WHAT
IS INTEGRATION?
Introduction
One of the most fundamental
processes in intelligent systems, from individuals to societies, is the
way divergent or conflicting concepts and tendencies are coped with. The
situation wherein the own, internal objectives are smoothly realized within
the existing environment are rare. There is always a minor or major degree
wherein the own projects are incongruous with limits, possibilities, expectations
and (external) projects of the environment. This is the most most fundamental
conflict
of existence. It exists as well in facts (projects, structures, interactions)
as in concepts (internal and external incongruencies between conpceptual
frames).
There are, generally
speaking, three ways to solves these conflicts and incongriencies: selection,
compromise and integration.
Selection (choice) is the simplest way at first approach, but yields the most problems
at the long run. It consists in a choice or selection of one of both or
multiple possibilities. The underlying myth or paradigm, firmly sustained
by aristotelic-cartesian philosophy and logics, and strongly advocated
by those in power, is that in the presence of more than one hypothesis,
only one can be the true, and hence all other, not-complying views are
wrong. Logical thinking by deduction, or, if this is not possible, referral
to authority or democratic choice, are the way to decide which approach
is the true or best one.
The symbolic description
is: IF [A AND B] AND [A is <>B]
THEN [A OR B] (<> means here:
not easily combinable with).
There is, of course,
the theoretical possibility that two elements are completely compatible,
so that a smooth combination can be performed. But this situation
is, alas, not very frequent. Theoretically, between the several presented
alternatives, the "good" (integrated) solution can be present, so that
a simple choice may led towards integration. But, again, this situation
is most exceptional, and, even if present, will be often unacceptable for
psychological reasons, as we will discuss later on.
Compromise (or partial, limited integration) is another paradigm. It is used when
conflicting tendencies of concepts (or their authors) are of more or less
equal force or importance, making selection inappropriate, due to the major
complications that immediately will arise if selection is applied. In case
a solution, with at least temporarily relief, is elaborated, which consists
in approaching the most sensible aspects of the conflict. With most
sensible I mean: with the most emotional importance for all concerned
parties, or which the most easily measurable aspect (e.g. price).
The advantage of
such an approach is that major complications will be avoided, and that
functioning together can be continued. The disdavantage is that the non-integrated
aspects will subsist, and lead to new conflicts at a later date.
These two paradigms,
although very popular in our culture, and even philosophically, ethically
and politically sustained, are unsatisfactory on the longer run. This inadequateness
will increase in situations where evolution accelerates and where more
and more people are conscious about the unsuitability of repressing important
elements to achieve a pseudo-consensus. A new paradigm to solve the fundamental
conflicts of existence (conceptual and factual), and to remediate the insufficiency
of the selection and compromise paradigms, is offered here: integration.
Definition
Integration is a
process of combination of elements that, at first approach, seem to be
incompatible or even conflictuous, but, after a bit of analysis and re-synthesis (leading to reformulation or re-orientation), prove
to be rather complementary.
The essential "trick",
enabling integration, and incompletely and intuitively used in compormise,
is that one realizes that every concrete form of idea/project is not the
essential aspect, but an attempt to translate some more important "underlying"
values into a concrete form adapted to the available evidence. The
problem with selection and compromise is the, apparently erroneous, unconscious
presumption that the essential value of an idea or a project resides in
its actual form, resulting into "take it or leave it" conflicts.
Symbolically this
process could be represented by:
{A,B} Æ (AÆA')
& (BÆB')
Æ
{A'B'}
where A en B are
elements in their primary, "unintegrable" state, that are "retroduced"
to their "essential core" (AÆA')
& (BÆB'),
what makes them "integrable", and then combined into a new unity (A'B').
We would like to introduce the function W (Omega) to describe this process in short:
W {A,B}
= {A'B'}
Classification
There seem to be
two major application fields for integration processes: conceptual and factual. Sometimes these can be linked to each other, e.g. when
conceptual integration between people leads to factual integration of their
activities. But factual integration can occur without preceding conceptual
integration, by trial and error, e.g. between organisms without intelligence.
Conceptual integration is a means of thinking, by which partial information or seemingly
contradictory insights (or plans, hypoptheses, paradigms, theories, projects,
programs, etc.) can be reformulated, so that those elements can harmoniously
be combined into a more complete, more valuable bit of information or insight.
The result of this process combines every valuable element of the original,
partial and/or conflictuous insights. Consequently, the outcome of this
logical process is allways more valuable and more plausible than each separate
partial insight, at least if the rules of integration are correctly applied.
Structural integration is a means of interaction, by which two (or more) systems (organisms,
molecules, etc.) make some structural and/or procedural adaptations in
their mode of functioning --most often by trial and error--, so that all
implied elements attain a better realization of their individual "needs"
than before the integration process. Symbiosis, collaboration, cooperation,
complexification, socialization, synergy are striking examples of this
phenomenon. The whole cosmic evolutionary process can be described in terms
of integration. Only intelligent systems as humans are capable of realizing
such a factual integration as a result of conscious conceptual integration.
When we refer to
integration in texts, we most often mean "conceptual" integration.
Integration
as a conceptual process
The integration process
proceeds by a few logical steps, which can be described. Essentially it
consists of two major stages: (1) a retroduction of seemingly conflictuous
elements to their non-conflictuous core(s), and (2) the combination of
these cores into a higher logical frame.
For a description
of the integration process in depth, see that
page, and also a comprehensive
description or a detailed
description.
A quick reminder of the Definition
of Integration
Although this word is becoming increasingly popular
(even Ken Wilber started using it form the early 2000s on, apart from his
cherished "integral"), not everybody uses it in the same meaning. There
are, in fact, 3 levels of (conceptual) integration:
1. Just bringing several appoaches together,
to sensitize the audience for the multiple facets of a phenomenon. This
approach is synonymous with multidisciplinarity. In the same line
of thought some psychotherapists who extend their psychological work to
somatic aspects and aiming at a psychosomatic equilibrium, call themselves
integrative.Eclecticism,
taking the best of all worlds, is an analogous approach.
2. Synthesizing one "unified" theory out
of several theories. Two depths can be discerned here, although the boundary
between both is of course imprecise:
(a) Too often this second mode of integrating
remains more or less superficial, and is characterized by complex
tables where the contributions of several theories are juxtaposed, only
partially integrated, or compromises are made. It suggests that integration
is little more than giving new names to old concepts. This kind of integration
(synthesis should probably be a more appropriate name) is impressive
by an overwhelming number of quoted authors. This kind of integration is
typical for authors who hold their knowledge primarily from reading, and
don't have a practical, realistic experience within the field where they
integrate, resulting into a real danger for underestimating the imponderable
aspects of the topic.
(b) But a real, in depth integration at
this level requires the study of the underlying processes (as is suggested
by our theoretical description of the integration process). This often
results into something, often --but not always-- much simpler and more
comprehensive than the original theories.
3. Integration as a scientific tool. This
third --and the only complete-- mode of integration uses the integrative
procedure as a tool for scientific plausibility, completing and often transcending
exact scientific reliabilty which is limited to fields where exact measures
and experiments can be performed --the physical sciences. Integrative science
considers that plausibility --rather than the obsolete term truth--
increases with the number of hypotheses that are integrated into one, on
condition that an in depth integration of the underlying processes is performed.
Although one would suppose academic circles will be enthusiastic with this
new form of scientific thinking, the opposite is rather true. Not only
our academic system is built upon the principle of hyperspecialization
(knowing more and more about less and less), while a more appropriate "university"
should be fundamentally more "universal", probably favouring another kind
of intellectuals. But also scientific publications --at least in "inexact"
domains-- ought to be completely different. And presumably psychological
resistance will be important as well.
Of course, constructing an integrative site employs
this third, complete definition of integration.
There exists, as explained elsewhere, also factual integration, and if this factual integration concerns information devices
(computers, organization of the company, "integrated" circuits) it seems
to be a kind of conceptual integration. But factual integration most often
is very hierarchical: data go bottom up and instructions go top down. Conceptual
integration is, by its very essence, "peer to peer": it's a kind of cooperative
thinking.
The integrative stages
These three phases are in fact the fundamental
stages of creative thinking, a processual phenomenon: C-S-R.
1. Compilation
One starts with a simple compilation of the contributions,
ordered along their contribution date, because often (not always) the later comments
are inspired by the previous postings. Often it is useful to indent or
to colour the comments, as to show the original contributon. And comments
can elicit comments. Compilation is often hampered by poor participation
from the visitors of the site or the members of the eList. This problem is very common, as most internet surfers are more motivated to show their
own intellectual productions rather than looking for an integration by
constructive commenting others' contributions.
2. Schematization
In a second stage texts are more and more "disentangled",
and put together by their meaning. Progressively, a logical scheme
emerges, suggested by the spontaneous contrubutions. Intuitive creativity
is active here, leading to the formulation of a logical scheme.
3. Reformulation
In a third movement, longer texts of lists of
ideas are replaced by new formulations. The original contributions
can be kept as illustrations and "proofs" of the advanced hypothesis, or
completely reformulated. This third movement is the most creative stage,
wherein underlying processes are consciously described.
Especially the S and R stages are
the two aspects of creative thinking: the intuition of a new scheme
or conceptual frame (with an underlying, implicit hypothesis) and the explication
or explicit formulation of a that hypothesis. The C stage is not
yet a creative stage in itself, but is very fertile to elicit creativity.
Applications
The importance of
the integration process in complex situations can't be overrated: it is
the essence of the most intelligent processes in human thinking and (inter)action.
1. Integration is
a way of problem solving, as it enables us to bring divergent and
even conflictuous views together. In this sense it differs profoundly from
the two other, more popular problem solving methods used by humans, namely
choice and compromise. Integration leads to construction and positive evolution,
whereas choice and compromise lead to conflict and loss of energy and insight.
2. Integration will
allow us to bring together the valuable contributions of divergent theoretical
schools, especially in psychology. With other cultural "sciences" as
religion, philosophy, arts and politics, psychology features the deplorable
tendency to split up into several, apparently incompatible "schools", from
psychoanalysis to behaviourism. The integrative movement tries to combine
the values of each divergent theory. Among other things this could lead
to more effective applications e.g. in psychotherapy and communication
processes, and to a significant increase in the quality of life. Integration
should also be the communication style of Internet Websites, aiming towards the elaboration of a global vision
or a Noosphere.
Integration
is now a fairly common approach in various professional groups, whether
commercial, governmental, or academic. Awhile back I read an article by
the president of AOL on precisely this topic of integration as employed
by corporate research. And academically the major universities (that I
know of in the U.S.) all have multi- disciplinary studies programs and
degrees, wherein integration is a necessary factor. As for myself, as a
systems philosopher, I recommend Ervin
Laszlo's landmark study "Systems Philosophy" that long ago approached
creative model-making via the synthesis or integration of older models
(on any given topic). Our's has become the Integral Information Age! [Beatrix
Murrell, 2/4/02]
3. Integration can be
seen as the core of the communication process. A majority of affective
relationships fail between 5 and 10 years. Psychological explanations for
this regrettable phenomenon include: (1) the art of communication is never
taught, not at school, not during one's youth at home; (2) the incompetence
to communicate between partners is hidden by our spontaneous tendency to
marry people whith whom we "fell in love", i.e. a partner with a complementary
personality structure. This complemantarity conceals the communicative
incompetence for several years. Moreover, "understanding each other without
the necessity of debating" seems to be the acme of communication skills.
As divergence increases in a non-communicating, non-integrative context,
choices and resulting conflicts seem more and more unavoidable. Training
people in communication skills includes developing the disposition towards,
and the skill of integrating, i.e. finding a way that pleases both. 4. Integration can
be seen as a tool to enhance the plausibility of new theories, in
fields where the "exact scientific method" can't be applied. Exact science
tries to "prove" its exactness by enhancing the exactness of its measures
and descriptions. In fields where these exact measures (still) can't be
accomplished, there is still a means to achieve plausibility: when a great
number of possible applications and a great number of analogous phenomena
is referred to. A maximal applications/references number is also useful
in exact sciences, but a (relative) lack of these can greatly be compensated
by exact measuring. Where exact measures are not (yet) feasible, integration
is indispensable. Otherwise, partial opinions uncontrollably tend to deviate
to one-sided exaggerations. Thus, we have two scientific methods to our
disposal: the exact scientific method, for phenomena where exact
measuring is possible, and the integrative scientific method, for
phenomena where measuring is not yet practicable.
5. Thinking consists
of two processes: induction and deduction. Deductive thinking (from hypothesis
to application) was splendidly elaborated into scientific thinking, with
controllable logical steps and operational algorithms that often can be
applied by computers.
Inductive thinking (from observation to hypotheses)
still remains below the treshold of conscious thinking, and is still not
operationalized in useful algorithms, to the great frustration of scientist
devoted to the "psychology of science", e.g. Popper.
As a consequence, even today induction is the privilege of creative people,
geniuses and artists, who themselves can't consciously control this process.
Afterwards, it is easy to demonstrate that a good idea, an invention, a
better theory, a happy solution is an integration between things that previously
were conflictuous or not linked at all. Apparently, geniuses and inventors
are good intuitive integrators. Integration appears to be one essential
logical step in inductive thinking, and becomes the quintessence of creativity
(induction).
6. Integration seems
to be the solution for the information boom. The dream of the Paperless
Office was never realized until now. On the contrary, never were such amounts
of printed paper produced as since the invention and popularisation of
computers. Each office and home was turned into a small printing-unit.
The same problem starts with Internet, where a single query on a search
engine usually results in hundreds of thousands of results. But even when
we visit several tens of links, too often the essence of what we were looking
for still is not found. No doubt several enhacements in the search programmes
will be useful. But eventually only an integrative site may offer, perhaps
for the first time in intellectual history, the possibility of comprehensive
and coherent information transfer, with the extra opportunities of linking
the visitor to more specific sites, and automatically updating the information.
The future of books and magazines looks meagre.
Integration
as a factual process
Integration can also
be realized without preliminary conceptual integration. In fact, only extremely
recently in cosmic evolution, conceptual integration came into existence.
First of all it was necessary to develop consciousness to a conceptual
level, as is the case in humans.
Factual integration
consists of a nearly endless trial and error to elaborate systems that
are, in their internal and external interaction, sufficiently non-conflictuous
or harmonious, to create a long lasting stability. This "harmony" implies
a sufficiently equilibrated organization of the multitude of potentially
diverging tendencies.
Applications
1. Integration can
be regarded as the highest, "healthiest" style of behaving, of living.
Psychopathology,
psychoses, neuroses, mood disturbances etc. can be seen as examples of
a failure to integrate: some needs are realized at the expense of others.
Happiness, psychological equilibrium and mental health can be seen as the
highest possible integration of the needs of the individual, and of the
individuals of the group where he belongs to. The subjective sense of life
consists of a conscious integration of the own needs with each other, and
of our needs and the needs of all people which whom we interact. Happiness
can be seen as the consciousness of a successful integration. Psychotherapy
can be described as the art of inducing people to realize better integrations
in their lives.
2. Not only human
beings, but, according to evolutionary theories, each system in the universe
tends towards an integration with its surrounding systems, from atoms to
human beings. As long as an integration is not reached, the situation remains
out of equilibrium, and forces are active to try to change this situation.
At a low level, this integration tendency is achieved purely by coincidence.
At a higher level, the "good solutions" are registered in an encoded form
(genes, chromosomes, instincts) to prevent that "warm water has to be re-invented
every time". At a high, intelligent level, integration is consciously pursued,
at least for the subjective comfort it yields. Darwin's law of "the survival
of the fittest" can be reformulated as "the survival of the most integrated
with his environment", because in the end conflict and aggression can only
be overcome by integration. Thus integration can be seen as the ultimate
objective in the evolution of the universe, the very sense of existing.
Integration is a fundamental process in cosmic existence.
Conclusion
Because of the paramount
importance of integration, every education, every relationship, every scientific
career, every political career, every training as psychotherapist or councellor,
every management office, every type of publication should start with a
thorough study of the concept, techniques and required dispositions of
the art of integration.
Historically
Integration was intuitively
appreciated from ancient times with concepts as "harmony", "ma'at", "shalom",
and expressions as "In medio virtus".
As a way of explicit
thinking, integration was precedented by a few empiric paradigms, e.g.
Kant's "thesis, antithesis and synthesis". Other theorists, as Assagioli
and Shostrom, called it a "creative synthesis". Gordon described his "win-win
method". Maslow spoke of "the third way". A compromise can be considered
as a tentative, blind attempt to reach some of the advantages of genuine
integration. Shafer and other interfaithists call it "dialogue". The dreams of consensus and
harmony assume an ability to integrate, but without operationalising the
paradigm. An eclectic is a person who is open-minded towards the idea of
integration, but doesn't try to create such an integrative corpus: he only
picks out some useful applications. As a factual process, integration (in
psychiatry) was first described under that name by Van Hasselt [3,4].
Of course several 20th century authors and philosophers
started using intuitively the integration paradigm to come to spectacular
conclusion even in the absence of strict scientific data. Among the greatest
undoubtedly are Alfred Norman Whitehead,
the founder of process thinking, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, the author of an all-inclusive evolution theory from strings
to society and beyond, Jean Gebser, the founder
of integral thinking. A book on parallels between
Whitehead and Teilhard, and presenting some integrations, is in development
for the moment --by integration.
As a conscious style of thinking and a method of bringing divergent theories (e.g. the
numerous psychological schools) together, integration was first described
in 1978 by Kris Roose [1,2], a psychiatrist
in Ghent (Be), founder of the Academy
for Integrative Psychology. In 1983 the American Society
for the Exploration of Psychotherapy Integration, SEPI, New York, was
founded. But still today the SEPI only uses the concept of integration
in the sense of bringing together divergent psychotherapeutical approaches.
The other meanings stay out of the scope of this active group of academic
psychotherapists. Along our view, psychotherapy integration is not possible
without extending the field to psychology in general, and even to fundamental
sciences as General Systems Theory and Evolution Theory.
Integration
is now a fairly common approach in various professional groups, whether
commercial, governmental, or academic. Awhile back I read an article
by the president of AOL on precisely this topic of integration as employed
by corporate research. And academically the major universities (that
I know of in the U.S.) all have multi-disciplinary studies programs and
degrees, wherein integration is a necessary factor. As for myself, as
a systems philosopher, I recommend Ervin Laszlo's landmark study "Systems
Philosophy" that long ago approached creative model-making via the synthesis
or integration of older models (on any given topic).
Our's has become
the Integral Information Age! [5]
The term "integrative"
is sometimes used in some related meanings, not exactly the same as here.
An integrative approach often means (1) a therapeutic approach
not only for the mind, but including the human body, or (2) a multidisciplinary
or comparativeapproach by non-integrative scientists. Although synthesis
undoubtedly is a first and necessary step towards integration (see , it
is not yet integration in itself. Integration includes a creative superstructure
or deeper generalization of the partial contributions, which can be deduced
from the integrated law. The fact that one feels the need for a muti-disciplinary
approach suggests that integration is not yet achieved.
[1]
Roose, K (ed.), Ontwerp voor een integratieve psychologie, Academie voor
Integratieve Psychologie, Gent (B), 1980.
[2]
Roose, K. & Van Brandt, B., Het geheim van het geluk, Kluwer, Antwerpen
(B), 1985, ISBN 90 6716 442 9
[3]
Van Hasselt, A., Het integratiebegrip in de psychiatrie, Van Loghum Slaterus,
Deventer, 1977.
[4]
Van Hasselt, A., Naar eenheid in de psychiatrische dynamica, Van Gorcum,
Assen/Maastricht, 1991.
[5]
Beatrix Murrell in a post at the Teilhard eGroup (April 2002)
