[p2p-research] summary of integral essay topic

[Michel Bauwens]

For those that don't have the time to read the whole thing a summary of the
issue:


Going beyond Wilber’s enclosure of the Integral
Commons<http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/going-beyond-wilbers-enclosure-of-the-integral-commons/2009/06/05>
[image: photo of Michel Bauwens]

Michel Bauwens
5th June 2009


 Citation from Daniel Gustav Anderson:

By “after Wilber” I mean that the sun has set on Wilber’s project in a
number of ways, at least as a practical and intellectual project. It may
carry on as a religious institution, which is beyond my concern for it. The
“Wyatt Earp” episode should have made this obvious to anyone concerned why
this is so, if it wasn’t clear to them before this.

Michel Bauwens:

If you’d ask me to describe the ‘epistemological’ (i.e. form of knowledge)
status of P2P Theory, then I would say it’s an applied theory designed to
develop a coherent set of concepts which can explain the emergence of peer
to peer dynamics and its expressions, with an underlying emancipatory
intent. But the method that I use to arrive at conclusions is itself an
application of *integral theory*.

I have explained my take on this in the following article: Beyond
Perspectives, Reductionisms and
Layers<http://integral-review.org/documents/Integral%20Review%20and%20Its%20Editors%201,%202005.pdf>,
which appeared in Integral Review, Issue 1, 2005 (June), pp. 14-15.

In short, it’s a method that allows you to intergrate the various aspects of
reality, both objective (things), inter-objective (their relationships),
subjective (intentional realities) and intersubjective (shared cultures and
worldviews). My own method derives from Wilber, but is also radically
different because Wilber oversteps boundaries and uses flawed
interpretations to arrive at a synthetic interpretation of reality that aims
to become dominant.

I had the occasion to critique Ken Wilber’s work in two short articles:

* The Cult of Ken Wilber,
http://www.kheper.net/topics/Wilber/Cult_of_Ken_Wilber.html

* A critique of SD/Integral,
http://www.kheper.net/topics/Wilber/SDi_critique.html

However, it is the deconstruction by Jeff Meyerhoff in Bald Ambition
<http://www.integralworld.net/meyerhoff-ba-8.html>that has destroyed the
edifice as a project with scientific claims.

In the theoretical article that I will be citing below, an episode is
mentioned, “the Wyatt Earp
episode<http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/ken-wilber-is-losing-it/2006/06/12>“,
Wilber unfortunately broke down as a coherent thinker and became the leader
of a kind of intellectual cult, that is terminally closed to criticism. It
signalled that the edifice was beyond repair.

At the time of my break with the mothership for the reasons explained in my
short critical pieces above, I called to divest the integral movement from
the particular Wilberian’s interpretation, and called for a emancipatory
integral theory, that would replace the neoliberal and neocon alignment of
the Wilberian’s. However, despite the launch of an originally promising Open
Integral blog, this failed to materialize. (however, I consider my own P2P
Theory to be a candidate for such efforts, though it’s focus is limited to
the P2P field)

Recently however, I discovered the work of *Daniel Gustav Anderson *in
Integral World, which carries a lengthy interview of
him<http://www.integralworld.net/anderson1.html>by Erik Scott
Thornquist, and points to two major essays laying the
foundation for a ‘critical integral theory’. I am therefore, understandably
exited about the belated discovery of Daniel’s work.

Daniel’s interview shows that the critique is very congruent with mine,
though much more detailed and updated, and of course, he has worked out a
coherent alternative, something I choose to forego, instead focusing on the
P2P Theory, but as a means to the same end.

His bio says that he “is presently a graduate student in Cultural Studies at
George Mason University. His interests include critical theory, ecology, and
European and South Asian traditions of dialectical thinking.”

His two main and recommended essays are:

* “Of Syntheses and Surprises: Toward a Critical Integral
Theory<http://integral-review.org/documents/Anderson,%20Of%20Syntheses%20and%20Surprises%203,%202006.pdf>”


* “Such a Body We Must Create: New Theses on Integral
Micropolitics<http://integral-review.org/documents/Anderson,%20Of%20Syntheses%20and%20Surprises%203,%202006.pdfhttp://integral-review.org/documents/Anderson,%20Such%20a%20Body.%20Micropolitics,%20Vol.%204%20No.%202.pdf>“,


Both of them have been published in Integral Review.

Here are some excerpts:

*1. Integral theory as a broad historical movement, predating, co-existing
and post-dating the particular interpretation by Ken Wilber*

In particular: *Wilberism is an attempt to enclose the integral commons *

*Daniel Gustav Anderson: *

“*The conclusion I take from this history is that Wilber’s integral theory
is but one manifestation of a much broader historical phenomenon. It is a
bit disingenuous to say that it’s a singular work of singular genius as some
like to imagine it is, anymore than the so-called Cartesian worldview was a
strict result of some French guy’s geometry homework. Wilberism is not
particularly unique in this sense. Actually, Wilber’s project has all the
formal characteristics of any other subcultural phenomenon (see Dick
Hebdige’s work on subcultures). The difference is that Wilber’s subculture,
the subculture identified by affiliation with objects Wilber produces or
endorses, is privatized to a nearly unprecedented degree. Aficionados of
romance novels or kung fu films or like myself particular professional
sports teams engage with all these objects as commodities, surely, but
imagine if one kung fu director and his associates claimed that only his
movies represent the authentic vision for the genre and, further, the only
solution for humanity’s complex of problems. It would seem preposterous to
me but then again when Wilber makes such claims or allows such claims to be
made on his behalf, people buy it.

So what kind of cultural phenomenon is this? It’s a cultural phenomenon like
anything else, which means it can be understood in the way any other
cultural phenomenon (psychoanalysis, the novel, internet discussion boards)
can be understood. I suspect this is one reason why Wilber is so hostile as
in Boomeritis and elsewhere toward humanities disciplines and those of us
who work in them. We are the ones who have read the books and the secondary
scholarship he claims for his own, and can call him on it when he makes
mistakes or preposterous claims, and we have plenty of practice in reading
carefully and examining arguments. This makes us less developed, if a bit
more rigorous I suppose.” *

*2. The neoliberal alignment: *

*“His 2003 comments on Iraq are an ample enough demonstration of this. The
Iraq comments, SD, and Boomeritis are all symptoms of Wilber’s political
alliance with the cultural right in the U.S., expressed as the Reagan
Revolution but really going back to the Nixon-Pinochet years at least in my
view. Perhaps Europeans don’t see all the ways in which he lines up with
neoliberalism and the cadre of people who later put Reagan into power in
many of his more minute gestures, but if you survived the culture wars of
that period, you see where Wilber stands.

Berlant explains this as well as anyone. This is the cultural policy of
neoliberalism, late capital, where one defends “authentic values” or
“traditional values” or “values” as such which is to say one defends
“traditional” class and gender and racial privileges against socialization,
democratization–one protects the status quo against a radical critique.
Those who defend the status quo are those who tend to profit from it, so
that person is defending against a perceived risk against profitability. The
silly polemics Wilber puts forth as if they are serious concepts against the
“green” meme should be understood in this way: Wilber is still carrying
water for the Reaganites because he stands to profit from doing so, to gain
from it, specifically to gain actual capital or cultural capital. Why else
would someone play this game? Remember, neoliberalism is a form of identity
politics as much as anything else, but one’s identity or selfhood is
expressed through consumer choice or brand preference. You are what you
consume. Trungpa Rinpoche’s advice against spiritual materialism comes in
handy here.

If “earpy” shows us that Wilber is more interested in selling enlightenment
lessons and accessories than in producing responsible theory or science, the
cultural politics of Boomeritis and Spiral Dynamics (already latent in SES,
the “angry book”), the actual politics of the Iraq fiasco show Wilber to be
invested in anti-intellectual work in favor of business interests, late
capital (criticism is bad, praise is good). This means his project is quite
the opposite of a transformational model when you get down to it. He is
invested in maintaining the status quo, of producing transformations that
maintain and reify the status quo. Zizek’s critique of “western Buddhism”
applies directly to Wilber in precisely this sense. If that is your
interest, then fine, so be it, but at least be honest about it. Say so, and
don’t pretend to some kind of novelty or fundamental transformation. Admit
it. But if you object to this situation, then do something else. That
“something else” has been my own path.” *

*3. Selling snake oil on behalf of the prince: *

“*My overarching question is this: is the Integral Institute’s affiliated
programs with JFK University and Fielding Graduate University on the
for-profit solutions-distribution model, and if so, what does that tell us
about the future of integral theory as Wilber is promoting it, Wilber’s
version of integral? By contrast, is the California Institute of Integral
Studies analogous to the Catholic institutions established in the 19th
century, or the neo-evangelical religious institutions of the mid-late 20th
century, such as Liberty University or Regents University or Orel Roberts
University, where the mission is to instill adherence to particular values
in students, which is to say, indoctrinate them in a particular theology
rather than a method of inquiry such as critical thinking? (As an aside, one
may want to check how many graduates of such schools held significant
positions of responsibility in the Bush administration, and the consequences
of this pedagogy on the health and safety of the world.) How about Naropa?
Or the Center for Consciousness, Transformation, and Human Potential that is
now getting started at my own state school, George Mason University, as I
understand it on the basis of a private donation?

I don’t claim to know what the situation is at any of these places, frankly.
I am very curious, and more than a bit concerned in some cases. I am
interested in the ways in which the kinds of cultural capital or even
emotional capital that can be accumulated through acquiring an online degree
through the auspices of Integral Institute, and how that emotional capital
might be fungible into social capital and plain old capital capital, as
Illouz’s analysis suggests it should be. This would mean that these online
degree programs are part of a very long history in the US of corporations
looking for ways to manage emotions in the workplace, and promoting people
who have disciplined their emotional and subjective lives in particular ways
to be good and happy workers, wizards of the spiral of accumulation, masters
of the art of the happy acceptance of everything (and not organizing
horizontally in class terms, but integrating vertically into the “depth” of
an organization, willingly subordinating oneself to a “higher power”).

I would like to remind our friends of Paolo Freire’s pedagogy of
problem-posing. I’m laughing because you and I have discussed this at length
in the past when we worked together. Now, in the case of JFKU or FGU or CIIS
or Naropa: is this a banking model, where the student makes a withdrawal of
a theology-commodity and the institution makes a deposit of
value-commodities? That, to be sure, is to be avoided. I very much doubt
that education as problem-posing, where you’re pulled out of the cave and
exposed to an indifferent light (this requires some adjustments), can be
profitable in the same way a retreat center or health spa dedicated to
rearranging the furniture in the cave according to proper design principles
would be. Learning is challenging and is designed to produce a certain
capacity for independent action; it is not pandering and designed to produce
dependence on an institution or a charismatic figure or a metaphysics.

Students who have more familiarity with the specifics of these sites will be
able to draw their own judgments from these conceptual tools. And seriously,
read your Freire if you haven’t yet done so. His critique of institutional
education is as trenchant now as it has ever been.

The nitty-gritty detail of your question, Erik, has me speculating on how
one might tackle the question of what good a degree in integral theory might
do for someone. I take for granted that people who enroll in these programs
are earnest in their aspiration to be helpful to others and to serve an
ideal that is greater than their own immediate and proximal needs. Surely
these people are doing it on purpose. But they are also investing
substantial capital (money and time and effort) on this project of earning a
particular degree that entitles them to a particular social role: as a
therapist, a teacher, or what have you. These are institutional roles. So,
are students enrolling in these programs with an eye toward
becoming-institutional in particular ways, that is, of taking on
professional titles in clinical and educational institutions themselves?” *

*4. Daniel Gustav Anderson’s recommendations on the way ahead for
post-Wilberian integral students: *

“Put your work in the public domain, and restrict your integral activities
to not-for-profit organizations and research materials readily available at
public institutions. Stop buying shit because it has the word “integral” on
it, unless you feel it appropriate for your guru and your idea of Spirit to
be working as prostitutes such that you need to keep paying and paying for
intervals of integral embrace. We call this “voting with your wallet” and
it’s the only kind of critique that works in some corners of neoliberalism.
It may be the only form of criticism that Integral Institute will respond to
at this point. Monkeywrench the flattery machine by not buying into it.
Instead, one can help democratize and socialize the integral project,
becoming an active participant rather than a passive consumer of content as
it were.”


-- 
Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com

Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens

The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
http://www.shiftn.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090603/90704fe7/attachment-0001.html>