Alternating 4T pattern explained

[galaxy]

Inspired by a discussion in this thread, particularly this bit here:

(05-15-2017, 04:56 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-15-2017, 11:47 AM)Mikebert Wrote: I have so far never encountered a fully-satisfying explanation for why there should be two different kinds of "crisis" turnings or why they should alternate with each other.

Nor have I, but there is some evidence, thin though it is.  For the alternating 4T pattern to fit the generations model, where the absence of direct knowledge supports the slide into fatal events, there has to be an institutional element of some sort that bridges the gap then decays.  Since institutions are immortal until they are displaced by action (or inaction?), I would look there.  Nothing comes to mind though.

An alternating pattern of "good ending" and "bad ending" 4Ts does not require any mechanism or institution that spans multiple saecula.

The thing that causes a bad-ending 4T appears to be a lack of will, ability, or both to leave the 3T way of life.

So, consider:

good-ending 4T -> very powerful 1T (extremely peaceful, extremely conformist, etc) -> very powerful 2T (strong reaction against intensity of conformism) -> very powerful 3T (result of intense 2T) -> bad-ending 4T (society is too 3T-ish during 4T, failure to unify) -> weak 1T (more active, less conformist) -> weak 2T (just not as much to rebel against) -> weak 3T (society isn't quite so "awakened") -> good-ending 4T (society much more easily leaves the 3T behind).


I've said things to this effect in other posts (such as referring to the post-Civil War 1T as "reconstructing" and post-World War 1T as "reconstructed," and my thread about the distinction between 4Ts in which the country faces an external enemy and 4Ts in which the country battles against itself), but here it is fully articulated.


Thoughts?

[Warren Dew]

I'd be interested for your dates for the post Civil War first turning and second turning periods, and for a description of the specifics you view as fitting your theory.

[Eric the Green]

(06-24-2021, 10:52 AM)galaxy Wrote: An alternating pattern of "good ending" and "bad ending" 4Ts does not require any mechanism or institution that spans multiple saecula.

The thing that causes a bad-ending 4T appears to be a lack of will, ability, or both to leave the 3T way of life.

So, consider:

good-ending 4T -> very powerful 1T (extremely peaceful, extremely conformist, etc) -> very powerful 2T (strong reaction against intensity of conformism) -> very powerful 3T (result of intense 2T) -> bad-ending 4T (society is too 3T-ish during 4T, failure to unify) -> weak 1T (more active, less conformist) -> weak 2T (just not as much to rebel against) -> weak 3T (society isn't quite so "awakened") -> good-ending 4T (society much more easily leaves the 3T behind).


I've said things to this effect in other posts (such as referring to the post-Civil War 1T as "reconstructing" and post-World War 1T as "reconstructed," and my thread about the distinction between 4Ts in which the country faces an external enemy and 4Ts in which the country battles against itself), but here it is fully articulated.


Thoughts?

That's good. A quibble over terms though. I would say there hasn't been a "bad" 4T, or a "failed" one, ever in anglo-american history, so ours would be the first. But the civil war 4T, though it ended well with the progressive side winning, as usual, resulted in less consensus, because it was an internal battle. So instead of just "bad" it was something like "less consensual." or "less unified 4T." That's the kind of 4T we are in today, and it fits the pattern.

And it is just a degree of difference. The turnings between saecula are more alike than they are different. There was an internal battle during the Depression, but the losing side lost more decisively and earlier. In the Civil War European powers threatened to intervene. In the Revolution, the tories were shoved aside pretty quickly, and the attention was on the external enemy. However, even then, before the Revolution was declared the colonies were not literally "external" to the British Empire.

[Tim Randal Walker]

Awhile back I used "fracturing 4T" for your "bad ending 4T" and "unifying 4T" for your "good ending 4T."

I pattern I suggested:

Unifying 4T > High 1 T > very intense 2T > 3T > Fracturing 4T > weak 1T > less intense 2T > 3T > repeat cycle.

I'm not sure that there is much difference between 3Ts. These are individualistic periods in which people turn inward.

[pbrower2a]

(06-24-2021, 10:52 AM)galaxy Wrote: Inspired by a discussion in this thread, particularly this bit here:

(05-15-2017, 04:56 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-15-2017, 11:47 AM)Mikebert Wrote: I have so far never encountered a fully-satisfying explanation for why there should be two different kinds of "crisis" turnings or why they should alternate with each other.

Nor have I, but there is some evidence, thin though it is.  For the alternating 4T pattern to fit the generations model, where the absence of direct knowledge supports the slide into fatal events, there has to be an institutional element of some sort that bridges the gap then decays.  Since institutions are immortal until they are displaced by action (or inaction?), I would look there.  Nothing comes to mind though.

An alternating pattern of "good ending" and "bad ending" 4Ts does not require any mechanism or institution that spans multiple saecula.

The thing that causes a bad-ending 4T appears to be a lack of will, ability, or both to leave the 3T way of life.

So, consider:

good-ending 4T -> very powerful 1T (extremely peaceful, extremely conformist, etc) -> very powerful 2T (strong reaction against intensity of conformism) -> very powerful 3T (result of intense 2T) -> bad-ending 4T (society is too 3T-ish during 4T, failure to unify) -> weak 1T (more active, less conformist) -> weak 2T (just not as much to rebel against) -> weak 3T (society isn't quite so "awakened") -> good-ending 4T (society much more easily leaves the 3T behind).


I've said things to this effect in other posts (such as referring to the post-Civil War 1T as "reconstructing" and post-World War 1T as "reconstructed," and my thread about the distinction between 4Ts in which the country faces an external enemy and 4Ts in which the country battles against itself), but here it is fully articulated.


Thoughts?

The 4T that Howe and Strauss see as least successful for America was the Civil War Crisis. Yes, Abraham Lincoln was as good a leader as was possible, and America did abolish slavery. But the war happened early in the Crisis before there had been any overall unification of America. The Idealists split into two hostile camps intent on destroying the other. The Union side succeeded by breaking the Confederate economy. Maybe it was more humane to encourage slaves to flee to Union lines instead of staging slave revolts, but all in all the Confederacy starved into submission. When the soldiers run out of victuals and ammunition they are through. 

Analogues might apply to other countries. I look at the Russian civil war between the Whites and Reds. Both sides saw the other as incorrigible, evil causes (and such was right, as both sides were horrible) in part for having diametric views on how to organize society. Both were consummately ruthless, and set out to annihilate each other. The Crisis that began with the collapse of the Russian Imperial forces in 1915 and 1916 led to one revolution to overthrow the Tsar and his court, then the Bolshevik coup to overthrow a weak government that could neither wage war effectively not extricate itself from the war. Russia seemed to be in a 3T-4T cusp with a shaky social order split almost evenly between a Hard Left and a Hard Right. In between the Hard Right and the Hard Left were the moderate Cadet (Constitutional Democrats) and Social Revolutionary (the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party without the Bolsheviks) -- and those had too little support.

[Tim Randal Walker]

I am not sure if my previous speculations quite apply to this 4T. In America it seems to be playing out as a Fracturing 4T, but so far almost exclusively in politics. While most 4Ts are very intense, this one seems to one of the few that are relatively mild. (Using the weather metaphor, think snow flurries instead of a full blown blizzard). There seems to be an element of chance in how 4Ts play out.

I am trying to imagine how 4Ts determine the subsequent 1Ts:

1. Triumphant 4T resolution > High 1T.

2. Mild 4T > weak 1T.

3. Badly ending 4T > Austerity 1T. (That is, if society has a chance to rebuild).



As an example of a weak 1T, England after the Glorious Revolution-a period that seems almost a blank turning.

As an example of an austerity, see the Conferate States of America.

[pbrower2a]

There have been plenty of calamitous 4T's, especially in central Europe.

[galaxy]

(06-24-2021, 10:03 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: Awhile back I used "fracturing 4T" for your "bad ending 4T" and "unifying 4T" for your "good ending 4T."

I pattern I suggested:

Unifying 4T > High 1 T > very intense 2T > 3T > Fracturing 4T > weak 1T > less intense 2T > 3T > repeat cycle.

I'm not sure that there is much difference between 3Ts. These are individualistic periods in which people turn inward.

There has to be a difference between 3Ts, because that is what causes the different 4Ts. The center of it all is the willingness or unwillingness of society (or, really, society's elites) to leave the 3T mood and lifestyle and respond to the "call to action" of the 4T.


I hate to get political here, but: The Republican Party is basically the "3T Forever" party, and has been since the 4T began. The Tea Party was a "3T Policy Forever" movement, while Trumpism is a "3T Society And Culture Forever" movement.

[Eric the Green]

(06-25-2021, 07:42 AM)galaxy Wrote:

(06-24-2021, 10:03 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: Awhile back I used "fracturing 4T"  for your "bad ending 4T" and "unifying 4T" for your "good ending 4T."

I pattern I suggested:  

Unifying 4T > High 1 T > very intense 2T > 3T >  Fracturing 4T >  weak 1T > less intense 2T > 3T > repeat cycle.

I'm not sure that there is much difference between 3Ts.  These are individualistic periods in which people turn inward.

There has to be a difference between 3Ts, because that is what causes the different 4Ts. The center of it all is the willingness or unwillingness of society (or, really, society's elites) to leave the 3T mood and lifestyle and respond to the "call to action" of the 4T.


I hate to get political here, but: The Republican Party is basically the "3T Forever" party, and has been since the 4T began. The Tea Party was a "3T Policy Forever" movement, while Trumpism is a "3T Society And Culture Forever" movement.

That all certainly seems very correct

[Eric the Green]

(06-25-2021, 12:05 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: There have been plenty of calamitous 4T's, especially in central Europe.

The question then being, will there be another USA to rescue and restore the USA, if our current 4T fails? Somehow I doubt it.

[Eric the Green]

(06-24-2021, 10:08 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(06-24-2021, 10:52 AM)galaxy Wrote: Inspired by a discussion in this thread, particularly this bit here:

(05-15-2017, 04:56 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-15-2017, 11:47 AM)Mikebert Wrote: I have so far never encountered a fully-satisfying explanation for why there should be two different kinds of "crisis" turnings or why they should alternate with each other.

Nor have I, but there is some evidence, thin though it is.  For the alternating 4T pattern to fit the generations model, where the absence of direct knowledge supports the slide into fatal events, there has to be an institutional element of some sort that bridges the gap then decays.  Since institutions are immortal until they are displaced by action (or inaction?), I would look there.  Nothing comes to mind though.

An alternating pattern of "good ending" and "bad ending" 4Ts does not require any mechanism or institution that spans multiple saecula.

The thing that causes a bad-ending 4T appears to be a lack of will, ability, or both to leave the 3T way of life.

So, consider:

good-ending 4T -> very powerful 1T (extremely peaceful, extremely conformist, etc) -> very powerful 2T (strong reaction against intensity of conformism) -> very powerful 3T (result of intense 2T) -> bad-ending 4T (society is too 3T-ish during 4T, failure to unify) -> weak 1T (more active, less conformist) -> weak 2T (just not as much to rebel against) -> weak 3T (society isn't quite so "awakened") -> good-ending 4T (society much more easily leaves the 3T behind).


I've said things to this effect in other posts (such as referring to the post-Civil War 1T as "reconstructing" and post-World War 1T as "reconstructed," and my thread about the distinction between 4Ts in which the country faces an external enemy and 4Ts in which the country battles against itself), but here it is fully articulated.


Thoughts?

The 4T that Howe and Strauss see as least successful for America was the Civil War Crisis. Yes, Abraham Lincoln was as good a leader as was possible, and America did abolish slavery. But the war happened early in the Crisis before there had been any overall unification of America. The Idealists split into two hostile camps intent on destroying the other. The Union side succeeded by breaking the Confederate economy. Maybe it was more humane to encourage slaves to flee to Union lines instead of staging slave revolts, but all in all the Confederacy (was) starved into submission. When the soldiers run out of victuals and ammunition they are through. 

Don't forget that the civil war crisis era probably began around 1850, so the war itself didn't happen too soon. 4Ts do not mean unification; and in the double rhythm, the 4Ts emphasize the internal struggle, so the division itself IS the Crisis. That is the case in our 4T. It will never be a unifying Crisis, because the division IS the Crisis. One side must be defeated in our 4T, if not destroyed. One side of this division is utterly mad; it can't be compromised with.

And there's a persistent error that appears in these forums that once boomers are out of power the two sides can compromise. But the Gen Xers are just as divided and just as uncompromising, and so are the old silents that are still around. To be more specific, the error is the hope that boomers can be put out of power prematurely, and the 1T constellation can arrive sooner. But that won't happen. The 4T constellation will remain in place through the 2020s. Only in the 1T will a 1T generational lineup come into being in the halls of power, bringing a less-intense and more-exhausted era.

Quote:
Analogues might apply to other countries. I look at the Russian civil war between the Whites and Reds. Both sides saw the other as incorrigible, evil causes (and such was right, as both sides were horrible) in part for having diametric views on how to organize society. Both were consummately ruthless, and set out to annihilate each other. The Crisis that began with the collapse of the Russian Imperial forces in 1915 and 1916 led to one revolution to overthrow the Tsar and his court, then the Bolshevik coup to overthrow a weak government that could neither wage war effectively not extricate itself from the war. Russia seemed to be in a 3T-4T cusp with a shaky social order split almost evenly between a Hard Left and a Hard Right. In between the Hard Right and the Hard Left were the moderate Cadet (Constitutional Democrats) and Social Revolutionary (the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party without the Bolsheviks) -- and those had too little support.

My suggestion is that Russia has never had a saeculum. It is just too primitive. A country in which the people never have any voice, nor any law other than tyranny, can scarcely have a saeculum.

[galaxy]

(06-25-2021, 01:31 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: My suggestion is that Russia has never had a saeculum. It is just too primitive. A country in which the people never have any voice, nor any law other than tyranny, can scarcely have a saeculum.

Any society that has a concept of "history" and "generation" can have a saeculum. So in the modern world that's virtually all non-hunter-gatherer societies.
Whether that saeculum is suppressed by outside forces (for example, authoritarian rule, or Crises that arise from "outside the society" such as foreign invasions and natural disasters) is another matter.

[pbrower2a]

Russia has had a sophisticated cultural life for almost two centuries and a strong scientific community for a century and a half. To be sure, Russian and Soviet politics have largely been a cesspool during that time. Amoral leaders in politics typically bring disaster at some point, often a war for profits of war-mongering interests and the glorification of the Leader. If not war, they usually foster a top-heavy economic order, whatever the stated ideology, that means indulgence without restraint for the elites and grinding poverty for the masses. (Just look at how neocon foreign policy and neoliberal economics have served America in the last four decades).

[David Horn]

(06-25-2021, 04:31 PM)galaxy Wrote:

(06-25-2021, 01:31 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: My suggestion is that Russia has never had a saeculum. It is just too primitive. A country in which the people never have any voice, nor any law other than tyranny, can scarcely have a saeculum.

Any society that has a concept of "history" and "generation" can have a saeculum. So in the modern world that's virtually all non-hunter-gatherer societies.
Whether that saeculum is suppressed by outside forces (for example, authoritarian rule, or Crises that arise from "outside the society" such as foreign invasions and natural disasters) is another matter.

I have to agree with galaxy on this one. Just the act of establishing a society is adequate. Societies have structure to maintain their existence. The rest follows naturally.

[Captain Genet]

(06-24-2021, 10:52 AM)galaxy Wrote: good-ending 4T -> very powerful 1T (extremely peaceful, extremely conformist, etc) -> very powerful 2T (strong reaction against intensity of conformism) -> very powerful 3T (result of intense 2T) -> bad-ending 4T (society is too 3T-ish during 4T, failure to unify) -> weak 1T (more active, less conformist) -> weak 2T (just not as much to rebel against) -> weak 3T (society isn't quite so "awakened") -> good-ending 4T (society much more easily leaves the 3T behind).
Thoughts?

I'm definitely convinced.

With regard to the 2Ts:
super conformist 1Ts result in super individualistic, Bohemian 2Ts
weak 1Ts result in moralistic, Apollonian 2Ts since the 3T hedonism never really died down during 4T

(06-25-2021, 01:31 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: My suggestion is that Russia has never had a saeculum. It is just too primitive. A country in which the people never have any voice, nor any law other than tyranny, can scarcely have a saeculum.

You need to get over your anti-Russian racism. I'm familiar with Russian philosophy, poetry and cinema and they're anything but primitive, though I agree there is little interest in activism or political participation among the general public outside Moscow and Petersburg.

Quote:Whether that saeculum is suppressed by outside forces (for example, authoritarian rule, or Crises that arise from "outside the society" such as foreign invasions and natural disasters) is another matter.

I agree. Another exception can happen if the order established during the 4T is very weak, then the society returns to 4T mood before it can go 2T.

[galaxy]

(06-26-2021, 07:49 AM)Captain Genet Wrote: I agree. Another exception can happen if the order established during the 4T is very weak, then the society returns to 4T mood before it can go 2T.

I'm not sure what you mean. Is there a good example of this somewhere?

[Eric the Green]

(06-26-2021, 07:49 AM)Captain Genet Wrote:

(06-25-2021, 01:31 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: My suggestion is that Russia has never had a saeculum. It is just too primitive. A country in which the people never have any voice, nor any law other than tyranny, can scarcely have a saeculum.

You need to get over your anti-Russian racism. I'm familiar with Russian philosophy, poetry and cinema and they're anything but primitive, though I agree there is little interest in activism or political participation among the general public outside Moscow and Petersburg.

You seem rather free with your use of the word racism. Since I am Caucasian, and the Caucasus is near Russia, and since slavic peoples are white, I'd have to be racist against myself.

It is exactly the "political participation among the general public" being so slight that leads me to think there is no Russian saeculum. There might be some sort of cycle, and I know Russians have achieved a great deal in many fields in spite of their rulers, but I can't discern anything like the kind of saeculum that we have in the historical record of Russia. Russians don't have access to the kind of popular culture and media that creates social moods either, especially awakening and 3T moods. Russia seems like it is in either 4T or 1T all the time. I could grant that the 500-year cycle of civilization has shown itself in Russia, though.

[Captain Genet]

(06-26-2021, 11:45 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: You seem rather free with your use of the word racism. Since I am Caucasian, and the Caucasus is near Russia, and since slavic peoples are white, I'd have to be racist against myself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Slavic_sentiment

Some you say there are three human races (White, Black and Mongolian) or five (with Semites and Native Americans classified separately). If you understand the word racism pedantically, no person of English or Celtic ancestry could be racist against Slavs. But if one understands racism more broadly, it can encompass any ethnic prejudice.

In the pedantic sense, antisemitism is not racism because there is no Jewish race.

galaxy Wrote:I'm not sure what you mean. Is there a good example of this somewhere?

I think the restauration of Bourbons in France in 1814-30 was a failed 1T after which France went back to the 4T mood.

[Tim Randal Walker]

I believe that the New Economic Plan (NEP) was listed as an abortive 1T for the Soviet Union.

[Eric the Green]

(06-28-2021, 08:14 AM)Captain Genet Wrote:

(06-26-2021, 11:45 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: You seem rather free with your use of the word racism. Since I am Caucasian, and the Caucasus is near Russia, and since slavic peoples are white, I'd have to be racist against myself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Slavic_sentiment

Some you say there are three human races (White, Black and Mongolian) or five (with Semites and Native Americans classified separately). If you understand the word racism pedantically, no person of English or Celtic ancestry could be racist against Slavs. But if one understands racism more broadly, it can encompass any ethnic prejudice.

In the pedantic sense, antisemitism is not racism because there is no Jewish race.

galaxy Wrote:I'm not sure what you mean. Is there a good example of this somewhere?

I think the restauration of Bourbons in France in 1814-30 was a failed 1T after which France went back to the 4T mood.

Actually, the French 1T was a mostly-successful period from 1799 to 1815, in which Napoleon ended the Revolution and imposed order, except that Napoleon was too ambitious and hubristic, but was still considered the most successful ruler in French history and accomplished a lot to bring Europe forward. The Awakening in France and Europe actually started in 1815 after the Vienna settlement with a revival of revolutionary sentiment among young soldiers and students. Romanticism reached its height in this era, but then in 1834 the revolutionary enthusiasm was squelched for a while with the suppression of the last in a series of revolts, and realism began to be seen among some artists. Europe entered the 3T, which continued until the 1847-50 period when famine and revolution erupted, disrupting the stagnation imposed by the post-Vienna consortium and replacing it with nationalists. A series of 4T wars began after a civil war in Turkey erupted around 1850, leading to the Crimean War. It was the first in a series of nationalist wars that created the next era of real-politik. The next saeculum began in 1871 after the Franco-Prussian War solidified the new regime, which created a new stability in which material innovation and colonial conquest accelerated, followed by the next 2T beginning in the late 1880s which dissolved this materialism into the world of modernism and alienation in the 3T, in which the triumphant but dangerous and malevolent real-politik, materialism and nationalism expanded into the world wars that ended European dominance and colonialism and discredited realist, racist nationalism, opening today's global civilization and millennial seaculum.