Wilber's Research Methodology
Discussion
Jennifer Gidley:
"Wilber refers to his main methodology as orienting generalizations which he describes in the following way: “If we look at the various fields of human knowledge—from physics to biologyto psychology, sociology, theology and religion—certain broad, general themes emerge, about which there is very little disagreement” (Wilber, 1996a, p. 17). Expanding on his methods for constructing his theory, Wilber (1996) continues: If we take these types of largely-agreed-upon orienting generalizations from the various branches of knowledge . . . and if we string these orienting generalizations together, we will arrive at some astonishing and often profound conclusions, conclusions that, as extraordinary as they might be, nonetheless embody nothing more than our already-agreed-upon knowledge. . . . In working with broad orienting generalizations, we can suggest a broad orienting map of the place of men and women in relation to Universe, Life and Spirit. (p. 18)
Wilber’s overall ‘integrative method’ is further detailed by Jack Crittenden in the Forward to Wilber’s The Eye of Spirit , (2000d) and described as having three steps.
I have summarized Crittenden’s description of these three steps as follows:
• Wilber develops the orienting generalizations within each field of study—“a type of phenomenology of all human knowledge conducted at the level of orienting generalizations.”
• “Wilber then arranges these truths into chains or networks of interlocking conclusions. At this point Wilber veers sharply from a method of mere eclecticism and into systematic vision.” Crittenden claims that at this point Wilber asks himself: “What coherent system would in fact incorporate the greatest number of these truths?”
• “The third step in Wilber’s overall approach is the development of a new type of critical theory.” Crittenden explains that once Wilber has developed his optimum schema (eg AQAL) he then critiques the partiality of the narrower approaches.
“He criticizes not their truths, but their partial nature” (pp. xiii-xiv).In regard to his own truth claims, Wilber gives mixed messages. In a discussion of what he calls broad science —or even spiritual science —he claims that all “truth claims [can be] guided by the three strands of valid knowledge (injunction, apprehension, confirmation; or exemplars, data, falsification) applied at every level (sensory, mental, spiritual)” (Wilber, 1998, p. 174). In other contexts he honors the role of pluralism and relativism in truth claims. Yet he positions his integral theory above other theories, suggesting that his tacit bias may be to believe that his theory is more “true” than others. In the foreword to the second edition of Up from Eden, Wilber tackled head-on what he sees as the major critiques against evolution theory that still hampered the appropriate development of the evolution of consciousness theory at the time he was writing. Wilber (1996c) claims that there has been considerable opposition to the notion of cultural and consciousness evolution— from the traditionalists, because evil is still happening; the Romantics, who hark back to the past; and from the liberal social theorists, reacting to the horrors of Social Darwinism. He then puts forward several arguments for cultural evolution, particularly drawing on Habermas’ notion of the dialectic of progress. He also points to the “distinction between differentiation and dissociation,” “the difference between transcendence and repression,” “the difference between natural hierarchy and pathological hierarchy,” and how “higher structures can be hijacked by lower impulses” (pp. xi-xiv). These are important theoretical contributions to the discourse."