Refashioning the Discourse about Development

"Myth Busting & Metric Making: Refashioning the Discourse about Development in the Integral Community" is a new post at kenwilber.com by Zachary Stein with many excellent observations. Quote:

If we look at college-educated adults, the first level is abstract mappings on our metric (roughly Orange in Wilber's colors). At this level, developmental levels are treated like simple stereotypes. Whole persons are classed as being at a level, which is typically understood in terms of a single developmental model (e.g. Spiral Dynamics). Development is understood as a kind of simple "growth to goodness", with ignorance at the bottom, science in the middle, and spirituality at the top. Particular levels gain more attention than others and function as more or less entrenched stereotypes, expressing preferences that are not necessarily developmental (e.g. "you are so green").

The next level is abstract systems (roughly Green in Wilber's colors). At this level, reasoning about levels involves giving some primacy to the construct of altitude, which frames and organizes a variety of developmental models. Persons are understood in terms of their relative development in various lines, which are identified with different developmental models and theorists. The concept of a center of gravity supplements this differentiated view and justifies whole person assessments. The relation between levels and other aspects of Integral Theory becomes explicit; the relation between states and levels complicates the simple notion that spirituality is "at the top." Generally, there are elaborate ideas about how developmental levels are implicated in all kinds of issues (politics, religion, ecology, etc.).

Then there is reasoning at single principles (roughly Teal in Wilber's colors). At this level, reasoning about levels involves explicit ideas about the limits and affordances of different developmental methods and models, which are framed in terms of arguments about the conditions enabling their valid use (i.e. scoring systems, interview procedures, etc.). The idea of "growth to goodness" is problematized both by concerns over issues of horizontal health and intra-personal variability, and by concerns about the accuracy of different assessment methods. These complexities of method and application temper and complicate speculation on how developmental levels are implicated in a broad range of global problems.

The top of what we can accurately measure is principled mappings (roughly Turquoise in Wilber's colors). At this level, reasoning about levels involves the adoption of a post-metaphysical stance toward the task of evaluating people. The provisional, bounded, and multi-perspectival nature of all models and methods is admitted, and a set of meta-theoretical principles guides a recursive process of continually refining developmental models and methods in terms of both theory and practice. A broad and explicit philosophical discourse comes to supplement evaluative discussions concerning the notion of "growth to goodness," as the human potentials that characterize the highest levels and the future of civilization are seen as collective constructions for which we are responsible.

Now, the way I see development (i.e. Fischer's Neo-Piagetian perspective) suggests that we roam up and down these levels all the time, depending on context and support, etc. No one is at a level; we inhabit levels only for certain periods of time and in certain company. Moreover, you may be more developed in your reasoning about the quadrants than you are in your reasoning about levels, or more developed in you reasoning about important interpersonal issues then you are in your reasoning about Integral Theory (again, see Stein and Hiekkinen, 2008 in JITP). Generally, where you are is not my concern (in part because you are all over the place).

And another one:

The myth of the given has been named and is already generally disparaged. The other myth remains nameless but plagues our efforts. The myth of the metals is introduced here as the second myth requiring critical attention. Importantly, if we choose to jettison both myths we must refashion the practice of developmental assessment and the discourse surrounding it. The first myth raises epistemological issues and its critique should lead us to pay more attention to how our developmental metrics are made. The second raises social, ethical, and political issues and its critique should lead us to pay more attention to how our developmental metrics are used.

Read the whole thing.

The article at kw.com also links to "Myth Busting and Metric Making" at the Integral Leadership Review, another fine article by Zachary Stein.