December 21, 2014

A glimpse into the de-romanticizing of the Sixties among Gen X teenagers

In a recent comment thread about the lack of iconic coming-of-age movies in the '90s, I pointed to the sole exception -- the cult TV show My So-Called Life.

It only ran during the '94-'95 season, and was not aired much (if at all) in re-runs. So, unlike the John Hughes movies of the '80s, they were not available to rent on video long after the first run, and even the initial showing was just another prime-time TV broadcast rather than a big-time theatrical release. This kept the show from catching on with a wider range of birth cohorts -- mostly those born in the late '70s and early '80s. But at least among them, the show was iconic, one that always comes up when they think of examples that define the zeitgeist of the '90s (for better or worse).

After posting that comment, I felt a tiny wave of nostalgia and got curious about whether My So-Called Life is still being offered on a streaming service. And sure enough, all 19 episodes are free to watch on Hulu (click here). Worth checking out if you've never seen it, although nothing you need to be in a rush to see. Hearing a musical score modulate the tone from one scene to the next was a breath of fresh air, compared to how devoid of music today's movies and TV shows are.

The episode I watched, "The Substitute," starts off like The Dead Poets Society, with the high school students introduced to a new English teacher, whose iconoclastic style shakes up the stodgy status quo, and whose passion captures the attention of the previously bored-to-death teenagers. As the teacher and the students prepare for the publication of the school's literary magazine, a battle over censorship ignites between them and the principal. (One of the poems is clumsily erotic but not obscene, written by one of the girl students.) By the end of the episode, the substitute is gone, and the bow-tie-wearing principal has taken his place.

Unlike the Very Special Episodes of the '80s, the tone throughout is naturalistic and low-key, rather than histrionic shouting between the teacher / students and the principal.

But even more distinctive of its time, by the end the protagonist Angela has a bitter taste left in her mouth over the whole ordeal, rather than the satisfaction of "fighting the good fight" and holding out hope for greater success next time. After the literary magazine is pulled from circulation, only one other character joins Angela in re-distributing it. Evidently no one else is willing to stick their neck out for The Cause. Her Boomer parents instinctively take the principal's side, and she more or less calls them hypocrites who have endlessly told her stories about how they marched for ideals in the Sixties.

These are relatively minor reasons, though, for losing your youthful Romanticism. The main disillusionment comes near the end, when Angela learns the truth about why the substitute will no longer be teaching there, which leaves her feeling cynical and betrayed by him, rather than righteously hopeful after her side's defeat.*

The Boomers, who would have felt a heartwarming bridging of generations in The Dead Poets Society, would have interpreted this episode as a sign of a defeatist and apathetic mindset among the teenagers of the Nineties. The teenagers themselves, however, took it more as a cautionary tale about allowing yourself to be easily seduced by charismatic strangers who urge you to question everything and follow your passion, as they are more likely to be some kind of con man than a genuine role model.

If the take-away message had only been about choosing your battles, tempering idealism with pragmatism, and rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's, I think the Boomers could have felt that their Sixties legacy had still been passed along relatively intact to the younger generation. After all, by the mid-'90s even the Boomers themselves were no longer tie-dyed hippies.

But given the sordid and banal unraveling of the substitute's stature by the end, the Gen X viewer took away the message that being a passionate idealist was wrong-headed to begin with. Not simply that they should aim in the same direction as the Sixties generation, only walking in baby steps and not pushing as hard. But that the Sixties path pointed in an entirely off-base direction altogether.

What direction did the show preach that teenagers travel along instead? It didn't give an answer, other than "not in the Sixties direction". It was not a lame episode that would play out today about the relative merits of competing ideologies. It was a simple coming-of-age story about lost innocence, and learning from it a lesson of humility -- that your impulsiveness can lead you into acting like a naive idiot who can be easily taken advantage of.

Despite the wishes of helicopter parents, that lesson is not one that can be taught by instruction beforehand, like the alphabet or the list of American presidents. It's one of those experiences, like skinned knees, that the kid has to go through themselves in order to come away from it stronger and more mature. It's not a dangerous experience, just one that is unpleasant and uncomfortable for a little while. The relatively non-interventionist approach of Angela's parents strikes me as realistic for the time. Millennials were being over-protected during this period, but the late X-ers were still allowed to experience skinned knees in the course of growing up out of childhood.

I don't want to suggest that this episode in itself changed the minds of an entire generation. It was not one of those "Who shot Mr. Burns?" episodes that all the kids were talking about. But it was the kind of thing that strongly resonated with teenagers of the time, and marked the shift away from passionate idealism and toward even-headed pragmatism among Gen X.

Also worth noting, by way of contrasting X-ers with Millennials, that Angela doesn't throw a hissy fit at the end. The ordeal was just another one of those disillusioning experiences of adolescence -- better get over it and move on, no point wallowing in pity. She also humbly realizes that she'd allowed herself to be had, rather than putting all the blame on one or another of the grown-ups. You definitely would not see that if they tried to re-make the series today.

* Spoiler, highlight to read: [He had not been fired by the principal, as though it were the final injustice in the battle over ideals. Instead, the principal had received a notice that the substitute was wanted for deserting his family in another part of the country, and failing to pay child support all along. The substitute quit upon seeing the notice. When Angela tracks him down to confront him about leaving his family, he gives a series of evasive and empty answers, further disappointing her for having been taken under his spell.]

9 comments:

  1. The inclination of Gen X seems to have been to uphold the '60s ideals; they were put off by the proponents, not the ideals themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  2. So is My so Called Life one of the last earnest attempts at a relatively believable depiction of American youth? Has there been much else since the mid 90's?

    When I think of movies and TV about teens/very young adults of the post 1995 era I can't really think of a whole lot stuff that isn't snarky/smutty comedy, particularly in terms of stuff that was actually popular.

    Is that because youths/youth culture (as well as all other forms of post '95 culture) have been so dull, pretentious, and annoying that nobody wants to see media that portrays them as 3D human beings?

    Is it because arrogant early Boomers (we did it better than anyone else) and humble Gen X-ers (uh, no thanks, we know who we are and we don't think anyone needs to be bugged about us) didn't want to see Gen X-ers on the screen being dissected?

    I know we've talked about Dazed and Confused before, but that was made by a Boomer about Boomers and it was set about 17 years before it was made. '93 movie, '76 setting.

    Meanwhile, how often has the 1980-1999 era been revisited? I think TV tropes has a page dedicated to the period stuff set in the 80's/90's, but just going off titles and summaries won't capture the tone of those shows/movies. The impression I get is that the shows/movies often fail to accurately convey how people actually behaved back then.

    And most of this stuff hasn't been popular either. That 70's Show ran for a long time; how long was Freaks and Geeks on? I understand that Freaks and Geeks was a relatively modest and believable take on the early 80's but the title alone suggests that the show doesn't capture the reality that late Boomers/early Gen X-er 80's youth were more tough, stylish, and unpretentious than early Boomers and Millennials.

    Stuff like that too snarky TV show The Goldbergs (set in a indeterminate point of the 80's) and the dork centered Scott Pilgrim (set in the early 90's before nerd culture completely took over) which doesn't even really try to capture what the general zeitgeist of those eras were, let alone how youth fit into them.

    As long as Boomers are running the show and as long as Gen X-ers remain disinterested in broadcasting their upbringing to the world we'll have to deal with the 1980's/1990's (particularly the youth culture of those periods) getting a raw deal.

    Even in the 80's themselves, aging Silents/early Boomers trashed the MTV/Rambo/Freddy Krueger era. Roger Ebert became famous for hating what he called "the dead teenager movie". Middle aged rock critics ripping New Wave as "a bunch of haircuts" (like the Me Gen dominated 50's-70's had the best fashion? Yeah, sure). Action movies and toys/cartoons were lambasted for promoting violence by out of touch hippies who apparently hadn't noticed that America was a much rougher place by the 80's. Was singing Kumbaya going to be an popular/effective way to fend off the dark forces surrounding you?

    Seems they didn't care for the movies starring late Boomers/ Gen X-ers that was geared for 80's kids or the music made by late Boomers. A lot of that was based on the Me generation becoming jealous that the spotlight was being taken off them but no worries, by the mid 90's the cuture recentered itself on early Boomer narcissism.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good points. There were a lot of teenager movies in the 90s, during the American pie era, and there seemed to be a youth-centered culture around Britney Spears/Boy Bands/Eminem, etc.

    Sometime in the 2000s, most depictions of young people centered on supehero movies.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is a little off-topic, but I have noticed that there were more teenager movies, and more of a teenage culture, in the 80s and 90s. Why is this?

    I've been thinking that the substance abuse rate might have some sort of an effect. The substance abuse rate could correlate with a higher sense of group identity.

    Think about i: why do teenagers start smoking? To fit in with the older kids. So in other words, higher substance abuse correlates with more initiation rituals. And initituation rituals correlate with cliquish identity.

    The substance abuse rate lags behind the crime rate by about 10 years. Cigarrette smoking started going down in 2001 I believe. In the 90s, you get the sense that there were still high school cliques such as jocks, preppies, skaters, wiggers, goths, etc. In the 2000s, this sense of identity seemed to disappear.

    Furthermore, it was the 2000s that saw an explosion in Internet activity, even though cocooning started in the early 90s. The soceity became more individualistic, so people didn't have to put effort into participating in their group or tribe.

    anyway, sorry to digress, but this was something I've been thinking about.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Furthermore, it was the 2000s that saw an explosion in Internet activity, even though cocooning started in the early 90s. The soceity became more individualistic, so people didn't have to put effort into participating in their group or tribe. "

    I think that individuality is best measured by thinking for oneself, not poseur style affectations. In the 80's people (even teens) didn't have wacky piercings or facial hair. In a handful of trendy areas people sometimes looked like poser stereotypes but in general people basically looked average. People wanted to be open and sincere so they avoided off putting militant fashion and personal affect. In spite of mundane looks, independent and critical thinking was constant in the 80's.

    Boomers in the 80's were embarrased by their hippie days and they didn't shy away from satirizing demonic yuppies. Look at Paul Reiser's character in Aliens; total corporate scumbag, played by a Jew no less. The Gen X siblings/children of Boomers were poking holes in just about everything, though pretentious stuff made by phony or smug people got ripped the most.

    Meanwhile, agreeable culture was consumed by the masses. Even potentially tawdry/exploititve subjects like serial killing ('86 movie Manhunter) and ghosts/UFO's (Unsolved Mysteries on TV/Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind in theaters) was handled in a mature, sincere way.

    In the fun 80's virtually all young people watched MTV and Back to the Future on video; not because 80's kids couldn't think for themselves but because 80's pop culture was so irresistible that nobody (except for a very small minority of mostly urban nihilists) wanted to miss out.

    In the post mid 90's era there's been a splintering/specializing of 'entertainment' (which usually annoys more than entertains) which I think is a sign that most people are self consciously choosing a very narrow slice of modern mass media and avoiding the rest.

    Said media has very limited appeal because of it's horrible quality. I saw a recent interview of Huey Lewis where he said that 70's/80's groups often appealed to the young and old, to whites and blacks etc. Lewis didn't say the reason for this: the reason is that media in the 70's/80's was far superior to the overdone emo/soulless junk that's made now.

    In terms of tech, he home video/MTV explosion of the 80's didn't do hardly a thing to stop Gen X-ers from hanging out. In fact they went to theaters, record stores, arcades, pizza parlors, parties, and each other's houses in droves. I think that post 2000 kids are so generic because the culture in general has gone full retard on cocooning and also because later Millenials are so aloof and boring.

    In the years to come, people (maybe even Millenials) will no longer be as quick to hide behind technology in order to excuse disengagement from the outside world. Agnostic has pointed out repeatedly that technology reflects peoples mindsets rather than tech changing them.

    In today's autistic climate, some appreciation for the moody 70's and the EXTREME 90's is okay but the upbeat 80's can only be scorned. C'mon, you actually like the 80's? Those people looked like dorks in their geometric patterened shirts and high waisted pants. And the way they acted, earnest, cheerful, convivial. Don't they know how shitty life is? Why should I care about other people when they're out to get me and they're just in it for themselves anway

    ReplyDelete
  6. "The substance abuse rate lags behind the crime rate by about 10 years. Cigarrette smoking started going down in 2001 I believe. In the 90s, you get the sense that there were still high school cliques such as jocks, preppies, skaters, wiggers, goths, etc. In the 2000s, this sense of identity seemed to disappear."

    I would say that the there was a trying way too hard/affected element of 90's culture that has thankfully eased up later on. The nu metal/gangsta rap era was so obnoxious. There's a reason Agnostic has goofed on the concept of nineties revivals and music stores dreading 90's CDs.

    The peak of healthy youth individualism, mental/physical autonomy, and a conscientious sense of belonging to both your peers and the larger community was the 80's. These things were developing right along with later Boomers/Gen X-ers in the 70's eventually peaking in the 80's. Kids were indeed alright in the later 70's/80's compared to the early Boomer "kill anyone over 30" 60's narcissism or the "we're all scum" 90's nihilism that hastily threw dirt on the upbeat corpse of the 80's. Van Halen was more exuberant and inspiring than the Doors or Nirvana.

    Of course, there was apocalyptic action movies, dark heavy metal and splatter horror movies but that stuff was consumed by teens who were growing up in a violent, chaotic world. Silents/early Boomers were hysterically concerned that Gen X-ers were being warped, clueless as to the fact Gen X-ers were better adjusted than they ever would be.

    Of course, the greed, treachery, and arrogance of Silents/Boomers is what created the nasty place that would give birth to the hard as diamond/black as night under culture of the 80's. But it was in under culture; 80's mass culture by and large was fairly buoyant and even when it wasn't very positive is still was earnest and exciting.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You raise good points, but being more individualistic doesn't mean you're less social. What it does mean is that social boundaries are more fluid - you may change friends or groups more often and easily, and more likely to engage strangers.

    When kids smoke cigarettes more, it means that initiation rituals for groups are more present and costly. This means that people are more likely to stick with their clique, because they are more dedicated to it, rather than go off and do their own thing.

    the 80s, a time when substance abuse was still rising, seem very cliquish. The Breakfast Club is one example, where its considered a big deal for the jock, the nerd, the goth girl, the working-class kid, and the preppy girl to have conversations with each other. It is shown as really unusual - they have to be locked in a classroom for it to happen.

    the 90s were also cliquish, but the cliques became tamer and less social. cliques became more low key and less risk-taking - wiggers,

    furthermore, the explosion in Internet usage didn't happen until the early 2000s - a period when crime actually began to rise again. if people were becoming more social, why were they using the Internet more? one reason could be that people no longer had to spend as much time proving themselves to and being accepted by their clique. everyone was more into doing their own thing. the culture was more like a free-for-all, with more fluid social boundaries.

    of course, people started cocooning again around 2005-2006. the culture since then as seemed, to me, distinct from the 90s, and I think more individualism, less stronger group bonds, could be an explanation.


    ReplyDelete
  8. the 90s were also cliquish, but the cliques became tamer and less social. cliques became lamer - wiggers, emos, stoner skaters, soccer boys.

    "The peak of healthy youth individualism, mental/physical autonomy, and a conscientious sense of belonging to both your peers and the larger community was the 80's."

    Yes, but a sense of belonging to your peers and community doesn't conflict with individualism. What I'm talking about isn't whether there's a bond between the individual and their peers, but rather how the person interacts with their peers - either by themselves as someone more independent, or within a clique.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "the 80s, a time when substance abuse was still rising, seem very cliquish. The Breakfast Club is one example, where its considered a big deal for the jock, the nerd, the goth girl, the working-class kid, and the preppy girl to have conversations with each other. It is shown as really unusual - they have to be locked in a classroom for it to happen."

    Look at the way they dress in that movie; they don't look like in your face stereotypes. Bender doesn't have a shotgun shell in his ear, Brian doesn't wear glasses, Alison isn't wearing combat boots etc. Point being that the unpretentious fashion of the decade is indicative of the way that people (teens even) were convivial and open.

    A counter example from 1983 is Christine in which the somewhat nerdy protagonist is friends with a football jock. When relations between people freezed over in the 90's it became harder for people to put effort into getting to know anyone else let alone someone who's quite different.

    "the 90s were also cliquish, but the cliques became tamer and less social. cliques became more low key and less risk-taking - wiggers,"

    The interpersonal cold war started in the 90's so bonds between friends and strangers began to fray. The 90's style wiggers and emo fags phenomenon smacks of desperate insecurity and attention whoring rather than engaging in sincere behavior that would strengthen bonds or welcome strangers. I'm sure that some 80's jocks/nerds/metalheads or whatever weren't shy about advertising group membership but they typically took care to not go so far in fashion/affect that it alienated others. On the other hand, what is 90's culture if not alienating? The kids who listened to Iron Maiden and Depeche Mode in the 80's were more upbeat and approachable than the dolts who listened to Korn and Nine Inch Nails in the 90's.

    "You raise good points, but being more individualistic doesn't mean you're less social."

    "What it does mean is that social boundaries are more fluid - you may change friends or groups more often and easily, and more likely to engage strangers."

    I think the lack of superficial cliques since the early 2000's can be put down to Millennials never feeling pressure to be cool ('geek chic'). So they end up dull and generic since they've never really tried to cultivate an image to fit in with the right crowd. In that sense they are more individualistic if by individualistic you mean totally disconnected from others. Which doesn't fit with idea of them being more engaging; People in the 80's were far more likely to open themselves up to strangers let alone close friends since trust levels peaked in the 80's.

    If affected cliquish/tribalistic behavior was really that common in the 80's trust levels would've been lower due to people acting/looking like complete assholes.

    As we've been more and more assholish since about 1992 we've become distrustful, self absorbed, and aloof with the end result being fewer and weaker friendships and minimal interaction between strangers. So I don't think cliques per se have that big of an effect on social relations, rather it is sincere interest in rather than swaggering contempt/mousy avoidance of other people that has the biggest effect.

    "When kids smoke cigarettes more, it means that initiation rituals for groups are more present and costly. This means that people are more likely to stick with their clique, because they are more dedicated to it, rather than go off and do their own thing.

    the 80s, a time when substance abuse was still rising, "

    Well, there was alot of drug culture in the 90's as well (heroin chic) but it was more self absorbed and nihilistic. So I don't think that drugs per se necessarily mean that people are more outgoing or pro-social.

    Hope we're not just talking past each other, sometimes these text only debates can make it hard to figure out exactly what somebody's getting at.

    ReplyDelete

You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."