[ot-caption title=”Kids are on their phones, so they must be self-absorbed, lazy Millennials…I’m calling Slippery Slope Fallacy on that one. (via Rosie Rothschild, freshman)”]

We group people according to similar traits. There are those who sing, those who play sports, those who practice a certain religion, live in a certain area—those who are born in the same generation. See, the lines here are just a bit blurrier. What really defines a generation? Is it more than just a chunk of years? [spacer height=”10px” id=”2″]

In 1991, authors Neil Howe and William Strauss published a book titled Generations. They were the first people to use the infinitely creative name “Millennial” to describe the generation of people born in the years 1981 to 2004. Now, like any arbitrary borders drawn, there is some debate about the exact year that the Millennials stop and the next generation, Generation Z, begins.  For example, the New York Times places the cutoff for the Millennials at 1995 while the New Yorker seems to have settled on 1999 as the last year for a Millennial birth. [spacer height=”10px” id=”2″]

To the normal American, a mere four years may not seem like a significant amount of time. In fact, to the normal American, my insistence that we dwell on these four years excessively throughout this article seems like a pretentious waste of energy. I, however, in true self-absorbed Millennial fashion, was born in this black hole of generational time, and therefore, care very much about these four years. [spacer height=”10px” id=”2″]

Following the publication of Generations, the media grasped on to the idea of the “Millennial,” creating an image that seems to have stuck. Today, calling yourself a Millennial is a self-deprecating insult, probably to be met with an uneasy glance and a look of embarrassed confusion that reads, “Dude, why would you say that out loud?!” Some of the words that come to mind are “self-absorbed,” “dependent,” “technology-obsessed.” [spacer height=”10px” id=”2″]

At Pine Crest, the stigma certainly remains. When asked to describe the Millennials as she knew them, English teacher Mrs. Dailey paused for a short moment, but without hesitance, she said, “I think they get distracted because of all of their multitasking and at times I think it can lead them to struggle with their priorities; I think they can be creative, but I think that the distractions can interfere with their ability to look at things in a clear light and meet their true potential.” The said “distractions” (technology) was a theme that ran through most responses, for good or for bad. Mrs. Promnitz explained, “There’s something about having a screen in front of you, something we [older generations] didn’t have all the time. For us, computers served a very different purpose. It removes you from the direct interaction with a peer.” And Mr. Lemole expressed concern for the seeming attachment our generation has to our cell phones. “Many of you cannot separate yourselves from your phones. If the phone’s screen is not in immediate eyeshot, many of you become anxious. This strikes me as the behavior of an addict.” [spacer height=”10px” id=”2″]

So, if everyone’s saying it, maybe it’s true. Maybe technology really has changed the values of a generation who grew up using a computer and a cell phone. Perhaps we are a product of our times, technological addicts unable to separate the cell phone from ourselves—defined by a selfishness stemming from machines. I settled on this nihilistic conclusion until I began talking to students. [spacer height=”10px” id=”2″]

Most students were unfamiliar with the years that “generational experts” classified as their generation. Instead, I asked students to lump themselves with an age group. A major pattern I found in the student responses was that while the freshman and sophomores born in 2000 and 2001 were comfortable grouping themselves with people much younger than them, the juniors and seniors born in the late nineties were extremely reluctant to place themselves with the middle schoolers, and instead identified with people up to age 25. [spacer height=”10px” id=”2″]

Even more telling was the response by these juniors and seniors when asked to describe Generation Z, if we consider ourselves Millennials. “We’re more social and have more social skills than that generation of kids. The technology is given to them and that’s all the imagination they have,” commented junior Marcus Haig. Junior Simone Vreeland agrees wholeheartedly. “I think the generation below us is really disrespectful. We see little kids with ipads! They don’t have as much face to face interaction, and I think that’s a huge distraction and that’s why they’re disrespectful; they don’t understand values.” [spacer height=”10px” id=”2″]

It was around that response that all of the answers started to sound extremely similar: a loss of values, a loss of social capabilities, an unhealthy use of technology. It seems like those a part of Generation X lament the distractions and laziness of the Millennials, while those a part of the Millennials lament the distractions and laziness of Generation Z. And as we look back in history, the pattern has been going on for a while. Generation X was known as the “apathetic” and “lazy” generation, two words now being used to label their successors. [spacer height=”10px” id=”2″]

It seems odd to create generational names if we end up describing each generation the same way, so why bother at all? I think that broad generational labels are used as a way to place distance between groups of people, to create an “us” and a “them.” No one wants to lump themselves in a generation of change because with change comes the possibility of a negative outcome. And the generation with more technology has the capability and power to induce a more destructive outcome on a larger scale. So for my reluctant Generation Z friends and me, it’s more comforting to hold on to being a Millennial because it’s safer. There are Millennial adults who are doing productive and successful things, and if they can do it, so can we. Generation Z, though, they’re new, and who knows what lies in their future? [spacer height=”10px” id=”2″]

But the problem with using these broad categories is that an imaginary generational gap continues to widen between each group. At the beginning of the year, Mrs. Promnitz and Mr. Pierson led the faculty in a seminar titled, “Teaching and Working with Millennials.” The teachers were instructed to go around and give their impressions of our generation. A major topic of conversation was communication, Mrs. Promnitz explains. “We communicate differently. There’s a formality to people in their mid-thirties.” [spacer height=”10px” id=”2″]

In theory, such a workshop does make sense. The title of the meeting, however, suggests that we need a translator, that we speak “Millennial” while those older than us do not. Now it becomes not only years placed between us, but a seeming language barrier as well. [spacer height=”10px” id=”2″]

I do understand that this assumption comes from a place of reason. Technology seems to favor fragments as an acceptable form of communication. I think what many people are missing is that said Millennials go online because it seems like only behind a screen are we treated as intellectual equals. On platforms like Reddit, we can engage in important conversations, and no one questions our credibility based on our age and generation. The real solution to “teaching Millennials” is engaging with us as people. It seems like it becomes increasingly difficult for people to define our generation outside of technology. We are human; we are curious; we’re eager to learn and discover the world. Sometimes that includes the help of a cell phone. But that’s just it: the cell phone is not our world; it’s a tool we use to get to know our world. [spacer height=”10px” id=”2″]

Perhaps I’m guilty of the same thing I seem to be arguing– using the “we” to generalize an entire generation. I’m sure there are several people who do not agree with my position. But that’s what makes people unique. We, as a society, devalue ourselves by listing three adjectives to define millions of people. We’re more complex than that. People defy the perceived mold all around us. Technically, Ms. Alexanderson’s birth year makes her a Millennial, but she doesn’t exactly fit the generation’s mold; she adds, “I don’t think I lack empathy or am self-centered, but I do take selfies, so does that mean that I do? I don’t know.” And Mr. Spitzig doesn’t seem to fit quite right either. “I think people think we’re lazy… A lot of them are, but that’s just people in general…I’m not; most of my students are not.” [spacer height=”10px” id=”2″]

So I’d like to think that I’m more than just a generational name as well.  I’m Jodie. I was born in 1998. Before writing this article, I would have argued with you for hours that I am a Millennial. Perhaps I’m really a member of Generation Z, but either way I’m 17, and a human. It would do us all a great service to remember that. [spacer height=”20px”]

Sources: New York Times, The New Yorker, Huffington Post