JOSEPH GELFER

A little while ago, I was contacted by Sarah Nicholson who is editing a book with Vanessa Fisher called Integral Explorations of Sex, Gender and Spirituality: Emerging Visions of Women and Men, under preparation for the new SUNY Press’ Integral Theory series. The blurb states:

This anthology highlights the cutting edge discourses on sex, gender and spirituality that are emerging from within the Integral paradigm of theory and practice. This collection of essays from academic theorists and advanced practitioners brings the Integral perspective to bear on issues of gender, sexuality, feminism, the men’s movement and women and men’s spirituality, as they appear within disciplines as diverse as psychology, sociology, philosophy, religious studies and art theory. This anthology will feature a broad range of scholars and practitioners working across a diverse field of disciplines including: Ken Wilber, Elizabeth Debold, Robert Masters, Warren Farrell, Sarah Nicholson, Giles Herrada, R. Michael Fisher, Claire Zammit, Luke Fullagar, Vanessa Fisher, Diane Musho Hamilton and Marc Gafni.

Sarah wanted to know if I was interested in contributing to the book, to which I said something along the lines of “have you actually read any of my stuff?” Anyway, after a period of time which equates quite closely with how long it takes to find a copy of my modestly-distributed book in Australia, Sarah got back to me and repeated her question. So now we have settled upon the inclusion of an edit (minus some of the naughtier bits) of my integral chapter from Numen, Old Men in Sarah and Vanessa’s book.

Now, given that I’ve had a bit of a poke at a few of the other contributors in this book, lining up with them on the same Table of Contents seems a bit unlikely. But credit is due to Sarah and Vanessa: this is exactly the type of editorial decision that moves the debate along. It seems there are now a number of folks who want to pursue this debate (see my previous post on Rebecca Bailin’s paper): at some point this should affect the Integral Party line which hasn’t budged since the limited perspectives outlined in Sex, Ecology and Spirituality.

Rarely a month goes by without the Wilberian Integral Machine pumping forth new evidence of its alignment with the men’s movement, as outlined in various blog posts here.

This week’s Integral Life Newsletter is entitled “The Need for Men’s Liberation” and directs readers to a conversation between Ken Wilber and Warren Farrell where they will be offered “Instant Insights” such as:

• “Power” is not defined by the amount of control someone has over others, but the amount of control one has over his or her own life
• In terms of recognizing and developing their power, men are in a similar position today as women were in the late 1950′s, at the dawn of the feminist movement

Here’s the problem: Wilber and Farrell sound quite reasonable when they speak to issues such as “the urgent need for men to begin redefining their roles for today’s world”. However, when you scratch the surface, they begin to assert some rather more problematic positions. If you read my book you will find evidence for the following “Instant Insights”:

• Wilber distorts the work of feminist scholars such as Carol Gilligan, and claims they support his view, when they do not.
• Wilber and Farrell deny the historical reality of patriarchy, suggesting instead it was there to suit everyone.
• Wilber and Farrell’s consistent reframing of “feminism” and what it “really” means is an overt act of depoliticization and masculine power.
• Far from “redefining their roles for today’s world”, Wilber imprisons men and women into “types” on the AQAL matrix, falling foul of his own elegantly-formulated pre-trans fallacy.
• Wilber relegates “feminine” spiritual values to the pre-rational, stating “more men make it into the universal, postconventional moral stages than do women”.
• Wilber states that even in noospheric realms there can be no ultimate gender parity “given the unavoidable aspects of childbearing”.

How’s that for gender equality?

I know it’s getting rather boring with me making these comments about the integral men’s movement, but it seems that over the past year the Wilberian Integral Machine has gone on something of an offensive on this issue, which should be a worry for us all.

In Numen, Old Men I dedicate a chapter to how Ken Wilber’s brand of integral spirituality resonates with much of the men’s movement of the 1990s: both mythopoetic and Christian. It seems the connections just keep on coming, as this week Integral Life plays host to Fr. Richard Rohr: the archetypal Christian mythopoet.

It’s easy to see why Rohr would do well in integral circles. His “classic” book The Wild Man’s Journey: Reflections on Male Spirituality echoes much of Wilber’s understanding of gender, namely feminine receptiveness and masculine assertiveness. Just as pedestrian gender commentators like Warren Farrell and John Gray have been welcomed into the integral fold, now we have gems of wisdom from Rohr, such as the opening of The Wild Man’s Journey, “This book is not for women. Nor is it for softies, wimps or nerds who intend to stay that way for the rest of their lives” (p. i). Don’t you just love the highly evolved nature of integral consciousness?