Generation Theory Thread

[Mikebert]

This social moment is not mapping into a 4T.  If this is actually the case we would have a situation in which (in S&H terminology) we would have another skipped Civic generation or anomaly. But I do not buy the Civil War anomaly. I think there was a Civil War gen born over ca. 1840-1858 (T Roosevelt, Wilson and Debs as were in this gen) which oversaw a 2T in elderhood as did the GIs. I will note that the Revolutionary generation did *not* oversee a 2T--they were mostly dead by the 1830's core years of the 2T. I believe that the Millies, like the Revolutionary gen, will oversee a social moment that over ca. 2047-2066 that is *not* a 2T. In fact it will be a 4T.

[Mikebert]

I've been doing a lot of work in this.  Is there still any interest here in theory? I don't think we are in a 4T.  I think it is another 2T.  It comes from a new approach.  Up to recently I have been imagining that the generational cycle is a master cycle.  The other cycles I study all become "entrained" in the saeculum and you can explain things more or less by using this one cycle with "color commentary" added by the other cycles.

I now think this is not true.  I believe that are at least two important cycles of similar length but which operate independently and so are not necessarily in sync all the time.  As a result the S&H pattern of alternately 2T and 4T social moments does not always happen.  For example S&H say that Heroes oversee 2Ts where they come under attack by rising Prophets. Similarly Prophets serve as guiding "gray champions" in 4T where they inspire rising Heroes.

But the Revolutionary Heroes did not oversee a 2T.  They were in charge during the first two decades of the 19th century, a period identified by political scientists and historians as what I call a "political moment" over 1801-1816. This moment was neither a 2T or a 4T. Today we see the same issue. The Boomer generation, who will age out of power by ca. 2025 are overseeing  period that simply does not seem to be a 4T.  We are 9 years into this social moment, which puts us like 1782, 1869, and 1938 in the last 4Ts.  Were any of these years as "un-4t-like" as 2017? I would say no! 

Now compare to 1831, 1895, and 1973. Are any of these years as nondescript as to what turning we are in as now?  I would say yes!.

The reason I am raising this is that this idea was suggested by the modeling work I have been doing recently.

[ChrisP]

(05-12-2017, 03:36 PM)Mikebert Wrote: I've been doing a lot of work in this.  Is there still any interest here in theory? I don't think we are in a 4T.  I think it is another 2T.  It comes from a new approach.

So the inequality cycle is interacting with gen. theory and changing its harmonics?  Why do you think these cycles interact - is it the correlation between inequality and social moments?

[Emman85]

(05-12-2017, 03:14 PM)Mikebert Wrote: This social moment is not mapping into a 4T.  If this is actually the case we would have a situation in which (in S&H terminology) we would have another skipped Civic generation or anomaly. But I do not buy the Civil War anomaly. I think there was a Civil War gen born over ca. 1840-1858 (T Roosevelt, Wilson and Debs as were in this gen) which oversaw a 2T in elderhood as did the GIs. I will note that the Revolutionary generation did *not* oversee a 2T--they were mostly dead by the 1830's core years of the 2T. I believe that the Millies, like the Revolutionary gen, will oversee a social moment that over ca. 2047-2066 that is *not* a 2T. In fact it will be a 4T.

Oh come on, just dump the theory then, so we're a 2T now even though the generations don't match at all.

We(in the late 2010s) are NOT in a spiritual awakening of any kind.

To me it looks like a pre regeneracy 4T, if we don't have a civic regeneracy by 2025 then I will just dump the whole theory in the waste pin.

[pbrower2a]

(05-13-2017, 12:54 AM)Emman85 Wrote:

(05-12-2017, 03:14 PM)Mikebert Wrote: This social moment is not mapping into a 4T.  If this is actually the case we would have a situation in which (in S&H terminology) we would have another skipped Civic generation or anomaly. But I do not buy the Civil War anomaly. I think there was a Civil War gen born over ca. 1840-1858 (T Roosevelt, Wilson and Debs as were in this gen) which oversaw a 2T in elderhood as did the GIs. I will note that the Revolutionary generation did *not* oversee a 2T--they were mostly dead by the 1830's core years of the 2T. I believe that the Millies, like the Revolutionary gen, will oversee a social moment that over ca. 2047-2066 that is *not* a 2T. In fact it will be a 4T.

Oh come on, just dump the theory then, so we're a 2T now even though the generations don't match at all.

We(in the late 2010s) are NOT in a spiritual awakening of any kind.

To me it looks like a pre regeneracy 4T, if we don't have a civic regeneracy by 2025 then I will just dump the whole theory in the waste pin.

This is definitely not a 2T. There is no semblance of an Awakening. The Millennial Generation shows little evidence of anything other than conventional and conformist religiosity.The Millennial Generation seems (so far) to seek to work within the system, much like GIs did.  But this is important -- the current Boomer leadership has so far shown a "My Way or the Highway" approach to politics even in inter-factional struggles (which, should they become genuine strife, will give America as nasty a Crisis as is possible.

We had signs of a Crisis from 2000 (disputed election. 9/11, Enron/Tech bust) that went nowhere in reshaping basic attitudes -- except to go back to 3T behavior. As Dubya said, "Go shopping", which is about as 3T (Unraveling/Degeneracy) behavior as there could be.

I look at the Great Depression as largely a time of calming, with people getting the general idea that it was best to not break too far from accepted norms in behavior. Obama's two terms look in many respects similar to the first two terms of FDR, if less successful politically and more successfully economically.

America has typically been fortunate to have good leaders during Crisis Eras. We had really good ones, the sorts that people would deify in antiquity, in the American Revolution. We had Lincoln and FDR. Obama, all things taken into account, was as good as anyone could be; his problem is that he is more like the sort of leader who emerges after the Crisis is over. Donald Trump is simply an execrable leader. He is not unifying people except into hostile camps who think him the greatest thing to have ever happened to America and into people who think him the worst.

We did not solve our class resentments -- especially the divide between the middle class and working class* (at least within the white majority). Donald Trump exploited those resentments on behalf of his class -- that all will be destitute except his Master Class. It is hard to see how his weird combination of vulgarity and economic elitism will play out. In countries with weaker institutions, revolution has been a commonplace occurrence.

I can't see President Trump leading us into a High. He is simply too divisive and vindictive. An American leader might lead America into a traditionalist, inequitable, repressive, and authoritarian High much as was Spain from the 1940s to the 1970s (Franco suppressed much of Spain's Awakening) -- but America would need a military caudillo. America is still divided too sharply along regional, ethnic, and religious lines for such a dubious High. I can imagine him botching things so badly that we would have mass graves and refugee problems.

*link forthcoming for a connection to a discussion in another thread.

[pbrower2a]

The thread to which I connect:

http://generational-theory.com/forum/thr...l#pid25549

In essence the rural areas have lots of jobs of mind-numbing awfulness and abysmal pay, like clerking in convenience stores. The people who do these jobs are very similar to those who did factory work in early decades of the post-WWII era and made adequate income to support middle-income lives. Such work gives bare survival at best. But it is worth remembering that Donald Trump did very well -- unusually well -- in states in an arc from Minnesota (which he barely lost) and through Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania -- states that the experts thought would never go to Trump but did.

The resentment among those ill-paid workers is that they see city-slickers from the Twin Cities, Milwaukee, Chicago, Detroit-area and Cleveland-area suburbs, Pittsburgh, Baltimore-Washington, and Philadelphia going to their old swimming holes and canoe launches, spending more on gas for their boats than those convenience-store clerks make in one day, paying excessive prices  for snacks and beer (those clerks get their stuff at dollar stores or Wal*Mart), and buying up the only attractive real estate in their communities (lake property) where the old boating places and swimming holes were.

Donald Trump has only one solution for the existential stress that the new working poor of America knows -- that those middle-class types can suffer, too! With his vulgarity he can reach people of little formal education who have contempt for such 'intellectuals' as school teachers who corrected them for bad grammar. He can show his contempt for environmentalists and others not having a firm reality in the new sweatshops of America, and he can excite people. He lives much as one would if one won the Super-Duper Megabucks lottery, the only way in which the new proletariat (that lacks imagination, entrepreneurial drive, or marketable skills) can imagine getting rich. Lots of gold leaf -- and few books, hated objects of middle-class oppression of 'real Americans'.

I expect to hate life in Trump's America. Second term of Donald Trump? There are parts of Dante's Inferno that are more attractive. But this said, Man is far more competent at creating Hell than at creating any Heaven, and such simulations that he has made of Heaven are only for elites like Donald Trump or are ephemeral delights that drain one of assets quickly (like Di$ney theme parks).

[David Horn]

(05-13-2017, 12:54 AM)Emman85 Wrote:

(05-12-2017, 03:14 PM)Mikebert Wrote: This social moment is not mapping into a 4T.  If this is actually the case we would have a situation in which (in S&H terminology) we would have another skipped Civic generation or anomaly. But I do not buy the Civil War anomaly. I think there was a Civil War gen born over ca. 1840-1858 (T Roosevelt, Wilson and Debs as were in this gen) which oversaw a 2T in elderhood as did the GIs. I will note that the Revolutionary generation did *not* oversee a 2T--they were mostly dead by the 1830's core years of the 2T. I believe that the Millies, like the Revolutionary gen, will oversee a social moment that over ca. 2047-2066 that is *not* a 2T. In fact it will be a 4T.

Oh come on, just dump the theory then, so we're a 2T now even though the generations don't match at all.

We(in the late 2010s) are NOT in a spiritual awakening of any kind.

To me it looks like a pre regeneracy 4T, if we don't have a civic regeneracy by 2025 then I will just dump the whole theory in the waste pin.

Nothing in the theory mandates a successful 4T, or 2T for that matter.  What it predicts is the struggle, and we certainly have that.  Either side can "win", or no side if that's how it plays out.  Let's be honest about the tie to historical precedent and the current state of the world.  Almost all prior saecula have occurred fully in the Agricultural Age.  The Civil War straddled the Agricultural and Industrial; the Great Power saeculum was fully in the latter.  Now, we're in a Post-industrial Age that is changing much faster than 80 to 100 years allotted to the cycle.  We know that the ACW period was messy, though probably not anomalous as the authors assumed.  That may be due to the transition from the earlier age to the then emerging one.  The Great Power period was much less messy in that regard, but our record of periods similar to the one we are experiencing is limited at best.

On the other hand, a human life is still 80 to 100 years, so the social aspect of the theory is still fully supported.  What does that mean for the future?  Beats me.  I'm fully suspicious of any reliance on the past as prologue, considering the pace of change, but humans are not evolving at breakneck speed.  The lack of direct experience of past successes and failures still has impact, but it's hard to know how much and how it will be felt.  If the current reactionary politics is an indicator, it may slow the pace of change to a rate humans can adapt to it.  That's my hope, because other alternatives are probably less desirable.

[Emman85]

(05-12-2017, 03:36 PM)Mikebert Wrote: The Boomer generation, who will age out of power by ca. 2025 are overseeing  period that simply does not seem to be a 4T.  We are 9 years into this social moment, which puts us like 1782, 1869, and 1938 in the last 4Ts.  Were any of these years as "un-4t-like" as 2017? I would say no! 

How is 2017 un 4T like, authoritarian populism won out in the US, the supply of order is low but the demand is rising, crime rates are low, birth rates are low, the generation gap is gone, civic trust is at a nadir(what one would expect in a pre regeneracy 4T). This is the most socially and politically tumultuous period in the US since the late '60s and '70s, the last "social moment", but all the trends I outlined are 4T trends.

[Mikebert]

(05-13-2017, 11:13 AM)Emman85 Wrote:

(05-12-2017, 03:36 PM)Mikebert Wrote: The Boomer generation, who will age out of power by ca. 2025 are overseeing  period that simply does not seem to be a 4T.  We are 9 years into this social moment, which puts us like 1782, 1869, and 1938 in the last 4Ts.  Were any of these years as "un-4t-like" as 2017? I would say no! 

How is 2017 un 4T like, authoritarian populism won out in the US, the supply of order is low but the demand is rising, crime rates are low, birth rates are low, the generation gap is gone, civic trust is at a nadir(what one would expect in a pre regeneracy 4T). This is the most socially and politically tumultuous period in the US since the late '60s and '70s, the last "social moment", but all the trends I outlined are 4T trends.

Low crime is not a 4T indicator, at least not in the US:


It is true that the supply for order is low and the demand is high, but that has been true for a long time. Society continues to unravel. 

As for 2T indicators we had 1st wave feminism two 2Ts ago, second wave in the last one, and now we are seeing third wave or "intersectional" feminism. Last 2T there was a movement calling for political rights for blacks, and today there is another one seeking the same thing. Gay liberation started out in the last 2T, but has achieved its greatest victory in this turning. The global warming movement can be thought of as a resurgence in the environmental movement initiated in the last 2T.

What you are *not* seeing are any rising movements emphasizing economic concerns. Even on the right, although they give lip service to the economic plight of white workers, the emphasis in on banning Muslims and other people of color from entering the country in order to preserve American culture. That is, social issues.

We have a president whose paranoia and habitual lying is being compared by his enemies to Nixon, following a president, who according to Skowronek's presidential typology, see as a pre-emptive president like Nixon was, who then is followed by a disjunctive type (Carter, Trump).

Since I see the 1896-1919 political moment as being of the "2T" type, another preemptive president, Wilson, was also a 2T president, as was Tyler. Pre-emptive presidents can occur in 4Ts but not as commonly (A Johnson was the only one) .

Finally, the rigging of the economy in favor of capital over labor happened in the last 2T and the riggers got away with it because everyone then was focused on social issue. Today we live with the consequences of that rigging and the focus is still on social issues.

 Samuel Huntington developed a theory of political time in which there are periodic episodes of "Creedal passion".  He identifies the 1830's the progressive era, and the late 1960's and early 1970's.  Today observers on both the left and the right see the present era as possibly being another such period.

To get a 4T requires two things. It requires a dominant generation coming of age/coming into power (a social/political moment) and it requires a lengthy period of time before during which people begin to release that something is wrong organically with their society (a peak in inequality close to the start of this social moment).

Last cycle, the muckraker publications in the first decade of the 20th century marked the beginnings of this realization. People finally acted on this 25-30 years later. This cycle's version of the muckrakers might be books like "Nickel and Dimed" (2001). Today the plight of the working class described on both sets of works is only now dawning on people, making today closer to 1920 than 1932.

In 1912 a rising recessive generation was becoming awakened to the core issue of inequality. THey abandoned the corporatist Republican (Taft) and voted for a either a progressive Democrat (Wilson), a progressive former Republican (Roosevelt) or a Socialist (Debs). Wilson won and what followed was eight years of rising wages, and after 1916, falling inequality. Also massive violence, which was crushed by mass arrests and resulted in a return to normalcy (i.e. the status quo before WW I) by the conservative majority (today Donald Trump, then Harding) in 1920. By 1928 inequality was worse than ever.

When change came in 1932 you had Nomads who knew what the problems were and a rising generation of GI's whose youth had been influenced by this knowledge. When the crash hit in 1929, Communists and Socialists had well developed theories and the best available statistics on unemployment levels (obtained by surveys of union memberships). Government had neither and had to resort to hope. In such an environment it was possible for a charismatic Obama-like politician (FDR) to enact the sort of radical policies that had a chance of addressing the crisis.

This time the 2008 financial crisis took Millies by surprise. With no understanding of the crisis they put their faith in Obama and then failed to supply the push he himself said was necessary in his second slogan "We are the change we are looking for". There were no leftists pushing for radical solutions in 2008, only those on the right such as Austrians whose ideas fueled the Tea Party, and later the Alt Right whose ideas animate Trumpism. And now when it has come time for Millies to raise hell, what is it about? Social issues.

This is what you would expect if this social moment is developing along 2T lines.

[Mikebert]

S&H proposed a theory to which they added a variety of observations. Their primary mechanism (history creates generations and generations create history) proposed that there should be a series of alternately periods of more eventful (social moments) and less eventful eras of roughly 22 year duration. This seems to hold.  A mathematical representation of this theory predicts a social moment to begin around 2008 and this appears to be the case.  Strauss and Howe also identified that these social moments fall into two types, 2Ts and 4Ts that alternate.  They did not supply a mechanism by which they should happen. The relate turnings to generational archetypes but provided no robust process that forces this to happen, only some tendencies that push it in that direction.  So what we have is a correct prediction of a social moment starting in 2008, that *should* be a 4T, but not a mechanism that forces it to be one.  In all three American 4Ts the 4T nature of the turning was quickly revealed.  The country was at war within two years in the first two an the economy has collapsed and one of the political sides had completely defeated the other in just three years in the third. If this be a 4T it should have been bloody obvious by now.  You can't hide a 4T.

What most here do not realize is that S&H are just one of dozens of scholars who have noted the same cyclical phenomena that S&H did.  They made a huge contribution in their generational cycle that employed Mannheim's concept of generation imprinting in a clear-cut exposition (it is damn hard to find this in Mannheims essay, it's there, but certainly not highlighted).  S&H put these ideas in a simple recursive model that works.  I know, I have verified it.  Kudos to S&H. They did their homework.  The various ideas I reference?  Virtually all of them were cited by S&H.  They did their homework. They knew their shit. They did not get it 100% right.  Nobody can. 

So don't say that just because some of the elements in their exposition don't pan out, the theory is destroyed or worthless.  It is not.  I think they made a major contribution and needed to be taken far more seriously by the academic community than they were. Expecting perfection is expecting too much.

[beechnut79]

(05-13-2017, 02:44 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(05-13-2017, 11:13 AM)Emman85 Wrote:

(05-12-2017, 03:36 PM)Mikebert Wrote: The Boomer generation, who will age out of power by ca. 2025 are overseeing  period that simply does not seem to be a 4T.  We are 9 years into this social moment, which puts us like 1782, 1869, and 1938 in the last 4Ts.  Were any of these years as "un-4t-like" as 2017? I would say no! 

How is 2017 un 4T like, authoritarian populism won out in the US, the supply of order is low but the demand is rising, crime rates are low, birth rates are low, the generation gap is gone, civic trust is at a nadir(what one would expect in a pre regeneracy 4T). This is the most socially and politically tumultuous period in the US since the late '60s and '70s, the last "social moment", but all the trends I outlined are 4T trends.

By social issues, I assume you are referring to such things as transgender folks being able to access the bathroom of their choice. Other than that, many of the issues from a half century ago have not resurfaced. What has resurfaced is the whole debate over sexual harassment which first surfaces about a quarter century ago with Anita Hill.
Low crime is not a 4T indicator, at least not in the US:


It is true that the supply for order is low and the demand is high, but that has been true for a long time. Society continues to unravel. 

As for 2T indicators we had 1st wave feminism two 2Ts ago, second wave in the last one, and now we are seeing third wave or "intersectional" feminism. Last 2T there was a movement calling for political rights for blacks, and today there is another one seeking the same thing. Gay liberation started out in the last 2T, but has achieved its greatest victory in this turning. The global warming movement can be thought of as a resurgence in the environmental movement initiated in the last 2T.

What you are *not* seeing are any rising movements emphasizing economic concerns. Even on the right, although they give lip service to the economic plight of white workers, the emphasis in on banning Muslims and other people of color from entering the country in order to preserve American culture. That is, social issues.

We have a president whose paranoia and habitual lying is being compared by his enemies to Nixon, following a president, who according to Skowronek's presidential typology, see as a pre-emptive president like Nixon was, who then is followed by a disjunctive type (Carter, Trump).

Since I see the 1896-1919 political moment as being of the "2T" type, another preemptive president, Wilson, was also a 2T president, as was Tyler. Pre-emptive presidents can occur in 4Ts but not as commonly (A Johnson was the only one) .

Finally, the rigging of the economy in favor of capital over labor happened in the last 2T and the riggers got away with it because everyone then was focused on social issue. Today we live with the consequences of that rigging and the focus is still on social issues.

 Samuel Huntington developed a theory of political time in which there are periodic episodes of "Creedal passion".  He identifies the 1830's the progressive era, and the late 1960's and early 1970's.  Today observers on both the left and the right see the present era as possibly being another such period.

To get a 4T requires two things. It requires a dominant generation coming of age/coming into power (a social/political moment) and it requires a lengthy period of time before during which people begin to release that something is wrong organically with their society (a peak in inequality close to the start of this social moment).

Last cycle, the muckraker publications in the first decade of the 20th century marked the beginnings of this realization. People finally acted on this 25-30 years later. This cycle's version of the muckrakers might be books like "Nickel and Dimed" (2001). Today the plight of the working class described on both sets of works is only now dawning on people, making today closer to 1920 than 1932.

In 1912 a rising recessive generation was becoming awakened to the core issue of inequality. THey abandoned the corporatist Republican (Taft) and voted for a either a progressive Democrat (Wilson), a progressive former Republican (Roosevelt) or a Socialist (Debs). Wilson won and what followed was eight years of rising wages, and after 1916, falling inequality. Also massive violence, which was crushed by mass arrests and resulted in a return to normalcy (i.e. the status quo before WW I) by the conservative majority (today Donald Trump, then Harding) in 1920. By 1928 inequality was worse than ever.

When change came in 1932 you had Nomads who knew what the problems were and a rising generation of GI's whose youth had been influenced by this knowledge. When the crash hit in 1929, Communists and Socialists had well developed theories and the best available statistics on unemployment levels (obtained by surveys of union memberships). Government had neither and had to resort to hope. In such an environment it was possible for a charismatic Obama-like politician (FDR) to enact the sort of radical policies that had a chance of addressing the crisis.

This time the 2008 financial crisis took Millies by surprise. With no understanding of the crisis they put their faith in Obama and then failed to supply the push he himself said was necessary in his second slogan "We are the change we are looking for". There were no leftists pushing for radical solutions in 2008, only those on the right such as Austrians whose ideas fueled the Tea Party, and later the Alt Right whose ideas animate Trumpism. And now when it has come time for Millies to raise hell, what is it about? Social issues.

This is what you would expect if this social moment is developing along 2T lines.

[beechnut79]

(05-13-2017, 03:18 PM)Mikebert Wrote: S&H proposed a theory to which they added a variety of observations. Their primary mechanism (history creates generations and generations create history) proposed that there should be a series of alternately periods of more eventful (social moments) and less eventful eras of roughly 22 year duration. This seems to hold.  A mathematical representation of this theory predicts a social moment to begin around 2008 and this appears to be the case.  Strauss and Howe also identified that these social moments fall into two types, 2Ts and 4Ts that alternate.  They did not supply a mechanism by which they should happen. The relate turnings to generational archetypes but provided no robust process that forces this to happen, only some tendencies that push it in that direction.  So what we have is a correct prediction of a social moment starting in 2008, that *should* be a 4T, but not a mechanism that forces it to be one.  In all three American 4Ts the 4T nature of the turning was quickly revealed.  The country was at war within two years in the first two an the economy has collapsed and one of the political sides had completely defeated the other in just three years in the third. If this be a 4T it should have been bloody obvious by now.  You can't hide a 4T.

What most here do not realize is that S&H are just one of dozens of scholars who have noted the same cyclical phenomena that S&H did.  They made a huge contribution in their generational cycle that employed Mannheim's concept of generation imprinting in a clear-cut exposition (it is damn hard to find this in Mannheims essay, it's there, but certainly not highlighted).  S&H put these ideas in a simple recursive model that works.  I know, I have verified it.  Kudos to S&H. They did their homework.  The various ideas I reference?  Virtually all of them were cited by S&H.  They did their homework. They knew their shit. They did not get it 100% right.  Nobody can. 

So don't say that just because some of the elements in their exposition don't pan out, the theory is destroyed or worthless.  It is not.  I think they made a major contribution and needed to be taken far more seriously by the academic community than they were. Expecting perfection is expecting too much.

I have often wondered what might be this era's equivalent of Harper's Ferry before the Civil War. At first I thought that it might be the unrest in places such as Ferguson and Baltimore, but had that been the case we no doubt would have been in really dire straits at this time. On the economic front just a couple of days ago I heard something that unemployment continues to be a quite historically low levels. Judging by the struggling evident through much of the economic landscape, this came as a complete surprise. But yet despite these struggles sports stadiums, big-name entertainment venues and pricey restaurants are continuing to do quite well, thank you. If it were only the top few percent who could afford to patronize them, I don't believe they could fill up so much. Just the other day I was asked to do a survey regarding vacation travel. I manage to "fake it" so to speak because I haven't been more than 50 miles from home base since October 2007, nearly a full decade now.

Another point I wish to make is that, in the book that inspired the late lamented 4T forum, the authors talked about the perils of what they referred to as post-seasonal behavior. Do you feel that Trump is guilty of this, and that his type of personality is one whose heyday has passed?

[Mikebert]

(05-13-2017, 04:17 PM)beechnut79 Wrote:

(05-13-2017, 02:44 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(05-13-2017, 11:13 AM)Emman85 Wrote:

(05-12-2017, 03:36 PM)Mikebert Wrote: The Boomer generation, who will age out of power by ca. 2025 are overseeing  period that simply does not seem to be a 4T.  We are 9 years into this social moment, which puts us like 1782, 1869, and 1938 in the last 4Ts.  Were any of these years as "un-4t-like" as 2017? I would say no! 

How is 2017 un 4T like, authoritarian populism won out in the US, the supply of order is low but the demand is rising, crime rates are low, birth rates are low, the generation gap is gone, civic trust is at a nadir(what one would expect in a pre regeneracy 4T). This is the most socially and politically tumultuous period in the US since the late '60s and '70s, the last "social moment", but all the trends I outlined are 4T trends.

By social issues, I assume you are referring to such things as transgender folks being able to access the bathroom of their choice. Other than that, many of the issues from a half century ago have not resurfaced. What has resurfaced is the whole debate over sexual harassment which first surfaces about a quarter century ago with Anita Hill.

More than that.  I would include BLM, the Women's march (that included an emphasis on intersectional feminism) the court victory on gay marriage, which seemed very distant in 2004 when Republicans won the election (based, it was widely reported, on an anti-gay marriage stance).  Also the big press for diversity in the March for Science.

BLM is a continuation of the Civil Rights movement.  Blacks gained de facto suffrage (mostly) and an end to de jure housing and employment discrimination, but they still experience differential treatment at the hands of the police.

Intersectional feminism is an extension of the gains made by women in the 2T (which largely redound to white women) to women of color.

The introduction of a diversity theme in the March for Science is an extension of the Black, Chicano, and Women's movements of the last 2T into the last still-viable path to the middle class available to groups not historically favored.

[Warren Dew]

Actually, the antiimmigrant sentiment is economic, not social.

[Marypoza]

(05-13-2017, 04:24 PM)beechnut79 Wrote:

(05-13-2017, 03:18 PM)Mikebert Wrote: S&H proposed a theory to which they added a variety of observations. Their primary mechanism (history creates generations and generations create history) proposed that there should be a series of alternately periods of more eventful (social moments) and less eventful eras of roughly 22 year duration. This seems to hold.  A mathematical representation of this theory predicts a social moment to begin around 2008 and this appears to be the case.  Strauss and Howe also identified that these social moments fall into two types, 2Ts and 4Ts that alternate.  They did not supply a mechanism by which they should happen. The relate turnings to generational archetypes but provided no robust process that forces this to happen, only some tendencies that push it in that direction.  So what we have is a correct prediction of a social moment starting in 2008, that *should* be a 4T, but not a mechanism that forces it to be one.  In all three American 4Ts the 4T nature of the turning was quickly revealed.  The country was at war within two years in the first two an the economy has collapsed and one of the political sides had completely defeated the other in just three years in the third. If this be a 4T it should have been bloody obvious by now.  You can't hide a 4T.

What most here do not realize is that S&H are just one of dozens of scholars who have noted the same cyclical phenomena that S&H did.  They made a huge contribution in their generational cycle that employed Mannheim's concept of generation imprinting in a clear-cut exposition (it is damn hard to find this in Mannheims essay, it's there, but certainly not highlighted).  S&H put these ideas in a simple recursive model that works.  I know, I have verified it.  Kudos to S&H. They did their homework.  The various ideas I reference?  Virtually all of them were cited by S&H.  They did their homework. They knew their shit. They did not get it 100% right.  Nobody can. 

So don't say that just because some of the elements in their exposition don't pan out, the theory is destroyed or worthless.  It is not.  I think they made a major contribution and needed to be taken far more seriously by the academic community than they were. Expecting perfection is expecting too much.

I have often wondered what might be this era's equivalent of Harper's Ferry before the Civil War. At first I thought that it might be the unrest in places such as Ferguson and Baltimore, but had that been the case we no doubt would have been in really dire straits at this time. On the economic front just a couple of days ago I heard something that unemployment continues to be a quite historically low levels. Judging by the struggling evident through much of the economic landscape, this came as a complete surprise. But yet despite these struggles sports stadiums, big-name entertainment venues and pricey restaurants are continuing to do quite well, thank you. If it were only the top few percent who could afford to patronize them, I don't believe they could fill up so much. Just the other day I was asked to do a survey regarding vacation travel. I manage to "fake it" so to speak because I haven't been more than 50 miles from home base since October 2007, nearly a full decade now.

Another point I wish to make is that, in the book that inspired the late lamented 4T forum, the authors talked about the perils of what they referred to as post-seasonal behavior. Do you feel that Trump is guilty of this, and that his type of personality is one whose heyday has passed?

-- you have to remember that unemployment stats only count ppl in the dole. Folx who have run out their unemployment, folx working partime (underemployed) & others who can't find work are not counted Actual unemployment is higher

[Mikebert]

(05-13-2017, 05:46 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Actually, the antiimmigrant sentiment is economic, not social.

Only partially.  The main thrust is cultural.  This is particularly salient in Europe where the immigrants are from a very different culture and the host nations have less experience in assimilating immigrants.  But its true here too.   Trump crafted his campaign to emphasize immigrants as bad people, the dregs of their societies that their home countries were foisting on us, or even as terrorist agents bent on our destruction.  In contrast, Trump's anti-trade message was purely economic. His campaign rallies showed it was his immigrant message and not his trade message that resonated.  The campaign chant was Build the Wall, not Shut China Out.  Furthermore,  the wall would have zero effect on the net inflow of illegal immigrants, which were no longer coming from the South, but instead people from the Old World who were overstaying their visas.  Trump never addressed the main source of illegal immigrant inflow, nor mentioned the only effective policy that would stop them. He would have had to do this if his immigrant message was about economics as opposed to "others" mixing in with us and diluting traditional American culture.  If the message is economic, it would be the immigrants who were closest to us in culture and work habits (Europeans, White Cubans, East Asians and South Asians) who pose the greatest economic threat, as opposed to Islamic, Black or Latino immigrants who have the greatest perceived cultural threat to "core" Americans.

[pbrower2a]

(05-14-2017, 06:03 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

(05-13-2017, 05:46 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Actually, the antiimmigrant sentiment is economic, not social.

Only partially.  The main thrust is cultural.  This is particularly salient in Europe where the immigrants are from a very different culture and the host nations have less experience in assimilating immigrants.  But its true here too.   Trump crafted his campaign to emphasize immigrants as bad people, the dregs of their societies that their home countries were foisting on us, or even as terrorist agents bent on our destruction.  In contrast, Trump's anti-trade message was purely economic. His campaign rallies showed it was his immigrant message and not his trade message that resonated.  The campaign chant was Build the Wall, not Shut China Out.  Furthermore,  the wall would have zero effect on the net inflow of illegal immigrants, which were no longer coming from the South, but instead people from the Old World who were overstaying their visas.  Trump never addressed the main source of illegal immigrant inflow, nor mentioned the only effective policy that would stop them. He would have had to do this if his immigrant message was about economics as opposed to "others" mixing in with us and diluting traditional American culture.  If the message is economic, it would be the immigrants who were closest to us in culture and work habits (Europeans, White Cubans, East Asians and South Asians) who pose the greatest economic threat, as opposed to Islamic, Black or Latino immigrants who have the greatest perceived cultural threat to "core" Americans.

Net immigration from Mexico is basically zero as former immigrants from Mexico are often retiring in Mexico because of a lower cost of living, especially in medical costs. So figure that many Mexican-Americans can retire in California, where real-estate prices are terribly inflated, sell the little bungalow for an inflated price, and return to Mexico and live like aristocrats. The climatic difference in some parts of Mexico from California is that the rains come in the summer (Mexico) instead of the winter (California). The illegal immigrants of Latin-American origin are from Central America, often from places made into hells of violence because of the influence of large amounts of blood money from American addicts buying illegal drugs.

In any event, the Latin-American immigrants have heavily assimilated into American life... although they could often assimilate Americans not of Latino origin into their world. Paradoxically, the ones that look least white are often the ones who most assimilate into American culture. To people of Maya origin, Anglo culture is much more benign and promising than the Spanish culture of brutal elites in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. The success of South Asian, Southeast Asian, and East Asian immigrants often reflects how little they have assimilated into American life. Rejecting the anti-intellectual populism so pervasive in American? If I were married to and had children of a wife of any of those origins, I would want my kids to have the respect for learning more characteristic of Korea than of Kansas or Kentucky. (If anyone wants to know -- it is white people who use the most illegal drugs, use the worst illegal drugs, and get away with drug use to a greater extent before they do more damage to themselves and their kids. D@mned meth!

As usual, Donald Trump blames people instead of trends. The factory jobs and even mining jobs have disappeared because of automation. Much of our economic distress results by having a population too large (and it would not matter what the ethnic mix were) to make life inexpensive enough. It is arguable that for many Americans, economic rent (payoffs to the 'right people' for the privilege of living in their midst) is a bigger part of their cost of living than food, fuel, or government spending. Life was much less stressful when real estate was cheap even in California. Ask yourself how Donald Trump got rich, and you will see much of the problem.

As pointed out in another thread, Donald Trump is a hero to rural folk for fleecing the urban middle class, impoverishing them with exorbitant rents.

[David Horn]

(05-13-2017, 05:46 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Actually, the antiimmigrant sentiment is economic, not social.

I disagree. I think it's both.  Some see immigrants as threatening and others as competition.  The result is the same though the feelings are not.  Xenophobia operates on many levels.

[Warren Dew]

(05-14-2017, 10:10 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-13-2017, 05:46 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Actually, the antiimmigrant sentiment is economic, not social.

I disagree. I think it's both.  Some see immigrants as threatening and others as competition.  The result is the same though the feelings are not.  Xenophobia operates on many levels.

The social prejudice against immigrants is not new; those feelings have always been there.  What's new is economic stresses from immigration translating antiimmigrant feelings into actual policy action.  That points to a fourth turning.  Only Mikebert's desire to preserve his political misconceptions prevents him from seeing that.

[pbrower2a]

(05-13-2017, 08:56 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-13-2017, 12:54 AM)Emman85 Wrote:

(05-12-2017, 03:14 PM)Mikebert Wrote: This social moment is not mapping into a 4T.  If this is actually the case we would have a situation in which (in S&H terminology) we would have another skipped Civic generation or anomaly. But I do not buy the Civil War anomaly. I think there was a Civil War gen born over ca. 1840-1858 (T Roosevelt, Wilson and Debs as were in this gen) which oversaw a 2T in elderhood as did the GIs. I will note that the Revolutionary generation did *not* oversee a 2T--they were mostly dead by the 1830's core years of the 2T. I believe that the Millies, like the Revolutionary gen, will oversee a social moment that over ca. 2047-2066 that is *not* a 2T. In fact it will be a 4T.

Oh come on, just dump the theory then, so we're a 2T now even though the generations don't match at all.

We(in the late 2010s) are NOT in a spiritual awakening of any kind.

To me it looks like a pre regeneracy 4T, if we don't have a civic regeneracy by 2025 then I will just dump the whole theory in the waste pin.

Nothing in the theory mandates a successful 4T, or 2T for that matter.  What it predicts is the struggle, and we certainly have that.  Either side can "win", or no side if that's how it plays out.  Let's be honest about the tie to historical precedent and the current state of the world.  Almost all prior saecula have occurred fully in the Agricultural Age.  The Civil War straddled the Agricultural and Industrial; the Great Power saeculum was fully in the latter.  Now, we're in a Post-industrial Age that is changing much faster than 80 to 100 years allotted to the cycle.  We know that the ACW period was messy, though probably not anomalous as the authors assumed.  That may be due to the transition from the earlier age to the then emerging one.  The Great Power period was much less messy in that regard, but our record of periods similar to the one we are experiencing is limited at best.

On the other hand, a human life is still 80 to 100 years, so the social aspect of the theory is still fully supported.  What does that mean for the future?  Beats me.  I'm fully suspicious of any reliance on the past as prologue, considering the pace of change, but humans are not evolving at breakneck speed.  The lack of direct experience of past successes and failures still has impact, but it's hard to know how much and how it will be felt.  If the current reactionary politics is an indicator, it may slow the pace of change to a rate humans can adapt to it.  That's my hope, because other alternatives are probably less desirable.

The Armada Crisis is not the Glorious Revolution Crisis; neither of them is quite like the American Revolution and confederation Crisis; none of the prior Crises is really like the Civil War Crisis; none of the prior can match the Great Depression and Second World War. The Crisis of the Second World War was different and had different consequences for most participants even if people were in the same Crisis. Just imagine the relative body counts among the participants. Americans cannot have the shame and guilt that Germans had, as Americans did not do mass murder or establish a slave-labor system. There's a huge difference in going from fascism to liberal democracy as in Italy and going from fascism to commie rule as in Hungary.

I still consider two prior foreign analogue possible for America: the Spanish Civil War, in which the most reactionary and ruthless elements fully overthrow people who believe in a modern democracy -- with America ending up a hierarchical, repressive, and inequitable society whose nastiness is enforced with consummate brutality. As in Spain in the 1930s, the rural areas are full of people with great enmity toward urban sophisticates who would be happier in Warsaw, Poland than in Warsaw, Indiana. (I would find it easier even at my age to learn a Slavic language than to accept young-earth creationism).

The other is the French Revolution. But maybe we end up with a literal "new Birth of Freedom" as Lincoln called for in his Gettysburg Address. After Donald Trump as President we will need a new birth of freedom if we are to have any dignity as a People.

Everything is at stake in a Crisis. Had a few things gone differently in the 1920s we might have ended up with fascism in the form of the KKK. Just imagine a world nightmare in which the Klan adopts the murderous ways of Nazis with which they have much in common. Now that is a nightmare!