DT23005 Greatness - Not likely to be your destiny.

 James Marriot has nailed it once again with this Times Article examining the way the influence of Social Media has changed the behaviours of the new generation of under twenty year olds. Once again a highly perceptive and thought provoking article written by a young man whose thought processes far exceed his years.

 

So today I am capturing an article (04/05/23) from the Times Newspaper by James Marriott and copying it below with all the relevant Copyright acknowledgements. This is then followed with some notes I have made on the article. Then finally the link to the Times article is included at the end.

 

Copyright@James Marriot. Times Newpapers.  

 

Sorry, we can’t all be destined for greatness

Unrealistic pressure to be ‘special’ is fuelling an epidemic of unhappiness in younger people

---

James Marriott @j_amesmarriott

---

James Marriott

I spent much of the past week visiting various university campuses speaking to students. A poignant experience. Partly because I got to waft around other people’s arts faculties, remembering when I too had all that freedom and all that time ahead of me. But this was also the first time I noticed that generational differences now separate me from the current cohort of undergraduates. I was taken aback (and also rather charmed) by how many of my interlocutors eagerly offered me earnest, unprompted explanations of their neurological and sexual identities. I also noticed a new, intense atmosphere of personal ambition. Students fretfully explained that “side hustles”, multiple internships and strenuously cultivated hobbies were no longer the preserve of a hyper-ambitious minority but the basic criteria of success.

I think the new mood I detected might be described as an ethic of exceptionalism. In the 1950s, only 12 per cent of teenagers agreed with the statement “I am an important person”. Today, that figure is higher than 80 per cent. Two thirds of modern students believe themselves to be academically above average, compared with about half at the beginning of the 1970s. It should be said that self-belief is often an attractive trait and not to be deplored in itself — I was thoroughly charmed by everyone I spoke to. It is also true that the explosion of new sexual and neurological identities reflects a richer culture of personal expression. And nobody of a truly liberal sensibility can really object to that. But I do wonder whether these new freedoms of self-realisation don’t carry with them a pressure to be distinctive and extraordinary that is rather punishing.

Modern society puts an unprecedented and flattering emphasis on the potential of the individual. From every angle, our culture feeds our dreams of outstanding personal significance. A recent study found that the phrases “believe in yourself” and “express yourself” occur twice as frequently in modern books as in those published 50 years ago.

There is honour in the normal life well lived, its joys and tragedies 

Fantasies of specialness, uniqueness and non-conformity are the leitmotifs of all our media. The narcissism of celebrity culture, with its shallow celebration of looks and wealth, has been supplemented by social media which has diffused the pathologies of fame throughout society. Acting like you are uniquely important and interesting is regarded as obnoxious in ordinary social life. It is precisely the behaviour rewarded by platforms such as Instagram, TikTok and Facebook.

In such an atmosphere, it is hardly surprising that few people admit to being normal or desiring a normal life. But you don’t have to travel very far past childhood to understand that there are few more potent recipes for bitterness and misery than a thwarted sense of exceptional destiny. And indeed, modern teenagers are unprecedentedly miserable. The majority of teenage girls — 57 per cent — “experience persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness”. Since the beginning of the century, anxiety has increased by more than 60 per cent in adolescent girls and almost 80 per cent in boys. Over that same unhappy 20-year span, depression has increased by 137 per cent in girls and 60 per cent in boys.

Smartphones have been blamed. So have the threats of generational inequality and climate doom. Both explanations are convincing. But I wonder whether at least some adolescent unhappiness might be attributed to the collision of dreams of personal distinctiveness with the banal reality of life, which rewards only a few with fame and recognition.

Indeed, anthropologists are long familiar with the fact that collectivist societies are often better at cultivating contentment than those that prize individual freedom — the reason rates of depression are lower in east Asia than in the West. I was intrigued by a recent study which found that the most unhappy cohort of all in the modern west was young liberal women. Liberalism, of course, is the ideology of the individual.

I think modern liberal societies are haunted by memories of the conformity of the 1950s. Society before the cultural revolution of the 1960s was much less individualistic but divergence from the era’s strict social norms was punished harshly. Homosexuality was illegal. Unmarried mothers were socially shamed. Women faced abysmally limited lives. But our enlightened horror of the illiberal past and the commendable modern instinct to celebrate nonconformity have prompted an overcorrection. “Normal” has become almost a synonym for failure.

The totemic text of my generation and the following one, Harry Potter, opens with a sentence explaining that the book’s unpleasant Mr and Mrs Dursley were “proud to say they were perfectly normal, thank you very much”. What more needs to be said? I was similarly struck reading my colleague Hadley Freeman’s excellent new book that she was tipped into the despair of anorexia by a friend’s comment that she wished to be “normal, like you” — a testament to the dangerous power of a once innocuous word.

We must rediscover the idea that there is honour in the normal life well lived. Fantasies of exceptional destiny are cruel enough for the exceptional few who possess the abilities to fulfil them but are crueller still for those destined for normal lives. And a normal life, with its normal joys, its normal disappointments, its normal tragedies, is the fate most of us can expect. As fates go, it is not so bad.

The End of Article.

Copyright@James Marriot. Times Newpapers. 

 

Blog Authors Comment.

James has identified in this one article a major social change which is affecting the new generation just leaving education and moving into work settings. Being normal is causing high levels of unhappiness in some cases leading to depressive illnesses in the young generation. The nature of work these days in a capitalistic society is contributing to this problem. Unfortunately, many work setting do not offer the stability of employment so necessary as you start to take on career, family and home making commitments. Property ownership, the bedrock of creating family stability, has become out of reach for most of the younger generation. At the same time being able to view other people’s lives has never been easier through the Smartphone and Social Media “lens”. The trend being to use Social Media to “show off” the good life being experienced by a select few. The failure is not giving a true perspective where most “normal” lives do not follow this idealistic digitally portrayed pattern of pure happiness.

The Government is failing to see what life is now like for the younger generation in the United Kingdom. It needs to see life in the 21^st Century in the United Kingdom from their perspective. Educational establishments, qualification authorities, employers, enterprise initiators, property rental and property ownership bodies all need to be brought into a “Think Tank” initiative to establish a co-ordinated approach to organising this phase in young people’s lives. I am not an advocate of a “nanny” state but leaving it all to a “free for all” will no longer meet their needs. Although capitalism is an extremely effective mechanism at managing many aspects of our Western Society it is incapable of meeting the needs of young people. Sadly they are becoming the victims of a free for all economy.

So how can things be improved without the state becoming too dictatorial? The academic world needs better aligning with the work needs of our society. But we still want to retain the capability to undertake pure research where these links to real work tend not to exist. In the United Kingdom the two class system of Universities and Colleges is failing to meet the needs of the younger generation. Even within Universities they have evolved further class structures with Oxford and Cambridge being the most elitist. They are included in the Russell Group consisting of an association of twenty four universities often portrayed as being the UK’s best universities. If you then consider the private school system with a prime objective of  feeding students into these elitist settings it does make being “normal” feel like you are left out in the cold. We haven’t even tried to acknowledge those entering the College system of education where many of the real work skills to support our society are developed in individuals.

So what is needed? Private and Public work providers need to be integrated into these educational settings. They should not just wait for a product, being a trained worker, to arrive at their door they should be integrated into their creation. Both Universities and Colleges need to develop specialisms by integrating employers into their workflow. Apart from pure research the educational processes should be aligned fully with the future nature of work. Students should be exposed to different types of work to help them appreciate what “work” will really be like when it becomes their daily routine. Sadly much of the work is routine and repetitive but with the progress of Artificial Intelligence (AI) based systems this is about to change. Employers also have duty to make work more satisfying for employees with the use of rotation of the boring work to aid stimulation. Career paths are also important tools to encourage engagement. But overriding all these is the need to offer employers financial stability so they can look to take on debt particularly in terms of mortgages upon which to build their “normal” lives.

So having looked to address the education to work pathway in people’s lives by increased integration both at the start for young people but also throughout their lives as work types disappear and retraining in different types of work become necessary. A particular problem for people in their 50’s plus where they can still need to find paid work for a further 18 years or so. The other big problem for the young is property ownership or more likely these days rental. The State Pension does not support a rental payment with those not owning a property required to seek Housing Benefits to keep a floor over their heads in retirement. It is in the Government’s interests to get people to look to use part of their income when young to buy a property thereby avoiding the need to find rent in old age. So the rental cycle has to be broken as early as possible in their lives with this now becoming a nearly impossible objective for young people. So what can be done?

The key is support for the first time buyer. Particularly the movement of the renter into a home ownership model. With those that pay a consistent rental model their conversion into this being a mortgage payment is vital. In London rentals are so high now whilst property prices exceed anything mortgageable by a young “normal” person. It is an impossible dilemma for young people. Living outside of London with the commute in daily like many do is even in itself unaffordable these days most young people. It all requires a radical new approach.

The Government finances a new build inclusive of a fast transit system into London. Although London is listed here it could be any city. The new build includes starter flats, small homes and larger family homes with an easy low cost upgrade path between them. The Government owns equity in the build which reduces in a way that allows the owner to build capital in the property over a 25 year period. But it avoids the stigma attached to social housing with these places built to be where people are keen to live with associated amenities including green space. It is like the “New Town” initiatives of the based upon the New Towns Act 1946 that established Development Corporations. These New Town Acts ran from 1952 to 1969 so the concept is well established legally. The difference proposed here is this is based upon the needs of First-Time buyers rather than being a more generic approach adopted by these Acts.

Those living in these almost “nursery first time buyer” settings can sell up and move back into the main stream property market whenever they feel able to do so. This then frees up spaces for new first time buyers. Whist retirement complexes meet the needs of the elderly in old age this approach meets the needs of young people starting out in life. It gives structure to this part of first time buyer life whereas now no such structure exists. Leaving it be a “free for all” is just creating frustration and unhappiness. It needs a “Think Tank” Government approach otherwise we are going to create real social problems based upon not supporting young people in terms of home ownership. Its time to act.

 

Times Newspaper article link below.

https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?artguid=87222418-8bcc-434f-92d3-9a9d43e68869