Braungart

Life-Course and Generational Politics
Author(s): Richard G. Braungart and Margaret M. Braungart

Source: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 12 (1986), pp. 205-231
Published by: Annual Reviews
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2083201 .
Accessed: 03/08/2013 19:08
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of
Sociology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 19:08:30 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Ann. Rev. Sociol. 1986. 12:205-31

Copyright ? 1986 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved
LIFE-COURSEAND GENERATIONAL
POLITICS
Richard G. Braungart
Departmentof Sociology, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13210
Margaret M. Braungart
Arts and Sciences, CHRP, SUNY at Upstate Medical Center, Syracuse,
New York 13210
Abstract
This essay first reviews the literatureon life-course politics and generational
politics. The majorcontributionsandproblemsinherentin each perspectiveare
identified, andan interactiveapproachto life-courseandgenerationalpolitics is
suggested. Second, the methodologicaldesigns employed to study life-course
and generational politics are outlined, including the cross-sectional, timeseries, longitudinal,andaging-cohort-perioddesigns. An evaluationis madeof
the major shortcomingsand suitability of the various research strategies to
studying life-course and generationalpolitics.
HISTORICALAND THEORETICALORIGINS
Explainingpolitical behaviorhas intriguedWesternscholarsfor centuries,and
one of the most enduringexplanationshas been age. "Thetruestcommunityto
which one can belong," observedWohl (1979:203), "is thatdefinedby age and
experience."Age is one of the most basic social categoriesof humanexistence
anda primaryfactorin all societies for assigningroles andgrantingprestigeand
power. However, age is not a unitaryconcept and may be used in referenceto
life-cycle development (young, middle-aged, and old) or in a generational
sense (lineage descent or a particularage groupin history). Those bornaround
the same period in time share a similarityin both life-cycle developmentand
205
0360-0572/86/08 15-0205$02.00

206
BRAUNGART
& BRAUNGART
historicalexperiences. The entranceof successive age groupsinto society has

been a constant feature of human history, but each group has "come into
existence"within a certainhistoricalandpolitical setting, andthis sociohistorical process provides an importantforce for political stability and change.
The ancient Greeks were well aware of the significance of age for understandinghumanbehaviorand politics. To the Greeks, life was divided into
different stages having unique characteristicsand interests. Youth overdo
everything, it was noted, and requirethe steadydirectionof theirelders;thus,
relationsbetweenthe age groupsareseldomharmonious,andthis has important
consequences for society and politics. Plato identifiedgenerationalstrife as a
significant force for social change, while Aristotle commentedthat political
revolutions are due not only to the strugglebetween rich and poor but to the
conflict between fathers and sons (McKeon 1941; Feuer 1969; Esler 1974,
1979, 1982; Nash 1978). Generationaldescent was recognized in ancient
literatureas an importantfactorin the transmissionof values from one generation to the next in the family. As Ptahhotepobserved in the twenty-seventh
centuryB.C. in his Maximsfor rightconduct:"A son who hearkens... reaches
old age; he attainsreverence.He speakslikewise to his own children,receiving
the instructionof his father"(Feuer 1969:30).
Duringthe MiddleAges, however, theunderstandingof humandevelopment
and age-based behavior was minimal. Little distinction was made between
childhoodand adolescence, and youngsterswere viewed as adults, only smaller. Since creationwas thoughtto be instantaneous,the child did not develop;he
was preformed:a tiny fully formedlittle personor homunculuswas foundin the
sperm; when implanted in the uterus it simply grew larger in size for nine
months (Muuss 1968). Medieval artistsportrayedchildrenas miniatureadults,
and the Latin term for child (puer) and adolescence (adolescens) were used
interchangeablyuntil the eighteenthcentury(Gillis 1974). With industrialization, however, discontinuitybetween child and adult statuses became more
apparent,and the implicationsof humandevelopmentand generationalplacement gained interest. Goethe observedthatevery person's fundamentalworld
view is determinedby the experiences of youth, with membersof the same
generationlinked throughoutlife by bonds of mutual understandingthat set
them apartfrom others (Esler 1974).
In the nineteenthcentury,the discussiontook a more scientific andtheoretical form, and two perspectivesemergedon age and sociopoliticalchange. The
positivists stressedthe importanceof life-coursedevelopment,contendingthat
the distinctages of life act as conditioningforces for humanexperiences, with
social changeandhistoricaldevelopmentseen as firmlyrootedin the humanlife
cycle (Marias1970, Jansen1975). Emphasizingthe importanceof generations,
those from the romantic-historicalschool arguedthat biological age is not so

LIFE-COURSE
AND GENERATIONAL
POLITICS 207
importantin understandingsocietal stability and change as are significant
culturaland historicalfactorsthat structurethe mentalityof a generation,bind
its memberstogether, and separatethem from older and youngergenerations.
Generationsthus were defined on the basis of historicaldifferencesand social
change (Jansen 1975; Esler 1982, 1984; Braungart& Braungart1984a).
These two, somewhat different, analyticapproachesto understandingage,
age-group relations, and sociopolitical change continue to be representedin
contemporarytheoryandresearch.Althoughage is thefundamentalcomponent
of both perspectives, it is given a slightly different temporalfocus in each
model. Many of the assumptionsof the positivists are evident in a life-course
approachto politics which views age from a lifetime or maturationalperspective. The romantic-historicalinterpretationis representedin the generational
approachto understandingpolitics, which emphasizesthe social andhistorical
influences on, and political consequences of, age-groupmembership(Jansen
1975). In contemporarydiscussions and research,however, the term"generation" has several different meanings and uses: (a) generationaldescent, or
lineage-age groups, such as parentgenerationand offspring generation;(b)
cohort, or an age groupbornaroundthe same time in history, such as the 1920s
cohort and 1950s cohort;and (c) political generation,or a special age groupin
history that becomes aware of its uniqueness and joins together to work for
social and political change, such as the GreatDepressionGenerationand the
1960s Generation(Troll 1970; Elder 1975, 1985; Bengtson & Cutler 1976;
Braungart& Braungart1984a, 1985a; Bengtson et al 1985).
While the life-course approachand the generationalapproachto explaining
political behaviorarenot mutuallyexclusive, they often aretreatedas separate
in political discussions and research,which tend to emphasizeone perspective
while ignoring the other. Yet both approachesare concernedwith age-group
differencesin politics, the questionof whetherpoliticalviews changeor remain
stable over the life courseandwhy politicalgenerationstakeform. In this essay
these two approachesto politics are examinedalong with some of their problems. In orderto betterdescribe and understandthe relationshipbetween age,
time, and politics, we suggest that the two perspectivesbe combined into a
life-course and generationalapproachto politics. In the latter section of the
essay, the majormethodologicaldesigns used to investigateage andpolitics are
outlined and evaluated.
The study of life-course and generationalpolitics has not attainedthe status
of a formalfield of inquiry,butin pullingtogetherthe theoreticaldiscussionand
empiricalresearchconcernedwith the age andpolitics-as we have been doing
for a number of years-we find a unity of purpose apparentin the diverse
scholarlyefforts of sociologists, psychologists, anthropologists,psychiatrists,
historians, and political scientists. The importanceof age to understanding

208
BRAUNGART
& BRAUNGART
humanbehaviorandthe structureof societies in generalhas been given explicit

theoretical focus in life-span developmental psychology (Goulet & Baltes
1970, Baltes & Brim 1979-1984), aging and gerontology(Binstock& Shanas
1976, Birren & Schaie 1977, Huyck & Hoyer 1982), and age stratification
theory (Eisenstadt 1956, Parsons 1963, Riley 1978, Streib & Bourg 1984).
These theoreticaland empiricalperspectiveson age are applicableto a number
of behaviors, and in this essay the focus is on politics. Age, of course, is only
one of many orientationsin understandingpolitics-and certainlynot a dominantone at this time (Braungart& Braungart1984b, 1985a). However, in many
societies some of the traditionalexplanationsfor political behavior, such as
social class, politicalparty, andpersonality,arelosing theirpotency, while age
may become increasinglyimportantin understandingpolitics, especially with
rising youth populations in developing nations and rapidly expanding aged
populationsin advancedsocieties (UnitedNations 1981, Braungart& Braungart 1986).
Perhapsone reason age has not received much direct focus in relation to
politics is thatthe literatureon the subjectis widely scatteredamonga number
of disciplines and needs to be synthesized into some kind of framework
(Hudson& Binstock 1976). Theoreticaldiscussionsandresearchrelatedto age
and politics come from a numberof directionsand include a variety of topics
and levels of analysis. The purposeof this essay is to pull togetherthe diverse
perspectives and findings concerning age and politics. The theoretical dimensions of life-course and generationalpolitics are outlined, the principal
findingsreviewed andillustratedby differenttypes of empiricalstudies, andthe
majormethodologicalstrategiesused in the studyof life-courseandgenerational politics are evaluated. The treatmentof the subject is not exhaustive;it is
merely selective and illustrative.
LIFE-COURSEPOLITICS
The life-course approachto explaining political behavioris based largely on
life-cycle interpretationsof human behavior. The assumptions of the lifecourse approach are that as individuals grow older, they undergo certain
qualitativechanges in physiology, cognitive functioning, emotionalpatterns,
and needs. These biopsychological changes occur over the life span and are
consideredto be sequential, irreversible,and for the most partuniversal.The
maturationalunfoldingprocessoccursas individualsof similarage levels move
in a sequentialdirectiontowardcertaincharacteristicgrowthpatterns.Because
each stage of life is associatedwith its own orientations,needs, and interests,
relationsbetween age groupsarenot likely to be smooth, andthis sets the stage
for generationalconflict. Although the life-course theory tends to emphasize

AND GENERATIONAL
POLITICS 209
LIFE-COURSE
biopsychological growth and changes over the life course, social factors influence how the life cycle is played out. Thus, biopsychologicaldevelopment
occurs withinthe social andhistoricalcontext (Goulet& Baltes 1970, Featherman 1983, Dannefer 1984).
Several different types of political studies reflect the assumptionsof lifecourse developmental theory. The focus on age-relatedpatterns of human
behavior has prompted some researchersto identify characteristicways of
political thinking and behavior at various stages of life. The emphasis in
life-course theoryon the differentneeds, crises, and orientationsof each stage
has resultedin a numberof political investigationsinto the extentof age-group
differences in politics. The life-course approachalso indicatesthatindividuals
undergo changes in their patternsof growth and interests, althoughwhether
individualschange or remainrelativelystablein theirpolitical orientationshas
been widely debated (Hudson & Binstock 1976, Braungart& Braungart
1985a). Much of the informationon the life-course approachto politics can be
organizedaroundthe majorstages of life, revealingcertainidentifiablepatterns
of political thought and behavior for each stage and marked age-group differences and changes over the life course.
Politics in Childhood
A majorcontributionof life-course politics studies has been to furtherknowledge aboutage-relatedpatternsof politicalbehavior.Some of the most interesting work here concernsthe developmentof politicalthoughtin children,based
largely on Piaget's theory of cognitive development and child development
research. For example, interviewsof childrenand adolescentshave indicated
that: (a) There are clear limits to the child's ability to conceptualize and
understandpolitics, depending on the particularstage of cognitive development; and (b) the child's ability to become aware of and to comprehendthe
political world occurs graduallyover the courseof childhoodand adolescence.
More specifically, while children as young as 3-6 years of age have some
awarenessof politics andan affective identificationwith politicalsymbols such
as the President,flag, andcountry,the abilityto graspthe meaningof political
concepts such as governmentandlaw does not begin untillate childhood.Even
at this stage political thoughtis concreteand simplistic, and it is not until mid
and late adolescence that political awarenessmay become strongand political
thinkingmorecomplex. Researchhas also indicatedthatthe qualityof political
thoughtis modifiedby factorssuch as intelligence, family background,gender
and ethnic differences, and social class, while the directionof politicalorientation is influencedby socializationagents such as family, friends, teachers,and
media (Erikson 1963, Greenstein1965, Hess & Torney 1967, Adelson 1971,
Stacey 1977, Adelson & Hall 1980, Gallatin 1980).

210
BRAUNGART & BRAUNGART
Politics in Youth
The stage of youth is of particularinterestfrom a politicalperspective, since it
appearsto be an importanttime in life for the developmentof politicalattitudes
and behavior.The cognitive changesthatoccurduringyouthapparentlyset the
stage for greater political awareness and heightened critical ability. Consequently, what is happeningpolitically as the young personcomes of age has
muchto do with the kindsof politicalattitudesthe individualformsduringthese
early years. Moreover, youth is the time to strivefor independence,to form an
identity, to searchfor fidelity, andto find the relationshipbetweenthe self and
society (Adelson 1980). These developmentalcharacteristicsarelikely to make
youth criticalof theirelders, society, andpolitics, andthis has been interpreted
by some to indicatethatyouth have a "predisposition"to generationalconflict,
rebellion, and revolution(Bettelheim 1963, Erikson1968, Feuer 1969, Keniston 1971).
In piecing togetherstudiesof youthpolitics, we findmanyof the assumptions
of life-course theory are supported. For example, large-scale national and
cross-nationalsurveys of young people from the 1960s to the 1980s indicate
that youth (aroundthe ages of 15-24) are apt to be critical of society and
politics, especially adults' handling of social problems (Yankelovich 1974;
Braungart1975, 1980; Barnes& Kaase 1979; Klineberget al 1979; Braungart
& Braungart1985b). These studies also have reportedthat youth tend to be
center or left of centerin theirpolitical identification,and in researchcomparing the responses of differentage groups, young people are more likely to be
politicallyliberalthanolderage groups.Althoughthese surveysdo not indicate
thatyoung people as a groupareespecially interestedor active in politics, a few
are deeply concerned, and some have made a significantmarkin the political
arena (Flacks 1971, Braungart& Braungart1985b). An examinationof 64
revolutionaryleaders over a 300-year period indicatedthat one of their most
common characteristicswas theiryoung age-36% hadparticipatedin revolutionary activity before age 20 and 84% by age 35 (Rejai & Phillips 1979,
Braungart1981). It is the young who have providedthe cadre for social and
political revolutionsthroughouthistory, and since the 1830s the young people
have been responsiblefor periods of volatile political unrestand social movements (Braungart1984a, 1984b, 1984c).
Politics in Middle Age

Not much attention has been given to identifying characteristicmodes of
politicalbehaviorin middleage. Surveysof age differencesin politicalattitudes
and behaviorseldom have focused directlyon the middle-agegroup;primarily
the middle-agedhave been employed as a base againstwhich to comparethe
political attitudesof youth or those of the elderly. An examinationof these

LIFE-COURSEAND GENERATIONALPOLITICS
211
studies, however, indicates that consistently the middle-aged are the least
alienatedof all age groups;they tend to be less liberalthanthe young but not as
conservative as the old; and they are more likely to vote and participatein
mainstreampolitics (Martinet al 1974, Milbrath& Goel 1977, Braungart,M.
M. & Braungart,R. G. 1982). These findings have been interpretedas due to
the superiorpower position of the middle-agedandtheirstrongdevelopmental
stakein society andpolitics (Martinet al 1974, Braungart,M. M. & Braungart,
R. G. 1982, Bengtson et al 1985).
When the middle-aged have been examined from a case-study or psychobiographical perspective, much of the analysis rests on life-course interpretations.The bulk of the work here involves examinationsof the mentorprotege relationshipand the effect of the mid-life crisis on certain political
leaders. Levinson's (1978) developmentalstudies of middle-agedmen, some
of whom reported a mentor-protege relationship, prompted several investigationsinto the importanceof a mentor-protegerelationshipin the lives of
certainpoliticians (Kellerman1978, Kearney1984). Mentorrelationshipsnot
only teach young politiciansmuch aboutpolitics but also provideopportunities
for careeradvancement.The effect of a mid-life crisis on political leadershas
been the subject of several psychobiographicalaccounts of politicians, with
age-related crises at mid-life resulting in major changes in their political
policies and personalbehavior (Shore 1972; Post 1980, 1984; Crosby 1984).
Though these case studies are fascinating,the questionremainshow extensive
these patternsare among political leaders as a group.
Politics in Older Adulthood

The growing interestin gerontologyhas directedsome attentionto understanding the political attitudesandbehaviorcharacteristicof olderadulthood.Aggregate surveysof age-groupdifferencesin politics have generallyfoundthatolder
personsaremoreconservativethanthe young or middle-aged,andalthoughthe
explanationhas been put forththatthe biopsychologicalslowdowns of old age
may promote a more politically conservativeorientation,this life-course interpretationhas not been widely accepted (Hudson & Binstock 1976, Braungart, M. M. 1984). Conclusionsaboutvoting participationareless clear. Some
studies have reportedthat the likelihood of voting declines after middle age,
while otherstudieshave foundthatvoting turnoutis higherfor olderpersons. In
eithercase, the voting participationof olderadultsalmostalways surpassesthat
of young adults(Campbell 1971, Brotman1977, Braungart,M. M. & Braungart, R. G. 1982, Rollenhagen 1984).
In additionto political surveys of older adults, an occasional case study of
political leaders has been undertakento determinethe effects of the aging and
disease processes on political behavior and decisions. Aging research has

212
BRAUNGART
& BRAUNGART
indicated there is wide variationin physiological and psychological declines

with age: while some olderpersonsmay experiencerapiddeclines andbecome
morenegative as they age, otherssufferlittle decline, becomehighlypositive in
their outlooks, and perform in a highly competent manner(Butler & Lewis
1982). Psychobiographical studies of aging political leaders support this
generalization(Post 1980, 1983, 1984;Crosby& Crosby1981). As Post (1980)
pointed out, Stalin's basically distrustfulpersonalitybecame paranoiain later
life; Mao Tse-tung's perceptionof "littletime left" may have acceleratedthe
pace of the GreatLeap Forwardand CulturalRevolution;while Chou En-lai,
despite the devastatingeffects of cancer, was able to maintainhis good judgment, balance, and intelligence until his death at age 78.
Problems with the Life-CourseApproachto Politics

Althoughthese studies indicatethatage andlife-cycle developmentare importantin understandingpolitics andpoliticalbehavior,a numberof concernsneed
to be raised. One issue involves whetherthe identificationof age-groupdifferences in political attitudesand behaviorcan be automaticallyinterpretedas
resulting from changes in life-cycle development. Are older persons more
conservativethanthe young because of the biological andpsychological slowdowns with age, or have the political attitudesdeveloped in their youth not
changed much and thus appearconservativein a rapidly changing society?
Another problem is that the assumptionsof life-course theory indicate the
need bothto identifynormativepatternsof behaviorandto trackchangeswithin
individuals over time. Group studies attempt to define normative political
behavior based on age-groupcharacteristics,but, as Dannefer (1984) notes,
such studiestendto considerthose who do not conformto the model as deviant,
when in fact theirresponseshave implicationsfor politics. On the otherhand,
while psychobiographicalstudies provide informationabout changes in an
individual'spoliticalbehaviorovertime, they leave unansweredthe questionof
how characteristicthe politicalbehavioris for the populationat large. The lack
of large-scale longitudinalstudies of political behaviorover the life course is
surprising.
A major criticism of life-cycle researchin general and life-course politics
studiesin particularis the tendencyin boththe design andanalysisof researchto
neglect social factorsandthe historicalcontext (Brim 1976, Featherman1983,
Dannefer 1984). The emphasison the unfoldingnatureof life-course development implies that change in political attitudesand behavioris more likely to
result from biopsychological processes within the individual than from any
response to externalevents. For example, studentprotestagainstthe Vietnam
war in the 1960s was interpretedfroma life-courseperspectiveas due largelyto
the high energy levels and rebellious natureof youth, but this explanation

AND GENERATIONAL
LIFE-COURSE
POLITICS 213
neglected the particularpolitical and historicalissue of the Vietnamwar itself
(Bettelheim 1963, Feuer 1969, Duncan 1980).
Some of the otherdifficultiesof researchon life-coursepolitics have plagued
many types of life-cycle studies. Firstis the issue of the meaningfulnessof the
concept of age to understandingbehavior, much less to deciding on cut-off
points that sort respondents into the conventionally accepted categories of
youth, middle age, and old age (Wohlwill 1970, Streib 1976). That is, if one
knows an individualis 21, 45, or 68 years of age, does this really indicatewhat
kindsof politicalbehaviorto expect of him or her?Second, while thereareclear
descriptionsof qualitativedifferencesin political attitudesand behaviorbased
on age, thereis little understandinghow the processof politicallearningoccurs
and what triggersthe changes from one stage to the next (Brim 1976, Gallatin
1980). Some of these issues, especially the influenceof sociohistoricalfactors,
are addressedin the generationalpolitics literature.
GENERATIONALPOLITICS
For the purposesof this analysis, generationalpolitics is consideredfromthree
different perspectives:(a) generationaldescent or lineage politics, (b) cohort
politics, and (c) political generations.The lineage perspectiverefersto generations in a kinshipsense andis evidentin the politicalsocializationliteraturethat
examines how offspring learn political attitudesfrom their parents,while the
focus in cohortandgenerationalpoliticalresearchis on the social andhistorical
conditionsthatinfluencethe formationof politicalattitudesandbehavior.In the
aging and politics literature,the terms "cohort"and "generation"have often
been used interchangeably,but for the sake of clarity, it is suggested that a
distinctionbe madebetweenthe two terms.A cohortis a groupof "personsborn
in the same time interval and aging together" (Ryder 1965:844), while a
generationsharesnot only cohortmembershipbut also develops an age-group
consciousnessas a uniqueage groupwith a distinctset of attitudesandbehavior
at odds with those of other age groups in society; in addition, a generationis
directed toward influencing change (Braungart& Braungart1985a). Thus, a
cohortrepresentsa social category"initself," while a generationacts as a social
group "foritself' (Mannheim1952; Ortegay Gasset 1961; Esler 1982, 1984).
The key interestswithinthe generationalpolitics perspectiveincludedetermining the extent of age-groupsimilaritiesand differencesin politics, describing
the politics of cohorts or political generations, identifying the antecedent
conditionsand mobilizationof political generations,andassessing the stability
of political views learned duringyouth, especially for membersof an active
political generation.The theoryandresearchrelatedto each of these aspects of
generationalpolitics are reviewed next.

214
Lineage Politics
One of the oldest meanings of the term generation refers to generational
descent, such as grandfather,parent, offspring generations. In political research, the transmissionof political values, attitudes,and behaviorfrom one
generationto the next within the family has been a majortopic of interest. A
number of sociological and psychological theories stress the importanceof
socialization experiences as the youngergenerationlearnsaboutpolitics from
the parentgeneration.Behaviorist,social learning,andsymbolic interactionist
theories all emphasize that much of humanbehaviorhas to do with what has
been learned from significant others, either through direct instructionand
reward/punishment/nonreinforcement
experiencesor throughobservationand
modeling. Offspringlisten to politicaldiscussionsin the family andobservethe
political behavior of their parents, while parents tend to reward offspring
expressionsof political attitudesandbehaviorthatcorrespondto theirpolitical
beliefs, and perhaps they act to extinguish contrarypolitical views in their
children. The political socialization efforts of the parent generationare not
necessarily director intensive, but nonethelesshave a significantinfluence on
the political orientationsof offspring (Bengtson & Cutler 1976, Cutler 1977,
Stacey 1977, Gallatin 1980, Jennings & Niemi 1981, Bengtson et al 1985).
Much of the researchwithin the lineage politics perspectivehas focused on
the extent of political agreementbetween parents and their high school or
college-age offspring,particularlysince psychoanalytictheorypredictsthatthe
youthful stage is a time for young people to exert theirindependenceandrebel
against the parentgeneration.Interestin whetheryoung people adheredto or
turnedagainstthe politics learnedin the home was a key topic in the 1960s when
students throughoutthe United States protestedover the Vietnam war, civil
rights, and in loco parentispolicies of universities (Braungart& Braungart
1972). While one groupof scholarsarguedthatthis was life-coursegenerational conflict par excellence, as young people rejected the adult generationand
acted out a host of deep-seatedemotionalconflicts in the political arena(Feuer
1969, Hendin 1975, Duncan 1980), otherscholarscontendedthatactivistyouth
were not rebelling againstparentsand their politics but were merely carrying
out the political values learnedin the home (Flacks 1967, 1971;Keniston 1968,
1971; Braungart1979). Much of the researchon studentactivists in the 1960s
confirmedthe socializationexplanationof generationaltransmissionof political values from parentto offspring (Flacks 1967; Keniston 1968; Haan 1971;
Wood 1974; Braungart1979, 1980).
Most studies thathave focused on the extent of political agreementbetween
parentsandoffspringin the generalpopulationhave concludedthatthe correlation is a moderateone (Cutler 1977, Stacey 1977, Jennings & Neimi 1981).
This finding might be interpretedas supportive of political stability or as

AND GENERATIONAL
LIFE-COURSE
POLITICS 215
leaving some room for political change in the politics of the young. In an
eight-yearpanel studyof parent-offspringpolitics by Jennings& Niemi (1981),
the modest correlation between parent and offspring political views when
youngsterswere in high school tendedto decline following high school. After
leaving home, otherpolitical socializationforces come into play. Newcomb's
(1943) classic study of Bennington College students demonstratedthat the
college experience may be one factor weakening parent-offpringpolitical
agreement,since a numberof freshmenfromRepublicanhomes changedtheir
politicalviews in keeping with the liberalorientationof BenningtonCollege. In
addition, researchalso has indicatedthatthe transmissionof parents'political
values to offspring is itself affected by a numberof factorssuch as the rate of
social change, social mobility, the extent of culturalintegration,the natureof
the parent-offspringrelationship, and the child's level of cognitive development (Bengtson & Black 1973, Davies 1977, Gallatin 1980).
Cohort Politics
The effect of social andhistoricalfactorson the political attitudesandbehavior
of age groups is given strong focus in the literaturerelatedto cohort politics.
The termcohorthere refersto a birthcohort, or a groupof personsbornaround
the same time who share a particularset of social and historicalexperiences.
The political significanceof belongingto a cohortis thatthose bornat a similar
time in historyaredestinedto experiencea particularset of meaningfulevents at
the same stage of life-cycle development. As Ryder (1965) pointed out, each
cohort has a distinctivedemographiccompositionand characteristicsand thus
grows up with a particularset of age norms,expectations,andopportunitiesthat
help conditionthe attitudesandbehaviorof its membersthroughoutlife. Social
andpoliticalevents may well have differentialeffects on the variousage cohorts
in society, dependingon each cohort's stage in life-cycle developmentand its
previous experiences. Dramatichistorical events, such as economic depression, war, immigration,technologicalinnovation,andculturalchangeaffect all
membersof society but are consideredto have an especially strongimpacton
the political attitudes of youth who are in their formative stage of political
learning.Whensociety changesrapidlyandcohortscome of age underdifferent
conditions, the membersof each cohortarelikely to develop theirown perception and style of politics which, if substantiallydifferentfrom the experiences
of others, may provokegenerationalconflict. However, while life cycle theorists predict some significant changes in political orientationsover the life
course, one of the key assumptions of the cohort interpretationis that the
political attitudes and behavior formed during a cohort's youth provide the
foundationfor interpretingsubsequentpolitical events; thus attitudesand behavior do not change appreciablywith age (Heberle 1951; Mannheim 1952;

216
& BRAUNGART
BRAUNGART
Ortegay Gasset 1961; Ryder 1965; Marias 1968; Rintala 1968, 1979; Braungart & Braungart1984a, 1985a).
One approachto studyingcohortpolitics has been to focus on the politics of a
particularage cohort. For example, Loewenberg(1983) combinedelements of
psychoanalysis with a cohort interpretationto explain the rise of Nazism after
World WarI. He contendedthatthe relativelylarge birthcohortof 1900-1914
grew up duringWorldWarI andshareda numberof dramaticexperiencessuch
as fathersaway at war, hungeranddeprivationduringthe War, fatherscoming
home defeated to a humiliatedimperial Germany, high unemployment,and
bitter disappointmentwith government. It is these experiences during their
formativeyears that made this particularcohort so receptiveto the simplistic,
brutal solutions offered by the Nazis. An indicationof the cohort effect was
reflected in the age-groupcompositionof Germanpoliticalpartiesin the early
1930s. The Social Democratic Party, the most democratic of the German
political parties,had a membershiponly 19.3%of which was betweenthe ages
of 18-30, and only 8% underage 25, while in the NationalistSocialist Party,
the Nazis, the proportionof membershipbetweenages 18-30 rose from 37.6%
in 1931 to 42.2% by 1932 (Loewenberg 1983:251).
Most of the large-scale surveys involving age and politics have focused on
explaining age differences in political partyidentification,liberalversus conservative political identification, and alienation (Hudson & Binstock 1976,
Hendricks& Hendricks1977). Forexample, a numberof studieshave reported
that older age groups are more conservativeand likely to supportthe Republican Partywhen comparedto youngerage groups, andwhile life cycle theorists
have contended that the increasing conservatismwith age is based on aging
slowdowns andthe lengthof time the older age groupshave hadto identifywith
society (Crittenden1962), strongersupporthas been given to a cohortexplanation. That is, aging cohortsdo not necessarilybecome more conservative, and
the cohortthatenteredthe electorateduringthe Depression-New Deal yearshas
maintaineda strong identificationwith the DemocraticPartythroughoutlife
(Campbell et al 1960, Glenn & Hefner 1972). Several large-scale, crossnational surveys of WesternEuropeansover the last 20 years have also been
interpretedfrom a cohort perspective:Cohorts that grew up during the economic depressionsof the 1930s and experiencedWorld War II hold different
value orientations than the cohorts that came of age during the relatively
affluent post-World War II years (Inglehart 1977, 1979, 1981, 1986;
Mushaben 1983, 1984; Szabo 1983). Older cohorts appearmore concerned
with economic and nationalsecurity;youngercohorts supportexpressive values andlife styles, but not the NATO Alliance or defense expenditures,andare
suspicious of the United States and the Soviet Union. These findings have
importantimplicationsfor foreign policy and European-Americanrelationsin
the future.

217
Political Generations
A cohort becomes transformedinto a political generationwhen many of its
members become aware that they are bound togetherby a shared age-group
consciousness andmobilize as an active force for politicalchange(Braungart&
Braungart1984a, 1985a). Wilhelm Dilthey in the 1860s was one of the early
developersof the idea thata generationis influencedby culturaltrendsin ways
different from other age groups in society and that it acts to promote social
change. The concept of a generationcontinuedto be discussedin the 1920s and
1930s and was given its most powerful theoreticalstatementby Mannheim
(1952), who distinguished biological generations from social generations,
drawing a parallel between belonging to a generationand membershipin a
social class. Rapid social change sets one generationapartfrom the next and
increasesthe probabilitythateach new generationof youthwill develop its own
uniquementalityandstyle. Mannheim(1952:304) also pointedout thatwithina
generation may exist any number of "generationunits" who "work up the
material of their common experience in different ways." The formation of
competinggenerationunitsis largelybasedon the diversesocial locationsof the
members of a generation. The concept of social generationwas extended in
Heberle's (1951) discussion of political generations,Eisenstadt's(1956) examinationof age groups within the social structureand their political impact,
Rintala's(1968) focus on the importanceof historicalevents in influencingthe
formationof a political generation, and Esler's (1984) emphasis on the collective mentality of a generation.
The study of age-groupdifferencesin politics becomes especially important
from a political standpointwhen political attitudes divide along age-group
lines, indicating that a political generationmay be taking form. A political
generationis said to come into existence when an age grouprejectsthe existing
order, joins together, and attempts to redirect the course of politics as its
generationalmission (Ortegay Gasset 1961, Braungart& Braungart1984a,
Esler 1984). Fourimportantyouthfulpoliticalgenerationshave been identified
in history: Young Europe, Post-Victorian, Great Depression, and 1960s
Generation(Braungart1984a,b,c). The questionof why political generations
arise duringcertainperiods in historybut not in othershas not been answered
clearly by life-course explanations.In the generationalpolitics literatureit has
generallybeen addressedfrom two perspectives:those explanationsemphasizing antecedent historical circumstancesand social discontinuities (Smelser
1968, Lipset & Altbach 1969, Gurr1970, Hamilton& Wright 1975, Eckstein
1976, Eisenstadt 1978, Gusfield 1979), and those explanationsstressing the
importanceof mobilizationopportunities(Etzioni 1968, Oberschall1973, Tilly
1975, Zald & McCarthy1979). Froma generationalperspective,the dynamics
of the formationof political generationsappearto be that historicalcircumstances (especially population growth, urbanization, industrialization,eco-

218
BRAUNGART
& BRAUNGART
nomic depression, unemployment, technological change, nationalism, and

cultural change) and mobilization forces (organized networks, solidarity,
charismatic leadership, intergroupcompetition, and conflict over political
goals) have combinedduringcertainperiods in historyto form active political
generations (Braungart1984a,c).
Problems with the GenerationalApproach to Politics

A numberof problemsarise in studyinggenerationalpolitics, not the least of
which is the ambiguitysurroundingthe term generationitself. Generationhas
been used loosely to refer to an age-groupin termsof life-cycle stage, family
descent, cohortplacement, and as a decisive political force for change. When
the term itself is unclear, problems of operationalizationare exacerbated
(Kertzner1983; Braungart& Braungart1984a, 1985a). It has been arguedthat
the term generationshould be limited to mean an active generationsuch as a
political generation,since the majorelementin the definitionof a generationis
the heightenedage-groupconsciousnessandcollective mentalitythatunites its
members(Esler 1984); the lack of such age-groupconsciousness indicatesthe
existence of a cohortratherthana generation.In addition,althoughgeneration
has been used in a kinship sense to refer to generationaldescent, the use of
parentgenerationis nebulouswith respectto age-groupmembership,since, for
example, the parentsof high school seniorsmay representa wide rangeof ages
(with some in theirlate 30s and othersin their60s). Thus, in lineage socialization studies of politics, few inferences can be made about either life-course
influences or the effect of historical cohort experiences on parents' political
beliefs.
Determiningboundariesand cut-off points is anotherissue in generational
politics research.While therehas been considerablequibblingoverthe duration
of a generation-whether it lasts 15 or 30 years (Mannheim 1952, Ortegay
Gasset 1961)-it has been argued that since the pace of social change has
accelerated,the time between generationsis lessening (Berger 1960). However, from a life-course perspective, the reverse could also be argued:the time
between generationsis lengthening, since young people in Westernsocieties
aredelayingadultresponsibilitiessuch as workingandestablishinga family. In
dealing with demographiccohortsor dynamicpoliticalgenerations,separating
one birthgroupfromanotheris no easy task (Spitzer1973, Cutler1977, Rosow
1978). Part of the problem is deciding what criteriato use in making age or
generationaldivisions. Although quantitativecriteria are often employedsuch as groupings by decade of birth, election years, or a fixed interval of
time-it has been suggestedthatgenerationsbe dividedaccordingto qualitative
criteriasuch as distincthistoricalevents or experiences(Rosow 1978, Rintala
1979, Kertzner1983). However, when qualitativecriteriaareused to identifya

219
generation, the data may no longer meet the assumptionsof equal intervals
necessary to perform certain mathematicaloperations (Knoke 1984). Yet,
careful and imaginativeattemptsat defining age groups and generationsmay
well enhance the understandingof the dynamicrelationshipbetween cohorts,
generations, and politics.
Another issue concerns determining at what point a cohort becomes a
full-fledged political generation.While "awareness,""uniqueness,""solidarity," and "mobilizing"for social and political change are the characteristics
distinguishinga generationfroma cohort, it is not always clearwhen a political
generation is taking form, nor is it a simple matter to operationalize and
measure "generationalawareness"or "collective mentality."Little is known
aboutthe developmentof sharedcollective mentalitiesand how these become
activated into a genuine force for political change, nor is there much understandingof the interplaybetween competingpolitical generationunits, the
maintenanceof of a political generation'sactivity, why a political generation
comes to an end, and the direct and indirect consequences of a political
generation'sefforts for change. Thus far, empiricalexaminationsof political
generations have been post hoc; it is difficult to predict when and where a
political generation will emerge. Throughoutthe world today the historical
circumstancesappearhighly conducive to the formationof political generations, and presentlythere is a political-generationalwar being fought in South
Africa. Although young people are politically active in a number of other
countries over issues such as natureprotection,ecology, anti-nuclearpower,
anti-nuclearweapons, racism, governmentalrepression, national liberation,
religious struggles, and youthfulrowdyism, such activity has not yet attained
the statusthatsuggests apolitical generation(Mushaben1983, 1984; Braungart
1984b; Braungart& Braungart1985b).
One of the majorweaknessesof age-basedpolitical studiesin generalis their
somewhatlimited focus, with a tendencyto considereitherlife-cycle factorsor
cohort-generationalforces in explainingpoliticalbehavior.Whatis neededis a
more comprehensive approach to studying age-based patterns of political
behavior,age differencesandchangesin politics, andthe formationof decisive
political generationsin history.
A division between life-course politics and generationalpolitics is clearly
evident in the theoreticaland empiricalliteraturefrom the nineteenthcentury
onward. The classificationof a study as representinga life-course perspective
or a generationalinterpretationdepends primarilyon its emphasis. The lifecourse perspective is most apparentin those studies focusing on age-related

220
BRAUNGART
& BRAUNGART
patternsand changes in political behaviorwithoutmuch attentionto historical

and social factors. On the other hand, generationalpolitical studies stress the
impact of parentalsocializationand importanthistoricalevents withoutmuch
considerationof personalgrowth and life-course development. However, the
study of the relationshipbetween age and politics demandsa broadapproach
that includes aspects of life-course development and historical influences
within the context of the sociopoliticalperiod. A majorcontentionin this essay
is thata more fruitfulapproachto understandingpolitical behavioris to weave
together elements of life-course and generationalpolitics.
Although considerable research effort has been devoted to determining
whetherlife-cycle forces or cohort effects have a strongerimpacton political
behavior, we suggest an interactive approach, which reflects much of the
currentdiscussionin the life-spandevelopmentalliteraturethatcalls for greater
considerationof historicalandsocial factorsin the studyof life-coursedevelopment (Brim 1976; Elder 1981, 1985; Featherman1983; Dannefer 1984). The
use of the term"interactive"here implies thatthe combinedeffects of life cycle
andcohortfactorsaremorethanadditive(Riley 1973). Thus, the young andold
may react differentlyto the same political event due to theirparticularstage in
life-cycle development and unique cohort experiences. The life-course and
generational politics approachnecessitates an understandingof life-course
developmentand sociohistoricalchange, as well as the interplaybetweenthese
two forces in influencing political attitudesand behavior and the way these
relationshipsmay change over time. Such interactionnot only involves lifecourse and cohort-generationalfactorsbut also considerationof the sociopolitical period duringwhich empiricalstudies are conducted. The dimensions of
analysis arethe same as those employedin the aging-cohort-perioddesign but,
instead of viewing the dimensions in their traditionaladditive sense, these
effects are consideredjointly, with the expectationthat they may combine in
differentways for various age groupsor segments of age groups and that any
observed relationshipsmay change with changes in the political situation.
The difference between the additivekinds of explanationsfor youth movements and an interactive life-course and generational politics approach is
demonstrated as follows. From a life-course perspective, youth protest
representsone possible outcome for the emotional expression and release of
youthful developmentaltensions. From a generationalperspective, youth unrest occurs when a large-sizebirthcohortcomes of age undera particularset of
historical experiences, social structuralconditions, and opportunities for
mobilization. However, the appearanceof youth movementsis more thanthe
resultof eitherlife-course forces or cohortexperiences;it representsinsteadan
interactionbetween life-course development, cohort/generationexperiences,
and sociopolitical trends. More specifically, an examination of four extra-

AND GENERATIONAL
POLITICS 221
LIFE-COURSE
ordinaryperiods of generationalactivity indicatesthatduringeach period, the
life-cycle characteristicsof youth (high energy levels, increased cognitive
awareness, the search for identity, and the relationship between self and
society) in combinationwith a particularset of cohort experiences (sharinga
large birth cohort with high levels of education, growing up under specific
global, societal, and family conditions)have interactedwith certainhistorical
trends (a disappointing set of social conditions, social discontinuities, and
mobilizationforces) to producepolitical generationsof youth and competing
generationalunits (Braungart1984a,b,c).
There are several research studies available that include a life coursegenerational type of political analysis. The life-course and generational
approachto understandingpolitical behavior has been used successfully in
several case studies of single individuals (Marschak 1980, Shelton 1982,
Rintala 1984). For example, Rintala (1984) provided a historicalaccount of
Vera Brittain, a British middle-class woman who came of age duringWorld
WarI andregardedherself as both a chroniclerof her generationanda political
activist. Rintala's careful descriptive account shows how history influenced
Brittain'spoliticalorientationsandbehaviorover herlife course;it supportsthe
thesis thatpolitical consciousness is largelythe productof personalandhistorical experiences in a changing society.
At the grouplevel of analysis, several studiesrepresentinga life-course and
generationalapproachto politics have focused on student activists from the
1960s generation.A criticalquestionin thisresearchwas whetherthe politics of
these activists changed and mellowed with age or whetherin their adultyears
they adhered to the political orientationsdeveloped during their youth. A
comparisonof follow-up surveysof formeractivistsand an examinationof the
personallives of 1960s activistleadersindicatedthat, with few exceptions and
contraryto some reportsin the media, these left-wing protestersdid notjoin the
Establishmentand pursuecareersin business;they chose careersthat were in
keeping with theiryouthful social and political values, and many continuedto
maintain political commitment and interest throughout their adulthood.
However, the generationaleffect was not the only factor accountingfor adult
political behavior. Life-cycle effects and periodeffects interactedwith generationaleffects in the adultlives of these former1960s activists. Interviewswith
formeractivist leaders indicatedthat while many held similarpolitical values
and orientationsconsistentwith theiryoungeryears, theirtacticsand strategies
for attemptingto implementtheirpolitics had mellowed considerably(Braungart& Braungart1980). Whetherthis political"mellowing"was due to aging or
to the changingpolitical climate, or both, is uncertain,but for individualsand
groups there are elements of stability and change in political orientationsand
behavior over time.

222
& BRAUNGART
BRAUNGART
A more informativeapproachis to providea comparativetype of analysis.

Using life-historyinterviewsWhalen& Flacks(1980, 1984) conductedfollowup studiesof the life-coursedevelopmentof a groupof formerstudentprotesters
and tracked their life patterns from 1970, when they were involved in a
bank-burningincident in California,into their adulthoodyears in the 1980s.
The study focused on both commonalitiesand differencesin life patternsand
revealed that activists experienced shifts in their careers and politics as they
reactedto changingsociopoliticalandpersonalsituations.Yet the experienceof
being part of the protest generation carried with them into adulthood and
strongly affected theirpolitical values and perceptions.Whalen& Flacks also
interviewed a group of adults who had been members of fraternitiesand
sororities in college at the same time as the protestersand found a marked
contrast in adult life patterns between the two groups. The study clearly
demonstratedthat the former activists did not pursueconventionallife styles
nor abandonpolitics in adulthood, and it highlighted the interplaybetween
life-cycle development, the generationaleffect, and the way in which two
differentsegmentsof the same age grouprespondeddifferentlyto politics over
time.
METHODOLOGICALSTRATEGIES
Understandinglife-course and generationalpolitics involves the study of age,
time, and politics. The principaltypes of methodologicaldesigns employedby
researchersconcernedwith various aspects of age and politics include crosssectional, longitudinal, time-series, and aging-cohort-perioddesigns. The
choice of which design to use dependspartiallyon the researchquestion,butthe
choice is an importantone since the outcome and contributionof researchrest
heavily on the methodologyemployed. Researchershave used quantitativeand
qualitativetechniquesin their investigationsof life-course politics and generational politics; however, certainmethodologicalproceduresare more appropriate than others in addressingthe centralissues involved in life-course and
generationalpolitics. We outline some of the strengthsand weaknesses of the
designs and indicatewhich strategiesare most suitable, given the presentstate
of knowledge in these areas.
The cross-sectional design is the simplest type, since it involves measuring
individuals of different ages at only one point in time. However, because
cross-sectional studies are not conducted over time, informationcannot be
gained aboutsome of the centralissues in life-course and generationalpolitics
analysis. The studies do not reveal age-groupand intraindividualchanges in
politics over time or whetherage differencesin politicalbehavioraredue to life
courseor cohorteffects, becauselife-coursedevelopmentandcohorteffects are
confounded in the cross-sectional design. For example, if older adults in a

LIFE-COURSE
AND GENERATIONAL
POLITICS 223
cross-sectionalstudy are found to be more politically conservativethanyoung
people, it is still uncertainwhetherthe observedage differencesare due to the
effects of aging or to cohort experiences (Baltes et al 1977, Braungart&
Braungart1985a). Thus, the cross-sectionaldesign is not particularlyuseful to
the purposes of research in life-course politics, generationalpolitics, or the
interactiveapproach.
Some of the shortcomingsof the cross-sectionaldesign are addressedin the
time-series design where differentsamples, assumedto be equivalentin their
characteristics,aredrawnandmeasuredat variouspointsin time. Such a design
is useful for trackingpublic opinion within a changing society. Although the
time-series design provides more informationthan the cross-sectionaldesign
and avoids some of the logistical problems of the longitudinaldesign, intraindividualchange in politics cannot be assessed nor can cohort effects be
separatedfromperiodeffects (Balteset al 1977, Huyck& Hoyer 1982). Serious
considerationmust be given in the time-seriesdesign to standardizingdatasets
so thatthey arecomparable,to determininghow often measurementsshouldbe
taken, and to recognizing that the rate of change may fluctuate(because this
could affect standardmeasurementandresearchresults)(Hyman1972, Hage et
al 1980).
Most appropriateto the study of life-course and generationalpolitics is the
longitudinal design in which an individual, group, or several groups are
measured at various points in time. The observation may be prospective
or-although somewhatless desirable-retrospective. The longitudinaldesign
provides informationabout age differences, age changes, and intraindividual
change in politics over time. However, if age changes are observed, the
question remains whether shifts in political behavior occurred because of
life-course developmentor because society changed (Baltes et al 1977, Goldstein 1979, Clubb& Scheuch 1980, Reuband1980). Therearealso a numberof
otherdifficulties inherentin the longitudinaldesign:high cost, sampleattrition,
the subjects'familiaritywith measurementinstruments,andthe social psychological effects of being partof an ongoing researchproject(Goldstein 1979).
Despite these difficulties, the longitudinaldesign is best suited to the goals of
life-course and generationalpolitical research,since it is the only design that
allows some assessmentof changes in politicalviews bothwithin andbetween
individuals over time.
Two of the most widely used types of longitudinaldesigns in life-course and
generationalpolitical researchare the panel design and life-historyanalysis.
Panel designs involve remeasurementof the same sample(s) over time. The
panel design provides aggregate informationas well as informationabout
intraindividualchange over time and has been used effectively in political
research.One panel studyidentifiedshort-termfluctuationsin shiftingpolitical
attitudesand voter intentionsover the course of an election (Lazarsfeldet al

224
& BRAUNGART
BRAUNGART
1944); anothereight-yearpanel study focused on the stability and change in

political orientationsof a group of parents and their offspring (Jennings &
Niemi 1981). However, the duration of a panel study is relatively short
comparedto a life-courseperspective,wherethe interestis in life-long changes
in politics from youth through older adulthood. Life-history analysis is a
longitudinaltechnique that focuses on the life experiences, perceptions, and
interpretationsof events by one personor group(Erikson1975, Bertaux1981,
Elder 1985). The political biographyhas been a popularform of life-history
analysisthatexaminesthe life course of a single politicalleader(Erikson1969,
1974, 1975;Post 1980, 1984;Crosby1984;Rintala1984). However, criticisms
have been leveled at some political biographiesfor being too psychoanalyticfor dwelling on the effects of early childhood experiences ratherthan giving
sufficient focus to the importanceof cohorteffects or analyzingadultpolitical
behaviorwithin the context of the historicalmoment(Crosby& Crosby 1981).
Life-historyaccountsalso havebeen conductedatthe grouplevel of analysis,
which gives a betterindicationof age-grouppatternsof politicalbehaviorthan
is possible with the political biographyapproach.Life-historyanalysis when
applied to groups also enables the researcherto keep trackof each individual
over time, therebyprovidinginformationaboutthose whose behavioris more
nearlyunique. Forexample, therehas been a grouplife-historystudyof several
members of the "generationof 1914" (Wohl 1979), a comparisonof the life
patternsof formeractivists of the 1960s with fraternityand sororitymembers
(Whalen& Flacks 1984), anda studyof a groupof AmericanIndianveteransof
the Vietnamwarandtheirthree-generationfamilies (Holm 1984). The selective
and subjectivenatureof the life-historytechnique, creative as it may be, may
affect both researchersand subjectsand therebythreatenthe study's reliability
and validity.
The cross-sectional, time-series, and longitudinal designs are the basic
research strategies used to study the relationshipsbetween age and politics.
However, the findings of a study based on a cross-sectionaldesign may differ
from those based on a longitudinaldesign (Baltes et al 1977). A key interestin
political research has been to move beyond mere descriptionsof age-group
differencesto attemptsto determinethe relativeeffects of aging, cohortexperiences, andperiodeffects on political attitudesandbehavior.The aging-cohortperiod (sometimes termed life cycle-generational-time of measurement)design has received considerableattentionin this regard.The design requiresa
large data set collected over time-most often using the cross-sectional sequence (a series of equivalent samples measuredat various points in time),
ratherthan the longitudinalsequence (repeatedmeasurementsconductedfor
cohorts over time). Despite the popularity of the design for investigating
political party identification,political trust, feelings of political efficacy and
alienation, the results are not always clear, and it is not unusual to find a

225
combinationof effects for a particularpolitical attribute(Bengtson & Cutler

1976, Rodgers 1982, Abramson 1983, Knoke 1984).
The most seriousproblemwith the aging-cohort-perioddesign is identification-that is, given the values of two of the parameters,such as aging and
cohort, the third value, in this case the period effect, is determinedautomatically (Knoke 1984). The problemof identificationcan be handledif the
researcheris able to assumeone of the parametersis not operating,butin many
cases such an assumptionis unrealisticor unwarranted.However, even small
amountsof measurementerroror errorsin specifying constraintsfor any of the
three parameters can result in inaccurate estimates (Rodgers 1982). One
suggestion is to conduct a series of both longitudinal and cross-sequential
studies, to allow clearer specification of aging, cohort, and period effects.
Deciding how to organizethe datain such a case is a challenge(see Baltes et al
1977). Anotherproposalis to supplementthe aging-cohort-perioddesign with
multivariatecorrelation-regressiontechniques, such as path analysis or structural equation models (Baltes et al 1977). However, the majorconsideration
here is that while the design is based on additiveassumptions,in many cases,
aging, cohort, and period effects are likely to be interactive (Riley 1973;
Braungart& Braungart1985a).
In this study we suggest that life course and generationalpolitics be combined into an interactiveapproach.The inclusion of the life-course dimension
indicates the need for a longitudinalmethodologythat encouragesresearchat
both the individualand grouplevels of analysis. However, a quantitativetype
of analysismay not be especially appropriateto the purposesof life-course and
generationalpolitics researchat this time for several reasons: (a) Individual
differencestend to be obscuredin aggregatedataanalysis;(b) highly quantitative proceduresthatprovidefor a clear analysis of interactioneffects and meet
the assumptionsof the data are not readily available;and, most important,(c)
the concepts inherentin life-course and generationalanalysis are theoretically
ambiguous and not well understoodat this point, so quantifying nebulous
concepts is a meaningless exercise.
The use of qualitative comparativeproceduresmay be more helpful in
clarifying some of the theoreticalconcepts and identifyingthe dynamics and
processes involved in life-course and generationalanalysis. For example, one
strategymightbe to conducta combinedqualitativeanalysisof historicalperiod
effects, cohort-generationaleffects, and aging effects for individuals and
groups over time; this approachwould allow the researcherto link life-course
developmentto historicalexperienceswithin the context of societal and larger
global cycles. As an illustration,in the analysisof politicalgenerations,careful
attentionneeds to be given to the uniqueperiod effects (e.g. Young Europe)
duringwhich time nonrandomclustersof politicalgenerationstakeform, come
into conflict with other age groups in society, and mobilize into competing

226
BRAUNGART
& BRAUNGART
intragenerationalunits to change the course of politics. At the same time,

specification should be given to cohort-generationaleffects (e.g. Young Russia, Young Ireland) and life-cycle effects of individual members within a
generation unit (e.g. the life-course developmentof a Narodnikor Fenian).
Comparisonsmight also be made with other political generationsin history
(Post Victorian,GreatDepression, 1960s Generation)to identifythepatternsof
similarity and differences in the formation, activity, demise, and impact of
political generations (Braungart1984a,b,c; Braungart& Braungart1984a,
1985a). Anotherstrategymightbe to take a morepersonalfocus, such as using
comparativelife-history analysis (Elder 1974, Wohl 1979, Marschak 1980,
Whalen & Flacks 1984). Once there is more informationaboutthe dynamics
and processes involved in life-course and generationalpolitics, then more
precise quantitative types of analysis may make a contributionto theory
buildingespecially if betterinteractivemethodologiesandstatisticaltechniques
become available for gatheringand analyzing social science data.
CONCLUSION
In this essay, the relationshipbetween age andpolitics has been discussed and
exploredfrom two theoreticalperspectives:life-coursepolitics andgenerational politics. A thirdapproachhas been suggestedthatinvolves the interactionof
life-course andgenerationalpolitics. Eachof these threeconceptualapproaches
makes certainassumptionsaboutthe relationshipbetweenage andpolitics and
offers a slightly different explanationfor age-group differences in politics,
age-group changes in politics, and the formationof political generationsin
history. In addition, each conceptualapproachfavors certainmethodological
strategies over others. See Table 1 for a summaryof the basic concepts and
methodologicalstrategiesused in the three approachesto studyinglife-course
and generationalpolitics.
The studyof life-course andgenerationalpolitics is complex andrequiresan
understanding of biopsychological life-course processes, of the effect of
cohorts and generations, and of the influence of unique historicalperiods on
political behavior. In orderto assess age-grouppolitical patterns,variations,
differences, and changes in politics, we need to conduct longitudinalstudies
andto makecomparisonsbetweenandwithincohortsor generationsover time,
thatuse both the group and individuallevels of analysis. Such an undertaking
requiresinterdisciplinaryconceptualunderstandingand solid methodological
skills. Even as informationaccumulatesand generalizationsare made about
life-course and generationalpolitics, associations must be trackedover time
since they may well change with fluctuations in the dynamic relationship
between age and politics.

Table 1 Basic Concepts and Methodological Strategiesfor Studying Life-Courseand GenerationalPolitics

Concepts and
Strategies
Life-Course Politics
GenerationalPolitics
General
Assumptions
Focus on age-related biopsychological

characteristicsof each stage in the life
course thatmay influencepolitical attitudes and behavior.
Generational politics results from the

clash of politicalattitudesandbehavior
that are learned through socialization
and the historicalconditioningexperiences of youth which last throughout
life.
Age-Group
Differences
over Politics
Since age groupsarein differentstages of

life-coursedevelopment,withdifferent
needs, interests, and orientations,political conflicts may result.
Since different generations (age-conscious cohorts)havedifferenthistorical

experiences, especially in rapidly
changing societies, they tend to disagree over politics.
Age-Group
Changes
in Politics
Changes in biopsychological development in the life course promote agegroupchanges in political attitudesand
behavior.
Changes in political outlooks are

minimal;the political attitudesand behavior learned within a youth cohort/
generationendurethroughoutlife.
Political
Generations
Political generations result from mobilized developmental needs and interests of individual members.
Political generationsresult from the historical circumstancesand dynamics of

mobilizationthatproduceintergenerational and intragenerationalconflict.
Methodological
Strategies
Longitudinal and aging-cohort-period

(longitudinal sequence) designs are
suitable; must track individual over
time.
Time-series, longitudinal, and agingcohort-period designs are suitable;

comparative studies of cohorts and
political generationsare useful.

228
LiteratureCited
Abramson, P. R. 1983. Political Attitudes in
America:Formationand Change. San Francisco: Freeman
Adelson, J. 1971. The political imaginationof
the young adolescent. Daedalus 100:101350
Adelson, J., ed. 1980. HandbookofAdolescent
Psychology. New York: Wiley
Adelson, J., Hall, E. 1980. Childrenand other
political naifs. Psychol. Today November:56-69
Baltes, P. B., Brim, 0. Jr., eds. 1979-1984.
Life-SpanDevelopmentand Behavior. Vols.
1-6. New York: Academic
Baltes, P. B., Reese, H. W., Nesselroade,J. R.
1977. Life-SpanDevelopmentalPsychology:
Introduction to Research Methods. Monterey, Calif: Brooks/Cole
Barnes, S. H., Kaase, M. eds. 1979. Political
Action: Mass Participation in Five Western
Democracies. Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage
Bengtson, V. L., Black, K. D. 1973. Intergenerationalrelations and continuities in
socialization. In Life-Span Developmental
Psychology: Personality and Socialization,
ed. P. B. Baltes, K. W. Schaie, pp. 207-34.
New York: Academic
Bengtson, V. L., Cutler, N. E. 1976. Generations and intergenerationalrelations: Perspectives on age groups and social change.
See Binstock & Shanas 1976:130-59
Bengtson, V. I., Cutler,N. E., Mangen, D. J.,
Marshall, V. W. 1985. Generations, cohorts, and relations between age groups. In
Handbookof Aging and the Social Sciences,
ed. R. H. Binstock, E. Shanas, pp. 304-38.
New York: Van NostrandReinhold
Berger, B. M. 1960. How long is a generation?
Br. J. Sociol. 11:10-23
Bertaux, D., ed. 1981. Biographyand Society:
The Life HistoryApproachin the Social Sciences. Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage
Bettelheim, B. 1963. The problemof generations. See Erikson 1963:64-92
Binstock, R. H., Shanas, E., eds. 1976. Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences. New
York: Van Nostrand, Reinhold
Birren, J. E., Schaie, K. W. eds. 1977. Handbook of the Psychology ofAging. New York:
Van Nostrand, Reinhold
Braungart,M. M. 1984. Aging and politics. J.
Polit. Milit. Sociol. 12:79-98
Braungart,M. M., Braungart,R. G. 1982. The
alienationandpolitics of older, middle-aged,
and young adults: An inter- and intra-age
group analysis. Micropolitics 2:219-55
Braungart,R. G. 1975. Youthandsocial movements. In Adolescence in the Life Cycle, ed.
S. E. Dragastin, G. H. Elder, Jr., pp. 25589. New York: Wiley
Braungart,R. G. 1979. Family Status, Socialization and Student Politics. Ann Arbor,
Mich: University Microfilms International
Braungart,R. G. 1980. Youthmovements. See
Adelson 1980:560-97
Braungart,R. G. 1981. Mini reviews:Political
sociology. J. Polit. Milit. Sociol. 9:136
Braungart,R. G. 1984a. Historicaland generationalpatternsof youthmovements:A global perspective. See Tomasson 1984:3-62
Braungart,R. G. 1984b. Historicalgenerations
and generationunits: A global perspective.
J. Polit. Milit. Sociol. 12:113-35
Braungart,R. G. 1984c. Historicalgenerations
and youth movements: A theoretical perspective. In Research in Social Movements,
Conflict and Change, ed. R. E. Ratcliff,
6:95-141. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI
Braungart,R. G., Braungart,M. M. 1972.
Administration,faculty and studentreaction
to campus unrest. J. College Stud. Per.
13:112-19
Politicalcareerpatternsof radicalactivistsin
the 1960s and 1970s: Some historicalcomparisons. Sociol. Focus 13:237-54
Braungart,R. G., Braungart,M. M. 1984a.
Generationalpolitics. Micropolitics 3:349415
Braungart, R. G., Braungart, M. M., eds.
1984b. Special issue on "Life-course and
generationalpolitics."J. Polit. Milit. Sociol.
12:1-212
Braungart,R. G., Braungart,M. M. 1985a.
Conceptualand methodologicalapproaches
to studyinglife course andgenerationalpolitics. In Research in Political Sociology, ed.
R. G. Braungart, 1:269-304. Greenwich,
Conn: JAI
Braungart,R. G., Braungart,M. M. 1985b.
Youthproblems and politics in the 1980s:
Some multinationalcomparisons.Presented
at Int. Sociol. Assoc. Res. Comm. 34 Conf.
on Youth, Primorsko,Bulgaria
Youth dependency and national development: The global status of youth in the
1980s. Unpublished manuscript, Dep.
Sociol., Syracuse Univ.
Brim, 0. G. Jr. 1976. Theories of the male
mid-life crisis. In CounselingAdults, ed. N.
K. Schlossberg, A. D. Entive, pp. 1-18.
Monterey, Calif: Brooks/Cole
Brotman, H. B. 1977. Voter participationin
November, 1976. Gerontologist 17:157159
Butler, R. N., Lewis, M. I. 1982. Aging and
Mental Health. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby
Campbell, A. 1971. Politics through the life
cycle. Gerontologist 11:112-17

Campbell, A., Converse, P., Miller, W.,
Stokes, D. 1960. TheAmericanVoter. New
York: Wiley
Clubb, J. M., Scheuch, E. K., eds. 1980. Historical Social Research: The Use of Historical and Process-Produced Data. Stuttgart:
Klett-Cotta
Crittenden,J. A. 1962. Aging andpartyaffiliation. Publ. Opinion Q. 26:648-57
Crosby,F., Crosby,T. L. 1981. Psychobiography and psychohistory.In Handbookof Political Behavior, ed. S. Long, 1:195-254.
New York: Plenum
Crosby, T. L. 1984. Gladstone's decade of
crisis: Biography and the life course approach. J. Polit. Milit. Sociol. 12:9-22
Cutler, N. E. 1977. Political socialization researchas generationalanalysis. See Renshon
1977:294-326
Dannefer, D. 1984. Adult development and
social theory: A paradigmaticreappraisal.
Am. Sociol. Rev. 49:100-16
Davies, J. C. 1977. Political socialization:
From womb to childhood. See Renshon
1977:142-71
Duncan, M. 1980. Radical activism and the
defense against despair. Sociol. Focus 13:
255-63
Eckstein, H. 1976. A theory of stable democracy. In Society and Politics, ed. R. G.
Braungart,pp. 142-50. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall
Eisenstadt, S. N. 1956. From Generation to
Generation: Age Groups and Social Structure. New York: Free Press
Eisenstadt, S. N. 1978. Revolution and the
Transformation of Societies. New York:
Free Press
Elder, G. H. Jr. 1974. Children of the Great
Depression. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Elder, G. H. Jr. 1975. Age differentiationand
the life course. Ann. Rev. Sociol. 1:165-90
Elder, G. H. Jr. 1981. History and the life
course. See Bertaux 1981:77-115
Elder, G. H. Jr., ed. 1985. Life CourseDynamics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
Erikson, E. H., ed. 1963. Youth:Change and
Challenge. New York: Basic Books
Erikson, E. H. 1968. Identity:Youthand Crisis. New York: Norton
Erikson, E. H. 1969. Gandhi's Truth. New
York: Norton
Erikson, E. H. 1974. Dimensions of a New
Identity. New York: Norton
Erikson, E. H. 1975. Life History and the Historical Moment. New York: Norton
Esler, A., ed. 1974. The Youth Revolution.
Lexington, Mass: Heath
Esler, A. 1979. GenerationalStudies:A Basic
Bibliography. Williamsburg,Va: Esler
Esler, A. 1982. Generations in History: An
Introductionto the Concept. Williamsburg,
Va: Esler
229
Esler, A. 1984. "The truest community":Social generationsas collective mentalities.J.

Etzioni, A. 1968. The Active Society. New
York: Free Press
Featherman,D. L. 1983. Life-span perspectives in social science research.In Life-Span
Development and Behavior, ed. P. B.
Baltes, 0. Brim, Jr., 5:1-57. New York:
Academic
Feuer, L. S. 1969. The Conflict of Generations. New York: Basic
Flacks, R. 1967. The liberatedgeneration:An
explorationof the roots of studentprotest.J.
Soc. Issues 23:52-75
Flacks, R. 1971. Youth and Social Change.
Chicago: Rand McNally
Gallatin, J. 1980. Political thinkingin adolescence. See Adelson 1980:344-82
Gillis, J. R. 1974. Youthand History. New
York: Academic
Glenn, N. D., Hefner, T. 1972. Furtherevidence on aging and party identification.
Publ. Opinion Q. 36:31-47
Goldstein, H. 1979. The Design and Analysis
of Longitudinal Studies. New York: Academic
Goulet, L. R., Baltes, P. B., eds. 1970. LifeSpan DevelopmentalPsychology: Research
and Theory. New York: Academic
Greenstein,F. I. 1965. Childrenand Politics.
New Haven, Conn: Yale Univ. Press
Gurr,T. R. 1970. WhyMen Rebel. Princeton,
NJ: PrincetonUniv. Press
Gusfield, J. 1979. The modernity of social
movements:Publicroles andprivateparts.In
Societal Growth, ed. A. H. Hawley, pp.
290-307. New York: Free Press
Haan, N. 1971. Moral redefinitionin families
as a critical aspect of the generationalgap.
Youthand Soc. 2:259-83
Hage, J., Gargan,E. T., Hanneman,R. 1980.
Procedures for periodizing history: Determining eras in the histories of Britain,
France, Germany and Italy. See Clubb &
Scheuch, 1980:267-83
Hamilton, R. F., Wright,J. 1975. New Directions in Political Sociology. Indianapolis:
Bobbs-Merrill
Heberle, R. 1951. Social Movements. New
York: Appleton-Century-Crofts
Hendin, H. 1975. The Age of Sensation. New
York: Norton
Hendricks,J., Hendricks,C. D. 1977. Aging in
Mass Society. Cambridge,Mass: Winthrop
Hess, R. D., Torney,J. V. 1967. TheDevelopment of Political Attitudesin Children.Garden City, NY: Doubleday
Holm, T. 1984. Intragenerationalrapprochement among American Indians:A study of
thirty-five Indian veterans of the Vietnam
war. J. Polit. Milit. Sociol. 12:161-70
Hudson, R. B., Binstock, R. H. 1976. Political

230
systems and aging. See Binstock & Shanas

1976:369-400
Huyck, M. H., Hoyer, W. J. 1982. Adult Development and Aging. Belmont, Calif:
Wadsworth
Hyman, H. H. 1972. Secondary Analysis of
SampleSurveys:Principles, Proceduresand
Potentialities. New York: Wiley
Inglehart, R. 1977. The Silent Revolution:
Changing Valuesand Political Styles among
Western Publics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
Univ. Press
Inglehart,R. 1979. Political action:The impact
of values, cognitive level, and social background. See Barnes & Kaase 1979:343-80
Inglehart,R. 1981. Post-materialismin an environmentof insecurity.Am. Polit. Sci. Rev.
75:880-900
Inglehart, R. 1986. Intergenerationalchanges
in politics andculture:The shift frommaterialist to postmaterialistvalue priorities. In
Research in Political Sociology, Vol. 2, ed.
R. G. Braungart.Greenwich, Conn:JAI. In
press
Jansen, N. 1975. Generation Theory. Johannesburg:McGraw-Hill
Jennings, M. K., Niemi, R. G. 1981. Generations and Politics: A Panel Study of Young
Adults and Their Parents. Princeton, NJ:
PrincetonUniv. Press
Kearney, R. N. 1984. The mentorin the commencementof a political career:The case of
Subhas ChandraBose and C. R. Das. J.
Kellerman, B. 1978. Mentoring in political
life: The case of Willy Brandt. Am. Polit.
Sci. Rev. 72:422-33
Keniston, K. 1968. Young Radicals. New
York: Harcourt,Brace & World
Keniston, K. 1971. Youthand Dissent. New
York: HarcourtBrace Jovanovich
Kertzner, D. I. 1983. Generationas a sociological problem. Ann. Rev. Sociol. 9:12549
Klineberg, O., Zavalloni, M., Louis-Guerin,
C., BenBrika, J. 1979. Students, Values,
and Politics: A CrossculturalComparison.
New York: Free Press
Knoke, D. 1984. Conceptualandmeasurement
aspects of the study of political generations.
J. Polit. Milit. Sociol. 12:191-201
Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., Gaudet, H.
1944. The People's Choice. New York:
Duell, Sloan & Pearce
Levinson, D. J. 1978. The Seasons of a Man's
Life. New York: Ballantine
Lipset, S. M., Altbach, P. G., eds. 1969. Students in Revolt. Boston: HoughtonMifflin
Loewenberg, P. 1983. Decoding the Past: The
Psychohistorical Approach. New York:
Knopf
Mannheim, K. 1952. The problem of genera-
tions. In Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge. K. Mannheim,pp. 276-320. London:

Routledge & Kegan Paul
Marias,J. 1968. Generations:The concept. See
Sills 1968:88-92
Marias, J. 1970. Generations: A Historical
Method. University, Ala: Univ. Ala. Press
Marschak,M. 1980. Parent-ChildInteraction
and YouthRebellion. New York: Gardner
Martin,W. C., Bengtson, V. L., Acock, A. C.
1974. Alienationandage: A context-specific
approach.Soc. Forc. 53:266-82
McKeon, R., ed. 1941. The Basic Works of
Aristotle. New York: RandomHouse
Milbrath,L. W., Goel, M. L. 1977. Political
Participation. Chicago: Rand McNally
Mushaben, J. M. 1983. The forum: New dimensions of youth protest in Western Europe. J. Polit. Milit. Sociol. 11:123-44
Mushaben,J. M. 1984. Anti-politics and successor generations:The role of youth in the
West andEast Germanpeace movements.J.
Muuss, R. E. 1968. Theories of Adolescence.
New York: Random House
Nash, L. L. 1978. Concepts of existence:
Greek origins of generational thought.
Daedalus 107:1-21
Newcomb, T. M. 1943. Personalityand Social
Change. New York: Dryden
Oberschall, A. 1973. Social Conflict and Social Movements. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall
Ortegay Gasset, J. 1961. TheModern Theme.
New York: Harper& Row
Parsons, T. 1963. Youth in the context of
American society. See Erikson 1963:93119
Post, J. M. 1980. The seasonsof a leader'slife:
Influences of the life cycle on political behavior. Polit. Psychol. 2:35-49
Post, J. M. 1983. Woodrow Wilson reexamined: The mind-body controversy redux and other disputations.Polit. Psychol.
4:289-306
Post, J. M. 1984. Dreamsof glory and the life
cycle: Reflections on the life course of narcissistic leaders. J. Polit. Milit. Sociol.
12:49-60
Rejai, M., Phillips, K. 1979. Leaders of Revolution. Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage
Renshon, S. A., ed. 1977. Handbookof Political Socialization: Theory and Research.
New York: Free Press
Reuband,K. H. 1980. Life histories:Problems
and prospects of longitudinal designs. See
Clubb & Scheuch, 1980:135-63
Riley, M. W. 1973. Aging and cohort succession: Interpretationsand misinterpretations.
Publ. Opinion Q. 37:35-49
Riley, M. W. 1978. Aging, social change, and
the power of ideas. Daedalus 107:39-52

Rintala, M. 1968. Generations,political. See
Sills 1968:92-95
Rintala, M. 1979. The Constitutionof Silence:
Essays on GenerationalThemes. Westport,
Conn: Greenwood
Rintala, M. 1984. Chroniclerof a generation:
Vera Brittain's testament. J. Polit. Milit.
Sociol. 12:23-35
Rodgers, W. L. 1982. Estimablefunctions of
age, period, and cohort effects. Am. Sociol.
Rev. 47:774-87
Rollenhagen, R. E. 1984. Age-relatedchanging levels of voting turnout across time.
Gerontologist 24:205-07
Rosow, I. 1978. What is a cohort and why?
Hum. Dev. 21:65-75
Ryder, N. B. 1965. The cohort as a concept in
the study of social change. Am. Sociol. Rev.
30:843-61
Shelton, R. M. 1982. To Lose a War:Memories of a German Girl. Carbondale, Ill:
SouthernIll. Univ. Press
Shore, M. 1972. Henry VIII and the crisis of
generativity. J. Interdis. Hist. 2:359-90
Sills, D., ed. 1968. Encyclopediaof the Social
Sciences. Vol. 6. New York: Macmillan
Smelser, N. J. 1968. Essays in Sociological
Explanation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Spitzer, A. B. 1973. The historicalproblemof
generations.Am. Hist. Rev. 78:1353-85
Stacey, B. 1977. Political Socialization in
WesternSociety: An Analysis from a LifeSpan Perspective. New York: St. Martin's
Streib, G. F. 1976. Social stratificationand
aging. See Binstock& Shanas, 1976:160-85
Streib,G. F., Bourg, C. J. 1984. Age stratifica-
231
tion theory, inequality, and social change.

See Tomasson 1984:63-77
Szabo, S. F. 1983. TheSuccessor Generation:
International Perspectives of Postwar Europeans. Woburn,Mass.: Butterworths
Tilly, C. 1975. Revolutionsandcollective violence. In Handbookof Political Science, ed.
F. I. Greenstein,N. W. Polsby, 3:483-555.
Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley
Tomasson, R. F., ed. 1984. ComparativeSocial Research. Vol. 7. Greenwich, Conn:
JAI
Troll, L. E. 1970. Issues in the studyof generations. Aging Hum. Devel. 1:199-218
United Nations. 1981. International Youth
Year: Participation, Development, Peace.
New York: United Nations
Whalen, J., Flacks, R. 1980. The Isla Vista
"bankburners"ten years later:Notes on the
fate of student activists. Sociol. Focus
13:215-36
Whalen, J., Flacks, R. 1984. Echoes of rebellion: The liberatedgenerationgrows up. J.
Wohl, R. 1979. TheGenerationof 1914. Cambridge, Mass: HarvardUniv. Press
Wohlwill, J. F. 1970. Methodology and researchstrategyin the studyof developmental
change. See Goulet & Baltes 1970:149-91
Wood, J. L. 1974. The Sources of Student
Activism. Lexington, Mass: Heath
Yankelovich, D. 1974. The New Morality: A
Profile of AmericanYouthin the 70's. New
York: McGraw-Hill
Zald, M. N., McCarthy,J. D., eds. 1979. The
Dynamicsof Social Movements.Cambridge,
Mass: Winthrop


Braungart

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Braungart

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Life-Course and Generational Politics

Author(s): Richard G. Braungart and Margaret M. Braungart

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 19:08:30 PM

Ann. Rev. Sociol. 1986. 12:205-31

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 19:08:30 PM

historicalexperiences. The entranceof successive age groupsinto society has

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 19:08:30 PM

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 19:08:30 PM

humanbehaviorandthe structureof societies in generalhas been given explicit

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 19:08:30 PM

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 19:08:30 PM

BRAUNGART & BRAUNGART

Politics in Middle Age

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 19:08:30 PM

Politics in Older Adulthood

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 19:08:30 PM

indicated there is wide variationin physiological and psychological declines

Problems with the Life-CourseApproachto Politics

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 19:08:30 PM

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 19:08:30 PM

BRAUNGART & BRAUNGART

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 19:08:30 PM

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 19:08:30 PM

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 19:08:30 PM

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 19:08:30 PM

nomic depression, unemployment, technological change, nationalism, and

Problems with the GenerationalApproach to Politics

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 19:08:30 PM

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 19:08:30 PM

patternsand changes in political behaviorwithoutmuch attentionto historical

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 19:08:30 PM

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 19:08:30 PM

A more informativeapproachis to providea comparativetype of analysis.

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 19:08:30 PM

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 19:08:30 PM

1944); anothereight-yearpanel study focused on the stability and change in

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 19:08:30 PM

combinationof effects for a particularpolitical attribute(Bengtson & Cutler

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 19:08:30 PM

intragenerationalunits to change the course of politics. At the same time,

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 19:08:30 PM

Table 1 Basic Concepts and Methodological Strategiesfor Studying Life-Courseand GenerationalPolitics

Focus on age-related biopsychological

Generational politics results from the

Since age groupsarein differentstages of

Since different generations (age-conscious cohorts)havedifferenthistorical

Changes in political outlooks are

Political generationsresult from the historical circumstancesand dynamics of

Longitudinal and aging-cohort-period

Time-series, longitudinal, and agingcohort-period designs are suitable;

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 19:08:30 PM

BRAUNGART & BRAUNGART

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 19:08:30 PM

Esler, A. 1984. "The truest community":Social generationsas collective mentalities.J.

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 19:08:30 PM

BRAUNGART & BRAUNGART

systems and aging. See Binstock & Shanas

tions. In Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge. K. Mannheim,pp. 276-320. London:

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 19:08:30 PM

tion theory, inequality, and social change.

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013 19:08:30 PM

Você também pode gostar