• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Dr. Joseph Dillard is a psychotherapist with over forty year's clinical experience treating individual, couple, and family issues. Dr. Dillard also has extensive experience with pain management and meditation training. The creator of Integral Deep Listening (IDL), Dr. Dillard is the author of over ten books on IDL, dreaming, nightmares, and meditation. He lives in Berlin, Germany. See: integraldeeplistening.com and his YouTube channel.

SEE MORE ESSAYS WRITTEN BY JOSEPH DILLARD

Democracy in the US and China in the Context of an Integral Worldview

Joseph Dillard / ChatGPT

Chat GPT:

What do you think of the Princeton study that the US is an oligopoly?[1] How strong do you think is the evidence? Do you think that assessment can also be realistically applied to at least some countries in the EU, such as France and the UK?

The Princeton study you're referring to, often attributed to Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, argues that the U.S. operates more like an oligarchy or oligopoly than a true democracy. The central claim is that the preferences of the wealthiest Americans and interest groups have a disproportionate influence on public policy, while the preferences of average citizens have a much smaller impact.

Key Points of the Princeton Study:

Influence of Wealth and Interest Groups: The study found that economic elites and organized interest groups, particularly business interests, have a significant impact on government policies.

Minimal Influence of Average Citizens: In contrast, the preferences of the average American citizen, even when they are widely shared, have a relatively minor influence on public policy outcomes.

Strength of the Evidence:

The evidence supporting this argument is based on an extensive empirical analysis of 1,779 policy issues. The study compared public opinion data with actual policy outcomes, showing a clear correlation between the preferences of elites and the policies enacted. Key findings include:

- Statistical Correlation: Policies that benefit the economic elites or reflect their preferences are much more likely to become law, even when they conflict with the preferences of the majority.

- Lobbying Power: The analysis highlights the outsized role of organized business groups and lobbyists, which often prioritize their interests over public interest.

However, some critics argue that the study doesn't fully capture the complexities of the U.S. political system, such as:

- Role of Elections: While elites and interest groups may influence policy, electoral processes still allow voters to exert some control over representatives.

- Countervailing Forces: Other scholars suggest that, while elites have influence, so do social movements and coalitions that represent broader societal interests.

Application to the EU (France and the UK):

This oligarchic assessment could arguably apply to some European countries like France and the UK, though the specifics vary depending on political and economic structures. Here's a look at how the concept might map onto these countries:

France:

- Political and Economic Elite: France has a strong tradition of elite political control, often linked to the "grandes écoles" system, where a small group of highly educated elites dominate the political, bureaucratic, and business spheres.

- Corporate Influence: Large French multinational corporations, such as in the energy or defense sectors, have a significant impact on government policy. Lobbying by business groups, particularly within the EU, also plays a major role.

- Protests and Civil Society: Despite this, France has a strong tradition of public protest and political activism (e.g., the Gilets Jaunes movement), which can serve as a counterbalance to elite dominance. Nonetheless, many critics of the French system argue that policy decisions often favor business elites and financial interests over the general population.

UK:

- Elite Networks: The UK has long been known for its class-based structure, with significant overlap between political elites, business leaders, and the media. The influence of wealthy donors and corporations, especially in the context of Brexit, has raised concerns about undue influence over public policy.

- Lobbying and Corporations: Corporate lobbying, particularly by finance and real estate sectors, plays a strong role in shaping policies. The revolving door between government positions and corporate boardrooms adds to the oligopoly-like perception of UK governance.

- Wealth Disparity: A growing wealth gap and concerns over policies favoring the wealthy have led many to argue that the UK's political system increasingly serves elite interests at the expense of the broader population.

Conclusion:

The Princeton study presents compelling evidence that the U.S. is more of an oligopoly than a democracy, based on the disproportionate influence of elites and interest groups on public policy. This analysis is bolstered by extensive empirical data, though critics argue that it doesn't fully account for the role of elections or social movements.

In terms of applicability to the EU, particularly France and the UK, the assessment can be realistically applied to some extent. Both countries have structural features“such as elite networks, lobbying, and wealth concentration“that resemble the conditions described in the study. However, the strength of civil society, social movements, and labor unions in these countries also provides a counterbalance to elite dominance, suggesting a more complex dynamic than pure oligopoly.

Ultimately, while the oligarchic influence is present in these democracies, the level of citizen participation and countervailing forces may prevent them from fully mirroring the U.S. in this regard.

The Global Times of China has published an interesting comparison of US and Chinese democracy.[2] But commonly in the West it is assumed that China is an autocracy and not a democracy. What do you think are the strengths and weaknesses of each system? Can China be considered a democracy?

The debate over whether China can be considered a democracy is complex, especially given the stark differences between how Western democracies and China define and practice governance. In analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of each system, and considering whether China can be classified as a democracy, it's essential to explore key elements such as representation, accountability, participation, and the rule of law. Let's break it down:

U.S. Democracy: Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths:

Electoral Representation: The U.S. operates a representative democracy where citizens elect leaders at multiple levels (local, state, federal). This direct participation in elections is a cornerstone of what is traditionally considered democracy.

Pluralism and Freedom of Speech: U.S. democracy allows for freedom of speech, the press, and association. The free exchange of ideas is encouraged, fostering debate and opposition, which is integral to a functioning democracy.

Checks and Balances: The U.S. system is based on separation of powers (executive, legislative, judicial), providing a check on any one branch's authority. The independent judiciary and press help hold power accountable.

Civil Rights Protections: The Constitution guarantees individual rights and freedoms, and civil society plays a strong role in advocating for them. Citizens can challenge government decisions through courts and protest.

Weaknesses:

Influence of Money in Politics: The Princeton study (mentioned earlier) argues that wealthy elites and interest groups disproportionately influence policy decisions, leading some to view U.S. democracy as an oligarchy. Campaign financing and lobbying often favor corporate interests over the average citizen.

Polarization and Gridlock: Increasing political polarization has led to governmental dysfunction and legislative gridlock. Compromise becomes difficult, and the system often stalls on important issues, frustrating the public.

Low Voter Turnout: Although elections are free, voter participation can be low, partly due to disillusionment with the political system and barriers like voter suppression tactics in some states.

Social Inequality: Despite formal equality, systemic racism, economic inequality, and other societal issues persist, and marginalized groups may feel excluded from the democratic process.

China's Political System: Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths:

Economic Growth and Stability: China's system, often termed a "one-party state" under the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), has provided remarkable economic growth and political stability. The government prioritizes long-term planning, infrastructure development, and economic reform without the frequent changes in leadership that characterize multi-party democracies.

Meritocratic Governance: The CCP argues that its system is meritocratic, where leaders are promoted based on performance and competence. In theory, this ensures that the most qualified individuals govern, especially in high positions like the Politburo and State Council.

Policy Implementation Efficiency: China's centralized system allows for quick decision-making and policy implementation, especially in areas like economic management, public health (e.g., COVID-19 response), and infrastructure. There's less political deadlock compared to systems like the U.S. Responsive Authoritarianism: The CCP contends that it governs in line with the will of the people, not through elections, but by constantly adapting policies to the populace's needs (like poverty alleviation, social stability, and economic reform).

Weaknesses:

Lack of Political Freedom and Accountability: There is no multi-party competition, no free elections at the national level, and no independent judiciary, making it difficult to hold the CCP accountable. While local elections exist, the party maintains tight control over political outcomes.

Suppression of Dissent: Critics point to censorship, surveillance, and suppression of political dissent, including in Hong Kong and Xinjiang. Freedom of speech and the press are severely restricted, which limits public participation in governance and criticism of the government.

Human Rights Concerns: China's system has been widely criticized for human rights abuses, particularly regarding ethnic minorities, such as the Uyghurs. The government's tight control over civil liberties means that many issues can't be addressed in the open without risking persecution.

Authoritarian Risks: The absence of democratic checks on power means that the system risks consolidation of power, as seen with Xi Jinping's indefinite rule. This centralization increases the likelihood of authoritarianism, where decisions are made based on the interests of a small ruling elite rather than broader public interests.

Can China Be Considered a Democracy?

By traditional Western standards, China is not considered a democracy, primarily because it lacks:

- Free and fair competitive elections - Multiple political parties - Independent judiciary and media - Fundamental political rights like freedom of speech, assembly, and association.

However, China presents an alternative narrative, claiming to practice a form of "socialist democracy" or "consultative democracy". In this model:

- The CCP considers itself to represent the will of the people, asserting that its decisions are made with the public's interests in mind, through consultation mechanisms such as local elections and feedback systems.

- The meritocratic structure of the CCP is seen as a form of "democracy," where decisions are made by experts who rise through the ranks based on competence rather than electoral popularity.

While the Chinese government views its system as democratic in practice, it does not meet the criteria of a liberal democracy where pluralism, political competition, and fundamental civil liberties are essential.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Each System

U.S. Democracy:

- Strengths: Greater individual freedoms, citizen participation through voting, accountability through checks and balances.

- Weaknesses: Vulnerability to elite influence, political gridlock, and increasing polarization.

Chinese Political System:

- Strengths: Stability, economic growth, efficient governance.

- Weaknesses: Lack of political freedoms, suppression of dissent, risk of authoritarianism.

Conclusion: Democracy in China?

In essence, whether China can be called a democracy depends on how one defines democracy. If we use the traditional Western criteria“free elections, multiple parties, and civil liberties“China does not qualify. However, from the Chinese government's perspective, democracy is more about delivering results“economic development, social stability, and a responsive government“than about electoral processes.

Thus, while China's system offers certain advantages in terms of efficiency and long-term planning, it also raises concerns about human rights and the lack of individual political freedoms. Both systems have strengths and weaknesses, but whether China can be classified as a democracy remains a contested question, shaped by differing views on what democracy means in practice.

Multiple studies, many carried out by western institutions, including Harvard, have shown Chinese levels of trust in their government to be much higher than than among citizens of the US and many western democracies? Why is that? Westerners tend to claim that the results are unreliable, due to Chinese fears of repression if they answer truthfully. How realistic is that? Have any of the studies attempted to compensate for that argument?

The question of why studies consistently show higher levels of trust in the Chinese government compared to Western democracies, and how valid these findings are, is complex and multifaceted. Several explanations and concerns come into play, and there has been academic effort to address these challenges.

Cultural and Societal Factors Influencing Trust

Historical and Political Context:

China's political system is fundamentally different from Western democracies. The Communist Party of China (CPC) has maintained a strong hold on the country, emphasizing stability, economic growth, and nationalism. Many Chinese citizens associate the CPC with improvements in their quality of life, from poverty alleviation to infrastructure development. As a result, a significant portion of the population may trust the government based on its track record of delivering economic and social benefits.

Cultural Norms and Confucianism:

Chinese political culture is also shaped by Confucian values that emphasize hierarchy, respect for authority, and social harmony. This contrasts with Western cultures, which tend to value individualism, skepticism of authority, and adversarial political competition. As a result, Chinese people may naturally express more deference to authority than citizens in the West, where skepticism toward government can be seen as a virtue.

Nationalism and Media Control:

The Chinese government has been highly successful in promoting a narrative of national strength and progress, particularly through state-controlled media. This narrative, combined with policies that promote national pride, may contribute to genuine trust in the government. Many Chinese citizens also perceive external threats, such as the West's criticism of China, which can further solidify their support for their government.

Fear of Repression and the Reliability of Survey Data

Western Skepticism:

Many Westerners, as you pointed out, argue that survey results from China may be unreliable because respondents fear retaliation if they criticize the government. This is a legitimate concern, especially given China's history of repressing dissent and its robust surveillance apparatus. The argument is that people in authoritarian regimes might self-censor and give answers that reflect positively on the government to avoid potential consequences.

Social Desirability Bias:

This refers to the tendency of respondents to answer questions in a manner that they believe will be viewed favorably by others. In China, with its strong government and pervasive monitoring, citizens may feel pressure to align their answers with what is perceived as the "correct" response.

Efforts to Address the Bias: Some studies have attempted to account for this bias. Researchers use techniques like:

- Indirect questioning: Instead of asking directly about trust in government, questions are designed to indirectly measure attitudes, reducing the pressure to self-censor.

- Anonymity assurance: Studies sometimes use methods that emphasize the anonymity of respondents to alleviate fears of government surveillance.

- Comparison across regions and topics: Researchers often compare responses on politically sensitive topics (like central government trust) to less sensitive ones (such as local government performance or issues unrelated to politics) to gauge how responses shift depending on perceived risk.

- Triangulation of data: In some cases, survey data is cross-referenced with other sources, such as online forums, ethnographic studies, and experimental methods, to validate responses. This allows for a more nuanced understanding of public sentiment. Harvard's Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation conducted one of the most prominent studies on Chinese public opinion, using rigorous methodologies. The center's study from 2003 to 2016 showed high levels of trust in the Chinese central government. The researchers went to great lengths to address concerns about data reliability, such as using long-term survey data, cross-referencing with external sources, and focusing on changes in trust over time.

Contrasts with Western Democracies

Political Disillusionment:

In contrast to China, many Western democracies have seen growing disillusionment with government institutions, especially following economic crises, political scandals, and perceived government inefficiencies. Political polarization, distrust of elites, and the complexity of democratic governance often lead to dissatisfaction with how governments perform. Even though Western democracies are based on freedom of expression, citizens may express lower trust in their governments because of unmet expectations.

Transparency and Criticism:

The openness of Western media, and the adversarial nature of democratic politics, ensures that governmental shortcomings are often openly discussed, which can lead to lower public trust. In China, where criticism of the government is more controlled, trust levels in surveys might remain higher.

Attempts to Compensate for the Fear Argument

Some researchers argue that the fear of repression might be overstated. Survey studies in China conducted by respected academic institutions have employed careful techniques to reduce bias. For example:

Experimental Methods:

Some studies have used experimental designs where participants are not directly asked sensitive questions. These methods can gauge implicit trust without forcing respondents to declare support for the government explicitly. For instance, randomized response techniques allow individuals to respond in ways that anonymize their specific answers, making them feel safer when answering sensitive questions.

Longitudinal Studies:

By studying trust in the government over many years, researchers can observe trends that may suggest a genuine shift in public opinion, rather than temporary or coerced responses.

While the possibility of repression-induced self-censorship cannot be entirely ruled out, the consistency of findings across multiple studies and methodologies suggests that at least some portion of this trust is genuine. Moreover, the Chinese government's emphasis on providing public goods, maintaining social stability, and delivering economic growth has contributed to this trust.

Conclusion

The high levels of reported trust in the Chinese government are likely due to a mix of genuine public satisfaction, cultural values, and economic performance, but these figures may also be influenced by self-censorship and social desirability bias. While skepticism about the reliability of these surveys is not unfounded, many studies have employed rigorous methods to mitigate the effects of fear and bias. Consequently, the results cannot be dismissed outright and offer valuable insights into how the Chinese public perceives its government, even if not all underlying dynamics are fully transparent.

Commentary:

This discussion generates objectivity regarding how deeply the Integral AQAL model and worldview tends to be immersed and enmeshed in assumptions of the Western worldview.

These include:

• preferences for individual rights over collective relationships and responsibilities,
• freedom over obligation,
• democratic intentions and structures over democratic results,
• ideology over pragmatism.
• preferences for individual rights shows up in the integral emphasis on individual development and enlightenment;
• preference for freedom over obligation shows up in integral life practice emphasis on individual choice over social obligation;
• preference for democratic intentions and structures shows up in Wilber's reliance on Kohlberg's interior collective scale of the development of moral judgment and divine law over determinations of morality based on international law and objective measurements of quality of life;
• preference for ideology over pragmatism by integral shows up in the measurement of societies by purported level of development rather than by social goods, such as how many people own homes, have access to health care and education.

I will allow Chat GPT to have the final word regarding the validity of those conclusions:

Chat GPT:

This assessment critiques the Integral AQAL model by pointing out that it is rooted in assumptions prevalent in Western thought. It highlights four key biases: preferences for individual rights over collective responsibilities, freedom over obligation, democratic structures over democratic results, and ideology over pragmatism. To evaluate the accuracy of this assessment, let's break down each point and see how they align with the Integral model and Ken Wilber's worldview.

Preference for Individual Rights over Collective Relationships and Responsibilities

Assessment:

The critique points out that the Integral AQAL model emphasizes individual development and enlightenment, which aligns with Western preferences for individual rights.

Accuracy:

This observation is largely accurate. Wilber's Integral model does emphasize personal development, self-realization, and enlightenment, which resonate with Western liberal values. The AQAL framework, with its focus on personal quadrants (subjective and objective aspects of individuals), often highlights individual consciousness development. However, Wilber does integrate the collective dimension in his framework, acknowledging the importance of cultural and social systems (the collective quadrants), but the emphasis on personal growth is a hallmark of Western thought.

Preference for Freedom over Obligation

Assessment:

The critique argues that the Integral Life Practice's emphasis on individual choice reflects Western prioritization of freedom over social obligations.

Accuracy:

This point is also generally accurate. The Integral approach encourages individuals to actively engage in practices like meditation, physical exercise, or shadow work based on personal choice, suggesting a high value on autonomy and freedom. The idea of self-determined practice fits the Western ideal of individual freedom, whereas non-Western cultures often stress duty, community obligations, and interdependence over personal liberty. The model does touch on collective and social dimensions, but it often emphasizes personal freedom and individual transformation as key paths to broader societal change.

Preference for Democratic Intentions and Structures over Democratic Results

Assessment:

The critique suggests that Wilber relies on interior collective scales, like Kohlberg's stages of moral development, more than objective measurements of democratic outcomes, such as the quality of life or adherence to international law.

Accuracy:

This is a nuanced critique and holds some weight. The Integral model places a strong emphasis on interior stages of development, such as moral reasoning (Kohlberg's stages) or spiritual growth, often focusing on the internal evolution of consciousness over external political and social outcomes. This may reflect a bias toward *intention* (the evolution of consciousness) rather than *results* (such as how democratic institutions function or improve quality of life). However, it's not entirely accurate to say that Wilber ignores objective metrics—his model explicitly includes objective systems (the lower-right quadrant) and recognizes the importance of functional societal structures. Still, the focus on inner developmental stages may come across as privileging democratic intentions over measurable results.

Preference for Ideology over Pragmatism

Assessment:

The critique claims that Integral theory measures societies by levels of development (ideology) rather than social goods like home ownership, healthcare, and education (pragmatism).

Accuracy:

This is a valid critique. Wilber's model does prioritize developmental hierarchies, like levels of consciousness, to assess the evolution of individuals and societies. These hierarchies often place more importance on psychological, moral, and spiritual development (ideology) rather than practical, tangible outcomes like material well-being (pragmatism). While the AQAL model acknowledges the significance of the material (lower-right quadrant), its emphasis on developmental stages tends to elevate abstract metrics of progress over concrete measures of social good. This approach can seem detached from real-world issues like poverty alleviation, healthcare access, and education, which are pragmatic concerns.

Broader Analysis of the Critique

Western Bias:

The critique highlights a fundamental tension between the Integral model's Western-centric developmental framework and more collective, relational, or pragmatic worldviews found in non-Western cultures. Integral theory is deeply informed by Western philosophy, psychology, and moral frameworks (like Kohlberg's stages), and this shapes its worldview. In contrast, many non-Western perspectives place greater emphasis on communal well-being, obligations to society, and practical outcomes, which may not be fully accounted for in the model.

Holistic Intentions, but Emphasis on Interior Growth:

Although Wilber's Integral model is intended to be holistic, integrating subjective, objective, individual, and collective dimensions, the critique points out that its actual application often tilts toward the interior, individual dimensions of growth. This is particularly evident in the emphasis on personal enlightenment, moral development, and stages of consciousness, which may overshadow material or collective aspects of well-being.

Conclusion

The assessment is fairly accurate in pointing out the Western assumptions embedded in the Integral AQAL model. While the model claims to be comprehensive and integrative, its emphasis on individual development, freedom, interior moral structures, and developmental stages reflects key values of the Western intellectual tradition. This can lead to a bias toward ideology (developmental hierarchies) over pragmatism (social goods), and a focus on personal freedom and enlightenment over collective responsibilities and obligations. However, it is important to acknowledge that Wilber's model does attempt to integrate collective, social, and objective dimensions, even if they are not given as much prominence as individual development.

NOTES

[1] Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens", Perspectives on Politics, vol. 12, issue 3, 18 September 2014. See also: "The U.S. is an Oligarchy? The Research, Explained", act.represent.us, no date, and Democracy in America? What Has Gone Wrong and What We Can Do About It, University of Chicago Press, 2020. Enlarged edition.

[2] "China's democracy 'more extensive, genuine and effective' than US democracy: official", www.globaltimes.cn, Dec 04, 2021.