Published 10-18-2007 in The California Aggie
Nicholas Handler, a Yale junior, recently won The New York Times’ Sunday Magazine Essay Competition with his entry “The Posteverything Generation.” The essay was a response to historian Rick Perlstein’s op-ed assertion that modern college is losing its relevance; according to Perlstein, current colleges are unable to inspire youths unlike previously, when campus demonstrations and social activism were the norm.
Online responses to the winning essay were critical. Some commented that the essay was a blatant example of Ivy League elitism, detached from the realities of everyday mortals. Others blamed the apparent ornate mechanics of the writing, calling it “pretentious.”
Style, I believe, is a statement of fashion. It represents society’s changing norms, where language’s dynamics speak loud about political and cultural issues. It is not merely a symbolic decoration, but reflects the author’s choice to achieving clarity and cohesion. It allows the author to prompt and probe in a manner that befits his objectives. It is Handler’s right to elaborate in the way that allows him to express himself best.
The most constructive criticisms, though, were centered not on the style of the piece but rather the substance of it.
According to his critique, we’re a post-everything generation. Consequently, while the form might not be the same, today’s youths are involved in a similar, if quiet, revolution. Instead of public street protests, we engage in an online discourse, contribute to special-interest causes, sign petitions and make small-money contributions. While we don’t channel our energies into directly rebellious protests, we seek other, often subtle, ways to influence change, such as through chat rooms and online forums.
It is easy to accuse such participation as one of convenience and passivity. But such a stark contrast to the campus revolutionary energy of the 1960s and 1970s is an inevitable byproduct. In a way, the earlier revolutions established new major schools of thought, especially in areas of economic reasoning and political theory. While crucial areas such as racial discrimination and gender inequality are still a work in progress, significant progress has been achieved. In the upcoming Democratic primary elections, we have a woman and a colored candidate leading the polls for the most powerful position in the world.
Indeed, internet’s ascent means that our way of life has been radically altered. While we now live in an era of relative wealth, unparalleled prosperity and technological modernity, the most important feature of the post-everything generation is that it is a narrative in which we all are active participants.
YouTube means we all are our own content-creators and directors. Blogs provide us the platform to voice our opinions to large audiences. No longer are holed-up ivory tower academics the sole bastions of authority, but also the everyday people willing to research and type up entries into Wikipedia. In short, the post-everything era seeks intimacy and immediacy.
The 1960 and 1970s campus demonstrations are a poignant remnant of our past. Having said that, the engagement of youthful energy, or what some have termed “creative destruction”, is vital.
But the means to achieve that goal have changed. To disrupt the pre-existing order through the application of force is arguably more counterproductive than beneficial, and should only be a resort when all other means have failed. Forceful revolutions are disruptive and chaotic, a barrier to progress rather than an avenue to growth. We are presented with the opportunity to facilitate change through a virtual world, a challenge we should fully utilize to lead in the new economy.
As a post-everything generation, even if our quiet revolution fails, we are writing our own story. That, I believe, is an achievement. In the end, even if we lose, we still win.
ZACH HAN welcomes all your comments again to zklhan@ucdavis.edu.
