Posted on

IHR Podcast #14: Thoughts on Integral Theory and the associated community

In this episode of the Integral Health Resources Podcast, I discuss my current perspective on Ken Wilber’s “Integral Theory” and the associated community, especially in light of the recent New York Times article on Marc Gafni, a known sexual predator who is unconscionably endorsed as a leader in the integral community.

Related media:
– Brief description of the “Four Quadrant” model of Integral Theory
– “A Spiritual Leader Gains Stature, Trailed by a Troubled Past” – New York Times article on Marc Gafni
– Blog post by Judy Rogers, one of Marc Gafni’s victims
– Articles critical of Gafni, by William Harryman of Integral Options Cafe
– My blog post on Ken Wilber, “Has Ken Wilber jumped the shark?”

Screen Shot 2015-12-28 at 3.03.35 PM

Posted on

IHR Podcast #3: Anxiety and Elephants

In this episode of the Integral Health Resources Podcast, I rant about Paxil, bulging discs, and having one’s head lodged in an elephant’s bum. Topics include:

  • The “chemical imbalance” model of psychopathology
  • The biopsychosocial or “integral” approach to health
  • Tigers on porches
  • Elephant butts

Summary:

    Anything less than an integral, bio-psycho-social-cultural way of understanding mental health problems will lead to needlessly limited and ineffective intervention strategies.

Here are some other media resources that may be helpful/relevant to this discussion:

headthroughelephantbum

Posted on

Integral seeds found in my Human Development textbook

I took a course this summer in Human Development as part of my graduate program in counseling. I had taken a similar course as an undergraduate, back in 1990, and I was pleasantly surprised by how much more integral/holistic the field has become in the last twenty years, at least as put forth by Dr. Laura Berk in her Development Through the Lifespan book. Berk summarizes the lifespan perspective on development as follows:

…a balanced view that envisions development as a dynamic system. It is based on assumptions that development is lifelong, multidimensional (affected by biological, psychological, and social forces), multidirectional (an expression of both growth and decline), and plastic (open to change through new experiences). (p.41)

Sounds pretty integral-ish to me!

Dr. Berk continually reminds the reader of the complex, biopsychosocial nature of development, which challenges any simplistic conclusions we might draw based on any single factor, like heredity, for instance. An example of this is the study (Caspi et al, 2002) referenced where boys, even when they had a gene known to predispose people toward aggression, did not in fact show abnormal levels of aggression as long as they were raised in an family environment free from abuse.

I was struck by the degree to which psychological and social factors were shown to influence human development, even at the prenatal stage of life. Considering the number of factors— environmental, relational, political, etc.— that can impact the emotional stress of pregnant women, it is mind-blowing to contemplate the number of things that can indirectly put babies at risk for a wide range of potential problems. One study (Yehuda et al., 2005) showed how the events of 9/11 indirectly affected cortisol levels in infants’ saliva (which can impact the developing child’s susceptibility to a wide range of developmental problems later in life) by causing extreme anxiety in some mothers who happened to be pregnant during the terrorist attacks. So, even something as seemingly remote as our political relations with other countries can have an impact (indirectly) on the physiological development of our children. This understanding is, of course, consistent with the models of integral health presented here on this site.

While I was heartened by the general trend toward a more comprehensive, biopsychosocial approach to the modern study of human development, I was troubled that healthy development in adulthood is still for the most part described as if it’s a matter of conforming to conventional roles and social norms, while poor adjustment is linked to being out-of-step with societal expectations. At one point in the book, an adult’s inability or refusal to conform to society’s age-graded expectations (the “social clock” marking life events like first job, marriage, having kids, etc.) is linked not only to increased psychological stress, but also to undermining the stability of society:

…the stability of society depends on having people committed to social-clock patterns” (p.471)

This, of course, gets to the deeper questions, such as What does it really mean to be an adult?, that are still largely ignored in mainstream academic inquiry. Personally, I’ve never defined my adult status and development in terms of education, career goals, jobs, intimate relationships, parenthood, home-ownership, or even age. Rather, I conceive of maturity and personal growth as a process of continually getting deeper in terms of 1) my self-awareness/self-knowledge, and 2) my capacity for love and compassion. That said, it’s still good to see the mainstream study of human development embracing a more holistic approach in recent years.

Posted on

The Embodiment of Freedom: An integral approach to optimal health and personal transformation (Part 2: Defining terms)

"Transformation" by Rick Hocker (Click photo to go to http://rickhocker.com)
As a student of psychology, both academically and in the broadest sense, I have surveyed a number of practices and fields of study that strive to help individuals become more fully themselves. These can generally be described as approaches to personal transformation — endeavors that work to provide a supportive context where individuals can learn to become more fully aware of their personal world of experience, and are encouraged to utilize that expanded awareness as a source of intelligent responsiveness and self-expression. What transforms in this process is the mode from which a person experiences self and world, such that the quality of one’s relations to self, others, and environment changes in enriching ways as one’s depth of awareness and range of responsiveness grows.

This process whereby people move from a relatively unhealthy, inefficient, unfulfilling mode of functioning toward one of increased livelihood, health, and growth potential, has been understood in many different ways. The approaches that have had the greatest impact on my own life are those that understand personal transformation in terms of embodiment. A variety of theorists and practitioners — representing such fields as psychotherapy, somatics, phenomenology, ecology, psychology, and mindfulness meditation — have contributed a wide range of overlapping, interpenetrating perspectives that recognize the transformative potential of developing one’s capacity to be aware of and consciously responsive from embodied modes of experiencing (by which I mean experiences of bodily sensations and feelings — i.e. somatic/kinesthetic/proprioceptive experience in general). These perspectives share a broad understanding of the transformative process, which can be generally stated as follows:

Human beings often remain stuck in relatively unfulfilling, unhealthy patterns or ways of living in large part due to a diminished state of basic self-awareness. Many individuals in this state are considerably diminished in their capacity to be aware of and respond from feelingful, sensual levels of experiencing . In order to move toward health, fullness of living, and actualization of potential, a person in this dissociated state must develop his or her existing self-sensing capacities and learn to authentically express him- or herself from this deeper, fuller sense of self.

This general view of personal transformation has been understood in at least the following ways: in terms of psychological processes (i.e. dissociation and integration), interpersonal dynamics, socio-cultural/political factors, people’s relations with the earthly environment, sensorimotor functioning, and spiritual realization. The following inquiry is offered as one of many possible integral approaches to optimal health and personal transformation. I use the term integral in a broad sense, understanding an integral approach to be any that brings multiple perspectives together in an effort to address the multiple dimensions of human life. In this sense, integral is more or less interchangeable with terms like integrative and holistic or any other term meant to convey “whole person” approaches to health and personal growth. Although integral is perhaps less familiar than the other terms mentioned, I use it simply as a matter of personal preference, no doubt owing to the influence of both Haridas Chaudhuri’s model of Integral Psychology (Chaudhuri was the founder of the California Institute of Integral Studies, where I studied for several years) and to Ken Wilber’s “four quadrant” integral theory, which I find to be quite useful in framing “big-picture” multidimensional perspectives.

In my next post I will explore this inquiry’s primary assumption: that life (at least in the modern West) is indeed plagued with a tendency toward alienation and dissociation, an attitude that drives a wedge between the thinking and feeling dimensions of being human. This fragmentation of consciousness not only renders us strangers to ourselves in a deep sense, but it also distorts and deadens the quality of relationship that is possible interpersonally, and between people and the earthly environment. Then I’ll look at some ways of facilitating personal transformation that arose in response to this alienated psycho-social situation, focusing on a select few approaches within the fields of somatics and psychotherapy.

Posted on

Psychiatry’s sorry state

I just finished reading HEAD CASE: Can psychiatry be a science?, an excellent article by Louis Menand in the The New Yorker. The article makes clear what I’ve already come to realize over the last twenty years studying and working in the field of mental health — namely, that the field is a freakin’ mess. My field, the one referred to on those degrees I spent so much time and money on, is almost hopelessly mired in conflict-of-interest corruption, bad philosophy, and wrong-headed (although often well-intentioned) approaches to alleviating human suffering. The situation is almost hopeless I say, but despite the sorry state of the field, I continue to consider myself a psychologist at heart. And I’m getting tired of wallowing in the muck and mire of it all, tired of hearing myself whine about how stupid everyone must be not see things the way I see them.

So I’m making a concerted effort to be more constructive in my rantings and ravings instead of merely tearing into whatever pushes my buttons. I don’t want throw out the babies with the bath water, so to speak, because there’s usually some truth to be found in most perspectives. That’s the whole point of an integral approach to health, to weave together what’s useful so that problems can be approached more effectively.

The challenge though, is to figure out exactly which perspectives are appropriate or useful in what specific contexts, to articulate how various partial truths fit together into a comprehensive plan of action. I’m hoping to rise to that challenge in the coming weeks by diving deeper into this integral inquiry through engaging others’ perspectives, reflecting on my experiences, and writing about whatever struggles and insights come along the way.

I’ll sign off for today with what I think is the most interesting part of Menand’s piece, where he ventures into this integral territory with some provocative reflections:

Mental disorders sit at the intersection of three distinct fields. They are biological conditions, since they correspond to changes in the body. They are also psychological conditions, since they are experienced cognitively and emotionally—they are part of our conscious life. And they have moral significance, since they involve us in matters such as personal agency and responsibility, social norms and values, and character, and these all vary as cultures vary.

Many people today are infatuated with the biological determinants of things. They find compelling the idea that moods, tastes, preferences, and behaviors can be explained by genes, or by natural selection, or by brain amines (even though these explanations are almost always circular: if we do x, it must be because we have been selected to do x). People like to be able to say, I’m just an organism, and my depression is just a chemical thing, so, of the three ways of considering my condition, I choose the biological. People do say this. The question to ask them is, Who is the “I” that is making this choice? Is that your biology talking, too?

Posted on

“Integral?”

Question: What does “Integral” mean? What’s the difference between integral, integrative, holistic, mind/body, wellness, etc.?

My answer: As I use the term, “integral” refers to any approach that brings together multiple perspectives in an effort to address the multiple dimensions of human life. In this sense, the term “integral” is basically interchangeable with “integrative” and “holistic.” As a matter of personal preference, I like the term “integral.” I graduated from the California Institute of Integral Studies, which is grounded in the Integral Psychology of founder Haridas Chaudhuri, and I’m also a big fan of Ken Wilber’s “four quadrant” integral theory.

In general, however, the terms integral, integrative, holistic, mind/body, and wellness are all meant to convey “whole person” approaches to health and healing, as opposed to the disease-focused system associated with conventional medicine.

Keeping in mind that most, if not all, healthcare practitioners—whether in conventional settings or integrative health centers—would claim to be treating the “whole person,” I agree with the following distinctions Dr. Elliott Dacher makes between conventional, complimentary and alternative, integrative, and integral approaches:

[Article featured on Davi Nikent.org]

The evolution of medicine in modern times has been from allopathic or conventional, to alternative and complementary, to integrative and now to integral.

These can be defined as:

Conventional: The traditional approaches of medical science.
Alternative and Complementary: Healing approaches outside of the mainstream of western medical science.
Integrative: The merging of conventional, alternative and complementary approaches under a single “umbrella” of care.

Each of the preceding approaches, as they are currently and predominantly practiced in western culture, primarily focus on the biological or physical aspects of healing, emphasizing the role of professionals and their specialties, remedies and therapies in the treatment of physical disturbances. It is the recognition that these approaches have not addressed the whole person and therefore limit what can be achieved in health and healing that has driven the development of an integral approach.

Integral: The expansion of the health and healing process to address the entire range of the human experience: biological, psychospiritual, relational and cultural. All are seen to contribute to the disease process and to health and healing. The expansion of consciousness, the inner aspect of healing, rather than the outer “medical tool kit” is a central aspect of the integral approach. The aim of integral medicine is broader than all preceding approaches to health and healing. The aim is to gain freedom from suffering and to experience the flourishing of the full potential of our humanity – the natural arising of an inner peace, wholeness, love, compassion and joy – that can sustain itself throughout the life cycle irrespective of the presence or absence of disease. This can only be achieved with an integral approach to healing that considers all aspects of the human condition.

From the Practitioner’s Perspective:

As a conventional practitioner I would approach the individual from the perspective of the physical symptom and disease, limiting my diagnosis and treatment options to those of western science. As an alternative and complementary practitioner I would approach the physical symptom and disease from the perspective of my particular training (acupuncture, chiropractic, nutritional, etc.) and formulate a diagnostic and treatment plan in relationship to my specialty. An integrative care approach combines conventional and alternative approaches to offer a broader spectrum of choices when treating the individual’s symptoms or disease. As an Integral practitioner I would approach the patient first looking at their entire life circumstance – biological, psychosocial, relational and cultural – focusing on the whole person rather than the disease, symptom, or my particular specialty, my diagnosis would include concerns in each of these areas of life and my healing plan would cover the broad range of needs and possible approaches necessary to move towards a larger health of the whole person. Because as an integral practitioner my vision is broader so also is that which can be achieved, a human flourishing vs. a physical healing. As an integral healer I must be in a transformative process myself as the driving force for a larger healing is not merely biological knowledge but an understanding and growth into a larger consciousness. An expanding consciousness is a key ingredient of an integral process.

Elliott Dacher, MD
March 2005