Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander

S&H's mechanism involves the interaction of people with history (turnings) to produce the generations. That is, history creates generations.

However, unless this event repeats every four generations, the cycle dies out like the Exodus and Trojan War generations did. How does it repeat?

In the three phase saeculum as I've proposed it, the three phases are:

Elderhood (54-80)
Primacy (27-53)
Youth (0-26)

• "Presidents Wilson, Roosevelt and Johnson obtained the power to take us into war by promising not to take us into war (in the elections of 1916, 1940 and 1964)." -- Garry Wills (1973 New York Times book review of Schlesinger's The Imperial Presidency

Wills' quote contains a number of well-known and accepted facts that can be easily transposed upon Sean Love notion in direct relation to the Alexander question. Consider the following:

• Ground Zero 1916
  Elderhood (54-80) Wilson
  Primacy (27-53) FDR
  Youth (0-26) LBJ
  
  Ground Zero +24 years1940
  Elderhood (54-80) FDR
  Primacy (27-53) LBJ
  Youth (0-26) Captain in Vietnam
  
  Gound Zero +48 years 1964
  Elderhood (54-80) LBJ
  Primacy (27-53) Captain in Vietnam
  Youth (0-26) Captain in Iraq

When one considers that all these men were liberal Democrats, that all shared a mutual admiration for their party's elder leader at the time, and that all lied about the serious matter of war in a time of peace, a certain point should be taken seriously.

That point is that history does repeat in mysterious ways.

• "Mr. Schlesinger's book cannot deal with these problems. He admits that Franklin Roosevelt stretched the Constitution by giving destroyers to England and posting troops in Iceland; but that is condoned because the people did not know yet that it was a good war - i.e., one they would come in time to approve. Nixon supported a bad war." -- Garry Wills

But I'm not holding my breath waiting for any liberal Democrats today to acknowledge that point, or even Garry Wills' point for that matter.

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander

S&H's mechanism involves the interaction of people with history (turnings) to produce the generations. That is, history creates generations.

However, unless this event repeats every four generations, the cycle dies out like the Exodus and Trojan War generations did. How does it repeat?

In the three phase saeculum as I've proposed it, the three phases are:

Elderhood (54-80)
Primacy (27-53)
Youth (0-26)

• "Presidents Wilson, Roosevelt and Johnson obtained the power to take us into war by promising not to take us into war (in the elections of 1916, 1940 and 1964)." -- Garry Wills (1973 New York Times book review of Schlesinger's The Imperial Presidency

Wills' quote contains a number of well-known and accepted facts that can be easily transposed upon Sean Love notion in direct relation to the Alexander question. Consider the following:

• Ground Zero 1916
  Elderhood (54-80) Wilson
  Primacy (27-53) FDR
  Youth (0-26) LBJ
  
  Ground Zero +24 years1940
  Elderhood (54-80) FDR
  Primacy (27-53) LBJ
  Youth (0-26) Captain in Vietnam
  
  Gound Zero +48 years 1964
  Elderhood (54-80) LBJ
  Primacy (27-53) Captain in Vietnam
  Youth (0-26) Captain in Iraq

When one considers that all these men were liberal Democrats, that all shared a mutual admiration for their party's elder leader at the time, and that all lied about the serious matter of war in a time of peace, a certain point should be taken seriously.

That point is that history does repeat in mysterious ways.

• "Mr. Schlesinger's book cannot deal with these problems. He admits that Franklin Roosevelt stretched the Constitution by giving destroyers to England and posting troops in Iceland; but that is condoned because the people did not know yet that it was a good war - i.e., one they would come in time to approve. Nixon supported a bad war." -- Garry Wills

But I'm not holding my breath waiting for any liberal Democrats today to acknowledge that point, or even Garry Wills' point for that matter.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Marc:

You wrote this: 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.

This clearly implies the swing from over-protected to under protected occurs over one biological generation. Thus a complete cycle takes two generations: from grandparent to grandchild or about 50-60 years

The nuture cycle in the saeculum extends over four generations, over 100 years in the early saeculum, which is what is being discussed here. The S&H nuture cycle is too long to reflect a parent-child dynamic.

The over to under protective nurturing aspect takes only two generations to complete, not three or four. The other two "generational seasons" represent, more or less, first, a time of nurture loosening, and then a time of tightening.

If I understand you correctly you are saying something like this:

Max Nuture - Nurture loosening -Nurture Minimum- Nurture tightening -Max Nuture

The complete cycle (peak to peak) takes four generations. This is consistent with your statement "the over to under protective nurturing aspect takes only two generations to complete" which describes one-half of the full cycle as taking two generations.

Here is the mechanism you provide for this scheme:
Parents 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.

Now this clearly implies a cycle in which each generation in its own child-rearing reacts against the way it was raised. Thus you would see alternating generations of over and under-protected childhoods like this:

High Nurture - Low Nuture - High Nurture

Now what you are implying in your followup post is the process of nurture change extends over two generations. That is, a generation of Artists that was overprotected raises their Prophet kids in a less protective fashion and in doing so "rebels" against their parents? too-protective style of parenting. But then you have the Prophet generation continuing the trend towards less protection by being even less protective of their own Nomad children. That is the Prophets rebel against their Artist parents as too protective.

But then the Nomads decide to change the trend and they raise their Hero children in a more protective fashion. That is, they rebel against the lack of protectiveness in their own upbringing. Their Hero offspring rebel against their Nomad parents for not being protective enough and increase the protectiveness of their Artist offspring and the cycle is complete.

What we have here are two generations, Prophets and Heroes who received a "medium" mount of protectiveness in their upbringing. Both respond to this similar degree of protectiveness, but in opposite directions, the Prophets reducing it in their own child-rearing and the Heroes increasing it. Yet the stimulus (the degree of protectiveness in their upbringing) is the same. Thus some other factor must be present that isn't being accounted for in the simple nuture cycle.

Another mystery is why should the trend toward increasing (or decreasing) nurture last two generations, why not some other number? Put another way, what makes some generations (Heroes and Prophets) continue the trend, while others (Nomads and Artists) reverse it?

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Marc:

You wrote this: 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.

This clearly implies the swing from over-protected to under protected occurs over one biological generation. Thus a complete cycle takes two generations: from grandparent to grandchild or about 50-60 years

The nuture cycle in the saeculum extends over four generations, over 100 years in the early saeculum, which is what is being discussed here. The S&H nuture cycle is too long to reflect a parent-child dynamic.

The over to under protective nurturing aspect takes only two generations to complete, not three or four. The other two "generational seasons" represent, more or less, first, a time of nurture loosening, and then a time of tightening.

If I understand you correctly you are saying something like this:

Max Nuture - Nurture loosening -Nurture Minimum- Nurture tightening -Max Nuture

The complete cycle (peak to peak) takes four generations. This is consistent with your statement "the over to under protective nurturing aspect takes only two generations to complete" which describes one-half of the full cycle as taking two generations.

Here is the mechanism you provide for this scheme:
Parents 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.

Now this clearly implies a cycle in which each generation in its own child-rearing reacts against the way it was raised. Thus you would see alternating generations of over and under-protected childhoods like this:

High Nurture - Low Nuture - High Nurture

Now what you are implying in your followup post is the process of nurture change extends over two generations. That is, a generation of Artists that was overprotected raises their Prophet kids in a less protective fashion and in doing so "rebels" against their parents? too-protective style of parenting. But then you have the Prophet generation continuing the trend towards less protection by being even less protective of their own Nomad children. That is the Prophets rebel against their Artist parents as too protective.

But then the Nomads decide to change the trend and they raise their Hero children in a more protective fashion. That is, they rebel against the lack of protectiveness in their own upbringing. Their Hero offspring rebel against their Nomad parents for not being protective enough and increase the protectiveness of their Artist offspring and the cycle is complete.

What we have here are two generations, Prophets and Heroes who received a "medium" mount of protectiveness in their upbringing. Both respond to this similar degree of protectiveness, but in opposite directions, the Prophets reducing it in their own child-rearing and the Heroes increasing it. Yet the stimulus (the degree of protectiveness in their upbringing) is the same. Thus some other factor must be present that isn't being accounted for in the simple nuture cycle.

Another mystery is why should the trend toward increasing (or decreasing) nurture last two generations, why not some other number? Put another way, what makes some generations (Heroes and Prophets) continue the trend, while others (Nomads and Artists) reverse it?

All this talk of a three-stroke cycle reminds me a little of Wankel's rotary engine.

All this talk of a three-stroke cycle reminds me a little of Wankel's rotary engine.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander

S&H's mechanism involves the interaction of people with history (turnings) to produce the generations. That is, history creates generations.

However, unless this event repeats every four generations, the cycle dies out like the Exodus and Trojan War generations did. How does it repeat?

In the three phase saeculum as I've proposed it, the three phases are:

Elderhood (54-80)
Primacy (27-53)
Youth (0-26)

• "Presidents Wilson, Roosevelt and Johnson obtained the power to take us into war by promising not to take us into war (in the elections of 1916, 1940 and 1964)." -- Garry Wills (1973 New York Times book review of Schlesinger's The Imperial Presidency

Wills' quote contains a number of well-known and accepted facts that can be easily transposed upon Sean Love notion in direct relation to the Alexander question. Consider the following:

• Ground Zero 1916
  Elderhood (54-80) Wilson
  Primacy (27-53) FDR
  Youth (0-26) LBJ
  
  Ground Zero +24 years1940
  Elderhood (54-80) FDR
  Primacy (27-53) LBJ
  Youth (0-26) Captain in Vietnam
  
  Gound Zero +48 years 1964
  Elderhood (54-80) LBJ
  Primacy (27-53) Captain in Vietnam
  Youth (0-26) Captain in Iraq

When one considers that all these men were liberal Democrats, that all shared a mutual admiration for their party's elder leader at the time, and that all lied about the serious matter of war in a time of peace, a certain point should be taken seriously.

That point is that history does repeat in mysterious ways.

• "Mr. Schlesinger's book cannot deal with these problems. He admits that Franklin Roosevelt stretched the Constitution by giving destroyers to England and posting troops in Iceland; but that is condoned because the people did not know yet that it was a good war - i.e., one they would come in time to approve. Nixon supported a bad war." -- Garry Wills

But I'm not holding my breath waiting for any liberal Democrats today to acknowledge that point, or even Garry Wills' point for that matter.

Interesting. Misplaced. But interesting.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander

S&H's mechanism involves the interaction of people with history (turnings) to produce the generations. That is, history creates generations.

However, unless this event repeats every four generations, the cycle dies out like the Exodus and Trojan War generations did. How does it repeat?

In the three phase saeculum as I've proposed it, the three phases are:

Elderhood (54-80)
Primacy (27-53)
Youth (0-26)

• "Presidents Wilson, Roosevelt and Johnson obtained the power to take us into war by promising not to take us into war (in the elections of 1916, 1940 and 1964)." -- Garry Wills (1973 New York Times book review of Schlesinger's The Imperial Presidency

Wills' quote contains a number of well-known and accepted facts that can be easily transposed upon Sean Love notion in direct relation to the Alexander question. Consider the following:

• Ground Zero 1916
  Elderhood (54-80) Wilson
  Primacy (27-53) FDR
  Youth (0-26) LBJ
  
  Ground Zero +24 years1940
  Elderhood (54-80) FDR
  Primacy (27-53) LBJ
  Youth (0-26) Captain in Vietnam
  
  Gound Zero +48 years 1964
  Elderhood (54-80) LBJ
  Primacy (27-53) Captain in Vietnam
  Youth (0-26) Captain in Iraq

When one considers that all these men were liberal Democrats, that all shared a mutual admiration for their party's elder leader at the time, and that all lied about the serious matter of war in a time of peace, a certain point should be taken seriously.

That point is that history does repeat in mysterious ways.

• "Mr. Schlesinger's book cannot deal with these problems. He admits that Franklin Roosevelt stretched the Constitution by giving destroyers to England and posting troops in Iceland; but that is condoned because the people did not know yet that it was a good war - i.e., one they would come in time to approve. Nixon supported a bad war." -- Garry Wills

But I'm not holding my breath waiting for any liberal Democrats today to acknowledge that point, or even Garry Wills' point for that matter.

Interesting. Misplaced. But interesting.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

What we have here are two generations, Prophets and Heroes who received a "medium" mount of protectiveness in their upbringing.

I think the most important difference between idealist and civics is not necessarily parents per se but rather societies sense of itself. Idealists are highly prone to some reality shift when they come of age. Nurtured in a relatively well-ordered society, that is now begun to come apart, offers the opposite challenge than growing up in a fractured and culturally disoriented society on the verge of civil war.

S&H build their entire theory upon this tight to loose nurturing pendulum. But they did so with a distinct eye on what they believed was the Awakening's triumph. In this I think they fall prey to what is called the Oedipus Complex. A really great book on the effects of the past Awakening is called Generations Apart by Leon Sheleff, who took exception to the new age wisdom of his day (he wrote his book in 1980, when his collegues were advocating parents making love as their children lay sleeping in the same bed):

• Sheleff?s thesis horrified the many publishers to whom the manuscript was submitted, several of whom returned it with letters hinting that the author might simply be acting out his own unresolved oedipal hostility towards his father? Finally, a young editor at McGraw-Hill, excited by the furious reaction of one of his reviewers, had the courage to publish the book.
  
  Generations Apart is a fascinating survey of psychology, sociology, history, anthropology, politics, law, literature and myth?as well as family life, education, juvenile care systems, the upheavals of the 1960?s, and the works of other social commentators.

Anyone interested in the ultimate paradox, this cycle of nurture might enjoy reading Sheleff study.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

What we have here are two generations, Prophets and Heroes who received a "medium" mount of protectiveness in their upbringing.

I think the most important difference between idealist and civics is not necessarily parents per se but rather societies sense of itself. Idealists are highly prone to some reality shift when they come of age. Nurtured in a relatively well-ordered society, that is now begun to come apart, offers the opposite challenge than growing up in a fractured and culturally disoriented society on the verge of civil war.

S&H build their entire theory upon this tight to loose nurturing pendulum. But they did so with a distinct eye on what they believed was the Awakening's triumph. In this I think they fall prey to what is called the Oedipus Complex. A really great book on the effects of the past Awakening is called Generations Apart by Leon Sheleff, who took exception to the new age wisdom of his day (he wrote his book in 1980, when his collegues were advocating parents making love as their children lay sleeping in the same bed):

• Sheleff?s thesis horrified the many publishers to whom the manuscript was submitted, several of whom returned it with letters hinting that the author might simply be acting out his own unresolved oedipal hostility towards his father? Finally, a young editor at McGraw-Hill, excited by the furious reaction of one of his reviewers, had the courage to publish the book.
  
  Generations Apart is a fascinating survey of psychology, sociology, history, anthropology, politics, law, literature and myth?as well as family life, education, juvenile care systems, the upheavals of the 1960?s, and the works of other social commentators.

Anyone interested in the ultimate paradox, this cycle of nurture might enjoy reading Sheleff study.

Originally Posted by Lemmingwinks

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

But I'm not holding my breath waiting for any liberal Democrats today to acknowledge that point, or even Garry Wills' point for that matter.

Misplaced.

As usual I was right, er, wrong, um, misunderst..., just read my disclaimer, k? :wink:

Originally Posted by Lemmingwinks

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

But I'm not holding my breath waiting for any liberal Democrats today to acknowledge that point, or even Garry Wills' point for that matter.

Misplaced.

As usual I was right, er, wrong, um, misunderst..., just read my disclaimer, k? :wink:

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

I think the most important difference between idealist and civics is not necessarily parents per se but rather societies sense of itself.

Here you are bringing in another element, but its not defined. This is what I was referring to as "fuzzy"

S&H build their entire theory upon this tight to loose nurturing pendulum.

No. The nurturing cycle is one element in their theory. Another element is the phase of life and how the interaction between a social moment and a phase of life creates/reinforces generational archetypes.

Here is the S&H model (Generations p 444-447]:

1] A social moment not only shapes personality according to phase of life roles, but forges an enduring bond of identity between each cohort-group and its role--an aquired style that redfines both how that group will later define itself and how it will be regarded as others.

In short, the "shaping" of birth cohorts filling a particular phase of life during a social moment creates generations.

2] A central role acquired during a social moment can extend into the next life phase--but not into the life phase after that.

This is a key factor. It introduces hysteresis, which is needed to make the cycle work. The generational roles are "sticky". For example, in the High, the Artists occuppy the same phase of life as the Heroes did in the previous turnings. Yet the Heroes persist in their active role, crowding out their juniors, making the Artist generation less dynamic (recessive) than the preceding Hero generation. Thus, the Artist role is reinforced during the High by the presence of dominant Heroes who refuse to completely vacate their old roles. During the previous turnings, Heroes were allowed (even encouraged) to be Heroic, while during the High, Artists are not.

3] A social moment must be resolved in such a way as to shape the coming-of-age generation as dominant. That is, the new generation must take over the active role from the last dominant generation.

4] During the new social moment, each generation will redefine the central role of the phase of life it is entering in a direct that reverses the perceived excesses of that role since the last social moment.

Bascially this says that the coming of age (dominant) generation in a social moment will take an opposite style of the previous dominant generation. Thus, if the previous dominant generation was capable, but unreflective (don't ask questions, get the job done) the next dominant generation will be reflective, but incapable (ask questions, maybe the job doesn't need to be done).

This reactive approach to role formation in the social moment is tied in the nuture cycle:

[5] Each generation has a formative, nurturing relation primarily with the other two-apart generations (dominant with dominant and recessive with recessive). Each tries to cultivate in the second younger generation, a peer personality it percieves to be complementary to its own.

Points 4 and 5 together produce the reaction effect of social moments. [4] occurs during the social moment and [5] during the turning before.

If the social moment is an Awakening, we have Heroes "prepping" the youths into "proto-prophets" during the High. During the Awakening, the proto-prophets rebel against the Hero-defined Active role, replacing it with its opposite (and become full-fledged Prophets by doing so). The Active role is redefined from stability-enhancing (heroic--"hold the line") to stability-reducing (change agent).

If the social moment is a Crisis, we have Prophets prepping the youths into "proto-heroes" during the Unraveling. During the Crisis, the proto-heroes rebel against the Prophet-defined Active role, replacing it with its opposite (and becomeing full-fledged Heroes by doing so). That is, the Active role is redefined from change agent to heroic.
************************************************** ****
Points [1] and [2] create a two-stroke cycle that gives rise to alternating dominant and recessive generations and alternating social monent and non-social moment turnings.

Points [4] and [5] define another two-stroke cycle that gives rise to alternating kinds of social moments. Thus the final cycle is a 2 x 2 stroke cycle or four stroke cycle, with two fundamental mechanisms.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

I think the most important difference between idealist and civics is not necessarily parents per se but rather societies sense of itself.

Here you are bringing in another element, but its not defined. This is what I was referring to as "fuzzy"

S&H build their entire theory upon this tight to loose nurturing pendulum.

No. The nurturing cycle is one element in their theory. Another element is the phase of life and how the interaction between a social moment and a phase of life creates/reinforces generational archetypes.

Here is the S&H model (Generations p 444-447]:

1] A social moment not only shapes personality according to phase of life roles, but forges an enduring bond of identity between each cohort-group and its role--an aquired style that redfines both how that group will later define itself and how it will be regarded as others.

In short, the "shaping" of birth cohorts filling a particular phase of life during a social moment creates generations.

2] A central role acquired during a social moment can extend into the next life phase--but not into the life phase after that.

This is a key factor. It introduces hysteresis, which is needed to make the cycle work. The generational roles are "sticky". For example, in the High, the Artists occuppy the same phase of life as the Heroes did in the previous turnings. Yet the Heroes persist in their active role, crowding out their juniors, making the Artist generation less dynamic (recessive) than the preceding Hero generation. Thus, the Artist role is reinforced during the High by the presence of dominant Heroes who refuse to completely vacate their old roles. During the previous turnings, Heroes were allowed (even encouraged) to be Heroic, while during the High, Artists are not.

3] A social moment must be resolved in such a way as to shape the coming-of-age generation as dominant. That is, the new generation must take over the active role from the last dominant generation.

4] During the new social moment, each generation will redefine the central role of the phase of life it is entering in a direct that reverses the perceived excesses of that role since the last social moment.

Bascially this says that the coming of age (dominant) generation in a social moment will take an opposite style of the previous dominant generation. Thus, if the previous dominant generation was capable, but unreflective (don't ask questions, get the job done) the next dominant generation will be reflective, but incapable (ask questions, maybe the job doesn't need to be done).

This reactive approach to role formation in the social moment is tied in the nuture cycle:

[5] Each generation has a formative, nurturing relation primarily with the other two-apart generations (dominant with dominant and recessive with recessive). Each tries to cultivate in the second younger generation, a peer personality it percieves to be complementary to its own.

Points 4 and 5 together produce the reaction effect of social moments. [4] occurs during the social moment and [5] during the turning before.

If the social moment is an Awakening, we have Heroes "prepping" the youths into "proto-prophets" during the High. During the Awakening, the proto-prophets rebel against the Hero-defined Active role, replacing it with its opposite (and become full-fledged Prophets by doing so). The Active role is redefined from stability-enhancing (heroic--"hold the line") to stability-reducing (change agent).

If the social moment is a Crisis, we have Prophets prepping the youths into "proto-heroes" during the Unraveling. During the Crisis, the proto-heroes rebel against the Prophet-defined Active role, replacing it with its opposite (and becomeing full-fledged Heroes by doing so). That is, the Active role is redefined from change agent to heroic.
************************************************** ****
Points [1] and [2] create a two-stroke cycle that gives rise to alternating dominant and recessive generations and alternating social monent and non-social moment turnings.

Points [4] and [5] define another two-stroke cycle that gives rise to alternating kinds of social moments. Thus the final cycle is a 2 x 2 stroke cycle or four stroke cycle, with two fundamental mechanisms.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

I think the most important difference between idealist and civics is not necessarily parents per se but rather societies sense of itself.

Here you are bringing in another element, but its not defined. This is what I was referring to as "fuzzy"

S&H build their entire theory upon this tight to loose nurturing pendulum.

No. The nurturing cycle is one element in their theory. Another element is the phase of life and how the interaction between a social moment and a phase of life creates/reinforces generational archetypes.

Yes, there is a certain "chicken or the egg" element, but what I was talking about was the difference between how Schlesinger's generations worked and how S&H saw them. Furthermore, I made the claim that S&H fell prey the "Oedipus myth." A keen example of this parent to child, child to parent paradox is how S&H interpeted the 1929 v. 1964 "trigger" dates.

Think about it for a moment: In 1927 the world witnessed the extrordinary feat of Lindbergh. But the public reaction to his success caught everybody off-guard. Coolidge was beside himself on how to react it was so bewildering (he ended up personally welcoming the new "hero" with a speech). When one considers that it was the act of ONE SINGLE PERSON that touched off this massive public reaction, the contrast of the baby boom in "People's Park," during the sixties, is quite stark.

Look, no one single baby boomer stands out *like* Lindbergh did. No, what stands out is all the havoc they began to wreck in BIG GROUPS on campus. In the early stages of the turning (or latter stage if you will) The latter stunned their elders with their *group* rebellion, while the hero stood out ALONE.

This huge paradox, in relation to how each generation later evolved (the comformist GI v. the non-comformist Boom), is what I see as what marked these two generations, rather than their "child nurture."

p.s. And this begs the question as to why S&H did not suggest 1927 as the "trigger" but did mark "People's Park" in 1964 as a trigger. But strike that question, it not relavent anyway.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

I think the most important difference between idealist and civics is not necessarily parents per se but rather societies sense of itself.

Here you are bringing in another element, but its not defined. This is what I was referring to as "fuzzy"

S&H build their entire theory upon this tight to loose nurturing pendulum.

No. The nurturing cycle is one element in their theory. Another element is the phase of life and how the interaction between a social moment and a phase of life creates/reinforces generational archetypes.

Yes, there is a certain "chicken or the egg" element, but what I was talking about was the difference between how Schlesinger's generations worked and how S&H saw them. Furthermore, I made the claim that S&H fell prey the "Oedipus myth." A keen example of this parent to child, child to parent paradox is how S&H interpeted the 1929 v. 1964 "trigger" dates.

Think about it for a moment: In 1927 the world witnessed the extrordinary feat of Lindbergh. But the public reaction to his success caught everybody off-guard. Coolidge was beside himself on how to react it was so bewildering (he ended up personally welcoming the new "hero" with a speech). When one considers that it was the act of ONE SINGLE PERSON that touched off this massive public reaction, the contrast of the baby boom in "People's Park," during the sixties, is quite stark.

Look, no one single baby boomer stands out *like* Lindbergh did. No, what stands out is all the havoc they began to wreck in BIG GROUPS on campus. In the early stages of the turning (or latter stage if you will) The latter stunned their elders with their *group* rebellion, while the hero stood out ALONE.

This huge paradox, in relation to how each generation later evolved (the comformist GI v. the non-comformist Boom), is what I see as what marked these two generations, rather than their "child nurture."

p.s. And this begs the question as to why S&H did not suggest 1927 as the "trigger" but did mark "People's Park" in 1964 as a trigger. But strike that question, it not relavent anyway.

Originally Posted by Croakmore

All this talk of a three-stroke cycle reminds me a little of Wankel's rotary engine.

A three stroke cycle sound so . . . premature. :oops:

Originally Posted by Croakmore

All this talk of a three-stroke cycle reminds me a little of Wankel's rotary engine.

A three stroke cycle sound so . . . premature. :oops:

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Yes, there is a certain "chicken or the egg" element, but what I was talking about was the difference between how Schlesinger's generations worked and how S&H saw them.

Schlesinger's cycle as initially described isn't strictly generational. The term is sometimes used (which gets back to my "fuzzy" comment). But the hypothesized mechanism has to do with political organization, not generations.

Furthermore, I made the claim that S&H fell prey the "Oedipus myth." A keen example of this parent to child, child to parent paradox is how S&H interpeted the 1929 v. 1964 "trigger" dates.

You don't "interpret" trigger dates. If observers using validated methodologies cannot obtain a reproducible detection of recent trigger years and so have to rely upon "interpretation" then the saeculum does not exist. It's as simple as that.

You know that's always a possibility, the saeculum may not exist, except in our imagination.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Yes, there is a certain "chicken or the egg" element, but what I was talking about was the difference between how Schlesinger's generations worked and how S&H saw them.

Schlesinger's cycle as initially described isn't strictly generational. The term is sometimes used (which gets back to my "fuzzy" comment). But the hypothesized mechanism has to do with political organization, not generations.

Furthermore, I made the claim that S&H fell prey the "Oedipus myth." A keen example of this parent to child, child to parent paradox is how S&H interpeted the 1929 v. 1964 "trigger" dates.

You don't "interpret" trigger dates. If observers using validated methodologies cannot obtain a reproducible detection of recent trigger years and so have to rely upon "interpretation" then the saeculum does not exist. It's as simple as that.

You know that's always a possibility, the saeculum may not exist, except in our imagination.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Look, no one single baby boomer stands out *like* Lindbergh did. No, what stands out is all the havoc they began to wreck in BIG GROUPS on campus. In the early stages of the turning (or latter stage if you will) The latter stunned their elders with their *group* rebellion, while the hero stood out ALONE.

Lindburgh was a larger than life heroic figure, and he was a Nomad (as you concluded a few years back). He is in the tradition of Davy Crockett, George A Custer, and Teddy Roosevelt, all famous "larger than life" heroes from recessive generations.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Look, no one single baby boomer stands out *like* Lindbergh did. No, what stands out is all the havoc they began to wreck in BIG GROUPS on campus. In the early stages of the turning (or latter stage if you will) The latter stunned their elders with their *group* rebellion, while the hero stood out ALONE.

Lindburgh was a larger than life heroic figure, and he was a Nomad (as you concluded a few years back). He is in the tradition of Davy Crockett, George A Custer, and Teddy Roosevelt, all famous "larger than life" heroes from recessive generations.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

You know that's always a possibility, the saeculum may not exist, except in our imagination.

Be that is may, men and women are routinely deprived of liberty (ie., go to jail) or worse, executed, based upon "interpretation" of the evidence. Our entire system of jurisprudence relies upon human "interpretation." As imperfect as this may be, try imagining the hideous anarchy that would reign were this interpetative system not there.

That our justice system utilizes certain time tested and "validated methodologies" to "obtain a reproducible" sense of social justice and are sometimes wrong, underscores your point. But having to "rely upon 'interpretation'" of history does not preclude that a cycle isn't there, it only means that there are competing interests whose sole intent is to destroy the other guys "interpetation."

A case in point: Michael Alexander interpets many things in his treatise The Kondratiev Cycle: A Generational Interpretation

One notable "interpetation" are the Political events listed in Appendix D on page 263. According to the Alexander's "validated methodologies," he concludes that the important matter of war and conflict are "political events" of a conservative or liberal nature. He then interpets that the Korean war, the US backing of the French In Vietnam and the coup in Guatemala, the Bay of Pigs fiasco, LBJ's Vietnam, the invasions of Panama and Iraq all to be conservative events. In fact, on matters of 99% of foreign policy issues they are all conservative events.

So, how does Alexander interpet the twentieth centuries two largest political events, World War one and two? He doesn't give them an "L" or a "C". They are thus conspicuously absent from his important chart. Of course this is no mistake on Alexander's part, because he tends to believe as does Arthur Schlesinger: those wars were America's wars. Everybody supported them, both liberal and conservative.

Of course this "interpetation" ignores many things. Namely that Americans were very divided when Roosevelt "unconstitutionally" ramped up the pre-war volume with Churchill, that he instituted the nation's first peacetime draft (strangely none of this pre-war stuff in listed on his chart for 1916 or 1940, or 1964), that Roosevelt and the Democratic Party targeted 115 isolationist Republicans for defeat in Congress in 1942 and then promptly suffered the fourth worst off-year election drubbing of the entire 20th century (even worse than Democrats did in 1994). But even worse, Alexander total ignores the fact that these "isolationists" won the argument after WWI, but completely lost that same argument after WWII ("Nixon wins presidency on anti-war platform, begins withdrawal" is an "L" event???).

No matter, interpets Alexander, America's interventionist foriegn policy after WWII, virtually invented by three liberal Democrats, was not a liberal concern at all, but a conservative one.

Sigh... it does remind me of Garry Wills, once again:

• "Mr. Schlesinger's book cannot deal with these problems. He admits that Franklin Roosevelt stretched the Constitution by giving destroyers to England and posting troops in Iceland; but that is condoned because the people did not know yet that it was a good war - i.e., one they would come in time to approve. Nixon supported a bad war."

Given to prejudical "interpetation," I'm afraid, niether can Alexander's book deal with these problems of cycles, of war and peace, of getting beyond his own flawed "liberal imagination."

• "A Conservative knows that two plus two, always invariably, equals four, a fact of life, that a liberal, on the other hand, is not quite willing to accept." -- Russell Kirk, The Conservative Mind (1953)

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

You know that's always a possibility, the saeculum may not exist, except in our imagination.

Be that is may, men and women are routinely deprived of liberty (ie., go to jail) or worse, executed, based upon "interpretation" of the evidence. Our entire system of jurisprudence relies upon human "interpretation." As imperfect as this may be, try imagining the hideous anarchy that would reign were this interpetative system not there.

That our justice system utilizes certain time tested and "validated methodologies" to "obtain a reproducible" sense of social justice and are sometimes wrong, underscores your point. But having to "rely upon 'interpretation'" of history does not preclude that a cycle isn't there, it only means that there are competing interests whose sole intent is to destroy the other guys "interpetation."

A case in point: Michael Alexander interpets many things in his treatise The Kondratiev Cycle: A Generational Interpretation

One notable "interpetation" are the Political events listed in Appendix D on page 263. According to the Alexander's "validated methodologies," he concludes that the important matter of war and conflict are "political events" of a conservative or liberal nature. He then interpets that the Korean war, the US backing of the French In Vietnam and the coup in Guatemala, the Bay of Pigs fiasco, LBJ's Vietnam, the invasions of Panama and Iraq all to be conservative events. In fact, on matters of 99% of foreign policy issues they are all conservative events.

So, how does Alexander interpet the twentieth centuries two largest political events, World War one and two? He doesn't give them an "L" or a "C". They are thus conspicuously absent from his important chart. Of course this is no mistake on Alexander's part, because he tends to believe as does Arthur Schlesinger: those wars were America's wars. Everybody supported them, both liberal and conservative.

Of course this "interpetation" ignores many things. Namely that Americans were very divided when Roosevelt "unconstitutionally" ramped up the pre-war volume with Churchill, that he instituted the nation's first peacetime draft (strangely none of this pre-war stuff in listed on his chart for 1916 or 1940, or 1964), that Roosevelt and the Democratic Party targeted 115 isolationist Republicans for defeat in Congress in 1942 and then promptly suffered the fourth worst off-year election drubbing of the entire 20th century (even worse than Democrats did in 1994). But even worse, Alexander total ignores the fact that these "isolationists" won the argument after WWI, but completely lost that same argument after WWII ("Nixon wins presidency on anti-war platform, begins withdrawal" is an "L" event???).

No matter, interpets Alexander, America's interventionist foriegn policy after WWII, virtually invented by three liberal Democrats, was not a liberal concern at all, but a conservative one.

Sigh... it does remind me of Garry Wills, once again:

• "Mr. Schlesinger's book cannot deal with these problems. He admits that Franklin Roosevelt stretched the Constitution by giving destroyers to England and posting troops in Iceland; but that is condoned because the people did not know yet that it was a good war - i.e., one they would come in time to approve. Nixon supported a bad war."

Given to prejudical "interpetation," I'm afraid, niether can Alexander's book deal with these problems of cycles, of war and peace, of getting beyond his own flawed "liberal imagination."

• "A Conservative knows that two plus two, always invariably, equals four, a fact of life, that a liberal, on the other hand, is not quite willing to accept." -- Russell Kirk, The Conservative Mind (1953)

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

A case in point: Michael Alexander interpets many things in his treatise The Kondratiev Cycle: A Generational Interpretation

One notable "interpetation" are the Political events listed in Appendix D on page 263. According to the Alexander's "validated methodologies," he concludes that the important matter of war and conflict are "political events" of a conservative or liberal nature.[/i]

First of all, Marc, the political cycle isn't validated. It most certainly relies on an interpretation of whether one labels an event with an L or a C. In this way it is different from an unrest or religious event, which is mostly a matter of definition.

You love to focus on politics which is one of the least fruitful areas of cycle research, largely because its so subjective. Trying to use politics to define the saeculum simply isn't going to work. Take trying to predict the election result. What do you get. If you assume we are in a liberal era, the prediction is the conservative incumbant will win. If you assume that we are in a conservative era, the prediction is the conservative incumbant will win. But the probably is about 40-80%. In other words, flipping a coin is about as accurate.

You make this prediction that Bush will win in a landslide. But the most accurate predictor shows Bush with a slight lead--no sign of a landslide.

More than two years ago I asked you (as the only one who ever expressed interest in the political cycle) if you would mark the events yourself, so I could run the test again to test sensitivity to interpretive drift (which is part of validation). You never did. So its not validated.

As far as my intrepretation comment. You cannot simply look at history, get a gut feel and then draw a valid cycle. If turnings could be detected by inspection, the cycle would have been discovered long ago and not by S&H.

You are not the only conservative in America with a passing familiarity with American history. Thus you are not the only person to look at history from a conservative perspective and either see the cycles or not. If there was anything to what you think you see, it would have been reported a long time ago. Since nobody has, they either aren't there or they can't detected by inspection.

If you really think there's something there, write it up, and let your colleagues decide if what you say holds any water. Lord know you've written a couple of books worth of posts.

Nothing of what I report is new. All the cycles I describe were all noted by others, mostly a long time ago: Kondratiev cycle in 1847, Juglar in 1862, Schelesinger before 1920, Kitchen in 1922, Kuznets in 1930, War/hegemony cycle in 1941, saeculum in the 1970's.

Even the correlation between the K-cycle and the saeculum isn't my idea. Neither is the alignment between the saeculum and the Schlesinger cycle. Not only that but S&H noted the correlation between Modelski's cycle and theirs long before I picked up on it.

I make use of some methods that were not available to earlier workers, which is why I think it might be worthwhile to revisit this old ground.