Millenial Individualism

This NYT book review of Hais and Winograd's Millennial Makeover is somewhat aggravating. This passage, which Andrew quoted, in particular stands out:

In placing a heavy value on the opinion of friends and peers, the authors of this book suggest, Millennials are inclined to favor conclusions reached by decentralized decision making, and multilateral rather than unilateral policy making. Their proclivity for sharing their lives with thousands of others through MySpace and Facebook also makes them “the generation least perturbed by any potential restrictions on civil rights or invasions of privacy that might have occurred in fighting the war on terrorism.” As a more socially tolerant and less divisive Millennial generation becomes a larger part of the electorate, Mr. Winograd and Mr. Hais predict, “the power of social issues to drive our political debate will wane”: wedge issues will lose their effectiveness, and ideological divisions will give way to an emphasis on “successful governmental activism.” “Majorities,” they argue, “will coalesce around ideas that involve the entire group in the solution and downplay the right of individuals to opt out of the process.”

It is worth noting that Hais and Winograd are both Democratic operative, so it should come as no surprise their conclusions are favorable to the presently constituted Demcratic party. Yet, I feel like their characterizations of the Millenials (of which I am part of the gray area between Gen X and the Millenials depending on where you define the line between them) is slightly off.

I agree that there is a civic emphasis in this generation, spawned by the internet technology that makes organizing far simpler than at any time previous. But, I think they downplay the individualism that marks a good portion of Millenials (at least from my perspective). Particularly, I believe they make a fundamental mistake in how they view social networking sites like Facebook or MySpace. They seem to see them as social communities, where people can be a part of something greater, whereas from my experience Facebook (and one's profile) is an intensely personal and individual expression of one's self.

That misreading of online social networking causes them to understate the role of the individual in Millenial culture. Part of it may be the typical youthful rebellion of the communitarian ethos of modern suburbia and the doting parents shipping them off to the next game or practice or concert. It may also be the atomization of culture has allowed for far greater niche interests and personalities that makes group indentification harder to pin down. That in turn breeds greater tolerance and acceptance of divergent views and identities, to levels a non-Millenial may not grasp.

As such, the idea that these attitudes will lead to greater communitarianism just seems wrong. There might be a greater appeal to more broadly acceptable policies and rhetoric (as can be seen in Obama's conciliatory language to conservatives and libertarians), but I think there is a real respect and understanding on the value of the individual within social networks like Facebook or MySpace that Hais and Winograd seem to downplay in favor of social community aspects.