Representative Image
There is a new habit in present-day, society that deserves more serious discussion than it currently receives. We increasingly describe young generation by labels such as Gen X, Gen Y, Millennials, Gen Z, Gen Alpha and now Gen Beta. In demographic research, such classifications may have a legitimate purpose.
Researchers use birth-year groups to study how historical events, technological developments, economic conditions and social changes influence people who grow up during a particular period though this it may differ nation to nation. The problem begins when a research category leaves the academic world and becomes a social identity, a marketing tool or a stereotype whether it belongs to your nation or not. Generalisation!! When millions of individuals are referred to a label based identification primarily on their year of birth.
Stop! we should pause and ask whether we are actually understanding society better—or simply creating new divisions, identification within it. In India where already many different fractions are living. This one more! typical irony for Indians.
A child is not a “Gen Z” or “Gen Alpha” before being a child. A son is a son, a daughter is a daughter, a student is a student and above all, a young person is a member of a family and society. The moment we say “our children”, something much deeper is expressed. There is affection, responsibility, protection, accountability and belonging.
But when we repeatedly describe them as a particular “generation”, there is a danger that we begin to see them as a group rather than as individuals with distance like as if they are not our part, even do not belong to us. Two children born in the same year may have completely different personalities, family environments, regions, communities, economic circumstances, education, languages, traditions, responsibilities and aspirations. How can a single label adequately describe them?
This question becomes even more important in India. India is not a culturally uniform society. It is a civilisation of extraordinary geographical, linguistic, social and cultural diversity. A child growing up in a village in Assam may have a completely different experience from a child growing up in Mumbai, Delhi, Bengaluru or a small town in another part of the country.
Even within the same locality, children from different families can have entirely different experiences. Therefore, applying broad Western demographic categories to Indian children without considering our own social and cultural realities can easily produce misleading generalisations.
The real danger is not the existence of these words but the way we use them. There is a significant difference between saying, “Researchers are studying young people born during a particular period”, and saying, “Gen Z is like this” or “Gen Alpha behaves like that”. The first is an attempt to understand a demographic pattern.
The second can quickly become stereotyping. A few incidents reported in the media can suddenly be presented as evidence about an entire generation. One young person commits a crime and a headline or social-media discussion may turn the incident into a commentary on millions of young people. This is neither fair nor intellectually responsible. A generation cannot be held responsible for the actions of a few individuals.
The language we use about children or any individual influences the way society thinks about them. If we repeatedly hear that a particular generation is impatient, irresponsible, addicted to technology, disrespectful or difficult, we may gradually begin to approach young people with suspicion rather than understanding.
Parents may begin to think that their children are fundamentally different from them. Teachers may see a classroom through a generational stereotype. Elders may believe that the younger generation has lost all values, while young people may conclude that older generations simply do not understand them. A label that was originally intended to describe a demographic pattern can therefore become a psychological boundary between generations.
There is also an important commercial dimension to this phenomenon. Markets naturally divide consumers into categories because businesses need to understand purchasing behaviour, preferences and trends. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. The concern arises when market classifications begin to influence the way society itself describes human beings.
Once an age group receives a fashionable name, it becomes easier to discuss it as a distinct consumer segment and to sell products, entertainment, technology, education, lifestyles and aspirations specifically to that group. But families do not operate like markets. A market needs consumers; a family needs relationships. A company may need a demographic category; a parent needs to know the individual child.
Parents spend a substantial part of their lives preparing their children for the future. They educate them, sacrifice for them, protect them, support them through difficulties and hope that they will become responsible human beings. Parents do not wake up in the morning thinking, “I am raising a member of Gen Alpha”. They think, “I am raising my child”. That distinction should not be underestimated. A child should not become a market segment before becoming a member of a family. The first identity we give our children should be one of belonging, not classification.
Our traditional social structure has placed considerable importance on inter-generational relationships. Parents and grandparents have traditionally played an important role in raising children, transmitting knowledge and providing emotional and practical support. At the same time, children have traditionally been expected to respect elders and accept responsibilities towards their families. Indian society is certainly not perfect and many traditions require reform. Yet the underlying principle of mutual responsibility remains valuable. Modernisation should improve these relationships, not make them irrelevant.
We should also be careful about our increasing obsession with words such as “modern”, “luxury” and “ultra-luxury”. Modern amenities have undoubtedly improved human life, and there is nothing wrong with seeking comfort or prosperity. But material advancement should not be confused with human development. A larger house does not necessarily mean a happier family. Expensive possessions do not automatically produce wisdom. A technologically advanced lifestyle does not guarantee emotional maturity. True progress should also be measured by our ability to care for one another, accept responsibility, maintain relationships and contribute to society.
Every generation faces its own challenges. Previous generations lived through wars, poverty, limited educational opportunities, social restrictions and economic uncertainty. Today’s children are growing up with different pressures. They face an enormous flow of information, social-media comparison, rapidly changing career opportunities, consumerism, digital addiction, changing family structures and a world in which technological change is taking place at an extraordinary speed. Their challenges are real, but the answer should not be to distrust them or attach a negative label to them. The answer is to understand them better.
At the same time, young people also have responsibilities. Respect for parents and elders, discipline, honesty, patience, compassion and responsibility, cannot become outdated simply because technology has changed. Independence should not mean irresponsibility. Freedom should not mean disrespect. Modern education should not remove the importance of character. Parents and elders, however, also have responsibilities. They must listen, adapt and understand that every generation will experience a world somewhat different from the one in which they grew up. A healthy family is not one in which one generation defeats another; it is one in which generations learn from each other.
The media has a particularly important responsibility in this regard. News channels, newspapers, social-media platforms, politicians, influencers and public commentators should think carefully before using generational labels in a way that generalises millions of young people. A headline may attract attention for a few seconds, but the stereotype created by that headline can remain in people’s minds for years. Responsible journalism should investigate individuals and circumstances rather than searching for convenient generational explanations.
The same caution should apply to politics etc. Young people should not be treated merely as a voter, or a demographic opportunity. They are citizens with aspirations, responsibilities and enormous potential. Political and social organisations should engage with them as individuals and help them develop the ability to think critically rather than simply giving them another identity to follow.
Perhaps the most important question is this: What kind of society do we want to leave for the next generation? Do we want children to grow up believing that they belong to a separate generation that is fundamentally different from their parents and grandparents? Or do we want them to understand that although technology, circumstances and lifestyles change, human relationships, responsibility, compassion and mutual respect remain essential?
We should not be afraid of the future. Nor should we be afraid of our children. We should be careful not to create a self-fulfilling assumptions in which we repeatedly tell young people that they belong to a different and difficult generation and then become surprised when they feel disconnected from older generations. Instead, we should create opportunities for conversation between generations. Grandparents should be able to share experience with grandchildren. Parents should be able to listen to their children without immediately judging them. Young people should be able to question older generations without losing respect for them. This exchange is how society evolves without losing its roots.
Therefore, there is nothing wrong with using Gen X, Gen Y, Gen Z, Gen Alpha or other demographic terms when they are genuinely useful for research and analysis. But these terms should remain what they are: descriptive demographic categories, not permanent social identities. They should never become a reason to stereotype, isolate or distrust an entire age group.
Perhaps we should simply begin with a different vocabulary. Instead of constantly saying “Gen Z”, let start saying “our young people”. Instead of “Gen Alpha”, let us say “our children”. Instead of treating them as a market category, let us see them as the coming generation. Instead of asking what is wrong with a particular generation, let us ask what circumstances are shaping our children and what responsibilities we, as parents, teachers, institutions and society, have towards them.
A society becomes strong when its generations remain connected. Our children should know where they come from, but they should also feel free to build the future. Parents should guide them without controlling them. Young people should seek independence without abandoning responsibility. Elders should pass on wisdom without demanding blind obedience. And society should encourage progress without allowing markets, political interests or fashionable terminology to define human relationships.
Let us call our children by their names before we call them by their generation. Let us know their character before we judge their category. Let us guide them before we stereotype them. Because they are not merely Gen Z, Gen Alpha or Gen Beta. They are our children. They are our responsibility. They are our future. And the future of a society should never be divided and isolated.
