Landscape and Urban Planning - Perspegrity

An integral lens on Patrick GeddesLandscape and Urban Planning
Theodore S. Eisenmana,, Tom Murrayb
a University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Department of Landscape Architecture & Regional Planning, United States b University of Massachusetts, Amherst, School of Computer Science, United States
A R T I C L E I N F O
Keywords: Patrick Geddes Integral theory Metatheories Landscape and urban planning Anthropocene Anthropogenic biosphere Socioecological planning Sociocultural evolution Urbanization Cities
A B S T R A C T
Patrick Geddes is a significant figure in the landscape and urban planning canon. In addition to situating cities within a regional context and advancing a socioecological understanding of urbanization, he viewed cities as the principal artifact of, and theater wherein, human culture evolves. This expansive view of cities may be one of the more challenging aspects of Geddes’ legacy to assimilate. Working during a late 19th and early 20th century period when the limitations of modernity were becoming increasingly apparent, much of Geddes’ aspirational thinking can be seen as an effort to create what he described as a “larger modernism.” In this regard, Geddes can be counted amongst those whom we portray as integrative holistic thinkers, people whose worldview draws them toward meaning-making narratives and frameworks that include the many dimensions of the human condition. Today, a new generation of holistic approaches called “metatheories” – and “integral theory” in particular – provides an orienting lens through which to review, assess, and potentially extend the work of Geddes in the 21st century. Towards that goal, this article first provides an introductory primer to some of Geddes’ noteworthy “thinking machines” as well as integral theory. We then assess correspondence between the two, focusing on Interdisciplinary Holism; Evolution, Development and Complex Systems; Human Agency and Ethics; and Spirituality. A closing discussion addresses prospects for future research, and suggests that the holistic, evolutionary, and generative orientation of our principal subjects may have particular relevance in an anthropogenic biosphere characterized, in part, by significant environmental challenges and the concentration of humans in cities.
1. Introduction
“…does it not seem that the city, in its being and becoming, is, as it were, the very incarnation of the evolutionary process?” (Branford & Geddes, 1917, p. 155)
Sir Patrick Geddes (1854–1932) occupies a rarified position in the landscape and urban planning canon. Living amidst a pivotal historical period that witnessed an unprecedented concentration of human beings in industrializing cities, Geddes emerged as one of the late 19th and early 20th century’s noteworthy urban thinkers. As a founding father of the modern town planning movement, Geddes recognized the city and region as a cohesive whole (Ward Thompson, 2006). Yet, the Scottish polymath contributed more than a geospatial conception of urban settlements. He is also credited with pioneering a sociological approach to the study of urbanization and the environment (Branford, 1930; Meller, 2005; Scott & Bromley, 2013; Studholme, 2007); and for Geddes, cities represented nothing less than “the form that human life in its highest evolutionary development (which he took to be communal and co- operative) could and should take” (Welter, 2002, p. 3).
This grand view of cities is particularly relevant today, as 75–80 percent of the human population is projected to live in urban areas by 2100 (Angel, 2012), leading some to describe this early phase of the new millennium as “the first urban century” (Hall & Pfeiffer, 2000) and a dawning “age of cities” (Young, 2017). Yet, Geddes’ expansive view of urbanism may be one of the more complex aspects of his legacy to assimilate (Rubin, 2009b), and there are several potential reasons for this. He wrote in an idiosyncratic style that could be difficult to pene- trate. He routinely referenced such ineffable topics as spirituality and mysticism. Trained as a biologist, he was attracted to interdisciplinary work that defied easy categorization. This synthetic streak found expression through graphic “thinking machines” – abstract diagrams where Geddes explored theories on cities and civilization and the in- terrelatedness of human knowledge. He also held a sociological and quasi-developmental view of evolution that was at odds with the bio- mechanistic perspective that was dominant through much of the 20th century (e.g. Batty &Marshall, 2009).
Importantly, Geddes lived and worked during a period when the limitations and hazards of modernity were becoming increasingly
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.05.011 Received 12 August 2016; Received in revised form 13 April 2017; Accepted 15 May 2017
Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (T.S. Eisenman), [email protected] (T. Murray).
Landscape and Urban Planning 166 (2017) 43–54
Available online 11 September 2017 0169-2046/ © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
apparent. During his lifetime and in the ensuing decades, intellectuals have directed critiques at the more troubling characteristics of the modernist worldview, including disciplinary fragmentation, extractive industrialism, environmental degradation, Western hegemony, and a disenchantment of the world predicated on scientific materialism (Bhaskar, 1986; Klein, 2005; Latour, 1993; Whitehead, 1925). Some took a path toward Romanticism and rejection of the rationalist agenda. Others, including Geddes, envisioned more integrative approaches that attempted to maintain the dignities and strengths of modernity – which bequeathed an unprecedented expansion of human health and pros- perity (Rosling, 2010) – while transcending its limitations. But he also emphasized the need for “a larger modernism,” predicated on a belief that the materialist and scientific principles upon which the order of modern societies increasingly rested would only fully benefit humanity if they were complemented by “metaphysical” dimensions including ethics, aesthetics, and spirituality (Welter, 2002, p. 23).
This perspective essay suggests that Geddes can be counted amongst those whom we might describe as integrative holistic thinkers – people whose worldview draws them toward meaning-making narratives and frameworks that unite the many dimensions of the human condition. More specifically, we point to a new generation of holistic frameworks called “metatheories” – and “integral theory” or “integral metatheory” in particular – as an orienting lens through which to review and assess the work of Geddes.
Metatheories are widely interdisciplinary and have been applied across almost every discipline and sub-discipline (Bhaskar, Esbjörn-Hargens, Hedlund, &Hartwig, 2016). Integral theory, for example, has been applied to over 35 fields including but not limited to art, healthcare, organizational management, ecology, congregational ministry, education, eco- nomics, psychotherapy, law, and feminism (Esbjörn-Hargens, 2009). Closer to Geddes and urban planning, integral theory has also been applied to architecture and sustainable design (Buchanan, 2012a; DeKay, 2011; Fleming, 2013, 2015; Roberts, 2013), municipal management (Hamilton, 2008), and sustainable development (Brown, 2005, 2006, 2007). Some have even described integral philosophy as a “Second Enlightenment, wherein we can anticipate an opening up of the internal universe of consciousness and culture to a period of exploration and discovery” similar to that which occurred for the external universe during the Western En- lightenment of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (McIntosh, 2007, p. 23). But to the best of our knowledge, an integral lens has not been employed to review the work of an important historical figure in landscape and urban planning. This may, in turn, shed new light that updates and reframes Geddes’ work for the 21st century.
Towards that goal, this paper is structured in five parts. Following this introduction, Section two introduces some of Geddes’ noteworthy thinking machines. Section three provides an overview of integral theory and contextualizes this framework as a prominent expression of metatheoretical scholarship. Section four provides an assessment – structured around four themes – of correspondence between integral theory and noteworthy expressions of Geddes’ illustrated and written work. Section five offers a concluding discussion and prospects for landscape and urban planning research and practice.
2. Geddes’ “thinking machines”
Geddes had a lifelong passion for interdisciplinary meaning-making. This was exemplified during a botanical expedition to Mexico City in 1879, when the 25-year-old Geddes lost his eyesight due to an uni- dentified illness and he was sentenced for an indefinite term to a dar- kened room with bandages over his eyes. But this crisis of threatened blindness and enforced meditation yielded an insight. One day while feeling the objects in the room around him with his hands, he en- countered the window and ran his fingers along the raised panes between the smooth glass rectangles. This tactile relationship between each equal area – a connection that could be made horizontally, ver- tically, or diagonally – made Geddes think of the connections that exist
between different but equally important fields of human knowledge (Boardman, 1978; Kitchen, 1975).
He was soon folding pieces of paper into rectangles and mentally al- lotting subjects to each box. One of the first depicted the diagonal as- cendency of four hierarchies of the sciences provided by French sociologist Auguste Comte (1798–1857): Mathematics and Logic, Physics and Chemistry, Biology, and Sociology (see Fig. 1). The squares to the right of this diagonal hierarchy show how disciplines relate to each other and Comte’s principal four, while the empty squares to the left were to be filled with the “philosophical and metaphysical sciences (those of knowing as distinct from what is known)” (Mairet, 1957, p. 33).
Fig. 1. Geddes’ classification of science and an early example of “thinking machine.” Based upon Boardman (1978) and Mairet (1957).
Fig. 2. Arbor Saeculorum, from Geddes, Patrick (1895) 'Arbor Saeculorum' The Evergreen: A Northern Seasonal (Edinburgh, Patrick Geddes and colleagues), [p.143]. Courtesy of University of Strathclyde Library, Department of Archives and Special Collections. Reference code GB 249 T-GED 24/357.
T.S. Eisenman, T. Murray Landscape and Urban Planning 166 (2017) 43–54
44
Living through the height of the Industrial Revolution and ascendance of modernity, Geddes witnessed a period of substantial change in human settlement patterns and worldview. His work can be understood, in part, as an effort to reconcile this epochal transition. This found expression through prolific writing and production of illustrations that Geddes called thinking machines. In landscape planning, perhaps the most famous of these is the “valley section” (1909), which shows how physical geography informs patterns of human occupation and settlement; and the inter- dependence between city and region (Welter, 2002). According to biographer Patricia “Paddy” Kitchen (1975), it is quite possible that Geddes drew inspiration for novel visual representation from Alexander von Humboldt, the 19th century Prussian explorer and naturalist whose unique illustrations depicted landscapes as simultaneously natural and human; and whose life work sought to unite “both spheres of the one cosmos – the external world, perceived by the senses, and the inner, reflected intellectual world” (Walls, 2009, p. 14).
Visual thinking was a common mode of inquiry for Geddes and he produced countless graphic thought pieces over the course of his career. Similar to the diagrams describing integral theory in the subsequent section below, many of these illustrations reflected ambitious acts of synthesis. For the discussion at hand, we will focus on two noteworthy examples: the Arbor Saeculorum and Notation of Life. Originally con- ceived in 1892 for a stained-glass window in the Outlook Tower – a vertical structure in Edinburgh that Geddes purchased and converted into a center for urban study – the Arbor Saeculorum depicts an evolutionary view of human history through a sequence of highly developed cultures (1895 in Welter, p 32) (see Fig. 2).
Scrolls on either side of a central tree depict a succession of prominent civilizations: Egypt at the bottom proceeds to Israel, Greece, Rome, the European Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the French Revolution, and then the contemporary period of industrialization and capitalism. The temporal/material and spiritual/immaterial characteristics of these
Fig. 3. Notation of Life, from Defries (1927) plate V. Courtesy of University of Strathclyde Library, Department of Archives and Special Collections.
Fig. 4. The four-fold analysis, based upon Meller (2005) and Geddes (1906) 'Civics: An applied sociology,' Part II, Sociological Papers, (ed.) V.V. Branford, London: Macmillan.
Fig. 5. Sketch of Act-Deed formula, courtesy of University of Strathclyde Library, Department of Archives and Special Collections. Reference code GB 249 T-GED 8/3/1.
45
cultures are respectively depicted by symbols running along the left and right margins. The conquests and slavery of Rome, for example, are depicted by the standard of the SPQR (senatus populusque romanorum) and chains on the left; while the fasces for law and justice, and the chi-rho sign of nascent Christianity are represented on the right (fifth from the top). Likewise, modernity is depicted on the left by an industrial cog- wheel rising above a sword and crozier (a stylized staff carried by high- ranking Christian clergy); and on the right, the liberty hat of the French Revolution rises above the fleur-de-lis of the deposed monarchy (third from the top). The Distinctions within these cultures are reflected by branches with four leaves, each of which symbolizes an archetypal personality based upon the writing of Comte: “people” and “chiefs” concerned with temporal/material matters; and “intellectuals” and “emo- tionals” oriented toward spiritual/immaterial concerns.
Geddes’ efforts at large-scale synthesis could be difficult to digest, and such is the case for one of his most prominent renderings, The Notation of Life (NOL). This diagram focuses specifically on cities, and Geddes suggested that this framework could in itself be the subject of a book (Defries, 1927). In brief, the bottom half of the NOL (see Figs. 3 and 4) symbolizes the “in-world” of urban residents and the upper half represents their “out-worlds;” while the left and right sides represent the passive and active dimensions of society, respectively (Geddes, 1905). Geddes asserted a reciprocal relationship between these domains, represented through a Town–City formula depicted as a circle at the center of the diagram and an Act-Deed formula along the outer frame. The former addresses interactions between the physical environment and social processes, while the latter describes the social behaviour of a human settlement. Combined in one visual narrative, Geddes suggests that these are inseparable dynamics that undergird a spiraling process by which humanity evolves through the crucible of the city (see Fig. 5). Other aspects of the NOL and Arbor Saeculorum will be described in section four of this article.
3. Overview of integral theory
While this article focuses on the relationship between Geddes and integral theory, it is important to situate the latter as one expression of contemporary holistic frameworks characterized as metatheories by authors in the volume edited by Bhaskar et al. (2016). Other metatheories include the “critical realism” of Roy Bhaskar (1978, 1993) and the “complex thought” of Edgar Morin (Morin & Kern, 1999). Jürgen Habermas (1984, 1987), Bruno Latour, (1993); George Ritzer, 2001; and Pitirim Sorokin (1941) have also been noted as metatheoretical thinkers.
Metatheories emerged over the past few decades in response to the deep and unsettling critiques of modernity leveled by postmodernism, defined by Lyotard as “incredulity towards metanarratives” (1984, p. xxiv). They seek to defend a humble yet rigorous empiricism in a postmodern milieu that often dismisses truth, realness, and valid knowledge, e.g., Derrida (1976), Foucault (1972), and Rorty (1979). Importantly, metatheories situate our current historical moment in terms of the failings and contributions of both modernity and postmodernity; and they attempt to offer inclusive, integrated, pragmatic, and hopeful frameworks that, as Ken Wilber (2000b) puts it, “transcend and include” the insights of postmodernity, modernity, and pre- modernity. They also reintegrate so-called pre- or non-rational modes of thought championed by many in the Romantic traditions that have been generally neglected in the modern age (Bhaskar et al., 2016).
Described by turns as integral philosophy, integral studies, integral consciousness, and the integral paradigm, integral theory has emerged
over the past two decades as one of the most prominent metatheoretical frameworks. According to Wilber, “the word integral means comprehensive, inclusive, non-marginalizing, embracing. Integral approaches to any field attempt to be exactly that – they include as many perspectives, styles, and methodologies as possible within a coherent view of the topic. In a certain sense, integral approaches are ‘meta-paradigms,’ or ways to draw together an already existing number of separate paradigms into a network of interrelated, mutually enriching perspectives” (in Visser, 2003, p. xii). Since 2003, two academic journals – Integral Review and Journal of Integral Theory and Practice – have published research about and from this construct; and a biennial integral conference has averaged roughly 500 participants from over two dozen countries since 2008 (Esbjörn-Hargens, personal communication, May 13, 2016).
Building upon a canon of holistic thinkers extending back roughly two centuries (McIntosh, 2007), the contemporary scaffolding of integral theory was developed by Ken Wilber (1949-), who drew upon the insights of developmental psychology, systems science, Eastern spirituality, and postmodern philosophy to create what has been described as “integral philosophy’s twenty-first-century synthesis” (p. 191). Wilber, who has a substantial background in Buddhist contemplative practice, was originally a leading scholar in the field of transpersonal psychology. This branch of psychology defines transpersonal as an identity or self that extends beyond the individual or personal to encompass wider aspects of humankind, life, psyche, or cosmos (Walsh & Vaughan, 1993). Wilber later branched into philosophy and trans-disciplinary studies, and he continues to publish on a variety of topics (including cultural anthropology, sociology of religion, physics, healthcare, environmental studies, science and religion, and postmodernism), using integral theory as an orienting lens. Since 1977, Wilber has authored over 25 books and his work has been translated into more than thirty languages (Visser, 2003).
While others employed the term “integral” as a meaning-making construct prior to Wilber (e.g. Aurobindo, 1939; Gebser, 1949; Sorokin, 1941), he first used the term to describe his holistic framework in Sex, Ecology, and Spirituality (1995). This book introduced the four-quadrant model that has become the primary descriptive tool of contemporary integral theory. Below is a much-abbreviated summary. Readers who seek an expanded introduction are encouraged to read works by Wilber (2001, 2006b, 2007), McIntosh (2007, 2012), and Esbjörn- Hargens (2009); as well as Combs (2002), Fuhr and Reams (2005), and Saiter (2005).
3.1. The AQAL framework
The central tenets of Wilber’s integral framework are illustrated in the AQAL diagram, pronounced ah-qwal for all quadrants, all levels (see Fig. 6). As described in an overview of integral theory, AQAL contains five elements – quadrants, levels, lines, states, and types – that “signify some of the most basic repeating patterns of reality” (Esbjörn-Hargens, 2009, p. 2). In an attempt to reconcile seemingly contradictory truth claims across multiple disciplines, Wilber developed this taxonomy of perspectives, dimensions, or inquiry approaches to make the case that each orientation is just one among many that can be taken on an object, event, or situation. This reflects William James’ (1912) observation of “a certain blindness in human beings” roughly a century earlier. In other words, each perspective or dimension is “true, but partial” (Wilber, 2000b, p. 2); and according to one of Wilber's most prolific students Esbjörn-Hargens (2009): “Because integral theory system- atically includes more of reality and interrelates it more thoroughly
46
than any other current approach to assessment and solution building, it has the potential to be more successful in dealing with the complex problems we face in the 21st century” (p. 2).
3.1.1. Quadrants The basic structure of the AQAL model is four quadrants organized
around two fundamental distinctions – Interior/Exterior and Individual/Collective (see Fig. 7). When combined, these distinctions result in four dimensions of, or perspectives on, any entity or event: individual interior (I), collective interior (We), individual exterior (It), and collective exterior (Its). According to integral theory, these dimensions are present in each and every occasion. For instance, all an- imals (including humans) have some form of subjective experience, or interior (Upper Left/UL), as well as objective behaviors and physiological components, or exterior (Upper Right/UR). Additionally, individuals are members of groups or collectives. The interior of collectives is characterized by intersubjective cultural realities (Lower Left/ LL), while their exterior is known as ecological and social systems, which are characterized by interobjective dynamics (Lower Right/LR) (see Fig. 7). Wilber has since extended this framework to coordinate eight knowledge-building epistemologies used in the major academic disciplines, described as “methodological pluralism” (2006a).
As both of the Right-Hand quadrants indicate the objective aspect of reality, the four quadrants can also be depicted as the three value spheres of subjectivity (UL), intersubjectivity (LL), and objectivity (UR and LR). Wilber describes these domains as “the Big Three” because they have been recognized throughout the history of Western philosophy, including Plato's Beautiful, True, and Good; the three value spheres in Immanuel Kant's ontological framework; and Habermas' categorization of validity claims based on truthfulness, rightness, and truth (see Fig. 8). These three dimensions of reality are discernable in languages through pronouns that represent first-, second-, and third- person perspectives. The three spheres can also be characterized as aesthetics, morals, and science; or consciousness, culture, and nature.
3.1.2. Levels, lines, and development Another core characteristic of the AQAL framework is that it depicts
a progressive emergence of stages, waves, or levels. In the interior Left- Hand quadrants there are levels of depth, and within the exterior Right- Hand quadrants there are levels of complexity. Additionally, each quadrant’s levels are correlated with levels in the other quadrants, depicted by diagonal lines marked at regular intervals that bisect each quadrant (see Fig. 6). This illustrates Wilber's insight that, in a general sense, one can coordinate how phenomena in each quadrant – usually studied in separate disciplines – co-evolve through discrete levels or “probability waves” (Esbjörn-Hargens, 2009, p. 7).
Drawing upon Koestler (1967), who coined the term “holon” to reinforce how all natural objects exist as wholes made of parts and
Fig. 7. The four quadrants of AQAL, adapted from Esbjörn-Hargens, (2009).
Fig. 6. Some levels in the four quadrants, from Esbjörn-Hargens (2009).
Fig. 8. “The Big Three” value spheres of Western philosophy, from Esbjörn-Hargens (2009).
47
simultaneously as parts within larger wholes, levels or waves in each quadrant demonstrate holarchy – a kind of hierarchy wherein each new level transcends the limits of the previous levels but includes the essential aspects of those same levels. Wilber suggests that this process of “transcend and include” can also be understood as “development that is envelopment,” and he argues that the model “is not rungs in a ladder each piled on top of the other, but holons in a holarchy like atoms/ molecules/cells/organisms, with each senior enfolding its juniors” (2000b, p. 12). For example, as life evolved from single celled organisms to plants, to fish, to mammals, and humans, each holonic emergence generally includes the physical capacities and social structures (It/Its) of the prior level but exhibits additional complexity. Each emergent level also has more interior depth, or, one could say consciousness (I/We). Building upon the work of Alfred North Whitehead, Wilber (2000b, 2013) suggests that simpler holons may even have an early form of “proto-consciousness” or “prehension.”
Wilber uses this construct of holarchical emergence to describe cosmological history and the evolution of life, but his principal focus is on individual and cultural human development; and for this he draws
upon a number of developmental psychologists and social theorists including Baldwin (1893, 1913), Gebser (1949), Maslow (1943, 1954), Inhelder and Piaget (1964), Piaget (1972), Graves (1974), Loevinger and Blasi (1976), Loevinger (1998), Kohlberg (1981, 1984), Gilligan (1982), Kegan (1982, 1994), Habermas (1984, 1989), Beck and Cowan (1996), and Cook-Greuter (2000, 2004). This body of knowledge tracks patterns in human development that include deepening levels of self- reflection and self-understanding; widening circles of moral care; increasingly complex modes of meaning-making, from binary black-and- white thinking, to either-or, to both-and, to dialectical thinking with a high tolerance for paradox and ambiguity; and from linear causality and short-term cognition to more complex, systemic, and dynamic modes of reasoning that can embrace longer trends, relational ecologies, and interpenetrating influences.
Reflecting the breadth of this research, AQAL draws upon Howard Gardner's (1983) theory of multiple intelligences to note that development can occur along a number of capacities or “lines”, including but not limited to needs, worldviews, cognition, values, consciousness, and self-identity (see Fig. 9). Synthesizing and extending this scholarly corpus through ‘orienting
Fig. 9. Some major developmental lines, from Wilber (2007). Courtesy of Shambhala Publications.
Fig. 10. Widening identity (left) and the nested quality of levels as they transcend and include each other (right), from Esbjörn-Hargens (2009).
48
generalizations’ (Wilber, 1995, 2000b), AQAL describes psychosocial development through a sequence or spectrum of levels that represent a movement of widening identity and empathy: ego-centric (“me”), pre- modern/ethno-centric (“my group or tribe”), modern/socio-centric (“my country”), postmodern/world-centric (“all of us”), and post-postmodern levels including planet-centric (“all beings”) and Kosmos-centric (“all of reality”) (Wilber, 2006b; Esbjörn-Hargens, 2009) (see Fig. 10).
3.1.3. States and types We will not cover the other main constructs in AQAL – types and
states – except to briefly define them and note that these terms may not be as well theorized as quadrants, levels, and lines (Murray, In Press). Types refer to ways that individuals or holons differ in non-developmental (horizontal) ways, e.g., introvert vs. extrovert, masculine vs. feminine. Common psychological typing frameworks include Myers- Briggs and the Enneagram. States are temporary occurrences of aspects of reality (Esbjörn-Hargens, 2009). In integral theory, states are often described as spiritual or altered conditions of mind/consciousness that relate to developmental lines and levels.
4. Correspondence between Geddes & integral theory
For purposes of comparison with the work of Geddes, we have identified four themes common to contemporary metatheories, and integral theory in particular, around which to structure this assessment. These include: 1) Interdisciplinary Holism; 2) Evolution, Development & Complex Systems; 3) Human Agency & Ethics; and 4) Spirituality.
4.1. Interdisciplinary holism
The problems of disciplinary fragmentation and hyper-specializa- tion in scholarship were evident to Geddes (1915), and his emphasis on the importance of interdisciplinary collaborations and frameworks is increasingly salient today (Bhaskar, 2009; Latour, 2012; Klein, 2005). An important goal of metatheories is to provide holistic and episte- mologically responsible approaches to interdisciplinary collaboration and meaning-making (Stein, 2016). Wilber's AQAL framework sprung from an attempt to reconcile diverse truth claims across numerous disciplines. It is a rigorous treatment of holism that integrates dimensions such as body/mind/spirit and science/society/ethics/art from a trans-disciplinary perspective that respects and theorizes multiple methodologies of inquiry (e.g. his eight-pronged “methodological pluralism," Wilber, 2006a, 2006b). As described above, integral theory posits that there are four dimensions of reality present in every occasion: subjective individual experience (Upper Left/UL) and intersubjective culture (Lower Left/LL), both of which constitute the interior domain; as well as objective physiology and behaviors (Upper Right/ UR), and interobjective systems (Lower Right/LR), both of which constitute the exterior domain (see Figs. 6 and 7).
Geddes also co-valued exteriors and interiors, and his life work sought to synthesize these domains (Goist, 1974), as exemplified in one of his earliest thinking machines (see Fig. 1). Thus, he accorded aesthetics and science equal status. ‘No one who studies Animate Nature can get past the fact of Beauty. It is as real in its own way as the force of gravity,’ said Thomson and Geddes in Life: Outlines of General Biology (1913, p. 35). One way that Geddes expressed this holism was through an interdependent view of mind and body. “Even in the simplest forms of behaviour there is an indication that the organism is MIND-body as well as BODY-mind...Sometimes the physiological or bodily side is more prominent, and we say ‘Biopsychosis’ or Body-mind. At another time the psychological or mental side is more dominant, and we say ‘Psycho- biosis’ or Mind-body” (p. 636; 639).
This holistic orientation also informed his view of history, and the Arbor Saeculorum portrays a succession of cultures through “expressions of the material order and its immaterial counterparts” (Geddes,
1904, p. 7). Here, a Phoenix of Action in the upper left corner and a descending scroll depicts a society’s “temporal” or exterior order; while a butterfly in the upper right corner symbolizes the Psyche of Thought and a descending scroll depicts a society’s “spiritual” or interior order (see Fig. 2).
Geddes’ primary locus for elaborating upon these ideas was the city. Inspired by sociologist and economist Frédéric Le Play (1806–1882), Geddes posited that any human settlement, whether village, town, or city, can be understood through a triad of place-work-folk, where the physical environment informs people’s occupation and habitation. “For Place, it is plain, is no mere topographic site. Work, conditioned as it primarily is by natural advantages, is thus really first of all place-work. Arises the field or garden, the port, the mine, the workshop, in fact the work-place, as we may simply generalise it; while, further, beside this arise the dwellings, the folk-place” (P. Geddes, 1904, p. 49).
This logic undergirds the NOL (see Fig. 3). Moving counter clockwise from the upper left quadrant, the geographic conditions under- girding place and work inform the interior life of residents, characterized in the bottom left quadrant as sense, experience, and feeling. Here, Geddes uses the term School (see circle at center of diagram) to describe the corresponding “thought-world” (p. 48). He also establishes a relationship between individual and community psychology: “Once and again we have noted how from the everyday life of action—the Town proper of our terminology—there arises the corresponding subjective world—the Schools of thought, which may express itself sooner or later in schools of education. The types of people, their kinds and styles of work, their whole environment, all become represented in the mind of the community, and these react upon the individuals, their activities, their place itself” (p. 51).
In integral terms, Geddes is positing that the exterior domain of the physical environment (UR and LR) informs the individual (UL) and collective (LL) experience of local residents; and that the interior life of the community recursively self-organizes and influences the individual (UR) and systemic (LR) exterior elements of their settlement. Or in Geddes’ words: The “study of the community…[is]…an integrate, with material and immaterial structures and functions, which we call the City” (Geddes, 1904, p. 3). He also understood the interdisciplinary ramifications of such a worldview, exemplified by his placement of a “cultural acropolis” at a prominent location in many city plans (e.g. Rubin, 2009a, 2009b). This concentration of cultural institutions was not due to lack of space; rather, it reflected a desire to unite all branches of human knowledge and activity (Welter, 2002).
4.2. Evolution, development & complex systems
As noted in the aforementioned descriptions of Geddes’ work and integral theory, both share a progressive worldview. “Understanding the present as the development of the past,” said Geddes in Civics: As Applied Sociology (1904, p. 7), “are we not preparing also to understand the future as the development of the present?” Of note, this shared perspective on evolution and development occurs in both the exterior domains of biology and technology and the interior realms of consciousness and culture. In the Arbor Saeculorum, both of these realms emanate from a fire at the base of a tree, which culminates in a flower bud at the apex, signifying human aspiration and emergence through integration of the two domains (see Fig. 2).
According to Wilber, these dimensions and their constituent elements (as characterized in the AQAL model) co-arise and are mutually implicated in one another through a dynamic process described as “tetra-arising” (Wilber, 2006a, p. 149). For example, if Jane and John Dough decide to place solar panels on their home, this thought and its associated action has at least four dimensions, none of which can be separated because they co-emerge and inform each other. First, there is the idea and how it is experienced (e.g., mentally calculating the costs and benefits, feeling anxiety about hiring a contractor, or excitement in pursuing the goal). These thoughts and experiences are informed by
49
psychological structures and somatic feelings associated with the UL quadrant. Simultaneously, there is neuronal activity, brain chemistry, and bodily states – UR quadrant – that accompany these thoughts and feelings, as well as any behaviors that occur (e.g., taking roof mea- surements, assisting with installation). Likewise, there are ecological, economic, political, and social systems that inform, incentivize, or disincentivize this project, reflected in the LR quadrant, as well as so- cietal values represented in the LL quadrant – all of which directly inform Jane and John’s desire and ability to pursue this project in the first place.
Unique among contemporary metatheories, integral theory extends Geddes’ thinking by incorporating the work of developmental psychology into a larger evolutionary framework. This reflects an emerging field of theory and research that is attempting a grand synthesis of development – the process that an individual organism goes through over the course of its life− and evolution – the process that a population goes through as its members reproduce and die (Roy, 2010; Sansom & Brandon, 2007). As noted in Fig. 9, research shows that people develop along multiple psychological lines. One of these is characterized by widening circles of identity and belonging (see Fig. 10). An expanding capacity to manage complexity and multiple perspectives is another developmental trait. Of particular relevance to urban and landscape planning, Cook-Greuter (2013) describes adult developmental stages that are “post-rational,” “post-formal,” and “post- symbolic” in that they include rationality but decenter the presiding role of rationality to acknowledge the limits of human reasoning and allow for the uncertainties, ambiguities, and paradoxes one faces in any complex human endeavor.
One of today’s leading developmental psychologists, Robert Kegan, describes an historically significant shift in scientific thought: from entity to process, static to dynamic, and dichotomous to dialectical. In the last 150 years, “nearly every social and natural science has made [the] transformation from a taxonomic, entity-oriented perception of the phenomena of investigation to a developmental, process-oriented perception” (1982, p. 13). While Geddes did not have access to advances in developmental psychology and systems theory that would emerge over the course of the 20th century, his work foreshadows an understanding of these processes, including the complex self-organizing structure and dependent co-arising inherent in ecologies and societies (Bateson, 1979; Koestler, 1967; Korzybski, 1958; Luhmann, 1995; Parsons, 1949; Prigogine & Stengers, 1984). His efforts to understand how these dynamics might operate in cities is noteworthy. As described above, the NOL elucidates a co-emergent and dialectial process whereby local environmental traits inform people’s individual and collective identity, and this in turn expresses itself through physical alteration of the space in which they live. This creates the unique qualities that characterize a place, which recapitulates the process by informing individual and collective identity. One of the ways Geddes elucidates this dynamic is through an interaction between “bio-psy- chosis” and “psycho-biosis,” depicted along the left and right of edges of the NOL, respectively (see Fig. 3).
In so doing, Geddes goes beyond a materialistic point of view and embraces a dialectic where the psychosocial life of a community influences the physical character of a place – and vice-versa. This socioecological relationship is in turn framed within an evolutionary context through cultural inheritance between generations (Branford & Geddes, 1917). Importantly, he argues that urbanism is essential to this process, describing cities as “the specialized organ of social transmission…[that] …receives the experience of each passing generation and hands the record on to the next” (p. 154). This proposition is crystallized in the rhetorical question: “Does it not seem that the city, in its being and becoming, is, as it were, the very incarnation of the evolutionary process?” (p. 155).
This orientation has led to criticism that Geddes subscribed to environmental determinism (Rubin, 2013): a belief that the physical environment predisposes societies towards particular development
trajectories, and in so doing, devalues human agency. Geddes did per- ceive an interaction between environment, mind, and settlement pat- tern, where the physical environment initially informs human habitation and work. But he also held that over time, people can modify the environment toward a more mutually beneficial configuration between nature and culture, what he termed “Eutopia” (P. Geddes, 1915, p. vii). Importantly, his writing on this subject suggests an open-ended, emergent understanding of this complex dynamic. “If the geographical determinist thesis on one hand, and its ethical and psychological an- tithesis on the other, can thus clearly be defined and balanced... their complete synthesis remain [sic] beyond us,” said Geddes (1904, p. 45). Extending this logic through an integral lens, McIntosh (2013) suggests that humans have “improved their conditions most dramatically when they've improved the definition of improvement itself.”
4.3. Human agency & ethics
In addition to offering a holistic and evolutionary understanding of reality, metatheoretical discourse grapples with how to creatively address contemporary problems. In other words, those working with these approaches “take responsibility for discursively constructing conceptual innovations aimed at bringing coherence to the state of knowledge for the sake of shaping human history” (Stein, 2016, p. 37). This embrace of human agency in the service of ethics and ideals resonates strongly with the work of Geddes. Commenting on the Arbor Saeculorum, “the model is not so much an analytic as a moral one,” reminding citizens of their responsibility and role in contributing to the common good (Welter, 2002, p. 91).
Likewise, the NOL is “a call to action…[that]…contains Geddes methodology for the improvement of the human condition” (Welter, 2002, p. 31). As described earlier, the NOL depicts a process whereby environmental characteristics in the upper left quadrant inform the “mind of the community” in the lower left quadrant (see Fig. 6). Spir- aling counter-clockwise to the lower right quadrant, a simplified ver- sion of the NOL shows how the subjective and collective thought-world of residents is expressed through socio-economic ideals, ideas, and imagery (see Fig. 4). Here, ideals or ethics can be understood as that which is good, ideas correspond to science or that which is true, and imagery relates to art or the beautiful (p. 36). These values are aspirational – or in Geddes terms “dreams” – that are best cultivated in the Cloister, Hermitage, University, and Studio (see inner circle of Fig. 3 as well as Fig. 4). Characterized by contemplation, speculation, and freedom of thought, it is here that emotional commitment to aspirational values leads to “collective action” (Geddes, 1924, p. 200), expressed in the upper right quadrant through creation of The City in Deed.
As noted earlier, while late 20th century postmodern criticism laid bare the deficiencies of a modernist worldview characterized by scientific materialism and exploitation of human and natural resources, it also gave rise to a subtle if not explicit distrust of human agency to constructively address social and environmental ills (Lawler, 1999; Rorty, 1979; Young, 1992). This is tangible in United States urban planning. In the post-WWII era, American cities were becoming de- populated, municipalities were losing tax base, buildings were being abandoned, and neighborhoods were falling victim to blight. Supported by the federal 1949 Housing Act, city planners and designers pursued urban renewal and slum clearance projects nationwide, resulting in ethnic minority neighborhoods being supplanted by superblocks dominated by high-rise low-income housing projects and fragmented by highways to make downtown offices accessible to suburbanites. These heavy-handed physical interventions dislocated residents, weakened essential social ties, and further concentrated poverty. In so doing, postwar city planners “abetted some of the most egregious acts of urban vandalism in American history” (Campanella, 2011).
This gave rise to a well-deserved backlash against top-down, expert- driven planning and design (e.g. Jacobs, 1961), in favor of participatory
50
modes of planning based on Habermas’ communicative rationality (e.g. Forester, 1980; Healey, 1996; Innes & Booher, 1999). A corollary con- sequence has been the diminishment of disciplinary identity and visionary capacity of urban designers and planners (Campanella, 2011). Some also argue that this anti-modern ethos has undermined our collective faith in the capacity to design places and build communities that are worth caring about, much less loving (Kunstler, 2001). This am- bivalent posture toward human agency stands in contrast to the “larger modernism” that Geddes perceived for cities – and the disciplines dedicated to their planning and design – to improve and uplift people’s lives. It also runs counter to the generative potentials illuminated by metatheories, which reestablish a rightful place for human reason and creative agency by, amongst other things, turning reason upon itself and illuminating the validity and importance of ethical, aesthetic, and intuitive modes of understanding as well as empirical methods.
4.4. Spirituality
Reflecting a prominent theme in turn-of-the-century intellectual discourse, Geddes was concerned with spirituality. And like many of his Victorian contemporaries, he lost belief in traditional religion sometime during his youth. But he did not lose conviction that there is a fundamental need for spirituality in human life. Indeed, spirituality is one of three themes that Geddes biographer Volker Welter (2002) identifies as essential to the Scotsman’s city planning theory. One of the ways this expressed itself was through elaboration of numerous temple schemes. Prior to 1900, these renderings were dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge and took the form of geographical institutes, geographical gardens, or outlook towers; but in the latter half of his life, Geddes moved from a mostly scientific orientation to a “quasi-religious ve- neration of the phenomenon of life in its material and metaphysical totality” (p. 176).
This reflects, in part, an understanding of temples as artistic expressions of an idealized, anticipated condition (Rubens, 1986). The Arbor Saeculorum represents such an orientation, with “spiritual” themes depicted on the right side (see Fig. 2). Likewise, the NOL identifies the “Cloister” – generally understood as a secluded monastic space – in the bottom right quadrant as a setting where unrestrained contemplation and deeper insight give rise to new imagery (beauty), ideas (truth), and ideals (goodness) in the city proper (upper right quadrant) (Welter, 2002) (see Fig. 3). Combined with his progressive understanding of history and cities, this suggests a spiritual life informed by an evolutionary worldview.
Similarly, an important pillar of integral theory is a spiritualized interpretation of evolution. This emerges from the efforts of 20th century thinkers – including but not limited to Sri Aurobindo, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and Whitehead – to fashion a philosophy that makes meaning of the deep-time evolutionary process itself. “Evolution is a light illuminating all facts. A curve that all lines must follow,” wrote Jesuit priest and paleontologist Teilhard de Chardin (1955, p. 219). Philosopher Mary Midgley has likewise argued, “The theory of evolution is not just an inert piece of theoretical science. It is, and cannot help being, also a powerful folk-tale about human origins... Evolution is the creation myth of our age” (1985, p. 1). But despite widespread acceptance in scientific and modern thought, integral theory suggests that the philosophical and ontological implications of evolution have not been thoroughly internalized (McIntosh, 2007).
According to integral logic, evolution is a universal process oper- ating across cosmological, biological, and psychosocial domains, and this has profound implications for how we make meaning of our lives and the world. The contours of evolutionary spirituality encompass a range of paths that cannot be equated with a particular lineage (e.g. Aurobindo, 1939; Carreira, 2016; Cohen, 2011; Dowd, 2009; Haught, 2010; Marx Hubbard, 1998; McConkie, 2015; McIntosh, 2012, 2015; Nasr, 2013; Phipps, 2012; Sanguin, 2015; Swimme & Berry, 1992; Teilhard de Chardin, 1955, 1965; Wilber, 2000a, 2006a). The seminal
contribution of Wilber, for example, has been critiqued for being too narrowly aligned with Eastern mysticism (McIntosh, 2007). But one recurring theme is a general understanding of evolution as Eros, described as “Spirit-in-Action…an inherent dynamic toward greater and greater wholeness, unity, complexity, and consciousness” (Wilber, 2017).
While Geddes does not seem to have articulated adherence to an evolutionary faith system per se, the evidence elaborated upon above suggests that his worldview resonated with the spiritual logics being formulated by integral thinkers today (Wight, 2015). This includes an appreciation for the interior dimensions of the human condition; and an aspiration for expanding realizations of beauty, truth, and goodness − provocatively depicted by McIntosh as “evolution’s purpose” (2012, 2013).
5. Prospects
The intent of this paper is not to evaluate the merit of Geddes’ work nor the merit of integral theory − both have been the object of ha- giography and critique. Rather, we seek to introduce contemporary integrative reasoning as a potentially meaningful lens through which to understand Geddes and his work. This may, in turn, support future research on Geddes, cities, and landscape and urban planning. Toward that eventuality, we offer a few concluding thoughts.
While different in ambition and scope – Geddes concentrated on cities and regions whereas integral theory seeks a rhetorical “theory of everything” (Wilber, 2001) – there are noteworthy similarities between the two. Separated by roughly a century, both embrace a holistic understanding of the world where biophysical (objective/material/exterior) and psychosocial (subjective/immaterial/interior) conditions are intimately linked and equally valued. Importantly, both view this mutualistic relationship as one that is discursively negotiated and per- petually emergent. As noted by prominent 19th century urbanist Lewis Mumford, who admired Geddes while remaining cognizant of his shortcomings, “Synthesis is not a goal: it is a process of organization in operation, never finished. Any attempt to produce a single synthesis good for all times, all places, all cultures, all persons is to reject the very nature of organic existence” (see Mumford & Geddes, ed. Novak, 1995, p. 28).
Our main subjects both employ visual tools to explore and com- municate synthetic efforts. Built upon a scaffolding of four quadrants, Geddes’ NOL suggests a particular correspondence to Wilber’s AQAL map, and there are some similarities. Both depict a classification and reciprocity of exterior and interior realms as well as individual and community psychology, and both are predicated upon a developmental orientation. But aside from these shared qualities, the two diagrams do not map onto one another. AQAL posits a comprehensive treatise whereas the NOL addresses urban settlements; and where the former is largely descriptive, the latter is more prescriptive. Separated by nearly a century, integral theory also draws upon advances in systems science and psychology to which Geddes had no access, and AQAL has a more robust empirical foundation. This suggests that integral theory can play a meaningful role in refining and extending Geddes’ work in the contemporary era.
Where Geddes may add value to integral discourse is his steadfast portrayal of cities as both the artifact of, and the principal theater wherein, the developmental dynamics of human culture play out. “Like flower and butterfly, city and citizen are bound in an abiding partner- ship of mutual aid” (Branford & Geddes, 1919, p. 24). And “city by city, our civic ideals emerge and become definite” (P. Geddes, 1915, p. 365). This intimate relationship between urbanization and civilization is well recognized (Hall, 1998; Mumford, 1961; Olmsted, 1871), but this has not been a prominent theme in integral discourse.
While the application of metatheories to landscape and urban planning is rare, authors in allied disciplines are engaging this territory. Wilber’s framework has been applied to ecology (Esbjörn-
51
Hargens & Zimmerman, 2009) and sustainability writ large, where Brown (2005) employs integral logic to illustrate the indissoluble relationship between (interior) values and (exterior) behaviors in the process of enacting meaningful organizational change. Marilyn Hamilton (2008) has explored how integral theory may improve the interaction of municipal actors. Focusing on architecture and design, DeKay (2011) and Fleming (2013) have noted that sustainability – often described as the Triple Bottom Line of environment, economy, and equity; or planet, profit, and people (Elkington, 1998) – is flawed in that it does not account for subjective experience, beauty, and cultural meaning. By extension, the prevailing conception of sustainable design is often reduced to the objective sphere of technological performance; and it does not respond to deep human needs for delight, inspiration, and hope. To remedy this deficiency, DeKay draws upon the AQAL model to outline a holistic approach to sustainable architecture that seeks to create rich human experiences (UL), cultivate cultural meaning (LL), maximize technological performance (UR), and shape form to guide ecological flows (LR). Also drawing upon AQAL, Fleming (2015) has proposed a variation on this called the “Quadruple Bottom Line.”
A noteworthy initiative to bring integral theory into mainstream architecture is Peter Buchanan’s year-long series of articles for The Architectural Review in 2012. Entitled “The Big Rethink,” this ambitious undertaking uses integral as the central framework to fundamentally reconsider architectural history, practice, and education in the face of the “epochal change” that characterizes our current era. Critiquing modernist and postmodernist architecture, respectively, as “dehuma- nizing” and “spurious self-expression,” Buchanan argues that “the Integral approach is among the most promising routes to resolving the impasses that currently stymie us; not least it could inform a left quadrant, cultural vision properly grounded in the right quadrant empirical realities inspiring enough to motivate effective collective action” (2012a, p. 80).
Another shared characteristic of Geddes and integral theory is that both occupy outsider status in academia; and both can be critiqued along similar grounds. This includes reliance on generalization and taxonomic organization; adherence to conceptual maps; inclusion of spiritual themes that are at odds with prevailing norms in academic scholarship; and an idealism that may not sufficiently address the gritty realities of power, identity, and politics. Likewise, any discussion about cultural development needs to be handled with great nuance and care. Postmodern scholarship, for example, has revealed the hegemony of a Eurocentric and male perspective in Western literature (e.g., Cixous & Clément, 1986; Said, 1979); and how positionality can bias epistemology (Ravitch & Riggan, 2011; Takacs, 2003).
The philosophical implications of an evolutionary worldview is now an important inflection point at the interface of postmodern and integral discourse, also described as “post-postmodern” or “trans- modern” (e.g. Buchanan, 2012a; Roy, 2010). Here, the declensionist and progressive orientations of these respective perspectives is likely to be a prominent theme in the near future considering advances in developmental psychology and complex systems, as well as insights emerging from literature on the Anthropocene (Crutzen & Stoermer, 2000; Zalasiewicz et al., 2014), where pioneering scholarship identifies sociocultural evolution as an underlying variable that explains how one species acquired the capacity to transform the biosphere (Ellis, 2015b, 2015a).
The holistic, developmental, and generative orientation of Geddes and integral theory suggest that both may have particular relevance in an anthropogenic world characterized, in part, by significant environmental challenges and the concentration of humans in cities. Indeed, the cultivation and fruition of socioecological potentials in the face of complexity and uncertainty is a common thread that unifies the principal subjects of this article. As landscape and urban planners grapple with the problems and opportunities that now beckon, Geddes’ (1915) admonition to “survey before plan” is apropos (Meller, 2005, p. 174), as are “sense-and-respond” management approaches (McDaniel,
McCully, & Childs, 2007), and adaptive, interdisciplinary planning, design, and research (e.g., Ahern, 2011; Reed & Lister, 2014; Sullivan, Frumkin, Jackson, & Chang, 2014), that draws upon “ecological wisdom” (Young, 2016) and cultivates new relationships between people, place, and cosmos (Corner, 1997). Of equal importance is a willingness to reconsider the status quo; and as Buchanan (2012b, 2012c) notes and Geddes envisioned, connect the placemaking profes- sions with transcendent meaning and purpose.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer as well as Robert Young, editor of this Special Issue, for their detailed and thoughtful comments which significantly improved this article. We also extend thanks to Carol Stewart at the University of Strathclyde, Archives and Special Collections, for graciously assisting with acquisition of graphics; and to Tigran Haas at the KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Center for the Future of Places, for supporting final revisions. Additionally, much thanks to Annica Carlmark and Daniel Görtz for connecting the co-authors of this article to one another.
References
Ahern, J. (2011). From fail-safe to safe-to-fail: Sustainability and resilience in the new urban world. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100(4), 341–343.
Angel, S. (2012). Planet of cities Cambridge, MA. MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Aurobindo, S. (1939). The life divine (7th ed.). Pondicherry, India: Sri Aurobindo Press. Baldwin, J. M. (1893). Elements of psychology. New York: H. Holt and Co. [Retrieved from]
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pzh&jid=200807883& site=ehost-live.
Baldwin, J. M. (1913). History of psychology: A sketch and an interpretation. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/direct.asp?db=pzh& jid=%22200300191%22&scope=site.
Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature: A necessary unity. New York: Dutton. Batty, M., & Marshall, S. (2009). Centenary paper: The evolution of cities: Geddes,
Abercrombie and the new physicalism. Town Planning Review, 80(6), 551–573. Beck, D. E., & Cowan, C. C. (1996). Spiral dynamics: Mastering values, leadership, and
change. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Bhaskar, R., Esbjörn-Hargens, S., Hedlund, N., & Hartwig, M. (Eds.), (2016). Metatheory
for the twenty-first century: Critical realism and integral theory in dialogue. London: Routledge.
Bhaskar, R. (1978). A realist theory of science. Hassocks, UK: Harvester Press. Bhaskar, R. (1986). Scientific realism and human emancipation. London: Verso. Bhaskar, R. (1993). Dialectic: The pulse of freedom. London: Verso. Boardman, P. (1978). The worlds of Patrick Geddes: Biologist, town planner, re-educator,
peace-warrior. London: Routledge. Branford, V., & Geddes, P. (1917). In P. Geddes, & V. Branford (Eds.), The coming polity: A
study in reconstructionLondon: Williams &Norgate. Retrieved from https://babel. hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044011730231;view=1up;seq=24.
Branford, V., & Geddes, P. (1919). Our social inheritance. London: Williams &Norgate. Branford, V. (1930). A more realistic approach to the social synthesis. The Sociological
Review, a22(3), 195–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954x.1930.tb01760.x. Brown, B. C. (2005). Theory and practice of integral sustainable development: Part
2–Values, developmental levels, and natural design. AQAL: Journal of Integral Theory and Practice, 1(2), 2–70.
Brown, B. C. (2006). Theory and practice of integral sustainable development: Part 1–Quadrants and the practitioner. AQAL: Journal of Integral Theory and Practice, 1(2), 1–39.
Brown, B. C. (2007). The four worlds of sustainability: drawing upon four universal perspectives to support sustainability initiatives. Integral Sustainability Center.
Buchanan, P. (2012a). The big rethink part 3: Integral theory –Towards a complete architecture. The Architectural Review, 231(1381), 67–81.
Buchanan, P. (2012b). The big rethink part 4: The purposes of architecture. The Architectural Review, 231(1382), 75–83.
Buchanan, P. (2012c). The big rethink part 9: Rethinking architectural education. The Architectural Review, 232(1388), 91–101.
Carreira, J. (2016). The soul of a new self: Embracing the future of being human. Philadelphia: Emergence Education Press.
Campanella, T. J. (2011). Jane Jacobs and the death and life of American planning design obser. April (online). Retrieved from http://places. designobserver. com/feature/ jane-jacobs-and-the-death-and-life-of-american-planning/25188/.
Cixous, H., & Clément, C. (1986). The newly born woman. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Cohen, A. (2011). Evolutionary enlightenment: A new path to spiritual awakening. Inc.; New York: SelectBooks.
Combs, A. (2002). The radiance of being: Understanding the grand integral vision; Living the integral life (2nd ed.). St. Paul, MN: Paragon House.
Cook-Greuter, S. R. (2000). Mature ego development: A gateway to ego transcendence? Journal of Adult Development, 7(4), 227–240.
Cook-Greuter, S. R. (2013). Assumptions versus assertions: Separating hypotheses from truth in the integral community. Journal of Integral Theory and Practice, 8(3 and 4), 227–236.
Corner, J. (1997). Ecology and Landscape as Agents of Creativity. In G. F. Thompson, & F. R. Steiner (Eds.), Ecological Design and Planning (pp. 80–108). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Crutzen, P. J., & Stoermer, E. F. (2000). The Anthropocene. IGBP Newsletter, 41(May), 17–18.
DeKay, M. (2011). In S. Bennet (Ed.), Integral sustainable design: Transformational perspectives. Oxon, UK: Earthscan.
Defries, A. D. (1927). The interpreter: Geddes the man and his gospel. London: G. Routledge & Sons.
Derrida, J. (1976). Of grammatology: 40th Anniversary edition (G. C. Spivak, trans.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Dowd, M. (2009). Thank God for evolution: How the marriage of science and religion will transform your life and our world. New York: Plume.
Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.
Ellis, E. C. (2015). Ecology in a Human Biosphere. Woods Hole, MA. Retrieved from http://ecotope.org/anthroecology/.
Ellis, E. C. (2015b). Ecology in an anthropogenic biosphere. Ecological Monographs, 85(3), 287–331.
Esbjörn-Hargens, S., & Zimmerman, M. E. (2009). Integral ecology: Uniting multiple perspectives on the natural world. Boston: Integral Books.
Esbjörn-Hargens, S. (2009). An overview of integral theory: An all-inclusive framework for the 21st century (Resource paper No. 1). Integral Institute1–24. Retrieved from http:// www.dialogue4health.org/uploads/resources/IntegralTheory_031809.pdf.
Fleming, R. M. (2013). Design education for a sustainable future. Oxon, UK: Routledge. Retrieved from http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415537667/.
Fleming, R. M. (2015). Integral theory: An expanded and holistic framework for sustainability. In W. Leal Filho, W. Brandli, O. Kuznetsova, & A. M. F. Paço (Eds.), Integrative approaches to sustainable development at university level: Making the links (pp. 259–273). Springer International Publishing.
Forester, J. (1980). Critical theory and planning practice. Journal of the American Planning Association, 46(3), 275–286.
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge and discourse on language (A. M. S. Smith, trans.). New York: Vintage Books.
Fuhr, R., & Reams, J. (2005). Integral foundations: Introducing the first issue of integral review (IR). Integral Review, 1(1), 1–3.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Gebser, J. (1949). The ever-present origin (N. Barstad & A. Mickunas, trans.). Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.
Geddes, P. (1904). Civics: As applied sociology. Echo Library. Geddes, P. (1905). The world without and the world within: Sunday talks with my children.
Birmingham, UK: The Saint George Press. [Retrieved from] https://babel.hathitrust. org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hnvdkh;view=1up;seq=5.
Geddes, P. (1915). Cities in evolution: An introduction to the town planning movement and to the study of civics. London: Williams &Norgate.
Geddes, P. (1924). The mapping of life. The Sociological Review, a16(3), 193–203. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954x.1924.tb01496.x.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Goist, P. D. (1974). Patrick Geddes and the city. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 40(1), 31–37.
Graves, C. W. (1974). Human nature prepares for a momentous leap. The Futurist, 72–84. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of
society. (T. McCarthy, trans.), Vol. 1. Boston: Beacon Press. Habermas, J. (1987). The philosophical discourse of modernity: Twelve lectures. (F. G.
Lawrence, trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [Retrieved from] https://mitpress.mit. edu/books/philosophical-discourse-modernity.
Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hall, P. G., & Pfeiffer, U. (2000). Urban future 21: A global agenda for 21st century cities. London: E & FN Spon.
Hall, P. G. (1998). Cities in civilization. New York: Pantheon Books. Hamilton, M. (2008). Integral city: Evolutionary intelligences for the human hive. Gabriola
Island, B.C: New Society Publishers. Haught, J. F. (2010). Making sense of evolution: Darwin, God, and the drama of life.
Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press. Healey, P. (1996). The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for
spatial strategy formations. In S. Campbell, & S. S. Fainstein (Eds.), Readings in planning theory (pp. 217–234). (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1964). The early growth of logic in the child: Classification and seriation. (E. A. Lunzer & D. Papert, trans.). New York: Harper & Row.
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (1999). Consensus building as role playing and bricolage. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(1), 9–26.
Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York, NY: Random House.
James, W. (1912). On a certain blindness in human beings. On some of life’s ideals. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: problem and process in human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press. Kitchen, P. (1975). A most unsettling person: The life and ideas of Patrick Geddes, founding
father of city planning and environmentalism. Saturday Review Press. Klein, J. T. (2005). Humanities, culture, and interdisciplinarity: The changing American
academy. Albany: State University of New York Press. Retrieved from http://site. ebrary.com/id/10579201.
Koestler, A. (1967). The ghost in the machine. New York: Macmillan. Kohlberg, L. (1981). The philosophy of moral development: Moral stages and the idea of
justice. San Francisco: Harper & Row. Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development: The nature and validity of moral
stages. San Francisco: Harper & Row. Korzybski, A. (1958). Science and sanity: an introduction to non-Aristotelian systems and
general semantics. Lakeville, CT: Institute of General Semantics. Kunstler, J. H. (2001). The city in mind: Notes on the urban condition. New York: The Free
Press. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern (Porter, Catherine, trans.). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press. Lawler, P. A. (1999). Postmodernism rightly understood: The return to realism in American
thought. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Loevinger, J., & Blasi, A. (1976). Ego development: Conceptions and theories. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers. Loevinger, J. (1998). Technical foundations for measuring ego development. Mahwah, N.J:
Erlbaum. Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge (G. Bennington & B.
Massumi, trans.), Vol. 10. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Mairet, P. (1957). Pioneer of sociology: The life and letters of Patrick Geddes. London: Lund
Humphries. Marx Hubbard, B. (1998). Conscious evolution: Awakening the power of our social potential
novato. CA: New World Library. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4),
370–396. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row. McConkie, T. W. (2015). Navigating Mormon faith crisis: A simple developmental map. Salt
Lake City: Mormon Stages. McDaniel, E., McCully, M., & Childs, R. D. (2007). Becoming a “Sense-and-Respond”
academic and government organisation. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(2), 215–222.
McIntosh, S. (2007). Integral consciousness and the future of evolution: How the integral worldview is transforming politics, culture, and spirituality. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House.
McIntosh, S. (2012). Evolution’s purpose: An integral interpretation of the scientific story of our origins. New York: SelectBooks, Inc.
McIntosh, S. (2013). Evolution’s purpose. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=GDxVKTtg6Zk.
McIntosh, S. (2015). The presence of the infinite: The spiritual experience of beauty, truth, and goodness. Wheaton, Illinois: Quest Books.
Meller, H. (2005). Patrick Geddes: Social evolutionist and city planner (Kindle). London: Taylor & Francis.
Midgley, M. (1985). Evolution as a religion: Strange hopes and stranger fears. London; New York: Methuen.
Morin, E., & Kern, A. B. (1999). Homeland earth: A manifesto for the new millennium (Advances in systems theory, complexity and the human sciences). (S. M. Kelly & R. La Pointe, trans.). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Mumford, L., & Geddes, P. (1995). Lewis Mumford and Patrick Geddes: The Correspondence. (F. G. Novak, Ed.). New York: Psychology Press: London.
Mumford, L. (1961). The city in history: Its origins, its transformations, and its prospects. New York: Harcourt, Brace &World.
Murray, T. (in press). Integralist mental models of adult development: Provisos from a user’s guide. In: S. Esbjörn-Hargens (Ed.), True but partial: Essential critiques of integral theory.
Nasr, A. A. (2013). My Isl@m: How fundamentalism stole my mind – and doubt freed my soul. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Olmsted, F. L. (1871). Public parks and the enlargement of towns. Journal of Social Science, 3 Read before the American Social Science Association, at the Lowell Institute, Boston, February 25, 1870.
Parsons, T. (1949). The structure of social action: A study in social theory with special reference to a group of recent european writers, Vol. 491. Glencoe, Ill: Free Press.
Phipps, C. (2012). Evolutionaries: Unlocking the spiritual and cultural potential of science’s greatest idea. New York: Harper Perennial.
Piaget, J. (1972). The principles of genetic epistemology. London: Routledge and K. Paul. Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature. New
York: Bantam Books. Ravitch, S. M., & Riggan, M. (2011). Reason & rigor: how conceptual frameworks guide re-
search. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Reed, C., & Lister, N.-M. (2014). Ecology and design: Parallel genealogies. Places Journal.
http://dx.doi.org/10.22269/140414. Ritzer, G. (2001). Explorations in social theory: From metatheorizing to rationalization.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Retrieved from http://www.123library.org/book_ details/?id=597.
Roberts, S. H. (2013). Implications of integral theory on sustainable design (Master’s thesis). Philadelphia, PA: Philadelphia University. Retrieved from http://pqdtopen.proquest. com/doc/1629017484.html?FMT=AI.
Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rosling, H. (2010). 200 countries, 200 years, 4 minutes. Stockholm: Gapminder. Retrieved from http://www.gapminder.org/videos/200-years-that-changed-the-world-bbc/.
Rubens, G. (1986). William Richard Lethaby: His life and work. London: Architectural Press, 1857–1931.
Rubin, N. H., (2009). A Cultural Acropolis in Tel Aviv: Patrick Geddes’ Vision for the First Hebrew City/
. Zmanim: A Historical Quarterly/ (106) 30–46.
Rubin, N. H. (2009b). The changing appreciation of patrick geddes: A case study in planning history. Planning Perspectives, 24(3), 349–366.
Rubin, N. H. (2013). Patrick Geddes and town planning: A critical view. Abingdon: Routledge.
Said, E. W. (1979). Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books. Saiter, S. M. (2005). A general introduction to integral theory and comprehensive map-
making. The Journal of Conscious Evolution. [Retrieved from] http://cejournal.org/ GRD/Mapmaking.htm#_ftn3.
Sanguin, B. (2015). The way of the wind: The path and practice of evolutionary Christian mysticism. BC: Veriditas Press: Vancouver.
Integrating evolution and development: From theory to practice. In R. Sansom, & R. N. Brandon (Eds.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Scott, J., & Bromley, R. J. (2013). Envisioning sociology: Victor Branford, Patrick Geddes, and the quest for social reconstruction. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Sorokin, P. A. (1941). The crisis of our age (2nd ed.). Oxford, London: Oneworld. Stein, Z. (2016). Beyond nature and humanity: Reflections on the emergence and pur-
poses of metatheories. In R. Bhaskar, S. Esbjörn-Hargens, N. Hedlund, & M. Hartwig (Eds.), Metatheory for the twenty-first century: Critical realism and integral theory in dialogue (pp. 35–68). London: Routledge.
Studholme, M. (2007). Patrick Geddes: Founder of environmental sociology. The Sociological Review, 55(3), 441–459.
Sullivan, W. C., Frumkin, H., Jackson, R. J., & Chang, C.-Y. (2014). Gaia meets Asclepius: Creating healthy places. Landscape and Urban Planning, 127, 182–184.
Swimme, B., & Berry, T. (1992). The universe story: from the primordial flaring forth to the ecozoic era –A celebration of the unfolding of the cosmos. San Francisco: Harper.
Takacs, D. (2003). How does positionality bias your epistemology? The NEA Higher Education Journal, 27–38.
Teilhard de Chardin, P. (1955). The phenomenon of man (B. Wall, trans.). New York: Harper Perennial Modern Thought.
Teilhard de Chardin, P. (1965). The divine milieu: an essay on the interior life. New York: Harper & Row.
Thomson, S. J. A., & Geddes, P. (1913). Life: Outlines of general biology, Vol. One. New York and London: Harper and Brothers, Publishers.
Visser, F. (2003). Ken Wilber: Thought as passion. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Walls, L. D. (2009). Introducing Humboldt’s cosmos. Minding Nature, 2(2), [Retrieved from] http://www.humansandnature.org/introducing-humboldt-s-cosmos.
Walsh, R., & Vaughan, F. (1993). On transpersonal definitions. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 25(2), 199–207.
Ward Thompson, C. (2006). Patrick Geddes and the Edinburgh zoological garden: Expressing universal processes through local place. Landscape Journal, 25(1), 80–93.
Welter, V. (2002). Biopolis: Patrick Geddes and the city of life. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Whitehead, A. N. (1925). Science and the modern world: Lowell lectures. New York: The Free
Press. Wight, I. (2015). The evolutionary spirit at work in Patrick Geddes. Geddes Institute for
Urban Research, University of Dundee. [Working Paper. Retrieved from] https:// www.dundee.ac.uk/geddesinstitute/library/workingpapers/Geddes%20Institute
%20Working%20Paper%20-%20The%20Evolutionary%20Spirit%20at%20Work %20in%20PG.pdf.
Wilber, K. (1995). Sex, ecology, spirituality: The spirit of evolution. Boston: Shambhala. Wilber, K. (2000a). One taste: daily reflections on integral spirituality. Boston: Shambhala. Wilber, K. (2000b). Integral psychology: Consciousness, spirit, psychology, therapy. Boston:
Shambhala. Wilber, K. (2001). A theory of everything: An integral vision for business, politics, science, and
spirituality. Boston: Shambhala. Wilber, K. (2006a). Integral spirituality: A startling new role for religion in the modern and
postmodern world. Boston: Shambhala. Wilber, K. (2006b). Introduction to the integral approach (and the AQAL map). Retrieved
July 7 2016 from http://www.kenwilber.com/Writings/PDF/ IntroductiontotheIntegralApproach_GENERAL_2005_NN.pdf.
Wilber, K. (2007). The integral vision: A very short introduction to the revolutionary integral approach to life, god, the universe, and everything. Boston: Shambhala.
Wilber, K. (2013). Response to critical realism in defense of integral theory. Retrieved August 3 2016 https://www.integrallife.com/integral-post/response-critical-realism- defense-integral-theory.
Wilber, K. (2017). Trump and a post-truth world: An evolutionary self-correction. Integral life. Retrieved from https://integrallife.com/trump-post-truth-world/.
Young, T. R. (1992). Chaos theory and human agency: Humanist sociology in a postmodern era. Humanity & Society, 16(4), 441.
Young, R. F. (2016). Modernity, postmodernity, and ecological wisdom: Toward a new framework for landscape and urban planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 155, 91–99.
Young, R. F. (2017). From smart cities to wise cities: Ecological wisdom as a new basis for sustainable urban development. In B. Yang, & R. Young (Eds.), Ecological wisdom: Theory and practice. Oxford: Springer-Nature.
Zalasiewicz, J., Waters, C. N., Williams, M., Barnosky, A. D., Cearreta, A., Crutzen, P., & Oreskes, N. (2014). When did the Anthropocene begin? A mid-twentieth century boundary level is stratigraphically optimal. Quaternary International.
Dr. Theodore Eisenman is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Landscape Architecture & Regional Planning at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. His principal scholarly interest concerns the historical, scientific, cultural, and design bases of urban greening, defined here as the introduction or conservation of outdoor vegetation in cities. He was previously an Andrew W. Mellon Fellow in the Humanities Institute at The New York Botanical Garden, and his career spans interdisciplinary research and practice with a range of federal, municipal, and nonprofit groups. Eisenman has been a regular contributor to Landscape Architecture Magazine on ecological design topics, and he has been engaging with integral discourse since 2006. He has a PhD in City and Regional Planning from the University of Pennsylvania and a Masters of Landscape Architecture from Cornell University.
Dr. TomMurray is a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, School of Computer Science, where his interests include advanced adaptive learning systems, cognitive tools, and supporting social deliberative skills. He is also Chief Visionary and Instigator at Open Way Solutions which merges technology with integral developmental theory. He has published articles on integral theory as it relates to education, contemplative dialog, leadership, ethics, knowledge building communities, epistemology, and post-metaphysics. Murray has degrees in educational technology (EdD, MEd), computer science (MS), and physics (BS). He is on the editorial review boards of two international journals: the International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education and at Integral Review as an Associate Editor. Info at www.tommurray.us.
Introduction

Documents

Landscape and Urban Planning - Perspegrity