6 Turnings

[Jessquo]

(03-11-2019, 06:42 AM)sbarrera Wrote:

(03-10-2019, 09:26 AM)Jessquo Wrote:

(03-09-2019, 05:04 PM)sbarrera Wrote: Looks like you are using the Strauss and Howe names for four of your turnings, and then have added "Diffusion" and "Mission." Can you explain a little more what those are? What are the differences in detail?

The Highs, Unravellings and Crises are virtually the same. Awakenings are a little different. I propose that awakenings should be considered the period in which values, norms, beliefs and lifestyles are questioned by the idealist generation who are in or entering youth during that Turning. The diffusion is the period in which the core of these new ideas is diffused across the generation above (the adaptives) during their mid-life and the generation below (the cynics) during their youth. It is also the period in which the rebellious nature of the Awakening comes to an end as these three generational architypes coalesce around new political goals. This brings us to the Mission: the implementation of these goals. The mission is the first turning in which the generation with the greatest leadership responsibility possess these new political goals. 

This sounds to me like the S&H Awakening broken down into phases. They too described the Awakening as the period when the Idealist generation questions values, norms, &c.

(03-10-2019, 09:26 AM)Jessquo Wrote:  
Also, there are two more generational archetypes in my theory; Cynics and Pragmatists. While Cynics take on the beliefs of the Idealists regarding what constitutes the "good life" and what the general goals of society should be, they are far more cynical about human nature and are perhaps a little more selfish. Politicians of the Cynic archetype tend to be very Machiavellian and it is no coincidence that their generation are of leadership age during the crisis. The Pragmatists tend to be the children of Cynics. In my theory the parents of a generation tend to be the generation before the previous generation. Generation Jones tend to be the parents of the Millennials and the Silent Generation tend to be the parents of Generation Jones. Likewise, Generation X tends to be the parents of Generation Z and the Boomers tend to be the parents of Generation X. Cynics (e.g. Jones) were not as rebellious as the idealists (e.g. Boomers). They simply absorbed many of their ideas but as I mentioned previously are more cynical about human nature. Consequently, they had more time and greater incentive to be relatively more protective of their children the pragmatists (e.g. Millennials) than the idealists (Boomers) were of their reactive children (Gen X). 
 
There are 3 dominant and 3 recessive architypes. Dominant archetypes are the Civics (the most communitarian and conformist), the Idealists (the most idealistic/spiritual and rebellious) and the Reactives (the most individualistic/independent and least trusting). The three recessive generations have traits that are a combination of the dominant generations immediately before and after them. 
Pragmatist tend to emphasise the individual (like reactives) but also believe in social, political and economic intervention/settlements (like civics) when they are used to enhance individual agency and empowerment i.e. they are the most liberal and pragmatic archetype. 
Adaptives tend to believe in a big society and have a high degree of social capital (like the Civics) but they are also relatively more idealistic/philosophical (like the Idealists).
Cynics tend to be somewhat philosophical/spiritual (like idealist) but also more individualistic/independent and less trusting (like reactives).

Exactly, in my schema Diffusions are essentially the second half of what S & H describe as Awakenings. However, if you add my Awakenings and Diffusions together, they tend to be somewhat longer than S&H Awakenings. 

You write

"I like the idea of there being dominant versions of what were formerly considered recessive generations. But why not have that for each of the original S&H generations? That takes you to 8 different archetypes. The has better symmetry IMO. 6 is an awkward number for a cycle."

I don't agree with what you say about 8 being a more symetrical number. Think about it this way the generations half a cycle apart are opposite. When Idealists are in leadership Pragmatists are in youth and vice versa. When Reactives are in leadership Adaptives are in youth and vice versa. When Civics and in leadership Cynics are in youth and vice versa.

Also, if you consider the parent child relationship the 6 generational/turnings cycle makes sense. Consider the dominant archetypes. The Idealists under-protect their Reactive children who in turn overprotect their Civic children who in turn Indulge their Idealist children. Now consider the recessive archetypes. Cynics and Pragmatists are somewhat protective of their Pragmatist and Adaptive Children. Adaptives are somewhat indulgent toward their Cynic children.