Follow-up: Generation-al

A discussion is ensuing at Amicable Collisions involving the valuation and evaluation of the generational warfare model (xGW).  The post and the idea in question, “Political Activism as a Form of Warfare”, were highlighted in my last post on D5GW.  Phil and Dan have been trading arguments, and I recently weighed in with the following comment, reposted here.  I would add that despite the mention of one type of relationship between the generations of xGW, meant for describing the usefulness of the model, other relationships may also exist which make the model very useful for discussions about warfare.


Phil,

The usefulness of the generational model is primarily in showing the sequence of emergence of different forms of war.

My primary quibble involves the use of “primarily” above, and also the term “sequence” which has a time-based connotation.

First, the generational model has much more usefulness than merely mapping out a timing-sequence. For instance, if we think of generation as a type of cause-effect relationshipping between the constituent parts of the model, then the model may be thought of as a way of restating how one generation “gives birth” to the next or motivates people to develop the next generation. This relationship is also very important, more important than the fact that a time-sequencing might seem to be implied.

And “sequencing” implies clean breaks between the generations; whereas, lots of holdover occurs between one generation and the next. This gets to the distinction between a clock-based concept of time, in which time can be neatly divided into separate units, and considering time as duration. (Hah, I’m channeling Bergson.) This implication of clean breaks also devalues the relationships between each generation.

The clean-break sequencing you are attacking is a kind of straw man, actually, although it’s a popular straw man for those arguing that the xGW is limited. (The model may be limited, but not for the reasons you give.) For instance, your idea that a modern group has the option of using 2GW, 3GW, and 4GW in a 5GW world is a non sequitur simply because the assertion is built to controvert the idea that xGW belongs only at Time-A, followed in sequence by x+1GW which belongs only at Time-B, etc., with neat periods defined by whichever generation of warfare is being used. Whereas, we could just as easily say that 4GW helps to cause the generation of (development of) 5GW but does not bear that same exact relationship to 2GW; and, 2GW does not bear the same generation-al relationship to 5GW that it bears to 3GW. They can all exist at the same time, however.

---

[Addendum:  Incidentally, I accidentally removed this post earlier Monday after publishing it! Don’t know how that happened, exactly. So now it’s back up.]