Dialectic
Jun 7th, 2004, 02:41 AM
Please read this thread only if you have already read the thread titled Our "Integral" Vision, Theory, and Practice under the Declarations of Intent.
This is for those of you who, on reading the aforementioned thread, maybe thinking to yourselves, "hmm ... this bastard's trying to sound smart but in the end Integral Theory and Practice and Spiral Dynamics are just another system of organization that is structured, rigid, hierarchical, and modernist."
I would like to emphasize that this is not the case.
What Postmodern/Poststructuralism (PM/PS) tells us is that that there are no universals, but instead complex chains and webs of interdependent signifiers/signifieds. What many of its propoents fail to see, or at least studiously ignore or just vaguely acknowledge, is that this is IN ITSELF a rather insidious universal. Its essential statement can be summarized thus: "My stance that 'no stance is better than any other stance' is better." And this MAKES Postmodernism hierarchical, undermining itself.
On the positive side, it IS better than absolute stances, in that it embodies a wider, deeper, more inclusive truth than early/traditional/Renaissance rationality. It is capable of taking on more points of view than traditional rationality and acknowledges that certain conceptual structures and hierarchies are either inappropriate or destructive in certain contexts. Indeed, it acknowledges the existence of a subject, of a signifier and signified, and thus has more depth than traditional rationality but does not negate traditional rationality's positive contributions of scientific/analytical method. In other words, it transcends traditional rationality. Thus we can say it has a HOLARCHICAL relationship with traditional modes of rationality: it transcends and includes early rationality by preserving its healthier, positive aspects while negating its pathologies (metanarratives, dominator hierarchies, culturally contextual "absolutisms," etc.).
Postmodernism TRIES to acknowledge all stances, with the implicit assumption that the postmodernist poststructuralist stance is better, or more inclusive, or less egocentric, or more rational. All postmodern poststructuralist arguments are extremely rational; we say, therefore, that they transcend traditional rationality by preserving its healthy or positive aspects and negating its limited or pathological potentials (for example, White supremacists trying to form rational arguments on how Whites are intrinsically superior to other "races").
An avoidance, for example, of strict definition, indeed a charge that absolute definition does not exist, is a constant guard against reification of abstract patterns/analyses which are influenced by imperial or metanarrative bias. This is Postmodernism's great contribution to the world: it SENSITIZES people to contextuality and relativism. Dominator hierarchies ARE bad. Many truths ARE culturally contextual. Subjective analyses ARE important.
On the negative side, the more complex the cognitive/moral realm, the more complex its pathologies. And Postmodernism has bred, particularly in the Boomer and Boomer Echo generations, an intense pathological narcisissm. If all truths are relative, if I'm permitted, indeed encouraged, to celebrate my problems and uniqueness without limit, then I can pick any arbitrary cognitive/moral position I want because it's "all good" and there are no value distinctions. PM/PS risks getting stuck or bogged down in great messy heaps, because it resists ALL conceptual structures that look like hierarchies, including holarchies. As we have discussed, we use the term holarchy because higher levels DO NOT dominate lower levels. They transcend and include, the very opposite of imperialism and domination. PM/PS, however, does not acknowledge the existence of the holarchy. Because of this, everything grinds to a halt in what I would say is generally a pluralistic mess, where everything is devoid of value and ranking, except for the ultimate value/ranking that says everything is devoid of it. Hardly a stable or healthy position.
And this is where Postmodern Poststructuralism seems to be stuck. Because categorization is viewed as an aspect of Western imperialistic science, almost all categorization outside of the hard and systems sciences is avoided, with some detrimental effects. The baby is thrown out with the bathwater, so to speak.
It is also ironic that despite the intense suspicion of Western motives and ideas that PM/PS fosters, Postmodernism ORIGINATED in the West. To this day it has a significant presence ONLY in the West, with some notable exceptions in Japan, the most Western-influenced Asian country. We must remember that Postmodernism transcended and negated the pathological ethnocentrism and logocentrism of early rationality, but it did NOT negate rationality itself. It is still a wholly rational conceptual tool, but it recognizes the contextual legitimacy of irrationality, something traditional rationality rallied hard against.
What I want to emphasize, then, is that Spiral Dynamics is NOT Marx's "universalizing metanarrative." It is NOT "the unfolding of a rational system of world history [as] simply a negative form of the history of European imperialism" (Young, some Postmodernist dude). It is an "integral" conceptual tool that TRANSCENDS Postmodern Poststructuralism: it preserves PM/PS's sensitivity to relative contexts while it negates its pathological narcissism and inability to reach meaningful conclusions. Spiral Dynamics recognizes the legitimacy of magical, mythic, early rational, and postmodern worldviews, and fights for the preservation of ALL of them so that the entire holarchy remains healthy. This is something that NONE of the aforementioned "levels" do. In this way, some cognitive/moral stances ARE "higher" or "better" than others, because each encompasses MORE of reality.
If you do not accept this, then I contend you end up with a big mess of nothing. "Ha! I've deconstucted your argument! I've deconstructed your identity! I've deconstructed your worldview!" What then?
My intention is not to reify Spiral Dynamics, nor is it to reify essentialist or strongly defined notions of cognitive/moral devlopment, given the infinite fluidity of identity categories. It is, however, extremely useful in identifying aspects of value and cognitive development in humans and human groups, and is backed by extensive cross-cultural research. All humans studied have thus far developed broadly along the
survivalist-magic-mythic-rational-postmodern sequence, regardless of gender or culture.
Integral theory and practice and Spiral Dynamics, then, attempt to integrate all the various cognitive and moral levels/lines/states/types of development into some coherent vision. From heavily ethnocentric/mythic viewpoints, to the mythic-rational, to the early rational, and then the postmodern poststructuralist viewpoints and hopefully beyond, without dominating or oppressing any.
Academia is so steeped in PM/PS that it will at best not acknowledge, and at worst viciously attack anything that transcends PM/PS, most likely mistaking it for some form of modernism that came before. The reason for this is that in Spiral Dynamics, hierarchical structures SEEM to RETURN, albeit in a different, SENSITIZED (the contribution of PM/PS), transcendent (ie. holarchical) form.
Please check out www.integralinstitute.org and the works of Ken Wilber and Don Beck for more.
This is for those of you who, on reading the aforementioned thread, maybe thinking to yourselves, "hmm ... this bastard's trying to sound smart but in the end Integral Theory and Practice and Spiral Dynamics are just another system of organization that is structured, rigid, hierarchical, and modernist."
I would like to emphasize that this is not the case.
What Postmodern/Poststructuralism (PM/PS) tells us is that that there are no universals, but instead complex chains and webs of interdependent signifiers/signifieds. What many of its propoents fail to see, or at least studiously ignore or just vaguely acknowledge, is that this is IN ITSELF a rather insidious universal. Its essential statement can be summarized thus: "My stance that 'no stance is better than any other stance' is better." And this MAKES Postmodernism hierarchical, undermining itself.
On the positive side, it IS better than absolute stances, in that it embodies a wider, deeper, more inclusive truth than early/traditional/Renaissance rationality. It is capable of taking on more points of view than traditional rationality and acknowledges that certain conceptual structures and hierarchies are either inappropriate or destructive in certain contexts. Indeed, it acknowledges the existence of a subject, of a signifier and signified, and thus has more depth than traditional rationality but does not negate traditional rationality's positive contributions of scientific/analytical method. In other words, it transcends traditional rationality. Thus we can say it has a HOLARCHICAL relationship with traditional modes of rationality: it transcends and includes early rationality by preserving its healthier, positive aspects while negating its pathologies (metanarratives, dominator hierarchies, culturally contextual "absolutisms," etc.).
Postmodernism TRIES to acknowledge all stances, with the implicit assumption that the postmodernist poststructuralist stance is better, or more inclusive, or less egocentric, or more rational. All postmodern poststructuralist arguments are extremely rational; we say, therefore, that they transcend traditional rationality by preserving its healthy or positive aspects and negating its limited or pathological potentials (for example, White supremacists trying to form rational arguments on how Whites are intrinsically superior to other "races").
An avoidance, for example, of strict definition, indeed a charge that absolute definition does not exist, is a constant guard against reification of abstract patterns/analyses which are influenced by imperial or metanarrative bias. This is Postmodernism's great contribution to the world: it SENSITIZES people to contextuality and relativism. Dominator hierarchies ARE bad. Many truths ARE culturally contextual. Subjective analyses ARE important.
On the negative side, the more complex the cognitive/moral realm, the more complex its pathologies. And Postmodernism has bred, particularly in the Boomer and Boomer Echo generations, an intense pathological narcisissm. If all truths are relative, if I'm permitted, indeed encouraged, to celebrate my problems and uniqueness without limit, then I can pick any arbitrary cognitive/moral position I want because it's "all good" and there are no value distinctions. PM/PS risks getting stuck or bogged down in great messy heaps, because it resists ALL conceptual structures that look like hierarchies, including holarchies. As we have discussed, we use the term holarchy because higher levels DO NOT dominate lower levels. They transcend and include, the very opposite of imperialism and domination. PM/PS, however, does not acknowledge the existence of the holarchy. Because of this, everything grinds to a halt in what I would say is generally a pluralistic mess, where everything is devoid of value and ranking, except for the ultimate value/ranking that says everything is devoid of it. Hardly a stable or healthy position.
And this is where Postmodern Poststructuralism seems to be stuck. Because categorization is viewed as an aspect of Western imperialistic science, almost all categorization outside of the hard and systems sciences is avoided, with some detrimental effects. The baby is thrown out with the bathwater, so to speak.
It is also ironic that despite the intense suspicion of Western motives and ideas that PM/PS fosters, Postmodernism ORIGINATED in the West. To this day it has a significant presence ONLY in the West, with some notable exceptions in Japan, the most Western-influenced Asian country. We must remember that Postmodernism transcended and negated the pathological ethnocentrism and logocentrism of early rationality, but it did NOT negate rationality itself. It is still a wholly rational conceptual tool, but it recognizes the contextual legitimacy of irrationality, something traditional rationality rallied hard against.
What I want to emphasize, then, is that Spiral Dynamics is NOT Marx's "universalizing metanarrative." It is NOT "the unfolding of a rational system of world history [as] simply a negative form of the history of European imperialism" (Young, some Postmodernist dude). It is an "integral" conceptual tool that TRANSCENDS Postmodern Poststructuralism: it preserves PM/PS's sensitivity to relative contexts while it negates its pathological narcissism and inability to reach meaningful conclusions. Spiral Dynamics recognizes the legitimacy of magical, mythic, early rational, and postmodern worldviews, and fights for the preservation of ALL of them so that the entire holarchy remains healthy. This is something that NONE of the aforementioned "levels" do. In this way, some cognitive/moral stances ARE "higher" or "better" than others, because each encompasses MORE of reality.
If you do not accept this, then I contend you end up with a big mess of nothing. "Ha! I've deconstucted your argument! I've deconstructed your identity! I've deconstructed your worldview!" What then?
My intention is not to reify Spiral Dynamics, nor is it to reify essentialist or strongly defined notions of cognitive/moral devlopment, given the infinite fluidity of identity categories. It is, however, extremely useful in identifying aspects of value and cognitive development in humans and human groups, and is backed by extensive cross-cultural research. All humans studied have thus far developed broadly along the
survivalist-magic-mythic-rational-postmodern sequence, regardless of gender or culture.
Integral theory and practice and Spiral Dynamics, then, attempt to integrate all the various cognitive and moral levels/lines/states/types of development into some coherent vision. From heavily ethnocentric/mythic viewpoints, to the mythic-rational, to the early rational, and then the postmodern poststructuralist viewpoints and hopefully beyond, without dominating or oppressing any.
Academia is so steeped in PM/PS that it will at best not acknowledge, and at worst viciously attack anything that transcends PM/PS, most likely mistaking it for some form of modernism that came before. The reason for this is that in Spiral Dynamics, hierarchical structures SEEM to RETURN, albeit in a different, SENSITIZED (the contribution of PM/PS), transcendent (ie. holarchical) form.
Please check out www.integralinstitute.org and the works of Ken Wilber and Don Beck for more.