Clash of Mentalities:
Uncertainty, Creativity, and Complexity in Times of Upheaval
Alfonso Montuori
California Institute of Integral Studies
San Francisco, California
amontuori@ciis.edu
Montuori, A. (2014). Un choc des mentalities: Incertitude, crativit et complexit en
temps de crise. (A clash of mentalities. Uncertainty, creativity and complexity in a time
of crisis. Communications. 95(2), 179-198.
Why Uncertainty?
Uncertainty: Its been an intrinsic part of human existence for as long as human
beings have walked the earth. At the beginning of the 21st century, we find it takes
center stage in a dramatic way.
Social theorists Zia Sardar and Zygmunt Bauman argue that we are, respectively, in
postnormal and liquid times, while according to Anthony Giddens we are in a
runaway world. (Bauman, 2005, 2007; Giddens, 2002; Sardar, 2010). Nothing is
stable and fixednothing is normal-- anymore. Jobs, relationships, identities,
demographics, gender roles, global power dynamics, all seem to be changing rapidly,
fueled in large part, but not exclusively, by technological innovations. Solid
modernity, built on notions of order, stability, equilibrium, rationality, has given
way to a liquid modernity, a Heraclitean world of constant change and
disequilibrium. We are in a transitional moment, where one world is dying but a
new one has not emerged. Uncertainty rules.
This transitional state requires us to live with the recognition that uncertainty is
now a central feature of our lives (Morin & Viveret, 2010). But surely uncertainty
has always been part of the human experience? Our ancestors coped with
uncertainty, with diseases, predators, famines, floods, wars, with loss and shock
are things really different today? I want to argue that things are indeed different,
that we are in a transitional moment that could become a transformative moment,
pointing to new directions and possibilities, an opportunity to shape the emerging
world.
A key factor in this postnormal state of affairs is that with the Enlightenment a quest
emerged for order and certainty, bringing the goal and very real hope of a world
that would be ordered and stable and where human beings would not be subjected
to the indignities of uncertainty (Toulmin, 1992). Today we are witnessing a
reassessment of this project, but we are also reeling because the way we understand
the world, our larger worldview, and the way we think about and organize our lives
and the world is based on a now crumbling illusion of control and certainty.
The Modern scientific worldview was based on a Newtonian/Cartesian machine or
clockwork metaphor in which the world was fundamentally objective, rational,
linear, deterministic, and orderlylike a machine (Capra, 1984, 1996; Matson,
1964; Morin, 1981; Peat, 2002; Russell, 1983; Toulmin, 1992). Human beings were
seen as machines: we think of La Mettries LHomme Machine, of course, but this
kind of machine thinking about human beings continues in computer metaphors of
the mind and body (Dupuy, 2000). Machine thinking was borrowed from physics
and applied to all human activities. It is still very common to hear terms like
programming or hard-wired or software used in discussions about human
beings, particularly in reference to neuroscience and genetics. While there are
machine-like elements to life, all too often this language reflects a reductionist bias
whereby we are nothing but machines, programming, hard-wired, etc. Ways of
organizing education and industry reflected reductive and disjunctive machine
thinking with its stress on certainty, order, prediction, and control (Montuori,
2005a, 2012; Morgan, 2006; Morin, 1994, 2008a). Despite dramatic changes in the
scientific understanding of the world and in the social world, at the beginning of the
21st century, the machine metaphor still underlies much of our thinking and
organizing at a very deep level (Capra, 1984, 1996; Montuori, 1989; Morgan, 2006;
Taylor, 2003; Toulmin, 1992).
At the beginning of the 21st century, the assumptions of the Newtonian/Cartesian
worldview have become deeply problematic (Capra, 1996; Elgin, 2009; Kincheloe,
1993; Morin, 2008a; Prigogine & Stengers, 1984). The goal and possibility of
certainty is being replaced by the experience of uncertainty. The history of ideas in
the 20th century has been framed as a movement from certainty to uncertainty
(Peat, 2002). Wallerstein has discussed the "uncertainties of knowledge" in the 21st
century, arguing that two key movements in academia can shed light on the
irruption of uncertainty and the dethroning of order and certainty (Wallerstein,
2004). In Wallerstein's view, complexity science and cultural studies are central to
understanding the changes. From complexity science we learn that the future is not
given, and that the Universe is uncertain and unpredictable. This shatters any
deterministic view of the world as ordered and predictable, and the "certainty of
certainty" that drove the Enlightenment Project.
Cultural Studies has, at the same time, challenged the validity and universality of the
Western Canon, and therefore substantially destabilized views of what is good and
true and worthy of emulation. What was held to be certain and universal in the
sciences and humanities, their "hubris of omniscience" (Ceruti, 1994), has been
shaken, and different voices have been stirred (Rosenau, 1992).
Along with the irruption of uncertainty in the attacks on Newtonian Science and the
Humanities (Peat, 2002), there are also the disastrous realities of the 20th Century,
most notably two World Wars (culminating in the horror of the Holocaust), the
persistence of crushing global poverty and environmental destruction. The notion of
the quest for some fixed point, some stable rock upon which we can secure our lives
against the vicissitudes that constantly threaten us. The specter that hovers in the
background of this journey is not just radical epistemological skepticism but the
dread of madness and chaos where nothing is fixed, where we can neither touch
bottom nor support ourselves on the surface. With a chilling clarity Descartes leads
us with an apparent and ineluctable necessity to a grand and seductive Either/Or.
Either there is some support for our being, a fixed foundation for our knowledge, or
we cannot escape the forces of darkness that envelop us with madness, with
intellectual and moral chaos. (p. 18)
For Bernstein, Cartesian Anxiety manifests as a psychological and existential issue,
and is also part and parcel of a larger philosophical perspective. One could say that
Cartesian Anxiety is built into a certain interpretation of the world. Bernsteins
Cartesian Anxiety describes a view that, as he points out, is marked by the grand
and seductive Either/Or, what Morin calls disjunctive thinking (Morin, 2008a).
Here we find the need for certainty, the rejection of uncertainty as wrong,
dangerous, and weak, and the absence of certainty as a bottomless pit. In Richard
Dawkinss highly polemical neo-atheist documentary about religion, The Root of All
Evil, he interviews two fundamentalists, one Jewish and one Islamic. Both
fundamentalists express their concern that without a God who is a law-giver, there
can be no foundation for morality. Without laws that are fixed and forever, and
come from an absolute source, in their view ethical behavior is an impossibility. For
fundamentalists, anybody who is not one of them either is a fundamentalist who
believes in the wrong fundaments, or a secular (moral) relativist who does not
believe in anything and is therefore by definition a nihilist.
Bernstein (Bernstein, 2005) offers a more nuanced perspective suggesting that
The battle I see taking place is not between religious believers with firm moral
commitments and secular relativists who lack conviction. It is a battle that cuts
between the so-called religious/secular divide. It is a battle between those who find
rigid moral absolutes appealing, those who think that nuance and subtlety mask
indecisiveness, those who embellish their ideological prejudices with the language
of religious piety, and those who approach the world with a more open, fallibilistic
mentalityone that eschews the quest for absolute certainty. Such a mentality is
not only compatible with a religious orientation; it is essential to keeping a religious
tradition alive to new situations and contingencies. What we are confronting today
is not a clash of civilizations, but a clash of mentalities. And the outcome of this clash
has significant practical consequences for how we live our everyday livesfor our
morality, politics, and religion. (pp. 16-17)
This is a key point. Bernstein does not demonize religion, as the new atheists do,
but rather outlines two radically different mentalities. One open, fallibilistic, and, as
I shall argue, complex, creative, and collaborative, and the other closed, dogmatic,
and polarizing.
Responding to the critique that without absolutes no decisive, let alone moral,
action can be taken, Bernstein articulates his pragmatist view that
There is no incompatibility between being decisive and recognizing the fallibility and
limitations of our choices and decisions. On the contrary, this is what is required for
responsible action (Bernstein, 2005, p. 58).
For Bernstein, it is essential to go beyond the grand and seductive Either/Or, and
find another way, which recognizes the inevitability of uncertainty and limitation of
human knowledge precisely in order to act responsibly rather than in a closedminded way. Morin has likewise argued for an ethics that acknowledges and
integrates uncertainty and complexity (Morin, 2004b). This includes an awareness
of what Morin refers to as the ecology of action, meaning that no matter what our
intention, any action exists in a context, and ecology, and once we can never be sure
how even the most well-intentioned action will turn out.
Are we then abject victims of this need to feel certain, trapped by the workings of
our brain illustrated by neuroscientists, yet living in a world of uncertainty? Are we
trapped on the horns of the grand either/or? It appears that this is not the case. As
Edgar Morin (Morin, 1986) has written,
Does knowing that knowledge cannot be guaranteed by a foundation not mean that
we have already acquired a first fundamental knowledge? And should this not lead
us to abandon the architectural metaphor, in which the term foundation assumes
an indispensable meaning, in favor of a musical metaphor of construction in
movement that transforms in its very movement the constitutive elements that form
it? And might we not also consider the knowledge of knowledge as a construction in
movement? (p.21-22)
Can we favor a musical metaphor of construction, a knowledge of knowledge in
movement? Can we envision a different relationship between knowing and being
altogether?
The perspective from developmental psychology
An example from research on the cognitive development of college students the
American psychologist William Perry begins to provide us with some insights about
human responses to pluralism and uncertainty (Perry, 1998). Perry found students
had a number of epistemological positions (a term he preferred to stages, despite
the popularity of stage models in the United States) that are relevant to our
discussion. For the sake of convenience, Perrys research can be summarized as
presenting three distinct positions (Salner, 1986).
The first of these positions is dualism. The student makes a clear distinction
between the self and the external world. Knowledge resides in the external world.
Knowledge is absolute truth, objectivity, and learning involves searching for the
appropriate authority and the right answer. Any differences in perspectives are
framed by a logic of either/or, and reduced to right and wrong, good and bad. The
student rejects ambiguity because it suggests that the proper authority has not been
found, and ambiguity and uncertainty are the result of incorrect knowledge.
The second position is multiplicity. Perrys research shows that exposure to a
pluralistic world can break down absolute categories of right and wrong, as
students begin to see there are many different perspectives. In any given discipline,
and from many authorities and experts, students find conflicting positions and
perspectives, and a lot of debates among experts, all of whom claim to be right. Any
number of theoretical perspectives from different disciplines frame topics in often
conflicting ways: Religion is the opium of the masses (Marx), a way to create social
cohesion (Durkheim), a psychological coping mechanism (Freud) the engine of
economics (Weber), a function of the human unconscious (Jung), a way to make
sense of the world (Berger). What does this mean? What is the right answer?
Experiences of different cultures and sub-cultures, with their often radically
different assumptions about the world, also break down the assumption that our
view of the world is the objective one and things cannotor should notbe
otherwise (Montuori & Fahim, 2004). Rather than believing in a single, absolute
truth, the student in the position of multiplicity begins to believe that there are as
many truths as there are people. It seems the experts cant agree, so whats the point
of listening to their theories? Theyre just theories, and its clear anybody can
present a theory. The self now becomes the source and arbiter of knowledge, and in
fact there is a privileging of subjectivity. You see it your way, I see it my way. An
anti-authoritarian position often develops, as a reaction to the conformism of
dualism, with an explicit rejection of experts, authorities, and teachers (Baxter
Magolda, 1999).
Perrys third position, the least articulated in his original study, is contextual
relativism. This position usually emerges from a gradual dissatisfaction with
multiplicity, from the need to participate more actively with values and direction
rather than the arguably narcissistic and opportunistic wanderings of the relativistic
position of multiplicity. If everybody is rightor nobody is wrongwhat basis is
there to make any choices or commitments? What basis do I have for any view, even
my own? Multiplicity can easily become selfish, acquisitive individualism, where the
isolated self is the lowest common denominator. Whereas dualism saw the source of
10
the moment emerges out of a network of interactions and knowledge across space
and time, and out of self-reflection and an understanding of their own participation
in the word.
In the years since Perrys work was published, a line of research has emerged
exploring these epistemological positions, sometimes interpreting them as stages
(Love & Guthrie, 1999). The work of Baxter-Magolda, Commons, Kegan, and Gidley
in particular has moved towards a more complex an nuanced articulation of this
third position, framing contextual relativism as post-formal thought (Baxter
Magolda, 1999, 2000, 2004, 2008; Commons & Ross, 2008a, 2008b; Gidley, 2007,
2009, 2010; Kegan, 1982, 1998; King & Baxter Magolda, 2005).
For Kegan (2003), the subject/object relationship is central in the development of
human thought. His framework includes what he class five orders of
consciousness. Most relevant to us are order three, four, and five, since the first two
are childhood stages. 3rd order consciousness, or the socialized mind, involves
absorbing the values of our society and our community, and is similar to Perrys
dualism, with a focus on external, objective knowledge. 4th order consciousness,
the self-authoring mind, involves forging ones own identity and ideology, shifting
to an internal, subjective source for knowledge. In this respect, it is similar to Perrys
multiplicity. 5th order consciousness, or the self-transforming mind, goes beyond
the subject/object split, and sees beyond ones own fixed position to engage in a
constant evolutionary dialogue between inner and outer.
As Kegan (2003, p. 151) states:
When you get to the edge of the fourth order, you start to see that all the ways that
you had of making meaning or making sense out of experience are, each in their own
way, partial. Theyre leaving certain things out. When people who have long had
self-authoring consciousness come to the limits of self-authoring, they recognize the
partiality of even their own internal system, even though like any good system, it
does have the capacity to handle the data, or make systematic, rational sense of
11
our experience. In the Western world, we often call that objectivity. But just
because you can handle everything, put it all together in some coherent system,
obviously doesnt make it a truthful apprehensionor truly objective. And this
realization is what promotes the transformation from the fourth to the fifth order of
consciousness, from the self-authoring self to what we call the self-transforming self.
So, you start to build a way of constructing the world that is much more friendly to
contradiction, to oppositeness, to being able to hold on to multiple systems of
thinking. You begin to see that the life project is not about continuing to defend one
formation of the self but about the ability to have the self literally be transformative.
This means that the self is more about movement through different forms of
consciousness than about defending and identifying with any one form.
One of the most important points Kegan makes is that 5th order consciousness
involves the awareness that any view, including our own view, is only partial, and
that there is inherent in our knowledge a great deal of ambiguity and uncertainty.
What makes 5th order consciousness so interesting is that it seems to thrive on notknowing. Rather than attempt to hide her or his own ignorance, or dismiss other
perspectives as wrong by definition, the person at this level is continuously selftransforming because s/he is open to the unknown, and finds in it an opportunity to
learn and grow.
The self-transformative capacity characteristic of 5th order consciousness, is a
capacity to be what Morin would call a self-eco-re-organizing system (Morin, 1994).
It involves mobilizing ones creativity in a very fundamental sense. Gilligan and
Murphy (Gilligan & Murphy, 1979) find that it involves an evolution from a closedsystem self-sufficiency to a more open and dialectical process involving
contextualization and an openness to re-evaluation (p.7). These three
characteristics, namely dialectical thinking, contextualization, and re-evaluation,
play a key role in 5th order consciousness, and are strikingly close to the key
dimensions of Morins complex thought (Morin, 1994, 2008a, 2008b), where
knowing and thinking are not about reaching an absolutely certain truth, but about
a dialogue with uncertainty.
12
13
14
15
The original research cited here, both on authoritarianism and creativity, was
framed as being trait-based, describing the characteristics of authoritarians and
creatives. The problem was that these traits were viewed as fixed, and this led to a
rather over-simplified, fixed view. The view I present here is that authoritarianism
or creativity may be more dominant in some persons (there is some suggestion that
there may be a considerable genetic component to them (Mooney, 2012), as well as
a cultural one with certain cultures having high uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede,
2001)) but that all persons can approach the world in with an authoritarian as
well as a creative mentality. Even the most creative person may under certain
circumstances interpret a situation and react in an authoritarian way, with black
and white solutions, rigid categories, and so on, and vice versa. The authoritarian
and the creative mentalities are, therefore, part of a continuum of human
possibilities, which, most importantly, can be influenced by immediate context,
education and socialization. Shocks and climates of fear can lead to authoritarian
mentalities, and climates that are open to creativity can lead to the flourishing of
creative mentalities (Montuori, 2011b).
Creativity has historically been associated with unusual individuals of genius in the
arts and sciences. At the beginning of the 21st century this view is beginning to
change. I have called the emerging view, everyday, everyone, everywhere
creativity (Montuori, 2011a; Montuori & Donnelly, 2013). In a postnormal,
pluralistic, changing, liquid, uncertain society, the ability to create alternatives and
live with complexity, ambiguity, and uncertainty demands such a distributed,
networked, grass-roots, everyday creativity to respond to the demands of
articulating, developing, and embodying new ways of being, relating, knowing, and
doing (Montuori, 2010).
16
The emerging view might be called, drawing on Morin, complex creativity. If the
old view was reductive, focusing on the creative individual as a closed system at the
expense of context and history and relations, and with a fixed natureeither
creative or notin the new view the creative process is contextual and occurs in a
network of relationships and interactions: it does not eliminate the individual but
rather takes an open system view which acknowledges the complexity of the
creative process and sees creativity as a capacity that can be cultivated (Glaveanu,
2010; Glveanu, 2011a, 2011b, 2013, 2014; Montuori, 2011b, 2011c; Montuori &
Purser, 1995, 1996).
Creativity, Complexity and Collaboration
We have seen how uncertainty has become a central feature of these postnormal
times, this transitional period where one world is ending but a new one is yet to
emerge. The response to this transitional time has led to what Bernstein has called a
clash of mentalities. I have attempted to flesh out these two mentalities by
drawing on psychological research, showing some of the mechanisms that lead us to
seek certainty above all, and all too often morph into a closed mentality of
authoritarianism and fundamentalism. I have also pointed to post-formal thought
and the role of creativity in a more open and complex mentality.
Bernsteins two mentalities can be framed as authoritarian and creative, the former
seeking to eliminate uncertainty, and the second acknowledging it as an opportunity
for creativity. The former stresses control, simplicity, black and white, either/or
thinking, and rigid categories, the latter allows for emergence, complexity,
paradoxical or dialogical thinking, and more fluid categories. In the authoritarian
mentality, we need the feeling of absolute (God-given) certainty in order to act. In
the creative mentality (in line with Perrys contextual relativism, post-formal
thought, and most notably Morins complex thought) we see the ability to act while
17
recognizing what Bernstein calls the fallibility of our choices. But this does not mean
lack the courage of our convictions. Rather it means remaining open to ongoing selfreflection, to what Morin (Morin, 2004a) called auto-critique, a process whereby
we do not become the convicts, the prisoners, of our own beliefs at all costs, rigidly
clinging to the feeling of certainty. In the creative mentality we are challenged to
both create, in the sense of acknowledging the creativity of our own process of
world-making and decision-making, and also taking responsibility for it, and being
able to reflect on it, all the while knowing that we act. Indeed, from the perspective
of a complex creative mentality we cannot not act, in the same way that Gregory
Bateson argued we cannot not communicate (Bateson, 2002). We are always already
in the world, we are not bystanders to it. Paradoxically, if we do not act, we are still
acting: if we do not take action to pay a bill, the non-action is our action. We are also
always already creating: the question is not if we are creating, but what are we
creating and are we taking responsibility for our creativity?
Precisely because of the often conflictual pluralism and uncertainty of todays world,
we need complex thought, as Morin has argued, a thought that contextualizes and
connects and is thus, among other things, better able to account for the increasingly
networked and interconnected nature of our existence. We also need to go beyond
what linguist Deborah Tannen has called argument culture, with its inevitable
polarization. We need the ability to engage in complex, creative dialogue. In other
words, the ability to dialogue with others in ways that respect and reflect
complexity and are generative, leading to the creation of new and more
encompassing perspectives (Tannen, 1999). Indeed, Arthur Koestler held that
creativity involves bisociation, bringing together two or more apparently
incompatible frames of thought (Koestler, 1990).
18
19
uncertainty, and the courage to revise, modify, and abandon our most cherished beliefs
when they have been refuted (p. 29).
Our present educational systems and socialization processes do not cultivate the
(fallibilistic) capacities of creative complexity. Educational reform is clearly
essential, as Morin and others have argued (Montuori, 2012; Morin, 2001; Naranjo,
2010). More broadly, I believe there is a need to develop personal and social
transformative practices1. These practices go beyond learning that is exclusively
cognitive, and focus on transformation of the knower. We have a substantial
treasure trove of global wisdom traditions with practices that address the
expansion of a full spectrum of human capacities to counteract the fearful
contraction of the authoritarian mentality with wisdom and compassion (Macy &
Johnstone, 2012; Walsh, 1999). Even in the world of management education such
concepts as the need to cultivate emotional intelligence are now becoming
accepted (Goleman, 2006). These practices involve ongoing, lifelong cultivation of a
new set of individual and collective capacities, new ways of knowing, relating, being,
and doing that embody and generate alternatives to our present, clearly obsolete
ways, and create the spaces of generative trust where their formulation and
enactment become possible (Montuori, 2010; Montuori & Conti, 1993).
Uncertainty is not merely a scientific or cognitive phenomenon. It strikes at the
heart of our being, and our existence on the planet. Uncertainty creates anxiety and
fear, as well as a sense of possibility and creation. As such it requires a radical
reframing of who we are, how we know, and how we can act in this world of
uncertainty. It requires a complex reframing of traditional dualism such as
order/disorder, certainty/uncertainty, reason/emotion, and an educational process
that takes into account our full humanity, including the relational and affective
dimensions.
1 I am indebted to my colleague Gabrielle Donnelly for her articulation of the concept of practice in
the context of the present planetary crisis.
20
REFERENCES
Adorno, T.W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E, Levinson, D.J., & Sanford, R.N. (1982). The
authoritarian personality (Abridged edition). New York: Norton.
Armstrong, K. (2000). The battle for God: Fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity,
and Islam. London: Harper Collins.
Barron, F. (1958). The psychology of imagination. Scientific American, 199(3), 150170.
Barron, F. (1963). The needs for order and disorder as motives in creative action.
Scientific creativity: its recognition and development, 139-152.
Barron, F. (1968). Creativity and personal freedom. New York: Van Nostrand.
Barron, F. (1969). Creative person and creative process.
Barron, F. (1990). Creativity and psychological health. Buffalo, NY: Creative
Education Foundation.
Barron, F. (1995). No rootless flower: towards an ecology of creativity. Cresskill, NJ:
Hampton Press.
Bateson, G. (2002). Mind and nature: A necessary unity. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Bauman, Z. (2005). Liquid life. London: Polity Press.
Bauman, Z. (2007). Liquid times. Living in an age of uncertainty. London: Polity Press.
Baxter Magolda, M. (1999). Creating contexts for learning and self authorship:
Constructive-developmental pedagogy. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
Baxter Magolda, M. (2000). Interpersonal maturity: Integrating agency and
communion. Journal of College Student Development, 41(2), 141-156.
Baxter Magolda, M. (2004). Self-authorship as the common goal. In M. Baxter
Magolda & P. M. King (Eds.), Learning partnerships: Theory and models of
practice to educate for self-authorship (pp. 1-35). Sterling, VA: Stylus
Publishing.
Baxter Magolda, M. (2008). Three elements of self-authorship. Journal of College
Student Development, 49(4), 269-284.
Bernstein, R. (1983). Beyond objectivism and relativism. Science, hermeneutics, and
practice. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Bernstein, R. (2005). The abuse of evil: Politics and religion after 9/11. Malden, MA:
Polity Press.
Brafman, O., & Pollack, J. (2013). The chaos imperative: How chance and disruption
increase innovation, effectiveness, and success. New York: Crown Business.
Burton, R. A. (2008). On being certain. Believing you're right even when you're not.
New York: St. Martin's Press.
Capra, F. (1984). The turning point: Science, society, and the rising culture. New York:
Bantam.
Capra, F. (1996). The web of life. New York: Anchor.
Ceruti, M. (1994). Constraints and possibilities. The evolution of knowledge and
knowledge of evolution (A. Montuori, Trans.). New York: Gordon & Breach.
Chodron, P. (2008). Comfortable with uncertainty: 108 teachings on cultivating
fearlessness and compassion. Boulder: Shambhala Publications.
Commons, M. L., & Ross, S. N. (2008a). The connection between postformal thought
and major scientific innovations. World Futures: The Journal of General
Evolution, 64(5), 503-512.
Commons, M. L., & Ross, S. N. (2008b). What postformal thought is, and why it
matters. World Futures: The Journal of General Evolution, 64(5), 321-329.
Dacey, J.S. , & Lennon, K. H. (1998). Understanding creativity: The interplay of
biological, psychological, and social factors. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
21
Devereux, G. (1968). From anxiety to method in the behavioral sciences. New York:
Mouton.
DiSalvo, D. (2011). What makes your brain happy and why you should do the opposite.
New York: Prometheus Books.
Dupuy, J-P. (2000). The Mechanization of the Mind. On the Origins of Cognitive
Science: Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Eisler, R. (1987). The chalice and the blade. San Francisco: Harper Collins.
Eisler, R. (1995). Sacred pleasure: Sex, myth, and the politics of the body. New York:
HarperCollins.
Eisler, R. (2007). The real wealth of nations : creating a caring economics (1st ed.).
San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Eisler, R., & Miller, R. (2004). Educating for a culture of peace. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Eisler, R., & Montuori, A. (2001). The partnership organization. OD Practitioner,
33(1), 11-17.
Eisler, R., & Montuori, A. (2007). Creativity, society, and the hidden subtext of
gender: A new contextualized approach. World Futures. The Journal General
Evolution, 63(7), 479-499.
Elgin, Duane. (2009). The living universe : where are we? who are we? where are we
going? (1st ed.). San Francisco, Calif.: Berrett-Koehler.
Giddens, A. (2002). Runaway world: How globalisation is reshaping our lives. New
York: Routledge.
Gidley, J. (2007). The evolution of consciousness as a planetary imperative: an
integration of integral views. Integral Review: A Transdisciplinary and
Transcultural Journal for New Thought, Research and Praxis(5), 4-226.
Gidley, J. (2009). Educating for evolving consciousness: Voicing the emergency for
love, life, and wisdom. In M. de Souza, L. J. Francis, J. O'Higgins-Norman & D.
Scott (Eds.), International Handbook of Education for Spirituality, Care and
Wellbeing (pp. 533-561). New York: Springer.
Gidley, J. (2010). Postformal priorities for postnormal times - A rejoinder to
Ziauddin Sardar. Futures: The Journal of Policy, Planning and Future Studies,
42(6), 625-632.
Gilligan, C., & Murphy, J. (1979). Development from adolescence to adulthood: The
philosopher and the dilemma of fact. New directions in child development:
Intellectual development beyond childhood, 5, 85-99.
Glaveanu, V. P. (2010). Paradigms in the study of creativity: Introducing the
perspective of cultural psychology. New ideas in psychology, 28, 79-93.
Glveanu, V. P. (2011a). Creativity as cultural participation. Journal for the Theory of
Social Behaviour, 41(1), 48-67.
Glveanu, V. P. (2011b). How are we creative together? Comparing sociocognitive
and sociocultural answers. Theory & psychology, 21(4), 473-492.
Glveanu, V. P. (2013). Rewriting the language of creativity: The Five A's framework.
Review of General Psychology, 17(1), 69.
Glveanu, V. P. (2014). Distributed creativity: Thinking outside the box of the creative
individual. New York: Springer.
Goleman, Daniel. (2006). Emotional intelligence (Bantam 10th anniversary
hardcover ed.). New York: Bantam Books.
Hetherington, M. J., & Weiler, J. D. (2009). Authoritarianism and polarization in
American politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hock, D. (1999). Birth of the chaordic age: Berrett-Koehler.
Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors,
institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism
as motivated social cognition. Psychological bulletin, 129(3), 339.
Journet, N. (2000). Qu'est-ce que la postmodernit? Philosophies de notre temps
[Philosophies of our times], 113-120.
22
23
Montuori, A., & Purser, R. (1995). Deconstructing the lone genius myth: Towards a
contextual view of creativity. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 35(3), 69-112.
Montuori, A., & Purser, R. (1996). Context and creativity: beyond social determinism
and the isolated genius. A Rejoinder to Hale. Journal of Humanistic
Psychology, 36(2).
Mooney, C. (2012). The Republican brain: The science of why they deny science--and
reality. New York: Wiley.
Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Morin, E. (1981). La mthode. 1. La nature de la nature [Method. 1. The nature of
nature]. Paris: Seuil.
Morin, E. (1986). La conoscenza della conoscenza. [Method, vol. 3. Knowledge of
knowledge.]. Milano: Feltrinelli.
Morin, E. (1992). Method: Towards a study of humankind. The nature of nature. New
York: Peter Lang.
Morin, E. (1994). La complexit humaine. [ Human complexity]. Paris: Flammarion.
Morin, E. (2001). Seven complex lessons in education for the future. Paris: UNESCO.
Morin, E. (2004a). Autocritique [Self-critique.]. Paris: Seuil (Original publication date,
1959).
Morin, E. (2004b). Ethique. Paris: Seuil.
Morin, E. (2006). Realism and utopia. Diogenes, 53(1), 135-144.
Morin, E. (2008a). On complexity. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Morin, E. (2008b). The reform of thought, transdisciplinarity, and the reform of the
university. In B. Nicolescu (Ed.), Transdisciplinarity. Theory and practice (pp.
23-32). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Morin, E., & Kern, B. (1999). Homeland Earth: A manifesto for the new millennium.
Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Morin, E., & Viveret, P. (2010). Comment vivre en temps de crise? Paris: Bayard.
Naranjo, C. (2010). Healing civilization: Bringing personal transformation into the
societal realm through education and the integration of the intra-psychic
family: Rose.
Norlander, T., Erixon, A., & Archer, T. (2000). Psychological androgyny and
creativity: Dynamics of gender-role and personality trait. Social Behavior and
Personality, 28(15), 423.
Peat, F.D. (2002). From certainty to uncertainty. The story of science and ideas in the
20th century. Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press.
Perry, W. (1998). Forms of ethical and intellectual development in the college years.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Peters, T. (1988). Thriving on chaos. Handbook for a management revolution. New
York: Harper.
Piirto, J. . (2004). Understanding creativity. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos. New York: Bantam.
Rosenau, P.M. (1992). Post-modernism and the social sciences. Insights, inroads, and
intrusions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Russell, D. W. (1983). The religion of the machine age. London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
Salner, M. (1986). Adult cognitive and epistemological development in systems
education. Systems Research, 3(4), 225-232.
Sanford, N. (1973). Authoritarian personality in contemporary perspective. In J.
Knutson (Ed.), Handbook of political psychology (pp. 139-170). San Francisco:
JosseyBass.
Sardar, Z. (1999). Postmodernism and the Other. London: Pluto Press.
Sardar, Z. (2010). Welcome to postnormal times. Futures, 42(5), 435-444.
Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Stone, W.F., Lederer, G., & Christie, R. (1993). Strength and weakness. The
authoritarian personality today. New York: Springer Verlag.
24
Tannen, D. (1999). The argument culture: Stopping America's war of words. New
York: Ballantine.
Taylor, M. (2003). The moment of complexity. Emerging network culture. . Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Toulmin, S. (1992). Cosmopolis. The hidden agenda of modernity. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Von Foerster, H. (1990). Ethics and second order cybernetics. Paper presented at the
Systmes & thrapie familiale. Ethique, Idologie, Nouvelles Mthodes.
Congrs International, Paris, 4, 5, 6 October.
Wallerstein, I. (2004). The uncertainties of knowledge. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.
Walsh, R. N. (1999). Essential spirituality: The 7 central practices to awaken heart
and mind. New York: J. Wiley.
Watts, Alan. (1951). The wisdom of insecurity: A message for an age of anxiety. New
York: Random House.
Wilden, A. (1980). System and structure. Essays in communication and exchange.
London: Routledge & Kegan.
Wilden, A. (1987a). Man and woman, war and peace. New York: Routledge.
Wilden, A. (1987b). The rules are no game. New York: Routledge.
25