Where Have All the Yuppies Gone?

Being almost 50, I’m continually being ejected from more and more cultural loops. So maybe I’m wrong, it does appear to me that currently there is no dominant cultural paradigm.

In the 1950s (and into the early 1960s), it was the beatnik. In the mid- to late-’60s (slopping over into the ’70s), it was the hippie. The ’80s had its yuppie, the ’90s its slacker. There were some short-lived in-betweeners: punks (late ’70s) and geeks (late ’90s).

But now? Nothing, so far as I know. Correct me if I’m wrong.

To be sure, those terms were driven primarily by a satanic alliance of media and marketing types. Not that there weren’t many people who more or less conformed to at least parts of each stereotype. But in terms of numbers, there were all in the vast minority, though many copied their “style” to varying degrees.

But now: Whom are we supposed to copy? Dude, where’s my paradigm?

My TCB colleague Mary Connor argues, sensibly, that the media fragmentation that continues to break audiences into smaller and smaller pieces. This makes creating a dominant cultural idea more difficult. There is less of a common popular culture. There are fewer big movies, fewer big news events, fewer commonly loved TV commercials—and a lot of channels(and Web sites and music sources and blogs and on and on).

Another factor, I think: There are no more decades.

We had the ’50s, the ’60s, and on into the ’90s. But now? What decade are we in? No one has come up with a generally accepted term. We’re just—here.

I guess we still have generations: Boomers, Gen-Xers, millennials. But even they are becoming less important culturally.

I have no big conclusion to draw from all this. I’ll let you draw your own. Besides, you could argue that there should be no big conclusion to draw. Ultimately, this is trivia.

Instead, I’ll paraphrase British writer Evelyn Waugh: There’s no such thing as the man in the street. There are just unique people, with their unique souls.

Comments

[Gene Rebeck]

MZ, you are probably right about being not qualified. But that won't stop me, by golly! But to your point: I've heard the term "hipster." I've also heard the terms "yupster," "metrosexual," "technosexual," and several others. In other words, there is no one pervasive term like some of those others I mention. That speaks to the increasingly uncentered, "nichified" media culture of our times (not that I object to that). What's more, "hipster" as a descriptor is rather long in the tooth, isn't it? The late Norman Mailer (among others) was using it back in the 1950s. Not terribly hip.

[MZ]

Are you serious? The 'naughts' are about the 'hipster.' Have you really never heard either of these terms? You are not qualified to write this article then.

At the last marketing conference I went to we had a session on hipsters and their consumer choices. The term is now becoming mainstream which means that it is no longer hip. But that's OK, they have been a major market force for at least 5 years now.

[Mary Connor]

A good friend of mine argues that this decade, with its pubescent stars and 'tween buying power, should be called the "pre-teens." I like it!