10-19-2022, 01:19 PM
Most mainstream communities that discuss generations tend to view them from a more pop cultural perspective. The thing I have noticed is that many of those communities fail to focus on the bigger, more historical picture regarding generations. This is especially common when defining the Millennial generation - people focus more on who followed pop culture trends and relatability instead of actual history. For example, one guy on the Internet says 1996 was the last to get into electropop and 1998 was the last to get into EDM. This is extremely flawed because there can be one guy born in 2000 into both of them and a 1998 baby not into any of them at all because he was simply not interested. There might also be people that aren't even born yet that will be into those trends, and obviously they are not Millennials.
Pop culture depends on where you live in my opinion. Some areas may have trends appear and fade away earlier/later than others. I do not think you can really make claims like "Gen Z culture began in X year" because it will be different for everyone. Some pop cultural trends are also different in appearance and style depending on where you live.
Another thing I notice is that pop culture generally tends to recycle itself every 20-25 years or so. This is not a rule of thumb, but I did notice this for the past ten years or so (early 2010's tended to have late 80's nostalgia, mid 2010's tended to have early 90's nostalgia, etc). I remember one guy on a subreddit about a year or a year and a half ago saying that the 2009-2013 electropop era kind of "echoed" the 1987-1991 neon era, and to be fair, I think he is correct. 15-18 year generational groupings are almost like saying pop culture echoes every 15-18 years, in my opinion. The Y2K revival going on in 2022 appears more like teens/young adults of 1999/2000 passing the torch to teens/young adults of 2022, and when most people think of "passing the torch", they think of one generation going away and the next one coming in. I think it is further proof that ranges like 1981-1996, 1981-1998, 1981-1999, and 1982-1999 do not make that much sense. However, if we were to define generations by things like this alone, this would create 20-25 year long generations. Since 20-25 year generations are too long for most people, I think people should split these 20-25 year "supergenerations" into 10-12 year "generations".
Memory is flawed when it comes to defining generations. No generations other than Millennials are defined by remembering X event. The oldest Boomers were not born yet when WWII ended (start of 1T), the oldest Gen Xers were not born yet when JFK was assassinated (start of 2T), and the oldest Millennials were not born yet when Reagan got elected (start of 3T). However, the oldest Gen Zers were either 1, 2, or 4 when 9/11 happened (the most likely start of 4T). Memory is something that isn't fixed for everyone (some people can remember things as early as 18 months although it's extremely unlikely, and some people don't even remember their 6th birthday), and remembering 9/11 is also a location and arguably a time zone issue IMO. I do not think a 1997 baby from rural Oregon or Washington that uses Pacific Standard Time will have as good of a chance as one from NYC that uses Eastern Standard Time. I also notice that some people try to make the amount people born in X year that remember 9/11 blown out of proportion. I remember seeing two users in a generation-related subreddit in particular, one born in May 1998 and the other born in September 1998, that try to act like 1998 babies were affected by and have a good chance in remembering 9/11. Just because you were born in 1998 and remember 9/11 does not mean everyone or even most people born in 1998 will. In fact, I checked a poll done by Pew, and apparently, 1995 was the last birthyear where more than 50% of the people born that year in the US remember 9/11.
The national and world moods of a certain year tends to define generations, as well. 1T began when WWII ended and Baby Boomers started in 1946. 2T began when JFK was assassinated and Gen X started in 1965. 3T began when Reagan got elected and Millennials started in either 1981 or 1982. 4T most likely started when 9/11 happened, but many people start Gen Z in either 1997, 1999, or 2000. 1997, 1999, and 2000 were still either purely 3T or at the very least heavily 3T leaning. In all three of those years, people were either hyping up for the new millennium or celebrating being welcomed "to the future", the economy was doing well, Clinton was still the POTUS, America was not really involved in any major 21st century war yet, and mass shootings were not really that common yet (I know there were incidents like the Pearl and Columbine shootings, but back then, events like that were rare).
I think a lot of pop culture/trends/memory arguments also serve as unnecessary fillers to emphasize a point that one birthyear is different than the next. IMO, the only things that really split 1996 from 1997, 1998 from 1999, and 1999 from 2000 are being at elementary school when 9/11 happened, voting in 2016, and graduating high school before the Parkland shooting, respectively. Many of the arguments I see that split 1996 from 1997, 1998 from 1999, and 1999 from 2000 can at least be mitigated to some degree or apply to another birthyear. I remember seeing two users on generation-related communities born in 1998 that try so hard to distance themselves from their 2000 born siblings (using things like Vine or tide pods as arguments), and I laughed about this one user talking about how he was different from his 2000 born sister because of a Mickey Mouse related show on the Disney Channel.
FYI, I say 1996, 1998, and 1999 end dates because a vast majority of the time on generation discussion communities, people end Millennials in either of those three years (they are also abused on the Internet, IMO).
Pop culture depends on where you live in my opinion. Some areas may have trends appear and fade away earlier/later than others. I do not think you can really make claims like "Gen Z culture began in X year" because it will be different for everyone. Some pop cultural trends are also different in appearance and style depending on where you live.
Another thing I notice is that pop culture generally tends to recycle itself every 20-25 years or so. This is not a rule of thumb, but I did notice this for the past ten years or so (early 2010's tended to have late 80's nostalgia, mid 2010's tended to have early 90's nostalgia, etc). I remember one guy on a subreddit about a year or a year and a half ago saying that the 2009-2013 electropop era kind of "echoed" the 1987-1991 neon era, and to be fair, I think he is correct. 15-18 year generational groupings are almost like saying pop culture echoes every 15-18 years, in my opinion. The Y2K revival going on in 2022 appears more like teens/young adults of 1999/2000 passing the torch to teens/young adults of 2022, and when most people think of "passing the torch", they think of one generation going away and the next one coming in. I think it is further proof that ranges like 1981-1996, 1981-1998, 1981-1999, and 1982-1999 do not make that much sense. However, if we were to define generations by things like this alone, this would create 20-25 year long generations. Since 20-25 year generations are too long for most people, I think people should split these 20-25 year "supergenerations" into 10-12 year "generations".
Memory is flawed when it comes to defining generations. No generations other than Millennials are defined by remembering X event. The oldest Boomers were not born yet when WWII ended (start of 1T), the oldest Gen Xers were not born yet when JFK was assassinated (start of 2T), and the oldest Millennials were not born yet when Reagan got elected (start of 3T). However, the oldest Gen Zers were either 1, 2, or 4 when 9/11 happened (the most likely start of 4T). Memory is something that isn't fixed for everyone (some people can remember things as early as 18 months although it's extremely unlikely, and some people don't even remember their 6th birthday), and remembering 9/11 is also a location and arguably a time zone issue IMO. I do not think a 1997 baby from rural Oregon or Washington that uses Pacific Standard Time will have as good of a chance as one from NYC that uses Eastern Standard Time. I also notice that some people try to make the amount people born in X year that remember 9/11 blown out of proportion. I remember seeing two users in a generation-related subreddit in particular, one born in May 1998 and the other born in September 1998, that try to act like 1998 babies were affected by and have a good chance in remembering 9/11. Just because you were born in 1998 and remember 9/11 does not mean everyone or even most people born in 1998 will. In fact, I checked a poll done by Pew, and apparently, 1995 was the last birthyear where more than 50% of the people born that year in the US remember 9/11.
The national and world moods of a certain year tends to define generations, as well. 1T began when WWII ended and Baby Boomers started in 1946. 2T began when JFK was assassinated and Gen X started in 1965. 3T began when Reagan got elected and Millennials started in either 1981 or 1982. 4T most likely started when 9/11 happened, but many people start Gen Z in either 1997, 1999, or 2000. 1997, 1999, and 2000 were still either purely 3T or at the very least heavily 3T leaning. In all three of those years, people were either hyping up for the new millennium or celebrating being welcomed "to the future", the economy was doing well, Clinton was still the POTUS, America was not really involved in any major 21st century war yet, and mass shootings were not really that common yet (I know there were incidents like the Pearl and Columbine shootings, but back then, events like that were rare).
I think a lot of pop culture/trends/memory arguments also serve as unnecessary fillers to emphasize a point that one birthyear is different than the next. IMO, the only things that really split 1996 from 1997, 1998 from 1999, and 1999 from 2000 are being at elementary school when 9/11 happened, voting in 2016, and graduating high school before the Parkland shooting, respectively. Many of the arguments I see that split 1996 from 1997, 1998 from 1999, and 1999 from 2000 can at least be mitigated to some degree or apply to another birthyear. I remember seeing two users on generation-related communities born in 1998 that try so hard to distance themselves from their 2000 born siblings (using things like Vine or tide pods as arguments), and I laughed about this one user talking about how he was different from his 2000 born sister because of a Mickey Mouse related show on the Disney Channel.
FYI, I say 1996, 1998, and 1999 end dates because a vast majority of the time on generation discussion communities, people end Millennials in either of those three years (they are also abused on the Internet, IMO).