One of the things I think the integral movement should be doing is discussing integral policy proposals. At the moment there’s a lot of fine talk about theory but little talk about how the theory should be applied to real world problems. So I’ll get the ball rolling…
There’s ben a debate in Oz over gay marriage. The conservative federal government is against it but around 50% of the population support it. This means that if it were to go to a popular vote it would likely pass (I think 38% were opposed, 12% undecided). Some of the rhetoric coming from the conservatives states dramatically that the family is the foundation of civilization. What utter bullshit. The advent of gay marriage will not cause the collapse of civilization. What it will do however, is undermine the conservative Christian belief that families must be monogamous and heterosexual. But does integral theory support this view?
Clearly not. The advent of ‘family’ politics is what we call in Oz a ‘dog whistle’ issue. The term family is code that conservative Christians understand clearly but which is not so clearly heard by others. Family is code for ‘conservative Christian values’. So when a conservative Christian political party is formed it calls itself ‘Family First’ – iow, conservative Christians first.
Now from an integral pov we would understand that families come in all sorts of combinations and patterns, from complicated tribal families based on clan and totem affiliations, to polygamous and polyandrous configurations. I would suggest there is no evidence to suggest that heterosexual, monogamous ‘marriages’ are better in any way. A key issue is the raising of children, but there seems to be no developmental studies that suggest the ‘nuclear’ family is superior. In fact, the research I have done suggests otherwise. Children may develop quicker with a greater contact with multiple adult role models. Research done on children raised in Kibbutz have indicated a greater level of moral reasoning than their non-Kibbutz peers. In the radical kibbutzim children were raised in peer groups, sleeping in dorms. The idea was to break apart the bourgeois nuclear family and avoid the Freudian oedipus/electra complex. In the more radical kibbutzim both sexes slept in the same dorm and showered and toileted together (up until 18). Some kibbutzim even allowed sexual experimentation, at least theoretically. One dramatic result of this type of child rearing was actually not the expected sexual liberation but the development of a self-imposed puritanical sexual code amongst adolescents, with a notable reluctance to marry within the peer group. Iow, the peers tended to see each other as siblings and became asexual, only seeking partners outside the kibbutz. Otherwise, children raised in this manner went on to lead successful lives.
I would suggest that integral theory would allow people to form any type of partnership arrangement they so wish (they do any way). The question then becomes one about the legal status of partners, especially in relation to the care of children and the management of joint assets. In which case the state should recognize the rights of all partners, whether in a monogamous or polyamorous, hetero or homo arrangement. There is no reason the state should favour the ideal Christian family.
Just a note – the origin of the idea of the Christian family is curious. For a start Jesus never married and urged his disciples to leave their families. He advocated complete devotion to the spiritual path. Paul was not much better. So when exactly did the idea of the nuclear family become conflated with Christianity? Wasn’t the Mormon argument for polygamy based on the Bible?
On another topic now – film. In my view it’s one of the true integral arts. It requires the correct balance of multiple skills, photography, set design, music, sound, montage, writing, acting, etc. The master director must be proficient in so many fields, and now especially, in the technical fields of the digital arts.
The breakout film for me has been Sin City, for its fusion of manga inspired artwork and moving image. My thesis for my degree was in the digital future (written in 84). I evisaged exactly where we are now, twenty years later (with some way still to go, mainly in distribution). What I didn’t forsee was the rise of the internet. What we are now on the crest of is a massive wave of small, independent digital fims distributed via the internet. These will increase in quality as the technology improves and as the market improves (and returns increase feeding into larger budgets).
Another breakout film – following a different emerging trend – is the Oz film ‘Ten Canoes’. It’s a collaboration between Aboriginals from Arnhem Land and Rolf De Heer (from an idea put to him by David Gulpilil – I’ve met David, he stayed overnight at a house I shared in Sydney). It’s about an Aboriginal clan and it’s set a thousand years before white contact. It is told entirely from the Aboriginal perspective and it makes few concessions to Western sensibilities. I’m particularly interested because if I were to return to film making I would want to do ethnographically and historically accurate stories from within the perspective of a given culture, without modifying it for Western sensibilities. I’d love to do a film about pre-contact Nuba in Africa; a film about the real Helen of Troy, Queen of Sparta (or about Sparta and Athens as they truly were); and a film about pre-Muslim India in a kingdom influenced by tantra. The only mildly disappointing thing about ‘Ten Canoes’ was that they did modify the nudity in order to cater to various concerns. The men go naked and there’s no lack of full frontal male nudity, but the women were posed to avoid it, or wore discreet patches, perhaps to avoid shots of protruding labia. Whatever the case the facts of pre-white Aboriginal life is that many Aboriginal tribes went fully naked, not even bothering to cover genitals. Otherwise the film was praise worthy for not shying away from other topics – the fact that one of the main characters had three wives, with one of them being quite young (early teens); the vulgar humour and the violence (the spearing death of an innocent man).
So why would ‘Ten Canoes’ be integral – for its capacity to enter another worldview and encourage multi-perspectivism. The trouble with so many historical/ethnographic films is that they are mediated through modern, Western sensibilities. Are we ready to see an accurate film about ancient Greece with its overtly homoerotic culture, for the sight of the Spartan gymnopaedia – the festival of naked children in which both girls and boys competed in a variety of sports and dances?
Finally – I think the integral art that has yet to even begin to reach its potential as integral artform is computer gaming. Imagine a multilevel game that replicates developmental levels rendered by innovative animators, visual artists, musicians, soundscapists, etc, etc. It ain’t been done yet folks but I sure as hell know how I’d do it.
Ray