Corrosive Criticism

When my wife and I joined our first UU church in 2003, it was obvious to us that we had “come home”. We found in our community a group of very congenial folks who cared about the world and were willing to engage with each other and with life in thoughtful ways. We got involved immediately and have never looked back. I have my issues with the UU church as a whole. I am concerned with what I view to be a fundamental failure of the larger church to address the deeper spiritual needs of congregants and capture a cultural trend that could sustain us into the future. However, none of that affects my deep respect and compassion for my fellow UUs, particularly those I know at my church.

It is now three years later. I have sat on and chaired several committees. My wife is now president of our Boar. During that time I have noticed something I have found endemic to the life of our community and, from what I hear, is pretty characteristic of other communities as well. It is the pall of corrosive criticism.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I do believe that there is a place for thoughtful and informed feedback and even criticism if it well conceived and designed to build up and improve on what exists. However, this type of criticism takes a lot of work and care. It is almost never an immediate reaction to a fresh set of facts and circumstances. I am not taking about this kind of thoughtful, constructive criticism. Rather I am talking about what might be called “corrosive criticism”.

In my sort tenure with our church, I have seen people leave our community because of the harshness of people’s judgments of their contributions or the contributions of others. I have watched good people who have put in hours and hours of hard work have it torn to shreds by people in seconds who are reacting without any real thought or consideration. I have seen good, thoughtful ideas tentatively put forward by people who have potential leadership skill put down and dismissed without any real understanding of what was being said. The toll of this type of criticism is enormous.

From what I can see, more than any other dynamic in church life, this type of knee-jerk response and lack of restraint in sharing every idea that pops into our heads, demoralizes people and makes it difficult to recruit leaders. Who wants to set themselves up for this kind of abuse? Why would people want to put their heart and soul in the work to have it so cavalierly disregarded?

Personally, I think this is a real problem. I am really trying this year to be a part of the solution. As such I am working on the following:

• Affirming people for the work they are doing and the contributions they are making.
• Using as a mantra: “Those who do the work get to make the decisions.”
• When I don’t understand a decision of some import, I am trying to go to a person who participated in making the decision and ask questions. The types of questions I have found useful include: How did you come to that decision? Did you consider X and how did that factor into your decision? Is the decision final or is there additional opportunity for input? How are you finding that people are responding? Is there anything I can do to help?
• In conversations about decisions, I am trying to acknowledge the hard work of the people involved and the fact that they undoubtedly had more information than I do.

I find that these questions are almost always best prefaced with something like: “This must have been a tough decision. Have you gotten any flack for it? I want you to know that I support your personal work in this community and I know how much you give. I also want you to know that, to the extent the opportunity arises, I will publicly support the decision you all made. It would help me to understand how you got to the decision both for my own sake and also to help me in my conversations with others."

In trying to avoid corrosive criticism, I feel that I can positively contribute to the community. What I have found is that the people who are making decisions have most often very thoughtful reasons for deciding as they did. I may agree or disagree, but these things are rarely so clear cut that there is only one right course of action. And for the sake of my community, and its long term health, I can support people of goodwill who are doing the best they can as volunteers.

Finally, I would note, that if we cannot be civil and supportive of one another, it seems that it will be very difficult to make an appreciable difference in the world. And so, out of compassion and out of a desire to support and strengthen those in my community who contribute, I am seeking to avoid corrosive criticism.

© 2007. Matthew Wesley. All rights reserved.

Guest Blog: Maslow Revisted

By Anna Davis, ARNP, MA

I have long appreciated Maslow's insights on which he based his theory of needs, but I've always had a problem with the idea that the being needs are luxuries. The definition of a need is that without it, an organism is less/not able to grow along its developmental arc, if not survive. An example of this difference is sex, as plenty of people have survived long times without sex, but there is something to an argument that levels intimacy of relationships and the prospect for progeny are severely curtailed without it.

While I was finishing my MA in psychology, I chanced upon an old article written by a man who was then APA president. (Alas, I have been unable to recall his name or find it again.) The article stated that the further in time between the initial urge to meet a need, and when actual physiologic damage happened, the more psychopathology one could find about that need. As an example, he offered the difference between the needs for urination and eating. Both are needs, but damage from urine backing up into the kidneys can happen in about 2 hours, vs starvation takes about 2 weeks. Accordingly, we find very little psychopathology about urination, and so much about food.

I offer that Maslow was correct about his hierarchal arrangement of needs, but what he got wrong was the criteria. I offer that ALL needs are equally needs, and not one is more important than the other, but some are more immediate. The further up the list, the longer it likely takes to meet the needs. Trancendance seems to take the better part of a lifetime, if we get to it even then. (The concept of reincarnation appeals for this---if at first you don't succeed, try, try, again.)

I think Maslow listing them as importance vs immediacy was him reflecting a major value of our culture; the easiest way to control people is to keep them with one or more needs pitted against each other. (Most of us have at one time or another chosen to tolerate some sacrifice of our need for self esteem in the workplace so as not to endanger our ability to provide for food, clothing and shelter.) Double binds such as these have long been seen in psychology as a most toxic source of stress. Research into the effects of the stress hormone cortisol is increasingly showing us that stress not only breaks our bodies down, we can't repair and grow beyond past damage until the coast is clear.

Because our culture makes the being needs seem as luxuries, and most of us are constantly on a treadmill chasing after the deficiency needs, we remain maleable and will sacrifice self-actualization and trancendance that would more likely free us from the yoke.It is no coincidence that each of the few examples of people who have reached trancendance (MLK, Jr, Jesus, Ghandi, etc.,) have been radicals and revolutionaries, and terrifying to those holding power in their age. Our current system is no different and prefers there be as few such leaders as possible, and ones who emerge must hire body guards because their predecessors have tended to get killed for thier trouble.

I would not necessarily ask everyone to lead a nationwide or global movement, but encourage revolution in more subtle ways. As part of my practice as a therapist, I routinely refer clients to "The Relaxation and Stress Reduction Workbook," (Davis, Eshelman, & McKay; New Harbinger Press) which is a collection of exercises designed to help people gain some control over one's own internal experience. (This is not suppress emotions, but be able to not have them take control, allowing wisdom to emerge when rationalism is imformed by the heart.) When people have such skills to call upon at any time, they become confident that they get to make clearheaded choices in life, and they get less vulnerable to external manipulations.

Further, I teach my ideas about Maslow's hierarchy and that yes, we all will still have to juggle varying priorities as needs emerge and are sated on different time scales, (much like the old image of a Vaudeville plate spinner.) But, if we know that ALL of our needs should get to included on the list, we can keep an eye to the longer term ones in the quieter moments between meals, chores, bills, homework and the distraction of entertainment. Having all the needs on the list allows us to make clearer choices about what we really need in the long run, and avoid the trap of functioning in crisis mode all the time.

I believe that as more people change thier perspectives as I have offered, there will be a critical mass effect that will change our broader culture in profound ways. I am not a visionary who can offer strategies of how it will all work out. But I am hopeful that these changes are for the better. I believe that if all people were freer, calmer, and more aware of thier own needs, it would make for deeper and richer communication, which might lead to more efficient means of everyone getting all thier needs met, at least eventually. I continue to wait and see while I work to subvert the dominant paradigm. Viva la revolucion!

© 2007 Anna Davis, ARNP, MA. All rights reserved. Used with permission.

The Work of Jean Gebser

This is a post I have been wanting to do for some time. I finally got up the gumption to tap this out. I hope you, dear reader, find this useful.

Jean Gebser (1905 – 1973) was an autodidact whose main impact was in the study of the transformations of human consciousness. He was also a linguist and poet. While he has had a loyal following both in the United States and Europe, it has been relatively small. Ken Wilber’s work has brought him to the attention of a much wider audience and Gebser’s ideas are most important to anyone who is wrestling seriously with issues of spirituality, politics and human development. His experiences in pre-war Germany, Italy, France and Spain and reflection on the sea-change of intellectual perspectives reflected in the full blossoming of post-modern thought caused him to look closely at the structures of human consciousness through human history. After fleeing to Switzerland hours before the boarders were closed after the invasion of France, we befriended Carl Jung and did most of his mature writing while connected to the Jung Institute. His most notable book is The Ever-Present Origin. His work draws on fields as diverse as poetry, philosophy, religion, physics, architecture, music, and political science. His principal thesis is that humanity has experienced various structures of consciousness that carry within them deep perspectives of time, space, human relations, cosmic connections and images. These epochs span millennia and as there is a fundamental failure in one structure, another emerges. Gebser identifies five basic structures evidenced through human history: The Archaic, The Magic, The Mythic, The Mental and The Integral Ages. Each age includes, yet transcends the ages before it.

The Archaic Structure is difficult for us to grasp – it lies at the dawn of human awareness. Consciousness is dimly aware of itself as something separate from the flow around it. There is some sense of past, present and future but it is wrapped in a miasma and is largely undifferentiated. It is a world devoid of perspectivity. Structures that associate with this stage are groups or family units much like the great apes.

The Magic Structure is characterized by five primary characteristics: 1) a sense of self, but little or no ego structure or deeper self-awareness, 2) ambigous or cyclical sense of space and time, 3) interweaving of self and nature, 4) a magical relationship between self and not-self, 5) a lack of understanding of the differences between the non-liminal and liminal. Language emerges as this stage and words are seen as powerful in their own right. Man is deeply identified with nature and surviving within the natural order is a matter of ritual, incantation, and magic. Religion tends to be shamanistic and animistic. Political organizations tend to be tribal. The cultures tend to be hunter-gathers or in their later stages, horticultural. Tool making is rudimentary. Slavery is endemic. Art begins to be produced. Time tends to be cyclical and space is holy and laden with significance. Gods begin to emerge, but they tend to be local and associated with the tribe or family. This is a highly emotive phase.

The Mythic Structure brings the advent of more sophisticated tools and with it agriculture. Myths begin to emerge and with them mythical beings who stand above nature and can control it. The afterlife begins to become an important factor in life. Formal religion, typically with priests and holy men emerges and political structures tend to be centralized and autocratic. Slavery continues to exist, often on a massive scale. This phase tends to rely heavily on images and art begins to become quit sophisticated. Poetry becomes an important communicator and oral traditions develop to share the myths and stories. Space tends to be two dimensional and time is linear but malleable by the gods. Eventually this stage develops into monotheism and creedal belief systems. This in creates a profound ideological identification and an intolerance of the myths and religions of others. Political structures tend towards the authoritarian and imperial. Technology is sophisticated but largely based on trades and crafts. Guilds and castes are common.

The Mental Structure involves humanity stepping from two dimensional space into three dimensional space. Art becomes truly perspectival and fully articulated. Intellectual abstraction becomes possible as do pursuits of philosophy, science, mathematics, and other studies. Works of fiction emerge. Monotheism continues but eventually gives way to esoteric forms of unitive mysticism, philosophy or atheism. Time is seen as linear and cause and effect are essential to understanding the nature of the world. Ultimately, the mental structure gives way to a form of reductionism in which all that exists is material. Technology is used to reshape our understanding of the universe and matter itself. Industrialization emerges. This stage sees the rise of the nation state and the corporation. Human freedom is highly regarded. The dark side of this age is a profound lack of ethical restraint. While technology can be used for great good, it also wrecks havoc with war and environmental degradation.

The Integral Structure may, according to Gebser, be emerging. He sees the fundamental changes in our understanding of space and time as highly significant – just as with the transitions of prior ages where space and time underwent radical restructuring in human consciousness. The emergent picture is that time and space are not fixed, but relative and related. This age, Geber speculates will be trans-rational, trans-personal, and diaphanous (where there is transparent recognition of the whole, not just parts). It is likely to be highly mystical with deep realizations by both individuals and societies in which truth is uncovered in large chunks of integrated wholeness. The tensions and relations between things are more important, at times, than the things themselves and process becomes of pre-eminent concern. Nothing is seen as isolated and there is a profound experience and understanding of inter-connection and even identity. Time is seen both as infinite and illusory. Sentient life is seen as connected. While it is too early in this process to determine what political structures will emerge or what art will evolve into, there is are hints on the horizon for those who are looking for these.

I find interesting is that the mental stage was adumbrated well before its more general emergence. It was presaged by the intellectual flowering in ancient Greece. Is it possible that, with the current Integral Stage, a presaging may be found in the writings of India in the writings of sages such as Nagarjuna and Sankara?

As we look at our own culture, we see examples of late mythical stages (with rational overtones) and late mental stages of development. We begin to see, in cultural creatives and many on the vanguard of spiritual and intellectual exploration, the emergence of an integral consciousness. This, it seems to me, is important news for Unitarian Universalists.

© 2007. Matthew Wesley. All rights reserved.

Rapid Discovery Morality

In his book Sociology of Philosophies, Randall Collins uses the term “rapid discovery science” to refer to the blossoming of human understanding of the material world that occurred in the late Renaissance, its development in and through the Enlightenment, into a burgeoning economic and technological juggernaut that continues to this day. He argues that this breeder reactor phenomena of human knowledge was made possible by three things: the development of genealogies of research instruments, the creation of mathematical models in philosophic networks which both drove and were driven by technological research innovations, and the social networks of philosophers, scientists and occultists that existed at the time. (p. 807.) As Collins states, “The “scientific revolution” in Europe around 1600 changes not the natural focus of traditional science but its social dynamics. By linking intellectual networks onto genealogies of research equipment, a stream of new phenomena is produced on which theoretical interpretations may be constructed. Innovation and hence intellectual reputations no longer depend on moves in abstraction-reflexivity sequence, as in philosophy, but on manipulating the forefront of research technology.” The development of quick consensus at the intellectual core solidified these networks and allowed them to develop exponentially. The convergence of these factors transformed the Western world and generated the apogee of what Gebser would call the “mental” age – the Age of Reason. While a great boon in many ways, as Gebser points out, it lacks a moral center – it creates remarkable technology but no commensurately powerful moral values system that governs how it should be used. That failure has led us to the brink of planetary destruction either through our exploitation of the earth or through nuclear annihilation.

So the question, it seems to me, is how do we, as humanity, create “rapid discovery morality” before it is too late? What are its constituent parts? It seems that some pieces are in place. We have now mapped both the human psyche and the stages of moral and social development to some degree. We have models in place that allow a human being to consciously and intentionally begin to explore human potential. We also have a popular convergence of great spiritual traditions in the West and the East in forms heretofore unknown. Finally, for better and for worse, we have an occultism that is playing at the margins of this process. What we do not have are lineages for passing on information, nor have we discovered processes that reliably take advantage of moving those individuals and societies that are willing to the next higher stages of development. That, it seems to me, is the challenge of the religious calling – first for ourselves, then for our communities, and finally for the world. Do we not owe it to ourselve and our planet to figure this out sooner rather than later?

© 2007. Matthew Wesley. All rights reserved.

Social Transcendence

In her book, Ordinary People as Monks and Mystics, Marsha Sinetar talks of the inherent disquiet that accompanies the beginning of the spiritual journey. There is, she says, a distancing from social convention and being enmeshed in the currents of life. She calls this process “social transcendence”. From my experience, there is a great deal of truth in this concept. Those who seek a spiritual path are a bit syncopated. We are in the world, but not quite of it. We make different choices for different reasons than our peers. This difference is part of what fuels and engages us in the quest of deeper truths. There is nothing special in this, everyone has this to some degree, it is only that those who are on a self-consciously spiritual path don't push these things away - they instead embrace them.

This is, to my mind, precisely where a vipassana practice is so very useful. When I am paying attention to the little things, as they arise in my awareness, I find that I socially transcend in more skillful ways. As I pay attention, it becomes increasingly clear that a large part of my “identity” is the result of social conditioning and I can actually see its working as it exists in my thoughts and actions. This revelation of the nature of the the self, with the slow peeling back of the accretions of social layers, admits the freedom required to begin to explore my own true nature. And, as I do this, I become less reactive in the world around me. I am naturally more tolerant of the social unfolding. And, on very good days, I am able to see that process clearly enough to be able to interject the right action at just the right point to be helpful.

© 2007. Matthew Wesley. All rights reserved.

Humanism Reprise

In the recent article “Does Humanism need to be new?” Doug Muder wrestles with the question of how humanism can be made relevant and how a militant new atheism fits into the picture. To paraphrase John Maynard Keynes, “practical people who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct philosopher.” Some of my very best friends are religious humanists, and I care for them deeply. They are very moral and kind people and have very good intentions. However, I have to say that they are the unwitting slaves of some very defunct philosophers.

With all due respect to them and to good humanists everywhere, humanism is fighting a rearguard action and simply will not succeed. Its quest for widespread acceptance of an Enlightenment worldview is doomed to ultimate failure. While the reasons for this inevitable failure are intensely complex and wrapped in long history, the culmination of the line of the thought that spelt their demise is found in the thinking David Hume. While this grossly oversimplifies the matter, it is the best leverage point I know of to make this point. Hume’s body of work conclusively demonstrates that one cannot arrive at a moral system from observable phenomena alone. That singular observation, the rationale behind it and its necessary corollaries spelled out more fully in Hume’s broader work sound the death knell to an optimistic humanist value structure. This fundamental breakdown of the ability to of representational reason alone to cope with moral and aesthetic truth, as acknowledged by Hume, accounts for the Humanism’s increasingly marginalized voice

If humanism had its birth in the early renaissance, it met its demise over 300 years ago in the late Enlightenment. The rise of empirical skepticism was a deathblow from which it cannot recover. The German and English Idealists attempted to revive a moral center, but in the end were unsuccessful. To date we have not been able to find a widely acceptable answer to the question of the relationship between reason and morals. Post-Kantians everywhere (and most of those educated in universities after the 1960s are the unwitting slaves of Kant and his intellectual progeny) understand this problem at a visceral level. Such people recognize the fundamental inability of Humanism to put forward a compelling moral position.

This fundamental failure of humanists to grasp post-modernist thought means that they will be forever marginalized. The world has clearly moved on into postmodernism and many are now exploring integral models of understanding the world. Humanism simply does not have the intellectual horsepower to address humanity’s deepest questions. Continuing to dream of a rationalist renaissance is a fine fantasy, but rather quixotic in a post-modern world.

© 2007. Matthew Wesley. All rights reserved.

Contemplative Activism

What is the relationship between the contemplative life and the ethical life? Is there a way to tie these two together? To what extent does the development of a greater sense of inner spaciousness and transformation result in more profoundly transformative practices in our efforts to make the world a better place? Many intuitively believe that the outer journey must be supported by a rich interior life and that an exclusive focus on interior practice is narcissistic and in the end, counter-productive to true spiritual development. Yet the connection between a rich interior life and a robust social engagement remains elusive. Precisely how these two are connected remains, for many, a mystery.

While pondering this question recently, the image of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs popped into my awareness and I began to play with it. As most will recall, Abraham Maslow attempted to create a model for psychological health. He posited that there is a hierarchy of needs that human beings have. These start with base survival needs (such as food, shelter and warmth), move into subtler needs (such as love, belongingness and self-esteem) and eventually end up in transformative needs, such as self-actualization and transcendence. He referred to the lower needs as “D-needs” or deficiency needs and “B-needs” or being needs. The D-needs are fulfilled out of a sense of basic drives and, if they are not met, the vacuum is felt acutely. B-needs are far less compelling and meeting them is largely optional. If they are not met, the individual may feel a sense of disquiet, but individuals need not pursue these for survival or even contentment.

As we ponder the higher levels of need – needs for self-actualization and transcendence – it seems that the pursuit of meeting these needs is what many people mean by leading a spiritual life. Those individuals who develop disciplines in these areas and consistently seek to explore these aspects of their lives are often said to have spiritual disciplines.

At the other end of the pyramid, something very interesting emerges as we ponder the question of ethics. It seems that creating situations which impair or potentially impair the ability of others to meet these basic needs is clearly immoral. For example, stealing is wrong because it threatens the individual’s ability to meet basic needs. Adultry is wrong because it alienates one from a fundamental source of love and affection. Denying health care seems wrong because it threatens physical survival and also a persons need to feel safe and secure. For those with some subtlety in their ethical analysis, we would say that stealing from a poor person is more reprehensible than stealing from someone who is wealthy because of the increased risk to that the poor person will be unable to meet basic needs.

Finally, we would say that the person who goes out of her way to provide for the basic needs of others is a highly ethical person. The person who gives their time or funds to feed the hungry, house the homeless or ensure basic liberties for those who have few legal or social protections, are held up as models of ethical behavior. Those who give self-sacrificially to meet these types of needs are seen not merely as ethical people, but as highly spiritual people, particularly where this type of self-sacrifice is seen not as motivated by pathology but out of a sense of psychological abundance.

The notion that spirituality and ethics is tied together by human need provides the possibility of bridging the gap between contemplative life and the life of the activist. Seeking to meet the basic needs of others is the heart of activism, seeking to meet the growth needs of self is spirituality. Thus, spirituality and ethics are flip sides of the same coin.

In looking more deeply at the higher order needs, Maslow noted that, at these stages, effort is required to keep B-needs alive and engaged. There is a point at which people who are seeking to reach their fuller potentials will become self-motivated and create a positive loop that will continually feed the need for further growth. One of the principal ways in which that that cycle can become self-perpetuating is through a concerted and sustained effort to meet the D-needs of others. This focus on others can become a prime driver in the process of self-actualization. Indeed, to do so in healthy ways requires that the B-needs be addressed. Those who become lost in meeting the D-needs of others, without boundaries or a healthy sense of ego protection, are quickly burned out and diminished. Conversely, those who simply seek to meet B-needs find it difficult to sustain motivation, particularly in early stages of B-need development.

While it is clearly possible to engage in meeting B-needs without affirmative ethical behavior (i.e. intentionally seeking to meet lower level needs in others), one could argue that a person seeking to fully self-actualize and do so as effectively as possible, will engage in deeply ethical behavior that stresses not merely doing no harm but actually seeking opportunities to do good for others. Thus, commitment to justice and compassion fosters spiritual growth.

© 2007. Matthew Wesley. All rights reserved.