The Nineties have come back to haunt us. Credit: The Crown/IMDB

There’s a scene in the new apocalypse thriller Leave the World Behind in which a 27-year-old character describes the show Friends as “almost nostalgic for a time that never existed”. Her lip curls with contempt as she says it, and not just for the show itself. Because if Friends was guilty of selling a lie — with its shiny, sanitised, notably non-diverse depiction of life in New York — wasn’t its millennial fanbase equally guilty of buying it? When she sneers at Friends, she’s really sneering at herself, for falling for it.
In this, she represents an entire generation’s penchant for repudiating the culture that shaped it. Nostalgia is resentment-tinged among millennials, for whom being downtrodden and disenfranchised has become something of a permanent calling card. Five years ago, it was a truth universally acknowledged that we would be the first cohort to do worse economically than our parents. Crushed by unmanageable college debt, unable to buy houses or start families, and burned out by the endless demands of side hustling, millennials were surely the unluckiest generation.
The only problem with this universally-acknowledged truth is that, actually, it’s not true: a fact that’s become inescapable this year. “Millennials, as a group, are not broke—they are, in fact, thriving economically,” wrote Jean Twenge in The Atlantic in April. “Since the mid-2010s, Millennials on the whole have made a breath-taking financial comeback.” The data backs this up: although the wealth gap between rich and poor persists within the millennial generation, and the housing market makes home ownership slightly more challenging than it used to be, all the catastrophising seems to have been premature. Millennials are doing fine.
And yet, their image as uniquely put-upon has proved persistent — especially among millennials themselves. Once you’ve entrenched a generational narrative, people will continue to identify with it, irrespective of how things may have evolved. For the same reason that the children of the Sixties styled themselves as anti-establishment hippies from the comfort of their corporate offices, millennials have struggled to let go of the sense that there’s something uniquely difficult about their lives — even as they cruise comfortably into middle age, buying homes, having kids, accumulating assets. But if we’re doing well by every available metric, how can we explain the fact that we feel like such losers?
Enter the successor ideology to the debunked myth of the Left-Behind Millennial: the retrospective problematising of the Nineties. This oeuvre of cultural criticism, devoted to uncovering the evil subtext in every entertainment property produced before 2005, makes a certain kind of sense if you understand it as a coping mechanism for a generation that views their adult lives with not just disappointment but a sense of betrayal. The expectations we internalised — that the world was our oyster, that we would have it all — and which reality has so cruelly failed to meet, were the products of a Nineties paradigm in which millennials were not just avid consumers but guilty participants, victims and perpetrators alike.
Hence why, where other generations dabble in more straightforward nostalgia for their formative years, millennials have developed an antagonistic relationship with them, rewriting and reframing it like a therapy patient searching out the hidden darkness in a seemingly happy childhood. (That this has happened in tandem with the widespread creep of therapy-speak into everyday life is surely not a coincidence.) Actually, your parents’ loving marriage was a sham; actually, your fun-loving father was an alcoholic man-child; and actually, Friends was a cesspit of racist sexist heteronormative bigotry masked as feel-good primetime TV.
The reckoning isn’t solely an American phenomenon: the latest season of The Crown, which opens with Princess Diana’s death in 1997 and doubles as a searing indictment of the tabloid culture of the era, is also a fine example of this sort of meta-commentary. But in the US, exposing the dark underbelly of our youthful obsessions has become a genre unto itself. There’s this year’s memoir boom, in which maligned Nineties icons have spoken their truth in documentaries and bestselling books. Paris Hilton’s memoir of abuse at a boarding school for wayward youth reveals that her “celebutante” antics and baby-voiced bimbo persona were the result of hideous trauma; Britney Spears’s tell-all, The Woman in Me, describes how her apparent career renaissance was actually a puppet show in which she dangled on strings held by a father who managed her life, her finances, her reproductive choices, even the choreography of her Vegas comeback show.
Meanwhile, on HBO, Woodstock 99: Peace, Love, and Rage discovers a sinister valence to the gleeful raunch culture of the Girls Gone Wild era, featuring interviews with the musicians and media figures who were once its vanguard. Now, middle-aged and chagrined, they shake their heads in lemon-faced disapproval at the provocations of toxic male pop metal icons like Limp Bizkit — but also at themselves, for being complicit. The question hanging in the air is: how did we ever think this was okay?
And then there’s Monica Lewinsky, who marked the 25th anniversary of the scandal that made her famous with interviews, articles, even a television series — highlighting how her Nineties-era infamy has transformed to become one of the greatest reputational rehabilitations of all time. In 1998, when the story of her affair with then-President Bill Clinton broke, Lewinsky was a Jezebel, a homewrecker, and a punchline to the worst jokes that the slut-shaming culture of the moment could think of. Now, for exactly the same reason, she’s a feminist hero, toast of the Hollywood elite and NYC social pages alike, greeted with a standing ovation when she walks into a room.
But stigma isn’t the only thing Lewinsky has shed: in the old paradigm, a woman in her early twenties who slept with a married man, even a powerful one, was considered an autonomous actor and old enough to know better. In the revised one, she’s not just a victim, but practically a child. Her shame is gone, but so is her agency — and with it, any sense that she may have had a hand in the current shape of her life.
The cultural revisionism that refashions the wanton seductress as a hapless innocent speaks to the interplay of millennial childhood nostalgia with the overwhelming sense that we still aren’t really adults. The same generation that treats grownup responsibilities like bill-paying or doing laundry as a sort of LARP (“adulting”) is also characterised by its insistent and continued interest in childish things. YA fantasy, Funko Pop dolls, and the Marvel Cinematic Universe have supplanted the more sophisticated ideas and aesthetics that were once the hallmarks of adult taste. Even the most acclaimed millennial creators tend to be backward-looking, revisiting and reframing childhood favourites rather than writing something new, fresh, complex, grown-up.
It was the approach to art expressed earlier this year by Greta Gerwig, director of Little Women and Barbie, when she proclaimed that the latter movie was both “doing the thing and subverting the thing” — the thing in question being Barbie’s pink-tinted, stereotypical, sexist tropes. But the bigger thing to accept about Barbie is not just that she’s sexist, but that she’s simple, in the way kids’ stuff tends to be. Where the irony-tinged approach to millennial nostalgia falls short is not in Gerwig’s notion of the thing that is at once done and subverted; it’s in its failure to comprehend that adulthood means putting aside the toys you used to play with, and doing something else.
The fact is, despite all the think pieces, reckoning with the naughtiness of the Nineties ultimately doesn’t change much. Britney Spears, freshly liberated from her conservatorship, may be understood as a victim to be pitied rather than a spectacle to be gawked at — but that doesn’t change the fact that we’re all still gawking. Monica Lewinsky, no matter how sympathetically she is now received in a discourse chagrined by the #MeToo movement, is still only famous for being the owner of a dress covered in Presidential semen. And the videos of women being groped and assaulted at Woodstock ’99, which were aired to such moral indignation in Woodstock 99: Peace, Love, and Rage are still… videos of women being groped. All this revisiting and revising does little, except give us an excuse to relive every titillating tabloid scandal, every salacious moment. The former Nineties kids who engage in this mode of cultural critique are like the murderer who gets off on reliving his crime through confession, almost as much as he got off on the killing itself. There’s an almost giddy subtext to the whole thing: we were so bad!
But of course, we’re also better now. We’re obsessed with the same scandals, but for morally superior reasons. This not only absolves us of our complicity in the raunch mischief of yore, but also conveniently align with the sentiments of the upcoming generation, the Zoomers, who are displacing us as society’s youngest adults whether we want to grow up or not. As the meme goes: How do you do, fellow kids? Maybe if we repudiate our own misspent youth enough, the zoomers will let us glom onto theirs? (They’re already wearing all our old clothes anyway.)
The alternative, wholly unappealing, would be to abandon the protection that permanent adolescence affords — and with it, the central tenet of millennial identity that we have been, and remain, uniquely screwed by circumstance. The self-described “smol bean” who uses “adult” as a verb also maintains a teenager’s belligerent stance toward the world: a conviction that society doesn’t understand you, has left you behind. Millennials may not actually be materially worse off, but our expectations still don’t line up with reality. We still feel disempowered, disenfranchised, and victimised. The problematising of everything Nineties offers a sort of absolution: the expectations-reality gap isn’t our fault, but the fault of a toxic culture.
And as long as we can keep writing bitter think pieces about the heteronormative whiteness of everything we used to love growing up, maybe we don’t actually have to grow up. We don’t have to embrace complexity or develop more sophisticated tastes. We don’t have to confront the uncomfortable limits of victimhood as a safe haven from responsibility — or, for that matter, the uncomfortable truth that Britney’s social media output since winning back her independence raises some serious questions about whether she is in fact equipped to manage her own affairs. Like the therapy patient who returns week after week, year after year, to dwell on the childhood traumas that shaped the man he became, we can linger in this metacritical limbo, virtually forever.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThis is pure guff.
In 2022 Russia arrested 200 people for what they had written on the internet. The UK arrested over 3000! Authoritarian?? Who?? NCHI anyone??
This horrible war was caused by NATO (Org. that allowed the US to seemingly act multilaterally) meddling in Ukraine and freaking the Russians out. We’ve been at it since 2008.
There is a huge mainly untold story behind this conflict that most people are not aware of in the west due to the appalling state of the MSM here. Like Covid, it will come out slowly when this ends.
Ultimately, we want to break Russia up and emasculate it with a weak liberal democracy and a blizzard of international laws and financial ‘treaties’. Why? Because we care about Russians? We believe in freedom and democracy? …. No, they are soundbites for the sheeple … we want/need access to Russias vast range of resources and commodities (that’s why BlackRocks all over Ukraine like a rash) but on our terms, not Putins.
We also want to control the Artic and pressure China. Win win.
So, we tried to use the Ukrainians as a battering ram to see what would happen. You never know it might have weakened Russia/Putin. It failed badly. Still, there are always the 18 year olds to murder … but Zelenskys not playing ball on this one …yet.
This will be the end of western military adventures for a while I think.
“This is pure guff”
I’m glad you warned me about what you were going to write.
Well said, Sir.
Just remind us – which country shoots journalists who upset the President ?
The only “military adventure” going on here is Russia’s. If we stick to the job (defending free and independent countries from tyrants), it will indeed be the last hurrah for the Russian empire. And hopefully a better future for the Russians.
“Journalists who upset the President”? I assume you are talking about public truth-tellers. But still, who are you talking about? Julian Assange? Tommy Robinson? Edward Snowden? Matt Taibbi? Andy Ngo? Tucker Carlson? Alex Jones? Gonzalo Lira? Glenn Greenwald? ALL have been fired, attacked, cancelled and censored in the U.S. and/or Britain at one time or another (Lira was murdered by the Ukrainians). Several have been imprisoned for years. Which ones are you referencing?
A vanishingly small percentage of people still believe the Kremlin’s narrative on Ukraine.
I think you need to get out more.
Merkel admitted the delay in implementing the Minsk Agreements was so Ukraine could rearm.
And she was believed. Funny, because she is a Russian speaker as well.
Who’s paying your wages, Vlad?
Whoever it is, they’re not getting their money’s worth.
Stop with the childish ad hominems and counter my points Rob. Can you? Do you know enough? Or have you been so emotionally captured (Langley have large departments working only on that 24/7) that you are no longer able to process information that might challenge the moral certainty of your warm fuzzy worldview? I fear you’ll have to deal with a bucket load of cognitive dissonance shortly.
It will continue to meddle in internal affairs and the political process of Western democracies.
That would be the US right
All absolutely right…except your last paragraph.
Honestly, the State Dept will find it difficult to spin this when it finally ends (Putin clearly won’t take the fall to save DC face) as it has cost so much and gone so badly. Looking at the front line today we are not far from a rout…. You’d think they might be a little hesitant after this catastrophe … But yes, maybe you’re right .. a new campaign against Iran is certainly not hard to imagine. However we need to remember alas that each enormously expensive failed exercise brings the West (as we know it) closer to its end.
There are some serious logic problems with this analysis. It presents conclusions without premises. And then a dose of self-pitying rhetoric on top.
Lift up the rock and take a peek.
Absolutely.
A good article – the historical analysis is sound. This disdain for human life and the individual is a persistent thread running through the history of the Russian state, broken only by brief periods where a more liberal path might have been taken (1860 – 1881, 1905 – 1917, 1991 – 2000). There is one major difference now which the author has not mentioned though, which is that Russia’s supplies of manpower are no longer inexhaustible. Stalin and Hitler between them used up an entire generation of young men between 1928 and 1953, and population growth never really recovered. The 1990s saw a further demographic dip because of economic chaos and collapse, combined with older social problems such as persistent (largely male) alcoholism. Now Russia suffers from the same low birthrate as most developed economies. The tragedy is that all these factors also apply to Ukraine, which had a much smaller population to begin with, and which unlike Russia has been sending many of its best and bravest to the front. They are not wasted or treated as disposable as Russian soldiers are, and they have tried to protect their youth, but the casualty rates, combined with the outflow of refugees, represent an existential demographic crisis for the country. And let’s be clear, all of this is the fault of Putin and the other creeps – Patrushev, Naryshkin, Shoigu – who surround him. He will go down in history as the greatest slaughterer of Slavs since Stalin.
Largely agree.
However, the good news from the Ukraine war is that we know that quantity alone is not sufficient to win. The Russians are proving to destruction the idea that they will win on numbers alone. Not if you have a brain dead, corrupt, incompetent military (and political leadership) with substandard kit and troops who don’t know why they are there and what they are really fighting for.
Absolutely we need to contain Russian imperialism and keep it in its box (just as we had to throughout the 1800s – e.g. the Crimean War). It is not a new policy. And is – as the author notes – necessary until Russia mends its ways (if it ever does).
And we need to point out to poorer countries around the world that it is indeed the Russians who are the imperialists now.
I disagree about Ukraine dying out. I suspect that in any partition of Ukraine, any Ukrainians in territory being ceded to Russia will leave for the remaining Ukrainian state to the west. The Russians will then – rightly – have to rebuild from scratch the mess they created.
Much of the fault lies with using the delay in implementing the Minsk Agreements to rearm Ukraine.
I’ve almost forgotten her name, but not quite!
Both Russia and Ukraine (and the US from the mid 1960s onwards and, by extension, to probably all countries now) have middle classes who won’t fight. The Ukrainians say they are trying to protect their young but what they really mean (and everyone knows it) is that their young middle class males won’t defend their country. Why in heaven’s name Europe came to the aid of a country whose young men won’t fight for it is something that will be discussed when the war ends.
“This collective indifference to human losses may be baffling to Ukraine’s Western allies, who operate on the assumption that their soldiers’ lives are valuable, and casualties should be minimised“. I don’t know why it should be baffling. It is how Russia has always conducted itself (as the author eloquently points out).
“Ukraine’s western allies” are, unfortunately, not as well educated as Anastasia Edel.
Two years ago I remember reading in many places that for Russia, Ukraine would be “as bad as Stalingrad”. Yet Russians, even those sceptical of the current war, still think of Stalingrad as the finest hour in their nation’s history
Well, they did win at Stalingrad. I’ll give them that.
Ukraine teaches the west how to kill russians cheaply at scale. The west is ungrateful for that opportunity. Ukraine should be supported in expanding its capacity to do so and protect it’s own people and soldiers. That capacity is unfortunately needed to live in “peace” with russia and always has been.
A very strong article, which shows the kernel of the Ukranian tragedy is Russian expansionism not western hubris. Russia was always going to do this.
But surely some Russians are more intelligent than this.
Probably. Its just that those Russians currently reside in Siberia, and don’t get out much.
I keep hearing about Russia’s vast reserves of manpower. India or China, fair enough. But Russia? 150 million people isn’t huge; it’s barely twice the population of the U.K.
People are going to be so shocked to find out what they are being kept from finding out, and the pressure to open up and tell the truth will come from the biggest Nato member!
It is in fact, it is just getting started… All of the globalist war mongering NGOs are starting to get defunded, and USAID officials are being put on “paid leave”.. The money trails are getting sniffed out!
There is a realization I’ve had recently is that Russia isn’t really a western country, the Russian culture is not a western culture. The fundamentals ideals of the West from the Enlightenment, with an emphasis on individual rights and the value of each person; however the Western tradition is one that was imported into Russian and was never something that was really part of the Russian psyche.
It thus behooves westerners to realize that Russia is more like an eastern country, with an emphasis on the good of the individual being subordinate to the good of the society, the importance of knowing your place and doing your job, and the inherit acceptance of autocracy. This can even be seen in the propaganda around sacrifice. In the west we view sacrifice as a path to glory, look at the Charge of the Light Brigade, but the Russian doesn’t emphasize how you can secure immortality and glory for yourself but your place as a member of the Russian people.
Until you understand that you can understand the Russian motivation or the way it operates with human lives being a resource to be used, it will be difficult to understand the reality of Russian motivation or behavior. They will pursue it long, however it turns out that this type of willingness to turn the ground red with blood does have its costs and can be overcome, it’s just often a terrifying cost especially when facing a country of 100 million.
I agree with what you say, but I can’t work out why you have only just realized it.
“As long as Russia remains an expansionist empire, it will pose a constant threat to smaller democratic states on its borders. It will continue to meddle in internal affairs and the political process of Western democracies.”
Containment is the only answer, which requires a ramp-up of inventory, reactive capacity and western European sense of nationhood.
“Moscow” has not suffered 700,000 casualties. Most of the cannon fodder have come from the poor and distant regions and not from Moscow. The reality of war has to be kept from the people who keep Putin in power.
Nice history lesson, though a bleak outlook.