Fication

The hot topic of this summer has of course been Edward Snowden’s whistle-blowing about the state of global surveillance by the NSA and its partners. It is now clear that there is no such thing as privacy online and that we can count on every Google search, every email, every purchase, every link we click, every Facebook status update and like and so forth, basically everything we do on the internet, as well as phone calls, being monitored and stored for all future. I could complain about paranoid Americans, but we Swedes are one of the closest allies and collaborators in this matter, so that would be kind of a hypocrisy.

Nevertheless, this whole affair has concerned me a great deal. However, it is not the question of possible and apparent abuse of the surveillance of the people, even where there is no legal ground, that bothers me most, although it certainly does. Nor the excuses of it being necessary in order to prevent terrorist attacks, I’m not being that naïve that I believe that the intelligence service should be perfectly transparent. Any state needs to defend itself to threats and it needs to stay informed about these threats.

One thing that do bother me a great deal is the shift in power between the government and the people that comes as a result from this. There will and always should be a conflict or power balance between the government and the people in a functioning democracy. But ultimately, democracy means “rule of the people” where the people elects a government and this government answers to the people, not the other way around. This is nicely elaborated in this must-read WSJ article.

Even though you may have nothing to hide and even though you think that you are not breaking any laws, the fact that the government knows so much about you, in many cases even more than you know about yourself (oh, the infinite possibilities of data-mining), and that you know so little about the people that govern and monitor you and how they govern and monitor you, is what makes this such an unhealthy development away from our democratic ideal. The leak by Snowden gives a small contribution to leveling this asymmetry, although the self-censorship will remain. I am far from comfortable in reading, liking and sharing Guardian-articles on Facebook as well as writing this, of course. This could be slightly too uncomfortable for a presumptive employer, although I try hard to be a good and useful citizen and employee and work with issues of sustainability where our governments have done such a poor job on so many levels for so long.

While I mention sustainability, add to this issue a future with even further growing debts, depletion of finite resources (e.g. the oil export market peaked in 2005), growing economic inequalities and possible conflicts within as well as between nations. Given this possible, and I would say even probable scenario, do you think that in the future the governments’ desire for controlling their citizens will increase or decrease? If it will increase we have in the social networks and the internet as a whole implemented the perfect tools for the government to control the people. Or perhaps, hopefully, we will move in a more post-heroic direction in terms of leadership, where the government sees the people as mainly a resource rather than a threat, Big society rather than Big brother. Perhaps it is up to us citizens to first show that we are worthy of such responsibility, or to just claim it.

Another of my main concerns about this, since no one else have brought it up, is about the nature of post-conventionality. The term is associated with Lawrence Kohlberg’s higher stages of moral development. It was inspired from his experiences from WWII where conventional people followed orders and committed massive acts of cruelty in contrast to post-conventional people who would refuse to follow orders and instead act from higher moral principles. Post-conventionality starts with stage transition 4/5 (corresponding to the individualist stage according to Loevinger’s ego development theory, EDT) and it starts with questioning conventions, questioning the own culture and ethnocentricity and henceforth questioning the state. If a typical stage 4/5 can be seen as an antithesis to the conventional stage 4 where you typically are embedded in the system, the stage 5 (or autonomous in terms of EDT) view on society, to balance the conflict between the individual and the collective, could be seen as the synthesis.

Thus, when you reject your cultural conditioning and ethnocentricity (or at least some of it), if you try to search for yourself and for a way of defining yourself beyond conventions and other’s opinions, and if you’d choose to express yourself openly in e.g. online discussion forums, wouldn’t there be a risk that the government would see you as a threat? After all, isn’t the government’s views of what is rational and right in life pretty much what defines conventions and conventionality?! Therefore, I’m not foremost afraid of misuse and irrational use of the surveillance apparatus, I’m more afraid of it being used in a most rational way, as a weapon against those who do not conform. After all, post-conventional is non-conventional. Or in terms of Big mind, it seems that this state of surveillance is like the voice of the Controller, that is getting too much influence and dominance, is being fueled by the voice of Fear. And the more it controls, the more it finds to fear.

From this I see as a very important feature in the cultural aspect of a sustainable society in holding a space or bridge for people that allows them to move into post-conventionality. To allow for the new generations of post-conventional or even integral thinkers to emerge as the older generations eventually die out. Or simply put, to help people to grow, to flourish, to think, to question, to act and to be in the most complex and reflective ways they can or chose. This I see mainly as an integral task, could there be anyone else?!

However, in this discussion I experience a lack of integral voices, although I have noticed a few exceptions, one being Gary Stamper. In my view, leading integral thinkers are too rarely seen challenging or questioning the power and authorities. Although Wilber had some restrained critique against the Bush administration, he enjoys being endorsed by Bill Clinton. And the foremost advocate of integral activism, Terry Patten, is in turn endorsing Barack Obama. So why this silence or shadow? And how do we break it?

After a few of my analyses of what makes integral not that integral as it claims to be, I have some candidates to why I think so few step up:

• Lack of collapse or resource perspective – one limitation within the integral view that I elaborated in a previous post was the focus on the evolutionary or developmental aspects of culture and society. The only way is up and that movement is driven by an evolutionary impulse. Should there be a crisis, we can solve it by evolving to the next stage of development. Besides, there are cosmic habits to take care of previous lower stage problems, right?!
• Lack of conflict perspective – it is in the very core and nature of integral theory to integrate and to be constructive instead of emphasizing the conflict aspects. The relation between individual and culture or state is basically seen from a functional or integration perspective, which I have described and problematized here. We would never be where we were without development support, therefore we should be grateful to our culture, our institutions and the way they function, right?!
• First tier business – it is also in the nature of integral to climb down from the barricades and instead take meta-perspectives of conflicts. The “everyone is partially right”-stance and the exclusive “I am second tier”-view doesn’t exactly invite to getting the hands dirty on the battle field. It’s easy to feel too important to exposing oneself as a critic and instead trying to stay under the radar. Perhaps this is a wise strategy, although not all leading edge thinkers such as Noam Chomsky would agree.

My response to this and my view is that regardless of which metaphysical or post-metaphysical assumptions or meaning-making one happens to be embraced by, whatever perspectives one happens to prefer, whatever life experiences one happens to have as a basis for this, and regardless of the amount of gratitude that one happens to feel for society, it may be that there are a lot of things that we have taken for granted and that we in the future will have to fight hard for sustaining. And sometimes I think it’s just a matter of decency not to keep quiet and passive. I would argue that we don’t have the moral right to so easily give up the democracy that previous generations have fought so hard for. We are betraying the democratic ideals by not speaking up in issues such as this one.

In my view, post-conventionality doesn’t mean complying with a new set of more complex conventions. It means to never stop questioning and taking critical perspectives, and it means always being solely responsible for your own stance and actions.

And regarding Edward Snowden, I see little interest in trying to evaluate his stage of development, be it moral, hierarchical complexity, ego development or whatever. We sometimes discuss leadership stage of development, e.g. according to Joiner and Josephs, but sometimes leadership is just doing the best with whatever means available to you in the situation that you happen to be in. I find Snowden’s self-sacrificing action utterly courageous, as well as for those reporting about it and those standing up for fundamental democratic principles.

The question is not if we should, the question is how we engage in this as skillfully as possible?

After this introduction (part 1) and illustration (part 2) of Tomas Ljungberg’s theory the stage is set for a comparison between the integral view on the human development according to Wilber’s AQAL theory and the view that is presented by Ljungberg. Some similarities and differences between the perspectives will be discussed and then I will let both theories, or frameworks, to be assimilated into each other, after which I will investigate if there is any possible synthesis that can be made.

There are indeed some similarities between the two theories in that they both make the connection between individual and cultural development from the dawn of human being up till now, and from birth and throughout life. Both takes a view at external events such as the behavior of the individual and the religious and political power of the collective structures, and both also view the internal aspects of development, the cultural as well as the psychological. And these inner dimensions is where both can be said to have their focus. In AQAL terms, both takes all quadrants into account.

If we look at the cultural development they are very similarly described according to Ljungberg and to e.g. Spiral dynamics: from hunter gatherer cultures (aiming to stay in connection with previous more animalistic stage) to conqueror empires, on to traditional Christian societies, and finally arriving at (and criticizing) the rational scientific culture. Ljungberg’s theory focuses more on the shift from the purple to the read level according to Spiral dynamics and an explanation of how shadows emerges, which could be seen as useful complement to the typical integral perspective.

It seems that Ljungberg has focused more on psychological and biological factors and aspects of the development. Wilber’s main focus has been on the spiritual and philosophical dimensions, although he gives a good deal of attention to Freud, Jung and the topic on disowned personalities, the shadows that we incur on our way up through the stages of development. It should be noted that there is an imbalance between the two authors in terms of volume and worldwide impact, Ljungberg has only written one book in Swedish, only shortly introduced here, and Wilber hardly needs any introduction in this context. Besides, the integral community is so much more than Wilber. But on the other hand is Ljungberg far from the only academic to have a conflict perspective on cultural development and personal development.

When it comes to differences between the theories, the most central is the view on human development, which according to most integral proponents is generally considered as natural and desirable, whereas Ljungberg from his perspective sees it as inherently problematic, at least as it has played out during the cultural phase of the evolution from the Neolithic revolution up till now.

Accordingly, the relation between the individual and the culture according to both theories is characterized as either based on a functional or integration perspective (AQAL), or a conflict perspective (Ljungberg). A functional view places the coevolution between culture and individual in the first seat (or tetra-evolution with all quadrants to be more exact), and the conflict view places the conflict between individual and collective as the more fundamental characteristic of the development.

Although Ljungberg has a strong focus and emphasis on the psychology of the individual I would argue that he could be seen as being more concerned with the cultural aspect as he sees the ego as something we construct mainly as a reaction to our social surrounding. Wilber, on the other hand, views ego more in an individual psychological sense as something that develops according to adult development theories such as Jane Loevinger’s or Robert Kegan’s, and also in a spiritual sense as the finite being that we identify with instead of being enlightened. (We should not forget that this is a simplified description since ego itself is a complex concept.)

So far it seems as if the two theories share a lot of features and are compatible in many aspects, and that the differences there are could make them complement each other in order to achieve an even more integral and all-encompassing view or perspective of human development. However, this way of comparing and integrating them could be said to be in line with a functional or integration approach. Thus, in order to further emphasize the conflict between the theories I would here like to allow both of them to criticize each other’s theories and views by having both assimilate the other theory in each other. That is, I’m taking one perspective as a frame of reference and assimilate the other theory into and criticizes it from this, starting off with Wilber.

A Wilberian critique on Ljungberg’s theory

Wilber’s main reaction and critique towards Ljungberg would probably be that he himself had been in that position and departed from it early in his intellectual career. A common view by many postmodern anthropologists was the one Ljungberg describes, that of humanity being expelled from the Garden of Eden. Spiritual development from that view concerns getting back into paradise. According to this view, as Wilber puts it, evolution seems to be going towards greater complexity in all universe except for humans, where we seem to have regressed from the primordial being, one key historic fact in this question is the cruelties of the Holocaust.

But after reading Jean Piaget Wilber left this view and wrote the book Up from Eden, emphasizing that the way forward is the way up. The primordial and archaic way of being was not an enlightened condition, but rather an undifferentiated. And this is also the case of the baby that is not enlightened but fused with the objective world, something that Piaget and also later Robert Kegan points out. Therefore, viewing spirituality as a way of getting back into the Garden of Eden, Wilber would refer to as a pre-trans fallacy. God didn’t throw us out, he awaits us at the top of the developmental and evolutionary ladder. Or rather, the evolution from the archaic and primordial ways of being continues throughout the modern history as a spirit-in-action.

Neither the primordial human being nor the baby were enlightened, but rather cognitively unable to differentiate themselves from their surroundings and from their embeddendness of nature and bodily instincts. Thus, in Wilber’s view, we first need to differentiate ourselves from our surroundings and our instincts before we can integrate it, or ourselves in it. Kegan would refer to this as an objectification, to move the surroundings from subject we are embedded in to object of our awareness.

Evolution proceeds in this process of differentiation and integration, towards an increase in complexity, compassion, embrace – and goodness. But things can and do go seriously wrong in this process. A differentiation can turn into a dissociation when we fail to integrate that which we were previously embedded in, e.g. when we dissociate body from mind or culture from nature. Another possible pathology is when a higher structure is hijacked by lower impulses, e.g. when rationality is hijacked by tribalism, which occurred in Auschwitz. (When Wilber later has differentiated development into different lines he considers it to be a combination of high stage of cognition and low stage of moral development.)

In order to handle such developmental pathologies, to re-owning the parts that are dissociated as we move up the stages of the evolutionary process, a key feature in the integral theory and, more importantly, practice that is the shadow work. The aim of such practices, one example of such being the 3-2-1 process, is to reintegrate the disowned self, the 3rd person it, into the ego, 1st person I. Or in Freud’s words, “Where id was, there ego shall be.”

Thus, from an integral perspective, Ljungberg’s theory itself could be seen as a green and “flatlandish” theory, at least since Ljungberg hasn’t incorporated any adult development models to his perspective and since there is no description of the advances of postmodernity, which really has paved way for people such as Ljungberg himself to express their innermost feeling without being burned at the stakes, even if these should question the civilization and modern human being itself.

From this perspective Ljungberg’s theory appears to describe a postmodern logic and failing to acknowledge a developmental or evolutionary perspective. From an adult development perspective the argumentation could seem to correspond to the individualist stage according to ego development theory. The view on individual as in conflict with society and taking sides with the individual is a typical stage 4/5 logic according to Kohlberg’s theory of moral development, which is the first post-conventional stage. A stage 5 logic would mean taking a before-society perspective and balancing or integrating the conflict between the individual and the collective. Thus, the alternative perspective of Ljungberg should be seen as something that already in theory has been, or in practicality at least could be, integrated to the integral view of human development.

Finally a comment from the more constructive side, assuming that the description of our embeddedness in and conflict with our culture is accurate, the removal or cancelling of the capitulation or submission role, the ego, should get easier at the higher stages of development where identity and meaning-making gets more loose and fluid. In Integral Spirituality Wilber further differentiated between stage and state according to the Wilber-Combs lattice and acknowledged the cultural embeddedness as something that already has been included from the postmodern critics into the AQAL framework (in the lower left quadrant). Thus, moving through the stages is something that should be beneficial from both perspectives.

A Ljungbergian view on integral theory

After having Ljungberg’s alternative perspective assimilated into an integral framework it’s time to perform the reverse move, assimilating Wilber’s integral view into the characteristics of Ljungberg’s theory. For simplicity, the components of Ljungberg’s framework are here illustrated by means of Freud’s psychoanalytical theory with an id, ego and super-ego.

First of all it’s of greatest importance to specify which integral view that is being considered, integral should, as already mentioned, be treated as a tradition rather than Wilber’s view or AQAL. The view that will be considered here is that which is briefly described in the previous section and which is my view is a representative way of making meaning in the integral and evolutionary community, I refer to this as the evolutionary meaning-making (that is further discussed in a previous post: The limitations of the evolutionary meaning-making).

For starters, we still have the impulses and affects that are derived from our primordial being, as described in previous posts. In addition, we have all dissociated parts of ourselves that we have lost contact with on our way up through the stages of development. All these elements or shadow material taken as a whole is consistent with the description of id.

Further, although there is a lively discussion and problematizing of the notion of “growth to goodness” or “higher is better”, there is a common assumption within the integral community that this is the case, explicit or implicit. And typically there is an ideal me, an enlightened me or omega point, that awaits at the highest stages, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. At least according to descriptions of Wilber, Aurobindo, Cook-Greuter etc. There is also, at least in some cases, idealized authoritarian characters that one submits to, be it spirit in 2nd person, some evolutionary guru, Wilber himself or even the community itself. This idealized oppressor together with the idealized image of oneself, if one can live up to the demands of the oppressor, corresponds to super-ego.

Finally, there is the notion of “integralists” or “evolutionaries”, what persons that identify with the integral community and identify with the evolutionary process calls themselves. The integralist or evolutionary tries to balance the demands of the superego that you keep evolving with the shadow material, all the impulses from all the lower levels, including the ones from the primordial being, and with the demands of the outer world. Henceforth, this corresponds to ego. Thus, being an integralist or an evolutionary is the new, only more complex, mask we put on in order to fit into the community of the leading edge and most evolved and most civilized human beings.

And regarding shadow-work according to the 3-2-1 process, or any other view of what shadow-work is about, let’s review Wilber quoting Freud (Integral spirituality, p 123):

“Isn’t that beautiful? “Where it was, there I shall become.” I must find the alienated parts of myself – the its – and re-own them into I. It’s hard to find a better summary, even to this day, of what psychotherapeutic shadow work is all about.”

From Ljungberg’s perspective, I is only a mask. I is the well-adjusted ego in the Matrix, the Thomas Anderson. Instead it’s the primordial part of the shadow, the original id that is the true identity, Neo. Thus, integral (and any) shadow work means taking the blue pill and waking up better adjusted, capitulated and subdued to the evolutionary meaning-making.

From this conflict perspective, where the conflict is between the individual and the (integral) culture, all inventions, such as models, ways of thinking (AQAL or Integral Operating System(!) as it referred to) and practices (everything in the ILP kit that you can fill every minute of your life with), can be seen as ways of conditioning or mentally trapping the individual. It is said that the map does not equal the territory, but a map is good and useful if you want to break out of the prison. From Ljungberg’s perspective, however, the exit out of the Matrix that he describes is not on this map.

And to the constructive comments, if Ljungberg’s description is accurate, does it get easier to annihilate the capitulation or submission role at the higher stage? Not necessarily, I would say. Identity typically gets more fluid at the higher stages of ego development, but the amount of shadow material also piles up the higher you get. And with the increase in complexity of the mask and the cognitive functions, the psychological defense mechanisms, call it immunity to change, gets more complex, elaborate and subtle. I can only imagine the extent of all projections and strategies to avoid confrontation with this mother of all shadows, including shooting the messenger.

When it comes to cultural embeddedness that Wilber talks about, I would say that this is more than just questioning the culture. It’s questioning the entire civilization (at least the Western) and it’s questioning meaning-making. And the individualist or Kohlberg stage 4/5 estimation of the logic presented could possibly represent a sort of pre-trans fallacy, since this could be understood and interpreted as a description of construct-aware action-logic, where a central insight is how we all tend to construct meaning and objectifying this.

But what about spirituality? Well, Ljungberg doesn’t really go into that area. It is a psychological perspective and does not claim to be more than that. But at least according to the Wilber-Combs lattice, spiritual states are not stacked upon stages, there is access to states at all stages of development, so that a hunter gatherer should accordingly have access to all states, gross, subtle, causal etc. The interesting thing, as far as I’m concerned, is if we can differentiate a psychological awakening (annihilation of capitulation or submission role) from a spiritual state experience. And further, it is in this analysis not excluded that the highest stages of e.g. ego development (unitive according to Cook-Greuter) do exist.

Concluding remarks

First of all, I am aware that the presented analysis can be seen as quite provocative, although it’s not my intention (see me as a friendly jester). And it is by necessity based on simplifications and a perspective that most readers know little of. Therefore, I don’t expect the majority to buy this new and alternative perspective as well as my analysis. But if I could make one point or pose one question in relation to this, it would be the following:

Is there room for a conflict perspective within the integral culture?

This is a question that I find is relevant in integral communities, courses and settings that contains some sort of creation of a shared we-space and identity. And not to speak of communities involving teachers or gurus! One example of such introduction of conflict perspective in another context is Barbara Ehrenreich’s Smile or die in the area of positive psychology. I would argue that adding a conflict perspective to a context that otherwise is mainly functional or integration can be enriching, although it adds to the complexity to holding this paradox and embracing uncertainty and doubt. Both in a culture or community, as well as in oneself.

Is there room for a conflict perspective within you?

It may appear easy to play with the perspectives, to try to find similarities and differences between them, assimilating them in each other and aim for some sort of synthesis. But I think this would be the easy way out. It would be an integrationist or functional approach, just as integral theory is, while the conflict approach would resist any reconciliation to an even larger monolithic block of knowledge or meaning-making.

If we allow ourselves to question and to play with all these perspective, we might find that the evolutionary meaning-making, that one first was identified with (and thus embedded in), could become the object of one’s awareness, in terms of Kegan’s subject-object theory. Further, Ljungberg’s theory places the focus on the conflict or faultline between the hunter gatherer and the modern human being and it sympathizes with hunter gatherer. In order to make that shift in preference could be seen as an objectification of the anthropocentrism and widening the extent of care to more primitive or at least non-western cultures, or even further to animals (or the animalistic sides of ourselves). That would mean that, paradoxically enough, allowing ourselves to question the most holy, the evolutionary or integral view, could be a possible or even necessary move to the next stage of vertical development. But would this really be better and more desirable per se?

I would claim that the question or problem of the nature or functioning of our psyche, and how it should work, that takes into account the history of our species and even more is an ill-defined one. We should not expect any final and certain theory that can capture all aspects, so any result or conclusion that we build our identity on should be held lightly. Or in Susanne Cook-Greuter’s wording from her recent ITC conference paper:

“Ego developmental theory is distinct from other theories precisely because it pays more attention to how tightly or lightly a theory is held than what ideas it espouses.”

Although I would argue that the Reflective judgment model by King & Kitchener does precisely this as well. Nevertheless, if one embraces this view of meaning-making, that it represents a way of addressing the ill-defined issue of identity and functioning of the psyche, the doubt and uncertainty is destined to be permanent. Maybe that’s a good thing…

The Matrix

– Wake up, Neo.

In order to illustrate the basic principles of Ljungberg’s theory that was introduced in part 1, I’d like to use some mainstream popular cultural references. Let’s start with the famous and technologically groundbreaking The Matrix from 1999. We all know the plot, humans have been enslaved by the machines and are being kept in giant fields where they are harvested for energy and fed nerve impulses so that they experience that they live a normal life. The typical analysis of the problem that the characters in the Matrix are faced with, how we can know for sure whether we experience real life or a simulation, comes from a philosophical or spiritual point of view. But when we look at it from Ljungberg’s alternative perspective we can give another interpretation of this movie, one that is based on a psychological point of view. Let’s first recall one of the movie’s famous key dialogues between Neo and Morpheus:

Morpheus: Do you believe in fate, Neo?

Neo: No.

Morpheus: Why not?

Neo: Because I don’t like the idea that I’m not in control of my life.

Morpheus: I know *exactly* what you mean. Let me tell you why you’re here. You’re here because you know something. What you know you can’t explain, but you feel it. You’ve felt it your entire life, that there’s something wrong with the world. You don’t know what it is, but it’s there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to me. Do you know what I’m talking about?

Neo: The Matrix.

Morpheus: Do you want to know what it is?

Neo: Yes.

Morpheus: The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work… when you go to church… when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.

Neo: What truth?

Morpheus: That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Into a prison that you cannot taste or see or touch. A prison for your mind.

This description of the Matrix fits well with Ljungberg’s theory. “A prison for your mind” corresponds to ego and the conditioned thinking that we are socialized into (practically born into bondage). We can’t see it or examine it since it is what we use in order to see and to examine. The simulation, the Matrix itself, can be seen as our modern society and culture that we are embedded in (“matrix” is synonymous with womb). The “splinter in your mind” corresponds to the impulses from id, perhaps bodily impulses from the real body of Neo.

The point is, according to Ljungberg’s perspective, right now we are Neo. We are being enslaved by technology. Not machines, not internet (it’s ok, keep reading), but technology which includes the thinking required to run a civilization and to relate to each other and ourselves in a civilized manner. And taking the red pill means acknowledging the truth that we have been thrown out of the Garden of Eden, instead of taking the blue pill and staying in ignorant bliss. The question is if we really have a free will to make this choice, as it is presented and as Neo wants to believe… This is something that the Oracle later brings into questioning.

Anyway, of course Neo chooses the red pill and is reborn. This rebirth can symbolize the annihilation of the capitulation or submission role. He wakes up, in a psychological sense, not a spiritual. After this Neo needs to rebuild and train his real body and senses that he have never used before.

Ken Wilber and Cornel West commented the Matrix trilogy and this interpretation did not come up, not surprisingly. However, in the second and third movie Wilber makes the interpretation that the Matrix symbolizes the mind, Zion (the underground city were the free humans live) symbolizes the body and the machines symbolizes spirit. Thus, the first movie is about freeing oneself from the technological mind in order to return to the body. The second and third (IMO much crappier) movies is about integrating body, mind and spirit, at least according to Wilber. The Wachowski brothers were wise enough to never give their own intention and interpretation, but my guess is that they weren’t that pleased with how the sequels turned out. Because in their next movie they returned to the theme from the first movie, but now from another angle.

V for Vendetta

In 2006 the Wachowski brothers returned and made V for Vendetta, where they are even more explicit on how we can be subdued and be made to capitulate, on a societal level as well as on an individual. But when Matrix is about how we cognitively are subdued and enslaved, V is more about the affective aspect and about fear.

The scene is a future England where a fascist party has taken the political power by using the people’s fear of outer enemies and fear of each other. Dissidents, homosexuals and others that don’t fit into the frame of normality are being imprisoned, culture is being censored and people are being monitored. It is not hard to find relevance in this scenario in our post-9/11 surveillance society. The freedom fighter called V has an agenda of fighting the system and also to have his own vendetta. His means is to wake the people with this classic speech:

V: There is something terribly wrong with this country, isn’t there.

V: If you’re looking for the guilty, you need only to look into a mirror.

The rhetoric as well as the mask of V has become popular symbols in e.g. the Occupy movement and of Anonymous. It is a symbol that itself is used in the end of the movie when the entire population marches against the army, all wearing the same mask, hat and cape. If we are not afraid of each other, we can challenge the oppressors who are dependent on our support, or at least on our silent consent. But how can we become free from our fear? The short answer is, you need to die.

Natalie Portman’s character Evey meets V and is introduced to his world. But she is still paralyzed by fear that she will meet the same destiny as her family, abducted by the regime never to be seen again. According to Ljungberg, one thing that keeps us in this state of capitulation and submission is the hope we cling on to, the hope that if we only play our part as good citizens and obedient servants to the oppressor there awaits salvation at the end of the road, the hope that stayed in Pandora’s jar. Besides, we are totally dependent on the system for our survival. So in order to be free from the capitulation or submissive role, hope for the future needs to die and we have to be prepared to die with it.

It is only by means of a long process of torture and of reminding of that last inch that is the truly beautiful and true in life that she is able to let go of her fear, and that is when she is ready to give up her life and calmly accepts her fate.

Valerie: Our integrity sells for so little, but it’s all we really have.

Evey is now in her mind and soul free from the system and reborn as she walks out:

“God is in the rain.”

Avatar

Finally, a brief look at another blockbuster, James Cameron’s Avatar from 2009. Here the plot is quite obvious and not very original (compare with A man called Horse, Dances with wolves, The last of the Mohicans, Pocahontas etc, or why not the history of practically every modern civilization): a modern industrialized army try to subdue an indigenous tribe, here the Na’vi on the planet Pandora. By means of an avatar, Jake Sully gets to infiltrate the Na’vi where he learns their customs and ways and is more and more infused in it as he starts to identify with them instead of with his original military “tribe”. When there is a military confrontation between humans and the Na’vi, Jake has to choose sides. The movie ends with Jake completing his transformation to leave the (modern) human tribe to be a full member of the Na’vi, even in his physical appearance of the avatar body.

The world of the Na’vi is a great illustration of the hunter gatherer’s connectedness to nature and all living things, they are physically connecting with the animals and with the nature goddess Eywa with their hair. The movie with its stunning and hypnotic visuals resulted in many cases of depression among viewers, a sort of Avatar blues. That could be interpreted as a longing for an ideal phantasy world of dragonriding, tribe community and great landscapes as an escape from the boring real life, or it could be seen as a painful reminder of that splinter in the mind…

A few months ago I wrote a blog-post that compared and contrasted integral theory according to Ken Wilber (i.e. AQAL) with an energy perspective of the development of our civilization, called The limitations of the evolutionary meaning-making. The main argument and point I made was that an integral view on the human development was limited and that it at least should be broadened. It should be noted that this argument was made against my interpretation of Ken Wilber’s view on human development rather than seeing integral as a tradition. Nevertheless, I believe that it can be taken as quite representative as I haven’t encountered more than a few other analyses from that perspective. There is, however, a trend of developing the integral discourse with cross-fertilization with theories of e.g. Roy Bhaskar and Edgar Morin. The alternative perspective that is introduced here could be seen as a move further in this direction, although I think it may even challenge some of the core assumptions of the integral and adult development view on psychological and cultural development.

When dealing with adult development theories, as well as integral theory according to Ken Wilber, human development is typically viewed as something normal and often even desirable. The relation and interaction between the individual and the collective or cultural aspect of the development is mainly seen as something constructive, the culture gives the individual support, at least up to the developmental level of the culture’s center of gravity. After that the individual can exert a pull on the culture and possibly contribute to develop and transform it to the next stage. In a previous post I introduced the two perspectives of conflict and integration or functionalist and I would argue that the integral view can be characterized as an integration or functionalist view of the psychological development. The individual and the culture are working together, so to speak.

A conflict perspective on the psyche

But what would a theory or meta-theory of the psyche look like that takes a conflict perspective as a starting point? One where the individual in essence is in conflict with culture, with the modern society and with him- or herself.

One example of such theory is Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic theory. Freud’s classic model of the human psyche was composed of three parts: id, ego and super-ego. Id represented the primordial instinctive drives such as sexual drives and aggression, super-ego represented the internalization of the cultural rules and norms that are supposed to keep us civilized and under control, and ego could be seen as the mediating instance that try to find a balance between the primitive drives and desires of the id, the condemnation of the super-ego and coping with the actual situation in the real world. In this conflict between the different parts of the psyche the ego, which is what we identify with, employs a number of defense mechanisms (that we don’t need to describe in detail here).

The suggestion that the civilized society and culture could be a burden and exert a pressure on the individual was at the time very challenging and criticized, and still is. Since then psychoanalysis has developed into more elaborate forms and the critique against civilization has been downplayed, with some exceptions. One such exception of departing from a conflict perspective on psychological development was when the Swedish MD and pharmacologist Tomas Ljungberg wrote his book Människan, kulturen och evolutionen – Ett alternativt perspektiv (1991), or in English Humanity, culture and evolution – An alternative perspective. The book hasn’t yet been translated into any other language, so here follows a brief introduction to Ljungberg’s alternative perspective.

Ljungberg, who has a trans-disciplinary background with studies in e.g. ethology, evolutionary biology, psychiatry and anthropology, asked a similar question that e.g. Clare Graves and Ken Wilber did: How come there are so many psychological schools and theories that seems to contradict each other? Answering this question is like laying a puzzle in order to find a bigger picture, which made Graves construct his developmental model today known as Spiral dynamics and Wilber develop his view on the human development. The move through these stages of development is often viewed as something normal and even desirable.

But the puzzle can be laid in more than one way and Ljungberg’s approach was more problematizing and focused on our background as hunter gatherers, and even further back – as animals. According to evolutionary biology the behavior and psychology of animals has developed in a slow and gradual process in relation to their environment. The human development can be described as a biological evolution until a certain point in time where it is more meaningful to talk about a second evolutionary system, the cultural evolution where the information is transmitted by learning and traditions, by memes or vMemes as Graves would call it. Any evolution that has taken place, from the Neolithic revolution about 10 000 years ago until now, can be regarded as predominantly a cultural one. Since we in biological terms of still can be regarded as hunter gatherers and thus are born as hunter gatherers, before we start socializing our children, it is of interest to examine what the psychology of this stage in our history looks like.

The psyche of the hunter gatherer

From ethological and anthropological studies Ljungberg describes the primordial psychological functioning. The hunter gatherer’s psyche is basically dealing with and integrating information from two sources or realms of reality, from the outer realm that is captured and transmitted by sensory data and the from the inner realm that is transmitted by affects, instincts and emotional states or dream-like symbolic awareness. This means that they are thinking and reacting partly to what they experience in the outer world and partly to what they feel from their inside, and they aim to integrate this into a coherent whole, which Ljungberg refers to as functioning according to the primordial order. This attunement with the inner and existential realm is reflected with and supported by the primordial myths, the ritual life and social functioning of the hunter-gatherer.

The myths and rituals have evolved as a consequence of the life conditions the past millions of years since the human being started to live in close bands of 25-50 individuals and hunting and gathering on the plains (men did most of the hunting and women most of the gathering). According to the myths the best way of functioning was in this attunement, which meant that the individual follows the inner impulses and images that is presented to him or her, rather than acting on some rational choice of free will. The myths also reflected a close relation to the underlying and invisible forces of nature and to a dreamlike primal past when man and animal were equal and could communicate as equals. One of the most important tasks of the shaman was to gain knowledge from this mythic past by means of inner journeys and transmit this to the tribe. By means of these rituals and ceremonies the connection and continuity with this primal past was being upheld.

In comparison with the slow biological evolution the significantly more rapid cultural evolution can be said to have started off with the Neolithic revolution, which was probably or at least partly initiated by a climate change with food-shortages that caused a pressure on the hunter gatherer lifestyle. The domesticating of first crops and then animals lead to some psychological dilemmas of the previous hunter gatherers and caused a change in the behavior and the myths in order to adapt to this new and more successful strategy. This was later improved with the technological development of the plow, wheel, irrigation, written language, but also of weapon and war technology which made it possible to build up armies in order to conquer and subdue the neighboring people or remaining hunter gatherer societies. The change in technology, behavior and life conditions resulted in a corresponding change on the cultural plane as well as on the psychological.

The cultural transformation

The myths of the cultures goes through the transformation as well. At first they gradually change to better fit the farming procedures, a contemporary example are the Hopi Indians in North America. But when the mining and manufacturing of weapons and technology was developed, the myths transformed as the female gods was defeated and replaced by conquering male gods. This shift to a new and more violent time was marked by classic myths such as humans being thrown out of the garden of Eden (the paradisiac life in attunement with nature in the hunter gatherer society) after having eaten from the apple of knowledge (being corrupted by technology). Or the myth about Prometheus stealing fire from the gods and giving it to the humanity (technology again), which was punished by Pandora being sent down to earth to open her box or jar of evil. Some myths stated that there was a taboo against digging after metal from beneath the earth’s surface, but for those who broke this taboo there was a clear technological advantage.

(Wilber would disagree here and claim that we weren’t thrown out but developed Up from Eden, but I will return to that later.)

The psychological transformation

When it comes to the transformation in the psychological dimension, which is the central aspect of the analysis, Ljungberg describes an entity or mechanism referred to as the buffer memory. The buffer memory is where affects are being stored that are not appropriate or functional for the individual to have at the present situation. They are being down-prioritized and stored or repressed until there is time to process them, at which they are released and made available for conscious processing. There are several examples and observations of this from ethological studies, where an animal is engaged in a certain activity, e.g. tracking, and is forced into a new action, e.g. responding to a threat, with the corresponding affective complex, during which the original affective complex is buffered. After the threat is averted the affections from the first activity, the tracking, can be retrieved and the animal can act on this and revert to this behavior. It’s important to note that this process is not a conscious one in the sense that the individual by means of his or her free will can choose to engage in.

Examples from the human world are grief that the individual can’t find time to feel until after all practical details are taken care of, or the affects such as fear that are associated with a terminal illness that the patient is in denial of. The buffer memory could also be described as the place where we hide all shadow material that for some reason isn’t allowed to see the light of day. When it is convenient the person can assimilate or integrate the buffered memory, or shadow material, into the personality.

Less pleasant examples of the functioning of the buffer memory are more severe traumas such as war, torture or hostage situations where it can be rational to hide the natural reactions of wanting to flee or fighting back and instead allowing oneself to be subdued or even joining and affiliating with the oppressor, which is commonly referred to as the Stockholm syndrome. The life situation is so traumatic and unbearable that the person in order to cope creates a new persona or role that is on the same side as the oppressor, who is idealized in the eyes of the oppressed. This newly assumed role is denoted the capitulation or submission role.

Thus, a typical choice that a hunter gatherer was faced with at the confrontation with the technologically more advanced attacker was to either remain the integrity and connection with the primordial order and go under, or to capitulate and join the oppressor. And assuming a capitulation role means that the connection to the inner existential realm and the primordial affections is being cut off. The logic of the mind is from now on solely an external logic where one’s actions is governed by the external gains or by a culturally approved and internalized logic. From this perspective culturally transmitted strategies replaces biologically natural ones, even when the latter is more preferable.

If we compare this new functioning with Freud’s psychoanalytic theory there is a consistency in that the capitulation role could correspond to ego, the connection to the inner world and the stream of affections corresponds to id, and the idealized image of the oppressor, as well as an idealized image of oneself if one can live up to the demands of the oppressor, corresponds to super-ego.

It should be mentioned that Ljungberg in his comprehensive analysis in great detail demonstrates that the alternative perspective that he presents is consistent with psychoanalytic theories in its original form as well as the further developments of object relation theory. It is also shown that it is consistent with the more recently developed cognitive psychotherapy and social learning theory, and so forth. This alternative perspective certainly presents a conflict view on the psychological development of the modern human being that gives more emphasis on ethology and anthropology and shows that the human development and evolution the past 10 000 years should be considered as neither natural nor desirable. From this perspective we are today equipped with a psychological functioning that is a consequence of us living in a world and society that we are not originally fit for and that is fundamentally unnatural and conflictual to us, although we have lots of advances in the psychiatric and medical sciences that can compensate for this.

But one could ask what relevance events thousands of years ago have on our psychological functioning of today. And if this should be of relevance, what consequences can we see today of us having lost at least most of the contact with our inner realm and with our affections and instincts. This brings us to another area where Ljungberg have been active – how we treat and raise our children. Anthropological studies shows that hunter gatherer mothers carry and breastfeed their babies until the age of 3-4 years. During the first year there is almost a constant bodily contact between the baby and the mother (or other caregiver). Not many modern societies (post hunter gatherer societies) allow the mother this time alone, although things seem to move in that direction during the recent decades. In Sweden, that has a pretty generous maternity leave of over a year, there was a trend of attachment parenting that started in the 90s and Ljungberg wrote a script called What is natural for my child with instructions on how to raise and take care of a baby according to the same principles that is practiced in indigenous cultures. Before that it was common that babies were separated from their mothers from birth, breastfed according to a schedule of 4-hour intervals and placed in their own rooms from start, although there are large cultural variations.

Ljungberg argues from ethological studies that the consequence of not giving the babies enough contact and correct attention from start will cause a survival anxiety and thus traumatize them. In the long process of growing up, rather than seeing the world as a fundamentally hostile and loveless place, since the parents are unable to respond to the baby’s needs in an ethologically correct manner, it is easier for the baby to see itself as someone who can strive for the love of the idealized parents, and thus the capitulation role is transmitted to the next generation. As a parent it is very easy, and has so been for last thousands of years, to see nurture and upbringing of a child as a process of civilizing and socializing it according to the predominant view of the culture. The ego, in this sense, is the mask we as children create in order to respond to and to please a society that we desperately try to find acceptance in.

Throughout history one can say that the greatest threat to the ego has been the impulses from id, and people that has responded to these inner impulses have accordingly been considered a threat to society, not only by means of allowing the aggressive or sexual impulses to be manifested but also anything from mysticism such as the early Christian martyrs, the women who was burned at the stake as witches. All these have been persecuted by the regime.

Thus, according to Ljungberg’s alternative theory, being normal in any civilized society means that you successfully have assumed a capitulation or submission role, an ego. Or in the classic words of Jiddu Krishnamurti:

“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.”

It may sound dark and depressing to encounter a view on humanity, society and oneself that is in its foundation conflictual and even dysfunctional. However, it is important to remember that the capitulation or submission role can be cancelled or annihilated according to the theory, descriptions and observations of the functioning of the buffer memory. Not by means of integrating the shadow of the id with the ego but rather by allowing the identification to be in tuned with the inner primordial impulses, which in itself a challenge in this modern society.

After this long (but still very limited) introduction, I will explore how Ljungberg’s theory can be illustrated in popular culture and give some examples of what light it can shed on some light (or darkness?) on some cultural phenomena. Then I plan to discuss and contrast Ljungberg’s theory with the integral theory according to Wilber.

Stay tuned!

A couple of years ago I wrote an analysis of the Lion king from a perspective of masculinity. This is a typical Disney movie where young Simba, son of the lion king Mufasa, ends up defeating his uncle and his father’s murderer Scar and fulfilling his destiny of becoming the king, and thus the circle of life continues. Nothing challenging here, as we seldom see in the streamlined Disney movies. No hyena, snake or, heavens forbid, lioness becoming the ruler of the land. No, there is a natural order that should not be questioned.

If we want something animated for the younger audience that aims outside the conventions Dreamworks does a much better job with titles such as:

Shrek – parodies of traditional tales and mocking Hollywood’s beauty ideals,

Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron – an untamable horse teams up with an equally untamable boy,

Madagascar – some animals from a New York zoo escaping into the wild jungle (it even contains a parody of the Lion king),

Monsters vs Aliens – where the outsiders, the monsters which includes a giant woman, team up to battle aliens.

But here I’d like to focus on the more recent How to train your dragon (2010) that features Hiccup, who just as Simba happens to be the son of the reigning leader, in this case the chief Viking Stoik. But there ends the similarities, Hiccup happens to be a real disappointment to his father, he is weak, hapless and far, far from doing what really defines being a true Viking – to kill a dragon. 

From a gender perspective Hiccup seems to be struggling with fulfilling the traditional male gender role, as it is typically described and here illustrated by his father Stoick and by his friends who all try hard to be fearless badass Vikings. And his father very explicitly expresses his discontent with Hiccup who is not even allowed to go out and help during the dragon attacks.

Despite Hiccup’s debility he sneaks out to kill a dragon using his ingenuity instead of muscles. He wants to prove himself a worthy Viking and he want to impress on Astrid, who he has a crush on. Against all odds Hiccup manages to shoot down and capture a dragon in the forest, a Night Fury which is the deadliest type of them all. But when he is about to slay it he changes his mind and instead releases it. It looks as if his courage fails him, at least that is what he tells himself. Or is it for some other reason? Nevertheless, he seems to have lost his opportunity of becoming a man, at least according to the descriptions of masculinity above.

But if this macho and alpha-male ideal would be the only characteristic and possible way to define a man throughout history we would still be Vikings. Somehow we left the Viking-age, became devoted Christian traditionalists, after that rational scientific modernists and even postmodernists before feminism started to analyzing and question the gender roles and masculinity. But as Hiccup is about to demonstrate, the male gender role can be far more diverse than the macho image of chief Stoick.

The release of the Night Fury could be the result of a lack of courage, but might as well be a sign of intuition or compassion. And from that Hiccup slowly builds a relation with Toothless, as he names the dragon. But this relation is of course just as forbidden as the romance between Romeo and Juliet.

“Everything we learned about dragons is wrong!”

Simba had his friends, the lioness Nala, and his mentor Rafiki, to help him getting back on the right track, but Hiccup has no one except for Toothless and the track is leading towards challenging the core of the Viking culture, that dragons are the enemy and should be killed no matter what.

Hiccup, who seemed to lack courage, proves to have many qualities that helps him in his development. He is very responsive to Toothless’ signals, which is fundamental when gaining the trust and working with animals, he is resourceful and inventive, he understands the point of learning by reading, and he is really courageous as it will show. He gradually builds up a relation with the Night Fury on equal terms without trying to dominate the dragon. It shows that they are equally dependent on each other and with a harness and extra half tail Hiccup attempts to fly Toothless, which is of course as stupid and dangerous as it sounds.

It is sometimes said that nature experiments mostly with men. Men have a larger genetic variation, at least in terms of variation in IQ, men are more risk taking, more competitive and so forth. That’s an important reason to why you find most brilliant minds and idiot savants as well as most fools and idiots among men, the richest and the poorest, most leaders and most criminals, most celebrated and most outcasts. From a functional perspective the gender roles arose as a consequence of the rationality in keeping women safe and sacrificing men. When it comes to reproduction and ensuring the survival of the culture, vaginas are invaluable and penises expendable, although that principle now has played out its role.

This is us men. We might sometimes appear as stubborn, but we can be just as devoted, passionate or even obsessed if we get a really good idea into our heads. We take risks and sometimes crash and burn to earn our Darwin awards. But when we happen to succeed we can transform cultures and we can change the world. And besides, it’s in the intersection between maximum challenge, skill and devotion you find flow.

An example that resembles Hiccup’s adventures, and that can be placed at about the same time in history but thousands of kilometers south, is the deed of Abbas Ibn Firnas (810-887 A.D.), Muslim inventor, poet, musician, scientist and engineer from Córdoba in today’s Spain. When the Vikings were busy plundering and exploring the North, the scientific leading edge were to be found within the Islamic part of the world. Abbas Ibn Firnas made it to the books as the first aviator when he cast himself from an eminence, flew a considerable distance with wings made of bamboo and silk and landed heavily on his back which caused a severe injury (as Toothless, he lacked a functioning tail). But just imagine the inspirational level of the crowd when watching this polymath dare his life trying to fly with his own construction. This is how you do real engineering!

Back to Hiccup. Despite all odds a romance builds up between Hiccup and Astrid, but what does she see in him and what can he offer this fierce and brutal Viking girl? If bare skill, genius or devotion would suffice to attract a woman every gamer and nerd would easily get laid. No, Hiccup captures Astrid’s heart by showing her the true meaning of freedom and beauty, by showing her heaven and letting her touch the sky (after she have apologized to Toothless for being rude).

But there still remains several challenges for Hiccup and Toothless in order for him to gain the acceptance of his father and the tribe, and to permanently change the relationship between Vikings and dragons. It will take a mutual enemy and threat for them to team up and Hiccup will have to kill his first dragon.

As this is a movie, a tale, we can project any meaning onto it as we wish. We could also see this as a story of man’s relation to nature. Nature as something that is to be conquered and controlled, as something that we can have a relation with and work with, or as something that we are…?! The question is if we need a mutual enemy (aliens?) in order to team up or if we can find our way by ourselves.

Besides what has already been mentioned, there are several aspects that I think makes this a great movie. For instance the music by John Powel and the portraying of Toothless and the interplay with Hiccup (I’m a former dog trainer and I had a black German shepherd that somewhat resembled Toothless). So if you have or know any kids you should definitely rent it and see it together. And if you don’t have any, rent it anyway and take The Expendables II at the same time so there is no doubt that you are a real man!

With Van Damme, Schwarzenegger, Stallone, Bruce Willis, Jason Statham, Dolph, Jet Li and Chuck Norris, you can always learn something about masculinity. The macho kick-ass part as well as the part of being expendable…

I’d like to offer a short illustration of the distinction between complexity and meaning-making according to the Model of hierarchical complexity and Robert Kegan’s subject-object theory, respectively. MHC is a content-free ordinal scale or theoretical construct by which we can evaluate the order of hierarchical complexity of a certain amount of information, which could be a text, a mathematical formula or a behavior, regardless of domain or content. MHC is based on three axioms that describe how an element of a certain order of hierarchical complexity is constructed by the non-arbitrary and successful coordination of two or more elements from a previous order. It is grounded in information theory and is typically used as a behavioristic theory where the stage of a person, or organism, is evaluated by means of that person being able to complete a task at a corresponding order of hierarchical complexity at a certain domain. Psychological or emotional reactions may come as consequences of taking on a task but is implicit to the theory, although it is used for mapping stages in the domain of attachment as well.

The subject-object theory, on the other hand, includes a subject, a frame of reference or meaning-making that the person is embedded in, and an object that the person has and can relate to. According to Kegan, the meaning-making is not only about information but is also about identification (subject) and has explicit affective and behavioral components. What we have as a subject will determine how we perceive and organize reality, how we identify and how we behave. As the subject at one order of consciousness becomes object of the subject at the next order, our meaning-making becomes increasingly complex. It can be described as a frame of reference, a holistic entity that captures our psychology and meaning-making, in contrast to MHC’s view on complexity as being something that varies depending on e.g. domain and support.

In order to further illustrate the difference between the two theories, of course in a very simplified way, I’d like to use a scene from the movie Good Will Hunting from 1997.

The youtube-clip is from an analysis of the movie from a perspective of masculinity, one that I recommend! There it represents a man speaking to a boy, but here I’m letting it illustrate the difference between a mature and experienced man (Robin Williams’ character Sean) and a complex thinker (Matt Damon’s Will).

And here is my, of course simplified, description of the difference between the theories and what they aim to capture, complexity and meaning-making:

Complexity is about organizing information, about which answers you can find and which tasks and problems you are able to solve.

Meaning-making is about organizing life experiences, about which questions you ask and which tasks and problems you find relevant to solve.

If you want to be a complex thinker, then read, listen, learn, think, evaluate, calculate, discuss and write. My suggestion is modern physics, philosophy, mathematics, why not history or any topic that you find interesting.

If you want to construct meaning in a complex way, then live, love, reflect, grieve someone you loved, face death yourself, dive into pain, joy, fear, conflicts, beauty, take on challenges, succeed and fail, lose and reinvent yourself, rebel against your parents and seeing your children rebel against you.

(It may appear as showing a disregard for MHC, but one should be aware that the subject-object theory is far more speculative, whereas MHC is more modest in its claims, better theoretically grounded and empirically supported. Only slightly more boring. 😉 )

And now for my main point. In the field of adult development we entertain ourselves with evaluating the stage or order of meaning-making or complexity, because it’s useful, because it’s cool and because we can (well, mostly because it’s useful). Some would argue that more complex ways of thinking or meaning-making is better than less complex ways. In this discussion I think it’s useful to think of it the following way:

The complexities of our thoughts and of our meaning-making are mainly consequences of the information we take in and of our lives’ experiences. They serve us by organizing reality in an appropriate way. Sometimes they are not complex enough for us trying to handle the tasks or life challenges we face, and then we sometimes see transformations taking place, something that could be supported as Sean does with Will’s. And sometimes this transformation leads to a higher stage of complexity or meaning-making. But we should always keep in mind that there is an appropriate way of organizing information and experiences, and it is not always and necessarily better to make it more complex.

Vad är pengar? Vad är skuld?
Här är en analys, eller rättare sagt skiss, ur ett funktionellt perspektiv på pengar och det ekonomiska systemet (en deluppgift i kursen Hållbar omställning, något editerad – 5 sidor):
En funktionell syn på det ekonomiska systemet

In Joseph Tainter’s description of complex societies (Tainter, 1988) he refers to a common dichotomy or distinction between two perspectives or schools of describing the development of our societies that I find very useful in many current debates. These perspectives are referred to as the conflict perspective and the integration or functionalist perspective and the distinction may be as old as the description of civil society itself.

“In essence, conflict theory asserts that the state emerged out of the needs and desires of individuals and subgroups of a society. The state, in this view, is based on divided interests, on domination and exploitation, on coercion, and is primarily a stage for power struggels. […] The state serves, thus, to maintain the privileged position of a ruling class that is largely based on the exploitation and economic degradation of the masses.”

Examples of proponents of the conflict school according to Tainter are Marx, Engels, and more contemporary examples are found in postmodern approaches such as post-colonial and feminism/gender studies. The conflict or struggle can today be seen in analysis of the relation between men vs women, upper class vs working class, ethnic Westerners vs immigrants, urban vs rural, politicians/state vs citizens/individuals.

In contrast we have the integrationist view:

“Integrationist or functional theories suggest that complexity, stratification, and the state arose, not out of the ambitions of individuals or subgroups, but out of the needs of society.” The major elements of this approach are: a) shared, rather than divided, social interests; b) common advantages instead of dominance and exploitation; c) consensus, not coercion; and d) societies as integrated systems rather than as stages for power struggles.”

From this perspective society and the development of all its aspects is mainly seen as a consequence of the outer conditions such as food production, competition and warfare with other societies, or as a way for achieving an optimal development as a whole. Proponents of the integrationist view are, according to Tainter, Spencer, Sumner, Durkheim, Moret, Davy, and Service. Please note that I’m not a sociologist so I can’t really verify Tainter’s examples here in detail. Nevertheless I would argue that “my field” of adult development psychology and also integral theory according to Ken Wilber lean towards the integrationist side. This since society and the culture provide support for the individual’s development in contrast to e.g. Freudian view where the individual is in conflict with the cultural demands.

Either schools or perspectives have strong and weak points and, needless to say, neither of them should be elevated to represent the true nature of a society. But instead of elaborating those, let’s give an example from the gender equality debate.

According to the conflict school (mainstream feminism and gender studies) we live in a patriarchy where gender roles were created in order for the male gender role to oppress the female. The main focus is on questions about power and inequality between the genders. From this perspective women traditionally have been kept at home so that men can dominate the public sphere and gaining all the politic and economic power.

The view on the creation of gender roles from the integrationist school gives at hand that they are fundamentally a result of the nature of reproduction, food production and war waging. Women are kept at home for the main reason that men are stronger and more expendable. It is for a society, as a whole, functional to sacrifice men and keep women safe, a view that is argued by e.g. Warren Farrell in the USA and Pelle Billing in Sweden where my experience is derived.

The dichotomy of the conflict and integrationist perspectives refers to views on society as a whole, but a reason I find it useful is that it can be applied to social interactions at various levels, such as analysis of economy and debt, organizations, families, relations, psychology etc. It can be useful to reveal blind spots, for example the case of gender studies in Swedish academia. As I said, I’m not a sociologist, so please correct me if I’m wrong.

References:

Tainter, J. A. (1988) The collapse of complex societies. Cambridge university press, GB.

What do we mean by complexity? How does complex differ from complicated? And what do we mean by simplicity? How do these concepts relate?

The notion of complexity appears in many subject areas, such as psychology and adult development, pedagogy, sociology, anthropology, economy, physics and biology. In order to bring some order I believe that a first distinction needs to be made, that between ontological complexity and epistemological complexity, and I’m not the first to do so. We could also refer to them as real and conceptual complexity, respectively.

Ontological complexity deals with the complexity of real things, real systems, real processes and organisms, such as the complexity of a tree, a colony of ants, an eco-system, an organization or a society. Here we find the classical complexity theories that emerged in the 50s and that is growing in popularity. Although there is no universal measure of how complex something is, the hallmark of high complexity is a high degree of differentiation and integration, i.e. many different parts and functions that work together to create a functioning whole.

A human body which is built up by atoms, molecules, proteins, cells, organs, etc., can be said to be very complex. And today’s society is often described as very complex since we have a great amount of different roles and functions that are coordinated in large organizations and entities. The various goods we ship across the world are very complex and requires the involvement of many parts and parties to be constructed. Today’s financial systems is also usually described as extremely complex in a negative sense in that it is impossible to overview and easy for crises to spread across the intimately interconnected and integrated world, as demonstrated in this TED talk. A computer manufacturer tried to track all components to ensure that all parts were produced in an ethical and sustainable manner, but they had to give up because there were so very many parties involved.

Epistemological complexity, in contrast, deals with the complexity in our thinking, i.e. the complexity in our ability to reason and the complexity of the problems we can solve. This is typically what we study in adult development and here we have a measure in the Model of hierarchical complexity, MHC, where we can say that a certain amount of information or a certain behavior can be evaluated at a certain stage of hierarchical complexity. Or the understanding that underlies a design principle. It is important to recognize that a certain level of epistemological complexity builds on and includes all previous levels of complexity.

Typically, I would say that the epistemological complexity is a pale shadow of the ontological, our understanding of the world is usually an insufficient and limited representation if it. Often, the most complex thing we can do is biomimetics, i.e. trying to mimic nature’s own complexity. But an important point here is to keep them apart. For instance, when we discuss the design of a city, a house or any artifact, we should distinguish between the two perspectives, the planned design and the actual design. Although there have been findings of fractal patterns in traditional sub-Saharan cities, it does not necessarily imply that those cultures understood the notion of fractals in a mathematical sense.

It is also important to recognize the similarities between the ontological and the epistemological complexities. The notion of differentiation and integration is commonly used to describe the process of increased complexity. Another key term is emergence, which means that that properties of the complex system as a whole can’t be explained by means of the parts or the interactions that build up the system. A number of ants can together perform complex tasks and create a complex colony without the individual ants to have the cognitive capacity for understanding what they are doing. The properties of a molecule can’t be predicted or explained by means of the properties of the atoms that go into it. Similarly, in MHC a foundational axiom is that a higher level or stage has to coordinate two or more parts or elements from a previous level in a non-arbitrary way so that a new and qualitatively different element is produced.

In ontological complexity, the distinction between complex and complicated is often emphasized. Complex refers to the characteristics that are explained in the above, while complicated is often associated with characteristics such as linearity and that can be reduced to its parts. A typical description is the following:

“… the main difference between complicated and complex systems is that with the former, one can usually predict outcomes by knowing the starting conditions. in a complex system, the same starting conditions can produce different outcomes, depending on interactions of the elements in the system.”

Complex problems are typically described as ill-structured or wicked, e.g. raising a child, when complicated systems are described as well-structured and solvable, although not easily, e.g. build a functioning car.

I would argue that complex in this sense corresponds to vertical complexity according to MHC in the epistemological case, and the complicated corresponds to horizontal complexity according to MHC. Horizontal complexity or development is usually described as “more of the same” or a quantitative increase in complexity, whereas vertical complexity or development means a qualitative shift or increase in complexity.

And finally for the simplistic part, for the epistemological simplicity I would like to offer an illustrating episode from the life of young Gauss. Perhaps one could find a correspondence for the ontological simplicity.

Complexity and simplicity is a cliche that is sometimes referred to. But what does it mean and how can a higher complexity sometimes make life simpler? Let’s take a classic example from the history of mathematics.

Carl Friedrich Gauss was one of the giants within mathematics, amongst other things known for the normal distribution curve or the bell curve, got as a 10-year-old schoolboy the task of summing all the numbers from 1 to 100, i.e. to calculate 1+2+3+4+5+ … +96+97+98+99+100. After just a few minutes Gauss could give the correct answer: 5050.

But how did he do? Was he extremely fast at calculating?

No, he discovered a symmetry and used the trick of dividing the list of numbers into two parts of equal length, 1-50 and 51-100. He turned the latter part, and summed them element by element: 1+100, 2+99, 3+98, etc..

When you add the first and last elements, second and penultimate and so forth, you end up with the same result, 101. Since all the numbers are to be added and since both lists are 50 elements long, the result is given by 101 * 50 = 5050.

Have you seen this trick once, it’s possible to derive an expression for the sum S of all the integers from 1 to n, which is called an arithmetic sum, which gives

S = n (n +1) / 2

The question we now could ask ourselves is the following: Did Gauss make the problem simpler or more complex? Simplicity or complexity? Or both?

What was the complexity of the problem that Gauss got according to MHC? He was supposed to add a lot of numbers, 1+2+3+ etc.. The task of adding two numbers is order 7 primary. And to do that many times is still order 7 primary, though with a much higher degree of horizontal complexity. Gauss’ problem had thus a high horizontal but low vertical complexity. In principle very easy to carry out, but very time consuming.

But Gauss transformed the problem into one that is more vertically complex, to be specific, order 10 formal (according to a discussion we had on yahoo tech group adult development)! And to generalize the result to the formula with n instead of 100 is yet another order, 11 systematic.

The conclusion here is that Gauss instead of solving a problem with high horizontal complexity, he transformed it into a problem with high vertical complexity. He makes the problem simpler in that it requires fewer operations, simplicity, yet more difficult because it requires a deeper mathematical understanding, complexity!

This is a typical example of how a new order of complexity can emerge, by having a large horizontal complexity of the previous order. This is typically how you plan the mathematics teaching, consciously or unconsciously. The student is made to solve a lot of similar problems until they think something like “Now it’s the same routine again, there seems to be a pattern here!? What if this can be systematized? That would make it easier!

Often there is a reluctance and resistance to systematize and go up to the next level or order, but when the horizontal load on the working memory gets too big, it appears like the price to take the leap to the next level is worth paying. The following complex level coordinates and organizes the previous so that it becomes easier to manage. This may apply to individuals but perhaps also for entire communities.

• To domesticate the soil is more complex than hunting and gathering.
• To come up with a written language is more complex than to pass on information orally.
• To computerize administrative operations is more complex than do the work with paper and pencil.
• For companies to use social media is more complex than using the one-way communication.

In all cases, new problems are created that are vertically more complex but are still worthwhile because it saves a lot of time and work, at least in the long term. How many have cursed over the new computer application that is not compatible with the current OS? How many have not been annoyed over negative comments on the company’s Facebook page? Or cursed crop failure? Yet we seem to be willing to pay that price. We have otherwise been required to keep up with the competition.

Life has become more complex but simpler.