Everyone I know in the Integral world who takes their spiritual path seriously longs for deeper, more expansive Community. Some are lucky to have found it more so than others, so I’m eager to learn more about what works and what doesn’t.
I’m in the San Francisco Bay Area this week on work and visiting friends, and will have an opportunity to meet people involved in the Integral movement in this part of the world. On my mind today is this observation: Integral Theory is a meta-theory about theories of human nature, not a positive vision for human flourishing. Is it even possible to create community based on a post-metaphysical meta-theory?
Ken Wilber’s influential AQAL perspective is often taken by people to suggest that development is good so development to Integral stages of consciousness (Yellow vMEME, Turquoise altitude, etc.) must be very desirable. And if it’s good to grow, an “Integral community” must be able to provide a place where people can grow together and collectively combine their efforts to grow the world.
But this isn’t actually what Wilber says, at least in 2007′s Integral Spirituality and other recent writings. In these writings, Wilber advances the image that stages of development are also stations of life, and everyone is perfectly entitled to remain where they are. It is a pathology of higher levels to want to force people to move before they are ready, not a healthy quality.
Moreover, in still other writings, Wilber explains that AQAL is only loosely called a map and is better regarded as a meta-map. It does not specify a particular theory of human development, only a theory about the adequacy of other theories of development. And it certainly does not describe the territory, only the field in which various territories arise.
This inherent limitation to AQAL is problematic, to say the least, when it comes to constructing viable, thriving, and flourishing Integrally-informed communities. Surely people can get together to talk about Integral Theory, but how can they organize themselves into groups that provide loving, sustaining relationships based on affirmative values, if their organizing framework provides no such values?
When one looks at actual organizations built on Integral principles, the problem starts to show up in concrete forms. One by one, many attempts at building integral fellowships have fallen flat. In Seattle alone, where I live, there have been numerous attempts to start ILP practice groups and integral communities, all but one or two of which have fizzled and burned.
One remaining integral group in Seattle is close to falling apart (Seattle Integral is dying as a monthly meet-up, while its email list remains active). The other, Pacific Integral (PI), began as an educational and consulting organization, not a spiritual community, and it is making inroads into creating community by providing social and educational opportunities for graduates of its holistic development program which includes Integral Theory within a broader and deeper context.
I’m not sure I would call either of these groups “Integral communities” at this point in their development, though the human connections in both groups have been the source of many friendships for me and many others. Personally, I’ve found my experience in both groups has been profound, but lacking a defined structure associated with spiritual organizations or intentional communities. At Pacific Integral there are no shared commitments or beliefs or practices after the educational programs end except what individual cohorts self-organize. The structure feels to me more like an alumni association than a sangha.
Looking at Integral organizations at the national or international level, I am not sure where to look to find examples of communities of practice which have truly been built based on Integral Theory. There are two examples which come first to mind in the U.S. context: the Integral Spiritual Experience annual events (2009, 2010, and beyond) and the Center for World Spirituality.
Both of those groups have benefited from the leading role of Marc Gafni, the spiritual director who worked closely with Ken Wilber and a host of teachers from many different spiritual traditions as part of the Integral Spiritual Center. And Gafni’s vision is based not only on Integral principles as they have been articulated over the past decade or so — principles which have been problematic in creating a foundation for deep community — but on his development of a vision of World Spirituality and specifically his Unique Self teaching.
Marc was ISE’s greatest advocate, the theorist who created the Three Stages of Love influential in ISE2, and ISE’s principal center of gravity until Integral Life’s leadership removed him from the role and severed CWS’s ties to the event a few months ago. While I’m pretty sure ISE will survive any shuffling in its personnel, the burden of proof now rests on Integral Life’s shoulders for demonstrating that it can create deep forms of community without Marc’s leadership and vision.
When the Integral Spiritual Center (ISC) associated with Ken Wilber and Integral Institute closed its doors a few years ago, the effort to create a “spiritual meta-path” fell to the Center for World Spirituality (CWS), under Marc Gafni’s leadership. Ken Wilber remained involved in its leadership and is still a member to this day (though he has announced a 90-day leave upon which he will determine whether to remain involved or not).
And the CWS’s vision is based not only on an Integral meta-theory, but Marc Gafni’s Unique Self teaching. It is by taking Integral theory as a starting point, not an ending point, for creating communities of practice that CWS operates and makes its plans for the future. One must wonder whether Integral Life’s divorce from Marc Gafni is also a divorce from his Unique Self teachings.
In the March 2011 issue of the Journal of Integral Theory and Practice, Gafni’s Unique Self teaching is featured front and center and critically examined from many different theorists. The issue creates the impression on this reader that Unique Self is a seminal piece of the “Next Chapter of Integral.” So rooted in what long-term vision of the Integral movement does integral Life seek to build integral community, if that indeed is part of its mission?
With Integral Life and CWS going separate ways in recent months, the question of Integral Life’s positive vision for building Integral community comes to the forefront. Is a meta-theory enough? Do they intend to use Marc’s Unique Self teaching or create some alternative? I for one am looking forward to finding out more from leadership of both of these integrally-influenced organizations (and others) about how to create deep, sustainable, integral, spiritual communities.
About Joe Perez
Joe,
I agree with you that having a meta-theory, while necessary for the work to come, is not sufficient. In my humble opinion, what’s needed is an actual integrally-informed vision of who and what we are (individually and collectively) and a vision of our Telos (our individual and collective purpose). To express these things in a way which can galvanize large scale participation and support, typically requires a language (typology) and an exemplar (someone who embodies the ideal).
Interestingly, from what little I have read of Mr. Gafni, he does (did) have these two additional pieces of the puzzle. The Kabbalah provides a suitable typology (the metaphysical DNA if you will, comprised of The Tree of Life & Hebrew alphabet, etc… which is able to “flesh-out” the skeletal Integral framework), and Mr. Gafni is a charismatic figure.
The work that remains to be done in this area, however, is two-fold: The typology must be distilled and cleansed of its cultural baggage so that it can pass post-modern muster (the “myth of the given” test) AND someone who can exemplify these ideals must be willing make the sacrifice of carrying forward the message – a high personal cost may be involved.
I believe that what’s being attempted here, has not been tried since the 15th century, when Marcillio Ficino and Pico della Mirandolla combined Christianity with the Kabbalah and Hermeticism, and helped provide the philosophical underpinning for the Renaissance. The history of their efforts is most telling for the future of the Integral undertaking.
If this can be accomplished, it will I believe help to usher in a new Renaissance.
Joe
Hi Joe,
I was dismayed to learn a month ago or so that SeattleIntegral’s Core Group (it’s visioning group) had been disbanded. Around 2006, I sensed that my leadership of SI was going to radically change and that it needed to move from a Beneficent Dictatorship that was working well and growing the group into a different form. Hence, the birth of the core group.
As one of the founders of SI, the administrator/leader of the salon for five years, the core group was an attempt to bring 2T leadership and visioning to the organization. Challenged by Integral Institute and it’s apparent inability to step into 2T leadership (according to Ken at that time), the core group was a vital and alive holon that consisted mostly of graduates from Pacific Integral who carried the ability to drop into a collective consciousness that created something larger than the sum of its parts. It was an amazing time to be doing that work.
It was also obvious at that time that we, and I, were riding an emergent wave that was Seattle, what felt like a green-to-yellow emergent quality that existed in only in the western/puget sound portion of Washington state.
What is now beginning to unfold for me, especially as a result of trying to live in conscious community where I am in Western North Carolina, is that 1) we’re not all that conscious, and 2) that true community will not emerge until it has to as dictated by events.
As for SeattleIntegral’s online community, they recently – and apparently mistakenly – allowed the URL to lapse and lost their website and are left with the Meetup site and Yahoo! list, and one thing I’ve noticed is that the list is pretty much attended by the same 4-5 people ( although that has always been a lot more lurkers than participants). This brings the questions to my mind, has SeattleIntegral lost it’s relevance to what still appears to be an emerging consciousness? Is there a vision for the group and its future, or all we all so caught up in the increasing complexity and seemingly speeding up of time that we’re just overwhelmed?
From my own experience, the answer to these questions is “yes” to all. My unsolicited advice is to find your true community, organize them into your total support group, and get ready to get smaller, and more intimate, not larger. That’s what Anyaa and I are now doing where we live as we move to what we’re calling “Conscious Transition, A Network of Grace,” aligned with the transition movement and Andrew Harvey’s work, and bringing the most integral perspective we can to both, where integral becomes a tool of the emerging consciousness, not the focus.
Gary
One more thing….I am also saddened that Boulder Integral will be closing it’s doors at the end of the year, apparently because they can’t afford to keep it open.
Here’s the link to the announcement:
http://www.boulderintegral.org/event/boulder-integral-is-closing-this-december/
G
I think this is symptomatic of the rise and fall of the ‘integral’ meme. As is clear from this Google Trends analysis http://www.google.com/trends?q=ken+wilber , interest in Wilberism peaked in 2004/05 and has undergone an inextricable decline. Let’s look for the next leading edge!
Another piece of the context, Luke: see the Google Trends analysis for “spirituality” and there’s a similar trend. Interest in “spirituality” may have peaked in 04/05 as well….
interesting!
I began studying Wilber’s work in 2003-04. I was already an Integral Spiritual practitioner through the example of the late Sheik Nur or Lex Hixson. http://www.mightycompanions.org/lexhixon/ But I was unaware of the modern Integral movement until I came into contact with Wilber’s ideas.
I was happily surprised at the awesome wisdom and spiritual aspirations that existed, and still does, in the Integral community.
I do recall though that I expressed somewhere back in the halcyon days of the movement 2004 or 5 that I thought is was destined for the present level of interest it has now, which is no where near it was earlier.
In-fact the standard backlash has occurred, that is those who, as Gafni so well puts it: who have malevolent intent have struck along with people loosing interest.
Another thing might have effected this community, and that is its very postmodern attitude against traditional spiritual outer hierarchy. . . suspicion about leaders and communities becoming cult-like.
I think that Integral, like any movement may need a charismatic leader, but it may be that the internal dynamics of the philosophy won’t let that happen.
The question is: Is the Integral community too postmodern for its own sake?
Does it shun traditional organizational spiritual and political hierarchy, or is it something more sinister at work?