The energies of a duality drive the Pendulum of public opinion.
On one side is “Me,” the individual—unique, special, and possessing unlimited potential.
Figure 2.1 “ME” cycle.
1. demands freedom of expression;
2. applauds personal liberty;
3. believes one man is wiser than a million men: “A camel is a racehorse designed by a committee”;
4. wants to achieve a better life;
5. is about big dreams;
6. desires to be Number One: “I came, I saw, I conquered”;
7. admires individual confidence and is attracted to decisive persons;
8. believes leadership is “Look at me. Admire me. Emulate me if you can”; and
9. strengthens a society’s sense of identity as it elevates attractive heroes.
On the other side is “We”—the group, the team, the tribe, the collective.
Figure 2.2 “WE” cycle.
1. demands conformity for the common good;
2. applauds personal responsibility;
3. believes a million men are wiser than one man: “Two heads are better than one”;
4. wants to create a better world;
5. is about small actions;
6. desires to be a productive member of the team: “I came, I saw, I concurred”;
7. admires individual humility and is attracted to thoughtful persons;
8. believes leadership is “This is the problem as I see it. Please consider the things I am telling you and perhaps we can solve this problem together”; and
9. strengthens a society’s sense of purpose as it considers all its problems.
“Me” and “We” are the equal-but-opposite attractions that pull society’s Pendulum one way, then the other.
The twenty-year Upswing to the Zenith of “We” (e.g., 1923–1943) is followed by a twenty-year Downswing as that “We” cycle loses energy (e.g., 1943–1963). Society then begins a twenty-year Upswing into “Me” (e.g., 1963–1983), followed by a twenty-year Downswing as the “Me” cycle loses energy (1983–2003).
Think of the Pendulum as the forty-year heartbeat of society, systolic and diastolic. Contract and the Pendulum swings upward, relax and the Pendulum swings down again.
Although society gets legalistic and judgmental during a “We,” we do accomplish a lot of good things, such as raising the flag over Iwo Jima.
We let our hair down in a “Me” and become quite a mess because of it, but this gives us a particular joy—for example, Jimmy Buffett’s “Margaritaville.”
“We” and “Me”—it’s hard to choose between them.
Figure 2.3 Values and beliefs that motivate society in “WE” and “ME” cycles.
| WEDRIVERS OF A “WE” VS. DRIVERS OF A “ME”ME | |
• Demands conformity for the common good. • Applauds personal responsibility. • Believes a million men are wiser than one man. • Wants to create a better world. “I came, I saw, I concurred.” • Is about small actions. • Desires to be part of a productive team. • Admires humility and thoughtful persons. • Believes leadership is “This is the problem as I see it. Let’s solve it together.” • Strengthen society’s sense of purpose, focuses on solving problems. |
• Demands freedom of expression. • Applauds personal liberty. • Believes one man is wiser than a million men. • Wants to achieve a better life: “I came, I saw, I conquered.” • Is about big dreams. • Desires to be Number One. • Admires individual confidence and decisive persons. • Believes leadership is “Look at me. Admire me. Emulate me if you can.” • Strengthen society’s sense of identity, elevates attractive heroes. |
Yes, the hardest choices in life are the choices between two good things.
And we always take good things too far.
The beautiful “We” dream of working together for the common good gains momentum until it becomes duty, obligation, and sacrifice. What began in joy ends in bondage. This twenty-year Upswing on the “We” side of the Pendulum is what Strauss and Howe called the “civic” generation. The years 1923 to 1943 were just such a twenty-year Upswing.
Suffering the consequences of having taken a good thing too far, society begins to fall away from the extreme. The twenty-year Downswing of the “We” is what Strauss and Howe called the “adaptive” generation (e.g., 1943–1963).
The forty-year Pendulum is now back to its central position, the fulcrum, the tipping point halfway between Zeniths, ready to swing twenty years up to the opposite side as we take another good thing too far.
The beautiful “Me” dream of individual expression, “Do your own thing; march to the beat of a different drummer,” gains momentum and refinement until it finally becomes plastic, hollow, phony posing. What began in joy now ends in bondage. This twenty-year Upswing of “Me” is what Strauss and Howe called the “idealist” generation. The years 1963–1983 were just such a twenty-year Upswing.
Again suffering the consequences of having taken a good thing too far, society falls back once again from the extreme. The twenty-year Downswing of “Me” is what Strauss and Howe called the “reactive” generation. You and I called it Gen-X (1983–2003).
The Period of 2003–2023 Is Another Upswing of the Pendulum
New York Times columnist David Brooks, writing about students graduating in May of 2011, said,
WE |
Worst of all, they are sent off into this world with the whole baby-boomer theology ringing in their ears. If you sample some of the commencement addresses being broadcast on C-Span these days, you see that many graduates are told to: Follow your passion, chart your own course, march to the beat of your own drummer, follow your dreams, and find yourself. This is the litany of expressive individualism. But, of course, this mantra misleads on nearly every front. |
Figure 2.4 Upswing into a “WE” Zenith.
Brooks further challenged this “Me” idea of finding yourself with a poignant observation:
WE |
Most people don’t form a self and then lead a life. They are called by a problem, and the self is constructed gradually by their calling. |
Born in 1961, David Brooks is a baby boomer, if you cling to the idea of birth cohorts, but Brooks clearly understands the spirit of “We”: Find a problem and sacrifice yourself to solve it.
WE |
Finally, graduates are told to be independent-minded and to express their inner spirit. But, of course, doing your job well often means suppressing yourself. As Atul Gawande mentioned during his countercultural address last week at Harvard Medical School, being a good doctor often means being part of a team, following the rules of an institution, going down a regimented checklist. |
Written in the ninth year of a “We” Upswing, Brooks ends this insightful column with the words, “The purpose in life is not to find yourself. It’s to lose yourself.”1 Society in a “Me” talks about big dreams and possibilities. But society in a “We” says, “Talk is cheap. Don’t tell me what you believe. Show me.”
Later in this book we’ll look at everything the current “We” Upswing has meant so far and make a few predictions about what is likely to happen in the future, but right now let’s establish a few definitions.
Upswing of the Pendulum: a window of time, approximately twenty years, when the prevailing set of values is gaining momentum in a society. (The “dominant” generations of Strauss and Howe: Idealist—“Me” and Civic—“We.”)
Downswing of the Pendulum: a window of time, approximately twenty years, when the prevailing set of values is losing momentum in a society. (The “recessive” generations of Strauss and Howe: Reactive—“Me” and Adaptive—“We.”)
Halfway Up/Halfway Down: the middle of any Upswing or Downswing, that point in time halfway between the fulcrum and the Zenith. The Pendulum is in the same position halfway down as when it is halfway up. Consequently, the outlook of society will be very much the same.
EXAMPLE: The year 1933 was halfway up a “We.” In contrast, the year 1953 was halfway down that same “We.” The attitudes of those years were very similar. Likewise, 1973 was halfway up a “Me,” and 1993 was halfway down that same “Me.” Again, the attitudes and music of those years were very similar.
Right now you might be thinking, “Upswing twenty years to the Zenith of ‘Me,’ then Downswing twenty years to the tipping point, then up twenty years to ‘We,’ then down twenty years to the tipping point would seem to indicate an eighty-year pattern rather than only forty years.” This is true, but transformational change happens during a window of just forty years, between one Zenith of the Pendulum and another. Consequently, a society becomes an entirely different people every forty years.
If this idea of becoming a new people every forty years puts an itch of memory in your brain, it’s probably because you’re remembering the story of Moses leading Israel through forty years of wandering in the wilderness.
We’re Going to Talk About That Later
An ocean wave rolls onto the beach. Are you surprised when it rolls back out again? Neither should you be surprised when history repeats itself. The gravity of the Moon creates the tides. The momentum of water creates the waves.
“Me” is the gravity of the Moon. “We” is the momentum of water.
iStockphoto / Zuki
You’ll also notice that we don’t name the sides of the Pendulum “left” and “right.” This is because these words harbor political associations of liberalism and conservatism. Assigning political parties to the sides of the Pendulum is a mistake. One might argue, “But conservatives fight for the rights of the entrepreneur, the individual ‘Me,’ whereas liberals fight for the benefit of the larger group—trade unions and the environment, the realm of the collective ‘We.’” But that’s just a single aspect of the conservative-liberal duality. A person might just as easily argue, “Liberals fight for the right of the individual woman, ‘Me,’ to choose. Conservatives fight for the beliefs of the prevailing religious group, the collective ‘We.’”
See how easy it would be to fall into a semantic debate? If you attempt to assign political beliefs to the swings of the Pendulum, you’ll become as confused as a termite in a yo-yo. Please resist the temptation.
Likewise, we don’t call the sides of the Pendulum “East” and “West” due to the cultural connotations of those words. This too would be a mistake. We’ve done insufficient research to make this statement conclusively, but it would appear that the Eastern and Western Pendulums are locked in opposite cycles. Western Europe, the Americas, and Australia are headed into a “We” just as China, India, and the rest of Asia seem to be headed into a “Me.” In essence, China is experiencing the ’60s. Our 1963 happened for them in 2003.
The November 19, 2007, issue of Newsweek sports a colorful cover drawn in that style that was unique to the ’60s, and in the balloon letters of that era it reads,
1968: The Year That Made Us Who We Are
China in 2008 was flexing its muscles in the glorious springtime that is the Upswing of every “We.” Think of the Beijing Olympics of 2008 as the Chinese version of our 1968. As we mentioned earlier, society strengthens its identity in a “Me” as it elevates attractive heroes.
Figure 2.2 The shift in societal values as “WE” and “ME” cycles approach a Zenith, when we take a good thing too far.
In 2003, the year of the Western tipping point from the Downswing of “Me” (1983–2003) into the Upswing of our current “We,” I sent the following Monday Morning Memo to my few thousand subscribers around the world:
A Society and Its Heroes
Heroes are dangerous things. Bigger than life, highly exaggerated, and always positioned in the most favorable light, a hero is a beautiful lie.
iStockphoto / RUSSELLTATEdotCOM
Did George Washington really chop down a cherry tree and then confess to his father? Could Paul Bunyan really do the work of fifty men in a day? Does billionaire Bruce Wayne really risk his life to help the less fortunate around him?
We have historic heroes, folk heroes, and comic book heroes. We have heroes in books, in songs, in movies, and in sport. We have heroes of morality, leadership, kindness, and excellence. And nothing is so devastating to our sense of well-being as a badly fallen hero. Yes, heroes are dangerous things to have.
The only thing more dangerous is not to have them.
Heroes raise the bar we jump over and hold high the standards we live by. They are ever-present tattoos on our psyche, the embodiment of all we are striving to be.
We create our heroes from our hopes and dreams. And then they attempt to create us in their own image.
It’s funny when you think about it: We tell the lie of George Washington and the cherry tree to impress on our children the importance of honesty. We boast of the exploits of Paul Bunyan to communicate the beauty of productivity and the power of a work ethic. And really, wouldn’t the world be a better place if all its billionaires were as selfless as Bruce Wayne?
WE |
But as the romantic and misty-eyed Baby Boomers shuffle off the American stage, they’re being replaced by a clear-eyed generation who believes in “keepin’ it real,” saying always, “Take a good look, dog, ’cause you ain’t all that.” |
New York World-Telegram / Alan Fisher; Mickey Mouse / iStockphoto
So now we put our politicians under a microscope because we won’t accept less than the bitter truth. Could JFK have survived the scrutiny we imposed on poor Bill Clinton? The dysfunctional Malcolm in the Middle has replaced television’s idyllic John-Boy Walton, and a reality show has replaced Sunday night’s Wonderful World of Disney.
As we reject artificiality and hype, are we also killing off all our heroes?
Two hundred ninety-nine years ago, Andrew Fletcher understood the transforming power of heroes. In his 1704 speech from the floor of the Scottish Parliament, he pleaded for the creation of myths and legends to inspire the Scottish people, saying, “Who should make the laws of a nation? And we find that most of the ancient legislators thought they could not well reform the manners of any city without the help of a lyric, and sometimes of a dramatic poet.”
ME |
Yes, every hero is a beautiful lie. |
