CONSTRUCTIVE POSTMODERNISM
When I was first introduced to the meme “constructive postmodernism” in the early 1990s, there were two men whose work had created and most clearly informed this concept in the United States: David Ray Griffin and John B. Cobb Jr. Both were powerfully influenced by the work of Alfred North Whitehead, and starting in 1973 they initiated and led the Center for Process Studies at the Claremont School of Theology, which was physically adjacent to the Claremont colleges in Claremont CA but is an independent institution.
“Constructive postmodernism” was an explicit response to the 1980s postmodernist movement in the academy that asserted that all meaning was arbitrary and that, as Ken Wilber argued, “…all knowledge is nothing but a fabricated social construction driven only by power…hence there is nothing universal in (or held in common by) any values at all; this leads straight to axiological nihilism: there are no believable, real values anywhere.” While I disagree with Wilber about his over-generalizations about affiliative/postmodern consciousness (which I will explore in a future essay), this characterization is accurate in describing the most simplistic and zealous form of the affiliative/postmodern stage of consciousness. And this is what Griffin, Cobb, and colleagues reacted against.
“Constructive postmodernism is a philosophical and intellectual movement that emerged in response to the critiques and challenges posed by postmodern thought. While postmodernism often deconstructs traditional concepts and institutions, constructive postmodernism seeks to move beyond mere deconstruction by offering constructive solutions and frameworks for addressing contemporary issues.
1. Critique and Deconstruction: Like traditional postmodernism, constructive postmodernism engages in critique and deconstruction of dominant narratives, power structures, and meta-narratives. It questions the stability of truth claims, challenges hierarchical structures, and exposes the limitations of language and representation.
2. Reconstruction and Affirmation: Unlike traditional postmodernism, constructive postmodernism goes beyond deconstruction by advocating for the reconstruction and affirmation of new narratives, values, and practices. It seeks to offer constructive alternatives and frameworks that address social, political, and cultural challenges.
3. Pluralism and Diversity: Constructive postmodernism embraces pluralism and celebrates diversity. It recognizes the multiplicity of perspectives, experiences, and identities, and advocates for inclusivity and tolerance in social and cultural discourse.
4. Pragmatism and Engagement: Constructive postmodernism emphasizes pragmatism and practical engagement with real-world issues. It encourages dialogue, collaboration, and action aimed at addressing social injustices, environmental concerns, and other pressing global challenges.
“Overall, constructive postmodernism seeks to reconcile the insights of postmodern critique with a constructive orientation towards creating a more just, equitable, and sustainable world.” ChatGPT4
In 2014 I attended a conference at the Claremont Colleges that sought both to bring more attention to and interest in constructive postmodernism and to honor John Cobb. More than 1100 folks attended, as far as I could tell almost all academics. Many of the people I met described themselves as “Whiteheadians”—that is, greatly engaged with and influenced by the process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead—and Cobb and Griffin were perhaps the most distinguished Whiteheadians. Others identified their motivation for participation as respect for Cobb’s work in particular and, to some extent, Griffin. (Griffin’s identity was complicated by his activities as a “9/11 truther” during the previous decade, publishing many books on the topic. “Griffin claims that 9/11 was a ‘false flag’ attack perpetrated by the Bush administration to incite Americans into combat in the Middle East and allow a number of personal freedoms to be sacrificed to the government in the form of the Patriot Act.”)
What I learned at this conference was that John Cobb had devoted considerable energy and time over the previous two decades to engaging with academics and local and regional government officials in China, a number of whom had adopted constructive postmodernism as a practical guide and renamed it “ecological civilization.” Both Cobb and the several Chinese academic and civic leaders who spoke at the conference described specific projects underway in China within the auspices of this concept, including school and university curricula and civic infrastructure. I cannot find data about these projects online today except for the Sunshine Ecovillage Project, which is both an ecovillage and an organization promoting ecovillages in China.
In 2019 Xinhua, a Chinese news agency, published a story by Tan Jingjing: “China has been committed to a sustainable development path and has taken the lead in global ecological civilization efforts, said U.S. ecological philosopher John Cobb, Jr. in a recent interview with Xinhua. ‘No other country has adopted a goal of ecological civilization like China did, and no other country has taken a similar kind of effect,’ said Cobb, a 93-year-old member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. ‘That's tremendous leadership in itself,’ he said. ‘China is taking the goal of ecological civilization seriously, not only in words, but also in real actions,’ he said. The theory of the Communist Party of China (CPC) on an ecological civilization has been constantly enriched and improved since the 18th CPC National Congress in late 2012. ‘China is taking the goal of ecological civilization seriously, not only in words, but also in real actions,’ Cobb said.”
At the 2014 conference the projects that Chinese speakers described—renewable electric generation for villages, local organic food production, ecological education in schools—all sounded realistic.
David Ray Griffin died in 2022. John Cobb is now 99 years old. The Center for Process Studies (CPD) that they founded and led for decades has now moved its office to St. Paul’s United Methodist Church in Milwaukie, OR. Its website notes: “CPS is the hub of a global network of more than 10,000 educators, visionaries, and activists committed to promoting holistic thinking that advances social, spiritual, and environmental wellbeing. With more than 45 process centers and nonprofits around the world, led by scholars on 6 continents, our recent programs have engaged more than 12 million people worldwide.”
While I am not a Whitehead scholar by any means, I’ve read enough of his work to see that he was centered in integral consciousness. So was John Cobb and, at times, David Ray Griffin. The attributes of constructive postmodernism are similar to those of integral consciousness. In 2014 I did meet a few folks at the conference who were knowledgeable about adult consciousness stage models. But the session I offered about “Integral Consciousness and Human Development” attracted only six participants, and there were no other sessions offered in the conference that listed “integral” or any other related terms.
The significant attendance at the 2014 conference and the ongoing work of Center for Process Studies give evidence to the existence of a constructive postmodernism movement of some sort “on six continents.” At the same time, despite the limitations of the Integral Institute that Ken Wilber founded, Wilber’s work and that of others such as Jeremy Johnson, Steve McIntosh, and Sean Esbjörn-Hargens as well as events such as the California Institute of Integral Studies 2023 “150 Years of Sri Aurobindo: The Pioneer of Integral Consciousness” and the 2023 “Integral European Conference: Planetary Awakening 2.0” confirm the existence of an integral consciousness movement. Yet it seems that these two movements had not connected in 2014 nor do they seem to have done so now. This is truly unfortunate.
The CPD website cites The China Project: “…founded in 1998 to promote the study and application of process thought by Chinese scholars and to enhance mutual understanding between Chinese and Western cultures. The China Project believes that process thought opens the possibility of combining Chinese and Western cultures and integrating premodern, modern, and postmodern insights from both Western and Eastern thinkers.” The site lists 36 “allied centers” in China, for example, Beijing Center 1 (Philosophy, Beijing Normal University);
Wuhan Center for Process (Philosophy, Huazhong University of Science and Technology); Xian Center (Process Philosophy, Xian Jiaotong University); Yancheng Center (Education, Yancheng Normal University); Suzhou Center (Sustainable Urbanization, Soochow University); Zhanjiang Center (Education, Zhanjiang Normal College). The descriptive language for the missions of these centers includes “constructive postmodern,” “process,” “ecological civilization,” and “organic Marxism.”
“…integrating premodern, modern, and postmodern insights from both Western and Eastern thinkers” is certainly one essential aspect of integral consciousness.
I can find no information online in English about what these centers in Chinese universities are doing. The 18th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party in 2012 did indeed make “ecological civilization” one of the country's five national development goals. But a great deal has changed in China since 2012, as Xi Jinping has constrained the capitalist energies and structures that created China’s wealth and technologies—mental/modernism—and promoted a regression into mythic/conformist/traditional consciousness (the communist state with authoritarian elements) and mythic/warrior/egocentric consciousness (the police state with totalitarian elements). Even so, in 2019, Arthur Hanson, a Distinguished Fellow, International Institute for Sustainable Development, published a report for the Asian Development Bank that asserted the following:
“Ecological civilization is a set of values and development concepts enshrined in the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 2018, and now a key driver in the country’s transition to high quality development for the ‘New Era.’ It is simultaneously a philosophy, vision, and compass for a green and prosperous future. In an unprecedented fashion, this phrase links the primacy of ecological factors to other development elements.
“Perhaps it takes a 5,000 year-old civilization to credibly introduce a new one to the world. The PRC draws upon ancient philosophy for ecological civilization. This includes beliefs about people living in harmony with nature as explained by Taoism founder, Lao Tze and others such as Zhuangzi and Xianlin Ji. These philosopher-writers placed emphasis on deep value systems and human dependence on nature. By contrast, many other historical transitions in the world have featured situations where people “conquered nature”, especially during the evolution of agricultural to industrial civilizations. Ecological civilization fits among the creative ideas of post-industrial and post-modern situations.
“Domestic actions for green development, green finance, green economy, circular economy, low-carbon economy, ecological redlining, ecological restoration and construction, green urbanization, climate change mitigation and adaptation, sustainable development, and the “War on Pollution” are prominent examples of shifts and investments toward ecological civilization already well underway. Sectors such as transportation, water, energy, mining, industry, tourism, parks and nature reserves, public health, and education, have created national, provincial, and local ecological civilization goals and plans.”
On paper ecological civilization is a truly integral commitment, integrating mythic/conformist/traditional, mental/modernist, and affiliative/postmodern. It offers a national aspiration far beyond that of any nation in the industrial West. How real is it? I have no idea.
Xi Jinping believes that China can have mental/modernist wealth and technology with a hybrid of mythic/conformist/traditional and mythic/warrior/egocentric governance, although he is now aggressively retreating away from the mental/modernist stage. He is correct in perceiving that mental/modernism inevitably threatens his power. I contend that given the number of mental/modernists in China—and the number of affiliative/postmodernists that will emerge from the next generation—Chinese Communism will shatter. Perhaps the government that emerges from the inevitable chaos will truly be committed to “ecological civilization.” I’ll write more about this in a future essay.