Category: Generations

Trump and the Generations Part 3: When Did the Fourth Turning Start?

In Part 1 we learned how the current “stack” of generations is very reminiscent of the generational makeup of the late 1930’s. In Part 2 we examined how our current “Crisis” portion of the four phase cycle is playing out. In Part 3 we will look at what is next based on that historical perspective.

America is headed towards an extreme crisis which will probably culminate in the next 4 to 8 years. According to “The Fourth Turning” written by William Strauss and Neil Howe, we are on track to repeat the historical cycle of Crisis that has gone on for centuries. But a big question remains in how this Crisis will play out: will it be a global war for domination or an internal war for control of the US?

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” George Satayana

For a primer on Generational Theory, go to Neil Howe’s site Lifecourse.com

According to generational theory, we are now in a period called “The Crisis” which will culminate in a “Climax” that has historically been a military conflict. These world-changing events occur every 80-100 years:

  • 1929-1946 (17 years) – Great Depression and WWII
  • 1860-1865 (5 years) – Civil War
  • 1773-1794 (21 years) – American Revolution
  • 1675-1704 (29 years) – Glorious Revolution
  • 1569-1594 (25 years) – Armada Crisis
  • 1459-1487 (28 years) – War of the Roses

In most of the examples that “The Fourth Turning” outlines, the battles have resulted in clear winners and losers and the heroes are rewarded generously for their victory. This is true for all of their examples except for one: The American Civil War. This battle, fought on US soil with Brother against Brother, and the result did not feel like a victory for anyone, but rather defeat for all involved.

The reason that Strauss and Howe give for the quagmire that resulted from the Civil War had to do with timing. In the other Crisis battles, there had been adequate time for a “Hero” generation to form and prepare for battle. This was certainly true in WWII with the GI Generation as the heroes as well as the American Revolution with Thomas Jefferson’s Republican Generation. There were no such heroes in the Civil War because when the war started in 1860, the Progressive Generation of Woodrow Wilson were too young to fight.  The generation that did fight in the Civil war was the Gilded Generation who are more similar in character to current day Gen X’ers. They were not lauded for their role and were not interested in taking up the mantle of victors since survival was their main desire. Because the Civil War came too early, in generational terms, it also was extremely short, and brutish. All the other Crisis in history have covered from 17-29 years, enough for an entire generation to feel their full effect.

So the timing seems the key factor in determining the nature of the Crisis Climax. The timing of the current Crisis has been debated for some time in generational circles. There are three possibilities:

  1. The Crisis began 2001 with 9/11
  2. The Crisis began in 2008 with the Great Recession
  3. The Crisis hasn’t started yet

First we have to understand how the Crisis is broken down into sections. The Crisis starts with a Catalyst, which Strauss and Howe describe as “a startling event (or sequence of events) that produces a sudden shift in mood”. Following the Catalyst, society should move quickly, typically from 1-5 years after the catalyst, into the regeneracy, which is “a new counter entropy that re-unifies and re-energizes civic life”. The Regeneracy should last from 10-15 years. And then finally we have the Climax which is a relatively short period of extreme conflict that leads to a resolution.

If we consider 9/11 as the Catalyst, we can certainly see that it was a startling event that produced a sudden shift in mood. But we would have expected 1-5 years later that the country really started to pull together. That would have been around Obama’s first term which got off to a strong start that seemed to pull young Millennials into a new civic engagement, but that energy was quickly lost after his first mid-term elections. The rest of his terms left most on the left and right feeling disillusioned not “re-energized”.

Perhaps the The Great Recession was the startling event that produced a massive shift in mood. Most in our society had never faced the degree of economic turmoil and worry that engulfed the nation. It was only the extreme actions of the Federal Government that staved off immediate disaster, and we are still deeply in debt from those actions. But once again, if we look 1-5 years after the Great Recession, the civic regeneracy did not seem to materialize.

It might also be possible that the Fourth Turning has not started yet at all. This seems very remote, given how Strauss and Howe characterize the Fourth Turning mood. Unlike the Unraveling it is a time of clear polarization between sides, not just a splintering of society into many pieces. Although today’s social mood is definitely split, it is primarily a battle between open or closed society, which is a new set of rules from the old liberal/democrat split. So it seems unlikely that we are still in an Unraveling waiting for the catalyst.

But now with the populist movement of Donald Trump, perhaps we are seeing the civic regeneracy that was going on, all along, unbeknownst to the mainstream media. The Tea Party movement, Sarah Palin’s popularity and the election of a large cache of extreme conservatives in State and Federal Legislatures should have tipped Americans off that something was changing. The American people, or at least the Electoral College, chose a decisive direction for the country during this volatile period.

But perhaps there is another possibility: that the Crisis began with 9/11, deepened with the Great Recession and finally forced its way towards a Climax when those who felt most ignored and repressed finally spoke their minds. This would put us on course to have a resolution to the Crisis sometime in the next 4-8 years, which would mean that we should be done with a massive decisive conflict sometime between 2021 and 2025. That is right in line with Strauss and Howe’s original predictions from “The Fourth Turning” and would make this Crisis total out at 20-24 years.

In Chapter 9 of “The Fourth Turning” Strauss and Howe outline how the prior Climax have occurred. In their analysis there is one striking similarity to each Crisis cycle: practically no one sees the climax coming, even less than a year in advance. This is very instructive for the situation today where most of our populace knows something feels very different than in the past, but they can’t imagine another World War or individual States rising up in defiance of the Federal Government.

But back to the original question: will the Crisis be an internal battle between Liberal States and Trump’s Federal Government? Or will it be a war between the US and some other Sovereign Nation(s)? We will answer that question in Part 4 of this series.

 

Trump and the Fourth Turning, Part 1

It has been over three years since I last posted to this blog, and a lot has changed in that time. The effects of this generational cycle are becoming clearer, especially with Brexit, Trump and other nationalist forces coming to the fore in 2016. I have been reluctant to talk much about it because I prefer to stay away from partisanship in generational research, but I think it is important to discuss the larger forces at play in the next 4-8 years. Understanding that bigger picture during this pivotal time will be critical to the health, safety and perhaps survival of your family and community. In part one of this post I will cover the relevant basics of generational theory. Part two will attempt to interpret recent events using this lens. If you are not familiar with the Strauss and Howe’s generational theories, I suggest you start by watching my primer on generational theory.

According to Strauss and Howe, we are in the midst of “The Fourth Turning”, the final, winter-like stage of a cycle that began in 1946 with the “American High” following WWII. It is likely we started the Fourth Turning in 2008 with the market crash and that it will continue until around 2025. It will be during the last quarter, the climax of the Turning, that we will see a fundamental shift in the nature of our society and the world. The most blatant shift, currently, is a political one. Brexit and the election of Donald Trump both signaled a significant shift in politics, certainly the largest most Gen X’ers have seen in our lifetime and, according to the theories, the largest since The Great Depression and WWII. The nationalism that these movements represent seem to be gaining steam around the Western World, along with Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders and other strident politicians threatening to overtake traditional styles of governance. While there are many reasons for these shifts, the often forgotten generational component is not insignificant.

There three currently active generations in our society. The first are our elders, the Baby Boomers who are, for the most part, our national leaders. As of 2015, About 58% of Congressmen and 73% of State Governors are Boomers. Baby Boomers are known for their strident, obstinate views and purist idealism. In the case of Donald Trump, that idealism focuses primarily around both American Exceptionalism and that the idea that world should be viewed as a Zero Sum Game.

The second currently influential generation is the middle-aged Generation X. Generation X has are notoriously pragmatic, individualistic and cynical. A majority of Generation X voted for Donald Trump. Generational theory suggests that many of them voted this way because they felt that the status quo has served them poorly for the last 20 years, prompting them to ask what they had to lose. Gen X’ers hold most of the remaining leadership positions (Paul Ryan is a Gen Xer) but they are not as well represented in government as the Boomers.

Finally, the Millennials. Millennials are young adults who were raised to be collaborative, idealistic and civic-minded. Many of them backed Bernie Sanders—at least on the Coasts—and did so because they believed that a new approach to civic engagement was needed. Although Trump does not personally appeal to many Millennials, if he starts to tout a message of stronger collaboration and working towards a common good, he could successfully woo followers in this group.

Each of these generations has an “archetype” which aligns with previous generations. Boomers are of the “Prophet” archetype, last seen in the Missionary Generation (FDR, Churchill). Gen X, the “Nomad” archetype, was last paralleled in the Lost Generation (Truman, Patton). Millennials represent the”Hero” archetype of which the GI Generation (JFK, Reagan) is the previous example. The last time that we saw these archetypes in this particular alignment was in the 1930’s and early 1940’s. This is the key insight of generational theory: that the life stage cycle of the various generational archetypes help to push societal shifts. For a visual of this cycle, take a look at this chart.

Based on generational theory we are at a particularly pivotal point in history where the “stack” of generations presents great risk and great possibility. In Part 2 I will examine more specifics consequences, especially in light of the recent nationalist movements around the world.

Millennials as Leaders? What About as Followers?

This article about how Millennial (born 1982-2004) will behave as CIOs misses the marks on pretty much every point. It describes how they are distrustful of big brands and tend to be risk-takers! Nothing could be further from the truth about Millennials. They tend to be very conservative in their life choices (they have been carefully guided at every stage since early childhood) and although they may not believe advertisers as much as Boomer (born 1943-1960) did, they definitely have a herd mentality to consumption.

Unfortunately the article is perpetuating several ideas about Millennials that are based on a “Generations X+1” idea. [Gen X] is known for being pragmatic individualists who are willing to take risks in an effort to survive. Many view Millennials as the same but more extreme, which is why they are sometimes called “Generation Y”. This entirely misses the true nature of generational cycles. Where X’ers are individualistic, Millennials are collectivistic. Where X’ers are cynical, Millennials are optimistic and hopeful. Where X’ers lack trust of institutions, Millennials are willing to work with and build institutions.

For example the article says:

“This is a generation that’s going to beg for forgiveness when something goes wrong but won’t ask for permission,” Thibodeaux says.

Um, no. Generation X’ers are the ones that will beg forgiveness instead of asking permission. Many managers can attest to the fact that Millennials are in their office all the time asking if they are doing things right! They are not risk-takers and they are not rule-breakers.

I can see how Gen X’ers and Boomers can get confused by the behavior of Millennials. Just because a Millennial does not get swayed by advertising does not mean they are an independent thinker. It just means they trust a different source: Their massive circle of online “friends” who influence every decision they make.

The final thing that is misguided about the article is that they are speculating on how Mills will behave when they are executives. Sorry guys, but that is a long ways off and we should be focusing our efforts on understanding how Millennials are as followers right now instead of how they will be as leaders 10-20 years from now. Most organizations are miserable at managing Millennials and believe that this generation is full of job-hoppers who will be even more mercenary than Gen X’ers were. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Let the Homelander Movies Begin!

With the oldest of the Homelander Generation (born 2005-202?) entering their tweens in the next few years, it appears that Hollywood is preparing for the new mythology for their generation. According to [S&H] the Homelander generation will be similar to the Silent (born 1925-1942) in that they will be forced into a very conformist view of success through both parental and social pressures. This is definitely reflected in two different summer movie releases.

The first is “Divergent“, based on the 2011 novel of the same name. Here is the summary from Wikipedia:

It is a young-adult dystopian novel set in the so-called Divergent Universe,[1] that features a post-apocalyptic version of Chicago. The novel follows Beatrice “Tris” Prior as she explores her identity within a society that defines its citizens by their social and personality-related affiliation with five different factions. Underlying the action and dystopian focused main plot is a romantic subplot between Tris and one of her instructors in the Dauntless faction, nicknamed Four.

 

Divergent imagines a society where children are raised to become workers based on their aptitude, and secondarily, their choice. But once this choice is made it is set for life, and those that have multiple aptitudes are considered “divergent”. These “divergent” along with anyone that changes their mind about their direction after their choice are cast out of society. The goal of the society’s leaders is to avoid the suffering that occurred before their utopian system was devised.

The second movie is “The Giver” which is based on the 1993 novel of the same name. The plot here is similar:

It is set in a society which is at first presented as a utopian society and gradually appears more and more dystopian. The novel follows a boy named Jonas through the twelfth year of his life. The society has eliminated pain and strife by converting to “Sameness,” a plan that has also eradicated emotional depth from their lives. Jonas is selected to inherit the position of Receiver of Memory, the person who stores all the past memories of the time before Sameness, in case they are ever needed to aid in decisions that others lack the experience to make. Jonas learns the truth about his dystopian society and struggles with its weight.

In the movie the protagonist is 18 while in the original book he was a mere 11. But the story is very similar to the later Divergent in that the elders of society are choosing for the youth their path in an effort to preserve a perfect society.

The rebellion depicted in both films smacks of Boomer (born 1943-1960) rebellion, but the oppressor here is not the G.I. (born 1901-1924) of from the Boomer’s youth, but rather a depiction of current [X] parents as stifling in their control of their children. Strauss and Howe predicted that the Homelanders would be sensitive, helpful and rule-playing because of how they are “carefully” raised by Gen X parents (I think this is a politically correct way of saying it).

Although there have been many books and movies on the theme of breaking away from uniformity of society (Fahrenheit 451, Gattaca, 1984 etc…) these two have a particular spin that is unique. The idea that society can be made perfect by each individual “choosing” (the amount of choice varies in each movie) their purpose is the central theme for both. That is the part that fits with the Homelander generation, who, like their Silent grandparents will have a life path that is sheltered and directed with close guardrails. The thing that struck me about these two movies is how they came out close together and with almost identical plot lines. 

This is somewhat of a contrast with the other dystopian blockbuster “The Hunger Games“. In that series the themes are similar but the governing powers are much more obviously corrupt and society is nowhere near equal. The societies in “The Giver” and “Divergent” are perfect and balanced but only if everyone does not question the role they are given at an early age.
Millennials were raised with excellence, cooperation and success as the goals. Homelanders will have safety,purpose and conformity emphasized in their youth. “The Hunger Games” feels more Millennial while “The Giver” and “Divergent” have a more Homelander character.

The business world is already moving in the direction of purpose as the driver for careers. Author Aaron Hurst has written a book titled “The Purpose Economy” on just this topic. He even provides a way to test your purpose with “The Imperative” (the definition of imperative? “of vital importance; crucial” and the second definition? “giving an authoritative command; peremptory“). These concepts are perfect for our time because they address the needs of Millennial (born 1982-2004) and Homelanders to have structure and a clear path to success or safety. The collective nature of both of these generations allows them to accept the categorization of their talents as long as they know that there is a guaranteed method for them to succeed (Millennial) or avoid risk (Homelander).

But 30-40 years from now there will be a massive backlash against these types of methods, which will be viewed by the Millennial’s children (Boomer’s grandchildren) as oppressive. That is where “Divergent” and “The Giver” are prescient in understanding the eventual rebellion.

P.S. The Giver was written by Lois Lowry, a Silent who has seen this path before in her youth, while “Divergent” was written by Veronica Roth, a Millennial who probably felt these nascent pressures growing up.

It’s 1933 All Over Again

I have never been much of a historian, but I picked up “The Plot Against the President” at the library recently and I have really been enjoying it. According to the theories of Strauss and Howe, we are in a period that is very similar to the early stages of the Great Depression. This period, known as Fourth Turning (Crisis) is similar to the period starting in 1929. The book is about the early period of FDR’s presidency, including his campagning before getting into office. I have only finished the first half of the book which mainly covers up until FDR took office.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933. Lietuvių: Fra...
Image via Wikipedia

I suppose my education in the 80’s was lacking because I had no idea that there was an assassination attempt on FDR right before he took office. The first half of the book covers this event in detail, including all the social chaos going on at the time. Clearly the period from 1929-1933 was one of the worst in American history. Herbert Hoover (portrayed here as a bitter and ineffectual man) was all chased out of office but there still seemed to be little hope for the country at the time. The Depression had hit hard and there seemed no end in sight. Roosevelt, to many observers, seemed to be just the wrong person to take the helm at the time. There was a huge division between rich and poor (the greatest disparity ever in American history up until just recently) and great distrust of the moneyed class. Roosevelt came from old money and was seen as somewhat of a dilettante at the time. The fact that he had been paralyzed by Polio made his election even more surprising.

But FDR managed to prove all of his detrators wrong even before he took office. He took a two-week vacation at sea (on an expensive yacht owned by a friend) prior to his inauguration. When he landed in Miami, Florida there was a huge crowd assembled to see him. Denton tells the story of how Giuseppe Zangara took five shots at the President-elect but failed to even hit him. Six people around Roosevelt were struck and they were all rushed to the hospital. FDR held one of them, Anton Cermak (Mayor of Chicago) and kept him from going into shock as they sped to the hospital. Cermak died two weeks later but Roosevelt was held in high regard for how calm he remained after the attempt on his life. This event, at least as presented by Denton in the book, gave Roosevelt a boost in popularity as he took office.

The interesting parallel to today’s crisis is that we too have been suffering the effects of a financial crisis that still seems to be hanging around. Although there are signs of improvements it is clear that a recurrence is entirely possible. And we are headed towards what may be a very contentious election that does not seem to offer any candidates with a clear ability to lead (in my opinion). Obama’s first term has not shown him to be a firebrand but rather a compromiser on many issues. Romney also does not appear to be the sort that would take on the status quo to really shake things up. It is certainly possible that another candidate will take the Republican nomination, but the interesting thing to me about the lead-up to the 1932 election is that Roosevelt and Hoover seemed to be a choice between the lesser of two evils too.

Hoover had certainly been more than useless during the later part of his term and using Douglas MacArthur against the Bonus Army was the death blow to his chances at a second term. But Roosevelt certainly did not seem very Presidential at the time either. Many described him as a dabbler without much real knowledge of economics or larger political issues. But when the time came for him to take office (at the very pit of the Great Depression) he proved to be and incredible leader. The times, in some ways, defined his abilities. The same may be true for our next President, whoever that may be. We can certainly hope that whoever does take office can unify the nation during this portion of the crisis.

The other striking thing about the history presented in the book is just how ready the US was for a leader that would dictate our direction. When FDR came into office there were journalists and pundits that called for him to be a dictator during our time of need. The country was willing to give up their liberty if it meant the possibility of turning around our economy. So in many ways the country was primed to take the direction of Roosevelt if he was strong in his convictions. It will be interesting to see whether the same is true in the upcoming election. Will the US be ready to have a leader that does whatever is needed to lift our country out of the recession fully? Only time will tell, but the parallels to our history 80 years ago are enormous.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Generation X Report: Active, Balanced and Happy

The University of Michigan has apparently been surveying a large group of [X] for some time and just released a report on their findings. Here is the blurb from the site:

For more than two decades, a loyal group of young Americans have participated in a national study to allow the nation to understand the thinking and the life experiences of Generation X. This web site reflects the thousands of hours of time and effort that LSAY participants have put into completing questionnaires, taking tests, and sharing their information about new addresses, new names, and new members of their family. We hope that the LSAY will continue to monitor the history and the future of Generation X for years to come and we have attempted to make this web site a useful place for staying in touch with the study and sharing the results of this work.

LSAY stands for Longitudinal Study of American Youth and it looks like they have been surveying these folks since 1987!

The report findings are interesting but not terribly surprising for those who follow generational theory. Gen X’ers continue to strive for work/life balance and that includes an active and healthy social life. I found the happiness index to be encouraging:

The cool thing about this report is that they say they are going to produce them quarterly and it will be fascinating to see the other issues they delve into. It would be really interesting to compare their survey results with their current (Millennial) students’ answers.

Boomers and Millennials today

An interesting interview with Neil Howe in The Atlantic. I particularly like the last answer:

Will Millennials become skeptical of government over time?

HOWE: When they say they are pro-government, they don’t mean that they like what Congress is doing. It means they think there are great things that could be done to bring America together as a community. A growing share of millennials live with their parents. This dovetails into some very positive resolution of the problem of older entitlements. Families will be much closer. That is going to be huge because it avoids some of the huge tax and fiscal drag of a third-party entitlement system supporting older people.

Arab Spring: Crisis or Awakening?

I have been thinking quite a bit about the “Arab Spring” recently. Back in 2007 our family spent three weeks traveling around Egypt (Cairo, Alexandria, the White Desert, Luxor and Hagarda) and we feel an affinity for the area because of our time there.

Strauss and Howe have pointed out that the Arab world (and Europe for that matter) lag behind the US in their generational cycle by about 5 years or so. But the changes going on in the Middle East seem a lot more like the Third Turning (Unraveling) of the 1960’s rather than a Fourth Turning (Crisis). But that may just be on the surface. The “agitators” in the Arab Spring sound a lot like our Millennial (born 1982-2004) rather than Boomer (born 1943-1960). The establishment they are forcing out or protesting against are Silent (born 1925-1942) in many cases – which is different than our leadership in the US (we have never had a Silent Generation president and probably never will). This article from CNN implies that the Arab youth are like the Freedom Riders of the 60’s.

I do wonder whether they are on an entirely different cycle than the US. The outcome of the Arab Spring will be telling in that regard. If it continues to escalate and results in a remaking of the institutions in the next 10-15 years, then they are part of the same Crisis cycle we are in. If it degenerates into social chaos and prolonged instability then they are headed where we were in 70’s and 80’s. I certainly hope for the former.

A New Arab Generation Finds Its Voice – Video Feature – NYTimes.com.