THE DAILY EVOLVER

David Brooks’ column in the New York Times today, What Our Words Tell Us, illuminates the evolution that cultures experience as they move from traditional to modern stages of consciousness (see an explanation of the stages of consciousness here).

Brooks is commenting on research being done, using a Google database of 5.2 million books published between 1500 and 2008, that reveals how frequently different words were used at different times in history.

Brooks focuses on data for the last 50 years, from the 1960’s till now. The data in several studies shows that in these years we have experienced an increase in words connoting individualism and a decrease in words connoting morality.

Words on the increase: “personalized,” “self,” “standout,” “unique,” “discipline”, “subjectivity.”

Words in decline: “virtue,” “decency,” “honesty,” “patience,” “bravery,” “humbleness.”

Brooks’ conclusion from this research is: “Over the past half-century, society has become more individualistic. As it has become more individualistic, it has also become less morally aware …” He calls this, demoralizingly, “demoralization.”

On his first conclusion I concur; our society has become more individualistic and the weakening of traditional communal structures has “led to certain forms of social breakdown.” Traditional social pressures (to stay married, raise your kids, etc.) are necessary to civilize people, especially people who are operating at the traditional and pre-traditional values structures. Otherwise they cannot rise above ego-centrism and hedonism.

On his second conclusion I will disagree, and indeed assert the opposite. People who talk less about virtue are not necessarily less virtuous. On issue after issue, from human rights, to care for the poor, sick and outcast, to animal treatment, to violence (individual and state), even marriage and divorce: people who have adequately integrated the modern and post-modern value systems are more virtuous than pre-modern traditionalists.

The evolution in the historical word cloud revealed by Google is right on schedule with what we know about the developmental move from traditional to modern (and post-modern) value structures. As we move into modernity, people become less communal and more individualistic. We value conformity less and self-expression more. We become less religious and more scientific. In our relationships we trade depth for span as we move away from our families of origin and take up residence in more diverse and bigger communities of association. We begin to consider our own subjectivity to be a legitimate territory for investigation.

About half of the US population is entering or stabilized at this stage of consciousness development, and the segment is growing. We can clearly see that the move from traditionalism to modernism comes with both an upside and a downside. And it can be done in ways that are more healthy or unhealthy. But either way it is inevitable, just as it is that a nine year old grows into a 19 year old. Emergence will not be denied.

A nine year old boy scout is right to be engaged in his oath to be “trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.” As a child I loved striving for these values with my fellow scouts; it was challenging, fulfilling and in retrospect I see that it helped me organize my psyche into more complex and capable structures. Furthermore, this move represents huge developmental progress from the earlier structures of childhood which are more impulsive, dependent and yes, selfish.

One of the reasons people grow into any new stage of development, whether at an individual or cultural scale, is that they have integrated (and are becoming bored with) the values of the stage they are exiting.

Thus at nineteen I was no longer so concerned with my boy scout morality, not because I stopped valuing it but because I took it for granted. It was stably installed in my psyche which provided the baseline for a new set of values to emerge: the modern values of curiosity, creativity, self-sufficiency, skepticism, achievement, exploration and expression.

Had I lost a certain innocence along the way? Yes. Was I a bit more cynical? Yes. I was also somewhat rebellious against the traditional value set. For example as I thought more deeply about civil rights I began to see the downside of obedience. Again, right on schedule. Part of the emergence of any value system entails some rejection of the previous set of values. But hallelujah, we keep the good stuff.

So as with most 19-year olds a new strata of civilization had been installed in my consciousness. I had literally become more civilized than I was at the previous traditionalist stage. I was able to see and care about more people and types of people. I was able to regulate myself to function in a myriad of social situations. I had acquired a bit of self-reflective capability and could therefore work with my own interior states.

Likewise most 19-year olds have achieved a similar competence without attention in this moral line of development. It’s a little like learning to drive a car. To become competent we must pay close attention to every aspect of the task: first I put it in drive, now I step on the gas, I turn the steering wheel this much, now I press on the break, etc … until it’s all second nature, and we can drive, eat, talk on the phone and search out a parking space all without thinking about it. Let alone talking about it.

Despite (perhaps because of) their evolutionary proximity traditionalism and modernism are at war, in our time and in all times, as the conservative and liberal impulses in humanity always are. This rivets everybody’s attention and we deplore and decry it. But this conflict is evolutionarily potent, as conflict always is, and leads to a stage of consciousness that is friendly to both conservatism and liberalism: integral consciousness.

An integral view stresses that it is never an either / or choice. Integral thinking honors everyone’s right to be who and where they are, and seeks to integrate what is good, true and beautiful from both developmental stages. (Actually, from every developmental stage, including pre-traditional and post-modern stages. For more on this see the “altitudes of development” here).

Even better, more and more people, bored of political polarities and the cable news shouting heads, are growing into this integral consciousness whether or not they’ve heard of integral theory.

NOTE: David Brooks and I have gone around once before (although I’m the only one of us who knows it) on this idea of correlating moral vocabulary with morality itself. See into more of our thinking in this previous blogpost.

I’ve run into some cool photos on my travels through cyberspace the last few days. Pulled from different sources, together they show a trajectory of development in the contemporary Muslim world regarding the role of women. I’ve mapped these photos to the “Altitudes of Development” that make up the core of integral theory. Like most of real life they each span more than one altitude.

Keep in mind that the development of women’s rights is not a story of  ”what men did to women,” but the evolution of social/cultural arrangements made and enforced with the full cooperation of both sexes. As we’ve seen many times, it can be the mother of a family who most fiercely enforces honor codes (including, horrifically, the killings of raped girls) that maintain the family’s status in a pre-modern world. Likewise, both women and men are involved in bringing forth the next stages of the evolving culture.

 #1  Tribal / Traditional (red and amber altitudes)

“VEIL IS SECURITY” Billboard in Iran

This first photo represents the most regressive view of the proper woman’s role. In the pre-modern culture women are not hated (as misguided modernists often think) but rather are  idealized as being so precious, pure and sexually potent that they must be protected from any man but their husbands. On the other hand, men are idealized as being fierce and agressive, both protectors and predators. At best men are glorified as spirited stallions, at worst they are seen as flies drawn to candy. In either case they cannot be expected to contain themselves at the sight of a luscious uncovered woman. To do so would be unmanly. So women must be kept out of sight and when in public be covered and escorted by a male family member.

#2 Traditional / Modern (amber and orange altitudes)

“SOME THINGS CAN’T BE COVERED. FIGHTING WOMEN’S ABUSE TOGETHER”

This photo represents an awakening into the inevitable downside of a system where women are subject to the power of men: abuse. In the world of photo #1, women are routinely physically dominated. I recently watched a video of a conservative Islamic TV talk show where two imams discussed when, why and how to beat your wife. They taught, for instance, that the stick you hit her with should never be thicker than your thumb. They saw themselves as good men, promoting the welfare of women and families.

As that culture matures and stabilizes a new consciousness arises: the realization that women are people too. That they have rights to selfhood. That every human being is endowed with the dignity of freedom from physical domination. This is a quintessentially modern idea, yet in every culture into which it has evolved it has been embraced first for men and then for women. The patriarchy (again, supported by both sexes) doesn’t give way easily.

#3 Modern / Post-Modern (orange and green)

“MUSLIMS SAY YES TO WOMEN’S RIGHTS”. Demonstration of American Muslim students

Here we have contemporary American Muslim students demonstrating for women’s rights and against domestic violence. They are embracing the post-modern view that advancing feminism is not just the purview of women, but that men must actively fight for equality as well.  It is the role of the more powerful to help those who have been marginalized by previous stages of development. This is the view of the most progressive Muslims worldwide.

#4 Post-Modern / Integral (green and teal)

“BEING A WOMAN IS NOT A WAY FOR HUMILIATION OR PUNISHMENT”. From Kurd Men for Equality Facebook campaign

This is a photo of a Kurdish man protesting the punishment of a convicted prisoner by parading him through the streets in women’s clothing as a means of humiliation.  It is part of a Facebook campaign where over 150 men have dressed in women’s clothing to point out the sexist and homophobic nature of the sentence. This is quite a striking photo, beautifully integrating a number of messages. My interpretation: the fallen headscarf represents the blindness of a culture that supports this kind of “justice;” the peace sign is a gesture of hope and commitment;  and the curtsy of the dress adds a distinctly post-modern irony that turns the ridicule back on the ridiculers. Well done Sir!

See the whole portfolio here.

I had another great conversation with Dr. Keith Witt last week. Brother Keith has been practicing psychotherapy in Santa Barbara for over 40 years, and is also a master martial artist and devoted spiritual practitioner with experience in many traditions. Who better to talk to about integrating these two approaches to human development, a topic that causes so much confusion and consternation among seekers of higher consciousness?

Spiritual teachers and psychotherapists are often as odds and people who participate in both modalities often reflect that conflict in their own minds. Which is the best way to go? Is it more fruitful to work with our personal history and iron out the stuck points in our lives (psychotherapy) or to work to transcend them by seeking enlightenment (spirituality)? Do we work with our story or drop our story?

Most spiritual traditions are rooted in pre-modern schemas that see dysfunction as a spiritual problem, whether possession by evil spirits or a separation from God. Even a non-theistic religion like Buddhism perceives the manifest world as a fallen and corrupt place that is to be transcended (and in more advanced Buddhist thought, re-embraced) through meditation.

Psychotherapy, on the other hand, works with the circumstances of our lives, and we are encouraged to look deeply into our own dramas and traumas, and even to re-experience them in the controlled psychotherapeutic container created with the therapist.

Anyone who has practiced both systems can see the value of each, yet their trusted guides, the spiritual teachers and psychotherapists, often deny the veracity of the other approach.

The integral solution, as you might expect, is to find the “piece of the truth” revealed by both spiritual practice and psychotherapy, to map the territories that each inhabit (and the territories they don’t), and to work with both in an integrated and harmonized way. That way the benefits are multiplied.

I know of no more qualified (and stimulating!) guide to this endeavor than Keith Witt. Check out our conversation below, as well as an essay Keith wrote on the topic.

For more from Keith, see his website drkeithwitt.com.

Listen Here

Press play to listen, or right-click: here to download.

When something traumatic happens like the bombing on Monday in Boston, we often feel a need to talk about it. So many questions arise: who, what … and why? So many feelings erupt. And so many perspectives are simultaneously true.

The integral community is equipped with a way to have a conversation that includes compassion for those involved, a demand for justice, and care for the impact this can have on consciousness, culture and systems.

That’s the spirit that sister Diane Hamilton and brother Terry Patten brought to a conversation we had about the incident and its ramifications Thursday night (before the suspects were caught). We organized the call around the three key integral perspectives: first-person “I”, second-person “WE” and third-person “IT”. Callers from around the world — including our dear friend and integral guru Susanne Cook-Greuter in Boston — joined in.

Play or download the audio below. Here’s an index of the call, compiled by Brett Walker:

8:14 Jeff gives his reaction to the events in Boston: heartbroken, and horrified by the wild card that terrorism represents, he takes solace from seeing the larger trajectory of human evolution.

12:34 Terry describes his reaction to the bombing: letting his heart be pierced. Also his disappointment in the superficial media attention.

14:59 Diane’s first person “I” experience (from watching so much Homeland) was initially to be pissed off about American foreign policy, then to use her tonglen practice to make contact with the suffering and compassion.

18:00 Diane welcomes everyone back from their short breakout conversations and invites them to presence their own experience with the group. We hear from some Boston locals.

26:23 Jeff, Terry and Diane discuss the statistics of terrorist attacks.

31:30 Let’s talk about the “WE”. Picking up our identification with the different actors in this drama. How do we make the WE more resilient?

46:21 Susanne Cook-Greuter: in trying to take the big picture too soon we may be missing an opportunity to fully embrace our vulnerability.

55:39 The conversation slides into the “IT” and Diane reminds us that from this perspective we can look at all the polarities and decide how we want to participate.

Press play to listen, or right-click: here to download.

R.I.P. Maggie …