<p>I see a lot of passionate, small-group political action campaigns run on a very limited number of issues (and usually run by the same people), and I see a lot of individuals supporting a huge number of issues and causes, but not doing much more than joining a Facebook group and maybe speaking party-lines when pressed on an issue. This could just be my personal experience; yours may vary. I see what Friedman means: people are very willing to go out and do service projects in far-off places. What I don’t hear nearly as much about are college students going into schools, volunteering for candidates, working at soup kitchens or shelters, or helping out in their own communities. I see a small number of people very charged on a small number of issues, while most people have things they care about but don’t devote themselves fully to any of them. </p>
<p>Does a difference really exist between this generation and past ones? Is it good or bad? Will it lead to problems in the future for this largely-uncharged Generation Q? How will activism change and develop in the internet age?</p>
<p>I think the only difference is the difference between a bunch of obnoxious and self-righteous baby boomers and the rest of the world. Boomers think they invented everything…look at the depression generation who fought WWII; look at everybody after that with the exception of the cohort in college between 1962 and 1975–they are all too busy trying to get an education and make a living to nanny everybody else into protests.</p>
<p>I say this as somebody with some sympathy for the protesters–I think it sucks too but you aren’t going to convince anybody by tying up traffic at rush hour…signed Gen X’er.</p>
<p>It’s the grandchildren of the silent generation…they are the Quiet Generation…generation Q…get it?</p>
<p>The silents (born appx. 1927-1944) were actually far more subversive and effective than the noisy and obnoxious boomers…most of the protests that actually got anything done; the ones in the early '60s around civil rights; were organized and led by Silents. James Meredith was a Silent…as were the Freedom Riders…MLK Jr. was a Silent…as were Bob Dylan and Joan Baez and The Beatles…all born before 1946.</p>
<p>Mombot, thanks for that insight. I was afraid to ask about what the “Q” meant, I’m ashamed to admit. </p>
<p>And what you said about the The Silents actually being far more subversive and effective that “the noisy and obnoxious boomers” gave me pause to reflect. I think you’re on to something there…;)</p>
<p>Search “powershift” (it’s on facebook too!), you might be interested corranged. </p>
<p>If you want to just compare two examples, Vietnam and Iraq, I think there may be some validity in the difference in the scale of physical student protests. Whether that really does translate into being “quieter” in a more figurative sense, I’m not sure how I feel about that right now. Interestingly enough, in the last week I had two conversations with adults (one with my father, a boomer, and one with two significantly older women I was doing a voter registration drive with - I guess I don’t know what generation they are, but they were in their late 70s) that were pretty close to this topic. We had pretty similar views on politics and started talking about the war, and one of them said, what I don’t understand is why the friends, girlfriends, husbands, wives, children of these young men dying in Iraq aren’t in the streets of DC every day. And I said I didn’t know why. (I’m not trying to start a debate here - I’m just relaying the conversation. But if you have a bone to pick with it and don’t want to derail the thread, I’m open to PMs). And then I was talking to my dad later (it was parents’ weekend) and we got on the subject of student protests also (he was pretty involved as a young person in Vietnam issues). So it’s something I’ve been thinking about. I just haven’t come to a conclusion about the implications.</p>
<p>I do not however, think there is less physical volunteering. By most accounts, this has increased greatly with the younger generation. We spoke with Robert Egger, who founded DC Central Kitchen, recently, and he had a lot of good points about this and about what the younger generation wants and the future of nonprofits. He has a book out. It’s very good and I highly recommend it if you’re interested in the topic. It’s called Begging for Change.</p>
<p>To clarify, in my personal observations I wasn’t talking about “more” or “less” volunteering/activism as a comparison over time. When I used those terms in my post, I meant in comparison with other types of volunteering/activism (i.e. I hear more about people going to other parts of the world for service and comparatively less about students helping in their own communities–I wasn’t commenting on whether these things have increased/decreased over time). </p>
<p>RE: Powershift - As I said, I see a small number of people focusing on a small number of hot button issues (Darfur, the environment, Coke), and I see large numbers of people making very small statements on a very large number of issues. I’m not saying this is good or bad, old or new. Just my experience. </p>
<p>(I myself am not one of those serious political activists, though I am pretty active within my local community.)</p>
<p>Yeah, but I meant “community service” in the traditional sense - I am just going off what I’ve heard, but I think that has increased over time. I don’t really think it’s completely altruism, there are a lot of things that account for it like service “requirements” for graduation, etc. I’m just saying in a strict sense, most sources seem to indicate this has been on the upswing for what artificial reasons. </p>
<p>My personal experience holds relatively true to this. In high school nearly everyone I knew engaged in some kind of community activity. However it’s more of contributing to carrying out someone else’s solution (i.e. go here do this) rather than finding the answers and creating the course of action themselves. </p>
<p>Powershift is focused on environmental issues, but it’s more of a philosophy - it’s about having a voice. I was relating that to the Friedman claim “young voters speaking truth to power”, or the lack of political activism in Generation “Q”. I think this goes hand in hand with community activism. If you think about top down versus bottom up approaches, I think they are both necessary for engineered social change. Many issues (i.e. hunger) are connected to much broader problems and you can’t just treat the symptom. Treating the cause is going to demand that we leverage some political power. </p>
<p>If you are interested in community activism, I really think you will find Egger’s book interesting and thought provoking. I’m a community service learning program that is connected with our freshmen seminar (each is designed around a community problem without an “answer” and merges study with actual work). It’s a big time commitment, but it’s an experience and some of the experiences I’ve had in a few weeks are ones I never would have had without the program.</p>
<p>We actively protested the Vietnam war- bussed to Washington DC by the 1000s, occupied buildings on campus- and why? THE DRAFT. Going to war was a very potential reality, not something you shopped thru and loaded up your iPod thru.
As an interviewer for med school, I find that these young people do quite a bit of volunteer work, but of course, it’s “required” for med school admissions these days. Some seem engaged, others not.</p>
<p>Dufay makes an excellent point–the antiwar movement was selfish at heart. If there had been no draft, would people have been motivated to protest the war?</p>
<p>Honestly? I think this is an overreaction. I may be completely wrong, and you can prove me wrong, but I have to say, this just seems like making something out of nothing. Politicians hardly ever pay attention to the younger generation as is.</p>