A bit of meta-commentary on Strauss-Howe generational cycles. It's the Myers-Briggs of American sociology. If you take it too seriously, it becomes indistinguishable from astrology. If you wink at it out of the corner of your eye as a narrative cue/scaffolding it becomes useful
Conversation
Key things I've noticed in using it is that the generational "character" is something like an epigenetic programming phrase driven by strong external events with potential to leave a permanent emotional imprint on under 25 minds.
1
1
8
The stressors do affect older generations, but it's more consciously processed and shallower. For example, I do have both millennial "premium mediocre" and Z-ish domestic cozy conditioning, but they're shallow top layers. My primary personality was shaped by 80s, not 90s or 00's
1
4
But it's important NOT to take actual personality during conditioning phase too seriously, because it also happens to be the most dramatic, hormonally charged biological life stage. The generational personality is locked in by adolescent hormones, but isn't revealed till later
2
5
This explanatory theory/hypothesis also tells you what part of Strauss-Howe to reject. The 4-stage repeating cycle for example, is kinda in historical cycle territory and much more dubious than the weaker idea that there are generational archetypes
1
5
Classic Strauss-Howe is an 80-year/4 generation repeating cycle. It does not account for history speeding up or there being more or less eventful times in history leading to more sharply/softly defined characters. History also determines the strength of any "rhyming"
1
5
For example, by the "rhyming" hypothesis, Millennials should be like the Greatest Generation (war+institution building). That's been a pretty weak rhyme. We X'ers should be like Lost Generation, again weak. Z's should be like Silents (Organization Man), again a weak rhyme
1
3
My suggestion, if you like Strauss-Howe, is to take the micro somewhat seriously, the macro less seriously, and pay a lot more attention to actual historical conditioning and non-rhyming bits of it.
Replying to
If you're actually interested in long-term historical cycles, maybe look to things like Carlota Perez technological revolutions cycle theory. Or maybe Peter Turchin (not quite as solid). I'm shaky on economic cycles, but I think Kondratriev is somewhat okay, Elliot Wave is not.
7
