Integral mapping of the CI fields
Summarizing a thread of their f-t-f conversation, Susan Cannon and Sheri Herndon wrote in an email:
I believe the work of CIC can distinguish itself by adopting a more deliberate, systematic integral perspective (my sense from working with this group is that we do this intuitively and naturally anyway, but now are under pressure not to let things fall through the cracks). ‘Integral Collective Intelligence’ could be a key approach for making sure that this field of research and practice truly encompasses all quadrants and all significant approaches, and enables them to come together more effectively into a liberating ecology. We don’t need to use this language specifically, but perhaps hold the intention and employ the useful mappings and methodologies.
As we’re mapping the landscape, where do the various efforts and CI projects land in terms of an integral map? Of course, everything has elements mutually arising in all quadrants, but we can relatively safety assume that MIT brings tremendous strength from the right hand quadrants. Many others will dominantly bring strengths from the left hand quadrants. It seems that systematically creating synergies and awareness of the breadth of these various CI practices and projects and research will be part of the work of this gathering and soft launch... And, hopefully, we can bring in this integral mapping without using the Wilbereze that turns so many people off!
- Login to post comments
I suspect the quadranats model in its full complexity has much to offer this inquiry when we are looking at developmental dynamics. But when we are looking at straight functional dynamics, the details of the quadrants model seem to me to get in the way and we are left with the oversimplified Right/Left, Upper/Lower quadrants model.
If we are trying to model CI functional dynamics inclusively, with adequate differentiation, we have to engage the fact that group, community, organization, nation, humankind, network, etc., are different types of collectives and thus the functional dynamics of each type need to be separately studied and the relationships among the types need to be articulated, if we wish to think clearly about them. Bringing the quadrants model into that inquiry would (and does, I believe) make people think of "collective" as one thing (lower quadrants), problematically oversimplifying their thinking. Furthermore, the "individual" can be seen as a collective (as is done in gestalt therapy and, implicitly, in "Big Mind" practice), which is also confusing in the quadrants model. Once the quadrants model is set aside, all this becomes easy to articulate, as in the list in "Scales / Human Systems Levels of CI" http://cic.evolutionarynexus.org/node/21.
I can see using the gifts of the quadrants model in our functional dynamics inquiry (without using the model itself) by exploring the internal and external dynamics operating in each type of collective. I'm not sure what insights that would turn up, but I suspect they would be interesting. This overlaps with attempts to integrate the "Types of CI" (e.g., http://cic.evolutionarynexus.org/node/20#comment-8) with the Scales of CI list above (i.e., how do the types of CI manifest at each level of scale)...
Of course, the developmental dynamics have their own role in all this, adding another level to the weave of inquiry. As I agreed, in that inquiry, the quandrants model has some major gifts to offer.
The plot thickens....
(I must admit to some sadness and irritation that the word "integral" has been colonized by the Wilber model, when I think it is only one form of integral modelling. I often use the word "integral" in its generic sense, but I am aware I am swimming upstream in that, inviting misunderstandings, because so many people think "Wilber" whenever they hear the word...)
Agree with you Tom, on most points. Had a previous reply here but it somehow disappeared. I think of quadrants as a simple teaching tool that people can use for learning how to shift perspectives between 1st, 2nd and 3rd person. Each has a distinct knowing/truth that is not reducible to the other. Our CI practitioners are going to be emphasizing knowledge based on some perspectives more than others. We don't need to use quadrant language or even the word 'integral' explicitly....we can just use our tools personally to practice taking in more perspectives and ensuring that certain parts of reality are not ignored...or attempt to dominate others thinking it is the whole truth.
The developmental piece is useful but tricky, and completely separate from quadrants. Wilber has incorporated both of those into his overall integral mapping (even though most developmentalist, like CI practitioners, arose independently of each other and of Wilber.) Quadrants and levels are orthogonal to each other...developmental levels signify leaps in complexity, and each leap can then be viewed from all perspectives (quadrants in wilber language), giving you more insight into what is going on with whatever you are looking at. I find it even more of a minefield to use explicit developmental language, as useful as it is for my own awareness....
i agree with most of the comments and appreciate the clarification susan you brought in. i see it like this as well - we don't want to let the language interfere with creating a sense of the whole and if the word "integral" does that, it should be removed. my interest and intention was around how to increase the awareness of the whole of the field and to not get too focussed in one direction or another. i believe that is core to the ci mapping. there are those who are very focussed on the systems outside of themselves and give no thought to the interior and the CI internal capacities that allow for expedited scalable external manifestation (my assumption). it's an interesting inquiry around how to create a context in which perceptions can shift for the invitees in order to see the more holoptic view. visualizing the mapping in various different ways will be helpful.
holding an intention around this also will be important. lynne taggart has a new book coming out around shared intention. this is a personal inquiry and i see it tied in intimately with presencing as a practice for prototyping and building coherence and more that is part of the unfolding emergent universe we are all a part of.
i'd love to see more of the interior CI work become more integrated with the more exterior CI work. more integration in the generic use of the term. i think this cross-pollination will be powerful for the CI field.