Chapter 2: General Civilization Theories
New Emerging Theories of Civilization Building
Civilization does not just happen! It is a high achievement by a society; it is the result of vision and inspiration. Its design and its building take great shared effort and the focusing of political will. A civilization is the crowning result of efforts by a people to create a just, beautiful polity where “the Good Life” can be lived by every citizen. A civilization is the fruit of the best political philosophy made real by the best political science, nourished by the finest political arts.
A civilization is the expression of society’s deepest desire—to be a social place worthy of loyalty and love. Civilization building is the deliberate, but inspired con- struction of a society where life together is a glorious adventure. It is the building of a social family, a people in the truest sense, who join in pursuit of marvelous shared ideals and who delight in happy achievements.
The study of civilization building is the domain of civilization theory. This sounds formidable, but is really only a formulation of the values and nature of civilization as a people see it at a moment in time. Civilization theory is an instrument like a pair of spectacles, designed to help us see our subject more clearly—and to improve it.
“Theories are made to be destroyed. Theories give birth to new knowledge, which cannot be encompassed by the parents. New theories are then needed to give this knowledge form and meaning. A theory is useful to a researcher because it gives a benchmark from which to start, not a mooring against which to rest.”60 Thus, theo- ries are helpful even if subsequently proven incorrect; they are useful until we get a better theory.
Kurt Lewin believed that, “There is nothing so practical as a good theory.” This is the insight that the best science gives to social scientists. Theories are not “right or wrong,” they are “fertile or sterile,” said Claude Bernard. Theories grow by experimental in- vestigation like a fire grows by burning, or as a child grows through eating nutritious food. Like a child, too, theories grow through stages. A later version of a theory out- grows an earlier one as an adolescent displaces a child in the growth of the person. These are images that are helpful for understanding our next three “Theories,”
namely the Unified Social Field Theory, Social Quantum Mechanics, and A Theory of Civilization.
We have completed our presentation of the ten constituent theories of adminis- trative theory. In this concluding section to Section One, we offer three theories for civilization building. Collectively, the Unified Social Field Theory, Social Quantum Mechanics, and Theory of Civilization comprise our first complete formulation of a General Theory of Civilization. Such “general theories” are part of a great tradition in social science and the humanities. Authors and scholars such as Stuart C. Dodd pub- lished a social cosmology; Talcott Parsons published a theory of society; John Maynard Keynes gave to the world the General Theory of Money, Interest and Employment.
There is also a “populist” approach to scientific method. Philosophers of science such as Nicholas Maxwell teach that “experimental science” is a radically human ac- tivity and must therefore be governed by compassion and conducted by the populace as a whole, not only “specialists.” This viewpoint fits well with our Unified Social Field Theory, which implies that citizenship should include some participation in the social life of the society and its governance. In ancient Periclean Athens, the citizens were expected to delight in the planning and conduct of the life of the city—art, science, and politics.
Administrative theory contributes to a general theory of civilization. It is also a part of it. New Administrative Theory and the General Theory of Civilization are young theories. That is, they are in their early stages. Our book is offered so that citizens can contribute to the definition of the values and the hopes, the testing, and the improvement of these theories.
The Civilization of Tomorrow is a matter for the Citizens of Today. Civilization building is the way the Civilization of Tomorrow can be envisioned and made real. Civilization Theory involves a community of civilization builders—the Citizens of Tomorrow. We invite you to study the following theories, and by testing them, to advance and refine them. Together we will reformulate and improve Civilization Theory, for it’s a public possession; it belongs to the people. It is a part of government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”61
Field theory has a profound contribution to make to civilization theory. This was well stated by Margaret J. Wheatley:
The invisible influences that field theory exposes can help us manage other amorphous aspects of organizational life. For example, vision—organi-zational clarity about purpose and direction—is a wonderful candidate for field theory. We would start by recognizing that in creating a vision, we are creating a power, not a place; an influence, not a destination. Now we need to imagine ourselves as beacon towers of information [individu- als], standing tall in the integrity of what we say, pulsing out congruent messages everywhere. We need all of us out there, stating, clarifying, re- flecting, modeling, filling all of space with the messages we care about. If we do that, a powerful field develops—and with it, the wondrous capac- ity to organize into coherent, capable form.62
We next present three Civilization Theories involving macro-cultural dynamics based on our studies to this date. We hope that you, the reader, will find these ideas helpful, and will do what you can, where you now are in the world, to help in their consideration and refinement.
The Unified Social Field Theory
If a theory used at the micro-level (the relationship among individuals) is accurate for an individual
or organization, then it is equally valid at the macro-level.
The Unified Social Field Theory concerns the functioning of society as a whole. It is a theory that asserts the fundamental unity of all the constituent parts and levels of
society. Thus, it expresses an important idea about society: If a theory used at the micro-level (i.e., the relationship between an individual and someone else) is accurate and valid in an organization, then it is equally valid at the macro level.
For example, the social dynamics operative in simple groups and organizations could also be spoken of for institutions and nations. If these dynamics subsequently prove out at a lower level, then they should be applicable at a higher level. In other words, if it works at the micro level, it will work at the macro level. It is just harder to test at that level. Therefore, if it works locally, it will work globally.
The content of the Unified Social Field Theory is a new expression of an old idea that “life is one.”
Medievals called this the Great Chain of Being, and this idea is fundamental to sociology as a whole. Indeed, the Unified Social Field Theory seems to reinforce the “Mass-Time Triangle” cosmological model of our late colleague, Dr. Stuart C. Dodd (see Appendix J).63 In this remarkable study, Dr. Dodd looked at the march of civilization through a mathematical lens. At one place in his writing, I (RJS) noticed a curious reference to “one to the third power.” Since the cube of one is still one, I asked him what it meant.
“What it means is unity,” Dr. Dodd said. “Unity is what we in the human race are moving toward in the world.”
This brings up an interesting conundrum: If 1=1 and 1n power also equals one, then perhaps we who are of this world—past, present, and future—are each now and always have been and always will be simultaneously an individual and a corporate (i.e., a “societal”) one! I call this the “Royal One” or the “Royal1” because it indicates that the real sovereignty—ranging from a small group or a large nation—is in the people and not the King or the dictator or the leader, i.e. “royalty.”
Ms. Lyn Fleury Lambert writes:
[If] 1=1 (God = God); 13 =1 (Father, Son and Holy Spirit = God); 1nth = 1 (All that is, immanent and transcendent = God), [then] we might imagine that all of God’s chil- dren, united by the love that is God, fulfill ‘God’s image.’ The Bible tells us that ‘God created man in his own image’ and I imagine that that means mankind or humankind all together, not any man individually. 64
Perhaps this is an insight that should be considered when people think about our next theory, just being introduced here now in this book, which we call Social Quantum Mechan- ics (SQM), in the future study of administrative theory, social science and—spirituality.
Social Quantum Mechanics (SQM)
Physics and social-theory have much in common; both deal with the subtle organization of multitudinous elements. In the case of matter, it exists simultaneously as individual particles and as waves. In the case of people, they exist simultaneously as 1) individuals and 2) corporate (i.e., societal) entities.
Todd Stedl at the University of Washington writes,
“In 1690 Christian Huygens theorized that light was composed of waves, while in
1704 Isaac Newton explained that light was made of tiny particles. Experiments sup- ported each of their theories. However, neither a completely-particle theory nor a com- pletely-wave theory could explain all of the phenomena associated with light! So scientists began to think of light as both a particle and a wave.” 65
Stephen Hawking writes, “One of the greatest discoveries of the 20th Century has been quantum mechanics. It is a very complex branch of physics, which rivals relativity theory for its opposition to common sense and for its use of super-advanced mathematics.” 66
But like all science it offers powerful imagery and conceptual apparatus for social science.
Quantum Mechanics deals with the behavior of “quanta” (packets) of matter at the sub-atomic level. It deals with probabilities and uncertain outcomes, but as a whole its math works, and inventions such as transistors and integrated circuits de- pend on it. Daniel Liderbach explains:
“The quantum theory of the emission of atomized packets of energy explains that electrons and other particles of matter behave, not in accord with “classical physics,” but more subtly. Matter is envisioned as particles that are ‘granular’ or discontinuous. All physical matter, according to the early quantum physicists, is a collection of ‘grains’ of energy that are discontinuous and discrete.” 67
Liderbach further explains,
“But quantum physics also reveals a universe, which is cooperative! Particles can be observed to behave in a manner which suggests that they have made decisions based on decisions made by other particles.” 68
Matter is a sub-atomic dance of collaboration. This is true even if the sub-atomic particles are far apart. There is, as physicist David Bohm says, an “implicate order.”69 Old-style (classical) physics and old-style sociology postulated atoms, or social atoms (people), which were separate individuals, but “social quantum mechanics” can be seen to require a more subtle account of the elements of society and their ways of interacting. Margaret Wheatley in her book Leadership and the New Science has de- scribed some of her ideas in field theory, but here we generalize to a theory of society. In this way we follow in the footsteps of our mentor Stuart C. Dodd. Dr. Dodd, whose writings on “cosmic sociology” and “social cosmology” (from a collection of over 200 articles published in learned journals)70 created a rich interaction of
Cosmology and Sociology. Thus, “social quantum mechanics” is a direct descendant of his work.
The subject of physics is immense and varied, including energy, matter and its elements (particles, waves, fields, quanta etc.), the power of these physical ingredients of nature, and their applicability in the service of humanity. The subject of social theory is society and its elements (individuals, groups, fields, organizations, societies) and social power, human thinking, behavior and energy, and their constituent ele- ments. We believe it is not too much of a stretch to see that if there is an “implicate order” in the structure of matter, there may also be one at work in human society. Indeed, author A. Simmons writes:
“Dialogue is a process through which we shift our minds and thoughts from a particle state to a wave state. Just as light can be both particle and wave, so can our thoughts. As long as thoughts act like distinct particles, there is no flow. Our minds are separate and disconnected. Shifting to a wave state allows a group to find a frequency through which they can communicate. Getting on the same wavelength is the goal. Our words make implicit thoughts explicit.”71 (Communicating in this new “wave state” is described later in Section Two of this book about Zeitgeist Communication and in explaining our new terms of “Symbolic Dialogue” and “Social Audits.”)
Indeed, according to our theory of Social Quantum Mechanics, humankind is simultaneously both separate and orchestrated; we literally “act in concert.” We fur- ther believe that the Zeitgeist (the “Spirit-of-the-Time”) is the conductor of this tem- poral orchestra; the musicians are both the elected and duly appointed leaders, i.e., the “chiefs of state” of society, public and private; and those who listen, i.e., the audiences, are the public, constituents, and members. Their reactions, at all organizational lev- els—small and large—further shape the Zeitgeist in a purposeful, harmonic, social melody in a “symphonic fusion and rhythmic orchestration”72 of civilization building subsequently effected through the dynamics of the self-fulfilling prophecy.
The result of this societal metaphorical concert? A working democracy with im- proved organizational, community, and societal mental health, and an expansion of “social capital”—all leading toward a sustainable world community that we call— CIVILIZATION! 73
For some, societal improvement is about improving the individual’s performance in society—through improved education, more personal responsibility, a greater em- phasis on individual morality and the like. By their philosophy, the real need is for greater cooperation and community building from within every person. The result— better persons.
For others, the real problem for societal improvement is organizational. We need better functioning organizations and institutions, both public and private. The re- sult—better organizations. We believe the truth is—we need both simultaneously!
David Bohm, theoretical physicist, writes:
“I think, then, that there is the possibility of the transformation of consciousness, both individually and collectively. It’s important that it happen together—it’s got to be both. And therefore this whole question—of communication and the ability to dialogue, the ability to participate in communication—is crucial.”74
Social quantum mechanics is the social theory appropriate to civilization build- ing as we are defining it. As quantum mechanics led to the modern world of electron- ics and all its benefits, so “social quantum mechanics,” we suggest, can lead to the building of brilliantly luminous civilizations of the near and far future.75
But, many ask, “How can I do it? I’m just one person. I’m not rich, powerful, or influential. It’s just not possible in this big, impersonal world of insurmountable prob- lems for me to count. I give up.”
Perhaps some individuals will give up, but the human race in the world can not, should not, and we believe—will not give up on the social, technical, and economic problems of our day. There is a way to be counted equally as individual “quanta” and simultaneously as participants in organizational and group relationship-webs. That way is to use Many-To-Many communication, the Fast Forum® Technique, and symbolic dia- logue between leaders and people to create a vision of the future that OUGHT TO BE, i.e.,“ethics.”
There is a name for the process—it is called “politics.” But in this case the politi- cians and bureaucrats in our republic will have helped frame the larger social prob- lems faced in common by all. Out of this routine interaction primarily by “chiefs of state” with their constituents in an on-going symbolic dialogue, a vision of the Zeit- geist, the “Spirit-of-the-Time” will emerge. Since the Zeitgeist is also the “Supreme Governor,” political leaders and bureaucrats should tend naturally to develop regula- tions and laws consistent with the common vision; to do otherwise would entail po- litical risk for them. If they feel the people “don’t have the facts,” (which is often the case) they will try to bring new information to the people. This kind of effort is a “natural factor” in action.
Yet our elected or appointed leaders will continue to make the legal and policy decisions as they now do because we live in a republic with representative govern- ment—not a pure democracy. Leaders everywhere, political and non-political, will have ample opportunity to exercise their statesmanship when they feel it is required.
It is just that they should now do it in open communication with their constituents. Better governing and “following” should result, with “authority” flowing strongly from the people in support of their political, economic, educational, religious, and cultural leaders, with a reduction of social and organizational tensions, greater social and eco- nomic efficiency, and an increase in happiness! So, again, we will then have come full circle, as happiness is one of the reasons we form all “governments,” public and pri- vate—for Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness!
Open Societies: A Strategy for Peace in the World
The best way for people to communicate with each other is face-to-face, eyeball-to- eyeball, which is merely the counseling relationship among human beings. Everyone participates in this process whenever he or she talks (and thus counsels) with another person. Far from being merely preparation for change, “it is dynamic change occur- ring itself,” according to Howard Ellis and Ted McEachern. 76
But we face a problem in logistics. No one individual has the time or the physical capability to talk with but a few of one’s peers in any but the smallest group or orga- nization. At this stage of mankind’s technological development, the best answer seems to be to utilize new computer and scanning communication technology to “talk” to each other “symbolically” and on paper so that people in small groups of four to twelve, ideally without limitation as to numbers overall, can interact with each other. This will be an intellectual and rational experience in an on-going, problem-solving, creative-thinking, future-oriented, social-process approach. This process will be hu- manizing and self-actualizing, even meta-actualizing, and an activity bringing dignity and relevancy to people presently lost anonymously in the vastness of large organizational, religious, and societal hinterlands.
Similarly, George Soros, international financier and philanthropist, writes: Collective decisions cannot be based on the dictates of reason; yet we can- not do without collective decisions. We need the rule of law exactly be- cause we cannot be sure what is right and wrong. We need institutions that recognize their own fallibility and provide a mechanism for correct- ing their own mistakes …. Why should we accept open society as an ideal?
The answer should be obvious by now. We cannot live as isolated indi- viduals. As market participants, we serve our self-interest, but it does not serve our self-interest to be nothing but market participants. We need to be concerned with the society in which we live, and when it comes to
collective decisions we ought to be guided by the interests of society as a whole rather than our narrow self-interest. The aggregation of narrow self-interests through the market mechanism brings unintended adverse consequences … [p. 96].
Democracy is supposed to provide a mechanism for making collective decisions that serve the best interests of the community. It is meant to achieve the same objective for collective decision-making as the market mechanism does for individual decision-making
… [p. 200].
We need a worldwide alliance of democratic countries that cooperates in promoting the principles of open society. [p. 232] 77
We wholeheartedly agree.
As human beings exercise and use their greatest human capacity, their ability to think, against the foils of real organizational and societal problems by personally par- ticipating in the clarification of the Zeitgeist, they will learn. This is done through the dynamics of the Socratic Method, the Theory of Learning. At the same time in the process, persons participating in this counseling process become “new persons,” psy- chologically speaking, and contribute to their own happiness, to improved morale, esprit de corps, individual and thus community mental health. In effect, the process is therapeutic and leads to peace—it leads to peace of mind for the individual partici- pating, the final sanctuary for every person. If an individual can somehow capture a little peace of mind in his or her own daily routine, the world isn’t all that hostile.
A Theory of Civilization
It is in the task of civilization building as a citizen that each person in the world finds his or her true identity as a social being. “Civilization is fundamentally spiritual, not material.”78 And the spiritual destiny of humankind is unity and love for each other!
When we talk of civilization building we mean the dynamic, historical processes of human innovation and social evolution organized to improve the survivability of the hu-
man race and the success of the human species through its enlightened organizations and institutions.
Author Jaideep Singh argues that: “An enlightened organization is characterized by spiritual mission, unified intentionality, egalitarian hierarchy, situational leadership, har- monious teams, relational validation, self-determined self-actualization, entrepreneurial thrust, dynamic equilibrium, and symphonic fusion—the last attribute implying the rhyth- mic orchestration of all the above characteristics into the organizational way of life.” 79
In our work-a-day world we are born, we are young, we are a student, we are a homemaker, we are employed or unemployed, or we are retired. Everyone partici- pates and goes through these phases. But that constitutes our work-a-day world, which is a kind of “play” world in which we each play these roles. Before we enter that world, though, everyone is born into the “real” world as a citizen of the world, and has a task from birth until death. That task is civilization building!
We can be unemployed in the work-a-day world, but we can never be unem- ployed in our role as a citizen of the world. So, each of us—every last one of the now six billion people on this planet—is never truly unemployed or retired in the real sense of the word. Because from the day we are born to the day we die, we all have a singular, ongoing, inescapable responsibility: make civilization better!
Down through history, every individual has faced six questions: “Who am I?”
“Where did I come from?” “What is my role in life?” “Where do I fit in?”
“Where am I going?” “Where do I want to go?”
We believe that as humanity emerges from the Second Millennium, these six may turn out to have been the most important questions of the 20th Century. They are all spiritual questions. And of the six, the last—Where do I want to go?—implies the reciprocal question, How can I get there ? which may turn out to be the organizational question of the Third Millennium for society itself in its quest for civilization.
So, according to our theory, it is in the task of civilization building as a citizen that each person in the world can find his or her true identity as a social being. This work, hopefully, will continue to take place within the theory of civilization that we are working to develop in the Forum Foundation and the Stuart C. Dodd Institute for Social Innovation here in Seattle and in Portland, Maine.80 It is our hope that our readers will apply civilization theory imaginatively in their lives!
Zeitgeist Communication and Many-To-Many Communication technology (how to communicate) based on administrative and civilization theory from Section One (why we should communicate), will be the subject of Section Two, Technology Build- ing, which follows.