Conveyor Belts and Social Change

Warning: This is only tangentially about the interview. 'What I see, that I am' and I certainly am preoccupied with theory and social change...

I am preoccupied with the idea of the conveyor belt. Related to this is the idea of translation (reshuffling of surface structures) at each altitude so that individuals at various centers of gravity can adapt to the prevailing (or emerging) social center of gravity. (This, for example, is what Integral Ecology does: by talking about eco-warriors, stewards of the environment, environmental managers etc. it provides both a content structure and a content path for folks of all levels to become attuned to-- and if they chose, to evolve with respect to-- environmental concerns. Concerns which, strictly speaking, only emerge at world-centric and higher altitudes) It seems to me that an integral approach to societal change requires awareness and facilitation of conveyor belt formulations in as many social lines of development and discourse (LR and LL) as possible. This, after all, is the way the Kosmos has evolved (by selecting holarchies) and, in a very real sense, integral change means 'going with the fundamental flows of life.' No?

But: What are the limits of that translation? Individuals will transform (eg move from an ethnocentric to a world centric take on religion), as will social centers of gravity (eg the dominant mode of discourse of Christianity may move to worldcentric or pluralist). Yet there will always be individuals at all levels of consciousness in a society. So if we are thinking about societies, social resilience/cohesion/inclusivity, or social change we need to always address all levels. Plus, the key to social health is not just inclusion (heaping a la green) but holarchical inclusion -- an inclusion that actually deepens (Eros) or widens (Agape) the social holon. So: What are the limits of reshuffling content so that someone who has an ethnocentric center of gravity can still be authentically ethnocentric but belong to (be a member of) a society with a world-centric or Kosmos-centric social center of gravity? Are there any constants? At what point in our conversations are we actually (and futilely) expecting an individual to be at a different altitude than s/he is? (Or: how effective can an eco-warrior metaphor be in motivating an egocentric idividual to care about the environment? Or: How to differentiate deep structures and surface structures of consciousness. What kinds/range of surface structures can a given deep structure accommodate?)

It is in this context that I jumped at Ken's statement that Christianity has a core of love. I must admit my initial reaction was from a green altitude ('wow: how essentialist!?'). A moment's thought though cleared the way to see things in a different light: yes, under the specific historical circumstances of Christianity's (AQAL) evolution, this strand of doctrine proved to be resilient and holarchical enough to make it all the way to Integral Christianity. And other (intolerant, aggressive) strands of doctrine were outlawed and/or simply disappeared as social centers of gravity evolved. We call what remains today Christianity's core doctrine. This is not to deny love was always important in Christianity. But to underline other aspects that did not survive Kosmos' evolution. A Kosmos-centric society can easily and holarchichally accommodate egocentric, ethnocentric, world-centric love. It is just that it has to 'outlaw' (some legally, others via norms of propriety and dominant mode of discourse) behaviors based on egocentric and ethnocentric hate.

Islam also has world-centric strands in its esoteric traditions (Rumi: Come come whoever you are...) as well as caring for the poor as a key part of its exoteric doctrine (though not, as far as I know, a strong service strand, yet). We shall see if these strands (or what other components of doctrine) will survive and evolve as modes of discourse in Islam move onto orange, green and beyond.

While my central questions remain, what seems tentatively to be emerging in all this is an inverted perspective (Zone 8?: functional fit and systemic stability) that only those strands and contents that can adapt (translate) to holarchical deepening will survive, others simply will not. And: the more a society can accommodate and negate through translation, the less it will have to formally/legally outlaw. Hmm: well worth keeping in awareness as we track and seek to facilitate social change..?