The Neutralization of the American Millennials’ Ethos: Compounded by the Rapid Advancement of High Technology and the Growing Sense of Entitlement

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Humanities

By

Scott Wells

At Tiffin University

Tiffin, OH

December 6, 2011

Thesis Director _______________________ Reader___________________________ Anne Marie Fowler, M.F.A.W. Vincent Moore, Ph.D.

Copyright © Scott H. Wells, 2011. All rights reserved.

Abstract

Millennials, individuals born after 1979, are quickly becoming the largest demographic in

the United States. They are accustomed to an environment colored by the rapid advancement of

technology. Consequently, their assimilation of these rapid changes is generating new paradigms

that foster new sensibilities. The American Millennials’ cultural universals are being defined by

high technology as opposed to traditional cultural transmissions such as heritage and tradition.

Moreover, their new structural-functional paradigms—supported by a less polarized Congress—

are neutralizing sensibilities that have, traditionally, been colored by regional value systems; i.e.,

gay marriage, interracial relationships, and global warming. Furthermore, an air of entitlement

as a result of high technology proficiency colors the Millennials’ ethos. This growing sense of

entitlement is contributing to cultural-conflicts with previous generations in the workplace, as

well as diminishing civility and redefining etiquette. Through careful literature reviews, this

study will explore the fundamental parameters (ambition, immediacy, autonomy, and

entitlement) which will undoubtedly impact the American millennial ethos, and attempt to make

recommendations—based on this study’s findings—on how to integrate this new paradigm.

iii

Acknowledgments

I wish to express my sincerest gratitude to Vincent Moore, Ph.D., my first instructor at Tiffin University and my second set of eyes for this project.

A very special and heartfelt thank you goes out to Anne Marie Fowler. From mythology maestro to mentor, she is an inspiration. Her patience and trust in me, even as I doubted myself, will be forever remembered and appreciated.

iv

Dedication

This study is warmly dedicated to my fellow humanities students. Particularly those who

may be somewhat culturally disoriented, myself included, from the new rules generated by the

reliance on high technology. Fortunately, our humanities courses are designed to help us buffer

the impacts of culture shocks. Our courses examine culture’s mutability by analyzing the

evolutionary forces that have shaped the human thought, condition, and experience. My wish is

that humanities students resistant or weary of the cultural neutralization of the American

Millennials’ ethos consider the facts and figures that are beyond our control. There is no

stopping progress, therefore our education and awareness will be instrumental in bridging

generational divides. And hopefully, too, enlighten us to our Millennial siblings’ proclivities—

their human experiences—that are already reshaping American culture.

v

Table of Contents

Abstract…………..………………………………………………………….... iii

Acknowledgments……………………………………………………...…… iv

Dedication.………......…………………………………….………….………. v

Chapter 1 Introduction…… .….…..………………………….……………...... 1

Chapter 2 Literature Review………………………………….……….…...…. 11

2.1 Classifying Millennials….………………………….…….….….. 13

2.2 The Millennial Ethos: Their Cultural Universals……….…..….. 16

2.3 Politics: The New Structural-Functional Paradigm..………..….. 27

2.4 Technology: Facilitating Cultural Transmission ……...……….. 34

2.5 Workplace: Creating Cultural-Conflicts…….……….................. 46

2.6 Parental Influence: Redefining Values.………….…….….…..... 51

2.7 Millennials’ Entitlement: Cultural Integration .………….…….. 56

Chapter 3 Recommendations: Using the Humanities to Prevent the

Neutralization of the American Millennials’ Ethos……...………... 68

Chapter 4 Conclusion………………………………..……………………….. 76

Works Cited ……………………….…………………………………………. 85

Wells  1    

Chapter 1

Introduction

There exists a new social paradigm based on high-technological proficiency and it is

readily observed within the American Millennials’ ethos. Moreover, a consequence of this new

paradigm is a vast cultural lag, which has disrupted cultural integration while fostering

ethnocentrism. Sociologically speaking, conventional cultural transmission—or socialization—

is becoming increasingly synthesized in order to accommodate the virtual culture of American

Millennials; synthesized because virtual culture has no heritage. Therefore, cultural

transmissions for this new paradigm are executed and compounded through neutral language

used to integrate neutral perspectives that are rooted in neutral values.

To better understand the evolution of this phenomenon, it is important to examine

preceding generations. One cannot overlook the paradigm shift between the sensibilities of three

seemingly disparate generations—Baby Boomers, Gen Xers, and Millennials—which are

reflected in their collective and distinct set of values, nor the inescapable realities of generational

gapping and cultural lag. Each value system has been integrated into American culture through

various technological mediums for cultural transmission available for their time. Baby Boomers

and Gen Xers matured in a technological environment that allowed them to assimilate

technological proficiencies at a moderate pace since technological advancements were relatively

modest in the three-decades span that separated these specific generations. Therefore, bridging

generational gaps was relatively seamless.

But the Silicon Valley of the ‘80s generated an environment that demanded proficiencies

of new technologies that were somewhat foreign to Baby Boomers and Gen Xers. Thus, cultural

integration evolved to utilize new methods of transmission, which included binary codes and

Wells  2    

floppy disks. This is the world the American Millennial was born into. It is a world that cannot

enjoy a moderate assimilation like those of the preceding generations. It is a world that is

instantaneous and does not slow down to indulge in nostalgia.

Consequently, minimizing the cultural lag between nostalgic Baby Boomers and Gen

Xers has proven to be increasingly difficult because the Millennials’ formative years have been

preoccupied with mastering the mechanics of a high-tech, virtual culture. This phenomenon has

generated a cultural-conflict paradigm between Baby Boomers and Gen Xers versus

Millennials—particularly in the working environment—where the demand for high technology

expertise is paramount in a globalized commercial industry.

The preface for a 2010 Pew Research Center study entitled Millennials: Confident.

Connected. Open to Change posits that their perpetual connectivity is a conditioned behavior

(“Millennials: Confident). Furthermore, this is the residual result of being pressured by their

parents and educators to be the next great generation, a dubious expectation that has earned them

the distinction of being overachievers, entitled, and ethnocentric. Couple this with the idea that

Millennials have grown up surrounded by high technology, and they become undaunted by its

rapid advancement; thus their cultural universals (i.e. immediacy, interactivity, and incivility)

logically will mirror this.

American Millennials’ are victims of cyber-space conformity; a transparent phenomenon

that robs them of their offensive abilities to retaliate to the high-pressure demands of the Digital

Age. Their incessant attachments to digital devices leaves little room for critical thinking

because most of that is done for them.

Ralph Waldo Emerson posited that excessive conformity robs the individual of their basic

human selves. Emerson’s sentiment refers to an increasingly industrialized society. One that has

Wells  3    

evolved far from the cultural transmissions associated with agrarian communities who utilized

technology as “the application of knowledge to the practical tasks of living” (Macionis 440).

Indeed, mechanization has set the precedence for humanity’s reliance on technology as far back

as the invention of the wheel. But Millennials are presented with the challenge of maintaining

individuality because high technology dictates their practical tasks of living; they have little

choice in the matter. Consequently, if excessive conformity is a breeding ground for mediocrity,

than it is in the disingenuous, high-tech reliant Millennials’ ethos that traditions stand to become

synthesized as their identities succumb to virtual culture.

The social sciences teach that knowledge is passed down through cultural transmission.

Virtual interactivity is the predominant source of cultural transmission for American Millennials

and this is made possible by the ubiquity of microelectronics. Millennials utilize cellular phones,

iPads, and PDAs to supplement their daily lives and are generating a codependency that is slowly

diminishing their acuity. Consider that “the decline [in literacy] is accelerating…[and] the

retreat from books proceeds, and for more and more teens and 20-year-olds, fiction, poetry, and

drama have absolutely no existence in their lives” (46). This is because the Internet has become

the omnipresent influence driving their socialization.

Moreover, coupled with conforming to the fashionable idea that one must always ‘be

connected’ or interactive (i.e. Twitter), the result is that American Millennials are struggling to

preserve individuality while simultaneously neutralizing their culture. The paradox is

remarkable and evident by the increasing popularity of social networking sites—while

garnishing inspiration from the same YouTube posts—which puts everyone on the proverbial

‘same page’.

Wells  4    

American Millennials embrace conformity when it comes to their cultural transmission.

This is apparent in their primary method of communication, which is the cellular phone. Since

the start of the new millennium, the cellular phone has evolved into a multifunctional

microcomputer capable of executing tasks that would otherwise be relegated to several separate

devices such as cameras, mp3 players, and global positioning systems. Furthermore, the

Millennials’ rapid assimilation—and cultural integration—of these devices is mind-boggling.

For American Millennials, adeptness coincides with assimilation. “With assimilation,

[Millennials] came to view technology as just another part of their environment…and as

technology relentlessly advances each month, young people just breathe it in, like improvements

in the atmosphere” (Tapscott, Grown Up Digital 18). What Millennials fail to realize, however,

is that a consequence of careless assimilation is the danger of losing diversity. Social networking

sites, rooted in high technology, can be responsible for mass-manipulation and generate a

remarkable influence on developing minds. They promote distractions and can be used to

manipulate or influence key cultural transmitters such as politics and family values. Therefore,

mindless disregard of human diversity in favor of technological conformity will be the genesis of

cultural neutralization.

Take, for instance, politics where American culture is defined and transmitted through the

democratic ideals of the United States Constitution. Moreover, high technology is being used to

influence political ideologies. Consider that, “The growing use by Americans of social media has

hardly been lost on politicians…[they] were employing Twitter, Facebook and YouTube to reach

the growing number of people who use those sites” (Drake). Now consider the pluralist ideals of

distracted American Millennials—strengthened by their massive population—and one can

Wells  5    

surmise neutrality in American government. Thus, a cultural neutralization—powered by a

pluralist political interest that is less polarized—will undoubtedly impact American culture.

But leaving the idea of technological influence for just a moment, the facts remain that

American Millennial politics are demonstrative of a neutral culture. A 2006 New Politics

Institute survey—“The Progressive Politics of the New Millennial”—reported that forty-nine

percent of the individuals between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five were registered with the

Democratic Party. This percentage reflects a staggering increase from the same age group of

individuals in 1991, where political party affiliations were dramatically divided; fifty-five

percent were registered republicans and thirty-three percent were registered democrats. Thus,

the same survey suggests that the political arena—which controls legislation—is becoming less

polarized, which does much to neutralize cultural conflicts (“Progressive…” 3). What is more,

in the 2008 presidential election, a Harvard University poll indicated that sixty-eight percent of

the Millennials’ cohort voted Democratic (Dahl). These statistics indicate—for better or

worse—American Millennials are gravitating toward Blue State sensibilities in staggering

numbers. However, consider that hot button, liberal and conservative issues—such as gay

marriage and gun control respectively—are becoming non-issues among the Millennial cohort;

thus illustrating increasingly neutral political ideologies among the fastest growing population in

the United States (“Millennials: Confident…55).

Family values, too, have undergone a tremendous transformation in the past four decades.

Parental influence—as part of cultural transmission—has done much to shape the Millennials’

ethos. Take, for example, the postwar 1950s family unit of a two-parent household, with only

one working parent, transformed into the dual income environment of the 1970s. Economic

demands of the 1970s, ‘80’s, and ‘90s American households, often required that both parents—

Wells  6    

presuming a two parent home—were working to provide for their families. Current figures

illustrate those parents with Millennial children, “spend 40 percent less time with their children

than they did 40 years ago” (Tapscott, Growing Up Digital 236). This diminished time for

parent-child interaction greatly affected the parameters of cultural transmission, especially with

regards to traditions and heritage.

Millennials are growing up in what has come to be known as a latchkey environment.

Latchkey children return from school to an empty house and utilize their personal computers for

companionship; thus one can trace the origins of technological distraction from traditional

cultural transmission. Consequently, American Millennial children have come to rely on the

Internet and cyberspace for their primary means of socialization.

Cyberspace, the faceless, cultureless force that has left its followers emotionless and

vapid has replaced traditional parenting, which includes many forms of guidance such as

spiritual, social, and emotional support. Subsequently, Millennials are disconnected from their

internal voices and connected to external cyberspace influences. Emory University English

Professor Mark Bauerlein, postulates that wisdom and maturity has become “entirely a social

matter developed with and through their [online] friends” (173) thus perpetuated by a lack of

interest in traditional education and fueled by constant exposure to an interactive world.

However, there is an underlying danger to all of this, which includes a lack of discipline that is a

breeding ground for narcissistic behaviors and feelings of entitlement—especially if gone

unchecked.

Indeed, there is a growing sense of entitlement in America’s youth culture. This is

punctuated in behavior where civility and manners are quickly being replaced with audacious—

and sometimes dangerous—disregard for one another. An increasingly common occurrence of

Wells  7    

incivility is the amount of cellular phone usage there is at the dinner table, or in public places

where silence is conventional, such as movie theatres and libraries. And then there is the matter

of texting while driving. This quintessential example of rude behavior not only illustrates

narcissistic, egocentric, and entitled predispositions, but also a complete disregard for the safety

of other persons; so much so, that this dangerous practice has already been outlawed in New

York State.

Yet, American Millennials’ perspectives embrace these incivilities as progressive

behavior. One Millennial had this to say about the subject, “’I don’t think that the cell phone is

causing us to be rude,’ said Paul Dittner, [a Millennial] analyst…’It’s just another opportunity to

create norms and accepted behavior.’”(1). Dittner’s presumptuous philosophy, we see Millennial

ethnocentrism at work. Besides, according to Dittner’s position, one should not overlook that

civility will ultimately pay the price in exchange for creating norms and accepted behavior in a

high-tech society. Take into consideration that “[a] common scene [that can be] observed [is] a

group of teenagers sitting together—all with ears glued to cell phones—talking with faraway

friends rather than to each other” (Batista 1); thus, thereby illustrating the impending decline of

interpersonal communication, another accepted hallmark of Millennial culture. Nonetheless,

high technology acumen is only partially the problem for declining civility. Consider, again, the

Millennials’ parental influences, which start with the purchase of something as seemingly trite as

a cellular phone.

Robbie Blinkoff, a cultural anthropologist for a company that surveys consumer trends in

microelectronics posits that “[the] cell phone has become a primary mode of socializing for teens

and they will often avoid contact with peers that don't have cell phones…Next time a teenager

says, 'Mom if I don't have a phone,' or 'Dad, if I don't have a phone, I'm going to be a nobody,'

Wells  8    

they are being serious” (Batista 1). Moreover, a recent New York Times article reports that

“about 75 percent of 12- to 17-year-olds in the United States own a mobile phone, up from 45

percent in 2004…[and] the Pew Research Center… found that 58 percent of 12-year-olds now

had a cellphone (sic), up from 18 percent in 2004” (Olsen 1). However, the same article reports

that parents justify buying their adolescent children cellular phones for safety reasons.

But the motives are not what are in question; instead, it is the fact that children are in

possession of these microelectronics in the first place. These are the very same, high-tech,

microelectronics that enables exposure to the Internet, which foster distraction and detachment.

Furthermore, accompanying the purchase of high-tech equipment is the demand for Millennials

to operate them proficiently. Indeed, their assimilation is instinctive, but as technology advances

rapidly, it can easily monopolize an adolescent’s attention. Therefore, the importance placed on

technological proficiency in primary and secondary schools are doing much to shape American

Millennials’ psyches too.

Consequently, high-tech schooling manifests itself in an unprecedented display of self-

assurance that contributes to feelings of isolation and entitlement. “Dr. Mel Levine, a pediatrics

professor at the University of North Carolina put it this way: ‘We’re seeing an epidemic of

[Millennials] having a hard time making the transition to work—kids who had too much success

early in life and who’ve become accustomed to instant gratification” (Tapscott, Grown Up 152).

Instant gratification, immediacy, and convenience are the ultimate goals for American

Millennials, especially the immediacy of knowledge—synonymous with convenience—that can

do much to influence mediocre conformity, particularly in the wake of presuming all cyber-

information to be accurate. Such is the case with Wikipedia, an omnipresent Internet

phenomenon that is responsible for creating a civilization of pseudointellectuals. Wiki is an

Wells  9    

acronym for ‘what I know is’ and it is a collaborative website easily amended by anyone who

has access to it. For Millennials in particular, however, the research tool is quickly becoming

their default go-to source for information. Pew Research Studies show that “44% of those ages

18-29 use Wikipedia to look for information, [while] just 29% of users age 50 and older consult

the site…[and Pew] found [that] knowledge-seeking online is driven a lot by

convenience…Convenience mattered to 71% of those seeking…information” (Rainie 1).

However, one should remember that Wikipedia and its volumes of contributors—all of whom

offer and maintain their perception of accuracy—“set the standards for intellectual style”

(Bauerlein 153) therefore demonstrating the neutralization of Millennial intelligence through

careless cultural transmissions in the wake of über-stringent formal education parameters.

Formal education, as a part of cultural transmission, certainly plays a strong role in

influencing the Millennials’ ethos. There are transparent consequences of reducing

interdisciplinary studies in primary and secondary schools, which teaches multiculturalism in

favor of technologically driven pedagogies and conventional academics. Interdisciplinary

subjects such as the humanities, social sciences, and cultural studies in high schools are suffering

at the hands of some Baby Boomer legislators enforcing the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

Furthermore, this has become the invisible enemy to individuality and put forth to ensure a

standardized, or neutralized, system of assessing educational success and achievement.

The Fordham Foundation—a nonprofit foundation fostering a high quality K-12

education in schools—reported that more time, for better or worse, was being allotted in the

classroom towards the instruction of reading, writing, and arithmetic while conversely

downplaying the importance of the arts. In comparing time allocated to various school subjects,

“…reading garnered around 40 percent and math 18 percent of the school week, music and other

Wells  10    

arts combined received only 8 percent” (Bauerlein 25). While these academic demands are

seemingly invaluable to a child’s development, it is important not to overlook the innate abilities

he or she may be capable of (i.e. poetry, dance, theatre, etc…), mediums of expression that foster

individuality. Also, one should consider compromise and/ or balance in the formal educational

system. Instead, standardized, or neutralized, education is what Millennials’ know best, so it

stands to reason their cultural sensibilities will become neutralized as well.

Nonetheless, identifying the causality of cultural neutralization is important if American

culture is to dodge a potentially myopic paradigm. This study is composed of multiple chapters

that will explore various contributors to the cultural neutralization of the American Millennials’

ethos. The subsequent literature reviews and discussion have been designed to outline what this

research believes to be the fundamental influences on the American Millennials’ behavior:

parental influence, technology, politics, workplace, and entitlement.

Wells  11    

Chapter 2

Literature Review/ Discussion

There is measurable evidence, both epistemological and ontological that supports cultural

neutralization in the American Millennial ethos. For instance, cumulative reports compiled in

the Gen Next Survey conducted by The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

Project—released Tuesday, January 9, 2007—utilized a national sampling of 1,501 adults, with

more than half of that sampling belonging to those aged 18 through 25. The Center’s objective

was to document the value systems of Millennials in order to compare fundamental differences

in the ideologies of two consecutive American generations, the Gen Xers and the Millennial.

The Pew Research Center acknowledges that pinpointing the exact causalities of

generational gaps are extremely difficult and are the result of three “overlapping processes”; all

of which are examined in their latest survey Millennials: Confident. Connected. Open to Change.

The first process, “Life Cycle Effects”, is where young people may grow up to resemble their

older predecessors. The second examines “Period Effects”, which essentially defines one as

products of their environment. And lastly, “Cohort Effects”, the trends that are responsible for

influencing their cultural universals. What is more, it is important to note that this report was

released to the public in February 2010. For this—their latest comprehensive survey—the

Center utilized a national sampling of 2,020 adults; again, with more than half that sampling

belonging to those aged 18 through 25.

Also important to note is the latest survey has come to include findings that examine the

“changing attitudes toward work…[and] generational differences…with a nationally

representative sample of 1,815 people ages 16 and older” (Millennials: Confident 1). This is

significant to this study’s objective to comprehensively illustrate the growing trends that are

Wells  12    

contributing to cultural neutralization. Additionally, because the breadth of this research is wide,

it is essential to closely examine the empirical evidence concerning key concepts of Millennial

culture as it progresses over these biyearly reports.

The Millennial Generation Survey, published n 2009, “ has conducted more than 100

surveys and written more than 200 reports on the topic of teen and adult Internet use...This report

brings together recent findings about Internet and social media use among young adults by

situating it within comparable data for adolescents and adults older than 30” (Lenhart at el. 1).

Responses from each respective grouping were then analyzed for distinctive differences in

paradigmatic constructs. The data revealed remarkable changes from one generation to the next,

prompting scholarly discourse in the rationale behind this rapid evolution. Moreover, the

primary hypothesis attributed to these differences—the high technological advancements that are

influencing the Millennial ethos.

In an attempt to support this assertion, The New Politics Institute, The 21st Century

Project, and The Pew Research Center probed the technological influences on the Baby Boomer

and Gen Xers too. The objective was to demonstrate how technology impacted subsequent

generations. The findings did illustrate that technology was responsible for progressing

efficiency in areas such as the homestead and workplace, but there was little evidence to support

an overwhelming change in ethics and ideologies, not like what has been observed in the

American Millennial that is. Therefore, technology (presently assimilated and user-friendly) as

compared to high technology (cutting-edge and complicated) presented itself as the discerning

factor in rationalizing the chasm between the American Millennial and the preceding

generations.

Wells  13    

In terms of population, the American Millennial occupied 13 percent of the United States

in 2007, or “44.9 million individuals…[from a] total of 308.9 million” (“Population” 25) based

on a 2008 United Sates Census, as well as a CBS News report claiming that the Millennials are

actually a third of the population. However, “as of August 16, 2011, U.S. total population:

312,001,232”, Millennials represent “27.7 percent” of that number with a total of “85,405,385”

persons (“Generations” 1). Consequently, Millennials have been deemed “the largest generation

of young people since the ‘60’s…”(Leung 1).

2.1 Classifying Millennials

These vast groups of individuals are also known as: Echo Boomers, Generation Next,

Net Generation, or Nintendo Generation. However, hereinafter, the term Millennial(s) will be

used exclusively to refer to this cohort. Reports from the 2008 studies for the Alliance for

Children and Families Institute, posits that each generation from the 1900s through the present,

have been classified as follows:

“The Greatest Generation (born 1901-1925)

Silent Generation (born 1926-1944), (1925-1942), (1933-1945)

Traditionalists born before 1946

Boomers (born 1945-1962), Baby Boomers (1946-1964), (1943-1960),

(1946-1955)

GenX (born 1963-1980) Gen Xers (1965-1981), (1965-1976), (1961-

1981)

GenY (1979-1994), (1977-1994), (1989-1993) Gen@ (born 1981-2002),

Millennials (1982-2000). (“Trend Report” 1)

Wells  14    

As this list illustrates, a generation is defined roughly by the passing of fifteen to twenty years.

However, further clarification of one’s cohort should be determined by the age at which his or

hers sensibilities are most assimilated. For instance, just because a Boomer is born in 1964 does

not automatically connect them with Boomer sensibilities. In fact, they are more likely to

identify with Generation X because their late teens and early twenties life experiences have

mostly culturally integrated—and therefore defined—their core values.

Nonetheless, there is a general consensus that the Institute’s classifications are indeed

accurate. What is more, this consensus has been determined by cross-referencing the terms with

other scholarly studies and surveys such as the Gallup Polls and The Pew Research Center.

Their findings differ only plus or minus a few years and studies suggest, “…there [can be] no

definitive time frame or range for generational transition, [instead] it has been proposed that a 3-

to-5-year period may exist” (Collins).

The differences in these reports, however, are in defining an end year to the Millennials’

generation. While some speculate that 2000 should be the terminate year for defining

Millennials (in keeping with the fifteen to twenty year span), social theorists such as Howe and

Strauss (coauthors of Generations, 1991) and Don Tapscott (Growing Up Digital, 1998), feel

that “a definitive end year [is] yet to be determined. Students graduating from high school and

attending college over the next 5 to 10 years will become this generation’s cohort of front-enders

from which generational characteristics will be derived” (Collins). Nonetheless, it is important

to narrow the scope of the study of Millennials to a definitive timeline; therefore using the

general consensus is most feasible.

When classifying Millennials it is important to examine preceding generations. The 21st

Century Project, launched by the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at

Wells  15    

Austin, compares and contrasts the effects of technology on three generations—Baby Boomers,

Gen Xers, and Millennials. The report focuses primarily on American Millennials, but offers

insight too, into the mindset of the preceding generations. The project lends credibility to the

transparent phenomena of cultural neutralization by illuminating stark contrasts between

generations, particularly in the work place. Through the use of charts and graphs, the project

details the work ethics associated with each generation. They reveal differing feelings regarding

technology, such as Millennials boredom with emailing as juxtaposed with Baby Boomers

distractions concerning instant messaging. Additionally, it offers possible solutions for bridging

generational gaps—or cultural lag—and minimizing workplace conflicts generated from

differing technological skills-sets. Deductively then, the project does much to support that the

conflicts created in the workplace are a microcosmic reflection of a macrocosmic society and

that the suggestions for a resolution to said conflicts are strong indicators of a growing concern,

which justifies the investigation of cultural neutralization via the Digital Revolution.

New York University sociology professor, Norman F. Cantor, explains that history has

witnessed four cultural revolutions, each producing a new paradigm that was forced to answer

the demands laid forth by technological achievements. Cantor defines Cultural Revolution as “a

great upheaval in consciousness, perception, value systems, and ideology…” (2) and arguably

humanity is in the midst of another revolution—the Digital Revolution. The Protestant

Reformation, Enlightenment, Romanticism, and Modernist movements each witnessed their own

unique paradigmatic shifts compounded by the advancement of technology. For example,

Galileo’s cosmic observations were made possible by the telescope, and without the invention of

the printing press, Martin Luther would not have been able to propagate his anti-Catholic agenda

on such a grand scale.

Wells  16    

Historically, each of these technological elements would have a profound effect on

Western civilization’s perceptions of religious dogmas. Ironically, the Enlightenment saw an

unprecedented explosion in the use of technological warfare, which revolutionized the ability to

colonize, as was the period of Romanticism, where British imperialism was at its height. Of

course, the Industrial Revolution gave rise to the Modernist era. Therefore, clearly history

illustrates how technology has had an impact on humanity, and subsequently cultural universals.

2.2 The Millennial Ethos: Their Cultural Universals

Culture is a broad topic to be sure. It is a mutable phenomenon. It is often used to define

peoples that share common beliefs, values, and behavior; otherwise known as societies. Culture,

too, is composed of various elements—or paradigms—that sociologists use to analyze people’s

way of life. These elements include parts such as, “structural-functional, cultural-conflict,

cultural universals, cultural integration, cultural transmission, and ethnocentrism”—just to name

a few (Macionis 54). These paradigmatic cultural influences are responsible for creating

diversity, which has led to the practice of multiculturalism.

In the United States of America, immigration has created the ultimate ‘melting pot’ of

ethnic diversities. Consequently, there are many subcultures within the nation’s borders.

However, as we have seen from the introduction, the cultural universal for Americans is

constitutional freedom. Sociologist John J. Macionis would also include traits such as “equal

opportunity, achievement and success, material comfort, activity and work, progress, and

science” (Macionis 36); all of which are characteristic of American values and would not be

possible without the freedom afforded by the United States Constitution.

Indeed, Western Civilization shares the democratic ideals with many other nations, but it

is the United States Constitution that distinguishes our freedoms from those of our Western allies

Wells  17    

such as Great Britain and France. Their own respective constitutions execute government in the

parliamentary-cabinet system, which does not utilize checks and balances (Baradat 122). To the

contrary, the United States Constitution has outlined for Americans the structural-functional

paradigms that color its culture.

The American structural-functional paradigm, however, makes room for subcultures that

in turn sometimes leads to cultural-conflicts. These conflicts usually manifest themselves in the

political arena. But, cultural integration—a social paradigm—is often used to diffuse such

conflicts. This paradigm combines cultural disparities for the greater good. This can be seen in

our Pledge of Allegiance, which commands loyalty from American citizens despite ethnic origin.

In this way, the Pledge can be viewed as a definitive medium used to facilitate cultural

transmission of the American structural-functional paradigm, which stresses a cultural universal.

Conversely, however, ethos is defined as the spirit—or attitude—of a culture. Like

culture, it too is mutable. The American ethos has had many transformations throughout its two

hundred plus years of sovereignty. Early American history was turbulent as the original colonies

struggled for independence. It is safe to say—as history has shown us—that the overall ethos of

Colonial America was one fueled, obviously, by revolution. Later, as the Manifest Destiny

permeated American consciousness, the spirit of the nation became rife with possibilities.

Landownership would become the driving force behind America’s economic engine and

ambition was unparalleled as frontiersman risked their lives in pursuit of property. Keep in mind

that throughout these historical events the ethos was affected by a paradigm shift from the

“transplantation of English institutions or British sensibilities” (Rakove), which drew heavily

upon a connection of church to state. But as the United States Constitution was adopted as law,

Wells  18    

Colonial and Postcolonial America would learn to accept the separation of church and state;

hence the acceptance of an entirely new paradigm divorced from British sensibilities.

However, the Industrial Revolution most clearly defines the ideal disruption of cultural

universals. Created from a waning ethos as a result of the American Civil War, this period of

history fostered America’s entrepreneurial spirit and spawned caste systems. These came to

define society and culture that ushered in a new paradigm of class distinctions. American upper

class and lower-class citizens were developing their own sensibilities. Ethnocentrism was

rampant among the nation’s elite. Industrialists such as Carnegie and Rockefeller maintained a

stronghold over government because of their enormous wealth, which contributed to the

oppressive ethos of America at the turn of the century.

This continued through the Great Depression until the end of World War II, which

ushered in a time of great prosperity and the American ethos was rejuvenated. This postmodern

period experienced a population explosion and children born to postwar parents were donned

Baby Boomers. Still, caste systems remained in place, although further compartmentalized into

upper, lower, and now middle and working class societies. This is important because caste

distinctions, or social stratification, came to define the American ethos.

Consider this, Baby Boomers are the parents of Millennials. The cultural values of the

Baby Boomers—which represent almost half of the United States Population and a majority of

the middle and working class—were socialized with social stratification. With this, “…working

class people [grew] up in an atmosphere of greater supervision and discipline…In raising their

children, then, they encourage[d] conformity to conventional beliefs and practices” (Macionis

175) unique to their caste sensibilities. However, in the Digital Age high technology is blurring

the lines of caste distinctions and therefore neutralizing unique sensibilities; at least for

Wells  19    

American Millennials. Currently, “America gives the impression of being more classless than

ever…Ivy League students dress more like rappers than budding merchant bankers” (“Minding”

2), and conversely, inner-city children are brandishing expensive cellular phones; technology

formerly associated with moderate to excessive wealth. Moreover, this is significant to the study

of the American Millennials’ ethos because it illustrates the foundation for the Millennials’

culture.

Since American culture, and its neutralization, is the definitive focus of this report, the

Millennials’ population being studied ranges in age from 18-27 years old and are natural born

citizens of the United States of America. According to The Pew Research Center, which

conducted a survey to document the cultural trends of Millennials, there is strong evidence to

support a distinct identity for Millennials; they are “confident, connected, and open to change”

(“Millennials: Confident” 1). Furthermore, the survey outlines characteristics reflecting the core

values of American Millennials and support parameters for a neutralized ethos, all of which are

rooted in high technology usage and expertise. The 2010 Pew Research report posits that, “It’s

not just their gadgets—it’s the way they’ve fused their social lives into them” (6).

By comparing and contrasting three different generations—Boomers, Xers, and

Millennials—one can observe a cultural evolutionary pattern. American Millennials are highly

adept at navigating the Internet, both for personal and professional use. With the invention of

microelectronics, society can be connected at all times, but Millennials, as part of their

imprinting, are not as willing to disconnect from cyberspace as their older siblings and parents.

Some negative results of this can be seen in the decline of polite society (texting and

driving), loss of privacy (Facebook and Twitter), hackneyed intellect (Wikipedia), and exposure

to mass-media manipulation (violent video games). Even theorists who champion the evolution

Wells  20    

of American Millennial culture—such as Don Tapscott—recognize that these negative

implications are noteworthy. Disturbingly, Tapscott reports that “…elementary and college

students [exposed] to video games that were violent…later tested by a standard laboratory

measure of aggressive behavior…displayed more aggression” (Grown Up Digital 298). For

instance, “…Grand Theft Auto IV…[is a] violent action-adventure game: the protagonist has to

commit multiple acts of mayhem while searching for the person who has betrayed his army unit”

(298).

Also, there are more dangerous consequences for the multi-tasking Millennial with

regards to the decline of civility, specifically texting and driving. A report from the U.S.

Department of Transportation recently cited that “The under-20 age group had the highest

proportion of distracted drivers involved in fatal crashes (16%). The age group with the next

greatest proportion of distracted drivers was the 20- to-29-year-old age group (12%)”

(“Distraction” 1). In any case, these numbers are the result of texting replacing interpersonal

communication.

The Gen Next Survey determined that Millennials are sending and receiving text

messages daily, which is purportedly twice the amount being utilized by the Boomers and Xers:

“within 24 hours 51 percent of those aged 18-25 will have sent or received a text message…with

26 percent of those aged 26-40…[and] 10 percent aged 41-60…[and] only four percent over the

age of 61” (New Politics Institute 4) engaging in the same activity. What is more, high

technology allows small devices, such as the cellular phone, to access multiple applications—or

‘apps’—for Internet browsing and social networking, all of which were once limited to a

stationary home computer; the result, an ‘apps’ subculture among Millennials.

Wells  21    

Moreover, the Gen Next Survey illustrates that this technological mobility is coming to

define Millennials. It is omnipresent in their culture; therefore, logic dictates that their

remarkable proficiency with high technology becomes inevitable. Consequently, their

proficiency makes them ideal candidates in the high-tech world of online trading and commerce.

The 21st Century Project posits that they are more likely to utilize online tools like instant

messaging, text messaging, and search engines, than their generational predecessors. This makes

them invaluable to global organizations whose capital interests are relentless. Millennials will

not think twice about minimizing a window for a personal instant message in order to maximize

a window on a professional spreadsheet in order to input data—all from their cellular phone—

while in transit.

In the American Millennials’ ethos, they believe success is contingent upon a universal

understanding of high technology, finding unity in the mathematical constructs of a cyber

existence. This has earned the cohort the dubious distinction of being over-achievers. For

instance, an interview with a Duke University senior (Anne Katherine Wales) sheds light on this

concern. Cognizant of her being groomed for over-achievement, she states:

“At Duke, we’re on a fast paced track…getting internships with big

companies…But somewhere along the line most of us have gotten really close to

someone, maybe even fallen in love. For some reason, this scares us beyond

belief. Somehow this doesn’t fit with our plan of achieving our dreams…We

have career counselors telling us how to get that internship, get accepted to med

school and get that high-paying job. But no one is telling us to work our feelings

into this equation for success.” (Twenge 85)

Wells  22    

Also, the context of Wales’ philosophy additionally illustrates that a lack of humanities or other

social sciences in formal, higher education has left her vulnerable to the emotionless

environments created by virtual culture, and her expressed desire for guidance is overlooked in

favor of grooming technicians for operating Big Business in a virtual culture. Indeed, American

Millennials are over-achievers. Because multitasking at one’s fingertips is so readily accessible

to Millennials, their drive to perform is accelerated beyond the conventional scope of the

Boomers and Xers.

The 21st Century Project claims that Boomers find online tools to be a “distraction, useful

but not trustworthy” (Chapman 3), while Xers perceive them as “important and routine” (3). But

for Millennials they are “like breathing, commonplace” (3). Millennials think email and formal

meetings are “too slow” (3) and that conference calls should be executed while “doing something

else” (3). However, being connected technologically cannot afford a substitute for a Millennial

becoming connected with his or her own feelings—or someone else’s—as illustrated by the

Duke University senior.

In an article released in February, 2010 by the Pew Research Center—which outlined a

panelist discussion on Millennials—demographer Neil Howe posited that the cohort was in a

“new place in history” (“Portrait of the Millennial” 5). As mentioned earlier, a generation’s

culture will undoubtedly reflect period effects as dictated by politics, world events, and the

economy. Howe was cited, as saying that the American Millennials’ generation is optimistic,

even in the turbulent ethos that is the first decade of the new millennium. He posits that there is

an air of optimism and that the social changes brought on by technology are for the better. What

he failed to address however, was that in spite of his rosy outlook, Millennials are railing against

conventional institutions.

Wells  23    

In that very same discussion, during the Q & A portion of the program, a Millennial

approached the panel. Decker Ngongang informed the experts and audience that, “we

[Millennials] want institutions to look like us…so with religion and our traditional civic

institutions, we want them to reflect the change that we’re looking for in our communities…we

want to create efficiency” (8). In the process of neutralizing their ethos, Millennials’ collective

ideologies have infiltrated and altered the sensibilities of conventional institutions. American

Millennials have deliberate designs on redefining institutions. As the optimistic Baby Boomer

Neil Howe postulated about “a new place in history” (5), American Millennials have assumed a

role dedicated to reconditioning and rethinking institutions such as military, religion, marriage,

and education.

Part of the neutralization process is to synthesize a cultural universal. High technology

will be instrumental in facilitating the cultural transmission that will execute institutional

changes that reflect the Millennials’ objectives. One cannot overlook that their “new place in

history” (5) put Millennials amidst two wars that have virtually occupied their entire lifetime,

first the Gulf War and then the war in Iraq. Yet despite their growing up in these politically

charged environments, enrollment in the military has witnessed the sharpest decline in

recruitment in the institution’s history. The Pew Center reports that only “2% of the males in

this generation of 18-29 year olds are military veterans” (3). That is a distinct difference from the

Baby Boomer generation, where the numbers were as high as thirteen percent.

Moreover, one quarter of the Millennials’ population has admitted to not being affiliated

with any religion (“Portrait of Generation Next” 2). That was in 2007, but reports from 2010

show that these figures have increased to 26 percent of the Millennial population (“Millennials:

Confident” 86). Furthermore, they “… have no religious affiliation or are atheist or agnostic,

Wells  24    

nearly double the proportion of young people who said that in the late 1980s. And just 4% of

Gen Nexters say people in their generation view becoming more spiritual as their most important

goal in life...” (“Portrait of Generation Next” 2).

Contemporary social commentator Jean M. Twenge, Ph.D. posits that the American

Millennial dogma has come to mean ‘make-your-own-religion,” (247), a doctrine that stems

from the Millennials’ fixation on themselves. They have moved away, far away, from

anthropomorphism and have come to believe that God represents “[one’s] own personal beliefs

of how you feel about…what’s acceptable for you and what’s right for you personally” (247).

Therefore, organized religion is the antithesis of the American Millennials’ ethos. They view it

is an institution that relies too much on a strict set of rules that offers little to no pliability. The

spirit of the American Millennials’ culture is autonomous; their central concept of self is wildly

juxtaposed to institutional constraints.

Marriage is another indicator. “Twenty-one percent” of the Millennial population is

married. Both Generation X and the Bay Boomer population were experiencing twice that

percentage at the same age (“Portrait of the Millennial” 3). Furthermore, a majority of the

Millennials cohort has come from broken homes, so part of their cultural integration has adopted

a single-parenting paradigm. Boomer conventions of an idyllic, bucolic existence have become

antiquated in the neutralized ethos of Millennials. “Only six in 10 [Millennials] grew up—with

both parents” (“Portrait of the Millennial” 3) and this has had a remarkable impact on their

perception of family values…[In] every case [Millennials] are more receptive to these newer

modes of family arrangements and parenting arrangements than are older adults” (3).

Also, consider that they have become exponentially more tolerant than their generational

predecessors with regards to same sex and interracial parents, which can be viewed as an

Wells  25    

interpretation for blurring the lines of liberal and conservative sensibilities. Statistically

speaking, 32 percent of American Millennials—as compared to 65 percent of Baby Boomers—

feel that gay couples raising children is unacceptable and 5 percent—compared to 14 percent—

think that the same of interracial relationships (“Millennials: Confident” 52).

Their cultural universals are symptomatic of rebellion. History shows that generations

experience cultural revolutions that are initiated to negate the sensibilities from the previous one.

Part of growing up is to assert superiority over one’s parents. It is the instinctual drive of human

beings. Ancient Greeks wrote of it in their dramas and it has played out on the world stage of

Western civilization ever since, and with rebellion comes hallmarks for change usually

manifested through trendy behaviors. For the American Millennial this is done through physical

modifications.

Tattoos and piercings represent a “generational badge” (3) and for most Millennials, one

is not enough. “50% of those who have tattoos have two to five, and 18% have six or more.

Also 23% [have a] piercing in a place other than their earlobe [though] 70% are hidden beneath

clothing” (3). These illustrate a strong, underlying resistance to institutional authority. As they

enter the workforce in vast majority, rigid appearance guidelines—as seen in corporate Baby

Boomer America—will have to bend to a populous that is indelibly inked if there is to be a

workforce at all. In this way Millennials are slowly altering and redefining workplace culture

and its conventionally rigid parameters.

George Herbert Mead—a pioneer in social psychology—characterizes this type of

behavior as symbolic interaction. Moreover, Mead has probed the idea of self and has penned

numerous essays and articles in his lifetime (1863-1931) to reflect the social revolutions of the

Wells  26    

modernist era. In his 1930 essay entitled “The Self”, he examines how the assertion of

individuality impacts collective society and cultural universals. He posits:

“…A person is a personality because he belongs to a community, because he

takes over the institutions of that community into his own conduct …After all,

what we mean by self-consciousness is an awakening in ourselves of the group of

attitudes which we are arousing in others, especially when it is an important set of

responses which go to make up the members of the community…We cannot have

rights unless we have common attitudes.” (Mead)

Mead’s references to attitudes are very important here. The overconfident attitude of Millennials

is the fundamental contributor that comes from their political environment, which combines

Mead’s philosophy—social behaviorism—with a structural-functional paradigm.

Statistics reveal that the Millennials’ generation are civic minded and that their culture

has been structured with an indifferent attitude towards an increasingly reprehensible governing

body (“A Portrait of Generation Next” 4). Consequently, they lean towards the left in their

political ideologies, because they feel the Democratic party to be sympathetic of humanity and

the environment; “…in Pew surveys in 2006, nearly half of young people (48%) identified more

with the Democratic Party, while just 35% affiliated more with the GOP. This makes Generation

Next the least Republican generation...” (2). What is more, 2009 Pew surveys reveals that “the

Democratic advantage was even larger when the partisan leaning of independents is taken into

account. An additional 20% of Millennial voters said they leaned toward the Democratic

Party…When these leaners are combined with partisans, 57% of Millennial voters identified

with…the Democratic Party” (“Millennials: Confident” 67).

Wells  27    

Importantly, too, one must consider how technology influences the political ideologies of

American Millennials. The Pew Research Center’s 2006 polling of their political trends

indicate:

1. Those between the ages of 18-25 are astutely aware of the consequences of global

warming and are proficient in the ways of sustainability and 42 percent of their

exposure to this issue came from the Internet.

2. The same age group surveyed, reflected the same percentage point showing favor for

gay marriage because of a virtual medium.

3. And, an impressive 74 percent of 18-25 year olds surveyed, revealed that the Internet

was responsible for Swaying their opinions favorably towards the privatization of

Social Security.

In addition to these statistics the New Politics Institute article, “The Progressive Politics of the

Millennial Generation” posits that Millennials are “not satisfied with the ways [sic] politics is

conducted today or with the politicians that currently represent them” (3). Then, take into

account the Pew polls’ overwhelming evidence that Millennials are being politically manipulated

through popular media such as the Internet. Furthermore, progressive political ideologies have

permeated the American Millennials’ ethos too. This is a result of being an interactive

generation and the implications will do much to foster a neutralized culture.

2.3 Politics: The New Structural-Functional Paradigm

The Gen Next Survey and The New Politics Institute both agree that there has been a

paradigmatic shift in the political and partisan affiliations—most notably among Millennials—

that indicates the collective neutralization of their political mindset. The danger of this,

however, lies within the Millennial populations’ readiness to accept interactive media as wholly

Wells  28    

accurate; keeping in mind the Internet is an unregulated medium that can easily be used to

facilitate political agendas.

Consider that, “courtesy of the Internet, public officials can now solicit citizen input at

almost no cost…Government can now involve citizens in setting the policy agenda, which can

then be refined on an on-going basis” (Tapscott, Grown Up 261). But to a distracted Millennial,

this philosophy becomes counterproductive to the traditional democratic process since search

engines and the Web are their lifelines for information. Therefore, Millennials see no need for

representative government. Remember, search engines are shaped by popular response. They

regurgitate information based on “algorithms that rank results according to the number of

previous searches” (Keen 93). Thus, an unregulated medium, powered by popular opinion, and

colored by special interests, becomes a reckless recipe for the political future of American

Millennials who are reticent in their belief that representative government is an antiquated

notion. Because of this, The New Politics Institute reports that only 40 percent of the Millennial

population believes their vote matters.

The core values of American Millennials also focus on egalitarianism. This is relative to

high technology and Millennials in the sense that their technological acumen is eliminating—for

better or worse—conventional male-female roles in society as well, particularly in the

workplace. In other words, high-tech expertise knows no gender in the employment arena. A

Kenyon College Sociology professor postulates that “…our [previous] culture defines males as

ambitious and competitive, we expect them to engage in team sports and aspire to positions of

leadership…we define females as deferential and emotional, we expect them to be good listeners

and supportive observers” (Macionis 245). But Millennials disagree and a 2007 New Politics

Institute report determined that:

Wells  29    

“In the 2004 National Election study, respondents were asked to place themselves

on a 7 point scale relative to the following statements: ‘Some people feel that

women should have an equal role with men in running business, industry, and

government. Others feel that women’s place is in the home,’ where the strongest

support for women’s equal role and 7 is the strongest support for women’s place

in the home. Two-thirds of Millennials selected 1, the strongest support for

women’s equal role and 88 percent of Millennials picked 1, 2 or 3 on the 7 point

scale…both figures that are higher than any other generation.” (“Progressive

Politics of the Millennial Generation” 1)

Their view of the world is progressive and because of their growing numbers, it is highly

probable that their pluralist political ideologies will undoubtedly redefine American politics.

Overwhelming evidence shows that these individuals have grown up in the shadow of

their Gen Xers parents and siblings, who have spun a cynical web of doubt over the American

Government. Some determining factors that have colored this Gen X distrust of government

include: “80 percent believing there is inefficiency and wasteful spending of money on the

wrong things…[and] that 65 percent feel special interest [groups] have too much power…[and]

62 percent feel politicians are lacking integrity” (Blendon, et al. 205).

Also, one must not overlook the contributions of social movements since the wake of

Kennedy’s assassination, or the obvious evolution of the American’s core value system as

influenced by the economy and a perceived failing government: Watergate, Reaganomics,

Clinton’s Impeachment, and George W. Bush’s political debacles—such as exaggerated claims

of Iraq’s WMDs or his mishandling of the Katrina disaster—just to name a few. But these

Wells  30    

factors have contributed to the American Millennials’ mindsets; therefore, these shameful

American snafus could easily contribute to a wanton desire of a neutralized culture.

Furthermore, after having witnessed partisan struggles over major issues such as global

warming, gay marriage, and health care, the overall reaction of Millennials to these pressing

stalemates is one of ridicule and disgust, sparking an interest in politics at a very young age. For

instance:

“…in UCLA’s 2006 American Freshman survey—conducted for the last 40 years,

with several hundred thousand respondents each year—more freshman reported

they discussed politics frequently as high school seniors (34 percent) than at any

other point in history in the history of the survey. In the 2004 election, Census

data indicate that the 18-24 year old age group, completely composed of

Millennials, increased their turnout 11 points to 47 percent of citizens in that age

group, and 18-29 year olds—dominated for the first time by Millennials—

increased their turnout 9 points to 49 percent…These increases were far, far

higher than among any other age group.” (New Politics Institute 3)

Statistical evidence shows that 58 percent of the American Millennial population is registered to

vote, with 30 percent loyal to the Democratic party (New Politics Institute 4); however, there is a

slight majority of moderate ideologies in this age group and an even higher one in the older

subset of Millennials, or Generation Y, and those aged 26 to 29. Therefore, logic dictates that if

the moderate majority already exists in Generation Y, than the increasing numbers of Millennial

moderates will double in size too. Compounding this neutrality of course, is the usage of

technology, specifically in the sense that the Computer Age provides a new array of multi-media

that enables the computer savvy Millennial to access facts and figures.

Wells  31    

In the case of politics, the invisible threat facing Millennials—resulting from their

overexposure to the Internet—is that the potential for factual distortion is markedly increased

over that of television. The difference, here, is that the Internet is an interactive medium which is

much more widely used—by American Millennials—than television; “42% of American

[Millennials] say they consider the television to not be a necessity” (Taylor). Furthermore,

according to a 2006 nationwide survey from the Pew Research Center's Social & Demographic

Trends project, this figure grew to 52 percent, and in 2009 it was a high as 64 percent (Taylor).

Because of interactivity, the usual Internet viewer has to command a site in which to

explore, and if these sites are exclusively rooted in one’s own interest, the chances of exposure to

alternate points-of-view are greatly limited. Moreover, chances for manipulation are increased,

too, as the inexperienced Millennial is subjected to the political rants of extremists and

conspiracy theorists; and there is a danger in their assumption of accuracy. For example,

Andrew Keen (a Silicon Valley entrepreneur) notes:

“In 2005, three young would-be filmmakers from the small town of Oneota in

upstate New York used two thousand dollars saved up from shifts at Friendly’s

ice cream store to create an eighties movie called Loose Change, a ‘ documentary

(originally conceived as a fictional story) that claimed the 9/11 terrorist attacks

were organized and carried out by the Bush Administration…originally posted on

the Internet in the spring of 2005, Loose Change rose to the number-one spot on

Google Video’s ‘Top 100’ by May 2006, generating ten million viewers in the

first year alone. That’s ten million people being fundamentally misled about one

of the most cataclysmic events in American history.” (Keen 69)

Wells  32    

Of those ten million viewers that Keen has noted in his book, The Cult of the Amateur, Pew

statistics indicate that a pressing 86 percent of them were likely to be American Millennials.

This type of cultural mass manipulation has occurred before in American history. For

instance, in 1896, Thomas Edison’s kinetoscope camera, projected moving images onto a screen

and the phenomena of motion pictures—later dubbed the film industry—had begun. “A medium

that began primarily as a working-class phenomenon” (Kammen 104), it was being used to

facilitate the “facile dissemination of propaganda” (104) and filmmakers such as D.W. Griffith

were exploiting their political agendas for the nation to view. In his 1915 picture, Birth of a

Nation, viewers were exposed to Griffith’s telling of the American Civil War. This, of course,

led to controversies as to the historical accuracy of its contents and was potentially hazardous to

the advancement of black people in America who were struggling for equality in the wake of

their emancipation. Herein, one can determine the potentially damaging effects of this scenario,

for public manipulation was no longer reduced to the proverbial soapbox. The mass distribution

of one man’s perception of such a pivotal event in American history would have a lasting impact

on racism; which was already suffering. Therefore, history has shown us the inevitable backlash

mass media and technology can have on American culture; moreover, the political influence to

result from such manipulation.

Comparable to Griffith’s mass manipulation is the present phenomena of blogging, and

for the untrained or inexperienced, the information presented is often taken for accurate. Unlike

Wikipedia, the authors of blog content are motivated by personal agendas and their information

is generally biased; moreover, their target audiences are usually Millennials. For instance, “in

2004 a little more than half of the 4.1 million blogs counted…were kept by 13-19 year olds…

[that were] adventurous nonconformists who set the pace for their peers” (Bauerlein 74).

Wells  33    

Furthermore, these ‘nonconformists’ were often mistaken for credible journalists, launching

smear campaigns that were incredibly effective in influencing young voters.

In the 2008 presidential race, those who frequently perused amateur blog sites were left

contemplating the political motives of Barak Obama. Sites labeled him a Muslim loyalist and

reported inaccuracies that were being viewed by those surfing the Internet. Libelous accusations,

such as the following, are plentiful on the unregulated Internet:

“The Web site Insight…caused a stir in January 2007 by publishing an erroneous

story…planning to accuse Obama of having been enrolled in an Islamic religious

school in Indonesia as a child, and having covered it up. Even though the report

was denounced…uncorroborated by other news organizations…it was picked

up by Fox News and was discussed extensively on the morning news programs

and on conservative talk radio.” (Keen 81)

Nonetheless, one cannot dismiss the aforementioned statistics that illustrate the progressive, yet

moderate political ideologies of American Millennials; or furthermore, how it will affect the

future of American government.

The Pew Research article, “Millennials’ Lukewarm Support For Health Care Bills:

Many are Uninsured Yet Most Are Unengaged”, reported that over half the American Millennial

cohort supported a governmentally subsidized health care program:

“Millennials favored the public option (61% July [2009], 65% October [2009]);

most Gen Xers also supported the public option (57%, 60% respectively). But

opinion was more mixed among older age groups: In October, just 51% of

Boomers…favored a government health insurance plan to compete with private

plans…In January, just a third of Millennials (33%) said their ability to get

Wells  34    

insurance if they lose a job or change jobs would get better if the legislation

becomes law” (“Millennials’).

These statistics are significant, especially in light of the theory that their massive population will

have an enormous impact on United States legislation. The same poll revealed, however, that

Millennials, though familiar with matters of finance and privatization, are less concerned with

the topic than those of Gen Xers and the Baby Boomers. This may lead one to question the

maturity level and priorities of Millennials.

Finally, one should consider how the Millennials’ political ethos would charge the

economic engine. When looking at the economic environment of Millennials, “these young

people…have $150 billion in direct purchasing power today, more than their parents ever had at

their age, and about $500 billion in indirect purchasing power” (Alch 42). As Millennials enter

the workplace, which is being neutralized by globalization, they are seeking jobs that will

exercise their technological acumen. They are “believed to be motivated less by material gain

than by the element of challenge, the scope for self-determination, and the pursuit of technical

excellence” (Hefferman 60), thus closing the cultural gaps between ‘higher and lower cultures’

that were once dictated by one’s profession.

2.4 Technology: Facilitating Cultural Transmission

When studying the American Millennial, the applied methodology for this investigation

included an in-depth exploration of multiple mediums concentrating on both qualitative and

quantitative data. Independent studies that have been launched by organizations—particularly

The Pew Research Center—concentrate on cultural studies and the social sciences.

The Pew Research Center qualifies its mission as a governmentally funded ‘fact tank’

that is composed of seven projects designed to record empirical data. One of those projects—

Wells  35    

The Pew Internet and American Life Project—has been particularly explored in order to

ascertain a collective point-of-view, which integrates the academic and popular perceptions of

this phenomenon. However, in this case, popular perception is to be synonymous with

observance—or this author’s fieldwork—and should be coupled with the empirical data that

accompanies this study. Key concepts that are examined revolve around culture, technology, and

entitlement; but technology is the driving force behind the transparent paradigmatic shift in

American culture.

Millennials “…use technology and the Internet to connect with people in new and

distinctive ways. Text messaging and email keep them in constant contact with friends. About

half say they sent or received a text message over the phone in the past day, approximately

double the proportion of those ages 26-40...” (“Portrait of Generation Next” 2). The rapid

advancement of technology is remarkable. Sven Birkerts writes that, “we have been primed by

countless prior adaptations to earlier technologies” (Birkerts 215). But history has given us time

to understand technology, and our priming allowed us to assimilate technology together as a

society; this cannot be said of today’s high-tech environment. The Government Computer News

periodical has drafted a timeline that illustrates this.

The timeline starts in 1982 with the IBM personal computer and spans twenty-five years.

It goes on to show significant yearly advancements that run parallel to the formative years of

American Millennials. Consider that during this timeline, we have witnessed the antiquation of

record LPs, eight tracks, and cassette tapes in favor of the CD and “its successor, the DVD

(1996), killed off the video tape” (GCN 1).

Moreover, the timelines reveals that in 1984 Toshiba developed flash memory. This

microelectronic hardware would later become the foundation for small devices such as

Wells  36    

“smartphones, digital cameras…and laptops” (2). Then, in 1989 Tim Berners-Lee’s invention,

the World Wide Web, was being used ubiquitously in governments and commerce. In which the

Web was further enhanced by the implementation of the browser in 1992, which did the work for

us. Subsequently came email in 1993, and its immediacy revolutionized the way societies would

communicate, even forcing the United States’ post offices to restructure their business models.

And shortly thereafter—in1995—Wiki technology was launched, which was followed by the

residential usage of broadband communication and the MP3 audio format, “a format that pretty

much leveled [the] entire [music] industry” (3). Then came the omnipresent Google in 1998,

simplifying the browser capability and making queries readily accessible with the entry of a few

key words. And, most recently, 2007 witnessed the explosion of Facebook, a social networking

tool that has become the primary form of socialization for the American Millennial; at least for—

according to the Pew Research Center—“three-quarters” of their population. (Lenhart et al.1)

Through all of these innovations, Baby Boomers have been relatively self-taught on the

ways of the personal computer. However, Millennials have had exposure to these innovations

and microelectronic devices in their everyday life; even more so in their schools, and some as

early as preschool and most in their elementary education. Consider that:

“Clearly they are the leading adopters of [new technology], so it's their window

on the world, it's their window for information, for entertainment. It's the platform

for their social lives. Teenagers and twenty-somethings (sic) need to be where

other teenagers and twenty-somethings (sic) are. And way back in the distant mist

of history before the digital revolution, that place was the suburban mall or the

soda shop. Now, that place is Facebook. They need to be there because everybody

Wells  37    

else is there. You see it here in terms of social networking profiles where fully

three-quarters have one”. (‘Portrait of the Millennials”)

Comparing the computer skills sets of the three generations—Boomers, Xers, and

Millennials—one can observe interesting distinctions. Baby Boomers have found the usage of

email and instant or text messaging to be distracting and somewhat confusing and impersonal.

Gen Xers are more comfortable with their usage, and find emailing to be an efficient way to

communicate and are relatively unscathed by the use of instant/ text messaging.

However, for Millennials, these types of technologies are second nature, and sometimes

there are complications that can arise from having a cultural clash between the gapping

generations as a result of this aloof engagement. “All… generations communicate

differently…Traditionalists and Baby Boomers prefer…using the phone, whereas generations X

and Y prefer e-mail or text messaging” (Van Horn 727). In this way communication technology

is doing much to facilitate cultural transmission. Besides, communication technologies have

evolved tremendously over the past three decades, and with almost three-quarters of Americans

currently connected to the Internet, chat rooms, instant, and text messaging are quickly replacing

the need for landlines or home phones. “Fewer than half (46%) of 18- to 29-year-

old[s]…consider the landline phone a necessity of life” (Taylor). Because of this, AT & T has

substantially reduced their home phone accounts, in favor of wireless communication. Starting

in 1996, “there were…more than 38 million [wireless] subscribers in the United States alone, or

about 14.5 percent of the entire U.S population (Cellular Telecommunications Industry

Association, 1996)” (Katz 41). Currently, “… there are about 140 million cell phones in this

country” (USA Today) and “for children growing up today the issue is not whether they will get

a mobile phone, it's a question of when?” (Reuters).

Wells  38    

But whereas Baby Boomers and Gen Xers are moderately assimilating the evolution of

communication, for the American Millennial, it is customary. Complete with ‘cyber-language’

and ‘netiquette’, American Millennials have adapted their own communication standards. One

of every two Millennials have been exposed to a cyber subculture that spans our great nation,

each adopting ‘cyber-language’ and ‘netiquette’ as convention, suggesting a great potential for

neutralizing the communication arena. Since “language…facilitates communication…[and]

ensures the continuity of culture…language [is] the key to cultural transmission, the process by

which one generation passes culture to the next” (Macionis 34), the conformity involved with

adopting cyber-language will do much to reshape American language in the American

Millennials’ ethos.

A catalyst for this stems from the idea that Millennials are in a constant search for

intellectual stimulation. They are a product of instant gratification, or the ‘on-demand’ or the

immediacy provided by the Internet and 3G or 4G communications. However, in their attempts

to combat their boredom Millennials engage in multi-tasking endeavors that are easily executed

through high-tech devices. Consider that:

“Within one to two years, the Millennials will probably be totally untethered (sic)

from the wired world and have ample bandwidth on their portable devices to do

just about anything they desire. Two other trends make this outcome highly

likely: ‘convergence’ and ‘ubiquitous (or virtual) storage.’ Convergence is a

term applied to the movement toward creating a portable device that will function

as a cell phone, computer, PDA, portable media player, and video/ still camera.

Cell phones capable of recording video and functioning as portable music players

Wells  39    

are already available but limited in functionality. All of this will change as the

technology matures.” (Van Horn 731)

But multi-tasking is not without its problems. It generates inefficiency.

As one scrambles to complete multiple projects, accuracy and attention to detail are

sacrificed. Imagine the Millennial accountant that is crunching numbers for a multimillion-dollar

transaction while exchanging in an instant message with a faraway friend. Now suppose that

same accountant mistakenly enters data because of the distraction. Or worse, imagine a driver

who has just received terrible news via a text message, which distracts he or she to the point they

are no longer paying attention to the road and other drivers.

The multi-tasking Millennial is not opposed to navigating the Internet in search of an

immediate response to a pressing challenge and sometimes this efficiency can be synonymous

with laziness. Mark Bauerlein posits that “they learn to count and spell, cut and paste, manage

information, relate to others, and ‘construct knowledge,” (Bauerlein 84), but Bauerlein neglects

to mention that while doing so they are cheating themselves of the rewards that accompany

diligence and genuine knowledge. Moreover, “… embrace of new [multi-tasking] technology

has made them uniquely aware of its advantages and disadvantages. They are more likely than

older adults to say these cyber-tools make it easier for them to make new friends and help them

to stay close to old friends and family. But more than eight-in-ten also acknowledge that these

tools ‘make people lazier’” (“A Portrait of Generation Next” 2).

Furthermore, in the world of high-tech communication there looms a danger when

relying on information found on the Internet. The information superhighway is unregulated

territory and amateur websites promising accuracy are abundant, Wikipedia for instance, or any

Wells  40    

other online informational source. Remember that such sites may be altered and manipulated at

whim by anonymous contributors.

Wikipedia “has become the third most visited site for information and current events”

(Keen 4). Millennials between the ages of 19 and 25 questioned in a Pew Research Center

survey admitted to using the Wikipedia as their only resource for retrieving data. This survey was

conducted on December 18, 2009, by questioning forty individuals about their methodology for

conducting research. Thirty-seven reported that they took Wikipedia entries to be accurate and

did not cross-reference with other databases or resources.

The random sampling surveyed was either two-year or four-year college graduates who

confessed to being incensed and inconvenienced with their college’s ban on the usage of

Wikipedia in their research. Moreover, based on a Pew Research Center survey conducted in

2006, with “1501 subjects aged 18 through 29—American Millennials counting as 579 of the

total sampling—two-thirds of the sampled Millennials admitted using the Internet as their only

source of reference while conducting research” (Gen Next Survey 53); thus, developing a pattern

of conventional study habits relying exclusively on technology.

Cultural changes as the result of technological innovation is summed up in the concept of

socio-cultural evolution (Macionis 38). Sociologist John J. Macionis postulates that “the more

complex a society’s technology…the more its members are able to shape the world for

themselves” (38). He is referring to material culture or the acquiring of materials needed to

survive in one’s environment. In the case of the hunters and gatherers, rudimentary tools are

used. Pastoral societies have learned to domesticate animals while agrarian societies utilize

animals as beasts of burden. However, it is in the industrial societies that utilize fossil fuels that

Wells  41    

individuals “have a far greater choice in how they earn their living” (39) which will ultimately

lead to materialism.

Sociologically, this is defined by the way “society’s system of material production…has

a powerful effect on all dimensions of culture” (50), and the American Millennials’ material

culture lies within their high-tech acumen and mastery of microelectronics. Obviously, it is the

manufacturing of the hardware, which makes it tangible, but the intangibility of knowledge and

proficiency is what makes their generation unique form the others. Thus, Macionis’ position is

validated. Complex microelectronic proficiency is causing the Millennials to “shape the world

for themselves” (38).

Turning again to history will help one to better understand how material culture will

contribute to the neutralization of the American Millennial ethos. Ruth Schwartz Cowan’s essay,

Household Technology and Social Change in the Twentieth Century, draws an impressive

parallel of the turn of the century housewife with that of the Millennial. Seemingly an entirely

different subject, their commonality is shared through the assimilation of technology. Cowan’s

discussion of the “electrification and mechanization of the American household…[did much] in

terms of overall efficiency, energy expenditure, and time required to perform certain tasks done

with new technology as compared to old” (Cowan 223). Moreover, the material culture of these

women—which included electric stoves, irons, and washing machines—also allowed them to

“shape their worlds…” (223).

What is more, Cowan writes that the assimilation of material culture was responsible for

a paradigm shift in the home during the Industrial Revolution. She states that prior to the

invention of electric devices, housework was often a labor of love. This was because of the lack

of egalitarianism. But, as women’s schedules were increasingly freed up and they began to enter

Wells  42    

the workplace, household chores were expeditiously executed. No longer would she “protect

them [family] from the embarrassment of tattletale gray… [or] prepare meals as a way to express

a housewife’s artistic inclination…” (232). She was not compromising her maternal instincts,

but instead she was integrating her newly acquired sensibilities. The sociological term for this is

cultural integration or the “close relationship among various elements of a cultural system”

(Macionis 54).

In the case of the modern housewife, standards were defined by Victorian and Edwardian

values. These consisted of patriarchal conventions, which confined her to the home where her

worth was determined by conventional practices such as housework. But with the invention of

electrical appliances, standards shifted to include her sensibilities, her self-esteem. Analogous to

Millennials, standards are defined by Baby Boomers’ values, which confines them to the home

where their worth is determined by conventional practices such as computer literacy. However,

cultural integration of these standards for Millennials have caused them to move past the

standards put forth by their parents in order to adopt the structural-functional paradigm dictated

by the Digital Revolution; and high technology is facilitating their cultural transmission.

A further motive for studying the significance of studying the ethno methodology of

American Millennials, center around the threat of cultural divisions between generations as

witnessed in dual paradigms that are evolving rapidly as well. First, the structural-functional

paradigm—or how culture meets human needs—is the construct that is most heavily impacted by

the Digital Age. It stands to reason that because the largest population of this era is the

Millennial cohort, they will undoubtedly have an indelible effect on reshaping culture as

technology creates need. It can be said that this is how cultures develop. The reliance on

technology generates a system of rules that morph into traditions and are manifested through

Wells  43    

customs and integrated through cultural transmission. Certainly there is room for disparities that

can be expressed in specific mores, but as a whole, culture is defined by the values set forth by

the structural-functional paradigm.

Millennials’ shifts in sensibilities are an example of what New York University

Sociology professor Norman F. Cantor calls structuralism or the sociological component of one’s

structural-functional paradigm. Structuralism plays a strong role in neutralizing the American

Millennials’ ethos. As a sociological construct, it took shape following World War II and did

much to contribute to the prevailing psyche of Millennials. Cantor posits “Structuralism moves

the focus of reality and the center of attention from the individual to the system” (Cantor 436).

This is significant because this ideology would later influence Millennials’ preoccupations with

success.

Structuralism, in the 1960s, meant that corporations were developing values designed to

facilitate economic prosperity. This included a workforce that was dedicated to long hours and

reverence to the establishment, as well as, technological developments designed to perpetuate

globalization—eerily similar to the cultural neutralization of the Millennials’ ethos. The

difference, however, is that high technology had yet to be assimilated.

Comparatively, “…computer applications and satellite communications…made the

multinational corporation much more functional,” but its magnitude had yet to be realized (437);

moreover, in keeping with the neutralization theme, “global corporate institutions [instilled]

homogenous behavior” in their employee (437). Big Business had already begun to manipulate

cultural constructs for capitalist gains. Consider that “the United States…[was] evolving into a

corporate oligarchy…[and] for all the flash and cosmopolitanism of American life…never [had]

it been so directly a product of corporate imagination” (Berman 3). In short, while fostering the

Wells  44    

entrepreneurial spirit of an industrialized workforce, composed of working-class individuals, Big

Business was able to structure a mindset and manipulate sensibilities: more is better. Consider

popular culture mottos such as ‘whoever has the most toys wins’ and we can see how corporate

structuralism has infiltrated American culture and dictate priorities.

This is a harsh social criticism, but it reflects the clandestine operation and motive of Big

Business. Moreover, this a direct result of the social landscape being dictated by an

entertainment culture, powered by an Internet ethos that is coupled with immediacy, or a

“McWorld” (3); and it is invisible to the IT driven Millennial. The commercial infrastructure is

capitalizing on the paradigm shift with seductive advertising that suggests that if one is not

equipped with the latest technology, they are in danger of being lost in society. The constant

bombardment of advertisements from communications networks such as AT&T, Verizon, and T-

Mobile take competition to a new level by preying on America’s naivety about a technological

future that even experts have a hard time predicting. Once again Millennials fall victim to the

pressures of American standards of keeping up, moving onward and upward.

Moreover, a “corporate oligarchy” operates through monopolization. Take, for example,

the mega marts—Wal-Mart and Super Target—which are not only redefining American

economics by way of monopolization, but subsequently the cultural constructs of Millennials,

whom are growing up to accept these supercenters as a convention as opposed to convenience.

This is the only thing they have ever known, so Big Business will undoubtedly benefit

from the conditioned behavior from which they have surreptitiously groomed American

Millennials. Supercenters operate under the guise of creating jobs and as small businesses close

because of their increasing ubiquity, the preeminent pawn in the labor force are Millennials;

Wells  45    

particularly because Boomers are slated to retire and Generation X has more than likely already

settled.

“Wal-Mart does not create jobs; it just moves jobs around and takes jobs that people

have been working for 30 to 40 years and makes them into part-time jobs. It pays less wages and

leaches [off] of social services in the public sector instead of providing its employees adequate

benefits” (Conlan 3). Nonetheless, Big Business is using IT to infiltrate the Internet and

subsequently dominating a primary source of cultural transmission. And as information

technology is rapidly becoming increasingly miniaturized and mobile, and the primary source for

communication, advertisers will find a way to intercept correspondence. Consequently, there is

relatively little chance to ignore this phenomenon and the American Millennial is the

predominant recipient of this Digital Age structuralism.

Information technology during the 1960s was in its infancy. What corporate America

was foreseeing was that IT could be used to flood the global market. Nick Hefferman, author of

Capital, Class and Technology in Contemporary American Culture, posits that this would serve

as “the technical nervous system for American corporate world views and commodities… [and]

return to the global ideological hegemony…associated with the Americana of the 1950s and

early ‘60s” (Hefferman 41).

Consequently, throughout the 1970s Baby Boomers flooded universities in pursuit of

MBAs because of the awareness that “technological developments that were occurring in the late

sixties and early seventies [were contributing] to the central role of multinational corporations”

(Cantor 437). Moreover, the MBA programs were designed to educate individuals not only of

the importance of global commerce, but how information technology would most assuredly

become the latest, greatest commodity the global market had ever seen. Amidst this commercial

Wells  46    

revelation, engineers were scrambling to harness the power of information technology and “at

the beginning of the 1980s, the microelectronics industry became the province of a new

workshop and a revival of the entrepreneurial spirit…” (Hefferman 60). Infused with large

amounts of capital, Apple Computer giants such as Steve Jobs and Steven Wozniak were well on

their way to developing microchips and motherboards.

For better or worse, this is the world Millennials were born to, and it is with this

ambitious, structural-functional paradigm, that their culture has been influenced and is being

defined. It has already “changed the skills that dominate [their] way of life…and [manipulated]

symbols in [their] speaking, writing, computing, and creative skills” (Macionis 41) through the

use of graphics processors, email, text messaging, and search engines. Here, too, one can see a

social pattern developing, which is their unrelenting focus on proficiency.

2.5 Workplace: Creating Cultural-Conflicts

However, such proficiency has generated an air of hostility between generations.

Sociologists define this as cultural lag or when “cultural elements change more quickly than

others” (Macionis 54), and members of collective society adapt better than their neighbors.

Consequent of cultural lag is the cultural-conflict paradigm—a theory originally outlined by Karl

Marx—which is used to define class distinctions.

At the time of Marx, it was a question of separating the bourgeois from the proletariat,

but in contemporary terms, it can be used to define the distinctions between generations.

Analogous to comparing the rich with the poor, here we compare proficiency with inability.

Specifically the privileges afforded to the technologically proficient Millennial versus the

supposed unable Baby Boomer, particularly in the workplace.

Wells  47    

The generation gaps between the Baby Boomers, Gen Xers, and Millennials are

compounded by the rapid advancement of technology. “In the 1960s,” for instance, “the

generation gap was over differences in values, lifestyles, and ideology between parents and their

children… however, [in the workplace] changes [are] brought about new technologies and e-

commerce” (Alch 1) that foster a transparent air of intimidation between those less adept in

technology.

The 21st Century Project reports that the disparate ideas concerning technology in the

workplace are rather extreme considering the gap in ideologies only spans relatively twenty

years. In his report, Chapman—director of the project—postulates that Baby Boomers feel that

professional conventions such as Microsoft’s Power Point and interpersonal meetings are

“useful, professional, [and] essential” respectively. While Millennials feel that they are “boring,

not useful, too formal, [and] too slow” (Chapman).

The same report explains that Millennials find text messaging to be “like breathing” but

the Baby Boomer finds it be a “distraction.” However, American teenagers’ expertise with

microelectronics used to facilitate such interactivity as text messaging has inadvertently qualified

them to plug-into the pulse of the global machine; “the youngest workers just out of high school

or college are used to collaborating through e-mail and instant messaging” (Schurr 1). This

makes them perfect candidates for a fast-paced job-market.

From a business prospective, a neutralized culture is the perfect fit for a globalized

economy. Millennials are aware of this and have been able to exploit this to their fullest

advantage; hence their adaptation. Employers, too, are embracing the Millennial workplace

paradigm, which concentrates on autonomy, multitasking, and fierce dedication resulting from

their willingness to always be connected. To put into perspective the popular conception of

Wells  48    

what the working Millennial has to offer, an article from The Journal of Property Management,

printed an attractive description as to why Millennials are a perfect fit for a restless commerce:

“Picture this: it is 3:30 on a Thursday afternoon. A 20-something associate

completes a project on her laptop, sends it via-email to her supervisor, text

messages a client on her cell-phone, and then leaves for the day. Meanwhile her

50-something colleague in the next cubicle, who never leaves the office before

six o’clock, is grumbling about the poor work ethics of today’s younger

workers.” (Wagner 1)

However, what the article fails to address, and cannot foresee, is the long-term effects

this seemingly superhuman stamina will have on the Millennials’ well being; notwithstanding,

too, the potential hazards of such multitasking. “Multitasking entails a special cognitive attitude

toward the world, not the orientation that enables slow concentration on one thing…but a

lightsome, itinerant awareness of numerous and dissimilar inputs” (Bauerlein 84). Moreover,

what is evident also in the journal’s description, is the lack of interpersonal communication.

Note that everything the aforementioned subject has done in this scenario was transmitted

or executed electronically. Now consider that if this journal represents what future employers

are actively recruiting, then over-achieving Millennials will adapt their workplace zeitgeists and

ethics accordingly. What is more is that the American Millennials’ technological acumen is a

perfect recipe for molding the ultimate worker ant while fostering a sense of entitlement.

For instance, “In a 2007 survey of 2,500 hiring managers, 87% agreed that young

workers feel more entitled in terms of compensation, benefits, and career advancement than

older generations” (Twenge 235). A solution has been to embrace and utilize the individual

talents that each generation brings to a project. However, as the Baby Boomers and Gen Xers

Wells  49    

retire, the work environment will have already undergone a transformation that would have

entirely neutralized the working paradigm.

Consequently MBA programs across the country, too, are adapting their curricula to suit

the ever-pressing demands of the Digital Age. Programs are becoming increasingly interactive.

For instance, “some schools are looking at new approaches in the classroom, such as the use of a

talk-show format that allows for different point of view and more interaction than a straight

lecture…and some schools are even introducing games to engage millennials” (Alsop 1).

Notably, these educational methodologies have been developed to pander to the virtual cultural

landscape of the American Millennial.

Another growing concern is that “education that will become increasingly problematic is

[because] the pace which current and future students can assimilate technology has exceeded the

ability of teachers to consistently maintain a reasonable amount of integrated methodology and

technology…Currently, the use of technology in education ranges from no use to totally

technology-based approaches” (Alch 2). Therefore, businesses tend to gravitate towards those

graduates that have a commensurate knowledge of technology and MBA programs are adapting

accordingly. The conflict, however, lies in the methodology used for instruction as schools are

forced to adapt to the rapid advancements of technology. In other words, as institutions are

expanding to virtual classrooms to accommodate—or perhaps seduce—the Millennial student

population, it is quite plausible that this technologically savvy cohort will rewrite the rules for

admissions based on what they can bring to the program.

Additionally, however, the potential hazards of Millennials’ perceived superhuman

stamina. Millennials express little or no concern for separating a personal and professional life;

it is part of their culture to equate multitasking with work-life balance. Generation Me author,

Wells  50    

Jean M. Twenge, Ph.D., theorizes that there should be a definitive separation between one’s

personal and professional life. However, because Millennials are perpetually connected,

interactive, such lines are blurred. Professionally, “this is great… [Millennials] can cram work

into early mornings or late evenings, type at home while a baby bats toys in a bouncy chair, and

have cell phone meetings while driving around town. This, however, is far from ‘work-life

balance’—it is more like work-life collision,” (Twenge 236) and the Millennials’ culture is

slowly adopting this lifestyle as convention.

After all, having their smart-phone with them at all times is standard in their cultural

environment. They have learned to adapt to handling disparate circumstances simply by

navigating from one website to another via their PDAs. By assigning distinctive tones and rings

to personal and professional clients, sound effects have come to determine which hat they will be

required to wear. For the Millennials, whose future is riding on landing a large contract, he or

she is not opposed to an interruption at mealtime with family and friends; thus, they feel entitled

to forgo traditional manners—undermining civility—in favor of satisfying the immediate

attention of a business matter.

Finally, in a 2007 expository article in the Journal of Property Management, author

Karen L. Wagner touches upon some key points that have contributed to multigenerational work

ethics. Her description of a Baby Boomer employee is one of extreme diligence who “may have

experienced the prosperity of the 1950s, but also remember civil rights struggles and

assassinations of the 1960s”; whilst the following generation—Generation X—she posits is

“more pragmatic” (Wagner 2). Products of latchkey homes—prior to the Internet having grown

up in the ‘80s—these groups of individuals “saw their parents lose their jobs after years of

loyalty to one company” (2) and, therefore, are more inclined to cynicism and quid pro quos.

Wells  51    

However, she offers an explanation for Millennials’ propensities for being over-achievers prone

to multi-tasking. She describes them as being “the most organized generation—[having to grow]

with play dates, soccer practices and violin lessons” (2). Furthermore, Wagner’s article’s

significance to the study of the Millennial ethos is helpful in illustrating an element of cultural

lag and the cultural-conflict paradigm. She states that, “While everyone bring[s] something to

the team…varying value systems can create conflict at work” (2).

Twenge is not outlining the technical disparities, but instead external forces that drive

each generation’s respective ethics. Each one retains a unique environmental influence that

would come to define the ethos of a generation. For the Baby Boomer, the spirit of their culture

is optimistic, while Generation X is the opposite; but for the Millennial, one can intimate

Wagner’s position is that the spirit of their culture is confidence. However, this ascription is

premature and Wagner’s article does not broach the idea that an insufficient amount of time has

passed to make an accurate assertion.

Nonetheless, the cultural universal explored in the article is the work place and the

cultural-conflict is disparate ethics generated by cultural lag. In terms of social evolution, here

we see an example of cause and effect. The Baby Boomer’s exposure to civil unrest would

undeniably have an effect on how they raised their children—cultural transmission. Imprinted

with images of violence of the late ‘60s and early ‘70s, their parenting skills would have

included less, if any, corporal punishment.

2.6 Parental Influence: Redefining Values

Baby Boomers that grew up in the 1950s recall a stringent set of rules being laid out

before them. However, as this generation became parents, there was a new philosophy that

stressed the importance of being equal. ‘Because I said so’ became an antiquated idiom and

Wells  52    

Baby Boomers adapted a more intellectual approach to their parenting. Also, Baby Boomers

became more involved—for better or worse—in their children’s lives. So much so, that the

popular term “helicopter parenting” (Baker 1) was coined in the 1970s. Envision parents that

remain poised above their children in order to maintain an up-close, birds eye view of their

activity. This offers little room for their children to explore their surroundings because parents

were always in the constant radius of that looming helicopter. This would become the hallmark

of the 80s parent (Twenge 79).

Within the past decade, the term helicopter parent has evolved into “lawnmower parent”

(Baker 2) or those that are no longer satisfied with just keeping a watchful eye on their children.

By definition, these lawnmower parents attempt to cut-down any and all obstacles in their child’s

way: bad grades, bullies, or even unwavering employers. Therefore, one can deduce that the

Millennials’ ambitious natures are the reflective byproducts of overzealous parenting, which

contributes enormously to the fabric of the American Millennials’ ethos (2). After all, imprinting

is a facet of cultural transmission and this phenomena it is a pejorative reflection for “21% of

American parents” (2).

Furthermore, overprotective parenting’s cultural reverberations among the Millennial

ethos are staggering. Consider that Baby Boomer and Gen X children—now parents—were

accustomed to having the freedom to play outdoors. However, that carefree lifestyle was a way

of life that has not been passed down to their Millennial children. Fear for their children’s safety

has caused parents to keep their children indoors. In Grown Up Digital, Dan Tapscott posits that

some contributors to this fear was that, “In the early 1980s, when the first [Millennials] were

preschoolers, [a] fear was magnified by the profusion of new TV programming that played to

[parental] fears about child abduction, sexual predators, and tampering with Tylenol and

Wells  53    

Halloween candy” (222). Consequently, these hysterias—legitimate or not—prompted parents

to seek alternative ways for their children to entertain themselves. The result yielded parents

purchasing computers and gaming devices that would become a staple in the home, thus

Millennials became more adept at current technologies than their generational predecessors.

The backlash left parents from the Baby Boomer generation relatively ignorant on how to

initiate control over using high-tech devices that they themselves were unfamiliar. “On the

Internet the [Millennial] was king. He didn’t have to take lessons from anyone. In fact he could

teach his parents…It was the same story in lots of homes, where the kids were the acknowledged

experts on all the [high-tech] gadgets flooding into the market—the MP3 players, the laptops, the

mobile phone, the remote control, and all those Web 2.0 tools” (223). With this, dynamics in

the home— or conventional structural-functional paradigms—began to experience a shift from

parent-child cultural transmission to the child-parent cultural transmission phenomena.

Additionally, parents who are Baby Boomers would have the financial resources to

provide their children with the microelectronics that are reshaping American culture. These

pricey devices are being bought by helicopter parents with the hopes of keeping a watchful eye

on their children. For instance:

“Parents generally say they buy their child a phone for safety reasons, because

they want to be able to reach the child anytime…but for children, it is all about

social life and wanting to impress peers…[but] Ruth Peters, a child psychologist

in Clearwater, Fla., said most children were not ready for their own phones until

age 11 to 14, when they were in middle school. Often, that is when they begin

traveling alone to and from school, or to after-school activities, and would be

most susceptible to harassment. (Olsen 1)

Wells  54    

One can see that Olsen’s position illustrates a dichotomy that has invisible consequences on

cultural neutralization—by contributing to microelectronics ubiquity—and creating a need for

devices that were usually reserved for the want category. Consequently parents are enabling a

dependency on these devices that are generating feelings of entitlement among Millennials.

But, moreover, we see a genesis where family values are being redefined. Familial

hierarchy is being turned upside down as parents find themselves seeking technological advice

from their children, creating a new dynamic in the parent-child infrastructure and this is

becoming increasingly popular in Western culture.

Sociologists have determined that older Eastern societies practice tradition-directedness

as a means for preserving cultural integrity. In terms of cultural transmission, tradition-

directedness adheres to a strict set of values and customs that have been passed down from

generation to generation. Moreover, “members of such societies model their lives on those of

their ancestors so that what is considered ‘good’ is equivalent to ‘what has always been’”

(Macionis 425).

For instance, in Asia, “children are not seen as people who have their own views or who

have any right to express them. For better or worse, they are left out of family conversations and

decisions about their lives” (Kim 80); thus, illustrating a clichéd philosophy that ‘children should

be seen and not heard’. What is more, America’s tradition-directedness, Asian neighbors believe

that American Millennials are suffering from “cultural imperialism” (xiv). In other words, as

cultural neutralization takes hold of the American ethos, it is only a matter of time before

globalization will bring the phenomenon to other countries—infiltrating their customs, traditions,

and sensibilities—and lending credibility to the idea of neutralization.

Wells  55    

Antithetical to Eastern tradition-directedness practices, American Millennials have been

encouraged to include their input in adult conversations, giving them at an early age, that sense

of equality that has already shaped their culture. Once again, this causality can be traced back to

the new structural-functional paradigm of child to parent cultural transmission, facilitated by

high-technology knowhow, and thus further compounding an air of entitlement.

A 2001 Time/ CNN poll has shown that over time, the shift in the parenting paradigm has

not gone unnoticed. . “[The] poll found that 80% of people thought kids were more spoiled than

they were in the ‘80s and ‘90s. In the same poll, two-thirds of parents described their own kids

as spoiled” (Twenge 77). However, Twenge attributes these feelings to the parents’ limitless

spending habits on their children. But it is more likely that the new parenting paradigm—sparked

by a financial crisis that keeps parents at work instead of at home—is the more likely culprit. In

any case, American Millennials have “abandoned vertical principles, traditions, hierarchies, and

obligations” (Kim 28) and are viewed by the global community as spoiled, entitled children.

Therefore, one can surmise that entitlement—as part of the Millennials’ aggregate

sensibilities—is a byproduct of Baby Boomers’ lawnmower parenting and thus is an instrumental

construct of the Millennials’ over-achieving ideologies. “[And} it’s no wonder they feel that

way. From when they were toddlers, they have been…driven off to some form of organized

group activity…from ‘Gymboree’ and ‘Mommy and Me,’ [then] shuttled to play dates and

soccer practice, with barely a day off, by parents who’ve felt their kids needed structure, and a

sense of mission…this is [a] generation that has long aimed to please” (Leung 3). The result is

that American Millennials have begun to integrate these aggregate sensibilities and values into

their culture.

Wells  56    

2.7 Millennials’ Entitlement: Cultural Integration

Ethnocentrism is a term usually applied to nationalists or ethnic groups. Sociologically,

the term is not exclusive. It is defined as, “the practice of judging another culture by the

standards of one’s own culture” (Macionis 48). One might think that because Americans share a

cultural universal, Constitutional freedom, that ethnocentrism would be implausible. This is not

the case. Remember, culture is composed of many subcultures or groups of individuals that have

a distinctive heritage that is celebrated independently of a cultural universal. Heritage implies

the location of genealogical origin for one’s family.

Cultural studies indicate, “ [cultural] identity does not always take the form of national

identity” (Poole 271). Instead, national identity is a phenomenon that is celebrated by people in

their place of origin, who share a sense of loyalty to their heritage, which defines who they are.

Furthermore, “the resources which are necessary to understand national identity are those

provided by the language, history, music and other cultural traditions which form the national

narrative” (275) and passed on through cultural transmission and integration. Conversely,

“cultural identity…may be made for purely self-interested reasons” (277). However, for

American Millennials, cultural and national identities are becoming increasingly intertwined as

their respective elements are neutralized by a synthetic set of values unique to a cyber-driven

ethos.

Traditions, on the other hand, represent the phenomena that color one’s heritage. Take,

for instance, respectable groups that congregate in order to celebrate their heritage, such as the

Polish American Club, Italian American Club, Latin American Club—to name just a few—

which meet in a mission to recall and explore their cultural roots. What is important to note, is

that these cultural organizations do not exemplify ethnocentrism; instead they are meant to

Wells  57    

preserve their unique heritages. Nonetheless, the significance here is that there is a definitive

heritage to celebrate.

The Millennial culture is without heritage. Sure there is individual ancestry, but

immigrants of the Greatest Generation—born between 1910 and 1920—are, sadly, dying. So,

too, are their collective memories, anecdotes, and myths conventionally shared through cultural

transmission. As we have seen earlier in Bauerlein’s statistics, the decline of arts education in

the American Millennials’ schools is contributing to this as well. As a result of technological

globalization, American Millennials perceive the world as one conglomerate culture.

In the Yin and Yang of American Culture, president of CEO International, Dr. Eun Y.

Kim, has dedicated a chapter to American youth and their arrogance. She attributes this to

ethnocentrism, positing that “…although American [youths] do a lot of things right, they are

criticized for being too judgmental about the values and practice of other countries…some

countries may not have accomplished as much as America has technologically, but they may

have long cultural heritages they are proud of” (Kim 200). Her comparing and contrasting of

Eastern and Western culture is telling. There can be little denying the disparate sensibilities of

the two, but to read her perception is to understand how the Asian culture views American

Millennials.

Remembering that the Millennials’ ethos is one of superficial confidence, she writes that

“Asians do not trust overconfident people” (187) nor those who indulge in hyperbole, narcissism,

and entitlement. Moreover, to read Kim’s findings one can easily deduce that these feelings

have been with our Asian neighbors for a while; however, they are becoming increasingly

intensified as the Millennial generation exhibit “little integrity, next to no shame, and no values”

Wells  58    

(xiv). With all of this, one can link ethnocentrism with entitlement that has been fueled by

increasing narcissism, but how?

Consider the impact of the American Millennials’ other-directedness mentality that is the

polar opposite of the Eastern—and prewar American paradigm—of tradition-directedness. For

example, Millennials are no longer influenced by traditional customs of their ancestors and

heritage, but instead are inspired by the superficial world of celebrity, gossip, and fashion, which

aggrandizes narcissism. These inspirations disconnect Millennials from their elders—whom

they perceive as old-fashioned—and they rely on their vast, myopic network of exchanged

emails, texts, and social profiles to synthesize their culture.

Before World War II—and as recent as the 1950s—Americans have followed a tradition-

directedness paradigm which adhered to a “rigid conformity to time-honored ways of living,”

(Macionis 425) but this construct was and is contingent upon cultural transmission that is rooted

in heritage. But, because the Millennial culture is without heritage, they are members of a

society that subscribe to the other-directedness paradigm in which there is “receptiveness to the

latest trends and fashions, often evident in the practice of imitating others” (425).

Compounding this, websites such as YouTube act as excellent cultural transmitters for

propagating a popular culture that will set trends and fashion standards based on popular opinion.

The Millennial “…’world’ is the larger collective of people who the user does not know

personally but with whom he or she is in contact through the network…When today’s youth

broadcast their opinions on…YouTube, they also influence the world around them” (Tapscott,

Grown Up Digital 200). Moreover, blatant, in your face, vainglorious commercialism provides a

tremendous influence on the narcissistic ethos of Millennials.

Wells  59    

In his essay, “But First a Word from Our Sponsor”: Advertising and the Carnivalization

of Culture, James B. Twitchell—an Alumni Professor of English at the University of Florida—

concurs. He suggests that narcissism is culturally transmitted through the excessive use of

advertising. He encourages his reader to “look anywhere” (Twitchell 198) and they will find

commercial messages. Furthermore, he posits that American youth culture is paying a price

because they are rapidly becoming “encultured” (sic) (199) by too many choices when in reality

there is only the “illusion of choice” (200). Twitchell also writes that, Millennials are given the

choice of spending time or money, and in the end are more likely to do the former by excessive

surfing of the Internet. In doing so, inordinate amounts of time are wasted that could be used on

honing personal enrichment or educating themselves to the risks of excessive and false

advertising. Furthermore, Dr. Eun Y. Kim adds that having too many choices has caused

American Millennials to lose sight of the importance of time management skills. Consumerism

is ‘time consuming” (Kim 124) she contends.

Twitchell also berates the advertising industry for perpetuating the “the culture of

narcissism” (201) and has pointed out that superficial glamour is attractive to Millennials

because they could not possibly have any idea what they are looking for. “The people who want

things the most and have the best prospects to get them are the young. They are also the ones

who have not decided which brands of objects they wish to consume” (201); they are simply too

inexperienced with life to know how to make accurate conclusions as to what products their lives

can do with or without.

Social networking sites are bombarded with ads that are facilitating the narcissistic

culture of the American Millennial ethos. This is done by cloaking advertisements that cater to

personalizing one’s profile by soliciting subscriptions to streaming music engines such as

Wells  60    

Pandora or XM radio, both of which promise to deliver ‘your’ favorite music. In doing so,

twenty-first century advertising has reached optimal marketing influence by offering

personalized goods via interactive mediums, with their biggest audience being Millennials.

Moreover, Jean M. Twenge, Ph.D., offers that “advertisements are not mere entertainment—they

are part of a system that transmits cultural values to individuals” (Twenge 185).

This is significant to the neutralization of the Millennials’ ethos because it illustrates

cultural transmission. For instance, “check out any TV ad for Nike or Pepsi and you’ll see that

McWorld has tremendous vitality; it appears energetic and upbeat. The problem is that since this

vitality celebrates nothing substantive beyond buying and owning things...” (Berman 3). In other

words, the Millennials’ culture has become enchanted by materialism that is encouraged and

glorified by entertainment and commercial influence. Twenge supports this by pointing out that

the entertainment industry has ignited an unprecedented narcissism in American Millennials

which, for all intents and purposes, may best be used to describe the Millennials’ ethos as truly

narcissistic and entitled, and she punctuates this by quoting McDonald’s ubiquitous slogan, “you

deserve a break today” which clearly puts the emphasis on the individual.

The hypotheses of sociologist John J. Macionis, concerning other-directedness—a

method of socialization—does much to complement Twenge’s position on Millennial

entitlement. Macionis’ predictions for future society are colored by inescapable facts of

overpopulation, excessive urbanization, and the depletion of natural resources. What is more,

remains the fact that Millennials’ are fearful of becoming invisible. As the global population

expands exponentially, the possibility of losing one’s identity becomes greater.

Websites such as Facebook and MySpace were engineered as social networking tools,

meant to bring people closer together, but it is redefining socialization for the American

Wells  61    

Millennial. According to the Pew Research Center, “more than half of Gen Nexters (54%) have

used one or more social networking sites, and 44% have created a profile” (“Portrait of

Generation Next” 4). Thus, through Facebook and MySpace, Millennials are exhibiting a

conscious awareness that they must preserve their individuality.

Social networking sites like Facebook, MySpace and MyYearbook allow individuals to

post a personal profile complete with photos and descriptions of interests and hobbies” (“A

Portrait of Generation Next” 2). However, one need only review the formats for creating

individual character profiles on social networking sites to realize they lend themselves to an

inordinate amount of narcissism and self-aggrandizement. Social networking through the use of

such websites as Facebook has become the preeminent means of socialization for the Millennial.

So much so, that one journal has christened them the “’look at me’ generation” (2).

Additionally, fieldwork has allowed this author to immerse himself into the social

networking phenomena. The most notable discovery made was, sadly, that very few of the

substantial exchanges of threaded discussions consisted of current events, political debates, or

intellectual discourse. Instead they were remarkably egocentric and trite. Furthermore, Twenge

writes that “the name ‘Facebook’ is just right, with its nuance of seeing and being seen,

preferably looking as attractive as possible” (107). And, advertisers have exploited this to their

advantage. For example, “the new, new thing in Silicon Valley is the ‘Bring-your-own-content’

business model, in which sites that provide users with nothing more than the platform to express

themselves, network, and link with one another, are worth millions or billions of dollars” (Keen

136), therefore capitalizing on a narcissism that accentuates the American Millennials’ ethos.

What is more is that advocates for cultural neutralization—like Dan Tapscott—have

recognized that social networking sites are to be carefully considered and reviewed. His book

Wells  62    

Grown Up Digital postulates that Millennials are too careless with sharing information and that

they do not realize that the net has a “long term memory” (Tapscott, Grown Up Digital 66). He

cites that individuals will often post private matters or voice opinions that are off-color and can

potentially harm one’s reputation; forgetting that these sites are open for a very public

consumption. Moreover, Tapscott writes that social networking sites are a breeding ground for

sexual perversion and predators. Twenge corroborates this position, but writes that “doesn’t stop

teens from displaying their bodies to their peer group to gain attention” (109).

There is a potential hazard to these sites, which include the excessive amount of detailed

personal information that is posted. Nonetheless, 75 percent of the Millennial population

believes there is nothing wrong with this and that these sites are the most conducive way of

meeting their life-partner. Once again, this phenomenon challenges tradition-directedness

socialization and age-old conventions of romantic courtship. For better or worse, it remains

indicative of the Millennials evolving patterns for socialization.

Millennials are unaware of their entitlement epidemic. This transparency is in part to a

lack of commitment to one substantial cause. It is in the nature of Millennials to multitask, and

they often “confuse working hard with actually producing something good” (Twenge 233).

Consequently, when their work is not rewarded or goes without praise, they can become

particularly argumentative. When approached about this position, one Millennial had this to

offer:

“The argument is biased, underresearched [sic] and narrow minded and, from my

personal experience, completely inaccurate. It is belittling…to my entire

generation…[Baby Boomers] suggest that [they’ve] created a monster, but I

disagree. We work unpaid internships doing the most thankless jobs in the name

Wells  63    

of experience while simultaneously juggling part-time jobs and full-time class

schedules. This is the same group of people described as wanting to ‘roll into

work with their iPods and flip-flops around noon.’ We are especially conscious,

hard working, intelligent and resourceful. We certainly do not want to have our

hands held, so please…do not underestimate us.” (Lemmonier 1)

The defensive tone of this particular Millennial individual reflects the general air of their ethos:

confident, confrontational, entitled, and irreverent. Technological proficiency appears to be the

driving force behind these feelings. However, circumstantial evidence has shown that parental

influence—or their childhood environment—is most likely the probable, single-most influence

for this individual’s feelings of entitlement (Tapscott, Grown Up Digital 227; Twenge 85).

Remembering lawnmower parenting, it is easy to deduce that children subjected to the

aggressive nature of that practice, will ultimately subscribe to it as well.

For example, Millennials have been greatly influenced by lawnmower parents that have

secured a grade for their child that was not earned, or otherwise challenged authority that offered

criticism. As early as elementary school their generation was bombarded with imaginary awards

applauding excellence for something as banal as excellent attendance. The message being sent is

that attendance should be rewarded as opposed to being required. Perfect attendance should

reward itself, not parlay the subliminal message that absence is acceptable; rewards should be

valid, as well as demerits. One should ask themselves what weight a perfect attendance

certificate truly carries. Nonetheless, Twenge writes that children should “learn from failure”,

and that parents and educators should not award “trophies to everyone [and anyone] who

participates” (Twenge 296). False merits have contributed to the entitlement epidemic and it has

created a generation of type A personalities. “This is the trap of entitlement [for the Millennial]:

Wells  64    

it can be great to think that you are number one, but it is not so great living with or working with

others who also think they are number one” (230).

Millennial entitlement, too, is paired with incivility. Yet another backlash of

multitasking—which can distract the Millennial from better judgment—that leaves little room

for acknowledging the concerns of another. Take for instance, cyber-theft, or the unlawful

acquisition of copyrighted material. Advertising Age writes of the cavalier disregard for

copyright laws concerning music and film, downloading music and movies free of charge

through complicated websites that require sharing files such as Napster, LimeWire, and E-

mule—and that Millennials believe they are entitled in doing so; postulating it is “unrealistic to

expect people not to do it” (Van Horn 1). When surveyed about pirating copyrighted material

from the Internet, “75% of teens agree[d] that ‘downloading and file sharing [was] easy to do,

it’s unrealistic to expect people not to do it.’ And 55% say they ‘do not care much whether what

they download is copyrighted or not’” (3).

It is easy for Millennials to be uncivil because cyberspace is vast and anonymous.

“Incivility has become shamelessly common, nowhere more than on the Internet,” and this is

witnessed in cyber-bullying (Twenge 202). An abhorrent practice utilized, mostly by teenagers,

to ridicule their peers. Unlike schoolyard bullying, this type of incivility has the potential to do

greater harm, as it is broadcasted—without regulation—to a host of recipients. “Although most

cyber-bullying incidents involve relatively minor insults, a 2006 study found that 12% of

adolescents were physically threatened, and 5% feared for their safety” (202). But can high

technology and the ubiquitous usage of microelectronics really be considered a strong

contributor to American Millennials’ feelings of entitlement? The answer is yes.

Wells  65    

Both the Gen Next Survey and The 21st Century Project make a substantial case in

illustrating Millennials’ feelings of entitlement due to their adeptness with high technology.

Consequently, the Gen Next Survey gives the implication that those of preceding generations are

sometimes left with feelings of inadequacy and thus, refer to the Millennials’ cohort for technical

support; which is an impetus for the Millennials’ superiority complex. Even Tapscott admits,

“they…[do] not want to…follow the rules of…hierarchy” (Tapscott, Grown Up Digital 300).

Furthermore, both studies postulate that this is a direct result of the cultural integration of the

Digital Age, and The 21st Century Project offers an example of the stark contrast between

lifestyle choices of Millennials in connection with technology.

It posits that Millennials “share everything online… [and that] Boomers are concerned

with privacy” (Chapman). The same report goes further to reveal that Millennials feel that

Boomers are “Technologically clueless…let work rule their lives… [and] don’t get [that] the

world has changed” (Chapman). An overview that has prompted the defensive retorts of the

Boomers that postulate that Millennials “…have to grow up…don’t understand work…expect

success too soon… [and are] self-absorbed, pampered narcissists” (Chapman).

Articles in peer-reviewed journals such as Advertising Age and the Phi Delta Kappan—

concerning contemporary workplace trends—suggest that this position is not without merit. For

example, the Phi Delta Kappan published an excerpt of an interview with a Millennial that

admonishes Boomers for “[making us] work unpaid internships doing the most thankless jobs in

the name of experience while simultaneously juggling part-time jobs and full-time

schedules…were you [Boomers] not the people raising us?” (Lemonnier 1). Most notable in this

individual's sentiment is the victimization in which she feels; victimization of course being one

of the hallmarks of entitled individuals.

Wells  66    

Finally, entitlement—as a fledgling cultural concept—is being transmitted through the

Millennials’ language. Macionis defines language as “a system of symbols that allows people to

communicate with one another” (Macionis 55). Millennial language is omnipresent in their

popular culture, and high-tech devices only expedite its dissemination en masse.

Consider Michael Kammen’s position. He is the Newton C. Farr Professor of American

History and Culture at Cornell University. His book, American Culture: Social Change and the

20th Century, examines the popular culture phenomenon and traces its evolution as far back as

the mid nineteenth century. He speaks of popular culture being a subset of mass culture and

explains the two as relatively interchangeable. Popular culture is disseminated because of mass

culture’s ubiquity. For example, music is popular culture that is transmitted through radio.

Kammen writes that “popular culture [is] participatory and interactive.” (Kammen 76) and,

therefore, one can readily deduce that this is the perfect fit for the connected Millennials.

In the past—as few as ten years ago—American’s often relied on mass cultural mediums

such as radio and television to propagate popular culture but now, obviously, it is the computer

and microelectronics that is serving as the conduit. Congruent to this phenomenon comes a new

language. Buzzwords such as click, text, IM (instant messaging) and even Google are just a few

examples. The latter—introduced only a few short years ago—has even come to be used as both

a noun and a verb. Acronyms such as LOL (laugh out loud) or BTW (by the way) or OMG (oh

my God), are shortcuts used to punctuate text messages. The message’s receiver is taking longer

trying to decode what it means than it would have taken for the receiver just too formally spell it

out. This is indicative of Millennials, however, who are too busy being connected or social

networking to focus on formal language and, therefore, is synthesizing one of their own. It is

Wells  67    

through this synthesis that entitled incivility will become culturally integrated and deemed

acceptable within the Millennials’ culture.

In the absence of tradition-directedness paradigms, where manners and etiquette are

handed down from generation to generation, there is ample opportunity for new paradigms to

flourish. The combination of other-directedness behavior, ethnocentrism, and a commercially

fueled narcissism provides the perfect recipe for a self-centered, entitled culture. This is already

being reflected in social networking websites, and as their novelty evolves into necessity—as

dictated by a Digital Age—entitlement may very well be seen as virtuous as it slowly replaces

humility as part of the human condition; after all, its cultural integration is already well under

way.

Wells  68    

Chapter 3

Recommendations: Using the Humanities to Prevent the Neutralization of the American

Millennials’ Ethos

Social changes are inevitable in the wake of technological progress. As this research has

illustrated, history has demonstrated paradigmatic shifts since the dawn of humanity. However,

social changes are often indicative of one’s environmental factors and in the United States’

industrial society, changes will logically be expedited. Historically, however, social changes

have experienced the luxury of being culturally integrated over decades as technology was

culturally and collectively assimilated.

Therefore, cultural awareness and acceptance of new technologies shared a common

absorption among people of all ages. One generation was not as excluded from technological

assimilation as is apparent in this new millennium. What is more is that higher learning, too, was

better equipped to assist with culturally transmitting social changes influenced by technology.

Obviously, no one could predict the remarkable impact technology would have on social

change since the latter part of the twentieth-century. It has left generations scrambling to find a

common platform in which to communicate. Since components of culture such as symbols,

language, and values are instrumental in facilitating cultural transmission from one generation to

the next, that common platform becomes even more imperative. Conventional transmissions for

these components are primarily executed through parenting and schooling. Moreover, it is

within these institutions that preventative measures against cultural neutralization can be applied

and encouraged.

However, this research posits that the high technology world of the American Millennial

has strayed from conventional institutions. Furthermore, their social changes have no precedent

Wells  69    

since high technology has changed; even in the course of their lifetime. This has left them to

synthesize their own language, symbols, and values, but this is not their fault. The fault lies with

the conventional institutions that have allowed virtual culture to mandate its own social rules.

What this research finds troubling is that there is a lack of awareness from American

Millennials concerning their cultural neutralization. Some may postulate that this awareness

should start in the home, with the parents. However, the dynamics in the home have been turned

upside down in the face of high technology. Latchkey Millennials no longer have the luxury to

spend quality time with parents forced to work long hours in a struggling economy. So how can

there be a promise of cultural diversity among American Millennials?

This researcher recommends that a stronger emphasis on the humanities in education be

used to prevent a cultural neutralization. Moreover, this author contends that as American

Millennials are ready to embark on their higher education, university mandates of

interdisciplinary studies should find their priority in undergraduate, first year requirements, not

just as electives. Furthermore, since studies have shown that liberal arts education has waned in

the face of standardized testing in high schools, too, the Department of Education should

reexamine the proverbial monster that they have created.

In the article “A Manifesto for the Humanities in a Technological Age”, authors Cathy

Davidson, a Duke University English Professor, and David Goldberg, Director of Humanities

Research at the University of California, posits that:

“Few observers of higher education would deny that support for the humanities is

declining in an environment in which universities are increasingly ordered

according to the material interests, conditions, and designs of the sciences,

technology, and the professions…More than ever, we require the deep historical

Wells  70    

perspective and specialized knowledge of other cultures, regions, religions, and

traditions provided by the humanities. And precisely because of the rapid

developments in science and technology, we must think carefully about the nature

of the human, the ethics of scientific investigation, and the global effects of

technological change” (Davidson 2).

Also, consider that these authors collaborated and compared ideologies from a bi-coastal

perspective to emphasize the importance of the humanities being required course material at

universities across the United States to better understand the humanities significance.

Humanities courses are designed to remind us that the human experience is subjective

and encourages one to explore existential questions with an open mind, compassion, and

consideration of cultural diversity. Furthermore, the interdisciplinary studies offer a

counterbalance to the analytical and formulaic forensics that virtual culture has established with

such definitive finality.

This author offers no argument that science’s contribution to improving humankinds’

quality and length of life is awesome, but it is essential to recognize that it is the mystery of life

that compels science to seek omniscience over the universe. Without the humanities, science

operates in a vacuum because it is the imaginative pursuit of human existentialism that prompts

scientific explanation. Schools of business, medicine, science, and engineering rely on facts and

figures, but the humanities inspire the creativity to explore them.

More than that, however, humanities courses provide a foundation for understanding the

importance of culture while simultaneously fostering individuality by encouraging independent

thinking. Virtual culture and a Wiki world are antithetical to this. Computer technology in the

classroom is useful, but computers should not substitute for one’s acuity. They are an instrument

Wells  71    

to record and relay human thoughts and ideas while simplifying physical labor. They are

incapable of replicating the human experience that is transmitted by actual cultural traditions.

One should remember that software cannot, and should not, be used to substitute for actuality,

but in the American Millennials’ world this is quickly becoming the case. Culture is a living

abstract that identifies community. It is experienced through actual travel or through cultural

transmissions of traditions explored in the humanities.

Of course a tumultuous, twenty-first century global political environment is making it

increasingly difficult to travel abroad. Since 9/11, mass hysteria has led to increased efforts to

minimize international travel, and everyone—not just Millennials—is paying the price. There is

a sad beauty in the virtual travel experience that has been synthesized to accommodate this

paranoia, but for Millennials who are growing up in this way of life, the importance for the

humanities becomes even greater. Consider viewing the world through virtual glasses and how

the potential for cultural distortion and misrepresentation becomes a reality for them. Now

consider that their entire cohort is exploiting this phenomenon and their perception of culture

becomes increasingly myopic.

Using the humanities to prevent the neutralization of the American Millennials’ ethos

provides a viable solution to this growing, transparent phenomenon. In order to do so, it is

important to revisit the key concepts that drive their socialization. Their cultural universals have

led to their new structural-functional paradigm that has redefined their values. They are using

technology—not interpersonal communication—to facilitate their cultural transmission and this

has created cultural-conflicts that have left Millennials being perceived as entitled individuals.

So how can the humanities help?

Wells  72    

Since the cultural universals’ of American Millennials include being perpetually

connected to their high-tech devices, it should be first and foremost taught that technology does

not replace humanity. This seems trite in its philosophy, but remember that Millennials are

lacking in their interpersonal communication skills. By mandating humanities courses in

schools—as early as grade school—young people will learn the importance of interpersonal

communication. After all, humanities courses teach students the value of cultural transmission

through arts and literature. Moreover, by studying the world’s less industrialized cultures, they

will be able to better understand where they fit into the global landscape.

Sadly, the self-centered cultural universals of American Millennials come as a result of

not realizing that the global ideology is not wholly based on commercial successes. This may be

true in industrialized nations, however, with a majority of the planet’s populous living in agrarian

conditions, it would offer a sense of humility to realize the fortunate position American

Millennials maintain in the global community. This author recommends that the humanities are

a strong tool that can be used to foster such humility and could do much to assuage the need to

be self-indulgent.

Remember that Neil Howe had posited that Millennials are creating a new place in

history, but in order for Millennials to know that significance they must be educated in the

history of the world. The humanities can provide strong examples to compare and contrast

disparate ideologies. Furthermore, Howe has called the Millennials optimistic, but has forgotten

that they rail against conventional institutions. Institutions that have been instrumental in

facilitating cultural transmissions that assists in diverse cultural integrations. All of which are

the very crux of a humanities education.

Wells  73    

This study has shown that American Millennials—for better or worse—have separated

themselves from conventions such as marriage, military, and religious affiliation; institutions

fundamental to cultural transmission. Therefore, in their absence, in order to maintain some

semblance of cultural diversity, there has to remain in schools a curriculum that is designed to

illustrate the importance of these institutions if there is to be a solution for diverting a cultural

neutralization.

Another facet of their cultural universal is their rebellious nature. However, without

understanding why they are rebellious, Millennials run the risk of becoming vapid rebels without

a cause. The humanities teach lessons in art and literature that address the human condition

throughout history. Particularly Western literature that has described—poetically, dramatically,

and narratively—the very existence of rebellion within great civilizations of yesteryear; each

demonstrative of a movement that propelled humankind either forward or backward.

Nonetheless, history—taught through the humanities—brings a human element to

understanding why people do what they do. This human element, too, will do much to buffer the

hazards of the Millennials’ cyber-conformity, which is the underbelly of their cultural universal.

Very simply, the humanities and its components of art and literature remind individuals of what

it means to be human and how that contributes to societies structural-functional paradigms.

For American Millennials, their structural-functional paradigms are rooted in their

politics that have been colored by their cultural universals. Again, a humanities education will

do much to illustrate the significance of their political ideologies, primarily through comparison

with previous generations.

Since the political structural-functional paradigm for Millennials leans towards the left

there has been—for better or worse—a lessening of cultural-conflicts. This does much to

Wells  74    

suggest that a cultural neutralization is well underway. Nonetheless, this research has shown that

technological influences via the Internet have been mostly responsible for influencing political

ideologies. The danger in this, however, is the idea that Millennials are not taking into account

their neighbors’ sensibilities that are often conducive to geography, religion, and values, most of

which are unique to communities over the continental landscape. This also ties in with the

theory that American Millennial culture is entitled, particularly if entitlement is analogous to

their ethnocentrism. Remember that American Millennials are subjected to the other-

directedness paradigm that has been generated by technology. This is a paradigm that dictates

their culture is defined by trends and fashion, not tradition and family.

This researcher believes that other-directedness can be advantageous if properly

manipulated to compliment the Digital Age mentality. Educators have come to understand that

computer generated programs are pivotal in assisting them in teaching difficult subjects such as

the math and sciences. And authors Davidson and Goldberg agree that twenty-first century

humanities classes “are a many splendored thing” (Davidson 3). Now educators should take this

to a new level.

Use technology in the humanities to convey the ills of incivility. This researcher suggests

generating a course that examines the decline of civility. Since YouTube postings have become

a ubiquitous cultural transmitter, use them in the classroom as instruments of change. For

instance, imagine a syllabus that required students to visually document—through social

media—incivilities in action. This is not unlike a parent that makes their child chew with their

mouth open in front of mirror to punctuate how disgusting it can be. Recent global events have

witnessed this already being done as civilians record law enforcement injustices and with

remarkable results. Nonetheless, imagine the visceral impact—emotionally and physically—

Wells  75    

personal observation has on one’s memories and consider the influence it can have over an

individual. And forget about public service announcements. This author believes there can be no

substitution for actual participation.

Lastly, make the humanities interactive and reconnect them with social studies. In

addition to using social media to address incivility, bring other cultures into the classroom. Set

aside a substantial amount of semester work for engaging in cultural exchanges via Skype and

other face-to-face mediums. There is software that will even translate language in real-time.

This author does not mean to suggest, however, that this should replace learning another

language, it just means to propose that the technologies available—most of them free through the

Internet—need to be utilized as a tool that will generate an understanding for tradition-

directedness cultures. Interactively.

Wells  76    

Chapter 4

Conclusion

Already a decade into the new millennium, it would be futile to ignore that technology is

steadily reshaping the conventional way of life. To discount this phenomenon would be

ridiculous. This study is not a negative indictment of this cultural evolution; instead, it is

intended to explore the fundamental parameters (ambition, immediacy, autonomy, and

entitlement) that will undoubtedly impact the American Millennial ethos. Empirical data is still

being accumulated, and the challenges to cultural studies present themselves because of the

infancy of the topic.

The commandeering issue of globalization has done much to eradicate the tradition-

directedness of many cultures in the United States in favor of a homogenized existence.

Presumably, what is perceived as convention for older generations will be relinquished to

mythopoeic proportion in the mindset of the Millennial; manual execution is rapidly becoming

the metaphoric unicorn for this millennium.

Looming behind this, too, is the American way. Americans have the reputation as being

headstrong, possessing the pioneer spirit and paving the way for other cultures. The Millennials’

instinctive grasp on high technology is a residual part of that spirit. Some see this as arrogance,

and perhaps this perception is not entirely unfounded. Nonetheless, the entrepreneurial essence

of our forefathers has culminated in an overwhelming sense of entitlement that may or may not

have severe consequences for America’s next generation. Like frontiersman of the 19th

century—who tapped natural resources—the American Millennial is tapping the resources of

cyberspace, forced to find unity in keeping abreast of the rapid advancement of a high-tech

universe. It is not the American way to be second best and in the struggle to stay afloat,

Wells  77    

individuality can easily be overlooked. However, in remembering Ralph Waldo Emerson’s

caution against conformity, it would behoove the Millennial to ponder the sage’s advice that “To

envy others is ignorance” and “imitation is suicide”. Sadly, this profound philosophy cannot

apply to the American Millennial trapped in that other-directedness.

This comes as a consequence of being relegated to a cyber-existence. There is little

wonder then, why the Millennial grasps to social networking sites in an attempt to preserve their

individuality. Unfortunately, however, these attempts present themselves as narcissistic ventures

that fall flat in their attempt to introduce themselves to the world. Standard profile templates are

created that encourage self-aggrandizement and are often vacuous at best. Moreover, as this

research and Pew Studies have shown, the popularity of these sites is growing and is quickly

becoming the conventional method of socialization for the American Millennial. Perhaps soon,

in order to tap into American culture, one must subscribe to Facebook.

Remarkably, this is the neutralization of the American Millennial sensibility and it has

even permeated the professional arena. As Millennial technical wunderkinds infiltrate the

workplace as employers themselves, it stands to reason that they will require potential candidates

to be proficient in their communication style. This includes cyber-language and netiquette, which

have dominated the social landscape and redefined communication not just in the States, but

globally. URLs and the World Wide Web are standard in schools. Therefore, knowing how to

navigate them in terms of cyber-commands must be universal, like mathematics. Moreover, this

transparent phenomenon of instilling cyber proficiency is currently gestating in the primary

schooling system, and the Millennial is powerless to change what he or she has never known—

cultural heritage; or perhaps, they are being encouraged to forget. In schools, research projects

are deemed incomplete if the works cited page is not inclusive of some type of online source.

Wells  78    

This research is certainly not exempt from scouring the World Wide Web to make connections

with the hypothesis; however, understanding that research methodologies should include a broad

spectrum of resources is quickly escaping the Millennial education paradigm.

Education is indeed suffering in the United States and is dropping in global rankings,

leaving the American educational system subpar. We have seen that a possible cause of this is

the increasing usage of standardized tests and the diminishing of arts education in the schools.

Moreover, one should ponder how the most powerful nation in the free world could let this

happen. Unfortunately, the Millennial is unaware of this, mainly because of the fact that social

studies have suffered at the hands of FCATs, SATs, and ACTs. Language in school

nomenclature, such as college applications, is generic and places a heavy focus on these scores;

in most cases admittance is contingent upon scoring highly. One might deduce, then, that

cultural neutralization is starting in the schools—a child’s primary influence on their cultural

transmission. Cultural transmission is integral to the preservation of cultural integrity, but as

technology has caused individuals to drift away from interpersonal communication, the chance

for traditional transmission dwindles. Traditional transmissions such as storytelling, colored by

myths and punctuated by history will fall victim to neutralized education—especially if the

social sciences disappear altogether. One should remember that history is the ultimate teacher

for it keeps one from repeating their mistakes.

Cultural transmission for the Millennial is being synthesized to accommodate the Digital

Revolution. They have created a system of symbols and language that have no fundamental

etymology. This is remarkable. Information technology is powered by bytes and data that are

binary and mathematical. For the Millennial, language has become more than a verbal exchange

of ideas, like mathematics, it represents a universal language. Moreover, the rapid advancement

Wells  79    

of technology has created an ethos that requires its citizens to be fluent in this synthesized

language. For the ambitious Millennial, this becomes more than a challenge, it becomes a way

of life. Steadily they are creating their own virtual culture.

The irony in this is that a virtual culture could do much to unify society. However, it

does little to foster individuality, and what will ultimately suffer is a diverse expression of

culture that is traditionally expressed through the arts; literature, music, and drama for instance.

The dramaturgical significance of these mediums has, historically, been essential to the

dissemination of cultural diversity. What is more, virtual culture is synthesized too, and the

creation of images will manipulate ethnic realities. Sure, mediums such as film and television

have taken artistic license with the depictions of foreign cultures, but as it stands, there is enough

cultural awareness to realize their entertainment value. But consider the ubiquity of computer-

generated images in these mediums and their potential to alter one’s perception of history,

especially in the shadow of a society whose social studies education has been diminished.

Virtual maestros hold carte blanche to manipulate popular imagination and sensibilities. Sure

this is nothing new, and literature in particular has been the most successful catalyst for change,

historically. But in the increasingly functionally illiterate world of the American Millennial,

popular culture is becoming the great educator.

We have seen that part of the Millennials’ cultural universals is their need to be

interactive. This will inevitably impact the future of representative government, as we know it.

They are accustomed to interactive polling. Television programs like American Idol, are

contributing to their need for immediacy, therefore, conventional polling practices will fall

victim to this phenomenon. The danger to this, of course, lay in the lack of regulation of the

Internet. The Millennial population holds incredible influence over the mechanics of voting just

Wells  80    

because of their sheer numbers. One need only look at what drives the popularity of a website

which is determined by the amount of hits—or views—a website has generated. In this same

vein, polling will take the same course. Essentially, the Millennial cultural universal is not

considerate of a bigger picture, like government, that will impact their lives significantly.

Immediacy is careless—haste makes waste—is the cliché, but clichés are lost to Millennials

because cultural transmission of previous culture’s sagacity is becoming compromised.

Their contempt for social stratification is another indicator of their cultural neutralization.

What is telling about this is their naiveté. American culture has come to be defined by caste

systems, but the Millennial is attempting to ignore this reality. They presume to believe that

society is egalitarian. This is because they have been led to believe that the civil rights

movement has fully succeeded in eradicating social injustices. But in their superficial world,

they are blind to this. Their tolerance for alternative lifestyles—single parenting, same sex

partnerships, and the like—is commendable, although a bit premature. They have yet to realize

the sociopolitical impacts of an entirely egalitarian society. If socialism is what they desire—for

better or for worse—than it is the responsibility of the Millennial to understand that ideology

completely. Yet this is not the discourse, which seems to be monopolizing blogs and Facebook

posts. Nonetheless, their propensity for socialist ideals cannot be realized in a capitalist

environment, which they—coincidentally—are helping to facilitate. They are the largest

consumer population in the United States and what they fail to recognize is that commerce is the

largest proponent for social stratification. This falls back on Kim’s theory that there are too

many choices for the Millennial, and in this, they are easily distracted from pressing issues.

Having too many choices has spoiled the Millennials perception of necessity and this has

led to entitlement. Granted, this is the generation that has grown up with an unprecedented

Wells  81    

welfare system, and these government-sponsored entitlement programs have certainly colored

their psychology. However, this negative imprinting on their culture has earned them the

distinction of being viewed as vapid and irresponsible. This is not to imply that they are not

fully capable individuals, especially if they were to take current events and Pan issues more

seriously, but their preoccupation with choice is the ultimate distraction. Furthermore, this study

has come to the conclusion that their technological acumen is contributing to their feelings of

entitlement.

Cultural-conflicts that are taking place in the workplace are a result of the Millennials’

perceptions that they are technologically superior to their older coworkers. While this is proving

to be true, their lack of respect is fostering an ugly truth about American culture, which in a just

a few decades will be entirely represented by their cohort. Their resistance to authority,

contempt for conventional institutions, and arrogance have become, unfortunately, hallmark

characteristics of their ethos. Champions for their future—like Neil Howe and Dan Tapscott—

attribute this behavior to a learning curve for a generation that is creating their own sensibilities

relevant to their environment; but whatever the case, it is indicative of a neutralized culture just

the same.

We cannot overlook the parents of this generation, who have done their best to raise their

children in an uncertain economic environment. Values changed within the Baby Boomer

generation right before our very eyes. This research posits that their unprecedented exposure to

violence in the late ‘60s and early 1970s—Vietnam, political assassinations, and civil rights—

has caused them to be over protective. Interestingly, the overprotective parent is more applicable

to the Millennial cohort than to their Generation X siblings. This is because Gen Xers—like

Millennials—are the proverbial products of their environment. Their location in history

Wells  82    

relegated them to the latchkey phenomenon and they grew up in an era where childhood was not

valued, partly because of the social unrest that was playing out on the world stage such as the

fuel crisis, Watergate, and the end of the Vietnam War. But, as these world crises came to an

end, the Baby Boomer parent developed a new consciousness, one that rejuvenated the family

unit. World events included the end of the Cold War, freeing of the hostages from Iran, and a

fledgling economy. It was in this era of the early ‘80s that the United States was beginning to

experience a technological explosion. Parents knew that computers would be ‘the wave of the

future’ and, therefore, their Millennial children would grow up with that ideology as well.

This would do much to facilitate the ambitious spirit of the Millennial ethos but no one

could foresee the impact it would have on neutralization. Popular culture in the ‘80s influenced

parents to become fully engaged in their children’s lives. Programs like Lamaze brought both

parents into the delivery room. Mommy and Me classes were on the rise and Millennial children

were growing with literature like The Little Engine that Could. These are just a few contributors

that would come to shape the current Millennial condition. But as the engaged parent morphed

into the helicopter parent, the Millennial child was learning to be dependent, and alas, yet

another element enabling the entitlement epidemic among American Millennials. Moreover,

helicopter parents were instilling a value of narcissism in their children. While their intentions

were certainly good ones, the backlash of constant praise—converse to what they had grown up

with—would have that negative impact.

Somewhere along the line, the growing sense of entitlement has become, as Twenge puts

it, epidemic. This researcher postulates that it has been gestating in the Millennials' ethos since

the creation of standardized education, where graduation became contingent upon a specified

score and attainable to anyone who exerted the effort to study. These tests did little to foster

Wells  83    

creativity; instead it became a guarantee that entitled graduation. From then on, we have seen

the growing trend that entitlement is a standard too. Compounding this is the capital

environment that has infiltrated institution of higher learning. Increasingly, we are seeing that

students are no longer earning their grades, they are being given them. This is to ensure the

financial prosperity that accompanies enrollment. Again, this rides on the coattails of

standardized testing because that is how the Millennial was conditioned. They feel just showing

up for class is indicative of effort and therefore they are entitled to a passing grade. Little do

they realize they are pawns in a capitalist venture—again. Institutional accreditation has done

much to assuage this social injustice, but in the world of immediacy, there are far too many

programs that offer a ‘McDegree’.

Sadly, a byproduct of Millennial entitlement is the decline of civility. As

microelectronics become increasingly ubiquitous, and smartphones infiltrate society, their usage

is commandeering social mores. There was a time that etiquette was part of the tradition-

directedness that was part of the structural-functional paradigm of postindustrial society. It was

part of the cultural transmission that was handed down from the Greatest generation to their

Baby Boomer children, and to some degree Generation X. But as parenting became more

lenient, and family values began to stray from convention, the Millennial could not possibly

recognize manners as were defined by older generations. We should forget about putting our

elbows on the table and now focus on keeping our phones off instead. This author was

awestruck to find that Millennials have little qualms with using their cellular phones while on

duty at work. Upon asking what could be so important that it could not wait until they were off

the clock, the reply, astoundingly was, “I just wanted to see how my friend was doing.” When

asked again why that could not wait, the answer was simply, “I don’t know.” The answer is this,

Wells  84    

technology drives the Millennial ethos, and they have to be connected at all times. Progress is

moving way to fast, and they are adapting themselves, and their culture, to keep up.

The cultural neutralization of the American Millennial is indeed being compounded and

expedited by the rapid advancement of technology. But the Millennial ideology that stability

equals stagnation is a threat to the rich rewards that come from celebrating cultural diversity.

Their cultural integration is unstoppable, but one is left wondering if the American Millennial, in

their brilliance and verve, will be able to harness their insatiable ambition in favor of a pragmatic

and thoughtful look at their future, and decide whether or not neutralization really does amount

to progress.

Wells  85    

Works Cited

Alch, Mark L. “The Echo-Boom Generation: A Growing Force in American Society.” The

Futurist 34.5 (Sept 2000): 42. InfoTracOneFile. Thomson Gale. MSU Billings Library.

Web. 12 Dec. 2009.

< http://www.allbusiness.com/professional-scientific/scientific-research/621952-

1.html>

Alch, Mark L. “Get Ready for the Net Generation.” Training & Development 54.2 (2000) 32.

Expanded Academic ASAP. Web. 1 Feb. 2010.

< http://www.allbusiness.com/population-demographics/demographic-groups-

generation-x/11437547-1.html>

Alsop, Ron. “Welcoming the New Millennials.” The Wall Street Journal (2007) Web. 10

Nov. 2009. <http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119672143267712295.html>

Baker, George C. “The Issue of Helicopter Parents.” Web. 8 Jun. 2010. PDF file.

<http://www.grauerschool.com/media/Issue-of-Helicopter-Parents.pdf>

Baradat, Leon P. Political Ideologies: Their Origins and Impact. 10ed. New Jersey:

Prentice Hall, 2009. Print.

Batista, Elisa. “She’s Gotta Have It: Cell Phone.” Wired. 16 May 2003. Web. 5 Jun. 2010.

< http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2003/05/58861>

Bauerlein, Mark. The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young

Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future* Or, Don’t Trust Anyone Under 30. New

York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/ Penguin, 2008. Print.

Berman, Morris. The Twilight of American Culture. New York: W. W. Norton &

Company, 2000. Print.

Wells  86    

Birkerts, Sven. “Homo Virtualis.” Dumbing Down: Essays on the Strip Mining of

American Culture. Katharine Washburn and John F. Thornton, eds. New York: W. W.

Norton & Company, 1996. 209-223. Print.

Blendon, Robert J. et al. “Changing Attitudes in America.” Why People Don’t Trust

Government. Joseph S. Nye, Jr., et al, ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997.

205-216. Print.

Braiker, Brian. “Tech Toys for Tots.” Newsweek (2008) Web. 8 Nov. 2009.

<http://www.newsweek.com/id/87168>

Cantor, Norman F. The American Century: Varieties of Culture in Modern Times. New York:

HarperCollins Publishers, 1997. Print.

Chapman, Gary. “Boomers, Millennials, and Technology” The 21st Century Project. LBJ

School of Public Affairs. Web. 2 Feb. 2009. PDF file.

<http://www.21stcenturyproject.org/Boomers_v_Millennials.pdf>.

Collins, Dale E., and Elwin R. Tilson. “A New Generation on the Horizon. (Teaching

Techniques).” Radiologic Technology 73.2 (2001): 172+. Expanded Academic ASAP.

Web. 1 Dec. 2009. <http://find.galegroup.com/gtx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-

Document&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=EAIM&docId=

A80803610&source=gale&srcprod=EAIM&userGroupName=broward29

&version=1.0>

Conlan, Mark Gabrish. “City Council Committee Approves Restrictions on Wal-Mart.”

Zenger’s Newsmagazine (2010) Web. 10 Oct. 2010.

<http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/06/29/18652216.php/printable=true>

Wells  87    

Cowan, Ruth Schwartz. “The ‘Industrial Revolution’ in the Home: Household Technology and

Social Change in the Twentieth Century.” Material Culture Studies in America. Thomas

J. Schlereth, ed. Nashville: AASLH Press, 1982. 222-236. Print.

“Culture.” Def. Online Dictionary of the Social Sciences. Web. 10 Jul. 2010.

< http://bitbucket.icaap.org/dict.pl?alpha=C>

Davidson, Cathy N., and David Goldberg. “A Manifesto for the Humanities in a

Technological Age.” Chronicle of Higher Education 13 Feb. 2004. Web. 14 May 2008.

<http://chronicle.com>

Dahl, Melissa. “Youth Vote May Have Been Key in Obama’s Win.” MSNBC.com (2008) Web.

11 Nov. 2010. < http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27525497/>

“Distraction.” “Statistics and Facts About Distracted Driving.” Distraction.Gov!:

Official US Government Website for Distracted Driving. 2007. Web. 10 Oct. 2010.

< http://www.distraction.gov/stats-and-facts/>

Drake, Bruce. “Republicans Catch Up With Democrats in Use of Social Media for

Politics.” HUFFPOST POLITICS. 2011. Web. 26 Sept. 2011.

<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/politics/>

“For Many, Their Cell Phone Has Become Their Only Phone.” USA Today. Web. 23 Mar.

2003. 16 Nov. 2009. <http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2003-03-24-cell-

phones_x.htm>

“Generations in the Workplace in the United States & Canada.” Catalyst. Jul. 2011.

Web. 26 Sept. 2011. < http://www.catalyst.org/publication/434/generations-in-the-

workplace-in-the-united-states-canada>

Wells  88    

“Global Cell Phone Use at 50 percent.” Reuters: U.S. Edition. 29 Nov. 2007. Web.

12 Dec. 2009. < http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2917209520071129>

Heffernan, Nick. Capital, Class and Technology in Contemporary American Culture:

Projecting Post-Fordism. London: Pluto Press, 2000. Print.

Kammen, Michael. American Culture, American Tastes: Social Change and the 20th

Century. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1999. Print.

Katz, James E. Connections: Social and Cultural Studies of the Telephone in American Life.

New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1999. Print.

Keen, Andrew. The Cult of the Amateur: How Today’s Internet is Killing Our Culture. New

York: Doubleday, 2007. Print.

Kim, Eun Y. The Yin and Yang of American Culture: A Paradox. Yarmouth: Intercultural

Press, Inc., 2001. Print.

Lemonnier, Jonathon. “The Question: Do you think special consideration should be made for

Millennials entering the workplace? 80 % were against the idea of special consideration

for Millennials.” Advertising Age 79.8 (2008): 4. Expanded Academic ASAP. Web. 10

Jan. 2010.

<http://find.galegroup.com/gtx/start.do?proId=EAIM&userGroupName=broward 29>

Lenhart, Amanda, Kristen Purcell, Aaron Smith, and Kathryn Zickuhr. “Social Media and

Young Adults.” Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project.

3 Feb. 2010. Web. 10 Oct. 2010.

<http://www.pewInternet.org/Reports/2010/Social-Media-and-Young-Adults.aspx>

Wells  89    

Leung, Rebecca. “The Millennials: Steve Kroft Reports on the Children of the Baby

Boomers.” 60 Minutes. CBS News. 4 Sep. 2005. Web. 1 Feb. 2010.

<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/01/60minutes/main646890.shtml>

Macionis, John J. Society: The Basics. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 1998. Print.

Mead, George Herbert. “The Self.” Identities: Race, Class, Gender, and Nationality. Linda

Martin Alcoff and Eduardo Mendieta, eds. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 32-40. 2003.

Print.

“Millennials: Confident. Connected. Open to Change.” The Pew Research Center. 24

Feb. 2010. PDF file. 5 Jun. 2011.

< http://pewsocialtrends.org/files/2010/10/millennials-confident-connected-open-to-

change.pdf>

“Millennials’ Lukewarm Support For Health Care Bills: Many Are Uninsured Yet Most Are

Unengaged.” Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. 4 Feb. 2010. Web. 10

Oct. 2010. < http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1487/millennials-lukewarm-support-health-

care-reform>

“Minding About the Gap.” Economist 375.8430 (2005): 32-35. Web. 1 Jun. 2008.

<http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db+aph&AN+17320268&site+eho

st-live>

Olsen, Stefanie. “When to Buy Your Child a Cellphone.” New York Times, 9 Jun. 2010.

Web. 9 Sep. 2010.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/technology/personaltech/10basics.html>

“Pew Research Center.” About the Center. 2010. Web. 10 Jun. 2010.

< http://pewresearch.org/about/lee-rainie/>

Wells  90    

Poole, Ross. “National Identity and Citizenship”. Identities: Race, Class, Gender, and

Nationality. Linda Martin Alcoff and Eduardo Mendieta, eds. Malden: Blackwell

Publishing, 2003. 271-280. Print.

“Population.” 2008 United States Census, tbl. 4. Resident Population by Sex and Age; 1980-

2008. Web. 10 Feb. 2010. PDF file.

< http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/10statab/pop.pdf>

“Portrait of the Millennials.” The Pew Research Center. 24 Feb. 2010. Web. 5 Jun. 2010.

< http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1515/millennials-panel-one-transcript-portrait-of-the-

millennials>

“ ‘Portrait of ‘Generation Next’: How Young People View Their Lives, Futures and

Politics.” The Pew Research Center. 9 Jan 2007. Web. 12 Sep. 2009.

<http://people- press.org/report/300/a-portrait-of-generation-next>

“Progressive Politics of the Millennial Generation.” New Politics Institute 20 Jun. 2007. Web.

2 Feb. 2010. <http://www.newpolitics.net/node/360?full_report=1>

Rainie, Lee. “Wikipedia: When in Doubt, Multitudes Seek It Out.” Pew Internet and

American Life Project. 24 Apr. 2007. Web. 5 Jun. 2010.

<http://pewresearch.org/pubs/460/wikipedia>

Rakove, Jack. “Two Paradigms of Colonial History.” Stanford Continuing Studies Program. 24 Sept. 2008. Web. 11 Nov. 2010. < itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/colonial-revolutionary-america/id384234019>

“Rise of the ‘Apps Culture’.” Pew Internet and American Life project. 14 Sep. 2010. Web. 10

Oct. 2010.

< http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1727/cell-phone-apps--popular-download-demographics>

Wells  91    

Schurr, Amy. “Office Space Expectations Change with the Times: *What to Consider When

Designing Workspaces for Different Generations.” Network World (2007). Expanded

Academic ASAP. Web. 14 Jan. 2010.

<http://find.galegroup.com/gtx/start.do?prodId=EAIM&userGroupName=browar d29>

Tapscott, Don. Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation. New York:

McGraw Hill, 1998. Print.

---. Grown Up Digital: How the Net Generation is Changing Your World. New York:

McGraw Hill, 2009. Print.

Taylor, Paul and Wendy Wang. “The Fading Glory of the Television and Telephone.” The Pew

Research Center: Social & Demographic Trends. 19 Aug. 2010. Web. 10 Oct. 2010.

< http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1702/luxury-necessity-television-landline-cell-phone>

“Trend Report.” Scanning the Horizons: Surveying the Nonprofit Landscape, Inspiring

Strategies for Success. Web. 2 Feb. 2010.

<http://www.alliancetrends.org/demographics-population.cfm?id=34>

Twenge, Jean M. and W. Keith Campbell. The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of

Entitlement. New York: Free Press, 2009. Print.

“25 Years: A Technological Timeline.” Government Computer News. 12 Dec. 2007. Web. 10

Oct. 2010.

<http://gcn.com/Articles/2007/12/06/25-years--A-technology-timeline.aspx/p=1>

Twitchell, James B. “’But First, a Word from Our Sponsor’: Advertising and the

Carnivalization of Culture. Dumbing Down: Essays on the Strip Mining of

American Culture. Katharine Washburn and John F. Thornton, eds. New York: W. W.

Norton & Company, 1996. 197-208. Print.

Wells  92    

Van Horn, Royal. “Generation ‘M’ and 3G.” Phi Delta Kappan 87.10 (2006): 727.

Expanded Academic ASAP. Web. 21 Feb. 2010.

<http://find.galegroup.com/gtx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-

Document&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=EAIM&docId=A14843321&so

urce=gale&srcprod=EAIM&userGroupName=broward29&version=1.0>

Wagner, Karen L. “Filling the gap: the generation gap in the workplace creates

challenges for managers wanting to build a team.” Journal of Property Management

72.5 (2007): 29 + Expanded Academic ASAP.

Web. 21 Feb. 2010.

<http://find.galegroup.com/gtx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-

Document&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&proId=EAIM&docId=A169480520&so

urce=gale&srcprod=EAIM&userGroupName=broward29&version=1.0>