The Voice of a Generation

Courtesy reader Montysano: A San Francisco Chronicle columnist says "Bring on the $10/gallon gas", suggesting that we might consider raising the price of fuel right now and get the inevitable crisis--and resulting response--underway.

Admittedly, yes, the argument presented here is pretty shallow...but then writer Mark Morford himself admits it isn't going to happen anyway. His point is obviously only to introduce the concept that it might actually be better to admit and even embrace the inevitable collapse--and to bring the system down intentionally and on our terms--rather than deny it only to watch things collapse on their terms (...and you do know who they are, don't you?).

"We would mourn the loss of cool car culture even as we celebrated the birth of, say, moped culture. Telecommuting would explode. Sure, the superrich would still tool around in their bloated Escalades, oblivious to the world around them, thinkin' the world is their dumb bitch.

So what? The rest of us can simply roll our eyes and laugh, evolve and sharpen and sigh, and wonder what great change we can embark upon next."

Actually, what I think is most interesting about the piece is that it's so characteristic of the Gen-X way of thinking. I bring this up because if you haven't read Strauss & Howe's The Fourth Turning yet then you're probably unaware of an important sea-change our country is fast approaching: the beginning of the slow displacement of the Boomer generation from the seats of authority. Strauss & Howe's important study argues that it is precisely this fundamental generational transition which underlies (and underscores) the major social crises we will face over the next decade or two....so in this regard Morford's piece might be cited as an early warning shot of the larger challenge to come.

The basic theory outlined in The Fourth Turning is that a study of history shows that there exists a repeating cycle of four archetypal generational "types", and that the transition between one cycle and the next represents a particularly dramatic and inflammatory break between the "unraveling" of a previous cultural era--grown too aged and infirm to continue--and the emergence of a radically new one. These "eras", then, last for four generations or roughly 80 years before "turning" again, and an examination of the specific turning-points throughout the line of American history even back to pre-Colonial times forms the bulk of the book.

It evidently appears, according to the authors, that this crisis and resulting rebirth of a new culture must necessarily occur as a profound "shock" to the social structure if it is to provide sufficient force to overcome the atrophy and inertia which characterize the previous era. Fittingly then, they note that these crises almost invariably begin to develop at a point only just past the peak of the era's cultural fruition, and for this reason they usually catch the bulk of society unawares. More often than not then the resulting qualities and character which come to define the newly emergent culture may have been completely unforseeable just a few years before. But most notable for our present purposes is that this cultural schism is reflected in (and partly inspired by) a pivotal "wresting of power" that must proceed between two specific and contrary generations (archetypally labelled the "Prophet" generation and the "Nomad" generation--and in our present generational cycle called the "Boomers" and "Gen-X" respectively). Thus "Fourth Turning" systemic crises almost invariably unfold in parallel with gut-wrenching civil crisis, say the authors, of a kind that has real potential to tear the society apart. Written over a decade ago, they forecast that the next such Turning should be just beginning about now. And perhaps as early evidence of the theory I would point to the rapid rise of the "weblog revolution" as a foreshadowing of the coming transition of authority: weblogs are most primarily a voice of the Gen-X generation, and in that generation's mindset have already acquired greater legitimacy than the institutional "Boomer controlled" media--and we can see that they've already begun to challenge the legitimacy of what the mainstream media chooses to report or ignore.

I obviously hold The Fourth Turning in high regard, both intellectually and experientially, and it's largely why I don't believe that future years will simply unfold along the continuing Orwellian nightmare that the present times seem to promise. Because Generation X is fundamentally unable to accept the self-centeredness and self-serving-ness mentality that signifies this era, the love for black-or-white ideological causes, and the blanket judgmentalism that Boomer leaders so comfortably buy into. Not to mention that they largely hate corporatism and authoritarian control in any form. Morford's diatribe about gas prices is not anything unique to my experience: in their hearts Gen-X'ers have always hated the status quo they've grown-up within. They will hold little sentimentality for it when it collapses, and many in fact long for a chance to burn the whole system down and try to remake it in more equitable terms. Not because they're smarter, or right-er, or even capable of doing that well...but simply because they've never really felt they were at home in any of it. And that's also largely their problem--having never felt at home in it, they've also never felt they had a foothold from which to oppose it. So they tend to drag their feet a bit on the road to cultural maturity, or drop out altogether. In fact, many corporations are starting to quietly lament the management vacuum they're coming up against in recent years as the best and brightest of the new generation seem to be largely turning their backs on the corporate ladder.... Still, Time marches relentlessly on, and this generation is going to be stepping up to the plate whether they like the game that's being played or not. So regardless of whether Strauss & Howe are right in their theory of generational cycles, it's not hard to sense that a cultural revolution is coming, and it's going to be dramatic--and probably not altogether peaceful--as the next generation begins to inherit an America they never made.

I'd love to cover The Fourth Turning at greater length because over the past 12 years or so since it was written it's fast proving itself to be a study of monumental importance--and I certainly recommend it to anyone who hasn't read it yet. I've even found myself returning to certain chapters in recent weeks, and one idea that's jumped out at me lately is the authors' caution to the Gen-X generation that they resist their eagerness to see big changes happen quickly. After the crisis has begun in earnest, they say, society will be more prepared to embrace the radical solutions they offer...but until then there will be only limited acceptance of anything that goes against the prevailing status quo (an outlook well illustrated by the tone of Morford's piece above). So until that time, they caution, it is best to simply explore, experiment, and only quietly advocate new ideas and solutions to our mounting problems. That way, when the collapse is decidedly underway, the most viable and appropriate responses can be offered--and offered with greater authority and a more unified voice.

[P.S. -- I should acknowledge that Strauss & Howe's study by no means implies that the Boomers are blameworthy or that Gen-X is the only voice of authority for informing the new culture. Simply that as a general rule these two generations embody the "forces in conflict" during the years of crisis. Obviously the seminal movement toward a potential "culture of responsibility" was actually forged by Boomer Hippies who persisted in staying the course that most of their peers so wantonly abondoned....and certainly many Gen-X'ers will only let loose the keys to their Escalades when they get torn from their broken fingers....]

Comments

[Jkrs]

The link you gave leads to the column (updated twice weekly), rather than the individual article. The permanent link to that article is: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2006/05/10/notes051006.DTL

[Steven Lagavulin]

Thanks jkrs!...link has been updated.

[BlackSun]

Any analysis of generational 'cycles' ignores the far longer-term steady state character of human nature. No cultural reaction will fundamentally alter human genetics, which are largely responsible for the formation of the world as it is.

Revolutionaries and idealists both suffer from the delusion that human nature can or should be changed. Better to focus on what IS, and how seemingly negative traits can be harnessed to produce a better world.

I don't see any historical discontinuity on the horizon. Gen-X is just as corruptible by the trappings of power as any previous one.

[Paula]

Well here's a thought about that. If it was the first TV generation that learned to think of the world in moving images and shades of gray, rather than as a static black-and-white thing, and they ended up foisting the 60s cultural revolution on the world... what will the first internet generation come up with, given that to them the world is decentralized, multi-nodal, and chaotic (in the scientific sense of the term), as well as a thing to which one may or may not have access?

Perhaps another long, hard slog through "Understanding Media" is in order...

[Liz Logan]

Well this is weird--this is pretty much exactly what they said about the hippies/boomers. Ever heard of the generation gap? I'm totally puzzled by this analysis.

Did these guys coin the term "sea-change?" I just started hearing it but don't know what it means.

[Anonymous]

I say! Let the games begin!

Burn it down! Burn it now!

Ron Paul 2008!