Edward Clapp

A Role For Everyone: Considering a Constructive Development Approach to Field-Wide Change

Posted by Edward Clapp, Oct 20, 2009 2 comments


Edward Clapp

Many of the emails I have received from veteran leaders have confused the issue of 20UNDER40 promoting a take over in the arts in the fashion of “out with the old and in with the new.” Quite the inverse! It is my belief that the energy and ideas of the young are at a great loss without the wisdom and knowledge of those who have been working away at the arts for the past few decades. In this sense, no one is usurping the authority of anyone else, instead, there is a role for everyone—but these roles are changing.

It is well documented in the literature on generational differences that individuals from different age cohorts make meaning of their experiences in unique ways based on the events different groups experienced during their adolescent years.

While the events we experienced as teenagers have largely sculpted our approach to the world, my research on this instance in leadership transformation also considers theories of constructive development that deal with addressing issues of increasing mental complexity.

Briefly speaking, the arc of adult development can be described in three stages (based on a theory of constructive development put forth by Robert Kegan, 1982, 1994, 2009). The first stage is the socialized mind, wherein individuals understand systems and act in accordance with the rules and structures of those systems. The next stage is the self-authoring mind, wherein individuals acknowledge the systems they have been enmeshed in, but begin to act on their own agency to “self-author” their experiences within those systems. The final stage of development is the self-transformative mind, wherein self-authoring individuals come to recognize that their way isn’t the only way, and while sticking to their own convictions, they develop the ability to embrace other epistemologies.

In the 1960s and 70s many of our now veteran field leaders broke from their socialized mental structures to challenge the systems they were embedded in and self-author their experiences. The arts and arts education stood to benefit from this cultural/mental revolution, as many great advances in our field were made.

As Jessica Guzman wrote in a previous post, veteran leaders once were where young leaders are now. No longer new to the field (nor fully seasoned), young arts professionals in their 20s and 30s are likewise advancing out of their socialized mental structures and are now eager to exercise their agency by self-authoring their experiences through their careers in the arts. The problem is the field is not allowing room for these individuals to utilize their more complex mental structures. The result is that young leaders experience a disconnect between their mental complexity and their (in)ability to exercise their agency within the field. Ultimately, rather than act from a position of diminished psychological functioning in the arts, young leaders are leaving the field to pursue more fulfilling work in other domains—domains that better match their mental complexity.

20UNDER40, noting this emergency in the field, was established to provide an outlet for the thoughts and ideas of self authoring young leaders drowning in a professional sector that restricts their autonomy. This anthology, however, is just a small band-aid holding back a blood rush that requires more careful (and more immediate!) attention…

If a clash of mental complexity is the problem, what’s the solution?

Easy: veteran field leaders need to likewise adopt more complex mental structures. Rather than leave the field to make way for the young, veteran leaders need to find a way to continue their service to the arts that permits them to both hold onto their worldviews—hold onto their convictions—while at the same time acknowledging that other manners of approaching the work we do in the arts are not only equally as effective, but potentially superior to the way we do things now/have done things in the past.

Considering a constructive development approach to this instance of generational change in arts leadership, there is indeed a role for everyone—but those roles are in a very natural and healthy state of flux.

TAGGED WITH:
2 responses for A Role For Everyone: Considering a Constructive Development Approach to Field-Wide Change

Comments

Ms. Rachel Ciprotti says
October 22, 2009 at 3:55 pm

This is utterly contrary to my experiences working in the arts.

In my experience, I have much more autonomy/responsibility/ability to flex my "complex mental structures" than my for-profit friends and peers. Working within the arts sector means working with creative, dynamic people...people who are passionate about what they do (or they'd be getting paid more to do it elsewhere). Those people are much more likely to listen to new ideas and allow you to explore new projects and initiatives than many corporate structures allow.

I see you live in Somerville, MA. I spent more than 3 years working at Harvard, and then I transitioned to working in the arts sector for the Boston Symphony...the difference in work environment was astonishing, and the complete opposite of what you describe here.

  • Please login to post comments.
October 23, 2009 at 12:09 pm

Thanks for your response Rachel. Instances that our out of synch with overall themes are what Dr. Sara Lawrence-Lightfoot (1995) calls "deviant voices." Just because something doesn't fit with theory, doesn't mean it isn't true. In fact, I would argue, these are the cases where our attention should be focused.

For more on this, see Mary Sutton's critique of my above post, and the responses that have generated from her words.

  • Please login to post comments.