A direction for a comprehensive synthesis ~ Neelesh Marik

At its very essence, the central theme of human history seems to be a story of power: the relational dynamic between those who have it and those who dont. Can you think of anything significant that does not depend upon, or is inextricably linked to the story of power? Either in the past, or in the present, as one knows it, understands it, relates to it, and accepts/ rejects it? I cant. The authors do a phenomenal job of weaving the disciplines of history, economics and political science to posit a new framework of social science in the backdrop of the story of power. Over nearly 500 pages and 15 chapters, the book demonstrates how human society is inevitably dependent both on the nature of economic and political institutions for growth, prosperity and most importantly, social equality and harmony. Panoramically global in scope, painstakingly detailed in factual enumeration, and adept in both analysis and synthesis of historical data, the authors have created an insightful instrument for not only retrospective understanding, but also futuristic extrapolation. It is in that spirit that I would like to suggest a ways to deepen the enquiry, so that not only can we embark on a more holistic reconstruction of the past (which effort may be limited by factual information), but more importantly, attempt to formulate a more reliable, acceptable and credible framework that informs academic discourse, popular opinion and ultimately socio-politico-economic decision making in our world by leaders who strive to make it a better place. It seems to me that a richer and more nuanced exploration would need the implements of two new fields of study complexity theory and integral theory. Both these fields have hit the scene in the last 3-4 decades and hence it is not surprising that they are not regularly used in the mainstream. They defy the usual classifications of academia and sit somewhere between the natural sciences, the social sciences, the humanities and philosophy, and yet they cover diverse terrain and uncover deeper and richer mysteries of the human condition without being tyrannized by any specific school of thought or paradigm. In that sense, they are perhaps both cross-paradigmatic and trans-paradigmatic. Most of us know about the Newtonian approach it pioneered the human endeavour to understand nature th and has been the bedrock of scientific understanding till the beginning of the 20 century. The Newtonian approach has three main characteristics, which have transcended by the domain of complexity sciences: 1. Determinism - the notion that things can be predicted by a simple set of equations. First quantum mechanics and then non-linear chaos theory have proven this is not necessarily the case with reality. 2. Reductionism - the notion that the whole can be understood by analysing the parts only. General Systems Theory has debunked this with its deeper understanding of holism and emergence. 3. Objectivity - the notion that reality is something objective and independent of the observer. Both quantum mechanics and cybernetics contend that all knowledge is subjective, and that there is no reality independent of the observer.

Page 1 of 5

The three things above merge into the emerging field of complexity (both as a science and a philosophy) which deals with multi-agent systems that subjectively interpret reality, interact locally, but contribute to the emergence of global order (or disorder). Unlike in the Newtonian paradigm, uncertainty and subjectively are not negative problems to be resolved, but positive assets that directly produce creativity, adaptation and evolution. Just as Complexity Science is a vast subject, unfolding every day with new insights and breakthroughs, so is the field of Integral Theory. Integral theory is a philosophy promoted by Ken Wilber that seeks a synthesis of the best of pre-modern, modern, and postmodern reality. It is portrayed as a "theory of everything," and offers an approach "to draw together an already existing number of separate paradigms into an interrelated network of approaches that are mutually enriching." It has been applied by scholar-practitioners in 35 distinct academic and professional domains as varied as organizational management, art, and feminism. For the purposes of this book review though, I would like to draw the readers attention to two key concepts: the Four Q uadrants, and Spiral Dynamics Integral. Lets begin with the most fundamental element of Integral Theory: quadrants. To understand quadrants, one must first consider the obvious fact that every situation can be considered from the perspective of the individual (the citizen, leader, oppressor, oppressed) or from the perspective of the collective (the group, tribe, population). Next, we must consider that every phenomenon can be considered from an objective or a subjective point of view (also referred to as exterior and interior). Now, by simply bringing together the individual and collective on one axis and subjective and objective on another axis, we have four quadrants. These quadrants represent primordial, universal perspectives. They are irreducible, meaning that one cannot collapse one into the other. See illustration below.

Clare W Graves, the original proponent of Spiral Dynamics, which has later been amalgamated by some into Integral Theory, said Briefly, what I am proposing is that the psychology of the mature human being is an unfolding, emergent, oscillating, spiralling process, marked by progressive subordination of older, lower-order behaviour systems to newer, higher-order systems as mans existential problems change. One of the various representations of the spiral is the diagram below:

Page 2 of 5

With the background information above, I would like to suggest four pathways by which the Why Nations Fail hypothesis could be enriched, deepened and broadened: The first pathway is about considering a multi-dimensional, non-linear approach to exploring each countrys historical circumstances, critical junctures, contingent factors, and key agents. It is possible, and perhaps highly likely, that the institutional logic propounded in the book need not stand in isolation from the three other factors cited: geography (or natural factors), culture (shared worldview factors) and ignorance (intellectual, behavioural and competency related factors). On the contrary, each of these factors inter-weaves with the institutional factor to chart out a specific trajectory of emergence, which cannot be understood from the individual factors alone in a linear manner. The dynamics of inter-dependence between the interior quadrant dimensions (individual consciousness of key agents, and shared worldview of the various collectives at play) and exterior quadrant dimensions (behavioural characteristics, competencies of key agents, and institutional drift and systemic particulars) would vary from country to country (geographical coordinates) and from epoch to epoch (time axis coordinates). Said differently, the eventuation of every country destiny need not be an either-or reductive causation dynamic, but most probably a n integrative formulation of various factors, albeit with varying roles and sequential relevancies. After all, who create the institutions in the first place? Surely the people of the region over a period of time, influenced by each other in an inter-subjective (cultural quadrant) sense, by external circumstances of natural conditions, colonial threat configurations (systems quadrant) and the agency and maturity of consciousness of key individual leaders (self-quadrant). As cultures progress up the spiral from animistic to power-centric to authoritarian to rational-modernistic to pluralistic worldviews, their institutions begin to reflect the same and cross-influence subsequent generations. So whether we compare England with Spain, Botswana with Ethiopia, Japan with China at any point of time, or Venice, Rome and the USA over five centuries, we will inevitably find unique inter-quadrant mechanics that chart out specific patterns of sociocultural evolution/ regression. The depth of inclusivity of any institution cannot be independent of quality of consciousness of its founder(s) and the shared worldview of key stakeholders. Consciousness and culture thus have a vital interdependency, almost like the chicken and the egg. And that inter-dependency is subsumed under the tetra-

Page 3 of 5

dynamics of all four quadrants. In that sense, the whole notion of virtuous and vicious cycles are not just about political and economic institutions complementing each other (though that is certainly true), but about each quadrant aligning with the upward movement of the others in a synchronistic dance of evolution. The second pathway involves a more granular look at two of the purported pillars of both political and economic inclusivity: the United States and the United Kingdom. No contemporary theory of social science can afford to ignore the visible fractures in the socio-economic systems of both these countries rapidly growing inequality and stratification, dubious foreign policies, large-scale manipulations in the market and monetary systems and crony capitalism, and deteriorating social indices of health, education, crime, mortality etc. What constellation of factors is responsible for the perilously southward direction of the beacons of yesteryears? Surely institutional factors cited in the book cannot, by themselves, explain the volte-face, and one must therefore consider cultural factors of greed and fear, and individual roles and choices of national political and economic leaders as well. Says Steve McIntosh in his philosophy paper explaining the purpose of the recently fo unded Institute of Cultural Evolution: Nothing in politics makes sense except in the light of cultural evolution . Later on he goes on to add: Integral philosophy recognizes how the evolution of consciousness and culture occurs as a result of both the pull of values and the push of unsatisfactory life conditions. Values are thus defined and animated by their relation to the real and pressing problems faced by people as they struggle to improve their lives. Recognizing how consciousness and culture evolve through both the internal influence of values and the external pressure of problematic conditions underlines the fact that interior consciousness almost always coevolves with exterior circumstances. In other words, wherever one finds the interior evolution of consciousness, one also finds a corresponding evolution in the complexity of the exterior structures associated with such interior development. It merits reflection if the imperial economic ambitions and the global domination agenda of countries like the USA have indeed surpassed limits of self-control and entered a vicious cycle loop that is finally threatening their own survival, along with that of all of humanity trapped in the matrix of globalization. The third pathway involves a revisit of the growth story as the only story of prosperity. While countries which are largely below the poverty line surely need to satisfy Maslows lower levels, it is becoming increasingly and indubitably apparent that growth and sustainability of the developed world is now almost an oxymoron. Every responsible work of social science should question the traditional notion of prosperity and evaluate its meaning in the context of the earths resource balance, species resilience, environmental degradation, and population explosion. In the last five years, the very foundations of neo-classical economics have never been questioned so vigorously - the new worldview vocabulary now includes the like of full-spectrum economics (Christian Arnsperger), ecological economics (David Korten), sacred economics (Charles Eisenstein), alternative currencies and monetary systems (Bernard Lietaer), and resource based economy (Jacque Fresco and Peter Joseph). These emergent life-based theories and thought experiments are likely to transform global institutions in ways never seen or imagined before. WNF, I think, can and should embrace and incorporate the new memes within its purview and re-envision the institutions of tomorrow. The fourth pathway is a closer look at the meaning of power, and political processes that underpin the latitude granted to power holders in society. In his book The Power of Balance Transforming Self, Society and Scientific Inquiry, Bill Torbert describes four kinds of power: 1. 2. 3. Unilateral Power: the ability to unilaterally and unidirectionally cause the outcomes one wishes. Diplomatic Power: the power that is generated, not by the power-wielder, but by the power-yielderby the consent of the governed Logistical Power: the power that comes from the rational element in the will, rather than the element of consent by inducement or desire

Page 4 of 5

4.

Transforming Power: the power which invites mutualityguided by a living awareness of what is currently at stake for the particular individuals and systems participating in the transformation

So what does history tell us about the kinds of power exercised by leaders of different countries in different circumstances? Given our observation of historical facts and understanding of cultural value systems, it should be clear that an overwhelming majority of leaders seem to exercise unilateral power. FDR during the New Deal may have been subject to diplomatic power by the Supreme Court, while post Tudor England during the Industrial Revolution illustrates elements of Logistical Power, thereby underscoring the role of institutions in reconfiguring the sources and types of power. Vaclav Havel of the Czech Republic is arguably one of the few examples of transforming power in action. A related inquiry is the relative ineffectiveness of our political processes in distilling the highest qualities of human nature. Our educational processes, and our employment processes do a reasonable (though not perfect) job of finding the best human talent there is, from a statistically diverse motley crew. Why then, is it a universal fact that our political systems and processes, even in the era of democracy, fail to find leaders who embody the best and most evolved qualities that behove the quantum of power they enjoy? How is it that relatively irrelevant qualities and attributes seem to matter in the electoral processes of virtually all countries even in this day and age when psychometric and other tools are available to us? When can we begin to orchestrate our political power equations such that some form of developmental assessment is part of the process of choosing leaders who have an inordinate role in determining human destiny? Each of the four pathways may merit a research project, culminating in a new synthesis of what power, st prosperity and poverty could mean in the 21 century, beyond what we historically know and acknowledge.

__________________________________________________________________________________
References
The Wilberian Integral Approach http://www.kon.org/hswp/archive/mcgregor_2.htm Complexity and Philosophy http://arxiv.org/ftp/cs/papers/0604/0604072.pdf Spiral Dynamics Integral http://www.spiraldynamics.net/about-spiral-dynamics-integral.html Premises and Principles of the Evolutionary Worldview http://www.culturalevolution.org/ The Balance of Power http://integral-review.org/documents/Torbert,%20The%20%20Power%20of%20Balance%20Vol.%206%20No.%201.pdf

Page 5 of 5