<%BANNER%>

Integral Communication


PAGE 1

INTEGRAL COMMUNICATION By ADAM B. LEONARD A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN MASS COMMUNICATIONS UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2004

PAGE 2

Copyright 2004 by Adam B. Leonard

PAGE 3

iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This thesis would not exist without the open minds of my committee members. Dr. Lisa Duke-Cornell, Dr. Linda Hon, and Dr. Sheldon Isenberg allowed me the academic freedom to pursue my ideas with passion. I am grateful for the creative space that they made possible. Ken Wilber continues to in spire me both intellectually and personally. Through Ken’s volumes of writing, our personal conversations, and my resulting practices, I have learned much about the hum an experience and the simple feeling of being. I feel honored to call such an extr aordinary human being my teacher, colleague, and friend. Finally, my mother and father have unflinchingly stood by me throughout the adventurous meanderings of my learning journey. The love I feel for these two beautiful souls goes beyond words.

PAGE 4

iv PREFACE Anyone tired of disciplinary fragmentat ion, sick of partisan bickering, and exhausted by an endless eclecticism probabl y desires a more comprehensive framework, a more integral vision. To integrate means “to bring together, to join, to link, to embrace. Not in the sense of uniformity, and not in the sense of ironing out all the wonderful differences, colors, zigs and zags of a rai nbow-hued humanity, but in the sense of unityin-diversity, shared commonalties along with our wonderful differences” (Wilber, 2000, p. 2). An integral vision would orient the cornucopia of theories and methods, would inform purposeful action, would facilitate dialogue among academic disciplines, and would offer insight into the very conscious ness holding the vision. Articulating such a vision is the integral project. Applying it to communication is in tegral communication. Communication might be thought of as mutual understa nding within a shared intersubjective space. Or, perhaps communicat ion is a transmission of information bits from a source to a receiver. What theoretical map embraces them both? The inside of communication could be studied qualitatively. Or, the outside of communication could be studied quantitatively. What paradigm includes them both? The integral project offers some clues to these enigmas. Attemp ts to answer these questions occupy the first three chapters. Chapter 1 expresses the need for theore tical integration within communication studies. Rich theoretical traditions such as the rhetorical, semiotic, phenomenological, systemic, sociopsychological, sociocultural, and critical abound in communication.

PAGE 5

v Many communication scholars call for a ne w way to orient the many theoretical traditions, so they can develop together rather than in fragmented isolation. Integral communication pioneers like Jurgen Habermas and Stephen Littlejohn already have taken the first trailblazing steps. Chapter 2 introduces the “A ll Quadrants, All Levels” (AQAL) integral model created by the American philosopher Ken Wilber (2000b). The AQAL map has five central elements: quadrants, levels, lines, states, and types. A human being can experience any phenomenon from perspectives represented by at least these five elements. Such awareness helps orient existi ng theories, reconstruct old ones, and create new ones. Chapter 3 outlines the challenges of methodological integration. Paradigm wars raged for many years among those who held up their method as the only legitimate way to enact truth. Some reduced reality to exte rior surfaces, and others reduced reality to interior depth. Most researchers today admit that the two methods can be used together within the same study, but fail to give a theo retical explanation as to why mixing methods works. Integral methodological pluralism offers a philosophical justification for paradigmatic integration. The social sciences—including communi cation studies—face a crossroads in finding the integral balance between the theo ries and methods of the humanities on the left hand, and the theories and methods of the sciences on the right hand. Chapter 4 begins the transition into a pplying integral communication as a strategy, by drawing from each hand. Social-science resear ch points to a relationship among behaviors, attitudes,

PAGE 6

vi values, and value systems. Furthermore, none of these communication traits remains statically frozen. They develop. Chapter 5 surveys the work of several re searchers who study the evolution of value systems. According to their findings, valu e systems develop in levels of increasing embrace. The general trend moves from egocen tric values to ethnocentric values to worldcentric values. Within this growth tendency, four specific value systems stand out in contemporary American culture. Chapter 6 uses these four value systems w ithin an integral communication strategy. Target audiences can be vertically segmen ted using developmental psychographics. The postmodern insights of hermeneutics, semio tics, and structuralism shed light on the communicative dynamics among developmental segmentations. Translating a message into the developmental value language of the intended audience increases the effectiveness of the communication. Chapter 7 presents an informal case st udy documenting integral communication in action. David Johnston used integral communi cation to transform the building market in Alameda County, California. The strategy fully identified the various stakeholders, and helped them understand how sustainable build ing practices supported their personal value systems. Finally, Chapter 8 focuses on the transf ormative applications of integral communication. Multiple disc iplines—from education to business to medicine to politics—are already using integral communi cation to talk, learn, and grow with each other. Furthermore, a transformation strate gy and curriculum suggest the possibility of using language to prompt developmental growth.

PAGE 7

vii All this claims to be nothing more than a first stab at articulating an integral communication. Many avenues will be left unexplored; much theoretical in tegration will be left undone; numerous strategic applications will be left unsaid. I merely attempt to give a general theoretical overv iew of integral communication as an orientation for future work. I extend preemptive praise to those who will locate my inevitable missteps, incorporate refinements, and continue the evolution of integral communication. The writing style incorporates first-, sec ond-, and third-person perspectives as supported by integral philosophy. The tone may shift from casual and conversational, to intellectual and technical, depending on the needs of the moment. Also, quotes and citations intentionally appear in abundance. They allow th e diverse voices of yesterday to speak and create a space for an integral vision today. In the fo llowing presentation, I aspire to express the integral communication project with sincerity, truth, legitimacy, and comprehensibility. My most basic aim here is to open a di alogue that asks what a more integral approach to communication might look like. The dialogue can be challenging. Disagreements might arise. New perspectiv es may be painfully birthed. Yet these challenges fuel the dialogue. Communication furthers the evolution of the integral project, just as the integral project furthers the evolution of communication. Thus, in the spirit of growth, challenges are welcomed here as honored guests, inviting everyone to bask in the glorious discourse of fe rment. Welcome to the conversation.

PAGE 8

viii TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iii PREFACE........................................................................................................................ ..iv LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................xi ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................x ii CHAPTER 1 A CALL FOR THEORETICAL INTEGRATION.......................................................1 The Zen of Ferment......................................................................................................1 Seven Productive Fragments........................................................................................4 What Does “Integral” Mean?........................................................................................7 Beyond Fusion and Eclecticism....................................................................................8 Two Noteworthy Pioneers..........................................................................................10 2 THE ARCHITECTURE OF INTEGRAL RECONSTRUCTION.............................15 The Master Architect..................................................................................................15 Quadrants....................................................................................................................18 Lines and Levels.........................................................................................................23 States and Types.........................................................................................................26 Building Integral Communication..............................................................................28 3 WAR AND PEACE AMONG METHODS...............................................................32 Paradigm Battles.........................................................................................................32 External Reductionism................................................................................................35 Internal Reductionism.................................................................................................39 Mixing with Pragmatism............................................................................................41 The Quans and Quals Meet the Quads.......................................................................44 4 SOCIAL SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS..........................................................51 Communication Traits as Real....................................................................................51 Knowing Attitudes......................................................................................................53

PAGE 9

ix Beyond the Lamppost.................................................................................................55 Value Systems as Worldviews....................................................................................61 Dynamics of the Spiral...............................................................................................64 5 WORLDVIEW EVOLUTION...................................................................................69 Researching Worldviews............................................................................................69 Traditional-Mythic (BLUE)........................................................................................75 Rational-Achievist (ORANGE)..................................................................................79 Pluralistic-Communitarian (GREEN).........................................................................82 Integral-Existential (YELLOW).................................................................................86 6 AN INTEGRAL COMMUNICATION STRATEGY................................................91 Developmental Psychographics..................................................................................91 The Postmodern Toolbox...........................................................................................96 Semiotics of Spiral Dialectic....................................................................................100 Worldview Translation.............................................................................................103 Flatland Assumptions...............................................................................................108 7 APPLICATION—SUSTAINABLE BUILDING....................................................112 Sustainable Developmen t in Alameda County.........................................................112 A Spiral Wizard........................................................................................................113 All Quadrant Communication...................................................................................115 All Level Communication........................................................................................120 “It’s Working Like a Champ”...................................................................................126 8 TRANSFORMATION AND THE COMMUNICATOR.........................................129 Trans-Disciplinary Discourse...................................................................................129 Language for Growth................................................................................................131 Worldview Accommodation Strategy......................................................................133 Pedagogical Reconstruction......................................................................................137 The Basic Communicative Intuition.........................................................................140 APPENDIX A THE SPIRAL DYNAMICS INTEGRAL MODEL.................................................145 B THE EIGHT SPIRAL DYNAMIC S LEVELS OF INDIVIDUAL, ORGANIZATIONAL, AND CULTURAL WORLDVIEW DEVELOPMENT....146 C COMMON ATTITUDES OF FOUR VALUE SYSTEMS......................................149 D WORLDVIEW TRANSLATION WITH SPIRAL DYNAMICS............................154

PAGE 10

x LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................156 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................170

PAGE 11

xi LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Communicative Validity Claims of the Quadrants..................................................19 2-2 The Four Quadrants Simplified as the Big Three....................................................22 2-3 Multiple Lines of Development...............................................................................24 6-1 A Developmental Psychograph................................................................................95 A-1 Spiral Dynamics Integral Model............................................................................145

PAGE 12

xii Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Mast er of Arts in Mass Communication INTEGRAL COMMUNICATION By Adam B. Leonard May 2004 Chair: Lisa Duke-Cornell Major Department: Journalism and Mass Communications Many scholars call for a more integrated ap proach to communication studies. Ken Wilber’s All Quadrants, All Levels integral model attempts to satisfy this desire by its ability to locate unity-in-diversity. The integral model finds relationships among the various communication theories, research methods and strategies so they can learn from and work with each other instead of functio ning as disconnected eclectic fragments. Furthermore, the Spiral Dynamics integral model of value systems demonstrates how including levels of psychol ogical development can enha nce the effectiveness of communication strategies. Change-agents (s uch as David Johnston in Alameda County, California) are already usi ng integral communication stra tegies. Finally, integral communication also has been shown to facilita te cross-disciplinary discourse, and has special implications for curri cular pedagogy.

PAGE 13

1 CHAPTER 1 A CALL FOR THEORETICAL INTEGRATION The Zen of Ferment The following Zen story is called “Trading Dialogue for Lodging.” Provided he makes and wins an argume nt about Buddhism with those who live there, any wandering monk can remain in a Zen temple. If he is defeated, he has to move on. In a temple in the northern part of Japan, two brother monks were dwelling together. The elder one was learned, but the younger one was stupid and had but one eye. A wandering monk came and asked for l odging, properly challenging them to a debate about the sublime teaching. The el der brother, tired that day from much studying, told the younger one to take his place. “Go and request the dialogue in silence,” he cautioned. So the young monk and the stranger went to the shrine and sat down. Shortly afterward the traveler rose and went in to the elder brother and said: “Your young brother is a wonderful fellow. He defeated me.” “Relate the dialogue to me ,” said the elder one. “Well,” explained the travel er, “first I held up one fi nger, representing Buddha, the enlightened one. So he held up two finge rs, signifying Buddha and his teaching. I held up three fingers, representing Buddha, his teaching [Dharma], and his followers living the harmonious life [Sangha]. Then he shook his clenched fist in my face, indicating that all three come from one realiza tion. Thus he won and so I have no right to remain here.” With this, the traveler left. “Where is that fellow?” asked the younge r one, running in to his elder brother. “I understand you won the debate.” “Won nothing. I’m going to beat him up.” “Tell me the subject of the debate,” asked the elder one.

PAGE 14

2 “Why, the minute he saw me he held up one finger, insulting me by insinuating that I have only one eye. Since he was a stra nger I thought I would be polite to him, so I held up two fingers, congratulating him th at he has two eyes. Then the impolite wretch held up three fingers, suggesting th at between us we only have three eyes. So I got mad and started to punch him, but he ran out and that ended it!” (Anonymous quoted in Krippendorff, 1989, p. 73). How does reflecting on communication help us understand what transpired in the story? Apparently, mutual understanding failed to occur be tween the traveler and the young monk. What theory best describes these dynamics? The answer is far from clear. A recent analysis of seven communication textbooks identified 249 distinct “theories” (Ande rson, 1996). Of these theories, 195 (88%) appeared in only one of the seven textbooks. Moreover, only 18 of the 249 theories (7%) surfaced in more than three books. In an article titled “Why Are There So Many Communication Theories?” Robert Craig struggles with this lack of theoretical consensus within communication studies (1993). The term “ferment” denotes a state of ag itation, turbulent chan ge, or development (American Heritage, 2000). The Journal of Communications first exposed a “Ferment in the Field” in June 1983. At least since this issue, comments Klau s Bruhn Jensen, “there has been a recognition within . communication research that the diverse theoretical and methodological sources of the field, in the so cial sciences and in the humanities, hold a significant potential for consolidation thr ough integration” (2002, p. 1). Karl Erik Rosengren contributed to that June issue ove r 20 years ago, when he hoped “the ferment . would be replaced by vigorous growth, st emming from both mutual confrontation and mutual cooperation between the various school s and traditions of research” (1993, p. 8). This ferment—made possible by a differentia tion into multiple schools of thought—held

PAGE 15

3 the potential to catapult the fiel d into valuable academic territory that no one school could reach on its own. Ferment created th e possibility for integration. That possibility has yet to manifest. Many communication scholars lament the unfulfilled promise of integration. Barbar a O’Keefe comments, “It is difficult to represent the field well . because we ha ve failed as a community to organize our contributions in a systematic fashion” (1993, p. 80). Craig agrees, seeing little proof of communication theory as a field, because schol ars “appear to be operating primarily in separate domains. . Communication theori sts apparently neither agree nor disagree about much of anything. . There are no co mmon goals that unite them, no contentious issues that divide them. For the most pa rt, they simply ignore each other” (1999, p. 119120). Karl Rosengren gives a virtually iden tical diagnosis: “Adhere nts of the various quasi-paradigms have increasingly avoi ded both confrontation and cooperation, preferring instead to isolate themselves in a number of self-contained enclaves . . The field today is characterized more by fragm entation than fermentation” (1993, p. 8-9). The work of many developmentalists s uggests that healthy development moves from fusion to differentiation to integrat ion (Kegan, 1994; Cook-Greuter and Miller, 1994). In contrast, communication scholarship has taken a deviant path, deteriorating from differentiation to disasso ciation. Communication histor ians Armand Matterlart and Michele Matterlart write of the unresolved te nsions that result from disassociation. The history of theories of communication is a record of these tensions and of the varied attempts to articula te—or avoid articulating—the te rms of what all too often have appeared as dichotomies and binary oppos itions rather than levels of analysis. In diverse historical contexts and formul ated in various ways, these tensions and antagonisms have constantly manifested themselves, dividing the field into different schools of thought, curren ts, and tendencies. (1998, p. 1-2)

PAGE 16

4 During a state of disassociation, cooperat ive interaction slows, and theoretical schools either ignore or attempt to conquer each other. Craig explains this breakdown using the term “sterile eclecticism” for di fferentiation and “producti ve fragmentation” for disassociation: Each of the fragments of communication re search has been productive within its own domain, hence my term ‘productive fragmentation.’ As long as the research discipline is thus fragmented, the textbooks will continue to be mired in sterile eclecticism and there will con tinue to be more and more communication theories but still no field of communication theory. (1999, p. 123) Healing the disassociation within communication studies requires integration. First, however, the field’s major theoretical traditions must be clearly differentiated. Seven Productive Fragments One could differentiate the field of communication in many ways. The presentation below, representing one possibi lity, divides communication theories into seven broad traditions, adapted from Craig ( 1999) and Littlejohn (2002). Each tradition enjoys a contemporary academic following, and a substantial body of research literature. These seven traditions represent the biggest fragments or heaps currently active within communication studies. 1. The Rhetorical Tradition : Originating with the ancient Greeks, the rhetorical tradition views communication as a practical art of disc ourse. Communication, as a practical discipline, can improve by lear ning and practicing a skill. Rhetorical studies emphasize the power of words to ar tfully persuade audi ences and the value of informed judgment. 2. The Semiotic Tradition : Intersubjective mediation by signs characterizes the semiotic perspective of communication. Mi sunderstandings occur because of gaps among subjective viewpoints that can be imperfectly bridged by using shared sign systems such as language. Understanding re quires that both parties speak the same “language” and have shared referential experience. 3. The Phenomenological Tradition : The phenomenological tradition theorizes communication as experience of self and ot her in dialogue. Direct and unmediated contact with others is a real and necessary human e xperience. Phenomenologists

PAGE 17

5 aim to cultivate communication practices th at enable and sustain authentic human relationships, such as seeking genuinene ss, supportiveness, openness, respecting differences, and seeking common ground. 4. The Systems Tradition : Communication, according to the systems tradition, is information processing. Systems theory, c ybernetics, cognitive science, artificial intelligence, functionalist social theory, and network analysis all fall under the systems tradition. Systems theory describes the communication process empirically with functionalist terms such as source, receiver, signal, noise, and feedback. 5. The Sociopsychological Tradition : Experimental social psychology accounts for much of what is today ca lled “communication science.” This approach regards communication as processes by which humans express, interact, and influence each other. Psychological factor s (e.g., attitudes, values, em otional states, personality traits, unconscious conflicts social cognitions) mediate the communication process. 6. The Sociocultural Tradition : This tradition studies communication as a symbolic process that produces and reproduces shared sociocultural patterns. One the one hand, everyday interactions with others depend on preexisting, shared cultural meanings and social structures, and th ese interactions “reproduce” the existing sociocultural order. On the other hand, social intera ction allows creativity and improvisation that “produces” the socioc ultural order that makes interaction possible in the first place. 7. The Critical Tradition : With roots in Plato’s con ception of Socratic dialectic, critical communication theory aspires fo r mutual understanding through discursive reflection. Material and id eological forces impede the emancipatory movement towards authentic communication. Social injustices perpetuated by ideological distortions can be rectified through communi cative practices that enable critical reflection, unmask the distortions, an d facilitate political action. When faced with such theoretical diversit y, critics typically r eact in one of five ways, each response plagued with shortcomi ngs, based on the research of Wayne Booth (1979) and Donald Levine (1986). First, the polemicist response encourages all perspectives to fight it out and welcomes assaults on complacency and conformity. Critique: it often generates wasteful a nd mean spirited exchanges and fosters misinterpretation among intelle ctual opponents. Second, the semanticist response believes that disagreements will disappear through intellectual antagonists clarifying their terms and removing ambiguities. Critique: th e differences among perspectives transcend

PAGE 18

6 trivial semantic ambiguities and cannot be removed thr ough linguistic clarification (epistemological differences for example). Third, the monist response deems one contending position as correct and portrays all others as wrong, misleading, or unimportant. Critique: this response can claim validity only from within its own perspective and philosophically cannot justify universal invalidation of all other positions. Fourth, the skeptic (or relativist or nihilist) response questions whether any perspective can make statements containing trut h value. Critique: this claim contains a performative contradiction, namely the profe ssed certainty about th e impossibility of attaining certainty. Fifth, the eclectic response accepts the valid ity claims of competing theories and copes with the apparent incommensurability by chopping up works and using the most helpful fragments. Crit ique: the contextual significance of each perspective is lost when fragmented and spliced with other positions. An alternative response does exist, wh ich honors each approach as unique and valuable. Each theory contains its own stre ngths and weaknesses. Each theory offers a truth, but not the truth. Letting each theory tell its part of the story is essential; letting it impose its piece as the whole is disastrous. Given these basic insights, a series of questions arise: How can the partial truth of each perspective best be preserved? What sort of theoretical space can allow each perspective to re spect, value, and utilize the others? What sort of map could organize the perspectives to accentuate their relationships, patterns, and li nks? How is constructive dial ogue and cooperation among the perspectives best facilitated? Pu t simply, my response is integration. The next section introduces integration in a general, conversational manner. Playful language and colorful metaphors are in tentionally used to introduce some rather

PAGE 19

7 challenging concepts. Since an integral an alysis can operate upon any discipline, the following discussion could apply equally we ll to medicine, psychology, education, or business. What Does “Integral” Mean? Consider everything for a moment. . Now reflect how much you remembered to include. Did you remember atoms? What a bout political systems? Communication? Dreams? The feminine? Dare I even men tion consciousness? Th e question string could continue for miles. (Did you remember sex? And ecology? Spirituality? . .) Most people find this thought experiment ex ceedingly difficult. But there is a trick: spaces are easier to remember than particul ars. For example, the space “kitchen” is simpler to recall than every particular item in a kitchen. Once a person understands the space “kitchen,” she will know where the toaster belongs upon encountering it. The same applies to everything. Create enough space and nothing is left out. “Integral” simply means covering all the base s. To do this, an integral map creates enough space to include all the bases in a balanced and comprehensive manner. But integral embrace involves more than just r ecognizing multiple clumps or listing eclectic jumbles. It joins, links, and fits toge ther the individual ba ses by finding underlying patterns and interconnections within a common worldsp ace, territory, or matrix. Without an integral map, keeping ever ything straight proves challenging for anyone. The information age launches a relent less barrage of meaning missiles. Some inevitably penetrate our minds and set up reside nce. Bits and pieces drift aimlessly in a chaotic bowl of mental s oup. Information fragments bounce around the mind, blindly bumping into each other—garbled, jumbled, muddl ed. Integral maps seek to coordinate

PAGE 20

8 this eclectic pluralism, converting “heaps into wholes.” For without coordination, information loses much of its pragmatic value. Some maps are more inclusive than others and, in this case, value increases with capacity for embrace. For instan ce, a map of the entire Unite d States is more valuable than a Florida map, namely because the USA map includes Florida plus more. An integral approach endeavors to erect the largest map possible—an earnest model of everything, or at least the spaces in which ev erything exists. Working with anything less than a full map will necessarily entail certain limitations, confusions, and reductionisms. With only a Florida map at hand, one might aim for Washington, D.C., yet only make it to Tallahassee. Using an integral map, in c ontrast, drastically improves the possibility of success. Theoretical integration means discoveri ng the unity-in-diversity, the commonalty amidst the difference. The integral project within communication attempts to give a comprehensive map of communicative phenom ena by including all traditions and perspectives. “The importan t point is the knowledge that all these views, when integrated, provide an ‘emergent factor’ that adds value beyond the sum of the perspectives” (Paulson, 2002, p. 110). Inte gral communication models the grand cohesion of relationships and developments that creates the possibility space for communication to occur. Beyond Fusion and Eclecticism A growing number of communication scholar s possess the will to integrate but lack the means. Unrest swells within the acad emic community to move beyond differentiation (or disassociation) towards integration. Ma ny communication professi onals are tired of

PAGE 21

9 disciplinary disassociatio n, eclecticism, or fusion. They wa nt integration, they’re just not quite sure how best to do it. A difference exists between the desire for integration and the regression from differentiation back to orthodox fusion (Gidde ns, 1989, p. 53). Integration does not mean fusion. No integrally oriented social sc ientist wants a dominating supertheory that supersedes and discredits all other theories as null and void. Richard Shweder explains that “it is not as if each of the several schools of thought is pressing for that notable scientific achievement or crucial experiment in the wake of which the diversity will disappear, a unifying paradigm will emerge, and real science will begin” (1986, p. 163). Similarly, O’Keefe makes the case agains t coherence (fusion) and for cohesion (integration) (1993, p. 76-80). She argues that “t heoretical unification is neither desirable nor attainable. . Since we [communication scholars] have different viewpoints for good reason, imposition of one common theoretical viewpoint would simply mean displacing some important work from the field” (1993, p. 76). Craig follows in stating “the goal should not be some chimerical, unified theo ry of communication ju st over the rainbow. Such a unified theory will always be out of reach, and we probably should not want one if it were attainable. . The goal should not be a state in which we have nothing to argue about, but one in which we better understand th at we all have something very important to argue about” (1999, p. 123-124). Under no ci rcumstances does an integral approach to communication mean an end to theoretical diversity. Beyond monistic fusion and ecl ectic pluralism, integrati on offers a metanarrative, field, matrix, or map where basic commonalties and relationships become more apparent among the multiplicity of perspectives and traditions in communi cation studies. Many

PAGE 22

10 communication scholars voice their desire for su ch an integral map. Craig calls for a metatheoretical approach that “cuts across th e various disciplinary traditions, substantive specialties, methodologies, and schools of thought that presently divide us” (1999, p. 120). “Perhaps ways can be found by which the various, apparently incompatible or unrelated modes of communication theory th at now exist can be brought into more productive dialogue with one another . perhaps communication science can be understood as an integrated ‘p ractical discipline’ in whic h critical, interpretive, and empirical research as well as philosophical reflection and applied work have deeply related, essential f unctions to perform” (Crai g, 1993; Craig, 1989). O’Keefe acknowledges, “The great opportunity offered by integration is the possibility of making a common cause. Rather than competing in separate units, the co mmunication disciplines can provide support for each other” (1993, p. 80). Many of the theorists mentioned in this section have attempted integral schemes that have failed in various ways. No ma trix, metamodel, or framework has yet been erected that effectively integrates the co mmunication field. Many seem content with creating elaborate categorical matrixes of ecl ecticism. “The time is ripe,” concludes Levine, “for articulating a self -conscious pluralist program in the social sciences in which the point will be, not to scrap the demarca tionist [differentiation] project, but to sophisticate it” (1986, p. 282). Cr aig’s “dialogical-di alectical coherenc e matrix” serves as a fine example of a sophisticated demarcation (1999, p. 133-134). Nevertheless, eclectic pluralism of this so rt cannot be called integral. Two Noteworthy Pioneers Acknowledged as one of the greatest thi nkers of the twenti eth century, Jurgen Habermas stands among the most comprehens ive and philosophically rigorous of all

PAGE 23

11 communication scholars. His writings display encyclopedic knowledge across a plenitude of academic disciplines. He s ought to “synthesize [these disciplines] on an encompassing scale as grand as that of Hegel or Marx” (Wuthnow, Hunter, Bergesen, Kurzweil, 1984, p. 179). Indeed, Habermas ’s theoretical framework—featuring a horizontal and vertical axis—mak es invaluable contributions to the integral project in general, and to integral communication specifically. Central to his thought is a “universal pragmatics,” marked by a theory of “communicative action” (Habermas, 1984; Habe rmas, 1979). Habermas cites Immanuel Kant who differentiated what Max Weber late r called the three “cultural value spheres” (1996, p. 239). This primary differentiati on allowed Habermas to articulate the relationship of “speech acts” with the three most primary realities or worldspaces: According to this model, language can be conceived as the medium of interrelating three worlds; for every successful communi cative action there exists a threefold relation between the utterance and (a) “the external world” as the totality of existing states of affairs, (b) “our social world” as the totality of all normatively regulated interpersonal relati ons that count as legitimate in a given society, and (c) “a particular inner world” (of the speaker) as the totality of his intentional experiences. (Habermas, 1979, p. 67) Returning full circle to the Zen story, recall that the traveler held up three fingers to signify these same three realms. Ind eed, the “Three Jewels” of Buddhism—Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha—respectively signify th e worldspaces of subjective understanding, objective truth, and intersubjective meaning. In any communicative action towards mutu al understanding, “va lidity claims are ‘always already’ implicitly raised” (Haberma s, 1979, p. 97). Each of these three realms, insists Habermas, has its own specific validity claim. Validity claims of truth truthfulness (or sincerity), and rightness (or legitimacy) correlate respectively to the realms of the objective, the s ubjective, and the intersubjectiv e. The next chapter covers

PAGE 24

12 these domains in greater detail. For now, simp ly note that the three validity criteria are domain specific. Habermas cautions that the validation method of one domain does not validate the others. The second major component to Habermas’s work is his developmental investigations—the vertical axis. The tas k, for Habermas, is “to work out a unified framework in which the different dimens ions of human development are not only analytically distinguished [differentiated] but in which their interconnections are also systematically taken into account [integra tion]” (McCarthy, 1979, p. xx). This quote, written almost 25 years ago, nicely articulates a key aspect of the integral project. Habermas presents a rational reconstr uction of “universal, ‘species-wide,’ competencies and the demonstrati on that each of them is acquire d in an irreversible series of distinct and increasingly complex stages that can be hierarchically ordered in a developmental logic” (McCarthy, 1979, p. xx). Development occurs within each of the three worldspace domains (subjective, intersubj ective, and objective). The outcome of this multidimentional evolution determ ines the acquisition of communicative competence. The key point to remember: the Big Three reality domains—subjective, intersubjective, and objective—evolve together. A second, lesser known pioneer, Steven L ittlejohn, has consis tently supported theoretical integration for the past 25 years since the first edition of his widely respected textbook Theories of Human Communication In the 1978 introducti on, he expresses the belief that “each theory looks at the [communi cation] process from a different angle, and each theory provides insights of its own” ( p. 21). He recognizes that “the biggest problem of an eclectic approach is integr ating parts into a c oherent whole” (1978, p.

PAGE 25

13 374). In his concluding chapte r titled “A Multitheoretical Integration,” he outlines an approach by which “we are able to see patt erns and generalizations not apparent from narrower perspectives” (1978, p. 374-375). In his attempt of a “multitheoretical integr ation,” Littlejohn also uses a horizontal and vertical axis of analysis. For the hor izontal, he employs two broad perspectives— general systems theory and symbolic inte ractionalism—to represent the two primary perspectives of communication (1978, p. 376). On the one hand, general systems theory represents theories that focus on “out th ere activity” such as behavior, function, and utility (Littlejohn, 1983, p. 10). On the othe r hand, symbolic interaction (including semiotics) represents theori es that deal with “in here activity” incl uding meaning, interpretation, and signs (L ittlejohn, 1983, p. 10). The combination of these two general perspectives produces a rough framework of th e inside and outside of any communicative event. For his vertical axis, Littlejohn supports the use of hierarch ies and levels of analysis. He clearly states that communicati on, as a complex process, “can be analyzed hierarchically” (1978, p. 376). He cites four contexts or le vels within communication: interpersonal, group, organizational, and mass, pointing out that “these levels are not mutually exclusive. They should be vi ewed hierarchically with interpersonal communication as the base of all othe r contexts” (Littlejohn, 1978, p. 378). This statement suggests a system relationship in whic h each level exists both as a whole and as a part of a greater whole. For example, group communication is a whole system itself and simultaneously a part of the larger syst em of organizational communication. Finally, he implies that the two horizontal dimensions (interior and exterior) operate at each of the

PAGE 26

14 four vertical levels. Any future attempt at theoretical integration will surely want to consult and include Littlej ohn’s pioneering efforts. Perhaps more than any other contemporary American communication theorist, Littlejohn has exemplified a career commitment to healthy theoretical pluralism and the call for theoretical integration. In th e seventh and most recent addition of Theories of Human Communication he reaffirms this commitment by supporting Craig’s search for “a metamodel that opens up a conceptual space in which many different theoretical models of communication can interact” (Littlejohn, 2002, p. 12; Craig, 1999, p. 126-127). The term meta explains Littlejohn, means “above,” and so a metamodel is a “model of models” (2002, p. 12). But even Littlejohn does not believe he possesses the means to carry a theoretical inte gration through to a satisfactory completion. Instead of presenting his readers with a revised integral metam odel in his 2002 textbook, he gives this advice: “As a student of communication theory . if you can find a useful metamodel, you will be able to make connections among theories . and understand the value of multiple perspectives in the field” (p. 12). The next chapter offers a viable means of integration by introducing just such a “useful metamodel.”

PAGE 27

15 CHAPTER 2 THE ARCHITECTURE OF INTEGRAL RECONSTRUCTION The Master Architect In Communication and the Evolution of Society Habermas says that “ reconstruction signifies taking a theory apart and putting it back together again in a new form in order to attain more fully the goal it has set for itself. This is the normal way of dealing with a theory that needs revisi on in many respects but whose potential for stimulation has still not been exhausted” (1979, p. 95). Far from regression to modernist thinking, the reconstructive impulse marks an evolution beyond not only modernity, but beyond deconstructive postmodernity as we ll. One could call it reconstructive postmodernism, post-postmodernism, or more simply integral Robert Kegan writes, “What I call ‘reconstructive postmodernism’ . seeks not only a di fferentiation from the forms of modernism but their reintegration into a new way of know ing that abjures the absolutism of the forms, that does not take the forms as complete, distinct, or prior” (1994, p. 329). Regarding communication, Robert Craig asserts, “Our task is not to deconstruct communication theory. (What woul d be the point? It’s already a mess.) Rather, we must re construct communication theory . .” (1999, p. 129). Respectable thinkers have la bored over the rec onstructive project only to encounter variable degrees of fruition. An easy way to judge the relative success of any given integral map is to ask how much space it crea tes. Does it create enough space to include the partial truth of all the th eoretical traditions and methods ? The present investigation strives to assess whether the AQAL (pronounced ah-qwal ) integral framework created by

PAGE 28

16 the American philosopher Ken Wilber can credibly answer this question in the affirmative. Wilber has expanded and refined his work over the past 30 years, passing through at least four distinct phases. The 19 books he has either wr itten or edited have been translated into more than 30 languages, ma king Wilber the most translated American academic writer alive (Visser, 2003, p. 3). At 23-years-old, he authored his first book, which sent ripples into elite academic circles th at have yet to settle. “Virtually overnight Wilber was acknowledged as a leading th inker in the fields of psychology and philosophy, with serious reviews comparing him to Freud, Hegel, even Plato” (Visser, 2003, p. 25). On an intellectual side, Wilber demons trates an uncanny “capacity to absorb, synthesize, categorize, and make sense of vast amounts of information from disparate fields” (Schwartz, 1995, p. 342). On a pers onal side, he has been characterized as “patient, generous, funny, insightful, and en tertaining” (Schwartz, 1995, p. 341). Having personally met with him several times at hi s Denver residence, I can only agree on both accounts. Ken Wilber’s wisdom and compassi on inform this entire project of integral communication. In 1995, Wilber first published the A QAL model in volume one of the Kosmos trilogy. He relates how his reconstructive vision grew out of the smoky ruins of deconstructive postmodernism: One thing was very clear to me as I str uggled with how best to proceed in an intellectual climate dedicated to deconstr ucting anything that crossed its path: I would have to back up and start at the be ginning, and try to cr eate a vocabulary for a more constructive philosophy. Beyond pl uralistic relativism is universal integralism; I therefore sought to outline a philosophy of universal integralism. . an integral philosophy, one that would believably weave together the many

PAGE 29

17 pluralistic contexts of sc ience, morals, aesthetics, Eastern as well as Western philosophy, and the world’s great wi sdom traditions (2000b, p. x). “You cannot do that,” Wilber insists, “as an eclecticism, or a smorgasbord of unrelated observations. . The integral orientation mu st be able to tie together an enormous number of disciplines into a fairly comple te, coherent, plausible, believable vision” (Wilber in Visser, 2003, p. 35-36). The remainder of this chapter shows how he did it and how it applies to communication. Nothing is as practical as a good (meta)theory, but only if it is applied. With this in mind, Wilber founded a non-profit organization— The Integral Institute —to apply the integral vision. The Integral Institute curren tly is committed the following four goals (I-I, 2004): 1. Integrate the largest amount of research from the largest number of disciplines. 2. Develop practical products and services from this research. 3. Apply this integrated knowledge and me thod of problem solving to critical and urgent issues. 4. Create the world’s first In tegral Learning Community. Integral Institute recruits top academics and practitioners from around the world to collaborate on the integral rec onstruction project. The globa l think tank is divided into domains composed of “core teams” who work together to reconstruct their respective disciplines with the AQAL model. Core t eams include integral business, integral ecology, integral art, integral psychology, integral medicine and integral education to name a few. Perhaps in the future inte gral communication will also be a domain. AQAL stands for “all quadrants, all levels,” but also implies lines, states, and types. Together these five elements function as the essential theoretical tools of the integral map. Remembering them will prove extremely helpful for the task ahead. Try this

PAGE 30

18 pneumonic memory device to help: To learn start loving questions — T o (types) L earn (lines) S tart (states) L oving (levels) Q uestions (quadrants). Quadrants The quadrants serve as AQAL’s horizontal axis. They elegantly map the same reality domains given by Habermas. Ever y communication relates to at least four worldspaces, each with its own type of conditi on or validity claim that determines the effectiveness of the co mmunication. First, the external world refers to material objects in nature. External phenomena can be empirica lly perceived, measured, and manipulated. A communication act is effective in this domain to the degree that it accurately represents the objective facts. The validity claim is truth : a communication “count s as true for the participants insofar as it re presents something in the wo rld” (Habermas, 1979, p. 28). Second, the internal world signifies the realm of personal subjectivity. This domain includes the values, feelings, and intenti ons of the person communicating. Effective communication occurs when the communicator expresses what she actually thought or felt internally. Within this domain, truthfulness (or sincerity) determines the validity of a speech act. A communication “counts as tr uthful insofar as it expresses something intended by the speaker” (Habermas, 1979, p. 28). A third reality domain, the cultural world concerns the inte rsubjective space of mutual recognition. When a signing community interacts with mutu al understanding it shares pre-existing, collective contexts such as cultural norms, symbolic patterns, moral expectations, and worldviews. The validity claim here deals with the rightness (or legitimacy) of a communicative action in relation to cult ural norms. A communication “counts as right insofar as it conforms to so cially recognized exp ectations” (Habermas, 1979, p. 28). Finally, communicatio n takes place within the linguistic world

PAGE 31

19 Effectiveness depends on the linguistic medi um in which a communication is framed. A speech act must conform to the external prope rties of a language system. Grammatical, semantic, and syntactical rules must be followed for a communication to reach comprehensibility (or functional fit), the f ourth validity claim. These four communicative “worlds” are th e four quadrants. The quadrant model makes two basic distinctions: interior/exterior and individual/collective. This creates a matrix with four worldspaces or quadrants: the upper-left or interior-individual, the upper-right or exterior-individua l, the lower-right or exteri or-collective, and the lowerleft or interior-collective. Figure 2-1. Communicative Validi ty Claims of the Quadrants

PAGE 32

20 Notice that everything on the left side of th e model refers to inte riors and everything on right side refers to exterior s. The term “exterior” describes physical forms, systems, behaviors, functions, and so on. Exterior phenomena in communication include all semiotic signifiers (spoken language, wr itten words), behavioral responses to communication stimuli, statistically tabulated survey data, brain neurology, satellites, the First Amendment to the Constitution, media distribution systems, sociological demographics, the Internet, and the Federa l Communications Commission (FCC) to name a few. Exteriors have “simple location” and can be seen empirically, objectively, and behaviorally (Wilber, 1996, p. 90). They ar e the material manifestation of every phenomenon. “Interior” refers to phenomena such as consciousness, meaning, intention, feeling, value, and interpretation. Unlike exteriors, interiors lack simple location. One cannot empirically point to alienati on, meaning, or mind, yet they exist. All psychological and cultural “lenses” through wh ich one engages the communicat ive process are interiors: semiotic signifieds (menta l perceptions), judgements of newsworthiness, cultural contexts, affective relationships, psychologi cal levels of development, hermeneutic circles, value systems, and cogni tive capacity for example. “Left Hand” and “Right Hand” serve as a bbreviations for interior and exterior phenomena respectively. Recall that Littlejohn used systems theory to signify the Right Hand and symbolic interactionalism to signify the Left Hand in his model. Philosophers from Spinoza to Leibniz to Schopenhauer to Whitehead agree that every human process includes a within and a without a cognition and an extension, a depth and a surface, a subjective and an objective, an internal and an external, a Left Hand and a Right Hand

PAGE 33

21 (Wilber, 2000b, p. 117). Communication, being a human process, is, therefore, no exception. The quadrants are so fundamental to the human experience that every major language recognizes them in th e form of first-person, second-person, and third-person pronouns (I-I, 2003). First-person means “the person who is speaking,” which includes pronouns like I, me, mine (in the singular), and we, us, ours (in the plural). Secondperson means “the person who is s poken to,” which includes pronouns like you and yours Third-person means “the person or thing being spoken about,” such as he, him, she, her, they, them, it, and its If I am speaking to you about my new car “I” am first person, “you” are second person, and the new car (or “it”) is third pe rson. Now, if you and I are talking and communicating, we will indicate this by usi ng, for example, the word “we,” as in, “We understand each other.” “We” is technically first-person plural, but if you and I are communicating, then your second person and my first person are part of this extraordinary “we.” Thus second person is sometimes indicated as “you/we,” or “thou/we,” or sometimes just “we.” So we can therefore simplify first-, second-, and third-person as “ I ,” “ we ,” and “ it .” (I-I, 2003) Hence, the quadrants can be boiled down to I (interior-individual), We (interiorcollective), and It(s) (exteriorindividual and exterior-collectiv e) or, as Wilber calls them, the “Big Three.” Many great thinkers have recognized the Bi g Three in their own theories: Plato’s the Beautiful (I), the Good (We), and the Tr ue (It); Max Weber’s art aesthetic (I), religious morals (We), scientific empiricism (It); Sir Karl Popper’s three worlds: the subjective (I), the cultu ral (We), and the objectiv e (It); Immanuel Kant’s The Critique of Critical Judgement (I), The Critique of Practical Reason (We), and The Critique of Pure Reason (It); and, as already seen, Buddhism’s Buddha (I), Sangha (We), and Dharma (It) (Wilber, 2000b, p. 149). The charts below show the same fundamental worldspaces in

PAGE 34

22 two different ways. The chart on the right shows Plato’s formulation of the Big Three and the chart on the left shows the languages of the quadrants: Figure 2-2. The Four Quadrants Simplified as the Big Three The quadrant model integrates the Big Three wh ile preserving the in tegrity, identity, and languages (first-person, secondperson, and third-person) of each. At their core the quadrants represent “the four fundamental perspectives on any occasion, the four basic ways of looking at anything” (I-I, 2003). Hence, communicative action necessarily entails all four quadrant domain s. In short, communication is always a quadratic affair, involving the inside and the outside of the individual and the collective Theoretical integration require s figuring out how much of the quadratic affair each communication theory includes. Some theo ries may cover only one quadrant. The systems tradition, for instance, describes th e lower-right quadrant of the communication process. Other traditions overlap. The cri tical tradition draws from Marxist sociology concerning the relationship of society’s economic base (lower-right qua drant) to culture’s superstructure (lower-left qua drant). The phenomenological tr adition better addresses an

PAGE 35

23 agent’s conscious experience (upper-left) as she engages an “other” in relationship (lower-left). The rhetorical tradition’s em phasis on an individual’s practical speaking abilities points to the up per-right quadrant. Every theory recognizes at le ast one of the quadrants. The point is to orient the communication theories within the quadrants acc ording to their worldspace focus. Once properly oriented, each theory reveals which parts of the story it tells and which parts it leaves out. With this knowledge, an integral theorist can then recons truct a theory, in the Habermasian sense, to include additional quadrants. Or, the theory can be combined with others that address those quadran ts that it leaves out. Eith er way, the goal is to form a more comprehensive picture of any given communication process. Lines and Levels Everyone can agree that he or she is better at some things than others. Intelligence comes in many forms. Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences outlines seven including linguistic (sensitivity to the sounds, rhythms, and meanings of words and the different functions of language), musical (ability to produce and appreciate pitch, rhythm, and aesthetic-sounding tones), and interpersonal (ability to detect and respond appropriately to the moods, temperaments, motivations, and intentions of others) (Gardner, 1999). Other intelligences include cognitive (Piaget, 1952), values (Graves, 1974), emotional (Salovey and Mayer, 1990), psychosexual (Freud, 1989), moral (Kohlberg, 1984), and even spiritual (Plotinus, 1991). In the present context, these intelligences o ccur within the interior of an individual, which places them in the upper-left quadrant. Incidentally, this chart was adapted from the University of Notre Dame’s “Executive Integral Leadership Program” (Notre Dame, 2004). Notice that some arrows extend farther than others. The vari ance represents the

PAGE 36

24 fact that we all have unique strengths and weaknesses. Someone’s strength can be another’s weakness. Assuming that intelligences are not fixed (as the research indicates), then a developmental logic inev itably emerges (Gardner, 1999). Figure 2-3. Multiple Lines of Development Another word for multiple intelligences is developmental lines since language proficiency, morality, cognition, emotions, a nd so on all develop through a series of qualitatively different stages or levels The number of levels represented in any developmental line does not matter as much as the general developmental pattern. For example, the Fahrenheit and Centigrade scal es divide temperature differently, but the general trend from cold to hot applies to both (I-I, 2003).

PAGE 37

25 Whether the division of levels be two or two hundred, the relationship among the levels remains the same. According to the inte gral perspective, the conceptual key to this relationship turns out to be th e “holon,” a term coined by Arthur Koestler. In his own words, Koestler says a holon “designates thes e nodes on the hierarchic tree which behave partly as wholes or wholly as parts, acco rding to the way you look at them” (1967, p. 48). In other words, a holon is a whole that simultane ously is a part of a gr eater whole. In the linguistic realm, Koestler demonstrates “the impossibility of th e task of chopping up speech into elementary atoms or units, eith er on the phonetic or on the syntactic level. Phonemes, words, phrases, are wholes in thei r own right, but parts of a larger unit” (1967, p. 48). According to Koestler (and Wilb er), neither “wholes” nor “parts” exist anywhere—only whole/parts or “holons.” A wo rd is a whole, yet simultaneously part of a greater whole: a sentence. A whole sentence is also part of a para graph, which itself is a larger whole/part or holon. Each level in an given developmental line is a holon—a whole level, yet also part of an even more encompassing level that “transcends and includes” it (Wilber, 2000b). In a holarchy, each senior holon transcends its juniors, while also including them, a process that can be visually represented as a series of concentric circles. Holarchies occur in every quadrant. Habermas deals with developmental holarchies in all four (1979): Upper-left (interior-individual): cognition, morals, self-sense Upper-right (exterior-individual): biological evolution Lower-right (exterior-collective): soci al systems, political economy Lower-left (interior-collective): worldviews, normative structures Perhaps most relevant and complex of all, for Habermas, concerns the development of communicative competence, which involves de velopmental lines in each quadrant (i.e.,

PAGE 38

26 the four validity claims). Such a concep tion would show the “fundamental system of rules that adult subjects master to the extent that they can fulfill the conditions for a happy employment of sentences in utterances . .” (1979, p. 26). To help put the three elements together (quadrants, levels, lines ), please see appendix A for a visual representation of one particular AQAL mode l called “Spiral Dynamics integral.” An integral theoretical reconstruction might critically examine each tradition concerning its incorporation of levels and lines. The integral communication theorist must wrestle with how lines of developmen t relate to each of the traditions. A developmental reconstruction of the semiotic tradition, for example, is attempted in chapter 6. States and Types A state is “a condition or mode of being” (American Heritage, 2000). Everyone experiences the three most obvious and na tural states of consciousness: waking, dreaming, and deep sleep. These general states contain structures, and those structures contain phenomenal states or how one is in this moment (Wilber, 2003a). Phenomenal states include any temporary modes of bei ng such as emotions, alertness, and peak experiences (Maslow, 1971; Csikszentmihal yi, 1990). States inevitably affect how individuals both give and receive communications and the success of mutual understanding. Communication dynamics will differ, for instance, depending on whether the participants act from a phenomen al state of anger versus love. States (like levels and lines) occur not onl y in the interior-ind ividual quadrant, but in all the quadrants. On the Right Hand, for example, the exterior-i ndividual reacts with a “fight or flight” adrenaline surge and the exterior-collectiv e exhibits various atmospheric and weather states. A threatened culture (internal-collective) may regress to

PAGE 39

27 a lower state of needs, but not a lower level During a state of war, a culture highly developed along Abraham Maslow’s needs holarc hy collectively regresses, for a time, to a joint need for security. During this pa rticular collective state, communications emphasizing security needs often enjoy a warmer reception than during a state of peace. States range from playing trivial to decisi ve roles in any given communicative exchange, which is why no integral approach can afford to ignore them. “Type” is the fifth element of the AQAL mode l. Types can be present at virtually any state, level, line, or quadrant. They are often characterized as horizontal typologies because they exist on the same level of de pth. Examples in the upper-left quadrant include gender (masculine and feminine), pe rsonality (nine types in the Enneagram), and sexual orientation (heterosexual and ho mosexual). Within the line of moral developmental, Carol Gilligan shows that both men and women develop through the same moral levels, but “in a different voice,” meaning women tend to emphasize care while men focus more on justice (Gillig an, 1982). Gender, personality, and sexual orientation types all influence the communication process. The fields of cross-cultura l and intercultural communication (lower-left quadrant) address how communication differs base d on a culture’s type (Gudykunst, 2003; Reynolds and Valentine, 2004). Edward Ha ll, often referred to as the founder of intercultural communication, distinguished be tween two cultural types—high-context and low-context—depending on the amount of mean ing found in the context versus in the coded message (Hall, 1976). American cultu re exemplifies a low-context type because Americans give more emphasis to the language code, communicating in a more specific, explicit, and detailed manner. High-contex t cultures, in contrast, communicate more

PAGE 40

28 implicitly and meaning appears in contextual cu es or internalized in the person. A highcontext communication may sound deliberately vague to a low-context listener and a low-context message may sound too speci fic to a high-context listener. Florence Kluckhohn also discovered a classi c cultural typology between “doing” and “being” cultures, which loosely corre lates to masculine and feminine types respectively (Kluchhohn, 1956). Doing-orient ed cultures place a premium on actions, measurable results, and progress. Conve rsely, family background, social identity, and relationships carry more weight in beingoriented cultures. Whereas a doing culture associates words with actions, a being culture links words with social relationships. The rich literature of communication types dese rves a place within any integral model of communication. Building Integral Communication AQAL is an architecture for integral rec onstruction. The integr al building stands on a radically inclusive framework that embr aces all quadrants, all levels, all lines, all states, and all types. The quadrants show how any communicative phenomenon can be seen from at least four different perspec tives: first-person (I), second-person (WE), thirdperson singular (IT), and thir d-person plural (ITS). Lines show that many different intelligences or areas of development exist within each quadrant. These areas each evolve through distinct levels of widening embrace, forming holarchies. States particularly phenomenal states, investigate all the ephemeral conditions of the moment that influence communication. Finally, types remind us of the diffe rent horizontal, samedepth voices that communicate in distin ct ways. Any communicative phenomenon, no matter how small, necessarily involves th e five elements of AQAL. Integral communication embodies this realization.

PAGE 41

29 Many applications arise from viewing communi cation from an integral perspective. My overall aim is to give a philosophical foundation to help th ese applications be actualized in the future. Firs t, the AQAL model could facilita te the process of theoretical integration among the communication traditions. Chapter 1 suggested this application by documenting numerous communication scholar s calling for a way to integrate the multiple communication traditions. Littlejohn gives an early version of an AQAL integration by using symbolic interactionalis m to represent the Le ft Hand quadrants and systems theory to represent the Right Hand quadrants. He also gives a communication holarchy—from interpersonal to group to organizational to mass communication—that applies to both Hands. Future theorists of integral communication will expand on such early models, using the AQAL map to fill in the gaps. Theoretical integration occurs through orienting the traditions on the AQAL map by recognizi ng the unity-in-diversity inherent among them all. Second, the integral framework lends much insight into building new communication theories. The five elements of AQAL must be taken into account when investigating and theorizing about any communication phenome non. If a communication theory fails to consider quadrants, levels lines, states, and t ypes, it risks ignoring important perspectives. For example, sin ce AQAL models the exte rior and interior worldspace domains in which every human process occurs, and communication is a human process, then any communication theory that hopes to be non -reductionistic and integral must recognize and include both interiors and exterior s without reducing or deriving one from the other.

PAGE 42

30 A third application concerns met hodological integration. AQAL gives a philosophical justification fo r mixing research methods. Re searchers use two or more methods to examine the same phenomenon all the time, but no cogent explanation exists to warrant the practical union of two seemi ngly contradictory episte mologies. I attempt to build the case for methodological integrat ion and the dangers of reductionism in Chapter 3. This critical assessment does not view specialization in one research method as being negative. On the contrary, an in tegral methodological pluralism acknowledges the perspectival truth in all approaches. It endorses studying a co mmunicative event from all relevant angles by including the expertis e of numerous resear ch specialists. Fourth, integral communication can be us ed as a strategy of communicative action. An integral awareness can facilitate comm unication effectiveness by translating messages into a language easier for the receiver to dige st. Chapters 4, 5, and 6 lay the theoretical groundwork for such a strategy, and Chapte r 7 documents the strategy successfully applied. An alternative strategy uses an integral understanding to facilitate developmental growth in the receiver. Chapter 8 touches upon this strategy of transformational communication. A fifth way integral comm unication might be applied is by helping the various academic disciplines talk and learn from each other more effectively. Chapter 8 explains how integral communication describes a trans-di sciplinary language that facilitates crossdisciplinary discourse. Since the same AQAL map applies to all disciplines—from business to politics to education to art to ecology—it gives each discipline a common language to talk with one anot her. As the Integral Institu te puts it, “All of the various human activities, previously separated by incommensurate languages and terminologies,

PAGE 43

31 can in fact begin to effectively communicate with each other. . We are able to facilitate and dramatically accelerate cross-disciplina ry and trans-disciplinary knowledge, thus creating the worlds’ first truly integr al learning community” (I-I, 2003). To sum up, integral communication could be applied as a meta-model, a metamethod, a strategy, or a cross-di sciplinary discourse. Bu ilding integral communication begins with a few bricks as attempted here. Though they may be uneven at first, I can only hope that others will help straighten th em so a future edifice might stand.

PAGE 44

32 CHAPTER 3 WAR AND PEACE AMONG METHODS Paradigm Battles In the late 1930s, two prom inent communication theorists joined forces to study the cultural effects of radio music programs. On the Right Hand, Paul Lazarsfeld is ranked among the “four fathers” of mass communicatio ns research according to the history of functionalism (along with Harold Lasswell, Kurt Lewin, and Carl Hovland) (Mattelart and Mattelart, 1998, p. 30-31). He specialized in empirical, quantitative methods, which he called “administrative rese arch.” On the Left Hand, Th eodor Adorno participated in the Frankfurt School of critical theory a nd favored more interp retative, qualitative research methods. Lazarsfeld believed his re search partnership w ith Adorno would result in “a convergence between European theory and American empiricism” (Lazarsfeld quoted in Mattelart and Mattelart, 1998, p. 59) Instead, the partnership quickly soured and the joint project ended in 1939 to the frustration of both men. Failing to reconcile their epistemologi cal differences, Lazarsfeld and Adorno agreed on the incompatibility of their re spective research approaches. Adorno complained that Lazarsfeld’s administrative research questions de liberately ignored the “who,” the “how,” and the “why.” Shortly after the ordeal, Adorno recalled, “When I was confronted with the demand to ‘measure cu lture,’ I reflected that culture might be precisely that condition that excludes a menta lity capable of measuring it” (1969). Later in 1972, Lazarsfeld openly expressed his fear s concerning “that st range coalition of macro-sociological Marxists and ethnomet hodologists who want to explore the ‘real’

PAGE 45

33 existential meaning underlying measurement te chniques” (Lazarsfeld quoted in Mattelart and Mattelart, 1998, p. 112). Methodological wa rs like this played out on academic battlefields across the contin ents. The relatively brief history of communicati on research may be read as a rather continuous epistemological clash between two methodological t itans. Lazarsfeld’s position represents exterior approaches such as positivism, functionalism, empiricism, systems science, and cybernetics (Right Hand quadrants). Adorno, in contrast, symbolizes interior approaches such as construc tivism, hermeneutics, phenomenology, critical analysis, and semiotics (Left Hand quadrants). A number of dichotomies arise out of this simple external/internal split: objective versus subjective, seen versus unseen, outer versus inner, public versus private, controlled versus free, syst ematic versus unsystematic, automatic (mechanical) versus willed (purposiv e), prediction versus understanding, explained-by-reference-to-causal-law versus understood-by-refe rence-to-intentions, general versus constructed, value-free ve rsus value-saturated, formal versus informal, materialist versus idealist, one versus many, instrumental versus symbolic, motion versus action, the natu ral sciences versus the humanities (Shweder, 1986, p. 177) Jensen summarizes all these dichotomies by saying, “Communication studies have tended to take either an external perspective on information as a technical, neutral carrier, or an internal perspective on meaning as an always interpreted a nd interested construct” (2002, p. 256). Quantitative methods study the outside of communica tion and qualitative methods study the inside of communication. Exterior approaches deal with objective su rfaces and interior approaches deal with subjective depth. As Wilber points out, “surf aces can be seen, depth must be interpreted” (1996, p. 91). Thus, descriptive, experiment al, functional, and behavioral analyses abound in the exterior approach, all of which could be characterized as quantitative and

PAGE 46

34 “monological.” The core research question of external, quantitative methods asks, “What does it do?” (Wilber, 2000b, p. 132). Quantitativ e methods in communication research include surveys, descriptive content analyses, controlled experiments, and statistical data analyses (Gunter, 2002, p. 209; St acks, 2002). Systems theory exemplifies such a model that details the external structure and func tion of the communication process, but remains silent on the internal dynam ics of meaning creation. In contrast, the basic resear ch question of internal, quali tative methods asks, “What does it mean?” Meaning cannot be studied through a monological gaze, only through dialogical interaction. Resear chers investigate interior pheno mena with a wide array of qualitative methods such as ethnography, interp retive content analysis interview, case study, discourse analysis, focus group, and phenomenological investigation (Thomas, 2003; Daymon and Holloway, 2002). Hermeneutic s (the study of interpretation based on grasping the entire network of meaning) a nd semiotics (the study of signs in their intersubjective settings) are ex amples of traditions that un cover interior (subjective and intersubjective) meaning creation processes. According to the purists of two decades ago, “these positions do not seem to be compatible given our present state of thi nking” (Smith, 1983, p. 12). During the war of methods, many scholars supported the “incom patibility thesis” and even suggested “shutting down” the seemingly incommensur able dialogue between the two camps (Smith and Heshusius, 1986). Participants were called “warriors” and “sumo wrestlers trying to push each other out of the ring” (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998, 6; Datta, 1994, p. 53). Littlejohn, a strong advocate of met hodological pluralism, remarked, “What is particularly unfortunate . is the methodol ogical defensiveness that often arises among

PAGE 47

35 theorists in communication. It is a healthy sign when res earchers and theorists possess a degree of self-respect and confidence in their approaches. But when this confidence turns into parochialism of inquiry, then the state of the art is less than healthy” (1978, p. 21). Specializing in a particular research method is fine. Claiming that that method uncovers the whole truth is not. External Reductionism Failure to include findings from both internal and external methods when formulating a new theory results in a limited and reductionistic theory— limited because it leaves out at least half the story and reductionistic because it attempts to cover the gap by artificially reducing reality to its favored domain. Both methodological approaches, internal and external, succumb to reductio nism by ignoring the other approach and unsuccessfully stretching its own capacities. External reductionism reached its zenith during modernity’s “reflection” or “represent ational” paradigm, which held that “the sensorimotor world is simply given to us in direct experience and that science carefully and systematically reports what it there finds” (Wilber, 2000b, p. 208). The “myth of the given” lie s at the heart of modernity ’s reflection paradigm. According to this myth, reality is simply gi ven to sensing subjects. Researchers who hold this myth of the given deny existence to ev erything lacking simple location, in other words, everything interior. Descriptive beha vior and function trump constructed values and meaning for the external researcher. S upporters of external reductionism have a difficult time accounting for communication am ong subjective moral agents within an intersubjective cultural space. Many terms describe the consequences of external reductionism: the disenchantment of nature the disqualified universe, monological nature, and flatland. All of thes e terms point to a lack of de pth, a denial of interiority.

PAGE 48

36 Michel Foucault describes such theoretical extremism as a dehumanization process where men and women became “objects of inform ation, never subjects in communication” (Foucault in Wilber, 1996, p. 269). Language b ecomes a tool that merely points to and represents an a priori or pregiven objective reality. Like a mirror of nature, language transparently and neutrally reflects the world. We realize that meaning resides not in messa ges but in people, but we seem to have continuing difficulty accommodating this fact in our models and theories of the human communication process. The notion that words or statements ‘refer to’ something in the ‘real’ world is the most nave and primitiv e concept of human communication there is, yet in some quarters it is still th e guiding paradigm. (Thayer, 1972, p. 102) The reflection paradigm flattens the meani ng creation process inherent in subject to subject communicative exchange into one-dimen sional cybernetic information transfers. Communication from the Right Hand perspective might appear as “flatland digital bits of zeros and ones slammed from one mechanic al device to another” (Wilber, 2003a). Exterior communication models sacrifice de pth for surface, meaning for observation, subjective for objective, interi or for exterior. Systems theory exemplifies a communi cation tradition that often gives the illusionary impression of being comprehensive and integral, yet suffers from massive external reductionism. “Today a system approach,” remarks Littlejohn, “is often assumed in communication theory. It is often taken for granted in much of the work of the field without being labeled as such” (1999, p. 58). The aim of general systems theory—founded by the biologist Ludwig von Be rtalanffy—is to understand the totality of interactions among elements rather than linear causal sequences and to grasp the

PAGE 49

37 complexity of systems as dynamic wholes made up of many changing relationships (Bertalanffy, 1968; Mattelart and Mattelart, 1998, p. 47). At its core, systems theory deals with “wholeness” and “relationships” unlike previous scientific methods that “tried to explain observable phenomena by reducing them to an interplay of elementary units investigatable independently of each other” (Bertalanffy, 1968, p. 36-37). Likewise, Erwin Laszlo says “instead of looking at one thing at a time, and noting its behavior when exposed to one other thing, the [system] sciences now look at a number of different and interacting th ings and note their behavior as a whole under diverse influences” (1996, p. 4). Most system theorists point to the realization that “the whole is greater than the sum of its part s” or “holism” as the guiding insight of systems thinking. Fritjof Capra ch arts the so-called transition from “the mechanistic to the ecological paradigm” in The Web of Life : The basic tension is one between the pa rts and the whole. The emphasis on the parts has been called mech anistic, reductionist, or atomistic; the emphasis on the whole holistic, organismic, or ecological. In twentieth-century science the holistic perspective has become known as ‘systemi c’ and the way of thinking it implies as ‘systems thinking.’ (1996, p. 17) Although the differentiation be tween “atomistic” (e xterior-individua l quadrant) and “holistic” (exterior-collective quadrant) proves es sential in any integral theory, it remains radically partial. Systems theory masterfu lly articulates one-third of the story—the lower-right quadrant, while virtually ignor ing the other threefourths of reality. Systems theory, like any purely external approach, features a limited set of quantitative methods: behavioral, functional, organizational, structural, instrumental, empirical, descriptive. Brent Reuben reasons that “general systems is a science of organizing and organization,” and “since co mmunication is the means through which human organizing and organizati on occur, it occupies a cent ral role in general system

PAGE 50

38 thinking” (1972, p. 95). Reuben goes on to make many helpful theore tical distinctions, yet all within the same external framework. For instance, he cites the central research question of information systems as “How does it work?” a functional question and the primary research question of communication systems as “How are people using it?” a behavioral and instrumental question ( 1972, p. 110). The questions asked by system theorists consistently fail to escape the external frame. Ron Pearson encounters severe theoretical difficulties when he asks internal questions of meaning and morality within a systems theory framework (1990, p. 219). Pearson argues that systems theory contains both a strategic, exte rnal dimension and an ethical, internal dimension. Yet no where in the article does P earson demonstrate how values and morality follow from the actual systems model itself. At best, he makes the unfounded assertion that “syste m interdependence and inte rconnectedness have profound ethical implications” (1990, p. 224). While this might be true for some, the fact remains that the system model, being external, objec tive, and descriptive, carries no intrinsic moral imperatives. Any ethical implications and values generated from system theory’s behavioral descriptions occur within an individual’s subjectivity, which only exists within a particular inters ubjective cultural context. Saddam Hussein, Pat Robertson, Donald Trump, and Ralph Nader could each re ad about systems theory and each carry away different “ethical implications.” Pears on extracted a specific meaning from systems theory, a meaning that others may or may not find. The point is th at the meaning arose within Pearson himself, and it is precisely this internal meaning-making process that systems theory does not address. Meaning does not simply sit in a theory waiting for someone to find it as the reflection paradigm would have it. Put bl untly, systems theory

PAGE 51

39 has no intrinsic “ethical face.” Ethical imp lications come only from the moral agents who engage the theory. Internal Reductionism While external reductionism studies objective reality with quantitative methodologies, internal reductionism focuse s exclusively on subjective reality and qualitative methodologies. Consider the as sumptions of the “C ultural Topoi” model (Leichty and Warner, 2001, p. 61-65): “Meaning and interpretati on are the central proce sses of all communication activities.” “Organizational environments are dyna mic cultural processes constituted by symbols, beliefs, rituals, and cultural norms.” “Communications is conditioned by cultural discourse and contributes to the same discourse system.” “Cultural topoi—systemic li nes of assumptions and arguments that reinforce a preferred pattern of soci al relationships—drive messa ge production and message interpretation.” “The credibility of a message depends on how closely it matches with the receiver’s cultural bias, the set of shared values and beliefs about human society and the natural world.” “Publics are an ongoing process of agreem ent upon an interpretation, having their own goals, processes, and dynamics that are internally generated.” Notice that systems theory shares none of these assumptions. The model places total importance on the interior dynamics of communication. As such, qualitative methods become the only acceptable research options. Approaches that admit interiors exist b ecome reductionistic when carried to the extreme assertion that interiors alone exist. Internal reductioni sts claim that nothing exists aside from subjectiv e interpretations—no objective tr uth, only interpretations, and all interpretations ar e socially constructed (Wilber, 2000a, p. 185).

PAGE 52

40 Largely from the concern of some huma nists with human communication—there is the tradition of assuming th e central issue to be one of ‘understanding’ or of ‘meaning.’ From this point of view, the end of all huma n communication is understanding. The study of human comm unication has more than once in man’s intellectual history b een reduced to the study of meani ng. This approach is equally misleading. The meaning of ‘Crime doesn ’t pay’ depends upon whether one is a criminal or not. (Thayer, 1972, p. 102) Post-structuralism, deconstructive postmodern ism, or deconstructionism generally name the extreme view that reduces reality to subj ectivity alone. Deconstr uctionists attack both science and traditional philosophy’s attempts to make statements about the objective world (Spretnak, 1991). The attack consists of “deconstructing” an objective statement by finding contexts that render the statement se lf-contradictory or absu rd (Derrida, 1996). Since meaning is context-bound and contexts are limitless, the deconstructionists can always find a further interc onnected context that alters the present meaning, thus disregarding all supposedly objec tive declarations (Wilber, 2000a). Communication scholar Thomas Mickey dr aws on postmodern theory to offer additional avenues where interiority and co mmunication meet. Rejecting the reflection paradigm, he assumes that “language is th e key creator of the social worlds people experience, not a tool for describing an obj ective reality” (1997, p. 274). Mickey goes on to cite the work of Jean Baudrillard, one of the most blatant perpetrators of internal reductionism. Baudrillard refers to our present time as the order of simulation (1993). For him, contemporary society is organized around “simulation and the play of images and signs, denoting a situation in which c odes, models, and signs are the organizing principles of a new social order where simulation rules” (Kellner, 1994, p. 8). Communication, economics, politics, social li fe, fashion, and death are all governed by the logic of simulation (Baudrillard, 1993). Objective reality beco mes lost in selfreferential signs:

PAGE 53

41 As simulations proliferate, they come to refer only to themselves: a carnival of mirrors reflecting images projected fro m other mirrors onto the omnipresent television screen and the screen of consci ousness, which in turn refers the images to its previous storehouse of images also produced by simulatory mirrors. (Kellner, 1994, p. 10) For Baudrillard, objective truth ha s a fleeting status if any at all. Ever-present simulation becomes the hyperreal, an experience that app ears “more real than real” for the subject (Kellner, 1994, p. 8). That is to say repres entation can now operate without ever having to land on the solid ground of facts, reality, or history (Ward, 1997, p. 62). The more people “flee from the ‘desert of the real’ for the ecstasies of hyperreality,” the more the originally true real loses its ontological presence. From Baudrillard’s philosophy, Mickey concludes that the activities of communications are simulations “substituting the signs of the real for reality itself. . [Mass communications] is involved with some thing called an image that has no reality behind it. We create an image and the public frequently through the media, centers on that sign, not on what they might think is a reality behind it. B ecause, as Baudrillard says, there is no reality behind the sign” (1997, p. 81). Internal reductionism flourishes in this approach because it denies ontological real ity to the external and attempts to stretch internal phenomena beyond its categorical capacity. Mixing with Pragmatism Aside from some anachronistic rebels the war of methods has cooled. Contemporary communication researchers —despite their pers onal biases and professional specializations—generally adm it that both qualitativ e and quantitative methods have something important to offer. Indeed, most scholars today see these two methodologies as “complementary rather th an antagonistic” (Thomas, 2003, p. 6). A senior researcher at the Worl d Bank says, “it is now widely acknowledged that there are

PAGE 54

42 considerable benefits to be gained from combining quantitative and qualitative methods” (Bamberger, 2000, p. 16). A research team comments, “Neither quantitative nor qualitative research is superi or to the other. . The be st [research] often combines features of each” (King, Koeh ane, and Verba, 1994, p. 7). When asked the rhetorical question, “Can quantitative and qualitative data collection methods and forms be used in the same study?” another social scientist resoundingly answer s, “Absolutely yes, we do it all the time and the integration greatly enriches our studies ” (emphasis added) (Hedrick, 1994, p. 49). Today, the “war” has cooled to an eclectic peace keeping mission, but can the current state-of-affairs accurate ly be labeled “integration?” Terms such as “mixing,” “blending,” and “triangulating” better describe recent attempts to utilize multiple methodologies in the same research project. Although these techniques cannot be called “i ntegral,” they contain certain advantages over monomethod approaches. After reviewing 57 mixed method st udies, a team of schol ars list five central advantages to “mixing methods” (Greene, J., V. Caracelli, and W. Graham, 1989): 1. triangulation or seeking convergence of results 2. complementarity or examining overlapping and different facets of a phenomenon 3. initiation or discovering paradoxes, contra dictions, and fresh perspectives 4. development or using the methods sequentially, such that results from the first method inform the use of the second method 5. expansion or mixed methods adding bread th and scope to a project Take triangulation, for example, which arose from the work of Campbell and Fiske (1959), later refined by Webb, Campbell, Schw artz, and Sechrest (1966), and then applied to wider areas by Denzin (1978) Put simply, methodological triangulation involves studying the same phenomenon from at least two different perspectives, often

PAGE 55

43 internal (using qualitative methods and data ) and external (using quantitative methods and data). Researchers who use triangulation find that th ey come to know a phenomenon better when they study it from more than one perspective. The paradigm war cooled because research ers came to realize that mixing methods works. The practice continues to grow in popularity, despite its philo sophical impotence. No mixed-methodology researcher has offered a coherent framework that extinguishes the epistemological frictions that originally fueled the war. Instead, they turn to pragmatism a philosophy that essentially sa ys, “Do what works.” In his book Blending Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods Thomas writes, The perspective I espouse throughout this book is in keeping with the rationale offered by . authors who often adopt the philosopher’s la bel pragmatism to identify a mixed-methodology perspective. Consequently, the significant issue is not whether one method is overall superior to another, but rather, whether the method a researcher employs can yield convi ncing answers to the questions that the investigation is intended to settle. . I am convinced that each research method is suited to answering certain types of ques tions but not appropriate to answering other types. (2003, p. 7) Similarly, in Mixed Methodology Tashakkori and Teddie assert, “We accept the assumptions implicit within paradigm relativi sm and assume that the paradigm wars are over, having been superseded by the pr agmatist orientation.” (1998, p. 5). The pragmatism justification appear s not only in academia, but al so in practice. Mahesh Patel, the UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund) regional monitoring and evaluation officer for Eastern and Southern Africa, co mments, “We start with the programmatic decisions that need to be made, determine what information is needed to make those decisions, and then work out the best way to obtain that information. Different methods are used for different purposes. Sometimes several different methods may be used together . including qualitativ e and quantitative methods” (2000, p. 135).

PAGE 56

44 Pragmatism may offer a philosophy for methodological mixing but not methodological integration For pragmatists, truth is merely what works. It asks final questions and ignores primary questions. It endorses methodological pluralism instrumentally, based on its utility alone as opposed to a philosophy of integral embrace. By itself, pragmatism avoids the deep questi ons necessary for an integral methodological pluralism to occur. Pragmatism says, “Do it because it works.” Integralism says, “Here’s why it works—so do it!” Some researchers see that pragmatis m cleverly circumvents fundamental methodological conflicts rather than solves them Datta refers to what she calls “mixedup models,” that come from the “lack of a worldview, paradigm, or theory for mixedmodel studies,” concluding that “such a theory has yet to be fully articulated” (1994, p. 59). Bamberger states that “despite increas ing eclecticism in the combination of data collection methods, there is much less inte gration at the level of the conceptual framework and the overall research appro ach” (2000, p. 16). Finally, Egon Guba—who once stated that one paradigm precludes the othe r “just as surely as the belief in a round world precludes belief in a flat one”—now admits that “a resolution of paradigm differences can occur only when a new para digm emerges that is more informed and sophisticated than any existing one” (Guba, 1987, p. 23; Guba and Lincoln, 1994, p. 116). The next section takes on Guba’s ch allenge and introduces the (meta)methodology of integral studies. The Quans and Quals Meet the Quads Misunderstanding has surrounded the word “paradigm” since Thomas Kuhn first introduced the concept (1996). Kuhn’s no tion of “paradigm” means a practical injunction, a methodology, an actua l practice. A paradigm refe rs to a specific set of

PAGE 57

45 techniques taken as an exemplar for gene rating data (Wilber, 1999b, p. 192). Put another way, a paradigm designates the methodologies th at enact, bring forth, or illuminate a specific phenomenological worldspace or way of being-in-the-world (Wilber, 2002a). Theories and paradigms, therefore, are not the same thing. Wilber explains the difference, “A theory is a map of a territor y, while a paradigm is a practice that brings forth a territory in the first place” (Wilber, 2002a). Integral communication endorses a united multiplicity of paradigms or a metaparadigm called “integral methodological pluralism.” ‘Integral,’ in that the pluralism is not a mere eclecticism or grab bag of unrelated paradigms, but a meta-paradigm that weav es together its many threads into an integral tapestry, a unity-in-diversity that slights neither the unity nor the diversity. ‘Methodological,’ in that this is a real paradigm or se t of actual practices and behavioral injunctions to bring forth an in tegral territory, not merely a new holistic theory or maps without a ny territory. And ‘pluralism’ in that there is no one overriding or privileged injunc tion (other than to be ra dically all-inclusive). (Wilber, 2002a) Integral methodological pluralism first i nvolves compiling the primary paradigms or methodologies used by the accepted communica tion traditions. This first step— characteristic of any met hodological pluralism—collects th e major methods within a discipline without judgement, assuming that if researcher s use a time-tested method, it must contain some degree of heuristic truth value. The second meta-paradigmatic step sepa rates integral methodological pluralism from mere eclecticism. Inte grating paradigms means relating the various paradigmatic strands to each other with an integral model such as AQAL (even though a metaparadigm precedes a meta-model). Wilber expresses paradigmatic integration in more philosophical terms: A meta-paradigmatic practice enacts a new domain upon the individually-enacted paradigmatic domains, such that their individually-enacted phenomena overlap,

PAGE 58

46 their brought-forth horizons merge to some degree, and there is enacted upon the enacted phenomena—and accordingly ther e is brought forth, illumined, and most fundamentally disclosed—a new territory or domain of integral relationships. In other words, this is a paradigms of pa radigms, which means . a practice of practices and not a theory of theories. (2002a) The integral approach explains philosophically what is alr eady being done pragmatically. The primary injunction or essence of the in tegral project assumes that “everybody is right.” No paradigm practiced by earne st researchers can be 100 percent wrong. AQAL—a meta-model generated from an integral methodological pluralism— incorporates and honors all paradigms (p remodern, modern, and postmodern) as legitimate. From this general premise that “everyone is right” comes three heuristic principles of integral methodological pluralism. The first principle of “nonexclusion” states that a paradigm can tell its truth but cannot exclude the truth of other legitimat ely enacted paradigms. A method can only claim legitimacy within the worldspace that it enacts. An integral meta-model “frees a paradigm by limiting it,” meaning that “with an y integral orientati on, the already existing boundaries of a particular paradigm beco me more obvious, and thus when operating within those bounds, the pronouncements of a pa rticular paradigm become even more believable while pronouncements outside it s bounds become even less so” (Wilber, 2002a). In this way, all paradigms can exis t together within the AQAL framework with none being reduced to or derived from the others. “Unfoldment,” the second principle, point s out that all para digms are “true but partial.” Every paradigm offers a partial truth when addressing the phenomena enacted by that particular paradigm. The important question does not ask which paradigms are right and which are wrong, but rather what type of integr al framework can find a place for the partial truth of them all? Furtherm ore, within the same worldspace line, some

PAGE 59

47 paradigms can be more encompassing than others. What level is a paradigm enacting? Paradigms unfold or develop in holonic (“tran scend and include”) fashion. This is why Kuhn, for example, “maintained both that science is progressive and cumulative and that it also shows certain breaks or discontinuitie s (new injunctions bring forth new data)” (Wilber, 1999b, p. 192). The unfoldment principle shows that “everybody can be right because some views are more right than others” (Wilber, 2002a). Finally, the “enactment” principle recognizes the myth of the given by asserting that subjects do not perceive phenomena but enact them (Wilber, 2002a). Human subjectivity and intersubjectivity play an undeniable role in bringing forth a phenomenological world in the activity of knowing that world. As Chapter 5 demonstrates, different levels of psychologi cal development experience different (yet equally legitimate) worlds. Paradigms neve r compete for dominance in one preexisting world. Instead, multiple paradigms bring forth multiple worlds. These three heuristic principles—nonexclusion, unfoldment, and enactment—buttress an integral methodological pluralism where everybody is right. Consider that each communicative act is a holon. Generally speaking, qualitative paradigms enact the interior of a holon and qua ntitative methods enact the exterior of a holon. More specifically, each communication holon, or, as Habermas maintains, each speech act, relates to at least four worlds. Every communication always already exists in relation to an individual’s consciousness, an intersubjectiv e relationship, a syntax or social structure, and a behavioral extension. Specialized methods are already being used to enact and investigate each of these four worldspaces Using both quantitative and qualitative methods to investigate the same communicative act “wor ks” because it enacts

PAGE 60

48 the four worldspaces, the four ontological faces, the four angles of manifestation of every communication holon. Integral methodologica l pluralism begins by introducing the QUANs and the QUALs to the QUADs. Those paradigm purists who would like to continue the war, such as Guba and Lincoln, cite disharmonies that have not existed since logical positivism was discredited in the mid-twentieth century (Guba and Li ncoln,1985; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998). For example, both qualitative and quantita tive paradigms agree on the unfoldment principle’s insight that truth is always partial (Reichardt and Rallis, 1994, p. 87). Both Karl Popper (1959) and Thomas Kuhn (1996), for instance, lo athe the notion of a final static truth. Also, both para digms acknowledge the Left Hand (upper-left and lower-left quadrants) in admitting the “value-ladenness of inquiry” and the “theory-ladenness of facts” (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998, p. 8; Reichardt and Rallis, 1994, p. 86-88). Few researchers today would refute that, to at leas t some degree, their theo ries and values help direct their inquiry and decide what is important. The cause s of the paradigm wars are those paradigm purists, those internal and external reductionist s, who violate the nonexclusion principle and pass off thei r partial truth as the whole truth. Two seemingly intractable problems for pa radigm purists involve epistemological (the relationship of the knower to the known) and ontological (the nature of reality) incommensurability among methods. Regardi ng epistemology, quantitative researchers tend to have a more subject to object rela tionship orientation and qualitative researches often favor a subject to subj ect relationship. The integral framework clearly recognizes and includes both the objectiv e (Right Hand) and subjective (Left Hand) epistemological orientations. While the knower and known do exist together, and the subject must be

PAGE 61

49 included in an inquiry experien ce, a subject-object relationship is still possible. With an integral methodological pluralism, a research er has the freedom to enact an internal worldspace by interacting subjectively and othe r times to enact an external worldspace by viewing a communicative even t more objectively. Paradigm reductionists cite the one world ve rsus many worlds ontological debate as further evidence for paradigmatic incommensur ability. External re ductionists believe that one objective world exists and deny subjecti vity’s ability to construct interpretations. Internal reductionists believe that multiple worlds are subjectively constructed and deny an objective world. Again, an integral met hodological pluralism can easily integrate both of these perspectives. Left Hand practices enact multiple worlds. One’s levels, lines, states, and types will influence the inte rpretation he places on phenomenological experience. If he engages a pr actice that transforms his curre nt level of development, he will experience a new interpretative world. As Wilber says, “Change your practice and you will see a different world” (Wilber, 2002a). However, just because a subject always interprets, does not mean that one physical world does not exist. The entire Right Hand of the quadrants models the objective and interobjective worldspaces. External referents surely exist. An external researcher cannot deny interpretation any more than an interior researcher can “construct” a world where apples fall up. The integral resolution, in short, says that although the one objective wo rld cannot contain many worlds, human consciousness can. When an inquiring consciousness unders tands that every communication event occurs seamlessly within AQAL space, a lush territory of integral relationships emerges from a diversity of enactment methods. Ch arges of incommensurability no longer make

PAGE 62

50 sense. Paradigmatic integration can happe n only by focusing on the enactment practices themselves, not the phenomena brought forth by the practices. Phenomena that appear to conflict, instead become merely “different (and fully compatible) experiences brought forth by different practices” (Wilber 2002a). Littlejohn recognized the beginnings of integral methodological pluralism in 1978 when he advocated four methods of inquiry: “experience” and “art” (Left Hand”) and “scien ce” and “scholarship” (Right Hand). He said, “it is important to reali ze that each of the ways of di scovery is valuable in its own right. Certain kinds of knowledge are best ob tained through one or the other of them, and a complete approach to truth must include a blend of all four methods” (p. 5).

PAGE 63

51 CHAPTER 4 SOCIAL SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS Communication Traits as Real In positing an integral meta-model and meta-p aradigm, a new type of critical theory presents itself. Integral critical theory sc rutinizes present conditions through a lens of radical inclusion, inherently cr itical of areas that are, by comparison, partial, narrow, shallow, less encompassing, less integr ative (Wilber, 2000c, p. 2). The above investigations into external and internal reduc tionism exemplify an integral critical theory at work. This same critical lens now turns to social science. R obert Kegan, a professor of adult learning and professional developm ent at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and a founding member of the Integral Institute, challenges the social sciences to “grow up” as it faces a difficult crossroads on the way to a more integral orientation: The social sciences in contemporary culture are at a crossroads. Will they continue to be essentially a puny force, founded on no civilization of their own, borrowing from, and buffeted by the powerful civiliza tions of science [Right Hand] and the humanities [Left Hand]? Will the social sciences continue to be reminiscent of Freud’s hapless infantile ego, appearing to be a player in personality but in reality swamped by the contending forces of cons cience and desire? Or will the social sciences grow up and, like the mature c onception of the ego, become capable of integrating the contending powers and there by creating a third original force that can really be a player in human personali ty or contemporary cu lture? (1994, p. 9) Reconstructing and cultivating this “third original force,” particularly within the sociopsychological tradition, will be a first step towards an integral strategy for effective communication. When attempting to study internal comm unicative phenomena, positivistic social scientists use a theoretical tool called a “communication trait,” which could represent

PAGE 64

52 anything from instincts to cognition to valu es. These flatland theorists define a communication trait as a hypothetical construct which accounts for certain kinds of communicative behaviors. A hypothetical construct is a concept which is thought to represent reality, to structure reality and to give it meaning. Res earchers invent hypothetical constructs for a purpose—to explain co mmunicative events. (Infante, Rancer, Womack, 1993, p. 140) The external reductionism inherent in much so cial science research reveals itself in the above description. The implicit ontological assumption states that something counts as real only if one can touch, tast e, hear, see, or smell it. A research example: “We do not subscribe to the notion of values as ‘real’. . in our approach the concept of values is a hypothetical construct used as a heuristic device by us, as researchers” (Deth and Scarbrough, 1995, p. 40-41). Positivistic re searchers working within a flatland epistemology would regard love as nothing more than a “ hypothetical construct” that could never really be proven. Such a ssumptions classically illustrate external reductionism. Recall that external phenomena possess “s imple location” and can be directly witnessed by the material senses. For instance, I can easily observe someone’s communicative behavior and measure it with quantitative rigor. For external phenomena, the basic research questions are “What does it look like?” or “What does it do?” However, the instant researchers begin probing beneath exterior services—asking qualitative questions like “Why?” or “What does it mean?” or “What does it feel like?”— they are pointing to internal phenomena, which lack simple location and cannot be directly observed. The feeling of love is an internal phenomenon that cannot be empirically seen, but obviously exists.

PAGE 65

53 An integral methodological pl uralism would quickly spot the limitations inherent to a positivistic research program. Studyi ng internal phenomena through an external, monological paradigm violates the nonexclu sion principle of integral methodological pluralism. A flatland paradigm can measure the exterior correlates of an internal phenomenon but can never enact or bring forth the interior phenomenon itself. Instead of declaring interior events to be illusionary constructs an integral methodological pluralism would engage the qualitative prac tices that illuminate them, realizing that different worldspace s have different, yet equally legitimate enactment methods. The majority of social scientists today gr ant existence to both internal and external phenomena. Richard Perloff assures that most contemporary communication scholars deem it a mistake to “assume that . [inter nal phenomena] are ‘not real’ or are ‘mere mental constructs’ (1993, p. 27). The current co nsensus in social science, Perloff reports, believes that “people have thoughts, cognitive st ructures, and a variety of emotions, none of which can be reduced to behavioral units. Moreover, they argue that an entity that is mental or emotional is no less ‘real’ than a physical behavior” (1993, p. 27). “The bulk of current communication scien tists,” concludes Charles Pavi tt, “presume the reality and causal power of the mentalistic concepts th eir theories employ” (1999, p. 184). Jensen sums up the position by saying, “Experiences events, and mechanisms are all real” (2002, p. 269). The remainder of this chapter ex amines three “real” internal mechanisms that affect communication and that will be used later in an integral strategy of effective communication. Knowing Attitudes Attitudes have been called “the most prominent . construct in the history of the social sciences” and “the mo st distinctive and indispensa ble [concept] in contemporary

PAGE 66

54 American social psychology” (Infante, Ran cer, Womack, 1993, p. 141; Allport, 1954). Virtually any decent textbook on communication theory contains an ample section on attitudes (Bryant and Zillman, 2002; Litt lejohn, 2002; Severin and Tankard, 2001). Definitions vary, but they all suggest that an attitude desc ribes a predisposition or an evaluation of something (Severin and Tankar d, 2001, p. 151). Most scholars would agree to the general definition of an attitude as “a learned, enduring, and affective evaluation of an object (a person, entity, or idea) that exerts a directive on social behavior” (Perloff, 1993, p. 27). Simple evaluations such as “good-bad, harmful-bene ficial, pleasantunpleasant, and likable-d islikable” represent at titudes (Ajzen, 2001). Attitudes have achieved such prominence in the social sciences due to the widely held assumption that a person’s attitudes affect that person’s behavi ors (Petty, Priester, Brinol, 2002, p. 158). Although th e relationship between attit udes and behaviors requires more study, social scientists generally adm it that knowing a person’s attitudes helps to predict her behavior. Most attitudes reveal themselves explicitly within one’s direct awareness: “I like strawberries, and I dislike lima beans.” Disregarding additional factors in this simple example, one would expect the subject to engage in strawberry eating behavior before lima bean eating behavior. This link with behavi oral prediction gives attitudinal research importance in the eyes of social scientists. Daniel Katz theorizes a second relevant relationship, this time between attitudes and opinions (1960, p. 168). Simply put, at titudes are internal phenomena and opinions are external phenomena. The instant an att itude (internal, priv ate) is expressed, it becomes an opinion (external, public). Given this distinction, surveys—the most utilized method in attitudinal research—actually capt ure opinions, not attitudes. In a section

PAGE 67

55 titled “Measuring What You Cannot See,” Stack s points to the Likert-type scale and the semantic differential-type scale as two primar y survey techniques that purport to measure attitudes (2002, p. 134). Along with many others, he claims that since survey data can be quantified in a statis tically meaningful way, surveys fall under the quantitative approach (Neuman, 1994; Gunter, 2002; Stacks, 2002). Respondents transfer their internal or private attitudes onto an exte rnal or public scale. Su rveys attempt to quantify a qualitative event. An integral methodological pluralism de monstrates the philosophical difficulties surrounding “measuring what you cannot see” or enacting internal phenomena with external methods. Since opinions are publicly expressed attitudes, surveys technically measure opinions—the Right Hand correlate of a Left Hand event. Despite complex statistical computing, the fact remains that publicly expr essing a private experience requires interpretation. Nevert heless, the interpretive factor in attitudinal surveys is slight. Making an attitude public by means of an opinion survey require s little (but still some) interpretation. The inne r experience of simple att itudes (like/dislike, good/bad, pleasant-unpleasant) can readily be expressed in a survey due to their transparency and accessibility to conscious awareness. In short, people complete opinion surveys with little difficulty because they immediately know their explicit attitudes. Hence, some exterior correlates of internal phenomena ar e easier to measure than others, and opinions are one of the easiest. Perhaps this explains, in pa rt, why the social sciences put such an incredible amount of time, energy, and money in attitude/opinion research. Beyond the Lamppost Consider the story of the man who walk s home at dusk through a forest path. Finally, he approaches his house. A lam ppost lights the area di rectly surrounding the

PAGE 68

56 residence. The man approach es the door, fumbles in his po cket, and realizes his keys were lost along the way. For hours, he uns uccessfully scrutinizes the illuminated area directly around his house, searching in vain for his keys. Eventually the man’s wife arrives at the house and he tells her the dile mma. When she questions why he didn’t try searching the rest of the pat h, the man quickly answers, “Bec ause the light is brightest here.” Integral methodological pluralism challeng es social science to venture beyond the lamppost. Max Horkheimer once said, “The ne ed to limit oneself to absolutely certain data, the tendency to discredit any re search on the essence of phenomena as ‘metaphysics,’ may force empirical social research to restrict itself to the non-essential in the name of that which cannot be a source of controversy” (1972). Just because a research method is “brightly lit” in the empi rical sense and easy to quantify with little interpretive distortion, does not mean it is the most relevant or contains the most explanatory depth. Often, the “easiest” appr oaches tend to be the most shallow and trivial. Most attitude researchers would genera lly admit that alte ring attitudes through communication is difficult (Petty, Priester Brinol, 2002, p. 188; Severin and Tankard 2001, p. 179). Perhaps a key to effective communi cation lies a bit further up the path. If attitudes generally precede behaviors, then what generally precedes attitudes? Although this question may require us to venture be yond an area deemed bri ghtly lit by social science, the possibility of finding a key ma kes the risk acceptable, even welcomed. The first key along the path appears to be values, the mother of attitudes. In basic terms, values tell what someone considers to be most important. Values guide the

PAGE 69

57 meaning-making process that creates specific attitudes. Milton Rokeach, among the most prominent value researchers in the social sciences, agrees that a value “has a transcendental quality to it, guiding actions, attitudes, judgements, and comparisons across specific objects and situ ations beyond immediate goals to more ultimate goals” (1973, p. 18). Rokeach is far from alone in asserting such a relationship between values and attitudes: “Attitudes will be based on underlying values” (Kilby, 1993, p. 38). “One’s attitude toward a specific object or condition in a specific situation seems to be a function of the way one conceives that object from the standpoint of its effects on one’s most cherished values” (W oodruff and Divesta, 1948, p. 657). “Values are more global and general than attitudes. . a terminal value may underlie a number of quite specifi c attitudes” (Perloff, 1993, p. 29). “Attitudes are focused on some specified obj ect or situation, while values transcend them. Since values are also considered standards, applying to all kinds of situations, they are believed to occupy a more central pos ition than attitudes within one’s personality makeup and cogni tive system” (Werder, 2002, p. 44). Values are “the most important and centr al elements in a person’s system of attitudes and beliefs” (Oskamp, 1977). Values shape “our likes, dislikes, preferences, prejudices, and social attitudes . [and make] it possible for us to say what is good and what is bad” (Mandler, 1993, p. 233). “Values are more general than attitudes. This approach allows us to conceptualize values not as stimuli but, rather, as underl ying orientations, which are relevant for, or inform the process of, arriving at attitudes” (Deth and Scarbrough, 1995, p. 32). “A value is an organized set of re lated attitudes” (Thompson, 1975, p. 221). “When specific attitudes are organized into a hierarchical structure, they comprise values systems ” (Katz, 1960, p. 168). Articulated in different ways, these researchers view valu es as structures that influence specific attitudes. Many researchers go on to make the logical claim that values help predict behavior through th eir role in attitudinal formation (Deth and Scarbrough, 1995,

PAGE 70

58 p. 33; Petty, Wegener, Fabrigar, 1997, p. 609; McLeod, Sotirovic, Holbert, 1998, p. 453). Despite the numerous other factors that cont ribute to attitudes and behaviors (cognitive processing for example), the basic conclusion can be made that values play a crucial role that deserves wider recognition within communication studies. Despite the significance of va lues, communication social scientists have largely marginalized them from their standard research agenda. A review of the literature produced du ring the relatively brief history of mass communication research will not reveal many direct references to values. Despite several encouraging developments over the past 30 years, leading to research that is more holistic, sociological, processual, a nd critical than the bulk of the earlier positivistic work, there are still few systema tic, disciplined studies that attempt to spell out the value implications of the structures and processes investigated. (Halloran, 2000, p. 13) Such a perplexing omission could perhaps be at tributed to the complex nature of values research. Unlike attitudinal research, a simp le survey often cannot capture the necessary value data. Values lurk further beneath one ’s conscious awareness than do attitudes. Kilby reports that values “vary from clear representation, through degrees of generalness and vagueness, to not being consciously-arti culated at all” (1993, p. 36). Indeed, many people exhibit difficulties realizing and ar ticulating their persona l value orientation— “sometimes people may not know what their va lues really are; he nce their answers to probes about values may be unreliable” (Hechter, 1993, p. 11; Converse, 1964). Applying Kegan’s “subject-object” cognitive theory to value structures could help explain these challenges (1994). Perhaps a subject cannot fully understand her current value structure until she moves to a new value structure, only after which she can reflect on her previous one. The original subject b ecomes the object of the new subject. More simply, Ray and Anderson say, “A worldview is to humans as water is to fish. It’s the

PAGE 71

59 water we swim it. But only when something, or many things, disrupt our worldview does it become visible” (Ray and Anderson, 2000, p. 93). Social scientists cannot avoid these res earch obstacles by assuming values from observed behaviors. An internal phenomenon can never be validly inferred from an external phenomenon. Put another way, one canno t derive a “why” from a “what” or an “ought” from an “is,” the definition of a logi cal fallacy first articu lated by David Hume (1957). The value reasoning behi nd a behavior is the relevant key, not the behavior itself. Radically different value orie ntations could produce the exac t same behavior. Likewise, knowing one’s attitude about a particular topic does not ne cessarily predict the person’s values. For example, two people could po ssess identical attitu des concerning the 2003 war in Iraq using completely different va lue reasoning (Wilber, 2003b). Hence, values do not necessarily predict attitudes and behavior over the short run. However, the predictive power of values does increase over the long run. None of the above challenges strikes a fata l blow to values research. However, when approached exclusively from an external quantitative research perspective they are disastrous. Behavioral obs ervation and opinion surveys ar e simply not enough. Perhaps this explains why many quantitat ively oriented social scientists shy away from values inquiry. A research volume produced by th e European Science Foundation and Oxford University reached similar conclusions, admitting the “widely held assumption in the social sciences that values ar e at the root of behaviour, [yet ] “despite that, in comparison with the attitude-behaviour axis, the infl uence of values on political behaviour is relatively poorly researched—perhaps due to the behavioural orientations of political science” (Depth and Scarbrough, 1995, p. 21).

PAGE 72

60 The most powerful and enlightening form of values research re quires an integral methodological pluralism that includes quantita tive surveys and expe riments in addition to qualitative interviews, focus gr oups, discourse analysis, ethnography, phenomenological analysis and so forth. Some scholars appear to recognize the importance of triangulated values research, bu t fail to follow through. For example, after rightly emphasizing the “int ersubjective nature of valu es” as “elements in moral discourse,” one research t eam gives this aside: Of course, ideally we would want to exam ine qualitative data which captures the elements of moral discourse in different domains. However, in the comparative and national surveys used in this research project, quantitative attitudinal data are the best measures available to use. (Deth and Scarbrough, 1995, p. 37). An integral methodological pl uralism recommends using appr oaches epistemologically appropriate to the specific worldspace under in vestigation. In the cas e of value research, dialogical methods must be included. Regardless of the methodology, a researcher must always define the object under investigation. The semantic ambiguity underl ying values research often reflects the “quarrels about definition that have been one of the hallmarks of the social science enterprise” (Mandler, 1993, p. 233). One scholar discovered 180 different definitions of “value” after examining 4,000 publications (Deth and Scarbrough, 1995, p. 37). Below are three examples from social science: “A value is a conception, explicit or imp licit, distinctive of an individual or characteristic of a group, of the desirabl e which influences the selection from available modes, means, and ends of ac tion.” In short, “conceptions of the desirable” (Kluckhohn, 1954, p. 395). “A value is an enduring belief that a sp ecific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally or socially prefer able to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state of existence” (Rokeach, 1973, p. 5).

PAGE 73

61 “Values are non-empirical—that is, not di rectly observable—conceptions of the desirable, used in moral discourse, with a particular relevance for behaviour” (Deth and Scarbrough, 1995, p. 22). These definitions each touch upon important aspe cts of values. The next section takes a step beyond isolated, individual values. At a certain point along the path, one begins to reflect not only on the indivi dual value trees, but also on the overarching patterns that connect them. With this wider perspective, th e forest of value systems comes into view. Value Systems as Worldviews Recall that attitudes tend not to form randomly; values inform or guide attitudes. Furthermore, many attitudes arise from one underlying value. Stepping back and viewing an overall attitudinal pattern makes the operative value becomes more apparent. In this way, a pattern of attitudes helps to identify an underlying value, but does not constitute it. Individual values do not randomly form e ither. Values coales ce into recognizable patterns. So if a patterned se t of attitudes suggests a certain underlying value, then what does a patterned set of values suggest? Scho lars have grouped value patterns together in various ways, giving them names such as va lue structures, value orientations, value schemas, and value systems. I will use the term “worldview” to indicate the underlying macro consciousness structure that orients individua l values into a value system. A literature review published in Communication Research reports, “Worldviews may be mo re basic to the development of other types of beliefs and they are treated as antecedent to [individual] values in the literature” (McLeod, Sotirovic, and Holb ert, 1998, p. 453). The English word “worldview,” first used in 1858, attemp ts to translate the German word Weltanshauung (Wolters, 1989, p. 15). Immanuel Kant first coined Weltanschauung and it soon became a key word in German Idealism and Ro manticism, used by Fiche, Schelling,

PAGE 74

62 Schleiermacher, Hegel, and Goethe (Wolters, 1989, p. 15). In time, thinkers as divergent as Kierkegaard, Engels, and Dilthey eventu ally found the term helpful (Marshall, Griffioen, Mouw, 1989, p. 8-11). The social science literature defines worl dview as “general assumptions about the world that underlie the way people orient themselves to the environment” (McLeod, Sotirovic, and Holbert, 1998; Kluckhohn and St rodtbeck, 1961). The American Heritage dictionary defines worldview as “the overa ll perspective from which one sees and interprets the world” (American Heritage, 2000). Miller refe rs to them as “structural ‘filters’ through which phenomena are percei ved” (1994, p. 148). Kaufman calls a worldview “an overall framework of interpretation . which gives meaning to existence” (1981). Consider this furthe r description from Olthuis: A worldview (or vision of life) is a fr amework or set of fundamental beliefs through which we view the world and our calling and future in it. This vision need not be fully articulated: it may be so in ternalized that it goes largely unquestioned; it may not be explicitly developed into a systematic conception of life; it may not be theoretically deepened into a philos ophy; it may not even be codified into creedal form; it may be greatly refined th rough cultural-historical development. Nevertheless, this vision is a channel fo r the ultimate beliefs which give direction and meaning to life. It is the integra tive and interpretative framework by which order and disorder are judged; it is the set of hinges on which all our everyday thinking and doing turns. (1989, p. 29) Indeed, worldviews comprise a collective worldspace that says what “We” deem important, what “We” value. Wilber designates “worldview” as referring to “the Lower-Left qua drant, or all of the intersubjective pr actices, linguistic signs, seman tic structures, contexts, and communal meanings that are generated th rough shared perceptions and collective values—in short, ‘culture’” (1999a, p. 551). The intersubjec tive structures of a cultural worldview, he explains, create s a space within which individual, subjective experiences

PAGE 75

63 arise. In The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences Michel Foucault makes essentially the same point. He calls his method an archaeology or “an inquiry whose aim it is to rediscover on what ba sis knowledge and theory became possible; within what space of order knowledge was constituted . .” (1970, p. xxi-xxii). Foucault’s archeology seeks to uncover the historical a priori epistemological field ( episteme ), intersubjective structure, or worldview of a given epoch: “This a priori is what, in a given period, delimits in the to tality of experience a field of knowledge, defines the mode of being of the objects that appear in that field, provides man’s everyday perception with theoretical powers, and defines the conditions in which he can sustain a discourse about th ings that is recognized to be true” (1970, p. 158). For example, an archeology of language intends to “determine in what conditions language could become the object of a period’s knowledge, and between what limits this epistemological domain developed” (1970, p. 119). Wilber and Foucault both articulate the intimate relationship between the upper-left subjectivit y and lower-left intersubjectivity, underscoring the assertion that all four quadrants arise together, mutually interdependent. Worldviews serve what Clifford Geertz calls a “dual focus” (1973, p. 73). They function both descriptively and normatively, telling a person what is and what ought to be. Put another way, “A worldview is both a sketch of and a blueprint for reality” (Olthuis, 1989, p. 29). No fact carries an inherent value imperative apart from the interpretive structure already within the obs erving subject. Divergent value systems experience different “oughts” from the same “is,” regardless of Hume’s “is to ought”

PAGE 76

64 fallacy. As a person’s worldview develops her orientation of and for the Kosmos expands in its capacity for justi ce and care, wisdom and compassion. Dynamics of the Spiral Habermas describes worldviews as “highly complex formations that are determined by cognitive, linguistic, and mora l-practical forms of consciousness,” quickly adding that “the composition and the interplay of struct ures is not fixed once and for all” (1979, p. 168). The implication: worldview s evolve in levels from eg ocentric (self-centered) to ethnocentric (group-centered) to worldcentr ic (global-centered) (Habermas, 1979, p. 99100). A worldview is a holon—a whole whic h is simultaneously a part of a greater whole—a whole/part. Each successive worl dview level transcends and includes the previous level and can be said to be “higher,” “deeper,” or “more encompassing” than the previous level. Wilber further expl ains how to designate depth levels: A “level” in a holarchy is established by se veral objective criteria: by a qualitative emergence (as explained by Popper); by asymmetry (or “symmetry breaks,” as explained by Prigogine and Jantsch); by an inclusiona ry principle (the higher includes the lower, but not vice vers a, as explained by Aristotle); by a developmental logic (the higher negates and preserves a lower, but not vice versa, as explained by Hegel); by a chronological indicator (the higher chronologically comes after the lower, but all that is la ter is not higher, as explained by Saint Gregory). (2000b, p. 62-63) Lawrence Kohlberg speaks of moral development in a similar way: “All of the differences among people aren’t all equally defensible; some of the differences among people represent more comprehensive, more coherent, more elaborated—more developed—concepts” (Rest, Narvaez, Be beau, Thoma, 1999, p. 2). As holons, both morals and worldviews meet Wilber’s twen ty tenets of development (Wilber, 2000b, p. 25). As such, worldviews easily meet the five criteria that Jean Piaget applied to cognitive development and Kohlberg endor sed for moral development (Kohlberg, 1984,

PAGE 77

65 p. 14; Piaget, 1969, p. 153). The twenty tenets can be abbreviated here by reviewing Piaget’s five criteria of development: First, worldview stages differ qualitatively from one another Worldview stages do not differ along a continuous quantitative spect rum. An increase in the number or strength of egocentric values does not produce worldcentric values. The values generated from an egocentric worldview are qualitativ ely different from wo rldcentric values. Higher stages are not more of lower stag es, but of a completely new variety. Second, worldviews develop in an invariant stage sequence This means that people pass through worldviews in a particular order. No one begins at worldcentric. Children always start their lives with an ego centric worldview. To reach a worldcentric value system, the child must pass through et hnocentric. No stages may be skipped. Furthermore, unlike Erik Erikson’s stage se quence, no guarantee exists that a person will reach the higher worldview stages (Crain, 2000, p. 289). For example, a person could be quite old and have acquired much life experien ce, yet still see through ethnocentric eyes. A thirty-year-old could operate through a highe r order worldview than a sixty-year-old. For this reason, the life span literature gene rally does not apply to worldview research. Third, worldview stages form structured wholes A given stage response (in the form of an attitude or behavior) does not just represent a specific, isolated decision instance. Each worldview stage includes an underlying value orga nization that informs specific attitudes and behaviors. General patterns of value reasoning exist that will consistently show up across many different ki nds of issues (Crain, 2000, p. 156). Fourth, worldview stages develop in hierarchical integrations In Kohlberg’s words, “stages form an order of increasingly differentiated and integrated structures to

PAGE 78

66 fulfill a common function” (1984, p. 14). Simply put, development proceeds by differentiation followed by integration. A late r stage transcends and includes the deep structures of an earlier stage. The “transce nd and include” principle implies that “people do not lose the insights gained at earlier st ages but integrate them into new, broader frameworks” (Crain, 2000, p. 159). The deep stru ctures of all earlier st ages are retained. A person at worldcentric still cares for he r self, family, state, and country, but not exclusively. Fifth, worldview stages are culturally uni versal. Although the specific expression (surface structures) of worldviews varies gr eatly among people and cultures, the general underlying features (deep structures) exist cross-culturally (Kohlberg, 1984, p. 582-621). Universal worldview models, like spiral dyna mics, seek to attain a generality that captures the motivating value schema s within every cultural group. Kohlberg’s stages of moral development c ould easily fit into the worldview models described below. “In order to understand mora l behavior,” Kohlberg argued, “we have to understand how the person is making sense of the world” (Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau, Thoma, 1999, p. 1). Thus, find the three ma jor worldviews (egocen tric, ethnocentric, worldcentric) appear in both Kohlberg’s male moral development and Gilligan’s female moral development. Kohlberg’s model deve lops from preconventional (1. obedience and punishment; 2. nave egoism) to conventional ( 3. approval of others; 4. law and order) to postconventional (5. individual ri ghts and social contract; 6. universal ethics) (Kohlberg, 1984, p. 44). Similarly, in Gilligan’s model, female morality evolves from preconventional (selfish) to conventional (c are) to postconventional (universal care)

PAGE 79

67 (Gilligan, 1982). (Both theorists also postulated a post-postconventional level— Kohlberg called it cosmic-spiritual and Gillig an called it hierarchical-integrative.) Kohlberg uses the term “conventional” to mean “conforming to and upholding the rules and expectations and c onventions of society or aut hority just because they are society’s rules, expectations, or conventions” (1984, p. 172-173). The individual at the preconventional leve l has not yet come to really understand and uphold conventional or societal rule s and expectations. Someone at the postconventional level understands and ba sically accepts society’s rules, but acceptance of society’s rules is based on formulating and accepting the general moral principles that underlie these rules. These principles in some cases come into conflict with society’s rules, in which case the postconventional individual judges by principle rather than by conventi on. (Kohlberg, 1984, p. 173). Again, the three primary worldviews—egocen tric (preconventional), ethnocentric (conventional), and worldcentric (postconve ntional)—are clearly seen in moral development. Worldview development also has a rela tionship with cognitive development, although they represent two separate and dist inct developmental lines. In the first analysis, one finds “stages of affective develo pment that are parallel with the stages of cognitive development” (Brown ,1996, p. 144) Comparing Piaget and Kohlberg’s models, one finds that concre te operational cognition paralle ls preconventional morality; low formal operational cogniti on parallels conventional morality; high formal operational cognition (polyvalent logic) parallels postc onventional morality. Kohlberg agrees and carries the conversation one step further: Since moral reasoning clearly is reas oning, advanced moral reasoning depends upon advanced logical [or cognitive] reasoni ng. There is a parallelism between an individual’s logical stage a nd his or her moral stage. A person whose logical stage is only concrete operational is limited to the preconventi onal moral stages, Stages 1 and 2. A person whose logical stage is onl y “low” formal operational is limited to the conventional moral stages, Stage 3 a nd 4. While logical development is a necessary condition for moral development, it is not sufficient. Many individuals

PAGE 80

68 are at a higher logical stage than the parall el moral stage, but essentially none are at a higher moral stage than their l ogical stage. (Kohlberg, 1984, p. 171) The essential point here is that cognitive development can exceed moral development, but not vice versa. Put another way, cogni tive development is necessary but not sufficient for moral development (Kohlberg, 1981, p. 138). I theorize that worldviews and cognition relate in the same way. A certain level of cognitive proficiency is necessary but not sufficient to support a parallel worldview.

PAGE 81

69 CHAPTER 5 WORLDVIEW EVOLUTION Researching Worldviews A considerable number of attempts have been made to understand and classify the various worldviews available. With the rise of evolutionary thinking, scholars began to study worldviews as a process of developmen tal unfolding. Numerous researchers have independently identified, articula ted, and studied the identical worldview levels. Understanding this spiral of worldview deve lopment will prove essential in formulating an integral communication stra tegy in the next chapter. This section gives a brief introduction and biographical sketch of a few pioneering worldview researchers. The Spiral Dynamics integral (SDi) model represents th e culmination of 50 years of research and theory building, prompted by the American psychologist Clare Graves (see appendix A). It stands as perhaps the cl earest and most user-fri endly model. Graves began researching human values in 1952 whe n, exasperated with the state of academic psychology, he first asked the question, “Wha t will be the nature and character of conceptions of psychological h ealth of biologically mature humans beings?” (Graves, 1988). After more than 20 years of quantitative and qualitative research, Graves proposed that “the psychology of the mature human being is an unfolding, emergent, oscillating spiraling process marked by progr essive subordination of older, lower-order behavior systems to newer, higher-order syst ems as man’s existential problems change” (Beck and Cowan, 1996, p. 28). Expressed anothe r way, he says, “My data indicate that man’s nature is an open, constantly evolving system, a system which proceeds by

PAGE 82

70 quantum jumps from one steady state system to the next through a hierarchy of ordered systems” (Graves, 1974, p. 72). Graves ofte n summarized his findings like this (Beck and Cowan, 1996, p. 29): 1. Human nature is not static, nor is it fini te. Human nature changes as conditions of existence change, thus forging new systems. Yet, the older systems stay with us. 2. When a new system or level is activate d, we change our psychology and rules for living to adapt to those new conditions. 3. We live in a potentially open system of valu es with an infinite number of modes of living available to us. There is no fina l state to which we must all aspire. 4. An individual, a company, or an entire society can respond positively only to those managerial principles, motivational appeal s, educational formulas, and legal or ethical codes that are appropriate to the current level of human existence. Although Graves passed away in 1986, Don Beck and Chris Cowan continue to expand on Graves’s original insights. They founde d a think tank called th e “National Values Center,” and Beck later founded the “Institute of Values and Culture” out of which grew the spiral dynamics integral model of va lue system evolution (Beck, 2002a). Spiral dynamics researchers and practit ioners use the model to solv e a variety of problems. For instance, Beck made over 63 trips to South Africa between 1981 and 1999 to launch an initiative firs t called “Strategic Evol ution” (Beck, 2002b, p. 122). During that period, my basic role was to re shape the definitions the various sectors of society were using to st ereotype each other, repl acing the usual racial/ethnic categories with an understanding of these va lue system or memetic differences, all of which were alive in that global micr ocosm. The complexity of the South African situation had been simplified down to what is morally right or wrong along race lines, and that was a grav e mistake. Much sympathy was lavished on the black “struggle,” and rightfully so. But gett ing rid of what they didn’t want— apartheid—was not the same thing as ge tting what they did want—a just and prosperous societ y. (2002b, p. 122) Beck goes on to describe how he used sp iral dynamics to communicate in newspaper articles, discussions, and negotiations that were “influential in convincing Afrikaner

PAGE 83

71 political leaders in Pretoria to release Nelson Mandela and start the peace process,” which eventually ended South African aparthei d without a civil wa r (Wilber, 2000c; Beck, 2002b, p. 122). The Zulus named him “Amizimuthi,” which means “One with Strong Medicine” (Beck, 2002b, p. 122). Beck’s current client list includes President Vicente Fox’s administration in Mexico and Prim e Minister Tony Blair’s Department of International Development in Great Britain (Cohen, 2004, p. 14). To date, the spiral dynamics model has been tested with more than 50,000 peopl e from first-, second-, and third-world countries, and there have been no major exceptions found to the general model (Wilber, 2000c, p. 6). The most noteworthy of the early worldview scholars is Jean Gebser (1905-1973). Born in Posen, Prussia, Gebser traveled across Europe (befriending Picasso along the way) and eventually settling in Zurich, Switzerland where he worked with Carl Jung. In 1949, Gebser published The Ever-Present Origin his most profound statement on the unfolding worldviews of humanity (Gebser, 1985). In this work, he traces the “discontinuous mutation” of consciousness th rough five major structural “leaps.” By “consciousness structure,” Gebser means “the vi sibly emerging percep tion of reality” or, in other words, worldview (Keckeis, 1985, p. xx). With an intuition of integral methodologica l pluralism, Gebser went beyond mere synthesis, using instead the Greek term “sys tasis,” meaning “put together; connection; forming” (1985, p. 292). Gebser explains that “systasis is the c onjoining or fitting together of parts into integrality . th e means whereby we are able to open up our consolidated spatial conscious ness to the integrating consci ousness of the whole” (1985, p. 310). He asserts that his appr oach “attempts to present in visible, tangible, and audible

PAGE 84

72 form the respective consciousness structures from within their specific modalities and unique constitutions by means appropriate to their natures” (1985, p. 2). Gebser follows this method by examining five worldviews from many angles: the natural sciences (mathematics, physics, biology), the scie nces of mind (psychology, philosophy), the social sciences (jurisprudence, sociology, ec onomics), and the arts (music, architecture, painting, literature). Along with Gebser, Gerald Heard (1889-1971) stands as one of the great early pioneers in worldview research. Origin ally from London, Heard was educated at Cambridge University and taught at Oxford University. With his friend Aldous Huxley, he moved to the United States in 1937 afte r being offered the chair of historical anthropology at Duke University (Barrie, 2002). Feeling too cons trained at Duke, he founded his own college called Trabuco while continuing to lecture at major American universities such as Harvard, Cornell, Prince ton, UCLA, and Berkeley. A prolific author, Heard wrote thirty-eight books during his life, the most insi ghtful arguably being his first The Ascent of Humanity (1929) and his last The Five Ages of Man (1963). Aldous Huxley once wrote, “The Universe is a continuum; but our knowledge of it is departmentalized. Every learned Soci ety is a pigeonhole, every University a columbarium. Gerald Heard is that rare being, a man who makes his mental home on the vacant spaces between the pigeonholes.” Inde ed, like Gebser, Heard incorporated data from diverse disciplines into a unified whol e (Barrie, 2002). And like Graves, he viewed both human phylogeny and ontogeny as a “s piraling evolution of consciousness” (Houston, 1980, p. 183; Heard, 1963, p. 88, 97). Wo rldviews, or cosmologies as Heard

PAGE 85

73 calls them, are the “core beliefs that [peopl e] espouse about the uni verse and themselves, and the frame of reference by which they in terpret and understand life” (Barrie, 2002). Jumping ahead to more contemporary sc holarship, sociologist Paul Ray and psychologist Sherry Ruth Anderson authored The Cultural Creatives in 2000. Ray spent 13 years as executive vice president of Amer ican LIVES, Inc., a market research and opinion polling firm specializi ng in psychographic analysis (Ray and Anderson, 2000). During this time, Ray used both quantitative su rvey techniques in addition to qualitative interviews and focus groups to study the lifest yles, interests, values, expectations and symbols of Americans. Ray and Anderson make a concerted effort to differentiate their methodology from a one-dimensional demographic study: Most surveys are content to classify pe ople by demographic categories: male or female, black or white, white collar or blue collar, income, education. It’s familiar and easy to do. But those conventional categories show only a thin slice of people’s lives. The research findings we report here do not re flect [only] ‘the demographics.’ Rather, our research is va lues research, which leads directly to a rich and many-dimensional description of what Americans are up to—and why. (2000, p. 22) Finally, Ronald Inglehart, professor of political science and program director at the Institute for Social Research at the Univ ersity of Michigan, has conducted rigorous investigations into the de velopment of global value patterns, beginning with his groundbreaking book The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles Among Western Publics (1977). Inglehart clearly states hi s central thesis that “the basic value priorities of Western publics seem to be changing as their societies move into a Post-Industrial phase of development” (1977, p. 21). The process of change is not as ephemera l as the flow of events might suggest. Instead it appears to reflect a transformation of basic world views It seems to be taking place quite gradually but steadily, bei ng rooted in the formative experiences of whole generation-units. (empha sis added) (Inglehart, 1977, p. 21).

PAGE 86

74 He further suggests that this “transformation of basic world views” moves in a “specific direction,” signaling an “evolut ionary drift” towards value systems of greater inclusion and acceptance (1977, p. 4, 22). Inglehart coordinates the steering committee that opera tes “The World Values Survey,” the most ambitious attempt by soci al scientists to measure and track global value patterns. Inglehart regards the world values surveys as provi ding “a broader range of variation than has ever before been avai lable for analyzing the impact of the values and beliefs of mass publics on poli tical and social life” (2003). The World Values Survey is a worldwid e investigation of sociocultural and political change. It has ca rried out representative na tional surveys of the basic values and beliefs of publics in more than 65 societies on all six inhabited continents, containing almost 80 percen t of the world's population. . This investigation has produced ev idence of gradual but pervasive changes in what people want out of life, and the basic direction of these changes is, to some extent, predictable. This study has given rise to more than 300 publications, in 16 languages. (Inglehart, 2003) An international network of social scientis ts facilitates the proj ect, conducting numerous waves of interview surveys over the past twenty-five years. The next chapter discusses some developmental dynamics of worldviews and then invest igates the four worldviews most relevant to contemporary American culture. The next four sections cover the four wo rldviews most applicable to contemporary American culture. Not all possible worldview s will not be covered, namely those at the very top and the very bottom of the spectru m. See appendix B for a description of all eight spiral dynamic levels. The presentati on below will combine the research findings of Graves, Beck, Cowan, Gebser, Heard, Ingl ehart, Anderson, Ray, and Wilber. Note that these theorists arrived independently at the same worldview levels through their own research efforts. By combining the resear ch findings, a developmental holarchy emerges

PAGE 87

75 that unfolds into ever-increasing levels of inclusion—from traditional-mythic to rationalachievist to pluralistic-communitarian to integral-existential. Traditional-Mythic (BLUE) “A single guiding force contro ls the world and determines our destiny. Its abiding Truth provides struct ure and order for all aspects of living here on Earth and rules the heavens, as well. My life has meani ng because the fires of redemption burn in my heart. I follow the appointed Pathway which ties me with something much greater than myself [a cause, belief, trad ition, organization, or movement]. I stand fast for what is right, proper, and good, al ways subjecting myself to the directives of proper authority. I willingly sacrifice my desires in the present in the sure knowledge that I look forward to some thing wonderful in the future.” Beck and Cowan give this fictional, firs t-person account of the worldview they call “Purposeful Blue” (1996, p. 229). To facilita te and simplify discourse, spiral dynamics gives each worldview a color tag. I will free ly use these colors—in this case Blue—for easy shorthand reference and to aid memory. Gr aves originally called this stage “saintly existence (D-Q)”; Heard called it “the midindividual”; Gebser named it “the mythical structure;” for Wilber it is “mythic-member ship”; and Inglehart, Ray, and Anderson all call it “traditional” (Graves, 1974, p. 74; Heard, 1963, p. 42; Gebser, 1985, p. 61; Wilber, 1999c, p. 405; Inglehart and Baker, 2000; Ray and Anderson, 2000). Despite the different labels, all the res earchers are describing the same underlying value orientation. The Blue worldview is traditional and conservative, emphasizing order, consistency, and convention. Blue’s core va lues echo themes of meaning, direction, and purpose in life. Blue values include these (Beck and Cowan, 1996, p. 46): One sacrifices self to the transcende nt Cause, Truth, or righteous Pathway The Order enforces a code of conduct ba sed on eternal, absolute principles Righteous living produces stability now and guarantees future reward Impulsivity is controlled through guilt; everybody has their proper place Laws, regulations, and discipline build character and moral fiber

PAGE 88

76 The Blue value structure views the world from an absolutistic, polarized, black and white perspective. Honoring and submitting to auth ority, Blue allows the conventional system to define good/bad, right/wrong. Good opposes Evil in an ongoing battle for dominion. . There is no room for compromise or gray areas among the de vout True Believers for whom wishywashy moderation is worse than declaring with the enemy. . Invoking the sacred name of Authority is part of Blue whethe r the Lord, the Prophet, Chairman Mao, or ‘in the name of the Law. (Beck and Cowan, 1996, p. 233) Or as Graves puts it, “The measure of his worthiness is how much he has lived by the established rules” (1974, p. 74). But to live up to the established rules, Blue must tame chaos into order, both externally and intern ally. A person, Heard explains, “d iscovers that he must find a method of disciplining himself. For not only is outer nature unpredic table, powerful, dangerous, and uncontrollable but his own nature betrays him. The Universe is unfriendly and man is fallen” (1963, p. 51). The sinful na ture of humans and the impossibility of perfectly following every extern al rule creates guilt, which peaks at Blue (Beck and Cowan, 1996, p. 232). Wilber’s fi ctional, phenomenological account of a young girl underscores Blue’s familiarity with guilt. The priests tell us that there was a time th at our ancestors walked with the Creator, but then something terrible ha ppened. We pray tw ice daily to be returned to before the mistake. I pray very hard, but the last time I prayed hard, my sister died anyway. My uncle said I must pray hard er, so something must be wrong with me. (Wilber, 2000a, p. 413) Guilt arises in the young girl from failing to please the Authority and being punished for it; “a lonely creature pitt ed against an unfriendly Nature” (Heard, 1963, p. 51). Ray and Anderson also recognize the Blue value schema. Not surprisingly, they call it “Tradional” as “shorthand for a complex cultural conservatism [that] refers to a real subculture of shared values and familiar customs, rich with the details of life” (2000,

PAGE 89

77 p. 30). According to their data, Traditionals account for 24.5 percent of the American population, or 48 million adults (Ray and Anderson, 2000, p. 30). They list specific attitudes indicative of a Bl ue/Traditionalist worldview (Ray and Anderson, 2000, p. 3132): Patriarchs should again dominate family life. Family, church, and community are where you belong. The conservative version of their own par ticular religious traditions must be upheld. Customary and familiar ways of life should be maintained. It’s important to regulate sex—pornogr aphy, teen sex, extramarital sex—and abortion. Men should be proud to serve th eir country in the military. All the guidance you need for your li fe can be found in the Bible. Country and small-town life is more vi rtuous than big-city or suburban life. Our country needs to do more to support virtuous behavior. Preserving civil liberties is less importa nt then restricti ng immoral behavior. Freedom to carry arms is essential. Foreigners are not welcome. Demographically speaking, American Traditi onals have an average age of 55 and a median family income of only $23,750 per year partly due to retirees (based on 1995 data) (Ray and Anderson, 2000, p. 32). In general, the data shows they are older, poorer, less educated, and more religious than other Americans. Although participation in a traditional orga nized religion (i.e., Catholics, Mormons, fundamentalists, or evangelical Protestants) often indicates a Blue value system, Blue does not need religious participation to fl ourish. “Deference to the authority of God,

PAGE 90

78 Fatherland, and Family are all closely linke d” (Inglehart and Baker, 2000, p. 25). Take Heard’s analysis of Blue’s attraction to th e atheistic Communist ideology of the Soviet Union. Referring to Communism, Heard says “we see the pressures being attempted which in the great ascetic [B lue] age produced (1963, p. 138): 1. the man who accuses himself, denounces his own actions, and informs on others: “the right-acting man” 2. the examiner of conscience and the spiritual judge, the ideal 3. the one revelation, absolute and final, the code to which utter submission must be made in the name of quod semper, quod ubique, quod omnibus Extreme nationalism or patriotism, wherev er it occurs, spurs a black and white “my country right or wrong” attitude, or as George W. Bush puts it “You’re either with us or against us.” Lastly, Inglehart arrives at nearly identical conclusions from value data obtained not only from America, but from the entire world. Inglehart also chooses the term “traditional” to describe the general value orientation in pe ople who “show relatively low levels of tolerance for abortion, divorce, and homosexuality; tend to emphasize male dominance in economic and political life, deference to parental authority, and the importance of family life, and are relatively authoritarian; most of them place strong emphasis on religion” (Inglehart and Bake r, 2000, p. 23-24). See appendix C for Inglehart’s chart, displaying some defini ng attitudes of the Blue value schema. Blue’s ethnocentric values and conventional moral development appear in all Inglehart’s attitudinal analys es. For instance, ethnocentr ic nationalism leads people to favor “more respect for authorit y, take protectionist attitude s towards foreign trade, and feel that environmental problems can be solved without intern ational agreements” (Inglehart and Baker, 2000, p. 25). Traditi onals accept national authority passively,

PAGE 91

79 rarely discussing politics or questioning “official” receiv ed knowledge (Inglehart and Baker, 2000, p. 25). Inglehart goes on to sa y that traditional worldviews “emphasize social conformity rather than individualistic striving, favor consensu s rather than open political conflict, support deference to author ity, and have high levels of national pride and a nationalistic outlook” (2000, p. 25). Rational-Achievist (ORANGE) “I want to achieve, and wi n, and get somewhere in my life. The world is full of opportunities for those who’ll seize the day and take some calculated risks. Nothing is certain, but if you’re good, you play the odds and find the best choices among many. You’ve got to believe in yourself first, then everything else falls into place. You can’t get bogged down in structur e or rules if they hold back progress. Instead, by practical applications of triedand-true experience, you can make things better and better for yourself. I’m confident in my own abilities and intend to make a difference in this world. Gather da ta, build a strategic plan, then go for excellence.” These statements represent the values of someone at the “Achievist Orange” worldview level (Beck and Cowan, 1996, p. 244) Again, all our featured researchers recognize this stage using sli ghtly different names: Graves: “materialistic existence (ER),” Heard: “total individual or self-sufficient man,” Gebser : “ rational-perspectival, the mental structure,” Wilber: “rational-egoic, ” Ray and Anderson: “Moderns,” Inglehart: “materialist, secular-rational” (Graves, 1974, p. 75; Heard, 1963, p. 56; Gebser, 1985, p. 73; Wilber, 1999c, p. 518; Ray and Ande rson, 2000, p. 25; Inglehart, 1977, p. 41). Orange is the worldview of modernity, which, for the first time, used Orange values to apply universal prin ciples to all humans, cutting across group loyalties. Such rational, universal principles include “greater equality among persons, personal freedom and liberty, justice, citizen’s rights (for example, freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and fail trials), representative and deliberativ e democracy, and equality before the law” (Ray and Anderson, 2000, p. 26). In the late eighteenth century, the Constitution of the

PAGE 92

80 United States brilliantly institutionalized Orange values in a population with a Blue value majority. Aristotle, Gebser remarks, calls the human an “ animal rationale an animal with the gift of rationality. And in the word ratio —which means ‘to reckon’ as well as ‘to calculate’ in the sense of ‘to think’ and ‘understand’—is found the principal characteristic of the perspectival world: directedness and perspectiv ity, together with—unavoidably— sectorial partitioning” (Gebser, 1985, p. 74). A person at this materialistic stage, states Graves, “develops and utilizes the objectivis tic, positivistic, operationalistic, scientific method so as to provide the ma terial ends for a satisfactory human existence in the here and now” (1974, p. 75). During the cultural transformation from traditional to modern, Heard asserts that “tradition was demoted from its office of s upreme judge. Reason was ordered to take on experimentation as its vicar or suffraga n. Dogma and argument could stand only if supported by experiment” (Heard, 1963, p. 147). When the Orange worldview first arose in ancient Greece, “ man had to direct and judge himself ; herein lies the almost superhuman grandeur of the age that becam e a reality around 500 B.C. in Greece via the mutation to the mental structure” (Gebser, 1985, p. 79). Fading during the middle ages, Orange reappeared around 1250 A.D. in Europe “The new Man of the Renaissance, the man of recently intensified self-consciousness, aware of this dis tinctive and separative individualism, was keen to reason and sh arply equipped to argue” (Heard, 1963, p. 60). Industrialization extended Or ange’s desire to direct and control the physical environment to unprecedented levels. Many industrialists equa ted progress with exploiting natural resources and life became a “game against fabricated nature” (Bell,

PAGE 93

81 1973, p. 147). Peter Bowler, an environmen tal historian, explains that mythic worldviews were “eliminated because Nature ha d to be despiritualized if people were to feel comfortable when they used the Earth for their own selfish ends. The mechanistic view of Nature may have been created to le gitimize the ruthless attitude of an age in which profit was the only motive that matte red” (1992, p. 69). Despite Bowler’s bias, Inglehart gives a similar descrip tion of the Orange situation: A technical, mechanical, rationalized bur eaucratic world directed toward the external problem of creating and dominati ng the environment. As human control of the environment increased, the role as cribed to religion and God dwindled. Materialistic ideologies arose with secular interpretations of history, and secular utopias were to be attained by human engineering operating through rationally organized bureaucratic organizations. (Inglehart and Baker, 2000, p. 21-22) As the history of modernity demonstrates Orange strives for progress, success, status, and affluence. Spiral Dynamics offers this summary of Orange value assumptions (Beck and Cowan, 1996, p. 46): Change and advancement are inherent within the scheme of things Progress by learning nature’s secret s and seeking out best solutions Manipulate Earth’s resources to cr eate and spread the abundant good life Optimistic, risk-taking, and self-re liant people deserve their success Societies prosper through stra tegy, technology, and competitiveness See specific attitudes of Orange in appendix C. One need not look far to locate Orange values in contemporary American culture because Orange is the dominant culture Read Time The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal Business Week Forbes or USA Today and you will get the official id eology laid out in detail, day after day. It’s the culture we see at all levels of government, in the military, and in the courts. It’s the normal culture found in the office towers and factories of big business; in banks and the stock market; in university science labs and high-tech firms; in hospitals and most doctors’ offi ces; in mainline churches and synagogues; in the “best” schools and colleges. It’s the culture of professional football, basketball, and baseball leagues; chain stores and malls; most TV programs; and most “mainstream” magazine and newspaper articles. The standards we [as Americans] take for granted, the rules we live by, are made by and for Moderns.

PAGE 94

82 Their worldview is so all-encompassing and their viewpoint so much presupposed that most Moderns can’t see any alte rnatives. (Ray and Anderson, 2000, p. 25). In short, Moderns accept the values associat ed with a materialistic, commercialized, urban-industrial world as the obvious right way to live. Life is a series of “executive summaries, sound bites, and quick takes” where “image often counts more than substance” (Beck and Cowan, 1996, p. 252). Figh ting for victory and achievement at all costs, Orange values “materialism over sp iritualism, pragmatism over principle, and short-range victories over longer term guarantees” (B eck and Cowan, 1996, p. 251). Demographic figures complement the a bove psychographic analysis by revealing that about 48 percent of Americans (93 milli on out of a total of about 193 million adults) hold the Orange worldview as of 1999, and their median family income in 1995 was $42,500 per year (Ray and Anderson, 2000, p. 25). Consider this fictional, first-person narrative: I’ve been an electrical engineer for over three decades, because it works, it is verifiable, it betters human lives. There is a real world out there, with real truth in it, and real hard work required to dig it out. . The fortress of science, is how I think of it. It will stand forever, cons tantly updated. . We human beings, for good or ill, are the only gods in existence, the only fo rce of rational intention and good will. And we will save ourselves if we can be saved at all. The Bible is right about one thing: the truth will set you fr ee. And science is the only path of discovering truth. (Wilber, 2000a, p. 414) As the engineer expresses, Orange values “what’s good, approved, e fficient, and worthy of praise, the latest and most stylish, the most competitive and profitable” (Ray and Anderson, 2000, p. 26). Pluralistic-Communitarian (GREEN) “Life is for experiencing each moment. We can all come to understand who we are and how wondrous it is to be human if we will only accept that everyone is equal and important. All must share in the joy of togetherness and fulfillment. Each spirit is connected to all ot hers in our community; every soul travels together. We are interdependent be ings in search of love and involvement. The community

PAGE 95

83 grows by synergizing life forces; artificia l diversions take away from everyone. There is an abiding order in the universe fo r those who are open to it. Bad attitudes and negative beliefs dissolve once we look inside each person and uncover the richness within.” The level of worldview development desc ribed here suggests postmodern values. The “Communitarian Green” worldview in sp iral dynamics again matches up with the other models. The research suggests that “the emergence of post-industrial society seems to be stimulating further evolution of prevailing worldviews”—a shift away from “materialistic, secular-rational” values and to wards what Inglehart cal ls “post-industrial, post-materialist” values (Inglehart, 2000, p. 222; Inglehart and Baker, 2000, p. 22). People with a postmodern, Green worldvi ew—or “cultural creatives” as Ray and Anderson call them—reject ma ny of mainstream America’s Orange values. Cultural Creatives are disenchanted with ‘owning more stuff,’ materialism, greed, me-firstism, status display, glaring social inequalities of race and class, society’s failure to care adequately for elders, women, and children, and the hedonism and cynicism that pass for realism in modern so ciety. They also reject the intolerance and narrowness of social cons ervatives and the Religious Right. They are critical of almost every big institution in modern society, including bo th corporations and government. They reject narrow analyses and are sick of fragmentary and superficial glosses in the media that don’t depict what they se e, or explain what they know from their own direct experience. (2000, p. 17) In agreement, Inglehart says, “To have a Po st-Materialist world-view means that one is apt to be out of harmony with the type of so ciety in which one lives ,” since no society has a Green majority or center-of-gravity (1977, p. 365). Cultural creatives are literally creating a new Green culture while living within the dominant Orange culture. Green communities hold values of belongi ng, relationship, and pluralism sacred. Heard calls this the stage of humanitarianis m, marked by an “interest in human beings regardless of the type to which they may be long” (1963, p. 88). Cultural creatives with “postmodern values emphasize self-expression in stead of deference to authority and are

PAGE 96

84 tolerant of other groups and even regard exotic things and cu ltural diversity as stimulating and interesting, not threatening” (Inglehart, 2000, p. 223). If in Orange America everyone melts into a moderate, bland, “mucilaginous whole” within the melting pot, Green America worships the ethnic multifarious diversity of the patchwork quilt (Houston, 1980, p. 190). For Inglehart, th is value transformation gives all the indications that a “silent revol ution” is underway (1977, p. 363). During the Green stage, says Graves a person (or culture) displays a “personalistic” value system, becoming “centra lly concerned with peace, with his inner self, and in the relation of his self to the inner self of others” (1974, p. 75). The spiral dynamics model gives examples of Green values (Beck and Cowan, 1996, p. 46): The human spirit must be freed from greed, dogma, and divisiveness Feelings, sensitivity, and caring supersede cold rationality Spread the Earth’s resources a nd opportunities equally among all Reach decisions through reconcili ation and consensus processes Refresh spirituality, bring harmony, and enrich human development See appendix C for an extended list of Green attitudes. For Inglehart, post-materialist values include “subjective well-being, interpersonal trust, political activism, and tolerance of outgr oups (Inglehart and Baker, 2000, p. 29). A person with Green values tends to be “comm unitarian, egalitarian, and consensual” (Beck and Cowan, 1996, p. 264). Belonging, being acc epted, and maintaining harmony within the group is essential. Always advoca ting peace through nonviolence, Green believes that “interactions with our fellows need no longer be based on violence and competition but on cooperation” (Heard, 1963, p. 89). Most value scholars point to the 1960s as the birth of Green values in the United States, and “this change in wo rld views has given rise to a wide range of new social movements” (Inglehart, 2000, p. 224). Indeed, al l the major social revolutions of that

PAGE 97

85 time have Green footprints: social jus tice movements, ethnic advocacy movements (Hispanic, Native American, etc.), intern ational NGOs (world peace, human rights, hunger, third world development), civil rights movement, antinuclear movement, holistic health and alternative health care moveme nts, environmental and ecology movements, new age movement, women’s movement, orga nic foods and vegetarian movements, human potential movement (humanistic psychology, bodywork), gay and lesbian liberation movements (Ray and Anderson, 2000, p. 115). Political scientists would most likely place these social movements towards th e liberal end of the political spectrum. Thus, it comes as no surprise that “PostMaterialists [Green] tend to take a less conservative, more change-orien ted stand in politics than the Materialist [Orange] types. Post-Materialist types are significantly more lik ely to align themselves with the ‘Left’ or ‘Liberal’ position than are the Materi alist types” (Ingleh art, 1977, p. 61-62). Research data indicates that Green valu es are increasing. “During the past 25 years, these values have become increasin gly widespread in almost all advanced industrial societies for which extensive time-se ries evidence is ava ilable” (Inglehart and Baker, 2000, p. 27-28). In the 1960s only 5% of the American population possessed a Green value orientation (Ray and Anderson, 200 0, p. 4). In the mid-seventies, Inglehart reported that they comprised 12% of th e United States population (Inglehart, 1977, p. 362). In 2000, the Green population has grow n to 26% (50 million people) in America (Ray and Anderson, 2000, p. 4). Cultural creatives place a huge import ance on the environment’s health. “Postmodern values give priority to envir onmental protection and cultural issues, even when these goals conflict with maximizi ng economic growth” (Inglehart, 2000, p. 223).

PAGE 98

86 Nearly every cultural creative agrees with survey questi ons like these: “We should change how we live now so future generati ons can enjoy a good quality of life; Human survival depends on finding better ways to balance economic growth with environmental protection; Humans are part of nature, not its ruler; Th e Earth is headed for an environmental crisis unless we change; Nature has value far beyond the practical uses we can make of it” (Ray and Anderson, 2000, p. 160). Green’s worldcentric outlook naturally evokes an awareness of ecologica l interconnectedness and a strong desire to heal the Earth. Finally, Green replaces organized religion with spirituality. Participation in organized religion has steadily declined in postindustrial societies (Inglehart and Baker, 2000, p. 46). Interestingly, as allegiance to established religious institutions falls, spiritual concerns rise. Ingl egart remarks that “the established churches today may be on the wrong wavelength for most people in posti ndustrial societies, but new theologies, such as the ‘theology’ of environmentalism, or New Age beliefs, are emerging to fill an expanding niche” (2000, p. 47). Wuthnow also concludes that the de cline of organized religion in America is accompanied by the rise of spiritual concerns, a shift from what he calls a “spirituality of dwelling” (emphasizing sa cred places) to a “spirituality of seeking” (emphasizing a personal quest for new spir itual avenues) (Wuthnow, 1998; Inglehart and Baker, 2000). With Green, the quest for inner wisdom begins, unconstrained by institutional authority. Integral-Existential (YELLOW) “Viability must be restored to a diso rdered world endangered by the cumulative effects of the first six [value] systems on the earth’s environment and populations. The purpose of living is to be independen t within reason; know ledgeable so much as possible; and caring, so much as realis tic. Yet I am my own person, accountable to myself, an island in an archipelago of other people. Continuing to develop along

PAGE 99

87 a natural pathway is more highly valued than striving to have or do. I am concerned for the world’s conditions because of the impact they have on me as part of this living system.” Clare Graves and Spiral Dynamics deem the transformation from “Communitarian Green” to “Integrative Yellow” as a “mom entous leap” (Beck and Cowan, 1996, p. 274; Graves, 1974). They call the previous three va lue stages (Blue, Ora nge, Green) “first-tier subsistence levels,” while Yellow marks the fi rst of the “second-tier being levels” (Beck and Cowan, 1996, p. 274). Postconventional values deepen into fully universal, existential concerns: “life and death, au thenticity, full bodymind integration, selfactualization, global awareness, holistic embrace” (Wilber, 1999a, p. 537). Yellow worldviews include these valu es (Beck and Cowan, 1996, p. 275): Accept the inevitability of nature’s flows and forms Focus on functionality, competence, flexibility, and spontaneity Find natural mix of conflicting ‘truths’ and ‘uncertainties’ Discovering personal freedom without harm to others or excesses of self-interest Experience fullness of living on an Earth of such diversity in multiple dimensions Demand integrative and open systems Life is a kaleidoscope of natura l hierarchies, systems, and forms The magnificence of existence is valued over material possessions Knowledge and competency should supersede rank, power, status Differences can be integrated into interdependent, natural flows Please see appendix C for an expanded list. According to Beck and Cowan’s data, less than 2% of the world’s population has reached second tier or higher (1996). Due to such small numbers, most value researches fail to identify this leading-edge value level. Jean Gebser is an exception. He detect ed the Yellow worldview structure—which he named “integral-aperspect ival”—back in the mid-twen tieth century (1985, p. 24). Gebser employs the term “aperspectival” to “emphasize the need of overcoming the mere antithesis of affirmation and negation,” moving from “either-or” to “both-and” (1985, p. 2). His concern “is with integrality a nd ultimately with the whole; the word

PAGE 100

88 ‘aperspectival’ conveys our attempt to deal with wholen ess” (1985, p. 3). Like an everchanging kaleidoscope, Gebser’s highest level values all perspectives and privileges no view as final, while attempting to in tegrate them into a coherent whole. “Man,” says Gebser, “is the integrality of hi s mutations. Only to the extent that he succeeds in living the whole is his life trul y integral” (1985, p. 153). A person with a Yellow value awareness intuitiv ely recognizes her compound i ndividuality and the stages through which she and everyone else evolves. As Yellow peaks, scales drop from our eyes enabling us to see, for the first time, the legitimacy of all of the human system s awakened to date. They are forms of human existence that have a right to be. The systems are seen as dynamic forces that, when healthy, contribute to the overall viability of the Spiral and, as a result, to the continuation of life itself. (Beck and Cowan, 1996, p. 276) The rainbow of worldviews in both self and ot hers become visible or “transparent” to someone at Yellow. No worldview is “w rong” and each has its legitimate and proper place in the unfolding spiral. As they develop, worldviews transcend and include each other so that “these structures are not merely past, but are in fact still present in more or less latent and acute form in each one of us” (Gebser, 1985, p. 42). Value systems naturally appear multidimensional for someone proficient at Yellow. “The various structures that constitute him must have become transparent and conscious to him; it also means that he has perceived their effect on his life and destiny, and master ed the deficient components by his insight so that they acquire the degr ee of maturity and equilibrium necessary for any concretion” (Gebser, 1985, p. 99). The transparency of second-tier value awareness allows one to handle complex problems, previously unsolvabl e at first-tier. Individuals at Yellow welcome paradox and uncertainty. They adeptly orchestrate Win:Win:Win outcomes by finding “ways to

PAGE 101

89 increase the range of options, availabl e niches, maneuvering space, and expanded opportunities” for each of the worldviews (Beck and Cowan, 1996, p. 282). With any dialectal problem, not only do both sides wi n, but also “the greater good, the entire society, and the natural human Spiral” wi ns (Beck and Cowan, 1996, p. 284). The prime directive of second-tier is the health of the overall spiral (Wilber, 2000c). Furthermore, those with a Yellow worldview demonstrate a particular aptitude for effective communication. “Yellow is ‘flexible’ in that it can enter the conceptual worlds of the first six systems and interact with them on their frequencies, speaking their psychological languages” (Beck and Cowan, 1996, p. 277). Yellow defines situations so as to ma ke possible, though not to guarantee, the healthy coexistence of all of the system s. Free of First Ti er compulsions—must haves, need tos, afraid ofs—Yellow activ ists are uniquely qualified to remove blockages and smooth out flows between and among [worldviews]. In short, Yellow is able to move in and out of the various First Tier systems in order to (1) make them healthy and (2) show their conne ctions with other systems on the Spiral. (Beck and Cowan, 1996, p. 283) Yellow can recognize conflicting value la nguage and rephrase messages to ease communicative discord and reach Win:Win:Win agreement. This stage of “centaur vision-logic,” as Wilb er calls Yellow, also begins to exhibit existentialist characteristics as classica lly expressed by Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Dostoyevsky and more recently articulated by Ka rl Jaspers, Martin Buber, Paul Tillich, and Rollo May (Wilber, 1999a, p. 188-189). Pe rsonal autonomy, self-integration, and self-actualization become major concerns. But with these new freedoms come new creative responsibilities, which can trigger feel ings such as angst, despair, anxiety, or meaninglessness. Wilber lists some of th e more negative repercussions of existential value awareness (1999a, p. 126-127):

PAGE 102

90 1. Existential depression —a global-diffuse depression or “life-arrest” in the face of perceived meaninglessness. 2. Inauthenticity —which Heidegger defined as lack of profound awarenessacceptance of one’s own finitude and mortality. 3. Existential isolation and “uncanniness” —a strong-enough self that nevertheless feels “not at home” in the familiar world. 4. Aborted self-actualization —Maslow (1971): “I warn you, if you deliberately set out to be less than you are capable of becoming, you will be deeply unhappy for the rest of your life.” 5. Existential anxiety —the threatened death of, or lo ss of, one’s self-reflexive modes of being-in-the-world. The yellow worldview grapples with overall meaning in life, contemplating personal mortality, finitude, and the inevitability of death. If all goes well, these existential pressures eventually facilitat e the break through to thirdtier, post-postconventional, transpersonal consciousness. The rainbow spiral of value develo pment runs through every human being (ontogenetic) and culture (phylogenetic). Firs t-tier worldviews (Blu e, Orange, Green) do not intuitively grasp this valu e history and act primarily from their respective value bias. Only second-tier (Yellow, Turquoise) and be yond intuitively understand value evolution and uphold the legitimacy of all levels. Sec ond-tier’s prime directive is health for the entire spiral.

PAGE 103

91 CHAPTER 6 AN INTEGRAL COMMUNICATION STRATEGY Developmental Psychographics Any effective communicator knows th e number one rule for effective communication: “know thy audience.” Wit hout intimate knowledge of the intended receivers, a professional co mmunicator is “blind” and, therefore, impotent. The planner’s ability to identify and an alyze publics [or audiences] is the cornerstone of an effective communication campaign . . First, the planner needs to address the right group of people, so as not to squa nder organizational resources or miss opportunities to inter act with important publics. Second, the planner must carefully examine each public in order to develop a strategy to communicate effectively. (Smith, 2002, p. 39) Mass audiences are divided into relevant gr oups by a process known as “segmentation.” James Grunig explains the simple, yet powerful, idea of segmentation: “Divide a population, market, or audience into groups whose members are more like each other than members of other segments” (Grunig, 1989, p. 202). Similarly, Doug Newsom and Bob Carrell define a public segmentation as “any group of people tied together by some common factor” (Newsom and Carrell, 2001, p. 7) Researchers prov ide criteria for useful segmentation strategies (Sm ith, 2002, p. 41, Grunig, 1989, p. 203). Audience segments should be distinguishable, mutua lly exclusive, accessible, large enough to matter, and reachable with communication. In marketing communication, segmentation has been called “one of the most influentia l and fashionable concepts in marketing . [that has] permeated the thinking of manage rs and researchers . more than any marketing concept since the turn of th e century” (Lunn, 1986, p. 387). Segmentation has

PAGE 104

92 become an essential feature of professional communication for the simple fact that “what concerns and convinces one public may seem tr ivial to another” (Rivers, 1975, p. 22). If a professional communicator does not know her audience segments, how does she “establish program objectives, develop meaningf ul messages and action strategies, select media to deliver messages selectively a nd effectively, and determine whether the program worked” (Cutlip, Center, and Broom, 2000, p. 268)? Segmenting and understanding key publics is the undisputed fi rst step in any comm unication strategy. Communication and marketing researchers segment audiences by using two general criteria: demographics (Right Hand, exterior) and psychographics (Left Hand, interior). Demographics are the “innate physical, social, economic, and geographi cal attributes that comprise an individual and describe the loca tion of that individual in his or her social environment” (Wells, 1996, p. 131). In other words, demographics cover the external variables represented by the Right Hand quadr ants, the outside of the individual and the collective. Such variables include “age, gender, education level, race and ethnicity, social class, marital status party identificati on, religion, occupation, employment status, geographic location, and household characte ristics” (Therkelsen and Fiebich, 2001, p. 376). These variables share a “simple loca tion,” relatively out in the open and easily captured by a survey. As useful as demogra phics are for communication strategists, they tell only part of the story—the external part. Thus, demographics ar e true, but partial. After an exhaustive demographi c analysis, there still remain s a vast part of the human being left unknown: the internal.

PAGE 105

93 Psychographics pick up where demographics leave off. Psychographics specialize in understanding the internal worldspaces of the Left Hand quadrants (Health, 1996). Emanuel Demby, a founder of psychographi cs, defines the term as follows: The use of psychological, sociological, and anthropological factors, such as benefits desired (from the behavior being studied), self-concept and lifestyle (or serving style) to determine how the ma rket is segmented by the propensity of groups within the market—and their reasons—t o make a particular decision about a product, person, ideology, or otherwise hol d an attitude or use a medium. (1994) A psychographic analysis hopes to understand how a person or group constructs meaning and predict “who will pay attention to what in formation” (Therkelsen and Fiebich, 2001). Psychographics map internal phenomena such as attitudes, interests, opinions, beliefs, personalities, lifestyles, and values (Heath, 1995). Pragmatically speaking, psychographics “help communicators improve the quality and accountability of their campaigns by zeroing in on the most receptiv e audience for their message” (Morgan and Levy, 2003). Some communicati on theorists and practitione rs even affirm that “psychographic segmentation strategies are proving more useful than generalized averages or broad demogra phics in every phase of communication, from planning through implementation and evaluation” (Morgan and Levy, 2003; Grunig, 1989, p. 205). At a time when communication overloa d is common among all audiences, communicators must send relevant message s to those who are most receptive. Using psychographic segmentation to design and implement a communication strategy results in more effective campai gns, and changes the communicator into a strategist rather than a tac tician, moving his or her work fr om that of an inexact art to an exact science. (Morgan and Levy, 2003) While fully acknowledging the insightful power of contemporary psychographic analysis, the possibility remains that all forms of psyc hographic segmentation have yet to be fully explored.

PAGE 106

94 Rebecca Heath comments that “psychographi cs has been around for more than 30 years, but it is still one of th e least understood concepts in the market research” (1995). The technique has room to grow. Levitt o ffers some advice, “To think segments means to think beyond what’s obviously out there to s ee. . the thinking that gives real power is thinking that transcends the ordinary” (1986, pp. 128-129). For the past 30 years, “ordinary” values segmentation has been “internal” and “eclectic”— internal because it deals with psychological and cu ltural meaning and values and eclectic because it categorizes these meanings and values into categorical heaps. Popular psychographic assessments such as VALS (Values and Life styles) and PIAV (Personal Interests, Attitudes, and Values) give flatland value profiles by treating value systems as horizontal personality types rather than as a developmental line with many vertical levels (2004). Ignoring the inherent depth of value systems uproots them from their natural, evolutionary context, causi ng an artificial fragmentation. No vertical framework currently exists in the psychogra phic literature to integrate valu e heaps into value wholes. Decades of research in developmental psychology have identified around two dozen developmental lines—including the values line—that evolve relatively independently of each other. Lines include the cognitive, moral, psychosexual, emotional, and interpersonal. Every pers on has a developmental psychograph that shows her or his personal strengths and weaknesses. The figure below gives an example using five lines and thr ee levels (I-I, 2003):

PAGE 107

95 Figure 6-1. A Developmental Psychograph Notice that this person has an extremely high cognitive intelligence, but very low emotional intelligence. Any complete psyc hographic investigation must consider these developmental factors. Multiple intelligences or developmental lines lose much of their explanatory power when exiled from their orga nic contexts. Yet kept within its proper evolutionary framework, each line consists of a series of levels, structures, or holons. Value systems or worldviews exist in a stru ctural holarchy, not an eclectic heap. Psychographics must, therefore, segment publics not only horizontally, but also vertically into Blue publics, Orange public s, Green publics, and Yellow publics. These audience segments exist right now, though vi rtually every communi cation strategy fails

PAGE 108

96 to recognize them. Only with a developmental psychographic analysis can one locate these audience segments. The Postmodern Toolbox The second step in this integral communi cation strategy involves figuring out how to speak effectively with developmentally se gmented audiences. Postmodernism offers many theoretical tools that help explain the communicative dynamics among audiences with different developmental psychographi cs. One scholar resists reification by suggesting that postmodernism be seen “not so much as a thing, but more as a set of concepts and debates. . Postmodernism can be st be defined as that very set of concepts and debates about postmodernism itself” (Ward, 1997, p. 4). Given the present intentions, two debates stand out that help frame postmodernism: the development debate and the meaning debate. These debates refer to the “diachronic” and “hermeneutic” aspects of postmodernism respectively. Diachronic postmodernism situates itself in the ongoing flow of cultural, social, psychological, and biological evolution (Jencks, 1996; Appi gnanesi and Garratt, 1995). A developmental holarchy unfolds from premod ern to modern to postmodern. In this holarchy, modern values generally operate at the Orange level and postmodern values tend to be at the Green level. An integral methodological pluralism always attempts to preserve and utilize the basic insights of premodernity (Beige to Blue), modernity (Orange), and postmodernity (Green). Diachronically speaking, if premodern philosophy was preoccupied with metaphysics and modern philosophy with ep istemology, then postmodern philosophy became enamored with language. Despite its cacophonic diversity, most strands of postmodernism eventually turn to language (Bohman, Hiley, and Shusterman, 1991). A

PAGE 109

97 founder of the “linguistic turn,” Ferdinand de Saussure, said linguistics “never attempted to determine the nature of the object it was studying, and without this elementary operation a science cannot develop an appropr iate method” (Saussure in Culler, 1986, p. 27). Saussure’s “elementary operation” help ed shift language from subject (modernity) to object (postmodernity). Modernity used la nguage as a tool to describe and represent the world; postmodernity examined how la nguage—the tool of representation—plays a role in the continuous c onstruction of the world. During the linguistic turn, questions su rrounding the structure of language, wordworld relationships, and discursive meaning became primary. The hermeneutic tradition arose to prominence as a favorite methodologic al approach. The word “hermeneutics” roots back to the Greek hermeneutiks meaning “related to expl aining” in the sense of clarifying or rendering the obscure plain (B auman, 1978, p. 7). In general, hermeneutics may be thought of as the art and science of interpretation. Mode rn hermeneutics dates back to the late 18th century with th e work of Friedrich Ast and Friedrich Schleiermacher. The latter believed that in terpretation proper always has two sides: one linguistic and the other psychological. For Sc hleiermacher, psychological interpretation focused on the mind of a particular communicator. In the words of Hans-Georg Gadamer: Schleiermacher’s particular contribution is psychological interpretation. It is ultimately a divinatory process [from the French deviner to guess or conjecture], a placing of oneself within the mind of th e author, an apprehension of the ‘inner origin’ of the composition of a work, a recr eation of the creative act. (Gadamer in Bauman, 1978, p. 29) In this view, meaning comprehension comes, at least partly, from understanding aspects of the communicator’s psychological identity, th e very goal of a psychographic analysis.

PAGE 110

98 Despite a rich intellectual history, the he rmeneutic question remains that asks how psychological development or levels of awareness affect interpretation. The same developmentally advanced cognitive processi ng that created general systems theory (an exterior description of the f unctional process) also formulat ed structural semiotics (an interior investigation of the meaning pro cess). Thomas Sebeok comments that “the subject matter of semiotics, it is often cited, is the exchange of any messages whatsoever—in a word, communication ” (2001, p. 27). In the early 20th century, Ferdinand de Saussure gave a se ries of lectures now known as Course in General Linguistics prompted by his dissatisfaction with the current state of linguistics (1959). Perhaps Saussure’s most enduring contributi on is semiology—“a scienc e that studies the life of signs within society” (Saussure, 1959, p. 16). Saussure, along with Charles Pierce, planted the theoretical foundation for mode rn linguistics by “circumscribing an autonomous field of inquiry which sought to understand the structur es that undergird both the production and interpretation of signs” (Sebeok, 2001, p. 5). In part one of his general principles, Sau ssure defines a sign as the combination of a mental concept (the signified) and a physic al sound-image (the signifier) (1959, 67). A sign (signified + signif ier) stands for an actual object, ev ent, feeling, etc., known as the referent. The signifier is the written word, the spoken word, nonverbal communicative gestures, all physical so to speak. In contra st, the signified is th e internal psychological concept that comes to mind upon experiencing th e signifier. A simple example would be the written word “bird” (the signifier), the concept that arises upon reading “bird” (the signified), and the actual bird in natu re being referred to (the referent).

PAGE 111

99 In the case of signs, structural contexts determine subjective meaning. All meaning is context dependent. Even for a short phras e (“bark of a dog” and “bark of a tree”), meaning arises from the relationships among the words themselves, the total linguistic structure that holds each word in a m eaningful place (Wilber, 1997, p. 102). Language, therefore, does not merely represent external objects as a “mirror of nature,” but rather plays a significant role in cons tructing reality. Vast networ ks of background contexts and cultural signs create meaning in intersubjective communities. Any integral model naturally embraces the postmode rn notion of contextualism. Saussure’s great insight that “a meani ngless element becomes meaningful only by virtue of the total structure” helps to ma rk the beginnings of a wider intellectual movement called “structuralism” (Wilber 2000a, 191; Milner, 1994; Hollinger, 1994). Structuralist thinking spans a wide array of disciplines from sociology (Karl Marx) to psychology (Jean Piaget) to anthropology (C laude Levi-Strauss) to cultural history (Foucault) to linguistics (Saussure) (DeGeo rge and DeGeorge, 1972). Despite their disciplinary specialties, structuralists agree th at an intimate connection exists between the whole and the part, the indivi dual and the collective, the upp er quadrants and the lower quadrants. Whole and part are inexorab ly linked (one definition of holon). Saussure himself said, “To determine the ex act place of semiology is the task of the psychologist” (1959, p. 16). Turning then to the most influential cognitive psychologist of the 20th century, Jean Piaget wrote in his book Structuralism that far from being fixed and rigid, “structure” simply means a self-o rganizing holistic patte rn that develops (Wilber, 1999c, p. 4). In Piaget’s own words, “The notion of struct ure is comprised of three key ideas: the idea of wholeness, the idea of transformation, and the idea of self-

PAGE 112

100 regulation” (Piaget in Wilber 1999c, p. 4). Used in this way, the terms “structure” and “holon” are virtually synonymous (Wilber, 1999c, p. 5). Each structure maintains its own autonomous independence or agency (its individual wholeness) while simultaneously participating in relationshi p or communion (its collective partness) (Wilber, 2000b). Viewing any structure as onl y an autonomous agent or only a relational link would deny its holonic natu re. All structures—from cognition (Piaget) to linguistics (Saussure) to worldviews (Graves)—exist as developing holons. Developmental psychographics include the evolutionary cont ext of psychological st ructures. Effective communication and hermeneutic understand ing, in many ways, hinge on these developmental dynamics as the next s ections will attempt to demonstrate. Semiotics of Spiral Dialectic In their article “Message to Desire d Action: A Communication Effectiveness Model” in the Journal of Communication Management David Therkelsen and Christina Fiebich emphasize the common sense noti on that the intende d meaning of a communication must be understood for the co mmunication to be effective (2001). “It makes little difference that a message was se nt through the right channel to a willing receiver if it is not underst ood” (2001). To be understood, they continue, a message must be directly expressed in the “si gn” language of the receiving public. Being direct means considering both th e connotative [signified] and denotative [dictionary definition] meanings of th e words and framing the message in the imagery and language of the target public The practitioner will accomplish this in part through application of semiotic th eories, and in particular will construct meaning, signs and symbols in ways that promote understanding of the message. . Practitioners must both understand the connotative meanings of signs and symbols according to the target public and ap ply them appropriately in order to communicate a message effectively. (Therkelsen and Fiebich, 2001)

PAGE 113

101 To deliver an effective message, the co mmunicator must understand and predict the target public’s connotation or signification of the communicated sign, which necessarily entails a developmental component. Th e effective communicator must know the developmental psychographics of thos e with whom she communicates. Someone’s developmental psychogra ph reveals both the communication possibilities and impossibilities in any given moment. Maslow offers similar insights as to how psychological development sets certain communication parameters: My general thesis is that many of the communication difficulties between persons are the byproduct of co mmunication barriers within the person; and that communication between the person and the world, to and fro, depends largely on their isomorphism (i.e., similarity of st ructure or form); that the world can communicate to a person only that which he is . ‘up to’; that to a large extent, he can receive from the world, and give to th e world, only that which he himself is. (1971, p. 155) Maslow defends the significance of interiority in effective communication: “T he study of the ‘innards’ of the personality is one nece ssary base for the unde rstanding of what a person can communicate to the world, and what the world is able to communicate to him” (1971, p. 155). Investigating the “innards” w ith developmental psychographics tells the integral communicator the possibility paramete rs of a specific group at a specific time. Hermeneutic circles, linguistic groups, and discursive communities all refer to a group of speakers “who participat e in interactions based on so cial and cultural norms and values that are regulated, represented, and recreated through discursive practices” (Morgan, 2001, p. 31). In any hermeneutic circle, individual communicators share certain commonalties within the intersubjective space where the communication occurs, the lower-left quadrant of shared interior meanings that constitutes a common cultural paradigm. Cohabitation of the same wo rldspace makes communication possible.

PAGE 114

102 Recall that in semiology all signs possess an external, material signifier and an interior, mental signified. Also reme mber that every worldspace has its own phenomenologically real referents. While all those who have reached linguistic competence can share signifiers, only those who coexist within the worldspace of the referent and have experienced the referent can share signif ieds. Some examples might help. A virgin could hear the word “sex ” (the signifier) on te levision, but would not share the same signified as a non-virgin becau se the virgin has not had the experience of sex. When someone says the word “envy,” only those who have experienced the phenomenal state of envy will share the signifie d. Any literate person can read the words “square root of a negative one,” but only those who have developed to a formal operational cognitive capacity and studied ma thematics can share the signified (Wilber, 1997, p. 314). A child with concrete operational cognition can read the sentence, “It is as if I were elsewhere,” but cannot fully understand the message’s intended signified because the concrete operati onal level of cognitive development, by definition, cannot grasp “as-if” statements (Wilber, 2000b, p. 279) The “as-if” statement surpasses the cognitive capacity of the receiver, a situa tion Kegan calls “over the head” (Kegan, 1994). The sender and receiver of a communication must both ex perience the referent in its worldspace to share signifieds—head to head as it were. The worldspace where a referent resides could be a quadr ant, level, line, state, and/ or type. Of these elements, levels and lines tend to be the most underre presented in the comm unication literature, which is why they will receive the most at tention here (although all five elements are important). A sender and receiver must shar e in the meaning structure of the signified and that necessarily has a developmental component. In Wilber’s words:

PAGE 115

103 All signs exist in a continuum of developmental referents and developmental signifieds The referent of a sign is not just lying around in “the” world waiting for any and all to simply look at it; the referent exists only in a worldspace that is itself only disclosed in the process of development, and the signified exists only in the interior perception of those who have developed to that worldspace (which structures the background inte rpretive meaning that allows the signified to emerge). (2000b, p. 280). Maslow puts the point this way, “The meani ng of a message clearly depends not alone on its content, but also on the extent to which th e personality is able to respond to it. The “higher” meaning is perceptible only to the ‘h igher’ person. The taller he is, the more he can see” (1971, p. 167). In other words, effective communication as mutual understanding can occur if and only if all partic ipants share developmental signifieds. If a member of a hermeneutic circle has not yet developed to the group’s referential worldspace, he has not experienced the referent, and, therefore, will not share developmental signifieds (Wilber, 1997, p. 315-316; Wilber, 2000b, p. 626). The next two sections put this integral view of semiotics to use. Worldview Translation An integral communication strategy means taking quadrants, levels, lines, states, and types into account when engaging in pur poseful communicative action. However, an integral strategy does not necessitate using ev ery aspect of all five elements in every communication. Rather, it means skillfully choosing which elements to use given the context of a situation. I will focus primarily on four le vels in the values line (Blue, Orange, Green, Yellow), since value systems or worldviews intimately relate to attitudes and behaviors as discussed in Chapter 4. Each worldview level interprets the same message or signifier differently, since each level constructs and expe riences a qualitatively different reality. If a message is framed in the value language of any first-tier value level (B lue, Orange, Green) it will

PAGE 116

104 probably offend the others, since all first-tier value systems, by definition, consider their worldview to be the only acceptable one. Such conflict happens routinely, since the legitimacy of the entire worldview spiral remains unacknowledged in first tier. “Worldviews can conflict only if they co mpete as accounts of the same ‘world’” (Marshall, Griffioen, and Mouw, 1989, p. 12). Disagreement and conflict is inevitable when first-tier deems its worldview the only correct one. Elizabeth Behnke understood this communi cative pitfall in her essay on Jean Gebser presented at the “Symposium in Phenomenology and Hermeneutics” hosted by Ohio State University: The paradigmatic force of a life-world [o r level of conscious ness] unrecognized as such by those who dwell in it—those who simply maneuver in it as the reality tacitly assumed in everyday affairs—is su ch that alternatives may be literally inconceivable. Thus seemingly incomp rehensible blocks to communication may arise when two life-worlds, each a genuine and complete ‘reality’ in its own right, clash. (1982, p. 106) An integral communicator pred icts and avoids such clashe s by constructing messages in the specific value language spoken and unders tood within the receiv er’s developmental “life-world” or worldspace. Each worldvi ew has its own value language, and effective communication occurs when both sides sp eak the same language. Failure to communicate at the value level of the receiver creates the dangerous possibility that the receiver will either not comprehend the message, resist the message, or massively misinterpret its intended meaning, which could lead to a “total breakdown” in communication (Ellis and McClintock, 1990, p. 16). Integral communicators display an awarene ss of the evolving value spiral, knowing first-tier will react adversely to communicat ions outside their value spectrum. To overcome this hurdle, they rely on a strategy I call worldview translation Translate

PAGE 117

105 means “to render in another langu age; to put into simpler terms; to express in different words; to change from one form, function, or state to another” (American Heritage, 2000). Worldview translation involves arti culating a message within the acceptable developmental value parameters of the target audience. Constructing messages at the developmen tal depth of the receiver (worldview translation) deserves to be included in any strategy seeking to maximize communication effectiveness. Integral maps help the co mmunicator avoid speaking “over the head” (or below the head) of the intended public. Beck and Cowan begin this work by suggesting elements of appropriate message design for each value structure as listed in appendix D (1996, p. 334-335). The sender must first recognize the developmental psychographics of the target public and then construct a me ssage in the “language” of that particular level. Wilber, for example, explains integr al methodological pluralism using first Orange and then Green language. Orange language: “Any sort of Integral Methodological Pluralism allows the creation of a multi-pur pose toolkit for appro aching today’s complex problems—individually, sociall y, and globally—with more co mprehensive solutions that have a chance of actually making a difference.” Now the same idea in Green language: “An Integral Methodological Pluralism allows a richer diversity of interpretations of life’s text to stand forth in a clearing of mutual re gard, thus marginalizing no interpretation in the process” (Wilber 2002a). A good translator knows multiple languages. Consider this simple, horizontal metaphor : two people enter a room and wish to have a meaningful conversation. The first person speaks only English (unilingual). The second person speaks English in addition to her native language—Chinese (bilingual).

PAGE 118

106 Two options exist: First, the unilingual pers on could learn Chinese. Second, the bilingual person could choose to speak English. The fo rmer option would be possible, but quite difficult. Learning a foreign language usuall y takes years of intense practice. The conversation would have to wait until the uni lingual person has attained proficiency in Chinese and becomes a bilingual speaker. Th e latter option, in cont rast, would be much easier. If the bilingual person has equal access to both language s, then—knowing the unilingual status of her partner—she coul d simply choose to speak English. The conversation could commence immediately. Th e bilingual speaker chooses to translate her ideas from Chinese into a language form or meaning structure that the unilingual speaker could understand, namely English. The same goes for worldview translation. Integral communicators—through their awareness of the vertical spir al—have the ability to translate messages into multiple value languages. Suppose two people sit on a park bench wear ing colored glasses, one with orange lenses and the other with green lenses. Bo th have no idea they are even wearing the glasses. Along strolls a Florida panther. The person wearing orange glasses angrily shakes his first at the panther, “These pests are pushing my housing development business behind schedule. They’re driving down property values and costing my firm money!” With a look of horror, the pers on wearing green glasses exclaims, “Don’t you see? This is a Florida panther, one of th e most endangered species in the world. Your housing projects ruin its natural habitat and th reaten the biodiversity of Gaia. Where’s your heart?” The conversation degenerates in to hostility. Each person attempts to persuade the other of the panther’s true value implicat ions. Both fail to acknowledge and honor the

PAGE 119

107 other’s colored interp retation. Experiencing different value implications (Orange vs. Green) from the same fact (the Florida panthe r), they talk past each other. This dynamic results in ineffective communication. Despite such a simple metaphor, one can begin to see how communication among two or more wo rldviews can rapidly deteriorate into misinterpretation, talking past one another, unresolved deba te, or constrained disdain (tolerance). Each person sees the “fact” of the panthe r with eyes already value-laden. They both see a panther, but one experiences an “Orange” panther and the other a “Green” panther. The colored value interpretation (Left Hand) occurs simultaneously with the experienced fact (Right Hand) as one seamle ss territory. No fact carries an inherent value imperative apart from the interpreti ve structure already operating within the observing mind. “Oughts” change depending on one’s internal wo rldview, not the external “facts.” A third person—this time wearing yellow gl asses—sits on the bench. This person knows she wears yellow glasses and understand s the orange and green glasses worn by the others from prior experience. Nevertheless she distinctly sees the Florida panther as yellow. In contrast to th e other two, however, this person has the ability to take on multiple value perspectives. She knows what an orange panther and a green panther look like. Informed by the ability to put hersel f in the others’ shoes, she realizes that attempting to persuade the other two of the yellow panther would be a futile effort. Hence, she carefully refrains from articulati ng her experience in yellow terms. Instead, she communicates her experience in orange terms to one and green terms to the other— languages they can each understand: “You know ,” looking to the person with orange

PAGE 120

108 glasses, “sustainable build ing practices could increase the value of your houses, boost your profits, and keep environmentalists off your back.” Turning to the person with green glasses, “Since people do need this housing space, we could introduce ‘green building’ principles to help housing contractors work in harmony with the Earth, facilitating an ecological bala nce with people, natural res ources, and wild animals.” Heads nod in agreement. The result: eff ective communication. From this space, a constructive dialogue begins. The woman wearing yellow glasses, the in tegral communicator, na turally facilitates effective communication. She creates a winwin-win situation by communicating in two separate value structures th at matched the respective dept h of her receivers. Using language they each could understand, she expl ained how sustainable building could meet both of their value concerns. Only with an intimate understanding of alternative worldviews can such a tran slation strategy succeed. Flatland Assumptions When Rene Dubos first urged people to “think globally” and “act locally,” many ecologists quickly jumped on board and co mmunicated the message with an urgent passion (Brown, 1993, p. 15). Ecologists endo rsed the slogan becau se it wonderfully captured their Green worldview. For Green, taki ng a more international or worldcentric perspective allows people to see inequalitie s and injustices being committed against other human beings and the Earth. Such a global perspective would presumably influence many local behavioral choices, helping to rec tify the inequalities and injustices. Written in Green value language, the slogan “T hink Globally, Act Locally” communicates extremely effectively to a Green audience or higher.

PAGE 121

109 Unfortunately, the message passes over the heads of the more than 200 million Americans. Without considering developm ental psychographics, the message becomes powerless and impotent for the vast majority of people. Why? Because meaning exists in people, not messages A message is completely meaningless without a mind to interpret it. And as Alfred North Whitehead said, “Our interpretations of experience determine the limits of what we can do w ith the world” (Whitehead, 1933, p. 99). Green ecological communicators want more than what most interpreting minds can offer. The message “Think Globally, Act Loca lly” makes at least two faulty psychographic assumptions. First, it assumes the audience possesses at least a formal operational cognitive processing ability, a rela tively high level of cognitive development (Piaget and Inhelder, 1969, p. 132). Only then would a person be able to take an authentically global perspective, cognitively able to take the position of a third world laborer or a rainforest. Second, it assume s the audience has a Green level of value development or higher. Just because a pe rson cognitively is able to take a global perspective, does not mean he will regard international human rights and biosphere preservation as important. Only at Green does universal care for the powerless begin to bloom. In short, the message will only be e ffective for an audience with at least a formal operational cognition and a Green value system (among other factors not mentioned). “Anybody can say they are thinking ‘globall y,’ but very few can actually take a worldcentric or postconventional perspective. . To actually live from a worldcentric or universal perspective requires five or six ma jor interior stages of transformation and transcendence” (Wilber, 1996, p. 273). When Green ecological communicators deliver messages in their own value language, Blue and Orange publics—which make up over

PAGE 122

110 70% of the American population—are larg ely immune, resulting in extremely minimal behavioral and lifestyle changes. A worldview translation stra tegy would translate ecological messages into Blue and Orange value language. Environmental message s for Blue might appropriate the biblical metaphor of man as the Earth’s caretaker. Communicators could appe al to Blue’s sense of discipline, obedience to authority, and subservience to tradition as a means of upholding the “righteous” cause of man’s ecol ogical responsibility. Position ecological devastation as a greater national security threat than terrorism. The environmental crisis endangers one’s immediate group. Communicat e that the future rewards will outweigh any present self-sacrifices and bring honor onto those who follow the morally binding principles of environmental sustainabilit y. Communicators could even seal in the message with intimations of guilt, fear, and neglect of social duty if environmentally friendly behaviors are not followed. An Orange environmental message would l ook quite different. Any Orange appeal to sustainable action must offer participants a competitive advantage if adopted, a return on investment. An Orange communication promises or outlines a new, fresh, and innovative way that business a nd ecology can fit together so they both win. Those with an Orange worldview will practice sustaina bility as a superior strategy to win and advance. The strategy outlined in Natural Capitalism and similar works captures this Orange motivation (Hawken, Lovins, a nd Lovins, 1999; McDonough and Braungart, 2002; Frankel, 1998; Gordon, 2001). For instance Pamela Gordon writes, “The truth is that some businesses are saving millions or ev en billions of dollars each year by taking

PAGE 123

111 environmental steps and dispel ling the myth that you have to choose between profit and environment” (Gordon 2001, xi). Worldview translation—one worldview comm unicating through the value structure of another worldview—is not a silver bullet that can magically change attitudes and behaviors. Nevertheless, the likelihood of influencing atti tudes and behaviors increases when a strategy is integrally informed. In fact, such an integral communication strategy is already being quietly practiced around th e world. The next chapter documents one such example in California.

PAGE 124

112 CHAPTER 7 APPLICATION—SUSTAINABLE BUILDING Sustainable Development in Alameda County Located on the eastern shore of Califor nia’s San Francisco Bay, Alameda County encompasses fourteen cities. Over 5 00,000 housing units spread out over Alameda County’s 738 square miles of land, giving sh elter to its 1.5 million citizens (Alameda, 2003). The county’s growing population demands thousands of new housing units to be built and remodeled each year. Such c ontinuous urban development noticeably influences the county’s solid waste manageme nt. Trash generation has paralleled, and sometimes outpaced, population growth (ISLR, 2002). Each year the United States experiences $100 billion in new construction and $126 billion in renovations. In 1996, 136 million t ons of building-related construction and demolition debris were generated during the building process. This construction and demolition debris consists of wasted materials such as wood, asphalt, drywall, roofing, and metals. Of this debris, building demolitions account for 48%, renovations account for 44%, and construction sites generate 8% (Davis, 2001). Alameda County is included in these statistics. Five years ago, nearly a quarter million tons of construction debris were needlessly discarded into Alameda County landfills every year (Sommer, 2003). Formed in 1976, the Alameda County Wa ste Management Authority (ACWMA) became responsible for ensuring adequate la ndfill capacity for the county. Soon, the agency began to explore alternatives to landfilling such as re cycling. Then in 1989, California passed the toughest state wast e management law in the country—The

PAGE 125

113 Integrated Waste Management Act (AB939). This new law threatened stiff penalties and fines if every city and county in California did not reduce or dive rt 25% of its waste stream from disposal by the year 1995 and 50% by 2000 (ILSR, 2002). One year later, the Alameda County voters approved an initiative that went even further. The 1990 Alameda County Waste Re duction and Recycling Initiative Charter Amendment (Measure D) set a long term waste diversion goal of 75% by 2010. The measure specifically called for “the establ ishment of sustainable discarded materials management practices” (ILSR, 2002). By 2000, Alameda County had accomplished the 50% reduction required under California law. Nevertheless, the ambitious reduction goal now sat at 75% and to reach it they needed help. A Spiral Wizard Spiral Dynamics integral refers to Red, Blue, Orange, and Green as “first-tier” value systems, since they interpret the wo rld exclusively through their respective value lenses. Yellow marks the “momentous leap to second-tier co nsciousness,” which involves an intuitive understanding of the e volving value spiral. Beck and Cowan call second-tier change agents “S piral Wizards.” Although every value stage has its leaders, second-tier leaders mark an entirely new breed. Spiral Wizards instinctively roam ove r vast mindscapes seeing patterns and connections others do not notice . . The process links functions, people, and ideas into new, more natural flows that ad d precision, flexibilit y, rapid response, humanity, and fun to getting the work done That is the power of Second Tier thinking: constantly survey the whole wh ile tinkering expertly with the parts. (Beck and Cowan, 1996, p. 107) Alameda County found its Spiral Wizard in David Johnston. The Alameda County Waste Management Authority first contacted Johnston in 1998, seeking his expertise to

PAGE 126

114 meet their 75% reduction quota, which they knew would require alte ring the traditional practices of the construction and remodeling industries. David Johnston studied environmental sy stems design with Buckminster Fuller while in college and later studied business in Washington D.C. In 1980, he founded what is now called the “Sustainable Buildi ngs Industry Council” (SBIC), a nonprofit organization whose mission is “to advance the design, affordability, energy performance, and environmental soundness of America’s build ings” (SBIC, 2003). SBIC represents a unique partnership of leading trade associa tions, product manufacturers, architects, and professionals within the building industry, all with the goal of bringing sustainable development into the mainstream. A fe w years later he founded “Lightworks Construction,” which specializes in reside ntial environmental c onstruction and passive solar design. Lightworks rose to be a leader in its field, named one of Remodeling Magazine's Big 50 (best 50 contractors in the nati on) in 1989 and sele cted as the 1990 Contractor of the Year by the Nationa l Association of the Remodeling Industry (Johnston, 2003b). Since 1992, Johnston has served as founder and president of “What’s Working,” a design and consulting firm focused on ener gy conservation, environmental construction technology, and sustainable community development (Johnston, 2003b). What’s Working specializes in energy and envir onmental policy development, sustainable building programs, cost/benefit analysis for environmental features, design consultation, sustainable building materials specifi cations, marketing, communications, media relations, and training for cons truction professionals. J ohnston founded What’s Working with the recognition that “the built environment has a signif icant impact on the Earth's

PAGE 127

115 ecosystem. Through good design, wise material selection, environmental management systems and careful construction, buildings can be built that minimize those impacts while enhancing the quality of life for th e inhabitants” (Johnston, 2003b). Implementing environmentally sustainable construction on a mass scale requires “buy-in” from the diverse group of actors that compose the building market. Reflecting on his career, Johnston comments, “I’ve always been in th e market transformation business one way or another” (2003a). Beck and Cowan give seven identifyi ng marks of a spiral wizard (1996, p. 108113). Spiral wizards . 1. think in open systems rather than closed final states. 2. live and work within natural flows and rhythms. 3. strive to keep the entire spiral healthy as an ultimate goal. 4. interact comfortably with many conceptual worlds. 5. possess a full complement of resources, strategies, and skills. 6. are systemic thinkers and integrative problem solvers. 7. possess a unique blend of personal beliefs and values. David Johnston exemplifies thes e attributes through his effo rts to transform the building market in Alameda County. All Quadrant Communication Johnston seeks no less than a 100% mark et transformation from conventional building to sustainable building. To accomplis h this, he says, “we took a Yellow strategy of how to transform the market.” The next sections narrate some of the steps he took. All quotes without a citation come from a phone interview I conducted with Johnston on November 21, 2003. When the Alameda County Waste Manage ment Authority hired Johnston, their ultimate aim was “to make the county more sustainable and self-sufficient and to reduce the burden that the building industry puts on the environment.” Environmentalists

PAGE 128

116 usually approach such a goal from a Green va lue orientation. From such a limited, firsttier perspective, many well-meaning environmen talists actually work against authentic market transformation. They assume everyone shares similar ecological values (UpperLeft Quadrant); they build their own isolat ed “straw bale house off the grid” and hope others will follow their example (Upper-Right quadrant); they push for regulations and codes that force sustainable building onto the construction industry (Lower-Right quadrant); and they develop “consensus” without including the full range of stakeholders within the construction industry (Lower-Left quad rant) (Johnston, 2003d). The waste management authority had al ready attempted two of these failed approaches: First, they instigated a vo luntary construction waste incentive-based recycling program. As it was set-up, c hoosing to recycle demolition debris would increase the cost of construc tion without any direct financia l advantage to the builder. Not surprisingly, the voluntary program gain ed virtually no traction and soon became a county ordinance. This second, legallymandated approach met with tremendous resistance from the construction industry who ardently fought against it. “The recycling ordinance,” Johnston notes, “created a burden that had no net bene fit to the builder— besides, recycling by itself is sort of like rearranging the chairs on the Titanic.” Since neither the voluntary program nor the ordinances worked, the waste management authority thought that “if they he lped to foster sustainable building in the Bay Area residential market, they could cr eate incentives bey ond the financial and regulatory.” Johnston explai ns, “Doing more with less, building more efficiently, reducing the waste, building more durable hous es that require less maintenance, energy and water conservation are all inherent messages in sustainable building. It made a lot of

PAGE 129

117 sense to the waste management authority to dovetail into existi ng programs and to expand the market awareness of all of these issues in co njunction with recycling.” Already, the waste management authority va lued public education and outreach. They communicated their sustainability message s using phone hotlines, radio, television, posters, billboards, and school programs (IL SR, 2002). Johnston want ed to extend these already commendable public outreach efforts and increase their effectiveness with an integral strategy. He proposed a plan to influence market fo rces and drive the adoption of sustainable building through conventional channels (Johnston, 2003d). He was after market transformation to a sustainability paradigm characterized by a new set of injunctive practices used by the construc tion industry. In Johnston’s words, “Only by applying an integral systems approach to the market can r eal transformation occur. The final result is that market forces take over from the interv ention strategies so that competition from builders, architects, and remodelers drives the subsequent evoluti on of the market and public policy support and subsidies are no longer needed” (Johnston, 2001). The building market, like most economic markets, is complex. Internal and external factors interact in individual and collective dimens ions. The integral approach offers a comprehensive map of the business market, helping change-agents uncover, organize, and understand the intricate dynamics infl uencing market transformation. All stakeholders are interconnected in the market, each influencing the others. In sustainable building, market stakeholders include the waste management authority, realtors, remodelers, produc t suppliers, developers/contractors, builders, homebuyers, government officials, and more. As Johnston explains, market change requires a “pod of

PAGE 130

118 intelligence” within each st akeholder group that meets th at group’s specific value interests (Johnston, 2001). Ideally, a coordinated balan ce will occur between a high demand for sustainable building and the s upply. Demand increases when consumers become more aware of sustainable building and remodeling options. To meet this new demand, the traditional supply side (architects, remodelers, etc.) needs further education and training. Market intelligence grows as supply increases to meet competition and the increased presence of actual sustainable build ings educates more of the buying public. Internal and external factors cyclically in terpenetrate each othe r, creating quadratic market expansion. However, if either the demand or supply side falls out of balance, “consumers are frustrated and professionals find no market for thei r services” (Johnston, 2001). Facilitating such a balanced coordination of market forces requires “all quadrant, all level” engagement. Of course, a major goal of intervention is “3-D, tangible, bottom right quadrant transac tions.” To realize this, however, “internal commitments (personal and collective) must be expressed through actual sustainable bu ildings being built” (Johnston, 2001). Finding the sp ecific internal values that motivate individual and collective stakeholders on the Left Hand holds the key to economic market transformation on the Right Hand. Simply put, “this is done by translating values into action” (Johnston, 2001). Integral communication eases the value c onflicts that inevitably erupt when divergent attitudes arise from the same “fact s.” An integral strategy was behind every communicative engagement in Johnston’s plan. The first of these engagements produced two volumes of sustainable construction gui delines, one for remodeling and one for new

PAGE 131

119 home building (Johnston, 2003c). In distribut ing this literature, Johnston sought “to create guidelines that the indus try felt they had some ownership of and made sense to them from the standpoint of how they did business.” To create industry buy-in, he organized “development teams” composed of stakeholders representing the groups who would actually use the guidelines such as lo cal developers, city planners, architects, builders, contractors, and government building inspectors. All these representatives had a small hand in shaping the guidelines, which cr eated a sense of ownership. “We put their names in front of the booklet, hooked their Re d, and made them mini heroes.” Johnston goes on to explain his strategy of “increment al ownership” in simple AQAL terms: “Getting their Left Hand buy-in was key to changing what they did on the Right Hand side.” Johnston knew that the guidelines would be e ffective only if they were more than a mere Right Hand checklist of physical sustai nability features as the waste management authority originally proposed. The finished guidelines consider both Hands. On the Right, it gives detailed how-to instructions that show exactly how sustainable building methods and materials can be applied. Subject s in this section incl ude “exterior finish, plumbing, electrical, appliances, insulation, windows, renewable energy, roofing, indoor air quality, flooring, natural he ating and cooling” (Johnston, 2 003c). On the Left, it gives “the fundamental objectives and benefits of sustainable buildi ng” (Johnston, 2003c). Johnston regards this part as vital: “Benefits are key. Sustainable building is all about accumulating benefits for homebuyers in a tangibl e way so they can see their self-interest being served by paying a little more for a sustainable home. My intuition and my acumen is to identify where that self-int erest lies as quickly as possible.”

PAGE 132

120 There’s even a chapter on how to se ll sustainable homes through effective communication. Builders get the message that “if they are successful in communicating the benefits to their buyers, then they will cr eate a unique market niche that differentiates themselves from their competition.” This sec tion gives builders and realtors a variety of benefits and advantages that addre ss a spectrum of value orientations. The guidelines proved to be immensely popular. Thousands of guidelines were distributed across the county. While the wast e management authority prided themselves on a job well done, Johnston argued that the job had only begun. He created an implementation strategy that would extend th e momentum initiated by the guidelines. Johnston strategically identifie d every major group that infl uenced how the residential market delivered a home to a buyer, from initial permit acceptance through final building inspection. Here’s a simplified version of the im plementation strategy—Upper-right quadrant (exterior-individual): “physi cally building, buying, and sel ling sustainable homes.” Lower-right quadrant (exterior-collective) : media publicity, marketing assistance, demonstration homes, technical support. Lo wer-left quadrant (inter ior-collective): group workshops, greening corporate culture, “her o making.” Upper-left quadrant (interiorindividual): speakers bureau, publ ic presentations, professional training. The integral, all quadrant map proves essential in Johnston’s market transformation strategy of communicative action. All Level Communication The first vision statement of the Alam eda County Waste Management Authority reads, “The Agency is a national leader in pursuing effective solutions that reduce the waste of material and other natural resour ces. Leadership requires innovative ideas,

PAGE 133

121 advanced technology, proactive policy development, effective communication and heightened visibility for the Agency a nd its programs” (emphasis added) (ACWMA, 2003). Integral communication through worldview translation provides the approach that allows the waste management authority to reach and coordinate among numerous conflicting value systems. It gives them the necessary communication tools to lead effectively. Communicating in an integrally informed manner brings a deeper awareness, understanding, and compassion to the interaction. Fo r instance, since a Yellow awareness views all value stages as legiti mate, it can freely move among them, engage them on their own terms, and speak to them in their own languages. Or as Beck and Cowan put it, “Yellow is ‘flexible’ in that it can enter the conceptual worlds of the first six systems and interact with them on thei r frequencies, speaking their psychological languages” (1996, p. 277). According to Johnston, “we each hold a set of values or basic motivations that determine our behavior and decisions. If the benefits of su stainable building are translated into language that is understood by people holding di fferent sets of values, the communication is more effective” (Johnston, 20 01). Here Johnston describes worldview translation, the process of intentionally phr asing a core message within the acceptable value spectrum of the intended receiver. “Communication translation started from the beginning in defining how we speak to the various stakeholders groups.” Beck and Cowan give a short list of these languages in appendix D, which Johnston adapted into specific translation protocol s for sustainable building: Red —personal expression, self-reliance (off th e grid), straw bale construction

PAGE 134

122 Blue —our town, our company, our organization, sustainable building is the “right thing” to do, homes are more durable Orange —market differentiation, greater profits real estate appreciation, status symbol Green —environmental health, sa ving old growth forest s, recycled contend products, supporting environmental companies Yellow —trim-tab effectiveness of programs and market transformation, voting for planetary health by being a sustainabl e consumer, providing for the future Johnston created educational and training pr ograms for each market stakeholder based on value orientation and “present s the same fundamental info rmation but translates it differently based on the value orientation of the audience.” Johns ton, like a good Spiral Wizard, “resists putting everybody through the sa me training and development ‘car wash’ since value [systems] exist in their own self-contained worlds requiring their own instructional packages” (Beck and Cowan, 1996, p. 111). But how does one know the value orientati on of a target audience? Practically speaking, an integral communicator will rarely have the time or resources to administer formal psychographic evaluations such as “T he Values Test” (Beck, 2002c). In all likelihood, in-depth interviews or focus gr oups will also be out of the question. “Observing behaviors,” Johnston says, “certainly helps, but it doesn’t get to internal motivations.” An integral communicator, it se ems, mostly relies on experience, strategic questions, and intuition to de signate value groups. Johns ton trusts his experience working within the building i ndustry to tell him the general value orientations of the major stakeholders. At the beginning of his in teractive presentati ons, he immediately feels out the audience by “finding out what kind of construction they do, why they do what they do, and how they do what they do.” Or the declarative tactic: “I make leading statements and watch who nods.” This me thod of psychographic segmentation requires

PAGE 135

123 trusting subtle intuitions initiated by data fr om each quadrant. Of course, this process would prove extremely difficult for a communi cator who has yet to reach at least a Yellow value awareness. Johnston recounts numerous examples of integral communication from his work experiences. For instance, remodelers tend to be “the Red renegade s of the construction industry.” Since they refuse to work for so meone else, they each have their own small construction company where they call the shots. Working in a virtual vacuum with little collaboration, these remodelers enjoy being on their own and doing things their way. Yet Johnston also maintains that many remodele rs simultaneously understand the Green, world-centric goals behind sustainable devel opment. This “strange brew” of Red and Green nicely fits Wilber’s description of “Boomeritis” (Wilber, 2002b). Johnston sums up his Boomeritis strategy in a sentence, “We worked through the Blue of their trade association, giving them Orange tools for doing better business, in Red language so they could get it, and did all that by teaching them how to build Green.” Johnston teaches a sustainable remodeling certi fication class through a loca l chapter of The National Association of the Remodeling Industry (NAR I), and has officially certified over one hundred remodelers. Blue language works best when addressi ng building inspectors and most city officials. Johnston recommends messages that stress “why this is good for the city; why this is a health and safety issue; why this is fundamental to how buildings should be built in the community.” In short, address w hy sustainable building benefits the group by using the group’s own principles. Stress family values, stability, and security. Elected

PAGE 136

124 officials will listen when sust ainable building is presented as a win-win situation where the politician can score votes with constituents through prom oting a healthier community. New home builders exhibit Orange drives towards achievement. Financial success through selling homes acts as a prime motivator An integral comm unicator discussing sustainable development with an Orange build er would want to emphasize these benefits (Bay, 2003a): Meet consumer demand —increase marketability and enhance the bottom line. Keep up with the competition —sustainable building continues to grow and the industry’s early adopters will reap the most benefits. Get media coverage and other publicity —the public relations opportunities unique to sustainable building will help intro duce your company to potential clients. Save money —reusing, deconstructing, or recycling demolition debris will result in lower disposal costs and tax savings. Simply put, “we build the business case for Oran ge in very tangible, return-on-investment kinds of language.” Johnston cites an Or ange magazine add that reads, “Pump Up Healthier Profits with Hea lthier Homes” (Johnston, 2003d). He often uses Orange’s distaste for regulations and familiarity with competition as motivations for sustainable building. “I tell builders, ‘D o you really want the city tel ling you how to build houses? Get on the bandwagon now. You’re used to competing; you’re used to doing business your way. So adopt sustainable building in your company now. Position yourself as an industry leader and get ahead of the code so it won’t bother you.’ They listen to that.” The above examples of worldview transla tion feature audiences with clear value centers-of-gravity, but how should one addre ss a rainbow audience that spans many value orientations? Don Beck sugge sts one handy technique called the “Five Ps,” a heuristic device that designates five value hit-poin ts. Each “P” represents a worldview: Power

PAGE 137

125 (Red), Principle (Blue), Profit (Orange), People (Green), Planet (Yellow). If a communicator hits these Five Ps in a presen tation, she should resonate with the entire audience. Johnston tells of a presentation he gave in September 2003. The meeting included all the major stakeholders—elected officials from eight cities and two counties, building and developer representatives, and a host of ot hers. Most had never met each other, let alone worked together. Johnston describes it as “one of thes e make or break situations. We had to score with this meeting to move forward with our sustainability goals. We needed buy-in across counties a nd jurisdictions.” And he onl y had fifteen minutes to pull it off. “The presentation,” Johnston re calls, “was the most intr icately threaded integral communication I’ve ever given.” The room held all the major worldviews, from the egocentric, “Don’t tell me how to build my house damn it!” to the worldcentric, “How can construction practices best help the planet ?” First, he quickly went around the room, asking strategic questions such as “who ar e you; what do you do; why are you here; why are you interested.” Then he spoke “very di rectly, eyeball to eyeball” to each value subset about sustainable bu ilding from their perspective until he received “an unconscious nod.” By the end of the meeti ng, he literally had 100% buy-in from the group. After the meeting participants commen ted, “Now I get it! Now our company/city really has a reason to move forward. We now see the value in doing this.” Johnston succeeded by using worldview translation and the Five Ps, two techniques of integral communication.

PAGE 138

126 Marketing to new homebuyers also calls fo r these techniques. Homebuyers span a variety of value orientations, which requires a Five P marketing st rategy. Consider the following marketing communication intended for potential homeowners (Bay, 2003b): Financial Savings —save up to 65% on electricity and water bills More Comfort —natural sun exposure, ambient temperature, aesthetic design Healthier Living —eliminate indoor air pollution and enhance indoor air quality Less Maintenance and Higher Durability —quality materials exceed building code requirements Know You’re Being Good to the Environment —preserve natural resources, be socially responsible Approaching the benefits of sustainable buildi ng with the Five Ps ensures that no critical buyer motivation will be left out. “If you can build a home that’s healthier for their children and their community, that require s less maintenance and saves them money every month, and kills no old growth trees, then sustainable building starts to make sense to buyers.” “It’s Working Like a Champ” “The whole point is to work up and down the spiral in effective ways that help everybody see what’s in it for them in language and in ways that they can implement immediately. We’re translat ing the same information everyplace, over and over, back and forth, in whatever colo r the particular audien ce is at. If we can speak these value languages we’re goi ng to be much more effective in accomplishing our bottom-right hand goals than if we just tell them they ought to be doing it.” A program manager at the waste manage ment authority refers to Johnston’s strategy as “that color thi ng you do.” Though initially skeptical, she can’t deny the results. After Johnston’s training, she finds audiences more receptive to her program messages and accomplishes her work goals more effectively. Johnston agrees, “the

PAGE 139

127 integral strategy works so well that we’ve gotten more mileage in less time than any comparable program in the countr y. . it’s working like a champ.” Over 1,000 sustainable homes in Alameda County have been build using the guidelines that Johnston put together. The city of Livermore had the distinction of building the nation’s first zero-en ergy home, which “puts as much energy into the electric grid as it takes out” (Tate, 2002). Johnston se ized the opportunity to strike-up a healthy competition among cities. After lengthy discus sions in a neighboring city, Pleasanton, Johnston obtained the reaction he was after, “W ell, if they can do it in Livermore, then we can certainly do it in Pleasanton. Not onl y will we build zero-energy homes in our town, but we’re going to make all buildings sustainable.” Now all building in Pleasanton follows the Waste Management Authority’s Green Guidelines Currently four other cities in East Alameda County are poised to follo w suite. A Tri-valley Commission meets regularly to coordinate sust ainable building programs. Also, a new organization—Bay Area Build It Green—aims to apply Alameda Co unty’s strategy to the entire Bay Area. In 2002, the Alameda County Waste Manage ment Authority—along with Nike and Kinko’s—received a stewardship award from the National Recycling Coalition (NRC). Kate Krebs, the NRC’s executive director, pr aised the award recipients: “These honorees are established leaders in their fields and th ey are using their leadership positions to positively influence others. With innovation and attention to detail, they are using waste prevention and recycling to create sust ainable communities and economies” (NRC, 2002). NRC specifically acknowledged the agen cy’s leadership in “forging productive partnerships among elected officials, public ag encies, recyclers, waste haulers, and the nonprofit sector” (NRC, 2002).

PAGE 140

128 Although his name rarely appears in the public media, David Johnston has been quietly working behind the scenes to orchestr ate a market transformation in the Golden State and beyond. The momentum continues to swing towards sustainability. He did it by combining the intuition of the spiral wiza rd with the integral operating system of AQAL. “The integral approach has been fundamental to what we’ve been doing out there. We’re using it on a day to day basis, audience after audience, so that each person hears a way that sustainable bui lding can benefit him or her.”

PAGE 141

129 CHAPTER 8 TRANSFORMATION AND THE COMMUNICATOR Trans-Disciplinary Discourse Picture three well-intentioned professionals sitting down to discuss their respective disciplines. Soon into the conversati on the doctor refers to “keratodermia blennorrhagicum,” the artist mentions “dadai sm,” and the business executive references “amortization.” The conversation rapidly turn s stale. Cross-disciplinary learning ceases to move forward, and the accusation of incomme nsurability begins to appear palpable. Despite this caricature, the technical language inherent in academic disciplines often prevents a common worldspace from emergi ng. To be healthy and effective, a hermeneutic circle needs a shared intersubj ective space amidst individual differences, a unity-in-diversity. Sharing a common map or framework can help create the internal-collective worldspace necessary for a fruitful disc ursive community. More simply, when disciplines share the same map, they can co mmunicate with greater ease. The problem with previous maps is thei r inability to encompass a ll areas of human inquiry. Consequently, not all disciplines could use them. The integral map would now like to have a shot. A practitioner of discipline can be integrally informed. A politician, nurse, or professional communicator can a ll incorporate integral awaren ess. Likewise, integral methodological pluralism and the AQAL meta -model apply not only to communication. The various theories and methods of psyc hology, for example, can be linked in an

PAGE 142

130 integral psychology (Wilber, 1999a), just as in tegral business brings together the many theories and methods of business (Paulson, 2002). Sharing an integral framework promotes cross-disciplinary learning through transdisciplinary discourse. In other words, disciplin es can meaningfully learn from other disciplines by using a language beyond all disciplines. The vocabulary of AQAL (i.e., “lower-left quadrant,” “holon,” “the Big Thr ee”) forms a new meta-language. Hence, AQAL language is trans-disciplinary or be yond any one particular area of study. Another way to say “AQAL language” coul d be “integral communication.” Because [the integral framework] can be used by any discipline—from medicine to art to business to spirituality to politics to ecology—then we can, for the first time in history, begin an extensive and fruitful di alogue between all of these disciplines. A person using [the integral framework] in business can talk easily and effectively with a person using [the integral framewor k] in poetry, dance, or the arts, simply because they now have a common language . with which to communicate. (I-I, 2003) When using integral communication, member s of different disciplines create an intersubjective space for effective cross-discipli nary exchange to occur. With integral communication, a new order of hermeneutic circle emerges—an integral learning community. Disciplines within an integral learning community not only seek out new integral applications in their own fields but they also talk with and learn from one another. For example, they not only ask, “How can I effec tively learn and practi ce Integral Ecology,” but also “what can Integral Ecology learn from Integral Psychology? And what can Integral Psychology learn from Integral Law? And what can Integral Law learn from Integral Art” (I-I, 2004)? The Integral In stitute—home to the fi rst integral learning community—reports on the importance of cr oss-disciplinary learning through integral communication: “In the first years of Integr al Institute, we have been amazed at how

PAGE 143

131 much of this type of [cross-disciplinary] lear ning occurs. Crucial principles of Integral Business have actually come from Integral Art; major breakthroughs in Integral Ecology have come from Integral Psychology” (I-I, 2004). Cross-discip linary learning through trans-disciplinary or integral communication facilitates the growth of all participating disciplines. Through this dialogue, an inte gral communication theorist may come to realize that a worldview tran slation strategy is not enough gi ven the gravity of problems facing contemporary civilization. Language for Growth Within the integral learning community, integral ecology and other disciplines suggest the need not only for an integr al communication strategy of worldview translation but also one that catalyzes worldview transformation Recall that “people are not born wanting to take car e of Gaia [Earth]. That nobl e state of global care is the product of a long and laborious and difficu lt process of growth and transcendence” (Wilber, 1996, p. 320). As Chapter 5 expressed, value systems evolve from egocentric (preconventional) to ethnocentr ic (conventional) to world centric (postconv entional), and only this third developmental level cares about the gl obal commons. It is only at a global, postconventional, worldcentric stance that individuals can recognize the actual dimensions of the environmental cris is, and, more importantly, possess the moral vision and moral fortitude to proceed on a global basis. Obviously, then, a significant number of i ndividuals must reach a postconventional and worldcentric level of development in order to be a significant force in global care. (Wilber, 1996, p. 329) In other words, collective internal devel opment is vital to resolving ecological (and political and social) problems. While a wo rldview translation st rategy creates messages at the depth level of the r eceiver, a worldview transforma tion strategy communicates with the intent of prompting internal development within the receiver.

PAGE 144

132 Jean Piaget uses two terms that help explain the difference: assimilation and accommodation. The process of assimilation invo lves a “filtering or modification” of a new input so it fits into alr eady-existing internal structur es (Piaget and Barbel, 1969, p. 6). When a person assimilates a new pheno menon, she experiences and interprets it through her old, pre-existing intern al lenses. She sees only wh at her internal structures allow her to understand. As Piaget puts it, assimilation “brings the new into the known and thus reduces the universe to its own terms” (1952, p. 6). Worldview translation works by Piaget’s assimilation principle. A communication is intentionally given in the value language of the target audience, thus easing the process of message assimilation by matching the audience’s current value structur e. Worldview translation does not attempt to facilitate internal growth in people, but aims rather to meet and honor people exactly where they are developmentally. In contrast to adapting a communication to fit pre-existing in ternal structures, accommodation implies “the modification of in ternal schemes” to fit a communication (Piaget and Barbel, 1969, p. 6). One’s internal structure change s, adjusts, or develops to accommodate an experience that cannot assimilate or fit into the previous structure. In a worldview transformation strategy, communicat ion promotes structural accommodation. The strategy uses language for growth. Ha bermas also recognizes the relationship between communication and de velopment. “Through reflection on the communication process, Habermas believes it is not only po ssible to circumvent temporary barriers to human interaction but to effect a perman ent advance in human evolution” (Wuthnow, Hunter, Bergesen, 1984, p. 184). Indeed, la nguage can act as “a tool, transforming a

PAGE 145

133 customary mental or social arrangement into a form that increases the possibility of transformational learning” (Kegan and Lahey, 2001, p. 7). Before embarking on any worldview accommodation strategy, the integral communicator must carefully gauge the potential for change in a designated receiver or audience. People cycle through many states of openness towards change. Thus, at any given moment “all people are not equally open to, capable of, or prepared for change” (Beck and Cowan, 1996, p. 76). Spiral Dynami cs gives three primary states: Open, Arrested, and Closed. The more Open a person is, the greater potential she has for transforming towards deeper va lue level functioning. Someone in an Arrested state lacks insight into her psychological barriers and merely copes with the difficulties of the status quo A person in a Closed state exhibits an in flexibility to other viewpoints, a frenzied defense of her value system, and a strong resist ance to change. Discerning one’s state of Openness will save the integral communicator much time and energy. A worldview accommodation strategy will be worthwhile only if the intended receiver already exhibits an Open or at least an Arrested state. Or as Clare Graves sums it up, “If he purrs, continue; if he growls, back off” (Graves in Beck and Cowan, 1996, p. 103). Worldview Accommodation Strategy Suppose one hears a purr. To see how such a worldview accommodation strategy might work, let’s follow the reasoning of Robert Kegan, who views developmental transformation as “the process by which the whole (‘how I am’) becomes gradually a part (‘how I was’) of a new whole (‘how I am now’)” (1994, p. 43). In other words, development occurs in a holarchy of wholes becoming parts of greater wholes, subjects becoming the objects of more expanded subj ects. Authentic tran sformation changes not only “what” one thinks and “what” one valu es, but more importantly “how” one thinks

PAGE 146

134 and “how” one values. The change is a struct ural growth. Referring to the cognitive line, Kegan says, “transforming our epistemologies, liberating ourselves from that in which we were embedded, making what was subject into object so that we can ‘have it’ rather than ‘be had’ by it—this is the mo st powerful way I know to conc eptualize the growth of the mind” (1994, p. 34). The first goal of a worldview transformati on strategy, then, is to help the receiver— through communicative action—to see her current valu e structure. Ar ticulating deeply held values of what is most important help s a person see her worldview as an object so she has it rather than it having her. Each level resists transf ormation by assimilating, interpreting, or rationalizing all “other leve l” messages. Kegan and Lahey call this a person’s “dynamic equilibrium” or “immune system” that maintains the status quo (2001, p. 59). Understanding how a current worldvi ew manufactures noncha nge helps increase the possibility for change. If successful, this first step begins “t he movement of our meaning making from a place where we are its captive to a place where we can look at it, reexamine it, and possibly alter it” (Kegan and Lahey, 2001, p. 76). The strategy does not end w ith helping someone see her current value system and dynamic equilibrium. Step two attempts to incite a critical examination and questioning of the current value system. The word “legi timacy” implies stability. Habermas uses the word in reference to advanced capitalist societies to mean that “there are good arguments for a political order’s claim to be reco gnized as right and just” (1979, p. 178). A “legitimation crisis,” in contrast, signals a break down in the system an inability of the current order to justify its continuing domi nance (Habermas, 1975). Only if exclusive identification with the current level dies can identity with a new level be born.

PAGE 147

135 Communication must disrupt a person’s immune system and cause a mental emergency—a personal legitimation crisis. “T o bring about real ch ange,” say Kegan and Lahey, “we must disturb the balance, not me rely look at it” (2001, p. 66). An integral communicator might instigate a personal legitimization crisis in the receiver by dialectically uncovering problems, contradictions, and uncertain ties within the receiver’s current value system. Ideally, this sec ond step helps the receiver comes to see fundamental shortcomings in her current value system. After the receiver’s value system become s transparent (step one) and a worldview legitimization crisis begins (step two), the in tegral communicator prepares for step three: the bridge communication. At step three, the integral co mmunicator offers a possible way out of the legitimation crisis. She skil lfully articulates how the next value level might answer the problems and confusions uncovered in step two, thus prompting an accommodation to the higher level. Such a bridge communication must navigate a narrow linguistic space, neither under, at, no r too much over the h ead of the receiver. Accommodation, and thus the attainment of [h igher] more stable structures, is most apt to occur when the new information is only slightly discrepant from current structures. Information that exactly matc hes current structures can be assimilated into those structures, and information that is too different from what [one] already knows is likely to be either distorte d or ignored. (Bjorklund, 2000, p. 79) L.S. Vygotsky might put the point another way in saying that a successful bridge communication should occur w ithin a person’s “zone of proximal development,” the space between her developmenta l actuality and her immediat e developmental potential (1935, p. 86). A bridge communication links the inadequ acies of the previous level with the benefits of the next level. Beck notes some general transitional factors that might be included in bridge communica tions at each level (2003):

PAGE 148

136 Red transitional factors : Recognition of mortality. Quest for meaning and purpose in life. Extended time-frame and thoughts of the future. C onsequential thinking arises. Blue transitional factors : Aspires to better life now for self. Challenges higher authority to produce tangible results. Seeks one best way among many options. Orange transitional factors : Discovers material wealth does not bring happiness or peace. Renewed need for community, sharing, and richer inner life. Sensitivity to have, have-not gaps. Green transitional factors : Overwhelmed by economic and emotional costs of caring. Confronted by chaos and disord er. Need for tangible results and functionality. Knowi ng moves above feeling. Yellow transitional factors : Senses order within chaos. Search for guiding principles. Whole-earth problems ar ise as technology connects everybody. At the end of a successful bridge communica tion, the receiver gains insight into “what went wrong with the previous system and why, as well as what resources are now available for handling the problems better” (Beck and Cowan, 1996, p. 84). The receiver begins to embody the next level, experientially feeling it as a “better” place to stand. Although the strategy aims at transforma tion to more encompassing levels, the integral communicator always honors every leve l equally and works for the health of the overall spiral. As Kegan advise s, “the bridge builder must have an equal respect for both ends, creating a firm foundation on both sides of the chasm [people] will traverse” (1994, p. 278). Spiral Dynamics gives an extende d discussion of six conditions for spiral evolution: potential, solutions, dissonance, barriers, insight, consolidation. The main difference with the simplified model above is its emphasis on communication’s role in facilitating vertical change. Any communication strategy of worldview accommodation might humble itself by considering one final point. Authentic tr ansformation usually takes a long time. Realistically, worldview accommodation should only be considered as a long-term

PAGE 149

137 communication strategy. A vast number of f actors and influences coalesce to promote transformation in a human being (Wilber, 1999a ). Communication is but one of these many factors. Nevertheless, the influence, however small, that communication exerts on a person or audience’s development makes th e strategy a worthwhile endeavor. Pedagogical Reconstruction An educational curriculum might be thought of as a long-term plan, a feasible space for transformational learning. No e ducational program can produce integral communicators by horizontal or translationa l learning alone. Memorizing academic models, learning research methods, and read ing about communicat ion tactics—the norm for most university communication depart ments—focuses primarily on external techniques and ignores intern al transformation. Only an educational curriculum that includes the internal psychological development of its students can tr uly “teach” integral communication. To the disdain of communication academi cs, communication practitioners rely largely on their “seat-of-the-pant s” intuition. One’s intuition is governed, at least in part, by one’s developmental psychograph. If a j ob is psychographically “over the head” of the communicator, then the number of models, theories, research methods, or tactics the communicator has memorized will make little difference and the communicator will not be effective at the job. To put the matter bl untly, a professional co mmunicator relies just as much on who she is than on what she knows The current educational curriculum focuses exclusively on the latter. An in tegral curriculum wo uld include both. Integral communication educators face a gr eat responsibility. As previously expressed, developmental lines grow unevenl y. A student’s psychogr aph could indicate an extremely high cognitive development and an extremely low moral or value

PAGE 150

138 development. If educators present integr al communication strate gies as reified IT objects, then such a student might cognitively grasp the conceptual strategies and use them for manipulative, egocen tric ends. Any tool can be misused in this way. The twentieth century lends much evidence of high level, Right Hand artifacts abused by low level, Left Hand moral consciousness. To gua rd against such misuse, integral educators must open a space for the “what” and the “who” of their students to develop. As Wilber would put it, “We don’t just need a map; we need ways to change the mapmaker” (2000c, p. 55). To actualize the intentions of an in tegral communication st rategy, the practitioner must actually embody a postconvent ional self-sense, a second -tier center-of-gravity, an integral value awareness. Only then can high cognitive understanding combine with high value intuition to produce authentic integral change-agents. A transformational learning curriculum de signed for integral communication would welcome some kind of “integral practic e” (IP) (Murphy, 1992; Murphy and Leonard, 1995; Wilber, 2000c). An integral practice woul d give students a cu rricular vehicle for internal development. As the reader knows, “integral” means complete, whole, essential, full, comprehensive, covering all the bases. The integral vision pushes educators to consider all the areas in wh ich students can grow. A “pr actice” entails some sort of habitual action, repeated custom, or regular exer cise. Intention also is associated with a practice. A person engages a practice for a purpose—integral transformation in the case of IP. Thus, an integral practice may be viewed as habitual activities that open a space for developmental growth in multiple areas si multaneously. Michael Murphy further points out that an IP must adapt to a pe rson’s unique developmental psychograph.

PAGE 151

139 The need for flexibility is especia lly pronounced if our aim is integral transformation. A multidimensional approach requires methods adapted to each of its practitioner’s shortcomings, strengths, and stage of growth. For that reason there can be no single or ‘ri ght’ kind of integral [pr actice] with a universally applicable and strictly specified set of techniques. (Murphy, 1992, p. 579). I would add that each integral discipline (ecology, medicine business, and so on) must also create an IP that suit s its particular needs, a sp ecific IP that enhances the developmental lines most relevant to that di scipline. Doing so will be a task for all integral disciplines, including integral co mmunication. Although the details of an IP designed specifically for integral communication will not be articulated here, it will be a necessary part of future pedagogi cal reconstruction. Only an educational curriculum that embraces both the internal and external development of its students can hope to adva nce an integral awaren ess. An integral curriculum (“We”) cares and cultivates who the student is (“I”), not merely what the student knows (“It”). In other words, the integral curriculum includes interior psychological learning in addition to exterior fact and research learning. Jean Gebser, the genius of reconstructive inner hi story, knew the importance of both. The mutations [or worldview levels] are an awakening of consciousness, and their ‘history’ as we have presented it is a c ontribution toward the understanding of this awakening of consciousness. This histor y makes us aware of the vitality and plenitude with which these structures func tion. To live these structures together, commensurate with their respective degrees of conscious awareness, is to approach an integrated, integral life. And ther e can be no doubt that our knowledge of the particular structure from which a specific event, reaction, attitude, or judgement originates will be of aide in clarif ying our lives. (Gebser, 1985, p. 272) A second-tier or integral leve l of awareness (or higher) would allow students to enact the same paradigm as David Johnston through thei r own intuition. Yes, AQAL maps help. But without an integral consciousness to accompany them, they loose much of their effectiveness. The pedagogical goal, then, is for students to communicate naturally at an

PAGE 152

140 integral level of competence. “A global ma p is one thing. A mapmaker capable of living up to it, quite another” (Wilber, 1996, p. 157). Some critics might respond by saying that the expect ations of an integral communication are too high: Academics mu st be equally proficient at every communication theory and research method. Practitioners must use every quadrant, level, line, state, and type in every message. Students must attain the highest levels in every developmental line. Such hyperbolic cl aims, of course, miss the point entirely. Integration allows academics to see and learn from the entire playing field while still specializing in a spec ific theory or method. AQAL expa nds the practitioner’s toolbox so she can better choose which communicati on techniques work best given a specific situation. An integral curriculum gives comm unication students the ch ance to strengthen the specific psychological lines most relevant to their future careers. The partial truth in this critique, however, recognizes that integr al communication does indeed raise the bar. The integral project pushes all disciplines to evolve beyond their current status, knowing that growth invites higher order opportunitie s in addition to higher order problems. The Basic Communicative Intuition A postmodern consciousness has infiltrated the university classroom more than the executive boardroom. The gap between theory and practice in professional communication is a developmental gap. C ontemporary communication scholars tend to advocate Green strategies (i.e., James Grunig’s two-way symmetrical), while communication practitioners tend to rely on Orange st rategies (i.e., one-way asymmetrical) (Grunig, 2001). As cultural worl dviews continue to evolve, these trends will surely change with theory staying well ahead of mainstream practice.

PAGE 153

141 Carl Frankel gives a brief history of the value systems behind professional communication practitioners (1994). Referring to the private sector, Frankel traces two dominate corporate personas in th e context of shifting value structures. The first, he calls the “Generalissimo,” which dates back to the “robber baron” era of the late 19th and early 20th century. “Arrogant and willful, the Genera lissimo lets power speak for itself. At most, he (and it most assuredly is a he!) give s only token explanations for his behavior. As befits a dictator, he dictates: why s hould a Generalissimo bot her to negotiate or explain?” (Frankel, 1994, p. 24). Frankel’s Ge neralissimo closely parallels what Spiral Dynamics describes as the impulsive, egocen tric, and exploitative value system of Red. The other major corporate persona—the one that dominates most mainstream corporations today—Frankel names “John Wayne.” Although not as blat antly arrogant as the Generalissimo, John Wayne still exhibits macho tendencies like wanting to win and be the best. John Wayne corporations comm unicate the impression of being self-assured, self-contained, and stand-alone. The Duke lives in a cowboy worldview, “a frontier where it’s every man for himself,” an i ndividualistic and competitive environment (Frankel, 1994, p. 24). Such organizations divu lge very little to the public, placing high regard on privacy. “John Wayne may sometime s seem to show his cards but he never really does. John Wayne communications ar e typically respectful, couched in the rhetoric of fairness—and selfish in the se nse that they flow from a narrowly defined concept of self-interest” (Frankel, 1994, p. 24). John Wa yne, of course, embodies the Orange level of values development in Spiral Dynamics. Frankel, sensing the ever-present Eros of cultural change, realiz es that the modern era that bred John Wayne is pa ssing. As he phrases it, “The Duke has mounted his horse

PAGE 154

142 and is riding off into the sunset” (Frankel, 1998, p. 64). The definition of “self-interest” is expanding from egocentric to ethnocen tric to worldcentric. Frankel declares: A new model of virtue and integrity—call it Green-Person—is starting to take hold culturally. . The time has come for corporate communicator s to bring their communications and the values and attitudes underlying them more into line with the times, they must push for a transition in their corporations ’ personas from John Wayne [Orange] to Green-Person. (Frankel, 1994, p. 25) According to Frankel, Green-Person comm unication places a heightened emphasis on collaboration, consensus building, openness, sh aring, partnership, trus t, and community. Although most corporations have yet to re ach a Green center-of-gravity, the general direction, says Frankel, is unmistakable. He concludes by saying that communication practitioners of the John Wayne orientation must struggle to “break the frame” or to transform towards a Green orientation. Just as postmodern ideas preceded widesp read Green communication practices, so here do integral ideas precede widespread Yellow communication practices. As more communication practitioners shift to Green st rategies, I predict an increasing number of communication theorists will leap ahead once again to begin work on the next major transition to Yellow. From the lens of second-tier, the Generalissimo is not wrong— that’s just how the Red level communicates John Wayne is not wrong—that’s just how the Orange level communicates. The Green-P erson is not wrong either—that’s just how the Green level communicates. An integr al awareness acknowledges, respects, and honors the way every level communicates. Ye llow understands that each level expresses its depth in the best way it can. Following Wilber’s lead (2002b, p. 640), I would like to conclude by proposing that all levels of huma n growth follow a Basic Co mmunicative Intuition (BCI): communicate the greatest de pth to the greatest span Koestler originally defined “depth”

PAGE 155

143 as the number of nested levels in a holon and “span” as the number of holons on any given level (1967). Every communicator sp eaks from a multitude of depth levels determined by his or her developmental lines (i.e., emotional depth, moral depth, cognitive depth, self-sense depth, value de pth). When a communicator attempts to “communicate the greatest depth to the greatest span” she tries to convey the highest level in all her lines so the most peopl e understand. Concerning value depth, for example, Blue might communicate to convert religious believers; Orange expresses the joys of free-market capitalism and scientific progress; and Green speaks out for diversity and equal rights. Although the messages ar e quite different, the Basic Communicative Intuition behind them is the same. Second-tier communicators na turally use integral communication to fulfill the identical BCI. The integral communicator breaks out of the single-level value language that designates all first-tier communicators. Ye llow, for the first time, can talk with the entire first-tier spiral in its own value languages. The integral communicator opens up a semiotic space where greater depth action messages can penetrat e lower depth value consciousness. Integral communication allows th e depth of second-tier consciousness and higher to touch the greatest span possible. Finally, the BCI directly expr esses itself in the Big Three. Every I communicates its depth to a We and that communication ha s some affect on the world (It). Behind every communication exists an intuition or desire to comm unicate the depth of I to the span of We in relation to an objective state of affairs (It). Each depth level communicates its unique sincerity (I), legitimacy (We), a nd truth (It). To end, Wilber beautifully articulates the Basic Communicative Intuition that exists within us all.

PAGE 156

144 All of those for whom authentic transfor mation has deeply unseated their souls must, I believe, wrestle with the prof ound moral obligation to shout from the heart—perhaps quietly and gently, with tear s of reluctance; perhaps with fierce fire and angry wisdom; perhaps with slow and careful analysis; perhaps by unshakable public example—but authenticity always a nd absolutely carries a demand and duty: you must speak out, to the best of your ability . Alas, if you fail to do so, you are betraying your own authenticity. . Because, you see, the alarming fact is th at any realization of depth carries a terrible burden: Those who are allowed to see are simulta neously saddled with the obligation to communicate that vision in no uncertain term s: that is the bargain. . Speak out with compassion, or speak out with angr y wisdom, or speak out with skillful means, but speak out you must. And this is truly a terrible burden, a horri ble burden, because in any case there is no room for timidity. The fact that you might be wrong is simply no excuse: You might be right in your communication, a nd you might be wrong, but that doesn’t matter. What does matter, as Kierkegaar d so rudely reminded us, is that only by investing and speaking your vision with pass ion, can the truth, one way or another, finally penetrate the reluctance of the wo rld. If you are right, or if you are wrong, it is only your passion that will force either to be discovered. It is your duty to promote that discovery and therefore it is your duty to speak your truth with whatever passion and courage you can find in your heart. (Wilber, 2000a, p. 311312)

PAGE 157

145 APPENDIX A THE SPIRAL DYNAMICS INTEGRAL MODEL “FOUR QUADRANTS, EIGHT LEVELS” Figure A-1. Spiral Dynamics Integral Model

PAGE 158

146 APPENDIX B THE EIGHT SPIRAL DYNAMICS LEVELS OF INDIVIDUAL, ORGANIZATI ONAL, AND CULTURAL WORLDVIEW DEVELOPMENT BEIGE ‘Survivalistic’ Basic theme : Do what you must just to stay alive. Characteristic beliefs and actions: Uses instincts and habits just to survive Distinct self is barely awakened or sustained Food, Water, Warmth, Sex, and Safety have priority Forms into survival bands to perpetuate life Approximately 0.1 percent of the worl d population, 0 percent of the power PURPLE ‘Magical’ Basic theme : Keep the spirits happy and the ‘tribe’s’ nest warm and safe. Characteristic beliefs and actions: Obey the desires of spirit beings and mystical signs Show allegiance to chief, elders, ancestors, and the clan Preserve sacred objects, places, events, and memories Observe rites of passage, seasona l cycles, and tribal customs Approximately 10 percent of the worl d population, 1 percent of the power RED ‘Impulsive’ Basic theme : Be what you are and do what you want, regardless. Characteristic beliefs and actions: The world is a jungle full of threats and predators Breaks free from any domination or constr aint to please self as self desires Stands tall, expects attention, dema nds respect, and calls the shots Enjoys self to the fullest ri ght now without guilt or remorse

PAGE 159

147 Conquers, out-foxes, and dominates other aggressive characters Approximately 20 percent of the worl d population, 5 percent of the power BLUE ‘Purposeful’ Basic theme : Life has meaning, direction, a nd purpose with predetermined outcomes. Characteristic beliefs and actions: One sacrifices self to the transcende nt Cause, Truth, or righteous Pathway The Order enforces a code of conduct ba sed on eternal, absolute principles Righteous living produces stability now and guarantees future reward Impulsivity is controlled through guilt; everybody has their proper place Laws, regulations, and discipline build character and moral fiber Approximately 40 percent of the worl d population, 30 percent of the power ORANGE ‘Achievist’ Basic theme : Act in your own self-interest by playing the game to win. Characteristic beliefs and actions: Change and advancement are inherent within the scheme of things Progress by learning nature’s secret s and seeking out best solutions Manipulate Earth’s resources to cr eate and spread the abundant good life Optimistic, risk-taking, and self-re liant people deserve their success Societies prosper through stra tegy, technology, and competitiveness Approximately 30 percent of the worl d population, 50 percent of the power GREEN ‘Communitarian’ Basic theme : Seek peace within the inner self and explore, with others, the caring dimensions of community. Characteristic beliefs and actions: The human spirit must be freed from greed, dogma, and divisiveness Feelings, sensitivity, and caring supersede cold rationality Spread the Earth’s resources a nd opportunities equally among all Reach decisions through reconcili ation and consensus processes Refresh spirituality, bring harmony, and enrich human development

PAGE 160

148 Approximately 10 percent of the worl d population, 15 percent of the power YELLOW ‘Integrative’ Basic theme : Live fully and responsibly as what you are and l earn to become. Characteristic beliefs and actions: Life is a kaleidoscope of natura l hierarchies, systems, and forms The magnificence of existence is valued over material possessions Flexibility, spontaneity, and functiona lity have the highest priority Knowledge and competency should supersede rank, power, status Differences can be integrated into interdependent, natural flows Approximately 1 percent of the worl d population, 5 percent of the power Turquoise ‘Holistic’ Basic theme : Experiences the wholeness of existence through mind and spirit. Characteristic beliefs and actions: The world is a single, dynamic orga nism with its own collective mind Self is both distinct and a blended pa rt of a larger, compassionate whole Everything connects to everything else in ecological alignments Energy and information permeate the Earth’s total environment Holistic, intuitive thinking and cooperative actions are to be expected Approximately 0.1 percent of the worl d population, 1 percent of the power

PAGE 161

149 APPENDIX C COMMON ATTITUDES OF FOUR VALUE SYSTEMS Attitudes of the Blue Worldview From the 1990-1991 and 1995-1998 World Values Surveys God is very important in respondent’s life. It is more important for a child to le arn obedience and religious faith than independence and determination. Abortion is never justifiable. Respondent has strong sense of national pride. Respondent favors more respect for authority. Religion is very important in respondent’s life. Respondent believes in Heaven. One of respondent’s main goals in life ha s been to make his/her parents proud. Respondent believes in Hell. Respondent attends church regularly. Respondent has a great deal of conf idence in the country’s churches. Respondent gets comfort and strength from religion. Respondent describes self as ‘a religious person.’ Euthanasia is never justifiable. Work is very important in respondent’s life. There should be stricter limits on selling foreign goods here. Suicide is never justifiable.

PAGE 162

150 Parents’ duty is to do their best for their children even at the expense of their own well-being. Respondent seldom or neve r discusses politics. Respondent places self on right side of a left-right scale. Divorce is never justifiable. There are absolutely clear guidelines about good and evil. Expressing one’s own preferences clearly is more important than understanding others’ preferences. My country’s environmental problems can be solved without any international agreements to handle them. If a woman earns more money than her husband, it’s almost certain to cause problems. One must always love and respect one’s parents regardless of their behavior. Family is very important in respondent’s life. Respondent is relatively favorable to having the army rule the country. Respondent favors having a relativ ely large number of children.

PAGE 163

151 Attitudes of the Orange Worldview (Ray and Anderson, 2000, 27-28) Making or having a lot of money Climbing the ladder of success with m easurable steps towards one’s goals Looking good or being stylish When the going gets tough, the tough go shopping Having lots of choices (as a cons umer, as a voter, or on the job) Being on top of the latest trends, styles, a nd innovations (as consumer or on the job) Supporting economic and technological progress at the national level Rejecting the values and concerns of na tive peoples, rural people, Traditionals, New Agers, religious mystics It’s flaky to be concerned about your inner or spiritual life You have a right to be entertained by the media Your body is pretty much like a machine Most organizations lend themselves to machine analogies Either big business knows best or big government knows best Bigger is better Time is money What gets measured gets done Setting goals is very important and effective, and so are measures of goal attainment Analyzing things into th eir parts is the best way to solve problems Science and engineering ar e the models for truth Being “in control” is a top priority at work Efficiency and speed are top priorities The mainstream media’s awe for and sense of importance of the very rich is about right

PAGE 164

152 Attitudes of the Green Worldview (Ray and Anderson, 2000, p. 29) Want to rebuild neighborhoods/communities Fear violence against women and children Like what is foreign and exotic See nature as sacred Hold general pro-environmental values Believe in ecological sustainability Believe in voluntary simplicity Believe relationships are important Believes [financial] success is not a hi gh priority Are profeminist in work Are not concerned about job prospects Are altruistic (hel p others, volunteer) Are idealistic Believe in religious mysteries Are self-actualizing Are not financially materialistic What to be an activist Do not have financial problems Combine spiritual and psychological development Are not cynical about politics Are optimistic about future Want more creative time for themselves Believe in holistic health

PAGE 165

153 Attitudes of the Yellow Worldview (Beck and Cowan, 1996, p. 281-182) A person with a Yellow worldview . is disinclined to spend much energy on perfunctory niceties unless they are important to others present will not waste time on interpersonal gamesmanship or pointless interpretations or contrived layers of meaning or semantic trivia values good content, clean information, ope n channels for finding out more on their own terms, and an attitude of open questioning and discovery favors appropriate technology, minimal c onsumption, and a deliberate effort to avoid waste and clutter has no need for status, exhibitionism, or displays of power unless power is demanded by the life conditions enjoys human appetites but does not become a compulsive slave to any of them is concerned with the long run of time rath er than his or her ow n life span or those of other humans fully expresses anger, or even hostility, but the emotions are intellectually used rather than emotionally driv en or manipulatively applied sees life as an up-and-down journey fr om problem to solution, so both chaos and order are accepted as normal replaces anything artificial or contrived w ith spontaneity, simplicity, and ethics that ‘make sense’ seeks after a variety of interests and will el ect to do what he or she likes whether or not it is trendy, popular, or valued by others cannot be coerced, bribed, or intimidated si nce there is no compul sion to control or desire to be controlled by others will run the gamut of being gentle or ruth less, a conformist or nonconformist, based on the factors involved in a circumstance and the overall interests of life itself locates his or her core motiv ational and evaluativ e systems within hisor herself, thus becoming relatively immune to external pressure or judgment

PAGE 166

154 APPENDIX D WORLDVIEW TRANSLATION WITH SPIRAL DYNAMICS Message Construction for Beige Biologic senses—touch, taste, smell, see, hear Physical contact rather than symbols Message Construction for Purple Traditional rites, rituals, ceremonies Includes mystical elements and superstitions Appeals to extended family, harmony and safety Recognizes blood-bonds, the folk, group Familiar metaphors, drawings, and emblems Message Construction for Red Demonstrate ‘What’s in it for me, now?’ Offer ‘Immediate gratif ication if . .’ Challenges and appeals to machismo/strength Heroic status and legendary potential Flashy, to-the-point, unambiguous, strong Simple language and fiery images/graphics Message Construction for Blue Duty, honor, country images of discipline Self-sacrifice for higher cause and purpose Appeal to traditions and established norms Use class-consciousness and knowing one’s place Propriety, righteousness, and responsibilities Insure future rewards and delayed gratification Assuage guilt with correct consequences

PAGE 167

155 Message Construction for Orange Appeal to competitive advantage and leverage Success motivations and achieving abundance Bigger, better, newer, faster, more popular Citations of experts a nd selected authorities Experimental data and tr ied-and-true experience Profit, productivity, quality, results, win Demonstrate as best of several options Message Construction for Green Enhance belonging, sharing, harmony of groups Sensitive to human issues and care for others Expand awareness and unders tanding of inner self Symbols of equity, humanity, and bonding Gentle language along with nature imagery Build trust, openness, exploration, passages Real people and authentic emotional displays Message Construction for Yellow Interactive, relevant media, self-accessible Functional ‘lean’ information without fluff The facts, the feelings, and the instincts Big picture, total systems, integration Connect data across fields for holistic view Adapt, mesh, blend, access, sense, gather Self-connecting to systems and others usefully Message Construction for Turquoise Multidimensional chunks of insight Use multi-tiered consciousness to access Renewed spirituality and sacrifice to whole Ecological interdependenc y and interconnections Macro (global) solutions to macro problems Community beyond nationali ties or partisanship High-tech and high-touch for experiential knowing

PAGE 168

156 LIST OF REFERENCES Adorno, T. (1969). ‘Scientific experiences of a European scholar in America.’ In The Intellectual Migration: Europe and America 1930-1960 D. Fleming and B. Baylin eds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Ajzen, I. (2001). “Nature and operation of attitudes.” Annual Review of Psychology, 52. Alameda County Government. (2003) “Demographics.” www.acgov.org/ demographics.htm. Alameda County Waste Management Author ity (ACWMA). (2003). www.stopwaste.org. Allport, G. (1954). “The historical bac kground of modern social psychology.” In A Handbook of Social Psychology vol. 1. G. Lindzey, ed. Reading, Mass.: AddisonWesley. American Heritage Dictionary of th e English Language, Fourth Edition (2000). Houghton Mifflin Company. Anderson, J. (1996). Communication Theory: Epistemological Foundations New York: Guilford Press. Appignanesi, R. and C. Garratt. (1995). Introducing Postmodernism Victoria: McPherson’s Printing Group. Bamberger, M. (2000). “Opport unities and Challenges for Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Research.” In Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Research in Development Projects M. Bamberger ed. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Barrie, J. (2002). “Gerald Heard: Author, hi storian, lecturer, philosopher.” Published by the Barrie Family Trust. www.geraldheard.com. Baudrillard, J. (1993). Symbolic Exchange and Death London: Sage Publications Bauman, Z. (1978). Hermeneutics and Social Science New York: Colombia University Press. Bay Area Build It Green. (2003a). “The Bene fits of Green Building—For the Builder.” http://build-green.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=builder. — (2003b). “The Benefits of Green Build ing—For the Homeowner.” http://buildgreen.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=owner.

PAGE 169

157 Beck, D. (2003). “Spiral Dynamics Color Summary.” Compiled by Barrett Brown from Don Beck’s Training Seminar. — (2002a). “SDi: spiral dynamics in the integral age.” Dent on, TX: Institute of Values and Culture. — (2002b). “The never-ending upward quest: An interview with Dr. Don Beck.” What is Enlightenment? Fall/Winter. — (2002c). “The Values Test: Applying the Clare W. Graves Technology: An Analysis of Seven vMemes, Worldviews and Belief Systems in People, Organizations, and Cultures.” Denton, TX: Institute of Values and Culture. Beck, D. and C. Cowan. (1996). Spiral Dynamics: Mastering Values, Leadership, and Change Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell. Behnke, E.A. (1982). “Contexts for communica tion: An introduction to Jean Gebser’s contribution.” In Interpersonal Communication: Essays in Phenomenology and Hermeneutics Ed. J. Pilotta. Washington D.C.: Center for Advanced Research in Phenomenology & University Press of America. Bell, D. (1973). The Coming of Post-Industrial Society New York: Basic Books. Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General Systems Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications New York: George Braziller. Biernatzki, W. and K. Kersten. Eds. (2000). Value and Communication: Critical Humanistic Perspectives Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press. Bjorklund, D. (2000). Children’s Thinking: Developm ental Function and Individual Differences, Third Edition Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Bohman, J., D, Hiley, and R. Shusterman. (1991). The Interpretive Turn: Philosophy, Science, Culture Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Booth, W. (1979). Critical Understanding: The Po wers and Limits of Pluralism Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bowler, P. (1992). The Fontana History of the Environmental Sciences London: Fontana Press. Brayant, J. and D. Zillmann. (2002). Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, Second Edition Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum. Brown, N. (1993). “Forward.” In Worldviews and Ecology M. Tucker and J. Grim eds. London: Associated University Presses.

PAGE 170

158 Brown, T. (1996). “Values, Knowledge, and Piaget.” In Values and Knowledge E. Reed, E. Turiel, and T. Brown eds. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Campbell, D. T. & Fiske, D. W. (1959). “Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.” Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81-105. Capra, F. (1996). The Web of Life: A New Sy nthesis of Mind and Matter London: Flamingo. Cohen, A. ed. (2004). “The colors of change.” What is Enlightenment? February/April. Converse, P. (1964). “The nature of belief systems in mass publics.” In Ideology and Discontent D. Apter ed. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press. Cook-Greuter, S. and M. Miller eds. (1994). Transcendence and Mature Though in Adulthood: The Further Reac hes of Adult Development. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. Craig, R. (1999). “Communication theory as a field.” Communication Theory (A journal of the International Communica tion Association). 9(2), May. — (1993). “Why are there so many communication theories?” In Journal of Communication 43(3), Summer. — (1989). “Communication as a practical discipline.” In Rethinking Communication: Volume 1: Paradigm Issues Edited by B. Dervin, L. Grossberg, B. O’Keefe, and E. Wartella. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Crain, W. (2000). Theories of Development: Concepts and Applications, Fourth Edition Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience New York: Harper & Row. Culler, J. (1986). Ferdinand de Saussure Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Cutlip, S., A. Center, and G. Broom. (2000). Effective Public Relations 8th Edition Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Datta. L. (1994). “Paradigm wars: A basis for peaceful coexistence and beyond.” In The Qualitative-Quantitative Debate: New Perspectives C. Reichardt and S. Rallis eds. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Davis, A. (2001). “Recycling construc tion debris.” www.architectureweek.com Daymon, C. and I. Holloway. (2002). Qualitative Research Methods in Public Relations and Marketing Communications New York: Routledge.

PAGE 171

159 DeGeorge, R. and F. DeGeorge eds. (1972). The Structuralists: From Marx to LeviStrauss New York: Anchor Books. Demby, E. (1994). “Psychographics revi sited: the birth of a technique.” Marketing Research 6(2). Denzin, N. K. (1978). The Research Act: A Theoretica l Introduction to Sociological Methods New York: McGraw-Hill. Derrida, J. (1996). “Diffrance.” In The Continental Philosophy Reader R. Kearney and M. Rainwater eds. New York: Routledge. Deth, J. and E. Scarbrough. (1995). “The concept of values.” In The Impact of Values: Beliefs in Government, Volume Four Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. and A. McClintock. (1990). If You Take My Meaning: Theory into Practice in Human Communication London: Edward Arnold. Foucault, M. (1970). The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences New York: Vintage Books. Frankel, C. (1998). In Earth’s Company: Business, Environment and the Challenge of Sustainability Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers. — (1994). “The green-person’ s guide to credibility.” Public Relations Journal, 50(1). January. Freud, S. (1989). Five Lectures on Psychoanalysis W.W. Norton & Company. Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence Reframed: Multip le Intelligences for the 21st Century New York: Basic Books. Gebser, J. (1985). The Ever-Present Origin Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press. Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures New York: Doubleday. Giddens, A. (1989). “The orthodox consensus and the emerging synthesis.” In Rethinking Communication: Volume 1: Paradigm Issues Edited by B. Dervin, L. Grossberg, B. O’Keefe, and E. Warte lla. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Gordon, P. (2001). Lean and Green: Profit for your Workplace and the Environment San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Graves, C. (1988). “A Systems Conception of Personality: Remarks by Clare W. Graves on his Levels of Existence Theory.” Presen ted at the National Institute of Health, 1971. Edited commentary by C. Cowan. Denton, TX: National Values Center.

PAGE 172

160 — (April 1974). “Human nature pr epares for a momentous leap.” The Futurist Greene, J., V. Caracelli, and W. Graham. (1989). “Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 11. Grunig, J. (2001). “Two-way symmetrical public relations: Past, present, and future.” In Handbook of Public Relations R. Heath and G. Vasquez. eds. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. — (1989). “Publics, audiences and market segments: Segmentation principles for campaigns.” In Information Campaigns: Balanc ing Social Values and Social Change C. Salmon Ed. London: Sage. Guba, E. (1987). “What have we lear ned about naturalis tic evaluation?” Evaluation Practice 8. Guba, E. and Y. Lincoln. (1994). “Competing paradigms in qualitative research.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. — (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry London: Sage Publications. Gudykunst, W. (2003). Cross-Cultural and Intercultural Communication Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Gunter, B. (2002). “The quantit ative research process.” In A Handbook of Media and Communication Research: Qualita tive and Quantitative Methodologies K. Jensen ed. New York: Routledge. Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Ac tion: Vol. 1. Reasoning and the Rationalization of Society T. McCarthy, trans. Boston: Beacon Press. — (1979). Communication and the Evolution of Society T. McCarthy, trans. Boston: Beacon Press. — (1975). Legitimation Crisis Boston: Beacon Press. — (1996). “Philosophy as standin and interpreter.” In The Continental Philosophy Reader R. Kearney and M. Rainwater eds. New York: Routledge. Hall, E. (1976). Beyond Culture New York: Anchor Books. Halloran, J. (2000). “Values and communication research.” In Value and Communication: Critical Humanistic Perspectives K. Kersten and W. Biernatzki eds. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

PAGE 173

161 Hawken, P., A. Lovins, H. Lovins. (1999). Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution Boston: Back Bay Books. Heard, G. (1963). The Five Ages of Man New York: The Julian Press. — (1929). The Ascent of Humanity New York. Harcourt, Brace and Company. Heath, R. (July 1996). “The frontiers of psychographics.” American Demographics 18(7). — (December 1995). “Psychographics.” Marketing Tools Volume 2, Issue 8. Hechter, M. (1993). “Values re search in the social and behavioral sciences.” In The Origins of Values M. Hechter, L. Nadel, and R. Michod eds. New York: Aldine De Gruyter. Hedrick, T. (1994). “The quantit ative-qualitative deba te: Possibilities of integration.” In The Qualitative-Quantitative Debate: New Perspectives C. Reichardt and S. Rallis eds. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hollinger, R. (1994). Postmodernism and the Social Sciences Thousand Oaks: Sage. Horkheimer, M. (1972). Critical Theory: Selected Essays New York: Seabury Press. Houston, J. (1980). Lifeforce: The Psycho-Historical Recovery of the Self New York: Delacorte Press. Hume, D. (1957). An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding New York: Liberal Arts Press. Infante, D., A. Rancer, D. Womack. (1993). Building Communication Theory, Second Edition Prospect Heights, Il linois: Waveland Press. Inglehart, R. (1977). The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles Among Western Publics Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. — (2003). “World values survey: Introduction.” wvs.isr.umich.edu. — (Winter 2000). “Globalization and postmodern values.” The Washington Quarterly 23(1). — (1990). Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Inglehart, R. and W. Baker. (February 2000) “Modernization, cultu ral change, and the persistence of trad itional values.” American Sociological Review 65. Inglehart, R. and P. Norris. (March/April 2003). “The true clas h of civilizations.” Foreign Policy

PAGE 174

162 Integral Institute (I-I). (2004). www.integralinstitute.org. — (2003). “Introduction to integral theory and practice: IOS basi c and the AQAL map.” www.integralinstitute.org Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR). (2002). “Innovation, leader ship, stewardship: the Alameda County waste management au thority and the Alameda County source reduction and recycling boar d.” www.ilsr.org/recycling. Jencks, C. (1996). What is Post-Modernism? New York: Academy Editions. Jensen, K. (2002). “The complementarity of qualitative and quant itative methodologies in media and communication research.” In A Handbook of Media and Communication Research: Qualita tive and Quantitative Methodologies K. Jensen ed. New York: Routledge. Johnston, D. (2003a). Persona l interview. 11/21/03. Johnston, D. (2003b). “What’s Working: Environmental Construction Consultants.” www.whatsworking.com. — (2003c). “New Home Constructi on Green Building Guidelines.” www.stopwaste.org/nhguide.html. — (2003d). PowerPoint Presentations. Unpublished. — (2001). “The Green Building Market in Al ameda County, CA: An Integral Plan for Market Transformation.” Unpublished. Katz, D. (1960). “The Functional A pproach to the Study of Attitudes.” Public Opinion Quarterly 24. Kaufman, G. (1981). The Theological Imagination: C onstructing the Concept of God Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. Keckleis, J. (1985). “In memoriam Jean Gebser.” In The Ever-Present Origin by Jean Gebser. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press. Kegan, R. (1994). In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Kegan, R. and L. Lahey. (2001). How the Way We Talk Can Change the Way We Work: Seven Languages for Transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kellner, D. (1995). Media Culture: Cultural Studies, Id entity and Politics Between the Modern and the Postmodern New York: Sage. — (1994). “Jean Baudrillard in the fin-de-millennium.” In Baudrillard, A Critical Reader. D. Kellner ed. New York: Blackwell.

PAGE 175

163 Kilby, R. (1993). The Study of Human Values Lanham: University Press of America. King, G., R. Koehane, and S. Verba. (1994). Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research Princeton, NJ: Princet on University Press. Kluckhohn, F. (1953). “Dominant and variant value orientations.” In Personality in Nature, Society, and Culture C. Kluchhohn and H. Murray eds. New York: Alfred Knopf. Kluckhohn, F. and F. Strodtbeck. (1961). Variations in Value Orientations Evanston, IL: Row & Pererson. Koestler, A. (1967). The Ghost in the Machine New York: The Macmillan Company. Kohlberg, L. (1984). The Psychology of Moral Development: The Nature and Validity of Moral Stages San Francisco: Harper & Row. — (1981). The Philosophy of Moral Development: Mo ral Stages and the Idea of Justice San Francisco: Harper & Row. Krippendorff, K. (1989). “On the ethi cs of constructing communication.” In Rethinking Communication: Volume 1: Paradigm Issues Edited by B. Dervin, L. Grossberg, B. O’Keefe, and E. Warte lla. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. — (1975). “The systems appro ach to communications.” In General Systems Theory and Human Communication B. Ruben and J. Kim Eds. Rochelle Park: Hayden Book Company. Kuhn, T. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Laszlo, E. (1996). The Systems View of the World: A Holistic Vision for Our Time Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press. Leichty, G. and E. Warner. (2001). “Cultural to poi: Implications for public relations.” In Handbook of Public Relations R. Heath and G. Vasquez eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Levine, D. (1986). “The forms and functions of social knowledge.” In Metatheory in Social Science: Plura lisms and Subjectivities D. Fiske and R. Shweder eds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Levitt, T. (1986). The Marketing Imagination New York: Free Press. Littlejohn, S. (2002). Theories of Human Commun ication, Seventh Edition Belmont, California: Wadsworth.

PAGE 176

164 — (1999). Theories of Human Communication, Sixth Edition Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company. — (1983). Theories of Human Communication, Second Edition. Belmont, California: Wadsworth. — (1978). Theories of Human Communication. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing. Loevinger, J. (1977). Ego Development San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lunn, T. (1986). “Segmenting and constructing markets.” In Consumer Marker Research Handbook, Third Edition R. Worcester and J. Downham Eds. Amsterdam: North Holland. Mandler, G. (1993). “Approaches to a psychology of value.” In The Origins of Values M. Hechter, L. Nadel, and R. Mic hod eds. New York: Al dine De Gruyter. Marshall, P., S. Griffioen, and R. Mouw. (1989). “Introduction.” In Stained Glass: Worldviews and Social Science Lanham: University Press of America. Maslow, A. (1968). Toward a Psychology of Being New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. — (1971). The Farther Reaches of Human Nature New York: The Viking Press. Mattelart, A. and M. Mattelart. (1998). Theories of Communications: A Short Introduction London: Sage. McCarthy, T. (1979). “Translator’s introduction.” In Communication and the Evolution of Society Boston: Beacon Press. McDonough, W. and M. Braungart. (2002). Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things New York: North Point Press. McLeod, J., M. Sotirovic, and L. Holbert. (1998). “Values as so ciotropic judgements influencing communication patterns.” Communication Research, 25(5). Mickey, T. (1997). “A postmodern view of public relations: Signs and reality.” In Public Relations Review. 23(3). Miller, M. (1994). “World views, ego devel opment, and epistemological changes from conventional to the postformal: a longitudinal perspective.” In Transcendence and Mature Thought in Adulthood: The Further Reaches of Adult Development M. Miller and S. Cook-Greuter eds. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Milner, A. (1994). Contemporary Cultural Theory London: UCL Press.

PAGE 177

165 Morgan, C. and D. Levy. (January 2003). “P sychographic segmentation: How to increase communication ROI by examining values, beliefs, and motivations.” Communication World 20(1). Morgan, M. (2001). “Community.” In Key Terms in Language and Culture Edited by A. Duranti. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell. Murphy, M. (1992). The Future of the Body: Exploratio ns Into the Further Evolution of Human Nature New York: Tarcher. Murphy, M. and G. Leonard. (1995). The Life We Are Given: A Long-Term Program for Realizing the Potential of Body, Mind, Heart, and Soul. New York: Tarcher. National Recycling Coalition (NRC). (2002) “NRC Launches Stewardship Awards in Seattle.” www.nrc-recycle.org. Neuman, W. (1994). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, Second Edition Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Newsom, D. and B. Carrell. (2001). Public Relations Writing Belmont: Wadsworth. Notre Dame. (2004). Executive Integral Leadership Training Program. www.nd.edu/~execprog/programs/eilp/index.html. O’Keefe, B. (1993). “Against theory.” In Journal of Communication 43(3), Summer. Olthuis, J. (1989). “On worldviews.” In Stained Glass: Worldv iews and Social Science P. Marshall, S. Griffioen, and R. Mouw ed s. Lanham: University Press of America. Oskamp, S. (1977). Attitudes and Opinions Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Patel, M. (2000). “UNICEF’s use of multiple methodologies: An operational context.” In Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Research in Development Projects M. Bamberger ed. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Paulson, D. (2002). Competitive Business, Caring Business: An Integral Business Perspective for the 21st Century New York: Paraview Press. Pavitt, C. (1999). “The third way: Scient ific realism and communication theory.” Communication Theory 9(2). Perloff, R. (1993). The Dynamics of Persuasion Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum. Petty, R., J. Priester, and P. Brinol. (2002). “Mass media attitude change: Implications of the elaboration likelihood m odel of persuasion.” In Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, Second Edition Brayant and Zillmann eds. Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

PAGE 178

166 Petty, R., D. Wegener, and L. Fabrigar (1997). “Attitudes and attitude change.” Annual Review of Psychology 48. Piaget, J. (1952). The Origins of Intelligence in Children M. Cook trans. New York: International Universities Press. Piaget, J. and B. Inhelder. (1969). The Psychology of the Child New York: Basic Books. Personal Interests, Attitudes, and Values (PIAV). (2004). TTI Pe rformance Systems. www.ttidisc.com/index.php?view=con sulting_solutions/attitudes. Plotinus. (1991). The Enneads Translated by Stephen MacKenna. New York: Penguin Books. Popper, K. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery New York: Basic Books. Ray, P. and S. Anderson. (2000). The Cultural Creatives. New York: Harmony Books. Reichardt, C. and S. Rallis. (1994). “Q ualitative and quantitative inquires are not incompatible: A call for a new partnership.” In The Qualitative-Quantitative Debate: New Perspectives C. Reichardt and S. Rallis eds. San Francisco: JosseyBass. Rest, J., D. Narvaez, M. Bebeau, S. Thoma. (1999). Postconventional Moral Thinking: A Neo-Kohlbergian Approach Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Reynolds, S. and D. Valentine. (2004). Guide to Cross-Cultural Communication Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall. Rivers, W. (1975). The Mass Media New York: Harper & Row. Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values New York: The Free Press. Rosengren, K. (1993). “From field to frog ponds.” In Journal of Communication 43(3), Summer. Ruben, B. (1972). “General systems theory.” In Interdisciplinary A pproaches to Human Communication R. Budd and B. Ruben. Eds. Rochelle Park: Hyden Book Company. Salovey, P. and J. Mayer. (1990). “Emotional intelligence.” In Imagination, Cognition and Personality 9(3). Saussure, F. (1959). Course in General Linguistics Edited by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye. Translated by Wade Bask in. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Schwartz, T. (1995). What Really Matters: Search ing for Wisdom in America New York: Bantam Books.

PAGE 179

167 Sebeok, T. (2001). Signs: An Introduction to Semiotics Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Severin, W. and J. Tankard. (2001). Communication Theories: Origins, Methods, and Uses in the Mass Media, Fifth Addition New York: Longman. Shweder, R. (1986). “Diver gent rationalities.” In Metatheory in Social Science: Pluralisms and Subjectivities D. Fiske and R. Shweder eds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Smith, J. (1983). “Quantitativ e versus qualitative research: An attempt to clarify the issue.” Educational Researcher 12(3). Smith, J. and L. Heshusius. (1986). “Closi ng down the conversation: The end of the quantitative-qualitative debate among educational researchers.” Educational Researcher 15. Smith, R. (2002). Strategic Planning for Public Relations Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum. Sommer, W. (2003). “Case study: new construction recycling.” www.stopwaste.org/fsbuild.html. Spretnak, C. (1991). States of Grace: The Recovery of Meaning in the Postmodern Age San Francisco: Harper San Francisco. Stacks, D. (2002). Primer of Public Relations Research New York: The Guilford Press. Sustainable Buildings Industry Coun cil (SBIC). (2003). www.sbicouncil.org. Tashakkori, A. and C. Teddlie. (1998). Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Tate, R. (7/11/2002). “Debut of First Zero Energy Home in Livermore.” Contra Costa Times. Thayer, L. (1972). “Communication systems.” In The Relevance of General Systems Theory: Papers Presented to Ludwig von Bertalanffy on His Seventieth Birthday E. Laszlo Ed. New York: George Braziller. Therkelsen, D. and C. Fiebich. (May 2001). “Message to desired action: A communication effectiveness model.” Journal of Communication Management 5(4). Thomas, R. (2003). Blending Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods in Theses and Dissertations Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

PAGE 180

168 Thompson, W. (1975). The Process of Persuasion: Principles and Readings New York: Harper & Row. Values and Lifestyles (VAL S). (2004). SRI Consulting Business Intelligence. www.sricbi.com/VALS. Visser, F. (2003). Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion New York: State University of New York Press. Vygotsky, L.S. (1935). “Mental development of children and the process of learning.” M. Lopez-Morilla, translator. In L.S. Vygotsky: Mind in Society M. Cole, V. JohnSteiner, S. Scribner, and E. Souberman Eds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ward, G. (1997). Postmodernism Chicago: NTC. Webb, E., D. Campbell, R. Schwartz, & L. Sechrest. (1966). Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive research in the social sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally. Wells, W. and D. Prensky. (1996). Consumer Behavior New York: John Wiley & Sons. Werder, O. (2002). “Understanding values and attitudes toward recycling: predictions and implications for communication campa igns.” Dissertation: University of Florida. Whitehead, A. N. (1933). Adventures of Ideas New York: The Macmillan Company. Wilber, K. (2003a). Persona l Interview. August 10, 2003. — (2003b). “The war in Iraq.” http://wilber.shambhala .com/html/misc/iraq.cfm. — (2002a). “The many ways we touch—three principles helpful for any integrative approach.” http://wilber.shambhala.c om/html/books/kosmos/excerptB/intro.cfm/ (2002b). Boomeritis Boston: Shambhala. — (2000a). The Collected Works of Ken Wilber Vo lume Eight:The Marriage of Sense and Soul (1998) and One Taste (1999) Boston: Shambhala. — (2000b). The Collected Works of Ken Wilber Volu me Six: Sex, Ecology, Spirituality (1995) Boston: Shambhala. — (2000c). A Theory of Everything: An Integral Vision for Busi ness, Politics, Science, and Spirituality Boston: Shambhala. — (1999a). The Collected Works of Ken Wilber Volume Four: Integral Psychology (2000) and Transformations of Consciousness (1986). Boston: Shambhala.

PAGE 181

169 — (1999b). The Collected Works of Ken Wilber Volume Three: A Sociable God (1983) and Eye to Eye (1983) Boston: Shambhala. — (1999c). The Collected Works of Ken Wilber Volume Two: The Atman Project (1980) and Up from Eden (1981) Boston: Shambhala. — (1997). The Eye of Spirit: An Integral Visi on for a World Gone Slightly Mad. Boston: Shambhala. — (1996). A Brief History of Everything. Boston: Shambhala. Wolters, A. (1989). “On the idea of worl dview and its relatio n to philosophy.” In Stained Glass: Worldviews and Social Science P. Marshall, S. Griffioen, and R. Mouw eds. Lanham: University Press of America. Woodruff, A. and F. Divesta. (1948). “The relationship between values, concepts, and attitudes.” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 8 Wuthnow, R. (1998). After Heaven: Spirituality in America Since the 1950s Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Wuthnow, R., J. Hunter, A. Be rgesen, E. Kurzweil. (1984). Cultural Analysis: The Work of Peter L. Berger, Mary Douglas, Mi chel Foucault, and Jurgen Habermas. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

PAGE 182

170 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Adam Leonard was born in Madison, Wisc onsin in 1978. He graduated from Dr. Phillips High School in Orlando, Florida in 1997. He then moved to Washington, D.C. to earn a Bachelor of Science degree in forei gn service from Georgetown University in 2001. During Adam’s undergraduate years, he al so studied abroad at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland; and the Universidad de las Americas in Quito, Ecuador. From Washington, D.C., Adam moved to San Rafael, California. During his time in California, he participated in numerous meditation retr eats and experiential workshops, including training in Gestalt psychology at the Esalen Institute. He returned to Florida to study organizational communication, and graduated in 2004 with a Master of Arts in Mass Communication from the University of Florid a. Adam has also taught public speaking classes, coached tennis player s, and facilitated a weekly personal growth workshop for college students. He currently serves as co-host of the Integral Practice domain at Integral University, and plans to enter the field of organi zational development.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0004902/00001

Material Information

Title: Integral Communication
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0004902:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0004902/00001

Material Information

Title: Integral Communication
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0004902:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text











INTEGRAL COMMUNICATION


By

ADAM B. LEONARD














A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS INT MASS COMMUNICATIONS

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2004

































Copyright 2004

by

Adam B. Leonard
















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This thesis would not exist without the open minds of my committee members. Dr.

Lisa Duke-Cornell, Dr. Linda Hon, and Dr. Sheldon Isenberg allowed me the academic

freedom to pursue my ideas with passion. I am grateful for the creative space that they

made possible. Ken Wilber continues to inspire me both intellectually and personally.

Through Ken' s volumes of writing, our personal conversations, and my resulting

practices, I have learned much about the human experience and the simple feeling of

being. I feel honored to call such an extraordinary human being my teacher, colleague,

and friend. Finally, my mother and father have unflinchingly stood by me throughout the

adventurous meanderings of my learning journey. The love I feel for these two beautiful

souls goes beyond words.
















PREFACE

Anyone tired of disciplinary fragmentation, sick of partisan bickering, and

exhausted by an endless eclecticism probably desires a more comprehensive framework,

a more integral vision. To integrate means "to bring together, to join, to link, to embrace.

Not in the sense of uniformity, and not in the sense of ironing out all the wonderful

differences, colors, zigs and zags of a rainbow-hued humanity, but in the sense of unity-

in-diversity, shared commonalties along with our wonderful differences" (Wilber, 2000,

p. 2). An integral vision would orient the cornucopia of theories and methods, would

inform purposeful action, would facilitate dialogue among academic disciplines, and

would offer insight into the very consciousness holding the vision. Articulating such a

vision is the integral project. Applying it to communication is integral communication.

Communication might be thought of as mutual understanding within a shared

intersubjective space. Or, perhaps communication is a transmission of information bits

from a source to a receiver. What theoretical map embraces them both? The inside of

communication could be studied qualitatively. Or, the outside of communication could

be studied quantitatively. What paradigm includes them both? The integral project

offers some clues to these enigmas. Attempts to answer these questions occupy the first

three chapters.

Chapter 1 expresses the need for theoretical integration within communication

studies. Rich theoretical traditions such as the rhetorical, semiotic, phenomenological,

systemic, sociopsychological, sociocultural, and critical abound in communication.










Many communication scholars call for a new way to orient the many theoretical

traditions, so they can develop together rather than in fragmented isolation. Integral

communication pioneers like Jurgen Habermas and Stephen Littlejohn already have taken

the first trailblazing steps.

Chapter 2 introduces the "All Quadrants, All Levels" (AQAL) integral model

created by the American philosopher Ken Wilber (2000b). The AQAL map has five

central elements: quadrants, levels, lines, states, and types. A human being can

experience any phenomenon from perspectives represented by at least these five

elements. Such awareness helps orient existing theories, reconstruct old ones, and create

new ones.

Chapter 3 outlines the challenges of methodological integration. Paradigm wars

raged for many years among those who held up their method as the only legitimate way

to enact truth. Some reduced reality to exterior surfaces, and others reduced reality to

interior depth. Most researchers today admit that the two methods can be used together

within the same study, but fail to give a theoretical explanation as to why mixing methods

works. Integral methodological pluralism offers a philosophical justification for

paradigmatic integration.

The social sciences--including communication studies--face a crossroads in

finding the integral balance between the theories and methods of the humanities on the

left hand, and the theories and methods of the sciences on the right hand. Chapter 4

begins the transition into applying integral communication as a strategy, by drawing from

each hand. Social-science research points to a relationship among behaviors, attitudes,










values, and value systems. Furthermore, none of these communication traits remains

statically frozen. They develop.

Chapter 5 surveys the work of several researchers who study the evolution of value

systems. According to their findings, value systems develop in levels of increasing

embrace. The general trend moves from egocentric values to ethnocentric values to

worldcentric values. Within this growth tendency, four specific value systems stand out

in contemporary American culture.

Chapter 6 uses these four value systems within an integral communication strategy.

Target audiences can be vertically segmented using developmental psychographics. The

postmodern insights of hermeneutics, semiotics, and structuralism shed light on the

communicative dynamics among developmental segmentations. Translating a message

into the developmental value language of the intended audience increases the

effectiveness of the communication.

Chapter 7 presents an informal case study documenting integral communication in

action. David Johnston used integral communication to transform the building market in

Alameda County, California. The strategy fully identified the various stakeholders, and

helped them understand how sustainable building practices supported their personal value

sy stem s.

Finally, Chapter 8 focuses on the transformative applications of integral

communication. Multiple disciplines--from education to business to medicine to

politics--are already using integral communication to talk, learn, and grow with each

other. Furthermore, a transformation strategy and curriculum suggest the possibility of

using language to prompt developmental growth.









All this claims to be nothing more than a first stab at articulating an integral

communication. Many avenues will be left unexplored; much theoretical integration will

be left undone; numerous strategic applications will be left unsaid. I merely attempt to

give a general theoretical overview of integral communication as an orientation for future

work. I extend preemptive praise to those who will locate my inevitable missteps,

incorporate refinements, and continue the evolution of integral communication.

The writing style incorporates first-, second-, and third-person perspectives as

supported by integral philosophy. The tone may shift from casual and conversational, to

intellectual and technical, depending on the needs of the moment. Also, quotes and

citations intentionally appear in abundance. They allow the diverse voices of yesterday

to speak and create a space for an integral vision today. In the following presentation, I

aspire to express the integral communication proj ect with sincerity, truth, legitimacy, and

comprehensibility.

My most basic aim here is to open a dialogue that asks what a more integral

approach to communication might look like. The dialogue can be challenging.

Disagreements might arise. New perspectives may be painfully birthed. Yet these

challenges fuel the dialogue. Communication furthers the evolution of the integral

proj ect, just as the integral proj ect furthers the evolution of communication. Thus, in the

spirit of growth, challenges are welcomed here as honored guests, inviting everyone to

bask in the glorious discourse of ferment. Welcome to the conversation.





















TABLE OF CONTENTS


page


ACKNOWLEDGMENT S ............ ...... ._._ .............._ iii..


P RE FACE ........._.. ..... ._ .............._ iv....


LI ST OF FIGURE S .............. .................... xi


AB STRAC T ................ .............. xii


CHAPTER


1 A CALL FOR THEORETICAL INTEGRATION................ ..............


The Zen of Ferment ........._ ........_. ...............1...
Seven Productive Fragments .............. ...............4.....
What Does "Integral" Mean? ........._._ ......._. ...............7...
Beyond Fusion and Eclecticism............... ...............
Two Noteworthy Pioneers ........._. ........_. ............... 10...


2 THE ARCHITECTURE OF INTEGRAL RECONSTRUCTION .........._................15


The M aster Architect ............ _. ..... ...............15...
Quadrants ............ _. .... ...............18....
Lines and Level s ............ ......_ ...............23...
States and Types .............. ... ...............26..
Building Integral Communication ............ ..... .__ ....__ ............2


3 WAR AND PEACE AMONG METHODS .............. ...............32....


Paradigm Battles ............ ......_ ...............32....
External Reductionism............... ..............3
Internal Reductionism............... ..............3
M ixing with Pragmatism .............. .. ...............41...
The Quans and Quals Meet the Quads .............. ...............44....


4 SOCIAL SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS............... ...............5


Communication Traits as Real............... ...............51..
Knowing Attitudes ............ ......_ ...............53....











Beyond the Lamppost ................. ...............55........... ....
Value Systems as Worldviews............... ...............6
Dynamics of the Spiral .............. ...............64....

5 WORLD VIEW EVOLUTION ........._._. ...._. ...............69...


Researching W orl dviews .........._.._ ......... ...............69.....
Traditional-Mythic (BLUE) ................. ...............75.................
Rati onal-Achi evi st (ORANGE) ................. ......... ...............79.....
Plurali sti c-Communitari an (GREEN) ................. ...............82........... ...
Integral-Exi stential (YELLOW) ................. ...............86........... ....

6 AN INTEGRAL COMMUNICATION STRATEGY ................. .......................91


Developmental Psychographics............... .............9
The Postmodern Toolbox .............. ...............96....
Semiotics of Spiral Dialectic .............. ...............100....
W orldview Translation ................ ...............103................
Flatland Assumptions .............. ...............108....

7 APPLICATION-SUSTAINABLE BUILDING .........._.._.. ......__. ........._...112


Sustainable Development in Alameda County ................. ................. ....__ 112
A Spiral W izard ............ __.. .......... ...............113...
All Quadrant Communication. ....._____ ..... ....... .....___ ...........15
All Level Communication .............. ...............120....
"It' s Working Like a Champ" ......................__ ...............126 ...

8 TRANSF ORMATION AND THE C OMMUNICATOR ................. ................ ... 129


Trans-Disciplinary Discourse ................ ...............129................
Language for Growth ................... .......... ...............13. 1....
Worldview Accommodation Strategy .............. ...............133....
Pedagogical Reconstruction................ ...........13
The Basic Communicative Intuition............... ...............14


APPENDIX

A THE SPIRAL DYNAMICS INTEGRAL MODEL ................ .......................145


B THE EIGHT SPIRAL DYNAMICS LEVELS OF INDIVIDUAL,
ORGANIZATIONAL, AND CULTURAL WORLDVIEW DEVELOPMENT....146

C COMMON ATTITUDES OF FOUR VALUE SYSTEMS............... .................4

D WORLDVIEW TRANSLATION WITH SPIRAL DYNAMICS .........................154












LIST OF REFERENCES ................. ...............156................


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................. ...............170......... ......


















LIST OF FIGURES

Figure pg

2-1 Communicative Validity Claims of the Quadrants ................. ........_.._........._19

2-2 The Four Quadrants Simplified as the Big Three .............. ....................2

2-3 Multiple Lines of Development ................. ...............24........... ...

6-1 A Developmental Psychograph ......___ .........___....._ ............9

A-1 Spiral Dynamics Integral Model .............. ...............145....
















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Mass Communication

INTEGRAL COMMUNICATION

By

Adam B. Leonard

May 2004

Chair: Lisa Duke-Cornell
Major Department: Journalism and Mass Communications

Many scholars call for a more integrated approach to communication studies. Ken

Wilber' s All Quadrants, All Levels integral model attempts to satisfy this desire by its

ability to locate unity-in-diversity. The integral model finds relationships among the

various communication theories, research methods, and strategies so they can learn from

and work with each other instead of functioning as disconnected eclectic fragments.

Furthermore, the Spiral Dynamics integral model of value systems demonstrates how

including levels of psychological development can enhance the effectiveness of

communication strategies. Change-agents (such as David Johnston in Alameda County,

California) are already using integral communication strategies. Finally, integral

communication also has been shown to facilitate cross-disciplinary discourse, and has

special implications for curricular pedagogy.















CHAPTER 1
A CALL FOR THEORETICAL INTEGRATION

The Zen of Ferment

The following Zen story is called "Trading Dialogue for Lodging."

Provided he makes and wins an argument about Buddhism with those who live
there, any wandering monk can remain in a Zen temple. If he is defeated, he has to
move on.

In a temple in the northern part of Japan, two brother monks were dwelling
together. The elder one was learned, but the younger one was stupid and had but
one eye.

A wandering monk came and asked for lodging, properly challenging them to a
debate about the sublime teaching. The elder brother, tired that day from much
studying, told the younger one to take his place. "Go and request the dialogue in
silence," he cautioned.

So the young monk and the stranger went to the shrine and sat down.

Shortly afterward the traveler rose and went in to the elder brother and said: "Your
young brother is a wonderful fellow. He defeated me."

"Relate the dialogue to me," said the elder one.

"Well," explained the traveler, "first I held up one finger, representing Buddha, the
enlightened one. So he held up two fingers, signifying Buddha and his teaching. I
held up three fingers, representing Buddha, his teaching [Dharma], and his
followers living the harmonious life [Sangha]. Then he shook his clenched fist in
my face, indicating that all three come from one realization. Thus he won and so I
have no right to remain here." With this, the traveler left.

"Where is that fellow?" asked the younger one, running in to his elder brother.

"I understand you won the debate."

"Won nothing. I'm going to beat him up."

"Tell me the subj ect of the debate," asked the elder one.










"Why, the minute he saw me he held up one finger, insulting me by insinuating that
I have only one eye. Since he was a stranger I thought I would be polite to him, so
I held up two fingers, congratulating him that he has two eyes. Then the impolite
wretch held up three fingers, suggesting that between us we only have three eyes.
So I got mad and started to punch him, but he ran out and that ended it!"
(Anonymous quoted in Krippendorff, 1989, p. 73).

How does reflecting on communication help us understand what transpired in the

story? Apparently, mutual understanding failed to occur between the traveler and the

young monk. What theory best describes these dynamics?

The answer is far from clear. A recent analysis of seven communication textbooks

identified 249 distinct "theories" (Anderson, 1996). Of these theories, 195 (88%)

appeared in only one of the seven textbooks. Moreover, only 18 of the 249 theories (7%)

surfaced in more than three books. In an article titled "Why Are There So Many

Communication Theories?" Robert Craig struggles with this lack of theoretical consensus

within communication studies (1993).

The term "ferment" denotes a state of agitation, turbulent change, or development

(American Heritage, 2000). The Journal of Communications first exposed a "Ferment in

the Field" in June 1983. At least since this issue, comments Klaus Bruhn Jensen, "there

has been a recognition within .. communication research that the diverse theoretical and

methodological sources of the field, in the social sciences and in the humanities, hold a

significant potential for consolidation through integration" (2002, p. 1). Karl Erik

Rosengren contributed to that June issue over 20 years ago, when he hoped "the ferment .

.. would be replaced by vigorous growth, stemming from both mutual confrontation and

mutual cooperation between the various schools and traditions of research" (1993, p. 8).

This ferment--made possible by a differentiation into multiple schools of thought--held










the potential to catapult the Hield into valuable academic territory that no one school could

reach on its own. Ferment created the possibility for integration.

That possibility has yet to manifest. Many communication scholars lament the

unfulfilled promise of integration. Barbara O'Keefe comments, "It is difficult to

represent the Hield well .. because we have failed as a community to organize our

contributions in a systematic fashion" (1993, p. 80). Craig agrees, seeing little proof of

communication theory as a Hield, because scholars "appear to be operating primarily in

separate domains. .. Communication theorists apparently neither agree nor disagree

about much of anything. .. There are no common goals that unite them, no contentious

issues that divide them. For the most part, they simply ignore each other" (1999, p. 119-

120). Karl Rosengren gives a virtually identical diagnosis: "Adherents of the various

quasi-paradigms have increasingly avoided both confrontation and cooperation,

preferring instead to isolate themselves in a number of self-contained enclaves .. The

Hield today is characterized more by fragmentation than fermentation" (1993, p. 8-9).

The work of many developmentalists suggests that healthy development moves

from fusion to differentiation to integration (Kegan, 1994; Cook-Greuter and Miller,

1994). In contrast, communication scholarship has taken a deviant path, deteriorating

from differentiation to disassociation. Communication historians Armand Matterlart and

Michele Matterlart write of the unresolved tensions that result from disassociation.

The history of theories of communication is a record of these tensions and of the
varied attempts to articulate--or avoid articulating--the terms of what all too often
have appeared as dichotomies and binary opposition rather than levels of analysis.
In diverse historical contexts and formulated in various ways, these tensions and
antagonisms have constantly manifested themselves, dividing the field into
different schools of thought, currents, and tendencies. (1998, p. 1-2)










During a state of disassociation, cooperative interaction slows, and theoretical

schools either ignore or attempt to conquer each other. Craig explains this breakdown

using the term "sterile eclecticism" for differentiation and "productive fragmentation" for

disassociation:

Each of the fragments of communication research has been productive within its
own domain, hence my term 'productive fragmentation.' As long as the research
discipline is thus fragmented, the textbooks will continue to be mired in sterile
eclecticism and there will continue to be more and more communication theories
but still no jield of communication theory. (1999, p. 123)

Healing the disassociation within communication studies requires integration.

First, however, the field' s maj or theoretical traditions must be clearly differentiated.

Seven Productive Fragments

One could differentiate the field of communication in many ways. The

presentation below, representing one possibility, divides communication theories into

seven broad traditions, adapted from Craig (1999) and Littlejohn (2002). Each tradition

enj oys a contemporary academic following, and a substantial body of research literature.

These seven traditions represent the biggest fragments or heaps currently active within

communication studies.

1. The Rhetorical Tradition: Originating with the ancient Greeks, the rhetorical
tradition views communication as a practical art of discourse. Communication, as a
practical discipline, can improve by learning and practicing a skill. Rhetorical
studies emphasize the power of words to artfully persuade audiences and the value
of informed judgment.

2. The Semiotic Tradition: Intersubjective mediation by signs characterizes the
semiotic perspective of communication. Misunderstandings occur because of gaps
among subj ective viewpoints that can be imperfectly bridged by using shared sign
systems such as language. Understanding requires that both parties speak the same
"language" and have shared referential experience.

3. The Phenomenological Tradition: The phenomenological tradition theorizes
communication as experience of self and other in dialogue. Direct and unmediated
contact with others is a real and necessary human experience. Phenomenologists










aim to cultivate communication practices that enable and sustain authentic human
relationships, such as seeking genuineness, supportiveness, openness, respecting
differences, and seeking common ground.

4. The Systems Tradition: Communication, according to the systems tradition, is
information processing. Systems theory, cybernetics, cognitive science, artificial
intelligence, functionalist social theory, and network analysis all fall under the
systems tradition. Systems theory describes the communication process
empirically with functionalist terms such as source, receiver, signal, noise, and
feedback.

5. The Sociopsychological Tradition: Experimental social psychology accounts for
much of what is today called "communication science." This approach regards
communication as processes by which humans express, interact, and influence each
other. Psychological factors (e.g., attitudes, values, emotional states, personality
traits, unconscious conflicts, social cognitions) mediate the communication process.

6. The Sociocultural Tradition: This tradition studies communication as a symbolic
process that produces and reproduces shared sociocultural patterns. One the one
hand, everyday interactions with others depend on preexisting, shared cultural
meanings and social structures, and these interactions "reproduce" the existing
sociocultural order. On the other hand, social interaction allows creativity and
improvisation that "produces" the sociocultural order that makes interaction
possible in the first place.

7. The Critical Tradition: With roots in Plato's conception of Socratic dialectic,
critical communication theory aspires for mutual understanding through discursive
reflection. Material and ideological forces impede the emancipatory movement
towards authentic communication. Social injustices perpetuated by ideological
distortions can be rectified through communicative practices that enable critical
reflection, unmask the distortions, and facilitate political action.

When faced with such theoretical diversity, critics typically react in one of five

ways, each response plagued with shortcomings, based on the research of Wayne Booth

(1979) and Donald Levine (1986). First, the polemicist response encourages all

perspectives to fight it out and welcomes assaults on complacency and conformity.

Critique: it often generates wasteful and mean spirited exchanges and fosters

misinterpretation among intellectual opponents. Second, the semanticist response

believes that disagreements will disappear through intellectual antagonists clarifying their

terms and removing ambiguities. Critique: the differences among perspectives transcend









trivial semantic ambiguities and cannot be removed through linguistic clarification

epistemologicall differences for example). Third, the monist response deems one

contending position as correct and portrays all others as wrong, misleading, or

unimportant. Critique: this response can claim validity only from within its own

perspective and philosophically cannot justify universal invalidation of all other

positions. Fourth, the skeptic (or relativist or nihilist) response questions whether any

perspective can make statements containing truth value. Critique: this claim contains a

performative contradiction, namely the professed certainty about the impossibility of

attaining certainty. Fifth, the eclectic response accepts the validity claims of competing

theories and copes with the apparent incommensurability by chopping up works and

using the most helpful fragments. Critique: the contextual significance of each

perspective is lost when fragmented and spliced with other positions.

An alternative response does exist, which honors each approach as unique and

valuable. Each theory contains its own strengths and weaknesses. Each theory offers a

truth, but not the truth. Letting each theory tell its part of the story is essential; letting it

impose its piece as the whole is disastrous. Given these basic insights, a series of

questions arise: How can the partial truth of each perspective best be preserved? What

sort of theoretical space can allow each perspective to respect, value, and utilize the

others? What sort of map could organize the perspectives to accentuate their

relationships, patterns, and links? How is constructive dialogue and cooperation among

the perspectives best facilitated? Put simply, my response is integration.

The next section introduces integration in a general, conversational manner.

Playful language and colorful metaphors are intentionally used to introduce some rather










challenging concepts. Since an integral analysis can operate upon any discipline, the

following discussion could apply equally well to medicine, psychology, education, or

business.

What Does "Integral" Mean?

Consider everything for a moment. .. Now reflect how much you remembered to

include. Did you remember atoms? What about political systems? Communication?

Dreams? The feminine? Dare I even mention consciousness? The question string could

continue for miles. (Did you remember sex? And ecology? Spirituality? .)

Most people Eind this thought experiment exceedingly difficult. But there is a trick:

spaces are easier to remember than particulars. For example, the space "kitchen" is

simpler to recall than every particular item in a kitchen. Once a person understands the

space "kitchen," she will know where the toaster belongs upon encountering it. The same

applies to everything. Create enough space and nothing is left out.

"Integral" simply means covering all the bases. To do this, an integral map creates

enough space to include all the bases in a balanced and comprehensive manner. But

integral embrace involves more than just recognizing multiple clumps or listing eclectic

jumbles. It joins, links, and fits together the individual bases by finding underlying

patterns and interconnections within a common worldspace, territory, or matrix.

Without an integral map, keeping everything straight proves challenging for

anyone. The information age launches a relentless barrage of meaning missiles. Some

inevitably penetrate our minds and set up residence. Bits and pieces drift aimlessly in a

chaotic bowl of mental soup. Information fragments bounce around the mind, blindly

bumping into each other--garbled, jumbled, muddled. Integral maps seek to coordinate










this eclectic pluralism, converting "heaps into wholes." For without coordination,

information loses much of its pragmatic value.

Some maps are more inclusive than others, and, in this case, value increases with

capacity for embrace. For instance, a map of the entire United States is more valuable

than a Florida map, namely because the USA map includes Florida plus more. An

integral approach endeavors to erect the largest map possible--an earnest model of

everything, or at least the spaces in which everything exists. Working with anything less

than a full map will necessarily entail certain limitations, confusions, and reductionisms.

With only a Florida map at hand, one might aim for Washington, D.C., yet only make it

to Tallahassee. Using an integral map, in contrast, drastically improves the possibility of

success.

Theoretical integration means discovering the unity-in-diversity, the commonalty

amidst the difference. The integral proj ect within communication attempts to give a

comprehensive map of communicative phenomena by including all traditions and

perspectives. "The important point is the knowledge that all these views, when

integrated, provide an 'emergent factor' that adds value beyond the sum of the

perspectives" (Paulson, 2002, p. 110). Integral communication models the grand

cohesion of relationships and developments that creates the possibility space for

communication to occur.

Beyond Fusion and Eclecticism

A growing number of communication scholars possess the will to integrate but lack

the means. Unrest swells within the academic community to move beyond differentiation

(or disassociation) towards integration. Many communication professionals are tired of









disciplinary disassociation, eclecticism, or fusion. They want integration, they're just not

quite sure how best to do it.

A difference exists between the desire for integration and the regression from

differentiation back to orthodox fusion (Giddens, 1989, p. 53). Integration does not mean

fusion. No integrally oriented social scientist wants a dominating supertheory that

supersedes and discredits all other theories as null and void. Richard Shweder explains

that "it is not as if each of the several schools of thought is pressing for that notable

scientific achievement or crucial experiment in the wake of which the diversity will

disappear, a unifying paradigm will emerge, and real science will begin" (1986, p. 163).

Similarly, O'Keefe makes the case against coherence (fusion) and for cohesion

(integration) (1993, p. 76-80). She argues that "theoretical unification is neither desirable

nor attainable. .. Since we [communication scholars] have different viewpoints for good

reason, imposition of one common theoretical viewpoint would simply mean displacing

some important work from the field" (1993, p. 76). Craig follows in stating "the goal

should not be some chimerical, unified theory of communication just over the rainbow.

Such a unified theory will always be out of reach, and we probably should not want one if

it were attainable. .. The goal should not be a state in which we have nothing to argue

about, but one in which we better understand that we all have something very important

to argue about" (1999, p. 123-124). Under no circumstances does an integral approach to

communication mean an end to theoretical diversity.

Beyond monistic fusion and eclectic pluralism, integration offers a metanarrative,

field, matrix, or map where basic commonalties and relationships become more apparent

among the multiplicity of perspectives and traditions in communication studies. Many









communication scholars voice their desire for such an integral map. Craig calls for a

metatheoretical approach that "cuts across the various disciplinary traditions, substantive

specialties, methodologies, and schools of thought that presently divide us" (1999, p.

120). "Perhaps ways can be found by which the various, apparently incompatible or

unrelated modes of communication theory that now exist can be brought into more

productive dialogue with one another .. perhaps communication science can be

understood as an integrated 'practical discipline' in which critical, interpretive, and

empirical research as well as philosophical reflection and applied work have deeply

related, essential functions to perform" (Craig, 1993; Craig, 1989). O'Keefe

acknowledges, "The great opportunity offered by integration is the possibility of making

a common cause. Rather than competing in separate units, the communication disciplines

can provide support for each other" (1993, p. 80).

Many of the theorists mentioned in this section have attempted integral schemes

that have failed in various ways. No matrix, metamodel, or framework has yet been

erected that effectively integrates the communication field. Many seem content with

creating elaborate categorical matrixes of eclecticism. "The time is ripe," concludes

Levine, "for articulating a self-conscious pluralist program in the social sciences in which

the point will be, not to scrap the demarcationist [differentiation] proj ect, but to

sophisticate it" (1986, p. 282). Craig's "dialogical-dialectical coherence matrix" serves

as a fine example of a sophisticated demarcation (1999, p. 133-134). Nevertheless,

eclectic pluralism of this sort cannot be called integral.

Two Noteworthy Pioneers

Acknowledged as one of the greatest thinkers of the twentieth century, Jurgen

Habermas stands among the most comprehensive and philosophically rigorous of all









communication scholars. His writings display encyclopedic knowledge across a

plenitude of academic disciplines. He sought to "synthesize [these disciplines] on an

encompassing scale as grand as that of Hegel or Marx" (Wuthnow, Hunter, Bergesen,

Kurzweil, 1984, p. 179). Indeed, Habermas's theoretical framework-featuring a

horizontal and vertical axis--makes invaluable contributions to the integral proj ect in

general, and to integral communication specifically.

Central to his thought is a "universal pragmatics," marked by a theory of

"communicative action" (Habermas, 1984; Habermas, 1979). Habermas cites Immanuel

Kant who differentiated what Max Weber later called the three "cultural value spheres"

(1996, p. 239). This primary differentiation allowed Habermas to articulate the

relationship of "speech acts" with the three most primary realities or worldspaces:

According to this model, language can be conceived as the medium of interrelating
three worlds; for every successful communicative action there exists a threefold
relation between the utterance and (a) "the external world" as the totality of
existing states of affairs, (b) "our social world" as the totality of all normatively
regulated interpersonal relations that count as legitimate in a given society, and (c)
"a particular inner world" (of the speaker) as the totality of his intentional
experiences. (Habermas, 1979, p. 67)

Returning full circle to the Zen story, recall that the traveler held up three fingers to

signify these same three realms. Indeed, the "Three Jewels" of Buddhism--Buddha,

Dharma, and Sangha--respectively signify the worldspaces of subj ective understanding,

obj ective truth, and intersubj ective meaning.

In any communicative action towards mutual understanding, "validity claims are

'always already' implicitly raised" (Habermas, 1979, p. 97). Each of these three realms,

insists Habermas, has its own specific validity claim. Validity claims of al ink,

truthfulness (or sincerity), and rightness (or legitimacy) correlate respectively to the

realms of the objective, the subjective, and the intersubjective. The next chapter covers










these domains in greater detail. For now, simply note that the three validity criteria are

domain specific. Habermas cautions that the validation method of one domain does not

validate the others.

The second maj or component to Habermas' s work is his developmental

investigations--the vertical axis. The task, for Habermas, is "to work out a unified

framework in which the different dimensions of human development are not only

analytically distinguished [differentiated] but in which their interconnections are also

systematically taken into account [integration]" (McCarthy, 1979, p. xx). This quote,

written almost 25 years ago, nicely articulates a key aspect of the integral project.

Habermas presents a rational reconstruction of "universal, 'species-wide,'

competencies and the demonstration that each of them is acquired in an irreversible series

of distinct and increasingly complex stages that can be hierarchically ordered in a

developmental logic" (McCarthy, 1979, p. xx). Development occurs within each of the

three worldspace domains (subjective, intersubjective, and objective). The outcome of

this multidimentional evolution determines the acquisition of communicative

competence. The key point to remember: the Big Three reality domains--subjective,

intersubj ective, and obj ective--evolve together.

A second, lesser known pioneer, Steven Littlejohn, has consistently supported

theoretical integration for the past 25 years since the first edition of his widely respected

textbook Theories ofHuman Communication. In the 1978 introduction, he expresses the

belief that "each theory looks at the [communication] process from a different angle, and

each theory provides insights of its own" (p. 21). He recognizes that "the biggest

problem of an eclectic approach is integrating parts into a coherent whole" (1978, p.










374). In his concluding chapter titled "A Multitheoretical Integration," he outlines an

approach by which "we are able to see patterns and generalizations not apparent from

narrower perspectives" (1978, p. 374-375).

In his attempt of a "multitheoretical integration," Littlej ohn also uses a horizontal

and vertical axis of analysis. For the horizontal, he employs two broad perspectives--

general systems theory and symbolic interactionalism--to represent the two primary

perspectives of communication (1978, p. 376). On the one hand, general systems theory

represents theories that focus on "out there activity" such as behavior, function, and

utility (Littlejohn, 1983, p. 10). On the other hand, symbolic interaction (including

semiotics) represents theories that deal with "in here activity" including meaning,

interpretation, and signs (Littlejohn, 1983, p. 10). The combination of these two general

perspectives produces a rough framework of the inside and outside of any communicative

event.

For his vertical axis, Littlej ohn supports the use of hierarchies and levels of

analysis. He clearly states that communication, as a complex process, "can be analyzed

hierarchically" (1978, p. 376). He cites four contexts or levels within communication:

interpersonal, group, organizational, and mass, pointing out that "these levels are not

mutually exclusive. They should be viewed hierarchically with interpersonal

communication as the base of all other contexts" (Littlejohn, 1978, p. 378). This

statement suggests a system relationship in which each level exists both as a whole and as

a part of a greater whole. For example, group communication is a whole system itself

and simultaneously a part of the larger system of organizational communication. Finally,

he implies that the two horizontal dimensions (interior and exterior) operate at each of the









four vertical levels. Any future attempt at theoretical integration will surely want to

consult and include Littlej ohn' s pioneering efforts.

Perhaps more than any other contemporary American communication theorist,

Littlej ohn has exemplified a career commitment to healthy theoretical pluralism and the

call for theoretical integration. In the seventh and most recent addition of Theories of

Human Conanunication, he reaffirms this commitment by supporting Craig's search for

"a metamodel that opens up a conceptual space in which many different theoretical

models of communication can interact" (Littlejohn, 2002, p. 12; Craig, 1999, p. 126-127).

The term meta, explains Littlej ohn, means "above," and so a metamodel is a "model of

models" (2002, p. 12). But even Littlejohn does not believe he possesses the means to

carry a theoretical integration through to a satisfactory completion. Instead of presenting

his readers with a revised integral metamodel in his 2002 textbook, he gives this advice:

"As a student of communication theory .. if you can find a useful metamodel, you will

be able to make connections among theories .. and understand the value of multiple

perspectives in the field" (p. 12). The next chapter offers a viable means of integration

by introducing just such a "useful metamodel."















CHAPTER 2
THE ARCHITECTURE OF INTEGRAL RECONSTRUCTION

The Master Architect

In Communication and' the Evohition ofSociety, Habermas says that

"I easus 1,111l mon, signifies taking a theory apart and putting it back together again in a new

form in order to attain more fully the goal it has set for itself. This is the normal way of

dealing with a theory that needs revision in many respects but whose potential for

stimulation has still not been exhausted" (1979, p. 95). Far from regression to modernist

thinking, the reconstructive impulse marks an evohition beyond not only modernity, but

beyond deconstructive postmodernity as well. One could call it reconstructive

postmodernism, post-postmodemism, or more simply integral. Robert Kegan writes,

"What I call 'reconstructive postmodemism' .. seeks not only a differentiation from the

forms of modemism but their reintegration into a new way of knowing that abjures the

absolutism of the forms, that does not take the forms as complete, distinct, or prior"

(1994, p. 329). Regarding communication, Robert Craig asserts, "Our task is not to

deconstruct communication theory. (What would be the point? It' s already a mess.)

Rather, we must reconstruct communication theory ." (1999, p. 129).

Respectable thinkers have labored over the reconstructive proj ect only to encounter

variable degrees of fruition. An easy way to judge the relative success of any given

integral map is to ask how much space it creates. Does it create enough space to include

the partial truth of all the theoretical traditions and methods? The present investigation

strives to assess whether the AQAL (pronounced ah-cpral) integral framework created by










the American philosopher Ken Wilber can credibly answer this question in the

affirmative.

Wilber has expanded and refined his work over the past 30 years, passing through

at least four distinct phases. The 19 books he has either written or edited have been

translated into more than 30 languages, making Wilber the most translated American

academic writer alive (Visser, 2003, p. 3). At 23-years-old, he authored his first book,

which sent ripples into elite academic circles that have yet to settle. "Virtually overnight

Wilber was acknowledged as a leading thinker in the fields of psychology and

philosophy, with serious reviews comparing him to Freud, Hegel, even Plato" (Visser,

2003, p. 25).

On an intellectual side, Wilber demonstrates an uncanny "capacity to absorb,

synthesize, categorize, and make sense of vast amounts of information from disparate

fields" (Schwartz, 1995, p. 342). On a personal side, he has been characterized as

"patient, generous, funny, insightful, and entertaining" (Schwartz, 1995, p. 341). Having

personally met with him several times at his Denver residence, I can only agree on both

accounts. Ken Wilber' s wisdom and compassion inform this entire project of integral

communication.

In 1995, Wilber first published the AQAL model in volume one of the Kosmos

trilogy. He relates how his reconstructive vision grew out of the smoky ruins of

deconstructive postmodernism:

One thing was very clear to me as I struggled with how best to proceed in an
intellectual climate dedicated to deconstructing anything that crossed its path: I
would have to back up and start at the beginning, and try to create a vocabulary for
a more constructive philosophy. Beyond pluralistic relativism is universal
integralism; I therefore sought to outline a philosophy of universal integralism. ..
an integral philosophy, one that would believably weave together the many










pluralistic contexts of science, morals, aesthetics, Eastern as well as Western
philosophy, and the world's great wisdom traditions (2000b, p. x).

"You cannot do that," Wilber insists, "as an eclecticism, or a smorgasbord of unrelated

observations. .. The integral orientation must be able to tie together an enormous

number of disciplines into a fairly complete, coherent, plausible, believable vision"

(Wilber in Visser, 2003, p. 35-36). The remainder of this chapter shows how he did it

and how it applies to communication.

Nothing is as practical as a good (meta)theory, but only if it is applied. With this in

mind, Wilber founded a non-profit organization-7hze IntegrallInstitute--to apply the

integral vision. The Integral Institute currently is committed the following four goals (I-I,

2004):

1. Integrate the largest amount of research from the largest number of disciplines.

2. Develop practical products and services from this research.

3. Apply this integrated knowledge and method of problem solving to critical and
urgent issues.

4. Create the world's first Integral Learning Community.

Integral Institute recruits top academics and practitioners from around the world to

collaborate on the integral reconstruction proj ect. The global think tank is divided into

domains composed of "core teams" who work together to reconstruct their respective

disciplines with the AQAL model. Core teams include integral business, integral

ecology, integral art, integral psychology, integral medicine, and integral education to

name a few. Perhaps in the future integral communication will also be a domain.

AQAL stands for "all quadrants, all levels," but also implies lines, states, and types.

Together these five elements function as the essential theoretical tools of the integral

map. Remembering them will prove extremely helpful for the task ahead. Try this










pneumonic memory device to help: To learn start loving questions--To (types) Learn

(lines) Start (states) Loving (levels) Questions (quadrants).

Quadrants

The quadrants serve as AQAL's horizontal axis. They elegantly map the same

reality domains given by Habermas. Every communication relates to at least four

worldspaces, each with its own type of condition or validity claim that determines the

effectiveness of the communication. First, the external world refers to material obj ects in

nature. External phenomena can be empirically perceived, measured, and manipulated.

A communication act is effective in this domain to the degree that it accurately represents

the objective facts. The validity claim is nl inh a communication "counts as true for the

participants insofar as it represents something in the world" (Habermas, 1979, p. 28).

Second, the internal world signifies the realm of personal subj activity. This domain

includes the values, feelings, and intentions of the person communicating. Effective

communication occurs when the communicator expresses what she actually thought or

felt internally. Within this domain, truthfulness (or sincerity) determines the validity of a

speech act. A communication "counts as truthful insofar as it expresses something

intended by the speaker" (Habermas, 1979, p. 28).

A third reality domain, the cultural world, concerns the intersubj ective space of

mutual recognition. When a signing community interacts with mutual understanding it

shares pre-existing, collective contexts such as cultural norms, symbolic patterns, moral

expectations, and worldviews. The validity claim here deals with the rightness (or

legitimacy) of a communicative action in relation to cultural norms. A communication

"counts as right insofar as it conforms to socially recognized expectations" (Habermas,

1979, p. 28). Finally, communication takes place within the linguistic world.









Effectiveness depends on the linguistic medium in which a communication is framed. A

speech act must conform to the external properties of a language system. Grammatical,

semantic, and syntactical rules must be followed for a communication to reach

comprehensibility (or functional fit), the fourth validity claim.

These four communicative "worlds" are the four quadrants. The quadrant model

makes two basic distinctions: interior/exterior and individual/collective. This creates a

matrix with four worldspaces or quadrants: the upper-left or interior-individual, the

upper-right or exterior-individual, the lower-right or exterior-collective, and the lower-

left or interior-collective .


Figure 2-1. Communicative Validity Claims of the Quadrants


Obje~ctivle

"Trut h"


Subjiective


"Truthfulness"


|nterob~jct ivMe

"'CoImprlehensibility"'


"Rightness"


J&LLO~YIWDEI










Notice that everything on the left side of the model refers to interiors and everything on

right side refers to exteriors. The term "exterior" describes physical forms, systems,

behaviors, functions, and so on. Exterior phenomena in communication include all

semiotic signifiers (spoken language, written words), behavioral responses to

communication stimuli, statistically tabulated survey data, brain neurology, satellites, the

First Amendment to the Constitution, media distribution systems, sociological

demographics, the Internet, and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to name

a few. Exteriors have "simple location" and can be seen empirically, objectively, and

behaviorally (Wilber, 1996, p. 90). They are the material manifestation of every

phenomenon.

"Interior" refers to phenomena such as consciousness, meaning, intention, feeling,

value, and interpretation. Unlike exteriors, interiors lack simple location. One cannot

empirically point to alienation, meaning, or mind, yet they exist. All psychological and

cultural "lenses" through which one engages the communicative process are interiors:

semiotic signifieds (mental perceptions), judgements of newsworthiness, cultural

contexts, affective relationships, psychological levels of development, hermeneutic

circles, value systems, and cognitive capacity for example.

"Left Hand" and "Right Hand" serve as abbreviations for interior and exterior

phenomena respectively. Recall that Littlejohn used systems theory to signify the Right

Hand and symbolic interactionalism to signify the Left Hand in his model. Philosophers

from Spinoza to Leibniz to Schopenhauer to Whitehead agree that every human process

includes a within and a without, a cognition and an extension, a depth and a surface, a

subj ective and an obj ective, an internal and an external, a Left Hand and a Right Hand










(Wilber, 2000b, p. 117). Communication, being a human process, is, therefore, no

exception.

The quadrants are so fundamental to the human experience that every maj or

language recognizes them in the form of first-person, second-person, and third-person

pronouns (I-I, 2003). First-person means "the person who is speaking," which includes

pronouns like I, me, mine (in the singular), and we, us, ours (in the plural). Second-

person means "the person who is spoken to," which includes pronouns like you and

yours. Third-person means "the person or thing being spoken about," such as he, him,

she, her, they, them, it, and its.

IflI am speaking to you about my new car, "I" am first person, "you" are second
person, and the new car (or "it") is third person. Now, if you and I are talking and
communicating, we will indicate this by using, for example, the word "we," as in,
"We understand each other." "We" is technically first-person plural, but if you and
I are communicating, then your second person and my first person are part of this
extraordinary "we." Thus second person is sometimes indicated as "you/we," or
"thou/we," or sometimes just "we." So we can therefore simplify first-, second-,
and third-person as "I," "we," and "it." (I-I, 2003)

Hence, the quadrants can be boiled down to I (interior-individual), We (interior-

collective), and It(s) (exterior-individual and exterior-collective) or, as Wilber calls them,

the "Big Three."

Many great thinkers have recognized the Big Three in their own theories: Plato's

the Beautiful (I), the Good (We), and the True (It); Max Weber' s art aesthetic (I),

religious morals (We), scientific empiricism (It); Sir Karl Popper's three worlds: the

subjective (I), the cultural (We), and the objective (It); Immanuel Kant's The Critique of

Critical Judgement (I), The Critique ofPractical Reason (We), and The Critique of Pure

Reason (It); and, as already seen, Buddhism's Buddha (I), Sangha (We), and Dharma (It)

(Wilber, 2000b, p. 149). The charts below show the same fundamental worldspaces in








two different ways. The chart on the right shows Plato' s formulation of the Big Three

and the chart on the left shows the languages of the quadrants:






I IT Beuug
Tr ut h


WE ITS Gon~





Figure 2-2. The Four Quadrants Simplified as the Big Three
The quadrant model integrates the Big Three while preserving the integrity, identity, and

languages (first-person, second-person, and third-person) of each. At their core the

quadrants represent "the four fundamental perspectives on any occasion, the four basic

ways of looking at anything" (I-I, 2003). Hence, communicative action necessarily

entails all four quadrant domains. In short, communication is always a quadratic affair,

involving the inside and the outside of the individual and the collective.

Theoretical integration requires figuring out how much of the quadratic affair each

communication theory includes. Some theories may cover only one quadrant. The

systems tradition, for instance, describes the lower-right quadrant of the communication

process. Other traditions overlap. The critical tradition draws from Marxist sociology

concerning the relationship of society's economic base (lower-right quadrant) to culture's

superstructure (lower-left quadrant). The phenomenological tradition better addresses an










agent' s conscious experience (upper-left) as she engages an "other" in relationship

(lower-left). The rhetorical tradition's emphasis on an individual's practical speaking

abilities points to the upper-right quadrant.

Every theory recognizes at least one of the quadrants. The point is to orient the

communication theories within the quadrants according to their worldspace focus. Once

properly oriented, each theory reveals which parts of the story it tells and which parts it

leaves out. With this knowledge, an integral theorist can then reconstruct a theory, in the

Habermasian sense, to include additional quadrants. Or, the theory can be combined with

others that address those quadrants that it leaves out. Either way, the goal is to form a

more comprehensive picture of any given communication process.

Lines and Levels

Everyone can agree that he or she is better at some things than others. Intelligence

comes in many forms. Howard Gardner' s theory of multiple intelligence outlines seven

including linguistic (sensitivity to the sounds, rhythms, and meanings of words and the

different functions of language), musical (ability to produce and appreciate pitch, rhythm,

and aesthetic-sounding tones), and interpersonal (ability to detect and respond

appropriately to the moods, temperaments, motivations, and intentions of others)

(Gardner, 1999). Other intelligence include cognitive (Piaget, 1952), values (Graves,

1974), emotional (Salovey and Mayer, 1990), psychosexual (Freud, 1989), moral

(Kohlberg, 1984), and even spiritual (Plotinus, 1991).

In the present context, these intelligence occur within the interior of an individual,

which places them in the upper-left quadrant. Incidentally, this chart was adapted from

the University of Notre Dame' s "Executive Integral Leadership Program" (Notre Dame,

2004). Notice that some arrows extend farther than others. The variance represents the































CIl


fact that we all have unique strengths and weaknesses. Someone's strength can be

another' s weakness. Assuming that intelligence are not fixed (as the research indicates),

then a developmental logic inevitably emerges (Gardner, 1999).


S~



a,


c~"~L,


Figure 2-3. Multiple Lines of Development
Another word for multiple intelligence is developmental lines, since language

proficiency, morality, cognition, emotions, and so on all develop through a series of

qualitatively different stages or levels. The number of levels represented in any

developmental line does not matter as much as the general developmental pattern. For

example, the Fahrenheit and Centigrade scales divide temperature differently, but the

general trend from cold to hot applies to both (I-I, 2003).


sTs


~E










Whether the division of levels be two or two hundred, the relationship among the

levels remains the same. According to the integral perspective, the conceptual key to this

relationship turns out to be the "holon," a term coined by Arthur Koestler. In his own

words, Koestler says a holon "designates these nodes on the hierarchic tree which behave

partly as wholes or wholly as parts, according to the way you look at them" (1967, p. 48).

In other words, a holon is a whole that simultaneously is a part of a greater whole. In the

linguistic realm, Koestler demonstrates "the impossibility of the task of chopping up

speech into elementary atoms or units, either on the phonetic or on the syntactic level.

Phonemes, words, phrases, are wholes in their own right, but parts of a larger unit" (1967,

p. 48). According to Koestler (and Wilber), neither "wholes" nor "parts" exist

anywhere--only whole/parts or "holons." A word is a whole, yet simultaneously part of

a greater whole: a sentence. A whole sentence is also part of a paragraph, which itself is

a larger whole/part or holon. Each level in an given developmental line is a holon--a

whole level, yet also part of an even more encompassing level that "transcends and

includes" it (Wilber, 2000b). In a holarchy, each senior holon transcends its juniors,

while also including them, a process that can be visually represented as a series of

concentric circles.

Holarchies occur in every quadrant. Habermas deals with developmental

holarchies in all four (1979):

* Upper-left (interior-individual): cognition, morals, self-sense
* Upper-right (exterior-individual): biological evolution
* Lower-right (exterior-collective) : social systems, political economy
* Lower-left (interior-collective) : worldviews, normative structures

Perhaps most relevant and complex of all, for Habermas, concerns the development of

communicative competence, which involves developmental lines in each quadrant (i.e.,










the four validity claims). Such a conception would show the "fundamental system of

rules that adult subj ects master to the extent that they can fulfill the conditions for a

happy employment of sentences in utterances ." (1979, p. 26). To help put the three

elements together (quadrants, levels, lines), please see appendix A for a visual

representation of one particular AQAL model called "Spiral Dynamics integral."

An integral theoretical reconstruction might critically examine each tradition

concerning its incorporation of levels and lines. The integral communication theorist

must wrestle with how lines of development relate to each of the traditions. A

developmental reconstruction of the semiotic tradition, for example, is attempted in

chapter 6.

States and Types

A state is "a condition or mode of being" (American Heritage, 2000). Everyone

experiences the three most obvious and natural states of consciousness: waking,

dreaming, and deep sleep. These general states contain structures, and those structures

contain phenomenal states or how one is in this moment (Wilber, 2003a). Phenomenal

states include any temporary modes of being such as emotions, alertness, and peak

experiences (Maslow, 1971; Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). States inevitably affect how

individuals both give and receive communications and the success of mutual

understanding. Communication dynamics will differ, for instance, depending on whether

the participants act from a phenomenal state of anger versus love.

States (like levels and lines) occur not only in the interior-individual quadrant, but

in all the quadrants. On the Right Hand, for example, the exterior-individual reacts with

a "fight or flight" adrenaline surge and the exterior-collective exhibits various

atmospheric and weather states. A threatened culture (internal-ccollective) may regress to









a lower state of needs, but not a lower level. During a state of war, a culture highly

developed along Abraham Maslow' s needs holarchy collectively regresses, for a time, to

a joint need for security. During this particular collective state, communications

emphasizing security needs often enj oy a warmer reception than during a state of peace.

States range from playing trivial to decisive roles in any given communicative exchange,

which is why no integral approach can afford to ignore them.

"Type" is the fifth element of the AQAL model. Types can be present at virtually

any state, level, line, or quadrant. They are often characterized as horizontal typologies

because they exist on the same level of depth. Examples in the upper-left quadrant

include gender (masculine and feminine), personality (nine types in the Enneagram), and

sexual orientation (heterosexual and homosexual). Within the line of moral

developmental, Carol Gilligan shows that both men and women develop through the

same moral levels, but "in a different voice," meaning women tend to emphasize care

while men focus more on justice (Gilligan, 1982). Gender, personality, and sexual

orientation types all influence the communication process.

The fields of cross-cultural and intercultural communication (lower-left quadrant)

address how communication differs based on a culture's type (Gudykunst, 2003;

Reynolds and Valentine, 2004). Edward Hall, often referred to as the founder of

intercultural communication, distinguished between two cultural types--high-context and

low-context-depending on the amount of meaning found in the context versus in the

coded message (Hall, 1976). American culture exemplifies a low-context type because

Americans give more emphasis to the language code, communicating in a more specific,

explicit, and detailed manner. High-context cultures, in contrast, communicate more










implicitly and meaning appears in contextual cues or internalized in the person. A high-

context communication may sound deliberately vague to a low-context listener and a

low-context message may sound too specific to a high-context listener.

Florence Kluckhohn also discovered a classic cultural typology between "doing"

and "being" cultures, which loosely correlates to masculine and feminine types

respectively (Kluchhohn, 1956). Doing-oriented cultures place a premium on actions,

measurable results, and progress. Conversely, family background, social identity, and

relationships carry more weight in being-oriented cultures. Whereas a doing culture

associates words with actions, a being culture links words with social relationships. The

rich literature of communication types deserves a place within any integral model of

communication.

Building Integral Communication

AQAL is an architecture for integral reconstruction. The integral building stands

on a radically inclusive framework that embraces all quadrants, all levels, all lines, all

states, and all types. The quadrants show how any communicative phenomenon can be

seen from at least four different perspectives: first-person (I), second-person (WE), third-

person singular (IT), and third-person plural (ITS). Lines show that many different

intelligence or areas of development exist within each quadrant. These areas each

evolve through distinct levels of widening embrace, forming holarchies. States,

particularly phenomenal states, investigate all the ephemeral conditions of the moment

that influence communication. Finally, tyipes remind us of the different horizontal, same-

depth voices that communicate in distinct ways. Any communicative phenomenon, no

matter how small, necessarily involves the Hyve elements of AQAL. Integral

communication embodies this realization.










Many applications arise from viewing communication from an integral perspective.

My overall aim is to give a philosophical foundation to help these applications be

actualized in the future. First, the AQAL model could facilitate the process of theoretical

integration among the communication traditions. Chapter 1 suggested this application by

documenting numerous communication scholars calling for a way to integrate the

multiple communication traditions. Littlejohn gives an early version of an AQAL

integration by using symbolic interactionalism to represent the Left Hand quadrants and

systems theory to represent the Right Hand quadrants. He also gives a communication

holarchy--from interpersonal to group to organizational to mass communication--that

applies to both Hands. Future theorists of integral communication will expand on such

early models, using the AQAL map to fill in the gaps. Theoretical integration occurs

through orienting the traditions on the AQAL map by recognizing the unity-in-diversity

inherent among them all.

Second, the integral framework lends much insight into building new

communication theories. The five elements of AQAL must be taken into account when

investigating and theorizing about any communication phenomenon. If a communication

theory fails to consider quadrants, levels, lines, states, and types, it risks ignoring

important perspectives. For example, since AQAL models the exterior and interior

worldspace domains in which every human process occurs, and communication is a

human process, then any communication theory that hopes to be non-reductionistic and

integral must recognize and include both interiors and exteriors without reducing or

deriving one from the other.









A third application concerns methodological integration. AQAL gives a

philosophical justification for mixing research methods. Researchers use two or more

methods to examine the same phenomenon all the time, but no cogent explanation exists

to warrant the practical union of two seemingly contradictory epistemologies. I attempt

to build the case for methodological integration and the dangers of reductionism in

Chapter 3. This critical assessment does not view specialization in one research method

as being negative. On the contrary, an integral methodological pluralism acknowledges

the perspectival truth in all approaches. It endorses studying a communicative event from

all relevant angles by including the expertise of numerous research specialists.

Fourth, integral communication can be used as a strategy of communicative action.

An integral awareness can facilitate communication effectiveness by translating messages

into a language easier for the receiver to digest. Chapters 4, 5, and 6 lay the theoretical

groundwork for such a strategy, and Chapter 7 documents the strategy successfully

applied. An alternative strategy uses an integral understanding to facilitate

developmental growth in the receiver. Chapter 8 touches upon this strategy of

transformational communication.

A fifth way integral communication might be applied is by helping the various

academic disciplines talk and learn from each other more effectively. Chapter 8 explains

how integral communication describes a trans-disciplinary language that facilitates cross-

disciplinary discourse. Since the same AQAL map applies to all disciplines--from

business to politics to education to art to ecology--it gives each discipline a common

language to talk with one another. As the Integral Institute puts it, "All of the various

human activities, previously separated by incommensurate languages and terminologies,









can in fact begin to effectively communicate with each other. .. We are able to facilitate

and dramatically accelerate cross-disciplinary and trans-disciplinary knowledge, thus

creating the worlds' first truly integral learning community" (I-I, 2003).

To sum up, integral communication could be applied as a meta-model, a meta-

method, a strategy, or a cross-disciplinary discourse. Building integral communication

begins with a few bricks as attempted here. Though they may be uneven at first, I can

only hope that others will help straighten them so a future edifice might stand.















CHAPTER 3
WAR AND PEACE AMONG METHODS

Paradigm Battles

In the late 1930s, two prominent communication theorists joined forces to study the

cultural effects of radio music programs. On the Right Hand, Paul Lazarsfeld is ranked

among the "four fathers" of mass communications research according to the history of

functionalism (along with Harold Lasswell, Kurt Lewin, and Carl Hovland) (Mattelart

and Mattelart, 1998, p. 30-31). He specialized in empirical, quantitative methods, which

he called "administrative research." On the Left Hand, Theodor Adorno participated in

the Frankfurt School of critical theory and favored more interpretative, qualitative

research methods. Lazarsfeld believed his research partnership with Adorno would result

in "a convergence between European theory and American empiricism" (Lazarsfeld

quoted in Mattelart and Mattelart, 1998, p. 59). Instead, the partnership quickly soured

and the j oint proj ect ended in 1939 to the frustration of both men.

Failing to reconcile their epistemological differences, Lazarsfeld and Adorno

agreed on the incompatibility of their respective research approaches. Adorno

complained that Lazarsfeld' s administrative research questions deliberately ignored the

"who," the "how," and the "why." Shortly after the ordeal, Adorno recalled, "When I

was confronted with the demand to 'measure culture,' I reflected that culture might be

precisely that condition that excludes a mentality capable of measuring it" (1969). Later

in 1972, Lazarsfeld openly expressed his fears concerning "that strange coalition of

macro-sociological Marxists and ethnomethodologists who want to explore the 'real'










existential meaning underlying measurement techniques" (Lazarsfeld quoted in Mattelart

and Mattelart, 1998, p. 112). Methodological wars like this played out on academic

battlefields across the continents.

The relatively brief history of communication research may be read as a rather

continuous epistemological clash between two methodological titans. Lazarsfeld's

position represents exterior approaches such as positivism, functionalism, empiricism,

systems science, and cybernetics (Right Hand quadrants). Adorno, in contrast,

symbolizes interior approaches such as constructivism, hermeneutics, phenomenology,

critical analysis, and semiotics (Left Hand quadrants). A number of dichotomies arise

out of this simple external/internal split:

obj ective versus subjective, seen versus unseen, outer versus inner, public versus
private, controlled versus free, systematic versus unsystematic, automatic
(mechanical) versus willed (purposive), prediction versus understanding,
expl ained-by-reference-to-causal -law versus understood-by-reference-to-intenti ons,
general versus constructed, value-free versus value-saturated, formal versus
informal, materialist versus idealist, one versus many, instrumental versus
symbolic, motion versus action, the natural sciences versus the humanities
(Shweder, 1986, p. 177)

Jensen summarizes all these dichotomies by saying, "Communication studies have tended

to take either an external perspective on information as a technical, neutral carrier, or an

internal perspective on meaning as an always interpreted and interested construct" (2002,

p. 256). Quantitative methods study the outside of communication and qualitative

methods study the inside of communication.

Exterior approaches deal with obj ective surfaces and interior approaches deal with

subjective depth. As Wilber points out, "surfaces can be seen, depth must be interpreted"

(1996, p. 91). Thus, descriptive, experimental, functional, and behavioral analyses

abound in the exterior approach, all of which could be characterized as quantitative and









monologicall." The core research question of external, quantitative methods asks, "What

does it do?" (Wilber, 2000b, p. 132). Quantitative methods in communication research

include surveys, descriptive content analyses, controlled experiments, and statistical data

analyses (Gunter, 2002, p. 209; Stacks, 2002). Systems theory exemplifies such a model

that details the external structure and function of the communication process, but remains

silent on the internal dynamics of meaning creation.

In contrast, the basic research question of internal, qualitative methods asks, "What

does it mean?" Meaning cannot be studied through a monological gaze, only through

dialogical interaction. Researchers investigate interior phenomena with a wide array of

qualitative methods such as ethnography, interpretive content analysis, interview, case

study, discourse analysis, focus group, and phenomenological investigation (Thomas,

2003; Daymon and Holloway, 2002). Hermeneutics (the study of interpretation based on

grasping the entire network of meaning) and semiotics (the study of signs in their

intersubj ective settings) are examples of traditions that uncover interior (subj ective and

intersubj ective) meaning creation processes.

According to the purists of two decades ago, "these positions do not seem to be

compatible given our present state of thinking" (Smith, 1983, p. 12). During the war of

methods, many scholars supported the "incompatibility thesis" and even suggested

"shutting down" the seemingly incommensurable dialogue between the two camps

(Smith and Heshusius, 1986). Participants were called "warriors" and "sumo wrestlers

trying to push each other out of the ring" (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998, 6; Datta, 1994,

p. 53). Littlejohn, a strong advocate of methodological pluralism, remarked, "What is

particularly unfortunate .. is the methodological defensiveness that often arises among










theorists in communication. It is a healthy sign when researchers and theorists possess a

degree of self-respect and confidence in their approaches. But when this confidence turns

into parochialism of inquiry, then the state of the art is less than healthy" (1978, p. 21).

Specializing in a particular research method is fine. Claiming that that method uncovers

the whole truth is not.

External Reductionism

Failure to include findings from both internal and external methods when

formulating a new theory results in a limited and reductionistic theory--limited because it

leaves out at least half the story and reductionistic because it attempts to cover the gap by

artificially reducing reality to its favored domain. Both methodological approaches,

internal and external, succumb to reductionism by ignoring the other approach and

unsuccessfully stretching its own capacities. External reductionism reached its zenith

during modernity's "reflection" or "representational" paradigm, which held that "the

sensorimotor world is simply given to us in direct experience and that science carefully

and systematically reports what it there finds" (Wilber, 2000b, p. 208).

The "myth of the given" lies at the heart of modernity's reflection paradigm.

According to this myth, reality is simply given to sensing subjects. Researchers who hold

this myth of the given deny existence to everything lacking simple location, in other

words, everything interior. Descriptive behavior and function trump constructed values

and meaning for the external researcher. Supporters of external reductionism have a

difficult time accounting for communication among subj ective moral agents within an

intersubjective cultural space. Many terms describe the consequences of external

reductionism: the disenchantment of nature, the disqualified universe, monological

nature, and flatland. All of these terms point to a lack of depth, a denial of interiority.









Michel Foucault describes such theoretical extremism as a dehumanization process where

men and women became "obj ects of information, never subj ects in communication"

(Foucault in Wilber, 1996, p. 269). Language becomes a tool that merely points to and

represents an a priori or pregiven obj ective reality. Like a mirror of nature, language

transparently and neutrally reflects the world.

We realize that meaning resides not in messages but in people, but we seem to have

continuing difficulty accommodating this fact in our models and theories of the human

communication process. The notion that words or statements 'refer to' something in the

'real' world is the most naive and primitive concept of human communication there is,

yet in some quarters it is still the guiding paradigm. (Thayer, 1972, p. 102)

The reflection paradigm flattens the meaning creation process inherent in subj ect to

subject communicative exchange into one-dimensional cybernetic information transfers.

Communication from the Right Hand perspective might appear as "flatland digital bits of

zeros and ones slammed from one mechanical device to another" (Wilber, 2003a).

Exterior communication models sacrifice depth for surface, meaning for observation,

subj ective for obj ective, interior for exterior.

Systems theory exemplifies a communication tradition that often gives the

illusionary impression of being comprehensive and integral, yet suffers from massive

external reductionism. "Today a system approach," remarks Littlejohn, "is often

assumed in communication theory. It is often taken for granted in much of the work of

the field without being labeled as such" (1999, p. 58). The aim of general systems

theory--founded by the biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy--is to understand the totality

of interactions among elements rather than linear causal sequences and to grasp the










complexity of systems as dynamic wholes made up of many changing relationships

(Bertalanffy, 1968; Mattelart and Mattelart, 1998, p. 47).

At its core, systems theory deals with "wholeness" and "relationships" unlike

previous scientific methods that "tried to explain observable phenomena by reducing

them to an interplay of elementary units investigatable independently of each other"

(Bertalanffy, 1968, p. 36-37). Likewise, Erwin Laszlo says "instead of looking at one

thing at a time, and noting its behavior when exposed to one other thing, the [system]

sciences now look at a number of different and interacting things and note their behavior

as a whole under diverse influences" (1996, p. 4). Most system theorists point to the

realization that "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" or holismm" as the guiding

insight of systems thinking. Fritj of Capra charts the so-called transition from "the

mechanistic to the ecological paradigm" in The Web ofLife:

The basic tension is one between the parts and the whole. The emphasis on the
parts has been called mechanistic, reductionist, or atomistic; the emphasis on the
whole holistic, organismic, or ecological. In twentieth-century science the holistic
perspective has become known as 'systemic' and the way of thinking it implies as
'systems thinking.' (1996, p. 17)

Although the differentiation between "atomistic: (exterior-individual quadrant) and

"holistic" (exterior-collective quadrant) proves essential in any integral theory, it remains

radically partial. Systems theory masterfully articulates one-third of the story--the

lower-right quadrant, while virtually ignoring the other three-fourths of reality.

Systems theory, like any purely external approach, features a limited set of

quantitative methods: behavioral, functional, organizational, structural, instrumental,

empirical, descriptive. Brent Reuben reasons that "general systems is a science of

organizing and organization," and "since communication is the means through which

human organizing and organization occur, it occupies a central role in general system










thinking" (1972, p. 95). Reuben goes on to make many helpful theoretical distinctions,

yet all within the same external framework. For instance, he cites the central research

question of information systems as "How does it work?" a functional question and the

primary research question of communication systems as "How are people using it?" a

behavioral and instrumental question (1972, p. 110). The questions asked by system

theorists consistently fail to escape the external frame.

Ron Pearson encounters severe theoretical difficulties when he asks internal

questions of meaning and morality within a systems theory framework (1990, p. 219).

Pearson argues that systems theory contains both a strategic, external dimension and an

ethical, internal dimension. Yet no where in the article does Pearson demonstrate how

values and morality follow from the actual systems model itself. At best, he makes the

unfounded assertion that "system interdependence and interconnectedness have profound

ethical implications" (1990, p. 224). While this might be true for some, the fact remains

that the system model, being external, objective, and descriptive, carries no intrinsic

moral imperatives. Any ethical implications and values generated from system theory's

behavioral descriptions occur within an individual's subj activity, which only exists

within a particular intersubj ective cultural context. Saddam Hussein, Pat Robertson,

Donald Trump, and Ralph Nader could each read about systems theory and each carry

away different "ethical implications." Pearson extracted a specific meaning from systems

theory, a meaning that others may or may not find. The point is that the meaning arose

within Pearson himself, and it is precisely this internal meaning-making process that

systems theory does not address. Meaning does not simply sit in a theory waiting for

someone to find it as the reflection paradigm would have it. Put bluntly, systems theory










has no intrinsic "ethical face." Ethical implications come only from the moral agents

who engage the theory.

Internal Reductionism

While external reductionism studies obj ective reality with quantitative

methodologies, internal reductionism focuses exclusively on subjective reality and

qualitative methodologies. Consider the assumptions of the "Cultural Topoi" model

(Leichty and Wamner, 2001, p. 61-65):

* "Meaning and interpretation are the central processes of all communication
activities."

* "Organizational environments are dynamic cultural processes constituted by
symbols, beliefs, rituals, and cultural norms."

* "Communications is conditioned by cultural discourse and contributes to the same
discourse system."

* "Cultural topoi--systemic lines of assumptions and arguments that reinforce a
preferred pattern of social relationships--drive message production and message
interpretation."

* "The credibility of a message depends on how closely it matches with the
receiver' s cultural bias, the set of shared values and beliefs about human society
and the natural world."

* "Publics are an ongoing process of agreement upon an interpretation, having their
own goals, processes, and dynamics that are internally generated."

Notice that systems theory shares none of these assumptions. The model places

total importance on the interior dynamics of communication. As such, qualitative

methods become the only acceptable research options.

Approaches that admit interiors exist become reductionistic when carried to the

extreme assertion that interiors alone exist. Internal reductionists claim that nothing

exists aside from subjective interpretations--no obj ective truth, only interpretations, and

all interpretations are socially constructed (Wilber, 2000a, p. 185).










Largely from the concern of some humanists with human communication--there is
the tradition of assuming the central issue to be one of 'understanding' or of
'meaning.' From this point of view, the end of all human communication is
understanding. The study of human communication has more than once in man's
intellectual history been reduced to the study of meaning. This approach is equally
misleading. The meaning of 'Crime doesn't pay' depends upon whether one is a
criminal or not. (Thayer, 1972, p. 102)

Post-structuralism, deconstructive postmodernism, or deconstructionism generally name

the extreme view that reduces reality to subj activity alone. Deconstructionists attack both

science and traditional philosophy's attempts to make statements about the obj ective

world (Spretnak, 1991). The attack consists of "deconstructing" an objective statement

by finding contexts that render the statement self-contradictory or absurd (Derrida, 1996).

Since meaning is context-bound and contexts are limitless, the deconstructionists can

always find a further interconnected context that alters the present meaning, thus

disregarding all supposedly objective declarations (Wilber, 2000a).

Communication scholar Thomas Mickey draws on postmodern theory to offer

additional avenues where interiority and communication meet. Rejecting the reflection

paradigm, he assumes that "language is the key creator of the social worlds people

experience, not a tool for describing an objective reality" (1997, p. 274). Mickey goes on

to cite the work of Jean Baudrillard, one of the most blatant perpetrators of internal

reductionism. Baudrillard refers to our present time as the order of simulation (1993).

For him, contemporary society is organized around "simulation and the play of images

and signs, denoting a situation in which codes, models, and signs are the organizing

principles of a new social order where simulation rules" (Kellner, 1994, p. 8).

Communication, economics, politics, social life, fashion, and death are all governed by

the logic of simulation (Baudrillard, 1993). Objective reality becomes lost in self-

referential signs:









As simulations proliferate, they come to refer only to themselves: a carnival of
mirrors reflecting images proj ected from other mirrors onto the omnipresent
television screen and the screen of consciousness, which in turn refers the images
to its previous storehouse of images also produced by simulatory mirrors. (Kellner,
1994, p. 10)

For Baudrillard, obj ective truth has a fleeting status if any at all. Ever-present simulation

becomes the hyperreal, an experience that appears "more real than real" for the subj ect

(Kellner, 1994, p. 8). That is to say representation can now operate without ever having

to land on the solid ground of facts, reality, or history (Ward, 1997, p. 62). The more

people "flee from the 'desert of the real' for the ecstasies of hyperreality," the more the

originally true real loses its ontological presence.

From Baudrillard's philosophy, Mickey concludes that the activities of

communications are simulations "substituting the signs of the real for reality itself. ..

[Mass communications] is involved with something called an image that has no reality

behind it. We create an image and the public, frequently through the media, centers on

that sign, not on what they might think is a reality behind it. Because, as Baudrillard

says, there is no reality behind the sign" (1997, p. 81). Internal reductionism flourishes in

this approach because it denies ontological reality to the external and attempts to stretch

internal phenomena beyond its categorical capacity.

Mixing with Pragmatism

Aside from some anachronistic rebels, the war of methods has cooled.

Contemporary communication researchers--despite their personal biases and

professional specializations-generally admit that both qualitative and quantitative

methods have something important to offer. Indeed, most scholars today see these two

methodologies as "complementary rather than antagonistic" (Thomas, 2003, p. 6). A

senior researcher at the World Bank says, "it is now widely acknowledged that there are










considerable benefits to be gained from combining quantitative and qualitative methods"

(Bamberger, 2000, p. 16). A research team comments, "Neither quantitative nor

qualitative research is superior to the other. .. The best [research] often combines

features of each" (King, Koehane, and Verba, 1994, p. 7). When asked the rhetorical

question, "Can quantitative and qualitative data collection methods and forms be used in

the same study?" another social scientist resoundingly answers, "Absolutely yes, we do it

all the time and the integration greatly enriches our studies" (emphasis added) (Hedrick,

1994, p. 49). Today, the "war" has cooled to an eclectic peace keeping mission, but can

the current state-of-affairs accurately be labeled "integration?"

Terms such as "mixing," "blending," and triangulatingg" better describe recent

attempts to utilize multiple methodologies in the same research project. Although these

techniques cannot be called "integral," they contain certain advantages over monomethod

approaches. After reviewing 57 mixed method studies, a team of scholars list five central

advantages to "mixing methods" (Greene, J., V. Caracelli, and W. Graham, 1989):

1. triangulation, or seeking convergence of results

2. complementarity, or examining overlapping and different facets of a phenomenon

3. initiation, or discovering paradoxes, contradictions, and fresh perspectives

4. development, or using the methods sequentially, such that results from the first
method inform the use of the second method

5. expansion, or mixed methods adding breadth and scope to a proj ect

Take triangulation, for example, which arose from the work of Campbell and Fiske

(1959), later refined by Webb, Campbell, Schwartz, and Sechrest (1966), and then

applied to wider areas by Denzin (1978). Put simply, methodological triangulation

involves studying the same phenomenon from at least two different perspectives, often









internal (using qualitative methods and data) and external (using quantitative methods

and data). Researchers who use triangulation find that they come to know a phenomenon

better when they study it from more than one perspective.

The paradigm war cooled because researchers came to realize that mixing methods

works. The practice continues to grow in popularity, despite its philosophical impotence.

No mixed-methodology researcher has offered a coherent framework that extinguishes

the epistemological frictions that originally fueled the war. Instead, they turn to

pragmatism, a philosophy that essentially says, "Do what works." In his book Blending

Oualitative and Ouantitative Research M~ethods, Thomas writes,

The perspective I espouse throughout this book is in keeping with the rationale
offered by .. authors who often adopt the philosopher' s label pragmatism to
identify a mixed-methodology perspective. Consequently, the significant issue is
not whether one method is overall superior to another, but rather, whether the
method a researcher employs can yield convincing answers to the questions that the
investigation is intended to settle. .. I am convinced that each research method is
suited to answering certain types of questions but not appropriate to answering
other types. (2003, p. 7)

Similarly, in M\~ixed M~ethodology, Tashakkori and Teddie assert, "We accept the

assumptions implicit within paradigm relativism and assume that the paradigm wars are

over, having been superseded by the pragmatist orientation." (1998, p. 5). The

pragmatism justification appears not only in academia, but also in practice. Mahesh

Patel, the UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund) regional monitoring and evaluation

officer for Eastern and Southern Africa, comments, "We start with the programmatic

decisions that need to be made, determine what information is needed to make those

decisions, and then work out the best way to obtain that information. Different methods

are used for different purposes. Sometimes, several different methods may be used

together .. including qualitative and quantitative methods" (2000, p. 135).










Pragmatism may offer a philosophy for methodological mixing, but not

methodological integration. For pragmatists, truth is merely what works. It asks final

questions and ignores primary questions. It endorses methodological pluralism

instrumentally, based on its utility alone as opposed to a philosophy of integral embrace.

By itself, pragmatism avoids the deep questions necessary for an integral methodological

pluralism to occur. Pragmatism says, "Do it because it works." Integralism says, "Here's

why it works--so do it!"

Some researchers see that pragmatism cleverly circumvents fundamental

methodological conflicts rather than solves them. Datta refers to what she calls "mixed-

up models," that come from the "lack of a worldview, paradigm, or theory for mixed-

model studies," concluding that "such a theory has yet to be fully articulated" (1994, p.

59). Bamberger states that "despite increasing eclecticism in the combination of data

collection methods, there is much less integration at the level of the conceptual

framework and the overall research approach" (2000, p. 16). Finally, Egon Guba-who

once stated that one paradigm precludes the other "just as surely as the belief in a round

world precludes belief in a flat one"-now admits that "a resolution of paradigm

differences can occur only when a new paradigm emerges that is more informed and

sophisticated than any existing one" (Guba, 1987, p. 23; Guba and Lincoln, 1994, p.

116). The next section takes on Guba's challenge and introduces the (meta)methodology

of integral studies.

The Quans and Quals Meet the Quads

Misunderstanding has surrounded the word "paradigm" since Thomas Kuhn first

introduced the concept (1996). Kuhn's notion of "paradigm" means a practical

injunction, a methodology, an actual practice. A paradigm refers to a specific set of









techniques taken as an exemplar for generating data (Wilber, 1999b, p. 192). Put another

way, a paradigm designates the methodologies that enact, bring forth, or illuminate a

specific phenomenological worldspace or way ofbeing-in-the-world (Wilber, 2002a).

Theories and paradigms, therefore, are not the same thing. Wilber explains the

difference, "A theory is a map of a territory, while a paradigm is a practice that brings

forth a territory in the first place" (Wilber, 2002a).

Integral communication endorses a united multiplicity of paradigms or a meta-

paradigm called "integral methodological pluralism."

'Integral,' in that the pluralism is not a mere eclecticism or grab bag of unrelated
paradigms, but a meta-paradigm that weaves together its many threads into an
integral tapestry, a unity-in-diversity that slights neither the unity nor the diversity.
'Methodological,' in that this is a real paradigm or set of actual practices and
behavioral injunctions to bring forth an integral territory, not merely a new holistic
theory or maps without any territory. And 'pluralism' in that there is no one
overriding or privileged injunction (other than to be radically all-inclusive).
(Wilber, 2002a)

Integral methodological pluralism first involves compiling the primary paradigms or

methodologies used by the accepted communication traditions. This first step--

characteristic of any methodological pluralism--collects the maj or methods within a

discipline without judgement, assuming that if researchers use a time-tested method, it

must contain some degree of heuristic truth value.

The second meta-paradigmatic step separates integral methodological pluralism

from mere eclecticism. Integrating paradigms means relating the various paradigmatic

strands to each other with an integral model such as AQAL (even though a meta-

paradigm precedes a meta-model). Wilber expresses paradigmatic integration in more

philosophical terms:

A meta-paradigmatic practice enacts a new domain upon the individually-enacted
paradigmatic domains, such that their individually-enacted phenomena overlap,









their brought-forth horizons merge to some degree, and there is enacted upon the
enacted phenomena--and accordingly there is brought forth, illumined, and most
fundamentally disclosed--a new territory or domain of integral relationships. In
other words, this is a paradigms of paradigms, which means .. a practice of
practices and not a theory of theories. (2002a)

The integral approach explains philosophically what is already being done pragmatically.

The primary injunction or essence of the integral proj ect assumes that "everybody is

right." No paradigm practiced by earnest researchers can be 100 percent wrong.

AQAL-a meta-model generated from an integral methodological pluralism--

incorporates and honors all paradigms premodernn, modern, and postmodern) as

legitimate. From this general premise that "everyone is right" comes three heuristic

principles of integral methodological pluralism.

The first principle of"nonexclusion" states that a paradigm can tell its truth but

cannot exclude the truth of other legitimately enacted paradigms. A method can only

claim legitimacy within the worldspace that it enacts. An integral meta-model "frees a

paradigm by limiting it," meaning that "with any integral orientation, the already existing

boundaries of a particular paradigm become more obvious, and thus when operating

within those bounds, the pronouncements of a particular paradigm become even more

believable while pronouncements outside its bounds become even less so" (Wilber,

2002a). In this way, all paradigms can exist together within the AQAL framework with

none being reduced to or derived from the others.

"Unfoldment," the second principle, points out that all paradigms are "true but

partial." Every paradigm offers a partial truth when addressing the phenomena enacted

by that particular paradigm. The important question does not ask which paradigms are

right and which are wrong, but rather what type of integral framework can find a place

for the partial truth of them all? Furthermore, within the same worldspace line, some










paradigms can be more encompassing than others. What level is a paradigm enacting?

Paradigms unfold or develop in holonic ("transcend and include") fashion. This is why

Kuhn, for example, "maintained both that science is progressive and cumulative and that

it also shows certain breaks or discontinuities (new injunctions bring forth new data)"

(Wilber, 1999b, p. 192). The unfoldment principle shows that "everybody can be right

because some views are more right than others" (Wilber, 2002a).

Finally, the "enactment" principle recognizes the myth of the given by asserting

that subjects do not perceive phenomena but enact them (Wilber, 2002a). Human

subj activity and intersubj activity play an undeniable role in bringing forth a

phenomenological world in the activity of knowing that world. As Chapter 5

demonstrates, different levels of psychological development experience different (yet

equally legitimate) worlds. Paradigms never compete for dominance in one preexisting

world. Instead, multiple paradigms bring forth multiple worlds. These three heuristic

principles-nonexclusion, unfoldment, and enactment--buttress an integral

methodological pluralism where everybody is right.

Consider that each communicative act is a holon. Generally speaking, qualitative

paradigms enact the interior of a holon and quantitative methods enact the exterior of a

holon. More specifically, each communication holon, or, as Habermas maintains, each

speech act, relates to at least four worlds. Every communication always already exists in

relation to an individual's consciousness, an intersubj ective relationship, a syntax or

social structure, and a behavioral extension. Specialized methods are already being used

to enact and investigate each of these four worldspaces. Using both quantitative and

qualitative methods to investigate the same communicative act "works" because it enacts









the four worldspaces, the four ontological faces, the four angles of manifestation of every

communication holon. Integral methodological pluralism begins by introducing the

QUANs and the QUALs to the QUADs.

Those paradigm purists who would like to continue the war, such as Guba and

Lincoln, cite disharmonies that have not existed since logical positivism was discredited

in the mid-twentieth century (Guba and Lincoln, 1985; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998).

For example, both qualitative and quantitative paradigms agree on the unfoldment

principle's insight that truth is always partial (Reichardt and Rallis, 1994, p. 87). Both

Karl Popper (1959) and Thomas Kuhn (1996), for instance, loathe the notion of a final

static truth. Also, both paradigms acknowledge the Left Hand (upper-left and lower-left

quadrants) in admitting the "value-ladenness of inquiry" and the "theory-ladenness of

facts" (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998, p. 8; Reichardt and Rallis, 1994, p. 86-88). Few

researchers today would refute that, to at least some degree, their theories and values help

direct their inquiry and decide what is important. The causes of the paradigm wars are

those paradigm purists, those internal and external reductionists, who violate the

nonexclusion principle and pass off their partial truth as the whole truth.

Two seemingly intractable problems for paradigm purists involve epistemological

(the relationship of the knower to the known) and ontological (the nature of reality)

incommensurability among methods. Regarding epistemology, quantitative researchers

tend to have a more subj ect to object relationship orientation and qualitative researches

often favor a subject to subject relationship. The integral framework clearly recognizes

and includes both the obj ective (Right Hand) and subj ective (Left Hand) epistemological

orientations. While the knower and known do exist together, and the subj ect must be










included in an inquiry experience, a subject-object relationship is still possible. With an

integral methodological pluralism, a researcher has the freedom to enact an internal

worldspace by interacting subj ectively and other times to enact an external worldspace by

viewing a communicative event more obj ectively.

Paradigm reductionists cite the one world versus many worlds ontological debate as

further evidence for paradigmatic incommensurability. External reductionists believe

that one obj ective world exists and deny subj activity's ability to construct interpretations.

Internal reductionists believe that multiple worlds are subj ectively constructed and deny

an objective world. Again, an integral methodological pluralism can easily integrate both

of these perspectives. Left Hand practices enact multiple worlds. One's levels, lines,

states, and types will influence the interpretation he places on phenomenological

experience. If he engages a practice that transforms his current level of development, he

will experience a new interpretative world. As Wilber says, "Change your practice and

you will see a different world" (Wilber, 2002a). However, just because a subject always

interprets, does not mean that one physical world does not exist. The entire Right Hand

of the quadrants models the objective and interobjective worldspaces. External referents

surely exist. An external researcher cannot deny interpretation any more than an interior

researcher can "construct" a world where apples fall up. The integral resolution, in short,

says that although the one obj ective world cannot contain many worlds, human

consciousness can.

When an inquiring consciousness understands that every communication event

occurs seamlessly within AQAL space, a lush territory of integral relationships emerges

from a diversity of enactment methods. Charges of incommensurability no longer make









sense. Paradigmatic integration can happen only by focusing on the enactment practices

themselves, not the phenomena brought forth by the practices. Phenomena that appear to

conflict, instead become merely "different (and fully compatible) experiences brought

forth by different practices" (Wilber 2002a). Littlejohn recognized the beginnings of

integral methodological pluralism in 1978 when he advocated four methods of inquiry:

"experience" and "art" (Left Hand") and "science" and "scholarship" (Right Hand). He

said, "it is important to realize that each of the ways of di scovery is valuable in its own

right. Certain kinds of knowledge are best obtained through one or the other of them, and

a complete approach to truth must include a blend of all four methods" (p. 5).















CHAPTER 4
SOCIAL SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS

Communication Traits as Real

In positing an integral meta-model and meta-paradigm, a new type of critical theory

presents itself. Integral critical theory scrutinizes present conditions through a lens of

radical inclusion, inherently critical of areas that are, by comparison, partial, narrow,

shallow, less encompassing, less integrative (Wilber, 2000c, p. 2). The above

investigations into external and internal reductionism exemplify an integral critical theory

at work. This same critical lens now turns to social science. Robert Kegan, a professor

of adult learning and professional development at the Harvard Graduate School of

Education and a founding member of the Integral Institute, challenges the social sciences

to "grow up" as it faces a difficult crossroads on the way to a more integral orientation:

The social sciences in contemporary culture are at a crossroads. Will they continue
to be essentially a puny force, founded on no civilization of their own, borrowing
from, and buffeted by the powerful civilizations of science [Right Hand] and the
humanities [Left Hand]? Will the social sciences continue to be reminiscent of
Freud's hapless infantile ego, appearing to be a player in personality but in reality
swamped by the contending forces of conscience and desire? Or will the social
sciences grow up and, like the mature conception of the ego, become capable of
integrating the contending powers and thereby creating a third original force that
can really be a player in human personality or contemporary culture? (1994, p. 9)

Reconstructing and cultivating this "third original force," particularly within the

sociopsychological tradition, will be a first step towards an integral strategy for effective

communication.

When attempting to study internal communicative phenomena, positivistic social

scientists use a theoretical tool called a "communication trait," which could represent










anything from instincts to cognition to values. These flatland theorists define a

communication trait as

a hypothetical construct which accounts for certain kinds of communicative
behaviors. A hypothetical construct is a concept which is thought to represent
reality, to structure reality and to give it meaning. Researchers invent hypothetical
constructs for a purpose--to explain communicative events. (Infante, Rancer,
Womack, 1993, p. 140)

The external reductionism inherent in much social science research reveals itself in the

above description. The implicit ontological assumption states that something counts as

real only if one can touch, taste, hear, see, or smell it. A research example: "We do not

subscribe to the notion of values as 'real'. in our approach the concept of values is a

hypothetical construct used as a heuristic device by us, as researchers" (Deth and

Scarbrough, 1995, p. 40-41). Positivistic researchers working within a flatland

epistemology would regard love as nothing more than a "hypothetical construct" that

could never really be proven. Such assumptions classically illustrate external

reducti oni sm.

Recall that external phenomena possess "simple location" and can be directly

witnessed by the material senses. For instance, I can easily observe someone's

communicative behavior and measure it with quantitative rigor. For external phenomena,

the basic research questions are "What does it look like?" or "What does it do?"

However, the instant researchers begin probing beneath exterior services--asking

qualitative questions like "Why?" or "What does it mean?" or "What does it feel like?"--

they are pointing to internal phenomena, which lack simple location and cannot be

directly observed. The feeling of love is an internal phenomenon that cannot be

empirically seen, but obviously exists.










An integral methodological pluralism would quickly spot the limitations inherent to

a positivistic research program. Studying internal phenomena through an external,

monological paradigm violates the nonexclusion principle of integral methodological

pluralism. A flatland paradigm can measure the exterior correlates of an internal

phenomenon but can never enact or bring forth the interior phenomenon itself. Instead of

declaring interior events to be illusionary constructs, an integral methodological

pluralism would engage the qualitative practices that illuminate them, realizing that

different worldspaces have different, yet equally legitimate, enactment methods.

The maj ority of social scientists today grant existence to both internal and external

phenomena. Richard Perloff assures that most contemporary communication scholars

deem it a mistake to "assume that .. [internal phenomena] are 'not real' or are 'mere

mental constructs' (1993, p. 27). The current consensus in social science, Perloff reports,

believes that "people have thoughts, cognitive structures, and a variety of emotions, none

of which can be reduced to behavioral units. Moreover, they argue that an entity that is

mental or emotional is no less 'real' than a physical behavior" (1993, p. 27). "The bulk

of current communication scientists," concludes Charles Pavitt, "presume the reality and

causal power of the mentalistic concepts their theories employ" (1999, p. 184). Jensen

sums up the position by saying, "Experiences, events, and mechanisms are all real"

(2002, p. 269). The remainder of this chapter examines three "real" internal mechanisms

that affect communication and that will be used later in an integral strategy of effective

communication.

Knowing Attitudes

Attitudes have been called "the most prominent .. construct in the history of the

social sciences" and "the most distinctive and indispensable [concept] in contemporary









American social psychology" (Infante, Rancer, Womack, 1993, p. 141; Allport, 1954).

Virtually any decent textbook on communication theory contains an ample section on

attitudes (Bryant and Zillman, 2002; Littlejohn, 2002; Severin and Tankard, 2001).

Definitions vary, but they all suggest that an attitude describes a predisposition or an

evaluation of something (Severin and Tankard, 2001, p. 151). Most scholars would agree

to the general definition of an attitude as "a learned, enduring, and affective evaluation of

an obj ect (a person, entity, or idea) that exerts a directive on social behavior" (Perloff,

1993, p. 27). Simple evaluations such as "good-bad, harmful-beneficial, pleasant-

unpleasant, and likable-dislikable" represent attitudes (Ajzen, 2001).

Attitudes have achieved such prominence in the social sciences due to the widely

held assumption that a person's attitudes affect that person's behaviors (Petty, Priester,

Brinol, 2002, p. 158). Although the relationship between attitudes and behaviors requires

more study, social scientists generally admit that knowing a person's attitudes helps to

predict her behavior. Most attitudes reveal themselves explicitly within one's direct

awareness: "I like strawberries, and I dislike lima beans." Disregarding additional factors

in this simple example, one would expect the subj ect to engage in strawberry eating

behavior before lima bean eating behavior. This link with behavioral prediction gives

attitudinal research importance in the eyes of social scientists.

Daniel Katz theorizes a second relevant relationship, this time between attitudes

and opinions (1960, p. 168). Simply put, attitudes are internal phenomena and opinions

are external phenomena. The instant an attitude (internal, private) is expressed, it

becomes an opinion (external, public). Given this distinction, surveys--the most utilized

method in attitudinal research--actually capture opinions, not attitudes. In a section









titled "Measuring What You Cannot See," Stacks points to the Likert-type scale and the

semantic differential-type scale as two primary survey techniques that purport to measure

attitudes (2002, p. 134). Along with many others, he claims that since survey data can be

quantified in a statistically meaningful way, surveys fall under the quantitative approach

(Neuman, 1994; Gunter, 2002; Stacks, 2002). Respondents transfer their internal or

private attitudes onto an external or public scale. Surveys attempt to quantify a

qualitative event.

An integral methodological pluralism demonstrates the philosophical difficulties

surrounding "measuring what you cannot see" or enacting internal phenomena with

external methods. Since opinions are publicly expressed attitudes, surveys technically

measure opinions--the Right Hand correlate of a Left Hand event. Despite complex

statistical computing, the fact remains that publicly expressing a private experience

requires interpretation. Nevertheless, the interpretive factor in attitudinal surveys is

slight. Making an attitude public by means of an opinion survey requires little (but still

some) interpretation. The inner experience of simple attitudes (like/dislike, good/bad,

pleasant-unpleasant) can readily be expressed in a survey due to their transparency and

accessibility to conscious awareness. In short, people complete opinion surveys with

little difficulty because they immediately know their explicit attitudes. Hence, some

exterior correlates of internal phenomena are easier to measure than others, and opinions

are one of the easiest. Perhaps this explains, in part, why the social sciences put such an

incredible amount of time, energy, and money in attitude/opinion research.

Beyond the Lamppost

Consider the story of the man who walks home at dusk through a forest path.

Finally, he approaches his house. A lamppost lights the area directly surrounding the










residence. The man approaches the door, fumbles in his pocket, and realizes his keys

were lost along the way. For hours, he unsuccessfully scrutinizes the illuminated area

directly around his house, searching in vain for his keys. Eventually the man's wife

arrives at the house and he tells her the dilemma. When she questions why he didn't try

searching the rest of the path, the man quickly answers, "Because the light is brightest

here."

Integral methodological pluralism challenges social science to venture beyond the

lamppost. Max Horkheimer once said, "The need to limit oneself to absolutely certain

data, the tendency to discredit any research on the essence of phenomena as

'metaphysics,' may force empirical social research to restrict itself to the non-essential in

the name of that which cannot be a source of controversy" (1972). Just because a

research method is "brightly lit" in the empirical sense and easy to quantify with little

interpretive distortion, does not mean it is the most relevant or contains the most

explanatory depth. Often, the "easiest" approaches tend to be the most shallow and

trivial.

Most attitude researchers would generally admit that altering attitudes through

communication is difficult (Petty, Priester, Brinol, 2002, p. 188; Severin and Tankard

2001, p. 179). Perhaps a key to effective communication lies a bit further up the path. If

attitudes generally precede behaviors, then what generally precedes attitudes? Although

this question may require us to venture beyond an area deemed brightly lit by social

science, the possibility of finding a key makes the risk acceptable, even welcomed.

The first key along the path appears to be values, the mother of attitudes. In basic

terms, values tell what someone considers to be most important. Values guide the










meaning-making process that creates specific attitudes. Milton Rokeach, among the most

prominent value researchers in the social sciences, agrees that a value "has a

transcendental quality to it, guiding actions, attitudes, judgements, and comparisons

across specific obj ects and situations beyond immediate goals to more ultimate goals"

(1973, p. 18). Rokeach is far from alone in asserting such a relationship between values

and attitudes:

* "Attitudes will be based on underlying values" (Kilby, 1993, p. 38).

* "One's attitude toward a specific obj ect or condition in a specific situation seems to
be a function of the way one conceives that obj ect from the standpoint of its effects
on one's most cherished values" (Woodruff and Divesta, 1948, p. 657).

* "Values are more global and general than attitudes. a terminal value may
underlie a number of quite specific attitudes" (Perloff, 1993, p. 29).

* "Attitudes are focused on some specified obj ect or situation, while values transcend
them. Since values are also considered standards, applying to all kinds of
situations, they are believed to occupy a more central position than attitudes within
one's personality makeup and cognitive system" (Werder, 2002, p. 44).

* Values are "the most important and central elements in a person's system of
attitudes and beliefs" (Oskamp, 1977).

* Values shape "our likes, dislikes, preferences, prejudices, and social attitudes ..
[and make] it possible for us to say what is good and what is bad" (Mandler, 1993,
p. 233).

* "Values are more general than attitudes. This approach allows us to conceptualize
values not as stimuli but, rather, as underlying orientations, which are relevant for,
or inform the process of, arriving at attitudes" (Deth and Scarbrough, 1995, p. 32).

* "A value is an organized set of related attitudes" (Thompson, 1975, p. 221).

* "When specific attitudes are organized into a hierarchical structure, they comprise
vahtes systems" (Katz, 1960, p. 168).

Articulated in different ways, these researchers view values as structures that influence

specific attitudes. Many researchers go on to make the logical claim that values help

predict behavior through their role in attitudinal formation (Deth and Scarbrough, 1995,










p. 33; Petty, Wegener, Fabrigar, 1997, p. 609; McLeod, Sotirovic, Holbert, 1998, p. 453).

Despite the numerous other factors that contribute to attitudes and behaviors (cognitive

processing for example), the basic conclusion can be made that values play a crucial role

that deserves wider recognition within communication studies.

Despite the significance of values, communication social scientists have largely

marginalized them from their standard research agenda.

A review of the literature produced during the relatively brief history of mass
communication research will not reveal many direct references to values. Despite
several encouraging developments over the past 30 years, leading to research that is
more holistic, sociological, processual, and critical than the bulk of the earlier
positivistic work, there are still few systematic, disciplined studies that attempt to
spell out the value implications of the structures and processes investigated.
(Halloran, 2000, p. 13)

Such a perplexing omission could perhaps be attributed to the complex nature of values

research. Unlike attitudinal research, a simple survey often cannot capture the necessary

value data. Values lurk further beneath one's conscious awareness than do attitudes.

Kilby reports that values "vary from clear representation, through degrees of generalness

and vagueness, to not being consciously-articulated at all" (1993, p. 36). Indeed, many

people exhibit difficulties realizing and articulating their personal value orientation--

"sometimes people may not know what their values really are; hence their answers to

probes about values may be unreliable" (Hechter, 1993, p. 11; Converse, 1964).

Applying Kegan' s "subject-obj ect" cognitive theory to value structures could help

explain these challenges (1994). Perhaps a subject cannot fully understand her current

value structure until she moves to a new value structure, only after which she can reflect

on her previous one. The original subject becomes the object of the new subject. More

simply, Ray and Anderson say, "A worldview is to humans as water is to fish. It's the









water we swim it. But only when something, or many things, disrupt our worldview does

it become visible" (Ray and Anderson, 2000, p. 93).

Social scientists cannot avoid these research obstacles by assuming values from

observed behaviors. An internal phenomenon can never be validly inferred from an

external phenomenon. Put another way, one cannot derive a "why" from a "what" or an

"ought" from an "is," the definition of a logical fallacy first articulated by David Hume

(1957). The value reasoning behind a behavior is the relevant key, not the behavior itself.

Radically different value orientations could produce the exact same behavior. Likewise,

knowing one's attitude about a particular topic does not necessarily predict the person's

values. For example, two people could possess identical attitudes concerning the 2003

war in Iraq using completely different value reasoning (Wilber, 2003b). Hence, values

do not necessarily predict attitudes and behavior over the short run. However, the

predictive power of values does increase over the long run.

None of the above challenges strikes a fatal blow to values research. However,

when approached exclusively from an external, quantitative research perspective they are

disastrous. Behavioral observation and opinion surveys are simply not enough. Perhaps

this explains why many quantitatively oriented social scientists shy away from values

inquiry. A research volume produced by the European Science Foundation and Oxford

University reached similar conclusions, admitting the "widely held assumption in the

social sciences that values are at the root of behaviour, [yet] "despite that, in comparison

with the attitude-behaviour axis, the influence of values on political behaviour is

relatively poorly researched--perhaps due to the behavioral orientations of political

science" (Depth and Scarbrough, 1995, p. 21).









The most powerful and enlightening form of values research requires an integral

methodological pluralism that includes quantitative surveys and experiments in addition

to qualitative interviews, focus groups, discourse analysis, ethnography,

phenomenological analysis and so forth. Some scholars appear to recognize the

importance of triangulated values research, but fail to follow through. For example, after

rightly emphasizing the "intersubj ective nature of values" as "elements in moral

discourse," one research team gives this aside:

Of course, ideally we would want to examine qualitative data which captures the
elements of moral discourse in different domains. However, in the comparative
and national surveys used in this research project, quantitative attitudinal data are
the best measures available to use. (Deth and Scarbrough, 1995, p. 37).

An integral methodological pluralism recommends using approaches epistemologically

appropriate to the specific worldspace under investigation. In the case of value research,

dialogical methods must be included.

Regardless of the methodology, a researcher must always define the obj ect under

investigation. The semantic ambiguity underlying values research often reflects the

"quarrels about definition that have been one of the hallmarks of the social science

enterprise" (Mandler, 1993, p. 233). One scholar discovered 180 different definitions of

"value" after examining 4,000 publications (Deth and Scarbrough, 1995, p. 37). Below

are three examples from social science:

* "A value is a conception, explicit or implicit, distinctive of an individual or
characteristic of a group, of the desirable which influences the selection from
available modes, means, and ends of action." In short, "conceptions of the
desirable" (Kluckhohn, 1954, p. 395).

* "A value is an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of
existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of
conduct or end-state of existence" (Rokeach, 1973, p. 5).










*"Values are non-empirical--that i s, not directly ob servable-conceptions of the
desirable, used in moral discourse, with a particular relevance for behaviour" (Deth
and Scarbrough, 1995, p. 22).

These definitions each touch upon important aspects of values. The next section takes a

step beyond isolated, individual values. At a certain point along the path, one begins to

reflect not only on the individual value trees, but also on the overarching patterns that

connect them. With this wider perspective, the forest of value systems comes into view.

Value Systems as Worldviews

Recall that attitudes tend not to form randomly; values inform or guide attitudes.

Furthermore, many attitudes arise from one underlying value. Stepping back and viewing

an overall attitudinal pattern makes the operative value becomes more apparent. In this

way, a pattern of attitudes helps to identify an underlying value, but does not constitute it.

Individual values do not randomly form either. Values coalesce into recognizable

patterns. So if a patterned set of attitudes suggests a certain underlying value, then what

does a patterned set of values suggest? Scholars have grouped value patterns together in

various ways, giving them names such as value structures, value orientations, value

schemas, and value systems.

I will use the term "worldview" to indicate the underlying macro consciousness

structure that orients individual values into a value system. A literature review published

in Communication Research reports, "Worldviews may be more basic to the development

of other types of beliefs and they are treated as antecedent to [individual] values in the

literature" (McLeod, Sotirovic, and Holbert, 1998, p. 453). The English word

"worldview," first used in 1858, attempts to translate the German word Weltanshauung~tt~~ttt~~tt~~

(Wolters, 1989, p. 15). Immanuel Kant first coined Weltanschauungtt~~ttt~~tt~~ and it soon became

a key word in German Idealism and Romanticism, used by Fiche, Schelling,









Schleiermacher, Hegel, and Goethe (Wolters, 1989, p. 15). In time, thinkers as divergent

as Kierkegaard, Engels, and Dilthey eventually found the term helpful (Marshall,

Griffloen, Mouw, 1989, p. 8-11).

The social science literature defines worldview as "general assumptions about the

world that underlie the way people orient themselves to the environment" (McLeod,

Sotirovic, and Holbert, 1998; Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck, 1961). The American Heritage

dictionary defines worldview as "the overall perspective from which one sees and

interprets the world" (American Heritage, 2000). Miller refers to them as "structural

'filters' through which phenomena are perceived" (1994, p. 148). Kaufman calls a

worldview "an overall framework of interpretation .. which gives meaning to existence"

(1981). Consider this further description from Olthuis:

A worldview (or vision of life) is a framework or set of fundamental beliefs
through which we view the world and our calling and future in it. This vision need
not be fully articulated: it may be so internalized that it goes largely unquestioned;
it may not be explicitly developed into a systematic conception of life; it may not
be theoretically deepened into a philosophy; it may not even be codified into
creedal form; it may be greatly refined through cultural-historical development.
Nevertheless, this vision is a channel for the ultimate beliefs which give direction
and meaning to life. It is the integrative and interpretative framework by which
order and disorder are judged; it is the set of hinges on which all our everyday
thinking and doing turns. (1989, p. 29)

Indeed, worldviews comprise a collective worldspace that says what "We" deem

important, what "We" value.

Wilber designates "worldview" as referring to "the Lower-Left quadrant, or all of

the intersubjective practices, linguistic signs, semantic structures, contexts, and

communal meanings that are generated through shared perceptions and collective

values--in short, 'culture'" (1999a, p. 551). The intersubjective structures of a cultural

worldview, he explains, creates a space within which individual, subj ective experiences









arise. In The Order of things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences, Michel Foucault

makes essentially the same point. He calls his method an archaeology or "an inquiry

whose aim it is to rediscover on what basis knowledge and theory became possible;

within what space of order knowledge was constituted ." (1970, p. xxi-xxii).

Foucault' s archeology seeks to uncover the historical a priori, epistemological field

(episteme), intersubj ective structure, or worldview of a given epoch: "This a priori is

what, in a given period, delimits in the totality of experience a field of knowledge,

defines the mode of being of the obj ects that appear in that field, provides man' s

everyday perception with theoretical powers, and defines the conditions in which he can

sustain a discourse about things that is recognized to be true" (1970, p. 158). For

example, an archeology of language intends to "determine in what conditions language

could become the obj ect of a period' s knowledge, and between what limits this

epistemological domain developed" (1970, p. 119). Wilber and Foucault both articulate

the intimate relationship between the upper-left subj activity and lower-left

intersubj activity, underscoring the assertion that all four quadrants arise together,

mutually interdependent.

Worldviews serve what Clifford Geertz calls a "dual focus" (1973, p. 73). They

function both descriptively and normatively, telling a person what is and what ought to

be. Put another way, "A worldview is both a sketch of and a blueprint for reality"

(Olthuis, 1989, p. 29). No fact carries an inherent value imperative apart from the

interpretive structure already within the observing subject. Divergent value systems

experience different "oughts" from the same "is," regardless of Hume' s "is to ought"









fallacy. As a person's worldview develops, her orientation of and for the Kosmos

expands in its capacity for justice and care, wisdom and compassion.

Dynamics of the Spiral

Habermas describes worldviews as "highly complex formations that are determined

by cognitive, linguistic, and moral-practical forms of consciousness," quickly adding that

"the composition and the interplay of structures is not fixed once and for all" (1979, p.

168). The implication: worldviews evolve in levels from egocentric (self-centered) to

ethnocentric (group-centered) to worldcentric (global-centered) (Habermas, 1979, p. 99-

100). A worldview is a holon--a whole which is simultaneously a part of a greater

whole--a whole/part. Each successive worldview level transcends and includes the

previous level and can be said to be "higher," "deeper," or "more encompassing" than the

previous level. Wilber further explains how to designate depth levels:

A "level" in a holarchy is established by several obj ective criteria: by a qualitative
emergence (as explained by Popper); by asymmetry (or "symmetry breaks," as
explained by Prigogine and Jantsch); by an inclusionary principle (the higher
includes the lower, but not vice versa, as explained by Aristotle); by a
developmental logic (the higher negates and preserves a lower, but not vice versa,
as explained by Hegel); by a chronological indicator (the higher chronologically
comes after the lower, but all that is later is not higher, as explained by Saint
Gregory). (2000b, p. 62-63)

Lawrence Kohlberg speaks of moral development in a similar way: "All of the

differences among people aren't all equally defensible; some of the differences among

people represent more comprehensive, more coherent, more elaborated--more

developed--concepts" (Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau, Thoma, 1999, p. 2). As holons, both

morals and worldviews meet Wilber' s twenty tenets of development (Wilber, 2000b, p.

25). As such, worldviews easily meet the five criteria that Jean Piaget applied to

cognitive development and Kohlberg endorsed for moral development (Kohlberg, 1984,










p. 14; Piaget, 1969, p. 153). The twenty tenets can be abbreviated here by reviewing

Piaget' s five criteria of development:

First, worldview stages differ qualitatively fr~om one another. Worldview stages do

not differ along a continuous quantitative spectrum. An increase in the number or

strength of egocentric values does not produce worldcentric values. The values generated

from an egocentric worldview are qualitatively different from worldcentric values.

Higher stages are not more of lower stages, but of a completely new variety.

Second, worldviews develop in an invariant stage sequence. This means that

people pass through worldviews in a particular order. No one begins at worldcentric.

Children always start their lives with an egocentric worldview. To reach a worldcentric

value system, the child must pass through ethnocentric. No stages may be skipped.

Furthermore, unlike Erik Erikson's stage sequence, no guarantee exists that a person will

reach the higher worldview stages (Crain, 2000, p. 289). For example, a person could be

quite old and have acquired much life experience, yet still see through ethnocentric eyes.

A thirty-year-old could operate through a higher order worldview than a sixty-year-old.

For this reason, the life span literature generally does not apply to worldview research.

Third, worldview stages form structured wholes. A given stage response (in the

form of an attitude or behavior) does not just represent a specific, isolated decision

instance. Each worldview stage includes an underlying value organization that informs

specific attitudes and behaviors. General patterns of value reasoning exist that will

consistently show up across many different kinds of issues (Crain, 2000, p. 156).

Fourth, worldview stages develop in hierarchical integrations. In Kohlberg's

words, "stages form an order of increasingly differentiated and integrated structures to









fulfill a common function" (1984, p. 14). Simply put, development proceeds by

differentiation followed by integration. A later stage transcends and includes the deep

structures of an earlier stage. The "transcend and include" principle implies that "people

do not lose the insights gained at earlier stages but integrate them into new, broader

frameworks" (Crain, 2000, p. 159). The deep structures of all earlier stages are retained.

A person at worldcentric still cares for her self, family, state, and country, but not

exclusively.

Fifth, worldview stages are culturally universal. Although the specific expression

(surface structures) of worldviews varies greatly among people and cultures, the general

underlying features (deep structures) exist cross-culturally (Kohlberg, 1984, p. 582-621).

Universal worldview models, like spiral dynamics, seek to attain a generality that

captures the motivating value schemas within every cultural group.

Kohlberg' s stages of moral development could easily fit into the worldview models

described below. "In order to understand moral behavior," Kohlberg argued, "we have to

understand how the person is making sense of the world" (Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau,

Thoma, 1999, p. 1). Thus, find the three maj or worldviews (egocentric, ethnocentric,

worldcentric) appear in both Kohlberg's male moral development and Gilligan's female

moral development. Kohlberg's model develops from preconventional (1. obedience and

punishment; 2. naive egoism) to conventional (3. approval of others; 4. law and order) to

postconventional (5. individual rights and social contract; 6. universal ethics) (Kohlberg,

1984, p. 44). Similarly, in Gilligan's model, female morality evolves from

preconventional (selfish) to conventional (care) to postconventional (universal care)










(Gilligan, 1982). (Both theorists also postulated a post-postconventional level--

Kohlberg called it cosmic-spiritual and Gilligan called it hierarchical-integrative.)

Kohlberg uses the term "conventional" to mean "conforming to and upholding the

rules and expectations and conventions of society or authority just because they are

society's rules, expectations, or conventions" (1984, p. 172-173).

The individual at the preconventional level has not yet come to really understand
and uphold conventional or societal rules and expectations. Someone at the
postconventional level understands and basically accepts society's rules, but
acceptance of society's rules is based on formulating and accepting the general
moral principles that underlie these rules. These principles in some cases come
into conflict with society's rules, in which case the postconventional individual
judges by principle rather than by convention. (Kohlberg, 1984, p. 173).

Again, the three primary worldviews-egocentric (preconventional), ethnocentric

(conventional), and worldcentric (postconventional)-are clearly seen in moral

development.

Worldview development also has a relationship with cognitive development,

although they represent two separate and distinct developmental lines. In the first

analysis, one finds "stages of affective development that are parallel with the stages of

cognitive development" (Brown ,1996, p. 144). Comparing Piaget and Kohlberg's

models, one finds that concrete operational cognition parallels preconventional morality;

low formal operational cognition parallels conventional morality; high formal operational

cognition polyvalentt logic) parallels postconventional morality. Kohlberg agrees and

carries the conversation one step further:

Since moral reasoning clearly is reasoning, advanced moral reasoning depends
upon advanced logical [or cognitive] reasoning. There is a parallelism between an
individual's logical stage and his or her moral stage. A person whose logical stage
is only concrete operational is limited to the preconventional moral stages, Stages 1
and 2. A person whose logical stage is only "low" formal operational is limited to
the conventional moral stages, Stage 3 and 4. While logical development is a
necessary condition for moral development, it is not sufficient. Many individuals









are at a higher logical stage than the parallel moral stage, but essentially none are at
a higher moral stage than their logical stage. (Kohlberg, 1984, p. 171)

The essential point here is that cognitive development can exceed moral development,

but not vice versa. Put another way, cognitive development is necessary but not

sufficient for moral development (Kohlberg, 1981, p. 138). I theorize that worldviews

and cognition relate in the same way. A certain level of cognitive proficiency is

necessary but not sufficient to support a parallel worldview.















CHAPTER 5
WORLDVIEW EVOLUTION

Researching Worldviews

A considerable number of attempts have been made to understand and classify the

various worldviews available. With the rise of evolutionary thinking, scholars began to

study worldviews as a process of developmental unfolding. Numerous researchers have

independently identified, articulated, and studied the identical worldview levels.

Understanding this spiral of worldview development will prove essential in formulating

an integral communication strategy in the next chapter. This section gives a brief

introduction and biographical sketch of a few pioneering worldview researchers.

The Spiral Dynamics integral (SDi) model represents the culmination of 50 years

of research and theory building, prompted by the American psychologist Clare Graves

(see appendix A). It stands as perhaps the clearest and most user-friendly model. Graves

began researching human values in 1952 when, exasperated with the state of academic

psychology, he first asked the question, "What will be the nature and character of

conceptions of psychological health of biologically mature humans beings?" (Graves,

1988). After more than 20 years of quantitative and qualitative research, Graves

proposed that "the psychology of the mature human being is an unfolding, emergent,

oscillating spiraling process marked by progressive subordination of older, lower-order

behavior systems to newer, higher-order systems as man's existential problems change"

(Beck and Cowan, 1996, p. 28). Expressed another way, he says, "My data indicate that

man's nature is an open, constantly evolving system, a system which proceeds by










quantum jumps from one steady state system to the next through a hierarchy of ordered

systems" (Graves, 1974, p. 72). Graves often summarized his findings like this (Beck

and Cowan, 1996, p. 29):

1. Human nature is not static, nor is it Einite. Human nature changes as conditions of
existence change, thus forging new systems. Yet, the older systems stay with us.

2. When a new system or level is activated, we change our psychology and rules for
living to adapt to those new conditions.

3. We live in a potentially open system of values with an infinite number of modes of
living available to us. There is no Einal state to which we must all aspire.

4. An individual, a company, or an entire society can respond positively only to those
managerial principles, motivational appeals, educational formulas, and legal or
ethical codes that are appropriate to the current level of human existence.

Although Graves passed away in 1986, Don Beck and Chris Cowan continue to expand

on Graves's original insights. They founded a think tank called the "National Values

Center," and Beck later founded the "Institute of Values and Culture" out of which grew

the spiral dynamics integral model of value system evolution (Beck, 2002a). Spiral

dynamics researchers and practitioners use the model to solve a variety of problems.

For instance, Beck made over 63 trips to South Africa between 1981 and 1999 to

launch an initiative first called "Strategic Evolution" (Beck, 2002b, p. 122).

During that period, my basic role was to reshape the definitions the various sectors
of society were using to stereotype each other, replacing the usual racial/ethnic
categories with an understanding of these value system or memetic differences, all
of which were alive in that global microcosm. The complexity of the South
African situation had been simplified down to what is morally right or wrong along
race lines, and that was a grave mistake. Much sympathy was lavished on the black
"struggle," and rightfully so. But getting rid of what they didn't want--
apartheid--was not the same thing as getting what they did want--a just and
prosperous society. (2002b, p. 122)

Beck goes on to describe how he used spiral dynamics to communicate in newspaper

articles, discussions, and negotiations that were "influential in convincing Afrikaner










political leaders in Pretoria to release Nelson Mandela and start the peace process," which

eventually ended South African apartheid without a civil war (Wilber, 2000c; Beck,

2002b, p. 122). The Zulus named him "Amizimuthi," which means "One with Strong

Medicine" (Beck, 2002b, p. 122). Beck' s current client list includes President Vicente

Fox' s administration in Mexico and Prime Minister Tony Blair' s Department of

International Development in Great Britain (Cohen, 2004, p. 14). To date, the spiral

dynamics model has been tested with more than 50,000 people from first-, second-, and

third-world countries, and there have been no maj or exceptions found to the general

model (Wilber, 2000c, p. 6).

The most noteworthy of the early worldview scholars is Jean Gebser (1905-1973).

Born in Posen, Prussia, Gebser traveled across Europe (befriending Picasso along the

way) and eventually settling in Zurich, Switzerland where he worked with Carl Jung. In

1949, Gebser published The Ever-Present Origin, his most profound statement on the

unfolding worldviews of humanity (Gebser, 1985). In this work, he traces the

"(discontinuous mutation" of consciousness through five major structural "leaps." By

"consciousness structure," Gebser means "the visibly emerging perception of reality" or,

in other words, worldview (Keckeis, 1985, p. xx).

With an intuition of integral methodological pluralism, Gebser went beyond mere

synthesis, using instead the Greek term "systasis," meaning "put together; connection;

forming" (1985, p. 292). Gebser explains that "systasis is the conjoining or fitting

together of parts into integrality .. the means whereby we are able to open up our

consolidated spatial consciousness to the integrating consciousness of the whole" (1985,

p. 310). He asserts that his approach "attempts to present in visible, tangible, and audible









form the respective consciousness structures from within their specific modalities and

unique constitutions by means appropriate to their natures" (1985, p. 2). Gebser follows

this method by examining fiye worldviews from many angles: the natural sciences

(mathematics, physics, biology), the sciences of mind (psychology, philosophy), the

social sciences (jurisprudence, sociology, economics), and the arts (music, architecture,

painting, literature).

Along with Gebser, Gerald Heard (1889-1971) stands as one of the great early

pioneers in worldview research. Originally from London, Heard was educated at

Cambridge University and taught at Oxford University. With his friend Aldous Huxley,

he moved to the United States in 1937 after being offered the chair of historical

anthropology at Duke University (Barrie, 2002). Feeling too constrained at Duke, he

founded his own college called Trabuco while continuing to lecture at maj or American

universities such as Harvard, Cornell, Princeton, UCLA, and Berkeley. A prolific author,

Heard wrote thirty-eight books during his life, the most insightful arguably being his first

The Ascent ofHumanity (1929) and his last The Five Ages of2an (1963).

Aldous Huxley once wrote, "The Universe is a continuum; but our knowledge of it

is departmentalized. Every learned Society is a pigeonhole, every University a

columbarium. Gerald Heard is that rare being, a man who makes his mental home on the

vacant spaces between the pigeonholes." Indeed, like Gebser, Heard incorporated data

from diverse disciplines into a unified whole (Barrie, 2002). And like Graves, he viewed

both human phylogeny and ontogeny as a "spiraling evolution of consciousness"

(Houston, 1980, p. 183; Heard, 1963, p. 88, 97). Worldviews, or cosmologies as Heard









calls them, are the "core beliefs that [people] espouse about the universe and themselves,

and the frame of reference by which they interpret and understand life" (Barrie, 2002).

Jumping ahead to more contemporary scholarship, sociologist Paul Ray and

psychologist Sherry Ruth Anderson authored The Cultural Creatives in 2000. Ray spent

13 years as executive vice president of American LIVES, Inc., a market research and

opinion polling firm specializing in psychographic analysis (Ray and Anderson, 2000).

During this time, Ray used both quantitative survey techniques in addition to qualitative

interviews and focus groups to study the lifestyles, interests, values, expectations and

symbols of Americans. Ray and Anderson make a concerted effort to differentiate their

methodology from a one-dimensional demographic study:

Most surveys are content to classify people by demographic categories: male or
female, black or white, white collar or blue collar, income, education. It's familiar
and easy to do. But those conventional categories show only a thin slice of
people's lives. The research findings we report here do not reflect [only] 'the
demographics.' Rather, our research is values research, which leads directly to a
rich and many-dimensional description of what Americans are up to--and why.
(2000, p. 22)

Finally, Ronald Inglehart, professor of political science and program director at the

Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan, has conducted rigorous

investigations into the development of global value patterns, beginning with his

groundbreaking book The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles

Among Western Publics (1977). Inglehart clearly states his central thesis that "the basic

value priorities of Western publics seem to be changing as their societies move into a

Post-Industrial phase of development" (1977, p. 21).

The process of change is not as ephemeral as the flow of events might suggest.
Instead it appears to reflect a transformation of basic world views. It seems to be
taking place quite gradually but steadily, being rooted in the formative experiences
of whole generation-units. (emphasis added) (Inglehart, 1977, p. 21).









He further suggests that this "transformation of basic world views" moves in a "specific

direction," signaling an "evolutionary drift" towards value systems of greater inclusion

and acceptance (1977, p. 4, 22).

Inglehart coordinates the steering committee that operates "The World Values

Survey," the most ambitious attempt by social scientists to measure and track global

value patterns. Inglehart regards the world values surveys as providing "a broader range

of variation than has ever before been available for analyzing the impact of the values

and beliefs of mass publics on political and social life" (2003).

The World Values Survey is a worldwide investigation of sociocultural and
political change. It has carried out representative national surveys of the basic
values and beliefs of publics in more than 65 societies on all six inhabited
continents, containing almost 80 percent of the world's population. .. This
investigation has produced evidence of gradual but pervasive changes in what
people want out of life, and the basic direction of these changes is, to some extent,
predictable. This study has given rise to more than 300 publications, in 16
languages. (Inglehart, 2003)

An international network of social scientists facilitates the proj ect, conducting numerous

waves of interview surveys over the past twenty-Hyve years. The next chapter discusses

some developmental dynamics of worldviews and then investigates the four worldviews

most relevant to contemporary American culture.

The next four sections cover the four worldviews most applicable to contemporary

American culture. Not all possible worldviews will not be covered, namely those at the

very top and the very bottom of the spectrum. See appendix B for a description of all

eight spiral dynamic levels. The presentation below will combine the research Eindings

of Graves, Beck, Cowan, Gebser, Heard, Inglehart, Anderson, Ray, and Wilber. Note

that these theorists arrived independently at the same worldview levels through their own

research efforts. By combining the research Eindings, a developmental holarchy emerges









that unfolds into ever-increasing levels of inclusion--from traditional-mythic to rational-

achi evi st to plurali sti c-communitari an to integral-exi stenti al.

Traditional-Mythic (BLUE)

"A single guiding force controls the world and determines our destiny. Its abiding
Truth provides structure and order for all aspects of living here on Earth and rules
the heavens, as well. My life has meaning because the fires of redemption burn in
my heart. I follow the appointed Pathway which ties me with something much
greater than myself [a cause, belief, tradition, organization, or movement]. I stand
fast for what is right, proper, and good, always subj ecting myself to the directives
of proper authority. I willingly sacrifice my desires in the present in the sure
knowledge that I look forward to something wonderful in the future."

Beck and Cowan give this fictional, first-person account of the worldview they call

"Purposeful Blue" (1996, p. 229). To facilitate and simplify discourse, spiral dynamics

gives each worldview a color tag. I will freely use these colors--in this case Blue--for

easy shorthand reference and to aid memory. Graves originally called this stage "saintly

existence (D-Q)"; Heard called it "the midindividual"; Gebser named it "the mythical

structure;" for Wilber it is "mythic-membership"'; and Inglehart, Ray, and Anderson all

call it "traditional" (Graves, 1974, p. 74; Heard, 1963, p. 42; Gebser, 1985, p. 61;

Wilber, 1999c, p. 405; Inglehart and Baker, 2000; Ray and Anderson, 2000). Despite the

different labels, all the researchers are describing the same underlying value orientation.

The Blue worldview is traditional and conservative, emphasizing order,

consistency, and convention. Blue's core values echo themes of meaning, direction, and

purpose in life. Blue values include these (Beck and Cowan, 1996, p. 46):

* One sacrifices self to the transcendent Cause, Truth, or righteous Pathway
* The Order enforces a code of conduct based on eternal, absolute principles
* Righteous living produces stability now and guarantees future reward
* Impulsivity is controlled through guilt; everybody has their proper place
* Laws, regulations, and discipline build character and moral fiber









The Blue value structure views the world from an absolutistic, polarized, black and white

perspective. Honoring and submitting to authority, Blue allows the conventional system

to define good/bad, right/wrong.

Good opposes Evil in an ongoing battle for dominion. .. There is no room for
compromise or gray areas among the devout True Believers for whom wishy-
washy moderation is worse than declaring with the enemy. .. Invoking the sacred
name of Authority is part of Blue whether the Lord, the Prophet, Chairman Mao, or
'in the name of the Law. (Beck and Cowan, 1996, p. 233)

Or as Graves puts it, "The measure of his worthiness is how much he has lived by the

established rules" (1974, p. 74).

But to live up to the established rules, Blue must tame chaos into order, both

externally and internally. A person, Heard explains, "discovers that he must find a

method of disciplining himself. For not only is outer nature unpredictable, powerful,

dangerous, and uncontrollable but his own nature betrays him. The Universe is

unfriendly and man is fallen" (1963, p. 51). The sinful nature of humans and the

impossibility of perfectly following every external rule creates guilt, which peaks at Blue

(Beck and Cowan, 1996, p. 232). Wilber' s fictional, phenomenological account of a

young girl underscores Blue's familiarity with guilt.

The priests tell us that there was a time that our ancestors walked with the Creator,
but then something terrible happened. We pray twice daily to be returned to before
the mistake. I pray very hard, but the last time I prayed hard, my sister died
anyway. My uncle said I must pray harder, so something must be wrong with me.
(Wilber, 2000a, p. 413)

Guilt arises in the young girl from failing to please the Authority and being punished for

it; "a lonely creature pitted against an unfriendly Nature" (Heard, 1963, p. 51).

Ray and Anderson also recognize the Blue value schema. Not surprisingly, they

call it "Tradional" as "shorthand for a complex cultural conservatism [that] refers to a

real subculture of shared values and familiar customs, rich with the details of life" (2000,










p. 30). According to their data, Traditionals account for 24.5 percent of the American

population, or 48 million adults (Ray and Anderson, 2000, p. 30). They list specific

attitudes indicative of a Blue/Traditionalist worldview (Ray and Anderson, 2000, p. 31-

3 2):

* Patriarchs should again dominate family life.

* Family, church, and community are where you belong.

* The conservative version of their own particular religious traditions must be
upheld.

* Customary and familiar ways of life should be maintained.

* It' s important to regulate sex--pornography, teen sex, extramarital sex--and
abortion.

* Men should be proud to serve their country in the military.

* All the guidance you need for your life can be found in the Bible.

* Country and small-town life is more virtuous than big-city or suburban life.

* Our country needs to do more to support virtuous behavior.

* Preserving civil liberties is less important then restricting immoral behavior.

* Freedom to carry arms is essential.

* Foreigners are not welcome.

Demographically speaking, American Traditionals have an average age of 55 and a

median family income of only $23,750 per year, partly due to retirees (based on 1995

data) (Ray and Anderson, 2000, p. 32). In general, the data shows they are older, poorer,

less educated, and more religious than other Americans.

Although participation in a traditional organized religion (i.e., Catholics, Mormons,

fundamentalists, or evangelical Protestants) often indicates a Blue value system, Blue

does not need religious participation to flourish. "Deference to the authority of God,










Fatherland, and Family are all closely linked" (Inglehart and Baker, 2000, p. 25). Take

Heard' s analysis of Blue' s attraction to the atheistic Communist ideology of the Soviet

Union. Referring to Communism, Heard says, "we see the pressures being attempted

which in the great ascetic [Blue] age produced (1963, p. 138):

1. the man who accuses himself, denounces his own actions, and informs on others:
"the right-acting man"

2. the examiner of conscience and the spiritual judge, the ideal

3. the one revelation, absolute and final, the code to which utter submission must be
made in the name of quod semper, quod ubique, quod omnibus.

Extreme nationalism or patriotism, wherever it occurs, spurs a black and white "my

country right or wrong" attitude, or as George W. Bush puts it "You're either with us or

against us."

Lastly, Inglehart arrives at nearly identical conclusions from value data obtained

not only from America, but from the entire world. Inglehart also chooses the term

"traditional" to describe the general value orientation in people who "show relatively low

levels of tolerance for abortion, divorce, and homosexuality; tend to emphasize male

dominance in economic and political life, deference to parental authority, and the

importance of family life, and are relatively authoritarian; most of them place strong

emphasis on religion" (Inglehart and Baker, 2000, p. 23-24). See appendix C for

Inglehart' s chart, displaying some defining attitudes of the Blue value schema.

Blue's ethnocentric values and conventional moral development appear in all

Inglehart's attitudinal analyses. For instance, ethnocentric nationalism leads people to

favor "more respect for authority, take protectionist attitudes towards foreign trade, and

feel that environmental problems can be solved without international agreements"

(Inglehart and Baker, 2000, p. 25). Traditionals accept national authority passively,










rarely discussing politics or questioning "official" received knowledge (Inglehart and

Baker, 2000, p. 25). Inglehart goes on to say that traditional worldviews "emphasize

social conformity rather than individualistic striving, favor consensus rather than open

political conflict, support deference to authority, and have high levels of national pride

and a nationalistic outlook" (2000, p. 25).

Rational-Achievist (ORANGE)

"I want to achieve, and win, and get somewhere in my life. The world is full of
opportunities for those who'll seize the day and take some calculated risks.
Nothing is certain, but if you're good, you play the odds and Eind the best choices
among many. You've got to believe in yourself first, then everything else falls into
place. You can't get bogged down in structure or rules if they hold back progress.
Instead, by practical applications of tried-and-true experience, you can make things
better and better for yourself. I'm confident in my own abilities and intend to make
a difference in this world. Gather data, build a strategic plan, then go for
excellence."

These statements represent the values of someone at the "Achievist Orange"

worldview level (Beck and Cowan, 1996, p. 244). Again, all our featured researchers

recognize this stage using slightly different names: Graves: "materialistic existence (E-

R)," Heard: "total individual or self-sufficient man," Gebser: rational-perspectival, the

mental structure," Wilber: "rational-egoic," Ray and Anderson: "Moderns," Inglehart:

"materialist, secular-rational" (Graves, 1974, p. 75; Heard, 1963, p. 56; Gebser, 1985, p.

73; Wilber, 1999c, p. 518; Ray and Anderson, 2000, p. 25; Inglehart, 1977, p. 41).

Orange is the worldview of modernity, which, for the first time, used Orange

values to apply universal principles to all humans, cutting across group loyalties. Such

rational, universal principles include "greater equality among persons, personal freedom

and liberty, justice, citizen's rights (for example, freedom of speech, religion, assembly,

and fail trials), representative and deliberative democracy, and equality before the law"

(Ray and Anderson, 2000, p. 26). In the late eighteenth century, the Constitution of the










United States brilliantly institutionalized Orange values in a population with a Blue value

maj onty.

Aristotle, Gebser remarks, calls the human an "animal rationale, an animal with the

gift of rationality. And in the word ratio--which means 'to reckon' as well as 'to

calculate' in the sense of 'to think' and 'understand'--is found the principal characteristic

of the perspectival world: directedness and perspectivity, together with--unavoidably--

sectorial partitioning" (Gebser, 1985, p. 74). A person at this materialistic stage, states

Graves, "develops and utilizes the objectivistic, positivistic, operationalistic, scientific

method so as to provide the material ends for a satisfactory human existence in the here

and now" (1974, p. 75).

During the cultural transformation from traditional to modern, Heard asserts that

"tradition was demoted from its office of supreme judge. Reason was ordered to take on

experimentation as its vicar or suffragan. Dogma and argument could stand only if

supported by experiment" (Heard, 1963, p. 147). When the Orange worldview first arose

in ancient Greece, "man had to direct and judge himself; herein lies the almost

superhuman grandeur of the age that became a reality around 500 B.C. in Greece via the

mutation to the mental structure" (Gebser, 1985, p. 79). Fading during the middle ages,

Orange reappeared around 1250 A.D. in Europe. "The new Man of the Renaissance, the

man of recently intensified self-consciousness, aware of this distinctive and separative

individualism, was keen to reason and sharply equipped to argue" (Heard, 1963, p. 60).

Industrialization extended Orange's desire to direct and control the physical

environment to unprecedented levels. Many industrialists equated progress with

exploiting natural resources and life became a "game against fabricated nature" (Bell,










1973, p. 147). Peter Bowler, an environmental historian, explains that mythic

worldviews were "eliminated because Nature had to be despiritualized if people were to

feel comfortable when they used the Earth for their own selfish ends. The mechanistic

view of Nature may have been created to legitimize the ruthless attitude of an age in

which profit was the only motive that mattered" (1992, p. 69). Despite Bowler's bias,

Inglehart gives a similar description of the Orange situation:

A technical, mechanical, rationalized bureaucratic world directed toward the
external problem of creating and dominating the environment. As human control
of the environment increased, the role ascribed to religion and God dwindled.
Materialistic ideologies arose with secular interpretations of history, and secular
utopias were to be attained by human engineering operating through rationally
organized bureaucratic organizations. (Inglehart and Baker, 2000, p. 21-22)

As the history of modernity demonstrates, Orange strives for progress, success,

status, and affluence. Spiral Dynamics offers this summary of Orange value assumptions

(Beck and Cowan, 1996, p. 46):

* Change and advancement are inherent within the scheme of things
* Progress by learning nature's secrets and seeking out best solutions
* Manipulate Earth's resources to create and spread the abundant good life
* Optimistic, risk-taking, and self-reliant people deserve their success
* Societies prosper through strategy, technology, and competitiveness

See specific attitudes of Orange in appendix C. One need not look far to locate Orange

values in contemporary American culture because Orange is the dominant culture.

Read Time, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Business Week,
Forbes, or USA Today, and you will get the official ideology laid out in detail, day
after day. It' s the culture we see at all levels of government, in the military, and in
the courts. It' s the normal culture found in the office towers and factories of big
business; in banks and the stock market; in university science labs and high-tech
firms; in hospitals and most doctors' offices; in mainline churches and synagogues;
in the "best" schools and colleges. It's the culture of professional football,
basketball, and baseball leagues; chain stores and malls; most TV programs; and
most "mainstream" magazine and newspaper articles. The standards we [as
Americans] take for granted, the rules we live by, are made by and for Moderns.










Their worldview is so all-encompassing and their viewpoint so much presupposed
that most Modems can't see any alternatives. (Ray and Anderson, 2000, p. 25).

In short, Modems accept the values associated with a materialistic, commercialized,

urban-industrial world as the obvious right way to live. Life is a series of "executive

summaries, sound bites, and quick takes" where "image often counts more than

substance" (Beck and Cowan, 1996, p. 252). Fighting for victory and achievement at all

costs, Orange values "materialism over spiritualism, pragmatism over principle, and

short-range victories over longer term guarantees" (Beck and Cowan, 1996, p. 251).

Demographic figures complement the above psychographic analysis by revealing

that about 48 percent of Americans (93 million out of a total of about 193 million adults)

hold the Orange worldview as of 1999, and their median family income in 1995 was

$42,500 per year (Ray and Anderson, 2000, p. 25). Consider this fictional, first-person

narrative :

I've been an electrical engineer for over three decades, because it works, it is
verifiable, it betters human lives. There is a real world out there, with real tnrth in
it, and real hard work required to dig it out. .. The fortress of science, is how I
think of it. It will stand forever, constantly updated. .. We human beings, for
good or ill, are the only gods in existence, the only force of rational intention and
good will. And we will save ourselves if we can be saved at all. The Bible is right
about one thing: the tnrth will set you free. And science is the only path of
discovering truth. (Wilber, 2000a, p. 414)

As the engineer expresses, Orange values "what's good, approved, efficient, and worthy

of praise, the latest and most stylish, the most competitive and profitable" (Ray and

Anderson, 2000, p. 26).

Pluralistic-Communitarian (GREEN)

"Life is for experiencing each moment. We can all come to understand who we are
and how wondrous it is to be human if we will only accept that everyone is equal
and important. All must share in the joy of togetherness and fulfillment. Each
spirit is connected to all others in our community; every soul travels together. We
are interdependent beings in search of love and involvement. The community










grows by synergizing life forces; artificial diversions take away from everyone.
There is an abiding order in the universe for those who are open to it. Bad attitudes
and negative beliefs dissolve once we look inside each person and uncover the
richness within."

The level of worldview development described here suggests postmodern values.

The "Communitarian Green" worldview in spiral dynamics again matches up with the

other models. The research suggests that "the emergence of post-industrial society seems

to be stimulating further evolution of prevailing worldviews"--a shift away from

"materialistic, secular-rational" values and towards what Inglehart calls "post-industrial,

post-materialist" values (Inglehart, 2000, p. 222; Inglehart and Baker, 2000, p. 22).

People with a postmodern, Green worldview--or "cultural creative" as Ray and

Anderson call them-rej ect many of mainstream America' s Orange values.

Cultural Creatives are disenchanted with 'owning more stuff,' materialism, greed,
me-firstism, status display, glaring social inequalities of race and class, society's
failure to care adequately for elders, women, and children, and the hedonism and
cynicism that pass for realism in modern society. They also reject the intolerance
and narrowness of social conservatives and the Religious Right. They are critical
of almost every big institution in modern society, including both corporations and
government. They reject narrow analyses and are sick of fragmentary and
superficial glosses in the media that don't depict what they see, or explain what
they know from their own direct experience. (2000, p. 17)

In agreement, Inglehart says, "To have a Post-Materialist world-view means that one is

apt to be out of harmony with the type of society in which one lives," since no society has

a Green majority or center-of-gravity (1977, p. 365). Cultural creative are literally

creating a new Green culture while living within the dominant Orange culture.

Green communities hold values of belonging, relationship, and pluralism sacred.

Heard calls this the stage of humanitarianism, marked by an "interest in human beings

regardless of the type to which they may belong" (1963, p. 88). Cultural creative with

"postmodern values emphasize self-expression instead of deference to authority and are









tolerant of other groups and even regard exotic things and cultural diversity as

stimulating and interesting, not threatening" (Inglehart, 2000, p. 223). If in Orange

America everyone melts into a moderate, bland, mucilaginouss whole" within the

melting pot, Green America worships the ethnic, multifarious diversity of the patchwork

quilt (Houston, 1980, p. 190). For Inglehart, this value transformation gives all the

indications that a "silent revolution" is underway (1977, p. 363).

During the Green stage, says Graves, a person (or culture) displays a

"personalistic" value system, becoming "centrally concerned with peace, with his inner

self, and in the relation of his self to the inner self of others" (1974, p. 75). The spiral

dynamics model gives examples of Green values (Beck and Cowan, 1996, p. 46):

* The human spirit must be freed from greed, dogma, and divisiveness
* Feelings, sensitivity, and caring supersede cold rationality
* Spread the Earth's resources and opportunities equally among all
* Reach decisions through reconciliation and consensus processes
* Refresh spirituality, bring harmony, and enrich human development
* See appendix C for an extended list of Green attitudes.

For Inglehart, post-materialist values include "subj ective well-being, interpersonal trust,

political activism, and tolerance of outgroups (Inglehart and Baker, 2000, p. 29). A

person with Green values tends to be "communitarian, egalitarian, and consensual" (Beck

and Cowan, 1996, p. 264). Belonging, being accepted, and maintaining harmony within

the group is essential. Always advocating peace through nonviolence, Green believes

that "interactions with our fellows need no longer be based on violence and competition

but on cooperation" (Heard, 1963, p. 89).

Most value scholars point to the 1960s as the birth of Green values in the United

States, and "this change in world views has given rise to a wide range of new social

movements" (Inglehart, 2000, p. 224). Indeed, all the major social revolutions of that









time have Green footprints: social justice movements, ethnic advocacy movements

(Hispanic, Native American, etc.), international NGOs (world peace, human rights,

hunger, third world development), civil rights movement, antinuclear movement, holistic

health and alternative health care movements, environmental and ecology movements,

new age movement, women's movement, organic foods and vegetarian movements,

human potential movement (humanistic psychology, bodywork), gay and lesbian

liberation movements (Ray and Anderson, 2000, p. 115). Political scientists would most

likely place these social movements towards the liberal end of the political spectrum.

Thus, it comes as no surprise that "Post-Materialists [Green] tend to take a less

conservative, more change-oriented stand in politics than the Materialist [Orange] types.

Post-Materialist types are significantly more likely to align themselves with the 'Left' or

'Liberal' position than are the Materialist types" (Inglehart, 1977, p. 61-62).

Research data indicates that Green values are increasing. "During the past 25

years, these values have become increasingly widespread in almost all advanced

industrial societies for which extensive time-series evidence is available" (Inglehart and

Baker, 2000, p. 27-28). In the 1960s only 5% of the American population possessed a

Green value orientation (Ray and Anderson, 2000, p. 4). In the mid-seventies, Inglehart

reported that they comprised 12% of the United States population (Inglehart, 1977, p.

362). In 2000, the Green population has grown to 26% (50 million people) in America

(Ray and Anderson, 2000, p. 4).

Cultural creative place a huge importance on the environment' s health.

"Postmodern values give priority to environmental protection and cultural issues, even

when these goals conflict with maximizing economic growth" (Inglehart, 2000, p. 223).









Nearly every cultural creative agrees with survey questions like these: "We should

change how we live now so future generations can enj oy a good quality of life; Human

survival depends on finding better ways to balance economic growth with environmental

protection; Humans are part of nature, not its ruler; The Earth is headed for an

environmental crisis unless we change; Nature has value far beyond the practical uses we

can make of it" (Ray and Anderson, 2000, p. 160). Green's worldcentric outlook

naturally evokes an awareness of ecological interconnectedness and a strong desire to

heal the Earth.

Finally, Green replaces organized religion with spirituality. Participation in

organized religion has steadily declined in postindustrial societies (Inglehart and Baker,

2000, p. 46). Interestingly, as allegiance to established religious institutions falls,

spiritual concerns rise. Inglegart remarks that "the established churches today may be on

the wrong wavelength for most people in postindustrial societies, but new theologies,

such as the 'theology' of environmentalism, or New Age beliefs, are emerging to fill an

expanding niche" (2000, p. 47). Wuthnow also concludes that the decline of organized

religion in America is accompanied by the rise of spiritual concerns, a shift from what he

calls a "spirituality of dwelling" (emphasizing sacred places) to a "spirituality of seeking"

(emphasizing a personal quest for new spiritual avenues) (Wuthnow, 1998; Inglehart and

Baker, 2000). With Green, the quest for inner wisdom begins, unconstrained by

institutional authority.

Integral-Existential (YELLOW)

"Viability must be restored to a disordered world endangered by the cumulative
effects of the first six [value] systems on the earth' s environment and populations.
The purpose of living is to be independent within reason; knowledgeable so much
as possible; and caring, so much as realistic. Yet I am my own person, accountable
to myself, an island in an archipelago of other people. Continuing to develop along










a natural pathway is more highly valued than striving to have or do. I am
concerned for the world's conditions because of the impact they have on me as part
of this living system."

Clare Graves and Spiral Dynamics deem the transformation from "Communitarian

Green" to "Integrative Yellow" as a "momentous leap" (Beck and Cowan, 1996, p. 274;

Graves, 1974). They call the previous three value stages (Blue, Orange, Green) "first-tier

subsistence levels," while Yellow marks the first of the "second-tier being levels" (Beck

and Cowan, 1996, p. 274). Postconventional values deepen into fully universal,

existential concerns: "life and death, authenticity, full bodymind integration, self-

actualization, global awareness, holistic embrace" (Wilber, 1999a, p. 537). Yellow

worldviews include these values (Beck and Cowan, 1996, p. 275):

* Accept the inevitability of nature' s flows and forms
* Focus on functionality, competence, flexibility, and spontaneity
* Find natural mix of conflicting 'truths' and 'uncertainties'
* Discovering personal freedom without harm to others or excesses of self-interest
* Experience fullness of living on an Earth of such diversity in multiple dimensions
* Demand integrative and open systems
* Life is a kaleidoscope of natural hierarchies, systems, and forms
* The magnificence of existence is valued over material possessions
* Knowledge and competency should supersede rank, power, status
* Differences can be integrated into interdependent, natural flows

Please see appendix C for an expanded list. According to Beck and Cowan's data, less

than 2% of the world' s population has reached second tier or higher (1996). Due to such

small numbers, most value researches fail to identify this leading-edge value level.

Jean Gebser is an exception. He detected the Yellow worldview structure-which

he named "integral-aperspectival"-back in the mid-twentieth century (1985, p. 24).

Gebser employs the term "aperspectival" to "emphasize the need of overcoming the mere

antithesis of affirmation and negation," moving from "either-or" to "both-and" (1985, p.

2). His concern "is with integrality and ultimately with the whole; the word










'aperspectival' conveys our attempt to deal with wholeness" (1985, p. 3). Like an ever-

changing kaleidoscope, Gebser's highest level values all perspectives and privileges no

view as final, while attempting to integrate them into a coherent whole.

"Man," says Gebser, "is the integrality of his mutations. Only to the extent that he

succeeds in living the whole is his life truly integral" (1985, p. 153). A person with a

Yellow value awareness intuitively recognizes her compound individuality and the stages

through which she and everyone else evolves.

As Yellow peaks, scales drop from our eyes enabling us to see, for the first time,
the legitimacy of all of the human systems awakened to date. They are forms of
human existence that have a right to be. The systems are seen as dynamic forces
that, when healthy, contribute to the overall viability of the Spiral and, as a result,
to the continuation of life itself. (Beck and Cowan, 1996, p. 276)

The rainbow of worldviews in both self and others become visible or "transparent" to

someone at Yellow. No worldview is "wrong" and each has its legitimate and proper

place in the unfolding spiral.

As they develop, worldviews transcend and include each other so that "these

structures are not merely past, but are in fact still present in more or less latent and acute

form in each one of us" (Gebser, 1985, p. 42). Value systems naturally appear

multidimensional for someone proficient at Yellow. "The various structures that

constitute him must have become transparent and conscious to him; it also means that he

has perceived their effect on his life and destiny, and mastered the deficient components

by his insight so that they acquire the degree of maturity and equilibrium necessary for

any concretion" (Gebser, 1985, p. 99).

The transparency of second-tier value awareness allows one to handle complex

problems, previously unsolvable at first-tier. Individuals at Yellow welcome paradox and

uncertainty. They adeptly orchestrate Win:Win:Win outcomes by finding "ways to