It is not a “failed 4T”. Rather, the concept of an “aligned constellation” is probably wrong. S&H theory holds that when a new aligned constellation (each generation filling their assigned phase of life for a turning), a new generation starts being born. For example when Heroes completely occupy elderhood, Artists occupy mature adulthood, Prophets occupy rising adulthood, and Nomads, youth, a new Hero generation starts being born to replace the old Hero gen now exiting elderhood.
If you try to apply this concept to the historical generations, you will find that it consistently makes too-early predictions for the early saecula, and too late ones for the later saecula. The easiest way to see this to realize that the constellation requires that generations be the same length as a phase of life (22 years). If generations are different from this length the predicted generations will quickly get out of sync with the observed ones.
This was realized by people at T4T back around 2000-2001 and the fixed-length phase of life concept was replaced by the idea that there was an “old saeculum” with a typical generation/phase of life about 26 years in length and a new one with shorter generation/turning lengths (18-20 years). With this, the constellation model can work for the older saeculum and for the 20th century, but it breaks down in-between, which resulted in anomalous behavior that S&H identified as the CWA.
It was difficult to imagine how phases of life much longer that modern ones operated at a time when life expectancy of elite adults was much shorter, about thirty years less than today. Assuming 20-year phases of life for today: youth 0-19, rising adulthood 20-39, mid-life 40-59, and elderhood 60-79. Almost half of the 2020 presidential candidates and the average age of leaders (63) fall into elderhood, giving us lots of potential national leaders who could function as GCs were this to be a 4T (a GC is a figure in the elder phase of life who plays a leadership role in a 4T). In the 16th century the adult phases of life were 26-51, 52-77, 78-103 with the 26-year phase of life. The average age of leaders was about 48, meaning most leaders were rising adults (a phase of life whose principal role was activity, not leadership) and none were in elderhood (thus no one could possibly play a GC role).
A alternative to the constellation model is an imprinting model, first proposed by Karl Mannheim in the 1920’s. Such a model would involve a generation type being "imprinted" by history when they come of age and who then create history (a turning) when they come to power (which imprints a new generation perpetuating the cycle). S&H described coming of age as an important part of generational identity and they gave a shorthand description of their theory “history shapes generations and generations shape history” that is quite consistent with an imprinting model.
The imprinting model works quite well. If we initiate such model with a 4T over 1773-87, the model then goes on to predict a 4T in 1861-76, another one in 1932-1945, and a (presumably 4T) social moment in 2006-2022, which are pretty close to the actual dates. There is a curious result, however. The imprinting model forecasts SIX turnings for the Civil War saeculum: 1787-1801, 1801-1815, 1815-1830, 1830-1844, 1844-1861, 1861-1876, but only FOUR for the Great Power Saeculum: 1876-1895, 1895-1911, 1911=1932, 1932-1945. (Bold refers to social moments).
The model does not generate saecula, just turnings, that are one of two types: social moments, when dominant generations come of age, and turnings when recessive generations come of age. What KIND of social moment or recessive turning is not predicted, the user has to make this distinction. Since it was obvious that 1861-76 and 1932-45 refer to 4Ts, I label these turnings as 4Ts. Once I do this, it defines two saecula, one with 6 turnings and one with 4. But that is only AFTER I designate one of the turnings as a 4T.
For the present saeculum it forecasts turnings in 1945-1967, 1967-1980, 1980-2002, 2002-2022, 2022-2047, 2047-2064. It seems pretty clear that 1967-1980 refers to an Awakening. But it is not all all clear that 2002-2022 refers to a Crisis. If we decide afterward that it WAS a 4T, then the Millennial saeculum will be a 4-turning saeculum like the Great Power saeculum. But, maybe it’s something else just like the 1801-1815 social moment was, in which case the millennial saeculum is not yet over, and may well be a 6-turning saeculum like the Civil War saeculum.
If you try to apply this concept to the historical generations, you will find that it consistently makes too-early predictions for the early saecula, and too late ones for the later saecula. The easiest way to see this to realize that the constellation requires that generations be the same length as a phase of life (22 years). If generations are different from this length the predicted generations will quickly get out of sync with the observed ones.
This was realized by people at T4T back around 2000-2001 and the fixed-length phase of life concept was replaced by the idea that there was an “old saeculum” with a typical generation/phase of life about 26 years in length and a new one with shorter generation/turning lengths (18-20 years). With this, the constellation model can work for the older saeculum and for the 20th century, but it breaks down in-between, which resulted in anomalous behavior that S&H identified as the CWA.
It was difficult to imagine how phases of life much longer that modern ones operated at a time when life expectancy of elite adults was much shorter, about thirty years less than today. Assuming 20-year phases of life for today: youth 0-19, rising adulthood 20-39, mid-life 40-59, and elderhood 60-79. Almost half of the 2020 presidential candidates and the average age of leaders (63) fall into elderhood, giving us lots of potential national leaders who could function as GCs were this to be a 4T (a GC is a figure in the elder phase of life who plays a leadership role in a 4T). In the 16th century the adult phases of life were 26-51, 52-77, 78-103 with the 26-year phase of life. The average age of leaders was about 48, meaning most leaders were rising adults (a phase of life whose principal role was activity, not leadership) and none were in elderhood (thus no one could possibly play a GC role).
A alternative to the constellation model is an imprinting model, first proposed by Karl Mannheim in the 1920’s. Such a model would involve a generation type being "imprinted" by history when they come of age and who then create history (a turning) when they come to power (which imprints a new generation perpetuating the cycle). S&H described coming of age as an important part of generational identity and they gave a shorthand description of their theory “history shapes generations and generations shape history” that is quite consistent with an imprinting model.
The imprinting model works quite well. If we initiate such model with a 4T over 1773-87, the model then goes on to predict a 4T in 1861-76, another one in 1932-1945, and a (presumably 4T) social moment in 2006-2022, which are pretty close to the actual dates. There is a curious result, however. The imprinting model forecasts SIX turnings for the Civil War saeculum: 1787-1801, 1801-1815, 1815-1830, 1830-1844, 1844-1861, 1861-1876, but only FOUR for the Great Power Saeculum: 1876-1895, 1895-1911, 1911=1932, 1932-1945. (Bold refers to social moments).
The model does not generate saecula, just turnings, that are one of two types: social moments, when dominant generations come of age, and turnings when recessive generations come of age. What KIND of social moment or recessive turning is not predicted, the user has to make this distinction. Since it was obvious that 1861-76 and 1932-45 refer to 4Ts, I label these turnings as 4Ts. Once I do this, it defines two saecula, one with 6 turnings and one with 4. But that is only AFTER I designate one of the turnings as a 4T.
For the present saeculum it forecasts turnings in 1945-1967, 1967-1980, 1980-2002, 2002-2022, 2022-2047, 2047-2064. It seems pretty clear that 1967-1980 refers to an Awakening. But it is not all all clear that 2002-2022 refers to a Crisis. If we decide afterward that it WAS a 4T, then the Millennial saeculum will be a 4-turning saeculum like the Great Power saeculum. But, maybe it’s something else just like the 1801-1815 social moment was, in which case the millennial saeculum is not yet over, and may well be a 6-turning saeculum like the Civil War saeculum.