Activity 3: Critical Essay

In my Comp 106 class at the University of Michigan- Dearborn, we were all handed an article to read titled “Generational Myth” written by Siva Vaidhyanathan. This article is about the assumption by older generations that all young people must be tech-savvy because they grew up during the rise of technology. The author’s opinion differs against this assumption. Adding the opinions and voices of young people into “Generational Myth” will only support the effectiveness of the article Vaidhyanathan wants to portray.

The same claim can be made for Vaidhyanathan’s “Generational Myth” as for Bauerlein’s “The Dumbest Generation.” This claim is: It is “strongly argued but the voices of those who concern the author are curiously absent.” In the case of “Generational Myth,” the voices of those who concern the author” are voices of people in the age range of 18-23 year olds. Vaidhyanathan acknowledged that he is a college professor and the only evidence he provides from outside sources is that of other professors and authors who are obviously not in the college age range. The only voices heard in this article are those of scholars who are a part of an older generation. Although he believes that not all college-aged people have an extensive knowledge of computers, cellular phones, or any other types of technologies for that matter, it would have been even more effective if there were actual quotes provided by his students to back his statements and arguments up.

There are many things that could have come in the author’s advantage if he would have added the opinions of the generation being discussed. By simply adding the viewpoints of “those who concern the author,” the article would have been more convincing for those who were not impressed with reading it the first time. It is unfair and inadequate for anyone other than the people in the age group of 18-23 to speak for them. All of the voices heard in the article are those of scholars who are professors and are only providing their own personal opinion based on their observances and assumptions of their students. No one knows the facts and the opinions of 18-23 year olds better than 18-23 year olds themselves. Also, by adding the voices of that generation, Vaidhyanathan’s argument would have proven many of the scholars wrong, and that was the goal he was trying to achieve in his article. Vaidhyanathan’s article could become immensely stronger with the add-in of those different viewpoints.

Excluding the voices of “those who concern the author” has little, if no value to the article. If Vaidhyanathan’s opinion was that of those who think that all young people have an assumed knowledge of all kinds of technologies, then not providing the voices of his students would be beneficial to his argument. But Vaidhyanathan’s opinion is truly the opposite of those scholars who he quoted in this article. By excluding these voices, his article remains the same and has no extra influence on my view of it. If Vaidhyanathan did include the voices that represent my generation (people in the age group of 18-23), then I really do think that I would have agreed with all of the points that he tries to argue. Those points would have been well rounded and researched to the fullest. But Vaidhyanathan’s argument is not weakened at all by his choice not to include the voices of “those who concern the author.”

“Generation Myth” was an article written by Siva Vaidhyanathan with the intention to open up the eyes to all who read it about the assumptions that the younger generations are all tech-savvy. The voices of this generation are not heard once in this article. Although it would have only been more support for the author’s argument, it did not damper the article at all.