Open Integral

It seems to me that so far, integral theory has failed women. If Wilber’s conversation with Cohen is any indication then I’m afraid things look rather grim.

It might not be fair to assess Wilber’s full views from a rather slight piece in WIE (issue 37), but then, he clearly knows people will read it and one must assume he means it to represent his views. But it’s a curious piece.

For an insight into the piece let’s start at the end, where Wilber and Cohen indulge in backslapping mutual appreciation.

“And that’s why, I think, some of the experiments you and some of our friends have been trying are so important. It’s not narcissism to point out…”

Um, well, I’m rather afraid it is narcissism to congratulate yourself on being the leading edge. Who is fooled by this? Here is Wilber praising Cohen in a magazine produced by Cohen. And this from someone who wants to be taken seriously?

So what exactly is such a “highly regarded philosopher” doing on the pages of a blatantly self-promoting ‘popularist’ magazine aimed primarily at what the publishing business would regard as a New Age market?

Okay, so let’s look at Wilber and Cohen’s understanding of feminism and women.

1. Biology is destiny

Is it? I would have thought that using his AQAL system Wilber might have paid more attention to gender as a cultural construct. Of course there is some biological basis to some behaviour, but I note that Wilber talks in terms of a rather strict polarity – in terms of assumed average male and female. When in fact there are exceptions and overlaps. The average male may be stronger than the average female but there are some women who are stronger than some men (ever heard of female body building?). Biology plays gender tricks. Does a mare run any slower than a stallion? Is a bitch Rottweiler any less vicious than a male? So how much of primate behaviour is biologically determined? What of homosexuality and the transgendered, what of tomboys and effeminate men? What of gender dysmorphia, where people are certain they are born into a body of the wrong sex? The biological fact is that gender is a gradient, not a pure polarity.

In any case the feminist argument is primarily about reproductive destiny, the struggle against patriarchal notions that a woman’s primary role is to give birth. It is not primarily about gender.

In any case, the issue is about choice, both reproductive and gender choice. In the past the options for both men and women were limited by cultural pressure to conform to rather oppressive stereotypes. Now a butch girl can dream of becoming a soldier, a boxer or a body builder and an effeminate boy can become a dancer, fashion designer, etc and act as camp as he likes – or anything in-between!

2. Feminism and science.

Wilber says: “…then women are always going to be enslaved because they’ll always be weaker. So the postmodern women’s movement went too far to the other extreme and said, ‘There is no biological truth. Science is merely fiction like everything else.’ ”

Except they didn’t say this at all and this is just a parody that simplifies a far more complex argument. The most militant feminist I knew was a scientist. She didn’t have a problem with truly objective, gender neutral science. The argument was always that science can be used by ideology. Just as ‘white’ science once supported theories of racial difference and inferiority, ‘male’ science similarly supports theories of gender difference and female inferiority. Sadly Wilber and Cohen fall into this trap, as we shall soon see. Knowing what we know I’m surprised Wilber wasn’t far more cautious.

3. Women lack the ability to hold formation.

What the fuck? Okay, the first thing is to note how Wilber and Cohen slip into the old tactic of asserting that women lack what men have – meaning that they are the lesser.

The second thing to note is that they are utterly wrong. This little gem comes from Cohen, who made his women followers go through an intensive in Spain in which they learn to ‘hold formation’. Cohen says: “…and holding formation with other people is more of a male way of thinking. Women don’t tend to think that way.” Aaaargh! You sexist pig. That’s the only way to describe this crap.

As part of my research into my novel I read about the history of the nurse’s union movement in Australia. This is at the same time as the Nurse’s Federation is running an ad campaign against Australia’s new industrial laws. The nurses have always been highly organised and militant. You don’t get to be one of the nation’s most formidable unions without being able to hold formation. And what of the suffragette movement? How many decades of persistence and holding formation did that require? And what of the large number of convents run by women, particularly the centuries old contemplative orders. Can’t hold formation? Again, what the fuck!

Let’s get this clear. Women are more than capable of holding formation in areas that matter to them. How many women run charities? I dare say that more women than men have worked quietly away at charity work. Can’t hold formation?

4. Wilber the rock god (he wishes).

To add insult to injury Wilber makes a completely fatuous comment in agreement. “That’s why there are so many all-male rock groups but very few female rock groups.”

Huh?

First, I wasn’t aware that most all-male rock groups were exemplars of ‘holding formation’. Don’t they, like, sort of, implode as male egos get in the way? Is this what holding formation looks like? Drugs, sex and rock’n roll? Let’s do a comparison – male rock group versus female run charity. An excess of male ego and narcissism compared to raising money for (name the charity) (my ex was a fund raiser for Alzheimer’s, 95% run by women).

And isn’t it interesting that Wilber went for this particular example? The pandit as rock god – Billy Corcoran look out, it’s Wilber and his band, The Leading Edge.

5. Completely missing the point.

So here are two alpha males, Cohen and Wilber, discussing what’s wrong with women – and Wilber goes into the standard rave about the developmental hierarchy, and misses the main point. Male power! Wilber has the wits to agree “…I think it’s harder on women.” And Cohen sort of gets there, “Another significant factor in this, I think, is that women are so objectified by culture…By male culture, which women also cocreate…they internalise it.”

But what else can they do in a society where men hold the power? In a society where men hold the power women can’t externalise much, if anything. Where have these dudes been for the last forty to fifty years?

6. On being patronizing shits.

No other word for it. Two narcissistic alpha males discussing what’s wrong with women. I really like this from Cohen, “the narcissistic inclination to constantly be looking for their own image in the reflection of others is even more acute than it is for men.” Aaargh! And having a mutual appreciation session in your own magazine is not narcissism? Cohen reflecting Wilber’s genius back to him and Wilber reflecting Cohen’s brilliance in return.

7. Completely missing the point – part two.

But, but, but…the reasons for women’s insecurity and narcissism are complex. As any cursory understanding of feminist theory will tell you women compete for male attention in a society where men have the power. Why do Wilber and Cohen consistently miss the point about male power? Given the enormous amount of work done on the psychology of power in general? And especially given that this is supposed to be ‘integral’? But then, why would you expect two powerful males to take an honest look at how they use their power, particularly in regard to their women followers?

What can I say? The ‘dialogue’ between Wilber and Cohen was self-indulgent crap. It dealt in crude stereotypes of both male and female biology and psychology (“Males…are geared basically toward wolf hunting in packs”). If this is where Integral gender studies is at, then we are in BIG trouble.

I used to go to a Wilber discussion group in Melbourne. One of the main reasons I left was that so few women turned up. Without a fair representation of women how could it be integral?