See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/336275473

OPERATIONALISING MANNHEIM: EMPIRICAL BUILDING BLOCKS OF

GENERATIONAL IDENTITY **

Article · September 2019

DOI: 10.26350/001200_000061

CITATIONS READS

4 173

2 authors:

Veronika Kalmus Signe Opermann

University of Tartu University of Tartu
112 PUBLICATIONS   1,355 CITATIONS    24 PUBLICATIONS   110 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

CATCH-EyoU (Constructing Active Citizenship with European Youth. Policies, Practices, Challenges and Solutions) View project

EU Kids Online View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Veronika Kalmus on 22 July 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 «Comunicazioni sociali», 2019, n. 2, 232-246
© 2019 Vita e Pensiero / Pubblicazioni dell’Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore

VERONIKA KALMUS - SIGNE OPERMANN*

OPERATIONALISING MANNHEIM: EMPIRICAL BUILDING BLOCKS

OF GENERATIONAL IDENTITY**

Abstract
The main goal of this paper is to make a methodological contribution to researching social and
media generations quantitatively in representative population surveys. For this purpose, the
paper employs a mixed-method approach: analysing an original questionnaire module on gen-
erational identity (developed for the Estonian population survey “Me. The World. The Media”
2014; N=1,503) is complemented with focus group interviewees’ (n=69) reflections on genera-
tion-building components. The paper concludes that Mannheimian and other theoretical concepts
of generations can be operationalised for population survey research: the underlying structure
of the categories of generational identity is in line with the theoretical constructs, adding some
heuristic aspects for the comprehension of the hierarchical composition of generational identity.
The analysis also reveals significant differences between age groups regarding all factor com-
ponents and most of the individual categories of generational identity: structural components,
related to life events, lifestyle and social status, were significantly more important to the younger
generations than to the older age groups, while the importance of mental and cultural factors was
significantly lower. Insights from the focus groups clearly reinforced previous studies’ warnings
about overlooking individual variation in generations: participants with various backgrounds,
particularly representatives of the two language communities, suggested an array of generation
labels and the defining factors of generation building, thus confirming the Mannheimian idea of
the existence of generational units.

Keywords
Social generations; generational identity; survey methodology; Karl Mannheim; Estonia.
ISSN: 03928667 (print) 18277969 (digital)
DOI: 10.26350/001200_000061

1. introduction

The theoretical legacy of Karl Mannheim’s sociology of generations has been wide-
ly acknowledged in conceptualising generational consciousness and/or identity, media
generations, social memory and temporality in media studies and (media) sociology,
particularly over the last couple of decades. At the same time, methodological challeng-
es, such as developing indicators for measuring generational identity and the perception
of the temporal qualities of social changes (e.g. speed, acceleration and asynchronicity),

*
University of Tartu – veronika.kalmus@ut.ee; signe.opermann@ut.ee.
**
The preparation of this paper was supported by the grants from the Estonian Research Council (PUT-
JD570) and the Estonian Ministry of Education and Research (IUT 20-38).
 OPERATIONALISING MANNHEIM 233

or the boundary problem of delineating social (or media) generations in the continuum
of births, have remained complex. In particular, an epistemological tension between
the qualitative nature of social generations and the quantitative features involved (such
as size, age and time), faced by researchers in their endeavours to operationalise the
concept of generations, has been presented as epitomising fundamental concerns of the
sociological imagination.
This paper presents a methodological contribution to researching social and media
generations quantitatively in representative population surveys. In addition, qualitative
data from a series of focus groups provide further insights concerning generational con-
sciousness and reflections on the role of generational time.
First, we briefly discuss the theoretical approaches and concepts (such as structural
versus intangible features, cultural values and ideologies, generational location, habitus
and semantics, generational memories and media experiences) employed in operation-
alising generational identity. Next, the paper introduces the findings of empirical quan-
titative and qualitative analyses, focussing on the importance our participants assigned
to the (groups of) indicators of generational identity, the underlying structure of those
indicators, and the main differences and similarities between generation groups in their
identification patterns and self-construction.

2. the concept of generation and generational identity

The concept of generation has different meanings in the social sciences. While family
sociologists tend to study individuals as members of generations in the kinship sense,
sociologists of youth and generations focus on generations in the cohort sense, or as so-
cial generations1, linking the concept with social time and chronological consciousness2.
According to Karl Mannheim’s3 conception of the socially constructed nature of
generations, the very notion of a generation depends on the existence of a shared genera-
tional identity and self-awareness. Although an objective prerequisite for generations to
emerge is that members are born within the same structural and social conditions, a gen-
eration as a social construct comes into being “when a formative historical experience
coincides with a formative period of people’s lives4”. New generations, in Mannheim’s
sense, form during sudden and significant societal changes, after which young people
have to adjust and develop their habitus in a new social context. The young are the first
age cohort to experience and negotiate new social conditions during their socialisation
years (according to Mannheim, they have “fresh contacts” with emerging phenomena).
This makes young people interpret their common social experiences in a way that differs
from that of previous cohorts and provides them with their own shared orientations,
principles of evaluation, and discursive practices5.
As formative historical events and social changes may unfold at different paces and

1
J. Pilcher, “Mannheim’s Sociology of Generations: An Undervalued Legacy”, British Journal of So-
ciology, 45, 3 (1994): 481-495.
2
R. Nugin, “Social Time as the Basis of Generational Consciousness”, Trames, 14, 4 (2010): 342-366.
3
K. Mannheim, “The Problem of Generations” [1927/1928]), in P. Kecskemeti, ed., Essays on the So-
ciology of Knowledge, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1952, 276-322.
4
R. Marada, “Social Construction of Youth and Formation of Generational Awareness after Socialism”,
in Society, Reproduction and Contemporary Challenges, edited by P. Mareš, Brno: Barrister & Principal,
2004, 149-168 (153).
5
M. Corsten, “The Time of Generations”, Time & Society, 8, 2-3 (1999): 249-272.
234 VERONIKA KALMUS - SIGNE OPERMANN

cover various time spans, the definition of the length of a generation remains vague6. As
such events and changes tend to occur suddenly, often unexpectedly and after no certain
time intervals, the formation of new generations also remains randomly distributed in
time. Mannheim7 states that a generation can be fifteen to thirty years, but such param-
eters are never strict.
Whilst a generation is a social entity in which members have a certain “bond” and
“generational consciousness”, the connection between the members is not as tight as it
is in groups where the members depend on each other. A generation, thus, does not have
to be a homogeneous concept, but rather consists of generational units: people who
“work up the material of their common experiences in different specific ways”8. Radim
Marada9 also argues that people filter a shared experience of historical periods or events
through their respective socio-economic classes, gender orientations, geographical loca-
tions, etc., which supports the concept of generation as a multi-dimensional category10.
To consider the complexity of the concept of generation, the variables we devel-
oped to define generational identity are based on several theoretical notions. As our
starting point, we used Mannheim’s conception, in which generations are characterised
by their generational location (Lagerung) – their place in the social structure in accord-
ance with the relationship of the generation to social, cultural, and historical time11 –
which also determines the generation’s “specific range of potential experience”12, and by
the notion of generation as an actuality (Generationszusammenhang): actual participa-
tion “in the characteristic social and intellectual currents of their society and period13”,
or “the collection of practices through which generational experiences are manifest”14.
The latter category is also closely related to the concept of generational habitus inspired
by Pierre Bourdieu’s cultural sociology; this notion can be tied to generational seman-
tics and discursive practices: vocabulary and manner of speech, as well as knowledge,
experience and patterns of thought and interpretation, including self-interpretation15.
Generation as an actuality is also created by common media experiences leading to the
development of media generations, and memories of media events, as well as technolo-
gies and their significance in the construction of life-worlds16. Göran Bolin17 provides an
especially useful synthesis of the concepts and approaches of the various fields, showing
how media generations can be examined and understood through the lens of audience
studies, mediatisation research and a cultural approach.
In somewhat simplified terms, we may argue that previous distinctions and catego-

6
S. Lovell, “Introduction”, in Generations in Twentieth-Century Europe, edited by S. Lovell, New
York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007, 1-18.
7
Mannheim, “The Problem of Generations”.
8
Ibid., 304.
9
Marada, “Social Construction of Youth and Formation of Generational Awareness after Socialism”.
10
P. Aroldi, F. Colombo, “Generational Belonging and Mediascape in Europe”, Journal of Social Sci-
ence Education, 6, 1 (2007): 34-44.
11
M. Corsten, “Media as the Historical New for Young Generations”, in F. Colombo, L. Fortunati, eds.,
Broadband Society and Generational Changes, Berlin: Peter Lang, 2011, 37-49.
12
Mannheim, “The Problem of Generations”, 291.
13
Ibid., 304.
14
J. Edmunds, B.S. Turner, Generations, Culture and Society, Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open Uni-
versity Press, 2002, 16.
15
Corsten, “The Time of Generations”.
16
I. Volkmer, “Introduction”, in News in Public Memory: An International Study of Media Memories
across Generations, edited by I. Volkmer, New York: Peter Lang, 2006, 13-17.
17
G. Bolin, Media Generations: Experience, Identity and Mediatised Social Change, Abingdon-New
York: Routledge, 2017.
 OPERATIONALISING MANNHEIM 235

risations of social generations have mainly been based on structural versus immaterial
features18 or, put differently, measurable and quantitative versus non-measurable and
qualitative features. The former include social and demographic structures (career op-
portunities, income, demographic behaviour, entering the labour market, moving out of
the parental home, becoming a parent, etc.); the latter include entities conveying gener-
ational consciousness (memory, biographies, discourses, etc.).
Further expanding on and developing this dichotomy in a qualitative study, Raili
Nugin19 identified three broad categories distinguishing the generation of Estonians born
in the 1970s from others: structural and social network features (educational opportu-
nities, strategic advantages, conditions provided by technology, travel opportunities and
gender roles), discursive features (memories of certain events, nostalgia, stories and
narratives, and media experiences, including cartoons), and features based on value
orientations (e.g. pragmatism). To operationalise generational identity in a population
survey, we took Nugin’s categorisation into account and constructed a system of items
that would cover the largest possible number of concepts and variables found in theoret-
ical literature and previous studies.

3. participants and operationalisation

The paper employs a mixed-method approach, in which a quantitative population sur-

vey is complemented with qualitative focus group interviews. This research design en-
ables us to combine researchers’ and participants’ perspectives on generational identity,
and thus enhances the validity of the instrument and the integrity and credibility of
findings20.
Quantitative data derive from the 5th round of the representative population survey
“Me. The World. The Media”, carried out by the Institute of Social Studies, University
of Tartu, and the Saar Poll market research company at the end of 2014. The research
team of the institutional project “Acceleration of Social and Personal Time in the Infor-
mation Society: Practices and Effects of Mediated Communication” developed a novel
set of indicators for studying generational identity, social memory, time use and time
perception21. The survey covered the Estonian population between 15 and 79, with a
total sample size of 1,503 (1,028 respondents completed the questionnaire in Estonian
and 475 in Russian). A proportional model of the general population and multi-step
probability random sampling were used. To deal with the differences between the rep-
resentative population model (based on the demographic statistics) and the sampling
outcome, the data were weighted by the main socio-demographic attributes (gender,
age, ethnicity and place of residence). A self-administered questionnaire, combined with
an interview, was used.
The self-administered part included the question “Do you feel a part of a specific
generation?”, with a 4-point answer scale (4 – Yes, definitely … 1 – No, not at all), fol-
lowed by two questions: “How much older/younger than yourself can people be for you

18
Nugin, “Social Time as the Basis of Generational Consciousness”.
19
Ibid.
20
A. Bryman, “Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Research: How is it Done?”, Qualitative Re-
search, 6, 1 (2006): 97-113.
21
The questionnaire included 879 indicators, structured into 31 thematic modules, e.g. values, identities,
media use, lifestyles, attitudes towards changes, and social position.
236 VERONIKA KALMUS - SIGNE OPERMANN

to consider them a part of your generation?”, with a 6-point scale (1 – Up to 1 year …

6 – Up to 20 years).
In the interview part of the survey, we asked the respondents to answer the ques-
tion: “People are often divided into certain generations, for instance one speaks of the
post-war generation or the winners’ generation. There are different things that help peo-
ple feel that they belong to a certain generation and differ from other generations. Please
think of your generation. Which phenomena or events do you think people of your
generation consider important and make them feel different from other generations?”
The list of categories contained 27 items that could be graded on a 4-point scale
(4 – Very important … 1 – Totally unimportant). The items can be conceptually divided
into five sub-blocks (structural features, experiences and memories, habitus, including
semantics, media use habits, and values and world-views). The module of generational
identity categories was tested in a cognitive pilot study with two participants who an-
swered the questions in two different manners (orally using the 4-point scale, and by
sorting identity category cards based on their importance) and reflected on their choices.
The focus groups were conducted in spring 2015 and winter 2017 in the two largest
cities of Estonia. In 2015, the participants were recruited, working in collaboration with
Saar Poll, from among the respondents of the survey “Me. The World. The Media”. In
2017, the focus group participants were selected by the snowball sampling method from
the education and academic sector.
The focus groups consisted of people born between the years 1) 1949 and 1954, 2)
1969 and 1974, and 3) 1989 and 1994. The oldest group came of age after the war and
the establishment of Soviet power. The middle group was socialised during the Soviet
period, although they reached adulthood within the turbulent flow of the Singing Revo-
lution and the restoration of Estonian independence. The formative years of the young-
est group coincided with the transition period of Estonia and digital transformations.
In 2015, three of the six focus groups were conducted in Estonian and three in Rus-
sian, according to the participants’ ethnicity. In 2017, three focus groups were conducted
in Estonian, although they included some individuals with other ethnic background. The
total number of participants in the two sets of focus groups was 69 (26 males and 43
females). The topics included participants’ coping with today’s accelerated pace of life
and the formation of generational identities. The focus groups lasted on average 120
minutes. The interviews were transcribed, and the software MAXQDA (2016, 2018) was
used for inductive content analysis22.
The next chapter presents the survey results, along with the key findings from the
focus groups, illustrated by excerpts from the group discussions.

4. the strength and length of generational identity

A full three-quarters of all survey respondents gave positive answers (Yes, definitely or
Yes, somewhat) to the question, “Do you feel a part of a specific generation?” (Table 1).
Generational affiliation was perceived most strongly by older people (aged 71-79 and
61-70) and least strongly by people of younger middle age (31-40).

22
S. Elo, M. Kääriäinen, O. Kanste, T. Pölkki, K. Utriainen, H. Kyngäs, “Qualitative Content Analysis:
A Focus on Trustworthiness”, SAGE Open, January-March (2014): 1-10. Accessed October 24, 2018. DOI:
10.1177/2158244014522633.
 OPERATIONALISING MANNHEIM 237

Table 1 - Generational Affiliation by Age Groups (%)

How much older / younger than yourself can people be for you consider
Feel a part them a part of your generation?
Age of a specific Up Up Up Up Up Up
generation* Older**/
to 1 to 3 to 5 to 10 to 15 to 20 Can’t say
Younger***
year years years years years years
Older 3 15 36 28 6 3 10
All 75
Younger 5 18 34 25 5 3 10
Older 7 38 34 8 2 1 11
15-20 71
Younger 20 41 19 4 2 2 11
Older 5 23 43 16 2 1 11
21-30 70
Younger 9 28 36 12 3 1 12
Older 0 13 39 26 7 4 12
31-40 64
Younger 2 20 40 22 4 1 11
Older 2 6 37 33 6 6 10
41-50 69
Younger 3 11 35 32 7 4 9
Older 2 12 35 31 6 3 10
51-60 75
Younger 2 14 36 27 8 3 10
Older 3 12 30 33 10 3 11
61-70 83
Younger 3 12 29 36 5 5 10
Older 1 7 35 41 8 2 7
71-79 92
Younger 0 11 37 34 9 2 7

Note: * Cramer’s V = .145; p < .001; ** Cramer’s V = .144; p < .001; *** Cramer’s V = .171; p <
.001.

Most focus group participants also indicated that they felt they belonged to a social
group, which they called “my generation”; some people, however, did not fully agree
with this. Partly, their reluctance was a reaction to stereotypes commonly attributed to
people of the same age with similar experiences, e.g. with the Soviet time, with which
they did not want to be identified, as Excerpts 1 and 2 demonstrate. At the same time,
such a disclaimer refers to the existence of a perceived generational affiliation from
which to exclude oneself.

(1) I don’t walk around and declare that I’m a “Soviet-time person”23.
(Male, born between 1969 and 1974, EST, 2015)

23
Our translations.
238 VERONIKA KALMUS - SIGNE OPERMANN

(2) I don’t perceive such a generation phenomenon. I was born in the first half of the 1970s,
but I don’t feel that I’m from the Brezhnev-era generation or whatever.
(Female, born between 1969 and 1974, EST, 2015)

Some people negotiated generational affiliation as a form of collective identity by pre-

senting arguments about the greater importance of individuality, such as distinctive life
course events (Excerpts 3 and 4).

(3) And yet, it’s so individual. Not everyone my age belongs in the same “box”. We just
understand each other because we are of the same age.
(Female, born between 1949 and 1954, RUS, 2015)

(4) I don’t feel I belong to a certain generation, since my life’s path was different from that
of the other girls in my secondary school class. I got married very young and had little time
to hang out with my peers.
(Female, born between 1969 and 1974, EST, 2017)

According to our survey data, the temporal scope of generational affiliation or the length
of the social generation varied significantly across the sample (see Table 1). Still, the
largest group of respondents considered people up to five years their senior (36%) and/
or junior (34%) to be a part of their generation; the next biggest group felt the same way
about people up to ten years their senior (28%) and/or junior (25%). As a result, we
used ten-year age groups (except for 15-20-year olds) for the quantitative generational
identity analysis.
The survey data also demonstrate that the temporal scope of the social generation
increased with the age of the individuals (Table 1). Most people aged 15-20 considered
people up to three years their senior and/or junior a part of their generation, and a full fifth
of them only felt the same way about people up to one year younger. For people aged
21-30, the most common categories of generational affiliation included people up to five
and up to three years older/younger; among those aged 31-60, however, the most common
categories were people up to five and up to ten years older/younger. The oldest age group
(71-79) had the largest share (41%) of those considering people up to ten years their senior
to be a part of their generation. This is most likely explained by both age-related changes
in personal temporal horizon and the increased pace of alternation of social generations re-
sulting from the acceleration of social and technological changes: new social generations
with distinctive features appear at a faster rate than in the past24.
The focus groups revealed similar findings. Excerpts 5 and 6 demonstrate that a
20+ year old shared generational affiliation with people of about his current age, while
a 40+ year old participant drew the boundaries much wider, covering the whole span of
school years.

(5) Participant (P): The next generation after ours are those who are attending upper second-
ary school now.
They are a generation completely different from us.
Interviewer (I): Why is there such a big difference? The age difference is only 2-3 years.
P: It is difficult to explain, it just seems so big. They are just so much younger.
(Male, born between 1989 and 1994, RUS, 2015)

24
Edmunds, Turner, Generations, Culture and Society; J. Spurk, “Simultaneity within Non-Simultane-
ity? Continuity, Rupture, Emergence – On the Temporal Dynamic of Social Formation”, Time & Society, 13,
1 (2004): 41-49.
 OPERATIONALISING MANNHEIM 239

(6) I would include [in our generation] those schoolmates who were [...] going to school with
me at the same time.
(Male, born between 1969 and 1974, EST, 2015)

5. the importance of the categories of generational identity

Table 2 presents the top rankings of the categories of generational identity, based on the
mean scores of the respective scales by age groups, listed in the order of their ranking
for the total sample (for the full list of categories, see Figure 1).

Table 2 - Top Rankings of the Categories of Generational Identity by Age Groups

(based on mean values)

All 15-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-79

Experiencing, remembering the same
1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1
times*
Similar values and world-views* 2 5 4 3 2 2 2 2
The same or almost the same year
3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3
of birth
Attending school at the same time*** 4 1 3 4 4 4 4 4-5
Knowing about certain people and
5 11-12 7 6 5 5 5-6 4-5
events**
Similar educational opportunities*** 6 3 5 5 6 7 7 9
Similar lifestyle and consumption
7 6 6 7 7 6 5-6 6
habits**
Common vocabulary or phraseology* 8 8 10-12 8-9 8-9 8 12 16
Certain films watched* 9 13 17 8-9 8-9 11 9-10 7-8
Similar manners, behavioural habits *
10 11-12 14 16 14 9 11 13-14
Similar attitude towards maintaining
physical condition and taking care 11 9-10 8 15 12 17-18 16-17 15
of appearance**
Similar attitude towards the roles of
12-14 20 18-19 14 10 10 15 10
men and women
Similar music preferences*** 12-14 7 10-12 10-11 17 14 18-19 19
Command of the same foreign
15 14-15 18-19 18 11 13 9-10 17
languages*
Starting a family at the same time 16 22 9 10-11 13 15-16 16-17 13-14
Certain books read ***
17 23 21-22 17 15-16 15-16 8 7-8
Similar habits of Internet use*** 22-23 9-10 16 21-22 22 25-27 26-27 27
Similar habits of social media use*** 22-23 14-15 10-12 21-22 23 27 26-27 26
Note: asterisks signify the variables that differentiate the age groups to a statistically significant
extent: * p <= .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.
240 VERONIKA KALMUS - SIGNE OPERMANN

The top ten in the overall ranking include categories related to generational memory and
experience, as well as features reflecting values and world-views, structural opportuni-
ties, and habitus. Media use habits (along with alcohol consumption habits and religious
world-view) were at the bottom of the overall ranking, as well as of the rankings of all
age groups.
The focus group data also show that an inherent process of generation formation
can be related to certain factors that individuals in the group discussions proposed as
more prominent; however, a consensus on one major factor or a single common gener-
ational label was not reached. Rather, the participants proposed a wide array of defining
factors and labels. In some groups, quite serious disagreements took place between par-
ticipants of the same age when discussing these issues.
Well in line with the survey findings, the most often mentioned generation-defining
factor in the group discussions was a common value base: a set of understandings and
presuppositions that, in some cases, were characterised in a more specific, and in other
cases, in a more universal manner. For example, Estonian females, born between 1949
and 1954, claimed: “Our generation values human relationships and not so much [ma-
terial] things”, and “We had more respect for our parents”. Their peers added another
comment: “We were raised to be conscientious, and [aware that] there were always
duties that should be performed”. Also, the latter group emphasised that a set of expe-
riences, memories and contextual knowledge (about previous times) distinguished one
generation from another (Excerpt 7).

(7) I do feel, compared with my students, that I have a story that they don’t have or know.
[...] Let me say that it’s totally fantastic... it matters to me that I feel irreplaceable due to my
knowledge and experiences. [...] maybe we don’t go along right away with innovations...
with every new thought, and why should we? Especially, since new ideas tend to just be
forgotten old ones.
(Female, born between 1949 and 1954, EST, 2017)

The specific nature of generational world-views and self-images, quite expectedly, var-
ied between the age groups. The youngest group had more tolerant and liberal views on
various issues, especially on social and cultural matters, often explicitly clashing with
people of their grandparents’ age, who were socialised under the totalitarian and repres-
sive Soviet regime (see, e.g. Excerpt 8).

(8) I think younger people have more liberal values. For example, when it comes to the
rights of minority groups. I think older people are more xenophobic in their attitudes.
(Female, born between 1989 and 1994, EST, 2015)

At the same time, 60+ year-old participants with academic backgrounds quite unani-
mously disagreed with such a widely perceived generational stereotype. They stated that
the opinion that older people in Estonia were intolerant or even hateful was not fully
correct, or at least, there were individual older people who did not fit that profile.
Quite distinctively, the middle generation of Estonians declared that they were
“the last Soviet-era generation” and “the last crafty generation”, who still had first-hand
memories of the Socialist era and possessed the ability to do practical things, such as re-
pairing things or doing other craftwork: skills already disappearing among the youngest
generations. They seemed to position themselves as a transition generation between the
“old” and the “new” context in Estonia.
According to the survey data, for most (21 out of 27) individual categories of gen-
 OPERATIONALISING MANNHEIM 241

erational identity, there was a statistically significant difference in mean scores across
age groups (Table 2). The youngest generation (15-20) stood out the most, with “Attend-
ing school at the same time” being ranked as the most important category and “Similar
educational opportunities” ranked third, while certain categories of shared generational
experience considered important by other age groups, such as “Knowing certain persons
and events” and “Certain films watched”, were not even found in the top ten. The gener-
ational self-definition of the youngest respondents also assigned distinctive importance
to “Similar music preferences”, “Similar habits of Internet use”, and “Similar attitude
towards maintaining physical condition and taking care of appearance”. The latter fea-
ture was also characteristically important to the next generation, 21-30-year-olds, who
were also the only ones to have “Similar habits of social media use” in their top ten
categories.
The age dynamics of some other categories of generational identity were also quite
revealing. The structural feature “Starting a family at the same time” was ranked rather
high among respondents at family-starting ages (21-30 and 31-40). Of the features re-
lated to world-views, “Similar attitude towards the roles of men and women” stood out
as a category high in the rankings of older and middle-aged people (71-79, 51-60 and
41-50). In the broad category of shared cultural experiences, books only played a sig-
nificant part for the older generations (61–79-year olds) and films for middle-aged and
older respondents (31-50 and 61-79), while music occupied an important position in the
cultural outlook of the younger generations (15-40-year olds).
Interestingly, the participants born between 1969 and 1974 also discussed subcul-
tural identities as important signifiers for their generation. For example, they mentioned
punk music and a “dissenting” lifestyle. Furthermore, the 40+ groups most explicitly
emphasised the role of school in shaping generational identity and the horizon of knowl-
edge, as well as the importance of phenomena and problems specific to the period of
national awakening in the 1980s.
In general, our data show that age groups more strongly identified themselves with
those categories of generational identity that were more important and/or prevalent in
their life-worlds; the construction of generational self-consciousness in negative terms
(“We are the anti-X-generation”) was not observed.

6. the structure of generational identity

To study the structure of generational identity based on the survey data we used the
principal component method of factor analysis with varimax rotation, as this method
brings the original solution of the factor analysis maximally close to the actual structure
of the relationships between the original variables and provides a clearer expression of
more closely related groups of original variables25. We used the factor graphic method26
to compare two- to eight-factor solutions. The two-factor and eight-factor models were
found to be the cleanest based on the criterion of the minimum number of additional
variables (with nine and ten additional variables, i.e. original variables which have the
highest absolute loading on another factor, while having a sufficiently high loading also

25
J. Saarniit, “Faktoranalüüsi ja faktorgraafilise meetodi kasutamisest väärtusteadvuse struktuuri
analüüsil”, Eesti Statistikaseltsi Teabevihik, 6 (1995): 160-179.
26
Ibid.
242 VERONIKA KALMUS - SIGNE OPERMANN

on the observable factor), but those models were not optimal from the point of view of
interpretability and subsequent analysis.
The cleanest model among the solutions with an intermediate number of factors
was provided by the four-factor solution (13 additional variables; total descriptive pow-
er 52.5%; see Figure 1).

Figure 1 - Four-Factor Model of Generational Identity (factor loadings; additional

Figure 1 – Four-Factor
variables Model
are listed of Generational
under the shadedIdentity
boxes (factor loadings;
signifying additional variables
the respective factors)
are listed under the shaded boxes signifying the respective factors)
F1 Media use and F2 Cultural horizon and F3 World-views and F4 Life events and
habitus experiences value orientations structural opportunities

Similar habits of Internet Knowing about certain Similar attitude towards Attending school at the
use .78 people and events .77 other ethnic groups .73 same time .73

Similar habits of social Certain films watched Similar attitude towards Starting employment at
media use .77 .74 the roles of men and the same time .72
women .73
Similar dressing style .66 Certain books read .69 Starting a family at the
Similar relation with the same time .64
Similar habits of TV The same favourite
church, religion .61
viewing .64 actors, singers .63 Similar educational
Similar values and opportunities .57
Similar habits of reading Similar music
world-views .54
newspapers .62 preferences .58 Similar travel
Similar attitude towards opportunities .54
Similar manners, Experiencing,
maintaining physical
behavioural habits .55 remembering the same The same or almost the
condition and taking
times .57 same year of birth .53
care of appearance .49
Similar alcohol
consumption habits .52 Similar values and Similar manners, Experiencing,
Command of the same world-views .43 behavioural habits .31 remembering the same
times .36
foreign languages .49
Similar alcohol
Common vocabulary or consumption habits .33
phraseology .47
Command of the same
Similar lifestyle and foreign languages .39
consumption habits .45
Common vocabulary or
Certain films watched phraseology .35
.36
Similar lifestyle and
Certain books read .32 consumption habits .41

The same favourite

actors, singers .45

Similar music
preferences .50

Similar attitude towards

maintaining physical
condition and taking
care of appearance .42

Similar travel
opportunities .35
 OPERATIONALISING MANNHEIM 243

The first factor of this solution, with the largest number of variables, combines variables
related to media use and consumption habits, generational habitus, semantics and life-
style, and is termed Media use and habitus. Additional variables belonging to this factor
include categories related to similar cultural tastes, valuing physical appearance and
travel opportunities, all of which can similarly be considered indicators of generational
habitus and lifestyle. It is worth noting that the eight-factor solution distinguished the
categories of new media use habits (the Internet and social media), traditional media use
habits (TV and newspapers), and habitus (except for knowledge of foreign languages) as
independent factors, which is very much in line with the conceptual logic.
The second factor combines variables related to shared memories and experiences,
including cultural experiences and preferences, and is, accordingly, termed Cultural
horizon and experiences. Additional variables for this factor include similar values as
reflections of generational culture and ethos.
The third factor, World-views and value orientations, combines a clear set of origi-
nal variables, including valuing physical condition and appearance. It also includes five
categories of generational habitus as additional variables.
The fourth factor includes concurrent life events and similar educational opportuni-
ties; it was, accordingly, termed Life events and structural opportunities. An additional
variable related to this factor, “Experiencing, remembering the same times”, also refers,
to a certain extent, to the location of the generation in the social-historical space.
Next, we will look at the adoption of the structural components of generational iden-
tity in different age groups, using a comparison of mean factor scores27 (see Figure 2).

Figure 2 - Factor Scores of Generational Identity by Age Groups

Figure 2 - Factor Scores of Generational Identity by Age Groups
0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

F1 Media use and habitus

0,1
F2 Cultural horizon and experiences
F3 World-views and value orientations
0
15-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-79 F4 Life events and structural opportunities

-0,1

-0,2

-0,3

-0,4

The importance of Life events and structural opportunities is higher than average in the
generational self-definition of the three youngest age groups. The component Media use
and habitus is especially significant for the generational self-definition of the youngest
age group and, to a certain extent, also for the group of 21-30-year olds, while playing a
relatively insignificant role in the generational identity of the middle-aged and the elderly.

27
All four factors distinguished age groups on a level of statistical significance of p ≤ .001.
244 VERONIKA KALMUS - SIGNE OPERMANN

Conversely, shared Cultural horizon and experiences and World-views and value ori-
entations had higher than average importance for the generational self-awareness of
the older groups, especially 61–79-year olds, while their importance for the youngest
generations was significantly low.
Focus group participants shared nostalgic memories of their favourite cartoons and
children’s and entertainment programmes aired on Estonian TV from the 1970s to the
1990s. Remembering those programmes (e.g. Mõmmi ja aabits / Teddy Bear and ABC
Book) was considered a criterion for generational belonging, thus extending the length
of this media generation. Participants born before 1974 also emphasised the importance
of books, theatre and films, available in limited variety in the Soviet era, as a basis for
their generational identity (Excerpt 9).

(9) In our young years, there were some four or five good films to watch, while now the
whole world is full of them.
(Male, born between 1969 and 1974, EST, 2015)

The focus groups also confirmed that the role of media use and the domestication of
novel technologies in generational (self-)construction was the most distinct aspect for the
youngest participants (Excerpt 10). At the same time, new media channels had caused
the fragmentation of their media experiences: as YouTube replaced TV, and online and
social media (Facebook and blogs) functioned as the main information channels, the
young generation was used to selecting content that was relevant and interesting to them.

(10) Information technology is more natural for younger people and defines how we under-
stand the world.
(Female, born between 1989 and 1994, EST, 2015)

Well in line with the survey findings, the oldest generations from both language groups
claimed that shared historical events and periods (i.e. the post-war era) marked a salient
point in the formation of the social generation they were a part of. In addition, elderly
people highlighted their varied life experiences under different regimes and circum-
stances as something that had helped them to cope with everyday life problems and the
changing environment (Excerpt 11).

(11) P1: [...] our generation is perhaps lucky to have seen different [political] regimes. Thus,
our generation is tough and persistent.
P2: Yes, we’re able to cope no matter what the circumstances.
(Females, born between 1949 and 1954, EST, 2015)

Middle-aged participants expressed theoretically interesting reflections on the influenc-

es of the ground-breaking events that took place in Estonia and the Soviet Union in
the late 1980s, during their teen years. Namely, ethnic Estonians and Estonian Rus-
sians born between 1969 and 1974 reached completely different conclusions in their
discussions on this topic. For Estonians, the events of the late 1980s – early 1990s were
associated with the transition to long-awaited freedom and democracy, while for many
Russians the collapse of the former regime caused anxiety and concerns about funda-
mental restructuring and re-orientation. The participants used the following generation
labels in the group discussions: the generation of the Singing Revolution or the gener-
ation of the Republic versus Перестроечное поколение (i.e. the generation influenced
by the idea of perestroika, which mainly meant economic and political restructuring,
 OPERATIONALISING MANNHEIM 245

mentioned in a negative manner in the group discussion to signify the cohort who had
to cope with a time full of misery, when many of their peers declined morally and phys-
ically). Thus, the focus groups confirmed the Mannheimian idea of generational units:
community-based experiencing of cataclysmic occurrences may lead to rather different
generational identities within the same age cohort in society.

7. conclusion

The outcomes of the empirical analyses make it possible to conclude that our method-
ological endeavour succeeded: Mannheimian and other theoretical concepts of genera-
tions can, indeed, be operationalised for population survey research. The principal com-
ponents analysis revealed that the underlying structure of the categories of generational
identity was very much in line with the theoretical constructs, adding some heuristic
aspects to explain the hierarchical composition of generational identity. In particular,
media use habits and generational semantics, together with habitus-related features,
formed a highly distinctive component of generational habitus, referring to generation-
al, epoch-specific lifestyles, and consequently to status-based social stratification28. Fur-
thermore, shared cultural horizons and experiences, world-views and value orientations,
and structural features (concurrent life events and similar opportunities) also constituted
distinctive identity components separating different age groups in historical time and
social structure.
Our analyses also revealed that significant differences existed between the age
groups regarding the factor components (and most of the individual categories) of gen-
erational identity: structural and tangible components related to life events, lifestyle
and social status were significantly more important to the younger generations than to
the older age groups, while the importance of intangible features – mental and cultural
factors – was significantly lower. Data from a cross-sectional survey is insufficient to
provide a conclusive answer to the question of whether this was a life-cycle effect, a
period and cohort effect indicating cultural change, or an interaction between the two.
Nevertheless, the results of the analysis of individual categories allow us to state that the
decreasing significance of culture and values to the generational identity of the younger
age groups was quite probably connected to the fragmentation of the more traditional
cultural elements (literature, film, theatre and traditional media) of the young audienc-
es29 and the pluralisation of their world-views. The increasing scarcity of shared medi-
ated discursive elements (literary narratives, media events, clichés, jokes etc.) among
today’s young does not foster their “generationing30” based on immaterial features. Fur-
thermore, as demonstrated by focus groups, the youngest generations seem to have in-
ternalised, at least to a certain extent, the discursive generation construction taking place

28
P. Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste [1979], Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1984.
29
Bolin, Media Generations; N. Vittadini, A. Siibak, I. Carpentier Reifová, H. Bilandzic, “Genera-
tions and Media: The Social Construction of Generational Identity and Differences”, in N. Carpentier, K.
C. Schrøder, L. Hallett, eds., Transforming Audiences, Transforming Societies, London: Routledge, 2013,
65-81.
30
L. Alanen, “Childhood as Generational Condition: Children’s Daily Lives in a Central Finland Town”,
in L. Alanen, B. Mayall, eds., Conceptualizing Child-Adult Relations, London: Routledge, 2001, 129-143.
 246 VERONIKA KALMUS - SIGNE OPERMANN

in the public sphere and see themselves as the “information technology generation” or
the “digital generation31”.
Finally, although space limits did not allow for a quantitative analysis by other
socio-demographic variables (e.g. gender or ethnicity), insights from the focus groups
clearly re-confirmed previous warnings about overlooking individual variation in gen-
erations32. Participants with various backgrounds, particularly representatives of the two
language communities, proposed an array of generational labels and the defining factors
of generationing, thus confirming the Mannheimian idea of the existence of generation-
al units.

31
S. Papert, The Connected Family: Bridging the Digital Generation Gap, Atlanta: Longstreet Press,
1996.
V. Kalmus, K. Talves, P. Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt, “Behind the Slogan of ‘E-State’: Digital Stratifica-
32

tion in Estonia”, in M. Ragnedda, G.W. Muschert, eds., The Digital Divide: The Internet and Social Inequality
in International Perspective, London: Routledge, 2013, 193-206.

View publication stats