Integral Critical Theory: The 8 Zones of Racism

Media
10

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?

11

@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.

12

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.)

13

@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:

14

@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.

15

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.”

16

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

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

17

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?

18

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?

19

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?

20

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?

21

I believe the baby formula shortage has a disproportionate impact upon the poor. And to the extent that black Americans are disproportionately poor, and to the extent that is due largely to previous discriminatory laws that still have inertias today (such as overall lack of opportunity to gain generational wealth and property), then sure, we could talk about shades of “systemic racism”.

But if you are asking if the government is doing anything discriminatory today that would be contributing to this specific problem, no, probably not.

So I would say that this is definitely a systemic issue, but more like a failure of our markets (too many eggs in too few baskets) and of our health systems. Which may themselves be laced with residue of systemic racism, and that is probably worth looking at, but I don’t think that’s the main headline here.

22

I want to add to the “systemic racism” vs direct racism conversation. I think one challenge in our national conversations is the way we use one phase to point in many directions. In our school we did a large scale evaluation on race and punishment. Black students were punished a lot more than white students. Does this mean that white teachers think they are superior by race to the black students and want to hurt them, no, probably not at all in most cases. It means many things, including that black students act out in class more. The progressive point with studying these things and then putting action plans together to address these multi-facets is recognizing there are issues that present themselves uniquely in different populations. Solutions that work for one population (middle class white kids) wont always work for other groups, this is how color blind systems can be a problem.

I dont love that we use the word “racism” for all of this, I think it’s confusing. In most cases the systemic changes are about allowing a type of racial differentiation but one that is enhancing the life of the individual not repressing it.

23

So if I only look at impact, results then I’m probably stuck in a Pre/Trans Fallacy - likely Orange in my case - since I’m almost blind to “stated intent” of say current majority government. Stated intent is “for greater good”, yet trivial issues like baby formula shortages which were seen coming in Feb, Inflation Jan 20th '21, fuel costs doubling all destroy from lowest socioeconomics up through working and middle strata.

Nothing to see here since the marketing speel is Tealish sounding in an Inner Collective Globalist Zone, yet impact is really f’ing real, and disproportionately destroying the most vulnerable.

But it’s worth it in the short term, unless you’re one of the many coming up short.

24

Sadly your wisdom, and this is wise, is all too true.

25

Yes, this was the specific problem that I was hoping an 8-zone analysis such as above would help us overcome, because the phrase “systemic racism” can be enacted in very different ways depending on what zone(s) you happen to be looking at. Which is why I wanted to lead with the notion that we’ve already made the major social transformations that get us out of ethnocentrism and bigotry in the first place (primarily in our Zone 8 laws and, for ~40% of the population, our Zone 2 interiors), we just need to finish the job in all the other zones. I think we see the most resistance in Zone 7 (patterns of social self-organization that are still with us from prior discriminatory laws) and Zone 4 (the unexamined narratives and stereotypes in culture that unconsciously shape our behaviors). This feels very important to me, which is why I spent so much time working on this piece and fleshing out those zone analyses, which can hopefully provide a common language for us to look at any number of related problems, challenges, and life conditions.

1 Like
26

Hey Corey, Have you ever disproved one of your hypotheses?

27

No, I have found that I am almost always right, and everyone else is always wrong. It’s like Ken says, “Everyone is right — especially Corey.”

Come on, of course I’ve changed my thinking about any number of issues over the years. Is there some hypothesis in my 8 zone analysis above that you think I need to rethink?

1 Like
28

Related to the topic, I was answering a question on Facebook about “how do we afford LGBTQ folk equality in a society that includes a group, minority or majority, of traditional folks?”

My response:

I tend to agree that the only real solution here is something like “development”. However, that has a few nuances, as I think we need to talk about both “vertical development” (e.g. the shift from amber views/values to orange, to green, to teal, etc.; also known as “transformation”) as well as “horizontal development” (e.g. the ever-changing surface features of each of these developmental stages; also known as “translation”.)

In terms of vertical development (transformation), the path is fairly clear — we wait for a plurality of people to grow into post-ethnocentric stages, and then legislation is created from those stages. What’s interesting here is, even though the legislation is coming from a smaller plurality of people (remember, somewhere around 60% of the population is at a solid amber stage, according to Ken), that legislation is then enforced across the entire society, regardless of your developmental stage. This is how we in the U.S. drafted an Orange-ish Constitution, despite only 10-15% of the population at the time actually being Orange, yet our laws (ideally) tend to hold all citizens to minimally-Orange standards of behavior. It’s how we did Civil Rights 60 years ago, despite only ~10% of the population actually being Green at the time. And we’ve seen it more recently with things like gay marriage, which hit a sudden tipping point of public support during the mid-to-late 00’s.

And then we have to acknowledge that the surface features of these stages also change over time as well (translation). Your Amber is not your grandpa’s Amber. We can see evidence of this in things like changing opinions about interracial marriage — for example, 60 years ago, a vast majority of people in the U.S. did not approve of interracial marriage — in 1958, only 4% of the total population approved of interracial marriage. Today, however, 94% of the population supports interracial marriage, which means the vast majority of Amber also supports interracial marriage. This is a total sea change! Progress always seems slow when you are on the ground, but if we back up a bit, it’s pretty extraordinary how quickly our public sentiments and values can change from generation to generation.

What’s tricky here, is that there isn’t a whole lot we can do in the short term to accelerate vertical transformation, other than fundamentally reshaping things like education systems, economic systems, religious systems, etc. Which I think we probably agree is virtually impossible to do.

However, there ARE things people can do right now to help with horizontal translation. When it came to things like civil rights and interracial marriage, one of the things that helped was a sudden flood of television programming that focused on Black families, particularly in the mid 1970s, which itself helped rehabilitate our common bigotries around the issue, and make any number of shared subjects into objects. (Note that much of this programming was not designed to explicitly shame ethnocentric people, but rather to humanize minorities so that they would be easier to empathize with. I think we saw pretty much the same thing with TV shows like Will & Grace and Ellen Degeneres in the late 90s/early 00’s, which I do think helped accelerate the adoption of pluralistic values in mainstream audiences.)

I think we are seeing something similar in our media landscape today, as we begin to see more and more representation for different ethnic groups and identities. I also think this goes way overboard sometimes — and when it does go overboard, it can cause people to begin to reject some of these new translations, so this needs to be done skillfully. But as a whole, I think it’s a positive thing and is probably helping to mainstream many perspectives that were previously marginalized in our culture.

But I also think this kind of media shift also has rapidly diminishing results in today’s world, because our media systems are FAR more fragmented than they were in the 1970s, when you only had a handful of entertainment options available to you, so we may need to find some new ways to bring these higher/deeper/wider translations into our culture.

29

Cute. :wink:

I was specifically thinking how many use Hypothesis Testing in their decision making.
In your example it might be something like:
Success and mental well being for non majority demographics is predominated by Systemic and over Racism.
Then before launching into say a marketing campaign would rigorously work to disprove their own hypothesis themselves and with non-involved, all in the effort of making the best decisions and spending time on most important/critical topics.

All to often we fixate on self validation, blind to our ego desperately striving to win.

In many respects its fundamentally counter to application of Critical Theory so might be very difficult for some, but it really does help either validating getting it right or wasting time down wrong paths.