The Birth of Generation Beta
In the coming weeks, the inaugural members of Generation Beta will mark their first year of life. Many people might react with confusion: Generation what? I was just adjusting to Gen Alpha, and now there are Gen Z parents? Who decides these things?
The reality is that anyone can propose these terms. Social analyst Mark McCrindle, who leads an Australian research firm, is credited with creating both Gen Alpha and Gen Beta. Media outlets largely adopted his terminology without question. After exhausting the alphabet with Generations X, Y, and Z, moving to Greek letters seemed logical, though some might prefer alternatives like Gen A1 or Gen B2.
No Scientific Foundation
These generational categories lack inherent logic or scientific validation. Neither baby boomers nor Gen Z exist as clearly defined groups. People can label age clusters however they wish—it's completely arbitrary. No government or scientific body maintains an official department for generational naming.
Many of us have used phrases like "As a millennial..." to feel part of a collective, but sociologists advise against this practice. These labels aren't harmless—they're marketing tools that mask economic disparities and frame structural problems as personal traits. Defining oneself by generation often feels contrived and misleading.
Historical Context and Misuse
The concept of labeling people by birth year originated in the 20th century with Hungarian sociologist Karl Mannheim's 1952 work "The Problem of Generations." Mannheim suggested generations form through shared historical experiences and awareness of that context, as noted in a National Academies report.
However, Mannheim didn't view generations as rigid, regularly spaced groups, nor did he propose using them to predict individual behavior or consumption patterns. He aimed to understand how major events shape social change—like the JFK assassination and Vietnam War for baby boomers, or 9/11 for millennials.
An anecdote illustrates this: While buying beer, the author discovered a clerk shared their birthday but was born in 2003. "Oh, so you don't remember 9/11," the author remarked, receiving a blank stare. This moment highlighted how such dividing lines feel real, tempting us to adopt them as social identities, as Mannheim observed.
From Theory to Pseudoscience
In the 1990s, authors William Strauss and Neil Howe, who popularized "millennials," pushed generational labels into pseudoscience. Their book "Generations" applied this framework back to 1584 with questionable evidence and forecasted cycles until 2069, claiming generations evolve through four stages: "the high," "the awakening," "the unraveling," and "the crisis." Critics dismissed their work as "an elaborate historical horoscope" lacking scholarly rigor.
Despite criticism, "Generations" became a bestseller, even distributed to Congress by then-Senator Al Gore. This highlights the issue: generational tags aren't just playful blame tools for avocado toast preferences. They enable inaction on climate change, wage stagnation, housing crises, healthcare collapse, and wealth inequality by scapegoating "kids and their screens." Essentially, they transform marketing jargon into accepted social facts that let policymakers evade responsibility.
Better Approaches to Understanding Society
Age effects are real—people behave differently at 18, 36, or 72. Pandemics and wars leave distinct marks. But life experiences vary widely based on sex, race, religion, social class, education, and birthplace. Age matters, but it's never the sole or primary factor.
In 2021, University of Maryland sociology professor Philip Cohen led an open letter to the Pew Research Center, signed by over 150 scholars, urging an end to generational labels. The letter argued that these names "encourage assigning them a distinct character, and then imposing qualities on diverse populations without basis," leading to crude stereotyping. It noted that Pew's credibility has mistakenly legitimized these categories as social facts.
In a Washington Post editorial, Cohen called these "baseless categories" worse than irrelevant, driving stereotyping and rash judgments. He emphasized that measuring social change is crucial, and analyzing historical contexts can be useful, but "drawing arbitrary lines between birth years and slapping names on them isn't helping."
Cohen suggested alternatives like describing people by birth decade or defining cohorts around specific issues, such as "2020 school kids." Pew responded by revising its approach, with social trends research director Kim Parker stating: "By choosing not to use the standard generational labels when they're not appropriate, we can avoid reinforcing harmful stereotypes or oversimplifying people's complex lived experiences."
Moving Beyond Labels
Despite their meaninglessness, American society clings to generational labels, with real policy consequences. Shifting away from reflexive phrases like "OK boomer" or "Gen Z" is challenging, but reducing such branding could help in our divided society. Recognizing our shared humanity as one continuous cohort might foster support for social security, pre-K funding, and mutual understanding instead of dismissive stereotypes.
Biologically, humans are unique—we reproduce year-round, unlike salmon or cats tied to seasons. We're part of an unbroken chain of life with deep African roots, more interconnected than we often acknowledge. This isn't hippie nonsense; it's a fundamental truth that transcends generational divides.
