"The book's title came not from Billy Idol's band, as many supposed, but from the final chapter of a funny sociological book on American class ctructure called Class, by Paul Fussell. In his final chapter, Fussell named an "X" category of people who wanted to hop off the merry-go-round of status, money, and social climbing that so often frames modern existance. The citizen's of X had so much in common with my socially engaged characters, hence the title" (Details, June 1995).

"The problems started when trend- meisters everywhere began isolating small elements of my characters lives - their offhand way of handling problems or their questioning of the status quo - and blew them up to represent an entire generation. Part of the representation emanated from the baby boomers, who, feeling pummeled by the recession and embarrassed by their won compromised 60s values, began transferring their collective darkness onto the group threatening to take their spotlight"

The term generation X jumped from the title of a book which was intended to describe a way of thinking, not and age group - to a label for 50 million individuals. The tag was seen in magazines and newspapers accross the board, in what Douglas Coupland referred to as "demographic pornography" (Details). The problem with the term lies in the fact that it was ambiguous and empty - nobody knew what it really meant, an everybody thought it needed to be defined. Marketing to Generation X became the focus of commercials and advertisements before the generation really had a chance to show society what they stood for. Coupland notes that "sure, other fringe movements of the past - the 20s expats in Paris, the 50s Beats, the 60s Hippies, 70s Punks - all got marketed in the end, but X got hypermarketed right from the start, which was harsh" (Details). Up until 1990, the generation had been described by the media as "growing old too fast" (Harper's, July 1994). They were career minded, driven individuals who recognized the need to correct the problems left by their parents. As Harper's Magazine recognizes, everything changed overnight. "In July 1990, Time published a cover story on the generation called 'Proceeding With Caution,' which reported that 'while recruiters are trying to woo yound workers, a generation is out planning its escape fromt he 9-to-5 routine.' The article classified us a 'paralyzed', as "shirkers." For the puzzling twentysomething crowd,' the magazine wrote, 'second best seems just fine.' The article went on to note that 'the young work force is considered overly sensitive at best and lazy at worst' (Harper's). All of a sudden, the generation's attitude was summed up by the media with a single word - "slacker." "Faced witht he chorus of derision, one can easily forget that five years ago the media's concern about people in our generation were all together different" (Harper's). Newspapers and magazined seemed to forget everything they had written about Generation X in the past: the once determined and career minded individuals became indifferent and less job-oriented. Xers were labeled across the media in articles throughout Time, Newsweek, and Fortune as the apathetic children of the Baby Boomers.

There are many different theories about why this shift took place in 1990. Harper's Magazine's article "The Packaging (and re-packaging) of a Generation" has some ideas: "Although there are undoubtedly a number of reasons -- journalistic pack thinking for one -- the timing was hardly coincidental. The worst recession since 1982 started in July 1990, and its weight fell most crushingly on those in their twenties. Between May 1990 and May 1991, about 400,000 people over thirty lost their jobs. For young Americans, the toll was staggering: a million people under 30 lost their jobs."
Harper's goes on to further discuss why Generation X was blamed for the failing economy. "In her 1989 book Fear of Falling, the journalist Barbara Ehenreich observed that in times of economis crisis, Americans tend to look for some trouble in the national psyche, some quirk that is making what has been a successful country unsuccessful. The larger middle class looks for explanations not in economic trends, but in character flaws - someone else's character flaws: it projects onto others what if fears most in itself. A softening of character, a lack of firm inner values".
When viewed in this light, the transformation makes perfect sense. This "new vision" for America's youth allowed for failure - if they never cared about careers and material success, it would be less distressing for everyone when the Xers lost the rat race. They became predestined for failure, and that was the tag that stuck.

Huge assumptions were made about the central values held by everyone born between 1965 and 1977. They were "slackers," "cynics," and "drifters;" they lacked motivation for work and were unmoved by social change. Before many Xers had the chance to create a name for themselves through their own achievements, they were tagged with a term that came to define them and set them up for failure. The media jumped at the chance to take part in the labeling frenzy. Coca Cola tried to market a new drink called "OK Soda" with slogans that read, "Don't be fooled into thinking there has to be a reason for everything" (Time, June 9, 1997). The campaign was a flop, along with dozens of other promotions spanning from beer to sports equipment that were supposedly appealing to the Xers. For many, this was proof that "marketers and journalists never understood that X is a term that defines not a chronological age but a way of looking at the world" (Details).

Throughout history we have lumped the traits of individuals in a generation together and given them a name: Beatniks, Hippies, Yuppies. Each of these classifications had much more precedent than that of Generation X, however. For Xers, their tag served not only as a hinderance, but as a prediction of failures to come. Murry Edelman, author of "Contestable Categorties and Public Opinion" contends that such broad and vague classifications "become a self-fulfilling prophecy. . . reinforcing the controversial categorization and constructing an even more vicious circle of cause and effect" (235). Xers began to live up to the expectation of those who defined them, and simultaneously the culture around them reinforced the stereotypes and catered to their generalized tastes - like gringe music, body piercing, and TV shows like Beavis and Butthead. To many, Gen Xers were "passive and powerless, content, it seemed, to party on Wayne's Netherworld, one with more antiheroes like Kirk Cobain, than role models" (Time, June 9, 1997.)

Tagging an entire generation is, at its best, unrealistic - and and at its worst, extremely unfair. Edelman notes that "the social world is a kaleidoscope of potential realities, which can be readily evoked by altering the ways in which observations are framed and categorized. Typically they are driven by the dominant elite's ideology and prejudice rather than by rigorous examples of analysis or the aspiration to solve social problems" (232). In the case of Generation X, it is clear that the "dominant elite" created the slacker images for reasons spanning from a declining economy to pop icons of the moment. An explanation was needed for the changing face of the job market, so instead of finding inspiration in new ways of thinking - the media took pride in pushing Xers further in their slump. Many could dismiss the trend as a propagandistic tool - the creation of a new market. However, when the media portrayal of Xers revolved around images of lazy, unmotivated skeptics hacking at their computers and piercing various body parts - the fine line between reality and propaganda was skewed. What was accurate and what was manipulation? Edelman states that "the misrepresentation of soundbites, contrived images and lies find a receptive audience only when they reinforce hopes and fears that classifications of people and actions have already created. Otherwise, they are recognized (and classified) as propaganda and dismissed" (232). For some reason though, while many can recognize the tag Generation X as just that, propaganda, it has become an imbedded cultural description which carried negative connotations. This forces us to assess the implications of labeling.

The framing of Generation X, and its implications, can be viewed through the mode of the rhetorical construction. Two theorists, I.A. Richards and Kenneth Burke, have developed ways of understanding the power that language and labeling have on human communication.

To begin with, I.A. Richards created the Meaning Triangle:

The purpose of this triangle is to explain that meaning is not inherent in words. A person may say a word,or symbol , take dog for example. The audience of that person may think of various dogs -- poodles, golden retreivers, german shepards. These various ideas represent the many possible interpretations avaliable. The end product of that thought process, or the referent is different for each member of the audience. The line connecting the symbol and the object is not solid, because even though the audience begins with the same symbol, the meanings vary. People bring different life experiences to language, undoubtedly changing perceptions and understanding.

This applies to Generation X in that the language used to frame the generation connotes different meanings for different people. Within the media, when words such as "slacker" or "aimless" are used, various interpretations develop, and the original intent of the author is likely to be conveyed with various results. As the media's portrayal of Generation X changes, so does our interpretation of the term.

Kenneth Burke, like I.A. Richards, was also concerned with the affect language has on individual realities.He developed what is known as Terministic Screens. These screens explain how we selectively include and exclude information in life. It can be most effctively explained through the mode of the camera lens. Each person has an individual lens, but the filters on the lenses are constantly changing. Rarely are we ever aware that there is a lense on, or that those around us may not be seeing and experiencing the same things we are. The filters represent past life experiences and ideas which make up our individual realities. The same can hold true when applied to language -- linguistic lenses. Each person brings to language previously determined understandings, or personal lenses, which affect the way we hear and understand language.

When we label people we see what we expect to see; what our individual understanding of that lable is. If we call someone a handicap we are already expecting that person not to be able to full perform, instead of looking at the possibility of them performing in different ways as us. If we label someone a savage, we will only see savage-like characteristics. Within Generation X, the labels applied fall into this scenario. When the generation was labeled "lazy", the world saw and expected lazy attitudes. When that label starts to change, so will the world's expectations.

Once again, the words and imagery associated with this ambiguosly named generation are changing. Slacker and cynic have changed to "driven" and "motivated." These kids may be different, but it is that difference that is going to make them the leaders in an ever-changing world. In June of 1997, Time Magazine's published a cover story titled " Great X-pectations." To the world's surprise, these "use-less members of society" are taking over and making positive change in the workplace, in their families, and in the environment. "Who would have thought the kids would start taking over so soon? They were supposed to be slackers, cynics, drifters. But don't be fooled by their famous pose of repose. Lately, more and more of them are prowling tirelessly for the better deal, hunting down opportunities that will free them from the career imprisonment that confined their parents. They are flocking to technology start-ups, founding small businesses and even taking up causes - all in their own way" (Time, June 9, 1997). Journalistic power is amazing -- of course the members of Generation X have not suddenly changed, but their perception by the media sure has!

"T V and nintendo haven't molded a whole generation into lazy slackers. Instead, the Xers are a better- informed, less gullible and more independent populace. Along with playing in garage bands, Generation Xers have started garage companies -virtual cottage industries in a time of downsizing conglomerates. And these start-ups are creating exciting and lucrative careers, not more McJobs. Yes, 'there's gold in them that hills,' and X marks the spot."