Neil Howe

The phenomenon of dressing up hypothesis as theory isn't new, and hardly restricted to historians. But they seem to have an easier time getting away with it, as their entire field is so subjective to begin with. This book is stunningly egregious in its efforts to shoehorn facts into a pre-determined worldview. It's a sequel to a book written in the late 90's that I didn't read, and maybe that one did a good job of predicting the future. But of course, past results do not predict future show more performance, and I don't want to wait a decade or two to evaluate how successful this one will end up being.

The basic premise is that American history is cyclical, with four phases (called "turnings") that repeat in a loop: High, Awakening, Unraveling, Crisis. These correspond to four generational archetypes, the most recent being:

Generation - Archetype
Boomer - Prophet
Gen X - Nomad
Millennial - Hero
Homeland - Artist

It's a potentially interesting way to divide periods of time into manageable chunks, and identify the roles and attitudes of the cohorts. But the evidence provided to support the structure is all anecdotal, with scant hard data to back any of it up. It's more reminiscent of astrology than science, attributing all sorts of characteristics and attitudes to people based on when they were born.

Furthermore, the examples cited are heavily and clumsily cherry-picked to fit the model. And when they don't fit, the author simply changes the definitions. Thus what is commonly known as "Gen Z" is shifted several years and renamed as "Homelanders" in order to fit into the structure of 9/11 and the 2008 economic downturn the way that he wants to portray them. One can't help but get the feeling that all of the dates could shift +/- a decade and randomly reassign the archetypes to each generation and there would be just as many facts to support the alternate ordering.

By focusing solely on cohort as defined by birthdate, there is no room left for any other consideration that may motivate someone to think or behave a certain way (e.g. ethnicity, religion, gender, wealth, education, occupation, etc.). This leads to extremely convoluted reasoning and bizarre conclusions, such as lumping the 1960's evangelical Christians, Black Panthers, vegan hippies, violent leftist student protestors, neo-nazis, and gung-ho marines into the same box, ascribing them the same roles in society and worldview.

Also missing is an explanation of why this only works for America. He mentions a few other countries, particularly England in the 16th-18th centuries. But why didn't the same trend continue there? Or in nearby France, which also had a revolution about the same time that we did? Or our closest neighbours, such as Canada? The fact that the sample size is one (out of 200+ countries that have come and gone in the interim) certainly should cast doubt on the validity of the hypothesis, unless there is a good reason put forth as to why the USA is so unique that it requires its own entire method of interpreting history.

Bottom Line: If you've ever read a blog post, think piece, internet rant, or editorial about Boomers vs. Millennials, and instead of wanting to rip it up wished that it was 600 pages long, then this is the book for you. And even then you should be ashamed of yourself and read something else instead. show less

Thought provoking. IS this an insight into predestination? We now live at the end of the fourth turning. What were its defining events and stresses? The economic meltdown of 2007? The war in Afghanistan? The Ukraine war? The smartphone? Artificial intelligence?
Certainly there seems more fear of civil war in America than any time in living memory. There is even a movie about it. Perhaps that makes it less likely. IS Biden our gray eminence? Certainly he IS gray. IS he seen as pointing the show more way to a new future based on self sacrifice? History will judge that. IS artificial intelligence the stepping stone into a new future for our society? There is Michael being written now about limits to free will. show less

A real mind twister and expander. I Read this because it is the selection for a book club I belong to. When I went to order it I discovered some reviewers suggested reading Howe and Strauss's book: Generations. So I started with that. Then read The Fourth Turning an American Prophecy. Then I finally read this book. The basic theme to all three books is similar: History is cyclical and has seasons. Those seasons are the due to different social generations behaving differently. The generations show more follow one another ins a sequential way. He names them: Prophet, Nomad, Hero and Artist. Each social generation is defined by the historical era it is born into. He classifies the eras as: High, Awakening, Unraveling, and Crisis.
What I found hardest in all this reading was having a clear sense of the differences between generations. While he describes them, and names them also for the eras they live through and typify (such as Boomers for the baby boom generation.). I found myself trying to establish a clear expectation for any named generation.
He of course admits that each named generation has a spectrum of personalities. He says the event that forms a generation is the younger generation distinguishing itself from its parents along with the constellation of social problems it deals with.
Crisis eras are defined by the major wars associated with them and accord about every 80 to 90 years. He refers to a secular which is just less than a century and is defined by the length of a long human lifetime.
The fourth turning is the time when the unraveling turns to a crisis and is likely to include a major war. How the Prophet generation and Hero generation that are the leaders for that time deal with that challenge determine the historical outcome.
The US has been fortunate in that with the possible exception of the civil war all its fourth turnings have been associated with wars that ultimately result in improved living standards and a more united society. He believes we are in a Fourth turning now and it will end in the early 2030s. He hopes for a constructive outcome but his main point is it will be a time of crisis and unrest.
Certainly the picturing history as a sequence of seasons helps to form a coherent picture of events. It helps the historical story hang together.
There is always the danger is that his belief in the season hypothesis colors the way he emphasizes various historical events to support the theory of turning. Sort of a self fulfilling prophecy. Still it is true we certainly identify social generations.: Boomers, Xers, and Millennials to name the major contemporary generations. The GI generation was the generation that spent its youth in World War 2, and the silent generation the generation of the Great Depression.
If a Fourth turning requires a season of awakening and redefining of national purpose, and if we are at that point now perhaps that is why we are on hold waiting for new younger leaders. I am not sure any of his definitions are tight enough to allow for the possibility of refutation as time passes and the time of a new generation arises. Still it offers an interesting insight into past and current events. show less

The Fourth Turning has been a favorite since I read back in the late 90s. This update after 30 years is well-appreciated. Its great to see the authors address the strengths and weaknesses of their model, show more of their sources for developing that model, and address how that model applies to what has happened over the last 30 years, and where it points for the near to moderate term future.

On a more personal level, its both depressing and reassuring in this exact moment in acknowledging show more that we are in a dire moment historically that is far more likely to get worse than better over the next 5-10 years -- but that regardless of what happens in the near term, it should start to get better about a decade out.

The original from the 90s was a book I've given away many copies of over the years -- and I expect to do the same with this one.

(2023 Review 7) show less