“Between, Across, and Beyond” Domains:

Under the conditions of hegemonic disciplinary ambitions that are nurtured within the existing university systems, meaningful communication between disciplines is not possible, according to Basarab Nicolescu*. He writes:

" Today there are hundreds of disciplines. How can a theoretical physicist truly hold a dialogue with a neurophysiologist, a mathematician with a poet, a biologist with an economist, a politician with a computer programmer, beyond mouthing more or less banal generalities? Yet, a true decision maker must be able to dialogue with them at once. Disciplinary language is an apparently insurmountable barrier of the neophyte is some area" (41).

 Nicolescu argues that solving the big problems, the really wicked, intractable problems the world faces today, is impossible because of various disciplines’ reified, specialized languages. The disciplines have specialized to the point they have created “a modern Tower of Babel,” he states (40).“Babelization” of meaning ricochets among the participants, never resting in consensus.  It is to say, according to how Nicolescu would interpret the endeavor, that they did not communicate on a meaningful level. 

Nicolescu believes that even if the most distinguished, accomplished scholars in their fields were gathered together, motivated, dedicated, and determined to solve a problem vital to human survival, “they would only be able to develop a generalized incompetence, for the simple reason that the sum total of competencies is not competence: on the technical level, the intersection between different domains of knowledge is an empty ensemble” (42). Their efforts would be, quite simply, Shakespearean theatre; “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” 

Yet, the current trend in higher education toward “multidisciplinary” and “interdisciplinary” would suggest that an intellectual fusion and intertwining is opening the way to greater levels of knowledge that would harmonize the “Babelization” of disciplines. Nicolescu would disagree. He recognizes the value of the trend and writes that the goals of both multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary inquiry nonetheless remain “within the construction of disciplinary research” (43).

Nicolescu’s recommendation for changing this state of affairs is transdisciplinarity, which concerns what is “at once between the disciplines, across the different disciplines, and beyond all disciplines” (44). As transdisciplinary gains more validity in the academe, future researchers of leadership will explore the dimensions of “between, across, and beyond.” 

*Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity SUNY series in Western esoteric traditions. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002. Print

Some Observations on the Integral Theory Conference 2010

Extracted from Integral Leadership Review August 2010

 Sense and Sensible Shoes: Notes from an Almost Integral Observer

When Russ asked me to attend the 2010 Integral Conference with him, naturally I was delighted. Escaping the July 100+ degree temperatures of our Sonoran Desert home, spending a little girlfriend time poolside with Sara Ross, meeting people that Russ admires and respects, and learning more about that “integral” thing that my darling husband is so passionate about, seemed like a good idea to me. However, as valuable as my goals of having some precious alone-time with Russ and centering-time with Sara were, I believe that I came away from the conference with more than I came for. After engaging with other attendees in social settings, attending several formal presentations, the opening ceremony, the keynote address, and engaging in numerous spontaneous conversations, I have a deeper understanding of what draws Russ to the world of Integral and why he holds the inhabitants of that world in such high regard. After experiencing the Conference, I can now say, with complete comfort and confidence, I’m “almost integral.”

Thursday Evening: Dinner with the 

Editorial Committee of Integral Review

This was a preview of sorts of the panel discussion that took place on Saturday afternoon. The depth of intellect, the mixture of interests, the range of energies, and the appetite for laughter of the members of the editorial committee genuinely impressed me. Of course I realized that Russ and Sara were brilliant, but who knew that there were so many other inspired and gifted integralists as well? Among those present
were Jonathan Reams, Bonnitta (Bonnie) Roy, Russ (Dr. Everything) Volckmann, Tom Murray, Sara Ross, Marcus Moltz and Steve Weiss. This group of dazzling intellectuals, philosophers, theorists, and sages was my introduction to the Integral community (a term Sara eschews but as an “almost” I feel free in using it). And, beyond the pleasant and commodious conversations that evening, I noticed the following
day the only shoes I saw the women attendees wearing were of the “sensible” sort, and (of course this is just my observation) most seemed vivacious, vibrant, spirited and authentic... all in low heels... I thought to myself, “This is going to be cool.”

Presentation: Climbing a Great Hill:

 Integral Diversity Maturity Illustrated in the Autobiographies 

of Nelson Mandela and Malcolm X

Toni A. Gregory & Michael A. Raffanti: “’Climbing a Great Hill’: Integral Diversity Maturity Illustrated in the Autobiographies of Nelson Mandela and Malcolm X” was more than rewarding; it was scintillating. Gregory and Raffanti developed a framework, Integral Diversity Maturity (IDM), by drawing heavily from the work of Roosevelt Thomas and his concept of “diversity tension,” as well as Ken Wilber’s AQAL model of interpretation. This tension existed both for Mandela and Malcolm X (as well as millions of others acted upon by the oppression of racism). Yet through a process of personal reflection and responding and reacting to the diversity tension, Mandela and Malcolm X gained a “clarity” about the nature of the tension. This clarity, or “maturity,” allowed both men to accommodate new, expansive, and productive ways of relating to self and interacting with the world as a whole.


Gregory and Raffanti’s fascinating, well-crafted, impeccably researched, and painstakingly analyzed presentation was poorly attended. If you missed it (and you probably did) I strongly recommend you read the conference paper of this forward-thinking innovative duo. This is a topic that most of us, like the students sequestered in their homogenous citadel of learning, believe we already know as much as we need to know about diversity. This paper will challenge any such false notions. hhttp://www.integraltheoryconference.org/talks

Movement Building through Metanarrative:

An Ideological Approach to Enacting Integral Futures**

Again, the title drew me to the presentation. Movement: I suspected that word was used in the context of not standing still. Building: The movement (whatever it is) is just beginning, and metanarrative, an overarching, all encompassing story would be the builders’ tool. Ideological: I understood this to mean a group of ideas and values that guides action. Approach: This is a notion of coming nearer... Enacting Integral Futures threw me. I didn’t what this meant, but I was hopeful.

Although he was gentle in spirit and subtle in tone Jordan Luftig issued an unmistakably clear call to action for the integral community. His talk Saturday morning was a manifesto; he delivered a courageous, iconoclastic

treatise on taking the next steps toward an integral life as the leading edge in the transformation of society. In a different parlance, I heard Luftig say it was time for the integral community to “put some skin in the game.”

Luftig believes, and I think rightly so, “The integral community has become too far removed from something that we must now reclaim in order to change the cultural climate, quicken the global integral movement, and pave the way for integral approaches to climate change. Namely, in the form of a question, what about our voice?” (53) As a person on the periphery of the integral community, the lack of voice, or the unwillingness (as I saw it) to actively use their voices was their greatest flaw and a guarantee that as a community, over time they would evaporate, disappear or fade into that place so many other well meaning, progressive, innovative groups have gone: footnotes in history textbooks. In other words, “It means nothing if it does nothing.” It is not to say that there is no intrinsic value in research, of attending Wilber Meet-Ups, sponsoring seminars, workshops, or sharing thoughts and ideas on list serves, etc. These activities are often quite rewarding and fulfilling, and the human connections we make when engaged in these activities has meaning in and of itself. However, it is to say that there is another level of meaning beyond intrinsic value, an instrumental value of directed, commonly held beliefs and goals that can change whole worlds.

Getting back to the subject of voice, I was heartened to hear Luftig’s own story about the process of loosing and then reclaiming his. “I realized,” writes Luftig, “ that my communication breakthroughs came at the expense 

of my integral voice. About the same time, it dawned on me that the communicative action of meeting others on their own terms is an extremely popular rhetorical move among integral practitioners. As a result, it became apparent that while we of the integral community might excel at helping others to find their voice—something that is paramount to social movements—we sacrifice our voice and vision in the process” (61).

I left Luftig’s presentation with two particular thoughts:

1) If concepts like “operationalize” and “ideology” might hold value for integral theorists, something positive

and lasting for humankind may actually materialize out of this mélange of brilliant, gifted, clever, and able intellectuals I saw in the Editorial Committee of Integral Review during my first night at the conference.

2) Historically, we call iconoclasts (like Jordan Luftig) heretics, and historically, we do unspeakable things to heretics. The whole thing reminded me of Plato’s Cave. The only reason the returning prisoner wasn’t killed by his friends was because they were still in chains.

** 

Luftig, Jordan. “Movement Building through Metanarrative: An Ideological Approach to Enacting 

Integral Futures” Journal of Integral Theory and Practice—Vol. 4, No. 4 (47-65) ITC 2010 Conference Proceedings” ITC http://www.integraltheoryconference.org/talks.

The Long Road Home

Russ and I had a long drive back home so we left for Tucson early Sunday morning. It was good to have debriefing, 

reflective, processing time together after the conference. In fact, weeks later I find myself still engaged in “unpacking” (a phrase that seems to be more acceptable to integralists than “deconstructing,” although I think it’s a distinction without a difference) my experience at ITC 2010. I have a better understanding of why Russ is so deeply attached to the integral world; I think it’s anchored in hope. The ideas and positive energy effervescing through the conference was palpable; it is almost healing. Yet, there were real problems for me. I attended more than the three presentations I wrote about. In some instances I was dazzled, a couple released my “inner cynic,” and at least one was disturbing. I’m concerned that the “superstar” appeal suppresses criticism. 

It bothers me that there is so much “insider” nomenclature. However, energy created by the aggregation of intellectthe real potential for operationalizing social transformational power Jordan Luftig introduced, the sincerity of the smiles and yes, the sensible shoes, draws me to this group.