KEN WILBER'S INTEGRAL PSYCHOLOGY:

I attended the 1996 first conference on Wilber's work in San Francisco.

My work is cited on Frank Visser's Wilber Web Site (Holland). You can also find other things I have been up to by searching the WWW under formerly "Robert M. Fisher" and now "R. Michael Fisher"...

KEN WILBER & INTEGRAL EDUCATION NEWSBULLETINS 1 10/02   2 11/02   3 12/02  4 01/03  5 02/03  6 03/03  7 04/03

KEN WILBER INTEGRAL EDUCATION (KWIE)

Bulletin #7

April 2003

Learning In Conflict Sites
-R. Michael Fisher, Editor

Crazy world, hey! As you read the letters below that have come across my desk, and listen to the world news, it is hard not to think conflict is 'up and center.' When has it not been, if one views reality from a second-tier perspective of the whole Spiral? Anyway, I am delighted.

My M.A. research in adult education was about learning in conflict sites (Fisher, 2000). I found that virtually no systematic theorizing existed in the educational literature to guide pedagogy and curriculum re: learning under the heat (in the fire) of conflict. There was some conflict emphasis in educational writing but mostly that was from the marginal Green and radical Red edges of education circles-- and these had no integral-like theory to bring effective dialogue and leadership support with mainstream educators and leaders. One ended up with a lot of polarization and some tolerance but basically the educational literature was embedded in functionalism and an undertheorized, poorly conceived notion of 'conflict' or 'conflict' pedagogy. Conflict (I prefer "conflictwork") tends to freak most people out (as research shows cross-culturally). Mainstream educators and marginal or radical educators have not dealt with that fear. They do not systematically critique or explore the role of fear or build more integral models of 'fear'. Thus, it seems conflict = violence, too often, in our associational learning experiences from the past. We all, generally, have a lot of fear around learning in the 'real' world. I am reminded of Neo in the movie The Matrix (1999), who has three panic attacks as the "hero" who is confronted with the Real.

The dominant functionalist discourse is that we should learn under "safe" and "relaxing" and "peaceful" conditions "without fear." This is when we learn best, they say. But what are we learning "best" and who benefits most from that learning and those conditions? Is it real? Foucault would likely argue, as would I, that it is primarily for the sake of the instructors and administrators of the governing systems that such "best" is conveniently defined to maintain power/knowledge, and power/fear imbalances for "control." This dominant discourse formation has a ground in consensus theory (functionalism) as opposed to conflict theory (to use sociological terms). Anyway, that's what most of the psychologists are telling us in Education. Psychology has its philosophical roots in consensus theory, and thus attempts to be politically neutral, but is not. What about the marxist or conflict sociologist, the political scientist, activist, labour union educator, or artists (for example)-- do you think they agree with the psychologists' view of "best" learning conditions? Not generally. I decided that we all live pretty much in a "war zone," if one is fearlessly honest about the context of social reality. Therefore, I've argued, we ought to think constructively, and imaginatively, about learning in war zones, and see if we can get beyond our constant need (addiction) in the industrialized W. world to control and manage conflict or even resolve it.

To be brief, I think this KWIE is moving in a valuable direction toward using conflicts for quality learning. Gerald Graff's work on conflict pedagogy (see his "Beyond Culture Wars", 1992), among many others, has been very influential in my own thinking (see references at the end of this Bulletin). I like Wilber's general encouragement, at least theoretically, of conflict as well. I am cautious and vigilant to not let the hegemony of consenus theory (functionalism) overly control the politics and the way critical integral theory gets constructed (and I see the tendency for this drift at times). And that is why I am here. I look forward to our continued dialogue (which sounds so nice and functional)-- in sites of conflict. Enjoy #7.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

From BARBARA BICKEL, artist-educator: "A good issue Michael [#6], pulled me to read it all the way through. I like the other voices coming in talking about SDi. Helps to round out my understanding of it. I look forward to the revealing of the 'Integral' conflicts in the next issue."

From STEVE MCINTOSH (member of the Integral Institute-Business spoke): "Thanks very much for your KWIE bulletin. It is great to see this kind of activity around in the Integral movement, especially your comments about politics [war]. For the last 5 months I have been working feverishly on a book entitled "Integral Theory and the Second Enlightenment." In this book I have a lot to say about Integral politics, Integral activism, and the Integral agenda." [ED. Steve is an artist-entrepreneur-visionary, I highly recommend you see his website and company "Now and Zen"]

JONATHAN REAMS, an integral-based consultant from Nelson, BC wrote: "Thought provoking as usual. All sorts of responses crop up as I read.... Maybe we could get together...". [ED. Jonathan and I plan to meet in a few weeks. Congratulations on your new contract to work on the business plan for a real university in Nelson. Jonathan also sent me an extract from "A 'Letter' of Intervention and Invitation to Ken, Don, and the Integral Community" by Sara Ross, a member of Global Integral Research. Sara's letter is well worth reading, very controversial, and worth responding to as it challenges us all to examine the conflict and (in her words) "blockages" and "un-integral culture we have created" around I-I].

DAN ARAYA, co-founder of Institute of Integral Evolution, responds to his article (and the title I gave it) in KWIE #6: "Thanks for including me in your bulletin. My own reservation with the article was your choice of title: "Integrative Model of Adult Education & Technology Within a Post-Colonial Critique." I am not really interested in Post-Colonial studies per se and feel uncomfortable being placed in that category. My focus is specifically an Integral values-based approach to global development. One point I am trying to make in my own work is to introduce an Integral model that genuinely integrates the contributions of Green-level analysis, rather than simply avoiding dialogue (as is so often the case within Integral circles). [ED. Dan's view is very similar to Sara Ross's critique, in this regard. He sent an excerpt from Mark Edwards' critique from worldofkenwilber.com that helps explain his own thoughts. I include only a few sentences here). Edwards wrote: "One of the most important critiques of Wilber's Integral philosophy is the contention that it, like other evolutionary models of social development, is inherently biased towards western ideals of social growth. [ED. Wilber, in his latest article on Iraq (see below) can be read to assume W. capitalism is an alright and essential mature form of Orange economics (that goes with Orange democracy), albeit, balanced with healthy ecological Green-level regulations to some degree. But Wilber is not envisioning a World Federation and global politics and developmental policy centered in Green values like cultural diversity or ecological principles.] Critics maintain that this bias supports, both directly and indirectly, a veiw that modern industrialised societies are more evolved than indigenous cultures, the underdevelped societies of the poor third world, and other powerless and marginalised societies. This critique is important because if it has any validity at all, then Integral philosophy will fail in its endeavour to open up a cross-cultural, life-affirming and inclusive visiion of what we and our world are, and what we might become. Consequently, it is crucial that Integral scholars show why these accusations are not in any way accurate.... This is not a matter of political correctness or concession to the relativist paradigm.... [it's] a question of how Integral philosophy itself, in this age of globalisation, can be a force against the continuation of collective forms of injustice and social oppression, and be a voice for cultural diversity and human rights." [ED. Wilber's article on the "War in Iraq" addresses many of these points, albeit only in cursory fashion. Wilber reads, to my ears, a more Yellow tonal vision, less optimistic on the possibilities of intergral philosophy impacting world development than what I read in Mark or Dan's more Green tonal vision. All these authors are working on an integral visioin and second-tier philosophy-- and yet, have different locations (tonal attractions) within the spectrum. However, Wilber's "boomeritis" critique in his novel is critical to all of us integral thinkers and visionaries. I think Wilber and Beck are right on, in being cautious, and in challenging whether we are really thinking at Yellow or Green ("boomeritis" hidden below). Not good or bad. We require critique of all positions. It is certainly a long complex issue of the Green-Yellow tension, if not "war" that I see in SDi theory and SDi community. We have our conflictwork cut out for us. I'm excited as this is where the best learning emerges in my experience. Also, Dan and Mark are pointing to the critical emphasis on "marginalised" points of view (traditions) in this overall world development and Integral philosophy-- that, is where I have some things to say in my article (see below), re: a functionalist vs. conflict (critical)) theory perspective that is brewing for battle in the Integral movement and its approach to education and development.]

WILBER ON THE IRAQ-COALITION WAR

[ED. In KWIE #6 I put out a challenge to the Integral leadership to say something about the war, perhaps, from a second-tier/integral view. My wish was granted, not by any magic. Frank Visser, author and expert on Wilber's work, and creator of worldofkenwilber.com, and then Ken Wilber responded to the crisis of the current war in Iraq. I present below a few excerpts from their correspondence. I await to hear from Don Beck.].

FRANK wrote (Mar. 22, 2003), from Amsterdam: "Since there is as of yet no single integral statement on the current world crisis, I have gathered some key texts written by Wilber in 2001/02 that can provide pieces of the puzzle.... These articles can be accessed from the link www.worldofkenwilber.com" -- (1) Wilber on the World Trade Towers Attack, see "Boomeritis" Endnote, Nov. 2011, wilber.shambhala.com: here Wilber analyzses how each meme responds, in general, to the attack, and the Yellow/Turquoise (second-tier) values systems are trying to give a balanced view of the situation, (2) Wilber on Mean Memes, Feb. 2002, worldofkenwilber.com: here Wilber suggests why Green is powerless in the face of Red attacks, and in which strong (even violent) Blue has a remedy, (3) Wilber on the Red/Blue Conflict, German interview, Summer 2002, worldofkenwilber.com: Wilber analyses the shadow of Orange (and other memes) and its exploitation of Third World and construction of McCulture globalization. This interview will soon be posted in its original English versiion, according to Frank, (4) Wilber then responded to Frank's mailing and added a short blurb but it turns out all of that came out in Wilber's April 14, 2003 letter "The War on Iraq" (posted to Shambhala's website), which I'll excerpt now as highlights that struck me as relevant to this KWIE, and that were provocative and a bit on the despairing side:

"Unfortunately, the world needs integral action. Unfortunately, it will not get it, whether we go to war or not.... So we work on ourselves and attempt to increase our own integral consciousness to some degree each day, so that in the end we leave the world just a little bit more whole than we found it...". (p. 12)

"... I harbor the pain of [integral] vision unrequited. Until that time, the loneliness of interal heavily weights on any who yearn for wholeness in action. Until that time [at least a century away, he suggests before integral "reconciliation between capitalism and ecology"], the bright promise of a tomorrow that coheres is no consolation but source of torment, for those of you who are so cursed." (p. 12)

[ED. He argues both resistance to Saddam's regime and the Coalition's "forcing of democracy" are required, and ought to be integral in perspective-- and he sees noe of that occurring anywhere on the planet, but he thinks Tony Blair, PM of Britian, is closest to Yellow perspective]

"Still the world has to do what the world has to do. My own belief is that, in the coming century, we will see the present United Nations peacefully replaced by the first move toward a genuine World Federation, driven particularly by threats to the global commons that cannot be handled on a national level (such as terrorism, global monetary and economic policy, and environmental threats to the global commons). I believe that the first World Federation will likely be orange-to-green. My hope is that it will be healthy green, but who knows? I believe that any such green World Federation will make substantial strides toward world harmony, but it will eventually face the inherent limitations and contradictions of all first-tier perspectives. The equivalaent of worldwide, politically-correct-thought-police will surface-- a green Inquisition, if you will-- whose subtle brutalities, accompanied by a series of extremely unpleasant economic events brought about by green's hobbling orange business, will force a second-tier, yellow, World Federation to move haltingly into place. (Orange business cripples ecology; ecological green cripples orange business; both are forms of first-tier violence...". (p. 11)

[ED. And yes, he argues that a World Federation, even at Yellow, would have to sometimes resort to violence/war to control violence/war but] "This police force is NOT allowed to tell people what level of consciousness they should be at; it is NOT allowed to govern what individuals do in the privacy of their own homes or dwellings; it is NOT allowed to coerce or intimidate people who are not at the average level of social development. It is, however, allowed to prevent (or punish) those whose public behavior stems from a less-than-worldcentric stance." (p. 6)

"... but just remember: if you are green, you are against the war. But if you are against the war, you are not necessarily green. There are second-tier reasons not to go to war. But there are also second-teir reasons to go to war. Green doesn't have a choice-- it won't go." (p. 2) "... green is often paralyzed ['fear'-based] in the face of real world aggreesion, insisting on lying down in front of Nazi [or Israeli, or Iraqi, or American] tanks, as if that would actually stop them [is magical, irrational heroism and thinking with a lot of heart and sensitivity]" (p. 9)

[ED. My research on 'fear' and fearless is relevant to first-tier meme solutions to problems caused by 'fear' [first-tier problems] with an attempt to move toward second-tier meme solutions based on fearless approaches. See more information on my new website (still under construction) http://members.shaw.ca/inuk/rmf/rmf.html-- and note, that all back issues of the KWIE are being stored on this website]

"I long for a time when an integral approach is not vehemently hated by green and blue alike. But, alas, I am doomed to long largely in isolation, its seems." (p. 11).

[ED. After 21 years of reading Wilber, I like his sombre realism, but he really is a better philosopher than leader of peoples-- in an integral movement and collaborative synergy-- but that may be just because I don't see enough of what is happening in the I-I being rather "isolated" myself up here in Canada, a long way from the I-I "center"-- if there is really such a thing]

STEPS TOWARD AN INTEGRAL PEDAGOGY: Part II
-R. Michael Fisher

[Note: Based on Sean Hargens suggestion, I will list references later of some of the many critical educators I have found useful over the years. Their names 'fly' by in the article below]

When I started this "steps" theme to ferret out what an integral (Wilberian) education and pedagogy may look like in KWIE #5, it was intended to be an open investigation not didactic. As I carry on Part II, I appreciate Sean Hargens interest and energy to talk with me, so I include some of his thoughts here. Sean is a member of the I-I Ecology and Education spoke and teaches courses in transpersonal and integral studies at secondary educational institutions on the West coast of the U.S.

A Foundation To Begin: Wilber Early

In Part I the consensus of some educators, myself included, was that Wilber has never published anything substantial on Education. Where are we to begin forming an Integral Education- spoke for I-I, and beyond that to the wideworld? In searching through Wilber's first book "Spectrum of Consciousness" (1977), it became apparent that Wilber has addressed educational (philosophical) problems semi-directly in Chapter 8: "The Great Filter." He is talking about the "Biosocial Band" on the "spectrum" of evolution/development, which is the primary level where "socialization" shapes human language, worldviews, values, personality, behavior, educational practices and so on. Biosocial is the band prior to the Integral/Existential level. He draws heavily on psychoanalytic critical conflict traditions through Rank, Fromm, to Laing. I was in interested how he talked about this as the "social matrix" and that is why it caught my eye because my dissertation (Fisher, 2003) deals with what I call the 'Fear' Matrix as the contextual (theoretical) frame that we ought to understand very well if we are ever to accomplish anything liberative or emancipatory in education. As I refer to my own pedagogy as a "fearless standpoint" critique, Wilber in his first book is taking a "non-dual" [fearless] standpoint or critique-- that is, we are both, arguably, attempting a second-tier referent to articluate the good and not so good of socializing and educative processes. You gotta stand somewhere-- education is not value-neutral-- the ethical/political is always embedded in our views, values, and interpretations of reality. Wilber, in this early period, is a conflict integral theorist (later, I'll contrast that to his "movement" toward a functionalist or consensus conservative theory positioning). I grant that I am not going into Wilber I-V changes in his views over the years. It is too complex to enter here, but I think I am still representing Wilber early accurately. And just because it is Wilber early doesn't mean it isn't valid and useful now.

The critical pedagogical philosophy of Freire, Giroux, Greene, Thompson, and many others implicitly works with a similar approach as Wilber early but the increasingly popular transformative pedagogical theories (e.g., Mezirow, Cranton, Nelson & Harper etc.) in education and organizational learning discourses remain, more or less, ignore-ant of the power (and 'fear'-producing pathology) of the "social matrix" (norms) of the Biosocial Band of consciousness in our everyday lives. He cites Laing, "Society highly values its normal man. It educates children to lose themselves and to become absurd, and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years" (p. 237).

Perceptual, experiential, educational research by Mackie (1985) further shows the "fear barrier" which prevents us from seeing through that social matrix and its damaging (albeit, functional) impacts, what Wilber (1977) called, after Laing, the neurotic ('fear'-based) "double bind" of our "social games" (pp. 234-237)-- that is, the messes of first-tier (nota all bad of course). I'll leave this early Wilber behind, and recommend critical integral educators study this chapter in Wilber, and move out from that as an ontological and epistemological (ethical) based for any development of critical integral pedagogy and education. I call it adultism in my dissertation. Wilber late, would likely call it "victim culture" (Green) (see Wilber, 2002). So, there are problems in my recommendation and Wilber might change his views. Ha, ha.

Distinguishing Integral Education and Integral Pedagogy

I promised in Part I to clarify how I was using these terms rather loosely: (1) Integral Education- is analogous to socialization. In other words, if you read Wilber's stuff, and those that write about it, maybe do a workshop or course, and you participate, more or less, in the Integral community or movement, etc., you are going to receive an implicit "Integral Education" with all the "curriculum" loosely layed out but generally, no systematic approach is recommended for this "absorption" and "transmission" approach to learning about "integral." Content is the predominant focus of this kind of "Integral Education," (2) Integral Pedagogy- far more complicated than the above, is rare. For this involves a systematic approach to thinking about how to translate the content into good pedagogical practices. Simply, "pedagogy" is the art and science of teaching and learning itself. Pedagogy has a long tradition of asking process questions about the role of teaching and "best" results for learners which is based on learning styles, developmental readiness, power relations, and general social psychological dynamics of educative settings. Arguably, to become a good teacher of "integral" requires training and skill development in both (1) and (2). Integral pedagogy requires a critical self-reflectivity on teachers and learners parts in the process of learning that is going on (as well as the process of subjectivities being constructed and "hidden curriculum")-- and asks, does it logically follow (with consistency) from the actual content (framework, philosophy) of "integral" ideas or theory being taught? This latter questioning demands that I too think about how I am teaching here and now. I invite readers to share in the learning process, as well as the content, that comes from the KWIE. I really am not all that clear on what are the "best" integral teaching or learning practices-- and they will be learner and site specific. It is complex.

Sean entered an "Integral Pedagogy" (or "critical integral pedagogy," as I prefer) discussion with me a few months ago. He forwarded a draft copy of "An Action-Inquiry Manifesto: Towards an Integral Pedagogy," which was a guide of his principles, assumptions and approaches to teaching integral topices (available from Sean by e-mail (integralecology@yahoo.com) , he also has a piece on the web worth reading on Integral Ecology, www.integralage.org/docs/T119\integral_ecology.htm). He wrote in his pedagogy draft: "I want to nonor all perspectives and expose their limits and strenghts, including my commitments to AQAL and any position I represent rehtorically, theoretically, or emotionally. In alignment with this commitment I want to be aware of the assumptions inherent in my version of being 'intergral.' This is one of several important pedagogical considerations Sean has thought and written about, albeit, he admits to being a neophyte teaching integral stuff.

Sean is reading various educators (pedagogues) and enjoys the critical theory and action-inquiry approaches (e.g., Freire, Mezirow, Torbert). He wrote, "I am very interested in what a developmental-integral approach to pedagogy would look, taste, feel like.... I took up a somatics class last semester and have picked up a book on the issues between the body and pedagogy. So it [his draft] is a work in progress." Sean has told me about the dilemma of getting teaching jobs in a transpersonal post-secondary institution in California. First, you get all the content to teach something on "integral," but the institution itself provides no support for sessions to learn about "integral" pedagogy, or any pedagogy for that matter. Teach by habit. So, like if you have a background in sciences, like ecology, or psychology, etc., where are you supposted to get the background to think critically about education/pedagogy itself? There is so little extra time to learn about what has been written about pedagogy, and one has to do it on their own time (often in isolation). I can totally relate to my own experience Sean. This narrow-minded approach of administration, ubiquitous it seems, in post-secondary "higher education." Second, Sean experiences conflict with some students taking his courses (and others in the San Francisco Bay area). He wrote, "I found it interesteing that you like the early Wilber (pre 1996) for its conflict epistemology. But it seems like that is really only strong in SES [Wilber's "Sex, Ecology and Spirituality" Vol. 1].... It is interesting in that that is part of Wilber I love and it is the part around here (Bay Area) that is so despised. I've gotten so use to people rejecting Wilber out of hand because he is critical. It really is such a sad state of affairs here in the Bay Area 'transpersonal' circles that critical thinking is so demonized. Refreshing to hear your valuation of these components to engagement. At some point I'd love to understand your commitments to 'critical'...".

After I wrote a quick critique on Sean's draft and other discussions, there was a lot of interest to clarify how his own discourse on Integral Pedagogy was based in functionalism (consensus theory), rather than critical (conflict) theory. In other words, I suggested this bias carried his writing into a rather conservative politics for the classroom (not bad in itself, only incomplete, and for him, somewhat unconscious). He wrote, "In short, I was surprised to see my approach was/is falling into a conservative discourse but I get what you're saying and it is helpful and led to many good reflections." Maybe in a future KWIE issue I will pursue with Sean some of the themes we touched upon, for example, conflict epistemology, and the problematic of teaching in a growing "culture of fear" (see Palmer's "The Courage To Teach"). More on functionalism and conflict theory, applied to pedagogy etc.

It would be a very long discussion to articulate some of the history of social thought in the W. world and the oppositional traditions of thinking about social life and social order based on the divergent perspectives of functionalism and conflict theory. For a quick synopsis: functionalism tends to view social reality from the "whole" (order, status quo) and forgets the "parts" and, conflict theory tends to view social reality from the "parts" and forget the "whole." They are in huge battles as discourses for the "best" way to conceive and practice social life. Wilber's "critical integral theory" has the best possibilities of integrating these views but there are many dangers to that, as I have tracked many sociologists and educators who have tried to integrate these views and have destroyed the "conflict theory" (rebel) view (of the people from the margins), in my opinion. Wilber's (2002) attack on Green "boomeritis" is dangerously close to an attack on "victims" (marginalized groups, and the conflict theory positioning). And this is where I agree at times with Dan's emphasis and critique of Wilber's contemporary bias and the way it tends to influence the the sociopolitical dynamics and development of the Integral community and movement.

Functionalism tends to dominate most all of the W. industrialized world today. Any standard sociology book will give yout the basics of their battles for the "truth." I recommend Collins (1994) for a more thorough-going overview of their differences (granted he is a conflict theorist). If I had space, I'd argue that Wilber has a strong ground in following Hegel to Habermas, and they are listed by Collins as conflict theorists. I would also then argue, Wilber has moved to a more functionalist view with his aligning with Don Beck (and psychology) and Spiral Dynamics in 2000 (and his claim, in Excerpt B from Shambhala's website, that the sociology of Jeffrey Alexander "arguably America's most gifted sociologist" has it 'right'-- when Alexander is a well-known neo-functionalist theorist).

This is lots for now. In Part III (next issue) I'll pursue the problematic of "Locating the 'Fracture' at the Source of Integral Education & Pedagogy." Basically, I want to explore the meaning, and implications of Wilber's "split" from both the transpersonal movement and a major post-secondary teaching institute for Integral Studies.

REFERENCES: And Sample of Good Books/Articles On Critical Pedagogy

Bickmore, K. (1991). Practicing conflict: Citizenship education in high school Social Studies. Unpubl. dissertation. Stanford Univ.

Britzman, D. (2001). The arts of inquiry. J. or Curriculum Theorizing Spring issue.

Collins, R. (1994). Four sociological traditions. NY: Oxford Univ. Press.

Edwards, R. (1997). Changing places?: Flexibility, lifelong learning and a learning society. London: Routledge.

Fisher, R.M. (2000). Toward a 'conflict' pedagogy: A critical discourse analysis of conflict in conflict management education. Unpubl. master's thesis. Vancouver, BC: The Univ. of British Columbia.

Fisher, R.M. (2003). Fearless leadership in and out of the 'Fear' Matix. Unpubl. dissertation. Vancouver, BC: The Univ. of B.C.

Freire, P. (1970/95). Pedagogy of the oppressed. NY: Continuum.

Freire, P. (1994). Pedagogy of hope: Reliving pedagogy of the oppressed. NY: Continuum.

Gadotti, M. (1996). Pedagogy of praxis: A dialectial philosophy of education. Albany, NY: SUNY.

Giroux, H.A. (1983). Theory and resistance in education: A pedagogy for the opposition. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.

Giroux, H.A. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning. Granby, MA: Bergin & Garvey.

Gore, J. (1993). The struggle of pedagogies: Critical and feminist pedagogies as regimes of truth. London: Routledge.

Graff, G. (1992). Beyond the culture wars: How teaching the conflicts can revitalize American education. NY: W.W. Norton.

Krishnamurti, J. (1953/81). Education and the significance of life. NY: Harper & Row.

Mackie, F. (1985). The status of everyday life: A sociology excavation of the prevailing framework of perception. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

McLaren, P. (1989). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education. NY: Longman.

Newman, M. (1994/98). Defining the enemy: Adult education in social action. Sydney: Stewart Victor.

Popkewitz, T.S. (1991). A political sociology of educational reform: Power/knowledge in teaching, teacher education, and research. NY: Teachers College Press.

Popkewitz, T.S. (1998). Struggling for the soul: The politics of schooling and the construction of the teacher. NY: Teachers College Press.

Sleeter, C.E. & McLaren, P. (1995) (eds). Multicultural education, critical pedagogy, and the politics of difference. Albany, NY: SUNY.

Torbert, W.R. (1991). The power of balance: Tranforming self, society, and scientific inquiry. London: Sage.

Welton, M. (1993). Social revolutionary learning: The new social movements as learning sites. Adult Education Quarterly, 43(3), 152-164.

Wilber, K. (1977/82). Spectrum of consciousness. Wheaton, IL: Theosophical Publishing House.

Wilber, K. (2002). Boomeritis: A novel that will set you free. Boston, MA: Shambhala.

[and any works by Maxine Greene, Jane Thompson, Jack Mezirow, Stephen Brookfield, are a good start]

OTHER RESOURCES

ED. Sean recommended a book "Dark Night Early Dawn" by Chris Bache, which has a chapter on education and morphic fields.

KEN WILBER INTEGRAL EDUCATION (KWIE)

Bulletin #6

March 2003

Editorial: The War On Terror(ism) Is On
-R. Michael Fisher

Feels like a time of edginess. People seem tense. Had some vicious dreams and a daytime fantasy to have a gun. No worry, I don’t have one and besides I watched Michael Moore’s documentary Bowling For Columbine (2002) four times (highly recommend it, as it links American “gun culture” with the “culture of fear”—the latter, a favorite topic in my dissertation). I wonder what will happen in the Middle East and around the world. Decisions to invade or to wait…. I’m enjoying hearing the recent dissenting voices of various leaders around the world challenging the U.S. and the war on Iraq. I guess political correctness re: 9/11 has faded. Good thing. These dissenting voices don’t seem integral (yellow) though. But no answer is clear to me what is best. Sometimes I am empathetic with the Bushies and their tough position, and sometimes… well, I actually would like to hear some new arguments from the Integral Movement and its leaders… like Ken Wilber or Don Beck. Take some risks, would ya. I haven’t searched hard bu t I am not hearing about what they think is best from an integral (educational) standpoint. I welcome anyone who is thinking integrally on this all.

I’d like to hear something to guide and challenge, to make me think integrally about the complex conflicts. And I get really irked when I keep hearing media and just about everyone talking as if there “may or may not” be a war. Come on—the “War on Terror(ism)” was called a year and a half ago—it continues and will continue for a long long time because terror cannot be fought with terror, with good results in the long run. The war is ON… it is just a matter of who is next on the ‘hit’ list as the source of terror (from the American administration’s view). People seem dumbfounded by the reality of what happened back then. I won’t get started on that. Sometimes this political ‘silence’ in the Integral Movement is disturbing to me. Anyway, I return to what I can do. Finishing off my dissertation this week was a great relief. I defend the ‘beast’ near the end of April. I’m on the hunt for livelihood (hint). I have had several great conversations with other educators on the KWIE list. I am pleased to present some of their work in this issue. Finally, I’ll contine to work on Part II of my own writing on integral education and pedagogy for the next issue #7.

Letter (excerpt) from Sean Hargens

[ED. I introduced Sean in the last KWIE as an important teacher of integral studies] “Dear Michael. I read with excitement and hunger your recent KWIE bulletin. I have been very interested in articulating an integral pedagogy and have even thought about writing a book…. I’m new to teaching (at the college/graduate level) and yet I’ve been an informal teacher my whole life in many roles (outdoor education, peace corps trainer…)…. I am very interested in what a developmental-integral approach to pedagogy would look, taste, feel like. I’m very interested in critical theory and action-inquiry, self-reflective capacities, and the work of Freire and Mezirow…. Reading about your passion was delicious. To know that there is someone out there holding these questions close to their heart-mind gives me great joy.” [ED. Sean sent me a rough draft of his pedagogical framework which he gives to his students. Perhaps next KWIE I’ll slip some of his ideas in as they are great food for thought. Sean has recently told me he talked with Ken Wilber about the Education spoke of the Integral Institute. According to Wilber, it is still on the backburner as other spokes (disciplines) are getting more attention for development. The good news is that Wilber would like to have me come onboard when the Education spoke gets moving again. Thanks Sean for the promotional work. I trust some of my articles in the KWIE will address critical pedagogy and transformative pedagogy in relation to integral pedagogy.]

EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHERS TAKE UP WILBER AT UBC

ED. I was delighted to hear Dr. Heesoon Bai (Simon Fraser University) and Dr. Daniel Vokey (The University of British Columbia) had teamed up to present at the Provoking Curriculum Symposium (Feb. 28- March 1, 2003) in Vancouver. My wife/partner attended and brought back an abstract of their presentation. The title of their session was: “Cultivating Nondual Awareness: Meditation and Zen Drawing.” Both of these educational philosophers have a great deal of interest in moral philosophy and environmental education. They used several Wilber references in the Bibliography in relation to “higher stages” and experiencing nondualistically. They also utilized Franck’s work on Zen seeing:Zen drawing (1993). I’ll cite a few sentences from their abstract below:

Our key claim is that, to perceive the intrinsic value to which much environmental education appeals, we must interrupt our ingrained habit of interpreting experience dualistically. To unlearn dualistic thinking, it is not enough simply to grant intellectual assent to the ontological thesis of nonduality on philosophical grounds: nondualistic theory must be integrated with one or another nondualistic practices such as mindfulness meditation or zen drawing…. These are two of the many contemplative practices through which we can investigate experient- ially the recovery of perception of ‘sacred world.’

Both these philosophers, with their Buddhist backgrounds, are a wonderful addition to the academic scene here in British Columbia. For people in the U.S. west coast areas this may not seem like much. But for us living up here, and attending fairly mainstream universities, this is a positive sign of the integral movement easing its way in. Yes! I know Heesoon, as she has served on my Research Committee for the past three years and I have taken a class from her. Daniel and I are going for coffee next week. He is new this year to BC from Nova Scotia, I believe. It is a delight to find some Wilber/integral-positive academics here in Canada for graduate students wanting to get the support they need to pursue this work.

INTEGRAL TRANSFORMATIVE PRACTICES

ED. I thank Avraham Cohen, another KWIE list member, for a gift copy of the book that Wilber argues is a basic text for integral transformative practices (ITP): The Life We Are Given: A Long-term Program for Realizing the Potential of Body, Mind, Heart, and Soul by George Leonard & Michael Murphy (1995). Interesting that neither Avraham nor myself were overly taken with the book, although we have great respect for the authors. Avraham worked the excercises for awhile, but wasn’t impressed. I wonder what others have thought about the book (the exercises)? Do fill me in. I know that I get frustrated by some of the ways the book “teaches” but does not identify the pedagogical grounds for the methods of teaching—and I say that critically not about the content of the book per se, but about the teaching and learning of the ITP as a form of discourse which shapes and constructs learners in certain biased modes (forms of power). The general aesthetic for me was a little “too nice,” “bourgeois” and “unreal” to the type of world we live in, and I keep looking for a social praxis of transformation to complement these “inner” models (see Dan Araya’s article below). But hey, I know that you cannot include everything in one book. Again, some day, a critical book review would be good, written from a critical educator’s point of view. Go for it. I’ll publish it in the KWIE.

LETTER FROM DURWIN FOSTER: IMP Presentation Available

Durwin, a graduate colleague at UBC (Counseling Psychology Dept.), celebrates his first child “Delaney” only 8+ weeks old and “cuter than ever.” Durwin has written an outline for a presentation on Integral methodological pluralism [IMP], that he would like to present to interested graduate students and faculty members.” Anybody interested in this topic could contact him durwinfoster@shaw.ca [ED. IMP is another term for Wilber’s integral approach to bringing together conflicting and diverse knowledges and methodologies within a critical unifying framework that goes beyond typical pluralistic approaches]

SPIRAL EDUCATORS: Education and vMemes

[ED. Caleb Rosado, an integral sociologist, specializing in anti-racist work, and a human change consultant, has some interesting writing I just found that may nicely complement the article by Dan Araya below. From what I’ve seen of Rosado’s work it is more an application of spiral dynamics than Wilber’s critical integral theory.] Caleb Rosado (1998) “Drawing Outside the Lines: Value Systems, Memetics, and Education in the Third Millennium” [http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/papers/caleb/memetics.html] presents good info. on Grave’s spiral dynamics (memes) and then adds his own take on “Spiral Educators” for the future. Rosado wrote:

“The Spiral Educator understands three things: (1) there is no single right way to teach; (2) there is no universal best way to learn; and (3) the ideal classroom is possible. [ED. So far, that is nothing too extraordinary that isn’t part of any contemporary North American teacher training I’ve experienced—except the “ideal” bit] Take also the burning issue of racism in schools and the need for diversity training, which spews out more social lava than perhaps any other single factor. Because of the superficial, light-weight approaches often used in such training and education, focused on surface differences of skin color, ethnic origins, and cultural preferences rather than on the deep-level Value Systems within people and organizations, long-lasting change is not taking place…. A Spiral Dynamics (SD) approach does not just focus on diversity issues, but seeks to do systems alignment…. Rather than putting different perspectives or worldviews into conflict, SD provides a scaffolding for aligning systems along an evolving spiral of human development that pulls from an organization’s vision, values, and mission statements. Rather than promoting ethnic, racial, class levels that stress differences, SD offers a way of dealing with the deeper Value Systems that create and sustain these conflicting identities, artificial boundaries [categor ies], and development gaps in the curriculum. SD does not replace traditional diversity training, it simply goes beyond it to the next level of bringing about change…. The key question for educators is: ‘What kind of thinking prompted that kind of behavior?’ not just the behavior itself.”

[ED. This latter point, by Rosado, doesn’t sound very unique. It would fit any constructivist or cognitive-behavioral model of teaching and learning. But, if I had space, the “kind of thinking” Rosado means here is based in meme theory—and that makes all the difference. I think the integral (SDi) work with anti-racism is a very interesting example of the shifting of categories of the problem—to “deeper Value Systems” analysis. But this is highly contentious. Spiral [Integral] Educators practicing this shifting of categories are likely to get a few “bombs” thrown their way. I’ve got the scars, and I still think this is the best way to go in a lot of anti-racist or anti-violence work.]

INTEGRATIVE MODEL OF ADULT EDUCATION & TECHNOLOGY WITHIN A POST-COLONIAL CRITIQUE

[ED. Dan, a Torontonian, was briefly introduced in the KWIE #5. I enjoyed conversing with him on the phone for a couple hours last week, and was inspired by his youthful GenX energy and intelligent ideas. His new website The Institute of Integral Evolution is worth checking out (www.integralevolution.org) [this actually won’t be up publicly for a few months], as he attempts to forge a complementary, more sociological, approach to Wilber’s. I asked Dan to share some thoughts in progress on his model.]

As Steve McIntosh (see endnote) suggests in his paper “Noosphere Evolution and Value Metabolism,” values are the nutritional equivalent in the noosphere of food in the biosphere. Moral values function as nutritional builders for human evolution, as chaotic attractors, pulling social (i.e., intersubjective) development from level to level [meme to meme]. My approach to education (much like Spiral Dynamics) seeks to concretize the stages of human evolution in terms of tangible social values.

My work in Integral Education is situated within the emerging digital economy. I work as a Web Developer (my company: www.levelsixmedia.com) and have become keenly interested in the development of Web-based learning. From this vantage, I am interested in the changes that a new knowledge-based economy is establishing in the design of learning and in the design of organizations that facilitate learning.

In theoretical terms, my focus is in researching and building an integrative model of Adult Education. By integrative, I mean a model that considers a global framework, uniting the moral, economic and technological dimensions of collective human development. In the age of information, global considerations are becoming evermore pressing. It is obvious, for example, that information technology is the only way to begin the necessary process of educating the vast numbers of the world’s poor. Utilizing the Web, educators of the future have the potential to fundamentally alter the grave realities of the so-called “Third World.”

More than merely technology, however, what is required is a global approach to education, a methodology that unites the diverse cultures of the world into a single ecology of development. What is needed, in other words, is a paradigm shift that supports universal development beyond the industrial age. It is only when we consider ourselves as a single (though diverse) human race that the necessary collaboration towards a shared advancement will be possible.

As I have mentioned to Michael, I am in the initial stages of establishing a public institute focused on Integral Thinking. Its centre of interest will be the evolution of an Integral civilization. Naturally, the goal of this institute will be the development of educational curriculum. I am also interested in exploring areas that I feel are not effectively addressed within Integral Thinking thus far. As Integral Theory has suggested, modernity is giving way to a global civilization that transcends and includes it. Part of the contradictions of modernity facilitating its decline (as any Post-modern/Green thinker will tell you) includes a heritage of systemic and institutional racism. It is this racism which in fact served initially to “rationalize” the expansion of Western civilization (an interesting book on this is The Colonizer’s Model by J.M. Blaut).

Beginning in early modernity as imperialism and continuing through the 20th century in its various cultural forms, racism has been a serious malady at the heart of the modern Western project. As Jurgen Kremer writes,

European utopian visions have been used to rationalize a range of criminal behaviors including the enslavement of millions of Africans and the annihilation of entire American [Native] peoples as the (sometimes) regrettable but necessary consequence of the construction of some kind of future state of perfection.

From my perspective, this is the shadow of modernity and the worldview from which we (in Western society) are slowly struggling to transcend. If a truly universal civilization is to take root, the mode of consciousness which maintains both Euro-centrism (i.e., Purple and Red tribalism) and male governance (Blue patriarchy) must be overcome in the higher worldview of Yellow unity. In other words, what is needed is a genuinely spiritual civilization established upon universal institutions.

This, I believe, is exactly what is slowly (dialectically) unfolding. Revolutionary movements over the course of the last century in the persons of Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Nelson Mandela are only the more overt examples of this new universal society struggling to take shape.

Today, Orange “competition” and Green “relativism” mainly complicate the problems of racism and patriarchy. In order to reach Yellow's higher moral order, its’ “unity-in-diversity”, we must embrace the genuine contributions of Green, even while negating Green's moral/cultural relativism. In other words, embrace Green’s authentic understanding of the horrors of Red/Blue imperialism (empowered by an emerging rational Orange), even while negating Green’s anomie. After all, Yellow is specifically a higher stage than Red, Blue, Orange or Green because it transcends and yet embraces its juniors. What is required now, it seems to me, is a moral framework that pulls our consciousness up to the levels of Yellow and ultimately Turquoise. An example of the moral values to which I am speaking (as borrowed from the Baha’i Faith) include:

Unity-in-diversity
The equality of women and men
The oneness of humanity
The elimination of extremes of wealth and poverty
A global administrative order
Universal education
The oneness of religion
The harmony of science and spirituality
The independent investigation of truth
A commitment to spiritual evolution

Principles such as these are needed to serve as moral infrastructure to facilitate our ascent to Yellow. Without them, I fear we (as integral thinkers) risk having very little tangible impact upon social development.

Endnote:
McIntosh, Steve (a member of the Integral Institute Business spoke)- his article PDF is available from Dan, or steve@now-zen.com. [ED. Thanks Dan for bringing a post-colonial critique into the integral dialogues. As integral educators this brings up a lot of conflict and tension. Wilber and Beck have been strong opponents of reinforcing “victim culture” notions (see Boomeritis, 2002)—and both have suggested we need better integral (yellow) categories beyond (green) “race” or “gender” or “class” etc. when practicing SDi—so you are on contentious ground here-- and Wilber and Jurgen Kremer, whom you cite above, have had more than a few “hot” arguments (see Re-Vision articles 1996). Wilber has “split” from the transpersonal movement (California Institute of Integral Studies) over these kinds of ideas and political positions—something I’ll write more on in Part II in the next KWIE. Who gets to define what is “integral” and what is not—what counts and what doesn’t—who’s version of “integral” is best? … that is where we have a lot of conflictwork to do yet, in the Integral Movement. I trust KWIE is one place for those debates and solutions for educators of “integral.”]

Dan’s response to my ED. (above): “Yes, I am aware of the disagreement between Wilber and Kremer. While I do not agree with much of Kremer’s thinking, I do not think Wilber has fully responded to his critique. I would go so far as to say that this [post-colonial] critique is (in many ways) the Achilles heal of Integral Studies [a la Wilber] thus far. In order to reach Yellow’s higher moral order, its unity-in-diversity, we must embrace the genuine contributions of Green, even while negating Green’s [pathological side of] moral/cultural relativism. In other words, embrace Green’s authentic understanding of the horrors of Red/Blue imperialism (empowered by an emerging rational Orange), even while negating Green’s anomie. After all, Yellow [integral] is specifically a higher stage than Red, Blue, Orange or Green because it transcends and yet embraces its juniors.”

Next KWIE in mid-April. I look forward to your contributions. -RMF

KEN WILBER INTEGRAL EDUCATION (KWIE)

Bulletin #5

February 2003

Editorial
-R. Michael Fisher

I am pleased with some new connections I have been making in the integral movement and I treasure the current allyships that are mutually nurtured. It helps me carry on day to day in a world where trying to communicate from second-tier, get through a Ph.D. defense, and finding a job, all can be a bit ominous—then, to add the U.S.-Iraq nightmare emerging. It is grounding to put the KWIE together once again. I’m delighted my life-partner, Barbara Bickel, has submitted an article on the dilemma of dealing with all the feminisms. It seems I’ve still the energy to put a series of articles together critically examining the interrelationship between Education and Integral… and there are some other interesting bits, I trust you’ll enjoy. Thanks to all who contributed to this issue #5.

Feminism and Spiral Dynamics Integral (SDI)
-Barbara Bickel

[Ed. Note: Repeatedly, I contact graduate students who are interested in integral theory and KW, but have struggles with the mainstream “Higher Education System”—Barbara begins this path].

I am in the process of pulling together the thinking for the first draft of my thesis proposal for my MA in Education at UBC. I am a practicing visual and performance ritual artist who has found herself back in academia with the intention of adding writing and theory to her art practice. This is no small undertaking considering my long time resistance and reluctance to enter into the world of words and theory. This decision reflects the limits and blocks I feel that I have come to in my desire to communicate with the larger world.

The first task that I have set for myself in academia, is to come to a deeper understanding of feminist theories, as I call myself a feminist artist. I am now beginning to read the conflicting, divergent, confusing, thought provoking and fascinating literature around the many waves of feminisms. I like the wave metaphor. It speaks to me of fluidity and forcefulness. I will take a chance and say that I am in a fourth wave of feminism as I grapple with understanding the first, second and third waves of feminism.

Moving back to my thesis proposal ponderings. Last weekend I met Marilyn Hamilton who is a teacher of SDI. I shared with her that I had not found a way to integrate SDI with my thinking and work. She was able to view the video of my last collaborative performance piece and mentioned that she was supervising a student who was utilizing SDI in an arts-based project. She then mentioned that she felt “turquoise” meme was a collaborative meme. Following this meeting with her I was going through my readings for my feminist class around essentialism, identity politics and difference, post-colonialism and more. I have not found a wave to enter into this sea of thinking and have felt limited by the conflicting and what always seem to be limited theories. How can I work with the diversity?

In response to this dilemma I am curious to focus one chapter of my thesis on situating the many feminisms into the SDI model. I am also interested in analyzing my own art practice through this larger lens of what could be an integral feminism-- a fourth wave that encompasses the earlier waves. I briefly mentioned this thinking to my supervisor, who has been extremely supportive of my work and art. She immediately shared her concern with any thinking that is developmental or evolutionary. She also admitted to not finding the psychological model (which is where the SDI model comes out of) as helpful. My own background is in sociology and rehabilitation. I find developmental models very helpful in my own life and work. My lostness in the world of feminist waves may be because of the avoidance of evolutionary structures within it. I also am concerned that without seeing the larger picture of feminisms that I think an integral feminism can create, my own artwork will be misunderstood and limited in its transformative abilities by current feminist thinking. These are my ponderings.

NEWS BITS

        Three Principles For An Integrative Approach

In response to my article in KWIE #4, I appreciate Marilyn Hamilton sending me a lead to check out Wilber’s Excerpt B: The Many Ways We Touch: Three Principles Helpful For Any Integrative Approach (http://www.shambhala.com). It is a long read but worth it. Wilber’s notion of general “waves of development” is a metaphor that fits nicely with Barbara’s piece and “feminist waves.” Like Barbara, Wilber searches for theory and principles to guide us in how to appreciate the diversity of the many, and the universality of the one (part/Whole = holon). The principles Wilber writes about for “any integrative approach” ought to be worth looking at seriously in the efforts to build an integral pedagogy (see my article below- Part I). The first principle he discusses, and I won’t talk about the others here now, is “non-exclusion.” In this he argues that “The Essence of Integral Metatheory” is that “Everybody Is Right.” Barbara has also believed that with all the divergent feminisms. Wilber used to say something like “nobody is so stupid so as to be 100% wrong.” These rather flippant code remarks, have turned out to be a central part of Wilber’s latest writing, and we will see this come together in Vol. 2 of his Kosmos Trilogy (Vol. 1 being “Sex, Ecology and Spirituality” published in 1995). Vol. 2 is due later this year, apparently.

I was pleased to make contact by e-mail with Dr. Sean Hargens, who teaches graduate studies at JFK University in Orinda, CA. He teaches in their Integral Studies Program which is explicitly a 4QAL program, after Wilber’s epistemological model. Sean is best known for his specialty in Integral Ecology but also he will be teaching Integral Psychology this spring.

Welcome to Dan Araya, who has been writing to me of his interests in KW and integral theory related to education as a field. Dan is looking for a doctoral advisor in an Education faculty who would be interested in the following areas:

-- he wants to establish The Institute of Integral Evolution

Could the field of education ever benefit from people like this with such interests (and background—he has a B.A. in Comparative Religion and M.A. in Spiritual Psychology). I look forward to him sharing more with us in future issues.

Parker Palmer is a spiritual adult educator, and Quaker, and you name it… he has been a very important voice in the edges of the field of education for years. There is an interesting article he wrote called “Making The Difference: Integral Life/Integral Teacher, in the Jan/Feb 2000 issue of Green.MoneyJournal.com. Although he does not refer to Wilber’s notion of integral, Palmer’s views are worthy of examination. I recommend his work in the Fetzner Institute funded Teacher Formation Program, and several books (see on the Internet). I have been attempting to connect with Palmer for years, but his e-mail is not available it seems. If anyone tracks him down, please let me know. I think a dialogue with him about Wilber’s “integral” would be exciting indeed.

Ken Markley, a social worker on the Sunshine Coast, has been working on an M.Ed. in adult education at UBC for a few years. He recently told me about a paper he presented to his graduate class in which he took a few learning theorists (Dan Pratt, Jack Mezirow and Robert Kegan) and himself into a conversation about transformational learning, consciousness development and so on. This performative writing approach is starting to show up more an more from people in my life. I decided to read a chapter by Kegan (who is a member of the I-I, and highly respected by Wilber) on constructivist-developmental theory in psychology and applications to transformative learning. I think Kegan has a lot to bring to us as integral theorists and practitioners. He has written several books, e.g., “The Evolving Self” but I think a great beginning article is the one I read: Kegan, R. (2000). What ‘form’ transforms?: A constructive-developmental approach to transformative learning. In J. Mezirow (Ed.) & Associates (pp. 35-69). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

FEATURE ARTICLE

PART 1: STEPS TOWARD AN INTEGRAL (WILBERIAN)
        EDUCATION AND PEDAGOGY
R. Michael Fisher

There’s a lot brewing inside me these days. As I come to put the fifth edition of this Bulletin together, I want to reflect on its initial purpose and how I envision it evolving. Of course, your input to the formation of this Bulletin is always welcome. Probably, what I have to say on integral education and pedagogy will take a few Parts, and to be continued in following issues. Ideally, I would like to include your comments and critiques on this as the Parts evolve, if that works out.

The KWIE began under my lone initiative in October, 2002. The interrelationship between Wilber’s work and my passion for using and creating emancipatory pedagogy and curriculum goes back over 20 years. I think kindly, at times critically, of the important impact of the liberational pedagogue Paulo Freire and his work that has had international success as a growing movement. Freire’s philosophy and pedagogy had an immensely positive impact upon my educational imagination in the late 1970s. But Wilber’s philosophy, from 1982 onward, took me to another level of engagement and completeness in understanding and excitement. Wilber’s “pedagogy,” if there is such a beast, has left me rather cold and critical because it appears to be so underdeveloped. “Ken Wilber has written very little about education,” says Dr. Jack Miller, a leading Canadian holistic educator from OISE/UofT—an insight confirmed by the writings of Dr. Ron Miller, a leading American holistic/spirituality educator from Goddard College (see Bulletin #1).

Many educators know of Freirean critical pedagogy. Wilber has never published a written word even mentioning Freire. That is surprising, seeing they both are teachers of liberation. Freire never mentioned Wilber’s work either. I have wondered how they could enhance each other’s philosophy and pedagogy? Amazingly, after all these years of reading Wilber, my mind is rather boggled as to what a Wilberian critical integral pedagogy and integral education might look like? This brief introductory series of articles in KWIE will examine that distinction between “integral education” and “integral pedagogy” and sketch some steps to potentially clarifying these concepts while arguing that integral education is a lot more common, easier to articulate, and easier to practice, than is integral pedagogy. I will also explore the link between critical pedagogy traditions (like Freire’s) and critical integral pedagogy possibilities. Definitions of these terms are coming in Part II.

One premise behind this article, is that there is no one and only integral education or integral pedagogy, and likely never will be. Integral theory, as Wilber articulates it, doesn’t necessarily force us into only one kind of anything. There is also no one integral theory, and likely never will be (see Bulletin #1). However, despite these many unique blends and styles of theories, educations and pedagogies involving integral notions (now existing and to be created in the future), I have a strong suspicion there are some universal and distinct aspects to these practices and theories which need to be systematically articulated if we are to have a healthy and self-critical field of learning in regard to integral (a la Wilber’s work and others working in this arena of concern). Wilber’s critical integral theory has evolved over many years of his writing and engagement with supporters and critics. The theory has enough generalizable value (and validity) to be worked with and expanded upon, even though “Nobody… has yet presented a coherent critique of Wilber’s overall approach. The collective outrage, as it were, is astonishing, but the criticism has been little but nitpicking” (Crittenden, 1997, p. viii). I for one, would like to be part of the construction of a critical integral pedagogy with the same kind of sustainability and value as critical integral theory has proven to be (albeit, to a limited audience interested in “integral” or yellow meme).

In 1980-82 I taught successfully in public schools. Before my soul dried up completely, I retired to start an educational consulting company with specialized services in creativity training, biofeedback and relaxation techniques, arts, alternative holistic stuff… and well, I ended up working part-time with “troubled” youth and their families for the next eight years. Without going into the long story, suffice it to say I have been an educator-artist first, and a Wilberian second. In 1997 I taught my first 8 wk. course on Wilber and integral theory to a small group of adult learners in our independent non-profit In Search of Fearlessness Centre in downtown Calgary, Alberta. Very few of those learners knew anything about Wilber, but were more attracted to me because of their past experiences with me as a teacher and counselor. The class was semi-successful but hardly a banner affair. It left me pondering what is the best pedagogy to teach Wilber’s ideas, and to whom? I had no models to follow or guide me. I wondered if there was something in critical theory or critical integral theory itself that ought to inform the teaching of integral concepts? But I left that all behind for the next five years, as I moved and pursued an MA in Adult Education and a Ph.D. in Curriculum & Instruction—that is, until I started the Ken Wilber Study Groups (for grad students in the Faculty of Education) a few years ago at the conservative University of British Columbia. But the groups fell apart rapidly (see Bulletin #1). Something was missing in my own teaching and facilitating of this integral material. The grad students needed more support than I could offer. The KWIE Bulletin emerged from that experience and a quest for a better integral education, methodology, pedagogy and curriculum.

I have been fascinated with the “wheel” metaphor and design of the Integral Institute (I-I) which Wilber and some of his colleagues founded in 2000 or so (see their current website). One of the “spokes” of that wheel for enhancing the education and application of critical integral theory (a la Wilber) is “Education.” Other spokes are “Psychology,” “Politics,” “Business,” “Feminism” and so on. If you look at Wilber’s books in the last three years, you will see him talk about all the fascinating folks using integral theory in each of the spokes, to the point of Wilber’s enthusiasm to articulate the grounds for an “Integral Psychology,” or “Integral Politics,” and so on. Then when it comes to “Integral Education” there is nothing much written by him in his books. No people’s names to model are given. I’ve always wondered why? So, I searched out why. I found no entry way into the currently “closed circle” of the I-I or Wilber’s own knowledge on this. I have tracked various educators who knew little but gave me a few clues. I tried Rachael Kessler, who had apparently attended an early I-I “Education” spoke meeting in Boulder, CO a few years back, but she gave me no indication nor overt interest to continue a dialogue on the topic. I’ve since decided I’ll just have to go it alone, from the “outside.”

The KWIE Bulletin seems to have two distinct but overlapping roles: (1) to bring together critical and evocative dialogue on the aspects of an “Integral Education” spoke in the wheel of the overall integral movement, which Wilber has been the primary spokesperson. I have seen Bert Parlee and Don Beck and a few others teaching integral theory over the years, and there are many universities and colleges teaching it but I have not yet seen a coordinated effort to get these teachers of integral theory (including Wilber) together to talk and write about the actual teaching (education) problematics—that is, where the education itself gets as much focus as the content of the material in Wilber’s theory.

It is obvious all people sharing Wilber’s work, including myself, are teaching and are teachers to some extent, regardless of the field of expertise or not. But they are not necessarily professionally trained teachers or educators, like myself. In fact, I have not met any professional educator who is teaching integral theory (other than Jack and Ron Miller). If you go on-line and search the professional educational literature, or search the American Education and Research Association chat groups, you will find virtually nothing on Ken Wilber or integral theory. I have been the first educator to systematically study Wilber and professional educator’s engagement with his work (see Bulletin #1). Unfortunately, my major review article on this was rejected, without even going to referees, by the Harvard Educational Review. Jack and Ron Miller warned me it wouldn’t be easy to publish material on Wilber in mainstream educational journals. I have since submitted the article to the Journal of Humanistic Psychology.

To be cont’d … in the next Bulletins.

KEN WILBER INTEGRAL EDUCATION (KWIE)

Bulletin #4

January 2003

Hello Folks. All the best in the New Year. In this issue, you'll find a major article (see Attachment) entitled: Epistemological Fearlessness: Comparative Analysis of Wilber's 4QAL Model with Adult Education Models, by yours truly. This is a response to one of the questions I raised in KWIE #3.

Durwin Foster, on our list, has kindly contributed a brief overview of Wilber's four phases of development in his theory over the past 30 years. This would be helpful, somewhat for reading my article. Vanessa Fisher has contributed a short piece on what it was like teaching spiral dynamics (and integral) stuff to a group last week.

Enjoy,
-R. Michael Fisher, Editor

WILBER FOUR "PHASES"
by Durwin Foster

[Some editing changes have been made. For an extensive discussion of these phases, see Wilber's "Eye of Spirit" (1997)]

WILBER I - including his book "No Boundary" (1979)-- begins his synthesis but is grounded in a retro-romantic return to goodness type of model of human evolution/development

WILBER II- he moves from a retro-romantic to an evolutionary, or growth to goodness approach, based in large part on Sri Aurobindo's work; at this point, however, the stages of development are still conceived in a more clunky, ladder-like fashion, which postmodernists rightfully reject;

WILBER III- he incorporates substantial evidence which suggests that the various "lines": such as cognition, values, needs, morals, object relations, etc.-- develop in a quasi-independent manner. In other words, the clunky ladder-like model is thrown out, because the "self" at any time is a cobbling together of all these diverse lines; A person might be post-conventional in cognition, but conventional in morality [moral development], and so on. The evidence does suggest, however, that cognition, broadly conceived, is a pre-requisite for development of other lines. For example, it appears that it is impossible to respond to the world with a postconventional moral sense without postconventional cognition in place first.

WILBER IV- he incorporates what he sees as the truths of postmodernity-- contextualism, constructivism/interpretation, and integral-aperspectivism (multiple perspectives)-- but saves them from their performative contradictions by situating them in a Habermasian framework; his work from "Sex, Ecology and Spirituality" (1995) forward (including "Integral Psychology") is post-ontological, post-metaphysical, which makes it very robust against postmodern critiques; for example, stages are now seen as Kosmic habits; the only ontological given is the past, that is: what is given to us is what has been handed forward as a Kosmic habit to this date; there is seen to be no endpoint to evolution... (i.e., we don't need to feel boxed in!), and there is an element of creativity-- a la Whitehead-- available to us and which we are responsible for.

TEACHING SPIRAL DYNAMICS INTEGRAL
by Vanessa Fisher

Teaching SDi to a small group of fifteen friends was definately a nerve-wracking experience, especially being 19 years old with the majority of the audience between 30-40 years old. It was a hard subject to teach when you're not an expert in the area, but I had researched it quite rigorously in the last four months. I felt the need to start somewhere to just get up there and teach-- to start the movement of thought about SDi with people. I found it useful to have articles photocopied [from: latest issue of "What is Enlightenment?" magazine]for them to take home which could give them a more indepth look than I could in 2 hours.

Teaching SDi is definately difficult because you're going to trigger people and if your green [meme dominated] like me, you don't want to offend or hurt people's feelings. I do think now that it is inevitable when you're only able to present the very surface of the theory. Conflict comes up. All the people, however, appreciated me afterwards and I had more than a few people who were strongly affected by the presentation and wanted to know more.

I also had positive comments about the music I used for the presentation. I'd chosen a piece of contemporary [young people's] music for each of the memes, and I had comments that it really added to the explanations of the memes. No matter how difficult and nerve-wracking the presentation was, it was followed with a real new feeling of love and openness that I'd never had with these friends of mine before-- and even with some skepticism among them, they told me it made them think.

[Ed. Note- Vanessa has had a few good talks with people who had attended this event. One of them, both an ally for her, but also a strong critic of most everything, told her he didn't like the SDi stuff because it was "psychological imperialism"-- sounds like a mean green meme attack, doesn't it?]

Epistemological Fearlessness: Comparative Analysis of Wilber's 4QAL Model With Adult Education Models
- R. Michael Fisher

In KWIE #3 I raised a few questions as to how people are using Wilber's Four Quadrant All Levels (4QAL) model in various ways and disciplines (see Durwin Foster's "Wilber's Phases" summary in this issue. In this Bulletin, I want to elaborate on question (c) that revolves around finding similar models to Wilber's that may already exist in the mainstream literatures. I am curious if Wilber's model may be easier to slide into the mainstream if we utilized such models and articulated their similarities and differences with Wilber's?

The context for this question comes from my research in adult and schooling education, which has shown that Wilber (and "critical integral theory") is still a rather "rare bird" in these circles, and I suspect in most any disciplinary circle, outside of transpersonal psychology (the latter itself, is 'marginal' in the discipline of psychology). The large and growing interest in Wilber's work, in other words, is still, relatively speaking, 'marginal' and thus, is often religated as unimportant by those 'central' in a discipline. I am interested to make it less marginal and more central in all fields, especially education.

During my masters research on conflict theory and adult education, I came across a pile of literature on the problems of change and reform movements via conflicting "organizational" (and ideological) "paradigms" which are thought to determine planning designs and curricular outcomes in adult education, and organizational development generally (e.g., Elsey, 1986; La Belle, 1986; Rubenson, 1982; Thomas & Harries-Jenkins, 1991). In a nutshell, the "paradigm wars" (e.g., Gage, 1989) in the literature often split into a simplistic (but useful) dualism of functionalism (consensus theory) vs. conflict theory (see Fisher, 2000). The current "culture wars" (e.g., Graff, 1992) in education and W. society at-large, splits into a similar dualism of conservativism vs. progressivism (to radicalism). The former (i.e., functionalism) was claimed as the dominant discourse/ paradigm, and the latter, thus, was labeled as more radical and marginal, in regard to their relative power and influence in forming policy, organization, and practices of most adult education. Public schooling education (K-12) is not much different, and is probably more functionalist/conservative, in general, than the field of adult education per se.

This split has caused a lot of conflict, to put it mildly. Some believe (especially postmodernists) that it is useful to keep diversity of views in adult education and allow conflict and fragmentation (e.g., Edwards, 1997). Others believe it had become extreme, excessive, and so divisive that it had 'torn apart' the basic historical unity of the field of adult education and created cliques, and paradigm wars driven by enemy camps that fragmented cooperation and effective shared utilization of resources in adult education (e.g., Paulston, Boshier, etc.). The latter critics, most vocal, tend to argue that adult education has fallen into the hands of capitalism and the functionalist paradigm-- leading to a disastrous impact on the quality of education, and the lifelong learning emancipatory agenda of freedom for all. Consumers of adult education, arguably, are pulled 'apart' as well in this ideological (and theoretical, philosophical) battleground, thus, attaining a fragmented educational experience, which costs more than it should, and is rarely liberational (in the critical or Marxian sense)

Readers of Wilber's earlier writing (e.g., Wilber, 1977/82, Wilber, 1979/81), will recognize similarities to the above story. Wilber depicted the field of psychology, which had split into many enemy camps (e.g., psychoanalytic, behavioral-cognitive, humanistic, existential, transpersonal), as a battleground. He believed that it was healthy to some degree to bring diversity of views to development and therapy etc. But ultimately, the enemies had grown so divisive as to tear the "soul" (wholeness) out of the psychological/ growth and healing enterprise-- he argued that it had become uncooperative and self-destructive-- a reduction of the Kosmos and knowledge of it, to a lot of big egos and careerism. This problem led to much of Wilber's impetus to find a solution and offer a new conceptual "spectrum" framework that could unite (without destroying the diversity of parts) together these divisive entities. Wilber sought to create an "integral theory" (Wilber, 1997) ("spectrum" metaphor) for psychology and the study of consciousness. Walsh & Vaughan (1994) believe he is successful, in that,

He has won this reputation ["as one of today's foremost thinkers and theoretical psychologists] by creating syntheses of unprecedented scope among diverse schools and disciplines of psychology, philosophy, sociology, anthropology, and religion. In a world of increasing specialization, the range of richness of Wilber's vision, together with his ability to integrate apparently conflicting viewpoints-- East and West... is a delight (pp. 6-7).... His integrations of apparently conflicting schools and disciplines reduce conflict and sectarianism.... The scope of his synthesis is perhaps unparalleled. (p. 18)

Despite my admiration for Wilber's efforts, I have been critical of his actual success in resolving any such disciplinary or paradigmatic conflict (Fisher, 1997) because of his approach, attitudes, style, and pedagogical ignore-ance (Fisher, 2002). The rest of Wilber's story can be found in his writing for 30 years. The 4QAL model is his latest version of that new conceptual framework to resolve (or transform) the conflicting paradigm wars. [Note: "paradigm" is used very loosely here, and Wilber (2002), prefers to think it is a dead concept and not useful because of its misuse since Kuhn's work in the 1970s]

While Wilber was working on solving some major conflicts in psychology and consciousness studies, some adult educators (Paulston, Boshier, were finding a similar conflict-resolving (possibly transforming) conceptual framework. Paulston (1977) published a paper, at the same time Wilber's first book came out, categorizing all the different types of reform movements (ideologies) re: international development, for the World Bank. His paradigms were "Equilibrium" vs. "Conflict," with each having several sub-categories in which to lay out all the types of approaches and research paradigms. Roughly, at the same time, and independently, sociological writers, Burrell & Morgan (1979) were constructing a 4-quadrant grid to classify organizational analysis and have a way to locate diverse ideological approaches, as well. Morgan's work (e.g., 1986), in particular, has today become a standard post-secondary textbook in administration, business and leadership. Without going into the details of B & Morgan's work, they saw that social and organizational analysis, with all its diverse and conflicting views, could be best (fairly) sorted out onto a conceptual (ideological) 'map' of the whole territory of views and approaches-- where no views (more or less) were excluded from the grid. They developed a 4-quadrant model, which Paulston (1977, n.d., 1996, 1998) and Paulston & Altenbaugh (1988) and Paulston & Liebman (1992) using "cognitive mapping" and cartography methods, followed and modified. Paulston's work is in comparative education. There are similarities and differences with Wilber's 4-quadrant model but the purpose is very similar.

Paulston & Altenbaugh (1988) started creating a taxonomy (typology) to explain adult education movements in the U.S.A. They wanted to organize the movements and differentiate them, without biasing which was best. They set up a continuum 4-quadrant grid in which adult education programs were classifed on one vertical axis as having Low to High "Change" intended, and on the horizontal axis were a continuum of "Individual" to "Social." Boshier (1990, 1994, 1996, 1998) has adapted this work above and created a modified 4-quadrant model of epistemologies (or ideologies) with the horizontal axis as "Subjective" to "Objective" -- the same as Wilber's; and on the vertical axis as "Reinforce" (status quo) to "Challenge" (status quo). Wilber's other vertical axis differs in that he uses "Collective" and "Individual" as the continuum (note: Wilber's quadrants are less political and value-based). Similarly, Boshier thus labeled four basic paradigms in each quadrant that would 'cover' all the various types of programs in adult education and research approaches. Wilber, somewhat similarly, calls the four quadrants "It-Individual" (Upper Right-Hand), "It-Social" (Lower Right-Hand) and "I" (Upper Left-Hand) and "We" (Lower Left-Hand). Wilber, the sociologists, and adult educators, were all attempting to create a space for diverse and contesting/conflicting knowledges and methods, and programs. Hassard (1993) called this approach one of creating "paradigm spaces in organizational analysis" (p. 64). Paulston (1990) argued that such mapping itself is subversive to the dominant ideologies/hegemony of certain ways over others. I agree. The 4-quadrants are useful for critical analysis, especially of dogmatism looking like pluralism. Putting them all out on a map, he believed, created new possibilities for new dialogues or "disputatious communities" of healthy diversity, rather than "paradigm wars." Paulston (1990) paraphrasing:

Schon [1983] puts it well, that is, when a scholar or practitioner becomes aware of his [sic] labels, or frames, he also becomes aware of the possibility to choose alternative ways of knowing and of the dilemma of choice and the need for dialectical fearlessness. For when researchers [educators or leaders] are unreflective about their frames or labels, they are ignorant of the need to choose and do not attend to the ways in which they buy into a view of reality or a paradigm that is simply taken as a given, a smug orthodoxy in an increasing pluralistic world. (p. 398)

Wilber, and I, would agree there is a deep need for a "dialectical fearlessness" to our approach to knowledge, education and reality itself. Where Wilber's 4QAL model exceeds beyond these other 4-Q models is significant, and complex, beyond the scope of this introductory article. In a nutshell, Wilber's model goes beyond "synthesis," beyond "integration," beyond "holistic," and beyond "pluralism" as these conceptual ideas are usually applied in continuum (or spectrum) models-- which are typically "flatland" epistemologies, and not developmental (ontological) as is Wilber's (i.e., the all levels idea).

Wilber's work is called "critical integral theory" and it is unique in stretching other models for resolving paradigm wars to include more and more of the Kosmos. Wilber's 4QAL is a picture of the Kosmos-- in abstract terms-- and none of the above models would dare make such a claim (thus, they are not as fearless as Paulston thinks), nor, would those theorists even believe it is a possibility (especially, as the postmodern mood infiltrates adult education). Nonetheless, the quest for a fearless approach to knowledge, beyond dualism, and toward a dialecticism, is a welcomed move by anyone who thinks in critical integral theory. I trust there are further dialogues to pursue on all of this. I welcome those conversations and wish to publish them in the KWIE.

References

Boshier, R. (1990). Epistemological foundations of international AIDS education programs. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Comparative and International Education Society. Anaheim, CA.

Boshier, R. (1994). Initiating research. In D. Randy Garrison (Ed.), Research perspectives in adult education, (pp. 73-116). Malabar, FL: Krieger.

Boshier, R. (1996). Introduction to adult education (Adult Education 412). Vancouver, BC: The University of British Columbia.

Boshier, R. (1998). 'Sage on the stage' is not sustainable: Participatory pedagogy for a change. Paper presented at the Annual Conference on Natural Resources Education Society, Utah.

Burrell, G. & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. Portsmouth, CN: Heinemann.

Edwards, R. (1997). Changing places?: Flexibility, lifelong learning and a learning society. London: Routledge.

Elsey, B. (1986). Social theory perspectives on adult education. Dept. of Adult Education: University of Nottingham.

Fisher, R. M. (1997). A guide to Wilberland: Some common misunderstandings of the critics of Ken Wilber and his work on transpersonal theory prior to 1995. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 37(4), 30-73.

Fisher, R. M. (2000). Toward a 'conflict' pedagogy: A critical discourse analysis of 'conflict' in conflict management education. Unpublished masters thesis. Vancouver, BC: The University of British Columbia.

Fisher, R. M. (2002). 'Lighting up' the integral: A critical review of Ken Wilber's philosophy and theories related to education. Harvard Educational Review (submitted).

Gage, N. (1989). The paradigm wars and their aftermath: A 'historical' sketch of research and teaching since 1989. Educational Research, 18, 4-10.

Graff, G. (1992). Beyond the culture wars: How teaching the conflicts can revitalize American education. NY: W.W. Norton.

Hassard, J. (1993). Sociology and organization theory: Positivism and postmodernity. NY: Cambridge University Press.

La Belle, J. T. (1986). Education and theories of social change. In T. J. La Belle (Ed.), Nonformal education in Latin America and the Carribean: Stability reform or revolution, (pp. 41-58), NY: Praeger.

Paulston, R. G. (n.d.).Ways of seeing education and social change in Latin America: A phenomenological perspective. Latin American Research Review, 177-202.

Paulston, R. G. (1977). Social and educational change: Conceptual frameworks. Comparative Educational Review, June/Oct., 368-395.

Paulston, R. G. (1990). From paradigm wars to disputatious community. Comparative Education Review, 34, 395-400.

Paulston, R. G. (Ed.) (1996). Social cartography: Mapping ways of seeing social and educational change. NY: Garland.

Paulston, R. G. (1998). Mapping the postmodernity debate in comparative education discourse. Occasional Papers, School of Education, University of Pittsburgh.

Paulston, R. G. & Altenbaugh, R. J. (1988). Adult education in radical U.S. social and ethnic movements: From case studies to typology of explanation. In T. Lovett(Ed.), Radical approach to adult education: A reader, (pp. 114-137). London: Routledge.

Paulston, R. G. & Liebman, M. (1992). Mapping the spaces of ideas in comparative education. Paper presented at the Comparative Institute for Educational Studies Conference, Jamaica.

Rubenson, K. (1982). Adult education research: In quest of a map of the territory. Adult Education, 32(2), 57-74.

Thomas, J. E. & Harries-Jenkins, G. (1991). Adult education and social change. In S. Westwood & J. E. Thomas (Eds.), Radical agendas?; The politics of adult education, (pp. 109-120). Leicester, UK: The National Institute of Adult and Continuing Education.

Walsh, R. & Vaughan, F. (1994). The worldview of Ken Wilber. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 34(2), 6-21.

Wilber, K. (1977/82). Spectrum of consciousness. Wheaton, IL: Theosophical Publishing House.

Wilber, K. (1979/81). No boundary: Eastern and Western approaches to personalgrowth. Boulder, CO: New Science Library/Shambhala.

Wilber, K. (1997). Eye of spirit: An integral vision for a world gone slightly mad. Boston, MA: Shambhala.

Wilber, K. (2002). Boomeritis: A novel that will set you free. Boston, MA: Shambhala.

KEN WILBER INTEGRAL EDUCATION (KWIE)

Bulletin #3

December 2002

EDITORIAL- EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND INNOVATIONS
-R. Michael Fisher

I am pleased to be back in Vancouver, after my tour through W. Canada presenting a performative reading of my dissertation to various groups. I kept thinking of the early adult education forums, before all the post-secondary colleges, where people got together in each others homes and we learned collectively what people had to teach. I am continuing to explore teaching and learning in small group home situations using my dissertation research and performative pedagogy. It is interesting to me that I can bring out some of Wilber's notions and meme theory to folks, who are not formally educated beyond gr. 12, in little bits and pieces when you are in their home and an informal gathering of friends create a trusting context that is non-elitist. I am sure there are many ways to teach Wilber's work, and this experience of mine has been a good one, as I will continue to reflect on that use of arts and performative pedagogy in teaching complex ideas. I am also interested in arts-based approaches to inquiry itself, to community-building, to organizational development and Wilber's work. But that's for later discussions beyond this editorial.

I am pleased in this issue to offer you a glimpse into the thinking of an important "integral" systems pedagogue (Marilyn Hamilton) in higher education in BC. I also have a few bits and pieces to chew on. Again if you are interested in giving feedback to the KWIE, drop me an e-mail. I encourage all of you to share resources, contact each other, re-read old KWIE issues, and keep the dialogue going. If you want your name removed from the list, just let me know.

My last thought here, is that I've had a growing curiousity for how various authors/researchers/pedagogues are using Wilber's models of knowledge in various fields of education, health etc. I have seen a few papers that have first attempted to utilize Wilber's 4-quadrant model. I have been concerned thatthe 4-quadrant model is easiest and gets the most attention, but it is notcomplete as Wilber's overall model without adding the all-levels (ofconsciousness) part to it. Wilber will often write of his model as 4QAL,or some variation. His in depth models, even go further into finer detailsof development. For our purposes, to introduce this problematic, as educators/researchers, I propose a few questions to ponder on this issue:
a) how well do we teach the 4QAL model, in particular, how well do we track its evolution in Wilber's thought prior to 1995, when he brought it out in full form?
b) are we doing justice to Wilber's epistemological method and model (his critical integral theory) if we use only parts of it (e.g., 4-Q) and not the other parts?
c) what other similar models exist in the literature of various fields (I am thinking more mainstream than Wilber's) by which a 4-Q (or AL) form is utilized-- because maybe we can more easily slide Wilber's model in upon, or integrate it with these more mainstream models?

I'd like to hear your thoughts. Next issue, of KWIE#4, I'll take up some of this again, with an emphasis on a 4-Q model in adult education and organizational theory which has very similar "grounds" as Wilber's 4-Q.

To end the editorial, I'd like to thank Durwin Foster for his brief and considerate e-mail last month, correcting my sloppy use of the term "new agey" when I was referring to Andrew Cohen's work and magazine "What is Enlightenment?" Durwin has read Cohen's work and believes "...it is actually the opposite of a 'new agey' magazine.... and the magazine is cutting-edge, in-your-face second tier spirituality. Really the antithesis of narcissitic new-age stuff." I agree, and I will be more careful how I use my terms. 'New-agey' was not meant pejoratively in my own piece.

FYI- If you are new to our KWIE list, and want the back issues, let me know.

ANNOUNCEMENT: TEEN TEACHES MEME THEORY

Vanessa Fisher, age 19, is pursuing her interests in Wilber's and Beck's meme theory and integral education. She has planned her first workshop to rather informally share with some friends and work colleagues the theory of memes and human development on Jan. 4th, 2003.

NEW WEBSITE ON TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP

I am pleased to have met Jonathan Reams via e-amil, and through SDi contacts. He and his partner, have a very interesting business venture, www.transform.bc.ca/institute.html, out of Nelson, BC. They use the SDi approach in some of the educational work they do "and it permeates our thinking" he told me.

INTEGRAL EDUCATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION AND BEYOND
-R. Michael Fisher
[special thanks to Marilyn Hamilton for editorial assistance]

I am part of a monthly SDi group (Spiral Dynamics Integral) in the Vancouveer area. We are all participants with at least Level 1 training in spiral dynamics theory. I have thoroughly enjoyed this group and I applaud the efforts of Marilyn Hamilton who started it this fall. Marilyn lives in Abbotsford and teaches in the MALT program (Master of Arts, Leadership & Training) at Royal Roads University, is an SDi Level 2 instructor and a member of the Integral Institute (Ken Wilber, President). Recently she sent the group a discussion paper and clearly communicated her passion in educational curriculum design, in the largest sense of those words. Marilyn's paper had some interesting thoughts-- a few of which I wanted to share my interpretations with KWIE readers. If you want more information, you could contact Marilyn at marilynhamilton@shaw.ca or marilyn@globallearningconnections.com [Marilyn has also be involved in a review process of the MALT curriculum design for the past few years and has explored the 4-Q of Wilber, and other models in that post-secondary educational institute]

COMPLEX, ADAPTIVE, SPIRAL, INTEGRAL SYSTEMS
- A discussion paper (2002) by Marilyn Hamilton, BA, CGA, PhD, is summarized below:

"What if we created a spiral integral forum for the engagement and exchange of practical application and policy development based on SDi-- what might it look like?" Forum, for Marilyn, is a dynamic space for chaos, order, learning and teaching, action and policy, creativity and transformation. The qualities of that forum ought to be like a "dance," she says. "I have been in many spaces in the last year where the boundaries of integral models, spiral frameworks and complexity theory seemed to clash. Instead of informing one another, each seemed to be exploring the features and benefits of its own constructs and worldview. I support and applaud the continuation of each field of research. However, I propose that the conjunction of integral, spiral and complex adaptive space is a new dance floor... exploring, experimenting with and expressing new patterns, processes and policies for living together in the 21st century."

Marilyn is a very pragmatic woman and professional with a stunning knowledge and integral capacity to embrace many of the latest theories of organization and evolution of systems. She is not impressed that theorists too often cannot synthesize their efforts with other theories. She is attempting to apply at a scale of community (group, collective) what Wilber has mapped out, in "integral theory," while unpacking certain aspects of other theories subsumed in Integral Theory, that she believes are especially important to group emergence. Impressive indeed. Her aim is to bring together a vast body of new theories into curriculum design and education. Among her particular interests are the following: Integral Theory (Ken Wilber), Spiral Dynamics (Clare W. Graves and Don Beck), Complex Adaptive Systems Theory (Darwin, de Chardin, Lovelace, Margulis, Dawkins), Emergence Theories (Gleick, Lorenz, Prigogine, Capra, Lissack, Bertallanfy, Maturana and Varela, Wheatley, Senge, Eoyang, Olsen,Kaufman). She writes, "Occasionally the discourse in integral, spiral and complexity theory also 'strays' into the domain of field theory." She is very interested in "energy" and its role in emergence, integration and self-organizing systems. "It appears that each theory-- integral, spiral, complexity and field-- lives in tension iwth each other. A focus on any combination presents a paradoxical view of the world. It is proposed that from such intentional tension (tension with intention) and paradox, new understandings might emerge."

I am interested in how Marilyn summarizes and categorizes all of the theories abouve into her own unifying and creative synthesis. I must admit I often believe "integral theory" (a la Wilber) is the largest umbrella to encompass all the types of theories she mentions, but she is not approaching her synthesis with that view. I look forward to further chats with her on this. For brevity sake, I'll only quote her on how she views integral theory as it relates to creating and SDi community: "1. Integral theory explains the meta-patterns that have emerged in historical collectives (and continue to emerge) from the perspectives and micro-meso-macro scales of existence. Integral theory is a 'particle' view of human existence." She sees spiral theory as a 'wave' view, and complexity theory as an 'elemental' view and field theory as an 'energy' view. Whatever Marilyn is up to here, I think she is a foremost educational thinker(and community leader) in terms of applying a vast array of new theories to education. I for one, want to keep in touch with her progress.

KEN WILBER ON HIS "CRITICAL THEORY"

[Ed. Note- As educators engage Wilber's work, there is the inevitable engagement with the nature of critical theory itself, the traditions of criticaltheory and how Wilber takes his own spin from them-- I found this excerpt from the Shambhala website (2002?), where Wilber shares some of his views (entitled "On the Nature of a Post-Metaphysical Spirituality: Response to Habermas and Weis)-- I found Wilber's words and caution below humbling, and challenges us to not zealously toss around the term "integral theory" as if it is all a done deal]

"A 'critical theory' can be established in any major discipline-- whether in art, morals or science [or education]. It simply depends on whether one has an approach that one claims to be more authentic, or more comprehensive, or more accurate, or more valuable, or 'more something.' The Frankfurt School, for example, developed a [marxian] critical social theory that they claimed offered more political and personal freedom [e.g., see Habermas as a latest neo-marxian critical Frankfurt School theorist]. You can have a critical art theory, critical moral theory, critical spiritual theory, and so on. But all critical theories are internally bound to a series of normative claims that they then must justify as compelling and in some sense binding on others. That's the tricky part, of course. Since I have offered an 'integral theory' that I claim honors more types of truths than the alternatives, then I must offer a series of justifications for this claim, and that is what my books attempt to do. Since I believe that in many cases I can justify my claims to be more integral than the alternatives, I have often criticized the alternative views as being partial and 'less integral' or 'less comprehensive' (and therefore presumably 'less true'). So yes, I have offered a 'critical integral theory.' (See Jack Crittenden's Foreword to "The Eye of Spirit," where he summarizes my critical theory.) But I should say that I hold this integral critical theory very lightly. Part of the difficulty is that, at this stage, all of our attempts at a more integral theory are very preliminary and sketchy. It will take decades of work among hundreds of scholars to truly flesh out an integral theory with any sort of compelling veracity. Until that time, what I try to offer are suggestions for making our existing theories and practices just a little more integral than they are now..."

Next KWIE in January. Have a joyous and reflective, perhaps transformative Holiday Season and/or New Year.

KEN WILBER INTEGRAL EDUCATION (KWIE)

Bulletin #2

November 2002

EDITORIAL- WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH "BOOMERITIS?"
-R. Michael Fisher

Ken Wilber's latest book "Boomeritis" was released in the summer of 2002. This book is the culmination of one of Ken's biggest critiques of the Boomer generation, new age, new paradigmers, etc. He first published a formal critique of "boomeritis" thinking and values in a 1988 article entitled "There is no New Age: Baby boomers, narcissism and the 60s" in Vajradhattu Sun Magazine. He's come a long way in fleshing out this criticism which ties in with many of his other major epistemological, psychological, spiritual, political, and cultural critiques (e.g., pre/trans fallacy). Basically, Wilber has continually critiqued the skewed ways that the West's 60s boomer generation (and its offspring) have viewed and pursued "freedom." This critique, in "Boomerities" (2002) includes the spiral dynamics (value meme theory) critique of psychologists like Clare W. Graves and his contemporary Don Beck. The critique now focuses on the pathological side of the "green meme" and generally, all first-tier thinking. You will have to read Wilber's work to understand those terms in context of his integral theory. In this bulletin I'll attempt to lay out a few bits an pieces of the "green meme" using interviews and a definition from Wilber.

I see "Boomeritis" as Wilber's most teacherly of books, in terms of his attempt to use a postmodern fiction (non-fiction) genre of writing to create a performative dramatic text as a pedagogical approach to integral and spiral dynamic theories and their arguments. "Boomeritis," Wilber's first novel, is a book about GenXers and Ys meeting Boomers in a university setting and the outcome of the exhchange of ideas about the future of evolution of consciousness and the problems and solutions related to that. Wilber set up most of the novel to represent his "ideal" university today, where young people would be able to attend seminars on integral knowledge and its critique of boomeritis and postmodern extreme flatland philosophies (dogma). He is very concerned that young people are being indoctrinated by university professors (a lot of old leftist Boomers) teaching a "hidden curriculum" of boomeritis (green meme) ideology.

Wilber's definition of "boomeritis," a dis-ease of an entire W. culture in the past 30 years, is complex but he simplifies it in the following phrase: "Boomeritis is simply pluralism infected with narcissism" (p. 36). Repetitively throughout the book, he asserts that the higher order thinking and development of Boomers (and the green meme) into the post-conventional ways of thinking and valuing (i.e., pluralism) has unfortunately not been integrated with a healthy emotional development, and thus the boomeritis ideology has tended toward a destructive emotional narcissism (often hidden under a mask of "holistic" righteousness of the green meme), that is a pre-conventional arrested development, "hidden" in the roots of much of the pluralism, spiritualism, feminism, multiculturalism, hermeneuticism, and postmodernism espoused today as politically correct thinking (especially in areas of academia). In many wyas, I find Wilber's critical thoughts on integral, and his political intonations, disturbing and conservative. He would argue, likely, that my uncomfortableness is due to my suffering from an education in the mean green meme of boomeritis-- and to a great extent, I am coming to see that he is right. I'd love to talk more with others who are reading this novel.

To date, I have not found any book reviews on "Boomeritis" and if you know of any, I'd really like to see them, and maybe have them summarized for the KWIE next issue. One colleague said she saw a few book reviews in Vancouver papers and one was negative but two were positive. That's all the info. I have on how the public is receiving Wilber's book, which in my view has the most potential to teach people the pivotal ideas of integral philosophy and theory. I am wondering if "Boomeritis" is a demonstration of integral pedagogy itself? I'd like to hear your ideas on that. [Note: if you look up "boomeritis" in indexes there is a whole line of articles on this phenomenon in the medical and health fields where the boomers are ending up with many broken ankles and torn tendons etc... causing an "itis" problem, because the boomers think they can do anything with their youthful exploratory change convictions (narcissism) but their aging bodies are giving them a very different message about "freedom"].

I compiled a very detailed 39pp subject index for "Boomeritis." The book is so loaded with concepts, names, and terms, that it is essential to have a subject index if this book is to be effectively used for teaching purposes. The subject index is a small booklet format the size that fits nicely into the back of the book. Cost is $5 U.S. or $9 Can. If you are interested drop me a cheque and I'll get you a hard copy ASAP.

Just heard that Don Beck and Ken Wilber have feature articles on spiral dynamics and "boomeritis" in the latest issue of the magazine "What is Enlightenment?" The magazine is a rather new agey type generally, but it is interesting to see spiral dynamics growing. You can get a copy at Indigo Books, or order a copy on line www.wie.or or 1-888-837-7739

p.s. For your info., I am heading out across W. Canada on a performance tour for the next three weeks. My dissertation screen play is completed and I am reading it dramatically to several groups, colleagues and friends. The title of the dissertation is "Fearless Leadership In And Out Of The 'Fear' Matrix"-- I am exploring pedagogy using performance in small group settings. Some of the content is "integral" stuff. If you are interested to host this event, sometime in Dec. or Jan. let me know and I'll send another e-mail with the details of what would be involved.

INTERVIEW (excerpt): VANESSA FISHER ON EDUCATION & KEN WILBER
[Vanessa is my 19 year old daughter]

M: You recently presented the basic developmental theory of Ken Wilber and spiral dynamics at Langara College, in a first year psychology course. I understand your psychology professor had never heard of these ideas. How receptive were your teacher and the students?

V: Many students were very intrigued. A lot didn't know what to make of it. My teacher took me aside during the break and asked questions about it and said she was going to research it further. One student, in particular, came up to me and said she was trying to do a self-journey, and felt that this was something she could use and wanted to know more about it. I feel I got a good response and the teacher gave me 100% on the presentation.

M: What got you interested in Ken Wilber and how has it changed your life?

V: I wouldn't have known about Wilber without having my dad tell me about him and his work. I feel that Wilber and spiral dynamics has given me a model that can guide my life and the choices I make. It helps me to see other people not only on a personal level but as operating on levels of consciousness and in memes, and it takes me away from my overly green bias and thus I get away from the emotional conflict with people and the judgments I can make too harshly sometimes. It has given me a bigger purpose in life and a greater hope for possible changes in the world, because I have not felt any connection with a religion that could provide me with this.

M: What is that bigger purpose?

V: To understand and teach truth? And to fight for it.

M: What have you been learning about the "green meme" and yourself using SDi (spiral dynamics integral) theory?

V: I've learned how much of my own life has been predominantly green-- I have two boomer parents afterall. Looking at the spiral, I can see a lot of memes of which I have not integrated. Although, I feel very gifted with my green abilities, I also feel they could be my downfall because the emotional aspect of myself can take over and I loose a sense of structure and sight of what I am doing in terms of purpose. It bogs me down and makes me want to quit. I see now the importance of red and orange memes etc., which before I could never see. I only saw them as destructive and inhuman. And really they were just parts of myself I was afraid of and I know I need to integrate them.

M: How do you think SDi could improve schooling education in our world?

V: I never believed that all people learned the same way. If teachers could teach using the meme theory, I think there woruld be a lot less of oppression of students as they would not feel they don't belong. The school system is very blue and orange (with some green) and not all students are strong in these memes and so teaching from those memes isn't necessarily going to be helpful to some students. I'd like to see teachers be able to embrace (at an integral level-- yellow) all the memes and levels of consciousness and use that awareness to make all students feel important, and they have something to offer from the level or memes that they operate from.

M: Thanks Vanessa. [Wilber's definition of green meme in "Boomeritis": "The Sensitive Self- communitarian, human bonding, ecological sensitivity and networking; the human spirit must be freed from greed, dogma and divisiveness; feeling and caring supersede cold rationality; charishing of the earth, Gaia, life. Against hierarchy, establishes lateral bonding and linking. Permeable self, relational self, group intermeshing. Emphasis on dialogue, relationships. Basis of value communities (i.e., freely chosen affiliations based on shared sentiments). Reaches decisions through reconciliation and consensus (downside: interminable processing and incapacity to reach decisions). Refresh spirituality and bring harmony, enrich human potential. Strong egalitarian, anti-hierarchical, pluralistic values, social construction of reality, diversity, multiculturalism, relativistic value system; this world view is often called pluralistic relativism. Subjective, non-linear thinking; shows a greater degree of affective warmth, sensitivity, and caring for earth and all its inhabitants" (p. 27) Wilber also, along with Beck, believe the green meme has caused more destruction in the past thirty years than any other meme].

BRINGING SDI INTO ADULT EDUCATION

Ken Markley, a long-time youth worker, and recent social worker on the Sunshine Coast, has just put together a proposal for his Master of Education research in adult education at UBC. Ken is planning to analyze some aspect of social work government policy using an integral analysis along with spiral dynamics, in which he is developing an integral design for an online course. He is planning to graduate in the spring of 2003. This would be the first graduate paper in education at UBC, I know of, that incorporates Ken Wilber's work and spiral dynamics in a significant way. Ken is currently writing a paper (and presentation) for his adult learning theory class in which he looks at SDi and its signficance to learning theory for adults.

AVRAHAM COHEN

I recently asked Avraham, on the KWIE list, to write something of his background and interests and connection with Ken Wilber's thought. Avraham is a new PhD student at the Centre for the Study of Curriculum & Instruction, UBC. (this is an edited version)

I will defer any comments about Ken Wilber to the time when I have more knowledge than I do currently. I have always been a late bloomer and this has at times been a pain to me, but in retrospect it has always worked in my favour. I was telling a friend about how great it was that I was admitted to the PhD program but I realized my only regret was that it happened twenty years earlier.... I work as a psychotherapist in private practice. I mostly work with 'mid-life' marriage crisis. I teach in the Counselling Certificate Program at Vancouver Community College, teaching Introduction to Theories of Counselling and Psychotherapy.

I have also conducted a number of personal growth seminars and my own program, the Life Force Seminars Process-Directed Counselling Training Program. I have written a manual for this program. I have also written a manual for a meditation process that I have developed called "The Whole Person Meditation Manual."

My Philosophy, always ongoing in its development, can be summarized: I believe that a person lies within each person that is the truest expression of who he or she is and this person is trying to emerge. This is also facilitative of creative, authentic expression of a person's true purpose. Psychotherapy works on removing the psychological barriers that contain this person. 'Spiritual' work, that complements the above, involves stoking the inner fire and burning through from the inside. I also believe that relationship is a vehicle to accelerate this emergence of the truest self.

In terms of Education, I am interested in researching the process aspects of education. In particular, self-reflective practice and training in facilitating groups for educators. I believe that as Parker Palmer says, "We teach who we are". I believe educators need to be in a continual process of becoming more of who they are. This is essential to being a model for students and for being in touch with passion and creativity. Educational environments are communities. Awareness of this and its importance as an educational experience in itself and to create and optimal learning environment. I am also interested in the interaction between the individual growth of the educator and the group dynamics in which he or she is contantly immersed with students." -Shalom, Avraham

[Editor's note: As a holistic pedagogue, I recognize so much of the appealing sensitive and self-reflective aspects of the "green meme" in Avaraham's hearfelt valus and philosophy of becoming (freedom), and of overcoming barriers (oppression and repression) to enliven the awareness that reveals and articulates the "true self" and "true purpose" of teachers and learners. See p. 27 in "Boomeritis" for a definition of "green meme" and its soulful agenda (p. 98). As an SDi thinker, I am curious to know more of the thinking that Avraham and others on the KWIE list utilize. I would recommend "Boomeritis" and Wilber's critique of the shadow side of the "green meme" and "Sensitive Self" (or "true Self") notions, and notions of barriers of oppression (pp. 124-5, 211-12, 216, 280) and views of the "recaptured goodness" or "original freedom", problems of "victim chic" and paradisical retro-romantic thinking of essentialism (p. 276), including notions of "divine ego" or "Self" (p. 336, 338) that so appeal to the "green meme" (and second-tier thinking value/systems) and to people in holistic, educational, health and humanities areas.

INTEGRAL RESOURCES

Durwin Foster, from the KWIE list, sent me this info. as an attachment to an e-mail, you can get it on the web] "Why Can't Boomers And Gen-X Get Along?" This article, written by Joanna L. Krotz, although not coming from an SDi perspective, is interesting to read in terms of an explanation of the differences between these two generations in the workplace setting. She concluded with a recommendation for workplace leaders: "Challenge each generation with appropriate responsibilities. Put GenX into management positions. Make boomers change agents." But she notes you still have to deal with individual differences too. I wonder how curriculum and pedagogy might be appropriately distinguished when teaching these various generations? Do educators think about this in theoretical systematic ways? SDi ought to assist curriculum and pedagogy in this area.

Next KWIE in 3 weeks or so. Let me know what you think.

Editor, KWIE
R. Michael Fisher

KEN WILBER INTEGRAL EDUCATION (KWIE)

Bulletin #1

October 2002

EDITORIAL - WILBER & THE INTEGRAL MOVEMENT (PHILOSOPHY, THEORY AND PRACTICE) FOR EDUCATORS
-R. Michael Fisher

Welcome. Hello all. This is the first up-date on the responses to my call Sept. 7, 2002 to the Faculty of Education in re: to anyone interested in gathering a study group on Ken Wilber's latest book "Boomeritis" but also the more general topic of the Integral Movement (primarily as led by Wilber et al.) and its relevance to education (in the broadest and deepest sense of that term). To facilitate further development of our interests, I decided to begin setting some common ground by writing a regular KWIE-Bulletin (every two weeks or so) of basic information, ideas, and discussion of possibilities. KWIE stands for Ken Wilber Integral Education. I have taken the liberty to put all your names on this list. If you don't want that continued, then do let me know.

There is an enormous potential of people and experience here to be tapped. I have known some of you personally for awhile, and some of you have shared a bit of your background with me. Only a couple of people above (Durwin and Ken), other than myself, have a fair amount of background reading on Wilber's work. Ken and I have taken Spiral Dynamics Training Level One with Don Beck last month. Beck is an important associate of Wilber's, mentioned often in re: to value meme theory, and a major leader in the Integral Movement. From the little I know, most of you are new learners to this specific area.

I'm a "low tech" ("small is beautiful") kind of person and so this is the way to start communicating that fits best for me, at this time. Your critique and support is welcome in terms of advancing the technology to match our growing desires as a group. Let me know if this Bulletin #1 was useful and how it could be better. Send me your writing and I'll share it with the group here, in some form that is brief. Feel free to pass the Bulletin on to those who may be interested.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THIS STUDY GROUP & IMPLICATIONS

Although there are a growing number of Wilber (Integral) study groups all over the world, especially in the last 5 years, they are a rare bird in Canada, and I've never heard of any such group anywhere in B.C. In 1996 I taught the first introductory course on Wilber's work to a small class of new learners to the Integral Movement in Calgary, AB. My last e-mail call re: Wilber, to the Faculty of Education, was about a year and a half ago when 16 graduate students responded with interest. The current response of 9 graduate students has only 2 persons (Ken and Fleurette), other than myself, who have continued a verbal interest in this study group. The first study group attempted to meet in person every couple weeks, but it soon was impossible to keep the numbers up and it faded out after a few months. Generally in my experience, getting busy graduate students together on campus on one date and time is a nightmare, when the activity is 'extra'. I have been thinking of e-mailing these folks to let them know of the current 2nd Wilber group activation.

I would like to meet at least once a month with those of you who can meet and talk about our reading on this topic and other interests etc. At this time, I have doubt a formal planned meeting will go far because of our low numbers. It may be better to keep our face-to-face connections informal and spontaneous based on mutual interests and the encouragement to gather with those most called to connect in person. These informal organic gatherings may generate information worth sharing in the next Bulletin. I also am planning to interview folks on this list and publish them in this Bulletin. I would like your feedback and suggestions on all of this.

The Bulletin may serve many evolving purposes for our study group. The most basic one is to connect people with similar interests and create a forum for exchange of information. In no particular order, I'll take the risk to introduce each of you briefly from the little I know. You may fill in the gaps for the next Bulletin.

Avraham Cohen- Ph.D. Cand. in CSCI since July. Extensive background and private practice in psychotherapy, interested in meditation practice and the continuum of experiences from psychological to spiritual. Teaches at VCC in the Counseling Certificate Program. Now enlarging interests that include more educational focus.

Brent Cameron- Ph.D. Cand. in CSCI (recent), Executive Director, Wondertree Foundation for Natural Living (www.wondertree.org) and founder of SelfDesign Learning Community (www.selfdesign.org). Brent is an entrepreneur, and an outstanding innovator of creative and alternative curriculum designs with a holistic basis.

Peter Ciceri- grad student in CNPS, entrepreneur, executive business coach, interested in counseling psychology

Sheri Pyper- grad student in CNPS, just beginning to read KW's "Brief History of Everything"

Emma- Ph.D. Cand. in CSCI, my friendly office roomate from Africa

Fluerette Sweeney- Ph.D. (just completed) in CSCI, my friendly office roomate, specialist in narratives in education, a long-time experienced social acitivist-educator, elder and committed lifelong learner to a spiritual life

Ken Markley- grad student in EDST, long-time social worker, now working with aboriginal communities, entrepreneur with an interest in designing quality integral learning systems on-line

Annette Schultz- Ph.D. Cand. in Nursing, a friend, astrologer, specialist in the area of health education re: smoking and anti-smoking ideologies, and long-time learner of holistic everything

Barbara Bickel- grad student in CSCI (new), professional figure artist, interested in performative pedagogy and women's issues and the integral experience. She has been my life-partner for 13 years.

Durwin Foster- grad student in CNPS, meditation practitioner, soon to be new father, a long-interest in Wilber's integral psychology applied to counselling, currently researching links between psychology and Buddhist spiritual practices. He has recently presented a paper on "Wilber's All-Quadrant Model: Implications for Constructive Postmodern Counselling Research and Practice" at a counselling psychology conference and he has turned this into a paper recently accepted to be published by a leading edge professional journal

R. Michael Fisher, Ph.D. Cand. in CSCI, working heavily these days on my dissertation, which utilizes lots of Wilber stuff, entitled: "Fearless Leadership In And Out Of The 'Fear' Matrix". My first reading of Wilber began in 1982 and I have never left it. I am currently enjoying discussing integral ideas with my two daughters (19 and 21) and their new boyfriends (Gen Xers and Ys). I think "Boomeritis" is the best book to read if you want to get on the jugular vein of Wilber's big critiques of the past 30 years (Boomer style) of W. intellectual thinking, politics, and social activism.

Although the KWIE-Bulletin focuses on 'education' per se, there is lots of room for folks working with integral ideas and practices from all disciplines and non-disciplines of knowing. Ken Wilber is transdisciplinary in his overall approach to promoting integral knowledge and solutions to our world's problems. That is also my own interest and approach as a self-appointed grassroots leader of the Integral Movement.

KEN WILBER AND EDUCATION: A CRITICAL REVIEW

I have just sent off my finished draft of a paper (45pp) to Harvard Educational Review, entitled: 'Lighting Up' The Integral: A Critical Review of Ken Wilber's Philosophy and Theories Related to Education. Let me know if you want a copy. Here is the abstract and few quotes from holistic educators I covered in the paper:

Abstract- A new Integral Movement, led by the contemporary American philosopher, Ken Wilber, has provided diverse leaders/educators with a new approach to dealing with the complex and challenging problems of a post-9/11 world. To date, no critical synthesis of Wilber's work and its relationship to education has been attempted. This article contains a summary of Wilber's concept of 'integral' and its relationship to and transcendence of the limitations of 'holistic' concepts. Nine professional educators have written about the potential and applications of Wilber's work. The strengths and weaknesses of their interpretations of Wilber's ideas are examined. These nine diverse schooling and adult educators have layed the important groundwork for future pedagogical engagement with Wilber's integral view.

Dr. Jack Miller (OISE, U of Toronto) and Dr. Ron Miller (Goddard College), both leading theorists of holistic philosophy and education, reviewed my paper in its early forms and thought it was an important contribution. They also both have conflicting responses to Wilber's work, albeit, they both acknowledge it is essential to engage with in the development of any form of holistic or spiritual educational philosophy. Jack Miller wrote (personal communication) "Ken Wilber has written very little about education. In one case what he has said does not make much sense in relation to his own theories. In "One Taste" [1999] he supports the standards movement (p. 259) which in my view is not in any way congruent with an integral approach. He also refers to "liberal education" as "idiot compassion." I do not find these kinds of generalizations very helpful."

Ron Miller wrote (personal communication): "As far as I can judge (I've read a lot of Wilber, and I'm supposedly a leading holistic theorist, but there's a lot about his work I still don't fully understand!) you have accurately catured the essence of Wilber's worldview and demonstrated its relevance to contemporary thought as well as to the crisis of modernity.... Indeed, I would say that your paper has inspired me to go back and read still more of Wilber's work and reconsider how I would incorporate his thinking into my future writing...". From my paper (p. 19): Ron Miller, founder of the journal Holistic Education Review and internationally recognized interpreter of the holistic education movement, includes Wilber's name with the important classic writers on holistic and spiritual education-- that is, with the likes of Montessori, Steiner, Whitehead and Krishnamurti. He acknowledges "Surprisingly, Wilber has little or nothing to say about education anywhere in his voluminous work" (Miller, 1999, p. 26) but argues enthusiastically that Wilber's philosophy and theories contain a "fertile seed for a truly holistic educational theory" (p. 26).... R. Miller (2000) labeled Wilber a "visionary" (p. 87).

SOME INTEGRAL RESOURCES

I just did a quick literature search using "Integral Education" and wowww.... does that show up some interesting and diverse definitions of those terms. Ken Wilber's work is one small but significant new branch from this long line of integral philosophy and education (north, south, east, west).

My favorite website, and I think it is the most well done on integral issues and KW, is hosted by Frank Visser out of Holland (see www.worldofkenwilber.com)

Dr. Tom MacLean, prof. of Philosophy and Teaching, University of North Carolina at Willington, has mentioned Wilber's work on his website //people.uncw.edu/maclennant/Vision/Index.htm and most impressively Tom has a listing of 10 "Favorite Integral Vision Web Sites" you can check out with his short summaries of what they are about. Very helpful.

QUOTES (from "Boomeritis" by Wilber (2002), pp. 223-4)

"... feminists like Jaggar believe that the reason 'the vast majority of women' -- yesterday and today-- have not embraced feminist ideology is that they have in fact been brainwashed, so they can't spot their own subjugation, poor things. I tell you, as a woman that entire notion makes me furious. Because my point, you see, is that once you have idiotically defined women as being easily brainwashed [by patriarchy], you're bloody well stuck with it.... 'This is, in other words, boomeritis feminism, which parlays victim chic into a theory of epidemic cultural oppression in order to explain the lack of feminist values in all previous history as a brutal imposition from the outside on an otherwise pure and innocent female self. History is then re-read as the drama of the gifted child, but this time all the gifted children are female."

NEXT ISSUE OF KWIE-BULLETIN IN TWO WEEKS OR SO.

-Editor,
R. Michael Fisher, Ph.D. Cand.
Centre for the Study of Curriculum & Instruction
Faculty of Education, UBC