Originally Posted by JWT 1972

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?

If it takes that long for a sub-20 youth phase to structurally ripple through the whole mechanism, the answer I suppose is yes. But this assumes I'm not talking out of my @ss with this multi-modal saeculum thing, which is a distinct possibility.

Now note that Mike Alexander already thinks we have 18 year generations.

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

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’ve got two competing ideas on that:

One is that the First Turning would bear some similarities to Reconstruction. (I like to think of Nomads during normal 1Ts as "Guardians of the High,” whereas Transcendental Prophets found themselves in their anomalous role as "Enforcers of the High.")

My other thought is that it would be GenX’s job to see to the retirement of the Boomers when the Crisis is over. Perhaps they would have enough support from younger generations to accomplish this. If anything can get other generations behind GenX, it will be a willingness on GenX’s part to sacrifice whatever is left of their own retirement for the sake of posterity. My fear is that this Survivor Generation (as in reality TV) will be the one to popularize euthanasia for the elderly.

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

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.

The irony is that they are past their prime. Perhaps you could call them "Post-Saecular Artists."

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

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.

Not only did FDR institute such a thing as a retirement age, but it is also my understanding that the word “teenager” came into being at that time as all kids were encouraged for the first time to finish high school. This could certainly explain a downward push on generation length, and appears to mark the start of it.

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.

Time will tell.

Originally Posted by JDW

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

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?ve got two competing ideas on that:

One is that the First Turning would bear some similarities to Reconstruction. (I like to think of Nomads during normal 1Ts as "Guardians of the High,? whereas Transcendental Prophets found themselves in their anomalous role as "Enforcers of the High.")

Interesting. I'll give that some thought.

Originally Posted by JDW

My other thought is that it would be GenX?s job to see to the retirement of the Boomers when the Crisis is over. Perhaps they would have enough support from younger generations to accomplish this. If anything can get other generations behind GenX, it will be a willingness on GenX?s part to sacrifice whatever is left of their own retirement for the sake of posterity. My fear is that this Survivor Generation (as in reality TV) will be the one to popularize euthanasia for the elderly.

One thing we can be sure of is that whatever happens, Xers will get screwed.

Originally Posted by JDW

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

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.

The irony is that they are past their prime. Perhaps you could call them "Post-Saecular Artists."

We gotta find a word for this. The only thing I can come up with besides "prime" or "post-saecular" is "serotinal" but that seems strange.

Originally Posted by JDW

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

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.

Not only did FDR institute such a thing as a retirement age, but it is also my understanding that the word ?teenager? came into being at that time as all kids were encouraged for the first time to finish high school. This could certainly explain a downward push on generation length, and appears to mark the start of it.

To me, that is a cooincidence, but who knows?

Originally Posted by JDW

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.

Time will tell.

Indeed. That's one nice thing about all of this. :wink:

William Jenings Bryan wrote: "We gotta find a word for this. The only thing I can come up with besides "prime" or "post-saecular" is "serotinal" but that seems strange. "

Geritonal?

Originally Posted by JDW

My other thought is that it would be GenX?s job to see to the retirement of the Boomers when the Crisis is over. Perhaps they would have enough support from younger generations to accomplish this. If anything can get other generations behind GenX, it will be a willingness on GenX?s part to sacrifice whatever is left of their own retirement for the sake of posterity. My fear is that this Survivor Generation (as in reality TV) will be the one to popularize euthanasia for the elderly.

Oh, I fully expect to see this in some form during the next High. I am not-quite-kidding when I joke about reporting to the Soylent Euthanasia Center and kicking the bucket to Peer Gynt in Twenty-Twenty-Nine.

Originally Posted by Idiot Girl

William Jenings Bryan wrote: "We gotta find a word for this. The only thing I can come up with besides "prime" or "post-saecular" is "serotinal" but that seems strange. "

Geritonal?

We have a contender!!!

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Originally Posted by JDW

My other thought is that it would be GenX?s job to see to the retirement of the Boomers when the Crisis is over. Perhaps they would have enough support from younger generations to accomplish this. If anything can get other generations behind GenX, it will be a willingness on GenX?s part to sacrifice whatever is left of their own retirement for the sake of posterity. My fear is that this Survivor Generation (as in reality TV) will be the one to popularize euthanasia for the elderly.

Oh, I fully expect to see this in some form during the next High. I am not-quite-kidding when I joke about reporting to the Soylent Euthanasia Center and kicking the bucket to Peer Gynt in Twenty-Twenty-Nine.

I'll take mine Parker almondine. :wink:

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

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

Actually, it appears that shortened turnings did occur in Ancient Rome. On the aforementioned thread Mike Alexander and I came to a common hypothesis of 80 year saecula from the 1st century B.C. up to the 3rd century A.D. (although, admittedly, there was lots of disagreement everywhere else). In my opinion this is evidence for my theory that the degree of mass politics in a society is strongly linked to turning length.

I may need your help down the line with explaining how Saeculum I may have morphed temporarily into Saeculum II on occasion in ancient times.

In light of your recent synthesis of the ideas presented in this thread, I think I can now tie this in. You write:

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

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.

And also:

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

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.

I believe the bolded statement is the key to understanding pre-modern instances of Saeculum II. Previously, I had theorized that the short cycle is caused by instances of mass politics in a civilization. However, it was argued that such a phenomenon could be purely coincidental. In other words, the rise of mass politics in the 19th century and in the Late Roman Republic could be the effects of a drop in turning length rather than the cause.

Both of the Saeculum types that you have suggested have a turning length that corresponds to the age at which people are considered capable of setting their own path in life. I will note that the only pre-industrial societies where Saeculum II appears operative are large militaristic Empires. In such societies the emphasis was on physical maturity (late teens to early twenties) rather than emotional maturity (late 20s).

In an agricultural civilization this makes sense. For many centuries the aristocratic mode will dominate but eventually, due to population pressures and/or depletion of farmland there will be increasing competition amongst the various polities within that civilization. Thereafter, large armies are needed, martial virtues predominate and eventually an Empire is established. A change in the overall maturity of society would occur as well -- shifting from the values of the married young aristocrat to the values of the aggressive, restless soldier.

Now, in an industrial civilization, who knows how this relationship would work. It is possible that there is no difference. Saeculum II could simply have resulted from competition amongst the European powers just as in agricultural societies. There are other possibilities:

The basic economic mode in an industrial is entrepreneurial and such activity can begin as soon as one is mentally capable. Inheritance of a physically limited resource (land) is no longer creating a delay in economic participation. The relevant maturity type is physical rather than emotional, so the base saeculum of an industrial society is Saeculum II. Over time, an industrial civilization will cater to refined tastes, efficiency and good training. As a result we can expect an increasing desire for people to delay their entry into professional roles (higher education, licensure, etc.). Competition among polities in the industrial mode would likely be caused by an energy crunch which would cause an efficiency competition. The likely result would be much more strictly defined social roles and a shift back to Saeculum I. If this pattern were true it would be unsurprising that that an agricultural civilization that was moving into Saeculum II went industrial.

It is also possible that industrial civilizations will always be Saeculum II regardless of whether they are expanding or declining. It is an open question as to what would happen if lifespans in a Saeculum II society got long enough for a "fifth" turning to evolve -- or whether such a thing is even possible.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

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

Actually, it appears that shortened turnings did occur in Ancient Rome. On the aforementioned thread Mike Alexander and I came to a common hypothesis of 80 year saecula from the 1st century B.C. up to the 3rd century A.D. (although, admittedly, there was lots of disagreement everywhere else). In my opinion this is evidence for my theory that the degree of mass politics in a society is strongly linked to turning length.

I may need your help down the line with explaining how Saeculum I may have morphed temporarily into Saeculum II on occasion in ancient times.

In light of your recent synthesis of the ideas presented in this thread, I think I can now tie this in. You write:

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

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.

And also:

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

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.

I believe the bolded statement is the key to understanding pre-modern instances of Saeculum II. Previously, I had theorized that the short cycle is caused by instances of mass politics in a civilization. However, it was argued that such a phenomenon could be purely coincidental. In other words, the rise of mass politics in the 19th century and in the Late Roman Republic could be the effects of a drop in turning length rather than the cause.

Both of the Saeculum types that you have suggested have a turning length that corresponds to the age at which people are considered capable of setting their own path in life. I will note that the only pre-industrial societies where Saeculum II appears operative are large militaristic Empires. In such societies the emphasis was on physical maturity (late teens to early twenties) rather than emotional maturity (late 20s).

In an agricultural civilization this makes sense. For many centuries the aristocratic mode will dominate but eventually, due to population pressures and/or depletion of farmland there will be increasing competition amongst the various polities within that civilization. Thereafter, large armies are needed, martial virtues predominate and eventually an Empire is established. A change in the overall maturity of society would occur as well -- shifting from the values of the married young aristocrat to the values of the aggressive, restless soldier.

Now, in an industrial civilization, who knows how this relationship would work. It is possible that there is no difference. Saeculum II could simply have resulted from competition amongst the European powers just as in agricultural societies. There are other possibilities:

The basic economic mode in an industrial is entrepreneurial and such activity can begin as soon as one is mentally capable. Inheritance of a physically limited resource (land) is no longer creating a delay in economic participation. The relevant maturity type is physical rather than emotional, so the base saeculum of an industrial society is Saeculum II. Over time, an industrial civilization will cater to refined tastes, efficiency and good training. As a result we can expect an increasing desire for people to delay their entry into professional roles (higher education, licensure, etc.). Competition among polities in the industrial mode would likely be caused by an energy crunch which would cause an efficiency competition. The likely result would be much more strictly defined social roles and a shift back to Saeculum I. If this pattern were true it would be unsurprising that that an agricultural civilization that was moving into Saeculum II went industrial.

It is also possible that industrial civilizations will always be Saeculum II regardless of whether they are expanding or declining. It is an open question as to what would happen if lifespans in a Saeculum II society got long enough for a "fifth" turning to evolve -- or whether such a thing is even possible.

Hi Kurt!

I will digest your comments. I am somewhat aware of your correspondences with Mike Alexander on these issues. Your criteria are interesting.

As for your last point, I don't think a fifth "turning" is going to occur, but rather a fifth "phase". There would still be four turnings and four archetypes, it's just that the mechanism would presumably run problematically and the turnings would somewhat change character, just as they did from Saeculum I to Saeculum II, though like in that case, they'd still be very recognizable.

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

We gotta find a word for this. The only thing I can come up with besides "prime" or "post-saecular" is "serotinal" but that seems strange.

I've got it - Artist Emeritus.

Originally Posted by JDW

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

We gotta find a word for this. The only thing I can come up with besides "prime" or "post-saecular" is "serotinal" but that seems strange.

I've got it - Artist Emeritus.

"Emerited" archetypes! I like that. But one problem is that as time goes by the "?berelder" phase (BoomerXer's coinage, BTW) will become less and less "emeritus" in status and more and more fully active. This would be all the more true if life extension creates a sixth phase.

Will turnings be somewhat changed in character? We know that some Transcendentals took an interest in the Missionary Awakening. On the other hand, our Unraveling had a typical Unraveling character until Sept. 11th, despite the presence of many Civic post-elders. Perhaps everybody, including the old Civics, are too self-absorbed during an Unraveling to alter the mood.

************************************************** **************

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

. . . On the other hand, our Unraveling had a typical Unraveling character until Sept. 11th, despite the presence of many Civic post-elders. Perhaps everybody, including the old Civics, are too self-absorbed during an Unraveling to alter the mood.

Good point.

************************************************** **************

************************************************** **************

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

If a large percentage accept life extension then we might expect effects on the saeculum. One might expect that those who accept treatment will tend to be the more positive minded members. To the extent that they retain their old archetypal persona it will presumably be the elder version.

Even a substantial proportion of just the elites would do it.

Assuming that the turnings are still identifiable there might-concievably-be a somewhat changed character to:

1. The transition period between periods, before the new turning mood has gelled.

2. Part of a turning. (A two part turning?).

3. A complete turning.

I have indicated that I don't expect Unravelings to signifcantly alter in character.

************************************************** **************

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

It might work if the archetypal contribution of prime is to mentor a like archetype generation as it comes of age. As S&H wrote, something like this was depicted in the movie 18 Again! Old Lost (George Burns) mentors Xers. Actually, I recall a scene with Xers dressed as flappers.

Also 'Just You and Me, Kid', which also starred George Burns (old Lost), and costarred Brooke Shields (young Xer). Also, I've seen some Xer women with flapper-style haircuts.

Which brings up a question. In Saeculum III, would the new youth culture, or some subculture within it, adopt elements from the like archetypal youth culture of the previous saeculum?

Check out movies like 'The Mask', in which hip-hop is set to a Roaring 20s-type jazz style of music, and also the current 'Roaring 2000s' ad campaign for Camel cigarettes. Also, I know of at least one Boomer who developed a taste for Scott Joplin and other ragtime composers as a teen. I'd say the answer is already 'yes'. Of course, the clinchers could be Millies who develop a taste for the Big Band Swing Sound, and perhaps incorporate the musical style into their music, or Homelanders who grow up to really dig the Rock and Roll of the 50s.

It has occurred to me that there are only so many possible music genres, only so many possibilities for dance...only so many possible clothing styles, hair styles...only so many fads for morphing the body, such as tattoos, piercing the skin, etc.

Concievably, even without being mentored, these elements might be rediscovered by future generations through old movies, old recordings of music, etc.

A quasi-cyclic effect should it come to pass.

What if the old Civics were to advise the new Civics...as to which Prophet faction to follow?

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

What if the old Civics were to advise the new Civics...as to which Prophet faction to follow?

It would be interesting. Many GI's would feel uncomfortable, obviously, with Blue cultural progressivism. Yet many GI's would also probably feel uncomfortable with the decidedly non-secular and garishly religious leanings of the Reds.

I don't think that will be too much of a concern this time 'round. In coming turnings we may have more to worry about old Artists talking to new Artists, and even more interestingly, Prophets talking to Prophets.

Concievably the old Civics might endorse some grouping that might emerge from a political realignment. Presumably this would be a grouping that would appear more civic minded than others...and would agree to shove the Culture Wars on the back burner.

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Concievably the old Civics might endorse some grouping that might emerge from a political realignment. Presumably this would be a grouping that would appear more civic minded than others...and would agree to shove the Culture Wars on the back burner.

So you're saying the GI's could help broker a new consensus? Interesting. Unfortunately (or fortunately) I don't think the GI remnant will be strong enough to do that.