08-01-2020, 07:30 AM
(07-31-2020, 03:12 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The authors in The Fourth Turning defined the length of a generation archetypally as 21 years, not 22. That's a small difference, but it adds up over time. And according to their schedule, it's been more like 20, which is even more difference. Add to that their civil war anomaly, which they admit, and there's more. And then they make the pre-modern and early modern generations longer (as well as the Transcendental Generation).
So the cycle is not set in stone in its length. It varies depending on events and our stage of development. Pre-industrial and Pre-Enlightenment era generations were longer. Now in the post-modern, Mr. Howe has decided that the 4T we are in began in 2008 and will end in 2029, so the cycle is approaching the archetypal length again, this time almost 83 years (assuming the 2008 4T start date is late in the year and the 1946 start is early in the year). And the 4T turning length is slated to be the length of an archetypal generation, 21 years.
The problem I have now with the cycle is whether each stage of development is really 21 years long anymore. More and more young people are going to college, and thus becoming reliant on older generations for longer in their lives. In the past, you were clearly a “young adult” in your early twenties, most people married young and got a permanent job. Now it’s clearly the opposite, and with the newer generations being reliant on older ones for longer, with a clear extension of childhood. At least from my observations, most college age kids do seem to think, act, and identify as children rather than adults. Many college graduates are similar.
S&H also stated that 1T and 2Ts tend to have children growing up faster than in 3Ts and 4Ts, as evidenced by the average age of marriage. Does this mean 1Ts and 2Ts tend to be shorter than 3Ts if that is the case? However this doesn’t take into account the other generations that cause the turnings.