Michael A. Alexander proposed a theory to explain two generational cycles in pre-industrial, agricultural societies, which I discussed in Pre-industrial Kondratiev Cycles.
In addition, Alexander links his theory to the kinds of generational changes that William Strauss and Neil Howe imagine. The result is a cycle that lasts 100 – 120 years in pre-industrial times (but less in modern times).
Strauss and Howe describe their ideas in their popular psychology book Generations 1. In that book, the authors claim history consists of generational stereotypes that swing among four, rather than two poles. As I have said before, I have various troubles with the notions, but they are interesting and may help us understand.
Alexander extends his two-generational theory to four by adopting a concept regarding human psychology that
Presume that, for whatever reason, `times are good'. In an agricultural, pre-industrial society, this a time of two or three decades during which harvests are abundant and new lands, such as nearby forests, are readily available for settlement.
During this generation, children will learn that much is possible. Moreover, they will expect material success but will not focus on it. Because times are good, they can afford to be individualistic. In stereotypical terms, as they grow into adulthood, they will be like the young people of the 1960s.
The younger generation grow up into a society with more people. This means more mouths to feed. Malnutrition looms. Alexander makes a key remark:
The same happened in the United States, except it was not a pre-industrial, agricultural society. The `good times' (as they were perceived stereotypically) of the 1950s and 1960s were replaced the stagflation of the 1970s. The 1960s `counter-cultural Movement' in the United States petered out, but the modern equivalents of spirituality, the Movement's `political correctness', environmentalism, and pacifism all remained.
Alexander then goes on to emphasize a point that Strauss and Howe argue is critical and always the case:
The next, second generation `find that the individualist bent of their parents does fit well with their self-reliant nature, and so they keep this aspect of their parents' generation peer personality', but `as a reaction against the under-protection of their own youth they reverse the parenting style that they themselves received.'
The subsequent, third generation respond to the over-protection of their youth by becoming well-behaved followers-of-orders. In their early youth, times continue bad — Malthusian checks require people to die.
Moreover, they and their leaders will not see that a spiritual response to worsening times is the way to succeed. That was tried before and failed. Instead, they will fight.
Also they will protect their children. Those children, the fourth generation, will bear children in new times, after a temporary end to the Malthusian crisis. These children will be similar to the first generation I described. This will learn that much is possible and while they will come to expect material success they will not focus on it.
Return to: Notions
Or return to: Rattlesnake Home Page