Do ‘Millennials’ have a collective political consciousness?

One of the a priori assumptions of contemporary political commentary is that ‘millennials’ have a distinct social and political collective consciousness. In addition to being born from 1980 onwards, they are characterised as having broadly similar political views (a strong preference for left-of-centre parties), social attitudes (more narcissistic than previous generations), and experience similar economic conditions (such as a lack of access to property ownership).

There is an element of truth underlying some of those claims. Age, after all, was a strong predictor of support for the Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party in the 2017 British election and rates of home ownership for the 24-35 age group in Australia has reduced over the last few decades. However, these facts are often extrapolated into much broader claims such as that they have a collective perspective on capitalism or that they are embroiled in an inter-generational war with baby boomers. In short, the claims to the validity of millennial as a category often depend on an assumption that there are greater differences between generations than could be found within generations.

millennials

A bog standard representation of millennials doing what millennials do, they’ve also probably just eaten some avocado etc (credit)

Notwithstanding the strong statistical correlation between, for example, being a millennial and voting for a candidate like Corbyn, it is instructive to examine whether trends such as political views can be better explained through reference to other factors, such as education levels, ethnicity and economic class. Perhaps anyone, regardless of age, would vote or think the same way provided they had a similar level of education or a similar household income as millennials? If so, could it indicate that millennials have less in common with each other than they do with other people with similar levels of, say, education, regardless of whether they are Baby Boomers or Generation X?

An analysis recently published in the Washington Post has examined this possibility specifically in relation to ethnicity. The analysis found there there was a twenty to thirty per cent point spread in political views depending on the millennial’s ethnic background. A majority of millennials of colour (from Latino to African American) thought that the Democrats should resist the Trump Administration, compared to only about a third of white millennials. As the analysis also notes, millennials are more ethnically diverse than older generations. Therefore, the antipathy towards Donald Trump among millennials could potentially be more accurately understood as simply reflecting the fact there are fewer white people in the millennial age group than in other age groups. It reflects how hidden variables within a generation can determine political attitudes more than the assumed collective consciousness of the age group itself.

Another commonly cited factor for a collective millennial experience relates to the notion of young people being “locked out” of the housing market by the older generations. A recent article has noted that the rate of home ownership for 24-35 year olds in Australia has dropped form 61 per cent to 47 per cent since 1981. Yet, while the downward trend in home ownership is worrying, it is difficult to use it to assert a generation-wide experience. After all, the change has been from just over 6 in 10 to just under 5 in 10 young people with property. Furthermore, as the economist John Quiggin has pointed out, the factors driving this trend don’t benefit one generation at the expense of another as much as they “benefit those paying the top marginal tax rate at the benefit of everyone else.”

millennials 2

Google image searches for ‘Millennials’ turns up endless rows of smart young business types, generally grasping Apple products (credit)

This tendency to view millennials as a distinct category reflects a growing tendency for political analysis to be situated in the framework of identity politics. While identity politics can be a useful tool for highlighting the unique concerns of those marginalised groups who suffer persistent inequities within society – whether defined by ethnicity or by gender – its application on a generational level is highly fraught.

Could one really agree that millennials have a collective identity similar to a minority group that transcends their socio-economic differences or that politicians born after 1980 have a unique capacity to speak on their behalf? What would it really mean to be a ‘voice for young people’? If, for example, it would involve tackling barriers to home ownership, wouldn’t those policies also benefit older people who are struggling to get into the housing market?

As a millennial, I can understand the desire to assert a collective identity with other young people. After all, I do not know anyone my age who has managed to purchase property without some implicit assistance from their parents – either in the form of direct financial assistance or through other means, such as living in the family home for free or for much less than the market rate of rent while a house deposit is earned. Despite the social stigma often attached to admitting this reality, it is surely the only reasonable possibility that most young people have of purchasing property in an economic environment where house prices are increasing far more quickly than wages.

Yet there are huge numbers of millennials whose parents cannot provide the necessary financial support to facilitate this path to home ownership. The actual economic gap between these two groups of economically disadvantaged young people brings to mind the social gap dividing the protagonist from the girl who came from Greece and studied sculpture at Saint Martin’s College in the Pulp song ‘Common People‘. This student is ostensibly poor but, thanks to her family connections who do have access to economic capital, we can appreciate how she is not poor in the same way as the protagonist (or indeed as a huge segment of today’s millennials demographic).

And as this sculpture student progresses into middle age, will she really continue to feel a sense of solidarity with those young people whose parents could not provide such support?* The financial interests of the millennials whose parents are (relatively) loaded may instead compel them to support policies and political parties more devoted to increasing the value of capital so they can provide a similar path to property ownership for their children, while other millennials seek more radical policies to redress the fact they can’t provide the same path for theirs.

In this way, the dominant zeitgeist that sees millennials as having a shared political and social identity seems likely to dissipate in contrast to other factors such as ethnicity and parental wealth. It is a narrative ultimately more subservient to the more historically resilient dichotomy of conflict between the haves and the have-nots.

*Fun trivia fact: the sculpture student who inspired the song is most probably the wife of the former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis. So admittedly she personally passes the solidarity test with flying colours.

 

Advertisements

Happy Hottest 100 day

At your Hottest 100 party today, you may feel like bringing up what has become the quintessential music debate in Australia – is Triple J homogenising Australian music or is this suspicion a function of the listeners’ subjective bias?

This argument, while always bubbling under the surface, has been particularly prevalent in the lead up to this year’s hottest 100.

This is largely due to a recent article in The Age which interviewed a number of Australian artists who were frustrated at the feeling that there is a specific style or sound that an artist must adhere to in order to get national airplay. This article was followed up by a series of searing op-eds at prominent Australian music blogs, found here and here.

In response, Helen Razer has come to Triple J’s defence, critiquing the “institutional bias” argument by pointing out that the perceived inadequacies of the Triple J playlist – which have been argued about repetitively for decades – are largely a function of the listener’s subjective bias. When Triple J was playing Soundgarden, Silverchair and Rage Against the Machine, Razer points out, the editorials were criticising Triple J for not being “indie” enough (ie. not playing more Pavement and REM) – fast forward to 2014, the names change but the general theme remains the same.

I’ve also written an anti-‘Triple J sound’ article, in the lead up to last year’s count, but with a caveat that I think pre-empts Razer’s main argument. I agree with Razer that the ‘Triple J sound’ isn’t a function of institutional bias or due to the dictatorial hand of Richard Kingsmill, but I disagree with her belief that means that there is no bias whatsoever.

Triple J’s bias is not culture-driven but it is a consequence of the fundamental fact that, as I argue, “a single radio station can’t possibly cater for Australia’s highly fragmented and diverse music scene and that attempting to do so simply leads to an unfair system”.

My hottest 100 article, first published for Lip Magazine, is pasted below:

I used to think that the Triple J Hottest 100, like Western liberal democracy, was the true embodiment of pure democratic will. The best band had won, the people had spoken. Over time, however, as I began to see how in a Western democracy, a candidate’s chance in an election was contingent on a myriad of factors other than their meritocratic ability ­– such as whether they had an endorsement from a major political party or whether they were able to gain electoral funding – I also began to see how the Hottest 100, and the Triple J playlist in general, is contingent on factors beyond that go beyond an Australian artist’s meritocratic ability, and instead rest in the institutional nature of Triple J.

The fundamental truth that slowly extinguished my belief in the Hottest 100 was the realisation that a song is only going to do well if it has been heavily promoted and played on Triple J. This puts a significant amount of decision-making power in the hands of Triple J’s playlist producers who have the power to make or break an artist. This is a problem, because Triple J is increasingly projecting an impression of the Australian music scene which is falsely homogenous and based principally around three-minute pop single variations of folk, Aussie hip hop and indie rock, with other genres consigned to midnight airplay.

Triple J has a lot of influence in the Australian music scene and the promotion and support they can give bands can be crucial in determining whether a band “makes it” or not. The problem is that for every Australian band they promote that does make it, there are others with large underground followings, critical acclaim, and breakout potential that lack the same level of support. One gets the impression that, despite Triple J’s claims to be reflecting meritocracy and potential popular appeal, their producers cannot help but subjectively favor certain tastes over others.

Triple J producers usually raise two main counter-arguments to these sorts of critiques; one, that the concept of a “Triple J sound” is anillusion formed due to the subjective bias of critics who interpret every Triple J song they dislike as validation of their belief that Triple J is getting objectively worse; and two, that Triple J simply reflects the popular will of their broader listener base which is greater in numbers than the critics. It is hard to deny that a subjective bias exists among many critics of Triple J, and that for some, music is always getting perpetually worse, but the idea of there being a “Triple J sound” has been validated by industry figures.

The publicist Stephen Green, for example, has lamented to Rolling Stone that ‘the problem of Triple J being so dominant is that it skews what bands are coming out with’, and, in the same feature, the drummer from the Unearthed Brisbane band Millions described how his band got together to specifically ‘[go] towards that Triple J sort of sound’, which quite evidently resulted in Triple J success. The second counter-argument, that popular will dictates Triple J’s playlists, ignores Triple J’s public ownership and responsibility as a promoter of all Australian music, as opposed to a chaser of commercial ratings. It also ignores the increasingly growing success of independent radio stations such as FBi in Sydney, and RRR in Melbourne, which give greater prominence to a wider range of Australian music, providing an alternative to listeners who don’t feel catered for by Triple J.

The solution to this problem is not to fire “the King” Richard Kingsmill and hire someone with “better” tastes, as some critics seem to imply, because Triple J are justified in pointing out that there will always be critics regardless of what musical direction they take. But they should also recognise the fundamental fact that a single radio station can’t possibly cater for Australia’s highly fragmented and diverse music scene and that attempting to do so simply leads to an unfair system were some artists receive recognition and exposure while other artists miss out.

The solution is to restructure Triple J so that it reflects the diversity of the music scene. This means breaking Triple J up into several channels that specifically cater to the genres that are currently left to languish on weekly midnight airplay. If Triple J also restructured the Hottest 100 so that it combined the listener base and votes of all the different Triple J stations, then it would surely be a huge improvement on the current measure of determining the country’s favourite alternative song, and it would give artists from non-folk or indie rock backgrounds a better chance of having their true popularity reflected in the national exposure that comes with Hottest 100 success.

Until we see a change in the structure of Triple J, the Hottest 100 will remain on par with shammed democracies, where only a select number of candidates even have the opportunity to win.

On a slightly different subject, here are my:

HOTTEST 100 TOP 10 PREDICTIONS

1. Lorde – Royals (not only is she a worldwide star who released her album at the strategically advantageous (for Hottest 100) of the Sep/Oct period, but her Oceanic origins bequeath her a massive fan base among likely Hot 100 voters)

2. Daft Punk – Get Lucky (Get Lucky is a massive pop/alternative crossover hit in the vein of Outkast’s Hey Ya, although it’s undoubtedly huge, it’s doubtful as to whether it’s sufficiently huge among likely hottest 100 voters)

3. Vance Joy – Riptide (This song will be carrying the banner for the folk scene and as there haven’t been too many big folk songs this year, this song’s pop-crossover status should see it cultivate a large voter base.)

4. Lorde – Tennis Courts (Lorde’s had one of those years where you expect two entries in the top 10. Tennis Courts is a strong candidate because it received heavy airplay for months during the period (June-October) when she was transitioning to full-flung stardom)

5. Disclosure – White Noise (feat AlunaGeorge) (the UK garage revival has had mainstream success via the output of Disclosure and Alunageorge in recent times, so a collab between the two will be doubly popular, one would imagine)

6. Haim – Falling (Haim are the big-time heavyweight newcomer of the year, and while they haven’t had any particular single that would force its way to no.1 in of itself, their brand and musical consistency should see at least one of their songs creep into the top 10)

Between 7 – 10 – London Grammar/Rudimentals//Illy track (this year’s ‘unpredictable’ track is either going to be out of that rnb pop London scene eg. London Grammar/Rudimentals, or it will be the Aussie Hip Hop star of the moment which currently appears to be Illy (or Seth Sentry).

8. Flume – umm (I don’t know much Flume but his ARIA success indicates that he has hardcore momentum behind him and that one of the album tracks from his Holdin On album, or a more recent collar, should make it into the top 10.)

9. Arctic Monkeys – Do I wanna know (this’ll be their biggest Hottest 100 year yet I think – they’ve reached the perfect balance between popular new album and established heavyweights to produce a high hottest 100 ranking)

10. Duke Dumont – Need you 100% (Although Duke Dumont is a relative unknown, the huge mainstream interest in UK Garage and the relative success of this single means it should poll strongly)