In an interview for Myriades 1, an Argentinian cultural magazine, Ken discusses some concrete examples of integral thought as it applies to real life issues. He is asked: "Is war, dictatorship, ecological destruction, and other contemporary issues related to the excessively masculine structure of society?" In other words, does the future salvation of the human race require a woman's touch?

Who:  Gaspar Segafredo, Editor-in-Chief of Myriades 1, an Argentinean cultural magazine with an integral approach.

Summary: Ken begins by talking about some of the general dynamics of the masculine and feminine impulses, as they relate to specific aspects of the integral model. There are essentially four main drives for every sentient being in the universe: on the one hand there are the drives toward agency (self-preservation) and toward communion (relationship), both notable masculine and feminine characteristics, respectively. We can think of these as "horizontal drives," in that they describe how beings operate with other beings on the same level. There are also the two "vertical drives" of self-transcendence (Eros) and self-embrace (Agape), which are also often seen as masculine and feminine drives. Historically, there has indeed been a general emphasis upon agency and Eros in the overall structure of society, with a significant lack of the more feminine qualities of communion and Agape. And of course, we would ideally like to have a proper balance between both masculine and feminine dynamics, across the board.

However, it's not as easy as just getting more women into the government before these feminine qualities begin to be more fully integrated into society. Although women are generally more associated with the feminine, many women are primarily masculine in nature. Some are simply more comfortable with masculine characteristics, and have been their entire lives, while others have been forced to sacrifice their femininity to the hyper-masculine climate of business and politics. Either way, what we need is not something like a 50/50 quota system to get more women into positions of power, but to collectively redefine these positions of power so they include the feminine characteristics of communion and embrace, and we can then begin electing people who fit this new vision of leadership.

Gaspar then asks Ken if communism was perhaps an attempt to honor the more feminine characteristics of communal living, but failed due to a primarily masculine implementation. Here Ken reintroduces the concept of structures of consciousness, which in Jean Gebser's terms ranges from archaic, to magic, to mythic, to rational, to postmodern, to integral, and beyond—each stage transcending and including the previous ones, spiraling upwards all the way to the bleeding edge of evolution. Alongside these stages of consciousness are different modes of techno-economic production, including foraging, horticultural, agrarian, industrial, and informational. What happened, Ken explains, was that Marx was essentially trying to create a postmodern system of governance—one that was pluralistic at its core—but the system was being introduced to societies with a largely pre-industrial agrarian base, which could not support the lofty ideals that Marx had intended. It was an idea a full two stages before its time, and was thus doomed to failure, having been turned into the absolutistic fundamentalism that typically defines agrarian-stage consciousness.

Ken and Gaspar continue to discuss a few other topics, including the shift from individualistic to more communal impulses and the rise and fall of postmodernism in the 20th century. All in all, this is an absolutely wonderful interview, ideal for long-time integral students and newcomers alike, and we invite you to enjoy!

For Ken's wonderfully personal introduction to the development of his own integral vision for the modern world, be sure to check out Part 1.