Using an outside-the-box, wide-angle systemic lens.
Recap: The previous post (A Little Learning Can Be a Dangerous Thing) began with a brief overview of our existential socioecological backstory, including a series of intensifying crises that, altogether, form a metacrisis. A major concern was the apparently high percentage of people in the global population who seem unaware of this phenomenon, or worse, choose to ignore or deny its existence.
Explanations were minimal, but I think it’s clear that a major ignorance factor could be the acquired traditional socio-cultural beliefs many people accept blindly, often lacking critical analysis based on substantive evidence. Since the beginning of agriculture and creation of empires, the sociocultural systems most often discussed as hallmarks of civilization are patriarchy, hierarchy, and anthropocentricism, which were addressed in the previous post.
Also covered was a consideration of the lens through which each person views the world. It was suggested that, although viewing life through rose-tinted lenses may be preferred, it may be wise to view life as it really is, good and/or bad. Seeing clearly requires the ability to both grieve hardships and losses while also remaining grateful for being alive, with the agency to do good works for the benefit of one’s self, plus all other Earthly beings and elements.
Thinking Outside a Boxed-In Worldview
As I was writing this and exploring the well-known metaphor of “thinking outside the box”, my world-view box grew a tiny fraction larger. For instance, why confinement to a box? Why not a sphere, since a circular shape seems more receptive to flows of information? The metaphor of nested dolls came to mind. However, in this article we’ll stick with the box concept.
In connecting the box metaphor with the previously covered ignorance topic, it occurred to me that the size of any individual’s world-view box may vary significantly throughout one’s life. As is usually the case, the two major influences can be attributed to Nature and Nurture. Nature provides the transmission of genetically inherited traits and characteristics, including special talents and abilities. Nurture provides our acquired socio-cultural environments and experiences, particularly during the formative years of childhood and adolescence, when learning and behaviors are shaped primarily by the guidance and tutelage of significant persons (parents, teachers, etc.) and sociocultural institutions (religions, schools, etc.).
Evidently, based on the apparent scarcity of big-picture, systemic thinking within the global general population, many world citizens fail to receive adequate sociocultural nurturing in preparation for negotiating the complexities of modern-life challenges. Consequently, the world they inhabit is limited by the size of their world-view box of knowledge and cognitive skills. The result may be identified as a form of “arrested development” in the scope of an individual’s thought-processing and problem-solving abilities, particularly in relation to beliefs and critical-thinking skills.
Although sociocultural factors play a significant role in shaping cognitive development and problem-solving skills, the ability to “think outside the box” may be described as a complex interplay of cognitive flexibility, creativity, and individual experiences. According to research on cognitive development and creativity, it isn’t solely a result of limited cognitive ability but primarily the result of conventional sociocultural influences.
So, what are the conventional sociocultural conditionings that influence an individual’s problem-solving box? Basically, the box’s contents include all of the conventional thoughts, beliefs, and actions conditioned by cultural, educational, or societal institutions. This includes established rules, assumptions, or mental models that determine how anyone manages problems.
The dimensions (size) of the box may include social traditions and norms, cognitive biases, silos of knowledge, judgement fears or failures, deference to authority or experts, and linear cause-effect reasoning, as opposed to thinking in terms of complex systems. The takeaway lesson is that mental constraints, spoken or unspoken, limit people’s abilities for thinking expansively, exploring creatively, acting wisely, and living fully as enlightened beings.
Stages of Human Development – From Egocentrism to Ecocentrism
In connection with this brief explanation about limited knowledge and critical-thinking capacity, it seems appropriate to reintroduce Integral Theory, a philosophical system devised by American philosopher Ken Wilber.
One substantial aspect of the theory is a plausible explanation about how we evolve mentally, emotionally, and spiritually throughout a lifelong process that involves negotiating several life-stage levels, from simple to increasingly more complex. As a bottoms-up process, Integral Theory explains all stage levels of normal human development, beginning with childhood egocentricity and culminating in a highly-evolved stage level. There are four basic stage levels, ranging from simple to complex.
It's common knowledge that children view the world primarily through a self-centered (egocentric) lens. And anyone having experienced the tantrums of a two-year-old child when not getting their way with something can recall similar egocentric responses that carry over into adulthood. Who hasn’t experienced examples of adults throwing fits, cursing, yelling, and screaming, if not in person, at least when viewing actors in movies and TV series?
When children attain puberty and transition into adolescence, the growing influence of peers leads them to view life more through a tribal (ethnocentric) lens. Alas, many adults continue exhibiting adolescent-influenced ethnocentric attributes, as illustrated by unquestioned allegiance to their tribe’s established beliefs and behaviors, right or wrong. Based on increasingly uncivil discourse and behavior, it’s possible that around a third of the U.S. population may be centered in the ethnocentric stage.
Those who continue expanding their worldview, including questioning their acquired socio-cultural beliefs, practices, and customs, may eventually adopt a worldcentric modality, a global-oriented transpersonal ethic that promotes a high quality of life for all living beings. Persons having gained a worldcentric outlook typically exemplify such positive personal qualities as curiosity (truth), empathy (goodness), and creativity (beauty). In short, they are globally oriented, more concerned about the welfare of all beings, beyond their family, friends, and special-interest groups.
An even more enlightened portion of humanity may develop the capacity to view existence through an ecocentric lens, a big-picture, deep-time, systemic, integral-life worldview that represents a profound appreciation and love for all that exists, including all lifeforms and inanimate matter. Conceived by eco-philosopher Aldo Leopold, promoter of a “land ethic” concept, ecocentrism acknowledges that all lifeforms are the products of interdependent ongoing evolutionary life processes.
It’s important to understand that the integral-theory principle connecting each subsequently evolving stage level is based on the concept of “transcend and include”. In other words, when a person has passed through childhood, the positive and negative qualities of egocentrism are present at each subsequent stage level. This same inclusiveness of egocentric, ethnocentric, and worldcentric stages applies for persons who have attained the ecocentric stage level.
This “transcend and include” developmental progression—from egocentricism to ecocentricism—helps explain why persons at any level more advanced than egocentrism have a greater capacity for understanding those at previous stage levels. Moreover, it explains why those at, say egocentric and ethnocentric stages, are unable to fully understand and identify with worldcentric and ecocentric stage levels. It’s sort of a “been there, done that” experience for the upper-level stages.
A similar explanation for human cognitive development was presented almost a century ago by the psychologist Jean Piaget. He suggested that, until around age 2, children learn about cause and effect through their actions. For the next five years, while struggling with logic, they learn primarily through play-pretending. In middle school they've attained the "concrete operational stage," with more logical but rigid thinking processes. Around age 12 children enter the "formal operational stage", when they become more capable of theoretical and abstract reasoning. Note that the progression isn't only about knowledge acquisition, but about a significant change in how we think. Full brain and physical maturity peaks in the mid-to-late 20s, along with most mental faculties.
Madeline Levine, a psychologist expert in child development, and author of Teach Your Children Well says: "We're turning out kids who don't think in complex ways. Some of what I see," she adds, "is even pre-operational thinking. It's 'I can only see it from my point of view.” Greg Lukianoff, co-author of The Canceling of the American Mind, believes that our "hyper-polarized society" is partly responsible for the problem. Do you agree—or suspect that he might be correct?
Intelligence, Smartness, and Wisdom
Everything mentioned thus far is related to our human capacity for thinking clearly and realistically enough to survive the rigors of daily life. (Note: The same intellectual capacity is also needed for envisioning and planning for a possible sustainable future, at least for survivors in habitable regions.) Clearly, the ability for coping effectively in life is determined by a person’s levels of intelligence, smartness, and wisdom. Here are some basic explanations:
Intelligence refers to having strong cognitive abilities in acquiring and applying knowledge and skills using logical reasoning, conceptual thinking, and learning new information. Intelligence focuses on ways to achieve goals and is often measured by means of tests or academic performance. Highly intelligent people are typically viewed as being smart, especially when managing highly-complex problems. Example: Individuals who understand complex mathematical concepts and are capable of solving intricate equations.
Smartness, a more general term, includes cleverness, ingenuity, and flexibility, qualities that allow quick-thinking in solving problems. Example: A person who improvises quickly and cleverly in adapting ways to address a real-life situation. For instance, some people are known for having “street smarts”, but when measured in terms of academic or IQ abilities, some smart people may not necessarily be highly intelligent. It helps to think of intelligence as a mostly inherited trait, and smartness as a mostly acquired trait. How they differ often depends on the context and nuance associated with a specific situation or condition.
Wisdom is the ability to make sound judgments based on having comprehensive understanding, emotional maturity, ample life experience, and intuitive insight. These attributes are especially applicable when making ethical decisions that avoid posing any potentially harmful consequences. Example: A political leader who makes decisions that help curtail or cease the use of fossil-fuels and, instead, makes decisions that promote cleaner power sources that cause minimal harmful externalities, especially toxic pollution of water, air, and soil.
The key differences between intelligence and smartness may be innate or acquired by means of appropriate learning and experience. Meanwhile, wisdom is acquired primarily through rich life experiences and deep reflection. Both intelligence and smartness are mainly focused on acquiring knowledge and skills, while wisdom requires deep understanding and making sensible judgements that advance the wellbeing of all lifeforms. Finally, smartness is associated with short-term objectives, and wisdom is more concerned with how any thoughts or actions will affect long-term objectives, including potential consequences.
Moreover, while intelligence helps us acquire and apply knowledge quickly, wisdom guides us in using that knowledge responsibly and compassionately. A person can be highly intelligent yet unwise if lacking in humility, empathy, or foresight. Essentially, intelligence helps us succeed. Wisdom helps us live well—and wisely avoid causing harm.
Here are familiar examples illustrating both intelligence and wisdom: Intelligence – A brilliant scientist discovers a powerful drug to extend human lifespans, but fails to consider any long-term social or ecological negative effects. Wisdom – A wise elder may lack knowledge of quantum physics, but have a deep understanding of how humanity’s growing estrangement from the rest of Nature poses a threat to the future of civilization and the planet.
Wrap Up and Closure
I assume readers agree that the size and contents of a person’s worldview box matters, since it represents a person’s accumulated lifelong knowledge, thoughts, and experiences, plus levels of intelligence, smartness, or wisdom. Although self-criticism can help provide better self-understanding, we can also gain additional insights from the feedback provided by supportive, trustworthy persons regarding the quantitative and qualitative contents of our individual worldview boxes.
Gaining a sufficient understanding of the extreme polarities of beliefs, ideas, and behaviors presented so often in modern life depends on an individual’s stage-level of development. The stage-level people inhabit most often can provide a valid evaluation regarding their main developmental stage.
Applying these related topics to our current extremely polarized society, especially in the U.S., it seems that at least a third-to-half of our country’s population dwells primarily in the ethnocentric stage. In observing the beliefs, behaviors, and preferred media sources of ethnocentric persons, those situated at worldcentric and ecocentric stage-levels discern a dearth of critical thinking. They also perceive a preference for receiving emotionally-charged presentations from conservative media pundits that are often thinly disguised as balanced news and views.
Gratefully, the remaining population (the larger segment?) may be considered as worldcentrics, particularly those who value social justice and equality-equity issues. A smaller percentage may be committed ecocentrics, those who value the life-supporting role of the bio-ecosphere as the source of life sustenance. I trust you agree that honoring the role of all evolved lifeforms and living in harmonious balance with the rest of Nature is a worthwhile goal.
In closing, I hope you find this information useful and worth further contemplation. It’s likely that readers share similar thoughts, and are comfortably situated in both worldcentric and ecocentric stages. Ultimately, the goal is for all world citizens to become more ecocentric. Ecocentrism is the Big-Picture perspective.
In sum, developing an outside-the-box, wide-angle, big-picture worldview requires a lifelong commitment to open-minded curiosity, an ongoing search for factual information, and abundant life experiences that result in gaining wisdom.
So may it be—for all humans!
Illustration provided by the author. Click the image to enlarge.
By the same author:
Notable Quotes – The Synergy of Humans in Nature
Notable Poems – The Synergy of Humans in Nature
|
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Clifton Ware, D.M., emeritus professor (voice), professional singer and author of four published books and two unpublished works, retired in 2007 from the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities School of Music, where he taught for 37 years. Since retiring, as a self-described socio-ecological philosopher he has spent 15 years focusing on sustainability issues, in the process of acquiring an evidence-based, big-picture understanding of all principal societal and ecological systems, including the symbiotic interconnections and role of humans as an integral part of Nature. In 2013 he founded Citizens for Sustainability in St. Anthony Village, MN, produced Sustainability News + Views (2014-2019), a weekly newsletter featuring a variety of articles and a commentary, co-composed 13 Eco Songs with his wife, Bettye, organized Sustainability Forums, and performed eco-oriented programs and presentations for several organizations.
|
