[I do have a note of caution. We have barely defined what Integral politics is and where it stands on several important issues - ISSUES THAT WE WILL BE ASKED ABOUT!!! I'm not sure there is agreement on certain key issues.
Unless what we say is well thought out, internally consistent and ADDS to the debate then Integral politics can very easily be dismissed. Or in our enthusiasm have we forgotten how vicious and uncompromising the world of real world political debate is?]
Integral Politics can be defined as an approach to politics which (1) considers politics as an application of the different developmental levels typical for functioning in general, and individual and social functioning in particular; and which (2) considers our political mission as trying to raise the functional level of politics by several methods, including enhancing the global consciousness about psychosocial functioning in general and about political functioning in particular. [Kris Roose, 28.09.02]
A good integration of the first posts about the meaning of integral, politics, political activity is brought by Karen Saenz in her "IP-Grammar".
A good I-Pol 2000 Synthesis can be found in Political Theory.
In our discussion about a Introductory IP site, several interesting ideas about the actual state of IP are generated.
Why does "integral politics" need to have "positions?"
Perhaps it doesn't. Perhaps it needs to have a position on why it doesn't take specific positions. The Abortion issue is ridden with tense conflict between levels. 2B takes an absolutist position and demands a right/wrong answer, usually against abortion. 3A is much more ambivalent and takes a typically more selfish stance in support of abortion (I can choose what is right for my life/career, etc.). 3B concentrates more on the ethical dilemma of comparative rights (the right to choose vs the right to life). And there are 2A/1B considerations that lead, in many countries, to both abortion and infanticide (especially of girls). But what I wonder about is a 2T response - given that a response that doesn't support any of the absolutist 1T reactions will immediately be condemned by the absolutists. 2B likes the adage - if you are not clearly for 'us' then you are clearly against us - so, if we are not clearly against abortion we will be included as political targets for the 'pro-life' groups, and vice versa. No amount of dissembling about not taking a position will assuage them - see the dilemma, and the trap?
The other point is that a lot of politics is about 'issues'. People get elected and spend a lot of effort around certain key, and sometimes single, issues. So, in order to suggest an alternative to issue based politics we need to have a clearly articulated position on 'issue' politics and adversarial politics in general.
I just wanted to add and re-emphasise a point I made a couple of weeks ago. We need to understand that the Integral view implicitly contains policy positions. People are not stupid and will see the 'implications' of the Integral view. If we ourselves dodge making the implicit explicit we will rightly be condemned as hypocritical, dishonest and evasive.
One of the main criticisms of the various Green parties is that they are single-issue and have not adopted policy positions on other important CONCRETE issues - and so people will not vote for them, let alone take them seriously. [Ray Harris, 28.09.02]
Integral research
Mark Edwards's article: "Integral Sociocultural Studies and Cultural Evolution"
What would it do with them, if it had them?
Are there not critical things that need to be done? Can Integral politics avoid the issue of the power needed to implement policy/get things done? Or do we never take a stand on any issue, remain neutral and instead promote a method to better process consensus and conflict? In other words, do we stand outside the process whilst we facilitate others to better arrive at a policy position, be that a local, national or global issue. Does being Integral lead us to policy inertia and policy deadlock?
How would integral politics be "integral" if it acted like "business as usual?" (if it did, in espousing its positions).
To which I would ask, what is 'business as usual'? Meaning, is it 'all' best avoided, or just some aspects? Can we avoid business as usual? Take the dilemma of inter-level values conflict, if we do not take a clear stand we will be assumed to have taken this or that position. You see, in the absence of a clear position various interests 'assume' or 'invent' a position for us. It's one of the oldest manipulation tricks in the book - in the abscence of a clear statement, make up a deleterious assumed position and force your opponent to deny it - with the common understanding that mud sticks. In other words, we cannot be naive and ignore the machiavellian lessons we should have 'included' and then transcended. I am not suggesting that we should play these tricks ourselves - rather, we should be prepared for the inevitability that they will be played 'on' us. In this light it is strategically better for us to have clear positions than not. And here I would hasten to add that I would sincerely like someone to convince me otherwise because this is a debate we need to have.
What are useful guiding principles in formulating integral political views?
One of the key uses of the integral approach is: staking out a multi-level understanding of an issue such as abortion, as seen from different world views. [Janine Rickard, 28.09.02]
[Ray Harris 28.09.02:]
Any Integral response to any issue would be to acknowledge the partial truths of each level position and to speak in a way that each level can hear.
We will have to take a firm position on some issues but more accomodating on others. For instance, I believe it is impossible to support the teaching of creationism because it is unarguably based on 'mythic' thinking, and on one particular exclusivist mythic cycle at that (why not teach all creation myths?). This position automatically puts us into conflict with the largest denominational group in the US - and I just don't see even a partial truth in it! (It is based on the false doctrine of Biblical literalism so we don't have the option of supporting a 2B {red/blue}mythos as containing useful truths - because the myth isn't accepted as myth - literalism is pathological because it is utterly flatland).
Within each level there is both a fractal vertical response as well as individual/collective (cultural) horizontal approach. The Temenos system contains sub-levels as well as levels. So to criticise literalism is not to attack 2B (blue) per se, just a particular horizontal manifestation. And within a given fundamentalist congregation we will see a range of views 'within' the accepted 2B framework. [RH]
"Does this proposed action/policy/strategy/position/view encourage the greatest depth for the greatest span and allow for potential flow through the entire spectrum of development, individually and collectively, socially and globally?" Such a meta-principle would use the 5 key aspects of an integral approach as formulated by Ken Wilber -- what I have started calling QWLTS (pronounced "quilts") -- ie Quadrants, Waves, Lines, Types and States. This is how I have approached all things integral for some time now, and it is becoming a stronger guiding principle for me as time goes on. [Joe Voros, 29.09.02]
[John Kesler, 29.09.02:]
With a full spectrum, developmental, global perspective, an integral political outlook is guided by the basic moral intuition, which I break down into first things first and next things next. In terms of first things first, one stands for environmental sustainability as well as basic social justice both on a global basis. The basics of social justice in a developmental context cover at least the basics in order of importance of physical survial, the basics of group survival including healthy environments for family and the growth of civil society. The right for each person and culture to be respected and to be heard (grounded in democratic principles), as well as an opportunity for basic education. From a four quadrant perspective, moral development (we) and freedom of conscience and development of awareness (I) are as important as education regarding external aspects of knowledge.
We honor and promote global higher human commonlities that mankind has developed such as standards that have been developed for human rights and international law. This implies also the more convening and multilateralism the better, not necessarily in support of a world government but certainly in support of lots of listening to one another in endless forum settings and reaching facilitated agreements that honor the local through the principle of subsidiarity with global awareness and interconnection.
We also honor the memetic mix and center of gravity of people and cultures and countries and do what we can to promote open and healthy translation and transformation. My own feeling is that the fora that we can create with our integral knowledge is fundamental to our inegral movement. In terms of public policy analysis the ALAQ work such as Sara is doing is fundamental to what we can offer. The participatory fora for democratic process which are structured to respect all people and give all people voice is a huge area of democratic reform, dispute resolution and societal facilitation that we can work in. A key to this is to teach people, that whatever level they are on or whatever quadrant they see out of, if they can learn to be patient and listen to one another, shared purposes for living and working together will emerge as well as caring and consideration all in the context of honoring their individual and cultural uniqueness and freedom. Frankly the particular statutes and laws that emerge are not as important as the integral process that brought them about. Each culture and setting will find its own solution for a given period of time to the full range of public policy issues and we can push in this context to to promote full spectrum healthy and global awareness.
In summary as integral political theorists and activists we push hard in every setting to help a society interconect and honor all of the levels - make the full spectrum healthy through training and fora that we promote and attempt to institutionalize and we push hard to further first things first and next things next in a global context. We can do a great deal in developing the skillful means to acomplish this.
I see the role of the integral politics being more concerned about convening and working on full spectrum health and global social justice and transformation than promoting very many particular policies such as on abortion, except perhaps helping to come up with policy alternatives which accomodate the memetic mix of the community. Dwelling on a long list of policy positions and promoting a political agenda in anything like a traditional approach is a very green and perhaps ultimately destructive thing to do. There will be a lot of that going on and there may be a very green world movement that sweeps the planet, but such an approach will not be second tier integral. A second tier political movement will be very different and even more effective as it interconnects the green and every other memetic level in the context of passionate promotion of the BMI. I can even see the possibility of an integral caucus emerging out of all the major political parties in any given setting. [JK]
2. Practical Issues
Abortion
Drug decriminalisation
Female circumcision (FGM)
"Why is female circumcision here? It's a health issue." Well, it has a political aspect to it." Yes, and so does every other health issue. Healthcare, restrictions on organic food and holistic medicine, aids, vaccinations, fluoridation, the list is endless, and involves politics as much as or more than female circumcision."
Sure, female genital mutilation is a health issue, girls die and the procedure can lead to complications (problems urinating, cycles of infection, etc, etc). Let's be clear what we are talking about here. FGM ranges from cliterectomy to the removal of the clitoris and the labia minora to infibulation - the sewing up of the labia majora, leaving only a small opening for fluid flow. For more info see a page on FGM. Another link, this one explains that in some areas a father whose daughter has not been mutilated cannot speak at village meetings.
The practice is entirely cultural and has no medical benefit whatsoever. It based on the central idea that women's sexuality is a problem at best and evil at worst (in some areas it is believed a man will die if his penis touches a clitoris!!!). It is an Integral issue because the practice is part of the political oppression of women and it is psychologically damaging. The practice denies the women involved full and open access to healthy spectrum development. If one dismisses it, one is suggesting that millions of women do not deserve access to the greatest depth - therefore you are not adhering to the basic Integral tenet - the greatest depth FOR THE GREATEST SPAN - we can't exclude anyone.
Psycho-sexual development is an important line, the control of libido is a major 'control' mechanism, and there is a large body of political writing on psycho-sexual politics, beginning with Freud, Jung, Reich and so on. It is a significant area of concern. [Ray Harris, 02.10.02]
The war on terrorism
The UN
Neo-liberal economic theory
Marxism and socialism
American Neo-imperialism Some fundamental documents
Separate discussion page created 29 Sep 2002
