Brunswick on Nostr: The Four Turnings and the Inevitable Centralization of Power According to ...
The Four Turnings and the Inevitable Centralization of Power
According to Strauss-Howe Generational Theory, societies cycle through four phases, each lasting about 20 years, during which each generation plays a specific role in shaping political, cultural, and societal structures. These phases are:
1. The High (First Turning): A period of stability and optimism, often following a major crisis. Institutions are strong, and there is a collective sense of purpose. The generation coming of age during this time is typically conformist and institutionally minded.
2. The Awakening (Second Turning): This is a period of social upheaval and questioning of established institutions. Individualism flourishes, and personal freedom becomes a priority. The Prophet generation, born during the previous High, comes into adulthood, often leading this cultural revolution.
3. The Unraveling (Third Turning): Institutions are weak and distrusted, and society becomes fragmented. Individualism is at its peak, and the system begins to break down under its own weight. This is the prelude to a crisis.
4. The Crisis (Fourth Turning): A major upheaval reshapes the world order, often through war or economic collapse. The Hero generation comes of age during this crisis, providing leadership, stability, and the collective will to rebuild. New institutions arise from the ashes of the old order.
The Iron Law of Oligarchy: An Underlying Force Across Generations
The Iron Law of Oligarchy shows that, over time, power tends to centralize into the hands of a few, no matter how democratic or decentralized a society begins. This law suggests that, despite the best efforts of a generation to maintain distributed power, the practicalities of governance, leadership, and decision-making drive societies toward centralization.
Each of the four generational phases interacts with this tendency in different ways:
The High: In this phase, strong institutions create a sense of unity, but they also lay the groundwork for the centralization of power. The generation leading during this time trusts these institutions to maintain order and progress, inadvertently centralizing authority in a way that will be questioned in the next turning.
The Awakening: During the second turning, the Prophet generation challenges the centralized structures created in the previous High. There is a push toward decentralization and individualism, but this phase also leads to fragmentation. While the Iron Law of Oligarchy predicts centralization, the Awakening pushes back against this tendency, leading to a weakening of institutions.
The Unraveling: By the third turning, institutions are in decline, and central authority is heavily distrusted. Society fractures as individuals seek to reclaim personal power. However, this decentralization often leads to chaos, and the absence of strong institutions opens the door for future re-centralization in the face of a looming crisis.
The Crisis: In the fourth turning, as society faces existential threats, there is a need for strong, centralized leadership. The Hero generation, coming of age during this crisis, often turns toward a re-centralization of power as a means of survival and rebuilding. This turning reinforces the Iron Law of Oligarchy, as the crises demand the concentration of authority in a few capable leaders or institutions to ensure survival.
The Present Moment: Generation X, Millennials, and the Coming Crisis
Currently, we are in what Strauss and Howe would describe as the Fourth Turning, the Crisis phase. Generation X, which has been characterized as skeptical and pragmatic (the Nomad archetype), is now entering leadership roles, while Millennials (the Hero generation) are rising into their prime. Together, these generations are dealing with the aftermath of an era of decentralization and distrust in institutions—the Unraveling—and now face the immense challenges of climate change, political polarization, economic inequality, and global instability.
During this Crisis phase, there is an inevitable return to the centralization of power, as societies look for leaders who can restore order and solve these existential challenges. This process is entirely consistent with the Iron Law of Oligarchy—despite society's earlier attempts to decentralize and distribute power, the mounting crises demand strong leadership, which naturally concentrates authority in the hands of a few.
Lessons from the Past: The Seventeenth Amendment and the Patriot Act
To understand the current situation better, we can look at examples like the Seventeenth Amendment and the Patriot Act, which demonstrate how crises lead to centralization and how each generation's response shapes these shifts.
Seventeenth Amendment: Passed in 1913 during a period of political reform, the Seventeenth Amendment allowed for the direct election of U.S. Senators, transferring power from state legislatures to the broader electorate. This move, while increasing democratic participation, also centralized power within the federal government. The shift reflected a generational desire for more popular control during a time of societal change, but it also weakened the checks and balances between state and federal powers—further evidence of the Iron Law of Oligarchy in action.
Patriot Act: In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the Patriot Act was passed as an immediate response to a national crisis. Here, the legislative body ceded significant power to the executive branch, expanding surveillance and security measures. This centralization of power, while deemed necessary at the time, has since raised concerns about overreach and the erosion of civil liberties. It represents another instance of how crises lead to centralized authority, a process repeated throughout history.
The Current Generational Shift: Centralization During Crisis
As we enter deeper into the Fourth Turning, Generation X and Millennials are faced with the challenges of rebuilding a fractured system. According to Strauss-Howe theory, this period will end with a resolution to the crisis, which will usher in a new High and lay the foundation for the next cycle. However, the steps taken during this crisis phase will likely reinforce the Iron Law of Oligarchy, as new institutions arise with concentrated authority to manage the rebuilding.
The Millennials, who embody the Hero archetype, are often more collectivist and institutionally minded than their predecessors. This generation will likely push for stronger institutions, centralizing authority to resolve pressing global issues. Generation X, pragmatic and distrustful of institutions, will likely serve as the "managers" of this process, navigating the delicate balance between efficiency and overreach.
As this crisis unfolds, we are likely to see power concentrated in a few key institutions, leaders, or technologies, a process driven by both the necessity of the moment and the historical tendency described by the Iron Law of Oligarchy.
Conclusion: Embracing the Cycle, Understanding the Law
The generational cycle described by Strauss and Howe, combined with the Iron Law of Oligarchy, provides a framework for understanding the current moment in history. While decentralization and individualism dominate during the Awakening and Unraveling phases, crises like the one we are currently in often lead to a re-centralization of power. Whether this centralization will be temporary or become another step toward oligarchy depends on how we, as a society, maintain accountability and balance in the institutions we build during this time.
The warning is not just to avoid ceding authority but to recognize that this process is inevitable. The key challenge for today's generations will be to ensure that, as we centralize power to navigate the crisis, we also build structures that can distribute responsibility and maintain checks and balances once the crisis is over. In this way, we may navigate the next cycle of generational change without falling prey to the tyranny of oligarchy that so often accompanies concentrated power.
According to Strauss-Howe Generational Theory, societies cycle through four phases, each lasting about 20 years, during which each generation plays a specific role in shaping political, cultural, and societal structures. These phases are:
1. The High (First Turning): A period of stability and optimism, often following a major crisis. Institutions are strong, and there is a collective sense of purpose. The generation coming of age during this time is typically conformist and institutionally minded.
2. The Awakening (Second Turning): This is a period of social upheaval and questioning of established institutions. Individualism flourishes, and personal freedom becomes a priority. The Prophet generation, born during the previous High, comes into adulthood, often leading this cultural revolution.
3. The Unraveling (Third Turning): Institutions are weak and distrusted, and society becomes fragmented. Individualism is at its peak, and the system begins to break down under its own weight. This is the prelude to a crisis.
4. The Crisis (Fourth Turning): A major upheaval reshapes the world order, often through war or economic collapse. The Hero generation comes of age during this crisis, providing leadership, stability, and the collective will to rebuild. New institutions arise from the ashes of the old order.
The Iron Law of Oligarchy: An Underlying Force Across Generations
The Iron Law of Oligarchy shows that, over time, power tends to centralize into the hands of a few, no matter how democratic or decentralized a society begins. This law suggests that, despite the best efforts of a generation to maintain distributed power, the practicalities of governance, leadership, and decision-making drive societies toward centralization.
Each of the four generational phases interacts with this tendency in different ways:
The High: In this phase, strong institutions create a sense of unity, but they also lay the groundwork for the centralization of power. The generation leading during this time trusts these institutions to maintain order and progress, inadvertently centralizing authority in a way that will be questioned in the next turning.
The Awakening: During the second turning, the Prophet generation challenges the centralized structures created in the previous High. There is a push toward decentralization and individualism, but this phase also leads to fragmentation. While the Iron Law of Oligarchy predicts centralization, the Awakening pushes back against this tendency, leading to a weakening of institutions.
The Unraveling: By the third turning, institutions are in decline, and central authority is heavily distrusted. Society fractures as individuals seek to reclaim personal power. However, this decentralization often leads to chaos, and the absence of strong institutions opens the door for future re-centralization in the face of a looming crisis.
The Crisis: In the fourth turning, as society faces existential threats, there is a need for strong, centralized leadership. The Hero generation, coming of age during this crisis, often turns toward a re-centralization of power as a means of survival and rebuilding. This turning reinforces the Iron Law of Oligarchy, as the crises demand the concentration of authority in a few capable leaders or institutions to ensure survival.
The Present Moment: Generation X, Millennials, and the Coming Crisis
Currently, we are in what Strauss and Howe would describe as the Fourth Turning, the Crisis phase. Generation X, which has been characterized as skeptical and pragmatic (the Nomad archetype), is now entering leadership roles, while Millennials (the Hero generation) are rising into their prime. Together, these generations are dealing with the aftermath of an era of decentralization and distrust in institutions—the Unraveling—and now face the immense challenges of climate change, political polarization, economic inequality, and global instability.
During this Crisis phase, there is an inevitable return to the centralization of power, as societies look for leaders who can restore order and solve these existential challenges. This process is entirely consistent with the Iron Law of Oligarchy—despite society's earlier attempts to decentralize and distribute power, the mounting crises demand strong leadership, which naturally concentrates authority in the hands of a few.
Lessons from the Past: The Seventeenth Amendment and the Patriot Act
To understand the current situation better, we can look at examples like the Seventeenth Amendment and the Patriot Act, which demonstrate how crises lead to centralization and how each generation's response shapes these shifts.
Seventeenth Amendment: Passed in 1913 during a period of political reform, the Seventeenth Amendment allowed for the direct election of U.S. Senators, transferring power from state legislatures to the broader electorate. This move, while increasing democratic participation, also centralized power within the federal government. The shift reflected a generational desire for more popular control during a time of societal change, but it also weakened the checks and balances between state and federal powers—further evidence of the Iron Law of Oligarchy in action.
Patriot Act: In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the Patriot Act was passed as an immediate response to a national crisis. Here, the legislative body ceded significant power to the executive branch, expanding surveillance and security measures. This centralization of power, while deemed necessary at the time, has since raised concerns about overreach and the erosion of civil liberties. It represents another instance of how crises lead to centralized authority, a process repeated throughout history.
The Current Generational Shift: Centralization During Crisis
As we enter deeper into the Fourth Turning, Generation X and Millennials are faced with the challenges of rebuilding a fractured system. According to Strauss-Howe theory, this period will end with a resolution to the crisis, which will usher in a new High and lay the foundation for the next cycle. However, the steps taken during this crisis phase will likely reinforce the Iron Law of Oligarchy, as new institutions arise with concentrated authority to manage the rebuilding.
The Millennials, who embody the Hero archetype, are often more collectivist and institutionally minded than their predecessors. This generation will likely push for stronger institutions, centralizing authority to resolve pressing global issues. Generation X, pragmatic and distrustful of institutions, will likely serve as the "managers" of this process, navigating the delicate balance between efficiency and overreach.
As this crisis unfolds, we are likely to see power concentrated in a few key institutions, leaders, or technologies, a process driven by both the necessity of the moment and the historical tendency described by the Iron Law of Oligarchy.
Conclusion: Embracing the Cycle, Understanding the Law
The generational cycle described by Strauss and Howe, combined with the Iron Law of Oligarchy, provides a framework for understanding the current moment in history. While decentralization and individualism dominate during the Awakening and Unraveling phases, crises like the one we are currently in often lead to a re-centralization of power. Whether this centralization will be temporary or become another step toward oligarchy depends on how we, as a society, maintain accountability and balance in the institutions we build during this time.
The warning is not just to avoid ceding authority but to recognize that this process is inevitable. The key challenge for today's generations will be to ensure that, as we centralize power to navigate the crisis, we also build structures that can distribute responsibility and maintain checks and balances once the crisis is over. In this way, we may navigate the next cycle of generational change without falling prey to the tyranny of oligarchy that so often accompanies concentrated power.