Every generation likes to believe that it is unique, or rather, we convince ourselves that every generation is. And that is not untrue. But we still need to know what we are talking about. Philippe Depoorter, whose incisive analysis often sheds light on the subject, offers four definitions of the word ‘generation’: the genealogical axis, that is to say, a position within a generational chain; the demographic sense of generation, referring to a birth cohort; then the historical definition, referring to a group of people who have lived through a specific period of time and developed shared values; and finally the economic approach, which refers to the stage occupied in life cycles such as education, work and retirement.
He would also argue that dividing people into generations is discriminatory. So should we stop talking about generations altogether? To do so would certainly mean depriving ourselves of a useful tool for understanding our society, provided we do not turn it into a rigid framework. For to divide is also to simplify. But simplifying can sometimes amount to caricaturing. However, acknowledging that generations differ is by no means discriminatory; quite the opposite, in fact: it is admitting that the world is changing, or at least moving forward, and that there are different ways of looking at this evolution.
In this issue, we have therefore chosen to focus on Generation Z, not simply because it is the latest trend, but because it embodies the future – not in an abstract sense, but in a very concrete way, both within businesses and in society at large; this generation often defies the stereotypes attributed to it. Surprising but not disengaged, nor docile: they negotiate, adapt, compromise… They demand meaning and reject pretence.
The question is not whether ‘Zoomers’ are doing better or worse than their predecessors. It lies elsewhere: in what ways is this generation different? What do their choices say about work, consumption, engagement and, ultimately, our society? A perspective that also raises questions about the concept of transmission. This is becoming more circular than top-down. So rather than pitting generations against one another or engaging in character assassination, it is time to change our approach. For what lies ahead will not be decided by confrontation but by our ability to work things out together.
This perspective matters all the more to us because it is not merely theoretical. Within the Paperjam editorial team, the coexistence of generations is not just a concept, it is a concrete reality: Gen Y (or millennials) and Gen Z (or zoomers) are already as numerous as their elders. This diversity is not just a slogan; it is what drives us and a source of balance in our daily lives.
