I am very fascinated with the Generations Theory posed by Strauss and Howe. In my opinion, the theory is somewhat overly deterministic, but does have merit. When thinking about their theory that the generations cycle last for about one lifetime, a little less than 80 years, I believe that the cycle really lasts two lifetimes or about 150 years.

Strauss and Howe often talk about how the Civil War Cycle didn't produce a heroic generation. That is because the Civil War never produced a high in the American psyche as in the other crisis periods did (The Glorious Revolution, the Revolutionary War, and Great Depression-WWII era).

What I noticed is that every other crisis produces one of two different type of questions. In one type of crisis, the issue is whether to build a new system or maintain the status quo. But in the alternating cycle the issue is whether to maintain the status quo or go back to an earlier era.

Examples: (1) in the Glorious Revolution, the question was whether colonies should maintain the status quo or go back to the original state charters. They chose to go back to the original state charters. (2) In the next crisis, the Revolutionary War, the question was whether to form a new country or stick with Britain - they chose a new country. (3) During the Civil War, the question was whether to preserve the Union or go back to the Articles of Confederation - After a bloody Civil War, they chose to preserve the Union. (4) During the Great Depression the issue was whether to build a new social democratic system or keep free capitalism - they chose to build a new economic system.

We are now in a 9-11/Great Recession crisis. People have erroneously compared Obama to FDR so they expect a great Obama Revolution and have been disappointed. But that's because they believe in the one lifetime cycle theory. More likely, we are in a period more like the Civil War, where the question is whether to keep the status quo or repeal the New Deal and return to a free capitalist system. If past history is a guide, we won't know what the decision will be until the time comes.

Thus, there may not be a heroic generation in this cycle. We may end up with significant reforms such as universal health care, but it won't be as earth shattering as forming a new nation or reorganizing our whole economic system. It will be more like the Glorious Revolution where either there will be modest reforms, or the major reforms will involve reducing government's role in the economy and dismantling the social safety net.

In conclusion, the next big revolution will be in about 70 years from now. Roughly around 2080 we will once again think about creating something new.

Of course, the major problem of testing the theory is that there has not been enough cycles in American history to make a judgement on the validity of the theory. That won't happen for at least another few thousand years.

You've tapped into what a lot of other posters have started to dabble in. The latest thread was "Duel paradigm theory" I think it was JDW proposed that there were two types of saeculums starting in the 2nd turnings. One atonement and one advancement. You're idea of maintaining the status quo matches up with the atonement saeculums while the building a different system matches the advancement saeculum. If this is correct we are in an atonement saeculum and it won't look exactly like the great depression and WWII crisis.
It's encouraging to see some many people independently come up with the same idea. You guys may be onto something.

Makes sense, considering that many people on the Right are constantly pushing for a return to Reagan's era.

So does this support David's view that we are headed for another Gilded Age? Or are we thinking Calvin Coolidge?

I think the most obvious parallel between now and the civil war era is the unwillingness for the prophet generation to put aside differences and work for a greater good. In "The Fourth Turning" that is kinda a requirement for a nice outcome from a crisis.
Now say we are early in the crisis like 3 years. Does any one see anything uniting the boomers in the next 10 to 15 years? I just don't think it is possible. In 2019 if we have a Pearl Harbor like event do you think the whole nation would unite for war even if it was , as far as wars go, a just war. Yeah right.

Originally Posted by pizal81

I think the most obvious parallel between now and the civil war era is the unwillingness for the prophet generation to put aside differences and work for a greater good. In "The Fourth Turning" that is kinda a requirement for a nice outcome from a crisis.
Now say we are early in the crisis like 3 years. Does any one see anything uniting the boomers in the next 10 to 15 years? I just don't think it is possible. In 2019 if we have a Pearl Harbor like event do you think the whole nation would unite for war even if it was , as far as wars go, a just war. Yeah right.

I don't see anything uniting the boomers. But maybe the question is what do we want? Xers and Millennials. The above post seems to be based off the reaction of the nomads and building of the civics. Any signs that we want more of the same? Judging by the massive votes behind Obama (like him or not)...it seems like we want to advance...or will this be blocked somehow.

Originally Posted by millennialX

I don't see anything uniting the boomers. But maybe the question is what do we want? Xers and Millennials. The above post seems to be based off the reaction of the nomads and building of the civics. Any signs that we want more of the same? Judging by the massive votes behind Obama (like him or not)...it seems like we want to advance...or will this be blocked somehow.

At least the way I felt about Obama's campaign was that people thought if they got some fresh blood (Fresh blood meaning anyone associated with the people who got us into the messes we were in i.e. Clinton, Bush, McCain) in the white house things would go back to "normal". That was sorta in the back of my mind. I knew Obama wasn't going to be some kinda savior, but I thought things would turn around. Well, they haven't.

Originally Posted by pizal81

At least the way I felt about Obama's campaign was that people thought if they got some fresh blood (Fresh blood meaning anyone associated with the people who got us into the messes we were in i.e. Clinton, Bush, McCain) in the white house things would go back to "normal". That was sorta in the back of my mind. I knew Obama wasn't going to be some kinda savior, but I thought things would turn around. Well, they haven't.

The question is, what is "normal." Its easy for me to say, life was awesome when I was a kid and want to go back to that...but do we really want to go back to the Reagan to the Clinton years? While, it's easy for me to comment on the past (WW2, etc)...it's hard for me to distinguish between my child like warm and fuzzy feelings of the 80's and 90s with how it really was.

Originally Posted by millennialX

I don't see anything uniting the boomers. But maybe the question is what do we want? Xers and Millennials. The above post seems to be based off the reaction of the nomads and building of the civics. Any signs that we want more of the same? Judging by the massive votes behind Obama (like him or not)...it seems like we want to advance...or will this be blocked somehow.

From Jon Stewart's rally, I would say "Sanity."

Originally Posted by Rose1992

From Jon Stewart's rally, I would say "Sanity."

Rose your post prompt me to look up Jon Stewart's rally and based off what it says on the following site:http://www.rallytorestoresanity.com/ It seems like Xer's and Millennials are reacting against the message of the awakening movie, Network.

“I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore!”

Who among us has not wanted to open their window and shout that at the top of their lungs?

Seriously, who?

Because we’re looking for those people. We’re looking for the people who think shouting is annoying, counterproductive, and terrible for your throat; who feel that the loudest voices shouldn’t be the only ones that get heard; and who believe that the only time it’s appropriate to draw a Hitler mustache on someone is when that person is actually Hitler. Or Charlie Chaplin in certain roles.

Originally Posted by Ed S

I am very fascinated with the Generations Theory posed by Strauss and Howe. In my opinion, the theory is somewhat overly deterministic, but does have merit. When thinking about their theory that the generations cycle last for about one lifetime, a little less than 80 years, I believe that the cycle really lasts two lifetimes or about 150 years.

Strauss and Howe often talk about how the Civil War Cycle didn't produce a heroic generation. That is because the Civil War never produced a high in the American psyche as in the other crisis periods did (The Glorious Revolution, the Revolutionary War, and Great Depression-WWII era).

What I noticed is that every other crisis produces one of two different type of questions. In one type of crisis, the issue is whether to build a new system or maintain the status quo. But in the alternating cycle the issue is whether to maintain the status quo or go back to an earlier era.

Examples: (1) in the Glorious Revolution, the question was whether colonies should maintain the status quo or go back to the original state charters. They chose to go back to the original state charters. (2) In the next crisis, the Revolutionary War, the question was whether to form a new country or stick with Britain - they chose a new country. (3) During the Civil War, the question was whether to preserve the Union or go back to the Articles of Confederation - After a bloody Civil War, they chose to preserve the Union. (4) During the Great Depression the issue was whether to build a new social democratic system or keep free capitalism - they chose to build a new economic system.

We are now in a 9-11/Great Recession crisis. People have erroneously compared Obama to FDR so they expect a great Obama Revolution and have been disappointed. But that's because they believe in the one lifetime cycle theory. More likely, we are in a period more like the Civil War, where the question is whether to keep the status quo or repeal the New Deal and return to a free capitalist system. If past history is a guide, we won't know what the decision will be until the time comes.

Thus, there may not be a heroic generation in this cycle. We may end up with significant reforms such as universal health care, but it won't be as earth shattering as forming a new nation or reorganizing our whole economic system. It will be more like the Glorious Revolution where either there will be modest reforms, or the major reforms will involve reducing government's role in the economy and dismantling the social safety net.

In conclusion, the next big revolution will be in about 70 years from now. Roughly around 2080 we will once again think about creating something new.

Of course, the major problem of testing the theory is that there has not been enough cycles in American history to make a judgement on the validity of the theory. That won't happen for at least another few thousand years.

Yes. This double cycle is being discussed at length in other threads and I totally agree that it's there.

I really don't see any common ground between the two factions of the Boomers. However, I think among people over 35 like me, there is little common ground between conservatives and liberals.

I really like the idea of Atonement versus Advancement saeculums.

Thanks for giving me heads up on the double cycle theories on the other threads.

Welcome!

With the Civil War, I'm of the opinion that S&H botched the analysis of that saeculum and think there was a Civic Generation, the Gilded. What S&H call the Compromise and Transcendentalist generations are a mishmash of Artist and early Prophet cohorts for the former and later Prophet and Nomad cohorts for the later.

S&H misunderstood the true nature of 4Ts because they have never experienced one. Their knowledge of the last one was based on post-war hagiography that sweeps the extreme social unrest and division of the Depression under the rug. "Unity" did not exist in the last 4T until Pear Harbor, 3 1/2 years before the end of the turning, the oldest Silents were coming of age, then, and some fought in WW2. Unity is a 1T phenomenon. 4Ts are when the various ideologies and movements that begun in the 2T struggle for dominance and complete victory and establish a societal consensus at the 4T-1T cusp.

Ed's analysis is good, but a more liberal view than his would be different. The pre-civil war era was about more than returning to the Confederation vs. keeping the Union. It was about slavery, and progressives agitated for its repeal. No civil war would have happened without that issue. Repealing slavery was a new system, not a return to the old. The Glorious Revolution involved Britain's founding of a parliamentary democracy. Today, on the liberal side, it's not just about keeping the New Deal, but the 2T ideals of peace, ecology and brother-sisterhood, as well as community and re-personalization/sacralization of American life. Key reforms in those fields are being proposed, especially ecological.

It is true though that the right's desire to repeal the New Deal may be the key bone of contention. The liberal alternative is also for further reforms that take the New Deal further, as in health care. If liberals win this may become Medicare for all, the only real answer in our opinion. The Obama Revolution may be dissappointing, but if one realizes that the financial crisis, and NOT 9-11, was the start of the 4T, then it still has a very long way to go. Saying 9-11 was the catalyst is speeding up the cycle quite a bit, and there's no need to do that, since 9-11 did not change the mood or governance of America, but retarded it back to the Cold War approach begun in the 1T. We are still in the early 4T, which features considerable disunion and resistance to the new. Thus, the Tea Party.

Meanwhile, many on both sides may come to agree that the federal system may need to be scrapped and the nation split up (as in the civil war era), and/or that our presidential semi-monarchy may need to be updated to a parliamentary system. The latter at least would be a progressive systemic change, if adopted. We won't know how far the 4T will go until its end; that's a part of the pattern too. It ends up with greater change than was anticipated or desired at its start.

It is true that we have a seemingly unusual amount of reactionaries this saeculum. Not only the free-marketers, but also the religious right and the militarists. None of them have gone away or seriously diminished in numbers, even though the religious right element seems on the back burner now. But you would have thought free market ideology would have been completely debunked by the financial crisis. I guess it just wasn't serious enough, like the last one was in 1929.

Another possibility is that this reactionary flood is not cyclic at all, but a sign of America's decadence. We got fat and happy and complacent being at the top of the heap in the recent 1T. So it's easy to be negligent in the thought and compassion departments, and just believe what some people in authority tell you. And to hold on to the past when America was #1, rather than face the real facts we live in today.

Eric's analysis shows why its nearly impossible to prove or disprove this theory. Interpretations of history can be modified to fit many theories that historians propose. When the facts stop fitting the theory, its easy to slightly modify the theory without destroying its essence to make it fit the facts. We see this in the economics profession all the time because controlled experiments are hard to do in social science fields. In one interpretation, the abolition of slavery could be interpreted as implementing a new system. On the other hand, it can be interpreted as tearing down an institution rather than building a new one. If it is interpretated as of advancing to a new system, then one can argue that there is just one type of cycle and no dual atonement/advancement cycles exist. However, if abolishing slavery is thought of as tearing down an institution, then in a sense both the Confederacy and Union were attempting to tear down an institution. The Confederacy was trying to tear down the Union and the Union the institution of slavery. But from another perspective, the Confederacy could say that they were just like the Revolutionaries back in 1776.

I would argue that indeed for the Confederacy the issue was about slavery and State's Rights was just pretext to preserve slavery. However, for the union, the issue was about preserving the Union. Had Lincoln made slavery the issue, he would have gotten little support in the North for the war; that is why Lincoln waited so long to free the slaves.

Personally, I believe that we go through natural stages of development that causes cycling. When we have a revolution in response to a crisis, it is just natural that once the revolution is over, we need a period of normalcy, of getting on with our lives. But as time goes on, and the revolution fades from our memories, and we start questioning whether we are on the right course or not. However, there is a lot of uncertainty in the world and events are random. Thus, in 1,000 years I believe we will see alot of irregularity in the cycles. Right now it is easy to see cycles because we can make up a story to fit the facts, but whether the story holds true as additional facts come is questionable.

Perhaps, there are both deterministic and random components to cycles. May the be big difference in this crisis from the Great Depression is simply the type of leaders we have elected. FDR was a bold leader who used the bully pulpit of the presidency well. Obama is more like Eisenhower, a cautious leader who will not make a bold move unless it is carefully thought out. Moreover, the reforms of the New Deal actually worked, making the financial crisis more like the Panic of 1907 rather than the Great Depression. Thus, reforming the system is harder today. In addition, the Great Recession started just a few months before Obama took office, while the Great Depression was already 4 years old when FDR took office. Therefore, no one could blame FDR for the Depression (although it seems like conservatives are having some success today for blaming FDR)

In my own my mind I've reduced the theory down to a tendency in society to go through different moods. S&H may have gotten a little overly ambitious on a couple of things, but all in all I at least think they are onto something. There "predictions" were pretty amazing.

They basically predicted Al Gore's whole environmental spiel about reducing our carbon footprint and his own home has a very high carbon footprint. To give an example.

Originally Posted by Ed S

Perhaps, there are both deterministic and random components to cycles. May the be big difference in this crisis from the Great Depression is simply the type of leaders we have elected. FDR was a bold leader who used the bully pulpit of the presidency well. Obama is more like Eisenhower, a cautious leader who will not make a bold move unless it is carefully thought out. Moreover, the reforms of the New Deal actually worked, making the financial crisis more like the Panic of 1907 rather than the Great Depression. Thus, reforming the system is harder today. In addition, the Great Recession started just a few months before Obama took office, while the Great Depression was already 4 years old when FDR took office. Therefore, no one could blame FDR for the Depression (although it seems like conservatives are having some success today for blaming FDR)

A while back I started a thread about mapping your own personal turnings and it actually matches up with the theory, going through a crisis, high, awakening and unraveling. So if we go through this on a personal scale, it makes sense that we do this as a collective.

This appears to be where the discussion is, but I’m having a little trouble knowing where to jump in. I’ve made it a point to avoid politics as much as possible, but to me the “contention” is whether we plan our pain now or put it off until it becomes unavoidable. Whether that falls under Advancement or Atonement has more to do with how we agree to justify our actions when it is all over. Right now, the Left seems to view the Tea Party movement more in terms of good versus evil (Atonement), while the Right seems to view it more as wise versus foolish (Advancement). Regardless of which side prevails in forming the consensus (i.e., convincing the Millennials) APT predicts that both sides will ultimately see it in terms of good versus evil.

Originally Posted by JDW

This appears to be where the discussion is, but I’m having a little trouble knowing where to jump in. I’ve made it a point to avoid politics as much as possible, but to me the “contention” is whether we plan our pain now or put it off until it becomes unavoidable. Whether that falls under Advancement or Atonement has more to do with how we agree to justify our actions when it is all over. Right now, the Left seems to view the Tea Party movement more in terms of good versus evil (Atonement), while the Right seems to view it more as wise versus foolish (Advancement). Regardless of which side prevails in forming the consensus (i.e., convincing the Millennials) APT predicts that both sides will ultimately see it in terms of good versus evil.

Well, I think the TP puppet-masters (the Koch brothers and etc.) are evil and I think the TPers themselves are foolish.

Originally Posted by Odin

Well, I think the TP puppet-masters (the Koch brothers and etc.) are evil and I think the TPers themselves are foolish.

All that is required for my prediction to be true is for the Right to change the names.

Originally Posted by millennialX

A while back I started a thread about mapping your own personal turnings and it actually matches up with the theory, going through a crisis, high, awakening and unraveling. So if we go through this on a personal scale, it makes sense that we do this as a collective.

In my experience and studies, I find your statements to be correct. Both a personal cycle(individual) and a generational cycle(collective) are at play.

You may also want to focus on MBTI Personality (T) vs (F) in both the individual and collective as well. Think of (T) as "Logos"; (F) as "Pathos". This also speaks to JDW's APT "Advancement" and "Atonement"; (T) as Advancement; (F) as Atonement.

What is important here is Individualism vs Collectivism POVs. IMO, neither is "wrong" in and of themself, but actions based on a Collectivist POV are problematic i/r/t how "goals" are "achieved".

It is indeed complicated to describe, but considering my Early-X POV, anything worth understanding usually takes lots of study and homework OVER TIME to be "built correctly"(ie: sustainable and/or adaptable to expansion/contraction).

Sincerely, Prince

There is the cycle of cycles to the nth degree theory or super cycles.

Might want to look at the American saeculums and see if one is more in a grander scheme a growth, the next a spiritual, etc. I could not see how WWII started a growth saeculum though. If so, that would make the Civil War a secular Winter (makes sense) and the next one the catalyst for a spiritual saeculum.

Originally Posted by disgruntledxer

There is the cycle of cycles to the nth degree theory or super cycles.

I see the dynamic re-occur in terms of "Fractals".

Prince

Originally Posted by JDW

Right now, the Left seems to view the Tea Party movement more in terms of good versus evil (Atonement), while the Right seems to view it more as wise versus foolish (Advancement).

I think in general those in power right now see everything from an Advancement POV while the common people see everything from an Atonement POV including those in the Tea Party.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It is true that we have a seemingly unusual amount of reactionaries this saeculum. Not only the free-marketers, but also the religious right and the militarists. None of them have gone away or seriously diminished in numbers, even though the religious right element seems on the back burner now. But you would have thought free market ideology would have been completely debunked by the financial crisis. I guess it just wasn't serious enough, like the last one was in 1929.

Another possibility is that this reactionary flood is not cyclic at all, but a sign of America's decadence. We got fat and happy and complacent being at the top of the heap in the recent 1T. So it's easy to be negligent in the thought and compassion departments, and just believe what some people in authority tell you. And to hold on to the past when America was #1, rather than face the real facts we live in today.

I'm going to disagree here. Not in your reasoning as to why there is a reactionary flood, but rather with the assertion that such a flood is unusual. Every saeculum seems to include a reactionary element as well as a progressive, moderate and conservative element. From a couple of saeculums:

English Civil War/Glorious Revolution:

Reactionary: James II attempt to assert a new form of Catholic modernity.
Conservative: Torries who supported the status quo, a strongly agrarian society based around the idea of limited capital and large inflexible state sponsored monopolies.
Moderate: More moderate whigs
Progressive: Puritan/Most Radical Whigs

King James II attempted to reassert catholicism and related government structures (ie. absolutism). After he was deposed, the new King William disappointed many of the more radical whigs by attempting to take a more Moderate/Conservative path. Compromises such as an attempt at a "land bank" failed as they were unable to win support from either the whigs or the torries. In the end many of the whig ideas passed into reality. A national bank was created and tax policy modified in such a way as to strengthen industry at the expense of land ownership. Also, government monopolies (supported by the status quo torries) were weakened allowing the rise of competing industries. This created the conditions that allowed the competing agrarian and industrial societies to flourish in the soon to be United States.

Notably a disagree with the assertion that the result of the glorious revolution were to undo the previous saeculum (as the op asserted). To me this is most clearly a step forward and the obvious reactionaries failed substantially in their attempts.


Transcendental Awakening/Civil War:

Reactionary: Breckenridge and the secessionists.
Conservative: Those who wanted to maintain the union has 1/2 slave and 1/2 free (largely the supporters of Bell)
Moderate: Free soilers and others who supported a white dominant expansion of the united states while explicitly not wanting to free the slaves or to live among free blacks.
Progressive: Northern abolitionists with an eye towards a free and equal society for all races.

Lincoln had to build a coalition of northern abolitionists (in New England and other far north areas) and moderates (in the next tier of states) in order to win election and govern successfully. This led to difficulties and attacks from both sides, abolitionists upset that he wasn't attempting to end slavery and moderates concerned that he secretly was! It wasn't until it became clear that in order to succeed he needed to end slavery and that the moderate solution simply couldn't work was he able to do so without loosing the support of the moderates. In the end many of the "progressive" ideas of his day were implemented, but many weren't and the end result was a world that combined moderate and progressive ideas.

It seems (perhaps especially in a "spirtual" saeculum) that a strong reactionary movement exists in opposition to a strong progressive movement. A leader must pull together a coalition of progressive and moderate forces and chart a more moderate path until it becomes obvious that such a path will not work. This will lead to angry reactionaries attempting to portray the leader as more progressive then he is (and perhaps for a time may gain some traction) at the same time as progressive portray him as more moderate or conservative than he is. This leads to a period of strong dissatisfaction by most everyone which ultimately ends in an assertion of a reasonable agenda of progressive and moderate ideas that is able to become the new status quo.