Strauss and Howe base the length of their generations on the length of a phase of life (italics in the original):²⁹

Strauss and Howe make use of the generational constellation in their explanation of the mechanism for their cycle. The generational constellation is easiest to understand in terms of an idealized set of generations, each of which is as long as a 22-year-long phase of life. Assume at time zero generation type D starts being born; at year 22 generation type C starts being born; at year 44 generational type B starts being born and at year 66, generation type A starts being born. Now imagine New Year's day in year 88. How old will members of each generation be?

Members of generation type A will be age 0-21 years, and will exactly fill the youth phase of life. Generation type B will be age 22-43 and will exactly fill the rising adult phase of life. Everyone who is in the mature adult phase of life (age 44-65) will belong to the type C generation and everyone aged 66-87 will belong to a type D generation and occupy the elder phase of life.

If time is moved up 22 years, each generation moves up one notch: A to rising adult (age 22-43); B to mature adult (age 44-65);and C to elderhood (age 65-87). Generation D will have passed from the scene, and a new generation of the same type will have been born to replace them. This type D generation will fully occupy the youth phase of life. Strauss and Howe call the specific time when generations match up with phases of life aligned generational constellations. When an aligned constellation occurs, a new generation starts being born. Two to five years after this, a new turning starts. It is the periodic alignment of generations with phases of life that acts as the pacemaker for the saeculum.

It is not clear exactly how generational constellations create cyclical history or new generations. The mechanism has to do with generations playing phase of life roles (as opposed to individuals). For example, a secular crisis is when an Idealist generation plays an elder role, a Reactive generation plays a mature adult role, a Civic generation plays a rising adult role and an Adaptive generation plays a youth role. A spiritual awakening is when the elder role is played by a Civic generation, a mid-life role is played by an Adaptive generation, a rising-adult role is played by an Idealist generation and the role of youth is played by a Reactive generation. If we define becoming a certain type of generation as the youth role, this idea of roles played by generations during turnings naturally explains how new generations are created. But the idea of how a generation plays a role is not clear.

It is easy to see how individuals play phase of life roles. For example, consider the mature adult role of leadership. As an example of leadership let us choose political leadership as represented by people acting in the leadership roles of governor, US senator and US representative. At what age do people play these roles? Figure 9 shows a histogram of the distribution of ages for the people in these roles in 2004. As the figure shows, people play political leadership roles at a wide variety of ages. But some ages are more common than others and some ages are completely absent. For example nobody in their twenties was a congressman or governor in 2004, and more of these leaders were in their fifties than any other decade of life. We can represent the distribution of ages at which political leaders play their role by the familiar bell curve as shown in the figure. This curve defines leadership age in terms of a mean value which I will call A_L and a standard deviation, which is a measure of the width of the distribution.

Figure 9. Age distribution of governors and congressmen in 2004

For any given year Y, we can obtain the birth years for leaders by subtracting the age distribution of leaders from Y. The birth years will be a bell-shaped distribution centered on Y - A_L. Figure 10 illustrates this principle for Y equal to 66, 77 and 88 with A_L = 44 years. Let us now assume that generations, each 22 years long, start to be born in year zero. We then have generation 1 born between year 0 and 22, generation 2 born between year 22 and 44, generation 3 born between year 44 and 66, and so on. The generation boundaries are shown in Figure 10. The three curves showing leader birth dates move to the right as Y increases from 66 to 88 years. This naturally happens because each bell curve is centered on the year Y - 44, so the bell curve moves one year to the right for each one year increase in Y. Bell curves to the left of the green curve (years before 66) are going to fall more within generation 1 than generation 2, while bell curves to the right of the red curve (years after 88) will fall more within the generation 3 than generation 2. Bell curves in-between the green and red curve (years 66-88) will fall more within generation 2 than either generation 1 or generation 3.

Thus, leaders during the 66-88 period will more likely be a member of generation 2 than any other generation. We can say generation 2 occupies the leadership role during this period. If we consider leadership as the primary or defining role of mature adulthood, then we can say that generation 2 occupies the mature adult phase of life during the years 66-88. The years 66 and 88 are the boundaries of the mature phase of life for generation 2. Note that the peak of the leader birth distributions for these boundary years exactly match up with the boundary years for the birth of generation 2.

Figure 10. Leader birth year distributions with A_L = 44 for selected years

We can generalize these boundaries by denoting the first and last birth years for generation 2 (or any generation) as B1 and B2 and by denoting the first and last years of that generation's mature adulthood as Y1 and Y2. The peak in birth dates for year Y1 occurred in year Y1 - A_L. This peak occurs in the same year as B1 so we can write:

1. B1 = Y1 - A_L or Y1 = B1 + A_L

By analogy we can also write:

2. B2 = Y2 - A_L

By definition, the time between B1 and B2 is one generation length or L. Thus, B2 = B1 + L and equation 2 becomes

3. B1 + L = Y2 - A_L or Y2 = B1 + A_L +L

If we subtract equation 1 from equation 3 we obtain

4. Y2 - Y1 = B1 + A_L + L - B1 - A_L = L

By definition, the time between Y1 and Y2 is one phase-of-life length. Thus, generation length is equal to phase-of-life length for all values of A_L.

The same argument just made for leadership as a mature adult phase of life role can be made for other phase of life roles. For example, suppose we use coming of age as the defining role for rising adulthood. We can denote the average age at which people come of age as A_C. Some will come of age before age A_C and others after age A_C, so there will be a bell-shaped distribution like that in Figure 9 that is centered on A_C. For any given year Y, we can obtain the birth year distribution for those coming of age by subtracting this age distribution from Y--just as we did in Figure 10. The result will be a bell-shaped distribution centered on the year Y - A_C. For certain years Y1 and Y2, the birth year peaks will correspond to the birth year boundaries for a certain generation. The years Y1 and Y2 will span the period when that generation is in rising adulthood. Expressions analogous to equations 1 and 3 can be written for this case:

5. Beginning of rising adulthood = B1 + A_C

6. End of rising adulthood = B1 + A_C + L

The end of rising adulthood is the same as the beginning of mature adulthood, which was given by equation 1. Setting equation 6 equal to equation 1 yield:

7. B1 + A_L = B1 + A_C + L Þ A_L = A_C + L

We can repeat this process for an elder phase of life role (e.g. stewardship) that is performed at an average age of A_S. The result is

8. A_S = A_L + L = A_C + 2L

Finally, let us define the defining youth role for a generation as becoming that type of generation. By definition, a generation is a set of people born over a period of time (e.g. between year B1 and B2). Thus one becomes one generation or another simply by being born at the right time. The defining youth role for a generation is birth. A generation is born between B1 and B2 and so it occupies the youth phase of life over this time. The end of the youth phase of life occurs in year B2, which can also be written as:

9. end of youth phase of life = B1 + L

The end of the youth phase of life is the same as the beginning of the rising adult phase of life which was given by equation 5. Thus equation 5 and 8 are equal to each other:

10. B1 + A_C = B1 + L or A_C = L

From equations 7, 8 and 10 it follows that

11. A_C = L; A_L = 2L; A_S = 3L.

We can summarize when a generation whose first birth year is B1 occupies the various phases of life as shown in Table 8. Table 8 shows that a generation occupies a phase of life at the same time as its first birth cohort (those born in year B1).

Table 8. Summary of relations defining when generations occupy a phase of life

*first birth year of next generation of the same type

3.2 How generational constellations create history

An aligned generational constellation occurs when membership in each phase of life is shifting from one generation to another. That is, it is like the years 66 and 88 in Figure 10, when a new generation begins to occupy a plurality of leadership positions (the role that defines the mature phase of life). The same thing is happening to the other phase-of-life roles. Assuming generations are different, the collective action of actors in each phase of life role will change in the next few years after the aligned constellation year. This will happen because the character of collective actions will change from one reflecting the worldviews of the old generation to those of a new generation. As history is simply the collective action of people, a shift in history (a new turning) will closely follow an aligned constellation year.

Each turning is characterized by a different generation dominating each phase of life role. This set of generations and roles is the generational constellation. Since generations are different, they play their roles differently. An Adaptive generation in mature adulthood (i.e. dominating societal leadership positions) will behave differently (create different history) than a Reactive generation in mature adulthood. With three adult phases of life occupied by three types of generations there are three parallel "collective wills" acting on history during one turning. The sum of these three wills shapes history (generations create history). During the next turning all three wills will be different resulting in a different history being shaped. How history is shaped depends on which generations perform which phase of life roles, that is, on the particular generational constellation.

Table 9 Generation lifecycle and constellation descriptions

*Letters indicate generations I = Idealist, R = Reactive, C = Civic, A = Adaptive

Table 9 shows one-word descriptions of each generation in each phase of life given by Strauss and Howe.³⁵ The descriptions are arranged in two ways. The first arranges them in terms of generation type. Each generation is characterized by a series of descriptions that apply to them at different phases of life. Idealists are indulged youths who grow up to be narcissistic young adults who have all the answers. As they age they see problems with the loose standards to which they were held as youths and resolve to raise their children differently, becoming moralistic in midlife. Self-assured to the end and full of the wisdom that comes from introspection, they act as visionary elders in old age. Strauss and Howe use the term prophetic to describe this progression, the Idealist lifecycle. Reactives are criticized youths who grow up to become alienated young adults. They learn the lessons of life from the "school of hard knocks" and become pragmatic midlife adults. They age into reclusive elders. The Reactive lifecycle is described as picaresque.

It is easy to see how these two generations would age as described. It is also easy to see how Idealists, rejecting the results of the relaxed nurture they advocated in their youth, tighten standards of child nurture and discipline, producing a protected (or structured) youth for the next generation of Civics. The Civic generation, disciplined in youth, are equipped for heroic performance in rising adulthood. The experience of purposeful action in rising adulthood prepares them to act as powerful institution-builders in mid-life and to continue a lifetime of purposeful activity into old age as busy elders. Their lifecycle is heroic. Finally, Adaptives spend their youth as suffocated youths, experiencing the highest level of protection and structure of the generational cycle. Repressed youths grow up to become conformist young adults. As they move into mid-life they experience a "mid-life crisis" in which they begin to question (and often reject) their blind acceptance of behavioral standards set by others. They become open-minded explorers of new ideas and experiences and as such are indecisive mid-lifers and age into sensitive elders. They life a genteel lifecycle.

The bottom half of Table 9 shows the same descriptions, only this time arranged by turning (and generational constellation). Each row shows descriptions or attributes for the generation occupying each phase of life during a particular turning. Each attribute is referenced to the role to be played by the holders of that attribute. For example, the Awakening has the rising adult role of activity played by a narcissistic generation coming of age who are to be lead by indecisive mid-life leaders, with no direction from busy elders preoccupied with their own lives--hardly a recipe for success. Table 9 describes this period as chaotic. Contrast this with the Crisis, which has the role of activity to be played by a heroic generation coming of age who are led by pragmatic leaders for objectives set by visionary elders. The collection of attributes available in the crisis is particularly well-suited for effective collective action on the serious problems of the time. This action will be outer-directed, that is, focused on external stands of success, and that is why secular accomplishment is what happens in a Crisis turning. On the other hand the chaos of the Awakening is poorly suited for effective collective action on the problems of the day, leaving people more or less on their own. Thus, individual action in an Awakening is more individualistic and introspective, making the Awakening is a period of spiritual crisis and renewal, not secular crisis and achievement.

The collection of attributes associated with the turnings following the social moments are also aligned with the necessary character of these turnings. The High that follows a Crisis is necessarily going to be a time of unity as the major problems facing society have been solved. The constellation of this turning features a conformist generation coming of age, powerful mid-life leaders and reclusive elders. This arrangement is perfectly suited for mid-life Civics to create a world based on the lessons of the Crisis without any interference from other generations. During the Unraveling society becomes fragmented as a result of the damage done to the validity and integrity of its leading institutions during the Awakening. The constellation of this time features an alienated generation coming of age, resenting the intrusion of moralistic midlifers into their business. Having achieved nothing in their youth, these mid-life crusaders have no moral authority in the eyes of the next-younger generation. The elder generation has this moral authority in their role as stewards of the culture, but refuses to exercise it, seeing both sides of every issue in accordance with their sensitive attribute. This arrangement is perfectly suited to the individualistic era that is the Unraveling and encourages the neglect of problems so they can grow into another Crisis.

These collections of attributes associated with each turning reflect generational constellations. The leftmost column in Table 9 shows the generational constellation (in phase of life order from youth to elderhood) that produces the set of attributes for each turning. And this set of attributes, possessed by generations playing different roles, creates the turnings.

So far I have outlined a self-consistent model for how generations of length L can create turnings of length L. Turnings are created by people performing key phase of life roles such as coming of age, societal leadership and societal stewardship at particular ages A_C, A_L and A_S. These key ages must be multiples of L for the roles to be phase of life roles. For true phase of life roles, for a given period of length L, a different generation will dominate each role. The combination of generation and phase of life role that it dominates is called the generational constellation. Constellations cause turnings by the combined impact of three parallel "history-shaping collective wills" exerted by each combination of generation and role. Even small differences between how generations execute a phase of life role will add together producing a strong effect of the constellation. That is, the constellation magnifies the effect of small differences between generations into large impacts on history (turning changes).

What hasn't been explained by the constellation model is how the various generations get their attributes. That is, how are generations created? Strauss and Howe posit that generations are created by the impact of eventful history on the occupants of the different phases of life:³⁶

Imagine an event on New Year's day in the year 88 that "imprints" a generational peer personality upon the occupants of the phases of life. Thus, those in elderhood (born 0-21) form one generation, those in mature adulthood (born 22-43) form another generation, those in rising adulthood (born 44-65) form a third generation and those in youth (born 66-87) form a fourth generation. In this way we can create the four hypothetical generations of our previous discussion. This description seems reasonable but upon further examination is problematic.

Left open is what caused the generation-forming event. For the saeculum to be operative, these events must repeat at intervals that are a multiple of L, so as to create regular generations of length L. The constellation model provides no mechanism through which generations create periodic events like these. What the model does produce is discrete periods (turnings) of length L that are distinct from one another. Such distinctive periods could produce the imprinting effect described by Strauss and Howe, but problems arise when the imprinting event is assumed to be longer.

For example, suppose the generation-causing "event" runs for 20 years, from the beginning of year 88 to the end of year 107. In this case how do we identify those who "occupy a phase of life" during the event? At the start of the event people born over 44-65 will occupy the rising adult phase of life. At the end the event people born over 42-63 will occupy the mature adult phase of life. Those born between 44 and 63 will have been in two phases of life during the event and so will be imprinted into which generation?

Another approach would be to assume that events create a generation by acting on people performing a single key phase of life role like coming of age. In this case there is no ambiguity, those at the right age during the event get formed into a single generation. Strauss and Howe identify coming of age as a particularly important role in the creation of a generation:³⁶

If coming of age is considered to occur over a fairly short span of ages, then the size of a generation will depend on the length of the event. For example, suppose most people come of age within five years of A_C. An event would create a coming of age "generation" born between A_C + 5 years before the beginning of the event and A_C - 5 years before the end of the event. The generation created would be ten years longer than the event. If the events are social moments, whose length runs from 8 to 22 years (Table 1), then the length of generations created in this way would be 18-32 years long.

This sort of a mechanism provides a plausible way to create generations of appropriate length, but it doesn't make use of the phase of life concept. As seen earlier, the constellation model necessarily calls for generation length to be equal to phase of life length. This mechanism also only produces two kinds of generations, "event generations" and those born in between. Strauss and Howe call the former dominant and the latter recessive generations.

Strauss and Howe implicitly identify a cycle of parental nurture in their discussion of their cycle. Nurture is most protective during Crises and least protective during Awakenings.³⁷ Since parental nurture directly impacts children, this nurture cycle can act to shape people occupying another phase of life (youth) during social moments. Thus, in a social moment, those coming of age are not the only ones "imprinted" into a dominant generation. It is also those who have not yet come of age that develop a generational sense apart from those who did come of age in the social moment. These individuals come of age in the period between social moments and are members of recessive generations.

Table 10. Interaction of the nurture cycle and social moment imprinting to create generations*

*Dominant generations and social moment turnings in bold, recessive generations in italics

Table 10 shows a schematic of how social moments and the nurture cycle can interact to create generations. Imagine a major war hitting a society, producing the conditions of a crisis-like social moment. A dominant generation is forged from those coming of age in the crisis. We can imagine children experiencing a particularly overprotective form of parental nurture during these times. A sharp difference will emerge between those who took part in the momentous events of the crisis and those who came of age too late to take part. This difference will divide youth and rising adults into Civic and Adaptive generations.

In the post-crisis era, the children of the crisis, now parents themselves, will tend to give their children the childhood they never got, producing an indulgent childhood experience for the post-crisis children. These indulged children will be imprinted into a dominant generation in the next social moment. Their response to the social moment will be self-absorbed, reflecting their indulgent nurture. They will become Idealists rather than Civics. As self-adsorbed parents, Idealists will allow their children even more freedom than they had. These children, encouraged to grow up fast, come of age after the social moment as alienated adolescents, unready for adult responsibilities. They become a Reactive generation. They learn responsibility coming of age in "the school of hard knocks" and experience the downside of lax upbringing. As parents they provide the discipline they didn't get to their own children. This generation of children responds in a disciplined fashion to the next social moment and are imprinted into Civics.

What makes Civics in one social moment and Idealists in another is the different nurture they received in the previous turning. This nurture itself is a reaction against the nurture their parent's generation received in the previous social moment. This nurture, and the distinctive leadership style of mid-life leaders (indecisive Adaptives versus pragmatic Reactives) is what makes a social moment an Awakening or a Crisis, and the coming of age generation an Idealist or Civic generation.

Tables 9 and 10 show a plausible way for how generations create history and how new generations are subsequently created. Although not explicitly stated, the nurture mechanism outlined in Table 10 contains a built-in assumption about the length of a generation. It is assumed that each generation parents the next. The Adaptive children of the crisis, who received an overly strict upbringing from their disciplined Civic parents, themselves provide a more relaxed upbringing for their own children, which sets the stage for their becoming Idealists in the next social moment. Unless most of the Idealist's have Civic grandparents, they wouldn't get the right type of nurture and so wouldn't be primed to become Idealists. The cycle would fall apart. It is necessary that phase of life generations be about the same length as biological generations. That is, L must be around 25-30 years in length. Table 6 shows six saecula between 1204 and 1844 with an average turning/generation length (L) of 27 years. The two saecula after 1844 show lengths about one-third shorter. Thus, for the period before 1844, the mechanism in Tables 9 and 10 can work.

With L=27, A_C = 27, A_L = 54 and A_S = 81. Coming of age is usually not associated with 27-year-old "youths". Generations enthusiast Kurt Horner gives an interpretation of coming of age as coming to power. Horner maintains that in medieval and early modern times, only those with property or title could have any effect on history. A young noble had to wait until he inherited his father's property and title before he could play a meaningful role in society. Horner suggests that the average age at which this occurred was around age 27. Indeed, the average age at which English monarchs attained the throne before 1700 was 28 years.

Once they gained their titles and came into their inheritance, the youths were full-fledged adults and began to become familiar with their new roles. Horner proposes that a typical member of the elite class continued to gain in influence and power with age, reaching a maximum shortly before death. The subset of the elite with the greatest influence (what I will call the "power elite") should be those aged around the average age of elite death. Horner speculates that this should be close to age 54. The average age at which English monarchs died before 1700 was 51, which supports Horner's speculation. Thus, A_L refers to the average age of the power elite and membership in the power elite then serves as the defining role for mature adulthood.

There is no conceivable role to be played by those aged A_S = 81 years and so there was no elder phase of life role before the 19th century. Although individuals around this age certainly existed, they impacted history as members of the power elite, a body whose collective age (and generation) was younger than they. This means that the elderhood phase of life role in Table 9 was absent, removing one of the parallel collective wills that shape history. In addition, because one of the rising adult roles of generations is becoming the proper generation type, a simultaneous effect by this generation on history cannot be present. A generational peer personality cannot simultaneously cause and be caused by the same history. This leaves only one generation, that in mature adulthood (the power elite) to cause social moments to happen on the force of its own collective will. This means that the peer personality traits shown in Table 9 must be strongly present in generations if they are to create history.

A strong correspondence between the peer personality descriptors in Table 9 and recent generations is not evident, however. For example, the behavior of the Civic GI generation (b 1901-1924) in elderhood hardly could be described as busy (and out of touch). GIs served as President for 32 years after their first cohort turned age 60, longer than any other generation. Although many did live "busy" lives apart from younger generations, many others were still very much active in leadership. Also, the non-heroic experience of US soldiers in Vietnam (as opposed to WW II) cannot fairly be attributed to generational character flaws (narcissism--see Table 9) in the soldiers themselves. To do so smacks of the worst kind of stereotyping. It would appear that peer personalities of real generations are not that strong, that they are merely tendencies. If this is the case, generations will require some "help" in creating history.

Let there exist a "history shaping force", independent of generations, that causes periodic "eventful times" spaced approximately 2L years apart. Assume social moments arise from the interaction of generations with these eventful times. Eventful times that begin with Adaptives in power and Pre-Idealists coming of age will become spiritual awakenings, while those with Reactives in power and pre-Civics coming of age will become secular crises. The combination of the characteristic nurture of the dominant parental generation and the special environment of the social moment reliably produces Adaptive and Reactive generations. Then, when they come to power two generations later the generations can reliably "color" the next eventful time into a social moment of the opposite type of the one that created them. The interaction between this hypothetical cycle and the generation constellation can reliably create the regularly alternating Awakenings and Crises spaced 2L years apart that is the saeculum.

Although this separate cycle is not strictly necessary for the operation of the saeculum once all four generations exist, it is required for the saeculum to get started in the first place. Also, were the saeculum to shift off-track for some reason (e.g. the Civil War anomaly) there would be no way to reestablish the saeculum operation from just the generations alone.

In this section I will consider how the generational saeculum could get started. I assume that an external cycle creates "eventful" or "bad" times roughly every 54 (2L) years. These times typically last from 10 to 20 years and serve as social moments. Each generation is assumed to provide a characteristic nurture for a generation of the type described in Table 10 that is born 27 years after they were. For example, an Adaptive generation born in the years 1-27 will provide pre-Idealist-type nurture to a generation born in the years 28-54. This pre-Idealist generation, after becoming an Idealist generation by coming of age in an Awakening, nurtures a Reactive generation born over 55-81.

The process of generation creation is assumed to start with a particularly serious incidence of bad times that runs over the years 100 to 115. This era, functioning as a social moment, creates a dominant generation out of those coming of age. Coming of age is the defining role for those in rising adulthood and occurs at the age A_C, with is equal to L or 27 years. Assuming a spread of plus or minus five years around A_C captures almost all those coming of age, we can say those born between 32 (=27+5) years before the start of the social moment and 22 (=27-5) years before the end of the social moment will fall into this dominant generation. That is, it will be born in the years 68-93. What sort of generation they become will depend on the nature of the coming of age experience. If it is empowering, like WW II, they will become Civics. If it is not, like Vietnam, they will become Idealists.

Let us assume the latter is the case. The generation born 68-93 is imprinted by their coming of age experience in the social moment into relatively self-centered individualists who provide a less-than-normal degree of discipline to their children. They are not a "pure" Idealist generation because they lack the pre-Idealist upbringing, but it is assumed that the initializing social moment was sufficiently psychologically scarring to affect their parenting. Their children's generation is born over 95-120, 27 years after their parent's generation. They come of age ill-equipped to deal with the responsibilities of adulthood. Times are not bad (it is the post-social moment era) and they manage to flourish after a few terms in the school of hard knocks, becoming a Reactive generation. Their rough-and-tumble coming-of-age experience leads them to provide a more disciplined upbringing to their children's generation, born 122-147. They do conform to a "pre-Civic" generation, in accordance with Table 10.

The external cycle then delivers another round of eventful times (social moment) over the 154-169 period, 54 or 2L years after the last one. This social moment will create a dominant generation born in the years 122-147. These birth years overlap with those of the pre-Civic generation. This means the generation coming of age in the 154-169 social moment has a predisposition to developing as a Civic rather than Idealist generation. All that is needed for them to turn out as Civics is for the generation in mature adulthood to exhibit minimally pragmatic leadership (i.e. avoid a fiasco) and the younger generation will become Civics and the social moment will be a Secular Crisis. The generation in leadership will have been born 2L (54) years before the 154-69 social moment or in 100-115. These birth years fall within the 95-120 birth years for the Reactive generation created in the previous social moment. Their peer personality should provide the fiasco-avoiding leadership style required to mold the social moment into a secular crisis. Coming of age in a secular crisis will mold the pre-Civic generation into full-fledged Civics, completing the cycle.

On the other hand, if a fiasco happens the pre-Civics will be not be empowered, resulting in an Adaptive generation and disrupting the cycle. The probability that this happens increases if there is a mismatch between the nurture and the social moment roles played by a generation. For example, if the social moment came too early, too few of the leaders would have had the reactive-type of nurture. Their response might be principled, but unrealistic, which would be more prone to fiasco. A similar problem would happen with the social moment coming late. The leadership would lack the pragmatic generational endowment needed to make the social moment a secular crisis. Once the saeculum is well established and the discrete generations are in place, it can survive perturbations in the external cycle, but to get it started in the first place the regularity of this cycle is required to force the generations to line up property for the linkages in Tables 9 and 10 to take hold.

By delegating the job of creating interesting times (social moments) to another mechanism it is easy to see how the generational constellation can get the saeculum going and maintain it. Strauss and Howe do not propose an auxilliary cycle to help make their cycle operate. They suggest that the generational constellation does it all by itself. But as we have seen here it is difficult to see how this can happen, particularly in the pre-1844 era when generations were longer and there was no elder phase of life role. But even in more recent times, with shorter generation length, it is hard to see how generations get created or whether generations strongly having the properties described even exist.