The Lack of Millennial Thought Within International Affairs Academia
And don’t worry, this isn’t about politics. I promise.
As Baby Boomers retire and Generation X reclines into their office chairs, the last of the Millennials are in the final years of college and are entering the workforce in droves. (One is even running for president, but as I said, this isn’t about politics.)
However, the boost that many start-ups, environmental firms, and coffee shops are feeling have not translated into the realm of international affairs. To quote Rørstad and Aksnes from their 2015 study, Publication rate expressed by age, gender, and academic position, “In terms of publication frequency, our study has revealed quite large age differences. The publication rate increases with time, typically to the age of 40–50 in the fields analyzed.” (Disclaimer: this publication only used Norwegian academic staff, but due to dataset availability and their unique career advancement system, it is an appropriate sample. For more on the limitations of this study, here is the link. Outside of this, I highly recommend the investigation as it is immensely entertaining.)
The point here is clear: older generations publish more than younger generations. This discovery does make intuitive sense: older generations have more experience and are often more qualified. Unless there is some time-traveling wizard out there, no Millennial has 20+ years of experience in the State Department or as a researcher. However, this leaves millennials out of the conversation when it comes to academia.
This is especially key when Millennials have international affairs views that run contrary to the beliefs held by Gen X-ers and Baby Boomers, especially when it comes to US Foreign Policy. Take, at the most basic level, the following data regarding beliefs about the US’s role globally:
It’s pretty clear that there’s some drastic disparity between the Boomers and the Millennials; but, what’s more surprising is that Gen X is right in the middle, signaling complete diversity of opinion throughout the generations.
Beliefs about US military power follow the same trend:
And so do general views of the United States:
But what might be most striking is the change in views from generation to generation about what I call US “Toughness.” Using data from the 2018 Pilot Study by American National Education Studies, I sorted the respondents by generation (illustrated by different colors below), then combined their views towards all eight different countries asked about in the 2018 Pilot Study:
As can be seen, there is a semi-significant shift in the attitudes towards foreign powers in general, or at least for these eight countries. These eight countries are fairly vast in terms of hostility towards the US, from North Korea to Canada. Unless Canada is secretly executing Defense Scheme №1, it can be reasonably assumed that the data above illustrates how the general attitude toward foreign countries gets less tough as individuals get younger. To elaborate upon the contrapositive of the previous statement, older generations are tougher towards foreign countries.
I could theoretically discuss how Millennials are right, and how avocado toast and selfies are the keys to a deep understanding of international geopolitical issues. Or, I could explain how avocado toast and selfies are merely distractions from what really matters: the Baby Boomers’ opinion. But that would involve me, a sophomore with an A- in Political and Social Thought, to portray myself along the same lines as the authors I’ve been studying.
But alas, the name “Zev Burton” will not be on the syllabus next year next to Hobbes, Machiavelli, and Plato.
The point here is not that Millennials are right where the Silent Generation and the Baby Boomers are wrong. The point is that it’s different.
If I may digress, there needs to be a discussion at this point regarding the marketplace of ideas. Initially a concept brought to light by John Stuart Mill and John Milton, the theory states that ideas ought to compete with each other in the public sphere, with every individual critically evaluating them to come to a conclusion as to what is right and what is wrong. In short, all ideas have their benefits at face value, and as they clash with opposing thoughts, the quality of ideas will improve, and the best option available will be revealed. Think of it as a free market (hence the term “marketplace”).
The marketplace of ideas is typically applied to First Amendment law, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes mentioned in his dissenting opinion in Abrams v. the United States. He stated, “that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas — that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.” However, the marketplace of ideas can be applied to any discussion, not just direct First Amendment litigation.
As a result, when trying to find a solution to a given problem, we ought to consider all ideas from all individuals at the outset, and then we can begin to eliminate answers through conversation and deliberation.
To summarize, all ideas and perspectives must have a seat at the table to achieve the best possible result.
As such, all generations must have a seat at the table to achieve the best possible result. This concept is especially critical in cases where generations disagree with each other, e.g., the “Toughness Scale” from earlier.
Furthermore, with every generation present, positions and solutions that everyone agrees upon become increasingly valuable, signaling a universal belief in their legitimacy. Take the two examples below, which discuss some specific foreign policy topics:
The fact that more than half of every generation, from the Silent Generation to Millennials, believe in both US participation in the Paris Agreement and Iranian sanctions should signal to elected leaders the importance of US participation in these topics.
It is critical for all generations to be encompassed within the marketplace of ideas, or else we run the risk of missing a perspective. Or at the very least, we ignore the potential insights that Millennials have.
And who knows? Maybe we’ll solve some global issues. Perhaps we won’t. But with every generation having a seat at the table, we will become closer and closer to mitigating our greatest foreign policy concerns.
* * *
I want to get one thing clear: I am not a Millennial. I am a Gen Z-er, who, due to our youth, are not included in datasets yet. As such, I can make the promise that I have no ill will here regarding my incentives for writing this article. I merely found some datasets and played around with them to discover some potential correlations. Thank you for reading my article, and I am always eager to discuss my findings with anyone.
