and neighborhoods to carve out of farmland, creation of the American Nation as a world power.
Thier kids, the so-called baby boom was the rebel generation that went against the establishment of the WWII generation. The protested, burned their bras, accomplished nothing and then turned into yuppies and spent a lot of time spoiling their kids.
Gen X didn't build anything, didn't protest anything, and were spoiled by their parents, the baby boomers that hated their childhood. There was no great evil to fight against or cold war to win, nothing to conquer or great future to build. They were just there to consume and take part of the great american machine that the previous 2 generations created for them. I'm a Gen X'er.
The next generation, I have no idea what to think of. I only know that they'll suck.
These are all generalizations, of course.
As far as individual slackers go, I've known many. The one common denominator they all have is enablers. Whether it's their parents that they live with, or that bankroll them, or spoil them, etc, they all have someone paying their way and no reason to do anything other than slack. People who don't have parents bankrolling them, or someone to mooch off of, or has to work to support themselves don't have the luxury of slacking. Being hungry and cold and uncomfortable takes over and the drive to avoid that wins.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:posted by Sterling: Meanwhile, "Gen X" itself watches the previous two and those who idealize them constantly hurl invective on what each views as the others' accomplishments, and realizes that it can either attempt to equal the previous generations on their own terms, likely fail, and confirm those generations' expectations... Or simply not join the race, with the same result.
I think you're on to something here; it's something that I've experienced personally and can be viciously insidious.
Some back-story:
My parents are very successful people, extremely intelligent and hardworking. Mom is a partner in an accounting firm; Dad recently received a judgeship, resigning from a law firm from which he was also a partner at. They met while going to Stanford.
My brother and sister (both younger) do very well in school. Sis was a valedictorian, and was involved in nearly every extracurricular activity you can imagine, while managing to maintain a social life. She followed my parents in college choice. My brother skipped a grade, and as a junior is captain of the soccer team. He's more popular than me and my sister put together.
(Sorry if my background work turned into simple bragging. It can be hard to resist. )
As Sterling noted, the temptation can be to simply sit out the race when it seems like the accomplishments of those we respect and admire are realistically unreachable. They are not, of course, actually unreachable but the lens of idolization can be harsh. In some ways the desire to "sit out the race" has gotten worse as I've aged because there seems less and less chance to make up loss ground.
The successes of my siblings present other problems. I hate to disappoint my parents but now I can rationalize that their success, to some extent, ameliorates my deficiency.
This entire outlook is one that creeps up on me in the oddest times and, once engaged, can be difficult to break out of. It usually ends with moping and fantasies of dying in a heroic act. Generally, when I hit that point I fully realize how ridiculous I'm being and I can then work on snapping myself out of it. Not incidentally, I suspect that slight depressive tendencies contribute to my bouts of slackerdom.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Consider which goals might get somebody's butt off the couch:
* Preach the Gospel to all mankind. * Bring science to the benighted masses in darkness and poverty. * Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains! * Make the world safe for democracy. * Get a bigger house and a bigger entertainment center.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Will B wrote:
quote: Consider which goals might get somebody's butt off the couch:
See, Will B -- that, I think, is the difference between the WWII generation and now.
Their "get the butt off the couch" motivaters were:
Feed myself (or my family) - no work, no food
Have shelter
Become productive member of society so I won't be a social disgrace
In other words, their goals were a little further down Maslow's theory of hierarchy than what you showed. If they didn't make it, they had no one to bail them out.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Learned helplessness is a psychological phenomenon discovered when broken equipment punished animals no matter what they did)
I'm not sure where you got this from, but it is not correct. The dogs in question were initally used in experiments (I don't have my books here, so I can't be sure, but I think they were associative conditions ones) where shock was inescapable. They were later moved to shuttle-box operant conditioning experiments, where rather than escape the shock, they cowered in the shock area. Martin Seligman, the originator of the term, details his experience with this in his book Learned Optimism.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
But how can a parent not enable their child? And often the child sees the parent as being in need. Sometimes it's true, and not just in a needing to feel needed way. There is the movement of parents to sell the family size house and move into a condo.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:They were later moved to shuttle-box operant conditioning experiments, where rather than escape the shock, they cowered in the shock area. Martin Seligman, the originator of the term, details his experience with this in his book Learned Optimism.
They later turned it into an experiment. But the original effect was the result of a malfunction, either in equipment or process. Why is "Dole, Robert" in the index and not "dogs"? The Presidential Primaries of 1988. They used a text analysis to predict the winners.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It's in the opening part of the book.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
pg. 20, 3rd paragraph: "Accidentally, during the early part of the experiment, the dogs must have been taught to be helpless. The tones had nothing to do with it. During Pavlovian conditioning they felt the shocks go on and off regardless of whether they struggled or jumped or barked or did nothing at all."
Now I feel bad. When did we go wrong, Squicky? I thought we shared some thoughts on Zen once. Or was that someone else?
[ February 09, 2007, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:There is such a thing as a point of no return.
I don't think there's any evidence for this claim. I think people rise as necessary.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I like to think Tom is right. Just, "necessary" is probably going to involve some discomfort.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
It goes back to what a parent's job is. A parent's job is to prepare his child to be a productive adult and to function on their own. Too many parents confuse that with trying to make their kid happy, be friends, and give their kids the things they didn't have. Giving your kid everything to make them happy doesn't prepare a child for anything in adulthood. Teaching them responsibility, how to function on their own, to be independent and self sufficient should be the goal. Then kicking them out the door and yelling "Fly you brat" and moving to a smaller house.
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
History is littered with the corpses of societies (and many more individuals) who didn't rise to the occasion when life depended on it. Those might not constitute "evidence", or maybe some people just don't think at all, but either way civilizations do end.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:There is such a thing as a point of no return.
I don't think there's any evidence for this claim. I think people rise as necessary.
Right, just like the Babylonians, Assyrians, Israelites, Romans, Easter Islanders, Maya, Aztecs, and Europeans.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:The "Greatest Generation", which is credited with winning World War II and creating the foundations on which the United States is considered the greatest country on earth, frequently states that "Gen X" couldn't possibly match it's achievements in creating foundations.
Does it? Where?
quote:The "Boomer Generation" frequently states that "Gen X" couldn't possibly match it's accomplishments in challenging those foundations.
Do they? Where? And as a side note, Gen X at least tends to get apostrophes right.
I think you are making straw men and trying to build a theory from them. Bad idea.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
You think Gen X got it bad? What about us Gen Yers?
X was at least a new description. We just got one letter down in the alphabet. Even our name is a hand me down.
The kids younger than me get to be the cyber generation. Like Y didn't pioneer the love of cyber stuff these whippersnappers take for granted.
I'm going to go sit on my rocker and yell at kids to stay off my lawn.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I don't actually know what generation I am. I was born in 1985, any clues?
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Gen Z?
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I'm a Zombie?! Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Around 1980 to 1982ish there was a switch in generations from Gen X to the new generation, which is called Generation Y, the Millennials, the Cyber Generation, NeXters, etc. That generation should be ending about now, since they tend to be about twenty-five year cycles, although generations are also typically framed around a shared experience or national mood.
Gen Y has grown up in one of the longest periods of extended US economic growth, hands-on parenting, and has always had technology such as gaming consoles, computers, and (by high school, at least) the internet. I've talked to my professors about this (I was also born in 1985), and they seem to feel that the students of the past few years have been quite different. From what I've gathered, we tend to be grade-grubbers/resume padders, very future-oriented, work & study in groups (our library ALWAYS has all the group study rooms booked up), tend to look for leadership opportunities, and get very involved in some segment of the campus life. We're also ridiculously connected, with the internet & cell phones, and technology-savvy.
*shrug* There's some good traits and some bad traits in that list. I've heard predictions that we're going to be the next "great" generation, like the "Greatest Generation" that won WW2, and I've heard predictions that we're going to be a bunch of whiny brats who have never known hardship. If you're interested in the topic more, there are a lot of interesting books about generational shifts and the newest generation. Here's a good selection .
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Wow, I never realized that the generations were that well thought out or serious. I thought of them as a sort of shorthand, not a serious distinction.
That list scares me, though, I don't have many of those qualities, and I'm going to be competing against people who do. Also depressing is the realization that you're the same age as I am.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Hmm. No mention of divorce in the definition of that generation. Nothing makes you feel like you have to earn love like the withdrawal of it.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
There's also a nice list over at Wikipedia. As an 85er, blacwolve, you're just on the other side of the larger division from me. I was born in the tail end of the Conciousness Revolution. You got stuck with the Culture Wars.
Our age group can also be called the MTV Generation, the Boomerang Generation, and the Internet Generation. I hope they pick one to use consistantly soon. I hate Gen Y.
But I think the real reason we don't hear more about X, Y, and their infinite variations is that we're still hearing about the Baby Boomers. It's like in those Ameritrade commercials. They got the spotlight back in college and they won't let go of it.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: I hope they pick one to use consistantly soon. I hate Gen Y.
Don't count on it. Though I'm glad my generation wasn't stuck with YIFFIES (young, independent, and few). My sister read that in a magazine back in the mid 80's. What was the one they were trying to circulate last year? Grups? Makes me feel like talking like the teacher on Charlie Brown.
Boomerang works with baby. The Baby Boomerang.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
pooka- I think we're too young for divorce to be an issue. If it began in '82, then most of us are 24 and younger, hardly old enough to be married, much less divorced.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
blacwolve - I think he's referring to the fact that a lot of the parents of the last generation are divorced.
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Hmm. No mention of divorce in the definition of that generation. Nothing makes you feel like you have to earn love like the withdrawal of it.
I didn't think about divorce, which is amusing, since my parents had one when I was six. hmmm... I imagine that it probably has an affect, but I'm not sure how, exactly. Of the Gen Yers that I have met whose parents had a divorce, I get the feeling that for many it was messy, but after the divorce the parents (particularly the mothers) threw everything into making life better for the kids (or making the kids better for life via insane scheduling of extracurriculars).
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:The "Greatest Generation", which is credited with winning World War II and creating the foundations on which the United States is considered the greatest country on earth, frequently states that "Gen X" couldn't possibly match it's achievements in creating foundations.
Does it? Where?
quote:The "Boomer Generation" frequently states that "Gen X" couldn't possibly match it's accomplishments in challenging those foundations.
Do they? Where? And as a side note, Gen X at least tends to get apostrophes right.
I think you are making straw men and trying to build a theory from them. Bad idea.
Ah, yes. Typing fast, I put a possessive ' in its. Thank you for the constructive and useful addition to the conversation, and the due notice of the "realize I'm painting with an extremely broad brush" sentence. [/sarcasm]
I can point to various sources for my interpretation of this outlook if you're actually interested in something more than vague criticisms. Dave Barry's "Dave Barry turns 50" has some interesting observations from the Boomer standpoint, as does some of Stephen King's work. Arguably Brokaw's "Greatest Generation", defining the term, says much of the outlook of said generation. Or some of the legislative efforts of those born in those generations that affect those of the later generations, from the various waves of attention to "explicit" music and video games to curfew laws like those that exist in Anchorage, Alaska (http://www.michaelhanscom.com/19960227/curfew.html)
If I'm making some broad points, I would note that a) broad points can be useful for the sake of discussion of broad topics, and b) I explicitly said I was speaking broadly. To be making a straw man I would have to be setting up an oversimplified point-of-view for the purpose of defeat. I'm not.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: pooka- I think we're too young for divorce to be an issue. If it began in '82, then most of us are 24 and younger, hardly old enough to be married, much less divorced.
I think it's more like we're the generation who went through our parents' divorces on a massive scale. When my mother was in school in the 70s, there was only one kid in her school whose parents were divorced, and everyone knew about it because it was so unusual. By the time I was going to school, I was the unusual one because my parents weren't divorced. In that sense, divorce could very well be considered a defining characteristic of our generation, but because it's something that happened to most of us, rather than something we did.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)