03-03-2021, 01:07 AM
(03-02-2021, 11:51 PM)jleagans Wrote:(03-01-2021, 04:05 PM)David Horn Wrote:(03-01-2021, 02:06 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:(03-01-2021, 02:01 PM)David Horn Wrote:(03-01-2021, 01:43 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't think the Generation X/Lost archetype should be defined only by how they reacted to the prophet Boomers and Missionaries, etc. They have their own identity, not just one based on reaction to another archetype. I think S&H meant the term "Reactive" to signify an experimental attitude, an ability to respond and act in bold and adventurous ways; very situational and realistic, pragmatic, often cynical or gruff, and going off in their own direction; independent, self-reliant and inner-directed, although not introspective or philosophical like prophets are supposed to be and often are. But "reactive" is a poor word for this. Nomad is a bit better, at least.
Yet it was those prior generations that set the tone that moved the next gens to oppose them.
So then all generations are "reactives." And not just to the immediately prior ones. Boomers "reacted" mostly to the GIs, and were inspired by the Silent "Artists" as well as going in a new direction from those Silents who submitted to the way things were. Gen X does not just oppose Boomers. They are supposed, at least, to be the managers that carry out the boomers' plans. See for example 1964 Xers Kamala Harris and Susan Rice. In our Crisis era I would suggest these blue Xers are becoming just what S&H said they would be now, and we are seeing more blue Xers come to the fore, instead of the Reaganoid ones that predominated in the 3T and early 4T-- they being the ones that reacted so poorly as they often should not have done to the boomers and silents. Like our Classic Xer.
There is some truth to that. The dominant gens are more likely to create blowback that the recessive ones, but even the Adaptives create some opposition. Look at the change in the music scene between the bland '50s and the Rock explosion that followed.
And your point about Gen-X is well taken. They are the managers we Boomers never were. Without that, there can never be a 1T.
What about “Rebels” instead of Reactives?
Nomad/Reactive generations are not really rebels. They tend toward conservative politically, or at least Gen X and Lost did, so I wouldn't recommend that name. Nomads don't start revolutions; prophets or civics do that. Nomads just step in as needed to manage things and make things work in the midst of chaos. That's my take. So reactives is actually a better name, as defined by S&H. Situational, in other words. The Reactive approach is very pragmatic, which is not about rebelling at all. S&H described the arrival of Gen X as the moment when their students stopped asking deep questions and said let's just get on with the business of learning how to succeed in the world and make money.