I mean, honest question. The very 80s vibe of the cover and it’s rather generic title did very little to pique mine, I can tell you. The forewarning of a significant number of charts, graphs and statistics did little to revive it either. However, I will admit that Generations was quite interesting although I’m not entirely sure how I feel about it still.
Plot summary
This nonfiction work by Neil Howe and William Strauss looks at the cycle of generations from America’s inception through to the late 1990s. Their thesis is that there are four cycles of generational ‘personalities’, each of which influence the next generation and how American society responds to spiritual and secular crises throughout the ages. This thesis is thoroughly documented throughout and there is significant reference material if you’d like to go deeper into their research.
Using the examples of the past, Howe and Strauss put forward broad stroke predictions for the future of America, based on their cyclical model. But how accurate are they now, 30 years on?
I am compelled but uncertain about Generations
I have put off writing this review, not only because of renovation work, but also because I’m still not sure what I think about this book.
Firstly, I must caveat my opinions by saying I know nothing about the field of research that Howe and Strauss are well-regarded in. Perhaps some of my uncertainty about their model is my own lack of understanding. However, I am a little unsure that the cycles they identify so confidently do truly exist in such clear and structured ways. I definitely see the links and similarities, even in Australia. I can see things fitting very well into the model. Can the complex nature of society really be boiled down into such a simple formula? Maybe it can. But perhaps it’s just too good to be true.
Reading the predictions they made in the 90s now, I think they made several excellent and on point predictions. It was certainly fascinating to realise that some key things they predicted had actually come true, such as loss of trust in institutions and heavy favouritism for the elderly in terms of government policy. There were, however, several predictions that have not come to fruition, and may never do so. Predicting the future is hazardous at best and ridiculous at worse. If you get 50-50 from your model is that good enough? Is that excellence or luck? I don’t know. I am inclined towards thinking that their model is sound, but at the same time I’m not quite convinced.
I would certainly recommend this book if you are interested in understanding how society is shaped by your generational cohort. While slow to get started, it is a fascinating read once you’re into it. My caveat would be that it would be easy to fall into the trap of thereafter ascribing all behaviours of a person or group to their generational type.
The best way I can position Generations is to use it in the same way you might use a personality test. It is useful in understanding broad themes, but not an excuse or catch all for behaviour. You can make changes to improve yourself, even if your personality quiz says you’re naturally shy or judgemental. The same is probably true of your generational cohort. You don’t have to follow the exact parametres, but it is useful to understand what wider social stratas might be influencing your opinions and choices.
So, can a book called Generations be interesting? I don’t know, but everyone’s a sucker for a personality quiz…
