Conservative rant in the guise of research.
How did this book irritate me? Let me count the ways. I read it after it was highly recommended by friends who share more or less my birth year and are members of what the author has termed "Generation Me." The book is touted as a culmination of years of research into generational attitudes, but is in fact a series of rants, logical fallacy, sarcasm, and snark. I found myself furious from page to page - and ended up marking pages to let the book speak for itself. I was going to just let this go, but it made me so angry I had to write and warn others. Research is hardly apparent - occasionally she cites a study comparing attitudes, but rather than correlations with any outcomes, uses them as a springboard for her own views.
First - let me note that I am the product of the liberal Boomers parenting and plan to continue the same way. That said, I also have a higher education and am gainfully employed.
Twenge opens with a lament that reads like a list of her pet peeves: the loss of uniformity of dress, that men used to wear suits at ball games, that now comfort is king and women don't wear girdles and uniform hemlines, wedding invitations that don't all look alike. She also lambastes the self-esteem movement, in my opinion rightfully so, but also seems to hate the message that each human being is one-of-a-kind, equal, and worthy of love. I'll use her text in italics and add my commentary.
Popular media has also promoted this idea endlessly, offering up self-esteem as the cure for just about everything. In one episode of the family drama 7th Heaven, one young character what can be done about war. The father on the show, a minister, says, "We can take a good look in the mirror, and when we see peace, that's when we'll have peace on earth." The rest of the episode featured each character smiling broadly to himself or herself in the mirror. In other words, if we all just loved ourselves enough, it would put an end to war. (Not only is this tripe, but wars, if anything, are usually rooted in too much love of self, land, and nation.)
Hmm...wasn't it just a couple of chapters ago that she was complaining about the LACK of my generation's conformity, identification with land and nation? LACK of willingness to join the military? Yet somehow, when she it serves her purposes, this same self-love causes wars.
Also - guess the Dalai Lama (and most other major religious leaders) is wrong about improving your character and moral introspection as a way of improving both the self and the world.
A report from Tarrant County, Texas, school district [sic] found that 93% of 39 schools agreed that kindergartners have "more emotional and behavioral problems" than they did five years ago. While it's difficult to tell if this can be traced back to kids having their own way at home, it's certainly one possibility.
That's research? There is any kind of evidence of causality in that statement? As far as I know, the evidence suggests that violence in the home, not child-centered love correlates with violence in children. Out of a million possible causes and correlations, Twenge picks at random her pet thesis.
Here's another great example:
Compared to previous generations, Generation X and Generation Me experience a 42% greater drop in marital satisfaction after having children. Researchers at the National Marriage Project found similar results and concluded that "children seem to be a growing impediment for the happiness of marriages."
Although economic pressures may partially explain this change, it is likely rooted in the radical shift away from the self that parenthood requires.
What? What? How exactly did she get from cause to effect here? One possible explanation (just tossing it out there for thought) - these generations go into HAPPIER marriages than previous ones, so children reduce their happiness to a greater degree. I'm not saying that's the cause, I'm just saying that there's no evidence offered for her conclusion that is any greater than that one.
And this is just another facet of something she repeatedly harps on - that marriage and children have become optional. This is an unusual statement for a so-called scientist - the human race is not exactly on the verge of underpopulation, and the vast majority of the world has no access to reliable birth control - so she is implying a value judgment that having children is "good" in and of its own sake.
Or how about this gem of twisted logic (page 84 of my edition):
Movies have latched onto "never give up on your dreams" with a vengeance. I like to say that modern movies have only four themes: "Believe in yourself and you can do anything," "We are all alike underneath," "Love conquers all," and "Good people win." (Do try this at home; almost every recent movie fits one of the four.) All of these themes tout the focus on the self so common today; in fact, it is downright stunning to realize just how well movies have encapsulated the optimistic, individualistic message of modern Western culture....
She goes on to cite Erin Brockovich and Rudy as two examples. She seems to fail to realize that movies are made about these subjects precisely because they are atypical and heroic - that's what makes the stories interesting. Her insistence that this is a unique phenomenon to the last 30-40 years is, frankly, bizarre. Apparently the individual hero is a uniquely American phenomenon, not something deeply embedded in human literature. Hmm. Maybe Moses never should have bothered about letting his people go. Prometheus should have left the damn fire alone. Jesus needed to just go along with the Romans. Galileo should have just said, "Shucks, guys, I am disappointed by the turn my life has taken - so I guess you all are right." Guess Jean Valjean should have sucked up the prison system. She later whines about movies such as Slackers - the exact opposite. So get straight, Twenge - do you want reality or dreams? Or maybe we should just close cinemas altogether. After all, they don't have a dress code for admission.
What's a good movie?
Take the 1946 film It's a Wonderful Life, where George Bailey gives up his dreams of making it big to stay in his small town and run the local bank. After one particularly bad day, he decides to kill himself, but an angel stops by showing him how all of his good deeds have benefited others. Many people love this movie for its message that self-sacrifice can lead to good outcomes. I saw It's a Wonderful Life for the first time when I was 18, and I hated it, probably because it violated the conventions of every other movie I had ever seen: Why should he have to give up his dreams? He should be able to pursue his ambitions, and - modern movies had taught me well - he could have won if he had tried hard enough.
This movie is ok by her because it is realistic, showing that good deeds and character, and reality make classic movies. The irony is apparently completely lost on her: for the previous 84 pages of the book, she has frequently lambasted the self-esteem movement's message that "All are intrinsically worthy and worthy of love" (by parents, God, whoever), yet isn't that exactly what the angel is telling the despondent, crushed, suicidal George? Poorly played, Dr. Twenge.
A mere 3 pages later:
The quest for fame may explain the recent fascination with over-the-top weddings, and why, in general, Americans still have weddings when living together is so popular. Having a dress fit specifically for you, having someone else apply your makeup, having everyone admire your beauty - as author Carol Wallace points out, these are experiences usually shared by only two groups of women: celebrities and brides. Wedding vendors often emphasize that this is your one chance to be a "princess for a day," and we believe it. One bride said, "Finally, I got center stage in something." Finally. As Wallace writes, "Having 'center stage' being the focus of all eyes is so prized in today's culture that many of us, relegated to the background, feel diminished until we get our turn in the spotlight."
I fall strongly on the anti-wedding-industrial-complex side of this issue, but wasn't it just a few chapters ago that you were railing about how someone once sent your parents a wedding invitation with pictures of a cowboy and cowgirl on it, people writing their own vows, bridesmaids not all wearing the same dress, candid photos in wedding photography, and having bridesmen or groomswomen?
More and more people every year get nose jobs, breast implants, facelifts, and a long list of less invasive procedures like Botox injections and lip plumping. Eyebrow waxing has become a near requirement for women, and today's body-hugging fashions are enough to make women long for the big-shirt-and-leggings days of the early 1990s....
I thought conformity was dead and we all dress for comfort and look sloppy all the time, Dr. Twenge.
Science? Or morality/opinion? How about this subheading:
"Tattoos, nose piercings, and God-knows-where piercings"
Maybe it's just me, but a scientific sociological report would probably head that, "Tattoos, nose piercings, and body piercing/modification." You'd do better to hide your moralizing if you want to keep pretending this is a sociological book.
And so it goes, with a minor nod to the fact that maybe some groups might have benefited by an increasingly tolerant society, that yeah, maybe less people are getting lynched.
If you agree with the premise of her book (which boils down to "these young'uns ain't worth a damn"), you'll probably feel validated. If you are looking for science, a true study of the causes of rising depression, anxiety, and disillusionment - look elsewhere.