It is up to each new generation to articulate its own vision of life

Three generations between 1800 and 1900

History is the ongoing story of successive generations. Yet we are used to perceive it as a gradually unraveling tale in which generations are just a coincidence, an arbitrary addition to all the other pieces of a chess board. But we are not simply the bystanders in a play. We create the various acts of the play ourselves, each one at a time. The generations make their own choices and they make their own mistakes.

What constitutes a generation? The transition between generations often happens only gradually and sometimes two or more generations belong together for having lived out the same convictions and the same themes of their time or epoch. The true divides between generations or periods can only be established afterwards. For instance, I have come to perceive the generations of my parents and grandparents much in the same light, even though there have been substantive transitions within their time. But both carried the last period of nationalist strife and imperial conflict on the soil of Europe, with two World Wars and a simultaneous acceleration in the industrial and technological development of the western world.

When my own generation came of age a distinct rift slashed the connection with the generation of my parents. The nineteen sixties led our world to an entirely new outlook, a transition process which took well over twenty years, up until the end of the eighties. We entered the childhood years of global communication and information and thus of a new period of renewal and change of which we yet have to see the end.

I am part of the so called (Baby) Boom generation, born after 1940. I strongly identify with this generation. I hope I have contributed to the records of my generation in my own very modest way, for I do wish that the character and the dreams of our generation carry through into eternity. Our generation above all is connected with the future. We had visions of the year 2000, a paradise of mechanization and luxury. A world of blue skies and private jets flying through the cities, of Rock Music and holograms, and of a horizon of high rise apartment buildings and industrial food production. When on Jan 1st 2000 (or 2001, which was the proper first day of the Millennium) we woke up, there were still cows grazing in the fields, gassy cars driving around, in ever longer queues, we still had classical music and normal Television, even though everything had been expanded and modernized along the way. Back in the sixties we couldn’t dream of an Information Age, but in 2001 it had solidly arrived.


Two generations: the 1920s and the 1950s

It is my experience that when time moves on, our perspective of the past evolves with it. I find this an utterly fascinating phenomenon. One can sense that the days we can still remember change in color, in relative importance or in their actual meaning, as I can see with more clarity about the transitional period between the sixties and the early nineties. It took those decades to finally shrug off the last remnants of the convictions and adversities which had shaped the larger part of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

But most likely any contemporary assessment of our recent past will be superseded by another. Decades that loom large in our own memory will shrink to mere seconds in future accounts of our time. Some Presidents will be forgotten and some will become legendary. Innovations which today do not seem significant will in future time seem huge and decisive, whereas other developments will fade away in blurry tales.

We do have the advantage, of course, that our time is a period of immense record keeping at ever larger scale. Hardly any incident, small or great, can escape future researchers: our time will offer its records on a golden plate, however flexible the context in which they may be presented to generations after us.

I would very much like to write the history of humanity strictly from the viewpoint of successive generations, the collective of all individuals in each distinct period . I am not the only one thinking in those terms. This I conclude from a brief search on the Internet. One website [1] describes the past six hundred years – the period between 1400 and 2000 – as a succession of some 24 distinct generations, be it from a predominantly American viewpoint, each with its own characteristics. For instance, the generation which faced the Depression and World War II is called the Missionary Generation (F.D. Roosevelt e.a.), and their period is labeled as “The Third Great Awakening”.

---------------------------------------------------
The Silent Generation (Artist, born 1925-1942) grew up as the suffocated children of war and depression. They came of age just too late to be war heroes and just too early to be youthful free spirits. Instead, this early-marrying Lonely Crowd became the risk-averse technicians and professionals—as well as the sensitive rock ‘n rollers and civil-rights advocates—of a post-crisis era in which conformity seemed to be a sure ticket to success. Midlife was an anxious “passage” for a generation torn between stolid elders and passionate juniors. Their surge to power coincided with fragmenting families, cultural diversity, institutional complexity, and prolific litigation. They are entering elderhood with unprecedented affluence, a “hip” style, and a reputation for indecision. (AMERICAN: Colin Powell, Walter Mondale, Woody Allen, Martin Luther King, Jr., Sandra Day O’Connor, Elvis Presley; FOREIGN: Anne Frank, Mikhail Gorbachev)
--------------------------------------------------

I would limit the number of generations to two or three per century, allowing for a broad definition of successive periods, and covering an average of forty to fifty years per generation. We may have to distinguish “early” and “late” varieties of certain generations but they should have largely lived in a continuum of style, advancement, cultural preferences, political paradigms etc. Based on this I have made my own identification of generations between 1800 and 2000. But this is just a first broad brush attempt.


A view of five generations 1800 – 2000 (years of birth):

1790 – 1840 – The Generation of the Restoration (Politicians and Literary figures)

1840 – 1880 – The Generation of Romance and the Bourgeoisie (Victorians)

1880 – 1935 – The Generation of Mass Wars and Invention (Entrepreneurs and Generals)

1935 – 1980 – The Generation of the Popular Revolution (Rock Bands and Managers)

1980 – 2020 – The Generation of Information and Communication (Global Culture)


Every generation is transitory to some extent. In our personal lives we may have developed a clear sense of ‘generation identity’ yet at the same time we are caught in between. We grew up as children of the older generation and we aim to be connected with the generation of our children (and if possible, of our grandchildren). In my framework we can experience at least two distinct periods or generations in one single lifetime.

As a rule, history is described as a tale of wars, leadership policies and great events. The underlying developments and shifts in society do not always get the attention of historians that they deserve.

But history is not simply about the dreams and victories of Kings and Popes, of Emperors and great movements. It must also be about the dreams and convictions of the people. Why not consider history from the perspective of the ordinary man: a good civilian with a keen eye for the things that happen in this world, who intelligently observes the ongoing flow of human passion, the pleasures of the masses and the great thoughts of literature, and who may somehow participate in them or even be part of their creation.


Three generations between the 1960s and 2005

What dreams and convictions were passed on from one generation to the other, what dreams persisted even longer? For instance, the dreams of Jesus Christ or the idea of one Europe as it once was cherished by Charlemagne. And what dreams never got another chance? It is interesting to note that each generation has its thoughts about the end of time, some Apocalypse or Doomsday. But then, we all have our vision of Utopia, or Paradise too. Where has humanity come after we segregated from the kingdom of the animals?

When I try to distinguish my generation (born in the 1950s) from the generation of my parents (born in the 1920s), one single theme stands out: their loyalty to the order of their parents versus our desire to dismantle it. Historic events (i.e. WW II versus the emergence of popular culture) have had a significant influence in shaping these characteristics. It didn’t come with our blood, it came with opportunity and the right economic, demographic [2] and cultural context .

Thus, every generation faces the challenge of achieving its authenticity in the eyes of history. No generation would wish to be cast aside as mere transitory. Each generation faces its struggle of independence of the parents’ generation, each generation creates its own convictions, passions, and fashions. And this applies to the individual too, even though we do not all go to the very limits. Nevertheless we have the freedom to re-invent everything however it suits us.

But even if we accept the idea of a history of humanity as a tale of successive generations we can not, nor should we wish to escape their interaction with the larger historic events. It is impossible to understand the scope and impact of the popular revolution(s) in the nineteen sixties without reflecting on the Cold War, the war in Vietnam, or on any other major issue of the time. Obviously not. We are not talking about separate histories but about another viewpoint from which to relate to largely the same facts. Still it remains an open question to what extent the various elements of ‘history’ truly interact and how they relate in terms of cause and effect. What was the true impact of John F. Kennedy’s assassination from the perspective of the ‘people’s history’? It may become more important to understand these interactions as we have moved well into the age of the masses, of an ever growing world population with many interconnections.

If it was still possible at the time of my parents’ and grandparents’ generation to see ‘history’ as a largely regional affair – for instance: European history, or American history – and to define their progression from a defined social viewpoint (the distinct social segments to which the members of their generation belonged), this will become increasingly difficult for the subsequent generations. Traditional segmentations and class distinctions are rapidly being replaced by dynamic networks both at regional level and beyond. Our virtual reality is becoming a prime reality in which we fulfill many different functions – and satisfy many different objectives or desires. It is probably realistic to say that at this stage it is impossible to assess the ultimate implications of this development, especially the implications for ‘history’, from whatever perspective without some global perspective guiding it.

It has been a fashion for some time to flirt with the idea of ‘the end of history’, following Fukuyama’s famous publication of the late 1980s. The concept has been much debated, often without sufficient consideration to one of Fukuyama’s key points. His thesis on the course, and driving factors, of ‘history’ included the requirement of ‘thymos’, the desire for recognition that pushes certain individuals to project ambitions beyond well trodden paths. Already, some two decades after the self-proclaimed victory of free market capitalism and liberal democracy over any remaining totalitarian system, it is clear to us that History has not stopped there. Foundations for new historic themes are being laid right before our eyes. They are new themes compared with the issues of power and people’s influence of the Twentieth and Nineteenth centuries, such as Climate control, world population, international security, global political and economic institutions and so on. As yet we can not determine how or what ‘history’ will come out of this. It requires the hindsight of people living some hundred or more years from now.

New generations will continue to inhabit our planet either in tranquil succession or with massive bangs. Their future stories, much as the stories of past generations, will be the ongoing tale of humanity, indeed, like Fukuyama said, until de very last man.

-------------------------------------------

[1] ) Generations in history - http://www.fourthturning.com/my_html/body_generations_in_history.html

[2] ) Some time in the early eighties I attended a business course at which we had a professor of demographics as a guest lecturer. In a persuasive presentation he pictured the course of history entirely as a function of demographics, for instance contrasting a more restrictive elderly society with a young and boundless society, societies which are conducive to a stable democracy and societies which are prone to absolutism or authoritarian rule.

Obama is the reminder of a President we never had

Some men see things and ask why?
I see things and ask, why not?
(Robert Kennedy, 1968)

This is the major significance of Barack Obama. He is the Robert Kennedy who didn’t get the chance. Yes we can! is exactly the recommendation that Robert Kennedy left us, before he was shot to death. Indeed, why not? More than any other Presidential candidate, Robert Kennedy practiced the oratory and operated out of a heart similar to Obama’s.

Kennedy’s assassination followed the assassination of Martin Luther King, which was some half year before. And the death of both of them could be seen as their ultimate, personal sacrifice to help end a war which very few people could still consider justified. The war in Vietnam.

There is an almost bizarre similarity between both the circumstances and the public atmosphere of 1968 and those of 2008. But this time it is a Democrat who won, not another Republican – however little comparison can be made between McCain and Nixon.

Nevertheless. Nixon almost single-handedly crushed the hope of an entire generation. He protracted the War (eager for an honorable withdrawal and nothing less) and he corrupted the entire office of the US President.

This most certainly is not the expectation we have of President-Elect Barack Obama. It is highly important for our world that any further comparison with 1968 and the subsequent years fails from this point.

OPPORTUNITY, MR PRESIDENT-ELECT

My warm congratulations to Barack Obama on a watershed victory

“The choice in this election isn't between tax cuts and no tax cuts. It's about whether you believe we should only reward wealth or we should also reward the work and the workers who give it," he said. "John McCain calls this socialistic. I call it opportunity."

(Sen Barack Obama, just a few days before Nov 4th 2008, election day)



Nov 4 2008 has turned out to become a day of great hope and anticipation. Ever since I spotted Barack Obama in the summer of 2007, I have set my hopes on his election, as did so many other people once he caught their eyes and their imagination.

But I never dared to hope too strongly. The sense of pain after John Kerry lost the elections in 2004 was far to great to ever wish to experience it again. Yet, over the past few months, Obama’s chances of winning the presidency became ever more serious. And still I did not dare to project his ultimate victory. Only tonight the floodgate of hope and anticipation finally burst open.

Barack Obama represents opportunity as it only rarely has reached the office of the US President. Obviously there is no way we can say that he will seeze all the opportunities ahead, as on his way he will have to successfully tackle many issues – severe stumblingblocks -, largely the legacy of his Republican predecessor George W. Bush. In doing so, the main thrust of his initial months as the US President should not be to further enstrange the public from this recent past, but to offer reconciliation.

Still, however this may be, Mr Obama will be the first US President in many years to inspire a great many people around the world who will take his election as a wake up call to ignite new imagination into our world in all dimensions.

I have often made the comparison between the atmosphere – and opportunities – of our present time with those of the early sixties, when I was still a young boy with an emerging awareness of the greater world around me. It was in 1963 when I first visited the United States, 11 years of age, and ever since I have been fascinated by the vibrations of entrepreneurship and imagination all around me coming out of the American soil. Mr Obama will need all these vibrations when he faces the tremendous challenges ahead, none of which need to be clarified at this point.

George W. Bush enjoyed a silver spoon upbringing and his presidency started off with a healthy America delivered on his White House doorstep. Barack Obama made this journey to Washington all by himself and he will pick up an America in financial and moral disarray, both domestically and in the world outside. It is in the interest of all Americans to cast partisan divisions aside ans start amend these huge deficiencies. Not one Barack Obama can ever complete that task. It will have to be thousands of people, from both sides of the political spectrum, to restore America’s greatness, in a new perspective and abundant with new opportunity.

HISTORY IS MADE BY AMBITION

Tuesday November 4 2008 will be a decisive day for history. It will be proven by a record turnout of American voters.

On one side, there is an experienced aged Senator with limited imagination and out to return some respect to (and) for the established powers. He seems a reassuring prospect for many, especially for those who see nothing in change and rather stick up a good defense to keep what they have.

On the other side a man who is already the epitome of change, by virtue of his candidacy, and who professes ‘change we can believe in”. He is an inspiration to many, whatever the critics say about his rhetoric versus his actual accomplishments.

History is made by people who see a road well in advance of others. Who can see the opportunities, and the threats, in their proper context, and in their proportions. And perhaps it is even better to say that such people can look beyond mere opportunity and see its potential too.

A famous example is the historic ignition of man’s quest for the Moon. “Within this decade we will send a man to the Moon…” (John F. Kennedy, 1961). It happened, most certainly in part because of the explicit presidential thrust behind it.

We do live in a time when every presidential thrust in quite a few ambitious directions will be highly appreciated. This need not be just the American president. Nor was it just any single American president in history who pursued and completed the job. An important aspect of the presidential responsibility is to seek and retain the proper allies, inside and outside. So did every great American president, at least if we take the rank of greatness from a recent expert panel who assessed all 43 presidents on their historic ‘turf’.

And if history - which is always by hindsight – is determined by the greatness of human ambition, so must be our future. Many sizeable challenges lay ahead affecting the sustainability of our human existence on this entire planet. We can not remain in the squabbles of the past, as many of today’s conflicts and struggles still largely are. We don't actually have to go to Mars, and perhaps we should not go, at least not until some pertinent issues on Earth have effectively been resolved, such as Climate change, resources, habitat etcetera.

Many US Presidents have given good examples. Even the unlikely ones. Harry Truman is considered one of the better presidents. He achieved this against all initial odds. He succeeded a giant, in a highly complex period. Both McCain and Obama at least have the possibility to rise to the challenge, perhaps in both cases against the initial odds.

What the world should hope for is that all Americans will be able to stand behind the one who wins, and that the will be able to do so for his full term.