• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Dr. Joseph Dillard is a psychotherapist with over forty year's clinical experience treating individual, couple, and family issues. Dr. Dillard also has extensive experience with pain management and meditation training. The creator of Integral Deep Listening (IDL), Dr. Dillard is the author of over ten books on IDL, dreaming, nightmares, and meditation. He lives in Berlin, Germany. See: integraldeeplistening.com and his YouTube channel.

SEE MORE ESSAYS WRITTEN BY JOSEPH DILLARD

Integral's Justice Deficit

Does it exist? If so why? What can be done about it?

Joseph Dillard

The following is an amplification of a Chat-GPT response to the following question: “Ken Wilber's Integral has been reluctant to take strong stands supporting justice and international law. Why is that?” I have intermixed a rewording of its responses with my elaborations on its assessment.

Ken Wilber's Integral Theory has been critiqued for its reluctance to take strong, explicit stands on issues like justice and international law. This stems from several philosophical and methodological aspects of Integral Theory, as well as broader challenges within the Integral community. Below are some key reasons:

Emphasis on transcending polarization

Integral Theory seeks to integrate and transcend dualistic or polarized perspectives, aiming to include all views within a larger framework. This can lead to a reluctance to take sides and a focus on synthesis over advocacy. Wilber often emphasizes understanding the partial truths in all perspectives, which may result in avoiding strong, unequivocal positions on controversial issues like justice or international law. Wilber's critique of partisan politics often focuses on the limitations of both “left” and “right” ideologies, emphasizing the need to transcend these polarities. In discussions of global conflicts, Wilber tends to focus on the developmental perspectives of all parties involved, rather than unequivocally condemning violations of international law, such as war crimes or territorial aggression.

The Integral approach prioritizes finding common ground and creating holistic solutions rather than directly aligning with specific ideological or political positions. This emphasis on synthesis can lead to a perceived neutrality that avoids clear moral stances, such as condemning specific instances of injustice and clear moral issues like violations of international law, such as apartheid, genocide, or illegal occupations.

Focus on Developmental Stages

Integral Theory is grounded in the idea of developmental stages of consciousness, that is, premodern, modern, postmodern, and integral. Wilber often frames issues of justice as arising from the “green” stage of postmodern development, which he critiques for being overly relativistic and emotional, particularly in its “mean green” aspect. This focus on long-term evolutionary development may make Integral thinkers less likely to engage in urgent calls for justice or activism.That is well and good when urgent action is not required, but one might conclude that stopping an ongoing genocide would call for urgent action. When a fire is burning down your civilizational house, that is not the time to call for long-term evolutionary thinking. Instead, what is required is accountability before the law.

The tendency of Integral to view justice concerns as “partial,” and therefore problematic because they are not “inclusive,” or “integral,” is analogous to saying supporting feminism is “partial” because it does not include men's issues. Integral tends to see issues like justice and international law as arising from specific stages, such as postmodern “green,” and not fully aligned with Integral's broader, multi-perspectival approach. Justice movements like Black Lives Matter or climate justice, or concerns about genocide and the rise of fascism, can thereby be characterized as limited to “green” thinking, which Integral Theory views as partial and in need of transcendence. This framing can downplay the importance of justice as a universal concern that transcends developmental stages, creating the impression that AQAL prioritizes long-term evolutionary perspectives over immediate legal or moral imperatives.

Generating the appearance of moral ambiguity

By focusing on developmental perspectives without explicitly condemning actions like war crimes or territorial aggression, Integral Theory may appear morally ambiguous. This stance can be problematic when clear ethical positions are necessary to address injustices effectively. This perceived moral ambiguity alienates those who experience themselves as victimized by injustices as well as the far broader audience of those who empathize with victims of injustice.

The emphasis on integrating multiple viewpoints can lead to a form of relativism, where all perspectives are seen as equally valid. This can hinder the ability to take decisive action against objectively harmful practices, such as apartheid or genocide. It also functions as a convenient justification for those who benefit from the maintenance of an unjust status quo.

While Integral Theory's emphasis on holistic understanding is beneficial, it's crucial to balance inclusivity with moral clarity. Explicitly acknowledging and condemning injustices can enhance the theory's applicability and resonance with broader humanitarian concerns. The failure to do limits the respect and integrity with which others view Integral.

While Integral Theory provides valuable insights into the complexities of human development and cultural integration, its limited engagement with the practical mechanisms of international law poses challenges in addressing global justice issues effectively. Striking a balance between integrating diverse perspectives and taking clear moral stances is essential for the theory's relevance and efficacy in promoting a just and equitable world.

A focus on synthesis and finding common ground may also result in delays or avoidance of necessary interventions. In situations requiring immediate moral clarity and action, this approach can impede timely responses to human rights violations. For example, the United States persistently, over decades, has blocked UN Security Council resolutions condemning Israel and that lend support for occupied and persecuted Palestinians.

Perceived lack of commitment to social justice

In addition, Integral Theory's tendency to avoid taking explicit moral stances can be seen as a lack of commitment to social justice. This perception might undermine the theory's relevance in movements aiming for systemic change. In fact, it does far more than that. It causes broad swathes of the global population to doubt Integral's commitment to social justice.

While the Integral approach offers valuable tools for understanding complex issues, it's essential to balance inclusivity with moral clarity. Explicitly acknowledging and condemning injustices can enhance the theory's applicability and resonance with broader humanitarian concerns.

Wilber has clearly been concerned with broadening his global audience. Much of that focus has been on attempting to gain greater acceptance in the scientific community. However, all audiences, scientific and otherwise, have a vested interest in moral clarity, particularly regarding issues that could personally affect them and their families or businesses negatively. To ignore that reality, in the name of fostering inclusivity, generates exclusivity.

While Integral Theory's emphasis on holistic understanding is beneficial, it's crucial to ensure that this inclusivity does not come at the expense of addressing clear moral imperatives. Striking this balance can enhance the theory's effectiveness in contributing to a more just and equitable world.

Critique of Postmodern Activism

Wilber has been critical of postmodernism, which is often associated with social justice movements, which he sees as overly relativistic, fragmented, and sometimes antagonistic. I tend to agree with that critique. I am not particularly concerned with whether or not Integral alienates these sorts of justice-oriented advocates. It is much more important to focus on the alienation of advocates for international justice. Issues like genocide, illegal wars, state-sponsored terrorism, neo-Nazism, and fascism are not limited to postmodern “green” thinking, or any other developmental level. To pigeon-hole them as such is dismissive of civilizational concerns of critical importance for all humanity, regardless of developmental level.

Integral Theory's critique of postmodernism often focuses on theoretical flaws, which can lead to disengagement from concrete political and legal struggles. Wilber frequently critiques postmodernism for its focus on identity politics and relativism, which are often central to justice-oriented movements. While this critique is valid in some cases, it can lead to a dismissal of the structural and systemic injustices these movements address, such as colonialism, racial inequality, or violations of international law. Wilber's discussions on global justice rarely engage deeply with the mechanisms of international law, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) or United Nations frameworks, which are central to enforcing justice on a global scale.

Integral theory's engagement with international law has indeed been thin soup. There has been limited focus on legal mechanisms. Integral theory tends to emphasize psychological and cultural dimensions of human development, thereby overlooking the structural and legal aspects that are crucial for enforcing global justice. This focus can result in insufficient attention to institutions like the International Criminal Court, which play a pivotal role in addressing war crimes and crimes against humanity. This plays into the hands of a criminal and corrupt elite, which encourages inattention to international law in order to avoid accountability. In this way, Integral indirectly supports a criminal and corrupt status quo. By not explicitly addressing or condemning specific violations of international law, Integral theory can be perceived as morally ambiguous. This perception undermines its applicability in contexts, like genocide, fascism, and state-sponsored terrorism, where clear ethical stances are necessary to confront injustices effectively.

Global and Spiritual Perspective

Integral Theory adopts a global and spiritual outlook, aiming to address systemic issues at a deep, transformative level. This perspective prioritizes inner transformation. Wilber often emphasizes personal and cultural evolution over external, structural changes, which can make Integral Theory seem less responsive to immediate calls for justice. In his book Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, Wilber focuses on the evolutionary development of consciousness and the integration of spiritual and material perspectives but does not explicitly address the role of international law in managing global crises. Why not? The implication is that either 1) it is not important; 2) it is outmoded and requires an Integral make-over; or 3) it is superseded by Divine Law, however it may be conceived by this or that group or religion.

The problem with viewing law as unimportant is that this argument fails when our own rights and security are violated. The problem with viewing international law as outmoded begs the question: “Might it make sense to first make all signatories equally accountable to the laws that they have agreed to before attempting to improve them?” Divine or “Spiritual” Law, is determined by a particular religion or approach to spirituality. If we are Jewish, we prefer the God that anoints Jews as his “Chosen People” and gives them The Promised Land. If we are Hindu, we prefer the deities that teach karma, making us personally responsible for our lot in life, thereby making unfair and corrupt rulers free of accountability. If we are Moslem, we demand submission to Allah's law, as written in the Koran. If we are Western elites, we prefer the “Rules-based order,” which is neither international law nor divine law, but it may be either, depending on what interpretation best suits the advancement of our interests.

Another issue with justice that arises from taking a global and spiritual perspective is that justice can easily become secondary to unity. A focus on transcending divisions may inadvertently sideline the urgent need to address systemic injustices. After all, courts do not exist to make a priority of unity but to determine innocence and guilt under the law. Discussions of ecological justice often prioritize the spiritual and systemic dimensions of environmental challenges while sidelining the legal and political frameworks, such as the Paris Agreement, necessary to enforce accountability. This spiritualized focus can make AQAL appear detached from the pragmatic aspects of justice and international law.

Avoidance of Ideological Alignment

Wilber's Integral Theory attempts to remain non-partisan and meta-ideological. This can create ambiguity in ethical stances: By striving to include all perspectives, Integral thinkers may avoid taking strong, explicit positions on specific issues of justice or law. In discussions of global conflicts, such as Israel-Palestine, Wilber emphasizes the perspectives of all sides without taking a strong stance on violations of international law, such as illegal settlements or the targeting of civilians.

An avoidance of ideological alignment may also be motivated by a fear of alienating audiences. Calling out Israel and Zionism can easily get one accused of anti-semitism, and that can result in ostracism, defenestration, demonetization, job loss, or jail time for “hate speech.” Even if it does not, a strong stance on justice might risk alienating individuals or groups who see Integral as a unifying framework. Better to hide behind calls for unity and multi-perspectivalism while keeping one's head down.

This avoidance of alignment with specific political or ideological positions by Integral has in fact resulted in a lack of clear advocacy for justice for Palestinians and for the ethnic Russians living in eastern Ukraine who were discriminated against, attacked and killed by the ethnocentric regime in Kiev. The reflexive response has been to change the subject: “But what about the attacks on Jews and Ukrainians?” “Russia is authoritarian!” This meta-ideological stance may appear overly neutral or ambivalent, especially when addressing clear-cut violations of justice. Worse, it aids and abets the continuation of crimes against humanity.

Practical and Community Challenges

The Integral community often focuses on personal development, spirituality, and theory-building, leaving political engagement underdeveloped. The Integral community tends to focus on personal and cultural transformation, often neglecting direct engagement with systemic issues like international law. In addition, the diversity of perspectives within the Integral movement makes consensus on issues like justice and international law difficult. However, law in general and international law in particular exist to cut through diversity of perspectives in order to administer a specific verdict that is designed to be reflective of justice, as defined by social or international consensus.

By not taking clear stances, Integral risks being seen as detached or irrelevant in addressing pressing global concerns. Integral conferences and publications rarely prioritize discussions on global justice mechanisms or the enforcement of international norms. A focus on synthesis and inclusion can easily overlook or ignore the need to confront systemic inequalities and abuses of power.

Conclusion

Wilber's reluctance to take clear stances on justice and international law is evident in his focus on developmental perspectives and spiritual evolution, which can overshadow immediate legal and moral imperatives. His critique of postmodern activism often dismisses the contributions of justice movements to addressing systemic inequalities. The meta-ideological stance of AQAL avoids clear condemnations of specific injustices, making it appear neutral or detached in the face of urgent global issues. By emphasizing long-term evolution and avoiding explicit advocacy, AQAL risks sidelining the practical, immediate concerns of justice and international law, leading to critiques of its relevance in addressing real-world challenges.

To remain relevant and impactful, Integral Theory needs to recognize the urgency of justice and international law as integral to global evolution. It needs to demonstrate a more engaged, action-oriented approach that aligns its philosophical insights with concrete advocacy for justice and systemic change. By integrating justice more explicitly into its framework, Integral Theory could bridge its holistic vision with the practical realities of global challenges.