An Authoritarian Cult?
June 13th, 2006
As much as I dig Wilber’s work (see my last post), I’m quite disturbed, like Paul by a well-reasoned [Edit] level-headed post on the P2P blog.
James Burke posted an update on the previous entry, showing the claim that Wilber now says that the outrageous rant was written on purpose. This is entirely consistent with the cultic process.
The basis of cultism is the abandonment of autonomy and critical thinking by adherents, which project ideal qualities on the leader of the group. This same process feeds the narcissism and sense of superiority of the leader. In other words: such a process is never static. Once it sets in, it becomes a self-reinforcing process, which evolves around key events. One typical event is the example setting of outrageous and ‘non-normal’ behaviour. Such an event will typically set apart those with doubts and critique, as being part of the outgroup; while those willing to justify the behaviour, will be considered to be part of the superior in-group. As an individual you then have two choices. Remain critical, and be considered a negative force by the in-group; you can then stay and adapt, or, if you’re steadfast, the process of separation will have begun. But facing a group requires a large amount of self-confidence, since the group makes you appear as the ‘abnormal’ one. Like Frank Visser, who started to feel uncomfortable that intellectual dialogue became an impossibility, your doubts will be evidence against you, that you are in fact aggressive, and don’t belong in the cozy in-group of confirmers.
If you adapt to the pressure of the majority, the confirmation that the event has given to the superiority of the leader, will only reinforce the narcissism, and the stage will be set for a further ‘event’ or process. This next event will generally test the waters of conformity and obedience even further. People should therefore not expect that the movement around Wilber will stay a moderate and positive force, because once the process has set in, based on authoritarian cognitive and spiritual premises, there can no longer be a counter-force. The narcissism demands to be fed, and like an addition, the doses have to be increased to be felt.
Without recanting my last post (yet), I am joining the chorus of people in the Integral blogosphere asking for a response to Wilber’s critics. What’s the harm in talking?
~Disturbed
[Edit: 8:20am] - I’m not suggest that Wilber himself respond, but there must be plenty of people at I-I who could pick apart these arguments, as others have already suggested. After loosing a few hours sleep last night over this. I’m inclined to give Wilber the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps all the noise in the blogosphere is just that- noise.
On the other hand, if I-I is turning into an authoritarian cult, Wilber’s ideas would still stand the tests of criticism and peer review, regardless of what the man himself does. So far, his ideas are brilliant, in my opinion, and he deserves some trust and respect.
June 13th, 2006 at 2:40 am
I thought the p2p post read almost like a conspiracy theory. Corrupted by an evil billionaire? Selling the wares of a scam enlightenment? Wilber as a neo-conservative?
I don’t know. Are we really to believe that Wilber’s aim was to get us to drop our autonomy and critical thinking skills?
June 13th, 2006 at 8:32 am
Good point, but as Paul said, it’s just another perspective to consider. Maybe there’s nothing worthwhile there at all.
June 13th, 2006 at 11:42 am
It’s a good perspective, and one we have to watch out for in OUR OWN psyches. Do we agree with Wilber because we really “get it”? Or is it all an act to make people think we’re “second tier” and part of the “cool kids”?
I don’t see how any organization or movement dedicatd to personal improvement can avoid people attempting to fake it, unless they stay Green and reject the concepts of holarchy and developmental levels altogether.
June 13th, 2006 at 11:51 am
Hey Jay-
Man, if I was going to fake “getting it,” it certainly wouldn’t be with Integral Theory and the surrounding community. Being interested in this stuff is a pain in the ass. It’s tough to communicate, I rarely meet others who are interested, and some of my best friends won’t even give it a chance. If it weren’t for the Internet I would have little or no connection with the “cool kids.” But I am happy about the connections I do have.
If I was going to fake something, it would be Unitarianism or something else where I could be a part of some local community.
The part I have to watch out for (internally) is getting too attached to the theory and the man to take an objective perspective.
June 13th, 2006 at 11:52 am
I don’t think the intent was as dark as others suggested — it was mostly a marketing ploy.
The thing I find interesting is that he has provided so much support from the “minions” in the integral inner circle. Would these people really ever tell Wilber he is full of shit?
The 2nd post is written so that we’ll agree with Wilber no matter what we originally thought (unless we happen to be capable of second tier thinking and still thought the whole thing was inane) because, like Jay said, we want to be one of the cool kids. And then he tops that with the “well, everyone can get here if you’ll do as I say and believe as I say” approach. That’s the scary part.
And all of this just to generate more subscriptions for the new and improved Integral Multiplex. Hmmm . . . was it wise to chase away so many potential customers?
Peace,
Bill
June 13th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
Hey Bill,
Thanks for the comment.
I don’t really see it as a marketing ploy- as you say he probably chased away quite a few potential customers. As for his minions, Paul S. doesn’t seem to be too worried about stepping on Wilber’s toes, and some of the letters Wilber posted seemed pretty critical to me.
And then he tops that with the “well, everyone can get here if you’ll do as I say and believe as I say” approach. That’s the scary part.
I don’t see it being that hard-core. I think it’s more about being aware of your reactions and what you identify with. Not everyone at “second tier” will find him funny, nor will they all find his post appropriate, but they will, in my opinion, be able to see Wilber’s perspective, and see the various levels of development he speaks to. Of course, if you don’t buy his theory, that will be tough to do.
Now the question of whether Visser’s critics have valid points is a separate issue for me. The issue of insular scholarship and limited criticism will definitely have to be dealt with in a more healthy and open way, once the Multiplex actually opens. Until then I’m willing to give Wilber and I-I the benefit of the doubt.
June 13th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
I thought the p2p post was pretty well written. It seems kind of hand-crafted around the situation and bit of a straw-man argument, but the points are well taken. I think the large current of “I’m now separating Ken from integral” thinking is actually pretty healthy. If you merge the two too closely, you get the baby/bathwater scenario. Personally, I haven’t had any problem with what Ken has done, but that’s just my perspective. Still, if Ken *does* do something I find unacceptable some day, I certainly won’t stop using the four quadrants to analyze situations, you know?
Aeryck
June 13th, 2006 at 4:19 pm
As a Wilber “minion,” I’d like to suggest that perhaps this kind of dis-identification with his theories was exactly the kind of shadow element his provocation post was designed to bring out. He specifically asks in his follow-up,
“How many perspectives can you include? It’s a simple challenge. A challenge to: what altitude are you, what are your own levels and lines, and most of all, what are your shadow elements? So, if I may respectfully suggest, look at your response to that first blog and ask yourself those questions.”
Some of us may have shadow elements that include an unhealthy identification with Wilber and his work. Wouldn’t this be a perfect example of Wilber’s theory in action - using it to transcending and include Wilber and his own work?
An unhealthy response, from a non-dual perspective, would be to trash Wilber verbally and ditch him entirely, as some folks seem to be doing. But then, that’s one thing that I have “faith” in - non-dual reality. If you feel differently about non-dual “truth,” your perspective on this matter would no-doubt differ as well.
June 13th, 2006 at 7:43 pm
Bill, you wrote:
“The thing I find interesting is that he has provided so much support from the “minions” in the integral inner circle. Would these people really ever tell Wilber he is full of shit?”
With all due respect, Bill, have you ever talked to any of “these people”? You seem to be assuming that the “minions” are all toe-licking sychophants. On what basis?
And Sean, I hear ya loud and clear.
June 13th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
Jay,
It’s based mostly on the emails and such Ken keeps posting in support of his Test — 3 posts now, all full of other people within I-I, or otherwise, supporting Ken’s points in the Test.
Even those who dissent defer to his wisdom in knowing what he is doing.
I think there are many fine people in I-I.
Most likely, I am just projecting my shadow stuff onto Ken and the rest of those (me projecting, here) who think that compassion is the same as a bitter rant.
~ Bill
June 14th, 2006 at 2:44 am
I think a Wilber critics watch, run by his students, or minions, or whatever term you prefer, is the best solution to all of this. Leaves Wilber free to do whatever the hell he wants, further separates the man from the ideas, allows those in direct dialog with Wilber to interact with those who aren’t in a position to be, to overcome that problem, and most importantly, actually addresses some of the criticism, rather than a few strawmen.
June 14th, 2006 at 11:52 am
I agree, Tuff. Even right now, there must be plenty of people in the Integral community who could deal with the arguments.
Part of the problem is that critics want an official response- they want Wilber to pay attention to their ideas. Many claims have already been answered by Integrally informed folks, minions or not, but these critcs, and thier supporters, won’t be satisfied until they get an official response.
Perhaps there should be a site like Visser’s, but with a volunteer community willing to categorize and rank each criticism’s validity- not according to “positive/negative” as Visser has but related to the strength of ideas. Then Wilber, or someone official from I-I could give an “official” response to the serious critiques. After all, these people are paid little or nothing (the last I heard) and have plenty of things to do besides debating weak arguments with people who want attention.
June 15th, 2006 at 9:06 pm
[...] - After we wrote our own editorial on Wilberism becoming a cult, it was picked up in the blogosphere, here at ; [...]
June 16th, 2006 at 6:17 am
To those of you above who say that despite all that has happened you still will give wilbur the benefit of the doubt. Question: Have you asked youself at what point you would stop giving anyone the benefit of doubt? Unfortunately after a lot of consideration, i realized that i had become part of the movement and removed from anothe kinda truth. I had to take the red pill..AAAAGH!
June 16th, 2006 at 10:01 am
Sonny-
I would stop giving his ideas the benefit of the doubt when they stopped lining up with reality as I understand it. For example, I don\’t buy into either reincarnation, or chakras- both of which he mentions throughout his work. Fortunately, neither concept is part of the foundation of his theories. I feel free to take or leave different aspects as I see fit. It\’s not all or nothing.
I would stop giving the the man the benefit of the doubt if he did something that didn\’t make sense to me or that I found morally abhorrent. For example, if he pulled a Gafni and sexually assaulted his students/followers, I would find it hard to support him.
My question for you and all the other folks who are jumping ship recently: What alternative(s) do you have to offer?
And further, is there another theory out there that incorporates so many perspectives? Can you really discount the man\’s work because you don\’t like him or the way he\’s handling things? Does his basic idea of \”transcend and include\” no longer apply because he won\’t pay attention to some of his critics? What do you keep and what do you throw out?