Jennifer Gidley on Comparing Macro-Integral, Meso-Integral, Micro-Integral, Participatory-Integral, and Transversal-lntegral

From P2P Foundation
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Typology

Jennifer Gidley:

"There are several different approaches to integral theory—and thus to integral education—that I have identified and perhaps we need to identify those before we go any further. In my doctoral research I have proposed a new frame through which to view the complementary nature of several significant integral theorists (Gidley, 2008b). For the purposes of this delicate theorising I focused on five integral theorists: Gebser, László, Sri Aurobindo, Steiner and Wilber; and two transdisciplinary theorists: Edgar Morin and Basarab Nicolescu. My framing includes several metaphoric perspectives, introducing five — mostly new — terms to integral theory: macro-integral, meso-integral, micro-integral, participatory-integral, and transversal-integral.

I can only briefly summarise them here.

  • By macro-integral

I am referring to the extent to which the integral theorist includesall major fields of knowledge. I suggest that at this macro-layer of conceptual integration,Wilber's AQAL framework makes a highly significant contribution and this is where hisstrength lies (Wilber, 2000a, 2004). While Steiner and Gebser are also macro-integraltheorists, their work has been seriously marginalised in this area.


  • By meso-integral

I am referring to the extent to which the integral theorist contributes significantly to theory building within particular fields or theories. I propose that Ervin László's contribution is highly significant in this domain (László, 2007). Sri Aurobindo's integral approach could also be regarded as a significant contribution, albeit also a marginalised one, given that his philosophy provides a foundation for much of the later integral theory development.


  • By micro-integral

I am referring to the extent to which the integral theorist makesdetailed contributions to specific disciplines or fields through the application of their integral theory. In this domain of detailed application of integral theory to a wide range of disciplines and professional fields, Steiner's extraordinary contribution can no longer continue to be ignored by integral theorists.


  • The notion of participatory-integral

is based on the integral transformative educationtheory of Jorge Ferrer (Ferrer, Romero, & Albareda, 2005) whose participatory approachis inspired by Sri Aurobindo's integration of the three yogas of knowledge, love and action, which is in turn aligned to Steiner's thinking/head, feeling/heart and willing/hands.


Finally, I propose a new concept via the term transversal-integral

that refers to integral approaches that include and cut across these vertical and horizontal levels/dimensions. From my planetary scanning of the research it is apparent that the term integral is much more widely used in North America than in Europe. By contrast the term transdisciplinary appears to be used in Europe, particularly by Nicolescu and Morin, with similar integral intent (Morin, 2001; Morin & Kern, 1999; Nicolescu, 2002, n. d.). Morin and Nicolescu do not tend to use the term integral , nor are they cited as integral theorists in much of the integral literature. I suggest this is an unfortunate oversight based on semantic and cultural misunderstanding, rather than philosophical understanding. A special feature of both Nicolescu's and Morin's transdisciplinary, planetary philosophies is their attention to transversal relationships—hence my new term transversal-integral, which allows for their seminal writings to be included as part of a transnational, integral theory."

(https://www.academia.edu/197838/A_transversal_dialogue_on_integral_education_and_planetary_consciousness_Markus_Molz_speaks_with_Jennifer_Gidley)