Basics of Generational Theory

[The Grey Badger]

432 years sounds like what I've been calling the MegaSaeculum, as noted by Toynbee et. al. I notice this precisely matches the time (on the Anglo-American timeline) from the Battle of Bosworth to World War I, which I've always said was a Cultural MegaCrisis, since the world thereafter would not be recognizable to either an Elizabethan nor a Victorian. So this period is the life of Western Civilization, or at least, Western Civilization 1.0

[jgreenhall]

It certainly seems that there *could* be longer length cycles, but to have an anchor one would need to find causal regularities that would resonate-up to form cycles. I read with interest Michael Alexander's Cycles in American Politics, particularly the portions where he identifies the "innovation wave" as a relatively invariant driver of economic cycles. Generational Dynamics, of course, rests on the crucial foundation of the relative invariant of the human life-span (and, I might add some assumptions about the formation of human psychology and human "stages of life" - all of which seem to be well founded, but are certainly foundational hypotheses). At the limit, they speak to the natural limit of the human-to-human memory.

So, if there are longer-length cycles, we can look for them statistically - but it would also be useful to try to find mechanisms that would drive these cycles. I can imagine several:

- Some version of the telephone game as applied to human memory. An information-entropy model showing how long a foundational story can propagate through generational cycles before it becomes thematic "noise". Thus, while none of us (presumably) actually lived through the depression and WWII, we can still talk about both events - encapsulated in our cultural mythology. Just as we can talk about the civil war and the american revolution. All of which resonate with us at a mythological level in a way that, for example, the glorious revolution and the war of the roses does not. As the heroes of a crisis rally to defend something, the have to identify what that something is. That something is going to be the historically diluted residue of previous cycles. (Compare the something that was defended by the American GI's vs. their German opposite numbers and recognize that both followed the same mechanism - just different residues). If there is some regular rate of entropy here, that would give rise to a longer length cycle.

- Generational "unwindings". The idea here is that various concepts, habits and beliefs serve as a sort of "storage medium" of culture and it takes time for these things to unwind. These would form a kind of "cultural hydrocarbon" that in building store-up substantial psychological-cultural energy and that then take some equivalent amount of energy to wind-down. Take racism, for example, as manifested from the 16th century through the 20th century as a building and then unwinding concept. First discovered as a concept capable of synthesizing the competing demands of colonialism with the values of the enlightenment, quickly allied with the rising needs of nationalism and, along they way, integrated neatly into the models of science (first philology and then biology). The playing-out of "racism" (as an ideo-mythic storage unit of history) became a key driver for every american turning from the late 1600's on. The heroes of the revolution were able to compromise around it relatively bloodlessly, while the civil war was marked by the unwinding of the original rationale of racism (slavery) combined with the "undead" propogation of its spirit (jim crow, etc). Civil rights coming out of WWII became one of the core elements of the 60's awakening and, of course, we now find ourselves at what might be the tail-end of the current phase of the unwinding in the present election. The point is not the specific content, but the concept that turnings don't happen in a vacuum - they happen upon a medium and that medium is culture. One can conceptualize culture as a series of "problems" and it is the working-out of these problems that becomes the work of the turnings. Any given problem (economy, religion and race certainly seem to be enduring ones) becomes a long-cycle driver.

- Others?


So, if Toynbee presents a 500 year cycle, what is the underlying mechanism?

[scotths]

Today's bitter political battles are generational. Obama's main
attraction has been to young Millennials and Gen-Xers, because they
identify with his contempt for Boomer and Silent generation values
and accomplishments. McCain's main attraction has been to Boomers
and Silents, because of his age and his focus on security.

I'm going to have to disagree with this... Interestingly of late there has been a significant shift in the polls which actually disagrees with what you are saying... Consider the Oct 29 dkos/R2000 tracking poll. Note the following....

McCain/Obama
18-29 33/63
30-44 51/44
45-49 43/49
60+ 44/49

Northeast 36/60
South 55/38
Midwest 42/55
West 41/53

Note that the seniors have trended towards Obama and now give him a narrow lead. Generation X has trended towards McCain, note the 30-44 split! The division that held true earlier is no longer. I understand the trend has come largely from white males.

I don't think we are nearly as divided as we were in 1860, but I believe in this election we are largely divided along the same lines. The northern block of states won will be very similar to the 1860 election, with the addition of NM and CO (Hispanics) VA and NC (blacks who couldn't vote previously) and FL (senior migration). In 1932 southern whites along with all minorities and northern blacks were opposed by a largely white northern republican party. The one group that stands out the most as being left out of that coalition was the New England whites. Obama's coalition seems to be the reverse in that regard. He has minorities and blacks from all parts of the country, and northern (especially New England and related areas) whites and is opposed by a party made up largely of southern whites.

I'm not sure what to make of the geographical division, though I must note that I am not happy with what we've been seeing at McCain/Palin rallies. Cries of "Kill him" and "terrorist" are completely inappropriate in our politics and should be soundly denounced by Palin and McCain. In addition I don't appreciate the insinuation that those who might disagree with the Republican policies are in fact un-American. Different point of view are possible, no need to denounce opponents in that way.

Lastly I am going to have to disagree with your rational for Millennials and Gen Xers views. First, Millennials are a very group oriented generation. A leader who calls upon them to pull together and work together to solve problems will win their votes. They are a very multi-ethnic generation and leaders that attempt to divide this country along ethnic (or other) lines won't do well with them. I think this is part of the reason why the Republicans have failed so miserably with connecting with this generation.

Gen X-ers on the other hand as you can see above are probably McCain's best demographic at this point. They are probably (as any nomad generation) suspicious of government institutions and thus suspicous of what Obama and the millies might be tying to accomplish. The switch from social to fiscal issues which probably helped draw in the elderly and eliminate McCain's lead I suspect is actually having the opposite effect on this demographic which may have been more comfortable going along with the democrats on social issues than on economic issues. I would argue also with your suggestion above that gen-xers have strong feeling of jealousy towards older generations. As a gen-xer I would have to say that isn't true. Nevertheless, I feel that our current crop of leaders have not been doing a good job. In my life so far I have never seen the government as badly run. The complete inability to deal with Hurricane Katrina really drove the point home for me. Day after day of inability to bring food and water to people when everyone in the country knew where they were! Then it turns out that the leader of the federal agency was completely unqualified for the job! To me this isn't about pointing fingers or assigning blame, I simply want this to stop. If we are to deal with this crisis, we need a competent government. This probably means trusting generation x at the mid to high levels and implementing untested ideas. I realize this is hard for a boomer or a silent to accept (as they prefer maximum experience and tried and tested ideas) but at this point old ways of doing thing are failing us and we have no time or way of testing new ways. We are going to have to (as in any crisis) learn as we go! That means millies have to be open to accepting leadership of the older generations and ready to assume their role , gen xers have to be a little less cynical and willing to put the common good ahead of their desires and yes it means that boomers have to learn to place some trust in the younger generations.

[jgreenhall]

Scott,

Good stuff. I agree that the admixtures among the generations is not linear. The key is not the simple existence of generations, but their typical characteristics and which characteristics are being resonated with. For GenXers (I also am one) the nomad tension is between a fundamental mistrust of institutions (in general) and, even more, basic cynicism vs. pragmatism and a sense for survival. For the GenXers community spirit will work from the individual, through family and then up. Watching my peers, those who support Obama have kids and have been attracted by the portions of his speeches that resonate pragmatic (not buying into the "gas tax holiday", giving up on wedge issues like gun control, abortion, gay marriage, etc.). Those who support McCain are deeply cynical about the whole process but have their antennae up around anything that smacks of more state action (socialism and black liberation theology seeem to have struck a chord).

Similar with the Boomers, Millenials and Silent. Just as a marketing plan for a product or a piece of media has to map to the differential elements of the audience psychology so to with any political message.

More to what I am concerned about, the navigation of the crisis seems to hinge very much on which aspect of the different typologies dominates our discourse. If the boomers become increasingly manichean, the X-ers increasingly cynical and opportunistic, the silent increasingly removed and the millenials increasingly lined-up behind different and opposed ideologies - we are marching towards a very bad situation. If, on the other hand, some Gray Champion emerges that is able to cause the Boomer chorus to begin to speak of pan-civic virtues, the GenXers begin to take civic responsibility and apply their (our) pragmatic and entreprenurial skills to organizing crisis survivial and the millenials speak with one focused voice (supported and tempered by the silents nuance and memory) then we are lined up to face the crisis head-on. No guarantees that the wave doesn't swamp us still, but our chances are better and the fight will, at least, be honorable.

On that note, the best news I've seen in months: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vknHKTy1MLY

[scotths]

jgreenhall et al,

Are you familiar with the double cycle theory some have discussed on the fourth turning forums? (The forums are currently down or I would provide a link). The general idea is that successive awakenings alternate between those that look for new spiritual paths (ie trascendental/boomer awakenings) and those that strengthen existing religions (great awakening/missionary awakening). I think there might be a regional pattern as well..

In his book Albion's Seed David Hackett Fischer (who also wrote the Great Wave) describes 4 major regions of settlement before the American Revolution:

1) New England Puritans (arrived from 1630-1641 largely. The migration was centered from East Anglia in England). They were incredibly prolific and were numbered in the millions by the early 1800's when significant immigration to the New England states began. The puritans came almost entirely from the middle classes of english society. The created a relatively egalitarian world in which most everyone owned a medium-small to a medium-large plot of land. There were very few servants and no younger relatives of titled people. Government was largely by town meeting, and issues were typically decided by consensus.

2) Southern lowlanders- (1642-1675 largely from the Wessex area). In many ways this was quite different than the New England migration. People came to the south from every rank; many as indentured servants but the leaders of the colonies were often younger sons of titled english peers. Government was largely by a self perpetuating oligarchy and very few offices were elected by the people. Maintaing a hierarchical civic order was viewed in general more important than fairness in the judicial system. (For instance, punishments for lower ranking individuals were more severe especially if they were for a crime aimed at a higher ranking individual).

3) Quakers (1675-1725, largely from the northern midlands they settled largely in the Delaware valley). They attempted to create a peaceful lower-middle class society. I think this may be a large part of what Nixon referred to in 1968 as the "silent majority".

4) Backcountry folk (1717-1775 largely from the Borderlands). This group is frequently referred to as Scotch-Irish. These people were extremely distrusting (for good reason!) of government and settled in the mountains of Appalachia (as well as New Hampshire and a few other places).

I think throughout the history of our country there has been a battle between groups 1 and 2 which gain power in alternate awakenings/crisis. Group 3 has often acted as a swing vote with crisis timed realignments occurring when that demographic switched sides and that demographic also held back and isolated a region when an awakening is occurring. Group 4 has provided leaders in awakenings/unravelings that have helped tear down the social order.

Here is the pattern I think I see to our political realignments:

1789 Initially a mix of parties, ending in the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican party (Southern Liberalism)
1828 - Jacksonian Democracy (Southern Conservatism) - Simultaneous northern liberal uprising (transcendental etc)
1860 - Lincoln Republican (Northern Liberalism)
1896 - McKinley Republican (Northern Conservatism) Simultaneous southern populist movement/northern minority worker movement
1932 - Roosevelt Democratic (Southern Liberalisml [with component of northern minorities])
1968 - Nixon Republican (Southern Conservatism) Simultaneous northern liberal uprising (counterculture)
2008 - Obama Democratic (Northern Liberalism)

I think in some ways this may color the way Obama will attempt to govern. FDR as his base of support was largely in the south was limited in what he could do. For instance, through his social programs he had to be careful not to disturb the social order. Thus, his focus was more on equality of condition rather than equality of opportunity. While Obama sees a priority in ensuring that basic needs of people are met, he seems to be more focused on providing increased opportunity to all classes of society. He also seems interested in a more participatory, open government which I think in someways might follow from the New England tradition with regards to direct democracy. He also seems to place a strong emphasis on breaking up existing Oligarchic control of our government and empowering small businesses and sees them as a key part of our economic revival. I think we will see an attempt at a leaner more efficient government than the democrats built in the last century. I think ultimately this will help to win the support of northern moderates and conservatives but may in some ways drive those in the deep south further away.

[scotths]

Another way to twist this cycle is to consider the importance of Grandparents. One interesting note that isn't discussed much as that while a generations parents are largely split between the 2 preceding generations, the bulk of the Grandparents of a generation come from one preceding generation. For instance, the current Millennial Generation has largely the silent generation as grandparents. Two things of significance come to mind here. Firstly, the Millennial generation is largely not a direct descendent of the previous civic generation! Of course some have grand-parents or great-grand-parents from the generation the bulk do not. They are instead descended from the silent generation, the generation that wanted to be heros but couldn't now gets to see their grandchildren receive the chance to act heroic. This would seem to follow for all generations, Prophets for instance would be largely not descended from previous Prophet generations. This leads me to suspect that their are essentially two interlocking threads throughout the generations. This would make sense especially if there was a larger 2 part cycle. I think considering grandparents could help elucidate this. Consider the following list of generations:

ProphetA
NomadA
CivicA
ArtistA
ProphetB
NomadB

etc... Let's assume that a Prophet generation creates a new set of values, and other generations pass on and/or implement those values. Let's consider how these values might pass from children to grandchildren etc... Here an arrow means children of and a slash indicates the children of a generation are largely split between two generations. Note that when I use a slash I do not mean the entirety of both generations, but rater the portion of those generations that are descended from the generation before the arrow. Note that as the artist generation is largely the grandchildren of the preceding Prophet generation the portions of the nomad and civic generations that are children of Prophets should largely correspond to the portion that are also parents of artists.

ProphetA --> NomadA / CivicA --> ArtistA --> ProphetB / NomadB --> CivicB

Note that the Artist generation appears to act as a holding point for the values of the prior Prophet generation. In the last cycle this would mean that the silent generation absorbs many of the missionary values. The current civics have these artists as grandparents as well as GenXers and Boomers as parents. This would seem to expose these civics both to the new values created by the boomer Prophets and to the old values through their silent grandparents and (for those that have them) nomad parents.

Let's consider a similar sequence for the ways of doing things, ie that which civics create:

CivicA --> ArtistB / ProphetB --> NomadB --> CivicB / ArtistB --> ProphetC

In this way a new set of Prophets is exposed both to the new world created by their parents, but also to the older ways of doing things through artists parents and nomad grandparents. Perhaps this helps color the awakening, and perhaps leads to the reintroduction of values based on older methods in awakenings. Interestingly this means that individuals can be a place holder in terms of values and/or methods essentially updating one and passing along the other (in dominant generations) or passing along both (in recessive generations).

[jgreenhall]

I am not familiar with the two cycle theory but it seems interesting. Certainly we know that for the great majority of human history it was the role of Grandparents to weave the fundamental myths that created the deep/subconscious worldviews of their grandchildren (while parents were busy making a living). That link has largely (although not entirely) dissolved, but there is certainly something to it.

Your two posts link - a Prophet who has a nomad as a grandparent is going to receive a more disruptive set of notions about the ancient values than a Prophet who has an artist as a grandparent (leading to a different flavor of awakening).

The ideological/paradigmatic flows in the US is quite complicated. I think that the eventual right model will involve some notion of the semantic flex of ideas (how ideas evolve over time in relation to other ideas and to the pressures of reality) combined with the differential pressures of generational dynamics. An example that I've been working on is the evolution of racism in american ideologies - seminal in two different crises - and how it as crafted generational psychologies (and politics) what at the same time, of course, being crafted by them.

j

[mark]

Military people i.e., X-ers who were in Bush I or Bush II wars, and Boomers who were in Viet Nam war, and even WWII and Korean War generations -- (I don't know what these generations are called) -- are for McCain because they think Obama will take away their guns....

Just stating a fact....

[scotths]

Military people i.e., X-ers who were in Bush I or Bush II wars, and Boomers who were in Viet Nam war, and even WWII and Korean War generations -- (I don't know what these generations are called) -- are for McCain because they think Obama will take away their guns....

Wonder how shocked they'll be when they find out the NRA lied and Obama had no intention of taking away their guns!

[jgreenhall]

On military people and guns - i suspect that it will be more of a spit than folks think. A lot of military people i know *are* going for McCain although it is a broader (scotch-irish?) sense of basic "small government" than simply 'guns' that is driving their view.

At the same time, a lot of military people I know are going for Obama. The military (particularly Vietnam boomers) is furious at Bush administration for grinding down our readyness and ability to accomplish our mission in Iraq and Afghanistan (which I hear is now on the ropes). They feel used and abused ("support our troops" used to justify greed and both strategic and tactical mis-management) and have done the right thing - stopped listening to pundits and started doing their own thinking.

Now I don't think that Obama wins the military demo. Or even comes close - but I do think that he will far outstrip Kerry and might even do better than Gore.

For the record - *I* don't want anyone taking away my guns. And I know that Obama is far too much of a (GenX) pragamtist to go anywhere near that.