Home Page Forums Support The Gift of Imagination as it Relates to Fowler’s Stages

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #204618
    Anonymous
    Guest

    As I was reading something else on a different blog, a thought struck me that I want to develop and share here. I am going to discuss Fowler’s stages in a slightly different and “imaginary” way, but I hope it helps someone, somehow – especially as we move ever closer to Christmas.

    Moroni’s promise at the end of the Book of Mormon is set on a foundation of remembering that gets overlooked almost every time it is quoted and discussed. I wrote about it on my own blog (http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2007/12/remember-as-missionary-principle.html), but I want to take a different tack here and develop the idea I think it represents in a way that is more broadly relevant to everyone here. I want to talk about remembering in the context of imagination – particularly that imagination might be an important gift of the Spirit that is critical – but also that manifests itself differently for different people.

    It is easy to stereotype Stage 3 as stuck in a literal mindset and unable to recognize and accept nuance. Further, it is easy to extrapolate from that first assumption to the belief that those in Stage 3 see everything in black and white, absolutist terms – and, thus, that they lack imagination. I don’t believe this – not at all. I believe the issue is much more the direction of one’s imagination – how one’s imagination is used – that distinguishes between Stage 3, Stage 4 and Stage 5. I also believe that there are distinct and important advantages (good and empowering aspects) of the employment of imagination in each stage.

    1) Stage 3 members often are able to put themselves in the shoes of those they have never met for whom they feel some kind of kinship – imagining their relationship in a very “real” and tangible way. Thus, they are able to “remember the captivity of their fathers” (for example) in a way that is connected and bound in a very personal way – in a way that allows them to overlook faults and weaknesses and issues of their own that are difficult for others to accept. This imagining of kinship is a powerful uniting force, and it allows Stage 3 members to have personal experiences with historical figures (and ancestors). Perhaps most importantly, this particular “gift of imagination” is vital to the binding and sealing of a community of believers that stretches across multiple generations and even historical eras – as it grounds the over-arching purpose of the community in much more than itself without threatening the security of its own time and place.

    These members are the builders, the planners, the protectors, the majority shareholders who guarantee the survival of the community by imagining the dangers that threaten their peace and creating the boundaries within which a community can survive. They often feel threatened by those who don’t share their particular manifestation of imagination – since those who see things differently threaten their safety and security and peace.

    2) Stage 4 members often are those who don’t possess or have lost this sense of assurance in the exclusive connection to a shared community – those for whom this particular “gift of imagination” has disappeared or to whom it was never given. Their particular “gift of imagination” is to consider what might be if things were different – to imagine different rules and different connections and different communal constraints. They often feel no unique connections to one particular group, particularly when viewing those who are disconnected by time. They are more open to seeing equal good outside their own community in the here and now, but they also are more open to seeing equal bad among their own. They are more prone to adding new and important ideas, but they also are more prone to introducing harm from the outside.

    These members are the explorers, the innovators, the entrepreneurs, the frontiersmen who seek and embrace danger and contact with the unknown – and criticize and look down on the settlers who can’t live a life of such danger. These members are seen by many Stage 3 members as a threat – as reckless and capable of bringing disease and danger into the community – and that perspective of the Stage 3 members is correct to a degree. There is no guarantee of positive growth in radical change; often radical change happens too quickly and entire civilizations die. On the other hand, many organizations have shriveled and died from lack of change and adaptation. It is this paradox, this balancing act, that makes Stage 5 members so important to any organization.

    3) Stage 5 members are those whose “imagination” can span BOTH the communal remembering inherent in Moroni’s promise AND the exploratory yearning of those who are not content with the status quo. Stage 5 members are those who can imagine the communal care and protection, while also imagining potentially dangerous change and exploration – who can search for ways to mitigate that potential harm and adopt more moderate change that will not harm the community. They are the peacemakers, the consensus builders, the negotiators – those whose imaginations allow them to create an umbrella vision that includes the competing imaginations of others.

    My final points are simple, but I believe they are important:

    A) I believe that Stage 5 members can come from the ranks of Stage 3 members without ever having run full speed into the wall that would propel them into Stage 4. I believe some people simply are naturally Stage 5, but I also believe that others who naturally are Stage 3 gain an understanding and appreciation of Stage 5 as they are exposed to those in Stage 4 – or to those in Stage 3 who see things radically or even just slightly differently than they do – or to those who are naturally Stage 5. I believe, for example, that some members leave on their missions solidly within Stage 3 but return solidly in Stage 5 – often without being aware consciously of the change.

    B) I believe both Stage 3 and Stage 4 are critical to the continuation of the Church – that the goal is NOT to shatter the imagination of all those in Stage 3 and propel them headlong into Stage 4, hoping or believing that they all will emerge better off in Stage 5. Misery loves company, so it is natural for those in Stage 4 to want others to join them – but that is exactly why those in Stage 3 RIGHTLY fear those in Stage 4. The key, imo, is NOT to eliminate Stage 3 from the community, but rather to move as many as possible as quickly as possible from Stage 4 to Stage 5 – to help them see the good and value in Stage 3 AND to help them see that Stage 4 is good IF AND ONLY IF it is limited to a passing stage.

    C) Those who have been Stage 3 and currently are Stage 4 have an advantage over those who simply are Stage 4 naturally. Those who are “Natural Stage 4” are the cantankerous and the mean, the ornery and the bitter, the angry and the criticizers – and those people rarely change that particular nature. Iow, it is easier to regain something than it is to acquire it for the first time. It is easier to imagine what used to be imagined than it is to learn to imagine in a whole new way.

    D) Imagination, as I have used it here, is a good and important thing – and it does NOT mean seeing falsely. Imagination is the heart of faith, in many ways – since nothing can be pursued unless it can be imagined. We strive constantly to see around the next corner, to reach the unreachable star – to imagine the unimaginable. In a very real way, that is what makes humanity unique within the animal kingdom – what I believe is our divine spark. We simply MUST imagine – but we also MUST accept those whose gift of imagination is different than ours and see it as complementary rather than oppositional.

    Dreams are the stuff of imagination, and I personally have a dream that, at least here in this forum, we can respect the imagination of others whom we might belittle naturally and recognize that, in a very real way, their own remembering imagination provides us the security we desperately need to explore and search and find joy and imagine in our own way upon a bedrock of security and peace provided by others – to explore while knowing there always is a community to which we can return and with whom, ultimately, we belong.

    In that sense, I wish joy to the world and peace and good will to all of you this Christmas.

    #226178
    Anonymous
    Guest

    That is a great essay on combining the importance of imagination with spiritual development Ray. I have a suspicion that our imagination (dreaming, creativity, etc.) is far more important in the eternal perspective than the mastery of the material. I say that because the material will all pass away, indeed our material self passes away. Our souls are creative beings, and everything we keep with us is in our minds and hearts. Imagination is something we do in preparation for much more important uses of that part of our divine humanity.

    Old-Timer wrote:

    I believe, for example, that some members leave on their missions solidly within Stage 3 but return solidly in Stage 5 – often without being aware consciously of the change.

    Hmmmm …. maybe some, but I really don’t think that is common. Missionaries tend to stay in a very literal and fundamentalist mindset. They need to be that way in order to proselytize. I don’t think they come back seeing the Church as a loose metaphor for some transcendent concepts, and the ritual as symbolic.

    #226179
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Quote:

    I believe, for example, that some members leave on their missions solidly within Stage 3 but return solidly in Stage 5 – often without being aware consciously of the change.

    I certainly wouldn’t say the majority or even a large percentage, but, especially among those who serve in foreign countries with very different cultures and worldviews, exposure to very good, humble, sincere people with different perspectives who never embrace Christianity, Mormonism or even theism can go a long way toward ameliorating strict literalism and absolutism. I think it is more common than many believe, based on my own experiences over the past few decades. We hear of those who are propelled into Stage 4 by their missions, but I think the references to being propelled into Stage 5 might be just as numerous – but simply less obvious.

    I think this is true even more so among a generation like my son’s that is less prone to absolutism than yours and mine were.

    #226180
    Anonymous
    Guest

    I wanted to add this to my comment above. I don’t think there is anything wrong with being a Stage 3 kind of person (Mormon). It is a very functional and useful framework for faith. Indeed, I think I utilized vivid imagination, or might I say experienced more immersive imagination, in a lot of ways when I was grounded in that framework.

    #226181
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Of course we are free to make what we want of the Stages of Faith. But as I understand Fowler’s work, the stages are each actual protracted growth stages. I would be very interested to understand better from Fowler’s works about this idea that people skip stages. It sounds like you are saying I might move from 2 to 4 or from 2 to 5 or from 3 to 5. Based on the underlying cognitive development model, I just don’t see how that kind of skipping is possible, though I certainly in a blinding epiphanal moment went from supposed Stage 3 literal belief to Stage 5 paradoxical belief. The reality was that both before and after the epiphany, I was in Stage 4, individuating my faith.

    #226182
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Thanks for forcing a clarification, Tom. When I said going from Stage 3 to Stage 5, I meant subconsciously without a ton of struggle and pain. However, I think it happens mostly (or perhaps only) to people who are raised in a Stage 3 world but are more Stage 5 naturally – those who don’t consider / imagine alternatives originally because there really aren’t obvious alternatives but who embrace a new perspective when it’s presented to them.

    I know it’s possible, because I’ve seen it in some people – and not just a handful.

    I understand Fowler’s progression model, but I believe it, just like everything else, is a generalization – and it works best for (or is best understood by) those in Stage 4 and those who have been conscious of being in Stage 4 and have moved into Stage 5. It’s kind of a theory built specifically for those who are struggling – and I don’t mean that negatively at all. I really like his Stage Theory; I just don’t think it’s Absolute Truth for all. (The fact that it is seen by many who claim to be Stage 5 as absolute truth is more than a little ironic, imo.)

    In relation to this post, the danger in embracing it for many is that they then lose the ability to imagine it is a subjective paradigm – since someone who embraces it as Universal Progression Truth is applying a Stage 3 mindset to an effort to move beyond Stage 4 into Stage 5.

    I believe Fowler’s Stage Theory is wonderful for those who need it to reorient from their disillusionment and re-establish a form of the peace they used to have prior to their faith crisis – and as an INDIVIDUAL progression model. Remember, I spoke of Stage 5, in this particular context, as the ability to embrace multiple imaginations – multiple visions – multiple perspectives – multiple paradigms. I believe one of the signs that people working through this progression within Stage 4 are “getting it” is when they start to realize that not everyone else whom they used to be like needs to experience what they are experiencing to be happy and satisfied and fulfilled and even joyful – that there really are different paths for different people – and that those paths really are legitimate paths – even those that they personally left behind in order to find their own happiness, satisfaction, fulfillment and joy. They stop trying to “convert” others to their own paradigm and start trying to help them within those others’ personal paradigms – and they are able to do this with people who have radically different paradigms – radically different imaginations.

    #226183
    Anonymous
    Guest

    I like this topic. I know I (and others) can easily brand people who we recognize as indoctrinated, or who we don’t understand, or who we no longer agree with, or who we think is practicing blind obidience etc. as “Stage 3”. Does it work if a “Stage 3” person were to look over the stages and brand “Us” seekers of good/knowledge (or w/e you want to call us :)) as also being “Stage 3” – In a SELF absorbed kind of way OR would Stage 4 usually be “Our” brand?

    It is funny that a Stage 4 can easily put Stage 3’s in a negative light .. And vise versa. When it comes down to it the fear between the two is really overwhelming. All I can think of is ALL the Bitter Fruits lessons :? . Does the Church eventually need to take the first step in harmonizing the two Stages or Does the individual of each stage .. or is it just to dangerous? I wonder. :D

    #226184
    Anonymous
    Guest

    So, can someone be Stage 5 without a Stage 4? Maybe. Eastern thought talks about the soul being older in some people, that even though they are children they are full of wisdom, they are ‘awake’ and see clearly. Perhaps that is the parallel for your thought, Ray. To do that, you would have to steer clear of getting caught in Stage 3, being limited by that kind of black & white literalist mindset. I think that might be possible, although I doubt Fowler would agree. In a way it busts Fowler theory, but it is JUST a theory after all – yes, I said it’s JUST A THEORY. It doesn’t have to be right! Theories are seldom 100% right.

    #226185
    Anonymous
    Guest

    I also wanted to add that it could be possible for individuals to be at “Higher” more mature levels of faith and somehow be demoted, through outside sources etc., to a lower level. I think an example might be myself. I honestly think a few years back I leaned near or possbily at “Stage 5” .. I take responsibility for concepts I learned and concepts I trusted BUT The Church (can’t pinpoint in on a certain someone..maybe just the system or culture) seemed to have pushed me a little backwards and now it seems like I am trying to get myself back to where I use to be. Just a thought.

    #226186
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Old-Timer wrote:

    Stage 5 naturally

    This got me to thinking. Fowler does provide “ideal” ages for stage progression. And those ages are quite amazingly young. In other words, he is saying that people do develop sufficient cognitive capacity for the advanced stages quite early in life, and that if conditions are not unfavorable (so that they end up arrested at stage 2, 3, or 4), they could progress right up to stage 6 quite early.

    So our customary (self-centered or culture-centered) thinking that puts Stages 4 and 5 in the 30s, 40s, and 50s is not “structurally” or “cognitively” dictated. We only delay and protract in our passage through the stages because of negative factors that hold us back. I believe (without reference to the Stages of Faith book) that, for example, an older teenager might naturally pass through Stage 4, and then when the young adult goes out into the world (mission or travel), he/she might pass through Stage 5. This makes it look to an old geezer (most of us) like the youngster is “naturally” Stage 5, when in reality, we all are. At least, that’s one way to look at it.

    It’s largely our unhelpful cultures and upbringing that arrest us at Stages 2 and 3.

    Old-Timer wrote:

    I believe one of the signs that people working through this progression within Stage 4 are “getting it” is when they start to realize that not everyone else whom they used to be like needs to experience what they are experiencing to be happy and satisfied and fulfilled and even joyful – that there really are different paths for different people – and that those paths really are legitimate paths – even those that they personally left behind in order to find their own happiness, satisfaction, fulfillment and joy. They stop trying to “convert” others to their own paradigm and start trying to help them within those others’ personal paradigms – and they are able to do this with people who have radically different paradigms – radically different imaginations.

    Yes. Very good indicator.

    #226187
    Anonymous
    Guest

    I think Fowler’s theory makes a lot of sense. However, something I’ve learned about stage theories is that they sort of fall apart when you look too closely at the transitions between stages and when you try to generalize the stages too far. I don’t mean to discredit these theories at all, but wanted to bring up this caveat. Stage theories attempt to describe certain behaviors or processes that change over the course of ones development or aging, and are assumed to be relatively “metamorphic” from one stage to the next, and also pretty universal. But, evidence shows that development is often more continuous and changes are more gradual, fluid, and unique to particular situations or environments. Someone may, for instance, seem squarely in Stage 5 in regards to one aspect of faith, but be in Stage 3 in other aspects. Similarly, one can appear to jump back and forth between stages of development and still be progressing, growing, and developing in a “normal” and healthy manner. Again, this is not meant to criticize Fowler’s stage theory of faith or spiritual development (though it doesn’t seem to be a heck of a whole lot different that Kohlberg’s stages of moral development), but to warn us not to view this stage theory from glasses we picked up on stage three, heh.

    #226188
    Anonymous
    Guest

    I agree Cnsl1. I generally don’t like to label a person as being in a particular stage. None of this is really as accurate on the individual level. What I think is more consistent, and what works better, is to look at how people approach different topics and see their viewpoint through the lens of stage theory.

    A great example that comes to my mind was a lesson I was teaching a couple months ago. I normally teach in the EQ, but this one week we combined the HP group in with us. Their teacher was AWOL. I asked some question (I can’t remember exactly what it was), and a really wonderful guy in the HP answered with a loooooooooong rambling answer. I think I may have been a little too challenging perhaps. He sat there all rigid and recited the whole primary-level plan of salvation in the most minute detail, describing all the things we have to do and then related to the things God has to give us. As he was talking, I distinctly thought to myself how much his thoughts sounded very Stage 2-ish. It was all about the reciprocity with God, obedience and earning a reward, and very robotic sounding like he was playing an event back in vivid detail.

    Now I know this man isn’t a Stage 2 type person in general, but I think I may have triggered a temporary state of mind with my challenging question. I made him feel uncomfortable perhaps (he is definitely a more literal believer and very black/white, but a wonderful fellow), and his answer reflected a regression to a very fixed and solid position in his thinking.

    So I like to think of the way people are thinking as stage-related. People as a whole, as individuals, are often straddling several faith structures depending on the subject matter of their faith content.

    #226189
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Yeah. I like those thoughts, Valoel.

    Cnsl1 wrote:

    it doesn’t seem to be a heck of a whole lot different that Kohlberg’s stages of moral development

    True. Fowler stands heavily on Kohlberg, and quotes Kohlberg as well as others extensively in his work.

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.