A Cold Day in Washington

Reflections on Inauguration Day, oh so long ago.

If you are new here, this Substack is about Integral Theory, or more informally, the Theory of Everything. In a time of widespread confusion and misinformation, a time when we can’t figure out why our conservative Uncle or radical Aunt doesn’t seem to be making sense anymore, Integral Theory is a means of locating yourself in a GPS of consciousness, values, culture, science, and society. In other words, getting our bearings amid the chaos. This list will orient you to my Substack about Integral Theory.

There was a time when inaugurations symbolized a shared national moment—Americans watching their new President stand resilient against Washington’s January cold. As he opted for the comfortable venue, we are the ones who brace ourselves to endure a Presidency of revenge, favoritism, and a return to the chaos and uncertainty of Trump’s first term.

This made me think about a short statement a friend wrote introducing a reading group we are facilitating.

Wilber’s Theory of Everything is a set of mapping coordinates in a Kosmic Positioning System. It helps make sense of everything we experience in all areas of life: consciousness, values, culture, science and society. It makes sense of today’s culture wars. It provides the structure, reference points, and tools to understand the deep dynamics that drive events.

In this post, I will review the reference points and tools of Integral Theory, which can position us to look ahead at the next 4 years.

The Stages of Cultural Development

Integral Theory sees human, cultural, and social evolution as a movement through a sequence of stages: Egocentric (Red), Ethnocentric (Blue), Modernist (Orange), Postmodernist (Green), and Integral (Yellow). Each stage widens the field of play, opens up new experiences and challenges, and transcends and includes the previous stages. Without an awareness of the developmental process we are moving through, much of this happens without a strategic intention to make ourselves a “more perfect union.” outside our awareness. It turns out that each stage attempts to solve problems created by the limitations of the previous stage. Growing through the stages on an individual level makes up much of the drama of our lives. [develop] Evolution on a social or cultural level is much slower because the population continually loses older, more evolved members¹ for newborns beginning their developmental trek.

In the context of the five stages above, I think it is clear that Trump’s Presidency will be another blend of power-driven and authoritarian (Red) and traditionalist and loyalist (Blue) politics. It’s similar to the first term but more intense. A sizable percentage of Americans are developmentally in these stages and want to return to the values of these stages, mainly because they fear Modern and Postmodern culture will turn their lives upside down. In the context of Integral Theory, this reaction is predictable. Pushing a person or a population to change too fast often leads to a reaction in the opposite direction. In Hegelian terms, Orange and especially Green pushed American society too hard (Thesis). We are now in a period of Blue and Red reaction (Antithesis), and a new baseline will emerge at some point. In Integral Theory, this Synthesis phase looks like the Integral stage. Here’s the diagram I’ve used before that will refresh your memory about the sequence of the stages I’m referring to here.

These are the five stages from the Spiral Dynamics values development theory used most often in this Substack.

The Green postmodern progressives became a target that conservatives effectively used to help win the elections in 2016 and 2024. Emphasizing inclusivity, social justice, relativism (values articulated in confusing terms) and demands to deconstruct (never being clear what this meant), when Green over-reached or just used these ideas to punish those who would not comply with the new rules, the themes became easy fodder for conservatives to repeat to great effect. People will only take so much blaming and shaming before they turn off the message. Green needs to do some introspection to be an equal and effective stage in our lives. Martin Luther King is an excellent case study for Greens to review. MLK had strong roots in Blue traditional Christianity, worked hard to advance Orange legal rights and preached Green idealism with a spiritual foundation. In his final years, he expanded his work to include anti-poverty and anti-war actions. He was well on the way to embodying an Integral consciousness that, instead of rejecting earlier stages, picked the best strategies and people each stage had to bring to the party. His work and words need a reassessment. But for now, I will suggest that the Yellow Integral stage has some initial advice to give us.

The Integral response is the “momentous leap” to a new worldview and skill-set in how to get along with, rather than alienating the other stages. People at this stage refrain from the back-and-forth name-calling typical among Red, Blue, Orange (sometimes), and Green. I know we are mad, but we have to get past our unwillingness to be civil while retaining the energy of our anger to work at learning better strategies. People at the Integral stage recognize we are at different stages, and that most of us have not learned later-stage skills. The integral methodology is two-fold: honor and integrate the strengths of each stage while minimizing their weaknesses. A primary achievement of the Integral stage of development is building upon Green’s recognition of identity diversity to diversity and acceptance of different perspectives.

The Dialectical Process

The dialectical process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis offers a frame to view Trump’s presidency as a stage in the ongoing evolution of culture. Try this out:

Thesis: Postmodern Green

One of the core tenets of progressive thought is moral relativism, the notion that “everything is relative,” which leads, when we follow it too far, to conclude that there are no absolute truths or values on which we can base our behavior. Progressives thought this was an expression of tolerance for different cultures, value systems, and points of view. It released us from centuries of being tied to Euro-centric values, which had produced capitalism, slavery, environmental degradation, and…

Progressive ideas have had high visibility in our public dialogue and major institutions like education, religion, the law, and religion. Well-known excesses like cancel culture, blaming and shaming reminiscent of Blue stage preachers, shouting down unwanted speakers on campus, and erosion of free speech by progressives, whose predecessors used free speech in the 1960s to end the Vietnam War. While we can argue whether all of the initiatives had merit, the push might have gone too far in the last decade. This is not an argument to go back to earlier times. I’m only suggesting that our knee-jerk response to asking whether there might be limits to the speed of change is to label or cancel the questioner². Since most American adults are in the Red and Blue stages, we must reconsider our strategies. Without an open dialogue about this³, Trump rode the resistance to change to win the election.

Antithesis: Trump Taking Advantage of the Reaction

Trump quickly became the movement’s leader reacting to Postmodern Green and, to some extent, Modern Orange. He spoke to those who feel left out by globalization, radical cultural change, modern management efficiency without a heart, and the elite modernization and meritocracy of the workplace. Traditional values, America First, and deep-seated anger towards the coastal elite found a champion in Trump despite his likely duplicity about solving the economic problems they expect of him.

Synthesis: Navigating to an Integral Future.

The third phase of the dialectic could get traction when a cohort of Integral Leaders (Pete Buttigieg seems to emulate and articulate Integral level themes while being able to argue with earlier stage opponents coherently) emerges to integrate the strengths of both thesis (Green) and antithesis (Blue and Red). This is no small feat and requires high-level communication skills. At the same time, as Integral puts it, they must transcend each stage’s natural limitations. For example, this could mean corralling the energy of Red and the need for stability, community, and predictability of Blue. It means continuing to support the creativity of Orange’s intelligence and productivity while correcting Orange’s workaholism with the sensitivity needed for a balance of work and life that Green brings. The Integral level that emerges at Tier 2 is the first nondual thinking stage that can hold paradoxical and competing ideas at the same time. We’ve learned that our dualistic tools work fine in limited circumstances but are no longer sufficient in our terribly complex world.

The Perspective from 30,000 feet

Can we grow from this challenge, or will we regress? There are a lot of reasons to expect regression. A big one is the people Trump is nominating to lead his administration. I don’t know how people out of power can deal with people in power who have such a poor grasp of the problems facing us, have so few skills appropriate to the task, and seem intent on settling scores rather than doing the people’s work. How bad can things get under Trump without voters rising in protest or the republic falling?

In Integral terms, there is an overarching confidence that developmental and evolutionary drives to adapt to new conditions will continue to pull our fat out of the fire. I hope so, but we are daring fate. Here are three perspectives Integral thinkers offer in our current times:

1. Trump symbolizes the tension between stages of development. These conflicts often erupt in history when old structures are challenged, and new integrated solutions are possible. This is not wholesale “deconstruction,” as progressives describe it. It transcends the old that no longer works in today’s environment and includes that which works for specific issues we still face.

2. . The level of polarization becomes intolerable to the parties, and efforts for dialogue begin to materialize organically. This enables new solutions and the sharing of ideas and expertise.

3. Polarization also highlights the need for Integral, nondual, both/and thinking and leadership. Leaders with this level of consciousness appear who understand developmental stages and can create institutions that allocate talent to the roles and responsibilities that people have matured to take on. We learn to design “Deliberately Developmental Organizations” that have the internal capability to develop staff for their current and future needs. In the words of the old WWII British movies, everyone figures out how to “do their bit,” and leaders learn how to marshall everyone’s talent. We will no longer be looking to deconstruct old ways and institutions, thus invalidating the lives of those who dedicated careers to them. Not to mention the enormous amount of institutional knowledge and experience lost or the immense work of starting from scratch. But we will be looking for the strengths of the people and institutions and building on those strengths.

1. Age does not equate to stage. I’m only saying here that it takes time to grow up. We hope that longer life spans mean more maturity in the population, but it would help if we became an intentionally developmental species.

2. When I worked as an internal organizational consultant, I saw leaders with good intentions wanting to move their organizations too far and fast. The change efforts often failed or had partial successes that faded quickly. We preached that organizational “readiness” for change was needed. Still, the leader’s impatience with doing the multi-dimensional work (think of the four Quadrants) did not allow time to build readiness. They insisted on moving 3rd graders to 6th grade, skipping the preparation they needed from 4th and 5th grades.

3. A friend recently shared how hard it is to converse with relatives whose politics differ significantly from his own. I agreed, but I also noted that it can be challenging to talk with people who vote the same way I do! For example, I’ve found it increasingly stressful to participate in my progressive church, even though I share the majority of their values and have been a lifelong liberal.

One challenge most of us face is the expectation to state personal pronouns. While I appreciate the intention behind it, the practice feels more like a compelled gesture than a reflection of genuine connection or authenticity. It reminds me of my youth when I was instructed to temporarily behave according to precise rules when we visited our proper Aunt Dorothy. Inevitably, I screwed up, just as I do today. So, despite my 95% voting record alignment with my fellow congregants, my inability to fully embrace every symbolic act puts me at odds with the community.

It makes me wonder: if someone like me, who has a long track record of supporting progressive causes, struggles with this kind of signaling, how do we hope to appeal to moderates who might not already agree with us? This disconnect seems worth reflecting on if we want to build broader coalitions and create lasting change.