A basic explanation of their theory is that history moves by seasons from spring to winter. In spring, there is a civilizational high of good behavior, peace, and prosperity but also stultifying conformity and spiritual deadness. In summer, there is a consciousness revolution, in which the younger generation rebels against their elders and their institutions. In fall, there is an unraveling in which people turn inwards and focus on their private satisfactions and let public institutions and the community values fall into neglect. In winter, there is a crisis of usually war or economic depression that forces everyone to become more communal and morally strict again.

The generations are of 4 types. A prophet generation is born in a civilization high of springtime. They are inwardly focused on spiritual values. They rebel in youth, but become morally authoritarian in old age during a crisis. A nomad generation is born in a summer of consciousness revolution and aren't raised very well since their elder parents are more focused on themselves than their children. This generation is considered a lost or bad generation in which crime and immorality increase with its rising. A hero generation is born in the fall of an unraveling; they become the heroes during a crisis when they are young adults. An artist generation is born during a crisis; they are a meek and mild generation who are sensitive to other's needs and are indecisive as leaders.

When reading the book I couldn't help noting that a prophet generation often generates an unneeded crisis to solve. President George W. Bush is of a prophet generation and I kept thinking of him as a prime example of that, making Saddam Hussein to be bigger threat than he really is. I also made judgements against the artist's generations emphasis of plurality and diversity and the expense of cultural cohesion. I made judgements against the hero generation for hogging most of the public spending on themselves, letting young people fend for themselves. I made judgements against my own nomad generations for their excessive love of tasteless entertainment and general down in the dumps depression and negativity.

It was also interesting to note that during civilizational crisis and high, society is generally anti-female and pro-male in its outlook. In a consciousness revolution and an unraveling, it is general pro-female and anti-male. Depending on the times, people will general espouse philosophies that celebrate or denigrate either sex.

The current generations now living in large numbers are the G.I. elders who are heroes passing on, the Artistic Silent generation who are in elderhood, the Prophetic Baby Boomers who are entering elderhood, The Nomadic Gen Xer's who are beginning to enter middle-age, and Heroic Millennials who are beginning to move into rising adulthood. A new artistic/compromiser generation will eventually replace Millennials in the youth category.

A heroic generation usually values conformity over individualism and they tend to be rationalistic and secular. They build public institutions and generally are young adults during a prosperous, optimistic age. An Artist generation is known for its high educational level and professional expertise. A Prophet genereration is known for its focus on inward idealistic spiritual values and its weakening educational levels. A Nomad generation is known as pragmatic, cynical, unbelieving, pessimistic and poorly educated generation who are middle-aged technical managers of a crisis era. They are wild as kids and young adults, but cautious and reactionary as older people. Each generation rebels against the values of the others, which has a tendency to balance out any excesses given to any one value.

The authors give famous examples of different generational types, some of which fit the type while others don't. The ones that don't are interesting to note: Norman Rockwell, that creator of wholesome Americana art was from the bad Lost generation. He seems more like Hero generational type. Andrew Jackson, that Southern hell-raiser who chased a rival with a knife in the days of his youth was of the supposedly meek and mild Artist/Compromiser generation. He seems more like a Bad/ Nomadic generational type.


not convinced   August 6, 1999
 17 out of 25 found this review helpful

It was fascinating to read about the different generations in American history but the details of S&H's theories are so general that it is impossible to prove the theory valid. They also do not include any evidence that would deny their theory.

This book is a good read but it is the only S&H book worth buying. The others are merely a rehash of this one. My main issue with the book is that it only really examines a relative few of each generation and makes very broad generalizations.

Most of the evidence they have for their theory of history could be explained by other factors such as technology, the economy, and attitudes towards raising children.


I found myself flipping thru the generation charts provided.   August 11, 2000
 17 out of 19 found this review helpful

This is a cultural history of the United States, that tells America's story in a fresh entertaining way. Not really a book for scholars. It shows generation by generation how each group arose to impact & be impacted by the steadily accelerating & expanding world they lived in. I got the impression that generations of young people were thrust into certain crisis in our history & dealt with or failed to deal with them. This gives a certain antagonsim & lack of faith between generations. The fate of the nation hung on the next generation being able to adapt. Examples of this are plentiful. The differences between the revolutinary generation & the next one destined to hold the new nation together were essential. The generation that failed to address the problems that led to the Civil War & the generation that had to fight & die in it cannot be ignored. Maybe the most important differences in suceeding generations that still impacts our lives today is the generation that created the conditions for the Great Depression & ultimately our entry into World War II and the generation that grew up in the depression, fought & won the war & then proceeded to dominate the world for the next 20 years. The flip side is the commonality of alternate generations. The GI generation, the generation that Tom Brogaw refers to as the "Greatest Generation", has much more in common with the Boomer generation that it does with the the Silent generation that immediately follows it, or the Lost generation that preceeded it. They were an agressive, sucessful, globally important group as I believe Boomers are. But as nuturing caring parents both genrations leave somthing to be desired. They were loved & desired as children. The Millenial generation, still being born seems to be the same. The Silent Generation, was was more inwardly directed, more nuturing & trying to find a place out of the shadows of the GI's. No member of the Silent generation will ever be president. The X generation seems to have some of the same problems & assets as the Silent. A continuing expanding economy will help them the most. The book is already dated but some of its assumptions are pretty close. Of course they haven't accounted for the vast changes in just the last eight years such as in communication, the internet ("the information super highway) & the global village concept. But then nobody could.


This analytical historical model holds up well 16 years later.   September 18, 2007
 16 out of 17 found this review helpful

I think Strauss and Howe are on to something. Remember we are in the realm of social sciences, and no analytical model is ever 100% correct; if you reach 60% that's good. I think Howe and Strauss cleared this hurdle by a wide margin. I support my opinion on the following considerations.

First, based on all the different generations I have met so far the Strauss and Howe model fits well. The G.I., Boomers, Thirteenth (Generation X), and Millennials (Generation Y) are well captured. The principal callings of various generations as described on page 367 and principal endowment activities on page 371 seem accurate.

Second, this book was first published 16 years ago. And, the analysis has held up well with the passage of time. Part III of the book describes the future (post 1991). You obviously can pick errors. But, overall they got it right. Some of their calls are prescient. Such as: "... by the year 2000, midlife women will surge into boardrooms, media anchor booths, university presidencies, and Congress-and will begin making plausible runs for the White House." And, "... the Boom may split along geographical lines-for example, with urban, bicoastal New Agers squaring off against heartland evangelicals." Also, "... to elder Boomers, `retirement' will... be of little consequence. The very concept of a fixed retirement age will blur, late-in-life career changes will be encouraged." And, "Great peril might arise if Boomers find themselves confronting religious fundamentalists whose inner zeal matches their own... Make no mistake: faced with crisis, this generation [Boomer] of onetime draft resisters will not hesitate, as elder warrior-priests, to conscript young soldiers to fight and die for righteous purpose... As Boomers begin endorsing global crusades, the 13ers [Gen X] will turn toward isolationism." Remember all these statements were written in 1991. They demonstrate foresight that is way beyond luck.

Third, their generational cycle model has several well established precedents ranging from Homer to contemporary social scientists including one nearly identical one by Samuel Huntington, my favorite political scientist, who wrote the equally seminal The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.

I liked this book for many other reasons too. Appendix A that describes in much detail their whole theory of generational-historical cycle is fascinating. Additionally, as a byproduct I have learned a whole lot about American history. Their model does a good job of explaining Americans ability for self-renewal that is way more pronounced than for Europeans and Asians. The authors state this is because other cultures are much more constrained by the weight of tradition. Having lived in both Europe and the U.S., I do agree.

If you enjoy this book, I also recommend Carroll Quigley Evolution of Civilizations. This author shows that entire civilizations follow a defined life cycle.