Strauss-Howe Generational Theory

[General Mung Beans]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss-Ho ... nal_theory

What do you make of this theory? Do you think it is at least possibly workable?

[Aldroud]

Makes for an interesting read.

[Thanas]

Not really. More of another one-size-fits all theory that is bound to fall apart once you look at the details.

[Simon_Jester]

The theory is predicated on the idea that national "Crises" occur like clockwork every eighty to ninety years, which is kind of ridiculous. Or at the very least, there's no logical reason for it to be true, so it can't be considered the "cause" of a pattern in generational psychology.

On top of that, different "Crises" demand very very different responses. If this theory cites a correspondence between people born in 1980 and people born in 1900 because both will be "Hero Generations" who have to deal with a "Great Crisis" in their middle age, then by the same logic we should expect people born in the 1940s (who went through a time of cultural awakening during young adulthood) to be like people born in the 1860s (who... didn't).

Basically, the problem is that the pattern they're asserting only exists in recognizable form for one cycle of the pattern. That's not enough to count. Any damn fool can look at "1 2 3 4" and say "oh, the next four numbers will be "1 2 3 4" because it's cyclic." That doesn't mean they're right; the numbers could equally well be "4 3 2 1" or "5 6 7 8" or "6 -9 12 -15" or whatever.

[thejester]

I haven't read it but I have [partly] read an interpretation on it - David Kaiser's American Tragedy, a treatment of the American slide into Vietnam. Kaiser uses the model by suggesting that the American decision to get involved into Vietnam was largely the work of the 'G.I. Generation', that it was the particular values of this generation - inevitably of American triumph etc - that got the US involved in Vietnam. That said his work doesn't really embrace the model beyond this; as an example he argues strongly that it was the Eisenhower, not Kennedy Administration, that set the stage for a serious US entanglement in Vietnam.

In the end I'm very sceptical of generational narratives, largely because as member of Generation Y I'm always learning how I'm actually a lazy, unmotivated consumer whose intellectual boundaries don't extend beyond my phone. I think the validity of Strauss-Howe in Kaiser's work basically doesn't extend beyond 'this group of policymakers had a collective experience [the Depression, WW2, postwar boom] that gave them certain shared values and beliefs and this influenced their decision making on Vietnam.' Hardly revolutionary stuff, and as a 'model' to explain the past it's limited to America and as a result doesn't exactly have a massive record to explain.