a practical guide to building an integral world

7/30/2019 A Practical Guide to Building an Integral World

1/24

WORLD FUTURES, 58: 241263, 2002Copyright 2002, Taylor & Francis0260-4027/02 $12.00 +.00

A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO BUILDING AN INTEGRALWORLD

S ALLY J. G OERNER

Integral Science Institute

We stand at the start of a new millennium with a growing awareness of what iswrong with our civilization but little agreement as to what to do. From environmen-tal crises to democratic systems dominated by moneyed interests, the list of dangersis long and growing. Each issue has a band of defenders who struggle to right that

particular wrong but, because these bands are disjointed, the broad movement theyserve remains incoherent and weak. The broad movement is usually described astoward sustainable civilization, but its precise designation is integral society.The challenge for the emerging new science is to provide a framework for under-standing that unifies and gives direction to the disparate efforts that comprise theintegral movement. This framework must address three needs. First, it must pro-

vide a sound understanding of why, despite our sophistication, things seem to begoing badly in so many spheres. Secondly, it must present a believable vision of where our civilization should be headed. Finally, it must provide a sense that thereare concrete steps we can take to achieve the deep dreams that most of us actuallyshare. What we need, in short, is not more disparate insights, but rather a collectiveintellectual unity that integrates existing insights into a logically coherent and emo-tionally compelling whole. Such integration, however, cannot be constructed artifi-cially, by committee or consensus. Rather, true integration can only come from aunified scientific understanding of why various ideas connect. Today, a scientificstory capable of such unifying understanding is found in the expanded theory of

evolution that is emerging from the union of a broad range of scientific efforts. Thistheory also serves as a unifying thread for an integrated new science. This articleoutlines the dynamic view of evolution and how it unites integral efforts.

KEYWORDS: Evolution, integral society, integral science, complexity

BUILDING AN INTEGRAL FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING

The basics of general evolutionary theory of evolution have been laid out, in partor whole, by numerous researchers over the last 100 years (Spencer, 1862; Lotka,


2/24

1956; Prigogine, 1984; Laszlo, 1987). Although recent discoveries have added de-tail, the overall understanding has not changed. The essence is this: ever since theBig Bang, the universe has moved steadfastly toward increasing complexity. The

scientists previously listed, describe this movement as a general evolutionary pro-cess that proceeds according to basic patterns and principles. Life and its increasingcomplexity follow these patterns and principlesso do human systems.

Since most of the physical principles behind this process have already been de-scribed and documented, one should say that general evolutionary theory alreadyexists. Our challenge is not building per se, but integrating the pieces and thenhelping people see the relevance and utility of the whole. Here I show how Generalevolution can create a framework for understanding that shows current dilemmas ina fruitful new light while at the same time unifying reform efforts across fields.

The best way to show relevance is to start with the cultural transformation emerg-ing in our time. This article outlines the framework and then uses it to explain whysocieties go through such evolutionary shifts and where this one is headed.

First, however, let met take a moment to address the issue of names. Generalevolution is the traditional name for the comprehensive story of evolutionthat is,from molecules to humankind (Laszlo, 1987), but this name is hard to explain. Con-sequently, it has failed to take root despite a 50-year history. Chaisson (1987) andothers use the term cosmic evolution, largely because of their focus on cosmicissues such as the formation of matteratoms, molecules, stars, galaxies, and soonafter the Big Bang. However, though this work is exquisitely sound science,

most laymen automatically connect the phrase cosmic with new age hype. Be-cause of difficulties with older names, I prefer the term dynamic evolution (Goerner,1999). This term emphasizes the role of natural forces (dynamics) in the on-goinggrowth and development (evolution) of all organization from the Big Bang to our own time.

THE RISE OF WEB VIEW: OUR TIME AS A NATURAL CULTURALCYCLE

Dynamic evolution studies how natural forces create organization and then drivechange . The most important of these forces is pressure. Our own time is a case in point. A huge pressure buildup is now pushing us toward a major cultural restructur-ing. Thus, that apparent chaos swirling around us may represent the birth pangs of anew, more complex form of civilization. I explain the theory behind this later. Mean-while, let me take a moment to paint the picture of todays change a bit more clearly.

Western civilization is clearly already in the midst of a transformation. The mainreason for this is simple. Ominous signs abound in many fields education, envi-ronment, economics, politics, and so forth. These signs create pressure for changeand millions of people in a thousand arenas have been responding to it for manyyears now. Consequently, the list of reform efforts is long and growing. Examplesinclude: sustainable economics, walkable communities, and democracy restored to

GOERNER 242


3/24

this a paradigm shift, but historians would describe it as a sea change, or a greatturning, a time when all aspects of a civilization undergo a change of head, heart,and soul together. The difference between a great turning and a paradigm shift is

that, here, the entire pattern of the society changes as well as its worldview.Todays great turning is a powerful, corrective reaction that will sweep throughall facets of western civilization. It is being propelled into being by the many woesthat plague our time. It will reshape everything from how we build our cities and runour economies to how we educate our children. Its unspoken goal is to restore somemuch-needed sanity to modern civilization. We can assume all this because suchturnings have happened before. They are a recurrent part of human cultural evolu-tion. Europe has experienced three in the last 1,500 years.

The classic sign of a great turning is a shift in the basic metaphor that people use(consciously and subconsciously) to explain how the world works. For instance,the last sea change occurred about 400 years ago, when medieval society gave wayto modern society. From that time to this, western thinkers have used the metaphor of a machine or a clock to explain how everything worked. 1 We are now exiting theage of mechanism and the clockwork universe and beginning something new.

Todays sea change is bringing a quiet migration toward the metaphor of an ecol-ogy or a web. Environmentalists were the first to make web thinking commonfare and systems thinkers were not far behind. Everything is connected to every-thing and one must understand systems as a whole! they said. Gradually largenumbers of people began to see the usefulness of the web metaphor in matters be-

yond the environment. Nowadays, for example, it is fashionable to reflect on howcomputers connect us and how a global economy makes us all interdependent. Theweb shift also shows up in:

Holistic alternatives in health. Alternative healers see the body as anecology embedded in larger ecosystems of culture, work, and home.

The sustainability movement . Sustainability activists see the global economy,global civilization, and the environment as one gigantic, fundamentallyentwined ecosystem. The goal is to develop sustainable patterns of relation-

ship within and among all three. A renewed commitment to spirituality, now defined in broader and moretolerant terms. Mind, body, soul, and cosmos are also seen as connectedthese days. Millions now believe a new planetary consciousness is emerg-ing. A multitude of new approaches to spirituality have sprung up and traditional religions are changing too. Most are beginning to look less to their dogmas, and more to their roots, both spiritual and human.

Efforts toward more integrated and empowering education. Whether it isteaching environmental respect or working toward better integration with thecommunity, education too is already swept up in the web revolution. Manyexisting reform effortsfrom service learning to community reintegration actually constitute one, very large educational transformation following the

BUILDING AN INTEGRAL WORLD 243


4/24

sea change is already taking place in many different realms. It also makes its name,integral society , much more understandable . Integral means whole. Integral soci-ety is a time when human beings reconnect and begin reweaving civilization in har-

mony with each other and the natural world.

INTEGRAL SCIENCE

Today, integral society and the web worldview are in the process of replacingmodern society and the machine worldview. The web views expanded eco-logicwill eventually reshape the landscape of civilization. Right now, however, its progressis painfully slow. There are two reasons for this. First, the transformations solid

potential is obscured by clouds of hype and misconception spread by the first new-agers. It needs more substance and more concrete steps to usability. The secondobstacle to progress is lack of coherence. People working on one piece of the puzzleoften dont realize that someone nearby is working on an important related piece.Today, for instance, there are people who explore how economies work like an ecol-ogy and others who explore how actual ecologies work. These two groups share thesame intellectual puzzle and have similar social aims (sustainability), but they rarelysupport each other because economists and ecologists belong to different disciplin-ary camps.

Many important, high-quality efforts are part of the integral transformation. Themain reason the movement as a whole lacks power is that differing language andconcerns create yawning gaps. This is where the new science can help.

A sea change is also rolling through virtually every field in scienceanthropol-ogy, brain research, economics, physics, and so forth. The main reason for this changeis simple: computers and other electronic equipment make it possible for researchersto study more complex relationships than they could before. As a result, every fieldis moving from seeing causality as simple and objects under study as separable toseeing causality as complex and objects as interwoven. Consequently, fields fromanthropology to physics are beginning to develop a web view, albeit under a hostof different names.

Thanks to the popular press, many people know one or more pieces of web sci-ence, say Gaia, chaos, complexity, quantum mechanics or systems theory. Still, thevast majority of web fragments remain obscure, including ecological economics andthe evolution of consciousness. I call the union of these web changes emergingacross disciplines, integral science .

Retrospectively, it is the union of these pieces that will change our worldview, notany one facet as is so often claimed. Still, pointing out that they are all part of thesame web transformation isnt enough to change peoples view. Worse yet, it isnteasy to fit these pieces together. The scope is daunting: What could possibly unifyfindings from anthropology to physics? This is where dynamic evolution can help.

To unify web discoveries, one needs a scientifically sound story of why variousfacets and ideas connect. The only story capable of making such connections is a

GOERNER 244


5/24

begin with physical principles and see how they carry through the entire journeyfrom the origins of matter (protons, neutrons, etc.) to the current cycle of civiliza-tion. (See Chaisson, 1987, for an outline of evolutions real-life journey starting from

the earliest moments of the universe.) As befitting the web age, dynamic evolutionalso helps us see that all evolution takes place in an intrinsically connected universe. Neurophysiologist Roger Sperry summed up the story succinctly:

In the eyes of science, mans creator becomes the vast interwoven fabric of all evolv-ing nature . . . a cosmic scheme that renders most others simplistic by comparison.

Dynamic Evolution as a story of Energy Flow

We have arrived at the story of dynamic evolution, now seen in its proper cultural

context, namely, the rise of integral society and the web view in science. This sectionexplains the basics of the theory. As the section title implies, energy is the thread thatunifies the whole.

Ive said that dynamic evolution studies how natural forces create organizationand drive change. What I havent mentioned is that energy is the central player in thisdrama. In essence, energy pressing to flow is the driving force behind all organiza-tion and change in the universe. Furthermore, the reason evolution is relatively easyto understand is that energy follows certain basic patterns. Energys patterns show upas similar patterns of change seen across all levels of existencephysical to human.

A simple example will make this process more concrete. Energy has a penchantfor creating organization and driving change in a recurrent and nicely patterned way.This process can be seen clearly in a simple fluid experiment called the Benard cell or more colloquially, boiling water.

So, imagine a container with water in it. When you turn up the heat, the water molecules inside begin moving faster. They keep moving faster until they quiteliterally cannot go any faster in their current pattern (random collisions). Even thoughthe system has reached its limit, heat (energy) still pushes it on. An invisible crisissets in. The system becomes unstable and the context becomes ripe for change. Small,naturally occurring fluctuations in the system begin to have a new effect. In thiscase, little pockets of relatively hot molecules have been accidentally coming to-gether and moving apart. These little pockets are a type of diversity, that is, theyhave unique characteristics that nature soon puts to use. In this case, hot collectionsare lighter and more buoyant than their cooler surroundings. Soon a host of hot pock-ets begin to float upward, like little bubbles of change. Eventually one pocket risesall the way to the top, loses its heat and sinks back down pulling other molecules inits wake. This pattern of rising, falling, and pulling other molecules along triggers achange. All the heat pressing the system finds a new channel through which to flow.As energy pours into this path, the entire region erupts into a coherent, circular mo-

tion.The system has organized itself into a new pattern of motion that moves energyfaster The name for this process is self organization Nobel Laureate IllyaPrigogine



6/24

The circular movement is called a flow structure . Its underlying reason for beingis to help energy flow faster.

Still, the story isnt over. If the heat continues, the whole process will repeat.

Molecules will move faster in the new circular motion until they can go no faster.The system becomes unstable. Naturally occurring diversity will seed a new, faster cycle. The system will reorganize itself into a more intricate pattern, somethinglike a figure 8. It is more intricate in that it consists of smaller, tighter, inter-linkedcircles.

The Benard cell (boiling water), in all its simplicity, teaches us a great deal aboutthe basic principles of energy flow (Figure 1). We see, for example, that, pressuredrives change and that diversity is necessary to seed new organization. The Benardcell also teaches us that energy pressures create a recurrent cycle of development.Under pressure, each pattern of flow comes into being and accelerates until it reachesits limits and a crisis ensues. With the right bit of diversity, the system reorganizes,more intricately than before. This increase in intricacy of organization is behind

GOERNER 246

Figure 1 .


7/24

organized and it moves energy faster, just as in the Benard cell.One reason physicists believe energy is the driving force behind all organization

is that this connection between intricacy of organization and speed of energy flow

holds from largest systems in the universe such as galaxies to the most delicate onessuch as the human brain (See Table 1). Such studies give substance to the idea thatenergy principles apply broadly indeed. Although we do not know whether energyas we use the term scientifically (heat, electricity, etc.) and energy used figuratively(social energy, human energy), are the same thing, we do know that both kinds be-have in much the same way. Thus, it is quite possible that the figurative and thescientific type of energy are both reflections of the same basic process.

Table 1Organizational Intricacy and Energy Flow Speed

(After Chaisson, 1987)

Structure Free Energy Cycling Speed (in F units)Milky Way 1Sun 2Earths climasphere 80Earths biosphere (plants) 500Human body 17,000Human brain 150,000


Figure 2 .


8/24

organizations like the human brain are also the fastest energy cycling systems. Oneway to measure the intricacy of an organization, therefore, is to chart how fastenergy cycles per unit time and mass. As Chaisson puts it: if what is important is the

rate at which free energy enters a system of some given size, [then] the quantity usedto specify the order and organization in any system is the flux of free energy density,denoted here by the symbol F. F is energy flux per unit time and per unit mass(F = ergs s 1 gm1).

These simple observations about energy lead to an important thought. If energy isthe main culprit behind evolution, then energy flow principles should provide anexcellent framework for understanding organization and change in general. Further-more, this framework is easy to use because energy follows certain basic patternsthat create certain basic themes throughout evolutionincluding in the human con-dition. It is this energy framework that allows us to see todays problems in a totallydifferent and vastly more coherent light. Still, since boiling water isnt enough tomake this thought believable, let me expand the picture of my plan a little more.

INTEGRAL THEORY: A FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDINGA COMPLEX WORLD

Dynamic evolution is awash with recurring themes. When it comes to the humancondition, the three most relevant are:

Structure , the underlying patterns of growth, development, and change, Collaboration , as the central path of evolution in living systems. Mind (Intelligence) , as a crucial part of life and particularly of human

evolution.

All three of these themes fuse in the tapestry of human evolution, but the themesof mind and collaboration give the human tapestry its greatest color. Thus, I believethe best way to show that energy connects to the human condition is to explain howenergy principles play out in the evolution of intelligence. Let us call this, Integral

Theory . The goal is to tie it to todays big change.The next three sections outline main patterns of structural evolution (growth anddevelopment). I then show how these patterns play out in the evolution of intelli-gence up to humankind. It also leads to an understanding of the evolution of humansocio-economic systems including our own day.

Let us begin this journey of a thousand miles, with the first simple step of self-organization.

Pattern 1: Self-Organization

The process of self-organization described in the Benard has three basic parts:

GOERNER 248


9/24

change without an explosion is to find a conduit by which pent-up energy canflow. Natural diversity acts like a search pattern, stumbling upon and then open-ing a new path. Pent-up energy pours into that path, making the resulting flow

structure swell from slight to huge. Continual pressure pushes the system through periodic crises and reorganiza-tions, always moving in the direction of increasing intricacy (and greater com-

plexity).

Our own time makes a perfect example of this process. For instance, the societalsea change described earlier is being driven by pressure, pervasive pressure on manyfronts. Millions of little pockets of reform are already bubbling up, struggling tocoalesce into one larger, more coherent whole. If these bubbles do coalesce, civiliza-tion as a whole will start changing much faster and more coherently than before. Itwill do so because blocked energy will be surging through the new paths, drivingmomentum toward a new pattern.

Using the lens of energy also helps us see that we are actually waiting for civiliza-tion to reorganize into a new pattern. Great turnings are actually huge reorganiza-tions. If done well, we will enter a new stage of development, though probably notthe final pattern of civilization.

Pattern 2: The S-Curve Cycle of Development

Viewed from a different angle, self-organization also reveals a standard life cycleof development, called the S-curve (see Figure 3).

1. Start-up Naturally occurring diversity seeds a new pattern of organization bytapping an energy buildup. In the beginning, however, the new organization isfragile. Until it gets some infrastructure and energy stores build up, it will havea hard time persisting through natural ups and downs.

2. Growth/Maturity The start-up grows by accelerating energy flow. Energy surg-ing through its veins builds a storehouse of energy to sustain its motion. Energyflow also helps build the infrastructure (patterns of relationships) the systemneeds to stay sound. Eventually, the system reaches a point of optimum devel-opment: strong enough to persist through ups and downs, but small enough tostill be flexible and sensitive to the energy pool it serves.

3. Aging and The Fragility Zone Growth, however, can go too far. Inertiaincreases with size. Adaptive change becomes difficult as the momentum of thecurrent pattern becomes a dominant force. Size also stretches the bonds thathold the system together, creating an invisible weakness. Indeed, the larger thesystem gets, the more fragile and prone to collapse it becomes (the fragilityzone).

Meanwhile, the environment is also changing, often because of the systemsown behavior. The system is depleting the energy pool that gave it birth and

i l k f l Thi i i li d f



10/24

ing environment is creating powerful new demands. The system has also nowreached its limits and pressure for change is building. If the system doesntreorganize by the time bonds reach their breaking point, the concept of crisis

becomes literal. In human organizations, the crisis leads to three possibilities:(a) Increased intricacythe system reorganizes into a new pattern thatanswers the new demands while also restoring the strength of internal bonds.

(b) Recedes to a safe nicheIf the system can find a less pressured environ-ment, it can get by in its current pattern;

(c) Regression or collapseIf the system fails to do (a) or (b), it must either shrink in size or it will collapse.

Figure 3. T he S-Curve. If the h orizon tal axis is time an d t h e vertical is speed of en ergy flow,th en o n e can also th ink o f a flow struct ure as followin g a stan dard cycle of developmen t, asfollows.

The S-curve helps us see some of the problems associated with moving to a newcurve. The main problem is that the momentum of the current pattern tends to sup-

press diversity, often keeping the organization locked in place until its too late. Thestory of early hunting societies shows how easily this happens. The earliest human

bands foraged for food. Eventually, however, some bands realized that, if they workedtogether, they could trap more food by hunting (phase #1 begins). These new huntingsocieties learned how to surround mammoths, drive deer off cliffs and make sharpsticks to help (phase #2 begins). As the hunting idea took root, humans began devel-oping important behavioral patterns (individual and group skills) as well as support-ive technologies, spear to bow. Naturally, the best hunters were chosen as leaders

because they helped the group perform better as a whole. Over time these societies

became extremely adept at hunting (phase #3 begins). As their prowess improved,however, times began to change. The game that had once been plentiful becamescarcer Then too the days of plenty had caused the population to grow so now there

GOERNER 250


11/24

did best, namely, finding better ways to hunt. Unfortunately, this only made mattersworse. Soon there were no animals left. Children were starving. Every effort wasmade to improve hunting but these efforts only made the game situation worse.

Some hunting societies in this situation collapsed (starvation caused disintegra-tion), some shrank to a manageable size, and some were lucky enough to find a newvalley that had more game. Eventually, however, some maverick decided to plantsome seeds in order to grow her own food. At first, everyone knew she was crazy(after all there were lots of plants around), but eventually, when times were badenough and enough people were disillusioned enough with hunting, a new patterntook root. It became the agricultural revolution.

The S-curve helps us see that, although evolution is recursive, it is easy to getstuck in a pattern past its time. Energy theory also shows this well-known state of affairs in new light. Since, in this view, transformative change is mostly a matter of when (not if), the real question becomes whether such change will be smooth or catastrophic. This question is apropos for our own time. Pressure is building andstuckness is everywhere (think of education).

The S-curve also helps us see life-cycles in terms of larger wholes. Though indi-vidual organizations may fail to germinate or regress with age, over time S-curves

build up. Sometimes a new cycle is achieved by relatively minor retooling of theculture and infrastructure at hand. Periodically, however, a more massive change isrequired. In economics, this pattern of progression is seen in the succession fromagriculture to industrialism to the information age. At first, most advances in agri-

cultural societythe wheel, the plow, and so onmerely improved efficiency. Eachof these striking innovations went through their own S-curve. Eventually, however,the invention of the steam engine and the assembly line shifted the economy pro-foundly. Agriculture didnt disappear, but the industrial worker became the newdominant form. Industrialism advanced in turn, until computers came into being.The advent of computer networks is now shifting employment again, this time fromthe industrial sector to the information age. Industrial and agricultural workers willstill be there, but information workers are becoming a new dominant form sittingatop the old.

These examples also show co-evolution among members of a region. Each orga-nization fits into a larger energy ecology that both connects the many and pro-foundly shapes the growth of each. An economy, for instance, is like an energy fieldfilled with organizations tapping various energy pools. Though these organizationsoften play different roles and exist at different stages, over time, the organizationswithin a region become coupled together such that they evolve together. In industry,for example, ideas flow from one organization and region to another. Some start-up

projects turn into broad movements and some turn out to be flops. Because informa-tion about success and failure circulates, the entire field evolves as a whole, quietlysearching, testing, and developing new ways.

Pattern 3: The Complexity CatchWhy Intricate Fabric Is Important



12/24

create fragility. If stretched enough, they break and the system collapses. Thus,evolution holds a hidden rule, which I call the complexity catch. You cant keepgrowing in one big circle because huge circles eventually burst. Nature prefers small

circles because these are tighter and faster. Thus, the trick to getting bigger is to staysmall and well-linked. Nature handles the complexity catch by following a simple rule. If a system is to

grow soundly, it must do so by keeping small pieces tightly bound in a fine-grainedweb of connective tissue. This is one reason we say organizations become moreintricate as they grow. Intricacy is like a lace tablecloth. It involves lots of small,interlinked circles woven into a sturdy mesh that provides resilience and strength.

Intricacy gives one a whole new appreciation of fine-grained social fabric. Anysociety that tries to get bigger without staying well-knit eventually falls apart (liter-ally). Unfortunately, modern thinking has wreaked havoc on fine-grained fabric. Thedays of porch-swing soires and gossip at the local grocery have been replaced bythe sleek anonymity of the shopping mall. Gone with these days are most of thedaily connections that kept our society strong and caring. Running about in carsleaves little time or opportunity to build natural bonds. Grassroots civilization shriv-els to dust in these conditions. The lack of direction our young people feel is largelya product of the resulting lack of community and of commitment to anything higher than oneself.

Self-organization, the S-curve, and the need for intricacy are essential ingredientsof growth and development and they are seen in all kinds of systems from living

systems like embryos to human ones like societies. But, so far weve only describedhow energy creates physical organization. To make the connection to human beingsmore believable, let us now proceed to the next step.

THE EVOLUTION OF INTELLIGENCE: FROM CELLS TO CIVILIZATION

The emergence of mind also makes complete sense in an energy world, becausewhat we call information is really a patterned trail of energy. That is, in the begin-ning, information came in the form of a few photons of light (seeing) or a few

energized chemical molecules like those we perceive as smell. Realizing that in-formation is energy also helps explain how the first forms of life (even without brains)might have started responding to information. One of the most important differences

between living and non-living systems is that living systems must actively pursuethe food (bulk energy) they need to survive. (Even plants pull nutrients up their roots.) Living systems also had to be able to respond to hints in the environment(energy as information) about where food might be located. Those that didnt, died.Therefore, the first cells had a crude kind of intelligence, because they took in

patterned energy (information) and responded appropriately. They had to processinformation correctly to survive. Eventually, living organisms like ourselves be-came quite adept at processing information.

Therefore, if one wants to trace the evolution of intelligence in energy terms, one

GOERNER 252


13/24

story. Mind evolved because natural selection favored every chance improvement inintelligence. After all, intelligence improves survival, by definition.

Another, more subtle process was also at work, the march of increasing complex-

ity. As evolution proceeded, single cells began coalescing into multi-cellular organ-isms. Multi-cellular organisms are actually collections of cells that take on specialisttasks and then work together to create a more complex whole. The principle at work is: specialize and integrate. Herein lies a rub of great importance to the evolutionof mind: a multi-cellular creature has to stay integrated in order to survive.

How Nerves and Brains Evolved from the Pressure to Stay in Sync

In a multi-cellular organism, like a caveman, cells (playing specialized roles) mustcommunicate in order to stay in sync. If they dont stay in sync, the multi-cellular

organism dies. For instance, if you are a caveman chasing a rabbit for dinner, your lung cells must know what your leg cells are doing because running requires energywhich requires more oxygen for metabolism (this is why we breathe faster when werun). Cells coordinate their activities by exchanging chemical and electrical signals.Limbs, lungs, eyes, and so on. can only do their jobs if signals are timely and correct.Failure to communicate properly inside, leads to death just as fast as failure to per-ceive whats going on outside. Thus, if lungs dont get signals from legs, they wont

breathe in more oxygen, which means metabolism cant speed up, which means thelegs wont get enough energy to catch the rabbit. Our caveman starves.

Thus, in an organism built of collaborating cells, growing apart is deadly. Yet, thecomplexity catch tells us that growth always leads to pulling apart. Consequently,the pressure to stay collaboratively connected has played a major role in increasingintelligence from nerves to brains to civilization. This bears some explaining.

Since the first multi-cellular organisms didnt have many cells, communicationwas easy. Cells were either touching or in close proximity. Unfortunately, signalsdissipate over distance. As bodies got bigger, internal cells began to lose touch witheach other (literally). Members began to fall out of sync. Because breakdowns incommunication are deadly, the evolutionary pressures grew. No doubt, many organ-isms died as collaboration began to fail. Others stopped growing and settled into asafe niche. Yet, eventually, through some quirk of diversity, some organisms devel-oped a new way of staying cooperatively connected. A new type of specialist cellemerged whose job was to carry signals between distant groups. We call them nerves.

Nerves allowed organisms to grow more sophisticated in mind as well as body.The quality of an organisms response to the outside world depends almost entirelyon its coordination inside. Better internal communication not only improved coordi-nation, it also opened the door to more complex behaviors and vast new realms of specialization. Living organisms with nerves became vastly more complex becausenew cellular specialties could develop and still stay in sync (see Figure 4).

Still, evolution was not through. In simple forms of life, such as the giant sea slugtoday, a single nerve cell often serves a whole organism. But as life became morel th tt f g th d i i l d t g i A b di g



14/24

were. Nerve highways brought signals from all over and spread information through-out. Where nerves overlapped, signals from many directions intermingled. At densecross-roads, a new kind of cell began to emerge. We call this one a brain cell.

Brain cells had a unique view. Positioned atop a cross-roads with information pouring in from all over, the information they got was rich and multi-dimensional.As a result, brain cells began to respond to extremely subtle patterns in complexstreams of energy (information). The horizons this opened up were truly vast. Braincells responding to rarefied patterns in massive amounts of information were actu-ally beginning to respond to conglomerate pictures. Pictures helped organisms seecomplex contexts and make complex choices. The brains owner began to see howany bit of information fit in a larger whole. For example, an organism with a brain isable to see that food and a predator means something different than food alone. As

brains learned to synthesize ever more complex pictures, the nuances of how bitsfit got complex indeed.

Sitting astride mixing centers also allowed brains to coordinate incredibly complex response patterns involving all parts of the body. Like a keystone on top, brainssolidified lifes ability to perceive and act as a truly coordinated whole. Thus, brainsare what brought life out of the ooze and allowed multi-cellular organisms to locomotewith legs and fins.

The irony of brains is that staying connected and in sync produced a whole newstage of evolution. Organisms with brains became great sorters of information whochose paths based on subtle patterns. Brains and other mixing centers (like ganglia)helped an increasingly vast collective act like a truly coordinated whole. Freed fromknee-jerk responses, animals with brains began to explore the world and to learn lotsof new lessons about how to survive. These lessons were not stored in genes, of course. They were stored in the brain of the beholder, in neural circuits etched byexperience. Storing lessons in the brain allowed organisms to learn faster and to

learn without having to die. Learning, adaptation, and survival all flourished withthis wondrous new invention, the brain. Mind-like behaviors also began to take theforms we associate with minds today choices contexts significance meaning

GOERNER 254

Figure 4. G rowth C rises: From M ulti-cellular C lusters to N erve C ells


15/24

els of intelligence while keeping the old. Local cells dont just send information tothe brain and wait to be told what to do. Most bodily responses are handled locallyand a lot of processing is done at various stages from bottom to top. Processing

information at lower levels increases the speed and often the appropriateness of theresponse. It is also one of the reasons ones body can operate on auto-pilot whileones thoughts spin off into space.

Thus, intelligence is actually distributed , fractally, down to lower levels. Eachlevel has its own type of intelligence and its own functions. Each actively communi-cates with many other groups without waiting for the brain. The whole thing appearsto work on a subsidiarity principle reminiscent of one used by the medieval CatholicChurchdecisions should be made at the lowest level possible. This kind of organi-zation is crucial. Without it, life would be too slow and inept to survive.

In an integral view, therefore, mind and body are both built on a fractal principleof groups working within groups working within groups. Everything is social andcommunication is crucial. New levels of intelligent action always arise from com-munication between smaller groups and those smaller groups are often built of indi-viduals capable of independent lives (that is, a living cell). Since higher mindsystems are made of organisms working together, neurophysiologist Walter Freemancalls them, societies of mind. A brain is a society of mind that is still integratedinto a larger mind system called the body that is organized into smaller workinggroups, like lungs and liver. This does not fit the machine-age picture of how mindsand bodies work but, biologically speaking, it is an accurate description.

From Signals and Herds to Language and Civilization

Increasing intelligence also did not stop with brains. Brains created a vast leap inanimals ability to learn to live in a complex world. Unfortunately, lessons stored in

brains were lost when the individual who owned the brain died. The next great evo-lutionary leap came with the ability to preserve lessons by passing them betweenindividuals and across generations. The two big agents here were signaling and rolemodeling.

As life progressed, animals began to congregate in families and herds becausecooperation helped them survive. Signaling evolved because communication betweenanimals in a herd has the same benefit as communication between cells in your body.Whether a honey-bee dancing directions to a cache of nectar or a deer signaling theapproach of a predator, communication between members is an old and honored wayfor individuals to survive better by working together. Role modeling added an im-

portant second piece. When young animals observe and mimic the behaviors of older animals, they are actually learning appropriate responses gleaned from years of ex-

perience. The combination of signaling and modeling allowed learning accumulatedfrom many members to be preserved over very long periods of time. The whole herd

was now working on patterns of perceiving and acting. The herd was also learningfaster and more thoroughly as many individuals contributed their unique piece.P h g th t t I h i ti th tt bl d



16/24

stretches of time and we process it using huge machines as well as billions of brains.This means global civilization is a vast society of minda planetary brain, if youwill.

Describing Integral Society Part I: Human Civilization as a Society of Mind

We have just arrived at a important new view of human societies. What is mostunique about human beings is that, as a collective , we gather, digest, and apply infor-mation to help us survive and prosper like no other species. This is our evolutionarystrategy. We are not swift of feet, sharp of tooth or clever in niche finding. We poolinformation and we are very, very , good at discerning patterns. We then change our

behavior (individually and collectively) as we change our beliefs. Worldviews, sci-entific theories, and cultural milieus are all a product of this process and they too

evolve along similar lines. Our collective intelligence evolves along with these.In short, humankind bet its survival on behavioral flexibility and the pursuit of

better pictures. In the process, we gained dominance of the earth. And, the singlemost overlooked truth is that now, as in the primordial beginning, creating better ways of knowing is a profoundly social event.

This vision of human nature provides an important clue as to what integral societymust be about. First, for example, it tells us that collaborative learning is central toour species. Learning communities, cooperative learning, and learning teams,are not just hot new techniques, they are basic tools for human betterment that cer-

tain reformers are trying to restore. Thus, we now see that part of todays challengeis to learn how to reweave collaborative learning webs, especially now that modern practices have ripped so many grassroots webs apart.

Energy principles also help refine our understanding of integral requirements.The whole point of human learning is to keep on building better pictures, yet organi-zations often stay locked in old ways until they break. Energy theory suggests a

partial remedy. An integral society must learn to nurture individualism and strangenew ways because these form the diversity that evolution requires. The love of uniformity and conformity that permeates modern institutions daily smothers mil-lions of prospects for improvement, not to mention hopeful young lives. On theother hand, integral society must also emphasize critical thinking. Not all new wayswill turn out to be beneficial. It takes a lot of thinking and testing to discover whatwill work.

There are many other insights to be gleaned, but at least a first pass summary isclear. Nature designed human beings to be a marvelous collaborative learning sys-tem, but somehow we are not living up to our potential. Modern society is no longer very good at collaborative learning. Because it is bad at learning, a host of reformmovementssuch as cooperative learning, organizational learning, and communityrebuildinghave sprung up to help.

Still, this description of the human condition still lacks realism. Why dont welearn cooperatively very well? Why do we so often stay stuck? Understanding suchti i bit d t il h h lt l l ti h t ll

GOERNER 256


17/24

set this context, however, I must first show how cultural evolution over the last sev-eral thousand years has been building toward the very large transformation we nowface.

The Crisis Of Hierarchy: How The Laws Of Growth Affect Us Today

The story of cultural evolution will sound a lot like the evolution of intelligence because human societies have all the same characteristics seen in multi-cellular or-ganisms trying to stay in sync. Human societies too are collaborations built of spe-cialists who work together to build the common good. Societies too are subject tothe laws of growth and development including the tendency to grow apart and theneed to stay in sync as they get bigger. Consequently, human groups have also gonethrough a series of growth crises not unlike the ones that produced nerves and brains

(see Figure 5). In this case, the punctuated progression has produced new socialstructures and new cultural and socio-economic systems, all of which evolved intandem (see Table 2).

The role of growth pressures are particularly evident in the emergence of the lastgreat cultural innovationhierarchical civilization. As villages grew into cities, peoplegrew apart. Consensus building became difficult and bonds became weak. Unable torespond quickly, agrarian villages made easy prey for marauding tribes envious of their wealth. One man deciding for all and using an efficient system of enforcementallowed societies to mobilize rapidly. Thus, a king with a bureaucracy serves the

same role in a large society that a brain with a nervous system does in a large animal.Both schemes allow a complex collective to act as a fast-moving, highly coordinatedwhole.

The catch is that this new level of organization (hierarchy) was achieved by subjugation. Today it still carries many of the same tyrannical tones. Conquering chiefsmade themselves kings. They created classes and bureaucracies to manage the peoplethey enslaved. The emergence of this system also followed a pattern of pressure andresponse reminiscent of the Benard cell. The early agrarians were peaceful and mighthave remained so if they had ceased to multiply. Unfortunately, when desirable landfills up, quarrels begin to take a different form. Since it is no longer easy to flee, land

becomes an issue. The object of early conflicts changed from revenge and prestigeto land (controlling space). The frequency and importance of war began to increase.

Both hierarchies (coercive ones) and the custom of empire-building arose fromwars over space. Thus, at first, crowded tribes tried to annihilate their opponents.This eliminated the threat from the nearby enemies and opened new land for occupa-tion. Eventually, however, some chief concocted the idea of subjugation. A defeatedvillage was allowed to remain on its land, but its people were forced to becomeservants of the victor. The resulting social organizations were more powerful be-cause they were larger and more highly coordinated. Individuals who were success-

ful in war were assigned the task of administering the new areas. They mobilizedwork groups from the now plentiful slaves and used them to build roads, irrigationk d f t Th ll t d t ib t (l t ll d t ) hi h ll d th



18/24

to produce more. Consequently, from that time to our own day, people at the top of a

coercive hierarchy often accumulate gluttonous wealth, whereas those who do theactual work are unable to feed their children.

All of this should seem familiar because the effects are still with us (see Table 2).War and empire-building are still major forces, if only metaphorically as in businesstoday. Oppression is no longer blatant, but most hierarchies are still based on coer-cive relationships of one sort or another. Administrators still pressure workers to

produce more and they still take a disproportionate share of the result. Many peoplestill pursue wealth for social status and women and other oppressed groups still earnmuch less for performing the same job while often being locked out of positions of

power. The list goes on and on.

Table 2Stages of Human Social Evolution

(Dominant Economic and Organizational Form)

~1.5 million BC100,000 BC Foraging Bands Hominid groups began as loose bands of individualswho foraged to survive. Few in number, these early groups would have developed shared meaningseasily, in the course of constant contact (even though they did not yet have speech per se).

~75,000 BC20,000 BC Organized Hunting Bands From Neanderthal through Cro-Magnon, speech,cooperative behaviors, and tools all began evolving rapidly. Human groups developed morecomplicated interactions, the most notable being the organized hunting band. Like wolf packs, human

GOERNER 258

Figure 5. Growth Stages: From Loose Band to Hierarchical Civilization (see also Table 2).T he pattern of growing apart and th en finding n ew ways to stay coherent and in syn c h as alsoplayed a major role in th e evolution of h uman social system s. Sin ce hu man social system s area type of society of min d, th e kin d of culture also evolves in step. Econom ic pattern s, belief systems, and religious systems all evolve in conjunction with the main organizing socialstructure.


19/24

valley, and the near east began to settle down in one spot and grow their own food. This agriculturalrevolution produced the first villages and the first domesticated animals. Staying in one place alsoallowed craftspottery, weaving, metallurgy, and so onto emerge along with such new technologiesas boats and the wheel. New social specialties from policeman to priest emerged along with socialmanagement handled by councils.

Cultural historian Riane Eisler (1988) describes these as partnership societies. She lists their maincharacteristics as:

Social relationships were cooperative. There was a solid sense of being in the world together.Roles differed but they were definitely more egalitarian than exploitative.

Since everyone worked, the fruits of the Earth were seen as belonging to all. Land and major means of production were held in common.

Social power was viewed as a responsibility, a trusteeship used for the benefit of all. People worshipped the life force at work in the world.

~3,000 BC2000 AD War-centered Hierarchical Civilization Somewhere around 4000 BC partnership culture was subsumed by the hierarchical system we use today. Early city-states likeSumer, which had once operated on partnership principles, became increasingly devoted to war as ameans of empire-building. The entire structure of society changed in suit. Historian Christopher Brinton (1964) describes the result as follows:

Each of the great valley states was ruled by a despot: a king who was also a priest, if notactually considered a God. He ruled through a privileged class of nobles and priests, whocommanded a professional army. His subjects had no appeal from his decisions. They obeyedorders and turned over much of their crops as taxes to support the bureaucracy. Bureaucratsincluded such experts as engineers, clerks who kept tax records, lawyers to argue disputes, and

judges to settle them. . . . After these very great innovations of urban civilization, these societ-ies apparently changed very slowly. (p. 8)

Eisler calls this dominator culture. She lists its main characteristics as:

A hierarchical social structure dominated by strong-man elites. A central focus on war and militarism. Private ownership of land and means of production; Accumulation of wealth for status. Coercive social power including slavery, human sacrifice, and the reduction of women and chil-

dren to the property of men. The worship of violent, vengeful Gods, usually through a bureaucratic priesthood directed by an

autocratic head, often the king himself.

So, the last major transformation, the birth of war-centered hierarchies , colorscivilization to this day. However, realizing that this system is but a stage of evolu-tion helps clarify why we might be due for a change. The level of complexity of themodern world is now too much for this ancient command-and-control structure. Our times are too fast to wait for information to wend its way up and down a chain of command. Bonds break; the top becomes disconnected from the bottom; and absur-dity is common. It is also no longer reasonable to expect a few people at the top tohave all the answers. There is too much to know and people at the top are often toofar away to understand, but subsidiarity principles are rarely used in coercive hierar-



20/24

dominator pursuits now constitute a major threat to global civilization and the worldecosystem as a whole.

All these facts suggest that coercive hierarchies have reached their limit and pres-

sure is building for a major new form of human culture and structure. Even the briefest of examinations suggest that the next civilization must develop a social sys-tem that is:

More networked than hierarchical. More collaborative than coercive (with metaphors of sustainability and

synergy, replacing those of war and exploitation). More flexible and creative than rigid and controlled.

Some of the needed infrastructure is already in place. Computer networks, of course, allow grassroots citizenry across the globe to connect and self-organize likeno other time in history. There is also a less visible, but equally important trend.Information-age economics is creating huge pressures for a new kind of worker andwith it a new kind of citizen.

Integral Society: Creative Collaborations in a High Value World

We tend to think of the information age as merely requiring more computer-liter-ate citizens, but a much more dramatic evolution is also at work. Former Secretary

of Labor Robert Reich (1991) points out that the information age is part of an eco-nomic switch from what he calls high-volume to high-value capitalism. Theindustrial age was all about mass production (high-volume) of uniform goods. Mass-

production, however, drove wages so low that workers often couldnt feed their chil-dren. Now, thanks to computers, the best way to make money is through customization(high-value). Whether the industry is old or high-tech, service or manufacturing, the

pattern is the same. The highest profits in software come from customizing servicesto particular businesses and individuals. The fastest-growing truck, rail, and air freight

businesses meet specialized needs for pickups and deliveries worldwide. The most profitable part of steel-making is no longer in long runs of steel ingots, but in particu-lar alloys with particular properties that serve particular needs. In short, the indus-tries that are thriving in todays fast-paced world are shifting from mass-productionto serving unique needs. It is the computers ability to handle vast amounts of infor-mation that makes all this possible.

For our purposes, the first important fact about high-value capitalism is that itrequires a completely different kind of worker. Old-time factory workers were urged even forcedto be blindly obedient. Customization, on the other hand, requires cre-ativity, people who can rapidly envision and build new things. It also requires fast,flexible collaborations because breakthroughs most often come when disparate in-

sights are combined in new ways. Workers must also be able to think critically andact responsibly (with a great deal of autonomy) while keeping the greatest good in

i d C i ll b i i i l f l h d l

GOERNER 260


21/24

tremendous pressure for a fundamentally new kind of culture. One can already seethe birth pains of this new, more collaborative, creative, integral culture in the battlesover education.

Education for an Integral Age

In 19th century industrial days, companies needed factory workers whose chief characteristics were the ability to read and follow directions. Traditional educationdid well by this need. It stuffed important facts into young brains, taught discipline,conformity, and the ability to work alone on isolated tasks. It also encouraged thecompetitiveness that was thought to make all things good.

High-value capitalism reverses all these needs. Teamwork is essential. So iscritical thinking, the ability to go beyond the box and the ability to make connections

across fields. Commitment to one another is often the saving virtue of a team and thesaving virtue of a high-value leader is the knack of helping others be successful.Traditional education tends to obliterate all of these characteristics.

Today, therefore, the irresistible needs of the high-value world are meeting theimmovable object of modern education with an audible crash. By the 1990s the senseof crisis in the schools deepened. Children tended to live through their schooling likeliving through a long-distance run. Many children turned off or dropped out andothers turned to drugs, violence, and sex. Those who did survive often emerged asconforming, indoctrinated, directionless and largely ignorant about the world they

were now supposed to enter. Not understanding the nature of the emerging world, however, many reformerscalled for a stronger version of the old. More tests! More uniform curriculum!More discipline! More competition! As Reich says, The fact that standardized testsonly reflect a students ability to regurgitate factsas opposed to think or collabo-rateremained an unmentioned topic. The fact that factory schools also makelearning fragmented, meaningless, and odious also remained unmentioned.

The yuppies who already dominate high-value jobs, however, dont want any of this for their children. They pour their money and children into elite private schoolsand advance track programs where young minds are trained to be skeptical, curious,creative, and collaborative. Here the curriculum is integrated, interactive, and com-munal. Instead of regurgitating pre-packaged bits of history and math, the focus ison learning to think and connect. Students learn to examine reality from many anglesand to ask why some facts have been emphasized and how current interpretationsmight be contradicted. Projects often take them into the real world to start discover-ing their communities on a more realistic basis. The best classrooms also make learninga group project. Students learn to listen to others, to seek help, and to give credit.They learn to articulate the patterns they see and to clarify and restate for one an-other. The result is better learning, in more dimensions, for everyone.

The system that emerges from such schooling reflects a return to the concept of a partnership, now in a more complex form. Human systems are most creative andi t llig t h th ll b ti i l i d g lit i Th g i g



22/24

worked so it can move beyond the small tight circles that our ancestors knew.These thoughts lead us to a more precise image of what integral society must be

like, as well as some of the educational reforms needed to produce it. The first

challenge for educators is to help restore the critical, creative, collaborative skillsthat our children and society need. Facts are secondary because information nowchanges so fast. Childrens greatest need is to learn how to learn together . This is theonly way to build a committed, collaborative future and to overcome our dominator

past. The second challenge for educators and citizenry at large is to restore the com-munity intricacy, now in more broadly networked ways. We cannot learn as a soci-ety if our local webs are not well-knit. Finally, all of us must see ourselves in the

business of serving the greater good at all levels, immediate to global. The only self-interest that serves in a partnership world is that which also serves the greater good.Adam Smith, the 18th century economist who promoted the idea of self-interest,called this self-interest rightly understood.

SUMMARY: ON THE EDGE OF INTEGRAL SOCIETY

This ends my story. The summary is simple. We are on the edge of a very largechange, in both science and society. Many people in many fields are already makingimportant contributions toward this change. The need at this point is to find coher-ence and a logic that helps point all these contributions toward the goal we all seek.Science is about to provide exactly such a framework. Its basic suggestion is this:learn how nature evolves on the broad scale; it will help you understand where youare, how you connect, and what you need to do.

The space here is too short to outline the many connections that can be made, butat least youve seen that it is possible to get from the principles of energy to the latestcycles of civilization while still following a coherent common pattern. Perhaps too,you can see as well that the frameworks main contribution is the ability to showexisting events and efforts in a radically new light, one that is both unifying andfruitful.

Finally, though it may not be obvious, this framework also addresses the three

needs for change: 1) an understanding of why things seem to be going badly, 2)where our civilization should be headed, and 3) a short list of steps that move in thatdirection. Specifically:

Why? We now know that, while human civilization is a society of mind, it has been mired in dominator culture (war-based, coercive hierarchies) for a verylong time. Dominator cultures emphasis on control and coercion make itterrible at learning and todays technology makes its exploitative habits pro-foundly unsafe. Materialism, inequity, callousness, and rationalization? Al-though we tend to focus on the sins of the industrial age, most of what is going

badly today has its roots in the original dominator pattern. Where? Our civilization should be headed toward integral society, of course.

GOERNER 262


23/24

to a much greater degree and it must remember that it has to learn. Above all,everyones main concern must be for the good of the whole at ever higher circles, from family to planet.

What? I have said only a little about what needs to be done. The short discus-sion on education was meant to indicate the general directionteach collabo-rative skills, nurture diversity, remain open, try to rebuild community. Beyondthis, my main recommendation is to learn more about the framework.Dynamic evolution doesnt provide all the answers, but it helps one developones own solutions, often by showing well-known problems in an entirelydifferent light.

NOTE

1. Before this switch to machine images, medieval people used the metaphor of Gods Design.

REFERENCES

Brinton, C. (1964). Civilization in the West. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc.Chaisson, E. (1987). The life era. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press.Eisler, R. (1988). The chalice and the blade . San Francisco: Harper & Row.Goerner, S. (1999). After the clockwork universe: The emerging science and culture of inte-

gral society. Edinburgh, Scotland: Floris Publishers.

Laszlo, E. (1996). Evolution: The general theory . Cresskill Heights, NJ: Hampton Press.Lotka, S. J. (1956). Elements of mathematical biology. New York: Dover Publications.Prigogine, I., & Stengers, E. (1984). Order out of chaos . New York: Bantam Books.Ray, P. (1996). The rise of integral culture. Noetic Sciences Review . Vol. 37, pp. 415, Spring

1996, Sausalito, CA: The Institute of Noetic Sciences.Ray, P. (1998). What Might be the Next Stage in Cultural Evolution. In D. Loye (Ed.), The

Evolutionary Outrider: Essays Honoring Ervin Laszlo . Westport, CT: Praeger.Reich, R. (1991). The work of nations. New York: Vintage Books.Spencer, H. (1862). First principles. London: Williams and Norgate.



24/24

a practical guide to building an integral world

Documents