Generational
model
T4Ter Sean Love (Zarathustra)
developed a concept of the saeculum he called the Multimodal
saeculum. He assumed that the four archetypes (Prophet,
Nomad, Hero, Artist) are fixed, permanent forms
because they represent fundamental qualities of humanity. Following Wilber,
Love saw humans as holons.
A holon is a whole unto
itself that is both part of something larger and contains smaller parts which
may also be holons.
According to Wilber multiple
viewpoints are inherent in the nature and existence of holons,
as a natural consequence of holon-ness. Each viewpoint
has a valid perspective to offer. For example, the emotional pain of a person
who suffers a tragedy is one perspective while social statistics about such
tragedies provide another. The former is the subjective experience of a
specific individual while the latter is an objective assessment of the
experiences of many individuals Wilber identifies four perspectives valid for
any holon: the subjective (inner)
and objective (outer) views of an individual and those for a group of
individuals. Wilber stresses that all four perspectives are equally valid and needed
for real understanding of a matter. To collapse them all together can be a serious
mistake.
A useful analogy might
be the two dimensional grid that is often used to characterize political beliefs
(see Figure
1).
The vertical axis in the figure directly corresponds to the Wilberian
individual versus group perspective. Libertarians develop their philosophy and
ethics from an individual, objective perspective. Behavior is based on a
rational calculation that can be duplicated by a third party given the required
information. Human interactions can be adequately explained as contracts and a
central concern is property, an objective external. On the other hand, Marxists
develop their philosophy and ethics from a communal objective perspective. Emphasis in on behavior of groups such as social classes and on how
they are affected by materialist historical forces. Both have useful things
to say, but they are incomplete because they do not consider the other
perspectives.
An example of a
discipline with a focus on the individual subjective perspective would be
Freudian psychoanalysis. The concept of zeigest
would be an example that uses the collective subjective perspective. These four
perspectives of Wilber can be graphed in a fashion analogous to the political
grid to give four quadrants as diagramed in Figure 2.
Here the four perspectives are collapsed in two dimensions, each of which can
have two values. The vertical axis is a measure of specificity. Low values
correspond to observations and attitudes that apply to groups or classes of
individuals, high values to a unique individual. The horizontal; axis is a
measure of tangibility. Low values correspond to intangibles, the experience of
which is a matter of subjective opinion, high values correspond to concrete,
material realities, objective facts.
Table
1. Strauss and Howe generations mapped onto the Wilber
quadrants
|
Quadrant |
Generation |
Vertical
dimension |
Horizontal
dimension |
|
Upper left (I) |
Prophet |
Individualistic |
Subjective |
|
Upper right (IT) |
Nomad |
Individualistic |
Objective |
|
Lower right (ITS) |
Hero |
Communitarian |
Subjective |
|
Lower left (WE) |
Artist |
Communitarian |
Objective |
Love maps the four Strauss and Howe generations onto
the Wilberian quadrants as shown in Table 1. Figure 3
presents a graphical version of Table 1. The vertical axis represents the
communitarian versus individualist dimension and the horizontal represents
subjective versus objective. Each quadrant corresponds to a pair of high or low
values of this two dimensions, which map into a distinct generation as
described In Table 1. . The circle in the figure represents the continuous
stream of new cohorts coming of age. Time increases as one moves
clockwise along the circle. As the curve moves through the four quadrants
starting at the lower left, the four generations are generated in their
standard order: artist, prophet, nomad, hero.
When the curve passes
from one quadrant to another, it crosses one of the axes. Each axis intersects
the other axis at its midpoint, when the two extremes of the dimension
represented by that axis are in balance. Rising through the horizontal axis then
reflects moving from a point where a communitarian perspective is most
important to one where an individualist perspective is. Descent through the
same axis on the other side of the circle reflects the reverse shift. An
analogous shift occurs when moving right or left through the vertical axis. Each
time an axis is crossed a new generation starts to be formed by the coming of
age experience. .
One full circuit of the
cycle corresponds to one saeculum, so for a 90-year saeculum, each year would
correspond to a 4 degree arc. During such a cycle the value plotted on each
axis moves from one extreme to the other and back again. Thus, Figure 3 can be
considered as a pair of two-phase cycles (one dimensional oscillators)
of the same period as the saeculum which are 90 degrees out of phase with each
other. A simple mechanism can explain how each oscillator moves between its two
extremes. Suppose that the cohort coming of age reacts against the adult
environment by adopting an attitude opposite to the dominant attitude in the
culture. We can represent this idea in terms of the following expression:
1. d/dt O(t) = − k [ T(t-L) + (1-f) x
T(t-2L) + f x T(t-1) ]
Here O(t)
refers to the value of the one-dimensional oscillator
at time t. T is a discrete variable called type. T is equal to 1 when O is
positive and −1 when O is negative. L is the length of a generation, k is
an arbitrary constant and f is the fraction of the current generation that come of age since its first cohort. For example, Generation
X came of age between 1984 and 2004. At the end of 1993, 10 years of the
21-year Generation X had come of age and f would be 10/21 or 0.48. The symbol
d/dt means rate of change. Equation 1 says that the
rate at which the oscillator changes is the opposite of a weighted average of
the value of type L years in the past (those leaving rising adulthood to enter
mature adulthood), the value 2L years in the past (those leaving mature
adulthood for elderhood) and the value last year (those who have just entered rising
adulthood).
The term in brackets on
the right-hand side of equation 1 is the value of T for the generations
currently occupying the combined rising adult and maturity phases of life. Each
year the value of f advances by one year; the oldest members in active
adulthood adult move out and are replaced by a new cohort who came of age over
the past year. Thus the contribution to the average value of T from the older
gen steadily falls while that from the coming of age generations rises as the
years pass (f rises).
Figure
4
shows a plot of the value of the oscillator O for the subjective-objective
dimension as the open symbols and type T as the blue line. Here a T value of −1
represents subjective and +1 represents objective. Also shown
as the red line is the rate of change of O (right hand side of equation 1).
Type exhibits a periodic flip between objective and subjective every two
generations.
The exact same analysis can be done for the individualist-communitarian
dimension. The type variable in this case shifts every two generations between
individualist and communitarian. Figure 5
plots type levels for the individualist-communitarian dimension in red and for
the subjective-objective dimension in blue. The two plots have the same shape
but are shifted one generation apart. The combination of these two type variables
creates four combinations that correspond to the quadrants in Figure 2 and to the four
generational archetypes in the correct order.
This model is yet
another example of a lagged negative feedback mechanism, which typically generates
oscillatory behavior. Like the population model the rate of change in
the oscillator is inversely related to its value in the past. It is analogous to
psychological explanation for the war cycles
advanced by Quincy Wright: the warrior does not wish to fight again himself and
prejudices his son against war, but the grandsons are taught to think of war as
romantic.1 The
notion that talent or a weakness such as alcoholism skips generations is a
commonly held idea. A plausible explanation for this might be that children who
experience the negative effects from parental weakness or talent may simply
choose to take a different path when they grow up. So those who grow up with an
alcoholic parent decide they will never drink. Those with a very talented and successful
parent may choose to develop talents different from what their parent did so as
to avoid unfavorable comparisons with them. In these examples the younger
generation adopts an opposite to a parental behavior or belief (this is the
negative feedback). In the case of the generational mechanism proposed here the
reaction is not against one’s own parents, but against the dominant belief and
behavioral modes of adults in general who are still playing a role in society
and culture--that is, the occupants of the rising adult and maturity phases of
life.
How this works is best
shown by the situation that exists during periodic politico-economic crises in
American history every three or four decades. We are in such a crisis today in
the wake of the financial crisis in 2008. Four decades earlier there was the political
and cultural upheaval of the sixties followed by economic stagflation in the
next decade. Four decades before that was the Great
Depression and the tumultuous Progressive era three decades before it. Finally
the Progressive era was preceded by the Civil war three to four decades earlier.
These periodic crises and the calm eras in between them comprise what I call
the political-economic (PE) cycle.
The PE cycle is essentially a version of the saeculum in terms of external
events instead of generational archetypes.
Table 2 identifies
these crisis periods as the shaded rows and gives dates for the PE cycle in the
first column. The characterization of these periods in terms of unrest and
economic performance is summarized in the next two columns. These crises are
called active periods in the PE cycle
and social moments in the Strauss and
Howe turning cycle. The paradigm
mechanism was proposed to explain these active periods/social
moments. It largely operates through politics and has political moments that roughly correspond to (and serve the same
purpose as) social moments. Its operation involves alternating paradigms or
worldviews that affect the kind of policy choices considered by decision-makers.
Like the attributes described above, paradigms shift every two generations. Paradigms
alternate between two kinds: freedom and progress. The column labeled progress
party illustrates the operation of freedom and progress paradigms. The figure
given is the fraction of the time the progress party2 holds the
presidency. The progress party is in favor when a Progress paradigm is being
created and in the subsequent turning, average occupation is 77%. It is out of
favor when a Freedom paradigm is being created and in the turning after,
average occupation is 37%.
Table
2. Summary of turnings and generations since
Independence (active periods/social moments are shaded)
|
PE cycle |
Unrest |
Economy |
Progress party* |
Paradigm |
Coming of age generation |
Paradigm-based dating |
S&H dating** |
|
1981-2008 |
Low |
Good |
30% |
Freedom |
GenX |
1992-2007 |
1987-2007 |
|
1964-1981 |
High |
Bad |
47% |
Freedom |
Boomer |
1968-1991 |
1969-1986 |
|
1946-1964 |
Low |
Good |
56% |
Progress |
Silent |
1952-1967 |
1951-1968 |
|
1930-1946 |
High |
Bad |
88% |
Progress |
GI |
1932-1951 |
1927-1950 |
|
1919-1930 |
Low |
Good |
9% |
Freedom |
Lost |
1913-1931 |
1909-1926 |
|
1896-1919 |
High |
Bad |
70% |
Freedom |
Missionary |
1896-1912 |
1886-1908 |
|
1873-1896 |
Rising |
Mixed |
65% |
Progress |
Progressive |
1877-1895 |
1869-1885 |
|
1860-1873 |
Low |
Bad |
91% |
Progress |
Civil War Hero |
1860-1876 |
None |
|
1842-1860 |
Low |
Good |
33% |
Freedom |
Gilded |
1841-1859 |
1848-1868 |
|
1824-1842 |
High |
Bad |
33% |
Freedom |
Transcendental |
1828-1840 |
1818-1847 |
|
1792-1824 |
Low |
Good |
53% |
Progress |
Compromise |
NA |
1793-1817 |
|
1774-1792 |
High |
Bad |
NA |
Progress |
Republican |
NA |
1769-1792 |
*Progress party was
Democrats after 1932 and Republicans before 1913. Shown is the fraction of time
when this party held the presidency
**Dating
is birth years plus 23 (age of paradigm formation) plus 3 (lag between turning
and associated generation).
Figure 3
shows the paradigms as a second vertical axis. Not surprisingly, a freedom
paradigm corresponds to the individualist attribute. Paradigms are generated during
one of these active periods. As the active period proceeds, policymakers
gradually come to see that the problems are the consequences of past policy and
policy is changed. The generation coming of age experiences the bad economic
times and social/political turmoil, and reacts against what they perceive as
the cause. In secular crisis turnings, individualist generations have created
the failed policy and the paradigms acquired by heroes coming of age are more
likely to be biased against individualism than paradigms acquired in other
turnings. For example, polls suggest Millennials have
a more favorable view of socialism3 (which is antithetical to
individualism) than did other generations at the same age
This bias tilts the
world-view of new paradigms towards a communitarian perspective. Not all
individual paradigms will have a communitarian bias, just more than average. This
tendency is what it meant by the statement, the hero generation adopts a Progress
paradigm. Empirically, a Progress paradigm is defined as the paradigm held by
the generation coming of age during a political moment associated with a
Strauss and Howe crisis turning. . The same process holds for active periods
that correspond to spiritual awakenings. During these periods, communitarian generations
have failed and paradigms acquired by prophets coming of age will tend to be
biased in favor of individualism. The collectively is a Freedom paradigm. A
Freedom paradigm is defined as the paradigm held by the generation coming of
age during a political moment associated with a Strauss and Howe awakening
turning.
The creation of a new
paradigm is a mechanistic characterization of the turning cycle. The idea of a
new generation arriving on the scene that is typified by a different set of
attributes (different quadrant in Figure 3)
or that belongs to a different generational archetype is an internal
manifestation of a turning change. . The mechanistic characterization has the
advantage that it can be tested empirically.
For the high and
unraveling turnings, the adult generations are evenly split between individualist
and communitarian attributes and there is no need for a corrective response in
this dimension. Therefore the paradigm remains unchanged. What does change during
the high and unraveling involves the objective-subjective axis.
Coming out of the secular crisis, adults are over weighted in the objective attribute
and the artist generation coming of age adopts a more subjective outlook in
response. Similarly, coming out of the spiritual awakening, adults are
over-weighted in the subjective attribute and the nomad generation coming of
age adopts a more objective outlook in response. We can imagine a paradigm-like
mechanism operating on the objective-subjective axis that produces an
oscillation between spiritual and secular societal orientation once per
saeculum. The nonsocial moment turnings would serve as cultural moments, when a
new spiritual paradigm would be acquired by the generations coming of age.
The cultural paradigm
would find full expression during the subsequent social moment. The cultural
paradigm can explain why half of the periodic crises are spiritual awakenings. According
to Strauss and Howe parental nurture follows cycle of four generation length:4
Nurture is most protective during crises and least
protective during Awakenings
This nurture cycle is
coincident with the cultural cycle. The notion of a cultural paradigm generalizes
the Strauss and Howe conception of dominant and recessive generations. Hero and
prophet generations are dominant (paradigm-formers) in the political and economic
spheres while nomad and artist generations are dominant in the culture and
family. The political paradigm cycle intersects with the cultural paradigm to
give four combinations in accordance with which paradigm is
fully operative: progress (high), spiritual (awakening), freedom (unraveling),
secular (crisis)--see Table 3.
Table
3. Turnings as the intersection of political and
cultural paradigm cycles
|
Turning |
Dominant Attribute of Adults |
Paradigm (politics) |
Spirituality (culture) |
Parental Nurture Cycle |
|
High |
Objective ->
Communitarian |
Progress (political unity) |
Low -> High |
Loosening |
|
Awakening |
Communitarian ->
Subjective |
Progress ->
Freedom |
Spiritual |
Min. protective/ Empowering |
|
Unraveling |
Subjective ->
Individualist |
Freedom (political disunity) |
High -> Low |
Tightening |
|
Crisis |
Individualist ->
Objective |
Freedom-> Progress |
Secular |
Max. protective/ Repressive |
These spiritual/secular periods match up with the subjective/objective
attributes on the horizontal axis of Figure 3
like the paradigms do with the attributes on the vertical axis. The spiritual
approach to life strengthens during the high and flowers
during the awakening, giving it is spiritual nature. In contrast, the
progress paradigm strengthens during the crisis turning and flowers during the
high. Similarly, the secular approach to life strengthens during the unraveling
and flowers during the crisis.
Reference
1.
Wright,
Quincy, A Study of War, 1942; reprint ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1965, p 230.
2.
The
progress party was originally the Federalists, the party of Alexander Hamilton.
The Hamiltonian progress ideology was continued by the Whigs and then the
Republicans after them. The freedom party was originally the Democratic-Republican
party of Jefferson and the Democratic party of Andrew Jackson later on
(see the paradigm model article for more on this). The progressive wing of the
Republican party split off during the Bull Moose
campaign of 1912. Like the Southern Democrats who split from their party 36
years later, they lost their influence and eventually joined the other party. Shorn
of their progressive wing, the Republicans became increasingly an economically
libertarian party consistent with a Freedom paradigm and were already
expressing these during the twenties. After 1912 they ceased to be the Progress
party. The Democrats gradually picked up Republican Progress ideology and its
dominant wing had made the shift by 1933. One of the consequences of this
Democratic ideological shift was that the party became increasingly out of sync
with Southern Democrats, for whom Republican-style progress (i. e. radical republicanism) was anathema. They
would eventually find a political home in a Republican party that had embraced
Jacksonian freedom ideology. After 1932 the progress party has been the
Democratic party.
3.
Little
Change in Public Response to Capitalism, Socialism, Pew
Research Center for the People & the Press, December 28,
2011
4.
Strauss,
William and Neil Howe, Generations: The History of America's Future 1584 to
2069, New York: Quill William Morrow 1991, p 354.
