Engage & Participate

Online Exercises

Quick Test: Are You Post-Progressive?

Are You A Developmentalist?
Take the Test

Take a 2-minute test of your political developmentalism, and see your “transcendence and inclusion score.”

This simple test asks you to select your level of agreement or disagreement with twelve political statements. The test results will indicate your inclusivity score, your transcendence score, and the overall extent of your developmental perspective.

Worldview Questionnaire

Worldview Questionnaire

What is your worldview? Take this 7-minute test and find out which “values frame” describes you best.

By answering these 17 questions you may learn more about your own worldview, as well as about the worldviews of others.

Character Development Exercise

Character Development Exercise

Become a better person through this brief exercise in character development—create your personal portrait of the good.

Answer 10 questions to create a personalized chart of what matters most to you. This chart—your Portrait of the Good—will be sent to your email address as a pdf file.

Community Comment

“I am grateful for the post-progressive way of thinking. It was totally new to me, and now that I have been exposed to it, I think it is the way forward. It is the future. If there is a way out of this terrible culture war, I think it will be something along these lines. I love the idea of taking the best of the different worldviews and bringing them together into a more inclusive post-progressive worldview. This is a brilliant approach, and I am going to try to share it with as many people who are willing to listen to me as possible.”

– Lucas Chasin

Community Comment

“Progressivism doesn’t work without a foundation of modernism and traditionalism. Post-Progressivism allows modernists and traditionalists to feel significant, to feel needed, and to have a foundational seat at the table. The reason I don’t identify as a progressive, even though I am a vegan, spiritual, conscious, burning man guy, is because I feel its rejection of these previous worldviews …”

– Thomas Waterman

Load More...
Comments Box SVG iconsUsed for the like, share, comment, and reaction icons
4 days ago
Josh Leonard

I am only about 1/3 of the way in, but Fukuyama’s new book is probably the most proto-developmentalist artifact I have ever encountered from someone not exposed to explicitly developmental perspectives. His understanding of political value polarities is remarkable. ... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

So glad to hear!!!! Emerging insights...🙏

I'm loving it, too. And agree.

Bookmarked.-

I am heartened and not all too surprised to hear this. I suspect that his end of history thesis was largely misread as Whig history, merely modernist, but I already thought it was more complex than that

I'll join shortly. But I am not surprised by this developmental respect if you perceive. Fukuyama has written on political development and decay; and he is most famous for his work that draws on Hegel and Kojeve. And I suggest that Hegel is nothing if not developmental.

I have gone so far as to read this review of it, in the Washington Post, by the excellent reviewer Carlos Lozado. He is also reviewing The Age of the Strongman, the essay is titled: "Authoritarianism is surging. Can liberal democracy fight back?" I would suggest that the project of Developmental Politics is in fact dedicated to this cause, or should be. Lozado: "Francis Fukuyama restates the case for liberalism even as he considers its critics on the nationalist right, who despise its cultural and secularist manifestations, and on the progressive left, who abhor its economic inequalities and its privileging of individual over group identities. “The answer to these discontents is not to abandon liberalism as such,” Fukuyama argues, “but to moderate it.” Fukuyama freely acknowledges the “legitimate criticisms” of liberalism from right and left, but still contends that the benefits flowing from liberal values — reduced violence, enhanced personal autonomy and economic growth — are worth the price. Besides, he asks, “what superior principle and form of government should replace liberalism?”" The answer is China's model. Or as I said in a reply to Amiel Hanlesman, the modern-center is not holding. And, just to tie this together with a question, while getting near the end of Ray Dalio's excellent book: "Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order," He dedicates the greatest number of pages to the rise of China. In reading it I am struck with a number of important observations, leading to a question for Integralists/Developmentalists/SD Wizards. The observation is that China has a 4,000 year history vs 400 for the current global hegemon, the USA. The US and the West think tactically, with short-termism vs the Chinese who think strategically with Strategic and Long Term planning, with metrics to monitor their societies progress. Their primary influences are Confucious and Marx, not the Bible and western philosophers, who they do read. So here is the question - Given this long sweep of societal history in China, has Integral Theory, Spiral Dynamics, or the notion of evolutionary/developmental theory made its way into China? If not, why not? Shouldn't it? Or stated another way, in participating in these groups on FB, I see nobody from China participating, perhaps I've missed it. www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/05/13/fukuyama-rachman/

Here's another great review of both Fukuyama's book and Mounk's...more DP awareness supporting Jeff's belief that "we will muddle through." www.nytimes.com/2022/05/13/books/review/francis-fukuyama-liberalism-and-its-discontents-yascha-mo...

Fukuyama fans (and for the Fukuyama-curious) will be delighted to know that he was a just-posted interview on Vox that's quite good. If you're looking for an encapsulation of his arguments in his new book that Josh Leonard enthused about, here's a great place to get it. megaphone.link/VMP2884732339

View more comments

2 days ago

I'm curious as to what you all might think is the best approach to addressing things like literal white supremacy, hate crimes, and the like. I understand the motivation to make condemnatory statements about it (especially if there are politicians using talking points resonant with or promoting that), but I don't see how that really addresses the problem in a deep and comprehensive way. I find myself completely puzzled as to how, for instance, wielding signs that say things like "Stop Asian hate" actually do anything. I greatly admire Daryl Davis's work with white supremacists yet recognize people of his capacity and desire to address this directly and relationally are few and far between. ( www.pbs.org/independentlens/documentaries/accidental-courtesy/) I wonder a lot about how to help people navigate difference and change, what sorts of systems or structures might better help groups of people with different worldviews and cultures coexist and thrive. ... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

Great question and I will share my view as long as you understand it is only my view. People change when they change and it is a long internal process. ( Here is the non-popular part ). I have found working on your own mess and development far more helpful in the long run. As my teacher often said, " mind your own business." That being said you are probably much more cleaned up than myself, plus I tend to be a hermit recluse monk so I should probably mind my own business. Ha.🙏🙏.

I resonate with your words Deborah. I feel deep anger and frustration over how our current systems continue to do nothing when faced with the kind of atrocity as the Buffalo mass murderer and his own political grooming. And I wonder if developmental politics is impotent in this matter? How does integral theory respond to atrocity?

I think the simple protest/speaking out against hate has its place, it can draw attention to the underlying problem, it can challenge our complacency, it can alert representatives that their constituents care about an issue, it can galvanize solidarity in a collective struggle for justice. But, protest alone will never be enough to effect lasting change. From my limited perspective, here is the multifaceted approach I think we need to reduce this particular kind of hate crime: 1)Challenge the toxic ideology, and offer something better. The fact that Tucker Carlson has been fear-mongering white-supremacist rhetoric like Great Replacement Theory to millions of viewers, pulling it into the Overton window perhaps, is a real problem. The fact that there seems to be no way of holding Fox News accountable for spreading lies and false conspiracy theories is a problem, and just one example of the challenge of todays media landscape. I don’t know how best to do it, but the “others” that are repeatedly scapegoated by these pundits need to be humanized by other media sources that can reach the same audience. 2)Tend the wounds. I don’t think anyone latches onto such toxic ideology if they are secure in their own human dignity and value. This is a societal and individual challenge. Patriarchal norms and expectations, and emotionally stunted expressions of masculinity have severely limited boys and men from developing self reflection skills, conflict resolution skills, emotional intelligence, intimate connection with others, etc. We need a social revolution of values and widespread interpersonal support and connection. Maybe this could be implemented by increased funding/awareness for school guidance counselors, emotional health programs at churches and community centers, and better narratives in media. 3)Legislation. I can’t accept that nothing can be done to stop these tragedies. We have an absurd number of firearms in this country, and there is no single simple solution to reducing them, or keeping them out of dangerous hands, but we have to overcome the polarized debate on guns. It’s keeping meaningful action off of the table. I might come back with more thoughts later

I don't think there's any single answer, but I can think of a few very good, thought-provoking resources, which I will post below in case you're interested. First that comes to mind is: deeyah.com/blog/white-right-meeting-enemy/

I think the best thing we can do is to stop feeding into their conspiracies by suppressing the .01% of the info they are bandying around that is actually accurate. And to widen the practice of selective empathy towards all groups, as they often correctly point this phenomenon out in the media and it only deepens their ideology.

View more comments

2 days ago

Something that may or may not be developmental, but I wanted to run it by the team here anyway.
I think at this point it's critical for the Western strategists to understand that the only path to security is not some sort of reformed RF without Putin. The world's last land empire needs to disintegrate like all of its predecessors. This is also what many in Russian opposition are talking about. The way out of sanctions for RF territories is peice by piece. Those smaller components must get easy access to some sort of a Marshall Plan as soon as they have a potential for emerging. Those multiple Marshall plans will be a lot more cost-effective than dealing with another destruction, such as what we are experiencing in Ukraine in 2022.
... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

Nick Gluzdov, you raise many important questions here. I'm going to respond a bit indirectly by sharing a couple of quotes about the Marshall Plan from Tony Judt's magisterial book Post-War: "Marshall’s proposals were a clean break with past practice. To begin with, beyond certain framing conditions it was to be left to the Europeans to decide whether to take American aid and how to use it...Secondly, the assistance was to be spread across a period of years and was thus from the start a strategic programme of recovery and growth rather than a disaster fund." "But despite the initial interest shown by Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Albania, no future Communist state took part in the European Recovery Programme or received a dollar in Marshall aid...Czechoslovakia’s exclusion from the Marshall Aid programme was an economic and political catastrophe for the country. The same is true of the ‘choice’ imposed on every other country in the region, and above all, perhaps, for the Soviet Union itself. His decision to stand aside from the European Recovery Program was one of Stalin’s greatest strategic mistakes." "Without Marshall Aid it is not clear how the fuel shortages, food shortages, cotton shortages and other commodity scarcities could have been overcome at a politically acceptable price." "One might almost say that the Marshall Plan helped Europeans feel better about themselves. It helped them break decisively with a legacy of chauvinism, depression and authoritarian solutions."

Agreed. The world's last empire needs to disintegrate just like it's predecessors. That would be the US though, not Russia. What is it with the obsession to destroy Russia? This has been the goal for the last century. And if Russia is destroyed, who will step into the territory? I'll tell you, it's China. And there is no greater threat to the US than China. Russia is nothing, China will be the next technocratic superpower and China could topple the US in a matter of weeks if it chose to. And speaking as someone whiskies in a former Soviet Bloc country, the Marshall Plan was a disaster. Simply set up the region for the US global company takeover that was completed in 1990. Read the French economist Thomas Picketty. And you people need to listen to Peter Hitchens re: Russia and Ukraine. How on earth did I get on to this page?

21 hours ago
Josh Leonard

Developmental Politics is now available as an audiobook!

Check out this clip about how this new perspective can create a vision of progress that attracts the political values of traditionalists, modernists, and progressives.

Purchase the audiobook here: amzn.to/3lasWpa
... See MoreSee Less

2 days ago
Josh Leonard

Developmental Politics is now available as an audiobook! Check out this clip about the blessing and the curse of the postmodern progressive worldview. You can purchase the audiobook here: amzn.to/3lasWpa ... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

In spanish, please! 🙏

Load more

Community Comment

“I really appreciated the use of gay marriage as an example of win-win-win policy solutions because it shows how people with different approaches to political issues can still align on values. In speaking to my friends about using this value integration technique I realized that it can be helpful to use value as a verb, rather than a noun. When you look at value as a verb, as in ‘what do we all value?’, it really does become possible for traditionalists, modernists, and progressives to value a lot of the same things.”

– Scott Kirby