Nora Bateson, the daughter of the polymath biologist Gregory Bateson (also known for his role in the development of cybernetics), once wrote on social media that “stage theories are bullshit” and “colonial as hell”. She’s also, I should mention, a respected person in her own right among the world’s forward-looking people.
Believe me, I understand where this rejection of stage theories is coming from. When it comes to the stages of psychological development, people are fed up with developmental stage fetishism and its pathologies. We have grown weary of entitled white men on their ways to conspiracy meetings about how to raise the rest of humanity to their self-proclaimed heights. And the colonial heritage is very real still today, with real people suffering real consequences. I get it, no more cults and dominator hierarchies (and the mandatory forced therapeutic BDSM that follows like a shadow) based on stage theory excuses! Out, raus, get out!
Yes, I too have grown wary of stage-mania. I often find myself in arguments about it. The path forward is to support generative conditions for happiness and healing, “the listening society”, not forcing one’s idea of “development” and “stages” down people’s throats.
And yet, the problem is that many stage theories still describe and explicate data in manners that none of their denunciators can match, not even close. Sure, there are holes to poke with difficult-to-explain exceptions. There are critical perspectives to reincorporate, from postcolonialism, to feminism, to situationist psychology, to indigenous perspectives, to Deleuzian rhizome-perspectives, to animal rights, to skill theories (that diversify growth into smaller and interconnected threads), to the sociology of knowledge of whose purpose the theories serve… The list goes on. All of this comes from an egalitarian ethos I share. But the bottom line is that none of this actually disproves the simple fact that people and other organisms—and, yes, cultures, too—do develop in discernible stages.
I mean, how do you explain that all other things in the universe seem to be sequentially ordered, that every relational property always has prerequisites for its emergence? So why not the psychologies of humans? And why not human societies and their cultures, too?
Or, in the case of stage theories in the realm of psychology, how do you explain that different researchers from different fields have come up with roughly the same stages of psychological development, with roughly the same characteristics, and with roughly the same distribution of people at each stage? And when studied empirically, these stages have lined up with “equal spaces” between them, which means that a) the stages measure something discrete and not something fuzzy or gradual, and b) each stage shift corresponds exactly to the stage shift before and after it. You cannot explain that stuff away so easily.
The stage-theory resistors make up, by a wide margin, the dominant position in academia. That means it’s dangerous for your career to believe in stages. To be against stages is the safe mainstream position to take. But my point is that the stage-theory resistors are as wrong, and as dangerous, as the stage-theory fetishists.
You can never deduce an “is” from an “ought”: Humans “ought” not to develop in stages, because it’s colonial (or take your critical pick), thus stage theory “is” not true. Now that’s a serious fallacy. If stage theories meaningfully describe and predict real patterns of the world, they do, like it or not.
But how do you prove that your stage theories are true to begin with, that the stages of socio-cultural development that I’ve referred to as metamemes are real? Well, you might as well ask if the medieval period was real? Or the Stone Age? Or what about the Enlightenment or the Industrial Revolution, were they real? What I’m claiming is not absolute truth. But I do claim that the metamemes are more real than loose categories such as the Stone Age or the Enlightenment—because they describe patterns with much greater depth and precision, and thus better explain what happened and why.
But the question is not so much if they’re real or not, whether metamemes exist or don’t exist. The question is rather which one of these two statements is more true:
- That metamemes are real
- That there are no such patterns to history at all
If there is no such pattern to history, how does one explain why Cleopatra wasn’t a queer feminist? “Because nobody taught her?” Well, nobody taught Judith Butler either. She figured it out herself. Is there a historical pattern to this? Yes. The question is only if one can come up with another, better historical pattern that explains more phenomena in more coherent and relevant ways than those explained by the metamemes.
Some believe we simply cannot talk about larger abstract entities like modernity and postmodernity. But the question is not if we can talk about modernity or not—I just did—but rather, if you’re well-equipped enough to do so in a stringent and productive manner. Those who refuse to talk about it simply cannot participate in the discussion.
Please keep in mind that the metamemes are just models or representations of reality, not reality itself. But our knowledge about “reality” can only consist of narratives, symbolic structures made out of signs. Some of these are often called “theories”.
As far as I can see, those who think there’s no such thing as “modernity” simply have too poor theories and too vague definitions of what “modernity” means. It’s easy to not believe in something you cannot define yourself. They entirely miss the point of the discussion because it’s not about whether entities like these “exist” or not, but whether the contents and mechanisms attributed to the concept are valid explanation models. What is relevant to the discussion is the context which has already been outlined—not the fact that there is a context, and whose existence as a “real” entity can be brought into question.
The question isn’t to be or not to be. To explain or to confuse—or to just cop out and avoid any real exploration in the first place—that is the question.
So the measure of success is not whether I have “solid proof” of the existence of metamemes, but simply whether or not I’m less mistaken than someone else. If my hypothesis about metamemes is less wrong than other ones attempting to explain historical change, then it’s valuable and worthwhile considering on its own terms.
I don’t need to prove that “stage theory in general” is a good thing or less wrong. I just need to disprove all out-of-hand dismissals of all stage theories, and then go on to make the case for my own stage model.
First, we need to remember that you can always craft good or bad stage theories. If I claim that the first people were made of ice, then they became made of fire, and today more and more are being made of iron, that’s a bad stage theory, and it’s exactly as useless as it sounds. It’s incorrect. It does not explain the world or its events. And applying that theory will have awful consequences (for instance, thinking that the ice people are resistant to freezing temperatures). If I claim that feudalism grows into capitalism which grows into communism, I’m also wrong, even if it’s a tad better than the last idea. Still, the belief in that incorrect stage theory arguably killed off a hundred million people during the 20th century. If I claim that agricultural civilization grew out of stone age hunter-gatherer lifestyles, and eventually began spreading and displacing such lifestyles, I’m more or less right. Now, if I apply that theory wisely and non-dogmatically, it can be useful and offer guidance to matters of e.g. indigenous rights, developmental economics, foreign aid, gaining independence in mind and lifestyle towards modern civilization, and even for ecological adaptation.
My claim is not that “all stage theories that anyone ever crafted are true and useful”. That would be a preposterous claim. But—and here’s my point—it is equally preposterous to claim that no stage theories can ever explain anything or be useful for anything. Steps happen. You can trace them, more or less successfully so. And if you know a lot about stage theories of psychology, history, society, anthropology, economy, technology, and even biology and complexity science, you can weigh and combine stage theories until you see deeper and more water-tight patterns.
So, instead of asking whether stage theories—in general—are “true” or not, wrong or less wrong, how about we ask the simple question:
- Are there issues that can be explained entirely without stage theory, i.e. without one thing sequentially building upon another?
Let’s take a few examples:
There is overwhelming evidence that human reasoning develops in steps. For instance, there has never been one (1) single human child that first learned algebra and geometry, and then learned to count. Every single person who has these capacities first learned to count, then to add and subtract, then to multiply and do division, and so on. Algebra and geometry imply counting in every case. Thus, there have been no, zero (0) societies in the history of our planet—and we can assume in the universe—that invented algebra but not numbers that came in sequence.
Now, is this useful information? Depends on what utility you seek, of course. But if you want to teach kids math, for instance, try starting with algebra before you teach them to count to three. You’ll be stuck at the beginning and never teach them anything. Also, you’ll torture the poor little ones with boredom.
Maybe, by now, there is a way out of stage theories through the application of absinthe. Go to Prague, drink plenty of absinthe, watch an Ionesco absurdist play, stare at a wall, and go ahead and claim that “well, who knows what the ‘use’ of anything is, at the end of the day?”. (But for my part, I don’t think you are very useful in that case). Sure, have fun. Just don’t tell me you’re saving the Global South or anything; you’re not. You’re just being tone-deaf to the melodies of life and the needs of others.
Meanwhile, the argument is settled: anyone who cares about human beings and animals not suffering must admit that stage theories can and do explain real and relevant realities. And because relevant realities can be explained, and relating to reality is a necessary part of responding to it, including caring about others, learning about stage theories can be a productive endeavor. Ignoring it tends to be destructive in the long run.
Let’s take a few more bites of that one. Where can stage theories be useful?
- Trump supporters: Deplorables? Maybe. But with a stage-theory perspective, one can easily see that Trump supporters are, on average, in a different spot in terms of the development of values, worldviews, and even personalities. Hence, relating to them as “deplorable” is counter-productive; rather, their specific needs and desires must be met and dealt with, which tends to support further development.
- The Greenlandic Inuit exposed to the “blessings” of modern (Danish, colonial) civilization? If their social fabric was based around smaller groups and older worldviews, maybe massive exposure even to the (relatively benevolent) Danish welfare state of the 20th century (this was not Belgian Congo, after all) simply ripped their societies, cosmologies, and personalities to shreds and left enormous amount of pain to be filled with consumer goods and cheap liquor? Exactly what happened. A stage theory perspective makes it abundantly clear why such exposure to modernity can be destructive and highly unethical.
- “Successful” sprints to modernize economies, like Japan and South Korea, have nevertheless left societies full of stress, anxiety, and impossible social norms to live up to. (No one is having babies, or hardly any sex for that matter. Goodbye future). Ah, a developmental perspective that shows that if you force a lopsided and hurried development of the economy, the culture will be shocked to a degree that often destroys human life conditions from the inside out.
- Integration of immigrant groups into multicultural societies? We could make it about civilizations and culture “clashing” against one another. (“Those Arab Muslims should become more like the French majority!). But at the end of the day, the real fault lines are drawn between stages of cultural development, not between cultures, where it’s the less universalist values of earlier stages on each side of the majority-minority divides that are locked into conflict. Guide towards more universalist values on both sides, towards “higher stage”, and you stop pouring gasoline on the fire and instead begin to resolve the problems.
Lastly, there’s the whole issue of data explained by developmental theories. For instance, in psychology, there are a number of large research programs that again and again show that people’s reasoning, values, and personalities develop in manners partly corresponding to how cultures develop (as I discuss in The Listening Society). If you can come up with theories that better suit the data feel free to present them! Just as you’re free to present a better theory than gravity of why things fall than Newton did. Einstein actually did do that, so I’m not saying it’s impossible, just that it takes more than just dismissing the models out of hand.
So what’s the better explanation for what appears to so many researchers as clear stages? On this, however, there is silence. And, where there is empirical and theoretical silence, moral condemnation tends to become louder.
However, with that said and done I would actually claim that stage theory isn’t only analytically preferrable, but even, which is an entirely separate issue, morally preferable. Try these out:
- Stage theory helps non-judgment: If someone has a crude opinion (Trump supporter, ethnocentrism, mainstream consumerist capitalism, etc.), it’s due to a lack of the privilege that supports growth, not to an inherent flaw of the person. Remove the developmental perspectives, and you’re back where Hillary Clinton started: “The basket of the deplorables!”
- Stage theory supports equality: By seeing that some people have had more opportunities to develop, one can develop programs to support those who are psycho-socially underprivileged. If you are, as many of the resistors would have it, shamed and ostracized for your research into measuring this, the weak, not the strong, suffer for it.
- Stage theory binds cultures together: Without stage perspectives, people mistake cultural spheres for having immutable qualities that cannot be reconciled (the Arab world, the West, etc.). With a developmental perspective, you can see that stages cut across cultures and offer venues of mutually beneficial exchange. For instance, it’s crucial and worth repeating: Defending human rights in the face of abuses by the Rwandan regime is not “Western arrogance”; drilling for oil with the help of Sudanese warlords forcing local populations out of the way with waves of child soldier militia terror, is.
- No direction: Okay, so no more measuring of deep, inner progress. Fine, but then we’re left with lowest common denominators such as GDP growth, which is killing the planet. Stage theory shows a deeper direction: higher stage can mean something like going more inwards, being more nuanced, more multiperspectival, more integrated, more differentiated, in greater resonance. You can argue for those things without stage theories. But the moment you systematize your understanding of how more nuanced and inclusive perspectives are achieved, you have ended up with some sort of a stage theory. Without such a stage theory, society loses its sense of direction at the very moment we need it the most.
- More multiperspectival: Stage theories allow for different truth claims to hold up at different stages without resorting to analytical violence; you can show how things fit together and how one thing leads to another.
- Less Western-centric: The profound relativism that we’re left with in the vacuum of no-stage-theory is a distinctly Western phenomenon, one that presses itself upon and violently uproots cultures around the world, because their developmental traits are not seen, heard, and respected.
- Better for kids and animals: With a developmental perspective, one can better see the unique needs of kids and animals and serve them in ways that are conducive to their dignity, health, and, where appropriate, growth. For instance, Eriksonian stages are key to supporting children in fulfilling their specific needs.
Then again, if it’s “better” not to believe in stages than to do so (despite the evidence), aren’t the resistors creating a stage hierarchy of their own where they feel that they have considered the issue further and deeper? How can they defend even their own position without an implicit stage hierarchy?
Anyway. As I’m keen to point out, stage theories aren’t everything. There are other just as vital aspects, including context, culture, and relationality. But that doesn’t make them into nothing.
So take arms against developmental fetishists and elitism, by all means! But do not fall for the fad of throwing babies out with bathwater. Not only are you making an analytical mistake; you’re letting down the babies.
—
I you’re curious, you can listen to a debate between Noah Bateson and Daniel Görtz on the topic of stage theories here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cMnPZ2MJiU
If you’re interested in learning more about metamodernism and the philosophy of Hanzi Freinacht, the Metamodern Academy with Emil Ejner Friis is offering an online introduction course in November 2026 here, and if you’re interested in a more comprehensive experience, you can join the new Updated Master Class here.
—
Hanzi Freinacht is a political philosopher, historian, and sociologist, author of ‘The Listening Society’, ‘Nordic Ideology’ and ’12 Commandments’. Much of his time is spent alone in the Swiss Alps. You can follow Hanzi on Facebook, Twitter, Medium, and Substack, and you can speed up the process of new metamodern content reaching the world by making a donation to Hanzi here.
