integral scientific pluralism€¦ · it is internal to my individual holon and within my interior...

INTEGRAL SCIENTIFIC PLURALISMKevin J. Bowman

This article extends Integral Theory to formally add within its integrated dualities the dynamic actions, interactions, and events of holons. This includes insights from Sean Esbjörn-Hargens’ (2010) Integral

Pluralism such that Integral Epistemological Pluralism and Integral Ontological Pluralism become equally embedded within the new theory on par with Wilber’s Integral Methodological Pluralism. Added to the ex-isting, formal set of dualities (e.g., interior-exterior, individual-collective, higher-lower, and in some ways internal-external) are new uses of the health-pathology, subject-object, and internal-external dualities (inte-grated to the degree required for this first, article-length specification). The synthesis makes use of a specific interpretation of Wilber’s eight zones. The eight zones are cre-ated by crossing the three dualities of interior-exterior, individual-collective, and internal-external. Or to put it another way, there is an internal and external aspect to each of the four quadrants. Wilber (2006, p. 37, for example) often uses the eight zones as eight perspectives on the four quadrants, which lays the groundwork for his Integral Methodological Pluralism (IMP). I interpret IMP with Wilber’s less common treatment of the eight (hori-)zones as appropriate for the specification of eight distinct realms or eight perspectives. Zones as realms or perspectives opens them to being dissected further, symmetrically. The first dissec-tion of each zone is done by crossing them with the subject-action-object triad. In other words, each zone can house a differentiation of a subject, object, and their interaction. This allows for an extension of Esbjörn-Hargens’ Integral Pluralism. Esbjörn-Hargens provided a needed contextualization of Wilber’s IMP by pos-tulating an Integral Epistemological Pluralism (IEP), Integral Methodological Pluralism (IMP), and Integral Ontological Pluralism (IOP). The three components of Integral Pluralism, however, do not have formal links to the dualities of Integral Theory. My version, which I call Integral Scientific Pluralism (ISP), provides these helpful connections. I then show how ISP can make more explicit a methodology employed by Wilber (1995, 2000a, 2000b, 2000c, 2000d, 2002, 2006) in his construction of integral metatheory. ISP more formally shows how non-

Journal of Integral Theory and Practice, 7(1), pp. XX–XX

ABSTRACT This article incorporates Sean Esbjörn-Hargens’ Integral Epistemological and Ontologi-cal Pluralisms alongside Ken Wilber’s Integral Methodological Pluralism within the formal dualities of Integral Theory. A specific interpretation of Wilber’s eight zones as both eight realms and eight perspectives is used to open the zones for crossing with the subject-action-object triad to specify the relations between Integral Epistemological, Ontological, and Methodological Pluralisms. The re-sult, Integral Scientific Pluralism, allows for a clearer specification of Wilber’s integral methodology. Integral Scientific Pluralism deepens the critique of non-integral research, which tends to include unconscious or unjustified secondary methods apart from the primary methods specified. This pro-vides direction for analyzing a wider range of events using Integral Theory. The realms are also crossed with the health-pathology duality, which makes more explicit the ways relatively healthy and unhealthy elements can affect scientific inquiry by Integral Scientific Pluralism.

KEY WORDS Integral Methodological Pluralism; Ken Wilber; philosophy of science; social psychol-ogy; field theory

Correspondence: Kevin J. Bowman, 2211 Riverside Ave., Box 70, Minneapolis, MN 55454. E-mail: [email protected].

Journal of Integral Theory and Practice 55

INTEGRAL SCIENTIFIC PLURALISM

integral science, which lacks an integration of various epistemologies, methodologies, and ontologies, is not only fragmented, but also prone to biases through problematic assumptions that are often nontransparent or unsupported. I offer the concepts of primary and secondary methods as well as Integral Scientific Modularity (ISM) to help avoid these problems. ISM also reduces what some consider the currently onerous expectations of Integral Research. Crossing the ISP zones further with the health-pathology duality shows the need to be aware of health and pathology in all three aspects of science (the scientific observer’s holarchical embedded-ness, deployment of methodologies, and objects of study).

1. Wilber’s Eight Zones as Eight Distinct Horizontal RealmsThis article makes use of a specific interpretation of Wilber’s eight zones (Fig. 1). The four quadrants of intention (Upper Left [UL]), behavior (Upper Right [UR]), culture (Lower Left [LL]), and society (Lower Right [LR]) can be divided into internal and external perspectives for each quadrant. Wilber (2006, pp. 36-40) most commonly treats the zones as eight horizontal perspectives on four quadrants. These eight perspectives are then used to categorize eight classes of methodologies (also shown in Fig. 1). I may study, for example, my individual-interior thoughts internally through mediation (zone 1) or a structuralist may study answers to questions posed to various individuals to understand their interiority externally (zone 2). It is important to be clear about the definition of the internal-external duality. I show in Bowman (in press-a) that there is confusion in the integral literature from the mistaken interchangeability of the in-ternal-external and interior-exterior dualities. There is also the inside-outside duality to consider. Wilber (2002) describes constituent parts that follow the agency of the holon as internal and those which do not as external. Items that are within the boundary of the holon are inside it, otherwise they are outside it. Some items are inside, but not internal such as parasites or repressed thoughts. My use of internal-exter-nal matches Wilber’s use of inside-outside as in the formation of the eight zones because I will allow for positive and negative aspects that are internal or external. Yet I prefer to use the term internal-external (rather than inside-outside) for two reasons. One reason is that internal and external aspects can be associ-ated with the common dynamic terms of internalize and externalize as was done in Bowman (2009). We do not have verbs like insidize or outsidify. The second reason is that the distinctions that Wilber makes can be fully accommodated when the health-pathology is crossed with what I am calling the internal-external duality. This is done when I cross all zones with the health-pathology duality in Section 4. This creates positive and negative externalities and internalities, among other realms. With the formation of Holarchi-cal Field Theory in Section 3 of Bowman (in press-b), I cross these realms again with the static-dynamic duality, which incorporates the dynamic drives of Bowman (2009) and provides, among others, the pro-cesses of positive and negative internalization and externalization. These dynamic drives can be associated with static snapshots of positive and negative internalities and externalities. These will account for the dif-ferences Wilber makes without a need to provide both an internal-external and an inside-outside duality. In previous work (2010b), I demonstrated how the eight zones can be treated as distinct dimensions to analyze the eight zones of the contemporary, U.S. financial sector. Here, let us take a simpler example of me playing fetch with my dog Oscar (as summarized in Fig. 1). I choose this example consistent with the goal of the article, to analyze events among two or more holons. Consider my walk out to my yard with a ball and Oscar. I intend to throw the ball as Oscar’s excitement builds because he intends to fetch the ball. We play in my yard even though we would prefer to play at the lakeshore. I choose the yard because the city council has decided to ban dogs from the lakeshore. Notice how aspects of this activity can be decomposed into the eight distinct realms of experience. Presented from my perspective, my intent to throw the ball is in zone 1 because it is internal to my individual holon and within my interior consciousness. Oscar’s intent to fetch is in zone 2 because his intention is external to me as the presenter. Yet the intention to fetch is in the individual-interior of my dog. My arm’s motion to throw is in zone 5 (internal to me but an individual-exterior aspect). My dog’s

56 Journal of Integral Theory and Practice

K.J. BOWMAN

motion to fetch is in zone 6 (external to me and an exterior-individual, behavioral aspect). The mutual joy of Oscar and me is in zone 3 (an intersubjective interior aspect internal to our collective holon). The city council has a zone 4 intent to restrict dogs from the lakeshore (a collective intent external to the collective holon com-prising my dog and me), which keeps us to our yard in zone 7 (internal to our activity as an exterior-collective field for our play). The lakeshore ecosystem exclusive of dogs by law is in zone 8 (an unavailable collective-exterior field by law, which we obey, and thus external to our activity). Now I will turn to a description of a collective holon relative to its external environment, which in-cludes another collective holon. Although it is beyond the scope of this article to examine specifics of each level created by crossing extra dualities, I argue that development enacts higher and successive levels through the eight horizontal zones. For example, two horticultural-village societies (A and B) with the center of grav-ity of individuals at red-stage cognition (the conceptual stage) in the UL may each have two different irrec-oncilable myths from their magical cultures in the LL. Although they are at the same stage, members of one culture (A) are generally external to the other culture (B). We could specify internal and external aspects in each quadrant from the perspective of, let us say, socioculture A. Over time, the cultures of A and B may de-velop and transcend red altitude to form a united amber-stage agrarian empire A+B in the LR under mythical moral codes in the LL. Amber-stage concrete-operational cognition in the UL allows the average individual to take the role of other and embrace an ethnocentric (amber altitude) intersubjective culture in the LL beyond the egocentric (red altitude). The culture internal to the members of A has developed to internalize a greater whole. Specifying internal and external realms allows us to orient a holon relative to its external environment within each quadrant. This will help us better analyze those aspects that were either positively externalized (such as limiting egocentric, magically beliefs) or positively internalized (such as the new capacity to take on the role of other). Internalization and externalization are two of the dynamic drives specified in Bowman

Figure 1. Eight horizontal realms and Integral Methodological Pluralism.

I N T E R I O R E X T E R I O R

phenomenology

hermeneutics

ethnomethodology

autopoiesis

socialautopoiesis

systems theory

(e.g., cognitivesciences)

CO

LL

EC

TI

VE

IN

DI

VI

DU

AL structuralism

Z o n e 2

Z o n e 1

Z o n e 4

Z o n e 3

empiricismZ o n e 6

Z o n e 5

Z o n e 8

Z o n e 7



(2009). These internal-external specifics can also help us orient subject and object, which is addressed in the next section. Each will have their own eight zones showing some internalities that are common to both while others are not (and some relevant aspects may be commonly external or not as well).

2. Integral Scientific PluralismSean Esbjörn-Hargens (2010), influenced by his reading of Critical Realism (à la the work of Roy Bhaskar), makes a much needed contribution to Integral Theory by showing that IMP (Wilber, 2002, 2006) can be ben-eficially complemented by extending the focus on methodology (the study of methods applied within a dis-cipline) to epistemology (the study of knowing and justified belief) and ontology (the study of the categories of things that exist or may exist in some domain). Here I extend aspects of Esbjörn-Hargens’ Integral Pluralism (IP). First let me highlight Wilber’s IMP based on his eight zones. The methodologies represent families of methods employed to study the four do-mains of reality given by the quadrants. Phenomenology represents the class of methods (such as intro-spection, phenomenology, contemplation, and meditation) that study the interiority of individuals internally. Alternatively, the interior of the individual can be studied externally with the class of methods called struc-turalism. I interpret IMP as eight perspectives on eight realms. So I will refer to structuralism as the class of methods studying the interiority of individuals as they appear to, or are enacted by, external observers. Struc-turalism, therefore, examines a different zone or domain than the phenomenologist who studies the interior of an individual as it appears internally to the same individual. Esbjörn-Hargens uses the study of climate change as an example of a complex multiple object. Various interrelated portions of climate change (objects of study) are disclosed or enacted depending on the method-ology employed (methods of studying) and by the limits, capabilities/specialized skills of scientists (subjects studying). A climatologist at orange altitude (subject), for instance, may compare tree rings (a zone-6 method) to find cycles of drought over a 500-year span (a LR object). An analyst at green altitude (subject) may com-pare rhetorical motifs in media stories (a zone-4 method) to find that the truth about climate change depends on the framing (a LL object) (Esbjörn-Hargens, 2010, p. 147). Here I show that Esbjörn-Hargens’ three pluralisms can be integrated into the dualities of Integral Theory. Given that we can treat the eight zones as realms, they can be further dissected, symmetrically, which is a critical advantage. Figure 2 shows them crossed with the subject-action-object triad.1 Employing a meth-odology in scientific inquiry is considered here as a subset of action (therefore the subject-method-object triad is a subset of the subject-action-object triad).2 The subject-method-object triad for scientific inquiry is differ-ent from, but related to, the epistemological-methodological-ontological (scientific) triad. The scientific triad indicates three branches of the philosophy of science that all take different aspects of scientific inquiry as their object of study. Each informs a different portion of scientific inquiry, which can be described in subject-meth-od-object form. According to this article’s version of IEP, the scientist is the subject that conducts scientific inquiry embedded in in at least these eight epistemological zones. The epistemological zones are those from which scientific apprehension can arise and are described intensively by epistemology. These realms can be better informed by integral theories of apprehension according to the skills of scientists by level, line, type, and so on. Eight general methodologies (IMP) can be employed to disclose or enact eight classes of objects (IOP). Taken together, Esbjörn-Hargens refers to IEP, IMP, and IOP as Integral Pluralism (IP). I will refer to the approach in this article as Integral Scientific Pluralism. The term Integral Scientific Pluralism (ISP) suggests an integration of IEP and IOP into the formal, Integral framework on par with IMP. The term science is used here broadly as “the systemic quest for knowl-edge” (Ponterotto, 2005) just as Wilber (2000d) uses the term “broad science.” Broad science includes not only the narrow or hard sciences “based mostly on the exterior, physical, sensorimotor world” (p. 74), but also the sciences that study interiority and “which attempt to use a generally ‘scientific’ approach to the study


K.J. BOWMAN

of human consciousness” (p. 74). Formalizing and relating IEP, IOP, and IMP therefore contribute to the philosophy of science, “the conceptual roots undergirding the quest for knowledge” (Ponterotto, 2005), by further differentiating these aspects of science within Wilberian thought. Wilber (2006) states that “all ‘good knowledge’ consists of at least three major strands: 1. An injunction…2. An experience…3. A communal confirmation/rejection…” (pp. 267-269). Good knowledge requires knowing the Kosmic address of the per-ceiver (subject), perceived (object), and “what injunctions [methods]…a perceiving subject must perform in order to be at a Kosmic address that can perceive the object” (2006, p. 267). With ISP, the subject, injunctions (method as action), and object are now embedded within the dualities, triads, and spectra of Integral Theory. The following examples will help demonstrate some novel and important implications of ISP. Wilber (2006) states that IMP involves “8 basic perspectives and 8 basic methodologies” (p. 37). In ISP,

Figure 2. Forty-eight horizontal realms of Integral Scientific Pluralism. Shaded circles represent the pathology of that realm. IEP—Integral Epistemological Pluralism; IMP—Integral Methodological Pluralism; IOP—Integral Ontological Pluralism.

Zone 1

Individual

PhenomenologicalObjects

Internal

External

Zone 2

Structures

Structuralism

StructuralistInterior

Zone 3

HermeneuticalObjects

Hermeneutics

Hermeneuticist

Internal

External

CulturalAnthropology

Zone 4

Cultural Anthropological Objects

Collective

Zone 8

Systems

Systems Theory

Systems Theorist

Zone 7

Internal

External

Exterior

Social AutopoieticObjects

Social Autopoiesis

Social Autopoietic Scientist

Zone 6

External

Internal

Empirics

Empiricism

Empiricist

Phenomenology

Phenomenologist

Autopoietic Objects

Autopoiesis

Zone 5

Cultural Anthropologist

(Disclosed/Enacted)

(Injunction)

(Apprehension)

Object

Method/Action

Subject

IEP

IMP

IOP

Autopoietic Scientist



we have eight perspectives (IEP), eight methods (IMP), and eight objects of study (IOP) for any given level of development. The scientist can be at orange altitude and be using relatively linear, simple cause-and-effect reasoning, or be at teal altitude and have much greater integrative capabilities. A healthy, high-level scientist will be more capable of making more realistic assumptions, of using more sophisticated methods, of process-ing more data, and therefore, of uncovering a more complex, multiple-level, multiple-zone object. Consider an empiricist working to disclose zone-6 objects. The subject as empiricist employs empiri-cism making zone-6 data and capturing aspects of objects, which are individuated parts of exterior or behav-ioral reality as seen on their external environment. The objects of study, however, are always part of, at least, a many-level, eight-zonal affair, but only certain zone-6 parts are observed through empiricism. Similarly, the empiricist cannot merely occupy what Wilber and Esbjörn-Hargens call a third-person perspective, which discloses these realms. The empiricist must also interpret zone-6 theory and data making use of his interior-individual content of consciousness (symbols, translations, metaphors, etc.). Thus the empiricist is also a phenomenologist, although he is not likely to be a trained phenomenologist. So, the best methods of contem-plation currently available will not necessarily be employed. Ideally, the empiricist would also have scientific-level skill in using the other classes of methodologies such as sound structuralism (or have had internalized its insights) to be able to use those insights to gain a better distance from his own phenomenology and phenomenological objects; to see them with insights from our understanding of individual-interiors as studied from their imprint on their external realm. In fact, the sci-entist must be in the process of internalizing mental information and externalizing unconstructive, unfocused thoughts. Following Wilber (2006), “the meaning of an assertion is the means of its enactment” (p. 266), a pro-cess made clearer by ISP, given that the horizontal realms of ISP further differentiates and integrates these aspects of inquiry. The empiricist portion of epistemology relates to zone-6 knowing, for instance; sensory skills and behavioral aspects external to the objects of study, or external to objects related to the study of other objects. In ISP, the scientist must make use of all eight epistemologies whether or not he is aware of them all. Empiricism and its methodological individualism tend not to consciously acknowledge the culturally constructed nature of its objects of study or of its own epistemology. This is one enduring critique of mo-dernity coming from postmodernity’s “essential insight” that “there is no single ‘pregiven world’” (Wilber, 2000c, p. 775). Moreover, it is inevitable that the empiricist is a hermeneutist of some sort because he must make sense of his objects of study with his own meaning of the world, which directs his study and interprets his data in particular ways that are culturally created to a significant extent. So he must think of his objects of study relative to the hermeneutical objects of pre-existing mutual meaning in his field of study. He is also a cultural anthropologist as he must attempt to differentiate the meanings of his study as differentiated from an external view of the pre-existing mutual understanding in the field. This helps him to find a way to communi-cate new mutual understanding with his peers. This requires convincing them of his proper use of empiricist methods and interpretation while also conveying novel ideas within that general paradigm. It can be difficult to convince peers of transformational science in which the values that undergird one’s discipline are challenged since those values are typically not objects of study in many disciplines (as with typical empiricist approaches). This can slow the pace of scientific progress and can be the result of an unconscious or non-scientific use of hermeneutics and cultural anthropology in the scientific process. The implicit assumption is that we need no formal analysis of the collective values undergirding the discipline. So procedures formed from outdated justifications (now merely precedence) can drive accepted values and morals in a discipline or can drive the assumptions regarding the values and morals of agents of study. We will use the assumption of rational egoism in (positivistic) rational choice theory as an example in the next section. If high-level versions of zone-3 and zone-4 methodologies were in play for the discipline dominated by empiricism, then the discipline may be open to examine its values, which otherwise undervalues the col-


K.J. BOWMAN

lective and interior domains. This would allow for discipline-wide learning and more profound science. Integral Scientific Pluralism clarifies a consistent Wilberian theme that our understanding of reality is fragmented and biased; what Wilber (2000c) often calls dissociation of the Big Three (p. 384), of ego and eco (pp. 307-309), of biosphere and nooshpere (p. 192), and so on. ISP more formally shows how our scientific understanding of the world can be fragmented and how these fragments tend to be unconsciously biased by modern and postmodern methods. It is not merely that there are multiple objects that are only partially dis-closed as a less than eight-zonal object because not all methodologies are used. The problem is more severe because there are multiple subjects employing multiple methodologies in ways that are typically only trans-parent or justified with regards to a small fraction of the epistemologies, methodologies, and ontologies that are invariably involved in all instances of scientific inquiry. Uncovering the biases in science is critical to integrally reconstructing our understanding of reality. In the next section I will argue that Wilber’s success at transcending and including modern and postmodern understanding is the result of uncovering these biases and correcting for them by juxtaposing various bodies of theory and data. But Wilber’s work also needs to be examined critically to make more explicit the ways in which he contextualizes others’ findings, to validate his claims, and to further apply the validated methods. ISP can contribute in this regard. Consider the benefits of a clear distinction between subject and object within particular horizontal realms. Let us say that at the present moment I am not able to watch my anger arise as a zone-1 object of my awareness. Instead, the anger is only a zone-1 subject in this case given my lack of access to a zone-1 method needed for such disclosure. Therefore, I respond to similar stimuli in a predictably angry way each time. Perhaps that stimulus can be characterized as a zone-7 object such as traffic congestion that I face on my morning commute that I enact, in part, with the method of driving. Again, anger is in my interior awareness, but I cannot observe my anger as a zone-1 object. The anger will be related to an unhealthy subject portion of zone 1, which then becomes unskillfully used in the action zones. (Unhealthy aspects of each ISP realm are shaded in Figure 2.) If I work on mastering a zone-1 methodology like meditation, this may be one way that I may learn to observe my angry reaction to anger-inducing stimuli. Then I can learn to choose a difference response the next time I am exposed to such stimuli. This approach—which can be done without reducing object to an exterior-intensive reality—allows us to handle statements such as Robert Kegan’s (1994) descrip-tion of vertical transformation as “liberating ourselves from that in which we were embedded, making what was subject into object so that we can ‘have it’ rather than ‘be had’ by it” (p. 34). There are inconsistent uses of the subject-object duality in the integral literature such that the grammati-cal use of subject-object is confused with the philosophical meaning of subjective-objective. This has resulted in a reduction of the grammatical subject-object duality to the philosophical subjective-objective duality. A grammatical subject can be defined as the element of a sentence that agrees with the verb (as with “Bob” in the sentence “Bob ate a meal”). The object is the element that is not the subject but that which the verb selects or requires (“a meal”). In contrast to the grammatical subject, subjective in the philosophical sense is an un-derstanding or statement that depends on one’s own experience as with the statement “blueberries taste better than strawberries.” Objective understanding does not rely on personal experience as with the statement “the floor of my front porch is not completely level.” Only the philosophical objective (respectively, philosophical subjective) can be associated exclusively with the exterior realm (interior realm) whereas the grammatical object (or grammatical subject) can be associated with both the interior and exterior realm as is done in ISP. Integral theorists such as Mark Edwards (2003) and Daniel O’Connor (2008, 2010) have reduced grammatical subjects (such as “I” and “we”) to the interior realms and grammatical objects to the exterior realms (“me” and “us”). But my interior thoughts can be “me,” an object of my awareness. Also consider “My brain is wired poorly” versus “Clarity expands my mind.” The subject of the former sentence is a stated exteriority in Integral Theory, and the object of the latter sentence is a stated interiority. The full sentence pro-



vides the proper context. So subject pronouns cannot be reduced to the interior quadrants and supports ISP’s decoupling of grammatical subject-object from philosophical subjective-objective. This conflation of these dualities (what I call the philosophical/grammatical conflation) and other aspects of language in the integral literature are analyzed in greater detail in Bowman (in press-a). At the orange altitude of cognition (formal operational stage), we can operate on rules. Rules are now an object of our awareness. At the previous stage, we could only follow rules as subjects of awareness. Thus, that which is differentiated and integrated in one’s subjective awareness can expand by way of better under-standing component parts of subjective content and the mastery of methods, which better control their enact-ment and mental flow. And to better understand subjective content requires differentiation and integration of objects to which the subjective content refers. The referent objects can occupy any of the eight zones.

3. Integral Scientific ModularityHere I will describe Wilber’s success at integrating disparate bodies of knowledge as related to, and clarified by ISP. Wilber’s achievements often derive from his recognition that theorists tend to overstate their claims because they do not hold their implicit and unconscious enactment of zones by level constant in their studies. Or, they may be transparent in their assumptions, but inaccurate when examined with the current state of sci-entific understanding across many domains of knowledge. In either case they may be biased by their (implicit or explicit) non-neutral assumptions. Wilber’s skillful use of theory and data across many disciplines has allowed him to place certain theo-ries and data in proper context and relation to each other as he unpacks and makes conscious some of the hidden, biased, or unjustified assumptions of many major theorists. As Edwards (2010) points out, Wilber makes generous use of metatheoretical lenses, including the crossing of dualities to aid his categorizations. For example, Freud erroneously assumes (regarding ontology) that no levels of cognition are available beyond the formal operational stage (orange altitude) (Wilber, 2000c, p. 212). Thus all post-rational experi-ence is reduced to pre-rational because it is non-rational. Here, Wilber shows that modern structuralism ren-ders the assumption of the truncated vertical dimension in psychoanalysis to be false. The (epistemological) knowledge of post-rational levels helps Wilber disentangle the partially valid insights of psychoanalysis (as with the unconscious repression of pre-rational drives) from its overstatements. This is done with Wilber’s (methodological) analytical application of a fuller spectral model of development to (ontological) reality. Notice here that the problem is not just that the understanding of psychoanalysis is fragmented from that of structuralism such that we should be able to combine their claims with ease. Rather, fragmentation and non-integral science can lead to results that are wrong in important cases. The truncation of the vertical dimen-sion across modern schools of thought nearly eradicated high-level spirituality from modern and postmodern collectives. Of course, as with any theory, ISP is limited by that which is not formally differentiated and integrated within the model. Yet it is one of the most inclusive available. Crossing the eight zones with the subject-action-object triad opens it further than the current version of the AQAL model and allows for still further crossing by other dualities. Thus an integral science is not a mere combination of schools of thought. It is not a “heapism,” to use Wilber’s term (2000d, p. 53), but a reconciliation within a more developed holarchical philosophy of science. This requires transcendence of different limitations in different schools of thought (such as poor assumptions explicit and implicit) and inclusion of their partial truths, which, when applied across disciplines, enable in-tegration. This is in part what Wilber means by transcend and include for vertical transformation. In this case the transformation is from fragmented and distorted modern and postmodern science to ISP. To take another example, in Wilber’s critique of the influential sciences that exclusively focus on the exterior dimension as their object of study (2000c, pp. 135-138), he shows how these flatland versions of (narrow) science have made discussion of morals, values, and high-level human intention beyond discussion


K.J. BOWMAN

when employing their methodologies (empiricism, systems theory, autopoiesis, and social autopoiesis). The problematic assumption in these schools is that interiority is not scientifically accessible (epistemologically). So Wilber is able to reconstruct insights from individual-exterior-external methodologies (the class called empiricism) such as neuroscience and behaviorism without reducing (ontological) reality to chemical and mechanistic functions, which is their tendency. Wilber’s solution is found by (methodologically) contextual-izing the insights from exterior methodologies by findings of interior methodologies made possible from his (epistemological) vision-logic cognition and powerful (methodological) tool, the Integral map. Phenomenology and structuralism help Wilber scientifically reconstruct (the methodology of) spiritual practice and (the ontology described by) perennial philosophy, but without the unchecked metaphysical (on-tological) pre-givens that they once assumed. According to Wilber, modern and postmodern knowledge refute most metaphysical assumptions (2006, pp. 44-46). Understanding from postmodern contributions in herme-neutics and cultural anthropology are included in AQAL, which greatly humble the overly strong claims of, especially, modern, exterior methodologies that implicitly assume the scientist is not biased or limited by his own culture, for example. The existential lack of meaning in pathological relativism in some zone-3 science, which derives from the assumption that no relative truth can be relatively stable or reliable (Wilber, 2000c, pp. 746-747), is overcome with the promise of higher-level meaning and holarchical reality found in some zone-2 and zone-4 science. Integral Scientific Pluralism makes Wilber’s epistemology and methodology more transparent and us-able for others in their area of expertise. It is unreasonable to assume that scientists can control for, and make explicit, all the relevant epistemological, methodological, and ontological factors that ISP specifies. Yet, ISP can guide the researcher to be more intentional with regards to what is, and what is not, controlled for. Of those factors for which the researcher does not have the ability or resources to control, ISP can be used as a next best proxy for their control by treating a study as a module that links up to the existing body of disciplin-ary and transdisciplinary theory and evidence currently available. This I call Integral Scientific Modularity (ISM). The results of models, which make simplistic assumptions, can be contextualized by Integral Theory. Jack Crittenden (1997) has described Wilber’s methodology as beginning with orienting generaliza-tions across many domains of knowledge. Wilber (2000a, pp. 15-16) agrees. Edwards (2010), on the other hand, contests this claim: “Orienting generalizations cannot be validated at the middle-range level [a sub-level of the metatheory] because they are only fully articulated at the level of metatheory” (p. 89). I would say that the AQAL model has probably benefited from the use of “orienting generalizations” that have survived Wilber’s (2000a) metatheoretical construction as with his example that “in the sphere of moral develop-ment...there is general and ample agreement that human moral development goes through at least three broad stages” (p. 15). Yet, in support of Edwards’ point, we see in the ISP description of integral methodology that in significant instances, Wilber teased apart the partial truths of various theories with the construction of his metatheory. This is in contrast to relying on his orientation of pre-given full-truths using metatheoretical lenses to form the metatheory. So Wilber (2000a) is being modest when he says that he has merely strung together pre-existing beads to form a metatheoretical necklace (p. 16). The process required more skill than that; cutting, polishing, rearranging, and fashioning each bead in complementary ways. For further elaboration of ISM, take for instance mathematical, theoretical models from economics (my professional discipline). These techniques are dominated by rational choice theory, which typically as-sumes that all agents are rational egoists (having the cognitive ability equal to, or superior to, the models, and only caring about themselves). This assumption is problematic on the cognitive and moral front, but less troubling if we take an integral approach. Contextualizing the work with ISP would show that the rational egoist assumption is not unbiased with regards to morals. This bias leads the discipline to look for institutions to better deal with rational egoists, which is not always as desirable as recognizing and empowering socio-cultural aspects that develop or complement morality in their members. Societies dominated by positivistic



science may even justify selfish behavior because that is all that is expected of our agents in our dominant positivistic sciences. For some evidence of this possibility, economics undergraduate students have been repeatedly shown to be more selfish and less cooperative than other students (James et al., 2001).3 At a mini-mum, a mathematical economics model, which assumes for simplicity that agents are rational egoists, would be expected to comment on the relevance rational egoism has for the type of behavior examined in the study. Authors would need to plausibly argue what a more realistic assumption about the distribution of real world agents at various levels of cognitive and moral development would have on the results of the model. This would encourage the discipline to develop techniques that would better incorporate more realistic assump-tions regarding cognition and morals (and Kosmic addresses more generally).4 Ironically, positivistic science claims to avoid the problems of traditional societies directed by dogmatic, church-sponsored moral codes by studying only objectively. Yet the assumption of rational egoism is not neutral with regards to the subjective domain. It is unsupported and a consequence of its values, which undervalue the scientific examination of values that undergirds its accepted ontology. Thus, scientific examination of values is unavoidable. We can now see ISM at play in the previous description of Wilber’s methodology. In building his many-level, four-quadrant map, Wilber of course did not conduct a study of development in which he controlled for the intention, behaviors, culture, and societies of humans and all their evolutionary sub-holonic species. He found theoretically sound and logical correlations in various stage theories (cognition, morals, values, techno-economic base, etc.), oriented them by their relative area of focus (the four quadrants and other lenses), and deepened our understanding of them with a working synthesis of classical, modern, postmodern, and early integrative philosophies. Each one of these elements reverberated among the others contributing to a fuller understanding of each in an integrative, developmental philosophy. Integral Scientific Pluralism and Modularity contribute to the academic dialogue on Integral Research. Esbjörn-Hargens (2006) has proposed as a starting point a definition of Integral Research that includes the idea that “Integral Research would involve picking a method from 1) Phenomenology or Structuralism, 2) Hermeneutics or Ethnomethodology, and 3) Empiricism, Autopoiesis Theory, Systems Theory, and Social Autopoiesis Theory” (pp. 88-89). Nicholas Hedlund (2010) argues that this definition may be impractical regarding its epistemological demands on researchers. It also may be a challenge regarding constraints on resources and the length limitations of a typical journal article. Hedlund (2010) proposes a spectral definition of Integral Research where the lowest level 1 is the least demanding to qualify as Integral Research and level 4 is the most demanding. Level 1 involves for the researcher 1) being “reflexively situated and informed at all major phases of the research process by the IMP map and (some of) its principles,” 2) providing “at least some reflexive disclosure of aspects of the epistemological and methodological conditions of enactment,” and 3) making “use of qualitative and quantitative methodologies” (p. 10). Higher levels in the spectrum of Integral Research require the use of integrated data sets or more methodologies. I suggest that clarifying and validating ISM may have the benefit of making Wilber’s epistemology and methodology more transparent and reproducible for other integral researchers. Perhaps ISM can substitute, at least at times, for the need for multiple methods and the creation of integrated data sets. And when multiple methods and integrated data sets are used (when plausible, needed, and cost-effective), a clear handle on ISM can potentially make these approaches more powerful. I argue that ISP and ISM should be used to update Wilber’s Integral Mathematics (2006, pp. 263-266) such that Integral Mathematics actually incorporates integral methodology. ISM shows the inevitable em-ployment of all methodologies involved in human action and science. The problems of modern and postmod-ern science tend to stem from their less than “state-of-the-art” use of the secondary methods used as opposed to the primary methods they acknowledge using. (The empiricist in our previous example employed empiri-cism as his primary methodology, but all other methods were necessarily employed secondarily). Wilber’s use of Integral Mathematics does not track all methods employed. Despite his understanding that all events


K.J. BOWMAN

tetra-arise, Wilber’s use of his notational system reduces any particular approach to only one primary method, and therefore, it does not explicitly uncover how the other methodologies are unsatisfactorily employed. I argued in this section, that understanding these secondary methodologies are critical in allowing for integral differentiation and integration of modern and postmodern theory and data.

4. The Health-Pathology Duality and ScienceTo help us understand some sources of reductionism in non-integral science, I argue here that there is solid reason to believe that we must allow for epistemology, methodology, and ontology to have healthy and patho-logical aspects in each of the eight zones. Therefore, I cross the health-pathology duality with the other ISP zones (the eight zones times the subject-method-object spectrum). This results in the distinction between the shaded area (pathology) and non-shaded areas in each zone of Figure 2 (for a total of 48 horizontal realms). This will also allow for the creation of a Holarchical Field Theory (as outlined in Bowman, in press-b) by synthesizing the realms of ISP with the dynamic drives of holarchical development (Bowman, 2009). I provide examples here of healthy and unhealthy aspects of epistemology, methodology, and ontology starting with ontological reality (although space does not allow for a careful specification by zone). To the extent there is equal opportunity, help for the disabled, advancement based on merit, loving parental care, constructive moral codes, ecological balance, fairly well-adjusted individuals, and so on; there are healthy aspects of the ontological world. These ontological aspects are studied by science. But science also studies pathology in each ontological realm such as child abuse, mental illness, political corruption, nepotism, eco-logical crisis, arbitrary moral codes, and physical ailments. It is reasonable to say that scientific findings have uncovered aspects of health and pathology in each of the eight zones of the ontological world while passing the tests of our current understanding of sound science. Thus, ISP allows for them theoretically.5

Needs tend to motivate the actions of all sentient beings, including scientists. Needs develop holarchi-cally from physiological to safety to belongingness to self-esteem to self-actualization, according to Abraham Maslow’s (1968) hierarchy of needs. Epistemological orientations of scientists will be influenced by their needs expressed healthily or pathologically, and pathology may cause the scientist to project epistemologi-cal morbidity onto the ontological world. So the scientist, perhaps a Marxist, may look for only pathological ontology, overplay its importance, and employ pathological methodology in the process. Others may not be willing to face their own shadow and project this refusal onto objects of study in a defense of the status quo. Culturally created biases in combination with belongingness and self-esteem needs may cause the scientist to be drawn to one school of thought. Certain academic social systems may motivate the scientist to defend one school against all others. When a scientist is relatively healthy epistemologically, he will be relatively open to evidence that counters his hypotheses. He may be relatively current in the latest skills and findings of the field; he may be motivated for the greater good and self-actualization in a relatively unbiased manner; and he may be conscious of the limits of his understanding and attempt to qualify his claims appropriately. The choice and use of methodology also has healthy and unhealthy versions. Pathology may cause the scientist to use methods that conveniently sidestep evidence that may counter his hypothesis and underlying agenda. He may conduct many experimental runs and choose only those that support his claims hoping that journal referees do not think to require the alternative runs that the scientist suppressed. The scientist may be incompetent in his use of methods such as failing to check for serial correlation in a time series study or he may be prone to error in coding data. The capitalist system incentivizes private research or advertising to em-phasize the net benefits of patented pharmaceuticals or of processed foods relative to home remedies, natural supplements, and organic foods. Healthy use of methods include controlling for specious correlations, testing for robustness with alternative samples, including all relevant variables, avoiding leading survey questions, and publishing the sources of research funding.



ConclusionThe eight zones of IMP were treated as distinct realms and crossed with the subject-method-object (as a sub-set of the subject-action-object) triad. This formed the minimum 24 realms needed for Integral Scientific Plu-ralism (ISP) introduced here. These dimensions allowed formalization within the lenses of Integral Theory an Integral Epistemological Pluralism, Integral Methodological Pluralism, and Integral Ontological Pluralism. This synthesized Wilber’s (2006) IMP with Esbjörn-Hargens’ (2010) Integral Pluralism. Integral Scientific Pluralism contributes to Integral Theory in several important ways. For one, it deep-ens the critique of non-integral research. ISP shows that all scientific inquiry actually requires all major classes of methodologies in one form or another. Modern and postmodern uses of methodologies are typically biased because of their implicit and unconscious use of secondary methodologies other than those specified (i.e., their primary methods). Integral Scientific Modularity (ISM) was introduced as a way of consciously presenting research such that it can link up with wider bodies of scientific theory and data. Assumptions and exogenous aspects of research can thereby be more clearly identified and contextualized. ISM was also of-fered as a clarification of the methodology at the heart of Wilber’s success in creating and refining his Integral metatheory. The health-pathology duality was then used to bring awareness to some sources of dualistic and extreme sciences (as in overly apologetic vs. nihilistic descriptions of socio-culture). In Bowman (in press-b), I cross the zones of ISP with the static-dynamic duality to allow for an integra-tion of the dynamic drives of Holarchical Development (Bowman, 2009) with the holarchical embeddedness of subjects and objects. This creates a Holarchical Field Theory where neither holons nor their perspectives are fundamental units of reality, but rather fields are. These fields include interacting holons and their multi-dimensional, interpenetrating drives, which are enacted by the actions of holons with their environment. In Bowman (in press-a), I show how first-, second-, and third-person perspectives and pronouns can be inte-grated into Integral Scientific Pluralism. ISP and Holarchical Field Theory are used there as well to critique the confused uses of perspectives, pronouns, and some dualities by prominent voices in the integral literature.

N O T E S

1 See Edwards (2010) for justification of crossing dualities, triads, and spectra in metatheory.2 It is worth noting that the subject-method-object triad has been described extensively by Esbjörn-Hargens and Zim-merman (2009) in Integral Ecology. Esbjörn-Hargens (2010) builds on this concept in his work on Integral Pluralism. 3 It is controversial whether economics training increases this behavior, or if selfish students are drawn to economics, or both.4 Psychological and behavioral economics has contributed to this effort. See my article (2011) for how Integral Politi-cal Economy (Bowman, 2010a, 2010b, 2011) furthers this effort.5 Wilber (2000b) specifies pathologies and therapies by level of development, which could be used for closer examina-tion within this ISP framework. Running from lower to higher levels, pathologies may emerge from psychosis in the earliest human stages to narcissism or borderline personality (red altitude) to script pathologies (amber altitude) to identity crises (orange altitude) to nihilism (green altitude). Elitism has been added for the teal stage (Northcutt, 2010).

R E F E R E N C E S

Bowman, K. (2009). Holarchical development: Dis-covering and applying missing drives from Ken Wilber’s Twenty Tenets. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 28(1), 1-24.

Bowman, K. (2010a). Integral political economy. Jour-nal of Integral Theory and Practice, 5(3), 1-27.

Bowman, K. (2010b). The financial crisis of 2008–2009: An integral political-economic analysis. Journal of Integral Theory and Practice, 5(3), 39-67.

Bowman, K. (2011). Holarchically embedding integral


K.J. BOWMAN

political economy: Helping to synthesize major schools of economics. Journal of Integral Theory and Practice, 6(2): 1-29.

Bowman, K. (in press-a). Correcting inconsistent uses of perspectives, pronouns, and dualities in Inte-gral Theory: An application of holarchical field theory. Journal of Integral Theory and Practice.

Bowman, K. (in press-b). Holarchical field theory. Jour-nal of Integral Theory and Practice.

Crittenden, J. (1997). What should we think about Wil-ber’s method? Journal of Humanistic Psychol-ogy, 37(4), 99-104.

Edwards, M. (2003). Through AQAL eyes, Part 7: “I” and “me” and “we” and “us” and “you” and “yous.” Retreived June 4, 2011, from http://www.integralworld.net/edwards11.html.

Edwards, M. (2010). Organizational transformation for sustainability: An integral metatheory. New York, NY: Routledge.

Esbjörn-Hargens, S. (2006). Integral research: A multi-method approach to investigating phenomena. Constructivism and the Human Sciences, 11(1), 79-107.

Esbjörn-Hargens, S. (2010). An ontology of climate change: Integral pluralism and the enactment of multiple objects. Journal of Integral Theory and Practice, 5(1), 143-174.

Esbjörn-Hargens, S., & Zimmerman, M. (2009). Inte-gral ecology: Uniting multiple perspectives on the natural world. Boston, MA: Integral Books.

Hedlund, N. (2010). Integrally researching integral re-search: Enactive perspectives on the future of the field. Journal of Integral Theory and Practice, 5(2), 1-30.

James, T., Soroka, L., & Benjafield, J. (2001). Are econ-omists rational, or just different? Social Behavior and Personality, 29(4), 359-364.

Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental de-

mands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Maslow, A. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. New York, NY: Van Nostrand.

Northcutt, L. (2010). Using heart-centered therapies and the integral model for shadow integration and psycho-spiritual development. Journal of Heart-Centered Therapies, 13(2), 67-82.

O’Connor, D. (2008). Integral catallactics: An Integral reconstruction of market theory and practice. [August 7-10, 2008]. Integral Theory Conference Proceedings. Pleasant Hill, CA: J.F.K. University.

O’Connor, D. (2010). Integral praxiology: An inquiry into the essential nature of human action. [July 29-August 1, 2010]. Integral Theory Conference Proceedings. Pleasant Hill, CA: J.F.K. University.

Ponterotto, J. (2005). Qualitative research in counsel-ing psychology: A primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 126-136.

Wilber, K. (1995). Sex, ecology, spirituality: The spirit of evolution. Boston, MA: Shambhala.

Wilber, K. (2000a). A brief history of everything (Rev. Ed.). Boston, MA: Shambhala.

Wilber, K. (2000b). Integral psychology: Conscious-ness, spirit, psychology, therapy . Boston, MA: Shambhala.

Wilber, K. (2000c). Sex, ecology, spirituality: The spirit of evolution (Rev. ed.). Boston, MA: Shambhala.

Wilber, K. (2000d). The theory of everything: An In-tegral vision for business, politics, science, and spirituality. Boston, MA: Shambhala.

Wilber, K. (2002). Kosmic karma and creativity. Boston, MA: Shambhala. Retrieved July 12, 2011, from http://wilber.shambhala.com.

Wilber, K. (2006). Integral spirituality: A startling new role for religion in the modern and postmodern world. Boston, MA: Integral Books.

KEVIN J. BOWMAN, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of economics at Augsburg College with specializations in eco-nomic growth and international economics. He was the first to include in an endogenous growth model the forces of invention, innovation, and diffusion providing insight into the relationship between inequality and growth. Kevin has extended the Wilberian dynamic drives and developed the first mathematical model in Integral Theory. He also cre-ated the first integral approaches to economic growth and political economy. In addition to his work in JITP, Kevin has published in Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Journal of Asian Economics, and International Journal of Transpersonal Studies.

integral scientific pluralism€¦ · it is internal to my individual holon and within my interior...

Documents