More on the 60's and Gen-X

Television shows can sometimes be a good source of introductory information into a new topic. Usually there isn't much depth to them, and as such, they qualify as mostly entertainment. Looking online for recent shows, I came across Swingtown, which is still a television show in its simplicity, and yet seems a good source of introductory information about why the events of the 60's and 70's took place, and what impact they had on Generation X.

The show also has full episodes online, which are helpful just to get a feel for the content, which surprisingly, isn't all that scandalous:

http://www.cbs.com/primetime/swingtown/

Historical Identity and Generation's X's Creation of a Politically Correct Culture

Often, when thinking about the topic of identity and how it is formed, I choose to focus on historical factors that have led a person to being a certain which way. This partly tends to look at pre-existing influences, or factors that follow fate, and decisions chosen early, or factors that follow choice, both of which seem to lead to hardened, determined characteristics of identity later in life. Looking at the method of analysis, two methods lean towards a fatalistic perspective (early pre-existing influences and determined character by early influences in general), and one method leans toward a free will perspective (choices made earlier in life). So the lean of this analysis is likely to be more fatalistic than free will, simply because the basis of analysis is laid out as such.

Now that the method of analysis is understood, the topic can be broached, which involves largely, the origins of PC, or Politically Correct, culture that became popular in the 90's, the reasons the generation titled Gen-X gained such an identity, why Gen-X brought great influence to create PC culture, and what one can learn more broadly about identity based on developmental history and choice through Gen-X's pre-existing influences and their choices early on, respectively. In order to understand these topics, my impressions from three signifying periods in Gen-X's history will be laid out.

According to what seems as sociological opinion, Gen-X went through its young-adult stage from around 1980 to the early 90's. Young-adult would be in my book, from age 15 to around 20. It seems to me that popular culture often reflects this age group across recent generations simply because this age group is struggling to understand the world and define their identity, and as such, it is typically one of the most creative periods in a generation's life-span. Hence, popular culture is affected greatly by these strongly sought-after goals. Back to the point. Observing the culture of the 80's and early 90's, one can observe that this is a definitive cultural period compared to that which came before and that which came after. Therefore, it can be looked to as a time in which Gen-X was struggling to understand the world and define its identity.

Now that the period can be defined as unique and therefore attributed to Gen-X, I will briefly comment on what made up that period. The culture of the 80's and early 90's can be agreed upon by most as a very non-conservative, almost chaotic in historical terms, expression of life. The culture seemed to be in rebellion to most of the culture of history through the artistic and philosophical expressions of the time. Artistically, many venues seemed to focus thematically on randomness and chaos. In music, one can see the emergence of high experimentation and a focus on what would be considered the darker side of culture in thematics of death and fatalistic thinking: death metal, grunge, and other emergent musical styles that commonly hold the noted cultural traits. Philosophically, existential and anti-foundational nihilism seemed to be prevalent as can be seen through the artistic expressions of the day. It is important to note that existentialistic nihilism was popular before the 80's and early 90's, but that anti-foundationalism seemed to be emerging during this time.

The next signifying period in history for Gen-X, is their development during childhood years. If the young-adult period is slated from the 1980 to the early 90's, then the childhood developmental period would range from 1965 to around the late 1970's. Cultural observations will note that this time period in history can also be defined because it was rather unique in recent history. The consensus to this is that this period enveloped the social revolutions caused by the counterculture movements popular at the time. Part of the movements that are recognized historically are the anti-war movement, the sexual revolution, and the resurgence of feminism. The relevance of these movements were that they involved what are considered those that brought up Gen-X in their childhood developmental years; their parents. Since parents impress themselves into their children during childhood development, this period is analyzed because it aligns with the idea that historical pre-existing influences are part of determining later identity.

The last signifying period in history for Gen-X, is their first entrance into their adulthood period, which occurs in the time period generally of the 90's. This seems significant as a period of time because it can be uniquely described as the period where PC culture emerged. Now, PC culture wasn't pop culture, as that which in the 80's Gen-X formed, but rather was the accepted culture by the greater populace. This is a significant period for it shows the emergence of a new culture formation that was broadly accepted. It is significant to Gen-X because, again, it was the time where the generation had entered adulthood.

Now that the three signifying periods have been laid out, the arguments pertaining to the topics can be made. The topics again, are as follows: the origins of PC, or Politically Correct, culture that became popular in the 90's, the reasons the generation titled Gen-X gained such an identity, why Gen-X brought great influence to create PC culture, and what one can learn more broadly about identity based on developmental history and choice through Gen-X's pre-existing influences and their choices early on, respectively.

It seems that the origins of the broadly accepted PC culture is in large result of Gen-X's assertions to culture as they had just entered into the adult world in the 90's. The time period's culture that was accepted broadly is recognizable as asserting the need to have a strong separation between personal and work life. Often this can be seen in how companies seemed adamant about "work / life balance." This philosophy carried itself into not just business, but nearly all public events such as extra-familial interactions, where to use politically correct language that was accepted as neutral was seen as good, whereas language associated with one's personal opinion should only be shared in closer / personal circles. The acceptance of this culture resulted due to what Gen-X asserted once it had entered the adult world (This necessarily includes the belief that adults that enter the adult world often affect the greater culture compared to the smaller pop culture which they affected in their young-adult stage). The reasons Gen-X held to such a broadly-accepted belief / culture / identity will be explained after first looking at Gen-X's internal identity and why their were labeled as such.

Gen-X gained its identity largely through historical influences of pre-existing nature as well as through early made choices. The pre-existing influences can be ascribed to that of their childhood developmental period, which, as stated, occurred in the period between 1965 and the late 70's. The early made choices also occurred in this time period and its young adult period, bringing about the resulting expressions of identity in its young adult period and first experience in the adult world. The pre-existing influences of Gen-X's childhood developmental period can be ascribed to their parental influences. As noted, the period of Gen-X's childhood developed occurred during a time where the adult world was undergoing many social revolutions. These produced a measure of inconsistency in the lives of the Gen-X's parents as they struggled for and against the forces of the various movements. Many of these movements had strong reaches into the family unit, as they challenged definitions of one's commitment to married partners in sexual life through the sexual revolution, challenged definitions of a household's authority by gender through the resurgence of feminism, and challenged allegiances to society through the anti-war movement. This created much inconsistency and lack of strong identity itself in the parents of Gen-Xers. Since children tend to follow that which is consistent around them and therefore a source of solidarity, the developing Gen-Xers were affected by pre-existing influences such that they could not use the lives of their own parents as a guide for growth. Through this, they had no choice but to embrace that which was consistent. The result of this caused Gen-X identity to be determined in many ways: it caused them to gain a more individualized identity, to attempt to enter adulthood faster than previous generations, and to embrace the chaos of childhood as an emotional grounding to identity. Aside from pre-existing influences, the choices in the developmental childhood period were likely similar and therefore mixed with the determined actions that were in fatalistically in response to parental influence.

Coming to the young-adult period of Gen-X's life, identity was affected by choice and pre-existing influences that came from their childhood developmental period. The young-adult period in recent history involves a sense of determined seeking of understanding the world and of understanding one's identity. Since this is a struggle with one's history, it is also an emotional struggle. As such, the expressions of identity in this struggle to understand it, have strong links back to the childhood developmental period, which had largely chaotic parental figures and required Gen-X to quickly mature. As noted, the 80's and early 90's for Gen-X had strong cultural thematics of chaos, death, and an overly high rejection of parental culture compared to previous generations. Because of this rejection, as the generation moved into the adult world, they sought broad cultural changes that then brought about the emergence of PC culture.

The next topic, that of which why Gen-X created the PC culture, and what the aspects of PC culture represents as it is an expression of Gen-X's identity, will be shown. Gen-X's reasons to create PC culture centers on two intentions: to protect the definition of family that existed before their generation, and to allow themselves to have a more free environment in which to reclaim their lost childhood. In order to protect the definition of family from becoming like that which Gen-X experienced, Gen-X sought to put explicit norms in place such that public life would not influence private life. In their experience, the public life coming into the private life had brought about the chaos and destruction of normality in the family unit. In order to protect, against further incursions and because the previous generation had stepped out of bounds, public life had to be redefined and neutralized. In order to allow Gen-X to reclaim their lost childhood, the construction of the barrier between private and public life allowed for more individually-determined private lifestyles. The idea was that one could act according to private aspirations in one's private life and have little to no influence upon public aspirations in one's public life. Thus, the reclamation of Gen-X's childhood could safely begin. It is important to note for future thought that this created an impression of a dualistic nature to other non-Gen-Xer's, but which will not be addressed here.

The next topic, then, is what one can learn more broadly about identity based on developmental history and choice through Gen-X's pre-existing influences and their choices early on, respectively. Note that this is in retrospect to the topics that have already been discussed, that of, the origins of PC culture in the 90's, the identity of Gen-X and the reasons they gained such an identity, and why Gen-X created PC culture. It would then seem that taken more broadly, identity is affected greatly by one's pre-existing influences, at least in one's childhood developmental period, which may or may not determine choices made there and in the future. Regardless of choice, again, it seems that the presence of and action by parents in this period determine an arguably great portion of one's identity. The history of Gen-X's development also seems to have implications about the nature of human psychology and that children will attach to that which is consistent versus that which is not, even if it means attaching to a theme of inconsistency (a theme in life created by consistent chaos). I won't consider the logical implications of consistency created out of chaos, or the value judgments made for those that accept this consistent chaos as a good thing, for those can be addressed later.

And so, the origins of Politically Correct culture seems to be in Gen-X's response to culture after having entered adulthood. Generation X's identity seems to have come about based largely on their upbringing which occurred in a period in history in which their parents were unable to hold back public issues into private life, and hence this caused mass rejection of their parent's culture later in life. This is what brought about the aspects of PC culture, so that the family unit would be protected in its privacy from being influenced by what public issues ensued. And finally, this creation of PC culture by Gen-X for the specified reasons give insight into the nature identity from a historical perspective towards pre-existing influences and choice; fate and free will.

Difficulties in Objectivity

So, the other night, I had a hankering for looking further into a series of related topics that I tend to find interesting: globalization, and whether the United States' use of labor from other countries could be modern-day slavery (globalization of labor). This topic seems of paramount importance, simply because the majority of items that the majority of the citizens from the U.S. buy, are from other countries. The scale on which this is done today is likely greater than in any other time in history due to the United States having cheap enough technology and oil to ship imports at low cost. This novelty in history is important, for it bodes the potential to reshape the paradigm of international economics as the United States moves from being an industrial nation, to one that relies on other nations to provide services (a service-based economy). This does not mean that what is occurring is bad, but as in all things novel, care should be taken to watch out for misuse, and potential problems.

However good my intentions were, they did not prevail in bringing a comfortable new level of understanding to the topics. This inability to produce a new level of understanding is very important; for I came to realize two things. The first is of the need at times, to re-adjust one's source of authority; one's source of discernment about the happenings in the world. The second is of modernistic alienation.

When researching online, I generally am able to make new ground in topics because I believe I know how to discern good material from bad material (that which has a good foundation in the pursuit of objectivity; a method I attempt to employ often). This method of research often involves taking what someone is arguing, and to detach the person from the argument they are making, which then results in having an idea that can be taken and applied to more situations other than that which it was originally presented in; the person's original statements of argument. If someone has not presented their material in a objective, academic style, then I am not likely to even consider their idea.

That's enough of my method of research. What I learned from my experience in looking into globalization, is that I lacked greater understanding of globalization to such a degree that I couldn't read through content online and find myself able to understand the depths of what the people were saying. Based on my experience, it takes a very long time to develop an understanding if a layman attempts to read high-level material. One can realize this in practice: take a topic one is not an expert in, say politics. Even in reading a common newspaper article, if one does not have a decent basis of understanding, one will not be able to conclude the importance of why something is written. For example, if I don't understand the history of two countries, then news of them beginning a new trade agreement will not seem important to me because I lack the knowledge to know why it is important. These deeper threads can only be discerned the more one is aware of a topic.

And so, my traditional pursuit of facts can not proceed; I can't thresh out what I want because I don't have a basis to work from to gain the facts that I want. Perhaps that seems impatient, and perhaps it is, but what this has caused, is to realize that in order to, by my practical measures, to come to knowledge, I must change my source authority in my research. I can't seek to go through further mountains of information; it is arguably much more worth it to find a faster way. The change in authority that I found myself moving towards, was that of an existing expert that was willing to provide ample information so that a layman can come to understand the topic well.

Of course, any objective-style-loving person will observe that such a turn to another source of authority allows one to be impregnated with volatile opinion. This is true in many ways; one cannot easily separate the wheat from the weeds until one can see the weeds for what they are. However, such is the necessity of human life. What one can do is two things: observe how much the author submits to writing in an objective style, and then through that assume that what minor opinion exists, will not become too great a future inhibition to seeing the truth behind the opinion. Second, trust standards of authority; there really is no choice here if knowledge is to be gained in a timely manner. I have found myself leaning towards finding an author of a detailed, simplistic, and likely somewhat opinionated work. Essentially, this means a necessity in the greater trust of fellow humans; not something easy for an objectivist pursuit. Yet, I find myself turning this way more and more often. Whether this is is for good, or due to the winds of the culture, it is hard to say.

The second realization that I came to in attempting to research about globalization and labor, was the inherent feeling of an unnaturally high obstacle in trying to understand the nature of the problem. This feeling can be attributed to the concept of modernistic alienation, and it applies here well. The nature of an outsourcing market as the U.S. is having, produces alienation because more and more, the items being constructed are more and more often not coming from local sources, but far away countries. Understanding the validity of this economic system is far more hairy than talking directly to the salesman. One has no easy way to speak to someone who has complete understanding of that which was involved in the trade that resulted in bringing something as simple as a plastic doll over from China. The number of hands involved in its construction and the number of business agreements made to bring such a simple item across the sea is enumerable in appearance, nearly mind-boggling. And so, completely understanding the topic is woefully impossible in today's age of the U.S. being a consumer of global sources.

This causes great inhibition to even beginning to look into the topic; no doubt it stops dead multitudes more simply by its appearance. This causes me to bring to question a few ways to resolve this issue of alienation: begin relying upon something one hasn't before (assume something / rely upon something new as a truth) so that understanding can be grasped, spend much greater time learning the intricacies of the process so that complete understanding might be gained, conclude that the system is bad by its very nature. These three responses likely don't encompass everything, but they seem the most realistic to me.

Interestingly, but perhaps as a side-note for future topics, is that in college, many people seemed to claim apathy towards politics for how woefully complex and alienating the system was. Whether this really means that the system is too complex or that these were immature responses to problems that require time and discipline to solve, is another topic, but important to relate, for its relevancy.

Anyways, the complexities of pursuing a topic that is new as well as massively imposing by the nature of its function, is intriguing to me, and provides important insight into the nature of understanding things of novelty and complex nature.

Origins of Genuine Emotion

Last night, my brain was very busy pondering the nature of emotion and what differentiates artificial emotion from real emotion. This thinking has come up before out of my impression from seeing fellow men who fake their emotions and are fine with it. Looking at such an act, I used to be comfortable with it, as it used to be the way that I saw that emotions could be expressed; by forcing what wasn't there and so to somehow create an emotional base out of nothing. But it seems according to my recent thoughts and impressions from seeing so many other people do it, that it doesn't work and that over the long term, it is still not genuine.

To try and communicate the impression I've been receiving, I'll give some examples. Usually when I'm in a crowd of people that are younger than me and who are engaged in something most of them attribute to high emotion, this impression is received. The only situation I've seen much of this occur in has been in faith settings, where fellow believers are trying with all their emotional heart to reach to God. In some congregations, the people seem genuine in their emotions, in many others; particularly Gen-Y groups, the people seem to be trying to force something that doesn't exist. In those settings, the impression is strongest.

Anyways, not to dwell on impressions that much; there's plenty of rational arguments as to nature of the problem I've described other than my personal experiential impression (but that is important). One idea that I'm becoming more convinced in, is the idea that emotions attributed to certain actions / places / people are created after having long-term experience with those actions / places / people. If this is true, then genuine emotions cannot come from experiences that are temporal. This of course seems incorrect because dramatic experiences clearly emotionally imprint everyone, but to me that seems because dramatic experiences are typically dwelt upon. Another supporting reason to this concept of emotion is that for the most part, emotions have their biological origins in being little more than strong neural pathways in the brain. Positive and negative emotions come from either going with or going against these hardened paths to some degrees. Other expressions that have mixed emotions could be a combination of going both with and against (or having some other kind of way of associating good and bad value to the emotions; I'm not sure, I'm not a cognitive scientist).

And so, the less experience one has with certain actions / places / people, but with a variety of actions / places / people, the less that person is likely to have genuine emotions. The more that one focuses one's time, thoughts, and energy into these actions / places / people, the more one will gain emotional attribution to them, and hence emotion will come forth while putting further time, thoughts, and energy into these actions / places / people (now, I've only defined emotions that are experiential; its quite possible there are other forms, but they are the ones I've been able to identify most easily).

So, in order to facilitate the creation of emotions, one must not look to take action in "being emotional;" that is, to say to oneself: "It is time to act in the emotion of happiness, so as to practice it, so that it will be genuine some day." To believe that emotions can be done, just like tasks can accomplished, is a misunderstanding of the very nature of emotions. To be emotional, one must put time, experience, and energy into what one desires to grow emotional in; and then emotions will grow from that. Again, emotions cannot be the focus of one's actions, otherwise they will not truly grow (if anything, the artificial concept of what one thinks emotions are will grow, but not truly the emotions themselves).

So, in order to promote the creation of emotion, one must give experience, time, and energy to certain pursuits over other. Neither a jack of all trades, nor a task-centric perspective will bring about the change desired.

Cheapened Notions of Relationship

Modern technology and its use in society often fascinates me. Its use, like other technologies of the past that have gained acceptance, has transformed our culture in ways we couldn't easily predict. I also think a lot about relationships and group dynamics; those also fascinate me.

One issue of the current generation that often strikes me but I forget to write down, is the lack of personal accountability. Now, the fact that its personal, likely makes it an issue that has existed for a while now, since the United States has a strong leaning toward individualism. So perhaps it is more the reshaping, or new image, that this issue has taken in the current generation, but somehow I think it has worsened, and mostly because of the misuse of modern technology.

It seems to me that upon entering the adult world, the value of engaging in relational activity that involves detailed personal information exchange, belief sharing, and other facets that we'd like to believe help each other become better people, has been cheapened through our society's misuse of technology. I believe that I can say just about anything to anybody in our current age, and the action in response will not be a challenge, but an avoidance of direct conflict. Now, this ties strongly into the well-known fact that people-pleasing and conflict-avoidance behavior has been an accepted aspect of interpersonal relationships for a while now (starting sometime in the 90s I think). I believe that fact is tied in to some degree to the misuse of technology, but today's issue seems more than mutually accepted Politically Correctness; it seems to occur even among anti-Politically Correct crowds.

The essential nature of the issue that involves this misuse of technology, centers on the convenience that technology affords us. Now, technology by its own nature, causes mankind to separate; to distance himself from his fellow man. The written word has done it, electricity has done it, even clothing has done it if you take this idea to extremes. In another way of saying it, technology causes man to become less dependent upon man, but more upon the technology. I'm not arguing the goods or evils of such a fact, I only seek to lay that bare for primary issue: that aspects that made relationships worthwhile have been cheapened through use of technology by the current generation.

Going back to the point, technology gives us great opportunities for conveniences. One convenience that is related to its nature, is that of the distancing affect it has between humans. The primary issue then is that humans in avoiding personal accountability from each other, have misused technology to keep themselves isolated and safe with none of the accountability woes. What this means, is that the current generation is so used to the distancing aspect and use of this aspect in technology, that it almost unconsciously uses it in these cases in order to avoid uncomfortable situations. It has become so automatic that indeed, I can say anything to anyone and experience no consequences, for they as well as I follow the credo that we can both distance ourselves from one another before these very real words can do anything significant.

Now, this is a very important trait of our society to recognize, for it allows one to interpret what I think is an age-old idea only given a new image. However, I'd like to extend this principle to see where then people consider to be off-limits, or highly protected: that which is never talked about or rarely because of its results being so fast that it could warrant actual danger. If anything, according to what has just been discussed, the source that causes such non-accountability would be such an idea. Technology, physical existence, and mobility, if take deeply in the right vein, can produce startling results in thought. These factors don't directly confront about the avoidance of accountability (those are respectable pursuits too, but a different topic), but they are important for they not only may cause change, but more importantly, genuine thought about what is currently fundamental forces in many people's lives they don't even realize.

Another approach, like mentioned, would be to directly confront people with how they lack and run away from being personally accountable to others. However, while both parties would likely come to accept this as an issue with themselves, they would have no intuition on how to put an end to it, which is more found in the unseen, unconsciously-aware actions they take in misusing technology to do that very thing.