View source for Jennifer Gidley on Participatory Integral vs Transversal Integral


=Discussion=

Jennifer Gidley:

"The notion of participatory-integral is represented here by the integral transformative education theory of Ferrer (Ferrer, 2002; Ferrer, Romero, & Albareda, 2005). Ferrer’s participatory approach is 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 (Gidley, 2007b, p. 111). Ferrer emphasizes the importance of the participation of the whole human being (body, vital, heart, mind and consciousness) and claims that most integral education theories are either too cogni-centric or too eclectic. He provides an alternative framing, based on Wexler’s notion of horizontal integration, as “the way we integrate knowledge” and vertical integration, as “the way we integrate multiple ways of knowing”(Ferrer et al., 2005, p. 309). 

''Based on this framing Ferrer places most integral, holistic and even transdisciplinary approaches within horizontal integration. My interpretation is that this framing is too simplistic'': firstly, because there are other unacknowledged ways that the terms vertical and horizontal are used in integral theory and other theories; and secondly, much depends on how the approach to integrating knowledge is applied. Such a dichotomy could not reasonably be applied to the writings of Steiner, Gebser or Morin.

'''I also 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'''. While it could be argued that all the integral theorists mentioned cut across these different dimensions toa greater or lesser degree—particularly Steiner and Wilber—I acknowledge two other significant integral thinkers who enact transversal reasoning and relationships through their transdisciplinarity. 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 the latter is an unfortunate oversight based on semantic and cultural misunderstanding, rather than philosophical and conceptual understanding. 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. A special feature of both Nicolescu’s and Morin’s transdisciplinary philosophies is their attention to transversal relationships."

(https://www.academia.edu/8838334/Global_Knowledge_Futures_Articulating_the_Emergence_of_a_New_Meta_level_Field_

[[Category:Integral Theory]]
[[Category:Intelligence]]
[[Category:Articles]]