05-31-2022, 05:15 PM
As you're probably aware, a lot of people either dismiss or misapply S&H theory because they don't get how it works. Below is a brief list of some of the most common errors people tend to make.
1) Cutting the generations too short. The length of a generation is supposed represent the approximate length of a phase of life, not the 15-ish years people typically use as boundary lines.
2) Over-emphasis on the previous saeculum, especially the GIs. Millennials will never become as socially conservative as the GIs, boomers will never become as religiously fundamentalist as the missionaries, etc.
3) Over-emphasis on the "hero" aspect of the civic archetype. Collective bravery is only one aspect of civic generations. We also need to take into consideration susceptibility to peer pressure, strong pro-science/rationalism orientation, propensity for social organization, relatively bland cultural contributions and strong sense of duty...most of which fit millennials like a glove.
4) Seeing the 4th turning as a singular event (WW2, GFC, Covid, etc) rather than a period of history that tends to last considerably longer.
5) Putting the boundaries of "coming of age" earlier than is realistic. A lot of people assume your teens are your "coming of age years", but this is really only true in terms of identity. Your real coming of age years are when you strike out in the real world, where you can make some kind of tangible difference in terms of productivity, combat, intellectual contributions or some other kind of mark on the world. This is why "rising adulthood" is defined as the years from around 20-22 to 40-44, rather than, say, teens to early 20s, when you really can't have a lot of impact.
6) Incorrectly correlating 4th turnings with wars. Wars can pop up in any era. For example, 3rd turnings gave us WWI and the French and Indian War, 2nd Turnings gave us Vietnam and the Mexican-American War, 1st Turnings gave us the Korean War, etc. What is important with regards to turnings is the response to said war, both militarily and socially.
7) Over-simplifying generational theory as "kids rebelling against their parents"....no. Generational archetypes arise primarily from shared experience of going through significant political events at a similar age, suffering the consequences of a hole being left by a previous generation (ex: millennials feeling the effects of lack of functioning institutions and widespread social fragmentation).
8) Assuming the hero generation is the fiery revolutionary archetype, when, in practice, this tends to be the idealists.
1) Cutting the generations too short. The length of a generation is supposed represent the approximate length of a phase of life, not the 15-ish years people typically use as boundary lines.
2) Over-emphasis on the previous saeculum, especially the GIs. Millennials will never become as socially conservative as the GIs, boomers will never become as religiously fundamentalist as the missionaries, etc.
3) Over-emphasis on the "hero" aspect of the civic archetype. Collective bravery is only one aspect of civic generations. We also need to take into consideration susceptibility to peer pressure, strong pro-science/rationalism orientation, propensity for social organization, relatively bland cultural contributions and strong sense of duty...most of which fit millennials like a glove.
4) Seeing the 4th turning as a singular event (WW2, GFC, Covid, etc) rather than a period of history that tends to last considerably longer.
5) Putting the boundaries of "coming of age" earlier than is realistic. A lot of people assume your teens are your "coming of age years", but this is really only true in terms of identity. Your real coming of age years are when you strike out in the real world, where you can make some kind of tangible difference in terms of productivity, combat, intellectual contributions or some other kind of mark on the world. This is why "rising adulthood" is defined as the years from around 20-22 to 40-44, rather than, say, teens to early 20s, when you really can't have a lot of impact.
6) Incorrectly correlating 4th turnings with wars. Wars can pop up in any era. For example, 3rd turnings gave us WWI and the French and Indian War, 2nd Turnings gave us Vietnam and the Mexican-American War, 1st Turnings gave us the Korean War, etc. What is important with regards to turnings is the response to said war, both militarily and socially.
7) Over-simplifying generational theory as "kids rebelling against their parents"....no. Generational archetypes arise primarily from shared experience of going through significant political events at a similar age, suffering the consequences of a hole being left by a previous generation (ex: millennials feeling the effects of lack of functioning institutions and widespread social fragmentation).
8) Assuming the hero generation is the fiery revolutionary archetype, when, in practice, this tends to be the idealists.
ammosexual
reluctant millennial
reluctant millennial