Why Using Generational Terminology is Communist-Style Subversion

When I began to see, more or less overnight, people use terms such as “Generation X”, “Generation Z”, “Zoomers” and “Millennials” I was immediately and instinctually annoyed. The reason for my annoyance was, at first, not completely clear to me. But eventually, I would figure it out.

However, before I get into my objections to this kind of language, despite there being some disputes about where each “generation” starts and ends, these are supposedly the rough boundaries:

My first explanation as to why this got under my skin was that it was another meaningless internet trend in which the world’s misfits were in collaboration to contrive another vapid, superficial and meaningless fad. I hypothesised that they did so to form some kind of kinship with their fellow internet users, having been starved of real-world interaction, rather than, you know, making connections with real people in real life. ‘How pathetic,’ I thought. At the time, I could almost envision the subsequent gutter-press articles ‘10 things that only a millennial will remember’ - which did, in fact, materialise in disgusting abundance. However, I found this explanation unsatisfactory. The issues felt more complex than a desire for greater, albeit superficial, human connection. 

It is probably worth mentioning that I had, of course, heard of the label “Baby Boomer” before, which refers to the generation of people, born in large numbers, post-World War Two. This term has actual legitimacy, despite being heavily overused, as it is referring to an actual, identifiable spike in birth rates which reflects something real. However, the others are simply nonsense. The plethora of new generational terms are the astrology of our time. Rather than the month you were born in, it is the year you were born in; this is equally as stupid for the same exact reasons. Sure, those born in similar times are likely to have some similarities but the blanket assertions that “Boomers” are selfish and “Millennials” are narcissists are about as true as people born in the month of June are going to have great opportunities because Mercury is at its zenith.

My second attempt at understanding my frustration with these generational terms led me to reflect on my quantitative data analysis education. Any analyst worth their salt may tell you that age is a form of data that can be placed on an interval scale - meaning that it is a value that can be placed on a scale in which each point is placed an equal distance from the next. Age is not ordinal, in that it cannot be arbitrarily organised into discrete categories. Yet, this is what is being done by using a whole host of terms to describe so-called “generations” of people. However, despite this objection being perfectly valid, I doubt a knee-jerk repulsion would come so instinctively when concerning the finer points of data handling. Therefore my quest to get to the bottom of my seemingly irrational irritation continued. 

Although I did not consider this at the time, there is, of course, the fact that these generational categories were incredibly arbitrary. For example, why do they all have a neat 15-year range? Would someone born in 1981, making them a ‘Millennial’, have more in common with someone born in 1995 - also a ‘Millennial’ - than a ‘Gen X-er’ born in 1980? I highly doubt it. There is of course the most obvious point of all - that human beings aren’t spawned in huge batches once a year like frogs - we can be born at any time to parents of varying ages. There are no neat generational categories, this is likely why the ‘generational’ boundaries are so hotly disputed by their proponents. The generational model clearly does not reflect reality in any way.

My final and conclusive objection was that, ultimately, all that these new generational terms stand to do is further turn people against one another under the auspices of some form of collective identity. Attempts at dividing people based on superficial and contrived groups only serve to further divide and fragment society. The formal crystallisation of what would otherwise be informal stereotyping is deeply damaging to the underlying fabric of society and invites instability. When there are these specific categories, one of which you are a member of, as with many other collective identities, you may change your thoughts and behaviour to live up to the expectations of what a group member should be like. When someone has an investment in a group identity, they begin to lionise their in-group and ostracise the out-groups.

The dangers of contrived group identity are very real. There are many examples of this style of subversion having catastrophic effects throughout history. In the early 20th century, Tsar Nicholas II sought to expand the wealth of peasants with the aim of creating more loyal subjects. These peasants were termed Kulaks. A Kulak was typically defined as a peasant who owned over 8 acres of land. Due to their relatively large plots of land, farming machinery became viable, which resulted in them owning the most productive farmland in the Russian Empire. Because of this productivity, they were able to provide a disproportionate amount of food to a Russian population that had been historically plagued by famine. They were prominent figures in their local peasant communities and sometimes lent money to poorer peasants when they fell on hard times. The poorer peasants were sometimes employed or leased land by the Kulaks to the benefit of both sides. Nevertheless, the Kulaks remained peasants; they were simply wealthier than average. 

In 1917, the Tsar was overthrown and eventually, the Bolsheviks took over. By 1927, in anticipation of the collectivisation of farming, the Kulaks, due to their relative wealth, were targeted by the communist government. They were seen as capitalistic in nature and thus enemies of the Revolution. The Bolsheviks used the previously contrived term ‘kulak’ to create divisions in the countryside between poor and rich peasants. Where previously they had cooperated, a number of the poorer peasants turned against their formerly successful community members and cooperated with the communist government in rooting them out. The Bolsheviks claimed that they were sabotaging the Revolution because of their ‘selfish capitalistic ways’ and either deported them to Siberia, sent them to gulags or killed them. As a result, many within the Soviet Union starved. Historian Robert Conquest estimates that between 1929 to 1933, up to five million Soviet citizens died of starvation.

The term Kulak allowed for the Bolsheviks to alienate them in the minds of the poor peasants, despite their similarities. They were both peasants after all, and somewhat dependent on one another for survival. The use of the term Kulak allowed the communists to divide the rich and poor peasants and turn them against one another despite their shared history of cooperation, shared culture and close proximity to one another. The communists relied on our innate tendency to lionise our perceived in-group and demonise the perceived outgroup to stoke tensions that would not have formed organically. 

This is, ultimately, my concern with generational language. In creating formal group identities, minor differences can become exaggerated and so-called groups turn against each other. This is never to the group members’ benefit, it only benefits those who rely on a fractured society for greater power - communists. Although my example of the Kulak is perhaps extreme in comparison (I don’t foresee generationally-based persecution becoming quite so commonplace), the underlying mechanisms remain the same. Using terms for ‘generations’ only harms you and those you refer to, to the benefit of the communists.