I just read an excellent essay called Winning the Integral Game? by Scott Parker over at Integral World. After reading it this morning, I felt Scott was writing my exact experience with the work and world of Ken Wilber. What Scott describes as the transition from Wilber “fan” to Wilber “critic” is very similar to my own experience and description of the stages of Wilberism. And I have a feeling that we are not alone, as many have either moved to a more critical post-Wilber integral while others have just dug their heels in and take their stand as fanatics. This dichotomy of “fans” and “critics” as Parker describes it is very real in Integraland and a very interesting phenomenon to observe and experience. The key point for me is that you can be not just a fan or critic but a student-critic if one desires. The road to the post-fan, student-critic stance in regards to Wilber's work is becoming expressed more and more often these days.
There are many great points in this essay so I wanted to point out a few that really struck home for me.
Yet these are precisely the kinds of rhetorical games employed by and about Wilber. His defenders inevitably refer to themselves as “fans,” as if they are rooting for the home team in a crucial game against their cross-town rivals. Those rivals, of course, being the “critics.” With the sides exclusively drawn, the Integral conversation shifts from a dialogue, where we can engage and learn from one another, to a debate, where we can have only one winner.
I would say that debate is not even applicable since Wilber’s technique is to play more or less the Integral authority figure that sets the playing field for what is and is not integral (or capital “I” Integral for Wilber’s version of integral). I’d love to see Wilber actually debate with other philosophers of mind to see what could come of such a dialogue in terms of integral philosophy. I’d like to see him engage with John Searle, Owen Flanagan, Daniel Dennett, etc. instead of just dismissing them as reductionists (see this post). Instead, we get IN clips of giddy conference attendees who can talk the integral talk and want to get the Integral word from the authority on all things integral. They usually consist of a question and then a monologue of Wilber giving his position - the Integral position on the subject. (I was once a giddy fan of Wilber myself and when I took the first Integral theory course I was very excited to be able to actually ask Wilber a question on a conference call. Being drunk with integral, as Matt Dallman puts it, is a very powerful thing.)
Over the last several years, Wilber and his fans have become so fluent in the language of Integral, Integral-this and Integral-that, that they have effectively created an in-group/out-group scenario reminiscent of the blue meme's good and evil, that they are so (rightly) critical of. You're either for Integral or against it. (And if you have a different definition of Integral, it's wrong.)
This is very true. I would add that Wilber often notes that his version/model/theory of integral (Integral) is only one of many, but usually qualifies that by saying that he feels his is most comprehensive out there. What has happened over the years is that Wilber has created a brand with his version and that brand represents a very specific model called AQAL. If you do not include all the elements of AQAL then you are not Integral per se. You are integrally informed perhaps but not Integral. Then, if you do include all elements and meet Wilber’s “AQAL kosher”, as it once was put at IU, litmus test then you may get AQAL certified. Then you have levels of AQALness as well. This marketing/branding turn for Wilber is something that many, including myself, seem to care for less and less.
A more likely rebound for Integral will take place by the work of others, taking what of intellectual value can be found in Wilber's writing and removing it from the tragic context of the Integral movement. Integral-with-a-hyphen must be rebranded or debranded, losing the gimmicky marketing ploys altogether.
This is where I am at personally. There are some great ideas in Wilber’s work and I am at the place of trying to tease out those ideas and compare, contrast and synthesize them with other philosophers. Integral Review is an alternative to Wilber’s Integral worth checking out.
The process of developing that doubt was slow for me, much slower than my acceptance of Wilber had been previously. As these doubts first began to develop in me, I had a hard time admitting to myself that I was having them, so sincere was my devotion. With time, as the intellectual counter-arguments mounted, I had to face my psychological resistance to change. If I rejected (or at least took a step away from) Wilber, I would be left without the comprehensive view that had been such a comfort to me. I'd have to rethink everything I had come to know, redefine my place in the world. It was intimidating to relinquish that certainty, that confidence. Still, my doubts proliferated and were accelerated by criticisms I began to read and agree with, particularly those that brought Wilber's scholarship under heavy (and unanswered) question. It began to look to me like Wilber was cherry-picking his sources to support a particular story he wanted to tell, not using the method of orienting generalizations as democratically as he professed.
All I can say is that I could have written the jest of this paragraph myself as it mirrors my own experience so well. The irony is that Wilber’s own description of stage growth seems to apply with some people’s experience with Wilber and his work. You have the introduction/reading of Wilber, identification/embeddedness with Wilber and then dis-identification/transcendence of Wilber and his work. Interesting. So if that holds true we may see more people moving into the “critic” stage, even though that stage is really more of a “student-critic” position for some.
For whatever reason, I needed a comprehensive view of the world, which Wilber offers, and rightly points out is a comfort to postmodern fragmentation. But comfort is a psychological issue, not a philosophical one. Whether we accept or reject postmodernism or metaphysics, what Wilber provides is a description of reality. The comfort to be gained if Wilber's version is accurate does not outweigh the burden on him (or someone else) to prove that it is.
As I’ve detached myself somewhat from Wilber’s work and began to read more about naturalism, I felt the comfort begin to be challenged. It is always good to challenge and reflect on anything you think describes everything – theories included. Not that I’ve totally changed my model of reality. I feel that my desire for a comprehensive approach has been there for a long time and will continue to guide my experiences. Wilber’s work for me has been a great way to illustrate that approach and inform me that there are others who feel a similar approach to the world is possible.
What interests me, personally—and this is the Meyerhoffian turn—is what were the psychological reasons that I was so strongly drawn to Wilber's work and is my present skepticism of Wilber due strictly to shortcomings in his work or also to a deeper skepticism of comprehensive worldviews in general, discomforting as it may be to wonder? I ask (though I don't answer) these questions publicly, because I suspect that what drew me to Wilber is what draws most people and what turned me away is what is turning many away today.
I have thought about this often myself. Why was I so drawn to Wilber and his work? I think there are many reasons, several of which I am sure that I am not even aware of. I think there is certainly a very similar phenomenon/pattern that is associated with “fans” of Wilber as well as those that become “critics.” For me, the dynamics of that process are both fascinating and a little scary to reflect on personally.
Speaking for myself, I don't know what Integral philosophy is, let alone where it stands, apart from Wilber's shadow. I don't think it is a question that has been adequately answered yet
I’m with Scott on this one. Some days I wonder why I even call my blog a day in the integral life because I am uncertain at times what integral is anymore.
Dialogue is what separates philosophy from dogma.
Amen.
I just posted this to the London Integral Circle e-list (forgot to add some kind of proviso to explain Mr Falk though!):
Stages of Wilberism - 'fans', 'critics' and beyond...
There's an interesting post on the Dashh: A Day In The Integral Life blog: http://dashh.typepad.com/ about the possible stages in people's relationship to Wilber's work. In particular the dichotomy between 'fan' and 'critic'.
"You have the introduction/reading of Wilber, identification/embeddedness with Wilber and then dis-identification/transcendence of Wilber and his work. Interesting. So if that holds true we may see more people moving into the “critic” stage, even though that stage is really more of a “student-critic” position for some."
"The road to the post-fan, student-critic stance in regards to Wilber's work is becoming expressed more and more often these days."
Is this a positive development, a growth? Or a dilution of the 'Integral' message by those who can't take the heat, won't do the practice etc...?
I might add that the very Wilber/Integral-identified 'fan' mode seemed characteristic of a slightly less complex stage of ego development - if I remember the recent bits of Loevinger-related research correctly.
Hmmm.... That could mean that the *more* we push Integral as *the* answer, the best one, the more we attach people to a slightly earlier stage of post-conventional development (ie before the real openness, flexibility, nonjudgmentalness etc of Unitive, or suchlike).
Our integral message might actually be an obstacle to healthy higher development!
(This depends on me not having misunderstood, or misremembered bits of research I've skim-read. ie I might have got this all wrong!).
Add to the mix, that when Dr Susanne Cook-Greuter came to talk to us she told us that something wasn't quite right sometimes with some of the very high Sentence Completion Test scores from within the Integral milieu.
Are we the vanguard, are we a (more subtle) impediment, or...?! ;-)
Cheers,
Matthew
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Londonintegralcircle/
Posted by: Matthew Kalman | June 13, 2007 at 05:52 AM
Dash wrote:
(I was once a giddy fan of Wilber myself and when I took the first Integral theory course I was very excited to be able to actually ask Wilber a question on a conference call. Being drunk with integral, as Matt Dallman puts it, is a very powerful thing.)
It is very interesting that so many persons describe their early encounter with Wilberian Integralism as if it were an intoxicant--they use terms like 'giddy' 'drunk' 'fired up'
Scott Parker also mentions something else--the sense of superiority he felt.
Years ago, I read something by a person who wrote that science fiction, at least that from certain authors, can have a mood altering effect.
Its worth asking whether Wilber's material, or at least some of his more famous books have a mood altering effect.
Wilber may not consciously intend to write mood enhancing, intoxicating material, but some books,written by persons with powerful unconscious agendas, may have a fascinating impact, because the authors, pressued by unconscious material, insert all kinds of unconscious derivatives that speak powerfully and subliminally to readers who unknowingly have issues similar to the issues that unconsciously drove the author's act of creation--and drive that author's public career.
A text of this kind is like a waking dream, with conscious and unconscious material that set up a vibe.
The fascination produced by such a text comes because it speaks to something unconscious in us. But a text of this kind can tease us but it cannot wake us up. Once we wake up, the text remains interesting but loses its fascination factor.
The process of science and philosophy requires a state of mind that is alert and interested but not in this state of intoxicated, enthralled fascination.
***One reason why the language of academia is so calm and mannered is to ensure that people stay awake and lucid and AVOID the kind of verbal intoxciation that is incompatible with creating science and philosophy.
I remember getting very interested by General Systems Theory when in graduate school. It gave me a comprehensive understanding of things. But I dont recall feeling that my appreciation for GTS made me superior to those who preferred other frameworks. It was a tool that fit my hand. A carpenter doenst think he or she is superior because a particular tool works best.
In grad school we discussed the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) in very great detail, and other models of psychological development. But never at any time did the instructors encourage us to get 'fired up' or go into states of partisan loyalty concerning this material.
The instructors were appeciative and interested, but they did not act like 'fans' and never encouraged us to act that way.
I learned that science is a matter of interest, comraderie and good craftsmanship, but never included animosity, fan mentality or the slightist hint of elitism.
A sense of intoxication and a feeling of mastery, a feeling of belonging, shared with others who believe in 'The System', an urge to proslytize, a sense of superiority in relation to those who dont share one's beliefs that The System is salvation:
all this is characteristic of conversion to a mass movement, rather than the emotions felt by scientists or philosophers who are pleased to have found a helpful new set of tools.
Dash and Scott describe the deep discomfort they both felt when they eventually came to question Wilberism and feared the loss of the comfort they'd gained from the Wilberian material.
It might be helpful for those who feel puzzled why they became drawn to, even fascinated by Wilberian material to do the following:
Be a detective and look carefully and curiously at what your life was like and what your state of mind and emotion were in just before and at the time you got fascinated with the Wilber material.
Were you in a painful state of depression or anxiety? Were you isolated, with people who didnt quite share your aspirations? Were you overwhelmed by the complexity of information taught at the university level and desperately seeking mastery?
(I remember that one very painful thing in either the freshman year or first year of graduate school is finding yourself surrounded for the first time by persons as intelligent as yourself and suddenly fearing you may not have what it takes--a painful state of mind, and one where one becomes desperate to regain some kind of stability--ASAP.)
In such a state of mind, where we crave stablity, long for a sense of mastery, Wilberian material, which may, through its author's search for mastery, may contain unconscious derivatives that trigger a sense of mastery in those readers most yearning to feel that way.
IMO, power and mastery, and suppression of vulnerability may be unconscious but very important elements in Wilber's life and that he has unconsciously created writings which evoke feelings of power, mastery and supression of vulnerabilty, makign them appealing to anyone who wishs to feel that way--and that means these will appeal to a lot of people.
There may be an unintegrated strand of youthfulness in Wilber, what Jung termed 'Puer Aeternus' that may also make Ken and his output unconsciously intoxicating to young persons, especially those who are full of fire and who fear that traditional religoius and academic communities are forcing them to stifle their fiery, angry energy.
They may be attracted to Ken because he has created a social scene where you get to have your cake and eat it too--feel spiritual and highly developed, yet have permission to blast off and use foul, abusive language and claim that only inferior persons would be offended.
It may be that part of the pain of questioning Wilber's system is losign that sense of verbally induced certainty/mastery, losing that verbally induced feeling of power and instead, returning to a state of emotional vulnerablity that you were in before encoutnering the Wilber material--and that the mood enhancing nature of the Wiilber material temporarily suppressed that vulnerabilty.
Finally, (personal hunch) there seems to be something about Wilber's public personality and the narrative he has crafted and gives to the public about his own life that may be a part of the fascination.
Hard Core Wilberians have become just as invested in Wilber's version of his life story and in Wilber's personality as they are in his system. In this, he resembles Carlos Castaneda, another person who wrote intoxicating material with elements filched from academic sources then used in an anti-scientific manner.
No other scientific concept or philosophy has required that we get invested in the personality of the scientist or philosopher in question.
Wilber has not been content to create a body of writing. He has also encouraged and created an entire social scene around himself, not just an intellectual system--via the internet.
No scientific theory or philosophy that has academic recognition has ever required that we belong to a social scene.
But that social scene may be part of the appeal---it gives a sense of belonging, and that can be very hard to give up. But one loses kinship to the Wilber tribe as soon as one dares to become adult and autonomous in relation to his system and its social taboos.
IMO, Wilber's actual fascination is not with ideas or spirituality but with power.
He may also have some kind of unconscious fascination with power and distaste for human vulnerablity.
For it is very interesting that, despite his avid interest in science, Ken Wilber never made use of the findings of social psychologists such as Stanley Milgram (Obedience to Authority experiment) or Philip Zimbardo (The Stanford Prison Experiment) in his own study of cult leaders.
Wilber only seems interested in science when he can appropriate elements from it to support his fantasy of personal development into an invulnerable super-person, impervious to temptation.
What may make social psychology useless for Wilberian purposes is that findings from social psychology demonstrate that no matter how intelligent we are, we remain vulernable to social influence and can be corrupted by power imbalance. Even Stanford University students regressed into ghastly cruelty and abject submission to cruelty, when isolated (Zimbardo's Prison Experiment)
Wilber seems unable to see the relevance of Zimbardo's findings to his own work,despite having partipated in a seminar with Zimbardo in the 1980s, material from which was published in the book, 'Spiritual Choices, The Problem of Recognizing AUthentic Paths to Inner Transformation', edited by Dick Anthony, Bruce EckerKen Wilber, Paragon House, 1987. (Dr Zimbardo is listed on page 27 in footnote #9 a footnote as one of the participants.)
Yet depsite his being listed in that one footnote as a seminar participant, Philip Zimbardo's Prison Experiment findings were never discussed in the book--a very puzzling omission, for the purpose of that seminar was to assemble a team of top experts to discuss and find ways to distinguish between helpful tranformative new religious movements and potentially hazardous new religious movements.
Its as if one were to discuss Brothers Karamazov and omit any mention of hating one's father.
By contrast, a conscious and alert scientist not in thrall to an unconscious personal agenda would see the relevance of Zimbardo's findings and discuss them.
My hunch is that Wilber and possibly the other two editors could not face the relevance of Zimbardo's work because the outcome of the Prison Experiment findings demonstrated that even intelligent educated students, were vulnerable to social isolation, power imbalance and human vulnerability.
The Prison Experiment is probably painfully subversive for anyone who cherishes dreams of a grand system and set of spiritual exercises that would supposedly create super-evolved color coded persons who would be impervious to temptation.
Zimbardo's Prison
Experiment warns that Ken's hopes of becoming highly evolved, superhuman and invulnerable are a dead end dream, and that his grand project of beocoming an invulnerable human being is futile--sad news, indeed.
I suspect that because Wilber remains mostly unconscious, his work, though fascinating and cognitively stimulating, may keep his fans unconscious in relation to their own power issues because Wilber remains unconscous about his own power issues. And this may affect why Wilber keeps associating with teachers who reportedly have had difficulty using power responsibly. (eg Andrew Cohen)
IMO, Ken Wilber has loyalists because he has found a way to write about science and philosophy in a way that makes people get high and hopeful and then get addicted to him because he has made them feel good.
True science and philosophy cannot be practiced when one is clnging to hope, inspiration--one can only create true science and philosophy by NOT being in the state of mind that Wilber and his followers prize.
Posted by: Anon | June 13, 2007 at 11:45 AM
It might help to take a moment to return to basics. What is Truth? Truth is appearing in front of us in this very moment. It's prior to words and ideas. Right now, what do you see? What do you hear? What are you doing?
Wilber has done some meditation, practiced some Zen, and had some especially clear experiences of the mind that simply reflects just-now. Then he created all these ideas, these maps, this Theory of Everything. These ideas may be entertaining and of academic interest, but they're entirely different from Zen and other meditation traditions that stress the direct experience of just-now.
Clinging to Wilber's maps isn't compatible with the practice of returning to the Truth of this moment. Thus the conflicts that are expressed in the Integral world.
The resolution can come from throwing away all the ideas, the AQAL etc etc, and returning to clear, before-thinking mind. Look up at the sky and see blue; look at a tree and see green; eat an orange and taste the sweetness; meet a friend and say, "Hi, how are you?" Maps, theories, and ideas will never, ever substitute for the pure clarity of experience.
Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Stuart | June 19, 2007 at 02:28 PM
Back in 2005, a person wrote this essay for Generation Sit entitled
Integral Theory: The Ego’s Last Stand?
http://www.generationsit.org/archives/44
The entire essay is well worth reading.
In the comments section, a correspondant named Mike wrote:
"The false sense of seperation between self and other is reduced though spiritual practice.
"What happens to me when I place myself at the “leading edge” of evolution? Suddenly, there are a lot of people that I no longer have to deal with. When I am done ridding myself of most of the world’s population, I am left with a strange competition of sorts. Who is more integral than me?
"Instead of talking about something productive, I will find myself using someone else’s theory to prove to this person that I am more integral than they are.
"I sicken myself.
"I have came to the conclusion that what we call “integral” is really a subtle way of intensifying samsara. I have the title of “integral,” and now, I must protect it."
Posted by: Anon | June 19, 2007 at 05:34 PM
If it is possible that that KW is both fascinated by power (perhaps why he's been so interested in gurus), yet in certain ways remains unconscious concerning 1) power, 2)the existence of power imbalance and 2) that that power can be and has been abused by spiritual leaders--
A lack of full conscious awareness suggested by KW inability to discuss Zimbardo's Prison experiment, and his rationalizing the benefits of power abuse via his pean of praise to 'rude boy gurus'--
http://www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/Ywilber.htm
If KW is not fully conscious in relation to power and power abuse, this may have implications for many persons who have been harmed by gurus, and are trying to make sense of their guru-student relationship by using Wilber's AQUAL and version of spiral dynamics.
That model may not suffice to bring them to conscious, emancipatory awareness--not if the author remains unknowingly blind to certain issues of power abuse.
If one is nearsighted, one needs refraction that will correct to 20/20 vision.
If you are given a refraction that fails to correct the existing nearsightedness or adds astigmatism to the existing
trouble, that set of eyeglasses will leave you accident prone.
*If you continue to trust that the eyeglasses are correctly refracted, you will blame yourself for your own clumsiness and feel puzzled and shame ridden if you continue to trip and fall.
If we consider it possible that Wilber has a desire to be helpful, yet is unknowingly unconscious/astigmatic in relation to his longing for power and mastery, and unconscious/astigmatic in realtion to the existence of power imbalance and the existence of authoritarian power abuse:
1)For all his desire to be of service, KW may be unable to warn his followers of potential pitfalls
2) Whatever models Wilber creates will be fascinating expressions of an unconscious quest for mastery that sets up an empathic echo in those who unconsciously share a longing for mastery
3) Yet these same Wilberian models not not fulfil their emancipatory promise for if they are expressions and extensions of his blind spots concerning power--these models will be an intellectual lens that retains astigmatic bias and fail to provide 20/20 refraction.
They will fascinate but not give clear, sober, steady vision of the power-pitfalls at hand.
If this is so, and each reader must ponder this for him or herself, those persons wounded on the spiritual quest, who loyally still use KW's models to assist their own recovery from authoritarian power abuse may find themselves unable to see the problem clearly.
If (and this requires further exploration) Wilber's models are expressions of an unconscious/astigmatic relationship with power and risk factors for power abuse by spiritual leaders, then anyone using Wilber's models may risk remaining astigmatic in realtion to these same issues.
Even if they have already left one abusive guru, they may risk re-enacting with other abusive gurus, and KW's models may keep them astigmatic and unable to get a clear focus on pitfalls right in front of them
IMO, studying the work of Philip Zimbardo and Stanley Migram and seeing its applicabilty to one's painful experiences would 1) require a reader to assert a conscious,steady, 20/20 focus on variables and factors that Wilberian Integral material has been unable to address.
Posted by: Anon | June 25, 2007 at 10:55 AM