Modelling History Through Cycles

[Johnny1A.2]

Strauss and Howe's theory can be useful for 'sudden background change'. The theory assumes two kinds of 'social moment' that arise alternately every other generation (assuming nothing masks/derails the cycle, which they recognize can happen). They call those social moments the awakening and the crisis, and they come roughly 'half a long lifetime' apart.

(S&H call the Great Depression/World War II period a Crisis, and the social upheavels of the 1970s an Awakening. They predict another Crisis around 2010-2025. They see the 1890s as an Awakening, and the U.S. Civil War and the unsettled years prior to it as a Crisis period.)

What marks both kinds of 'social moment' is that the social mood changes very suddenly, especially in the Crisis. What was unthinkable can suddenly become mandatory, and vice versa. This may or may not be reflected in changes to the laws and government, but it's backed by serious social power either way. Some formerly accepted points of view and ideas suddenly become socially unacceptable, to the point that it can be socially, legally, financially, or physically dangerous to espouse them.

Likewise, actions and attitudes formerlly marginal or 'just one of many' can and do suddenly become effectively mandatory, to the point that it can be socially, legally, financially, or physically dangerous to dissent from them.

This can be useful for a GM who wants to suddenly change his player group from outlaws to heroes in the eyes of the public, or turn formerly accepted players into outcasts, by no action of their own.

[Joe]

It might be worth noting that academic historians don't really consider Strauss and Howe very serious thinkers, at least if my understanding is correct. I could be wrong. In any case this probably doesn't matter at all for gaming purposes.

One thing that serious academic historians do still debate, and that also might be quite useful for gaming purposes, is the Marxist conception of history: history being structured into large-scale phases determined by changes in the basic mode of material production.

(I know you're interested in cycles, rather than phases, of history; but I thought I'd mention this anyways. Apologies if it's irrelevant or else too obvious).

Regardless of what one thinks of it as a way of conceptualizing real history, the marxist model of history opens up some great opportunities for alternate-history gaming plots. What if it's true that the large-scale development of human societies basically depends, not on cultural factors or technological developments, per se, but on the way the underlying economic system develops? (I.e. what if a very rough version of the marxist idea of the 'base' determining the 'superstructure' is true?)

One example of a game-interesting thing that might follow from this, if it's true: if a meme-engineer goes back to to the 12th Century and tries to spread, say,'democratic' values, then, at least according to a simple version of the marxist idea, the values simply won't spread to any great effect, or they'll just be morphed into other values that aren't inimical to feudalism: to change society's values, you need to change the basic mode of production, i.e. seriously disrupt feudalism as an economic system.

Similarly, at least in a really simple reading of the marxist model, any basically agrarian society, in which a small elite class rules over a large agricultural laborer class, is going to end up being a very religious society, since religion seems to be, among other things, a crucial means of controlling agrarian populations.

More examples abound.

I'm definitely, definitely not trying to start a flame war about marxism, religion, or whatnot! I've got no investment in the truth or otherwise of this kind of theory of history.

I'm just saying that the idea that at a large enough time scale all societies will have their cultural 'superstructure' determined by the nature of their economic 'base' (feudalism, capitalism, whatever) is great fodder for alternative history gaming!

Apologies for the super-long post! Got carried away...

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by Joe

It might be worth noting that academic historians don't really consider Strauss and Howe very serious thinkers, at least if my understanding is correct. I could be wrong. In any case this probably doesn't matter at all for gaming purposes.

That's the wonderful thing about this stuff. It doesn't need to be true it just needs to be capable of producing realistic history when run backwards.

Originally Posted by Joe

One thing that serious academic historians do still debate, and that also might be quite useful for gaming purposes, is the Marxist conception of history: history being structured into large-scale phases determined by changes in the basic mode of material production.

(I know you're interested in cycles, rather than phases, of history; but I thought I'd mention this anyways. Apologies if it's irrelevant or else too obvious).

I'm most interested in cyclical trends above a saeculum in length but everyone should feel free to discuss shorter cycles, phases and noncyclical trends.

Originally Posted by Joe

I'm just saying that the idea that at a large enough time scale all societies will have their cultural 'superstructure' determined by the nature of their economic 'base' (feudalism, capitalism, whatever) is great fodder for alternative history gaming!

It's an interesting idea and I'd like to hear what other posters think. It's certainly true to some extent, for example, there are necessary population levels for many society features. Even where there are alternative superstructures for a given base there will be modifications to the base that need to be removed to exchange superstructures.

[Johnny1A.2]

Originally Posted by Joe

It might be worth noting that academic historians don't really consider Strauss and Howe very serious thinkers, at least if my understanding is correct. I could be wrong. In any case this probably doesn't matter at all for gaming purposes.

You're probably right, but it doesn't matter very much. As a group, academic historians have their own credibility problems, too, particularly a tremendous susceptibility to intellectual fads.

Regardless of what one thinks of it as a way of conceptualizing real history, the marxist model of history opens up some great opportunities for alternate-history gaming plots. What if it's true that the large-scale development of human societies basically depends, not on cultural factors or technological developments, per se, but on the way the underlying economic system develops? (I.e. what if a very rough version of the marxist idea of the 'base' determining the 'superstructure' is true?)

The problem with that theory is the economic development is derivative of technology and culture. It follows more than it leads.

But you're right that it can be incorporated into a game with possibilities.

[smurf]

Technology is a product from the superstructure to improve the economic base. Many technologies' components existed centuries before they were put to productive use.

BTW what do you mean by cyclic history? Hobsbawn wrote on the Ages of: Revolution, Capital, Empire and Extremes (iirc 1789-1848, 1848-1875, 1875-1914 and 1914-1991).

What I think you mean by cyclic is 'history repeats itself' a phrase that should make historians cringe. The distinctive feature is events happened (chronologer) and why they happened (historian).

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by smurf

Technology is a product from the superstructure to improve the economic base. Many technologies' components existed centuries before they were put to productive use.

BTW what do you mean by cyclic history? Hobsbawn wrote on the Ages of: Revolution, Capital, Empire and Extremes (iirc 1789-1848, 1848-1875, 1875-1914 and 1914-1991).

What I think you mean by cyclic is 'history repeats itself' a phrase that should make historians cringe. The distinctive feature is events happened (chronologer) and why they happened (historian).

Patterns show up in history for three reasons, I think:

1) Human beings are apt to see patterns, even if we have to imagine what isn't 'really there.' Patterns help us make sense of the past, grapple wth the present, and attempt to predict the future.

2) Human nature hasn't changed over historical time, although human cultures have changed.

3) The Earth remains the stage of history, and Earth changes have mostly been slow and limited. It's not that the environment is static, but that it abiding features tend to affect and constrict human choices in the long run.


Not all patterns are 'cyclic' of course.

[Johnny1A.2]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

Patterns show up in history for three reasons, I think:

1) Human beings are apt to see patterns, even if we have to imagine what isn't 'really there.' Patterns help us make sense of the past, grapple wth the present, and attempt to predict the future.

2) Human nature hasn't changed over historical time, although human cultures have changed.

3) The Earth remains the stage of history, and Earth changes have mostly been slow and limited. It's not that the environment is static, but that it abiding features tend to affect and constrict human choices in the long run.


Not all patterns are 'cyclic' of course.

Patterns can have multiple roots, too. I actually do think Strauss and Howe are on to something, I t hink they've identified a real-world tendency of human societies, anyway. The underlying mechanism driving that tendency is probably more complex than they posit, though, or perhaps also sometimes simpler.

For ex, one of several reasons for the periodicity of large nasty wars (about a lifetime apart, often) could very likely just be that this is long enough for memory of had nasty the last one was to pass away, making society more receptive to the possibility of engaging in one.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2

Patterns can have multiple roots, too. I actually do think Strauss and Howe are on to something, I t hink they've identified a real-world tendency of human societies, anyway. The underlying mechanism driving that tendency is probably more complex than they posit, though, or perhaps also sometimes simpler.

For ex, one of several reasons for the periodicity of large nasty wars (about a lifetime apart, often) could very likely just be that this is long enough for memory of had nasty the last one was to pass away, making society more receptive to the possibility of engaging in one.

That all seems plausible.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2

Patterns can have multiple roots, too. I actually do think Strauss and Howe are on to something, I t hink they've identified a real-world tendency of human societies, anyway. The underlying mechanism driving that tendency is probably more complex than they posit, though, or perhaps also sometimes simpler.

For ex, one of several reasons for the periodicity of large nasty wars (about a lifetime apart, often) could very likely just be that this is long enough for memory of had nasty the last one was to pass away, making society more receptive to the possibility of engaging in one.

It helps that about 20-30 years gives time to replace the losses from the last war.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

It helps that about 20-30 years gives time to replace the losses from the last war.

Yes, indeed.