Edward Berge
There’s an interesting discussion on the above topic in a thread by that name at Gaia’s Integral Postmetaphysical Spirituality pod. Craig Hamilton’s conferences came up in this regard. Someone mentioned that while they didn’t approve of his marketing methodology they nonetheless would participate because of some of the presenters. I replied:
This goes to my point above, that sometimes we have to give up some valuable stuff to effect change. Yes, Hamilton brings together some key voices that might make a difference. But those voices, by participating in his conference, offer tacit approval to his commodified method. And many folks then also assume this is the proper way to proceed in the spiritual marketplace. I’m even wondering if those valuable presenters like Swimm, by participating, aren’t subconsciously influenced by such participation and such methods come to be seen as a necessary evil within a commodified culture, that we have to use such measures to reach people in the first place but once we do then we’ll change methodology. Unfortunately in the process we get corrupted and the methodology doesn’t change.
That’s why I boycott I-I and things like the Integral Conference. Yes, there are many people that go to these that challenge Wilber, even on issues such as this commodification. But the conference itself is promoted with such methods and financially supports I-I, which supports such methods. And by attending and participating we tacitly support such measures, measures that will continue because they are receiving support, even if one talks opposition.
What’s the alternative? Those that oppose such methods might form their own integral organization and conference and market themselves in a different way. But I-I has done all the work, it’s just easier to go to theirs, we don’t have the resources, maybe we can change it from within etc etc. To walk our talk is the hardest challenge imaginable. And we all know this has to be done because I-I is not going to change in this way, ever, even after Wilber is gone.
Theodor Adorno uses Marx in his critical social theory to criticize capitalistic commodification. He argues that exploitation is inherent in capitalism, as it must extract surplus value from the labor force, i.e., profit. And this profit inevitably leads to unequal distribution of wealth, the maintenance of the ruling elite and the impoverishment of the masses, whose sole joy in life is buying consumer goods to compensate for the loss of their intrinsic value.
Capitalism also tends to reduce all spheres to that of exchange value. In Wilbespeak it becomes a dominating paradigm, applying its own injunctions onto all other paradigms. Therefore even in paradigms such as philosophy and religion the primary value is commodity exchange. Adorno calls this process reification.
So this thread sees the obvious expression of commodified spirituality in Hamilton and Wilber, how spirituality’s inherent values have been co-opted into a dominant form of commercialization endemic to our socio-economic system. We talked earlier in the aesthetics thread about how the artist is often unaware and embedded within their cultural context, and how this context will find expression within the art itself. And so it is with the commification of spirituality. And along with this process is the very real but hidden enactions inherent in capitalism, the same reduction of all values spheres to the marketplace. And perhaps even more importantly, the same reduction of the consumer to buying another product to mask their economic suffering within a system that perpetuates an unjust distribution of wealth based on the profit motive. In this case the product is “enlightenment,” which within this context only serves to keep us enslaved in a corrupt system. Yes, I’m poor and malnourished and cannot afford to buy needed clothing, but I’m enlightened god damn it and that’s all that matters.
We discussed in the integral capitalism thread that buying into capitalism is not a given; there are real-life alternatives already in existence, alternatives that do not perpetuate such injustice. Alternatives that arguably come from a more complex, developmental worldview. But by continuing to financially support those “integral” institutions that do not seek out such alternatives, and themselves unconsciously buy into less complex, developmental worldviews that support such injustice, we continue to maintain such systems. At the very least we should take the responsibility to admit what we are doing, to become conscious when we spend our dollars this way. And perhaps commit to doing better in the future?
Here are a few more comments from the thread:
Theurj said:
Wilber himself has commented on Marx, for example in Excerpt A, Part III, Page 1. He shows how certain worldviews are enacted within specific techno-economic bases, capitalism arising with the industrial era. It could be argued that the latest informational base arises within the so-called peer-to-peer worldview. He acknowledges that the base transforms much faster than the societal worldview and “that spells disaster” since the old worldviews loathe changing to accommodate it. Perhaps most importantly, Wilber agrees with Marx that “it is not the consciousness of men that determines their reality but their economic-material realties that determine their consciousness.” That is, the economic base is the strongest influence for most people in shifting their worldviews upward. To continue to support outdated capitalistic economic bases, even an upgraded “integral” capitalism, instead of the peer-to-peer worldview relevant and its concomitant economic base indeed “spells disaster.”
Joseph said:
Thanks for the reference to Adorno. This is a pretty sophisticated analysis of what I’ve been groping at intuitively. That “spirituality’s inherent values have been co-opted into a dominant form of commercialization endemic to our socio-economic system”.
One of the primary reasons I’m taken with the Emergent Christian scene is that they have consciously cultivated a narrative that to truly follow the teachings of Jesus one must resist the Empire of global capitalism. They’re big fans of Wendell Berry and others who critique the global economy. My friend Mark Scandrette teaches very practical workshops on living simply in a financially responsible way, & cultivating awareness of how our spending habits effect others in the world. I’ve seen him stand up in front of a roomful of middle class evangelicals and point out to them that the coffee & chocolate they consume are likely produced by child slave labor.
I liked what you wrote about Spirit Rock center operating primarily on the principle of dana. And I wholeheartedly agree with you that being responsible with how we participate in the economic system is the only effective way to begin to change it.