Why You Shouldn’t Buy into ‘Generational Wars’

Why You Shouldn’t Buy into ‘Generational Wars’

Skinny jeans, side-partings, Harry Potter and the phrase ‘adulting’: all the things that I once liked, but have recently learnt, as a twenty-three-year-old, would make me rather uncool in the eyes of most teenagers. Why is this, you might ask? Apparently, these are the defining features of a millennial, and as the generation that I technically belong to (most commonly referred to as Gen-Z) continue to grow into sentient adolescents with access to social media and the ability the share their opinions far and wide, it seems that we’re being encouraged to view millennials as the enemy. Essentially, if I want to be seen as a true member of Gen-Z, I need to start consistently wearing my hair in a middle-part and ditch my years-in-the-making identification with the Harry Potter house, Ravenclaw.

It all seems like a bit of harmless fun. But is this dividing of ages as innocent as it seems?

In 2017, when an Australian millionaire implied that millennials might one day save enough to buy a home if they just stopped spending so much money on ‘smashed avocado’ and $4 coffees, it probably felt, for most of us, like the first needless attack on an entire generation. This isn’t the case, however. Generational resentments have been commonplace for centuries, with divisions and ‘generational wars’ being nothing new. Back in the early 1990s, for instance, the media supported the idea that baby-boomers (who made up the armies of young folk fighting valiantly against conservatism back in the 60s and 70s) would somehow save the UK from all its post-Thatcher political woes. Yet, by the time we reached the early 2000s, it became clear that younger generations, mainly consisting of our parents and our peers, had truly turned on the ‘boomers’. In fact, by now, you’ve probably only heard the term ‘boomer’ being used as an insult for anyone unable to work an iPad or wait more than thirty minutes in a restaurant.

It’s a tale as old as time: a generation will obviously, at one point in their collective existence, be made up of young people. Often, this younger generation will be seen at the forefront of protest and dissent, and in turn, be assumed to be the drivers of societal upheaval and change. Eventually, they will grow older, less conventionally attractive, and carefree, and the world will begin to focus on the things that theyfailed to change, as opposed to the things they did.

Of course, there are several reasons why generational divides will always exist to a certain extent. Under capitalism, there will invariably be an economical gap between generations. Additionally, its human nature to develop one’s opinions with each year spent on earth, meaning that older folk might always have more experience to bring to the table that younger generations do. Perhaps intensifying these gaps further, technology has developed over the last few decades at a rate way beyond humankind. This has forced recent younger generations to live in a world that is disproportionately more technologically advanced than their parents and grandparents, potentially widening the knowledge gaps between them. However, whilst some of these differences are entirely natural, there is a sinister ageism at play in the narrative that paints younger people as members of a ‘leading generation’. And what is the consequence of this ageism? Essentially, it could mean that movements lose momentum.

This is because these ageist generalisations can affect those on either side of the conflict: younger generations may feel as though their opinions and arguments are dismissed on account of their age and inexperience, whilst older generations can feel as though their contributions to movements are ignored, with the historical context that they actually lived through being forgotten.

Ultimately, whilst it may seem harmless for Gen-Z to laugh at Millennial tendencies (or vice-versa), it encourages a generational divide between groups of people who could be, realistically, months apart in age. Later down the line, any ageism that arises as a result of such jokes can allow for younger generations to blame older generations for not doing enough, leaving people in positions of power free of criticism. We saw it happen during Brexit, and we can probably expect it to happen again post-pandemic. In the end, nobody wins but those who are already winning.

So, the next time you feel like hating on a group of people three years your senior, remember: they probably have similar opinions to you, and they probably want the same things.