Generation Theory Thread

[Mikebert]

(05-15-2017, 03:29 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(05-15-2017, 01:44 PM)Emman85 Wrote:

(05-15-2017, 05:58 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

(05-14-2017, 01:06 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

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

You did not address the other ideas presented. Two observers, one on the right and one on the left, have noted the resemblance of modern protests to era of creedal passion, which are 2Ts.  If you read Huntington's definition of a creed passion era and S&H's definition of a 2T they are very similar. S&H cited Huntington, so I believe they read him, and probably were influenced by him.

Creedal passion does not automatically mean 2T, Huntington names the American Revolution as a creedal passion period and you'd agree it was a 4T right? Huntington in 1981 did predict a new creedal passion period starting in the 2010s and 2020s, he averages these periods about 60 years apart and lasting about 15 years. This means that in American history 2Ts have accounted for 3 of the 4 creedal passion periods he mentioned in his 1981 book and this period might be the 5th

During the Great Power 4T I'd argue there was a creedal passion along the lines of "Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You, Ask What You Can Do For Your Country" - it was profound enough to provide the credo for the 1T after it.

Huntington developed his theory after this time.  If it qualified he would have noted that.

It's like the 1801-1816 period.  Schlesinger and Elazar both have it as what I call a political moment.  All the other political moments they identified correspond to social moments except for this one.  It actually falls into the second Great Awakening:

Spiritual/Relgious Frequency over time.


Yet S&H called it part of a 1T and not a social moment.  As the social contagion model plot shows there was no spike in radicalization at this time, whereas there was one in the 1820's, right when S&H say the 2T was.  So political moments (what the generation model forecasts is beginning in 2008) can be 2Ts 4Ts or something else.  Since the current period corresponds to a social contagion model plot it likely will be a social moment, which is what S&H would project.  The question is what makes a social moment a 4T rather than a 2T, and do we see this now? For the last three 4Ts it was really obvious within a few years that it was a 4T.  This time it is anything but obvious.