A crisis of systemic coherence between being and doing
A Chilean academic at the International University of La Rioja in Spain argues we appear to be living through a crisis of systemic coherence, where a widening gap has opened between what is affirmed and what is practiced. File Photo by Tannen Maury/UPI | License Photo
At the heart of the world’s great spiritual and philosophical traditions lies an ancient maxim: as above, so below; as within, so without. Often described as the Principle of Correspondence, it expresses a fundamental symmetry between inner conviction and outward action, between values professed and realities lived. What unfolds in the interior life of thought and belief ultimately manifests in social behavior and collective outcomes.
Across history, spiritual and philosophical institutions, whether religious or secular, have presented themselves as schools of human betterment. Churches of many denominations, ancestral traditions rooted in animism, philosophical movements such as Freemasonry, and spiritual paths like Buddhism have all exercised lasting influence on societies. Each, in its own way, has claimed a vocation to cultivate ethical orientation and social cohesion.
Yet an uncomfortable question has emerged in our time. If these institutions continue to proclaim universal moral and humanist values, why does the society that surrounds them increasingly reflect materialism, nihilism, hedonism, and radical individualism?
We appear to be living through a crisis of systemic coherence. A widening gap has opened between what is affirmed and what is practiced, between being and doing. Spiritual and humanist language remains abundant, but the social reality that emerges often appears fragmented and ethically depleted. This contradiction is not merely rhetorical. It is reflected in declining public trust in institutions that once served as moral and social reference points, suggesting a deeper ethical and systemic dissonance.
The Spiritual Aporia
Philosophers use the term aporia to describe a logical impasse, an apparently irresolvable contradiction. Today’s spiritual aporia arises when sincere commitments to humanist values fail to counteract powerful global forces such as political polarization, economic dogmatism, consumer culture and digitally mediated persuasion. Spiritual discourse expands, yet its capacity to shape social outcomes appears diminished.
From the perspective of critical social theory, this aporia reflects a breakdown in translating values into shared norms and effective practice. Systems theory would frame it as a growing disconnect between institutional self-reference and societal expectations. From a relational viewpoint, the erosion of solidarity, driven by individualism and immediate gratification, undermines the social bonds on which ethical life depends. Across these approaches, the diagnosis converges on the same tension: internal coherence no longer aligns with external reality.
Collision With the Digital Society
This tension is intensified by the emergence of the digital society. Digital networks have transformed time and influence, reshaping how ideas circulate and how emotions spread across societies. Power now operates through immediacy and virality in an attention-driven environment. Algorithms tend to reward what is provocative and emotionally charged, often at the expense of careful reflection or moral deliberation. In this setting, ethical discourse must compete with content optimized for speed and reaction rather than thoughtful engagement.
Many spiritual and philosophical institutions have not fully integrated into this new communicational ecosystem. As a result, they struggle to engage effectively with a culture defined by speed and constant connectivity. When values are communicated through languages and formats misaligned with the digital environment, their influence weakens. The consequence is a growing loss of relevance and legitimacy, particularly among younger generations shaped by networked life.
If proclaimed values fail to resonate within the digital sphere, where meaning is increasingly negotiated, spirituality risks becoming socially isolated. Ethical discourse retreats inward, while public life continues to be shaped elsewhere by forces largely indifferent to moral coherence.
Where Are We Going? Measuring Coherence
Addressing this crisis requires more than renewed rhetoric. It calls for critical reflection and disciplined self-examination. Five dimensions are essential if spirituality and humanist thought are to remain socially relevant in the 21st century:
- Personal and Institutional Integrity: coherence between values, behavior, and social impactSocial Responsibility: commitment that extends beyond private belief toward systemic changeTransparency: openness that builds trust and public understandingRespect for Diversity: fraternity grounded in respect for otherness, with clear ethical limitsContinuous Learning: adaptive capacity translated into tangible social outcomes
Good intentions and noble principles are not enough. Values must be evaluated by their results. As management thinker Peter Drucker observed, what cannot be measured cannot be improved. Without qualitative and quantitative metrics of coherence, institutions risk falling into what might be called, paraphrasing Hannah Arendt, the banality of good: the repetition of moral language so abstract and habitual that it loses its capacity to transform society.
Humanist and spiritual values must circulate through society with the same vitality as ideas that gain traction in digital networks. Otherwise, they risk becoming culturally inert. The systemic dissonance between proclaimed values and material realities can only be addressed through renewed praxis rooted in ethical coherence, shared responsibility, sustained effort, and lived example.
In the end, coherence is not proven by declarations, but by outcomes. Values endure only when they are embodied in action and recognized in their social effects.
Carlos Cantero is a Chilean academic at the International University of La Rioja in Spain. An international lecturer, adviser, and consultant, his work focuses on adaptability to the digital society, ethics, social innovation, and human development. The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.
