Generation/turning length was long (ca. 27 yrs.) up until the 18th century and shortened after that. More recently length has crept back up, although not back to its old length. The first downward shift in length is associated with the transition between what Sean Love called saeculum I and saeculum II.
I've constructed a simple generational model where you assume a generation is created out of those aged 21 during one turning, who then go on to create a new generation when they reach age AL. AL is the average of the mean ages of governors, congressmen, senators, and SC Justices. So, you start with a turning and add AL-21 to the dates to make the next one. I employ this for a political version of the cycle that is a consensus of the ideas of Daniel Elazar, Arthur Schlesinger Sr., and S&H. If we start with the consensus awakening over 1621-1647 here is what the model generates:
1621-1647 - A
1648-1670 - U
1671-1694 - C
1695-1716 - H
1717-1741 -A
1742-1765 -U
Note the history being created occurs in the very next turning. I now re-start the model using the Revolutionary secular crisis social moment over 1773-1789 as the seed:
1773-1789 -C
1801-1817 Liberal Era
1830-1846 -A
1861-1879 -C
1895-1914 -A
1932-1948 -C
1967-1983 -A
2006-2024 -C
These dates are quite close the political cycle of Elazar/Schlesinger, and match up with S&H after the 1830-46 period. Note there are gaps between each of these periods, within which conservative eras reside. Here we have a generation who comes of age in a liberal era and then creates the next liberal era. Operating in between these generations there is a generation coming of age in a conservative era who then goes on to create the next conservative era. Except for the 1790-1829 period (most of which S&H cram into an unusually long 1T along with the “giant” Transcendental generation) the “liberal” generations are what S&H call dominant generations, while the “conservative” generations are the what S&H call the recessive generations.
So, we have an interesting transition at the time of the Revolution. Before the Revolution (i.e. saeculum I) there were no dominant or recession gens, each gen was created in one turning and then created the next one. At the revolution, there was a split, the older Revolutionaries (those who were age 21 during the pre-war conspiracy era and who reached age AL right after the 4T followed the saeculum I plan and created a conservative era in the aftermath of the 4T.
The younger Revolutionaries (those had been age 21 during the war and its aftermath) and who reached age AL after 1800) created a dominant/liberal gen that went to create history TWO eras down (in ca. 1830-46) when they reached AL. That is, saeculum II had emerged from a split in the Revolutionary generation reflecting the difference between the early Revolutionaries (e.g. those who had come of age working with Sam Adams, Joseph Warren and other seditionists, or who had served in a senior role in the war) and later Revolutionaries who had fought in the war as soldiers or junior officers.
As lifespans have risen, so has AL, and the turning created grew longer and more spread out, which explains shorter eras in the 19th century and the longer ones today.
There is a hiccup. The Revolution to Civil War saeculum has six eras, rather than the standard four. Essentially there are two liberal eras with Awakening properties. The first ca. 1801-1817 was the start of the second great awakening (1800-1830) and featured events like the Cane Ridge Revival (1801), Alexander Campbell begins preaching at Bull Run Church in 1811 (both are precursors to the Disciples of Christ) and the 1817 founding of the Swedenborgian Church of North America. The second is the politically-relevant Abolitionist awakening which occurs outside the larger awakening. The Abolitionist awakening had its spiritual component: it sees the birth of the Mormons, Millerites (Seventh Day Adventists), Primitive Baptists, New Thought, the spiritualism of Andrew Jackson Davis, etc.
Most of the abolitionist era was incorporated into an Awakening by S&H while the first period was rolled into a 1T.
I've constructed a simple generational model where you assume a generation is created out of those aged 21 during one turning, who then go on to create a new generation when they reach age AL. AL is the average of the mean ages of governors, congressmen, senators, and SC Justices. So, you start with a turning and add AL-21 to the dates to make the next one. I employ this for a political version of the cycle that is a consensus of the ideas of Daniel Elazar, Arthur Schlesinger Sr., and S&H. If we start with the consensus awakening over 1621-1647 here is what the model generates:
1621-1647 - A
1648-1670 - U
1671-1694 - C
1695-1716 - H
1717-1741 -A
1742-1765 -U
Note the history being created occurs in the very next turning. I now re-start the model using the Revolutionary secular crisis social moment over 1773-1789 as the seed:
1773-1789 -C
1801-1817 Liberal Era
1830-1846 -A
1861-1879 -C
1895-1914 -A
1932-1948 -C
1967-1983 -A
2006-2024 -C
These dates are quite close the political cycle of Elazar/Schlesinger, and match up with S&H after the 1830-46 period. Note there are gaps between each of these periods, within which conservative eras reside. Here we have a generation who comes of age in a liberal era and then creates the next liberal era. Operating in between these generations there is a generation coming of age in a conservative era who then goes on to create the next conservative era. Except for the 1790-1829 period (most of which S&H cram into an unusually long 1T along with the “giant” Transcendental generation) the “liberal” generations are what S&H call dominant generations, while the “conservative” generations are the what S&H call the recessive generations.
So, we have an interesting transition at the time of the Revolution. Before the Revolution (i.e. saeculum I) there were no dominant or recession gens, each gen was created in one turning and then created the next one. At the revolution, there was a split, the older Revolutionaries (those who were age 21 during the pre-war conspiracy era and who reached age AL right after the 4T followed the saeculum I plan and created a conservative era in the aftermath of the 4T.
The younger Revolutionaries (those had been age 21 during the war and its aftermath) and who reached age AL after 1800) created a dominant/liberal gen that went to create history TWO eras down (in ca. 1830-46) when they reached AL. That is, saeculum II had emerged from a split in the Revolutionary generation reflecting the difference between the early Revolutionaries (e.g. those who had come of age working with Sam Adams, Joseph Warren and other seditionists, or who had served in a senior role in the war) and later Revolutionaries who had fought in the war as soldiers or junior officers.
As lifespans have risen, so has AL, and the turning created grew longer and more spread out, which explains shorter eras in the 19th century and the longer ones today.
There is a hiccup. The Revolution to Civil War saeculum has six eras, rather than the standard four. Essentially there are two liberal eras with Awakening properties. The first ca. 1801-1817 was the start of the second great awakening (1800-1830) and featured events like the Cane Ridge Revival (1801), Alexander Campbell begins preaching at Bull Run Church in 1811 (both are precursors to the Disciples of Christ) and the 1817 founding of the Swedenborgian Church of North America. The second is the politically-relevant Abolitionist awakening which occurs outside the larger awakening. The Abolitionist awakening had its spiritual component: it sees the birth of the Mormons, Millerites (Seventh Day Adventists), Primitive Baptists, New Thought, the spiritualism of Andrew Jackson Davis, etc.
Most of the abolitionist era was incorporated into an Awakening by S&H while the first period was rolled into a 1T.
One of the elements in my spiritual database (the glue that made it all work) was Roman Catholic saints as examples of "spiritual persons". Presumably, if archetypes are real, spiritual people should fall into the prophet generaton more frequently than Nomads, Heroes. or Artists. In my first analysis that had been the case. When I went to redo it with larger and better sourced database I encountered a large number of additional saints from the 17th and 18th centuries (periods for which my spiritual database had been kinda thin) which allowed me to get a much bigger sample about which I could feel more confident. These were saints that JP II had canonized. When I repeated the analysis with the expanded the correlation vanished. Saints show up roughly equally in all generations, there is no evidence of a spiritual archetype that shows up in large samples of people specifically selected for their spiritual prowess.