I was inspired to start editing it myself but found I wanted to change too much — not that I disagreed with the spirit of the thing (which I agree with almost too-passionately) but because I have my own perspective, with my own specialized vocabulary, which I use to address the issues that I’m in the best position to understand and affect. Accordingly, I’m inclined to frame it in rather different terms.

But the last thing I’d want to do is oppose or contradict what Haque and Eaves or the rest of the best are saying.

It shouldn’t be a tug-of-war over terminology and semantics. That’s the old way of doing things — what Generation M is supposed to overcome.

But, nor can we merely “agree to disagree.” We have to keep the dialog open and alive.

What these conversations and debates do, which we need to ensure they continue doing, is generate familiarity & orientation, adaptation & integration.

The notion of Familiarity replaces the notion of categorization. Instead of silos we have networks of relations. Instead of neatly arranging everything (and everybody) into discrete slots, we need to appreciate things for the various traits they share with this-and that — and, ultimately, their individual character.

Orientation replaces the overconfident notion that we actually know where everything is and where we’re going. We can’t plan everything. We will go off the road from time to time (maybe because the road gets washed-out or collapsed, maybe because we see better opportunities in previously untravelled & unexplored areas), so it’s better to have the ability to re-orient ourselves in changing environments.

I’ll leave Adaptation and Integration with you… and there are a lot more notions to explore…

What it comes down to is that this is really an anti-manifesto kind of movement. It’s about the process — whether it’s the process of remixing or sharing or debating… — not anything that could be laid out comprehensively in absolute terms.

Put simply, it isn’t about the document, it’s about the dialog.

At the same time, we need documents and draft manifestos as platforms or frameworks and references for dialog. Discussing things like this is the best way to exercise our minds, voices, and vocabularies; to generate familiarity and rapport with others; to understand their ideas and appreciate their perspectives.

… as long as they keep our conversations and adventures alive.

No related posts.

Dear Old People Who Run the World,

My generation would like to break up with you.

Everyday, I see a widening gap in how you and we understand the world — and what we want from it. I think we have irreconcilable differences.

I understand that previous generations have made similar complaints in the past, when they were young. I’m inclined to think that the big difference between today’s radical sentiments vs, say, the 1960′s, is how much of a technical advantage we have. Not only do we know how to program DVD players and tweak security settings on Facebook, but we are also using that technical advantage to advance our theoretical knowledge.

So it isn’t like we simply have a different perspective. Some of us can make pretty serious, objective cases when we argue [as Haque goes on]:

You turned politics into a dirty word. We want authentic, deep democracy — everywhere.

You wanted financial fundamentalism. We want an economics that makes sense for people — not just banks.

You wanted shareholder value — built by tough-guy CEOs. We want real value, built by people with character, dignity, and courage.

You wanted an invisible hand — it became a digital hand. Today’s markets are those where the majority of trades are done literally robotically. We want a visible handshake: to trust and to be trusted.

You wanted growth — faster. We want to slow down — so we can become better.

You didn’t care which communities were capsized, or which lives were sunk. We want a rising tide that lifts all boats.

You wanted to biggie size life: McMansions, Hummers, and McFood. We want to humanize life.

You wanted exurbs, sprawl, and gated anti-communities. We want a society built on authentic community.

You wanted more money, credit and leverage — to consume ravenously. We want to be great at doing stuff that matters.

You sacrificed the meaningful for the material: you sold out the very things that made us great for trivial gewgaws, trinkets, and gadgets. We’re not for sale: we’re learning to once again do what is meaningful.

There’s a tectonic shift rocking the social, political, and economic landscape. The last two points above are what express it most concisely. I hate labels, but I’m going to employ a flawed, imperfect one: Generation “M.”

And no, this isn’t just a reactionary youth movement. We’ve already got a stacked roster of role models who have either carved a niche or dynamited their presence into the heart of the old landscape:

Gen M is about passion, responsibility, authenticity, and challenging yesterday’s way of everything. Everywhere I look, I see an explosion of Gen M businesses, NGOs, open-source communities, local initiatives, government. Who’s Gen M? Obama, kind of. Larry and Sergey. The Threadless, Etsy, and Flickr guys. Ev, Biz and the Twitter crew. Tehran 2.0. The folks at Kiva, Talking Points Memo, and FindtheFarmer. Shigeru Miyamoto, Steve Jobs, Muhammad Yunus, and Jeff Sachs are like the grandpas of Gen M. There are tons where these innovators came from. [...]

Anyone — young or old — can answer it. Generation M is more about what you do and who you are than when you were born. So the question is this: do you still belong to the 20th century - or the 21st?

I find myself starting to get a more radical edge.

This is not comfortable for me. In the past I’ve been fairly conservative by nature, but these points just seem increasingly obvious to me. Where does this lead?

No related posts.