New work in progress

New work in progress

Commons and Goodheart (2008) point out that countries and societies functioning at a metasystematic level of hierarchical complexity, such as those countries in North America and Europe, have not conceptualized or implemented policies and practices allowing for the free expression of individual differences (also see Commons & Duong, 2019; Commons & Goodheart, 2007; Ross, 2008; Ross & Commons, 2008). The “one size fits all” ethos applies across a wide range of educational, healthcare, legal, managerial, market, governance, and social service institutions.

Though there are many local limited exceptions to this rule—as when customized formative and general summative assessments are integrated in education—they tend to be shaped by individual personalities and circumstances. A positive response to the question as to the possibility of a paradigmatic level society (Ross, 2008) then hinges in part on a capacity for contextualizing concrete individual differences within abstract shared languages conceptually determined by formal explanatory models that are themselves contextualized by institutional systems integrated across institutions. This capacity for multilevel contextualization is supplied by sociolinguistic ecosystems of metrologically traceable instruments calibrated to well-defined unit standards.

Following on Sen’s (1999, 2009) conceptions of deliberative justice and of development as freedom, and relevant critiques of those conceptions (Arun, 2018; Gasper, 2000; Navarro, 2000; Zheng & Stahl, 2011), sustainable policies and practices will liberate individual creativity and self expression by separating and balancing concrete executive, abstract legislative, and formal judicial functions at every level of hierarchical complexity, from the individual to the global, and not just at the levels of local, regional, and national government.

This simultaneous realization of a universal sense of participation and belonging in global humanity and a personal sense of unique individuality as a singular human is both necessary and sufficient to the challenges of sustainable prosperity. In accord with Bächtiger and Parkinson (2019), it is agreed that “deliberation must be understood as contingent, performative, and distributed;” “that deliberation needs to be disentangled from other communicative modes; that appropriate tools need to be deployed at the right level of analysis; and that scholars need to be clear about whether they are making additive judgements or summative ones.”

This paper complements and augments Bächtiger and Parkinson’s “new agenda and new empirical tools for deliberative empirical scholarship at the micro, meso, and macro levels” by bringing the mathematical and experimental proofs, research evidence, and explanatory models of measurement science to bear.

Arun, M. O. (2018). Beyond the conventional-A sociological criticism of Sen’s capability approach. Journal of Economy Culture and Society, (58), 229-245.

Bächtiger, A., & Parkinson, J. (2019). Mapping and measuring deliberation: Towards a new deliberative quality. Oxford University Press.

Commons, M. L., & Duong, T. Q. (2019). Understanding terrorism: A behavioral developmental approach. Ethics, Medicine and Public Health, 8, 74-96.

Commons, M. L., & Goodheart, E. A. (2007). Consider stages of development in preventing terrorism: Does government building fail and terrorism result when developmental stages of governance are skipped? Journal of Adult Development, 14(3-4), 91-111.

Commons, M. L., & Goodheart, E. A. (2008). Cultural progress is the result of developmental level of support. World Futures, 64(5-7), 406-415.

Gasper, D. (2000). Development as freedom: Taking economics beyond commodities—the cautious boldness of Amartya Sen. Journal of International Development: The Journal of the Development Studies Association, 12(7), 989-1001.

Navarro, V. (2000). Development and quality of life: A critique of Amartya Sen’s development as freedom. International Journal of Health Services, 30(4), 661-674.

Ross, S. N. (2008). A future society functioning at the paradigmatic stage? World Futures, 64(5-7), 554-562.

Ross, S. N., & Commons, M. L. (2008). Applying hierarchical complexity to political development. World Futures, 64(5-7), 480-497.

Sen, Amartya (1999). Development as Freedom. New York: Knopf.

Sen, A. K. (2009). The idea of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Zheng, Y., & Stahl, B. C. (2011). Technology, capabilities and critical perspectives: What can critical theory contribute to Sen’s capability approach? Ethics and Information Technology, 13(2), 69-80.

Creative Commons License
LivingCapitalMetrics Blog by William P. Fisher, Jr., Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: