How decadeology should be done.

In My Humble Opinion
1

Here’s a chart to explain the cultural beginnings and endings of every decade since the 1950s:

1950s:

Actual decade- 1950-1959

Absolute duration- 1946-1963

Prelude- 1946-1952
Zeitgeist- 1953-1959
Echo- 1960-1963

Quintessential years- 1954-57

1960s:

Actual decade- 1960-1969

Absolute duration- 1960-1972

Prelude- 1960-1963
Zeitgeist- 1964-1969
Echo- 1970-1972

Quintessential years- 1964-67

1970s:

Actual decade- 1970-1979

Absolute duration- 1969-1980

Prelude- 1969-1972
Zeitgeist- 1973-1977
Echo- 1978-1980

Quintessential years- 1974-76

1980s:

Actual decade- 1980-1989

Absolute duration- 1978-1991

Prelude- 1978-1980
Zeitgeist- 1981-1988
Echo- 1989-1991

Quintessential years- 1984-87

1990s:

Actual decade- 1990-1999

Absolute duration- 1989-2001

Prelude- 1989-1991
Zeitgeist- 1992-1997
Echo- 1998-2001

Quintessential years- 1994-96

2000s:

Actual decade- 2000-2009

Absolute duration- 1998-2010

Prelude- 1998-2001
Zeitgeist- 2002-2007
Echo- 2008-2010

Quintessential years- 2004-05

2010s:

Actual decade- 2010-2019

Absolute duration- 2008-present

Prelude- 2008-2010
Zeitgeist- 2011-present
Echo- TBD

Quintessential years- TBD

Absolute duration- The cultural beginnings and endings of a decade

Prelude- When a decade’s culture begins to take shape.
Zeitgeist- When a decade’s cultural influence is the norm.
Echo- When a decade’s cultural influence begins to fade.

Quintessential years- Years that best represent the decade.

2

Excuse me – I have a stupid question:

Is this a well-known fact, carefully extrapolated from extensive cultural analysis, and held as a science by a recognized academic discipline? Or is this an idea of the OP and/or like-minded people? Is the purpose of this thread to inform us of a fact, or invite input? Clarification missing in the preamble.

In other words, what is your humble oplinion bsaed upon?

3

I see pretty clearly that you believe in 5-ish year “zeitgeists” alternating with 5-ish year transition periods.

Why do you believe that this whole process runs on a 10 year cycle? Why not 12 or 15 or 6? Why should the cycles even be consistent? Why not a 15-year era followed by a 10, two 6s, and a 12? With transition periods of varying lengths between each?

There is no metronome in history. Other than the cycle of individual lives. But a hundred humans are born and die every second. Why do the ones in certain years define a fixed “zeitgeist?”

What causes a zeitgeist to stabilize into stasis for 5-ish years? What causes it to start changing again?
You’ve certainly put some thought into your conclusions. I’d like to learn about your thinking. Please show us your work.

4

Okay none of this is based on pure facts. It just shows an illustration on how decadeology should be done, especially since so many people are biased against it. And last but not least, your probably confusing the zeitgeists with the quintessential years. Now if you have questions specifically about any of the decades, I’d be happy to answer them.

And the 10 year cycle was simply done to include the actual decade.

5

Again the fundamental conceit of this method of analysis is that somehow 10 year cycles matter. And that these cycles are somehow centered on years ending in 5 with transitions centered on years ending in 0. Plus or minus a few month’s slop either way.

This particular forum is for sharing opinions, both pro and con. But politely.

In my opinion …

All of this is pure bunk exactly as scientifically valid as the various Flat Earth theories or astrology.

The study of history is more than mere “stamp collecting”, gathering facts and constructing just-so stories which narrate those facts.

What forces made these things happen? Why are e.g. the quintessential years 74-76 and 84-87? Why did one last 3 years and the other 4?

Pick whatever decade you best understand the dynamics of and explain what’s going on besides just pulling numbers from the air.

Clearly this is a topic you care about. That most of us have never even heard of. You’ve got an audience here willing to be persuaded. But you have to persuade. We’re not much into trivial pursuit here. Factoids are pennies the terabyte nowadays. It’s reasoned analysis which has value.

So as we said back in the preludish early '70s: lay some on me, baby!

6

Your methodology seems reasonable, but you’re not accounting for various “watershed” events that more or less defined a decade.

For example, the 2000s are essentially defined by 9/11 and the aftermath. Similarly, I think the 1970s really kicked off after the moon landings- you’d start your prelude in about 1972 with that, and run the 1970s up through about 1981. The 1980s were pretty much the Reagan/Bush presidencies, and the 1990s were essentially the Clinton years with a bit of Bush prior to 9/11.

Also, I can’t really think of any defining moment or any real cultural differences between say… 2002 and today; it’s a remarkably homogenous decade and a half.

7

Some could say the zeitgeist of the 70s began with either the Beatles breakup or the Watergate scandal, but remember that’s the beginning of the zeitgeist of the 70s, and not the actual decade. Some could say that the zeitgeist of the 80s began with either the assassination of John Lennon or the launch of MTV. The zeitgeist of the 90s could of began with the grunge explosion in 1991. So I must say that the zeitgeist of any decade differs from an actual decade. For example, the zeitgeist of the 80s differs from the actual 80s (1980-1989). I guess I should of included it in the OP.

8

Phoebe Zeitgeist.

9

And some could say that Watergate was actually just the echo of a previous 7-year cultural period, for example, (as LSLGuy points out), so what exactly is the point to this?

As I said in the other thread, this doesn’t lead to any better understanding of the actual cultural history and what happened. You choose an arbitrary period of time (just because it derives from the decimal system), and then you squeeze things in to make them fit, trying to build some grand scheme that is all just a teleological fabrication.

It’s like landing a plane exclusively at 100 mile intervals instead of where the airports are. What’s the point?

Again, as I said in the other thread, when people do this it runs the risk of becoming myth-making rather than real cultural analysis or something that is historically meaningful.

10

The best way to “do” decadeology is to ignore the word “decade”, and ignore the concept that 10 years is somehow an important unit of time.

It’s better to refer to an “era” or “the days of…” , and then mention the specific context you are discussing.
Example: for the time generally refered to as the “decade of the 1950’s”:
If you’re discussing music, call it the “era of Rock 'n Roll”.
If you’re discussing politics, call it the “era of McCarthyism”.
If you’re discussing technology, call it the “pre-space-flight era”
If you’re discussing social trends, call it the “era of Jim Crow” or the era of the “emerging suburban lifestyle”

Using round-numbered decades doesn’t mean much.

11

I think decadeology is a real phenomenon but a lot of is linguistic: terms like the 20’s, 60’s etc. are used again and again as a noun and adjective and they create a cultural meaning around what is an arbitrary division of time.

One implication is that that the 2000’s and 2010’s lack a strong cultural identity because they lack a convenient name. People have tried various terms: “noughties” “2000’s” etc. but none have really caught on. Similar problem with our current decade since 10’s just sounds awkward. We will probably have to wait for the 2020’s for a decade with a genuinely strong identity.

12

It doesn’t matter what you call it if you’re predicating that some kind of mechanistic structural design pre-exists all cultural phenomena.

And if you’re not doing that, then–again–what is the point in the first place to squeezing things into these categories. Fine–discuss rock 'n roll and McCarthyism, but nothing mandates that everything must have a “pre-lude,” a “zeitgeist,” or an “echo.” To insist on this might gratify some kind of urge people have in the present, but we should recognize it as myth-making.

13

This wall of dates strikes me as a little obsessive-compulsive, a desire to organize messy things into tidy numerological patterns. But it seems like an innocuous pursuit, so I’m actually most intrigued by this (my bold):

From a little googling around I see that decadeology got a surprisingly vitriolic banhammer here way back in 2008:

In 2012 an entire forum dedicated to decadeology was born but sadly fizzled despite the erudite input of the likes of “Emperor Decadeologist” Jerk Off and "Fiordland-Crested Decadeologist " NaughtyLibrarian:

…that was born and died in 2012.

And I see a similar post recently got a lukewarm response over here:

So, OP, I’m intrigued. Why does decadeology generate such strong feelings for and against? Is there a storied history of flamewars between the decadeologists and the treiskaidecadologists? I will feel more enthusiasm for the subject if you can flesh out the drama.

14

I agree. If this is more than just a numerological fixation, I’d be very curious to know the background, too. Heck, even if that’s all that it is, I’d still like to know the background.

15

You mean it could have been done on 7- or 15-year cycles, too, and still the same validity? Then what’s the point?

All you have done is to take a pre-supposition, and bent and manipulated whatever could be fit into it, and ignored all the rest that didn’t match the dogma.

You can do the same with anything. Take Baseball, for example, which runs on 24 yeear cycles, give or take a year:

1876 – first professional league
1900 – challenge by a second league
1924 – home run emerges as dominant feature.
1948 – color bar broken
1972 – expansion of leagues and playoff format and DH
1996 – labor disputes and walkouts settled

I just made all that up. Just start with any premise, and cherry-pick events and hammer them until the fit.

16

You people that are piling on the OP have all missed the main point–that he/she doesn’t even know when decades begin, according to the calendar.

I absolutely cannot take seriously anybody who thinks that a year ending in “0” begins anything. “0” years are ending years–“1” years are beginning years.

17

You just lost a lot of credibility points w with any math geeks or programmers in the crowd. Zero comes before 1, not after 9.

18

Assuming you’ve got the how, could you add the why?

19

Right. Just like babies don’t exist until after their first birthday.

Wait, what?

20

But math geeks and programmers did not create the calendar, so they have no authority about how to interpret it. The first decade of the Christian calendar started Jan. 1 in the year 1, not the year zero. So the first decade ran from 1/1/1 to 12/31/10, which made it compliant with the ten-year definition of decade.

If math geeks want to declare that the first decade was only nine years in length, that’s their business, but it has nothing to do with mine.