At the urging of a couple friends, I’m posting a response I emailed to them, critiquing “Generation Q”, a recent New York Times Op-Ed by Thomas Friedman. In his article, Friedman discusses the “too quiet, too online” generation of college students, their idealism, tendency to be drawn to “virtual politics”, and what the implications are for activist movements and our political future.
“…the more I am around this generation of college students, the more I am both baffled and impressed.
I am impressed because they are so much more optimistic and idealistic than they should be. I am baffled because they are so much less radical and politically engaged than they need to be.”
My first thought — I wish he would address the effectiveness of this “traditional” activism that so many, including Friedman, seem to desire.
After reading about electronic civil disobedience (ECD), I started taking into account the decentralization of power and the need to adapt activist strategies accordingly. We no longer take to the streets like people did en masse in the 60’s, that’s quite obvious. Okay, sometimes we do. On the weekends. After weeks of planning. Wow, what spontaneous and effective actions those are, look what we’ve changed! But even if we did drop everything, walk out from our day jobs, and storm onto the streets like we see happening in our dreams of revolution, do those that have the power to make important changes even care? Are we really taking away their power by occupying the streets anymore, and isn’t that the whole idea? From my basic research and reading, the idea of ECD is that the streets no longer stand for what they used to. We still have ominous marble structures and riot-gear clad police officers looming around that symbolize power, but they are only facades. The real power is running through the underground channels, between banks, behind closed doors, through the phone lines. We are no longer interrupting the status quo like we used to by filling the streets with signs and chants. It is this very reason I’m no longer convinced that getting a million people in DC will mean anything anymore. It’s a sad realization and I would love for someone to convince me otherwise.
“The Iraq war may be a mess, but I noticed at Auburn and Ole Miss more than a few young men and women proudly wearing their R.O.T.C. uniforms. Many of those not going abroad have channeled their national service impulses into increasingly popular programs at home like “Teach for America,” which has become to this generation what the Peace Corps was to mine.
It’s for all these reasons that I’ve been calling them “Generation Q” — the Quiet Americans, in the best sense of that term, quietly pursuing their idealism, at home and abroad.”
I think he “misunderestimates” the power of the change in perspective which is illustrated by the growing number of people doing national service.
Yes this is particularly close to me since I did AmeriCorps. But devoting years of your life to national service is not a “quiet” undertaking whatsoever. It is not passive, it is not ineffective, it is not easy. Indeed, it was the most eye-opening thing I’d ever done at that point in my life. It allowed me to see and experience first-hand what our government’s policies do to the infrastructure of our country. It allowed me to develop myself so I could do what little I could to help the children that are having their lives fu—ed over by endless war and corruption, with no money and no focus left over for their future after we’ve paid for all our bombs. The fact that so many college students are doing Teach for America and Peace Corps is HUGE. It’s a first step in realizing there’s a whole world out there and we are all connected. Doesn’t he realize what that shift in perspective means? For students to be opening their eyes to that? Yes, maybe some just do it for their resumes and because it’s safer than going to war. The point is, they’re doing it. They can control their motivation for going in, but I firmly believe they can’t control the way service affects them and the way their lives are changed on their way out.
“America needs a jolt of the idealism, activism and outrage (it must be in there) of Generation Q. That’s what twentysomethings are for — to light a fire under the country. But they can’t e-mail it in, and an online petition or a mouse click for carbon neutrality won’t cut it. They have to get organized in a way that will force politicians to pay attention rather than just patronize them.
Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy didn’t change the world by asking people to join their Facebook crusades or to download their platforms. Activism can only be uploaded, the old-fashioned way — by young voters speaking truth to power, face to face, in big numbers, on campuses or the Washington Mall. Virtual politics is just that — virtual.”
Yes, we are the Q Generation. Correct, Facebook is not going to stop Global Warming. But there is vast power in the technology that such pseudo-actions are built on, it just needs to be realized.
There is a line by Ani DiFranco that I love, “every tool is a weapon, if you hold it right.” Well, to me that’s what technology is. Right now it’s very empowering, I mean look at how much information we have thrown at us. But information alone is not enough. And it’s to our detriment in many senses because it creates another layer of separation. We can read as many articles about melting ice caps and genocide as we want, but despite how well-written and true-to-life these articles may be, in the end they are still just pixels on a screen. They are not felt— breathed— touched— REAL to us. We don’t smell the smoke from the burning villages. We don’t hear the cries of children pierce the after-bomb silence. We don’t stand in the puddles of melting glaciers. These stories are only as palpable as the ones about OJ or Paris and therefore they’re just as easily tossed aside and forgotten. What Friedman is missing in his article is the next step. How to take this environment of energy and technology that Generation Q is living in — and make it REAL? Then, I believe, people will act.
Also worth noting, I think, is the fact that the way our children are raised these days, with such sick emphasis given to higher education.. no wonder they can only be concerned with their collegiate bubble!
All kids hear about is doing well in school… so they can get into a good college… so they can get a good job… so they can, so they can, so they can, on and on! Though it’s disappointing, the lack of motivation is understandable to me. It seems as early as kindergarten kids are thrown into this culture of competition in the ultimate quest for the almighty dollar and “the good life” where self-worth is only attained upon graduation. We are foolish to act surprised by the end result.
To end on a good note, I think Friedman has the foundation of the argument right, because most importantly— Generation Q GIVES A DAMN, and that is not something to be taken lightly.
That is the crucial foundation on which to build. But that’s the key word: “build.” Effective activism in 2007 is something that still needs to be cultivated and realized. Whether that’s utilizing effective practices from the 60’s, growing/inventing something entirely new, or creating a diverse mix of practices, old and new — it’s obvious that something is needed to fill the void.
In the end, of course, this is just another collection of easily dismissed thoughts and pixels, the opinion of a 20-something quiet activist web geek, and there is every possibility I’ve missed his point entirely because I’m one of those he is writing about.
You all know this right? It will be Hillary vs. Giuliani whether you like it or not. Forget that we haven’t held a single primary yet, the media has already declared it thus, and so it must be. Giuliani could have stood up there and quacked like a duck the whole time and the commentators afterwards still would have said, 
