How High Tech is Neutralizing the Millennial Ethos

The Neutralization of the American Millennials’ Ethos: Compounded by the Rapid
Advancement of High Technology and the Growing Sense of Entitlement
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Humanities
By
Scott Wells
At Tiffin University
Tiffin, OH
December 6, 2011
Thesis Director _______________________ Reader___________________________
Anne Marie Fowler, M.F.A.W. Vincent Moore, Ph.D.

Abstract
Millennials, individuals born after 1979, are quickly becoming the largest demographic in
the United States. They are accustomed to an environment colored by the rapid advancement of
technology. Consequently, their assimilation of these rapid changes is generating new paradigms
that foster new sensibilities. The American Millennials’ cultural universals are being defined by
high technology as opposed to traditional cultural transmissions such as heritage and tradition.
Moreover, their new structural-functional paradigms—supported by a less polarized Congress—
are neutralizing sensibilities that have, traditionally, been colored by regional value systems; i.e.,
gay marriage, interracial relationships, and global warming. Furthermore, an air of entitlement
as a result of high technology proficiency colors the Millennials’ ethos. This growing sense of
entitlement is contributing to cultural-conflicts with previous generations in the workplace, as
well as diminishing civility and redefining etiquette. Through careful literature reviews, this
study will explore the fundamental parameters (ambition, immediacy, autonomy, and
entitlement) which will undoubtedly impact the American millennial ethos, and attempt to make
recommendations—based on this study’s findings—on how to integrate this new paradigm.
iii

Acknowledgments
I wish to express my sincerest gratitude to Vincent Moore, Ph.D., my first instructor at Tiffin
University and my second set of eyes for this project.
A very special and heartfelt thank you goes out to Anne Marie Fowler. From mythology maestro
to mentor, she is an inspiration. Her patience and trust in me, even as I doubted myself, will be
forever remembered and appreciated.
iv

Dedication
This study is warmly dedicated to my fellow humanities students. Particularly those who
may be somewhat culturally disoriented, myself included, from the new rules generated by the
reliance on high technology. Fortunately, our humanities courses are designed to help us buffer
the impacts of culture shocks. Our courses examine culture’s mutability by analyzing the
evolutionary forces that have shaped the human thought, condition, and experience. My wish is
that humanities students resistant or weary of the cultural neutralization of the American
Millennials’ ethos consider the facts and figures that are beyond our control. There is no
stopping progress, therefore our education and awareness will be instrumental in bridging
generational divides. And hopefully, too, enlighten us to our Millennial siblings’ proclivities—
their human experiences—that are already reshaping American culture.
v

Table of Contents
Abstract…………..………………………………………………………….... iii
Acknowledgments……………………………………………………...…… iv
Dedication.………......…………………………………….………….………. v
Chapter 1 Introduction…… .….…..………………………….……………...... 1
Chapter 2 Literature Review………………………………….……….…...…. 11
2.1 Classifying Millennials….………………………….…….….….. 13
2.2 The Millennial Ethos: Their Cultural Universals……….…..….. 16
2.3 Politics: The New Structural-Functional Paradigm..………..….. 27
2.4 Technology: Facilitating Cultural Transmission ……...……….. 34
2.5 Workplace: Creating Cultural-Conflicts…….……….................. 46
2.6 Parental Influence: Redefining Values.………….…….….…..... 51
2.7 Millennials’ Entitlement: Cultural Integration .………….…….. 56
Chapter 3 Recommendations: Using the Humanities to Prevent the
Neutralization of the American Millennials’ Ethos……...………... 68
Chapter 4 Conclusion………………………………..……………………….. 76
Works Cited ……………………….…………………………………………. 85

Wells
1

Chapter 1
Introduction
There exists a new social paradigm based on high-technological proficiency and it is
readily observed within the American Millennials’ ethos. Moreover, a consequence of this new
paradigm is a vast cultural lag, which has disrupted cultural integration while fostering
ethnocentrism. Sociologically speaking, conventional cultural transmission—or socialization—
is becoming increasingly synthesized in order to accommodate the virtual culture of American
Millennials; synthesized because virtual culture has no heritage. Therefore, cultural
transmissions for this new paradigm are executed and compounded through neutral language
used to integrate neutral perspectives that are rooted in neutral values.
To better understand the evolution of this phenomenon, it is important to examine
preceding generations. One cannot overlook the paradigm shift between the sensibilities of three
seemingly disparate generations—Baby Boomers, Gen Xers, and Millennials—which are
reflected in their collective and distinct set of values, nor the inescapable realities of generational
gapping and cultural lag. Each value system has been integrated into American culture through
various technological mediums for cultural transmission available for their time. Baby Boomers
and Gen Xers matured in a technological environment that allowed them to assimilate
technological proficiencies at a moderate pace since technological advancements were relatively
modest in the three-decades span that separated these specific generations. Therefore, bridging
generational gaps was relatively seamless.
But the Silicon Valley of the ‘80s generated an environment that demanded proficiencies
of new technologies that were somewhat foreign to Baby Boomers and Gen Xers. Thus, cultural
integration evolved to utilize new methods of transmission, which included binary codes and

Wells
2

floppy disks. This is the world the American Millennial was born into. It is a world that cannot
enjoy a moderate assimilation like those of the preceding generations. It is a world that is
instantaneous and does not slow down to indulge in nostalgia.
Consequently, minimizing the cultural lag between nostalgic Baby Boomers and Gen
Xers has proven to be increasingly difficult because the Millennials’ formative years have been
preoccupied with mastering the mechanics of a high-tech, virtual culture. This phenomenon has
generated a cultural-conflict paradigm between Baby Boomers and Gen Xers versus
Millennials—particularly in the working environment—where the demand for high technology
expertise is paramount in a globalized commercial industry.
The preface for a 2010 Pew Research Center study entitled Millennials: Confident.
Connected. Open to Change posits that their perpetual connectivity is a conditioned behavior
(“Millennials: Confident). Furthermore, this is the residual result of being pressured by their
parents and educators to be the next great generation, a dubious expectation that has earned them
the distinction of being overachievers, entitled, and ethnocentric. Couple this with the idea that
Millennials have grown up surrounded by high technology, and they become undaunted by its
rapid advancement; thus their cultural universals (i.e. immediacy, interactivity, and incivility)
logically will mirror this.
American Millennials’ are victims of cyber-space conformity; a transparent phenomenon
that robs them of their offensive abilities to retaliate to the high-pressure demands of the Digital
Age. Their incessant attachments to digital devices leaves little room for critical thinking
because most of that is done for them.
Ralph Waldo Emerson posited that excessive conformity robs the individual of their basic
human selves. Emerson’s sentiment refers to an increasingly industrialized society. One that has

Wells
3

evolved far from the cultural transmissions associated with agrarian communities who utilized
technology as “the application of knowledge to the practical tasks of living” (Macionis 440).
Indeed, mechanization has set the precedence for humanity’s reliance on technology as far back
as the invention of the wheel. But Millennials are presented with the challenge of maintaining
individuality because high technology dictates their practical tasks of living; they have little
choice in the matter. Consequently, if excessive conformity is a breeding ground for mediocrity,
than it is in the disingenuous, high-tech reliant Millennials’ ethos that traditions stand to become
synthesized as their identities succumb to virtual culture.
The social sciences teach that knowledge is passed down through cultural transmission.
Virtual interactivity is the predominant source of cultural transmission for American Millennials
and this is made possible by the ubiquity of microelectronics. Millennials utilize cellular phones,
iPads, and PDAs to supplement their daily lives and are generating a codependency that is slowly
diminishing their acuity. Consider that “the decline [in literacy] is accelerating…[and] the
retreat from books proceeds, and for more and more teens and 20-year-olds, fiction, poetry, and
drama have absolutely no existence in their lives” (46). This is because the Internet has become
the omnipresent influence driving their socialization.
Moreover, coupled with conforming to the fashionable idea that one must always ‘be
connected’ or interactive (i.e. Twitter), the result is that American Millennials are struggling to
preserve individuality while simultaneously neutralizing their culture. The paradox is
remarkable and evident by the increasing popularity of social networking sites—while
garnishing inspiration from the same YouTube posts—which puts everyone on the proverbial
‘same page’.

Wells
4

American Millennials embrace conformity when it comes to their cultural transmission.
This is apparent in their primary method of communication, which is the cellular phone. Since
the start of the new millennium, the cellular phone has evolved into a multifunctional
microcomputer capable of executing tasks that would otherwise be relegated to several separate
devices such as cameras, mp3 players, and global positioning systems. Furthermore, the
Millennials’ rapid assimilation—and cultural integration—of these devices is mind-boggling.
For American Millennials, adeptness coincides with assimilation. “With assimilation,
[Millennials] came to view technology as just another part of their environment…and as
technology relentlessly advances each month, young people just breathe it in, like improvements
in the atmosphere” (Tapscott, Grown Up Digital 18). What Millennials fail to realize, however,
is that a consequence of careless assimilation is the danger of losing diversity. Social networking
sites, rooted in high technology, can be responsible for mass-manipulation and generate a
remarkable influence on developing minds. They promote distractions and can be used to
manipulate or influence key cultural transmitters such as politics and family values. Therefore,
mindless disregard of human diversity in favor of technological conformity will be the genesis of
cultural neutralization.
Take, for instance, politics where American culture is defined and transmitted through the
democratic ideals of the United States Constitution. Moreover, high technology is being used to
influence political ideologies. Consider that, “The growing use by Americans of social media has
hardly been lost on politicians…[they] were employing Twitter, Facebook and YouTube to reach
the growing number of people who use those sites” (Drake). Now consider the pluralist ideals of
distracted American Millennials—strengthened by their massive population—and one can

Wells
5

surmise neutrality in American government. Thus, a cultural neutralization—powered by a
pluralist political interest that is less polarized—will undoubtedly impact American culture.
But leaving the idea of technological influence for just a moment, the facts remain that
American Millennial politics are demonstrative of a neutral culture. A 2006 New Politics
Institute survey—“The Progressive Politics of the New Millennial”—reported that forty-nine
percent of the individuals between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five were registered with the
Democratic Party. This percentage reflects a staggering increase from the same age group of
individuals in 1991, where political party affiliations were dramatically divided; fifty-five
percent were registered republicans and thirty-three percent were registered democrats. Thus,
the same survey suggests that the political arena—which controls legislation—is becoming less
polarized, which does much to neutralize cultural conflicts (“Progressive…” 3). What is more,
in the 2008 presidential election, a Harvard University poll indicated that sixty-eight percent of
the Millennials’ cohort voted Democratic (Dahl). These statistics indicate—for better or
worse—American Millennials are gravitating toward Blue State sensibilities in staggering
numbers. However, consider that hot button, liberal and conservative issues—such as gay
marriage and gun control respectively—are becoming non-issues among the Millennial cohort;
thus illustrating increasingly neutral political ideologies among the fastest growing population in
the United States (“Millennials: Confident…55).
Family values, too, have undergone a tremendous transformation in the past four decades.
Parental influence—as part of cultural transmission—has done much to shape the Millennials’
ethos. Take, for example, the postwar 1950s family unit of a two-parent household, with only
one working parent, transformed into the dual income environment of the 1970s. Economic
demands of the 1970s, ‘80’s, and ‘90s American households, often required that both parents—

Wells
6

presuming a two parent home—were working to provide for their families. Current figures
illustrate those parents with Millennial children, “spend 40 percent less time with their children
than they did 40 years ago” (Tapscott, Growing Up Digital 236). This diminished time for
parent-child interaction greatly affected the parameters of cultural transmission, especially with
regards to traditions and heritage.
Millennials are growing up in what has come to be known as a latchkey environment.
Latchkey children return from school to an empty house and utilize their personal computers for
companionship; thus one can trace the origins of technological distraction from traditional
cultural transmission. Consequently, American Millennial children have come to rely on the
Internet and cyberspace for their primary means of socialization.
Cyberspace, the faceless, cultureless force that has left its followers emotionless and
vapid has replaced traditional parenting, which includes many forms of guidance such as
spiritual, social, and emotional support. Subsequently, Millennials are disconnected from their
internal voices and connected to external cyberspace influences. Emory University English
Professor Mark Bauerlein, postulates that wisdom and maturity has become “entirely a social
matter developed with and through their [online] friends” (173) thus perpetuated by a lack of
interest in traditional education and fueled by constant exposure to an interactive world.
However, there is an underlying danger to all of this, which includes a lack of discipline that is a
breeding ground for narcissistic behaviors and feelings of entitlement—especially if gone
unchecked.
Indeed, there is a growing sense of entitlement in America’s youth culture. This is
punctuated in behavior where civility and manners are quickly being replaced with audacious—
and sometimes dangerous—disregard for one another. An increasingly common occurrence of

Wells
7

incivility is the amount of cellular phone usage there is at the dinner table, or in public places
where silence is conventional, such as movie theatres and libraries. And then there is the matter
of texting while driving. This quintessential example of rude behavior not only illustrates
narcissistic, egocentric, and entitled predispositions, but also a complete disregard for the safety
of other persons; so much so, that this dangerous practice has already been outlawed in New
York State.
Yet, American Millennials’ perspectives embrace these incivilities as progressive
behavior. One Millennial had this to say about the subject, “’I don’t think that the cell phone is
causing us to be rude,’ said Paul Dittner, [a Millennial] analyst…’It’s just another opportunity to
create norms and accepted behavior.’”(1). Dittner’s presumptuous philosophy, we see Millennial
ethnocentrism at work. Besides, according to Dittner’s position, one should not overlook that
civility will ultimately pay the price in exchange for creating norms and accepted behavior in a
high-tech society. Take into consideration that “[a] common scene [that can be] observed [is] a
group of teenagers sitting together—all with ears glued to cell phones—talking with faraway
friends rather than to each other” (Batista 1); thus, thereby illustrating the impending decline of
interpersonal communication, another accepted hallmark of Millennial culture. Nonetheless,
high technology acumen is only partially the problem for declining civility. Consider, again, the
Millennials’ parental influences, which start with the purchase of something as seemingly trite as
a cellular phone.
Robbie Blinkoff, a cultural anthropologist for a company that surveys consumer trends in
microelectronics posits that “[the] cell phone has become a primary mode of socializing for teens
and they will often avoid contact with peers that don't have cell phones…Next time a teenager
says, 'Mom if I don't have a phone,' or 'Dad, if I don't have a phone, I'm going to be a nobody,'

Wells
8

they are being serious” (Batista 1). Moreover, a recent New York Times article reports that
“about 75 percent of 12- to 17-year-olds in the United States own a mobile phone, up from 45
percent in 2004…[and] the Pew Research Center… found that 58 percent of 12-year-olds now
had a cellphone (sic), up from 18 percent in 2004” (Olsen 1). However, the same article reports
that parents justify buying their adolescent children cellular phones for safety reasons.
But the motives are not what are in question; instead, it is the fact that children are in
possession of these microelectronics in the first place. These are the very same, high-tech,
microelectronics that enables exposure to the Internet, which foster distraction and detachment.
Furthermore, accompanying the purchase of high-tech equipment is the demand for Millennials
to operate them proficiently. Indeed, their assimilation is instinctive, but as technology advances
rapidly, it can easily monopolize an adolescent’s attention. Therefore, the importance placed on
technological proficiency in primary and secondary schools are doing much to shape American
Millennials’ psyches too.
Consequently, high-tech schooling manifests itself in an unprecedented display of self-
assurance that contributes to feelings of isolation and entitlement. “Dr. Mel Levine, a pediatrics
professor at the University of North Carolina put it this way: ‘We’re seeing an epidemic of
[Millennials] having a hard time making the transition to work—kids who had too much success
early in life and who’ve become accustomed to instant gratification” (Tapscott, Grown Up 152).
Instant gratification, immediacy, and convenience are the ultimate goals for American
Millennials, especially the immediacy of knowledge—synonymous with convenience—that can
do much to influence mediocre conformity, particularly in the wake of presuming all cyber-
information to be accurate. Such is the case with Wikipedia, an omnipresent Internet
phenomenon that is responsible for creating a civilization of pseudointellectuals. Wiki is an

Wells
9

acronym for ‘what I know is’ and it is a collaborative website easily amended by anyone who
has access to it. For Millennials in particular, however, the research tool is quickly becoming
their default go-to source for information. Pew Research Studies show that “44% of those ages
18-29 use Wikipedia to look for information, [while] just 29% of users age 50 and older consult
the site…[and Pew] found [that] knowledge-seeking online is driven a lot by
convenience…Convenience mattered to 71% of those seeking…information” (Rainie 1).
However, one should remember that Wikipedia and its volumes of contributors—all of whom
offer and maintain their perception of accuracy—“set the standards for intellectual style”
(Bauerlein 153) therefore demonstrating the neutralization of Millennial intelligence through
careless cultural transmissions in the wake of über-stringent formal education parameters.
Formal education, as a part of cultural transmission, certainly plays a strong role in
influencing the Millennials’ ethos. There are transparent consequences of reducing
interdisciplinary studies in primary and secondary schools, which teaches multiculturalism in
favor of technologically driven pedagogies and conventional academics. Interdisciplinary
subjects such as the humanities, social sciences, and cultural studies in high schools are suffering
at the hands of some Baby Boomer legislators enforcing the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
Furthermore, this has become the invisible enemy to individuality and put forth to ensure a
standardized, or neutralized, system of assessing educational success and achievement.
The Fordham Foundation—a nonprofit foundation fostering a high quality K-12
education in schools—reported that more time, for better or worse, was being allotted in the
classroom towards the instruction of reading, writing, and arithmetic while conversely
downplaying the importance of the arts. In comparing time allocated to various school subjects,
“…reading garnered around 40 percent and math 18 percent of the school week, music and other

Wells
10

arts combined received only 8 percent” (Bauerlein 25). While these academic demands are
seemingly invaluable to a child’s development, it is important not to overlook the innate abilities
he or she may be capable of (i.e. poetry, dance, theatre, etc…), mediums of expression that foster
individuality. Also, one should consider compromise and/ or balance in the formal educational
system. Instead, standardized, or neutralized, education is what Millennials’ know best, so it
stands to reason their cultural sensibilities will become neutralized as well.
Nonetheless, identifying the causality of cultural neutralization is important if American
culture is to dodge a potentially myopic paradigm. This study is composed of multiple chapters
that will explore various contributors to the cultural neutralization of the American Millennials’
ethos. The subsequent literature reviews and discussion have been designed to outline what this
research believes to be the fundamental influences on the American Millennials’ behavior:
parental influence, technology, politics, workplace, and entitlement.

Wells
11

Chapter 2
Literature Review/ Discussion
There is measurable evidence, both epistemological and ontological that supports cultural
neutralization in the American Millennial ethos. For instance, cumulative reports compiled in
the Gen Next Survey conducted by The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
Project—released Tuesday, January 9, 2007—utilized a national sampling of 1,501 adults, with
more than half of that sampling belonging to those aged 18 through 25. The Center’s objective
was to document the value systems of Millennials in order to compare fundamental differences
in the ideologies of two consecutive American generations, the Gen Xers and the Millennial.
The Pew Research Center acknowledges that pinpointing the exact causalities of
generational gaps are extremely difficult and are the result of three “overlapping processes”; all
of which are examined in their latest survey Millennials: Confident. Connected. Open to Change.
The first process, “Life Cycle Effects”, is where young people may grow up to resemble their
older predecessors. The second examines “Period Effects”, which essentially defines one as
products of their environment. And lastly, “Cohort Effects”, the trends that are responsible for
influencing their cultural universals. What is more, it is important to note that this report was
released to the public in February 2010. For this—their latest comprehensive survey—the
Center utilized a national sampling of 2,020 adults; again, with more than half that sampling
belonging to those aged 18 through 25.
Also important to note is the latest survey has come to include findings that examine the
“changing attitudes toward work…[and] generational differences…with a nationally
representative sample of 1,815 people ages 16 and older” (Millennials: Confident 1). This is
significant to this study’s objective to comprehensively illustrate the growing trends that are

Wells
12

contributing to cultural neutralization. Additionally, because the breadth of this research is wide,
it is essential to closely examine the empirical evidence concerning key concepts of Millennial
culture as it progresses over these biyearly reports.
The Millennial Generation Survey, published n 2009, “ has conducted more than 100
surveys and written more than 200 reports on the topic of teen and adult Internet use...This report
brings together recent findings about Internet and social media use among young adults by
situating it within comparable data for adolescents and adults older than 30” (Lenhart at el. 1).
Responses from each respective grouping were then analyzed for distinctive differences in
paradigmatic constructs. The data revealed remarkable changes from one generation to the next,
prompting scholarly discourse in the rationale behind this rapid evolution. Moreover, the
primary hypothesis attributed to these differences—the high technological advancements that are
influencing the Millennial ethos.
In an attempt to support this assertion, The New Politics Institute, The 21st
Century
Project, and The Pew Research Center probed the technological influences on the Baby Boomer
and Gen Xers too. The objective was to demonstrate how technology impacted subsequent
generations. The findings did illustrate that technology was responsible for progressing
efficiency in areas such as the homestead and workplace, but there was little evidence to support
an overwhelming change in ethics and ideologies, not like what has been observed in the
American Millennial that is. Therefore, technology (presently assimilated and user-friendly) as
compared to high technology (cutting-edge and complicated) presented itself as the discerning
factor in rationalizing the chasm between the American Millennial and the preceding
generations.

Wells
13

In terms of population, the American Millennial occupied 13 percent of the United States
in 2007, or “44.9 million individuals…[from a] total of 308.9 million” (“Population” 25) based
on a 2008 United Sates Census, as well as a CBS News report claiming that the Millennials are
actually a third of the population. However, “as of August 16, 2011, U.S. total population:
312,001,232”, Millennials represent “27.7 percent” of that number with a total of “85,405,385”
persons (“Generations” 1). Consequently, Millennials have been deemed “the largest generation
of young people since the ‘60’s…”(Leung 1).
2.1 Classifying Millennials
These vast groups of individuals are also known as: Echo Boomers, Generation Next,
Net Generation, or Nintendo Generation. However, hereinafter, the term Millennial(s) will be
used exclusively to refer to this cohort. Reports from the 2008 studies for the Alliance for
Children and Families Institute, posits that each generation from the 1900s through the present,
have been classified as follows:
“The Greatest Generation (born 1901-1925)
Silent Generation (born 1926-1944), (1925-1942), (1933-1945)
Traditionalists born before 1946
Boomers (born 1945-1962), Baby Boomers (1946-1964), (1943-1960),
(1946-1955)
GenX (born 1963-1980) Gen Xers (1965-1981), (1965-1976), (1961-
1981)
GenY (1979-1994), (1977-1994), (1989-1993) Gen@ (born 1981-2002),
Millennials (1982-2000). (“Trend Report” 1)

Wells
14

As this list illustrates, a generation is defined roughly by the passing of fifteen to twenty years.
However, further clarification of one’s cohort should be determined by the age at which his or
hers sensibilities are most assimilated. For instance, just because a Boomer is born in 1964 does
not automatically connect them with Boomer sensibilities. In fact, they are more likely to
identify with Generation X because their late teens and early twenties life experiences have
mostly culturally integrated—and therefore defined—their core values.
Nonetheless, there is a general consensus that the Institute’s classifications are indeed
accurate. What is more, this consensus has been determined by cross-referencing the terms with
other scholarly studies and surveys such as the Gallup Polls and The Pew Research Center.
Their findings differ only plus or minus a few years and studies suggest, “…there [can be] no
definitive time frame or range for generational transition, [instead] it has been proposed that a 3-
to-5-year period may exist” (Collins).
The differences in these reports, however, are in defining an end year to the Millennials’
generation. While some speculate that 2000 should be the terminate year for defining
Millennials (in keeping with the fifteen to twenty year span), social theorists such as Howe and
Strauss (coauthors of Generations, 1991) and Don Tapscott (Growing Up Digital, 1998), feel
that “a definitive end year [is] yet to be determined. Students graduating from high school and
attending college over the next 5 to 10 years will become this generation’s cohort of front-enders
from which generational characteristics will be derived” (Collins). Nonetheless, it is important
to narrow the scope of the study of Millennials to a definitive timeline; therefore using the
general consensus is most feasible.
When classifying Millennials it is important to examine preceding generations. The 21st
Century Project, launched by the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at

Wells
15

Austin, compares and contrasts the effects of technology on three generations—Baby Boomers,
Gen Xers, and Millennials. The report focuses primarily on American Millennials, but offers
insight too, into the mindset of the preceding generations. The project lends credibility to the
transparent phenomena of cultural neutralization by illuminating stark contrasts between
generations, particularly in the work place. Through the use of charts and graphs, the project
details the work ethics associated with each generation. They reveal differing feelings regarding
technology, such as Millennials boredom with emailing as juxtaposed with Baby Boomers
distractions concerning instant messaging. Additionally, it offers possible solutions for bridging
generational gaps—or cultural lag—and minimizing workplace conflicts generated from
differing technological skills-sets. Deductively then, the project does much to support that the
conflicts created in the workplace are a microcosmic reflection of a macrocosmic society and
that the suggestions for a resolution to said conflicts are strong indicators of a growing concern,
which justifies the investigation of cultural neutralization via the Digital Revolution.
New York University sociology professor, Norman F. Cantor, explains that history has
witnessed four cultural revolutions, each producing a new paradigm that was forced to answer
the demands laid forth by technological achievements. Cantor defines Cultural Revolution as “a
great upheaval in consciousness, perception, value systems, and ideology…” (2) and arguably
humanity is in the midst of another revolution—the Digital Revolution. The Protestant
Reformation, Enlightenment, Romanticism, and Modernist movements each witnessed their own
unique paradigmatic shifts compounded by the advancement of technology. For example,
Galileo’s cosmic observations were made possible by the telescope, and without the invention of
the printing press, Martin Luther would not have been able to propagate his anti-Catholic agenda
on such a grand scale.

Wells
16

Historically, each of these technological elements would have a profound effect on
Western civilization’s perceptions of religious dogmas. Ironically, the Enlightenment saw an
unprecedented explosion in the use of technological warfare, which revolutionized the ability to
colonize, as was the period of Romanticism, where British imperialism was at its height. Of
course, the Industrial Revolution gave rise to the Modernist era. Therefore, clearly history
illustrates how technology has had an impact on humanity, and subsequently cultural universals.
2.2 The Millennial Ethos: Their Cultural Universals
Culture is a broad topic to be sure. It is a mutable phenomenon. It is often used to define
peoples that share common beliefs, values, and behavior; otherwise known as societies. Culture,
too, is composed of various elements—or paradigms—that sociologists use to analyze people’s
way of life. These elements include parts such as, “structural-functional, cultural-conflict,
cultural universals, cultural integration, cultural transmission, and ethnocentrism”—just to name
a few (Macionis 54). These paradigmatic cultural influences are responsible for creating
diversity, which has led to the practice of multiculturalism.
In the United States of America, immigration has created the ultimate ‘melting pot’ of
ethnic diversities. Consequently, there are many subcultures within the nation’s borders.
However, as we have seen from the introduction, the cultural universal for Americans is
constitutional freedom. Sociologist John J. Macionis would also include traits such as “equal
opportunity, achievement and success, material comfort, activity and work, progress, and
science” (Macionis 36); all of which are characteristic of American values and would not be
possible without the freedom afforded by the United States Constitution.
Indeed, Western Civilization shares the democratic ideals with many other nations, but it
is the United States Constitution that distinguishes our freedoms from those of our Western allies

Wells
17

such as Great Britain and France. Their own respective constitutions execute government in the
parliamentary-cabinet system, which does not utilize checks and balances (Baradat 122). To the
contrary, the United States Constitution has outlined for Americans the structural-functional
paradigms that color its culture.
The American structural-functional paradigm, however, makes room for subcultures that
in turn sometimes leads to cultural-conflicts. These conflicts usually manifest themselves in the
political arena. But, cultural integration—a social paradigm—is often used to diffuse such
conflicts. This paradigm combines cultural disparities for the greater good. This can be seen in
our Pledge of Allegiance, which commands loyalty from American citizens despite ethnic origin.
In this way, the Pledge can be viewed as a definitive medium used to facilitate cultural
transmission of the American structural-functional paradigm, which stresses a cultural universal.
Conversely, however, ethos is defined as the spirit—or attitude—of a culture. Like
culture, it too is mutable. The American ethos has had many transformations throughout its two
hundred plus years of sovereignty. Early American history was turbulent as the original colonies
struggled for independence. It is safe to say—as history has shown us—that the overall ethos of
Colonial America was one fueled, obviously, by revolution. Later, as the Manifest Destiny
permeated American consciousness, the spirit of the nation became rife with possibilities.
Landownership would become the driving force behind America’s economic engine and
ambition was unparalleled as frontiersman risked their lives in pursuit of property. Keep in mind
that throughout these historical events the ethos was affected by a paradigm shift from the
“transplantation of English institutions or British sensibilities” (Rakove), which drew heavily
upon a connection of church to state. But as the United States Constitution was adopted as law,

Wells
18

Colonial and Postcolonial America would learn to accept the separation of church and state;
hence the acceptance of an entirely new paradigm divorced from British sensibilities.
However, the Industrial Revolution most clearly defines the ideal disruption of cultural
universals. Created from a waning ethos as a result of the American Civil War, this period of
history fostered America’s entrepreneurial spirit and spawned caste systems. These came to
define society and culture that ushered in a new paradigm of class distinctions. American upper
class and lower-class citizens were developing their own sensibilities. Ethnocentrism was
rampant among the nation’s elite. Industrialists such as Carnegie and Rockefeller maintained a
stronghold over government because of their enormous wealth, which contributed to the
oppressive ethos of America at the turn of the century.
This continued through the Great Depression until the end of World War II, which
ushered in a time of great prosperity and the American ethos was rejuvenated. This postmodern
period experienced a population explosion and children born to postwar parents were donned
Baby Boomers. Still, caste systems remained in place, although further compartmentalized into
upper, lower, and now middle and working class societies. This is important because caste
distinctions, or social stratification, came to define the American ethos.
Consider this, Baby Boomers are the parents of Millennials. The cultural values of the
Baby Boomers—which represent almost half of the United States Population and a majority of
the middle and working class—were socialized with social stratification. With this, “…working
class people [grew] up in an atmosphere of greater supervision and discipline…In raising their
children, then, they encourage[d] conformity to conventional beliefs and practices” (Macionis
175) unique to their caste sensibilities. However, in the Digital Age high technology is blurring
the lines of caste distinctions and therefore neutralizing unique sensibilities; at least for

Wells
19

American Millennials. Currently, “America gives the impression of being more classless than
ever…Ivy League students dress more like rappers than budding merchant bankers” (“Minding”
2), and conversely, inner-city children are brandishing expensive cellular phones; technology
formerly associated with moderate to excessive wealth. Moreover, this is significant to the study
of the American Millennials’ ethos because it illustrates the foundation for the Millennials’
culture.
Since American culture, and its neutralization, is the definitive focus of this report, the
Millennials’ population being studied ranges in age from 18-27 years old and are natural born
citizens of the United States of America. According to The Pew Research Center, which
conducted a survey to document the cultural trends of Millennials, there is strong evidence to
support a distinct identity for Millennials; they are “confident, connected, and open to change”
(“Millennials: Confident” 1). Furthermore, the survey outlines characteristics reflecting the core
values of American Millennials and support parameters for a neutralized ethos, all of which are
rooted in high technology usage and expertise. The 2010 Pew Research report posits that, “It’s
not just their gadgets—it’s the way they’ve fused their social lives into them” (6).
By comparing and contrasting three different generations—Boomers, Xers, and
Millennials—one can observe a cultural evolutionary pattern. American Millennials are highly
adept at navigating the Internet, both for personal and professional use. With the invention of
microelectronics, society can be connected at all times, but Millennials, as part of their
imprinting, are not as willing to disconnect from cyberspace as their older siblings and parents.
Some negative results of this can be seen in the decline of polite society (texting and
driving), loss of privacy (Facebook and Twitter), hackneyed intellect (Wikipedia), and exposure
to mass-media manipulation (violent video games). Even theorists who champion the evolution

Wells
20

of American Millennial culture—such as Don Tapscott—recognize that these negative
implications are noteworthy. Disturbingly, Tapscott reports that “…elementary and college
students [exposed] to video games that were violent…later tested by a standard laboratory
measure of aggressive behavior…displayed more aggression” (Grown Up Digital 298). For
instance, “…Grand Theft Auto IV…[is a] violent action-adventure game: the protagonist has to
commit multiple acts of mayhem while searching for the person who has betrayed his army unit”
(298).
Also, there are more dangerous consequences for the multi-tasking Millennial with
regards to the decline of civility, specifically texting and driving. A report from the U.S.
Department of Transportation recently cited that “The under-20 age group had the highest
proportion of distracted drivers involved in fatal crashes (16%). The age group with the next
greatest proportion of distracted drivers was the 20- to-29-year-old age group (12%)”
(“Distraction” 1). In any case, these numbers are the result of texting replacing interpersonal
communication.
The Gen Next Survey determined that Millennials are sending and receiving text
messages daily, which is purportedly twice the amount being utilized by the Boomers and Xers:
“within 24 hours 51 percent of those aged 18-25 will have sent or received a text message…with
26 percent of those aged 26-40…[and] 10 percent aged 41-60…[and] only four percent over the
age of 61” (New Politics Institute 4) engaging in the same activity. What is more, high
technology allows small devices, such as the cellular phone, to access multiple applications—or
‘apps’—for Internet browsing and social networking, all of which were once limited to a
stationary home computer; the result, an ‘apps’ subculture among Millennials.

Wells
21

Moreover, the Gen Next Survey illustrates that this technological mobility is coming to
define Millennials. It is omnipresent in their culture; therefore, logic dictates that their
remarkable proficiency with high technology becomes inevitable. Consequently, their
proficiency makes them ideal candidates in the high-tech world of online trading and commerce.
The 21st
Century Project posits that they are more likely to utilize online tools like instant
messaging, text messaging, and search engines, than their generational predecessors. This makes
them invaluable to global organizations whose capital interests are relentless. Millennials will
not think twice about minimizing a window for a personal instant message in order to maximize
a window on a professional spreadsheet in order to input data—all from their cellular phone—
while in transit.
In the American Millennials’ ethos, they believe success is contingent upon a universal
understanding of high technology, finding unity in the mathematical constructs of a cyber
existence. This has earned the cohort the dubious distinction of being over-achievers. For
instance, an interview with a Duke University senior (Anne Katherine Wales) sheds light on this
concern. Cognizant of her being groomed for over-achievement, she states:
“At Duke, we’re on a fast paced track…getting internships with big
companies…But somewhere along the line most of us have gotten really close to
someone, maybe even fallen in love. For some reason, this scares us beyond
belief. Somehow this doesn’t fit with our plan of achieving our dreams…We
have career counselors telling us how to get that internship, get accepted to med
school and get that high-paying job. But no one is telling us to work our feelings
into this equation for success.” (Twenge 85)

Wells
22

Also, the context of Wales’ philosophy additionally illustrates that a lack of humanities or other
social sciences in formal, higher education has left her vulnerable to the emotionless
environments created by virtual culture, and her expressed desire for guidance is overlooked in
favor of grooming technicians for operating Big Business in a virtual culture. Indeed, American
Millennials are over-achievers. Because multitasking at one’s fingertips is so readily accessible
to Millennials, their drive to perform is accelerated beyond the conventional scope of the
Boomers and Xers.
The 21st
Century Project claims that Boomers find online tools to be a “distraction, useful
but not trustworthy” (Chapman 3), while Xers perceive them as “important and routine” (3). But
for Millennials they are “like breathing, commonplace” (3). Millennials think email and formal
meetings are “too slow” (3) and that conference calls should be executed while “doing something
else” (3). However, being connected technologically cannot afford a substitute for a Millennial
becoming connected with his or her own feelings—or someone else’s—as illustrated by the
Duke University senior.
In an article released in February, 2010 by the Pew Research Center—which outlined a
panelist discussion on Millennials—demographer Neil Howe posited that the cohort was in a
“new place in history” (“Portrait of the Millennial” 5). As mentioned earlier, a generation’s
culture will undoubtedly reflect period effects as dictated by politics, world events, and the
economy. Howe was cited, as saying that the American Millennials’ generation is optimistic,
even in the turbulent ethos that is the first decade of the new millennium. He posits that there is
an air of optimism and that the social changes brought on by technology are for the better. What
he failed to address however, was that in spite of his rosy outlook, Millennials are railing against
conventional institutions.

Wells
23

In that very same discussion, during the Q & A portion of the program, a Millennial
approached the panel. Decker Ngongang informed the experts and audience that, “we
[Millennials] want institutions to look like us…so with religion and our traditional civic
institutions, we want them to reflect the change that we’re looking for in our communities…we
want to create efficiency” (8). In the process of neutralizing their ethos, Millennials’ collective
ideologies have infiltrated and altered the sensibilities of conventional institutions. American
Millennials have deliberate designs on redefining institutions. As the optimistic Baby Boomer
Neil Howe postulated about “a new place in history” (5), American Millennials have assumed a
role dedicated to reconditioning and rethinking institutions such as military, religion, marriage,
and education.
Part of the neutralization process is to synthesize a cultural universal. High technology
will be instrumental in facilitating the cultural transmission that will execute institutional
changes that reflect the Millennials’ objectives. One cannot overlook that their “new place in
history” (5) put Millennials amidst two wars that have virtually occupied their entire lifetime,
first the Gulf War and then the war in Iraq. Yet despite their growing up in these politically
charged environments, enrollment in the military has witnessed the sharpest decline in
recruitment in the institution’s history. The Pew Center reports that only “2% of the males in
this generation of 18-29 year olds are military veterans” (3). That is a distinct difference from the
Baby Boomer generation, where the numbers were as high as thirteen percent.
Moreover, one quarter of the Millennials’ population has admitted to not being affiliated
with any religion (“Portrait of Generation Next” 2). That was in 2007, but reports from 2010
show that these figures have increased to 26 percent of the Millennial population (“Millennials:
Confident” 86). Furthermore, they “… have no religious affiliation or are atheist or agnostic,

Wells
24

nearly double the proportion of young people who said that in the late 1980s. And just 4% of
Gen Nexters say people in their generation view becoming more spiritual as their most important
goal in life...” (“Portrait of Generation Next” 2).
Contemporary social commentator Jean M. Twenge, Ph.D. posits that the American
Millennial dogma has come to mean ‘make-your-own-religion,” (247), a doctrine that stems
from the Millennials’ fixation on themselves. They have moved away, far away, from
anthropomorphism and have come to believe that God represents “[one’s] own personal beliefs
of how you feel about…what’s acceptable for you and what’s right for you personally” (247).
Therefore, organized religion is the antithesis of the American Millennials’ ethos. They view it
is an institution that relies too much on a strict set of rules that offers little to no pliability. The
spirit of the American Millennials’ culture is autonomous; their central concept of self is wildly
juxtaposed to institutional constraints.
Marriage is another indicator. “Twenty-one percent” of the Millennial population is
married. Both Generation X and the Bay Boomer population were experiencing twice that
percentage at the same age (“Portrait of the Millennial” 3). Furthermore, a majority of the
Millennials cohort has come from broken homes, so part of their cultural integration has adopted
a single-parenting paradigm. Boomer conventions of an idyllic, bucolic existence have become
antiquated in the neutralized ethos of Millennials. “Only six in 10 [Millennials] grew up—with
both parents” (“Portrait of the Millennial” 3) and this has had a remarkable impact on their
perception of family values…[In] every case [Millennials] are more receptive to these newer
modes of family arrangements and parenting arrangements than are older adults” (3).
Also, consider that they have become exponentially more tolerant than their generational
predecessors with regards to same sex and interracial parents, which can be viewed as an

Wells
25

interpretation for blurring the lines of liberal and conservative sensibilities. Statistically
speaking, 32 percent of American Millennials—as compared to 65 percent of Baby Boomers—
feel that gay couples raising children is unacceptable and 5 percent—compared to 14 percent—
think that the same of interracial relationships (“Millennials: Confident” 52).
Their cultural universals are symptomatic of rebellion. History shows that generations
experience cultural revolutions that are initiated to negate the sensibilities from the previous one.
Part of growing up is to assert superiority over one’s parents. It is the instinctual drive of human
beings. Ancient Greeks wrote of it in their dramas and it has played out on the world stage of
Western civilization ever since, and with rebellion comes hallmarks for change usually
manifested through trendy behaviors. For the American Millennial this is done through physical
modifications.
Tattoos and piercings represent a “generational badge” (3) and for most Millennials, one
is not enough. “50% of those who have tattoos have two to five, and 18% have six or more.
Also 23% [have a] piercing in a place other than their earlobe [though] 70% are hidden beneath
clothing” (3). These illustrate a strong, underlying resistance to institutional authority. As they
enter the workforce in vast majority, rigid appearance guidelines—as seen in corporate Baby
Boomer America—will have to bend to a populous that is indelibly inked if there is to be a
workforce at all. In this way Millennials are slowly altering and redefining workplace culture
and its conventionally rigid parameters.
George Herbert Mead—a pioneer in social psychology—characterizes this type of
behavior as symbolic interaction. Moreover, Mead has probed the idea of self and has penned
numerous essays and articles in his lifetime (1863-1931) to reflect the social revolutions of the

Wells
26

modernist era. In his 1930 essay entitled “The Self”, he examines how the assertion of
individuality impacts collective society and cultural universals. He posits:
“…A person is a personality because he belongs to a community, because he
takes over the institutions of that community into his own conduct …After all,
what we mean by self-consciousness is an awakening in ourselves of the group of
attitudes which we are arousing in others, especially when it is an important set of
responses which go to make up the members of the community…We cannot have
rights unless we have common attitudes.” (Mead)
Mead’s references to attitudes are very important here. The overconfident attitude of Millennials
is the fundamental contributor that comes from their political environment, which combines
Mead’s philosophy—social behaviorism—with a structural-functional paradigm.
Statistics reveal that the Millennials’ generation are civic minded and that their culture
has been structured with an indifferent attitude towards an increasingly reprehensible governing
body (“A Portrait of Generation Next” 4). Consequently, they lean towards the left in their
political ideologies, because they feel the Democratic party to be sympathetic of humanity and
the environment; “…in Pew surveys in 2006, nearly half of young people (48%) identified more
with the Democratic Party, while just 35% affiliated more with the GOP. This makes Generation
Next the least Republican generation...” (2). What is more, 2009 Pew surveys reveals that “the
Democratic advantage was even larger when the partisan leaning of independents is taken into
account. An additional 20% of Millennial voters said they leaned toward the Democratic
Party…When these leaners are combined with partisans, 57% of Millennial voters identified
with…the Democratic Party” (“Millennials: Confident” 67).

Wells
27

Importantly, too, one must consider how technology influences the political ideologies of
American Millennials. The Pew Research Center’s 2006 polling of their political trends
indicate:
1. Those between the ages of 18-25 are astutely aware of the consequences of global
warming and are proficient in the ways of sustainability and 42 percent of their
exposure to this issue came from the Internet.
2. The same age group surveyed, reflected the same percentage point showing favor for
gay marriage because of a virtual medium.
3. And, an impressive 74 percent of 18-25 year olds surveyed, revealed that the Internet
was responsible for Swaying their opinions favorably towards the privatization of
Social Security.
In addition to these statistics the New Politics Institute article, “The Progressive Politics of the
Millennial Generation” posits that Millennials are “not satisfied with the ways [sic] politics is
conducted today or with the politicians that currently represent them” (3). Then, take into
account the Pew polls’ overwhelming evidence that Millennials are being politically manipulated
through popular media such as the Internet. Furthermore, progressive political ideologies have
permeated the American Millennials’ ethos too. This is a result of being an interactive
generation and the implications will do much to foster a neutralized culture.
2.3 Politics: The New Structural-Functional Paradigm
The Gen Next Survey and The New Politics Institute both agree that there has been a
paradigmatic shift in the political and partisan affiliations—most notably among Millennials—
that indicates the collective neutralization of their political mindset. The danger of this,
however, lies within the Millennial populations’ readiness to accept interactive media as wholly

Wells
28

accurate; keeping in mind the Internet is an unregulated medium that can easily be used to
facilitate political agendas.
Consider that, “courtesy of the Internet, public officials can now solicit citizen input at
almost no cost…Government can now involve citizens in setting the policy agenda, which can
then be refined on an on-going basis” (Tapscott, Grown Up 261). But to a distracted Millennial,
this philosophy becomes counterproductive to the traditional democratic process since search
engines and the Web are their lifelines for information. Therefore, Millennials see no need for
representative government. Remember, search engines are shaped by popular response. They
regurgitate information based on “algorithms that rank results according to the number of
previous searches” (Keen 93). Thus, an unregulated medium, powered by popular opinion, and
colored by special interests, becomes a reckless recipe for the political future of American
Millennials who are reticent in their belief that representative government is an antiquated
notion. Because of this, The New Politics Institute reports that only 40 percent of the Millennial
population believes their vote matters.
The core values of American Millennials also focus on egalitarianism. This is relative to
high technology and Millennials in the sense that their technological acumen is eliminating—for
better or worse—conventional male-female roles in society as well, particularly in the
workplace. In other words, high-tech expertise knows no gender in the employment arena. A
Kenyon College Sociology professor postulates that “…our [previous] culture defines males as
ambitious and competitive, we expect them to engage in team sports and aspire to positions of
leadership…we define females as deferential and emotional, we expect them to be good listeners
and supportive observers” (Macionis 245). But Millennials disagree and a 2007 New Politics
Institute report determined that:

Wells
29

“In the 2004 National Election study, respondents were asked to place themselves
on a 7 point scale relative to the following statements: ‘Some people feel that
women should have an equal role with men in running business, industry, and
government. Others feel that women’s place is in the home,’ where the strongest
support for women’s equal role and 7 is the strongest support for women’s place
in the home. Two-thirds of Millennials selected 1, the strongest support for
women’s equal role and 88 percent of Millennials picked 1, 2 or 3 on the 7 point
scale…both figures that are higher than any other generation.” (“Progressive
Politics of the Millennial Generation” 1)
Their view of the world is progressive and because of their growing numbers, it is highly
probable that their pluralist political ideologies will undoubtedly redefine American politics.
Overwhelming evidence shows that these individuals have grown up in the shadow of
their Gen Xers parents and siblings, who have spun a cynical web of doubt over the American
Government. Some determining factors that have colored this Gen X distrust of government
include: “80 percent believing there is inefficiency and wasteful spending of money on the
wrong things…[and] that 65 percent feel special interest [groups] have too much power…[and]
62 percent feel politicians are lacking integrity” (Blendon, et al. 205).
Also, one must not overlook the contributions of social movements since the wake of
Kennedy’s assassination, or the obvious evolution of the American’s core value system as
influenced by the economy and a perceived failing government: Watergate, Reaganomics,
Clinton’s Impeachment, and George W. Bush’s political debacles—such as exaggerated claims
of Iraq’s WMDs or his mishandling of the Katrina disaster—just to name a few. But these

Wells
30

factors have contributed to the American Millennials’ mindsets; therefore, these shameful
American snafus could easily contribute to a wanton desire of a neutralized culture.
Furthermore, after having witnessed partisan struggles over major issues such as global
warming, gay marriage, and health care, the overall reaction of Millennials to these pressing
stalemates is one of ridicule and disgust, sparking an interest in politics at a very young age. For
instance:
“…in UCLA’s 2006 American Freshman survey—conducted for the last 40 years,
with several hundred thousand respondents each year—more freshman reported
they discussed politics frequently as high school seniors (34 percent) than at any
other point in history in the history of the survey. In the 2004 election, Census
data indicate that the 18-24 year old age group, completely composed of
Millennials, increased their turnout 11 points to 47 percent of citizens in that age
group, and 18-29 year olds—dominated for the first time by Millennials—
increased their turnout 9 points to 49 percent…These increases were far, far
higher than among any other age group.” (New Politics Institute 3)
Statistical evidence shows that 58 percent of the American Millennial population is registered to
vote, with 30 percent loyal to the Democratic party (New Politics Institute 4); however, there is a
slight majority of moderate ideologies in this age group and an even higher one in the older
subset of Millennials, or Generation Y, and those aged 26 to 29. Therefore, logic dictates that if
the moderate majority already exists in Generation Y, than the increasing numbers of Millennial
moderates will double in size too. Compounding this neutrality of course, is the usage of
technology, specifically in the sense that the Computer Age provides a new array of multi-media
that enables the computer savvy Millennial to access facts and figures.

Wells
31

In the case of politics, the invisible threat facing Millennials—resulting from their
overexposure to the Internet—is that the potential for factual distortion is markedly increased
over that of television. The difference, here, is that the Internet is an interactive medium which is
much more widely used—by American Millennials—than television; “42% of American
[Millennials] say they consider the television to not be a necessity” (Taylor). Furthermore,
according to a 2006 nationwide survey from the Pew Research Center's Social & Demographic
Trends project, this figure grew to 52 percent, and in 2009 it was a high as 64 percent (Taylor).
Because of interactivity, the usual Internet viewer has to command a site in which to
explore, and if these sites are exclusively rooted in one’s own interest, the chances of exposure to
alternate points-of-view are greatly limited. Moreover, chances for manipulation are increased,
too, as the inexperienced Millennial is subjected to the political rants of extremists and
conspiracy theorists; and there is a danger in their assumption of accuracy. For example,
Andrew Keen (a Silicon Valley entrepreneur) notes:
“In 2005, three young would-be filmmakers from the small town of Oneota in
upstate New York used two thousand dollars saved up from shifts at Friendly’s
ice cream store to create an eighties movie called Loose Change, a ‘ documentary
(originally conceived as a fictional story) that claimed the 9/11 terrorist attacks
were organized and carried out by the Bush Administration…originally posted on
the Internet in the spring of 2005, Loose Change rose to the number-one spot on
Google Video’s ‘Top 100’ by May 2006, generating ten million viewers in the
first year alone. That’s ten million people being fundamentally misled about one
of the most cataclysmic events in American history.” (Keen 69)

Wells
32

Of those ten million viewers that Keen has noted in his book, The Cult of the Amateur, Pew
statistics indicate that a pressing 86 percent of them were likely to be American Millennials.
This type of cultural mass manipulation has occurred before in American history. For
instance, in 1896, Thomas Edison’s kinetoscope camera, projected moving images onto a screen
and the phenomena of motion pictures—later dubbed the film industry—had begun. “A medium
that began primarily as a working-class phenomenon” (Kammen 104), it was being used to
facilitate the “facile dissemination of propaganda” (104) and filmmakers such as D.W. Griffith
were exploiting their political agendas for the nation to view. In his 1915 picture, Birth of a
Nation, viewers were exposed to Griffith’s telling of the American Civil War. This, of course,
led to controversies as to the historical accuracy of its contents and was potentially hazardous to
the advancement of black people in America who were struggling for equality in the wake of
their emancipation. Herein, one can determine the potentially damaging effects of this scenario,
for public manipulation was no longer reduced to the proverbial soapbox. The mass distribution
of one man’s perception of such a pivotal event in American history would have a lasting impact
on racism; which was already suffering. Therefore, history has shown us the inevitable backlash
mass media and technology can have on American culture; moreover, the political influence to
result from such manipulation.
Comparable to Griffith’s mass manipulation is the present phenomena of blogging, and
for the untrained or inexperienced, the information presented is often taken for accurate. Unlike
Wikipedia, the authors of blog content are motivated by personal agendas and their information
is generally biased; moreover, their target audiences are usually Millennials. For instance, “in
2004 a little more than half of the 4.1 million blogs counted…were kept by 13-19 year olds…
[that were] adventurous nonconformists who set the pace for their peers” (Bauerlein 74).

Wells
33

Furthermore, these ‘nonconformists’ were often mistaken for credible journalists, launching
smear campaigns that were incredibly effective in influencing young voters.
In the 2008 presidential race, those who frequently perused amateur blog sites were left
contemplating the political motives of Barak Obama. Sites labeled him a Muslim loyalist and
reported inaccuracies that were being viewed by those surfing the Internet. Libelous accusations,
such as the following, are plentiful on the unregulated Internet:
“The Web site Insight…caused a stir in January 2007 by publishing an erroneous
story…planning to accuse Obama of having been enrolled in an Islamic religious
school in Indonesia as a child, and having covered it up. Even though the report
was denounced…uncorroborated by other news organizations…it was picked
up by Fox News and was discussed extensively on the morning news programs
and on conservative talk radio.” (Keen 81)
Nonetheless, one cannot dismiss the aforementioned statistics that illustrate the progressive, yet
moderate political ideologies of American Millennials; or furthermore, how it will affect the
future of American government.
The Pew Research article, “Millennials’ Lukewarm Support For Health Care Bills:
Many are Uninsured Yet Most Are Unengaged”, reported that over half the American Millennial
cohort supported a governmentally subsidized health care program:
“Millennials favored the public option (61% July [2009], 65% October [2009]);
most Gen Xers also supported the public option (57%, 60% respectively). But
opinion was more mixed among older age groups: In October, just 51% of
Boomers…favored a government health insurance plan to compete with private
plans…In January, just a third of Millennials (33%) said their ability to get

Wells
34

insurance if they lose a job or change jobs would get better if the legislation
becomes law” (“Millennials’).
These statistics are significant, especially in light of the theory that their massive population will
have an enormous impact on United States legislation. The same poll revealed, however, that
Millennials, though familiar with matters of finance and privatization, are less concerned with
the topic than those of Gen Xers and the Baby Boomers. This may lead one to question the
maturity level and priorities of Millennials.
Finally, one should consider how the Millennials’ political ethos would charge the
economic engine. When looking at the economic environment of Millennials, “these young
people…have $150 billion in direct purchasing power today, more than their parents ever had at
their age, and about $500 billion in indirect purchasing power” (Alch 42). As Millennials enter
the workplace, which is being neutralized by globalization, they are seeking jobs that will
exercise their technological acumen. They are “believed to be motivated less by material gain
than by the element of challenge, the scope for self-determination, and the pursuit of technical
excellence” (Hefferman 60), thus closing the cultural gaps between ‘higher and lower cultures’
that were once dictated by one’s profession.
2.4 Technology: Facilitating Cultural Transmission
When studying the American Millennial, the applied methodology for this investigation
included an in-depth exploration of multiple mediums concentrating on both qualitative and
quantitative data. Independent studies that have been launched by organizations—particularly
The Pew Research Center—concentrate on cultural studies and the social sciences.
The Pew Research Center qualifies its mission as a governmentally funded ‘fact tank’
that is composed of seven projects designed to record empirical data. One of those projects—

Wells
35

The Pew Internet and American Life Project—has been particularly explored in order to
ascertain a collective point-of-view, which integrates the academic and popular perceptions of
this phenomenon. However, in this case, popular perception is to be synonymous with
observance—or this author’s fieldwork—and should be coupled with the empirical data that
accompanies this study. Key concepts that are examined revolve around culture, technology, and
entitlement; but technology is the driving force behind the transparent paradigmatic shift in
American culture.
Millennials “…use technology and the Internet to connect with people in new and
distinctive ways. Text messaging and email keep them in constant contact with friends. About
half say they sent or received a text message over the phone in the past day, approximately
double the proportion of those ages 26-40...” (“Portrait of Generation Next” 2). The rapid
advancement of technology is remarkable. Sven Birkerts writes that, “we have been primed by
countless prior adaptations to earlier technologies” (Birkerts 215). But history has given us time
to understand technology, and our priming allowed us to assimilate technology together as a
society; this cannot be said of today’s high-tech environment. The Government Computer News
periodical has drafted a timeline that illustrates this.
The timeline starts in 1982 with the IBM personal computer and spans twenty-five years.
It goes on to show significant yearly advancements that run parallel to the formative years of
American Millennials. Consider that during this timeline, we have witnessed the antiquation of
record LPs, eight tracks, and cassette tapes in favor of the CD and “its successor, the DVD
(1996), killed off the video tape” (GCN 1).
Moreover, the timelines reveals that in 1984 Toshiba developed flash memory. This
microelectronic hardware would later become the foundation for small devices such as

Wells
36

“smartphones, digital cameras…and laptops” (2). Then, in 1989 Tim Berners-Lee’s invention,
the World Wide Web, was being used ubiquitously in governments and commerce. In which the
Web was further enhanced by the implementation of the browser in 1992, which did the work for
us. Subsequently came email in 1993, and its immediacy revolutionized the way societies would
communicate, even forcing the United States’ post offices to restructure their business models.
And shortly thereafter—in1995—Wiki technology was launched, which was followed by the
residential usage of broadband communication and the MP3 audio format, “a format that pretty
much leveled [the] entire [music] industry” (3). Then came the omnipresent Google in 1998,
simplifying the browser capability and making queries readily accessible with the entry of a few
key words. And, most recently, 2007 witnessed the explosion of Facebook, a social networking
tool that has become the primary form of socialization for the American Millennial; at least for—
according to the Pew Research Center—“three-quarters” of their population. (Lenhart et al.1)
Through all of these innovations, Baby Boomers have been relatively self-taught on the
ways of the personal computer. However, Millennials have had exposure to these innovations
and microelectronic devices in their everyday life; even more so in their schools, and some as
early as preschool and most in their elementary education. Consider that:
“Clearly they are the leading adopters of [new technology], so it's their window
on the world, it's their window for information, for entertainment. It's the platform
for their social lives. Teenagers and twenty-somethings (sic) need to be where
other teenagers and twenty-somethings (sic) are. And way back in the distant mist
of history before the digital revolution, that place was the suburban mall or the
soda shop. Now, that place is Facebook. They need to be there because everybody

Wells
37

else is there. You see it here in terms of social networking profiles where fully
three-quarters have one”. (‘Portrait of the Millennials”)
Comparing the computer skills sets of the three generations—Boomers, Xers, and
Millennials—one can observe interesting distinctions. Baby Boomers have found the usage of
email and instant or text messaging to be distracting and somewhat confusing and impersonal.
Gen Xers are more comfortable with their usage, and find emailing to be an efficient way to
communicate and are relatively unscathed by the use of instant/ text messaging.
However, for Millennials, these types of technologies are second nature, and sometimes
there are complications that can arise from having a cultural clash between the gapping
generations as a result of this aloof engagement. “All… generations communicate
differently…Traditionalists and Baby Boomers prefer…using the phone, whereas generations X
and Y prefer e-mail or text messaging” (Van Horn 727). In this way communication technology
is doing much to facilitate cultural transmission. Besides, communication technologies have
evolved tremendously over the past three decades, and with almost three-quarters of Americans
currently connected to the Internet, chat rooms, instant, and text messaging are quickly replacing
the need for landlines or home phones. “Fewer than half (46%) of 18- to 29-year-
old[s]…consider the landline phone a necessity of life” (Taylor). Because of this, AT & T has
substantially reduced their home phone accounts, in favor of wireless communication. Starting
in 1996, “there were…more than 38 million [wireless] subscribers in the United States alone, or
about 14.5 percent of the entire U.S population (Cellular Telecommunications Industry
Association, 1996)” (Katz 41). Currently, “… there are about 140 million cell phones in this
country” (USA Today) and “for children growing up today the issue is not whether they will get
a mobile phone, it's a question of when?” (Reuters).

Wells
38

But whereas Baby Boomers and Gen Xers are moderately assimilating the evolution of
communication, for the American Millennial, it is customary. Complete with ‘cyber-language’
and ‘netiquette’, American Millennials have adapted their own communication standards. One
of every two Millennials have been exposed to a cyber subculture that spans our great nation,
each adopting ‘cyber-language’ and ‘netiquette’ as convention, suggesting a great potential for
neutralizing the communication arena. Since “language…facilitates communication…[and]
ensures the continuity of culture…language [is] the key to cultural transmission, the process by
which one generation passes culture to the next” (Macionis 34), the conformity involved with
adopting cyber-language will do much to reshape American language in the American
Millennials’ ethos.
A catalyst for this stems from the idea that Millennials are in a constant search for
intellectual stimulation. They are a product of instant gratification, or the ‘on-demand’ or the
immediacy provided by the Internet and 3G or 4G communications. However, in their attempts
to combat their boredom Millennials engage in multi-tasking endeavors that are easily executed
through high-tech devices. Consider that:
“Within one to two years, the Millennials will probably be totally untethered (sic)
from the wired world and have ample bandwidth on their portable devices to do
just about anything they desire. Two other trends make this outcome highly
likely: ‘convergence’ and ‘ubiquitous (or virtual) storage.’ Convergence is a
term applied to the movement toward creating a portable device that will function
as a cell phone, computer, PDA, portable media player, and video/ still camera.
Cell phones capable of recording video and functioning as portable music players

Wells
39

are already available but limited in functionality. All of this will change as the
technology matures.” (Van Horn 731)
But multi-tasking is not without its problems. It generates inefficiency.
As one scrambles to complete multiple projects, accuracy and attention to detail are
sacrificed. Imagine the Millennial accountant that is crunching numbers for a multimillion-dollar
transaction while exchanging in an instant message with a faraway friend. Now suppose that
same accountant mistakenly enters data because of the distraction. Or worse, imagine a driver
who has just received terrible news via a text message, which distracts he or she to the point they
are no longer paying attention to the road and other drivers.
The multi-tasking Millennial is not opposed to navigating the Internet in search of an
immediate response to a pressing challenge and sometimes this efficiency can be synonymous
with laziness. Mark Bauerlein posits that “they learn to count and spell, cut and paste, manage
information, relate to others, and ‘construct knowledge,” (Bauerlein 84), but Bauerlein neglects
to mention that while doing so they are cheating themselves of the rewards that accompany
diligence and genuine knowledge. Moreover, “… embrace of new [multi-tasking] technology
has made them uniquely aware of its advantages and disadvantages. They are more likely than
older adults to say these cyber-tools make it easier for them to make new friends and help them
to stay close to old friends and family. But more than eight-in-ten also acknowledge that these
tools ‘make people lazier’” (“A Portrait of Generation Next” 2).
Furthermore, in the world of high-tech communication there looms a danger when
relying on information found on the Internet. The information superhighway is unregulated
territory and amateur websites promising accuracy are abundant, Wikipedia for instance, or any

Wells
40

other online informational source. Remember that such sites may be altered and manipulated at
whim by anonymous contributors.
Wikipedia “has become the third most visited site for information and current events”
(Keen 4). Millennials between the ages of 19 and 25 questioned in a Pew Research Center
survey admitted to using the Wikipedia as their only resource for retrieving data. This survey was
conducted on December 18, 2009, by questioning forty individuals about their methodology for
conducting research. Thirty-seven reported that they took Wikipedia entries to be accurate and
did not cross-reference with other databases or resources.
The random sampling surveyed was either two-year or four-year college graduates who
confessed to being incensed and inconvenienced with their college’s ban on the usage of
Wikipedia in their research. Moreover, based on a Pew Research Center survey conducted in
2006, with “1501 subjects aged 18 through 29—American Millennials counting as 579 of the
total sampling—two-thirds of the sampled Millennials admitted using the Internet as their only
source of reference while conducting research” (Gen Next Survey 53); thus, developing a pattern
of conventional study habits relying exclusively on technology.
Cultural changes as the result of technological innovation is summed up in the concept of
socio-cultural evolution (Macionis 38). Sociologist John J. Macionis postulates that “the more
complex a society’s technology…the more its members are able to shape the world for
themselves” (38). He is referring to material culture or the acquiring of materials needed to
survive in one’s environment. In the case of the hunters and gatherers, rudimentary tools are
used. Pastoral societies have learned to domesticate animals while agrarian societies utilize
animals as beasts of burden. However, it is in the industrial societies that utilize fossil fuels that

Wells
41

individuals “have a far greater choice in how they earn their living” (39) which will ultimately
lead to materialism.
Sociologically, this is defined by the way “society’s system of material production…has
a powerful effect on all dimensions of culture” (50), and the American Millennials’ material
culture lies within their high-tech acumen and mastery of microelectronics. Obviously, it is the
manufacturing of the hardware, which makes it tangible, but the intangibility of knowledge and
proficiency is what makes their generation unique form the others. Thus, Macionis’ position is
validated. Complex microelectronic proficiency is causing the Millennials to “shape the world
for themselves” (38).
Turning again to history will help one to better understand how material culture will
contribute to the neutralization of the American Millennial ethos. Ruth Schwartz Cowan’s essay,
Household Technology and Social Change in the Twentieth Century, draws an impressive
parallel of the turn of the century housewife with that of the Millennial. Seemingly an entirely
different subject, their commonality is shared through the assimilation of technology. Cowan’s
discussion of the “electrification and mechanization of the American household…[did much] in
terms of overall efficiency, energy expenditure, and time required to perform certain tasks done
with new technology as compared to old” (Cowan 223). Moreover, the material culture of these
women—which included electric stoves, irons, and washing machines—also allowed them to
“shape their worlds…” (223).
What is more, Cowan writes that the assimilation of material culture was responsible for
a paradigm shift in the home during the Industrial Revolution. She states that prior to the
invention of electric devices, housework was often a labor of love. This was because of the lack
of egalitarianism. But, as women’s schedules were increasingly freed up and they began to enter

Wells
42

the workplace, household chores were expeditiously executed. No longer would she “protect
them [family] from the embarrassment of tattletale gray… [or] prepare meals as a way to express
a housewife’s artistic inclination…” (232). She was not compromising her maternal instincts,
but instead she was integrating her newly acquired sensibilities. The sociological term for this is
cultural integration or the “close relationship among various elements of a cultural system”
(Macionis 54).
In the case of the modern housewife, standards were defined by Victorian and Edwardian
values. These consisted of patriarchal conventions, which confined her to the home where her
worth was determined by conventional practices such as housework. But with the invention of
electrical appliances, standards shifted to include her sensibilities, her self-esteem. Analogous to
Millennials, standards are defined by Baby Boomers’ values, which confines them to the home
where their worth is determined by conventional practices such as computer literacy. However,
cultural integration of these standards for Millennials have caused them to move past the
standards put forth by their parents in order to adopt the structural-functional paradigm dictated
by the Digital Revolution; and high technology is facilitating their cultural transmission.
A further motive for studying the significance of studying the ethno methodology of
American Millennials, center around the threat of cultural divisions between generations as
witnessed in dual paradigms that are evolving rapidly as well. First, the structural-functional
paradigm—or how culture meets human needs—is the construct that is most heavily impacted by
the Digital Age. It stands to reason that because the largest population of this era is the
Millennial cohort, they will undoubtedly have an indelible effect on reshaping culture as
technology creates need. It can be said that this is how cultures develop. The reliance on
technology generates a system of rules that morph into traditions and are manifested through

Wells
43

customs and integrated through cultural transmission. Certainly there is room for disparities that
can be expressed in specific mores, but as a whole, culture is defined by the values set forth by
the structural-functional paradigm.
Millennials’ shifts in sensibilities are an example of what New York University
Sociology professor Norman F. Cantor calls structuralism or the sociological component of one’s
structural-functional paradigm. Structuralism plays a strong role in neutralizing the American
Millennials’ ethos. As a sociological construct, it took shape following World War II and did
much to contribute to the prevailing psyche of Millennials. Cantor posits “Structuralism moves
the focus of reality and the center of attention from the individual to the system” (Cantor 436).
This is significant because this ideology would later influence Millennials’ preoccupations with
success.
Structuralism, in the 1960s, meant that corporations were developing values designed to
facilitate economic prosperity. This included a workforce that was dedicated to long hours and
reverence to the establishment, as well as, technological developments designed to perpetuate
globalization—eerily similar to the cultural neutralization of the Millennials’ ethos. The
difference, however, is that high technology had yet to be assimilated.
Comparatively, “…computer applications and satellite communications…made the
multinational corporation much more functional,” but its magnitude had yet to be realized (437);
moreover, in keeping with the neutralization theme, “global corporate institutions [instilled]
homogenous behavior” in their employee (437). Big Business had already begun to manipulate
cultural constructs for capitalist gains. Consider that “the United States…[was] evolving into a
corporate oligarchy…[and] for all the flash and cosmopolitanism of American life…never [had]
it been so directly a product of corporate imagination” (Berman 3). In short, while fostering the

Wells
44

entrepreneurial spirit of an industrialized workforce, composed of working-class individuals, Big
Business was able to structure a mindset and manipulate sensibilities: more is better. Consider
popular culture mottos such as ‘whoever has the most toys wins’ and we can see how corporate
structuralism has infiltrated American culture and dictate priorities.
This is a harsh social criticism, but it reflects the clandestine operation and motive of Big
Business. Moreover, this a direct result of the social landscape being dictated by an
entertainment culture, powered by an Internet ethos that is coupled with immediacy, or a
“McWorld” (3); and it is invisible to the IT driven Millennial. The commercial infrastructure is
capitalizing on the paradigm shift with seductive advertising that suggests that if one is not
equipped with the latest technology, they are in danger of being lost in society. The constant
bombardment of advertisements from communications networks such as AT&T, Verizon, and T-
Mobile take competition to a new level by preying on America’s naivety about a technological
future that even experts have a hard time predicting. Once again Millennials fall victim to the
pressures of American standards of keeping up, moving onward and upward.
Moreover, a “corporate oligarchy” operates through monopolization. Take, for example,
the mega marts—Wal-Mart and Super Target—which are not only redefining American
economics by way of monopolization, but subsequently the cultural constructs of Millennials,
whom are growing up to accept these supercenters as a convention as opposed to convenience.
This is the only thing they have ever known, so Big Business will undoubtedly benefit
from the conditioned behavior from which they have surreptitiously groomed American
Millennials. Supercenters operate under the guise of creating jobs and as small businesses close
because of their increasing ubiquity, the preeminent pawn in the labor force are Millennials;

Wells
45

particularly because Boomers are slated to retire and Generation X has more than likely already
settled.
“Wal-Mart does not create jobs; it just moves jobs around and takes jobs that people
have been working for 30 to 40 years and makes them into part-time jobs. It pays less wages and
leaches [off] of social services in the public sector instead of providing its employees adequate
benefits” (Conlan 3). Nonetheless, Big Business is using IT to infiltrate the Internet and
subsequently dominating a primary source of cultural transmission. And as information
technology is rapidly becoming increasingly miniaturized and mobile, and the primary source for
communication, advertisers will find a way to intercept correspondence. Consequently, there is
relatively little chance to ignore this phenomenon and the American Millennial is the
predominant recipient of this Digital Age structuralism.
Information technology during the 1960s was in its infancy. What corporate America
was foreseeing was that IT could be used to flood the global market. Nick Hefferman, author of
Capital, Class and Technology in Contemporary American Culture, posits that this would serve
as “the technical nervous system for American corporate world views and commodities… [and]
return to the global ideological hegemony…associated with the Americana of the 1950s and
early ‘60s” (Hefferman 41).
Consequently, throughout the 1970s Baby Boomers flooded universities in pursuit of
MBAs because of the awareness that “technological developments that were occurring in the late
sixties and early seventies [were contributing] to the central role of multinational corporations”
(Cantor 437). Moreover, the MBA programs were designed to educate individuals not only of
the importance of global commerce, but how information technology would most assuredly
become the latest, greatest commodity the global market had ever seen. Amidst this commercial

Wells
46

revelation, engineers were scrambling to harness the power of information technology and “at
the beginning of the 1980s, the microelectronics industry became the province of a new
workshop and a revival of the entrepreneurial spirit…” (Hefferman 60). Infused with large
amounts of capital, Apple Computer giants such as Steve Jobs and Steven Wozniak were well on
their way to developing microchips and motherboards.
For better or worse, this is the world Millennials were born to, and it is with this
ambitious, structural-functional paradigm, that their culture has been influenced and is being
defined. It has already “changed the skills that dominate [their] way of life…and [manipulated]
symbols in [their] speaking, writing, computing, and creative skills” (Macionis 41) through the
use of graphics processors, email, text messaging, and search engines. Here, too, one can see a
social pattern developing, which is their unrelenting focus on proficiency.
2.5 Workplace: Creating Cultural-Conflicts
However, such proficiency has generated an air of hostility between generations.
Sociologists define this as cultural lag or when “cultural elements change more quickly than
others” (Macionis 54), and members of collective society adapt better than their neighbors.
Consequent of cultural lag is the cultural-conflict paradigm—a theory originally outlined by Karl
Marx—which is used to define class distinctions.
At the time of Marx, it was a question of separating the bourgeois from the proletariat,
but in contemporary terms, it can be used to define the distinctions between generations.
Analogous to comparing the rich with the poor, here we compare proficiency with inability.
Specifically the privileges afforded to the technologically proficient Millennial versus the
supposed unable Baby Boomer, particularly in the workplace.

Wells
47

The generation gaps between the Baby Boomers, Gen Xers, and Millennials are
compounded by the rapid advancement of technology. “In the 1960s,” for instance, “the
generation gap was over differences in values, lifestyles, and ideology between parents and their
children… however, [in the workplace] changes [are] brought about new technologies and e-
commerce” (Alch 1) that foster a transparent air of intimidation between those less adept in
technology.
The 21st
Century Project reports that the disparate ideas concerning technology in the
workplace are rather extreme considering the gap in ideologies only spans relatively twenty
years. In his report, Chapman—director of the project—postulates that Baby Boomers feel that
professional conventions such as Microsoft’s Power Point and interpersonal meetings are
“useful, professional, [and] essential” respectively. While Millennials feel that they are “boring,
not useful, too formal, [and] too slow” (Chapman).
The same report explains that Millennials find text messaging to be “like breathing” but
the Baby Boomer finds it be a “distraction.” However, American teenagers’ expertise with
microelectronics used to facilitate such interactivity as text messaging has inadvertently qualified
them to plug-into the pulse of the global machine; “the youngest workers just out of high school
or college are used to collaborating through e-mail and instant messaging” (Schurr 1). This
makes them perfect candidates for a fast-paced job-market.
From a business prospective, a neutralized culture is the perfect fit for a globalized
economy. Millennials are aware of this and have been able to exploit this to their fullest
advantage; hence their adaptation. Employers, too, are embracing the Millennial workplace
paradigm, which concentrates on autonomy, multitasking, and fierce dedication resulting from
their willingness to always be connected. To put into perspective the popular conception of

Wells
48

what the working Millennial has to offer, an article from The Journal of Property Management,
printed an attractive description as to why Millennials are a perfect fit for a restless commerce:
“Picture this: it is 3:30 on a Thursday afternoon. A 20-something associate
completes a project on her laptop, sends it via-email to her supervisor, text
messages a client on her cell-phone, and then leaves for the day. Meanwhile her
50-something colleague in the next cubicle, who never leaves the office before
six o’clock, is grumbling about the poor work ethics of today’s younger
workers.” (Wagner 1)
However, what the article fails to address, and cannot foresee, is the long-term effects
this seemingly superhuman stamina will have on the Millennials’ well being; notwithstanding,
too, the potential hazards of such multitasking. “Multitasking entails a special cognitive attitude
toward the world, not the orientation that enables slow concentration on one thing…but a
lightsome, itinerant awareness of numerous and dissimilar inputs” (Bauerlein 84). Moreover,
what is evident also in the journal’s description, is the lack of interpersonal communication.
Note that everything the aforementioned subject has done in this scenario was transmitted
or executed electronically. Now consider that if this journal represents what future employers
are actively recruiting, then over-achieving Millennials will adapt their workplace zeitgeists and
ethics accordingly. What is more is that the American Millennials’ technological acumen is a
perfect recipe for molding the ultimate worker ant while fostering a sense of entitlement.
For instance, “In a 2007 survey of 2,500 hiring managers, 87% agreed that young
workers feel more entitled in terms of compensation, benefits, and career advancement than
older generations” (Twenge 235). A solution has been to embrace and utilize the individual
talents that each generation brings to a project. However, as the Baby Boomers and Gen Xers

How High Tech is Neutralizing the Millennial Ethos

How High Tech is Neutralizing the Millennial Ethos

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (17)

Similar to How High Tech is Neutralizing the Millennial Ethos

Similar to How High Tech is Neutralizing the Millennial Ethos (20)

How High Tech is Neutralizing the Millennial Ethos