Very Insightful and nuanced walk through of both the context and content of our current times, thank you!
Following up on the part where you mentioned (and referenced a deeper dive piece) on the differences between the structure of ideologies and their contents, I'd love to hear more of your thinking on how the structures of individual psychological development, ala Robert Kegan's model, for example, might correlate (or not) with the content they espouse. Phrased another way, how might their developmental "Altitude" be more relevant than the "attitude" or "aptitudes" they express from that altitude?
The reason I ask this question here of you is that the degree of complexity that your suggested emergent worldview requires of its believers or adherents is very high, and much higher than what the vast middle of the developmental and intellectual Bell Curves can easily access.
In other words, *most* people are going to continue to view the world through much simpler categories of binary thinking, "us vs them" dynamics, and Good vs Bad moralizing and are both unable and uninterested in seeing beyond the usual categories of human thought to where transcending and including the "best parts" of the Traditional, Modern, and Postmodern Worldviews is the least bit attractive, much less feasible.
How might this much need "integral worldview" be packaged and promoted so that it can become more accessible and relevant to not just those deeply satisfied with the current realities on offer, but all of those younger people coming of age in today's world looking for the next rung up the ladder out of whatever culture-of-embeddedness they were born into and raised up within?
Thanks David, great comment and question. I think the correlation between worldview-evolution and psychological development is strong yet complicated - in the sense that as we grow and evolve as individuals, our capacity for understanding reality with complexity, nuance, objectivity, etc grows (and vice versa). However, the larger worldview-shifts I talk about here (e.g., from traditional to modern to postmodern and beyond) are much more general and big-picture than the perhaps more subtle and refined steps we may focus on in our psychological growth. (Another interesting perspective here is that of trauma - we know that trauma can distort our understanding of reality, and doing trauma-work and healing some of our core-wounding will thus likely also help us evolve our worldviews.)
And yes, many people may not be ready for the complexity, philosophical depth, and existential burden of consciously evolving their worldviews. However, our time is calling for it, and as we are all confronted with these toxic polarities that rip our families, communities, and even our countries and the global post-war world-order apart, we're actively wrestling with it -- thereby creating many possibilities for transformative experiences and sudden breakthroughs. I also think as the postmodern left keeps on running into its own created walls, a shift to more integrative ways of understanding the world amongst that population will become inevitable (and I think is already happening) and may then support the rest of the population to follow along.
What do you think about it? Can you see a kind of evolution like that happening? Why or why not?
Hi Annick, thanks for your thoughtful reply, it's much appreciated!
The concern I have relates to the inherent trajectory of individual development and the timelines and capacities involved that unfold over and through a lifespan, the challenges encountered, & support systems available.
While I believe you're right that many of the leading "Left" (whatever that means these days) intellectuals are indeed primed and capable of upgrading their worldviews as a more coherent and compelling offer comes along, my worry is that the higher complexity nuances that make it relevant and interesting will be invisible to all of those operating with less developed "cognitive hardware" that comes about through development.
And I am thrilled to be here to witness and hopefully participate in it!!
However, for the vast majority of individuals that *aren't* at Kegan's 4th Order Self Authoring or above stages, the inherent complexities and paradoxes there will inevitably get lost in translation. We can see this all around where tribal alliances trump both sovereign individuality and all efforts to point to a larger shared humanism. Efforts to promote tolerance get crunched down to angry 20-somethings marching with signs that say "No tolerance for intolerance." The inherent doubt in expertise that the entire Scientific enterprise is built upon gets distorted down to the dogmatic "Trust the Science (TM)" demands dismissively waved at all would suggest less certainty in policy and procedure. The "Left" doesn't have a good track of practicing what it preaches here with these simpler frames, and to be clear and fair, neither does the Right. This is a human problem, not a political one.
As Robert Kegan himself shared by example. The Golden Rule of "Do unto others as YOU WOULD HAVE them do unto you" gets a quick nod of agreement and parroted back as "Right, do unto others AS THEY HAVE done unto you" leading directly into revenge.
As Jesus, Socrates, MLK, and countless others have discovered the hard way, the authorities don't like being questioned, the masses don't like being asked to get along with each other, and blood is thicker than water.
In sum, I'm worried that whatever the emerging integral vision may be, regardless of how Good, True, and Beautiful the path it offers compels, the vast majority will say "Yes!" and distort it as needed via the Procrustean Bed of their 3rd Order frameworks and continue their Tribal ways of binary thinking, US vs Them, Good vs Bad, etc...
Which brings me back around to my deeper curiosity of "What's the 3rd Order-friendly way to "sell" the Integral Vision to the larger audience?
I like Albert Murray's unpacking of the idea of "Omni-American" as one example of a possible answer here, have you come across other frameworks that reintegrate the larger shared human experience and unique individual opportunities we have in a similar manner?
Hi David - I have enjoyed your questions and Annick's answers here. In short, there is no "quick fix" to the problem you note. As someone who has been following these Developmental theories - Spiral Dynamics, Integral Theory, etc. for close to 30 years, the short hand answer is that each individual has to "do the work" of personal development. It is a life long practice.
In Integral terms, it is an Integral Transformative Practice that looks at each of our Lines of Development (20+) and develops a psychograph grade for how we are for each line. Integral Life, the offshoot of Ken Wilber's Integral Institute offers many programs to help people grow. There are many Integrally/Spirally informed coaches, mentors, teachers, and consultants that assist people in this.
I recently wrote an essay about this question. Having said all that, I think what Annick is attempting is needed - education of leaders at all levels of the importance of Worldviews and their impact on the world and the meta-crisis.
I agree with your first paragraph 100%. There is no substitute for the need for individuals to pursue their own developmental goals.
The trick is to offer a Worldview where that effort is asked for in clear ways and for compelling reasons, and with lots of appropriate supports and challenges at each step along the way. And this new Worldview, in my opinion, can't be some high falutin', multiperspectival, nuanced amalgamation taking all the best parts of the 3 current dominant cultural value stacks of Trads, Mods, and Progs but "leaves the rest behind," as often that problematic "rest" is EXACTLY what so many 3rd Order individuals find so compelling.
What's the point of devoting your time, energy, money, and life into pursuing the path of "us believers" if it turns out that the very Us vs Them dynamic is the problem?
Borrowing from the movie Fight Club, the "first rule of Integral is that you don't talk about Integral," meaning that the new Worldview can't have any Integral jargon in it nor be some slipshod offer of colors, levels, lines, and spirals. Borrowing another pop culture line, "Ain't nobody got time for that!"
Instead it needs, in my opinion, to lean into all the basic Archetypes that the 3rd Order loves - good vs evil, us vs them, a larger arc of destiny, etc.. - and package it in ways that highlight the power of individual effort and action while also appealing to our larger shared humanity. Albert Murray's Omni-American ideal is a good offer here, as I'm sure are many others.
Always looking for more examples and better reasonings and rationales to the whole dilemma than I am throwing up here, thanks so. much for your thoughts!!
Great discussion! My sense is that if truly good leaders who embody this new vision come along, they may be able to inspire many people, uplift their understanding of and engagement with this mysterious world that we find ourselves in. And they may indeed be able to leverage these old archetypes, as you refer to them David - good vs evil, us vs them, a larger arc of destiny - but in a way that is uplifting and uniting. We need someone (or many someones) as powerful and potent as Trump, but then with the exact opposite of the characteristics he displays. Ironically, he shows us that it is not impossible for one individual to move the masses, to change history, to create rapid and unprecedented change on a large scale, he is just doing it in the wrong direction. Weirdly, there is hope in that :-)
David - Again I agree with this completely. Since first being exposed to Integral Theory and Spiral Dynamics 30 years ago, I believe this is one of the greatest challenges of “Integrally Informed” people - to both communicate in multiple languages across the spectrum and to help educate and teach leaders in the importance of worldviews. Annick’s essay and another inspired my latest, too long and I could only fall back on the Spiral Dynamics framing to attempt to speak of the importance of worldviews. And, again, another pet peave, it seems that Integralists are missing that Red-Power is the level of development of many of the world’s leaders - Ego driven with tragedy the result. We need to train and elect and select better leaders. https://medium.com/@jylterps/colonialism-worldviews-and-imperial-modernity-their-legacy-and-impact-today-94c27be67aad
Excellent, Jim, thank you and thanks for sharing your article here.
I've clicked over to check it out, but noticing its impressive length, have bookmarked it for a later read. There's only so much "coffee time" reading I can get away with here in the mornings before parenting and work duties call!
On a related note, I just recorded a conversation with Keith Martin-Smith over on the Integral Life platform touching upon a bit of the above. It will be released this week under the Integral Edge banner and titled (I believe) Becoming Whole in a Divided World. Hope you get a chance to check it out and provide critical feedback as comes up! And you too, Annick!
Thank you for this generous and layered reflection on a vital question: what lies beneath our cultural divides? Beyond parties and policies, there’s a deeper invitation. To evolve how we see, not just what we believe. I’m especially drawn to the call for integration: of old and new, reason and spirit, self and society. And, I think, the real work begins within — discovering what we truly stand for, what we choose to nourish, and who we’re becoming along the way. From that place, we can begin planting only the seeds we want to see flourish in this shared garden of life.
Kudos to you for this brave, much needed, analysis of the crisis of meaning in all the post-... worldviews, including the one you do not mention the "post-humanist" worldview, that of course promises to get rid of all the worldviews and goes as far as to condemn the legibility of language. So, my questions to you are: 1) Is post-humanism the same as post-modernism? And what about post-structuralism, post-marxism? 2) Is the new view you advocate "metamodern"? (the IDGs framework has ties with metamodernism) 3) Where would you put systemic thinking ?
Thank you again in advance for your answers! Congratulations for this clear evaluation and hopeful analysis!
Hi there, thanks for your comment and questions! Post-humanism, post-structuralism, and post-marxism are, as far as I can tell, intellectual movements and schools that indeed by and large seem to be grounded in a postmodern worldview - thus departing from constructivist, relativist, anti-essentialist assumptions. However because these are also container concepts that often include diverging strands of thought I'm not being particularly exact here. The 'worldview lens' helps us dig for the underlying assumptions and presuppositions, and those can then tell us what general, ideal-typical worldview-category they are most aligned with. Same counts for systemic thinking - what kind of systemic thinking do you refer to, and what in your eyes are the assumptions it is grounded in? Hope this helps! Warmly, Annick
Dear Annick, thank you for your response! The question for me is whether "worldviews" and "ideologies" are one and the same thing, or just a few nuances apart. Post-humanists have already expressed themselves against worldviews and I believe systemic or post-systemic thinkers would do the same (Nora Bateson, for example). Systemic thinking expresses itself in terms of ecosystems, with society, groups, organizations, allegedly organized as one of them. This diverges uttermost from marxism, that sees conflict everywhere, although they are aligned in assigning a low reputation to whatever goes on in human minds, regarded as not relevant enough to change the structural, economic aspects of society. These two strands (post-humanists and systemic thinkers) would not accept to see their views as worldviews, in my opinion.
Worldviews and ideologies exist on a continuum, if you ask me. As I define them in my article, they're not the same, but their differences are gradual more than absolute. Worldviews can become ideologies, and we see a lot of that in our current time.
The notion of being 'against worldview' (I read Bayo Akomolafe's post on this), I find to be silly, clearly misunderstanding what worldviews are, and overall not well argued. And yes, I think postmodernism/the postmodern worldview doesn't tend to recognize itself as worldview (e.g. it resists making claims about the ultimate nature of reality), but that does not mean it is not a worldview.
I really enjoyed reading this! It's an extensive piece of work and dives into some very interesting topics. It is my hope that this 'new worldview', as you call it, takes more centre stage. I think we need a lot more nuance, patience, and dialogue in a world increasingly divided.
Yes well said Vanessa, more nuance, patience, and dialogue in a world increasingly divided. And the overcoming of what you so aptly call 'paradigm blindness'.
The Integrative Worldview and the Tragedy of Incompatibility.
Every worldview, no matter how expansive or inclusive, eventually confronts a decisive question: who is granted the right to exist, which values are prioritized, and what is recognized as truth? These are not abstract dilemmas, but urgent demands that test the coherence and applicability of any philosophical system.
The integrative worldview, as currently proposed by Annick de Witt (and other metamodern thinkers) seeks to bridge ideological chasms by weaving together elements of tradition, modernity, and postmodernity. It aspires to cultivate a more capacious, pluralistic cultural consciousness, one capable of holding multiple, even conflicting perspectives in tension. Yet this vision, however noble, harbors its own internal tensions.
As long as the integrative worldview:
romanticizes tragedy rather than reckoning with its political and ethical consequences,
celebrates pluralism without the courage to establish necessary hierarchies of value,
and aestheticizes conflict instead of addressing its structural roots,
it risks becoming a luxury position of the contemplative class — intellectually stimulating, but politically inert. It gestures toward synthesis while avoiding the hard ethical labor of decision-making.
As one might rightly ask:
It is precisely the incompatible realities that generate our deepest crises, how can one construct a stable compass out of that?
This question strikes at the heart of the integrative project. A worldview that takes incompatibility seriously not as a flaw to be eliminated, but as a structural feature of human life must offer more than tolerance or cognitive flexibility. It must propose an ethic, a politics, and a psychological maturity capable of withstanding the tragic dimensions of existence.
Such a worldview must resist the temptation to resolve contradiction prematurely. Instead, its strength lies in cultivating the human capacities required to endure contradiction without collapse: patience, courage, self-reflection, and imagination. These are not ornamental virtues, but existential tools for navigating a world in which absolute reconciliation is often impossible.
This is not an easy vision. It offers no utopia, no promise of ideological harmony. And yet, perhaps for that very reason, it is a vision of essential maturity, one that acknowledges the complexity of the human condition and dares to respond with both clarity and compassion.
Hi Gaetan, thanks for your thoughtful response here (and apologies for my belated reply).
I agree that not any conceptual perspective, worldview, or understanding will necessarily eliminate all conflicts or conflicting positions. To me, the wisdom and great potential of the integrative worldview (or an integral or metamodern perspective) at this time is that it crafts a pathway forward, and invites for a certain developmental maturity, which can recognize that some of the greatest conflicts of our time are at least partially rooted in limitations of perspective. And while many issues can be resolved if we find other ways to look at, and relate to them, that does not mean that all conflict is gone, nor that the demanded perspective-shift is easily attained. Coming to a truly integrative way of understanding life and the world may even be a lifelong endeavour, in which we gradually realize a way of being and understanding that is more in harmony with the things around us, as well as the perspectives of those who think and value differently. The aim of my essay, I guess, is to point at that way, inviting us to more creatively relate to the many conflicts and contradictions we are confronted with in our current political landscape.
In response to your question -- It is precisely the incompatible realities that generate our deepest crises, how can one construct a stable compass out of that? -- I would say we need to double-check the assumptions that it is the incompatible realities that generate these crises, arguing that the greater problem is the incompatibility of our diverse understandings of those realities.
Your insight and understanding of our current situation as ever evolving human, semi-conscious, critters is “spot on” from my perspective, albeit modesty integral.
I hope to participate in this evening’s “zoom “ meeting with Steve M. , but may not be awake at that time since I am presently in Florence, Italy.
But if I fail to connect this evening, i hope we may reconnect on Substack at some other time.
Hi Annick - I learned of this essay and your work from the Developmental Politics group from the Institute for Cultural Evolution, who you referenced and are familiar with. I first met Steve Mcintosh 12 years ago when he was starting ICE. His move to address polarization through a new, "Developmental" (or Evolutionary, or Integral) approach to politics is much needed.
This long essay is the best thing I have read to help accomplish this. You, along with Steve, ICE, and Wilber, believe the path ahead is to reform postmodernism, the "leading edge" of development as it is "blocking" the move to a more integrated worldview that you are calling for.
I initially resisted this critique eight years ago when Wilber offered it but now partially accept it as the only way ahead. FWIW, I sent the link to this essay to former Tramsportation Secretary Buttigieg.
For this approach to have any traction, major leaders will need to comprehend, understand, and embrace what you have said here. Using Spiral Dynamics, the "big three" you discuss are Blue-Traditional, Orange-Modern, and Green PostModern, with a Yellow or Teal Integral approach required.
However, you completely left out Red-Power. The ascendance of authoritarianism globally and in MAGA-Trumpism, with neoreactionaries thrown in, in concurrence with Russian philisophical traditionalism, is a major Red-Blue cojoining in service of the destruction of the institutions of Orange Modernity and in particular, Green Postmodernism. Unless and until "the left" can stave off this existential threat and regain power, the likelihood of having current authoritarian leaders buy into this approach is next to zero.
That doesn't mean ICE and you should not try. We need to educate leaders on this. They need to comprehend and communicate this in democracies where they still may be able to be elected.
Thanks again, I hope to join you next week in the Developmental Politics call or if I miss it, certainly watch the replay.
Thanks so much for your insightful comment, Jim! Yes, I did leave out red/pre-traditional worldviews, even as they arguably have currently lots of traction, as expressed in the rise of authoritarianism across the globe. And yes, i agree with you that it is likely only the postmodern left -- if it can overcome its own failures and excesses -- allied with other forces in society, that can present a real alternative and thereby potential stave off this grave threat. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and hope to see you next week!
One of the authors you references, James Davison Hunter, initiatiator of the Culture Wars concept, has a new book out after looking him up - Democracy & Solidarity
On the Cultural Roots of America’s Political Crisis. If you have time in your disussion of this going forward, you may want to address what the blurb for this book says: "While a deepening political polarization is the most obvious sign of this (Culture Wars, Worldview clashes), the true problem is not polarization per se but the absence of cultural resources to work through what divides us. The destructive logic that has filled the void only makes bridging our differences more challenging. In the end, all political regimes require some level of unity. If it cannot be generated organically, it will be imposed by force.
Yes, thank you Jim! With respect to that comment, though I can't fully conclude what he is referring to, it sounds right to me. Stark differences in opinion, position, and understanding are not themselves the problem - the problem is our inability to constructively deal with them. This is also why a lot of my work is focussed on transformative education and generative dialogue, and the developing of the democratic capabilities needed to thrive in and with these differences. (We've been developing a transformative learning approach at Utrecht University called the Worldview Journey. See: https://worldviewjourneys.com/worldview-journey. And: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901124002302
Totally agree that the work needed is a new worldview. I think it is important to note that what you are describing as an integrative worldview has a source to draw upon beyond inclusion of the best of other western world views - a living systems or indigenous world view has much to teach us about the world view we are being called to create. Thanks for your insightful evaluation of our current predicament. We are certainly all subject to confirmation bias, so it will take a diversity of perspectives to come together around the nature of natural law and the nature of human nature, as well as many other of the big questions.
Thanks Marcus, and yes, you're so right, indigenous, living systems worldviews are foundational to this 'new' way of understanding reality (and I spoke to this in the essay as the need for restoring the enchanted view of existence). And what is so interesting is that, as far as we know, people pretty universally, across different contexts and cultures, used to see reality - and particularly - nature that way: as animated, alive, magical, enchanted. Our modern objectivist, naturalist, secular worldview is the aberration, the exception -- not the enchanted view, as Weber also argued.
The worldview lens shared by Annick in this article helps us recognize blind spots in our perspectives and offers a way to move beyond extreme positions, integrating seemingly opposing views. As proposed, a new worldview must learn from different perspectives to overcome toxic polarization. Thank you for the great article!
Yeah it's interesting Peter, I think the worldviews can indeed really help us to somewhat consciously start to forge that more integrated perspective, though of course this is far from only an intellectual exercise...
Annick, thank you for this extraordinary essay — it turned my Saturday afternoon into a deep dive of reflection, resonance, and clarity. You’ve put into words what many of us have been sensing in fragments: that our political and cultural disorientation stems not just from failing systems, but from fractured worldviews that no longer help us make sense of the world.
In my own work on transformative leadership and mindset change, I’ve been exploring a similar tension — what I call the trap of 2D thinking. We flatten complexity into binaries, leaving out the ‘third dimension’ of perspective, value, or control. Your articulation of the need for a new meta-framework — one that integrates rather than erases — deeply echoes this.
It’s rare to find something that bridges intellectual rigor with psychological depth and cultural relevance so powerfully. Thank you for this gift of orientation. I’ll be carrying its questions forward in my own book project on transformative thinking — aimed at bringing these ideas into the mainstream in an applicable, grounded way.
Let’s keep connecting the dots across perspectives. This kind of work is vital.
That third dimension, and its relationship to the other two, describes Gurdjieff's Law of Three very well. Without the reconciling or harmonizing energy of the third force ever present in our thinking we are doomed to what Carol Sanford calls flatland thinking. It is interesting to me how this framework pops up in so many wisdom traditions and more (w)holistic ways of thinking.
Marcus I think a comment of you got lost here, right? It seems like you are following up on something in this comment, but I can't find what that was. Please clarify, if you want to. Thanks!
Yes "flatland" it is not Carol's original idea but she has some interesting takes on its transcendence related to the third force. She cites her source as Edwin Abbott who wrote a book named Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions in 1884 about a 2D world.
Yes, let's 'keep connecting the dots across perspectives' Tobias! And thanks for sharing this. I've also done quite a bit of work in the field of transformative education - which arguably refers to education that can change, deepen, evolve our worldviews and mindsets.
Very Insightful and nuanced walk through of both the context and content of our current times, thank you!
Following up on the part where you mentioned (and referenced a deeper dive piece) on the differences between the structure of ideologies and their contents, I'd love to hear more of your thinking on how the structures of individual psychological development, ala Robert Kegan's model, for example, might correlate (or not) with the content they espouse. Phrased another way, how might their developmental "Altitude" be more relevant than the "attitude" or "aptitudes" they express from that altitude?
The reason I ask this question here of you is that the degree of complexity that your suggested emergent worldview requires of its believers or adherents is very high, and much higher than what the vast middle of the developmental and intellectual Bell Curves can easily access.
In other words, *most* people are going to continue to view the world through much simpler categories of binary thinking, "us vs them" dynamics, and Good vs Bad moralizing and are both unable and uninterested in seeing beyond the usual categories of human thought to where transcending and including the "best parts" of the Traditional, Modern, and Postmodern Worldviews is the least bit attractive, much less feasible.
How might this much need "integral worldview" be packaged and promoted so that it can become more accessible and relevant to not just those deeply satisfied with the current realities on offer, but all of those younger people coming of age in today's world looking for the next rung up the ladder out of whatever culture-of-embeddedness they were born into and raised up within?
Thanks David, great comment and question. I think the correlation between worldview-evolution and psychological development is strong yet complicated - in the sense that as we grow and evolve as individuals, our capacity for understanding reality with complexity, nuance, objectivity, etc grows (and vice versa). However, the larger worldview-shifts I talk about here (e.g., from traditional to modern to postmodern and beyond) are much more general and big-picture than the perhaps more subtle and refined steps we may focus on in our psychological growth. (Another interesting perspective here is that of trauma - we know that trauma can distort our understanding of reality, and doing trauma-work and healing some of our core-wounding will thus likely also help us evolve our worldviews.)
And yes, many people may not be ready for the complexity, philosophical depth, and existential burden of consciously evolving their worldviews. However, our time is calling for it, and as we are all confronted with these toxic polarities that rip our families, communities, and even our countries and the global post-war world-order apart, we're actively wrestling with it -- thereby creating many possibilities for transformative experiences and sudden breakthroughs. I also think as the postmodern left keeps on running into its own created walls, a shift to more integrative ways of understanding the world amongst that population will become inevitable (and I think is already happening) and may then support the rest of the population to follow along.
What do you think about it? Can you see a kind of evolution like that happening? Why or why not?
Hi Annick, thanks for your thoughtful reply, it's much appreciated!
The concern I have relates to the inherent trajectory of individual development and the timelines and capacities involved that unfold over and through a lifespan, the challenges encountered, & support systems available.
While I believe you're right that many of the leading "Left" (whatever that means these days) intellectuals are indeed primed and capable of upgrading their worldviews as a more coherent and compelling offer comes along, my worry is that the higher complexity nuances that make it relevant and interesting will be invisible to all of those operating with less developed "cognitive hardware" that comes about through development.
And I am thrilled to be here to witness and hopefully participate in it!!
However, for the vast majority of individuals that *aren't* at Kegan's 4th Order Self Authoring or above stages, the inherent complexities and paradoxes there will inevitably get lost in translation. We can see this all around where tribal alliances trump both sovereign individuality and all efforts to point to a larger shared humanism. Efforts to promote tolerance get crunched down to angry 20-somethings marching with signs that say "No tolerance for intolerance." The inherent doubt in expertise that the entire Scientific enterprise is built upon gets distorted down to the dogmatic "Trust the Science (TM)" demands dismissively waved at all would suggest less certainty in policy and procedure. The "Left" doesn't have a good track of practicing what it preaches here with these simpler frames, and to be clear and fair, neither does the Right. This is a human problem, not a political one.
As Robert Kegan himself shared by example. The Golden Rule of "Do unto others as YOU WOULD HAVE them do unto you" gets a quick nod of agreement and parroted back as "Right, do unto others AS THEY HAVE done unto you" leading directly into revenge.
As Jesus, Socrates, MLK, and countless others have discovered the hard way, the authorities don't like being questioned, the masses don't like being asked to get along with each other, and blood is thicker than water.
In sum, I'm worried that whatever the emerging integral vision may be, regardless of how Good, True, and Beautiful the path it offers compels, the vast majority will say "Yes!" and distort it as needed via the Procrustean Bed of their 3rd Order frameworks and continue their Tribal ways of binary thinking, US vs Them, Good vs Bad, etc...
Which brings me back around to my deeper curiosity of "What's the 3rd Order-friendly way to "sell" the Integral Vision to the larger audience?
I like Albert Murray's unpacking of the idea of "Omni-American" as one example of a possible answer here, have you come across other frameworks that reintegrate the larger shared human experience and unique individual opportunities we have in a similar manner?
Hi David - I have enjoyed your questions and Annick's answers here. In short, there is no "quick fix" to the problem you note. As someone who has been following these Developmental theories - Spiral Dynamics, Integral Theory, etc. for close to 30 years, the short hand answer is that each individual has to "do the work" of personal development. It is a life long practice.
In Integral terms, it is an Integral Transformative Practice that looks at each of our Lines of Development (20+) and develops a psychograph grade for how we are for each line. Integral Life, the offshoot of Ken Wilber's Integral Institute offers many programs to help people grow. There are many Integrally/Spirally informed coaches, mentors, teachers, and consultants that assist people in this.
I recently wrote an essay about this question. Having said all that, I think what Annick is attempting is needed - education of leaders at all levels of the importance of Worldviews and their impact on the world and the meta-crisis.
https://integrallife.com/
https://medium.com/@jylterps/humanity-must-wake-up-grow-up-clean-up-and-show-up-through-personal-development-and-growth-a401112a9d83
Hi Jim, thanks for sharing your voice here!
I agree with your first paragraph 100%. There is no substitute for the need for individuals to pursue their own developmental goals.
The trick is to offer a Worldview where that effort is asked for in clear ways and for compelling reasons, and with lots of appropriate supports and challenges at each step along the way. And this new Worldview, in my opinion, can't be some high falutin', multiperspectival, nuanced amalgamation taking all the best parts of the 3 current dominant cultural value stacks of Trads, Mods, and Progs but "leaves the rest behind," as often that problematic "rest" is EXACTLY what so many 3rd Order individuals find so compelling.
What's the point of devoting your time, energy, money, and life into pursuing the path of "us believers" if it turns out that the very Us vs Them dynamic is the problem?
Borrowing from the movie Fight Club, the "first rule of Integral is that you don't talk about Integral," meaning that the new Worldview can't have any Integral jargon in it nor be some slipshod offer of colors, levels, lines, and spirals. Borrowing another pop culture line, "Ain't nobody got time for that!"
Instead it needs, in my opinion, to lean into all the basic Archetypes that the 3rd Order loves - good vs evil, us vs them, a larger arc of destiny, etc.. - and package it in ways that highlight the power of individual effort and action while also appealing to our larger shared humanity. Albert Murray's Omni-American ideal is a good offer here, as I'm sure are many others.
Always looking for more examples and better reasonings and rationales to the whole dilemma than I am throwing up here, thanks so. much for your thoughts!!
Great discussion! My sense is that if truly good leaders who embody this new vision come along, they may be able to inspire many people, uplift their understanding of and engagement with this mysterious world that we find ourselves in. And they may indeed be able to leverage these old archetypes, as you refer to them David - good vs evil, us vs them, a larger arc of destiny - but in a way that is uplifting and uniting. We need someone (or many someones) as powerful and potent as Trump, but then with the exact opposite of the characteristics he displays. Ironically, he shows us that it is not impossible for one individual to move the masses, to change history, to create rapid and unprecedented change on a large scale, he is just doing it in the wrong direction. Weirdly, there is hope in that :-)
David - Again I agree with this completely. Since first being exposed to Integral Theory and Spiral Dynamics 30 years ago, I believe this is one of the greatest challenges of “Integrally Informed” people - to both communicate in multiple languages across the spectrum and to help educate and teach leaders in the importance of worldviews. Annick’s essay and another inspired my latest, too long and I could only fall back on the Spiral Dynamics framing to attempt to speak of the importance of worldviews. And, again, another pet peave, it seems that Integralists are missing that Red-Power is the level of development of many of the world’s leaders - Ego driven with tragedy the result. We need to train and elect and select better leaders. https://medium.com/@jylterps/colonialism-worldviews-and-imperial-modernity-their-legacy-and-impact-today-94c27be67aad
Excellent, Jim, thank you and thanks for sharing your article here.
I've clicked over to check it out, but noticing its impressive length, have bookmarked it for a later read. There's only so much "coffee time" reading I can get away with here in the mornings before parenting and work duties call!
On a related note, I just recorded a conversation with Keith Martin-Smith over on the Integral Life platform touching upon a bit of the above. It will be released this week under the Integral Edge banner and titled (I believe) Becoming Whole in a Divided World. Hope you get a chance to check it out and provide critical feedback as comes up! And you too, Annick!
This is excellent! A great summary of insights. Very well done.
Readers who enjoyed this essay are likely to appreciate these related, earlier essays on Integral Life:
https://integrallife.com/hope-as-process-being-and-becoming-in-the-great-integration/
https://integrallife.com/diversity-empathy-integration/
Thanks Brad, I looked at these articles and will definitely give them a good read in the coming period.
Thank you for this generous and layered reflection on a vital question: what lies beneath our cultural divides? Beyond parties and policies, there’s a deeper invitation. To evolve how we see, not just what we believe. I’m especially drawn to the call for integration: of old and new, reason and spirit, self and society. And, I think, the real work begins within — discovering what we truly stand for, what we choose to nourish, and who we’re becoming along the way. From that place, we can begin planting only the seeds we want to see flourish in this shared garden of life.
Thanks for your beautiful reflection here Glenn!
Kudos to you for this brave, much needed, analysis of the crisis of meaning in all the post-... worldviews, including the one you do not mention the "post-humanist" worldview, that of course promises to get rid of all the worldviews and goes as far as to condemn the legibility of language. So, my questions to you are: 1) Is post-humanism the same as post-modernism? And what about post-structuralism, post-marxism? 2) Is the new view you advocate "metamodern"? (the IDGs framework has ties with metamodernism) 3) Where would you put systemic thinking ?
Thank you again in advance for your answers! Congratulations for this clear evaluation and hopeful analysis!
Hi there, thanks for your comment and questions! Post-humanism, post-structuralism, and post-marxism are, as far as I can tell, intellectual movements and schools that indeed by and large seem to be grounded in a postmodern worldview - thus departing from constructivist, relativist, anti-essentialist assumptions. However because these are also container concepts that often include diverging strands of thought I'm not being particularly exact here. The 'worldview lens' helps us dig for the underlying assumptions and presuppositions, and those can then tell us what general, ideal-typical worldview-category they are most aligned with. Same counts for systemic thinking - what kind of systemic thinking do you refer to, and what in your eyes are the assumptions it is grounded in? Hope this helps! Warmly, Annick
Dear Annick, thank you for your response! The question for me is whether "worldviews" and "ideologies" are one and the same thing, or just a few nuances apart. Post-humanists have already expressed themselves against worldviews and I believe systemic or post-systemic thinkers would do the same (Nora Bateson, for example). Systemic thinking expresses itself in terms of ecosystems, with society, groups, organizations, allegedly organized as one of them. This diverges uttermost from marxism, that sees conflict everywhere, although they are aligned in assigning a low reputation to whatever goes on in human minds, regarded as not relevant enough to change the structural, economic aspects of society. These two strands (post-humanists and systemic thinkers) would not accept to see their views as worldviews, in my opinion.
Warm regards,
MEG
Worldviews and ideologies exist on a continuum, if you ask me. As I define them in my article, they're not the same, but their differences are gradual more than absolute. Worldviews can become ideologies, and we see a lot of that in our current time.
The notion of being 'against worldview' (I read Bayo Akomolafe's post on this), I find to be silly, clearly misunderstanding what worldviews are, and overall not well argued. And yes, I think postmodernism/the postmodern worldview doesn't tend to recognize itself as worldview (e.g. it resists making claims about the ultimate nature of reality), but that does not mean it is not a worldview.
I really enjoyed reading this! It's an extensive piece of work and dives into some very interesting topics. It is my hope that this 'new worldview', as you call it, takes more centre stage. I think we need a lot more nuance, patience, and dialogue in a world increasingly divided.
Yes well said Vanessa, more nuance, patience, and dialogue in a world increasingly divided. And the overcoming of what you so aptly call 'paradigm blindness'.
The Integrative Worldview and the Tragedy of Incompatibility.
Every worldview, no matter how expansive or inclusive, eventually confronts a decisive question: who is granted the right to exist, which values are prioritized, and what is recognized as truth? These are not abstract dilemmas, but urgent demands that test the coherence and applicability of any philosophical system.
The integrative worldview, as currently proposed by Annick de Witt (and other metamodern thinkers) seeks to bridge ideological chasms by weaving together elements of tradition, modernity, and postmodernity. It aspires to cultivate a more capacious, pluralistic cultural consciousness, one capable of holding multiple, even conflicting perspectives in tension. Yet this vision, however noble, harbors its own internal tensions.
As long as the integrative worldview:
romanticizes tragedy rather than reckoning with its political and ethical consequences,
celebrates pluralism without the courage to establish necessary hierarchies of value,
and aestheticizes conflict instead of addressing its structural roots,
it risks becoming a luxury position of the contemplative class — intellectually stimulating, but politically inert. It gestures toward synthesis while avoiding the hard ethical labor of decision-making.
As one might rightly ask:
It is precisely the incompatible realities that generate our deepest crises, how can one construct a stable compass out of that?
This question strikes at the heart of the integrative project. A worldview that takes incompatibility seriously not as a flaw to be eliminated, but as a structural feature of human life must offer more than tolerance or cognitive flexibility. It must propose an ethic, a politics, and a psychological maturity capable of withstanding the tragic dimensions of existence.
Such a worldview must resist the temptation to resolve contradiction prematurely. Instead, its strength lies in cultivating the human capacities required to endure contradiction without collapse: patience, courage, self-reflection, and imagination. These are not ornamental virtues, but existential tools for navigating a world in which absolute reconciliation is often impossible.
This is not an easy vision. It offers no utopia, no promise of ideological harmony. And yet, perhaps for that very reason, it is a vision of essential maturity, one that acknowledges the complexity of the human condition and dares to respond with both clarity and compassion.
Hi Gaetan, thanks for your thoughtful response here (and apologies for my belated reply).
I agree that not any conceptual perspective, worldview, or understanding will necessarily eliminate all conflicts or conflicting positions. To me, the wisdom and great potential of the integrative worldview (or an integral or metamodern perspective) at this time is that it crafts a pathway forward, and invites for a certain developmental maturity, which can recognize that some of the greatest conflicts of our time are at least partially rooted in limitations of perspective. And while many issues can be resolved if we find other ways to look at, and relate to them, that does not mean that all conflict is gone, nor that the demanded perspective-shift is easily attained. Coming to a truly integrative way of understanding life and the world may even be a lifelong endeavour, in which we gradually realize a way of being and understanding that is more in harmony with the things around us, as well as the perspectives of those who think and value differently. The aim of my essay, I guess, is to point at that way, inviting us to more creatively relate to the many conflicts and contradictions we are confronted with in our current political landscape.
In response to your question -- It is precisely the incompatible realities that generate our deepest crises, how can one construct a stable compass out of that? -- I would say we need to double-check the assumptions that it is the incompatible realities that generate these crises, arguing that the greater problem is the incompatibility of our diverse understandings of those realities.
Dear Annik:
Your insight and understanding of our current situation as ever evolving human, semi-conscious, critters is “spot on” from my perspective, albeit modesty integral.
I hope to participate in this evening’s “zoom “ meeting with Steve M. , but may not be awake at that time since I am presently in Florence, Italy.
But if I fail to connect this evening, i hope we may reconnect on Substack at some other time.
Sincerely,
Stephen Cottrell
Hi Annick - I learned of this essay and your work from the Developmental Politics group from the Institute for Cultural Evolution, who you referenced and are familiar with. I first met Steve Mcintosh 12 years ago when he was starting ICE. His move to address polarization through a new, "Developmental" (or Evolutionary, or Integral) approach to politics is much needed.
This long essay is the best thing I have read to help accomplish this. You, along with Steve, ICE, and Wilber, believe the path ahead is to reform postmodernism, the "leading edge" of development as it is "blocking" the move to a more integrated worldview that you are calling for.
I initially resisted this critique eight years ago when Wilber offered it but now partially accept it as the only way ahead. FWIW, I sent the link to this essay to former Tramsportation Secretary Buttigieg.
For this approach to have any traction, major leaders will need to comprehend, understand, and embrace what you have said here. Using Spiral Dynamics, the "big three" you discuss are Blue-Traditional, Orange-Modern, and Green PostModern, with a Yellow or Teal Integral approach required.
However, you completely left out Red-Power. The ascendance of authoritarianism globally and in MAGA-Trumpism, with neoreactionaries thrown in, in concurrence with Russian philisophical traditionalism, is a major Red-Blue cojoining in service of the destruction of the institutions of Orange Modernity and in particular, Green Postmodernism. Unless and until "the left" can stave off this existential threat and regain power, the likelihood of having current authoritarian leaders buy into this approach is next to zero.
That doesn't mean ICE and you should not try. We need to educate leaders on this. They need to comprehend and communicate this in democracies where they still may be able to be elected.
Thanks again, I hope to join you next week in the Developmental Politics call or if I miss it, certainly watch the replay.
Thanks so much for your insightful comment, Jim! Yes, I did leave out red/pre-traditional worldviews, even as they arguably have currently lots of traction, as expressed in the rise of authoritarianism across the globe. And yes, i agree with you that it is likely only the postmodern left -- if it can overcome its own failures and excesses -- allied with other forces in society, that can present a real alternative and thereby potential stave off this grave threat. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and hope to see you next week!
One of the authors you references, James Davison Hunter, initiatiator of the Culture Wars concept, has a new book out after looking him up - Democracy & Solidarity
On the Cultural Roots of America’s Political Crisis. If you have time in your disussion of this going forward, you may want to address what the blurb for this book says: "While a deepening political polarization is the most obvious sign of this (Culture Wars, Worldview clashes), the true problem is not polarization per se but the absence of cultural resources to work through what divides us. The destructive logic that has filled the void only makes bridging our differences more challenging. In the end, all political regimes require some level of unity. If it cannot be generated organically, it will be imposed by force.
https://jamesdavisonhunter.com/democracy-solidarity
Yes, thank you Jim! With respect to that comment, though I can't fully conclude what he is referring to, it sounds right to me. Stark differences in opinion, position, and understanding are not themselves the problem - the problem is our inability to constructively deal with them. This is also why a lot of my work is focussed on transformative education and generative dialogue, and the developing of the democratic capabilities needed to thrive in and with these differences. (We've been developing a transformative learning approach at Utrecht University called the Worldview Journey. See: https://worldviewjourneys.com/worldview-journey. And: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901124002302
Totally agree that the work needed is a new worldview. I think it is important to note that what you are describing as an integrative worldview has a source to draw upon beyond inclusion of the best of other western world views - a living systems or indigenous world view has much to teach us about the world view we are being called to create. Thanks for your insightful evaluation of our current predicament. We are certainly all subject to confirmation bias, so it will take a diversity of perspectives to come together around the nature of natural law and the nature of human nature, as well as many other of the big questions.
Thanks Marcus, and yes, you're so right, indigenous, living systems worldviews are foundational to this 'new' way of understanding reality (and I spoke to this in the essay as the need for restoring the enchanted view of existence). And what is so interesting is that, as far as we know, people pretty universally, across different contexts and cultures, used to see reality - and particularly - nature that way: as animated, alive, magical, enchanted. Our modern objectivist, naturalist, secular worldview is the aberration, the exception -- not the enchanted view, as Weber also argued.
The worldview lens shared by Annick in this article helps us recognize blind spots in our perspectives and offers a way to move beyond extreme positions, integrating seemingly opposing views. As proposed, a new worldview must learn from different perspectives to overcome toxic polarization. Thank you for the great article!
Yeah it's interesting Peter, I think the worldviews can indeed really help us to somewhat consciously start to forge that more integrated perspective, though of course this is far from only an intellectual exercise...
Annick, thank you for this extraordinary essay — it turned my Saturday afternoon into a deep dive of reflection, resonance, and clarity. You’ve put into words what many of us have been sensing in fragments: that our political and cultural disorientation stems not just from failing systems, but from fractured worldviews that no longer help us make sense of the world.
In my own work on transformative leadership and mindset change, I’ve been exploring a similar tension — what I call the trap of 2D thinking. We flatten complexity into binaries, leaving out the ‘third dimension’ of perspective, value, or control. Your articulation of the need for a new meta-framework — one that integrates rather than erases — deeply echoes this.
It’s rare to find something that bridges intellectual rigor with psychological depth and cultural relevance so powerfully. Thank you for this gift of orientation. I’ll be carrying its questions forward in my own book project on transformative thinking — aimed at bringing these ideas into the mainstream in an applicable, grounded way.
Let’s keep connecting the dots across perspectives. This kind of work is vital.
That third dimension, and its relationship to the other two, describes Gurdjieff's Law of Three very well. Without the reconciling or harmonizing energy of the third force ever present in our thinking we are doomed to what Carol Sanford calls flatland thinking. It is interesting to me how this framework pops up in so many wisdom traditions and more (w)holistic ways of thinking.
Marcus I think a comment of you got lost here, right? It seems like you are following up on something in this comment, but I can't find what that was. Please clarify, if you want to. Thanks!
Not sure it was in the right place but I was following up on Tobias' about 2D thinking and the third dimension.
Ah yes, now I understand what you're saying. Btw I thought it was Wilber who posed the concept of "flatland" - certainly a concept that influenced me.
Yes "flatland" it is not Carol's original idea but she has some interesting takes on its transcendence related to the third force. She cites her source as Edwin Abbott who wrote a book named Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions in 1884 about a 2D world.
Yes, let's 'keep connecting the dots across perspectives' Tobias! And thanks for sharing this. I've also done quite a bit of work in the field of transformative education - which arguably refers to education that can change, deepen, evolve our worldviews and mindsets.
Literalism is killing us