Generational Boundaries and Movies

[Anthony '58]

Remember 1971's R-rated Summer of '42 and its 1973 PG-rated sequel Class of '44?

Based on the titles of both, these films were clearly about 1926 cohorts - who went on to serve in World War II.

So did even 1927 cohorts, even though few if any of them saw actual combat - yet they are still legally regarded as "World War II-era veterans," and entitled to all benefits applicable thereto (1927 cohort David Dinkins, the late former mayor of New York City, had to move heaven and earth to get himself into the Marines - but he succeeded).

Also in 1973 there was American Graffiti, which famously asked the question, "Where were you in '62?"  (The characters had just graduated from high school that summer, making them 1944 cohorts - thus suggesting a first birth year for Boomers as earlier than 1946).

Now, fast forward to the 1978 movie Almost Summer.

It's theme song begins with the following lyrics:

"Susie wants to be a lady (movie) director,
And Eddie wants to drive a hearse.
Johnny wants to be a doctor or lawyer,
And Linda wants to be a nurse."

Not a word in there about "developing a meaningful philosophy of life."

Since this movie made its debut in theaters on April 21, 1978, and the script had to have been written before that, the characters had to have been patterned on no later than 1959 cohorts.

For further information, click on this link:

Almost Summer - Wikipedia

[pbrower2a]

Developing a "meaningful philosophy of life" was much on the fade through the 1970's. By 1980 the objective of college students was survival -- with some occasional "partying". For us Boomers, party was never a verb. It was a noun as in "they're having a party at Sigma Chi" or an adjective (as in "party hat" or "party store"). Generation X shortened "Let's have/attend/throw a party" to "Let's party!" and coined a word for a participant in a party, a partier. Before 1980 such usages would have gotten a copyeditor's red pencil acting. After 1980 putting a red pencil to use on such became the mark of a purist fogy.

Survival is meaning. As life goes lower on Maslow's hierarchy of needs, the meaning of life descends from something like "enjoying nature" or "contemplating the philosophical reality behind things" to making sure that one pays the rent and keeps the utilities running so that one does not get cold -- or evicted. It is something of a luxury to take a look at a tree of grandeur and marvel at its awesome size. If you are hungry enough and someone pays you to cut that tree down so that you can get a plate of beans as a reward, then you will use a chainsaw to cut down that tree.

It is far easier to control working people if they are in fear of hunger, cold, or homelessness. The nastiest system in an advanced industrial society (the Soviet Union was still technologically primitive), Nazi Germany, had concentration camps for anyone who griped or faltered in meeting the demands of plutocrats who had sold out workers' freedom for maximal profits. Fear works. It also tears people down over a comparatively short time, but it is good for achieving short-term results.



Physiological needs: air if suffocating, food if hungry, water if thirsty, getting out of excessive cold or heat, having intolerable pain an antidote if poisoned, or escaping a clear and present danger (a fast-moving train on the track on which you are). At the end of your life you will be in such a situation and fail to get out of it, and at best you will be numbed so that you do not feel the last pains of cancer.  

Safety needs: not being scared of a fairly-short term incidence of death or severe bodily harm; not being incarcerated, beaten, or trafficked. Not being an addict or alcoholic. Avoiding homelessness and insolvency. Not being obliged to risk sudden death from a dangerous situation. Not being shot at in warfare. Not having to resort to crime to survive.

Belonging and Love needs. Getting away from loneliness and grief. Being connected to others (no man is an island). Being liked. Feeling that others care about one. No man is an island!

Esteem needs. Feeling good about oneself (at least for following the rules and being rewarded for such). Not being an economic, religious, ethnic, or political pariah. Freedom from destitution. Ability to participate in politics with a meaningful choice in a competitive election. Having an opportunity to accomplish somethi8ng in life. 

Cognitive needs. Being able to use one's mind to contemplate reality and use one's intellect on the job. Access to high-quality information and knowledge. Getting an appropriate education for one's intellectual ability. Maybe the level of satisfaction is different between someone with an IQ of 85 (low-normal) and an IQ of 135. OK, the National Enquirer would be fine for someone of low-normal IQ and Scientific American would appeal to people decidedly smarter -- with Scientific American being incomprehensible to a dullard and the National Enquirer being boring rubbish to someone smart. Well, ideally both are available at the news-stand. 

Aesthetic needs -- not being condemned to endure incessant ugliness, stench, and noise... or boredom.   Art, music, and literature for consumption and creative activities (whether knitting or composing). Cognitive level might express itself in what one likes. This isn't for dullards, so a dullard condemned to listen to this 



 

could be very unhappy with what might be ugly and incoherent to him. On the other hand, someone like me outgrew mass low culture in my teens, so you can just imagine whether I prefer this to rap. Different strokes, you know.

Self-actualization needs -- actually making the world a better place or at least believing such is so -- while not hating oneself. Maslow makes clear that even such consummate creative people as Richard Wagner and Vincent van Gogh never got there. Maybe they should have had some other priorities in life that would have not cost too much in creativity. It is possible to be a thoroughly-miserable person despite great creativity, athletic prowess, or technological achievement. I think also of F. Scott Fitzgerald, Sylvia Plath, Ed Delahanty,  and a host of figures of cinema and popular music (Judy Garland, Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison, and River Phoenix) who lived thoroughly miserable lives. In politics, FDR got there and Nixon didn't. Necessary for meeting these needs are sobriety, morality, and a freedom from bigotry.   

Transcendence -- having ranged between struggling for needs of love and belonging more recently and aesthetics at various times in life, and being in danger of death or serious injury for a couple of short times (gay-bashing incidents) I can't say that I understand this. 

People can rarely achieve one of the higher levels of need when one of the others is grossly unmet. Someone being sexually trafficked (whose safety needs are clearly unmet) is not in a position in which to connect to the rest of humanity. Someone working 60 hours a week at a mind-numbing, soul-crushing, dead-end job to pay the rent which one shares with similarly-poor people in a cramped apartment, get clothing for work, meet clothing costs, and barely keep fed (which was the case for much of Generation X in the 1980's) ensure that one can at best pretend to love exploitative bosses, slumlords, and loansharks and right-wing politicians in their service whom one might want to mow down in front of a wall. Being priced out of happiness is miserable, and that is the usual choice of an exploiter who sees workers as expendable machines of meat.