Wednesday, June 17, 2009
In one of your comments yesterday, the impact of previous generations on the current and future generations was mentioned. On pages 24-25, Ryan mentions something related to this from The Fourth Turning by Strauss and Howe. They suggest that all cultures go though a four-era loop that includes periods of "high, awakening, unraveling, and crisis." Some are saying that the current demise of our financial institutions is the "crisis" that will most impact the millennials (born 1982-2001). Do you agree? Has this changed how you see the world? Should we consider this as we design lessons for our students? Do you have any first-hand knowledge of its impact on this generation?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with the concept of the four-era loop and also agree that we are living the crisis and moving toward the high. You can see the impact of the world of today as people in our community and communities around the country turn to one another instead of on one another to deal with the problems of today. The need to restructure and strengthen institutions is brought into our homes with the daily news. We should consider these changes as we design lessons, but we should also stay flexible to allow room for changes we can't predict.
ReplyDeleteInteresting. Rabbinical literature describes the situation of the Hebrew people as one of Sin, Oppression, Repentance, and Deliverance only to lead to the cycle again.
ReplyDeleteI would liken the demise of the financial institutions more in the unraveling phase than a crisis. Most economist view money as an indicator rather than absolute. If this is true, then financial collapse indicates something deeper in the future. Although "experts" are claiming a turn around in the economy, perhaps by mid 2010, we may not have experienced the worst of what could occur. The USA still does not relate to the situations of the majority of people in the world.
I wonder if it would be more accurate to describe the "four-era loop" as a spiral of small occurrences of highs, awakenings, unravellings, and crises that compound as time passes. In other words, we never fully recover from the prior loop. As we discussed yesterday, every generation blames the previous one(s) for their problems. What do you think? - a loop or spiral?
I think it is a matter of professional responsibility to include these cyclical patterns as lesson components when applicable. Social Studies standards allude to this in that we are to focus on what led to current situations in the world rather than teach history for the sake of history.
Any time there is a financial "crisis" it is the children who suffer, and yet because they don't fully understand everything, they are somehow shielded from some of the despair adults feel. Our students know things are not good, but for some it is still better than their previous life situation. The resiliency of young people is refreshing.
Ric,
ReplyDeleteI did check the Strauss and Howe book Ryan referred to regarding the generational cycles. They confirm the Jewish/Biblical reference you made. It is Prophet/Moses, Nomad/Golden Calf, Hero/Joshua, and Artist/Judges. “Among ancient societies, this cycle of four archetypes emerged whenever a Crisis produced a Hero generation or whenever an Awakening produced a Prophet generation.”
Additionally, my understanding is that western thought is linear with no repeats and eastern thought is cyclical with no direction. It makes sense to me that it is both which supports your “loop” observation.
However, none of this is to say our futures are totally pre-determined. Understanding the generations helps us understand more about ourselves and identify threats/opportunities and strengths/weaknesses. I am convinced that actions/in-actions we take today determines our future.
Dr. Hawkins,
ReplyDeleteYou may also want to consider cyclical with a direction.
I agree that futures are not totally pre-determined, however, we might save that for the next discussion in The Element. :-)
I'm not sure that "understanding the generations" helps us identify "threats/opportunities and strengths/weaknesses" as much as the inverse. If younger generations get their labels from their reaction to the generation that came before them (either as rebellion to the values or as a result of prior actions), then their collective response is what provides the psychologists/media with the label used to describe them. It's the "does man make history or does history make the man" argument. So that debate will continue through the ages, I think.
However, I am in full agreement that "action/in-action" does determine one's future (singularly and collectively). I would go so far as to say that in-activity has determined the future of most things. We react to situations more than create our situations. Again the history making man (reactive) vs. man making history (pre-active or proactive for the Stephen Covey fans) debate.
Thanks for the conversation.