This is a series of draft excerpts from my forthcoming book Collective Souls—shared here with my paid subscribers as an evolving, behind-the-scenes process—an invitation to reflect, respond, and witness the work while the ink is still fresh.
Chapter 9: The Need for Two Generational Models
Before we step fully into Kairos—the astrological dimension of time—we must briefly return to Chronos. To navigate the path ahead with clarity, we need to understand the frameworks that have shaped generational theory up until now and why an astrological model enhances, rather than replaces, these perspectives.
Chronos vs. Kairos: Two Ways of Seeing Generational Time
To see time mythically is to flow into it. But now we must sharpen the focus, pull the lens back from the stars and into the structure of history as we have traditionally measured it. This is a necessary recalibration, for if we do not first understand the framework we are about to expand, how will we know where to place the new dimensions we are uncovering?
For centuries, history has been understood through Chronos, the measurable, linear flow of time. It is the time of clocks, calendars, and cause and effect—the domain of historians, sociologists, and demographers. The Strauss & Howe model of generational cycles fits neatly within this paradigm, analyzing how generations emerge, interact, and influence history in repeatable, structured patterns.
Yet there is another way of seeing time: Kairos, the time of meaning, synchronicity, and deep transformation. Unlike Chronos, Kairos is qualitative rather than quantitative—it is not concerned with measurement but with significance. Pluto’s slow, elliptical orbit through the zodiac does not simply count the years; it signals epochs of necessary transformation, revealing the hidden architecture of history.
To understand generational patterns fully, we must integrate both perspectives. Chronos tells us what happened and when; Kairos tells us why it mattered.
The Left Brain – Right Brain | Body – Soul Distinction
What if the way we think now is not the way humans have always thought? What if there was a time when reality itself was experienced differently—more fluid, more mythic, more alive? Julian Jaynes argued precisely this, suggesting that early humans heard the voices of gods not as metaphor, but as literal internal guidance. Iain McGilchrist extends this, showing how modern thought has become fractured, favoring logic at the expense of meaning. In both cases, we see the same split we now wrestle with in generational theory: history as rigid measurement, or history as unfolding intelligence?
The Historical Model (Chronos) = Left Brain / Body
Concrete, linear, data-driven.
Tracks external events, societal trends, and measurable historical shifts.
Tells us what happened, when it happened, and how history unfolds.
The Astrological Model (Kairos) = Right Brain / Soul
Symbolic, cyclical, mythic.
Reveals deeper, archetypal patterns shaping the evolution of consciousness.
Tells us why generations emerge as they do and what their evolutionary purpose is.
Just as left-brain and right-brain integration is essential for a fully realized human consciousness, the integration of Chronos and Kairos is necessary for a fully realized generational theory. Without the astrological perspective, we risk reducing generations to mere historical artifacts, missing the deeper soul-level transformation that occurs across time.
The Strengths and Limits of the Historical Model
The Strauss & Howe generational model has provided a powerful lens through which to understand history. Their theory of turnings (High, Awakening, Unraveling, Crisis) effectively maps the cyclic nature of societal shifts. However, it assumes that generations follow a fixed 18-22 year cycle, fitting neatly into a repetitive pattern.
Yet history does not unfold in perfect intervals. Some generations feel blurred at the edges, overlapping with those before and after them. Others feel stretched or compressed, making rigid generational definitions difficult to sustain. The historical model, rooted in Chronos, lacks a natural mechanism for explaining these irregularities.
What Astrology Brings to the Table
This is where the Pluto model offers deeper insight. Unlike the structured 18-22 year cycles of the Strauss & Howe framework, Pluto’s transits are cosmic rhythms, not human-imposed constructs. Due to the highly elliptical shape of its orbit, Pluto does not move in equal segments—it spends less time in some signs (Scorpio, Sagittarius) and more in others (Taurus, Gemini), meaning its generational demarcations vary between 11 and 30 years.
This variability aligns with what we actually observe—some generations blend into the next, while others stand apart as distinct evolutionary forces. Astrology provides a naturally occurring, astronomical rhythm that reveals why generations shift the way they do, beyond the socially imposed structures of historical demography.
The Need for Synthesis
This is not merely an academic distinction—it is a failure of perception. If we see history only through the lens of Chronos, we track its patterns but lose its pulse. If we abandon Chronos for Kairos entirely, we dissolve into mysticism without structure. But to integrate them—this is the task of our time. To see generations not only as social constructs but as evolutionary waves, moving through both seen and unseen forces, is to reclaim the full vision of history. Only then can we truly understand our place within it.
With this foundation in place, we now turn to a detailed comparison of how different frameworks define generational time: the historical model, the demographic approach, and the astrological model. Each offers a unique perspective, but together, they create a coherent and multidimensional understanding of generational evolution.
So let’s step back into Chronos to examine these frameworks in detail before returning once more to Kairos and the deeper archetypal patterns of history.
The Structural Comparison of Generational Models
Generations are, at their core, social constructs—labels used to describe cohorts of people who experience key historical events and cultural shifts at roughly the same time. But how generations are measured varies widely depending on the model used.
In this section, we will compare three primary generational frameworks:
The Historical Model (Strauss & Howe) – a structured, cyclical model with fixed 18-22 year generations.
The Demographic Model (Pew Research) – a more flexible, culturally defined model that shifts generational boundaries over time.
The Astrological Model (Pluto) – a framework that follows the planet’s elliptical transit, marking generations with cosmic precision rather than human-imposed timeframes.
Rather than treating these models as competing theories, we will demonstrate how each serves a different function and why Pluto’s model offers a missing evolutionary dimension to generational understanding.
The Strauss & Howe Model: The Historical Generational Framework
As we explored in Part 1, the Strauss & Howe model is based on the idea that history moves through a repeating cycle of four generational archetypes—Prophet, Nomad, Hero, and Artist—within 80-100 year historical cycles. This structure envisions each generation lasting between 18 to 22 years, ensuring a predictable rhythm to historical change. The model divides history into four repeating phases: the High, where institutions are strong; the Awakening, a period of spiritual upheaval; the Unraveling, where institutions begin to decay; and the Crisis, a time of major transformation and renewal.
This model has proven useful in tracking historical trends, identifying recurring patterns in generational roles, and offering a structured way to interpret the interplay of different age cohorts. However, its rigid structure can also be a limitation. The assumption that each generation must fit neatly into 18-22 year cycles overlooks natural variations and the organic way in which cultural and technological forces shape generational identity. The inability to accommodate smaller micro-generations also creates inconsistencies in how people self-identify.
The Pew Research Model: Generations Defined by Cultural Shifts
In contrast to the fixed cycles of the Strauss & Howe framework, the Pew Research model defines generations based on major cultural, technological, and societal changes. This approach allows for generational boundaries to shift over time, reflecting the realities of evolving cultural landscapes.
Rather than following a predetermined cycle, Pew Research and other demographers define generations retrospectively, assessing when key cultural shifts create clear distinctions between age groups. Generational divisions are shaped by technological revolutions, economic conditions, and shifts in values. While this model is more adaptable, it lacks an overarching structural rhythm and does not account for deeper archetypal patterns, making it less predictive in identifying recurring cycles in history.
The Astrological Model: The Cosmic Evolutionary Framework
Unlike the previous two models, Pluto’s generational framework is based not on human-imposed cycles but on celestial timing. Pluto’s orbit around the Sun takes 248 years, and as it transits through the zodiac, it creates generations that vary between 11 and 30 years in length depending on Pluto’s speed through each sign. This model aligns generations with Pluto’s astrological influence, revealing deeper evolutionary themes that transcend political and cultural boundaries.
Pluto’s framework differs from the historical and demographic models in that it is not constrained by artificial time segments. Instead, it recognizes that different generations are born into specific energetic fields, shaping their collective psychology and purpose. While less familiar to mainstream generational studies, the astrological model provides insight into why certain generations experience rapid transformation while others undergo slower, more structural shifts.
Comparing the Models: A Side-by-Side View
To better visualize these differences, let’s compare how the three frameworks define generational time periods.
This comparison highlights several key distinctions between the models. The Strauss & Howe model imposes uniformity onto generational cycles, while the Pew Research model allows for greater flexibility in defining generations based on cultural realities. The Pluto model, by contrast, does not attempt to force consistency but instead follows the natural cosmic rhythm. The length of Pluto generations varies significantly, with some generations spanning as few as 11 years (Scorpio), while others can stretch to three decades (Taurus).
Traditional frameworks attempt to divide generations into neat, symmetrical blocks. But Pluto’s framework recognizes that history does not always move in perfect increments—some generational waves are compressed, while others stretch across longer arcs. Rather than replacing the historical models, Pluto’s model fills in the missing evolutionary layer. The Strauss & Howe model captures the cyclical nature of historical generations, and the Pew Research model reflects shifting cultural realities, but Pluto’s model explains why generational identity is deeply connected to psychological and evolutionary shifts.
Now that we have compared the models, we turn to a real-world example that demonstrates how Pluto’s framework clarifies generational anomalies: the case of the Xennials.
The Xennial Case Study—Pluto in Libra
For many people born between the mid 1970s and mid 1980s, generational identity has long been a source of confusion. Too young to be fully aligned with Gen X, yet too old to feel at home among Millennials, this group—later dubbed "Xennials"—found themselves straddling two vastly different cultural realities. Unlike the clear-cut generations defined by historians and demographers, Xennials exist in a kind of liminal space, an anomaly that traditional models struggled to explain.
The Strauss & Howe model did not acknowledge this group because their rigid 18-22 year generational cycles forced them into one category or another. Pew Research eventually recognized Xennials retroactively, only after observing their distinct cultural markers. But what if demographers had a tool that could have predicted this generational boundary?
If contemporary demographers had availed themselves of the astrological model, they would have known to anticipate the Pluto in Libra generation they were only able to identify in hindsight as “Xennials.” Imagine if demographers had consulted astrologers when defining generational boundaries. Instead of playing catch-up, they would have known decades ago that a distinct generation—Pluto in Libra—would emerge to bridge the relational and technological shifts between Gen X and Millennials. Pluto’s framework naturally divides generations based on the celestial rhythm of its transit through the zodiac, and Pluto in Libra (1972-1984) perfectly captures this missing generation’s unique role in the evolutionary process.
The Xennial Experience: Caught Between Two Worlds
The Xennials grew up as the last generation of an analog world and the first generation to come of age in a digital one. Their childhoods were defined by rotary phones, handwritten letters, and playing outside until dusk. But by their early adulthood, they were navigating the emergence of the internet, cell phones, and social media. Unlike Millennials, who were fully immersed in digital culture from a young age, or Gen X, who largely maintained a more detached relationship with technology, Xennials had to bridge the gap between two vastly different modes of existence.
Culturally, this group exhibits traits from both adjacent generations. They inherited Gen X’s skepticism and independence but also absorbed the Millennial desire for meaning, collaboration, and innovation. Many found themselves acting as mediators, translating the ideals and values of the pre-digital world to the emerging hyper-connected reality.
This bridging role aligns perfectly with Libra’s core themes of balance, negotiation, and relationship dynamics. Pluto in Libra individuals are here to facilitate harmony in a time of transition—whether in personal relationships, social movements, or global diplomacy.
Pluto in Libra (1972-1984): The Evolutionary Task of the Xennials
Pluto in Libra brings a generational focus on justice, relationships, and societal harmony. The Xennial cohort was born into a world where marriage norms were rapidly shifting, divorce rates skyrocketed, and traditional family structures were being redefined. Many of them were children of divorce, witnessing firsthand the fracturing of old relationship paradigms and the struggle to create new ones.
This generation’s collective soul task is to heal relational wounds—whether at the interpersonal level, in communities, or on the global stage. As Pluto in Libra individuals matured, they became catalysts for conversations about work-life balance, marriage equality, relationship therapy, and diplomatic conflict resolution. They pioneered new ways of thinking about love, partnership, and fairness, often acting as cultural mediators between rigid traditions and a rapidly evolving world.
In a way, Pluto in Libra individuals are the middle children of modern history. Always negotiating between competing ideologies, often feeling unseen or undervalued, they embody what might be called the Jan Brady effect. Like Jan Brady forever stuck between “Marcia, Marcia, Marcia!” and Cindy’s youthful innocence, Pluto in Libra Xennials often feel caught between two overpowering forces. Their Gen X elders tell them to toughen up and be independent, while Millennials urge them to embrace collective ideals. They are old enough to remember life before the internet but young enough to be expected to thrive in an era of hyperconnectivity. Torn between two worlds, they have had to develop an innate ability to mediate, adapt, and reconcile opposing realities.
Why Pluto’s Model Matters
The Xennial experience is evidence that generational boundaries are not always clean. Traditional models impose strict time frames onto generations, often forcing people into categories that don’t quite fit. The Pluto model, however, follows an organic, celestial rhythm, and as a result, it naturally identifies periods of generational transition that other models miss.
Rather than being an anomaly, Pluto in Libra is an example of how Pluto’s framework anticipates generational shifts rather than merely identifying them in hindsight. The inclusion of Xennials was an afterthought in mainstream generational studies, but Pluto’s model has recognized them from the beginning. This is not just a coincidence—it is a demonstration of Pluto’s role in shaping not just historical patterns, but the very psychology and evolutionary purpose of each generation.
Pluto does not move at the pace of human history. It does not conform to the artificial boundaries drawn by demographers. It carves its own path across the sky, etching its influence deep into the soul of each generation. The case of Pluto in Libra—and the Xennial middle-child generation it created—is only the first glimpse of this cosmic architecture.
Meanwhile, as mainstream generational models struggle to define boundaries in hindsight, Pluto’s cycle has already revealed what is coming. Just as Pluto in Libra anticipated the Xennials long before demographers acknowledged them, we now know that Pluto in Aquarius (2024-2040) is bringing forth the next great collective shift, and the next generation along with it. This is the difference between seeing history as a pattern that repeats and understanding it as a living cycle of evolution.
The Four Elements—The Bridge Between the Models
As we prepare to step fully into the astrological framework of Pluto’s generational cycle, one final bridge remains to be crossed. Up to this point, we have contrasted the demographic approach of mainstream generational studies with the cosmic perspective provided by Pluto’s transit through the zodiac. But there is another hidden structure beneath history that binds both of these perspectives together: the four elements—Fire, Earth, Air, and Water.
For millennia, the elemental framework has been used to describe the fundamental forces of nature, psychology, and evolution. In astrology, these elements cycle in a repeating pattern—Fire, Earth, Air, Water—guiding the rhythm of generational expression and growth. What may be surprising is that this same elemental cycle appears implicitly in the generational archetypes defined by historians Strauss & Howe. Yet, because they never consulted astrology, they seem to have unknowingly misaligned their system with this deeper, pre-existing structure.
Had they done so, they might have recognized that their Prophet, Nomad, Hero, and Artist cycle maps naturally onto this ancient elemental pattern, following the same order as the zodiac itself. This is not merely a matter of symbolic elegance—it reveals an underlying order to history that conventional generational models have struggled to articulate.
The Four Elements as the Foundation of Generational Cycles
Astrology has long understood that the elements form a repeating cycle that governs all transformation: Fire ignites, Earth builds, Air disperses, and Water dissolves—before the cycle begins again.
🔥 Fire (Vision, Inspiration) → Prophet (Boomers, Pluto in Leo)
🌍 Earth (Pragmatism, Structure) → Nomad (Gen X, Pluto in Virgo)
🌬️ Air (Ideas, Mediation) → Hero (Millennials, Pluto in Libra/Scorpio)
🌊 Water (Emotion, Reflection) → Artist (Silent, Pluto in Cancer)
This elemental rhythm is not just an intellectual exercise—it directly informs Pluto’s cycle through history. Each Pluto generation embodies its element as a collective soul lesson, reinforcing a larger pattern of generational evolution.
🔥 Pluto in Leo (Boomers) → A Fire generation, driven by self-expression, vision, and identity.
🌍 Pluto in Virgo (Gen X) → An Earth generation, tasked with pragmatism, critique, and restructuring systems.
🌬️ Pluto in Libra (Xennials) → An Air generation, balancing extremes, mediating relationships, and redefining connection.
🌊 Pluto in Scorpio (Millennials) → A Water generation, diving deep into emotional and psychological transformation.
🔥 Pluto in Sagittarius (Gen Z) → The next Fire generation, expansive, truth-seeking, and disruptive.
🌍 Pluto in Capricorn (Gen Alpha) → The next Earth generation, focused on systemic power shifts and institutional reckoning.
And now a new generation is taking its first breath. The transit of Pluto in Aquarius (2024-2044) will witness a new soul collective, one that will shape the world in ways still unseen. The demographers of 2050 and beyond will look back and try to define them—but astrologers already know what they have come to do.
Pluto in Aquarius (Gen Beta?) is the next Air generation, the revolutionaries of the mind, the architects of digital freedom, a generation that will decide whether technology serves humanity or enslaves it. We need not wait to see their imprint. It is already being written in the cosmos.
The presence of this elemental cycle in the astrological model demonstrates its consistency and its ability to describe and tune the frequency for the evolutionary themes of each generation with a clarity that other models struggle to achieve. This is not just a coincidence—it is the hidden structure of history itself.
From Chronos to Kairos: Crossing the Final Threshold
Now we return to the threshold. With the elemental cycle restored to its natural order, we can fully enter the astrological dimension of time. We are no longer confined to Chronos, the linear ticking of the clock. We are stepping into Kairos—the mythic, qualitative unfolding of destiny.
The Cosmic Director has been waiting. The stage is set. The script is known. The actors are ready.
It is time to rejoin them.
[End of Chapter 9]