Integral Critical Theory: The 8 Zones of Racism



by Corey W. deVos

We are here today to talk about the 8 critical zones of integral metatheory, and to apply them to the ongoing cultural conversation taking place around race, racism, and other kinds of bigotry that we continue to see in the world. This discussion is going to be a great opportunity to not only learn more about these 8 primordial perspectives that are available to us, but also to see how they can be applied to social and cultural challenges and “wicked problems” such as these.

The purpose of this conversation is not to say, “racism is a totally ubiquitous and growing problem, and in fact here are 8 new kinds of racism that you need to worry about.” I think the actual context here is more like “hey, we’ve actually already made the sorts of social transformations that gets us out of ethnocentrism and racism in the first place”. However, as Ken has written about extensively, and as we have discussed several times in the past on this show, these social transformations don’t happen overnight. Even after we achieve something truly remarkable, like eliminating discriminatory laws in the lower right quadrant as we have done over the last several decades, it can still take several generations or even lifetimes for the rest of our collective center of gravity to “catch up”. Yesterday’s forms of social self-organization can still have painful consequences for people’s lives today, and non-discriminatory laws can still be interpreted in discriminatory ways, which are just some of the zone-related issues we will discuss as we go.

So again, what we are talking about today are really the sorts of resistances, inertias, and karmas that remain and that we continue to face as we play “catch up” in our interiors, in our behaviors, and in our culture. As Ken says, “the knowledge quest proceeds funeral by funeral” — which is precisely why it can take so long for these social transformations to be properly fulfilled across an entire society.

I’ve been particularly turned on by Ken’s 8 zones of Integral Methodological Pluralism over the last several years, which Ken and I summarize in our previous episode together. These 8 zones are lighting me up the same way that the four quadrants originally did when I first got into integral philosophy over 25 years ago, and have greatly improved my own capacity to make sense of the incredible complexity of today’s world. To me, these 8 zones offer an incredibly high degree of granularity and explanatory power as we look at all of the most critical factors of social transformation, and how these transformations are then selected for (or not!) by the rest of culture and society. They also allow us to see how, when discussing matters such as race, ethnicity, and racism, we need to make room for many conflicting and partial perspectives, and attempt to pull them together into a more comprehensive analysis. Which to me has been one of the most difficult challenges in this discourse as we see it today — everyone is talking across each other, often using the same words but very different meanings and interpretations behind those words. So it’s an opportunity to create more shared reality between multiple conflicting or even contradictory views.

My hope is that this sort of analysis can ultimately help us innovate more skillful solutions and interventions that are more appropriate (and therefore more effective) for each of these eight primary perspectival zones of our being. Because each of these zones reveal unique challenges and inertias that require zone-specific interventions in order to disrupt and overcome — and that each of these challenges themselves have driving factors that come from multiple other zones. The goal here isn’t to simply categorize all of our problems like a color-by-number painting. These zones are not categorical, they are enactive — that is, they are literally psychoactive, they are not describing some inert foreign territory “out there” somewhere, but are rather describing the living perspectives within you right now, which you can use to disclose more of your inner and outer realities. This is a perspectival yoga which, if done carefully and consciously, can help us quickly cut through the fog of confusion surrounding an increasingly fragmented culture war, and reduce the greatest amount of suffering for the greatest number of people.

All of this, I think, leads us toward something like a genuine “integral critical theory” that allows us to bring the greatest understanding, clarity, and compassion to some very emotionally charged issues, and prevents us from talking across each other as we so often do in our present cultural discourse. What’s more, this “integral critical theory” also allows us to appreciate and even celebrate the genuine progress that we HAVE made over the generations, even as we continue to deal with some of the nasty residues of yesterday’s world, and while also acknowledging the very real pain felt that is felt by many of these communities to this day. And I think it is fully aligned with something you wrote about 20 years or so ago, which I think continues to become more and more relevant as time goes by:

“The heart of integral philosophy, as I conceive it, is primarily mental activity of coordination, elucidating, and conceptually integrating all of the various modes of knowing and being, so that, even if integral philosophy itself does not deliver the higher modes, it fully acknowledges them, and then allows and invites philosophia to open itself to the practices and modes of contemplation. Integral philosophy is also, by virtue of its comprehensiveness, a powerful critical theory, critical of all less encompassing approaches - in philosophy, psychology, religion, social theory, and politics.” —Ken Wilber


Critical theory is one methodology among many. Integral does not privilege any singular methodology, but rather situates all available methodologies into a post-methodological pluralism. The integral claim is that no methodology is “evil”, that the majority of these methodologies have value and disclose some important aspect or dimension or zone of reality that other methodologies cannot disclose — but also that each of these methodologies is also essentially limited to one or two particular zones of reality, and get in trouble when they overreach into other zones they are not equipped to disclose. Which is why integral says things like “everyone is right” and “everything in its right place”, while simultaneously saying “but stay in your damn zone.”

Critical theory is a lens that people can use to disclose how power moves in the world, the sorts of structures it creates, and how those structures can be challenged. It can be useful for seeing certain dynamics in zone 7, and to some degree zones 4 and 8. It is not itself an “evil” lens, it is simply partial. The “evil”, as it were, is when people only enact reality through this single lens, which then creates an exaggerated and distorted perception of reality, as EVERYTHING gets reduced to power structures, and our understanding of those power structures remains overly flat and reductionist.

But this is true for virtually every methodology in existence, if it becomes the only lens we use to enact reality. This is as true for phenomenology in the upper left (everything is subjective!) as it is for relativists in the lower left (everything is a social construct!) or behaviorism and empiricism in the upper right (everything is dead matter!). And of course there are factions of people who insist that all of reality can be reduced to any of these four quadrants (or more specifically, any of the eight zones) – and they can make that claim from any stage of development (for example, emphasizing the LL from Amber, the UR from orange, the LR from green, etc.)

Could critical theory disclose anything useful about spirituality, traditional religion, or even the “religion of tomorrow”? Sure! It could look at how various religions have historically amassed and exercised and protected their power. It might be able to show us how certain beliefs were enforced over others in order to maintain power. It can probably say something important about matters such as the Catholic coverup of pedophila in the church and how such an obvious evil was sustained for so long.

But can it tell us anything about our actual spiritual experiences and states of consciousness in Zone 1, or the structures of consciousness in Zone 2 we use to interpret those experiences? No it can not.

Can it say anything about our 3rd-person perception of the sacred, the self-evident beauty of sunsets and rainbows and galaxies and the radical interconnection of all things? No it cannot.

Can it tell us anything about our intimate 2nd-person connection with God, Spirit, the Universe, etc.? No it cannot.

Can it show us our own 1st-person Original Face, the face we had before the Big Bang? No it cannot.

Critical theory, properly applied, MIGHT help us understand why we have some of the symbols and reference points for these experiences that we do, and maybe how these symbols became selected and institutionalized and passed down through the centuries. It can probably say something about how certain states of consciousness have been politicized and regulated and often banished by religions over history. But it can’t say anything about the actual experience itself.

Integral resists methodological fundamentalism, and makes room for all stages. This is known as the principle of “nonexclusion”. Integral also understands how these methodologies fit together, and that higher stages bring greater resolution and more granular methodologies to be integrated. This is related to the principle of “enfoldment”.

So critical theory is in no way a primary lens for the integral approach, but it’s a valid one if applied appropriately and supplemented/integrated with other lenses.


Before we go through all these zones in depth, there are maybe a few factors from a handful of these zones that we want to summarize and put on the table first. All of these zones are important, but some are more relevant than others when it comes to the topic of race and racism, and all of them have a powerful influence on the other zones. Change any major factor in any of these zones, and you change the shape of all the other zones.

First, and most primary, is Zone 2, the outside of the upper left, which refers to structures of consciousness. When it comes to the topic of race, racism, and identity, Zone 2 really sets the conditions for all of these other zones, because:

a) Zone 2 is the very seat of identity itself, and that identity grows through egocentric, ethnocentric, worldcentric, and kosmocentric stages.

b) Racism is itself a product of the earlymost stages of development, which fortunately a plurality of people have evolved beyond. However, everyone starts at square 1, and everyone has to grow through these stages in their lives, and not everyone makes it past the ethnocentric stage. In fact, a majority of people probably don’t, which means maybe 60-70% of adults in the world are at an ethnocentric level.

c) we can also carry shadow material with us that can be generated from previous stages we’ve grown through, which can then become distributed throughout a culture whenever multiple people in a group are carrying the same sort of shadows (which we will return to when we get to Zone 4).

d) our very perception of these zones unfolds as we develop, meaning we can’t even see some of these zones, or the specific challenges within those zones until we’ve reached a certain stage of development.

Second, our actual systems of government in Zone 8, a 3rd-person view of systems in the lower right. The question here is, do we still have discriminatory laws governing our society? And the good news is, no, for the most part, we have gotten rid of the vast majority of laws that were produced by earlier ethnocentric stages of development in Zone 2. And even more good news, even though only a relatively smallish plurality of people have evolved beyond ethnocentric thinking, these laws govern everyone in our society, and for that reason act as a sort of “attractor point” for all the other zones — for example, people are far more likely to evolve to worldcentric stages if they live in a society governed by worldcentric rules.

But third, we also want to acknowledge that these previous laws have created inertias and repercussions and feedback loops that are still with us today, which we can see in Zone 7, which is a 1st-person view of systems in the lower right. There are many autopoietically self-reinforcing patterns that emerged from previous laws that continue to have devastating consequences today.

The classic example being red lining policies from decades ago that prevented black families from accumulating property and wealth, which in turn creates more impoverished neighborhoods with a smaller tax base, which in turn creates more impoverished schools with larger class sizes, less access to learning materials, lower quality teachers, and less early childhood education like kindergarten or preschool. Again, it’s an autopoietically self-reinforcing pattern that plays itself out over multiple generations, long after the laws that created the conditions have been eliminated.

And fourth, all of this gets translated and interpreted in different ways depending on our intersubjective cultures and subcultures in the lower left quadrant. This is where we can talk about non-discriminatory laws being interpreted in discriminatory ways in Zone 3, as well as lingering cultural tropes, taboos, permissions, etc. in Zone 4 that can shape those interpretations.


(Note that these descriptions are still evolving. See something that should be added? Let us know in the comments below!)


Zone 1 – The inner of the upper left quadrant, or a 1st-person view of my own 1st-person experience. This is the zone of my immediate perception, of my individual agency and my ability to make decisions for myself, to exercise my interior conscious intent.

This zone also describes the direct phenomenological experience of racism, either given or received. And these expressions of racism are often correlated with hyper-emotional states (something to keep in mind when we see footage of someone acting like a jackass on the internet – it is entirely possible we are catching them at the worst moment of their lives, due to any number of emotional states, stresses, and/or phenomonological motivations. Which doesn’t absolve them from consequences, but allows a bit more space for healthy perspective-taking.) It’s important to note that there are several factors from other zones can shape our overall perception of what is or isn’t racist

Zone 1 interventions include: conflict de-escalation, clean up practice, wake up practice

Zone 2 – the outer of the upper left quadrant, a 3rd-person view of my own 1st-person. What we classically think of as “being racist”. Unconscious biases, prejudices, shadows, and ethnocentric-stage narratives we filter our reality through, many of which present themselves as unexamined and unintegrated shadows from previous stages of development.

Zone 2 interventions include: mental health support, grow up practice (education, perspective-taking), clean up practice


Zone 3 – Racially-tinted intersubjective interactions with other people, as well as commonly-held interpretations of reality that remain laden with ethnocentric residue. Also refers to the ways we directly interpret and communicate our surrounding reality and conditions. Which means, it is within Zone 3 that non-discriminatory laws can be interpreted and enforced in discriminatory ways, whether that discriminaiton is conscious or unconscious. Whether it’s a state police officer pulling over more black drivers than white drivers, or judges giving different sentences for the same crime, the cumulative consequences of this sort of discrimination then shows up in Zone 7 outcomes, which many people call “structural racism”.

And here we can see the importance of things like family, community, hearth and home, and really the entire “private sphere” that has largely become neglected over the decades as more and more women move out of the private and into the public, without an equivalent number of men moving out of the public and into the private. And we can see how damaging it can be when we don’t have these sorts of healthy relationships when we are growing up, such as all the data we have about the impact fatherless families have upon an individual’s ability to truly flourish in their lives.

Zone 3 interventions include: cultural exchange, family values, mediation, conflict management, empathy practice, interpersonal development

Zone 4 – the various, unseen shared permissions, biases, taboos, ethics, etc. that shape our discourse in Zone 3. You can think of something like an “Overton window” as a zone 4 phenomenon. Also includes things like “generational trauma” from cultural injuries inflicted upon previous generations, which produce various unconscious narratives and judgments that are distributed throughout the culture and/or subculture.

Other examples of discrimination here would be something like the Zone 4 precedents created by judges who interpret and enforce laws differently in Zone 3 depending on the race of the defendant, as well as inequitable hiring practices that tend to employ people with anglicized names more than “ethnic” names. Another great example of Zone 4 is the cultural permissions around who is or isn’t allowed to say the “N-word” in today’s society, a response to the terrible injuries that word has inflicted in the past.

This zone also describes various unexamined cultural tropes that have emerged from racial stereotypes that continue to permeate our language in Zone 3, and then unconsciously shape our unconscious biases in Zone 2, and our perceptions in Zone 1, which in turn influences how our society self-organizes in Zone 7.

Zone 4 interventions might include things like: political correctness (“changing the way we talk about things changes the way we think about things…”), community development, and addressing and healing generational traumas

Taking a careful look at the LL zones and discerning the different sorts of discrimination we find there is a tremendously valuable exercise, and helps clean up so much of the 1st tier division and tribalism that is coming from the culture wars. And it helps us to find better interventions for these challenges that are best suited for each of these perspectival zones — often requiring multi-zone interventions (affirmative action, for example, being one of the most common Zone 7 remedies for Zone 4 hiring inequities, which then creates its own brand new sets of challenges.)


Zone 5 – a 1st-person view of 3rd person objects. One way to think of this is in terms of an individual’s autonomy — the degrees of behavioral freedom an individual has to take action in order to exert their agency and fulfill their various needs and drives. The range, strength, and depth of our autonomy is determined both by our interior development in Zone 2 and by exterior conditions in Zone 7. When we talk about an individual having “equal opportunities”, we are mainly talking about an individual’s relative autonomy and capacity to exert their Zone 1 intent. [This is in contrast to “equal outcomes”, which is largely a Zone 7 measurement that helps us determine whether the opportunities available to an individual are actually “equal” or not (after adjusting for development in Zone 2, as well as typologies that may exist in just about every other zone.) We can return to this point later, once we get to Zone 7.]

Zone 5 also refers to how we enact and reconstruct each other’s interiors, when we only have observable physical traits such as race, sex, physical and behavioral handicaps, etc. to base those reconstructions off of.” What sort of interiors do we assume someone has who looks or behaves like THIS?” (And of course, it’s important to note that our Zone 5 reconstructions are often influenced by our Zone 2 biases).

Zone 5 interventions include: Emphasis on personal autonomy, skill development, show up practice

Zone 6 describes the various objective traits, qualities, phenotypes, etc. that we are basing our Zone 2 biases and Zone 5 reconstructions off of in the first place.

Zone 6 can also describe the actual behaviors produced by racist thoughts in Zone 1, biases in Zone 2, cultural pressures from Zones 3 & 4, and life conditions in Zones 7 & 8.

Zone 6 interventions include: Legal enforcement, behavioral interventions


Zone 7 is a first person view of 3rd-person systems in the LR, and describes how systems self-organize and how that systemic self-organization can shape and influence our individual consciousness. It also describes how consciousness in turn engages these systems. This zone includes the various information flows and communication platforms in the social holon.

Zone 7 can also describes a) the mass behavioral and informational patterns that result from current zone 8 laws, policies, and various environmental factors, b) the self-reinforcing systemic inertias that continue to exist from prior zone 8 laws and conditions, and c) how our overall patterns of behavior and communication are shaped by our present and past systems. We can see how seemingly non-discriminatory laws in zone 8 can nonetheless have discriminatory effects upon certain groups. And we can also see how previous discriminatory practices have created generational effects and inertias that continue to limit the average options and freedoms available to members of a particular group.

While Zone 8 is the realm of law, policy, and environmental conditions (more on that in a moment), then zone 7 shows how members of a system are enacting (and being enacted by) that system. And through these systemic analyses we can see how seemingly non-discriminatory laws in zone 8 can nonetheless have discriminatory effects upon certain groups. And we can also see how previous discriminatory practices have created generational effects and inertias that continue to limit the average options and freedoms available to members of a particular group.

Do we see systemic racism still existing in this zone? It might be more accurate to say that, even though we’ve mostly eradicated systemic racism from our lawbooks, we can still see many effects from previous forms of systemic racism occuring in Zone 7. I believe this is where the bulk of meaningful discussions of “systemic racism” should take place, along with zone 4. In other words, it’s not about changing the laws, as much as it is about mitigating the consequences from previous laws that still have an impact on our social self-organization today.

This can be a difficult zone to discuss and remedy, however, because while certain patterns of discrimination are still being perpetuated in the LR, the zone 8 realities have since changed, which means that many of these patterns and inertias are now autopoietically reinforcing themselves. For example:

See how little the demographics and relative property values have changed in neighborhoods affected by redlining policies from multiple decades/generations ago, and how this has limited overall property ownership for particular communities for generations, which then creates unequal opportunities to create and pass on generational wealth within those communities.

This can also then create negative feedback loops within educational systems, which are funded by property taxes, which ensures fewer kindergarten classes, fewer AP classes, and fewer high quality teachers, which in turn helps ensure that impoverished exteriors continue to produce impoverished interiors.

This is often seen as the most obvious example of structural racism. The policies that created these conditions no longer exist, but the structural conditions themselves continue to be with us today. As a result, black americans are on average more impoverished than other ethnic groups, which means they are less capable of meeting the lowermost needs on Maslow’s hierarchy, and are therefore more susceptible to the many social ailments surrounding poverty.

We can also often see zone 7 patterns that are not themselves self-reinforcing, but are instead due to zone 4 interpretations of zone 8 laws and policies (interpreting non-discriminatory laws in discriminatory ways.) Even more challenging is the fact that there is almost always a lag between changing our legislation in Zone 8, and the effects that has on social self-organization in Zone 7. This is especially true when the new legislation is coming from a higher/deeper stage than previous laws, because there is an incredible amount of social inertia generated by those previous laws.

Zone 7 interventions include: affirmative action, community reparations


Zone 7 is also where we can have useful discussions about adjacent issues such as “privilege”. "Privilege” (which be globally enacted as “majority privilege”, even while looking at its local enactment in the U.S. as “white privilege” with its own culturally- and socially-enabled surface structures) is itself an undeniable Zone-7 phenomenon: different people existing within a different proximal space within a given system, who are thereby affected differently by that system, which in turn can expand or limit the possibilities, opportunities, and decision points available to each individual. In other words, our Zone 7 privilege (or lack thereof) can expand or restrict the degrees of autonomy we have in Zone 5.

Factors of this “privilege” can originate from zone 4 permissions and taboos, zone 7 social inertias, or zone 8 inequities, and it can be useful to reflect on our own individual privilege as zone 2 shadow material, as well as how shared privilege can be reinforced in zone 4. However, the exercise of privilege itself is an inter-objective zone 7 phenomenon, as it refers to how different environmental factors determine the relative options available to an average agent within a system.

Why is this important? Because in order to be effective, our intervention strategies need to “stay in their lane” in order to avoid creating more confusion and suffering. While “privilege” is itself a Zone-7 phenomenon, it is often misapplied to other people’s Zone-2 structures of consciousness (the slippery slope from “you have privilege” to “you are racist and don’t even know it”). As I said, perceptions of privilege can be fruitful for our own Zone-2 shadow work, but it is then our individual responsibility to make objects out of our own subjects – it is never appropriate for others to make objects out of our subjects (which is largely a Zone-5 effort, reconstructing interiors based only on 3rd-person signifiers).


Often in the past, we have framed the debate between “equal opportunities” and “equal outcomes” as one that is primarily divided into Orange and Green camps. However, from an integral point of view, there may be a different (and ultimately more useful) way to approach the conflict — not as one that is primarily occurring between orange vs. green, but rather one that is occurring between Zone 5 and Zone 7. This reframe helps us cut through the apparent contradiction of trying to enforce both simultaneously (as Ken has pointed out, emphasizing equal opportunities tends to diminish equal outcomes, and emphasizing equal outcomes tends to diminish equal opportunities. At the same time, unequal outcomes can also create unequal opportunities, and unequal opportunities almost always produce unequal outcomes).

Currently the debate exists mostly as a conflict between an Orange enactment of Zone 5 (equal opportunities) and a Green enactment of Zone 7 (equal outcomes). But I think an integral discussion would focus more on a minimally teal enactment of both these zones, while stripping out the orange/green content, which allows us to hold “opportunities” and “outcomes” not as contradictory opposites, but rather as an ongoing polarity to be managed and integrated, each providing important insight into the other, and each becoming pathological when disintegrated from the other.

Zone 8 – the systems themselves, as seen from an objective 3rd-person objective. Actual laws, policies, and procedures that blatantly discriminate based on race. They can be explicitly racist, like slavery, or implicitly racist, like Jim Crow poll taxes and literacy tests.

Does this form of systemic racism still exist? Thankfully, this is the zone where the majority of our social progress has occurred, which should be celebrated and protected for future generations. The majority of explicitly discriminatory laws have been eliminated (though we are certainly still ironing out some wrinkles in some areas). However, there are strong arguments that many implicitly discriminatory policies and practices continue to exist, (such as gerrymandering, things like the drug war that disproportionately affected certain communities more than others, as well as changing voting laws, which often discriminate against certain ethnic minorities without ever mentioning ethnicity in the policy itself), and we always need to remain wary about new laws and policies being enacted which, while not using nakedly discriminatory language, nonetheless has an inequitably harmful effect upon certain groups.

Zone 8 interventions include: legislation (e.g. removing discriminatory laws off of the books)



Critical Race Theory (CRT), meanwhile, seems to draw upon both versions of Green critical theory (Zone 7), but also enforces a particular hermeneutic frame in Zone 3, typically in an Amber absolutist fashion (as if to say, “our zone-7 analysis demands that we interpret reality in this particular way in Zone 3, and only in this particular way. Any other interpretations will be immediately labeled racist, oppressive, privileged, etc.”) In this way, CRT is leveraging ideas produced by Green postmodern cognition, while simultaneously collapsing healthy Green pluralism into Amber mono-perspectival absolutism.

When postmodernity deconstructs modernity, we leave only amber in its wake. There are efforts within the CRT movement to regard Orange modern values such as “objectivity” and “neutrality” as a product of ethnic “whiteness”, or worse, “colonialism”. The stated reason being, because all modern and postmodern structures have been built over centuries upon ethnocentric/oppressive motivations, these structures reinforce “race” as a false social construct by perpetuating various colonialist inertias that keep us locked in racialized categories. We must therefore deconstruct many/most of these structures across our entire society in order to rid ourselves of these colonialist residues. This is a result of enacting developmentally-unfolding stages as persistent types, a confusion of the deep structures of orange with its historic and contemporary surface features. of a particular ethnic or cultural expression of orange, not realizing that the deep structures of Orange transcend ethnicity and ethnocentrism altogether. The irony, of course, is that by eliminating these modern/postmodern structures, we are further entrenching ourselves into these same ethnocentric categories and identities, and sealing the escape hatch that gets us out of ethnocentrism, racism, and bigotry in the first place.

Here in Integral Land, I think we would agree that we want to eliminate as many harmful surface structures and inertias that remain from previous oppressive eras, and we would probably also agree that there is still a great deal of work to do here. However, while many of the modern orange structures we have inherited do indeed still have some of these colonialist surface patterns and inertias running through them, we also recognize how disastrous it would be to throw the baby of the deep structures (objectivity, neutrality, universality, etc.) out with the bathwater of surface structures — and why dismantling modernity can only ensure the re-emergence of far more racist structures in its wake. Another example where a basic understanding of developmental unfolding, as well as the four quadrants/eight zones, can help clear a staggering amount of confusion.


Reasonable assessment of Wokeism / CRT. Thanks for the write up.
Now how do we decouple the DNC from Wokeism, or should be care down to that level?


@FermentedAgave I’m curious as to why when the red/amber issue on the right comes up your call is for patience, “people evolve at their own rate” kind of thing but when the lefts red/amber is discussed you want groups to come out and evolve them. I see both parties coupled with their red/amber constituencies, but you seem to only see the left as an issue. Why the different treatment?


Also give the Furedi interview a listen for a developmental psychologists assessment

@Michelle Saw the explicit @ for me so I’ll expound.

The “conservative” Amber you refer to is that which upon everything we have available to us today is built. And no, I don’t necessarily want to kick back and wait for Amber to learn to pay their bills, or family/racial based Mafias to dissolve. Based on what I see, I’m not so sure Integral accurately characterizes the altitudes of others correctly as well. Simple example is the overwhelming categorization of Integralists of say a white male entering a church as definitive beyond on any doubt an Amber with maybe Orange developmental level. But I digress.

Conversely, the Woke/CRT movement, which has been highly successful, is as Corey correctly (in my opinion) diagnoses as Amber. I would further this characterization as Amber at best, distorted unhealthy Amber most likely, with a significant amount of violent Red adherents. The Woke/CRT communities aren’t so dissimilar in make-up as to the Islamic population in that only about 20% of Muslims are what the West would consider “radical extremists”. But virtually the entirety of the remaining 80% refuse to police their own with a significant proportion providing funding and support to the 20% committing violence, murder, human trafficking.
In summary, what you refer to as “conservative Amber” is the Amber upon which our society has developed - you were raised by these people and went to the senior prom with them.
The Woke/CRT Amber/Red with Green marketing slogans are extremely unhealthy and in my estimation do not represent a viable path forward. No where has Marxism in any of it’s forms created better lives for people.


Hi Michelle, I wasn’t sure if that question was intended for me, or for Agave :slight_smile:

For me personally, as someone who is deeply concerned about the rapid regression we see on the right (turning against their own “moderate” members, such as Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney, as well as MAGA/Qanon personality cults, plus the whole “trying to illegally hijack a democracy” thing), and also someone who also often criticizes a similar regression on the left, it seems to come down to expectations.

That is, I typically expect the left to be the more “worldcentric” party — especially since very few GOP members display any green development whatsoever. So my disappointment in the left increases the further they regress, and the further the left shifts away from a healthy green (and maybe even proto-integral) vanguard of views and values. Especially since, when the left allows themselves to regress to amber, it pushes more voters toward orange versions of conservatism (thus the rise of Jordan Peterson), despite the fact that the GOP as a whole is a far more Amber social holon than the DNC (with a strong Red “nobody tells me what to do” libertarian underbelly).

But I also see the flip side as well, because I am also someone who has been saying that the left needs to “find its spine” in comparison to the right, which basically means befriending/reintegrating their own Amber. I think in many ways the Left has become increasingly out of touch with the sorts of local concerns and conditions that people feel at that stage (not to mention the fact that upwards of 60% of the voting base is at the amber stage). Which is why I like your overall frame about a sort of reassertion or maybe even a reformatting of a leftist Amber typology, which in the long run may be required in order for the party to sustain itself, so long as it’s integrated/enfolded with later Orange and Green stages. However, I also have some major cautions here, because we already have a pair of 20th century examples to remind us what happens when Amber extremism becomes the primary political driver for both the right and the left — we end up with Hitler on the right, and Stalin on the left.

I also think that this regression on the left, and the fact that it is pushing more people toward Orange versions of conservatism, is probably also healthy in the long view, because we need to see more minimally-orange conservatism in the world, and especially in the GOP. The problem, as I see it, is that while the right has some truly impressive intellectuals (often more impressive than the intellectuals we see on the left these days), those intellectuals have minimal influence upon voters and upon the GOP itself. This was my major criticism of things like the “Intellectual Dark Web”, which was in many ways a reaction to some of the craziness we see on the left, but was often blind to the equivalent excesses of the right, and I think overestimated its own overall influence on the electorate.

(I think this is Ken’s overall take as well — he says he is harder on the left, because he has higher expectations for the left as a primarily Orange/Green party, than he does for the right as a primarily Amber/Orange party.)

The good news here, I think, is that when it comes to the social holons of our political parties, the DNC has been far less compromised by their extremists than the right has. As Jonathan Haidt pointed out just a couple weeks ago, the DNC leadership continues to elect more moderates, and we don’t see the same kind of race to the extremes that we see in the GOP (largely due to the Trump effect). Which I think somewhat speaks to both your question and Agave’s question (“how do we decouple the DNC from Wokeism”) at the same time — the DNC is already far more “decoupled” from leftist extremism than the GOP is from the extremism on the right. And because I personally want more worldcentric leftism in the LR quadrant, and more worldcentric conservatism in the LL quadrant, much of this seems to be right on schedule.


Can you share how pushing more people to conservatism of any sort could be a positive when you assert the right/conservatives are already more “extreme”?

I agree that conservatism, seemingly anything not Radical Left today, is becoming more healthy. But if the conservatives are already being lead and influenced by “extremism on the right”, how can this not end in existential regression from the right?


I never said that :slight_smile: I said that conservatism needs these worlcentric voices now more than ever — because the GOP as a whole is becoming much more unhealthy. Which is why I want these right-leaning intellectuals to have far greater influence than they currently have.

Can you share how pushing more people to conservatism of any sort could be a positive when you assert the right/conservatives are already more “extreme”?

Because I understand that massive social holons like political parties are not monolithic, are tremendously complex, and comprise multiple different points of view. In other words, I am not an absolutist. I think the overall diversity of perspectives on the right is more limited than the left (largely because a plurality of the left has evolved to the Green stage, which invites more diverse points of view, while Amber is a much more homogenizing force), but that doesn’t mean there’s no diversity over there whatsoever. I point to minimally-orange conservatism as the model the party SHOULD be pursuing, rather than the sort of lowest-common-denominator politics and bureaucratic fuckery we often see from the GOP.

Again, I think of these things in three separate buckets:

  • The intellectuals
  • The electorate
  • The political parties as social holons

I respect worldcentric conservative intellectuals, but not the GOP as a social holon. I have some respect for the DNC as a social holon, but not for the current state of progressive “cutting edge” intellectuals.


It’s interesting that when we look for clarification your language changes completely - almost transcendent. “overall diversity of perspectives on the right is more limited than the left” is a very different statement than " DNC has been far less compromised by their extremists than the right has" and “the DNC is already far more “decoupled” from leftist extremism than the GOP is from the extremism on the right”.

I complete agree that the DNC has many more viewpoints (spectrum ranges from fire bombers to Joe Manchin, but disagree with your statements that the DNC is “less compromised”.

Are you following the dismantling of the Left’s Mass Psychosis?


LOL I didn’t change my language at all.

“overall diversity of perspectives on the right is more limited than the left” and “DNC has been far less compromised by their extremists than the right has” — these statements do not contradict each other.

The left has a greater diversity of non-extreme voices in their political party than the right has, which may be the reason the party is less influenced by extremism than the right — there is simply more room for Democrats to disagree with each other, because there is more perspectival space at orange and green stages of development. There is far less room for disagreement at an amber stage.

In these comments, and the main piece above, I have once again shown a capacity to criticize both sides of the partisan divide, and to praise certain aspects on both sides as well. But it seems like you’re just playing more team sports — right good, left bad! :slight_smile:

I have an idea — let’s keep this thread on track instead of letting it devolve into another black and white partisan battle. Anything to say about the 8 Zones of Racism and a more Integral approach to critical theory?


@corey-devos I’ve read some of this before, which I thought was great, and I’ve read this fuller piece quickly and will come back to it. But here’s an initial reaction (which I tamped down, went away and thought about it more, and came back to the same conclusion…)

While I know you are not covering all theories or methodologies, but focusing on CT and CRT to develop an Integral CRT; and while I know it is a conspiracy theory, and while it may seem inflammatory and a dumbing-down of your scholarly analysis and framework, still, I think some mention of Great Replacement Theory (aka white genocide replacement theory–lots of info at Wikipedia) might be warranted. Maybe a comment simply in passing, or incorporated into the body, or a tiny, tiny sidebar. There is a long history of GRT and its operable on 4 or 5 different continents, and it’s a timely thing in the U.S., and to omit it in any discussion of racism and theory seems to be overlooking an obvious topic in the cultural conversation around racism, such as ‘privilege’ and ‘CRT’ are. I know you indicated in this write-up that you’re not talking about “8 new kinds of racism…” and I’m also not suggesting you do a zone analysis on it, but still, just seems deserving of a tiny mention, given…everything. And if you think not, I get it.


Thanks for the suggestion and feedback LaWanna, I will feel into that, and into whether adding some commentary to the main page may be worthwhile.

And yeah, the whole “great replacement” narrative is ripe for an 8 zone analysis, though I am not sure which single zone I would ultimately place it. Maybe we can figure it out in this thread!

I think we probably recognize it as a specific cultural narrative taking place in Zone 3, and is itself the latest incarnation of tropes and stereotypes that have sat in our collective Zone 4 shadow for decades, and which is now finding increasing Zone 4 permission to say out loud, which I agree is troubling.

Meanwhile, we do indeed see changing demographic patterns in Zone 8, as white people are estimated to become a minority (relative to all other ethnic groups combined) as soon as 2045. These changing patterns, I think, can be quite alarming to many white communities, particularly those who are among the 60% of the country at an amber stage of development. And of course it’s perfectly okay for these folks to want to “preserve their culture”, just as much as it’s okay for black Americans to preserve their own culture, or any other ethnic group. Our cultural heritage should be celebrated, no matter what it is (well, maybe with some exceptions).

The problem, of course, is the anxiety this produces in many people’s Zone 2 unconscious, and how this can in turn shape peoples perceptions in Zone 1, our behaviors in Zone 6, our sense of autonomy in Zone 5, and how we enact and interact with each other in Zone 3.

But the far more serious concern is that these changing demographic patterns can also reinforce all sorts of nasty conspiracy thinking, as opportunists seek to exploit people’s fear in the Zone 7 attention economy, which in turn exaggerated those fears and anxieties, which results in narratives that should have been shamed out of Zone 3 by our previously-shared Zone 4 decorum make their way back into our cultural discourse.

And we shouldn’t be surprised — QAnon was itself a re-enactment of all sorts of nasty antisemitic stereotypes (particularly “blood libel”) and now many of these other antisemitic conspiracies are starting to surface.

I also wouldn’t be surprised if these changing demographics are creating a sort of collective-existential moment, especially for traditionalists, in their Zone 4, and that existential dread trickles into each individual’s zone 2 in different ways. We internalize the anxieties of the group. Which could in turn be consciously or, more likely, unconsciously fueling everything from “great replacement” myths, to wars on Christmas, to aggressive efforts to ban abortion so we can drive up our reproduction rates (though many anti-abortion advocates like to point out how it disproportionately affects black communities, which I suppose means that banning abortion would accelerate the great replacement.)


@corey-devos Thanks for the words on GRT, which I’ll come back to later. BUT! On another reading of this whole thing, I have a comment about word choice/language. In the sidebar on CRT, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence–the word “They.” Then in the third paragraph, first sentence, the word “Their.”

It’s not so much a question of who are you talking about or to whom you are referring as most integralists will understand you’re referring to greens. BUT! given the words are in the context of negative criticism, it almost has a sensibility of ‘them-ing’ greens. Might there be alternative language? Something like: “It appears there is a desire to deconstruct…” or something else other than “They” and “Their,” which to me personalizes the criticism more than it needs to and is a little at odds with the general neutrality of the rest of the article. And then again, perhaps I’m just being too green-sensitive.

But I think not :slightly_smiling_face: I get what you said about higher expectations for green, which is why you and Ken are harder on them. I wonder though if that criticism if coupled with statements of positive expectation might have some effectiveness. For a quick instance: last paragraph in the same section, last sentence: maybe the last two lines might say something along the lines of “…and I have a positive expectation that Green will learn how to include that Amber…etc.”

If of course, you really do have that positive expectation :slightly_smiling_face:


@corey-devos The place where I step off this “the left is the world centric” party and see a broader developmental occurrence is when we really pull in POC. Amber’s characteristic is to trust one’s own group and not trust outside groups. The trick here is for POC it is rational, not just ethnocentric, to mistrust outside (white) groups. There is a developmental issue here where healthy orange development (green and teal as well.) can coincide with amber.

I think this does need some time and patience to work out. The depths of racism and its effects will need to be teased out of our systems. POC need more resolution, awareness and accountability around our, white, non-rational ethnocentrism in order to really resolve their amber attachments, trust that we can all move on, developing together as one nation. That development will look different, have a different surface structure, then what we have seen so far. I do think CRT is making mistakes, but mistakes are a part of development. They need to be called out, but I think we need to bring more recognition around this developmental crisis of how to move past amber when it is rational to fear other groups that are in fact your group, your nation and make room for a new orange to emerge that is full of the recognized and celebrated contributions of POC to the American identity.

Seeing the way the right is openly embracing deep racist ideology and how, truly, threatening that is, allows us to empathetically feel into that crisis and step aside a bit and let them fight their fight. We have proven that the white left does not have an answer for our white cultures amber attachments. We have failed in developing our white culture out of this and into a true American orange stage of identity. I for one can see this failure and am willing to give them a little leeway with their tactics. My trust in this comes from personal experience in seeing that once trust is established, the POC’s amber attachments are easily released. Will that show itself to be true on a national level remains to be seen.


Seemingly POC are seeing through the Race Grifters. What if “those people” aren’t actually motivated by “their racism” as much as the Left messages? Very interested to see how transcendent this analysis turns out.

“The left no longer debates policy: It attacks opponents, and calls them names. You can’t have a sensible discussion about, say, transgender bathroom policies without them screaming at you and calling you a transphobe; you can’t have a sensible discussion about policing without them accusing you of wanting to kill blacks; and you certainly can’t discuss any limits on open borders without them calling you a white supremacist and a racist. The left has relied on “argument by name calling” for so long (since the schoolyard for individuals, and for the last few decades for the Dems as a whole) that they simply know no other way to operate. We are dealing with children: The infantilization of society writ large.”


“leftist hive mind”…“We are dealing with children”

Do you really not see this as “argument by name calling” ?


It would be lovely if instead of psycho analyzing “those people” we could try to hear what others are saying and wanting and asking for. Then sorting out what we can get/give everyone.

I guess one take away would be that “those people” now immediately dissect and expose the Lefts tactics.

It’s funny that even though I’m fairly up to date on political stuff, I had never heard the terms Blood Libel or Great Replacement Theory until seeing it here. But I open a web page this morning and there are many articles - Left attacking “those people” calling them fearful white Supremacists (even if they’re POCs, lol) and many articles dissecting the strategy and goals.

It’s been shown that disgust and shame dampen voter turn out while anger motivates voting. Great things to know as we ramp into election season.

If the shaming and gaslighting tactics are exposed for all to see, how will this effect voter turn out and elections this November.

And why would anyone resort to such tactics or is America awash with Blood Libel and White Supremicists?


And why would anyone resort to such tactics or is America awash with Blood Libel and White Supremicists

@FermentedAgave How much conspiracy and racial supremacy can exist before a parent of a targeted child should feel compelled to respond, try to find collective social solutions? In the spirit of Integral, can you hold a piece of the truth being spoken instead of just spitting insults?


I posted this in another thread, but thought it belonged here as well. The discussion was around the fact that black women in America suffer a significantly higher rate of deaths during childbirth than other ethnic groups. Why would this be?

Here’s a ome more Zone 4 / Zone 2 data about how black Americans are often treated within the medical system:

Here’s what Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy had to say about maternal death rates in his state:

“About a third of our population is African American; African Americans have a higher incidence of maternal mortality. So, if you correct our population for race, we’re not as much of an outlier as it’d otherwise appear. Now, I say that not to minimize the issue but to focus the issue as to where it would be. For whatever reason, people of color have a higher incidence of maternal mortality.”

I don’t know about you, but “we are actually not too bad, if we don’t count all the black people” doesn’t seem like a very good argument.

Plus the whole “I don’t want to minimize” line, followed immediately by “for whatever reason” comes off as a total disregard and dismissal of the probable systemic causes for increased maternal deaths among black women.

I think this is actually a really great (but heartbreaking) issue to explore “systemic racism” through, because the facts are pretty cut and dry and well documented, because we know there are zero biological reasons why this should be the case, and because we don’t need to rehash left vs. right squabbles around adjacent issues such as black culture, fatherlessness, etc. There is nothing about black women’s bodies that should make them more likely to die during childbirth, and there is nothing about black culture that should make them more likely to die during childbirth. This is one area where we should absolutely expect “equal outcomes” — there is no reason maternal death rates should be any higher among one ethnicity than another, unless those groups are being treated differently by a given system.

Which basically only leaves us with systemic causes (which would include economic factors, access to healthcare, access to nutrition, etc., as well as implicit Zone 2/4 bias within these different systems), environmental causes, and other surrounding bigotries. And if we can admit that some degree of “systemic racism” exists here, maybe we can admit it exists in other sectors, even if it’s not quite as pronounced or primary as some wokists insist it is?


Do you know if the baby formula shortage has an oversized impact on black children? If so could this be an artifact of Systemic Racism within our government?