Categories
06. Unifying Folk Theories of Social Change through Margaret Archer's Morphogenetic Cycle

Unifying “Folk Theories” of Social Change Through Margaret Archer’s Morphogenetic Cycle

Introduction

The internet is brimming with intuitive “folk theories” of social change, often shared on platforms like LinkedIn, YouTube, and personal blogs. These theories, ranging from grassroots mobilisation to social entrepreneurship, typically reflect a genuine desire to address societal and environmental concerns. However, they often appear fragmented, competing, or anecdotal, and can be dismissed for lacking rigorous scientific backing.

Yet “folk theories”, although lacking academic foundations, should not be dismissed. Frequently, they are based on the empirical observation of real-world events and draw on their proponents’ practical experience of dealing with them.

What if these theories could be unified under a scientific framework? Margaret Archer’s Morphogenetic Cycle, a sociological model explaining how social structures, cultural systems, and human agency interact over time to yield social change, provides just such a foundation. By grounding these “folk theories” in Archer’s model, we can see them not as disparate or competing ideas but as complementary strategies in the dynamic process of societal transformation.

Archer’s Morphogenetic Cycle: A Quick Overview

Margaret Archer’s Morphogenetic Cycle is a framework for understanding how structure (societal organisation), culture (our values norms and beliefs), and agency (our ability to make decisions and act on them) interact to bring about either social stability (morphostasis) or change (morphogenesis). The cycle comprises the perpetually ongoing repetition of four key components:

  • Structural and Cultural Conditioning: Existing social structures (e.g., institutions) and cultural systems (e.g., norms, values) shape the opportunities and constraints for individual human action.
  • Individual Reflection: individuals reflect on these opportunities and constraints deciding whether they support them or wish to alter them.
  • Social Interaction: Human agents, individually or collectively, act within and upon social structures and cultural systems. Their actions can reinforce the status quo or challenge it.
  • Structural and Cultural Elaboration: As a result of these actions, structures and cultures are either reproduced (stability) or transformed (change).

This cycle allows us to see how individual and collective actions contribute to societal transformations over time.

Folk Theories: Intuitive Strategies for Social Change

On platforms like LinkedIn, countless individuals and organisations promote strategies for social change, often without connecting them to established scientific theories. These include:

  • Personal Empowerment and Leadership: Advocating for individual growth as a precursor to societal transformation.
  • Grassroots Mobilisation: Encouraging community-based action to address systemic issues.
  • Social Entrepreneurship: Combining innovation with profit motives to tackle social problems sustainably.
  • Digital Activism: Leveraging online platforms to amplify voices and drive awareness.
  • Conscious Consumerism: Using ethical consumption to push corporations toward social responsibility.
  • Mindfulness and Cultural Transformation: Promoting inner change to inspire collective shifts in values and beliefs.
  • Network Building and Collaboration: Creating alliances across sectors to drive unified action.

While these approaches can be labelled as “folk theories” and critiqued for lacking scientific rigor, they align closely with Archer’s model.

The Unifying Power of the Morphogenetic Cycle

When viewed through the lens of the Morphogenetic Cycle, these strategies are not random or competing but rather complementary tools for leveraging different phases of societal change:

  • Personal Empowerment and Leadership focuses on building agency, a foundational element of Archer’s model, enabling individuals to act within and upon social structures.
  • Grassroots Mobilisation emphasises collective agency, where groups challenge structures and initiate morphogenesis.
  • Social Entrepreneurship introduces innovative ideas that reshape cultural norms and structural systems, contributing to structural and cultural elaboration.
  • Digital Activism amplifies agency and accelerates cultural morphogenesis by spreading new values and narratives.
  • Conscious Consumerism enables individual choices to cumulatively drive structural adjustments and the transformation of existing systems.
  • Mindfulness and Cultural Transformation directly addresses cultural conditioning, altering values and beliefs to prepare society for deeper systemic change.
  • Network Building and Collaboration strengthens collective agency and creates synergy across sectors, making structural and cultural elaboration more impactful.

By recognising these connections, we can move beyond fragmentation and foster collaboration among the proponents of “folk theories”, uniting their efforts under the scientifically grounded Morphogenetic Cycle.

Morphostasis or Morphogenesis: The Choice is Ours

Not all societal transformations are progressive. Without coordination, these strategies can work at cross-purposes or fail to achieve meaningful impact. By understanding the Morphogenetic Cycle, we can:

  • Avoid Fragmentation: Proponents of “folk theories” can see their strategies as complementary rather than competing.
  • Encourage Collaboration: Networks of activists, entrepreneurs, and thought leaders can align their efforts to maximise impact.
  • Target Specific Phases of Change: By identifying where a society stands in the Morphogenetic Cycle, efforts can be tailored to either challenge existing systems or reinforce positive stability.

Call to Action

To the proponents of “folk theories” promoting social change: your strategies have value and intuitive wisdom. By connecting them to Margaret Archer’s Morphogenetic Cycle, you can deepen their impact, gain credibility, and collaborate more effectively.

To researchers and educators: help bridge the gap between theory and practice. By making the Morphogenetic Cycle more accessible, you can empower these change-makers with a scientific framework for their work.

Social change is a complex, dynamic process. The more we understand and collaborate, the more effective we will be in shaping a society that reflects our shared values and aspirations. Together, we can transform fragmented folk theories into a unified movement for meaningful change.

If you are interested in being a part of this, then please join the Motivational Reflexivity Network on LinkedIn or Facebook where you can learn more about the Morphogenetic Cycle and begin the conversation.

https://www.linkedin.com/groups/13114517/

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1486884782057726

Categories
05. Guidance for Trainers

Motivational Reflexivity: Guidance for Trainers

Guidance for trainers in Motivational Reflexivity is now available for free download at:

https://rational-understanding.com/my-books#guidance-for-trainers

https://www.academia.edu/125567212/Motivational_Reflexivity_Guidance_for_Trainers

Your comments, criticisms and suggestions for improvement are, of course, welcomed.

Ideally, before embarking on the training of others you should read the Guidance for Practitioners and also gain some experience of the practice yourself.

Categories
04. Understanding Social Change

Understanding Social Change: Margaret Archer’s Morphogenetic Approach

In today’s world, where rapid shifts and long-standing transformations constantly reshape society, Margaret Archer’s Morphogenetic Approach provides an insightful framework for understanding how and why these changes occur. Archer’s theory blends two powerful drivers of change: the immediate impact of crises and the gradual force of cultural evolution.

The Morphogenetic Approach: A Dynamic Model of Change

At its core, the Morphogenetic Approach emphasises that societies are not static; they continuously balance between forces of stability (morphostasis) and forces of transformation (morphogenesis). Archer’s framework views social change as a cycle involving structure, culture, and agency (the choices and actions of individuals and groups). These elements interact in ways that either maintain the status quo or drive change.

The key to Archer’s approach is recognising that social change often emerges from a combination of slow, cumulative shifts in cultural values and sudden, disruptive events or crises.

Change Through Crises: Shock-Driven Transformations

Crises, whether economic, environmental, political, or social, act as powerful catalysts for immediate change. In Archer’s Morphogenetic Cycle, crises create a state of instability, exposing the weaknesses or tensions in existing structures and norms. For example, events like economic recessions, wars, or pandemics disrupt daily life and often prompt societies to rethink and restructure. These shocks can lead to rapid transformations in governance, social policies, or cultural practices as societies seek to adapt and restore stability.

Archer’s framework highlights that while crises trigger change, their impact is shaped by the broader context: how agents respond and what cultural or structural elements already exist. After a crisis, the need for quick solutions often accelerates long-standing issues or cultural shifts that have been simmering under the surface.

Cultural Evolution: The Power of Gradual Change

While crises provoke immediate change, cultural evolution represents the slow but steady accumulation of social change over time. Values, norms, and practices evolve gradually, often without immediate disruption. For instance, shifts in attitudes toward equality, environmental sustainability, or technology influence society’s trajectory long before they lead to visible transformations in policy or behaviour.

Archer emphasises that this gradual cultural evolution builds up a latent pressure for change, setting the stage for future transformations. When a crisis occurs, these cultural shifts often come to the forefront, giving a sense of direction to the post-crisis adaptations. In other words, cultural evolution is the groundwork that makes societies ready for change when crises hit.

A Cyclical and Interdependent Process

In the Morphogenetic Cycle, change through crises and cultural evolution are interdependent. As cultural values evolve, they make society more susceptible to or resilient against certain types of crises. When crises occur, they provide opportunities to accelerate cultural shifts that were already underway. This cyclical process—where slow changes meet sudden shocks—creates a dynamic, ever-evolving society that adapts to its environment and reshapes itself over time.

Why Archer’s Theory Matters

The Morphogenetic Approach helps us understand why social change often seems both inevitable and unpredictable. It acknowledges that while deep-rooted values gradually shift, sudden disruptions can alter our world almost overnight. By recognising the importance of both crises and cultural evolution, Archer’s model gives us a comprehensive view of social change that resonates with the complexities of real-world societies.

In a world facing constant challenges, from climate change to technological revolutions, Archer’s Morphogenetic Approach reminds us that change is not only possible but natural—and that our societies are constantly evolving, shaped by the interplay of crises and culture.

Continuing Archer’s Work

Archer’s theory remains influential, continued today by scholars within the Critical Realism Network https://www.facebook.com/groups/criticalrealismnetwork, who apply her ideas to explore and address contemporary challenges.

Categories
Uncategorized

Join the Motivational Reflexivity Community

Two Motivational Reflexivity Community groups have been created on LinkedIn and Facebook, where you can ask questions, share your experiences, provide feedback, and stay updated on developments. These groups are open to all who are interested in deepening their understanding of Motivational Reflexivity and connecting with others practicing this approach.

These resources and community spaces are free to access. Feel free to download, engage, and share the links with anyone who might benefit. Your participation and feedback are invaluable as we build a supportive community around this practice.

In the longer term, I am planning to produce guidelines for trainers, a dedicated website, and online training courses, all of which will be free to share and use. Their availability will be announced here and in the Facebook and LinkedIn groups.

Categories
02. Guidelines for Practitioners

New Resources on Motivational Reflexivity Now Available for Download

I’m pleased to announce that two essential resources on the concept of Motivational Reflexivity are now available for free download. For those interested in understanding and practicing motivational reflexivity, both an Introduction to the Concept and Guidance for Practitioners are now accessible in PDF form.

What is Motivational Reflexivity?

Motivational Reflexivity is a process that enables individuals to reflect on and refine their beliefs, aligning them more closely with reality and pro-social values. By examining the motivations behind beliefs, practitioners can gain a deeper understanding of their influences and transform those that may not serve their well-being. This practice is designed to benefit not only individuals but also foster positive impacts on society and the environment.

Resources Available for Download

  1. An Introduction to Motivational Reflexivity: This introductory guide provides an overview of the foundational principles, offering readers a strong starting point for understanding the motivations and needs driving their beliefs.
  2. Motivational Reflexivity: Guidance for Practitioners: This comprehensive guide offers step-by-step guidance on the practice of motivational reflexivity, with exercises, prompts, and reflections designed to support practitioners in their journey.

These resources are free to download and provide a valuable starting point for anyone interested in exploring motivational reflexivity. Feel free to share these links with anyone who might benefit from this practice. Your engagement and feedback are always appreciated as we build a community around this important work.

In the longer term, I am planning to produce guidelines for trainers, a dedicated website, and online training courses, all of which will be free to share and use. Their availability will be announced here.

Categories
01. An Introduction to Motivational Reflexivity

An Introduction to Motivational Reflexivity

Introduction

Motivational Reflexivity is a reflective practice aimed at understanding the motivations behind our personal beliefs, especially those driven by the satisfaction of needs. Drawing from diverse theoretical foundations in psychology, sociology, and philosophy, this concept offers individuals a means to critically evaluate their beliefs and decisions. In particular, Motivational Reflexivity helps distinguish between beliefs grounded in objective reality and those formed to satisfy emotional or psychological needs. This paper explores the foundations of Motivational Reflexivity through the lenses of human needs, automaticity, reflexivity, and the morphogenic cycle, ultimately offering strategies for integrating this practice into daily life.

Needs

Human needs are fundamental conditions necessary for well-being and personal development. Drawing from theories such as Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (Maslow, 1943) and Alderfer’s ERG model, these encompass both basic physiological needs (e.g., food and shelter) and higher-order psychological needs (e.g., self-esteem and belonging). Needs drive our behaviour and inform our beliefs.

Satisfiers

Satisfiers are the resources or elements that fulfil or enhance the satisfaction of these needs (Max-Neef, 1991). They can be external (e.g., food, shelter, social connections) or internal (e.g., beliefs, values [9], emotional states). Not all satisfiers are grounded in reality—some might provide temporary emotional comfort without addressing the true nature of the need.

Contra-satisfiers

Contra-satisfiers are elements that reduce or threaten the satisfaction of needs. These can trigger a defensive response or reflexivity when they undermine well-being. Reflexivity often emerges in response to contra-satisfiers as individuals seek ways to address unmet needs or eliminate threats.

Emotions

Emotions act as signals and motivators in relation to needs. Positive emotions (e.g., joy, satisfaction) arise when needs are met, while negative emotions (e.g., fear, anxiety, frustration) signal unmet needs or the presence of contra-satisfiers [1]. These emotional responses often lead individuals to engage in reflexive thought, where they reassess their beliefs and behaviours to better satisfy their needs.

Consciousness

Consciousness refers to self-awareness and the ability to reflect on one’s thoughts and actions. Consciousness is underpinned by internal feedback loops, where individuals evaluate their potential actions before executing them [2]. This ability to simulate actions internally is what enables reflexivity.

Figure 1. A simplified model of the feedback processes involved in human consciousness.

Reflexivity

Reflexivity involves engaging in internal dialogue to critically assess one’s beliefs and behaviours. It is especially important when individuals face unmet needs or threats to their well-being. Reflexivity allows for the interruption of automatic behaviour, prompting individuals to evaluate whether their beliefs align with objective reality or are motivated by personal needs.

Automaticity

Automaticity refers to habitual, unconscious behaviour that does not require reflective thought. While efficient, automaticity can prevent individuals from questioning the motivations behind their actions. Reflexivity interrupts automaticity, encouraging individuals to reexamine their decisions. For example, driving becomes an automatic task after sufficient practice, but when unexpected events occur (e.g., road hazards), reflexivity is triggered, requiring conscious engagement to adapt. [3]

The Modified Morphogenetic Cycle

The morphogenetic cycle, developed by Margaret Archer and Roy Bhaskar, describes the interaction between societal structures and individuals through a series of feedback loops (Archer, 2003)(Bhaskar, 1975). These loops shape individual beliefs and behaviours by assigning roles, norms, and expectations. When these societal roles serve as satisfiers, individuals tend to automatically affirm them. However, if societal roles act as contra-satisfiers, individuals engage in reflexivity to challenge or alter their roles and the demands made of them. [4] The modified morphogenetic cycle also includes the environment as a factor. Society’s actions impact the environment (e.g., through pollution or deforestation), which in turn affects individuals’ ability to satisfy their needs, prompting reflexivity in response to environmental degradation. [5]

Figure 2. Diagrammatic Representation of the Modified Morphogenetic Cycle.

Society (yellow circle) enculturates individuals with values [9], norms, and beliefs. Society also impacts on the natural environment (green circle) which in turn impacts on the individual. If these three impacts are satisfiers (happy person to the right) then the individual automatically affirms society. However, if one or more act as contra-satisfiers (unhappy person to the left), then the individual reflects on potential solutions and then attempts to alter society’s culture or structure accordingly. For example, he or she may alter society’s structure by leaving unsatisfactory employment.

Cultural Evolution

Cultural evolution occurs as societal norms and values [9] shift over time due to reflexivity and new ideas introduced by individuals. Reflexivity plays a central role in this evolution by allowing individuals to critically reflect on cultural elements and adopt practices that better serve their needs and goals.

Cultural Speciation

Cultural speciation refers to the emergence of distinct cultural practices from mainstream society. Reflexivity allows individuals to break away from dominant societal beliefs and form subcultures with unique values [9], norms, beliefs and structures. For example, the isolation of subcultures, such as during the Northern Ireland Troubles, led to the development of divergent cultural beliefs within a single society. [6]

Needs-Driven Beliefs

Needs-driven beliefs are those adopted primarily to satisfy personal needs, regardless of their alignment with reality. Such beliefs often arise when individuals face contra-satisfiers and adopt beliefs that provide emotional or psychological comfort (Kunda, 1990). For example, individuals might support political ideologies that align with their economic or social interests, even if the belief does not reflect broader realities. [7]

Psychological Defence Mechanisms

When needs-based beliefs are challenged, individuals may employ psychological defence mechanisms (e.g., denial, rationalisation) to protect themselves from emotional discomfort (Freud, S.,1920)(Freud, A., 1936). These defences prevent individuals from critically reflecting on the truth of their beliefs. Motivational Reflexivity challenges these mechanisms, helping individuals recognize when their beliefs are motivated by needs rather than objective truth. [8]

Motivational Reflexivity

Motivational Reflexivity involves regularly questioning the motivations behind one’s beliefs and actions. By asking questions like “Why do I hold this belief?” and “Is this belief serving a deeper emotional need?”, individuals become more conscious of the needs driving their decisions. Over time, this process allows individuals to align their beliefs more closely with reality.

Benefits for the Individual

The practice of Motivational Reflexivity leads to greater self-awareness, helping individuals uncover the underlying motivations behind their beliefs. By aligning beliefs with objective truth, individuals experience personal growth and a deeper understanding of their true needs. Reflexivity also fosters empathy, enhancing the ability to understand others’ beliefs and motivations.

Benefits for Society & the Environment

On a societal level, Motivational Reflexivity promotes cultural evolution by helping individuals challenge false beliefs that may be perpetuated through advertising, propaganda, or social pressure. It also supports sustainable practices, as individuals become more aware of the environmental impact of their actions and adjust their behaviours accordingly.

Challenges and Mitigation

While Motivational Reflexivity offers significant benefits, it can also present challenges, such as emotional discomfort (Festinger, 1957) or social conflict. Individuals may find it difficult to confront long-held beliefs, and societal resistance may arise when dominant beliefs are questioned. To mitigate these challenges, Motivational Reflexivity must be practiced with empathy and within supportive frameworks that encourage open dialogue and respect for diverse perspectives.

Conclusion

Motivational Reflexivity empowers individuals to engage in a deep, reflective practice that aligns their beliefs with reality and enhances personal growth. By regularly reflecting on the emotional and psychological needs behind their beliefs, individuals can develop self-awareness, cultivate empathy, and make more informed decisions.

On a broader scale, Motivational Reflexivity offers the potential for societal and environmental progress. By challenging the enculturation of false needs-based beliefs and promoting sustainable practices, Motivational Reflexivity can drive positive change for both individuals and the larger social and environmental systems they inhabit.

Notes

  1. We prioritize our needs based on the intensity of negative emotions that arise when a need goes unmet or is threatened.
  2. These potential actions can also be ones of speech. That is we review what we intend to say before we say it in order to judge its likely effects. The feedback loops can also be external. That is, we observe the consequences of our actions and learn from them.
  3. Automaticity may also arise from socialization—for example, learning cultural norms or professional routines through repeated exposure. Lastly, automaticity can be an instinctive reaction to immediate danger, such as the fight-or-flight response, which is activated without conscious deliberation to ensure survival.
  4. The modified morphogenetic cycle is continuously ongoing. It distinguishes between society’s cultural elements, i.e., values, norms and beliefs, and society’s structure, i.e., individual roles. Either can act as a satisfier and be automatically accepted or as a contra-satisfier triggering reflexivity and attempts to alter the situation.  
  5. The natural environment can also produce satisfiers and contra-satisfiers independent of society, such as natural disasters (e.g., volcanoes, droughts), which impact individuals’ needs. In the early development of humanity, the natural environment played the leading role in cultural evolution but with population growth social forces now play the leading role.
  6. When a subculture isolates itself (geographically or ideologically), a new culture may evolve that is distinct from the original. However, if the subculture cannot isolate itself, it may be reabsorbed, modifying the dominant culture. Alternatively, if there is conflict between the cultures, it may result in tensions, such as those seen in the Northern Ireland Troubles.
  7. In the natural environment, needs-driven beliefs are rare, as natural phenomena (like climate) are not influenced by human beliefs. However, in social contexts, needs-driven beliefs are more common, as society can be influenced or shaped by these beliefs to satisfy personal needs.
  8. Psychological defence mechanisms can also be triggered when we are unable to satisfy a need or are unable to avoid a contra-satisfier.
  9. Values are a special type of belief, i.e., beliefs about what is good or bad. Good and bad are, in turn, defined by ethics. Values are shortcuts that avoid detailed ethical analysis. If followed in relevant circumstances they will normally lead to ethical behaviour. Furthermore, they can be propagated through society without the need for reference to the detailed ethics that underpin them. Finally, like any other belief, they can be needs-driven. So, not all people have pro-social or pro-environmental values. This of course implies that Motivational Reflexivity promotes two core beliefs. Firstly, that it is good for our beliefs to conform to reality and, secondly, that our values should be pro-social and pro-environmental.

References

  • Archer, M. S. (2003). Structure, Agency and the Internal Conversation. Cambridge University Press.
  • Bhaskar, R. (1975). A Realist Theory of Science. Leeds: Leeds Books.
  • Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.
  • Freud, A. (1936). The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defence. London: Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psychoanalysis.
  • Freud, S. (1920). Beyond the Pleasure Principle. London: International Psycho-Analytical Press.
  • Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498.
  • Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.
  • Max-Neef, M. A. (1991). Human Scale Development: Conception, Application and Further Reflections. New York: Apex Press.
Categories
11. The Hierarchy of Organising Principles Uncategorized

The Hierarchy of Organising Principles

I haven’t posted for a while because I have been working on this paper. It is quite long and contains many diagrams. So, I have produced it in pdf format and you can download it via the following link https://rational-understanding.com/my-books#hierarchy-of-organising-principles.

The paper presents a comprehensive hypothesis that seeks to explain the nature of reality and how humans understand it, integrating foundational concepts from critical realism, systems theory, and causality. The hypothesis holds that reality can be viewed as a fractal-like structure, generated by underlying organising principles that operate at various ranks in a hierarchy. Starting from acausal foundational principles, the paper explores how systems interact, transfer matter, energy, and information, and contribute to the complexity observed at different levels of organisation. The hypothesis extends to the idea that human understanding is structured by organising principles that differ from reality’s, leading to distinct layers of comprehension reflected in scientific disciplines. The paper suggests that integrating these principles may help bridge gaps between disciplines, such as the disconnect between social sciences and the biological sciences. This unification has the potential to deepen our understanding of both the natural world and human social behaviour, while identifying new pathways for societal change.

Categories
41. A Theory of Society Derived form the Principles of Systems, Psychology, Ecology & Evolution Part 4

A Theory of Society Derived from the Principles of Systems, Psychology, Ecology & Evolution, Part 4

Part 4 of this series of papers is open access and can be downloaded in pdf format free of charge at https://rational-understanding.com/my-books#theory-of-society-4

Part 1 discussed the structure of society, i.e., the relationships between human holons, such as individuals, organisations or nations, the various forms these relationships can take, and how they alter with time. It notes that, with a very few exceptions, human interactions are much the same as those encountered elsewhere in the animal world. Conventionally, the structure of society is taken to mean its network of cooperative relationships. However, in this series of papers, a much broader definition is used that includes non-cooperative ones. Thus, for example, ongoing wars are also considered a part of this structure. It is also acknowledged that it is not only human needs that dictate relationships and the way that they change but also the values, norms and beliefs held by the related parties. Thus, the subsequent Parts of this series discuss the latter in more detail.

Part 2 described the work of the English philosopher of science, Roy Bhaskar (1944 – 2014), and the English sociologist, Margaret Archer (1943 – 2023). Roy Bhaskar is regarded as the founder of Critical Realism, a philosophy that holds reality to exist and to be the source of truth. It also holds that our beliefs about reality are not necessarily true. Both Roy Bhaskar and Margaret Archer described how culture affects individual agency and how individual agency alters culture. Bhaskar referred to his model as the Transformational Model of Social Activity (TMSA), and Archer to her model as the Morphogenetic Cycle. Archer also described how reflexivity, i.e., an agent’s internal conversations, can lead to cultural and structural change.

Part 3 built on the work of Margaret Archer to describe the outcomes of those internal conversations in more detail. It explains that to satisfy our needs or to avoid contra-satisfiers, we can adopt, form and propagate beliefs that are not necessarily true, but ones thought likely to satisfy our needs. Furthermore, to avoid anxiety caused by circumstances beyond our control we can adopt beliefs that act as psychological defence mechanisms. These beliefs when propagated do, of course, influence culture and structure.

Part 4 now draws on the preceding three parts to discuss the nature of culture in more detail, together with the processes of cultural evolution, stagnation, regression and speciation.

Categories
40. Harmful Beliefs about Truth and Agency

Harmful Beliefs about Truth and Agency

I do worry about some of the opinions that have been coming out of the academic establishment recently. Unfortunately, they appear to be caused by cultural manipulation. That is, the fostering of cultural beliefs by minority vested interests, which can influence academia in the same way as everyone else. Some of these opinions can be extremely harmful to society. Consider for example, the popular view that we lack free will, and that everything is preordained. The justification for this view appears to come from a simplistic assumption about space-time and causality which, although commonly held, lacks empirical evidence. If we were to accept this opinion, then it would completely undermine our sense of agency, i.e., our ability to make decisions and act accordingly. This, in turn, would have an adverse impact on both our psychological wellbeing and our ability to deal with social and environmental problems.

Recently, I had a conversation with an influential academic who expressed the following opinion. “My issue with the concept of truth is that its temporariness tends to get lost as we speak of beliefs, reality and objectivity. … It is not a question of being agnostic (or not) about the knowability of an external, objective world; the question is irrelevant. … I worry that acceptance of an external, objective reality privileges those [who] can claim, based on their authority, to know that reality and dismiss those who do not. This then leads to a justification of oppression and violence.”

Personally, I do think that there is a reality, that we are a part of it, and that it defines what is true and what is not. I have also come to the conclusion that we interact differently with our natural and social environments. The former has no agency and hits us randomly with threats and opportunities that we have evolved to navigate. We do so quite well, in my view, and our success as a species is largely down to this. So, objective truth is important when dealing with the natural environment and this is reflected in our approach to the natural sciences.

On the other hand, our social environment does have agency, and we regard objective truth as being less important. So, we often engage in psychological defence mechanisms such as denial. We also often accept, form, and propagate beliefs that are not necessarily true, but rather ones that we feel are likely to satisfy our needs. So, interaction with our social environment can be very complex indeed. Nevertheless, we are a part of reality, governed by its rules, and there are techniques for identifying those rules, or something close to them, even though the endeavour is far more difficult than in the natural sciences.

However, the endeavour is worth pursuing. We now have a population of 8 billion and this, along with some of our behaviour, is unsustainable. So, if we are to have any hope of altering that situation, then we need to know the objective truth about human nature and our behaviour.

In view of the chaos of conflicting beliefs that we are currently presented with, we do need to find ways of coping. The strategy adopted by the academic referred to above is a good one, so long as it remains entirely personal. However, he is influential, and suggesting to others that  there is no objective truth or that it is irrelevant is not a good idea. If there is no objective truth, then all ideas, views, opinions, morals, ethics, etc. are equally valid, or should I say invalid? Because culture relies on shared values, norms, and beliefs, this can undermine the cultural consensus, leading to cultural disintegration.

Approximately 13% of the population are estimated to have dark personality traits such as narcissism, psychopathy or Machiavellianism. I should emphasise that these are personality traits rather than pathologies, and that the behaviour of people with these traits is otherwise normal. However, by virtue of reduced moral and ethical standards, those with such traits are more likely to ascend to positions of power than others. Unfortunately therefore, many of our leaders have these traits. We rarely oppose those with greater power for fear of reprisal. So, our response can be to support them in our personal interest, flight to other organisations or nations, but, in most cases, it is denial. That is, we do not consciously acknowledge the existence of dark leaders until, for example, such time as war breaks out. Such leaders do often falsely claim the truth and it is sensible to point this out. Personally, I would never knowingly follow one, but unfortunately, many do.

However, as well as engaging in other forms of cultural manipulation, it is possible for dark leaders to undermine a belief in objective truth and, for the reasons given above, this is dangerous too. The argument that a belief in the existence of truth empowers dark leaders is incorrect. Rather, a disbelief in objective truth makes their lies much easier to follow.

In summary, people do have a problem with discovering and expressing the truth, particularly in the context of society, and it’s fair for academia to say that. However, academia should also point out that reality defines the truth, and that some human beliefs are closer to it than others.

These are difficult concepts to accept, can undermine our self-image, and this in itself can lead to denial. However, once we are aware of the problem there are techniques that we can use to bring our beliefs closer to the truth than they might otherwise have been. The Buddha even taught this 2500 years ago. Ones worth mentioning are the sociologist Margaret Archer’s meta-reflexivity. This involves reflecting on decisions that we have previously made and beliefs that we already hold to ascertain whether they are associated with our needs. If so, we can make a conscious effort to disassociate and revise them. Then there is the consistency of reality. If two ideas contradict one another, one must be false. Another important technique is empirical evidence gained from observation. Academic, political or other authority is no guarantee of the truth. Psychological defence mechanisms, satisfying beliefs, and vested interests operate in those arenas too. All opinions should be questioned no matter what the source.

Finally, you may also find this entertaining “Beginners Guide to Critical Realism” by Tom Fryer helpful. https://tfryer.com/ontology-guide/

Categories
39. Reactions to Dark Leadership

Reactions to Dark Leadership

In every nation or organisation, leaders with dark personality traits, i.e., narcissism, psychopathy, or Machiavellianism, are more likely to rise to power than others. The primary interest of leaders with these traits is self-interest, rather than the interest of members of the nation or organisation that they lead. This frees them from ethical constraints when competing for leadership positions. It also frees them from the same constraints when determining the actions of their nation or organisation.

The reactions of members of the nation or organisation to dark leadership are as follows (Challoner, 2024).

  • They can support the leader. This involves entering into an informal contract with him or her to provide support and assistance in return for the benefits of delegated power.
  • They can practice a psychological defence mechanism such as denial. That is a failure to acknowledge that the leader has dark personality traits, despite evidence to the contrary.
  • They can avoid the leader by, for example, emigrating to another nation or joining another organisation. This is also, a psychological defence mechanism.
  • They can oppose the leader. However, this brings with it the risk of contra-satisfiers such as coercion, threats, or punishments.

The relative proportions of people who react in these ways depends on the culture of the nation or organisation. So, for example, if a culture regards the leader’s behaviour as normal or acceptable, the proportion that support him or her will be greater than in a culture that does not.

However, the greater the proportion of the population that support a dark leader, the lower the proportion that opposes him or her, and the more overt and extreme his or her behaviour will be. Furthermore, if they die or are deposed, it is more likely that another dark leader will take their place. On the other hand, the greater the opposition to a dark leader, the less overt and extreme his or her behaviour. However, the greater the tendency for denial and avoidance. So, dark leadership can still exist in nations and organisations that generally oppose it.

The English philosopher of science, Roy Bhaskar’s Transformational Model of Social Activity (TMSA) recognises that society has two main strands: (a) the network of relationships and interactions between individuals and groups that forms the structure of society and is the subject of sociology; and (b) the individual human volition or agency that is the subject of psychology (Collier, 1994). A similar model, proposed by the English Sociologist, Margaret Archer, comprises three strands: Structure, Culture and Agency (Archer, 1995). In both models there is a feedback process in which society enculturates individuals and individuals enculture society. That is, society forms the individual’s role, values, norms, and beliefs through the processes of socialisation, social learning, cultural manipulation, etc. After a time delay and, sometimes, after alteration, individuals then propagate social structure along with their values, norms, and beliefs, into society. This process is continuously ongoing. Although it can result in social change, it is also possible for society to become trapped in a positive feedback loop in which, for example, a population’s reaction to dark leadership becomes ever more biassed towards support or opposition.

Examples are given in Daren Acemoglu and James A Robinson’s excellent and well researched book, “Why Nations Fail”. This book focuses on extractive, as opposed to inclusive institutions. That is, those institutions that extract wealth from a society for the benefit of a minority or external agents, as opposed to those that share it more equitably within the society. Institutions are groups or organisations that have values, norms, and beliefs. They also have a specific function in society, e.g., water supply or policing. So, an institution comprises both culture and structure. In much the same way as Bhaskar and Archer, Acemoglu and Robinson argue that there is a feedback loop between institutions and individuals that can trap a society in an extractive or an inclusive mode. They refer to the former as a vicious circle and the latter as a virtuous one.

However, extraction vs. inclusive institutions are just one example of vicious vs. virtuous circles. Other examples include: imperialism vs. respect for other nations; war vs. peaceful co-existence; corruption vs. integrity; elitism vs. egalitarianism; and extreme economic inequality vs. its alternative. Many nations and organisations currently behave in the former ways, and I will leave the reader to decide which. However, this behaviour is ultimately a result of support for dark leadership and the vicious circle that it creates. Pre-existing social structures, values, norms, and beliefs that allow these behaviours to flourish are learnt by individuals who, in turn, propagate them unaltered.

So, to avoid extraction, imperialism, war, corruption, extreme economic inequality, etc., it is necessary to alter the culture from one that supports it to one that opposes it. That change can be accomplished by demonstrating to those who support dark leadership that there is a better way to satisfy their needs. This, of course, means the provision of real opportunities for them to do so. In this way, the social structures, values, norms, and beliefs that prevent extraction, etc. from flourishing will be learnt and propagated, and a virtuous circle will be established. There will, of course, be resistance by established vested interests. So, the process will be a slow one requiring much care, patience, and persistence.

References

Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J.A., 2012, “Why Nations Fail. The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty”. London, Profile Books.

Archer, M., 1995. “Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach”. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Challoner, J.A., 2024. “A Theory of Society Derived from the Principles of Systems, Psychology Ecology and Evolution (Parts 1, 2 & 3) ”. https://rationalunderstanding.com/my-books/

Collier, A. 1994. “Critical Realism. An Introduction to Roy Bhaskar’s Philosophy.” Verso, London, UK. ISBN 0-86091-437-2.