L'Université Liberté, vous convie à lire ce nouveau message. Des commentaires seraient souhaitables, notamment sur les posts référencés: à débattre, réflexions...Merci de vos lectures, et de vos analyses.
Twelve years into the new millennium we bear witness to the ever more violent death throes of the current political and economic order. What will rise from the ashes will be the defining question of our time and will determine whether humanity will suffer through another century of war, death, destruction, and tyranny; or if the people will find it in themselves to transcend this emerging "New World Order," to overcome it and institute something else in it's place. Something that honors the inherent rights of all men and women to live their lives in peace and freedom, and to reach their fullest potential.
In the many years that I have read Ken Wilber's excellent insights into the human consciousness, into spiritual development, into culture, into the very human soul, I have been consistently blown away. In his work I found so many Truths that I had sought after for so long. One of my immediate interests upon reading Ken Wilber was to determine how an Integral worldview (Lower Left or LL) would translate externally via (LR) social organization. In other words, how would an Integral Society function politically?
From what I have seen there seems to be very little real fundamental understanding of either Economics or Politics in the Integral Movement. The issue is either handled in vague terms, defining basic criteria that an "Integral State" ought to have, as with Ken Wilber and Greg Wilpert for example, or in the case of H.B. Augustine, completely and dangerously misunderstanding the basic premises that underlie his proposals in both Politics and Economics. I sometimes wonder if those who come out of Green and into Turquoise do so with a tendency to favor the Left hand half of AQAL, as a reaction to Green's focus on the Right Hand half.
To me it seems that it is of absolutely critical importance for the Integral Movement to address this issue decisively. Failure to do so will leave the door open for all number of unhealthy consequences for humanity and our planet. As I've said before Politics is philosophy-in-action. And as we have seen demonstrated in the 20th century, philosophy-in-action can mean life or death for literally hundreds of millions of people. We witnessed the damage that can be done when Red and Blue/Amber use Orange and Green technology to wage war. As Ken Wilber has said, Red cannot commit genocide with bows and arrows, but it can with machine guns and artillery, with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Imagine if Red, Blue or even Orange and Green get a hold of Integral Biotechnology or Nanotechnology. The results will be horrifying.
In order to prevent such from happening the Integral Movement needs to focus some serious energy on this issue, and not just from a theory standpoint but actually translate it into their daily lives and lifestyles. My aim with this article is to propose what I see as the true organization of an Integral Society, and to show the rest of the Integral Movement the peaceful path toward achieving it.
THE EVOLUTION OF POLITICS
As the center of gravity of our (LL) cultural worldview shifted from pre-conventional (egocentric), to conventional (sociocentric), to post-conventional (world-centric), we can see that there was a corresponding paradigm shift in the organization of society. From pre-conventional Autocracy/Dictatorship, to conventional Aristocracy/Monarchy, to post-conventional Democracy/ Constitutional Republic. As each progression transcended the one before it, political power was dispersed to a larger number of potential actors, from the single (dictator), to the few (aristocrats), to the many (representatives elected from the citizenry). We should therefore expect that these patterns will continue into the next paradigm shift for an integral (kosmoscentric) cultural worldview.
Ken Wilber notes that "the liberal Enlightenment understood itself to be in large measure a reaction against the mythic-membership structure and its fundamentalism, in two aspects especially: the socially oppressive power of myths with their ethnocentric prejudices (e.g., all Christians are saved, all heathens go to hell), and the nonscientific nature of the knowledge claimed by myths (e.g., the universe was created in six days)."
In place of an ethnocentric mythic-membership, based on a role identity in a hierarchy of other role identities, the Enlightenment sought an ego identity free from ethnocentric bias (the universal rights of man) and based on rational and scientific inquiry. Universal rights would fight slavery, democracy would fight monarchy, the autonomous ego would fight the herd mentality, and science would fight myth: this is how the Enlightenment understood itself (and in many cases, rightly so). In other words, at its best the liberal Enlightenment represented—and was a product of—the evolution of consciousness from conventional/sociocentric to postconventional/ worldcentric.
We can see that today an "Integral Enlightenment" is now underway that is the product of the evolution of consciousness from post-conventional/worldcentric to integral/kosmoscentric. We should therefore expect that the next stage in the evolution of politics will be a rejection of the current "Flatland" structure and reductive materialism of our post-conventional social democracies. Furthermore we should expect that political power will be dispersed even further, so much so in fact, that we need not even use the term "potential actors" because in an Integral Society all people will be actors wielding equal political power.
A VISION FOR AN INTEGRAL POLITICAL PARADIGM
Imagine a world of a million tiny sovereign communities. These communities very in size, some may be smaller than a city block, others perhaps as large as a small US state. Some are contiguous, with all of their members in close proximity to one another. Others, probably even most, are widely dispersed, existing as networks of people connected only digitally through the internet. But all of these communities have one thing in common. Their members are such by choice, and thus the political power of every person on the planet is in one regard absolute. If ever one's worldview happens to collide with that of their community, they need only find another community that suits them better. They need not even physically move.
In such a world there is no "government" as we currently understand the term. But the world is not in chaos. Quite to the contrary, war is almost unheard of and when it occurs, is typically on a very small scale and is concluded in a matter of days. Crime, while still an occasional problem, is much more easily dealt with. Many things that are crimes in one community are often not crimes at all in others. Some communities are centered around a religion, others are centered on an industry or occupation, some are centered on art or music, others on lifestyle or values, some on a cause such as education, or environmental protection, or charity. A few are centered on a charismatic leader, and follow his or her will. Some communities function as a commune, where all wealth is communally shared, others function as an agora, where people trade freely in the marketplace and have strong notions of individual property and privacy. Some communities require dues of their members, others do not. The variety is astounding and endless, and because all of these communities coexist in the same overall Integral framework, they interact freely, trading, mingling, competing, cooperating, and learning from each other by their example. I call this vision "Panarchy."
WHAT IS PANARCHY?
In short, a Panarchy is a highly decentralized network of sovereign territorial and extraterritorial communities. The term was first coined in 1860 by the Belgian political economist Paul Emile de Puydt. It refers to a form of government (an "archy") that encompasses all others ("Pan"). In his essay entitled "Panarchy," de Puydt described a system whereby individuals and communities would be free to choose the form of government they wished to establish simply by consenting to be governed by the community of their choice (de Puydt, 1860).
The truth is that there is not the right kind of freedom, the fundamental freedom to choose to be free or not to be free, according to one's preference. Every human being becomes a self-appointed judge, and settles this question according to his particular tastes or needs. Since there abound as many opinions as individuals, tot homines, tot sensus, one can see what confusion is graced by the fine name of politics. The freedom of some denies the rights of others, and vice versa. Even the wisest and best of governments never functions with the full and free consent of all its subjects. There are parties, either victorious or defeated; there are majorities and minorities in perpetual struggle; and the more confused their notions are, the more passionately they hold to their ideals.Some oppress in the name of right, the others revolt in the name of liberty, to become oppressors themselves, if their turn should come.
What Puydt was seeing and responding to was the natural friction that occurs in society when groups of people at different levels in the spiral of consciousness are forced to live within a state that enacts policies that conflict with the reality they witness (from their point of view on the spiral). What he discovered, but did not realize at the time, was a political system that was potentially compatible with Integral theory along all-quadrants, all-levels, all-lines, all-states, and all-types.
A Panarchy as I envision it, is a completely different concept from a democracy or any other form of government that has ever been tried. In fact, I have trouble even classifying it as a government, as it does not really meet the definition. It is an entirely new political paradigm that is fully capable of including/embracing all prior forms of governance. As we'll see, it is a truly holarchical approach. Under Panarchy, individuals decide based on their personal position among all-quadrants, all-levels, all-lines which type of community they wish to be a part of. There is a constant flux as communities grow and shrink, fade away and come into existence, and transform and transcend along the holarchical spiral of greater depth-less span.
Another important feature of Panarchy is that from the point of view of the witness at any level in the spiral, the Panarchy does not appear to be in conflict with the value systems of that witness. And this is indeed a critical aspect of any Integral politic. In other words, Red will see the Panarchy as upholding Red values, Amber will see the Panarchy as upholding Amber values, and so on. And of course to Turquoise and Teal the Panarchy is wholly Integral. And this is possible only because the concept of Panarchy itself is an Integral political concept. It intrinsically follows Ken Wilber's prime directive, as it allows Red to be egocentric, Amber to be mythic, Orange to be rational, Green to be pluralistic, and Teal to be holistic and integral, and by virtue of that it is itself holistic and integral.
It is structured to allow these different sub-politics to exist within its framework and encourages a peaceful means for those communities on a lower level of the spiral to learn passively from those on a higher level of the spiral—not through mandatory education programs forced on all members, but through example and the free flow of information, via current and future communications technology. Amber communities will learn by the example of their Orange neighbors, and Orange communities will learn by the example of their Green neighbors, and so on, giving them a clear path to transcend to the next level. And this is what makes the concept of Panarchy more than just a heap of first-tier state-lets, but is itself a whole that has much greater depth than its constituent communities combined.
THE PROBLEM OF AN "INTEGRAL GOVERNMENT"
Before getting to how humanity might implement the Panarchic model for a truly global integral society (how we get from here to there), I want to first look at the idea of "Integral Government" itself. I'll start by defining the four key characteristics that make an Integral Political Paradigm (IPP) and show how Panarchy exhibits those characteristics. Finally, I will explore the reasons why any form of "government" in the sense of "monopolistic state" as we understand the term cannot foster a healthy Integral society (cannot be a proper Integral manifestation of the LR quadrant).
Characteristics of an Integral Political Paradigm
The dimensions I outline below are intended to follow Wilber's general framework. Similar dimensions have been expressed in a number of ways by Ken Wilber, Gregory Wilpert and others. As both Wilber and Wilpert agree, any IPP will have to address these dimensions in an Integral way. They are:
I will go over all four briefly here, and I will illustrate how Panarchy will address each of these. But before I do, please take a look at the figure from Gregory Wilpert's article, Dimensions of Integral Politics, which represents the first two of the above dimensions. This figure is a good representation of 1st Tier political extremes: at the extreme agentic or individualist end you have both internal and external expressions of a stateless or anarchic society; "libertarianism" (anarcho-capitalism) on one end and "anarchism" (anarcho-socialism) on the other. At the extreme communal or collectivist end you have both internal and external expressions of state-controlled or authoritarian society; "fascism" (state capitalism) on one end and communism ("state socialism") on the other. These represent the political extremes of the "first-tier" post-conventional political paradigm, and it is the role of "second-tier" Integral politics to transcend and include these extremes, and everything in between, within a new political paradigm. In order to do this, the IPP must address the four key dimensions mentioned above in an Integral way, promoting, as Wilber would put it, "the greatest depth for the greatest span."
Wilber made the point that conservatives and liberals are defined by their answer to the question, "What causes human suffering?" If you ask a conservative why some people are poor, the answer will most likely be because the person does not have a good work ethic, or is not motivated to learn the right skills, lacks good moral values, or is lazy, etc. In other words, the cause is internal to the individual. On the other hand, if you pose the same question to a liberal, they will likely answer that the person was not given a proper education, was born into a condition of poverty, has been oppressed or marginalized by society, is the victim of racism, sexism, ageism, or homophobia. In other words, the cause is external to the individual.
Thus, according to Ken Wilber, "the liberal [exterior causation] recommends objective social interventions: redistribute the wealth, change social institutions so that they produce fairer outcomes, evenly slice the economic pie, aim for equality among all. The typical conservative [interior causation] recommends that we instill family values, demand that individuals assume more responsibility for themselves, tighten up slack moral standards (often by embracing traditional religious values), encourage a work ethic, reward achievement, and so on."
This is the Internal/External duality and any Integral approach to politics must transcend and include this duality, equally honoring (i.e, including) the exterior causes and interior causes of human suffering, but transcending them both with a non-dual approach. The Panarchy will accomplish this not by finding a "middle of the road" policy. Such is not a non-dual approach. It's only a compromise between two dualities that will satisfy neither. There is a Zen koan that is appropriate here, I think:
A monk asked Tozan, "How can we escape the cold and heat?" Tozan replied, "Why not go where there is no cold and heat?" "Is there such a place?" the monk asked. Tozan commented, "When cold, be thoroughly cold; when hot, be hot through and through.
Those communities with exterior focus will tend to (it is in their nature to) solve exterior problems, and those with interior focus will tend to solve interior problems (i.e., the Panarchy will be thoroughly exterior toward exterior problems and thoroughly interior toward interior problems by its very nature, and in that way honor all degrees along the Interior/Exterior dimension). This cannot be effectively achieved by implementing colossal programs and bureaucracies, but instead must be inherent in the very nature of the IPP's makeup, and this is certainly the case with Panarchy. It leaves it's externally-focused communities to simply be what they naturally are, while simultaneously leaving internally-focused communities to be what they naturally are, and thus allows each to reach its own potential without the interference and friction associated with the top-down control methodology typical of centralized governments.
An internally focused community, for example, may be centered around a place of worship. Here human misery is held at bay by love, and a sense of belonging obtained by a focus on living a good and moral life, on cultivating a good character, honoring family and community ties, and fostering individual spiritual growth. Alternatively, an entirely different internally focused community might be centered around a common industry, where human misery is alleviated by a sense of pride and material progress obtained through application of a strong work ethic, and the cultivation of applicable skills.
Meanwhile an externally focused community may be centered around a common cause, working to eradicate human misery by offering education to the ignorant, food to the hungry, charity to the poor, assistance to the infirm, or serving any of the multitude of other causes that can be imagined, from the protection of endangered species and habitats to the running of a library. Mixtures of External and Internal focus in communities would likely be common as well.
Because of the key characteristic of Panarchy; namely that individuals are generally free to join or leave their communities without necessarily physically moving at all, there is no longer the angst felt by the externally focused individual against a predominantly internally focused community, nor vise versa. Instead individuals would simply gravitate toward communities that reflected their internal or external values.
This could also be defined as individualist vs. collectivist. The distinction here can be made by asking the question, "From where do we get our rights?" If you ask an individualist, the answer will be that rights are inherent in the individual, whereas when you ask a collectivist the same question the answer will be that rights are creations of the collective. For Red, which tends toward agentic, might makes right, a very individualistic concept. For Amber (Blue), which tends toward communal, rights are bestowed by the king (or other amber authority figure who is head of the collective). For Orange, rights are inalienable, and natural aspects of individuality. For Green, rights are created and bestowed upon the citizenry by the collective will of the people through their governments. Any Integral approach to politics must likewise transcend and include this agentic/communal duality into a new non-dual paradigm.
Panarchy's non-dual approach to the agentic/communal duality is, again, an inherent part of its makeup. A Panarchy will contain within it a vast and diverse collection of communities, some agentic and others communal, and still others admixtures and combinations of the two. The Panarchy, however, does not take the middle road by saying that some rights are individual and some are collective. (This is not a non-dual approach, but a compromise that satisfies neither.) Instead an Integral Panarchy will recognize that rights are innate to the individual, but at the same time meaningless without a communal context. In other words, it takes an individual to have a right, but it takes a community to recognize that right. Therefore from an Integral perspective all rights are inherent in the individual, but meaningless outside of the context of community.
What this means in practice is that membership in the Panarchy should require the individual and community to guarantee at least a person's basic and fundamental right to life and self-determination in order to ensure that people do not become captives of their community (in other words people always have the right to leave their communities in search of another). Beyond that, rights would largely be determined by each community themselves, based on their own values. Meanwhile, the people, free to live in whatever type of community they desire, would naturally choose a community that represents their own agentic, communal, or non-dual values.
The third characteristic to consider, which Wilpert (2006) described in his article on Integral politics, is inclusion/embrace:
Every belief system exists in progressively deeper contexts. While some ideas or arguments take physical need as their only context, others emphasize emotional truths, traditional/ethnocentric truths, or, at the next level, universalistic truths. In other words, while fascistic ideologies rely on arguments that reference ethnocentric truths, liberal ideologies rely on arguments that reference rational/universal truths. This distinction of truths is hierarchical, going from physical to emotional to traditional to rational, each step transcending and embracing its predecessor, all the way to the soul and spirit. It is possible to have a politics that makes reference to this highest level of soul and spiritual truths/contexts. Integral Politics recognizes this nested hierarchy of increasingly deeper and wider contexts
What Form a community's organization takes says a lot about how that community sees truth and thus how they will handle law and justice. In other words, in an Amber monarchy or theocracy, truth has been handed down by God and is interpreted by his appointed messengers (ethnocentric/traditional truth) for his chosen people (i.e., the royalty or priestly classes). People rely on the authority to interpret truth and administer justice unilaterally. In an Orange republic truth is observed objectively and defined by reason and science (rational/universal truth). Justice is found in the "Rule of Law." In a Green democracy truth is relative, and all relative truths are equal (pluralistic truth). Since all truth is equal, yet some appear marginalized, the law and the system of justice must be used to make up for and abolish inequalities.
An IPP recognizes that these approaches to truth are holarchically arranged, and are each accurate representations of truth through the eyes of the witness at each stage of consciousness unfolding. Panarchy will thus embrace each of these approaches as appropriate to the level at which different communities operate, while including them into a holarchically deeper framework. What this means from the standpoint of truth and justice is that an Integral Panarchy must operate under a system of Polycentric Common Law. Under this system different communities would operate under their own self-determined forms of justice based on the understanding of truth appropriate to their level in the spiral. An overarching layer of common law based on Integral principles, however, would be the basis of membership in the Panarchy. The operation of justice would primarily be the internal responsibility of each community. Only when community justice violates the terms of Panarchical membership, or there is a dispute between two sovereign members, would Panarchy itself become involved.
In practical terms, as a member of a community one would be subject to the laws of that community. However, all member communities themselves would be subject to a "Panarchic Charter" (or whatever one wants to call the set of Integral principles on which a Panarchy is based—KW refers to an "Integral Constitution"). Thus Integral Panarchic Law transcends and includes the Polycentric Law below it, which applies to the parts, and is confined to the community, while the "Charter" applies to communities as a whole.
The final characteristic an IPP must have is an environment that promotes Translation and Transformation toward greater depth. Individuals and communities must be free to move back and forth, up and down the spiral on their own path toward greater depth. In this regard the Panarchy's only role should be to leave each community to exist on its own natural level, and to promote, through example, guidance and, when necessary, arbitration, the health of each meme along all quadrants. This aspect is so critical that Ken Wilber calls it "The Prime Directive." In Some Thoughts on Integral Politics he says, "The prime directive—namely, that the health of the entire spiral of development is the chief ethical imperative—can be derived directly from the Basic Moral Intuition, which is "preserve and promote the greatest depth for the greatest span"... Within this prime directive, one of the most important endeavors is to help each level, meme, or wave exist in its healthy, not pathological, version. Our job is not to force the blue/conservative meme to become orange/green liberal, but to allow blue to be as healthy as it can be within its own limits and domain... The prime directive, rooted in the Basic Moral Intuition, attempts to let each meme live its own life to its own full potential (curtailed only when its agenda threatens others)."
In Panarchy the various memes are able to coexist peacefully even though their value systems and world views are so different. This is because communities are not threatened by the prospect of an alien meme forcing its worldview on them. Each community and each individual in each community is free to develop at their own pace along the spiral.
Since individuals within these communities can simply change communal affiliation once their development along the Lower Left (LL) demands a corresponding shift along the Lower Right (LR), there is a constant and gradual societal shift toward greater depth without the friction caused by individuals at different LL stages having to support the same LR social policy.
WHY A MONOPOLISTIC GOVERNMENT CANNOT BE INTEGRAL
In the section above we've seen how Panarchy has the characteristics required of an Integral Political Paradigm, but why couldn't other forms of Integral government be just as effective? Why not have a Global Government of the type proposed by H.B. Augustine for example? Wouldn't that also work as well or even better? In the next two sections of this article I'll go over in detail why such proposals are antithetical to an Integral Political Paradigm, and why government is in fact a pathological construct of the LR quadrant.
THE STATE VS. MAN
A critical question that must be asked when considering government is this: What is the State's fundamental relationship to the individual? Cooperative partner? Beneficent Guardian? Protector? Provider of Freedom? Father Figure? The Integral thinker must look past these 1st Tier platitudes, to see the actual relationship that exists, to define and explore its nature, and to reveal to others what it really is.
Government is defined by Merriam Webster as "the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit," which is about as flatland a definition as one can imagine. Such a definition, while accurate as far as the "its" are concerned, does not really tell us what the subjective nature of government is from the viewpoint of the left hand side of AQAL. In other words, what we want to know is, what is the moral nature of government vis-à-vis the governed? For that definition I will turn to Murray Rothbard, who in "Anatomy of the State," defines it as, "that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion." (Rothbard, 2009)
We must remember that government itself is really just an abstraction. There is no "government," instead there are people in whom society at large vests authority to carry out certain activities, which under normal circumstances would not be permissible for individuals. Collectively we label these special people "the government." Once a person has been labeled a member of this caste, suddenly we confer upon them an entirely different moral standard. An official of government is allowed to commit crimes that normal citizens would be (rightly) severely punished for. Murder, Destruction of Property, Theft, Kidnapping, Torture, Stalking, Voyeurism, Sexual and physical assault, counterfeiting, the list goes on and on. Government officials commit such crimes as an integral part of their daily duties. In order to mask their true nature we give these crimes other names such as "war," "collateral damage," "Confiscation," "Taxation," "Arrest," "Interrogation," "Investigation," "Pat Down," "Quantitative Easing," etc.. Were you or I to do these things it would rightly be considered a crime, but these crimes are committed daily the world over under the color of law, by the authority assumed by governments. In essence we assign to those in the government one moral standard, while the non-government person lives under a different moral standard.
Consider the following; if we can agree that it is wrong for one man to steal from another man, then we must also say that it is wrong for one group of men to steal from another group of men. It cannot be possible for a collective of individuals to gain a more lax moral standard than a single individual. Insinuating on the collective a baser moral standard than on the individual will result always in pathology of the collective. Even when intentions are good and we cloak the crimes of our uniformed officials with patriotic rhetoric, the result is the same: Social Pathology, which becomes ever more acute until it results in tyranny and eventual social collapse.
The State then is a Social Pathology, but what is the nature of its relationship to Man? To answer that one need only ask what happens when one tries to stop the government from committing a crime. Let us suppose that a person decides that he no longer wishes to pay tribute to the government. That he or she is tired of supporting, with the product of his labor, the crimes that his or her government undertakes. Will the government leave this person alone? Will the government say, "We understand you disagree with the manner in which we use of your money (the results of your productive effort), so don't worry about paying the taxes you owe us?" I think you know the answer. Failure to comply, and thus support an organization you know is immoral, means punishment. At first fines may be levied against you, failure to pay them will eventually result in arrest, resist arrest and you may just discover the government's final solution.
The relationship between Man and the government can thus be likened to the relationship between livestock and their keepers. Like the keeper of livestock, the government protects its herd, keeps them controlled within the borders of his "farm," assumes responsibility for their livestock's general welfare, and harvests its sustenance from them. The assumption is that the farmer owns the livestock, and is thus entitled to harvest its bounty, whether in Milk or in Meat. For more detail on this topic I highly recommend the work of Murray Rothbard and Stephen Molynuex (see references below).
THE STATE VS. SOCIETY
I stated above that the state is a social pathology. In order to understand this one must first understand that the state and society are separate and distinct entities. Society is the sum total of peaceful human interaction. Society is the (LR) quadrant in its magnificent entirety. The state on the other hand in an ideological tool of control placed on society to forcefully mold it into a particular form. The concepts of state and society are often used synonymously, but this is merely a defense mechanism of the state's meme. Those who benefit from the state want society to think that these two concepts are interchangeable. In fact, the state is a memetic pathogen, which robs society of its full potential by forcing it to serve a particular ideology. It does not mater how evolved the ideology is, whether Red, or Amber, or Green, or Teal, the state and society have been and always will be at odds with one another, because while society is a healthy expression of the entire Spiral, the state is only a "mean" expression of a particular meme.
Thus the state lives off society like a parasite, consuming its resources to further it's own goals at the expense of the rest of the Spiral. Most of the resources consumed by the state provide little benefit to society, but a lot of benefit to those who control the state. Everything that the state does could be done better and in a more healthy (non-pathological) way by society. From defense, to justice, to education, to healthcare, when states assume these roles the results are predictably, more cost, less choice, less flexibility, less freedom and more human suffering, and this is a result again of the state's moral nature. Its only recourse, ever, is coercion.
The pathology of the State is such that it consumes ever greater segments of the Social web of life. More and more functions of society; human to human exchanges, become human to state exchanges. What occurs then is that man is left cut off from his own society, he becomes ever more alienated from his fellow man, and begins to regard others with ever more suspicion. Society then begins to break down entirely. This is what brought down the Soviet state. We can see this happening today in the US, in Europe and in other places around the world.
Even the Enlightenment, with its Constitutional Republics could not escape the pathology of the State. Pieces of Paper cannot keep the State in check. A "constitution," to the state, is analogous to handing a morphine addict a prescription for one tab of morphine per week and no more, and then giving him control of the country's morphine supply! We cannot expect to change the State's pathological nature, instead we should cure our societies of this 1st Tier anachronism, and institute a new Integral mode of social organization.
THE PATH TOWARD PANARCHY
I am sure many who read this will dismiss it as too radical, and it is indeed a very radical change from the current paradigm. But it is no more radical than the shift from conventional to post-conventional political paradigms. One need only look at the historical record to see how radical the monarchists thought the US founding fathers to be. How they predicted chaos and the unraveling of society. It did not come to pass, and within a century and a half, all of the world's great Republics had adopted the new paradigm.
In this article I have focused on Panarchy as a political paradigm, but panarchic organization could easily be applied to any non-political social (LR) system as well. Just as many formerly effective social organizations today are modeled on the democratic (Green) meme, we'll see that as the developmental center of gravity in "first world" societies shifts from Green to Teal and Turquoise the panarchic meme will become increasingly utilized as a means of organizing disperse and diverse networks of individuals to achieve their social goals. Even lower orders on the spiral will grasp the effectiveness of this new paradigm and adopt it. We can see this happening with the "Arab Spring," the Tea Party, and the Occupy Movement.
It is essential that the Integral community recognize this and position themselves on the forefront so that any emergent pathologies can be effectively addressed and the new paradigm can be guided in the right direction. I believe, however that this Transformation is inevitable in a sense, as Integrally conscious individuals seek each other out through Integral networks formed on Integral technologies, the old ways of social organization are proving to be increasingly ineffectual in comparison. We observe this beginning to happen all around us even today.
In his essay entitled, "Panarchy: Governance in the Network Age," Paul B. Hartzog describes the process by which old systems of government are being bypassed and overcome by new systems of networked global "governance." Hartzog points out that "[t]he key distinction between the old system and the new lies in the fact that governance in the old system was achieved through states, whereas in the new system it is not only achieved outside of hierarchies through horizontal networks, but is in fact often achieved in spite of hierarchies." [italics his] (Hartzog, 2007). What Hartzog perceives is the effectiveness of new IPP to affecting social change, which rely not on lobbying the state through a democratic process, but on completely bypassing the state system, forming a disperse self-organizing global network of committed actors, capable of instantly spreading information amongst their members. Such networks are far more flexible, dynamic, and responsive than the state system, and will ultimately make the state system obsolete. These networks will form "meshworks," (integrated networks of networks) as the current state systems begin to crumble under their own weight. With their economies failing, counter economies, similar to those envisioned by Samuel Edward Konkin III, will begin to emerge, utilizing new forms of trade, and bypassing the 1st Tier state economies entirely. Eventually new economic frameworks emerge, they may come to resemble the sort of "Economics 3.0" envisioned by Michelle Holliday. As she puts it, "[w]ith a view of the economy as a living system, economic leaders will likely be less fix-it men-and-women and more gardeners or farmers, actively cultivating the fertile conditions for life's processes to flow naturally." (Holliday 2010)
As these pre-panarchic networks become larger and more influential "meshworks," and their new economies bypass and supplant the state economies, people will also look to these new integral economies to find more effective alternatives to failing state systems such as healthcare, education, insurance, arbitration and protection. It is conceivable that at some point the failing States will lash out at the emerging panarchy and attempt to suppress it with the only real tool at its disposal; aggression. But the disperse and networked nature of the Panarchy will make it impossible for the State to effectively suppress. Eventually, First Tier systems of government will have no choice but to incorporate themselves into the new Panarchic paradigm.
Critical in the development of the Panarchy is the continued emergence of Integral technologies. Computer networks like the internet give us only a first glimpse of what to expect from emerging Integral technologies. In his book, The Singularity is Near, Ray Kurzweil describes in detail three technological revolutions; Genetics, Nano-technology, and Strong Artificial Intelligence. These technologies are poised to completely transform the way individuals communicate and interact allowing, among other things, individual minds to communicate with other minds regardless of physical distance (Kurzweil, 2005). Such a world would simply have no place for old systems of government based on territorial sovereignty and control.
The Integral Community needs to be leading this change, both through the creation of their own social networks and expanding them into integral meshworks, and by participating in counter-economics, in order to weaken the pathological 1st Tier post-conventional political paradigm. The Integral Community is in the best position to serve as arbiters (those who resolve disputes within the panarchy) in the emerging Panarchy, as their worldview has the greatest depth, they should quickly become the most reputable and respected in the field, and thus be the most influential in the development of a truly global panarchic meshwork.
In the end I believe the emergence of an Integral Political Paradigm is an inevitable aspect of the Kosmos' continued quest for greater depth. Translate—Transform, the question is not "will Panarchy emerge," the question is "when will Panarchy emerge?"
By Bryan O'Doherty
currently works as a consultant for an Engineering and Construction company. He grew up in Portland Oregon (US) and graduated from Portland State University with degrees in Architecture and Japanese. He currently lives in a very rural part of Japan with his wife and three kids, where in addition to his work, he is attempting to live a more simplified life, more in tune with the land and with his family.
Augustine, H.B., "Integral Politics; A Brief Outline of and Introduction to the Integral Era" http://www.integralworld.net/augustine7.html
Augustine, H.B., "Integral Politics; An Introduction to Integral Government" http://www.integralworld.net/augustine8.html
Bell, Tom W. (1992). "The Jurisprudence of Polycentric Law" available online at: http://www.tomwbell.com/writings/JurisPoly.html
Hartzog, Paul (2007). "Panarchy: Governance in the Network Age" available online at: http://panarchy.com/Members/PaulBHartzog/Papers/
Holiday, Michelle (2010) "V. The Terrain: The Integral Economy" http://solarium.cambiumconsulting.com/book/v-terrain-integral-economy
Konkin, Samuel Edward III (2008). "An Agorist Primer"
Kurzweil, Ray (2005). The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. Viking.
Molyneux, Stephen. "The Story of Your Enslavement" http://www.freedomainradio.com/Videos.aspx
Puydt, Paul Emile de (1860) "Panarchy" Brussels: Revue Trimestrielle (Translation by John Zube, http://www.panarchy.org/depuydt/1860.eng.html)
Rothbard, Murray (2009). "Anatomy of the State" Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig von Mises Institute
Wikipedia: Panarchy (Retrieved July/September 2008). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panarchy
Wilber, Ken (2000). A brief history of everything (2nd ed.). Boston: Shambhala.
Wilber, Ken (2001). A theory of everything: An integral vision for business, politics, science, and spirituality. Boston: Shambhala.
Wilber, Ken (2007) talk on Integral Politics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQRUu_4W2j8
Wilber, Ken. "Some Thoughts on Integral Politics" http://www.integralworld.net/wilpert0.html
Wilpert, Gregory (2006) "Integral politics: A spiritual third way" AQAL Journal Summer 2006 Vol. 1, No. 2
Wilpert, Gregory. "Dimensions of Integral Politics" http://www.integralworld.net/wilpert.html
The Integral Social Matrix
In my previous paper [Panarchy: The Political Paradigm of an Integral Society] I introduced a vision of Panarchy as a potential Integral Political Paradigm. In this paper I want to explore that vision further and offer some brief examples of how I think such a society might emerge. I would also like to explore the proposed visions of other Integral Thinkers and contrast them to my own. In this way I hope to further encourage a meaningful dialog and root out the true nature of not only Integral Politics and Economics, but the most “healthy form” of Integral Society.
THE INTEGRAL POLITICAL PARADIGM VS. THE INTEGRAL SOCIAL MATRIX
Previously I made the case that government (and by extension, politics) is a social pathology. I will briefly recap that argument here. My premise is that if individual man, as an independent holon, has basic moral value X, then the basic moral value of all men in society must also be X. Where this does not occur, pathology results. In concrete terms, if murder is immoral, then it must be immoral for all men, regardless of circumstance or “costume.” This idea has significant implications in terms of government. Because it implies that everything the government does is immoral, simply because of the means by which government operates, (i.e. via coercion).
I suspect that this problem creates a sort of cognitive dissonance in the mind of the developing centaur. As the worldview of the witness transcends orange and begins to integrate green into his or her framework, the hypocrisy of the state's stratified system of morality begins to become evident. Even if the witness does not articulate the feeling, or fails to attribute it to the state itself, none-the-less, by the time the pluralistic worldview is fully integrated into the consciousness of the witness, I would expect this to be the basis of a significant moral conflict with the means of the state. Thus we see that it is overwhelmingly the Green vMeme at the forefront of protestations against the wrongs of government; police violence, war, violations of civil liberties and privacy, as these are the most directly overt of the state's coercive actions.
However it must be remembered that the Green vMeme is not particularly anti-state. In fact I think there is a tendency by Green to want to use the government to enforce pluralism and egalitarianism on society, just as there is a tendency for Orange to want to use the government to further national corporate and economic interests, and a tendency for Blue to want to use government to further impose traditional values on society, etc.. That is the nature of 1st Tier politics as we know it. Each vMeme will attempt to use the machinery of government to enforce their worldview on society at the expense of all other vMemes. This is because, as we know and as SDi (Graves-Beck-Wilber) teaches us, all 1st Tier vMemes see their worldview as the only valid one.
Therefore, it is my position that an Integral society simply cannot follow this same pattern and take on the label “2nd Tier” with a straight face. An Integral Political Paradigm therefore must be non-political, it must be non-governmental, non-coercive, it must include all other vMemes in an integrated whole and must do so without alienating any of them. We must remove politics from the new paradigm completely so that what we have remaining is just society in it's purest form; an Integral Social Matrix. This is Panarchy.
A REVISED MODEL FOR HUMAN SOCIAL (LR) DEVELOPMENT
Several integral thinkers have proposed models categorizing various modern political ideologies with respect to how they correspond to SDi. I would like to explore these and then offer my own model.
First let us look at the model proposed by Don Beck in “Stages of Social Development.” This has formed the basis for most integral thinking on politics and gives a very accurate, although I think incomplete, picture of 1st Tier ideologies.
I say incomplete simply because I think Beck's model lacks a couple of dimensions in my view. First it does not account for agentic/communal expressions of each stage/wave. Thus it leaves out many modern political ideologies. Secondly, it does not include a parallel developmental path for societies in a non-governmental (panarchic) framework. In other words, the model provided by Beck seems to assume that society cannot exist in the absence of government (or some other form of coercive order), that government is the only way for society to organize itself, when it fact that is not the case.
Below is my alternate model. Here each wave or stage has both an agentic and communal expression (I have used modern terms, i.e. “Dictatorship” which can include specific types such as “Monarchy” or “Feudal Empire”). Additionally each wave has a non-governmental, non-coercive (healthy) expression.
Some, such as Ray Harris for example, may be surprised that I have placed the libertarian political ideology in the “Green” wave. As Harris points out, libertarianism is somewhat of an American phenomenon (a culture that leans toward the agentic in any case). He notes that the American Integral community's disposition toward libertarianism “colours the integral movement with distinct Orange biases and prejudices.” (Harris, 2003)
In fact libertarianism's roots are not only found in America, but in late 19th century Austria and France, with the “Austrian Economists.” Men such as Fredric Bastiat, Jean-Baptist Say, Carl Menger, Ludwig Von Mises, and Friedrich Hayek are the forefathers of libertarian political ideology. These men and their ideas emerged at the same time as Marx, Engles, Proudhoun, and Bakunin. Both are in response to the 19th century horrors of the mean Orange vMeme, they are respectively agentic and communal expressions of the same Green stage/wave.
In the (LR) quadrant of AQAL one starts in Orange as a centrist Republican or Democrat (in the US), then one becomes a (Green) libertarian or socialist, and finally a (Yellow) anarchist (or simply a-political). But you know you have fully transcended into the Integral (LR) when one day having considered yourself an “anarcho-socialist” or an “anarcho-capitalist” you suddenly have the epiphany that it doesn't really matter if you are a socialist or a capitalist as long as you are anti-state (and thus anti-coercion) the two are simply different (but equally valid) expressions of the same wave. In a Panarchy, where voluntarism is the rule, socialist communes, and capitalist agora can exist peacefully side by side.
So while Harris is correct to point out that Marx's communism should not be ignored, he should also consider that not everyone wants to live in a commune, and thus there is nothing inherently “integral” about communism (nor about agorism). As he very astutely points out; “Politics is economics and economics is politics. The two cannot be separated.” (Harris, 2004). It would seem to me then, that an integral political economy would honor both communism and agorism, both communal and agentic expressions of economics as well as other modes, such a gift economies, simple barter, etc. as valid and worthy of a place in the overall framework.
THE FOLLY OF 'THE THIRD WAY'
I don't mean to single out Harris. In fact I think he and I are in agreement on a great many more things than not. I found his piece, “Is the Third Way Really Integral?” (Harris, 2003) to be a brilliant critique of the whole idea that 'third way' politics is somehow integral (hint: it's not). The whole 'third way' idea, was championed initially by Don Beck and Ken Wilber. The third way, claimed Beck, “is neither a centralist or compromise position, but an entirely new direction in national politics.” (Beck, 1999) To which Harris correctly responded, “no, bluntly. The 'third way' is simply a shift to the centre-right. [I would add, “or center-left depending on perspective”] It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a transcendence and inclusion of a previous level. It is simply a horizontal juggling of policy priorities to capture the electoral middle ground.” (Harris, 2003). I couldn't agree more.
The folly of 'third way' thinking has led some integral thinkers to propose grand top-down schemes for 'Integral' world government. Steve McIntosh's “Integral World Federation” is one such scheme, and he even urges the integral community to sign “A Declaration of the Value of Global Governance,” (McIntosh, 2004). The only 'value' in global governance will be realized by the 'global governors' while the rest of us become even further enslaved.
McIntosh is not alone. H.B. Augustine's 'Integral World Government,' which he describes at length in his papers, “Integral Politics; An Introduction to Integral Government” and “Integral Politics; An Introduction to Integral Economy” literally had me pulling my hair out as I read them. Right off the bat he makes blatantly false assumptions about the purpose of government. According to Augustine “government emerged in the first place because humans wished to end the state of nature marking the course of social affairs. We can see that government began as a way to repress the animal-instinct causing humans to kill one another and to think only for themselves,” (Augustine, Nov. 2009).
We can almost be certain that was not the case at all. The historical record clearly shows that the first 'governments' were the result of one tribe conquering another, then another, then another, in an effort to gain access to resources (territory) and slaves. Regardless of the 'supposed' purpose of government recorded in the proclamations of various rulers throughout history, the actual purpose of government can be easily and plainly seen simply by looking at history through an a-perspectival lens (this means also dropping the ingrained assumption that government is inherently necessary for civil society at all).
Once this is done it is easy to see that government is simply a means of control; a tool which the various 1st tier vMemes have historically fought over to ensure that their worldview reigns supreme. Government has done nothing to repress the “animal instinct” that Augustine refers to (I know of no animal that kills its own kind on a scale similar to humans). In fact, government has historically made killing other people more efficient and in nearly all cases government sanctifies the act of killing other human beings either 'for the Great Leader!' (Red) or 'for the Motherland!' (Blue) or 'for Freedom!' (Orange) or 'to free the oppressed!' (Green). The justification is irrelevant to the victims.
Augustine then proposes a new purpose of government; “Let us see the purpose of government as allowing for the most efficient evolution of the human species as possible. The purpose of government is to raise collective awareness. It is the mission of those fortunate enough to be at a relatively greater level of awareness to help those not so fortunate, who are at relatively lower levels of awareness, in order for them to experience the quality of living that the others exclusively have. ...Similarly, the purpose of government is to help humanity as much as possible. The appropriate question, then, is why does it seem government simply does not meet such a standard?” (Augustine, Nov. 2009).
In answer to that question I would urge Augustine to look at the means of government. Government is not a voluntary institution, entered into and maintained by the free will of the people. The ultimate means of government are propaganda (the mean green meme), coercion (the mean orange meme), force (the mean blue meme), and violence (the mean red meme). How can government help humanity, raise collective awareness, or aid in the efficient evolution of the species if it must resort to pathological means in order to do so? The important question Augustine must ask is how can government be integral at all if its means are rooted firmly in the 'mean' expressions of the 1st Tier?
THE FRIGHTENING DYSTOPIA OF INTEGRAL WORLD GOVERNMENT
Augustine's solution to the problems of 1st Tier governments is to institute a Global 2nd Tier government.
A world government is necessary for obvious intuitive reasons. The more globalized humanity becomes, the more interdependent it becomes. Because of this increasing global connectivity, humanity will eventually be required to form a means of organizing such potential harmony for the sake of achieving actual harmony. Rational-legal governments cannot comply with a world government because the former is 1st-tier, while the latter is 2nd-tier. A world government, by definition, is a global organization founded on holisticity—as opposed to something such as the United States, which, by definition, is a national organization founded on linearity. In order for humanity to achieve world governance—which is what will be imperative—it is necessary that we shed the old skin of rational-legal philosophy and incorporate the new layer that pertains to the Integral paradigm.(Agustine, Nov. 2009)
This is how the Mean Yellow Meme will be born. The lure of a Global Integral Utopia, a government inspired by 2nd Tier wisdom, will be too strong for many of those already conditioned to blindly accept the pathology of government. The MYM will be capable of using all of the tools of the 1st Tier governments; propaganda, coercion, force, and violence, in targeted ways that only an integral understanding of the world will allow. Through the use of current and upcoming integral technologies, a global government will be able to enslave humanity more efficiently and completely than ever before.
And who would lead us into this brave new world? According to Augustine; “In sum, we can conclude this initial specification on Integral government by seeing that it will consist not of politicians, but of leaders. These leaders will be clearly centered most on Turquoise morally, creatively, cognitively, sociably, intrapersonally, and communicatively.” (Augustine, Nov. 2009). And how do we identify these 'leaders?' By testing them along all quadrants, lines, levels and states of course. In short, according to Augustine, the Integral New World Order will be ruled by an Integral Celestial Bureaucracy. This leadership will organize the world into a hierarchy of pathology from 'world government' to 'world-state' to 'nation-state' to 'state' to 'county' to 'city' to 'community' in a top down structure so alienated from the individual it is difficult to imagine how a person could relate to it at all.
This is not Transcendence and Inclusion, it is Usurpation and Alienation. It is LR quadrant pathology that will lead to human misery on a stupefying scale.
To simply support the weight of such a stratified system would require tremendous resources. Resources that will have to be taken from the population through the only means available to government. Because of the friction that is naturally caused between the ruling vMeme and all the other vMemes that will be compelled to support it, tremendous effort by government will be required to keep the population in line. The overall effect will be a sort of soft tyranny; a dystopian world where the slave/citizens are all made tame and happy by careful manipulation of the sort only those with a clear understanding of Integral theory will be able to implement.
Is that the path the Integral community wants to go down? Because by making bedfellows with 'Third Way' politicians and the current centers of power, that is where the integral community is currently headed. The prospects are, in my opinion, both frightening and incredibly sad.
There is another way. There is a way for society to function and flourish without the need of governmental systems of control. An integral world should be a world where people can develop to their full potential free from state sanctioned violence, force, coercion, propaganda, or manipulation. By the time society's center of gravity has shifted from Green to Yellow we should finally be ready to cast off the shackles and free ourselves of the last vestiges of human slavery.
This is how Panarchy truly transcends/includes all other 1st Tier ideologies. Panarchy itself is nothing but a framework, an agreement that depends entirely on the will of those residing in it. In order to be sustained the Panarchy demands that the social center of gravity as a whole must be at integral. If this is not the case it will not form. But that is not to say that those who share a 2nd Tier worldview must wait. There is much we can, and indeed must do now to prepare for the next paradigm shift.
COUNTER-ECONOMICS IS THE KEY
Ray Harris's words are worth repeating, “politics is economics and economics is politics. The two cannot be separated.” The key to preparing for the next paradigm shift is through economics. The more that people take control of their own economic destiny, the less power the current pathological order will have.
We can all do this now, today, by practicing Integral Economics. Integral Economics recognizes the validity and usefulness of various economic systems, from gift economies, to barter, cooperatives, to communes, to marketplaces (including black or underground markets, white or unregulated markets, and red or regulated markets). We are all most familiar with the traditional “red” or regulated market. This is what you participate in when you go to the grocer, or get paid by your employer, or file your taxes. This is the only economy recognized and authorized by the government, yet we all know of and have undoubtedly participated in other forms of exchange.
It is these 'other' forms of exchange, which SEK3 called 'the counter economy,' that must form the backbone of humanity's transcendence into a healthy integral society. It is our imperative, as the early adopters of the 2nd tier worldview to foster the healthy development and growth of counter-economics, so that as more people reach the integral worldview they will have the infrastructure to participate in a truly integral economic and social framework.
As much as is safely possible, the Integral Community should encourage the use of alternative forms of exchange; give and receive gifts, the gift of your produce, your services, or your knowledge will always be repaid ten fold either in similar gifts from others or in karma, establish local bartering networks, pay for goods and services in cash or in kind, and receive the same for your own goods and services. Volunteer your time or your money directly to the causes that move you. As much as possible keep your dealings out of the regulated marketplace, and reserve that as only a showpiece. Support the pathology of government as little as is possible, and if possible not at all. A strong and vibrant counter-economy will act as a social immune system, weakening the pathology of government until its continuance becomes untenable.
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PATH TO PANARCHY
Let's assume we live in a country called “Greentopia.” Greentopia is a developed Social Democracy with a LR center of gravity at (you guessed it) Green, with a huge government consuming nearly 60% of its GDP, the economy is faltering. Greentopia's social pension, healthcare, education, environmental protection and welfare programs are running out of funding. The middle class is struggling under the burden of high taxation and underemployment, the population is growing older, and the birthrate is hovering at just above 1 child per household. Most of the wealthy Greentopians, hide their wealth in the nearby “Republic of Orange,” in order to avoid the progressive tax rates that would confiscate 90% of the true value of their estates. Greentopia is thus in crisis.
But Greentopia is also home to an increasingly larger population of people with an Integral worldview. Many of these people have formed networks among themselves using Greentopia's sophisticated communications systems, or simply by creating local p2p networks. These integral Greentopians are of all types; farmers, builders, lawyers, software engineers, nurses, doctors, etc., and they all participate in counter-economics with others in their networks. Trading or giving or receiving each-other's goods and services in whatever manner seems most appropriate to them, but always outside of Greentopia's highly taxed and regulated market.
These iGreentopians are able to buy and sell and give and receive their goods and services at drastically reduced cost than is typical in Greentopia. In addition, these iGreentopians find that the more they base their economic activity in the counter economy, the more time they have. Having lifted the burden of providing half of their productive effort to supporting the Greentopian government, they have time to volunteer, raise their own children or watch their neighbor's, care for their elderly family members, help the less fortunate, teach the ignorant, care for their local commons.
Over time, word of mouth spreads and the counter-economic networks multiply in number, size and complexity as more people are attracted by the variety, lower cost, and person to person relationships that counter-economics encourages. Greentopia's tax base shrivels and it's social programs fall apart.
But not all is lost. Because the integral counter-economy also provides the services that Greentopia can no longer afford. It simply does so in more efficient and diverse ways. The elderly return to the care of their adult children or the many volunteers who are moved to help them. Children are educated either at their homes, the home of a neighbor or at a variety of very affordable or even free schools run by volunteers. More and more aspects of the failing Greentopian government are taken over by the emerging counter-economy.
But the leaders of Greentopia are not going to let their government fall without a fight. They begin persecuting those who participate in the counter-economy. They harass and imprison many. But by then it is too late. The counter-economists have formed means for their own protection against theft and kidnapping. There are several companies offering insurance and protection services, and those who live in communes, also have formed protective alliances. Greentopia is so weakened by it's own limitations, and the counter-economy has become so strong that it can no longer afford to fight it's own citizens. As the Greentopian government falls, the Panarchy is born. From there it spreads across the world.
Will the future happen as I have described? Not exactly, no. I'm not smart enough to have all the specific answers, and that's not the point. The point is that the Integral Community has a clear moral imperative to change the nature of how society is organized and to remove from the LR quadrant the pathologies of the 1st tier orders. To do this does not require a massive centralized movement. All that is required is that individuals start to 'walk the integral walk.' Create the communities that you desire to live in. Foster the type of lifestyle that you know is right. Use available and upcoming communications technologies and organize your own integral networks and meshworks. There is no reason for us to wait until a new political paradigm is handed down to us. Working within the pathological system will only produce pathological results. We can create the new paradigm now in our own lives, through our own initiative. Integrate your daily personal economic activity with your worldview, with your external environment, with your spirit, and you will become a seed from which the Integral Social Matrix will emerge.
H.B. Augustine (2009) Integral Politics; An Introduction to Integral Government, www.integralworld.net
Don Beck (2000) The Stages of Social Development, www.integralworld.net
Ray Harris (2003) Is the Third Way Really Integral?, www.integralworld.net
Ray Harris (2004) Thoughts Towards an Integral Political Economy, www.integralworld.net
Steve McIntosh (2004) World Federation; A Transcendent Vision of Integral Consciousness, www.integralworld.net
Panarchy - Panarchie - Panarchia - Panarquia - Παναρχία - 泛无政府主义 A Gateway to Selected Documents and Web Sites
La panarchie est une théorie politique prônant la coexistence de tous les systèmes politiques, où chacun s'affilie librement au gouvernement de son choix (ou ne s'affilie à aucun gouvernement), et où les règles du droit international s'appliquent aux rapports entre individus dépendant de gouvernements différents. Le terme a été inventé en 1860 par le belge Paul Émile de Puydt, mais d'après Gian Piero de Bellis on trouve déjà le mot « panarchie » chez un philosophe cosmopolite France Patric (Franciscus Patricius, 1529-1597) dans son traité « Nova de universis philosophia » (« Nouvelle Philosophie à propos des Univers ») publié en 1591.
Les panarchistes affirment que la panarchie est anti-politique, puisque tous les pouvoirs politiques (impôts obligatoires, règlements imposés, autorité gouvernementale et administrative) disparaissent pour laisser place aux seuls rapports volontaires entre les hommes. La panarchie a beaucoup en commun avec plusieurs formes d'anarchisme.
On emploie aussi le terme de « Panarchisme », pour faire référence à :
« L’ensemble des connaissances et des pensées en rapport avec des théories et des pratiques liées au volontarisme non-territorial et aux communautés autonomes (Panarchies), considérées comme les alternatives appropriées pour promouvoir la paix, la liberté, la propriété et les réformes, au lieu d'installer ou continuer avec des communautés coercitives, exclusives, uniformes, territorialistes, plus ou moins centralisées, et se disant idéales et se présentant comme les meilleures pour tous, qu'ils soient d'accord ou non. »
— John Zube, L’Évangile de la Panarchie, 1986
L’inventeur de la panarchie, Paul Emile de Puydt, présente la panarchie comme une forme de tolérance politique, succédant à la tolérance religieuse aujourd'hui presque partout admise dans le monde.
Une objection courante est que la panarchie existe déjà aujourd'hui d'une certaine façon : si l'on n'est pas satisfait d'une politique, on peut toujours quitter le pays et s'installer ailleurs. Mais la panarchie préconise l’a-territorialisme intégral (plutôt que l’extra-territorialisme qui est admis actuellement par le droit positif en diplomatie), c'est-à-dire "la fin du monopole de tout pouvoir territorial et de toute prétention à ce pouvoir, partout et pour tous" (selon Gian Piero de Bellis). La gouvernance n'est plus liée à un territoire donné, plusieurs gouvernements peuvent régir un même territoire, ce qui n'empêche pas des confédérations ou des alliances pour des questions territoriales qui relèvent des fonctions régaliennes, comme la défense.
« La panarchie est une méthodologie sociale basée sur le principe du volontarisme et la pratique de la tolérance. »
— Gian Piero de Bellis
« La fin du territorialisme, c’est-à-dire la fin du monopole territorial de l’État souverain, est ce que les sympathisants de la Panarchie demandent. »
— Gustave de Molinari
« Ce méta-système pourrait être apparenté à une forme néo-politique de « coaching », où chacun s‘affilie en toute liberté au sein d‘une gouvernance de son libre-choix, voire de sa propre conception s‘il y a lieu, et où les différentes règles du droit international s‘appliqueraient aux rapports entre les individus desquels ils dépendraient. »
— Alain Genestine, La Panarchie, Libres ! 100 idées, 100 auteurs
- (fr)Gian Piero de Bellis, À propos de la Panarchie (Brève histoire et manière de voir), 2009
- (en)Why I Am a Panarchist, by Michael S. Rozeff
- (en)Panarchy, Subsidiarity and Me, par Paul Bonneau
La tolérance, du latin tolerare (soutenir, supporter), définit le degré d'acceptation face à un élément contraire à une règle morale, civile ou physique. Plus généralement, elle définit la capacité d'un individu à accepter une chose avec laquelle il n'est pas en accord. Et par extension, l'attitude d'un individu face à ce qui est différent de ses valeurs.
La notion de tolérance s'applique à de nombreux domaines :
- la tolérance sociale : attitude d'une personne ou d'un groupe social devant ce qui est différent de ses valeurs morales ou ses normes,
- la tolérance civile : écart entre les lois et leurs applications et l'impunité,
- la tolérance selon Locke : « cesser de combattre ce qu'on ne peut changer »,
- la tolérance religieuse : attitude devant des confessions de foi différentes.
La tolérance comme moyen libéral dans la recherche de la vérité
Cette attitude a constitué l'apport libéral en vue de résoudre les crises issues des guerres de religion. Plusieurs auteurs, de Grotius à Pierre Bayle, ont développé la thèse suivant laquelle des individus de confessions différentes pouvaient coexister sans heurts tout en conservant leur foi propre. A noter que cette thèse était généralement admise en Orient depuis fort longtemps : ainsi l'édit n° XII du roi Asoka (273 av. J.-C. - 232 av. J.-C.) affirmait : « On ne devrait pas honorer seulement sa propre religion et condamner les religions des autres sans motif valable ; ce faisant, on fait du tort autant à sa propre religion qu'à celle des autres. Le contact entre les religions est une bonne chose ».
Dans l'Angleterre du XVIIe siècle, tourmentée par les conflits religieux et politiques, les Levellers ont également défendu la liberté de croyance et de culte. Pour l'un d'eux en particulier, William Walwyn, auteur notamment d'un libelle intitulé Toleration justified and Persecution condemned (1646), l'État ne peut contraindre quiconque à suivre la religion majoritaire. Se fondant sur saint Paul, pour lequel tout ce qui ne vient pas de la foi est péché, il estime qu'obliger un individu à adhérer à une foi à laquelle il ne croit pas revient à le transformer en menteur et en hypocrite, donc en pécheur. En outre, la persécution religieuse est vaine, car seuls les arguments rationnels, et non la force coercitive, sont aptes à convaincre autrui de la vérité. A ceux qui avancent que la diversité religieuse engendre le chaos, Walwyn réplique que c'est bien plutôt l'uniformité forcée qui crée le désordre. Cet argument sera utilisé à la même époque par certains sociniens (disciples de Lelio et Fausto Sozzini, rejetant la Trinité, et en particulier la nature divine du Christ). Mais, surtout, usant d'un argument anticipant ceux de Hayek en d'autres domaines, Walwyn insiste sur la faillibilité humaine. Si bien qu'il est téméraire et présomptueux d'oser obliger des individus à adhérer à une foi qui, au final, peut se révéler être dans l'erreur ! Le "Niveleur" conclut que, derrière la défense de la persécution, se cache moins la quête de la vérité qu'une volonté de puissance politique.
Pour John Locke, la tolérance se justifie sur deux plans: en premier lieu, le magistrat civil n'est habilité qu'à s'occuper de protéger la vie, la liberté et propriété, il ne lui revient donc pas de gouverner les âmes. Ensuite, du point de vue même de la foi, le salut ne peut advenir qu'à ceux qui embrassent sincèrement la foi. Il est donc immoral et contraire aux préceptes chrétiens de contraindre quiconque à observer la religion du prince.
«[...]Ce qu'il y a de capital et qui tranche le nœud de la question, c'est qu'en supposant que la doctrine du magistrat soit la meilleure, et que le chemin qu'il ordonne de suivre soit le plus conforme à l'Évangile, malgré tout cela, si je n'en suis pas persuadé moi-même du fond du cœur, mon salut n'en est pas plus assuré. Je n'arriverai jamais au séjour des bienheureux par une route que ma conscience désapprouve. (...) Quelques doutes que l'on puisse avoir sur les différentes religions qu'il y a dans le monde, il est toujours certain que celle que je ne crois pas véritable, ne saurait être ni véritable ni profitable pour moi. C'est donc en vain que les princes forcent leurs sujets à entrer dans la communion de leur Église, sous prétexte de sauver leurs âmes: si ces derniers croient la religion du prince bonne, ils l'embrasseront d'eux-mêmes; et s'ils ne la croient pas telle, ils ont beau s'y joindre, leur perte n'en est pas moins assurée. En un mot, quelque zèle que l'on prétende avoir pour le salut des hommes, on ne saurait jamais les forcer à se sauver malgré eux; et, après tout, il faut toujours finir par les abandonner à leur propre conscience. »
— John Locke, Lettre sur la tolérance
Cependant, Locke fait deux exceptions à son principe de tolérance. C'est d'abord aux catholiques qu'il en refuse le bénéfice. S'il le fait, ce n'est pas à cause de leurs options spéculatives (par exemple : la transsubstantiation), mais en raison de leurs considérations pratiques, telles que le déni d'être soumis à un prince excommunié et leur voeu d'obéissance à un souverain étranger (i. e. le Pape).
Ce sont ensuite les athées qui sont exclus de toute marque de tolérance. Pour le philosophe :
«Ceux qui nient l'existence de Dieu ne doivent pas être tolérés, parce que les promesses, les contrats, les serments et la bonne foi, qui sont les principaux liens de la société civile, ne sauraient engager un athée à tenir parole; et que, si l'on bannit du monde la croyance d'une divinité, on ne peut qu'introduire aussitôt le désordre et la confusion générale. »
— John Locke, Lettre sur la tolérance
A la suite de Locke, face aux excès de l’État et de l’Église, la tolérance est une revendication essentielle des philosophes et encyclopédistes du XVIIIe siècle et des Lumières françaises. Voltaire notamment publie en 1763 son Traité sur la tolérance.
Au XIXe siècle, un catholique libéral comme Charles de Montalembert a développé l'idée suivant laquelle il fallait distinguer dogmatisme théorique et tolérance civile, car ils ne se situent pas sur le même plan. Du reste, celle-ci ne contredit pas celui-là, dans la mesure où être tolérant ne consiste pas à croire que chacun détient sa part de vérité (ce qui supposerait que la vérité objective n'existe pas), mais à comprendre que la recherche de la vérité ne peut se dérouler pacifiquement que si l'on laisse les adeptes d'obédiences diverses pratiquer librement leur culte. Combattre l'erreur par la force, c'est courir le risque de réprimer également la vérité. En voulant vaincre par le glaive politique de fausses doctrines, on détruit aussi ce que le libéral catholique nomme la "liberté du bien". Il justifie ainsi sa position :
« Demander la liberté pour les autres en la demandant pour soi, ce n'est pas accorder des droits à "l'erreur", car là n'est pas la question; c'est admettre "les exigences inévitables et invincibles de ses adversaires; mais demander la liberté pour soi, en déclarant qu'on s'en servira pour la refuser aux autres, c'est perdre d'avance sa cause et la perdre en la déshonorant. »
Il écrit aussi très clairement que, ce n'est pas parce que de nombreux libéraux ont cédé aux sirènes de l'anticléricalisme le plus intolérant que l'Église doit les imiter en combattant, à l'inverse, la liberté :
« Les libéraux portent en ce moment, dans toute l'Europe, la peine d'avoir combattu ou méprisé la religion, d'avoir cru qu'ils pouvaient se passer de force spirituelle, et ne tenir aucun compte de l'ordre surnaturel. Les catholiques commettraient à leur tour une faute, qu'un prompt châtiment viendrait atteindre, s'ils voulaient abandonner la liberté. »
Dans le même ordre d'idées, peu de temps avant Montalembert, Benjamin Constant, protestant pour sa part, estimait que l'athéisme était tellement indigent qu'il s'éteindrait de lui-même si la liberté de croyance était réellement respectée. Sa grande idée est que le seul moyen d'affaiblir une opinion erronée est d'établir son libre examen, et non de la censurer. Pour lui :
« L'intolérance en plaçant la force du côté de la foi a placé le courage du côté du doute. »
— Benjamin Constant, Principes de politique
Plus encore, Constant considère que la mise en concurrence des croyances les plus diverses contribuerait progressivement au triomphe de la vérité.
XXe et XXIe siècles
Pour les libéraux, la tolérance ne signifie donc nullement approbation de ce qu'autrui croit ou affirme, mais prône seulement la résolution pacifique et rationnelle des querelles doctrinales et morales. La tolérance se situe, par conséquent, aux antipodes du nihilisme ou du relativisme.
On notera que l'organisation de nos social-démocraties se situe à l'exact opposé de ce point de vue, puisque la multiplicité des modes de vie et de pensée y est présentée comme une source potentielle de conflits, devant être canalisée par un contrôle permanent de l'État (pensons à la laïcité obligatoire en France, à l'intervention des pouvoirs publics dans les programmes d'enseignement scientifique, etc.) D'une certaine manière, la social-démocratie a repris à son compte la célèbre formule datant de la paix d'Augsbourg (1555) et que Louis XIV s'appropriera avec la Révocation de l'Edit de Nantes (1685): Cujus regio, ejus religio (en clair : la religion du prince dicte celle du pays) de sorte que, l'État souverain étant aujourd'hui « laïque », tels doivent être les citoyens en s'abstenant d'exprimer publiquement leur foi. La liberté religieuse, combat libéral contre l'absolutisme politique, est donc loin d'être acquise de nos jours.
Les libéraux contestent donc ce que Ron Paul appelle « un interventionnisme social influencé par l’intolérance des habitudes et des modes de vie différents », qu'il s'agisse de paternalisme d'état ou de l'imposition d'une morale particulière ou d'un modus vivendi particulier :
« Pour beaucoup de gens, l’idée erronée que la tolérance revient à approuver certaines activités les motive à demander à incorporer dans la législation des normes morales qui ne devraient être du ressort que des individus eux-mêmes, effectuant leurs propres choix. »
— Ron Paul, Discours d’adieu au Congrès, 14 novembre 2012
La Tolérance : limitation de la souveraineté étatique
A ce titre, Émile Faguet notait dans son Libéralisme (1902) que l'État (français en particulier) n'avait jamais aimé la religion, car il l'avait toujours perçue comme un gouvernement des âmes susceptible de le concurrencer et de le déstabiliser.
« Rien ne limite l'État comme une Église car il est incontestable qu'elle limite le gouvernement lui-même, puisqu'elle partage avec lui. »
C'est pourquoi, au final, la liberté religieuse est toujours la plus menacée, explique Faguet. Elle l'a été sous les Romains comme sous la monarchie anglaise ou française. Et d'ajouter :
« L'État est toujours antireligieux, même quand il administre la religion, surtout quand il l'administre; car il ne l'administre que pour la supprimer que comme religion véritable. Tâchons cependant de ne point exagérer, mais disons que l'État a quelque tendance à ne pas aimer beaucoup même la morale. »