From Post & Riposte: "Generation X is alive and well as a marketing concept. If you're in charge of trying to sell something, you have little choice but to seek out common threads among demographic groups, since you must mass market your products rather than sell them one by one. The omnipresence of marketing studies has drooled over into political science, unfortunately, and the result is cockamamie ideas like a politically cohesive 'Generation X.' I think Andrew Shapiro's comment about being invited to speak for Gen X pretty much says it all." --Amanda Reckonwit, "Marketing vs. Thinking" (08/15) What do you think? Join the conversation.

Granted, these are also broad questions. But once we have a clearer understanding of the world we are living in, I think we can talk more coherently about how the post-Boomer generation can shape it. (And we don't have to strain to define the politics of this generation as distinct from others.)

So how do we understand the time we are living through? What, in Jack Beatty's terms, is the "galvanic circumstance" of our era, the event which -- like slavery, the Great Depression, or the Vietnam War -- most defines us today?

I'd vote for the Internet. Along with other new technologies, the tool we're using for this dialogue is beginning to alter our social, economic, and political landscapes in fundamental ways. Just look at what's unfolding around us: common folks using email and the Web to disseminate their own words, music, and video; the rise of electronic commerce, day trading, and new job opportunities; the emergence of online communities where people can interact with likeminded others from around the globe.

In each case, individuals are gaining control. They're bypassing intermediaries, personalizing experience, and taking power from our most entrenched institutions -- governments, corporations, the press. (In the process, not surprisingly, they're facing resistance from anxious elites.) This shift in control made possible by the Net is by no means guaranteed. But if it continues at the pace of the past few years, then the Internet will probably be seen as the defining "circumstance" of our age.

Consider the relevance of this to Halstead's picture of Gen X. Halstead sees Xers as apathetic because they don't vote or otherwise participate in politics in "traditional" ways, but he also notes in passing that "unconventional forms of political participation have increased among young adults." That unconventional participation -- much of which, I suspect, has to do with new technology -- deserves much more attention. For example, are we counting the number of young people who are using the Net to organize a rally on their college campus, to sign a petition on the MoveOn.org Web site calling for stronger gun control, or to expand their horizons by emailing with someone abroad? Getting them to vote, too, would be great. Yet with the rise of the Net come new ways for people to be involved in politics, and we need to learn what this participation means and how to account for it.

As we try to understand the myriad ways in which new technology is affecting society, focusing on Xers makes some sense, for it is our generation that is driving much of this change. To a great extent, we're the ones creating the technical innovations (think Mark Andreesen and the Web browser), the new business models (e.g., Jeff Bezos and Amazon.com), and the new creative outlets (e.g., Jennifer Ringley, purveyor of the 24-hour video voyeur site JenniCAM). We're also the first generation to come of age amid computers, video games, and the Internet. Maybe that means we'll be more influenced by the bottom-up, do-it-yourself ethic of the Net and more skeptical of the top-down power of Congress, the courts, and big corporations. Perhaps the global nature of communications will make us less likely to support a belligerent foreign policy (though sympathetic to intervention on humanitarian grounds, as in Kosovo).

A crucial question is whether Generation X will have the leadership capacity to deal with the dislocations that the digital age will bring. The shift in power from institutions to individuals could very well backfire and undermine key values like democracy, community, equality, and truth. Newly emboldened individuals might overlook the need for shared experience, reliable information, even representative democracy. Will Xers have the foresight to see that the Internet is not inherently good? Will we understand that the design and use of this new tool must reflect time-tested values, and that some measure of self-restraint will be necessary if the Internet revolution is to turn out right?

One thing is certain: If Generation X doesn't begin to grapple with the consequences of new technology for politics and society, then another cohort that is quite comfortable on this terrain will quickly step in and eclipse us: Generation Y.

Next page: Scott Stossel

Andrew Shapiro is the author most recently of The Control Revolution: How the Internet is Putting Individuals in Charge and Changing the World We Know. A contributing editor at The Nation, he has written for diverse publications including The New York Times, Foreign Policy, The Yale Law Journal, Wired, and Spin.