The Evolving Self - Author Assumptions?
In 1990, Mihaly Csiksentmihalyi authored Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. In short, the author claims the path to inner happiness and peace can be found through intentionally increasing “flow� or optimal experiences in one’s life (Flow 6). The author defines flow as “ the state in which people are so involved in an activity that nothing else seems to matter; the experience itself is so enjoyable that people will do it even at great cost, for the sheer sake of doing it� (4). The book was, and still is, a huge success.
Published in 1993, The Evolving Self: A Psychology for the Third Millennium is a logical ‘evolution’ of thought for Csiksentmihalyi. The author moves forward from the inner self’s quest for personal happiness and asks the reader to reflect on his/her responsibility, through everyday actions that (along with larger social institutions) will sustain and encourage positive evolutionary actions (Evolving Self 5). This premise advances Flow, in that by seeking a deeper understanding of where life on earth is going, the reader will uncover a clearer sense of meaning in their life, by way of the common good, through positive actions they take in their own life (Evolving Self 8).
The author starts with a look at the end of the first millennium as a way to help the reader understand the present evolutionary state of the world. He recounts that the people of Europe held a strong spiritual belief that the end of the world was at hand with the coming of the new millennium. The rich had disposed of their material belongings in the belief that an act of faith could bring them to a renewed state of grace with God and assure them entrance to heaven (10). The author points out that our ancestors held two principles: 1) they had a collective set of values (grounded in spirituality) and 2) this collective view gave them a “consoling sense of destiny, a feeling of self-assurance� (10). In other words, they were guaranteed a spot in heaven.
Csiksentmihalyi takes from this that the “basic beliefs of an age have an impact on the future of the people who hold them� (11). He compares the two first millennium principles to the third millennium and concludes that: 1) Our lack of a common set of values and beliefs will bring about entropy and decay unless we come together as active participants in positively affecting the evolutionary process. 2) We are not helpless in affecting our destiny, our future. Our own inventiveness brought us to this place of global warming, depletion of the rain forest and holes in the ozone layer (11). Our creativity and inventiveness can find solutions to alter destiny and find our way out of this seemingly inevitable evolutionary disintegration.
Like the first of Kouzes and Posner’s ten commitments of leadership, Csikzentmihalyi claims that positive evolutionary change starts with clarifying and establishing values as a community. He states that “What happens in the third millennium depends on what is in human consciousness now: on the ideas you and I believe in, the values we endorse, the actions we take� (11).
Grounded in professional credibility, the author further pursues change by connecting all of us to a common purpose, the shared vision (Kouzes and Posner 17) of developing the self to support evolution for the common good (24). The author implores a sense of urgency (Kotter 88) by asserting that “whether life will continue on this world now depends on us� (24). To enlist readers embedded in a society of ‘taking care of number one’ (13-14) and resigned to a fatalistic attitude of ‘there’s nothing I can do’ (13), Csiksentmihalyi dangles the carrot of a life of personal happiness and meaning to the collective who take action (11).
I looked forward to this reading as I had read, and completely enjoyed, two other Csiksentmihalyi books (Flow and Creativity). However, my memory of the author’s tone was shaken in this reading. As I read this week, I encountered statements that sounded like assumptions by the author. “The only value that all human beings can readily share is the continuation of life on earth. In this one goal all individual self-interests are united" (19). Aren’t suicide bombers honored, revered and promised a better life in the ever after than they now have on earth? Doesn’t the Taliban have a selective view of who should continue life on earth? (Please correct my ‘mainstream media informed assumptions’ if this is incorrect.)
“Religious fundamentalists and adamant materialists alike are not seeking the kind of knowledge that will be explored in these pages, because they are already comfortable in their own beliefs� (9) What if I was a religious fundamentalist? Would I now have an argument to present to Professor Crosby that I don’t need to do the reading? What if I had a curious mind and wanted to read this – does the author have a bias against me?
Csiksentmihalyi also states, “At this point our brain is programmed by genes to “take care of Number One,� …(19) Really? More so at this point, than say a thousand years ago? Are we still cavemen and women? Programmed by genes? Tell me more. I know that Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy states the need for individual survival at it’s base, but this seems too convenient. Is the author considering the countless number of people who have climbed Maslow’s ladder and ‘do for others’ daily? The parent who gives their life for the safety of their child? Individuals who truly are self-actualized and function for the common good or at least a measure of it – families, social circles etc.? I'm not saying 'we' can't be selfish at times, but I don’t think we’re all cavemen either.
I agree with the authors’ desire for change and with his thesis for the book but, he seems to make a lot of ‘this is the only truth’ kind of statements. In reading unsubstantiated claims as a form of evidence, I found myself stumbling on the points he was trying to make, even if his conclusions did sound logical.
Liz Kuivinen
Comments
Please format your posts in block formatting. Otherwise, they do not display correctly.
No indenting paragraphs! Empty lines separate paragraphs!
Posted by: Graham Lampa | February 17, 2008 01:31 PM
Thanks Graham.
Posted by: liz kuivinen | February 17, 2008 07:02 PM
I agree with Liz in saying that the author was a bit presumptuous in his explanation of the evolution of human beings. Assuming that everyone believes that humans evolved from "a tiny shrew who kept stealing dinosaurs' eggs" (p.10) while being a prominent theory takes away the power of his argument about social evolution.
What the author was commenting on, in his round about way, I believe is about social evolution. Or what we may call change or innovation in regard to our class. The author talks about how the development of tools and fire revolutionized our world. One could argue the same about computers and the internet. The real question being are we as a society willing to evolve and innovate our perspectives for the better good of human kind.
I think a clear indicator of that question is the current green movement. What once was toted as a liberal lie in the media is now recognised, even by the president of the US, as a fact. Global warming is a reality, now what are we as a global community going to do about it. How will we evolve our social beliefs to evolve and adapt to our changing environment.
Liz brought up great points about the "me philosphy" touted in this reading. The only change I would suggest in response to this article would be to change the "me" of evolution to the "we" of evolution.
Posted by: Bryan Schachtele | February 19, 2008 08:39 AM