Is the University Traumatizing 'Gen Z'?

 

Is the University Traumatizing Generation Z?

  TRIGGER WARNINGS                        

                                                                      CANCEL CULTURE                            

VIRTUE SIGNALING           

                                                                  SAFE SPACES          

SAFETYISM

WARNING!! THIS ESSAY DISCUSSES OFFENSIVE WORDS. DO NOT READ THIS ESSAY IF YOU ARE EASILY OFFENDED BY PROFANE WORDS 

(but please ask yourself why?)

As any student or educator knows, words matter. Words represent ideas in the culture and, without them, there would be no culture since the maintenance of society is necessarily dependent on verbal communication, and this is especially true for a species that relies so heavily on symbols and language to convey ideas amongst ourselves.

Other animals communicate vocally and with gestures and symbols too, but humans have a unique capacity to communicate the culture through symbols organized into recognizable patterns, and these patterns (words) can be strung together to convey extremely complex sets of ideas in the form of sentences, either written or spoken. In fact, our culture exists precisely because we are able to so easily transmit these often complex ideas across generations in this way.

Sure, we can and do communicate in non-verbal ways like other animals do, but our unique ability to use symbols to communicate often lofty, complex and esoteric ideas – in the form of words and sentences - is what distinguishes us from other species, and it is also the reason why we have been able to evolve into such complex, organized societies, and to create such amazing technologies and solutions to modern social problems. No other species has ever been able to evolve so rapidly and successfully because of this ability to communicate so effectively - to pass along cultural attitudes, values, beliefs and the entire history of our species, to the next generation, so that they can then pass it along to their offspring. Remarkably, humans have also used this symbolic skill to express our thoughts through art and music, allowing our creative brains to stretch even further beyond the reaches of reality. It’s quite an impressive feat, and we should not feel so egocentric as to not pause for a moment to realize how far we’ve come and how much we’ve achieved as a result.

But this ability to communicate symbolically is also a big reason we have had such a long history of social conflict because these symbols, it turns out, also facilitate and foster tribalistic, in-group/out-group divisions, sometimes leading to unimaginable acts of hatred and violence, usually in the name of one’s identified race or ethnicity, class, religion, nation, gender, or sexual orientation/gender identity. When our symbols reflect pride in a national identity, for instance, those ideas are then in conflict with competing national identities, forming the classic, in-group vs. out-group phenomenon that sociologists and psychologists have understood to be a major driving force for developing personal or group-level biases and prejudices, which are the main ingredients of cultural hatred and violence in the world. So, for better or worse, our capacity to use symbols, gestures, and words is the history of our evolution and, without them, modern humans would not be the dominant species on the planet, if we were to exist at all.

For language to be an effective means of communication, however, there needs to be commonly-held, shared understanding of those words and what they mean. In the realm of sociology and social psychology, there is a theoretical orientation known as symbolic interactionism, which posits that, in order for a society to take shape and sustain itself, individuals must know (to a large extent) what others mean by what they say. There must be shared meanings among members of a group, and when it’s lacking, that group or society becomes chaotic and disorganized as people’s perception of things (their definition of the situation) dictates what actions they will take – and these misperceptions sometimes produce biased perceptions of reality which can easily lead to real conflict and violence, particularly between dissimilar groups. So, it should not be surprising to learn that intergroup conflicts and hostilities are common among groups that do not regularly communicate with each other, or that do not communicate effectively with one another, such as groups falling into the separate (perceived) categories of race, class, gender, sexual identity/orientation, disability, religion, political affiliation, and others.

So, for the rest of this essay, I’d like to talk about the significance of words and their meanings across generations of young adults since, in this class, we’ll be talking a great deal about our society from the vantage point of both. Specifically, let’s examine how older generations understand (or misunderstand) the latest generation to enter college, Generation Z, and their unique experiences with social media and technology, and the words and ideas they use to express that experience.

To be clear, when I use the term, Gen Z, I am referring to those born roughly between 1997-2012, although some on the early fringes of these years may identify as a “Millenial” (roughly 1981-1996) or may identify with a cohort yet to be labeled.

But I use the term Gen Z somewhat reluctantly, and with some irritation at the term itself. How short-sighted and non-descriptive is this term, Gen Z! First of all, since we live in the United States of Amnesia, we can forgive those born so recently for not knowing why they were labeled with it. You see, once upon a time there was a generation known as Generation X (initially known as the “Baby Busters”). As a member of Gen X (born roughly 1965-1980), I can attest to the fact that the previous generation, the so-called “Baby Boomers” (who I shall ignore here, they get plenty of attention in the culture elsewhere) didn’t know what to make of us. And we didn’t either. We were a lost generation, the first ‘latchkey’ kids who mostly came from divorced households and two working parents. And contrary to what I’ve heard repeatedly in the media today, neither Millenials nor Gen Z were the “first generation to earn less than their parents”. No, sir. That distinction will always belong to Gen X, the generation that brought you rap music, hip hop culture, new wave, punk rock, heavy metal, and grunge music. You are welcome.

When Millennials first began to appear on the streets, you might recall that we first called them “Generation Y”, although nobody knew what the “Y” stood for. It was just the letter that came after “X”. Which is why you are being called “Gen Z” today. No other reason, just laziness. But if history is any guide, your label will not stick. A label more descriptive will take its place. Already, labels like, “Zoomers”, “NetGen”,  “Homeland Generation”, and “Post-Millenials” have been circulated by journalists, magazine editors, and advertisers trying to be the first to achieve “stickiness” of their label/brand. My preference is what some have tagged, “iGen”, meaning internet generation, since yours is the first generation to have been fully immersed by the internet your entire lives, never without a computer, phone, tablet or headset. Always with a SCREEN. Even millennials did not experience this daily saturation of screens, and the advent of modern-day social media is simply a warp-speed transformation of the culture that nobody saw coming, not even mentioning the looming cultural shockwave of climate change that iGen will have to deal with (or die trying). For the sake of your attention span, let’s leave that generational issue for another day. Let’s focus on communication, media and technology here.

With the advent of smartphones, social media and 5G Wi-Fi, coupled with the rising tide of for-profit Artificial Intelligence (AI) and virtual reality (VR) systems, this new generation marks our entry into an entirely new era of social interaction that will likely transform other major social institutions as well. For example, what happens to education when AI system like ChatGPT begin producing high quality essays, reports, and research papers, complete with citations, in seconds (no plagiarism required)? Well, get ready, because it’s already here and students are using it, and talking about ways to further refine and utilize other technologies via social media platforms like TikTok, Facebook, and Instagram, which are also iGen’s preferred sources of news and information about the world. Have you designed your avatar yet?

But these new and accelerating digital technologies in the Age of iGen have also brought unforeseen problems for society, including increased stress and anxiety for young people who spend so much time online, immersed in their chosen social media platforms – platforms that use predictive algorithms to push products and ideas, and that profit from taking advantage of the human tendency toward confirmation biases that can easily alter our perceptions of reality, as we are fed full of stories that we want to see, hear and read, and as we are simultaneously led away from counter claims that we find distasteful or “offensive”. Added to this computer-generated psychosis is a constant barrage of misinformation (unintended false information) and disinformation (intended false information) that iGen must weed through daily. So saturated with this digital selection bias, that today’s students cannot be blamed for not having a complete picture of the world they live in, or of having a complete picture of how to live in the world. They experience their world on a screen, mostly. So, it’s understandable that they are so easily influenced by what those screens are showing and saying to them. And since social media is their primary server of reality, we should also not be surprised that their overall worldviews can be misdirected as well, often leading to hyper-tribalism, bullying, depression, heightened anxiety, and suicidal ideation.

But is iGen too saturated with computer algorithms that flood them with words, images and slanted messaging that distort and tilt their perception of the world? Do these algorithmic inundations really lead to heightened stress levels and increased mental illness, alienation, depression and suicide? It seems so. For example, in terms of the social science, here’s an abbreviated bibliography of a few recent studies showing increases in depression, anxiety, suicide, and other mental health problems associated with increased screen time and social media, adapted from Lukianoff and Haidt’s recent book, The Coddling of the American Mind (a primary source for this essay).

Retrieve from this shared Google Drive file

Surely, as individuals, some are not disaffected in this way. Some iGen students are able to navigate through the myriad of potential traumas that await them in the digital landscape of social media and arrive at adulthood as strong, independent thinkers and learners, fully aware of the pitfalls of accelerated, obsessive, and biased media that can distort their perceptions of themselves and of society. But many do not. Many succumb to the constant barrage of claims and narratives that skew us into believing that the world is too scary, too safe, or too flat. All of which shapes and reflects an American culture of fear.

For some, this fear of the world as it exists also includes a fear of the world as expressed in words, since words can sometimes express cultural ideas, values and beliefs that run counter to one’s perception of reality, and which can threaten our core identities as an individual, group member, or nation. That is the promise and peril of language, something our species has pondered for millenia.

So when do we censor certain words that might offend, in an effort to protect those identities? When does the offense of a word spoken aloud become more than offensive and become truly harmful to the individual or group? Do words even have such power to scar us that deeply? More directly, can words traumatize? I contend that they can’t, at least not in the context a college classroom devoted to learning about culture and language itself. Sure, your stepdad screaming obscenities at you while he’s kicking you out of your home (or beating you) could be traumatizing, and you might recall a scene similar to this whenever you are “triggered” by the words he was yelling at you, but it wasn’t the words themselves that did you harm, it was the memories and emotions it evokes.

“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never break me”

-Christian Recorder, 1862

If words cannot break us, then perhaps we are granting them with a power that is neither earned nor deserved. Although words are important expressions of human emotions, motivations, and intent, they do not actually take the action – people do. In other words, they can be used to describe human activity, but a word is just made of letters, it cannot do anything itself, including causing trauma. Words cannot traumatize you. Only your emotions can do that. Like the philosopher Alan Watts, (1915-1975) has said,

You can’t get wet from the word, ‘water’

And lest we forget the virtues instilled by overcoming adversity in life, by suffering through hard times and reaching the next day’s dawn, and by learning from our mistakes – mistakes that can only occur by immersing yourself in a world of unknowns, a world full of diverse ideas, some of which you will find frightening, offensive, or distasteful, at least at first.

That which does not kill us makes us stronger

-Friedrich Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols, 1888

 

After all, how can you understand your own attitudes, values and beliefs if you are never asked to confront them? Understanding that offense or trauma experienced from a word(s) – regardless of how it is spoken or read - comes from within you, from your brain’s perception of it, and not from any external source, means that you have the power within you to interpret, ignore, or adjust your perception of that offense any way you like. The word doesn’t affect you, only your emotions can do that. And you always have the choice to turn that screen off, or go somewhere else.

As Amanda Gorman (Poet Laureate and spoken word artist who orated this poem at Barack Obama’s presidential inauguaration) has expressed in her poem, Good Grief:

The origin of the word, “trauma” is not just “wound” but “piercing” or “turning”, as blades do when finding home. Grief commands its own grammar, structured by intimacy and imagination. We often say “we are beside ourselves with grief” we can’t even imagine. This means English can call us to envision more than what we believe was careable of even survivable. This is to say, there does exist a Good Grief. The hurt is how we know we are alive and awake.”

                                                            -Call Us What We Carry, Amanda Gorman

As an American sociologist who has been teaching classes like Deviance, Social Psychology, Introductory Sociology, and Race Relations for 20+ years, I regularly confront this issue in classroom conversation devoted to the question posed by Gorman, Nietzsche, Watts and others: Can words traumatize?

Each year in my Deviance class, for example, when discussing the power of language (as an element of culture), I sometimes write certain offensive words on the chalkboard (the only remaining practical use of this ancient, incarnate, tabula rasa), including the “C-word” and the “N-word”. But I write the whole word, and invite students to say those words aloud, in order to evoke the various meanings of those words, so that we can consider the various cultural impacts on various communities – to learn from one another exactly how these words are received and interpreted by different groups of people – so that we might learn from the mistakes we may have made in our own interpretations of those words, or of their impact on others. This lecture, by the way, was inspired by the feminist playwright and activist, Eve Ensler, who created the now-famous Vagina Monologues (where the audience is invited to loudly proclaim “C—T!” in an affirmational part of the play called, “Reclaiming Cunt”).

But Dr. Laundra, couldn’t you have the same conversation by just saying, “N-word” or “C-word” during your lectures, so no one will be offended?

Yes and no. Yes, I could just say, “C-word” or “N-word” instead of spelling out the word in full, and sometimes I do but, in doing so, I am contradicting the major lesson of the day, which is that words have meaning, and that word, the “C-word”, does not mean the same thing as saying, “cunt,” a word you can feel. Shouting “fuck!” out loud does not mean the same thing as shouting “fudge”, no more than shouting “the N-word!” is the same thing as saying “nigga” or it’s more historical, derogatory pronunciation and the weight and gravity of a shameful American history that makes it sting so much for so many black folks.

How can you fully appreciate the emotional, historical, or dynamically-evolving meanings of these words without ever uttering them, especially since how you say them often changes their meaning? In a world where the college classroom sometimes involves an actual trigger, do we really need to elevate the mere offense of a word to a level akin to an actual physical trauma? I find that to be disrespectful and insensitive to those poor souls who have actually experienced a school shooting, or who have suffered such physical pain elsewhere in the world. Is the trauma of hearing a bad world in a classroom really the same kind of trauma experienced by students currently living in Ukraine, taking their exams in the (relative) safety of a frozen bunker or subway station in Kyiv, with Russian missiles exploding above their heads, and with no heat or electricity? Should we NOT think of these experiences differently? Perhaps we need a different word for the sort of ‘trauma’ experienced by merely hearing words. Are you traumatized, or are you just offended? Did the word bring back bad memories or associations that remind you of something that personally affected your well-being, or of a time when you were actually brutalized, or do you just think God won’t like it if the sound produced by those letters reaches your ears?

Of course, none of this means we shouldn’t be sensitive to others’ feelings, especially whenever we speak or write publicly. It is a diverse world, so we should make every effort to communicate respectfully and with prosocial intentions, particularly in a classroom, knowing that some individuals come to the space with different backgrounds and experiences with words, some of which have caused real emotional harm. The woman who was raped, or the young black man who grew up in a predominantly white, redneck, rural town, both have different feelings about certain words that are often heard in public, and which cause little or no distress for the majority of us. So we should be mindful of that fact and make every effort to choose our words more carefully, especially in those social settings. And this, my friends, is also why there are situations where you should not utter an offensive word while others are allowed to (e.g. the “N-word”). But it’s also the reason why we shouldn’t act as if those words don’t exist in society, or to regard them as “off limits” for no other reason than they might be uncomfortable to talk about in a college classroom. After all, what better ‘safe space’ exists for young adults to have that kind of conversation?

I try to remember to provide a “trigger warning” prior to having those sensitive conversations (about offensive words and their various meanings), but I’ve chosen not to avoid the conversation since my students are exposed to those words all the time out there in the so-called, “real world”, where no such warnings are offered or expected. For example, just open your laptop or phone and you can easily find famous celebrities like Dave Chappelle or Trevor Noah using the offending “N-word” without censure (or even a “bleeeep”).

Still, we can and should take care when using loaded words like these in public. But it is in the ‘safe space’ of a college classroom where students can expect to be treated with fairness and dignity, and where we gather to respectfully listen and learn from others with differing viewpoints. So we must honor those views, including from those individuals who have experienced genuine trauma in their lives due to acts of prejudice and hate reflected in those words (and, when possible, allowing those individuals to bow out of the conversation). But we must also honor the core values and purpose of academe, which is to learn how to think openly and critically. That requires that we expose ourselves to views that we might find offensive or distasteful, or that simply make us uncomfortable. How can you even begin to comprehend the emotional or social harm caused by misogynistic or racist ideologies in society if you are too traumatized to hear the ‘offensive’ words used in everyday conversations that represent them, let alone the voices of actual victims of these poisonous belief systems? In the social sciences, we tackle these difficult issues head on, because to avoid them in order to keep peace in the classroom only serves to ensure those shop-worn attitudes and prejudices will be passed along to the next generation, and the next. We must listen and learn, with minds open, in order to form reasonable conclusions and to devise rational and effective solutions to social problems. If you cannot tolerate hearing the words that express racism or sexism in society, how can you ever fully appreciate the effects of those words on certain individuals or groups? How can we be adequately sympathetic to the plight of others without meaningful immersion into those lives, and how it really feels to be that person?  

Moreover, we lose sight of the University mission of the pursuit of fair and open-minded critical thinking whenever we engage in “virtue signaling” actions, such as accusing others of ethical misconduct or “microaggressions” simply for using words that some find offensive. This can produce a “chilling effect” on campus, when students remain silent when sensitive subjects like racism and bigotry are brought up, or when faculty (especially non-tenured, junior faculty) are more concerned with being viewed as disruptive to the administrative will of Chairs, Deans and Provosts, than with engaging in free and open discussions that reveal underlying toxicities in the culture. We also lose sight of the constitutional right to free speech in a free society.

Indeed, the threat to free speech isn’t just coming from overly zealous ‘word nazis’ on college campuses across America who are insisting on using correct pronouns (she/her or they/them), removing public statues, and disinviting guest lecturers who they are offended by. Conservative-minded groups have also seized the moment to reshape the culture by banning certain books that offend their political or religious sensibilities. In fact, using this same logic of censorship, over 20 states have banned, or are in the process of banning, books that teach so-called, Critical Race Theory, which is deemed to be any text that focuses on white oppression of people or communities of color, to the exclusion of white history, or that could potentially make white people feel guilty or bad about white oppression. In their words, it could traumatize these white kids! So, talking about slavery from the perspective of slaves, since it might offend certain folks in a college classroom, may not be a legal curriculum in many states in the near future. And in other states, outlawing curriculum that addresses gender identity or LGBTQ issues is also underway, and in some cases those books have been burned!

Is this the kind of censored society we want to live in? Is it even possible? George Orwell thought so! Or perhaps we won’t need legislation or a totalitarian government to dictate the new word rules. More likely, we will engage in (intentional or unintentional) acts of self-censorship in the form of only speaking and writing in ways that will offend no one, or by getting synaptically stuck in our own self-affirming, bias-confirming, social media platforms, which diminishes our capacity for critical thinking. Or maybe we can learn lessons from China’s new digital surveillance society, where every citizen is seen through a government lens, where the people ‘behave’ themselves out of fear of governmental or corporate reprisals.

Wherever society is taking us, for better and for worse, it is iGen who will be taking us there. Where GenXers and Millenials can take pride in being part of a cultural wave of diversity, openness and inclusiveness (and we must acknowledge the Baby Boomers for their civil and human rights campaigns that spawned all others), it is iGen who have made this ‘safe space’ their home. It is iGen who have taken the ideals of their predecessors and are actually living their lives accordingly, amidst the technological revolution that is upon us, one that is accelerating and dramatically re-shaping how we will communicate in the future. What an amazing time to be alive! To witness this sweeping transformation, and to control its direction and scope, should be regarded as a privilege and an honor. And all the generations before you are counting on you to take us in the right direction.

So please don’t fuck it up!