(02-01-2017, 04:18 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:I provided a link. You did check it out, right. DId it work? If so, You can do this for the T4T reference you find my searching for a cluster of words specific to the page. It should come right up. Then you can link to it like I did for the Generations reference.(02-01-2017, 04:07 PM)Mikebert Wrote:Some Guy Wrote:There is a world of difference between "The definition of a 4T is..." and "MY definition of a 4T is..."
This is the definition S&H give on page 71 of Generations.
"A SOCIAL MOMENT is an era, typically lasting about a decade, when people perceive that historic events are radically altering their social environment. "
and
"There are two types of social moments: SECULAR CRISES, when society focuses on reordering the outer world of institutions and public behavior; and SPIRITUAL AWAKENINGS, when society focuses on changing the inner world of values and private behavior."
The reordering of institutions is the core part of the definition. Nothing about “mood”. They do use mood to EXPLAIN how secular crises arise, but a secular crisis is NOT defined by mood. The definition is what they gave on page 71, which is the definition I am using. They were pretty explicit, the definitions were offset from the bulk text and italicized. Kind of hard to miss.
As pointed out previously, I have not read Generations. I have read T4T. And in T4T it was very much a question of a change in mood. I will go home this evening and check an exact page number.
Interesting that they define it in Generations in terms of about a decade, that would seem to imply that a "social moment" is rather shorter than a full turning.
I only read T4T once. It seemed to me to be a rehash of Generations, with nothing new. I wouldn't think they changed the definition in the six years between the two books. What was significant to me was they explicitly defined turnings that encompassed social moments for and the "inner-directed" and "out-directed" periods in-between (AND they added six more turnings--more data!).
I am trying to write a paper that takes S&H seriously. The only person who has done that is Dave Krein and the paper he wrote (that I thought was quite good) is the least cited of all those who wrote during his career. Their material is difficult to work with because they are so hazy. T4T is not very usable since it is full of jargon. In T4T they renamed the generational types: Idealist, Reactive, Adaptive, and Civic as Prophet, Nomad, Artist, and Hero archetypes. Why? I dunno. They stopped talking about social moments and started talking about turnings, giving each an equal role in history formation, whereas initially it was the social moments that were key. I cannot recalll if they even discussed the idea of dominant and recessive generations in T4T. Did they? Are you familiar with this concept? If you haven't read Generations, I cannot see how you really be conversant with their theory, since they only lay that out in the Appendix in Generations.