It's nice to be important but more important to be nice

The connection between worldview and behaviour.

Ever since I came across Integral theory in 2003, initially because it offered help in understanding the Anthroposophical Steiner-influenced world I grew up in, I have been keenly interested in the relationship between worldview, or the perspective(s) with which an individual makes reality, and the behaviour, or the actions a person makes, and the way in which they make them. This is especially peculiar in the Waldorf world, as the worldview of Steiner is at core centred around ideals of freedom, dignity and integrity, and yet my experience was of a whole host of explicit and unsaid rules, notions and value-judgements. This is greatly complicated by the very much present and genuine good intentions, and the very many truly special and wonderful things that Anthroposophy has manifested into the world.

This journey into the connection between core beliefs and behaviour has primarily been about understanding myself, but equally, this necessarily involves understanding the ‘shoulds’ by which I should compel myself to - according to others. These other could be parents, teachers, authors, public figures, leaders, ideas, notions, religious dictums, and so on.

And the journey into understanding ideas, where they come from - who they came from, how they came about - and most importantly, which assumptions about the nature of reality they are constructed upon; this is a journey into the fundamental questions about the nature of reality (ontology) and the way in which truth can be identified (epistemology) within a given ontological perspective.

On the one hand I learned to look out - to try to understand things from the perspectives from which they were seen, whether in academic terms, or more mysteriously and potently, through encountering and interacting/exchanging with other cultures, or even other life forms such as trying to think into nature-logic or spiritual dimensions to existence. One could say that this also requires a sense of wonder, and certainly of interest - interest in ways of thinking that are completely different to what we are used to and/or comfortable with.

But in order to truly understand the implications of ideas - the ‘’so what?’’, the essential in terms of what they mean in practice, when applied into life, one has to look at oneself - completely and without fear or horror of, without hiding from the shadow - the part of ourself that compels our behaviour when we’re not fully aware.
As Rudolf Steiner put it, one needs to ‘’become aware of who you are as a behaving personality, with the objectivity and soberness of a judge, in order to come to an understanding of the laws that drive human existence’ (paraphrased). One could say that in looking inwards, we need to cultivate the same kind of impartial objectivity with which we are taught to look at the world around us. Another way of saying it, is to turn the self-focused tendency to self-elevate outwards into enthusiasm for the world, and to turn the cold lens of objectivity onto the self.

When coming to know the self as a behaving personality (a full-time task) becomes a habit, together with the cultivation of warm interest in others and the world, the impulse to spend time and energy thinking about others greatly dwindles, and understanding of others - ability to communicate constructively with others - greatly increases.

What gets really interesting is the observance of patterns of behaviour in the relationship between certain behaviours, and the certain kinds of worldviews from which their compulsions and/or cognitive-dissonances spring.

It is no small challenge to attempt to highlight such issues in a way that is not judgemental in the same way that critique of the issue points towards, but it nevertheless feels very important to try to articulate insights from what has been a very longitudinal, albeit personal study of the topic of community, and organisations that set out to manifest spiritual ideals into the world. I hope the above framing suggests where these insights come from, and how the connection is made to the objective world we collectively inhabit.
I see these issues of worldview and consequent behaviour to be of paramount importance to the question of developing truly regenerative cultures, cultures that can create and sustain living situations that have a positive impact on the natural and social environments in which they are situated.

Espoused ideals and values vs actual 'theory-in-use' (as inferred from behaviour)

As hospitality professionals we get to see the unfiltered, raw survival-level aspects to people's characters, which can be seen as one way to assess the integrity of people within a culture from a movement or organisation, or of individuals one meets in daily life.
This becomes especially relevant when there are values and associated ethical notions that are presented as expectations, self-evident-truths and 'should's'.

The concept of espoused values (Argyris & Schön) refers to the principles and beliefs that individuals and/or organisations claim to uphold publicly. These values are often articulated in mission statements, promotional materials, and communal conceptualisations, stories and notions. However, a significant issue arises when there is a disconnect between these espoused values and the actual behaviours or 'theory-in-use' that are observed. This discrepancy can manifest in various ways, creating a chasm between what is professed to be of value and the evident/experienced values that are to be inferred from behaviour (or in the case of the organisation, how its leadership and staff behave in practice).

From an organisational point of view (this applies also to movements), there are major issues if there is a misalignment between what is espoused, and what is in-use as is evident in actions and behaviours. The implications of such discrepancies can be profound, impacting the overall organisational culture, employee engagement, and ultimately, the effectiveness of the organisation itself. Equally in the case of organisations or movements that uphold values as part of their core mission - values which they would like to influence the world with - this incongruence will directly undermine the very cause of value that is professed to being upheld.

It is hard to avoid the observation that so very often, groups, movements or communities that purport values of togetherness and collective adherence to ethical or spiritual principles, are populated by a significant proportion of people who's way is (in terms of the theory in use that is to be inferred from behaviour) quite frankly, self-driven.

But it is not enough, or actually self-honest to sit back and point this out - otherwise it is just plain hypocrisy. Linking back to Steiner's framing, the relevance is (for me) how these observations inform me about my nature, and the nature of the humanity I am a part of - in order to grow, and to be able to nurture growth around me.

Points to ponder

Such observations point towards mysteries to ponder rather than (yet more) judgements to make. Why is it that valuing the collective pushes towards a tendency for individualist behaviour? Is this relationship asymmetrical, in that valuing hyper-individualism doesn't lead towards collectivist behaviour in shadow (perhaps there are world-dramas that are in the process of revealing such aspects...)?

Why does holding a view that sees a dichotomy between materialism and spirituality lead to the most materialistic interpretations of spiritual philosophy?

Why do business folk who espouse anti-capitalist / socialist views so often behave more capitalistically than the capitalists (when the pressure hits)?

Why do groups espousing collective living so often display such self-driven behaviour 'in-secret'?

The perspectives within in which to seek for answers are many, from psychological and sociological framings, to lenses from ethical philosophy, from indigenous wisdom and shamanic views to nature logic and Goethean science.

I will borrow a couple of framings from integral philosophy and Steiner:
In the view of moral development there is an aspect (also reflected in other developmental trajectories) of moving from pre-conventional, through conventional, to post-conventional morality. The model highlights an often overlooked aspect: when encountering something (or a notion) that is unconventional or non-conventional, it is easy to mix up the 'pre' and 'post' manifestations. Pre-conventional individualism is basic egoism - one is motivated by carrot and stick. Pre-conventional collectivism is essentially doing good for looking good, for the benefits one might receive. Conventional morality sees one's rationale-for-action driven by dictums and laws from religions, science, authorities and ideologies. In all of these cases, one is is Steiner's sense un-free - driven either by instincts, drives and desires, or external dictums. Post-conventional morality means taking full responsibility for ones actions - neither resting in wilful ignorance (pre-conventional) or handing over responsibility to god, the state, or ideologies, but rather thinking things through as they relate to you, your actions and your conscience - a conscience that inherently sees that the route to individual salvation is through the emancipation of all.

But the subtlety of the distinction is another way of saying that shadow never goes away, and the slip into pre-conventional morality is an ever-present danger - only objective observance of behaviour (which also means openness to input/feedback from others) prevents this slip - and in the case of social impulses that are built around value of the collective, it is easy to see how slips into the morality of doing 'good' might receive a magnetic pull from ideas of the collective, and perhaps a little more difficult to see how self-interest-led behaviour is so easily masked by notions of being good and doing good.

These are challenging 'points to ponder', but it feels intuitively very significant for our times to consider the relationship between worldview and action, if we are to be part of co-creating a sustainable regenerative way of life - and especially if we wish to espouse ideals that we would compel others to take up.

Another perspective is to consider the theme of reverence - what traits inspire true reverence? For me, where I look in assessing whether to offer followership to another, whether they carry inspiring ideas or curate initiatives, is walk-talk-congruence, or integrity. Does the behaviour embody the espoused ideals, or the methods, or the vision? What does the effect of practicing what is espoused seem to have on the person in terms of how they act?

The journey into understanding where the ideas that form our rationale-for-action come from and how they were formed (and by whom), is the journey to freedom for the individual, and in my experience, only this freedom opens up the energy and resilience needed to positively and impact the world in a manner that regenerates other beings and the world around us.

If we want to 'sell' ideas to the world (and the world surely needs good ideas), then surely the best way is to be so awesome and amazing in how these ideas have inspired our own practical, day-to-day 'livety' - our own way of doing what it is we do - that others want to know our secret-sauce.