“
Never have I ever had sex
with a member,” I said
looking around the room
at my fellow volunteers and the
young members of Kibbutz Baram.
I quickly noticed none of the
members took a drink. “How is it
possible that none of you have had
sex with a member?”
“Have
sex
with
another
member? I would never!”
“What? Why not!?”
“After growing up and spending
all day with other members I view
them as my brothers and sisters…
having sex with them would just
be gross.”
Throughout my summer living
in Baram, a socialist town in the
northern part of Israel, I came to
find this was a common mindset
that is inspired by a commitment to
a collective ideology. The kibbutz
movement, which started in the
early 20th century, originally
sought to merge socialism and
Zionism through the creation
of agricultural and industrial
cooperative towns in Israel. At
Baram, I quickly noticed the
collective mentality displayed in
games such as “Never Have I Ever”
is diminishing for the Kibbutz’s
youngest generation, iGen. In
iGen, Baram is a case study into
how social media causes the two
opposing worlds of individualism
and socialism to collide.
Baram was founded in 1949
by 60 former members of the
Hashomer Hatzair, a socialist-
Zionist youth movement. The
founders arrived in the hilly forest
that would later become Baram
with nothing more than a bold
vision of society. In the beginning,
the “members” of Baram took
the socialist critique of private
property to the extreme; members
shared everything from underwear
to daily outfits.
A lot has changed for Israel in
the past 69 years, as has Baram,
but the biggest change appears to
be looming in a surprising place
— social media. In the 1980s,
Israel went through a massive
economic crisis that resulted in
the creation of a new currency
and a shift toward a free market
economic model. The collapse of
the economy meant nearly every
kibbutz had to privatize, code for
turning into regular towns where
everyone has different incomes and
private property. As of a 2010 study
conducted by Haifa University,
only 65 of the 256 kibbutzim have
yet to privatize and Baram is one of
the few that remains dedicated to
its communal roots. In 1997, Baram
was proudly the very last kibbutz
to close their “children’s home,” a
house in which all children of the
kibbutz would sleep in at night
because
kibbutzniks
(people
who live in a kibbutz) believed
even children could be raised
communally.
During my time living and
working in Baram I tried to learn
as much as I could about Baram
and the rich history of the kibbutz
movement. I assumed the ending
of the children’s home created a
gigantic generational divide —I
thought all children born after
1997 would be vastly different
from the other kibbutzniks but
I quickly learned the story was
more complicated. I spoke with
a member who was one of the
first children raised after the
termination of the children’s home,
who for confidentiality purposes
will go by Isabel; she told me the
termination of the home didn’t
change the kibbutz all that much.
She stated she and her classmates
at the kibbutz still spent so much
time together that where they slept
didn’t really make a difference –
they still went to school together,
they still ate in the dining hall with
all the other members and they still
played together at the pool after
school. To me, Isabel’s narrative
seemed to demonstrate how the
millennials in Baram had a strong
sense of camaraderie with each
other.
Isabel,
a
millennial,
did
however think there was a large
generational
divide
between
her and the teens. From Isabel’s
perspective, the current children of
Baram have a much stronger sense
of individualism than any previous
generation, and she believes social
media is changing the way the
children of the kibbutz think about
themselves and their community.
Isabel’s argument is hard to deny.
Social media makes teenagers
hyper-aware of their personal
image and the way other people
perceive them. Through likes,
views and followers Instagram
quantifies a previously invisible
social
hierarchy
and
trains
teenagers to think of themselves
as a brand defined by their image.
Snapchat trains teens to constantly
take photos themselves and thus
trains them to think about how
they look in comparison to others.
Why wouldn’t these apps change
the way that teenage kibbutzniks
view
themselves
and
their
community?
This generational divide is
widely discussed and studied in the
American psychology community.
Jean Twenge, a University of
Michigan alum and professor of
psychology at San Diego State
University, says millennials and
the younger generation, iGens,
are separated by the age of social
media and the internet; iGens
grow up with smartphones and
have
an
Instagram
accounts
before they start high school,
while millennials remember a time
before the smartphone. This divide
places current college students
directly on the border between
the two generations, leaving many
people in their early 20s, like
myself and Isabel, feeling more like
a millennial. Twenge finds iGens
spend much more time isolated
and alone in their rooms using
their social media and thinking
about their image — a narrative
that fits in perfectly with Isabel’s
perception of iGen kibbutzniks in
Baram.
Baram’s edited socialist society
will only continue to function
if members of the community
are dedicated to the challenge
of thinking from the level of the
collective,
not
the
individual.
Isabel and many other members
whom I spoke to are very worried
about the future of Baram. Despite
the economic success of Baram,
over the past few years there has
been conversation and even a vote
about privatization, the death of
communal living.
From my brief time there, I
felt that the iGens did not have
the same communal cognition
as the other generations. Rather,
I noticed anecdotal evidence for
their differing identity — like the
fact that there were a few iGen
couples and the iGens tended to
hangout in smaller groups rather
than all together. I can sense this
generational divide on campus,
with current freshmen religiously
checking their Snapchats and
upperclassmen
devotedly
hitting “interested” on Facebook
events. To many members of
Baram, social media is a form
of
capitalist
propaganda
that
trains young people to perceive
themselves throuwwgh the hyper
individualistic
and
isolating
lenses of apps like Instagram and
Snapchat; the truth of these claims,
however, just like the future of
Baram, remains to be seen.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Thursday, September 13, 2018
Emma Chang
Ben Charlson
Joel Danilewitz
Samantha Goldstein
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram
Jeremy Kaplan
Lucas Maiman
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Alex Satola
Ali Safawi
Ashley Zhang
Sam Weinberger
DAYTON HARE
Managing Editor
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
ALEXA ST. JOHN
Editor in Chief
ANU ROY-CHAUDHURY AND
ASHLEY ZHANG
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
ELLERY ROSENZWEIG | COLUMN
Lessons from media
“
Gossip Girl” is a popular
television show many of
my friends binge watch
on Netflix. As a fifth grader, I
started watching the series live
and followed the dramatic lives
of high school aged Manhattan
Elite, never missing an episode.
On a lazy summer afternoon,
after scrolling through Netflix
with no luck, I decided to
re-watch the first episode.
The pilot started and it was
just like the good old days. It was
as entertaining and dramatic as I
remembered. I was comfortable
with the characters and the
storyline so I didn’t really have
to pay attention. That is, until a
scene where a female character
was sexually assaulted by a
male character. I was shocked.
I didn’t remember this scene
or anything of its nature on the
show. I continued watching the
episode, but again there was
another scene with the same
male character sexual assaulting
another female character. This
time I was alarmed.
I
was
disgusted
and
could not continue to watch
the next episode. In anger,
I began searching online to
find what others thought after
re-watching the pilot and found
many mixed feelings. Some
people just noticed, brushed it
off and decided to focus on the
parts they loved while others
pinpointed all the reasons the
show is bad for young women.
With these different reactions
in
mind,
I
found
myself
wondering if should I continue
to watch shows that I enjoy
even if they have messages that
I do not support?
When I look back at some of
my favorite shows, movies and
music, they have underlying
messages of misogyny through
the actions of characters or the
words of the lyrics. I’m aware
of this and I think the first step
is noticing the inequalities in
our society that are portrayed
in our media. But as a young
person, I did not notice this when
watching “Gossip Girl” for the
first time.
Last
winter
in
my
developmental
psychology
class, my professor shared her
findings on how adolescents
learn by observing behaviors
and attitudes from their media.
This means, whether I was
aware of it or not, I was learning
about
sexuality,
gender
and sexual relationships by
watching programs like “Gossip
Girl”. Now, in hindsight, that
proves extremely problematic.
As young people, we so
easily learn from our media.
Thus,
seeing
storylines
of
sexual
assault
unfold
time
and time again can teach us,
particularly in our youth, that
this is how the world works. In
the past, I’ve had experiences or
heard stories from my friends
about instances that I now
know may not have been totally
consensual. But when these
experiences happened, we felt
like it was positive because we
learned from our world and the
media that if a man was giving
us attention, it was good.
This doesn’t mean I have to
stop watching these shows but
I’m not sure how I am supposed
to
enjoy
them.
Now,
I’m
actively choosing to find media
with messages that empower
me
instead
of
reinforcing
internalized
misogynistic
thoughts and actions. I try to
find media that promotes a
positive self-image and strong
female relationships that are
not always about what women
think of men. For example, I
have been watching “Broad
City” and listening to songs by
hip-hop artist Lizzo.
We don’t need media that
makes us feel inadequate or
insecure. Explore new types of
music. Watch shows and movies
about
things
you
normally
wouldn’t have in past. Fall in
love with new characters that
are different from you. Listen
to lyrics that make you feel
good in your body. As adults, by
understanding that the kind of
media we consume impacts us,
we have the agency to choose
what we consume.
iGen and the future of the kibbutz
REED ROSENBACHER | COLUMN
50 years since ‘68
ETHAN KESSLER | COLUMN
H
alfway
around
the
world,
American
warplanes deliver death
and destruction to a country
torn apart from years of brutal
fratricide. Beyond our southern
border, a despotic regime silences
its critics with batons and bullets
alike. With equal amounts flair
and frustration, women speak
out against a system they view
as suffocating and oppressive.
And on a scale viewed by many as
unprecedented, America’s youth
protest Washington’s seeming
indifference to the preventable
deaths of their peers.
These
events
collectively
comprise the present— the civil
war in Syria, violent repression
in Nicaragua, the second annual
Women’s March and the March
for
Our
Lives—and
are
all
defining moments and stories of
2018. But they are also the past,
just as easily characterizations
of 1968: the pinnacle of American
involvement in the Vietnam War,
the year of student-led protests
in Mexico City, the Miss America
feminist protest and the anti-war
riot in Chicago.
Half a century ago, many of
the same ideological divisions
and systemic inequalities that
continue to plague our world
came to a boiling point. The
United States’ military foray into
Vietnam had reached its peak, and
the subsequent outrage was, for
the first time, becoming popular.
From Prague to Paris, from civil
rights activists to students and
workers, it seemed that there
wasn’t enough “Enough!” to go
around.
However,
1968
wasn’t
just another chapter in the
counterculture saga. It was a point
of realization for movements
that would go on to empower
traditionally neglected segments
of society, but it also saw many
of these movements lose their
leaders and face punishment
for voicing dissent. The year of
1968 served as a broadcast to
those less enthusiastic citizens
that massive, peaceful revolt
could effect actual progress on
a variety of issues, but it also
marked a nadir in communion
between
two
Americas
that
seemed further than ever. These
dynamics appear to remain all
too true today.
Of course, the idea that
history repeats itself is nothing
new. So, what makes those events
of a half-century ago so unique?
The answer lies in the youth.
Those of college (and draft)
age in 1968 inhabited a world
still adapting to the pressures
and influences of television, a
technology so widespread that
it fundamentally redefined how
people saw each other. And
just as television reshaped how
citizens saw the wars their tax
dollars were funding and the
protests their governments were
suppressing in 1968, social media
and widespread internet access
have overhauled old methods of
mobilizing constituencies and
spreading (mis)information in
today’s political climate.
Similarly,
just
as
young
Americans
in
1968
felt
the
injustice of being shipped off
to participate in a war they
did not believe in, all the while
many were not conferred equal
treatment at home, the seminal
2016 presidential election shows
how younger Americans today
widely feel that the current
administration does not reflect
their best interests.
If
the
parallels
between
1968 and 2018 show how well-
positioned younger generations
are to effect change, then the
differences between then and
now highlight how far that change
has brought us in those 50 years.
Five decades ago, America was on
the cusp of achieving its current
status as a fully democratic
republic (in terms of which races
and which citizens were granted
a place in the electorate) — today,
we take those universal liberties
for granted as we exercise them,
even begrudgingly. Students such
as ourselves were the first in this
country to enjoy free speech
protections that we have the
privilege to debate over today,
and many did not even enjoy a
place at the ballot box.
So what lessons does our
past, particularly that which is
simultaneously so close and yet so
far, offer us? 1968 shows the youth
of today just how large a role was
played by their predecessors in
reforming the institutions that
we now consider fundamental,
but it also offers up a cautionary
tale to those who dare to question
their own ability, and with that
their
own
responsibility,
to
change the world for the better.
Amid
the
backdrop
of
furious antiwar protesters who
nonetheless found inadequate
support
in
the
public,
the
misguided
presidential
nomination of pro-war candidate
Hubert Humphrey in August 1968
aptly illustrated the downfall of
such
disengagement.
Enabled
by a system that all but shut out
the popular opinion of his party,
Humphrey’s
nomination
was
characterized
by
a
failure
to “ … realize how deep the
anger and hatred of the young
had become,” and ultimately cost
the Democrats the election that
year. The “antiwar” victor of the
contest, Richard Nixon, would go
on to show the liberal youth who
stayed home that year the cost of
their ambivalence by sacrificing
tens of thousands more American
souls in Southeast Asia.
If the social crusades being
waged today seem relatively
inconsequential, it is because
those of the present always
appear to be. But we must not
forget being at the forefront of
public opinion, as young people,
also places us at the beginning
of change. The fights for better
health care, fairer voting laws and
more universal discrimination
protections today do not loom
nearly as large as their previous
incarnations, but they will go
down as chapters in a horrific
history of complacency if they are
not fought.
Just as we wonder, with
shame, how our country once
permitted
overwhelming
indifference to the lives of its
own citizens, allowed states
to deny suffrage to millions of
voters and stood by while entire
demographics
were
excluded
from
American
life,
future
generations will not look so
kindly upon a generation that
does nothing to continue these
quests for the sake of posterity.
Committing to a future
of greater equality and fairer
governance,
especially
in
light of the struggles of a half-
century ago and the activism
that rose up to meet it, is a
noble aspiration that must
be led by those with the most
to offer. That the window of
ideas deemed acceptable and
achievable is in a constant state
of expansion means that this
class of leaders will continue to
be drawn from the incubators
of youthful spirit, just as it was
in 1968. Looking back on that
historic year will prepare us to
tackle the challenges that lie
ahead, as we are most dutifully
bound to do.
Ellery Rosenzweig can be reached at
erosenz@umich.edu.
Reed Rosenbacher can be reached
at rrosenb@umich.edu.
Should I continue
to watch shows that
I enjoy even if they
have messages I do
not support?
JOIN OUR EDITORIAL BOARD
Our Editorial Board meets Mondays and Wednesdays 7:15-8:45 PM at
our newsroom at 420 Maynard Street. All are welcome to come discuss
national, state and campus affairs.
MICHIGAN DAILY MASS MEETINGS
Attend a mass meeting to learn more about The Daily and our various
sections!
September 13, 17 and 19th at 7pm in The Michigan Daily newsroom at
420 Maynard
Social media makes
teenagers hyper-aware
of their personal image
and the way other
people perceive them
Ethan Kessler can be reached at
ethankes@umich.edu.