“If you don’t know, now you know.”
-The Notorious B.I.G.
“Witness the American ideal: The Self‑Made Man. But there is no such person … If, as adults, we can lay claim to competence and compassion, it only means that other human beings have been willing and enabled to commit their competence and compassion to us …”
-The Urie Bronfenbrenner P.H.D.
I doubt Urie Bronfenbrenner ever listened to Biggie Smalls. But if he had, I imagine he would have nodded along — not just to the rhythm, but to the deeper truths hidden in Biggie’s stories.
Biggie’s lyrics painted a vivid picture of complexity — family struggles, neighborhood pressures, and the larger systemic forces shaping his life and community. Similarly, Bronfenbrenner, a renowned developmental psychologist, created a framework to help us understand how young people grow and thrive within layered, interconnected environments.
[Related: Shared advocacy and sustainable financing — Making a “big picture” case for community supports]
Unfortunately, when many of us design experiences or create policies for young people, we tend to overlook this complexity. Instead, we often rely on broad generational labels, such as “Gen Z,” to describe large groups of youth. While this practice may seem harmless and convenient, it actually limits our understanding of young people’s true needs and can inadvertently create barriers rather than meaningful engagement.
Both Bronfenbrenner’s research and Biggie’s storytelling remind us of an essential truth: real understanding requires looking deeper.
The Limits of Generational Labels
Today, much of our talk about young people is framed in generational terms. Marketers, educators and even policymakers rely on shorthand like “Gen Z” or “Gen Alpha.” These categories offer an easy way to describe broad groups of youth who came of age in a shared historical moment.
To be fair, this framing does capture something important: it acknowledges the power of the influence of time and history on development or, as Bronfenbrenner put it, the chronosystem. It reminds us that kids who grew up with smartphones or social media inhabit a different world than kids who didn’t.
But the concern is that generational labels stop there. They collapse all the developmental phases within that generation into one big block. A 12-year-old navigating the first steps of adolescence and a 22-year-old entering the workforce may both be “Gen Z,” but their developmental needs, capabilities, and vulnerabilities couldn’t be more different. Relying only on generational categories risks oversimplifying, stereotyping and overlooking the specific supports young people need at each stage.
Bronfenbrenner’s Lens: Seeing the Layers
Courtesy of Daniel Warren
Daniel Warren
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory provides a clearer and more nuanced view. He explains that a child’s development is shaped by multiple, interconnected layers of influence:
- Microsystem: Immediate environments, such as family, school or peers. (Think about Biggie’s mother, his close friends in Brooklyn.)
- Mesosystem: Interactions between different microsystems, like the relationship between home life and school experiences. (Biggie struggled with conflicting expectations at school versus the streets.)
- Exosystem: Broader influences like community resources, local economics or media portrayals. (Biggie was deeply influenced by neighborhood conditions and systemic economic pressures.)
- Macrosystem: Societal and cultural beliefs, norms and structures such as racism or expectations about success. (Biggie often criticized these larger societal forces in his music.)
- Chronosystem: The ways experiences and environments change over time. (Biggie’s narratives shifted from youthful experiences toward reflections on adulthood.)
This layered approach makes clear why it’s not enough to say “Gen Z is like this.” The historical context matters, yes, but it intersects with family life, community resources, cultural expectations and developmental stage. Bronfenbrenner shows us how these forces work together in real young people’s lives.
Youth Programs Through Different Eyes
Consider an afterschool program serving young people from middle school through early adulthood.
- Generational thinking: Program leaders might say, “Gen Z loves tech,” and fill the program with tablets, apps and social media tie-ins. This captures the chronosystem, the reality that today’s youth are digital natives, but it doesn’t account for age-specific needs.
- Developmental thinking: Leaders would design different experiences for different age groups. Younger adolescents might get structured activities that support peer relationships and safe identity exploration. Older youth might be given leadership roles, career mentoring or opportunities to use tech for advocacy and creativity.
- Integrated thinking: The strongest programs do both. They recognize the generational context (digital fluency, cultural touchpoints), but they tailor how that reality is engaged depending on the developmental stage. Tech might be used for collaborative digital storytelling with middle schoolers, while for older youth it might support internships, skill-building or college preparation.
This layered approach acknowledges the broad cultural moment while honoring the developmental realities of different ages. The result: programs that are not only relevant, but also developmentally supportive and ethically responsible.
Seeing Clearly Together
Biggie understood something profound: real life isn’t simple. It’s shaped by layers of relationships, environments and systems. Bronfenbrenner shared this understanding, giving us a powerful lens to see beyond surface-level assumptions.
[Related: In San Antonio, TX, youth development programs work together toward a shared vision of youth thriving]
If we genuinely care about creating meaningful, supportive experiences for youth, we must move beyond labels and into deeper understanding. Let’s commit to designing, teaching and leading with an awareness of the developmental realities that define young people’s lives.
In other words, let’s learn to see youth as clearly as Biggie and Bronfenbrenner did.
And if we didn’t know before — well, now we do.
***
Daniel Warren is Director, Youth Development & Education at Fluent Research. He holds a B.S. in psychology from Northeastern University and a Ph.D. in human development and child study from Tufts University.
Bronfenbrenner, child development, community, ecological systems theory, Feature Story, Gen Alpha, Gen Z, generational labels, Urie Bronfenbrenner, Youth Development, youth program
