You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
veewatson 's review for:
The Fourth Turning: What the Cycles of History Tell Us about America's Next Rendezvous with Destiny
by William Strauss, Neil Howe
3.5 stars
This has been an influential book, especially regarding generational theory. There's a lot in this book that I appreciated and was impressed with and other parts I thought was superfluous, overreaching or grandiose.
What I liked: the recasting of history and time as cyclical and what impact that has on the perceptions of our society and place. I thought the author's were accurate in describing years before and after crisis historically and the roles that generations fulfilled in society at the time. In general, the identifications of a generational persona makes sense, being that the location in time and space are more or less shared by those born during that time and there is a noticable community in this feeling.
They were also incredibly accurate in predicting what crisises could be on the American horizon after 2001. Fully televised terrorist attack, check. Housing market collapse/Great Recession, check, culture wars and racial activist demonstrations, check, the election of a divisive president that exposed an already fragile democracy, check, world wide pandemic, check.
What I didn't like:
Yet, with this on the nose prediction, overall I was wished that they had not taken such a prophetic tone in the book and made so many definitive statements. They were also wrong about a lot, particularly, in my opinion about the attitudes of millennials and the mood during this current Crisis. On the whole, I think their descriptions of generational archetypes were a lot of fitting round pegs into square holes. Some of it works but it quickly may become confirmation bias, picking and choosing what works for their theory and leaving things out that do not.
(This is the issue with explanatory worldviews and historical theories like theirs. It's better than a lot of theories in this genre of social history but I think they could have applied a lot more caution and guarded against biases.)
The archetypes were the least successful part of their book. The designations they choose don't make sense all the time. I understand that they wanted to integrate archetypal theories but there may be have been a better way to do this. A lot of claims were unsustainable and the history was interesting but not as credible given their propensity to try and fit it on their hypothesis.
Overall: such an incredible theory and to even pick and choose from parts of their books is worth while. I especially enjoyed the commentary regarding the awakening era, the consciousness revolution of the 60s and 70s although I wish it had been more objective. Also, I've read from other reviewers that Steve Bannon apparently likes this book and so should be shunned. I don't evaluate books that way. There is a conservative leaning in some places but I would say it's more 90s liberalism. If that matters to you.
Premise: B
Research: A
Writing: B-
This has been an influential book, especially regarding generational theory. There's a lot in this book that I appreciated and was impressed with and other parts I thought was superfluous, overreaching or grandiose.
What I liked: the recasting of history and time as cyclical and what impact that has on the perceptions of our society and place. I thought the author's were accurate in describing years before and after crisis historically and the roles that generations fulfilled in society at the time. In general, the identifications of a generational persona makes sense, being that the location in time and space are more or less shared by those born during that time and there is a noticable community in this feeling.
They were also incredibly accurate in predicting what crisises could be on the American horizon after 2001. Fully televised terrorist attack, check. Housing market collapse/Great Recession, check, culture wars and racial activist demonstrations, check, the election of a divisive president that exposed an already fragile democracy, check, world wide pandemic, check.
What I didn't like:
Yet, with this on the nose prediction, overall I was wished that they had not taken such a prophetic tone in the book and made so many definitive statements. They were also wrong about a lot, particularly, in my opinion about the attitudes of millennials and the mood during this current Crisis. On the whole, I think their descriptions of generational archetypes were a lot of fitting round pegs into square holes. Some of it works but it quickly may become confirmation bias, picking and choosing what works for their theory and leaving things out that do not.
(This is the issue with explanatory worldviews and historical theories like theirs. It's better than a lot of theories in this genre of social history but I think they could have applied a lot more caution and guarded against biases.)
The archetypes were the least successful part of their book. The designations they choose don't make sense all the time. I understand that they wanted to integrate archetypal theories but there may be have been a better way to do this. A lot of claims were unsustainable and the history was interesting but not as credible given their propensity to try and fit it on their hypothesis.
Overall: such an incredible theory and to even pick and choose from parts of their books is worth while. I especially enjoyed the commentary regarding the awakening era, the consciousness revolution of the 60s and 70s although I wish it had been more objective. Also, I've read from other reviewers that Steve Bannon apparently likes this book and so should be shunned. I don't evaluate books that way. There is a conservative leaning in some places but I would say it's more 90s liberalism. If that matters to you.
Premise: B
Research: A
Writing: B-