integral ideologies 101 by Richard Carlson
Neo-Liberalism: The problems with this second category falls very much in line with the critique of Slavoj Zizek and elaborations made on Zizek by Debashish, which essentially identifies certain new age and eastern religious practices as the subjective side of what objectively is the phenomena of neo-liberal globalization. Accordingly these “new age” or “integral” practices facilitate the conditioning of a neo-liberal subject no longer concerned with matters of social justice but with simply feeling good and gaining a competitive edge. This critique also expresses a key element of many “enlightened “ management practices which support the Global Corporatist agenda. Examples of this would be some (certainly not all) of the Seminars at the Society for Organizational Learning (M.I.T), The Integral Institute, Esalen, the Omega Institute, et al. Under this category one could also include such integral theories such as the use of “Spiral Dynamics” for organizational development.
Again I do not want to dismiss all of the programs offered at the above institutes, the intentions of these programs are most often well meaning even though they are often priced at substantial fees. There is a saying however about “the road to hell being paved with good intentions.” For example at the Society for Organizational Learning when Otto Scharmer teaches his U theory - an esoteric practice which I believe can be essentially characterized as active imagination - to his corporate audiences, to my knowledge he does not first try to discern the executives emotional intelligence nor does he do any environmental impact study on their corporations global footprint. The program is offered to one and all regardless if the participants are executives who are representatives of Enron-like firms trying to run one step ahead of the S.E.C or major defense contractors interested in more efficient ways to wage neo-cortical warfare through advance applications of technology . In fact, almost every spiritual discipline which engages in imaginative practice or shifting ones consciousness from a representational to a existensional mode of awareness does so inside a wider ethical and life style context. In Jungian practice there is an ethical confrontation with the figures which emerge from ones active imagination. In Dzogchen Buddhism the prescription is quite clear when activating a the shift from representational thinking to existentional awareness, the process also involves...
In the esoteric management practices taught by the Society for Organizational Learning and at related seminars given at the institutions mentioned above often what one learns is simply a technique for organizational learning, leadership development, stress reduction,.I do not want to suggest that is all one gathers and nothing more valuable can be gained but at its worst this is not much different than purchasing a mantra for a few hundred dollars. My contention is that most often the meditative techniques which are taught have been lifted from their original context which involves not only learning a new skill but involves a way of being in the world requiring a deep commitment for immersion is a whole system of practice which is often backgrounded in a specific subcultural nomos. When excavated from the field which backgrounds such esoteric practice indeed they become useful as instruments for facilitating the agenda of neo-liberal globalization.
In the esoteric management practices taught by the Society for Organizational Learning and at related seminars given at the institutions mentioned above often what one learns is simply a technique for organizational learning, leadership development, stress reduction,.I do not want to suggest that is all one gathers and nothing more valuable can be gained but at its worst this is not much different than purchasing a mantra for a few hundred dollars. My contention is that most often the meditative techniques which are taught have been lifted from their original context which involves not only learning a new skill but involves a way of being in the world requiring a deep commitment for immersion is a whole system of practice which is often backgrounded in a specific subcultural nomos. When excavated from the field which backgrounds such esoteric practice indeed they become useful as instruments for facilitating the agenda of neo-liberal globalization.
To extend my critique on the neo-conservative tendencies of integral theory as practiced by folks like Ken Wilber is also to add that its practice is imperialistic. One could refer to recent subaltern theory which takes issue with the attempts Euro-centric scholarship to appropriate the voice of the subaltern through imposing interpretations which speak to their own concerns and in so doing silence the indigenous peoples right to speak for themselves. To deny the voice of the “other” by forcing the socially constructed signifiers of a euro-centric language regime upon them is to do violence to their cultural traditions.For example Wilber submits all traditions, theories, practices, to the categorical constraints of his “transcendental signified”: the AQALS model. Wilbers method of colonializing cultural alterity is by its nature hegemonic, even predatory. As an instance of this practice he collapses the entirety of Sri Aurobindo’s work into a mere quadrant in his logocentric model. In doing this he fails to acknowledge that Sri Aurobindo was an important cultural figure in India who has written extensively on socio-political matters, nor does he appear to realize that his major works are backgrounded not only by Western concerns but primarily by Indic Darshan Discourses. Wilber almost never inquires into Aurobindo’s writings on the Vedas, the Upanishads and the Gita. A similar mistake is made by Daniel Anderson in his toward a Critical Integral Theory in which he wholly mischaracterizes Sri Aurobindo main influence as Matthew Arnold (?!) and consequently brands his social theory as racist. In this case not only does Anderson ignores the languaging of the historical time period and the tradition which backgrounds Aurobindo’s works but purposely misreads them in an attempt to fit them into his euro-centric (un)critical reading.
An integral theory which valorizes its epistemology by denying other traditions, theories, practices their own voice fails at the level of integration itself. Such an integral theory asserts itself ideologically by cannibalizing tradition, by appropriating the voice of alterity as a function of its holonic model, and by discarding the ten thousand nuances, subtleties, traces which are integral to indigenous identity but which lack utility for its theoretical regime. Such theoretical practices are not integral but imperialist, such discourses do not achieve cultural hybridity but rather cultural hegemony. Such an integral theory is colonialist at its worst and patronizing at its best.
The performance of an Integral Theory which seeks to reduce all other theories, practices, and traditions to topographic footnotes in a holographic grid, is an academic practice performed mostly by western white folks who in the grand colonialist tradition believe they can better interpret the indigenous traditions of the world then the indigenous peoples of the world themselves. Of Syntheses and Surprises: Toward a Critical Integral Theory 10:57 AM
No comments:
Post a Comment