Strauss-Howe generational theory and the coming crisis

[Pointedstick]

Gumby's thread about the privacy-less corporatist future got me thinking of a really interesting article I read the other day, about the Strauss-Howe Generational Theory. This theory is not new, but it was new to me, and I found it thought-provoking.

In a nutshell, Strauss and Howe posit that societies move in cycles, with a cultural zenith eventually being rebelled against, leading to factionalism and  eventually a crisis, and then one side wins, defusing the crisis and creating a new cultural zenith. And each generation of people is affected by these cycles and the type of environment its members were raised in: for example, Strauss and Howe say that people who grew up overly indulged and sheltered during the cultural zenith will find it spiritually dead and overly conformist, and will rebel against it.

Strauss and Howe posit that American society has just undergone the third phase of their cycle: the unraveling period, where the prior cultural consensus has come apart due to the influence of the rebels--in this case, the baby boomers. Their rebellion gave us tolerance, multiculturalism, feminism, political correctness, and has fractured the culture.  As a result, society has split into warring factions. Strauss and Howe posit that American society has now reached the Crisis phase, where the flaws and disunity of the fractured order will eventually give way, and either one side will win and create a new socially-accepted order, or else society will be traumatically remade in a totally new order.

They claim that the generation X is going to lead the direction of this conflict, and millenials are going to be its footsoldiers and drive the direction of the new cultural order. It got me wondering: what will this conflict look like? If you ask me, the two models of society that have been jockeying for power are 1) an oligarchic corporatist hegemony and 2) a communism-lite.

Conservatives generally prefer the corporate hegemony, which throws out on the curb anyone who can't compete, and tilts the playing field in favor of entrenched players. Everyone's behavior is categorized and sold to marketers; advertisements bombard people constantly. Material satisfaction is high, but a sense of meaning is missing. Inequality, wealth concentration, opulence, decadence, automation, and the obsolescence of manual labor are features of this society.

Meanwhile, liberals prefer the communism-lite society, which is a stagnating one in which judgement of one thing as superior to another is frowned upon; everything is relative. As a result, diversity is a virtue, enforced by political correctness; the stigma against idleness vanishes; accumulations of wealth are punished. Everything is controlled by government, poorly; innovation ceases. Political correctness, multiculturalism, forced diversity, Obamacare, NSA spying, and hellish bureaucracy are features of this society.

Each side is absolutely sure that the other society would probably be the worst thing ever, and, in the right circumstances, would probably be willing to kill to prevent it. Thus, the crisis.

Does any of this make sense? And if so, where do you think we're going?

[Mdraf]

Very interesting although very depressing for a Friday 13th. I also believe that in addition to the above we are also witnessing the beginning of the end of the concept of the nation state

[Pointedstick]

I think there are more factions than this.

True, but I think the ones I listed are the major ones. The green, libertarian, and theocratic factions are too weak to be of much consequence.

My observation is that the elements of corporate hegemony is the dominant cultural norm today, accepted by the elites on both sides of the political spectrum (mainstream R's and D's).

I would tend to agree. I think it's because the corporate hegemony is actually a form of the prior order, when big corporations took care of their employees, with pensions, company health insurance, no outsourcing, company training, etc. The liberal faction is the one that's emerged in rebellion to it.

In any event, I think it's more likely that the corporate hegemony scenario will win in some form, if only because the communism-lite society is weak and depressing. Like real communism, it turns out that the people who wanted it eventually discover that they don't actually like it once they've got it. The most progressive states in the USA actually have net out-migration.

Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash depictes a world that I think is pretty close to where we're headed: the death of the nation state, the rise of corporate nation-like entities that set up what are essentially HOA franchises (imagine the Chinatowns in major cities were franchises of Chinatown inc.), and most people spend most of their time in a virtual world. Privacy doesn't exist, but leisure and pleasure technology are so amazing that nobody cares.

[MediumTex]

Their book is worth reading.  I enjoyed it a lot, though of course like any model that is used to predict the future it is not without flaws.

Something tells me that it is more "realm dependent" than it might appear at first--e.g., I'll bet that cavemen didn't see such generational cycles in their approach to hunting, gathering and painting on cave walls.

[KevinW]

Their theory makes sense; it sounds like a special case of the more general theory of ecological secondary succession ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_succession ). The idea is that there are never-ending cycles of
- chaotic unregulated opportunity (e.g. open field)
- adaptable, fast-moving, simple organisms move in (e.g. grass and insects)
- slower, more powerful, medium-size organisms edge them out (e.g. shrubs and rodents)
- even slower, more powerful, and huge organisms edge them out (e.g. tall trees and bears)
- huge organisms stop adapting and eventually fail catastrophically  (e.g. forest fire) and we're back to square one

You can see this in nature, and on long time scales with things like civilizations, medium time scales with things like corporations and electronic formats, and short time scales with fads, hip neighborhoods, and memes on the Internet.

***

Human beings are animals subject to this process and survival of the fittest. However humans seem to have a unique sense of empathy which makes us apply the survival-of-the-fittest urge to the species as a whole instead of individuals. Practically every human culture has the concept of heroic sacrifice and strong paternal/maternal instincts.

In the long run, human institutions seem to be effective in proportion to how well they mesh with the human urge to be competitive free individuals and also empathic to one another. Western civilization can be characterized as a succession pattern where a power structure is established, people get complacent and rebel against it, form a new power structure that offers a little more freedom and room for empathy, the new structure is more effective and outcompetes the old one, and then the cycle repeats. We've had

warring tribes
Roman Catholic church
constitutional monarchies
democratic nation states
transational corporations
(what's next?)

***

So to answer the OP question:

I agree with the premise that Gen X and millennials will accelerate the process of dismantling the Boomer-instigated power structure of a social democratic, crony capitalist, mixed economy. As a group the Boomers are using strongarm tactics to hold on to old power structures, and that never works in the long run. E.g. witness the huge gap between centrist party-line positions on Syria, Internet regulation, Social Security, energy policy, drug policy, gay rights, etc. vs public opinion of those under the age of 50.

And I also agree that the next order will probably be transnational corporations becoming the pre-eminent power structure and nation states withering away to second-class status, as depicted in cyberpunk literature.