Pew quits the generation game

Since the beginning of this millennium, I’ve been writing critiques of the “generation game”, the idea that people can be divided into well-defined groups (Boomers, Millennials and so on), with specific characteristics based on their year of birth. As I said in my first go at this issue, back in 2000 (<a href="https://crookedtimber.org/2012/08/17/the-generation-game-2/">reproduced here</a> )

<blockquote>Much of what passes for discussion about the merits or otherwise of particular generations is little more than a repetition of unchanging formulas about different age groups Ð the moral degeneration of the young, the rigidity and hypocrisy of the old, and so on.

Demographers have a word (or rather two words) for this. They distinguish between age effects and cohort effects. The group of people born in a given period, say a year or a decade, is called a cohort. Members of a cohort have things in common because they have shared common experiences through their lives. But, at any given point in time, when members of the cohort are at some particular age, they share things in common with the experience of earlier and later generations when they were at the same age.</blockquote>

My most prominent contribution to the debate was<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/06/opinion/millennial-means-nothing.html"> this piece in the New York Times five years ago</a>, prompted by the Pew Research Centre’s announcement that it would define people born between 1981 and 1996 as members of the millennial generation. After discussing the history of the “generation” idea, I made the central point

<blockquote>Dividing society by generation obscures the real and enduring lines of race, class and gender. When, for example, baby boomers are blamed for “ruining America,” the argument lumps together Donald Trump and a 60-year-old black woman who works for minimum wage cleaning one of his hotels.</blockquote>

Now, I’m pleased to say, <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/05/22/how-pew-research-center-will-report-on-generations-moving-forward/">Pew has changed its view</a>, partly in response to a “growing chorus of criticism about generational research and generational labels in particular.”

<!--more-->

From now on, they will take proper account of age, cohort and period effects, with the result that

<blockquote>our audiences should not expect to see a lot of new research coming out of Pew Research Center that uses the generational lens. We’ll only talk about generations when it adds value, advances important national debates and highlights meaningful societal trends.</blockquote>

What's striking is that this is happening at a time when political views, at least in the US, UK and Australia, show a really strong age gradient, with old people far more likely to be on the political right. Understanding this is important, and the use of sloppy labels like "Boomers" (focusing attention on a demographic event 60-80 years ago) is unlikely to be useful.