As the '90s progress, a strange dichotomy is developing between the overall tranquillity of our times and the ever-increasing malaise among the members of my generation. On the one hand, we have peace abroad, decreasing unemployment (which is currently at 4.9 percent-a 24-year low), rising wages and decreasing crime and drug use. But on the other hand, we are faced with an American youth characterized by endemic teen pregnancy, increasing crime and drug use, and a general amorality and apathy that would be distressing at any time, but is incomprehensible in our era of relative prosperity.
Delving into the exact values of the '90s generation-and, more importantly, the sources of those values-illuminates this seeming paradox. The values that these kids have been raised upon have been the values of '60s liberalism-values of rebellion and irreverence that may have been suited to that time and place, but are decidedly out of place in our time.
The values of the '60s, whether you agree with them or not, at least served a purpose. Then, there were tangible oppressors to battle; now, these oppressors have been systematically removed, but the values and morality of the times have disturbingly lingered into the '90s. According to one author (and former flower child) in the Sept. 1, 1997 edition of Time Magazine, "This is how [the '90s] generation rebels: They dump their parents' avowed political beliefs but pick up their social-sexual mores and run with them. They smoke, drink and have sex-earlier than we ever dreamed of doing." Indeed they do: 50 percent of girls age 15-19 have had sex and 45 percent of 10th graders have tried illicit drugs.
And the aimless apathy and brutality of today's youth becomes more shocking every year-11-year-olds who gang rape seven-year-olds, teenagers who physically assault teachers. All with no apparent cause-some even cite sheer boredom. One 17-year-old told Time, "Everything has been done, everything has been fought over and now, it's basically like there is no more debate... it's a disgusting time to live in."
And if today's youth has not opted for the "life is meaningless" approach, they have tried to create 60's style oppressors to demonize, resulting in causes that have as much substance as a Pauly Shore movie. President Lyndon Johnson isn't sending kids to war, George Wallace isn't standing in front of university doors and June Cleaver is no longer the only role model for females. The kids of the flower children have gotten exactly what their parents fought so vehemently for-peace and prosperity.
The argument is not that there are no pressing issues worth fighting for in the '90s; we are still confronted with severe problems, but they are more nebulous and insidious problems then those cut and dried issues of right and wrong that confronted our parents. Shifts like this have left our generation without the political causes of the past but saddled with the leftist, anti-establishment values that simply are not tailored for times like these.
The left has not, as some liberals suggest, disappeared. To the contrary, radicalism has been defined into mainstream culture, rendering the very idea of radicalism obsolete. Rather than acknowledging the vastly different era we live in, we insist on rebelling-but we have nothing to rebel against. So we either join groups and ride the wave of PC mumbo-jumbo, hoping to bump into a cause along the way, or we throw in the towel on the whole damn thing and see if we can pierce a body part for every letter of the alphabet.
Some of the harsher critics of the left have taken the stance that the only logical result of 30 years of moral relativism, freedom without responsibility and anti-establishment rhetoric is a generation of apathetic, sexually permissive, self-indulgent and essentially amoral Americans. To the '60s liberals, they say, "You've gotten what you wanted, are you happy now?"
Of course, hindsight is 20/20, and its easy to chide '60s radicals for not having the foresight to recognize the eventual consequences of their values. Criticism like this, though, seems decidedly dubious since we can't even begin to relate to the climate of upheaval they lived in-a climate which undoubtedly demanded rebellion. No, the fault for the apathy and irreverence that characterize the post-grunge '90s must fall squarely on the shoulders of our generation, which, in lieu of adapting to a new era and staking out an identity for ourselves, has pathetically clung to the worst parts of the outdated, bastardized culture of a previous one.
Parker Stanberry is a Trinity junior.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.