On examining the schemas of a number of developmental psychologists, it is interesting to note an approximate correspondence between their stages and the sequence of the six axes of the Outward arc. For example, Maslow's needs hierarchy moves from pure physiological survival needs (Aries), to a satisfaction orientation (Taurus), apparently skipping our 3/9 phase but identifying a safety orientation followed by the need for love, affection and belongingness (clearly Cancer), to self-esteem (Leo) and to self-actualization (Leo-Virgo). Piaget's cognitive unfoldings move from the sensorimotor stage (Aries), to preoperational (Aries/Taurus) to concrete operational (Taurus/Gemini) to formal operational cognition—Gemini through Leo.
Jane Loevinger (1976) describes a presocial stage and an Impulsive Stage where “the child’s own impulses help him to affirm his separate identity." This clearly corresponds to our Aries. This is followed by a Self-Protective stage during which “the first step towards self control of impulses is taken when the child learns to anticipate immediate, short-term rewards and punishments.” Here is an early phase of the Taurus stage. “An older child or adult who remains here may become opportunistic...what one person gains, someone else has to lose. There is a more or less opportunistic hedonism. Work is perceived as onerous. The good life is the easy life with lots of money and nice things.” This is a perfect description of the lesser meaning of the second principle as it manifests through arrested development.
Next comes the Conformist Stage where “the child starts to identify his own welfare with that of the group, usually his family for the small child and the peer group for an older child.” One of the traditional meanings of the third house is siblings and one of the qualities of Gemini is comradeship. Here one “obeys the rules just because they are the group-accepted rules, not primarily because he fears punishment.” Learning the more complex systems of rules is very much a third principle meaning. What Loevinger is describing touches more on the transition from Taurus to Gemini than Gemini per se; but she describes what for her is a transitional stage from the conformist to the next stage, the Conscientious stage (our 4th pr/Cancer) which she calls the Self Aware level. Here is “an increase in self-awareness and the appreciation of multiple possibilities in situations.” “Perception of alternatives and exceptions paves the way for the true conceptual complexity of the next stage.” This is more recognizable as our third principle (Gemini). At the Conscientious Stage, the major elements of an adult conscience are present. She writes: “Where the Self-Protective person obeys rules in order to avoid getting into trouble and the Conformist obeys rules because the group sanctions them, the Conscientious person evaluates and chooses the rules for himself....A rich and differentiated inner life characterizes the Conscientious person”. This is clearly suggestive of the Cancerian fourth principle.
In the transition from the Conscientious to the next Autonomous stage, Loevinger describes an individualistic level concerned with the differentiation of the inner and outer life—the movement from Cancer to Leo. The Autonomous stage is marked by a respect for autonomy and “some freeing of the person from oppressive demands of conscience in the preceding stage” yet at the same time recognizing "the limitations to autonomy, that emotional interdependence is inevitable.” Here we see the autonomous Leo reaching out to the other, the “self in social context.” “Self-fulfillment becomes a frequent goal, partly supplanting achievement.” Beyond the Autonomous stage Loevinger describes an Integrated stage which is rarely reached but best described in terms of Maslow’s Self-Actualizing person.
Most interesting is the model of Robert Kegan who describes an impulsive phase (following an incorporative stage 0)—our Aries—where "if the child's perception of the object changes, the object itself has changed." "Impulse control requires mediation". "When I am subject to my impulses, their nonexpression raises an ultimate threat." In Stage 2, the Imperial balance, "I no longer am my needs...rather, I have them. In having them I can now coordinate, or integrate, one need system with another." This is clearly our Taurus or 2/8 stage (possessions) which Kegan maintains corresponds to Piaget's Concrete Operational and Loevinger's Opportunistic stage.
In stage 3, the Interpersonal balance. "The self becomes conversational." Here is a new sense of the interpersonal but "there is no self independent of the context of 'other people liking'....this balance lacks the self-coherence from space to space that is taken as the hallmark of 'identity'." This balance is 'interpersonal' but it is not 'intimate' for "there is no self to share with another; instead the other is required to bring the self into being.... A person in stage 3 is not good with anger, and may, in fact, not even be angry in any number of situations which might be expected to make a person angry." Astrologers will recognize a resonance with certain qualities of the third principle Geminian personality here: a restless search for clear definition and selfhood, a compulsive largely conversational sociability yet a lack of capacity for real intimacy, a deft avoidance of being 'pinned down' and an avoidance of direct confrontation and the expression of anger. According to Kegan, this stage corresponds to Piaget’s early formal operational stage and in our terms marks the gradual emergence, or ground, of the not-yet-stabilized mental-ego ending the early temporary solidity of the body-ego stage (which is our 2/8 phase, Kegan’s Imperial stage 2 and Piaget’s concrete operational phase).
Stage 4, ‘the Institutional balance’, “brings inside those conflicts between shared spaces which were formerly externalized. This makes stage 4’s emotional life a matter of holding both sides of a feeling simultaneously...but what is more central, perhaps, to the interior change between the interpersonal and the institutional, is the way the latter is regulative of its feelings.” “The institutional balance does not leave one bereft of interpersonal relationships, but it does appropriate them to the new context of their place in the maintenance of a personal self-system.” “Emotional life in the institutional balance seems to be more internally controlled...Regulation, rather than mutuality itself, is now ultimate.” Here we can recognize a strong fourth house or Cancerian flavour (internal control and regulation of feelings) and in that it also “requires the recognition of a group...to come into being,” we get a strong correspondence with the 4/10 individual/society axis.
In Kegan’s explanation of Stage 5, the Interindividual Balance, we get a remarkable description of the 5/11 or Leo/Aquarius phase: With stage 5, “the institutional is ordered by that new self which is taken as prior to the institutional.” Kegan identifies this as identical with Kohlberg’s moral stage 5 (see below) “by which he [Kohlberg] refers to that dislodging by which the self is no longer subject to the societal.” “No longer is ‘the just’ derived from the legal, but the legal from a broader concept of the just.” “The capacity to coordinate the institutional permits one to join others ...as individuals—people who are known ultimately in relation to their actual or potential recognition of themselves and others as value-originating, system-generating, history-making individuals. The community is for the first time a ‘universal’ one in that all persons, by virtue of their being persons, are eligible for membership.” There could not be a more apt description of the Aquarian eleventh principle in integral relation to an optimum Leo fifth principle than this statement. He continues, “When the self is located not in the institutional but in the coordinating of the institutional, one’s own and others, the interior life gets ‘freed up’ (or ‘broken open’) within oneself, and with others; this new dynamism, flow, or play results from the capacity of the new self to move back and forth between psychic systems within itself.” Here is obviously the self moving out from the space of Cancer into the dynamic, playful and expressive space of Leo.
One of the most interesting psychological models identifying a series of universal structures emerging in a hierarchical sequence is the moral developmental model of the psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg. Kohlberg's basic contention is that moral judgements, rather than solely culturally relative conventions, are actually grounded in deep structures of consciousness evolving from primal/instinctual to more sophisticated self-reflexive mental levels. Moral reasoning and behaviour can be properly evaluated only relative to the structure out of which such behaviour and reasoning grows and has its meaning. Such a framework, like the perennial philosophy itself, allows us to clearly identify certain moral values as trans-culturally constituted at a 'higher' level than others. Just as we have demonstrated the correspondence of the Outward arc of our model with the developmental stages of Wilber, Washburn and others, we can also demonstrate a fit between our categories and those of Kohlberg in such a way as to reveal the switching of polarity at the N/M stage. Of further interest is that Kohlberg's model has been subject to a feminist critique out of which has come an enriched understanding of the essentially polar nature of all deep archetypal structures of consciousness playing out most centrally as social and psychological gender dynamics.
In the firmly established tradition of patriarchal psychology, Kohlberg's results were based exclusively on cross-cultural longitudinal studies of males, but were later modified by the findings of Carol Gilligan who researched the complementary feminine perspective which Kohlberg had left out of the picture. The central emphasis which Kohlberg placed on principles and rights in moral reasoning was later balanced by Gilligan's emphasis on care and responsibilities. Referring to women’s observed capacity for intimacy, relationships and care, Gilligan (1982) writes:
[B]ecause that knowledge in women has been considered ‘intuitive’ or ‘instinctive,’ a function of anatomy coupled with destiny, psychologists have neglected to describe its development. In my research, I have found that women’s moral development centers on the elaboration of that knowledge and thus delineates a critical line of psychological development in the lives of both of the sexes…When one begins with the study of women and derives developmental constructs from their lives, the outline of a moral conception different from that described by Freud, Piaget, or Kohlberg begins to emerge and informs a different description of development. In this conception, the moral problem arises from conflicting responsibilities rather than from competing rights and requires for its resolution a mode of thinking that is contextual and narrative rather than formal and abstract….[T]here seems to be a line of development missing from current depictions of adult development, a failure to describe the progression of relationships toward a maturity of interdependence. Though the truth of separation is recognized in most developmental texts, the reality of continuing connection is lost or relegated to the background where the figures of women appear. (pp.17,19,155).
Our model naturally demonstrates and integrates both these different lines of development, both these perspectives—rights and responsibilities, principles and care. First we'll look at Kohlberg's main stages, then go on to integrate them with Gilligan's general findings in terms of our mandalic model.
Kohlberg describes six main stages and levels of normal moral development which he divides into three general categories: the Preconventional level, the Conventional level, and the Postconventional or Principled level. These roughly correspond to Wilber's pre-mental egoic stage, the 'early' and 'middle' mental-egoic, and the 'mature' egoic and 'centauric' levels respectively. It is necessary to point out that an individual may be older and more cognitively advanced than his or her moral stage. For example, although Stage 1 properly corresponds to infancy, some older children and even some adults although not cognitively retarded, could be operating morally at this earlier level.
At Kohlberg's stage 1, the Stage of Punishment and Obedience, the person's (normally the infant) moral behaviour is entirely 'egocentric,' acting from impulse and desire, and cognitively unequipped to consider the interests or point of view of others. Concern is with physical, but not psychological, consequences. What is 'right' is to avoid breaking rules and to obey for obedience's sake, responding only to the threat of punishment and to the superior power of authorities. The authority's perspective is confused with one's own; which is to say that the self and the dyad are not yet distinct. This is clearly the primal level of our instinctual and impulsive first principle (Aries) in relation to the direct 'parental authority' of the tribe and its group pressure (Libra-7th principle) prior to any larger system of societal or parental embodiment of that system at the tenth principle (the tenth signifying the authority parent in relation to the child at the later conventional or mental-egoic level).
At stage 2, the Stage of Individual Instrumental Purpose and Exchange, the 'right' is serving one's own or other's needs and making fair deals in terms of concrete exchange. There is an emerging sense of other people's interests and a need for 'fairness,' defined on the material and concrete level. Here one separates one's own interests clearly from those of authorities and others. The person integrates or relates conflicting individual interests to one another through instrumental exchange of services, through instrumental need for the other and the other's goodwill, or through fairness giving each person the same amount. The 'instrumental hedonism' of this stage clearly corresponds to our second principle (second house as one's possessions) denoting the increasing differentiation and relationship of the body-ego and its concrete possessions (2nd) to the 'other' in terms of mutual exchange (eighth house as the other’s possessions and the blending of substance). (Wilber recognizes this level as corresponding with his image-body (body-ego) and emergent membership stage).
Stage 3, the Stage of Mutual Interpersonal Expectations, Relationships, and Conformity, marks the emergence of the sense of role and participation in the 'rules' of the social game. One becomes concerned with playing one's role according to the expectations of close others. (Wilber connects this "good boy/nice girl" level with his early egoic/personic stage). The reason for doing 'good' is to be good in one's own eyes and in the eyes of others. Here, a rational grasping of the 'golden rule' occurs as one becomes able to mentally imagine oneself in the shoes of the other. Despite the development of logic, language and role, (third principle) and the capacity to begin to be objective to one's own point of view, there is, as yet, no sense of a generalized system or containing perspective (a Geminian condition for sure). This is clearly the roots of the mental-ego which is our third principle or 3rd/9th axis. 'True morality', as we normally think of it, presupposes a conscious participation in society, connecting with others as distinct individuals, once the capacity for cognitive abstraction (beyond the directly concrete level) has developed, allowing one to take the other's point of view. In this sense, the 1st/7th and 2nd/8th developmental stages can be considered pre-moral, with the 3rd/9th corresponding to the development of genuine agency (will) and choice. The truly moral takes us beyond self interest and the cosmocentric perspective; consequently, the ninth principle, logically, becomes the 'ground' of 'true morality' (ninth house meaning as ethics). There is here, a beginning of a shift of identification of the 'moral self' to the second hemisphere, at the ninth principle level.
At stage 4, the Stage of Social System and Conscience Maintenance, the right is doing one's duty in society, upholding the social order, and maintaining the welfare of society or the group. The person takes the viewpoint of the system which defines the rules and roles while individual relationships take a place within this system which must be upheld. The reasons for 'doing right' are to keep the institutions going, to uphold the social order through duty and conscience. Here is clearly the 4th/10th axis, but now the centre of emphasis, in terms of conscious identification, has clearly switched to the second hemisphere, namely the tenth principle. The fourth principle individual is now determined by, and functional within the tenth principle social institutional matrix and the identification with this matrix. Here is the formation of the super-ego and what we earlier referred to, abstractly, as the switch from first hemispheric centrality to second hemispheric identification—a 'switching of the poles' at stage 4/10. While the first three stages are mapped primarily from the point of view of the first, second, and third principles, from now on, Kohlberg's male-biased stages are understood from the point of view of the tenth, eleventh and twelfth principles. (Ken Wilber connects this stage with his Middle egoic/personic stage-level).
In the course of normal development, many people do not get beyond the conventional stage of moral reasoning and behaviour. A child may have cognitively advanced to 4/10, say, but not yet be operating at 4/10 in terms of moral behaviour. Or a person may arrive at this 4/10 moral level after adolescence. So the ensuing cycles of experience that constitute such a person's adult life would be pictured as near horizontal cycles within this level of the vertical band. But optimally, in adolescence, where Piaget's formal operational thinking has developed within a relatively healthy family and societal constellation, a person is ready to advance to the Postconventional level.
At the beginning of stage 5, the Stage of Prior Rights and Social Contract or Utility, Kohlberg has identified a transitional stage where one comes to question the very ground of societal law and order, its very legitimation. This may lead to a rather adolescent and relativistic attitude to values which Kohlberg had first explained as a regression to egocentric pre-conventional behaviour. However, he later found that it constituted a post conventional, but not yet principled stage (he called it Stage 4 1/2). In this transitional stage, a stronger sense of individuality compels the individual to experience him/herself as a decision maker standing outside of the conventional societal order where one picks and chooses his or her obligations. Astrologers will recognize this as an adolescent level of the rebellious eleventh principle reflecting a fifth principle self-centered mode of self. But the more mature meaning of the eleventh principle is reflected in Kohlberg's Stage 5 commitment to the social contract, formed from agreements among free individuals which legitimize the concrete laws of the group—quintessentially Aquarian/eleventh house.
Here we move from the law-maintaining perspective of stage 4 (10th principle) to a law-creating perspective of stage 5 (11th principle). "The Stage 5 notion of democracy is one of procedural mechanisms ensuring representations of individuals or pluralistic minorities and making law or society attractive to all its members....The social contract doctrine not only answers the critical awareness of the conflict between rational self-interest and social law, but also answers the problem of the relativity of laws and mores. Law is nonarbitrary when it accords with constitutional procedures that a rational person could accept without prior cultural values or conditioning." (Kohlberg 1984, p154,157). Social obligations are commitments to others and to the group freely entered into. Thus a variety of values and interests can be freely brought together under an overarching social agreement, the main principle being that of the Utilitarian (Enlightenment) principle—"the greatest good for the greatest number." Beyond the relativity of needs and values lies certain values which transcend majority (democratic) opinion; namely, the universal human rights of freedom, dignity, the pursuit of happiness etc. Clearly, here we see the nobility and free decisional power of the fifth principle self within the highest universal moral structures of eleventh principle society.
Stage 6 is called The Stage of Universal Ethical Principles. Wilber matches this Stage with his mature ego and centaur which in our model is at once the most mature level of the 5th/11th axis and the transition to 6th/12th axis. Here the person comes to morally act upon the basis of universal ethical principles—the equality of human rights, respect for the dignity of human beings as individuals. Such constitutes the foundation of all particular laws, social agreements, and social contracts. We can recognize here a sense of true responsibility in the sixth principle sense. Above all, human life is seen as sacred (12th principle implying a universal human value of respect for the individual).
Since Kohlberg arrived at his general categories by studying males exclusively, they carry an 'androcentric bias' whereby they are set up as the standard against which all people—those of both genders—are to be evaluated. He had originally devised a test consisting of a particular moral dilemma. The dilemma was that the wife of a man named Heinz depended for her life on receiving a particularly expensive drug which Heinz could not afford. The question asked was, "Should Heinz steal the drug, and what reason would one give to justify one's answer? Those judged the most 'morally mature' (i.e. those evaluated as operating at Stage 6) generally answered that he should steal the drug. The usual reason given was that the right to life generally trumped the right to property. But when Carol Gilligan gave a number of women the same test that was originally given to the men, the results showed that the most mature women were morally less mature than the men. Rather than stepping back from the situation and making objective judgements according to a hierarchical set of principles, the women showed a concern with the relational and contextual nuances, with communication and conflict resolution, looking for other ways of solving the problem than immediately resorting to theft. This approach was seen by Gilligan as characterizing a 'different voice', a difference that while gender- related is not necessarily gender specific and, most importantly, certainly does not constitute an inferior mode of moral deliberation.
Gilligan cites a case where different responses are given by eleven years olds ‘Jake’ and ‘Amy’ to the question, "When responsibility to oneself and responsibility to others conflict, how should one choose?" She writes:
To Jake, responsibility means not doing what he wants because he is thinking of others; to Amy, it means doing what others are counting on her to do regardless of what she herself wants. Both children are concerned with avoiding hurt but construe the problem in different ways — he seeing hurt to arise from the expression of aggression, she from a failure of response.
If the trajectory of development were drawn through either of these children's responses, it would trace a correspondingly different path. For Jake, development would entail coming to see the other as equal to the self and the discovery that equality provides a way of making connection safe. For Amy, development would follow the inclusion of herself in an expanding network of connection and the discovery that separation can be protective and need not entail isolation. In view of these different paths of development and particularly of the different ways in which the experiences of separation and connection are aligned with the voice of the self, the representation of the boy's development as the single line of adolescent growth for both sexes creates a continual problem when it comes to interpreting the development of the girl. (p.38-39).
According to a number of feminist researchers there is an increasing consensus that the feminine perspective represents a missing dimension from the earlier male centered developmental research of Piaget, Erikson, Kohlberg et al; a complementary and cognitively equivalent mode of experience. This has come to be termed the perspective of care and responsibility, now needing to take its rightful place alongside the justice and rights perspective which had constituted the primary moral orientation of Western culture since the Greeks. Briefly, the 'rights' and principles orientation is common to those who define themselves as separate and autonomous whereas the responsibility and care orientation is more central to those whose conceptions of self are rooted in a sense of connection and relatedness to others.
Again, in Gilligan's words:
Whereas the rights conception of morality that informs Kohlberg's principled level (stages five and six) is geared to arriving at an objectively fair or just resolution to moral dilemmas upon which all rational persons could agree, the responsibility conception focuses instead on the limitations of any particular resolution and describes the conflicts that remain.
Thus it becomes clear why a morality of rights and noninterference may appear frightening to women in its potential justification of indifference and unconcern. At the same time, it becomes clear why, from a male perspective, a morality of responsibility appears inconclusive and diffuse, given its insistent contextual relativism. Women's moral judgments thus elucidate the pattern observed in the description of the developmental differences between the sexes, but they also provide an alternative conception of maturity by which these differences can be assessed and their implications traced. The psychology of women has consistently been described as distinctive in its greater orientation toward relationships and interdependence implies a more contextual mode of judgment and a different moral understanding. Given the differences in women's conceptions of self and morality, women bring to the life cycle a different point of view and order human experience in terms of different priorities." (pp.21,22)
I believe these different but complementary perspectives can similarly be seen as different manifestations of the 5th/11th stage-level. As the Aquarian archetype clearly includes the concepts of justice, rights and responsibilities, when understood as primarily resonant to the responsive/connected seventh principle, the responsibility orientation within the eleventh principle dimension is brought out. But when understood as primarily resonant to the assertive/separative first principle, the rights orientation within the eleventh principle dimension is brought out. We shall follow this line further after taking a look at the work of Belenky et al and then the transpersonal model of Jenny Wade.
Belenky et al
A highly respected study of the cognitive and moral experience of 135 women, by Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule will enrich our understanding of the play of archetypal bi-polar principles and gender in terms of the astrological model. In Women's Ways of Knowing, Belenky et al (1986) identify five major epistemological and moral categories which, though not claimed to be invariantly precise or sequential, incorporate and relate to earlier studies by William Perry, Lawrence Kohlberg, Carol Gilligan and Nona Lyons. They identify five broad categories; (1) Silence, (2) Received knowledge, (3) Subjective knowledge, (4) Procedural knowledge and (5) Constructed knowledge.
(1) Silence. In general, being socially, economically and educationally deprived, women of the first category Silence, 'have no voice'; they have not yet developed the capacity for abstract thought or language capable of understanding others or articulating their own point of view. Hence, they live in a world of simple 'either/or' polarities (good or bad, win or lose) and of obedience to authorities (i.e. men). Most interestingly, in their social fusion and in their complete lack of agency, these women could be seen as manifesting the seventh principle end of the original 1st/7th predifferentiated level corresponding to the (predominantly) male Arian 'egocentric' phase.
(2) Received knowledge. At this phase, women's mode of thought is concrete and dualistic. "Sharp dichotomies and intolerance of ambiguity mark the moral thinking, as well as thinking in general of the received knowers. A person is a leader or a follower...a speaker or a listener....Thinking that everything must be either/or, the received knowers assume that in times of conflict between self and others, they must choose one or the other but not both. Women worry that if they were to develop their powers it would be at the expense of others." (p46) Here we see the awakening duality at the 2nd/8th stage and the dichotomy of mine and yours and the struggle over resources—also the eighth principle issue of power. But instead of taking a second principle stand over against the 'other' at the eighth, these women deliberately refrain from taking any such divisive stand.
This phase corresponds to Perry's dualistic stage. There is, however, an interesting difference between Perry's dualistic men and the women at this conventional stage. The men easily aligned themselves with the authorities, dichotomizing "the familiar world of Authority-right-we as against the alien world of illegitimate-wrong-others" (p.43). In contrast, the women tended to adopt a stance of 'authority-right-they' since the 'authority-right-we' was quite alien to them despite the fact that they tended to look to authority for the right answers. But women at this level will feel comfortable with self advancement if they feel that by doing so they will be helping others. "For these women it is the act of giving rather than receiving that leads them to a greater sense of their capacity for knowing and loving." (p.47)
Women at the 'received knowledge' phase are able to understand and take in what others have to say but remain in the listening mode without the confidence to speak for themselves. Beyond 2/8, the 3/9 communication dynamic is operative here where these women tend to choose the responding listener mode rather than the talker mode. At this level the world is commonly divided into two domains—speaking and listening, where the men do the speaking and the women do the listening. "Women typically approach adulthood with the understanding that the care and empowerment of others is central to their life's work. Through listening and responding, they draw out the voices and minds of those they help to raise up. In the process, they often come to hear, value and strengthen their own voices and minds as well." (p.48). But because these women believe that knowledge derives from outside themselves, they come to look to others even to gain self knowledge. Consequently, they "organize their attempts at self-definition around the social expectations that define concrete social and occupational roles..." (p.50) We see in these first three phases of the astrological model that women are more identified with the third quadrant perspective and less identified with the first than are men.
It is from this third quadrant perspective that the female will come to switch directly to the stance of the second quadrant, specifically,the fourth principle which is 'other' to the tenth principle authority. As the male principally combines the viewpoints of 1 (Aries) and 10 (Capricorn) by identifying with authority, the female combines 7(Libra) and 4 (Cancer), in obedience to, but as separate from male authority (10).
(3) Subjective knowledge. As women come to question male authority, they begin to assert themselves and gain a voice by coming to listen more to the inner voice; truth becomes what can be personally known or intuited giving value and attention to what is private and inner (decisively the fourth principle.). Here we see a more individually empowered consolidation of the archetypal shift of the feminine from the third quadrant to the second quadrant perspective; the counterpart of the masculine 'shift' from the first quadrant to the fourth quadrant. But such gender identifications must still be conceived within the larger archetypal dynamics of the two hemispheres as the interplay of individual and collective, thus not contradicting the centrality of fourth principle subjective interiority as the foundation of the mental-ego for both genders. This Subjective phase has been identified by Erikson, Kohlberg, and Piaget as the adolescent's movement from authority without to authority within, though the female move toward such autonomy cannot be tied to any specific age. But more interestingly, womens' movement from conventional definitions to independence is seen as "another step toward understanding and truth that emphasizes not autonomy and independence of judgment but a joining of minds." (p.55)
This movement toward a relativistic understanding of truth produces a transfer of trust to one's own opinions and experiences. The males at Perry's multiplist stage (corresponding to this stage) now try to wrest power away from authorities "somewhat like the Freudian disposal of the fathers by the primal horde." (p.64) "The form that multiplicity (subjectivism) takes in these women, however, is not at all the masculine assertion that 'I have a right to my opinion'; rather, it is the modest, inoffensive statement, 'It's just my opinion.' Their intent is to communicate to others the limits, not the power, of their own opinions, perhaps because they want to preserve their attachment to others, not dislodge them." (p.66) "Subjectivist women recognize that others may disagree with them but seem to be less concerned than men in persuading others to their point of view." (p.70)
Sometimes women at this stage would be extremely assertive, rejecting authority and such male establishment views as science—in this way, they were similar to what Perry called 'oppositional multiplists.' But they were not as outspoken as the corresponding males. "Even when the women held strongly to their own way of doing things, they remained concerned about not hurting the feelings of their opponents by openly expressing dissent." (p.84). Belenky et al report that what was most distinctive about subjectivist women was their "very embeddedness in human relationships and their alertness to the details of everyday life. Subjectivist women value what they see and hear around them and begin to feel a need to understand the people with whom they live and who impinge on their lives." (p.85,86) So here we see the inward movement of the fourth opening up into the self-based and self-defining confidence of the fifth. Here (the 4th and 5th) is a more deeply explored inner selfhood over against the more shallow yet egoically strong and collectively (Q4) sanctioned fifth principle self, reflecting the Romantic and Enlightenment divisions.
(4) Procedural knowledge. But the development of the subjectivist viewpoint led to a conflict between the external objective authority (10th) and the inner voice (4th). The way out of this dilemma was not to revert to passively following authority but to make a developmental breakthrough to a perspective of reason—the eleventh principle. Here is the realization that there is a cognitive space larger than the battle between subjective and objective truth. Enlightened teachers who offer a procedural knowledge do not judge a person on her opinions but on the terms and procedures by which she arrived at them thus teaching a new language. From this perspective, gut reactions and intuitions are not always reliable necessitating a conscious deliberate and systematic analysis and observation. Not only what people think, but how they form their opinions is what matters. We see here women operating and being judged in a male centered world (11th) by male criteria.
But there are two distinct forms of procedural knowledge which Belenky et al identify: understanding implies personal acquaintance with an object; knowledge implies separation from the object and mastery over it. In understanding, the emphasis is on connection and coming to know how the other thinks—hence, connected knowing. In knowledge, one seeks to know the right techniques and objective procedures—hence, separate knowing. Separate knowing has been the male mode studied by Piaget, Kohlberg and Perry. As the opposite of subjective knowing, separate knowing distrusts not only authority but also one's own subjective experience, choosing to dispassionately follow strictly impersonal procedures to arrive at truth while decrying personal feelings and beliefs—obviously a strong male identification with the eleventh principle. But in some women, such disinterest can be carried so far that they come to experience an "absence of interest, anomie and monotony." (p.110) They experience alienation because they no longer feel a personal involvement in the pursuit of knowledge, whereas connected knowers were attached to the objects they sought to understand because they cared about them. Such an extreme identification with the eleventh principle in women tears them away forcefully from their previous stance in the subjectively experienced and caring fourth principle.
At the heart of connected knowing is the capacity for empathy. "Since knowledge comes from experience, the only way they can hope to understand another person's ideas is to try to share the experience that has led the person to form the idea. (p.113)...insofar as possible, they must act as connected rather than separate selves, seeing the other not in their own terms but in the other's terms....Elbow (1973) calls this procedure the 'believing game'...while women frequently do experience doubting as a game, believing feels real to them, perhaps because it is founded on genuine care and because it promises to reveal the kind of truth they value—truth that is personal, particular, and grounded in first hand experience." (p.113) So separate knowers learn through formal instruction while connected knowers learn through empathy. But both modes, as forms of procedural knowledge, seek to accomodate to the shape of the object rather than assimilating the object to the shape of the knower's mind—i.e. "connected knowers seek to understand other people's ideas in the other people's terms rather than in their own terms." (p.124)
It is interesting here to see the different facets of the eleventh principle depending on whether women remain in a more integrative contact with the second quadrant. The group context varies between connected and separate knowers. "Connected-knowing groups are collaborative explorations."(p.119) Mutual criticisms are accepted because of shared similar experiences. "Separate knowers try to subtract the personality of the perceiver from the perception, because they see personality as slanting the perception or adding 'noise' that must be filtered out (11th minus 5th.). Connected knowers see personality as adding to the perception, and so the personality of each member of the group enriches the group's understanding." (p.119) (11th plus 5th.). But women at this stage feel that they have swung from utterly selfless to utterly selfish. "Procedural knowers feel like chameleons; they cannot help but take on the color of any structure they inhabit." (p.129). There is indeed a need to come to integrate thinking and the now lost dimension of feeling.
So we see here a further development of the rational/objectivity, or logically disinterested dimension, of the eleventh principle. This is the way maturing women take a step beyond the still dualistic tendencies of the 5th/11th axis. Some do it by identifying more vigorously with the impersonal perspective of the separate knower (the 11th over against the 5th). We certainly see in this combination of separate and connected procedural knowers a beautiful explication of the complex nature of the Aquarian eleventh principle. Some choose the more connected mode which brings out the community aspects of the eleventh principle carrying both the imprint of the connected seventh and the personal feeling dimension of the fourth. Corresponding to this movement, the male movement at this stage should ideally be more toward the community/contextual and responsibility orientation of the eleventh going beyond the argumentative and exclusively rights orientation, except that such a movement can, historically speaking, only really happen at this point in history, after the collective development of feminist perspectives has broken the patriarchal hold.
(5) Constructed knowledge. At the level of subjective knowledge, women turned inward away from outward authority in search of an as yet amorphous self where they had to ignore other voices in order to pay attention to the self. At the level of constructed knowing, following the procedural embrace of outer systems, women turn back toward the self (second quadrant.) that had become ignored. There is now an effort to reclaim the self, to integrate what they had rationally learned with the feelings and intuitions which had in the process become marginalized. They are then, in our terms, being described as attempting to integrate the second and fourth quadrants. "They told of weaving together the strands of rational and emotive thought and of integrating objective and subjective knowing." (p.134) There is now a greater tolerance for internal contradiction, ambiguity and conflict, and the truth is seen as contextual, complex, and intricately nuanced. "Unlike procedural knowers, who remain subservient to disciplines and systems, constructivists move beyond systems to their own service." (p.140) There is now a passionately participatory approach to knowledge, truth is a co-creation, where they are now able to weave "their passions and intellectual life into some recognizable whole." (p.141)
There is also a new capacity for listening in such a way which does not block the woman from hearing her own voice. "The capacity for speaking with and listening to others while simultaneously speaking with and listening to the self is an achievement that allows a conversation to open between constructivists and the world." (p.145). So when faced with the moral conflict inherent in the hypothetical Heinz question, mature women responded with constructivist questions which showed a sensitivity to situation and context resisting premature generalization about what they would or what should be done. Everyone's needs and the practicalities of life are to be taken into account. Such question posing and an attitude of care is at the heart of Gilligan's responsibility orientation rarely taken into account in the rights approach. "The constructivists' conviction that they must care and develop 'an affinity for the world and the people in it' drives the formation of commitments and eventual action. (p.150) Astrologically, this category clearly corresponds to the multidimensional, post-modern constructivist, synthesizing and integrating level of the 6th/12th axis, combining male and female, autonomous and connected dimensions.
Another transpersonal and developmental model of consciousness is that of Jenny Wade. Unlike Wilber and Washburn's models but like Grof's, Wade begins with a prenatal structure of consciousness and concludes with an account of the after-death state with an impressively scholarly reference to a vast store of relevant theory and research. Rather than rooting her model in either the perennialist Great Chain or in the neo-Jungian framework, she presents a holonomic model drawing on the work of the theoretical physicist and thinker, David Bohm. Including and going beyond the pre-natal state and its particular mode of transcendent consciousness, she explicates a series of states or structures which generally correspond with the model which we have mapped with reference to both Wilber and Washburn's developmental syntheses. States she refers to as the Reactive, Naive, and Egocentric modes of consciousness refer respectively to our 1/7, to the transition from 1/7 to 2/8, and to the transition from 2/8 to 3/9. Without doing adequate justice to Wade's complex characterization of each mode of conciousness, these stage-level I states can be briefly described: The Reactive state refers to the largely predifferentiated and embedded state of infancy in the first few months characterized by minimal cognitive structure. In the Naive state there is still the permeable boundary and the simple present but various differentiations are emerging including the body-self image. Awareness of death is not yet present. The Egocentric mode marks a dawning awareness of death, the development of concrete operational thought, still little impulse control, a consciousness of inside and outside in relation to one's own body-self. Others may be feared and needing to be defended against or manipulated.
Following the Egocentric stage is Wade's Conformist stage which clearly corresponds to our 4/10 phase (rooted in 3/9 developments). She describes this latter stage as "institutional, conventional, traditional, and conformist" in which "socialization results from the expression of the superego with its internalization of parental messages and repression." (p.117) For our purposes here, it is the two stages following the Conformist stage-structure which are of interest; namely, a marked, largely gender related bifurcation which she refers to as Achievement Consciousness and Affilative consciousness.1 Although this stage is the first level where Wade identifies any such gender related polarity, our model clearly implies that such an obvious bi-furcation at the post-conventional stage has its roots in previous differentiations such as the male's identification with authority and the women's obedience to it; and even earlier as we have traced it through the first and third quadrants.
Wade equates the distinction cited by Belenky et al between separate knowing and connected knowing (at procedural stage 4 following the conformist/subjective stage 3) with her achievement and affiliative modes. Describing the achievement mode, she writes:
The achievement-oriented person not only judges himself and his performance relative to others, he is very concerned about his public image. He is no longer embedded in the social roles and rules of Conformist consciousness; nevertheless, he remains in a dialectic with the social system, needing to 'win' in accepted ways. Maslow's Self-Esteem motivation is a more positive statement of these dynamics. It subsumes two interdependent drives: the need for high self evaluation... confidence... achievement, adequacy, competence...and the need for others' esteem in the form of reputation, prestige...recognition, attention...dignity... (p.137)
A clearer description of the fifth principle (Leo) in relation to the social eleventh surely could not be found. Confirming Wade's 'achievement stage' as our 5th/11th stage (p.139), she writes: "Achievement consciousness is the source of the fixed material reality and reified dualism of Newtonianism, and its concomitant empiricism and positivism. Kohlberg provides an excellent example of this kind of separate, rational thought in his Prior Rights and Social Contract stage." (i.e. Kohlberg's Stage 5). The affiliative orientation is the complementary mode of the 5th/11th axis. In the Affiliative consciousness there is a general notion of equality where differences are superficial, conflict threatening, consensus the highest value, relationships more important than outcomes; but such an awareness does not constitute a more developed level than achievement awareness. Although the achievement stage has been given priority by the male gender biased studies, Wade maintains that the affilliative orientation is an alternative at the same level of development.
[G]ender appears to make a substantial difference in world view after the Conformist stage. Data derived from male subjects tend to support the idea that the stage following Conformism concerns independent achievement via the manipulation of an externally perceived world of objects, as reflected in Kohlberg's, Piaget's, and Perry's work. Data derived from females, on the other hand, support the emergence of a socially connected orientation related to sustaining an interpersonal world of relationships, as shown in Loevinger's and the Belenky et al. research. (p.132)
From an intuitive and holistic orientation, there is here, an openeness to the transcendent perspective (vis a vis New Age subjects) though "no compelling evidence to suggest that they have any greater spontaneous access to a transcendent source of consciousness than people functioning at other levels of awareness up to this point." (p.156) Wade maintains that the affiliative mode is linked to the right hemisphere of the brain. Its "break from the limbic system is not as complete... Affect, particularly within the context of interpersonal relationships, is an important motivator in Affiliative awareness." (p.147). There is a bias against right-brain processing which has created and perpetuated a confusion between Naive and Affiliative consciousness, and also a bias for as in the humanistic perspective of Fromm, Rogers and Bugenthal who tend to idealize the 'naive's' need for relationship as altruism. "Affiliative consciousness is not all sweetness and light, however. Turning now to what may be considered drawbacks of right-brain processing; affiliative people often do not perceive inharmonious elements indicative of negative emotions and difference, particularly anger...They avoid conflict and confrontation....more prone to deny problems, hold in hostility, and develop an appeasing 'peace at any price' approach to personal conflict." (p.153)
I believe that the achievement and affiliative modes are polar complements where both paths move closer together within the next and higher level stage; namely, Wilber's Centauric, Wade's Authentic, or Belenky et al's Constructivist stage. So as Wade puts it, "Authentic consciousness requires access to the nondominant hemisphere, but not exchanging one hemisphere's orientation for the other's." (p.157) "...the paradigmatic issues for each of these levels can be resolved by the solution represented by the other stage." (p.157) Clearly, Wade is evoking the growth perspective of the oppositional dynamic.
So in astrological terms, achievement consciousness is centered in a fifth principle confident ego in service to eleventh principle collective performance and rational objectivity. But this is informed paradigmatically by a fourth quadrant objectivity over against second quadrant subjectivity and interior depth. On the other hand, Affiliative consciousness is centered in eleventh principle anti-authoritarian connectiveness grounded in a subjective/intuitive fifth principle. Achievement consciousness is divisive whereas affiliative consciousness connects across the quadrants—but both facets can come into balance only by the highest levels of the 6/12 phase.
1. Wilber disagrees that these are at the same level— betraying the noncentrality of the polar dialectic in his model despite his holonic structure.
Continue to Chapter 12