Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
British Cycles 6 Turnings
#1
Hi, I'm in the process of developing a 6 turnings/generations cycle theory and have identified an unbroken Anglo-American cycle beginning in 1377 (see attached). However, the British cycle appears to be broken at the end of the 18th Century and does not reappear until the beginning of the 20th (see attached). Was the British line really broken or does the cycle continue through the 19th century? If, as I suspect, it was broken why might it have been broken (was the length of the French Revolutionary Wars and Napoleonic Wars period a factor) and why did it re-emerge?


Attached Files
.pdf   6 AngloAmerican Turnings Notes - Copy.pdf (Size: 491.44 KB / Downloads: 4)
.pdf   6 British Turnings Notes - Copy.pdf (Size: 388.74 KB / Downloads: 3)
Reply
#2
It's my opinion that the crisis period you are missing involved the Opium Wars and perhaps the Taiping Rebellion, which established British trade supremacy in China.
Reply
#3
(10-27-2019, 07:00 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: It's my opinion that the crisis period you are missing involved the Opium Wars and perhaps the Taiping Rebellion, which established British trade supremacy in China.

Don't forget the Sepoy rebellion in India. I do not know whether I would consider the Crimean War (the biggest European war in which Britain was involved between the Napoleonic wars and the First World War) a war of a 3T or of a Crisis.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#4
(10-27-2019, 10:44 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(10-27-2019, 07:00 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: It's my opinion that the crisis period you are missing involved the Opium Wars and perhaps the Taiping Rebellion, which established British trade supremacy in China.

Don't forget the Sepoy rebellion in India. I do not know whether I would consider the Crimean War (the biggest European war in which Britain was involved between the Napoleonic wars and the First World War) a war of a 3T or of a Crisis.

Since I see the European and American seacula roughly simultaneous, since they are one civilization, the Crimean War is certainly one of the early events in the mid-19th century 4T that manifested as a civil war in America. The crisis in Britain was relatively light, but it resulted in greater democracy in the late 1860s. The Opium Wars in China were 3T, but they helped lead to the catastrophic Taiping Rebellion in China starting in 1850 and lasting to 1864 that corresponds in time to the American civil war and the European wars of unification. The Crimean War can be considered the first of the latter, since it resulted in a new nation called Romania, developed between 1856-1862.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#5
The Crisis Era of the middle 19th century included the unification of Germany (including the wars of Prussia against in turn Denmark (for Schleswig-Holstein), Austria (for dominion over southern Germany; I am surprised that Bavaria did not join Austria... which would have some interesting consequences), and the Franco-Prussian War, the unification of Italy, a failed uprising in Poland that allowed the Tsar of Russia to consolidate the further subjection of Poland, and the Paris Commune. Also contemporary were the American Civil War, the French intervention in Mexico, the disastrous war of the Lopez dictatorship in Paraguay, Canadian independence, and (outside the West) the Sepoy rebellion in India, the Taiping Rebellion in China, and the replacement of the Japanese shogunate with the Japanese Empire. The Crimean War may have been the start. These events preceded the Crisis of 1940 by anything from 65 to 85 years.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#6
Initially, I thought the Crimean War and the Chartist movements would nicely fit within the Cycles as Crises but they arrive too early. Also, I'm looking specifically at the UK rather than continental Europe. Am I missing something major that happened in the UK around the year 1870 (that could potentially be the climax of a crisis)?
Reply
#7
(10-27-2019, 10:44 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Don't forget the Sepoy rebellion in India. I do not know whether I would consider the Crimean War (the biggest European war in which Britain was involved between the Napoleonic wars and the First World War) a war of a 3T or of a Crisis.

Good point.  I had dismissed the Sepoy Rebellion due to relatively low casualties, but on searching, I find new information that millions died, either through direct massacre or through war related famine.

Jessquo
Quote:Also, I'm looking specifically at the UK rather than continental Europe. Am I missing something major that happened in the UK around the year 1870 (that could potentially be the climax of a crisis)?
I'm not sure why you're looking at 1870 rather than 1860.  Also, I think the relevant political unit is clearly the British Empire, and not just the British Isles.  For the UK proper, the crisis war was an external war, kind of like WWII was for the US.
Reply
#8
Warren, I agree that an international conflict involving the UK or a conflict within the British Empire would be consistent with a Crisis turning but, if you look at my initial "6 British Turnings Notes" attachment the Anglo-French Saeculum begins immidiately following the failed 1716 Jacobite Rebellion and Concludes 81 years later at the end of the first coalition of the French Revolutionary Wars in 1797. The Great Powers Saeculum does not conclude until 1945. The mid point between 1797 and 1945 is 1871 (74 years after 1797 and 74 years before 1945). I thought perhaps the 1867 Electoral Reform Act, but it does not seem to be a particularly monumental event relative to other conclusions to crises. Your thoughts
Reply
#9
Ah, okay. Then the Glorious Revolution is not one of your crises, nor the American Revolution? I think the missing crisis is a problem for your sequence, then.
Reply
#10
(10-28-2019, 07:37 AM)Jessquo Wrote: Initially, I thought the Crimean War and the Chartist movements would nicely fit within the Cycles as Crises but they arrive too early. Also, I'm looking specifically at the UK rather than continental Europe. Am I missing something major that happened in the UK around the year 1870 (that could potentially be the climax of a crisis)?

The British went through a constitutional crisis in around 1868, which I look upon as the climax of the crisis era there. This crisis was foundational to today's government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1867
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#11
Warren, the Glorious revolution was a largely bloodless conservative 'revolution'. 1688 marked the start of the Glorious Unravelling that led to the Jacobite Crisis which began in 1702 following King William's death. When Anne became Queen war between France and England became inevitable as France supported the came of James to the English throne. England became involved in the Spanish War of Succession (which ended in 1713) and the Union of England and Scotland occurred in 1707. Great Britain endured an unsuccessful attempt by James Stuart to invade Scotland in 1708. The Crisis period came to an end with the much more significant Jacobite Rising of 1715/1716. Contrastingly, the Jacobite Rising of 1719 occurred during a High and was hardly significant. It was basically over before it had begun.
Reply
#12
Eric, if you were to continue my pattern (see the attachment) from the conclusion of the Revolutionary crisis in 1797 to the end of the next crisis in 1868 and then from 1868 to the beginning of the Imperial unravelling in 1914, how would you do this? What would be the start and end years of turnings and why? This is for the British/British empire cycle. I've tracked an unbroken Anglo-American Cycle from 1377 to the present (see attached).
Reply
#13
I don't really see any improvement to S+H's theories. Can you tell us why your interpretation of history makes more sense?
Reply
#14
(10-29-2019, 09:27 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: I don't really see any improvement to S+H's theories. Can you tell us why your interpretation of history makes more sense?

There a several reasons:
1) I have identified saeculums with far more consistent lengths than those in Generations. The shortest saeculum is 76 years and the longest is 85 years. Contrastingly, the shortest saeculum in Generations is 71 years and the longest is 110. 

2) My Anglo-American patterns has been unbroken sinces 1377. This is 58 years before the 1435 start date identified by Strauss and Howe.

3) When there are 6 T/G within an 80 year cycle the 3 dominant generations are overwhelming born to, and have children who are themselves, dominant generations. The extremes nuture extremes. Likewise the recessives tend to be born to, and have children who are, recessive. This is because the average age difference between children and their parents is about 27 years. This is not the same as the average age difference between parents and their first born children. Parents (but particularly mothers) have historically started their families earlier, but have had a lot more children as they've aged. Parents today start their families later but have fewer children.

[There are 3 dominant and 3 recessive architypes.

 

Dominant archetypes are the Heroes (the most communitarian and conformist), the Prophets (the most idealistic/spiritual and rebellious) and the Nomads (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. 

-         Sages tend to emphasise the individual (like Nomads) but also believe in social, political and economic intervention/settlements (like Heroes) when they are used to enhance individual agency and empowerment (positive liberty) i.e. they are the most rational and perceptive archetype. 

-         Artists tend to believe in a big society and have a high degree of social capital (like the Heroes) but they are also relatively idealistic/philosophical (like the Prophets).

-         Merchants tend to be somewhat philosophical/spiritual (like Prophets) but also more individualistic/independent and less trusting (like Nomads). While Merchants take on the beliefs of the Prophets regarding what constitutes the "good life" and what the general goals of society should be, they are far more cynical about human nature and large organisations such as govts, banks, corporations and unions. They tend to direct more of their energy/generosity toward their extended family and close friends than do Nomads whose benevolence tends to be more narrowly focused toward their immediate family.

 
Generations half a saeculum apart are opposite. When idealistic Prophets are in their leadership stage of life rational/perceptive Sages are in youth and vice versa. When Individualistic/Pragmatic Nomads are in leadership Principled Artists are in youth and vice versa. When Heroes (emphasising individual sacrifice for public achievement) are in leadership Merchants (emphasising self-help and personal achievement) are in youth and vice versa.

Parent child relationships in the 6 generational/turnings cycle 



In my theory the parents of a generation tend to be from 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.



Consider the dominant archetypes. The Prophets under-protect their Nomad children who in turn overprotect their Hero children who in turn indulge their Prophet children.



Now consider the recessive archetypes. Merchants somewhat overprotect their Sage children who, during a crisis, manage their Artist children who in turn somewhat underprotect their Merchant children.


Merchants (e.g. Jones) were not as rebellious as the Prophets (e.g. Boomers). They simply absorbed many of their ideas. Generation Jones is more cynical about human nature than Prophets. Consequently, the merchant Generation Jones had more time and greater incentive to be more protective of their Sage children (e.g. Millennials), than the Prophets (Boomers) were of their Nomad children (Gen X).]


4) My cycle is unboken even during the American Civil War. S & H argued that the Civil War came a decade early. Nope it came right on time, according to my pattern.

5) If you look at the Anglo-American attachment I posted earlier you can see very distinct Diffusion and Mission periods. 

[Turnings

 

Highs (First Turnings) – During a High institutions and communitarian values are strong and individualism is weak. Society is confident about where it wants to go collectively. Those outside the majoritarian centre often feel stifled by the conformity.

 

Awakenings (Second Turnings) – During an Awakening, institutions are attacked in the name of personal and spiritual autonomy by a Prophet generation in youth. Young activists look back at the previous High as an era of cultural and spiritual poverty.

 

Diffusions (Third Turnings) – During a Diffusion the new values that were predominantly held and championed by the Prophet generation during the Awakening are moderated (as the Prophets enter young adulthood) and spread widely across the Artist generation (entering or in middle age) and the Merchant generation (entering or in youth). That is, just as society is reaching its high tide of public progress, the majority suddenly tires of conformity and want to recapture a sense of self-awareness, spirituality and personal authenticity. During this era the rebellious nature of the Awakening comes to an end as the Artists, Prophets and Merchants coalesce around new political goals.

 

Missions (Fourth Turnings) – During a Mission the Artists who are in or entering, leadership positions enmass begin to pursue and implement the new political goals agreed upon by the Artist, Prophet and Merchant generations during the Diffusion. Society continues to atomize and enjoy. Institutions adapt to the values diffused in the previous turning.

 

Unravellings (Fifth Turnings) – The excesses of the Mission turning begin to haunt the political establishment and lead to a breakdown in the broad political consensus arrived at during the Diffusion. Radical political movements begin to gain traction. A sense of unease and foreboding takes hold. Institutions become increasingly weak and distrusted.

 
Crises (Sixth Turnings) – Crises are eras of destruction and extreme political volatility, often involving war or revolution, in which institutional life is destroyed and rebuilt in response to a perceived threat to the nation’s survival. There are four stages within a crisis turning. The first stage is a catalyst that shocks the nation out its complacency. There is a realisation that things are not going to pan out as we had anticipated and that we need to change our goals and expectations. The second stage of a crisis turning is the regeneracy in which we begin to coalesce around some leader or movement about whom or which we feel positive. This involves some person we can trust to piece together institutions that can make sense again. There are more shocks and deteriorations. We then reach the third stage of a crisis called the climax. This is when we match the worsening social, political and economic reality with greater and greater civic effort. We rebuild our civic life to match this ever-increasing sense of crisis. We reach and pass the climax and come to the final stage of the fourth turning: The Resolution. The treaties are signed the negotiations are made. Civic life solidifies and we arrive at the post-crisis order.]
Reply
#15
I dunno. Looks shoehorned to me, just for the sake of having saecula of more equal length.

Why does neoliberalism start in 1973? Except in Chile and some universities it wasn't exactly widespread. Some deregulation started under Carter, and Keynesianism was bankrupt, that's for sure, but I wouldn't say it really took off before Reagan.

What signs of an Awakening were there in 1877, instead of 1886?

Why do you start the Transcendental Awakening twenty years earlier than S&H?

Finally, your "Turnings" can be as short as ten years or as long as 17 years.

You shouldn't have started with a list of Turnings/Generations, but by collecting material to show why your Turnings/Generations are different.

In short: Not even amateur historian.
Reply
#16
(10-30-2019, 08:10 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: I dunno. Looks shoehorned to me, just for the sake of having saecula of more equal length.

Why does neoliberalism start in 1973? Except in Chile and some universities it wasn't exactly widespread. Some deregulation started under Carter, and Keynesianism was bankrupt, that's for sure, but I wouldn't say it really took off before Reagan.

What signs of an Awakening were there in 1877, instead of 1886?

Why do you start the Transcendental Awakening twenty years earlier than S&H?

Finally, your "Turnings" can be as short as ten years or as long as 17 years.

You shouldn't have started with a list of Turnings/Generations, but by collecting material to show why your Turnings/Generations are different.

In short: Not even amateur historian.

I have found evidence to support my turnings and generations, but after the "In short: Not even amateur historian" comment I don't particularly feel like continuing what I thought was a pleasant exchange of ideas. However, I am willing to continue this discussion with others on this forum.
Reply
#17
(10-30-2019, 08:10 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: I dunno. Looks shoehorned to me, just for the sake of having saecula of more equal length.

Why does neoliberalism start in 1973? Except in Chile and some universities it wasn't exactly widespread. Some deregulation started under Carter, and Keynesianism was bankrupt, that's for sure, but I wouldn't say it really took off before Reagan.

What signs of an Awakening were there in 1877, instead of 1886?

Why do you start the Transcendental Awakening twenty years earlier than S&H?

Finally, your "Turnings" can be as short as ten years or as long as 17 years.

You shouldn't have started with a list of Turnings/Generations, but by collecting material to show why your Turnings/Generations are different.

In short: Not even amateur historian.

I haven't looked at Jessquo's ideas yet, but it sounds like you make good points. Discussion is good though Smile

Basically I think the civil war anomaly, though still an anomaly to an extent, is better resolved by seeing that the 1850s were part of the 4T, just like the 2010s have been, and adjusting back from there. What was happening was that The West since the Enlightenment and Revolution was shifting the ongoing spiral process of change and progress (the saeculum) into a higher and faster gear. It took longer for such people as the racist society in Dixie to be taken along for the ride. The saeculum is like a hurricane that is becoming more well-defined with stiffer winds in modern times.

In affect, I think the S&H scheme (by making the pre-18th century seacula longer than the modern) takes account of the great shift of the Revolution, which created a different society with a greater thrust of movement than the royalist and religious society of the agricultural ages going back to classical times and beyond (the Romans having first conceived or first perceived and named the saeculum). Making all the saecula before 1700 the same length does not take account of this observation.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#18
Thanks for the reply Eric. That may explain the British Saeculum 1797 to 1858 being ultra short but how would you divide that saeculum up into turnings. There weren’t any significant religious awakenings in early or even late 19th century Britain. Definitely, look at both my AngloAmerican and British saeculum and turning dates as well as my description of turnings. If Hintergrund had read how I was defining diffusions he would have understood why I had labelled the 1973 to 1984 diffusion as neoliberal. It was a period in which the individualism that was emphasised by youth during the awakening spread (or diffused) through the two generations either side of the prophets. The following turnings (missions) are when the values diffused become crystallise into political and policy agendas which are then pursued by the Artist, Prophet and Merchant archetypes. The artist archetypes are in or entering their leadership phase during missions while Heroes are in or entering elderhood.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Media throughout the turnings Bill the Piper 2 266 08-14-2019, 07:32 AM
Last Post: Hintergrund
  Global Trumpism Lecture explaining the Turnings Snowflake1996 19 1,390 04-15-2019, 07:54 PM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  6 Turnings Jessquo 37 3,355 03-24-2019, 01:40 PM
Last Post: Bill the Piper
  Cycles of the 4T Arkarch 40 13,127 02-06-2019, 11:19 AM
Last Post: Hintergrund

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)