Typology

Chris Riedy:

"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?)

Discussion

Four Worldviews of the Ecological Post-Collapse Future

Chris Riedy:

Scenario 1: We are all doomed

"Dark, dystopian visions of the future, where human civilisation collapses under the pressures of climate change, ecological catastrophe, war, disease or invasion, are pervasive in popular culture. They are the fodder of Hollywood, giving us films like Blade Runner, The Road and The Hunger Games. They are commonplace across multiple media, from literature, to comics, to television, to gaming. The specifics of the story vary. Sometimes, humanity reaches too far and apocalypse is a punishment. I am reminded here of the story of Icarus, who built wings from feathers and wax but soared too close to the sun and fell to Earth when the wax melted. Sometimes, the apocalypse seems unjust, like an alien invasion of a thriving human civilisation. Raskin et al. (2002) identify two variants – a barbarization scenario in which all of civilisation collapses and a ‘fortress world’ scenario, where the rich protect their standard of living with force, consigning the rest of humanity to despair. Regardless of their specific form, stories of future doom are all around us.

When images of apocalypse are so accessible, it is not surprising that some people will react to information about sustainability challenges like climate change with urgency and activism. It is easy to map the scientific warnings about climate change onto the ever-present story of future doom and see future climate scenarios as apocalyptic. The dramatic imagery of the dystopian story helps to communicate a sense of urgency about responding to sustainability challenges that may motivate people to take action to avoid an unpleasant future. Indeed, many of the purveyors of dystopian visions are actively calling out for transformation. However, for some of the audience, these visions can be overwhelming, leading to nihilistic and fundamentalist responses (Randle & Eckersley, 2015). Further, there is a risk that the dramatic imagery of the dystopian story overplays what humanity is facing and actually hinders the development of particular responses. If we hold firmly to a deep story that urgent action is needed to respond to sustainability challenges (for example, that we are living in the ‘critical decade’ (Climate Commission, 2011)), then perhaps we will discard responses like interior transformation and cultural change that can only happen gradually. Something important might be lost in doing so.

Scenario 2: Technology will save us

An alternative deep story, even more pervasive than the dystopian story, is the techno-utopian story. This is a story of dominance over nature, where humans adapt the environment to suit our needs using ever more ingenious technologies.

It is a story of eternal progress, steeped in optimism about human potential and possibilities. In the techno-utopian story, humans will find new technologies to solve the climate crisis – either new energy technologies or geo-engineering technologies that allow us to manage the Earth’s ecological systems, build green cities and prevent the worst impacts of climate change. It is a particular staple of science fiction, where humanity has often fanned out beyond the Earth to conquer other planets and other galaxies. Star Trek and Star Wars are typical examples. In this story, there is no limit to human potential and planetary boundaries do not constrain us. It is fair to say that this is the dominant story in our capitalist, consumer societies.

Whereas the dystopian story can engender too much urgency, the techno-utopian story leads to complacency. If technology will save us, then there is no need to worry about the future or to take action to live within planetary boundaries. Instead, we should embrace new technologies and enjoy the benefits they bring. The potential dark side of technology is ignored. In this story, interior transformation is not necessary. Instead, we pursue transformation of our technologies to allow us to continue living our lives as we do now, but on a grander, wealthier scale.

An important metaphorical concept within the techno-utopian story is that of terraforming. In science fiction, terraforming is the process of deliberately modifying a planet or moon so that it becomes habitable by humans. Literally, the term means ‘Earth-shaping’. As the Earth is unique in the solar system in its ability to support human life, and there may be few planets like ours further afield, the techno-utopian story relies on terraforming as a way of allowing humanity to leave the confines of the Earth.

Scenario 3: Terraforming ourselves

Both of the deep stories presented above are problematic. The dystopian future narrative can provide an impetus for action but can also provoke fearful reactions, nihilism and fundamentalism. Further, it may overstate or overly dramatise the urgency of our predicament. The techno-utopian future narrative is blindly optimistic, failing to see that human pursuit of technological solutions and unconstrained growth is leading towards ecological crisis. It requires humans to reliably manage the Earth’s complex systems, which is a task that may well be beyond us. As we rely more and more on technology, we become, in many ways, less resilient and more vulnerable.

In the search for a metaphor that could navigate between these two extremes, I found the concept of terraforming useful – if we could just turn it on its head. What if, instead of terraforming other planets, we sought to terraform ourselves? What if we collectively decided to become more ‘Earth-shaped’ and to live within planetary boundaries? What would that story look like? We would need to transform our values, worldviews and institutions so that they take shapes that are in harmony with the Earth.

There are several elements to this story that I want to stress. First, it explicitly recognises that we need to transform ourselves to respond to the sustainability challenge. This is a story in which humanity consciously shifts its values and culture to be satisfied with a way of live governed by what the Earth can sustain. It shies away from the techno-utopian reliance on exterior transformation alone, recognising that interior transformation is needed. Second, it is a positive, proactive story.

Unlike dystopian visions, there is a clear role for human agency and action. Third, it rejects some of the urgency of the dystopian story. In science fiction, terraforming is typically a slow process that happens over decades or centuries. It does not deliver instant results. This means letting go of our ability to transform ourselves instantly or rapidly in response to climate change, but opening up the potential for interior transformation to be part of a suite of responses to climate change, some rapid, some slower. Terraforming ourselves would be an ongoing, long-term project. Finally, terraforming planets would be an experimental process, where different approaches are tested out, evaluated and retained or discarded. Terraforming ourselves would be a similar process, where various initiatives for transforming human interiors were tested and evaluated in an environment of conscious experimentation. As part of the ongoing project of terraforming ourselves, we would need to experiment with new leadership strategies, narratives and frames, practices, communication strategies and cultural symbols to guide transformation.When the story of ‘terraforming ourselves’ emerged from my personal CLA process, I thought the process was complete.

However, the story was ultimately unsatisfying, for two reasons. First, the language of terraforming is abstract and technical, unlikely to provide the foundation for a compelling, shareable story that could drive transformation. Second, the story lacks the excitement and entertainment value of dystopian and techno-utopian visions. It is a story of sufficiency, restraint and boundaries, in which the goal is merely sustainability – becoming Earth-shaped. It is difficult to see how such a story could rapidly gain traction in competition with the dystopian and techno-utopian visions that currently dominate our entertainment industries. While wrapped in different language, the story is at heart the story of sufficiency and constraint that is already preached by many environmentalists. As I reflected on this, an additional story emerged.

Scenario 4: The thriving Earth

In the story of the ‘thriving Earth’, humanity still embarks on a process of interior transformation, seeking out new values and worldviews that will allow us to live within planetary boundaries and deliver well-being for all. However, the story emphasises a different goal. Here, the goal is not mere sustainability, but to live extraordinary, thriving, prosperous lives while respecting planetary boundaries and delivering a social foundation for all. We would be embarrassed to describe the key personal relationships in our lives as merely sustainable, so why should we aim for mere sustainability in our relationship with the Earth? The story of a thriving Earth is one in which interior transformation provides the foundation not only for a harmonious relationship with the Earth but to ‘strive toward the greatness implicit in thriving, flourishing, plentitude’ (Russell, 2013, Loc 127 [Kindle]). This story blends constraint in our material relationship with the Earth with abundant room for growth in what it means to be human. Russell (2013) provides the most complete telling of this story to date but there are elements in the work of many others that call for a move beyond mere sustainability (Benson & Craig, 2014; Evans & Abrahamse, 2009) or for a Great Transition (Raskin et al., 2002).

The story of a thriving Earth is clearly a positive one – who doesn’t want to thrive? As such, it avoids the negative responses that dystopian futures engender and instead seeks to harness individual and collective agency towards a goal that is more exciting than mere sustainability. At the same time, it does not shy away from planetary boundaries like the techno-utopian story. Instead, it uses these boundaries as constraints to encourage creative responses that allow us to live well despite the boundaries. In design, constraints can be important triggers for creative responses; this story takes a similar path. Finally, the language of thriving, prosperity and abundance is simple and familiar. We could expect people to more readily relate to this story than to the story of terraforming ourselves. This makes it more likely that the story will be picked up and shared widely, which is essential if it is to drive transformation."