Talkin’ ‘Bout Sarada’s Generation

Legs & Co dancing to Kool & The Gang on TOTP in 1981

Sarada does not like Legs & Co. I don’t know what she thinks of Kool & The Gang or ‘Jones vs Jones’ but I do know that Top Of The Pops was a huge influence on her generation in this country, as it was mine. But one interesting thing about our relationship is that she and I are from different generations. I’m a Gen-Xer and she’s Generation Jones. Steve, who also reads this blog, is too.

Phrases such as Baby Boomers, the Beat Generation, Millennials and Generation X are all well-known, and I think probably all coined by journalists. However, there doesn’t seem to be a popular term for the people born between the Baby Boom and Gen-X. Consequently the term “Generation Jones”, which refers to these people, doesn’t seem to be widely known. This actually reflects the essence of Generation Jones as a group of people who have tended to miss out and be ignored by things. The generation before and after them are connected to each other. Here’s a graph of the birth rate in the UK from 1940 CE to the 2010s:

The Baby Boom is really clear. It stands out on the graph, and it also seems to have two peaks, perhaps for when eldest and second children were born. Gen-X is also fairly clear and can be seen as the single, gentler slope up and down peaking in the mid-1960s. It’s a smoother curve because it represents a different kind of generation. People seemed to have had children when they were about twenty according to this graph, although they tended to wait longer before they settled down and the double peak after the War is also manifested in the fact that these are people of varying ages. There is then a rapid decline into the mid-’70s followed by a less regular, shallower and longer peak from about 1979 to 2000, then another even vaguer peak around 2010. This represents the smearing of ages which occurs in generations. If you have a 23andme account, you can see this in estimates of your ancestry, which get longer in duration the further back in time you go. If you imagine the average age of a parent to be twenty-three (this is roughly three score years and ten divided by three) but possibly as young as eighteen or as old as twenty-eight, that gives the generation before you a range of ten years, the generation before that a range of thirty and the one before that of half a century. There was a specific, definite event just after the War which is becoming smoothed out by this effect, meaning that the age distribution of society is returning to how it was before the Second World War.

Gen-Xers are the children of Baby Boomers. This is not precisely true, but it is a fair guide to where the peak of that generation occurs. However, we are the peak generations in terms of our population. Generation Jones is in the trough. This may give them common ground with people born in the late 1970s. It means that culture was more youth oriented before and after they were young, because there were more young people at that time, but not for them. The Swinging ’60s were something exciting happening to older people and the Yuppies and the Second Summer Of Love happened after they’d got past the point when they could enjoy such things. Generation Jones, sadly, occupies a dip.

I’m aware that I’m talking about this second hand. I am not myself a member of this generation, although because my parents were older than average when I was born, and also late adopters, I might have more in common with them than many of my contemporaries. If my mother had me when she was 23, I would’ve been born in 1956. This is a peculiar counterfactual conditional but I’m going to let it pass, because I think you know what I’m saying. I think I’m a mixture for this reason, and it may be a factor in Sarada and I being together. Just to make a general point about the situation, if a couple have a big age difference, maturity and life stages are not the only factors in making productive or problematic differences between them. Being in different generations can be equally important. A fairly trivial example of this in our own relationship is that I like music videos and Sarada hates them, and this is purely a generational difference. In the past I could also have noted that people say exactly the same things about The Smiths and Leonard Cohen except that I actually think Leonard Cohen is bloody brilliant and am completely disillusioned by Morrissey’s recent behaviour, so that doesn’t really work.

The term “Generation Jones” was coined by Jonathan Pontell (I have very little idea who that is by the way, and this time Google is not my friend) as a way of pointing out that Boomers and Gen-Xers peak far apart and there was a distinct experience pertaining to people born between 1954 and 1965. These people were children during Watergate and stagflation, that is, an economic situation where unemployment and inflation are both high, distinctive of the ’70s and having an obvious major influence on family life. Divorce was also becoming more common at this time, as were single mothers. In America, a lot of Gen-Xers would’ve grown up in an atmosphere of cynicism about politics because of Watergate. In Britain it would’ve included the Three Day Week and powercuts, but on a different note we all remember the summer of ’76, though how formative that is I don’t know. Jonesers tend to be pessimistic, cynical and distrust government. This actually doesn’t sound like Sarada at all.

Why is it called Jones? Well, they’re also known as the Lost Generation, which makes more sense to me at least, because they’ve missed out. But apparently it’s because they “jones” a lot, meaning that they hanker after the more prosperous and optimistic past of recent memory which they saw disappear as they reached adolescence. There’s also the aspect of “keeping up with the Joneses”, i.e. trying to be as “good” as the people next door, in this case temporally because their neighbours are the Baby Boomers and perhaps also us lot, the Gen-Xers. They had high expectations as children which were dashed as they reached adulthood. For us, that didn’t happen because we basically can’t remember the ’60s so we are strangers to that wave of optimism and are used to hopelessness. Most of them are not the children of people who fought in the War or were on the Home Front at that time, although some are. Another link with the name Jones is that it’s one of those very common surnames which is used to suggest anonymity, because these people are not seen, recognised or noticed.

Four out of five Jonesers do not identify with either Boomers or Gen-Xers. They tend to be less idealistic than their predecessors. They’re used to struggling to find work or make money from what they do. They experienced the loss of secure employment. After retirement, many of them wish to reconnect with the optimism and idealism they experienced second-hand in their childhood. They want to do it themselves rather than just watching others do it. There’s a sense of constant unrequited craving in their lives. Their reminiscence bumps would range from 1969-79 to 1980-90. The very different characters of the ’70s and ’80s suggests that they themselves might be divisible into two halves.

They’re said to be more practical and rational in their approach to change because they were forced to be pragmatic by conditions in their early adulthood. They dislike high-pressure sales techniques and are more likely to do digital detoxes because they have extensive experience of the pre-Web world as adults. Some of them see themselves as pioneers because they were forced to make things work after the old world had changed due to what the Boomers had done and due to the collapse of Keynesian economic policies.

So far so good then in this outline, but in my mind there’s a problem or two with this idea. One is that it reads a little like a horoscope. It kind of feels sufficiently vague and maybe flattering in a way, perhaps “sympathetic” is a better word, that most people would feel it describes them. The second problem is that to a great extent it feels like it describes me even if it is specific to Generation Jones. This might be due to me being Generation X, but older than most of my cohort, being born in 1967, making me almost a Joneser, and also possibly connected to my parents being older than average for a Gen-Xer’s. I can also see some of it in Sarada but not all, but then why would I? Everyone is also an individual.

I want to end this post by addressing Jonesers personally, as people with direct experience of being from this generation. In particular, I’m talking to you, Sarada, and you, Steve, but anyone else is free to respond too. Do you feel that this is you? Does it chime with you? Or is it more like a load of things cobbled together which could apply to anyone? How do you see me, as a Gen-Xer, as different or similar to this?

11A0 – 11B0

One of the drawbacks of the Unicode system is that it lacks proper duodecimal symbols. Hence rather than using unambiguous dozenal symbols, of which there are various forms, none of which I can type here, I’ve resorted to using A and B to represent ten and eleven. When I first thought about writing this post, it was going to be about the 1990s CE, but since I am fairly committed to duodecimal it’s instead about the years 1992 to 2004. At the start of this cycle (which is what I call the analogue to decades in duodecimal, after “A Cycle Of Cathay”), I was two dozen and obviously at the end I was three dozen, so it covers what might be regarded as the first cycle of my adult life. Almost equivalent to a Jovian year in fact. The brain is said to stop growing at the age of two dozen, so that could be said to mark the beginning of adulthood. It’s sometimes informative to shake up the way we measure space and time to see if it brings any new insights.

One insight this brings is the tendency for most of the world to think in terms of decades, centuries and millennia, because those bits of rhetoric and marketing, for example, and the psychological divisions created by nice, neat round numbers in our lives and history, will tend to be at odds with this method of reckoning ages and dates. There will appear to be a sudden flurry of activity around 11A8 which represents Y2K and the turn of the Millennium which looks quite distinct and perhaps a bit odd from a duodecimal perspective. Had we been working to a different base, and let’s face it it probably would’ve been octal or hexadecimal rather than duodecimal because of how digital computers represent integers, the year 2000 would’ve been 3720 or 7C0, both round numbers to be sure but not epoch-making ones.

While I’m on the subject of Y2K, this was one significant concern during the 11A0s. However, in some ways it was also a decidedly odd one. Whereas it made sense that various mainframes would be grinding through two-digit representations of the year in that way, programmers of yore having opted to save storage space back in the 1170s and 1180s because they expected the year 11A8 to be the realm of science fiction, hover cars and holidays on Cynthia, Microsoft didn’t have the same excuse because DOS had stored the year as a value starting from 4th January 1980₁₀ which would not have gone round the clock on 1st January 11A8 at all, and for some reason it was a problem they had actually introduced with Windows when it became an operating system rather than a front end quite a bit closer to the crucial date. I have no idea why they did this but it seems irrational.

There is an æsthetic based on this period, or the latter half of it at least, characterised by futurism, optimism and shiny, liquid and spherical 3-D CGI. It was the cycle the internet went mainstream, and up until 9/11 there seemed to be a distinct atmosphere of optimism about the future. It may have been ephemeral and vapid, but it was there. And this is where I have some sympathy, though not agreement, with the conspiracy theories built up around the Twin Towers. I can’t remember the minutiæ of their content and it may have been rather dissimilar to my view, but the parsimonious, Ockham’s Razor-style approach to be taken to this is to assert that building up the War On Terror around the incident made it very convenient for the military-industrial complex. It would be going too far to assert anything else, or to insert “suspiciously” into that, and in fact to do so would distract from the situation we need to confront: that it led to the situation where the idea of making life better for people was discarded for a fatuous agenda of protecting the public from violence committed by non-state actors, without regard for the cause of these acts or how to prevent them by changing social conditions, or comparing the number of people killed with the number killed in the countries concerned by the NATO powers. Subjectively, it was like they just couldn’t let us be hopeful or look forward to a better future. Oh no. They had to crap on our dreams instead.

But the dreams were in any case nebulous. In this country they were, for me, associated with the fairly mournful and small expectation that New Labour had been lying about being right wing extremists. That government also entered into an illegal war on the back of 9/11. Even so, on the day after the election in May 11A5 people were smiling at each other in the street because we thought the dozen and a half year long nightmare was finally over. For me, much of the time was very positive, because in that period we got married and had our two children, but this isn’t meant to be personal. In contradiction to that, it was also when I got heavily involved in home ed, trained, qualified and started to practice as a herbalist.

This was also the cycle when the internet became the Web. This actually started with the World Wide Web browser in 119A, Tim Berners-Lee’s invention of course, but even when I started using it at home in 11A7 there was still quite a presence in the form of the likes of Usenet, FTP sites and so on. At the time, this seemed like an entirely positive resource although I had reservations about inequality of access in the global South which led me to doubt the wisdom of allowing myself the privilege. It was also very expensive in terms of bytes per pound compared to today. What was definitely absent at the time was the strong influence of social media. There’s a sense in which social media have existed since the 1170s in the form of PLATO at the University of Illinois, and behaviour on bulletin boards was quite like that, but the scale on which it happened was very small compared to the world’s population. Classmates is a possible instance of the earliest social media website although there are various contenders: this one dates from 11A3. In another area of IT telecommunications, mobile ‘phones started to take off and as an afterthought, texting was included. This became very significant during the 11A0s and mobiles moved from being yuppie devices to must-haves. I actually still haven’t adjusted to this, to the annoyance of my immediate family, so in a sense to me the revolution afforded by mobile devices hasn’t happened in the same way. On the whole, I don’t think this is a bad thing.

Things were a lot more analogue back then. Video cassettes and laser discs, the latter very obscure to most people, were the only way to watch things on TV other than actual live-broadcast television itself. However, digital optical discs had existed since before the beginning of the cycle. This is a pattern, not particularly distinctive of the ‘A0s, that the technologies which were later to transform society already existed but had not been widely adopted. However, I don’t want this to turn into a mere consumerist survey of high-tech products, so I’ll go all the way back to the “End Of History”.

In 11A0, Francis Fukuyama claimed in his book of the same name that history had ended. What he meant by this was not that events would cease to occur but that liberal democracy had proved itself to be the best form of government and that it would in the long term become increasingly prevalent. This is an overwhelmingly depressing and perhaps smug position, and in fact I don’t think it even makes sense. The problem with the idea that liberal democracy will triumph is that the parties involved in such governments would ideally aim for something other than liberal democracy, such as fascism or socialism or something less extreme, and proper politics without those aims is impossible. Fukuyama’s view of “democracy” would be anything but, because it would involve bland, practically identical political parties which did nothing to change the status quo, and that isn’t democracy, whether you’re right wing, left wing or something else. It’s also proved not to be so since in any case, since nationalism, conservative religion and various forms of authoritarianism have become more influential since then. Now I have to admit that I haven’t read his book, but the ideas are around in public discourse. This is related to the blandification of the Labour Party during this period. People didn’t seem to want to vote for something which was actually good.

One of the most shocking things for British progressives over this period was the Conservative victory in 11A0. It was widely believed that Labour would win the election that year, and even exit polls strongly suggested a Labour majority. Instead, the Tories received a record-breaking number of votes. Following on my experience in the previous year where I became utterly disgusted with popular support for the first Gulf War, I just got really angry with English people in general at their dishonesty and cowardice. They hadn’t admitted that they were voting for the “nasty party” because they were ashamed, so on some level they either recognised it was wrong or that they wouldn’t be able to convince people that it was the right thing to do. This was probably the first time I experienced the peculiar nightmarish quality of a traumatically negative electoral or referendum result coming in on the radio overnight, which was to be repeated several times until the Trump and Brexit results. It also made the relatively progressive years between 1161 and 118B look like a blip in history when things were getting better for the common people, but the idea of doing that was now consigned to history.

All of that sounds quite depressing. However, it isn’t the whole story. The beginning of the cycle had been a time of awakening consciousness for many people, with Acid House and Ecstasy becoming important. I didn’t partake myself although the end of the previous cycle had involved a lot of dancing and clubbing. It felt like there was going to be some kind of conceptual breakthrough, although it had also been observed that the use of psychedelic drugs like LSD at that time was more like wanting a picture show than a fundamental shift in consciousness. I can’t comment from an informed position on that, but it seems to me that they have such a profound influence on the mind that even if people went into it with that in mind, they would still come out profoundly changed. Of course, the government either didn’t like this or decided to capitalise on some mythical “Middle England” by introducing the Criminal Justice Bill with its notorious “succession of repetitive beats” clause, and a number of other measures such as the end to the right to silence. This was in 11A2. It also clamped down on squatters, hunt sabbers and anti-roads protests. Another quote from the government at about this time was something like “we don’t want to go down in history as the government which allowed any kind of alternative society to survive”, which had a flavour of genocide about it. Also, in order for that to work, society as it was would need to have some kind of appeal to it and not be bent on the destruction of the planet.

In many ways, then, this period was one of contradictions. The establishment was heavily asserting itself in academia, which made me wonder about complacency in that area. This was just after I’d dropped out of an academic career in disgust at Nick Land’s and other people’s response to neoliberalism as almost something to be enjoyed, and feminist hostility to animal liberation. It occurs to me now that I might have stayed to defend progressive opinion and movements, and after that disillusionment I became rather aimless and cynical. But on the other hand, it was also a cycle of hope and optimism, with the expectation that progress could be made in other ways. And it wasn’t all negative. Nelson Mandela became president of South Africa, Germany reunified (this is a mixed bag of course but it meant the reunification of communities too), there was the Good Friday Agreement (again a mix because it seemed to mean giving up hope of a reunified Ireland), the re-establishment of the Scottish Parliament and the establishment of the Welsh Assembly, and on reflection the real flavour of that period was a strange mix of hope and despair. Hope seemed to be sustained through lack of political analysis and despair emerged on close examination of events, but that doesn’t invalidate the more positive side. I suppose the real question is, how can we extend the principle of hope, as Ernst Bloch put it, from this superficial shiny façade into something more profound which transmutes political action into something valuable?