 |
| 2020 publication |
I have to admit that it took some internal prodding to get me to finally read this book. I'd been aware of it from around the time it was published in March 2020 and back in 2015 I'd read and appreciated his The Presence of the Infinite: The Spiritual Experience of Beauty, Truth, and Goodness (2015). But perhaps like a good many of us, I've suffered from a bit of burnout from trying to understand and to promote a cure for the current fever in American politics and culture. But then I realize that if we don't properly diagnose and cure this raging fever, then the American experiment in democracy, self-government, and the rule of law probably won't survive. Also, I know well that life, politics, history wait for no one; politics is an ongoing endeavor that involves a constant struggle to arrive at decisions and to take the actions needed to maintain a functioning democratic polity. In times like these, one can better understand the temptation of authoritarianism, the destruction of politics. But I also know that such thoughts put one on the road to perdition, if not plain-old hell. One must continue to fight the good fight.
I was also promoted to read this book now by learning that McIntosh, along with his confederates Jeff Salzmann (of the Daily Evolver podcast) and Carter Phipps (author of the book Evolutionaries that I've read), were launching a new endeavor through their organization The Institute for Cultural Evolution. The new endeavor, labeled "The Post-Progressive Project" via its website provided a guide to what these three and others had in mind as a political project. I like what I read, and decided to dig deeper. I'm glad that I did.
I should also say that I might have been a little skeptical of McIntosh's aspirations in this book because of my having read The Presence of the Infinite: The Spiritual Experience of Beauty, Truth, and Goodness. After all, one doesn't usually identify American politics with beauty, goodness, or truth. But then, on the other hand, I contend that we do sometimes find--or should I say generate--diamonds in the muck. I knew that McIntosh's first three books dealt with evolutionary thought, metaphysics, and other high-altitude topics through the lens of integral philosophy as re-incarnated in its contemporary American form starting with the project of Ken Wilber. (I say reincarnated in deference to the earlier project of integral philosophy espoused by Sri Aurobindo.) So my concern upon embarking upon this book was whether McIntosh could successfully shift from high-altitude reconnaissance flights to serving as a ground-level scout who can accurately report on the fighting ongoing in the jungle of American politics. The answer is "yes," and he does so not by abandoning his high-flying ideas, but by incorporating them into his ground-level observations and recommendations. Indeed, given McIntosh's appreciation of dialectics and polarities, I should have expected nothing less.
One insight that McIntosh identifies early in the book is a key point that many "modernists" (in McIntosh's terminology, or more broadly, I'd say "liberals") don't appreciate. That is, that all politics lies downstream from culture. Modernists, including both contemporary liberals and Marxists, tend to believe that all politics lies downstream from economics--or at least it should be this way if only the "traditionalists" (McIntosh's term) weren't so indifferent to their economic self-interest. ("What's the matter with Kansas?") Contemporary American conservatives have known this for a long time--and they have exploited this insight--to create the culture wars that keep Republican candidates afloat even as their economic program favors the wealthiest. (Traditionalist-"conservatives" are abetted in this by the apparent ignorance of so many modernists about this insight.) A large share of American voters favor the policies and programs of the Democrats but they love the culture of the conservatives and Trumpists. (Not all conservatives should be tarred with the Trumpist brush, thank goodness.) With this insight in hand, McIntosh identifies three bundles of cultural "worldviews" currently dominant on the American scene, which he labels "traditionalist," "modernist," and "postmodern." Each of these groups holds a distinct (although not always conflicting) set of values. Each group has certain strengths (good values if you will) and certain negative "values." McIntosh argues that each of these groups can be seen on a developmental continuum. Within such a developmental continuum one would ideally see the incorporation of positive values from one level to the next. Hence, a liberal society depends on the more fundamental--shall we say conservative--values of loyalty to family, group, and country, as observers from Tocqueville to David Brooks and Patrick Deneen have argued. The "post-moderns" (political "progressives") tend to scorn the "modernists" (liberals) for the emphasis liberals place on tolerance, open debate, the use of markets, and adherence to institutions and rules. Such critics don't appreciate that these modern, liberal, democratic doctrines and values undergird the economic, legal, and political institutions that allow a postmodern, progressive perspective to receive a hearing. Without these liberal institutions, we can expect that the rise of illiberal regimes similar to those that scarred 20th-century Europe and Asia. Not a happy precedent. The program that McIntosh presents here is the try to end the culture wars in American politics (or at least take it down several notches) by recognizing and incorporating the positive values from each perspective while jettisoning the unique negatives that each worldview entails. Needless to say, this is easier said than done, but McIntosh is on the right track.
Here's how I would describe the gist of McIntosh's prescription: (Spoiler Alert!): The only way of out is up. That is, the only way out of our current political dysfunction is by taking our value system "up" a notch. This path would retain what's worth keeping among the values entailed in each of the three worldviews while disposing of the junk. McIntosh dubs this new level of consciousness "integral consciousness" as in the integral philosophy that I referenced above.
McIntosh's program presents us with a daunting challenge. As he recognizes, the path forward is like negotiating a mountain trail that never goes straight up but dips and climbs and switches back and thereby allowing the climber to ascend to the higher peak. Course corrections and setbacks are a part of the human story. There's no true tale of uninterrupted progress. (McIntosh includes a useful meditation on the idea of "progress" in our thinking.) McIntosh is also realistic enough to identify the strange twists that often occur in politics and between worldviews. His comment on Trump's relationship with the traditionalist worldview is choice:
Although clearly not a traditionalist, Trump has positioned himself as an enemy of postmodernism. Traditionalists therefore hired Trump as their “bouncer” or cultural bodyguard. And when hiring a bouncer, one may be inclined to overlook his arrest record.(Location 1097, Kindle ed.)
McIntosh packs a great deal into this book. In addition to his political and cultural analysis of the contemporary American scene, he also details the (integral) philosophic background to his thinking. The full details of McIntosh's program are too much to consider in this review (read the book!), but a couple of items caught my attention that I want to take point-out. The first item involves McIntosh's description and deployment of "polarity theory." I'd not heard of this theory before, although the idea behind seems intuitive and easy enough to grasp. The example of the application that McIntosh shared and that caught my eye as a former athletic team member, coach (volunteer level), and spectator, as well as from my career as an attorney, is contained in this quote:
In the case of the competition-cooperation polarity, for example, unrestrained competition, in the absence of a larger agreement to play by the rules and cooperate, can quickly devolve into a dog-eat-dog condition wherein defensiveness saps productivity. Conversely, cooperation by itself, without the incentive or opportunity for individual excellence or creativity, can similarly devolve into groupthink or stifling bureaucratic mediocrity. But when competition and cooperation are brought together in a mutually correcting relationship that provides for both challenge and support, the value-creating potential of each side is maximized. (Location 1210)Anyone who's been a member of an athletic team understands the challenge of competing for playing time and "glory" while also understanding the need to pull together and work as a team. Teams require cooperation and sacrifice for the good of the team. I've always thought that the most successful coaches have learned how to maximize both sides of the competition-cooperation polarity to get the most out of their players as individuals and as a team. (McIntosh has recently posted a useful series of visuals identifying different polarities at work in our lives.)
The other topic that I want to note is McIntosh's introduction of "virtue ethics" into his integral thinking. Some years ago (okay, on the order of three decades ago) I read Alasdair MacIntyre's After Virtue. Honestly, I didn't get it, but after reading McIntosh's promotion of this line of thinking, I'm ready to sign-up for the remedial program. McIntosh cites the work of Aristotle and Aquinas as well as more contemporary thinkers like Elizabeth (G.E.M.) Anscombe, Iris Murdoch, and Alasdair MacIntyre as developing the virtue ethics perspective. McIntosh also mines the traditional virtues theological (faith, hope, and love) and classical (justice, prudence, temperance, and courage) for their usefulness. He also provides a list of "alternative and somewhat more secular terms for the virtues" that includes loyalty, compassion, fairness, integrity, creativity, determination, and enthusiasm. This alternative way of considering morality, so different from deontological and utilitarian theories, is an intriguing and practical way of thinking about how we conduct ourselves.
Before closing (and I've left many topics unaddressed), I should note that partway through the book it struck me how well organized and well-written this book is. Knowing of McIntosh's training and experience as a lawyer, I couldn't help but think of this book as a well-written brief. McIntosh makes his case systematically and methodically, supporting his contentions and anticipating objections. A winning brief from my perspective. (And believe me, not all briefs are well-written well-argued, or persuasive, all to the consternation of judges and their clerks.)
Has McIntosh provided us with a roadmap out of (political) hell? Yes, at least a rough one. Not the only one, certainly, but his map provides enough guidance to allow us to commence our journey with the hope of arriving at our promised land of relative political tranquility. The challenge will be to spread McIntosh's political and developmental good news among the people. I'm on board. I'm now a member of the Post-Progressive Alliance that seeks to implement the principles of McIntosh's book and the insights of his confederates. I say, "Onward and upward!"
