The Me-First Generation

That's how I refer to us, the generation of students growing up in Post-Cold-War America, especially during the period of unparalleled economic growth in the 1990s. The goal of this blog post, however, is not to convince you that the Me-First Generation is bad for society, but rather to raise the question of whether it represents continued progress or a setback for our society. I will simply begin by laying out a few observations (with certain anecdotal evidence) to suggest that we are in fact Me-Firsters.

Last year, I had the opportunity to read a speech by Dickinson President William Durden. Two of the major themes addressed were self-esteem and accountability. Our generation was brought up in an environment which forebade blunt criticism. Teachers were told to avoid phrases such as "that's wrong" and "incorrect". Furthermore, they were instructed not to grade in red pen. We were told that everyone's opinion was just as valuable as anyone else's. Because of this self-esteem boosting, our generation, myself included, has become resistant to criticism.

At my high school, one of the courses which separates the best students from the rest of the students is AP US History, henceforth known as APUSH (this is not to say that if you don't take APUSH, you're not smart, merely that this is one course which has traditionally been an indication of overall academic performance). One of the key components of this course is a year-long research paper about some topic of 20th century American history. Last year, the students, frustrated with the amount of work, protested having to write the research paper. They used terms such as "unfair", "too hard", "unrealistic expectations", etc. This protest occurred concurrently with my reading of Dr. Durden's speech, and the result was a profound alteration in my opinions of our generation.

That these students had the audacity to suggest such things aroused disappointment, frustration, and even some anger in me. How could it be that a task I had performed, albeit amidst a certain amount of grumbling, two years earlier, had suddenly become "too hard" for the current students? Doesn't this reveal the Me-First nature of our generation - to be so concerned with the here and now that we would overlook the benefits gained from tackling such a difficult project?

Now I have sounded very critical of our generation. Yet our generation is still in an age of adolescence. It would be foolish of me to project into the future that the immaturity we have heretofore displayed will continue into the future. We are, after all, in our prime years of immaturity, sophomoricism, and overconfidence. One possible outcome from this resistance to criticism is that we will become great innovators because when people tell us "no" we simply don't listen. This is an optimistic scenario. On the other hand, our resistance to criticism could lead to a less-cooperative society - one in which we are only concerned with our interests. Donations to charities could be reduced, community service, in which many people partook in their younger years as a means to an end (getting into college), may become diminished with our progression into adulthood. Yet perhaps a self-centered generation would be a good thing. In liberal economics, each individual working in her self-interest is the most efficient way for an economy to be structured.

The question then, is whether our Me-First generation represents continued progress or a setback in our society. My first reaction was very negative. "How could these students be so petulant?” It took some time for my initial aggravation at their insolence and the problems I initially saw with the self-esteem boosting to acquiesce to a more academic and reasoned approach to the question.

I was fortunate enough to have been required to read “An American Scholar”, the speech by Ralph Waldo Emerson for my American Philosophy class (reference my post on Life’s Messages). This essay was written at a critical time in our nation’s history – its adolescence. 61 years after the Declaration of Independence, and only 22 years after the end of the War of 1812 (it went until 1815 and was the last inter-state war fought on US soil, excluding the attack on Pearl Harbor), the United States was still in a somewhat vulnerable position. But what was Emerson’s main theme?

Emerson’s point remains salient today, if not for the same reasons as it was then, as a reminder of what our position was then. Emerson’s message to the Phi Beta Kappa Society at Harvard was to break with traditional thinking, to think original thoughts. It was extraordinarily progress-oriented. Not only did Emerson encourage students to think their own thoughts because it was necessary for the independent intellectual foundations of the United States, but also because by becoming Man Thinking (his term), these American scholars would benefit the collective knowledge of Man.

The relevance to today is clear. We must act as Man Thinking so as to develop Man’s knowledge. We have been encouraged throughout our adolescence, and as many say, we have the most potential of any generation ever to inhabit the earth. We must direct our individualistic tendencies towards original thinking. We must control our sense of entitlement. We must learn how to use the criticisms we do receive constructively, for Emerson surely would have wanted us to listen to the thoughts of others. We must grab the bull of our individualism by the horns and wrestle with it, not acquiesce to our selfish tendencies. We must not accept as true the knowledge of the past, but challenge it in a way only we know how. Yet we must also be cognizant of not allowing ourselves to recognize authorities when present while also knowing when to challenge them where appropriate.

We must win in this war against ourselves, for the consequences are clear if we don’t. We inhabit a geo-politically unstable world. War threatens or rages in three continents on the globe. Nuclear weapons remain capable of destroying the earth 1000s of times over. And global warming teeters on the brink of irreversible consequences. “Can we?” you ask. Yes we can.