Here is a revisiting of the Eight-Generation/Eight-Turning Cycle, in which I have defined an “Age” as consisting of two saecula, each turning mirroring the same turning in the previous saeculum with regard to thinking and feeling.

A Doctrinal Paradigm is dominant whenever society appears on a linear course toward advancement (“Will it work?”), whereas a Moral Paradigm is dominant whenever society appears on a linear course toward atonement (“Is it compassionate?”). This theory is a departure from the S&H theory which extrapolates from the GI-Boomer generation gap that Heroes are always focused on the outer world and Prophets are always focused on the inner.

DOCTRINAL SAECULUM

1T - MORAL HIGH (Paradigm Monopoly)

Society appears morally united. The Moral Paradigm is taken for granted, even while the seeds of the Doctrinal Paradigm are sewn. Generations are as follows:

Moral Prophets (Advocates) disappearing
Counter-Moral Nomads (Administrators) as elders
Moral Heroes (Mentors) in mid-life
Morally-impressed Artists (latent Operators, apparent conservators) entering adulthood
Doctrinal Prophets (Engineers) as youth

Society has survived a moral showdown. The Mentors (Heroes) have reached a consensus regarding the major moral issues. The latent Operators (Artists) are fully established in this paradigm, as conservators. Even the Administrators (Nomads), who spent much of their lives resisting the Moral Paradigm, have accepted it for the sake of there being a single paradigm. With society on an apparent linear path toward spiritual atonement, young Engineers (Prophets) are encouraged to indulge themselves intellectually.

2T - DOCTRINAL AWAKENING (Paradigm Gap)

The Doctrinal Paradigm, as youth come of age, suddenly bursts to the forefront - taking older generations by surprise, and finally supplanting the Moral Paradigm for dominance. The generations are as follows:

Counter-Moral Nomads (Administrators) disappearing
Moral Heroes (Mentors) as elders
Morally-impressed Artists (Operators) in mid-life
Doctrinal Prophets (Engineers) entering adulthood
Counter-Doctrinal Nomads (latent Conservators, apparent entertainers) as youth

As the Engineers come of age, they reject the Moral Paradigm in their pursuit of all things intellectual. This puts them at odds with the Mentors (who can conceive of no other paradigm), whereas the Operators are uniquely capable of appreciating both paradigms. (Following the footsteps of the Mentors, they were reared according to the Moral Paradigm. However, they also enjoy the freedom offered by the Doctrinal Paradigm.) The young latent Conservators (Nomads), in contrast, aren’t established in either paradigm, due to the social upheaval, but particularly resent the new paradigm as a the source of their ills.

3T - MORAL UNRAVELING (Paradigm Coexistence)

As the Doctrinal Paradigm begins to consolidate its gains, doctrinal issues themselves become more controversial and polarizing. These are the issues that have staying power and of which the major political parties market themselves. Meanwhile the Moral Paradigm dissolves, and moral issues (which can now be discussed more openly and with less controversy) become the bases for third parties and other flash-in-the-pan movements.

Generations are as follows:

Moral Heroes (Mentors) disappearing
Morally-impressed Artists (Operators) as elders
Doctrinal Prophets (Engineers) in mid-life
Counter-Doctrinal Nomads (latent Conservators, apparent entertainers) entering adulthood
Doctrinal Heroes (Organizers) as youth

With the Mentors retiring from public influence, the Operators become the final link to the “Old” Moral Paradigm and work diligently to make it co-exist with the “New” Doctrinal Paradigm. Engineers, with great fanfare, redefine midlife. Latent Conservators, meanwhile, come of age as entertainers trying everything they can to slow down the momentum of their next elders’ progress. Thus they are perceived as intellectually shallow. In response, great effort is made by new parents to produce future Organizers who will perfect the Doctrinal Paradigm.

4T - DOCTRINAL CRISIS (Paradigm Closure)

The Moral Paradigm is completely gone. The Doctrinal Paradigm becomes so strong that society is polarized between two doctrinal positions. A showdown occurs until there is resolution. Generations are as follows:

Morally-impressed Artists (Operators) disappearing
Doctrinal Prophets (Engineers) as elders
Counter-Doctrinal Nomads (Conservators) in mid-life
Doctrinal Heroes (Organizers) entering adulthood
Doctrinally-impressed Artists (latent Entertainers, apparent administrators) as youth

With the Operators retiring from public influence, there is no one left to champion the Moral Paradigm. Engineers are now unrestrained in leading society toward a doctrinal showdown, despite whatever hardship might result. Conservators finally accept the Doctrinal Paradigm as inevitable and are prepared to make any other concessions and sacrifices necessary to help society survive in the process of achieving its doctrinal goals. Organizers prove themselves capable of demonstrating teamwork in resolving the Crisis. As a result, they earn the respect of everyone, especially the young latent Entertainers.

MORAL SAECULUM

1T - DOCTRINAL HIGH (Paradigm Monopoly)

Society appears doctrinally united. The Doctrinal Paradigm is taken for granted, even while the seeds of the Moral Paradigm are sewn. Generations are as follows:

Doctrinal Prophets (Engineers) disappearing
Counter-Doctrinal Nomads (Conservators) as elders
Doctrinal Heroes (Organizers) in mid-life
Doctrinally-impressed Artists (latent Entertainers, apparent administrators) entering adulthood
Moral Prophets (Advocates) as youth

Society has survived a doctrinal showdown. The Organizers (Heroes) have reached a consensus regarding the major doctrinal issues. The latent Entertainers (Artists) are fully established in this paradigm, as administrators. Even the Conservators (Nomads), who spent much of their lives resisting the Doctrinal Paradigm, have accepted it for the sake there being a single paradigm. With society on an apparent linear path toward intellectual advancement, young Advocates (Prophets) are encouraged to indulge themselves spiritually.

2T - MORAL AWAKENING (Paradigm Gap)

The Moral Paradigm, as youth come of age, suddenly bursts to the forefront - taking older generations by surprise, and finally supplanting the Doctrinal Paradigm for dominance. The generations are as follows:

Counter- Doctrinal Nomads (Conservators) disappearing
Doctrinal Heroes (Organizers) as elders
Doctrinally-impressed Artists (Entertainers) in mid-life
Moral Prophets (Advocates) entering adulthood
Counter-Moral Nomads (latent Administrators, apparent operators) as youth

As the Advocates come of age, they reject the Doctrinal Paradigm in their pursuit of all things spiritual. This puts them at odds with the Organizers (who can conceive of no other paradigm), whereas the Entertainers are uniquely capable of appreciating both paradigms. (Following the footsteps of the Organizers, they were reared according to the Doctrinal Paradigm. However, they also enjoy the freedom offered by the Moral Paradigm.) The young latent Operators (Nomads), in contrast, aren’t established in either paradigm, due to the social upheaval, but particularly resent the new paradigm as a the source of their ills.

3T - DOCTRINAL UNRAVELING (Paradigm Coexistence)

As the Moral Paradigm begins to consolidate its gains, moral issues themselves become more controversial and polarizing. These are the issues that have staying power and of which the major political parties market themselves. Meanwhile the Doctrinal Paradigm dissolves, and doctrinal issues (which can now be discussed more openly and with less controversy) become the bases for third parties and other flash-in-the-pan movements.

Generations are as follows:

Doctrinal Heroes (Organizers) disappearing
Doctrinally-impressed Artists (Entertainers) as elders
Moral Prophets (Advocates) in mid-life
Counter-Moral Nomads (latent Administrators, apparent operators) entering adulthood
Moral Heroes (Mentors) as youth

With the Organizers retiring from public influence, the Entertainers become the final link to the “Old” Doctrinal Paradigm and work diligently to make it co-exist with the “New” Moral Paradigm. Advocates, with great fanfare, redefine midlife. Latent Administrators, meanwhile, come of age as operators trying everything they can to slow down the momentum of their next elders’ progress. Thus they are perceived as spiritually shallow. In response, great effort is made by new parents to produce future Mentors who will perfect the Moral Paradigm.

4T - MORAL CRISIS (Paradigm Closure)

The Doctrinal Paradigm is completely gone. The Moral Paradigm becomes so strong that society is polarized between two moral positions. A showdown occurs until there is resolution. Generations are as follows:

Doctrinally-impressed Artists (Entertainers) disappearing
Moral Prophets (Advocates) as elders
Counter-Moral Nomads (Administrators) in mid-life
Moral Heroes (Mentors) entering adulthood
Morally-impressed Artists (latent Operators, apparent conservators) as youth

With the Entertainers retiring from public influence, there is no one left to champion the Doctrinal Paradigm. Advocates are now unrestrained in leading society toward a moral showdown, despite whatever hardship might result. Administrators finally accept the Moral Paradigm as inevitable and are prepared to make any other concessions and sacrifices necessary to help society survive in the process of achieving its moral goals. Mentors prove themselves capable of demonstrating teamwork in resolving the Crisis. As a result, they earn the respect of everyone, especially the young latent Operators.

****

From those of you are truly interested in the theory, I desire your feedback on this. Is it plausible? If not, where does it fall short. Is it a better presentation than my earlier thread, or is it just more of the same? Proofreading is also welcome.

Thanks for considering this.
Jack

Your bi-nodal saeculum is probably most suited to investigating the shifts in theology and philosophy. I'm less certain that it tells us about the secular side of life.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Your bi-nodal saeculum is probably most suited to investigating the shifts in theology and philosophy. I'm less certain that it tells us about the secular side of life.

Perhaps my use of the terms "moral" and "doctrinal" will lead some to draw that conclusion. Perhaps there are better terms I could use that would bring more people on board to this APT revision to the S&H theory.

Neil and our late friend Bill were absolute geniuses to notice the generation cycle, and they correctly observed that during this last Awakening, "guilt" replaced "shame," as "feeling" Boomers rebelled against "thinking" GIs. However, they assumed that it was the nature of all Awakenings for guilt to replace shame. So they concluded that the opposite would happen during a Crisis. To support the idea, they predicted that Millennials would "rebel" by conforming.

The problem is that Thinking does not equal conformity; nor does Feeling equal nonconformity. Millennials have embraced, rather than distanced themselves from, Boomer idealism. (If anything, their conformity "rebels" against Xers, who themselves rebelled against Boomers.)

"Morality" can be secular, if it is what people in general believe to be right. Racism is an example of something that society has judged to be immoral, without there needing to be theological implications. Smoking is another example. The fact that both of these are taboo in today's culture is a testament to the staying power of moral issues. In contrast, Prohibition was rejected, not on the basis of it being moral or immoral, but because "it didn't work."

The fact that we are a "morally" driven society is evident in how political issues are sold. Our culture has no passion for dealing with questions regarding America's economic success in the future, but rather dealing with our sins of the past. "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice" have both been sold as "moral" stances, without a lot of regard for a "workable" solution. During the last saeculum, issues such an issue would have been settled quickly, while the America's competitiveness would have gotten the greater attention.

During the Civil War Saeculum (also a Moral Saeculum), slavery was of course a moral issue, but States Rights was also a "moral" issue. From the South's perspective, the states had entered into a contract and it was wrong for the northern states to threaten to renege on that contract. Neither side was particularly planning for the future. Sound like today?

During Doctrinal saecula (e.g., the Reformation, the American Revolution and the Great Power Cycles), the future is the goal. I think that this explanation works well - even for the secular side of life.

Originally Posted by JDW

From those of you are truly interested in the theory, I desire your feedback on this. Is it plausible? If not, where does it fall short. Is it a better presentation than my earlier thread, or is it just more of the same? Proofreading is also welcome.

I think that I understand the central thrust of your thesis. It goes a long way toward explaining which each Saeculum (Awakening -> High) has had the flavor and character that it has.

However, the thing that keeps me from understanding your take on The Theory fully is that I have no real interest in the either Meiers-Briggs or Keirsey personality typing. As a result, many of the archetypes that you use are meaningless to me. In theory, I could turn to the internet to make sense of them, but I know from past experience that every website that I visit will offer a different take on each archetype -- some will be out of alignment with each other, some will be contradictory, and some will be nonsensical.

My suggestion, then, would be to clean up your archetypes and then define them in your terms as you see them and understand them, perhaps with examples.

Actually, this idea has been investigated in the past, more than once. The most recent in the MegaSaeculum thread, and this thread on alternating Awakenings. I'm equally sure I've missed one or two. I seem to remember a very lengthy discussion of this other than the ones I referenced. Perhaps some else remembers.

It may be worth putting them side-by-side and see where they agree and diagree. I think one was four-fold (i.e. four saecula to match the four turnings).

Originally Posted by Semo '75

However, the thing that keeps me from understanding your take on The Theory fully is that I have no real interest in the either Meiers-Briggs or Keirsey personality typing. As a result, many of the archetypes that you use are meaningless to me.
…
My suggestion, then, would be to clean up your archetypes and then define them in your terms as you see them and understand them, perhaps with examples.

While I tried to capture a complete outline for the revised theory in the opening post, it may make more sense at this point to deal only with the dominant archetypes – that is, Prophets and Heroes:

“Engineers” are Prophets who grow up in a world that only knows the Moral Paradigm. When they come of age, they see a world that has not been explored intellectually, and they become the embodiment of a new paradigm for the purpose of doing so. Benjamin Franklin is perhaps the best and most obvious example of an Engineer. Even his contemporaries, evangelists John Wesley and George Whitefield were hardly the romantic types, looking more to the intellectual side of Christian Doctrine. Two saecula ahead of them, Martin Luther and John Calvin took an intellectual approach to the Bible in order to better examine church doctrine, whereas two saecula after Franklin was the famous Darrow-Bryan debate known as the Scopes trial. These all had an intellectual theme to them. FDR, who was no moral crusader, is another example. His mission, of course, was to establish a system to provide an economic fix and to keep foreign powers in check.

“Organizers” are Heroes who have no significant memory of the Moral Paradigm. To them there is only one paradigm, and it is the one that the Engineers introduced, years earlier. The ideas of the Engineers, which are many, need narrowing down to a few. The Organizers, then, see themselves perfecting the Doctrinal Paradigm. Thomas Jefferson comes to mind as one who perfected Benjamin Franklin’s paradigm, setting moral issues aside for the sake of a workable federal government. Likewise, Francis Asbury institutionalized Wesleyanism, spreading an intellectual idea which would later sew seeds of a Moral Awakening, but not bringing it on directly. Two saecula earlier, it those in the wake of Luther and Calvin who produced the King James Bible, which was made available to all classes of people without any specific moral agenda, but would later produce the Puritan Awakening. Think also of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society being a second wave of the New Deal.

“Advocates” are Prophets who grow up in a world that only knows the Doctrinal Paradigm. When they come of age, they see a world that has not been explored emotionally (or “spiritually”), and they become the embodiment of a new paradigm for the purpose of doing so. Lincoln is an obvious example of an Advocate. He took the plight of the slaves to be his own and spent his presidency bringing about their freedom. Oliver Cromwell was another example, seeing to it that King Charles would not be able to interfere with the independent churches. Viet Nam era war protesters are another obvious example.

“Mentors” are Heroes who have no significant memory of the Docrtinal Paradigm. To them there is only one paradigm, and it is the one that the Advocates introduced, years earlier. Mentors are a little harder to understand because other than Millennials, our only historical examples (based on S&H) are the Arthurians and Glorious, for which we don’t perhaps have as much information. As I have stated elsewhere, however, I disagree with S&H’s conclusion that the American Civil War produced no Hero generation. I believe that there was in fact a small generation (which we will call the Anomalies) that included Cleveland and McKinley and had the same qualities as today’s Millennials. It is because they are of a different nature from GIs that Strauss and Howe did not recognize them. These are the ones who were too young to have a significant memory of the Transcendental Awakening, yet were old enough to fight during the Civil War.

They perhaps were not big enough to perfect Lincoln’s moral paradigm, but we can assume they did take ownership of it. (Think of McKinley being the opponent in Engineer W.J. Bryan’s presidential campaign.) Because so little is known about these Moral Heroes, I am having to make assumptions. It is easy to imagine that they considered themselves to have a very complete moral understanding, with which the might mentor future generations. The Artist generation behind them would have been willing learners, but not the Prophets (Engineers) to follow. Think of Cotton Mather not being ready for Franklin, and we have now come full circle.

Each of these dominant archetypes takes its own paradigm very personally, such that they are the incarnations of that paradigm. Prophets become the new paradigm, and later it is the Heroes that become the established paradigm. Nomads and Artists are more in the role of observers. Nomads are more a peace when there is only one paradigm (closed society), while Artists thrive on two (open society).

Hope that helps.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Actually, this idea has been investigated in the past, more than once. The most recent in the MegaSaeculum thread, and this thread on alternating Awakenings. I'm equally sure I've missed one or two. I seem to remember a very lengthy discussion of this other than the ones I referenced. Perhaps some else remembers.

It may be worth putting them side-by-side and see where they agree and diagree. I think one was four-fold (i.e. four saecula to match the four turnings).

I'm not the first one to propose this double-saecula pattern, but I'm not aware of anyone else laying it out in such a way as to explain why it occurs. Therefore it is hard for me to know exactly whether we are all saying the same thing.

The appeal to me of Generations when I read the U.S. News & World Report write-up of it, in 1991 (I think), was the symmetry and the rhythms. That's what I am trying to capture here for ease of discussion. I don't see any rhythm at all to "mega-turnings" although I have used the term to cover periods of history (such as the Middle Ages) that seemed to have a net linear trend over time.

It occurs to me that while Americans in general are experiencing a Moral Saeculum, blacks may very well be experiencing a Doctrinal Saeculum. While most Americans are "guilt" driven, blacks appear to be "shame" driven. (This would be the reverse of the last Saeculum.) This might explain an apparent paradigm-gap between blacks and whites. Whites tend to see progress in the form of better race relations (thus assuaging their guilt), while blacks see progress in terms of their advancement (thus assuaging their shame). This might explain why blacks and whites tend to interpret events differently.

Following the logic of all this, is it possible that the African American doctrinal saeculum slightly lags the western moral saeculum (as do Russia and China)? If so, then it may hold true that Martin Luther King, Jr. was not an Artist, but a Hero - and not only that, but a Mentor as I have defined it above (as would be Malcolm X).

Whereas, the Boom Awakening was made obvious by the rebellion of Boomers against GIs, perhaps there was a subcultural awakening among blacks that did not involve rebellion against their mentors, but a change in focus - from equality to advantage. If that's the case, then Obama is a black Prophet, and as such is not a Boomer-style idealist, but a pragmatist of the first order. Things make a lot more sense from this perspective.

Originally Posted by JDW

It occurs to me that while Americans in general are experiencing a Moral Saeculum, blacks may very well be experiencing a Doctrinal Saeculum. While most Americans are "guilt" driven, blacks appear to be "shame" driven. (This would be the reverse of the last Saeculum.) This might explain an apparent paradigm-gap between blacks and whites. Whites tend to see progress in the form of better race relations (thus assuaging their guilt), while blacks see progress in terms of their advancement (thus assuaging their shame). This might explain why blacks and whites tend to interpret events differently.

If blacks are in the Doctrinal Saeculum, then it follows that the previous one was a Moral one. Perhaps that is true, and many felt guilt for being black. But I don't think that it was guilt driven because blacks had nothing to be guilty about. Also, I don't think that the differences you mentioned above are due to saeculum differences, but rather due to the fact that historically (and still today) there remains a large cultural and geographic gap between blacks and whites. During the Civil Rights and Black Power revolutions, whites were made to feel guilty about their repressive actions, and many blacks were made to feel shameful about not being black enough. But I don't think that there is necessarily a difference between how they view racial progress. You can't have one without the other. And there is no real paradigm-gap.

Rather, there is a geographic gap. From the beginning of time (which means, in this context, the beginning of this nation), blacks and whites have been segregated to some degree. In the 20th century, this division was geographic. Blacks lived in primarily black areas, and whites lived in white areas. For the most part, this is still true. Today, black kids are likely to go to schools that are more than 90% black, and whites tend to go to schools that are more than 90% white. Racial integration has largely failed. We have integrated workplaces, but our schools and neighborhoods are still segregated. I would have to say that in South St. Louis, residential integration appears to be a success, but in most other places in the metroplex, there is strong racial segregation.

And because of this segregation, they tend to see things slightly differently. A new word for blacks living in distressed urban neighborhoods describes their life conditions. That word is hypersegregation. People living in hypersegregated areas are not exposed to many white people (or people of other races), so there is little reason to believe that better race relations will help. When you are around them everyday, and interact with them, then better relations makes sense. And when you see only other black people, where whites seem to be a distant presence, the most obvious thing is advancement. Also, given the conservatism of the last 40 years, black people have begun to give up WRT race relations, believing that whites will do nothing to help them improve their situation.

Whites, however, seem reluctant to go into distressed urban neighborhoods. From what I hear, this fear doesn't exist as much in the South as it does in the northern regions, but many fear that by venturing into one of these neighborhoods, they will be robbed or killed. And many are unable to relate to living in distressed, hypersegregated neighborhoods. And many tend to believe that blacks have achieved equality. So the only thing left to do is to improve race relations.

The apparent paradigm gap is due to the fact that blacks and whites are still largely segregated. They do not really understand what each other goes through in life. That accounts for the differences.

Following the logic of all this, is it possible that the African American doctrinal saeculum slightly lags the western moral saeculum (as do Russia and China)? If so, then it may hold true that Martin Luther King, Jr. was not an Artist, but a Hero - and not only that, but a Mentor as I have defined it above (as would be Malcolm X).

No. MLK and MX are both Silent. The black GIs definitely had a Civic attitude, and made the fight for black equality and justice one of the major movements of the Crisis period. During the Crisis period, the fight for Civil Rights was not merely a movement upon itself, but was a part of the fight for social and economic justice. This was the heyday of Popular Front radicalism. The Civil Rights Movemet (the '50s and '60s) is more of a First Turning war than anything else. The aim was to finish the battle that had been raging in 1930s and 1940s America. Through this lens, the Civil Rights Movement was a battle whose purpose was to reinforce the new global postwar order, one in which racism was no longer acceptable. Keep in mind that MLK was a very young guy in the 1950s. Also, keep in mind that the GIs have been the "machine" behind the movement, and that those marching in the 1950s have been empowered by their participation in World War II and by the anti-racist activism. These people founded organizations such as CORE, and were trained in places like the Highlander Folk School.

MLK and MX were both preachers. MLK, for most of his activist life, seemed to associate more with older than younger people. This makes sense, especially considering that MLK was helping to finish a battle started by black (and white) GIs during the late 1920s, using techniques that had been developed and used by Popular Front activists. MX, OTOH, associated more with younger people. Where MLK's groups tended to be GI and Silent, MX was Silent and Boomer. MX spoke to a new Boomer mindset of rage and spiritualism. The activists born from 1943 and afterwards were clearly Boomers. No doubt about it. These were the people who coalesced under the banner and ideology of Black Power, and under the new spiritual regime of "soul". Soul was something black people had and white people didn't (according to many black Boomers).

Also, the black saeculum doesn't lag simply because blacks and whites have tended to break out generationally at the same time. Blacks and whites were thrown into Crisis at the same time, and exited at the same time. The Watts riots and the 1966 birth of Black Power matches the birth of the SDS and the Summer of Love. The Xers emerged and broke out at the same time across racial boundaries. As S&H have stated, blacks contribution to a new mood is disproportionate to their actual numbers, and this was observable during any period.

Whereas, the Boom Awakening was made obvious by the rebellion of Boomers against GIs, perhaps there was a subcultural awakening among blacks that did not involve rebellion against their mentors, but a change in focus - from equality to advantage. If that's the case, then Obama is a black Prophet, and as such is not a Boomer-style idealist, but a pragmatist of the first order. Things make a lot more sense from this perspective.

Actually, there was a rebellion. But it was kept low-key because Boomer blacks wanted to display racial solidarity. It was the same reason that black Boomers usually did not openly attack the criminal element of Black Xers. The gap was between older (Silent and GI) blacks who trusted the system much more and who accepted the majorian culture and younger (Boomer) blacks who did not trust the system, who were against the national culture, and who were much more cynical and impatient. I'm sure Kevin Parker could tell you that there was a gap within the black community. During the 1950s, it was assumed that blacks were a part of (or wanted to be a part of) the central culture. And to blacks during that time, this was progress. But the Boomers rejected the majorian culture as being racist, and attacked those (mostly older, but often similarly aged) blacks who tried to be a part of it. Those who wanted to be a part of it were attacked as "wanting to be white" and for "rejecting their blackness". There was a fear that black culture could disappear through integration. And older blacks similarly attacked younger blacks for being too impatient, angry, for the destructive riots in their communities, etc. Older blacks feared that young Boomer blacks would destroy everything they've worked hard and tirelessly to build since the late 1920s, and all of the progress the black GIs have worked for would quickly go down to toilet. I don't think that there was a change of focus from equality to advantage. I don't see the shift. Both elements have always been there, side by side, at all times. Black Boomers are very cynical that they will ever be accepted as true partners to their white peers, and most were shocked that Obama made it as far as he did.

And a generation gap exists between Xer Blacks and Boomer Blacks. Again, most of the gap has been low key. During the 1960s, Black Boomers never could've imagined that by 1993, blacks would sing (or, more accurately, rap) about killing other blacks, that they would routinely call each other the "n word" in their songs, or that they would routinely refer to black women as "bitches and hoes". Bill Cosby, as much as he has been attacked by blacks for telling blacks to take responsibility, is merely saying what Black Boomers have been telling Black Xers for over two decades (but not in front of white people, of course).

And again, there is a new "gap" emerging between the Millennial Blacks and older ones, although the gap is much more narrow. I would suspect that many Black Boomers have misgivings about Obama, thinking that he has not had "the black experience", and that he is "too white". But most will go along. This gap is reminiscent of the 1930s gap between Du Bois and the GIs. Du Bois was more believing in the notion of "black identity", while the GI activists rejected identity politics and worked to destroy the idea.

It makes sense to me, it would explain my strong "from the gut" moralistic streak. I contradict the "Atheist = Amoral" meme so much it's hilarious.

Originally Posted by Mr. Reed

I would suspect that many Black Boomers have misgivings about Obama, thinking that he has not had "the black experience", and that he is "too white". But most will go along. This gap is reminiscent of the 1930s gap between Du Bois and the GIs. Du Bois was more believing in the notion of "black identity", while the GI activists rejected identity politics and worked to destroy the idea.

Funny. For this Boomer, the facts that Mr. Obama is of mixed-race, doesn't hail from a ghetto and isn't a product of slavery, are all major positives, not negatives. If I have any misgivings about him at all, it's that he went out of his way to embrace a "black experience" not his own... by joining an all-black church led by a firebrand racialist pastor, and marrying into a very black family rooted on Chicago's South Side ("For the first time in my life, I am proud to be an American").

I too will "go along", but not upon instruction from the so-called "Black Community"... I neither bow to, nor take marching orders from, any individual or group. Rather, I will vote for Obama because I believe he represents the best hope for the Nation at a time in the Saeculum when transcendental leadership is needed the most.

Good job, Robert! You've pretty well blown apart my idea concerning blacks and whites being on different saecula, and you've also provided me with some good information to chew on. W.E.B. Du Bois, for example, clearly fits the mold of a Doctrinal Prophet. You're presentation is thorough, and you have obviously put a lot of thought into it. Thank you, sir.

P.S. Don't go away. I'll be asking you some follow up questions.

I can't remember which book it was where the authors stated that in an open society people would feel guilt over what they did to avoid shame, while in a closed society they would feel shame over what they did to avoid guilt. (I must admit I did not grasp the concept when I first read it.) At any rate, I believe that the former situation actually expresses the Moral Paradigm, and the latter the Doctrinal Paradigm. In defining the current saeculum to be "guilt-driven," I thank Mr. Reed for bringing it to my attention that "guilt" need not be self-directed. I also want to state that while I have a definite opinion regarding moral issues, I prefer to lay them aside for the sake of an objective discussion. (Perhaps shame and guilt can best be illustrated through the observation that shame was imposed upon blacks by whites during the last saeculum, while guilt has been imposed upon whites by blacks during the current saeculum.)

During the Civil War Cycle, the dominant guilt issue was slavery. The guilt, of course, did not apply to everyone - only to those who approved or even tolerated slavery. The accused (mainly the South, in general, and slaveholders, in particular) took the position that slavery was acceptable or an economic necessity, having been agreed upon as part of the United States Constitution. To coin a couple of new terms, we will call abolition the offensive moral position and States Rights the defensive moral position. In the current saeculum there are two groups of offensive moral positions, introduced by the Civil Rights and pro-family movements, generally associated with the Left and the Right, respectively.

Because the Left is credited with going on the offensive against racism, racism itself is now regarded as "right-wing." Because "Left equals Democrat" and "Right equals Republican," it is easy, rightly or wrongly, to place all the blame for racism on the latter. The defensive moral position of actual racists is to argue that their racism is somehow warranted. The defensive moral position of Republicans has two varieties. President Bush, for example, prefers to demonstrate the absence of racism, while Rush Limbaugh prefers to discredit (usually in the form of parody) the validity of the accusation against the GOP. Each of these is a method of dealing with the guilt paradigm. Perhaps the common reaction among whites has been to repent of one's own racism and to make it taboo for others. Blacks, on the other hand, seem to feel that they should do more.

[Side question: What exactly do whites need to do in order to experience complete redemption?]

The Right has gone on the offensive against abortion and homosexuality. The "guilty" include anyone who approves. Defensive positions regarding abortion include insisting that oneself is personally against it but deferring to the choice of the woman, insisting that it is sometimes necessary, or altogether denying that it is wrong. The defensive positions regarding homosexuality include the statements to the effect that "It's okay for someone else, but it's not for me," the suggestion that it is genetic and can't be helped, or a total embracement of it in the form of "Gay Pride." Again, each of these is a method of dealing with the guilt paradigm.

It is evident that this paradigm existed during the New World, Civil War and (current) Millenniel Saecula. It is not so evident that it existed during the Tudor, Revolutionary and Great Power Saecula, and I expect that it will not be a dominant theme during the next saeculum. Comments?

It is worth noting that the Left has done a much better job taking advantage of the moral paradigm, framing their defensive moral positions as offensive. "Homophobia," for example carries a stigma similar to racism, while "Abortion Rights" is regarded as a civil right. This of course puts social conservatives on the defensive, which means that they are the side more likely to compromise. I can't think of any examples of the Right successfully using this tactic.

Originally Posted by JDW

It is worth noting that the Left has done a much better job taking advantage of the moral paradigm, framing their defensive moral positions as offensive. "Homophobia," for example carries a stigma similar to racism, while "Abortion Rights" is regarded as a civil right. This of course puts social conservatives on the defensive, which means that they are the side more likely to compromise. I can't think of any examples of the Right successfully using this tactic.

The right tends to focus on their interests, which are money and the MIC. They tend to categorize the money issues as taxing "hard work" or "the dead", when opposing any new or reimposed old taxes on the rich, along with a host of issues related to privatization.

Of course, the other one is the use of scare tactics, like "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here".

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The right tends to focus on their interests, which are money and the MIC. They tend to categorize the money issues as taxing "hard work" or "the dead", when opposing any new or reimposed old taxes on the rich, along with a host of issues related to privatization.

Of course, the other one is the use of scare tactics, like "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here".

Actually, that’s a pretty good point, since I framed it as Left versus Right. What I should have said is that social conservatives have not been effective in taking advantage of the paradigm. The Right (by which I mean opportunistic corporatists), on the other hand, has been very effective at linking themselves to the pro-family movement in order to ride out the tide. (I’m surprised that no one has mentioned that the number one beneficiary of the pro-family movement has been the Catholic Church. After all, thanks to GWB, they now have majority control of the SCOTUS. How’s that for separation of church and state!)

Originally Posted by JDW

... (I’m surprised that no one has mentioned that the number one beneficiary of the pro-family movement has been the Catholic Church. After all, thanks to GWB, they now have majority control of the SCOTUS. How’s that for separation of church and state!)

I mentioned it here quite a while back.

This discussion is helping me to come to a better definition of Left and Right (although it may open up a discussion of which type of saeculum the Nazis were part). The Soviets attached themselves to the plight of the workers (which was a genuine concern), while the Nazis attached themselves to the legitimate moral and security concerns of conservative citizens and military patriots. The marketing was different, but the results were more or less the same.

Originally Posted by JDW

This discussion is helping me to come to a better definition of Left and Right (although it may open up a discussion of which type of saeculum the Nazis were part). The Soviets attached themselves to the plight of the workers (which was a genuine concern), while the Nazis attached themselves to the legitimate moral and security concerns of conservative citizens and military patriots. The marketing was different, but the results were more or less the same.

Reactionaries and revolutionaries, as much as they hate each other, are more similar than they think. The seemingly diametric differences between them cover the same judgmentalism (To Hell with those evil people!), and a shared model of how the current world works. The reactionary, like the revolutionary, believes the pre-revolutionary world one of sharp disparities of privilege and deprivation and recognizes the severity of the repressiveness and deceit of the existing order. The reactionary endorses the inequity, repression, and fraudulence of the existing world as the means of protecting his own privilege or that of his bosses and is unsatisfied that there isn't more. The revolutionary seeks to overturn the very order that the reactionaries want protected against even the slightest challenge -- even objective fact.

All that gets in the way -- even a modest reformer or a less-than-complete revolutionary -- is an obstacle to be removed. The reactionary loves to set up agents provocateurs to encourage people to take their dissent to the streets where the secret police and the militias await to brutalize those who find a little revolt very tempting. The revolutionary, upon seizing power, turns on those who fail to show adequate ruthlessness -- often after having bought out the militias and secret police of the old regime.

"Suffer for my greed" and "To Hell with the aristocrats/plutocrats" are more similar attitudes than they present themselves.

Originally Posted by Mr. Reed

Rather, there is a geographic gap. From the beginning of time (which means, in this context, the beginning of this nation), blacks and whites have been segregated to some degree. In the 20th century, this division was geographic. Blacks lived in primarily black areas, and whites lived in white areas. For the most part, this is still true. Today, black kids are likely to go to schools that are more than 90% black, and whites tend to go to schools that are more than 90% white. Racial integration has largely failed. We have integrated workplaces, but our schools and neighborhoods are still segregated. I would have to say that in South St. Louis, residential integration appears to be a success, but in most other places in the metroplex, there is strong racial segregation.
...
The apparent paradigm gap is due to the fact that blacks and whites are still largely segregated. They do not really understand what each other goes through in life. That accounts for the differences.

It makes sense that the highly segregated areas would have a strong party loyalty. It seems to me, though, that the party loyalty is strong even where integration has been fairly successful. What do you attribute that too? (Or is my observation wrong?)

Actually, there was a rebellion. But it was kept low-key because Boomer blacks wanted to display racial solidarity. It was the same reason that black Boomers usually did not openly attack the criminal element of Black Xers.
...
Bill Cosby, as much as he has been attacked by blacks for telling blacks to take responsibility, is merely saying what Black Boomers have been telling Black Xers for over two decades (but not in front of white people, of course).

It's kind of a two-edged sword that blacks would prefer privacy from whites in dealing with their problems. On one hand, I can certainly understand and respect that. It's probably not a whole lot of fun for you to hear Bill Cosby's words repeated by white radio talk show hosts. On the other hand, it causes whites to feel that racial healing is a one-sided affair, when all we hear is Jesse Jackson telling us we are all a bunch of racists (as though he isn't). I understand of course that it's not the black community, but the media, that controls Jesse Jackson's exposure. I'm just wondering what it will take to get us all on the same page. Are Millennials going to be the ones to work this one out?

Originally Posted by JDW

Are Millennials going to be the ones to work this one out?

Yup, its up to you guys. It took the GIs to get used to women going to college, voting, smoking, and driving (these things were very risque in the 1920s). Likewise, it will take Millennials to normalize race relations.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Yup, its up to you guys. It took the GIs to get used to women going to college, voting, smoking, and driving (these things were very risque in the 1920s). Likewise, it will take Millennials to normalize race relations.

I'm a little too old to be included with the Millennials. Getting back to the paradigm contrast, it's worth noting that what sold women in the workplace was not "fairness," but the expediency of filling a labor shortage during World War II. In contrast, consider the prospect of returning to the draft and how that would affect gender equality. The issue would not be how to best fight a war, but whether male only conscription might somehow undermine the feminist agenda.

I’m guessing I haven’t made enough of a case that the Tudor, Revolutionary and Great Power saecula being of the “doctrinal” paradigm. Okay, here’s a quick summary of the issues:

Tudor:

Salvation by works versus by grace
Introduction of Calvinism
National (or regional) sovereignty versus universal theocracy

Revolutionary:

Predestination versus free will
Loyalty (toward England) or independence
“United we stand, divided we fall.”
The U.S. Constitution and the Monroe Doctrine

Great Power:

Manifest Destiny versus Monroe Doctrine
Pentecostalism (“tongues”) versus Fundamentalism (anti-tongues)
Darwinism versus Creation
Limited government versus economic security
Jim Crowe and the revival of States Rights
Women’s suffrage


I’m sure this isn’t a complete list, but I think it demonstrates that the issues of the day were of a more cold, calculated nature.

As I mentioned earlier, Temperance as a moral issue was settled fairly quickly during the Depression. Perhaps, though, it could be better view as a doctrinal issue. After all, the federal government had originally been set up to be morally neutral (libertarian), leaving it up to the states to come to term with those issues. The 18th Amendment was a failed effort to change that. An unintended doctrine resulting from this was the myth that "you can' legislate morality."

Generations shape turnings, and turnings shape generations, but the alternating paradigms drive both. Let's review the archetypes:

The Hero is established in the existing paradigm and has a part in perfecting the paradigm. As a result, he becomes the paradigm.

The Artist is established in the existing paradigm but has no part in the perfecting of it. As a result, he is more of a sympathetic observer.

The Prophet is allowed to rediscover the forgotten paradigm, which he fully embraces. As a result, he is at odds with the existing paradigm.

The Nomad is not established and has no paradigm, but tries (unsuccessfully) to establish himself in the old (existing) paradigm. His rejection of the new paradigm (especially during a 2T) foreshadows his prophet grandchildren during the next awakening, who will succeed in turning it back.