Originally Posted by Normal

To play devil's advocate here -

I would argue that whether or not it was realistic for slavery to be legal in California in any way, shape, or form is irrelevant. What does matter is people's (ie southerners') reaction to California being admitted as a free state.

The southerners did exactly the same thing that the northernersdid, they yawned and kicked the can down the road by allowing thr passing of the Compromise of 1850. Classic 3T behavior.

Someone earlier made a good point about how the Mexican-American War really put slavery on the forefront because we acquired new territories that were either going to be free or slave states, and that's true.

Well then if "they", whoever they is were correct about the Mexican War then the Compromise of 1850 would not have been passed.

To me, 1854 seems a tad bit too late - the events leading to directly to the Civil War were already happening several years before that.

And these events are?

The entire 1850s decade, in my opinion, set the stage for the crisis climax, which of course was the Civil War itself. The entire decade was spent trying to avert the Civil War, thanks to the doings of the Compromise Generation.[/QUOTE]

But if the whole decade was just an attempt to avert the crises then S and H were correct in stating that the conflict did not become irrepresibel until 1860. As I see it, the the action taken in the early part of the 4T usually make the underlying problems worse. Both Kansas-Nebraska and the Dred Scott decision qualify in this. The immeadiate impact of the C. of 1850 was in contrast to quiet down the mood, and turnings are about mood enough tha tthe election of 1852 could take place in an almost issue free 3T type environment. To quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The Whigs' platform was almost indistinguishable from that of the Democrats, reducing the campaign to a contest between the personalities of the two candidates. The lack of clear-cut issues between the two parties helped drive voter turnout down to its lowest level since 1836

A personality driven, low voter turnout election. Sounds 3Tish to me.

Author David Brin, who has never read either Strauss & Howe or Xenakis, but who nonetheless follows history and social trends, has another idea as to when the Civil War Crisis Era started:

"I have long held that the Civil War did not start with the firing on Fort Sumter. It began in 1852 with the passage - and brutal enforcement - of the Fugitive Slave Act, which led to invasion and outright raids of northern states by squadrons of irregular southern cavalry, committing outrages and depredations from Illinois to Pennsylvania, supported first by southern-appointed U.S. Marshals and later - when locals began resisting - by federal troops. These slave-catcher raids, smashing into homes, terrorizing neighbors and dragging off friends you knew since childhood, were the prime provocation that radicalized northerners into re-starting their dormant militias. It is what drove many of them to support Lincoln. Nothing like it happened in the south until Sherman."

By heaven, it would have radicalized ME!

Originally Posted by herbal tee

But if the whole decade was just an attempt to avert the crises then S and H were correct in stating that the conflict did not become irrepresibel until 1860. As I see it, the the action taken in the early part of the 4T usually make the underlying problems worse. Both Kansas-Nebraska and the Dred Scott decision qualify in this. The immediate impact of the C. of 1850 was in contrast to quiet down the mood, and turnings are about mood enough that the election of 1852 could take place in an[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1852] almost issue free 3T type environment.

The compromise of 1850 came after such a raucous debate that it seemed the civil war was about to start. And it almost did, when President Taylor threatened to invade New Mexico. And whatever mood change it accomplished was so short-lived as to be negligible. In 1851 "the little lady who made this great war" published Uncle Tom's Cabin. In 1852 came the fugitive slave law, and 1854 the Kansas-Nebraska Act. As was said on the Civil War series, from 1850 "events quickened."

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The compromise of 1850 came after such a raucous debate that it seemed the civil war was about to start. And it almost did,

But it didn't.
And just as 911 did not lead to a true crises war, neither did the Compromise of 1850.

Originally Posted by Eric

when President Taylor threatened to invade New Mexico. And whatever mood change it accomplished was so short-lived as to be negligible. In 1851 "the little lady who made this great war" published Uncle Tom's Cabin. In 1852 came the fugitive slave law, and 1854 the Kansas-Nebraska Act. As was said on the Civil War series, from 1850 "events quickened."

President Taylor threatened to invade NM?
Gosh, I'd like to see a good cite on that.
Now mind you, I follow history closely but I've never heard of that one before.
After all, when you hear of Taylor it's usually because they exumed him to test for poisoning.
The tests were conclusively negative.
Interesting.

But what I'd like to know is does anyone else see a prelude to the 2001-2008 pattern here?
Yes the whole 1850's decade is cuspy.
BOOM!!! Something happens...and then inertia.
It keeps building and building until the need for change becomes irrepresible.


This very week we're having a discussion about how suddenly the president is allowed to order Americans killed by drones without having to justify it to anyone. Did this come about because of 911, of course. Does this one fact by itself close the case that 911 sparked the 4T?
Only if we're willing to ignore Katrina, the debacle afterwards, the 2007-08 crash and Obamacare.

Again, if you look at the 1850's you see a lot of 3Tish private behavior well late into that decade. Just as happened in the double zero decade.

Finally, 911 is a part of the cascade, most of us would call it the first act of the cascade
So of course it matters.
But consider how in the northeastern states we're seeing states of emergency declared early as governors seek to avoid a badly handled emergency. Executive power is rising in our public offices.
Of course the same happened in private offices during the 3T.
It is like a pattern that could tie into megacycles.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

But it didn't.
And just as 911 did not lead to a true crises war, neither did the Compromise of 1850.

But it did. It aroused the passions on both sides, which were evident in immediately-following events, which continued to be incited by the same issue of the extension of slavery into new states that was debated during the Crisis of 1850.

President Taylor threatened to invade NM?
Gosh, I'd like to see a good cite on that.
Now mind you, I follow history closely but I've never heard of that one before.
After all, when you hear of Taylor it's usually because they exumed him to test for poisoning.
The tests were conclusively negative.
Interesting.

Indeed. The only reason the compromise of 1850 happened at all, is because President Taylor died before he could carry out his invasion. I read about it in American Pageant by Thomas Bailey and other American history textbooks. Bailey went so far as to say that the civil war could have broken out in 1850, had Taylor lived. Probably a wikipedia page on the compromise shows this. Here is a quote from the Taylor page:

The slavery issue dominated Taylor's short time in office. Although a major slaveholder in Louisiana,[31] he took a moderate stance on the territorial expansion of slavery. This angered fellow Southerners. He said that, if necessary to enforce the laws, he personally would lead the Army. Persons "taken in rebellion against the Union, he would hang ... with less reluctance than he had hanged deserters and spies in Mexico."[32][33] He never wavered.
Henry Clay proposed a complex Compromise of 1850. Taylor died as it was being debated. The Clay version failed but another version passed under the new president, Millard Fillmore.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/pres.../zacharytaylor

Here's the quote from Bailey, p.381

"As the great debate in congress ran its heated course, deadlock seemed certain. Blunt old President Taylor... seemed bent on vetoing any compromise passed by Congress. His military ire was aroused by the threats of Texas to seize Santa Fe. He seemed doggedly determined to "Jacksonize" the dissenters, if need be, by leading an army against the Texans in person and hanging all "damned traitors." If the troops had begun to march, the South probably would have rallied to the defense of her sister states, and the Civil War might have erupted in 1850."

But what I'd like to know is does anyone else see a prelude to the 2001-2008 pattern here?
Yes the whole 1850's decade is cuspy.
BOOM!!! Something happens...and then inertia.
It keeps building and building until the need for change becomes irrepresible.

The parallel is between 1850 and today, not the 1850s and the 00s. We will see that "building and building" something leading up to 2025.

Again, if you look at the 1850's you see a lot of 3Tish private behavior well late into that decade. Just as happened in the double zero decade.

And we still do. The 1850s and the 2010s are the same pattern; a fairly mild early crisis leading to the potential break-up of the country.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But it did. It aroused the passions on both sides, which were evident in immediately-following events, which continued to be incited by the same issue of the extension of slavery into new states that was debated during the Crisis of 1850.

Indeed. The only reason the compromise of 1850 happened at all, is because President Taylor died before he could carry out his invasion. I read about it in American Pageant by Thomas Bailey and other American history textbooks. Bailey went so far as to say that the civil war could have broken out in 1850, had Taylor lived. Probably wikipedia page on the compromise show this. Here is a quote from the Taylor page:

The slavery issue dominated Taylor's short time in office. Although a major slaveholder in Louisiana,[31] he took a moderate stance on the territorial expansion of slavery. This angered fellow Southerners. He said that, if necessary to enforce the laws, he personally would lead the Army. Persons "taken in rebellion against the Union, he would hang ... with less reluctance than he had hanged deserters and spies in Mexico."[32][33] He never wavered.
Henry Clay proposed a complex Compromise of 1850. Taylor died as it was being debated. The Clay version failed but another version passed under the new president, Millard Fillmore.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/pres.../zacharytaylor

Here's the quote from Bailey, p.381



The parallel is between 1850 and today, not the 1850s and the 00s. We will see that "building and building" something leading up to 2025.


And we still do. The 1850s and the 2010s are the same pattern; a fairly mild early crisis leading to the potential break-up of the country.

Great response, Eric. And I definitely agree with your 1850s = 2010s analogy. I know people have had discussions before about the 2000s decade and where it fits in with all of this; ultimately it was an Unraveling decade (until 2008 of course) and George W. Bush was, in my opinion, a classic 3T president. Prophet leader who just kind of either a) kicks the can down the road, or b) tries to solve problems with military or diplomatic action but comes up short on the follow through. To be fair, Clinton wasn't really any better.

Originally Posted by Normal

These are all interesting responses, guys. So from what I've gathered based on these responses, the most logical start and end dates for the turnings in the Civil War saeculum are as follows -

1T, 1794-1815 (End of Whiskey Rebellion and final treaty with Britain, and end of the War of 1812)
2T, 1815-1837 (End of the War of 1812 until the economic crisis of 1837)
3T, 1837-1850 (Economic Panic of 1837 until Compromise of 1850)
4T, 1850-1869 (Compromise of 1850 until all states are re-admitted to Union in 1869)

Here's the thing I'm still having trouble with - to me, it seems that the Compromise of 1850 is a good start date for the 4T because although it appeased both sides temporarily, I still feel that admitting California into the Union as a free state royally pissed off a lot of southerners, since their proposed solution was dividing the state into two and making Northern California a free state and Southern California a slave state. So even though the Compromise of 1850 is often taught in history classes as something that delayed the inevitable (the Civil War), I see it as something that actually ignited the flames of the slavery debate, because California was going through its gold rush period, and it was a huge state with amazing potential, and yet it was admitted into the Union undivided as a free state. That had to piss off southerners.

Also, it makes for a nice, neat 19 year long 4T era, but the problem is that also makes for a slightly truncated 3T (only 13 years from 1837 to 1850). I definitely agree with others here that the Mexican-American war was a 3T war that set the stage for the slavery debate of the 4T and the Civil War itself because we acquired new territory in the western states that was either going to be admitted as free states / territories or slave states / territories.

Also, another thing I'm curious about - if we assume that the Civil War saeculum had a normal length 4T, what about the so-called missing Civic generation? What are its start and end dates in relation to the others? We've talked about the turnings, but how would you adjust the generational boundaries if you believe the Civil War saeculum had a normal 4T?

Thoughts?

IMO the "missing" hero generation isn't missing at all, they're the Gilded Generation. It's the nomad generation that's "missing" from S&H's books. I draw my lines a little differently than you've drawn it though (see the quote below). The dates listed below are the start and end points of each generational birth year, not the beginnings and endings of the actual turnings. Typically the birth years for the new generation begin 2 or 3 years before the turning. I'm not sure I still agree with all of these dates. Some good arguments were raised in favor of including the Whiskey Rebellion at the end of the 4T. Also, I'm still not sure that the banning of the slave trade in 1807 was as pivotal a moment so as to usher in the 2T. It's more likely that the War of 1812 was the starting point (although I still consider this a 2T war, and not a 1T war). I still do think that the discovery of gold in Georgia was a pivotal event that ushered in the gold rush, and as a consequence, the 3T mood shift that eventually led to the California Gold rush, the Mexican War, the acquisition of new territories, and, finally, the civil war 4T mood shift of the 1850s.

From the http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...n-to-Civil-War thread:

Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

I too was very suspicious of the "missing Hero generation" in the breakdown even before I read the books. I was never entirely convinced by their explanation and I think the OP laid a much more plausible mapping of the revolutionary/civil war saeculum than S&H did. It's likely they did have a political agenda, but I'm more inclined to think they adjusted it in the way they did because it lined up better with certain pre-established generational boundaries and the placement of certain historical figures (ie Abraham Lincoln). I remember reading that originally they viewed the Civil and Great Power Saeculum as one really long Saeculum, but decided to break it up into two at some point. I'm curious as to what made them originally view it as such.

Let's look at each cycle's generations according to the years they laid out in 1991's Generations book.

Colonial Cycle

Puritan - 1584-1614 (31 Years)
Cavalier - 1615-1647 (33 Years)
Glorious - 1648-1673 (26 Years)
Enlightenment - 1674-1700 (27 Years)

The years are very long, but I suppose there was not as much technological innovation to speed up change. I'm going to leave this cycle alone and assume their dates are accurate.

Revolutionary Cycle

Awakening - 1701-1723 (23 years)
Liberty - 1724-1741 (18 years)
Republicans - 1742-1766 (25 years)
Compromise - 1767-1791 (25 years)

I always thought it strange that the Liberty Generation lasted only 18 years in the middle of a cycle of 20+ years for each generation. I think it's more likely that the Republican Generation ended a bit sooner than listed here, so that the Liberty doesn't look so out of place.. If the Revolutionary crisis began in 1765 with the stamp act, than we can assume that the Artist Compromise generation would have started a few years prior, say 1762. The Compromise Generation would have also ended a few years earlier since we're now saying the Revolutionary Cycle ended with the ratification of the constitution in 1789. Therefore, the next Prophet archetype would have been born a few years prior to this, say 1786.

These changes would shift people like John Jacob Astor, Robert Fulton, Eli Whitney and "Uncle Sam" Wilson from the Republican Generation into the Compromise Generation. But they are cuspers anyway, the equivalent of The Greatest Generation cusp, what I like to call the The King archetype. It would also shift Emma Willard, Sarah Hale, James Fenimore Cooper and Samuel F. B. Morse from the Compromise Generation into the Transcendental Generation. Again, they are cuspers as well, the equivalent of the War Babies cusp, what I like to call the Joker archetype.

Therefore, we can revise this cycle to:

Awakening - 1701-1723 (23 years)
Liberty - 1724-1741 (18 years)
Republicans - 1742-1762 (20 years)
Compromise - 1763-1786 (23 years)

Civil War Cycle

Transcendental - 1792-1821 (30 years)
Gilded - 1822-1842 (21 years)
Progressive - 1843-1859 (17 years)

This is definitely the most suspect saeculum. First we have a 30 year generation out of nowhere, then two considerably shorter ones, and no hero generation to speak of. S&H present very well thought arguments as to why this cycle is so strange, but I can't understand why they didn't just shorten the Transcendental years and allow the Gilded to be the hero generation they deserved to be. They were the soldiers for the bloodiest war on American soil after all. We can already shift the Transcendental start date to 1787 thanks to our prior "fixes". The question is, where do we end this generation?

I think the most sensible place to end it, like others have mentioned, is some time before the War of 1812. The reason is because this war, and the disgrace that resulted, greatly changed the mood of the country. Before 1812, America was still in its high. The nation was young, and people just wanted to enjoy peace after the revolutionary war crisis. The last thing Americans wanted was another war. Yet the War of 1812 happened, and it really shook that mood up and brought people into the Second Great Awakening, which, according to Wikipedia, began much earlier than S&H placed the dates. I would actually put it even earlier than 1812, because The Second Great Awakening is often listed in history books as beginning as early as 1795, and the mood had already begun to shift prior to going into The War of 1812. In more ways than one, The War of 1812 was the equivalent of our cycle's Vietnam.

A good date to consider is 1803 when Jefferson made the Louisanna Purchase. This re-opened the discussion on slavery as it had to be decided whether these states would be slave states or not. This is really the moment where the mood started to shift towards a second turning as the argument over slavery became increasingly polarizing. Another good date is 1807. By 1807, the slave trade was banned and the Northern states had already moved away from slave labor. I prefer this date since its closer to the War of 1812.

The problem with putting the ending date of the transcendentals at 1807, is that moves a huge chunk of important figures that were previously viewed as transcendentals to the next nomad archetype (Which probably won't be named Gilded anymore). Transcendentals like Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Jefferson Davis, Egar Allan Poe, John Fremont, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Frederick Douglass, Henry David Thoreau, Harriet Tubman, William Tecumseh Sherman, Susan B. Anthony and Mary Baker Eddy would now be Nomads instead of Prophets. Indeed the case could be made that many of these figures fit in better as Nomads anyway. But S&H most likely saw someone like Abraham Lincoln as a prophet, or gray champion of the Civil War. Indeed he was a cusper, along with Andrew Johnson, Jefferson Davis and Edgar Allan Poe, the equivalent of our Jonesers (or Queen archetype as I like to call it). Still, Lincoln's a nomad according to this new divide, as is a women's rights activist like Susan B. Anthony who, born 1820, is firmly in the core Nomad cohort. She doesn't quite fit the mold of a Nomad as does many of the religious preachers born after 1807 who took part in the Second Great Awakening. This is the most likely reason why S&H chose to extend this generation as long as they did, and it explains why there wasn't enough room for a hero generation in this cycle.

Setting the end date for transcendentals at 1807 is controversial for who it squeezes out, but I think it still works. In fact, I think it works better than their model. This also means we have 15 years between the transcendentals and Gilded. We can fit an entirely new generation here, we can call them the Second Wave of Transcendentals, but a better name could be The Gold Rushers. These guys will of course be the new Nomads of this cycle, making the Gilded the Heroes of this cycle (as they should have been). 15 years also seems a little short, so let's see if we can make a few more adjustments.

The period in which these Nomads were born was the second Great Awakening period of the Civil War Cycle. The Second Great Awakening was a protestant movement that seems to have grown since about 1801 and became a mainstream part of the culture in the 1820s. 1828 was also the year gold was first discovered in Georgia, sparking the second significant american gold rush. This would mark the time when the first Gold Rushers were coming of Age, and there was a strong push for westward expansion and frontier pioneering. So we can end The Gold Rusher's cohort a couple years before the discovery in 1826. This would include former Gilded members like Boss Tweed, Stonewall Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant and Rutherford B. Hayes as nomads part of the Gold Rush Generation. They would no longer be considered Gilded, But they can be seen as cuspers equivalent to our current Yers (or Thief archetype as I like to call them).

So now the Gilded Generation would also have to be adjusted. It would have to begin in 1827, and I would extend it further to 1845. The reason is because I agree that the Civil War Crisis really started to coalesce after the Mexican War ended in 1848, when the US finally gained all of the Western territories and the question as to whether slavery would be allowed there became the most passionately fought issue the country had ever seen. Therefore the Progressives' birth dates extended from 1846 to 1863 when the Civil War was well underway. This means Progressives like William McKinley, Henry James, Montgomery Ward, Henry Heinz and Mary Cassatt would now be considered part of the Gilded generation rather than the Progressive Generation. Again, they are cuspers equivalent to our Greatest Generation (King archetype). The interesting thing to note, is that though the Gilded weren't particularly politically powerful in the long term (like the Glorious, Republicans or GIs), they were economically very powerful. Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller come to mind.

Therefore we can revise the Civil War Cycle as such:

Transcendental - 1787-1807 (20 years)
Gold Rush - 1808-1826 (18 years)
Gilded - 1827-1845 (18 years)
Progressives - 1846-1863 (17 years)


Great Power Cycle

Missionary - 1860-1882 (23 years)
Lost - 1883-1900 (18 years)
G.I. - 1901-1924 (24 years)
Silent - 1925-1942 (18 years)

I would not change this cycle much as I think it's accurate. However, based on our previous revisions, we would have to shorten the Missionary Generation. It would now have to begin in 1864. This would mean Missionaries like William Jennings Bryant and James Addams would now be progressives, but not much else would change. These are the equivalent of todays Jonesers (Queen archetype).

I would also consider extending the Lost generation to 1903. The reason being that there were many men born after 1900 who lied about there age to fight in WWI. I also feel that men born in these years probably identified more with Lost than they did with the GI. This means men like Walt Disney, Charles Lindbergh, John Steinbeck and Bob Hope would be considered a part of the Lost generation rather than the GI generation. They are cuspers though, so they have aspects of both generations, like todays Yers (Thief archetype).

So, according to our revisions, the new dates would be:


Missionary - 1864-1882 (18 years)
Lost - 1883-1903 (20 years)
G.I. - 1904-1924 (20 years)
Silent - 1925-1942 (18 years)


And I also think the Millennial Cycle has sound dates, so I wouldn't change those either.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

The southerners did exactly the same thing that the northernersdid, they yawned and kicked the can down the road by allowing thr passing of the Compromise of 1850. Classic 3T behavior.


Well then if "they", whoever they is were correct about the Mexican War then the Compromise of 1850 would not have been passed.

And these events are?

The entire 1850s decade, in my opinion, set the stage for the crisis climax, which of course was the Civil War itself. The entire decade was spent trying to avert the Civil War, thanks to the doings of the Compromise Generation.

But if the whole decade was just an attempt to avert the crises then S and H were correct in stating that the conflict did not become irrepresibel until 1860. As I see it, the the action taken in the early part of the 4T usually make the underlying problems worse. Both Kansas-Nebraska and the Dred Scott decision qualify in this. The immeadiate impact of the C. of 1850 was in contrast to quiet down the mood, and turnings are about mood enough tha tthe election of 1852 could take place in an almost issue free 3T type environment. To quote:



A personality driven, low voter turnout election. Sounds 3Tish to me.

Do you agree that we're currently in a 4T today?

I would argue that the mood of the US today is, in many ways, very similar to what it was in the early 1850s. For the most part we all feel we're in a crisis, but we're still kicking the can down the road because we can't agree on a course of action. The civil war itself wasn't the crisis, it was the climax to the crisis. The regeneracy of the civil war cycle happened very late into the fourth turning. Indeed, it would not have come had Lincoln not forced it. Lincoln was the only president to ever declare martial law and he did it, in large part, to enforce the draft. Jefferson Davis took similar measures.

The Gilded generation was a Hero archetype, but they weren't particularly civic when measured against the Republican or GI generations. They were divided into opposing groups and a huge chunk of them didn't willingly march to war. They had to be drafted, and the draft riots of new york illustrates how unwilling they were. Many southerners were also vehemently opposed to Jefferson Davis's draft. This was in contrast to the Revolutionary War, in which militias, made up mostly of Republican Generation cohorts, were for the most part voluntary. Also, despite the fact that their was a draft in effect, the GI generation also required much less convincing to voluntarily enlist in World War II than the Gilded Generation did. Do you see the Millennial Generation volunteering for public service with the same civic fervor of the Republican or GI Generations? I don't. The millennial generation is more similar to the Gilded than the GI in this respect.

It is my belief that there are, in fact, two types of Hero Generations: the publicly focused civics, and the privately focused entrepreneurs. Both are powerful institution builders after a crisis and set the standard for the new establishment. But the civics tend to focus more on building governmental and public institutions after the crisis. The Civic generations included the the Republican Generation and the GI generation. Meanwhile the entrepreneurs focus more on building economically powerful private institutions after a crisis. They included the Glorious Generation, the Gilded Generation and most likely the Millennial Generation (but we won't know for sure until after this 4T).

Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

Do you agree that we're currently in an 4T today?

I would argue that the mood of the US today is, in many ways, very similar to what it was in the early 1850s. For the most part we all feel we're in a crisis, but we're still kicking the can down the road because we can't agree on a course of action. The civil war itself wasn't the crisis, it was the climax to the crisis. The regeneracy of the civil war cycle happened very late into the fourth turning. Indeed, it would not have come had Lincoln not forced it. Lincoln was the only president to ever declare martial law and he did it, in large part, to enforce the draft. Jefferson Davis took similar measures.

The Gilded generation was a Hero archetype, but they weren't particularly civic when measured against the Republican or GI generations. They were divided into opposing groups and a huge chunk of them didn't willingly march to war. They had to be drafted, and the draft riots of new york illustrates how unwilling they were. Many southerners were also vehemently opposed to Jefferson Davis's draft. This was in contrast to the Revolutionary War, in which militias, made up mostly of Republican Generation cohorts, were for the most part voluntary. Also, despite the fact that their was a draft in effect, the GI generation also required much less convincing to voluntarily enlist in World War II than the Gilded Generation did. Do you see the Millennial Generation volunteering for public service with the same civic fervor of the Republican or GI Generations? I don't. The millennial generation is more similar to the Gilded than the GI in this respect.

It is my belief that there are, in fact, two types of Hero Generations: the publicly focused civics, and the privately focused entrepreneurs. Both are powerful institution builders after a crisis and set the standard for the new establishment. But the civics tend to focus more on building governmental and public institutions after the crisis. The Civic generations included the the Republican Generation and the GI generation. Meanwhile the entrepreneurs focus more on building economically powerful private institutions after a crisis. They included the Glorious Generation, the Gilded Generation and most likely the Millennial Generation (but we won't know for sure until after this 4T).

Interesting theory; the Millennial and Gilded may have similarities; this would be supported by Neptune in the same signs (Uranus is in the same signs for all civics, if Gilded are included). Not being the time for the civil war yet, though, we don't know whether the Millies will be less willing to serve in a war; and there may not even be a war.

As a libertarian, you see private institutions as dominant in this saeculum, but I see the Reagan era as transitory, and that Obama signals a passage out of it, and from 3T to 4T thinking, just like in a normal saeculum. We will need to rebuild many public and government organizations in and after the crisis that have been neglected and scourged by the Reagan/Tea Party era.

But the civil war represented an attempt to downsize federal government, and this is what may happen again late in this 4T. If so, this more decentralized government will be further developed in the first turning that follows. But there may also be downsizing of corporate institutions. This is indeed what we need most of all. Restructuring of a downsized corporate America may be a major task of Millennials.

The Gilded generation came to power at the climax and fruition of libertarian economics in the 19th century, the Gilded Age, but this was accompanied and quickly followed by the rising power of labor and populist socialism at the turn of the 20th century. This was brought to fruition in America, in so far as it was established at all, in the period from the New Deal to the Great Society. But if the cycle of revolution has some merit as a description of modern history, then merely swinging the pendulum back to 18/19th century libertarian economics will not be what happens. Instead we will move forward, into the Green Revolution-- forward into a "liberty" conceived as liberation from excess corporate as well as government power, and government/corporate structures that support life rather than endanger it.

This movement will reach its climax of activism early in the next Awakening era, which will occupy a place about the same as the activism of the Awakening of circa 1890-1900s did in the previous revolutionary cycle-- the socialist one that was fulfilled in the 1930s through 1960s. The Green Revolution's aims and policies, born in the late 1960s and 1970s, are spelled out in Green Party values and platforms. It will be a synthesis of the best of both the liberty and equality revolutions that preceeded it. It is neither a return to trickle-down libertarian economics, nor to centralized bureaucracy, but to increasing coops, community economics and regional government, with fair social policies and programs, greater equality within diversity, and less (and more socialized) corporate power, within a framework of global governance and fair trade.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Interesting theory; the Millennial and Gilded may have similarities; this would be supported by Neptune in the same signs (Uranus is in the same signs for all civics, if Gilded are included). Not being the time for the civil war yet, though, we don't know whether the Millies will be less willing to serve in a war; and there may not even be a war.

As a libertarian, you see private institutions as dominant in this saeculum, but I see the Reagan era as transitory, and that Obama signals a passage out of it, and from 3T to 4T thinking, just like in a normal saeculum. We will need to rebuild many public and government organizations in and after the crisis that have been neglected and scourged by the Reagan/Tea Party era.

But the civil war represented an attempt to downsize federal government, and this is what may happen again late in this 4T. If so, this more decentralized government will be further developed in the first turning that follows. But there may also be downsizing of corporate institutions. This is indeed what we need most of all. Restructuring of a downsized corporate America may be a major task of Millennials.

The Gilded generation came to power at the climax and fruition of libertarian economics in the 19th century, the Gilded Age, but this was accompanied and quickly followed by the rising power of labor and populist socialism at the turn of the 20th century. This was brought to fruition in America, in so far as it was established at all, in the period from the New Deal to the Great Society. But if the cycle of revolution has some merit as a description of modern history, then merely swinging the pendulum back to 18/19th century libertarian economics will not be what happens. Instead we will move forward, into the Green Revolution-- forward into a "liberty" conceived as liberation from excess corporate as well as government power, and government/corporate structures that support life rather than endanger it.

This movement will reach its climax of activism early in the next Awakening era, which will occupy a place about the same as the activism of the Awakening of circa 1890-1900s did in the previous revolutionary cycle-- the socialist one that was fulfilled in the 1930s through 1960s. The Green Revolution's aims and policies, born in the late 1960s and 1970s, are spelled out in Green Party values and platforms. It will be a synthesis of the best of both the liberty and equality revolutions that preceeded it. It is neither a return to trickle-down libertarian economics, nor to centralized bureaucracy, but to increasing coops, community economics and regional government, with fair social policies and programs, greater equality within diversity, and less (and more socialized) corporate power, within a framework of global governance and fair trade.

I agree that there is a double rhythm to these cycles. Private focused revolutions precede publicly focused revolutions, and the next generation of prophets will probably be more like the Missionaries than the Boomers. However, I disagree with your assumption that a privately focused revolution in this turning is akin to turning back the clock to the 19th century Gilded age. There is no going back, there is only moving forward. But there are many forks in this road forward, and choosing the best path can often be very difficult. Choosing the wrong path could be disastrous. Still, it's highly unlikely that we'll make an about face and go back the way we came. Technology has advanced so much that going back to an 19th century lifestyle is next to impossible. And as technology continues to advance, it will continue to put more pressure on the generations to adjust their lifestyles, and as a result will push the cycles forward more quickly.

The reason the Civil War cycle was as short as it was was because the advances of the industrial revolution put so much pressure on the generations to change their lifestyles. Change became inevitable. We are seeing this today with the automation of society in this information age. There is already less need for human capital in manufacturing, and we're beginning to see less need for human capital even in the service industry. This is a good thing, yet we're still trying to keep the old model afloat with standard 40 hour work weeks, artificially created jobs that are often wasteful, minimum wage laws that do more harm than good and a bloated government that is increasingly reliant on debt to fund its aging programs. An adjustment has to be made. We shouldn't worry too much about the loss of jobs. Freeing us from menial tasks is a good thing. Lost jobs will inevitably be replaced by newer and better professions that will advance us further than we can imagine. This will happen naturally, without government intervention.

It's true that fourth turnings, whether they be privately focused or publicly focused, are always periods of a high degree of civic mindedness (even when the hero generations are entrepreneurs) and increasing authoritarian government control. It's a necessary evil, it seems. While I don't condone all of Abraham Lincoln's actions during the civil war, it's pretty clear that his vision for the future (end the spread of slavery) was the morally correct one when compared to the south's vision for the future (spread slavery to new states). As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Nevertheless, if faced with a societal problem, it has always been my belief that the solution that offers the most freedom to the most people is the one we should work towards. Sometimes, I admit, this is impossible, and we may have no choice but to pick the solution that offers less freedom. But we should only go that route if it's the only good option available. Perhaps Lincoln thought this too when he instituted the draft and declared martial law. Nevertheless, his overall goal was to bring freedom to more people, so you could say he was justified.

Originally Posted by gianthogweed

IMO the "missing" hero generation isn't missing at all, they're the Gilded Generation. It's the nomad generation that's "missing" from S&H's books. I draw my lines a little differently than you've drawn it though (see the quote below). The dates listed below are the start and end points of each generational birth year, not the beginnings and endings of the actual turnings. Typically the birth years for the new generation begin 2 or 3 years before the turning. I'm not sure I still agree with all of these dates. Some good arguments were raised in favor of including the Whiskey Rebellion at the end of the 4T. Also, I'm still not sure that the banning of the slave trade in 1807 was as pivotal a moment so as to usher in the 2T. It's more likely that the War of 1812 was the starting point (although I still consider this a 2T war, and not a 1T war). I still do think that the discovery of gold in Georgia was a pivotal event that ushered in the gold rush, and as a consequence, the 3T mood shift that eventually led to the California Gold rush, the Mexican War, the acquisition of new territories, and, finally, the civil war 4T mood shift of the 1850s.

Wow I'm not even sure where to begin. First of all gianthogweed, thank you very much for attempting to answer my question about the generations (as opposed to the turnings). I don't think I'm going to argue too much with your take on the generations, I had a hunch that the Gilded perhaps should be considered a Hero/Civic generation simply because of their age location (20 and 30 somethings during the Civil War), but I wasn't quite sure how to make that idea fit in with the other generations in the saeculum.

Regarding the turnings, let me get this straight - are you proposing that the 1T for the Civil War saeculum began earlier than 1794? I'm open to that possibility, I'm just curious what your (or anyone else's) take on that would be. You mentioned starting the 2T several years before the War of 1812, maybe as early as 1803 (Louisiana Purchase) or so. If that's the case, would you still place the 1T starting date at 1794? If so, that would create a really short 1T. I don't disagree with the idea of the War of 1812 being a 2T war (or maybe a war on the cusp of a 1T/2T). But to me that would necessitate that such a belief would place the beginning of the 2T either around 1812 (when the war began) or 1815 (when the war ended). Maybe someone can come up with a reason why the 2T started during the war. I don't know. I'm still open to debating this one.

Now regarding the start and end dates of the 4T in the Civil War saeculum, it still makes sense to me to use 1850 as a start date. I think the entire 1850s decade fell within the 4T, but it was a build up to the crisis climax in the early to mid 1860s. Just like how the 2010s are a build up to some looming, major crisis around the time period from 2020-2025. Fourth turnings seem to have two primary phases - an initial phase lasting about a decade in which things are bad, but not as bad as they will be in the second phase (what we call the crisis climax). So the 1930s were pretty tough........but it was the events of 1941-1945 that truly defined that 4T. The period from 1850-1859 was an extremely divisive one in American history, but it was the events of 1861-1865 that truly shaped the Crisis era. That was the culmination of everything that had been building up for 10 years prior to the Civil War.

With all of that being said, I would place the end of the 4T not at 1865 when the war ended, but at 1870 when the last of the Confederate states was re-admitted back to the Union. This may muck with the generational boundaries you drew up a little bit, but it just kind of makes sense to me that the 4T wasn't really final and officially done with until all of the seceded states were re-admitted to the Union.

I have even contemplated the idea that the 4T started in 1860 and ended in 1877 with the end of Reconstruction and the inauguration of Rutherford B. Hayes in the most controversial of American elections, the presidential election of 1876. But I'm not sure how to reconcile the 1860-1877 4T theory with the other three turnings in the Civil War saeculum, or the 1T in the following saeculum (we all agree that the Haymarket Riots of 1886 started off the 2T, right?).

What do you think about all of this?

According to non-S&H sources the "Second Great Awakening" started gaining momentum in 1801 at the "Cane Ridge Revival". The video I'm linking is long, but it gives a good overview of a non-S&H view of the Second Great Awakening.



~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

Do you agree that we're currently in a 4T today?

I would argue that the mood of the US today is, in many ways, very similar to what it was in the early 1850s. For the most part we all feel we're in a crisis, but we're still kicking the can down the road because we can't agree on a course of action.

I think that a lot of us see a bit of an 1850's replay in contermprary America.

Originally Posted by GHW

The Gilded generation was a Hero archetype, but they weren't particularly civic when measured against the Republican or GI generations. They were divided into opposing groups and a huge chunk of them didn't willingly march to war. They had to be drafted, and the draft riots of new york illustrates how unwilling they were. Many southerners were also vehemently opposed to Jefferson Davis's draft. This was in contrast to the Revolutionary War, in which militias, made up mostly of Republican Generation cohorts, were for the most part voluntary.

But remember almost a third of those alive during the Revolutionary War were Tories. The Republican gen. was divided just as the guilded were. The division just didn't have an overwhelming regional flavor to it.

Originally Posted by GHW

Also, despite the fact that their was a draft in effect, the GI generation also required much less convincing to voluntarily enlist in World War II than the Gilded Generation did. Do you see the Millennial Generation volunteering for public service with the same civic fervor of the Republican or GI Generations? I don't. The millennial generation is more similar to the Gilded than the GI in this respect.

It is my belief that there are, in fact, two types of Hero Generations: the publicly focused civics, and the privately focused entrepreneurs. Both are powerful institution builders after a crisis and set the standard for the new establishment. But the civics tend to focus more on building governmental and public institutions after the crisis. The Civic generations included the the Republican Generation and the GI generation. Meanwhile the entrepreneurs focus more on building economically powerful private institutions after a crisis. They included the Glorious Generation, the Gilded Generation and most likely the Millennial Generation (but we won't know for sure until after this 4T).

It may be too early in the 4T to say if the millies will unify upon a course of action. If we are in an early 1850's mode then the millies still have a few years left to choose sides.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

But remember almost a third of those alive during the Revolutionary War were Tories. The Republican gen. was divided just as the guilded were. The division just didn't have an overwhelming regional flavor to it.

Yeah, and that third ended up moving to Canada--usually Ontario.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Yeah, and that third ended up moving to Canada--usually Ontario.

~Chas'88

But they moved after the fact.

However, that move did set up the regional flavor to Anglophonic America's War of 1812 of course. :

Originally Posted by Normal

Wow I'm not even sure where to begin. First of all gianthogweed, thank you very much for attempting to answer my question about the generations (as opposed to the turnings). I don't think I'm going to argue too much with your take on the generations, I had a hunch that the Gilded perhaps should be considered a Hero/Civic generation simply because of their age location (20 and 30 somethings during the Civil War), but I wasn't quite sure how to make that idea fit in with the other generations in the saeculum.

Thanks for the kind words. I did spend a lot of time researching and writing that post, but it is by no means infallible (nothing in the study of generations is). I'm open to improvements, and like I said, I'm already starting to change my mind on the start and end dates.

Regarding the turnings, let me get this straight - are you proposing that the 1T for the Civil War saeculum began earlier than 1794? I'm open to that possibility, I'm just curious what your (or anyone else's) take on that would be.

I think it was John J. Xenakis who said that a first turning is better described as a "recovery" rather than a "high". I agree with this labeling. When I wrote that post it seemed more logical to place the end date for the revolutionary cycle at 1889 when the constitution was ratified. By that point, the new establishment was set in place. True there were a few minor uprisings after 1789. But this seems to fit in better with a first turning mood of "recovery" from a crisis. The first few years of a recovery is an adjustment period that may still have a bit of that crisis mood held over. I'm open to the idea of including the whiskey rebellion, but I still feel like, by that point, the country's mood had already pivoted to a first turning and was in recovery from the prior crisis.

You mentioned starting the 2T several years before the War of 1812, maybe as early as 1803 (Louisiana Purchase) or so. If that's the case, would you still place the 1T starting date at 1794? If so, that would create a really short 1T. I don't disagree with the idea of the War of 1812 being a 2T war (or maybe a war on the cusp of a 1T/2T). But to me that would necessitate that such a belief would place the beginning of the 2T either around 1812 (when the war began) or 1815 (when the war ended). Maybe someone can come up with a reason why the 2T started during the war. I don't know. I'm still open to debating this one.

As I stated before, I would put the first turning as beginning in 1790, the year after the constitution was ratified. Still, 1803 seems too soon to me, which is why I didn't go with it. In fact, the Louisiana purchase seems quite 1T to me. The issue of slavery in these new territories was debated, but not nearly as hotly as it was in later years. Politics were easing up and the country was approaching "the era of good feelings". Initially I declared the pivotal year as 1807, but I would like to revise that now and move it up to 1812. As I mentioned in my previous post, I don't think the banning of the slave trade in 1807 represented a pivotal mood shifting moment. The war of 1812, however, did. We went from a country eager to avoid war and conflict, to one eager to march off into Canada to fight the British. Even though the war ended in a stalemate, we did establish ourselves as a confident sovereign nation, and the "era of good feelings" began soon after. It was a cuspy war to say the least, but I think it belongs more in the 2T than it does in the 1T.

Now regarding the start and end dates of the 4T in the Civil War saeculum, it still makes sense to me to use 1850 as a start date.

I think the 4T began in 1848 with the victory of the Mexican War and the recent discovery of gold in California. The US wanted that gold, and they wanted to bring California into the union to get it. But the issue of slavery was rearing it's ugly head again. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 had resolved the tension temporarily, but now the agrarian south had become even more reliant on slavery, and now had to compete with the industrializing North in a fast growing and hyper competitive market. They were under an enormous amount of pressure and their economy relied almost entirely on cotton plantations that required an ever increasing number of slaves. Tensions were much higher now, and the Compromise Generation was aging out of power and being supplanted by the Transcendental and Gold Rush generations. Many southern states were already ready to secede if things didn't go their way. The compromise of 1850 was an attempt to alleviate this tension. It ultimately failed, but, at the time, it felt like a victory, as it avoided a bloody conflict that seemed immediate at the time. All it really did was delay the bloody conflict.

I think the entire 1850s decade fell within the 4T, but it was a build up to the crisis climax in the early to mid 1860s. Just like how the 2010s are a build up to some looming, major crisis around the time period from 2020-2025. Fourth turnings seem to have two primary phases - an initial phase lasting about a decade in which things are bad, but not as bad as they will be in the second phase (what we call the crisis climax). So the 1930s were pretty tough........but it was the events of 1941-1945 that truly defined that 4T. The period from 1850-1859 was an extremely divisive one in American history, but it was the events of 1861-1865 that truly shaped the Crisis era. That was the culmination of everything that had been building up for 10 years prior to the Civil War.

That's a good analysis, but it doesn't always follow that model. The Revolutionary War Crisis, for example, began with a big war, but ended with many years of economic hardship and constant political bickering until the constitution was finally ratified. It was a backwards Crisis, in a way. S&H define a 4T as having four phases:

Originally Posted by Strauss & Howe

1. The catalyst - a startling event (or sequence of events) that produces a sudden shift in mood.

Note that every turning has a catalyst, or pivotal moment, that triggers this shift in mood. What the catalyst is isn't as important as how society reacts to this catalyst. If it results in a shift in mood, than it's a catalyst.

Originally Posted by Strauss & Howe

2. The regeneracy - a new counter-entropy that reunifies and reenergizes civic life

Like I said before, for the civil war cycle, the regeneracy happened very late, and only after Lincoln forced it into action. Other regeneracies, like in the case of the Revolutionary War and in the Great Depression and WWII, happen more quickly, and voluntarily.

Originally Posted by Strauss & Howe

3. The Climax - a crucial moment that confirms the death of the old order and birth of the new.

Usually this happens towards the end of the 4T. But, in the Revolutionary War's case, it happened near the beginning.

Originally Posted by Strauss & Howe

4. The Resolution - a triumphant or tragic conclusion that separates the winners form losers, resolves the big public questions, and establishes the new order.

This always happens at the end of the Crisis, and marks the beginning of the recovery. The ratification of the constitution, the surrender of Robert E. Lee, the surrender of Japan in WWII are all resolutions. The aftermath can still feel like like a crisis (ie. the whiskey rebellion, assassination of Lincoln, the devastation of WWII) but the mood has already shifted towards a recovery.

With all of that being said, I would place the end of the 4T not at 1865 when the war ended, but at 1870 when the last of the Confederate states was re-admitted back to the Union. This may muck with the generational boundaries you drew up a little bit, but it just kind of makes sense to me that the 4T wasn't really final and officially done with until all of the seceded states were re-admitted to the Union.

It's perfectly valid to draw your line there, especially you view a 1T as a high. Reconstruction sure didn't have the mood of a high. In fact, it has been argued that Johnson's presidency still had the crisis mood, whereas Grant's presidency had much more of a 1T high mood. Again, I prefer to view a 1T more as a recovery rather than a high. After the Civil War, the recovery began. Reconstruction under Johnson was much more heated, as the radical Republicans were still fighting bitter and heated political battles with the more conservative Republicans and Democrats. But the mood had indeed changed to one of recovery by this point.

I have even contemplated the idea that the 4T started in 1860 and ended in 1877 with the end of Reconstruction and the inauguration of Rutherford B. Hayes in the most controversial of American elections, the presidential election of 1876. But I'm not sure how to reconcile the 1860-1877 4T theory with the other three turnings in the Civil War saeculum, or the 1T in the following saeculum (we all agree that the Haymarket Riots of 1886 started off the 2T, right?).

What do you think about all of this?

Reconstruction and the Gilded Age were both part of the first turning. The 2T, beginning in 1886, was not only note-able for the missionary awakening, but also the emergence of communism and socialism as socio-political ideologies in opposition to the industrial establishment built by the Gilded Generation. The more conservative progressive generation, in an effort to improve the new establishment, started promoting these new populist ideologies, but it was primarily the missionary generation that was responsible for turning it into a cultural and economic revolt. This was a publicly focused 2T, whereas the transcendental awakening of the 1820s, and the 1960s consciousnous revolution, were more privately focused awakenings. This supports my double rhythm of the cycles theory.

I pretty much agree with S&H's dates from here on out, with a few possible changes. For one, I think the Lost Generation can be extended to 1903, and perhaps it's possible to extend nearly every generation there-after a few years. I'm starting to believe that perhaps the birth years do indeed actually coincide with the turning pivotal years. Since the mood shift is cuspy, as is the generational personality in the years surrounding these pivotal events, the exact year for the birth dates is entirely subjective. But I often find that the personality of the cusps after the pivoting dates fits better with the former generation than they do with the current one they're officially a part of. For example, the X/Y cusp is often argued to begin as late as 1978, but arguably can end as late 1987. The Joneser cusp begins in 1958, but can arguably end as late as 1965. There are more years after the pivotal birth than there are before. But, cusps are a very subjective concept, so I'm not sure if this theory is really worth debating.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

I think that a lot of us see a bit of an 1850's replay in contermprary America.




But remember almost a third of those alive during the Revolutionary War were Tories. The Republican gen. was divided just as the guilded were. The division just didn't have an overwhelming regional flavor to it.

This is true. But I wasn't claiming that civics were all united behind the cause, only that, in these more publicly focused 4Ts, the hero generations tend to be more civic minded, and the regeneracy tended to come on voluntarily soon after the catalyst. The reason, of course, is because the course of action was more readily agreed upon by the more public oriented prophets who are in power at the time.

It may be too early in the 4T to say if the millies will unify upon a course of action. If we are in an early 1850's mode then the millies still have a few years left to choose sides.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

According to non-S&H sources the "Second Great Awakening" started gaining momentum in 1801 at the "Cane Ridge Revival". The video I'm linking is long, but it gives a good overview of a non-S&H view of the Second Great Awakening.



~Chas'88

Notice how important the individual was to this awakening. It was all about one's own personal interpretation of the bible, the belief that anyone could be their own minister, and didn't need to have a spiritual mediator to have a personal relationship with god. The transcendental awakening was indeed a private and individual oriented awakening, much like the consciousness revolution of the 1960s.

Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

Thanks for the kind words. I did spend a lot of time researching and writing that post, but it is by no means infallible (nothing in the study of generations is). I'm open to improvements, and like I said, I'm already starting to change my mind on the start and end dates.

I think it was John J. Xenakis who said that a first turning is better described as a "recovery" rather than a "high". I agree with this labeling. When I wrote that post it seemed more logical to place the end date for the revolutionary cycle at 1889 when the constitution was ratified. By that point, the new establishment was set in place. True there were a few minor uprisings after 1789. But this seems to fit in better with a first turning mood of "recovery" from a crisis. The first few years of a recovery is an adjustment period that may still have a bit of that crisis mood held over. I'm open to the idea of including the whiskey rebellion, but I still feel like, by that point, the country's mood had already pivoted to a first turning and was in recovery from the prior crisis.

I think the idea of a "recovery" 1T (as opposed to a "high" 1T) is more appropriate for countries that either lose a 4T war, or suffer extensive damage during a 4T war (even if they emerged as victors). So that would be applicable to America after both the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, but not WWII. One can't help but wonder if WWII was an anomaly, in that it was a 4T war where very little blood was shed on our shores, but instead overseas. Because the US emerged from WWII practically unscathed, that gave us a huge advantage economically and militarily after the war, setting the stage for us to emerge as a superpower. It definitely made a difference. But this time around, we may not get so lucky, especially if we have some sort of major internal conflict or civil war, which appears more and more likely with each passing year.

Originally Posted by gianthogweed

As I stated before, I would put the first turning as beginning in 1790, the year after the constitution was ratified. Still, 1803 seems too soon to me, which is why I didn't go with it. In fact, the Louisiana purchase seems quite 1T to me. The issue of slavery in these new territories was debated, but not nearly as hotly as it was in later years. Politics were easing up and the country was approaching "the era of good feelings". Initially I declared the pivotal year as 1807, but I would like to revise that now and move it up to 1812. As I mentioned in my previous post, I don't think the banning of the slave trade in 1807 represented a pivotal mood shifting moment. The war of 1812, however, did. We went from a country eager to avoid war and conflict, to one eager to march off into Canada to fight the British. Even though the war ended in a stalemate, we did establish ourselves as a confident sovereign nation, and the "era of good feelings" began soon after. It was a cuspy war to say the least, but I think it belongs more in the 2T than it does in the 1T.

Honestly, it made sense to me instinctively to place the boundary between the 4T and the 1T at 1789 or 1790 as well, but several people here who are much more knowledgeable about American history than I am kept saying the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 ought to be the end date for the 4T, so I just kind of went along with that. Because 1789 is when the Constitution was ratified, that does make sense to me. The ratification of important treaties, constitutions, etc. is a good end date for any 4T.

Given a 1T start date of 1789 or 1790, I would place the end date for the 1T right at 1812 when the war began. I know it's a bit long at 22-23 years, but generally speaking I think as long as a turning falls somewhere between 16-24 years in length, it's acceptable. Anything less or more than that is suspect, which is why I had to question official S&H doctrine declaring 1794-1822 to be one long 1T.

Originally Posted by gianthogweed

I think the 4T began in 1848 with the victory of the Mexican War and the recent discovery of gold in California. The US wanted that gold, and they wanted to bring California into the union to get it. But the issue of slavery was rearing it's ugly head again. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 had resolved the tension temporarily, but now the agrarian south had become even more reliant on slavery, and now had to compete with the industrializing North in a fast growing and hyper competitive market. They were under an enormous amount of pressure and their economy relied almost entirely on cotton plantations that required an ever increasing number of slaves. Tensions were much higher now, and the Compromise Generation was aging out of power and being supplanted by the Transcendental and Gold Rush generations. Many southern states were already ready to secede if things didn't go their way. The compromise of 1850 was an attempt to alleviate this tension. It ultimately failed, but, at the time, it felt like a victory, as it avoided a bloody conflict that seemed immediate at the time. All it really did was delay the bloody conflict.

1848 is fine to me, I just didn't agree with using a start date as late as 1854 (Kansas-Nebraska Act) or 1860 (beginning of the Civil War), as S&H or others here on this forum may have suggested. That seemed too late to me. I understand the importance of the Mexican-American War and how the newly acquired territories re-opened the slavery debate with even more intensity than ever before, setting the stage for the war itself.

Originally Posted by gianthogweed

That's a good analysis, but it doesn't always follow that model. The Revolutionary War Crisis, for example, began with a big war, but ended with many years of economic hardship and constant political bickering until the constitution was finally ratified. It was a backwards Crisis, in a way. S&H define a 4T as having four phases:

Note that every turning has a catalyst, or pivotal moment, that triggers this shift in mood. What the catalyst is isn't as important as how society reacts to this catalyst. If it results in a shift in mood, than it's a catalyst.

Like I said before, for the civil war cycle, the regeneracy happened very late, and only after Lincoln forced it into action. Other regeneracies, like in the case of the Revolutionary War and in the Great Depression and WWII, happen more quickly, and voluntarily.

Usually this happens towards the end of the 4T. But, in the Revolutionary War's case, it happened near the beginning.

This always happens at the end of the Crisis, and marks the beginning of the recovery. The ratification of the constitution, the surrender of Robert E. Lee, the surrender of Japan in WWII are all resolutions. The aftermath can still feel like like a crisis (ie. the whiskey rebellion, assassination of Lincoln, the devastation of WWII) but the mood has already shifted towards a recovery.

Yet another excellent point. I never entertained the idea that 4Ts could play out in a non-linear or unorthodox fashion, and still have a firm resolution that signifies the end of one saeculum and the beginning of another. S&H always describe it as being something that must happen in a certain order: catalyst, regeneracy, climax, resolution. It might also help answer the question of why in 2013, five years removed from the Crisis catalyst, we still don't really feel like we're in a regeneracy phase yet.

S&H say that a regeneracy should happen 1-5 years after the catalyst, but it's been about five years now. More and more, I think this 4T is going to play out just like the Civil War 4T - sometime around 2018 or 2020, we'd better watch out. But by 2030 for sure (if not a few years earlier), we should be in a "recovery" turning. And if the upcoming 4T war is fought amongst ourselves and not against an external enemy, then it really will be a "recovery" and not a "high".

Originally Posted by gianthogweed

It's perfectly valid to draw your line there, especially you view a 1T as a high. Reconstruction sure didn't have the mood of a high. In fact, it has been argued that Johnson's presidency still had the crisis mood, whereas Grant's presidency had much more of a 1T high mood. Again, I prefer to view a 1T more as a recovery rather than a high. After the Civil War, the recovery began. Reconstruction under Johnson was much more heated, as the radical Republicans were still fighting bitter and heated political battles with the more conservative Republicans and Democrats. But the mood had indeed changed to one of recovery by this point.

I mentioned earlier about the signing of treaties being good indicators that a 4T has ended and a 1T has begun, so it seems Appomattox would be a good line in the sand, but like I said, I just can't help but feel like the story of that 4T and the story of the Civil War itself was not truly complete until all of the states were back in the Union, so I think I will stick with an 1870 end date for the 4T.

Originally Posted by gianthogweed

Reconstruction and the Gilded Age were both part of the first turning. The 2T, beginning in 1886, was not only note-able for the missionary awakening, but also the emergence of communism and socialism as socio-political ideologies in opposition to the industrial establishment built by the Gilded Generation. The more conservative progressive generation, in an effort to improve the new establishment, started promoting these new populist ideologies, but it was primarily the missionary generation that was responsible for turning it into a cultural and economic revolt. This was a publicly focused 2T, whereas the transcendental awakening of the 1820s, and the 1960s consciousnous revolution, were more privately focused awakenings. This supports my double rhythm of the cycles theory.

Well again, this was just a thought that I entertained briefly before sort of dismissing it in favor of an 1850-1870 (or 1848-1870, or whatever) 4T. I agree that the 1870s had enough of an economic boom (though disrupted by the Economic Panic of 1873) to feel like a 1T. The Gilded Age appeared to be a 1T era, whether you see 1Ts as "recoveries" or as "highs".

Originally Posted by gianthogweed

I pretty much agree with S&H's dates from here on out, with a few possible changes. For one, I think the Lost Generation can be extended to 1903, and perhaps it's possible to extend nearly every generation there-after a few years. I'm starting to believe that perhaps the birth years do indeed actually coincide with the turning pivotal years. Since the mood shift is cuspy, as is the generational personality in the years surrounding these pivotal events, the exact year for the birth dates is entirely subjective. But I often find that the personality of the cusps after the pivoting dates fits better with the former generation than they do with the current one they're officially a part of. For example, the X/Y cusp is often argued to begin as late as 1978, but arguably can end as late 1987. The Joneser cusp begins in 1958, but can arguably end as late as 1965. There are more years after the pivotal birth than there are before. But, cusps are a very subjective concept, so I'm not sure if this theory is really worth debating.

Many of us on here seem to think that the Lost generational boundaries should extend for several years after 1900. And some of us Millennials (myself included) have also argued that early-wave Millennials exhibit cuspy traits and cuspy behavior, perhaps as late as 1987 or so, so I will agree with you there.

The thing to remember (and frankly I think S&H overlook this to some extent) is that no person in any generation is born and raised in a vaccum. Well, maybe some strict religious groups, but for the most part, we are raised as children around not just our parents and like-aged peers, but also older siblings, cousins, neighbors, etc. who have an influence on us. For Millennials born in the '80s, even the late '80s, late wave Xers were only a few years older than us. They were just kids in our neighborhood who happened to be a few years older.

So as much as we may have been influenced by our parents' style of parenting, we were also influenced by the broader culture around us. The closer to a generational boundary you are, the more likely you are to be influenced by those on the other side of the fence. So yeah, someone born as late as five or six years after the official "cut off" could still exhibit traits that can be described as "cuspy". Not that we're arguing for an extension of the generational boundaries, necessarily, we're just saying that there are more gray and fuzzy areas that extend for a longer period of time than some (including S&H) may believe.

Note: Forgive the meandering that occurs in this post, my mind is very tangental--but it all has a point.

Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

Notice how important the individual was to this awakening. It was all about one's own personal interpretation of the bible, the belief that anyone could be their own minister, and didn't need to have a spiritual mediator to have a personal relationship with god. The transcendental awakening was indeed a private and individual oriented awakening, much like the consciousness revolution of the 1960s.

And as it was the Awakening where Methodism was the strongest, here's the strongest message of that Awakening: It doesn't matter your background, just as long as you have the "right heart" you too can be saved.

Transcendentalism is less about personal salvation as the above movement is and more about the freedom of the individual from the corrupting influence of society. Most of the figures of the Transcendentalist movement, by our measure (both yours and mine) turn out to be equivalent to "Jonesers".

I wouldn't call the above Awakening (which the series depicts as occurring mostly from the 1800s - 1820s before it starts having to deal with the complications of Catholics in the 1830s) the "Transcendental Awakening" as it doesn't include the Transcendental movement, for one, nor does it include the Transcendentalists as attendants. So calling it what S&H do: the "Transcendental Awakening" is a complete misnomer, and is something that should be corrected. Also the entire notion of Transcendentalism should be re-examined as it wasn't so much a populist movement as a smaller movement of elites in a relatively confined geographic area of the country.

The people attending the revivals as shown in the above video are more equivalent to our "War Babies" and the parents of the Transcendental cusper cohorts (1800s cohorts). Abraham Lincoln (such a "Transcendental" cusper) for example remembered being dragged to these revivals as a child by his parents and feeling quite out of place as all the adults (including his parents) were going into overt fits and rolling on the ground. That's actually the best evidence IMO for him being more Nomad than Prophet. There's another example I can remember of another famous figure most attribute as a core Prophet, but when you look into his childhood, starts sounding like a cusper as well... I remember that he had to start working to support his family as a kid and that his best childhood memory was when a complete stranger showed affection for him. That says a lot about how some of these cohorts were raised IMO. If you start digging deeper into the childhoods of a lot of these 1800s and 1810s cohorts that S&H claim to be prophets, Nomad childhood elements start appearing all over the place, whether its having unaffectionate parents, parents heavily involved in going to Revivals, or having no "childhood" as they had to work to support the family. These are things typically found in Nomad childhoods elsewhere (Losts, Xers, Cavaliers, Liberty). The exception to all of these occurs when you look at the 1800s and 1810s cohorts who were rich and/or came from New England. And considering S&H (like most historians) have a New England bias, this isn't surprising. (I actually have a separate theory that different parts of the country produce certain archetypes better than others, New England IMO always produces Prophets--no matter the generation they happen to be; the South produces Artists, the West and the Mid-Atlantic produces Nomads, and the Mid-West produces Civics, but that's for another thread).

The Transcendental movement didn't occur until the 1830s (1836 to be specific)--that's one thing that is relevantly clear. Also the core Transcendental leaders were a small group of wealthy individuals who were rebelling in a local setting in New England: against Harvard. These are the members of the upper crust. They were rebelling against the state of intellectualism at Harvard University and the doctrine of the Unitarian church taught at Harvard Divinity School. The Unitarian church being a relatively recent belief in America (1786), one that espouses the belief that the "trinity" is false doctrine and doesn't adhere to strict monotheism, that the life and teachings of Jesus Christ constitute the exemplar model for living one's own life, that human nature in its present condition is neither inherently corrupt nor depraved, but capable of both good and evil, as God intended, that reason, rational thought, science, and philosophy coexist with faith in God, and that humans have the ability to exercise free will in a responsible, constructive and ethical manner with the assistance of religion. These things are what the Transcendentalists put themselves in opposition to.

What Transcendentals were all about:

Among the transcendentalists' core beliefs was the inherent goodness of both people and nature. Transcendentalists believed that society and its institutions—particularly organized religion and political parties—ultimately corrupted the purity of the individual. They had faith that people are at their best when truly "self-reliant" and independent. It is only from such real individuals that true community could be formed.

The transcendentalists varied in their interpretations of the practical aims of will. Some among the group linked it with utopian social change; Brownson (b. 1803) connected it with early socialism, while others considered it an exclusively individualist and idealist project. Emerson believed the latter. In his 1842 lecture "The Transcendentalist", Emerson suggested that the goal of a purely transcendental outlook on life was impossible to attain in practice:

You will see by this sketch that there is no such thing as a transcendental party; that there is no pure transcendentalist; that we know of no one but prophets and heralds of such a philosophy; that all who by strong bias of nature have leaned to the spiritual side in doctrine, have stopped short of their goal. We have had many harbingers and forerunners; but of a purely spiritual life, history has afforded no example. I mean, we have yet no man who has leaned entirely on his character, and eaten angels' food; who, trusting to his sentiments, found life made of miracles; who, working for universal aims, found himself fed, he knew not how; clothed, sheltered, and weaponed, he knew not how, and yet it was done by his own hands. ...Shall we say, then, that transcendentalism is the Saturnalia or excess of Faith; the presentiment of a faith proper to man in his integrity, excessive only when his imperfect obedience hinders the satisfaction of his wish.

However this comes after the lower classes have been having Revivals for some time, and heck even some of the Transcendental-aged peers had parents dragging them to those Revivals and making them feel awkward.

And now for a purposeful tangent:

It's been suggested (by Semo'75) that in the Consciousness Revolution that the Awakening began in the upper classes and then "trickled down" into the lower classes (this is quite evident actually when you track popular Awakening films and television. The first Awakening movies and television deal with characters from the upper crust of society (The Graduate, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, Getting Straight, Harold & Maude, How Sweet It Is), then after that you see films and television about the Awakening piercing the suburban middle class (Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, Close Encounters of the Third Kind), then after that you see films and television about the Awakening piercing the lower urban class (Rocky, Car Wash, Saturday Night Fever), and then after that you see films and television about the Awakening piercing the lower rural class (The Dukes of Hazard, The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas, Footloose). And ultimately you get to the "final major" Awakening film (as Semo'75 put it): Flashdance--which deals with a Joneser talking about how dancing is a "transcendent" experience for her in the trailer.

I actually think this is the best way to look at an Awakening as "rolling" through different parts of society at different speeds and peaking at different levels at different moments. For example, think about how "country/rural" life was depicted at the beginning of the Awakening: Beverly Hillbillies & Green Acres--all of it depict it as a backward society clinging to Depression-era technology and lifestyles. During the midst of the Awakening you had the "hick fear" genre in horror (depicting the Suburban Middle Class' fears of un-Awakened rural folk). In fact most of the horror films of the Awakening deal with Awakened individuals being forced to interact with unawakened individuals or individuals trying to undo the Awakening or cling to unawakened beliefs in some form or another (Deliverance, The Stepford Wives, Carrie). However by the end of the Awakening the "rural" lifestyle has been "revitalized" around the figure of the Boomer "Good Ol' Boy".

Hell, over the course of the Awakening it even worked its way up and down the age latter too. It starts with the Boomers in the beginning (I don't think I need examples for that), but then you get films about Silents (Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice, Sweet Charity, An Unmarried Woman), and even the GIs, Interbellums, and Losts getting in on the Awakening (Harold & Maude, Harry and Tonto, Going in Style). Hell, by the second half of the Awakening we have films about Jonesers & Xers interacting with the Awakening culture, well, really they're usually based on books about Boomers, but by the time those books are made into films the films are "set in modern day" and become about Jonesers & Xers and the disjointedness of that "adjustment" usually is pretty obvious--but these still are very much Awakening films in style and subject matter, they're just "updated": Freaky Friday, A Little Romance, Endless Love, (Flashdance goes here too), Footloose (a late example), Fame, Breaking Away. Come the final phase of the Awakening actual genuine films about actual Xers interacting with the effects of the Awakening start popping up: Kramer vs. Kramer, Rich Kids, Ordinary People, and Shoot the Moon. Age-wise the Consciousness Awakening seemed to go: Aquarian Boom, War Babies (only when things got "unfair"), Silents & Greatests, Disco Boom, Interbellums Lost and GIs (these three are usually tossed in as all "the same"), and finally Jonesers & Xers.

Anyway, the whole point of looking at the Consciousness Revolution in the preceding paragraphs was to show how it moved and changed over the course of its years from Upper Class to Lower Class. However I think this isn't the same pattern for the Civil War Saeculum, and the reason I think S&H got the Civil War saeculum "wrong" is that they spent far too much time focusing on the elite and the middle class in Civil War Saeculum society. Instead they should've been focusing on the lower classes, and the lower classes started this Awakening first, with it "trickling up" into the upper classes later down the line IMHO--the exact opposite of how the Consciousness Revolution worked.

~Chas'88

I think the idea of a "recovery" 1T (as opposed to a "high" 1T) is more appropriate for countries that either lose a 4T war, or suffer extensive damage during a 4T war (even if they emerged as victors). So that would be applicable to America after both the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, but not WWII. One can't help but wonder if WWII was an anomaly, in that it was a 4T war where very little blood was shed on our shores, but instead overseas. Because the US emerged from WWII practically unscathed, that gave us a huge advantage economically and militarily after the war, setting the stage for us to emerge as a superpower. It definitely made a difference. But this time around, we may not get so lucky, especially if we have some sort of major internal conflict or civil war, which appears more and more likely with each passing year.

Try looking at the "Merrie England" High (Shakespearean times) or the "Augustan Age" High (the beginning of the Hanover dynasty). Both of which happened in England after relatively mild 4Tings where issues were either taking place elsewhere or just in fact didn't draw any blood at home.

Merrie England or "The Elizabethan Age"

This "golden age"^[2] represented the apogee of the English Renaissance and saw the flowering of poetry, music and literature. The era is most famous for theatre, as William Shakespeare and many others composed plays that broke free of England's past style of theatre. It was an age of exploration and expansion abroad, while back at home, the Protestant Reformation became more acceptable to the people, most certainly after the Spanish Armada was repulsed. It was also the end of the period when England was a separate realm before its royal union with Scotland.


The Elizabethan Age is viewed so highly because of the periods before and after. It was a brief period of largely internal peace between the English Reformation and the battles between Protestants and Catholics and the battles between parliament and the monarchy that engulfed the seventeenth century. The Protestant/Catholic divide was settled, for a time, by the Elizabethan Religious Settlement, and parliament was not yet strong enough to challenge royal absolutism.

"The Augustan Age" or Enlightenment England:

Augustan literature (sometimes referred to misleadingly as Georgian literature) is a style of English literature produced during the reigns of Queen Anne, King George I, and George II in the first half of the 18th century and ending in the 1740s with the deaths of Pope and Swift (1744 and 1745, respectively). It is a literary epoch that featured the rapid development of the novel, an explosion in satire, the mutation of drama from political satire into melodrama, and an evolution toward poetry of personal exploration. In philosophy, it was an age increasingly dominated by empiricism, while in the writings of political-economy it marked the evolution of mercantilism as a formal philosophy, the development of capitalism, and the triumph of trade.

Alexander Pope, who had been imitating Horace, wrote an Epistle to Augustus that was in fact addressed to George II and seemingly endorsed the notion of his age being like that of Augustus, when poetry became more mannered, political and satirical than in the era of Julius Caesar.^[1] Later, Voltaire and Oliver Goldsmith (in his History of Literature in 1764) used the term "Augustan" to refer to the literature of the 1720s and '30s.^[2] Outside poetry, however, the Augustan era is generally known by other names. Partially because of the rise of empiricism and partially due to the self-conscious naming of the age in terms of ancient Rome, two rather imprecise labels have been affixed to the age. One is that it is the age of neoclassicism; the other is that it is the Age of Reason. While neoclassical criticism from France was imported to English letters, the English had abandoned their strictures in all but name by the 1720s. Critics disagree over the applicability of the concept of "the Enlightenment" to the literary history of this period. Donald Greene argued forcefully that the age should rather be known as "The Age of Exuberance," while T. H. White made a case for "The Age of Scandal". More recently, Roy Porter put forward the notion of a distinctively "English Enlightenment" to characterize the intellectual climate of the period.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Note: Forgive the meandering that occurs in this post, my mind is very tangental--but it all has a point.



And as it was the Awakening where Methodism was the strongest, here's the strongest message of that Awakening: It doesn't matter your background, just as long as you have the "right heart" you too can be saved.

Transcendentalism is less about personal salvation as the above movement is and more about the freedom of the individual from the corrupting influence of society. Most of the figures of the Transcendentalist movement, by our measure (both yours and mind) turn out to be equivalent to "Jonesers".

I wouldn't call the above Awakening the "Transcendental Awakening" as it doesn't include the Transcendental movement, for one, nor does it include the Transcendentalists as attendants. So calling it what S&H do: the "Transcendental Awakening" is a complete misnomer, and is something that should be corrected. Also the entire notion of Transcendentalism should be re-examined as it wasn't so much a populist movement as a smaller movement of elites in a relatively confined geographic area of the country.

The people attending the revivals as shown in the above video are more equivalent to our "War Babies" and the parents of the Transcendental cohorts (1800s cohorts). Abraham Lincoln for example remembered being dragged to these revivals as a child by his parents and feeling quite out of place at all the adults (including his parents) going into overt fits and rolling on the ground.

The Transcendental movement didn't occur until the 1830s (1836 to be specific)--that's one thing that is relevantly clear. Also the core Transcendental leaders were a small group of wealthy individuals who were rebelling in a local setting in New England: against Harvard. These are the members of the upper crust. They were rebelling against the state of intellectualism at Harvard University and the doctrine of the Unitarian church taught at Harvard Divinity School. The Unitarian church being a relatively recent belief in America (1786), one that espouses the belief that the "trinity" is false doctrine and doesn't adhere to strict monotheism, that the life and teachings of Jesus Christ constitute the exemplar model for living one's own life, that human nature in its present condition is neither inherently corrupt nor depraved, but capable of both good and evil, as God intended, that reason, rational thought, science, and philosophy coexist with faith in God, and that humans have the ability to exercise free will in a responsible, constructive and ethical manner with the assistance of religion. These things are what the Transcendentalists put themselves in opposition to.

What Transcendentals were all about:



However this comes after the lower classes have been having Revivals for some time, and heck even some of the Transcendental-aged peers had parents dragging them to those Revivals and making them feel awkward.

And now for a purposeful tangent:

It's been suggested (by Semo'75) that in the Consciousness Revolution that the Awakening began in the upper classes and then "trickled down" into the lower classes (this is quite evident actually when you track popular Awakening films and television. The first Awakening movies and television deal with characters from the upper crust of society (The Graduate, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, Getting Straight, Harold & Maude), then after that you see films and television about the Awakening piercing the suburban middle class (Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, Close Encounters of the Third Kind), then after that you see films and television about the Awakening piercing the lower urban class (Rocky, Car Wash, Saturday Night Fever), and then after that you see films and television about the Awakening piercing the lower rural class (The Dukes of Hazard, The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas, Footloose). And ultimately you get to the "final major" Awakening film (as Semo'75 put it): Flashdance--which deals with a Joneser talking about how dancing is a "transcendent" experience for her in the trailer.

I actually think this is the best way to look at an Awakening as "rolling" through different parts of society at different speeds and peaking at different levels at different moments. For example, think about how "country/rural" life was depicted at the beginning of the Awakening: Beverly Hillbillies & Green Acres--all of it depict it as a backward society clinging to Depression-era technology and lifestyles. During the midst of the Awakening you had the "hick fear" genre in horror (depicting the Suburban Middle Class' fears of un-Awakened rural folk). In fact most of the horror films of the Awakening deal with Awakened individuals being forced to interact with unawakened individuals or individuals trying to undo the Awakening or cling to unawakened beliefs in some form or another (Deliverance, The Stepford Wives, Carrie). However by the end of the Awakening the "rural" lifestyle has been "revitalized" around the figure of the Boomer "Good Ol' Boy".

Hell, over the course of the Awakening it even worked its way up and down the age latter too. It starts with the Boomers in the beginning (I don't think I need examples for that), but then you get films about Silents (Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice, Sweet Charity, An Unmarried Woman), and even the GIs, Interbellums, and Losts getting in on the Awakening (Harold & Maude, Harry and Tonto, Going in Style). Hell, by the second half of the Awakening we have films about Jonesers & Xers interacting with the Awakening culture, well, really they're usually based on books about Boomers, but by the time those books are made into films the films are "set in modern day" and become about Jonesers & Xers and the disjointedness of that "adjustment" usually is pretty obvious--but these still are very much Awakening films in style and subject matter, they're just "updated": Freaky Friday, A Little Romance, Endless Love, (Flashdance goes here too), Footloose (a late example), Fame, Breaking Away. Come the final phase of the Awakening actual genuine films about actual Xers interacting with the effects of the Awakening start popping up: Kramer vs. Kramer, Rich Kids, Ordinary People, and Shoot the Moon. Age-wise the Consciousness Awakening seemed to go: Aquarian Boom, War Babies (only when things got "unfair"), Silents & Greatests, Disco Boom, Interbellums Lost and GIs (these three are usually tossed in as all "the same"), and finally Jonesers & Xers.

Anyway, the whole point of looking at the Consciousness Revolution in the preceding paragraphs was to show how it moved and changed over the course of its years from Upper Class to Lower Class. However I think this isn't the same pattern for the Civil War Saeculum, and the reason I think S&H got the Civil War saeculum "wrong" is that they spent far too much time focusing on the elite and the middle class in Civil War Saeculum society. Instead they should've been focusing on the lower classes, and the lower classes started this Awakening first, with it "trickling up" into the upper classes later down the line IMHO--the exact opposite of how the Consciousness Revolution worked.

~Chas'88

Chas, if your theory of a "rolling" Awakening is true, then that means that Nomad generations (or at least Nomad traits and Nomad tendencies) should start and end later among working class (or even middle class) communities, in both urban and rural areas. Correct?

I mean, I think your theory may have some merit to it, but if it does, it introduces a whole new dynamic I'm not sure if we know how to deal with - the concept of generational boundaries being slightly different depending on socioeconomic factors such as income/economic status, race, religion, etc.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Try looking at the "Merrie England" High (Shakespearean times) or the "Augustan Age" High (the beginning of the Hanover dynasty). Both of which happened in England after relatively mild 4Tings where issues were either taking place elsewhere or just in fact didn't draw any blood at home.

Merrie England or "The Elizabethan Age"

I trust your judgement on this one. That's really far back, anything before the American Revolution, and you lose me.

Originally Posted by Normal

Chas, if your theory of a "rolling" Awakening is true, then that means that Nomad generations (or at least Nomad traits and Nomad tendencies) should start and end later among working class (or even middle class) communities, in both urban and rural areas. Correct?

I don't know if I would go that far with it, but you definitely could make a case for it, as I've mentioned elsewhere, the Unraveling "live life in the moment" environment didn't actually hit my home town until the 2000s, before that life was much more austere as the town dealt with the fact that the local truck factory had left town.

I mean, I think your theory may have some merit to it, but if it does, it introduces a whole new dynamic I'm not sure if we know how to deal with - the concept of generational boundaries being slightly different depending on socioeconomic factors such as income/economic status, race, religion, etc.

It's not my theory originally. It was developed by Semo'75, who used it to explain how S&H got the ending date of the Awakening in 1984 "right". But yeah, Socioeconomic status is something that is not touched upon by S&H with a ten-foot pole. They typically stick to giving us the side of the story that is all about the "upper class" and sometimes the "middle class", but never the "average joe" or the "lower class" unless the higher classes start to get unusually interested in the lives of the "lower classes", like in the Great Power Saeculum. So I do agree that it's something that the theory is completely unable to assess or even examine. I also think the theory is very biased towards life in New England, and that if you're from outside of that part of America you barely get covered or examined. Another BIG weakness of the theory is that it over-generalizes, but that's something I can forgive as the entire concept of a generation necessitates generality (how we fix that problem is by looking at the archetypes in more depth and then coming back and seeing how those archetypes are expressed in individual circumstances or not).

Also I know David Kaiser has shared his belief with me that women weren't allowed before the Lost generation to be Nomads--which would then suggest that earlier "Nomad Generation women" then either tend to reflect back on the Idealist generation or look forward to the Civic generation, probably splitting down the middle in this respect. But that's going into issues of gender that I haven't examined.

I trust your judgement on this one. That's really far back, anything before the American Revolution, and you lose me.

Oh, come on, they're not hard to get into. Just start looking at some great British/BBC films and adaptations, then get you reading some plays and novels, then some essays and serious texts, and we'll soon have you getting there, mate.

Personally, I think one has to examine the earlier Saeculums to understand the wide breadth of possibility that can occur in these different Turnings, so that we don't get stuck in simply comparing our present condition to only the Great Power Saeculum or the Civil War Saeculum. There's so much more that comes out when you look at earlier Saeculums. Hell, I've even completed the Late Medieval Saeculum and identified the Saeculum before it (inspired to do so by Shakespeare I might add) to give me a better understanding of things. Beyond that, I look to Pat to guide me through the core of the Medieval world.

Then there's also looking at the archetypes themselves, separating them from the concept of generations... that's a fun one I like to do, doing so helps me come back to the theory with a better understanding of dynamics of "what's actually the same" versus "what's different this time around". For example, an Awakening will always be about a "loss of innocence" in archetype, and the best film that touches upon that archetypal experience IMO is Pleasantville. And one can only lose one's innocence once--so therefore it would make sense that the Awakening has to "roll" and get to different parts of society, because it has to go to where there are still "innocents" that haven't been Awakened yet. It's also why the Awakening is usually anathema to Nomads, as Nomads are all archetypally about "experience", and why if Nomads end up sticking around long enough for an Awakening that Nomad characters (like Maude in Harold and Maude) tend to help spark the Awakening for certain innocents--or in the case of Pleasantville, where two young Nomads are sent back in time inadvertently by simply providing "experience" spark an Awakening in an innocent society. By the way, the most innocent cohort of the entire theory are the Artist/Prophet cuspers. They are just so doe-eyed and trusting... after Artist/Prophet cuspers then comes core Artists... in fact let me rank from most innocent to least:

Most Innocent to Least Innocent cohorts:

Artist/Prophet
Artist
Prophet
Civic/Artist
Civic
Nomad/Civic
Prophet/Nomad
Nomad

There's just so much variety that can come from these four archetypal movements and how they appear. I just hate how we often just limit ourselves to only two examples here, it narrows the possibilities immensely.

~Chas'88

I agree with Chas that it's really important to study the earlier cycles in order to truly understand and identify the patterns presented in this theory. Three cycles really isn't enough to confirm the existence of a predictable pattern. I feel that this is a major a weakness of the books. Generations, at least, took a closer look at each of the cycles beginning with the Colonial and Revolutionary cycles. Five cycles is better than three, but still too small a sample size IMO. In the fourth turning book they dared to extend this rhythm all the way back to the late medieval period in England, but they only offered brief blurbs to support the argument that the pattern extended this far back. Still, the best thing about this theory is that it encourages people to examine history more deeply. Even if the whole theory is debunked, it does at least provide a unique perspective that encourages a different way of looking at history, and that's always a good thing.

One thing I want to add in response to Normal's post about the length of turnings: Turnings can be over 30 years, as is the case with the Colonial Cycle. But I attribute long turnings to periods of little change in lifestyle. One thing S&H gloss over is the role that technology plays in advancing the turnings. When there is significant enough technological innovation so as to drastically alter the economy and the lifestyles of the people in society, turnings tend to be much shorter in length.

Technology puts a lot of pressure on society to change their lifestyles, as was the case in the 19th century when the Industrial Revolution pretty much transformed society irrevocably. A change in lifestyle this drastic hadn't been seen since the neolithic revolution circa 8000 BC. It's a shame we have so little information from this early part of our history. It'd be an interesting study, and could provide a good predictor to the possible long term results of the much more recent Industrial Revolution. One important change we can easily identify, is the emergence of completely new professions. Before the neolithic revolution, everyone pretty much had the same job: get food. You could either be a hunter or gatherer. Sure their were elders and chieftains in these foraging societies, but they were pretty much egalitarian.

The neolithic revolution allowed for half of the population to be "freed up" from the menial of task of hunting and gathering food, and allowed for the emergence of an upper class who invented new professions to keep themselves busy. These included soldiers, priests, chefs and servants, political leaders, bankers, doctors, scientists, artists, musicians and entertainers, scholars, and merchants. The ones who were still relied on for food, ie the farmers and shepherds, were regarded in the lower tiers of society, ie peasants and slaves.

You can find many parallels to this stratification of society in the Industrial Revolution, where the manufacturing class had become seen as the new lower "working class" (whereas it had previously been seen as a somewhat upper class profession). Farming no longer required a large number of people, so most of these poor farmers were forced to become manufacturers working in factories. The industries that included the upper class professions: politics, service industry jobs, banking, law, science and medical professions, swelled as a result of the Industrial Revolution, and many professions in new industries were invented: engineering, space exploration, the film, record and video game industry, software development, etc.

But, as manufacturing jobs increasingly get replaced by automation and machines like 3D printers and robotics, the poorer class is increasingly associated with people working service industry jobs. Back in the day, working a service industry job was seen as a relatively well off upper class profession. Nowadays this is hardly the case. In fact, the technological information age that is now emerging is replacing many of these service industry jobs. It will be interesting to see what new professions emerge in consequence.

Originally Posted by Normal

So you're suggesting that if there was a Civic generation, it was literally only one year long? Why not at least 3 or 4 years...

-It could be a single cohort year, or maybe a little longer.

When I first broached the idea a while ago:

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

...As far as the whole Civic/Hero issue goes, I'll put forward the theory that there was a Civic/Hero generation, but it only consisted of the year 1843 (guys who were 18 years old in 1861). This would give 3 reasons why the Civic/Hero generation appears to be non-existent:

1) It was brief (1 year);
2) It took a lot of losses on the male side;
3) It would not have been pure Civic/Hero; it would have been Civic/Hero on the cusp of both Reactive/Nomad (Gilded) on one side & Adaptive/Artist (Progressive) on the other.

In other words, it existed, but it was submerged.

...I got resistance to the idea that a Generation (in the S&H sense) could only be one year long. I don't think that an S&H Generation has to be a "generation" long. I think others are coming around.

Originally Posted by Normal

So you're suggesting that if there was a Civic generation, it was literally only one year long? Why not at least 3 or 4 years? The Civil War lasted from 1861-1865.

-ACW started early on. Not that many nascent Civics (Heroes) had a chance to prove themselves in responsble leadership positions. As far as military things go, anyone who joined after 1861 (which is most guys born after 1843) missed the boat. They may have fought in the war (or did something else), but they weren't in charge, therefore no success as leaders, therefore no hubris, therefore not Heroes.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

...This is one of the reason why I can' t believe that the Compromise of 1850 sparked the 4T. Also, the early 1850's show an unraveling culture in America in many ways. In New York P.T. Barnums' museium was still popular...

-PT Barnum was popular during ACW. When Confederate agents tried to fry NYC in 1864, his place was one of the original targets. They may have succeeded in 1865; the original Jumbo the Elephant was killed.

Originally Posted by Normal

... To me, 1854 seems a tad bit too late - the events leading to directly to the Civil War were already happening several years before that...

...and...

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Author David Brin, who has never read either Strauss & Howe or Xenakis, but who nonetheless follows history and social trends, has another idea as to when the Civil War Crisis Era started:

"I have long held that the Civil War did not start with the firing on Fort Sumter. It began in 1852 with the passage - and brutal enforcement - of the Fugitive Slave Act, which led to invasion and outright raids of northern states by squadrons of irregular southern cavalry, committing outrages and depredations from Illinois to Pennsylvania, supported first by southern-appointed U.S. Marshals and later - when locals began resisting - by federal troops. These slave-catcher raids, smashing into homes, terrorizing neighbors and dragging off friends you knew since childhood, were the prime provocation that radicalized northerners into re-starting their dormant militias. It is what drove many of them to support Lincoln. Nothing like it happened in the south until Sherman."

By heaven, it would have radicalized ME!

...the law passed in 1852, but the evidence seems to be that northerners didn't notice until the Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854).

If you want a definite drop-dead date for the beginning of 4T, it'd be the Harper's Ferry raid (1859). Everything blew up after that. Spiral of Violence, indeed.