This article briefly describes the two main strands of a new unified theory about human nature and human possibilities: cultural transformation theory and bio-culturalism. Bio-culturalism combines findings from neuroscience about how our brains develop in interaction with our environments with findings from the study of relational dynamics, a new method of social analysis focusing on what kinds of relations-from intimate to international-a particular culture or subculture supports. Bio-culturalism recognizes that our species has a vast spectrum of genetic capacities, ranging from consciousness, caring, empathy, cooperation, and creativity to insensitivity, cruelty, exploitation, and destructiveness, and proposes that which of these capacities are expressed or inhibited largely hinges on the nature of our cultural environments. Cultural transformation theory looks at the whole span of human cultural evolution from the perspective of the tension between the contrasting configurations of the partnership system and the domination system as two underlying possibilities for structuring beliefs, institutions, and relationships. The article describes the core components of partnership-and domination-oriented societies, provides examples of each, and proposes that our future hinges on accelerating the cultural transformation from domination to partnership in our time of nuclear and biological weapons and the ever more efficient despoliation of nature, when high technology guided by an ethos of domination and conquest could take us to an evolutionary dead end.Keywords: beliefs; bio-culturalism; children; cultural transformation; domination; economics; equity; evolution; family; gender; gene expression; history; injustice; neuroscience; parent-child; partnership; peace; politics; prehistory; primates; relationships; systems; values; violence; women

This article deals with all levels of both living (biological, psychological, sociological, and cultural) and nonliving (physical, chemical, and mathematical) systems. The idea of applying the natural scientific self-organizing, evolutionary, and non-equilibrium or "chaos" theory associated with the names of Prigogine and others to world problems of impending social, political, economic, and ecological "chaos" is gaining ground. The leap from natural science to social action, however, is impossible without considerable attention to the main intervening step: the development of "chaos"-equivalent, evolution-, systems-, and action-oriented social theory. Construction of such theory requires understanding by social scientists of natural scientific "chaos" theory as well as their own "chaos" theoretical heritage, of natural scientists of the now seemingly far distant social problem-solving potential of their nonequilibrium and self-organizing theories, and of both natural and social scientists of how advancement at both levels could help gain a peaceful as well as humanistic "order out of chaos" in this troubled world of ours. This paper surveys relevant concepts, problems, theorists, research, and works in progress within a perspective of the challenge of survival at a critical juncture in the evolution of our species.

Ever more urgently we hear calls for organizational change and transformative leadership: for replacement of rigid top-down hierarchies with flexible structures, for ecologically-sustainable technologies and work modes, for leaders and managers who are environmentally responsible and attuned to people and to human needs (

No abstract

Abstract:Our unprecedented technological, economic, and environmental challenges call for thinking that goes beyond capitalism and socialism, both of which were developed in early industrial times. This article outlines a caring economics or partnerism that supports not only human survival but also human development. It proposes a full-spectrum economic map and economic policies needed at this time when many jobs are being replaced by automation. It looks at issues generally ignored in the conversation about a new economics, such as intra-household resource allocation, the devaluation of women and the 'feminine,' and the view that caring for people, starting in early childhood, is merely reproductive rather than productive work. It examines economic systems in the larger context of societies orienting to either end of the domination-partnership social scale, showing the interaction between social values and economic priorities. It describes new metrics that, unlike GDP and GNP, demonstrate the economic value of caring for people and nature, and proposes other steps toward a caring economics as the basis for a more humane and sustainable future. Today we increasingly hear about a new economics. However, economic policy is still framed primarily by capitalist or socialist theory. This paper starts from a different perspective. It proposes that when we think of a new economics, we think of children.What kind of economic policies and practices are needed so that all children are healthy, get a sound education, and are prepared to live good lives? What kind of economic system helps -or prevents -children from expressing the capacities that make us fully human: consciousness, empathy, caring, and creativity? Addressing these questions is the point of departure for designing an economic system that promotes not only human survival but full human development: a caring economics or partnerism (Eisler, 2007). BEYOND CAPITALISM AND SOCIALISMWhen children are the starting point for a new economic paradigm, we move beyond both capitalist and socialist theory. This does not mean discarding everything from capitalism and socialism, as we need both markets and central planning. But to effectively address our unprecedented economic, environmental, technological, and social challenges requires that we go deeper, to matters that conventional economic theories ignore.Both capitalism and socialism came out of early industrial times, and we are now well into the post-industrial age. So on that count alone, those theories would be antiquated. But there is an even more fundamental problem: both capitalism and socialism fail to include in their definition of "productive work" (Marx & Engels 1960;Smith, 1937) the work of caring for people, starting in early childhood, and caring for our natural environment.Both Adam Smith and Karl Marx ignored the vital importance of nature's lifesustaining activities; for them, nature exists to be exploited. As for the life-sustaining activities of caring for people starting in childhood, they considere...