I’ve been thinking about Ronni Bennett’s post on TGB about Baby Boomers. I posted a smartass oneliner there, but it inspired some retrospective musing that won’t fit in a comment.
Baby boomers are anything but a monolithic generation. Being born in 1946 doesn’t give you anything generational in common with someone born in 1964. I was born in 1949 and my daughter was born in 1969. That makes the late boomers pretty much my kid’s contemporaries. The way I see it, we may fall into a demographic boom together, but people born at opposite extremes of the Baby Boom really don’t have much else in common in terms of their ages.
I did feel an identification with my more specific age group, I guess. It’s mostly gone now, as we’ve stopped being a generation as much as just a lot of people and a demographic problem. There were moments when I was proud to be part of it. And moments when I wasn’t. Most of the youth culture that happened during the most explosive years of the Baby Boom was Ronni’s generation’s fault anyway. It’s true, as Ronni says, that the media attention was focused on us, but the more thoughtful pieces explored influences.
Being born in 1949 makes me kind of an early boomer. We had our own issues. For one thing, there was a decided dirth of older siblings in our lives. Most of my friends were the oldest in their families. Of the few who weren’t, all were younger by just a year or so than the oldest. This held true even when we moved out to the suburbs where the families were a lot bigger than what I’d known in New York City. So teenagers were an exotic species to us. They had a tremendous mystique, since we so rarely saw them from the more intimate (and jaded) perspective of immediate family. I remember seeing what, in retrospect, were probably pimply, awkward fourteen year olds who’d come to the playground once in a while and fool around on the swings. The girls wore men’s shirts, sizes too big and dungarees rolled up to the calf. Marilyn Monroe couldn’t have looked more glamorous to me.
We were little kids when Elvis showed up on Ed Sullivan, but we knew something was happening there. The Wild Ones, James Dean, the Beatniks. Oh, we were no part of any of it, but we were aware of it and it was all simmering in our brains, under out Davy Crockett coonskin caps. (OK, I never actually got a Davy Crockett cap, but I’m over it now. Really. It hardly bothers me at all. ) The distance, the fact that none of that ever entered our homes made it all the more desirable. It was those older teenagers about whom the term “Juvenile Deliquency” was termed. We even liked that, in moderation. Rebellion was clearly cool. Coolness became the thing we aspired to most of all.
Our icons were not of our generation. John Lennon, Bob Dylan, Joan Baez - all too old to be boomers. Even Jimi Hendrix was born in 1942. The Grateful Dead and the very underground but influential New York band, The Fugs, were products of the Beat sensibility.
Flower children were what you got when you took the the Beat Generation, the Civil Rights movement, the Ban the Bomb politicos, added the draft and an unpopular war and mixed liberally with electrified music and then had Timothy Leary bake it until crisp. But it all came from ideas and influences of an older generation.
Rock and roll was embraced by the generation of teens that preceded boomers and it and they prevailed against all the dire predictions of what it would lead to. It did take the boomers to make a lot of those predictions come true, but it was Ronni’s generation that provided the inspiration, the material and the soundtrack.