Critique of Developmental Stage Theories: Bonnitta Roy: Thoughts?

[Matt23]

 

What do you think?

Nora Bateson posted this on the facebook debate thread between her (anti-stage theory) and Hanzi (pro stage theories), the guy who created (?) metamodernism.. i think.

I see Bonnitta as a stage yellow thinker (if we're using those terms).  Basically just really sophisticated and knowledgeable in this domain.  

For me, I have lots of attachment to stage theories.  But the thing that kept coming up for me is that I haven't seen the actual studies, observations, and ways that these theories (no matter who's they are) are based on.  Like I haven't for myself seen the actual evidence.  All I've been delivered (mostly) have been the larger theories that were created (either based off real-world observations or not).  So I don't have that more "solid" basis of evaluating which is more accurate or not (even though yes, I do have my own experience and observations.  But that could be limited too in some ways).  

 

[tuckerwphotography]

Was just about to post Bonnitta's video! 

I was hoping for more clarity on exactly how she was defining "Core Self" vs "Ego Self" as her thesis seems to center around this distinction. What I took away from her video was that basically 99% of our actions in life as driven by the subconscious which is heavily programmed in the pre-natal and early years of our life, which thereby "locks" us into conditioning that will continue to manifest itself regardless of which developmental stage we're at. So someone can be at Stage Green but highly traumatized, easily triggered and often acting from a highly wounded place, whereas someone at Stage Blue might be coming from a more "whole" self. Stage Theory would say the person in Stage Green is "higher" and therefore "better" given its own metric, but in a practical manner the more healthy adult at Stage Blue might be the type of person you'd rather have as your neighbor. 

The way to compensate for this, from what I think I heard Bonnitta say, is to help people develop their Core Self via healing modalities, shadow work, environmental improvements, etc in order to merge the Core Self and the Ego Self so that they're aligned. In other words, our actions as a Stage Green individual will match the values of Stage Green rather than our wounded self which resorts to childhood conditioning. 

Then what I heard her say is basically a long list of ways Stage Theory falls short and can create unnecessary complexity and only measures humans in an individualistic, left-brain oriented way, which obviously fails to account for the full expression of the human experience. 

Frankly, I'm not sure if I understand her core thesis accurately, so take what I said above with a grain of salt. Curious what you, @Matt23, and others gathered from it.

[Matt23]

Nice.

Ya, well, I definitely thought it was way more complex than any stage theory I've seen.  I'm interested in seeing what sources and research led to this theory (as well as the other stage theories she critiques here, so I can get a better view of the actual research to make my own mind up a bit more).

But, as for this ...

4 hours ago, tuckerwphotography said:

I was hoping for more clarity on exactly how she was defining "Core Self" vs "Ego Self" as her thesis seems to center around this distinction.

"Core Self" is a concept from a neuroscientist named Antonio Damasio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damasio's_theory_of_consciousness).  I'm just getting introduced to these ideas so I really don't think I have a good understanding.  These ideas seem quite sophisticated and complex.  More so than the more simple stage theories I've come across. 

4 hours ago, tuckerwphotography said:

Curious what you, @Matt23, and others gathered from it.

My first, superficial opinions and understandings based on very limited knowledge of this stuff:

What most peaked my interest was the "emergent pathways" that she said are overlooked via stage theory.  Contrasting with the known stage theories in school, society, career, etc., which are "mapped", seen, or acknowledged in society (not necessarily as in people know the stage theories, but simply as like people generally can tell if someone is "mature" or on the same "level" as them, etc.), I saw the emergent pathways as being more like an organic expressions, or expression of possible areas of growth that are seen as perhaps very different, abnormal, or nonsensical.  These kind of make me think of very original and novel ways of being that might be discarded by regular society, or perhaps labeled as pathologies (which she might have said).  

As for the "Core Self", my first thoughts about that were something like it's based on something more foundational.  Meaning, something which is closer linked and created by things like genetics, neurobiology, physiology, and even our external environments (particularly those from early life).etc..  This then makes me think it's also probably harder to change.  Though I dunno, since she did mention some things like shadow work and contemplative practices that work on the Core Self.  So, ya, I'm not sure.  

Part of me wonders how much of this is just semantics.  As in just reframing things that stage theorists labeled as part of ego-development, like the shadow, as instead now labeled as "Core Self".  -->  I guess I'm wondering how much practical use there is in this new way of seeing development.  

But again, just initial thoughts on limited experience with this stuff. 

I'd almost like a mini class in this and to be able to ask her questions and get clarification to make sure I'm understanding correctly.  Cuz I can give endless critiques based off my own interpretations of things, but that doesn't mean my own interpretations are correct, which I feel they probably aren't, especially with this theory.  

Edited August 22, 2021 by Matt23

[Bob Seeker]

Why pro and anti? Can’t we just add nuance?

[Matt23]

2 minutes ago, Bob Seeker said:

Why pro and anti? Can’t we just add nuance?

I said those to describe what I saw based off those interactions on FB.  

WE can do w/e the hell we want.  

But THEY seemed to be in a pro- and anti- debate/thing.  seems to fit the general vibe that they were portraying.  

But also consider that there can be like a unwise use of the word "nuance"; as in like always just trying to find a middle ground without actually wrestling with and thinking about the theories and data.  Like holding as a possibility that there may be actual better and worse ideas.  To not take anything for granted with just "Ohh, c'mon, there's obviously a middle ground here".    I'm not saying this is what you meant, but just as a note.  

Edited August 22, 2021 by Matt23

[tuckerwphotography]

I just read this PDF by Susanne Cook-Greuter which I felt does a great job of covering some of the pitfalls and challenges with Integral Theory, which she speaks to from a very high level (Construct/Ego Aware perspective) unlike much of the FB conversation / debate which feels like a more postmodernism critique...not to say it's not valid or worthy of consideration. I just appreciate the angle that Susanne takes in her PDF. 

Cook-Greuter, Assumptions versus Assertions.pdf

 

Edited August 23, 2021 by tuckerwphotography

[tuckerwphotography]

17 hours ago, Matt23 said:

I'd almost like a mini class in this and to be able to ask her questions and get clarification to make sure I'm understanding correctly.  Cuz I can give endless critiques based off my own interpretations of things, but that doesn't mean my own interpretations are correct, which I feel they probably aren't, especially with this theory.  

@Matt23 Totally agree, at this point I'm just listening to Bonnitta and taking in what she's saying without making too much of an analysis or judgement around it.

[tuckerwphotography]

Also read this which has worthwhile critiques of the idea of one having a "center of gravity" at a particular stage. Not sure who wrote this article as they didn't include their name on the PDF, but someone posted it on the FB debate.

Can_you_be_at_a_level_of_development.pdf

[Matt23]

Cheers. 

I liked these quotes from Susan C. G..  Especially when related to things like Spiral Dynamics, Integral theory, etc..

• Can we appreciate the necessity and wisdom of the ego as a storyteller while being alert to its relentless scheming to cement itself and to affirm its separateness?
• Ego development theory is distinct from many other theories precisely because it pays more attention to the development of meaning-making and thus looks more at how tightly or lightly a theory is held than what ideas it espouses

 

Edited August 23, 2021 by Matt23