explaining millennial arrogance.

This weekend, while doing some volunteering at OYP, I heard the now tired rant about my generation (the 'millennial' generation) and the apathy, entitlement, and arrogance that define us.  I'm going to do my best to explain some of that, if not justify some of it.

The internet is likely the biggest alteration to human interaction with information, since written language became commonplace.  I don't think this is hyperbole.  The written word allowed stories concepts, ideas and information to exist without being directly shared, and to have a life beyond the individuals, and even the cultures, that created that content.  The internet allows instantaneous communication, collaboration, and access to mankind's collective stored information, and has the ability to make physical and temporal distance irrelevant.  It has changed everything, and the millennial generation is the first one to consider it as a given and as a right, rather than as a tool.  The way we envision communication, culture and problem solving is based on this level of connectivity, which did not exist when current leaders learned how to solve problems.

Every generation thinks that it is living in the apocalypse times.  We don't have nuclear war (yet), but we have the strongest economies in the world collapsing, the spectre of rapid climate change, and asymmetrical insurgent warfare, on top of everything else.  We've inherited a pretty ruined world, and after a lifetime of being told we wouldn't have pensions, or steady jobs, or social security, we are being told that expecting a career, or a stable environment, is unrealistic.  We also can't help but notice that many of these issues are at least partially traceable to the generations preceding us.

We were raised specifically in rebellion to the discipline and sacrifice taught to our parents by the Greatest Generation.  Most millennials have been told from childhood that they are valued, they should expect to be heard, that they have valid ideas, and that expecting fulfillment in one's work is a bare minimum.  The education system in many areas has been shifted to one that doesn't consider failure an option until the early teens, and in my experience we've created a culture where we expect that 75% of students can be above average.  This inherently results in apathy regarding results, as expectations are absurd, and/or grading criteria are meaningless.

Now put this person in the workplace.

They have ideas, they are excited and motivated to finally have a chance to do something that MATTERS, that will be judged on functionality, not an artificial standard.  This is not the reality of the working world.

The people in leadership positions, in most corporations, are people who don't like being presented with entirely new ideas, especially not by people who are considered untested.  Most business structures are still operating on a pre-internet base, or at best with a thin veneer of new technologies applied to old structures.  Old structures are resistant to new ideas.  And millennials in the workplace quickly realise when they are in another situation where what comes before is dictating the options available to them.

We don't subscribe to the idea of paying dues before you get to make change, because in our minds, everything has changed, and the people who have the status necessary to influence things don't understand it.  If you'd like proof, the best example I can give is record industry execs admitting that they didn't hire anyone to help them with technology, because they wouldn't know who to hire.

To a millennial, every industry looks like that, or will soon.

We were raised to think this way, we have been presented with a well and truly ruined world, and when we actually try to do something about it, we are told we will have to wait a decade or so, to establish the credibility necessary to get anyone with influence on our side, or we are shown by others to strike out completely on our own, and make the change we see as necessary without support from older structures.  While being told to wait a decade, we are also hearing that we have a decade or so to change everything before the world falls apart.

We can see how bad things are, the world over, in more detail, and more personally than any other generation in human history.  And we keep getting told that the only thing we can do, for now, is business as usual.

Not sure if you've noticed, but business as usual has failed.  Miserably.  And doing the same thing, with hopes for different results, is the definition of insanity.

Of course we come across as arrogant, as entitled, as apathetic.  The entire world has changed, the way the human race interacts has fundamentally changed, since the current leaders of the world have entered the workforce.  Speaking to close friends and family members even ten years older than me is astounding, because they cannot speak 'internet'.  And we're being asked to wait, and to stick to failed structures.

You'd be arrogant, entitled and apathetic, too.

absurdity is not an argument.

A common mistake in attempts to make a strong political statement, is to drawing a parallel between a commonly held position, and a contradictory position that people will likely react strongly to.

In these two examples, the parallels are between torture as a government sanctioned activity, and torture as a Coney Island attraction, and between the brutal, disturbing murder of a young man on a bus, and the use of animals as food and test subjects.

All I’m going to say is that these ideas only work if the point made falls carefully between two extremes - either people need to generally agree that, despite exaggeration, the points are the same, or people need to be able to justify the comparison made as less directly offensive than the thing you are trying to argue against.

I understand that there is a notable segment of the population that thinks hurting animals is wrong.  But arguing that human life is of the same value as animal life gets people to stop listening to appeals for the animals at all.  

I understand that if people are offended by seeing torture, they should be offended by it being government sanctioned.  But taking a day out with the kids and turning it into some thing mildly traumatizing doesn’t exactly cause a groundswell in support of civil liberties.

If the parallel you are drawing approaches the absurdity than the offensive action that inspired it, you are doing something wrong.  You are doing your argument a disservice.

All attention is good attention, if the only thing you want is attention.  If you want change, you’ll have to do better.

signal as noise in clothing.

Clothing is a point of interest for me, because it's the main signifier that people can shift without a lot of effort. Clothing, as I'm sure I've mentioned here before, is one of the strongest signifiers of identity, because it denotes an allegiance to a sub-culture, and often the level of dedication / sect in which one fits into that culture.

I'm starting to wonder how much farther we have to go before clothing because noise, just like everything else.

[note: i'll go link diving later to illustrate the point better]

I've heard that some lines are considering offering more than 2 collections a year, simply because the gap between something hitting the market, and becoming ubiquitous, is shrinking. Even with the coming recession (as far as I'm concerned, it's coming) people are willing to spend heavily for differentiators. This also becomes a problem when displaying large labels is out of fashion, and on-trend clothing is readily available at low prices, thanks to retailers like H&M and Forever 21. People will spend more to point out that they can, or for an increase in quality, fine. The question is, will the increase in number of new collections result in a more direct, and complete mining of the sub-cultural fashion landscape?

Couture has grabbed inspiration wholesale from subcultures time and again, forcing fashion migration in some groups. I recall at one point in the mid-90s commenting that being a skateboarder was tantamount to being a Backstreet Boy, in terms of buying in to the mainstream culture that skateboarding has claimed to reject.

I've never thought that you could actually judge someone's personality by their clothing, but there was a time you could judge how they wanted to be perceived. If the timetable and absorption of new fashion / inspirations is accelerated much more, I have to wonder if that will result in fashion's signal becoming noise.

ground war snippet.

In general, subcultures worry about co-optation. Gramsci, Subaltern classes, etc. The issue, however, is not being co-opted, but what would be co-opted.

Subcultures are more or less defined publicly by the visual / auditory cues they throw out there in an attempt to 1) keep people of other groups at some distance; or 2) attract people of their own group. By this I mean that the clothes, hair, music, slang, and so on that is integral to the identity of a member of a subculture is the way they let people know they are special, different from the mass, and part of a group. It's a statement of value.

However, when co-optation happens, the only things that get taken are the clothes, hair, music, slang. This still manages to either damage or devalue the subculture in question, stripping it of it's cultural relevance and it's esteemed place among the hipster cognoscenti. People taking the outward cues kills the thing, at least incrementally. Sure, people will talk about the 'real' thing, and how it was ruined, but really, we live in a world where someone, somewhere, considers the first Avril Lavigne album punk, in some capacity. Punk, as a label, has been devalued in the public consciousness.

I find this interesting, because it either means that the ideology of a subculture is of less importance than the visual cues associated with it, or that there's no ideology to begin with, beyond 'we like this grouping of interests'. Ask someone within a subculture, and they will probably disagree with you on that point. I would have, at other points in my life. But I think it rings true, at least somewhat.

I base at least some of that on my inability to think of a subculture that doesn't separate itself in terms of appearance, but instead ideology. I guess there is a communist community out there, but most of the ones I encounter seem more involved in mentioning Marx constantly and adopting a brooding, minimalist, doomed, chain smoking aesthetic than anything related to the improvement of the human condition in their society. Oh, and often, bad haircuts.

Subversivity is most likely impossible if you are screaming 'I'm not like you' at the top of your lungs. And yet, the people who most want to change the system are usually the loudest voices in the chorus.

The interesting thing, is that if there was no outward sign that you were of a given group whose ideology is to affect change, you would be co-optation resistant. It would be hard for someone to sell a watered down version of 'I will play the game, but my goals are different.' Or, even better, co-opting an ideology would be the dream, because it means that people are actually listening, rather than just salvaging fashion.

The clothes and the hair and the music get taken. They get repackaged and sold with the same gloss, but with none of the ideas. So why let them be part of the message at all? The only people they are going to convince are the ones you don't want on your side in the first place.

[Maybe this will clarify some points of the 'conversation with singha' post. Anyways, I should probably try to clarify with my prof tomorrow that I'm exploring some of these points on my blog, lest he thinks I'm plagiarizing this 'broken gentleman' character. Academia really doesn't fit well with the new self-publishing paradigm.]

a conversation with singha. (artificials)

[Mostly because I have received my big 4th year seminar take home exam, and am only now understanding how fully I slacked off, there will not be a good exploration of the themes in this conversation. Note that it is very hastily edited, and the poor results are a reflection of that. But somewhere in there is the kernel of the artificials idea, which apparently most people aren't getting from my rambling crap posted thus far. I may delete this later, and replace it with a better exploration that isn't a pasted MSN convo. I may not. Now, to read tremendously boring autobiographies that I just went into debt to buy.]

----------

Shaan: I have come to a weird realization about myself...
Shaan: I am a fan of Pop Sub cultures...
Shaan: not necessarily what they think of... but for the reason that they are an identifiable sub culture
Shaan: .. wait... let me rephrase
Shaan: Not to be them. but because of what they are and how they identify themselves... its all too fascinating...
[crowley.] it is pretty interesting.
[crowley.] I’ve been looking into that for my artificial persona idea
Shaan: I don’t know if I would fit into the artificials
[crowley.] subculture is a great example of people picking up elements of a personality for personal gain, not necessarily because it genuinely describes them.
Shaan: this idea I came to though is making me try and do the impossible and define what I am...
Shaan: that is definitely true
Shaan: though the range in gain is varied
Shaan: it would even seem that in attempts to further the culture it is more importantly there to make them more of the culture
Shaan: sometimes as seen with music
Shaan: make their own self a culture as it would be
[crowley.] what I think is interesting is ideas of cooptation
[crowley.] because, if a subculture was defined by ideals, by any real identity, that couldn't be co-opted. however, outward cues of the culture (clothes, music, slang) are often co-opted, and this leads to the death or devaluation of the culture.
[crowley.] basically, that phenomenon indicates to me that no subculture has real substance, that it is more important at the surface level than anywhere else.
Shaan: this is true
Shaan: as seen with punk
[crowley.] it's not ideals, it's an attempt to differentiate between the mass. Which, to me, makes it douchey.
Shaan: and basically everything
[crowley.] the artificials is a response to that.
Shaan: you need to make it a film
Shaan: I'm certain of this
Shaan: I want to make it a film with you
[crowley.] the only ideal is self-interest, although it could be applied to wider interest. But everything else is a weapon.
[crowley.] I think it might be a book.
Shaan: then do it
[crowley.] I kinda have to graduate first.

[Special thanks to Singha for not getting irked whenever he finds out I posted this.]