This is Part I - a look at the conference and the state of the theory. Part II will be a little more personal, both in my point of view and about the integral community in general.
Reflections on the 2010 Integral Theory Conference
Part of my role this year, in addition to blogging the main sessions Sean and Mark asked me to attend, was to offer an outsider's perspective - a somewhat critical eye from someone versed in integral but not part of the in-crowd (I got off to a quick start on that, which threatened, in the organizer's view, to dominate the space).
First and foremost, I want to thank Sean and Mark once again - they have been kind and generous in their support. I made their lives a little challenging before the conference even began.
My initial perception is that this was a very professionally run conference - and I have been to a lot of conferences. Aside from minor stuff that all conferences have to deal with, this was a very smoothly run event - Kudos to Mark and Sean and Liz and the rest of the rest of the team!
As far as content is concerned, it seems there is a very real split between more philosophical work, academic work, and material that appeals to the personal growth crowds. I'm not sure what the answer to this might be - you have to pay the bills and the less rigorously academic stuff probably brings the majority of non-presenter attendees.
My desire is to see integral grow into a much rigorous discipline - part of how that will happen is in bringing in presenters who have not hung out in Ken's loft, or who are not "sanctioned" by Ken or I-I. There are many other integrally-informed (even if they don't identify as integral) people who are doing good work (see below).
*****
It was great to see actual research presentations. While it's that we are researching our own community and it's values, practices, and understanding of the model, I'd prefer to see work being done in the real world - like that being done by Zak Stein and his group, or Will Varey in Australia, as just a couple of examples.
Doug Tataryn gave an interesting presentation, but his poster on his integrated therapy approach (Bio-Emotive Integral Therapy) is much more interesting and useful. True, it's not about the theory or model - better, it's implementing the model. It's time we stop preaching the integral gospel (mostly to the converted) and put it to work. For sure, it's good to keep refining the model, to explore ways of making it even more integral, as Terri O'Fallon has done, or Bonnitta Roy - and that can be big part of the conference- but just as much time can devoted to real world implementations that do not need to reference Ken or I-I or explain the quadrants, and so on.
I would to see someone like Dr. Dan Siegel, who has an essentially integral view of identity and development (even though he has probably never heard or read Wilber) speak at the conference. Or Michel Bauwens from the P2P Foundation perspective (although he knows Wilber and the model, he walked away from integral years ago). Or Jenny Wade, Michael Washburn, Jay Early, John Rowan - all psychology oriented people who know and use integral theory. The list could go - and maybe some of these folks have been invited, I don't know.
*****
Many former integral folks became frustrated or put-off by the insular nature of the elitist integral in-group. I was nearly part of this camp. I had stopped reading or blogging about integral for a while. But what me back was the usefulness of the model, despite issues I have with community.
I'm sure Sean and other integral leaders wish the Wyatt Earp thing would go away, but the reality is that it revealed some serious pathologies in the movement centered around Ken, especially considering so many other leaders approved his "test." That episode revealed some serious elitism, what Roger Walsh termed elevationism in yesterday's panel on ethics and development. Or take this observation from Katie Heikkinen, which she could have been directing at Ken's wild west episode:
One point made by Stein in his paper (this volume) is of such great importance that I wish to restate it here: “disqualifying” certain arguments as coming from a lower developmental position is both illogical—because this stance uses the “truth” of a theory to negate critiques of that supposed truth—and unethical—because this stance devalues and marginalizes voices of opposition. But I’d like to extend his point to note that while “developmental disqualification” is a rather egregious sin, using developmental theory to label colleagues, even if in good fun, is nearly as egregious. (Integral Review, 2009, p. 368)It's been several years now, and that outburst was mentioned several times in presentations this weekend. That's how big an impact it had on the community - it's also when the integral blogs began to disappear.
Add to that history the disclosure by Susanne Cook-Greuter that she had to refuse Ken's request to use her ego stage measure on the I-I staff and a pattern seems to become visible. It's a pattern of higher is better, which as Zachary Stein pointed out this year, is not nessesarily a given - it's the "growth to goodness" assumption:
The claim that higher stages are better than lower ones is true in certain cases when “better” has been well specified. But it is not true across the board. It is possible to be extremely developed along some parameters (complexity, perspective taking) and yet be deficient along others (honesty, sense of justice). Moreover, in some domains it is probable that very highly developed capabilities will err as much if not more than less developed ones. (ITC, 2010, p. 3)The paper is explicitly about this topic, so go read it. This one huge area of theoretical concern that I was please to see addressed directly or indirectly by several speakers this year - as well as in conversations with peers.
Another area I did not see in any of the sessions I attended is the over-emphasis on agentic forms of spirituality and growth, with little or no mention of intersubjective and communal forms of spirituality and growth. This reflects, I think, the overtly and overly masculine nature of the model and the leadership. Even Diane Hamilton, in the Integral Masculinity panel, noted the excessive "drive" and "agency" and "competitiveness" in male integral leaders - that sometime manifests in an unhealthy way.
Sean mentioned a desire to have a post-Wilber integral theory - I think this is crucial. While many people have come to the model because of Wilber, just as many have been put off by him (and other male integral leaders) and not become involved with the model. This is always the risk when a movement becomes identified with one person (or a small group of people - and right now, it's unclear who will succeed Wilber as the public face of integral - will it be Sean who is more academically oriented, or Marc who is more charismatic, or someone else?).
Right now, integral is still centered around a small and insular group - I get the impression that no one is considered "truly integral" unless approved by Ken. This will have to change - if not now, then when Ken passes.
Terri O'Fallon said her model is a community effort - on the other hand, AQAL is distinctly Ken's. This might be gender issue, but it's more likely that this is simply how Ken holds his place in the integral world. I like Terri's approach.
Stay tuned for Part II, where the real fun begins.
Tags:
11 comments:
Well stated, Will. One of my favorite things about this year's conference (I didn't attend in 2008, so my only measure of comparison is prior hang-outs with the Wilber circle and with my cohort at JFKU) is how little AQAL integral theory was actually referenced, overall...Ken casts a long shadow, but long shadows aren't necessarily tall, and people seem to be standing up finally to peer over the horizon.
Having Robert Kegan, with his specially content-void articulation of integral consciousness, as the keynote speaker, seemed to help remind everyone that integral is more about the general capacity to hold multiple ways of meaning-construction in one's awareness at once - and less about which particular metatheory you use to do that.
In my own experience of the conference, this was especially rich in and true of the Integral Art Panel - one of the few domains that Ken really hadn't colonized with his analysis - and the conversation felt like it had real traction in a truly constructive way, not merely reacting to (or trying NOT to react to) any bald philosophers but co-articulating the diverse perspectives of the panelists based on their own experiences. If integral heads THIS way, I'm delighted to be on board.
William,
Thanks for your great blogging of the conference. It's been a pleasure to read, including these post-conference reflections.
You raise the question of "who will succeed Wilber as the public face of integral." I certainly hope that this will be a rather large and diverse group of integral scholar-practitioners rather than some sort of chosen successor, whether one or a few. The former scenario is based on discourse, while the latter is based on politics.
Looking forward to your next installment.
Yeah, I was a bit taken aback at any notion of a public face of integral. I sure hope not. I think we've had enough of that.
And I would like to pipe in and say that, actually, I think Ken would truly love for this to grow beyond him to the point where it could live without him. That's a lot of pressure on one man. And it feels like we're right there on the edge. Very exciting.
Michael, I would LOVE to hear more about the integral art panel, if you care to expand or link to anything else you may have written about it.
Lastly, I want to mention the tour de force behind the volunteers: Carissa Wieler. She's small and quiet, but is an amazing organizational and interpersonal genius, who managed to herd a bunch of integral cats with grace and strength.
Liz, hopefully the audio recording from the integral art panel will be made available soon...
In the meantime, we spent about half the panel discussing what actually qualifies as integral art both from a critical perspective and from the perspective of the artist, which definitely lead to different conclusions. For integral consciousness, which recognizes the constructedness of all truth claims, every statement of fact is a work of art...all theories and metatheories, including the AQAL mandala, are artworks...life as a whole becomes an "extended phenotype" and a crucial piece of the ultimate artifact.
But the expanded definition of artifact I offered isn't always useful from a critical perspective, and Michael Schwartz was quick to establish that SOME reasonably objective qualifiers/characteristics have to be agreed upon. So that occupied us for a while.
We also discussed "constructive deconstruction," the evolution of consciousness as it can be traced through the evolution of media, how integral art expresses itself differently in painting/music/film/architecture, and so on.
And Margaret Mell gave us some excellent examples of integration as an aspect of experience at every level in her experiences as a music educator.
I can't wait to hear it again...everyone on the panel agreed that real progress was made in clarification and exploration of these ideas. :)
NOTE: please be aware I will part this message in three parts because of restrictions in the blog posting system. Thanks.
Hi! My name is Federico Parra and I would like to thank you William for transmitting these series this way; living in France it was somehow difficult to assist! :) Thank you really. And I read some other posts here and most of them I like a lot, SPECIALLY your sharp critique to Gafni, with which I resonate a lot, at least with part of it.
I would like to argue two arguments you make in this presentation (post-event impressions you had) because I see them "growing" a lot in integral circles as if they really have a base, which I would argue they have not:
1) It's frankly a hypocrisy (that is pretty near to be immoral) to point out that denouncing cross-level incompatibility of a critique is ALWAYS un-ethical. It would be right, in the other hand, to say that it COULD be un-ethical, but that certainly it COULD NOT.
An example: Let's imagine that a group of Catholic harsh traditionalist decides to manifest their feelings about “how a bastard the president is, because he doesn’t allow them to burn pro-abortion people in town's square” (as god commands them, they think). Then, if you publicly state (let’s say, in television, as a president spoke-person) that these people critique is invalid because it is coming from a lower stage of development –and that though the president is not doing bad, but good, when not hearing to these people demands-, then this communication certainly could, but also could not, be unethical, depending on a very large number of variables, like "why are you stating that publicly? What are your background motivations?", "what effect are you searching for?", "are you aware that what you are saying puts you in a position of power?", “are you aware that the message will NOT be understood by the lower level people but only by your peers?” and so on.
But –and this is my point- as an isolated fact, it is TRUTH that a cross level critique is, if not always invalid, at least probably so. And it’s not truth that stating that is unethical because “the one pointing out the cross-level issue is using the very theory the other is criticizing”; that could be truth for theory, BUT NOT FOR META-THEORY. Meaning, Ken could be wrong in many things; but the levels/stages he describes are not his discovery; they are, in the other hand, proven scientific facts coming from a huge number of unconnected, scientific studies (like SD and Cook-Grouter and so on). So, one cannot say "you are unethical, cause you can't point out I’m inferior when I'm criticizing exactly the notion that someone could be inferior"; You cannot, because that notion is not objectionable, or at least not in a critique to Wilber's work; At best, it could be done as a meta-critique (and for that a huge amount of research should be presented proving -not only stating, but proving!- the unreality of all developmental scientific studies which demonstrate just the opposite: namely, that there ARE levels, and that, to a huge degree, lower levels CANNOT understand higher levels; and that only peer people are completely adequate to address a critique to another person in their same level.
So I said so far that: a) it is TRUTH that critiques coming from lower levels are at least probably –if not always, at least partially- out of the mark; and b) Commenting on that (revealing the cross-level factor) as a counter-critique could, but also could NOT, be unethical; depending on a huge number of variables.
Before finishing point 1, I would like also to state that I think William is wrong when using R. Walsh comments on ethics linking them to Wilber actions during the Wyatt episode; because as stated in his blog’s next post after that episode (which you can read here: http://www.kenwilber.com/blog/show/48) his first blog post (the polemical one) was NOT an explosion of shadow material without any rational analysis or ethical control, but an open letter -a rude one- consciously written by Ken and then sent to 200 PEOPLE for revising, opinions and support BEFORE posting it; 70% of that people agreed with the full post –while 30% agreed with the contents but not with the form-; And let me guess it would be highly probable - if not just a plain obvious fact - that R. Walsh –one of Ken’s closest friend, colleague and scholar- was on that list, among many others we would be surprised to hear about; And let me add also, that those were not as brave as to support, with their name, a message that was not Ken’s but Integral level altitude’s one to the vicious mean green meme attacks by scholars at that time (almost 5 years ago). So I would tend to think that, if asked, Roger would say that what Ken did (in an AQAL context) was not unethical.
Then the second point:
2) Zachary Stein’s point that “higher is not always better” is so out of the mark!
Is like saying "not all taller mountains are actually taller"....well, YES, THEY ARE!
The way he presents this seems as if he were offering a more nuanced, realistic approach to life ("lower people sometimes are better! higher sometimes are actually worse") while in fact all of that, and a lot more, is already comprised and extensively explained by today’s Wilber theory, even in its more basic, novice level.
Have he heard about "lines"?
A cognition in Turquoise doesn't make a Gandhi; and a self-sense in blue not necessarily makes a dick-head either; combinations are limited less, and that IS explained by Wilber's AQAL theory. Nothing new here!
So where is the "grown to goodness" so-called problem?
OVERALL HIGHER (meaning, higher in all the important lines - like moral, interpersonal, cognitive, emotional and so on-) coupled with at a least some experience in horizontal (state-stage) training (getting to know/experience absolute truth) does as a matter of fact ALWAYS make a better person; if you can name an exception (and if I can't debunk it as quick as you post it) then I would take back this otherwise obvious assertion.
So, if you if you read 2 pages of a book by Ken, maybe you can get the impression the man is saying that “a developed PhD. Level professor would always be better than a simple poor traditional guy in Pakistan”; but if you go further from 2 pages to at least one complete book…that poor idea gets erased by the radical complexity of Ken’s AQAL theory that practically account for any configuration possible (from a Pakistan poor simple undeveloped saint to a megalomaniac narcissistic developed PhD. Prof).
The generalization that “higher is better” is STILL REAL, the problem is what we take by “higher”; if you take a rather uninformed view of “higher” (meaning for example to take only one line) then of course you will fail applying the “higher is better” principle to the real world; but if you take an AQAL perspective (taking in account, between many other things, at least 12 lines) then “higher” is a very complex adjective involving a lot going on there!
But to me this point out to a very serious problem I see a lot in all intents of “going beyond Wilber”.
While I agree that we SHOULD TRY to go beyond him in practical terms (and if for no other reason, then at least because he will pass and we can't allow this precious field to collapse then); while I would state HE WANTS THE SAME; still the act of going “beyond him” would only be legitimate when the ones proposing the "beyond Wilber" theory (or parts of it) would actually have understood and included all what he have discovered/included/synthesized in the first place. Meaning, a post Wilber should be WILBER +, not an alternative to Wilber but Wilber + other things he failed to include himself.
A simple test: for someone to qualify for such a "beyond Wilber" theory creating endeavor, that person should be able to sustain an argument with him in which he receives nothing new from Ken (feeling continuously thorough the conversation something like "come on Ken, I know all that old man, tell me something interesting or new…") and that, in that same conversations that person could provoke Ken at least 1 or 2 "aha" moments, meaning give him something new, something he have really NOT included, not synthesized, or –of course- point him a mistake, a real one.
By this time, I never heard of such a person.
What I see often, on the other hand, is Ken approaching people "lowering" his level of conversation to match others altitude–like going a little greener when engaging Rupert Sheldrake, or even Roger Walsh- in a way that they can at least share on a common ground; and during those conversations, the feeling I keep having is that Ken isn’t receiving anything new at all, nothing he doesn’t already though about (or write extensively about), but that instead he is compassionately letting others express at least part of what his actual thoughts are; he is letting others say things he already agree with in the sake of generating legitimacy of that knowledge and wisdom: letting many (from different altitudes, worldviews and fields- agree with him make those ideas less “Wilber’s” and more universal; and all this –I think- he makes at purpose, absolutely aware of what he’s doing. He is getting mostly nothing new from all these hundreds of hours of conversation with many of the most intelligent men on earth; and in the other hand, there is no almost any of those recorded conversations in which you don’t hear the guest going through one, if not many, “aha” moments started by Ken insights.
Take as an example these 30 hours of Integral discussion with Ken: http://integrallife.com/member/federico-parra/blog/please-dont-lose
Please point out to me if you hear any of these scholars (many of them critics of at least part of Ken's ideas) bringing Ken to something absolutely new for him; something "out of his range"; something he didn't think –or even write about before.
Hold in mind that I'm not stating that it is impossible to teach the man anything new or to come up with an insight he didn’t realize by himself. In fact, I believe quite the opposite, and I believe the simple prove of that is Ken himself; meaning, if one Ken Wilber could be born, then there are more like him out there. But we have to be careful, because if one extreme is to believe there are NO people like him and then elevate him to a kind of “chosen one”; then the other extreme is to over-simplify the fact that this guy is maybe the biggest genius that humankind have seen in many many decades, if not hundreds of years. His capacity of synthesizing is so huge, and his openness to receive more and more information (though, perfecting his previous synthesis) is so fast and precise, that most of us, when with a valid objection to the theory, actually arrives to express it correctly…we find that he actually moved on from that; he corrected it; he took the same critique from another person maybe (or figured out himself, who knows) and turn it; changed it; his flexibility is as notorious as his intelligence.
So, I'm not impressed that in the last 10 blogs posts of this site (about ITC 2010) I read, I didn't find almost even one thing really new; nothing that I haven't hear himself speaking about at least once in I-Life’s many interviews. Nothing that wasn’t implied, if not extensively explained, in any of his so many publications.
I hope you don't get the idea that my realization about "where's Wilber speaking from" makes me blind to see his various mistakes and defects. To name a few, I was (and I am) a very furious critic of his many "sponsoring" actions (like him sponsoring Big Mind process, or Holosync (for Christ sake!) or -more recently- Guruji; this last which made me write a whole critique on the topic (refer to my I-Life space to read many critics of my own to Ken's actions). Also I had been really critic (as R. Walsh) to Ken’s last 5 years or so talking on a non-duality, direct access “style” to a community of non-prepared (mostly) people who many of them then decided to simply stay like they were (and no practice at all) because Ken's teachings on non-duality somehow validated them as realized people (how easy is enlightenment these days!). All in all, I consider myself to be at a safe “attachment distance” from Ken as a mentor or something (I never met him); although again, I don't see in the Horizon -at this time- anyone coming even near him as a meta-synthesizing-mind putting everything together; and I am sad to see many people simply taking one little stance of Wilber -from his overall huge network of nuanced thinking-, then adding to that little stance some more nuance, and then presenting that as "something new that Ken left out" or "something Ken missed". Referring again to point 2, I think Zak point goes into this category, which is to say that Ken’s stance on "higher is better" is PEDAGOGYCAL, as his orienting generalization (like COG, center of gravity); but that his theory (and his activity) is FAR more complicated and extremely more nuanced; refer to Core Integral for his take on lines, and the group of lines that actually have to be higher to be able to say that one person is (overall) higher (and there yes, better) than another.
Thanks again William for this space.
Hope to get an answer of some type from you!
Take much care everybody. Peace.
Federico Parra
Hi again; the 2nd (of 4) messages was somehow lost in the publishing so there is a gap in the text. Here, the 2nd part:
...
Before finishing point 1, I would like also to state that I think William is wrong when using R. Walsh comments on ethics linking them to Wilber actions during the Wyatt episode; because as stated in his blog’s next post after that episode (which you can read here: http://www.kenwilber.com/blog/show/48) his first blog post (the polemical one) was NOT an explosion of shadow material without any rational analysis or ethical control, but an open letter -a rude one- consciously written by Ken and then sent to 200 PEOPLE for revising, opinions and support BEFORE posting it; 70% of that people agreed with the full post –while 30% agreed with the contents but not with the form-; And let me guess it would be highly probable - if not just a plain obvious fact - that R. Walsh –one of Ken’s closest friend, colleague and scholar- was on that list, among many others we would be surprised to hear about; And let me add also, that those were not as brave as to support, with their name, a message that was not Ken’s but Integral level altitude’s one to the vicious mean green meme attacks by scholars at that time (almost 5 years ago). So I would tend to think that, if asked, Roger would say that what Ken did (in an AQAL context) was not unethical.
Then the second point:
2) Zachary Stein’s point that “higher is not always better” is so out of the mark!
Is like saying "not all taller mountains are actually taller"....well, YES, THEY ARE!
The way he presents this seems as if he were offering a more nuanced, realistic approach to life ("lower people sometimes are better! higher sometimes are actually worse") while in fact all of that, and a lot more, is already comprised and extensively explained by today’s Wilber theory, even in its more basic, novice level.
Have he heard about "lines"?
A cognition in Turquoise doesn't make a Gandhi; and a self-sense in blue not necessarily makes a dick-head either; combinations are limited less, and that IS explained by Wilber's AQAL theory. Nothing new here!
So where is the "grown to goodness" so-called problem?
OVERALL HIGHER (meaning, higher in all the important lines - like moral, interpersonal, cognitive, emotional and so on-) coupled with at a least some experience in horizontal (state-stage) training (getting to know/experience absolute truth) does as a matter of fact ALWAYS make a better person; if you can name an exception (and if I can't debunk it as quick as you post it) then I would take back this otherwise obvious assertion.
So, if you if you read 2 pages of a book by Ken, maybe you can get the impression the man is saying that “a developed PhD. Level professor would always be better than a simple poor traditional guy in Pakistan”; but if you go further from 2 pages to at least one complete book…that poor idea gets erased by the radical complexity of Ken’s AQAL theory that practically account for any configuration possible (from a Pakistan poor simple undeveloped saint to a megalomaniac narcissistic developed PhD. Prof).
The generalization that “higher is better” is STILL REAL, the problem is what we take by “higher”; if you take a rather uninformed view of “higher” (meaning for example to take only one line) then of course you will fail applying the “higher is better” principle to the real world; but if you take an AQAL perspective (taking in account, between many other things, at least 12 lines) then “higher” is a very complex adjective involving a lot going on there!
But to me this point out to a very serious problem I see a lot in all intents of “going beyond Wilber”.
Hi William! I just published again the 2nd part of the text which somehow was missed in my first try. Please, if possible, could you append it between part 1 and 3, so it is more easy to read? thanks a lot! Federico
I am also very concerned about this: "Right now, integral is still centered around a small and insular group - I get the impression that no one is considered "truly integral" unless approved by Ken. This will have to change..."
My understanding is that Ken's intent was never to be considered the creator of the integral movement but a reporter on something that was already happening without him. At this point there must be millions of integrally informed and living persons. If we allow this movement to be run by only a small insular group we are doing something wrong and apparently not so integral acting after all.
Post a Comment