Russia

The Los Angeles Times has an article about the relationship between the Russian Orthodox Church and the secular rules of the country. The title -- "Russian Orthodox Church is in spiritual crisis, critics say" -- evokes the possibility of an Awakening beginning there, which might help solve the question some have about Russia's Saeculum: was the period from 1912 to 1945 one unusually long Crisis, or was it experiencing a different set of Turnings?

Besides that title, the indications of Russia's current turning include:

"Twenty years of democratic Russia" drawing the period since the fall of the USSR into a single box

Corruption - a strong sign of a First Turning - being openly discussed and opposed, specifically in terms of an expensive watch worn by the patriarch in an official photo - and then inexpertly erased. (An echo of Stalin there that suggests a unity between that 80-year-ago time and now.)

Indications of popular protest against the existing regimes, both secular and religious, with a group of young women "dancing" against the status quo.

Together, they suggest the imminent transition from a High to an Awakening. An obvious problem then is, when was their Crisis? It would have to have been from about 1970 to 1992. The peak would have started in the late 1980s, possibly as soon as Chernobyl. Which works, in its way, even if it's not the sort of Crisis we've seen in the United States. And it would indicate a previous Crisis around the time of the October Revolution. Further, this suggests that Stalin's regime was during the corresponding High. The Purges further support this view, as the search for enemies is a common post-Crisis occurrence, leading to witch hunts both literal (Salem, 1692) and metaphorical (McCarthy, 1950).

Howe

Neil Howe started a blog a while back. Good to get some up-to-date views on what he's doing. Or it was until he stopped abruptly late last year.

Fortunately enough, he started back up a few weeks ago. If you're looking at my blog, you should definitely be checking out his.

Summary

One of the tricky parts of the historical analysis that Strauss & Howe enabled is having a concise description of how it all works. Here's my attempt.


History can be seen as cyclical. One of the most obvious patterns is the ~90 year repeat of major conflicts - (... 1776, 1861, 1945... ) A less obvious but notable one is a similar repeat of spiritual upheaval that consistently happens halfway between these crisis periods (1740, 1820, 1896...) Starting from these, Strauss & Howe propose a theory of history as a two-step cycle, comprised of an ~80 year cycle called a Saeculum and a 20 year cycle called a Turning. There are four distinct Turnings in a Saeculum:

The First Turning, or High, follows a Crisis period. It celebrates (and attempts to perpetuate) the concerted effort that enabled victory - or at least survival. The most recent example in the U.S. was the post-World War II era.

The Second Turning, or Awakening, is a period of spiritual tumult as society rebels against the conformance of the High. These include the Great Awakening of the early 1700s and Protestant Reformation.

During the Third Turning, or Unraveling, the loss of social structures yields an abundance of individual freedom and innovation, albeit without a unified focus or interest in solving societal problems. The Roaring 20s and the 1990s "dot-com" era were part of Unravelings.

The Fourth Turning, or Crisis, is a period of secular upheaval as society attempts to fix problems that can no longer wait. It usually culminates in a war that defines the culture through the next Saeculum.

Driving and defining these cycles are the human participants that pass through them. A generation raised during a particular Turning has common experiences that will affect how they live the rest of their lives. The impact of Turnings results in generational archetypes that repeat with the Turnings.

The dangerous Crisis yields cautious Artists.

The static High brings forth rebellious Prophets.

The zealous Awakening spawns cynical Nomads.

The chaotic Unraveling raises united Heroes.

The archetypes active at a point in time then defines the Turning, resulting in these consistently recurring cycles. While exceptions occur (the best-known being the too-early American Civil War) these cycles have been traced back over the last 600 years of Anglo-American history, and have been identified in other modern cultures, as well as ancient civilizations like Rome and Greece.

Insight

I updated the blog description the other day. Being forced to be concise ("500 word limit") can yield useful insights. In this case it was about the nature of the Crisis as Strauss & Howe see it.

Their descriptions often point to a single huge event, and The Crisis Is That: The American Revolution, the Spanish Armada, the Civil War. This can lead to the impression that a Crisis is about a single Event. However, that is not only not the rule, it's really the exception.

The Crisis is a period of time during which culture-redefining changes happen. The changes may be primarily traced to a particular source, but that doesn't mean That is the real cause. Most of the time, the Crisis is a series of changes - some related, some not - implemented over the course of this two-decade-and-change period. They reveal a desire to fix pressing problems at hand. (Whether the problems are really THE most important ... well, it's not clear whether that is considered.) As one fix is implemented, another problem becomes evident. This reinforces the notion that Crises aren't thrust upon us, but are caused by the people at this point in history.

The American Revolution itself led to the organization of the Federal government - related problems. The Great Depression was followed by World War II - less related. And the Depression can be seen as separate periods where the resolution was handled in different ways: a few years under Hoover, an initial period of welcome change by FDR, a period in which change (such as "packing" the Supreme Court) was less welcome, and then the lead-in to the war.

Seeing reactions to Obama and his policies does suggest parallels to that period. Both he and those opposed to him initiate measures that they believe will resolve significant problems. They each may have larger goals they are pursuing, although those can easily be lost in the day-to-day tactical moves that all involved are making. We shouldn't expect to see a huge change, because we wouldn't necessarily recognize it as such. And one person's massive realignment is another's "What took you so long?" Even after the fact, tying together the different events is a matter of interpretation, not causation.