Of Millennials, Gen X'ers And Withered Family Ties

A recent article in the New York Post claimed that Millennials are the stressed out generation--a far cry from my generation (Gen X) known as the slacker generation. Millennials are made up of those who are born from roughly the 1980s to early 2000s. According to one study by the American Psychology Association (APA), there isn't a notable increase in stress claims in Millennials (39%) compared to Gen X'ers (36%) and Boomers (33%). In that same study, Millennials and X'ers complain of being stressed by work, money, and job stability, while Boomers tend to complain of stress about health personal and familiar health issues. 

One explanation is that Millennials are more anxious because they lack the close geographic family ties that earlier generations enjoyed and perhaps even took for granted. Academics such as Jean Twenge of San Diego State University made this observation in her studies of why stress is at an 80-year high.

"She thinks the primary problem is that “modern life doesn’t give us as many opportunities to spend time with people and connect with them, at least in person, compared to, say, 80 years ago or 100 years ago. Families are smaller, the divorce rate is higher, people get married much later in life."

Indeed, there are many complexities when attempting to make claims about family life. Nevertheless, Twenge maintains this tension between the independence of modern times and the overly close proximities of 80 to 100 years ago. As families move more toward individualism and independence, we are seeing a possible correlation with higher rates of anxiety and depression, as Karol Markowicz of the New York Post explains:

"But the real change comes in the freedom of movement that has made it easy for people to leave families far behind. Studies have shown that having limited family in close proximity can lead to anxiety and depression."

As one who lives thousands of kilometres away from parents, I resonate with Twenge's observation. I have realized over the years there is something very important about having close family ties, especially in times of struggle or hardship. Even in my 40s I still look forward to holiday meals at my aunt's house when most of my extended family is together and we're sharing a meal--even so, it's not the same when my parents and brother aren't present. Nevertheless, there's a sense of connectedness to a broader community, to family, that makes me feel more human. The same feeling is present when I spend the week-end with my in-laws, sharing food and conversations together, even about the two no-nos like religion and politics. I feel a sense of rootedness and connectedness--a sense that I am going through life with these people, and, to a large degree, they have my back and I have their's. 

But there is a pervasive mentality that we want our kids to be independent, competent, leadership-driven; we want them to get out into the big bad world and blaze their own trails. And if that means moving thousands of kilometres away to a booming country or province, then that's just part of it--no pain, no gain. We want our kids to go to the best universities, which often means leaving the cities and towns we live in. If my child got accepted tomorrow to Stanford, I'd be tempted to send them there. 

Indeed, according to the Post article, almost half of Millennials live away from their hometown: 

One recent survey found that about half of millennials live away from their hometown. That’s a significant number. A different study found 85 percent of adults 45 and older think it’s very important to live near their kids or grandkids. Boomers have figured out the happiness that comes with living near family.

This phenomenon is not surprising, given the growth of cities, the rise of competitiveness, and the illusion that climbing the corporate ladder will lead to greater happiness. 

In Richard Florida's book Who's Your City, the famous urban theorist argues for the importance of moving to cities that have higher levels of innovation and creativity, even if that means leaving your home town. According to his research, you'll be happier, have a better job, make more money, and have greater social mobility. What we might be seeing in the APA study cited above is the unintended consequence of that way of thinking and living. 

We often believe that Skype and FaceTime will mitigate the yawning abyss separating us from our children, or from our parents and siblings. We falsely believe that texting a number of times per day can fill the void. But it doesn't. 

We often believe that our children want success at all costs; that we're doing them a service by encouraging them to take work elsewhere, or travel across the globe to attend the London School of Economics or some other prestigious school. 

We often believe that with greater independence comes higher levels of joy and fulfillment. We fall into the assumption that climbing the social-economic ladder of modern society will make them happy, regardless of the price. 

But what happens--young people move away from their home towns, take jobs in other provinces or states or countries, and start having families; and then grandparents see grandchildren only sparsely, and the family ties are stretched beyond efficacy. Families have to choose between flying out for a big birthday, a wedding, or a funeral, especially with the high cost of flying these days--they can't blithely drive to see their children anymore and vice versa. It becomes more complicated than that. 

We can most certainly claim other factors to the high stress levels of the younger generations: technological advancement, social upheaval, political-nuclear tensions, the breakdown of religious belief, the brittleness of cultural interaction, and so on. But perhaps this is precisely the point: that in a world rife with tension and unpredictability, where systems and norms and traditions are breaking down, there ought to be greater emphasis placed on those natural family ties that provide a strong sense of kinship, rootedness, and identity.