integralMENTORS

They point out that "this requires a framework that allows us to go deeper than the understanding of the mere objective/surface system or web, and wider than a cultural understanding of diversity." In other words, we must go beyond standard systems analysis (which covers only the LR quadrant), and beyond a mere embrace of pluralism and diversity (which are confined to the green meme). What is required, they maintain, is an "all-quadrants, all-levels, all-lines" approach. With that, they begin a critique of the past performance of UNICEF and the UN.

​

"Clearly the process of development must address all four of these quadrants in an integrative fashion if it is to maintain a sustainable direction. But it is equally clear when we look at the evolution of UNICEF’s involvement in this process, together with the broader process of human development and how they affect each other, that progress made so far has largely not produced sustainable change. Attempts to understand the process of change, transformation, or development without an understanding of the nature of the evolution or unfolding of (human) consciousness have little prospect for success."

​

They then pinpoint a major reason for some of the past failures of UNICEF and the UN. "UNICEF’s activities have largely operated in the Upper and Lower Right-Hand quadrants, that is, the quadrants that are objective and exterior (individual and social), and have to a large extent ignored the interior and cultural quadrants." That type of merely Right-Hand approach I have also called "monological" (another word for flatland), and so the analysis proceeds: "Possibly because of an overly monological vision of human development, UNICEF and the UN system have not been successful, or have simply not tried, at any stage, to map the larger picture in which they were involved. This monological vision may well have been necessary in the short term as human consciousness moved through, and is still moving through, the cultural stages of archaic, magic, and mythic, to the rational (and haltingly now to vision-logic or network-logic). But it is now imperative that these organizations adopt a more post or trans-rational approach, one that incorporates positive ideas from the rational level [and, I would add, positive contributions from all previous waves] but one that also transcends these to a higher or deeper post-rational level of consciousness, in all of the quadrants."

​

They then outline the history of UNICEF’s various programs, pointing out that, as important as they were, they all focused mostly on Right-Hand initiatives.

• The 1950s was the Era of Disease Campaigns: "firmly in the Upper-Right quadrant, that is measurable, observable and objective."

• The 1960s was the Decade of Development: "emphasis now on the Lower-Right quadrant, that is functional fit.’"

• The 1970s was the Era of Alternatives: "but only alternatives that were mostly Right-Hand quadrants."

• The 1980s was the Era of Child Survival: but no mention of interiors or interior development.

• The 1990s was the Decade of Children’s Rights (all seen in behavioristic terms), which quickly gave way to the Era of Donor Fatigue: "Donors and Governments returned to ["regressed" to] a pre-global state of nationalism stemming from problems at home and a lack of comprehension brought about from the misguided notion of all perspectives being equal” [‘aperspectival madness’ of pluralistic relativism]. I have often argued that each holon, in order to survive, needs a balance of justice and rights (agency) with care and responsibilities (communion), and this they echo by saying that the previous efforts of UNICEF and the UN had "no clear juxtaposition of ‘rights’ (justice) to jurisprudence (care and responsibility) at the global level."

 

Taking all of the above factors into account they conclude that:

• The 2000s are the Era of the Integral Approach: "This is where the sustainable process of change is seen from an integrative point of view, which explores more deeply the two Left-Hand quadrants of intention and culture. And of course for UNICEF this will have a major emphasis on children, youths, and women."

 

The problem up to this point is that "all ideas during these five decades were monological to a degree that excluded an understanding of the needs for interior/subjective development in individuals and societies in order to make the process of change and especially transformation sustainable."

 

They conclude that an "all-quadrants, all-levels, all-lines" approach needs to be taken—carefully and uniquely tailored to each specific situation—in order "to ensure that actions we attempt or programs/ ideas/metaphors we propose have any chance of being part of a sustainable, directional, transformative change process."

 

Let me point out (as do iSchaik Development Associates.) that any such integral approach needs to be implemented with the utmost care, concern, and compassion. None of the levels or lines or quadrants are meant in any sort of rigid, predetermined, judgmental fashion. The point of developmental research is not to pigeonhole people, or judge them inferior or superior, but to act as guidelines for possible potentials that are not being utilized.

 

The prime directive asks us to honor and appreciate the necessary, vital, and unique contribution provided by each and every wave of consciousness unfolding, and thus act so as to protect and promote the health of the entire spiral, and not any one privileged domain.

At the same time, it invites us to offer, as a gentle suggestion, a conception of a more complete spectrum of consciousness, a full spiral of development, so that individuals or cultures (including ours) that are not aware of some of the deeper or higher dimensions of human possibilities may choose to act on those extraordinary resources, which in turn might help to defuse some of the recalcitrant problems that have not yielded to less integral approaches.

 

[1] iSchaik Development Associates