Obama: Our first Gen-X President
Saturday, January 17, 2009
On Tuesday, Barack Obama will be inaugurated as our nation's 44th president. Born on August 4, 1961, he's just 47 years old. He will be the first African-American president in the history of the U.S., the significance of which is touched on poignantly by Bishop Woodie White in his annual birthday letter to Martin Luther King, Jr.In my new United Methodist Reporter column, I ask the question, "Is Obama our first Gen-X president?" I believe the answer to that question is yes. It is true that in I have written about my skepticism of considering Obama a full X'er in the past - both here and here. But I've changed my mind.
In one sense, the Baby Boomer generation is a demographic reality. Between 1946 and 1964, the number of live births per 1,000 people in the U.S. population spiked. The U.S. Census Bureau considers those years to be the parameters on the Baby Boomers for that very reason.
But in another sense, a generation is a cultural concept that does not bend readily to hard statistical parameters. As I have argued elsewhere, a generation is ultimately defined by shared experience. And in that sense, Obama is very much a Gen X'er.
For instance, the Boomer experience is defined in so many ways by the period from the mid-1950s through the 1960s: in national politics from JFK (the dashing hero) to Nixon (the dark villain), in the Civil Rights struggle from Brown v. Board of Education to the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., in 'revolutions' from music styles to attitudes toward sex and gender, with all of it overshadowed by the geo-political tensions associated with the struggle against communism - the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and (most pointedly for the Boomers' enduring generational personality) Vietnam.
Obama is too young to have been affected firsthand by any of these Boomer experiences. Instead, his personality was shaped by a specifically Generation X childhood: growing up in an era of increased globalization, the shrinking world (in terms of travel, education, and religious pluralism, in addition to the economy), the rapid advance in communications technologies (cable television, evolution of the telephone, various audio and video recording devices, and the personal computer), the race and gender issues of a post-Civil Rights and post-sexual revolution period, and the reality of increased instances of divorce and broken homes, families with two parents working outside the home, and the image of the 'latchkey kid.' He was not, of course, affected by all of these in equal measure. Some of the features of Gen X upbringing were more a fixture in the 1980s (when I mostly grew up) than the 1970s (when Obama mostly grew up). But his life was touched by many of them. And in my book, that makes him an X'er.
Two points to note about this, and both of them have to do with the way Obama himself is changing the definition of Generation X. The first is the date. Noted Gen-X author Jeff Gordinier suggests in X Saves the World that Generation X should be dated from around 1961 because of the birthdates of Slackers filmmaker Richard Linklater (b.1960) and novelist Douglas Coupland (b. 1961). I've always thought Coupland deserved front rank in terms of who defines Generation X because he wrote the novel Generation X: Tales for an Accelerated Culture that firmly entrenched the term in pop culture. With Obama's birthdate also in 1961, it seems reasonable to consider the question of Generation X's beginning date settled.
The second point is around how Obama is trying to give a certain characteristic Gen X'ers share a greater prominence. If one of the iconic images of Baby Boomers is that of 1960's protest (a mass event involving lots of angry young people chanting things), then the iconic image of Generation X has to be what I am doing right now: sitting alone in my living room, trying to make a difference but doing so in a more individual and less 'partisan' manner. In lots of ways, it seems like Gen X'ers are less partisan people in general, and the technological isolation that we experience has made us hungry for community (though in more localized and less 'mass' ways than our predecessors). That, in my mind, is a lot of what Obama represents. We've all heard his message about 'change,' and I usually take that to be transcending the partisan rancor of his Boomer predecessors. If you haven't read his memoir - Dreams from My Father - you should. It is a book about a deeply personal journey whose early life was shaped by many of the forces that X'ers have typically struggled with, and I would argue that it is also a book about searching for community. It's Gen X through and through.
Will he be up to the task? No way to tell for sure, but I suspect he will be. E.J. Dionne and David Brooks were on NPR yesterday evening talking about meeting with him recently, and both the liberal Dionne and the conservative Brooks spoke in very complementary terms about his demeanor, knowledge of issues, and approach to meeting with people from both sides of the aisle.
Labels: Barack Obama, Generation X

17 Comments:
Well-written piece. But I hope you are open to your readers considering an alternative view:
You're right that generations are based on shared experiences, not demographic variables like birth rates. But Obama is certainly not a GenXer.
1965 remains by far the most widely-used first birth year for GenX. 1961 is certainly a minority view.
Yes, Coupland was born in 1961. But even he doesn't consider himself a part of GenX.
As many nationally influential voices have repeatedly noted, Obama is part of Generation Jones, born 1954-1965, between the Boomers and Generation X. Google Generation Jones, and you'll see it’s gotten a ton of media attention, and many top commentators from many top publications and networks (New York Times, Time magazine, NBC, Newsweek, ABC, etc.) are specifically referring to Obama, born in 1961, as part of Generation Jones.
There are a long list of top journalists who have described Obama as a GenJoneser. Virtually no prominent journalists have said he is a GenXer.
Even Coupland said that the charaters he wrote about in his novel "Generation X" were part of the fringe sensibility of GenJones which became the mainstream sensibility of GenX.
GenX is a great generation in many ways, and you have an interesting blog here. I support your justified pride in your generation. But Barack Obama is not an Xer, but Xers will have their turn and will, I believe, produce some very successful Presidents.
Obama is Generation Jones, with a blend of boomer and X qualities. Maybe his presidency will define Jones more clearly. He is mainly interesting because of his constant appeal to generational identity while remaining silent on precisely what his identity really is. On the strength of this non-descript appeal to 'youth' he roped in Gen Y votes. In fact, he never mentions Gen X, presumably because X have been so horribly mis-labelled in the press, media, on the internet, and so on. That in fact is a sad, implicit comment on how Xers are viewed and treated.
Consider
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071203/chaudhry
Great post, but these comments make me CRAZY!!!! only a self-righteous Baby Boomer would say he wasn't an Xer. Where do I begin? Not only does he fit the demographic via numbers, but culturally he is and will always be Generation X. Quintessential Generation X. Only a Gen Xer could talk about inclusivity at the pitch Obama does. Only a Gen Xer would use gay and straight in the same sentence in front of the entire world. I know I'm not waxxing very eloquent here, but it makes me a little crazy to read that...with all due respect. Keep up the good work, Andrew. I'll be linking to this tomorrow!!! (Me and my blogger-in-crime are announcing our essay project tomorrow.)
Clearly a difference in opinions in the comments left so far!
I have to go with Jen on this one. I appreciate what my first two commentators are saying, but I don't buy a decade-long "Generation Jones" smushed up between the Boomers and the X'ers. Here's a couple of reasons why:
1)Positing Gen Jones starts to make generations last a decade rather than 18 to 20 or so years that are required to be born, grow up, and reproduce. I checked out the 'Generation Jones' Wikipedia article after reading these comments to make sure I had my Gen Jones facts straight, and sure enough, the Gen Jones partisans who apparently penned the article have basically got the dates as follows: Baby Boomers (1942 to 1953); Generation Jones (1954 to 1965); Generation X (1966 to 1978). Decade-long generations don't seem to make any meaningful sense to me. If we want to do that, let's just talk about what it was like for those who came of age in a particular decade, e.g., the 60's, 70s, or 80s. There may be some value in that in terms of pop culture analysis, but it's a somewhat different endeavor than trying to understand the concept of a 'generation.'
2) There are two basic standards on which to judge the parameters of a generation, as I point out in my blog post: the demographic standard is one, and it is used most notably by the U.S. Census Bureau in its stamp of approval on the Baby Boomer generation as lasting from 1946 to 1964. The other is the notion of common cultural experience, which is most developed in the "generational theory" of William Strauss and Neil Howe in their 1990 book, "Generations: The History of America's Future, 1584 to 2069." This book came out a year or two before Douglas Coupland's eponymous novel about Generation X and notoriously calls Gen X the "Thirteeners." There is a lot about Strauss and Howe's sociological analysis of U.S. history that I disagree with, but I do think they are on to something at least in the "Millennial Cycle" section of the book, which describes Boomers, Gen X'ers, and Millennials. If you resist their overly-deterministic reading of history in general and just focus on the quasi-personality traits that generations tend to take on based off of common experience, then you can see the virtue of describing a generation's parameters as culturally defined. And by the way, Strauss and Howe set the bounds of what they call the Thirteenth Generation - our Gen X - at 1961 to 1981. That's significant.
Peace,
Andrew
Part of the confusion here is between demographics and psychographics. Yes, the Census points to the demographic boom in births from 1946-1964. This however has nothing whatsoever to do with generations, and the Census bureau has never had anything to do in any way with determiming generations. Generations have always been determined by the subjective opinions of experts like sociologists.
Most generations experts and sociologists now believe that two generations were born during this demographic boom. No generation before or since the boom years was ever based on birth rates, Generations are about shared experiences which shape collective personalities (psychographics), not fertility rates (demographics).
Part of the confusion here is between familial generations vs. culural generations. The 18/20 years you refer to re. reprocudtion is completely true about familial generations. It has nothing whatsoever to do with cultural generations.
These days, most generations experts argue that generations last approximately 10-15 years. Traditionally, cultural generations were indeed seen as approximately 20 years, but given the acceleration of culture, now they are seen as shorter. BTW, The "decade-long" generations you refer to re. modern definitions of Boom/Jones/X are actually 12-13 years long.
The theory that GenX started in 1961 is very much a minority view. While Strauss and Howe have their supporters, their 1961-1981 has never come close to replacing the usual mid-1960s start for GenX.
It's obvious to experts that Obama isn't an Xer. But the reason a handful of GenXers are so intense in trying to claim he is the same reason that some Boomers tried to claim that JFK was a Boomer: because they WANTED him to be one of their own. You WANT him to be an Xer. But that didn't make JKK (who would be in his 90s now) a Boomer and it doesn't make 47 yr old Obama an Xer.
The reason so many influential voices have said Obama is a GenJoneser is becasue he is.
Sorry, but I'm not sure that the definition of a generation can be narrowed to 10–15 years, or even, gasp, 12-13 years. How many 12- to 13-year-olds do you know that are having children? A generation, whether defined demographically or "psychographically," must at least be defined to a certain degree by the difference in age between a parent and child. In that case, generational spans ought to be getting wider, not narrower, as more people are having children later in life. Of course, that's not the only definition, otherwise we'd all be Boomers, and thus have trouble with math.
Count me foursquare with Andrew here in the camp as defining 1961-born Obama in Generation X. While History will certainly be the ultimate arbiter (and historians way down the road likely to be the ones who come up with truly lasting names for today's generations), Obama certainly ain't a Baby Boomer, and Generation Jones™ doesn't seem to be a true, full generation (maybe a subgroup, or a decade-defined cohort, at best).
The legalization of The Pill for contraceptive use in June 1960 provides a nice, if admittedly somewhat arbitrary (as if none of this is arbitrary), dividing line. It would have first impacted birth rates in 1961. Statistically, the number of American babies born certainly declined from around 1964 (perhaps making an argument that Obama is a Boomer, though I disagree, and I digress) and depending upon your stats, the decline can be seen as starting in 1961. That dip continued straight on through Roe v. Wade and the Seventies. Seems to me (duh) this had a heavy impact on our generation.
Everyone talks about JFK, Woodstock, and the Sixties, but remember the struggle for Civil Rights continued for decades before and after the Sixties, the Equal Rights Amendment was fought for through the Seventies, and Watergate was as much a part of the Baby Boomers formative experiences as the Summer of Love; it might just have been the start of their hangover.
You can't select the day you were born. You can't pick your generation either. Sorry.
You want to argue Obama is a Boomer, I won't agree with you (and I don't think he would either), but I can see some reality behind that argument, based on the ending-in-1964 argument. Obama a Generation X'er? Sure.
Anything else, I think you're out of luck. Again, let History be the one to prove us wrong or correct, not an accelerated in-the-moment culture (though the Gutenberg Generation would be mighty pissed to find out that the accelerated culture of the 1400s proved their generation didn't last 80 years, but I digress).
It's hard to blame any "influential voice" who was born in the late Fifties not wanting to align themselves with Boomers. (I mean, you can't blame them; who would these days? Apparently, they thought a man born in 1917 was part of their generation, so they're bad at math, too.) And if you're among this group but born after 1960, c'mon over to us on the Gen X side. We won't bite. Promise.
Thanks again for the interesting comments on this post. Though I appreciate ConnectingTheDots' comments, I'm still not buying the notion that a Generation Jones exists, nor that the concept of 'generation' can or should be shortened to under 15 years.
When CTD writes about 'the usual mid-1960s start for GenX' it is important to note that this standard is, itself, a demographic one that is drawn directly from the statistical research about the end of the baby boom. Thus, it simply won't do to say that demographic and psychographic (or what I would simply call 'cultural') aspects of the generational concept can be separated from one another. The fascination with generations in the past few decades finds its source in the demographic and cultural reality of the post-WWII baby boom. Interest in age groups both previous and subsequent to the Boomers (e.g., the Greatest Generation and Generation X) as generational groupings arises out of this original interest in Baby Boomers. There is simply no foundational concept that we can pluck out of the air, use it to establish a template for the American generations of the 20th century, and then fit everyone neatly into it. Generational study is the result of historical developments which must be taken into account when trading in the language of different generational groupings.
On a related note, The Washington Post's David Broder made an insightful observation in his column on January 22nd that matches up with some of what I wrote in this blog post. The column is entitled, "Born to Build Bridges," and it looks at Pres. Obama's potential for crossing partisan divides in order to do the work of government. Broder writes:
"[One reason] that Obama may see his hope fulfilled is generational. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush -- our two baby boomer presidents after a string of chief executives stretching back to John F. Kennedy who were youths during the Depression and veterans of World War II -- were cursed by their times.
"They came of age politically in the 1960s -- the time of the racial revolution, the women's revolution, abortion battles and, most of all, Vietnam. Years after that war ended, Clinton and Bush and their opponents were still debating in their presidential campaigns what they had done back then. Time never healed the wounds of their generation, and they could never earn the trust of those on the other side.
"Obama, by virtue of his birth date and birthplace, is apred the psychological burden of those battles."
In this passage, Broder sums up as well as anyone could why our new president qualifies as a Gen X'er.
Sorry, that last line of the quote from Broder should read, "Obama, by virtue of his birth date and birthplace, is spared the psychological burden of those battles."
"Only a GenXer could talk about inclusivity at the pitch Obama does."
======
I think Generation Y buys into the 'diversity as inclusivity' and also sees multiculturalism as something that should be celebrated. Generation X also accepts those things without hesitation, but does not celebrate them.
As for gay and straight in the same sentence: It's the same thing. Generation X'ers don't want it shoved down their throats. Many Gen X'ers are turned off by the increased politicization of homosexuality. The New York Times Magazine recently ran an article on Manhattan's Stuyvesant High School, where a boy's textbooks were destroyed after he openly criticized the homosexual lifestyle. That would never have happened 15-20 years ago.
For Gen Y, truth is relative. You are a bigot if you take a stand against anything at all, whether it be reverse discrimination or the homosexual lifestyle. Gen X is more passive about that. For Gen X, everybody's got their own point of view. Gen X is all about the, "As long as you're not hurting anybody......"
By the way: I was born in '76, in case anybody's wondering.
Pastor Andrew and some readers might not be in agreement with everything I stated,...but I have been wrong and naive about many things in the past.
Flame away...
Dave, I think those are very interesting comments. In Alasdair MacIntyre's book, "After Virtue," he argues that the radical individualization of our culture has led us to the point where we are, as a culture, incapable of moral reasoning. We have no sense of the 'common good' apart from what each individual thinks is good for him or herself. MacIntyre calls this "emotivism," which is the phenomenon of expressing moral views by simply proclaiming them, and with their authority as derived not from any kind of rational deliberation but only from the fact that a person 'feels' that way.
You might say that this is a characteristic not only of views on homosexuality, but of abortion, war, the death penalty, or any other moral issue. About the only issue where real moral deliberation as a society seems to go on, in my view, is the environment - and that's only because everyone is scared willy-nilly that we are going to doom ourselves if we don't do something about it. (And you might say that the 'common good' defined as simple survival is a fairly shallow notion of what the good represents.)
Thanks for your comments!
Thanks, Rev. Andrew. I will have to take a look at After Virtue. Very interesting.
I don't mean to unleash an all-out assault on Generation Y. They developed a mindset very much in-line with the times (1990s). Race and sexual orientation are two major elements (ethnicity being another one) in this all inclusive mindset. On the subject of homosexuality: Generation Y sees this strugge as one that is no different to that of skin color. They actually see it as a civil rights issue. I bThe majority of Generation X does NOT see it that way, and I think the reason is because Generation X was already old enough by the time homosexual activists began equating sexual orientation with skin color. Blacks hate this, of course. This is why we often hear the "Don't compare your sin with my skin" mantra from black churches. The struggle for gay rights became so politicized in the 1990s, and that is why Generation Y has only ever seen it as such. It became increasingly politicized in the 90s. Also, Gen Y has grown up in an era of victimhood. Everybody's a victim.
Again: For Y, gay rights and many other rights are civil rights issues. For X, it's not. X grew up/came of age in a different time.
That's what I think...
For Y -- "Everybody should be accepted." "We will not tolerate intolerance."
X doesn't care. It's not called "the whatever generation" for nothing. Many Xers do take sides, but they tolerate a variety of views. They are more tolerant of those who are intolerant. "As long as you're not hurting anybody."
Sorry for the typos. "I believe the majority of Generation X..."
MacIntyre's book sounds like a heavy read. I'll have a look at it anyway.
Addressing a few points left here by commenters in the last few days:
1) It is incorrect to surmise that the widely-used 1965 start year for GenX must stem from demographics/birth rates. I don't believe that birth rates have anything to do with generations. I believe that GenX starts in the mid-1960s ((I tend to agree with those who say 1966) becasue of the cultural, political and economic variables that created the ongoing collective personality that we call GenX.
2) "Obama, by virtue of his birth date and birthplace, is spared the psychological burden of those battles."
In this passage, Broder sums up as well as anyone could why our new president qualifies as a Gen X'er.
"Only a GenXer could talk about inclusivity at the pitch Obama does."
With all respect, these comments are laughably ridiculous. Among the most discussed defining characteristics of GenJonesers are their sense of compromise, non-ideological pragmatism, inclusiveness, toleration, and mediation. One of the most important variables that experts say seperates Jonesers from Boomers is specifically the fact that Jonesers weren't part of the Boomer culture wars and don't bear the burdens of those battles. Can anyone here provide even the slightest evidence that these comments can only apply to Xers and not Jonesers?
Coming back to these comments after a few days...
CTD, I meant that 1965 is used as a demographic marker for the beginning of Generation X because, demographically, that is when the Baby Boom ended (based on the number of live births per 1000 people in the population; in 1965 the number fell below 20 for the first time since 1945). It may be the case now that people put more stock in cultural (rather than demographic) concepts of generational identity, but the fact remains that the division between generations was originally set for demographic reasons.
To your second point, I would ask that you refrain from using phrases such as "laughably ridiculous" to describe the views of your conversation partners when commenting on this blog. I realize that the rhetoric on many blogs can tend toward the exaggerated and overstated, but I try to maintain a certain civility of dialogue here. You may see opinions that differ from your own as being wrong, and in such cases you are more than welcome to argue your point. I simply ask that you do so without being dismissive. The half dozen or so commenters on this post have offered well-reasoned opinions, and while they do not all agree with one another, none of them is laughably ridiculous.
You're right, Andrew...I really didn't mean offense with my 'laughably ridiculous' comment, but upon seeing that again, I agree with you that was too strongly worded and I apologize.
There's an op-ed in today's USA TODAY which speaks to exactly the topic we've been discussing:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/01/stuck-in-the-mi.html
No worries. Your comments have given me a lot of Gen Jones-related things to think about. I'll check out that article in the USA Today.
Post a Comment
<< Home