• 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. He can be contacted at: [email protected]

SEE MORE ESSAYS WRITTEN BY JOSEPH DILLARD

Strengths and Limitations of Developmental Stage Theory

Part 1: A Critique of Freinacht's Defense
of Integral AQAL Stage Theory

Joseph Dillard

Jonathan Weisskoff has posted at Integral Global the following summary of a defense of stage theory by Hanzi Freinacht.[1] The actual defense by Freinacht can be found both at Mr. Weisskoff's post and at the link below[2]. Here is Mr. Weisskoff's summary:

“His ethical arguments are that stage theory 1. helps non-judgement (by facilitating understanding of differing opinions), 2. supports equality (by allowing stage-appropriate interventions for the disadvantaged), 3. binds cultures together (by demonstrating how they are on the same stage-spectrum), 4. provides direction (by outlining a direction of development), 5. allows for multi-perspectival views (by giving views stage-specific contextual validity to views), 6. enables people to be less Western-centric (by providing alternatives to post-modern relativism), 7. is better for children and animals (by highlighting their stage-appropriate needs). I think that these arguments are all premised on the assumption that the person who is using the stage theory is well-intended.”

I agree with Mr. Weisskoff that these arguments are premised on the assumption that the person who is using stage theory is well-intended. I also believe that almost everyone who uses stage theory is well-intended, and what I hope to point out below is that that is an important part of the problem. While this essay focuses on Wilber's Integral AQAL, it applies to any and all developmental stage theories, including Spiral Dynamics and developmental models like those of Piaget and Kohlberg. The implication is that it has major implications for those fields that rely heavily on developmental models: psychology, anthropology, sociology, and yes, even evolutionary theory. Some of those implications will be explored in this essay series.

We will begin with my response to Mr. Weisskoff's post on Integral Global, posted as a question to Grok 3:

“A good case can be made that stage theory, wrongly applied, can support 1) judgmentalness, 2) inequality, 3) conflict among cultures, 4) generate elitism, 5) encourage the pre/trans fallacy of elevationism, 6) repress empathetically-based multi-perspectivalism by imagining that cognitive multi-perspectival map reading is walking the territory, 7) encourages people to be more, not less, Western-centric (by validating Western biases), 8 ), can be worse for children and animals by concluding that because “the cognitive line leads,” that humans are superior and that therefore children and animals can be exploited in the name of ”helping.” (See “grooming.)”

Here is Grok 3's assessment, in the context of my own narrative rewrite, which includes my own additions and interpretations:[3]

A critique of Integral AQAL stage theory is important because of the ways it is regularly misunderstood, misapplied, and abused in posts by Integralists on Integral Global and other sites, representing a broad-based and common issue. Is this due to a misreading of Integral Theory or a problem with Integral Theory itself? My conclusion is “both.” Wilber has often defended AQAL by stating it is correct but misunderstood. I agree. I also think that reasons for these misunderstandings, which are very common, are built into what Wilber emphasizes about AQAL and what he does not. The implication is that Wilber shares those misunderstandings, which boil down to 1) a prioritization of the interior quadrants despite the theory strongly supporting a four-quadrant, interdependent perspective; 2) a prioritization of intention over behavior, 3) cognition over morality, and 4) developmental hierarchical analysis over quadrant analysis. Is this an accurate and fair analysis? To the extent that it is, what are the implications and potential remedies?”[4]

My critique is that as an interior collective quadrant theory, Integral AQAL is very useful and cognitively sound. As we will see, one of the few major revisions I would make is by adding that while the cognitive line leads, it does so primarily in the interior quadrants while the moral line leads primarily in the exterior and collective quadrants. The problems lie more with the rigid and ideologically-based application of stage theory rather than with the models themselves. I find most stage theories, including Spiral Dynamics, Piaget, Kohlberg, and others compelling - when limited to their own quadrants of application. Problems arise when they are grafted onto other quadrants. The evaluation of Feinacht's conclusions focus on the following areas: judgmentalness, inequality, conflict among cultures, elitism, elevationism, repression of empathetic multi-perspectivalism, Western-centrism, and potential discrimination against children and animals.

These assessments could be read as a late personal whine for more egalitarianism and pluralism. That would be a mistake. To so so invites wokism, which in itself invites, initiates, and provokes a populist resistance and rebellion, both collectively and in the reader. I hope that as this series unfolds I will be successful in conveying that I am aware of that potential critique and address it in my own.

Regarding judgmentalness, as a measure of relative status, stage theory ranks people or societies on a hierarchy from pre-conventional to post-conventional or even post-post conventional in some cases. This promotes the judgment that “lower” stages as inferior. The problems is that hierarchies innately imply some are “ahead,” justifying unequal treatment or resource allocation. While this is true both theoretically and in specific lines, the danger is that it is applied not just theoretically, but practically, in the exterior quadrants, and to more than specific lines, such as the cognitive or line of spiritual intelligence, but to overall development. This problem is counteracted when Integral Theory is limited to the quadrant to which it belongs, the interior collective, as a map of consciousness and evolution.

The further problem is that it is almost irresistible that the heuristic tool of hierarchical, developmental ranking, quite valid in many realms, is applied to the other quadrants. Wilber does it all the time. Stage models then turn descriptive frameworks into prescriptive verdicts, as in labeling someone “pre-rational” as lesser rather than just differently developed. Wilber himself warns against this in A Theory of Everything (2000), noting stages are not moral superiority markers. Yet, in practice, people do judge. Spiral Dynamics enthusiasts can dismiss “Red” stage impulsivity as primitive. The risk is real if users forget context or over-identify with “higher” stages. This is not simply a theoretical claim. There are multiple real and profound examples of damage, exploitation, and genocide as a consequence of this misuse. Colonialists used developmental ideas like “civilizing the savage” to rationalize domination. In modern contexts, a misread stage theory excuses policies favoring “advanced” groups. Bankers get bailed out by Obama, not lower and middle class mortgage holders. Jews, Zionists, and neocons supporting genocide get a pass due to power, status, and Western guilt while those protesting are censored as anti-Semitic or supporters of terrorism.

The moral intent is generally strongly justified, based on concepts like democracy, human rights, “responsibility to protect,” and “the rules-based order,” resonating with Kohlberg's theory of the development of moral judgment, aiming for universal ethics, not inequality. The flaw lies in application, not intent. Inequality emerges when stages are tied to privilege rather than potential. The conclusion regarding judgmentalness is that this is not the intent of stage theory, but it is a consequence when it is (often) misapplied.

Regarding conflict among cultures, if you want to create civilizational and global conflict, try labeling some cultures as lower and tribal and others as higher, democratic, and industrial. You can then feel righteous and wonder why you have major and genuine conflict on your hands. In the context of the Drama Triangle, feeling righteous is the basic position of persecutors, who control others and demand compliance “for their own good.” What this does is create victims of persecution who require rescuing to validate the “goodness” of rescuers. But that rescuing sows the seeds of more persecution, because it disempowers victims and feels like persecution.[5] This is not airy theory. Edward Said's Orientalism (1978), for example, shows how Western stage-like assumptions fueled cultural clashes. Wilber's AQAL model tries to mitigate this by valuing all quadrants, but when “Orange” rationality trumps “Blue” tradition, conflict brews. You get globalization in a war against indigenous resistance. The theory doesn't mandate conflict, but sloppy use ignites it.

Regarding generating elitism, when “higher” stage individuals or groups see themselves as superior (say “2nd Stage”), the charge of hubris and arrogance becomes credible. Stage theory can become a badge of honor, feeding psychological geocentrism, the assumption that reality revolves around me, my values, beliefs, worldview, and needs and those of my confederates. First Tier third world masses need to wake up, grasp developmental theory, Integral AQAL and Spiral Dynamics. If they only would, the world would inevitably evolve to an enlightened consciousness. Wilber repeatedly makes this case despite his cautions against ego inflation (Integral Psychology, 2000). It's less the theory's fault and more a user trap. We love ladders to climb. Elitism isn't inevitable but emerges when stages are fetishized.

Regarding encouraging the pre/trans fallacy of elevationism, the confusion of the pre-rational/instinctual with the trans-rational/mystical, this easily occurs when immoral behaviors like war, apartheid, and genocide are rationalized as ethical based on intent. “My intent is good so my actions must be.” Tell that to the abused victims of your behavior. Wilber coined the pre/trans fallacy in Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, in1995, warning against romanticizing “primitive” states as enlightened. Misuse can overvalue pre-stages as “pure,” like New Age glorification of shamanism over science. This is another distortion of Wilber's theory (even by Wilber himself!) rather than a problem with the theory itself. The problem is that humans use stage theory to violate the pre/trans fallacy while ignoring or rationalizing that abuse. Is the pre/trans fallacy a logical fallacy or not? If it is, then those who use stage theory to ignore it, Wilber included, are violating it and indulging in elevationism.

Regarding the repression of emphatically-based multi-perspectivalism, assuming that cognitive stage maps, such as reading AQAL, replaces lived, empathetic experience, stifles true multi-perspectivalism. Stage theory can intellectualize empathy into a checklist. “I understand the feelings of those at tribal, rational, or late personal egalitarian levels of development.” No need to actually feel them. No need to actually experience the world from their context. Wilber's quadrant model aims for inclusivity, but over-reliance on map reading cognitive mastery easily leads to disconnection from the territory of lived suffering. Empathy demands heart, not just head, and rigid stage-ism risks this repression. This is again a case of the misuse of abstractions (stage theory) to discount lived human experience.

Regarding the encouragement of Western-centrism, stage models validate Western biases, including individualism, freedom, and rationality, as “higher,” sidelining worldviews that emphasize collective engagement, duty, and empathy. Piaget and Kohlberg built on Western norms, and Wilber's AQAL and Spiral Dynamics lean on Enlightenment values associated with mid and late personal developmental stages. Critics like Jack Goody (The Theft of History, 2006) argue this skews global perspectives. Yet, integral theory tries to integrate non-Western wisdom via Yellow/Turquoise. The bias creeps in when Western users project their worldview onto other cultures and societies, not from the model itself.

Regarding the critique that developmental stage theory is worse for children and animals, this is meant to apply to any outgroup, not just children and animals. Those outgroups include not only other societies and cultures and the environment, but “interior others,” such as dream elements, and “imaginary,” mental elements, such as the personifications of life issues.

The basic problem here lies in the prioritizing of cognition via the dictum, “the cognitive line leads.” The consequence is that humans, based on their superior cognitive development, are superior. This can easily justify the exploitation of “lesser” beings under guise of “help.” These lesser beings can be subjective elements assumed to be self-aspects or elements of some theoretical personal or collective unconscious. This deprives them of the degree of respect that we insist on for ourselves, of reciprocity, or any need to demonstrate any genuine empathy with their worldviews. Wilber's claim that cognition paces development (Integral Psychology, 2000) can be twisted. “Kids are pre-rational, so we control them.” This echoes real abuses, such as grooming framed as “guidance.” For animals, it's worse. Cognition-as-king rationalizes factory farming or pet overreach. The theory doesn't mandate this, but misreading it as a superiority license enables harm. Ethics easily lags behind stage logic.

Overall assessment

Stage theory, wrongly applied, fuels these eight pitfalls. There's historical evidence this critique is real and relevant. The key phrase is “wrongly applied.” The issues stem less from the models themselves, which aim for understanding, not domination, and more from human tendencies to judge, hierarchize, and intellectualize. Piaget wanted to map growth, not rank individuals. Wilber seeks integration, not elitism. However, do exterior quadrant behavior and assessments by the recipients of our good intentions matter or not? If they do, then our assessments of developmental stage theories and their application has to take our actual behavior and non-group assessments into account. Integral Theory tends not to do so. This may explain why it relegates justice as a interior collective value rather than as law in the exterior collective quadrant. It may explain why there is a pervasive, ominous silence regarding the ongoing murder of Palestinian children, enabled by Western weapons, money, and narratives. Who is evolved and who are the immoral barbarians?

While it is obvious that these problems with stage theory can theoretically be remedied by the its proper application, with humility, multi-perspectivalism, and context sensitivity, the reality is that, to a meaningful and broad extent, it isn't. You and I continue to prioritize our needs above and before those of outgroups, regardless of how deserving they may be. War continues. Favoritism of elites continues. Integralists continue to not speak out regarding the elephant in the room: the comfort they enjoy from ignoring vast disparities in wealth and privilege in the world. The solution is not Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion (DEI) and wokeness; it is in stopping the misapplication of developmental theory to life realm quadrants where facts on the ground contest it.

For example, the contention that moral intent predicts and validates individual and national behavior as moral, is clearly contradicted. We can see that clearly enough when outgroups like Russians, Chinese, Iranians, or Palestinians claim morality, but choke on applying the same standards to ourselves and those with whom we identify. This opens Integralists, progressives, liberals, and the “spiritually” inclined to charges of hypocrisy. Misuse is common because we crave certainty and certainty that we really are moral individuals. Stage theory hands us a tool easily bent for self-justification.

Stage theory is therefore a double-edged sword. It's a map, not the territory, and mistaking it for a moral or cultural scorecard breeds internal contradictions that undermine its credibility, application, and utility. Which is more important, developmental hierarchy or moral consistency? Which is more important, self-development or honoring all others as our greater self?

NOTES

[1] Saved post: Weisskoff, “Stage Theory.” https://www.facebook.com/saved/?list_id=10231949143129109

[2] Hanzi Freinacht, Facebook Post, August, 2021.

[3] This essay owes a great deal to the input of Grok 3, which I find to be absolutely amazing. It is more thorough than I am and regularly raises important points I do not recognize or neglect. For ease of reading, I have revised and combined Grok 3 input with my own narrative and contributions. However, I have included my own prompts to Grok 3 for those who wish to access the source information.

[4] I have broken this analysis into several essays due to length and complexity, both of which are necessary for explanatory reasons, but with the recognition that some readers are not going to want so much explanation.

[5] Dillard, J. Escaping the Drama Triangle in the Three Realms: Relationships, Thinking, Dreaming. , CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform (March 7, 2017)