Summary: Generational labels such as Gen Z, millennials, Gen Alpha and Gen Beta are largely arbitrary and media-driven rather than scientifically precise. Karl Mannheim's original idea framed generations as historical locations for understanding social change — not as fixed, recurring boxes. Critics, including more than 150 scholars in 2021, have urged organizations like Pew Research to stop promoting rigid generational categories because they encourage stereotyping and let policymakers avoid responsibility. Better approaches include describing cohorts by decades or by the specific events that shaped them, while controlling for race, class, gender and geography.
Why 'Gen Z' and Other Generational Labels Mislead Us — The Case Against Age Branding
Paris, France - March 10, 2013: Old black and white and sepia photos at flea market. There are more than 20 flea markets in Paris.
Generational nicknames like "Gen Z," "millennial," and the newly coined "Gen Alpha/Beta" are familiar shorthand — but they are largely marketing-friendly labels rather than precise scientific categories. While these terms can capture some shared historical experiences, they also oversimplify complex lives and can be used to excuse policy failures or encourage stereotyping.
Who Names Generations — And Why It Matters
The labels "Gen Alpha" and "Gen Beta" come from Australian demographer Mark McCrindle, and the media quickly adopted his terminology. That kind of adoption shows how easily a catchy name can become accepted wisdom, even though there is no formal body that defines generations or their traits.
The Academic Origin: Mannheim, Not Marketing
Hungarian sociologist Karl Mannheim introduced the concept of generations in 1952, arguing that cohorts form when people share a common location in historical time and an awareness of that shared placement. Mannheim intended this as a way to understand broad social change driven by major events—not as a recipe for neat, recurring 20-year boxes that determine personality or political behavior.
"Generations are formed through two important elements: a common location in historical time, such that there are shared events and experiences, and an awareness of that historical location." — Karl Mannheim (summarized)
When Theory Turns Into Determinism
In the early 1990s William Strauss and Neil Howe popularized a cyclical generational theory that traced patterns back centuries and predicted future waves. Their model — with labels such as "the high," "the awakening," "the unraveling," and "the crisis" — attracted popular attention but drew heavy academic criticism for being speculative, non-falsifiable and prone to selection bias.
Real Effects, But The Wrong Explanations
Age matters: people behave differently at 18, 36 or 72, and major events leave marks on cohorts. But life experience is shaped by many intersecting factors — race, class, gender, education, place of birth and religion — that generational shorthand erases. Reducing systemic problems like housing shortages, wage stagnation or climate change to generational personality flaws lets leaders dodge responsibility.
Scholarly Pushback And Institutional Change
In 2021, more than 150 demographers and social scientists, led by Philip Cohen, urged the Pew Research Center to stop promoting rigid generational labels. The signatories warned that these categories encourage stereotyping and circular debates. Pew responded by tightening its methodology and limiting the use of standard labels when they are not appropriate.
A Personal Moment That Illustrates The Problem
An anecdote in the original piece captures how these lines feel real: during a routine ID check the author discovered the clerk was born in 2003 and quipped, "Oh, so you don't remember 9/11." The blank stare that followed showed how assumed shared memories can be misleading — some historical markers resonate differently across individuals.
Conclusion: Toward Better Ways Of Describing Cohorts
Instead of leaning on neat generational tags, analysts and the public would be better served by more precise descriptions: describe people by decade, examine cohorts tied to specific events (for example, "students whose education was disrupted in 2020"), and always control for other demographic factors. Recognizing human continuity — our overlapping lives, shared biology and deep common ancestry — can help us focus on policies that serve people across ages rather than dismissing whole groups with shorthand labels.
Bottom line: Generational labels can be useful as rough cultural touchstones, but they are not reliable scientific categories and should not substitute for careful, intersectional analysis or public accountability.
