6 Turnings

[Jessquo]

  6 turnings perhaps.docx (Size: 49.96 KB / Downloads: 21)
  6 turnings perhaps.docx (Size: 49.96 KB / Downloads: 21) To Whom It May Concern,
In December I was conferred with the award of Doctor of Philosophy (Politics) from the University of Adelaide, South Australia. My Doctoral thesis is titled NETWORK HOMOGENISATION & PARTY DISENGAGEMENT - THE POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY OF POST-INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACIES: AN AUSTRALIAN CASE STUDY. I am particularly keen to conduct postdoctoral research into the political sociology of Anglo-American generational and historical cycles; scrutinising, modifying and expanding upon the Strauss-Howe Generational Theory. Attached are some of the initial thoughts/notes I have compiled regarding this topic. I have not officially begun my research and I am sure that my initial theory will change and develop overtime. However, at this stage I think there are six generational architypes and six turnings; not four. I do not believe Strauss and Howe correctly identified the start and end dates/years of the Saeculums and Turnings. The Saeculums I have identified have far more consistent lengths than those in Generations. The shortest saeculum is 77 years and the longest is 82 years. Contrastingly, the shortest saeculum in Generations is 71 years and the longest is 110. I cannot see any pattern prior to the year 1525: the beginning of the Papal Break unravelling. This is 90 years after the 1435 start date identified by Strauss and Howe. However, like Strauss and Howe I contend that there have been six full saeculums and an additional two turnings. Any constructive feedback would be great.

Thankyou 

[sbarrera]

Looks like you are using the Strauss and Howe names for four of your turnings, and then have added "Diffusion" and "Mission." Can you explain a little more what those are? What are the differences in detail?

[Bill the Piper]

Quote:1st High Post-war 1945 - 1960
2nd Awakening Charismatic/Counterculture 1960 - 1973

I don't think counterculture started in 1960. Also it stayed relevant until mid-80s at least. Rajneesh was popular during Reagan's presidency. I consider 1986 (Chernobyl) as end of the awakening. Definitely it made people more cynical.

Jessquo Wrote:3rd Diffusion Neoliberal 1973 - 1984
4th Mission Globalisation/Deregulation 1984 - 2001
5th Unravelling Era of Terror & Inequity 2001 - 2016

If we adopt Pew's definition of generation Y as 1980-1994 and Z as 1995-2012, it would fit here perfectly. New generations start about 4 years before new turnings.

I also wondered if Pew's gen Z represents a fifth archetype unknown to S and H, since it is quite popular among today's youth. And it's the Z who are true civic millennials, if your method is correct.

Quote:Cynics Missionary 1873 - 1886

Missionary generation and cynicism? Seriously?

[Jessquo]

(03-09-2019, 05:04 PM)sbarrera Wrote: Looks like you are using the Strauss and Howe names for four of your turnings, and then have added "Diffusion" and "Mission." Can you explain a little more what those are? What are the differences in detail?

The Highs, Unravellings and Crises are virtually the same. Awakenings are a little different. I propose that awakenings should be considered the period in which values, norms, beliefs and lifestyles are questioned by the idealist generation who are in or entering youth during that Turning. The diffusion is the period in which the core of these new ideas is diffused across the generation above (the adaptives) during their mid-life and the generation below (the cynics) during their youth. It is also the period in which the rebellious nature of the Awakening comes to an end as these three generational architypes coalesce around new political goals. This brings us to the Mission: the implementation of these goals. The mission is the first turning in which the generation with the greatest leadership responsibility possess these new political goals. 
 
Also, there are two more generational archetypes in my theory; Cynics and Pragmatists. While Cynics take on the beliefs of the Idealists regarding what constitutes the "good life" and what the general goals of society should be, they are far more cynical about human nature and are perhaps a little more selfish. Politicians of the Cynic archetype tend to be very Machiavellian and it is no coincidence that their generation are of leadership age during the crisis. The Pragmatists tend to be the children of Cynics. In my theory the parents of a generation tend to be the generation before the previous generation. Generation Jones tend to be the parents of the Millennials and the Silent Generation tend to be the parents of Generation Jones. Likewise, Generation X tends to be the parents of Generation Z and the Boomers tend to be the parents of Generation X. Cynics (e.g. Jones) were not as rebellious as the idealists (e.g. Boomers). They simply absorbed many of their ideas but as I mentioned previously are more cynical about human nature. Consequently, they had more time and greater incentive to be relatively more protective of their children the pragmatists (e.g. Millennials) than the idealists (Boomers) were of their reactive children (Gen X). 
 
There are 3 dominant and 3 recessive architypes. Dominant archetypes are the Civics (the most communitarian and conformist), the Idealists (the most idealistic/spiritual and rebellious) and the Reactives (the most individualistic/independent and least trusting). The three recessive generations have traits that are a combination of the dominant generations immediately before and after them. 
Pragmatist tend to emphasise the individual (like reactives) but also believe in social, political and economic intervention/settlements (like civics) when they are used to enhance individual agency and empowerment i.e. they are the most liberal and pragmatic archetype. 
Adaptives tend to believe in a big society and have a high degree of social capital (like the Civics) but they are also relatively more idealistic/philosophical (like the Idealists).
Cynics tend to be somewhat philosophical/spiritual (like idealist) but also more individualistic/independent and less trusting (like reactives).

[Jessquo]

(03-10-2019, 08:50 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

Quote:1st High Post-war 1945 - 1960
2nd Awakening Charismatic/Counterculture 1960 - 1973

I don't think counterculture started in 1960. Also it stayed relevant until mid-80s at least. Rajneesh was popular during Reagan's presidency. I consider 1986 (Chernobyl) as end of the awakening. Definitely it made people more cynical.

Jessquo Wrote:3rd Diffusion Neoliberal 1973 - 1984
4th Mission Globalisation/Deregulation 1984 - 2001
5th Unravelling Era of Terror & Inequity 2001 - 2016

If we adopt Pew's definition of generation Y as 1980-1994 and Z as 1995-2012, it would fit here perfectly. New generations start about 4 years before new turnings.

I also wondered if Pew's gen Z represents a fifth archetype unknown to S and H, since it is quite popular among today's youth. And it's the Z who are true civic millennials, if your method is correct.

Quote:Cynics Missionary 1873 - 1886

Missionary generation and cynicism? Seriously?

No the counterculture had not but the charismatic revival certainly had begun by that time. Absolutely the counter culture was still relevant in the mid 1980s, it had not completely diffused. Read my explanation of the turnings in the comments. Yes the Missionary generation were a cynic generation. Read my comments above regarding the various archetypes.

[Bill the Piper]

(03-10-2019, 09:36 AM)Jessquo Wrote: No the counterculture had not but the charismatic revival certainly had begun by that time. Absolutely the counter culture was still relevant in the mid 1980s, it had not completely diffused. Read my explanation of the turnings in the comments. Yes the Missionary generation were a cynic generation. Read my comments above regarding the various archetypes.

"While Cynics take on the beliefs of the Idealists regarding what constitutes the "good life" and what the general goals of society should be, they are far more cynical about human nature and are perhaps a little more selfish" - This fits Olaf Stapledon (my favourite Missionary thinker) quite well. He was sceptical about human nature, he believed our species is Nature's first experiment and should be improved by means of genetic engineering. I'm not sure if he was the first person to imagine genetic engineering, but he was certainly one of the "founding fathers" of this concept. If you aren't familiar with his thought, I advise you to read Last and First Men and perhaps Last Men in London and Personality and Liberty. He also thought much about generations, although he didn't see they form a cycle.

[Jessquo]

(03-10-2019, 11:12 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(03-10-2019, 09:36 AM)Jessquo Wrote: No the counterculture had not but the charismatic revival certainly had begun by that time. Absolutely the counter culture was still relevant in the mid 1980s, it had not completely diffused. Read my explanation of the turnings in the comments. Yes the Missionary generation were a cynic generation. Read my comments above regarding the various archetypes.

"While Cynics take on the beliefs of the Idealists regarding what constitutes the "good life" and what the general goals of society should be, they are far more cynical about human nature and are perhaps a little more selfish" - This fits Olaf Stapledon (my favourite Missionary thinker) quite well. He was sceptical about human nature, he believed our species is Nature's first experiment and should be improved by means of genetic engineering. I'm not sure if he was the first person to imagine genetic engineering, but he was certainly one of the "founding fathers" of this concept. If you aren't familiar with his thought, I advise you to read Last and First Men and perhaps Last Men in London and Personality and Liberty. He also thought much about generations, although he didn't see they form a cycle.

Yes, this author fits the cynic archetype well. I might be able to work him in to my future work but he is British and I'm more interested in American cycles. Having said that I think the cycles have applied more broadly across the Anglosphere since at least the Great Depression and the widespread use of mass culture mediums such as radio and TV. Of course it did apply to England for a time during the 16th and early 17th centuries but it came undone during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms.

[sbarrera]

(03-10-2019, 09:26 AM)Jessquo Wrote:

(03-09-2019, 05:04 PM)sbarrera Wrote: Looks like you are using the Strauss and Howe names for four of your turnings, and then have added "Diffusion" and "Mission." Can you explain a little more what those are? What are the differences in detail?

The Highs, Unravellings and Crises are virtually the same. Awakenings are a little different. I propose that awakenings should be considered the period in which values, norms, beliefs and lifestyles are questioned by the idealist generation who are in or entering youth during that Turning. The diffusion is the period in which the core of these new ideas is diffused across the generation above (the adaptives) during their mid-life and the generation below (the cynics) during their youth. It is also the period in which the rebellious nature of the Awakening comes to an end as these three generational architypes coalesce around new political goals. This brings us to the Mission: the implementation of these goals. The mission is the first turning in which the generation with the greatest leadership responsibility possess these new political goals. 

This sounds to me like the S&H Awakening broken down into phases. They too described the Awakening as the period when the Idealist generation questions values, norms, &c.

(03-10-2019, 09:26 AM)Jessquo Wrote:  
Also, there are two more generational archetypes in my theory; Cynics and Pragmatists. While Cynics take on the beliefs of the Idealists regarding what constitutes the "good life" and what the general goals of society should be, they are far more cynical about human nature and are perhaps a little more selfish. Politicians of the Cynic archetype tend to be very Machiavellian and it is no coincidence that their generation are of leadership age during the crisis. The Pragmatists tend to be the children of Cynics. In my theory the parents of a generation tend to be the generation before the previous generation. Generation Jones tend to be the parents of the Millennials and the Silent Generation tend to be the parents of Generation Jones. Likewise, Generation X tends to be the parents of Generation Z and the Boomers tend to be the parents of Generation X. Cynics (e.g. Jones) were not as rebellious as the idealists (e.g. Boomers). They simply absorbed many of their ideas but as I mentioned previously are more cynical about human nature. Consequently, they had more time and greater incentive to be relatively more protective of their children the pragmatists (e.g. Millennials) than the idealists (Boomers) were of their reactive children (Gen X). 
 
There are 3 dominant and 3 recessive architypes. Dominant archetypes are the Civics (the most communitarian and conformist), the Idealists (the most idealistic/spiritual and rebellious) and the Reactives (the most individualistic/independent and least trusting). The three recessive generations have traits that are a combination of the dominant generations immediately before and after them. 
Pragmatist tend to emphasise the individual (like reactives) but also believe in social, political and economic intervention/settlements (like civics) when they are used to enhance individual agency and empowerment i.e. they are the most liberal and pragmatic archetype. 
Adaptives tend to believe in a big society and have a high degree of social capital (like the Civics) but they are also relatively more idealistic/philosophical (like the Idealists).
Cynics tend to be somewhat philosophical/spiritual (like idealist) but also more individualistic/independent and less trusting (like reactives).

I like the idea of there being dominant versions of what were formerly considered recessive generations. But why not have that for each of the original S&H generations? That takes you to 8 different archetypes. That has better symmetry IMO. 6 is an awkward number for a cycle.

[Bill the Piper]

I still prefer the S&H's idea that the Crisis begun in 2008. There were more differences in mood between 2005 and 2011 than between 2013 and 2019, or 1998 and 2004.

(03-11-2019, 06:42 AM)sbarrera Wrote: I like the idea of there being dominant versions of what were formerly considered recessive generations. But why not have that for each of the original S&H generations? That takes you to 8 different archetypes. The has better symmetry IMO. 6 is an awkward number for a cycle.

Boomers could be broken into Woodstock and Jones cohorts, Xers into core X and Xennial cohorts, Millennials probably into Y (198X-1994) and Z (1995-2002). I'm not sure about the Silents, but GI-leaning Silents born in late 1920s and Boomer-leaning Silents born around 1940 are different.

[Jessquo]

(03-11-2019, 06:42 AM)sbarrera Wrote:

(03-10-2019, 09:26 AM)Jessquo Wrote:

(03-09-2019, 05:04 PM)sbarrera Wrote: Looks like you are using the Strauss and Howe names for four of your turnings, and then have added "Diffusion" and "Mission." Can you explain a little more what those are? What are the differences in detail?

The Highs, Unravellings and Crises are virtually the same. Awakenings are a little different. I propose that awakenings should be considered the period in which values, norms, beliefs and lifestyles are questioned by the idealist generation who are in or entering youth during that Turning. The diffusion is the period in which the core of these new ideas is diffused across the generation above (the adaptives) during their mid-life and the generation below (the cynics) during their youth. It is also the period in which the rebellious nature of the Awakening comes to an end as these three generational architypes coalesce around new political goals. This brings us to the Mission: the implementation of these goals. The mission is the first turning in which the generation with the greatest leadership responsibility possess these new political goals. 

This sounds to me like the S&H Awakening broken down into phases. They too described the Awakening as the period when the Idealist generation questions values, norms, &c.

(03-10-2019, 09:26 AM)Jessquo Wrote:  
Also, there are two more generational archetypes in my theory; Cynics and Pragmatists. While Cynics take on the beliefs of the Idealists regarding what constitutes the "good life" and what the general goals of society should be, they are far more cynical about human nature and are perhaps a little more selfish. Politicians of the Cynic archetype tend to be very Machiavellian and it is no coincidence that their generation are of leadership age during the crisis. The Pragmatists tend to be the children of Cynics. In my theory the parents of a generation tend to be the generation before the previous generation. Generation Jones tend to be the parents of the Millennials and the Silent Generation tend to be the parents of Generation Jones. Likewise, Generation X tends to be the parents of Generation Z and the Boomers tend to be the parents of Generation X. Cynics (e.g. Jones) were not as rebellious as the idealists (e.g. Boomers). They simply absorbed many of their ideas but as I mentioned previously are more cynical about human nature. Consequently, they had more time and greater incentive to be relatively more protective of their children the pragmatists (e.g. Millennials) than the idealists (Boomers) were of their reactive children (Gen X). 
 
There are 3 dominant and 3 recessive architypes. Dominant archetypes are the Civics (the most communitarian and conformist), the Idealists (the most idealistic/spiritual and rebellious) and the Reactives (the most individualistic/independent and least trusting). The three recessive generations have traits that are a combination of the dominant generations immediately before and after them. 
Pragmatist tend to emphasise the individual (like reactives) but also believe in social, political and economic intervention/settlements (like civics) when they are used to enhance individual agency and empowerment i.e. they are the most liberal and pragmatic archetype. 
Adaptives tend to believe in a big society and have a high degree of social capital (like the Civics) but they are also relatively more idealistic/philosophical (like the Idealists).
Cynics tend to be somewhat philosophical/spiritual (like idealist) but also more individualistic/independent and less trusting (like reactives).

Exactly, in my schema Diffusions are essentially the second half of what S & H describe as Awakenings. However, if you add my Awakenings and Diffusions together, they tend to be somewhat longer than S&H Awakenings. 

You write

"I like the idea of there being dominant versions of what were formerly considered recessive generations. But why not have that for each of the original S&H generations? That takes you to 8 different archetypes. The has better symmetry IMO. 6 is an awkward number for a cycle."

I don't agree with what you say about 8 being a more symetrical number. Think about it this way the generations half a cycle apart are opposite. When Idealists are in leadership Pragmatists are in youth and vice versa. When Reactives are in leadership Adaptives are in youth and vice versa. When Civics and in leadership Cynics are in youth and vice versa.

Also, if you consider the parent child relationship the 6 generational/turnings cycle makes sense. Consider the dominant archetypes. The Idealists under-protect their Reactive children who in turn overprotect their Civic children who in turn Indulge their Idealist children. Now consider the recessive archetypes. Cynics and Pragmatists are somewhat protective of their Pragmatist and Adaptive Children. Adaptives are somewhat indulgent toward their Cynic children.

[Jessquo]

Exactly, in my schema Diffusions are essentially the second half of what S & H describe as Awakenings. However, if you add my Awakenings and Diffusions together, they tend to be somewhat longer than S&H Awakenings. 

You write

"I like the idea of there being dominant versions of what were formerly considered recessive generations. But why not have that for each of the original S&H generations? That takes you to 8 different archetypes. The has better symmetry IMO. 6 is an awkward number for a cycle."

I don't agree with what you say about 8 being a more symetrical number. Think about it this way the generations half a cycle apart are opposite. When Idealists are in leadership Pragmatists are in youth and vice versa. When Reactives are in leadership Adaptives are in youth and vice versa. When Civics and in leadership Cynics are in youth and vice versa.

Also, if you consider the parent child relationship the 6 generational/turnings cycle makes sense. Consider the dominant archetypes. The Idealists under-protect their Reactive children who in turn overprotect their Civic children who in turn Indulge their Idealist children. Now consider the recessive archetypes. Cynics and Pragmatists are somewhat protective of their Pragmatist and Adaptive Children. Adaptives are somewhat indulgent toward their Cynic children.

[pbrower2a]

I interpret the generational cycle as a consequence of the norms of the lifetime of human development from birth to either death or senescence (the latter two having much the same role in making people finally and permanently irrelevant except for fossil influence). To be sure, someone like Vincent van Gogh or George Gershwin (both of whom died rather young) could influence the creative activities of people beyond even a normal lifespan, but they could not participate.

The ages to which people not only live but have relevance because they have cohorts of constituency have gone from sixty-something to eighty-something. An additional twenty years of relevance to a generation means that it can have influence longer than it once did. Such ensures that there will be four active adult generations in place instead of three. So contrast 1939 to 2019:

Progressive 80-96 Silent 77-93
Missionary 57-79 Boom 59-78
Lost 40-56 Thirteenth 38-56
GI 15-39 Millennial ? - 37

These generations are relatively well aligned 80 years later, but you will clearly notice that the Progressive Generation was almost completely gone as an influence by the late 1930s. The second-most-powerful person in American politics, the Speaker of the House, is part of the Silent generation, and two people who have some significant chance of becoming the 46th President (Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders) are at the late end of the Silent generation.

Something else: mass media seek teenagers as a market for their culture, and such may thrust youth into adult identity and consciousness earlier than was once so. The voting age has gone from 21 to 18, and it is imaginable that that could make a huge difference in the 2020 Presidential and other elections. Kids in their late teens are at least as sophisticated and learned as any such generation ever. With their computers and the Internet they can get answers to questions to which others had no easy answers.

The 57-year gap between the last GI's and the first Millennial adults was between 18-year-old adults and 75-year-old adults in 2000 and is now between 37-year-old adults and 95-year-old adults in 2019. In the meantime, the civic component of American life has gone from being moderately-to-extremely old to dominating the young-adult phase of life. Unlike the Lost, the GI's were going to resist being carted off in the Big Yellow Taxi (Joni Mitchell)* to the nursing home to be largely forgotten; such is so with the Silent and will soon be so with Boomers. The Civic component of public life did not go into hiatus in the 1990s even if it weakened as GI's started aging into oblivion; Millennial youth became adults as such happened.

Yes, yes, yes: Donald Trump exemplifies what is worst in an Idealist generation: fanaticism, arrogance, selfishness, and ruthless. He is almost as objectionable as those Transcendental planters who countered the Abolitionist movement with the insistence that people not slave-owners recognize slavery as the best thing that ever happened to Africans. Yes -- the exploiters expected others to see them as benefactors of those that they exploited, repressed, and brutalized. I expect Americans to repudiate Donald Trump -- or (the worst way the Crisis of 2020 can go for America) that the rest of the world can repudiate the America that gives in to a horrible leader.

The best Boomers may be the ones who got sidelined in the Age of Greed. There is nothing Lincolnesque or Churchillian about Donald Trump.


*Don't it always seem to go/That you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone?Pave paradise... put up a parking lot!

[Eric the Green]

I think there are 6 saecula within a civilization cycle, but not 6 turnings within a saeculum. On rare occasions an adjustment may be needed; just like a leap year happens. As far as this saeculum is concerned, we are right on schedule and things are happening as predicted, both generationally and cosmically speaking.

[Eric the Green]

(03-11-2019, 01:30 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: *Don't it always seem to go/That you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone?Pave paradise... put up a parking lot!

Love that quote and it comes in handy a lot

[Eric the Green]

(03-11-2019, 07:02 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: I still prefer the S&H's idea that the Crisis begun in 2008. There were more differences in mood between 2005 and 2011 than between 2013 and 2019, or 1998 and 2004.

(03-11-2019, 06:42 AM)sbarrera Wrote: I like the idea of there being dominant versions of what were formerly considered recessive generations. But why not have that for each of the original S&H generations? That takes you to 8 different archetypes. The has better symmetry IMO. 6 is an awkward number for a cycle.

Boomers could be broken into Woodstock and Jones cohorts, Xers into core X and Xennial cohorts, Millennials probably into Y (198X-1994) and Z (1995-2002). I'm not sure about the Silents, but GI-leaning Silents born in late 1920s and Boomer-leaning Silents born around 1940 are different.

Yes indeed; sub-generations.

[Jessquo]

(03-11-2019, 01:42 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I think there are 6 saecula within a civilization cycle, but not 6 turnings within a saeculum. On rare occasions an adjustment may be needed; just like a leap year happens. As far as this saeculum is concerned, we are right on schedule and things are happening as predicted, both generationally and cosmically speaking.

I would argue that we are right on schedule with my 6 turning schema. Also, given that we are now at the end of the Millennial Saeculum we are in a Crisis period according to both theories.

[Eric the Green]

(03-10-2019, 08:50 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

Quote:1st High Post-war 1945 - 1960
2nd Awakening Charismatic/Counterculture 1960 - 1973

I don't think counterculture started in 1960. Also it stayed relevant until mid-80s at least. Rajneesh was popular during Reagan's presidency. I consider 1986 (Chernobyl) as end of the awakening. Definitely it made people more cynical.

Right, the counterculture started in 1965-66, but precursors and awakening trends were afoot in the late 1T (and of course in 1964); just not dominant or widely-known yet.

Quote:

Jessquo Wrote:3rd Diffusion Neoliberal 1973 - 1984
4th Mission Globalisation/Deregulation 1984 - 2001
5th Unravelling Era of Terror & Inequity 2001 - 2016

If we adopt Pew's definition of generation Y as 1980-1994 and Z as 1995-2012, it would fit here perfectly. New generations start about 4 years before new turnings.

I also wondered if Pew's gen Z represents a fifth archetype unknown to S and H, since it is quite popular among today's youth. And it's the Z who are true civic millennials, if your method is correct.

The late Millennials (circa 1995-2003) are very typical millennials; no adjustments needed. And they call themselves millennials. I like the idea of using one letter per generation; that's mainstream. People here used Gen Y to mean the Xer/Millennial cusp for a while, but no-one else did. Everywhere else, Gen Y = millennials. Gen Z is the new adaptive generation, circa 2004-2024.

Quote:

Quote:Cynics Missionary 1873 - 1886

Missionary generation and cynicism? Seriously?

Seriously? Indeed; missionaries are not cynics by definition. And Missionaries weren't. Idealists are not cynics, and cynics are not idealists.

[Jessquo]

(03-11-2019, 01:30 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: I interpret the generational cycle as a consequence of the norms of the lifetime of human development from birth to either death or senescence (the latter two having much the same role in making people finally and permanently irrelevant except for fossil influence). To be sure, someone like Vincent van Gogh or George Gershwin (both of whom died rather young) could influence the creative activities of people beyond even a normal lifespan, but they could not participate.

The ages to which people not only live but have relevance because they have cohorts of constituency have gone from sixty-something to eighty-something. An additional twenty years of relevance to a generation means that it can have influence longer than it once did. Such ensures that there will be four active adult generations in place instead of three. So contrast 1939 to 2019:

Progressive 80-96  Silent 77-93
Missionary 57-79    Boom 59-78
Lost  40-56       Thirteenth 38-56    
GI  15-39 Millennial ? - 37

These generations are relatively well aligned 80 years later, but you will clearly notice that the Progressive Generation was almost completely gone as an influence by the late 1930s. The second-most-powerful person in American politics, the Speaker of the House, is part of the Silent generation, and two people who have some significant chance of becoming the 46th President (Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders) are at the late end of the Silent generation.

Something else: mass media seek teenagers as a market for their culture, and such may thrust youth into adult identity and consciousness earlier than was once so. The voting age has gone from 21 to 18, and it is imaginable that that could make a huge difference in the 2020 Presidential and other elections. Kids in their late teens are at least as sophisticated and learned as any such generation ever. With their computers and the Internet they can get answers to questions to which others had no easy answers.

The 57-year gap between the last GI's and the first Millennial adults was between 18-year-old adults and 75-year-old adults in 2000 and is now between 37-year-old adults and 95-year-old adults in 2019. In the meantime, the civic component of American life has gone from being moderately-to-extremely old to dominating the young-adult phase of life. Unlike the Lost, the GI's were going to resist being carted off in the Big Yellow Taxi (Joni Mitchell)* to the nursing home to be largely forgotten; such is so with the Silent and will soon be so with Boomers. The Civic component of public life did not go into hiatus in the 1990s even if it weakened as GI's started aging into oblivion; Millennial youth became adults as such happened.    

Yes, yes, yes: Donald Trump exemplifies what is worst in an Idealist generation: fanaticism, arrogance, selfishness, and ruthless. He is almost as objectionable as those Transcendental planters who countered the Abolitionist movement with the insistence that people not slave-owners recognize slavery as the best thing that ever happened to Africans. Yes -- the exploiters expected others to see them as benefactors of those that they exploited, repressed, and brutalized. I expect Americans to repudiate Donald Trump -- or (the worst way the Crisis of 2020 can go for America) that the rest of the world can repudiate the America that gives in to a horrible leader.

The best Boomers may be the ones who got sidelined in the Age of Greed. There is nothing Lincolnesque or Churchillian about Donald Trump.  


*Don't it always seem to go/That you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone?Pave paradise... put up a parking lot!

This is a very interesting comment but I'm not sure how its relevant to my initial post. Who do you think will be the grey champion during this crisis period? Do you think the resurgency will begin during the 2020 election period? Remember according to S&H during a crisis there is a catalyst (last time this was the Wall Street crash - I would argue that this time around it was the Trump election), then a resurgency in which we rely behind a new leader or cause (last time this was FDR and the New Deal), then a climax (Last time WW2 - D-day) and finally there is the resolution. This crisis appears to have greater similarity to the 1854 - 1865 crisis than to the 1929 - 1945 crisis. I also predict that this crisis will be shorter than average; probably about 12 years (more similar to the 11 year Civil War crisis than to the 16 year Depression / WW2 crisis).

[Jessquo]

(03-11-2019, 01:50 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Seriously? Indeed; missionaries are not cynics by definition. And Missionaries weren't. Idealists are not cynics, and cynics are not idealists.

You have to read my comments regarding my definition of a cynic archetype. It is not what you have in mind. They can have a mission and be cynical about human nature. Think of the Cromwellian Cynics who followed the Puritan Idealists.

[Eric the Green]

(03-11-2019, 02:08 PM)Jessquo Wrote:

(03-11-2019, 01:50 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Seriously? Indeed; missionaries are not cynics by definition. And Missionaries weren't. Idealists are not cynics, and cynics are not idealists.

You have to read my comments regarding my definition of a cynic archetype. It is not what you have in mind. They can have a mission and be cynical about human nature. Think of the Cromwellian Cynics who followed the Puritan Idealists.

Weren't Cromwell's followers carrying out the mission of the Puritans?

The problem with Cromwell is that he was a typical and prophetic revolutionary. Meet the new boss; same as the old boss. The revolutionaries often tend to become tyrants once they take over.