Down with Grups

I’m not entirely sure where to begin with New York Magazine’s cover story “Up With Grups.” Kudos, of course, for the hypergeeky Star Trek reference, but the 6300 word story, though amusing throughout, never really figures out what it wants to be. Is it a eulogy (in its words, an obituary) for the generation gap? Is it a frontlines report on the lifestyles of hip thirty-somethings? Or is it just a snarky article about consumer trends in the next generation of upper middle class urbanites?

The answer, of course, is a little bit of all of that, but mostly the latter. For all its insistence on being about something larger than who is buying and wearing what—it toys with the notion of connecting its subjects through something it vaguely describes as “passion”—it can’t help but being about, well, stuff. Author Adam Sternbergh even acknowledges this early on in his piece:

And because this phenomenon wears itself so clearly as the convergence of downtown cool and easy, abundant money, it is also, of course, about stuff—though that’s not all it’s about. It’s [about people who aren’t] interested in putting away childish things. They are a generation or two of affluent, urban adults who are now happily sailing through their thirties and forties, and even fifties, clad in beat-up sneakers and cashmere hoodies, content that they can enjoy all the good parts of being a grown-up (a real paycheck, a family, the warm touch of cashmere) with none of the bad parts (Dockers, management seminars, indentured servitude at the local Gymboree). It’s about a brave new world whose citizens are radically rethinking what it means to be a grown-up and whether being a grown-up still requires, you know, actually growing up.

But even in explaining how it’s not just about stuff, Sternbergh can’t help but namedrop Dockers and explain the group by pointing to their rakish fashion sense. He calls it “a brave new world whose citizens are radically rethinking what it means to be a grown-up,” but to read his article, the only conclusion he really makes about what that means is more expensive pre-ripped jeans, more extravagant extreme sports vacations, and a continued interest in hipster rock. As he writes:

Of course, when you’re 40, with a regular paycheck, yet still want to resemble a rock star who resembles a garage mechanic, well, what’s a guy to do? Status symbols still have their uses, especially in the world of clothes. And this is where the $200 ripped jeans come in. Or $450. Or $600. You want the tattered jeans, but you also want the world to know, I can afford the very best in tattered jeans.

And of course, this being New York Magazine, he takes a trend almost exclusively found in comfortably upper middle class blue staters—mostly from the ranks of creative professionals—and treats it as encompassing. The people he profiles are sitcom writers and music video directors and trendy jeans designers—not exactly a representative group.

The one place where he might have found some unique material to mine was in the way these Grups raise their kids. But although he takes pains to make his subjects seem like bleeding edge parents who look out for their children’s musical tastes, he ends up exposing the Earth-shattering revelations that… parents want to raise kids with similar values.

Thus, parents who value strong aesthetics, whether in music, fashion, or whatever, will make that an issue with their kids. If these parents are different than a previous generation, it’s only because so many Boomers sought to instill their relativistic, figure-it-out-yourself ethos in their kids by not teaching them anything.

That kids are treated as just another fashion accessory is an interesting thought, but Sternbergh never really develops it beyond being mildly concerned that a parent might actually—gasp!—give his kid instruction on how to live life. In this case it’s shallow aesthetic guidance (check out my Interpol CD, boy), but it amounts to the same thing. If anything, Sternbergh is just covering it from the Boomer perspective that says that parents shouldn’t try to teach kids anything (although Boomers typically focused on values, having been so wrongly shackled by their parents) because that would be an imposition on natural development and freedom. And, of course, he has to include a cheap shot at Republicans. Whatever.

Probably the most interesting section focuses on Grup jobs. He writes:

A human-resources executive told me recently that there’s a golden rule of HR: To motivate a baby boomer, offer him a bonus. To motivate a Generation-Xer, offer him a day off. The Grup, I think, would go for the day off, too.

Of course, here on K Street three blocks north of the White House, the way to motivate someone isn’t to give them a day off or a raise (high salaries and reasonable work hours being something of a rarity amongst the hordes of ladder-climbing DC entry levelers), but to give them more responsibility.

Still, the notion that what many people now value is freedom from the office is a strong one. Also, the poll he cites, in which 54% of respondents said they wouldn’t want their boss’s job regardless of pay, is interesting. But what these two ideas really suggest is that this group’s strongest trait is self-centeredness. An unwillingness to give up personal freedom and a strong distaste for being responsible for anyone other than themselves is exactly what we ought to expect from a societal segment who, even through adulthood, has rarely encountered that which they desire but cannot have. Even the thought of a daily routine makes them skittish, and so now they’re bailing on that responsibility too.

All this is displayed as if it’s unheard of and new, but really, is anyone truly surprised by the article? Affluent, creative urbanites are fashion-forward, musically trendy, and utterly self-obsessed. Thank you, New York Magazine, for keeping us all so up-to-date.