JOSEPH GELFER

It wasn’t that many years ago that I was quite happy with the word “spirituality”: I even put it in the title of the journal I founded, Journal of Men, Masculinities and Spirituality. But every month that goes past makes me less and less comfortable with it; with every month that goes past its meaning shifts, its value haemorrhaging.

When spirituality is taught in the university, its current manifestation is described as the “subjective turn” where folks turn away from external sources of authority and values towards themselves. This is not necessarily a bad thing if those subjective and individual values are more useful than the external and cultural values left behind. However, more often than not, what defines contemporary spirituality is not the “subjective turn” but the “corporate turn,” where spirituality is reduced to a range of products and services sold to an unwitting audience who believe their purchases enable their spiritual development. I have written about this in the article Lohas and the Indigo Dollar: Growing the Spiritual Economy, and would also recommend reading Jeremy Carrette and Richard King’s book Selling Spirituality: The Silent Takeover of Religion for further discussion on this topic.

One excellent example of this trend comes in the recent edition of the Watkins Review and their 100 Spiritual Power List, the top ten of which comprises:

1. Eckhart Tolle
2. Dalai Lama
3. Wayne W. Dyer
4. Thich Nhat Hanh
5. Deepak Chopra
6. Louise L. Hay
7. Paulo Coelho
8. Oprah Winfrey
9. Ken Wilber
10. Rhonda Byrne

The striking commonality across the 100 on the list is their ability to shift product. If these people really are significant in the spiritual development of sentient life on Earth we are in woeful trouble. There are a number of people on the list I have written about in the past who are problematic, to say the least. There are also those I have witnessed at work in the flesh, and even one or two I know in person: it is not an encouraging list.

Of course, people will say “ah, but this about those people recognised in the public domain, not necessarily those who are most representative of ‘genuine’ spirituality.” But this only consolidates the bankrupt nature of the common understanding of the word: equating air time and sales with spiritual significance, influence and “power” (which itself is a troubling word in the context of the spiritual).

As is often the case, I end up sounding a bit Richard Dawkins, as if there is something inherently corrupt and deceitful about the spiritual, which is not (should not) be the case. I am firmly supportive of spiritual worldviews, but no longer of the word “spirituality.”

The time has come for anyone interested in meaningful conversations about what is loosely described as “spirituality” to abandon the term and seek a new vocabulary that is not tainted by the seemingly inescapable co-opting power of sales and marketing. This may sound like an impossible task, but remember it wasn’t that long ago (20 years?) that people referred more to the word “mysticism,” and this was largely supplanted by “spirituality.”

If we want to rescue “spirituality” we need to evolve our language and meaning faster than the co-opting habits of financially-minded and “power” individuals: these grubby people tend to be surprisingly limited in imagination, so I suspect it may not be as difficult as it sounds.

You may remember a while ago I had a lively exchange with various members of Integral Life and Robb Smith of Integral Institute about capitalism and money: I claimed integral thought unconsciously perpetuates the capitalist status quo; they claimed I overstate my case and that they promote conscious capitalism (which I am too developmentally challenged to appreciate). I offer an analysis of this in my recent article, LOHAS and the Indigo Dollar: Growing the Spiritual Economy.

This morning’s sales propaganda from Integral Life starts with the question “are you making as much money as you want”? It goes on to flog a new wealth-generating attitude scheme from internet marketer Eben Pagan:

Notice everything going on in your mind and emotions right now, everything set in motion by the question of money. If you’re feeling a bit of a charge, take a moment. Settle into it. Make new use of an old yoga practice, and… Breathe into your checking account. Notice any sensations that may arise.

You probably outgrew your exclusive identification with the achievement mentality a long time ago. You no longer experience your drive for success as who you are. Instead, it is a part of you. But how comfortably does that part sit with you? Does it flow effortlessly into your life or does it keep you up at night?

We’re writing you to recommend a program that will dramatically improve your relationship with wealth and help your achiever do what it does best… to achieve! It was created by our friend and colleague Eben Pagan. Eben is a longtime student of the human potential and personal growth movements with a solid understanding of integral theory and the values of the integral movement. Plus, he is, shall we say… well-qualified to talk about success.

His program, “Self Made Wealth,” speaks to a conventional audience but delivers an exceptional level of insight. If you stick with him, you will soon find that he is a master at re-framing, capable of lifting his audience up from a constricted and confused identification with money into a space of genuine confidence and inspiration.

Do you really need any more evidence to demonstrate how the indigo dollar is privileged in contemporary Wilberian integral thought?

And note how Pagan is described as embodying “a solid understanding of integral theory and the values of the integral movement”: this is yet another example of the ever-expanding posse of “thought leaders” who are assigned the brand of “integral” simply by selling their products and services to the integral community.

Every time a flaky new thought leader is branded, another nail is hammered in to the coffin of integral thought. I know there are plenty of smart folks who hold on to the concept of integral as having value; however, my suggestion is to salvage what you can, call it something else and move on.

Integral is exhausted: abandon it to Oprah Winfrey Network.

The next issue of Journal of Men, Masculinities and Spirituality is in the final stages of production; it contains the following articles, and will be online by the end of the month:

Articles

Inspire, Expire: Masculinity, Mortality and Meaning in Tim Winton’s Breath by Roie Thomas

Dandy Discipleship: a Queering of Mark’s Male Disciples by Robert J. Myles

Constructing Masculinity: De Utero Patris (from the Womb of the Father) by Paul Collins

Reviews

Review of Eric Magnuson, Changing Men, Transforming Culture: Inside the Men’s Movement by Nathan Hitchcock

Review of Kenneth J. Doka, and Terry L. Martin, Grieving Beyond Gender: Understanding the Ways Men and Women Mourn by Katharina von Kellenbach

Review of Sven Glawion, Elahe Haschemi Yekani, and Jana Husmann-Kastein (eds.), Erlöser: Figurationen männlicher Hegemonie [Redeemer: Figurations of Male Hegemony], and Susanne Lanwerd and Márcia Elisa Moser (eds.), Frau–Gender–Queer: Gendertheoretische Ansätze in der Religionswissenschaft [Women–Gender–Queer: Gender Theory in Religious Studies] by Björn Krondorfer

Review of Trysh Travis, The Language of the Heart: A Cultural History of the Recovery Movement from Alcoholics Anonymous to Oprah Winfrey by Claire Clark

Review of William Ming Liu, Derek Kenji Iwamoto, and Mark H. Chae (eds.), Culturally Responsive Counseling with Asian American Men by Philip Culbertson