Waiting For The Revolution?

Generations image 1 460x234
By Max Wells

I was an impressionable nine-year-old when I attended the New York World’s Fair in 1964. It was like seeing a glimpse of the future; cars hovered, kitchens gleamed, garbage didn’t smell, and deserts were transformed into gardens. Standing atop the steps to the USA pavilion, I felt confident that if I fell, the stairs were so well designed that I couldn’t possibly hurt myself. They’d thought of everything.

That fair, and the impression it made on me, reflected the generation then in power. Born between 1901 and 1924, the GI Generation of WWII had returned two decades earlier as conquering heroes. Now in their mid lives, their still unstoppable energy was characterized by their comic book hero Superman. They were unafraid to take on Communism, Nazism and the eradication of poverty. They built model cities, and invented, perfected and stockpiled the nuclear bomb. A generation “willing to bear any burden, pay any price,” and purposefully dedicated to “send(ing) a man to the moon by the end of the decade.”

(The ‘60s) felt like the world had tripped on something and was plunging headlong down the stairwell; Vietnam protests, urban riots, substance abuse, eroticism and the ideological passion of the young aimed angrily at their elders, like the water cannons pointed back at them.

It was these Promethean heroes on whom I elevated my childish gaze. My teachers, men in their 30s, also idolized them, sought to emulate them, and impressed on me the need to do the same. Success, they intoned, was simply a matter of studying hard, staying within the lines, and respecting our elders.

Generations image 3 190x128

The tragedy of the Kent State University shootings put additional focus on unrest.

Against this backdrop, the ensuing decade felt like the world had tripped on something and was plunging headlong  down the stairwell; Vietnam protests, urban riots, substance abuse, eroticism and the ideological passion of the  young aimed angrily at their elders, like the water cannons pointed back at them. The wheels began to fall off the  GI bandwagon; from Nixon in the White House, to the Chicago Democratic convention, to the Kent State shootings, to mass produced cars that were deemed “Unsafe at Any Speed.” GI men came under attack from their juniors and from women. Suddenly the statues had feet of clay.

As young children, many had experienced, or were affected by the Great Depression of the 1930s.

The generation that came after the GIs, ignominiously labeled the “Silent Generation,” was born between 1925 and 1942 and were rising adults during this period of upheaval. As young children, many had experienced, or were affected by the Great Depression of the 1930s. As the nation girded for threats from outside, they grew up being reminded that older generations were making sacrifices for them. As college freshmen they watched as the thirty something GIs got the pick of marriageable women. Later, more interested in the system than individual enterprise, only 2% wished to be self-employed, the majority wanting the security of working for a large corporation.

Mostly, it wasn’t the Silents who fomented the disturbance of the late ’60s. “Mostly,” because, though it was the Boomers (born between 1943 and 1960) who added passion and a willingness to go outside the lines in their protests, it was the Silents who were pathbreakers. From music (Elvis b. 1930, Dylan b. 1941) to Vietnam resistance (Abby Hoffman b.1936), the Silents produced almost all the major figures in the Civil Rights Movement (MLK b. 1929, Cesar Chavez b. 1927). It was they who reached out to all cultures, races, ages and handicaps, trying to make the world a more equitable place. Sixteen percent of Harvard’s class of ’64 joined the Peace Corps, the top postgraduate destination for that year, whereas the class of ’65 began criticizing that institution, a harbinger of the Boomer’s anti-establishment rebellion. And it was the Silents who produced the greatest generation of psychiatrists, songwriters and comedians. They were the communicators who prevented the nation from being torn between the overbearing GIs and the outraged Boomers. Despite all this, they produced no presidents. When it should have been their turn, it was an aging GI (Bush Sr. b. 1924) who defeated the Silent candidate (Dukakis b. 1933) in the 1988 election, silently mocking him for trying to play with the big boys’ toys.

A “cultural generation,” like the GI, Silent or Boom, is composed of people whose common location in history lends them a collective persona. Historians William Strauss and Neil Howe have offered an explanation of how cultural generations arise, how long they last, and how they change personality.(2)

According to the authors, we have four phases of life, each with distinctive roles in society. These are:

  • Elder (66–87) — Role of stewardship: mentoring, channeling endowments, passing on values
  • Mid-Life (44–65) — Role of leadership: parenting, teaching, directing institutions, using values. This phase wields the most power.
  • Rising Adult (22–43) — Role of activity: starting families and livelihoods, serving institutions, testing values
  • Youth (0–21) — Role of dependence: growing, learning, accepting nurture, acquiring values
    Generations Table 1 w460

Depending on the phase of life, a war or other “Social Moment” affects an individual’s personality differently. During a time of conflict, for example, Youths will be protected, Rising Adults will arm to meet the threat, Mid Lifers will take a leadership role, and Elders will establish the purpose of the war.

Differences between cohorts (phases of life) that existed before the war will be amplified and reinforced by inter-cohort interaction. For example, Youths will mirror each other’s anxiety, while Risings Adults will encourage each other’s valor and sense of duty. The groups will form four distinct peer personalities.

After the Social Moment, the four distinct peer personalities still exist into the next life phase, taking with them their acquired traits. This is shown in the first two columns of Table 2 after Social Moment 1. Generation “C” enters the powerful Mid-Life phase as conquering heroes. “E” enters Rising Adulthood as a sensitive and eloquent generation (the UK’s “air raid generation” or the “Silent Generation” in the U.S.).

Generations Table 2 w460Post-war generations have very different experiences. “F” goes through youth with the war heroes “D” in power, and achieves Rising Adulthood with the less confident leaders “E” in power. Likewise, “G” grows up with “E” in power, never having experienced the accomplishments or leadership of “D”. Consequently, “F” and “G” experience different nurturing and leadership styles, resulting in different peer personalities.

Even absent the influence of an outside event like a war, the relinquishing of roles when “D” goes into Elderhood and “E” assumes Mid-Life power occurs suddenly through another social moment, shown as Social Moment 2 in Table 2. This Social Moment is triggered by the tension between new and old roles for “D” and “E,” and by pressure as “F” and “G” push to acquire their own roles.

The test of time has favored the early proponents of “mass mentality.”

According to Strauss and Howe, there is a generational “Turning” every 20 or so years, a “Social Moment” every 40 or so years, and a complete cycle, in which the cohort personality types repeat themselves every 80–90 years.

The effects of cultural generations have been noticed by writers for millennia. Homer’s “Iliad” is, in part, a story of Odysseus’ return from war a victorious hero, his subsequent hubristic exercise of power and his diffident and less confident son Telemachus learning to adapt.

In the early 1900s it became apparent that cultural generations played a role in the economic, political and cultural life, and people began to recognize and label them. However, the concept wasn’t popular and vigorous debates in France just before the First World War pitted those who sought to explain a “mass mentality” in the newly emerging field of sociology against opponents who thought that the very concept distracted from the proper way to educate youth, namely in Latin and Greek and learning the French classics. In a case of the messenger being blamed for the message, the new thinkers were accused of corrupting France’s youth.(3)

The test of time has favored the early proponents of “mass mentality.” Certainly, cultural generations are part of the popular vernacular, and marketers use them as a way of segmenting the market and honing their message. The downside, as with any label, is that it leads to stereotyping.

The test of a theory of this type is how well it can predict the future. Some critics have panned the work as being so woolly as to be “unfalsifiable.” Others have been more generous. I find the explanation of the how and why of generations, shown in Table 2, to be the best (the only) one I’ve seen. Back in 1991, Strauss and Howe predicted a “Social Moment” sometime between 2004–2025. I’ll leave it to you to decide if we’re in one, or waiting for one. And I welcome your comments.

Sources

  • (1) I use the years defined by Strauss and Howe, rather than the population boom (1946–1964) defined by demographers.
  • (2) Unless specified, the source used was “Generations: The History of America’s Future from 1584 to 2069.” William Strauss and Neil Howe, Harper Perennial, 1991.
  • (3) “The Generation of 1914.” Robert Wohl. Harvard University Press, 1979.

About the Author

Max Wells is the creative director and publisher of the Wise Publishing Group. Max’s vision is to elevate the discourse around age and aging, by publishing writing that examines the important things that are not discussed as we age, in ways that people like to read.