SMOKERS’ CORNER: MANUFACTURING GEN-Z

The 21st century’s cultural terrain has fostered an unusual sociological phenomenon: the over-analysis of an entire demographic. Whereas researchers have studied youth cohorts since the 1960s, none have faced quite as intense a spotlight as Generation Z (henceforth Gen-Z).

Born between 1997 and 2012, this group is the first to be fed constant digital data portraits of their own behaviour. Cultural commentators repeatedly insist that Gen-Z do not strive for traditional academic or career goals and are rebuffing them. Yet, in a case of what is referred to as a meta-paradox, Gen-Z are feeling the pressure to perform the very definitions assigned to them by market analysts and some sociologists.

When corporate-backed surveys repeatedly declare that Gen-Z is anxious, boundary-setting and radical, the generation feels compelled to stage their lives to match these expectations, simply to feel visible. This performative trap exists in the various spaces that this generation largely operates in.

Data portraits from firms such as Deloitte and the McKinsey Health Institute routinely label Gen-Z as a cohort that prioritises mental health and work-life balance. While this is often celebrated as “quiet quitting”, the reality is more intricate. A young professional might feel social pressure to log off from work at exactly 5:00pm to live up to traits such as better work-life balance, even if privately they want to stay late to get ahead.

Before Gen-Z could even define itself, marketers and cultural commentators had already done it for them, thus trapping an entire generation into performing an identity created by others

They log off because cultural commentators have decided that this is what makes this generation ‘authentic’. This identity construction is less about genuine self-discovery and more about acquiring the social currency needed to fit in specific peer groups.

Illustration by Abro

Cultural commentators frame Gen-Z as the most stressed demographic in history, a phenomenon American social psychologist Jonathan Haidt explores in The Anxious Generation. According to Haidt, this has turned vulnerability into a form of social belonging. Haidt writes that, in a digitally saturated environment, sharing psychological distress has shifted from a private struggle to a public badge of identity. This has popularised the concept of “digital therapy-speak”, which the Spanish scholar Dr Carme Isern-Mas defines as “the superficial integration of clinical jargon into casual conversation.”

Gen-Z often feels that, to be heard, they must adopt the vocabulary of trauma. I recently saw a social media post by a 20-year-old lad who attributed standard anxiety attacks to full episodes of “schizophrenia”. While his experience was objectively minor, his choice of words shows how peer pressure to conform to online medical narratives drives youth to over-pathologise normal human distress, just to make their struggles visible.

Previous generations navigated these identity crises somewhat differently. In their youth, Baby Boomers (born between 1945 and 1964) viewed mainstream social norms as controlling mechanisms imposed by their parents’ generation. They counteracted this by turning to political activism, communal living and alternative spiritualities. Yet, when the 1973 international oil crisis destabilised the global economy, the ‘counterculture’ that young Boomers had shaped was quickly co-opted. As a result, Boomers became willing targets of ‘radical chic’ marketing, adopting tamed repackaged trends and eventually evolving into slightly ‘cooler’ versions of those that they had originally rebelled against.

My own cohort, Generation X (born between 1965 and 1981), initially baffled corporate strategists who mistakenly treated this generation as an extension of the changing Boomers. But this confusion was upended in 1991 by Canadian visual artist and writer Douglas Coupland’s novel Generation X: Tales for an Accelerated Culture. Coupland reframed Gen-X as a disaffected, sardonic, cynical group that loved to demonstrate ironies. They viewed the world with deep scepticism, popularising the battle cry, “I am not a target market.”

While Gen-X initially resisted corporate capture by constantly shifting their cultural alignments, American media theorist Douglas Rushkoff observed that, when Gen-X did eventually buy into commercial culture, they did so through a lens of detached irony. By using the tools of branding to mock the brands themselves, Gen-X turned co-option into a subversive game.

Millennials (born between 1982 and 1996) took the opposite approach. They dissolved the barrier between consumer and brand. As a 2014 report by the Boston Consulting Group highlighted, Millennials did not mind being targeted by corporations, provided the brands aligned with their personal values.

According to Mexican researcher Flor Madrigal Moreno, Millennial consumer choices became deeply tied to peer validation. By transferring their trust to early social media influencers who packaged vulnerability as honesty, Millennials normalised the commercial spaces Gen-X once mocked, turning personal identity into a marketable asset.

This paved the way for the hyper-staged, data-driven performances of Gen-Z. When a Gen-Z trend goes viral, they internalise them. For example, a survey found that nearly a quarter of Gen-Z adults actively engage in ‘bed rotting’ (slang for intentionally staying in bed for a prolonged period while awake). This demonstrates how quickly these digital labels translate into lifestyle choices.

Gen-Z feels compelled to broadcast such behaviours online to validate their generational identity. According to the Canadian-American social critic Jia Tolentino, even the rejection of performance becomes performative. Even a simple act has to be given a label and broadcasted.

When every emotion, lifestyle choice, and political stance is categorised by media and cultural commentators before it can even be fully felt, authenticity becomes a commodity. To paraphrase the American researcher Venkatesh Rao, today’s youth remain trapped in a hall of mirrors, acting out a script written by marketers and sociologists, forever policing their own lives to match the definitions they never asked to be given.

Take the whole patter about ‘Gen-Z revolutions’. Young people have been at the core of uprisings, especially from the 18th century on. Historically, youth-led uprisings succeeded because they were unpredictable. The concept of a ‘Gen-Z Revolution’ is an uprising like any other in history. The difference is, Gen-Z is trapped in a meta-paradox, where the market does not merely co-opt their rebellion, it actively generates it.

Recently, many cultural commentators have hailed Gen-Z’s protests against Israeli atrocities in Gaza. Yet, had a tragedy of this scale occurred during the Boomer era, that cohort would have responded with equal vehemence, just as they did against the US war in Vietnam. Gen-X would have done the same, as demonstrated by their fierce protests against unchecked corporate globalisation and multinationals, while Millennials turned out in their millions to march against the Iraq War.

As Tolentino puts it, young people should stop performing the scripts written for them. These are written to turn young men and women into curated consumers for brands who have even commodified ‘revolutions’.

Published in Dawn, EOS, July 19th, 2026 ...