The first data sets below shows Presidential approval rating for last two years of Carter and first year of Reagan. Sorry, you will have to read up chronologically.

I am including two years of Carter, because it spells out how unhappy people were for a very long time.

Carter is lucky to scratch out of the 30s, while Reagan's lowest is a 48.

Below the first set is Reagan's 1983-1984 scores. 1984 is about as good or slightly better than 1984. There is a recovery from 1983, but nothing compared to the bounce up from Carter to Reagan.

Years approximate:
1977-1980: 2T Crisis: Crisis of confidence, malaise, Carter in sweater in WH asking for sacrifice, Iran hostages
1980-1984: 3T high: Miracle on Ice, Reagan Elected, hostages released
1985-1989: 3T awak: Live Aid, Farm Aid, Band Aid, We are the World, Hands across America, Harmonic convergence

NOTE: First number is approval, second is disapproval, third is uncertain.


12/11/1981 12/14/1981 48 41 10
11/20/1981 11/23/1981 54 36 8
11/13/1981 11/16/1981 48 40 10
10/30/1981 11/03/1981 54 34 11
09/18/1981 09/21/1981 51 37 10
08/14/1981 08/17/1981 59 29 10
07/31/1981 08/03/1981 59 28 12
07/24/1981 07/27/1981 55 30 13
07/17/1981 07/20/1981 59 29 10
06/26/1981 06/29/1981 57 30 12
06/16/1981 06/16/1981 58 28 12
06/05/1981 06/08/1981 58 28 12
05/08/1981 05/11/1981 68 21 11
04/10/1981 04/13/1981 66 19 13
03/31/1981 03/31/1981 66 18 15
02/13/1981 02/16/1981 55 17 26
01/30/1981 02/02/1981 51 13 36

REAGAN

12/05/1980 12/08/1980 34 55 11
11/18/1980 11/18/1980 31 56 12
09/09/1980 09/09/1980 37 54 7
08/12/1980 08/12/1980 32 54 13
07/08/1980 07/08/1980 32 54 12
06/24/1980 06/24/1980 30 58 10
06/10/1980 06/10/1980 32 55 11
05/27/1980 05/27/1980 38 51 10
05/13/1980 05/13/1980 38 50 10
04/29/1980 04/29/1980 42 47 10
04/08/1980 04/08/1980 38 50 10
03/24/1980 03/24/1980 39 50 10
03/04/1980 03/04/1980 42 44 12
02/26/1980 02/26/1980 51 38 10
01/29/1980 01/29/1980 55 35 8
01/22/1980 01/22/1980 57 32 9
01/02/1980 01/02/1980 56 33 10
12/04/1979 12/04/1979 54 35 10
11/27/1979 11/27/1979 51 36 11
11/13/1979 11/13/1979 37 49 12
10/30/1979 10/30/1979 31 55 12
10/12/1979 10/15/1979 31 54 13
10/02/1979 10/02/1979 28 58 12
09/25/1979 09/25/1979 32 53 13
09/04/1979 09/04/1979 29 55 14
08/14/1979 08/14/1979 32 53 13
08/07/1979 08/07/1979 33 54 11
07/31/1979 07/31/1979 32 53 14
07/30/1979 07/30/1979 32 53 14
07/10/1979 07/10/1979 29 57 13
06/26/1979 06/26/1979 28 59 12
06/19/1979 06/19/1979 29 56 13
05/29/1979 05/29/1979 29 55 15
05/15/1979 05/15/1979 32 52 15
05/01/1979 05/01/1979 37 48 14
04/03/1979 04/03/1979 40 45 13
03/20/1979 03/20/1979 42 43 13
03/13/1979 03/13/1979 46 39 13
02/27/1979 02/27/1979 39 47 12
02/20/1979 02/20/1979 37 46 16
01/30/1979 01/30/1979 42 42 15
01/16/1979 01/16/1979 43 41 15

END OF FIRST DATA SET
__________________________________________________ _____________________

Reagan "morning in America"

11/30/1984 12/03/1984 61 30 7
11/09/1984 11/12/1984 61 30 8
10/26/1984 10/29/1984 58 32 8
09/28/1984 10/01/1984 53 35 10
09/21/1984 09/24/1984 56 36 6
09/07/1984 09/09/1984 56 35 7
08/10/1984 08/12/1984 53 38 8
07/27/1984 07/30/1984 51 36 11
07/13/1984 07/16/1984 55 34 9
07/12/1984 07/13/1984 51 38 10
07/06/1984 07/09/1984 53 35 10
06/29/1984 07/02/1984 53 36 10
06/22/1984 06/22/1984 54 36 9
06/01/1984 06/03/1984 52 36 11
05/18/1984 05/21/1984 53 38 8
05/09/1984 05/10/1984 49 38 11
04/25/1984 04/26/1984 48 38 13
04/06/1984 04/09/1984 54 36 9
03/16/1984 03/19/1984 53 38 7
03/01/1984 03/02/1984 52 35 12
02/10/1984 02/13/1984 55 35 8
01/30/1984 02/06/1984 52 37 9
01/27/1984 01/30/1984 55 36 8
01/13/1984 01/16/1984 52 37 9
12/09/1983 12/12/1983 53 37 8
11/18/1983 11/21/1983 52 37 10
10/07/1983 10/14/1983 45 43 10
09/13/1983 09/13/1983 47 42 10
09/09/1983 09/12/1983 47 41 10
08/19/1983 08/22/1983 42 46 11
08/12/1983 08/15/1983 43 44 11
08/05/1983 08/08/1983 43 46 9
07/29/1983 08/02/1983 44 42 13
07/22/1983 07/25/1983 42 46 10
06/24/1983 06/27/1983 46 43 9
06/10/1983 06/13/1983 43 45 11
05/20/1983 05/23/1983 45 42 11
05/13/1983 05/16/1983 43 45 11
04/29/1983 05/02/1983 42 46 10
04/15/1983 04/18/1983 40 49 10
03/11/1983 03/14/1983 40 49 10
01/28/1983 01/31/1983 35 56 8
01/21/1983 01/24/1983 37 52 9
01/11/1983 01/11/1983 36 54 9

I found this set of data interesting:

11/27/1979 11/27/1979 51 36 11
11/13/1979 11/13/1979 37 49 12

It's Carter, he jumps nearly 20 points in approval rating over the course of two weeks in 1979 and stays there until February 1980 when he slowly starts to trend downward in opinion.

That's more interesting to me actually. What happened from November 1979 to February 1980?

But returning to the subject at hand. Here's a pictoral graph of Reagan's approval ratings (I prefer images ):



And that would be intriguing if the majority of modern presidents didn't have a spike in the beginning and end more unpopular than when they went into office. there are of course exceptions. For example both Clinton & FDR start out as "unpopular" and end up being more popular than when they entered, when they leave.

Look at these numbers:



Carter comes into the Presidency in 1977 fulfilling campaign promises to give amnesty to Vietnam draft evaders. His popularity skyrockets then goes downhill. It jumped from where Ford's had been when he left office at just around 50%.

The general trend is that if there's a "new president" they get a bump in the polls for their first hundred days. It's akin to the honeymoon period of a marriage. Would you judge the quality of a marriage by its honeymoon?

What's very interesting is that Reagan's opinion goes downhill until it plummets to an all time low in 1983--due to the economy not turning around--indicating that yes, when Reagan came in--there was an enthusiasm, but that was due to there was a new president who promised new things (just like Carter had promised new things when he came into office). However as time wore on, and nothing seemed to change (economic-wise) his ratings sunk lower and lower. Then suddenly it begins to turn around and inverses itself and it rises at a faster rate than what it fell at--when the economy turns around.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

I found this set of data interesting:



It's Carter, he jumps nearly 20 points in approval rating over the course of two weeks in 1979 and stays there until February 1980 when he slowly starts to trend downward in opinion.

That's more interesting to me actually. What happened from November 1979 to February 1980?

But returning to the subject at hand. Here's a pictoral graph of Reagan's approval ratings (I prefer images ):



And that would be intriguing if the majority of modern presidents didn't have a spike in the beginning and end more unpopular than when they went into office. there are of course exceptions. For example both Clinton & FDR start out as "unpopular" and end up being more popular than when they entered, when they leave.

Look at these numbers:



Carter comes into the Presidency in 1977 fulfilling campaign promises to give amnesty to Vietnam draft evaders. His popularity skyrockets then goes downhill. It jumped from where Ford's had been when he left office at just around 50%.

The general trend is that if there's a "new president" they get a bump in the polls for their first hundred days. It's akin to the honeymoon period of a marriage. Would you judge the quality of a marriage by its honeymoon?

What's very interesting is that Reagan's opinion goes downhill until it plummets to an all time low in 1983--due to the economy not turning around--indicating that yes, when Reagan came in--there was an enthusiasm, but that was due to there was a new president who promised new things (just like Carter had promised new things when he came into office). However as time wore on, and nothing seemed to change (economic-wise) his ratings sunk lower and lower. Then suddenly it begins to turn around and inverses itself and it rises at a faster rate than what it fell at--when the economy turns around.

~Chas'88

That chart seems to imply that the 3T started in 1983

Originally Posted by Chas'88

That's more interesting to me actually. What happened from November 1979 to February 1980?

Good catch Chas. Iran hostages were taken Nov 4. Initially there was broad support for the President, as there usually is at a time we feel threatened as a country. As the saga dragged on, his initial support faded (and then some).

Just finished watching Quiz Show. It perfectly captures the spirit of the High-unraveling IMO.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

I found this set of data interesting:



It's Carter, he jumps nearly 20 points in approval rating over the course of two weeks in 1979 and stays there until February 1980 when he slowly starts to trend downward in opinion.

That's more interesting to me actually. What happened from November 1979 to February 1980?

But returning to the subject at hand. Here's a pictoral graph of Reagan's approval ratings (I prefer images ):



And that would be intriguing if the majority of modern presidents didn't have a spike in the beginning and end more unpopular than when they went into office. there are of course exceptions. For example both Clinton & FDR start out as "unpopular" and end up being more popular than when they entered, when they leave.

Look at these numbers:



Carter comes into the Presidency in 1977 fulfilling campaign promises to give amnesty to Vietnam draft evaders. His popularity skyrockets then goes downhill. It jumped from where Ford's had been when he left office at just around 50%.

The general trend is that if there's a "new president" they get a bump in the polls for their first hundred days. It's akin to the honeymoon period of a marriage. Would you judge the quality of a marriage by its honeymoon?

What's very interesting is that Reagan's opinion goes downhill until it plummets to an all time low in 1983--due to the economy not turning around--indicating that yes, when Reagan came in--there was an enthusiasm, but that was due to there was a new president who promised new things (just like Carter had promised new things when he came into office). However as time wore on, and nothing seemed to change (economic-wise) his ratings sunk lower and lower. Then suddenly it begins to turn around and inverses itself and it rises at a faster rate than what it fell at--when the economy turns around.

~Chas'88

Interesting data, but why should president popularity be indicative of Unravelings, like in "Reagan is now popular this morning in America, thus we have finally arrived in the 3T!"? On the contrary, looking at the big picture, aren't Awakenings partly, even mainly, defined by the idealistic and the naive, while Unravelings are defined by the realistic and cynical? In other words, Awakenings are engendered by (and in fact can only be born during) fairly innocent, bright and optimistic social moods and future expectations while Unravelings are engendered by darkening social moods and pessimistic future expectations. The 70's was the big "darkening" decade in this sense, first through the early oil shocks and later through stagflation, culture wars blaming the Consciousness Revolution for all social ills, and the pessimistic view of mankind that followed from a re-erupting Cold War.
Trust in public figures then follow a similar path. Awakenings put trust in man and are therefore ready to follow at least certain types of leaders with 'spiritual' qualities to kingdom come; Unravelings by comparison are jaded, with rather limited reserves of trust in any kind of leader.

The fall of Carter's popularity (who was elected as a clean hands outsider savior figure) is thus indicative of a fledgling Unraveling mood (or "Awakening-Crisis" mood depending if you wish to regard the glass as half full or half empty), not of an Awakening mood as such, and for the same reason, Reagan doesn't have to maintain a high popularity to indicate a 3T during his first years as president.

On the contrary, the volatility of Reagan's popularity during the first turn is indicative of the level of detachment from idealistic savior figures, splintered social fabric and the collective-dimension-not-working individualism we associate with Unravelings.

Of course, there can also be sort of a calm sea period during a 3T (the mid 80's, for example), when the last vestiges of the previous Awakening have been swept away, but then you are already deep inside the Unraveling, no longer at the threshold of one.

Therefore, 1980 seems to me the most conservatively estimated, correct starting point of the Unraveling. The writers did a big mistake when placing the beginning of it at a point which was actually a high point of the 3T (1984). They did not do this mistake in regards to the Awakening (1967), instead correctly assigning 1963 as the start date when there was still a lot of 1T vestiges around.

There is also a great hazard in exclusively zooming in on events in the United States, not least exclusively political turn of events. One needs to look at culture as a whole.

To me personally, the memory of Reagan in the White House in 1980 indicated a more optimistic and brightening turn of events, quite regardless the eventual rate of inflation, employment figures or price at the gas pump and I would say the dominating feeling in the United States was much the same. In fact, Sweden and the US follow a largely similar economic trajectory here, the Swedish economy catching up and regaining in strength from the 1982 currency depreciation onwards and the Social Democrats coming back to power. Nevertheless, the election of Reagan was only part of a much larger trend breaking away from the disintegrating Awakening. In 1976, the Left was voted out of government in Sweden (the Social Democrats having ruled since the 30's!), in 1979, Thatcher took over in Britain and while similarly to Reagan, her position wasn't entirely secured during her first term, the royal wedding of the Prince of Wales to Lady Diana Spencer (1981) and the pomp and circumstance of the Falklands War (1982) quickly reversed all that. Britain was back, and you could feel it, in attitude and self confidence if not in substance.
Sure, you guys can hang on to 1984 as "your" date to your heart's desire, but beware, there is a world outside the United States that was indeed fully transformed by 1984, thus assigning a backward, trailing status to America in as far as the Wave of History is concerned, not a pioneer role. So you want to be a trend setter or a trend follower? It's up to you.

Saying the Culture Wars Unraveling started with Reagan's "Morning in America" speeches in 1984 is like saying the World War I and Prohibition Unraveling started with Warren G. Harding's "Back to Normalcy" speech in 1920. Both were characteristically 3T to be sure, yet none of them initiated the 3T in question.

Originally Posted by Tussilago

There is also a great hazard in exclusively zooming in on events in the United States, not least exclusively political turn of events. One needs to look at culture as a whole.

As a Europhile, I am dissapointed this forum is so American-centric.

Originally Posted by Tussilago

......in 1979, Thatcher took over in Britain and while similarly to Reagan, her position wasn't entirely secured during her first term, the royal wedding of the Prince of Wales to Lady Diana Spencer (1981) and the pomp and circumstance of the Falklands War (1982) quickly reversed all that. Britain was back, and you could feel it, in attitude and self confidence if not in substance.

Great point. By the early 80s, Thatcher had garned popular support enough to quiet and eventually beat down the previously all-powerful trade unions culminating in the failed 1984 coal miners strike. Although it had greater significance long-term, it was akin to Reagan firing the air traffic controllers (1981) who were attempting to strike. Both events were 3T in nature.

Originally Posted by Tussilago

Sure, you guys can hang on to 1984 as "your" date to your heart's desire, but beware, there is a world outside the United States that was indeed fully transformed by 1984, thus assigning a backward, trailing status to America in as far as the Wave of History is concerned, not a pioneer role. So you want to be a trend setter or a trend follower? It's up to you.

Hear, hear.

Originally Posted by Tussilago

Interesting data, but why should president popularity be indicative of Unravelings, like in "Reagan is now popular this morning in America, thus we have finally arrived in the 3T!"?

Because the acceeptance of what was then the new way, i.e. supply side economics and other Reagan era policies like the intensifying of the culture wars is so tied up in the early 3T that for American culture it is impossible to speak of the 3T without pointing to where the Reagan way became the accepted new norm.

To put it another way, and perhaps one would have to have been an American old enough to have gotten the "feel" of late 2T/early 3T America up to the economic recovery of 1983 it was very possible that Reagan was an abberation from the post new deal norm of America. It was possible to believe that reagan's victory in 1980 was based mostly on the Iranina hostage crises making Carter not creadable in his quest for a second term. In short, if the economic recovery of 1983 had taken a year longer to take hold it is very likely that Reagan would have been a one term president and the Democrat elected in 1984 would have persued a policy much more in line with the demand side policies that had been acendant in America from 1933 until 1981.

And all of this would hav led to something else being the catalyst for the new 3T rising. The mood would have likely changed in the mid 1980's anyway, this is to say the culture wars would have happened anyway and boomer judgmentalism was already rising, it was time for a mood change , but the change would have been caused by something other than a rise of optimism over an economy that seemed like it was on the cverge of unbridled growth because of a radical change in economic policy.

Originally Posted by Tussilago

Interesting data, but why should president popularity be indicative of Unravelings, like in "Reagan is now popular this morning in America, thus we have finally arrived in the 3T!"?

On the contrary I've been trying to talk to you in the language you've been insisting on speaking.

Of course, there can also be sort of a calm sea period during a 3T (the mid 80's, for example), when the last vestiges of the previous Awakening have been swept away, but then you are already deep inside the Unraveling, no longer at the threshold of one.

And you just said what I've been saying all along. You're missing the point that a micro-crisis is a period when one turning is dying & the other is being born. Vast political & social changes are taking place & being pushed through to put us into the next turning. When these changes die or slow down, then we've reached the "High" of the next turning. And the "High of the Unraveling--as you've just admitted to--begins in 1983 / 1984. That is after Reagan has fired the air traffic controllers (1981), after the assassination attempt (1981), after Lennon's Death (1981), after the Economic Recovery Act (1981), after the Miracle on Ice (1982), after the main Anti-Nuke Movement's protest--the Boomer's last "gasp" you might say--and as you've pointed out before it already was shifting towards 3Ting with it's concert ending (1982), after his Job Training Partnership Act (1982), after Unemployment began turning around (1983), after the "Evil Empire" speech (1983), after the economy recovered (1983) , after Lebanon (1983), after Granada (1983), and after the Strategic Defense Initiative (1983).

All of the above indicate "dying" or "corrupting" of the old turning & "birthing" of the new turning to me. Around 1983/1984 the rate of change begins to calm down and the micro-crisis ends. When the period of change stops, that's when I mark the beginning of the micro-high--and 1983/1984 indicates a slow down of change or the reaching of a "calm sea period" as you put it yourself.

Similarly, the Unraveling-Crisis ends in 2005 when Bush no longer is given "carte blanche" due to 9/11, and the rate of "impending changes" comes to a grinding halt. The Crisis-High continues, even through the economic panic of 2008 & rise of Obama-mania as he approaches the problems of the nation in a Clintonian manner. And plenty of Boomers who voted for him (that I recall speaking with) weren't voting for "Change" or "Hope"--those words mostly worked on Millennials--or if those words did mean something it was a "Change" back to when "things weren't that bad" and recapturing the "Hope" when "things were pretty good when we last had a Democratic president (Clinton)". They got exactly what they wanted, ironically enough & it proved that Unraveling Democratic policies couldn't address Crisis problems. Obama's attempt to instigate a lot of policies that Clinton wanted to pass (Healthcare) but never could, sparked the Crisis-Awakening through the Tea Party.

Therefore, 1980 seems to me the most conservatively estimated, correct starting point of the Unraveling. The writers did a big mistake when placing the beginning of it at a point which was actually a high point of the 3T (1984). They did not do this mistake in regards to the Awakening (1967), instead correctly assigning 1963 as the start date when there was still a lot of 1T vestiges around.

Actually they assigned 1964, not 1963, as the date. A lot of people like to make Kennedy the "turning point". S&H put a good argument for it in Generations I believe, but I do not have it on me at the moment.

However, we can agree that underpinning Turnings--Micro, Macro, & Mega--is an underlying reliance on archetypes & symbolism of sorts. So indulge me for a minute or so to talk about the symbolism of Spring & Comedy--which are the archetypes of a High.

Archetypes for a High: Spring & Comedy

A High is a movement towards Spring & Comedy. Comedy takes place in Space, not Time. Tragedy & Unravelings are all about the inevitability of the clock to dictate our lives & Time is always "ticking away" most unconveniently and in an out of controlled manner in a Tragedy. The tragic hero runs himself ragged trying to beat Time--which is dictated by Fate--but finds he can only beat Time if he commits a grand sacrifice. A Crisis is a transition from an out of control ticking clock to a clock that barely moves at all--a slowing down of the clock. Comedy & Highs therefore are about Space--where the passage of Time is meaningless--what's important is the Space & the travels between one Space and another. Many examples can be found in Shakespeare, where you have the perennial example of: Corrupt Urban World vs Rejuvenating Green World. In As You Like It we move from the corrupt court of Duke Frederick to the pastoral world of the forest of Arden, where enmities are put aside, love is found & purified, and the corrupt Duke is converted to religion and relinquishes his claim to the throne.

Tragedies can feature Space as well--but most often it is the inverse of Comedy & one world introduces the ticking clock. In Othello, Venice is a place of justice and fair rule through the Duke & Cyprus is a wild Green World that is out of control, easily corrupted & manipulated by Iago--who begins the ticking clock--and leads to the destruction of Othello.

So space or environment is important to Comedy, Spring, & a High--it's when the ticking clock stops. And the ticking clock stops ticking for me in 1983/1984. It's still going in 1980 & 1981. Morning in America is all about encountering a new "space" it's the "Green World" of the Micro-High. America became its own "Green World"--or so Reagan promised--most especially in the promise of Boomer Exurbia. The Cities were a disaster. Small towns weren't that much better. Rural communities seemed like an oxymoron. And the suburbs were the stage of the Xers, where parental neglect, decadence, and corruption were everywhere as only John Hughes could portray them.

However Exurbia, a Boomer redefinition of Suburbia where houses weren't so close to one another, built around a man-made lake, defined by a gated fence, where nature was only on the edge of the backyard in the woods--that's where the "Green World" of the Unraveling lived. It was their "Communities behind a Gate" akin to the "City on a Hill" of Puritan Generation fame. Where Millennials could go "play in the woods" and "be back by sunset" without Boomers having to worry. Or "wander the neighborhood" or "go play with friends" with Boomers perfectly secure that nothing could possibly get inside the fence. It wasn't until the Unraveling-Awakening would Exurbia be attacked by Boomers themselves in adult books & later television shows aimed at their children that made Exurbia a corrupt neogothic environment to worry about just like Suburbia & the City had already been made into over the course of the Awakening. As much as an Awakening is about "high ideals" and "trust" it's also about a Romantic battle of the heroic champions of those Heavenly ideals versus monsters & demons unleashed by Hell, culminating in a communion with Heaven & the defeat of Hell. It isn't until the Unraveling-Crisis that these gated communities & exurbia become seen as more of a problem than a solution: Twilight Zone - Evergreen & Upgrade.

In our own Macro High we had a "Green World" or "Arcadia" of sorts: Hawaii, Polynesia, & California. For California it was only as Disney could sell it (Disneyland) & Steinbeck preach about it in long waxing passages of description of the Salinas Valley (East of Eden). Remember all those Beach party movies? That was a commercialization of the Green World ideal designed for Hot Rods, War Babies, & Aquarians to buy into. However South Pacific especially plays into this idea as well & presents it in the traditional manner in the song Bali Hai. However the beach wasn't the only "Green World" available in the High, as The Parent Trap shows in the rise of summer camps, as well as the vineyards & hills of California (as Susan says in the film: "Get her to come out to California. Boston is no place for Romance"). My 1943 father remembered that there always was a "split" between Beach-people & Mountain-people. My Dad was a Mountain person and my Mom was a Beach person. A Boomer teacher I had in High School once waxed a quarter of a class away remembering her youth when she spent summers in the Catskills.

So when looking for a High of sorts (micro or macro), look for the clock to stop ticking & space to take over. That's clearly there in 1983/1984--the clock was still ticking in 1980/1981--albeit slowing down I'll admit.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

On the contrary I've been trying to talk to you in the language you've been insisting on speaking.



And you just said what I've been saying all along. You're missing the point that a micro-crisis is a period when one turning is dying & the other is being born. Vast political & social changes are taking place & being pushed through to put us into the next turning. When these changes die or slow down, then we've reached the "High" of the next turning. And the "High of the Unraveling--as you've just admitted to--begins in 1983 / 1984. That is after Reagan has fired the air traffic controllers (1981), after the assassination attempt (1981), after Lennon's Death (1981), after the Economic Recovery Act (1981), after the Miracle on Ice (1982), after the main Anti-Nuke Movement's protest--the Boomer's last "gasp" you might say--and as you've pointed out before it already was shifting towards 3Ting with it's concert ending (1982), after his Job Training Partnership Act (1982), after Unemployment began turning around (1983), after the "Evil Empire" speech (1983), after the economy recovered (1983) , after Lebanon (1983), after Granada (1983), and after the Strategic Defense Initiative (1983).

All of the above indicate "dying" or "corrupting" of the old turning & "birthing" of the new turning to me. Around 1983/1984 the rate of change begins to calm down and the micro-crisis ends. When the period of change stops, that's when I mark the beginning of the micro-high--and 1983/1984 indicates a slow down of change or the reaching of a "calm sea period" as you put it yourself.

Similarly, the Unraveling-Crisis ends in 2005 when Bush no longer is given "carte blanche" due to 9/11, and the rate of "impending changes" comes to a grinding halt. The Crisis-High continues, even through the economic panic of 2008 & rise of Obama-mania as he approaches the problems of the nation in a Clintonian manner. And plenty of Boomers who voted for him (that I recall speaking with) weren't voting for "Change" or "Hope"--those words mostly worked on Millennials--or if those words did mean something it was a "Change" back to when "things weren't that bad" and recapturing the "Hope" when "things were pretty good when we last had a Democratic president (Clinton)". They got exactly what they wanted, ironically enough & it proved that Unraveling Democratic policies couldn't address Crisis problems. Obama's attempt to instigate a lot of policies that Clinton wanted to pass (Healthcare) but never could, sparked the Crisis-Awakening through the Tea Party.



Actually they assigned 1964, not 1963, as the date. A lot of people like to make Kennedy the "turning point". S&H put a good argument for it in Generations I believe, but I do not have it on me at the moment.

However, we can agree that underpinning Turnings--Micro, Macro, & Mega--is an underlying reliance on archetypes & symbolism of sorts. So indulge me for a minute or so to talk about the symbolism of Spring & Comedy--which are the archetypes of a High.

Archetypes for a High: Spring & Comedy

A High is a movement towards Spring & Comedy. Comedy takes place in Space, not Time. Tragedy & Unravelings are all about the inevitability of the clock to dictate our lives & Time is always "ticking away" most unconveniently and in an out of controlled manner in a Tragedy. The tragic hero runs himself ragged trying to beat Time--which is dictated by Fate--but finds he can only beat Time if he commits a grand sacrifice. A Crisis is a transition from an out of control ticking clock to a clock that barely moves at all--a slowing down of the clock. Comedy & Highs therefore are about Space--where the passage of Time is meaningless--what's important is the Space & the travels between one Space and another. Many examples can be found in Shakespeare, where you have the perennial example of: Corrupt Urban World vs Rejuvenating Green World. In As You Like It we move from the corrupt court of Duke Frederick to the pastoral world of the forest of Arden, where enmities are put aside, love is found & purified, and the corrupt Duke is converted to religion and relinquishes his claim to the throne.

Tragedies can feature Space as well--but most often it is the inverse of Comedy & one world introduces the ticking clock. In Othello, Venice is a place of justice and fair rule through the Duke & Cyprus is a wild Green World that is out of control, easily corrupted & manipulated by Iago--who begins the ticking clock--and leads to the destruction of Othello.

So space or environment is important to Comedy, Spring, & a High--it's when the ticking clock stops. And the ticking clock stops ticking for me in 1983/1984. It's still going in 1980 & 1981. Morning in America is all about encountering a new "space" it's the "Green World" of the Micro-High. America became its own "Green World"--or so Reagan promised--most especially in the promise of Boomer Exurbia. The Cities were a disaster. Small towns weren't that much better. Rural communities seemed like an oxymoron. And the suburbs were the stage of the Xers, where parental neglect, decadence, and corruption were everywhere as only John Hughes could portray them.

However Exurbia, a Boomer redefinition of Suburbia where houses weren't so close to one another, built around a man-made lake, defined by a gated fence, where nature was only on the edge of the backyard in the woods--that's where the "Green World" of the Unraveling lived. It was their "Communities behind a Gate" akin to the "City on a Hill" of Puritan Generation fame. Where Millennials could go "play in the woods" and "be back by sunset" without Boomers having to worry. Or "wander the neighborhood" or "go play with friends" with Boomers perfectly secure that nothing could possibly get inside the fence. It wasn't until the Unraveling-Awakening would Exurbia be attacked by Boomers themselves in adult books & later television shows aimed at their children that made Exurbia a corrupt neogothic environment to worry about just like Suburbia & the City had already been made into over the course of the Awakening. As much as an Awakening is about "high ideals" and "trust" it's also about a Romantic battle of the heroic champions of those Heavenly ideals versus monsters & demons unleashed by Hell, culminating in a communion with Heaven & the defeat of Hell. It isn't until the Unraveling-Crisis that these gated communities & exurbia become seen as more of a problem than a solution: Twilight Zone - Evergreen & Upgrade.

In our own Macro High we had a "Green World" or "Arcadia" of sorts: Hawaii, Polynesia, & California. For California it was only as Disney could sell it (Disneyland) & Steinbeck preach about it in long waxing passages of description of the Salinas Valley (East of Eden). Remember all those Beach party movies? That was a commercialization of the Green World ideal designed for Hot Rods, War Babies, & Aquarians to buy into. However South Pacific especially plays into this idea as well & presents it in the traditional manner in the song Bali Hai. However the beach wasn't the only "Green World" available in the High, as The Parent Trap shows in the rise of summer camps, as well as the vineyards & hills of California (as Susan says in the film: "Get her to come out to California. Boston is no place for Romance"). My 1943 father remembered that there always was a "split" between Beach-people & Mountain-people. My Dad was a Mountain person and my Mom was a Beach person. A Boomer teacher I had in High School once waxed a quarter of a class away remembering her youth when she spent summers in the Catskills.

So when looking for a High of sorts (micro or macro), look for the clock to stop ticking & space to take over. That's clearly there in 1983/1984--the clock was still ticking in 1980/1981--albeit slowing down I'll admit.

~Chas'88

While I don't agree with your conclusions, I respect your thoughtfulness, your insights and your intelligence. A real scholar you are Chas. Well done.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

While I don't agree with your conclusions, I respect your thoughtfulness, your insights and your intelligence. A real scholar you are Chas. Well done.

Perhaps we can agree to disagree?

~Chas'88

P.S. Another thing to consider is that the Boomer Awakening was a Mega-Unraveling Awakening--which would account for the "darker mood" of it in comparison with the Missionary Awakening which would've been a Mega-Awakening Awakening. The last Mega-Unraveling Awakening we had was the Puritan Awakening--which culminated at a time of plague & religious intolerance. Puritans moved to America to "escape" that, only to find new problems awaiting them there. Sorta similar to Boomers moving to Exurbia only to find issues there. But then again history is rife with examples of Idealists moving to find that "perfect land", whether it be Prester John's fabled Christian Kingdom, El Dorado, Virginia, Oregon, California, Hawaii or Exurbia.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

On the contrary I've been trying to talk to you in the language you've been insisting on speaking.



And you just said what I've been saying all along. You're missing the point that a micro-crisis is a period when one turning is dying & the other is being born. Vast political & social changes are taking place & being pushed through to put us into the next turning. When these changes die or slow down, then we've reached the "High" of the next turning. And the "High of the Unraveling--as you've just admitted to--begins in 1983 / 1984. That is after Reagan has fired the air traffic controllers (1981), after the assassination attempt (1981), after Lennon's Death (1981), after the Economic Recovery Act (1981), after the Miracle on Ice (1982), after the main Anti-Nuke Movement's protest--the Boomer's last "gasp" you might say--and as you've pointed out before it already was shifting towards 3Ting with it's concert ending (1982), after his Job Training Partnership Act (1982), after Unemployment began turning around (1983), after the "Evil Empire" speech (1983), after the economy recovered (1983) , after Lebanon (1983), after Granada (1983), and after the Strategic Defense Initiative (1983).

All of the above indicate "dying" or "corrupting" of the old turning & "birthing" of the new turning to me. Around 1983/1984 the rate of change begins to calm down and the micro-crisis ends. When the period of change stops, that's when I mark the beginning of the micro-high--and 1983/1984 indicates a slow down of change or the reaching of a "calm sea period" as you put it yourself.

Similarly, the Unraveling-Crisis ends in 2005 when Bush no longer is given "carte blanche" due to 9/11, and the rate of "impending changes" comes to a grinding halt. The Crisis-High continues, even through the economic panic of 2008 & rise of Obama-mania as he approaches the problems of the nation in a Clintonian manner. And plenty of Boomers who voted for him (that I recall speaking with) weren't voting for "Change" or "Hope"--those words mostly worked on Millennials--or if those words did mean something it was a "Change" back to when "things weren't that bad" and recapturing the "Hope" when "things were pretty good when we last had a Democratic president (Clinton)". They got exactly what they wanted, ironically enough & it proved that Unraveling Democratic policies couldn't address Crisis problems. Obama's attempt to instigate a lot of policies that Clinton wanted to pass (Healthcare) but never could, sparked the Crisis-Awakening through the Tea Party.



Actually they assigned 1964, not 1963, as the date. A lot of people like to make Kennedy the "turning point". S&H put a good argument for it in Generations I believe, but I do not have it on me at the moment.

However, we can agree that underpinning Turnings--Micro, Macro, & Mega--is an underlying reliance on archetypes & symbolism of sorts. So indulge me for a minute or so to talk about the symbolism of Spring & Comedy--which are the archetypes of a High.

Archetypes for a High: Spring & Comedy

A High is a movement towards Spring & Comedy. Comedy takes place in Space, not Time. Tragedy & Unravelings are all about the inevitability of the clock to dictate our lives & Time is always "ticking away" most unconveniently and in an out of controlled manner in a Tragedy. The tragic hero runs himself ragged trying to beat Time--which is dictated by Fate--but finds he can only beat Time if he commits a grand sacrifice. A Crisis is a transition from an out of control ticking clock to a clock that barely moves at all--a slowing down of the clock. Comedy & Highs therefore are about Space--where the passage of Time is meaningless--what's important is the Space & the travels between one Space and another. Many examples can be found in Shakespeare, where you have the perennial example of: Corrupt Urban World vs Rejuvenating Green World. In As You Like It we move from the corrupt court of Duke Frederick to the pastoral world of the forest of Arden, where enmities are put aside, love is found & purified, and the corrupt Duke is converted to religion and relinquishes his claim to the throne.

Tragedies can feature Space as well--but most often it is the inverse of Comedy & one world introduces the ticking clock. In Othello, Venice is a place of justice and fair rule through the Duke & Cyprus is a wild Green World that is out of control, easily corrupted & manipulated by Iago--who begins the ticking clock--and leads to the destruction of Othello.

So space or environment is important to Comedy, Spring, & a High--it's when the ticking clock stops. And the ticking clock stops ticking for me in 1983/1984. It's still going in 1980 & 1981. Morning in America is all about encountering a new "space" it's the "Green World" of the Micro-High. America became its own "Green World"--or so Reagan promised--most especially in the promise of Boomer Exurbia. The Cities were a disaster. Small towns weren't that much better. Rural communities seemed like an oxymoron. And the suburbs were the stage of the Xers, where parental neglect, decadence, and corruption were everywhere as only John Hughes could portray them.

However Exurbia, a Boomer redefinition of Suburbia where houses weren't so close to one another, built around a man-made lake, defined by a gated fence, where nature was only on the edge of the backyard in the woods--that's where the "Green World" of the Unraveling lived. It was their "Communities behind a Gate" akin to the "City on a Hill" of Puritan Generation fame. Where Millennials could go "play in the woods" and "be back by sunset" without Boomers having to worry. Or "wander the neighborhood" or "go play with friends" with Boomers perfectly secure that nothing could possibly get inside the fence. It wasn't until the Unraveling-Awakening would Exurbia be attacked by Boomers themselves in adult books & later television shows aimed at their children that made Exurbia a corrupt neogothic environment to worry about just like Suburbia & the City had already been made into over the course of the Awakening. As much as an Awakening is about "high ideals" and "trust" it's also about a Romantic battle of the heroic champions of those Heavenly ideals versus monsters & demons unleashed by Hell, culminating in a communion with Heaven & the defeat of Hell. It isn't until the Unraveling-Crisis that these gated communities & exurbia become seen as more of a problem than a solution: Twilight Zone - Evergreen & Upgrade.

In our own Macro High we had a "Green World" or "Arcadia" of sorts: Hawaii, Polynesia, & California. For California it was only as Disney could sell it (Disneyland) & Steinbeck preach about it in long waxing passages of description of the Salinas Valley (East of Eden). Remember all those Beach party movies? That was a commercialization of the Green World ideal designed for Hot Rods, War Babies, & Aquarians to buy into. However South Pacific especially plays into this idea as well & presents it in the traditional manner in the song Bali Hai. However the beach wasn't the only "Green World" available in the High, as The Parent Trap shows in the rise of summer camps, as well as the vineyards & hills of California (as Susan says in the film: "Get her to come out to California. Boston is no place for Romance"). My 1943 father remembered that there always was a "split" between Beach-people & Mountain-people. My Dad was a Mountain person and my Mom was a Beach person. A Boomer teacher I had in High School once waxed a quarter of a class away remembering her youth when she spent summers in the Catskills.

So when looking for a High of sorts (micro or macro), look for the clock to stop ticking & space to take over. That's clearly there in 1983/1984--the clock was still ticking in 1980/1981--albeit slowing down I'll admit.

~Chas'88

The best thing about arguing with you is you get so much in return. The High, like the comedy, is a "space". Indeed. Apart from me quibbling about exact dates, I like this metaphor. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Tussilago

The best thing about arguing with you is you get so much in return. The High, like the comedy, is a "space". Indeed. Apart from me quibbling about exact dates, I like this metaphor. Thanks.

And as much as I find the quibbling about dates to be irritating, I will say that both of your posts (you and Teddy) push me into making these posts and explaining things in these amount of details. I think we'd all probably benefit more from an exploration of archetypes and then looking at how we as humans evoke them over and over again in reality--which involves delving into literature & myth.

Oh and as for being a "leading nation", I personally don't care about that--although I know I'm in the minority on that point. Personally I think America would be better off it if it just got "over itself" and stopped believing that it was a special nation with a special destiny. If countries have "generational archetypes" then America most definitely is a Civic nation at heart, born from Mama England, who although we've "left the nest" we've never really been able to "get over her" and we keep going back to her like a stereotyped Millennial returns to their stereotyped Boomer parents.

I'd prefer to just live in a nation that was run well, with little interference from anybody, & minded its own business. Actually the description of early Pennsylvania (1681 - 1690) from the link that millennialX posted on the MegaSaeculum thread, sounds like my kind of place to live.

When you look at it, we are quibbling over minute things of little consequence, but yet we do enjoy it so. We see the same things but wish to label it differently. I'm sure some people are getting a laugh out of it as they read this thread.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Perhaps we can agree to disagree?

Deal......!

Theory: 4 micros to a half of a saeculum. I have only one point of reference though and that being our current half. 1-Regan recovery, 2-alternative music, 3-Wall Street, tax structure, and (compared to the rest of the half) a decline of civic union. 4-Housing crisis, Tea Party, OWS. Of course this goes against my believing that the 3T started with the firing of the air traffic controllers and the 4T with 9-11.

Originally Posted by disgruntledxer

Theory: 4 micros to a half of a saeculum. I have only one point of reference though and that being our current half. 1-Regan recovery, 2-alternative music, 3-Wall Street, tax structure, and (compared to the rest of the half) a decline of civic union. 4-Housing crisis, Tea Party, OWS. Of course this goes against my believing that the 3T started with the firing of the air traffic controllers and the 4T with 9-11.

So you're suggesting an intermediary level between the level I'm suggesting & a regular turning, perhaps? It's an intriguing question.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

So you're suggesting an intermediary level between the level I'm suggesting & a regular turning, perhaps? It's an intriguing question.

~Chas'88

Also, it would suggest something like you said with generations not giving birth to an opposite generation directly, but 2 halves of a generation. It would mean that it is not like a gear, but the waves of the micro turning move the turnings, but not matching exactly. For example, a single micro turning could take place durring both a 3rd and 4th turning. This would also not conflict with any starting and stopping points of any turning.

Originally Posted by disgruntledxer

Also, it would suggest something like you said with generations not giving birth to an opposite generation directly, but 2 halves of a generation. It would mean that it is not like a gear, but the waves of the micro turning move the turnings, but not matching exactly. For example, a single micro turning could take place durring both a 3rd and 4th turning. This would also not conflict with any starting and stopping points of any turning.

More to the thoery, two halves of seperate micro turning make a turning with one set of micro turnings in a half of a saeculum.

On another point, the Aquarian Boomers would have been on center stage with the 2T and the 2mT were in effect.

Saeculum
Half Saeculum: 1) outward, 2) inward
Turnings: Divide the saeculum by 4
Micro Turnings: Divide the half saeculum by 4
Next level : Divide the turnings by 4

All of which is not like gears, but the lower level of each would likely (butnot necessarily) take part in two of the next highest level.

I am going to research this theory. At least until I start work December 5th.

Originally Posted by disgruntledxer

Saeculum
Half Saeculum: 1) outward, 2) inward
Turnings: Divide the saeculum by 4
Micro Turnings: Divide the half saeculum by 4
Next level : Divide the turnings by 4

All of which is not like gears, but the lower level of each would likely (butnot necessarily) take part in two of the next highest level.

I am going to research this theory. At least until I start work December 5th.

A half-saeculum divided by four is a decade, is it not?

Saeculum	Half Saeculum	Turnings	Micro Turnings
Millennial 1946 - ?	Outward 1938 - 1980	High 1946 - 1964	Infrastructure Build
	Inward 1980 - ?	Awakening 1964 - 1984	Rock Music
		Unraveling 1984 - 2001	Feel Good 70s
		Crisis 2001 - ?	Oil Crisis
			Regan Recovery
			Alternative Music
			Wall Street Gone Wild
			Financial Crisis

Originally Posted by disgruntledxer

Saeculum	Half Saeculum	Turnings	Micro Turnings
Millennial 1946 - ?	Outward 1938 - 1980	High 1946 - 1964	Infrastructure Build
	Inward 1980 - ?	Awakening 1964 - 1984	Rock Music
		Unraveling 1984 - 2001	Feel Good 70s
		Crisis 2001 - ?	Oil Crisis
			Regan Recovery
			Alternative Music
			Wall Street Gone Wild
			Financial Crisis

Nice work.

Originally Posted by disgruntledxer

Saeculum	Half Saeculum	Turnings	Micro Turnings
Millennial 1946 - ?	Outward 1938 - 1980	High 1946 - 1964	Infrastructure Build
	Inward 1980 - ?	Awakening 1964 - 1984	Rock Music
		Unraveling 1984 - 2001	Feel Good 70s
		Crisis 2001 - ?	Oil Crisis
			Regan Recovery
			Alternative Music
			Wall Street Gone Wild
			Financial Crisis

Half-saeculums correspond to the power level of either a Civic/Nomad grouping or a Artist/Prophet grouping. In 1938 you have a Nomad/Civic team overpowering the Missionaries, but by the late 1970s, only the GIs are left & are slowly pushed aside by the team of Silents/Boomers. Which means we'll stop being "Inward" when we push the Boomers out.

When Nomads begin coming of age they develop an anti-inward bias that they develop & together with the Civics they bring about an outerward paradigm, which then the Civics preserve longer than is necessary. Same with the Artists/Prophets. When Prophets begin coming of age they develop an anti-outward bias that they develop & together with the Prophets bring about an inward paradigm.

I prefer Micro-Turnings for my own work that I've done. However we can come up with a name for yours if you like. Quarter Turnings or whatever.

~Chas'88