Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Multi-Modal Saeculum - Page 5







Post#101 at 05-11-2004 12:03 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
05-11-2004, 12:03 PM #101
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Re: hexalogic saeculum (Saeculum III?)

Quote Originally Posted by Tim Walker
HIGH

Adaptive
Idealist
Nomad
Civic
Adaptive
Child-Idealist


Awakening

Idealist
Nomad
Civic
Adaptive
Idealist
Child-Nomad


Unraveling

Nomad
Civic
Adaptive
Idealist
Nomad
Child-Civic


CRISIS

Civic
Adaptive
Idealist
Nomad
Civic
Child-Adaptive
Tim,

Thanks for the line-up's. On further consideration, I've determined that a hexalogical interaction would also be unequal and that you'd need to go to eight phases to have the type of balance seen in either a three or especially a four phase system.

I've mused above in response to Marc's post that an additional phase may actually mellow the system. Or would it? In your opinion what would adding one or two phases do to a four archetype mechanism, assuming about 17 to 18 year phases? Will the addition of an "archetype prime" change the very nature of the turnings and if so how??

I think we saw the first hints of that in this past (passing?) 3T with Millenials and GI's. And which of these two should get the designation "Hero*" (Hero Prime)?
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#102 at 05-11-2004 12:03 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
05-11-2004, 12:03 PM #102
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Re: hexalogic saeculum (Saeculum III?)

Quote Originally Posted by Tim Walker
HIGH

Adaptive
Idealist
Nomad
Civic
Adaptive
Child-Idealist


Awakening

Idealist
Nomad
Civic
Adaptive
Idealist
Child-Nomad


Unraveling

Nomad
Civic
Adaptive
Idealist
Nomad
Child-Civic


CRISIS

Civic
Adaptive
Idealist
Nomad
Civic
Child-Adaptive
Tim,

Thanks for the line-up's. On further consideration, I've determined that a hexalogical interaction would also be unequal and that you'd need to go to eight phases to have the type of balance seen in either a three or especially a four phase system.

I've mused above in response to Marc's post that an additional phase may actually mellow the system. Or would it? In your opinion what would adding one or two phases do to a four archetype mechanism, assuming about 17 to 18 year phases? Will the addition of an "archetype prime" change the very nature of the turnings and if so how??

I think we saw the first hints of that in this past (passing?) 3T with Millenials and GI's. And which of these two should get the designation "Hero*" (Hero Prime)?
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#103 at 05-11-2004 12:04 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
05-11-2004, 12:04 PM #103
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
Quote Originally Posted by Marc S Lamb
You are not interested in the least in the "dynamics of social causation." If you can't pin a number on it, and if that number doesn't "comport well," then you throw it out. While I'm not disregarding the importance of adding up numbers, other human issues that gum up the works cannot be ignored (as you are wont to do).
I am as interested in the dynamics as anyone else here. But superficial analysis and sloppy thinking doesn't help in understanding anything.
I'm workin' on it dude, I'm workin' on it . . .
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#104 at 05-11-2004 12:04 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
05-11-2004, 12:04 PM #104
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
Quote Originally Posted by Marc S Lamb
You are not interested in the least in the "dynamics of social causation." If you can't pin a number on it, and if that number doesn't "comport well," then you throw it out. While I'm not disregarding the importance of adding up numbers, other human issues that gum up the works cannot be ignored (as you are wont to do).
I am as interested in the dynamics as anyone else here. But superficial analysis and sloppy thinking doesn't help in understanding anything.
I'm workin' on it dude, I'm workin' on it . . .
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#105 at 05-11-2004 12:07 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
05-11-2004, 12:07 PM #105
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
Quote Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan
I will work on that. My goal is to show how a three phase model can produce four generations and four turnings. I will think about how to do that other than what I've done already. Unfortunately, I'm now concerned that my aprioristic belief in the overall ineluctability of the four archetypes may impede our resolving your criticisms.
What you need to show is how a four phase model can produce long generations. It's not really three phases, it's still four, just one of the phases (elderhood) is vacant.

S&H have a role played by elders. But this role was not played in the past because the elder slot was empty (it still existed though). For example, prophets still occupied the elder slot during Crises, they simply did not play the GC role. The challenge is to modifiy the S&H mechanism to eliminate any role played by elders and see if you can get it to work.
Mike,

I will consider looking at it this way, however my current conception of the (typical) premodern saeculum truly has only three phases, not one missing (it's only missing from the modern saeculum's POV).
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#106 at 05-11-2004 12:07 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
05-11-2004, 12:07 PM #106
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
Quote Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan
I will work on that. My goal is to show how a three phase model can produce four generations and four turnings. I will think about how to do that other than what I've done already. Unfortunately, I'm now concerned that my aprioristic belief in the overall ineluctability of the four archetypes may impede our resolving your criticisms.
What you need to show is how a four phase model can produce long generations. It's not really three phases, it's still four, just one of the phases (elderhood) is vacant.

S&H have a role played by elders. But this role was not played in the past because the elder slot was empty (it still existed though). For example, prophets still occupied the elder slot during Crises, they simply did not play the GC role. The challenge is to modifiy the S&H mechanism to eliminate any role played by elders and see if you can get it to work.
Mike,

I will consider looking at it this way, however my current conception of the (typical) premodern saeculum truly has only three phases, not one missing (it's only missing from the modern saeculum's POV).
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#107 at 05-11-2004 12:08 PM by zilch [at joined Nov 2001 #posts 3,491]
---
05-11-2004, 12:08 PM #107
Join Date
Nov 2001
Posts
3,491

Quote Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan
Artists hanging on in a 4T -- Prophets hanging on in a 1T -- Nomads hanging on in a 2T -- what kind of mayhem could this create?
The most important of these I can think of was the goofy George Bernard Shaw (an adaptive) touring the world in the thirties extolling the virtues of dictatorship (he appeared pretty clownish in the U.S. newsreels I've seen), and General Douglas MacArthur (an idealist), who was sacked by Truman in 1952. Mac made a pretty big impact both in the Korean conflict and when he returned to the U.S. But amid all the hoopla it soon became evident, as the rubber met the road, that his time had come to an end. And like a good soldier, he just faded away.

Oh, yes, and then there was Yosif Vissarionovich. But I've already adressed that one.







Post#108 at 05-11-2004 12:08 PM by zilch [at joined Nov 2001 #posts 3,491]
---
05-11-2004, 12:08 PM #108
Join Date
Nov 2001
Posts
3,491

Quote Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan
Artists hanging on in a 4T -- Prophets hanging on in a 1T -- Nomads hanging on in a 2T -- what kind of mayhem could this create?
The most important of these I can think of was the goofy George Bernard Shaw (an adaptive) touring the world in the thirties extolling the virtues of dictatorship (he appeared pretty clownish in the U.S. newsreels I've seen), and General Douglas MacArthur (an idealist), who was sacked by Truman in 1952. Mac made a pretty big impact both in the Korean conflict and when he returned to the U.S. But amid all the hoopla it soon became evident, as the rubber met the road, that his time had come to an end. And like a good soldier, he just faded away.

Oh, yes, and then there was Yosif Vissarionovich. But I've already adressed that one.







Post#109 at 05-11-2004 12:41 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
05-11-2004, 12:41 PM #109
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Quote Originally Posted by Marc S Lamb
Quote Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan
Artists hanging on in a 4T -- Prophets hanging on in a 1T -- Nomads hanging on in a 2T -- what kind of mayhem could this create?
The most important of these I can think of was the goofy George Bernard Shaw (an adaptive) touring the world in the thirties extolling the virtues of dictatorship (he appeared pretty clownish in the U.S. newsreels I've seen), and General Douglas MacArthur (an idealist), who was sacked by Truman in 1952. Mac made a pretty big impact both in the Korean conflict and when he returned to the U.S. But amid all the hoopla it soon became evident, as the rubber met the road, that his time had come to an end. And like a good soldier, he just faded away.

Oh, yes, and then there was Yosif Vissarionovich. But I've already adressed that one.
The problem is this time they may have staying power.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#110 at 05-11-2004 12:41 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
05-11-2004, 12:41 PM #110
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Quote Originally Posted by Marc S Lamb
Quote Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan
Artists hanging on in a 4T -- Prophets hanging on in a 1T -- Nomads hanging on in a 2T -- what kind of mayhem could this create?
The most important of these I can think of was the goofy George Bernard Shaw (an adaptive) touring the world in the thirties extolling the virtues of dictatorship (he appeared pretty clownish in the U.S. newsreels I've seen), and General Douglas MacArthur (an idealist), who was sacked by Truman in 1952. Mac made a pretty big impact both in the Korean conflict and when he returned to the U.S. But amid all the hoopla it soon became evident, as the rubber met the road, that his time had come to an end. And like a good soldier, he just faded away.

Oh, yes, and then there was Yosif Vissarionovich. But I've already adressed that one.
The problem is this time they may have staying power.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#111 at 05-11-2004 12:58 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
05-11-2004, 12:58 PM #111
Guest

Quote Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan
Quote Originally Posted by Marc S Lamb
Oh, yes, and then there was Yosif Vissarionovich. But I've already adressed that one.
The problem is this time they may have staying power.
I guess you didn't see the last one... (sigh). Perhaps we've a few years before the 4T even starts? Perhaps the last one didn't end when S&H said it did?

Nope. We be 4T, or in some such cascading one. After all, the Republicans are running show aren't they?







Post#112 at 05-11-2004 12:58 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
05-11-2004, 12:58 PM #112
Guest

Quote Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan
Quote Originally Posted by Marc S Lamb
Oh, yes, and then there was Yosif Vissarionovich. But I've already adressed that one.
The problem is this time they may have staying power.
I guess you didn't see the last one... (sigh). Perhaps we've a few years before the 4T even starts? Perhaps the last one didn't end when S&H said it did?

Nope. We be 4T, or in some such cascading one. After all, the Republicans are running show aren't they?







Post#113 at 05-11-2004 01:23 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,501]
---
05-11-2004, 01:23 PM #113
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,501

Quote Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan
Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
Quote Originally Posted by Marc S Lamb
You are not interested in the least in the "dynamics of social causation." If you can't pin a number on it, and if that number doesn't "comport well," then you throw it out. While I'm not disregarding the importance of adding up numbers, other human issues that gum up the works cannot be ignored (as you are wont to do).
I am as interested in the dynamics as anyone else here. But superficial analysis and sloppy thinking doesn't help in understanding anything.
I'm workin' on it dude, I'm workin' on it . . .
I wasn't addressing you, I think you are doing a good job







Post#114 at 05-11-2004 01:23 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,501]
---
05-11-2004, 01:23 PM #114
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,501

Quote Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan
Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
Quote Originally Posted by Marc S Lamb
You are not interested in the least in the "dynamics of social causation." If you can't pin a number on it, and if that number doesn't "comport well," then you throw it out. While I'm not disregarding the importance of adding up numbers, other human issues that gum up the works cannot be ignored (as you are wont to do).
I am as interested in the dynamics as anyone else here. But superficial analysis and sloppy thinking doesn't help in understanding anything.
I'm workin' on it dude, I'm workin' on it . . .
I wasn't addressing you, I think you are doing a good job







Post#115 at 05-11-2004 01:33 PM by zilch [at joined Nov 2001 #posts 3,491]
---
05-11-2004, 01:33 PM #115
Join Date
Nov 2001
Posts
3,491

Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
I wasn't addressing you, I think you are doing a good job
That was pretty obvious.







Post#116 at 05-11-2004 01:33 PM by zilch [at joined Nov 2001 #posts 3,491]
---
05-11-2004, 01:33 PM #116
Join Date
Nov 2001
Posts
3,491

Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
I wasn't addressing you, I think you are doing a good job
That was pretty obvious.







Post#117 at 05-11-2004 02:25 PM by Tim Walker '56 [at joined Jun 2001 #posts 24]
---
05-11-2004, 02:25 PM #117
Join Date
Jun 2001
Posts
24

One thing I should clarify-in terms of physiological age, I have been thinking of the younger members of the eldest (potentially active) generation being in the young-old phase. I have imagined survivors of an even older generation in the physiological old-old phase-concievably they could have an advisory role.

One thing to consider with longer lifespans-the connection between family generations and archetypal generations. Suppose age-retarded great-grandparents with a physiological young-old age. Further suppose that they have coming-of-age great-grandchildren of the same archetype?
(There may be more great-grandparents today than ever before, but the relationship is between an adult and child).

For example, imagine a G.I. whose aging was retarded by a decade or so. Now further imagine that he has a Millenial great-grandchild who assumes a Heroic role during the early Crisis years....

Or an age-retarded Boomer during the early years of the next Awakening....







Post#118 at 05-11-2004 02:25 PM by Tim Walker '56 [at joined Jun 2001 #posts 24]
---
05-11-2004, 02:25 PM #118
Join Date
Jun 2001
Posts
24

One thing I should clarify-in terms of physiological age, I have been thinking of the younger members of the eldest (potentially active) generation being in the young-old phase. I have imagined survivors of an even older generation in the physiological old-old phase-concievably they could have an advisory role.

One thing to consider with longer lifespans-the connection between family generations and archetypal generations. Suppose age-retarded great-grandparents with a physiological young-old age. Further suppose that they have coming-of-age great-grandchildren of the same archetype?
(There may be more great-grandparents today than ever before, but the relationship is between an adult and child).

For example, imagine a G.I. whose aging was retarded by a decade or so. Now further imagine that he has a Millenial great-grandchild who assumes a Heroic role during the early Crisis years....

Or an age-retarded Boomer during the early years of the next Awakening....







Post#119 at 05-11-2004 02:40 PM by Tim Walker '56 [at joined Jun 2001 #posts 24]
---
05-11-2004, 02:40 PM #119
Join Date
Jun 2001
Posts
24

Response to W.J.B. post

Please clarify by what you mean by "archetype prime."







Post#120 at 05-11-2004 02:40 PM by Tim Walker '56 [at joined Jun 2001 #posts 24]
---
05-11-2004, 02:40 PM #120
Join Date
Jun 2001
Posts
24

Response to W.J.B. post

Please clarify by what you mean by "archetype prime."







Post#121 at 05-11-2004 04:27 PM by Tim Walker '56 [at joined Jun 2001 #posts 24]
---
05-11-2004, 04:27 PM #121
Join Date
Jun 2001
Posts
24

cross-generational relationships

One thing must be consistent-that the general pattern of turning moods continue as before. Otherwise the model falls apart.

The proposed eight generation model would require extensive age retardation, and decades of life span extension. (This may be possible if we can find a way to induce mild hypothermia long term).

For the sake of argument let us ignore a ninth generation in the physiologically old-old phase. For potentially active adult generations we have seven. Seven x 17 is a span of 119 years.

Will the coming-of-age generation disregard the oldest of the seven because its world views are a century out of date? Will the younger generations generally deem the older to be outdated relics of a repudiated old regime? Will there be a saeculum gap?

On the other hand, different archetypes may be repulsed or attracted to each other. Multiple pairs of relationships might develop, including pairs between different generations of the same archetype. One thing-the Adaptive archetype has the potential of getting along with all the other archetypes.

In Saeculum II it matters whether the Civic or the Idealist generation is elder or junior. It matters whether the Idealist or Nomad generation is elder or junior. Could a similar pattern prevail between generations from different saeculae? Or something different?

A concievable complication-a span of effective age retardation may not equal the average turning length or tidy multiples of. Perhaps the dynamics will change mid-turning as the eldest of the seven adult generations moves into the old-old phase (and the background).







Post#122 at 05-11-2004 04:27 PM by Tim Walker '56 [at joined Jun 2001 #posts 24]
---
05-11-2004, 04:27 PM #122
Join Date
Jun 2001
Posts
24

cross-generational relationships

One thing must be consistent-that the general pattern of turning moods continue as before. Otherwise the model falls apart.

The proposed eight generation model would require extensive age retardation, and decades of life span extension. (This may be possible if we can find a way to induce mild hypothermia long term).

For the sake of argument let us ignore a ninth generation in the physiologically old-old phase. For potentially active adult generations we have seven. Seven x 17 is a span of 119 years.

Will the coming-of-age generation disregard the oldest of the seven because its world views are a century out of date? Will the younger generations generally deem the older to be outdated relics of a repudiated old regime? Will there be a saeculum gap?

On the other hand, different archetypes may be repulsed or attracted to each other. Multiple pairs of relationships might develop, including pairs between different generations of the same archetype. One thing-the Adaptive archetype has the potential of getting along with all the other archetypes.

In Saeculum II it matters whether the Civic or the Idealist generation is elder or junior. It matters whether the Idealist or Nomad generation is elder or junior. Could a similar pattern prevail between generations from different saeculae? Or something different?

A concievable complication-a span of effective age retardation may not equal the average turning length or tidy multiples of. Perhaps the dynamics will change mid-turning as the eldest of the seven adult generations moves into the old-old phase (and the background).







Post#123 at 05-11-2004 07:37 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
05-11-2004, 07:37 PM #123
Guest

Wow WJB, LOTS of food for thought. Maybe too much to digest. But here goes.

But first of all, I noticed someone posted a big picture or a long URL, which rendered the entire first page unreadable. Unreadable without adjusting the horizontal bar for each line. So I will repost your entire post here for those who want to read it without that annoyance. And a request to all: PLEASE STOP posting such huge stuff!

I would like to submit that much of the discrepancy noted on this board between how the saeculum operated in the past and how it operates now can be solved by viewing essentially two different modes of saeculum at work, one morphing under stress into the other during the early modern period. I call these modes Saeculum I and Saeculum II.

Some of the discrepancies/issues that have been noted are:

A) 27-year versus 22 (or even 17) year generations with subsequent generational/turning compaction.

B) The enormous age of ?fourth phase? elderhood generations in earlier saeculae and the resulting breakdown in Strauss & Howe?s tetralogical explanation of generational dynamics as one goes further back in time.

C) Nomad generation constituents playing Gray Champion roles as little as three saeculae ago.

A few weeks ago my mind was trying to wrap itself around a conundrum: I found myself to be an orthodox Strauss & Howe Saecularist but I could not square the problems delineated by Mike Alexander and others with said orthodoxy. The mechanism laid out in Generations and The Fourth Turning that works so well for the 20th century seems to wane in explanatory efficacy the further back one goes into history. Even Strauss & Howe do not recognize a consistent functioning of the saeculum prior to late 15th century (why that may be will explained later).

Statistically, it is as if the authors took a sizeable, yet decidedly partial, subset of history, found a pattern (and even then one that only performed excellently in yet a smaller subset), and declared the discovery of a fundamental historiographical paradigm. As a result, one could argue (and some critics have stated) that what Strauss & Howe discovered was not much more than (what statisticians would call) an ?accidental correlation?, at least before the last century is concerned. Yet their paradigm does seem to apply to patterns in pre-modernity. How does one rectify this?

I would like to offer an explanation: I call it informally ?Mike Alexander meets the Three-Phase Solution?, or more formally ?Saeculum I?.

Saeculum I

Mike has noted a 27-year generational pattern operating in (at least) pre-modern Europe. This is 5-10 years longer than more current generational lengths (depending upon who you read and how ?currently? you look in history). He also notes a pendular effect of demographically smaller and larger generations due to a directly related alteration between periods of famine and plenty. Going one step further, he also notes that the periods of high stress (famines) oscillate between types of critical stress (i.e., Social Moments), one secular and institutional, usually involving great wars, the other spiritual and personal, involving emotive awakenings, monastic enthusiasm, and rashes of heretical fervor.

If I understand Mike correctly (and I may not) he dismisses the possibility of a 27-year phase solution to harmonize his observations with Strauss & Howe?s basic mechanism. At first glance this makes sense since a 27-year ?pueritia? or childhood phase and an 81-107 year old elderhood phase are nonsensical.

But what if the saecular mechanism operating through most of history was not a four phase, tetralogical dynamic, but rather a three phase, trilogical one? --- an interaction of three archetypes at a time instead of four, yet still operating in four turnings/constellations?

What if a 27-year ?youth? phase could actually make sense? I propose that in pre-modern society this actually did work, if we define ?youth? as pre-autonomy. As Mr. Alexander points out, biological/demographic realities created a perfect format for generational division, and this division was a 27-year delineation. And in an average demographic snapshot one could easily see the biologically-familiar three generation scenario of a 13 year old child (mid-youth), two 40 year old parents (mid-maturity), and one or two 67 year old grandparents (mid-elderhood). And by the time the youth in this example hits 27, chances are all the grandparents are gone and he or she is in the middle of raising a new crop of youngsters. What?s more the youth?s parents are now biologically old (by pre-modern standards) and ready to pass the baton of fully-realized social maturity, what I will call ?Primacy?, to a new group.

In premodernity the extended family was the rule, not the nuclear family of today. One could easily see the mature fortysomething father still holding strong functional authority over physically mature but still socially inferior sons in their early-to-mid twenties. Furthermore there was little impetus to have the young men strike out on their own at physical maturity like today. Extended family-members relied closely on one another in pre-industrial times, often in the same household, especially in the more common non-urban setting.

If one takes a look at pre-modern and early modern societies, one sees that, though there were rites-of-passage marking physical maturation, these societies? young men did not share in full societal responsibility until much after puberty.

Jesus, for example, did not begin his ministry until he was 30. This has been attributed to ancient Hebrew society?s recognition of 30 years of age as when a man reached full social maturity. Jesus might have not been taken seriously if he tried much earlier. One can note that he began showing other aspects of maturity as early as 12, and the Hebrews, then and now, held a rite-of-passage about that age denoting the beginnings of physical maturity. Ancient Hebrews also considered a male to be of military age at 20. So, as now, there were stages of maturation, but full social acceptance as an autonomous adult came considerably later than today.

Strong vestiges of this higher pre-modern limit to recognized social maturity can also be seen in the Founding Fathers not allowing any one younger than 25 to enter the House of Representatives, and younger than 30 to enter the Senate.

Perhaps further research should be done on Strauss & Howe?s interpretation of the Romans? fourfold biological divisions. I would contend that in the saeculum as it often manifested in premodernity, the Romans? ?pueritia? and ?iuventus? are actually subsets of the same phase: Pre-autonomy (Youth).

If one accepts 27 year phases of life for pre-modern society and accepts that the four generational archetypes are a constant (and I believe they are) then the four turnings looked much like they do today except that one archetype is completely missing per turning.


Saeculum I and Phases of Life


Code:
Phase Ages
Elderhood 54-80
Primacy 27-53
Youth 0-26


Saeculum I and Turnings


Code:
Phase 1T 2T 3T 4T
Elderhood Hero Artist Prophet Nomad
Primacy Artist Prophet Nomad Hero
Youth Prophet Nomad Hero Artist



This new mechanism goes far in explaining much that is incongruent with the four phase model. Gone is the problem of 100 year old fourth phasers presumably affecting history. And in this arrangement, the tragic fall and passing of an elderly, hubristic Odyssean Hero-figure signals the beginning of an Awakening, not the peak or ending of one; likewise, the passing of an elderly, reproving, Jeremiadic Prophet-figure signals the beginning of a Crisis, not it?s climax or resolution.

What about the ?Shadow? mechanism described by Strauss & Howe? How do the generational archetypes affect one another and produce their archetypal shadow in a trilogical dynamic? Mike Alexander explains this in several posts. He posits a slightly different mechanism.

Mike Alexander in February 13, 2004 wrote:

During the social moment, the generation being born and growing up rebels against their elders by adopting the other outlook. Hence in a crisis spiritual Artists are born to secular Heros. Artists retain the communitarian ethic of their parents because this style is favored by the conditions of the Crisis, but Artists rebel during the High against the spirit-dead world created by their Hero parents and Nomad grandparents. On the other hand, secular Nomads are born to spiritual Prophets during the Awakening. Nomads retain the individualistic ethic of their parents as this style is favored by the conditions of the Awakening During the unraveling, Nomads rebel against their (too) spirit-filled elders by adopting a pragmatic, secular worldview. In my scheme, the "gray champions" of the crisis are Nomads.

This mechanism explains how Saeculum I manages to foster the four archetypes with three phases instead of four.

And indeed, as stated above one could argue that in the Early Modern period the Gray Champions were Nomads: Margaret of Anjou, Elizabeth I, Benjamin Church, George Washington. Using Michael Alexander?s mechanism this was probably the case in most Crises before modernity. But what of Strauss and Howe?s convincing argument of a mythic resonance through the ages of an elder Prophet- young Hero bond? What is more, what of the enduring images elder Hero-young Prophet conflict?

Saeculum II

This all begs the question, Why is Saeculum I no longer operating? First, it may actually still be operating in certain societies today (or at least until very recently) that still retain many pre-modern aspects (e.g., agricultural-based economy, poor nutrition, poor education, cyclical worldview, opposition to change). Indeed, it was the waning of these aspects and the advent of modern, and especially industrial, society that led to the shift to Saeculum II.

Part of my thesis is that under certain stress, saecular structures change mode, either temporarily, as possibly on occasion in the distant past, --- or structurally, as in modern times.

In pre-modernity the saeculum usually involved a 27-year generation due to the first phase of life being that length (as explained from Mike Alexander?s observations of the data). But around the 16th and 17th centuries forces came into play that began to alter the demarcation point between Youth and Primacy. First, with the Gutenberg Revolution, the Renaissance, Protestant Reformation, and other massive paradigm shifts (socio-cultural and techno-economic) of the early modern period, the pace of change increased to an unprecedented degree. Changes from generation to generation acted as a stressor on the 27-year-based mechanism that theretofore worked well for the relatively slow pace of change of pre-modernity. The quickened pace of life was more easily absorbed in a shorter cohort groupings therefore putting downward pressure on phase length.

Furthermore, by the 17th and 18th centuries the Famine Cycle had been (largely) allayed, further loosening the Youth phase from it?s solid 27-year mooring. From some of Mike Alexander?s other writings, one could speculate that the now less stable and pressured phases interacted in some way with the War/Debt Cycle of the time period.

Saeculum I was under stress. As the length of generations dropped by a couple of years, the permutational demarcation points between phases dropped. Soon the Youth-Primacy transition was below 25 years, Primacy to Elderhood below 50 years, and the vanguard age for Post-Elderhood was closing in on 70, allowing a ?Post-Elder? cohort group to begin affecting the saecular dynamic.

But it is with the Industrial Revolution that Saeculum I finally broke under the strain. At least four factors affected the final transition.

1. An evidentially exponential rate of change.

One could argue that the rate of change in human society has always been exponential. Only at this point, i.e., the advent of industrialization, it became much more obvious and relevant. As in the early modern period, this put additional pressure on the saecular mechanism to process change.

2. The beginning of ontogenic compaction (earlier pubescence) due to improved nutrition.

With agricultural production and variety increasing, with better transportation systems for delivery, and with higher average real purchasing power, improved nutrition in the 18th and 19th centuries (depending upon the Western country in question) began a trend continuing to this day of a younger and younger onset of physical maturity.

3. The beginning of psychogenic compaction (accelerated mental development) due to better and more comprehensive education.

This is the most controversial of the postulations. However, one could argue that improved childhood education stimulated certain mental capacities earlier and more profoundly. It is possible that the commencement of Piagetian ?concrete operations? and ?formal operations? may occur earlier (and more comprehensively) today on average than two or three centuries ago.

4. The earlier acquisition of social autonomy due to the above items, but especially because of the nuclearization of the family.

Migration to the cities, migration cross-country, less emphasis on acquired vocational skill and therefore parental mentoring in familial occupations, among other things led to the gradual breakdown in the cohesiveness and functionality overall of the traditional extended family and ushered in a new emphasis on the nuclear family. This transition largely weakened the firm hold middle-aged parents (read: father) had on young adult children. For this and other reasons stated above, full social autonomy would arrive years earlier than under the conditions Saeculum I evolved in.

Modal Shift

It is quite clear, at least in American history, that a great saecular upset occurred in the 19th century. For Strauss & Howe, this means the Civil War Anomaly. For Mike Alexander, this means a dramatic shortening of generation length. Within the context of the Multi-Modal Saeculum concept, both occurred. The combination created a Saecular hiccup, a shift from dissonance to a new equilibrium. What brought it to a climax was the vagaries of fate creating a Prophet generation (The Transcendentals) of regular length by the standards of the first saecular mode proper, but of dysfunctional length within the context of the saecular discord then occurring.

The result was the omission of an Hero archetype generation, truncated turnings and persistent saecular settling: No testaments to communitarian Olympian rationalizers, shortened fourth and first turnings, dilatory spiritualism extending into the following third turning, Nomads with Hero qualities (Gilded), Artists with Hero qualities (Progressive), and a subsequently somewhat archetypally-attenuated Prophet archetype (Missionary).

If we go by Mike Alexander?s observations, we can surmise that modal pressure became extreme around 1820. The following collapse of Saeculum I occurred in the 1860?s. And one could argue that it would not be until the following fourth turning that the saecular dynamic fully stabilized into its new mode.

What of other societies? In regards to the European saeculum, could this help explain the catastrophe of World War One? And what of industrializing societies today? This is especially germane when one considers China and the Middle East. Developing societies today are modernizing at a pace far greater than what the West experienced. What implications does this have for their modal transitions? What ?hiccups? may occur with them?

Finally, back to antiquity: How is it that Strauss and Howe found compelling evidence of a tetralogical interaction in such diverse sources as Exodus and Homer? And what of the profound Prophet-Hero interactions mentioned earlier? One explanation is that archetypal forms were mythographically distilled into a four part story since the generational archetypes, of which there are unavoidably four, are easier to convey that way.

Another explanation is that in times of profound stress or some other X factor, Saeculum I societies metamorphosed into a Saeculum II mode presaging the structural shift of recent times. However, whenever the stress or X factor passed, the saecular dynamic ?de-excited? and shifted back to the original mode (akin to an electron descending an atomic orbit after expending energy). Strauss and Howe attributed the fading of their tetralogical dynamic to when ?the inertia of tradition dampened this cycle and pushed society back to a prescribed and changeless role for each phase of life.?[The Fourth Turning, p.90]. Since the authors do not recognize a three phase alternative, and also since the trilogical saeculum (Saeculum I) is arguably not as intense as its successor, they mistake the recession of the tetralogical form as the discontinuation of the saecular mechanism altogether.

Other Modes?

If we accept the thesis of this post, that the saeculum is disposed to different modes under different conditions, and we see that the lowering of the age of social autonomy completely rearranged the phasic structure of the system, what of the new pressures being created by the extension of the human life being made possible via modern medicine?

If we accept 20 as the current age of the advent of social autonomy (compromising between Alexander?s 18 and Strauss & Howe?s 22) then the permutational effect calls for a current Elderhood phase of 60 to 79. What of the millions of Post-Elders in their 80?s and 90?s? Has the longevity of the GI generation already betrayed an effect? Will the Silent, or the Boomers, bring on a dysfunctional fifth wheel to the saecular vehicle?

Both three and four phases work well mathematically with four archetypes and turnings. The transition from a trilogical to a tetralogical dynamic, though difficult, worked. A pentalogical set-up will be highly distorting to the four archetypes. A period of profound dissonance could be in the offing once again. My belief is that, if this does come to pass, and barring other factors, we will need to wait for modern medicine to even further extend life span so we can fit in at least six phases. Six phases can fit four archetypes, if awkwardly. Eight is even better, for obvious reasons. But how would a hexalogical or octological Saeculum III dynamic work? We can only speculate.

Besides, due to factors such as eschatological calamity, an evolutionary ?singularity?, or the categorical arrest of old age due medicinal breakthroughs, such speculation may not only be highly fanciful, but moot as well.

I ask that those who, like me, ponder these issues to digest this Multi-Modal Saeculum idea and provide feedback: What?s wrong with its premises? What changes would you make? What would you add? Do you agree categorically?

Just food for thought.
Now I will read your post and see if I have any reply. Of course, I have my own astrological take on all this.

Good ideas. Something to ponder.

I wonder a bit first about your 3-gen lineups. As I understand S&H and turnings, a 1T is what it is because prophets are absent (too old or too young), 2Ts are what they are because Nomads are absent, 3Ts because Heroes are absent, and 4Ts what they are because Artists are absent. That makes a lot of sense. So shouldn't the line-ups in pre-modernity be:

1T: Nomad elders, Heroes in mid-life, Artists in youth
2T: Hero elders, Artists in midlife, Prophets in youth
3T: Artist elders, Prophets in mid-life, Nomads in youth
4T: Prophet elders, Nomads in mid-life, Artists in youth.

If this were the line-up, you could keep virtually everything the same, since the same archetype is absent. It is only a question of being in the crib or rocking chair in modern saecula, vs. not there at all in pre-modern saecula.

The question is, is that how it was historically? I gather you are saying no. Certainly not in the saeculum in which the USA was founded, if George Washington was a nomad.

But I look at that saeculum as the first modern one. Being only 92 years, with a few adjusted dates it fits into the 84-year Uranus cycle that is consistent for peak times of Crisis: 1692, 1776, 1860, 1944. Ben Franklin was still around as a prophet, and Washington was certainly a Nomad, not a Prophet. He was not the inspiration of what happened; just the manager. I wonder if before this saeculum began, whether in fact in your 3-gen mode, it wasn't as I suggested. I dunno; perhaps not.

If not, though, it seems to me the question still holds as you raised it. How would pre-modern turnings be what they are? That is, if you have an entirely different kind of youth generation involved rebelling against its elders, and an entirely different elder gen maintaining the status quo? What you have instead, in your line-up, is the mid-lifers entirely in charge of the direction of the turning, with younger and older gens having virtually no influence, and no rebellions going on. That may be the fact, and maybe that's how it worked. I'm not sure how generational dynamics could really be at work in such a one-generation dominant society, though.

My suspicion has been this: that pre-modern saecula only apply to upper classes. Lower classes, the vast majority, continued without any saecula, since change did not occur and young people did not rebel against their parents or their place in society, and did not move. They did not participate in the great events; only sometimes suffered the results. Only upper classes made history. Saeculum II is what it is, a cycle of change and rebellion affecting all of society more swiftly, because the masses of people have been brought into the cycle. In the USA, the Civil War was the crucial period in which this happened, but it started in the Revolution.

This does not solve the problem of a one-generational dynamic among upper classes, however.

I gather that in the Civil War anomaly, the shortening of the youth phase meant squeezing out the heroes, creating an adjustment of the 3-phase premodern to the 4-phase modern saeculum. I have argued that the Civil War was in effect the conflict between the pre-modern and modern societies. The modern won (at least until today, when the pre-modern seems to be making a comeback in the "red zone").

I don't know if there is any evidence that Saeculum I morphs into a faster II at times of stress. I doubt it; that would mean some shortened turnings in Greco-Roman and Renaissance periods. You'd need to demonstrate this.

About 5 or more generations: I have suggested that 5 gens could end the cycle entirely, or at least moderate it. That would be a good thing. The cycle is dysfunctional. It happens because of a lack of perspective, causing extreme shifts in mood and priorities. The main dysfunction is Cartesian (Descartes is indeed seen as the godfather of modern culture by many). Spiritual and Secular pursuits have been divorced from each other, and so we shift violently from Awakening to Crisis.

We would benefit by having older generations around longer to give us that perspective, and younger ones making their presence felt earlier to give us new stimulus. Change might be slower with more older people around, giving us the wisdom of the previous cycle. But perhaps that is what we need. Modern life is too stressful, and the post-modern and new age ideal has been to slow things down and lessen stress. Also the integration of Spiritual and Secular. Change could come through other ways besides rebellion, repression and conflict. The way things are now, traditions have no time to develop, and people shift from one thing to another so fast that our society is superficial to an amazing degree. We need more grounding, more real creative vision, and less mere novelty. Nothing truly creative can emerge without awareness of the past; otherwise things just repeat.

Thus a faster saeculum may be leading to one with less extreme shifts and smoother changes, with less resistance to them on the one hand, and more respect for tradition and depth of experience on the other.

An interesting astrological footnote. Trines (3-part cyclic rhythm) are harmonious, Squares (4-part rhythms) are conflicting, Quintiles (5-part) are creative.







Post#124 at 05-11-2004 07:37 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
05-11-2004, 07:37 PM #124
Guest

Wow WJB, LOTS of food for thought. Maybe too much to digest. But here goes.

But first of all, I noticed someone posted a big picture or a long URL, which rendered the entire first page unreadable. Unreadable without adjusting the horizontal bar for each line. So I will repost your entire post here for those who want to read it without that annoyance. And a request to all: PLEASE STOP posting such huge stuff!

I would like to submit that much of the discrepancy noted on this board between how the saeculum operated in the past and how it operates now can be solved by viewing essentially two different modes of saeculum at work, one morphing under stress into the other during the early modern period. I call these modes Saeculum I and Saeculum II.

Some of the discrepancies/issues that have been noted are:

A) 27-year versus 22 (or even 17) year generations with subsequent generational/turning compaction.

B) The enormous age of ?fourth phase? elderhood generations in earlier saeculae and the resulting breakdown in Strauss & Howe?s tetralogical explanation of generational dynamics as one goes further back in time.

C) Nomad generation constituents playing Gray Champion roles as little as three saeculae ago.

A few weeks ago my mind was trying to wrap itself around a conundrum: I found myself to be an orthodox Strauss & Howe Saecularist but I could not square the problems delineated by Mike Alexander and others with said orthodoxy. The mechanism laid out in Generations and The Fourth Turning that works so well for the 20th century seems to wane in explanatory efficacy the further back one goes into history. Even Strauss & Howe do not recognize a consistent functioning of the saeculum prior to late 15th century (why that may be will explained later).

Statistically, it is as if the authors took a sizeable, yet decidedly partial, subset of history, found a pattern (and even then one that only performed excellently in yet a smaller subset), and declared the discovery of a fundamental historiographical paradigm. As a result, one could argue (and some critics have stated) that what Strauss & Howe discovered was not much more than (what statisticians would call) an ?accidental correlation?, at least before the last century is concerned. Yet their paradigm does seem to apply to patterns in pre-modernity. How does one rectify this?

I would like to offer an explanation: I call it informally ?Mike Alexander meets the Three-Phase Solution?, or more formally ?Saeculum I?.

Saeculum I

Mike has noted a 27-year generational pattern operating in (at least) pre-modern Europe. This is 5-10 years longer than more current generational lengths (depending upon who you read and how ?currently? you look in history). He also notes a pendular effect of demographically smaller and larger generations due to a directly related alteration between periods of famine and plenty. Going one step further, he also notes that the periods of high stress (famines) oscillate between types of critical stress (i.e., Social Moments), one secular and institutional, usually involving great wars, the other spiritual and personal, involving emotive awakenings, monastic enthusiasm, and rashes of heretical fervor.

If I understand Mike correctly (and I may not) he dismisses the possibility of a 27-year phase solution to harmonize his observations with Strauss & Howe?s basic mechanism. At first glance this makes sense since a 27-year ?pueritia? or childhood phase and an 81-107 year old elderhood phase are nonsensical.

But what if the saecular mechanism operating through most of history was not a four phase, tetralogical dynamic, but rather a three phase, trilogical one? --- an interaction of three archetypes at a time instead of four, yet still operating in four turnings/constellations?

What if a 27-year ?youth? phase could actually make sense? I propose that in pre-modern society this actually did work, if we define ?youth? as pre-autonomy. As Mr. Alexander points out, biological/demographic realities created a perfect format for generational division, and this division was a 27-year delineation. And in an average demographic snapshot one could easily see the biologically-familiar three generation scenario of a 13 year old child (mid-youth), two 40 year old parents (mid-maturity), and one or two 67 year old grandparents (mid-elderhood). And by the time the youth in this example hits 27, chances are all the grandparents are gone and he or she is in the middle of raising a new crop of youngsters. What?s more the youth?s parents are now biologically old (by pre-modern standards) and ready to pass the baton of fully-realized social maturity, what I will call ?Primacy?, to a new group.

In premodernity the extended family was the rule, not the nuclear family of today. One could easily see the mature fortysomething father still holding strong functional authority over physically mature but still socially inferior sons in their early-to-mid twenties. Furthermore there was little impetus to have the young men strike out on their own at physical maturity like today. Extended family-members relied closely on one another in pre-industrial times, often in the same household, especially in the more common non-urban setting.

If one takes a look at pre-modern and early modern societies, one sees that, though there were rites-of-passage marking physical maturation, these societies? young men did not share in full societal responsibility until much after puberty.

Jesus, for example, did not begin his ministry until he was 30. This has been attributed to ancient Hebrew society?s recognition of 30 years of age as when a man reached full social maturity. Jesus might have not been taken seriously if he tried much earlier. One can note that he began showing other aspects of maturity as early as 12, and the Hebrews, then and now, held a rite-of-passage about that age denoting the beginnings of physical maturity. Ancient Hebrews also considered a male to be of military age at 20. So, as now, there were stages of maturation, but full social acceptance as an autonomous adult came considerably later than today.

Strong vestiges of this higher pre-modern limit to recognized social maturity can also be seen in the Founding Fathers not allowing any one younger than 25 to enter the House of Representatives, and younger than 30 to enter the Senate.

Perhaps further research should be done on Strauss & Howe?s interpretation of the Romans? fourfold biological divisions. I would contend that in the saeculum as it often manifested in premodernity, the Romans? ?pueritia? and ?iuventus? are actually subsets of the same phase: Pre-autonomy (Youth).

If one accepts 27 year phases of life for pre-modern society and accepts that the four generational archetypes are a constant (and I believe they are) then the four turnings looked much like they do today except that one archetype is completely missing per turning.


Saeculum I and Phases of Life


Code:
Phase Ages
Elderhood 54-80
Primacy 27-53
Youth 0-26


Saeculum I and Turnings


Code:
Phase 1T 2T 3T 4T
Elderhood Hero Artist Prophet Nomad
Primacy Artist Prophet Nomad Hero
Youth Prophet Nomad Hero Artist



This new mechanism goes far in explaining much that is incongruent with the four phase model. Gone is the problem of 100 year old fourth phasers presumably affecting history. And in this arrangement, the tragic fall and passing of an elderly, hubristic Odyssean Hero-figure signals the beginning of an Awakening, not the peak or ending of one; likewise, the passing of an elderly, reproving, Jeremiadic Prophet-figure signals the beginning of a Crisis, not it?s climax or resolution.

What about the ?Shadow? mechanism described by Strauss & Howe? How do the generational archetypes affect one another and produce their archetypal shadow in a trilogical dynamic? Mike Alexander explains this in several posts. He posits a slightly different mechanism.

Mike Alexander in February 13, 2004 wrote:

During the social moment, the generation being born and growing up rebels against their elders by adopting the other outlook. Hence in a crisis spiritual Artists are born to secular Heros. Artists retain the communitarian ethic of their parents because this style is favored by the conditions of the Crisis, but Artists rebel during the High against the spirit-dead world created by their Hero parents and Nomad grandparents. On the other hand, secular Nomads are born to spiritual Prophets during the Awakening. Nomads retain the individualistic ethic of their parents as this style is favored by the conditions of the Awakening During the unraveling, Nomads rebel against their (too) spirit-filled elders by adopting a pragmatic, secular worldview. In my scheme, the "gray champions" of the crisis are Nomads.

This mechanism explains how Saeculum I manages to foster the four archetypes with three phases instead of four.

And indeed, as stated above one could argue that in the Early Modern period the Gray Champions were Nomads: Margaret of Anjou, Elizabeth I, Benjamin Church, George Washington. Using Michael Alexander?s mechanism this was probably the case in most Crises before modernity. But what of Strauss and Howe?s convincing argument of a mythic resonance through the ages of an elder Prophet- young Hero bond? What is more, what of the enduring images elder Hero-young Prophet conflict?

Saeculum II

This all begs the question, Why is Saeculum I no longer operating? First, it may actually still be operating in certain societies today (or at least until very recently) that still retain many pre-modern aspects (e.g., agricultural-based economy, poor nutrition, poor education, cyclical worldview, opposition to change). Indeed, it was the waning of these aspects and the advent of modern, and especially industrial, society that led to the shift to Saeculum II.

Part of my thesis is that under certain stress, saecular structures change mode, either temporarily, as possibly on occasion in the distant past, --- or structurally, as in modern times.

In pre-modernity the saeculum usually involved a 27-year generation due to the first phase of life being that length (as explained from Mike Alexander?s observations of the data). But around the 16th and 17th centuries forces came into play that began to alter the demarcation point between Youth and Primacy. First, with the Gutenberg Revolution, the Renaissance, Protestant Reformation, and other massive paradigm shifts (socio-cultural and techno-economic) of the early modern period, the pace of change increased to an unprecedented degree. Changes from generation to generation acted as a stressor on the 27-year-based mechanism that theretofore worked well for the relatively slow pace of change of pre-modernity. The quickened pace of life was more easily absorbed in a shorter cohort groupings therefore putting downward pressure on phase length.

Furthermore, by the 17th and 18th centuries the Famine Cycle had been (largely) allayed, further loosening the Youth phase from it?s solid 27-year mooring. From some of Mike Alexander?s other writings, one could speculate that the now less stable and pressured phases interacted in some way with the War/Debt Cycle of the time period.

Saeculum I was under stress. As the length of generations dropped by a couple of years, the permutational demarcation points between phases dropped. Soon the Youth-Primacy transition was below 25 years, Primacy to Elderhood below 50 years, and the vanguard age for Post-Elderhood was closing in on 70, allowing a ?Post-Elder? cohort group to begin affecting the saecular dynamic.

But it is with the Industrial Revolution that Saeculum I finally broke under the strain. At least four factors affected the final transition.

1. An evidentially exponential rate of change.

One could argue that the rate of change in human society has always been exponential. Only at this point, i.e., the advent of industrialization, it became much more obvious and relevant. As in the early modern period, this put additional pressure on the saecular mechanism to process change.

2. The beginning of ontogenic compaction (earlier pubescence) due to improved nutrition.

With agricultural production and variety increasing, with better transportation systems for delivery, and with higher average real purchasing power, improved nutrition in the 18th and 19th centuries (depending upon the Western country in question) began a trend continuing to this day of a younger and younger onset of physical maturity.

3. The beginning of psychogenic compaction (accelerated mental development) due to better and more comprehensive education.

This is the most controversial of the postulations. However, one could argue that improved childhood education stimulated certain mental capacities earlier and more profoundly. It is possible that the commencement of Piagetian ?concrete operations? and ?formal operations? may occur earlier (and more comprehensively) today on average than two or three centuries ago.

4. The earlier acquisition of social autonomy due to the above items, but especially because of the nuclearization of the family.

Migration to the cities, migration cross-country, less emphasis on acquired vocational skill and therefore parental mentoring in familial occupations, among other things led to the gradual breakdown in the cohesiveness and functionality overall of the traditional extended family and ushered in a new emphasis on the nuclear family. This transition largely weakened the firm hold middle-aged parents (read: father) had on young adult children. For this and other reasons stated above, full social autonomy would arrive years earlier than under the conditions Saeculum I evolved in.

Modal Shift

It is quite clear, at least in American history, that a great saecular upset occurred in the 19th century. For Strauss & Howe, this means the Civil War Anomaly. For Mike Alexander, this means a dramatic shortening of generation length. Within the context of the Multi-Modal Saeculum concept, both occurred. The combination created a Saecular hiccup, a shift from dissonance to a new equilibrium. What brought it to a climax was the vagaries of fate creating a Prophet generation (The Transcendentals) of regular length by the standards of the first saecular mode proper, but of dysfunctional length within the context of the saecular discord then occurring.

The result was the omission of an Hero archetype generation, truncated turnings and persistent saecular settling: No testaments to communitarian Olympian rationalizers, shortened fourth and first turnings, dilatory spiritualism extending into the following third turning, Nomads with Hero qualities (Gilded), Artists with Hero qualities (Progressive), and a subsequently somewhat archetypally-attenuated Prophet archetype (Missionary).

If we go by Mike Alexander?s observations, we can surmise that modal pressure became extreme around 1820. The following collapse of Saeculum I occurred in the 1860?s. And one could argue that it would not be until the following fourth turning that the saecular dynamic fully stabilized into its new mode.

What of other societies? In regards to the European saeculum, could this help explain the catastrophe of World War One? And what of industrializing societies today? This is especially germane when one considers China and the Middle East. Developing societies today are modernizing at a pace far greater than what the West experienced. What implications does this have for their modal transitions? What ?hiccups? may occur with them?

Finally, back to antiquity: How is it that Strauss and Howe found compelling evidence of a tetralogical interaction in such diverse sources as Exodus and Homer? And what of the profound Prophet-Hero interactions mentioned earlier? One explanation is that archetypal forms were mythographically distilled into a four part story since the generational archetypes, of which there are unavoidably four, are easier to convey that way.

Another explanation is that in times of profound stress or some other X factor, Saeculum I societies metamorphosed into a Saeculum II mode presaging the structural shift of recent times. However, whenever the stress or X factor passed, the saecular dynamic ?de-excited? and shifted back to the original mode (akin to an electron descending an atomic orbit after expending energy). Strauss and Howe attributed the fading of their tetralogical dynamic to when ?the inertia of tradition dampened this cycle and pushed society back to a prescribed and changeless role for each phase of life.?[The Fourth Turning, p.90]. Since the authors do not recognize a three phase alternative, and also since the trilogical saeculum (Saeculum I) is arguably not as intense as its successor, they mistake the recession of the tetralogical form as the discontinuation of the saecular mechanism altogether.

Other Modes?

If we accept the thesis of this post, that the saeculum is disposed to different modes under different conditions, and we see that the lowering of the age of social autonomy completely rearranged the phasic structure of the system, what of the new pressures being created by the extension of the human life being made possible via modern medicine?

If we accept 20 as the current age of the advent of social autonomy (compromising between Alexander?s 18 and Strauss & Howe?s 22) then the permutational effect calls for a current Elderhood phase of 60 to 79. What of the millions of Post-Elders in their 80?s and 90?s? Has the longevity of the GI generation already betrayed an effect? Will the Silent, or the Boomers, bring on a dysfunctional fifth wheel to the saecular vehicle?

Both three and four phases work well mathematically with four archetypes and turnings. The transition from a trilogical to a tetralogical dynamic, though difficult, worked. A pentalogical set-up will be highly distorting to the four archetypes. A period of profound dissonance could be in the offing once again. My belief is that, if this does come to pass, and barring other factors, we will need to wait for modern medicine to even further extend life span so we can fit in at least six phases. Six phases can fit four archetypes, if awkwardly. Eight is even better, for obvious reasons. But how would a hexalogical or octological Saeculum III dynamic work? We can only speculate.

Besides, due to factors such as eschatological calamity, an evolutionary ?singularity?, or the categorical arrest of old age due medicinal breakthroughs, such speculation may not only be highly fanciful, but moot as well.

I ask that those who, like me, ponder these issues to digest this Multi-Modal Saeculum idea and provide feedback: What?s wrong with its premises? What changes would you make? What would you add? Do you agree categorically?

Just food for thought.
Now I will read your post and see if I have any reply. Of course, I have my own astrological take on all this.

Good ideas. Something to ponder.

I wonder a bit first about your 3-gen lineups. As I understand S&H and turnings, a 1T is what it is because prophets are absent (too old or too young), 2Ts are what they are because Nomads are absent, 3Ts because Heroes are absent, and 4Ts what they are because Artists are absent. That makes a lot of sense. So shouldn't the line-ups in pre-modernity be:

1T: Nomad elders, Heroes in mid-life, Artists in youth
2T: Hero elders, Artists in midlife, Prophets in youth
3T: Artist elders, Prophets in mid-life, Nomads in youth
4T: Prophet elders, Nomads in mid-life, Artists in youth.

If this were the line-up, you could keep virtually everything the same, since the same archetype is absent. It is only a question of being in the crib or rocking chair in modern saecula, vs. not there at all in pre-modern saecula.

The question is, is that how it was historically? I gather you are saying no. Certainly not in the saeculum in which the USA was founded, if George Washington was a nomad.

But I look at that saeculum as the first modern one. Being only 92 years, with a few adjusted dates it fits into the 84-year Uranus cycle that is consistent for peak times of Crisis: 1692, 1776, 1860, 1944. Ben Franklin was still around as a prophet, and Washington was certainly a Nomad, not a Prophet. He was not the inspiration of what happened; just the manager. I wonder if before this saeculum began, whether in fact in your 3-gen mode, it wasn't as I suggested. I dunno; perhaps not.

If not, though, it seems to me the question still holds as you raised it. How would pre-modern turnings be what they are? That is, if you have an entirely different kind of youth generation involved rebelling against its elders, and an entirely different elder gen maintaining the status quo? What you have instead, in your line-up, is the mid-lifers entirely in charge of the direction of the turning, with younger and older gens having virtually no influence, and no rebellions going on. That may be the fact, and maybe that's how it worked. I'm not sure how generational dynamics could really be at work in such a one-generation dominant society, though.

My suspicion has been this: that pre-modern saecula only apply to upper classes. Lower classes, the vast majority, continued without any saecula, since change did not occur and young people did not rebel against their parents or their place in society, and did not move. They did not participate in the great events; only sometimes suffered the results. Only upper classes made history. Saeculum II is what it is, a cycle of change and rebellion affecting all of society more swiftly, because the masses of people have been brought into the cycle. In the USA, the Civil War was the crucial period in which this happened, but it started in the Revolution.

This does not solve the problem of a one-generational dynamic among upper classes, however.

I gather that in the Civil War anomaly, the shortening of the youth phase meant squeezing out the heroes, creating an adjustment of the 3-phase premodern to the 4-phase modern saeculum. I have argued that the Civil War was in effect the conflict between the pre-modern and modern societies. The modern won (at least until today, when the pre-modern seems to be making a comeback in the "red zone").

I don't know if there is any evidence that Saeculum I morphs into a faster II at times of stress. I doubt it; that would mean some shortened turnings in Greco-Roman and Renaissance periods. You'd need to demonstrate this.

About 5 or more generations: I have suggested that 5 gens could end the cycle entirely, or at least moderate it. That would be a good thing. The cycle is dysfunctional. It happens because of a lack of perspective, causing extreme shifts in mood and priorities. The main dysfunction is Cartesian (Descartes is indeed seen as the godfather of modern culture by many). Spiritual and Secular pursuits have been divorced from each other, and so we shift violently from Awakening to Crisis.

We would benefit by having older generations around longer to give us that perspective, and younger ones making their presence felt earlier to give us new stimulus. Change might be slower with more older people around, giving us the wisdom of the previous cycle. But perhaps that is what we need. Modern life is too stressful, and the post-modern and new age ideal has been to slow things down and lessen stress. Also the integration of Spiritual and Secular. Change could come through other ways besides rebellion, repression and conflict. The way things are now, traditions have no time to develop, and people shift from one thing to another so fast that our society is superficial to an amazing degree. We need more grounding, more real creative vision, and less mere novelty. Nothing truly creative can emerge without awareness of the past; otherwise things just repeat.

Thus a faster saeculum may be leading to one with less extreme shifts and smoother changes, with less resistance to them on the one hand, and more respect for tradition and depth of experience on the other.

An interesting astrological footnote. Trines (3-part cyclic rhythm) are harmonious, Squares (4-part rhythms) are conflicting, Quintiles (5-part) are creative.







Post#125 at 05-12-2004 12:38 AM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
05-12-2004, 12:38 AM #125
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Quote Originally Posted by Marc S Lamb
Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
I wasn't addressing you, I think you are doing a good job
That was pretty obvious.
Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. But I feel like I'm treading in Mr. Alexander's territory, so-to-speak, and was not sure how good a job I am doing.

And BTW, though we may be in a particularly slow 4T opening cascade, I side with you on the skeptical side on whether the REAL THING has actually presented itself yet. If I'm right, when it comes it will be one hell of a ride.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.
-----------------------------------------