Integral Ecology: A Review of Part 4, the Last

  Part 4 of Integral Ecology was the shortest section and consisted of 3 case reviews of 20-30 pages each and a 12 page summary.  Even though the case reviews did not have as much as I would have liked on how to integrally analyze a situation, each had something unique to add so that I able to further add to my integral tool kit.  The most surprising yet realistic part of the case studies was the reoccurring theme that the success of each of these projects was heavily dependent upon the personal development of the leaders.  While not surprising based upon the emphasis the authors placed on including the personal and interiors in the integral formula, it was surprising to see this in a “scientific” article, since historically scientific articles are 3rd person reports with nothing said about the perspective of the observer who wrote the report.  Welcome to the Integral Age.  It’s about time.

  As an example, in Case Report 3 on the Great Bear Rainforest conservation project, the author indicated that initially the environmentalists were limited in their perspectives and that this generally prevented any significant progress in the project.  In many cases it even caused them to anger the very people they needed to influence.  It wasn’t until they evolved to a higher developmental level and were able to “think out of the box” that they finally succeeded.  This whole story is amazing and inspiring.  As it took place over a ten year period of time, I can’t even imagine the dedication it took to do this.  However, many of the leaders took this project as their spiritual path and so used it as a learning and developmental process.  This not only helped lead to success, it allowed them to continue working on the project through many years and many disappointments.  Before this transformation, many ended up burning out.  That and other factors led many of the environmentalists to make changes in their lives and perspectives, which allowed their interior development to occur (tetra-arise?).

  In the 1st Case Report, which took place in El Salvador, the author points out 4 major reasons why people change and develop: 1) when life conditions enable growth, 2) when the self experiences irreconcilable cognitive dissonance, 3) by simply living life (does this mean it happens “automatically” or is this a version of “shit happens”?), and 4) through conscious practice.  She found that through participating in the project, the people in the community they were working with also developed interiorly, going from egocentric to sociocentric (ethnocentric) and some into parts of the worldcentric levels of orange and green.  There was also an interesting section on “Transformation” versus “Translation” in which the latter is related to not changing developmental levels (Transformation), but changing to a healthy form of the same level.  From undergoing this easier change, many participants were able to respond more favorably to conservation goals, since they now more fell into line with their own worldviews.  The integral leaders helped with this process through reframing the conservation goals so that they resonated with the participants’ worldviews.  The main reason the integral leaders were able to consistently do this was because their personal practice helped them to stabilize at an Integral Stage of consciousness (Teal and Turquoise).  This enabled them to not only be able to see multiple perspectives, but to also honor them and so better be able to meet people at their own level and in a positive, healthy way.  The Turquoise level also helped resolve the burn out issue, since at this level the attachment to goals has been let go, but the desire to help and make change (compassion) has not.

  The 2nd case report was about Integral Marine Ecology conflicts in Hawaii and was the most interesting one to me.  This was because after creating a Quadratic diagram which listed the key elements of the problems, he discussed those key elements, quadrant by quadrant, in a more detailed and concrete way.  This was helpful enough that I could start seeing a pattern of how to create and flesh out the rather abstract or abstruse (to me) lists in the quadrants.  This was one of the main reasons I was reading this book.  On the other hand, I would rather the authors had a huge section that covered one ecological problem from the beginning brainstorming part of what needed to be addressed in the 4 quadrants and in what way, through the expansion of this into the nuts and bolts of what actually needed to be done, and then doing it in order to resolve it in an integral way.  However, I think my take home about this process is that past a certain point of cognitive knowledge, Integral Problem Solving appears to be an experiential case of applying the knowledge, correcting the mistakes and omissions through an iterative process, and getting the experience to do better.  Plus working on personal development.  Integral Ecology is still very much an art and hence both a person’s level of experience and development are directly related to how integrally they can institute a program.  With that in mind, I continue to ask, please read this book and follow its injunctions if you want to develop further and become more integral.  It’s the closest thing to having an integral guidebook at this point.

  The summary chapter was fairly short, but instead of just reiterating what had already been said, they changed the perspective just enough that I was able to learn even more.  To do this takes effort and skill on the part of the authors and as they did this throughout the book, I was grateful, as a made for a consistently interesting book.  The summary included a discussion of the “18 advantages” of Integral Ecology, followed by a 12 point Integral Ecology Platform.  The platform is basically a list of 12 injunctions for Integral Ecologist wannabees.  I found it helpful and plan to follow it.

  Last, in one of the case studies the authors describe what is called a “brain syndicate.”  This is when people with diverse skills and worldviews come together to build holistic, integrative and innovative solutions.  When I read that, I said: “This is what Integral Life members need to form if we really want to do an integral evaluation of the Climate Change Problem.”  On the other hand, in one of Sean Esbjorn-Hargens’ recent blogs, he said he will be presenting a large new Climate Change paper of his in the near future.  Thus, we may finally be getting what some of us have wished for.  However, I would like us to consider responding to his presentation on Climate Change (or any other integral project) in a “brain syndicate” way of cooperation in order to integrally optimize it.  Please join me in this effort and we will all learn from it.  Maybe we’ll accidentally do some good.

Over and out,

mb