Navigating the Generational Gap: A Reflection
Whenever I interact with teenagers and young adults, I often find myself at a loss for words—not because I lack answers, but because of the mindset they’ve adopted through social media.
Initially, many educators, scholars, and elders warned me about the dangers of smartphones, calling them a “slowly injected poison.” At the time, I didn’t take these warnings too seriously. Let me share a recent conversation I had with a group of youngsters aged 18 to 25, including two of my former students and their friends.
A young woman in the group raised a question: “Why don’t our elders allow us the freedom to pursue what we want, the way the rest of the world has achieved success?”
I began by pointing out that the real question wasn’t about freedom itself but about defining what freedom means. I asked them, “What does freedom look like to you, and what should it entail?” Their response was revealing: elders don’t trust them. They believe that activities like hanging out with friends, browsing the internet, listening to music, dancing, attending private gatherings, smoking, or watching certain content are perceived as inappropriate, harmful, or habits that could lead to worse behaviors.
The youngsters argued that these activities are common and a source of entertainment, not necessarily habits. They felt judged by comparisons to the past, where elders often dismiss their ideas by citing their own era’s standards.
The discussion made me reflect deeply. Why don’t young people seem to have a clear sense of distinguishing right from wrong? What do they define as good or bad? So, I posed another question: “Do you believe the things elders consider bad are truly harmful or lead to harm?” I explained that if they agreed those things were bad, we could discuss how to mitigate risks. But if they didn’t, then the first step was to examine whether these activities were genuinely as harmful as perceived.
Their answer surprised me: “Yes, we do consider these things bad, but not in the way elders think. We’re not as involved in them as they assume.” This became the starting point for a meaningful dialogue.
This article is just the beginning of a series where I’ll delve deeper into these topics. For now, I want to address the feelings of isolation and misunderstanding that many young people experience. They often believe they’re ignored, unloved, and misunderstood. What they don’t realize is that the very advice, monitoring, and concerns of their elders are proof of care. If someone truly didn’t care, they wouldn’t bother intervening or worrying about their actions.
However, elders sometimes fail to communicate their concerns with valid arguments or in ways that resonate with younger generations. This disconnect worsens with the impact of social media, where trends often blur the lines between right and wrong. Social media prioritizes what’s popular over what’s meaningful, glorifying overconfidence, revenge, and materialism while sidelining values like critical thinking and emotional understanding.
This has led to a dangerous cycle: adopted thoughts replace personal ones, and meaningful discussions are drowned out. Valid arguments are dismissed as excuses, and logical reasoning is labeled as outdated.
The key takeaway here is the importance of critical thinking—ensuring your decisions and beliefs are genuinely your own, shaped by your circumstances, logic, and sound reasoning. Whether young or old, both generations must listen to the emotions and concerns behind grievances.
Believing yourself to be unloved, unheard, or alone fosters an inferiority complex, turning failures into excuses instead of challenges to overcome. True growth lies in recognizing and addressing these feelings while building resilience and self-awareness to navigate life’s hurdles.
The discussion delved into finer details, such as how something elders consider extremely bad may seem less harmful to youngsters, or how what young people view as success might only be a temporary achievement, ultimately leading to failure or even emotional trauma.
Key topics included the difference between being famous for the wrong reasons versus being respected for doing something positive. For example, gaining attention by harming others versus being known for helping them. Accepting wrongdoing as "just the way things are" versus opposing it with genuine intent to protect others. Relying on social media for information instead of valuing real-life experiences. The habit of discussing theories without engaging in practical application. Perhaps the most damaging aspect is imagining worst-case scenarios or outcomes when you lack answers or haven’t sought proper advice.
Without taking sides, I replied in a way that seemed somewhat satisfactory to them. I explained that we first need to align ourselves with a clear way of life. Once we have that foundation, it becomes easier to understand the definitions of right and wrong. For example, I mentioned the case of animal slaughter for meat, which is practiced globally. However, its acceptability varies: some follow religious guidelines that dictate specific methods, while others focus on scientific or medical justifications. For someone adhering to a religious belief, consuming meat prepared outside those guidelines would be unacceptable.
Similarly, there are actions that directly conflict with fundamental beliefs and must be avoided if you claim to follow that ideology. Some actions may not seem harmful initially but can lead to risks when done regularly. Others are more neutral and open to discussion, where the best practices can be determined through logic, arguments, and experiences.
Of course, there is a significant gap between generations in terms of perspectives and thinking. Elders must stay informed about current times and the challenges of this era if they wish to guide younger generations effectively. Without this understanding, they risk being seen as outdated, uneducated, or irrelevant, and their advice may be dismissed outright.