Abstract
Introduction. Little attention has been paid to the study of identifying characteristics of generations in social psychology. This paper: (a) presents a novel view of typological and identifying characteristics of generations within classical (primordial) and non-classical (constructionist) approaches; (b) classifies approaches to defining the ‘generation’ concept; (c) considers the existing criteria for differentiating generations; and (d) discusses the issue of subjective and objective criteria. Within the framework of the classical approach the generation is understood as a large group which identifying characteristics include such constant constructs as: age, historical events of life, and a place in the family. The study presents typologies of generations in Russia, America, and China that differ in their criteria for generational boundaries. It is found that respondents’ identification with their generation does not always correspond to their age. The constructionist approach suggests that the reality of life of generations is changeable and fluid and defines the generation as a non-rigid system which identifying characteristics are hard to fixate. Discourse is an indicator of the fluid identification of generations. The paper concludes with the comparative analysis of the existing typologies of generations.
Methods. The study used the technique for measuring mentality types by V. I. Pishchik and ‘My Adolescence’ free description technique. The study sample was comprised of 300 individual participants (representatives of the ‘transitional’ and ‘informational’ generations).
Results. In brief the research findings indicate that the informational generation is characterized by innovative mentality, while the transitional generation is characterized by both innovative and traditional mentality. The difference between indices of societality and individualism in the analyzed text content is statistically significant. The texts produced by the representatives of the transitional generation mainly contain the problem and the cultural context. The representatives of the informational generation typically enumerate in their texts the facts of life and acquisition of material objects.
Discussion. The classical and non-classical approaches to the problem of generations are considered as two alternatives of knowledge representation. The conclusion is made regarding the prospects of applying the constructionist approach to the psychology of generations.
Highlights
- The classical approach defines the generation as a poorly structured social group.
- The non-classical approach defines the generation as a form of cultural and collective representations.
- The classical approach suggests that the characteristics identifying generations are stable and passed on from generation to generation.
- From the constructionist point of view the characteristics identifying generations are flexible and unstable and are not transmitted across generations directly.
- The typology of generations has its cultural, social, and historical specific qualities.
References
Voronkov V. M. The ‘men of the sixties’ project: The protest movement in the USSR. In: Levada Yu., Shanin T. (eds.) Fathers and children: A generational analysis of modern Russia. Moscow, Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie Publ., 2005, pp. 168–200.
Emel'yanova T. P. Sotsial'nye predstavleniya. Istoriya, teoriya i empiricheskie issledovaniya [Social representations: History, theory, and empirical research]. Moscow, Kogito–Center Publ., 2016. 476 p.
Kon I. S. Rebenok i obshchestvo [The child and society]. Moscow, Akademiya Publ., 2003. 336 p.
Pishchik V. I. Generations: Socio-psychological analysis of mentality. Sotsial'naya psikhologiya i obshchestvo – Social Psychology and Society, 2011, no. 2, pp. 80–88 (in Russian).
Postnikova M. I. Psikhologiya otnoshenii mezhdu pokoleniyami v sovremennoi Rossii [Psychology of intergenerational relations in modern Russia]. Diss. Dr. Sci. (Psych.). St. Petersburg, 2010. 590 p.
Saporovskaya M. V. Psikhologiya mezhpokolennykh otnoshenii v sovremennoi rossiiskoi sem'e [Psychology of intergenerational relations in modern Russian families]. Kostroma, KSU Publ., 2012. 430 p. Available at: http://www.coping-kostroma.com/images/files/Saporovskaya-Book.pdf (Accessed 12 May 2018).
Sánchez-Moya A., Cruz-Moya O. Whatsapp, textese, and moral panics: Discourse features and habits across two generations. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2015, V. 173, pp. 300–306. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.069
Tolstykh A. V. Opyt konkretno-istoricheskoi psikhologii lichnosti [The experience of concrete historical personality psychology]. St. Petersburg, Alteya Publ., 2000. 287 p.
Kupperschmidt B. R. Multigeneration employees: Strategies for effective management. The Health Care Manager, 2000, V. 19, Issue 1, pp. 65–76. DOI: 10.1097/00126450-200019010-00011
Howe N., Strauss W. Millennials rising: The next great generation. New York, Vintage, 2009. 432 p.
Сampbell S. M., Twenge J. M., Campbell W. K. Fuzzy but useful constructs: Making sense of the differences between generations. Work, Aging and Retirement, 2017, V. 3, Issue 2, pp. 130–139. DOI: 10.1093/workar/wax001
Gergen K., Polonnikov A. A. (ed.) Sotsial'nyi konstruktsionizm: znanie i praktika [Social constructionism: knowledge and practice]. Minsk, BSU Publ., 2003. 232 p.
Pishchik V. I., Sivrikova N. V. The dynamics of sense components of the mentality of generations. Rossiiskii psikhologicheskii zhurnal – Russian Psychological Journal, 2014, V. 11, no. 3, pp. 73–82 (in Russian).
Pishchik V. I., Gavrilova A. V., Sivrikova N. V. Styles of intergenerational pedagogical interaction between teachers and students of different generational groups. Rossiiskii psikhologicheskii zhurnal – Russian Psychological Journal, 2016, V. 13, no. 3, pp. 245–264 (in Russian). DOI: 10.21702/rpj.2016.3.14
Semenova V. V. Sotsial'naya dinamika pokolenii: problema i real'nost' [Social dynamics of generations: The problem and reality]. Moscow, Rossiiskaya politicheskaya entsiklopediya Publ., 2009. 271 p.
Levada Yu. A. Generations of the 20th century: Potential for research. In: Levada Yu., Shanin T. (eds.) Fathers and children: A generational analysis of modern Russia. Moscow, Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie Publ., 2005, pp. 39–60.
Lisovskii V. T. The dynamics of social changes: The experience of comparative sociological research of Russian youth. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya – Sociological Studies, 1998, no. 5, pp. 98–104 (in Russian).
Egri C. P., Ralston D. A. Generation cohorts and personal values: A comparison of China and the United States. Organization Science, 2004, V. 15, Issue 2, pp. 210–220. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1030.0048
Mannheim K. Essays on the sociology of knowledge: The problem of generations - competitiveness - economic ambitions (Russ. ed.: Mangeim K. Ocherki sotsiologii znaniya: Problema pokolenii – Sostyazatel'nost' – Ekonomicheskie ambitsii. Moscow, INION RAS Publ., 2000. 162 p.).
Soldatova G. U., Rasskazova E. I. The ‘digital’ situation of intergenerational relations: The gap and interaction between adolescents and parents on the Internet. Mir psikhologii – World of Psychology, 2017, no. 1 (89), pp. 134–143 (in Russian).
Glotov M. B. Generation as a category in sociology. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya – Sociological Studies, 2004, no. 10, pp. 42–49 (in Russian).
Mead M. Kul'tura i mir detstva [Culture and the world of childhood]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1988. 429 p.
Macnicol J. Neoliberalising old age. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2015. 242 p.
Diligenskii G. G. Certain methodological problems of research in the psychology of large groups. In: Shorokhova E. V. (ed.) Metodologicheskie problemy sotsial'noi psikhologii [Methodological problems of social psychology]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1975, pp. 196–205.
Stepin V. S. Teoreticheskoe znanie [Theoretical knowledge]. Moscow, Progress-Traditsiya Publ., 2000. 744 p.
Kronik A. A. The choice of a constructivist. Istoriya rossiiskoi psikhologii v litsakh: Daidzhest – The History of Russian Psychology in Persons: Digest. 2016, no. 6, pp. 500–504 (in Russian).
Brubaker R. Ethnicity without groups. Cambridge, Mass., 2004 (Russ. ed. Brubeiker R. Etnichnost' bez grupp. Moscow, Higher School of Economics Publ., 2012. 408 p.).
Martsinkovskaya T. D., Poleva N. S. Generations of the transitivity era: Values, identity, and communication. Mir psikhologii – World of Psychology, 2017, no. 1 (89), pp. 24–37 (in Russian).
Yu H. C. & Miller P. Leadership style – The X generation and baby boomers compared in different cultural contexts. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 2005, V. 26, Issue 1, pp. 35–50. DOI: 10.1108/01437730510575570
Bauman Z. Tekuchaya sovremennost' [Liquid modernity]. St. Petersburg, Piter Publ., 2008. 240 p.
Gusel'tseva M. S. Identity in the transitive society: Transforming values. Psikhologicheskie Issledovaniya – Psychological Studies, 2017, V. 10, no. 54, p. 5 (in Russian). Available at: http://psystudy.ru (Accessed 20 April 2018).
Ivanova N. L., Rumyantseva T. V. Sotsial'naya identichnost': teoriya i praktika [Social identity: Theory and practice]. Moscow, MSGI Publ., 2009. 453 p.
Emelin V. A., Tkhostov A. Sh. Temptation and traps of temporal identity. Voprosy filosofii – Problems of Philosophy, 2016, no. 8, pp. 115–125 (in Russian).
Stepin V. S. Historical and scientific reconstruction: Pluralism and cumulative continuity in the development of scientific knowledge. Voprosy filosofii – Problems of Philosophy, 2016, no. 6, pp. 5–14 (in Russian).