At each subsequent phase, what was subject becomes object. In a grammatical sense, “We” becomes “Us”.
Now, that is a little odd because it describes Stage 3 by what is subject and Stage 4 by what has now become object.
But the mnemonic power of a sequence of five one-syllable indexicals (It, I, We, Us, This) has its own pull in the question of balancing precision, comprehensibility, and aesthetic power…
Your post inspired another epiphany! I'm uncomfortable with the term "stages of development" (adult or otherwise) because, for me, "stages" almost intrinsically connotes the concept of ranking into higher and lower, and the idea that the some stages are merely temporary ladders to be discarded (ie, merely means to an end) .
I finally thought of a term that I find more comfortable: branches of evolution (or perhaps for more backwards compatibility "branches of (adult) development"). Though the concept of branching can also connote ranking and instrumentality, for those who study evolution more deeply such connotations are no longer as strongly evoked. The human branch is no "higher" than other primate branches (nor the bacterium branch for that matter) even though the human branch emerged from other branches.
It also reinforces that as branches, It, I, We, and Us are forms of life every bit as worthy as continuing *as is* as the This branch. In other words, there is no universal context from which to assert that transforming from It to I is healthier or better. In various contexts, being a toddler is just as worthy as being a child, which is just as worthy as being a teenager, which is just as worthy as being an adult. And in various contexts, it may be healthier to transform from teenager to adult, but in others it may be healthier to remain a teenager for longer durations or even throughout the rest of one's life; or perhaps even transform from adult to teenager, not just temporarily, but for the remainder of one's life.
I think that if I were to suggest a single replacement term for ‘stages’, it might be ‘layers’.
There are many developmental layers in biology. A simple one is the nerve’s axon + sheath. The sheath clearly enhances the functioning of the axon, not replaces the functioning. But axons could be enhanced by greater plasticity, and that would enhance the entire axon + sheath complex.
In a model of developmental layers, it is certainly possible for, in one case, the potency of a lower layer to drive greater overall potency than another case with slightly stronger myelinization but far weaker plasticity of the axons.
I prefer ‘layers’ to ‘branches’ because the latter, while eliminating value hierarchy, also eliminates functional hierarchy. This dual move of strong functional hierarchy while eliminating value hierarchy, I think, is where I want the label to land.
'Layers' seems to even more strongly connote the concepts of higher/lower than branches.
"I prefer ‘layers’ to ‘branches’ because the latter, while eliminating value hierarchy, also eliminates functional hierarchy."
I don't see how the concept of branches, eg taxonomic branches, *eliminates* functional relationships. For example, the Subphylum Vertebrata branches from the Phylum Chordata branch, which conveys that vertebrate backbones functionally emerged from chordate nerve cord functionality.
Thing is, I am not going for functional emergence, but functional substrates.
Backbones functionally emerged from chordate nerve chords. They depend on axons as a lower-level building block. Axons are a functional substrate.
I think the issue here is the word "functional" is ambiguous between different meanings.
In stage theory, what I want to get at is not that Stage 3 emerges out of Stage 2, for example, but rather that Stage 2 is a substrate of Stage 3, for example.
Yes, I see the distinction. But I think “branching” can not only be used for emergence, but also for substrate. Let’s switch to this example: Digits ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digit_(anatomy) )
Using the term “branching” let’s us talk about digits without connoting that digits are ONLY a substrate for some “higher” function. Digits can serve as a substrate for some evolutionary branches, while at the same time serving just as digits (fingers) for other branches.
FWIW, our workshopping connotative language (branch vs stage) is just a small aspect of much deeper conceptual issues regarding adult development stages. See this thread for example: https://substack.com/@jaredjanes/note/c-220560684
I think we should move to term pairs. Singular words often have too many varying connotations, and term pairs is the minimal larger unit.
"Kegan Complexity Strata", for example.
- - -
That example of "issues regarding adult development stages" looks to me to be simply the common failing of attributing nigh-universal issues with human frameworks to the frameworks people are familiar with.
Any labeled distinction of humans tends will tend towards some interpreting it as a ranked hierarchy, whether that is the intent or not.
And if the distinction has a subjective quality, there will be no objective evaluation of the matter.
No different than some people having opinions as to whether those who like Vanilla are better or worse than those who like Chocolate. Not the flavor's problem.
I think this is a great suggestion. We may be converging! I think a term that makes clear that the stage / branch is one of complexity (typically a neutral metric) will go a long way towards avoiding unfruitful connotations.
"Complexity stage" makes clear that the This stage is not better or higher than the I or We stages, it is merely more complex. No different from humans are more complex than bacteria, but not better.
All that being said, I'm not sure that the Vanilla vs Chocolate example is apt because there is not unfruitful connotations regarding either. A more apt example might be Chocolicious vs Chocolate: the latter connotes more deliciousness than the latter, even though both are describing the same ice cream. I still feel that "stage" is the Chocolicious to "branch"'s Chocolate. But I think the compound term "complexity strata" goes a long way towards addressing my concern (even though I'd prefer "complexity branch" :) ).
"Context becomes determinative only when one holds multiple identities that cannot be reconciled, forcing the situation to become the context for trade-offs that cannot be rationalized."
A plurality of contexts manifest when the aims of indentities cannot be rationally reconciled.
Beautiful.
I think this applies to some degree not only to the This stage where individuals have multiple identities, but also to other stages where the aims of different individuals also cannot be rationally reconciled.
This intersubsumptive understanding of the relationship of contexts and reconciliability is at the core of Isaiah Berlin's tragic pluralism, contextualism, and pragmatism.
I would redirect the phrasing to “where the aims of different fields of interaction cannot be reconciled”.
For example, at the “we” stage, there is an intimate subculture that exerts a non-rational, normative pull on a person. “All my friends are wearing the latest fashion! (interior cringe at not)”.
When you enter multiple intimate subcultures (my old friends, now teens, vs. the swim team) the multiple normative pulls cannot be reconciled. This can “push” someone to a systematic view.
The “I” can in some sense said to be formed to manage and organize multiple impulses: “Do I knock down Timmy’s sandcastle or not?”
I’m not sure there is a symmetrical ‘Multiple “I”s push toward “We”’, however.
This has helped me understand the difference between 1 and 2, but I'm not sure about "Us" as the term for stage 4.
Given the explanation and my existing knowledge, I see how it links up, but I wouldn't call it a natural handle for the systemic/rational stage.
Consider this in classic Kegan terms:
“We” is subject at Stage 3.
At each subsequent phase, what was subject becomes object. In a grammatical sense, “We” becomes “Us”.
Now, that is a little odd because it describes Stage 3 by what is subject and Stage 4 by what has now become object.
But the mnemonic power of a sequence of five one-syllable indexicals (It, I, We, Us, This) has its own pull in the question of balancing precision, comprehensibility, and aesthetic power…
Your post inspired another epiphany! I'm uncomfortable with the term "stages of development" (adult or otherwise) because, for me, "stages" almost intrinsically connotes the concept of ranking into higher and lower, and the idea that the some stages are merely temporary ladders to be discarded (ie, merely means to an end) .
I finally thought of a term that I find more comfortable: branches of evolution (or perhaps for more backwards compatibility "branches of (adult) development"). Though the concept of branching can also connote ranking and instrumentality, for those who study evolution more deeply such connotations are no longer as strongly evoked. The human branch is no "higher" than other primate branches (nor the bacterium branch for that matter) even though the human branch emerged from other branches.
It also reinforces that as branches, It, I, We, and Us are forms of life every bit as worthy as continuing *as is* as the This branch. In other words, there is no universal context from which to assert that transforming from It to I is healthier or better. In various contexts, being a toddler is just as worthy as being a child, which is just as worthy as being a teenager, which is just as worthy as being an adult. And in various contexts, it may be healthier to transform from teenager to adult, but in others it may be healthier to remain a teenager for longer durations or even throughout the rest of one's life; or perhaps even transform from adult to teenager, not just temporarily, but for the remainder of one's life.
Evolution teaches us that neoteny (retaining more juvenile forms rather than developing into adult forms) can even explain the emergence of humanity itself! See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny_in_humans#Specific_neotenies:~:text=Bruce%20Charlton%2C%20a,a%20neotenous%20trait.
For all these reasons "branches of development" and "branches of evolution" resonate more deeply for me than "stages".
Let’s workshop terminology together.
I think that if I were to suggest a single replacement term for ‘stages’, it might be ‘layers’.
There are many developmental layers in biology. A simple one is the nerve’s axon + sheath. The sheath clearly enhances the functioning of the axon, not replaces the functioning. But axons could be enhanced by greater plasticity, and that would enhance the entire axon + sheath complex.
In a model of developmental layers, it is certainly possible for, in one case, the potency of a lower layer to drive greater overall potency than another case with slightly stronger myelinization but far weaker plasticity of the axons.
I prefer ‘layers’ to ‘branches’ because the latter, while eliminating value hierarchy, also eliminates functional hierarchy. This dual move of strong functional hierarchy while eliminating value hierarchy, I think, is where I want the label to land.
Delighted to workshop!
'Layers' seems to even more strongly connote the concepts of higher/lower than branches.
"I prefer ‘layers’ to ‘branches’ because the latter, while eliminating value hierarchy, also eliminates functional hierarchy."
I don't see how the concept of branches, eg taxonomic branches, *eliminates* functional relationships. For example, the Subphylum Vertebrata branches from the Phylum Chordata branch, which conveys that vertebrate backbones functionally emerged from chordate nerve cord functionality.
Thing is, I am not going for functional emergence, but functional substrates.
Backbones functionally emerged from chordate nerve chords. They depend on axons as a lower-level building block. Axons are a functional substrate.
I think the issue here is the word "functional" is ambiguous between different meanings.
In stage theory, what I want to get at is not that Stage 3 emerges out of Stage 2, for example, but rather that Stage 2 is a substrate of Stage 3, for example.
Yes, I see the distinction. But I think “branching” can not only be used for emergence, but also for substrate. Let’s switch to this example: Digits ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digit_(anatomy) )
Digits emerged on the tetrapod branch of the evolutionary tree: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrapod .
In primates digits manifest as fingers, which are not a substrate for any other function. In bats, digits provide a substrate for wings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat#Wings,_skin,_and_flight .
Using the term “branching” let’s us talk about digits without connoting that digits are ONLY a substrate for some “higher” function. Digits can serve as a substrate for some evolutionary branches, while at the same time serving just as digits (fingers) for other branches.
FWIW, our workshopping connotative language (branch vs stage) is just a small aspect of much deeper conceptual issues regarding adult development stages. See this thread for example: https://substack.com/@jaredjanes/note/c-220560684
I think we should move to term pairs. Singular words often have too many varying connotations, and term pairs is the minimal larger unit.
"Kegan Complexity Strata", for example.
- - -
That example of "issues regarding adult development stages" looks to me to be simply the common failing of attributing nigh-universal issues with human frameworks to the frameworks people are familiar with.
Any labeled distinction of humans tends will tend towards some interpreting it as a ranked hierarchy, whether that is the intent or not.
And if the distinction has a subjective quality, there will be no objective evaluation of the matter.
No different than some people having opinions as to whether those who like Vanilla are better or worse than those who like Chocolate. Not the flavor's problem.
I think this is a great suggestion. We may be converging! I think a term that makes clear that the stage / branch is one of complexity (typically a neutral metric) will go a long way towards avoiding unfruitful connotations.
"Complexity stage" makes clear that the This stage is not better or higher than the I or We stages, it is merely more complex. No different from humans are more complex than bacteria, but not better.
All that being said, I'm not sure that the Vanilla vs Chocolate example is apt because there is not unfruitful connotations regarding either. A more apt example might be Chocolicious vs Chocolate: the latter connotes more deliciousness than the latter, even though both are describing the same ice cream. I still feel that "stage" is the Chocolicious to "branch"'s Chocolate. But I think the compound term "complexity strata" goes a long way towards addressing my concern (even though I'd prefer "complexity branch" :) ).
"Context becomes determinative only when one holds multiple identities that cannot be reconciled, forcing the situation to become the context for trade-offs that cannot be rationalized."
A plurality of contexts manifest when the aims of indentities cannot be rationally reconciled.
Beautiful.
I think this applies to some degree not only to the This stage where individuals have multiple identities, but also to other stages where the aims of different individuals also cannot be rationally reconciled.
This intersubsumptive understanding of the relationship of contexts and reconciliability is at the core of Isaiah Berlin's tragic pluralism, contextualism, and pragmatism.
I would redirect the phrasing to “where the aims of different fields of interaction cannot be reconciled”.
For example, at the “we” stage, there is an intimate subculture that exerts a non-rational, normative pull on a person. “All my friends are wearing the latest fashion! (interior cringe at not)”.
When you enter multiple intimate subcultures (my old friends, now teens, vs. the swim team) the multiple normative pulls cannot be reconciled. This can “push” someone to a systematic view.
The “I” can in some sense said to be formed to manage and organize multiple impulses: “Do I knock down Timmy’s sandcastle or not?”
I’m not sure there is a symmetrical ‘Multiple “I”s push toward “We”’, however.