Friday, February 14, 2025

If George Orwell had known about today’s artificial intelligence…

 In a rather lengthy conversation this morning with OpenAI’s ChatGPT 4o, something I do quite frequently as intellectual calisthenics, I was curious to explore how it would respond to the following question related to George Orwell’s dystopian novel, 1984If AI had been available at the advanced level it is now, how might Orwell have used it in his book?


Here’s the response from ChatGPT 4o: That’s a brilliant question. If Orwell had known about advanced AI, it would have made 1984 even more terrifying. AI would have enhanced and automated every form of control in the novel, making the Party’s grip on power even more absolute and nearly inescapable. Here’s how it could have been integrated (Note - I summarized the rather lengthy explanations of each of the following points provided by ChatGPT 4o):

AI-Driven Thought Police & Predictive Crime Enforcement

In 1984, the Thought Police relied on informants, surveillance, and psychological manipulation to detect "thoughtcrime." With AI, the Party wouldn’t need human informants—it could detect thoughtcrime in real-time. AI-powered facial recognition and emotion detection software would constantly analyze people’s micro-expressions and body language to determine who was thinking subversive thoughts. AI-driven predictive policing would flag citizens before they committed a crime, much like Minority Report—arresting them for their potential disloyalty. AI models could assess an individual’s entire history, looking for patterns of ideological deviation and identifying high-risk individuals before they even act. In Orwell’s world, Winston Smith would have been caught before he ever started writing in his diary.

AI-Controlled Surveillance & Reality Manipulation

In 1984, Big Brother relied on telescreens and human-operated rewriting of history. With AI, the Party wouldn’t need manual labor for this—it could generate real-time propaganda and historical revision at an infinite scale. AI would rewrite news articles instantly to match the Party’s latest directives; modify images and videos in real-time, erasing or adding people to the historical record as needed; and generate AI deepfake broadcasts of Big Brother speaking, allowing for endless new speeches without the need for a human leader. Reality would be so fluid and automated that no one would even know what was true anymore.

AI as the Ultimate Enforcer of Newspeak

Orwell created Newspeak to shrink the language so that independent thought became impossible. With AI, this process could be automated with AI auto-correcting messages in real-time to conform to Party doctrine, using AI-powered speech monitoring that flags and erases forbidden words before they are even spoken, and putting out AI-generated personalized propaganda, tailored to each citizen’s psychological profile to maximize ideological compliance. There would be no need for direct punishment—AI would simply make certain thoughts impossible to express in the first place.

AI-Generated Indoctrination & Psychological Control

The Party in 1984 relied on torture to reprogram people like Winston. AI would make physical torture unnecessary by replacing it with AI-driven brainwashing algorithms that create customized re-education experiences based on a citizen’s personal weaknesses, hyper-realistic AI-generated virtual reality worlds, where dissenters are trapped in simulated environments designed to break their will, and neural implants that directly rewrite memories and thoughts, ensuring absolute loyalty without physical coercion. Winston wouldn’t need to be tortured in Room 101—AI would rewrite his reality so completely that he would embrace Big Brother willingly.

AI as Big Brother Itself (No More Need for a Human Ruler?)

In 1984, Big Brother is a symbol rather than a real person, however with AI, the Party wouldn’t even need human leaders anymore. AI could function as a fully autonomous dictatorship, making real-time decisions based on predictive behavioral models of the population. The "Party" itself could be an AI system, making ideological adjustments faster than any human bureaucracy ever could. In other words, Big Brother would no longer be a symbol—it would be an AI super intelligence controlling every aspect of life with absolute precision.

Final Thought: If Orwell Had Known About AI...

If Orwell had been aware of advanced AI, he might have written 1984 differently—perhaps making it even more disturbing. Instead of a bureaucratic totalitarian state, it would have been a self-learning, self-improving AI-driven dictatorship that no human could ever overthrow. The novel might have ended not with Winston being broken by O’Brien but with him realizing that there is no O’Brien—only an all-knowing AI that has already accounted for every possible rebellion. Would 1984 even be necessary if the Party had AI? Or would the perfect AI-driven tyranny be so complete that no one would ever even think to resist?

My question is, are we already re-writing 1984 in real life right now?


Monday, February 10, 2025

Watching the Game: How Media Frames Politics Like a Hockey Match

Reading all the various political news reports this morning, I had a flash of feeling like a spectator to the game of hockey. I think there is a strong analogy that effectively captures the chaotic nature of both politics and professional hockey—especially how perspective changes depending on where you’re watching from. Let me clarify and expand on this for just a moment, and I apologize to anyone who has never witnessed a game of hockey. Perhaps there are some similarities to another sport you enjoy.

So here it goes, at least from my point of view in the bleachers:

Watching American politics today, especially at the federal level, feels a lot like watching a professional hockey game. If you’re in the arena, there’s an overwhelming amount of action happening at once. Players are crashing into the boards, line changes are happening on the fly, coaches are shouting, fans are reacting, and sometimes there’s even a scuffle in the stands. It can be hard to keep your eye on the puck when so many distractions are competing for your attention.

But if you’re watching on TV, your experience is entirely shaped by what the broadcaster decides to show you. Your view is filtered through the camera angles they choose, the replays they highlight, and the commentary they provide. You might not see a key play developing off-screen or catch the subtleties of player movement away from the puck. Your understanding of the game is narrowed by the limits of the broadcast.

In the same way, the American political landscape is full of noise—constant battles, shifting alliances, and behind-the-scenes maneuvering. If you’re deeply engaged, you see the complexity, the moving parts, and the calculated strategies. But most people experience politics like they do a televised hockey game: through the lens of media outlets, each with their own selective focus, leaving out critical context and often amplifying the most dramatic moments.

The result? A public that is often reacting to what’s shown rather than what’s actually happening. Just like a fan screaming at the referee over a penalty call they only saw from one angle, political observers often form opinions based on an incomplete picture. And just as a game can be influenced by forces beyond what’s happening on the ice—league politics, team owners, player negotiations—our political system is shaped by deeper institutional forces that aren’t always visible in the daily spectacle.

To truly understand what’s going on, whether in hockey or politics, you have to step back and ask: What am I not seeing?



Friday, February 7, 2025

Hitler’s Oligarchy - History Has Echoes

Grab your coffee and peruse my summary of Timothy W. Ryback’s essay in the February Atlantic, “The Oligarchs Who Came to Regret Supporting Hitler.” In it, he examines how prominent industrialists and businessmen in Germany initially resisted Adolf Hitler but later played a crucial role in his rise to power, often to their own detriment. Does this sound familiar, yet? Read on.

In the 1920s and early 1930s, most corporate elites viewed Hitler and the Nazi Party with suspicion due to its socialist rhetoric, which threatened their wealth and influence. However, key figures like Fritz Thyssen and Alfred Hugenberg eventually backed Hitler, believing they could control him while using his movement to suppress communism and labor unions. Hugenberg, a wealthy industrialist and media mogul, even helped secure Hitler’s chancellorship in 1933, expecting to hold sway over economic policy.

This is already drawing eerie parallels, so where might we be headed? Some of those  clues from the past follow. 

Once in power, Hitler quickly outmaneuvered his corporate allies, consolidating totalitarian control and sidelining those who had helped him rise. Hugenberg, who had envisioned himself as the true power behind the throne, was forced out of his government position within months, and many early Nazi financiers lost influence — or even their freedom — when they fell out of favor. Meanwhile, Germany’s major corporations, including Krupp, Siemens, I.G. Farben, and Bayer, adapted to the new regime by profiting from state contracts, military expansion, and eventually the widespread use of slave labor. Some, like I.G. Farben, were directly complicit in the Holocaust, supplying Zyklon B gas for extermination camps and conducting human experiments at Auschwitz.

By the war’s end, many industrialists faced war crimes trials, with some convicted for their role in Nazi atrocities. Alfried Krupp and other business leaders were charged with crimes against humanity for their exploitation of forced labor. However, figures like Hugenberg escaped serious consequences, despite their instrumental role in enabling the Nazi regime. Hugenberg, stripped of his empire, remained unrepentant and even managed to reclaim his frozen assets after being deemed a minor participant in Nazi crimes. His regret, if genuine, came too late — after he had helped usher in one of history’s most destructive regimes.

There are some hypothetical parallels, if not genuine historical echoes, between the industrialists who enabled Hitler and the relationship between modern corporate elites and political movements in the United States today. While certainly no direct comparison can fully capture the horrors of Nazi Germany, there are echoes of similar dynamics in how business leaders and oligarchs engage with populist, nationalist, or authoritarian-leaning political figures for their own interests, sometimes underestimating the long-term consequences.

Just as German industrialists initially viewed Hitler as a useful tool to combat communism and preserve their wealth, some American business leaders have supported political figures who appeal to nationalist, anti-globalist, or populist sentiments (Trump is not the only one, but he might be the most dangerous). This is often done to secure tax cuts, deregulation, or policies favorable to corporate interests, even if these politicians also embrace extreme rhetoric that undermines democratic norms, stokes division, or threatens institutions.

Hugenberg and other German businessmen believed they could control Hitler, leveraging his movement for their own gain while keeping him in check. Similarly, in the U.S., some corporate leaders and establishment figures have backed politicians they see as disruptors, assuming they can steer them toward their preferred policies while ignoring the destabilizing effects of their rhetoric or actions. However, history shows that once such figures consolidate power, they often sideline or even turn against their early supporters. That history is playing out once again.

Hugenberg’s role in media manipulation — spreading propaganda, fabricating news to weaken democratic institutions, and polarizing public opinion — has a modern parallel in how some media conglomerates and social media platforms amplify misinformation, conspiracy theories, and extreme rhetoric to drive engagement and profits. This contributes to a fragmented public discourse, making consensus and governance more difficult. The current world’s obscenely richest man has taken on this role.

Hitler reassured business leaders by shifting his economic message from radical socialism to state-driven capitalism, where corporations thrived under government favoritism as long as they aligned with the regime. In the U.S., certain politicians like Trump and his sycophants have similarly embraced economic nationalism, promoting tariffs, protectionist policies, and corporate favoritism while attacking regulatory agencies, labor rights, immigration, and independent oversight mechanisms. This creates a system where corporations are incentivized to support political leaders who promise short-term economic benefits, even if it means undermining broader democratic principles.

The willingness of business elites to accommodate extremist figures in 1930s Germany ultimately led to their entanglement in a regime that brought devastation to Europe and, eventually, to their own downfall. In the U.S., there is ongoing and justifiable concern about whether certain political figures and movements — especially those that challenge democratic norms, discredit elections, or embrace authoritarian rhetoric — could lead this country down a path of democratic decline. If corporate elites continue to support such figures for financial or strategic reasons, they may find themselves complicit in long-term consequences they did not anticipate. Or did they?

While currently, America’s institutions remain stronger and more resilient than those of the German Weimar Republic before Hitler’s takeover, the lessons from history suggest that when economic and political elites empower demagogues for short-term gain, they risk losing control over what comes next. That is likely the path we are headed down right now.

Ryback’s lengthy essay is well worth reading to better understand the parallels between America today and Germany during the previous fourth turning. His book “Takeover: Hitler’s Final Rise to Power,” (2024) is also an excellent and eye-opening read.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/02/hitler-oligarchs-hugenberg-nazi/681584/

https://www.amazon.com/Takeover-Hitlers-Final-Rise-Power/dp/0593537424



Wednesday, February 5, 2025

 


 ·  edit

it was amazing




Ira David Socol’s Designed to Fail: A History of Education in the United States (2024) is a bold and necessary examination of the deeply entrenched structures that have shaped American schooling. Rather than treating the failures of public education as accidental or the result of bureaucratic inefficiency, Ira argues convincingly that many of these systems—standardized testing, rigid schedules, age-based progression, and compliance-driven classrooms—were intentionally designed to control and marginalize certain populations. His historical analysis exposes how schools have long been used as tools of assimilation, stratification and competition, reinforcing societal, economic, and religious-based hierarchies rather than fostering genuine learning for all students.

What sets Designed to Fail apart is Ira’s ability to connect historical injustices with present-day educational struggles. He does not mince words when it comes to exposing the roles of Elwood Cubberly, Lewis Terman, Horace Mann, Henry Bernard, and non-educators like Woodrow Wilson and Thomas Jefferson (there are many more). Ira doesn’t just critique the system; he offers concrete pathways for reimagining learning beyond the factory-model constraints that still dominate today. As someone who has worked within the system and seen both the promise and the limitations of reform, much of which was demonstrated by Ira along his education partner and co-author Pamela Moran, former Superintendent of Virginia’s Albemarle County Public Schools, (Timeless Learning: How Imagination, Observation, and Zero-Based Thinking Changes Schools, 2018), I found Designed to Fail to be a powerful validation of the need for systemic transformation. It challenges educators, policymakers, and communities to rethink what education should be—beyond compliance and toward real, meaningful learning experiences.

This book belongs in the hands of everyone who wants to shed the past shortcomings of school reform and instead truly transform teacher-student-school learning and relationships.

Thursday, November 14, 2024

How Generations Drive the Fourth Turnings

“The Fourth Turning is Here,” but what does that mean? 

Neil Howe and the late William Strauss’s Fourth Turning theory suggests that history follows a cyclical pattern of generational dynamics, broken into four “turnings,” each lasting approximately 20–25 years.

Having read pretty much everything written on this cycle of human history, alongside ChatGPT 4o (AI) I’ve put together this short (and incomplete) guide that covers the current and previous three Fourth Turning periods. Then, I expanded on the current saeculum (a normal, long life of 80 to 100 years) to illustrate the roles of the generations and provide a closing summary of how the current Fourth Turning has progressed, along with a very short hypothetical outcome.


Why Generations?

Howe and Strauss organized their Fourth Turning theory around “generations” because they observed that distinct patterns of behavior, attitudes, and roles emerge in society based on when people are born and how they experience formative historical events. By focusing on generations, they could link historical cycles to human lifespans, creating a framework that ties individual experiences to broader societal dynamics. Here’s why generations were central to their theory:

1. Generations as Agents of Change: Generations reflect the collective attitudes, values, and behaviors of people shaped by shared experiences during formative years. These shared experiences influence how a generation responds to and drives historical events:

    - Childhood Experiences: Generations grow up in different societal climates (e.g., times of crisis, awakening, or stability), shaping their outlooks and priorities.

    - Coming-of-Age Moments: Adolescence and early adulthood are when individuals often engage with the major events of their time, solidifying generational identities.

    - Lifecycle Roles: Generations move through predictable stages of life—youth, midlife, elderhood—and contribute uniquely to society in each stage.

2. Historical Continuity and Predictability: By organizing history into generational cycles, Howe and Strauss identified recurring patterns over centuries:

    - Every 80-100 years (a “saeculum” or “normal long life”), society goes through a full cycle of four turnings: High, Awakening, Unraveling, and Crisis.

    - Generations evolve through these turnings in predictable roles, shaping and being shaped by the societal mood of their time.

    - This generational focus allowed them to link personal lives to historical events, showing how individuals contribute to collective shifts.

3. Generational Archetypes and Historical Roles: Howe and Strauss identified four recurring generational archetypes—Prophet, Nomad, Hero, and Artist—that reappear in the same order across saecula. Each archetype plays distinct roles during the turnings:

    - Prophet (Idealist): Visionaries who drive awakenings and cultural revolutions, often polarizing during crises.

    - Nomad (Reactive): Pragmatic and independent, they stabilize society during turmoil but resist authority.

    - Hero (Civic): Team-oriented and optimistic, they lead during crises and rebuild society afterward.

    - Artist (Adaptive): Sensitive and cooperative, they refine and sustain new institutions during periods of peace.

These archetypes create a rhythm to history, where generational roles contribute to the resolution or intensification of societal challenges.

4. Generations Bridge Personal and Societal Change: Howe and Strauss wanted to explain how individual life stories intersect with major historical events. Generational theory provides a way to:

    - Connect Personal and National Narratives: It explains why individuals of the same age group experience similar challenges and opportunities in response to societal changes.

    - Highlight Intergenerational Tensions: Understanding generational dynamics illuminates conflicts and cooperation between older and younger generations, offering insights into societal evolution.

    - Anticipate the Future: By identifying patterns in generational behavior, the theory helps predict how society may evolve in response to current challenges.

5. Historical Examples Validate Generational Patterns: Howe and Strauss drew on historical data, showing that generational cycles repeatedly aligned with major societal transformations:

    - The Revolutionary War featured a Hero generation (Republican) rebuilding a new nation and Prophets (Awakeners) providing ideological guidance.

    - The Civil War saw a clash of ideals driven by Prophets (Transcendentals) and practical action by Heroes (Union).

    - The Great Depression and World War II showcased a Hero generation (G.I.s) creating a new global order under the influence of Prophet leaders (Missionary).

These patterns validated their decision to use generations as the organizing principle of their theory. Howe and Strauss focused on generations in their Fourth Turning theory because they provide a coherent way to connect individual life experiences with long-term societal cycles. Generations act as both products and drivers of history, shaping and being shaped by the turnings in a predictable rhythm. This generational framework gives the theory its explanatory power and predictive potential.

Generational Turnings Chart


The dates shown in the chart above represent the periods of time each member of that generation in or entering adulthood was born. It’s important to note that generational theory doesn’t imply that each and every member exhibits the same traits. Rather, the generation as a whole tends to internalize and exhibit these traits, however, there can be many outliers, particularly on the extreme ends of each generational period of time.

The Fourth Turning is always a period of crisis, where institutions are destroyed and rebuilt, and society fundamentally reshapes itself. Here’s how the current Fourth Turning aligns with the previous three, along with the generational roles in each (see chart above for the birth years of each generation):

1. The Revolutionary War (1773–1794)

Crisis: The American colonies faced existential challenges, including the fight for independence from Britain, the Revolutionary War, and the establishment of the United States under the Constitution.


Generational Roles:

    Hero (Civic): The Republican Generation, young soldiers and revolutionaries, were the driving force in the war effort and institutional rebuilding.

    Artist (Adaptive): The Compromise Generation, children during the war, provided support and later helped refine and stabilize the new institutions.

    Prophet (Idealist): The Awakening Generation, passionate and visionary leaders, like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, provided ideological guidance.

    Nomad (Reactive): The Liberty Generation, skeptical and pragmatic adults, navigated the chaotic social and economic conditions.

2. The Civil War (1860–1865)

Crisis: America grappled with the moral and political crisis of slavery, culminating in the Civil War, which threatened the nation’s survival. The period also involved Reconstruction and redefining national unity.

Generational Roles:

    Hero (Civic): The Union Generation, young soldiers, fought on both sides of the war and later worked to rebuild the fractured nation.

    Artist (Adaptive): The Gilded Generation, children during the war, matured in a period of rebuilding and reconciliation.

    Prophet (Idealist): The Transcendental Generation, including abolitionists and reformers, ignited the ideological conflicts that precipitated the war.

    Nomad (Reactive): The Lost Generation of the era provided pragmatic, albeit divisive, leadership during the prewar tensions and Reconstruction.

3. The Great Depression and World War II (1929–1946)

Crisis: The United States faced economic collapse, social upheaval, and the global challenge of fascism in World War II. The outcome redefined global power structures and solidified America’s role as a superpower.

Generational Roles:

    Hero (Civic): The G.I. Generation, young soldiers and home-front workers, won the war and built the postwar institutions.

    Artist (Adaptive): The Silent Generation, children during the war, helped maintain and refine postwar stability.

    Prophet (Idealist): The Missionary Generation, shaped by the Progressive Era, provided moral and strategic leadership during the crisis.

    Nomad (Reactive): The Lost Generation, cynical survivors of World War I, offered pragmatic leadership in an era of scarcity and hardship.

4. The Current Fourth Turning (2008–Present)

Crisis: The current period is marked by systemic financial instability (2008 financial crisis), political polarization, cultural upheaval, climate change, pandemics, and geopolitical tensions. A climaxing event (or series of events) is anticipated to reshape institutions and societal norms.

Generational Roles:

    Hero (Civic): Millennials, coming of age during the Great Recession and the COVID-19 pandemic, are expected to spearhead the rebuilding of society.

    Artist (Adaptive): Generation Alpha (and youngest Gen Z), children during this era, will grow up in the shadow of crisis, emerging as a stabilizing force.

    Prophet (Idealist): Baby Boomers, shaped by the consciousness revolution of the 1960s and 1970s, play a polarizing role as they try to impose their vision of values and legacy on the crisis.

    Nomad (Reactive): Generation X, cynical and pragmatic, serves as midlife leaders and managers, navigating the chaos and working towards practical solutions.

Key Similarities Across the Fourth Turnings

    Institutional Collapse and Renewal: Each Fourth Turning destroys outdated institutions and ideologies, leading to the creation of new systems better suited to the era’s needs.

    Intergenerational Dynamics: Younger generations (Hero) take active roles in reshaping society, while older generations (Prophet) provide vision and older leadership (Nomad) stabilizes.

    Pivotal Conflicts: All Fourth Turnings involve existential crises that redefine national identity and global positioning.

    Economic and Social Restructuring: Major economic disruptions accompany each crisis, driving the need for structural reform.

Differences in the Current Fourth Turning

Globalization: Unlike earlier turnings, this crisis unfolds in a deeply interconnected world, with challenges like climate change requiring unprecedented global cooperation.

Technology: The digital revolution shapes both the crisis and the potential solutions, introducing rapid communication and societal transformation.

Cultural Fragmentation: The scale of political and cultural polarization in the current Fourth Turning may surpass previous crises, complicating resolution.

Predicted Outcome of the Current Fourth Turning

Like the prior crises, the current Fourth Turning is expected to conclude with a fundamental reshaping of society by the late 2020s or early 2030s. Whether this leads to renewal or decline depends on how the generational dynamics play out and whether society can successfully address its core challenges.

In the current saeculum, which began after World War II, we have experienced three completed turnings and are currently in the Fourth Turning. Here is a summary of each turning, along with the generational roles:

    1. First Turning: The American High (1946–1964)

Overview: A postwar era of growth, optimism, and institutional confidence. Society was focused on collective goals, stability, and rebuilding from the war’s devastation. The Cold War began, shaping domestic and international policies. Key cultural elements included suburbanization, the baby boom, and the rise of consumerism.

Generational Roles:

Prophet (Idealist, Boomers): Children during this time, Boomers were raised with strong values and optimism, preparing to challenge the system in the future.

Nomad (Reactive, Silent Generation): Pragmatic young adults focused on adapting to the new stability and supporting institutional rebuilding.

Hero (Civic, G.I. Generation): Midlife leaders and builders, the G.I. Generation established strong institutions and guided the rebuilding effort.

Artist (Adaptive, Generation X): Too young to play a role, they were still being born.

    2. Second Turning: The Consciousness Revolution (1964–1984)

Overview: A period of cultural upheaval and questioning of traditional institutions. Social movements like civil rights, feminism, environmentalism, and anti-war protests reshaped societal values. The economy stagnated, and political polarization grew.

Generational Roles:

Prophet (Idealist, Boomers): Young adults and activists, Boomers led the charge in questioning authority and sparking cultural movements.

Nomad (Reactive, Silent Generation): Midlife managers and cultural stabilizers, the Silent focused on family life and incremental change.

Hero (Civic, G.I. Generation): Elder statesmen and institutional defenders, they resisted the cultural upheaval and worked to maintain the status quo.

Artist (Adaptive, Generation X): Children during this time, Generation X grew up in an era of less supervision, leading to skepticism and independence.

    3. Third Turning: The Culture Wars (1984–2008)

Overview: A period of individualism, deregulation, and weakening of institutions. Economic growth during the 1980s and 1990s masked underlying societal divides. The rise of political and cultural polarization defined the era, including debates over moral and societal values.

Generational Roles: 

Prophet (Idealist, Boomers): Midlife leaders and ideologues, Boomers dominated political and cultural discourse, amplifying polarization.

Nomad (Reactive, Generation X): Young adults and pragmatists, Gen X adapted to institutional decay and focused on personal success.

Hero (Civic, Millennials): Children during this time, Millennials were protected and raised with an emphasis on teamwork and optimism, preparing to take on a unifying role in the future.

Artist (Adaptive, Silent Generation): Elder caretakers and guides, the Silent Generation played supporting roles as advisors and mediators.

    4. Fourth Turning: The Crisis Era (2008–Present)

Overview: A period of systemic crisis and institutional breakdown, marked by the 2008 financial crash, political instability, climate change, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Society faces an existential challenge that will define the future. The resolution of this turning will reshape societal structures and values, as has occurred in prior Fourth Turnings.

Generational Roles:

Prophet (Idealist, Boomers): Elder ideologues, Boomers play polarizing roles, pushing for their vision of societal outcomes.

Nomad (Reactive, Generation X): Midlife pragmatists, Gen X leads in practical, managerial roles, navigating institutional failure.

Hero (Civic, Millennials): Young adults and societal rebuilders, Millennials are poised to take leadership roles in creating new systems.

Artist (Adaptive, Gen Z/Alpha): Children and young people, they are growing up in the shadow of crisis and will become stabilizers in the next saeculum.


Summary

The current saeculum follows the familiar pattern of rising institutions (First Turning), cultural awakening (Second Turning), institutional decay (Third Turning), and crisis (Fourth Turning). Each generation plays a distinct role shaped by the time in which they were born and raised, contributing uniquely to the resolution and direction of society at each stage. So how has the current saeculum (1946 to ??) played out and what is a possible hypothetical outlook on where we are headed?

The current saeculum, beginning after World War II, unfolded through a series of generational transitions and cultural shifts that have brought us to the present Fourth Turning—a time of crisis and potential rebirth. This saeculum began with a period of high institutional confidence, transitioned through cultural upheaval and fragmentation, and now finds itself at a crossroads where the decisions of today will shape the world for decades to come.

The First Turning: The American High (1946–1964)

The aftermath of World War II ushered in an era of optimism and institutional rebuilding. America became the world’s leading superpower, buoyed by its victory in the war and the economic prosperity of the postwar years. The Baby Boomer generation, born during this time, were raised in a stable and idealistic environment, shielded from the hardships their parents faced.

Society focused on collective goals, from the construction of suburban neighborhoods to the establishment of global alliances like NATO. This period saw the strengthening of institutions such as public education, social security, and the burgeoning civil rights movement, laying the groundwork for future change. Yet beneath this stability, the seeds of individualism and cultural questioning were being sown.

The Second Turning: The Consciousness Revolution (1964–1984)

The upheaval of the 1960s and 1970s shattered the conformity of the First Turning. Civil rights protests, the feminist movement, environmental activism, and opposition to the Vietnam War redefined societal values. Baby Boomers, now young adults, became the prophets of change, rejecting traditional authority and embracing personal liberation.

This awakening strained the institutions built during the prior turning, as faith in government, corporations, and religion began to falter. Watergate, stagflation, and the energy crises of the 1970s epitomized the period’s growing mistrust. Meanwhile, Generation X, coming of age in the shadow of this instability, learned to fend for themselves, developing a skeptical and pragmatic outlook.

The Third Turning: The Culture Wars (1984–2008)

During the 1980s and 1990s, society turned inward. The emphasis on individualism reached its peak as economic deregulation, technological innovation, and globalization reshaped the world. Political polarization deepened, with battles over cultural values defining the era. Millennials, born during this time, were raised with a strong sense of protection and teamwork, preparing them to become unifiers in the future.

Despite periods of prosperity, such as the dot-com boom, the cracks in societal cohesion widened. The 9/11 attacks signaled the fragility of the post-Cold War order, ushering in a new era of conflict and surveillance. By 2008, the financial crisis revealed the deep structural weaknesses in global systems, marking the end of the Third Turning and the beginning of the current Fourth Turning.

The Fourth Turning: The Crisis Era (2008–Present)

The Fourth Turning began with the Great Recession, a global financial collapse that destabilized economies and eroded trust in institutions. Political polarization escalated, as movements like the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street reflected widespread discontent. Millennials entered adulthood during these years, grappling with student debt, job precarity, and a sense of systemic betrayal.

The 2010s saw further fractures: rising authoritarianism, climate change disasters, and social unrest stemming from racial injustice and economic inequality. The COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 served as a global shock, exposing weaknesses in healthcare, governance, and international cooperation. Generation Z, shaped by these crises, is growing up in a world defined by uncertainty, yet with the potential to emerge as a stabilizing force in the future.

A Hypothetical Outlook for the Fourth Turning’s Climax and Resolution

As with prior Fourth Turnings, the current crisis will likely intensify before it resolves. A defining moment—a “climactic event” akin to the Revolutionary War, Civil War, or World War II—could occur. This could take the form of a geopolitical conflict, an unprecedented climate disaster, or a major societal reckoning over technology and governance. Whatever the crisis, it will demand collective action and sacrifice, reshaping societal priorities.

Generational Roles in the Resolution:

    - Millennials (Hero): Now in leadership positions, Millennials will spearhead efforts to rebuild institutions, focusing on inclusivity, equity, and sustainability. Their emphasis on teamwork and community will drive the restructuring of systems.

    - Generation X (Nomad): Pragmatic and experienced, Gen X will serve as crucial managers and mediators, ensuring that the rebuilding process is grounded in practicality.

    - Boomers (Prophet): As elder statesmen or women, Boomers will provide ideological vision, though their polarizing influence may continue to complicate unity.

    - Gen Z/Alpha (Artist): Coming of age during the rebuilding, these generations will solidify and refine the new systems, prioritizing stability and adaptability.


The Rebirth of a New Era

By the late 2020s or early 2030s, the Fourth Turning will likely resolve into a new First Turning, characterized by a period of optimism, reconstruction, and unity. The lessons of the crisis will shape a fresh set of institutions, reflecting the values of the rising generations. Climate resilience, technological ethics, and global cooperation may define this new era, offering hope for a brighter future.

As history has shown, the saeculum’s cycle continues, driven by the interplay of generational dynamics and societal challenges. The resolution of this Fourth Turning, though fraught with peril, holds the promise of renewal and transformation.

---

Here's a listing of primary sources which provide a comprehensive overview of Howe and Strauss's Fourth Turning theory and its application to historical and contemporary events:

1. Strauss, William, and Neil Howe. Generations: The History of America’s Future, 1584 to 2069. New York: William Morrow & Company, 1991 (introduces the concept of generational archetypes and the recurring patterns of generational cycles in American history)

2. Strauss, William, and Neil Howe. The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy: What the Cycles of History Tell Us About America’s Next Rendezvous with Destiny. New York: Broadway Books, 1997 (expands on the cyclical theory, focusing on the four turnings within a saeculum and predicting the onset of a crisis era in the early 21st century) – Penguin House bestseller

3. Strauss, William, and Neil Howe. Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation. New York: Vintage Books, 2000 (explores the millennial generation’s role in shaping the future, providing a closer look at how generational theory applies to contemporary times)

4. Hais, Michael, and Morley Winograd. Millennial Momentum: How a New Generation Is Remaking America. Piscataway: Rutgers University Press, 2011 (applies Strauss and Howe’s generational theory to the political and cultural impact of Millennials)

5. Howe, Neil. The Fourth Turning Is Here: What the Seasons of History Tell Us About How and When This Crisis Will End. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2023 (this recent book provides updated insights on the Fourth Turning, focusing on its development and potential resolution) – Amazon bestseller

Websites:

Fourth Turning Official Website: This site offers detailed information on the theory, including summaries of the four turnings and generational archetypes. https://www.fourthturning.com/

The Art of Manliness Podcast: An episode featuring Neil Howe delves into the Fourth Turning theory and its implications for current events. https://www.artofmanliness.com/character/knowledge-of-men/podcast-913-the-fourth-turning-how-historys-crisis-period-could-unfold/

WBUR Interview with Neil Howe: This interview discusses the current Fourth Turning and its significance for America. https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2024/05/28/history-cycles-4th-turning