Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


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

Thread: England and the U.K. - Page 2







Post#26 at 03-12-2009 10:41 AM by Pfaiuk '85 [at UK joined Mar 2007 #posts 4]
---
03-12-2009, 10:41 AM #26
Join Date
Mar 2007
Location
UK
Posts
4

Quote Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II View Post
But what's everybody here's take on the sudden seeming return of sectarian violence to Northern Ireland?

It is just a passing fad, or is it here to stay?
It won't last.

At the beginning of the Troubles, attacks and other grievences became a point of division between thw two communities. Nowadays, the opposite is happening. The attacks have united the two communities against violence. On the news, a constant refrain is a strong desire that children in NI should not have to experience what the adults did.

I think all this is all good evidence that Northern Ireland - and probably the South as well - are in 1T now. 2T is due to start in around 2015, and I would expect it to result in a united Ireland in one form or another - if only because the Catholic population of Northern Ireland is growing rather more quicking than the Protestant population.

For what it's worth, Great Britain (excluding Northern Ireland) had its last three turnings two or three years after the US. But I think the the UK had a shorter 3T this time around, so that both UK and US reached 4T at a similar time.







Post#27 at 04-10-2009 11:46 AM by Linus [at joined Oct 2005 #posts 1,731]
---
04-10-2009, 11:46 AM #27
Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
1,731

Did you see this? It seems some of these early Scots dined on reindeer and hazelnut stuffing. Sounds delicious.
"Jan, cut the crap."

"It's just a donut."







Post#28 at 02-14-2010 09:09 PM by David Krein [at Gainesville, Florida joined Jul 2001 #posts 604]
---
02-14-2010, 09:09 PM #28
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Gainesville, Florida
Posts
604

On U.K.'s Baby Boomers

Here is an interesting take on Britain's Boomers, although you should note they are defined as 1945-1955:

http://www.newstatesman.com/society/...-personal-free

Pax,

Dave Krein '42
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on; nor all your Piety nor Wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, Nor all your Tears wash out a word of it." - Omar Khayyam.







Post#29 at 02-14-2010 10:02 PM by KaiserD2 [at David Kaiser '47 joined Jul 2001 #posts 5,220]
---
02-14-2010, 10:02 PM #29
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
David Kaiser '47
Posts
5,220

David, there's something I forgot to share with you. You remember that I've been arguing that Britain and the rest of Europe lagged the U.S. I finally found some proof, the kind you like. It's the birth rate.

The British birth rate did increase modestly starting in 1946, though nothing like the US one. Then, around 1950, it plummeted again. It wasn't until the late 1950s that a sustained increase occurred, and the same was true on most of the continent. I don't have the figures, but they wouldn't be too hard to find.

Blair was certainly a Prophet, though!







Post#30 at 02-15-2010 09:12 AM by MJC [at joined Apr 2007 #posts 260]
---
02-15-2010, 09:12 AM #30
Join Date
Apr 2007
Posts
260

Quote Originally Posted by KaiserD2 View Post
David, there's something I forgot to share with you. You remember that I've been arguing that Britain and the rest of Europe lagged the U.S. I finally found some proof, the kind you like. It's the birth rate.

The British birth rate did increase modestly starting in 1946, though nothing like the US one. Then, around 1950, it plummeted again. It wasn't until the late 1950s that a sustained increase occurred, and the same was true on most of the continent. I don't have the figures, but they wouldn't be too hard to find.

Blair was certainly a Prophet, though!
All of Europe was still militarized and recovering in the period of 1946-1950--and those were just the better off places, the ones that hadn't been utterly reduced to rubble like the U.K. and France. So most of that initial rise in birthrates was likely soldiers being closer to home again. But beyond that first bump (pardon the pun), they were still in times of austerity and refugee-like lifestyle, so settling down, much less creating a large family, was out of the question for them until at least the mid-50s.

-----







Post#31 at 02-15-2010 10:45 AM by Chas'88 [at In between Pennsylvania & Pennsyltucky joined Nov 2008 #posts 9,432]
---
02-15-2010, 10:45 AM #31
Join Date
Nov 2008
Location
In between Pennsylvania & Pennsyltucky
Posts
9,432

Quote Originally Posted by MJC View Post
All of Europe was still militarized and recovering in the period of 1946-1950--and those were just the better off places, the ones that hadn't been utterly reduced to rubble like the U.K. and France. So most of that initial rise in birthrates was likely soldiers being closer to home again. But beyond that first bump (pardon the pun), they were still in times of austerity and refugee-like lifestyle, so settling down, much less creating a large family, was out of the question for them until at least the mid-50s.

-----
I can agree with this, my two Hungarian professors from Budapest represent this transition. One was born in the late 1940s/early 50s and is very stereotypically Silent. The other was born just a few years later in the late 1950s and has Boomer written all over him.

The main event for Hungarians seems to be if one remembers the 1956 Revolt where Stalin's statue got toppled over by a mob & if one remembers playing amongst the rubble of the buildings. The Silent professor was young, but he remembers his friend got the nose from the Stalin statue. The Boomer professor was born after that/around that time frame and mentions the revolt as one would mention any historical fact: very dryly and not with a lot of interest.

Both professors said the revolt marked a "turning" in Hungarian life and culture, and that life wasn't so bad or as oppressive after that.

~Chas'88
"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."







Post#32 at 02-16-2010 05:45 PM by KaiserD2 [at David Kaiser '47 joined Jul 2001 #posts 5,220]
---
02-16-2010, 05:45 PM #32
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
David Kaiser '47
Posts
5,220

Quote Originally Posted by Chas'88 View Post
I can agree with this, my two Hungarian professors from Budapest represent this transition. One was born in the late 1940s/early 50s and is very stereotypically Silent. The other was born just a few years later in the late 1950s and has Boomer written all over him.

The main event for Hungarians seems to be if one remembers the 1956 Revolt where Stalin's statue got toppled over by a mob & if one remembers playing amongst the rubble of the buildings. The Silent professor was young, but he remembers his friend got the nose from the Stalin statue. The Boomer professor was born after that/around that time frame and mentions the revolt as one would mention any historical fact: very dryly and not with a lot of interest.

Both professors said the revolt marked a "turning" in Hungarian life and culture, and that life wasn't so bad or as oppressive after that.

~Chas'88
Chas, my father, Philip Kaiser, was the American Ambassador to Hungary who arranged the return of the crown of St. Stephen in 1977. Your professors might remember that as well.







Post#33 at 02-16-2010 05:57 PM by Chas'88 [at In between Pennsylvania & Pennsyltucky joined Nov 2008 #posts 9,432]
---
02-16-2010, 05:57 PM #33
Join Date
Nov 2008
Location
In between Pennsylvania & Pennsyltucky
Posts
9,432

Quote Originally Posted by KaiserD2 View Post
Chas, my father, Philip Kaiser, was the American Ambassador to Hungary who arranged the return of the crown of St. Stephen in 1977. Your professors might remember that as well.
I remember them [the professors] mentioning that on our tour of Budapest (the Boomer did Buda, the Silent did Pest). Cool. It's always interesting to see how different people are all interconnected in ways that one never realizes.

~Chas'88
"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."







Post#34 at 05-13-2010 05:40 PM by The Wonkette [at Arlington, VA 1956 joined Jul 2002 #posts 9,209]
---
05-13-2010, 05:40 PM #34
Join Date
Jul 2002
Location
Arlington, VA 1956
Posts
9,209

The Torch is Passed to a New Generation

The new Tory Prime Minister of the UK, David Cameron, was born in 1966, and the Liberal Democrat Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, was born in 1967.

Gordon Brown, the outgoing Labor Prime Minister was born in 1951, and his predecessor, Tony Blair, was born in 1953.

Given that British generations may lag US ones by a few years, it still appears that Nomads are sweeping aside Prophets.

That would indicate that the UK is well into the 4T, since that is typically a sign of the 4T.

Any thoughts or comments?
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008







Post#35 at 05-13-2010 06:34 PM by BookishXer [at joined Oct 2009 #posts 656]
---
05-13-2010, 06:34 PM #35
Join Date
Oct 2009
Posts
656

Quote Originally Posted by The Wonkette View Post
The new Tory Prime Minister of the UK, David Cameron, was born in 1966, and the Liberal Democrat Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, was born in 1967.

Gordon Brown, the outgoing Labor Prime Minister was born in 1951, and his predecessor, Tony Blair, was born in 1953.

Given that British generations may lag US ones by a few years, it still appears that Nomads are sweeping aside Prophets.

That would indicate that the UK is well into the 4T, since that is typically a sign of the 4T.

Any thoughts or comments?
Cameron is the youngest Prime Minister in two centuries, I believe?

The Nomad-won election could be one sign of the U.K.'s place in a 4T. But I wonder about other signs, also, such as the buzz in the House of Commons over this election. I don't know enough about U.K. governmental structure to offer much analysis, but I'd read that there was quite a stir in the House of Commons, which includes a variety of other parties such as Irish Nationalists, over party leadership and potential alliances which could manipulate that leadership to remain under Labour Party majority.

Also, I thought there something about the election resulting in opposing party joint-leadership in the House, something that hasn't happened since WWII. ?







Post#36 at 05-13-2010 11:21 PM by MJC [at joined Apr 2007 #posts 260]
---
05-13-2010, 11:21 PM #36
Join Date
Apr 2007
Posts
260

I guess I don't see anything very remarkable about either David Cameron or Nick Clegg, from either a generational or political standpoint. At the moment, at least, they both seem like placeholders for the current mainstream Tory/Liberal stalemate--hardly representative of any sweeping Gen-X movement.

I'm not a partisan on UK politics (I'm a leftist Democrat in the US, which makes me pretty much a centrist by European standards), but these guys strike me as Tony Blair updates, which is to say, still lacking a truly fresh and independent voice.







Post#37 at 05-14-2010 04:13 AM by 85turtle [at joined Dec 2009 #posts 362]
---
05-14-2010, 04:13 AM #37
Join Date
Dec 2009
Posts
362

Quote Originally Posted by MJC View Post
I guess I don't see anything very remarkable about either David Cameron or Nick Clegg, from either a generational or political standpoint. At the moment, at least, they both seem like placeholders for the current mainstream Tory/Liberal stalemate--hardly representative of any sweeping Gen-X movement.

I'm not a partisan on UK politics (I'm a leftist Democrat in the US, which makes me pretty much a centrist by European standards), but these guys strike me as Tony Blair updates, which is to say, still lacking a truly fresh and independent voice.
I doubt that the Tory-Lib Dem Hung Parliament lasts the 5 years they gave it.
MBTI: INTJ (rational-mastermind)

"Don't Freak Out" - Yvonne Strahovski (Gen Y), Sarah Walker on Chuck

Sexy Bitch - Sarah Walker fan video (not mine)

Chuck vs. the Nacho Sampler (3x06)
Clip from the 1st scene
Clip from the 2nd scene

Chuck vs. the Honeymooners (3x14)
Southern Accents

"I hope to inspire everyone and ask, where is our march? Where are our petitions? Where the fuck are our minds? I know there are a few petitions out there that I have signed, but it's not enough." -Sasha Grey







Post#38 at 05-19-2010 02:32 PM by James50 [at Atlanta, GA US joined Feb 2010 #posts 3,605]
---
05-19-2010, 02:32 PM #38
Join Date
Feb 2010
Location
Atlanta, GA US
Posts
3,605

I have to admit most of this sounds good to me, particularly the "bonfire of pointless laws". Are left and right coming together in the UK?

"In a speech in London Mr Clegg will promise a "wholesale, big bang" rather than piecemeal approach, including:

* scrapping the identity card scheme and second generation biometric passports;
* removing limits on the rights to peaceful protest;
* a bonfire of unnecessary laws;
* a block on pointless new criminal offences;
* internet and email records not to be held without reason;
* closed-circuit television to be properly regulated;
* new controls over the DNA database, such as on the storage of innocent people's DNA;
* axeing the ContactPoint children's database;
* schools will not take children's fingerprints without asking for parental consent;
* reviewing the libel laws to protect freedom of speech. "

more here: http://bit.ly/bXuGOK

James50
Last edited by James50; 05-19-2010 at 02:34 PM.
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. - G.K. Chesterton







Post#39 at 04-22-2011 11:03 PM by The Wonkette [at Arlington, VA 1956 joined Jul 2002 #posts 9,209]
---
04-22-2011, 11:03 PM #39
Join Date
Jul 2002
Location
Arlington, VA 1956
Posts
9,209

Question The Royal Wedding

I just indulged in a couple of hours of watching preview coverage of the upcoming marriage between Prince William and Kate Middleton. I feel a lot happier about this marriage than the one 30 years ago between Charles and Diana -- Diana was barely 20 when she got married, far too young and immature to handle the pressure cooker she was thrown into. Even without what we know now about her psychological issues and the basic incompatibility between her and Charles... By contrast, William and Kate have known each other for 8 years, Kate is 29, same age as William (actually a couple of months older), and they've even lived together. I'm hoping this marriage is a keeper.

However, I wonder, being a 4T fan, whether William and Kate are Nomads or Civics. Kate was born in January 1982 and William in the spring of 1982 (May?) Isn't the UK a couple of years behind the US? Any thoughts?
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008







Post#40 at 04-23-2011 01:37 AM by Chas'88 [at In between Pennsylvania & Pennsyltucky joined Nov 2008 #posts 9,432]
---
04-23-2011, 01:37 AM #40
Join Date
Nov 2008
Location
In between Pennsylvania & Pennsyltucky
Posts
9,432

Quote Originally Posted by The Wonkette View Post
I just indulged in a couple of hours of watching preview coverage of the upcoming marriage between Prince William and Kate Middleton. I feel a lot happier about this marriage than the one 30 years ago between Charles and Diana -- Diana was barely 20 when she got married, far too young and immature to handle the pressure cooker she was thrown into. Even without what we know now about her psychological issues and the basic incompatibility between her and Charles... By contrast, William and Kate have known each other for 8 years, Kate is 29, same age as William (actually a couple of months older), and they've even lived together. I'm hoping this marriage is a keeper.

However, I wonder, being a 4T fan, whether William and Kate are Nomads or Civics. Kate was born in January 1982 and William in the spring of 1982 (May?) Isn't the UK a couple of years behind the US? Any thoughts?
Last I checked The Millies for the UK begin somewhere in the mid-late 1980s. I've seen 1986 as a proposed start date as well as 1988. I think S&H proclaimed 1988 somewhere.

England's Generations as I can remember off the top of my head:

1886 - 1907: Contemptible (Lost) - Agatha Christie, C.S. Lewis, Dorothy Sayers, J.R.R. Tolkien, King George VI

1908 - 1926: Victory (GI) - Queen Elizabeth II, Margaret Thatcher

1927 - 1946: Air Raid (Silent) - Princess Margaret, Joe Orton, John Osbourne, The Beatles

1947 - 1966: Boom - J.K. Rowling, Diana Spensor, Prince Charles, Tony Blair

1967 - 1987: Hooligan (X) - Prince William, Prince Harry (Harry especially fits the profile of a "typical" Hooligan)

1988 - ????: Millennial

About the Swinging Sixties. I'm doing a dramaturgical file on Joe Orton & his play Loot. For those unaware of Joe Orton (b 1933), he's an English Playwright who wrote three farces aimed at shocking and offending the Post-War culture of England. He was sent to prison for six months for defacing library books and then sneaking them back in and watching the shocked expressions on library patrons faces as they discovered rewritten dust jackets, and obscene pictures drawn all over actual pictures. The librarians eventually did some sleuthing and caught Orton & his lover Kenneth Halliwell. The six months in prison changed Orton and sparked his literary muse. He was later murdered by Kenneth, whose own career as a novelist wasn't as successful. There's a good bio. film about Joe Orton starring Gary Oldman if you want to know more. It's called Prick Up Your Ears.

Orton is usually used in Theatre classes as a way of introducing the Swinging Sixties to a class. He's used as a defining voice of the period. As I did my research for my Dramaturgical File, I had to focus on the Swinging Sixties as a period. What I found was that really the "Swinging Sixties" is a misnomer for only the London sub-culture. The rest of England was pretty tame outside of those London neighborhoods. As I looked more into the culture of the Swinging Sixties, which a lot on this board try to use as pointing out that it's signs of the Awakening beginning in England, it also became a lot more obvious that the Swinging Sixties wasn't about any sort of ideals that an Idealist generation would have. If the Swinging Sixties were anything, they were led by renegade members of the Air Raid generation, who simply wanted to mock and offend the mores of society and used the American youth rebellion style as an example/mold to follow. One of the things apparently common was young men buying uniforms of the past to wear on the streets in order to "mock the uniformity of today". These are not the actions of an Idealist generation. Idealists don't mock--they rebell, they attack, but they don't mock or satirize. Artist-Adaptives mock & satirize (think of the tongue in cheek delivered by Peter, Paul, and Mary or Simon & Garfunkel), which is what the main root of their rebellion. In essence that is what was at the root of the Swinging London sub-culture. I'd say that the Swinging London sub-culture would be the Air-Raid equivalent of the Beatnik sub-culture of the Silents in America.

And now for a look @ the teenage cultures of the time:

The Mods and Rockers were two conflicting British youth subcultures of the early-mid 1960s. Gangs of mods and rockers fighting in 1964 sparked a moral panic about British youths, and the two groups were seen as folk devils. The rockers adopted a macho biker gang image, wearing clothes such as black leather jackets. The mods adopted a pose of scooter-driving sophistication, wearing suits and other cleancut outfits. By late 1966, the two subcultures had faded from public view and media attention turned to two new emerging youth subcultures — the hippies and the skinheads.
The 1960s did experience a "sexual liberation" of sorts in England, mostly due to the fact that publishing companies started publishing sexually explicit novels (D.H. Lawrence) in paperback--allowing the Working Class to get their hands on the "corrupting" materials. Also research into sexual activity of youth started to crop up and interest in sexual diseases as well. Laws were passed in England about Sex/Sexuality, but mostly they covered things that already existed, but just weren't recognized by the law.

1964 began the trial of Harold "Tanky" Challenor, which was the Watergate of the British Police force & IMO either can be seen as the beginning of the Awakening in England, or an event leading up to it. Challenor got caught trying to plant evidence on a protestor at a rally. Challenor was a war hero as well as an abusive/corrupt cop. The Victory Generation stood behind Challenor, and the Air Raid generation got furious in response. Their response? To become cynical of the police force as well as create the character of the corrupt & abusive cop. Orton did this in his play Loot, which is the first time the character is seen on the Anglo-culture stage--nowadays, a cop on the stage is assumed to be corrupt.

~Chas'88
Last edited by Chas'88; 04-23-2011 at 02:34 AM.
"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."







Post#41 at 04-29-2011 11:08 PM by Linus [at joined Oct 2005 #posts 1,731]
---
04-29-2011, 11:08 PM #41
Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
1,731

I kind of liked the dress.

Was that Charles' bridal veil?
"Jan, cut the crap."

"It's just a donut."







Post#42 at 04-29-2011 11:17 PM by Linus [at joined Oct 2005 #posts 1,731]
---
04-29-2011, 11:17 PM #42
Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
1,731

If you weren't a teeny bopper in the 1980s or had other (possibly compelling) reasons not to be listening to the Smiths you can be forgiven for missing the reference.
Last edited by Linus; 04-30-2011 at 11:52 AM.
"Jan, cut the crap."

"It's just a donut."







Post#43 at 05-10-2011 02:05 AM by Chas'88 [at In between Pennsylvania & Pennsyltucky joined Nov 2008 #posts 9,432]
---
05-10-2011, 02:05 AM #43
Join Date
Nov 2008
Location
In between Pennsylvania & Pennsyltucky
Posts
9,432

For my Graduate Theatre Program I took Modern Dramaturgy and had to compile a large Dramaturgical File of articles, pictures, production histories, critical articles, biographical information, etc. on a single play and its playwright. I also had to write program notes. I would like to share my work with all of you. It is about Joe Orton's Loot; a play which comes from England's "Swinging Sixties" culture.

Summary of the play: It is a black comedic farce that takes place around a funeral. Mrs. Mcleavy has just died and is about to be taken to the cemetery. Her husband is all appropriately saddened by the turn of events. Her former Nurse, Fay, (who is revealed to have killed Mrs. Mcleavy as well as seven previous husbands) tricks Mr. Mcleavy into promising to marry her. Hal Mcleavy, the son, has just robbed a bank with his homosexual lover Dennis--who's also the hearse driver--and are seeking to hide the money somewhere. Eventually they settle on the coffin, dumping Mrs. Mcleavy's body out and into a bathroom. Then Detective Truscott shows up--badly disguised as a man from the "Metropolitan Water Board"--on the trail of both Hal & Dennis as well as recognizing Fay. After a bunch of mishaps (which eventually lead Mrs. Mcleavy's corpse to being stripped and dressed up as a mummy and the walls of the coffin falling off to reveal the money) Hal & Dennis cut Fay & Truscott a piece of the action. Mr. Mcleavy--the only innocent in the entire play--is arrested on the charges of killing his wife and Dennis asks to marry Fay simply because marriage is something he hasn't tried yet (although it's made clear Dennis and Hal's homosexual relationship isn't something that's going to end, making for quite an interesting menage a trios pairing at the end).

Here are my program notes:

Quote Originally Posted by Chas' Program Notes
When the name of the playwright Joe Orton is mentioned, it is typically accompanied with images of the “Swinging Sixties”; as theatre scholar Linda Streit notes, “Critics tend to discuss his plays symbiotically together with this decade-long phenomenon.” This would imply that Orton was more than anything, a playwright reflecting on— and a reflection of— his own time. What, exactly, does this association mean?
Quote Originally Posted by Chas' Program Notes


The Swinging Sixties of London are typically remembered by the popular stereotype presented in the first two Austin Powers films: a time of “mod” culture, sexual revolution, the Beatles, Twiggy, and youth rebellion. This rebellion wasn’t merely a generational conflict—young people fighting against what they perceived to be corrupt and lifeless institutions that had been established by the older generation—but also a class upheaval. Many of those participating in the London subculture originated from a working class background but thanks to the newly enshrined English post-war Welfare State, had been granted access to a previously unseen level of social amenities: public education, a secure job market, and unprecedented class mobility. For the first time in English history, therefore, the lower classes had sufficient social and financial stability to conduct a revolution. So: what were they rebelling against?

The revolutions of the Sixties can be seen as lashing out against a backlash, an élitist socio-cultural coup d’état that had occurred over the course of the 1950s. The establishment of the Welfare State immediately after World War II threatened England’s upper classes, who feared a working class revolution would occur in England similar to that which had taken place in Russia. Aided, however, by the publication of George Orwell’s two most famous novels: Animal Farm (1945) and Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949)—both of which questioned the Soviet system of Communism and were thus appropriated by British Conservatives as examples of where outright socialism would inevitably lead—and the patriotic after-effects of the 1952 coronation of Queen Elizabeth II, the upper class slowly regained control of English hearts and minds.

A significant aspect of this political shift was the restoration of cultural authority. As the English upper class perceived it, the establishment of the Welfare State had allowed the working class to gain access to something that had rightfully been their exclusive domain: high culture. In response to this, England’s upper class actively turned to the arts, claiming that, through their existence and patronage alone, great works of art and high culture might be supported and perpetrated. As a byproduct of this move, the dominant Middle Class abandoned the Working Class who had been their allies in the establishment of the Welfare State. Now, access to high culture became portrayed by the middle class as a stepping stone towards upward mobility; they turned to upholding upper class values through such institutions as the BBC’s “Third Programme,” which was devoted to broadcasting primarily high culture entertainments. It was within this stifling cultural backlash that Joe Orton’s generation came of age—and against which they rose up in a drastic, if not violent, rebellion.

Joe Orton was born John Kingsley Orton to working class parents. His father was a factory worker and later a gardener for the city of Leicester; his mother was a cold, domineering woman with strong class aspirations. The childhood described by Joe’s younger sister, Leonie Orton-Barnett, is not a pretty one: “For my mother, I think love was a luxury. She was cruel basically. The abuse was both physical and verbal. … She seemed to get some sort of satisfaction from it.” This family dynamic—an ineffectual father and an abusive and pretentious mother—most definitely informed his voice as a playwright later in life. As Leonie notes, “You can see from the names she gave us that she had ideas above her station. She was quite a pretentious woman and I think you can see digs at that kind of thing in Joe’s plays.”

After failing his eleven plus exams (which determine the educational or occupational track English youth will take for the rest of their lives), Joe was originally sent to commercial college, with the expectation he’d graduate to become a secretary or a clerk. Orton, however, was fascinated by the theatre, and took elocution lessons to help himself get rid of several speech impediments so that he could perform on the stage. His elocution teacher later remarked, “His people were ordinary working-class people. There was no culture, no education. I felt sorry for him.” After ridding himself of a slight lisp and several Leicester colloquialisms, however, Orton gained admission to the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art, where he met his lover, Kenneth Halliwell.

Halliwell came from a more educated background and is often attributed with introducing Orton to the cultural sophistication that his elocution teacher had maintained he’d lacked. This introduction came in the form of an attack on the very culture Orton acquired. After failed stints at being actors, stage managers, and novelists, the pair became pranksters. They stole library books from the Islington public libraries, scrawling absurd or obscene drawings on their dust jackets, texts, or pictures. The pair of them would then smuggle the books back into the library and hide in discrete corners where they could watch patrons pick up a book only to discover the graffiti inside, amusedly taking in the alarmed reactions. As a librarian remembered him, Orton was “someone who betrayed his working-class origins” by defacing, as one critic put it, the “stepping-stones to one’s advancement up the rigid class hierarchy.” The pair were eventually tracked down and arrested for their acts of vandalism, receiving six month jail terms, which Orton saw as an excessive punishment for the crime committed. Indeed, he considered the sentence a judgment about his and Halliwell’s homosexuality.

Homosexuality was illegal in England at the time and homosexuals were considered to be degenerates who disturbed the post-war calm. Perhaps more importantly, they defied the carefully-delineated British class hierarchy. Since the time of Oscar Wilde—when upper-class aesthetes began to pursue attractions to brawny working class men—many male-male homosexual relationships in England were considered to be unacceptable associations between members of different classes. This posed a real problem in a post-war Britain striving to maintain class distinctions; as the literary critic Alan Sinfield puts it: “The homosexual leisure-class, literary intellectual was, therefore, in a strikingly contradictory position. He was inviting in the working class that was believed to be about to overwhelm civilized standards. He was a Trojan horse within the citadel of cultural power, smuggling in the class enemy.” Such an alliance was viewed as a threat to the recently stabilized social order equivalent to the previous century’s anxiety over Lady Chatterly’s romance with her gamekeeper.

To be sure, Orton and Halliwell’s relationship posed just such a threat to the established order, and it was likely because of this that they received excessively harsh sentences. In his work, Orton rejects this understanding of homosexuality; in one of his diary entries, he references a relationship between two male characters: “Americans see homosexuality in terms of fag and drag. This isn’t my vision of the universal brotherhood. They must be perfectly ordinary boys who happen to be fucking each other.” Undeniably, the affront to his sexual preference provided by his extended jail time angered Orton and sparked his creative impulses. Reflecting upon his experience in prison, he wrote in his diaries: “Before I had been vaguely conscious of something rotting somewhere; prison crystallized this. The old whore society really lifted up her skirts and the stench was pretty foul.” In Loot, Orton confronts that “old whore.” As he notes in his diaries: “I am writing a play to show all the inanities and stupidities I’ve undergone.” Like his escapades in library book defacement, the play aims to upend its audience’s preconceived notions and dearly-held values, offering scathing critiques of society and its corrupt institutions.

This critique is particularly of its time; in the 1960s, England was becoming more aware of the corruption within state-sponsored institutions through the trial of Detective-Sergeant Harold “Tanky” Challenor. Challenor was a WWII war hero who was indicted for planting evidence. The trial set off a surge of scandal investigations into the slowly nationalizing British police force and badly damaged public opinion of the police. To understand how damaging this case was, one must understand that the representation of the British police in the public imagination was the morally-upstanding bobby George Dixon who, on Dixon of Dock Green—a Dragnet-like television show—began each week’s programme with a cheery “Evening all” stated straight into the camera. Challenor was no Dixon; he was caught planting evidence—a brick—on a protestor, claiming “You’re fucking nicked, my beauty. Boo the Queen, would you?” and punctuating that with a series of slaps around the head. Challenor was arrested and later diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. To his death, Challenor was supported by his fellow soldiers as well as his entire generation and, in spite of his corrupt history, “remained a revered comrade-in-arms.” This continued support of institutional hypocrisy was what most offended Orton and the younger generation he represented; they saw it as the equivalent of Ford pardoning Nixon.

Corruption came to be seen throughout the entire Welfare State. Whether it was seeing the Church, the police force, or the government as tainted, people became cognizant of the world they lived in, and Orton, especially in Loot demands we become so. The legacy of the Swinging Sixties has been a “consciousness revolution” where attention is brought to subjects that middle class respectability would prefer we not explore. More than anything, Loot asks us to shed this desire for respectability—and the silence that accompanies it—and to become consciously aware of the exploitive institutions and persons surrounding us. It is in this manner, highlighting society’s various corruptions, that Orton is one of the best examples of the sub-culture and time period from which he emerged.
~Chas'88
Last edited by Chas'88; 05-10-2011 at 02:11 AM.
"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."







Post#44 at 05-10-2011 12:16 PM by Uzi [at joined Oct 2005 #posts 2,254]
---
05-10-2011, 12:16 PM #44
Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
2,254

I don't think Britain "lags" the US. Either you remember the Second World War or you don't. If you can recall the fear of bombs landing on your block, then you are most likely an adaptive. If you can't, you are probably an idealist. Post-war rationing isn't the same as the Blitz. The late, great Tony Judt (born in 1948, died last year) is in my opinion an idealist. Timothy Garton Ash (born 1955) is another of the breed. But some of the early 1960s cohorts definitely seem like idealists.

I think William and Kate are the British equivalents of Millennials. They wouldn't be so adored if they weren't.







Post#45 at 05-10-2011 05:19 PM by The Wonkette [at Arlington, VA 1956 joined Jul 2002 #posts 9,209]
---
05-10-2011, 05:19 PM #45
Join Date
Jul 2002
Location
Arlington, VA 1956
Posts
9,209

Quote Originally Posted by Uzi View Post
I don't think Britain "lags" the US. Either you remember the Second World War or you don't. If you can recall the fear of bombs landing on your block, then you are most likely an adaptive. If you can't, you are probably an idealist. Post-war rationing isn't the same as the Blitz. The late, great Tony Judt (born in 1948, died last year) is in my opinion an idealist. Timothy Garton Ash (born 1955) is another of the breed. But some of the early 1960s cohorts definitely seem like idealists.

I think William and Kate are the British equivalents of Millennials. They wouldn't be so adored if they weren't.
Queen Elizabeth II, a 1926 cohort, shows all the attributes of being a Civic. Compare her stoic dedication to Duty to the ultimately aimless life of her classically adaptive younger sister, Princess Margaret, who IIRC, was a 1929 cohort.

True that the rationing of the late 1940s wasn't the Blitz, but that doesn't mean that they weren't still in Crisis. David Kaiser and Dave Krein have both done some reasearch on British turnings and they place the start of the UK 1T at about 1950, IIRC.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008







Post#46 at 05-10-2011 06:39 PM by nomad84 [at Germany joined Jun 2010 #posts 54]
---
05-10-2011, 06:39 PM #46
Join Date
Jun 2010
Location
Germany
Posts
54

Quote Originally Posted by The Wonkette View Post
Queen Elizabeth II, a 1926 cohort, shows all the attributes of being a Civic. Compare her stoic dedication to Duty to the ultimately aimless life of her classically adaptive younger sister, Princess Margaret, who IIRC, was a 1929 cohort.

True that the rationing of the late 1940s wasn't the Blitz, but that doesn't mean that they weren't still in Crisis. David Kaiser and Dave Krein have both done some reasearch on British turnings and they place the start of the UK 1T at about 1950, IIRC.
At least here in Germany the last Crisis lasted until '48 at the very least. There was starvation, and until the currency reform of '48 the High was nowhere to be seen. The Awakening and the Unraveling however started at almost the same time here as in the US (I think the same goes for Britain). But we aren't in a Crisis yet (9/11 changed nothing in Germany, and I think the same is true in Britain).

And as far as the early and mid 80's cohorts being Millies, just look at Prince Harry. He does not strike me as "Civic" at all. Neither does any of my peers here in Germany. No helpfulness, no general civicness, no protective parenting, nasty divorces, latchkey kids, bullying, no interest in politcs (or even an active dislike of politics), no optimism, definitively no collectivism at all, not even "team spirit", no tightening of rules during the early and mid 2000's. Just mindless partying, and lots of it on top of that.

Actually I think that as far as the turnings go, Britain and Germany are aligned perfectly since WWII.
Last edited by nomad84; 05-10-2011 at 06:45 PM.







Post#47 at 05-10-2011 08:05 PM by David Krein [at Gainesville, Florida joined Jul 2001 #posts 604]
---
05-10-2011, 08:05 PM #47
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Gainesville, Florida
Posts
604

I have gone back and looked at some of the analysis I did back in the late 90s, and I remembered correctly that David Kaiser and I could not agree on either Germany or the UK. I dated the beginning of Germany's recovery (1st Turning) in 1948 with the currency reform which would conform to what nomad84 has suggested. I also dated the end of the Crisis for the UK in 1947, and I am pretty sure David dated both of them later than that.

Pax,

Dave Krein '42
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on; nor all your Piety nor Wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, Nor all your Tears wash out a word of it." - Omar Khayyam.







Post#48 at 05-10-2011 08:31 PM by KaiserD2 [at David Kaiser '47 joined Jul 2001 #posts 5,220]
---
05-10-2011, 08:31 PM #48
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
David Kaiser '47
Posts
5,220

Quote Originally Posted by David Krein View Post
I have gone back and looked at some of the analysis I did back in the late 90s, and I remembered correctly that David Kaiser and I could not agree on either Germany or the UK. I dated the beginning of Germany's recovery (1st Turning) in 1948 with the currency reform which would conform to what nomad84 has suggested. I also dated the end of the Crisis for the UK in 1947, and I am pretty sure David dated both of them later than that.

Pax,

Dave Krein '42
That's right. I'd say 1951 for the UK, because rationing was over, the Conservatives came back, and it became clear the Labour reforms were there to stay (at least until 1980 or so!) And for Germany I'd say 1955 when they joined NATO. And for France I'd say 1958 but they had a new regime that year, the 5th Republic, after a military revolt.







Post#49 at 05-10-2011 08:33 PM by KaiserD2 [at David Kaiser '47 joined Jul 2001 #posts 5,220]
---
05-10-2011, 08:33 PM #49
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
David Kaiser '47
Posts
5,220

Quote Originally Posted by nomad84 View Post
At least here in Germany the last Crisis lasted until '48 at the very least. There was starvation, and until the currency reform of '48 the High was nowhere to be seen. The Awakening and the Unraveling however started at almost the same time here as in the US (I think the same goes for Britain). But we aren't in a Crisis yet (9/11 changed nothing in Germany, and I think the same is true in Britain).

And as far as the early and mid 80's cohorts being Millies, just look at Prince Harry. He does not strike me as "Civic" at all. Neither does any of my peers here in Germany. No helpfulness, no general civicness, no protective parenting, nasty divorces, latchkey kids, bullying, no interest in politcs (or even an active dislike of politics), no optimism, definitively no collectivism at all, not even "team spirit", no tightening of rules during the early and mid 2000's. Just mindless partying, and lots of it on top of that.

Actually I think that as far as the turnings go, Britain and Germany are aligned perfectly since WWII.
I think it's looking very likely that the new European crisis will be a crisis of the European Union. And if things go badly it may also involve the Muslim populations.

I don't see how the German Crisis (the last one) possibly could have been over before the founding of the Federal Republic in 1949!







Post#50 at 05-10-2011 11:13 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
05-10-2011, 11:13 PM #50
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

I think Western Europe's 4T ended right around 1950. This was when the immediate post-war policies and geopolitical situation gave way to the stable Cold War of the High. According to the above-mentioned Tony Judt in his book Postwar there was still a very 4T political mindset in the late 40s. The extreme Communist Left were still a dangerous and powerful force until they were humilliated when the USSR under Khrushchev went public about Stalin's atrocities.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
-----------------------------------------