Thanks Howard. I agree basically. Both in terms of the need to be open to the idea that the social is not merely context for the individual but primary and generative; I also agree that critique remains facile partly because we don’t take the social ‘how’ seriously enough.

That said, I think Kegan’s theory is deep and rich enough to accommodate most critiques (his main problem is lack of empirical evidence). I am not sure if you read this earlier piece about the central organising principle in his model: https://medium.com/@jonathanrowson/the-unrecognised-genius-of-jean-piaget-78c2914e306 but I think the subject-object relationship explains most things, even at the social level — it’ s just harder to say how/what/why.

So I think the challenge is to think about the subject-object relationship at the societal level. That takes you into questions about ‘social autopoesis’ and ‘the social imaginary’. I am moving in that direction — which I think is necessary — but it’s challenging.

Thanks for the comment.

J