Developmental psychology and spirituality are at the heart of integral theory and the AQAL model. As such, it is crucial that the theory gets it right, and there are those who claim that integral theory (IT) hasn't always gotten it right.
This article by Zachary Stein - Refashioning the Discourse about Development in the Integral Community - suggests that IT is not as developed as it needs to be in its thinking about development.
Read the rest of the article.Myth Busting & Metric Making
Refashioning the Discourse about Development in the Integral Community
Last month I presented a couple papers at the first Biannual Integral Theory Conference. They were well received. However, as much as I flapped my lips to whoever would listen, I felt that I returned to the Northeast with a great deal left unsaid. Human development is one of the key foci in the discourse we are building. But over the years I've come to see a real need for the refashioning of this focal point. Roughly speaking, we are not as developed as we should be in our thinking about development. While I did what I could to remedy this by flapping my lips out in California, I've decided to start writing things down. With the help of the editors at Integral Review and Integral Leadership Review I'm working on a set of articles that will allow me to get some things off my chest. What I offer here is a kind of preamble to that project, which will unfold over the next 9 months or so.Is the integral community underdeveloped in its thinking about development? Does the practice of developmental assessment and the discourse surrounding it need to be transformed? Follow Zachary Stein’s compelling argument as he explores the myth of the given and the myth of the metals, and the social, ethical, and political issues they raise for how we make and use developmental metrics.
But what do I mean when I say we are not as developed as we should be in our thinking about development?
One of the papers I presented at the ITC addressed the development of reasoning about key topics in AQAL. That is, I offered a map of how thinking unfolds in this knowledge domain, e.g. levels in thinking about the quadrants, levels in thinking about lines, and, to the point, levels in thinking about levels. A version of this paper will eventually be out in The Journal of Integral Theory and Practice (JITP). But until then, and to make clear what I'm talking about, here is a rough and speculative vertical rational reconstruction of levels in the development of thinking about levels. It’s important that this story be held lightly. I don't have time or space to issue all the caveats I need to (see Stein and Heikkinen, 2008 in JITP for background on the methods behind this; or go to www.devtestservice.com).
The Development of Reasoning About Levels of Development
If we look at college-educated adults, the first level is abstract mappings on our metric (roughly Orange in Wilber's colors). At this level, developmental levels are treated like simple stereotypes. Whole persons are classed as being at a level, which is typically understood in terms of a single developmental model (e.g. Spiral Dynamics). Development is understood as a kind of simple "growth to goodness", with ignorance at the bottom, science in the middle, and spirituality at the top. Particular levels gain more attention than others and function as more or less entrenched stereotypes, expressing preferences that are not necessarily developmental (e.g. "you are so green").
The next level is abstract systems (roughly Green in Wilber's colors). At this level, reasoning about levels involves giving some primacy to the construct of altitude, which frames and organizes a variety of developmental models. Persons are understood in terms of their relative development in various lines, which are identified with different developmental models and theorists. The concept of a center of gravity supplements this differentiated view and justifies whole person assessments. The relation between levels and other aspects of Integral Theory becomes explicit; the relation between states and levels complicates the simple notion that spirituality is "at the top." Generally, there are elaborate ideas about how developmental levels are implicated in all kinds of issues (politics, religion, ecology, etc.).
Then there is reasoning at single principles (roughly Teal in Wilber's colors). At this level, reasoning about levels involves explicit ideas about the limits and affordances of different developmental methods and models, which are framed in terms of arguments about the conditions enabling their valid use (i.e. scoring systems, interview procedures, etc.). The idea of "growth to goodness" is problematized both by concerns over issues of horizontal health and intra-personal variability, and by concerns about the accuracy of different assessment methods. These complexities of method and application temper and complicate speculation on how developmental levels are implicated in a broad range of global problems.
The top of what we can accurately measure is principled mappings (roughly Turquoise in Wilber's colors). At this level, reasoning about levels involves the adoption of a post-metaphysical stance toward the task of evaluating people. The provisional, bounded, and multi-perspectival nature of all models and methods is admitted, and a set of meta-theoretical principles guides a recursive process of continually refining developmental models and methods in terms of both theory and practice. A broad and explicit philosophical discourse comes to supplement evaluative discussions concerning the notion of "growth to goodness," as the human potentials that characterize the highest levels and the future of civilization are seen as collective constructions for which we are responsible.
Now, the way I see development (i.e. Fischer's Neo-Piagetian perspective) suggests that we roam up and down these levels all the time, depending on context and support, etc. No one is at a level; we inhabit levels only for certain periods of time and in certain company. Moreover, you may be more developed in your reasoning about the quadrants than you are in your reasoning about levels, or more developed in you reasoning about important interpersonal issues then you are in your reasoning about Integral Theory (again, see Stein and Heikkinen, 2008 in JITP). Generally, where you are is not my concern (in part because you are all over the place).
To speak loosely, my concerns are about our collective center of gravity. What's the level of the general discourse about development? From where I sit, it appears that we need to move from systems to principles (i.e. make the so called "leap to Second Tier") as a community in the way we hold our ideas about development. I see this transformation in terms of two myths that should be prominently and permanently busted by the Integral Community.
Contributor: 
Tags:
No comments:
Post a Comment