The Institute for Cultural Evolution launched today. Founded by Elizabeth Debold, Carter Phipps and Steve McIntosh, the non-profit is dedicated to combating climate change and important world issues by a unique, peace-making and developmental approach. Based on Integral Theory, a socio-cultural framework developed by Ken Wilber, the think tank promises to alleviate “grid-lock” in politics by bridging the gap between conservatives and progressives, ecological activists and white collar corporate culture.
I’m interested to see what will happen when the rubber hits the road for Integral Theory. Although more loosely based on Ken Wilber’s philosophy – McIntosh being an independent thinker – the foundational principles are largely the same. I remain wary after the publication of “Integral Trans-Partisan Politics,” over at Integral Life, which inspired a joint publication/response over at Beams and Struts. I hope that this new think tank takes a broader, and more diverse approach to social problems.
The largest concern, going forward, is whether or not Integral Theory is capable of addressing the systemic crisis the US and other global powers are facing. What I would love to hear addressed by the founders of this think tank are:
- Is it enough to apply a developmental model as the solution to complex, global crisis?
- Is it enough to say that we must work on convincing political parties – and people – to “step out” of their entrenched views?
- Might it be naive to think that political powers would give up their view? That during a crisis, we can convince an established “system” of thinking to change (or in integral terms, develop?)
- What is more valuable, or even necessary in this time: to appeal to conservatives and progressives, or to work on creating whole new systems of value and governance that are compatible with a planetary age of complex social systems and changing climate?
In Beams and Struts article, Eight Perspectives on Integral Trans-Partisan Politics, Trevor Malkinson posted a comment in response to Joe Corbett, highlighting a few words by Joe that I think hit the nail on the head with my concern:
“Change does not come by working with your opponents, the vested interests of out-moded powers, but rather by seizing power from them for yourself and imposing change from above… so for me, the discussion of integral trans-partisan politics really shifts to how power can be siezed from the corporate mainstream and regulated out of existence through alternative principles, before its too late for all of us and countless other species on this planet.”
Now, it’s a given that the Institute for Cultural Evolution will emphasize climate change as one of its central focuses. I can appreciate that goal and find it a noble endeavor. But I wonder if it is, ultimately, a wrong turn for the institute to be working on appealing to the ossified, established, and caked layers of thinking in modern society. Might more radical turns be necessary in order to enact a cultural transformation, the very thing that Integral Theory is encouraging?
Joe writes this:
“The powers that be have no serious intention of helping the transition along. Therefore, there must be two fronts of change: one, to build alternative systems, and two, to bring an end as soon as possible to cporporate capitalism by arresting and seizing power whenever and wherever the opportunities emerge, and by whatever integral means necessary.”
Trevor chimed in with Joe by saying, “elite power does not give up control of its power easily, and as a recent book has argued/shown historically, the clinging to power and the greed of the elite often lead to societal collapse.”
Now, if you’ve read your historians and cultural philosophers, like Jean Gebser (one of the foundational thinkers of contemporary talk on “cultural evolution”), you know what Trevor says is true throughout history. The established excellence of a culture, which once brought it prosperity, eventually becomes outdated; it decays from within, refusing to change or perhaps ignoring the pleas of the people to make systemic revisions. These cultures collapse. A study of historical “dark ages”, as William Irwin Thompson noted in his book, Coming into Being: Artifacts and Texts in the Evolution of Consciousness, also demonstrates to us that it is indeed a rare thing for the established powers of any culture to give up their choke-hold.
This creates a dilemma for any modern institute facing our current global predicament.
The first approach would be to recognize, to begin with, that the established government, social system, etc. often experiences a decline before any new cultural transformation takes place. History is not a line of neat, developmental unfoldment (to be fair, Phipps and McIntosh often acknowledge this), but a story of fits and starts. Bursts of flourishing followed by Dark Ages. Punctuated equilibrium. If there is any progress, it happens by means of a labyrinth and not a ladder. This puts a think tank like the Institute for Cultural Evolution in a dilemma. Who do they appeal to? Do they attempt to solve the “culture wars” by appealing to the squabbling on board the sinking ship? Attempting to get everyone to work on building alternative systems, gradually getting them to listen. Even if this did work, which seems doubtful (as there is little historical precedent), can we afford the time?
The second approach, as I see it, is to take the radical alternative. Don’t appeal to the established authorities. Put your mind and heart, your brilliance and creative genius into articulating whole new systems. Work on building those systems. Cater them, not with other evolutionary theorists in mind, but for the everyday people.
Build things that work and appeal to billions around the Earth. This is Joe’s position: “build alternatives.” This is where you can do the most good for the most people, especially if you recognize the first step, which is recognizing that appealing to the established powers won’t do much good. You must build it yourself. Now, Joe’s next position: “to bring an end… by seizing power… wherever opportunities emerge.” Now this is where things get tougher, and more radical. The challenges here are twofold.
The alternative systems we build: economic, ecological, social, cultural, and even religious, can’t be “anti-establishment,” in the sense that they are defined by being an anti-thesis. They must instead be called forth as a pro-active alternative system. To quote Buckminster Fuller’s well known axiom:
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
This has to be done without demonizing the older systems and modes of thinking on one hand, while not trying to cater to them either.
The “seizing” of “power” must be done as a means to bring forth a new vision, not conquer an old one. Fuller also famously said, “the best way to predict the future is to design it,” and so the younger generations will do no good trying to work with established value systems. They must step into new territories, invent systems of their own and start building them for everyone.
So, how effective will the institute be if it is working within the system that is falling apart? To be fair, part of this has to do with Integral Theory’s interpretation of older systems: that they are developmental and valuable to “include” as we go forward. While I do agree with this attitude, generally, in practical terms I am unsure how we might do this. The answer, it seems to me anyway, is to forge ahead. The new system must be bigger than the older one. It must be complex enough to handle an ecology of cultures, climate change, and world politics. And in that sense, it can “include them.” But the answer to all of these challenges lies in the hands of the new, younger generations. And part of this solution might be in the rise of digital networks, the new economic and social policies they instill in the 21st century generations, and the brilliant new enterprises they might take up to confront and break free from the older institutions.
This video by Douglass Rushkoff, speaking about centralized vs. decentralized currencies is part of that new kind of radical thinking that we might have to enact in this century. This is where I’d place my bets on for the future. Rushkoff suggests that the money system we enact today is “incompatible” with a digital world. We must make a radical break:
The replacement of older institutions, and social systems, by newer ones, is integral to cultural evolution. The old mentalities of past epochs break down into the goo like in an insect’s metamorphosis; proponents of integral theory and cultural evolution should know this well, that the dark side of cultural transformation are the bifurcations that present themselves at critical juncture points. The spine is broken and the organs no longer function. All pathways lead down into the abyss, should we not enact a leap into some new mutation. This was how Gebser saw the new developments in culture and consciousness. Let’s ask ourselves carefully if we are sufficiently being present and mindful enough in our discourse – witnessing the Dark Age and breakdown – to contribute to alleviating the crisis today.
In my perspective, we must leap in with a totally new mentality if we are going to prevent (or simply alleviate) entering another Dark Age. Compromise and consolidation are simply not enough. The leaps are discontinuous; so let’s put our all into planting the seeds for the next civilization to take root. Drop the old robes, they will only bear down the weight of centuries on you. To take the next step, all of us are going to have to think in radically new ways, and find means to “grow down” that radical vision to support everyone.
Finally, we must consider the possibility that cultural evolution, like the biological one, does not always transcend and include. Extinction is a distinct possibility.
Will the Institute for Cultural Evolution address these questions? Will it hold space for more radical and, arguably, less conservative evolutionary theories, such as the ones detailed here?
Here’s hoping that they do.
Our culture is moving chaotically through the “Nigredo” phase of transformation towards some new kind of order, and so I don’t think we can compromise our way into the future.
To understand this cultural phase, I recommend the book “The Black Sun” by Stan Marlan. From his Amazon.com page he’s offering this book as a free pdf:
http://repositories.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/86080/Marlin_585444251_Txt.pdf?sequence=1
From the book:
“In C. G. Jung Speaking, Jung describes the alchemical process as “difficult and strewn with obstacles; the alchemical opus is dangerous. Right at the beginning you meet the ‘dragon,’ the chthonic spirit, the ‘devil’ or, as the alchemists called it, the ‘blackness,’ the nigredo, and this encounter produces suffering.” He goes on to say that in “psychological terms, the soul finds itself in the throes of melancholy locked in a struggle with the ‘shadow.’” The black sun, Sol niger, is one of the most important images representing this phase of the process and this condition of the soul. Usually this image is seen as phase specific to the early part of the opus and is said to disappear “when the ‘dawn’ (aurora) emerges.” Typically blackness is said to dissolve, and then “the ‘devil’ no longer has an autonomous existence but rejoins the profound unity of the psyche. Then the opus magnum is finished: the human soul is [said to be] completely integrated.”
In my experience, this is an idealized goal of alchemy, and there is a danger in bypassing the autonomous core of darkness that always remains as an earmark of the condition of any humanness. ”
(From “The Black Sun”)
Holding on to the past or trying to compromise so that the old forms can continue to operate less harmfully only goes so far. With each chaotic crisis, and catastrophe a new shock is delivered to the psyche. Eventually some kind of bifurcation point occurs a new level of organization emerges. but for a new emergence to happen, we have to fully experience the Nigredo.
Eros and Thanatos are intertwined and need each other.
Joe Camosy
Hey Joe,
Thanks so much for this comment. I agree that this alchemical, or psychological understanding of our age is key. It hits the heart of archetypal meaning of our age. And on that note, you seem to be in agreement with me that in such an important nigredo phase, there can be no compromise. Who is there to compromise with? The whole structure is being broken down and decomposed. It’s like seeking the Philosopher’s Stone from the wrong end of transformation.
Thank you for the book recommendation. I’ll be looking over this one for sure over the next few days.
Re: Your point on Eros and Thanatos. I think these two archetypes are important, and even essential in order to understand the alchemy of cultural evolution. This is a topic that’s been on my mind for months! William Irwin Thompson has a great description of these two forces (though I think he labels them differently) in his classic book, the Time Falling Bodies Take to Light, in which forces of regeneration and death intertwine to create the pull of life and the cycles of time. Ultimately, they lead us to greater sublimation.
It’s been so popularized, yet Rumi speaks of this endless process of return:
And here again,
On the topic of Islamic esotericism and spiritual progression, we can also add Henry Corbin to this dialogue. In Tom Cheetham’s book, All the World an Icon, he describes what is called the “Test of the Veil.” The abyss before divine realization which is totally bleak and devoid of God’s love; Death and Resurrection. According to Iranian mysticism, each of us has a Celestial Twin. An “angel” or “higher self” as described in New Age books. This is the “Angel up ahead,” guiding us on our spiritual development. But the angel itself has an angel up ahead. According to this religious cosmology, even God has an “Angel up ahead.”
Something to keep in mind, perhaps, to contextualize the cosmic and cultural cycles we all go through; both in the micro and macrocosm.
Thanks for your commentary and participation as of late on EL, Joseph. I really have appreciated it and it’s helped the site conjure up some lively discussions!
-Jer
I do not see how appealing to established systems can possibly help, and I certainly cannot have “faith” in the concept of “cultural evolution” or some developmental theory of cultures. Noam Chompsky saw the Occupy movement, Arab Spring, and the Zapatistas as true moving forces that could potentially “seize the power.” I have to agree. Have you seen these 2 documentaries? “The Call of Life” Facing the Mass Extinction” and “The Mayan Word 2012?” These are marvelous, and both of these full length docs synthesize the psychological, political, economic and the spiritual aspects of these very issues in a very grounded way. And what do you mean by a “Dark Age?” We may indeed just have to return to an agrarian based culture to survive at all. I agree with Rushkoff that what has to stop is growth, uncontrolled growth that consumes resources because of the creation of artificial need. However, I am not quite sure how we can have computers for this digitally based society without mining for metals, thus creating waste, etc. You can’t eat information. There is a physical bottom line based on nature at some point. Bottom up should me poor people having food, maybe individuals actually growing food, and completely forgetting about some capitalistic concept of rich. We may not be capable, as a species, of understanding what we are really facing.
Hey Circe,
Thanks for your comments! Thanks so much for recommending those documentaries, which I’ll be keeping an eye out for. I haven’t seen any of them in my interweb travels. Like you I have a hard time accepting a theoretical framework as a step towards an evidence-based “faith” in evolution. That, to me, sounds like it is merely appealing to a pragmatic and materialistic culture. A deeper work must be done to sublimate our age. More than evidence. But really religious vision, enactment, participation. We must go deeper!
Good points on the technological revolution being unsustainable. Yes I do think this is an issue we have to face. My two cents on this are that I hope we do not have to go back to an agrarian lifestyle, with diminished global communication. I really do hope that digital communication is here to stay, just like writing systems and all sorts of other modern inventions. This is a real challenge that future inventors and environmentalists will have to face, and one that we should start thinking about now – is there any way to create a sustainable technology industry? This is part of a larger systemic issue regarding our civilization’s industrial methods.
While we can’t “eat” information, digital technology can go a long way to digitizing and decentralizing the need for top-heavy bureaucratic systems, and aid in emancipating local people. In my opinion, anyway, network culture is a new kind of social order that is neither modern, nor ancient, but a mix of both and a turn onto something new. More important than the technology is the culture itself, complete with its own values, biases and kinds of excellence. I hope we see it flourish in this century and alleviate some of the suffering, and incompetencies that bloated legal systems and hierarchical powers are demonstrating on a global scale. Whatever we are heading towards, it will have to be “beyond civilization.”
I think this last paragraph was really me trying to agree with you about having “bottom up” meaning to feed the poor and forgetting the accumulation of capitalistic wealth. Digital tech is just one means for a new kind of “bottom up” or immanental kind of human society. A tool or instrument. Let’s hope we can develop such a culture for the long-run. As time rolls on, it becomes direly needed.
Thanks for commenting!
-Jer
Links for the two documentaries are in the text at the bottom of this blog entry of mine”
http://www.livemythically.com/2012/12/winter-solstice-transformation-rituals.html
So much change. What you call fits, is blood for me. I like real rather than the abstract. My constant tension is how do we create change without re-capitulating the pain, blood, and suffering of previous revolutions? From my experience, it seems as though the model is missing a key piece around the nature of cycle and how to break them. We continue to upward climb but something is still being missed.
bug me on fb if a response is needed. <3
So much change. What you call fits, is blood for me. I like real rather than the abstract. My constant tension is how do we create change without re-capitulating the pain, blood, and suffering of previous revolutions? From my experience, it seems as though the model is missing a key piece around the nature of cycle and how to break them. We continue to upward climb but something is still being missed.
bug me on fb if a response is needed. <3
This may be a double post.
Hi Hokyo my friend,
This question is the most important, and the sad thing is I don’t know what to tell you. Most of these transformations take place through a mix of light and dark. I wonder if there is something to the cycles of changes that, in time, perhaps through time, we can alleviate suffering. Diminish its necessity. You wrote, “We continue to upward climb but something is still being missed,” and I whole-heartedly agree. This is why, I feel that I am always bringing up the “dark side” to cultural evolution. Often it is gleaned over in order for the rhetoric – “It’s getting better! Look at the progress we’ve gone through!” – to get the spotlight. But it’s really the suffering that we should be paying attention to. We are climbing, but who is being sacrificed for said-progress? At what cost? At whose expense?
The only answer I’ve ever heard that is remotely satisfying lies in Sri Aurobindo and the Mother’s articulation of cultural evolution. Intrinsic to their evolutionary mysticism is the belief that the “laws” of Nature, which include suffering and death, are not necessary. They can be changed. They believed that our reality could be fundamentally transmuted to a life more compassionate and divine. It’s a long road to such a life, but one that we shouldn’t lose sight of in favor of discussing how much has gotten “better.” That kind of rhetoric seems to miss the point of what it means to evolve – to become compassionate, to embody divine love on Earth. That, to me, seems like the humblest aim.
Thanks Hokyo for bringing in your important, and unique angle into this discussion!
-Jer
Hi Jeremy. Some great and critical questions we are all grappling with! I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with what you write (of course!). I read Joe’s words above and I can think of nothing more ‘ossified’ than his sentiment – phrases like ‘seizing power’ and ‘vested interests’, etc etc – to be honest – all sounds VERY ossified to me. It IS complex territory – like never before I suspect. I totally agree that solutions are going to come from the margins, from the edges. But I suspect those margins and edges are to be found in the most unlikely of places – so its REALLY important to LET GO of every presupposition you may have about things like ‘power’, ‘elites’, ‘capitalism’, ‘revolution’, etc. I have certainly concluded for myself after decades in the trenches of many movements (environmental, healthcare, etc) – that the ‘categorisations’ of people we typically use (those in power, those without power, the young, the old, the poor, the rich, the elites, the common people, capitalism, socialism, etc etc etc) and our strong identifications with those categories and ALL the stories that buttress those identifications are serious obfuscators to change that most typically lead us down paths of chasing the wrong target, the wrong demons – and consequently wasting a LOT of time and energy on the wrong battles. Frankly, in all of those categories I have listed above and many more – I see people of integrity, vision, maturity, complexity and daring and I also see people who are corrupt, close minded, questionable, simple-minded and immature . . . . so lets let go of our, for example, ‘Marxist’ or ‘classist’ or ‘revolutionary’ frameworks in a ‘traditional sense’ and not just assume that ‘the people’ are wise and smart and ‘the powerful elites’ are self-serving (just for example). It is the ultimate in ossification. I think really creative, innovative, at the margins, at the edges thinking, solutions and drivers into the future will be found in ALL of the groupings and categorisations of culture, class, society, etc you care to choose – and I also think the real obfuscations and blocks and agents of impediment to anything creative will also be found everywhere. I think you are as likely to find a radical agent of change in the elites, the rich, the powerful as you are to find one in the poor, the disenfranchised. I have certainly sat in MANY meetings with ‘common people’ and asked myself candidly “what would the world be like if these people were in power?” – and I often, but not always, thats for sure, arrive at an answer somewhat like ‘much worse than it is now’! Then again, I have met powerful and rich people who are true visionaries and edge thinkers. And of course, the converse is all true too! So I think you should rewrite your notion of things like ‘radical’ and consider that the real agents of change are to be found everywhere and ALSO, the real impediments to change are to be found everywhere.
Happy New Year
Daniel
Hi Jeremy. Some great and critical questions we are all grappling with! I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with what you write (of course!). I read Joe’s words above and I can think of nothing more ‘ossified’ than his sentiment – phrases like ‘seizing power’ and ‘vested interests’, etc etc – to be honest – all sounds VERY ossified to me. It IS complex territory – like never before I suspect. I totally agree that solutions are going to come from the margins, from the edges. But I suspect those margins and edges are to be found in the most unlikely of places – so its REALLY important to LET GO of every presupposition you may have about things like ‘power’, ‘elites’, ‘capitalism’, ‘revolution’, etc. I have certainly concluded for myself after decades in the trenches of many movements (environmental, healthcare, etc) – that the ‘categorisations’ of people we typically use (those in power, those without power, the young, the old, the poor, the rich, the elites, the common people, capitalism, socialism, etc etc etc) and our strong identifications with those categories and ALL the stories that buttress those identifications are serious obfuscators to change that most typically lead us down paths of chasing the wrong target, the wrong demons – and consequently wasting a LOT of time and energy on the wrong battles. Frankly, in all of those categories I have listed above and many more – I see people of integrity, vision, maturity, complexity and daring and I also see people who are corrupt, close minded, questionable, simple-minded and immature . . . . so lets let go of our, for example, ‘Marxist’ or ‘classist’ or ‘revolutionary’ frameworks in a ‘traditional sense’ and not just assume that ‘the people’ are wise and smart and ‘the powerful elites’ are self-serving (just for example). It is the ultimate in ossification. I think really creative, innovative, at the margins, at the edges thinking, solutions and drivers into the future will be found in ALL of the groupings and categorisations of culture, class, society, etc you care to choose – and I also think the real obfuscations and blocks and agents of impediment to anything creative will also be found everywhere. I think you are as likely to find a radical agent of change in the elites, the rich, the powerful as you are to find one in the poor, the disenfranchised. I have certainly sat in MANY meetings with ‘common people’ and asked myself candidly “what would the world be like if these people were in power?” – and I often, but not always, thats for sure, arrive at an answer somewhat like ‘much worse than it is now’! Then again, I have met powerful and rich people who are true visionaries and edge thinkers. And of course, the converse is all true too! So I think you should rewrite your notion of things like ‘radical’ and consider that the real agents of change are to be found everywhere and ALSO, the real impediments to change are to be found everywhere.
Happy New Year
Daniel