Worldviews

Typology

Chris Reid:

"At the level of worldview and culture, we move deeper still to explore ideological positions and discourses that underpin the diverse perspectives uncovered in the previous layer. Some key discourse clashes should already be apparent from the above discussion, such as the clash between those who see humans as dominant over nature and those who seek to accommodate human civilisation to natural constraints.

There are multiple options for uncovering and categorising discourses and worldviews. I have taken a pragmatic approach that draws on developmental psychology to identify and explore worldviews on human interior transformation. Again, there are many developmental theories that I could draw on here.

Specifically, I use the broad stages of human development identified by integral theorists (Beck & Cowan, 1996; Esbjörn-Hargens, 2010; Kegan, 1982; Wilber, 2000) to categorise worldviews. Integral theorists argue that human interiors develop through recognisable stages. While the labels used to represent these stages vary, the general direction is one of widening identity: ‘from “me” (egocentric) to “my group” (ethnocentric) to “my country” (sociocentric) to “all of us” (worldcentric) to “all beings” (planetcentric) to finally “all of reality” (Kosmoscentric)’ (Esbjörn-Hargens, 2010, p. 42). These broad identity stages correspond, roughly, to differing discourses or worldviews. One of the reasons for adopting this particular approach to discourse identification, beyond personal familiarity, is that a developmental perspective on discourse is able to conceptually accommodate interior transformation. Below, I will examine how each of these discourses identified by integral theorists views the potential for human interior transformation. I have excluded the Kosmoscentric discourse as it remains exceedingly rare. My characterisation of the discourses draws particularly on Beck and Cowan (1996), Wilber et al. (2008) and Esbjörn-Hargens (2010).

The characterisations of each discourse are caricatures to some extent, as real discourses are often complex mixes of these different positions. Nevertheless, exploring these distinct positions is a valuable way of mapping different worldviews. To ground the discourses a little, I have provided a typical quote at the end of each discussion, drawn from the comments pages of The Conversation.

Egocentric

Those participating in an egocentric discourse are focused on their own needs and protecting their self-interest. This discourse is exploitive and opportunistic, and sees others as a means to an end rather than people in their own right.

This discourse is entirely focused on satisfying present needs, so problems that lie in the future are simply not visible. As such, any perceived impetus for human interior transformation is missing. If the egocentric discourse is urged to transform, it will see this as an imposition, which it will resist unless there is some immediate and obvious benefit from going along with the transformation agenda. For example, if sustainability challenges present an immediate threat to well-being, as Gilding (2011) argues is inevitable, then the egocentric worldview may accommodate change as a survival mechanism. Egocentrics may also be willing to change if there is an immediate competitive advantage to be gained. Otherwise, egocentrics are likely to take the default position that they are doing fine, they are meeting their immediate needs, there is no need to change and the environment is just a source of resources to exploit for short-term gain. Nihilistic responses to fears about environmental catastrophe are common here (see Eckersley, 2008).

Typical comment: We will go sustainable when we have sucked every last hydro carbon out of old mother earth and not before.

Ethnocentric

The ethnocentric discourse or worldview identifies with the immediate group and values the hierarchical authority structures that keep the group functioning. This worldview seeks to belong and adhere to group norms as to what constitutes socially acceptable behaviour.

Those participating in an ethnocentric discourse are likely to take their cues to change from their authority figures. If they are directed to change, by church leaders, governments or others that they trust, they will endeavour to do so. The default position, however, is that the current system is working, they know their place and change is not necessary. The specific teachings of authority figures become very important in an ethnocentric worldview. A leader arguing that humans should have dominion over nature, rather than being stewards of nature, will provoke very different responses.

Ethnocentrics may externalise environmental problems, arguing (for example) that they are doing the right thing but there are too many people in developing countries and they are the ones that need to change. Transformation of human interiors may be valued, as in particular religions, but the desired form of transformation may be constrained to comply with religious teachings. Typical comment: If all the women in the world got together and agreed to have only one child each per lifetime: Climate change would be arrested. It would be a NON -TOPIC.

Sociocentric

The sociocentric discourse is individualistic and nationalistic, focused on achievement and getting ahead. It values rational, objective responses to environmental problems, often favouring technology and markets. This worldview recognises that its beliefs are self-chosen, so may be resistant to questioning of those beliefs.

A typical sociocentric response to environmental problems is to question whether they are really that bad and to argue that, if we do need to do something, then technology supported by market mechanisms will save us. Innovation and hard work are the appropriate responses and there is money to be made by coming up with solutions. In this view, there is no need for radical lifestyle changes – we can keep our current values and culture but be cleaner and greener through technological advancement. In other words, it is not interior human transformation that is needed but transformation of our techno-economic systems. Indeed, there will be strong resistance to interior transformation if that is likely to threaten the strategic interests of individuals or organisations. In extreme versions of this worldview, we see techno-utopian visions like the singularity (Kurzweil, 2006) or geoengineering that have boundless optimism about the human potential to tame, shape and replace nature to meet our needs. The rational bent of this discourse means that all options are on the table and need to be weighed up scientifically.

Typical comment: Alas it appears impossible to have a sensible, reasoned discussion about what role modern nuclear power might play in solving our problems - driven by evidence and facts rather than fear and misrepresentation (from both extremes). I’d like to see all options on the table - tactics to reduce excessive consumption, better ways to produce the world’s energy requirements (renewables and nuclear), greater efficiencies, coupled with real ways to recognise the value of the environment, biodiversity, and the “services” the environment provides us - including making companies “pay” for them.

Worldcentric

The worldcentric worldview is aware of multiple perspectives and subjectivity. It embraces this diversity, finding a sense of identity that takes in all people. It is a pluralist perspective and the source of most intrinsic environmental concerns. From a worldcentric perspective, the Earth and its people are in peril and we all need to take urgent action to become sustainable. Interior transformation is essential to create a world where all perspectives are valued. In the worldcentric discourse, everyone needs to be part of the required transformation and governments are failing us on sustainability challenges because they are not including people in decision-making and not listening to our concerns. However, the worldcentric perspective does not recognise that ecological awareness emerges from a long and difficult process of interior development that many people have not yet experienced. Worldcentrics are baffled that others do not see sustainability challenges the same way they do and tend to label people as bad for not seeing the problem and taking action. They see sustainability challenges as urgent and are driven to act to avoid dystopian futures. Human interior transformation is valued but there is little understanding of how such transformation occurs.

Typical comment: We need to really examine our expectations and “entitlements”. We must reduce our carbon emissions full stop, no ifs or buts. People are dying, we are contributing to their deaths. I demand that Australia reduces its carbon footprint. Other countries are reducing their greenhouse gas emissions, we are not leading the way. We are dragging our feet and saying “its too expensive, it’s inconvenient, they have to do it first, it will cost jobs,” but per capita we are the highest polluters in the world.

Planetcentric

The planetcentric worldview is an integrative perspective that is aware that its perspective is the culmination of a process of interior development through the stages discussed above. It is able to see and recognise other perspectives and their developmental relationship to each other. While it values all perspectives, including those of other species, it also recognises that some perspectives are more complex and inclusive than others.

A planetcentric discourse sees interior transformation as valuable, but potentially slow and difficult. It recognises the need to find ways for people operating from all discourses to engage in responses to sustainability challenges, with or without any transformation of those discourses. The worldcentric discourse realises that interior transformation is not a magical saviour but one of many available strategies that need to be employed strategically and simultaneously. For example, using scarce resources wisely to help key leaders to transform their practices is likely to leverage much greater results than seeking wholesale transformation. Planetcentrics engage in ‘dialogue with the system’ - they are able to repeatedly sense into what is needed to help a system develop (e.g., make it more sustainable), try different interventions (e.g., prototype; experiment; seed ideas), observe the system response, and adapt accordingly (Brown, 2011).

Typical comment: How about we all simply attend to what is possible here in this landscape, and by that criterion consider more closely what is the most probable scenario, and direct our time, energy and capital into making the best we can of it.

What emerges from this review of discourses on interior transformation is that most of the discourses, and certainly those that are most prevalent globally – the egocentric, ethnocentric and sociocentric – are not seeking interior transformation and are likely to resist external urging to transform. Interior transformation is only valued as people move into worldcentric discourses. It is valuable to recognise that those promoting transformation are therefore engaged in a deep discursive conflict with those that resist the basic premise for transformation."

(https://jfsdigital.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/01_-March-2016-Articles03_Interior.pdf?)