Intimations of a new social science
Notes from a talk on ecosynomics, a social science for our complex times
Last month, I gave a talk at the California Institute of Integral Studies’ Department of Philosophy, Cosmology, and Consciousness retreat about the emerging science of ecosynomics (the study of human agreements) and its embodiment of principles also found in Goethe’s natural science. I hoped to show how an ecosynomics approach can help us come to experience—and, I believe, finally understand—how perception relates to social life and shapes the health of our relationships.
In an increasingly complicated world filled with suffering, we have the opportunity to develop a social science that truly reflects who we are as human beings. An approach that recognizes the inalienable gifts, purpose, and collaborative possibilities within every human being, regardless of where they come from, their background, or their beliefs. A science coherent with our humanity.
Although I don’t mention it in my talk, I see in ecosynomics the promise of a generative social science, one that complements and expands the research of social scientists, past, present, and future, with greater insight into our role creating the shared realities from which our knowledge systems and social initiatives arise. A science that evolves our understanding of social phenomena beyond purely abstract models of statistically significant correlations towards the meanings inherent in their manifestation.
How we seek to measure, analyze, and engage social phenomena is fundamentally a window into our understanding of the human being and our potential capacities. Ecosynomics helps illuminate the full landscape of inner experience so that we can study and participate in social life from an awareness of the correspondence between our agreements and our experience. We then study and meet our shared problems in the context of deeper capacities. Many of these ideas are what inspired me to create Common Light, an impact consultancy dedicated to renewing human agreements.
Below are the notes from my talk, edited for clarity, with slides for each section. And here are some of the main points:
Goethean science recognizes the intertwined relationship between observer and observed, recognizing all knowledge is mediated by human beings
Ecosynomics takes a Goethean approach to social life, studying the human agreements or assumptions that underpin human interactions and experience
The landscape of human agreements reveals the paradigm of abundance and scarcity and our ability to choose positive and negative agreements along a spectrum
Three realities of perception lie within this spectrum of abundance: things-matter (seeing nouns), development-motion (seeing verbs), and possibility (seeing light)
We experience the three levels of perception across five major relationships: self, others, groups, nature, and spirit
Ecosynomics helps groups examine their current agreement structure and move to create new abundance-based agreements that better achieve collective goals
Ecosynomics: A Goethean Approach to Beholding and Healing Social Life
Thank you all for coming. My goal with today's talk, "Ecosynomics: A Goethean Approach to Beholding and Healing Social Life," is to explore how the burgeoning field of ecosynomics, a social phenomenology or science of the agreements that guide human interaction, embodies Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s understanding of the self-mediated and transpersonal nature of knowledge that he found through his investigations of nature. In drawing these connections, I want to suggest how a recognition of this fact may offer insights for societal healing.
In keeping with both Goethean and ecosynomic approaches, I'd like to begin this exploration with an investigation into immediate experience and to recall our shared capacity to meet, understand, and navigate the complexities of life in both original and unoriginal ways. The encounter of both habit and novelty in experience.
Many of us here have at one time or another observed ourselves responding to a familiar circumstance in a new way. Perhaps we laid to rest a recurring judgmental thought, or we sacrificed something dear so that another might benefit, or we simply chose to take an eco-friendly mode of transportation. We broke from tendency. These moments of clarity and original action—mental and physical—illustrate a germ of the human capacity that Hungarian philosopher, psychologist, and Holocaust survivor Georg Kühlewind calls the power to “begin.”1
Ecosynomics approaches social life out of this awareness by studying human interactions in light of our collective capacities to begin. Like Goethe, who viewed knowledge of archetypal phenomena as mediated by the perceptive capacities of the investigator, ecosynomics sees social interactions and their potential to realize ecosystem-wide flourishing as mediated by our social capacities to begin.
And it's here where I hope to show that the healing potential of ecosynomics lies. We meaningfully engage our collective challenges when we experience them in the context of our shared capacities to begin. To behold originality together. This collective beginning—a love for and collaboration with what might initially appear as nothing—brings us to the experience of knowing who we are in light of who we are becoming. Only when we behold the totality of another being, absent all labels and expectations, can we experience our capacity to heal. The health of our social life then depends on our capacities to work from seemingly nothing together.
What is Goetheanism and its essence? Goetheanism is a term popularized by Rudolf Steiner that describes Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s approach to nature, a science of ideas within the natural world. Through the study of natural phenomena, such as plants, minerals, the weather, light, and colors, Goethe sought to discover the archetypal idea within phenomena under varied conditions. His methodology demonstrated the interconnected relationship of observer and observed, subject and object, clarifying how knowledge results from the relations we propose to a phenomenon, reflected back to us through perception. Goethe summarized this idea when he said, “We see only what we know.”2
In practice, Goetheanism emphasizes the cultivation of an active receptivity or openness to phenomena as themselves—and a sensitivity to the human tendencies that hinder our perception of phenomena on their own terms. These include the propensity to jump to conclusions, mistake initial appearances for conclusive realities, and impose preconceived ideas onto phenomena. Critically, Goetheanism does not discount other scientific approaches; rather it suggests only that all science is an experiential process, and one’s chosen method of investigation inevitably shapes the character of the results. When we account for the observer’s relationship to the observed, like Goetheanism insists, we become more aware of the ways we shape the knowledge we gain.
With this background, I want to highlight three core features of Goetheanism that I hope to show are present in ecosynomics:
first, to understand phenomena, investigators remain phenomena-bound, reporting only what they find directly from the observed, avoiding speculation, explanation, and abstraction;
second, the ‘self’ is perpetually bound up in phenomena; we are, as it were, inseparable from the phenomena we experience, illuminating our role as co-creators in their manifestation;
and third, an understanding that all knowledge, however obtained, is mediated by the human being, which is to say that the character of knowledge corresponds to both the method of investigation and the capacities of the investigator.
Taken together, we arrive at what Steiner describes as a safe and general rule for phenomenological research: to regard “everything as phenomena emanating from yourself.”3 Our experience of poetry, objects, touch, ideas, others, nature all derive their meaning through our being. We are responsible for how we perceive the world.
The social phenomenology of ecosynomics was introduced in 2014 by a book of the same title.4 The book’s findings drew upon nearly twenty years of management research and practice, and is inspired by an ecology of scientific disciplines, diverse wisdom traditions, environmental perspectives, and systems theory.
The roots of the term “ecosynomics” are “eco,” which has the contemporary meaning of relationship but is derived from the Greek word “oikos,” meaning household, “syn” meaning together, and “nomos” meaning rules. The rules of relating together, or the principles of collaboration.
The field has many influences and practitioners, chief among them is Dr. Jim Ritchie-Dunham, a petroleum engineer turned management scholar at UT Austin's McCombs School of Business. Dr. Ritchie-Dunham has spent three decades studying human agreements and advising global leaders, and his work in Mexico and Central America, particularly his learning from Guatemalan Mayan leaders about cyclical time and agriculture, has deeply influenced his approach to humanistic management and consulting. He’s also a former board member of the Austin Waldorf School.
Orland Bishop represents another significant influence in the field of ecosynomics. His offerings draw from African Gnosis, Anthroposophy, and Indigenous Cosmologies, including the South African tradition of Indaba, or "deep talk.” He played a critical role in introducing the concept of "human agreements" to ecosynomics, which he elaborates in depth in his book, The Seventh Shrine: Meditations on the African Spiritual Journey: From the Middle Passage to the Mountaintop.
And finally, Annabel Membrillo, a systems thinker educated at the Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México, brings over twenty-five years of business consulting experience to ecosynomics. As the Sustainability Business Faculty Director at the Universidad del Medio Ambiente, she continues to collaborate with Jim Ritchie-Dunham in developing and refining ecosynomics principles.
Many other contributors and influences exist, and just to name a few more here: the French philosopher Henri Bergson, feminist epistemologist Mary Field Belenky, physicist Lee Smolin, and West African elder Malidoma Somé.
Ecosynomics begins its study of social life through an investigation of group experience. Sometimes we have great group experiences, like a retreat that rejuvenates our soul. Other times we have awful group experiences, like a meeting that tests our patience. Ecosynomic researchers stay phemomena-bound to name these two types of experience: one characterized by abundance, where you and others feel recognized and enlivened by the possibilities in front of you; and another characterized by scarcity, where you and others feel disengaged and dispirited about the future.
We all have access to both experiences, and we clearly favor the energizing experience. Yet, we rarely investigate the role, if any, we play in manifesting them. We assume they just happen to us. This raises the question: Is it possible to intentionally live in a more abundant world amidst greater levels of harmony? According to the 2023 World Agreements for Ecosystem-wide Flourishing Report, analysis of a survey of 164,000 groups from 126 countries, managed by Dr. Ritchie-Dunham’s Institute of Strategic Clarity, a small group of outliers report consistently living from a perspective of abundance. They resonate with experiences like, “Our group looks for inspiration in everyone, in everything, all of the time,” “I step further into my aspirations and gifts because of this group's support,” and “I am aware of talents and deeper gifts other members can contribute.”
What makes these outliers remarkable is that they have a different relationship with their resources. They question the dominant agreements society holds and choose to host agreements that create value for others. It’s not that they never experience scarcity. Rather, when they do, it’s in light of abundance.
To understand what’s happening here, let’s take a look at how ecosynomics describes the three primary ways people can relate to a single dimension of experience—the self—along a spectrum of vibrancy.
At the lowest perceived level of reality—the Things-Matter level—one experiences a collapsed state where little of the self is available, feeling vulnerable and largely withdrawn. We see the world as Noun. “I am an adult.” Meanings are pre-given, largely static, and intrinsically devoid of dynamism.
The middle grade—the Development-Motion level—involves standing tall and acknowledging one's gifts and abilities. We see the world as a Verb, a realm of movement towards the realization of expectations. “I am learning and growing.” Meaning is experienced primarily through journeying and achievements along the way.
At the highest level of vibrancy—the Possibility-Potential level—one is fully open, participating, and sharing their gifts, experiencing great strength and happiness despite apparent vulnerability. “I am sourcing possibilities.” We see the world as infinite Light, holding space for the new to arise in every interaction.
How much of oneself is available in any given situation—Noun, Verb, Light—is an agreement, an implicit or explicit assumption that guides our interactions with ourselves and others. These varying agreements with our own self—from withdrawn to fully open and participatory—are all aspects of our being. We are Homo Habilis, Homo Sapien, and Homo Lumen. Each state is available to us.
The key insight is that the degree to which we express ourselves in any situation is an agreement we make. Even when we’re unconscious of it, we’re consenting to a particular level of self-expression or interpretation. Our self is thus always bound up in phenomena we experience. This realization can empower us to choose different agreements, knowing that consciously shifting how we relate to ourselves changes our context.
Ecosynomics aims to study these agreement structures within five primary dimensions of human experience: our relationships to self, others, groups, nature, and spirit.
In our relationship with others, at the Things-Matter level, one doesn't truly acknowledge the other's being, seeing them as a disturbance or thing to be managed. The Development-Motion-level involves recognizing the other as a separate individual with unique qualities and contributions. At the Light level, there's a profound mutual recognition where each person sees the other's infinite possibility and experiences a sense of expanded potential together.
With groups, at the lowest level of vibrancy, one feels subsumed by the group, merely following orders without contributing uniquely. The middle level involves embracing the role of a contributing member, recognizing and supported for one's skills and growth. At the highest level of vibrancy, there's a deep collaboration where individuals experience being "in the groove," achieving outcomes previously thought impossible.
With regard to nature or "what is real," at the lowest level, reality is perceived at the tangible-things level (“the water table is a zone of groundwater”). The middle level includes processes and changes over time (“the water table is increasing or decreasing”). At the highest level, individuals experience nature as the manifestation of possibilities, where ideas become real before they are tangible (“the water table is infinitely lifegiving”).
And regarding spirit or the source of creativity, at the lowest level, spirit is experienced as coming solely from an external, established source, often in the form of rules or traditions. The middle level involves experiencing spirit flowing through oneself and others, allowing for personal creativity and interpretation. At the highest level, spirit is perceived as radiating from everything, with the individual acting as a co-host of this universal flow.
According to the 2023 World Agreements for Ecosystem-wide Flourishing Report, when we experience abundance in one area of our lives, it positively correlates with the experience of abundance in another area. The correspondence between relationships implies that when we act as Homo Lumens towards, say, Self or Spirit, we do so also towards, Others, Nature and Groups. This supports the idea that what we come to know about social life is mediated by how we come to know it.
How is this all put into action? From an awareness of the three perceived levels of reality and the five primary relationships, ecosynomic practitioners investigate the experience of their interactions to uncover and realign the agreements shaping them.
Researchers first invite practitioners to understand why their group exists. What is the deepest purpose motivating their activities? When practitioners identify this purpose, they invite others into it, the contributions needed to achieve that purpose, how those contributions add to the lives of those serving their own purpose through these contributions (including nature), and ultimately how their purpose is realized through their contributions to the whole.
Naming this ecology of purpose allows practitioners to investigate their current activities and the agreements informing those activities, against this higher ordered, shared purpose. The identification of gaps between the present and the future invite practitioners to form new abundance-based agreements to bring about interactions that realize their shared purpose. And then continue the cycle again.
I want to take a little detour here to explore the process of realigning one’s agreements from the perspective of Martinus, the Danish dairyman turned philosopher, and this symbol (shown above) he created titled “The finished man in God's image after his parable.” This is Martinus’ description of the image:
The finished human being in God’s image is a being that has passed through the entire dark zone of the spiral cycle, has mastered this zone entirely and is now a perfect being of light. Its greatest emanation is pure neighbourly love, quite regardless of whether this neighbour is a plant, an animal or a human being, and quite regardless of whether this neighbour is a friend or an enemy. It is thus in contact with the keynote of the universe, which is love. It can take on suffering and give its life for others. … The large orange arc is a returning arc of fate that the being itself originally sent out. The heart figure symbolises that the being has a perfect ability to love; the two joined hands in the heart figure symbolise its perfect ability to forgive. The large yellow arc shows that the human being receives the dark arc of fate with great friendliness and thereby sends out a light arc of fate.
Here, in Martinus’ view of the moral unfolding of universe, we can see the process of choosing abundance-based agreements. Both Martinus and ecosynomics (and Goethe) are pointing towards the same reality in different ways: the fact that we are ultimately responsible for the reality we perceive.
Ecosynomics can appear like it can too easily discount the immense facts of scarcity in favor of working with only the Light and Development levels, or yearn for an abundance not genuinely experienced (working from abundance out of a Verb level), or bypass the realities of Development and Things.
These are fair critiques and to avoid this ecosynomics strives to integrate all three perceived levels of reality from the direction of Light to Verb to Noun—so that we meet scarcity in the context of other-than-scarcity. The fact that we can choose otherwise illuminates the potential of freedom, however distant or unrealizable it may feel. Ecosynomics invites us to wrestle with this possibility under different conditions. In the end, we never escape scarcity. Nor are we trying to. Instead, it’s about engaging it in light of more possibilities.
Orland Bishop once asked, “For the love of what future do you give your will?”
Ecosynomics offers a similar question. Just as Goethe developed a contemplative method for beholding the natural world before him, we have the opportunity to develop a contemplative method for beholding the social ecologies we inhabit. This act of conscious beholding—of truly seeing and understanding others—is as necessary as it is healing. When we behold, we heal, and we initiate new beginnings together. Ecosynomics reminds us that the choice to engage these new possibilities remains available in each of us.
Georg Kühlewind, From Normal to Healthy: Paths to the Liberation of Consciousness, trans. Michael Lipson PhD (Lindisfarne Books, 1988), 123.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe and Gage Educational Publishing, “Introduction to the Propyläen”, Goethe on Art (London: Ashgate Publishing Group, 1980), p. 7.
“III. Reflections in the Mirror of Consciousness, Superconsciousness and Subconsciousness - Psychoanalysis in the Light of Anthroposophy - Rudolf Steiner Archive,” accessed November 5, 2024, https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/Psych/English/AP1946/19120225p02.html.
James L. Ritchie-Dunham, Ecosynomics: The Science of Abundance, ed. Bettye Pruitt (Vibrancy Ins, LLC, 2014).