Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

I agree with Marc about Vietnam-- it was obvious to me even back then that the U.S. was attempting to bring about a Korea-type solution there, and were completely perplexed as to why it wasn't working.

The US wanted a Korea-like solution, but did the North Vietnamese want this? No! They wanted to win--and did!

To get a Korea like solution you had to have a Korea-like situation. A situation in which the other side faced possible defeat (Eisenhower threatened to use nukes) and so would be willing to settle for a draw. And after the draw was achieved, the US kept plenty of troops in South Korea, so any new hostilities would be an act of war against the United States, quite possibly bringing nuclear retaliation. This is how you get a draw. Nixon knew this, hell he was vice president when they got the draw in Korea.

But 1973 was not 1952. The US no longer could credibly threaten to use nukes, not when Soviet ICBMs were targetting US cities. Therefore North Vietnam did not face a choice between defeat and a draw, but rather a choice between victory or a draw. Why should the North Vietnamese choose a draw when they could have victory?

The North Vietnamese signed the agreement with the US because by doing so they could win in two years. Had they not signed, the US would have continued bombing and the war would drag on for many more years. Signing that cease fire with the Americans (which got them out of the war) was the quickest way for the North Vietnamese to win.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

The North Vietnamese signed the agreement with the US because by doing so they could win in two years. Had they not signed, the US would have continued bombing and the war would drag on for many more years. Signing that cease fire with the Americans (which got them out of the war) was the quickest way for the North Vietnamese to win.

I strongly disagree with this analysis. Nixon had successfully turned the grunt war over to the the South Vietnamese. It didn't take ground troops to force the North to the peace table. Nor did it take nukes. But it did take bombs, and it took strong top-down presidential leadership to call those air strikes. Had our commitment remained as firm to the South, in this very same regard, in April of 1975 the South would remain as a democracy today.

Nixon's resignation, combined with a hostile Democratic House cutting off the military-aid purse strings for the South, therefore, was the deciding factor to our loss of face in that conflict (or in your words "the quickest way for the North Vietnamese to win" the war). As history played out South Vietnam need not have been sacrificed to tyranny as it was sacrificed. And it remains a stain on this nation's credibility that we did sell out the South post-Watergate.

Having said that, I recall the words of the late William Manchester, whose highly praised history of that time recalled where it all began. The dateline is January, 1951:

• Seoul had just fallen again. A generation still flushed by the mighty triumphs of World War II and dazzled more recently by the miracle at Inchon could not accept the stalemate gracefully. At stake was a new policy, the policy of containment.
  
  Prewar isolationism was now passing through an extraordinary transformation.

Manchester then observes the final turning point for a nation shedding it's former isolationism under the guise of Nixionian "top down" leadership, long before Nixon ever dreamed of having such power:

• But Truman now had no intention of sharing the growing powers of the modern Presidency, accumulated through the precedents dating back to Roosevelt's Hundred Days.
  
  From the perspective of the 1970s, one of the most remarkable aspects of the debate was the tacit agreement on both sides to acept certain postulates which, twenty years later, were far from being accepted as eternal truths.

William Manchester was a great historian. But he was a unrepentant JFK Democrat. Thus I'll not hold my breath waiting for any post-modern liberal to agree with much of anything Manchester ever wrote.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

I strongly disagree with this analysis. Nixon had successfully turned the grunt war over to the the South Vietnamese.

You can believe what you want. If Nixon could have gotten a draw he would have done so in his first year in office--just like Eisenhower did in Korea.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Had our commitment remained as firm to the South, in this very same regard, in April of 1975 the South would remain as a democracy today.

Are you suggesting that South Vietnam was a democracy?

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

I strongly disagree with this analysis. Nixon had successfully turned the grunt war over to the the South Vietnamese.

You can believe what you want. If Nixon could have gotten a draw he would have done so in his first year in office--just like Eisenhower did in Korea.

Nixon's goal was to use Vietnam as a means to divide and weaken the Communist bloc. His "secret" trips to both the USSR and China, in 1972, was the master stroke in this plan. He virtually exposed the longstanding hostility between these two nations. In his book, The Strange Death of Liberialism, historian H.W. Brands asserted that for all intents and purposes the end of the Cold War was determined right then and there.

But the same political Party that kept the A-Bomb development secret to all (save Joe Stalin of course), and who developed the massive powers of the modern presidency (like ordering secret assassinations on Vietnamese leaders), suddenly had a change of heart in the wake of Nixon's trip abroad in 1972. Suddenly this clash between government secrecy and the freedom of the press became a new issue that shocked the likes of Kennedy's "court historian" Arthur Schlesinger, who claimed that Nixon "has brought about what nearly all Washington reporters would agree is the most closed government within memory."

Wow, what incredible hypocrisy, eh? What a convenient time to suddenly become concerned about the freedom of the press! Just at the moment Nixon begins to warm the Cold War, liberals like Schlesinger discover the First Amendment.

Amazing.

In today's Washington Post, another historian, however, connects the dots on who really became the battered ram of the Cold War in 1972:

• David Halberstam concludes his book "War in a Time of Peace: Bush, Clinton, and the Generals" with the following observation: "I should note finally that I did not go looking for the ghosts of Vietnam, but they were often there, and they found me, most notably in the damage done to two institutions critical to general public health and disproportionately affected by that war, the U.S. Army and the Democratic Party."

Back to the topic . . .

I have been asked to better describe the generational dynamic at work in a trilogical mechanism. First some review.

As stated in the first post of this thread, I am attempting to synthesize Strauss & Howe?s saecular cycle with observations that seem to conflict with their cycle and theory. The most basic observation (and one that others arise from) is that generations seem to have been of significantly greater length in pre-modern and early-modern times than they are today: They seemed to have dropped from an average of about 27 years in length in pre-modernity to around 20 years or less in the late 20th century with a small reduction after the Renaissance and larger reductions after the Civil War and the Great Depression.

The main question that arises is how can Strauss & Howe?s four phase, four archetype, tetralogical (?of a four way dialogue or interaction?) dynamic work properly, if at all, when members of the essential fourth phase are 81-108 years old? ? not mention those in ?midlife? being 54-80 years old, and all sorts of other problems?

To Messrs. Strauss and Howe this is (to my interpretation of them) not much a problem to begin with since, one, they don?t recognize as much of a decrease in generational length as many on this board do; two, they only recognize the Saeculum as operating infrequently and sporadically prior to the modern period whereas several on this board basically see the Saeculum acting essentially uninterruptedly through antiquity and the Middle Ages.

My solution to the problem is a trilogical dynamic that describes four archetypes but only three phases instead of four. This saecular mechanism I call Saeculum I since it would predate Strauss & Howe?s mechanism, Saeculum II, which operates today and possibly at several irregular instances in the pre-modernity.

Before I go on, some caveats: By coming up with this ?solution? I do not mean to attack Strauss & Howe?s work. Consider it more a Gedanken experiment or even a musing. Furthermore, please refer to my first post for additional details or reference. This post is simply meant to elaborate specifically on the proposed trilogical mechanism.

Assumptions

1. It is assumed that there are three phases of life in Saeculum I.

Youth (Pre-social-autonomy). Ages 0-26. Primary role (first half): Dependence, growth. Primary role (second half): ?Grunt work?, acquisition of skills for social autonomy.

Primacy. Ages 27-53. Primary role: Management, leadership

Elderhood. Ages 54-80. Primary role: Stewardship, then dependence.

For a more detailed ?fleshing out? of these three phases and roles, please see the first post of the thread.


2. It is assumed that there is a rough 54 year famine cycle in pre-modernity that creates alternating 27 year periods of famine and (relative) plenty and that though this cycle helps drive Saeculum I, it is quite possible that Saeculum I may continue to operate if a famine is skipped. Also it is assumed that if the famine cycle is, for whatever reason, severely disturbed, the saeculum will quickly realign with it.


3. It is assumed that the four archetypes (Prophet, Nomad, Hero, Artist) are fixed, permanent forms because I believe they represent fundamental qualities of humanity. I am a Wilberian and as such I find two concepts applicable to this discussion.

I believe humans are, or can at least be studied as, ?holons?. A ?holon? is something which is a whole unto itself, but is simultaneously a part of something (or somethings) else, and in turn is itself made up of parts. This gives an individual-communal axis to the existential condition of the human holon.

But just as importantly, the human holon has what could be called a subjective and an objective dimension. By ?subjective? it is meant what humans feel internally, mentally, intentionally. By ?objective? it is meant what humans observe externally, physically, behaviorally. The former deals with the arts, ethics, spirituality. The latter deals with science, technology, materiality. This duality is often explained at the individual level as the difference between ?mind? and ?brain?. If one could pop off one?s scalp and place a few mirrors so that one could see the brain, they still would not be looking into their ?mind? but rather looking at their brain. The mind is not something they can ?observe?; it is internal, subjective. The brain, on the other hand, is something one can observe; it is external, objective. This gives a subjective-objective axis to the existential condition of the human holon.

If you put these two axes together you have Wilber?s ?four quadrants? as diagramed below:




It is my assertion that four archetypes identified by Strauss & Howe correspond to these four quadrants:

Prophet: individualistic-subjective
Nomad: individualistic-objective
Hero: communitarian-objective
Artist: communitarian-subjective


4. It is assumed that somewhere along the way to human civilization, if not much, much earlier, one aspect (or quadrant) was emphasized to an extent that it caused a disequilibrium that called out for adjustment and we have been chasing an elusive balance ever since. Moreover, this chase seems to occur in a specific order, i.e., clockwise around the quadrants.


The Trilogical Dynamic

With these assumptions in place here are some diagrams to help demonstrate the operations of a three phase saeculum.

The first diagram shows the arrangement of the archetypes per the end of each turning. Please keep in mind that these generations spend most of the turning filling in these phases and only completely fill them at the end. Thus ?turning?.

Code:

Phase         1T	         2T	         3T	        4T

Elder        Hero	      Artist	     Prophet       Nomad
54-80

Primacy     Artist	     Prophet        Nomad        Hero
27-53
	
Youth       Prophet	    Nomad	       Hero	      Artist
0-26

The second diagram displays the relative emphasis of each generation in each phase in terms of the individual-communal axis. Please note the concept of ?load? whereby at some points there is a distinct overemphasis (overload) of one or the other. This leads the dynamic to prepare the generation in Youth to counteract this lack of balance through a combination of child rearing and youth attitude coming-of-age.

Code:

Phase	         1T	       2T	        3T	         4T
Elderhood	   Communal    Communal    Individual Individual

Primacy	     Communal   Individual   Individual    Communal

AdultWorld      Overly       Near        Overly        Near 
LOAD	        Communal      Mean      Individual      Mean

Youth         Individual  Individual    Communal     Communal

This third diagram describes the same thing along the subjective-objective axis.

Code:

Phase	         1T	       2T	        3T	         4T
Elderhood	   Objective   Subjective   Subjective  Objective

Primacy	     Subjective  Subjective   Objective   Objective

AdultWorld       Near        Overly       Near       Overly 
LOAD	          Mean      Subjective     Mean      Objective

Youth         Subjective   Objective    Objective  Subjective

Turnings Described

Now we can put these concepts together and see how the archetypes, phases, famine cycle, and turnings interact.

First Turning

Heroes replacing Nomads in Elderhood

Heroes try to hubristically strengthen community and institutions but continue to do so, as much as they are still able, in an objective, this-worldly, works-related way.

Artists replacing Heroes in Primacy

Artists come to social maturity buttressing Hero-founded community but bring a new subjectivity to it ? they balk at the theretofore dominant objectivism of their Nomad and Hero elders, seeing it as stifling and sterile in their youth. Rather they pursue a relative emphasis on values and spiritualism over works and materialism.

Prophets replacing Artists in Youth

Prophets are born and raised by Artists without emphasis on community-building since the adult world is relatively satisfied in that aspect. But they are still instilled with the importance of values and spirituality as Artists see a societal need and pass it on to their children.

Turning Mood

A first turning begins when population and resources have come back into a favorable balance and the society realizes that the period of famine and war is over. With the Nomad Grey Champion now passing the Heroes and Artists together lead a community renaissance in the arts and sciences (to such extent as these exist). Population and economic activity boom and occur within a context of relative social cohesion and stability.


Second Turning

Artists replacing Heroes in Elderhood

Artists try to systematically strengthen community and institutions but continue to do so, as much as they are still able, in a subjective, other-worldly, faith-related way.

Prophets replacing Artists in Primacy

Prophets come to social maturity suffused with and supporting Artist-founded subjectivity but bring a new individualism to it ? and they attack the theretofore dominant communitarianism and institutional order of their Hero and Artist elders. Rather they pursue a relative emphasis on individually-derived, extra-institutional interpretations and expressions of faith over the community-accepted institutional ones .

Nomads replacing Prophets in Youth

Nomads are born and raised by Prophets without emphasis on subjectivity since the adult world is relatively saturated in that aspect. But they are still instilled with the importance individual action and circumventing institutions as Prophets see a societal need and pass it on to their children and the children see a need for it in order to survive in a dysfunctional environment.

Turning Mood

A second turning begins when population has outstripped resources and society realizes a period of famine and turmoil has begun. With the dying Odysseus now discredited, and possibly betrayed, the Artists and Prophets together lead society into a period of spiritual hysteria. Population and economic activity crash within a context of blossoming heresies and a flourishing of monastic orders.

Third Turning

Prophets replacing Artists in Elderhood

Prophets try to dogmatically strengthen individualism and (newly-established) doctrinal purity but continue to do so, as much as they are still able, in a subjective, other-worldly, faith-related way.

Nomads replacing Prophets in Primacy

Nomads come to social maturity buttressing Prophet-founded individualism but bring a new objectivity to it ? they balk at the theretofore dominant subjectivism of their Artist and Prophet elders, seeing it as impractical and chaos-inducing in their youth. Rather they pursue a relative emphasis on works and materialism over faith and spiritualism.

Heroes replacing Nomads in Youth

Heroes are born and raised by Nomads without emphasis on individuality since the adult world is relatively satisfied in that aspect. But they are still instilled with the importance of works and materialism as Nomads see a societal need and pass it on to their children.

Turning Mood

A third turning begins when population and resources have come back into a favorable balance and the society realizes that the period of famine and spiritual turmoil is over. With the Artist Renaissance Man now passing the Prophets and Nomads together lead a bifurcated society of cloister and bazaar. Population and economic activity boom and occur within a context of individual expression and social flux.

Fourth Turning

Nomads replacing Prophets in Elderhood

Nomads try to pragmatically protect individuality and doctrinal relevance but continue to do so, as much as they are still able, in an objective, this-worldly, works-related way.

Heroes replacing Nomads in Primacy

Heroes come to social maturity suffused with and supporting Nomad-founded objectivity but bring a new communitarianism to it ? and they reject the theretofore dominant individualism and doctrinal skirmishing of their Prophet and Nomad elders. Rather they pursue a relative emphasis on community-accepted, institutionally-grounded works over mere professions of faith.

Artists replacing Heroes in Youth

Artists are born and raised by Heroes without emphasis on objectivity since the adult world is relatively saturated in that aspect. But they are instilled with the importance of group action and institutional order as Heroes see a societal need and pass it on to their children and the children see a need for it in order for society to survive.

Turning Mood

A fourth turning begins when population has outstripped resources and society realizes that a period of famine and war has begun. With the dying Jeremiah now vindicated the Nomads and Heroes lead society into a period of general warfare and group struggle for survival. Population and economic activity crash within a context of competition for resources between groups under the aegis of Higher Principle.

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Back to the topic . .

I was never off topic.

This is scheme is similar to what I had in mind for the early saeculum. You are using the famine cycle as an external pacemaker. Thus, these generations are not creating cyclical history all by themselves in as S&H's generations do. Instead they "color" a history that is already cyclical.

Here is where I have a problem:

Heroes come to social maturity suffused with and supporting Nomad-founded objectivity but bring a new communitarianism to it ? and they reject the theretofore dominant individualism and doctrinal skirmishing of their Prophet and Nomad elders.

Here you have Hero youths deciding on their own to be communitarian rather than individualistic. Said another way they decide to be unselfish, interdependent boy scouts rather than self-interested, independent hipsters. Who would choose that? Have you noticed how many of the Millies here don't like the way they are portrayed by S&H and prefer to be considered as Xers? Few people would choose to become communitarian, the natural impulse is to look out for yourself and your family.

Similarly, few choose to be objectively orientated--if this outlook wasn't rewarded. The objective world has standards, levels of competence to be achieved. Failure is possible. The thought ways of the objective way are things like science and engineering which are generally recognized as hard. The subjective approach is easier and more appealing. How many professional artists practice engineering as a hobby, as opposed to professional engineers pursuing art?

Thus, I would argue that the default mode would be subjective, individualist. Given everything it needs and the freedom to choose, every generation will grow up to be Prophets. This actually happens during a High and so you get Prophets.

Were the High to continue you would get another generation of Prophets but the famine cycle intervenes. The Prophet parents, being inner-directed don't cope too well. Being individualist and not too good at coping they simply can't meet their children's needs--relying on God to provide what they cannot. Their kids live in the school of hard knocks--where they are forced to look out for themselves and develop an objective outlook.

They come to prize competence and raise their kids to be capable. Thus the next generation doesn't become Prophets, but instead grows up as Nomads, individualist and objective. Now the famine cycle intervenes again and you have new hard times. Being capable, the younger Nomad parents know what they need to do in order to do a good job by their children--just as their parents did for them. But they find it hard to do this on their own and are frustrated because of the hard times. Thus, in the crisis it is the parents who are thrown into the school of hard knocks, whereas in the Awakening it is the youth.

To accomplish their goal the younger Nomads are forced to cooperate, forged them into communitarian Heroes. The Heroes prize the communitarianism they learned from the school of hard knocks and instill it in their kids, just as their parents prized the objective outlook they learned from the school of hard knocks and instilled it in them.

The Heroes kids thus grow up communitarian, but fall back to the default subjectivism--becoming Artists.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

This is scheme is similar to what I had in mind for the early saeculum. You are using the famine cycle as an external pacemaker. Thus, these generations are not creating cyclical history all by themselves in as S&H's generations do. Instead they "color" a history that is already cyclical.

Here is where I have a problem:

Heroes come to social maturity suffused with and supporting Nomad-founded objectivity but bring a new communitarianism to it ? and they reject the theretofore dominant individualism and doctrinal skirmishing of their Prophet and Nomad elders.

Here you have Hero youths deciding on their own to be communitarian rather than individualistic. Said another way they decide to be unselfish, interdependent boy scouts rather than self-interested, independent hipsters. Who would choose that? Have you noticed how many of the Millies here don't like the way they are portrayed by S&H and prefer to be considered as Xers? Few people would choose to become communitarian, the natural impulse is to look out for yourself and your family.

Similarly, few choose to be objectively orientated--if this outlook wasn't rewarded. The objective world has standards, levels of competence to be achieved. Failure is possible. The thought ways of the objective way are things like science and engineering which are generally recognized as hard. The subjective approach is easier and more appealing. How many professional artists practice engineering as a hobby, as opposed to professional engineers pursuing art?

Thus, I would argue that the default mode would be subjective, individualist. Given everything it needs and the freedom to choose, every generation will grow up to be Prophets. This actually happens during a High and so you get Prophets.

Were the High to continue you would get another generation of Prophets but the famine cycle intervenes. The Prophet parents, being inner-directed don't cope too well. Being individualist and not too good at coping they simply can't meet their children's needs--relying on God to provide what they cannot. Their kids live in the school of hard knocks--where they are forced to look out for themselves and develop an objective outlook.

They come to prize competence and raise their kids to be capable. Thus the next generation doesn't become Prophets, but instead grows up as Nomads, individualist and objective. Now the famine cycle intervenes again and you have new hard times. Being capable, the younger Nomad parents know what they need to do in order to do a good job by their children--just as their parents did for them. But they find it hard to do this on their own and are frustrated because of the hard times. Thus, in the crisis it is the parents who are thrown into the school of hard knocks, whereas in the Awakening it is the youth.

To accomplish their goal the younger Nomads are forced to cooperate, forged them into communitarian Heroes. The Heroes prize the communitarianism they learned from the school of hard knocks and instill it in their kids, just as their parents prized the objective outlook they learned from the school of hard knocks and instilled it in them.

The Heroes kids thus grow up communitarian, but fall back to the default subjectivism--becoming Artists.

That works fine. I don't see my proposed dynamic, as written, as necessarily contradictory to your observations/supplement. For example, seeing nascent Heroes as derivitive Nomads who embrace communitarianism due to conditions coming-of-age still roughly fits within my model. And having them not proactively instilled with individualism, as my model calls for, may help this along and make it more likely to work out.

All my basic "assumptions" call for is the unbalanced "load" in the adult world to be corrected. Not only does your scheme work in this regard, it is quite plausible.

I am intrigued by the concept of individualism and subjectivity being "default" positions. Fascinating.

Pleasure to do business with you Mr. Alexander.

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

That works fine. I don't see my proposed dynamic, as written, as necessarily contradictory to your observations/supplement. For example, seeing nascent Heroes as derivitive Nomads who embrace communitarianism due to conditions coming-of-age still roughly fits within my model. And having them not proactively instilled with individualism, as my model calls for, may help this along and make it more likely to work out.

All my basic "assumptions" call for is the unbalanced "load" in the adult world to be corrected. Not only does your scheme work in this regard, it is quite plausible.

I am intrigued by the concept of individualism and subjectivity being "default" positions. Fascinating.

Pleasure to do business with you Mr. Alexander.

Thank you. It is completely consistent with what you wrote, I simply wanted to put some mechanistic features into the model. To answer the question of why should some generations develop in the ways they do.

But this brings us to the real question. This mechanism broke down in the early 19th century. Up until 1700 it ran normally with ~27 year generations. Social moments fell during inflationary ears when food supplies were tight.

After the financial revolution, financial conditions began to dominate. Now inflationary periods were no longer bad times even though food was short (farmers enjoyed high prices for their crops and could pay off debt easily) and urban consumers, although faced with rising food prices, were employed so they could pay the prices. Bad times shifted to deflationary eras when food prices were falling, but unemploymant was rampant. Farmers and businessmen would be going bankrupt due to inablity to service debt taken on during the good times.

Thus social moments shifted from inflationary period to deflationary periods. Thus the 1621-1650 inflationary period was associated with an Awakening and the deflationary period 1.5 K-cycles later in 1711-1740 was (aproximately) associated with another Awakening. The next deflationary period from 1770-1790 was associated with a Crisis. So we see generation length drop from 27 years before 1700 to 22 years for three generations after 1700 and then bounce back up to 27 years for the two after that. The saeculum temporarily shortened to accomodate the shift. During the 19th and 20th centuries we would expect to see generations that followed inflationary/deflationary periods roughly like this:

1767-1791 (A), 1792-1821 (P), 1822-1843 (N), 1844-1865 (H), 1966-1894(A), 1895-1918 (P), 1919-1945 (N), 1946-1970 (H), 1971-2000 (A)

But that didn't happen, instead generations abruptly shortened:

1767-1791 (A), 1792-1821 (P), 1822-1841 (N), 1842-1858 (H), 1859-1875 (A), 1876-1991 (P), 1892-1907 (N), 1908-1924 (H), 1925-1942 (A), 1943-1960 (P), 1961-1980 (N), 1981-1998 (H)

This wipes out the role of an external cycle that acts as a pacemaker for the cycle. Somehow the saeculum now became self-generating with an ~18 year generation length. THe S&H mechanism won't work because when the new system starts in 1822, the two older generations are huge. The heroes are mostly gone and so cannot play their S&H role during the awakening.

Now the first couple of post-1821 generations under the two schemes aren't that different, so maybe the old mechanism can continue to operate for a while, but it certainly runs into trouble in the 1870's when we shoud have seen another 20 years of artists by the old mechanism, but instead started to churn out prophets.

If we look at the ages of the gens in 1875 we see:

Artists 0-16
Heroes 17-33
Nomads 34-53
Prophets 54-83

We have something like the S&H constellation except it would be a bit better if we delay the production of prohpets for a few more years. Say until after 1880, then in 1880 we would have this constellation:

Artists 0-21
Heroes 22-38
Nomads 39-58
Prophets 59-88

This fit is quite good. So then we would have a set of prophets begin in 1881 and every 22 years after that:

1881-1902 (Missionaries)
1903-1924 (Lost)
1925-1946 (GI)
1947-1968 (Silent)
1969-1990 (Boom)
1991- (Xers)

S&H dropped a generation, calling it the Civil War anomaly, so this gives us:

1881-1902 (Lost)
1903-1924 (GI)
1925-1946 (Silent)
1947-1968 (Boom)
1969-1990 (Xers)
1991-2012 (Millies)

This almost works, but we still see some slippage. This is why the timing of the Crisis is so important. If it turns out the Crisis really did start in 2001 then it rules out this last scheme, eliminating the 22-year phase of life--and the need for a Civil War anomaly. If the Crisis doesn't appear to have started, we can keep the anomaly and most of S&H's generations and simply introduce a 26 year Xer generation (1961-1986) and a 25 year Millie gen (1987-2012) and it all works out.

I have discarded the 22-year phase of life because I don't buy the Civil War anomaly, not when the same sort of anomaly apparently occurred in Britain. But I don't have a decent mechanism for the post-1820 saeculum. I can't use the S&H mechanism, unless I want to keep the anomaly.

You really need someting very close to 22 years to make the S&H mechanism work. Otherwise you have too many generations in the pot (what we call the "Slient" problem with a Crisis starting now). But we can also express this as the "GI problem" for the Unraveling. There were way too many GI's kicking around in the early 1990's for it to be an unraveling.

Of course if we delay the Crisis start to 10-15 years after 911 we can move up the start of the unvaveling a decade and solve both the GI problem and the Silent problem

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

1881-1902 (Missionaries)
1903-1924 (Lost)
1925-1946 (GI)
1947-1968 (Silent)
1969-1990 (Boom)
1991- (Xers)

What's this? I'm a SILENT????

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

1881-1902 (Missionaries)
1903-1924 (Lost)
1925-1946 (GI)
1947-1968 (Silent)
1969-1990 (Boom)
1991- (Xers)

What's this? I'm a SILENT????

No, this is what would have happened if 1) S&H's 21- or 22-year turning and generation scheme were correct and 2) there had been no "Civil War Anomaly". Obviously things didn't turn out according to the hypothetical timeline above, so you're not a Silent.

The other day I was skimming through my World Book year book for 1961 (What can I say? Some guys read Playboy, I read World Book.). On page 199 I read:

• The Democratic administration considered the session one of the most successful in history. It had passed 33 major laws by the end of the first session. This compared to 12 passed by Congress under Dwight D. Eisenhower, and 11 under Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Given that Mike Alexander's event analysis suggests that America was in a "Conservative era," in 1961, I was a bit aghast to see these sorts of numbers for Kennedy's First Hundred Days. Given, too, that Alexander does not weigh his events for their significance or impact upon society I am all the more amazed with his liberal FDR v. conservative JFK conclusion. And these FDR-like "events" were by no means out of the ordinary during the post-1946 period. In fact, by 1970, Alivin Toffler observed in Future Shock that:

• There is scarely an important department of ministry in the governments of the technological nations that has not undergone successive organizational change in recent years. In the United States during the forty-year span from 1913 to 1953, despite depression, war and other social upheavals, not a single new cabinet-level department was added to the government. Yet in 1953 Congress created the Department of Heath, Education and Welfare. In 1965 it established the Department of Housing and Urban Development. In 1967 it set up the Department of Transportation and, at about the same time, the Prsident called for a merger of the departments of Labor and Commerce.

Of course none of these department creations, nor Kennedy's 33 "laws" are listed on his L/C "event" chart. Nor are the twelve passed during Ike's first congressional session. And, no doubt, there is that matter of opinion -- which are L and which are C -- in the labeling aspect to contend with. One could make a very good case that the creation of the new cabinet level of Department of Health, Education and Welfare was actually a C event given a certain L/C definition (Were Blacks in the South excluded somehow? How did Joe McCarthy vote on this?).

All this is moot, however, as none of these events are listed in the Alexander analysis. Which is kind of odd, seeing how Alexander was just recently being pretty darn critical of another's cycle research: "What you are doing for war appears to be similar to what I am trying to do for economics," wrote Alexander. "I suggest you read some of this literature and you will see what I am getting at."

Perhaps we're all reading too much of Playboy, eh? :wink:

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

This compared to 12 passed by Congress under Dwight D. Eisenhower, and 11 under Franklin D. Roosevelt.[/list]Given that Mike Alexander's event analysis suggests that America was in a "Conservative era," in 1961, I was a bit aghast to see these sorts of numbers for Kennedy's First Hundred Days. Given, too, that Alexander does not weigh his events for their significance or impact upon society I am all the more amazed with his liberal FDR v. conservative JFK conclusion.

The webpage you reference is an old one with a very short list of events. Only 2 appear for Kennedy. Since then I have collected a lot more events and you are right, Kennedy's first year saw a lot of legislation. A good deal was liberal and so score L's. With the new database the dividing line has shifted earlier to 1961. The same two conservative events are still in there, but they are outnumbered by the new additions, most of which are liberal events.

The same thing is true of my saeculum model webpages which date from 2000. The dates have shifted a bit as I collect more data. I also change the theoretical formulation as new information comes to light. Back then I had a section on demographics, believing it to be important. I later dropped that. In 2000 I believed our posiiton in the K-cycle was different from what I believed after I introduced generations into my thinking. I thought industrialization was the factor that cause a downshift in turning length. Now I think something different.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

The webpage you reference is an old one with a very short list of events. Only 2 appear for Kennedy. Since then I have collected a lot more events and you are right, Kennedy's first year saw a lot of legislation. A good deal was liberal and so score L's. With the new database the dividing line has shifted earlier to 1961.

So is this list posted online somewhere?

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

The webpage you reference is an old one with a very short list of events. Only 2 appear for Kennedy. Since then I have collected a lot more events and you are right, Kennedy's first year saw a lot of legislation. A good deal was liberal and so score L's. With the new database the dividing line has shifted earlier to 1961.

So is this list posted online somewhere?

I don't know if it is, but I've seen it. Mike now has the Liberal era starting in 1961.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

The webpage you reference is an old one with a very short list of events. Only 2 appear for Kennedy. Since then I have collected a lot more events and you are right, Kennedy's first year saw a lot of legislation. A good deal was liberal and so score L's. With the new database the dividing line has shifted earlier to 1961.

So is this list posted online somewhere?

No. I write up my ideas in early form and post them on my own website. This is how I develop my ideas. A good example of my earliest economic cycle stuff is this from Dec 1997. My current views reflect almost none of it, but it does show the evolution of my thinking. Notice there is no mention of the Kondratiev cycle, it would be 22 months before I would hear of this cycle when I first came to the longwaves site.

A lot more of the evolution of my thinking is recorded in indexable posts at that site. I came here in June 2000, and in the fall I wrote my earliest outline of my saeculum ideas. [1, 2]

The ideas I developed up to the end of 1999 in crude form on my web material I wrote up in my first book Stock Cycles. The ideas I worked up after I came here I wrote up in my second book. My third book introduces the idea that generations are related to real estate cycles.

I am finishing up book #4 which is on political cycles (I am contractually forbidden from writing more books on financial topics). In general I do not put up-to-date stuff on the web until long after I've published the book. So I won't be putting any of this up for probably a couple of years.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

With the new database the dividing line has shifted earlier to 1961.

So is this list posted online somewhere?

No... In general I do not put up-to-date stuff on the web until long after I've published the book. So I won't be putting any of this up for probably a couple of years.

The table of events I posted from the website predates its being published in bookform, in the appendix of The Kondratiev Cycle: A Generational Interpretation, by two years. Am I misunderstanding something with this claim of post dating?

At anyrate, 1961 is certainly problematic as a "Liberal era" turning date, according to your previous analysis. S&H claim that generations are 18-22 years long, yet they seemed to encourage this post-Industrial Age assertion that generations have shortened with their back to back 18 year Silent and Boom. This has always given me fits and I have decidedly less hair today than when I first began to post at this website because of it..

Now... now, your 18 year scheme wanders in the other direction: you see two back to back 20 years turnings (1961 to 1982 to 2001) after their shortened generations!

I'm sure there's a reasonable explaination for this, but one has to wonder what reasonable predicting ability (S&H's "acid test") can these cycles provide in these ever shifting sands of revisionism.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

The table of events I posted from the website predates its being published in bookform, in the appendix of The Kondratiev Cycle: A Generational Interpretation, by two years. Am I misunderstanding something with this claim of post dating?

The poltical cycle was simply introduced in The Kondratiev Cycle. I used Schlesinger's dates up to 1947, which is the last one available. I wanted to bring the cycle up to the present, just like I wanted to extend S&H's cycle back before 1435. Schlesinger is dead and his son hasn't formally extended the cycle beyond 1947, he has only hinted. His hints, have not panned out--so I don't think he has captured the same dynamic his father did in the 1920's. I developed the Lib/Con plot as a way to estimate when the shifts occurred after 1947, so I could bring the cycle up to the present. I did not do a thorough job because as I write in that book the cycles didn't match well with any of the other cycles I was discussing and I couldn't use them for anything.

Since writing The Kondratiev Cycle I have learned about the Kuznets cycle. This was new to me. The 19th century saeculum and Schlesinger political cycles do seem to show relations with this cycle. So the Schlesinger cycle gets a second look, but now I took the time to do a more through job to see if any of the dates changed. A few did, I chose to use election years for the change instead of the years that power changed (so Schlesinger's 1829-1841 period becomes 1828-1840) and I extended the Civil war liberal era to include Grant's first term. Grant did pursue Reconstruction policies (i.e. lots of L's) fairly vigorously during his first term. I also found that the early 1960's transition was pushed back a couple of years.

At anyrate, 1961 is certainly problematic as a "Liberal era" turning date, according to your previous analysis. S&H claim that generations are 18-22 years long, yet they seemed to encourage this post-Industrial Age assertion that generations have shortened with their back to back 18 year Silent and Boom. This has always given me fits and I have decidedly less hair today than when I first began to post at this website because of it.

How is it problematic? You start talking about a political cycle dating and then you shift to S&H and generations. Are you implying that the poltiical cycle shortened when generations did and so 20 year political cycles shouldn't be seen today? The political eras ran from 12 to 29 years in length in the 19th century. Since 1850 the liberal eras have average about 15 years and the conservative eras about 19 years. The two together make up a ~35 year cycle, which is roughly equal in length to half a saeculum. Individual political eras are rarely 18 years long, so what exactly is your point?

You don't seriously think I am trying to use the political cycle to provide cycle timing. This is ludicrous--look at the variation in lengths: 12-29 years.

You seem to see the S&H saeculum as a political cycle, just like John sees it as a war cycle. I see it as a multidimensional cycle. Politics is part, wars are part, economics is part, the social mileu is part, etc. To gain insight into these various aspects I emply specialized cycles from the literature than appear to be related to the saeculum on a more fundamental level. So for domestic politics I look at the Schelsinger cycle, for economics and finance it's the Kondratiev and Stock cycles, for war its the war/hegemony cycle, for social trends it's the saeculum, etc.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

You don't seriously think I am trying to use the political cycle to provide cycle timing. This is ludicrous--look at the variation in lengths: 12-29 years.

You seem to see the S&H saeculum as a political cycle, just like John sees it as a war cycle. I see it as a multidimensional cycle. Politics is part, wars are part, economics is part, the social mileu is part, etc.

In a representative democracy such as ours, the national political scene is going to as closely match "the people," and their changing habits and aspirations and demands as well as the free enterprize market does. Those seeking political office must persuade people to buy into ideas and personality just as any company seeking to sell a product does. Thus politics serves as a very useful thermometer to gauge public opinion in a broad generational sense.

If that isn't "multidimensional" in the truest sense I am lacking in my understanding of what that word means. While fads and tastes obviously change from year to year, decade to decade one cannot ignore, for example, the Party of FDR being entrusted with the nation's purse for forty uninterrupted years. This is not a whim or a fad, it is the triumph of an idea translated into real everyday life. This "idea" was vitually tested every two years, yet it stood the test of time until something new replaced it.

This, and many other examples, suggest to me that S&H placed the generational breakdown of political leadership in the appendix of Generations as a very important aspect to their theory.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

In a representative democracy such as ours, the national political scene is going to as closely match "the people," and their changing habits and aspirations and demands as well as the free enterprize market does. Those seeking political office must persuade people to buy into ideas and personality just as any company seeking to sell a product does. Thus politics serves as a very useful thermometer to gauge public opinion in a broad generational sense.

It might. It's certainly a plausible idea, but that doesn't mean it will actually work.

If that isn't "multidimensional" in the truest sense I am lacking in my understanding of what that word means. While fads and tastes obviously change from year to year, decade to decade one cannot ignore, for example, the Party of FDR being entrusted with the nation's purse for forty uninterrupted years. This is not a whim or a fad, it is the triumph of an idea translated into real everyday life. This "idea" was vitually tested every two years, yet it stood the test of time until something new replaced it.

This, and many other examples, suggest to me that S&H placed the generational breakdown of political leadership in the appendix of Generations as a very important aspect to their theory.

Yes its an important aspect to their theory, but that doesn't mean it is the whole enchilada.

Since the topic of phase length, among other things, seem to be coming up here and there on the board, I've decided to synthesize two of my posts together and then tweak the product a little. Here it goes:


Multi-Modal Saeculum

I. PURPOSE

I am attempting to synthesize Strauss & Howe?s saecular cycle with observations that seem to conflict with their cycle and theory. The most basic observation (and one that others arise from) is that generations seem to have been of significantly greater length in pre-modern and early-modern times than they are today: They seemed to have dropped from an average of about 27 years in length in pre-modernity to around 20 years or less in the late 20th century with a small reduction after the Renaissance and larger reductions after the Civil War and after the 1920?s.

The main question that arises is how can Strauss & Howe?s four phase, four archetype, tetralogical (?of a four way dialogue or interaction?) dynamic work properly, if at all, when members of the mechanically essential fourth phase are 81-108 years old? ? not mention those in ?midlife? being 54-80 years old, and all sorts of other problems? Before the aforementioned reduction in generational length, those are exactly the issues we are faced with.

To Messrs. Strauss and Howe this is (to my interpretation of them) not much of a problem to begin with since, one, they don?t recognize as much of a decrease in generational length as many on the T4T discussion board do; and two, they only recognize the Saeculum as operating infrequently and sporadically prior to the modern period whereas several on the discussion board basically see the Saeculum acting essentially uninterruptedly through antiquity and the Middle Ages.

My solution to the problem is a trilogical dynamic that describes four archetypes but only three phases instead of four. This saecular mechanism I call Saeculum I since it would predate Strauss & Howe?s mechanism, Saeculum II, which operates today and possibly at several irregular instances in pre-modernity.

Before I go on, a caveat: By coming up with this ?solution? I do not mean to attack Strauss & Howe?s work. Consider it more a Gedanken experiment or even a musing. This is just meant as a possible solution to a perceived set of problems.

II. Main Points/ Assumptions

1. There are three phases of life in Saeculum I:

• Youth (Pre-social-autonomy). Ages 0-26. Primary role (first half): Dependence, growth/ Primary role (second half): ?Grunt work?, acquisition of skills for social autonomy.
  
  Primacy. Ages 27-53. Primary role: Management, leadership, dominance.
  
  Elderhood. Ages 54-80. Primary role: Stewardship, then dependence.

2. It is assumed that there is a roughly 54 year famine cycle in pre-modernity that creates alternating (apx.) 27 year periods of famine and (relative) plenty and that though this cycle helps drive Saeculum I, it is quite possible that Saeculum I may continue to operate if a famine is skipped. Also it is assumed that if the famine cycle is, for whatever reason, severely disturbed, the saeculum will quickly realign with it. The aforementioned famine cycle works on a Malthusian dynamic of human population surging during ?good times? so that a new, burgeoning generation pushes society?s resources past support levels and a famine and subsequent population crash ensue (via death and low birth rates), with these ?bad times? eventually leading to a renewed surplus of resources.


3. It is assumed that the four archetypes (Prophet, Nomad, Hero, Artist) are fixed, permanent forms because I believe they represent fundamental qualities of humanity. I am a Wilberian and as such I find some of his concepts applicable to this discussion.

I believe humans are, or can at least be studied as, ?holons?. A ?holon? is something which is a whole unto itself, but is simultaneously a part of something (or somethings) else, and in turn is itself made up of parts. This gives an individual-communal axis to the existential condition of the human holon.

But just as importantly, the human holon has what could be called a subjective and an objective dimension. By ?subjective? it is meant what humans feel internally, mentally, intentionally. By ?objective? it is meant what humans observe externally, physically, behaviorally. The former deals with the arts, ethics, spirituality. The latter deals with science, technology, materiality. This duality is often explained at the individual level as the difference between ?mind? and ?brain?. If one could pop off one?s scalp and place a few mirrors so that one could see the brain, they still would not be looking into their ?mind? but rather looking at their brain. The mind is not something they can ?observe?; it is internal, subjective. The brain, on the other hand, is something one can observe; it is external, objective. This gives a subjective-objective axis to the existential condition of the human holon.

If you put these two axes together you have Wilber?s ?four quadrants? as diagramed below:




It is my assertion that four archetypes identified by Strauss & Howe correspond to these four quadrants:

• Prophet: individualistic-subjective
  Nomad: individualistic-objective
  Hero: communitarian-objective
  Artist: communitarian-subjective

4. It is hypothesized that somewhere along the way to human civilization, if not much, much earlier, one aspect (or quadrant) was emphasized to such an extent that it caused a disequilibrium that called out for adjustment and we have been chasing an elusive balance ever since. Moreover, this chase seems to occur in a specific order, i.e., clockwise around the quadrants.


III. Construction of an Idea

As I have said, Mike Alexander 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, usually involving emotive awakenings, monastic enthusiasm, and rashes of heretical fervor.

Many may balk at a 27 year generation since it would mean a 27 year life phase. 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 of the four archetypes at a time, 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 roughly 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 three phase 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 (some tending toward 25 and some toward 30) 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.


IV. The Trilogical Dynamic

With these assumptions and points in place, here are some diagrams (below) to help demonstrate the operations of a three phase saeculum.

The first diagram shows the arrangement of the archetypes at the end of each turning. Please keep in mind that these generations spend most of the turning filling in these phases and only completely fill them at the end. Thus, ?turning?.

Code:

Phase         1T	         2T	         3T	        4T

Elder        Hero	      Artist	     Prophet       Nomad
54-80

Primacy     Artist	     Prophet        Nomad        Hero
27-53
	
Youth       Prophet	    Nomad	       Hero	      Artist
0-26

The second diagram displays the relative emphasis of each generation in each phase in terms of the individual-communal axis. Please note the concept of ?load? whereby at some points there is a distinct overemphasis (overload) of one or the other. This leads the dynamic to prepare the generation in Youth to counteract this lack of balance through a combination of child rearing and youth attitude coming-of-age.

Code:

Phase	         1T	       2T	        3T	         4T
Elderhood	   Communal    Communal    Individual Individual

Primacy	     Communal   Individual   Individual    Communal

AdultWorld      Overly       Near        Overly        Near 
LOAD	        Communal      Mean      Individual      Mean

Youth         Individual  Individual    Communal     Communal

This third diagram describes the same thing along the subjective-objective axis.

Code:

Phase	         1T	       2T	        3T	         4T
Elderhood	   Objective   Subjective   Subjective  Objective

Primacy	     Subjective  Subjective   Objective   Objective

AdultWorld       Near        Overly       Near       Overly 
LOAD	          Mean      Subjective     Mean      Objective

Youth         Subjective   Objective    Objective  Subjective

V. Turnings Described

Now we can put these concepts together and see how the archetypes, phases, famine cycle, and turnings interact.

First Turning

Heroes replacing Nomads in Elderhood

Heroes try to hubristically strengthen community and institutions but continue to do so, as much as they are still able, in an objective, this-worldly, works-related way. Nomads leave the stage with a few individuals surviving as stoic, curmudgeonly hermits.

Artists replacing Heroes in Primacy

Artists come to social maturity buttressing Hero-founded community but bring a new subjectivity to it ? they balk at the theretofore dominant objectivism of their Nomad and Hero elders, seeing it as stifling and sterile in their youth. Rather they pursue a relative emphasis on values and spiritualism over works and materialism.

Prophets replacing Artists in Youth

Prophets are born and raised by Artists without emphasis on community-building since the adult world is relatively satisfied in that aspect. But they are still instilled with the importance of values and spirituality as Artists still see a societal need and pass it on to their children.

Turning Mood

A first turning begins when population and resources have come back into a favorable balance and the society realizes that the period of famine and war is over. With the Nomad Crisis Champion now passing the Heroes and Artists together lead a community renaissance in the arts and sciences (to such extent as these exist). Population and economic activity boom and occur within a context of relative social cohesion and stability.


Second Turning

Artists replacing Heroes in Elderhood

Artists try to systematically strengthen community and institutions but continue to do so, as much as they are still able, in a subjective, other-worldly, faith-related way. Heroes leave the stage with a few individuals surviving as congenial, ceremonial stewards.

Prophets replacing Artists in Primacy

Prophets come to social maturity suffused with and supporting Artist-founded subjectivity but bring a new individualism to it ? and they attack the theretofore dominant communitarianism and institutional order of their Hero and Artist elders. Rather they pursue a relative emphasis on individually-derived, extra-institutional interpretations and expressions of faith over the community-accepted institutional ones .

Nomads replacing Prophets in Youth

Nomads are born and raised by Prophets without emphasis on subjectivity since the adult world is relatively saturated in that aspect. But they are still instilled with the importance individual action and circumventing institutions as Prophets see a societal need and pass it on to their children and the children see a need for it in order to survive in a dysfunctional environment.

Turning Mood

A second turning begins when population has outstripped resources and society realizes a period of famine and turmoil has begun. With the dying Odysseus now discredited, and possibly betrayed, the Artists and Prophets together lead society into a period of spiritual hysteria. Population and economic activity crash within a context of blossoming heresies and a flourishing of monastic orders.


Third Turning

Prophets replacing Artists in Elderhood

Prophets try to dogmatically strengthen individualism and (newly-established) doctrinal purity but continue to do so, as much as they are still able, in a subjective, other-worldly, faith-related way. Artists leave the stage with a few individuals surviving as playful, wistful, old storytellers.

Nomads replacing Prophets in Primacy

Nomads come to social maturity buttressing Prophet-founded individualism but bring a new objectivity to it ? they balk at the theretofore dominant subjectivism of their Artist and Prophet elders, seeing it as impractical and chaos-inducing in their youth. Rather they pursue a relative emphasis on works and materialism over faith and spiritualism.

Heroes replacing Nomads in Youth

Heroes are born and raised by Nomads without emphasis on individuality since the adult world is relatively satisfied in that aspect. But they are still instilled with the importance of works and materialism as Nomads see a societal need and pass it on to their children.

Turning Mood

A third turning begins when population and resources have come back into a favorable balance and the society realizes that the period of famine and spiritual turmoil is over. With the Artist Renaissance Man now passing the Prophets and Nomads together lead a relatively fragmented society of cloister and bazaar. Population and economic activity boom and occur within a context of individual expression and social flux.


Fourth Turning

Nomads replacing Prophets in Elderhood

Nomads try to pragmatically protect individuality and doctrinal relevance but continue to do so, as much as they are still able, in an objective, this-worldly, works-related way. Prophets leave the stage with a few individuals surviving as wise, eccentric sages.

Heroes replacing Nomads in Primacy

Heroes come to social maturity suffused with and supporting Nomad-founded objectivity but bring a new communitarianism to it ? and they reject the theretofore dominant individualism and doctrinal skirmishing of their Prophet and Nomad elders. Rather they pursue a relative emphasis on community-accepted, institutionally-grounded works over mere professions of faith.

Artists replacing Heroes in Youth

Artists are born and raised by Heroes without emphasis on objectivity since the adult world is relatively saturated in that aspect. But they are instilled with the importance of group action and institutional order as Heroes see a societal need and pass it on to their children and the children see a need for it in order for society to survive.

Turning Mood

A fourth turning begins when population has outstripped resources and society realizes that a period of famine and war has begun. With the dying Jeremiah now vindicated the Nomads and Heroes lead society into a period of general warfare and group struggle for survival. Population and economic activity crash within a context of competition for resources between groups often under the aegis of Higher Principle.


VI. What About the Shadow?

This new mechanism goes far in overcoming much that is incongruent with the four phase model as applied to premodern and early modern history. 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 at the T4T site. He posits a slightly different mechanism than the tetralogical shadow.

Mike Alexander at T4T website on 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 perpetuate the four archetypes with three phases instead of four.

And indeed, as stated above one could argue that in the Early Modern period the Crisis Champions were Nomads: Margaret of Anjou, Elizabeth I, Benjamin Church, George Washington. Using Mike 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? This will be addressed later when discussing the modal shift from Saeculum I to Saeculum II.


VII. Condensation of the Youth Phase and 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 extrapolations of Mike Alexander?s 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 is presumably more easily absorbed in shorter cohort groupings therefore putting at least some degree of 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 previously 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 at or below 25 years, Primacy to Elderhood at or 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, this factor 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 the first saecular mode (Saeculum I) evolved in.


VIII. Modal Shift and the Civil War Anomaly

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 (Progressives), and a subsequently somewhat archetypally-attenuated Prophet archetype (Missionaries).

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: Four operating phases, with what was formally ?primacy? and ?elderhood? morphing into ?rising adulthood? and ?midlife? respectively, and ?post-elderhood? becoming the new ?elderhood?.

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 or already have occurred 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 (metaphorically 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 continuing premodern saeculum, let alone 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.


IX. 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 21.5) 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 eight phases. In between, how would a hexalogical or septalogical Saeculum III dynamic work? We can only wildly 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?

Your thesis looks pretty good, Sean. It appears to me that the end of the Awakening phase in Saeculum II differs from that of Saeculum I in that the Heroes are retired rather than expired. Do you think that Artists (now) and Prophets (at the end of the Crisis) will withdraw their influence in the same manner?

Also, do you agree with my suggestion stated elsewhere that Social Security and the official retirement age have shortened the cycle (That is, retirement now takes the place of death for a generation)?

Originally Posted by JDW

Your thesis looks pretty good, Sean. It appears to me that the end of the Awakening phase in Saeculum II differs from that of Saeculum I in that the Heroes are retired rather than expired. Do you think that Artists (now) and Prophets (at the end of the Crisis) will withdraw their influence in the same manner?

If my speculations are correct I think that a fifth phase will slowly increase in influence. I really don't know if that influence will be enough in the next turning or two to seriously affect the saeculum, but eventually this looks very likely to me. If I were to guess, I'd say that the Silent will not affect things much but the Boomers will, being the former is a recessive generation and the latter a dominant one (by the designations in S&H's Generations). We could be in for a very interesting First Turning.

I have goofed around with the idea of an "archetype prime". "Prime" in the notational sense used in graphs and what not and denoted with an apostrophe afterwards. So Boomers could be a prophet-prime generation while the Millennials are busy raising Singularibabies (or whatever) as a new Prophet gen.

Heck, Silent could already becoming an "Artist-prime" gen as Homelanders come on board.

I invite you and anyone else to come up with a better term for this phenomenon as the "prime" concept is functionally awkward even to me.

Originally Posted by JDW

Also, do you agree with my suggestion stated elsewhere that Social Security and the official retirement age have shortened the cycle (That is, retirement now takes the place of death for a generation)?

I think Mike Alexander may have a suggested something similar. I don't think retirement age has affected generational length since I see the length of the youth phase as being the exclusive determinant of both phase and generation length -- akin to S&H's solstice-to-equinox metaphor for season length. But SS and retirement age obviously do impact that way in which the elderhood phase operates in the dynamic.

Heck, with SS in trouble and with Boomers having little savings outside of speculatively-derived equities, AND with a fifth phase kicking in, I wonder if the retirment age isn't going to go WAY up !!! With the youth phase still structurally shrinking (even if it bounces around from gen-to-gen) and with the fourth phase being reintroduced to "work", I wouldn't be surprised if the "retirement age" gets raised to 72 by or before mid-century.

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Heck, with SS in trouble and with Boomers having little savings outside of speculatively-derived equities, AND with a fifth phase kicking in, I wonder if the retirment age isn't going to go WAY up !!! With the youth phase still structurally shrinking (even if it bounces around from gen-to-gen) and with the fourth phase being reintroduced to "work", I wouldn't be surprised if the "retirement age" gets raised to 72 by or before mid-century.

Is it really going to take that long?