People tend to identify with one generation or another, although the concept is more difficult than it seems at first glance. One possible definition tells us about the group of people born in a certain period of time, usually three decades. Thus, one generation would succeed the previous one naturally and mechanically.
Another meaning is that which revolves around some decisive event, although we can discuss whether such a historical fact has sufficient significance in that sense. There is talk, for example, of the Transition generation, but can it be said that the next one is that of Spain's incorporation into Europe? Difficult to give a categorical answer. Generations, when we descend from the abstract to the concrete, do not have perfectly demarcated limits.
Political scientist Oriol Bartomeus tells us about all this and much more in The Weight of Time (Debate), a journey through our recent history that helps us understand how we have changed from the time of our grandparents to the present. There are four major events that would have marked a break in our history: the Civil War, developmentalism, democracy and the current crisis, which began in 2008.
In a very refreshing way, Bartomeus presents the facts, but avoids making moral judgments. The typical lament of those who rant against systemic youth is not present here, nor the nostalgia of those who imagine a paradisiacal past to which we would have to return to straighten out the present.
The author does not allow himself to be carried away by consoling clichés, such as a certain naive vision of the idea of progress. Do new generations really have to be better than their predecessors? Nothing proves it. It is true that young people today are more academically prepared, but does that mean that they are going to be more progressive or are they going to be more interested in politics? Although it hurts to admit it, Bartomeus hits the nail on the head when he states that “democracy does not necessarily create democrats.”
How are some generations different from others? The post-war era, currently, is distinguished by its higher rates of electoral participation and by its majority identification with the two major parties, the PSOE and the PP. Their time was that of hunger, a trauma that their children, accustomed to snacking on Phoskitos and Bollycao, no longer suffered. Meanwhile, their high identification with religious values, represented by the Catholic Church, experienced a sharp decline as younger people appeared.
Bartomeus uses everyday indicators that perfectly symbolize historical evolution. We went from a time in which there were only two television channels to another in which private television multiplied, until we reached, today, streaming platforms. As for food, choosing between lemon and strawberry yogurt was not the same as having an almost infinite variety of flavors within reach.
Another defining element of our evolution is provided by military service, a rite of passage to adulthood for the male population. While in other times it was necessary to appear in the ranks, recent generations have no longer had that obligation. The army is, precisely, one of the many fields into which women have entered, thus breaking with sexist criteria.
Politics has also experienced the transformation of social values. The older ones contemplated it from the prism of commitment to public affairs. It was a noble, elevated activity. The youngest people tend to vote like someone who buys any item online.
This observation does not necessarily imply criticism: the citizens of the 21st century are more demanding, and that is not bad per se for democratic functioning. Your vote is not the same as handing a blank check to our representatives: the decision is made based on people and circumstances, not immutable principles.
On the other hand, among members of the Civil War generation, nine out of ten people are clear about the party of their choice before the campaign begins.
Why this contrast between people of different ages? Before many things were forever, like marriage. That's why little was decided: you had to be careful before doing something that would have profound consequences. Now we don't stop making decisions because everything is provisional and involves considerably less risk. If you make a mistake, rectify it and nothing happens.
The problem is that people, confident that everything has a solution, make risky choices, such as voting for radical parties. If stability was previously valued above all else, now change is preferred. It is taken for granted that not changing means stagnating.
The current crisis of the Spanish political model responds, in part, to a generational change. People who lived through the transition from the Franco dictatorship to the constitutional monarchy tend to identify with everything that was achieved then. The youngest, on the other hand, found democracy already made, so it is difficult for them to consider it something of their own. For them, cases of corruption are much more tangible than a heroic story they know from hearsay.
His critical stance is also evident in his attitude towards the Civil War. Faced with the reconciliation of the seventies, many now denounce that there was not sufficient recognition for the losers of 1939. Nonconformism translated into a social movement, the 15M, which meant an amendment to the entire system.
Bartomeus's book, in short, provides a lucid x-ray of the transformations that Spain has experienced in recent decades. As Ortega y Gasset said, the man is him and the circumstances are him. The modification of circumstances, therefore, implies a modification in man.
We watch it, without further ado, on television. Previously, the entire family watched a program based on a hierarchy based on the authority of the person holding the remote control. Now, however, each member of the domestic unit enjoys a leisure offer designed for their particular tastes.
How will the surprising innovations that now fill the pages of newspapers, such as the rise of artificial intelligence, influence society and politics? The future, fortunately, is not written anywhere. That we know.
