The Fourth Turning and the Problem of Cherry Picking Tragedy
The theory of the Fourth Turning, developed by William Strauss and Neil Howe in the 1990s, argues that history moves through recurring generational cycles lasting roughly eighty to one hundred years. According to the authors, each cycle is divided into four “turnings,” ending in a final period of crisis that reshapes society before renewal begins (Strauss and Howe 32). This framework has recently gained attention among political commentators and conspiracy theorists who claim that America is currently in such a “fourth turning” (Howe 4). While the model is presented as a powerful tool for understanding the sweep of history, it relies heavily on selective examples of tragedy to maintain its appearance of accuracy. A closer look reveals that the Fourth Turning’s predictions depend on cherry-picking moments of crisis while ignoring the constant, underlying reality of political unrest.
Strauss and Howe identify past “fourth turnings” as periods marked by great wars or national upheavals: the American Revolution, the Civil War, and the Great Depression leading into World War II (Strauss and Howe 105). By presenting these landmark events as inevitable products of generational rhythm, they give the impression that history is locked into predictable cycles of collapse and renewal. Yet, the selection of which events qualify as “turnings” is remarkably narrow. They highlight the American Civil War as the central crisis of the nineteenth century but downplay or omit numerous other violent episodes of political turmoil, such as the repeated clashes between labor unions and industrial capital, the expansion of Native American displacement, or the violent suppression of abolitionist voices before the war itself. By choosing one great tragedy as the climax of a cycle, they erase the fact that unrest and suffering are constant features of history, not isolated eruptions timed by generational change.
This problem of selective tragedy undermines the theory’s explanatory power. Political unrest has never followed a neat, four-stage rhythm. The United States in particular has faced near-constant internal strife: the Whiskey Rebellion of the 1790s, violent debates over slavery decades before the Civil War, the anarchist movements and labor uprisings of the late nineteenth century, the racial violence of the early twentieth century, the civil rights struggles of the 1950s and 1960s, the Vietnam War protests, and more recent unrest surrounding police violence, inequality, and contested elections. If one looks honestly at the historical record, there has never been a true “low point” of conflict. Instead, unrest has been a continuous, underlying condition of American society. The Fourth Turning only appears plausible when its advocates highlight one defining catastrophe while ignoring the many smaller but equally significant upheavals in between.
The tendency to cherry-pick also shows up in contemporary interpretations of the theory. Commentators who cite Strauss and Howe often claim that our current moment is “destined” for a great crisis that will either destroy or renew the nation (Howe 210). Yet, this ignores the reality that crisis is already an ongoing state. Political polarization, the erosion of public trust in institutions, global climate challenges, economic instability, and mass protests are not signs of a coming storm—they are the storm. When seen from this perspective, the Fourth Turning does not predict anything unique; it simply repackages the constant churn of political unrest into a dramatic but oversimplified narrative.
Ultimately, the appeal of the Fourth Turning lies in its storytelling rather than its accuracy. People are naturally drawn to frameworks that impose order on chaos and provide a sense of inevitability about the future. By pointing to select tragedies and labeling them as proof of cyclical destiny, the theory reassures its audience that history follows a predictable script. However, this comfort comes at the cost of truth. The reality is that history is messy, unpredictable, and filled with perpetual conflict that does not fit neatly into generational boxes. Political unrest is not an occasional disruption that arrives once every eighty years; it is the permanent backdrop against which all societies operate.
For this reason, the Fourth Turning should be understood less as a serious theory of history and more as a cultural myth. Its reliance on cherry-picking tragedies makes it appear compelling, but once the constant presence of unrest is acknowledged, the model collapses. Far from uncovering the hidden cycles of history, it reflects humanity’s ongoing desire to find patterns where none exist.
Works Cited
Howe, Neil. The Fourth Turning Is Here: What the Seasons of History Tell Us about How and When This Crisis Will End. Atria Books, 2023.
Strauss, William, and Neil Howe. The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy. Broadway Books, 1997.
No comments:
Post a Comment