Bias and Risk Management:: ethical praxis framework (mid-2025)
>> SOURCE: "Metamodern Praxis" Podcast Feed <<
FILE: THE DEVELOPMENT TRAP
Integral Action Research (depth psychology): A powerful act of Third-Person Inquiry—turning our first-person experiences into an object that can be examined from multiple, external perspectives.
Podcast Script: The Development Trap
Episode 12: "Cracking the Code"
(Intro Music with a thoughtful, slightly electronic feel fades in and then fades to a background hum)
HOST: Welcome to "Metamodern Praxis," the podcast where we explore the intersection of personal development and systemic change. I'm your host, and today we have a unique and powerful case study. We're calling him "Subject Q"—a practitioner in educational psychology who found himself in a recurring pattern of professional exclusion, a cycle he broke through a deep and structured process of self-inquiry.
HOST: To help us unpack this journey, we are joined by two extraordinary guests. Dr. Hilary Bradbury is a leading scholar in Action Research for Transformations, focusing on how we can co-create change through reflective practice. Welcome, Hilary.
HILARY: It's a pleasure to be here. This is a fascinating case.
HOST: And we're also joined by Hanzi Freinacht, a political philosopher, sociologist, and author of "The Listening Society," known for his work on metamodernism and developmental psychology. Hanzi, thank you for being with us.
HANZI: Yes, hello. A very interesting case. A very... typical case, in some ways, for the developmental stage of our society.
HOST: Let's dive in. Hilary, the journey of Subject Q was documented as a formal "cycle of inquiry." From the lens of Action Research for Transformations, how do you see his story?
HILARY: Thank you. What's so compelling here is how perfectly it demonstrates the AR4T process. Subject Q began with a classic first-person inquiry. He was asking, "What is my role in this repeating pattern of failure?" He had the raw data—being ejected from groups, the conflict with his supervisor, Fred—but he needed a process.
HILARY: Our work together became a second-person inquiry. We created a "safe refuge," a relational space where he could bring this vulnerable material. The key moment was the contrast exercise—comparing the "Thriving Self" of the coffee morning with the "Wronged Self" of the professional setting. That was the 'Do' phase of the cycle, the reflective dialogue.
HILARY: Where he had failed in the LA case was in trying to create change without a container for that second-person dialogue. He created a "psychoactive" report, a unilateral intervention, which damaged the relational space with his supervisor. There was no "community of inquiry," so she could only see it as a non-compliant product.
HOST: So the process itself was the key?
HILARY: Exactly. The final "Review" phase was his great insight—the reframe. He realised he was trying to solve the wrong problem. This allowed him to move into the experimental space—shifting focus to his new AI project. He completed a full cycle: from a stuck personal problem to a generative, real-world action.
HOST: Hanzi, let me bring you in. Hilary describes a successful process. From your developmental perspective, what was actually happening with Subject Q? What was the nature of this "stuckness"?
HANZI: Yes, the process is interesting, but we must look at the developmental logic underneath. What we see here is a classic clash of Value Memes. Subject Q is clearly operating with a highly developed Green sensibility, possibly with emergent Teal or metamodern cognitions. He sees systems, relationships, and "theological" subtext. He values dialogue, authenticity, and social justice—he wants to fight "the big machine."
HOST: And the system he's in?
HANZI: The bureaucracy of the Local Authority is a mix of Amber and Orange. The Amber part wants clear rules, predictable processes, and legal defensibility. The Orange part wants efficient, measurable, value-for-money results. Subject Q submitted a deeply Green report—ironic, deconstructive, a "therapeutic double-bind"—into a system that can only process Amber rules and Orange metrics. Of course they rejected it. It's like trying to play jazz at a military parade.
HANZI: His strategy of the "coded report" was a very postmodern Green game. It was a protest. But it was not effective. This is the critique of Green—it can deconstruct and protest, but it often fails to build. Subject Q was trapped in the "developmental trap"—too complex for the system he was in, but not yet possessing the complexity to navigate that system effectively.
HOST: So how does the "reframe" he reached fit into this?
HANZI: The reframe is the beginning of a metamodern move. It's a Teal insight. He separated his ego, his self, from his strategy. He realised: "My being is not wrong, my strategy is ineffective." This is a crucial developmental step. The metamodern sensibility is not about abandoning your Green values; it's about developing the psychological complexity to successfully enact those values within the existing Amber and Orange systems. You learn to "play their game" sincerely, without cynicism, in order to create the conditions for a deeper conversation. His AI project is a perfect example: building a practical, effective (Orange) tool that is motivated by deep (Green) values.
HOST: Hilary, Hanzi talks about this clash of value systems. Does AR4T offer a way to bridge these gaps in practice?
HILARY: Absolutely. This is the essence of the relational space. The only way to bridge different developmental altitudes is through dialogue. Hanzi's Value Memes describe the "what"—the different worldviews. AR4T provides the "how"—a process for getting those different worldviews into a room together and creating a container for them to interact without destroying each other. Subject Q's failure with Fred was a failure to establish that container. He needed to contract with her not just to deliver a report, but to engage in a mutual inquiry.
HANZI: I agree. The metamodern society, the "Listening Society," is predicated on creating institutions that can do exactly this. We need to create containers for these developmental disagreements. Subject Q was trying to force a developmental conversation where there was no container for it. His insight was to stop trying to force the old container and instead go and build a new one—his AI project. He is creating a tool that can speak to the Orange system, but with a Green soul. This is political metamorphosis on a small, personal scale.
HOST: So, for our listeners who might feel like Subject Q—stuck, insightful but ineffective—what is the key takeaway?
HILARY: Start small. Find one other person with whom you can create a safe "community of inquiry." Practice the discipline of first-person reflection—ask "What is my role in this pattern?"—and then have the courage to bring that reflection into a second-person dialogue. Focus on the quality of the relationship as an outcome in itself. The action will flow from there.
HANZI: Know your own developmental stage, and be brutally honest about the developmental stage of the systems you are in. Don't play postmodern games with modern systems unless you are prepared to lose. The goal is not to prove you are smarter or "more developed." The goal is to develop the psychological complexity and strategic wisdom to build new things that work. It is to transcend and include. Don't get stuck in the development trap; use your insight to create the future.
HOST: Dr. Hilary Bradbury and Hanzi Freinacht, thank you both for offering such a rich and multi-layered analysis of this powerful journey.
(Outro Music with a thoughtful, slightly electronic feel fades in)
HOST: It seems the lesson from Subject Q is that when you find yourself in a trap, the answer isn't to deconstruct the trap from within, but to develop the tools, insight, and courage to build something new just outside its walls. Join us next time for another episode of Metamodern Praxis.
(Music swells and then fades out)
Comments
Post a Comment