The Difference Between Collective and Inter-

collective = group, shared, common, aggregate, amalgam, combined
inter- = between, relating, connected, linked

If you look at Wilber's typical descriptions of the lower quadrants (such as SES or IOS), you may notice a difference in the way the lower left and the lower right look at multiple individuals. The difference is subtle, but it has a major impact on the way the lower quadrants are presented and understood.

Wilber often uses pronouns to quickly describe the quadrants. The lower right is concerned with "its", he says, while the lower left deals with "we." For the longest time, I saw these as parallel structures, but they are not. "Its" focuses on multiple individuals, while "we" focuses on a single compound identity. From this simple starting point, a pattern emerges in Wilber's discussions of the lower quadrants. He tends to describe the lower left using words like common, collective, mutual, shared, group, and worldspace, while describing the lower right with words like fit, mesh, interaction, and system. Although Wilber uses both words for both quadrants, I think it's fair to say, based on the full descriptions, that the LL focuses on "collective," while the LR focuses on "inter-".

There is a crucial difference between these descriptions. The LR is described as interaction that happens between individuals, while the lower left is described as sharing that happens within a group or relationship. The implication is that LR social systems can be formed through the interaction of people who are different, while LL cultural systems can only be formed through the interaction of people who are the same.

This understanding is problematic. It excludes from the LL the way that the subjective understandings and meanings of multiple people interact when they are not shared. I think that's a mistake, since so often culture is formed by a series of misunderstandings and misinterpretations.

Take, for example, my relationship with my future wife. We are definitely different people, and while we often try to share meaning with each other, our own perspectives inevitably color how we interpret each other. So, while we have grown somewhat of a relationship culture between us, it has been formed not only by what we share, but by how our two views interact and see each other differently, forming a system of mutual -- and sometimes functional -- mis-understandings.

And this is the point in microcosm: Interaction is a broad enough concept to include what happens between two people on account of their sameness and their difference. Interaction transcends and includes sharing. Inter- is broader than collective; between is more comprehensive than shared.

In essence, focusing on inter- is a step past the postmodern green view of culture. From a green contextual point of view, meanings are irresolvable and not understandable outside the context within which they exist. Therefore, the only way to appreciate a particular meaning is to see it within the context it originated in. Since perspectives are a sort of context and each person has their own perspective, we can only understand each other to the extent that our perspectives and contexts overlap -- or so green would say.

Yet even when our perspectives don't overlap, they can still interact. The ways that we understand each other, especially when we are different, produce some very interesting and unarguably cultural results. Take, for example, the way liberals and conservatives see each other. This pair of viewpoints and their perception of each other have produced one of the defining features of American culture in the recent past -- the Culture War. Their interaction is primarily shaped by what they don't share and the way their perspectives are different.

Reinterpreting the LL in terms of inter- and between gives it a very different flavor. It no longer focuses on "we" but on "I's" -- your I and my I, interacting with each other. It becomes less dependent on a stable and static foundation of sharing, and therefore becomes more dynamic and fluid. Its interaction with and co-creation of the other quadrants becomes clearer, since an "inter-LL" parallels the structure of the LR, and relates to the UL in the same way UR relates to LR. As an analytical tool, the LL becomes a more useful, comprehensive, and precise when conceived of in terms of "inter-".