I. Introduction: Human development psychology can yield insights into problems western societies have found intractable from other vantage points -- such as crime, poverty, racism, militias, and anti-abortion violence. More importantly, it may offer help with the long-term crisis we face as inhabitants of one globe: threats from environmental damage and overpopulation.  

II. Applications of Developmental Stage Theories: Collaboration between human development psychologists and practitioners in other fields could enrich the latter and help development psychology become a profession, not just a discipline.

II. A. Spirituality: William Fowler's Stages of Faith (1976).

II. B. Management: Dalmar Fisher and William Torbert's Personal and Organizational Transformations.  

II. C. University Education: Arthur Chickering's Modern American College (1981).

III. Conclusions: Shortcomings of these applications. Fielding itself could demonstrate the utility of human development psychology, both  by dedicating itself to research in the area and by applying the findings to itself. Why we as a global civilization need this field.

IV. References


A Junk in Hong Kong Harbor, 1955


          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. 


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. 


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.  


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. 


          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. 


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. 


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.

© 2000 Development Strategies Inc. | Contact | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy