12 Comments on 21st century enlightenment – an outline

Mike on Tue, 13th Apr 2010 8:14 am


This looks promising Matthew.

I understand that this is a very brief summary – but it seems very human- ist, so dont forget the natural world – rights of nature
eg climate change and resource depletion should include biodiversity loss
new consciousness should involved empathy with nature
fragments to include understanding of ecosystems and their importance

Stanley Parker on Tue, 13th Apr 2010 9:18 am


Matthew, I want to give you my full support in this brave enterprise. I reject the thesis that the Reformation is of more constructive significance that the Enlightenment. However much it did to counter medieval superstition it did not eliminate it entirely as evidenced by the Salem witch hunt. It did renew an emphasis on respect for the individual which the Enlightenment further developed. The Enlightenment was essentially a European phenomenon and you are so obviously right in taking, now, a global view. Respect for the individual forces us to tackle religious intolerance and inequality of opportunity, globally, and respect for our descendants forces us to tackle environmental issues, globally. This has implications, as George Monbiot has suggested, for world governance. Do not be discouraged either by occasional lack of support or occasional opposition

I am grateful to OldAndrew for his references. However it is significant that Michael Oakeshott occupied and John Gray occupies a chair at a College of a University which owes its very existence to liberal enlightenment

Matthew Kalman on Tue, 13th Apr 2010 11:20 pm


Hi Matthew,

I think you’re missing an important point, which might weaken the foundations of all your arguments: we have not yet even got close to fully realising the ‘self-authoring’ call that comes from Enlightenment Modernism.

We have yet to complete even that shift! (58 per cent of people haven’t made that shift, the research shows.)

It would be muddle-headed to presume that this shift has already been made (when it hasn’t), and that we can now just talk about some other – equally big – new shift.

It’s not just me saying this, it’s what the that 5-year OECD research project on key competencies for the 21st century found (drawing on Prof Robert Kegan’s work, and that of many others too).

As I’ve mentioned before, Kegan – and other researchers, using different measures – have all apparently found that 58 per cent of people don’t reach the self-authoring mind (which is the foundation of Enlightenment Modernism).

You seem to presume that 100 per cent of people have made that shift – when only 42 per cent have (in a well-educated sample!) – and that we now need to make a new shift.

In fact, making this Modernist, self-authoring mind the norm for a majority of the UK popular would itself be quite a revolution – but you’ve already moved on to the next big shift…

Don’t get fixated on the siren songs of post-modernism, says Kegan:

“In spite of current fascinations with post-modernism among American and European intellectuals, it may be entirely appropriate (if ironic, in the closing days of what some consider the “modernist century”) that our suggested competencies for adults in the next century amount to a call, not for a capability with post-modernism, but a capability for modernism.”

Anyway, hope this might somehow help you sharpen your arguments…

Come to think of it, I can’t quite shift the nagging feeling that you might be about to just pull together today’s fairly standard set of favoured post-materialist/Cultural Creative/Boomer/Inner Directed positions, and then dub them a 21st century global transformation.

(Which is something postmodern/Cultural Creative types always love to do, apparently, at least according to Ken Wilber…!)

Wilber wrote a whole book satirising this, called ‘Boomeritis’. (Actually he tried to turn it into a novel, but it’s best read for the many passages of non-fiction, Spiral Dynamics-influenced critiques that it includes).

Are you calling for anything further than a more complete shift from what Spiral Dynamics calls ‘Orange’ values into ‘Green’ values?

But isn’t Green just as blinkered in its attachment to its own narrow values? Doesn’t it seek to undermine and oppress Blue/traditional values and Orange/achievement values – with rather unedifying results…?

As you may remember from your reading of Wilber/Spiral Dynamics works, the deeper, more durable answers really come from that post-Green space that has an empathy for *all* the value systems people have (in their healthy versions), and can work with them – in ingenious ways.

Do you have that level of empathy? That inclusiveness of thinking?

As Don Beck warned us: ‘If what you are about to say or do looks and sounds good to you, don’t do it! (Unless, of course, your listeners or readers have the same value systems as you)’.

Admittedly, many RSA folks might be expected to show ‘Green’ values, so a ‘Green’ message is what they want to hear. But society is made up of Purple, Blue, Orange, Yellow etc too…

How will they relate to a post-materialist ‘Green’ message? (If that’s what it is, I really ought to wait for your 7,000-word pamphlet before speculating in this very judgmental way…!?!)

Matthew K

Tessy Britton on Wed, 14th Apr 2010 7:37 am


Matthew – I think this framework is really good!

I particularly like the cautious approach, raising possible questions, tentatively exploring ideas. For example, where you mention ‘fragments of a new world’, you are saying that there are ‘signs’ that could be interpreted as enlightened thinking or movements.

Also liked the three challenges you identified in Part 2 “tackling climate change, environmental degradation and resource depletion, achieving human security and dignity on a global scale and promoting human fulfilment and well-being”.

oldandrew on Wed, 14th Apr 2010 12:02 pm


“I reject the thesis that the Reformation is of more constructive significance that the Enlightenment. However much it did to counter medieval superstition it did not eliminate it entirely as evidenced by the Salem witch hunt.”

Part of the argument for saying the the Reformation is more important than the Enlightenment is the rejection of the notion that humankind is progressively shuffling off its superstitions. Our way of thinking about the world does not progress towards perfection; it changes with fashion and with which interest groups hold power.

“I am grateful to OldAndrew for his references. However it is significant that Michael Oakeshott occupied and John Gray occupies a chair at a College of a University which owes its very existence to liberal enlightenment”

Gray retired in 2008, but I’ll assume you are talking about the LSE. However, while the Fabians who founded the LSE were definitely within a tradition of enlightenment thought, they certainly weren’t liberals, so the connection is indirect at best.

David Wilcox on Wed, 14th Apr 2010 7:40 pm


The content looks fascinating … but I’ll have to leave it to commentators more learned than I to follow through the erudite references:-)
On which point, picking up from Matthew K -
“As Don Beck warned us: ‘If what you are about to say or do looks and sounds good to you, don’t do it! (Unless, of course, your listeners or readers have the same value systems as you)’.”
… since your focus is on sustainable citizenship, should there be some principle of accessibility here?
That is, if the aim is to influence people’s behaviour directly or indirectly, then those people should be able to understand what you are proposing to/for them.
Will there be a (less erudite) citizens’ version? Is that something we could also help with?
If it done as you develop the content, it might prove a creative and motivating sounding board – rather than being a translation chore at the end.

carl allen on Thu, 15th Apr 2010 10:33 am


The parts in the framework looks sound.

Perhaps an initial look at parts 2 and 4 might usefully inform part 1 and then back to the sequence outlined.

I am minded to think that the progression of the work does not look sequential although the presentation might well be.

Will Hardman on Thu, 15th Apr 2010 1:05 pm


Matthew,

I have been meaning to post a comment on this subject for a while. Now that I have gotten around to it, I wish it was more fully fledged…

I think the concept of a new englightenment is an exciting way to envision tackling society’s greatest weaknesses. The five sections to your speech all make sense but, in my opinion, you are missing a key part.

Falling between points four and five, there is an opportunity to describe the key levers for, and pathways towards, paradigmatic change. It would generalise from the examples given in part four, and set up part five, showing how the RSA’s programme of work has been determine.

Perhaps I can clarify by example. If I understand the concept behind the 21st C. enlightenment correctly, then here are some questions I would be asking:

(1) What are the technological trends driving citizen empowerment?

(2) What are the pathways towards the adoption of alternative measures of well-being by government and their acceptance by citizens? Put another way – how do we account for the widespread belief across society that wealth equals happiness, and how could it be countered?

(3) We are learning that, when it comes to pandemic problems like climate change, inculcating behavioural change is a complex and subtle problem. How is the latest behavioural and psychological research impacting policy making, and how can programmes of action be designed to exploit the findings?

Those are off the top of my head, but I think that the RSA’s recent lecture series contains plenty of material germane to these issues.

Kind regards and good luck,

Will

Matthew Kalman on Thu, 15th Apr 2010 1:09 pm


WILL ’21ST CENTURY ENLIGHTENMENT’ DEMAND A LIFTING OF THE CLIMATE OF FEAR AROUND SOME AREAS OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, OR LEAVE IT IN PLACE?

Hi Matthew,

Susan Pinker has talked about the ‘chill’ that prevented women scientists from daring to talk about their work on biologically based sex differences.

Several refused to be interviewed for her book ‘The Sexual Paradox: Men, Women and the Real Gender Gap’ in case any attention was drawn to anything that could be seen as politically incorrect.

Even the ordinary (non-scientist) women she interviewed for the book all asked to be given pseudonyms (in contrast to the men, interestingly).

And we all know what happened to Larry Summers when he raised this issue…

Over in another area of science, psychometricians (a liberal profession, not a bastion of conservatism) mostly only dare to talk about their views on (group) cognitive differences anonymously. (NB The media portrayal of the accepted wisdom on intelligence has been found to be the opposite of what experts have actually concluded.)

The scientist Steven Rose even wrote – in a debate for the journal ‘Nature’ – that any research that could find possible links between race, gender and intelligence should be stopped.

Fortunately, two other scientists were found who were still willing to argue that scientific research should still be permitted in this area.

Where do you stand?

Does 21st Century Enlightenment stand with Steven Rose in opposing any scientific research that might uncover something politically incorrect, or does it stand against Rose’s call for some kind of ban on some science?

Aren’t you just opting for the low-hanging fruit – the motherhood and apple pie of progressive thinking, like sustainability – if you don’t take some kind of stand on the *less* popular issues, such as this issue of preserving the scientific freedom to research group differences?

Matthew K

matthew taylor on Thu, 15th Apr 2010 1:46 pm


Thanks folks. Some really interesting and constructive comments here. Thanks for support from Stanley and Tessa and i am grateful for the words of warning from Andrew, Mike and Matthew. Carl and Will, these are good points which I will dwell on before starting to write. Thanks again everyone

How the Buddhist Religion Evolved | Feng Shui on Sat, 17th Apr 2010 5:39 pm


[...] 21st century enlightenment – an outline | Matthew Taylor's blog [...]

TimHood on Wed, 21st Apr 2010 4:58 am


Hi Matthew

I’m sure you’ll include it but worth saying that some reference to evolutionary psychology would be helpful. What were the incentives and advantages for groups and individuals to adopt enlightenment values or behaviours? And what will they be in the 21st century?

Part three might benefit from case studies-perhaps as an appendix- of some real life examples of ‘ordinary people’ (i.e. not thought leaders with a public profile who are making a living from promoting collaboration and the ‘free’ business model) who are trying to live 21st century enlightenment values and lifestyles. What are the challenges and pitfalls and what solutions are people finding?

Incidentally, has anyone yet coined the phrase Enlightenment 2.0? It can only be a matter of time before it occurs to some digital obsessive!

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!