What do you think of Generational theory?

[Mojotronica]

The theory is that the character of each generation is shaped by previous generations, and in turn shape the character of future generations. The result is that history is cyclical -- for instance, about every eighty years America has dealt with a major secular crisis (Glorious Revolution, Revolutionary War, Civil War, WW2) and then, about 40 years later a major spirtual upheaval (Great Awakening, Transcendental Awakening, Third Great Awakening, Consciousness Revolution.)

There are four major generational achetypes that repeat over and over again through history. The current batch are:

Artist: born 1926 - 1942 -- also called the Silent Generation, these folks were kids in the Great Depression and therefore protected, then took advantage of the post-war boom to gain incredible expertise in their careers. They bridge the gap between the Greatest (WW2) generation and the Boomer generation. They value expression and expertise.

Prophet: born 1943 - 1960 -- also called the Baby Boomers, they grew up at a time when America was powerful, confident and prosperous. In the 60's the Boomers gained a reputation for being outspoken in their criticism of Greatest generation secular accomplishments, and value grass-roots based community activism and self-improvement.

Nomad: born 1961 - 1981 -- also called Generation X. (Strauss and Howe call them "Thirteeners" -- the thirteenth generation born under the Constitution.) They grew up (often in broken homes) at a time when America was splintering into highly specialized political action groups and the dawn of the Information revolution. As young adults, they lived it up but are getting much more staunchly Conservative as they approach middle-age. They value individualism and pragmatism.

Hero: born 1982 - c2000 -- also called the Millenial generation. Nurtured as children by a rekindling of interest in child welfare, according the S&H they are destined to fill the shoes of the Greatest Generation in WW2. They will take on the bulk of the worker/soldier tasks in the next great secular crisis, then lead America in it's transition f/ the world of today to the world of tomorrow. They value cooperation and constitution.

Based on their theory, in 1991 Strauss & Howe predicted that the next major secular crisis would occur in 2004. Maybe they were a couple years off!

Here is a link to the web-page for their book on history -- and maybe the future -- "The Fourth Turning:"

http://www.fourthturning.com/

 

[Archer 007]

Very interesting. Was a great read.

 

[Cobi1]

Wow very good article! I fit in the 1982 to 2000 Millenial generation, it will be interesting to look back and see where my generation is finally categorized. I have to hope the mounting anxiety we feel about the world we live in will help us make changes (or I may be a little idealistic).

 

[willemvanoranje]

wow, I have an incredible future being born in 1986 ......assuming this counts for Europeans as well of course...always knew I had great potential Can the internet be seen as an awakening? Or what is the awakening of the '80-'90?

 

[andrewgprv]

Intresting, Definatly something to look into

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Do not predict the future, remember it, just be sure to remember the correct one.

 

[gr8ful wes]

Once again another very good read, thanks. From now on I am looking for your posts. (don't worry, I don't bite)

 

[jpowers]

Smacks a bit of astrology. I'm not sure any of those claims have real objective measures to verify them.

 

[gr8ful wes]

Yeah, but it is fun. as is astrology if your in the mood and the right girl wants to talk about it.

 

[jpowers]

Hey, baby - I'm a fourth generational turn born to a High Prophet. Hmm, doesn't quite have the same ring as 'Scorpio.'

 

[cgannon64]

I definetely agree that past generations affect present, and present affect future. Maybe saying its a cycle is taking it a stretch to far, though...

CG

Changed the 'e' to an 'a' in affect. I think I got it right now...

 

[Mojotronica]

jpowers -

It DOES have a certain astrological quality to it. But the idea is that generation and events affect subsequent generations in predictable ways, not the stars. For instance, every American reading this post has a vivid memory of where they were and what they were doing on 9/11.

Based on your age at the time, you may have been understood it a certain, kind of predictable way.

A five-year old would hopefully be sheltered f/ being bombarded by the images on their TV, but would probably pick up on their parent's fear and horror.

A twenty-five year old might wonder if they are going to have to fight in an unexpected new war.

A forty-five year old might worry about their high school age children, and buckle down to prepare themselves for hard times ahead.

And a sixty-five year old, recently retired, might vividly remember all the hype surrounding the planning and opening of the WTC and lament how briefly the symbol of America's economic might stood.

Because to an extent our age defines the role we are expected to take in events of national significance, it has more of a basis in logic than astrology.

In fact, maybe astrology tapped into similar ideas, but has been so distorted by the passing of time that it has lost it's basis in reality. Instead of cycles of several generations, eighty-plus years, the astrologers attempted to predict events w/in the narrow and fickle cycle of a solar year. And over time, because their calendar (their clock) was based on the movement of the sun, moon and stars the CLOCK ITSELF became more important than the reason behind it...

Divorced f/ reason, and w/ the universal events measured against the solar year instead of several years, astrology became the unscientific pastime it is today.

 

[jpowers]

Originally posted by Mojotronica
jpowers -

It DOES have a certain astrological quality to it. But the idea is that generation and events affect subsequent generations in predictable ways, not the stars...
Divorced f/ reason, and w/ the universal events measured against the solar year instead of several years, astrology became the unscientific pastime it is today.

I don't really buy that astrology was once based on reason and is now superstition. It was always superstition, but for a time it was the best explanation for the unknown (that's a scary thought). What I object to in this 'generational cycle' analysis is that it is very impressionistic, and I could pcik and choose evidence to support any generation having any of the qualities that are described. If you've ever read the I Ching, it has a similar way of taking any question you give it and providing an answer which matches some facet of your existing knowledge, hence appearing insightful when really simply confirming existing prejudices. If there were hard data associated with each cycle (ie, when the 'Prophet' generation occurs, the gap between classes in per capita wealth is reduced) then there might be an interesting study here. Otherwise, it's an unfalsifiable crap shoot.

 

[Mojotronica]

Strauss & Howe have written several books on the subject. It could all be crappola, but I think it has merit.

 

[Bifrost]

There's another generational theory, invented by my favourite poet-futurist, btw he worked out some time theories that allowed him to predict 1917, (he predicted it in 1913) and 1939, he died in 1922, so he couldn't even imagine what could happen in 1939, he also predicted 1964, and many other dates.
About his generational thery, well it's too long to describe it, but he noticed that people that were born in 28 years are opponents or have diametrally different points of view, he gave many examples, but unfortunately I can find only those that illustrate this law with Russian writers, politicians etc... Well, if I find some, I'll post it there.

 

[Greadius]

You may never hear this again, but I'm with jpowers on this one. Its making generalizations with a broad enough brush stroke to try and capture everyone under that banner, then identifying them as something special.

In essence, its telling us generations have different ways of looking at problems (duh), and then gives them astrological titles and tries to predict their destiny or glorify their past.

 

[onejayhawk]

Here is another link, to a book Strauss and Howe wrote a while back. While it is hardly revolutionary in Sociological terms, I think there is some solid stuff there. If I understand their theory, the small children of today are the same spot in the cycle as the "Greatest or GI Generation" so much has been written about recently.

Note that the "Hero" generations are famous for leaders. These are the current school crop. Others in the cycle would be Eisenhower, Patton, Churchill and Roosevelt. This generation leads, while the next fights, hence "GI."

Also interesting are the corolations between education, crime and for lack of a better term, rigor. If S&H (I just noticed that. Funny) are correct, then the major problems in crime and education have been solved (as much as such things are ever solved) and implemented, but the results will not be seen for almost 20 years. The cost is intangible. Basically an inreased rigidity to our children's lives. Which brings on the next cycle of expanded personal freedoms at the expense of greater social problems.

J

 

[onejayhawk]

Originally posted by jpowers

I don't really buy that astrology was once based on reason and is now superstition. It was always superstition, but for a time it was the best explanation for the unknown (that's a scary thought). What I object to in this 'generational cycle' analysis is that it is very impressionistic, and I could pcik and choose evidence to support any generation having any of the qualities that are described. If you've ever read the I Ching, it has a similar way of taking any question you give it and providing an answer which matches some facet of your existing knowledge, hence appearing insightful when really simply confirming existing prejudices.

There was a Twilight Zone episode with Captain Kirk along these lines. In his case it was a penny fortune machine. That being said, such things can be useful tools to examine our thought processes.

If there were hard data associated with each cycle (ie, when the 'Prophet' generation occurs, the gap between classes in per capita wealth is reduced) then there might be an interesting study here. Otherwise, it's an unfalsifiable crap shoot.

As to the rest, there is hard data, such as is possible to capture given the time scale. Things like census data, school and prison populations, savings and debt figures are used, as are less quantifiable things like types of fiction which is popular. As Sociological research it may or may not be competent. I am unqualified to judge. Certainly the methods are workable. It is the quality of the conclusions that are beyond me. If nothing else, it makes a good talking point.

J

PS I am struck by the parallels to Megatrends, though the intent of the work is entirely different.