The Dynamics of Now - Part Three: Change Takes A Toll

[Read Part One]  [Read Part Two]

Generations Z and Alpha possess the least medieval psychologies of any generation in the past 500 years. They are (or will be) prime facilitators for what I call “the coming of the Modern.” The world they were born for is not yet ready. This is a big problem. It creates mental and emotional tensions that result in the pervasive manifestation of depression and anxiety beyond what previous generations have experienced. It is an inevitable consequence of the world of constant becoming. While Red and Amber struggle against the pace of change, for Green things need to progress even more quickly.

Jonathon Haidt offers a different take. He blames a lot of this on smartphones and social media exposure during the formative years of these generations. I like Haidt. I have seen him in several YouTube videos over the years. He strikes me as an open, sincere and intelligent person. I agree with much of what Haidt contends in his book The Anxious Generation. He has put his finger on one of the great challenges of constant becoming, the robust immersion of younger people in a cybernetic world (though he does not frame it this way).

But I disagree with his claim that something should (or can) be done to stop this. This does not require massive political and social intervention. Psychologically speaking, it is an adjustment disorder. Resilience and innovation will take care of this issue, as it always has throughout human history. People thought the automobile and television would ruin the world. But all they did was transform it. Then again, every transformation ruins things for anybody unwilling to accept it.

In his book, Haidt paints a bleak picture, claiming social media is causing an "epidemic of mental illness." He argues that smartphones displace healthy activities and social interaction, leading to increased anxiety and depression in teens. They spend less time on sleep, exercise, and face-to-face connection, replaced by hours on screens. On the surface this all seems perfectly reasonable. Looking deeper, however, there is room for critique of Haidt's claims and evidence for potential benefits of social media (though I personally detest social media, especially whatever they are calling Twitter today, it just makes everybody using it dumber).

Haidt's argument hinges on the idea that social media directly causes mental health issues. However, critics raise several points that weaken this claim. Firstly, the data on teen mental health is contested. Increased diagnoses might not reflect an actual rise in mental illness, but rather changes in diagnostic practices or social norms. For instance, a new coding system could account for a reported increase in self-harm incidents. Secondly, even if a correlation exists between social media use and mental health problems, it doesn't prove causation. Teens with pre-existing mental health issues might be drawn to social media as a coping mechanism, creating a false association. Finally, critics point out historical trends of moral panics surrounding new technologies, suggesting a need for caution when drawing conclusions.

It is also worth pointing out that anxiety, depression and loneliness are more pervasive across almost all generations in western societies than ever before. Much of what Haidt points out is not something unique to younger generations. It is a trans-generational phenomenon that has been a topic of discussion for at least the past 80 years. “The Age of Anxiety” (a term first coined by W. H. Auden in a poem that won the Pulitzer Prize) was directed toward these mental stresses, albeit in a different context, referring to the 1940's with its wars and atomic bombs. In 2005, Haynes Johnson wrote The Age of Anxiety, a book about McCarthyism in America in the 1950's. To that extent, all this hoorah about smartphones being the bane of our youth is just a continuation of a tradition of projecting worry and fear.

Despite these critiques, the relationship between social media and mental health can't be ignored. Social media platforms can be breeding grounds for social comparison, leading to feelings of inadequacy and depression. They can also expose teens to cyberbullying and online harassment. Additionally, as Haidt points out, excessive social media use can displace crucial activities like sleep and exercise, which impact mental well-being.

On the other hand, dismissing social media solely as a villain ignores its potential benefits. According to an article in Salon the CDC's own data suggests a positive association. Social media platforms can provide a vital lifeline for teens struggling with isolation or loneliness. They offer a space to find communities and connect with like-minded individuals, fostering a sense of belonging. This social connection is crucial for adolescents navigating a complex social/digital world.

Furthermore, the rise in teenage depression is likely not solely due to social media. Salon highlights a concerning trend – parental loss coincides with the reported increase in teenage depression. Over 700,000 parent-aged adults died between 2011 and 2021 due to drug overdose or suicide. This suggests a potential link between broader societal issues and teenage mental health. Social media may not be the root cause of the problem, but rather a coping mechanism used by teenagers facing these challenges. (Read other articles critiquing Haidt's contentions here and here.)

The impact of social media on teen mental health is multifaceted. While Haidt's claims of a direct causal link lack strong evidence, social media can have both positive and negative effects. A more balanced approach would attempt to address broader social issues contributing to teenage unhappiness while exploring ways for social media platforms to be safer and more conducive to positive social interaction. Simultaneously, parents and educators should equip teenagers with skills to navigate the online world responsibly and maintain healthy digital habits.

Beyond Haidt's claims, there are, in my opinion, larger issues of enframing and constant becoming that he does not take into account. Gen Z and Gen Alpha are experiencing their challenges in a world unprepared to assist them and equally unready for what they bring into the world as the pioneers of the Modern. This ultimately results in a clash of values in our current political and social landscape to which Haidt really does not give enough weight. In fact, I would argue that most of the mental health issues confronting all generations result from enframing and constant becoming more than any other specific factor. The psychological toolboxes of younger generations are set for a time that is being born even as you read this and is, therefore, inherently strange, unstable and confusing.

Gen Z and Gen Alpha embody enframing and constant becoming in many ways. They embrace fluidity and non-binary thinking more than any previous generation. Many Gen Z and most Gen Alpha individuals reject traditional gender and sexual identities, accepting a more fluid and inclusive understanding of these concepts, more than any generations in human history. This is, by definition, transformational.

These generations (particularly Alpha) are enframed digital natives. They’ve grown up in a world of constant technological change and are highly adaptable to new developments and ways of interacting. Their digital identities do not interfere with their sense of environmentalism, which is an encouraging sign, reflecting a relevant balance. Climate change is a pressing concern for these generations, and they are (or will be, in the case of Alpha) at the forefront of environmental activism, recognizing the need for constant adaptation to protect the planet. They also prioritize personal fulfillment and purpose over traditional markers of success, leading to the rise of gig economy, entrepreneurship, and unconventional career paths.

But, we should separate Generations Z and Alpha. Alpha has yet to join the workforce. It is still being born today. I'll turn to Gen Z first. This generation, born between 1997 and 2012, is growing in influence and making their presence felt in society. Through them, constant becoming is leading to significant changes in the way we think about identity, work, and our relationship with technology.

A recent survey by Public Opinion Strategies demonstrates that Gen Z is less committed to nationalism (patriotism), only about a quarter of them believe in the traditional concept of “God” or desire to have children, 8 out of 10 support gay marriage, two-thirds consider climate change to be an important issue, and over half of them consider themselves Democrats versus being Republican or unaffiliated (though doofus Joe Biden is not helping anything in that regard). These are all clear indications of a strong Green psychology beyond the present medieval mindest.

Although I do not claim Gen Z, or anyone else, possesses a reasoned awareness of either constant becoming or enframing, nevertheless, this generation reflects constant becoming in several ways. Again, they are far more likely to identify as non-binary or gender-fluid, and to embrace sexual identities beyond the traditional labels of gay, straight, or bisexual. This fluidity reflects a world in which traditional categories are constantly shifting and evolving.

They intuitively possess technological adaptability. As digital natives, Gen Z is comfortable with rapid technological change. They seamlessly switch between devices, apps, and platforms, demonstrating their ability to navigate a world in which technology is constantly becoming something new. As mentioned, Gen Z often values personal fulfillment and work-life balance over traditional markers of success like salary or status. They're more likely to pursue freelance work, start their own businesses, or switch careers multiple times, reflecting a world in which traditional career paths are no longer the norm.

Gen Z is generally suffering psychologically to fit into what is basically still a medieval world that is not theirs. They are of the future. They desire to become something other than regular worker bees in the way of things. Likewise, Alpha has a lot of psychological problems to overcome. This is to be expected. They are born into a full-blown existential crisis that is the constant becoming which Gen Z is accelerating.

Born after 2012, Gen Alpha is growing up in a world of even more rapid change and uncertainty than Gen Z. They're being raised in a climate of constant technological innovation, environmental degradation, and political polarization. According to Haidt, this leads to psychological challenges, such as anxiety and a lack of stability. However, one could also argue that Gen Alpha may be uniquely equipped to navigate this world of constant becoming, given that it's all they've ever known. It is also worth keeping in mind that, for all Haidt's troubling statistics, the vast majority of Gen Z and Alpha are doing just fine in the techno-consumerist world they were born into. They are positioned to transform everything.

Of course, Gen Alpha will experience suffering, as humans do. Change is the constant. It is just that the world has grown far more complex than the world that Amber matured in 500 years or so ago. Red goes back to the psychology of the Roman or Mongol Empires. Like those stages in their dominance, Gen Alpha will prove to be more resilient than any other generation before it because their survival will depend upon it. They will also create their own values in order to cope and thrive.

As we have seen, our society overall is still living at the end of the Enlightenment with many of us remaining stuck in the Middle Ages psychologically. Gen Alpha will be completely different. Again, their current, considerable psychological challenges are an adjustment disorder. They are suffering and will suffer more because of what they will achieve. Alpha's challenges connect with a larger narrative of human history and consciousness. The idea that they will be the most resilient generation, out of necessity, resonates with the concept of adaptive evolution. And the notion that they'll create their own values to cope with this rapidly changing world hints at a new era, the coming of the Modern.

Where most previous generations crave solidity (Amber and early Orange), Gens Z and Alpha (being more Green) embrace the adventure of perpetual reinvention across multiple potential selves and realities. For many of them, the very idea of a static, singular identity feels unnatural to their way of being. While it is true that constant becoming is inherently a source of anxiety, it equally represents exciting expansiveness (more so given our proclivity for innovation and resilience) - a symbolic canvas to co-create new forms of meaning and culture unbounded by historical constraints.

According to Heidegger, the technological age causes a one-dimensional enframing of our Being, reducing all entities and experiences to instrumental roles within a system of calculation and utility. Nature itself becomes enframed as a stockpile of raw materials. Even human existence is filtered through this technological lens, with individuals valued according to their productive output and efficiencies in addition to their capacity to be consumers. This ubiquitous mode of seeing and engaging with reality fundamentally shapes the contemporary mindset in limiting ways, obstructing more holistic understandings and ways of being.

However, as we saw in Part Two, there is a positive aspect to enframing that Heidegger did not foresee. As I have posted before (see make us masters, AI agents), we can master the enframed world if we use the tools of enframing to navigate our lives. AI personal assistance and personalized algorithms, used in the manner I have in mind, are novel technologies leading to multiple applications that allow us to better recognize both the enframing process itself and constant becoming, thereby dwelling more authentically in the world as it unfolds. Enframing's double-edged nature sets the stage for deeper examination of its complex interplay with constant becoming.

This revelation opens up previously unthinkable opportunity for transcendence. By making us aware of enframing's constraints on our perception, it clears an open space for us to consciously reassess and evolve how we engage reality beyond its restrictive techno-consumerist framing. It will also afford the capability to surf the often stormy seas of constant becoming. Transparency to the workings of AI and forms of surveillance while managing the growing complexity of our lives are potential benefits of personalized algorithms, AI agents, and other tech designed to help us navigate the coming of the Modern.

Heidegger advocates that enframing is “the essence of technology.” But, going beyond Heidegger here, enframing not only poses a threat to our Being, it equally harbors a revelatory power - if we can leverage technology relevantly, we can see (and, for most of us, discover) the techno-consumerist jungle engulfing our lives in a fresh and different way. If we can use enframing to organize and navigate our lives through the thick undergrowth of enframing itself then we can choose to situate ourselves in a broader, more effective attunement with the “presencing” (Heidegger's term) of Being itself inside the techno-consumerist reality. This is brings us to what I call prescient readiness.

(to be continued)