I thought it would be useful - for myself at least - to critique this piece. Note - this is going to get long, as I've spent some time in the analysis below:
So here goes -
First off, it is interesting to note that the post contains two separate issues - and conflates them, to a degree - the attack on 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. The connecting tissue for this conflation is this post is ABOUT Iraq, yet posted on 9/11.
Beginning - this post starts with quoting earlier writings about 9/11, "Deconstructing the World Trade Center" - this quote is from soon after the 9/11 attacks I believe:
Here starts the simplification of the various Spiral Dynamics colors:
A: no, but just remember: if you are green, you are against the war. but if you are against the war, you are not necessarily green. there are second-tier reasons not to go to war. but there are also second-tier reasons to go to war. green doesn't have a choice--it won't go. second tier has a choice, so weigh the evidence carefully. second tier might indeed recommend war, it might not. but you can check and see if you are "merely" green by asking under what conditions you would recommend war. if you can't think of any, ahem, welcome to green. still, the issue is enormously complicated, even through integral lens, so again, weigh the evidence carefully.
the problem with this discussion at large is that it is entirely
first-tier. blue says bomb the hell out of the evil ones; orange says,
okay, but hurry, because it's hurting the stock market; green says, no
way, let's be loving. first tier has such a hard time seeing big
pictures, so it moves around within the partial value structures that
define it. this is a discussion that i have stayed out of since doing
WTC essay. it's just a big first-tier food fight.
Dangers of Abstraction and Generalization:
One of the major dangers in any of these type of assumptions, is of course pigeonholing various reactions to invading Iraq, as being of ONE type of person, with ONE type of value. And then using this particular generalization about that person (that person is green, that person is blue, that person is orange), to basically dismiss the judgement arrived at - when the judgement arrived at, may be on different grounds than is reflected in the pigeonholing of someone as of THIS level, or THAT level.
One example, is the conflating of the wars in Afghanistan, and the one in Iraq. Different groups thought differently, about these two wars - and did so at the time Ken was quoting those - but these are conflated in the above view.
I also don't believe that the major camps against going into Iraq actually FIT into the values schema that Spiral Dynamics lays out. Examples - the moderate and thoughtful left favored the Afghanistan conflict, while not favoring the Iraq conflict. The "liberals hawks" who favored the war in Iraq - are they blue? green? orange?
Same thing with isolationist conservatives. They HATED going into Iraq. "Freedom Agenda? What are you talking about??"
I would think that the conservative isolationists are either blue or orange, right? So the sweeping statements that orange or blue would be FOR Iraq, is simply an inaccurate statement.
Ken then switches the post to an imagining of a "2nd tier government", or World Federation.
This particular exposition is interesting, and makes some good points, if it is a bit utopian and naive.
Back to the Iraq question, comes up:
This would mean, for example, that America is allowed to despise Iraq (in the privacy of its own Left-Hand, national, cultural space). America is not, however, allowed to attack Iraq (in the Right-Hand, public, international commons).
Saying that in a World Federation, neither action would be allowed. These views are actually very similar to the views of the Liberal Hawks, who bought into the notion of (supposedly) a liberal universal set of values that NECESSARILY meant that Iraq "should" be attacked because of the unique horribleness of Saddam Hussein (on which all of us agree, I think.) The difference in the main being that without the backing of the World Federation, the U.S. would not be allowed to launch the 2nd Iraq War.
For the same reasons, I personally believe that any protest movement that does not equally protest both America’s invasion and Saddam’s murder of 400,000 people is a protest movement that does not truly represent peace or non-aggression or worldcentric values.
I am aware of no major protest movement that has protested both forms of violence equally, and that has insisted upon an immediate end to both aggressions, and offered a believable way that both aggressions could actually be halted immediately so that neither side can continue its homicidal actions.
That is, I am aware of no integral protest movement anywhere in the world, unfortunately.Again (and is sometimes the case with Wilber's extensive generalizations), this sweeping generalization is not accurate - and definitely not completely reality-based.
Humans Rights Watch, Amnesty, etc - these organizations DID - loudly and fiercely - protest the gassing of the Kurds when it happened. From a Ken Roth article:
There were times in the past when the killing was so intense that humanitarian intervention would have been justified—for example, during the 1988 Anfal genocide, in which the Iraqi government slaughtered some 100,000 Kurds. Indeed, Human Rights Watch, though still in its infancy and not yet working in the Middle East in 1988, did advocate a form of military intervention in 1991 after we had begun addressing Iraq. As Iraqi Kurds fleeing Saddam Hussein’s brutal repression of the post-Gulf War uprising were stranded and dying in harsh winter weather on Turkey’s mountainous border, we advocated the creation of a no-fly zone in northern Iraq so they could return home without facing renewed genocide. There were other moments of intense killing as well, such as the suppression of the uprisings in 1991. But on the eve of the latest Iraq war, no one contends that the Iraqi government was engaged in killing of anywhere near this magnitude, or had been for some time. “Better late than never” is not a justification for humanitarian intervention, which should be countenanced only to stop mass murder, not to punish its perpetrators, desirable as punishment is in such circumstances.
HRW is one of the premiere organizations that have a hefty amount of "green" point of view - one of the premiere ones, actually - and yet there ARE times when HRW sanctions force.
Again, an unfortunate, and inaccurate generalization.
Ken makes a sincere pleas for an integral view in world affairs, and finds the current movements lacking. I agree with this plea.
But the points are not helped by what is essentially false generalizations of the actual actors and movements in question. There is a lot of "on the one hand, but on the OTHER hand" to analysis like this, that fails in its quest to be accurately descriptive, as 'levels of responsibility' are not accurately addressed - only this "equal blame" analysis, which is not useful in creating a "reality-based" analysis. What isn't taken into account:
a. All the various actors (Al-Queda, native tribal groups in Iraq, Bush and crew, various other conservative positions, other liberal positions, etc)
b. Any power and resource analysis (what can ACTUALLY be done, given the relative power and regional allegiances?)
c. Analysis regarding economic issues - such as oil, "who profits?", etc.
Where does that leave us now?
Well, considering that the current Iraq is, unfortunately, nearly completely beyond redemption, and also:
a. A war that we now know was sold by various lies.
b. A war that was (and is) used incredibly cynically and politically by the Bush administration.
c. A war used to erode basic INTEGRAL - or 2nd tier - rights, both abroad and at home in the USA.
d. A war used to institutionalize more firmly a corporate plutocracy - I don't believe this is really in the interest of INTEGRAL, or 2nd tier values.
e. A war used to undermine a political system of transparency, and leave actions of government beyond public scrutiny. Again, I do not believe this is in the value of 2nd tier.
Of course - maybe I'm wrong - maybe 2nd tier values embrace the erosion of personal rights, embrace a corporate plutocracy, and embrace a lack of transparency in government.
From what I understoon of 2nd tier, I didn't think so...
Given this - I have to ask - what does 2nd tier really mean? If it doesn't mean STANDING for integral values? Condemning the evil Al-Queda for both their actual violence, and their vision of a much lower value tier, while at the same time noticing the erosion of integral values in one's backyard?
Does not this mean standing FOR those values, even in the political scene? (Or in this case, commentary on the political scene?)
My assumption is that this particular post was not put up by Ken, but instead posted by "cwd", for the thought that something should be said about 9/11 since it is the five year anniversary. Nevertheless, I would say - since the situation has changed so much in the last three years, why hasn't Ken been willing to speak to the CURRENT situation, when he was willing to speak previously? Is this part of 2nd tier?
Perhaps not. I've often thought that Ramana Maharshi had the correct view. When people asked him anything political, he was not the LEAST interested. "Attend what you came here for", for those who visited his ashram.
The other example of course, is Ghandi, who lived his values on the political stage.
The million dollar question is this: Is 2nd tier engaged with the world, or not? If so, to what degree?
My other cynical suspicion - but this is probably 99.5 percent projection - is that Ken is unwilling to revisit this issue - and the likely criticism of the current administration, as this may affect the financial situation of Integral Institute, or bring unwanted heat from possible sponsors. ("cui bono?" or "who profits?". Just as ideally we would want to turn the world into stable democracies, but the red level - the power - doesn't exist to do so, so the U.S. doesn't - it may be simply unwise for Ken to re-engage this, because the requisite power to address the issue is lacking)
But again, that is probably a projection that only exists in my own head.
The more important question, I suppose, to bring it back is, does 2nd tier mean participation or withdrawal - through analysis or recommendations, or expertise - with the world stage?
C4 had mentioned something about how he stayed out of politics in the Phillipines - WAY too corrupt, or something like that. (I can't find that post of his, so I will revise this sentence if my memory is incorrect, or if provided with the link to that post.).
UPDATE: In comments below, C4 points me to a Phillipine political post of his.
I throw this question out to other integral bloggers. What are your thoughts on 2nd tier values? To participate, or to ignore business or political issues that are destructive of 2nd tier values?
Also posted at Zaadz.
