The Fourth Turning -- real or imaginary?

Great Debates
1

My dad is really into The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy, by William Strauss and Neil Howe. He gave me the books-on-tape version of the book for Christmas in hopes that I would listen to it in my car, and everything.

Well, I’ve finally started listening to it. The main thesis of the book is this: A generation lasts 20 years. A human lifetime lasts about 80 years, or 4 generations. Every generation is surrounded in its childhood by a “constellation” of 3 previous generations still alive at the time – its parents’ generation, the middle-aged generation, and the elder generation, and will thus pick up a different set of values, morals, professional attitudes, etc., depending on what kinds of personalities populate which rungs of this generational ladder.

The overall effect, so the authors claim, is that history follows long 80-year repeating cycles (which they claim the Romans called saecula). Within each saeculum, there are suppdivided to be four 20-year “turnings”. During any one turning, social attitudes are pretty much the same for the whole 20 year period, but make sharp and radical changes when the next turning arrives. The four turnings, according to the authors, always arrive in the following order:[ol][li]A 20-year “high” period of prosperity and conformity[/li][li]A 20-year “awakening” period of spiritual growth and economic weakening[/li][li]A 20-year “unravelling” period of self-centeredness, and[/li][li]A 20-year “crisis” period of do-or-die struggle.[/ol][/li]The authors cite many examples from American history, and a few examples from international history, to back up this claim. But I can’t help but wonder: Are the authors selectively picking and choosing examples that back up their thesis while conveniently ignoring anything that doesn’t fit their pattern? Are significant counterexamples available? What criticisms of Strauss & Howe’s ideas have other historians made?

The most controversial aspect of the book is its prophecy of a great crisis looming ahead, which will occupy a period of about 2005-2025. They claim that this is inevitable, and that wars are usually part of such a crisis. This puts the book in the same category as all the other “prophecy of impending doom” books, like The Late Great Planet Earth, The '80s: Countdown to Armageddon, Bankruptcy 1995, and How to Profit from the Coming Recession (published in the early 1990s, this last sample predicted a recession in the mid-1990s).

Is it too early for me to sell off my Y2K Bug survival supplies yet? :wink:

2

Well, we are sort of getting ready to head into an energy crisis aren’t we? That and if Oil comes in short supply, what are we going to make plastic out of? That sounds like a crisis period to me. :smiley:

3

An eighty year cycle would make president Bush a Warren G. Harding analog:
“Not nostrums but normalcy”

Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929):
“The business of america is business”
seems a better fit. :smiley:

4

Well, if the next crisis period begins in 2005, then the greed period began in 1985 (they missed the beginning of that by several years) and the “spiritual awakening” began in 1965 (therefore missing the Free Speech movement and the Civil Rights movement of the early 1960s (and 1950s) while somehow including Nixon and Disco, to say nothing of the proliferation of drugs and uninhibited and commitment-free sex–one may approve of sex and drugs, but they hardly indicate spiritual growth).

It also means that the last period of hardship began in 1925 (which is nearly five years too soon) and that, somehow, the period 1905 - 1925, during the first fifteen years of which which the earliest efforts at social justice legislation (child labor laws, women’s suffrage, etc.) were passed was “really” a self-centered period. I would not deny the greed of the 1920s (although some might consider that a period of prosperity instead of greed), but their reckoning for a full 20 years won’t work. There is also no way that the period 1885 - 1905 was a period of spiritual awakening and economic weakening.

What are their examples? My guess is that they are picking and choosing.

5

A better question would be: in which twenty year period will doomsayers reap the highest profits from selective interpretations of current events that point to impending dark ages?

Hmm. Seems like Chicken Little Publishing has had a strong, steady business throughout human history. Never mind.

6

I see a big problem with the whole generational model. New children aren’t born every twenty years, they are born continuously throughout any given 20 year period. That makes it kind of difficult to establish any kind of rigid pattern to generations of any kind, doesn’t it? Using a specific set of years to define a generation is always artificial and arbitrary.

-tourbot (the last baby boomer or the first gen x’er?)

7

Well, it’s a theory which roughly [generally] fits recently observed history, but doesn’t break down along neat “20 year” lines.

The closest match would be the mid 40s to the mid 60s as the “high” period of prosperity and conformity.

The mid 60s to the late 70s would roughly correspond to the “awakening”, what with the state of the economy in the last years of the Carter Administration.

The 80s and early 90s again only roughly correspond to the “unraveling”. In some instances, yes. Ronald Reagan certainly kicked the American people out of their doldrums and ushered in an era of optimism. Other posters here, of a more economically savvy and/or liberal bent, have made some convincing arguments that the perceived economic boom of the 80s wasn’t quite all it was made to be. Or that it only effected a relative few rather than the entire nation. This sort of supports this cycle’s attribute of “self-centeredness”.

But the 90s have hardly been a “crisis” period to rival others, at least not here in America. Rwandans, Haitians, Bosnians and Albanians might disagree, but the troubles they experienced are hardly new to history. Whether they were averted from becoming do-or-die conflicts by a combination of diplomacy and force by world leaders, or just side-shows in the larger global picture is one for future history books to decide.

I don’t think the fossil fuel problem is sufficiently far enough along to make it for this cycle.

I think that while cycles may certainly apply to any given country or society, they won’t necessarily correspond unilaterally to all contries or societies. The first and second World Wars were probably obviusly imminent to regional observers, but other countries, if in different parts of the cycle, may have ignored the problem as a regional issue, or wrapped themselves in isolationism to protect and shield themselves from having to acknowledge the issue.

Of course, once someone sinks a passenger liner carrying a bunch of your citizens, or someone else attacks and practically destroys a major theater fleet base, blinkered isolationism falls away pretty quickly. Cycle interrupted.

World events may have a large effect in shortening or prolonging any part of a cycle, as may key leadership at the right time. This hardly debunks the theory, it just shows that the theory isn’t immune to exceptions.

Interesting. I don’t know if the authors were being selective in ignoring where their theory broke down, or just hadn’t conducted enough research to refine their theory to account for anomolies.

8

Hari Seldon lives!

9

tomndebb wrote:

As with most prophecy peddlers, the authors of The Fourth Turning conveniently claim that the year-boundaries predicted by their theory are only approximate. The next “crisis” Turning is only supposed to start some time in this decade, probably in 2004-2007. The authors claim, f’rinstance, that the most recent “awakening” Turning started in 1964, not 1965.

However, yes, according to the authors, Nixon and Disco were indeed part of the Awakening (the 2nd Turning), not the Unravelling (the 3rd Turning). Awakenings are supposed to be characterized by challenges to the rigidity and soullessness of the established order which had previously flourished in the High (the 1st Turning, 1946-1964ish). Nixon – an “establishment” president – getting ousted from the White House in disgrace was supposedly the crowning achievement of an Awakening that sought to tear down the rigid, soulless conformity of the “establishment”. I don’t remember what the authors’ arguments were for Disco music, other than saying it was “more of the same” of what had happened in the mid- to late-1960s.

10

I wrote in the OP:

Perhaps I should clarify what the authors meant by this.

There are four distinct personality “archetypes” that characterize each generation, according to what kind of Turning that generation was born and raised into:[LIST=A][li]Those people born during a High (a 1st Turning) tend to be prophets. They are strongly nurtured and protected as children in a time of great abundance and great promise, and grow up to take economic well-being for granted. The Baby Boomers, born 1946-1964, are a “prophet” generation.[/li][li]Those people born during an Awakening (a 2nd Turning) tend to be nomads. They are not nurtured or protected very well as children through a time when the economic promises of the past are eroding one by one, and thus grow up cynical and individualistic, with an every-man-for-himself attitude instead of a community-first attitude. Generation X, born 1964-1984 or so, are a “nomad” generation.[/li][li]Those people born during an Unravelling (a 3rd Turning) tend to be heroes. They are considerably more well-protected and nurtured than nomads through a time when the old order seems to be crumbling and tensions seem to be mounting everywhere, and thus grow up to feel that they’ve got to unite and fight this encroaching enemy or all will be lost. They are strongly conformist. The G.I. generation, born 1910-1930 or so, were a “hero” generation, and, so say the authors, the generation being born right now (what’s it called these days? Generation Y?) will also be a “hero” generation.[/li][li]Those people born during a Crisis (a 4th Turning) tend to be artists. They grow up amidst the constant fear that their elders might lose the do-or-die struggle they’re living through. The Silent Generation, born 1930-1945 or so, are an “artist” generation.[/LIST][/li]According to the authors, these generations always follow one another in the above order, because the Turnings always happen in the same order. (Except, for some reason, the authors claim that the Civil War era missed the “hero” generation. I haven’t listened through my book-on-tape far enough to find out why.) Because of this generational progression, when a Crisis (4th Turning) occurs, a “prophet” generation will be in old age and thus have the maximum political power, while a “hero” generation will be in young adulthood and thus have the maximum ability to fight a war as soldiers – and this is in fact why a 4th Turning becomes a crisis to begin with.

11

tomndebb wrote:

They take several little nitpicky examples, but the only one that stands out in my mind is their appeal to myths. (Shades of Velikovsky!) The most prominent myth, they argue, is the story of the young-adult “hero” being helped to defeat the great evil in the land, with the guidance of the wizened old “prophet”. The examples of this are as varied as Arthur and Merlin in the Arthurian Legends, and Luke Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kenobi in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. (Han Solo, incidentally, is supposed to typify the “nomad,” and the authors squeal with glee to note that Han Solo is mid-way in age between the young “hero” Luke Skywalker and the old “prophet” Obi-Wan Kenobi.)

12

Amedeus wrote:

We had one in 1973, too. The 1973 “Energy Crisis”, spurred on by an oil embargo from the OPEC nations, was so bad people had to wait in line at the few gas stations that were still open. A similar oil shortage happened in 1979, and to curb the lengths of gas-station lines during the 1979 crisis, cars with odd-numbered license plates were only allowed to refuel on odd-numbered days of the month, and vice-versa.

But the oil shortages of the 1970s did not erupt into a full-blown “Crisis” crisis. We didn’t go to war over them, we just basically let them run their course. The authors of The Fourth Turning claim that this was exactly what we should have expected. We were in an Awakening (2nd Turning) at the time. Had America been in a 4th Turning when these oil embargoes occurred, they would have become full-blown do-or-die Crises, and we probably would have gone to war with the Middle East. In other words, it’s not the actual events that cause the Crisis in a 4th Turning, it’s the social reaction to the events.

13

Beat me to saying that, ya bastard! :wink:

14

In my humble opinion, this is all nonsense. The examples posted here result from specific decisions by individuals, not by some sweeping trend. For example, Nixon was ousted from the presidency because he made the decision of breaking into the headquarters of his opposing party, and doing some other stupid things, and he probably could have avoided being railroaded if he had handled the crisis better. And if Nixon hadn’t been forced from the White House in disgrace, we have no way of knowing what path American politics would have taken in the years ahead.

Anyway, the theory of one lifetime = eighty years = four generations doesn’t hold up as you move back in time, certainly not when you get to the time of King Arthur. In the Middle Ages, average lifespan was much less than that. Even if you account for the fact that people started having children at a slightly younger age and thus a ‘generation’ was shorter, a human still didn’t live for four generations.

I’m of the school of thought that it fruitless to attempt to predict future historical events and trends becuase of the presence of random events. Interesting idea, though.

15

Why all this skepticism? 20 year “turnings” in an 80 year cycle, locked into human histroy forever and ever. Prophets, nomads, heroes, artists. It all sounds perfectly plausible to me. Count me in the “pro” camp.

Besides, these authot fellows have surely done a lot more research on their theory than I have; if they say it’s right, well that’s good enough for me!

16

Err, that’s “auothor,” not “authot.” It really sucks when you notice s typo immediately after hitting “submit reply.”

17

And it’s even worse when… ah, nevermind. :slight_smile:

“Preview Reply” is your friend.

18

Holy crap. The sad thing is that those typos (two of 'em!!!) in my last post were not intentional. Wow.

19

VarlosZ wrote:

Please tell me you were being sarcastic when you said this!

I mean, Eric von Daniken has done a lot more research on his theory --that space aliens assisted ancient civilizations – than I have. But that sure as heck ain’t good enough to convince me of it.

20

ITR champion wrote:

The authors gleefully point out that the two Washington Post reporters who nailed Nixon after years of digging were, in fact, Baby Boomers. The implication was that, had Nixon’s goons broken into Democratic Party headquarters when we weren’t in an Awakening (the 2nd Turning), the Washington Post reporters would not have had the baby Boomer (“prophet”) generation’s urge to tear down the Establishment, and would not have pressed so hard to uncover the story.

By the authors’ reasoning – and I’m speculating here, the authors never used this specific example – had any of the more recent Presidential scandals such as Iran-Contra or Whitewater happened during an Awakening (the 2nd Turning) instead of an Unravelling (the 3rd Turning), the public pressure against the President would have been far worse, and he probably would have been ousted.