What follows is an outgrowth of a blatantly off-topic discussion that occurred in the Swine Flu thread:

There are a quite a few schema that have been devised for political archetypes. We're all familiar with the left-right political spectrum. Many are also familiar with the Nolan Chart pictured below:



There is also this from political compass.org:



And there is also this chart from the book "8 Ways to Run the Country":



This last chart requires a bit of explanation. Mitchell's axes are unusual in that instead of using people's issue stances he uses their attitudes toward politics. His vertical axis is "kratos" -- the persons enthusiasm for forceful action to achieve social change (more enthusiasm toward the bottom). His horizontal axis is "arche" -- the persons enthusiasm for hierarchy (more enthusiasm toward the right).

I think Mitchell was on the right track in creating a political archetyping system that is more universal rather than rooted in a particular time and culture. However, I think he's still a tad short of the mark. Below is the Horner modification of the Mitchell Chart:



You'll note that I've renamed his axes to reflect what I see as the true core of politics. In any society, even a very primitive one, there is a need for rules and for people to administer those rules. The vertical axis is about the structure of the rules while the horizontal axis is about the implementation of the rules.

For the vertical axis, there is a desire for the rules to be simple and consistent and there is also a desire for the rules to be specific and appropriate. These twin goals (simplicity versus specificity) can, and frequently do, conflict. The vertical axis describes ones preference for simplicity or specificity with distance from the center signifying the intensity of that preference.

For the horizontal axis, we are addressing situations where an authority (i.e. a recognized implementer or arbiter of the rules) insists on one course of action on the basis of their superior knowledge or expertise while a non-authority makes a strong argument against that action. The horizontal axis describes ones preference for deferring to the authority or entertaining the views of the challenger with distance from the center signifying the intensity of that preference.

(More to follow in next post due to image limit . . .)

To help clarify further, here is a version of my revision with the Nolan Chart overlaid:



and a version with the political compass overlaid:



Hopefully, at this point, if you're familiar with either the Nolan Chart or the Political Compass, you have a fair idea of how my revised chart works.

Boiling down politics to basic preferences really seems to explain the difficulty in finding common ground with people who are not in the same part of chart as you. Everyone's political stance is revealed to be a "bias" toward particular means of resolving conflicts. However, these biases do not appear to be uniformly distributed.

In a perfect world, the rules would be easy to understand, work in all circumstances and all authority would be natural, just and universally recognized. Obviously, in such a circumstance there would be no politics at all, since everyone would be in the dead center of the chart. In the real world, the rules are often too complex or have glaring loopholes and authority is frequently abused or challenged.

What determines one's position on the chart is one's assessment of where the errors are. If you think society often defers to abusive authority figures, then you will likely fall on the left side of the chart. If you think society has too many and frequently contradictory rules, you will likely fall in the top portion of the chart, and so on.

Of course, if people assess politics in a particular fashion and spend many years pushing the rules and authority in that direction, eventually society will be seen as out of balance in the other direction. This in turn causes new generations to adopt opposing political attitudes which drive political change when those new generations occupy positions of power and influence.

OK, so now, I'll explain why this thread was placed in the "The Book and Theories Of History" category rather than the "Politics and Economics" category.

Since political attitudes will shift over time, and generally in reaction to previous generations, the relative weighting of the various political archetypes should change over time. The question is, in what way? (We already know the answer to the question of how long these shifts take -- this is after all the Fourth Turning website.)

It is my contention that, in order to maintain cohesion, a society will only conflict along a single axis at a time. Along a different axis, 90 degrees to that of the conflict, there will be a strong bias toward one side. For example, if the main conflicts are lower left versus upper right, then there will be a bias toward either the upper left or lower right with the remaining position being relegated to the political fringe. Sometimes the conflict axis could be orthogonal to the chart and sometimes diagonal.

Thus, at any given moment there is an "arc of respectability" among political opinions that stretches from one end of the chart to the other with a bend that curves toward the bias (and that bias defines the political center). This arc also has recently corresponded to what people generally mean when they talk about "left" versus "right."

Below is the chart as I think it has been oriented from the end of the last awakening to the present:



The arc of respectability stretches from the "radical" types that Mitchell identified to "theoconservatives" on the true right with a "communitarian" center. Libertarian types of various sorts are either eccentric liberals, curmudgeony conservatives or just plain fringe.

It is my contention that the arc rotates 45 degrees clockwise every social moment. (This would hard to prove, but I'll throw it out there nonetheless.) If so, here is the chart from the end of the Depression Crisis until the start of the last Awakening:



This certainly explains the left-right axis of the political compass. It corresponds to the main conflict axis at the resolution of the last crisis.

And here is the chart as it will be at the end of the present Crisis:



You'll note that I also consider this Crisis politically similar to the Glorious Revolution Crisis, a not uncommon assertion of various "grand cycle" theories that have cropped up here from time to time.

This seems like it's probably fascinating, but I'm afraid I'm woefully unable to understand the graphics just yet. I understand the "Arc of Respectability" means where the center of gravity is in the political arena, but what do terms like "Lower Left" and "Upper Right" mean?

It appears to me that your projection for the end of this current 4T (and its equivalent at the end of the Glorious Revolution) is an "Arc of Respectability" stretching between Individualist and Neoconservative, with three of the four quadrants in the respectability portion being left-of-center. But that's about all I can figure out about these charts...I'm definitely more an auditory than visual learner. Help, please?

Originally Posted by 1990

This seems like it's probably fascinating, but I'm afraid I'm woefully unable to understand the graphics just yet. I understand the "Arc of Respectability" means where the center of gravity is in the political arena, but what do terms like "Lower Left" and "Upper Right" mean?

They pretty much correspond (right now) to the words on the Mitchell Chart. Lower Left is your typical progressive (more rules needed, authority is suspect) and upper right is a Paleocon type (simplification needed, authority needs more respect).

This is very impressive work, but, like my much younger forum-mate, I need some time to digest it.

On first inspection, I feel comfortable with everything but the 45 degree rotating pattern, though that may be due to my attention being drawn to the warping effect you propose. I do believe that there is a bias and that is changes with time, so the idea of a rotating pattern seems right to me. I'm less certain about where the bias stands over time and how quickly it moves.

What is the significance of the "Arc of Respectability" being less offset from zero along the axis of bias than it is at the two ends?

Very interesting stuff, Kurt! Most interesting is your shift of 45 degrees each social moment. That would make 1990 and I in the political center of the midlife Civic establishment during the 1T while the 2T reformers will be Rag clones.

If the Armada Ending/Great DepressionEnding, the Puritan Awakening Ending/Consciousness Revolution Ending, and Glorious Revolution Ending/Millennial Crisis Ending archetypes are in some sense the same; could you present the five additional archetypical chartings for the Great Awakening Ending, the American Revolution Ending, the Transcendental Awakening Ending, the Civil War Ending, and the Third Great Awakening Ending?

If this is easily done, one could have a cartoon cycle of the political archetypes as they fall in and out of "respectability" as the turnings spiral.
Thank you for the work already posted and any further charts you might provide.

Yo. Ob. Sv.
VKS

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I do believe that there is a bias and that is changes with time, so the idea of a rotating pattern seems right to me. I'm less certain about where the bias stands over time and how quickly it moves.

It may help to explain the rotation a bit more. I think there is a point of maximum influence along the arc as well. This will tend to slide along the arc toward the leading edge in Crises and Awakenings and slide toward the trailing edge in Highs and Unravelings. So, in the 60s the point of maximum influence was in the upper right and then it slid down and left (along with the arc rotating) until reaching the true left at the end of the Awakening. Then over the course of the Unraveling, the arc remained the same but influence shifted back to the trailing edge eventually reaching the true right. At present, the point of maximum influence is still mostly to the right and slightly down as well. It should continue leftward and eventually upward during this Crisis.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

What is the significance of the "Arc of Respectability" being less offset from zero along the axis of bias than it is at the two ends?

There’s not a whole lot of need or call for a “radical centrist.” Policies are steered in that general direction already, so why expend the effort to push hard? I suppose it’s possible that the curvature of the arc could be variable, but it seems pretty unlikely that you’d have a political spectrum where everyone (even the centrists) were fire-breathing radicals. Nor does it make sense for the centrists to be entirely satisfied and have no objections to the status quo at all. That's why I draw the middle of the arc closer to the center than the ends but not all the way to the center either.

Originally Posted by Odin

Very interesting stuff, Kurt! Most interesting is your shift of 45 degrees each social moment. That would make 1990 and I in the political center of the midlife Civic establishment during the 1T while the 2T reformers will be Rag clones.

Yep, a progressive center today, a neo-con tinged High and libertarianish hippies in the next Awakening. Although, until the next Crisis, traditional conservatives will be generally on the outs. Of course, the exact issues that people will focus on will change dramatically in the interim.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

could you present the five additional archetypical chartings for the Great Awakening Ending, the American Revolution Ending, the Transcendental Awakening Ending, the Civil War Ending, and the Third Great Awakening Ending?

No problem. Going back in time:

Here is the end of the Progressive Awakening:



And here is the end of the Civil War Crisis:



And the end of the Transcendental Awakening:

Here is the end of the Revolutionary Crisis:



And finally, the end of the Great Awakening:

So the Crisis of 2100 may be a revolutionary Crisis?

Yes! There's the Revolt of the Outer Worlds theme that science fiction novels have been written about since the first space travel novels. Oh, you most certainly have it there.
Thanks!

And with the world getting smaller and more connected, what used to be called World Wars will later on be seen as civil wars. Terran Civil War I, frex.

As a matter of fact, after finished a week of lectures from UNM's annual Medieval Studies Institute series, I came away thinking Barbara Tuchman was wrong about the parallels between the 13th Century (14th?) and the 20th. That is, the first 2/3 of the 20th Century. I think the real parallel is between the 13th and the 21st, which includes the last 3rd of the calendar 20th Century.

Why do I think so? The "Bibles Moralizees," beautifully, lavishly illustrated mega-expensive books put out as gifts for the French Royal family, whose sole point was a long series of short rants against "logicians and astronomers" and "philosophers" who among their many other sins, dared poke their noses into Heaven's business, whose emphasis on Reason was the enemy of the simple Faith which was all anyone needed, who were heretics and - oh,noes! They wasted their time studying Nature and therefore were Nature Worshipers! The tone of the rants was, I daresay, familiar to anyone who has listened to certain right-wing pundits of our last 30 years. Folks - we are talking Culture Wars here, of the same sort we've been listening to and reading here.

Amusingly enough, those tonsured Rush Limbaughs tried to get the friars on their side. Hah! The Franciscans and Dominicans were scarfing down the New Knowledge at a very high rate of speed. Never mind that the Dominicans later turned heresy-hunters.

BTW, the 12th seems to have been the sort of Great Awakening one could call a mini-Renaissance. The 14th, however, was most surely a Crisis. Devastated by the Black Death. Which they knew full well was contagious and they took every precaution against contagion; they just didn't know that rats (rat fleas) were the vector. And Xenakis found an economic collapse in France just before the plague hit that made matters worse.

Be it noted: we are talking the Continent here. Not England and not Spain. We in the Anglosphere were a wee bit late in picking up these trends, so we essentially had out 15th Century in the 16th. Sigh. Spain didn't get going til 1492, about 7 years later than England. And Spain always was off in its own world, thanks to the Islamic Years.

So...

Mega-Crisis = Individualist to Paleoconservative = Civic
Maximally simple rules, increasing deference to authority
Civil War Saeculum; Renaissance Saeculum
Nationalism
Romanticism

Mega-High = Paleoconservative to Neoconservative = Artist
Maximum deference to authority, increasing complexity of rules
Great Power Saeculum; Reformation Saeculum
Authoritarianism
Economic Planning

Mega-Awakening = Neoconservative to Progressive = Prophet
Maximally precise rules, decreasing deference to authority
Millennial Saeculum; Puritan Saeculum
Nanny State
Civil Rights

Mega-Unraveling = Progressive to Individualist = Nomad
Minimum deference to authority, decreasing complexity of rules
Singularity Saeculum; Revolutionary Saeculum
Libertarianism
Laissez-Faire


It works. Supply of order is lowest early in the Crisis and highest early in the Awakening. Demand for order is high in the High and low in the Unraveling. It's the same pattern.

A mechanism

The libertarian iconoclasm of the Mega-Unraveling leaves a society based around simple rules and is assumed to be "self-regulating" according to "natural laws". This leaves a lot to be desired unfortunately, as the degeneration of the French Revolution into utopian insanity and then the dictatorship of Napoleon showed. Napoleon himself was a premonition of what was to come.

The Mega-Crisis is the basis of the "Great Man" theory of history. In the wake of the Mega-Unraveling forceful personalities and various private organizations come to fill the lack of impersonal rules of society imposed by the Mega-Unraveling. These individuals and organizations start the process of establishing more precise rules for society. The result is a new institutional basis for society, in the last 2 Mega-Crises this was the Absolutist Monarchy and the Nation-State respectively.

During the Mega-High the new order congeals into an increasing complex and nuanced set of rules. The prevailing sentiment is that social engineering guided by a central authority will lead to utopia. In the last 2 Mega-Highs this was the spirit of the Reformation and the spirit of the Progressive Age.

During the Mega-Awakening the legitimacy of the "central authorities" of society begins to be attacked as a wave of social and ideological currents burst forth and batter the "Establishment" and take the complex system of social rules and fight over how and to what end they should be used. There is an increasing emphasis on the "rights" of individuals or groups and that these "rights" are being violated by the rules of society. This was the West of the 30-Years War, the English Civil War, the Glorious Revolution, Descartes, and Newton. This is also the post-60s world we live in today.

The Mega-Unraveling is the Libertarian Age, where the old, complex system of rules for society is attacked and torn down. Philosophers and reformers preach eloquent words about the "Rights of Man" and of "Natural Laws" that made complex social rules unnecessary. Human authorities are deemed both unnecessary and evil since things are beleived to be "self-evident" to any intellectually-liberated individual. This was the spirit of the Enlightenment and of the American Revolution.

Like others, I'm not sure I completely follow. I definitely think the labels on the Mitchell chart are dubious.

If, as Odin suggests, we're about to enter a "Nomad saeculum", I could live with that, being one.

I'm still not sure I follow the reasoning of the graphics, though. I'll have to give it some more thought.

OK, looking at it some more, I tend to think the "Horner Revision w/ Political Compass overlay" is the most valid.

However - I think the political compass overlay needs to be shifted 45 degrees counter-clockwise.

Libertarianism is not about simple or precise rules, it is primarily about challenging authority. I'm not sure why you've got it tilted that direction.

*The Mitchell chart looks to me like nonsense, both in its choice of labels and their positioning.*

To sum up: We have been living in an Authoritarian/Left saeculum since the last Crisis, and we are headed for a Libertarian/Left saeculum.

I can buy that. I see evidence of it.

What's more, as I think I suggested sometime in the past - in order to reconcile to the two halves of the Boomer/Awakening generation, you have to look for what they have in common. And ultimately what they've had in common is libertarianism, in various forms. There have been many currents during the past saeculum and within the Boom generation, but what has really won out over that period of time? I would argue the left "won" on social issues and the right "won" on economics. Of course, that means Obama has to fail miserably in trying to apply the remedies of the last Crisis, as Bush appears to have done already during the first half of the 4T, since 9/11.

In terms of your statement, the challenges over this past (Authoritarian/Left) saeculum - those that have succeeded - have been challenges to Authoritarianism, not the Leftward tilt. Over the course of the next saeculum, with authoritarianism vanquished and a libertarian consensus established, the challenges will be to the Leftward tilt.

At least that's my interpretation.

Just to add one more layer of complexity - if you throw in previous theories about alternating spiritual/secular Awakenings, that means the "hippies" of the next 2T would probably take the form of an evangelical Christian revival, tilting conservative and challenging the established Left, but within the context of an unchallenged Libertarian consensus.

I wish to thank you for all your work. I am greatly heartened by the prospects for the thinking that now uses Paleoconservatism as its placeholder. I am now more aware of who and when that "certain reader" of my postings here at T4T and my other scribblings might be informed. Thank you again, Mr. Horner.

Yo. Ob. Sv.
VKS

Originally Posted by Odin

snip
During the Mega-Awakening the legitimacy of the "central authorities" of society begins to be attacked as a wave of social and ideological currents burst forth and batter the "Establishment" and take the complex system of social rules and fight over how and to what end they should be used. There is an increasing emphasis on the "rights" of individuals or groups and that these "rights" are being violated by the rules of society. This was the West of the 30-Years War, the English Civil War, the Glorious Revolution, Descartes, and Newton. This is also the post-60s world we live in today.

The Mega-Unraveling is the Libertarian Age, where the old, complex system of rules for society is attacked and torn down. Philosophers and reformers preach eloquent words about the "Rights of Man" and of "Natural Laws" that made complex social rules unnecessary. Human authorities are deemed both unnecessary and evil since things are beleived to be "self-evident" to any intellectually-liberated individual. This was the spirit of the Enlightenment and of the American Revolution.

Odin, I think I'm finally starting to understand this, assuming you're representing what Kurt Horner was talking about. If a battle for "rights" is what defines this current saeculum (transitioning to Mega-Unraveling after the end of the current 4T?) then a few of the pieces seem to fall into place (certainly the last 2T was more dominated by three rights-oriented movements -- civil rights, the student/youth movement, and feminism -- than by anything else). It would also seem to suggest that nationwide legalized gay marriage is just around the corner (either in this 4T or the ensuing 1T), along with legalized marijuana and possibly some other future "rights" we haven't even thought about. I wonder what it means for "life issues" like abortion, capital punishment, and assisted suicide.

My disdain for Unravelings makes me unenthused about the prospect of a mega-Unraveling saeculum, but such is the hand we've been dealt. Should we expect a 2T wherein young Prophets protest the "overregulation" and "overthinking" of the past? That might be particularly potent after the rather regulatory 4T we seem destined for. And what about the next 1T that's just a click of our age brackets away? Will our midlife be uncomfortably caught between the current (and I use this term only to hide my true liberal bias) "big government" 4T and the next "natural law" 2T?

I now understand quite well as to why I'm such an eccentric to most of the rest of the people surrounding me. I was born a few hundred years too late, or a good deal too early. However even then I wouldn't want to be part of a large mob mentality of individualists.

However I'll be looking forward to whatever the future might have in store for us.

Also now we know why no majority of the Prophet has called for the Constitution to be repealed within the last few saeculum. They probably will in the future, looking for some other type of Government. So a great "collapse" is gonna occur as the doomsayers here are saying, but like a Phoenix it'll rise out of the ashes--and of that I have no doubt.

~Chas'88

To further support my interpretation:

And the end of the Transcendental Awakening:

With the Right established and unchallenged, Libertarianism was about to be challenged, in the name of enforcing a moral imperative: ending slavery.

And here is the end of the Civil War Crisis:

With federal government authority established, Authoritarianism was about to reach its peak.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Here is the end of the Progressive Awakening:

The most authoritarian period in recent times was the 2T following the Civil War. Prohibition being a good example. But the coming tilt was Left/Authoritarian. The Progressive Left = complexity of rules.

Originally Posted by 1990

It would also seem to suggest that nationwide legalized gay marriage is just around the corner (either in this 4T or the ensuing 1T), along with legalized marijuana and possibly some other future "rights" we haven't even thought about. I wonder what it means for "life issues" like abortion, capital punishment, and assisted suicide.

If those things happen (some may, some may not), and if I'm interpreting it correctly, the "hippies" of the next 2T will be challenging precisely those policies.

Miss California may be the forerunner of this trend...

My disdain for Unravelings makes me unenthused about the prospect of a mega-Unraveling saeculum, but such is the hand we've been dealt. Should we expect a 2T wherein young Prophets protest the "overregulation" and "overthinking" of the past? That might be particularly potent after the rather regulatory 4T we seem destined for. And what about the next 1T that's just a click of our age brackets away? Will our midlife be uncomfortably caught between the current (and I use this term only to hide my true liberal bias) "big government" 4T and the next "natural law" 2T?

Big government should be vanquished by the end of this Crisis. Again, if I'm thinking it through correctly.

Two comments: Mr. Horner, could you give us the chart for where we are now? If you posted it, I didn't find it, and am rather curious.

One of the emerging movements I've seen is a drive towards (as an ideal at least) individual self-sufficiency. It ties into the Simple Living movement on the left and the Survivalists on the right. While there always were straws in the wind, it certainly gained momentum with the hippies and then got a major boost during Katrina, whose message to even the least aware was "you're on your own, kids; Big Daddy isn't gonna help you." A TOTAL reversal of what I was taught as a little girl! People who have dealt with, say, the medical system, are reporting the same thing. Then there's the recession-era fashion for growing your own food, relearning the ancient household crafts (which Millies and Xer householders were doing before the recession ever began) and for living off the grid to small extents (get a solar water heater) to all-encompassing (some experimental homes and homesteads in New Mexico).

People who talk about the feasibility or lack of it in widespread renewable power generation are envisioning huge wind farms or huge banks of solar panels replacing the coal-fired or nuclear-powered central power plant and that's not how it's coming about unless it's being subsidized. It's coming about on the scale mentioned above.

So yes, that's some sort of major reversal from the GI vision of Big Government,Big Labor, and Big Business (the latter being the only one they haven't yet tried to dismantle) working together to bring Big Progress through Big Public Works.

Where we're headed? Well, having had a major look at the 13th Century and the 17th Century lately, and seeing some sort of resemblance - hold onto your hats, kids. It'll be a wild, wild ride.