Roots and Branches: The Silent Struggle Between Generations

Every generation carries its own voice, language, and emotional rhythm. Yet sometimes these voices fail to harmonize, separated by an invisible “silent wall” between generations. In today’s societies, this gap has become increasingly visible. For older generations, life is often defined by labor, stability, and a value system rooted in tradition. For younger generations, it is a quest for self-expression, individuality, and change. These two worldviews often appear to clash.

In the past, conflicts such as “father and son” or “mother and daughter” disputes usually stemmed from differences in upbringing and domestic behavior. Today, however, intergenerational differences increasingly resemble intercultural divides. Even when sharing the same household, individuals can feel as if they are living in different eras, a phenomenon amplified by globalization (Inglehart, 2018).

For instance, those born in the 1970s and 1980s valued independence movements, ideologies, and stable income as cornerstones of life. In contrast, the “Generation Z,” growing up after 2000, prioritizes self-discovery and emotional well-being. Stability is less motivating than change; rules are less appealing than freedom. These differences manifest not only in lifestyles but also in thought patterns and emotional frameworks.

Sociologist Karl Mannheim explored this concept in the last century, coining it the “problem of generations.” He argued that each generation responds differently to the historical events of its time, creating variations in value systems (Mannheim, The Problem of Generations, 1928). For example, a generation shaped by wartime scarcity may prize patience and frugality, while the following generation, raised in relative abundance and freedom, emphasizes individuality.

In the Azerbaijani context, this divide is strikingly apparent. Parents who lived through war, Soviet ideology, and periods of economic stability often hold “steady jobs,” “modest living,” and “patience” as core values. Today’s youth, however, are shaped by technology, personal freedom, and global cultural influences. For them, risk is not a threat but an opportunity. What parents perceive as danger, the younger generation may view as a goal.

A recent social survey on youth conducted by sociologist Shafa Aliyeva in 2022 (Baku Center for Social Sciences, 2022) revealed a striking discrepancy between young people and their parents. Among participants aged 18–25, 67% reported feeling that “my family doesn’t understand me.” Meanwhile, 72% of the parents surveyed responded that “I am friends with my child.” This gap highlights that while emotional closeness is desired, there is a significant lack of mutual understanding.

The generational divide cannot simply be explained by differences in thinking. It also stems from differing technological, social, and moral experiences. For older generations, information came primarily from books and television, whereas today’s youth rely on social media, influencers, and trending platforms. Knowledge now flows less from family and society, and more from the global digital sphere. Young people learn about the world not from their parents, but from TikTok; they experience love not through their mothers, but through Netflix. While this new form of knowledge expands individual horizons, it can narrow familial understanding.

Many parents struggle to comprehend the digital worlds their children inhabit because these worlds differ so sharply from their own realities. For example, a young person saying “I work on social media” may sound perfectly normal, but for a 50-year-old parent, it can seem equivalent to unemployment. This reflects a social manifestation of the generational gap between values and reality.

One key factor widening this divide is the pace of change. Sociologist Zygmunt Bauman described the modern era as one of “Liquid Modernity,” in which identities are no longer fixed and everything is flexible, transient, and temporary (Bauman, 2000). The younger generation grows up within this fluidity, where rapid adaptation and change are survival strategies. For parents, however, this same flexibility can appear as indecision or instability.

Cultural and economic differences further complicate matters. Parents were often guided by the principle: “find a job, start a family, live steadily.” Today, the labor market is unstable, technologies evolve annually, and even the concept of a “career” has transformed. Young people prioritize growth and personal alignment over stability. For them, happiness is not merely financial comfort but also answering the question: “Who am I?”

According to sociologist Ronald Inglehart’s theory of values, as economic security increases, people shift from a focus on “physical survival” to “self-expression.” This holds particularly true for Generation Z, who have not experienced war or famine but grow up amidst moral uncertainty and an unpredictable future. Consequently, parental advice such as “get a job, start a family” may feel less like guidance and more like pressure.

The widening generational gap has given rise to what sociologists describe as a “culture of misunderstanding.” While generations may listen to each other, genuine comprehension often falls short. Young people want to “live their own lives,” while parents urge, “listen to my experience.” Both perspectives are valid, yet they speak the logic of different worlds.

This phenomenon extends beyond the family home. It is evident in workplaces, education systems, and public debates. In a company, for instance, a 50-year-old manager may prioritize stability and discipline, while a 25-year-old employee values creativity and flexibility. At universities, traditional teaching methods may be upheld by professors, whereas students increasingly seek practical experiences and interactive learning. Such clashes fuel a continuous negotiation between tradition and innovation.

In Azerbaijan, this generational divide is shaped by historical transitions and uneven modernization. Social upheavals of the 1990s, the shift from Soviet values to a market economy, and the search for religious and national identity created vastly different experiences across generations. For a 50-year-old, “national identity” and “tradition” signify preservation; for a 20-year-old, “freedom of expression” and “being different” define identity.

According to a 2023 report by the Baku Institute for Social Research, 61% of young people expressed concern that “my family interferes with my worldview,” while 70% of parents agreed that “young people grow up too freely.” These findings suggest that social contact persists, but the quality of mutual understanding has weakened.

Communication is not only about words; it is shaped by cultural language norms. Rapid technological advances, however, have not just altered language, they have created a new “digital dialect” between generations. Within the same household, a single phrase can carry entirely different meanings. What a parent considers a “meeting” may imply a face-to-face conversation, while for a young person, it happens via Zoom or another online platform. Similarly, “friendship” once denoted real-life interaction, whereas today it is measured in “Follow” and “Add Friend” clicks.

The generational divide is not merely technological, it reflects a fundamental shift in how the world is perceived. Generation Z, born into the digital era, thinks, feels, and communicates alongside technology. For them, information is instantly accessible, time moves fast, and attention is fragmented. Sociologists refer to this phenomenon as “digital nativity” (Prensky, Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, 2001). Older generations, or “analogs,” adapted to technology later; for them, the internet is a tool, whereas for young people, it is an inseparable part of reality.

Digital culture has also created a new emotional code. Emojis, GIFs, and abbreviations like “LOL,” “OMG,” and “TBH” now serve as translators of feelings. Parents often struggle to interpret these codes, as their emotional expression relies on words, while younger people communicate through symbols. Consequently, verbal understanding may exist across generations, but emotional comprehension declines.

For example, a young person might text their mother “I’m fine” accompanied by a :( emoji. The parent reads only the words and feels reassured, yet the emoji may convey emotions that words alone cannot express. This simple illustration demonstrates that language has become both a visual and emotional system.

Psychologist Sherry Turkle highlights this dynamic: “Technology makes us closer, but at the same time weakens face-to-face connection. We talk, but we don’t touch” (Turkle, Alone Together, 2011). In an Azerbaijani context, one can observe a family of four sitting at the dinner table, each engaged with a separate screen, talking but not truly looking at one another.

Sociologist Manuel Castells explains this through his concept of the “Network Society”: modern identity is shaped not by geographic space but by the flow of information. Generation Z forms its sense of self within this flow. For them, space is virtual, time is fluid, and relationships are temporary.

Technology’s influence on language is also reshaping cultural identity. In everyday Azerbaijani speech, this shift is evident: expressions like “ok,” “like,” “story atmaq,” “post eləmək,” and “joining a meeting” have become part of daily conversation. While parents may view these as “linguistic corruption,” for young people they represent a link to global identity.

These changes affect not only communication but also the form of emotional bonds. Friendships now often begin on online platforms, relationships continue through messaging, and breakups are marked by the “seen” status rather than direct confrontation. This creates an era in which human interactions conclude not with silence, but with digital quiet.

Such differences generate emotional distance within families and society. The digital generation perceives parents’ emotions as “heavy,” while parents often see their children’s behavior as “cold.” Both sides communicate, yet in different languages. According to the 2024 “Intergenerational Communication” survey conducted by the Azerbaijan Youth Foundation, 58% of respondents reported that “my parents disapprove of my use of technology,” while 42% said “their inability to understand my work distances me.” These results indicate that technology tunes not only devices but also emotional connections to different frequencies.

The most profound generational divide is not technological, it lies in value systems. Values shape human behavior, relationships, and perceptions of life. Each generation grows up within the historical, economic, and cultural realities of its era, which define notions of right and wrong. Today, however, values change so rapidly that generations increasingly view each other as holders of “alien philosophies.”

For previous generations, morality was closely tied to rules, patience, and self-sacrifice. Respect, obedience, and strong family bonds were the key measures of a person’s worth, reflecting a value system forged during periods of social stability. For today’s youth, however, morality increasingly emphasizes self-loyalty, maintaining one’s identity, and finding one’s own path. Traditional values are gradually giving way to individuality and personal freedom.

Family, once considered the cornerstone of society, is no longer the ultimate life goal for younger generations. “Getting married” once signified adulthood, but today, relationships are a choice, not a necessity. Emotional compatibility and mutual understanding form the foundation of modern partnerships, rather than social obligation.

Sociologist Ulrich Beck’s concept of the “Risk Society” describes how people now build lives around freedom of choice, moving away from fixed social roles. This shift has transformed gender roles as well. Previously, a woman’s primary identity often centered on family; today, women increasingly define themselves through career, personal development, and independence. For older generations, traditional notions (such as “a daughter should stay at home” or “a son must support a family”) remain influential, yet for the new generation, such ideas are perceived as social molds rather than prescriptions.

Work, once a means of providing for the family and securing stable income, now serves as a form of self-expression. Young people prioritize meaningful work over mere salary. The principle of “doing what you love” has become an ideal. In Azerbaijan, this shift is visible as youth increasingly pursue freelance, startup, and remote work opportunities, favoring flexibility over traditional office stability. What parents view as a “risky” path is interpreted by the younger generation as a symbol of independence.

Patience, once linked to long-term loyalty and staying in one job for years, is now sometimes seen as stagnation. Younger generations are less tolerant of static systems, as adaptability has become integral to their lifestyle. In this sense, the generational divide extends beyond work practices to work philosophy.

Freedom has also been redefined. Where once it was measured by adherence to rules, today it signifies self-knowledge and self-expression. For the youth, freedom is not only the ability to act but also the liberty of thought and emotion. “Not censoring oneself” is now considered a component of morality.

These differences can create tension within families. For example, a young woman may post photos on social media, which parents may perceive as improper, while her intent is often to build self-confidence and visibility. This highlights a cultural clash between traditional morality and personal freedom.

Psychologist Jonathan Haidt’s theory of moral intuitions explains that differences in morality often arise not from conflicting values per se, but from differing emotional priorities. For parents, “feeling shame” represents social harmony; for youth, “not feeling shame” signifies self-acceptance.

At the deepest, most subtle layer of the generational divide lies an emotional and psychological distance, often measured not in words but in silence. Frequently, generations do not speak because they feel differently, think differently, and interpret experiences through different lenses.

Parents may perceive the world of young people as “excessive” or “irreversibly changing,” while youth often see adults as “incomprehensible” or “stuck in the past.” This mutual misunderstanding, however, stems not merely from conflicting values but from fundamentally different worldviews and life experiences.

Psychologist Erik Erikson’s analysis of human development highlights that each stage of life involves its own “identity crisis.” Adolescence centers on answering the question, “Who am I?” In contrast, parents often occupy the stage of “Who have I become?” One searches, the other protects. One seeks change, the other stability. This tension reflects a deeper desire to connect across generations, yet spoken in different languages.

Modern youth prioritize individuality, freedom, and personal choice, while parents remain shaped by collective thinking, family obligations, and societal expectations. Both sides believe they are “right,” though this notion of correctness is historically and socially contextual (Beck, 1992). Ideally, the family should function as a space for dialogue and listening, yet in many households, this transition has not occurred, creating an emotional barrier.

This psychological distance also arises from differences in emotional literacy. Younger generations tend to express feelings openly, seeking conversation, sharing experiences, and consulting professionals as a natural part of life. Older generations were raised with models that emphasized experiencing emotions quietly, enduring in silence, and not outwardly displaying feelings. As a result, one generation finds freedom in expression, the other security in restraint.

Psychologists term this phenomenon the “emotional generation gap” (Twenge, 2019). Generations differ not only in thought patterns but also in emotional regulation. For instance, a young person sharing sadness on social media may appear to a parent as seeking attention or inappropriate, whereas for the youth, it serves as a vital method of emotional healing.

This psychological distance extends into society, fostering broader emotional disengagement. People often assess and compare each other’s feelings rather than truly understanding them. Empathy diminishes, and generations may see each other without truly hearing one another.

Yet, there is a way to shorten this gap: emotional dialogue. Neither generation needs to become alike, nor should one attempt to change the other. Instead, both must learn to listen, comprehend, and accept each other’s emotions. Bridges are strongest when built upon differences.

If understanding is not cultivated today, tomorrow’s society risks deeper emotional isolation. Young people may speak but not be heard, and adults may communicate without being listened to. Every family, school, and street has the potential to serve as a small bridge, one side of the screen, the other side of the silence.

The future of society depends not solely on technological advancement, but on the quality of human dialogue. Without learning empathy, even the most advanced devices will become walls separating us.

The social message of this reflection is simple yet profound: striving to understand one another is the greatest social innovation. Technology may bring us physically closer, but understanding unites us. Different generations do not need to be the same, they simply need to learn to hear each other.

Nigar Shahverdiyeva