A "Full Spectrum" Approach
 
Renee Sutton

Ken Wilber makes very strong statements about the way that we ought to look at the world in his book, A Brief History of Everything .   Having had more time to sort through his writings, I find more to his arguments than pure novelty.  I have been actively applying the full-spectrum of the four quadrants to many aspects of my life.  Wilber challenges his readers (310):  “What would full-spectrum medicine look like?  Likewise, what would full-spectrum education look like?  Full-spectrum economy?  Full-spectrum politics?  Business?  Marriage?  Cinema?  Art?”  I took his challenge, and I have attempted to apply his “Kosmology” to my research.  I have reflected a great deal on the number of ways the current situation in Audubon Park could be improved by the rejection of flatland and making use of the full-spectrum of the four quadrants.

In my research, I looked at Audubon Park and the recent controversy over the renovation and expansion of the golf course (The Audubon Institute will argue that this project is not an expansion, but I will come to this later.)  I was inspired to take up this research after attending a meeting of Save Audubon Park, a grassroots organization dedicated to stopping the action of the Audubon Institute.  I didn’t think that the Audubon Institute was composed of megalomaniacs dedicated to ruin on of a beautiful park, but I did not like their action to “enhance” the golf course.

The Audubon Institute was hired by the Audubon Commission to handle the task of the daily upkeep of the park.  New Orleans citizens pay a relatively low property tax, and thus public money for the upkeep of public parks is not available.  The Institute must make its own money to cover the expenses of upkeep, like mowing the grass, landscaping, and cleaning the lagoon.  It receives money from local, state, federal, and private funds, which it can use in projects to generate the needed maintenance funds.   It received six-million dollars through various sources to make “improvements to the park” as approved by the public in the single election on November 7, 2000 that raised the issue.  With this money, the Institute has hired a golf-course architect from St. Andrew’s Golf Course in Scotland to renovate the golf course and to make other improvements.  So far, the Heymann Memorial Conservatory has been torn down to make way for a large club house, complete with pro-shop and restaurant and the entire golf course has been fenced off so that the old grass could be taken out, new lagoons and sand-traps could be dug, and new hills could be formed.

As soon as the fences went up, public outcry began.  There were accusations that the Audubon Institute had done little consulting to the public and had not fully unveiled their plans until after construction was under way.  The Audubon Institute points to the election and says that they did ask for public support.  The bill approved made no mention of a golf course and was part of an $18 million proposal for improvements to Orleans Parish.  The Institute was accused of land-grabbing, greed, and corruption. The Institute claims that there is no land grab involved, because the golf course is not expanding.  It is true; no new area of the park has been dedicated as a golfing green.  However, the Hurst walk must be shut off for concerns of non-golfers on the golf course and an oak grove is being used for the site of the expanded parking lot, clubhouse, and equipment storage areas.  I am certain that it will be neither desirable nor permitted to wander among the oak shaded golf cart stands.  The project can therefore be viewed as an expansion because land that was free, open, and desirable to the public will no longer be so.

The Institute was challenged, called names, and met with petition after petition, but they have not ceased their work on the golf course.  Ron Forman, the CEO of the Institute and the Commission, told the Times-Picayune that he had taken the position that he was not afraid of change and those who objected to his actions were.   It is obvious that the Institute has the power in the situation, and there is little to be done to stop them.

This situation could be greatly improved if the Audubon Institute were to look at the situation in terms of the four quadrants instead of their current flatland view.  The four quadrants, as outlined by Wilber, consist of the Upper Left (UL), Lower Left (LL), Upper Right (UR), and Lower Right (LR) quadrants.  The UR quadrant views the world only in terms of the tangible actions of people and objects.  The LR quadrant examines the tangible behaviors of society.  The UL quadrant looks at the feelings, expectations, and intentions of individuals, and the LL quadrant takes into account the feelings, expectations, and intentions of society (also known as the culture).

Right now the Audubon Institute is evaluating their actions only in terms of a flatland view.  This view, common to most people living in modern society, accepts only information with simple location that can easily be studied.  This looks only at what science has to offer and discounts anything that is not explainable in these terms.  In other words, it is embrace of the right two quadrants and rejection of the left quadrants.

From this view, the Institute can see one large factor that falls into the LR quadrant:  money.  The green fees for the course are tripling and a new revenue-generating pro-shop and a restaurant are being built .  This project will, in all likelihood, generate a great deal of funds for the upkeep of the park and the other projects of the Audubon Institute.  But are those funds necessary?  Ron Forman will make a hefty $370,000 this year in salary and benefits.  Dale Stastny, the Chief Operating Officer and Executive Vice President, is not far behind him.  Forman brags to the Times-Picayune about the lavish conference room in the Aquarium (also run by the Institute), filled with its own share of tanks and overlooking the giant, shark-filled Gulf of Mexico tank .  Is this what the Institute needs more money for?  With such well-paid executives and lavish buildings, it seems that mowing the lawn and cleaning the lagoon would seem like small change, and a project for which sufficient funds already exist.  The Audubon Institute has entered with a passion into the game of money-making, and it desires to see the annual income rise.

It is ironic that Ron Forman defends business from environmentalists.  He said, “As long as we sit at opposite ends of the table, we will never resolve the problem.  Business is too strong not to be a member at the table.”   It would seem that Mr. Forman would be in favor of a four-quadrant full-spectrum approach to business.  But is he really sitting with the environmentalists at that table?  Is he sitting with business, trying to shake off those pesky environmentalists?  Does he desire compromise or merely submission?

It would appear that he is sitting with the business leaders at this table.  In the UR quadrant, a huge mistake has been made in their plan.  The Institute picked two kinds of Bermuda grasses to be used on the golf course , as standard to the kind of golf course they want to build.  However, these two grasses are extremely susceptible to dollar-spot fungus and other infestations in warm and humid weather.  In other words, grass that small and thin is simply not designed to live in a New Orleans climate.  Three different kinds of fungicide must be used in rotation, along with additional nitrogen fertilizer.  This has many far-reaching consequences in local and regional environments.  One could even go so far as to guess that the fertilizer used on the golf course could add its small part to the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.

I asked Dale Stastny if any efforts were being made to make the golf course an environmentally friendly “green” course.  He answered, “We are an environmental organization.  It’s not like this is an area in which we are uncaring or ignorant.  The specifics of this, with the golf course, we are not very knowledgeable right now, but we will be.  It will be consistent with all of our past actions.”   Critics point to the fact that the Audubon Institute has long been involved in a game of mutual back-scratching with oil and land development companies, going so far as to join them on the National Wetlands Coalition.  This is an organization dedicated to the rolling back of wetlands protection in favor of development .  The Times-Picayune commented, “A tour of the Audubon facilities is like a stroll on the mining and oil and gas exploration industry walk of fame.”   Seven of the nine oil and land development companies that the Times-Picayune mentions sit on the board of the National Wetlands Coalition , including the two biggest donors .

If the Institute were to take a closer look at the LR quadrant, they would also see another issue lurking.  Residents near the park suggested that an urban planner should be hired who could design a master plan for the front of the park.  If this were done, there is a good chance that an urban planner would recommend opening this area to public use, as the park is relatively small in a densely populated area and has higher concentrations of people who go to the park for reasons other than golf .

The LL quadrant would also make similar suggestions.  It is our commonly held belief that public parks are for the public.  This situation could easily be seen as the privatization of public lands. Wilber maintains that the only way to delve into the left-handed quadrants is by communication (82).  Communication with park users and residents has provided a strike against the Institute, as is made obvious by the attempt of these people to communicate their dissent to the Institute.  Little to no consideration of the culture of the area was taken.  Neighborhood groups like the Upper Audubon Association and Uptown Neighborhood Improvement, Inc. objected to the plans once they realized that the project had become a six-million dollar affair as opposed to the two-million proposal they had been shown in 1999.

The UL quadrant is far more muddled.  The Audubon Institute, Save Audubon Park, and just about everybody involves communicates that they only want “what is best.”  Differences arise because of different definitions of what is best.  When I talked with Dale Stastny, I believed that he was sincere when he told me of all of his plans to make the park more beautiful and “aesthetically amazing.”  I do not doubt that he believed that he was making the park more beautiful.  However, if you talk to the dissenters, they will be quick to point out that a new, high-tech golf course does not fit in with the “City that Care Forgot” surroundings.  As Michael Deas, a founding member of Save Audubon Park, put it:  “They [the Audubon Institute] are making the park a tree lined street.”   Both sides claim that they are trying to further the aesthetic wishes of the late Mr. Charles Law Olmstead, designer of the park.

If the Audubon Institute and Audubon Commission were to take this approach, they would see that, while their aesthetic views differ from those who oppose them (UL), they have a duty as a public appointed body to uphold the wishes of those who love and use the park (LR and LL).  They also have a duty as a self-proclaimed “conservationist” organization to refrain from activity that will obviously harm the local environment, such as using high amounts of fertilizers, herbicides, fungicides, and pesticides (UR).

I see many parallels between the thinking of the Audubon Institute and the thinking that Wilber outlines (chapter 11).  Wilber follows the decrease in egocentrism that occurs when one undergoes the paradigm shift to a higher fulcrum.  While I am not claiming that these people are a bunch of grade school children stuck at fulcrum-4, they do exhibit a high tendency toward their own version of ethnocentrism.  They look out for their own friends and themselves, and everybody else can just go to hell.  The Institute is obviously very willing to follow the recommendations of anyone willing to give them money, but when it comes to local groups concerned with their methods of acquiring this money, they do not have the time (quite literally, I called Ron Forman’s office and left a message with his secretary’s secretary seven times before I received a call back from his secretary declining my request for an interview).

If the Institute were willing to climb the ladder to fulcrum-5, reject their flatland views, and work instead under the guidance of the four quadrants, a far more balanced decision could be reached.  The Institute would take into consideration the views of others and needs arising from areas other than economics.  They might consider urban planning, historical value, community input, and personal testimonies before deciding their fund-raising plans.  Also, if the opposition groups were to do the same, they would accomplish more as well.  They too operate under a “we’re the good guys, you are bad guys” system.  They try far harder than the Institute to incorporate cultural views and community concerns into their arguments, but they do not recognize the fact that the Institute has concerns as well.

When I brought my visual materials for this presentation to my German class, my professor asked me if anything was being done about City Park.  I told her that I didn’t know much about the park.  She and several members of the class that live near the park told me of the similar management set-up, but also about the fact that nobody had any money or power, and too many interest groups bickered to get anything done.  Trash is everywhere, the grass goes uncut for months in the summertime, and there are no walkways away from automobile traffic.  Obviously it is not a terrible ordeal to have a well-funded and highly motivated organization running Audubon Park. The Institute does need money to carry out the job that it was contracted to do.  If members of the opposition groups were to realize this and take this into account in their arguments (in other words, climb to a higher fulcrum), they could probably get much farther when dealing with the Institute.

Ken Wilber makes many profound arguments for his four-quadrant, full-spectrum approach.  I do believe that this examination has provided another example of a situation that could be much improved if only those involved would shake off the flatland worldview and begin to climb the ladder of consciousness.