Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

From the article:

>Gen Z and Gen Alpha don’t cow to authority for authority’s sake. They simply won’t do things they don’t want to do, and I actually kinda love that.

This, in response to a story about Gen Z and Gen Alpha at elite universities. Why are they attending the elites, then, if not to become part of the power apparatus?




I must admit my cultural observation about those cohorts is they are ideologically docile and easily molded into whatever the establishment deems the correct ideology to uphold. As one data point, I offer up their penchant for policing soon to be published YA fiction and whether it adheres to the prevailing orthodoxy.


I think that the confusion comes from the problem of identifying who "the authority" and "the establishment" is today.

As all the past symbols of rebellion are becoming co-opted and its wearers are assimilating and become "The Them™" (formerly known as, "The Man™"). It doesn't help that there is a dearth of "new" ideologies or trends that the younger generation can discover and iterate over. The continuity of history that is enabled by technologies like the internet and the collective knowledge of older generations, has almost ossified the innovative properties of the kind of rebellion that a hip academic would find quaint and nostalgic of the period of youth that was the springboard to their own assimilation.

All that remains for most people is to reach for absurdity. Which itself is absurd.


> I offer up their penchant for policing soon to be published YA fiction and whether it adheres to the prevailing orthodoxy.

Sorry what does this mean?


The YA publishing industry has a recurring phenomenon of new books getting spiked at the finish line due to social media arguments over identity politics. (https://www.newyorker.com/books/under-review/in-ya-where-is-...)


IIRC there's rather a lot of "cancellation" of authors in the YA fiction market.


>if not to become part of the power apparatus?

I would have gone to an elite university if I had the option to. Not to become part of the "power apparatus" but because I would have a higher chance of making enough money to purchase luxuries like a place to live.


That is literally part and parcel of the power apparatus. Money is power.


Improving your chances at making a decent living is not the same as striving to become part of the power apparatus, despite the fact that both need money.


Why do you think an elite university would give you a greater chance of improvement than a community college?


Well, mainly because employers are more likely to hire a candidate from Harvard than they are from East Mississippi Community College.


Exactly: access to networks of power.


At the risk of repeating myself: wanting to improve your chances at making a decent living (i.e. being hired, having a place to live, etc.) is not the same as striving to become part of the power apparatus, despite the fact that both benefit from networking.


You are right of course: accessing and leveraging networks of power is not striving to become part of the power apparatus.

It is de facto evidence of being a part of the power apparatus, regardless of your intent in using it.


First you make the money to buy cool stuff, then you use your power to protect your money to continue buying stuff. Welcome to the power apparatus.


If your definition of striving to be a part of the power apparatus is simply using money, then sure, I stand corrected.


> cow to

An apparent conflation of "cow", v.t.

   https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cow
with "kowtow":

   https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kowtow
The author herself exemplifies modern academia's reduced standard of literacy.


You mean this:

> And that’s a good thing, since Gen Z and Gen Alpha don’t cow to authority for authority’s sake.

As used by this definition: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/eng....

Is correct. Maybe grab a mirror and stop pointing fingers?


No, its not correct.

Gen Z and Gen Alpha are not doing the cowing. If you cow, you intimidate someone else. That is not what is happening in the excerpted sentence.

Rather, they are the intended targets of the cowing, which would require the use of "be," for example:

> Gen Z and Gen Alpha won't be cowed by authority for authority's sake.


You didn’t read the link huh?


Every example that agrees with you is preceded by the verb "be" which is not used by the author of the article in question.

Not only did I read the link, I understood it, which seems to have evaded you.


Everyone is fighting for power. There is a great quote that has stuck with me, although I forget it's origin, that goes

"My life turned up-side down when I realized that those fighting the power were actually just fighting for the power."


This observation could have been made about young people throughout the ages. Disrespect for authority is nothing new.


My point is not the disrespect for authority.

I am suggesting that kids at specifically elite universities aspire to be the power, and therefore question the author's contention that this has anything to do with disrespect for authority.


> Disrespect for authority is nothing new.

It is still a perfectly valid argument to analyze whether disrespect for authority has increased or decreased over the years; or whether the disrespect has reached the point it threatens their ability to become functioning adults.


You can sure make that argument, but it's still only a rephrasing of the millenia-old meme of old people complaining about the lack of respect in young people. No, young people are not in danger of being unable to become functional adults, no more than any generation before them (of which the same has been said).

Society changes, you're old, young people are doing things differently. The wheel keeps on turning.


Any time people bring this argument up I don't think they realize how much it can have the opposite effect of what they intend. I can see, with my own eyes, how much my generation (millennials) has fallen short compared to our parents. Let alone the zoomers etc, who seem to be on an even worse trajectory. When someone points out "people have made these claims for millennia", I don't take that as evidence I'm wrong - I realize that perhaps people have been right for millennia.


This is actually a fairly ridiculous argument in my view - look at what happened to every country before ours. They failed.

Why did they fail? Obviously, famine, wars, etc had a part; but as the saying goes:

Hard times create strong men.

Strong men create good times.

Good times create weak men.

Weak men create hard times.


This is a popular history cliche that isn't grounded in actual history. See, e.g., https://acoup.blog/2020/01/17/collections-the-fremen-mirage-... for an accessible critique by a professional historian.

I do agree with your broader point though that it's worth asking if society is getting more illiberal and intolerant of opposing views. It's not just a "young people these days" kind of thing.


Ooh ooh, time to pitch the acoup for that

https://acoup.blog/2020/01/17/collections-the-fremen-mirage-...

That saying is ahistorical and Bret goes to great lengths to show where it fails.


Hard times create desperate men who make like hell to everyone else as they lash out. Good times are created by men who care. Good times create nice people.

Fascists seen empathy and niceness as weakness and something bad. They were also something that emerged from hard times and created misery and pain. Lets not promote their ideology.


"Hard times create strong men". At what age do the hard times start for this to be true? Do children who are victims of abuse become strong? Some perhaps, but I suspect not more than a control group. Do the hard times occur when the people are full adults? Anecdotally in my life, I've seen hard times be precursors to people cope by using drink and drugs, and seen hard times to lead other people to step up to the challenge. And what is the definition of strong, here? Seems so vague as to be pointless. This old saying seems like complete bunk to me.


Functioning adults are paving the roads with good intentions.


It's a pat saying, but I don't think history bears it out.

The German people after World War I were suffering. Significant reparation burdens had been placed upon them. They were starving and angry. These should have been the "hard times that create strong men," yes?

It created the Nazis and they were defeated militarily. Seems something went off in step 2 there; nobody considers Germany during World War II "Good times."


Agreed. Western society is very much in a pattern of decline right now. Whether it's terminal remains to be seen, but the decay is blindingly obvious imo.


Having the desire to be able to choose doesn’t change the available choices. This seems to be a false equivalency.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: