Generations: The History of America's Future, 1584 to 2069 by William Strauss

Dec 10, 2010 Bruce Kuznicki rated it liked it

I liked this book and found its basic idea intriguing. However, as the book progressed, in particular as it addressed elements of history I am knowledgeable about, I saw that the authors' scholarship was sometimes shoddy; they misused elements of history they knew superficially or not at all in ways that made me doubt them generally. Essentially, I encountered this often enough to begin suspecting they were simply assuming their overall theory was correct and had not done the rigorous work of tr ...more

flag 15 likes · Like · see review

Nov 09, 2008 Elizabeth rated it it was amazing

Shelves: non-fiction, history

There are several aspects of this book to review. Writing style: a bit dry. This is forgivable: the authors are laying out a hypothesis that covers almost 500 years of American history, and they want to make sure you've got all their evidence. I figure the book could've been tightened up, but I guess it's better they erred on the side of too much explanation rather than not enough.

The generational theory: plausible and fascinating. The authors summarize the history of 14 generations of Americans ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Mar 06, 2010 Simone Collins rated it it was amazing

Shelves: coolhunting

There are only so many books in the world capable of revolutionizing the way one views people and trends. Generations is one of these rare treasures. This 538-page tome co-authored by William Strauss and Neil Howe, lays the foundation of a fascinating theory about generational, social, and political patterns and trends in the United States.

Howe and Strauss argue that since its inception, the United States has seen four repeating generational cohorts which are labeled as Idealists, Reactives, Civ ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Jul 20, 2016 Nick rated it really liked it

Howe & Strauss present a very interesting and useful theory about how generations are different and what makes them so. It is called the generational archetype of four different generational types which follow one another in a repeating order:
Idealist, Reactive, Civic, and Adaptive.

There are two divisions in the generations:
Dominant (idealist & civic)
Recessive (reactive and adaptive).

The dominant generations follow from a spiritual awakening (idealists) or from a secular crisis (civics).

The ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Aug 29, 2008 Lori rated it it was amazing

Recommended to Lori by: history buffs; people interested in generational cycles

Shelves: nonfiction, history

This is one of the most fascinating theories I have ever read and considered. Can the cycles of history be predicted (in broad brush strokes, of course) by the general character traits displayed by the elderly, the middle aged, the young adults and the children of each generational cycle. The authors suggest that, yes, somewhat accurate predictions can be made.

The rest is a very intriguing look at American history and the people who have played a role in this history at various points in their l This is one of the most fascinating theories I have ever read and considered. Can the cycles of history be predicted (in broad brush strokes, of course) by the general character traits displayed by the elderly, the middle aged, the young adults and the children of each generational cycle. The authors suggest that, yes, somewhat accurate predictions can be made.

The rest is a very intriguing look at American history and the people who have played a role in this history at various points in their lives...the crusading Wobblies and Vietnam War protestors, the GIs during WWII, the Jazz Babies and Doughboys that came before them...and even the disaffected "Clerks" of today all employ different methods for dealing with the events of their life spans and develop various generational emotional responses and styles.

Critics will always point to the people they know (or themselves) as atypical of the stereotypes of their cohort group. Certainly all people are individuals and it is unsettling to think one can be locked into a set of circumstances merely by the accident of when you were born. However, there are some arguments put forth in Generations that compel the reader to at least consider the circle of cause and effect outlined within the pages.

As a hypothetical illustration, I'll go with the image of the "clerk" figure...Imagine 4 young men or women working a low status and low pay clerk job in a shop.

The youth of the Depression/WWII years would merely look at it as a job...lucky to have anything during hard times. The money would probably go toward helping their family with essentials like food and heat. They would make the most of it, be unconcerned with status or career path and probably still find ways to save a portion of their paltry income.

The youth of the immediate post-war years would take the job out of a sense of responsibility. They would take solace in the fact that they would probably not be clerking in 5 years as other and better opportunities arose. They might use some of their income toward college tuition and be the first in their families to take this leap. They would even look back fondly on their first jobs as a last period of relative freedom before assuming the mantle of adult worries.

The boomer youth may not really "have to" work. However, their GI (and older) parents want them to learn the value of earning their own money. The boomers might spend a larger chunk of their income on themselves for entertainment. The boomers would not see this period of low status work as permanent. They might use periods like this to consider what they really want to do with their lives and plan ahead. They might also drop back in to lower status work from time to time if they get disillusioned with school or some other occupational training.

The Gen X youth may have grown up with the sense that they would not "have to" work at this kind of job at all. However, their rising adulthood presents a period of shifting back down the economic scale. They may initially take the low pay/low status job as a temporary fix and be surprised and disappointed to find themselves staying in the job longer than expected, with fewer outside opportunities than expected. They may not be conditioned to save as much money as they should and go into debt as they fail to come to terms with the fact that they will have less leisure time and discretionary income than the generations immediately before them. However, they will also have the wherewithall to piece together part time jobs if needed.

It is amusing to think about this book after the fact and plug in your own life experiences and observations. It is also unnerving, as these dismal times we are living now were predicted in the early 90s within the pages of Generations.

...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

May 25, 2010 Jen Watkins rated it it was amazing

This is a fascinating way to learn history. It makes the history of the US very tangible. I am still deciding the extent to which history is shaped by the characteristics of the generation in charge. There are some revolutionary implications here.

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Mar 19, 2012 Ben Newton rated it really liked it

I've been wanting to read this book for years because I had started wondering on my own if generations were substantively different from each other and moved in cycles, although I had only gotten as far as positing 2 generational archetypes and not the four this book suggests. I hadn't read the book before now because I was concerned I was a little bit TOO ready to embrace the ideas in this book and wouldn't be reading it with a critical enough eye. I think I was right, because it is the nature I've been wanting to read this book for years because I had started wondering on my own if generations were substantively different from each other and moved in cycles, although I had only gotten as far as positing 2 generational archetypes and not the four this book suggests. I hadn't read the book before now because I was concerned I was a little bit TOO ready to embrace the ideas in this book and wouldn't be reading it with a critical enough eye. I think I was right, because it is the nature of a book like this, making pronouncements about every American ever, that you must accept its ideas or not based on your own personal experience and inductive reasoning. The authors support their theory with examples, but even if they had tripled the size of the book and filled the entirety of that extra space with supporting evidence, they could easily have cherry-picked their data.

That being said, I do think this book got a lot right, or at least made enough interesting points to be worthy of consideration. I wish that other authors had gotten interested in the idea and written some articles debating the details of the book's theory; I think that would have been a very interesting conversation. But, twenty years after this book was published, it doesn't look like anyone is going to be taking the bait. As far as I know, only the authors themselves have written any follow-on works to this one.

There are three parts to this book. The first part lays out their idea of a four-part generation cycle and explains each generation's role in the cycle. The second part is brief, couple-page biographies of each of the eighteen generations (as defined by the authors) there have been in America since Europe began sending over colonists. The final part tries to extrapolate from the second and makes predictions about the general arc American history will take in the coming decades. My advice would be to skim the first part of the book and only really dig in once you get to the biographies. The first part is very dry and lays out a lot of vocabulary exactly one time and then the rest of the book assumes you are an expert in the vocabulary. You won't be able to (or at least I couldn't!) 100% follow the thread until you've gotten a little ways into the meat of the book and seen the authors' ideas in action.

Reviewing this twenty years after publication, I can already comment on the accuracy of some of the predictions made in the book. The authors predict that if a secular crisis doesn't strike America by the year 2020 (terrorist attack or financial crisis were two possibilities they mentioned), the Baby Boom generation will manufacture one out of whatever minor issues they can lay to hand. Up until the crisis, Boomers will ratchet up a culture war, trying to purify all Americans to a set of morals (although they won't be able to agree amongst themselves which morals until the crisis hits), just as other idealist generations did before the Revolutionary War, Civil War, and WWII. Once the crisis hits, the Boom will finally unify around one set of ideals, and once they do the other generations will unify around them too. Generation X, hardbitten and pragmatic by dint of their relatively neglected youth, will become excellent managers of the crisis. And strictly-raised Millennial youth will cheerfully do what they're told and work together to achieve almost any goal that's put in front of them. So far, according to this theory, we should be in the middle of a passionate culture war... I think they're doing well. All this has also had the side effect of getting me pretty frustrated with the Boom, which is ironic considering the book was written by two boomers, and they seem to think highly of their generation! ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Oct 13, 2013 Stacey rated it liked it

Shelves: millinnials, non-fiction

I read the 1991 edition of this book meaning it came out when I was one of those little Millennials, not really in the scenes of society. We were just children raised in a protected and loving homes. I have to say some of the predictions were a bit kooky but there were a few were spot on. I do see my generation more team-oriented, community-based folks while many of us do get along with our Boomer aged parents.

It's fun to read about our American history in a different lens through generations a I read the 1991 edition of this book meaning it came out when I was one of those little Millennials, not really in the scenes of society. We were just children raised in a protected and loving homes. I have to say some of the predictions were a bit kooky but there were a few were spot on. I do see my generation more team-oriented, community-based folks while many of us do get along with our Boomer aged parents.

It's fun to read about our American history in a different lens through generations and their cycles. I learned things that I didn't learn in history and Social studies classes in my youth. For example, the southern (Adaptive) Compromisers (b. 1767-91) wanted to abolished slavery and they had antislavery societies to plan a way to wean the South of slaves but they lost power when their next juniors, Transcendental Idealists came into power. For years I have been taught that the Southerns before and during the Civil War years loved having slaves to stay with their bourgeois lifestyles. Then there were things I didn't understand since I didn't have background knowledge. This book took me days to read through but I will have to reread to understand it more.

Through the first read, I enjoy seeing the patterns of each generational cycles. As a Millenial, I have been influenced by my elders (GI, Silent, Boomers and Gen-Xers). I feel I got the social justice bug, first by the Silent generation elders (one of them was my former 4th grade teacher) and was encouraged by the Boomer and Gen-Xer teachers and older adults. Did you know that there hasn't any US presidents from the Silent Generation (b. 1925-43) meaning it's the first time we skipped a generation as a president since we first became a nation over 300 years ago? I think a couple of them were VPs with a GI or Boomer aged US presidents. Personally I would love to vote in a US president from the Silent Generation (youngest is age 70 this year) since their strengths are pluralism, expertise, social justice and tolerance. Of course this president should have a mix of Silent, Boomers, Gen-Xers, and Millenianls (the oldest of us at age 31 this year) as part of the president cabinet and White House staff to get a good balance approach in creating an amazing system of the 21st century and hopefully beyond.

Hmm, after reading this book it makes me want to befriend the surviving GIs and elderly Silents so I can learn as much as I can before they disappear from our living history and into just history. How many Millenials out there enjoy reflecting about generations and ours specifically? Sometimes I feel like I can relate with my elders better than my own generation. Plus I do get along with the younger generation, the new Adaptives (no cool nickname yet) since right now I am in the educational field. Wow, it'll be weird to see the first wave Millennials as middle age in the next decade. But already I have some peers who became parents at an early age so they are raising the new Adaptive kids. (Though I knew a couple same-age peers who became first time parents at age 18 so they are raising the youngest of us Millenials.) I'm probably be one of those Millenial who would get married and have children at an older age (following the Gen-Xers) so my kids will be the new Idealists. They will remind me of my own parents and my friends' parents. Crazy, huh? ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Apr 11, 2007 Michael rated it it was amazing

Recommends it for: Everyone

The book explicitly states a desire to risk "predicting" future trends, so that readers of the future could easily judge his theories for their pragmatic worth. Fifteen years after publication, confirmation of this book's concepts can be found in both the macro environment of world events and the microcosm of the thoughtful reader's own web of social interactions: with parents, coworkers, peers and children.

The book's thesis is that American history follows a near-century long cycle of four ge The book explicitly states a desire to risk "predicting" future trends, so that readers of the future could easily judge his theories for their pragmatic worth. Fifteen years after publication, confirmation of this book's concepts can be found in both the macro environment of world events and the microcosm of the thoughtful reader's own web of social interactions: with parents, coworkers, peers and children.

The book's thesis is that American history follows a near-century long cycle of four generational archetypes: secular builders, spiritual seekers, pragmatic rebels and refined curators. The living examples of these types are the G.I. generation who fought in WWII, the Boomers, Generation "X", and the "silent generation"-- born too late to fight with the GIs and too early to uh... frolic... with the Boomers.

The book takes us on an tour of American history, highlighting the interplay between the historical forces shaping each generation in their youth, and how each generation makes their stamp on history as adults. It's a compelling argument, in that he illustrates how that generation's impact sets the stage for the generations following, perpetuating the cycle. The story is well-told and insightful; I am no scholar of history, but there is an intensely believable intellectual honesty. A significant deviation in the pattern appears at the time of the Civil War, but rather than shoehorn the facts to fit their pattern, the authors concede the disruption, analyze the situation, and present an explanation that rings true; indeed, that echoes into the present day.

Here are just two simple predictions from the book (written in 1990-91, published in '92):

American presidential leadership "skipping over" the Silent generation, from the "greatest generation" GIs to the Boomer generation (Bush I to Clinton).

A "secular crisis" in the first decade of the millennium -- and the potentially disastrous results if that happened too early in the decade, when crusading Boomers were in charge, but pragmatic (yes, I said pragmatic) Xers were not yet influential enough to effect the implementation of policy.

Written before the Internet, before the Clinton presidency, before "Generation X" was even named (Douglas Coupland's book came out contemporaneously, so the authors call Xers "13ers", acknowledging that their culturally accepted name will likely be different) "Generations: A History of America's Future, 1584-2069" should be read by anyone looking for an insightful, well researched sociological study with a futurist slant. Deep without resorting to cryptic conspiracy theory, Strauss & Howe's work is a page-turning read which could improve both our political decisions and our family relations. ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Sep 16, 2012 Chrisl rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: history, dew01-499, 1990s

Would like to re-read - wish it was still available in regional library.
***
NYTimes has a recent article putting book in perspective:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/28/us...
"In the preface to “Generations” nearly 30 years ago, they nodded to the despair that boomers sometimes felt about the character of their peers. “You may feel some disappointment,” they said, “in the Dan Quayles and Donald Trumps who have been among the first of your agemates to climb life’s pyramid.”

Mr. Howe will admit to som ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Jan 12, 2008 Aimeslee rated it it was amazing

Shelves: read-cultural-history

Ok, about this book, I'm cultish. Inside its pages are all the truths one needs to understand history, time and how it changes. Seriously. I am an ardent believer in this generational history theory. I see it every single day.

Take the current presidential race. Obama's camp figured out at the beginning how to fuel change: grab the Millenials' loyalty by branding Obama as cool and *one of them*. (Millenials generation is 1982-2000 approximately). GenX (1961-1981) soon followed suit, as they do te ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Jan 18, 2018 Martin Lowery rated it liked it

Generations presented an unique and very interesting theory that could be applied to all of history as we know it.

The book itself was tedious at times, and also very repetitive. While the first 100 pages, where the authors first formulate their theory, was fabulous, the proceeding chapters where they try and apply the theory to historical generations began to become dry.

Towards the end, the book picks up, when it applies the generational theory to the modern day and makes predictions about the ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Aug 19, 2017 Erik Rostad rated it it was amazing

Shelves: 2017-books

Exceptional book. The authors look back through American history to identify 4 generation types, 5 cycles of these 4 generations, and then take that information to extrapolate into the future. Written in 1991, their future predictions are frighteningly prescient.

I loved this book. It provided a framework to consider American history. I wish I had read this earlier in life, for it would have helped me place historical events, people, and turning points within a setting of generations. It was amaz ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Jan 13, 2008 Rob Salkowitz rated it it was amazing

One of the most important and influential books of the last 20 years. Offers a completely novel way to look at American history with breathtaking explanatory and predictive power. A huge inspiration for my own work.

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Jul 11, 2007 John Beeler rated it did not like it

This book is a joke. Ha!

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Nov 30, 2010 anguinea rated it it was amazing

I really was intrigued by this book and find myself referring back to it a lot.

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Oct 21, 2016 Casey marked it as to-read

Reading this with hopes to gain insight into why Trump is an actual candidate for presidency.

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Feb 28, 2016 Jim rated it really liked it

Generations is a four and three quarters book. Its flawed in thinking too much of a schema. However, the schema is highly accurate. I read the book in 1999 and found it compelling, compelling enough to read the Fourth Turning, wherein, the authors toned down the...almost Hegelian or Platonic abstraction, into which one fits the empirical.
I keep thinking of this book though, over years.
A couple of things I wish to note: first is the survey of Generation X, as compared to a similar survey of what ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jul 11, 2020 Zach Wadzinski rated it really liked it

Shelves: unowned

Strauss is probably on to something but I can’t quite place my finger on it. The premise of the book is that each generation has an overarching theme. This seems agreeable up to a certain point internally in ones nation. However once outside vectors are involved ie WWII and coronavirus, I can’t help but see certain parts of his theory ripped to shreds.

Humans inherently are complex and certainly create dynamic social structures, but theres also uncertainty and unpredictability from outside force ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jul 08, 2020 Jeffrey W. rated it it was amazing

This is one of the most exceptional books I have read in my many decades of reading history and socioeconomic tomes. Amazingly, although it was written in the late 1980s, it accurately describes the social and economic trends that have taken place between its publication in 1992 and the current date, July 2020. It even warns of a crisis in or around 2020, which we are currently experiencing. It accurately describes the polarization of America that is taking place and gives a clear rationale for ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Dec 22, 2013 Matthew Richards rated it it was ok

Approaching American history from the perspective of age location cohort groups moving through history, showing how different generations experience crises based on their upbringing, and how they interact with other generations was a really unique and invigorating. I have to credit Strauss and Howe for coming up with it.

Unfortunately, they also came up with this really wacky hypothesis about how there are four basic "personalities" of generations (idealistic, reactive, civic, and adaptive) that Approaching American history from the perspective of age location cohort groups moving through history, showing how different generations experience crises based on their upbringing, and how they interact with other generations was a really unique and invigorating. I have to credit Strauss and Howe for coming up with it.

Unfortunately, they also came up with this really wacky hypothesis about how there are four basic "personalities" of generations (idealistic, reactive, civic, and adaptive) that repeat in predetermined cycles, which I found to be unsupported by the historical record. Most of the time, especially from the chapters from 1584 to the early 1900s, it felt like they were cherry-picking quotes mostly from wealthy statesmen and prominent religious figures and used it to generalize the attitude of an entire generation to fit the "attitude" that generation was supposed to have according to their hypothesis. I would have been more persuaded by evidence that was much more representative of the country as a whole.

There were also many other historical trends they ignored to justify their cycle theory. The first one I noticed was the lack of a global perspective and the impact of immigration on American society: it was mentioned early on that the "Puritan" and "Cavalier" generations were mostly from completely different parts of Britain and had different upbringings, but didn't discuss how this would lead to the next two generations (Glorious and Enlightenment) being raised by different sets of parents with different values. They also laregly ignored how industrialization impacted America and the divides between rural/urban, poor/rich, and racial minorities within generations. Why was the history of African Americans and how it interacted with the rest of American history largely considered during the Transcendental generation, then a few chapters later in the G.I. generations treated like they didn't exist at all outside Sidney Portier?

I was also very frustrated in them not showing how history changes over time and how an "Idealist" generation in the 1700s is very different from one in the 1900s. The Great Awakening is treated in pretty much the same manner as the Consciousness revolution of the 1960s without showing how the influence of religion on American society actually has decreased over time. Many of their ideas about how "Reactive" generations always coddle their kids and "Adaptive" generations demonize their kids are starkly contradicted by material evidence I read in the history of American childhood by Karin Calvert that shows how ideas about what childhood even is greatly morphed from the Lockean principle of the Enlightenment age where they were seen as mini-humans to the Victorian age where they were innocent and untainted by the wickedness of adults.

Probably worst of all is all the confirmation bias and the fact their cycles theory is completely unfalsifiable. They actually say that a civic generation was "skipped over" during the Civil War cycle because the Civil War didn't turn out as positively as other civil crises. Talk about fitting a square peg into a round hole! If anything would have disproved their theory of cycles, it should have been the evidence that there was a whole cycle that defied it. As their theory was able to explain away anything, this felt more like a book of prophecy or astrology than a book of history. Which it did become in the final section, where they used generational "costellations" to make some predictions for how the future of United States would shape up from 1991 when this book was published to 2069. By the way, as of 2015 most of their predictions have proved to be hilariously wrong.

There are still a few reasons to read this book, mainly the fact that it's the only history of America of it's kind, it's entertaining, and it has a lot of interesting factoids about the different generations that put things into perspective (love the names they coined for all the generations, including the next two of "Millennial" and "Homeland" by the way.) There might also be a few insights to gain here and there. It's just a shame such a great concept had to be bogged down by a really terrible hypothesis and even worse evidence. I hope someone other than Howe takes a stab at writing a history of the American generations. Maybe the second time around will be the charm. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

May 07, 2012 Heather Denigan rated it liked it

Shelves: polysci, world, history

Even if one shouldn't swallow the authors' conclusions without careful chewing, there's plenty of good stuff here. Two main takeaways: the argument and the methodology. The first four chapters and Appendix A all contain great material.

1) Methodology: Strauss and Howe raise the question: What do we mean when we talk about "generations?" They point out that "generation" has no set definition and has been arbitrarily applied. It can mean 18 years or 40, depending on who you ask. It can mean everyon Even if one shouldn't swallow the authors' conclusions without careful chewing, there's plenty of good stuff here. Two main takeaways: the argument and the methodology. The first four chapters and Appendix A all contain great material.

1) Methodology: Strauss and Howe raise the question: What do we mean when we talk about "generations?" They point out that "generation" has no set definition and has been arbitrarily applied. It can mean 18 years or 40, depending on who you ask. It can mean everyone alive at given point in time or everyone born around a given point in time. Strauss and Howe argue against using straight horizontal or vertical definitions of generations. (It's not X or Y, it's graphed X,Y.) This means that they take into account both the national and the personal -- absent, deceased, or emotionally distant parents have a huge impact on their children and the effects last long past rising adulthood. The definitions of cohort and peer personality are also helpful.

Strauss and Howe put history on a wave and argue that each generation will have different priorities. They offer hope in that the way things are now aren't the way they will always be. And if you're worried about a deficit of teachers or doctors or insert-pet-career-field-here, just wait a little bit and renewed interest will bubble up again.

2) Argument: That people move diagonally through time. People at different stages of life will react differently to events and to the generations before and after them.

(Consider the 9/11 attacks and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq: I'm old enough to remember the event, but was not old enough at the time to understand their significance. Now my peers have reached the age where they are deploying to the war zones and returning with hurts that we may not yet fully understand. I *think* that this new crop of veterans is having to compete with veterans of past wars. The new crop is throwing itself into nonprofits and civic endeavors. The old guard is still holding marches and seeking recognition. I *think* -- that's the way it seems to me. 9/11 did not solidify Americans in the way that Pearl Harbor did.)

While I'm not sure of the premise: that we can predict how future generations will act. We don't know how the next secular crisis or spiritual awakening will affect the nation's zeitgeist or shape its values and priorities. And we can divvy up generations by varying metrics. At any rate, the copyright on my edition is 1991. Over 20 years have passed since then. Pretty much everything that the authors have said about the Boomers still seems relevant. The authors sound hopeful for the millenials (even if their delineation of a millennial may differ from others). It's nice to see people rooting for the young folks. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jul 13, 2016 Scot rated it it was ok

Well, that sucked.

The overarching theory, that generations affect the society they live in, and the society affects the generations growing up in them, I can buy. Their specific 4-stroke generational theory, though? Not convincing at all.

Early in the book, they make their case that what matters for a generation is birth year, not the parents of the generation. (they accompany this argument with a scientifically illiterate chart showing the spread of birth years from one generation to the next, i Well, that sucked.

The overarching theory, that generations affect the society they live in, and the society affects the generations growing up in them, I can buy. Their specific 4-stroke generational theory, though? Not convincing at all.

Early in the book, they make their case that what matters for a generation is birth year, not the parents of the generation. (they accompany this argument with a scientifically illiterate chart showing the spread of birth years from one generation to the next, in which the curves get smaller and smaller, implying a reduced population with each passing generation. Which is wrong, and bullshit, and the first big sign that this whole exercise is pointless. But I digress). So that's their main thesis, and then repeatedly through the rest of the book they state that the "first wave" of a generation is often very different from the "last wave" of that generation. If they're so different, why are they grouped together? And the "first wave" of one generation is often very similar to the "last wave" of the proceeding generation, and both groups usually have arenas from the same generation, completely undercutting the argument that the generation of the parents doesnt matter.

The bulk of the book is an exercise in bible-code-esque finding patterns that don't actually exist, combined with astrology-esque vague predictions that can be declared correct no matter what happens, with a massive dose of making caricatures of the tone of a generation, and a huge amount of ignoring inconvenient facts.

The generation born from 1960-1980 shows a lot of what is wrong with this book. they name this generation the "13ers". First off, that's an absolutely terrible name. And second, this generation is actually the 17th generation they talk about, not the 13th. So what happened is they came up with this grand theory of a 4-stroke generational cycle, then realized that even with all the hand-waving they could manage, the cycle only fit for for 2 of the 3 groups of generations they identified. Even stacking the deck, their theory didn't fit the data. So they went back and added on an earlier cycle (so far back in time that they could make any theory fit by judicious selection of the "facts" to present, so they could have a slightly-more-convincing (but not really convincing at all) 3 out of 4 success rate, instead of 2 out of 3. But then they were too lazy to go back and get rid of the stupid "13er" generation name, so they kept it as a big flashing sign of just how lame their argument is. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jun 10, 2020 Dawn Klinge rated it it was amazing

This book was written in 1991 and its predictions about the future (which are now our present) are remarkably accurate. I devoured this book, and couldn't put it down for the few days that it took me to read. It explains so much about human behavior and history by picking up on repeating generational patterns. I highly recommend it. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Sep 18, 2013 Kristy rated it it was amazing

This book is probably best read alongside The Fourth Turning by the same authors. Using historical data and adding their own work to the modern theory of generations, they show a pattern that repeats throughout American history. There are recurring cycles of spiritual awakenings and secular crises that impact and are impacted by the repeating types of generations they describe.

For any scientists out there who are fans of the book Panarchy, this description of repeating cycles may sound very fami ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jul 07, 2007 Bobby J. Hill Jr. rated it it was amazing

Recommends it for: Anyone interested in how generations work.

This book offers great insight into the generations of America and how they were shaped. Why they did the things they did. It also puts forth a radical theory of a cyclical pattern that American generations generally follow. Overall a very good, informative read.

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jul 08, 2008 Johnny rated it really liked it

Everything in cycles.....poorly supported and generalistic examples pad a pretty fundamentally interesting read. Unfortunate that they cherry picked examples to fit their model rather take a truly objective look at generations. This book could've been GREAT, but as it stands it's merely GOOD. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jun 23, 2020 CTEP added it

Shelves: 2011-12

This month I read the book Generations: The History of America’s Future from 1584-2069 by William Strauss and Neil Howe. The book addresses years of research by both authors in the expansive fields of sociology and history into patterns of generational movement. Early on they describe that people often have skewed views of history. For instance, when we think of our past Presidents they seem to be frozen in time. Miraculously they all are in their 40s-50s. However, we know this is not the case, This month I read the book Generations: The History of America’s Future from 1584-2069 by William Strauss and Neil Howe. The book addresses years of research by both authors in the expansive fields of sociology and history into patterns of generational movement. Early on they describe that people often have skewed views of history. For instance, when we think of our past Presidents they seem to be frozen in time. Miraculously they all are in their 40s-50s. However, we know this is not the case, that when some were reaching their 20s others were reaching their 80s etc and so Americans tend to lump our histories and our actions into groups inaccurately. For example we may think all people in their twenties act a particular way, when in reality we function in what Strauss and Howe call the Generation Diagonal. To explain this diagonal they offer the analogy of a trains. At any given time there are roughly four trains moving along the same pathway however these trains are at different points and cannot be expected to respond to the same conditions in the same manners though the experiences from their past trek will influence those behind them and the path ahead of them. It is their firm belief that the study of generations and cohort groups in such a way is a way to show the methods that people use to be affected by and to affect history. Throughout the book they establish that generations and historical events follow a cycle of four parts. The cycle follows that roughly every 20 or 22 years we experience four differing periods. These include: A Spiritual Awakening, Inner-Driven Reaction, A Secular Crisis, and Outer-Driven Adaptation. They follow the ways in which American history and the behaviors of generations that are either youth, rising in age, midlife, or elders are shaped by and shape these happenings. It is hard to explain the detail and extent of this study (the book is massive) but I would definitely encourage you to read it.

The reason this book spoke so specifically to our work, and the reason I chose to read it, is due to its focus on how our generation is set to interact with the world. According to their theory we are the next Civic Minded Generation (the last being GIs around WWII- think Civilian Conservation Corps, this generation was skipped during the Civil War, the only anomaly for their theory, and therefore goes back to Revolutionary leaders.) The implications of our place in their historical cycle state that our generation will be less focused on spiritual ideals , not as entrenched in reacting to the systems in place from our elders (by either fighting against or adapting to), but rather will be focused on practical and active shifts to our secular world. I could go on for days about the predictive and accurate nature of how they projected in the early 90s when this was written that immigration tends to become of concern in a Civic coming of age era, that wars are often fought, sexual roles defined more broadly, the arts turn to protest, public means become questionable, and increasingly public institutions become aggressive. (It’s scarily dead on as they explain.)

Their descriptions not only seemed to address a trend I’ve recognized among my peers both in and out of AmeriCorps (a rising need and desire to serve, seeking productive solutions to political problems, building on idealist dreams of the past with realist steps towards action etc), but also describe some difficulties I have experienced in working with primarily older generations. Many of the people I work with fit scarily into their generational profile according to the authors. Often times when collaborating with state employees I find myself in a very different position than those of an older age who are more familiar with the system in place. Often they speak in a manner that reacts in a resigned and discontent way to the manner of how things are done. Ideas will be spun around regarding individual opinions on how to change or better procedures but little is done. I find myself often thinking, what strategy can we take to do something about this? How do we take this advice and make something happen? What roles can we all play to make a difference? Though of course this is not true across the board, I have found particularly in working with CTEP members that my peers tend to be more capable of easily organizing and creating team plans for success. If Strauss and Howe are correct in their research, these differences could be explained by the generational diagonal. It is a struggle for me to put exactly into words the bulk of their 460 page, tiny little print, dense text but I would recommend exploring what sorts of similarities you may perceive to generations past and the ways they handled and created movements as well as looking at the differences between working with peers and youth and working with those in generations above us (generations are categorized as cohort groups ranging in about 22 year spans.)It certainly served as a motivational tool for my service for AmeriCorps, my approach to inter-generational collaboration, and my perspective on our current political situation. ...more

flag Like · see review

Nov 19, 2015 John Henry rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: my-library

Eccl. 1:4 Generations come and generations go, but the earth remains forever.
Strauss and Howe write, “Just as history produces generations, so too generations produce history.” This interaction requires critical events, “social moments,” or spiritual awakenings, which define a generation. A generation can trigger a social moment, and therefore “define history.” (35)

Strauss and Howe have shown that every generational cycle has four types of generations, which typically alternate dominant and rece ...more

flag Like · see review

Mar 31, 2019 Jerry Baird rated it it was amazing

Read this book in 91 when it was first published. It presented me with a wonderful perspective on looking at our past generation , and how they were affected in their youth, active age, and old influences. A wonderful application to everyday life and how we build our influences on the world. Now finished A Generation of Sociopaths and find it disturbing that my generation of the "Boomers" has provided a sad commentary on our current state as a country. Sadly our parents of the Civic Generation ( ...more

flag Like · see review