Originally Posted by Neil Howe

Pioner (Pioneer) Generation, born c. 1946-1967; today aged 38 to 59. Notable members: Vladimir Putin (b. 1952); Vladimir Zhirinovsky (b. 1946); Yegor Gaidar (b. 1956), author of Russia’s “Shock Therapy” economic program; Mikhail Khodorkovsky (b.1963), CEO of Yukos Oil.

Closest U.S. parallel: Boomer Generation.

When the new children born after World War II arrived at school dressed in “Young Pioneer” uniforms, they embodied every Russian’s high hopes for the future. They grew up during an era of social unity, of strong patriotism, and, by the late 50s and early 60s, of cultural relaxation and greater openness to the West. This relatively sunny childhood suddenly ended around the time of Brezhnev’s violent suppression of Czechoslovakia’s Prague Spring. Subsequently, say many Pioner, their life story was marked by disillusionment, growing pessimism, and an inward withdrawal of trust in the system. The alienation was especially intense for late-wave Pioner, who came of age with the disastrous Afghanistan war and the Chernobyl catastrophe.

This is very interesting. I wonder if our Russian friend is present (I have no idea how old he is, or for that matter how he came across the Theory or this site [but he has fine observations about firearms]).

I wish I had invited my east German boomer cousin (and his millenial translator son).

It's my view that communism had unusual metabolic effects on people.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Matt,



I remember that, but it later didn't make sense, and later I decided
it made more sense this way. What do you think?

Sincerely,

John

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

I'm not too sure. The Mob, automatically cleansed of hypocrisy, certainly represents the Hero generation; but as for the other two, I can't tell.

As the Millenials come-of-age and reach their rising adulthood chrylisis, what current cultural obsceneties will they tame and sanitize? What values from the prior Awakening will we institutionalize into our society, and what form will the new "Social Consensus" take? As the public begins to focus outward to improving institutions, it will ultimately be us who will determine what is acceptable and what isn't. One poster already mentioned how Millenials have reinvented hip-hop music by removing some of its more controversial elements (just as how G.I.s stripped the Lost-made Jazz music of its sexual denotation and sanitized it into cheerful swing music) but could other practices, such as the recreational use of marajuana, become legalized under a Millenial-reformed cutlure? Take alcoholism and cigarettes as a precedent. When the GIs entered high schools en masse during the 1920s, alcoholism was vehemently prohibited and cigarettes were considered "provocative." Drinking was associated with the hedonism of immigrants and the decadence of speakeasies, while cigarettes became synanomous with scandalous flappers (photographs of elegantly dressed ladies posing with cigarettes became popular). But these "moral scourges" became sources of leisure, once GIs began to dictate new terms for mainstream culture. Prohibition was repealed and drinking became an innocent pastime for the "average man" returning from war. Smoking became more commonplace (both for men and women) appearing in theaters, sport games, schools, public facilities, colleges, and even hospitals - well before the harzards of second-hand smoke were known.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Speaking of comedy...

the Silent were the masters. Allowing for a handful of GI outliers (Don Adams, Don Knotts, Leslie Nielsen, Rodney Daingerfield) -- I notice Johnny Carson, Andy Griffith, Don Rickles, Joan Rivers, Dick Van Dyke, Alan King, Jerry Lewis, Tim Conway, Mary Tyler Moore, John Denver, Phil Newhart, George Carlin, Woody Allen, Alan Alda, Bill Cosby, Flip Wilson, and Richard Pryor. Maybe Barbra Streisand, in a way. Comedy isn't easy, and when the timing goes, then the best that one can do is to crack jokes -- and not very well.

Some are dead; some wisely no longer do comedy; and the rest seem not to do it well. (I saw a televised routine by Bill Cosby recently -- and it was awful!) They well served us by keeping us from getting too full of ourselves. Boom and X figures may be reasonably good at physical comedy and may have some good material -- but they just aren't as good as the Silent and late-wave GIs at keeping an audience from getting too full of themselves.

Somehow I think that this comedy will be the greatest legacy of the Silent in culture. I think that some of us already miss it.

Along the same lines, in sociology, the Silent left a tremendous legacy in rejuvenating the discipline. Something about their position in life allowed them an ability to analyze society sincerely, but not quite so morally as the boomers that followed. I would be interested, if still online, to hear the authors say something about academics in general, and sociology in particular (if possible).

To answer a few very disparate questions:

The most millennialized celebrities, without doubt, are the cast of Disney's High School Musical, and that's no accident. They are very post-Britney, and were selected in part on the basis of their winning offstage personalities. Emma Roberts, Danica Patrick, LeBron James, and Reggie Bush are also very Millennial celebrities.

On the Boomer to Gen-X boundary (a popular topic over the past two days!), the timing of generations and turnings has been imprecise over history. Usually, a new generation's first birthyear arises two-to-seven years before the start of the next turning. Neil and I settled on 1964 as the first year of the Awakening because that was the year the after-effects began to be felt from the John Kennedy Assassination, a settled political consensus (with G.I.s in clear dominance) emerged from that year's election, and the Beatles launched the British invasion. It is, of course, true that every successive year from then to 1971 revealed a deepening of the awakening mood.

As for on-line dating, the Boomers actually began the practice of what was then called "computer dating" back in the late 1960s. A close friend of mine was one of the first entrepreneurs, and I was one of his earliest customers. (No, I didn't meet my wife that way....) The digitalization of relationships has been mastered by Gen-X entrepreneurs, and Millennials are now stepping into the twentysomething age bracket from which many of the customers come. What we're likely to find, as Millennials age through this, is an increasing intensity of the media spotlight, a gradual taming of the genre, and a re-norming of dating relationships.

One of the struggles, for Millennials, is to deal with the differences between real and virtual relationships. They are also having to cope with new privacy issues related to the internet (for example, the risk that a predator may lurk on MySpace, or a prospective employer may read their Facebook page or a blog they posted somewhere). What they do with online dating, when their own entrepreneurs assert themselves, may reveal something far different, and more conventional, than what we now see there.

Originally Posted by William Strauss

As for on-line dating, the Boomers actually began the practice of what was then called "computer dating" back in the late 1960s. A close friend of mine was one of the first entrepreneurs, and I was one of his earliest customers.

Gee, me too.

John

How does this decade compare to the 1980s and 1990s so far?

Dear Bill and Neil,

Several times you've mentioned some memos that you've written on
analyses of other countries. Can we view those anywhere?

Sincerely,

John

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

Oh yes, sincerity is a Silent hallmark. Recall the "sincere ties" of the 1950s.

Academe remains one of the few realms where that generation still has influence. Of all the generations, the Silent seem to have the greatest difficulty understanding Millennials. (They also tend to reveal the greatest doubts about our theory of generations and turnings.)

Silent trustees have tolerated the vast runup in tuition and student debt over the past quarter century, utterly oblivious to their own experience with debt... which is to say, not having any. Americans who finished schooling by 1965 carried no student debt whatsoever, even if they graduated from business, law, or medical schools. When Gen-X parents hit campus, brace for a collision between them and a Silent-Boomer academic hierarchy.

The Silent are the wealthiest generation alive today, and by far the wealthiest elders in our nation's history, in relation to the young. They have had a lifetime of good fortune in the economy, from defined-benefit pensions to appreciated housing assets. Nearly the entire increase in per-capita income over the past two decades has gone to the over-65 age bracket. When they were young, it was standard practice for young workers (overwhelmingly male) to exceed the peak of their parents' earning capacity, and to live in better homes than their parents, by age 30. That wasn't the case with any successor generation, and it's sure not the case with Millennials. Houses in many cities that cost young Silent buyers roughly twice their entry-level salaries, nearly everywhere, now cost young Millennial buyers as much as twenty times their entry-level salaries, depending on the community.

Originally Posted by William Strauss

Millennials are more willing to trade liberty for security than older people. That's a tendency of this generation that could have chilling consequences down the road, and it concerns me far more than flipflops, cellphones and iPods. That's a key reason why arts education is so important for today's young people. They need not only to become scientists and engineers and public officials and police, but also poets and playwrights and novelists and songwriters. In time, digital-mobile technologies will be in their hands, to use for positive or negative purposes. Up to now, much of what they have done to use them for civic purpose has been laudable,... but one can imagine them crossing a line, someday, to where their civic purpose becomes overbearing, even dangerous. Let's hope that the two generations born after them can keep them in check.

Aside from the debasement of popular culture in Germany before the rise of the Antichrist (I concur with Xenakis' citation of Hannah Arendt on Brecht's Three-penny Opera as well as the vile culture depicted in Cabaret) I notice that the German equivalent of our early-wave GI Generation were willing to trade liberty for economic security and structure in life. Although it is easy to lay much of the blame for the rise of Nazism on the German Lost whom World War II had made cynical, one must note that some Germans born early in the early 20th Century were very nasty nazis (Heydrich, Kaltenbrunner, Eichmann).

You are right about the arts -- but literary and visual arts. The Germans and Austrians had their music -- arguably the greatest music ever written, infinitely greater than the hip-hop craze. They loved Beethoven's Ninth but somehow missed the meaning of Schiller's Ode to Joy in the last movement -- that human brotherhood was absolutely necessary for a better world. The Germans had an almost pagan love of nature... yet could not recognize the ugliness of Nazi rhetoric. In some respects they remind me of the 'Alex de Large' character of A Clockwork Orange -- someone who appreciates Beethoven (or Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Schubert, Wagner, and Bruckner) for all the wrong reasons.

However the prospect may tempt older generations to take advantage of Millennial aptitudes for science, mathematics, and engineering at the expense of the humanities we must not allow them to neglect the basis for moral judgment so that they can recognize the immorality of someone who promises prosperity and national greatness at the expense of others. When one considers how badly we Boomers have wielded power, Millennial youth must have some moral compass to avoid following (if not creating) some course sure to lead to catastrophe.

The point about cultural mutation is well-taken, and not just with comic books. Since the late-19th century dawn of the American popular culture, every generation has three decades of touch on the pop culture, one decade in which it's the main consumer of a youth culture created by its next-elders, a second decade in which its older members make the youth culture for its younger members, and a third decade in which it makes the youth culture for those who follow. Along the way, each generation serves as the cultural mentors for their successors. But also, along the way, the thirty- to fortyish generation can have difficulty appreciating how it no longer cuts the coin for the teen mindset. That realization came to the Silent in the mid '60s, to Boomers in the early '80s, and it's coming (albeit a little harder) to Gen Xers now.

Neil and I wrote extensively about this in the book Millennials and the Pop Culture, which we published last year.

The VA Tech shootings will push schools and colleges more in the direction they have already been moving--toward greater sheltering, hi-tech surveillance, zero-tolerance monitoring, and the like. Companies are already at work developing instant broadcasting that can reach every student simultaneously through beepers and cell phones and remote locks than can literally "shut down" an entire campus with one flick of a button. Another trend it will reinforce is the movement toward more regular feedback and evaluation of very student (both academic performance and emotional health) and more use of group settings (team teaching, group living quarters, living-learning communities, require community service, etc.) that require every student to interact with every other. Xer parents, who will shortly comprise the majority of all parents of new freshmen, will demand both strategies: stricter and higher-tech safety measures and well as closer contact between every student and his or her teacher and counselor. In the aftermath, the question most on parents' minds was: How could the faculty and administrators look the other way when this guy was so obviously non compos mentis. Bottom line: More structure, more group, more protection. For Millennials, more of the same.

A couple of other observations. The VA shooting cohorts were later-born than the Columbine student cohorts (1986-88 for VA Tech vs. cusper 1981-83 for Columbine). This difference may help explain why the media treatment of the VA victims was so much more sympathetic than the very "Gen-Y" treatment of Columbine victims. The VA victims were nearly all portrayed as really good kids with very conventional, all-America life goals. The lives of the Columbine victims, not so much.

Also, one couldn't help but notice that the people most critical of the University rules and the President were the Boomer moms and dads and many of the Boomer media. Whereas the people who most quickly defended the college and its administrators were the students themselves. What a reversal from the '60s! I am reminded of the recent and very touching issue of Newsweek in which the families of young soldiers killed in Iraq allowed their "in case of death" letters be published. Time and again, the young soldiers told their moms and dads not to go blaming the military or the President, that this was their own decision, etc. The tragic story of the Sheehan family may be an extreme example (youth who died in uniform with a midlife mom war protester), but one senses that the underlying generational dynamics show up in lots of families.

Boomers and silents do have a tremendous amount of influence in universities right now, and the Xers that are coming into the faculties tend to self select themselves as inidividuals similar to those older gens.

Given the debt load on students, the consistent inflation in tuition prices, the (potentially mis-)investment in swanky apartments, beautiful student unions, and top level workout facilties, I suspect many colleges may find that when the turning hits them, it will be especially painful.

Would the fact that the silent and boomers are younger than their equivalents were in 1929 mean they would take longer than Xers and millies to enter their 4T roles.

Up to now, Neil and I see the '00s (what we call "the Oh-Ohs") as, mostly, an extension of the third turning mood, with some fourth turning aspects. That could change, and quickly. Generationally, what's happening now is the likely emergence of Homelanders, and the first batch of the Millennials' own children.

Originally Posted by William Strauss

Millennials are more willing to trade liberty for security than older people. That's a tendency of this generation that could have chilling consequences down the road, and it concerns me far more than flipflops, cellphones and iPods.

In a Harris poll of 13-to-18-year-olds taken two weeks after 9/11, only 3% said they would give up being allowed to speak their feelings about the government and only 14% said they would be willing to have their phone calls monitored if it would prevent another 9/11. Would Millennials be more willing to give these liberties up if it were Millies running the government instead of W and the corporations?

Dear Bill,

Originally Posted by William Strauss

> Academe remains one of the few realms where that generation still
> has influence. Of all the generations, the Silent seem to have the
> greatest difficulty understanding Millennials. (They also tend to
> reveal the greatest doubts about our theory of generations and
> turnings.)

In some ways, I've actually found Silents to be the most likely
generation to understand what I'm talking about, although my emphasis
is in a different place. For example, when I talk about China
militarizing, preparing for war with the U.S. for the last 15 years,
threatening us with war over Taiwan over and over and over, and say
that war with China is 100% certain, I get perplexed looks from
Millennials, "you're an idiot" from Xers, and "that's far-fetched"
from Boomers.

But Silents, especially those born before 1935, know very well what
I'm talking about, having lived through the rise of Hitler. They may
disagree with me on details, but not on the danger from China.

Sincerely,

John

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

Methinks any new "liberalism,: foreseeable in the near future, will simply pass post-Vietnam liberals by like a squealing freight train in the night. Just as the "classic liberalism" of the post-Civil War Republicans was ditched in favor of a New Deal, so to the Democratic Party places nothing new on the table, save a false promise for it's next "victim" of America's failure to level the playing field to the natural lowest common denominator.

Good grief, your endless, pathetic victim song gets old fast.

Alas, but, that's all that being discussed here: how to turn the "turning" in favor of the aging liberal reactionaries of the Kifflie brigades. Hey, Pelosi and Reid are you're champions, folks. You can wish they'd package your New Deal a little better, but, sheesh, that's about all you've got these days. A package of ...

That, and a butchered hope based on Strauss & Howe's notion of how the "baby boom" generation is gonna magically turn you're phoney fourth New Deal generation souls into gold.

It's a false hope, folks. But it's one you all seem determined to die with.

This system may be on its last legs. I just got a database
error, and it keeps logging me out.

John

Yes, we basically agree with your assessment that both liberalism and conservatism contributed to the Consciousness Revolution by finding a new anti-establishment message--and a new generation of young leaders (mostly Silent and Boomers) to give voice to that message. The left achieved its goals early in the Con Rev (60s and early 70s); it centered mostly on liberating the culture and relaxing social norms. The right achieved its goals late in the Con Reve (late 70s and early 80s); it centered mostly on liberating the economy and delegitimizing government.

I say that Silent and Boomers were the most conspicuous leaders of these new currents (Silent as articulate pied pipers, Boomers lending their mass and passion). But there were also a few older G.I.s who lent their voice to this new "movement" as well. Rachel Carson was a G.I., as was Dr. Spock and Timothy Leary and Betty Friedan and George McGovern. Also, as you point out, Ronald Reagan was a G.I., as was Goldwater. "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." How's that to warm a Boomer's heart? Reagan, likewise, repeatedly managed to reach out successfully to Boomers (more notably in the 1980 election) while also keeping a decisive edge among older voters. He managed to be quite attractive across several generations--as must any politician who wants to be successful.

I'll let Neil's answer be the last one. This has been an excellent conversation, one we've found very provocative and useful, and we hope the rest of you have, as well.

We'll try to repeat this down the road. Have a great summer, everybody!

Well that was fun, thanks for your time!

The whole internet seems to be sucking ass on my end.

I can't stand the Dennis Hopper "you're not going to retire, your the generation that..." investment commercials.

Any guesses on how the boomers will impact the culture in the next several years? IIRC I don't think you guys would expect the boomers to be go-go-go-we-redefined-everything ppl. Your suggestions were more along the lines of them accepting "authentic" elderhood, but the pop culture and marketing folks haven't gone down that road, at least not yet. any comments?

Thank you very much for joining the conversation again. I had a good time.

Good analysis on the implications of the VA Tech Shootings. I do notice slight differences to the reaction of the Columbine and VA Tech Shootings. Besides having victims of late Millenial cohorts, the VA Tech Shooting happened at a time of growing public anxiety over public safety, as well as the surge of Gen-X faculty into college campuses. We can certainly expect to see more sweeping changes to our college institutions. I just hope that by the time get to college, I won't have to deal with Gen-X push-overs trying to watch my every move You Boomers truly don't know how lucky you were as collegians during your day - first co-ed dorm rooms, liberally-regulated use of marajuana/LSD, and lively campus music. So while you guys had sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll, we have to deal with soaring college tuition, ever-increasing security measures, and of course, push-over disgruntled Boomer/GenX professors

Originally Posted by Neil Howe

Yes, we basically agree with your assessment that both liberalism and conservatism contributed to the Consciousness Revolution by finding a new anti-establishment message--and a new generation of young leaders (mostly Silent and Boomers) to give voice to that message. The left achieved its goals early in the Con Rev (60s and early 70s); it centered mostly on liberating the culture and relaxing social norms. The right achieved its goals late in the Con Reve (late 70s and early 80s); it centered mostly on liberating the economy and delegitimizing government.

I say that Silent and Boomers were the most conspicuous leaders of these new currents (Silent as articulate pied pipers, Boomers lending their mass and passion). But there were also a few older G.I.s who lent their voice to this new "movement" as well. Rachel Carson was a G.I., as was Dr. Spock and Timothy Leary and Betty Friedan and George McGovern. Also, as you point out, Ronald Reagan was a G.I., as was Goldwater. "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." How's that to warm a Boomer's heart? Reagan, likewise, repeatedly managed to reach out successfully to Boomers (more notably in the 1980 election) while also keeping a decisive edge among older voters. He managed to be quite attractive across several generations--as must any politician who wants to be successful.

Agreed. I'd even go further and say that Goldwater and Reagan essentially led a ideological uprising by spirited Southern and Western (Sun Belt) Conservatives of the "New Right," against the Northeastern and Midwestern moderates who dominated the GOP (the "Old Right"). If you really think about it, the first tremors of the Awakening began in earnest with the release of the widely-circulated The Concience of a Conservative in 1960. This was followed by the meteoric rise of Goldwater, who soundly defeated popular Republican moderates Nelson Rockefeller and William Scranton in the 1964 primaries.