08-03-2020, 05:19 PM
(08-03-2020, 04:16 PM)Mikebert Wrote: A very simple way to put the saeculum is during a 4T a new order is formed. This order works well for a time and then runs into difficulty when it encounters issues in the 2T that were not salient when it was established. The order is modified but not reforged. So these reforms do not work lie the original and during the next 3T more problems arise. Some are the result of design flaws in the original order and others are due to the inadequacy of the reforms made in the 2T. This period continues until suddenly it becomes clear that the old order is broken and then you have a 4T crisis.Excellent. So can we assume that when you refer to “empirical data,” that you used a quantitative approach whereby certain variables are input into a model? As a former “quant” of sorts myself in a previous life, I once much preferred a statistical approach to forecasting rather than a qualitative framework, such as that on offer by Neil Howe or Stephen Skowronek with his theory of political time. I’ve seen quantitative approaches to stock market timing, for instance, work very well—until they didn’t. Program trading, or “portfolio insurance” for stocks, which worked like a charm, until too many traders crowded into an equity strategy that blew up the market in the Crash of 1987. And I’m not casting aspersions on modeling, per se. It’s just that for the average Joe or Jill, their eyes start to glaze over when they see a bunch of complicated mathematical formulas, and that would include me by the way.
The issue with S&H is they assuming that these sequences have a roughly constant length, which is why we expected this crisis era to have started by now. But the example of 2008 shows that an event essentially identical to 1929 did NOT collapse the economy (although it did give a deep bear market). Collapse was prevented by elite action. As a result what would have been a 4T was prevented from happening. The fact that we had a crisis generation constellation did not matter a damn.
In 2020 we are in a depression-sized economic slump, but this time--so serious bear market. The elites shut any potential 4T down so fast it would make your head spin. People are marching in the streets calling for another adjustment to keep the current cycle going a bit longer. It is possible we will STILL avoid a 4T and the 3T will march on.
If you look at the period before the American Revolution you can see that the cycle doesn't really fit the history.
The BIG English crisis in the 17th century was the English Revolution, not the much smaller-scale Glorious Revolution. On the other hand the latter gave rise to the significant structural change. But I wouldn't start a crisis in English in 1675, but rather in 1685 when Charles II came to the throne. In the secular cycle* this isn't a problem because the "4T" phase runs from about 1640 to 1690.
In America, the big crisis events WERE around 1675. You can probably extend it to around 1690 but that's about it.
The Armada doesn't even look like a 4T. Have you ever seen anyone use examples from THAT crisis to illustrate 4T issues. A few of theorists did talk about the Glorious and WotR 4Ts, but I cannot recall anyone comparing anything to the Armada. It's so forgettable of a 4T because it isn't a 4T at all. There were no structural changes made. It was just a war, one of the dozens that happened all the time back then.
Chas and I derived pre-1435 turnings for England going back the mid-9th century. I used generations as one of the structural elements, as well as empirical data and Bob's concept of "spirals of violence" a "spiral" that fizzled out means it was not a social moment turning. One that did not indicates one. I also used Chas's idea of archetypical generations playing roles in history analogous to archetypical characters playing roles in a drama, sort of a riff on "all the world's a stage". Using all these tools I managed to cobble together turnings and running them by Chas for input.
Anyways not all 4T's are equal. Some are obvious, like the Viking crisis. the Norman invasion and the WotR. Others like the 12th century crisis (its not the Anarchy, it simply happened too early) seem stretched, and the 10th and 13th century 4Ts are pretty small beer, like the Armada.
Secular cycles are longer saeculum-like cycles proposed by Peter Turchin and others. There is a thread here in it I set up like four years ago.
I wonder, then, if that’s not part of the appeal of S&H theory to those of us on this forum; it’s basic simplicity as a construct of Anglo-American historical cycles. That, and its fusion of supposedly discrete generations with turning periods that seem to make (some) sense with the benefit of hindsight. And that by referring to “my g-g-generation,” S&H theory works on a more personal level. Dare I say, giving generational theory a certain “sex appeal.” After all, media of all sorts does fixate on generations here in America, exploiting the presumed distinctions for a variety of purposes, branding and marketing to say the least.
So here are the rhetorical questions I would ask anyone who cares to answer:
- What attracted you to S&H theory in the first place?
- What doubts do you have about the theory, with respect to either process or its conclusions?
- What would it take to disabuse you of the theory completely (i.e., the dealbreaker)?