Hanzi Freinacht's Developmental Theory
Discussion
Brendan Graham Dempsey:
"Hanzi articulates his own robust theory of human development that includes no less than four axes: cognitive complexity (measured by MHC), cultural code, state, and depth. All of these must be taken into consideration when thinking about an individual’s psychological development. For our purposes, though, it is the distinction of MHC and code/metameme that matters at the moment, since it is important to appreciate the nuanced way that these relate to one another.
Hanzi’s model adds clarity to Graves’s levels by distinguishing between the individual’s cognitive complexity and the cultural code (or “symbolic toolkit”) they are using. While the two are related, they are not the same thing.
Generally speaking, “there is a kind of connection between the overall development of cognitive stage and of the development of symbolic toolkits available in language—the development of society” (p. 217). The specific metamemes/codes emerge according to a logical dialectic at play—a complexification dialectic. Like Piaget’s “equilibria” or Kegan’s “truces,” each metameme represents a sort of attractor point for the specific levels of cognitive complexity. As such, each metameme develops one to the next according to the same kind of dialectical process governing cognitive development.
Hanzi writes:
- “Each of the stages creates language code that is inherently more advanced than the previous stage. There is something real in the logic of how each symbolic universe is constructed, and this realness forces the direction of human history. It does not force specific events upon the world, of course, but it does compel society to develop in some directions rather than others. …Think about it: What comes first—the wheel, the combustion engine or the airplane? I would be hard pressed to find a reason that airplanes should show up before the wheel. …We are speaking of memes (non-biological cultural patterns that spread through communication)—where some memes can only show up in more complex societies. It simply never happened in a tribe of 150 people on a remote island that someone developed modern physics and a poststructuralist critique of literature” (p. 213).
In this way, the dialectic of emerging cultural metamemes unfolds naturally from the simpler to the more complex—from wheels to postmodern literature, you could say. Cultural codes complexify.
Any metameme will be operating according to an inherent logic at its own level of complexity. To optimally operate with that symbolic toolkit means to have at least that level of associated cognitive complexity. Otherwise, one will be using that symbolic toolkit in a “flattened” version. Thus, while it is certainly possible (if not common) for, say, an individual at MHC stage Abstract to utilize Postmodern conceptual code, the result will be quite different (i.e., deficient) compared to someone at MHC stage Systematic—the cognitive stage required to fully grasp the logic of such cultural code. Likewise, it is possible for someone at MHC stage Formal or higher to be operating with Traditional code—such as a Christian theologian applying complex theoretical frameworks to the dogma of the Trinity.
In short, complexity stage and metameme are related, and we can indeed see cultural evolution as a complexification process akin to the one individuals undergo as their cognition develops—though the relationships are nuanced, and one should avoid simple linear or one-to-one assumptions when it comes to ontogenetic (individual) and phylogenetic (cultural) learning. To date, Hanzi’s work is arguably the best in outlining these relationships, though there is certainly more work to be done to fully flesh out the connections between psychological development and cultural evolution."
(https://www.brendangrahamdempsey.com/emergentism-notes)
More information
- Book: Emergentism: A Religion of Complexity for the Metamodern World. By Adyahanzi, Brendan Graham Dempsey. Metamodern Spirituality Series, Vol. VI. [1] For more, see also: Emergentism as a Religion of Complexity