Inquiry

  It is with some trepidation that I respond to the inquiry about integral activism. I suspect some others may feel the same way, as I don't yet see any other contributers.

  I sort of cringed when I read the word "activism", since in many cases it has begun to take on a negative connotation.  Looking it up on Google, I found several definitions that supported that feeling.  One definition noted that activism is usually "in opposition to or support of one side of a controversial issue."  Thus, I think activism and controvery are linked in many people's mind.  That reminded me of St. Theresa's comment when an activist asked if she would march in the "Anti-War" protest.  She commented that she would participate when they had a "Pro-Peace" march, but not in an "Anti-War" march.  By just changing the view point, the tone was changed to a less controversial one.  I think the way she approached the issue could perhaps exemplify one way in which I could see Integral Activism having a place. 

  Some other definitions were more middle of the road, such as: "Activism is action directed toward achieving political or social goals."  This is a definition that I find more comfortable, but it still leaves open the question of "What action and how much?"  Protests?  Boycotts?  Strikes?  Social discourse and debate?  I favor the latter category, since I have noted that beyond a certain point, activism can take a life of its own and become its own worse enemy vis a vis, achieving the original goal.

  This is not to say that more activism is never needed, but at that point, the pros and cons of doing more need to be accurately weighed.  Will doing more really help or not?  Is this really the right time and place to do more?  Is what is being done directed to the right group with the right message?  What world view do the activists have that needs to be taken into consideration?  This is where I think Integral Activism could be particularly effective, since it takes many more aspects of the situation into consideration and thus would give a more accurate "weighing" of the pros and cons.

  Last, overly aggressive activism often ends up generating an "Us" versus "Them" situation that ends in a stalemate.  I would like to think that Integral Activism would help avoid that potential dead end.

  Thus, before any potential Integral Activism would take place, I would like to think that one of the first things done would be to "Love the enemy", with the goal of really understanding the concerns of the "opposition", as well as understanding their world view, etc. (I believe this was a recent Integral Life exercise in one of the policital arenas and was a good spiritual/integral exercise). Most powerful movements are usually a mixture of different groups whose agendas do not necessarily competely overlap.  In some cases a group may actually be acting against their own best interests due to their "hot buttons" being pushed.  Understanding this would be very important to determine the best overall strategy.

  Through this type of analysis, the actions of the activists can be made in a more controlled and platable manner.  For example, if one of the groups faced is afraid they are going to lose their source of income, it is unlikely that abstract arguments would sway them.  To help convert them to their cause, the activists would likely have to show them an alternate way for them to earn a living in a manner acceptable to their world view.  Understandably difficult, but to do otherwise would be to create implacable foes.  In stating this, I wonder if this could be one of the issues behind the difficulties we are having in Iraq, in addition of course to the religious ones.

  So, I just thought I would take a shot at this, but I feel I've barely scratched the surface of this interesting and somewhat intimidating inquiry.  More discourse to flesh out this idea would be welcome.

Yours,

MB

On one hand one can say that whatever activist endeavors an integral level of consciousness chooses to employ could be considered integral activism. That may hold true in a narrow sense of an individual, but does not necessarily reflect the center of gravity of an integral sub-culture.

Ken Wilber currently dominates or may be the most prominent figure in the integral sub-culture today. While this author (Elementstew) feels that KW has contributed great insight and work in modern culture, I question his management of Integral Institute and worry that his device
(search engine optimization) of the MGM may have unfortunate unintended consequences. There are other issues in which I disagree with KW and/or his tactics, strategies and specific perspectives that may or may not be addressed as my work in this site develops.

One of the unintended consequences that I fear the device of the MGM has created is a general rejection of more traditional forms of activism because they can be percieved as nonintegral or coming from a level of consciousness that is a stage prior to integral

I also wanna add in it,u can analyze that whether it is true or not ,"On one hand one can say that whatever activist endeavors an integral level of consciousness chooses to employ could be considered integral activism. That may hold true in a narrow sense of an individual, but does not necessarily reflect the center of gravity of an integral sub-culture."Actually i was surfing net to get data related to the projects like mcitp , mcp 70-270 , testking dumps etc and in the meantime came here and find this post different one...

The problems we face today are just too big, too complex and complicated for us to solve if we do not pull together and act collectively, or as you put it - integral activism.  I think integral activism can and will solve our problems if we all adopt this mentality.  Integral activism can also be a means of understanding men and the many problems that men bring.

In order to be Integral Activists do we need everything that we do as a group to be Integrally informed? Ideally yes, but in practical reality, this is just too daunting a task for the resources available, the most scarce being time and mindshare. So can we still consider this an Integral endeavour?

We realize that the field of drug policy reform is rife with insider-speak, targeted at the very constituency that already agrees with the proposition of decriminalization and regulation. In other words, the language is green, academic/policy-oriented, dry and dusty. We wish to make it available, provocative and igniting of dialogue. A key tool will be to adapt and translate some of this dry and dusty language into approaches and phraseology that reaches the target constituencies where they already live, rather than requiring of them that they adapt themselves so that they can participate in our conversation. We have some great ideas about which constituencies, and how to reach them, and we're in the nascent stages of organization. If you are adept at using Integral Lenses to speak to particular constituencies, we need your help!!