I read Anderson’s paper, very interesting. Lots of great stuff there. A few remarks:

1. The paper reminds me of past conversations in Religious Studies about comparison being intrinsically ideological, etc. My sense is that we may be able to identify a continuum of integrative works along a continuum from more to less ideologically-laden, with top-down integrative approaches that use a pre-given framework (e.g., AQAL) in one end of the spectrum and bottom-up integrative approaches that build bridges between disciplines, models, theories, from the bottom at the other end. Arguably the latter studies, which counter the fragmented disciplinary or cultural organization of knowledge, are more benign, arguably important, and less prey of Anderson’s criticisms. (Compare here, for example, Wilber’s latter works with Brian Lancaster’s integrative approach in his Approaches to Consciousness, which builds bridges among depth psychology, cognitive psychology, transpersonal psychology, and some contemplative traditions from the bottom up).

2. I wonder whether Anderson is aware of my critique of perennialism as ideologically-laden put forward in Revisioning Transpersonal Theory, as well as John’s more political take.

3. Anderson’s focus on Sri Aurobindo as the primary source of the attempted East-West synthesis seems somewhat arbi trary. On the one hand, Aurobindo was part of a larger movement, the Hindu Renaissance or Neo-Hinduism, that predates his work and most of whose members shared, to some extent, such East-West synthetic approach (see, for example, Halbfass’ India and Europe). Swami Vivekananda was an earlier and arguably much more influential exponent of such a vision, and perhaps it was S. Radhakrishnan who pressed stronger that anyone the East-West project (for a critical, actually acerbic, account, see Troy Organ’s Radhakrishnan and the Ways of Oneness of East and West).

4. As someone who has first studied and then taught at CIIS for 16 years, I should clarify that neither CIIS in general nor the East-West Psychology (EWP) department in particular engaged in the kind of ideological, forced integration Anderson rightfully denounces. Despite its Aurobindonean roots, CIIS is an extremely diverse and complex academic environment, with departments and teachers representing a huge plurality of disparate intellectual, professional, and spiritual approaches—for example, the Social and Cultural Anthropology department is highly Foucaultian and postmodern. Since Anderson s paper addresses the ideological underpinnings of the East-West synthesis, let me include here a paragraph from the EWP Department’s mission that, I believe, clearly differentiates what we do from the synthetic approach critiqued by Anderson:

– As an academic field, EWP constitutes a larger context for many disciplines that explore the interface of psychology and spirituality, including transpersonal and integral psychology, Asian psychologies, modern consciousness studies, participatory spirituality, depth psychology (Jungian, archetypal, and psychoanalytic), contemplative psychology, religious comparative studies, shamanic studies, and ecopsychology. Approaching the encounter among Eastern, Western, and indigenous worldviews in the spirit of pluralism, dialogue, and open inquiry, we actively explore the implications of this convergence for our diverse and multicultural world. This commitment also entails bridging psychospiritual growth with social transformation.

Please feel free to share these reflections with Anderson, whose paper I think it is extremely important and I plan to use in my courses to indicate some of the pitfalls of integrative scholarship.

Warmly,

Jorge

Anderson’s critique is interesting, but I wouldn’t use terms like
‘post-Wilber’ or ‘after Wilber’, this gives Wilber too much credit in
the first place. I’d locate him as one variant of ‘integral
thinking’, no less and and no more. His is an important variant, but
there will be many ‘post’ and ‘pre’ along the way – we hope 😉 I
certainly agree with his critique of intergral commodification and
political connections with neo-liberalism.

The other issue is the critique of synthesis (New Ageism) as part of
modern day capitalist ideological hegemony. As a former Californian I
agree somewhat, and have plenty of anecdotal examples. However my
view is that people are continuously working towards synthesis in many
aspects of life. There are many movements toward holism, and they can
be greatly liberating and not necessarily part of capitalist hegemony.