“Hah,” you say, “that’s it!” On the other hand, these narratives make more inexplicable than they explain; It is more effective by what it leaves in the dark than what it shows. So, what does the generational debate obscure and render invisible?
“Generation X, what do you expect?”, “Generation Y needs to know”, “Generation Z is there and wait”… The generation debate has become very popular from daily life to politics, from economy to art. It’s almost as if even politics can’t do without them.
The generation debate attributes certain dominant value systems to people based on their year of birth. Generation X defines those born in the 60s and 70s, Generation Y in the 80s and 90s, and Generation Z defines those born in 2000 and later. Business and management studies are where the generational debate is most developed. The work is not limited to this, but apparently this is the “homeland” of the generations. The generation debate, which provides the opportunity for workers to use their characteristics effectively in certain periods, is easily added to the effort to increase efficiency and productivity in the workplace and to operate human “capital” in the most competent way. In advertising, generations are often used to understand and explain consumer behavior.
While analyzing the language, discourse and mode of action of the opposition or the government, there are also a considerable number of those who enter into the generational debate. The generational narrative, like other narratives that do not require prior knowledge, easily accepts those who want to be included in it. This narrative has a general set of concepts compatible with the dominant discourse. The possibilities of speaking without disturbing anyone are endless. There are some good points, too. As such, it is not surprising that the X, Y, Z generations have become the most popular and well-known discourse.
The answers easily given by the “obvious” narratives enlighten us with the sense of familiarity they create while conveying what happened, how we somehow knew and felt it. “Hah,” you say, “that’s it!” On the other hand, these narratives make more inexplicable than they explain; It is more effective by what it leaves in the dark than what it shows. So, what does the generational debate obscure and render invisible?
This discussion, which operates with a sense of familiarity, does not like the question of “why”. Why do individuals born between certain dates have similar characteristics? If the question of “how” is somehow answered, why should the question of “why” be needed?
Of course, this discussion does not include concepts such as class that you need to explain beforehand. What need is there for a class when there is an individual, when there is a consumer, when individuals are in individual relations with the characteristics of their generation, when everything is clear, obvious and even obvious?
The generational debate illuminates us with the sense of familiarity it creates while explaining what is happening. In this context it is understandable that it is interesting for understanding life, personalities and society. But if we find answers without a “why” question boring, if we want to reach more of the knowledge we had at the beginning when we read something, we need to listen to the voice of political economy. It is necessary to listen to the scientific knowledge “produced with an effort to explain people, society and politics in a social integrity”. In short, it is necessary to listen to Marx.
In the Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Marx clearly articulates the main axis of his work on political economy: “The conclusion that I arrived at and became the guiding principle as soon as I discovered it, can be briefly formulated as follows. In the social production of their lives, people enter into production relations that are specific and independent of their will, corresponding to a certain level of development of the productive forces.
All these relations of production constitute the economic structure of society, the real basis on which a legal and political superstructure is formed, corresponding to a certain social consciousness. The way in which material life is produced determines social, political and intellectual life processes in general.” Let’s take a look, then, at the “ways in which their material life is produced” of generations X, Y, and Z.
In the generation discussion, it is emphasized that the X generation, born in the 60s and 70s, is hardworking and responsible. They develop strong attachments. They know how to work, they are disciplined. Why is that so? These were the years when capitalism was shaped by Fordist production in the center and import substitution in the periphery, under the shadow of the USSR.
The social welfare state is determinant in economic and political processes. A significant portion of the working class enjoys relatively high wages, secure employment and social rights. These years have been shaped by values such as development by industrialization, moving the country forward, and not leaving a single grain of wheat homeless. These are the years when social responsibility, public and patriotism were valuable.
The same generation debate defines Y, who was born in the 80s and 90s, as follows: Generation Y deals with many things at the same time. He changes jobs very often. He is an entrepreneur and likes to take risks. Open to flexible working. Expectations of approval and acceptance from the environment are high. As for the “why” question, the following can be said: The 80s and 90s were the years when the policies of the previous period were replaced by neoliberal politics and economic policies. While terms such as “governance”, “financialization” and “localization” are on the rise; The content of concepts such as “development”, “public”, “public service”, “production” is transforming.
As the years of transforming relations under the pressure of financialization, postfordist production and new communication technologies, the 90s will also witness the collapse of the USSR. Low wages and loss of social rights are worrisome for workers and the working class. But global markets, the cradle of unlimited freedom, promise good days to those who know how to wait patiently: “valid certificates, diplomas” and “a place caught before anyone else in the new order.” For those who are “tired of carrying the world on their backs,” individuality and selfishness will suffice to shake off the gloom of the previous era. Individuals are in the field of politics with their cultural, ethical and ethnic existence. The situation of the Y generation is like this “for this reason”.
What about Generation Z? Generation Z are those born in 2000 and later. They have the ability to use high technology. Items are more valuable than relationships, tangible interests are more valuable than emotional gains. They are ambitious and quick; They do not pay attention to the fact that they step and crush while running. They cannot concentrate their attention on one object for a long time. Attachment to anything other than matter is meaningless.
So why is that so? The 2000s and later are the years of economic and political crisis of neoliberalism. The table is getting darker day by day. Precarious and futureless work is inherited from the previous decade. The deepening inequalities and injustices have reached such dimensions that they frighten even capital organizations. The prison of labor is banks and debt relations. Right-wing populism is rising and oppressive practices are increasing. The use of high technology has increased the speed of establishing, living and consuming relationships that shape life.
Those born in the 2000s are realistic and materialistic in the unpromising, destructive and destructive material life conditions they were born into. When we consider the “ambition, speed and realism” of those born in the 2000s, the generation debate seems to have hit something once again; of course, once again forgetting things, making them invisible.
Generations X, Y, Z, which are used to understand today and to develop an approach to today’s struggle and opposition, do not say anything on their own. But if you want, Marx will make them say it!
Views: 447
