Generation: The politics of patriarchy and social change

Editors' introduction

In this first instalment of our Soundings series on critical terms, we look at the idea of 'generation', a term which has become highly prevalent within political discourse since the financial crisis.¹ As with all the concepts in this series, the idea of generation is differently mobilised by different political actors. Right-wing thinkers use generation in a sense that can be traced back to Edmund Burke to mean the transmission of property and culture through time, while other commentators draw on meanings derived from Mannheim to refer to the experiences of particular cohorts at times of rapid political change. For activists on the left, it is important to distinguish between these different connotations of generation. The Burkean approach has regressive implications, for example in the justification of austerity as a way of protecting future generations from debt; and the Mannheimian understanding, although not as conservative, needs to be connected to an intersectional analysis that looks at other identity markers alongside those of age - such as class, race, gender and sexuality-so as to avoid flattening differences within cohorts and impeding solidarities between generations.

Deborah Grayson and Ben Little

Generation is a pivotal and structuring concept in contemporary politics, but not enough attention is paid to the way in which it operates. We aim here to outline some of the key questions a consideration of generation raises and can help illuminate, in the belief that it is a concept than opens a vital space both for challenging dominant paradigms and contributing to radical thought.

In mainstream political culture one of the most frequently recurring-and loaded-media archetypes is the battle between Baby Boomers and Millennials, who tussle in the homes and streets of Britain, pitching tuition fees against triple-locked pensions and free bus passes against impossible house prices. These stories have intensified since the financial crash, partly because it has had differential economic effects on specific age cohorts. But cultural differences centred on generation have also played a significant role.

This contemporary discourse is a recent manifestation of a recurring social theme that was most famously theorised by German sociologist Karl Mannheim in the 1920s.² Mannheim argued that generations are distinct social units formed by the historical, cultural and technological changes that occur at key times in people's lives. Since we live in a time of crisis and change, Mannheim helps to explain why generation is currently emerging as a topic of debate, but it does not explain why the media narrative of recent years has mostly focused on age-based inequality. Ben (and others) have argued elsewhere that its use in this context opens up insights into what it is like to grow up under neoliberalism, even if what comes through most often is a stylised conflict between generations.³

The world of Karl Mannheim was shaped by the changes wrought in German culture by the First World War. Eighteenth-century philosopher and Whig politician Edmund Burke, on the other hand, was writing in the wake of the French revolution-and seeking to reassert the old ways. Burke's understanding of generation is markedly different from that of Mannheim. It revolves around the idea of a natural order rather than theorising historical change: society was a contract between the generations. This difference explains Burke's appeal to conservatives. While Mannheim looked to explain periods of cultural change and the influence of new dynamic forces in rigid societies, Burke's perspective was focused on renewing tradition by linking the past to the future through the present, putting an emphasis on continuity rather than change.

At the heart of the 2017 Tory manifesto was a depiction of the social contract derived from Burke:

a partnership between those who are living, those who have lived before us, and those who are yet to be born.⁴

Theresa May's references to generation in her awkward election stump speeches should not therefore be understood as part of a pitch dreamed up by election spin doctors: she was using the term in way that reflected an...