My wife picked up the Mindset lists for me as a Christmas (2012) present. She sorta hit the nail on the head on this one. It’s definitely up my alley marrying pop-culture, politics and history. This is an interesting idea. I wouldn’t say the execution is as successful as the idea however. Essentially, the Mindset lists are about 50 items that are normal to a generation, as represented by a high school class. What that class experienced growing up and how those forces acted upon their actions and behaviors. Think “I love the 80’s” without the comedians. The book, looked at one graduating high school class every 13 years, starting backwards from 2009. So 1996 was included, which just so happens to be my graduating class. Within that structure, it looks at things that are the norm or new and how their processing differs from the earlier generations. For instance, for classes in the 1930’s (I’m guessing here, I don’t remember what year) – zippers were commonplace. Its hard for them to imagine life without them or even care to for that matter since they are the norm. However, for earlier generations pre-zippers they are new, fantastic or possibly troublesome as a sign of the laziness of the youth depending on who you talk to.
In that context, the list of 50 items was interesting to see how “normal” changed from 1905 to 1918 to 1931 to 1944 to 1957 to 1970 to 1983 to 1996 to 2009 and even speculation to the class of 2026 (my kid’s generation-apparently they will never handle cash or use keys). After listing the items, there was a 10-15 page description of the items in a narrative form.
Nuts and bolts – the book is interesting for the content and value of the changing viewpoints. But it’s not as valuable as a book. I found it boring. The lists were interesting. I probably didn’t need the narrative to go with it. Or maybe I needed a narrative that differentiated a little bit more. I found the 10-15 pages was highly repetitive and with the exception of a few items, there was nothing new to be learned that I couldn’t gather from the lists. What I mean is, as a novice student of history, there were only about 4 or 5 items from each list that I didn’t understand/remember. The narrative was semi-helpful in expounding on those, but in most cases I still found myself on Google trying to understand what was meant. In the end, this wasn’t a straight read. I’d read one section, then go on and read something else. I don’t think I could read this straight through. And if you don’t like history, I’m not sure I’d find it remotely entertaining. It’s just not written well enough to be engaging. Here’s the more perplexing part for me. Of all the sections, the one I struggled with the most was 1996. This is my graduating class, my experiences. Yet, I couldn’t relate to about half of the detail. Some of the writing made me think of the aughts (which didn’t make sense since it’s supposed to be my childhood) but would then come back to comment how that thought process related to the 80’s. I’m fully aware that I was not conscience of the world until about 1987 or so, hence anything occurring prior to then would only have some peripheral meaning. However, considering the history of the earlier classes that made sense to me, I shouldn’t have been confused by my own era. It made me question what an earlier class would think based on reading their section.
In the end, I believe there are several issues here. One…the items are geared in an 18 year framework and while the societal influences of the time certain frame life (the depression vs. the suburban movement), kids are still kids. Would my life have differed if I was born in ’27 instead of ’77?? – certainly. And in some cases this is pertinent. However, the supposed political ineptness of Jimmy Carter had virtually no influence on me or my thinking. Neither did anything outside of the sphere of mom and dad for much of that first decade (until 1987 when I claimed Ollie North stole my missing recorder and gave it to the contras). In that context, it feels cheapened. If it doesn’t work for me, it won’t work for others. There should be some groundwork of the socio-economic conditions, but the other items I think need to be taken in account for the self-awareness of the class members for a true Anthropologic ideal. You are simply addressing items that have no context for those born in that era. For the class of the '96, focusing the Clinton years, Bush Sr. and the tail end of Reagan. This context was more on 1980-1984. Secondly, there is a too big a gap. For my father, born in 1946 and the class of ’64, to relate to 1957 or 1970 is difficult. I would argue, this would be better done, taken in 5-6 year steps instead of the 13 years provided and focus on the events of ages 12-18, instead of birth to 18. The previous generation would assist in providing the earlier groundwork necessary for that level of context. Lastly, and likely most importantly, the book reads a little like an astrological report. The statements can be associated with anyone, but also no one at the same time. They are, necessarily, general and while certain things will certainly apply, it does not create a great cross section. What’s normal for me growing up in suburban north Jersey will vary greatly from someone growing up in Detroit. You simply can’t conquer this regionally, but it cheapens the data when the context is made to fit into a box or the narrative loses its value by using terms like “could have.”
Overall, the book was semi-entertaining and interesting. But I think I would have been more apt to pick it up in a book store, peruse the lists (not the narratives) and put the book back on the shelves. The amusement would be there, without the time commitment. On that note, I’m not sure I’d recommend other than having on hand as a cocktail party conversation piece….
Source, as mentioned above, was a gift from the wife for Christmas 2012. I’m not sure where she got it…