GenX stereotypes
Supposed slacker, 20-somethings taking control
ANTHONY COLMAN is a
sophomore general studiet
major and a Dail$
Nebraskan columnist.
Who would have thought th<
nefarious Generation X would star
taking over so soon?
Or that they would even want to?
The GenXers were supposed to tx
the slackers, the losers, the cynics ant
the drifters.
Represented by the 45 million bon
in America between roughly 1961 anc
1977, the GenXers were characterizec
as a lost generation, wandering neck
deep in ennui and apocalypti<
nihilism, bobbing aimlessly toward <
vacant future.
All the hype started a few year:
ago, about the time that grunge-rocl
was exploding.
The Generation X stereotyp<
became omnipresent in the media an<
advertising, dominating pop-cultun
imagery and iconography. The state o
hipness was delegated through movies
marketing and “Rolling Stone.”
The very label Generation X is ;
negative one implying uncertainty an<
anonymity.
i . VJCIL/VCIO WCIC buppu&cu IU U1
disi asioned and hopeless - the slack
ers, cynics and drifters. Typica
GenXers were portrayed basically a
hedonistic, concert-seeking, OK
Cola-swilling stoners, still living witl
their parents and with little hope o
ever having a career or a life.
Coffee houses, pseudo-intellectu
ality and Janeane Garofalo became th
new symbols of status and coolness
and knee-jerk irony became the nev
attitude.
However, typical GenXers of todar
are smart, hip, overeducated, under
paid poverty jet-setters. They may nc
have much money, but they manage ti
move around.
They put a high value on college
and post-graduate education, and the;
take up causes. Fragmentation am
eclecticism are 20-something hall
marks.
Today’s young adults define them
selves by sheer divergence.
So what happened to the disillu
sioned, lazy baby-busters who wer
I
supposed to typify the new generation
of knee-jerk irony and the pose of
repose?
It’s becoming clear that the first X
rays of Generation X were misunder
stood and distorted.
The media caricature had it all
wrong. Since the initial hype, some
thing else has become clear -the 20
somethings are ambitious, creative
get-aheads - much more so than then
parents or grandparents.
‘ Characterized as unfocused and
> confused, more and more GenXers
lately are proving themselves to be
confident, savvy, determined and inde
. pendent.
t What happened is that the 20
somethings have learned to cope.
If the 20-somethings entered the
. decade facing a floundering job mar
[ ket, did they deserve to be labeled
dazed and confused?
k Between 1979 and 1995, some 43
I million American jobs were lost
I through corporate downsizing.
Newly created jobs paid less and
. offered far fewer benefits and less
' security. Sharp cutbacks in federal
grants since 1981 mean that one of
three students must work and attend
’ school at the same time.
The challenge so many 20-some
things face is finding a job in a firag
j menting workplace while avoiding
being crushed by their college loan
' repayments.
Genders are not just rejecting tra
’ ditional American work ethics out of
spite - traditional attitudes about the
| workplace are a useless hindrance in
the modem workplace.
The sort of job security and career
; building of the past is gone. The corpo
J rations have “downsized” and now rely
* significantly on contracted employees
5 or temporary workers in order to avoid
paying for retirement and health care.
1. Manpower is now the largest pri
‘ vate employer in the United States, and
many of the people who devoted them
' selves to the firm have been booted out
J on the street without a pension.
> More and more Americans have no
1 choice but to work at lousy service
jobs such as Wal-Mart or McDonald’s
? just to support themselves.
Worrying about the future can now
* be a major source of stress. The job
> market is now in constant flux, making
it difficult, if not impossible, to make
J long-range plans for the future.
f So many opt out of the rat race
i entirely. What on the surface appears
- to be apathetic hedonism or laziness
may actually represent a well
- informed choice.
GenXers may see themselves as
- life-long job hoppers instead of com
3 pany loyalists, but at the same time,
they profess far greater satisfaction
from their work than their elders.
Instead of devoting their lives to
their careers and the firm, wearing a
coat and tie to work'every day, 20
somethings live their lives more inven
tively.
They have become a generation of
creativity and entrepreneurial spirit,
utilizing new technologies and new
forms of consumerism.
They’re flocking to technology
start-ups and founding successful
small businesses that actually make
good use of a fragmenting economy.
The GenXers might be viewed as.
the pioneers of a new economy, sup
porting themselves in ways that are
less wasteful, more sustainable and
more spiritually fulfilling.
It’s summed up by the slogan
on the Eddie Bauer shopping
bags: “Never confuse having a i
career with having a life.” f
If GenXers are disillu
sioned, it’s not with
out Cause.
For starters, this
generation experi
enced the toll of divorce - 40
percent of this generation’s
young adults have spent time
in a single-parent home by the
age of 16.
This is the generation that
grew up in the Reagan/Bush
years, with the very real
threat of thermonu
clear Armageddon.
AIDS became a dev
astating national cri
sis as they were
reaching adoles
cence.
This generation
witnessed the space
shuttle explosion, n «
soaring national
debt, bankrupt
social security, urban 1
deterioration, gangs,
crack, junk bonds, holes
in the ozone layer and Dan
Quayle.
The 20-somethings
grew up in a period of
dynamically shifting social
and economic structures;
latchkey kids who could use
computers before they could
write in cursive.
Did the psychic toll of all
this produce a generation of
latchkey basket cases or a
generation of survivors?
Perhaps both.
But the members of
Generation X are not
exactly the slackers and
losers they have been
characterized as.
They’re taking control, much
sooner than expected and much
more creatively.
They’re presenting us with a
new skeptical pragmatism,
doing battle with Starbucks,
Barnes & Noble and
the Gap.
JonFrank/dn
Faculty members stand by department
The following opinion is from
members of the political science
department.
Your editorial about the political
science department in the Daily
Nebraskan (Tuesday) was terribly
misguided and shows a nearly total
misunderstanding of the facts.
The editorial suggested that
members of the department were
unaware of allegations of sexual
harassment in the department and
did nothing about them. This sug
gestion is absolutely false. Our
department has a long track record
of seriously addressing both formal
and informal complaints of gender
related issues.
Our department has held up
under scrutiny. We have been inves
tigated and cleared by Amy Longo,
an independent attorney who is a
specialist in discrimination law and
is currently the chair of the Nebraska
State Bar Association. There also
have been other investigations clear
ing our department.
What several members of the
department did tell Daily Nebraskan
reporters was that we didn’t know
the content of the ARRC (Academic
Rights and Responsibilities) Special
Committee report. This is because
the report is supposed to be confi
dential, and we are not allowed to see
it since the department is not a party
to the complaint.
What we do know is that the
accusations of gender inequity by
Professor Valerie Schwebach against
the former chair of the department of
political science were dismissed by
the special committee. Schwebach
lost her case. We regret that the Daily
Nebraskan failed to report that.
In what strikes us as a gratuitous,
unsupported and improper act, how
ever, the special committee appar
ently went on to recommend sanc
tions against the department of polit
ical science.
These recommendations were
made even though no complaint
against the department was before it,
the department was never investigat
ed by the committee, and the depart
ment was never allowed to defend
itself, and indeed we cannot even be
shown a copy of the very report that
condemns us.
This reminds us of the Queen of
Hearts in “Alice in Wonderland”:
“First the punishment, then the
trial!” We’re at the receiving end of
the flagrant abuse of an ineptly man
aged process. The special commit
tee’s recommendations against the
department are wrong, which is no
surprise since the fundamentals of
due process were completely
——
ignored.
If you are not accused of any
thing, how can you be found guilty?
It is not that the department’s due
process rights were violated - the
department was found guilty with
out any due process at all.
If a university committee can
find departments or faculty guilty
without an accusation, an investiga
tion or a hearing - that is, without
any concern for due process rights -
then every department and faculty
member on campus can potentially
become a victim to an unjust
process.
The university must ensure basic
due process rights for all of its mem
bers. Fair and impartial investiga
tions and hearings are an essential
part of any fair judicial system. The
university must not sanction a judi
cial process that lacks these basic
elements of due process.
We stand by our department. No
department is perfect, but we have
dealt with the problems that have
come to our attention in an appropri
ate and timely manner. An outside
investigator has agreed that this is
the case. The recommendations of
the special committee are the prod
uct of a fatally flawed process, a
process that needs to be changed to
protect us all.
John Comer
chairman
Elizabeth Theiss-Morse
graduate chairwoman
John Hibbing
member, Executive Committee
Jeff Spinner-Halev
member, Executive Committee
