THE OLDEST YOUNGER GENERATION
213
tific workers were set to work on a problem-and solutions came off the
assembly line. How should there be individuality, activity, under such
conditions-and the enthusiasm which has always been kindled by a
problem which fires one man? And then, there was no more fame to be
won. The Nobel Prize would finally go to the boss of the group of prob–
lem-solvers, some Dupont. . . . But during the long discussion no one
had raised the question: Why, as a matter of fact, is there all this won–
dering about the agedness of the Younger Generation-and why does it
feel forced to defend itself?
AReflection
Behind the statement in the Salon d'Automne catalog and be–
hind the survey and behind the discussion lies the conception: youth has
a particular physiognomy by nature and the world has a right to it.
It
is only this premise which makes today's youth puzzling and shocking.
To the young as to the old-for they both judge by this premise. Is the
premise correct?
There is something to be said for it. For example, that biologically
and by nature there is such a thing as youth. All the distinguishing
characteristics that follow from vitality are its natural possession. That,
though, is about as far as the eternal character "Youth" goes. But what,
for example, about its proverbial inexperience, inadaptability, refusal of
routine-the springs of illusions and ideals, of follies and new beginnings?
Are they not the possession of every Younger Generation? No!
It
is not in every society (and not in every class of a society) that
youth has the same space
in
which to play and be young. A man born
into a well-to-do Central European family in the last decade of the
nineteenth century could fully develop those traits of youth which to–
day are so missed: individuality, enthusiasm, war on parents and teach–
ers. He belonged to a Younger Generation which gave that glittering
phrase luster.
But not every Younger Generation is a
jeunesse dorh.
The young
rebels within a consolidated society are favorites of fortune, not neces–
sary products. Their society gave them the freedom to be young: un–
spent physically, unfettered in conduct, revolutionary in politics, adven–
turous in thought. Society conceded them, for a limited time, a place
of their own. They had room for childishness, and for genuine rebellion.
Nor was it a quite unselfish concession. The old gentlemen who
granted it, and who were the target of attack, got something out of it–
despite the youthful threats of parricide or even of the slaughter of
