Mixed bag of action logics

Erfan, A. (2021). "The Many Faces of JEDI: A Developmental Exploration." Integral Review, 17:1 December.

 

The article is on the different action logics of JEDI: Justice, Equity, Diversity, Inclusion. I don't identify completely with any of them, just specific qualities from each but not all. Which of course goes with my usual notion that we are a mixed bag of levels and lines depending on context and circumstance. And that we need to syntegrate elements from each action logic without being entirely consumed or subsumed by any one of them. 

 

While the author does accept a 'center of gravity' as "a kind of weighted average of their stage of development across multiple dimensions at a specific time" (115), I appreciate the following qualifications:

 

"The linear path is, of course, a simplification of the growth process itself. In reality, the steps are not orderly or evenly distributed – one could live at an action-logic for decades (think Donald Trump, a septuagenarian Opportunist), or grow through multiple action-logics – maybe even skip one or two - over a short period of time (think Greta Thunberg, possibly a teenage Alchemist). Additionally, one’s growth may be uneven across various dimensions of life (think Pablo Picasso, Transforming as an artist, and an Opportunist in relation to the women in his life) so that each person is traversing multiple overlapping, in-synch and out-of-synch strands of development" (114-15).

 

"We can build the skill to exercise range: the ability to draw on the capacities of multiple action-logics, based on what is needed in the moment or who we are dealing with. It has been suggested that the ability to exercise range is perhaps even more important to effectiveness than one’s stage of development. By the time one arrives as Alchemist, the courageous and wise integration of earlier action-logics is perhaps the defining competency" (116).

 

"I feel this way about the action-logics: they are already here, available to each of us. [...] Each of us may find ourselves thinking, feeling, behaving and meaning-making from the archetype of the others in different circumstances. [...] The first-person voice feels appropriate because I recognize myself in all the action-logics. [...I] hope that you the reader can see yourself reflected in multiple action-logics as well" (116).