Generations are Defined by Conflict 18-02-2012

At least in American culture dating back to the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the socially-recognized archetypes of given cultural generations seem to be identified and defined by the primary conflicts that the generation and its individual members struggled through. It should not be surprising to either the historian, the psychologist or the anthropologist, but to us laypersons who are not well versed in such topics, this may seem peculiar. At first glance, the images that we collectively share of particular generations seem to be based solely on general characteristics and traits shared by its members.

We think of the G.I. of the 1930s and 1940s and envision the enterprising, stoic, sometimes rugged suburbanite. We contemplate the Baby Boomer and we see the countercultural, experimental, independent-minded social changer, at least in its original era. We think of the Generation Xer and perceive the raw, anti-corporate, anti-social, anti-everything "problem child". And these archetypes that we see are in fact largely accurate representations of their respective zeitgeists. But that's just it: they are merely representative. These images are byproducts of the true defining feature, the conflict. It is a generation's conflicts which shape these traits, which provide the landscape upon which they develop, and further, upon which we frame and retroactively fit a generation as a singular entity.

Development via Conflict

The cultural and social characteristics of a generation are influenced by conflict, ultimately, because the individual characteristics of a generation's members are influenced by conflict. It must be remembered that a cultural generation is essentially a network: it is an assemblage of unique and distinct people with differing ambitions, personalities and responses, all of whom were born in the same rough time frame. Initially, the only aspect which is common to every one from, say, Generation Y, is that each individual was born in the 1980s and early 1990s. But as time passes and every one comes of age nigh simultaneously, the relationships that we form, the ideas that we share and the movements that we begin and take part in form a culture and a society around and throughout us. And this culture pushes back, via such mechanisms as social norms, peer pressure and cultural awareness, affecting each individual such that new currents and trends can be witnessed forming within the generation. As such, a sort of strange loop arises: as individual people grow and mature, their participation in society impacts said society and its culture, while the continued mutation of these collective bodies applies pressure upon each participating individual, causing adjustments in behaviors and in traits. Thus, it is seen that the way in which one person develops affects the way in which all members of the same social structure develop.

All that is then left to be shown is that the development of the individual is driven by conflict, and this is obvious. For a hypothetical individual for whom conflict never occurs, there is nothing to drive continued development and maturation. Every desire that arises is attained without any obstacles to speak of, and thus one never develops an ability to adapt or an ambition to pursue anything of value. There are only completely superficial interactions, because any interaction in which the participating individuals' desires are not entirely distinct and non-overlapping would necessarily cause conflict. And without meaningful interaction, there is no way to receive feedback about one's actions and traits, meaning that the individual is a closed system. Every action that is taken is accomplished without any resistance or trouble, and thus one never recognizes the concepts of failure and success; there is only the action as an isolated entity and the wholly predictable response, because an unpredictable response would conflict with one's internal view of the world, and for this individual there is no conflict. And with a completely unchallenged world view comes complete stagnation: if everything external to the individual is static, then there is no impetus to adjust one's thoughts, words, behaviors or characteristics. At what point do we recognize that this individual is no longer human?

It is in fact conflict which provides the driving force behind maturation and personal growth. The difference between that which is expected and that which is actual is the foundation of struggle and the primary means by which people are driven to adapt. As individuals meet conflict among each other, among world views, among ideals and among desires, they inevitably seek to reconcile differences between the expected and the actual, whether by struggling to transform the actual into what is expected or by adjusting one's expectations to match reality, which would in turn affect future conflicts. Thus one's actions and one's characteristics are at the whim of one's conflicts. The way in which a person behaves is dictated by strife and by circumstance, and the way in which she develops is guided both by her behaviors and by the constantly adjusting and conflicted perceptions of the world external to her.

As goes the individual, so goes society. Conflicts are the primary driver of human development, and therefore the primary driver of the development of a given society and generation.

Conflict as Symbology

But though a generation is ultimately a heterogenous network composed of millions of distinct individuals, history and the human mind assign archetypes to such generations. This is natural: it creates an identity and an image that can be used to better understand the world. These archetypes, subjective and perceived as they may be, are utilized to provide the basis for discussion and analysis of times long since past; without a convenient symbol to represent the people and society of a given period in time, it becomes considerably more difficult to explain trends, events and outcomes. But it also provides the means to fulfill an addictive tendency of the human psyche: comparison. We constantly strive to qualitatively compare different objects and symbols, mostly to improve one's views of the world and of self. If one can assign archetypes to different generations, one can rapidly evaluate one's own opinions, beliefs and history. And if comparing one's own generational archetype to another, it becomes especially functional as a means of reinforcing a positive view of self.

But these archetypes are not born from nothing, they are not developed in a vacuum devoid of any historical context. When we develop an archetype for a generation, we see it in the context of its time and frame it accordingly. The major events of the era, the most recognizable people of the generation, most impactful trends and movements of the culture: all context clues used to shape the archetype. And the context clues are primarily driven by the major conflicts of the age: history is greatly devoted to mankind's struggles because they are a) easily recognizable landmarks and b) significant contributors to most of what does in fact unfold.

The G.I. Generation is remembered today primarily for its role in World War II and the Great Depression. The Baby Boomers of the 1960s are identified almost exclusively by the Vietnam War, the Civil Rights movement and watershed moments from the height of the Cold War. Generation X is defined largely by a medley of conflicts and crises which dotted the 1970s and 1980s, including the tail end of the Cold War, Iran-Contra and the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. Case after case, without fail, it is seen that the landscape in which a generational symbol is frame is based largely on conflict, between nations, between ideologies, between social movements, between people. Conflicts make up the peaks and valleys of the topology over which the archetypes are laid and create the unique qualities that we identify within each generation.

Looking Forward

The fact that conflict is such a critical defining term of the identity of an entire generation is noteworthy for multiple reasons. For one, it affirms the idea that conflict and struggle are core components of the human condition. The characteristics that are developed, individually and collectively, are largely influenced by struggles, be they internal or external, personal or widespread. Thus, the human is a creature whose continuing metamorphosis, both personal and social, is governed in no small part by conflict. This growth is inescapable, for no person is stagnant and there is no permanence, and this conflict is inevitable, for the nature of autonomy and of the very fabric of the Universe, that no two agents can occupy the same space (in a physical and, at times, metaphorical sense), dictates it so. It is intrinsic to human nature to experience conflict and to be influenced as such.

Additionally, it means that the landscapes, be they political, economic, cultural or otherwise, that we shape today will have a significant impact on the development of successive generations, of our children and our children's children. The course of human history is, for most intents and purposes, linear, and effects have causes. The conflicts that occur within and throughout a generation, be they economic depressions, international warfare or cultural revolutions, are influenced by, and often times inherited from, previous generations. This is obvious because human history does not occur in a vacuum: every action has a reaction and the effects of conflicts as significant as those which define our own generation will undoubtedly spawn a vast and varied array of responses, some immediate and some gradual.

This means that the way that we choose to respond to our own problems and clashes, as a society and as individual persons, will influence the conflicts that our children will be tasked with confronting, and in turn the very way in which their generation will develop. It is entirely true that we cannot eradicate conflict from the face of the planet (and we would not even want to, for much of humanity's greatness stems from its responses to its troubles), but if we wish to have a positive impact on the lives of our children, if we wish to leave them with a world that they can be proud to call their own, then we must mind our actions today. We must be conscious of the consequences of our actions and our words, and we must strive for a balance of passion and reason, of emotion and rationality.

And do not believe for one second that history will forget about the decisions of today: we will always be remembered for our loudest and most severe of conflicts.