Adbusters poster advertising the original protest – September 17, 2011
“We Are the 99%,” the mantra of the Occupy Wall Street (“OWS”) movement, signifies a change in attitudes about attainability of their expectations, hopes and aspirations. This metaphor, We Are the 99%, represents an emerging worldview that encompasses notions about extreme inequalities in income and opportunity in American society. Whatever your view is about the efficacy of the OWS movement, there is no denying that its tactics brought the issues of income inequality, inequality of opportunity and the consequences of the aftermath of the 2007-2008 global financial crisis into the public discourse and awakened the collective consciousness about these issues. Not since the 1960’s had Americans been confronted with such fundamental questions about what it means to be an American, and what are the inherent rights and obligations of its citizenry. The profound question for Millennials is whether the Great Recession laid bare truths about American society that are incongruent with an American Dream which idealizes notions of upward mobility, and an open society for all who strive for a better life.
This public dialogue precipitated by the OWS movement formed the early backdrop or cultural milieu within which my research about how students at an elite liberal arts college are being prepared as 21st century knowledge workers. Initially, my thoughts were that the OWS movement was a major part of the Millennial generation’s quest for a generational voice and generational identity. Even people who did not go to Zuccotti Park in New York City or the Green in New Haven were impacted by the rhetoric on both sides of the debate about income and opportunity inequality. But the more I looked into the subject, I became convinced that there was a more practical and sustainable way for Millennials to assert their generational voice and their generational identity than participation in the movement. For example, they have quietly and politely demanded that their education and training as knowledge workers empower them to choose whether they create their own jobs or work for a company of any size. See last week’s post “Disruptive Learning.”
A senior engineering major told me that during the course of his interviews with a global bank a member of the bank’s senior management mentioned that he viewed himself as a well paid employee, and did not feel any loyalty to the bank. The engineering student was admonished by the senior banker to come to the bank with his eyes wide open, and not be deluded by the nice sounding rhetoric about the bank that he hears during the interview process. The engineering student was looking to me for confirmation of the banker’s admonishment. I understood what the senior banker was stating: essentially employees are on their own to protect their interests, and further their learning and training. The engineering student seemed to also desire confirmation that viewing his job at the bank as a means to learn about business and how businesses operate was an appropriate way to view his employment situation. His doubts and insecurities recalled past posts in which I wrote about how severely the relationship between employer and employee had changed over the past 30 or 40 years. Today’s students should equip themselves for a world where loyalty is not necessarily rewarded and where employees must be vigilant in continuously learning new skills and gaining new knowledge in order to be indispensable in their current place of employment or readily marketable to other employers.
Is it possible that the Millennial generational voice and generational identity is encapsulated in a heightened awareness that they must be vigilant in how they view their relationship to their employers?