I am working on a paper that seeks to achieve some sort of synthesis between the generational cycle concept proposed by S&H and others with the secular cycle concept proposed by Turchin and others. I am having all sorts of difficulties, particularly with the interface between what Sean Love dubbed saeculum I and saeculum II, that is, the transition from generations that averaged 26-27 years in length with the more recent generations that averaged 20 years in length. Anyways, that is not the issue for this thread. The issue is how this 4T may play out, assuming the S&H concept is valid.
I start with the observation that the previous six 4Ts fall into only three categories. As 4T's all fit the definition of a secular crisis: a period when society focuses on reordering the outer world of institutions and public behavior. Four of the historical 4Ts produced a reordering of the state achieved through either a civil war or a revolution. Another (Depression & WW II) accomplished the same politically though crushing electoral defeats. Finally, one 4T (Armada) did not involve an internal reordering of the English state (as would happen in the next 4T), but rather a reordering of the position of England in European politics, in that England became a great power.
Some guy (I believe) proposes this third (Armada) type. That is, this 4T won't achieve major changes in the state domestically, but rather in the US position in the international order.
I believe that this 4T (if the concept is valid) will involve a domestic re-ordering to be accomplished politically, not through internal war (that is, the Depression & WW II model).
Many have pointed out a similarity of tone to the Civil War 4T. I see the similarity, but are they saying this 4T will be resolved through internal military conflict (i.e. civil war/revolution)?
Please weigh in.
I start with the observation that the previous six 4Ts fall into only three categories. As 4T's all fit the definition of a secular crisis: a period when society focuses on reordering the outer world of institutions and public behavior. Four of the historical 4Ts produced a reordering of the state achieved through either a civil war or a revolution. Another (Depression & WW II) accomplished the same politically though crushing electoral defeats. Finally, one 4T (Armada) did not involve an internal reordering of the English state (as would happen in the next 4T), but rather a reordering of the position of England in European politics, in that England became a great power.
Some guy (I believe) proposes this third (Armada) type. That is, this 4T won't achieve major changes in the state domestically, but rather in the US position in the international order.
I believe that this 4T (if the concept is valid) will involve a domestic re-ordering to be accomplished politically, not through internal war (that is, the Depression & WW II model).
Many have pointed out a similarity of tone to the Civil War 4T. I see the similarity, but are they saying this 4T will be resolved through internal military conflict (i.e. civil war/revolution)?
Please weigh in.