Modelling History Through Cycles

[Johnny1A.2]

Originally Posted by cmdicely

With a loose enough comparison and toleration for a few exceptions, any facts can fit any pattern you want.

True.

IMHO, Strauss and Howe build a sufficient case for their theory to at least consider it 'potentially viable'. They overstate it, but I see sufficient foundation to think that they are probably onto something. I think this not just because of the periodicity of their 'crisis' scenario, but because recognizable periodicities also exist between the other stages of their proposed cycle.

[Pomphis]

Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2

For the United States? Not particularly, by comparison. Strauss and Howe were basing their analysis on the history of the USA and its pre-Independence colonial incarnation as part of Britain.

That doesn´t make sense to me. Just why should 13 colonies becoming independent cancel already existing and empire-wide Cycles for the remaining british empire ?

[smurf]

Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2

...S&H don't posit that big wars only come in their proposed Crisis periods, they maintain that they get more likely then. They can also happen in the 'Awakening' stage at the opposite pole of the cycle, as S&H characterize the English Civil War. I partly disagree with their analysis there, I think the ECW was part of a larger Europe/Western Civilization wide religious upheaval that transcended generational dynamics.

I would argue the ECW was a revolution and followed in the tradition of the Dutch indepedence in 1599-1601 (iirc).

Religious freedoms can be see as national struggles against the domination of the Catholic Church. The right to have sermons read and written in your own language was at the roots or these movements. From the Lollards to the Reformation.

I see what you are getting at but where do we demarcate these cylces. The world has uneven development and there could be a lot of overlapping cycles.

What about history in different periods? Would that count as a cycle?

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by Pomphis

That doesn´t make sense to me. Just why should 13 colonies becoming independent cancel already existing and empire-wide Cycles for the remaining british empire ?

I don't see why he'd consider the 13 colonies that seceded from the British empire as an 'incarnation' of the United States. That's reversing the order of events. The USA was created during the War of Independence. It in no sense existed before that. Only the colonies existed, and they were all British-- as were the other British possessions north and south of the colonies that seceded in 1776.

EDIT- Yes, I realize that I'm nitpicking. Johnny- please don't take it personally. I'm a nitpicker.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2

For the United States? Not particularly, by comparison. Strauss and Howe were basing their analysis on the history of the USA and its pre-Independence colonial incarnation as part of Britain.

Remember, even if we assume that the theory is sound, different parts of the world and different societies can be in different stages of it.

This would be a lot more convincing if they demonstrated similar cycles in other parts of the world, and proposed how they interact.

For example, WWI was unquestionably a large and nasty war for the UK, but doesn't appear to fit the cyclic pattern that the UK was running on when the colonies that later became the USA were part of it. Now, I could imagine that different parts of the world's cycle could interact, and force cycles to shift, but do S&H discuss this? Without a model for several sets of cycles, a model that fits the USA and ignores the rest of the world just looks like coincidence.

[Johnny1A.2]

Originally Posted by Pomphis

That doesn´t make sense to me. Just why should 13 colonies becoming independent cancel already existing and empire-wide Cycles for the remaining british empire ?

It doesn't. Strauss and Howe believed that Britain and America were on a similar cycle, back into pre-colonial times. The divergence would come after the Revolutionary Crisis, if it happened.

Remember, the fundamental periodicity they're talking about is not war, per se. It's a series of cyclic social crises, with wars more likely at certain stages of the cycle than others, and different kinds of wars. But big, nasty wars can happen at any stage of the cycle, the odds simple go up in certain phases, for reasons too complicated to go into here.

This extremely oversimplifies their theory, but look at the USA since World War II for an instance of it:

The G.I. Generation, those who were young adults in the Great Depression and World War II.
The Silent Generation, consisting very roughly of those children born from about 1923 to 1943.
The Boom Generation, consisting roughly of those born from 1943 to the early 1960s.
The Xers, those born from the early 60s to (probably) the early-mid 80s.
The Millennials, born from the early 80s to the early-mid 2000s (probably, but in the S&H theory, the closing years of the Millennial Generation are not set yet because that will be determined by subsequent events).

S&H note that these four generational groupings show certain common (not universal, but recognizably common) personality traits that reflect the times in which they grew up. The Silent, growing up during the Great Depression and World War II, are more risk averse, for ex, than the Boomers, who as a group grew up in the relatively secure times of the late 40s, 50s, and early 60s.

The Boomers, growing up in (relative) peace, are more abstract, more inclined to idealistic passions (because they never had the early-age terror their generational predecessors knew), inclined to absolutist thinking. (Again, these are highly general trends, any given individal might shwo them only slightly, not at all, or be totally out of step with them).

The Xers, growing up during the furor of the late 60s, 70s, and early 80s, are stereotypically cynical, pragmatic, their catchword is 'whatever'. While the Boomers were enjoying (as a group) their youthful experimentation and freedom in the 60s, 70s, and 80, the young Xers were catching the fallout, more or less. The authors note that their first hint of the pattern they think they've detected was actually a resemblance here, the their so-called 'reactive' generations.

What S&H observe is that a similar pattern is observable in the past, and that there's a repeating tendency to it. The Silent Generation is like the post Civil War generation that grew up in the 1850s and 1860s. The Boomers resemble the 'Missionary Generation' that grew up in the 1870s and 1880s. The Xers show a resemblance to the 'Lost Generation' that grew up in the 1890s and 1900s, and who fought World War I.

(The details of the resemblance are too complicated for this post.)

What Strauss and Howe argue is that these resemblances always occur in the same sequence, and they think they know why that is.

They also argue that, as events unfold, the Missionary Generation will resemble the G.I. Gen, with the same broad strengths and weaknesses, and that the very young children of today are the future equivalent of the Silent Generation...if the pattern holds.

[Johnny1A.2]

Originally Posted by johndallman

This would be a lot more convincing if they demonstrated similar cycles in other parts of the world, and proposed how they interact.

For example, WWI was unquestionably a large and nasty war for the UK, but doesn't appear to fit the cyclic pattern that the UK was running on when the colonies that later became the USA were part of it. Now, I could imagine that different parts of the world's cycle could interact, and force cycles to shift, but do S&H discuss this? Without a model for several sets of cycles, a model that fits the USA and ignores the rest of the world just looks like coincidence.

Yes, they do discuss it. IMO, they overstate their case somewhat, but also show a convincing reason why the pattern would be expected to be easier to see in America and Britain. I personally think that what they've identified is a pattern that's weaker than a universal law, but strong enough to be more than chance. It's one set of trends among many that can sometimes reinforce it and sometimes swamp it.

But it's way too complicated for an easy summation. If you want to read the theory in the words of the authors, the book Generations is their best exposition of it. The refined it a bit over time, but the original book explains their theory best.

[smurf]

Well since the 1890s the UK was a declining empire and the US was an acending one.

I think the 'generation' thing is a false division. You could have USA in the making up to 1867... the local expansion up to 1915, capital explosion to 1991 and possible relative decline since then.