Use this threaded discussion for your juicy questions about Integral Theory applied to international development. All those areas of inquiry that have you buzzing - from social holons, to masculine and feminine, to integral methodological pluralism - bring your discourse here, and dive right in....

Dive Right In, well, uh... Okay, since you ask!

The time is right for a comprehensive Integral model to sweep the world. That's the challenge, as far as I can see... I think we all have avenues for our own, upper left development with Meditation, Yoga, Counselling, etc. What we don't have is a global network that can bring all people together to move forward towards an Integral Goal. The time is ripe for new ideas big enough to 'transcend and include' everything that's on the map right now. As far as what that might look like...
     What seems to be holding us back are people who have allegiance to the last round of big new ideas from NeoLiberalism (Orange) to Nationalism (Blue) to specific world Religions (also Blue, neh?) As Integral Practitioners we have an awareness that includes all of those, but doesn't identify with them primarily. We may be, for example, Christian American Economists, but that does not preclude us from affirming the (always relative) correctness of being an Israeli Arab Muslim Farmer. The challenge that most interests me, personally, is to find a way of having solidarity that allows freedom for each of us to be who we are while cooperating to promote a world that allows freedom for each of us to be who we are. What we have in common as human people is more than what divides us.
      I think the trick is to use the forms that are already in place and emphasize the commonalities between the Brazilian Landless Peasant movement, and the goals of the WTO. Sound impossible? The idea of having a nation without a king used to be impossible, too. The power lies WITHIN the contradictions.

Dmitri

What I'd like to know is why no one, including I-I seems to be looking at Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs as a way to bring healthy development and Integral theory to government policy.  We have an exceedingly good idea of how to bring the greatest depth to the greatest span - by helping people meet their deficiency needs so that they can naturally move up into the "being stages" (which lead directly to the beginnings of Integral thinking) - but no one seems to want to use this powerful knowledge.  I don't get it...

Bicycle!
-Turtle

Turtle,

Please do explain...

Dmitri

I'm not sure what you'd like me to explain...  If you're interested in Maslow's work, there are a few books you could check out, or maybe just take a look at the Wikepedia entry on him.  If you're asking about somehting else....

Bicycle!
-Turtle

Hey Again, Turtle,

I looked up Maslov's work as you suggested. From what I see, his Hierarchy of Needs is included in Ken Wilber's work already. It is, I think, what is outlined as 'levels' in the AQAL approach. Also, when Ken has written about Transpersonal Psychology, I know that he has mentioned that when a level's needs are not met, you can't go on to the next level. Maybe we just take it for granted at this point. I do like Maslov's hierarchy, and the way that it is presented in Wikepedia, as a pyramid, is very clear and useful.

Dmitri

Hello Everyone --the Perpignan group, IWB members, I-I community, Dimitri and randomturtle, and the world at large!! I have been asked to (continue to) moderate this thread.

As background: IU's Integral International Development Center (better known as Integral Without Borders --IWB) held its first meeting in Perpignan, France in October 2024. (See Holons IV for a brief account.) For the past six months we have been quite active in e-mail forum. Now we move to our new home on the Multiplex and also widen our embrace. I thought I would start with my synthesis of one of the central themes of this discussion --social holons and social change -- and we'll take it from there.What follows is a bare-bones 3p theoretical exposition mostly from a Zone 8 perspective, so please hold it lightly. (Another one of our topics.)

At the outset the task was to explain how society, a collection of individuals, all with different UL morphologies and centers of gravity form a coherent whole (society as a social holon) and how societies change and develop. This then evolved into questions of individual change, social change and the role of creativity/the emergent.

Here is what I think is a key section from one of my posts:

"One idea (from Integral Politics) is that the center of gravity in a society reflects the altitude of the dominant mode of discourse (LL) and the corresponding governance structures (LR) in a society. A second idea is that the techno-economic base is the most important determinant of the average level of consciousness in a society (eg Excerpt D). A third idea (eg Excerpt A) is that as a new level of consciousness arises in individuals there is a tetra-transformation. Interiors of individuals (UL), behaviors of individuals (UR), modes of discourse, shared values, norms (LL), and techno-economic-base, governance structures, educational, religious, legal frameworks (LR) all change and a new dominant mode of discourse and a new governance structure which will regulate the social holon is established.

It seems to me that the key point here is that every member of the society changes some, to be able to tetra-mesh with the emergent. This does NOT mean that everybody moves up to the new emergent level. If, for example, orange is the emergent, it does not mean that all the folks who were centered at magenta, red, or amber will move to orange. But pretty much every individual in the society will change --some will transform to the new level (at least 10%?! Ken's tipping point), others will make horizontal adjustments within their level, others, perhaps will even regress under the influence of the emergent LL-LR. It is most likely that most will transform in some lines of development (eg cognitive) but not others (eg values or morals). The point though is that somehow the society will mesh and be stable at that new level -- a brand new social whole with a new center of gravity and a new regulatory structure will have emerged. It will have individual members with all kinds of cognitive, morals, values, etc. levels, but they will all have basically adapted to the emergent orange social center of gravity, be it by curtailing their behavior due to new legal restrictions or genuine internal translations and transformations. What we get is a multicolored mess, but it is a different whole, a different kind of mess than it was before."

A key question that came up in this context was: to what extent does society make the individual and to what extent do individuals make the society? It now seems clear that individuals make the society to the extent, for example, that techno-economic innovations are made and instituted by individuals and governance structures  and modes of discourse are changed by individuals (leaders), each individual reflecting their own AQAL configuration, including, most importantly, the UL Eros emergent.

At the same time, society makes the individual to the extent that social context (LL-LR) is a component of each indivual holon's AQAL. Shifts in the social center of gravity (cog) and the techno-economic base are particularly important, because these influence and change all individual members; each member's LL-LR is affected. Overall, over time --ie change may proceed "funeral by funeral" -- the average level of consciousness in the society will tend to match the level of the social center of gravity and the dominant techno-economic base.

It is important to note that creativity/the emergent always first arises in the (UL) individual and individual consciousness has considerable relative autonomy --eg an individual may or may not respond to changes in LL-LR with a transformational shift  (the social cog may have moved to orange, but an individual may remain centered at eg amber with only translational changes) or the individual may develop beyond  the social cog, perhaps becoming a leader for the next level of change. So, overall,  it seems, individuals (especially leaders) make the society and society (as LL-LR) partly makes the individual. The other major part is Eros. Microgenetically, each moment is composed of last moment's AQAL (ie history matters) plus something new (ie Eros/creativity).

All this underlines the importance of a multi-faceted approach to social development. Those that emerge as key for me are: ILP to create emergent and healthy ground for Eros and individual change; nurturing leadership that will change (transform or translate) society; as well as skillful policies to shift the dominant modes of discourse, and institutions like the governance structures and the techno-economic base more directly.

This is all for now. Let's see where we go!

Emine.

Hello again everyone.

While the above distills our discussions so far re social holons-social change, I can't help but also post some of the fuzzier thoughts that have emerged.

One question was whether social holons carve Kosmic grooves and whether social centers of gravity will unfold in sequence. The answer at this point is: no, societies as social holons do not carve Kosmic grooves like individual holons do;  but social centers of gravity are still likely to unfold sequentially beceause the consciousness of individual members will unfold sequentially.

A second question had to do with whether amber social cog will necessarily come with an agricultural techno-economic base or an orange social cog with an industrial (broadly defined!) one, as they have historically. The answer again seems to be "not necessarily", but that it is likely to do so, given our histories and technologies (last moment's AQAL). But again, it is important to make room for creativity (ie plus something new)

Here is a paragraph from an earlier post:

“Another issue I had been approaching, admittedly in a somewhat crab-like fashion, is the question of what exactly it is in agriculture that anchors amber level of consciousness or in industry that anchors the orange level. Historically these correlations have been true, but may be we don't have to have what we think of as "industry" to anchor orange. What aspect of "industry" is the key? The one aspect that is easy to see is formal operational cognition. Industrial production creates many jobs (not all) that require at least formal cognition; whereas traditional agriculture requires at most conop cognition. May be this is the reason it aligns with orange in the UL. So may be orange just needs a techno-economic base that requires formal cognition, and not necessarily anything that would fit our definition of "industry". I very much doubt it is as simple as this (industrialization historically comes eg with urbanization, the need to live with all kinds of folks in close quarters, an easier opening to the world at large, etc. etc.) but these are issues well worth considering. This is an issue of "deep structure vs. surface structure", or "container vs. content" in the LR, equally as important and difficult as in the UL and LL; skillful means of a different sort that also goes beyond green appropriate technology. I suspect things will unfold as they will, but it would be wise to be aware of options.”

This may become very important, not only in terms of environmental issues, but also for example for some societies in Africa. I have been reading about the limitations to agriculture in many of the emerging-amber African societies. If this is true, we need to research and help facilitate a different techno-economic base that will support an amber level of consciousness.

A third point that seems important to me has to do with patterns in development. If each individual is affected by and adapts to the cog of the society they live in, then there will be content/horizontal differences between say amber-values based individuals living in an amber cog society and those living in an orange cog society. Equally, there may be similarities in adaptation/content of all amber value based individuals living in different orange cog societies. For example, so-called “rent seeking economic behavior” seems to be an adaptation of amber centered individuals in emergent-orange cog societies. There may well be other important and identifiable patterns of individual adaptation to a given level of social cog at a given historical point in time.

Either way though, there is room for a lot of creativity in constructing shifts (skillful means), but these do need to be employed with an eye to the cog and the dominant/emergent mode of discourse of the society.  This is partly why I like Gail’s concept of constructing “emergent ground” so much – it can account for “what comes next” (be it stabilization or increasing health or transformation) both for the individual and the society.

Cheers

Emine

Hi,

I'd like to address your question: “what exactly it is in agriculture that anchors amber level of consciousness”

     Agriculture created cities and specific legal and social structures that are linked to cities. Prior to cities, and the population densities associated with them, people lived in tribes and towns where everybody knew everybody else or someone who knew them. Cities created situations where people had to deal with people who they didn’t know.

This was the birth of the individual. For once, people met (strangers) face to face and had to deal with them. Before, if someone screwed up (didn’t pay a debt, was violent, etc) then word would get around and that person would be ostracized. With cities, and agriculture, that was no longer possible because there were simply too many people to keep track of. So we had to deal with strangers with a specific, agreed upon code of conduct and punishment. At this point, codes of law (written) were needed, and impartial judges to hear grievances. This was the birth of patriarchy (See “At the Dawn of Tyranny” (subtitled something like ‘the Origin of the Individual, Tyranny, and the State’). This is also when the dominant religions changed from Matriarchial to Patriarchal because ‘the people’ was no longer an extended family (mother authority appropriate). Now we had to deal with people who were part of the city, citizens, who one didn’t know personally (father figure of authority appropriate).

        With that background in mind, we can point out several things that Red (Amber) still retains from those by-gone days. 1) connection to PLACE (you live where you live), 2) the ability to gain your livelihood from the place you live (farms) 3) a cohesive social structure where you know where you stand and who you are (left over from Red and still important, even more at Blue). As the agricultural base disappears as we move from Blue  to Orange, the farms are replace by Prisons, Call Centers, and Military Bases. People go to these places and get jobs there, and it all works because 1) They can retain their connection to PLACE (they can earn a living without selling Granddad’s farm and moving away), 2) They can earn their living from the land (that’s where the new prison/call center/military base is located) and 3) the social structure is intact (prison guards and military personnel fight for the good just as farmers do, and get along at church, call center reps too).

That's it for now.

Dmitri

Hi Dimitri

Great explanation. Let me fill in the economic details. My knowledge of horticulture(red) is limited, but it is with horticulture and agriculture that societies first begin to create a sizable economic surplus. In other words, each person or each family is reliably able to produce more foodstuffs than they can consume. And grains especially can be stored. This means part of the population can finally quit work for food and begin to specialize in other pursuits -- ranging from weaving and handicrafts to poetry, from milling and baking to philosophy, not mention standing armies and rulers-- and consume the food produced by others. Trade becomes important, as does the control of the economic surplus. More formal governance structures, dispute settlement procedures become important as you point out, and etnocentric conventional ethics begins to emerge. And so cities are born as centers of governance, trade, arts and higher education. It is no accident that slavery and later serfdom also become key institutions. Who wants a slave if he/she is going to have to eat all he/she can produce; ie if there is no economic surplus? Food tends to be produced by slaves or enserfed peasants on land that belongs to the nobility/notables/lords. As you move from the warring feudal lords of red to the more centralized control of kings and nobles in amber, cities thrive and governace structures become more and more codified. And it seems it is in the cities that the orange worldview first begins to emerge.

[And once again I realize I have a much better sense of the LR than any of the other quadrants. That is one of the important aspects of AQAL, I suppose. It shows you with glaring clarity what is missing in your view. I must admit though I really have enjoyed HBO's Rome as a (obviously reconstructed and obviously for entertainment rather than a history lesson) slice of a red/amber world. Pretty tough life. Should read Up From Eden again.]

In any case, though, the urbanization that takes place with industrialization is a similar affair and in fact historically an increase in agricultural productivity is a key to being able to industrialize. Have to feed those factory workers somehow. If you look at the US today, about 3% of the population (or is it labor force?) is in agriculture and they can feed not only the whole US population but half the world as well. Can you imagine the productivity increase in agriculture from those historical red/amber days!? For the later industrializers mechanization of agriculture has usually provided this impetus. International trade can also help.

This is (for me) fun stuff, but the question I was getting at is what happens if a country or region today (eg parts of Africa?), perhaps for geographical reasons -- draught conditions, desertification, lack of water, poor climate, poor soil -- simply cannot get that kind of increase in agricultural productivity; the kind of conditions in the LR that has historically helped give rise to societies with an amber/blue center of gravity. In other words, even if we say there is considerable autonomy in the development of the UL and if the interiors of the individuals get to an amber level, an amber based people (leadership) will then establish an amber centered society, that society will need to have a techno-economic base that can be "seen" (in an Eye to Eye sense) and employed by folks at an amber level of development. Historically this has been agriculture. Do we have other options today? There are no ready answers to this yet. But we can brainstorm and do serious research. There are folks from the whole spectrum of consciousness in each of those societies even when the majority are at magenta/red, and that has to be an important advantage over history. What I am really saying, I guess, is that integral theory turns economic development theory topsy turvy. You begin to ask questions that have not occured to anyone before, at least not systematically. Finding the best job for the person in question (in addition to finding the best person for a job) seems to be a conscoius integral level pursuit in general too.

All for now

Emine

PS What are call centers?

Emine,
     It's taking me a long time to get back to you, I know. It's been a busy week, but I should have time to give you a considered response tomorrow. Thanks,
Dmitri

Emine,
     Yes, you're right, we do have situations arising today that did not exist in the past, specifically, as you wrote "This is (for me) fun stuff, but the question I was getting at is what happens if a country or region today (eg parts of Africa?), perhaps for geographical reasons -- draught conditions, desertification, lack of water, poor climate, poor soil -- simply cannot get that kind of increase in agricultural productivity; the kind of conditions in the LR that has historically helped give rise to societies with an amber/blue center of gravity. In other words, even if we say there is considerable autonomy in the development of the UL and if the interiors of the individuals get to an amber level, an amber based people (leadership) will then establish an amber centered society, that society will need to have a techno-economic base that can be "seen" (in an Eye to Eye sense) and employed by folks at an amber level of development. Historically this has been agriculture. Do we have other options today? There are no ready answers to this yet. But we can brainstorm and do serious research. There are folks from the whole spectrum of consciousness in each of those societies even when the majority are at magenta/red, and that has to be an important advantage over history. What I am really saying, I guess, is that integral theory turns economic development theory topsy turvy. You begin to ask questions that have not occured to anyone before, at least not systematically. Finding the best job for the person in question (in addition to finding the best person for a job) seems to be a conscoius integral level pursuit in general too."
     I think that, historically, agriculture is what brought Magenta (Red) to Amber (Blue). [Am I getting these colors right? I learned from Beck's Spiral Dynamics: Beige, Purple, Red, Blue, Orange, Green, Yellow, Turquoise. I'll stick to Beck's colors and you can let me know the translation, please.] The agricultural base is what sustained Red/Blue materially. I think the important thing for Blue isn't necessarily agriculture, but some form of sustenance that matches their level of development. I think that's what works about prisons and call centers.
     Call centers are those warehouses full of cubicles where people answer phones for 'customer service.' The job is 'customer service representative.' I recently read a book called "The New Ruthless Economy" that gave an in-depth critique of call centers and how they employ people. The call centers give everybody a headset and a computer. The computer does two things: First, it stores a record of every interaction that a call center rep makes with a given customer. This makes the rep replacable. You don't need to talk to the same person every time. Any warm body will do. The second thing that the computers do is to guide the rep through the interaction by telling the rep how to respond to the caller. The owners of these call centers are sinking a lot of money into making a program that can deal with the variations that a call can take.The idea is to allow the rep to just say what the computer tells him to say, without needing to improvise (or to use Formal-Operational thinking. Concrete-operational is enough). Improvisation requires Form-Op thinking and autonomy in decision making. They don't want reps to need Form-op thinking because that would limit their labor pool. They don't want the reps to act with autonomy because then the call center and whoever owns it (Verison, General Electric, Ford Motor Credit, etc.) would lose control. Eventually, Customer Service Representatives won't be needed at all because the computer can listen to the customer with voice recognition software and respond with it's canned voice. This already happens to me when I call my cell phone company to deal with my bill. If the computer can't handle my needs, then I press zero and eventually get a customer service rep.
     So, I've gone into the call center thing in some detail because it is an attempt by Orange to employ Red and Blue (con-op) people to do Orange (form-op)jobs. These call centers are being set up all over the world, wherever labor is cheap.
     Another reason why Blue works well in a call-center is because Blue is largely rooted in traditions. To learn to farm, Blue cogs don't read a book on farming. They work shoulder to shoulder with other farmers and learn the traditions.  I remember reading about someone trying to research indiginous farming methods who had a lot of trouble getting information from the farmers on why they farmed the way they did. The information just wasn't available. The farmers made walls a certain way because it was the tradition. Whoever solved a problem by building a wall in a certain way had been dead for centuries. The knowledge was 'submerged.' Interesting: the author noted that the difference between how a very intelligent farmer worked and a farmer of low intelligence was negligible. He made an interesting comment that people of low intelligence in our world today are "condemned to being stupid in a way that was unknown in the ancient world." Sad.
     To return to the topic:  Blue learns by doing and is not encouraged to ask a lot of questions about why it is done that way. I guess Blue deals well with authority. Orange people are better with abstractions (form-op), but cause more trouble and are harder to control.  But your main topic is about the suitability of Orange jobs to Blue cog. These other jobs, from prisons to call centers, to electronic assembly plants, to textile plants, etc, are able to give people a way to make a living that matches their level (con-op), but there's a big problem, or two: Agriculture gives people wealth beyond subsistence (often) and these modern jobs are usually 'sweatshop' in that they don't pay enough to gain a surplus, and often demand long hours that eliminate any 'leisure' time that people could use to advance themselves in any way at all. Also, workers in these factories are kept under strict control, talking is discouraged, and often bathroom breaks are limited to once in the morning and once in the afternoon (you can get fired for peeing too often). So it's pretty dismal, really.

You also wrote:
        “Another issue I had been approaching, admittedly in a somewhat crab-like fashion, is the question of what exactly it is in agriculture that anchors amber level of consciousness or in industry that anchors the orange level. Historically these correlations have been true, but may be we don't have to have what we think of as "industry" to anchor orange. What aspect of "industry" is the key? The one aspect that is easy to see is formal operational cognition. Industrial production creates many jobs (not all) that require at least formal cognition; whereas traditional agriculture requires at most conop cognition. May be this is the reason it aligns with orange in the UL. So may be orange just needs a techno-economic base that requires formal cognition, and not necessarily anything that would fit our definition of "industry". I very much doubt it is as simple as this (industrialization historically comes eg with urbanization, the need to live with all kinds of folks in close quarters, an easier opening to the world at large, etc. etc.) but these are issues well worth considering. This is an issue of "deep structure vs. surface structure", or "container vs. content" in the LR, equally as important and difficult as in the UL and LL; skillful means of a different sort that also goes beyond green appropriate technology. I suspect things will unfold as they will, but it would be wise to be aware of options.”
      So, that's the thing: Orange jobs like Customer Service Rep have been stripped of their "orangeness" (they're not form-op any more) and become really oppressive. It seems that a job as a call center rep could aid someone in moving from Blue to Orange if it was done with enough training and the workers were given autonomy. By experiencing the job and helping customers with all of their problems, a worker would gain a wide variety of experience in talking to people of different levels in productive ways, and dealing with abstract systems of computers, bill paying, service aggreements, etc. This would teach Formal-operational thinking. However, the way things are being done now is directly opposed to helping workers develop. That's why the book was titled "The New Ruthless Economy". The workplace is actively removing skill from jobs. Jobs are increasingly controlling of workers. Autonomy and decision making are actively discouraged.
      So, that seems to be where we are. People at Red or Blue may be able to find work, but the work is set up in such a way that hampers their development, even prohibits it. This would beg the question "is it possible to create a workplace in today's marketplace that can enable people to develop?"

Dmitri

Hi Dimitri

Right on!

I especially liked: " I remember reading about someone trying to research indiginous farming methods who had a lot of trouble getting information from the farmers on why they farmed the way they did. The information just wasn't available. The farmers made walls a certain way because it was the tradition. Whoever solved a problem by building a wall in a certain way had been dead for centuries. The knowledge was 'submerged.' Interesting: the author noted that the difference between how a very intelligent farmer worked and a farmer of low intelligence was negligible. He made an interesting comment that people of low intelligence in our world today are "condemned to being stupid in a way that was unknown in the ancient world." Sad."

In fact you cannot codify knowledge or really learn a job from books until you are able to take a 3p (it/its) perspective or reach the orange (SD orange) level of cognitive development. In magenta (SD purple) and red (SD red) as well as amber (SD blue) submerged knowledge and apprenticeship play key roles. An understanding of why one does what one does increases as cognition develops and one's lens gets wider and wider until you can see/conceptualize the whole production process and then some. This "intelligence" bit is indeed sad and that is why we would want to have "stations of life" where all folks can fit, be respected and valued for their contributions.

Another sadness comes if a society begins to employ folks who have reached orange+ level of development in routinized deskilled jobs that would be more appropriate for red. (Notwithstanding the fact that Ken washed dishes to support himself, while he was trying to create space for his real work. This is in fact a key motivation for some of the red/amber level work in this economy. Folks who drive cabs while they write the Great American Novel, or those who paint houses or wait tables while getting ready to go to Hollywood, etc.) Nevertheless I think this is another one of the concerns of the "deskilling literature" which tends to argue that (amber/blue) apprenticeship and craftsmanship of the past entailed a lot more skill and job satisfaction than the assembly line work of (orange) mass production methods. There is an incentive for firms to deskill jobs because firms pay workers wages on the basis of their skills. If the job does not require much skill, they can pay lower wages, (and also easily replace any worker) and thus increase profits. This has more to do with the distribution of the economic surplus than its creation/production, but it is possible (though I don't think likely) for us all to spiral down.

Moving back to developing countries suffering limits to agriculture though, things do continue to look dismal if these are the jobs that are set up there, if the profits stay here. We need to find production with lots of red-amber jobs that will create enough of an economic surplus (high value added/high productivity) to import enough food and facilitate/open the path to transition into orange social cog as well. Things look better if the firms are owned locally. But even this is just theoretically. While my sense of Africa is very spotty, it seems to me even this type of work presupposes an urban culture. Though one could argue urbanization will proceed just fine if the jobs are there and pay (significantly) better than agriculture.

Ramblin' on

Emine

Hi All,

A friend just pointed me to this forum. I love all the ideas that are been discussed! Yet I have a bug that is itching me about the last post…

From what I read, and I can totally be misinterpreting the post, I find that there is underlying thought in the old Newtonistic command and control manner of acting and organizing our institutions so they would function better. If we just had a bit more of knowledge about X and Y we could act better. We could control better our fellow citizens, the economy, and nature to where we think it is best!

The notion that we can derive a techno-economic base to fit a given situation is continuing the linear, mechanistic way of thinking that is so common not only in the international development community, but in our society at large. The way our corporations function, the way our government leads, how health care functions, the way we go about doing agriculture, how we educate, and so on..

It is said that teal and beyond (second tier) thinking has the capacity to 'see' the ebbs and flows of a given situation and act accordingly to the best benefit of the situation. Now the question is how do we act? Do we continue with the idea that we need to put X and Y in place (command and control) for the well-being of the system or do we work with the ebbs and flows? And what are the ebbs and flows?

Emine, I would disagree (and this is my humble opinion) with the notion of "We need to find production with lots of red-amber jobs that will create enough of an economic surplus (high value added/high productivity) to import enough food and facilitate/open the path to transition into orange social cog as well. Things look better if the firms are owned locally"

Do we really know that putting a given techno-economic base in place will allow for a given society to develop? This sounds to me like techno-economic determinism that Marx or more precisely Engel's vision of Marxism has been so highly criticized for. To me this is not only ethically wrong, but also continuing our line of thought that has put us in trouble in the first place (linear and mechanistic).

By trying to create a techno-economic base of red-amber are we fostering individuals to develop to these levels? Are we not also determining red-amber as the developmental ceiling of that society? When time comes and we think that they have reached a red-amber level will we then find an orange economic base for them? Do we know what an amber society looks like in South Africa? How is it similar or different than one in Borneo, or Ecuador? Are we determining what this society should look like in accord to our beliefs, values and cultural make up?

This takes me back to the notion of ebbs and flows, chaos and order, or what academia calls complexity science. Where systems are defined by nonlinear, hierarchical, self-organizing, and emergent properties. The notion that we can manage (command and control) the dynamics between the societal, economic and environmental systems is challenged by this line of thought.

Instead of trying to "find production with lots of red-amber jobs that will create enough of an economic surplus" that in my mind sounds like commanding a societal change or evolution (deterministic), why not move towards a notion of enabling a society to emerge towards the next level of complexity that is suited for that society and not what we think the next level of evolution is.

How do we enable, empower, make possible for a group/community/society to naturally move along, and develop in a manner that is fit for them to develop?

In my mind, integral is a framework that can give us a lot of clarity in the chaos of a situation, and helps us discern the interplay between the parts. Gail in her 'Call to Coherence' has outlined so clearly the important issues to address in each quadrant in the field of international development. And for me, what is fundamental is how these issues get addressed. Are we determining what is best in a given situation or are we enabling emergence?

There is a fine line between the two, but I think is what makes the whole difference. There are many recipes for determining.. However, as far as I know there are none for enabling … Are we managing/planning to get to the 'next' developmental level, or are we working at all levels and quadrants to remove the barriers that block the natural evolution of an individual/group/society?

I think that the only way of truly enabling a situation is for an individual to harness her/his capacity of awareness, intuition, creativity in the moment that is needed (a dear friend reminds me of the buddhist concept of “right action”). The only thing that can leads us is our ego (astray), or our intuition (if this is the right word??, in the right direction ??)… a question to constantly ask.

I think that at its base it is the relationships that we have with ourselves and others. By embracing a fellow human as a human, by acknowledging that they have the same opportunity to develop as we do and everyone else in this world has. That they have that same seed that allows them to realized themselves and see beyond the limitations imposed from outside. I believe that this is capacity that is innate to all humans, at all times, no matter where they are at, it is just a question of fostering it.


My humble thoughts…
Julian

Hi Julian

Thanks for this very thoughtful response!

I agree with you my last post had an overly deterministic thrust. In my own mind I put it in the context of the earlier post which said "I suspect things will unfold as they will, but it would be wise to be aware of options." In other words, in my own mind, it had less to do with finding an economic activity that would facilitate a social transformation from a red social center of gravity to an amber one and implementing it; and more to do with being aware of options so as to enable/support/make available their adoption if the need arose in the flow of life.

The particular "barrier" this string postulated had to do with the techno-economic base and with change in the social center of gravity: ie The low productivity of agriculture due to environmental factors. Given that it is agriculture and its higher productivity over horticulture that has historically supported/aligned with the emergence of an amber social center of gravity, this creates a serious problem for these societies.

In the transition from red to amber social cog, dynamics of social change suggest that once (and if) a group of individuals in the society reach an amber level of consciousness (Ken suggests 10% of the population is the tipping point) they will then establish a new dominant mode of discourse and governace structure that will shift the social center of gravity and give birth to a brand new social holon. This will require/come with a new techno-economic base that aligns with amber. (A closer reading of Excerpt A actually suggests that social change first begins in the techno-economic base and only gradually filters to the LL mode of discourse.)

In the flow of development and evolution, one would expect individual members who move up to an amber cog to automatically "see," find, invent, and implement economic activities that align with amber. This is likely what will continue to happen. However the particular barrier we have postulated says the historical path --one from horticulture to agriculture-- will not work for these societies. They will take a different path. The advantage of having integral leadership/facilitation in this setting is that we may "see" what amber can "see" by drawing on a broader body of knowledge and technologies with our integral antenna and may be able to intervene to remove this particular barrier if and when it becomes a binding constraint. Ideally the individual members themselves will find/invent these technologies. But there may be circumstances where an outside "offering" or facilitation is called for, which will be adopted if it suits the specificities of the situation. Here I think moment-to-moment AQAL awareness is the key to sharpen our discernment as to what would fit, as you suggest. 

I do also want to say, however, that whether we integrals are respectful of internal development paths/impulses or not, orange will not be. It will continue to propose and implement "the one universally right policy". So integral leadership/facilitation with orange is also a part of our task. Green, on the other hand, will continue to be very respectful of unique internal social impulses, but they in turn will see no universality and no depth or impetus for transformation--oftentimes unintentionally hindering change or facilitating unhealthy change. Working with green is also part of our task. This is all obviously part of AQAL awareness, but I wanted to highlight it.

So, I think it is important to underline that the major thrust of integral is that there is a unity/sense to the seeming particularities/madness. Individuals cogs do evolve and evolve sequentially (red to amber to orange to etc.) and social cogs are also likely to evolve sequentially. These levels have deep structures that are common to all, as well as surface structures that are unique. So each situation is both unique and quite universal at the same time. Universality says we know (the deep structures of) what comes next. Uniqueness says we don't know (the surface structures or) the specificities of what comes next. Combining the two in being present with full AQAL awareness is part of integral praxis. Yes? [This is in terms of transformation. What actually comes next, of course, may also be a translation.]

Also: There will always be brave souls who venture beyond a social center of gravity (and will have the carpet burns to show for it.) But here my concern is with how a social center of gravity gets determined and evolves, beacuse, after all, that is what will create emergent ground for the development of the vast majority of a society's population --whether individual members respond to it or not. In other words, it seems to me that all individuals "have the same opportunity to develop as we do and everyone else in the world has" would be true only if everyone lived in societies with the same-level social center of gravity. So fostering the social center of gravity and having governance from the highest possible level is a very key component in all this.

Do these make sense?

Emine