History does not move forward in a straight line. It breathes. It contracts and expands. It builds, stabilizes, decays, and then violently renews itself. This unsettling idea sits at the heart of The Fourth Turning, the influential and controversial book by William Strauss and Neil Howe that argues modern history follows a recurring generational cycle—one that inevitably ends in crisis.
According to the authors, societies do not simply progress. They rotate through predictable phases driven by generational psychology. Roughly every 80 to 100 years—about the length of a long human life—civilizations enter a period of upheaval so profound that it reshapes institutions, values, power structures, and collective identity. These periods are not accidents. They are structural resets.
And if Strauss and Howe are right, we are living through one now.
Published in 1997, The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy was initially read as historical theory. Over time, it has taken on an eerie reputation as events unfolded in ways that seemed to echo its predictions. Political polarization, institutional collapse, economic instability, pandemics, cultural fragmentation, and the erosion of trust—all hallmarks of a Fourth Turning—have become defining features of the early 21st century.
To understand why the theory has gained renewed attention, it is essential to understand how the cycle works, where it comes from, and why it feels disturbingly relevant today.
The Core Idea: History Moves in Four Turnings
Strauss and Howe argue that Anglo-American history follows a recurring pattern made up of four “Turnings.” Each Turning lasts roughly 20 to 25 years and is shaped by the dominant generation coming of age during that period. Together, these four Turnings form a complete cycle, known as a saeculum.
Each Turning has a distinct mood, social structure, and relationship to authority.
The cycle begins with stability, drifts into awakening, fractures into unraveling, and finally collapses into crisis—before starting again.
This is not astrology or mysticism. It is a sociological framework rooted in demographics, collective memory, and the psychological imprint of childhood experiences.
People raised during stability value order.
People raised during awakening question it.
People raised during unraveling distrust it.
People raised during crisis rebuild it.
The cycle is not exact, but the rhythm is persistent.
The First Turning: The High
The First Turning, called the High, begins after a major crisis has ended. Society feels confident. Institutions are strong. Collective purpose outweighs individual expression. There is trust in leadership, belief in progress, and a shared sense that the system works.
In American history, the post–World War II era from roughly 1946 to the early 1960s is the most famous example. The war had ended. The economy boomed. Infrastructure expanded. Social roles were clearly defined. Authority was respected.
This period does not feel glamorous in retrospect, but it feels stable to those living through it. Rules exist for a reason. Tradition is reassuring. The scars of the last crisis are still fresh enough to discourage rebellion.
Ironically, the very success of a High sows the seeds of the next phase.
The Second Turning: The Awakening
The Second Turning, known as the Awakening, emerges when younger generations begin to feel constrained by the structures built during the High. Material stability exists, but emotional and spiritual dissatisfaction grows.
This phase is defined by cultural rebellion, moral questioning, and a push for authenticity. Institutions are criticized for being rigid, soulless, or oppressive. Individual identity becomes more important than collective duty.
The cultural revolutions of the 1960s and 1970s exemplify this phase. Civil rights movements, anti-war protests, feminism, and counterculture movements all emerged during this Turning. People weren’t trying to destroy society—they were trying to make it more humane.
But awakenings weaken institutional authority. They shift trust away from systems and toward personal belief.
That weakening becomes dangerous later.
The Third Turning: The Unraveling
The Third Turning, or Unraveling, is marked by institutional decay and rising cynicism. Society becomes fragmented. Trust collapses. Culture becomes polarized. The shared narrative that once held people together begins to dissolve.
In this phase, freedom expands but cohesion collapses. People prioritize self-interest over collective responsibility. Politics becomes toxic. Economic inequality widens. Institutions still exist, but few believe in them.
In the United States, the period from the 1980s through the early 2000s fits this description. Deregulation, hyper-individualism, culture wars, and declining trust in government all intensified. Success was measured personally, not collectively.
The Unraveling feels chaotic but manageable—until it isn’t.
It sets the stage for the Fourth Turning.
The Fourth Turning: The Crisis
The Fourth Turning is the breaking point.
This is when accumulated tensions explode into systemic crisis. Wars, revolutions, economic collapses, pandemics, or environmental disasters force society to confront its failures. Institutions are either destroyed or radically transformed. Individualism gives way—voluntarily or forcibly—to collective survival.
Fourth Turnings are not subtle. They are loud, frightening, and decisive.
The American Revolution.
The Civil War.
The Great Depression and World War II.
Each represented a Fourth Turning. Each ended an old order and created a new one.
According to Strauss and Howe, the Fourth Turning that began in the early 21st century was always inevitable—not because of specific events, but because of generational alignment. The people who remembered the last crisis had died. The institutions built afterward had become hollow. The cultural memory that once restrained excess was gone.
What triggers a Fourth Turning varies. What defines it is how society responds.
Generational Archetypes: The Human Engine of the Cycle
Central to the theory are four generational archetypes, each shaped by the Turning they are born into. These archetypes repeat in sequence, influencing leadership styles, cultural values, and conflict dynamics.
The Prophet generation grows up during a High, sheltered and idealistic. They become moralistic leaders during an Awakening.
The Nomad generation grows up during an Awakening, under-protected and cynical. They become pragmatic survivors during a Crisis.
The Hero generation grows up during an Unraveling, and comes of age during a Crisis. They are collectivist, action-oriented, and institution-builders.
The Artist generation grows up during a Crisis, over-protected and sensitive. They become process-oriented caretakers during the next High.
Strauss and Howe placed Baby Boomers as Prophets, Gen X as Nomads, Millennials as Heroes, and Gen Z as Artists.
Whether one accepts these labels or not, the framework explains why generations often misunderstand each other. They were shaped by fundamentally different worlds.
Why the Theory Feels So Relevant Now
When The Fourth Turning was published in 1997, many critics dismissed it as deterministic or overly neat. Yet in hindsight, its broad predictions align uncomfortably well with reality.
The early 21st century has been defined by cascading crises:
terrorism and endless war,
financial collapse,
institutional distrust,
pandemics,
climate instability,
and rising authoritarianism.
What makes this era feel different is not just the scale of events, but the loss of faith. Trust in government, media, science, and even democracy itself has eroded. People no longer agree on basic truths. Institutions feel illegitimate to large segments of the population.
This is classic Fourth Turning terrain.
Strauss and Howe warned that the crisis era would not be resolved by reform alone. It would demand sacrifice, collective action, and uncomfortable choices. It would test whether societies could reinvent themselves—or collapse.
They did not predict specific events. They predicted conditions.
And those conditions are unmistakable.
Criticism and Limits of the Theory
The Fourth Turning theory is not without flaws. Critics argue it oversimplifies history, ignores non-Western perspectives, and risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Not all crises fit neatly into generational boxes. Human behavior is not clockwork.
Others caution that treating crisis as inevitable can normalize suffering or justify extremism. If collapse is “destined,” why resist it?
Strauss and Howe themselves addressed this concern. The cycle, they argued, does not dictate outcomes—only moments of reckoning. How societies respond remains a matter of choice.
Fourth Turnings can lead to renewal or ruin.
History shows examples of both.
The Real Value of the Fourth Turning
The power of The Fourth Turning is not prediction. It is perspective.
It reframes chaos as part of a larger pattern rather than random failure. It explains why solutions that worked in the past feel ineffective now. It helps individuals understand why institutions feel brittle and why generational conflict feels so intense.
Most importantly, it challenges the illusion of permanence.
Every system feels eternal—until it doesn’t.
Fourth Turnings remind us that stability is temporary, values shift, and renewal often requires destruction. This is not comforting, but it is honest.
Where We Are Now—and What Comes After
If the theory holds, the current crisis will eventually end. A new order will emerge. Institutions will be rebuilt or replaced. A new High will follow—one shaped by the lessons and scars of this era.
But the transition will not be gentle.
The question is not whether change is coming. It is what kind.
Fourth Turnings reward clarity, courage, and cooperation. They punish denial, nostalgia, and fragmentation. They expose systems that no longer serve and force societies to choose what matters enough to save.
In that sense, The Fourth Turning is not a prophecy of doom. It is a warning about complacency—and a reminder that history’s most painful moments are also its most transformative.
We are not the first generation to face this threshold.
But we are the ones standing in it now.