I don’t think I fit into either “side”. I think we can come up with several other sides that are much better than either of the two.
1 Like
Good on you to see the underlying structures.
I’m starting to model developmental pathways disaggregated by geography. Let’s say there are two regions, X and Y. Current Integral Theory often tries to fit people from X and Y into an amber-orange-green sequence (just to name some of the more common altitudes), determining that X is mostly one altitude and Y is mostly some other altitude, so X is “more evolved” than Y. Pecking order, bragging rights, dominator hierarchy … you see where this is going.
My model is going toward: Amber(X), Orange(X), Green(X) and Amber(Y), Orange(Y), Green(Y). What’s the justification for that? Different regions have different cultural content. So although there will be structural similarities between Amber(X) and Amber(Y) for example, the content may be very different. Also, although Amber(X) and Amber(Y) are structurally similar, they may hate each other, shun each other, invade each other, or try to oppress one another, because … history.
So I think what you are putting your finger on is a Green(X) + Green(Y) situation. I will confess to an element of cultural materialism with respect to the structures of consciousness as expressed by altitudes. It’s no accident that Green (postmodern) arises to prominence in the era of cable TV, internet, broadband, smart devices and social media. The technology of communications itself is “post-truth”. The whole IT security business (I teach that subject) is about trying to verify identity and authenticity from bit strings transmitted over wave forms. The challenge of getting to post-post-truth is to re-engage with physical authenticity and embeddedness.
1 Like
I think that one thing that is missing - if we are evaluating populations and how evolved they are - is the collective shadows.
For example, in Modernist society that I was exposed to as a lad, there were qualities for good men and qualities for good for nothing men. These were clearly defined. When I put on the values I was raised in through the lens of traditional conservative values, I see large populations moving towards the “good for nothing” category. To map out an archetype presented by Robert Moore, I see men and women following the false dilemma of choosing to be “High Chair Tyrants” and “Grandstander Bullies” because they are terrified that our culture is becoming a culture of “Weaklings”. True leadership and real conservative values of good leadership have been all but abandoned for shadow archetypes.
I argue that it’s not just that a population is Orange - but that its an epidemic of shadow Orange globally.
The problem being that Green has a difficult time with direct confrontation, which is what you have to do with “worthless men (and women)”. Green wants to believe every person and every view has value but when this doesn’t work with unhealthy Orange, Green turns to Green shadow, which often manifests as passive aggression, shaming, etc and feeds the unhealthy Orange that they actually are on the right side. The more Green tries to confront Shadow Orange from Green in Shadow, it doesn’t work and almost inevitably has the opposite effect. The most effective way I’ve found to confront Unhealthy Orange is from Healthy Orange. Polonius’ advice to his son comes to mind in those circumstances.
Good insight. To me. the terminology “healthy” and “unhealthy” applied to altitudes is under theorized. The more an altitude fails to grasp reality on its own terms, the more necessarily must get relegated to the shadow realm. That would provide a mechanism for explaining health levels within an altitude. (Gebser’s notion of “deficient” may be related. When a new mutation is emerging, but not quite there yet, the previous structure starts to show cracks.)
Yes, I can follow your thinking about X and Y at the same structure-stage but having different cultural content due to geography. Just to emphasize, and probably you already know, my understanding is that most of the research on stages or levels in the lines of development holds up regardless of culture or geography, e.g. a person in the US and a person in Africa each display the same stages of vertical development through, say, Piaget’s cognition model.
While dominator hierarchies do exist, the stage model of AQAL is a “growth hierarchy,” and more specifically, a growth holarchy. Integral is forever trying to help people distinguish the difference between the two kinds of hierarchy. Developmental psychology as a field of study is only about 100 years old, and particularly the lines of development are a form of specialized knowledge, so most people are not that familiar with growth through a developmental holarchy. Tendencies to dominate, imo, derive more from particular individuals and groups within any particular stage, than the stage itself, and probably has a lot to do with ego and personality (and disorders of same).
But you’re right that I was seeing the two sides presented in that Beauty article as both operating from a Green level, with probably a little Orange-shadow thrown in (i.e. maybe there’s some jealousy and resentment on the part of the Indians that they didn’t think or try to commercialize/commodify sage, for example; and maybe the non-Indians aren’t entirely owning their capitalistic urges.)
That’s what integral theorists typically assert. However, empirical research is far more divided on this point. For example:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247723009_Cross-Cultural_Piagetian_Research_A_Summary
I totally get the distinction between growth hierarchies and dominator hierarchies. I also get that the most sublime teachings of many spiritual practices are frequently used to dominate heretics, non-believers, the unconverted, and the great unwashed. Integral Theory does not get a free pass with respect to that sort of tendency. So my spidey sense starts tingling whenever I hear the phrase “more evolved”, among others.
Most of what you say I’m on board with, so those were just some distinctions to spice the discussion a bit.
The article below just caught my eye. Post-modern and neo-conservative - it’s for real!
“Rufo once bragged, “I’ve spent the last two years reading my Gramsci, reading my Marcuse, reading my Freire, reading my Davis, reading my Derek Bell. We’re taking those strategies, we’re reappropriating them, we’re adapting them to a new conservative counterrevolution,”
1 Like
Hi Robert. Thanks for the link. I don’t have time to read the entire article, but I did read the abstract and my take-away is that the author is reporting that the three structure-stages of Piaget’s theory (pre-op, concrete, formal–he didn’t mention the sensorimotor stage in the abstract) and tasks that accompany them are “verified” (his word) in non-Western cultures (which is the point I was making), but that the “operational rate” (or the age at which a child enters and leaves each stage) is affected by cultural factors.
This makes sense, given that the cognitive stimulation provided children would or may be different in particular non-Western cultures; everything from language, to socialization based on culture-specific beliefs and values, to formal education and types of play, could be different and thus, yes, cultural factors can affect the operational rate. Children raised in bilingual or multilingual environments, for example, may be advantaged in language development. His comment that some children in non-Western cultures never reach the con-op stage is not entirely surprising given there are many factors in addition to culture-in-general that can affect individual cognitive development–genetics, environment, socioeconomics, parental education, trauma (individual and cultural, i.e. war, hunger, and such), etc.
Still, in just reading the abstract, I don’t think he’s disagreeing with what I said or what theorists typically say. The article is 50 years old, and there’s undoubtedly been more study of this subject, and I think serious developmental theorists, integral theorists included, consider the effects of culture and individual differences on the operational rate, and are able to acknowledge that children develop cognitively at different paces.
Yes, I had already read that article; pretty darn good.
Supposedly Rufo read Freire and is copying his tactics. I call BS on that. In the past 6 months I did a deep dive into Freire. Freire is adamant not to impose views on the students. He would not even allow basal readers for literacy instruction. All content had to be co-created in dialogue between students and facilitators.
Freire especially cast scorn on “revolutionaries” who rolled in with a pre-built plan to “liberate” the masses. That’s how I see Rufo. Man with a plan. (Sort of). Where Rufo - and by extension his boss DeSantis - are a bit what I call Green(Y) is that their approach is completely deconstructive and critical. We know a lot about what they are against. Not so much about what they are really for.
What gives me hope in the article are the personal stories of the students and faculty at New College. They seem sympathetic and real to me. My hope is that ideologues like Rufo, when placed in close proximity to the actual life of the school, will form some relationships and soften a bit. Schools, in general, are living communities not easily transformed by some external agenda.
Ain’t that the truth.
They brought Rufo in at a salary of about 700K (plus big perks), about 400K more than the president they fired was making, who by most accounts, public and within academia, sounds like she was admired for her fair and balanced way in broaching the conservative and liberal streams.
Sounds like he’s “from the government and here to help.”