Mapping an Ecology of Integrative Approaches to Addressing the Metacrisis
* Report: “Mapping an Ecology of Integrative Approaches to Addressing the Metacrisis”. By Brandon Norgaard, Nicholas Hedlund, PhD, and Claudia Meglin. Institute of Applied Metatheory, 2025.
URL = pdf
Description
"a sweeping (albeit provisional) cartography of emergent frameworks rooted in an “Integrative Worldview“—ranging from metamodernism and integral theory to systems science, process philosophy, and critical realism—that are converging around a shared impulse to address the root causes of our civilizational predicament."
(https://appliedmetatheory.org/mapping-ecology-integrative-approaches-addressing-metacrisis/)
Excerpts
From the Executive Summary:
"We live in a world marked by a multitude of deep and overlapping global crises. Since 2015, the notion of the metacrisis (Hedlund et al., 2016) seems to have caught on within the socalled ‘liminal web’ scene and adjacent communities of integrative thought and practice, resonating with the zeitgeist as a more adequate way of understanding our crisis-ridden world. The metacrisis refers to the deep and complexly interrelated global crises—ecosocial, ethical, epistemic (sensemaking), existential (meaning-making)—and their underlying network of root causes (Hedlund, 2021). This paper explores the variety of integrative approaches to understanding and responding to the metacrisis notion across integrative/liminal circles, emphasizing the relative epistemic adequacy of these approaches vis-à-vis modern and postmodern approaches. The paper deploys a metatheoretical methodology to provisionally identify the underlying architectonic lens of each integrative approach to the metacrisis by visually mapping an ecology of such approaches. Although modern and postmodern approaches tend to inadequately conceptualize the complexity of the metacrisis due to underlying cognitive-epistemic constraints, communities across various levels of development and cultural code have formulated valid, if partial, approaches to addressing this phenomenon. While these relatively simplistic approaches are considered, in this paper we primarily focus on the mapping an ecology of various integrative approaches to the metacrisis, highlighting the ways in which these more complex approaches are uniquely positioned to help address the metacrisis and embolden the possibilities of actualizing a trajectory of hope towards a protopian society. We argue that understanding these diverse approaches as an ecology holds great potential for their cross-pollination, theoretical development, synthesis, and collaboration—in praxis— amongst the various schools of thought and (micro-)cultural scenes. We conclude by arguing that any semblance of an anything approaching an adequate integrative response to the metacrisis—which is to say, a meta-systemic paradigm shift across all sectors of the sociosphere—would only come through an enhanced mutual understanding, crosspollination, and strategic coordination among communities of integrative thought and practice, including that of Metamodernism, Integral Theory, and Game B. "
Integrative Thought and the Metacrisis
Once one acknowledges that we cannot be reductive in our thinking about issues, causes, or solutions, the complex and interwoven threats and challenges of our contemporary world become more exposed to us, but things also start to become murkier and more confusing. In his essay Tasting the Pickle: The Ten Flavors of the Meta-Crisis, Jonathan Rowson (2021) asks us to take in all of this and to stew in the uncertainty so that we can develop a more embodied understanding of the deep binds and constraints that are surrounding us, which are preventing us from developing adequate solutions. A more natural human tendency would be to rely on simpler and more reductive thinking, but Rowson encourages us to feel into the problem space and to become more comfortable with complexity and uncertainty, which can eventually help us identify viable pathways toward building a better world. As complex as these challenges certainly are, some visionaries have formulated plans of action that might help us avert catastrophe and help bring about a more just, peaceful, and sustainable world. The metasystematic thinking that is characteristic of integrative thought has fueled an amazing array of people and organizations to embrace the complexity of the metacrisis and to formulate viable pathways to navigate through our most serious civilizational obstacles and to co-create new beginnings.
The nascent integrative intellectual and cultural scene is diverse, but big-picture thinking shows some common threads. We are finding that there is remarkable agreement within the various interrelated intellectual movements, organizations, and people that make up the liminal web that there is this metacrisis, and there is deep appreciation of its daunting complexity, but there are differences of opinion about what we should do about it. There is substantial interest and energy within integrative communities, including related movements such as integral theory and metamodernism, for big and fundamental change. Among such communities, there is also near consensus that our legacy socio-cultural, political, and economic institutions are unstable and not viable in the long term. Those who would agree with this general sentiment would often have different reasons for why that would be the case, but they all generally agree that we need to transition to a new systems state. We see futurists, historians, philosophers, wisdom researchers, theists, and mystics debate the benefits, problems, deficiencies, and values of the present state of the world. We also observe these diverse people and organizations work to envision various possibilities for our future world order, and we see them developing action plans for somehow working to address this metacrisis.
However, if integrative communities are to impact the mainstream post/modern culture and world system on at the level that the metacrisis seems to demand, much more cooperation and coherence must be forged across this diversity and pluralism of approaches: we need to transcend the fragmented and rivalrous dynamics amongst us in order to together become an integrative pluralism that can compete on the world stage for cultural authority and systemic transformation. The great sociologist of philosophical movements, Randall Collins (1998), draws a distinction between the “creativity of fractionation” wherein as thinkers accentuate their uniqueness and differences, and the “creativity of synthesis” as thinkers forge pathways of cooperation and alliance (p. 131). While the former is valuable and perhaps is a necessary prerequisite for the latter, without a robust flourishing of the creativity of synthesis, the integrative community will very likely fail to achieve the kind of coherence needed to impact the world system at the level that is needed. As Robb Smith’s (2025) powerful sociology of big-pictures suggests, “we should situate ourselves historically by remembering that [integrative] ‘grand systems like ours benefit from combining efforts to overcome the traditionally-weak organizational base and fragmented backgrounds out of which they tend to grow” (p. 14). Therefore, Smith goes on, “we should center the network, not individual scholars or organizations, per se, in our strategic logic in a parsimonious but socio-politically collaborative way” (ibid).
In this effort towards coherence and macro-level impact, we want to embrace the term integrative as arguably the best strategic umbrella label for the network, and we also would like to help give it some explanatory depth, which might help hold the diverse and emergent field together. We can look at the larger integrative field that includes metamodernism as a cultural sensibility that transcends and includes postmodernism and that includes a variety of voices such as Ken Wilber, Hanzi Freinacht, Roy Bhaskar, Daniel Schmachtenberger, Zak Stein, and Lene Rachel Andersen21. These can all be seen as different ‘species’ within the same cultural genus space of integrative thought and practice22. Each of the various integrative schools of thought (including integral theory, critical realism, etc.) share common attributes, whether they use these terms or not. For instance, integrative schools of thought have a strong self-reflective aspect, they share a broad cultural sensibility, and they have similar ways of responding to postmodernism. In response to the rise of postmodernism in some prominent intellectual circles and also in certain culturally influential social spheres, we have seen people react in different ways to this phenomenon. Postmodernism brings up important considerations, including the ambiguity of communication, the uncertainty of life, the role of power dynamics in framing what is considered right and wrong among the populace, and the general limitations of rationality. While this has been in some ways quite useful and helpful to the development of philosophy and culture over the past fifty years, it can certainly be taken too far and lead people into utter confusion and nihilism, and there are powerful forces at play reacting against it. For example, some notable public intellectuals have tried to fight postmodernism relentlessly as if the future of human civilization hangs in the balance (Raatikainen, 2022) and others have attempted to ridicule it into irrelevance (Seymour, 2021). Still others have simply adopted it as their preferred worldview, though with a less intellectual and markedly angrier tone (Lukianoff & Schlott, 2023).
The broad family of schools of thought that we are calling integrative includes approaches that instead work to transcend postmodernism, while including significant aspects of this philosophy and sensibility. Integrative schools of thought take seriously the critiques put forth by postmodern discourse, but work to overcome them through a variety of tactics where the common thread is a reconnection to meaning and purpose. This is driven from a sense of discontentment with postmodernism and the search for something that gives more meaning to life, which might also help us come together and work toward some sort of solutions or mitigations of these immense problems that we are experiencing.
For those who are in some sort of integrative school of thought, the term ‘metacrisis’ is broadly understood and that such people seem to have enough of a shared conceptualization of this term that it is worth using this term as an anchor point for all such approaches. There is a shared realization that everyone is experiencing the metacrisis and there is something about this integrative cultural sensibility that is undergirded by cognitive complexity that has the capability to see the metacrisis with some semblance of fullness, depth, and sophistication. There are many approaches to addressing perceived problems in the world, but this greater integrative space allows for the complexity of the world situation to be apprehended with some semblance of adequacy. These integrative schools are capable of understanding what the metacrisis is and how to respond to it."
Conclusion: Collaboratively Constructing an Integrative Synthesis in Response to the Metacrisis
'This paper articulated a critical appraisal of the relatively simplistic approaches to addressing perceived crises within premodern (Animistic, Faustian, and Postfaustian), modern, and postmodern worldviews. Despite their shortcomings, many of these worldviews do have important insights to offer and are partially incorporated into the integrative approaches that are described herein. One important aspect of integrative thought is to incorporate perspectives, worldviews, and values of the premodern, modern, and postmodern, but to do so in a balanced way. In other words, the integrative approaches try to integrate the transfigured enduring essence of the relatively more simplistic worldviews in a way that transcends and includes their healthy values and virtues while avoiding their problematics and pathologies.
With regard to the relatively more complex and adequate integrative approaches, a more appreciative stance is warranted. The various approaches within the integrative worldview family and the integrative EVM are likely all capable of relatively adequately conceptualizing the metacrisis and avoiding the Single Focus Fallacy, which each of the premodern, modern, and postmodern worldviews fall victim to in some way. Our intent is that by offering a certain kind of map of the liminal web as it relates to the metacrisis, those within this nascent movement can better recognize their shared visions and common values, can develop deeper strategic coordination and integration among the various projects, and forge a higher degree of alignment toward an essentially common purpose.
While we can and ought to recognize a shared purpose of working to address various interrelated facets of the global metacrisis, doing so under the banner of an integrative worldview, and also using other big-tent terms such as the liminal web and metamodernism where appropriate, would certainly not imply anything like a monolithic organization nor any hierarchical organizational structure to lead this movement. Our goals may be broadly shared, but our process is diverse, emergent, and decentralized. Integrative thought is a broader movement, and while there are many integrative thinkers and several notable integrative organizations, integrative thought per se is obviously not an organization. It is not any single project, and there is no preferred paradigmatic lens. There is certainly no single integrative metatheory at the center of an integrative worldview and there is no privileged archtheory either. Perhaps integrative thought could be seen as a polycentric and recursively evolving movement rooted in a complex network of ideas, principles, values, and practices, whose membrane is fuzzy and whose social holonic vibe and sensibility is ongoingly in process of becoming. Nobody owns the ‘brand’ of integrative thought, and our hope is that nobody tries to capture this flag, since integrative thought and practice—as a cultural movement—will be much more powerful and socially transformative if understood as both a plurality of diverse efforts and a coherent whole: a unity-in-diversity, a singular umbrella identity that understands and appreciates the synergy effect of its unique and different inflections.
With this mapping effort, we are aiming to name some of the most significant and influential streams and to valorize their autonomy and validity. We envision moving toward a protopian—and eventually genuinely flourishing, eudaimonistic—society by engaging with these various thinkers and organizations and encouraging this diverse yet integrated ecosystem30. Diversity is not just a feature of thriving ecosystems—it is their foundation. It ensures stability, productivity, as well as resilience and even anti-fragility. We acknowledge that there are different and even divergent sensibilities within integrative thought, but there is, nonetheless, coherence within this broad and diverse movement. As such, we are arguing for a notion of integrative thought as a broad ecology of approaches that can thrive by engaging their interrelationships—their relationality and flows of communications— which can facilitate the evolution of the integrative ecosystem, as new evolutionary mutations and hybrid forms emerge.
Imagine various forms of deep engagement between multiple integrative approaches, roughly modelled on the 5-year critical realism-integral theory symposia series, as articulated in the introduction to the prior volume (Hedlund & Esbjörn-Hargens, 2023).
Through such a ‘collaborative metapraxis of big-picture thinking’, including such practices as
1) dialogue and dialectical engagement;
2) learning to speak each other’s metatheoretical languages;
3) hermeneutic and ontological generosity;
4) epistemic reflexivity at individual and ‘team’ levels;
5) the cultivation of philia; and,
6) working together on real projects in mixed teams, new perspectives, principles, and practices can emerge (as was the case with the emergence of the variety of emergent synthesis that we can broadly call ‘integral realisms’, including complex integral realism (Esbjörn-Hargens, 2016; Marshall, 2016) and visionary realism (Hedlund, 2016; Hedlund, 2021).
We invite you to take a moment to imagine the radical creativity, innovation, and transformation of the entire integrative/ liminal/metamodern movement, were such processes to be engaged with sufficient depth and breadth. That possible emergent future—that concrete protopian vision for our movement—is exactly the direction that we sense is needed if we are to arrive at anything close to an adequate integrative response to the global metacrisis. There is so much beauty, complex intellectual brilliance, practical potency, and visionary swagger in our collective potential; and yet so much of it remains untapped, ironically somewhat siloed, to the extent that we have yet to really weave the threads of deep relationality that can eventually crisscross and link all the nodes in our ecosystem.
Our hope is also that construing integrative thought in these ecological terms can seed more opportunities for deeper integration, collaboration, cross-fertilization, and emergent collective intelligence for purposes of realizing our shared goals and visions and in working toward innovative and synergistic solutions. Our hope is also that this can lead to a much needed meta-systemic paradigm shift across all sectors of the sociosphere. The integrative approaches explored in this paper can be further integrated and interwoven, which becomes possible when different schools appreciate each other and start to cooperate. Certainly, there is significant diversity presented herein, but for the most part, these are complementary perspectives and approaches. To be sure, this is not to commit the error and fallacy of ontological monovalence common within integral theory that involves simply asserting that everyone is (partially) right and offering sweeping integrations without sufficient care for the details. While we do want to acknowledge that everyone likely has some piece of the truth, we argue that integral theory sometimes tends to oversimplify in its approach to universal syncretism, often glossing over the incommensurabilities, extant contradictions, and absences among various paradigms, metatheories, and worldviews. Such an approach is tantamount to glossing over the transformative power of the differences that drive dialectical transformation towards more adequate understandings and integrative responses to the global metacrisis. Thus, we are arguing that a dialectical critical realist approach that underscores difference and diversity alongside identity and unity is— ultimately—what is maximally generative for the field or movement as a whole. The potential for crucial negative transfiguration of theory and praxis is drawn out by leaning into differences of perspective held under the unifying identity and sphere of purpose that we call integrative thought. In this way, we can nurture the ecosystem of integrative thought so that its various approaches or strands can optimally be cross pollinated and interwoven to offer a fresh and vibrant suite of integrative interventions to our complex global problems.
This does bring up a central question of how this greater integrative ecosystem can remain mindful of potential contradictions while also optimistically seeking out potential linkages. This is a complex question, and the best answer probably lies in the power of metatheory as a force for integration and unification that is grounded in refined and comprehensive philosophy and that offers bridges into the sciences, arts, and other families of disciplines and practices. Different metatheories might have their own unique approach, their own set of jargon, and their own set of mental maps that inevitably privilege certain perspectives over others, but we can then leverage the unique potential of archdisciplinarity as a means of translating across metatheories without insisting that absolutely everything be subsumed into some specific metatheory.
There is much work that needs to be done in order to bring about a larger collaboration across these various schools of thought, projects, and organizations within the liminal web and within the broader integrative and metamodern ecosystem, but this is well worth the effort because anything like a semblance of an actual ‘solution’ to the metacrisis is going to be born out of this mutual understanding, mutual enrichment, and cross-pollination31. Until our greater integrative community participates in weaving together several of these different approaches, we are unlikely to find a response that has the kind of causal potency we are looking for. We need a specifically curated field of collective intelligence and wisdom to emerge out of these schools, and this paper is intended to gesture toward an outline of where we think that should be moving. This larger collaborative and synergist effort should be an important priority for integrative theory and praxis at this critical moment on planet Earth."
More information
- IAM’s white paper “The Sociology of Big Pictures”