Originally Posted by Odin

Uh, doesn't this go against S&Hs "evenly spaced phase of life" explanation for the saeculum?

No, I don't think so. But to make sure, can you explain your reasoning?

I'm really talking more about the entire mid-cycle period than the actual turnings themselves. Really, a Recovery is 16-19 years, an awakening spreads a little more upward, and an unraveling is a bit more variable.

Michael Easton wanted me to continue with the Irish Adaptive generation born in the last quarter of the 18th century. What followers is, first, O'Connell's Repeal party in the British House of Commons in the late 1830s-early 1840s, and then some other prominent Liberals from the same period (all with year of birth):

O'Connell, Daniel, 1775; Lalor, Patrick ("Honest Patt"), 1781; O'Brien, Cornelius, 1782; Callaghan, Daniel, 1786; Talbot, John Hyacinth, 1793; O'Connor, Feargus Edward, 1796; McDonnell, Joseph Myles, 1796; Nugent, Sir Percy Fitz-Gerald, 1st Bart. 1797; Sullivan, Richard, 1797.


Duncannon, Viscount, 4th Earl Bessborough, 1781; Pechell, Adm. Sir Samuel John Brooke, 3rd Bt., 1785; Forbes, Gen. Viscount George John, 1785; Pechell, Adm. Sir George Richard, 4th Bart., 1789; Grattan, Henry 1789; Wyse, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas, K.C.B., 1791; Grace, Oliver Dowell John, 1791; Sheil, Rt. Hon. Richard Lalor, 1791; O'Conor, Denis (The O'Conor Don), 1794; O'Ferrall, Rt. Hon. Richard More, 1797; Hill, Rt. Hon. Lord Arthur Marcus Cecil, 1798; Fellowes, Hon. Henry Arthur Wallop; 1799.

I could come up with a list of another 150-160 if you wish (and I have a page of information on each of them, but that would take up a lot of space).

I really would like to comment on the following exchange between MichaelEaston & 1990:

MichaelEaston: "I believe most of the countries we do will not have the luxury of a generational analysis (i.e. heroes, nomads etc.)."

1990: "Maybe we should reserve the generational analysis for the U.S. and have all other countries just broken down by turning?"

I registered a complaint about this some months ago. You cannot call what you are doing generational analysis if you don't analyze the generations. You can call it turning analysis, but you can't have S & H style turnings without generations, and vice versa. It is not a luxury. It is absolutely essential. For example, the only way to verify a 4th Turning is if it produced an Adaptive Generation and the only way to verify a 1st Turning is if it produced an Idealist Generation. If you can't do that, then you are speculating.

I can appreciate all the hard, thoughtful work you guys have put into this project. And it will be a good starting point for generational analysis, but what you have so far is not generational analysis, which, interestingly, you actually admit in your exchange.

Pax,

Dave Krein '42

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

No, I don't think so. But to make sure, can you explain your reasoning?

I'm really talking more about the entire mid-cycle period than the actual turnings themselves. Really, a Recovery is 16-19 years, an awakening spreads a little more upward, and an unraveling is a bit more variable.

According to S&H a new turning is arrives when the oldest members of each generation starts moving into a new phase of the life cycle (Childhood, Rising Adulthood, Midlife, Elderhood), this allows the "sparks of history" to trigger a mood shift. In pre-industrial times (according to Mike Alexander and Sean Love (AKA Zarathustra) the length of each life-cycle phase was around 26 years, in the last 180 years it has been 20 years. Each generation is approximately the same as the length of a phase of life.

The only time this has been violated in American history was in the Civil War cycle. During the early 1800s the turning length (and thus the length of generations) shifted from ~27 years to ~ 20 years. This resulted in a 30-year long Transcendentalist generation that was too long for the shortened saeculum, resulting in the Compromise generation aging into irrelevance too early and the Gilded generation not getting the chance of aging into pragmatic midlifers before the Transies triggered an anomalously early crisis that climaxed anomalously early (early because the Gilded weren't old enough at the time to act as the pragmatic midlifers that moderate their elders) and in an intensely brutal fashion.

So, if a 4T falls outside the normal 15-25-year range we should check to see if some kind of generational anomaly occurred.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

To pbrower2a:

Which makes absolute sense. In case you have forgotten, Nomads make up the leadership during 1T periods.

He started out in life as a seminary student. At first glance, that seems way more Prophet than Nomad. But there are always exceptions. In any case, can you speculate as to the dates of the prior Russian turnings in the late 19th century? If you can pin down the prior turning dates, then Stalin's generational archetype should emerge.

Originally Posted by David Krein

Michael Easton wanted me to continue with the Irish Adaptive generation born in the last quarter of the 18th century. What followers is, first, O'Connell's Repeal party in the British House of Commons in the late 1830s-early 1840s, and then some other prominent Liberals from the same period (all with year of birth):

O'Connell, Daniel, 1775; Lalor, Patrick ("Honest Patt"), 1781; O'Brien, Cornelius, 1782; Callaghan, Daniel, 1786; Talbot, John Hyacinth, 1793; O'Connor, Feargus Edward, 1796; McDonnell, Joseph Myles, 1796; Nugent, Sir Percy Fitz-Gerald, 1st Bart. 1797; Sullivan, Richard, 1797.


Duncannon, Viscount, 4th Earl Bessborough, 1781; Pechell, Adm. Sir Samuel John Brooke, 3rd Bt., 1785; Forbes, Gen. Viscount George John, 1785; Pechell, Adm. Sir George Richard, 4th Bart., 1789; Grattan, Henry 1789; Wyse, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas, K.C.B., 1791; Grace, Oliver Dowell John, 1791; Sheil, Rt. Hon. Richard Lalor, 1791; O'Conor, Denis (The O'Conor Don), 1794; O'Ferrall, Rt. Hon. Richard More, 1797; Hill, Rt. Hon. Lord Arthur Marcus Cecil, 1798; Fellowes, Hon. Henry Arthur Wallop; 1799.

I could come up with a list of another 150-160 if you wish (and I have a page of information on each of them, but that would take up a lot of space).

Do you believe the 1798 Rebellion was a Crisis?

I really would like to comment on the following exchange between MichaelEaston & 1990:

MichaelEaston: "I believe most of the countries we do will not have the luxury of a generational analysis (i.e. heroes, nomads etc.)."

1990: "Maybe we should reserve the generational analysis for the U.S. and have all other countries just broken down by turning?"

I'm not familiar with the various Artists of Tajikistan or the Central African Republic. That's what I meant.

I registered a complaint about this some months ago. You cannot call what you are doing generational analysis if you don't analyze the generations. You can call it turning analysis, but you can't have S & H style turnings without generations, and vice versa. It is not a luxury. It is absolutely essential. For example, the only way to verify a 4th Turning is if it produced an Adaptive Generation and the only way to verify a 1st Turning is if it produced an Idealist Generation. If you can't do that, then you are speculating.

I can appreciate all the hard, thoughtful work you guys have put into this project. And it will be a good starting point for generational analysis, but what you have so far is not generational analysis, which, interestingly, you actually admit in your exchange.

Phooey! I agree that a complete generational analysis would go far to support our assertions, but there are definitions to assist in Turning identification. Sometimes the information available to us is ambiguous, other times it smacks you in the face and can be nothing else.

Originally Posted by Odin

According to S&H a new turning is arrives when the oldest members of each generation starts moving into a new phase of the life cycle (Childhood, Rising Adulthood, Midlife, Elderhood), this allows the "sparks of history" to trigger a mood shift.

I agree with you, up to here.

In pre-industrial times (according to Mike Alexander and Sean Love (AKA Zarathustra) the length of each life-cycle phase was around 26 years, in the last 180 years it has been 20 years. Each generation is approximately the same as the length of a phase of life.

And, no?

The only time this has been violated in American history was in the Civil War cycle. During the early 1800s the turning length (and thus the length of generations) shifted from ~27 years to ~ 20 years. This resulted in a 30-year long Transcendentalist generation that was too long for the shortened saeculum, resulting in the Compromise generation aging into irrelevance too early and the Gilded generation not getting the chance of aging into pragmatic midlifers before the Transies triggered an anomalously early crisis that climaxed anomalously early (early because the Gilded weren't old enough at the time to act as the pragmatic midlifers that moderate their elders) and in an intensely brutal fashion.

So, if a 4T falls outside the normal 15-25-year range we should check to see if some kind of generational anomaly occurred.

If an anomaly occurs 60% of the time, it is no anomaly.

Originally Posted by Nomad64

Dear John,

Not off-hand. There would have to be a much more obvious commerical opportunity. I have a few friends who I am trying to persuade do small aspects of the effort.
In addition, that number seems absurdly high considering we should be able to leverage cheap programming, graphic design and project management talent from all over the world at a fraction of the price of NorAmericans.

But if you'd like to run your technical plan and budget by me, I'll make some calls. you know how to reach me on email.

Nomad64, care to assist in a detailed African analysis over a substantial period of time?

Originally Posted by Mustang

He started out in life as a seminary student. At first glance, that seems way more Prophet than Nomad.

Except that he studied there for the money.

From The Wikipedia

Joseph Stalin was born Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili in Gori, Georgia, Russian Empire to Vissarion Dzhugashvili and Ekaterina Geladze. In 1913, he adopted the name Stalin, which is derived from the Russian stal’ (Russian: сталь) for "steel". His mother was born a serf. The other three Dzhugashvili children died young; "Soso" (the Georgian pet name for Joseph), was effectively the only child. Stalin's father Vissarion was a cobbler, who opened his own shop, but quickly went bankrupt, forcing him to work in a shoe factory in Tiflis. (Archer 11) Rarely seeing his family and drinking heavily, Vissarion often beat his wife and small son. One of Stalin's friends from childhood wrote, "Those undeserved and fearful beatings made the boy as hard and heartless as his father." The same friend also wrote that he never saw him cry.
At about seven years of age Stalin fell ill with smallpox and his face was badly scarred by the disease. He later had photographs retouched to make his pockmarks less apparent. In 1888, Stalin's father left to live in Tiflis, leaving the family without support. Rumors said he died in a drunken bar fight; however, others said they had seen him in Georgia as late as 1931. At the age of eight, "Soso" began his education at the Gori Church School.
Joseph and most of his classmates at Gori were Georgian and spoke mostly Georgian. However, at school they were forced to use Russian. Even when speaking in Russian, their Russian teachers mocked Joseph and his classmates because of their Georgian accents. His peers were mostly the sons of affluent priests, officials, and merchants.
He graduated first in his class and at the age of 14 he was awarded a scholarship to the Seminary of Tiflis (Tbilisi, Georgia). Although his mother wanted him to be a priest (even after he had become leader of the Soviet Union), he attended seminary not because of any religious vocation, but because of the lack of locally available university education, in addition to the small stipend from the scholarship Stalin was paid for singing in the choir.

Doesn't sound very Prophet to me...

Originally Posted by Odin

According to S&H a new turning is arrives when the oldest members of each generation starts moving into a new phase of the life cycle (Childhood, Rising Adulthood, Midlife, Elderhood), this allows the "sparks of history" to trigger a mood shift. In pre-industrial times (according to Mike Alexander and Sean Love (AKA Zarathustra) the length of each life-cycle phase was around 26 years, in the last 180 years it has been 20 years. Each generation is approximately the same as the length of a phase of life.
...
So, if a 4T falls outside the normal 15-25-year range we should check to see if some kind of generational anomaly occurred.

I''ve got to ring in with Odin here. The 'phases-of-life' is the driver of the cycle in Generational Theory. If you lose that element, you're without a foundation. Any variability you presume in the lengths of Turnings must be explainable with reference to variability in phases-of-life, or you've left the realm of generational theory...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I''ve got to ring in with Odin here. The 'phases-of-life' is the driver of the cycle in Generational Theory. If you lose that element, you're without a foundation. Any variability you presume in the lengths of Turnings must be explainable with reference to variability in phases-of-life, or you've left the realm of generational theory...

I misspoke earlier. I meant to focus on the beginning and end of the Crisis, and not the three other turnings. Other than that, I agree, it really can't deviate more than five years.

Originally Posted by Mustang

He started out in life as a seminary student. At first glance, that seems way more Prophet than Nomad. But there are always exceptions. In any case, can you speculate as to the dates of the prior Russian turnings in the late 19th century? If you can pin down the prior turning dates, then Stalin's generational archetype should emerge.

First, Stalin may have been sent to a seminary because his mother thought that that would improve his character. He rebelled against the seminary and was expelled.

H&S recognize the 4T/1T transition in America in 1865 (end of the Civil War, assassination of Lincoln) and the 1T/2T transition at the Haymarket Riot (1886) with a vague 2T/3T transition in the middle of the first decade of the 20th century. They are silent on Russia -- but I figure that the Russian generational transitions came earlier. The Crimean War was a Crisis War for Russia, and so drastic a change as the abolition of serfdom in 1861 looks like a Crisis activity. (There was also a huge revolt in the Russian puppet state known as the Kingdom of Poland... a nasty event... in 1861). Then began a 1T... arguably a Russian Renaissance. But it would end when terrorists (one of whom was a brother of Vladimir Ulyanov -- who would later be known as Lenin) assassinated Alexander II in 1881, putting an abrupt end to a Russian "High". Then came a period of political radicalism, religious experimentation, and mysticism -- an Awakening Era.

The Idealist/Reactive divide ordinarily comes three-to-four years before the Awakening Era begins... in America that was between 1882 and 1886, having George Marshall, Douglas MacArthur, and FDR as Idealists. In Russia, that would have Trotsky, Stalin, Kerensky, and Stravinsky (very much a Reactive in lifestyle, politics, and musical language) as Reactives. That explains how I can consider Stalin a Reactive; he may have been born early enough to have become an Idealist in America, perhaps Britain, France, or even Germany or Italy -- but not in Russia. Stalin would become a Reactive like most of his Russian cohort even if he wasn't quite Russian.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

First, Stalin may have been sent to a seminary because his mother thought that that would improve his character. He rebelled against the seminary and was expelled.

H&S recognize the 4T/1T transition in America in 1865 (end of the Civil War, assassination of Lincoln) and the 1T/2T transition at the Haymarket Riot (1886) with a vague 2T/3T transition in the middle of the first decade of the 20th century. They are silent on Russia -- but I figure that the Russian generational transitions came earlier. The Crimean War was a Crisis War for Russia, and so drastic a change as the abolition of serfdom in 1861 looks like a Crisis activity. (There was also a huge revolt in the Russian puppet state known as the Kingdom of Poland... a nasty event... in 1861). Then began a 1T... arguably a Russian Renaissance. But it would end when terrorists (one of whom was a brother of Vladimir Ulyanov -- who would later be known as Lenin) assassinated Alexander II in 1881, putting an abrupt end to a Russian "High". Then came a period of political radicalism, religious experimentation, and mysticism -- an Awakening Era.

The Idealist/Reactive divide ordinarily comes three-to-four years before the Awakening Era begins... in America that was between 1882 and 1886, having George Marshall, Douglas MacArthur, and FDR as Idealists. In Russia, that would have Trotsky, Stalin, Kerensky, and Stravinsky (very much a Reactive in lifestyle, politics, and musical language) as Reactives. That explains how I can consider Stalin a Reactive; he may have been born early enough to have become an Idealist in America, perhaps Britain, France, or even Germany or Italy -- but not in Russia. Stalin would become a Reactive like most of his Russian cohort even if he wasn't quite Russian.

I don't think you understand what I was asking Justin. I am aware of S&H's dates for American turnings, etc., and I have never assumed that all other countries must line up with the US saeculum (quite the contrary). Justin, in my opinion, has made a strong case for the Russian Revolution having occurred during a Russian 4T. I was asking him if he could make a similarly cogent argument for dating the prior Russian 3T and 2T. He might not argue that the Crimean War occurred during a Russian 4T, for example. Just wanted to hear his opinion.

Unfortunately, I know fuck-all about older Russian history. Looking back at the Wikipedia around the time of Stalin's birth I find the following:

Alexander II's reforms, particularly the lifting of state censorship, fostered the expression of political and social thought. The regime relied on journals and newspapers to gain support for its domestic and foreign policies. But liberal, nationalist, and radical writers also helped to mold public opinion that was opposed to tsarism, private property, and the imperial state. Because many intellectuals, professionals, peasants, and workers shared these opposition sentiments, the regime regarded the publications and the radical organizations as dangerous. From the 1860s through the 1880s, Russian radicals, collectively known as народники (Narodnikis), focused chiefly on the peasantry, whom they identified as народ (narod, the people).
The leaders of the Populist movement included radical writers, idealists, and advocates of terrorism. In the 1860s, Nikolai Chernyshevsky, the most important radical writer of the period, posited that Russia could bypass capitalism and move directly to socialism. His most influential work, Что Делать? (What Is to Be Done?, 1863), describes the role of an individual of a superior nature who guides a new, revolutionary generation. Other radicals such as the incendiary anarchist Mikhail Bakunin and his terrorist collaborator, Sergey Nechayev, urged direct action. The calmer Petr Tkachev argued against the advocates of Marxism, maintaining that a centralized revolutionary band had to seize power before capitalism could fully develop. Disputing his views, the moralist and individualist Petr Lavrov made a call "to the people," which hundreds of idealists heeded in 1873 and 1874 by leaving their schools for the countryside to try to generate a mass movement among the narod.

Not terribly un-Awakening-ish.

I think it quite likely that whilst the Russians have Turnings they are not so largely driven or guided by the Generations as in the whiggish lands of the Anglosphere but by the person of the Autocrat.

Hence:

High/Reform begins in ~2000 -- Putin

Crisis begins in ~1975 -- Gorbo/Yeltsin Utopia 2.99

Unravelling begins in 1945 -- Khrushchev Utopia 2.12 Goulash Build

Awakening begins in 1915 -- Lenin/Trotsky/Stalin Utopia 2.0 in Power

High/Reform begins in ~1885 -- Alexander III, Nicholas II

Crisis begins in ~1855-56 -- Alexander II

Unravelling begins in ~1825 -- Nicholas I

Awakening begins in ~1795 -- Alexander I, Utopia 1.0

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Unfortunately, I know fuck-all about older Russian history. Looking back at the Wikipedia around the time of Stalin's birth I find the following:Not terribly un-Awakening-ish.

It's been a long time since I have been moved to read any Russian history, so I have had a lot of reading to do this morning. Mr. Saari appears to be right. The 19th century turnings do appear to largely follow the personal caprices of the individual tsars. Alexander II's reign, with its great reforms, does indeed resemble a 2T (relatively speaking) while the succession of Alexander III ushers in a return to strict rule with the traditional calls for Russian nationalism and Slavic pride (I suppose a rough equivalent to TR and Ronald Reagan bringing on the 3T).

Alexander II ascended to the throne in 1855 and spent his first year concluding a Crimean War peace. Then he promptly began his reforms. So I guess one might date the start of a 2T here to 1856.

Alexander III ascended to the throne in 1881 and either immediately acted to reverse his father's reforms or continued them for a year and began the reversal in 1882 (disputed accounts). So I suppose you would have to end the 2T (and start the 3T) in 1881 or 1882.

I believe one would have to regard the Russo-Japanese War as the 4T catalyst. Afterward, no status quo would hold for very long and the country sunk deeper into crisis. So start the 4T in 1905.

The Soviet situation did not stabilize until Stalin launched his first five year plan in 1928. So I guess one might start a 1T here.

Afterward I guess you would have to start the 2T upon Stalin's death in 1953 with Khrushchev's reforms and de-Stalinization. Perhaps the 3T would start about 1971 (a standard industrial 18-year turning) amidst the economic stagnation and change in foreign policy (detente) of the late '60s and early '70s. Adding 18 more years, we come to 1989, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the beginning of Yeltsin's moves to overpower the Soviet structure and, shortly thereafter, the attempted coup on Gorbachev. I suppose it would make sense that the fall of the Berlin Wall would catalyze a Russian 4T, if Chernobyl had not done so already. Another standard 18-year industrial turning brings us to the present when we would expect Russia to be coming out of the 4T and entering the 1T.

So this is what I have at the moment:

~1856: 2T begins.

1881-1882: 3T begins

1905: 4T begins

~1928: 1T begins

~1953: 2T begins

~1971: 3T begins

~1989: 4T begins

~2007: 1T begins


I don't know, it's something to think about. But what about the prior Crisis? I suppose one might go with the Napoleonic Wars after 1805, with the 4T beginning in 1805. I don't get the idea that Russia was continually in crisis, but I guess you would extend the 4T through the Decembrist Revolt of 1825. The perpetrators were executed in 1826 and a new period of strict rule ensued. So perhaps the 1T here started about 1826.

It would be nice to see if Mike Alexander's system can pinpoint Russian turnings and perhaps clarify the picture.

Almost forgot! What would Stalin's archetype be in such an arrangement? If Stalin were born in 1878 or 1879, and if a 3T began in 1881 or 1882, then he would appear to be right on the Nomad/Hero cusp.

Originally Posted by Mustang

The Soviet situation did not stabilize until Stalin launched his first five year plan in 1928. So I guess one might start a 1T here.

Afterward I guess you would have to start the 2T upon Stalin's death in 1953 with Khrushchev's reforms and de-Stalinization. Perhaps the 3T would start about 1971 (a standard industrial 18-year turning) amidst the economic stagnation and change in foreign policy (detente) of the late '60s and early '70s. Adding 18 more years, we come to 1989, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the beginning of Yeltsin's moves to overpower the Soviet structure and, shortly thereafter, the attempted coup on Gorbachev. I suppose it would make sense that the fall of the Berlin Wall would catalyze a Russian 4T, if Chernobyl had not done so already. Another standard 18-year industrial turning brings us to the present when we would expect Russia to be coming out of the 4T and entering the 1T.

So this is what I have at the moment:

~1856: 2T begins.

1881-1882: 3T begins

1905: 4T begins

~1928: 1T begins

~1953: 2T begins

~1971: 3T begins

~1989: 4T begins

~2007: 1T begins

Not quite (at least according to what I can glean). It seems as if the generational mood was ready for 2T by the late 40s. But under Stalin, there was no way for it to express itself. So while his death and the subsequent loosening under successors allowed the 2T to become apparent, its duration was necessarily a bit reduced. I'd call the end of it sometime in the mid-60s (the borders between 2Ts and 3Ts can be among the toughest to pick out; but by the 70s the social energy was very much Unravelling). Afghanistan was a definite 3T war from start to end, and arguably its bad ending was the spark that touched the powderkeg that culminated in the final ending of the USSR. It's safe to say that the 4T mood was well in place by the death of Brezhnev (though again, due to the nature of the system, it was perhaps not as visible from the outside until the political situation had a chance to change). The 4T shakeout had its last spurt in the 98 Default and subsequent settling of the Establishment; and since the very early 2000s they've followed the course thus set out with the kind of inertia that characterizes a 1T. We're definitely at least a few years into that...

Originally Posted by 1990

Mexico Turnings and Generations


Here is the second-to-last Mexican saeculum. The most recent will be posted later today.


1808-1829: War of Independence (Crisis)

Encouraged by growing instability in Spain stemming from a Madrid revolt, pro-independence forces in Mexico began mobilizing for a massive rebellion. In 1810 Father Miguel Hidalgo launched the uprising, and despite his execution a year later, the struggle repeatedly found new champions during the next decade. Independence was finally achieved when General Agustín de Iturbide, a former pro-Spanish royalist, signed an 1821 compromise by which Mexico would gain self-rule as a limited monarchy with relative class equality. Iturbide ruled as emperor for just a year before being forced to abdicate to Guadalupe Victoria as the first President of the Republic.

Gray Champion: Miguel Hidalgo

Child Generation: The Reform Generation (Artist) of 1857-1872 President Benito Juárez grew up watching colonial rule fall and a new republic struggle with an extraordinarily rough post-independence. Later in life they broke free from a painful coming-of-age to become the great reformers of the liberal era, helping dislodge the European monarchy and always working to improve Mexican society for the masses.

1829-1855: Divisions & Mexican-American War (Recovery)

In one of the world’s most troubled Recovery eras of all time, Mexico found itself immediately confronted with daunting challenges, including an anemic economy, deep and ever-worsening political fault lines, and a northern rebellion originating in Texas. War with the United States was further disastrous for the new nation, though it did have a temporary unifying effect in reconfirming Mexico’s independence and reviving feelings of national pride.

Child Generation: The Porfirio Generation (Prophet) is so named because of its most famous member, longtime President Díaz. They were raised with unusual protection for a Prophet generation due to the harsh conditions of Mexico’s first Recovery, and came of age with passionate pro-individual politics. As youth they fought in both the Reform War and against Maximilian’s European monarchy, and later became the great moralists of the Porfiriato, debating with staunch conviction the merits of Díaz’s dictatorship and the state of the nation.

1855-1884: Era of Reform (Awakening)

This Awakening began with the overthrow (in the Revolution of Ayutla) of longtime on-again, off-again President Antonio López de Santa Anna by liberals and the subsequent Reform War which prompted European intervention. The overthrow of the short-lived Maximilian monarchy in 1862 ushered in a new era of liberal dominance and social reforms. The mood began to soften when General Porfirio Díaz won power in an 1876 rebellion, and ended when he re-won power (this time for good) in 1884.

Child Generation: The Revolutionary Generation (Nomad) was nearly abandoned as children as internal ideological wars dominated Mexican life. They came of age seen by their elders as undereducated and under-civilized ruffians, and later in life produced the key figures of the Mexican Revolution, from the populist Francisco Madero to the ruthless Victoriano Huerta, the radical Pancho Villa and Emiliano Zapata, and the pragmatic Plutarco Elías Calles.

1884-1910: The Porfiriato (Unraveling)

Díaz’s long hold on the presidency is known as the Porfiriato era. While he presided over prosperity, peace, and strong economic growth, his business-friendly policies widened class divisions and income gaps, as well as badly hurting rural agricultural workers. By the end of the Porfiriato, dissatisfaction with Díaz’s dictatorial regime was fomenting an underground revolutionary movement.

Child Generation: The PRI Generation (Hero) of Lázaro Cárdenas and Adolfo Ruiz Cortines grew up with increasing protection while class, racial, and ideological tensions rose steadily within an anxious populace and an eerie political calm. They came of age as determined foot soldiers for battling camps in the Revolution; later in life, they were the hubristic and ambitious leaders of one-party Mexico, popular during the PRI’s peacetime heyday but attacked as student activity grew and ubiquitous corruption was challenged.

What is with the ridiculously long turnings?

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

What is with the ridiculously long turnings?

Mr. Saari is an Agrarian yeoman farmer who yearns for the longer, less artificial rhythms of yore.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Not quite (at least according to what I can glean). It seems as if the generational mood was ready for 2T by the late 40s. But under Stalin, there was no way for it to express itself. So while his death and the subsequent loosening under successors allowed the 2T to become apparent, its duration was necessarily a bit reduced. I'd call the end of it sometime in the mid-60s (the borders between 2Ts and 3Ts can be among the toughest to pick out; but by the 70s the social energy was very much Unravelling). Afghanistan was a definite 3T war from start to end, and arguably its bad ending was the spark that touched the powderkeg that culminated in the final ending of the USSR. It's safe to say that the 4T mood was well in place by the death of Brezhnev (though again, due to the nature of the system, it was perhaps not as visible from the outside until the political situation had a chance to change). The 4T shakeout had its last spurt in the 98 Default and subsequent settling of the Establishment; and since the very early 2000s they've followed the course thus set out with the kind of inertia that characterizes a 1T. We're definitely at least a few years into that...

Wow! What divergences we have on Russian history as seen through the generational focus.

Russia (or the USSR) has been a Big Player in European history since the time of Peter the Great... and it's likely to be a Big Player in the coming Crisis. To be sure, despotic rule and official concealment of reality have frequently masked some of the character of Russia.

It's hard to see any Awakening Era in Soviet times. At the time in which the West was having its 2T, the Soviet secret police seem to have suppressed any semblance of a 2T. Awakening Eras must have seemed evidence of decadence to hard-line Marxists like Brezhnev who held that "socialism" needed no cultural ferment. After all, the Soviet Union had long presented itself as the definitive example of social justice and economic propriety, one in no need of basic changes -- even cultural ones.

So it remains... the postwar era of cultural staleness and social repression that began soon after World War II -- if not earlier -- remained in place. If Awakening Eras can be deferred (Salazar's Portugal until 1974, Franco's Spain until 1975), perverted (China's "Cultural Revolution"), suppressed (Czechoslovakia after 1968, Pinochet's Chile after 1973), or interrupted (the Greek Colonels' regime between 1967 and 1974), then can a system like the Soviet Union defer a 2T by suppression until a 2T is no longer possible? What are the consequences? Is what might otherwise be an Idealist generation weakened? Or turned into something different?

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Mr. Saari is an Agrarian yeoman farmer who yearns for the longer, less artificial rhythms of yore.

That's quite alright but what does it have to do with 1990?

1990, what we may need is a 'post-unraveling' era. Do you read me?

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wonkette
Mr. Saari is an Agrarian yeoman farmer who yearns for the longer, less artificial rhythms of yore.

That's quite alright but what does it have to do with 1990?

I was explaining why Mr. Saari tends toward the long turnings.

If Turnings are not driven by Generations in a system/culture/polity where an Autocrat rules by ukase and is not so hampered by the Generations that precede and follow on but by Personalism (difficulty with and/or admiration of the previous Autocrat) they would take upon themselves the Character of the Autocrat:

Peter I - Nomad - Unravelling - ~1705
Elisabeth I - Hero - Crisis - ~1735

Catherine II - Artist - Reform/High - ~1765
Alexander I - Prophet - Awakening - ~1795
Nicholas I - Nomad - Unravelling - ~1825
Alexander II - Hero - Crisis - ~1855

Alexander III/Nicholas II - Artist - Reform/High - ~1885
V.I. Lenin/Leon Trotsky/Stalin - Prophet - Awakening - ~1915
N. Khrushchev/Solzhenitsyn - Nomad - Unravelling - ~1945
Gorbachev/Yeltsin - Hero - Crisis - ~1975

Putin/??? - Artist - Reform/High - ~2000

I think that the Russian Autocrat is allowed to follow the impulse of his youth for better or worse (usually the case) and the Prophet is allowed sway in the Awakening rather than coming into his own in the Unravelling as in the whiggish lands where Generations hold power as Generations.

Then the Nomad in reaction follows as Autocrat in the Unravelling; the Hero as Autocrat in Crisis, and the Artist as Autocrat in the Reform aka High. The veneers of Progress attached by Scientific Socialism and Market Democracy imported from Whig World are just that, veneers. The Russian is not a Vermonter on a different land mass, but in a Turning of another more Personalist construction. IMNSHO.

But, it may be that there is no Variety in the peoples and cultures of the Planet and the Russians are just Whigs in fancy dress.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

It's hard to see any Awakening Era in Soviet times. At the time in which the West was having its 2T, the Soviet secret police seem to have suppressed any semblance of a 2T.

Seems to have from the outside. Then again, they also managed to keep the CIA from seeing the crumbling of their economy and military up until the very end. Marc's point about the datasets available to us is a very valid one.

If it's culture you're looking for, there was a definite explosion even in the approved media during the Soviet 2T. If it's opposition to the Establishment paradigm -- that's what characterized the Brezhnev era. It maybe doesn't look like it to the outside observer; but society isn't about outside observers. I could point, for just the smallest glimpse, to the effect of the so-called Khrushchev Thaw on the arts.
The people who lived through it describe it in much the same way as do Americans who lived through their 2T. What's more to argue?