03-01-2021, 01:34 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-01-2021, 01:51 PM by Eric the Green.)
(02-28-2021, 04:10 PM)David Horn Wrote:(02-28-2021, 02:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:(02-26-2021, 10:04 AM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: "Nomad" is the best description I have come across for that archetype. Better than "Reactive", which could be confused with "Adaptive".
I prefer "Civic" to "Hero" for that archetype. With the Gilded as an example, I believe that Nomads can be shoe horned into a Hero role.
Don't care much for "Adaptive", but prefer it to "Artist"-any archetypal generation can have artists, such as painter, sculptors, musicians, etc.
Agreed. "Reactive" is also too pejorative, although S&H didn't mean it to be.
In a way, it is more descriptive, though. There is a very decided reaction to the excesses of the Prophets (or whatever name seems better). I don't think Moralist fits in place of Prophet, though Proactive may be a good description, but not very inspiring.
I doubt there is a great fit, because each archetype needs to cover many generations over time, and they do differ substantially.
I like "Prophet" very much. It includes the aspect of a generation propelled by a spiritual awakening, something many people have forgotten about in our 4T times, but which many of us boomers like me resonate with totally. "Idealist" is misleading, as it suggests that prophet generations are driven by liberal ideals for the future. But this archetype seems to split between liberal and conservative, and I don't agree that conservatives like George W Bush or Donald Trump are "idealists." They, like others of this archetype, do adhere to and promote or impose ideologies, even plans conceived on a large-scale-- and rather too self-righteously and rigidly. But ideologies and values and such are not necessarily beneficent and liberal, as the word "idealist" implies. I prefer myself to reserve the word for those who hold and promote beneficent, liberal ideals. And certainly Boomers have much in common with Missionaries, just as the 2Ts in which they were young were very similar.
This is similar I guess as to how I want the word "populist" restored to its original meaning. Now it just means appealing to the prejudices of the "ignorant common rabble." I would rather put the responsibility upon the common people to be truly interested in the power of the people, and I think we all have enough intelligence to know when we are being led astray by having our prejudices and fears stoked-- even though today's trumpers and xenophobes grossly fail to do this. And who are the common people? Are supposedly well-educated people and academics not part of the common people too? I prefer "the elite" to be correctly defined too, as the group that have the power that all the people should have instead, not the intelligencia or academics or entertainers or journalists as conservatives today want to define it as.