Alright, people, it's almost 2007, and that means it's been almost 10 years since T4T was first published. I know we aren't deep enough into the 4T yet to have any real perspective on it, but the online blurb about the Culture Wars really needs to be updated now:

"The Culture Wars (Third Turning, 1984-2005?), which opened with triumphant “Morning in America” individualism, has thus far drifted toward pessimism. Personal confidence remains high, and few national problems demand immediate action. But the public reflects darkly on growing violence and incivility, widening inequality, pervasive distrust of institutions and leaders, and a debased popular culture. People fear that the national consensus is splitting into competing “values” camps."


It is clear that the height of the 3T is over, even if you don't believe we are in 4T yet, and thus wouldn't it be nice for a more definitive, descriptive summary of the Culture Wars? Something including major points like Monica Lewinsky, the '90s economic bubble, and some of the major culture wars red meat issues that were king in turn-of-the-millennium politics?


It just seems like, even if the 4T hasn't begun (and I believe it has), S&H should update their description of the 3T, since it is clearly either over or on its last legs.


Does anyone know why there is no post-1997 update of T4T?

I think that T4T, like a good textbook, needs to be refreshed from time to time. I'll buy a revision, if one is written. I'll even commit to buying the following revision, as well.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I think that T4T, like a good textbook, needs to be refreshed from time to time. I'll buy a revision, if one is written. I'll even commit to buying the following revision, as well.

Me too. I just wonder what's keeping them from it. Is their "consulting" gig that lucrative?

Talking gibberish at the Capital Steps musical comedy group is more fun.

I was very tempted to vote for a revision. But it makes more sense to wait a while longer. After they think we've had a regeneracy would be a good time. They'll sure have everyone's attention.

It would be good to have an update. Nothing that has happened in the last ten years has lessened my belief in the relavence of saecular theory.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

I was very tempted to vote for a revision. But it makes more sense to wait a while longer. After they think we've had a regeneracy would be a good time. They'll sure have everyone's attention.

My view exactly.

I say wait until the Regeneracy has obviously begun as well. It makes no sense to update the book at this time, not when those on this board cannot agree on whether we're 3T or 4T. Even the pro-4Ters can't agree what event Catalyzed it, 9.11 or Katrina.

I see no reason to update it anytime soon. It's a theory, not a textbook.

Dear Nathaniel,

Originally Posted by 1990

> Alright, people, it's almost 2007, and that means it's been almost
> 10 years since T4T was first published. I know we aren't deep
> enough into the 4T yet to have any real perspective on it, but the
> online blurb about the Culture Wars really needs to be updated
> now:

> "The Culture Wars (Third Turning, 1984-2005?), which opened with
> triumphant “Morning in America” individualism, has thus far
> drifted toward pessimism. Personal confidence remains high, and
> few national problems demand immediate action. But the public
> reflects darkly on growing violence and incivility, widening
> inequality, pervasive distrust of institutions and leaders, and a
> debased popular culture. People fear that the national consensus
> is splitting into competing “values” camps."

> It is clear that the height of the 3T is over, even if you don't
> believe we are in 4T yet, and thus wouldn't it be nice for a more
> definitive, descriptive summary of the Culture Wars? Something
> including major points like Monica Lewinsky, the '90s economic
> bubble, and some of the major culture wars red meat issues that
> were king in turn-of-the-millennium politics?

> It just seems like, even if the 4T hasn't begun (and I believe it
> has), S&H should update their description of the 3T, since it is
> clearly either over or on its last legs.

> Does anyone know why there is no post-1997 update of T4T?

My feeling is that a new revision of T4T would have to be a lot
darker than the last version, since the 4T crisis is a lot closer.
In the first version, Strauss and Howe could simply present a few
possible scenarios - state fiscal crisis, global terrorism, budget
confrontation, spread of new disease, war with Russia.

Today they would have to address the following issues: 9/11, Afghan
war, Iraq war, war on terror, perhaps global financial issues and
Israeli/Palestinian issue.

My experience with my web site is that it's impossible to avoid these
issues today; not only that, but a lot of people don't want to deal
with these issues, or want to interpret them politically (same as in
the various threads of this forum).

So I don't see how they could publish an updated T4T at this time
without the book being so different that it would essentially be a
different kind of book.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

> It would be good to have an update. Nothing that has happened in
> the last ten years has lessened my belief in the relavence of
> saecular theory.

Rick, do you have any thoughts about what the content of an updated
book would be?

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

My feeling is that a new revision of T4T would have to be a lot
darker than the last version, since the 4T crisis is a lot closer.

Today they would have to address the following issues: 9/11, Afghan
war, Iraq war, war on terror, perhaps global financial issues and
Israeli/Palestinian issue.


Rick, do you have any thoughts about what the content of an updated
book would be?

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Good question. No doubt the first section would have to give an explaination of saecular theory for first time readers. What I found compelling about Generations the first time I read it was how they were able to write empathetically about how different persons reacted to their times. For example George Washington comes across as wild when discribed as a young liberty generation adult. Similarly, the young Puritans were a hot blooded passionate lot during their awakening. As we usually see historical figures in middle age or older, I found their style of discribing earlier behavor quite effective in explaining how history shapes generations.

In terms of how to apply the theory to these times, your list is a good start of the issues that will in one way or another have to be addressed. One part of The Fourth Turning that I found compelling was where they discribed survival strategies for a 4t. Examples that come to mind include pointing out that a 4t is not a time for social isolaton, it will be important to know people who may be able to help you and your family during a public emergency.

As such a volume will be mostly dark, the rebirth of hope during a regeneracy should also be discussed. Already in these threads we discuss how changes in technology may make for a better age within the next 20 years, just in time for the 1t. It may prove to be quite a trick to have enough "sunshine" in the darker chapters for new readers. It all is quite a challenge, I really can't blame them for taking their time, but an update would be nice.

John makes a very good point that the tone of a T4T update would have to be so different from the original, that it would almost have to be a different type of book.

Perhaps that is how it should be. "The Fourth Turning" was about how the current 3T came to be, what we can expect to happen in the Crisis, and how to prepare for the changes to come.

Conversely, a new book on Turnings, Generations, and how the times effect ordinary people would be about the current 4T, how to help both ourselves and our Nation survive it... and provide a hopeful look toward the bright, new American High that will arrive if we are successful.

This is, by necessity, a radically different book than either Generations or T4T. So, it would seem the answer is that the Authors should write a new book, without any pretense of updating the last one.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

John makes a very good point that the tone of a T4T update would have to be so different from the original, that it would almost have to be a different type of book.

Perhaps that is how it should be. "The Fourth Turning" was about how the current 3T came to be, what we can expect to happen in the Crisis, and how to prepare for the changes to come.

Conversely, a new book on Turnings, Generations, and how the times effect ordinary people would be about the current 4T, how to help both ourselves and our Nation survive it... and a hopeful look toward the bright, new American High that will arrive if we are successful.

This is, by necessity, a radically different book than either Generations or T4T. So, it would seem the answer is that the Authors should write a new book, without any pretense of updating the last one.

I do find myself a bit annoyed. They set out this great theory about cycles, saying that a new mood was coming. When it became clear that things were changing, they, to a certain extent, dropped off the face of the earth. I do understand why they would be hesitant to take a stand right now. Still annoyed though. How about a monthly newsletter?

Originally Posted by Acton Ellis

I do find myself a bit annoyed. They set out this great theory about cycles, saying that a new mood was coming. When it became clear that things were changing, they, to a certain extent, dropped off the face of the earth. I do understand why they would be hesitant to take a stand right now. Still annoyed though. How about a monthly newsletter?

They have no obligation to us, nor should they.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

They have no obligation to us, nor should they.

They do use these boards on their consulting web site as a draw to potential clients:

The Fourth Turning discussion forum, which began in the fall of 1997, is one of the longest-running book forums on the web. It provides excerpts of Howe and Strauss’s groundbreaking book, The Fourth Turning, published reviews, and explanations of the unique vision of history that shapes the authors’ work. Above all, the forum contains a tremendous amount of reader reflections, contributions, and essays on generations in the many facets of life—from pop culture, to K-12 education, to the workplace—and on the seasonal cycles of history. We invite you to click below to browse this wealth of information and discussion, and to add your own thoughts to the forum.

Maybe not a monthly newsletter, but once a year? Anything?

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

They have no obligation to us, nor should they.

Why put it quite so bluntly, Mike? We The Readers are, after all, directly responsible for the Authors literary success. I would posit, however, that to the extent they are obliged to us, they have fulfilled that obligation quite well by keeping this site up and running for nearly ten years. It isn't free, you know... and I'm sure they have other, more effective avenues, for advertising their services to potential clients.

The frustration voiced by many posters here stems, I feel, from a genuine respect for S&H and their ideas... rather than a sense of "being owed something" they aren't necessarily entitled to. Surely you understand this?

I'd give it at least another five years for a new book -- though I'd like to see an article or two here and there.

Didn't one of the authors start a thread in the last few months? I can't find it in the Special Topics section, but I seem to remember that very few people responded to it. Maybe another topic?

I read online newspapers from around the world daily - have been for the past 5 years. Generations is rarely, if ever used in opinion and editorial articles. What has been referred to quite frequently is the Clash of Civilizations authored by Sam Huntington -1991. This is a more universally understood concept and can be used by writers who have little or no understanding of the nature of conflict, the relationship of civilizations, and the ethnic, regional border clashes that are most prevelant today.

Huntington provided a scenario whereby China became possesive in the Spratly islands in SE Asia to obtain oil at the expense of Vietnam and Indonesia. Vietnam resisted and the fight between China and Vietnam began. The United States became involved and the domino effect occurred and world War 3 began.

Generational theory simply isn't known generally and thus does not become a topic of interest. Trying to explain it would cause a pair of glazed eyes and the attention span would be zero.

The fact that events caused by people like Hitler, Stalin, Bonaparte, Ghenghis Khan, Chairman Mao etc can be placed in mass media and be easily read by the short attention span public of today prevents anything from being read other than who did it and how many have been killed.

I think Strauss and Howe recognize the situation and may embark on something new - I would.

An interesting approach would be the understanding of how these things get started. Focus on the fanatics and the men of action, taking advantage of a situation, and starting conflict for probably personal ego. Hitler was a frustrated artist living in a Germany during troubled times. He used the frustration of a large segment of the population, used the Jews as a object of hatred, and mobilized the Germany army to astounding results.

Stalin killed anybody that was a threat or perceived as a threat, so did Saddam, and the list goes on. It is easier to understand the fanatic by his actions - not his geneology.

methuselah

Not to sound cynical, though I am very late Xer, maybe Strauss and Howe's livelihoods now depend on them not publishing. Perhaps in this critical time, their services as consultants and their expertise are especially valuable if kept to themselves and their clients. I do wish that it didn't have to be this way. They are my gurus. They changed the way I thought as a sophomore in high school and I still apply their theory every day. Maybe it's just an emotional attachment on my part.

Dear Rick,

Originally Posted by herbal tee

> Good question. No doubt the first section would have to give an
> explaination of saecular theory for first time readers. What I
> found compelling about Generations the first time I read it was
> how they were able to write empathetically about how different
> persons reacted to their times. For example George Washington
> comes across as wild when discribed as a young liberty generation
> adult. Similarly, the young Puritans were a hot blooded passionate
> lot during their awakening. As we usually see historical figures
> in middle age or older, I found their style of discribing earlier
> behavor quite effective in explaining how history shapes
> generations.

> In terms of how to apply the theory to these times, your list is a
> good start of the issues that will in one way or another have to
> be addressed. One part of The Fourth Turning that I found
> compelling was where they discribed survival strategies for a 4t.
> Examples that come to mind include pointing out that a 4t is not a
> time for social isolaton, it will be important to know people who
> may be able to help you and your family during a public
> emergency.

> As such a volume will be mostly dark, the rebirth of hope during a
> regeneracy should also be discussed. Already in these threads we
> discuss how changes in technology may make for a better age within
> the next 20 years, just in time for the 1t. It may prove to be
> quite a trick to have enough "sunshine" in the darker chapters for
> new readers. It all is quite a challenge, I really can't blame
> them for taking their time, but an update would be nice.

Thanks for posting this. I'll think about incorporating some of this
into my own writings.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Dear Allan,

Originally Posted by Methuselah

> Generational theory simply isn't known generally and thus does not
> become a topic of interest. Trying to explain it would cause a
> pair of glazed eyes and the attention span would be zero.

It's much worse than that -- generational theory is VERY abstract and
counter-intuitive, and draws conclusions that people actively don't
want to hear. As a result, people aren't bored by it necessarily, as
much as they're put off by it.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Rick,



Thanks for posting this. I'll think about incorporating some of this
into my own writings.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Glad that I could help. :

Originally Posted by Acton Ellis

I do find myself a bit annoyed. They set out this great theory about cycles, saying that a new mood was coming. When it became clear that things were changing, they, to a certain extent, dropped off the face of the earth. I do understand why they would be hesitant to take a stand right now. Still annoyed though. How about a monthly newsletter?

I think part of it is they have something of a conservative streak. I consider it one of the ironies of the theory that conservative leaning people came up with a theory of radical change. I think they are far more comfortable describing how existing values came to be than projecting what future values must become. They came up with a great theory. I don't know that they are comfortable applying it.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Allan,

Originally Posted by Methuselah

Generational theory simply isn't known generally and thus does not become a topic of interest. Trying to explain it would cause a pair of glazed eyes and the attention span would be zero.

It's much worse than that -- generational theory is VERY abstract and counter-intuitive, and draws conclusions that people actively don't want to hear. As a result, people aren't bored by it necessarily, as much as they're put off by it.

Or both. I agree that Clash of Civilizations is a much simpler and accessible theory. I also find that sticking to any one perspective is too limiting, and find myself shuffling between Turnings, Civilizations and Toffler's Waves of Civilization (hunter - gatherer, agricultural, industrial and perhaps information.) Even on these boards, where people are familiar with the ideas of structure in history, it is hard getting folk to deal with overlapping multiple perspectives.

Right now, though, when talking to most people about the current political situation, I don't try to push the complexities of the theory. I'll throw out an airy assertion that every four score and seven years or so, the United States has to reinvent itself. There comes a new birth of freedom. I don't try to prove that it must be so, but just try to get people to acknowledge that it might be so, that from time to time significant change is possible and necessary. That such a time is about due is just gravy. Most people are locked into an unravelling perception of their culture and their government. To exaggerate a common perception slightly, nothing has happened in a generation, thus nothing is likely to happen ever again. All I'm really looking to take from the theory in most conversations is to raise the possibility that things might possibly come into focus again.

Originally posted by Zarathustra

I was very tempted to vote for a revision. But it makes more sense to wait a while longer. After they think we've had a regeneracy would be a good time. They'll sure have everyone's attention.

But if the pattern of the crisis has already been set, wouldn't that be a little late?

I'm not ready to say with arbitrary certainty that "We be 4T." This is more because we haven't agreed on what the border criteria is than because I'm uncertain about what is going on. I do see the regeneracy as having begun. I see the 2006 elections as a rejection of the politics of the unravelling. For the next couple of years, we'll be trying to build a new vision to get us out of a mess which people acknowledge does exist. Specific policy might not be developed until a new president is in office, but the broad pattern is going to be set in the near future.

The last crisis might have had multiple regeneracies, one for economic problems early, and another for the isolationist to superpower switch later on. I think Morrow's broadcasts of the London Blitz may have been at the core of the latter regeneracy. Before, the mood of the country was primarily isolationist. After, we were a superpower.

I think we're at about the same place. To me, turning theory says a lot more about timing than the nature of the resolution. To me, the core of a new book would be in suggesting that a new birth of freedom is possible and is potentially happening. Trying to peg the solutions to the problems might be more than one wishes to attempt.

IMO S&H should wait until it is obvious that the regeneracy is here. They should also add a chapter on the saeculum in other parts of the world