|
I.
INTRODUCTION
In this paper I
want to briefly review some of the work in which stage theories from
human development psychology are applied in the fields of education,
management, and religion, or spirituality.
The utility of
human development theory goes beyond individual change to offer a
different perspective on social systems and on particular social
problems. It offers new
tools for analyzing and diagnosing intractable problems which have in
the past failed to yield to economic or political analysis. Crime, poverty, racism, militias, and anti-abortion violence, for
example, can all be seen in a different light from a human development
perspective.
In
addition to problem analysis, human development theory can contribute to
success in such endeavors as education and management training by
offering a better definition of the task. Formal education, for example, can be undertaken for various
purposes, including socializing the young to the customs and mores of
the community, passing on knowledge and techniques for accomplishing
social and economic tasks, and/or facilitating the growth of individuals
so they may achieve their potential in maturity. The last of these is most important in developmental
terms. Education systems may differ considerably depending upon which
objectives are given most weight. [1]
Finally, the application of human development theory in education and
management is important in order to discover ways in which study and
work environments can be designed to be most conducive to the further
development of the participants. Most
theorists agree that a stimulating environment is essential to continued
growth, especially in adulthood.
Why
is it important to encourage greater human development of people other
than one’s self and one’s family?
From a competitive point of view, would it not be advantageous to
seek maximum development only of those with whom one identifies: family,
clan, or ethnic group? I
have previously argued that the most acceptable solution to the a long
term global crisis of overpopulation would be the achievement of a level
of human development in each society which would enable it to take
responsibility for its fertility rate and its impact on the global
environment. I believe a
convincing case can be made along these lines, but there are other
reasons as well for devoting attention and resources to facilitating
individual human development.
A
number of authors have addressed the notion that the modern
industrialized society makes more demands on the average individual than
was ever the case before in history. Levinson notes that adult development is an idea whose time has
come because of the requirements of modern society; the increasing
relative size of the adult population adds to the need. Adults need to know more, be able to accept more responsibility,
have better judgment, and become more universal in outlook than was ever
true in the past. [2]
Robert
Kegan goes even further to suggest that our current culture’s mental
demands require of adults a “qualitative transformation” of mind as
fundamental as the transition from magical thinking to concrete thinking
at the school age, or the transition from concrete to abstract thinking
in adolescence. He speaks
of a cultural evolution of mind that parallels the eras of the
traditional, modern, and post-modern in society. [3]
This
concept that consciousness evolves in parallel with economic, political
and social evolution is a powerful one. Not many authors have grappled with it, due perhaps to the
complexity of the idea and its interdisciplinary nature. Ken Wilber is, of course, an exception. [4] Wilber’s integrated
theory suggests that consciousness is not simply an individual
phenomenon, nor is it purely social; it arises from cultural and
environmental forces as well as individual behavior and intention.
One
implication of the work of Kegan and Wilber is that a rapidly advancing
society, using advanced technology and placing unprecedented demands on
its average citizens, will leave many people behind. Those left behind will be at odds with the dominant society;
estranged, often hostile, uncomprehending, and alienated. Perhaps one can find among extremists in the militias, in
fundamentalist churches, and in inner city gangs, a clubbing together of
people who have been unable to master the developmental transitions
necessary to fit comfortably into modern American life.
Authors
outside the psychological or philosophical domains write about similar
issues from other points of view. Robert
Reich, in The Work of Nations,
discusses the increasing division of society brought about by economic
globalization. [5] Knowledge workers, who command advanced information
technology and high level skills, are leaving the less able and less
educated behind, not just in income terms but also in terms of world
view and sense of community. Economists,
sociologists, political scientists and practicing politicians have all
recognized the widening gap between professional classes and others, and
expressed concern in their own terms.
The
importance of the developmental psychologist’s view of divisive social
trends is, to me, that psychological analysis may yield different and,
in the long run, more effective prescriptions for social policy than the
measures advocated by other analysts. It should, therefore, be worthwhile to see how development theory
is currently being applied in several fields.
II. APPLICATIONS OF DEVELOPMENTAL STAGE THEORIES
In
an earlier paper, I attempted to make a case for private foundations to
support the field of human development psychology. Research funds in this field are scarce and very little
interdisciplinary work is funded. Collaboration
between psychologists in this field and practitioners in other fields
could enrich the latter, and help the former become a profession, not
just a discipline.
A. SPIRITUALITY
William
Fowler, in Stages of Faith,
has a promising beginning. [6] Fowler
was teaching at the Harvard Seminary in the 1970s and was exploring the
notion that faith might be formed in stages, with transition periods
similar to human development stage theories. Students suggested that he meet Lawrence Kohlberg who was at the
Harvard School of Education at the time. He got to know Kohlberg personally and, through him, the work of
other psychologists including Erikson and Piaget, and he found much in
their work which resonated with his ideas of how faith develops. [1]
This type of interaction between a theologian and a human
development psychologist is precisely the sort of interdisciplinary
activity which could be stimulated by foundation funding, were it
available.
Fowler
uses the device of an imaginary conversation in which Kohlberg, Piaget
and Erikson summarize and compare their conceptions of the stages of
human development. Then he
describes his own stage theory, the first four stages of which adhere
very closely to Kohlberg and Piaget. He acknowledges that some of his critics think his work should
more straightforwardly deal with religious development, while others,
with a psychological bent, suggest he might use the terms “world view
development, “ belief system formation,” or “development of
consciousness” to
describe his categories.
Fowler
identifies five contributions that the structural developmental work of
Piaget and Kohlberg make to his thinking about stages of faith. The most important is the broadly epistemological focus of these
theories. He sees parallels
between the psychological theories on how we know and the work of
Reinholt Niebuhr and Paul Tillich who describe faith as a way of seeing
the world. Fowler thinks
Piaget and Kohlberg try to adhere too closely to the cognitive and moral
dimensions of knowing, and their perspective needs to be broadened to
include “affective, valuational, and imaginal” modes of knowing in
order to encompass the sources of faith.
Fowler
admires and adopts the structural idea of identifiable, generalizable
stages, with integrated formal descriptions of operations at each stage.
He also accepts the notion of an invariable sequence of stages,
with each succeeding stage incorporating and going beyond the previous
stage. He
particularly admires the interactive nature of psychological stage
theory, in which the genetic potential of an organism reacts with its
environment to shape and pace the change process.
Most
significantly, Fowler recognized that a stage theory, with succeeding
stages being more comprehensive and adequate than preceding stages,
quickly conflicts with the egalitarian notions of our culture. The implication that those at higher developmental stages are
more able cognitively, and more advanced morally, is offensive to many
champions of diversity and relativism, and, of course, to
fundamentalists. This
problem haunts all who seek to apply developmental psychology to social
problems, and Fowler is commendable in his willingness to confront the
issue directly.
His
main criticism of Piaget and Kohlberg is their relative neglect of
affect and imagination. Fowler
deals with this imbalance by proposing to integrate what he calls the
“logic of rational certainty” with a “logic of conviction” in
which one’s knowledge or faith is confirmed and reaffirmed through
life experiences.
Fowler’s
stages can be summarized briefly:
·
Infancy: Undifferentiated
Faith - mutuality and trust;
·
Early Childhood : Intuitive, Projective Faith - imagination,
images;
·
Childhood: Mythic-Literal
Faith - Rise of narrative and stories of faith;
·
Adolescence: Synthetic-Conventional Faith - Forming of identity and
shaping of a personal faith.;
·
Young Adulthood: Individuative-Reflective Faith - Reflective
construction of ideology;
·
Adulthood: Conjunctive Faith - Paradox, depth and
intergenerational responsibility for the world.
Fowler
offers a graph in which he parallels his stages with those of Piaget and
Kohlberg, but it is not of surpassing interest. In the text, he illustrates what he means by the various
stages of faith through anecdotes in which faith is allegedly displayed.
It is in these vignettes that his stage theory becomes suspect. His first four stages are unexceptional and link well with
Kohlberg and Piaget in that they are based on different epistemologies
or ways of knowing. In
describing stages five and six, however, Fowler lapses into the language
of the pulpit, with all the fuzziness and platitudinous conviction that
that implies. He
presents a long biographical sketch of a woman who had severe
relationship problems, first with her mother, and then with every group
of people she tried to associate with. Throughout her unfortunate adult life she was very religious,
believing that God wanted her to marry this person or that and that it
was His will that she be expelled from whatever cult she had sought
refuge in at the moment.
Fowler
analyses her story in terms of sources of authority and guidance and
concludes that she made a progression of faith from the time she
converted, in her mid-twenties, until the time he interviewed her in her
forties. To me, she was
finding different people or biblical sources to lean on, but she had not
progressed beyond the stage of mythology; she was just finding different
crutches.
Of
course, it is possible that I have not reached stages five or six in my
own development, which makes it impossible for me to recognize the
description of these later levels. By definition, I can’t be the judge of
that. It is also possible, and I think quite likely, that someone who
sits down to write a book on the stages of faith is himself mired, or
embedded, in mythology and thus becomes all muddled when he attempts to
find parallels in his field with levels described by Kohlberg. In my view, despite a promising beginning in which he
acknowledges a tie and a debt to developmental psychology, Fowler
dissolves in disappointing confusion in the later parts of his book.
What
could he have done? I think
it would have been interesting for him to describe the stage of faith
exhibited by fundamentalists and militia members who wrap themselves in
God and the flag to justify their primitive actions. Coming from a theologian, that kind of a statement could be very
useful. He might also have
pigeon- holed those who believe that God will somehow alleviate the
suffering resulting from overpopulation and the consequent destruction
of our earthly habitat; thereby relieving each of us from the chore of
becoming responsible for our own actions. In my opinion, anyone who thinks that morality is mainly centered
upon the activities of the lower half of the body, but ignores excess
fertility and pollution as immoral characteristics, is operating at a
level of less than full maturity.
Therein,
of course, lies the problem. I
am deeply committed to my own definition of faith and morality. I don’t really expect to be told that I am functioning at lower
and inferior level by someone else’s definition. Any attempt to categorize everyone with different views as
morally being inferior, or as functioning at a lower level of faith than
oneself, is bound to be met with outrage.
B. MANAGEMENT
The
example chosen to illustrate the application of human development theory
in the field of management is found in Personal
and Organizational Transformations by Dalmar Fisher and William
Torbert. [7] The authors
could not have chosen a title more attractive of my interest.
The
book is part of a McGraw-Hill series on Developing Organizations. The series is meant as a guide to those wishing to change,
develop or transform their organizations. It contributes to the metamorphosis of OD (Organizational
Development) into TQM and the learning organization.
This
context explains why the book is focused on CQI (Continuous Quality
Improvement), another version of TQM (Total Quality Management). The “Q”
is the
central theme of the book, to which the authors add the notion of
transforming the managers, not just the organization. The transformation vehicle they choose is “action
Inquiry”, one of the cultures of knowing to which we at Fielding are
early exposed. The term
refers to a style of behavior that is both productive and inquiring. The key element is a conscious readiness to redefine tasks,
priorities, and methods, when the situation requires change. The importance of such flexibility is evident when one considers
the dizzying pace of technological change in our era, and the associated
attitudinal and organizational adjustments needed to keep one current.
People
employ action inquiry in
four steps: framing, advocating, illustrating and inquiry. More simply, one views an issue in its wider context,
decides what to do about it, communicates the virtues of the solution to
others, and checks the feedback.
The
authors, somewhat confusingly, also use the term “frame” to
represent a stage of management behavior. The frames are hierarchical, that is, each successive frame
incorporates and goes beyond the previous frame. The first four frames, or stages, are labeled Opportunist,
Diplomat, Technician, and Achiever. They are Loevinger’s first four stages of ego development, and
the authors use her sentence completion test to determine where in the
sequence each person is.
People
functioning at one of the first four stages do not recognize that they
are operating in a constructed frame, nor are they generally aware that
different people operate out of different frames. Beyond these four frames are two more, the Strategist and the
Magician. The Strategist is
aware of the dynamics of the first four frames and is thus able
communicate with (manipulate?) people in the lower frames more
effectively. The authors
found only 10% of the managers they tested were at the Strategist stage,
and 80% of these were at the most senior levels of management. (which raises the issue of whether the person makes the job, or
the job the person).
The
Magician stage, also referred to as Witch or Clown, is very rare. In eight years the authors succeeded in tracking down only
six. These people generally were not in official positions. They were vitally involved with many organizations at the same
time. They tended to
be very innovative people; movers and shakers in all their activities.
There
is in the Loevinger system a further level of human development, the
Ironist stage, but Fisher and Torbert have not come across anyone at
that level. They may be so
rare in their ability to shift the intellectual paradigms of society
that only Descartes and Newton qualify.
The
organizational equivalencies of these frames or stages follow a similar
progression. Beginning with
the Conception of a new organization, the stages move through
Investments, Incorporation (actually producing goods and services),
Experiments with alternative strategies and structures, Systematic
Productivity involving institutionalization, Collaborative Inquiry (a
self-amending process of re-thinking goals), Foundational Community
(where structure fails and spirit sustains) and Liberating Disciplines
where members of the organization become aware of incongruities among
the mission/strategy/operations/outcomes. They develop skill at generating organizational learning.
Although
they describe these stages as being equivalent to human development
stages, I am skeptical. Obviously,
someone at the Impulsive stage of human development is not going to do
the Conceptualizing for a new organization, so they are not equating the
stages in terms of competence required at each. Indeed, they later talk of a developmental sequence in a single,
well-run, meeting. So it is
the biological metaphor of development that they assert applies to
organizations as well as individuals. That’s okay, but if that’s all there is, what’s the big
deal?
It
turns out that that is not all there is. The authors have a much more ambitious agenda which becomes
evident only late in the book. It
seems that they are concerned about global trends in the use of capital
and its effects on the habitat, although they are not explicit in that
belief. They evidently
believe that we as a species are headed for disaster, but that the way
to avert it is through changing the world view of the powerful from
inside, rather than calling for revolution from outside.
In
evidence we have the following: “we are increasingly realizing that
the entire modern way of life, with its predominant emphasis on the
values of production an consumption and its spiritual relativism, is
endangering the planet -- from the
Himalayan forests, to Madagascar’s waters, to Brazil’s plant and
animal life, to Mexico City’s air, to the thinning ozone layer over
the North and South poles – and intrudes into the foreground more and
more frequently.” They
note that the global nature of the political economy and its
environmental effects requires global answers to these problems, and
pose the question “Is there a way of answering all these questions
that leaves the market system intact as a way of setting prices and leaves broad leeway for different individuals to evolve distinctly,
while simultaneously posing a challenge to all individuals and societies
to evolve constructively.” (Italics
in the original)
Obviously,
Fisher and Torbert believe
such a transformation of not just the US, but the global, society is
possible or they would not have raised the issue. The answer lies in raising individuals and organizations to the
highest stages possible. For
the individual, the authors suggest setting personal goals for a Good
Life in the areas of good work, good money, good friends, and good
questions. For
organizations, they suggest working through action inquiry to attain the
stage of Liberating Disciplines. No
organization has yet achieved this level so there is no blueprint to
follow, but Fisher and Torbert offer as examples of advanced
organizations the Freemasons, to which most of the signers of the
Declaration of Independence belonged, Gandhi’s Satyagraha movement,
and Alcoholics Anonymous. Significantly,
the authors find only one American university dedicated to cultivating
developmentally transforming inquiry among its students: Maharishi
International University in Fairfield, Iowa.
As
an aside, one recalls from freshman philosophy class that the ancient
Greeks believe that the summum
bonum, or ultimate good, is the perfected individual in the
perfected society, an idea strikingly similar to Fisher and Torbert’s
formulation, although the definition of “perfected” in each case
would probably be different.
This
book, with its key description of higher stage organizations located
only in an Appendix, is confusing. It starts out being a rather prosaic discussion of modern
management theory and ends up being more visionary and spiritual than
Fowler, at least in my opinion. Actually,
that isn’t so surprising if one recalls that Ken Wilber claims
organized religion has been largely responsible for the failure of
spirituality to develop in Western Civilization since the Enlightenment!
I
suspect that the last portion of the book, including the Appendix, is
where the authors’ real interests lie and that they tailored the book
to make it fit the definition of the series in which it was published. Fisher is usually the junior author of the two, and the fact
that he is listed first may indicate that the book is not the primary
expression of their thinking. But
that is just a guess. It
could also be the case that the authors chose to hide their real purpose
until near the end in order to avoid scaring people off who may not be
at a high enough level of personal development to grasp it all. They make the point that, according to development theory, with
guidance we can understand the
perspective one stage beyond our own, but we cannot even glimpse, just
distort and misinterpret, perspectives two or more stages later than our
own. Come to think of it, that may be the point the authors would
make about this review! At
any rate, if one perseveres to the end of the book, one is surprisingly
rewarded.
C.
UNIVERSITY EDUCATION
In 1981, Arthur
Chickering edited a collection of 42 articles spanning nearly 800 pages
in The Modern American College
that sought to consider new realities of diverse students and a changing
society. [8] The list includes work by many familiar names, including
Wm. Perry, Carol Gilligan, Wm. Torbert, Francis Keppel, and our own
Libby Douvan. The book is
intended to make the case that human development can supply a unifying
purpose for higher education.
The book is at
once too narrow and too broad for my taste, but he set out to influence
a different audience from me. Too
narrow because it is concerned primarily with higher education whereas
much human development also takes place in infancy and younger years,
and in the workplace. Too broad because it attempts to encompass developmental
tasks throughout the life cycle. For
example, those 23-35 must deal with the tasks of deciding on a partner,
starting a family, managing a home, starting an occupation, and assuming
civic responsibilities. These
are clearly tasks nearly everyone undertakes during that age period, but
there is no notion of stages. Everyone
can get married despite functioning at Piaget’s concrete operations
stage.
Still,
Chickering is optimistic about the direction of change during the life
cycle and he recognizes that few of us achieve the levels we desire. He cites evidence indicating that the direction of change in ego
development is toward integrity rather than opportunism, that the
direction of change in moral and ethical development is toward
contextual relativism which assigns human welfare the highest value,
that change is in the direction of increased intellectual competence and
complexity. Individual
purposes and identities do become stronger, and persons do learn to
learn, and to take charge of their own development.
Chickering’s
task orientation is probably based upon Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of
human needs, but Maslow had more of a stage orientation because he
indicated that once a person reached a certain stage, there was no going
back, barring catastrophe, and that each level incorporated and went
beyond the earlier one.
Chickering’s
book with its forty authors succeeds in demonstration the proliferation
of development models rather than their value as a unifying factor. Chickering recognizes six or seven scales that can be
used. The seven are:
·
intellectual competence;
·
ego development;
·
moral and ethical development;
·
humanitarian concern;
·
interpersonal competence;
·
capacity for intimacy; and
·
professional development.
This
book is too much a hodgepodge to warrant further examination, and I
think Chickering’s thinking has advanced well beyond that demonstrated
in it. Enough has been said
to indicate the wide array of developmental approaches employed by
educators, and the need for a more coherent theory to guide education
strategy.
III. CONCLUSIONS
My
comments on each of these books reveal a certain sense of
disappointment, so before summing up my reactions, I should perhaps give
an indication of what I had hoped to find in them.
Concerning
spirituality, I have long believed that conventional spirituality, or
the opinions and sentiments expressed by our religious establishment,
fails to address the serious perils confronting our species. Indeed, the reaction of many churchmen to the issues of
global overpopulation and environmental deterioration is denial. The position of the Catholic church on fertility control is, in
my view, immoral, and should be attacked as such by other religionists. I had, therefore, hoped to find in Fowler a theologian able to
deal with issues that go well beyond preparing parishioners for their
own demise and censoring changing sexual habits. The incredible speed of change in this century creates a crying
need for moral guidance concerning the fouling of the only habitat we
are ever going to have.
Some
may argue that pastoral functions serve the main purposes of organized
religion, and that complex technical matters such as pollution and
fertility control should be left to other institutions. Few institutions in our society, however, have time horizons long
enough to encompass the
species crisis which we now witness. Religious institutions, foundations and universities are the
primary institutions able to peer beyond the bottom line or the next
election and to interpret dangerous trends. Foundations and universities are engaged with the issues, but
they cater to too narrow a spectrum of opinion in a mass democracy to
sway policy as radically as may be required.
At
any rate, it is clear that Fowler is not the theologian to lead the way.
The promising start made in his book falls to pieces by the time
he reaches early formal operations.
Fisher
and Torbert apply human development concepts to management in useful
ways, but not as I had expected. I
thought they would take a historical perspective, identifying management
systems which are or were appropriate for different levels of human
development. A society
functioning at the magical level, for example, might work best with a
god/king at its head. Later
on, some form of oligarchy may be appropriate, where the leader loses
divine characteristics and functions within agreed parameters. Then, some sort of limited suffrage, such as our own founding
fathers instituted, would reflect growing, but not full, confidence in
the populace.
This
idea of change in management or governance over the centuries also
applies to change over decades as human productive capabilities, aided
by technological advances, permit or require a devolution of power
downwards. In other words,
changes in management styles arise not because we learn to manage
better, but because increased competence becomes available at lower
levels of the organization. (Incidentally,
the tumultuous nature of national governance may be partially explained
by our inability to come to grips with the increased power of the media
and the common people to learn intimate details about out leaders,
something previously considered out of bounds, and also unattainable.)
That
is my vision, but not Fisher and Torbert’s. They seek to examine how individuals at different levels of human
development can work together effectively, and can be given
encouragement to advance developmentally, in a “learning”
organization. They don’t
ground their ideas historically, but their purpose is to offer guidance
to managers in existing organizations and to chart the path ahead,
beyond the profit motive. In
this, I think they make an important contribution. Fisher and Torbert join Heilbroner[9] [10] and Drucker[11] in
recognizing the advantages of the capitalist system for breaking
customary power relationships while at the same time realizing that the
profit motive is itself inadequate as a driving force for the future of
our species. Speculation on
how we are going to define and achieve higher levels of motivation is
very useful in legitimizing the debate about where we should be heading.
In
education, I had hoped to find clues as to how higher education might be
organized so as to maximize the potential human development of its
participants. I think that
goal would be shared by Chickering, but he cast his net too broadly. He identifies seven human growth dimensions, and thereby confuses
the issue.
It would be
difficult to find unity of purpose, Chickering’s objective, among
people with that array of interests. He is to be admired for the breadth of his ambition, but it
isn’t surprising that the result, at this early date, was eclectic.
Fisher and
Torbert, who surpassed Fowler on spirituality (in my view), noted that
the only institution of higher education seeking to advance the human
development of its students was the Maharishi Mahesh University in Iowa.
This is a very provocative idea, one that may not have occurred
to Chickering. What does it mean to seek to advance the human development of
students? How is it done?
It seems to me to be a subject worthy of more attention.
This brings a
Fielding student to the obvious question:
If the Institute believes that human development theory has
merit, why isn’t it in the vanguard in designing and testing curricula
promoting human development transitions?
The claim is often made by faculty and alumni that the Fielding
experience is “transforming”, which could be another way of saying
that students often make the transition to a higher stage of
consciousness or development while engaged in the program. I find that idea quite plausible, but I’m constantly surprised
when Fielding faculty outside the human development field demonstrate
little knowledge or appreciation of what HD theory has to offer. This is particularly egregious in the case of the new EDD
program, where HD theory could be expected to figure high in the
calculation of the objectives of education at all levels.
I understand
that the faculty search committee is now to be known as the faculty
search and development committee. Perhaps
a part of faculty development could include seminars on the ideas of
faculty members in other disciplines concerning paths to learning.
There is also a
fairly large scale longitudinal study of Fielding students aiming to
determine the HD level of students at entry and at completion, but I
don’t know much about it (despite being interviewed twice by
researchers). That’s
a step in the right direction, but a limited one. As an institution, Fielding could seek leadership in
understanding the application of human development theory in other
fields, could tailor its own offerings with human development as a guide
and could do research on results it, and other institutions, achieve.
I tried
drafting a proposal for submission to a foundation for funds to allow
Fielding to expand research and publication in the HD field, but the
support I received from the institution was tepid at best. The proposal may not have been convincing, although Judy’s
contribution was well structured, but no one seemed to care. The whole administration
seems too busy fighting brush fires to undertake long term intellectual
pursuits, but that may be unfair. The
institution seems intent on producing new programs in different fields,
and limiting the expansion of the HOD program. It is broadening rather than deepening, and I find that
regrettable.
Human
development theory and its application seems to me fragmented and
disorganized. It needs a
major institution, backed solidly with foundation funds, to expand
research, experimentation, and communications in the field. Fielding could be such an institution, but seems not to
harbor such aspirations.
It is a field
with serious pitfalls when it comes to applications. First of all, the theory is fragmented into Chickering’s seven
dimensions and even more. It
seems that to make a name in the field, a theorist must devise his or
her own scale, selecting from the buffet of theories to concoct a new
flavor.
A second, and
more serious, difficulty is that human development theory can be misused
and misunderstood so that
it becomes dangerously elitist. It
can be seen to be most seriously politically incorrect, and it can be
thought of as ethnocentric. This
flies in the face of current intellectual trends, particularly at
Fielding, which celebrate cultural diversity and relative values. I personally do not think there is a contradiction between
current trends and HD theory, but to explain why there isn’t is a
major undertaking.
Somehow, our
civilization must come up with a new paradigm, or perhaps a new morality.
The new paradigm
should be firmly based on human development theory, and should have
three main strands:
·
Search for values beyond the accumulation culture;
·
Search for a sustainable habitat;
·
Search for ways to allow people to achieve higher levels of
self-actualization.
IV. REFERENCES
1.
Kohlberg, L., Essays on Moral Development: The Psychology of
Moral Development. Vol. II. 1984, San Francisco: Harper & Row.
2.
Levinson, J.D., et al., The Seasons of a Man's Life. 1978,
New York: Ballantine.
3.
Kegan, R., In Over Our Heads: The mental demands of modern
life. 1995, Cambridge: Harvard. 396.
4.
Wilber, K., Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: The spirit of
evolution. 1995, Boston: Shambala. 831.
5.
Reich, R., The Work of Nations: Preparing ourselves for 21st
century capitalism. 1991, New York: Knopf. 331.
6.
Fowler,
J.W., Stages of Faith: the psychology of human
development and the quest for meaning. 1976, San Francisco: Harper.
332.
7.
Fisher, D. and W.R. Torbert, Personal and Organizational
Transformations: the true challenge of continual quality improvement.
Developing Organizations Series, ed. M. Pedlar. 1995, New York:
McGraw-Hill. 270.
8.
Chickering,
A.W., The Modern American College: Responding to
the new realities of diverse students and a changing society. 1981,
San Francisco: Jossey Bass. 810.
9.
Heilbroner,
R.L., The Nature and Logic of Capitalism.
1985, New York: Norton. 225.
10.
Heilbroner, R., 21st Century Capitalism. 1993, New York:
Norton. 175.
11.
Drucker, P.F., Managing for the Future: The 1990s and beyond.
1993: Plume.
12.
Huntington, S. P., The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking
of World Order. 1996, New York: Touchstone. 367.
|
