Personal Development and the State of the World.
Hello to rewilding philosophy, your newsletter on ekoPhilosophical health for our times.
Many1 of us are wary of the naval gazers, the hobby psychologists, the frequent weekend-seminar visitors, and those who don’t have a family or a regular job and spend most of their time thinking and analyzing themselves.
For many who work in the field of sustainability, inner work has become the new activism. Through changing ourselves, we change the world. So the story goes. Within my research, I have tried to empirically prove this connection, only to end up writing a research paper that argues against trying to measure everything. Yet, there is empirical evidence showing how an improved mental state makes us kinder and more resilient in the face of adversity. A now widely recognized idea is that inner transformation is a leverage for outer transformation.
“The fastest way for humanity to respond to this unsustainable situation is through cultural transformation based on personal and collective development. Evolutionary adaptation by mutation and selection will take too long. Individuals change culture and culture changes individuals.” Daniel Christian Wahl
Why Personal Development Matters
One prominent theory for why inner development is necessary for a sustainable future is Kohlberg's theory of moral development. According to Kohlberg, moral development progresses through stages, each representing a more sophisticated level of ethical reasoning and perspective-taking. These stages range from basic, self-centered reasoning at the pre-conventional level to more advanced, principled reasoning at the post-conventional level. Kohlberg argued that as individuals mature, they become capable of understanding complex moral dilemmas and develop a concern for the broader implications of their actions on society and the environment.
Similarly, Robert Kegan's argues that adults progress through stages of evolving mental complexity. Ideally, we move from a self-centered perspective to a more complex understanding of the world that incorporates multiple viewpoints and broader systems. Kegan's higher stages of development involve an increased capacity for self-reflection, empathy, and understanding interconnections. This expanded awareness leads to a greater concern for the environment and society, as we recognize our role within larger ecological and social systems.
Both - Kohlberg and Kegan - say that it’s through personal development, that we develop greater concern for others.
Why Care Matters
Yet, as Puis de la Bellacasa argues, we don’t need just concern; we need care. She states that
"care is a force distributed across a multiplicity of agencies and materials and supports our worlds as a thick mesh of relational obligation."
Concern generally refers to a feeling of interest or worry about something, indicating an awareness of issues or problems but not necessarily implying active involvement or a commitment to address them. Care, on the other hand, goes beyond mere concern. It involves a deeper, more active engagement and responsibility. Care is about taking concrete actions to support, maintain, or improve the well-being of others or the environment. It is an ethical and practical commitment to the needs and demands of what or who is being cared for.
Psychologist Carol Gilligan therefore criticized Kohlberg's theory and proposed an alternative that emphasizes relationships and care. According to her, moral development involves understanding and balancing the needs of self and others, focusing on empathy, compassion, and care. Unlike traditional ethical theories that focus on abstract principles and justice, her Ethics of Care prioritizes the context and needs of individuals involved, advocating for an understanding of moral dilemmas through the lens of relational dynamics and emotional connections. She highlights how nurturing and maintaining relationships are key, as moral actions often arise from a genuine concern for the well-being of others.
Why Both Matter
While Kohlberg and Kegan focus on improving the individual, Gilligan focuses on improving our relationships.
The different theories of change can be summarised as follows:
I think both theories of change are useful. Kohlberg/Kegan leave out the relational part, while Gilligan leaves out how we come to actually have better relationships, which - I would argue - comes through (trans)personal development. By combining the two, we get something like this:
The personal development we need cannot just be about us. As the Scottish-American philosopher Alasdair Chalmers MacIntyre said “The virtuous life is not only an individual matter.” It needs a relational foundation, which common self-help often lacks. Personal development without a critically reflected foundation leads to issues like navel-gazing, the pursuit of personal fulfillment at any cost, the conflation of personal development with economic development, and other such ailments. The recent story of self-help guru Huberman is one of many examples demonstrating that "Optimization Will Not Save You," as it was insightfully pointed out by
.“As a project deeming itself free of external and alien limitations, the I is now subjugating itself to internal limitations and self-constraints, which are taking the form of compulsive achievement and optimization… Although the achievement-subject deems itself free, in reality it is a slave. In so far as it willingly exploits itself without a master, it is an absolute slave… As the entrepreneur of its own self, the neoliberal subject has no capacity for relationships with others that might be free of purpose. Nor do entrepreneurs know what purpose-free friendship would even look like.” Byung-Chul Han
(Trans)Personal Development and Relationships
To me, (trans)personal development is what practical philosophy is about. I understand practical philosophy as a process for self-transformation grounded in an understanding beyond the self. Practical ekoPhilosophy is anchored in a relational ethico-onto-cosmo-axio-anthropo-imagaginary-epistemology* - it’s a practice (askesis) and embodiment of actually living that philosophy on a day to day basis.
Through anchoring practical philosophy in this way, we can define what "better relationships" mean. For example, if I adhere to a mechanistic philosophy where good relationships are defined by how much value I can extract (whether from natural resources or humans), the relationship looks very different compared to grounding my ideas of "good relationships" in a relational philosophy, in which I see humans and more-than-humans as equals, develop empathy for others, and view myself as part of the whole web of life. That’s why I use the prefix "eko"—to express that philosophies need to be grounded in the idea of our home, the planet, or even the cosmos.
Returning to the theory of change, practical ekoPhilosophy as a way to understand our values, beliefs, and motivations, leading to greater self- and other-awareness. As we develop a deeper understanding of ourselves as relational beings, we become more empathetic and effective in our interactions. This leads to stronger, healthier, and more meaningful relationships. With improved relationships comes a genuine sense of moral responsibility towards others. We begin to recognize our role in contributing to the well-being of our communities and the larger society. Ultimately, this sense of moral responsibility extends to a genuine care for others. We become more compassionate and committed to making a positive impact on the lives of those around us. Every single relationship begins to matter.