I've been doing a lot of reading about this, and am astounded at the accuracy of much of what I've read so far.
I'm still not convinced that it isn't all pseudoscience, but then I suppose being a sociological model it is, virtually by definition, generalized and non-specific.
That aside, I have noticed a few faith-based elements that have been slipped into Graeme Codrington's (Codrington is seemingly the pioneer of Generation Theory in the South African context) work, but for the most part it all seems quite reasonable and logical.
I can't speak to the accuracy of the predictions that have been made concerning the Millennial Generation, I suppose time will tell. However, the observations that have been made regarding the GI, Silent and Boomer generations and particularly Generation X seem to be remarkably accurate.
I also can't speak to the accuracy of the conclusions drawn in Generation Theory regarding causes for the behavioural and attitudinal characteristics attributed to the various generations... I have no idea how thoroughly they have been researched, if at all. But they do make sense as they are presented in the literature.
I wonder what tools sociologists have at their disposal for measuring these sorts of things, or if common sense really is the limit of it. (If that is the case, it means that sociology is as subjective and amorphous as its object of study... does it qualify as a science at all? I suppose the same
question could be asked of psychology.)
There are a lot of questions I have about the methodology of how this model was constructed which I have yet to find answers to. However it seems they have stumbled across what appears to be a remarkable sociological trend... even if they have the causes all wrong, the results appear to speak for themselves.
If you're keen to learn more about Generation Theory, there are a plethora of websites on the subject, mostly dealing with the model as applied to the US and Europe. The South African situation is dealt with most comprehensively at www.tomorrowtoday.biz and its companion Blog site www.tmtd.biz. Worth looking into.
I think there is a need for what you call soft sciences. Society is a real thing and is in need of study if we are to understand it better.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that there are few, if any, tools to measure the phenomena.
As in the case of Generation Theory, it began with some relatively good science: an American anthropologist, Margaret Mead, observed and documented the cultural changes that occurred within several savage tribes as they slowly became aware of and aclimatised to the "civilised" world... over 5 decades (3 generations).
Direct observation like that is what it's all about. Later, other anthropologists and sociologists applied Mead's ideas to Western society and identified what seemed to be a pattern.
They appear to have guessed what the causes for this pattern might be, since it's completely untestable with our current technology. Although the guesses seem reasonable and logical, they are still guesses.
Another issue is that the nature of the theory is that it cannot be tested. In studying evolution, a relatively easy way to test your conclusions is to compare them to fossil records - things that have already occurred - thus allowing you to see if your hypothesis is plausible.
Generation Theory should be able to be tested in the same way, by applying the model to literature detailing the exploits and trends of generations in history, but this is problematic for a number of reasons. Firstly, only the technological advancement of the past century or so has made the generation gap as obvious as it is... in centuries past, each generation lived pretty much the same life as the one before it - any differences would be minor and most likely undetectable. Also, according to the theory, the 4-generation cycle would have been revolving independently in each established human community... it's only with the advent of globalisation that these trends have begun to synchronise, thus allowing comparisons to be made.
Therefore, we will only really know if the model, as it currently stands, has any merit if the predictions about the Millennial Generation prove to be relatively accurate... and those results will only be in about sixty years from now.
Nowadays sixty years is an eternity - a period so long that it is impossible to predict what society will look like at its end... the shape of society may have altered so severely that the Generational Model will be rendered useless.
All that aside, I feel there is substantial merit in the detailed descriptions these researchers have compiled about the traits of the generations who are currently on the scene: GI, Silent, Boomer and X. I think those observations are not dependent on the cyclical theory, but are rather based more closely on reality, and therefore are more factual.
If the literature is disseminated more prolifically and people, specifically in the corporate world, learn to start managing and marketing according to generation instead of ethnicity or gender, the workplace could be a much more pleasant place to be.