I came across a The New Yorker piece, “Millennials Are The First Generation To Inspire Think Pieces About Millennials,” which was too Hegelian of a pop-up not to knock down via catching the ball. Here is a nice bit of self-certainty:
For many millennials, a social-media presence—on Instagram, Facebook, or Twitter—has become integral to accessing the vast and varied world of millennial think pieces. I, for instance, clicked on a link on Facebook to an article about how millennials don’t have enough money, and then I shared it with my followers on Twitter. It is common knowledge that these social-media platforms—all founded by millennials, mind you—were formed for this very type of information dissemination. And look, it’s working. You’re reading this.
Annah Feinberg for The New Yorker
Here we get a pitch which butters up everyone who wishes to butter up millennials, not to be mistaken for buttering up millennials themselves. The material form of The New Yorker limits the ideal which they are trying to set forth. Instead, what is put forth is a tautology. The argument in the headline is meaningless (or more accurately, empty, useless as a posit but of course, useful dialectically), because the material form of “Millennial” in so far as they are an Actual category of people existing within a certain time period.
Millennials are the material initial inspiration for millennials as this Actuality of humans within a certain time period, which this title references; however, a cascade of simulacra follows when a millennial follows the {millennial} as some sort of entrepreneurial ideal of Mark Zuckerberg. Which is to say, this think piece about millennials is not inspired by millennials as a pure category; the initial inspiration was the material people born, but the think piece here in The New Yorker is fed by a capitalistic motivation for a certain quality of think pieces regarding millennials.
Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez has a nice combination of the Geist and the material, and as a politician rather than an academic, her application of the millennial Geist as the Instagram person is both Actual in that she is actually a millennial on Instagram, and also a manifestation of this ideal form of millennial, making a refutation of her populist tactics as a refutation of her Actuality itself. By taking into the self the Geist of herself as the material millennial, she becomes Actual. What is actual contains lack and is ultimately a hole, which is to say the difference between the Geist and material contained as a unity. The celebration itself of Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, to the extent the celebration is a material difference, is the capacity of her in a democracy. AOC’s embodiment of the millennial ideal is also an essential question of democratic socialism becoming Actualized within a systemic change.
Back to The New Yorker article, and I suppose to rescue The New Yorker arcticle from its tautology, yes, millennials exist, and are the original material source for think pieces about themselves (unlike unicorns which you could also write a think piece about, but because they are not Actual, no one could embody a unicorn as its ideal and confront us with the substantial difference between the ideal and material representations). Millennials feel material pressure to succeed, and are faced with more competition for occupational positions than their parents, so is it any wonder we get think pieces by millennials Actualizing the millennial Geist, in and for itself, within politics, literature, and already existing magazines such as The New Yorker?
The force of millennials Actualizing what is ideal is very different than the ironic distance of the past, and the force of the future may come from this Actualization of the various Geists, which have a substantial difference from their millennial vessels. The New Yorker, bruh.
Mad Black Freud 