On Sloppy Scholarship and the Silent Generation

Sloppy scholarship sometimes makes me mad. I especially get upset when it shows up in a widely esteemed newspaper like the New York Times. Why? Because many people in important positions will take on faith claims made in the great gray lady of U.S. journalism irrespective of their accuracy or lack thereof.

Last Sunday’s editorial section carried such piece. It was titled, “When the Time Make the Man."

In it, editorial page editor Sam Tanenhaus poses the possibility that “Americans born in the 1930s lack the particular qualities we look for in our national leaders.”

I guess that pretty much takes care of presidential candidate John McCain's hopes. He was born in 1936.

McCain is a member of the Silent Generation – so called because it has failed to distinguish itself in the political life of America.

Full disclosure: I was born in 1933.

The problem with the Silents, says Tanenhaus, is that they were collectively disengaged from politics and distrustful of ideology. Just look at Edward Kennedy and Michael Dukakis Tanenhaus offers up as Exhibit A in making his claim about the congenitally weak leadership that marks those born in the 1930s.

If the reputation of the boomer generation has been hyperinflated, then the reputation of the Silent Generation has been as flat as yesterday’s beer. Tanenhaus completely disregards such nationally prominent – indeed, globally prominent in many cases – leaders as Martin Luther King (a fellow Silent, though born in 1929), Ralph Nader (1934), Tom Hayden (1939), Jerry Rubin (1938), Jane Fonda (1937), Abby Hoffman (1936), and Gloria Steinem (1934). In fact, nearly all the national leaders in the feminist movement of the 1960s and ‘70s were born in the 1930s.

You might not have liked the politics of those figures were you around and involved in the 1960s and ‘70s, but you can’t deny their status as national leaders. Collectively, they reshaped the politics and morals of the nation.

From the other end of the spectrum come such national leaders as James Baker (1930), Colin Powell (1937), and Donald Rumsfeld (1932).

A Wikipedia entry on has this to say about the Silent Generation:

In the book Boom Bust and Echo, Canadian author David Foot takes a different perspective on this group arguing that those born in the 1930s and early 1940s are the most successful generation. He argues that because so few people were born during the depression and the war that employment opportunities were abundant and this group quickly rose to the top and became the management and superiors of the great mass of baby boomers that came after them. Using economic indicators he finds that 1938 was the best year to be born in North America, in terms of economic success. The impact of the generation was also great culturally, as the musicians and thinkers such as Paul McCartney, John Lennon and Bob Dylan who shaped the fashions of the boomers and were often associated with the pop culture of the 1960s and 1970s.

In sum, Sam Tanenhaus’s take on the Silent Generation is unpardonable balderdash. But unfortunately, it reflects the sort of sloppy scholarship seen in the gross generalizations we suffer about boomers, and subsequent generations. Interestingly, no broadly accepted definition of how many years add up to a generation exists. Some references to Generation X mark its bookends as 1965 to 1976 – just 11 years.

Lack of consistency in how many years mark a generation doesn’t seem to bother those who insist on comparing generations in terms of buying power, worldviews and behavior.

The key take-away point of this post is beware of generational generalities. They have about as much utility in analyzing, planning and making marketing decisions as a fork has for eating soup.

For another critique of Sam Tanenhaus’s article see the Boston Globe’s Brainiac entry.

 

 

Comments

[Dick Ambrosius]

Amen! Check the birth dates of the the CEOs that made America's economy the best in the world during the 50's and 60's...very few boomers me thinks.

[Linda P. Morton]

David,

I'm with you. I think author David Foot has a more accurate assessment than Editor Sam Tanenhaus.

You are also right in that making marketing decisions totally on generations is risky. I believe that every demographic and psychographic should be considered in market segmentation and that the most effective marketing insights come from looking for characteristics that are repeated across several of them.

In fact that is the way by process works. I offer a free report about it on my blog.