Abstract

By way of exemplifying the problematisation of particular uses of Wilber's integral approach and its address of postformal thought, this paper analyses Slaughter's “integral” analysis of Inayatullah's Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) which forms part of Slaughter's article, “What difference does ‘integral’ make?” Futures 40 (2) (2008). Evidence given for Slaughter's assertions is investigated. His assertions are then analysed partly by way of hermeneutics, CLA and deconstruction including address of Koestler's holon theory, Jung's archetypes, and Lakoff and Johnson's conceptual metaphor. The potential of Slaughter's analysis involves the opening up or furthering of generative dialogue, specifically through extending the possibilities of CLA. As instituted, however, it enacts a premature foreclosure of such potential, partly through offering an inadequate and inaccurate evaluation of CLA. This paper specifically problematises the notion that CLA is not substantively postconventional, whilst pointing to unproductive modernistic tendencies in Slaughter's analysis. In so doing, it opens up new avenues for integral futures.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call