This appeared in Which Way To The Future Selected Essays From Analog. Author Stanley Schmidt listed several characteristics of an old-timer:

1. People tend to specifically remember only the best of the old stuff, and to mistakenly think of it as typical of the entire period.

2. The more things you've experienced the harder it is to find new ones which are different enough from any of them to strike you as fresh and new.

3. On the other hand, many people, as they age, don't really want much novelty.

Quoting:

"....The older they get, the more they fear the new and unfamiliar, and crave the old and comfortable. Instead of something fresh and new (even if they say they want that), they may really want more of what they liked best from their own past-which may not satisfy many younger people who really are looking for something new and different. Thus it is that virtually every new form of art, literature, or music in history has been resisted by older generations (and frequently touted by younger ones to an extent completely out of proportion to posterity's eventual judgement of it).

"...there are exceptions. Some people are better than others at retaining a fresh outlook and finding new sources of satisfaction quite late in life. The composer Giuseppe Verdi did some of his most inventive and highly regarded work between the ages of seventy and eighty-five. 'Grandma Gatewood,' a legendary figure among Appalachian Trail hikers, walked the whole two-thousand mile trail (again!) in her eighties....

"...But I have also seen the Old-timer Effect in so many people that I must consider it almost an occupational hazard of being human...And while the prospect of very long life still sounds highly desirable to me, I must wonder how many people will really be able to enjoy how much of it."

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

This appeared in Which Way To The Future Selected Essays From Analog. Author Stanley Schmidt listed several characteristics of an old-timer:

1. People tend to specifically remember only the best of the old stuff, and to mistakenly think of it as typical of the entire period.

2. The more things you've experienced the harder it is to find new ones which are different enough from any of them to strike you as fresh and new.

3. On the other hand, many people, as they age, don't really want much novelty.

Quoting:

"....The older they get, the more they fear the new and unfamiliar, and crave the old and comfortable. Instead of something fresh and new (even if they say they want that), they may really want more of what they liked best from their own past-which may not satisfy many younger people who really are looking for something new and different. Thus it is that virtually every new form of art, literature, or music in history has been resisted by older generations (and frequently touted by younger ones to an extent completely out of proportion to posterity's eventual judgement of it).

"...there are exceptions. Some people are better than others at retaining a fresh outlook and finding new sources of satisfaction quite late in life. The composer Giuseppe Verdi did some of his most inventive and highly regarded work between the ages of seventy and eighty-five. 'Grandma Gatewood,' a legendary figure among Appalachian Trail hikers, walked the whole two-thousand mile trail (again!) in her eighties....

"...But I have also seen the Old-timer Effect in so many people that I must consider it almost an occupational hazard of being human...And while the prospect of very long life still sounds highly desirable to me, I must wonder how many people will really be able to enjoy how much of it."

There is a lot of this going on among drum corps fans and alumni, many of whom have become so incensed at the changes in the activity that they are actively antagonizing the current leadership. Imagine a bunch of conservative and reactionary Boomers beating up on the combined Boomer and Xer avant-guard to the befuddled disgust of the Millie membership.

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

This appeared in Which Way To The Future Selected Essays From Analog. Author Stanley Schmidt listed several characteristics of an old-timer:

1. People tend to specifically remember only the best of the old stuff, and to mistakenly think of it as typical of the entire period.

2. The more things you've experienced the harder it is to find new ones which are different enough from any of them to strike you as fresh and new.

3. On the other hand, many people, as they age, don't really want much novelty.

Quoting:

"....The older they get, the more they fear the new and unfamiliar, and crave the old and comfortable. Instead of something fresh and new (even if they say they want that), they may really want more of what they liked best from their own past-which may not satisfy many younger people who really are looking for something new and different. Thus it is that virtually every new form of art, literature, or music in history has been resisted by older generations (and frequently touted by younger ones to an extent completely out of proportion to posterity's eventual judgement of it).

"...there are exceptions. Some people are better than others at retaining a fresh outlook and finding new sources of satisfaction quite late in life. The composer Giuseppe Verdi did some of his most inventive and highly regarded work between the ages of seventy and eighty-five. 'Grandma Gatewood,' a legendary figure among Appalachian Trail hikers, walked the whole two-thousand mile trail (again!) in her eighties....

"...But I have also seen the Old-timer Effect in so many people that I must consider it almost an occupational hazard of being human...And while the prospect of very long life still sounds highly desirable to me, I must wonder how many people will really be able to enjoy how much of it."

There is a lot of this going on among drum corps fans and alumni, many of whom have become so incensed at the changes in the activity that they are actively antagonizing the current leadership. Imagine a bunch of conservative and reactionary Boomers beating up on the combined Boomer and Xer avant-guard to the befuddled disgust of the Millie membership.

Schmidt also wrote that..."I have known several people personally who manage to keep exploring the universe, and reveling in what they found in it, well into their seventies, eighties, or even nineties."

An implication is that a few individuals (during the shorter Saeculum II) might experience two different social moments of the same type at opposite ends of adulthood-while retaining a fresh outlook during the later one.

On the other hand, Schmidt implied that most of their surviving agemates will not. Perhaps that will severely limit any archetypal contribution by a post-elder generation.

Schmidt also wrote that..."I have known several people personally who manage to keep exploring the universe, and reveling in what they found in it, well into their seventies, eighties, or even nineties."

An implication is that a few individuals (during the shorter Saeculum II) might experience two different social moments of the same type at opposite ends of adulthood-while retaining a fresh outlook during the later one.

On the other hand, Schmidt implied that most of their surviving agemates will not. Perhaps that will severely limit any archetypal contribution by a post-elder generation.

"....The older they get, the more they fear the new and unfamiliar, and crave the old and comfortable. Instead of something fresh and new (even if they say they want that), they may really want more of what they liked best from their own past-which may not satisfy many younger people who really are looking for something new and different. Thus it is that virtually every new form of art, literature, or music in history has been resisted by older generations (and frequently touted by younger ones to an extent completely out of proportion to posterity's eventual judgement of it).

I like this statement.

But I don't think it will apply with me yet since I am still learning and all of the old stuff that my elders might reminisce in is still very new to me.

However, I probably might be approaching the attitude of an old-timer quickly by going in this direction. I doubt many people of my age actually look backwards for inspiration (although I do look forward in general, except I have no concrete goals, so it is useless to focus in that direction). And this is especially true in my taste in culture which consists of the wholly un-comtemporary subjects like classical music or representational art.

Interestingly enough, my approach in obtaining and understanding the old stuff is through new technology (Internet especially), so perhaps I am pretty much IN tune with my cohorts, but in a different manner.

"....The older they get, the more they fear the new and unfamiliar, and crave the old and comfortable. Instead of something fresh and new (even if they say they want that), they may really want more of what they liked best from their own past-which may not satisfy many younger people who really are looking for something new and different. Thus it is that virtually every new form of art, literature, or music in history has been resisted by older generations (and frequently touted by younger ones to an extent completely out of proportion to posterity's eventual judgement of it).

I like this statement.

But I don't think it will apply with me yet since I am still learning and all of the old stuff that my elders might reminisce in is still very new to me.

However, I probably might be approaching the attitude of an old-timer quickly by going in this direction. I doubt many people of my age actually look backwards for inspiration (although I do look forward in general, except I have no concrete goals, so it is useless to focus in that direction). And this is especially true in my taste in culture which consists of the wholly un-comtemporary subjects like classical music or representational art.

Interestingly enough, my approach in obtaining and understanding the old stuff is through new technology (Internet especially), so perhaps I am pretty much IN tune with my cohorts, but in a different manner.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Not if you mean that society makes a conscious decision. It's just what happens when values are widely perceived as obsolete. People reject authority, go off into movements or new religions or experimental communities, and try various replacements. When institutions (meaning the government, economy, or international relations) break down, it's generally more obvious and immediately threatening, and the tendency is to congregate into a few factions to assert a solution -- much more centralized than an Awakening.

This serves as a kind of collective decision-making, but it's not conscious or self-aware. It's more of an emergent property.

Here is how I am understanding your model. A society has institutional frameworks which are based on values. These values are more or less relevant with the world inhabitated by the society.

Technological change, changes the world inhabited by the society and as time goes on the values become increasingly out of sync with reality (that is they cannot be effectively applied to guide behavior in a practical manner). At some point new values are produced that are more congruent with the changing world. The period when this happens is an Awakening social moment. Awakenings occur periodically at intervals inversely proprotional to the rate of technological change.

Is this correct? The next issue is the instituional change, which is the Crisis. One can link the Crisis to the Awakening. Are they? How does the link work? What mechanism provides the timing between Awakening and Crisis?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Not if you mean that society makes a conscious decision. It's just what happens when values are widely perceived as obsolete. People reject authority, go off into movements or new religions or experimental communities, and try various replacements. When institutions (meaning the government, economy, or international relations) break down, it's generally more obvious and immediately threatening, and the tendency is to congregate into a few factions to assert a solution -- much more centralized than an Awakening.

This serves as a kind of collective decision-making, but it's not conscious or self-aware. It's more of an emergent property.

Here is how I am understanding your model. A society has institutional frameworks which are based on values. These values are more or less relevant with the world inhabitated by the society.

Technological change, changes the world inhabited by the society and as time goes on the values become increasingly out of sync with reality (that is they cannot be effectively applied to guide behavior in a practical manner). At some point new values are produced that are more congruent with the changing world. The period when this happens is an Awakening social moment. Awakenings occur periodically at intervals inversely proprotional to the rate of technological change.

Is this correct? The next issue is the instituional change, which is the Crisis. One can link the Crisis to the Awakening. Are they? How does the link work? What mechanism provides the timing between Awakening and Crisis?

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

The whole turning schema works just fine, regardless of whether it's three-phase or four-phase, so long as you recognize that the most important generation in all turnings is the one entering adulthood. It is the injection of new blood into the culture that causes the change.

Now, granted, there should be some structural differences between an 18 year Crisis and a 27 year Crisis but there is one thing that is the same -- Heroes entering positions of power.

It seems you are presupposing the existance of generations. Given that generations exist, one can see turnings being produced as a new (different) generation begins to replace the old generation in power. But where do the generations come from, and why would there be four kinds? And why should they repeat in some special order.

"Parental nurture" is a fuzzy concept. It doesn't explain why there should be four generations or why nurture should change in any regular way.

Finally how can this get started in the first place?

Assuming only one generational transistion as the key sets you up for a two stroke cycle. A crisis event occurs randomly changing the environment for child-rearing and creating a different youth generation. When they come to power they change the way the society is run in ways that reflect their unigue formative experience. Thus, the society runs differently (you have a turning) and the generation in youth is socialized differently than pre-Crisis generations were and differently from the Crisis generation.

If the generational imprinting is strong enough for it to significantly affect child-rearing the system could settle down into a two stroke cycle with A generations have a parenting style that produces a B generation and B generation producing A. The timing element would be the time from birth to time of gaining power.

Alternately, no cycle could appear. The A gen could produce B gens which produce C gens which produce D gens and so on. There would still be a generational pulse in society with the timing element you propose, but no repetition.

I don't see how a repeating cycle with more than two elements is going to appear based only on child nurture as the forcing function and a single generational replacement as the timing element.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

The whole turning schema works just fine, regardless of whether it's three-phase or four-phase, so long as you recognize that the most important generation in all turnings is the one entering adulthood. It is the injection of new blood into the culture that causes the change.

Now, granted, there should be some structural differences between an 18 year Crisis and a 27 year Crisis but there is one thing that is the same -- Heroes entering positions of power.

It seems you are presupposing the existance of generations. Given that generations exist, one can see turnings being produced as a new (different) generation begins to replace the old generation in power. But where do the generations come from, and why would there be four kinds? And why should they repeat in some special order.

"Parental nurture" is a fuzzy concept. It doesn't explain why there should be four generations or why nurture should change in any regular way.

Finally how can this get started in the first place?

Assuming only one generational transistion as the key sets you up for a two stroke cycle. A crisis event occurs randomly changing the environment for child-rearing and creating a different youth generation. When they come to power they change the way the society is run in ways that reflect their unigue formative experience. Thus, the society runs differently (you have a turning) and the generation in youth is socialized differently than pre-Crisis generations were and differently from the Crisis generation.

If the generational imprinting is strong enough for it to significantly affect child-rearing the system could settle down into a two stroke cycle with A generations have a parenting style that produces a B generation and B generation producing A. The timing element would be the time from birth to time of gaining power.

Alternately, no cycle could appear. The A gen could produce B gens which produce C gens which produce D gens and so on. There would still be a generational pulse in society with the timing element you propose, but no repetition.

I don't see how a repeating cycle with more than two elements is going to appear based only on child nurture as the forcing function and a single generational replacement as the timing element.

I just happened to catch this latest exchange...

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

The whole turning schema works just fine, regardless of whether it's three-phase or four-phase...

It seems you are presupposing the existance of generations... "Parental nurture" is a fuzzy concept. It doesn't explain why there should be four generations or why nurture should change in any regular way.

"Parental nurture" in a perpetual swinging motion is not a fuzzy concept. Actually it is quite logical. The relationship of parent to child is the most basic of all societal building blocks.

Parents will always (in a general sense) seek to bring their children up by picking and choosing from the good and bad of their own childhoods. If they were over-protected, and didn't like it, they will tend to under-protect their own kids. It is a pendulum that swings back and forth.

The dominate to recessive swinging motion is just another part of concept, as the over-under protection swings always create certain pressures upon a society, a dominate generation is then required to complete the cycle.

Seems logical to me.

I just happened to catch this latest exchange...

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

The whole turning schema works just fine, regardless of whether it's three-phase or four-phase...

It seems you are presupposing the existance of generations... "Parental nurture" is a fuzzy concept. It doesn't explain why there should be four generations or why nurture should change in any regular way.

"Parental nurture" in a perpetual swinging motion is not a fuzzy concept. Actually it is quite logical. The relationship of parent to child is the most basic of all societal building blocks.

Parents will always (in a general sense) seek to bring their children up by picking and choosing from the good and bad of their own childhoods. If they were over-protected, and didn't like it, they will tend to under-protect their own kids. It is a pendulum that swings back and forth.

The dominate to recessive swinging motion is just another part of concept, as the over-under protection swings always create certain pressures upon a society, a dominate generation is then required to complete the cycle.

Seems logical to me.

The next issue is the instituional change, which is the Crisis. One can link the Crisis to the Awakening. Are they? How does the link work? What mechanism provides the timing between Awakening and Crisis?

When the generation that conceived the new more relevant values system of the Awakening (they were the coming of age generation at the time) finally reaches their optimum age for implementing it, we have the Crisis. Eg. 20 year olds are finally 60 or so.

The next issue is the instituional change, which is the Crisis. One can link the Crisis to the Awakening. Are they? How does the link work? What mechanism provides the timing between Awakening and Crisis?

When the generation that conceived the new more relevant values system of the Awakening (they were the coming of age generation at the time) finally reaches their optimum age for implementing it, we have the Crisis. Eg. 20 year olds are finally 60 or so.

Originally Posted by Acton Ellis

When the generation that conceived the new more relevant values system of the Awakening (they were the coming of age generation at the time) finally reaches their optimum age for implementing it, we have the Crisis. Eg. 20 year olds are finally 60 or so.

When the generation that conceived the new more relevant values system of the Awakening of 1886 (they were the coming of age generation at the time) finally reaches their optimum age for implementing it, we have the Crisis. Eg. Missionary generation 20 year olds are finally 60 in the Great Normalcy Crisis of 1920.

Oops, looks like those Prophets are gonna be disappointed for a while longer, huh? They're gonna have to wait another thirteen years before the "New Deal" is born.

Hey, but we want it and we want it NOW!

Originally Posted by Acton Ellis

When the generation that conceived the new more relevant values system of the Awakening (they were the coming of age generation at the time) finally reaches their optimum age for implementing it, we have the Crisis. Eg. 20 year olds are finally 60 or so.

When the generation that conceived the new more relevant values system of the Awakening of 1886 (they were the coming of age generation at the time) finally reaches their optimum age for implementing it, we have the Crisis. Eg. Missionary generation 20 year olds are finally 60 in the Great Normalcy Crisis of 1920.

Oops, looks like those Prophets are gonna be disappointed for a while longer, huh? They're gonna have to wait another thirteen years before the "New Deal" is born.

Hey, but we want it and we want it NOW!

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Parents will always (in a general sense) seek to bring their children up by picking and choosing from the good and bad of their own childhoods. If they were over-protected, and didn't like it, they will tend to under-protect their own kids. It is a pendulum that swings back and forth.

A pendulum implies a two-stroke cycle. That's easy to see. How does it produce a four-stroke cycle? That's what's fuzzy.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Parents will always (in a general sense) seek to bring their children up by picking and choosing from the good and bad of their own childhoods. If they were over-protected, and didn't like it, they will tend to under-protect their own kids. It is a pendulum that swings back and forth.

A pendulum implies a two-stroke cycle. That's easy to see. How does it produce a four-stroke cycle? That's what's fuzzy.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Parents will always (in a general sense) seek to bring their children up by picking and choosing from the good and bad of their own childhoods. If they were over-protected, and didn't like it, they will tend to under-protect their own kids. It is a pendulum that swings back and forth.

A pendulum implies a two-stroke cycle. That's easy to see. How does it produce a four-stroke cycle? That's what's fuzzy.

The four seasons are a two-stroke cycle, with a vernal and autumnal equinox turning:

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Parents will always (in a general sense) seek to bring their children up by picking and choosing from the good and bad of their own childhoods. If they were over-protected, and didn't like it, they will tend to under-protect their own kids. It is a pendulum that swings back and forth.

A pendulum implies a two-stroke cycle. That's easy to see. How does it produce a four-stroke cycle? That's what's fuzzy.

The four seasons are a two-stroke cycle, with a vernal and autumnal equinox turning:

If only the most open minded, flexible, & vital individuals of an old generation can constructively participate...will their old peer personality matter?
Or will an old generation develop a role(s) outside that of the four archetypes?

Will Saeculum III be Saeculum II with an older generation performing extra-saeculum roles?


BTW, Andy '85, you are doing just fine.

If only the most open minded, flexible, & vital individuals of an old generation can constructively participate...will their old peer personality matter?
Or will an old generation develop a role(s) outside that of the four archetypes?

Will Saeculum III be Saeculum II with an older generation performing extra-saeculum roles?


BTW, Andy '85, you are doing just fine.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Here is how I am understanding your model. A society has institutional frameworks which are based on values. These values are more or less relevant with the world inhabitated by the society.

Technological change, changes the world inhabited by the society and as time goes on the values become increasingly out of sync with reality (that is they cannot be effectively applied to guide behavior in a practical manner). At some point new values are produced that are more congruent with the changing world. The period when this happens is an Awakening social moment. Awakenings occur periodically at intervals inversely proprotional to the rate of technological change.

Is this correct?

All except the last sentence. As I explained in my last post, there is no simple inverse correspondence between the pace of change and the length of the saeculum. The saeculum has not steadily gotten shorter as the pace of change has accelerated. Instead, it did a quantum jump in the 19th century and we now have a shorter saeculum. The reason for this may become clear as I answer your recent questions.

The next issue is the instituional change, which is the Crisis. One can link the Crisis to the Awakening. Are they? How does the link work? What mechanism provides the timing between Awakening and Crisis?

The Crisis is certainly linked to the Awakening in two ways. First, as you noted the institutions of society are linked to its values (though not necessarily determined by them; there are other factors as well). And as technology progresses, the same changes are rendering each irrelevant.

Actually I should point out once more that it is material change of circumstances caused by technological progress, not technology itself, that renders values and institutions irrelevant. Look at the American Revolution saeculum for example. This happened as a result of the developing civilization in the English colonies, a product of the industrial revolution in England (which expanded the English population and led to increased migration overseas), the development of ocean-going sailing ships and reliable navigation, and the printing press, which accelerated the dissemination of ideas. If we were looking at the technological developments per se, we might have expected the Revolution to occur much earlier. But the material changes they brought about ripened only later, after the technologies had been implemented and incorporated into culture.

At any rate, as the colonies became more populous and their economies and societies developed, an American identity increasingly emerged, rendering loyalty to Great Britain less and less relevant as a value shaping colonial behavior. The same changes also rendered compliance with British law less appropriate. But the values had to change before people were ready to take the drastic step of independence.

The second link involves the fact that some of the same people (i.e., the Prophet generation) are involved in both, and another set of people (the Hero generation) are raised on the new values and take them somewhat for granted.

As for the timing, I see it this way. As society's material circumstances change, a point is reached when an unbiased observer would compare them to the prevailing values regime and say, "this doesn't fit." At that point in time, however, everyone in adulthood or late childhood is committed to the existing values regime and unable to see the need to make changes. However, new children grow up in a world that doesn't fit what they've been taught, and the teaching isn't as readily affirmed in their minds. As these new children come of age, they begin to question. When enough of them have come of age, enough questioning is happening to spark an Awakening.

Children growing up during the Awakening are familiar with its new values and take them for granted, but very conscious of its turmoil and disturbed by its excesses. The older folks, being committed to the Awakening's struggle, cannot react to these excesses in time and cool things down, but as the new children come of age, a reaction sets in and a period of conservatism follows. Attempts may be made to roll back the new values and return to the old ones; they generally do not succeed (the old values being genuinely inappropriate to the times) but some of the more radical proposals may now be silenced.

The institutions of society are also out of step with the material changes and are now out of step with prevailing values, too. In addition, the decentralized approach taken in the values debate has consequences of its own, making those institutions even creakier: not only are they out of step with reality, but the centralized authority needed to make them function efficiently has been weakened. Again, though, adults are not able to take the necessary action to fix the problem without fresh input. They begin to see the problem and articulate it, but are so caught up still in the values debate, and so used to the old ways of doing things, that they cannot do more than tinker at the margins. What becomes necessary is for a generation raised after the problems began to be articulated, and after the Awakening had quieted, to drive the return to central authority and the more radical changes necessary to implement a new institutional framework. Generally either the existing framework breaks down in some dramatic way, or the desire for more functioning institutions propels a showdown.

The accelerating pace of material change since the industrial revolution has meant that the pressure for changes in values and institutions has increased. Also, the idea of continuous progress has entered the values regime itself. I believe this is what has accelerated the saeculum. We are readier to change, and so change happens more readily than it once did.

The need for a critical mass of "new" young adults capable of pushing for solutions to the problem is what defines generations in the S&H sense. Once such a critical mass is reached, a new Turning begins and the milieu in which young people are raised changes, producing a new generation. Or, as S&H would put it, turnings produce generations.

Generations also produce Turnings in the sense that, were the human race differently put together, we could respond more smoothly to the need for change instead of doing it in violent bursts followed by reaction. But what one might take away from this statement on the part of the author is the idea that, once started, the saeculum is self-maintaining. I don't think that's true. If changes to material circumstances stopped happening, then values and institutions would adapt to existing reality and be appropriate to it from then on, and there would never again be an Awakening or a Crisis. Or if material change slowed down dramatically, we might have an Awakening or a Crisis once in a great while, with generations having little or nothing to do with the process and no saecular rhythm discernible.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Here is how I am understanding your model. A society has institutional frameworks which are based on values. These values are more or less relevant with the world inhabitated by the society.

Technological change, changes the world inhabited by the society and as time goes on the values become increasingly out of sync with reality (that is they cannot be effectively applied to guide behavior in a practical manner). At some point new values are produced that are more congruent with the changing world. The period when this happens is an Awakening social moment. Awakenings occur periodically at intervals inversely proprotional to the rate of technological change.

Is this correct?

All except the last sentence. As I explained in my last post, there is no simple inverse correspondence between the pace of change and the length of the saeculum. The saeculum has not steadily gotten shorter as the pace of change has accelerated. Instead, it did a quantum jump in the 19th century and we now have a shorter saeculum. The reason for this may become clear as I answer your recent questions.

The next issue is the instituional change, which is the Crisis. One can link the Crisis to the Awakening. Are they? How does the link work? What mechanism provides the timing between Awakening and Crisis?

The Crisis is certainly linked to the Awakening in two ways. First, as you noted the institutions of society are linked to its values (though not necessarily determined by them; there are other factors as well). And as technology progresses, the same changes are rendering each irrelevant.

Actually I should point out once more that it is material change of circumstances caused by technological progress, not technology itself, that renders values and institutions irrelevant. Look at the American Revolution saeculum for example. This happened as a result of the developing civilization in the English colonies, a product of the industrial revolution in England (which expanded the English population and led to increased migration overseas), the development of ocean-going sailing ships and reliable navigation, and the printing press, which accelerated the dissemination of ideas. If we were looking at the technological developments per se, we might have expected the Revolution to occur much earlier. But the material changes they brought about ripened only later, after the technologies had been implemented and incorporated into culture.

At any rate, as the colonies became more populous and their economies and societies developed, an American identity increasingly emerged, rendering loyalty to Great Britain less and less relevant as a value shaping colonial behavior. The same changes also rendered compliance with British law less appropriate. But the values had to change before people were ready to take the drastic step of independence.

The second link involves the fact that some of the same people (i.e., the Prophet generation) are involved in both, and another set of people (the Hero generation) are raised on the new values and take them somewhat for granted.

As for the timing, I see it this way. As society's material circumstances change, a point is reached when an unbiased observer would compare them to the prevailing values regime and say, "this doesn't fit." At that point in time, however, everyone in adulthood or late childhood is committed to the existing values regime and unable to see the need to make changes. However, new children grow up in a world that doesn't fit what they've been taught, and the teaching isn't as readily affirmed in their minds. As these new children come of age, they begin to question. When enough of them have come of age, enough questioning is happening to spark an Awakening.

Children growing up during the Awakening are familiar with its new values and take them for granted, but very conscious of its turmoil and disturbed by its excesses. The older folks, being committed to the Awakening's struggle, cannot react to these excesses in time and cool things down, but as the new children come of age, a reaction sets in and a period of conservatism follows. Attempts may be made to roll back the new values and return to the old ones; they generally do not succeed (the old values being genuinely inappropriate to the times) but some of the more radical proposals may now be silenced.

The institutions of society are also out of step with the material changes and are now out of step with prevailing values, too. In addition, the decentralized approach taken in the values debate has consequences of its own, making those institutions even creakier: not only are they out of step with reality, but the centralized authority needed to make them function efficiently has been weakened. Again, though, adults are not able to take the necessary action to fix the problem without fresh input. They begin to see the problem and articulate it, but are so caught up still in the values debate, and so used to the old ways of doing things, that they cannot do more than tinker at the margins. What becomes necessary is for a generation raised after the problems began to be articulated, and after the Awakening had quieted, to drive the return to central authority and the more radical changes necessary to implement a new institutional framework. Generally either the existing framework breaks down in some dramatic way, or the desire for more functioning institutions propels a showdown.

The accelerating pace of material change since the industrial revolution has meant that the pressure for changes in values and institutions has increased. Also, the idea of continuous progress has entered the values regime itself. I believe this is what has accelerated the saeculum. We are readier to change, and so change happens more readily than it once did.

The need for a critical mass of "new" young adults capable of pushing for solutions to the problem is what defines generations in the S&H sense. Once such a critical mass is reached, a new Turning begins and the milieu in which young people are raised changes, producing a new generation. Or, as S&H would put it, turnings produce generations.

Generations also produce Turnings in the sense that, were the human race differently put together, we could respond more smoothly to the need for change instead of doing it in violent bursts followed by reaction. But what one might take away from this statement on the part of the author is the idea that, once started, the saeculum is self-maintaining. I don't think that's true. If changes to material circumstances stopped happening, then values and institutions would adapt to existing reality and be appropriate to it from then on, and there would never again be an Awakening or a Crisis. Or if material change slowed down dramatically, we might have an Awakening or a Crisis once in a great while, with generations having little or nothing to do with the process and no saecular rhythm discernible.