I have read most of S&H's books and for the most find their theory of generations and cycles an intriguing view of history that may have at least some bit of truth to it given some of the accurate predictions they made. However, I am also somewhat troubled by what I see as the authoritarian leanings in some of their writings, particularly in The Fourth Turning and Millennials Rising. This authoritarian strain shows itself most clearly towards the end of The Fourth Turning when the authors call on readers to abide by appropriate modes of conduct, not engaging in what they view as "anti-social" behavior, adhering to "traditional values", and putting their trust in government and other institutions. I have to wonder if they would demand such trust even if it is not earned and the government is clearly acting against the interests of the people and abusing its power, as it clearly is now with NSA mass surveillance and NDAA (which allows indefinite detention without any due process). I have not heard Howe speak on issues like Edward Snowden or NSA surveillance, but something tells me he would say such surveillance is necessary in a 4T and that we should trust the government when it says it is only doing this in our interest and that Snowden is a traitor and an exception to most Millennials whom he would insist our good, loyal patriots who love the government and military. It is this conservative and authoritarian bent that perhaps leads me to take some of what the authors say with a bit of caution and grain of salt. Also, as someone who is very much on the left and considers himself an anarcho-syndicalist, I am also aware that the authors are longtime Washington insiders with a very pro-establishment worldview.

Originally Posted by Wiz83

I have read most of S&H's books and for the most find their theory of generations and cycles an intriguing view of history that may have at least some bit of truth to it given some of the accurate predictions they made. However, I am also somewhat troubled by what I see as the authoritarian leanings in some of their writings, particularly in The Fourth Turning and Millennials Rising. This authoritarian strain shows itself most clearly towards the end of The Fourth Turning when the authors call on readers to abide by appropriate modes of conduct, not engaging in what they view as "anti-social" behavior, adhering to "traditional values", and putting their trust in government and other institutions. I have to wonder if they would demand such trust even if it is not earned and the government is clearly acting against the interests of the people and abusing its power, as it clearly is now with NSA mass surveillance and NDAA (which allows indefinite detention without any due process). I have not heard Howe speak on issues like Edward Snowden or NSA surveillance, but something tells me he would say such surveillance is necessary in a 4T and that we should trust the government when it says it is only doing this in our interest and that Snowden is a traitor and an exception to most Millennials whom he would insist our good, loyal patriots who love the government and military. It is this conservative and authoritarian bent that perhaps leads me to take some of what the authors say with a bit of caution and grain of salt. Also, as someone who is very much on the left and considers himself an anarcho-syndicalist, I am also aware that the authors are longtime Washington insiders with a very pro-establishment worldview.

I think that more than anything else the authors understood that the collective we were headed for trouble. And more than anything else they were hoping for an eventual outcome somewhat like 1945. Preferably without the need for a world wide war to get there.

Part of it has to do at what part of the saeculum those works were released. If Neil is lucky enough to make it to 90 in good health (2041, about the projected middle of the next 1T), I would hope that he would talk about ways to prepare for the oncoming 2T like S&H did about this 4T in the middle of the 3T (1997, when T4T came out)--and that would paint a picture starkly in contrast to the civic authoritarianism that you're worried about.

That said, I have always been constantly annoyed when Neil harps against the national debt, despite the fact that trying to "balance the budget" (which is irrelevant to a government that has (well, indirectly) the power of the printing press) is what made the Great Depression so horrible in the first place.

I think Neil Howe has somewhat conservative views on a lot of issues, particularly social and fiscal issues. What annoys me most about him is that he is constantly warning against the "national debt" as the biggest threat facing us while pretty much ignoring climate change. While national debt is a problem, to suggest it's a bigger and more urgent threat than climate change, which could threaten the entire ecosystem and put humanity's survival at risk, is a dangerous delusion.

I agree with all these statements in this thread so far; two thumbs up.

Originally Posted by Wiz83

I have read most of S&H's books and for the most find their theory of generations and cycles an intriguing view of history that may have at least some bit of truth to it given some of the accurate predictions they made.

Prediction is not the same as endorsement. If a prediction that resembled The Turner Diaries were accurate, then the prediction might still be of loathsome events. If depraved behavior among powerful people at certain stages of the generational cycle take place becomes inevitable, then so do the consequences.

Maybe Howe and Strauss did not predict that enough Americans would find the weak leadership of George W. Bush attractive that we would get such a figure as President. Maybe they did not predict that the Right would abandon the usual virtues of conservatism (emphasis on thrift, investment, self-reliance, and general probity) with the promotion of get-rich-quick schemes that first devour capital and then implode.

However, I am also somewhat troubled by what I see as the authoritarian leanings in some of their writings, particularly in The Fourth Turning and Millennials Rising. This authoritarian strain shows itself most clearly towards the end of The Fourth Turning when the authors call on readers to abide by appropriate modes of conduct, not engaging in what they view as "anti-social" behavior, adhering to "traditional values", and putting their trust in government and other institutions.

Don't we all pick and choose from tradition? Maybe we muddle our way through a 4T trying to figure what works and what doesn't. This time we have a powerful Right that seeks a return to the political assumptions of the failed 3T, perhaps with consequences of the repeat of the follies of the Double-Zero Decade. Another market implosion like that of 2007-2009, only taking longer to resolve itself and becoming a purer analogue to the market implosion of 1929-1932? Wars for the profit of military contractors that go awry?

I have to wonder if they would demand such trust even if it is not earned and the government is clearly acting against the interests of the people and abusing its power, as it clearly is now with NSA mass surveillance and NDAA (which allows indefinite detention without any due process). I have not heard Howe speak on issues like Edward Snowden or NSA surveillance, but something tells me he would say such surveillance is necessary in a 4T and that we should trust the government when it says it is only doing this in our interest and that Snowden is a traitor and an exception to most Millennials whom he would insist our good, loyal patriots who love the government and military.

Some of that surveillance took down Osama bin Laden.

Privacy is not an inherent right for criminals. If the surveillance is over drug traffickers, terrorists, or participants in child pornography -- then few have cause to complain. When people assert rights that the Establishment finds troubling yet are consistent with and indeed necessary for the preservation of our tradition of Constitutional government, then the surveillance is utterly wrong.

It is this conservative and authoritarian bent that perhaps leads me to take some of what the authors say with a bit of caution and grain of salt. Also, as someone who is very much on the left and considers himself an anarcho-syndicalist, I am also aware that the authors are longtime Washington insiders with a very pro-establishment worldview.

If I had predicted a few years ago that film-based cameras would go obsolete and that a company like Kodak would go from an industrial giant to a leader in a niche business that becomes increasingly irrelevant (I didn't)... I might have seemed crazy. Many predictions of the future (jet-packs, personal aircraft as a norm in middle-class America) have themselves been failures.

Much of what we have is banal and trite... or unsettling.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Prediction is not the same as endorsement. If a prediction that resembled The Turner Diaries were accurate, then the prediction might still be of loathsome events. If depraved behavior among powerful people at certain stages of the generational cycle take place becomes inevitable, then so do the consequences.

Maybe Howe and Strauss did not predict that enough Americans would find the weak leadership of George W. Bush attractive that we would get such a figure as President. Maybe they did not predict that the Right would abandon the usual virtues of conservatism (emphasis on thrift, investment, self-reliance, and general probity) with the promotion of get-rich-quick schemes that first devour capital and then implode.



Don't we all pick and choose from tradition? Maybe we muddle our way through a 4T trying to figure what works and what doesn't. This time we have a powerful Right that seeks a return to the political assumptions of the failed 3T, perhaps with consequences of the repeat of the follies of the Double-Zero Decade. Another market implosion like that of 2007-2009, only taking longer to resolve itself and becoming a purer analogue to the market implosion of 1929-1932? Wars for the profit of military contractors that go awry?




Some of that surveillance took down Osama bin Laden.

Privacy is not an inherent right for criminals. If the surveillance is over drug traffickers, terrorists, or participants in child pornography -- then few have cause to complain. When people assert rights that the Establishment finds troubling yet are consistent with and indeed necessary for the preservation of our tradition of Constitutional government, then the surveillance is utterly wrong.



If I had predicted a few years ago that film-based cameras would go obsolete and that a company like Kodak would go from an industrial giant to a leader in a niche business that becomes increasingly irrelevant (I didn't)... I might have seemed crazy. Many predictions of the future (jet-packs, personal aircraft as a norm in middle-class America) have themselves been failures.

Much of what we have is banal and trite... or unsettling.

Not to mention perhaps the biggest futuristic prediction which went awry which I have mentioned may times--the one that predicted that modern advances in technology would lead us into a leisure-focused world with workweeks at 20 or at most 30 hours. Migh happen yet, but would probably result in lower living standards than most mainstream Americans have become used to. I never in my wildest dreams would I have thought we would move in the oppsite direction toward a near society-wide "I don't have time" syndrome. But that is precisely what has happened over the past three decades.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

Not to mention perhaps the biggest futuristic prediction which went awry which I have mentioned may times--the one that predicted that modern advances in technology would lead us into a leisure-focused world with workweeks at 20 or at most 30 hours. Migh happen yet, but would probably result in lower living standards than most mainstream Americans have become used to. I never in my wildest dreams would I have thought we would move in the opposite direction toward a near society-wide "I don't have time" syndrome. But that is precisely what has happened over the past three decades.

It could be that much of our added work is "kissing up" and "covering your anatomy" as most work becomes more abstract, white-collar, and bureaucratized. It could be that the "decline in work" relates solely to the disappearance of factory work that without ambiguity makes something. Meanwhile the people who dominate the bureaucracies freeze wages and intensify fears of economic insecurity while getting more productivity. Rising productivity has usually resulted in higher pay -- but not in the last few years.

Howe and Strauss often wrote of a Great Devaluation as part of a 4T. If it is of Continental currency or Confederate bonds, overpriced securities of the 1920s or real estate in the Double-Zero decade, then people can recover unless such were all of their assets and they are still young enough to work. If the Great Devaluation is of the paycheck -- then Humanity has a big problem.

I look at the towns near where I live, and I see a profusion of payday lenders, check-cashing places, pawn shops, rent-to-own rip-off emporia, used-clothing stores, used-book shops, tote-the-note used car dealerships, and "antique" shops. "Antique" sounds impressive until one realizes that most of the stuff is sold in desperation, with someone trying to get a few dollars for some old furniture.

In short, welcome to the nightmarish world that George Bailey finds would exist in his absence if he had never been born in It's a Wonderful Life. Oh, yes -- casinos are seemingly everywhere, and this is not Las Vegas. Much of the litter is scratch-off "instant winner" cards.

In general I find Prophet archetypes across history to be authoritarian by nature. They put far too much stock in the belief in the "one individual" who's "special", "different" or the Boomer's favorite term: "unique". They seem to be the ones who view great man history the most often.

Authoritarianism is just taking Individualism to its natural extreme conclusion: eventually you end up hoping that one of those special individuals comes along an saves your butt like some Damsel...

Oh wait...

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

In general I find Prophet archetypes across history to be authoritarian by nature. They put far too much stock in the belief in the "one individual" who's "special", "different" or the Boomer's favorite term: "unique". They seem to be the ones who view great man history the most often.

Authoritarianism is just taking Individualism to its natural extreme conclusion: eventually you end up hoping that one of those special individuals comes along an saves your butt like some Damsel...

Oh wait...

~Chas'88

Seems like a lot of generalization and logical leaping going on there. You are presumably lumping American prophets with those in other countries, as if saecula can be reliably assumed to exist there and then and the dates are agreed upon. And before 1781, who wasn't "authoritarian" anyway? I don't see why transcendentals and missionaries were more "authoritarian" than compromisers and progressives and gilded and lost. On what could you possibly base such a judgement? And then a belief in special or great men equals authoritarian? A great man in history is only influential; that does not imply in what way.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

In general I find Prophet archetypes across history to be authoritarian by nature. They put far too much stock in the belief in the "one individual" who's "special", "different" or the Boomer's favorite term: "unique". They seem to be the ones who view great man history the most often.

Authoritarianism is just taking Individualism to its natural extreme conclusion: eventually you end up hoping that one of those special individuals comes along an saves your butt like some Damsel...

That makes sense, but I'm not convinced that's the only natural conclusion for individualism. Seems to me another possibility is: "Let's make sure society works in such a way that when such 'unique individuals' come along, society doesn't crush them."

Is that too practical/banal for Boomers?

This is something I noticed at times at well. They mention several times during The Fourth Turning how 'unsustainable' these 'entitlement' programmes are, seemingly forgetting that Social Security is a self-funding programme that doesn't add a cent to the US government's deficit, and all that needs to be done to make it sustainable for another 50-odd years is to raise the payroll tax cap.

The term 'entitlement' is also a pejorative that rather grinds my gears. The reason most Americans regard Social Security as a personal entitlement is because they've bloody well paid for it! It has never been a welfare programme- it's been built largely around the principle of you get what you paid for, with only a modest redistributive element in the way benefits are calculated.

Originally Posted by Ted '79

That makes sense, but I'm not convinced that's the only natural conclusion for individualism. Seems to me another possibility is: "Let's make sure society works in such a way that when such 'unique individuals' come along, society doesn't crush them."

Is that too practical/banal for Boomers?

Society doesn't work if you don't stamp those snow flakes into cogs. Individualism is the great American lie.

Originally Posted by Ted '79

That makes sense, but I'm not convinced that's the only natural conclusion for individualism. Seems to me another possibility is: "Let's make sure society works in such a way that when such 'unique individuals' come along, society doesn't crush them."

Is that too practical/banal for Boomers?

I said natural extreme conclusion, not natural conclusion. The point you're talking about is not the extreme end, just a few notches down the peg from extreme.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Society doesn't work if you don't stamp those snow flakes into cogs. Individualism is the great American lie.

While there have always been altering periods of peak individualism and peak communalism, the beginning of the Individualistic age we currently live in began with the Renaissance, while generally one could see the Medieval period much more a time of communal behaviors--though not entirely of course.

Compare the tomb of what's considered the first Hapsburg Holy Roman Emperor (and last medieval one)



vs His son the first Hapsburg Renaissance Emperor



See the difference? If not, highlight past this point: In the first, Frederick III is carved on top of the lid looking up and focusing all his attention at God--where it should be according to Medieval thought. While his son Maximilian has himself kneeling on top of his own tomb with a bunch of figures (all of living people) all surrounding his tomb and paying respect to him showing him to be the center of the universe and oh so important.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

I said natural extreme conclusion, not natural conclusion. The point you're talking about is not the extreme end, just a few notches down the peg from extreme.

I'm just not seeing the "inevitable progression" there.

But I have noticed that Boomers have a different reaction than I'm used to to being, well, different. They seem to really hate having anyone notice any area in which they differ from the norm. The very same differences that Xers take as obvious and as not really meaning anything...are differences that Boomers seem to take anyone noticing as an insult.

I once read an article by a gay Boomer who wrote that though he knew intellectually that straight people were in the majority, he hated acknowledging this because it made him feel inferior. I've never heard an Xer say anything like that: Xers seem to see being in any kind of minority as just an unimportant fact.

...I guess it's that Boomers seem to see being different as absolutely *having* to mean you're either better or you're worse. They don't seem to have any room for...well, for this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg5cw...tailpage#t=233



(That actress was 65 in 1955 when playing Aunt Eller, and it's set in 1905, so the character would be born around 1840 -- a Civic in your formulation. But the first actress to play Aunt Eller was 38 in 1943, making the character an 1867 cohort -- a Prophet. I think the character is actually supposed to be an Artist. Or a cusper -- the whole "Stop fighting no stop it right now right NOW!" thing reminds me of the Civic/Artist cuspers I've known.)

...so yeah. *If* someone believes that "different" *has* to mean "better" or "worse", and I guess Prophets tend to, *then* I can see that it'd have to progress to "Let's get a uniquely wonderful person to save us all!"

But only because of that assumption Prophets have, that if you're different you just *must* be better or worse, never just as good. And that assumption *isn't* inevitable. /typical Xer "You are not allowed to gloss over any individual POV no matter how unusual"

Yeah, really, what's with that? It's not a terrible thing it's just really tedious, and unnecessary. Like there are opinions and perspectives which are so minor they're truly not with indulging. Like, I'm sure there is a market somewhere for people who would like a cheese grater on their dashboard so they could do their kitchen prep while they drive, but they're not a relevant market. Also, some people are just wrong. There are lots of very valid points of view out there with a variety of opinions, but really, every last single one? There are lots of things that can be discarded as just plain impractical.

Originally Posted by Ted '79

I'm just not seeing the "inevitable progression" there.

You're falling for the idea that everything proceeds in a line. While I'm of the opinion it's more like a pendulum swinging between a few extremes. Sometimes the natural extreme position is hit, other times the pendulum falls short of getting there.

(That actress was 65 in 1955 when playing Aunt Eller, and it's set in 1905, so the character would be born around 1840 -- a Civic in your formulation. But the first actress to play Aunt Eller was 38 in 1943, making the character an 1867 cohort -- a Prophet. I think the character is actually supposed to be an Artist. Or a cusper -- the whole "Stop fighting no stop it right now right NOW!" thing reminds me of the Civic/Artist cuspers I've known.)

...so yeah. *If* someone believes that "different" *has* to mean "better" or "worse", and I guess Prophets tend to, *then* I can see that it'd have to progress to "Let's get a uniquely wonderful person to save us all!"

But only because of that assumption Prophets have, that if you're different you just *must* be better or worse, never just as good. And that assumption *isn't* inevitable. /typical Xer "You are not allowed to gloss over any individual POV no matter how unusual"

I once did an analysis on that musical. It's on the Generational Movie thread several pages back. But it's generally about a bunch of Joneser equivalents coming of age in turn-of-the-century America, with Aunt Eller and Andrew Carnes are definitely the Artists in the bunch.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

While there have always been altering periods of peak individualism and peak communalism, the beginning of the Individualistic age we currently live in began with the Renaissance, while generally one could see the Medieval period much more a time of communal behaviors--though not entirely of course.

Compare the tomb of what's considered the first Hapsburg Holy Roman Emperor (and last medieval one)



vs His son the first Hapsburg Renaissance Emperor



See the difference? If not, highlight past this point: In the first, Frederick III is carved on top of the lid looking up and focusing all his attention at God--where it should be according to Medieval thought. While his son Maximilian has himself kneeling on top of his own tomb with a bunch of figures (all of living people) all surrounding his tomb and paying respect to him showing him to be the center of the universe and oh so important.

~Chas'88

Yeah, if we could start swinging in the other direction that'd be awesome.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Yeah, really, what's with that? It's not a terrible thing it's just really tedious, and unnecessary. Like there are opinions and perspectives which are so minor they're truly not [worth] indulging.

Go ahead and crush them, is what you're saying?

You answered your own question.

Xer individualism =

Originally Posted by Me

"Let's make sure society works in such a way that when such 'unique individuals' come along, society doesn't crush them."

Plus that conviction (which Xers share with, I think, Artists, as against Prophets and maybe Civics) that being different makes you *neither better nor worse*, but, "I'll be damned if I ain't just as good!"

*Plus*, Xers who do this usually do so re *their own* or their family's/friends' unusual perspectives.

So it's, "Hi, I (or mine) am *different* from your assumption, and I'll be damned if I'll let you (and the all-encompassing system you're proposing or that your argument may lead to) just crush me/mine!"

Originally Posted by Chas'88

You're falling for the idea that everything proceeds in a line.

No, I agree that it's a pendulum. I'm just saying I don't see the arc of the "individualism pendulum" as necessarily including "Put the Better Person in charge." I just don't see it.

Took me a while but I realized the reason I don't see it is I lack the Prophet (and Civic???) belief that "different has to equal better or worse, it can never just equal just as good." Without that belief, even the *idea* of "one best individual" just doesn't make any sense.

But I agree with you that *Prophets* have that tendency.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

But it's generally about a bunch of Joneser equivalents

ITA. I'll look for your analysis.

I agree that Prophets tend to see different ideas or values as better or worse, but I don't think I agree that they tend to see different people as inherently better or worse as people. Some prophets may, but is this a "trait" of prophets per se? Racism, for example, I don't see as a prophet trait. Prophets might be more partisan, but nomads don't seem to resist that trend at all.

Originally Posted by Ted '79

Go ahead and crush them, is what you're saying?

You answered your own question.

Xer individualism =



Plus that conviction (which Xers share with, I think, Artists, as against Prophets and maybe Civics) that being different makes you *neither better nor worse*, but, "I'll be damned if I ain't just as good!"

*Plus*, Xers who do this usually do so re *their own* or their family's/friends' unusual perspectives.

So it's, "Hi, I (or mine) am *different* from your assumption, and I'll be damned if I'll let you (and the all-encompassing system you're proposing or that your argument may lead to) just crush me/mine!"



No, I agree that it's a pendulum. I'm just saying I don't see the arc of the "individualism pendulum" as necessarily including "Put the Better Person in charge." I just don't see it.

Took me a while but I realized the reason I don't see it is I lack the Prophet (and Civic???) belief that "different has to equal better or worse, it can never just equal just as good." Without that belief, even the *idea* of "one best individual" just doesn't make any sense.

But I agree with you that *Prophets* have that tendency.



ITA. I'll look for your analysis.

I'm going to say not "go ahead and crush 'em" but more so that if you have a view point that is in the less than .01th percentile, why would you expect any recognition at all in terms of that point of view? Why would you waste time trying to make that person happy when it comes to that perspective. It's extremely ineffective. Enough snow flakes mask he a snow drift, but other than that they don't do much except melt when the heart is on. Everybody has to conform to organizational standards of some sort to make society work. Not so much crushing, but definitely stamp 'em into cogs so they can integrate into the the vast social machine we're all operating in.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I agree that Prophets tend to see different ideas or values as better or worse, but I don't think I agree that they tend to see different people as inherently better or worse as people. Some prophets may, but is this a "trait" of prophets per se? Racism, for example, I don't see as a prophet trait. Prophets might be more partisan, but nomads don't seem to resist that trend at all.

The better or worse thing comes from that compulsion to declare things as worthy or unworthy. It's pretty annoying. I'm not in the snow flake camp, but I'm definitely not in the "I am fit to judge a significant portion of the population as good or bad, sacred or profane, etc."

Originally Posted by Kepi

The better or worse thing comes from that compulsion to declare things as worthy or unworthy. It's pretty annoying. I'm not in the snow flake camp, but I'm definitely not in the "I am fit to judge a significant portion of the population as good or bad, sacred or profane, etc."

I think my post already clarified that. Ideas and values are worthy, or not; judging people as such is problematic, and not a prophet or boomer activity in my opinion. Maybe statistically, it's a slight tendency. But to judge prophets as judgmental (as you did), is you doing what you attribute to prophets as doing.

If this thread is really about S&H being authoritarians, where's the Scout-Like Army that's going to save us all?