Regeneration: Generations remediated

Methodological dilemmas and conceptual challenges

The concept of ‘generation’ has an ambivalent if not contested status. It is widely used in everyday language, and as such it seems to have natural explanatory power, both in a common-sense understanding and among scholars (Judt, 2011; Jureit and Wildt, 2005: 7; King, 2010: 55; Pilcher, 1994: 481). Experiences in the formative period (between ages 10 and 25) are assumed to have a profound impact on personal development. As a result, a large group of people who share particular experiences during their youth tend to be viewed as forming a generation. There is a generational difference, of course, between youngsters liking and sharing on their smartphone and pensioners who appropriate a pc as an advanced typewriter. However, historical and sociological attempts to apply the concept of generation to explain discontinuity and change have often been criticised for essentialising cohorts and passing over the continuous accommodation of existing age groups to challenging circumstances, technologies and/or media (Buckingham, 2006: 4).

This ambivalence is reflected in different assessments of synchronous and diachronic studies of ‘generational’ effects on the appropriation and use of technologies (Hepp, 2013). Today, synchronous studies of ‘generational’ effects have gained widespread currency. Starting with Docampo Rama in 2001, much synchronous research concerned with ‘generational’ effects on the appropriation of new technologies has been received positively. Scholars have applied various methodologies. Docampo Rama’s study of different birth cohorts in a laboratory setting allowed her to distinguish between ageing and generational effects (DoCampo and De los Milagros, 2001). Other experimental methodologies address the logging of Internet behaviour or eye-tracking studies (Loos, 2011). More standard methodologies are employed as well, such as survey methodologies (Kalmus et al., 2013; Sackmann and Winkler, 2013; Westlund and Ghersetti, 2015), cluster analysis (Hasebrink and Popp, 2006), interviews and oral history (Hepp et al., 2014), focus groups (Ponte and Aroldi, 2013), anthropological studies complemented with interviews and life course analysis (Claessens, 2013) and mixed methods (Lepa et al., 2014). Another approach is taken in a study of intergenerational exchanges (Siibak and Tamme, 2013), revealing, among other things, the mechanism of reverse socialisation – young people socialising their parents while adapting to social and technological change (Hoikkala, 2004 in Buckingham, 2006: 3).

Diachronous studies of generations have been widely criticised, however. For one thing, critics have argued that many of these studies tend to essentialise generations, noting in particular that the criteria used to distinguish between generations are quite arbitrary (Buckingham, 2006: 4). Additional criticism on the criteria used to distinguish generations has been levelled at either the lack of attention for technology or, on the contrary, departing from a technological determinist attitude (Colombo, 2011: 19). Moreover, due to the focus on the new, diachronous studies seem to pay little attention to continuity in the use of established technologies, or to the gradual appropriation of new technologies by older generations. The same applies to intergenerational exchanges. Finally, these studies have hardly explored the potential, continuous refashioning of generations.

A plea for a process-oriented approach

By relying on a process-oriented approach, it becomes possible to move beyond the abovementioned critical concerns when applying the concept of ‘generation’ in a historical context (Hepp et al., 2014: 30–31). As a first step, this implies the need to acknowledge the constructive features of generations – in addition to their ‘objective’ aspects – and their impact on identity formation. For a long time, many scholars considered the objective circumstances of particular cohorts as defining a generation. The Dutch sociologist Becker may serve as an example. He defined a generation as ‘a group of contemporaries whose behaviour shows the effects of discontinuous change, which they have experienced during their formative period’ (Van de Goor and Becker, 2000: 15). In the context of historical process, however, the actors’ acknowledgement of one’s association to a specific generation is equally important. Constructivist definitions of a generation highlight identity formation. Edmunds and Turner (2002: 7), for instance, define a generation as ‘an age cohort that comes to have social significance by virtue of constituting itself as a “cultural identity”’ (cf. Jureit, 2006: 40). A generation, in other words, is marked by the fact that objective and subjective aspects matter equally (Aroldi and Colombo, 2007: 36). A constructivist approach of generations, then, strips the generation concept of its essentialising characteristics.

This paper goes one step further by pursuing a radical constructivist perspective on generations. As such, it has affinity with recent historical work in Germany with a reviving interest in generations, especially produced by the Göttingen-based research group on ‘Generationengeschichte’ (Bohnenkamp et al., 2009). Although approaches vary, three features stand out: the constructivist approach, considering generations as a narrative feature, and last but not least the possibility to (re)construct generational identities ex-post (Brumberg, 2013: 84; Gerland, 2013: 280, 297). The Göttingen-based research group, however, did not, until very recently, address media (Seegers, 2015). Moreover, so far their writings did not attempt to remodel the concept of a generation. The ambition of this paper is exactly the above, with special interest for interactions between generations, media and technology.

The model proposed here allows for redefinition of and by generations in the course of time. This does not imply that a generation becomes an arbitrary construction. The concept is bound up with some form of collective expression by definition of course. In the course of time, individuals may recognise a specific (re)description of a generation, feel attracted to it, and, consequently, adapt it as part of their (re)constructed identity. But so far, at the conceptual level, the possibilities for adapting and redefining generational identities ex-post have received little attention. Scholars who embrace an objective perspective on generations may even deny the relevance of the whole idea. Yet, if technology and media can contribute to the formation of generations, one should acknowledge the (increased) pace of innovation. Today the speed of technological innovation appears to have outpaced the lifespan of a natural generation. ¹ As Rosa (2005: 178) has argued, the pace of technological innovation in pre-modern times extended over several natural generations. If in classic modernity the pace of technological innovation started to parallel natural generations, in late modernity, technological innovation accelerated and began to outpace the succession of natural generations. Buttressed by the increased pace of technological innovations, commercial interests have implemented the ‘planned obsolescence’ of commodities, explicitly introducing incompatible ‘updates’ and short-lived, non-reparable artefacts by design (Heckl, 2015). As the above observations underscore, there is a need for a more dynamic re-conceptualisation of the concept of generation, as an ascription evolving over time.

The process-oriented approach of generations proposed here starts from the observation that individuals continuously align to changing circumstances, such as following from, for instance, the introduction of new media and technologies. This explains the relevance of biographies for the generation concept (Möckel, 2014: 18). If the relevance of an individual’s formative years is obvious, in both cultural and psychological terms, it is also true that individual life stories are continuously updated in connection to the formation, upholding or reinvention of their identities. To gain explanatory power, it should be possible to express these individual identity-donating processes of delineation and updating in a collective fashion, whereby the concept of ‘generation’ is explicitly, or at least recognisably, used. Historical studies that employ this concept should be challenged to elucidate such processes of constructing and reconstructing at the level of ‘generations’ in specific contexts (Gerland, 2013: 284).

The model of regeneration

The process-oriented approach of generations presented here builds on Bolter and Grusin’s (1999) seminal study Remediation: Understanding New Media, which, among other things, aimed at getting rid of the tendency in media studies to essentialise the definition and understanding of individual media. Bolter and Grusin particularly oppose approaches that start from the consequent succession of media, which are often connected with assumptions about media specificity. A medium, they argue, always refers to other media; it never stands on its own. The similarities with the concept of generation are striking indeed. As a concept, generation is also criticised for its essentialising tendency, more particularly of age cohorts. Yet generations always refer to other generations, just as media refer to other media. In the study of media, the notion of intermediality has gained more interest, and the same applies for intergenerational exchanges in the study of generations (Bolin, 2014). Erll and Rigney (2009: 1) pointed at the relevance of remediation for a dynamic approach towards cultural memory and the media shaping it. The observed analogies invite one to explore how Bolter and Grusin’s approach of remediation can be made fruitful for the historical study of generations.

Inspired by Bolter and Grusin’s remediation approach, I propose the process-oriented model of regeneration. ² Regeneration departs from the natural tendency to adapt to changing circumstances during lifespan. In this respect, it is not only important to underline the impact of events in the formative period on the development of individuals. It is also relevant to pay attention to the continuous attempts, over the course of time, aimed at situating changing circumstances in personal life. Obviously, it is quite natural to situate oneself in a generational context. In certain historical circumstances, such individual efforts may well contribute to constructing a collective identity, called a generation. The model of regeneration proposed here, starts from, highlights and studies the ongoing constructivist process, thereby automatically distancing itself from any essentialist definition of generation.

Building on the logic of immediacy and hypermediacy distinguished by Bolter and Grusin, it is useful to identify three mechanisms:

Immediate generation, which implies the continuous, implicit accommodation of individuals to changing circumstances, technologies or media. Events in individuals’ formative years turn out to have lasting influence on their personal development. The mechanism of immediate generation refers to circumstances and experiences in youth upon which a sense of generational belonging can be articulated. Yet this does not necessarily happen. Immediate generation builds on Bolter and Grusin’s logic of immediacy, which points out that media tend to provide an immediate effect, making the audience/observer forget the constructed nature of the experience.

Karl Mannheim revisited

Although the proposed concepts for the abovementioned mechanisms are new, they can be accommodated in the classic conceptualisation of generations by the German sociologist Mannheim (1964 [1928]). As Pilcher (1994: 482) has concluded, Mannheim’s contribution ‘is widely regarded as the most systematic and fully developed treatment of generation from a sociological perspective’ (Corsten, 1999, 2011: 37). Careful rereading of Mannheim’s piece makes clear that many elements of the process-oriented approach can be retraced in Mannheim’s classic study. He shares the anti-essentialist approach of generations by pointing out that potentialities given by the historical circumstances (‘Generationslagerung’ – ‘generational site/location’) do not necessarily lead to generational belonging. Mannheim acknowledges the constructivist character of generations; they have to be made actual and concrete (in a ‘Generationzusammenhang’ – (‘generational actuality’). On top of that, Mannheim shares a non-determinist view. Generations do not form a homogeneous group; they comprise different ‘Generationseinheiten’ (‘generational units’), which, like subcultures, react differently upon the circumstances. He even acknowledges that these units may emerge on different points in time (Mannheim, 1964 [1928]: 559).

The regeneration model adds to Mannheim’s conceptualisation three elements in particular. First, it highlights specific mechanisms which can be pinpointed at different conceptual levels: immediate generation is active at the ‘generational site’. The mechanism of immediate regeneration is to be found when the generational potentiality is turned into actuality. The mechanism of hypermediate regeneration is only active within already established units. Second, the focus on various mechanisms of generational (re)construction is connected with extending the gamut of possible actors and active forces. Mannheim predominantly speaks of individuals who, based on similar (youth) experiences, group or mass. Other actors and active forces supporting the construction of generational belongings discursively are not highlighted; the role of marketing, for instance, is not addressed by Mannheim. The possibilities of different technological means and media are not taken into account. The main sociological concept Mannheim employs to develop and explicate the concept of generation is class. Third, widening up the gamut of relevant actors and taking into account developing media draw our attention to the more complex dynamics, in the course of time, within established generational units, leading to the introduction of hypermediate regeneration.

The fact that after more than 80 years, Mannheim’s piece permits of an update, should be considered a strength rather than a weakness of his conceptual scheme. Actually, Mannheim encouraged and prevised such updates. He explicitly notes that the structuring working forces of society, such as economy, power, race, etc., may change in the course of time (Mannheim, 1964 [1928]: 556).

In sum, a process-oriented approach of generations acknowledges both the specific historical circumstances of generations (immediate generation), the explicit acknowledgement of specific generational characteristics (immediate regeneration), yet adds the possibility to adopt generational belongings in the course of life time (hypermediate regeneration). By bridging actors’ involvement and analytical use, this radical constructivist model gets rid of the essentialising characteristics of the concept of generation, while keeping its explanatory power. The model can help to elucidate a similar paradox in technology studies: that of the common-sense appropriation of technological determinism versus theoretical criticisms of this notion.

Generations and technology studies

Over the last 30 years, scholars in the field of STS (Science, Technology and Society, also known as Social Studies of Science and Technology) have challenged a long-standing fallacy in research on the role of technology in societal change, accusing this body of research of showing a strong inclination towards technological determinism (Bijker et al., 1987; MacKenzie and Wajcman, 1985). Contrary to the changing scholarly attitudes on this issue, technological determinism remains influential in lay explanations of societal change (Wyatt, 2008). Sally Wyatt has tried to elucidate this paradox by distinguishing between four types of technological determinism. Besides a justificatory use, with is employed by prime actors, Wyatt identified a descriptive, methodological and normative use employed by scholars. Interestingly, as Wyatt described the historical background of technological determinism, she implicitly refers to the concept of generation as well: ‘Technological determinism is imbued with the notion that technological progress equals social progress. (…) Historically, technological determinism means that each generation produces a few inventors whose inventions appear to be both the determinants and the stepping stones of human development’ (Wyatt, 2008: 168–169). Wyatt, however, does not explicitly reflect in the paper upon the connections between the alleged or experienced technological progress and ‘generational’ identity.

Although Wyatt’s paper is innovative in addressing the ambivalent stance of technological determinism in technology studies and popular culture, her paper also reflects the lack of concern for generations in technology studies over the last decades. This lack in current STS contrasts sharply with the more economic-inspired research conducted by its predecessors between the 1960s and 1970s. Rogers (1962), for instance, tried to establish a clear link between technological innovations and lifecycles. Gradually, a shift can be detected from research that focused on technological innovations to the study of technological transitions, ranging from an evolutionary perspective (Dosi, 1982; Nelson and Winter, 1982), a systems approach (Hughes, 1983), or an interactive angle. This has resulted in various complex and multidimensional models, such as the Multi Level Perspective proposed by Geels and Schot (2007). As a consequence of this shift in focus, the interest in technological lifecycles has waned in technology studies. It is possible to observe a reverse trend in sociology, however. In the last decades, sociologists increasingly became interested in connections between generations and technology (Sackmann and Weymann, 1994; Van de Goor and Becker, 2000) or media, a development potentially triggered by the debate on a putative digital generation (Buckingham and Willet, 2006).

The process-oriented approach of generations can account for paradoxes as the ones mentioned above. In contemporary culture in which technologies are changing at a high pace, the concept of ‘generation’ provides ample opportunity for situating oneself in a rapidly changing society, if it does not coerce to do so. Southerton (2013: 336) argues that the reproduction of everyday practices requires more specific concepts than ‘habits’ or ‘routines’. The concept of ‘generation’, I argue, can be helpful in this respect. Via the mechanisms of immediate and hypermediate regeneration, as the initial and ongoing, ex-post reconstruction of collective generational identities, actors relate to challenging and changing technological circumstances. Scholars who depict this as lay naivety or, pejoratively, as technological determinism, underestimate the mechanisms (and power) of market forces (immediate regeneration) and the continuous challenges to adapt to a rapidly changing media and technological landscape (hypermediate regeneration).

Regeneration, youth culture and ageing studies

Observing a revived interest in the generation concept among sociologists in the early 1990s, Pilcher (1994: 482) has noticed a parallel between this concept and the previously existing lack of interest in age and ageing. A similar parallel can be drawn today in fact. It can be argued that today’s surge of sociological interest in generations is paralleled by an interest in ageing. The increased interest in generations is occasionally accompanied by a focus on generational rivalry, which seems based on a rather static, cohort-oriented definition of a generation. The baby-boomers, for instance, are blamed for ‘every social and moral blight, from housing and fiscal crises to environmental pollution, while also being held responsible for all the insecurities, moral laxities and any other imputed fears, anxieties or vices of the generation we reared’ (Boorman, 2010 in Segal, 2014: 47). Scholars in ageing studies, such as Elder (1994), Flaherty (2013) or Segal (2014), challenge a simplistic cohort approach of generations, accept heterogeneity and diversity, and suggest a more open and empirical manner in which to study ageing and generations.

At the other end of the age spectrum, scholars in youth studies have faced similar challenges, for many of them have suggested to break down the borders between age groups. In this respect, Bennett and Hodkinson (2013 [2012]: 1) opened their volume on Ageing and Youth Cultures with the following observation:

In the early twenty-first century, the concept of ‘youth culture’ appears increasingly ambiguous and open to interpretation. Born out of a unique combination of socioeconomic growth and rapid technological development during the 1950s, and spearheaded by the emergence of the ‘affluent’ teenager, it would be fair to say that ‘youth culture’ has always denoted a marketing strategy as much as it has been a lifestyle.

Educational toys: Immediate generation and immediate regeneration

To test the usefulness of the model of regeneration, educational toys provide an obvious case. Aroldi and Colombo (2007: 36) underline the relevance of education for studying generations, arguing that

[i]nterpreting the category of the ‘generation’ within an educational perspective is especially useful to avoid both the risks of an excessively rigid interpretation of the generational identity as the deterministic product of historical and demographic events or as the fruit of an autonomous and self-referential process of self-positioning, lacking connection with the other generations that precede and follow.

On the conceptual level, the whole idea of educational toys is tightly connected to the notion of ‘generation’. Parnes et al. (2008: 83) have pointed out that the emergence of the concept of generation, as a singular, is connected to the transition, around 1800, from ‘histories’ to history, as documented by, among others, the renowned German historian Koselleck (1989). It is interesting to note that this very period witnessed the emergence of the practice to educate youngsters via toys as well (Wachelder, 2014).

The ideology that parents (and grandparents) can contribute to the development of their offspring by carefully selecting toys as presents, is intimately connected to several distinctive characteristics of the ‘modern’ world: consumption, education and familial intimacy (Armstrong, 2008; Denisoff, 2008; Hamlin, 2007; Michals, 2008). The commercial success of educational toys resides in the assumption that toys contribute to the immediate generation of youngsters. To secure competiveness on the market, producers and retailers promoted toys, as preparing for tomorrow’s world. A world which was highly gendered (Formanek-Brunell, 1993; Ganaway, 2009; Horowitz, 2001; Oldenziel, 1999; Seiter, 1995; Varney, 2002). The preparation of fresh generations for the future would develop into a trope in the marketing of technical toys. Since toys rather immediately follow technological innovations (Poser, 2003), marketers capitalise on the mechanism of immediate regeneration to promote their goods (Cross, 2013).

Of course, not all manufacturers, retailers and consumers did always embrace technical innovations and technical toys (Korsvold, 2014 [2010]). Reform pedagogues have argued just the opposite and favoured, for instance, wooden toys manufactured on the basis of established technologies (Lauwaert, 2009: 52). It is not a coincidence, then, that already in the second part of the nineteenth century, public debates arose about the proper qualities of specific toys. For instance, the high level of technological sophistication and the achieved realism was contested by those pedagogues who fostered the stimulation of a child’s imagination (Ganaway, 2009: 130; Hamlin, 2007: 156). Reform pedagogues preferred simple toys which stirred creative play.

Educational toys: Hypermediate regeneration

To trace the mechanism of hypermediate regeneration, Ganaway (2009) provides several interesting observations. His reflection on the saliency of memoirs as a historical source is of specific interest here. If he considers memoirs to be indispensable historical sources, he also acknowledges their intrinsic limitations, as the following quotation illustrates (Ganaway, 2009: 140):

It is clear what most parents wanted when they bought toys, but it is more challenging to find out if young boys really listened. No focus groups, telephone surveys or statistical early childhood development research exists from 1900. We must rely on memoirs, many of which were written decades later. Some scholars see this as enough of a reason to ignore memoirs completely, but I think that is misguided. Carefully handled, they provide useful insights into what people thought they were supposed to learn and what they assumed constituted normal play.

It is important to recognise ex-post attributions of ‘favourite toys’ as relevant autobiographical reconstructions (Bohnenkamp, 2011: 109). Over the last two centuries, the notion of ‘my favourite toy’ has become a trope (Wachelder, 2013). After toys were introduced for educational purposes in the beginning of the nineteenth century, they started to find their place in autobiographies. In a survey conducted by Galton (1874) among members of the Royal Society, a number of scientists claimed to have been inspired by the toys from their childhood. Similarly, quite some writers and critics have acknowledged their childhood experiences with toy theatres as a source of inspiration. Hans Christian Andersen, Aubrey Beardsley, Charles Dickens, John Everett Millet, Robert Louis Stevenson, Ellen Terry and Jack B. Yeats were all juvenile theatrical producers, a recreation that many of them continued to indulge into adult life (Farr, 2008: 43; Reid-Walsh, 2008: 80). Even statesmen situate the seeds of their successes in the playthings of their youth. As Winston Churchill has written, he was an avid collector of tin soldiers and a devoted war games player in his early years (Brown, 1990: 243).

The mechanism of hypermediate regeneration may challenge the effects of immediate generation, leading to surprising memoirs. Wachelder’s (2013) study of the straightforward question and answer game Electro!, which was tailored to primary school pupils, is a case in point. He found a remarkable discrepancy between the game’s sales statistics – for more than 50 years the game appeared to be the cash cow for its manufacturer Jumbo® – and the toy’s limited role in autobiographical narratives. This is perhaps tied to the game’s role as an ordinary activity of everyday life: as such it is not telling enough as an activity to distinguish oneself from others, and thus it may barely feature in autobiographical reconstructions (Baggerman, 2011: 182). After one or two generations, such ordinary games from everyday life will rather evoke feelings of nostalgia (Atia and Davies, 2010; Bolin, 2014, 2015; Boym, 2001; Mitchell and Reid-Walsh, 2002; O’Sullivan, 2010; Radstone, 2010; Sommer, 1992). If, however, during one’s lifetime radical political or social changes occur, the playthings of one’s youth may get additional, and thus new, meanings (Berdahl, 1999: 203). East German (N)Ostalgia may serve as an example (Bach, 2002; Betts 2000). Pohrib (2015: 12) speaks, in a comparable context, borrowed from Bohnenkamp (2011) about ‘generatiographies’. I suggest that the concept of hypermediate regeneration could be helpful to discuss the collective reshaping of generational belongings due to radically changed political circumstances.

Due to the high pace of the updating of technological commodities and media nowadays, one may expect the mechanism of hypermediate regeneration to challenge generational belongings produced by immediate regeneration as well. The phenomenon of ‘Bronies’ may serve as an example. ‘Bronies’ are men aged between 15 and 35, who engage and intervene in the animated television programme My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, which was initially aimed to cater to a pre-teen girl audience (Burdfield, 2014). Toy giant Hasbro offers the accessory cute plush figures. The ‘Bronies’ adopt a new identity, even to the extent of reversing gender allocations. It is possible to understand this phenomenon with the mechanism of hypermediate regeneration. This is also why Hasbro extended its product range with some figures introduced by ‘Bronies’ in its assortment. In the vocabulary of Bolter and Grusin (1999), this seems to be a plain example of remediation. In this case, remediation and hypermediate regeneration mutually manifest themselves and also reinforce each other.

Methodological reflections

The lack of sustained methodological reflection can be considered a major flaw in Mannheim’s work on generations. As Pilcher (1994: 492) concluded, this work ‘does not contain an empirical model or any guidelines as to how the investigation of generational phenomena is to proceed’. At any rate, the study of generations requires a long-term perspective, because one generation will automatically refer to or imply another one. A generation can never exist in isolation; it is always part of a generational dynamic. Furthermore, the model of regeneration highlights interactions between generations. This is also why biographies may serve as an excellent starting point for a better understanding of generational dynamics in history (Corsten, 2011: 39).

I would argue that three types of ‘biographies’ are helpful in particular when it comes to grasping the intricate mechanisms of immediate generation, immediate regeneration and hypermediate regeneration, especially when one is interested in interactions between generations and technological development.

Personal biographies and autobiographies can reveal manifestations of immediate generation and show how in the course of an individual’s lifetime, collective identities are challenged or adopted.

Biographies of objects may complement the subjective assessments of technological and/or media transitions from a more objective and/or contextual point of view. Biographies of objects appear in two guises, either of a type or of an exemplar.

Biographies of a type describe the development of a ‘technology’ or a medium from a system’s or producer’s point of view. To some extent, these ‘biographies’ revive the study of lifecycles in the field of technology. Products frequently appear in a successive series of models; marketers tend to speak of generations (Wachelder, 2013). For these biographies, historians often rely on archival materials from manufacturers or marketers, giving insight into the so-called ‘configured users’ (Fickers, 2015). These types of sources can reveal mechanisms of immediate regeneration. Of course, one should not take marketing discourses at face value.

Biographies of an exemplar are known from material culture studies (Foster, 2006; Kopytoff, 1986). Such studies can reveal an object’s use, and especially its many afterlives in second- and third-hand use. Therefore, attention for this kind of ‘biography’ has the potential to reveal non-commercial exchanges in and between generations.

Together, the abovementioned three types of biographies may reveal more about the dynamic interplay in and between generations. The three mechanisms discussed in this paper – immediate generation, immediate regeneration and hypermediate regeneration – may thereby serve as a framework for analysis of this particular dynamics.