Taramarie's question "Why are Boomers moralistic"

[Mikebert]

[Eric]Taramarie's limited viewpoint and way of speaking might be a bit confusing. "Morals" is such a charged and generalized term that it doesn't mean much. But clearly, there is a cycle of spiritual awakenings that are polarized with the cycle of political crisis and transformation, and they happen when prophets and civics respectively come of age.
[Mike]This is the assumption I am working on

[Eric]To seek an explanation about "why" such a cycle exists, the authors looked at how the generations were raised and the kind of culture they grew up in. But the implication is that generations bring into society what they feel is lacking in that time. So that is almost the reverse of conventional cause and effect. Generations do not bring into the culture what WAS given to them in childhood, but what was NOT given them.
[Mike]I am alos thinking along these lines as far the 1T to 2T transition.  A new generation sought to be more than "Organization Men" as the film The Graduate illustrates:



[Eric]This fact, as I call it, is directly related to your question, because it's people who have had some kind of spiritual awakening who can see beyond the conventional paradigm, and CAN thus explain why such spiritual awakenings occur. There are many people today who have had this awakening, as you tacitly admit by saying that the "fervor didn't get extinguished." I may be one of the only ones who have posted here on this forum who have experienced this awakening, but many others are still out there, especially among boomers.
[Mike]OK. Please explain it

[Eric]The explanation has to be along the lines that peoples' soul or consciousness fills the needs of the time that they perceive....At times, people seek to return to and increase awareness of this source of our consciousness, our creativity, and our moral ideals, because the lack in the culture propels them to. The return may be toward limited traditional or evangelical kinds of religion, or to more open and expansive kinds, or both (as was the case in the sixties and 70s), and so it may have both a more conservative or liberal expression...this is called a second turning or spiritual awakening, responding to the conditions of a first turning.
[Mike]OK with you here.

[Eric]At other times society seems politically dysfunctional, and people seek to respond to this condition. This is called the fourth turning or crisis transformation, responding to 3T conditions. That's where we are now.

[Mike]Do young people today feel no need "to return to and increase awareness of this source of our consciousness, our creativity, and our moral ideals"?  Today's society with its rampant inequality, its unending wars, its shallow culture and politics seems to me to be contrary to most people's moral ideals.  (Millennials please weigh in).  If this is so, then why isn't the spirit-dead and outright toxic culture of the late 3T/early 4T fodder for another awakening?

[Bob Butler 54]

I might try a classic turning answer.

In the 4T there are clear problems that have to be solved, major efforts being undertaken, and a significant turnover in values.

Come the 1T, people are tired of values change and upheaval, are very satisfied with the status quo, and ready to suppress anyone not fitting into the new normal.  There is a temptation to believe that what has been achieved is kinda sorta perfect, and the enemies of perfect ought to be kept in their proper perfect place.

Boomers and other prophets grew up seeing their culture as less than perfect, even if the elder generations are trying real hard to pretend that it is perfect.  Such generations see with clear eyes things like slavery, gender inequality, racial inequality, pollution and other social issues that their parents are trying to pretend don't exist or should be allowed to continue to exist.

At least that's my perspective as a Blue Boomer.  I carried a live draft card.  The ladies of my generation had coat hangers as the obvious option.  The lakes and rivers of my youth stank.  The perfect America's Golden Age of the 1950s wasn't perfect at all.  If you grew up in this era, this was painfully obvious.

If you grew up after this era, it is not so painfully obvious.  If one hasn't had to live through a time of blindness and moral bankruptcy, one might not understand the intense feelings and values of those who have.

Contemplate the notion of a live draft card, of being compelled to fight to maintain a dictatorship disliked by it's people.  Meditate on a coat hanger.  Really think about what it must have been like to have been a slave.  These are situations that for the most part don't exist anymore, issues that have never touched more recent generations.  The boomers?  We saw it.  We lived it.  We fought over it.  Those who weren't there don't understand.  Some might use the word 'moralistic' as disparaging, as an undesirable trait.  They don't get it.  Not having been there, they aren't apt to get it.

[Classic-Xer]

I witnessed the transition from filthy rivers to cleaner rivers. I witnessed the use of DDT and the transformation that occurred after it was outlawed. I witnessed the effects of acid rain. I was aware of previous use of a coat hangers to perform illegal abortions. I doubt a second wave boomer would actually have a greater claim on morality than a 1st wave Gen Xr. What the second wave boomer experienced, the first wave Gen Xr would have experienced as much second hand or more directly. I probably benefited more from the sexual liberation of women than most women my age. The women my age were still tied to the old notion of respect and placed in the position of having to sexually complete on an even playing field with women of less respect. I wonder how many woman are sexually competing and finding themselves being forced to comply and fall in line with the images and activities commonly associated with female porn stars today.

[Mikebert]

[Bob]In the 4T there are clear problems that have to be solved, major efforts being undertaken, and a significant turnover in values.[/quote]
 
[Mike]I’ve been thinking along these lines.  For example I have a plot of America economic inequality since the early 18th century. Economic inequality began significant declines around 1780, 1865, and 1929. These dates are associated with political moments in 1775-89, 1861-77 and 1931-47.  These political moments are special in that each was accompanied a transformation of the state so fundamental as to be termed a new republic.  These periods are similar to the ends of the process that causes secular cycles which typically involve state collapse and reformation, starting a new cycle (see page 14 of link).  So they are solutions to the problem raise by the secular cycle process (inequality).
 
That is, the mere existence of high levels of inequality and a political moment = 4T.

[Bob]Come the 1T, people are tired of values change and upheaval, are very satisfied with the status quo, and ready to suppress anyone not fitting into the new normal.  There is a temptation to believe that what has been achieved is kinda sorta perfect, and the enemies of perfect ought to be kept in their proper perfect place.

Boomers and other prophets grew up seeing their culture as less than perfect, even if the elder generations are trying real hard to pretend that it is perfect.  Such generations see with clear eyes things like slavery, gender inequality, racial inequality, pollution and other social issues that their parents are trying to pretend don't exist or should be allowed to continue to exist….
 
[Mike]I think what you are getting at is during the 1T young people see the problems with the elder-created world and develop a moral position wrt it.  But don’t all younger generations do this?  Why the spiritual aspect?

As for 4Ts, Inequality was a huge problem one hundred years ago.  The country heaved with unrest that peaked over the 1918-1922 period, with Red Summer, the Red Scare, the West Virginia Miners war and scores of major riots leading to the deaths of thousands for internal conflict.  It was a revolutionary situation to which the American authorities responded as did the British to similar situations around 1800, and 1848.  Revolution did not happen in 1920, but just a dozen years later a political revolution happened that achieved much of what populists had asked for in 1896 and a fair amount of the things on the socialist wish list.
 
Why did change happen in 1932 (with no threat of revolution) and not in 1920 with a real threat?  Why did not American authorities in the 1920’s pull a Bismarck and try to buy off the socialists?  The S&H answer is they were not in the mood to do this because they were of a recessive generation, who came of age during the Gilded conservative era. When a new generation, forged in the heat of the Social Gospel, came to power in 1932, they were in the mood.

That is, the fires of the 2T feed directly into the conflict of the 4T.  This is a key S&H concept.
 
But why was there a Social Gospel to fire them up in their youth?  How come the response to the spirit-dead 1T is an awakening, whereas there is not similar response to the spirit-dead 3T?  Could the spiritual awakening be the default political moment?  That is when inequality is not yet at crisis levels (using secular cycle concepts), then a political moment ends up as an awakening.
 
This works for saeculum II, but not saeculum I.  For the latter there are no dominant versus recessive generations, just one kind (e.g. gray champions are Nomads). Also the secular cycle is longer than a saeculum, which means there are 4Ts like the Armada 4T where inequality is not yet a problem--yet there is a 4T, or the Plague 4T where inequality is very much the problem and yet the 4T delivers no resolution, the secular cycle drags along for an additional saeculum before the problem of excess elites is solved by the Wars of the Roses 4T.

With the exception of a handful of turnings (Norman Invasion 4T, Wars of the Roses 4T, Glorious 4T) all the political moments are the same, except for certain religious ones like the Cistercian ca 1100-1125, the Mendicant ca 1200-1225, the Hussite (ca. 1405-1435), the Reformation (ca 1525-1550) and the Puritan (ca 1630’s-1660) all of which correspond to what S&H call a 2T. How the hell does that happen? 

(05-04-2016, 08:01 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I might try a classic turning answer.

In the 4T there are clear problems that have to be solved, major efforts being undertaken, and a significant turnover in values.

Come the 1T, people are tired of values change and upheaval, are very satisfied with the status quo, and ready to suppress anyone not fitting into the new normal.  There is a temptation to believe that what has been achieved is kinda sorta perfect, and the enemies of perfect ought to be kept in their proper perfect place.

Boomers and other prophets grew up seeing their culture as less than perfect, even if the elder generations are trying real hard to pretend that it is perfect.  Such generations see with clear eyes things like slavery, gender inequality, racial inequality, pollution and other social issues that their parents are trying to pretend don't exist or should be allowed to continue to exist.

At least that's my perspective as a Blue Boomer.  I carried a live draft card.  The ladies of my generation had coat hangers as the obvious option.  The lakes and rivers of my youth stank.  The perfect America's Golden Age of the 1950s wasn't perfect at all.  If you grew up in this era, this was painfully obvious.

If you grew up after this era, it is not so painfully obvious.  If one hasn't had to live through a time of blindness and moral bankruptcy, one might not understand the intense feelings and values of those who have.

Contemplate the notion of a live draft card, of being compelled to fight to maintain a dictatorship disliked by it's people.  Meditate on a coat hanger.  Really think about what it must have been like to have been a slave.  These are situations that for the most part don't exist anymore, issues that have never touched more recent generations.  The boomers?  We saw it.  We lived it.  We fought over it.  Those who weren't there don't understand.  Some might use the word 'moralistic' as disparaging, as an undesirable trait.  They don't get it.  Not having been there, they aren't apt to get it.

[pbrower2a]

People who went through the Great Depression and the Second World War (meaning generations before Boomers) often came to recognize that strong beliefs themselves could be dangerous. The fascists really believed in what they did -- even their mass murders, pseudo-medical experiments, and of course racial supremacy. Communists certainly believed strongly in the 'need ' for world (Socialist) revolution. People who believed nothing strongly would not drift too far from the American Dream circa 1950 -- doing one's job, getting well paid for it, and finding meaning in life solely in material gain and indulgence. Even family life was predicated upon uncritical acceptance of unfulfilling jobs that put food on the table and a car in the garage.

Boomers took this all for granted and saw the faults. Not knowing the Crisis of 1940 they could be more reckless in their views of the world.

[pbrower2a]

(05-05-2016, 07:24 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I witnessed the transition from filthy rivers to cleaner rivers. I witnessed the use of DDT and the transformation that occurred after it was outlawed. I witnessed the effects of acid rain. I was aware of previous use of a coat hangers to perform illegal abortions. I doubt a second wave boomer would actually have a greater claim on morality than a 1st wave Gen Xr. What the second wave boomer experienced, the first wave Gen Xr would have experienced as much second hand or more directly. I probably benefited more  from the sexual liberation of women than most women my age.

I am a late-wave Boomer, and when I was in college in the mid-1970s the women were discovering feminism. I recognized that even if a female my age came from a male-chauvinist culture (at UC Berkeley that meant largely Orthodox Jews, Chinese-Americans, Filipino-Americans, and Japanese-Americans) I recognized that if I ended up with such a woman she was likely to end up a feminist. But I could have lived with that. Similar culture and good conversation make people equals.

At a first-rate college one learns upper-middle-class values, and in the upper-middle class, men and women are much closer to being equals, anyway. Intellectual power does not know gender; brute force does largely divide along lines of gender.

The feminists were prudes. They were not sleeping around with everyone. Sleeping around with everything that moves is unwise.

Quote: The women my age were still tied to the old notion of respect and placed in the position of having to sexually complete on an even playing field with women of less respect. I wonder how many woman are sexually competing and finding themselves being forced to comply and fall in line with  the images and activities commonly associated with female porn stars today.

And there is much of the problem. Girls need enough esteem to recognize that they are still valuable even if they don't look like porn stars. The fault with pornography isn't its salaciousness; it is instead its unreality. Most significantly, the girl in porn is showing parts of her anatomy that a husband (or lesbian spouse) will want exclusively. You may enjoy looking at a pornographic image, but so do hundreds or thousands of other people.

People who have heavy involvement with pornography take the risk of being too fussy for their own good for a healthy relationship with a spouse. Most men want a woman who is a virgin to other men but a slut to him. That has nothing to do with ethnicity, age, religion, or social class. Most women want basically the same, only with the gender tags inverted.

But ask yourself -- by respect do you mean subordination?

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-12-2016, 04:35 AM)taramarie Wrote: Ah I see. See I read about these things but do not really understand where that fiery spirit comes from. The desire to push for social change and for everyone to fall in line behind them. At least some of them and certainly seems to be more of them than xers here in my country anyway from my experience. As I do not like being controlled it bothers me and i did not understand why it was so important to them for me to follow their advice on things that are personal choices. But I think for some of them that is what is important to them. Going by what you say, it is what freed them and became a goal for them to change the world for the better around them. So what a disappointment us younger folk must be to not appreciate what they fought for when xers and some of us millies bash them. They helped to give us some freedoms we enjoy today, although there are some things I would desire to have also, like no student debt and a wee place for myself would be nice. But getting back on track, yeah I will admit that I chose to use the word moralistic in a negative way. When boomers start trying to decide personal choices for me I make a mental note to try not to be like that as it is rather annoying. The only time i ever did that was to stop my mother from smoking. Then again, i did not preach lol i just threw them out. I have only experienced boomers telling me what to do and what not to do. That in itself has been a sort of control. Control i never really questioned till they were still doing it to me in my young adult years, which i may? still be in?? at age 31? Sort of irritating but this is helping me to understand why they are still cultural fighters. Because it was needed at the time and it has shaped them. Me....I am tired and just want a solution and for it to die down tbh. Tired of the fights. Tired of the bickering. Tired of trying to fight something that will never be solved in my lifetime. So maybe personal should just remain personal in a work environment and do not stir the pot. I just do not know anymore.

I'd follow this up with a few other things...

The Boomers to a great degree got tired too.  Especially here in the states, there was lots of fire and protest in the 60s, but that tended to die in the 70s.  The Boomers as a whole also got tired of the fights, tired of the bickering.  That doesn't mean we've entirely forgotten.  Many Blue Boomers are no longer actively fighting for improvement, but will still bristle up if attempts are made to undo what was done back in the day.

Also, generations have stereotypes, and I distrust stereotypes.  Not every member of every generation fits the default personalities and perspectives associated with folks of their age group.  I tend to expect people around here to embrace the positive aspects of their own generation's stereotypes, while denying or not having the negative aspects.  Part of the discourse here is pride of one's generation's strengths while denying the weaknesses and flaws and dissing the flaws of other generations.  This can result in a rather pointless generation bashing.  Boomers are the source of all the worlds ills?  Really?

And part of it is just style.  Perhaps to some degree the generations will attack a problem in different ways.  Perhaps you can expect moralistic protest from Boomers, hard edge cynicism from Xers and networked teamwork from Millenials.  That's what's supposed to be, right?  Maybe that's real.  But none of the styles seem to be working particularly well just now.  Would we be better off if we could merge the styles into a coherent approach to improving society?  Perhaps.  Is it possible?  Perhaps.  Or are we all tired of the fights, tired of the bickering, not energetic enough to push to get the various problems solved?  Are all generations concerned about the problems in our cultures, but just express it differently?  Will a Boomer preach, an Xer make a cynical comment while the Millennial is typing away on Facebook?

[Eric the Green]

Responding back to mikebert's question about a "moral" sense among young people in the 4T, I think that many young civics feel a sense of idealism in response to the dysfunctions and rampant individualism of the 3T. It is just of an opposite kind to the response that prophets have to the rampant collective conformity and organization men of the 1T. It is an idealism of the kind that civic Jack Kennedy expressed in his inaugural address, "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." This in turn helped to stimulate the idealism of the 2T that followed his assassination, but of course it took a different turn in the heat of the late 60s with its various movements for peace, ecology and brother-sisterhood, and the new alternative spiritual and non-conformist cultures. So, all generations, including the "recessive" ones too, respond to what is lacking in the times they grow up in.

[Eric the Green]

If you consider the Occupy Wall Street movement and the enthusiasm among American millies for Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders, I would say they do.

[Kinser79]

(05-12-2016, 11:55 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(05-12-2016, 11:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: If you consider the Occupy Wall Street movement and the enthusiasm among American millies for Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders, I would say they do.

Excellent. Why am i hearing that Clinton is leading if the majority of millies are behind Bernie?

Easy and two reasons. 1. Blue boomers back Shillary and the pollsters call people with land lines (which weights toward Boomers, and to a lesser extent Xers). 2. The Press lies. Or at least the American press lies, and they've been lying for 30+ years.

[Odin]

(05-12-2016, 11:55 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(05-12-2016, 11:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: If you consider the Occupy Wall Street movement and the enthusiasm among American millies for Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders, I would say they do.

Excellent. Why am i hearing that Clinton is leading if the majority of millies are behind Bernie?

Because Blacks and Hispanics tend to trust the opinions of their community leaders and those leaders have been influenced by patronage by the Democratic Party's political machine. Also, a lot of Boomer women are caught up in the symbolism of having a woman as president because back when they were young women in positions of authority were uncommon (as opposed to us Millennials where having, say, a woman as one's boss is perfectly ordinary).

[Kinser79]

I think you over estimate the trust given to "community leaders" in both.

[Galen]

(05-13-2016, 04:13 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I think you over estimate the trust given to "community leaders" in both.

Stefan Molyneux would probably agree with you.  I would suggest watching the following video because speaking from experience this would not have happened even ten years ago.

[pbrower2a]

(05-13-2016, 04:13 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I think you over estimate the trust given to "community leaders" in both.

With underclass whites, such middle-class (or middle-income) white people get no respect as 'community leaders'. Poor whites are much more atomized than similarly-poor blacks and Hispanics.

[Mikebert]

I would expect all generations as rising adults question the world they inherit and oppose those elements they do not like.  The question I ask is why does only one of the generations respond with an Awakening.  It seems to me that campus Millennials are strongly moralistic in their efforts to shut down free speech for those they see as not having the proper morals. So why aren't they creating an awakening? 

Also the economic problem we have today began in the 2T.  The same negative trends that Millies complain about and flock to Bernie about were clearly present throughout the entire 3T. It got no rise out of GenX.  When the US decided to meddle in the Middle East in 1991, from which all our troubles there have come, where was GenX?  Did they not care? 

I don't buy S&H's nurturing cycle.  GenX was raised by the generation ahead of me, who were still mostly functional.  In my youth when kids got into drugs, there would be functional grandparents to step in for the GenX kids.  I thought back then, what happens when these babies grow up and start having babies, who will be there to care for them after Grandma dies.  

Such a cycle may have applied to traditional families, but today these are a rarity.  I note heroin is back, and it is being used widely by middle-aged people.

[Kinser79]

(05-14-2016, 05:13 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(05-13-2016, 04:13 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I think you over estimate the trust given to "community leaders" in both.

With underclass whites, such middle-class (or middle-income) white people get no respect as 'community leaders'. Poor whites are much more atomized than similarly-poor blacks and Hispanics.

And you know this how exactly? Are you a poor black or a poor Latino. (Again Hispanic is a linguistic designation and not a racial one--someone from Spain is definitely Hispanic but they are NOT Latino.)

I hope you have sources to back up that statement because otherwise I have to conclude that you're speaking from your anus...though that seems to be your normal modus operandi.

[Kinser79]

Mikebert, I think the difference is in generational archetype. Xers can be highly moralistic too, and yet they don't start awakenings or whatever the hell the Millies are doing now. Part of the reason I think that this is the case is Nomads tend to be highly individualistic and have a deep seated mistrust of collectivism.

[Kinser79]

(05-14-2016, 04:41 AM)Galen Wrote:

(05-13-2016, 04:13 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I think you over estimate the trust given to "community leaders" in both.

Stefan Molyneux would probably agree with you.  I would suggest watching the following video because speaking from experience this would not have happened even ten years ago.

I would argue that Diamond and Silk agree with me as well if you look at her other videos. Their love for Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and etc is nonexistant.

[Galen]

(05-15-2016, 05:04 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I would argue that Diamond and Silk agree with me as well if you look at her other videos.  Their love for Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and etc is nonexistant.

That does not surprise me at all.  I consider it encouraging since they have a large following than I would have expected which implies that the current status quo is running on borrowed time.  At least this crowd has figured out Lyndon Johnson's game.

[Cynic Hero '86]

Boomers are not moralistic in the genuine sense. Boomer elites seek to impose their values and deliberately seeking the objective of chaining the following generations to their agenda. Boomers want to destroy any possibility of Xers and Millies shaping their own destinies and want those destinies to be controlled by boomers and to be driven toward boomer objectives. Thus elite boomers do everything in their power to keep Xers and Millies Financially dependent and economically and morally enslaved by boomers and boomer-dominated politics.