Strauss-Howe Generational Theory
LegacyUser
✭✭✭✭
Dave said: I've felt utterly fascinated by Strauss-Howe generational theory.
It essentially asserts that, in all large societies, there exist broad statistical trends that oscillate, producing a repeating cycle of four eras (and generations), rather like the seasons. These eras include a calm upbeat era of material abundance and social conformity, a turbulent era of religious revival amidst rapid cultural change, a calm downcast era of intellectual abundance and social atomization, and a turbulent era of political crisis amidst rapid economic transformation. Plus, a parenting cycle that oscillates from "helicopter" parenting during political crises to "free-range" parenting during religious revivals.
As best as I can tell, after centuries of medieval irregularity, America's cycle settled into a regular pattern about 1700, transitioning into a new era every even decade. Strauss and Howe suggested a "Civil War anomaly," but I've come to question this claim greatly. I've been interested to notice what I believe to be some of its effects, such as how our Church's average conversion rates went from a 1930s low to a 1970s high to a 2010s low in a rather sinusoidal manner. Or, similarly, how American economic inequality followed a similar sinusoidal pattern, but with those highs and lows reversed.
In any case, since learning about this cycle, I've come to feel far more connected with past generations, including my own ancestors. I can understand how those from the Transcendental Generation or Lost Generation endured similar broad societal trends during their lifetimes to Generation X because they were born during the same part of the cycle. In fact, my mom has told me before how much I reminded her of her own Lost Generation parents, and I've started to understand somewhat why this would be.
I just finished tagging some of my recent ancestors with Custom Tags to show their generations. I was wondering if perhaps FamilySearch might consider other ideas for fostering such connnectedness. Generation Tags? Blog entries? I'm not sure. I know that the cycle is different in other countries---for example, while the USA and western Europe had a political crisis era from the 1920s to 1945, the Slavic nations seemed to have the same era about 1900ish-1920ish. And I suspect that Mexico's cycle length has been more like 100ish years than 80ish years.
In any case, I figured that it might be worthwhile to attempt to spark some ideas about this subject.
It essentially asserts that, in all large societies, there exist broad statistical trends that oscillate, producing a repeating cycle of four eras (and generations), rather like the seasons. These eras include a calm upbeat era of material abundance and social conformity, a turbulent era of religious revival amidst rapid cultural change, a calm downcast era of intellectual abundance and social atomization, and a turbulent era of political crisis amidst rapid economic transformation. Plus, a parenting cycle that oscillates from "helicopter" parenting during political crises to "free-range" parenting during religious revivals.
As best as I can tell, after centuries of medieval irregularity, America's cycle settled into a regular pattern about 1700, transitioning into a new era every even decade. Strauss and Howe suggested a "Civil War anomaly," but I've come to question this claim greatly. I've been interested to notice what I believe to be some of its effects, such as how our Church's average conversion rates went from a 1930s low to a 1970s high to a 2010s low in a rather sinusoidal manner. Or, similarly, how American economic inequality followed a similar sinusoidal pattern, but with those highs and lows reversed.
In any case, since learning about this cycle, I've come to feel far more connected with past generations, including my own ancestors. I can understand how those from the Transcendental Generation or Lost Generation endured similar broad societal trends during their lifetimes to Generation X because they were born during the same part of the cycle. In fact, my mom has told me before how much I reminded her of her own Lost Generation parents, and I've started to understand somewhat why this would be.
I just finished tagging some of my recent ancestors with Custom Tags to show their generations. I was wondering if perhaps FamilySearch might consider other ideas for fostering such connnectedness. Generation Tags? Blog entries? I'm not sure. I know that the cycle is different in other countries---for example, while the USA and western Europe had a political crisis era from the 1920s to 1945, the Slavic nations seemed to have the same era about 1900ish-1920ish. And I suspect that Mexico's cycle length has been more like 100ish years than 80ish years.
In any case, I figured that it might be worthwhile to attempt to spark some ideas about this subject.
0
Comments
-
Tom Huber said: You need to be aware that this forum is not to be used for
Debate or discussion of topics that are not relevant to family history (like politics or religion).
as stipulated in the Code of Conduct for this site and the other Family Search communities at https://www.familysearch.org/help/sal...
While you may think that the Strauss-Howe Generational Theory is relevant to Family History, it really is off-topic as a discussion topic.
I may be wrong, and if I am, I hope a moderator will chime in and let me know. Otherwise, they may repeat what is in the Code of Conduct (for FamilySearch Communities) article.0 -
A van Helsdingen said: While there is some relevance to genealogy, this forum is probably not the place to discuss a controversial sociological theory.0
-
joe martel said: I don't know about this being controversial so I'll chime in.
One of the important aspects of family history is to paint a picture of our ancestors, not just the vitals and facts. So we see the stories, memories, timelines, sketches to flesh out that ancestor. THere are physical, religious, governmental... pressures on them, that shaped them in their lives. The rise and fall of empires is part of that pressure and where an ancestor lives in the various oppressive or enabling environments.
If knowing those pressures, and cycles brings you closer, to connect with your ancestors, then that is powerful. I'm not sure how to leverage that.0 -
Tom Huber said: You have a point, Joe. While it could be relevant and the theory is certainly applicable, it is still just a theory. The mention of the civil war as an anomaly (whether it is or isn't is equally questionable) seems to prove the theory incorrect (again, a questionable point of view).
We do need to be aware of the historical events at the time our ancestors lived. The bouncing around of race for mulatto relatives during the era in and after the civil war dealt with the legality of mixed-race marriages with respect to Jim Crow laws, etc. This is discussed in one of the Finding Your Roots episodes and was quite enlightening.
But I think that a theory, until it is accepted as a factual pattern (which it isn't) falls outside the scope of discussion real history with respect to our ancestors.
A good example of where real history played an important part deals with the Thirty Years' War between Roman Catholics and Protestants. Many of the vital records (which was usually kept by the "state" religion) were lost. The IRA with respect to Northern Ireland is another area where real history can impact the lives of our ancestors.
So, I'm of the opinion that the discussion of a theory like the Strauss-Howe Generational Theory is off-topic for this forum, whereas actual historical events are relevant.0 -
Dave said: Thank you. I appreciate that. I wasn't aware that this might be overly off-topic. I'd be very happy to delete the post if it would help any.0
-
Dave said: Thank you. I appreciate that very much. It seems to me that it's gained increasingly wide acceptance in recent years, especially as at least some of its predictions have proven accurate. But, yes, it's not to the status of settled social science yet, as best as I can tell. Acceptance can take time (and testing) with any groundbreaking new idea, whether in physical science or social science. Some archaeologists resisted the idea of pre-Columbian migration to the Americas for decades before the evidence became too overwhelming to ignore.0
-
Dave said: Thank you. I appreciate that very much. It seems to me that it's gained increasingly wide acceptance in recent years, especially as at least some of its predictions have proven accurate. But, yes, it's not to the status of settled social science yet, as best as I can tell. Acceptance can take time (and testing) with any groundbreaking new idea, whether in physical science or social science. Some archaeologists resisted the idea of pre-Columbian migration to the Americas for decades before the evidence became too overwhelming to ignore.0
-
Dave said: Yes. Beautifully said. I appreciate that. Perhaps it's just not the right time yet. But, maybe as the theory becomes more proven, refined, and accepted, then that will change.0
-
Tom Huber said: In a way, the theory is a higher level view than the immediate history of the time. Assuming the theory is representative for what happens at a higher level view, it becomes more of the story behind the story of history.0
-
Dave said: Thank you again, Tom.
My personal belief is that S&H got the generalities right, but may have erred on the details to varying degrees. Which is perhaps only to be expected for a groundbreaking new theory. Proof and refinement and acceptance generally takes time.
S&H's alleged anomaly during the early 19th century was one item that I think that they got especially wrong. I presented a strong case once on their online forum against it... That the American Revolution (as I learned in history class) essentially started sharply with the Stamp Act of 1765 and ended sputteringly during the 1780s between the Battle of Yorktown in 1781 and the start of the new federal government in 1789, rather than extending later as they claimed. That the bland Federalist Era of the 1790s had parallels to the conformist 1950s. That most historians placed the Second Great Awakening earlier than S&H did, such as during the 1800s-1820s. That it was one of the 2GA generation that coined the term "Transcendentalists" as a pejorative to refer to the following generation, which I understand is exactly what happened with the terms "Lost Generation" and "Generation X." That all three of these generations came-of-age during a peak of culture about the dark/mysterious side of life (crime, freaks, monsters, demons, etc.). That Thoureau's description of his peers sounded a lot more like Xers to me than fire-in-the-belly moralists, as S&H tried to claim. And that the eyewitness description of the '49ers in S&H's book actually showed far more of the traits that they claimed were statistically common among the G.I. generation. My conclusion was that there was no anomaly, and that the generational rhythm actually continued rather like clockwork, transitioning every even decade into a new era, as it's continued to do so since then. Their claim was for three longer eras and one curiously missing era. Perhaps they've backed away from their claim of an anomaly since then, but I don't know.
In any case, I can say that what I've learned from them (despite any flaws that it maintains for now) helped me to better appreciate what I've learned about American history in school, to feel more connected with my ancestors, and perhaps to understand myself a bit better.
Perhaps this post is decades premature? I don't know.0
This discussion has been closed.