Integral Theory and the Search for Earthly Emancipation

Abstract

This article responds to two recent pieces by Timothy Rutzou in an effort to push forward a fruitful dialogue between critical realism (CR) and integral theory (IT). The intention is not a philosophical defence of integral theory; there are far more capable people to attempt a philosophical defence (or surrender). Rather the aim here is to help push forward the development of dialectical critical realism (DCR). Rutzou’s critique centres on four themes: (1) in what way is critical realism a metatheory, (2) integral theory often commits the epistemic fallacy, (3) integral theory is explicitly committed to ontological monovalence and (4) integral theory is ‘a quasi-scientific-religious holistic worldview’. I largely accept Rutzou’s metatheoretical comment and criticisms. I will briefly expand on each of these issues and then suggest that none of Rutzou’s criticisms are fatal to a constructive engagement between integral theory and critical realism. It is a bit awkward to be defending the importance of transpersonal psychology with a theorist who is currently working on rethinking the question of ‘miracles’. Rutzou does accept my claim that integral theory offers to dialectical critical realism (1) psychological theories of human development, (2) cultural anthropology and (3) transpersonal psychology. Thus I am a bit perplexed with the tone of criticism. His tone suggests that the criticisms lodged against IT are fatal. Yet his conclusion is that engagement between IT and CR should take place. Rutzou should clarify his position and explain why the criticisms are not fatal.