Born in 1999, Alex is on the cusp of the millennial generation. We’re 12 years apart, but we have a lot in common. One is an unhappy time at school. Back in my day, it was called being an “emo”: a kid who was too sensitive, too sad, too lonely, too shy, too everything.
Nowadays the term “depression” is used to describe almost any emotional problem. In extreme cases, girls who can’t buy the bag they want, claim to suffer from depression. Often, older teenagers realise that it’s something serious and pay more attention to the episodes they’re going through and how the behaviour of others affects them.
I also understood that I was “emo”, but because it was more of a cultural trend, I wasn’t aware that I needed to assess myself. Now, there’s no point in knowing the symptoms of depression if you can’t remember whether you had them or not. This made me wonder if teenage depression has always existed and it is only now that we have the vocabulary to assess it, or if, as some studies suggest, it is something new to this age group.
“I have a problem,” Alex tells me, “I had depression in eighth grade.” Knowing how children tend to maximise the dramatic elements, I wanted to understand if he knew what it meant to have depression and who told him he had it. Although no one had explained it to him, he correctly associated the term with a time when he felt sad and lonely and began to engage in risky behaviour: smoking, drinking alcohol, and various other things.[1] I was curious to find out what triggered such behaviour. I discovered that the triggering factor was the pressure of the eighth grade exam, specifically the fact that he was constantly told that he might fail. A bad high school result would have meant a bad college, which would have meant basically missing out on life—that was about the only outcome he was given by parents, siblings, or teachers.
He didn’t end up in a bad school, but he did end up with anxiety and many nervous breakdowns, where everything came down to “I can’t take it anymore”, which implied suffering rather than rebellion, and helplessness rather than the confidence of someone who can detach himself from the world. He’s insecure and pessimistic about the future, about his ability to “make a decent living, that is, to be able to buy the children whatever they want,” and about the possibility of having a happy family.
I realise that Alex is in some ways more mature than I was at his age, and that it took me longer to get to the same wish list, a wish list that I find reasonable and selfless. We both did it on our own, without openly revealing our problems, but he is doing it in this much more hostile and aggressive climate where society seems to be in a hurry to punish and neutralise emotionally troubled young people with pills rather than listening and understanding. More than anything else, this is the conclusion of an in-depth journey into the American sociological space, where researchers try to determine the characteristics of the millennial generation and how it differs from previous generations.
Lost in the search for truth
Trying to find out something concrete about today’s youth seems to be the modern version of trying to free the Minotaur trapped in the labyrinth of Greek legends. Just when you think you’ve seen it and are heading for the exit, everything unravels and you realise you’ve wandered deeper into the heart of the labyrinth. It may sound dramatic, but the real consequences of this out-of-control social soap opera are tragic.
The first books written about millennials were not only positive, they were complimentary. The most famous of these, Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation,[2] was written by Neil Howe and William Strauss, who introduced the term “millennial” into the popular lexicon. Published in 2000, the book portrays young people as optimistic, confident about the future, cooperative, civilised, engaged in the community and the environment, and interested in leadership, and the authors believe that if they begin to focus on community and civic renewal, America would reach nirvana. Other scholars have reached similar conclusions. In Generation We,[3] published eight years after the book by Howe and Strauss, authors Eric Greenberg and Karl Weber argue that the new generation is “non cynical and civic-minded… [they are] already acting on these beliefs, getting far more involved in social and political activism at a younger age than other recent American generations.”[4]
In between these two positions, Jean Twenge’s 2006 book Generation Me[5] argued the opposite: today’s young people are “an army of little narcissists”, totally uninterested in the environment, politics or civics, paving their own way to depression, totally unadapted to real life, where failure is a collision with their deeply narcissistic nature. A more recent and comprehensive study published by Pew Research in 2010 provides us with a similar picture to that published by researchers in 2000: millennials are open to change, connected to those around them, confident about the future, respectful of their elders, but unenthusiastic about politics and liberals. The polar opposite conclusions have led to a veritable war among sociologists, a war of the “me” generation versus the “we” generation.
It is easy to guess which side the press has allied itself with. Unlike the others, Twenge’s book went viral, and Twenge became a kind of on-call psychologist on American television. It all fitted in too well with the selfie craze for it not to be true that today’s young people are self-absorbed. Not surprisingly, Twenge followed up her success with another book, The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement,[6] which took the theory to the extreme. But as she became more widely known, more and more of Twenge’s colleagues criticised the results of her studies. As a result, she began to take matters into her own hands, publishing online commentaries and even accusing a peer-reviewed journal of bias. This is hardly inconceivable, given that some journals have turned into boxing rings, publishing a series of “reply to the reply to the original reply” studies between Twenge and some of her critics (Jeffrey Arnett, Kali Trzesniewski, Brent Donnellan). Thus, leading experts in generational studies accuse each other of subjectivism, over-interpretation of data, gaps in logic, and ill-will, each claiming to be right because “many others think like me.”
Each side is correct in some respects. The seminal books of the two antagonistic positions, the one published by Howe and Strauss and the one published by Twenge, are equally disappointing reads for someone interested in sociological research rather than the narratives woven around them. Twenge is right to accuse Howe and Strauss of starting from a premise and looking for the proof to validate it. Their book is like a jigsaw puzzle made up of small-scale studies scattered across different fields, locations and topics, the results of which, when put together, give a certain picture but do not show a causal link.
Aside from these studies, and dozens of quotes from students we know nothing about, taken from out-of-context online news stories, down to quotes from Britney Spears and Backstreet Boys songs, the authors conducted only two surveys. In the first, 200 teachers were asked about the differences between their current students and those of 10 years earlier (a measure that relies on recall and is inherently subjective). In the second survey, 600 pupils from four schools answered questions about themselves, their families and their teachers, about whom no further details are given. None of the results were compared with measures taken when previous generations were the same age, so it is not possible to say much about how one generation differs from another.
Twenge has the advantage of being the only one to base her results on intergenerational comparisons, going back to the 1920s and comparing surveys with responses from more than a million young people. That’s not to say that her method isn’t flawed. For one thing, the results are difficult to compare because Twenge has added another 10 years to the millennial generation, the period from 1970 to 1980, which, as a rule of thumb, is part of the previous generation known as Generation X. Secondly, although Twenge claims to have simply followed the thread of research that led her to the issue of narcissism, it’s obvious that she’s as subjective as those she criticises. Generation Me is a nostalgic throwback to a bygone age, full of ironic jabs at the current generation, and the author’s position is quite clear: “Are these changes good or bad?… How you perceive the generational trend depends on your generation. No matter what your opinion, though, it’s clear that individual freedom has once again won out against restrictive social rules. Don’t forget the condoms.”[7] (Perhaps it’s no coincidence that this is the position of someone born in 1971, who actually belongs to a different generation).
In a different vein, Twenge’s book is also fuelled by quotes from pop culture (films or actors) to validate sociological conclusions,[8] but also by quotes from students which, coincidentally or not, only highlight narcissistic positions. These are part of 200 essays that the author collected from her students at the University of San Diego, which were not analysed in any way so that we know whether the quotes used are the rule or the exception. But these are by no means the most important criticisms levelled at her.
Narcissistic and depressed and nothing else
Are young people today more depressed than their parents or grandparents were at the same age? Are they more narcissistic than previous generations? If the answer to both questions is yes, is the second problem the cause of the first? Twenge answers yes to all of these questions, which in a nutshell forms the thesis of her books. But when analysed by other experts in the field, the theory falters.
For her books, Twenge used data from three main sources: “Monitoring the Future” and “The American Freshman” (surveys of college students that have taken the pulse of civic engagement since the 1960s), and the “Narcissistic Personality Inventory” (NPI)— a method of measuring narcissism as a character trait in psychological and sociological research that emerged in 1979. Comparing the results of the first two sources over time, it was concluded that today’s young people are less empathetic, less interested in social issues, and exhibit selfish behaviour that damages the environment.
When other researchers (Trzesniewski and Donnellan) tried to verify the results by analysing the same data from “Monitoring the Future” and the NPI, they found that some indicators had indeed increased, but others had decreased, and concluded that “using large samples of U.S. high-school seniors from 1976 to 2006, we found little evidence of meaningful change in egotism, self-enhancement, individualism, self-esteem, locus of control, hopelessness, happiness, life satisfaction, loneliness, antisocial behaviour, time spent working or watching television, political activity, the importance of religion, and the importance of social status over the last 30 years.”
Twenge refused to accept the validity of this test on the grounds that they had taken the most recent data from students on three American campuses “with very different populations and cultures,” i.e. comparing apples to oranges. But other researchers have argued that this sample is more consistent and diverse than the one used by Twenge from a single research university, and therefore not representative of all young adults.
This sounds like a battle of opinions, but Twenge’s conclusions are contradicted by other evidence as well. Pew Research’s 2010 study—which compares its own polling data on political and social issues over the past 20 to 30 years—shows, among other things, that political engagement fluctuates even in the short term. After a decline in turnout in the 1990s, the turnout rate for the 18-29 age group rose in 2004, and in 2008 there was the smallest difference in turnout by age group since 1972, after which young people’s interest started to decline again. This suggests that interest in politics may have more to do with the political options available than with any particular characteristic of a generation. Indeed, the Pew researchers begin their analysis with a warning about the impossibility of pinpointing and understanding generational differences, let alone analysing them minutely. Any study of generational differences needs to be accompanied by a healthy dose of humility, the Pew researchers say, which is not demonstrated by Twenge or her critics.
Assuming Twenge is right however, objections remain to the NPI method, which researchers use in the absence of a better tool but which is increasingly being challenged. The NPI[9] is a 40-item questionnaire that forces people to choose closed-ended responses that may not accurately reflect reality. Some items target narcissistic traits, while others fit a normal personality and would even be desirable, e.g. “I like to take responsibility for my decisions.” This is a matter of interpretation. For example, it seems relevant to Twenge that Eric Harris, one of the perpetrators of the Columbine High School massacre, was recorded at one point putting his hand on a gun and saying: “Isn’t it fun to get the respect we’re going to deserve?” Twenge writes in parentheses that this is “chillingly similar to the narcissism item ‘I insist upon getting the respect that is due me.'”[10] There are many such links made in her book. Other researchers, such as Jeffrey Arnett, who has been talking to and writing about young adults for over two decades, have accused Twenge of “overinterpreting” the data and demonising an entire generation.
Resolving this conflict is important because Twenge concludes that today’s young people are more depressed because they are narcissistic. There is a consensus among researchers that narcissism leads to anxiety, depression, and measurable negative effects on society, such as drug abuse, unwanted teenage pregnancies, increased crime rates, and so on. So, Arnett asks, how do you explain the fact that all these indicators are currently on a downward trend (something that Twenge also recognises)? If the simple explanation is that Twenge is wrong, the researcher argues that the legalisation of abortion in 1973 is responsible for the trend. Specifically, “after this time, millions of unwanted children were simply not born. Those children—all of them unwelcome, and many of them poor—might have been the most likely to commit crimes as teenagers and young adults. But they didn’t, because they didn’t exist.”[11]
Going beyond this problematic logic, and assuming once again that Twenge is correct, we need to see if official statistics confirm that depression is on the rise, not just in America, but throughout the developed world, and as Twenge warns, soon in developing countries that are beginning to be exposed to American culture. I was surprised to see that one of the countries mentioned is Germany, which consistently appears in the annual rankings of the “happiest” countries. In fact, a 2011 Gallup study contradicts Twenge’s generalisations: far fewer cases of depression are reported in Germany than in the US, with a difference of 17% to 9%. The study also shows that in the US, Germany, and the UK, the 18-29 age group has the lowest percentage of people reporting a diagnosis of depression over the period analysed. Statistics from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for 2005-2006 also show that the most affected group is the 40-59 age group.
However, there are also studies that show the opposite: in 2010, the most vulnerable segment was the 20-40 age group, and the suicide rate in the US is now higher than it was during the Great Depression.[12] These data show that depression and suicide rates vary mainly according to the state of the economy and demographics: today we are in the midst of an unresolved economic crisis and an ageing population. These factors and others of a social nature, such as the large number of children raised by single parents, are barely mentioned by Twenge. Finally, statistics on the global prevalence of depression vary so widely that a 2015 World Health Organization report warns that, although it is known to be a common condition, data on depression are not able to provide reliable estimates of regional and global trends. This should put a damper on the momentum of those who are preaching a depression apocalypse.
Love has grown cold
These studies wouldn’t matter if the press didn’t take them as gospel and create public pressure to act on what they say is happening. Over the past decade, the US seems to have become obsessed with parenting. An entire social marketing industry is trying to educate parents on how to have better children. Children’s rights organisations have mushroomed, attracting the interest of politicians who have created social programmes that put pressure on teachers to produce certain results. The nation must produce a generation according to a precise formula: more creative, more liberal, but also more sceptical, better behaved, more ambitious, harder working, more civic-minded. Under these conditions, it is normal that children raised in the nursery of perfection accept nothing but perfection from the structures in which they have to live and work. This can be either a source of great social change for the better or of even greater frustration.
The funny thing is that the American public doesn’t even think there is a major conflict between the generations, and to a large extent everyone still tends towards the same values in life: family comes first, being a good parent is most important, and fame and money are among the least important goals, even among those who grew up with YouTube and reality shows. This shows how artificial the whole issue can be and how irresponsible both the media and the scientific community are.
I was surprised to see that the sociological analysis was done mainly through questionnaires. Everyone is trying to find out what young people’s attitudes are and what lies behind certain actions but almost no one has bothered to talk to them, even though there are many other measurement techniques, such as observation or interview surveys, that are recommended for researching and understanding beliefs and attitudes.[13] Perhaps sociology has progressed so far that it has forgotten that it began as part of the sciences dedicated to understanding the meaning of human action, not the thing itself. In this sense, the German philosopher Wilhelm Dilthey said: “We explain things, but we understand people.”[14]
In high school I had Professor Gabriel Săndoiu as my teacher of logic and philosophy, both at school and in preparation for university. No private lesson began with dictation. We used to watch the owls in the courtyard of the block through binoculars while he dissected my emo tendencies. Unfortunately, after so many years of schooling, I learned philosophy by rote and have forgotten it, but the man’s character is deeply etched in my mind. As a guest on a television programme, he was asked if his experience as a teacher proved those right who say that “this generation is completely deranged, completely devoid of values, alienated, profoundly stupid, they don’t stand a chance, they’re savages, they’re not like we were, they’re hopelessly lost.” The teacher replied: “Passeism is institutionalised nonsense that even children learn at school. As a high school student, I didn’t have the level of my high school students, I didn’t have their clothes… The differences between teachers and students are accidental, nobody is to blame for being born into a certain generation.”
But “Teach” is a special man who has not lost his love for children and for what he does. He prefers not to suspect children of “abnormal” behaviour when they ask to go to the toilet during class, because “it is natural to maintain an expectation of normality… The strength of a myth does not depend on whether or not the myth is supported by reality.” He doesn’t make the children stand up in class to answer questions, because that only reinforces the oldest Romanian proverb: “A bowed head shall not be cut off by the sword.” He knows that if you treat a person well—that is, normally, humanely—you will get extremely nice reactions, which “we deprive ourselves of, expecting from the start that this person will do something stupid, which we anticipate and counteract.”
The truth is, as the journalist David Sarasohn says, “the scariest thing about kids today…is how adults feel about them.” As a child, I had the good fortune to know a teacher who, through his behaviour towards me, taught me that all “children are made by God. The others are made by us. They are not to be compared… Those who are yours are loved without examination.” I wonder what the sociologists’ statistics would be if Alex and other young people like him, all over the world, at some point in their lives, had at least one person who taught them this lesson of love—without reservation, without compromise, without barter, without hidden interests and without fear for their own ego.