S&H proposed a theory to which they added a variety of observations. Their primary mechanism (history creates generations and generations create history) proposed that there should be a series of alternately periods of more eventful (social moments) and less eventful eras of roughly 22 year duration. This seems to hold. A mathematical representation of this theory predicts a social moment to begin around 2008 and this appears to be the case. Strauss and Howe also identified that these social moments fall into two types, 2Ts and 4Ts that alternate. They did not supply a mechanism by which they should happen. The relate turnings to generational archetypes but provided no robust process that forces this to happen, only some tendencies that push it in that direction. So what we have is a correct prediction of a social moment starting in 2008, that *should* be a 4T, but not a mechanism that forces it to be one. In all three American 4Ts the 4T nature of the turning was quickly revealed. The country was at war within two years in the first two an the economy has collapsed and one of the political sides had completely defeated the other in just three years in the third. If this be a 4T it should have been bloody obvious by now. You can't hide a 4T.
What most here do not realize is that S&H are just one of dozens of scholars who have noted the same cyclical phenomena that S&H did. They made a huge contribution in their generational cycle that employed Mannheim's concept of generation imprinting in a clear-cut exposition (it is damn hard to find this in Mannheims essay, it's there, but certainly not highlighted). S&H put these ideas in a simple recursive model that works. I know, I have verified it. Kudos to S&H. They did their homework. The various ideas I reference? Virtually all of them were cited by S&H. They did their homework. They knew their shit. They did not get it 100% right. Nobody can.
So don't say that just because some of the elements in their exposition don't pan out, the theory is destroyed or worthless. It is not. I think they made a major contribution and needed to be taken far more seriously by the academic community than they were. Expecting perfection is expecting too much.
What most here do not realize is that S&H are just one of dozens of scholars who have noted the same cyclical phenomena that S&H did. They made a huge contribution in their generational cycle that employed Mannheim's concept of generation imprinting in a clear-cut exposition (it is damn hard to find this in Mannheims essay, it's there, but certainly not highlighted). S&H put these ideas in a simple recursive model that works. I know, I have verified it. Kudos to S&H. They did their homework. The various ideas I reference? Virtually all of them were cited by S&H. They did their homework. They knew their shit. They did not get it 100% right. Nobody can.
So don't say that just because some of the elements in their exposition don't pan out, the theory is destroyed or worthless. It is not. I think they made a major contribution and needed to be taken far more seriously by the academic community than they were. Expecting perfection is expecting too much.
