Stage Theory as Sequence, but not Progression/ Vince

This may only appeal to a few of us on the blog (sorry if that’s not you!). And it may just be a vain attempt to rehabilitate a paradigm that will always be imperfect because it’s just a paradigm, BUT… maybe it’ll be helpful, so what the heck?

I’ve been reading Miroslav Volf’s Exclusion & Embrace, which aside from being brilliant and challenging and practical and amazing is also an excellent tutorial on Premodernism, Modernism, and Postmodernism. One voice Volf brings into play is pre-WWII modernist Norbert Elias. Volf paraphrases Elias’ logic of the “civilizing” process:

“The more people are interdependent, the less spontaneous they can be, and the less spontaneous they are, the less aggressive they will be because their behavior will be regulated by a plethora of rules and regulations. The state now has a monopoly on the violence with which people previously fought for their positions in society. A ‘continuous, uniform pressure is exerted on individual life by the physical violence stored behind the scenes of everyday life,’ which diminishes unpredictable physical violence. As a result, [Elias] argued, modern societies are more peaceful and therefore more civilized than premodern ones.”

Volf is quick to point out the obvious irony: A state monopoly on violence does not necessarily mean a reduction in violence, just a reduction in a certain type of violence: the spontaneous, overtly aggressive type characteristic of chaotic premodern society. He writes, “One may have good reasons to prefer the ‘civilized’ violence of nation states to the ‘uncivilized’ violence of ‘tribal’ wars with its massacres and the rule of terror, but one should not mistake it for nonviolence.”

All of this got me thinking about Stage Theory and, specifically, some of the dissatisfaction with it as a “progression” that arose when, on this blog, the stages were applied to an understanding of history. One can interpret in the above history (the move from the premodern era to the modern era) a move from what we understand here as Stage 1 to what we understand here as Stage 2, signaling there is some accuracy to the sequence of Stage Theory. But Volf (helpfully to my mind) corrects the false notion that this sequencing necessarily means progress, even as one stage may be preferred to another.

Maybe Stage 4 is the only stage that really stands apart, and Stage 1, Stage 2, and Stage 3 are all on the same level – just different manifestations of the same unmet need for connection with God. They play out very differently but the first three stages are all systems of self-reliance and each inevitably leads to its own brand of aggression and dissatisfaction. Only Stage 4 is truly God-reliant and leads to actually getting our needs met. Maybe as we go through Stage Theory’s sequence we’re not so much getting nearer to Stage 4 as we are exhausting the options that are not Stage 4.

Comments

[Peter Benedict]

E&E is such a fantastic work, and its treatment of post-modernism is the most helpful I've read.

Regarding your last paragraph: Does Stage 4 require a relationship with God? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the stages. You seem to be implying, or I'm overinterpreting, that anyone in Stage 4 is relying on God. Does Peck assert this? Does the Dalai Lama count as God-reliant (I think not?) but Stage 4 (I think so?)?

I haven't seen the stages as a reflection of relationship to God; I've viewed them more as a reflection of relationship to other people. Perhaps I've got something to learn by applying them vertically.

[Vinceation]

Ohh, good thoughts, Peter. From a 'horizantal' perspective that removes my personal bias toward connection with God, maybe it could be said that Stage 4 is the only 'non-exclusively-self-reliant' place, which seems self-evidently a desirable thing.

[Paul]

Having listened to some of the most recent discussion at the Blue Ocean event here in MN and some "concerns" with perhaps the inadvertent "ranking" of stages as a progression up to the "best", Stage 4, where God resides exclussively; I thought that given the liklihood that each of us has parts of the different stages in us at times, depending on which aspect of our lives one looks at.

First, it may help to see God, Jesus and the Spirit in the more universal descriptors of Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier that can be applied more universally and inclussively to a number of faith walks and thus, eliminating the inclination to put God together in only Stage 4 as the prizze.

Secondly, during the talks, I was thinking that, if indeed, our lives have a little of each stage in us at different times, maybe it's better to look at the four stages in a circle, much like the Enneagram, especially since it, like the Enneagram, is alot about relating and not meant to necessarily always be seen on an ascending scale.

[Vinceation]

All great thoughts, Paul. Thanks.
I agree: as applied to individuals, Stage Theory is most helpful when we recognize we have many different parts to us all at different stages.
As applied to history in general though, I remain compelled and stumped at the same time by the apparent accuracy of Stage Theory's sequencing.

[Peter Benedict]

Vince, I'm intrigued by your comment regarding sequencing. I feel like I see a good number of people go from Stage 2 to Stage 4 directly, which leads me to wonder if Stage 3 is more "advanced" than Stage 2, or if perhaps it's a lateral move.

My own history included little Stage 2 and a good long trip through Stage 3, but it seems to me that a good number of people can skip the 3rd.

Have you seen anything like this?

[Doug]

I don't know about skipping stage 3 altogether, but I do think someone can be shepherded through stage 3 without manifesting some of the worst features of it.

For example, some of the rebellious energy that teenagers typically show could be, in my opinion, anticipated by parents and intentionally guided into increased personal responsibility, which is what rebelliousness may actually be seeking.

And I imagine that talking openly and regularly about taboo topics might help diffuse any sort of glamor or secrecy they might hold.

And of course there's the whole thing that parents do to try to make their kids just like them, which can backfire!

So, just some things I've been thinking about this past year. Don't know if there's any merit to it, but I have often wondered if the worst of the stages can be mitigated while promoting progress toward stage 4.

[Vinceation]

In the day-to-day, I think most people (including myself) usually default to either Stage 2 or Stage 3 depending on various factors, but if they're fostering a soft enough heart that doesn't keep them pinned down by their defaults can often operate out of Stage 4. In the cases of the people who more naturally look Stage 2, I suppose it can seem like "skipping" Stage 3.

In a more general sense though (not day-to-day decisions, but a more bird's eye view of health and maturity), the people I know who most consistently operate from a Stage 4 place have all gone through periods that they themselves interpret as stretching past their former boundaries to then find rest and trust in what's bigger than them on the other side.
The key is the self-interpretation piece. It's not just that I see that they went through a period that I characterize a certain way, it's that they narrate for me their journeys to the ends of themselves.