Today’s AFR (subscription required) has a piece on Gen X and so on by Deirdre Macken. It’s a bit more sceptical than usual, partly because Macken is no fool, and partly because it links to the discussion at Catallaxy of Ryan Heath’s Please Just F* Off: It’s Our Turn Now. also discussed here. As I mentioned, I doubt that we’ll ever see a better title for a generation game book than this one.
Generational and other forms of categorization (whether or not it’s of any value) is essential to marketers trying to pitch their services to those with goods and services to sell. And the “Angry Young Man” genre stretches back to the dawn of writing (angry young women seem mostly cast their arguments in terms of feminism, or anti-feminism, rather than explicitly generational politics). So I don’t suppose it’s going to go away, no matter how many times the silliness of it all is pointed out.
John Quiggin 
Well, the only way it could get sillier is if they scrapped workers rights and made healthcare a priority just as baby boomers prepared to retire.
Oh wait.
Just wanted to point out that the link isn’t working — it lacks an “ht” right at the front.
Thanks. Michael
In the same way that boomers got tired of WWIers and their constant claims of being the “greatest” generation, so Gen X and Yers are heartily sick of the boomers and their Vietnam associated foibles, and constant self-analysis. X’s and Yers just haven’t reached the self indulgent stage that boomers have and WWIIers did before them. I’m sure every generation is permanently marked by their own experiences.
As another opinion piece on a similar issue in the Australian points out, young rich single people have missed out in the tax/welfare game. That isn’t just an attack on generation X (rather an attack unfairly biased toward all younger groups), so there is indeed something to complain about (or, at least as the Australian realizes, to work somewhere-else about).
I posted this on Catallyaxy and think it’s the best summary of Heath’s book i.e. it’s all about his career in the ALP:
‘“Books like this shouldn’t be necessary�, writes Ryan Heath in his introduction. But they are, Ryan, they are. In modern Labor, publishing a manifesto against the old labour politics of class is the main way an ambitious young hack can establish him/herself as a party intellectual.
In Please Just F*off, It’s Our Turn Now, hyped as “a call to generational battle not seen since the 1960sâ€?, a former NSW student politician turned UK New Labour adviser appropriates the rage of the sixties to fashion an open job application to big business.’ http://www.sa.org.au/10010.htm
“I’m sure every generation is permanently marked by their own experiences.”
No, every individual is permanently marked by her/his own experiences. The fad for generational experience stuff is largely about the grand narrative sweep of hypothesis and supposition spiced with the odd bit of demographic analysis. And Douglas Coupland, in particular, has a great deal to answer for.
For instance, it may come as a shock, but the vast majority of Australians born between 1945 and 1961 weren’t permanently scarred by Vietnam, weren’t hippies, didn’t march in the streets and weren’t in permanent rebellion against the strictures of stifling bourgeois conformity.
“For instance, it may come as a shock, but the vast majority of Australians born between 1945 and 1961 weren’t permanently scarred by Vietnam, weren’t hippies, didn’t march in the streets and weren’t in permanent rebellion against the strictures of stifling bourgeois conformity.”
I think to some extent they were, at least from the standpoint that many of the indiviudals from this time period are the very first to blame themselves for all the world’s ills. The same way the WWIIers are the very first to take credit for everything good that happened during their heyday.
“ndiviudals from this time period are the very first to blame themselves for all the world’s ills. The same way the WWIIers are the very first to take credit for everything good that happened during their heyday.”
Well, that must make me an anachronism. I’m perfectly happy to take my small share of credit for the many good things that happened in my time: withdrawal from Vietnam, equal pay for Aborigines and women, the vote for Aborigines, the end of apartheid, universal health insurance, the Family Law Act… the list goes on and on. Strangely, I seem to remember older and younger folk joining in the struggle too. And people of all ages on the other side, defending injustice and entrenched privilege. Must be the memory going…
Unfortunately, I do think your generation has become an anachronsim faster than the generation before you. Maybe it just happens more quickly to each successive generation.
A short, sharp recession will knock some ‘respect’ back into Gen Y!
“I’m perfectly happy to take my small share of credit for the many good things that happened in my time: withdrawal from Vietnam, equal pay for Aborigines and women, the vote for Aborigines, the end of apartheid, universal health insurance, the Family Law Act… ”
The focus on the environment is another big one; although labelled as an intergenerational issue?
In the same way that boomers got tired of WWIers and their constant claims of being the “greatest� generation, so Gen X and Yers are heartily sick of the boomers and their Vietnam associated foibles, and constant self-analysis. X’s and Yers just haven’t reached the self indulgent stage that boomers have and WWIIers did before them.
Why do generations always have to be tied to wars as if nothing else ever happened?
Also, what the other Helen said. If you focus on generational issues (which as JQ points out are mostly bogus) you avoid bringing up the C-word — class — and inequality. I don’t think young Ryan is concerned with people other than his fellow high flyers, what we in the olden days used to call yuppies.
Probably because they are so affected by whatever the major war was during their generation.
“For instance, it may come as a shock, but the vast majority of Australians born between 1945 and 1961 weren’t permanently scarred by Vietnam, weren’t hippies, didn’t march in the streets and weren’t in permanent rebellion against the strictures of stifling bourgeois conformity”
That’s right, the majority of us were learning how to grow up to to be Howard voters and be respected world wide.
Probably because they are so affected by whatever the major war was during their generation.
But there are things apart from wars which affect generations. I think the Great Depression was a bigger influence on the pre-baby-boomer generation than a war. And with the Vietnam war there was still a large apathetic majority (who grew up to be respected Howard voters, yada yada.)
“But there are things apart from wars which affect generations.”
Sure there are but wars leave a mark nothing else does. Depending on whether you won or lost of course.
” I think the Great Depression was a bigger influence on the pre-baby-boomer generation than a war.”
Not every generation has a depression and certainly not like 1929.
Now if I can just get rid of the last of Generation D (for Duh!) I might be able to downsize and beat the crush
http://www.findaproperty.com/story.aspx?storyid=6192
Helen’s accusation that Ryan Heath is mainly concerned about a small and relatively privileged cohort (young, educated, professional) was a point repeatedly made during a recent talkback appearance by Heath, http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/lm/stories/s1604627.htm . It was also widely made (I think, from memory) a decade ago, by critics of Mark Davis’ “Gangland�. Oddly enough, this sort of accusation seems to almost exclusively emanate from women (and less surprisingly, mainly boomer women, at that).
In any event, such accusations necessarily either (i) are a dumb, cheap trick, or (ii) kill off the protestations of Ryan Heath et al, stone cold dead. There is no middle-ground, because if Heath at al are special-pleading, privileged whingers, they have just permanently alienated the entire world outside their narrow cohort – so case closed, QED and all that. (Topical analogy: billionaire Italian PM who has lately been proclaiming his manifest victimhood.)
My own view, of course, is that when young(-ish), educated men are saying that something is badly broken in society, it behoves everyone else to listen, and most all, take remedial action. But hey, what would I know – I’m just from the generation that invented (as in the practice of, whatever the theory) Islamist suicide bombing.
Re Deirdre Macken, she has plenty of form in the Xer-dissing department. Here’s her having a boomer moral panic in 1996 (as quoted in “Gangland�):
“I can feel the chasm of a generation gap opening up and, frankly, I’m glad to put a bit of distance between us [. . .] I saw an advertisement for body piercing in a ‘youth magazine’ (sounds benign, doesn’t it). It was a close-up photograph of a ring piercing what I presumed was a bellybutton . . . On closer inspection it wasn’t a navel. It was a . . . let’s just say that the Nursing Mother’s Association is going to have a tough job dispensing advice to breastfeeding mothers in a few years [. . .] When we Baby Boomers face the children, we only have to explain why we thought floral flares and towering cork shoes were attractive [. . .] But when these X-ers have kids, they’re going to have to answer queries like [. . .] ‘When I grow up will I grow a hole in my nose too?’�
– Deirdre Macken, ‘The Grunge Plunge’, Good Weekend, 6 Jan 1996, p38
“Macken is no fool?� Could have fooled me. She’s also responsible for this dross:
“Back in the ’70s, dole bludgers were a threat to society. These long-haired layabouts collected government payouts to finance a life of surfing, sex and a shack up the coast . . . Swap the term dole bludger for pension loafer and you’ll see where the next generational conflict will be fought in the coming era of ageing. And if you can remember the term dole bludger, chances are it will be you who will be on the defensiveâ€?
– Deirdre Macken, ‘We shall fight them on beaches (and at the RSL)’ AFR 29 Nov 2003
Needless to say, dole bludgers are more demonized in the current decade than ever before. The main difference from the 1970s are (i) that the dole is not a lifestyle choice (for most); i.e. there just aren’t available jobs, and (ii) no one on social security could now afford to live in a “shack up the coast� (unless of course they owned it, and purchased it before ~1995).
Interesting, Observa. I have often wondered what it’d be like if I tried the group house option again after retiring age. Sure, they have their problems, but we are civiller (and our music less loud, our housekeeping better and our drug habits less). You’d only do it if well known companions agreed to it. Then you could buy one of the larger houses which, according to this theory, will be cheaper.
Large houses can also be chopped up into smaller ones, which often results in an idiosyncratic and charming bunch of dwellings (I’m thinking of the older places in St Kilda/Elwood/Prahran.)
Of course the McMansions will simply fall apart after 20 years, as they’ve skimped on materials and quality, so the land can simply be built on again with more appropriate and – one hopes – ecologically sensible buildings.
Ganglands was primarily about the dominant group of literary intellectuals and those who aspired to replace them, which fits my definition of a small and relatively privileged cohort (young, educated, professional) .
Unemployment gets about two pages and a couple of passing references, with no historical treatment. By contrast, the Darville-Demidenko affair is dissected at length.
the vote for Aborigines,
When was that Hal9000?
You don’t think it was in 1967 do you?
Observa, the majority of people born between 1945 and 1961 didn’t vote for Howard in 1998 or 2001. Nor for that matter did those younger than them.
Howard won those elections by racking up huge majorities amonst those of his own generation (born between about 1932 and 1945 and so too young to remember the depression but too old to be drafted in Vietnam).
I think that there are some interesting observations that can be made about differences between subpopulations within generations, but I tend to agree witih JQ that most of the commentary is rubbish. And the way you can tell it is rubbish is how often people repeat utterly false statements about a generation to fit their theories. Take for example Peter Brent’s demolition of the Caroline Overtington at http://www.mumble.com.au (near the bottom of the page)
“When was that Hal9000?
You don’t think it was in 1967 do you?”
No, 1965 (Queensland).
The formal effect of the referendum was to remove the provision allowing exclusion of Aborigines from the census and to extend Commonwealth jurisdiction. The practical effect, however, was to signal the end of the paternalistic regimes presided over by the States – although the old legislation limped along for some years to the discredit of all governments involved – most notoriously Queensland until 1974 (and even then some discriminatory provisions survived until the 1980s) .
Faith Bandler’s recollection of how when PM Menzies offered her a drink in his Parliament House office in 1964, Menzies would have broken the law in Queensland is a case in point. Apparently Menzies was genuinely moved by the revelation.
You wonder why anti-“baby-boomer” commentators aren’t more respected?
“Skeletor” at the same site has more similar, undignified rants (and he’s some kind of public functionary in Canberra, so presumably we have even more punishing, neoliberal, hateful policies in the pipeline.
These people do not understand
(1) plain english – I believe sonny Jim above means to say “ON the public teat”
(2) that the same policies are meant to benefit them when they get older – yes I know when you’re really young you intend to die young and make a beautiful corpse, but we ahem, grow out of that eventually – or most of us do;
(3) That many people who are classed as baby boomers do NOT approve of policies that encourage tax deductions of investment properties, or HECS / full fee university, or privatisation of medicine, and the other misapplications of government policy which are making people in their 20s to early 40s miserable. And we do approve of better policies for everyone – not just someone who was born between certain dates.
We did not all vote for this government, so do not presume that their policies are our fault.
We do not all have money and an investment property, so do not presume we are all rich and cashed up.
Many of us work for a younger boss, so do not presume we are sitting on all the power and all the jobs. In fact, older people are still discriminated agains in job interviews, according to the last survey reports in the last couple of days.
You wonder why anti-“baby-boomer” commentators aren’t more respected?
From a snark site well known to most of us:
“Skeletor” at the same site has more similar, undignified rants (and he’s some kind of public functionary in Canberra, so presumably we have even more punishing, neoliberal, hateful policies in the pipeline.
These people do not understand
(1) plain english – I believe sonny Jim above means to say “ON the public teat”
(2) that the same policies are meant to benefit them when they get older – yes I know when you’re really young you intend to die young and make a beautiful corpse, but we ahem, grow out of that eventually – or most of us do;
(3) That many people who are classed as baby boomers don’t approve of policies that encourage tax deductions of investment properties, or HECS / full fee university, or privatisation of medicine, and the other misapplications of government policy which are making people in their 20s to early 40s miserable. And we do approve of better policies for everyone – not just someone who was born between certain dates.
We did not all vote for this government, so do not presume that their policies are our fault.
We do not all have money and an investment property, so do not presume we are all rich and cashed up.
Many of us work for a younger boss, so do not presume we are sitting on all the power and all the jobs. In fact, older people are still discriminated agains in job interviews, according to the last survey reports in the last couple of days.
Oh, why am I wasting my time? These people think what they want to think. Eventually they will (gasp) find themselves over fifty! Who knew?!
Sorry for the cut and paste error.
Second was the hip-hip mashup.
Hi all
A very belated entry into this discussion. Firstly I have an even more belated apology for Mr. Quiggin for being so goddamn rude to him three months back in the original generations discussion.
Otherwise my comments are refined to the two Helen’s and Paul Watson.
I really liked Paul’s contribution – more than his Catallaxy one on the topic.
The Helen’s are rather more negative and, indeed, wrong.
To Helen #1 who thinks the book is all about my ALP career: um, what career? I am not even a member and i live in the UK. And under Kim Beazley? You only have to read the book to know that will never happen.
To Helen #2 who thinks I only care about privileged brats (allegedly like myself): I do care about class Helen, and for the record I had a very working class upbringing myself. Where generations intersect with class is on property. Asset-based wealth is the biggest determinant of class, houses are most people’s biggest assets and Boomers are the people who disproportionately own the houses …. see the link.
And, also, I have many other interests that don’t invovle generations, and have been writing about them for a good seven years now, as a Google search will throw up for anyone interested.
Ryan
Hi Ryan,
Apology accepted – a fairly vigorous tone is expected in this kind of discussion.
Your comment reminds me that someone (me?) ought to do a proper analysis of the distributional impact of the housing boom.
So Ryan, you are not the Ryan on this page from the ALP Abroad gang: Nominations are formally made to our returning officer Ryan Heath (16 Feb 2006)
http://www.alpabroad.org/news/1138616978_11745.html.
That was thrown up in a google search. As was this one:
ABROAD: Heady cocktails x 3 byRyan Heath in the Labor eHerald: http://eherald.alp.org.au/articles/0905/newsabroad21-01.php
and this:
‘A new gay and lesbian lobby group was unveiled at last weekend’s state ALP conference. Co-convenor Ryan Heath told the Star that they had received an overwhelmingly positive response.’
http://www.ssonet.com.au/archives/display.asp?ArticleID=1666
This other Ryan has caused some confusion. Would the real Ryan Heath please stand up.
Cheers,
Helen