A Response to R. Michael Fisher’s “Integral Psychotherapy: Discourse Hegemony” as posted on the SUNY Press Facebook page:
http://fearlessnessteach.blogspot.com/2010/08/integral-psychotherapy-discourse.html
I want to begin by thanking R. Michael Fisher for his lengthy post in regards to my book. Critical discourse is extremely important in every field, but is needed even more deeply in the new and emerging field of Integral studies (by whatever name). I appreciate the time he clearly put into it the writing of it.
Overall, Fisher has a point. My text does not take a radical or postmodern view as its main lens. Furthermore, Integral, even in its most densely philosophical expressions, does not and cannot literally integrate everything and every other point of view. This is even truer when Integral Theory is utilized in a more limited way; for example, as the foundational theory for an introductory level text on psychotherapy. So the argument that something is left out and that work remains is neither surprising nor unwelcome. Indeed, this is stated very clearly at the beginning of the text:
It is crucial that during our study of the Integral approach to development we don’t underestimate the value and importance of other approaches to the study of human development. Needless to say, the topic of human development is enormously complex, with a significant place for debate and competing, alternative perspectives. The argument in this text is simply that Integral model of development is the single best foundational framework for understanding human psychological development, in that it offers a meaningful, coherent way to integrate so many perspectives on the topic. But it isn’t, by itself, a final or total explanation, which may simply not be possible with our current understanding. Integral Psychotherapists, therefore, will need to study others points of view—including those with neurological, psychodynamic, psychosexual, cognitive, linguistic, cultural, socioeconomic, and transpersonal emphases—as well as whatever arises from emerging research. (p. 22)
Obviously this type of disclaimer—even to the extent it is epistemologically open and leaves a good deal of room for critique and improvement—will not be enough for some, and was not for Fisher in this case. I sympathize with those like him who resonate with a more overtly deconstructionist and politically radical approach to therapy (such as Jacques Lacan, Thomas Szasz, or Eduardo Duran). While I am certainly familiar with these viewpoints, in attempting to write a “practical” book that may help establish an as-of-yet-unestablished orientation, I did not see an easy way to engage a substantial deconstructive narrative of the field without distracting from the main, introductory narrative. More to the point, however, and for reasons I discuss in Chapter 13 of the book, I do not feel that a focused, deconstructionist critique of the profession or its practice is the most pressing task that Integral therapists are called to engage.
And yet to admit that I did not employ a radical or critical worldview as a primary lens does not also mean that I avoided politics or attempted to be naively value-neutral. Here I object strongly on evidentiary grounds to two of Fisher’s other claims about the text. First, Fisher claims, without qualification, that the text “[avoids] political psychology and cultural psychology and the sociological aspects of the field of psychotherapy.” Second—based on the critical insight that all written documents have a political dimension—Fisher claims that I have penned a “highly political book with a strong bias” and clearly implies that I have taken no conscious responsibility for doing so. Both of these additional claims are false.
Put plainly, just because political and postmodern considerations are not in the ‘chorus’ of the text to the degree Fisher would like does not mean they aren’t clearly written in to many of the ‘verses.’ In fact, political and postmodern ideas are woven into substantial sections, and even whole chapters, of the text. Unfortunately, in making his claims, Fisher fails to acknowledge or address any of this material and political biases it communicates, but instead states only that I avoid these issues altogether. Why does Fisher commit such a drastic oversight? Well, I honestly don’t know. But one obvious issue, which he readily admits several times in his critique, is that he didn’t actually read the book. Indeed, he admits to having read only the index, the back cover, and a few sections that he found to be of interest. One wonders if he actually had read the text fully if he wouldn’t have found a set of political biases and critical elements that are actually resonant in some way with the approaches he argues I ignore? I believe he would have, for reasons I will explore below.
Before I proceed with this point, however, I would like to make what we therapists would call a ‘process comment’—a comment that is more related to the way Fisher offers his critique rather than to the substance of the critique itself. I'll begin this comment with a question: How does one best respond to a critique such as Fisher’s that describes one's book, however carefully, as "hegemonic," "disturbing,” "horrific,” and as making him “deeply sad?” As a person interested in the academic growth of Integral theory, I hold the value of rational discourse between subjects—what Habermas might call an ideal speech situation—as central. I would like to correct problems with past Integral discourse and address arguments and evidence rather than engage in heated polemical fireworks. And yet, when confronted with such inflamed and morally accusatory language, the appropriate response does not easily reveal itself. Indeed, I wonder how many readers will have already guessed at the likely and ironic outcome of arguments promoting critical theory and related frames that begin using this kind of language? The answer: it is precisely this kind of language that has driven much of my sympathy—and I would guess many others of my generation—away from extreme forms of critical and postmodernist theory. What exactly is supposed to be attractive about this type of critical style to the younger generation of intellectuals?
This isn't simply a problem of rhetoric, in my opinion, but reveals fundamental limitations with categorization and thought classification. Critiques such as Fisher's admit to few shades-of-gray. They linguistically manufacture severe differences in ‘kind’ rather than admitting more accurately to differences in ‘emphasis’ and ‘method.’ They create a false impression of our shared social and human reality in which common progressive themes and common progressive ground are put aside in favor of theoretically amplified differences. In this sense, I would argue that my text is different in degree of emphasis and proposed method of enactment from the type of literature Fisher mentions, but not in many of the underlying goals.
Let me be more specific in regards to the text itself: There are multiple places in the text where I clearly articulate strong sympathies with left-wing and postmodern political positions and argue—both implicitly and explicitly—against simplistic conformist notions within the individual as well as the society and culture. This bias is there all the way through, and no one familiar with the politics of today and who has actually read my book could come away with the notion that it supports some simplistic status quo, or that the vision of the therapeutic profession expressed fits easily within traditional or modern frames. (And if not traditional or modern, then what?)
For example, three chapters in the text (6-8) lay out the Integral model of human development. Inherent in this discussion, of course, is an argument that certain worldviews are fuller, more complete, and generally (though not inevitably) more moral than others. And that an Integral therapist’s job is, at least in part, to support increased vertical development so that a person may eventually ‘move beyond’ their culturally given norms. This is stated over and over again, in plain English, and Fisher fails to mention any of this. Nor does he mention that in the orthodox Integral worldview it is understood that sophisticated apprehensions of power issues and cultural and linguistic lenses—those which makes up so much of the postmodern and radical perspective—are higher and more inclusive than the apprehensions that inform traditional cultures of normative religiousity or modern cultures of achievement orientated meritocracy.
Indeed, the postmodern stage—listed in the index as ‘relativistic-sensitive’ instead of ‘postmodern’—is the eighth highest of the eleven stage model offered. It’s developmental ‘rank’ alone highlights its sophistication and importance. I would further argue that the way I describe this stage, the language I actually use, matters. Fisher is attempting to critique what the book doesn’t say, so, in turn, what the book does say has to count in terms of political implication. The way this postmodern stage is described, in which it is compared favorably to modern norms of self and society, is not an empty genuflection to the tradition. It is most certainly a ‘political’ statement that has implications for how we should understand the field of Integral Psychotherapy as well as our work with clients. Namely, that ‘postmodern developments’ should be encouraged in the client and the profession to the degree they represent an actual leading edge, which statistically speaking they often will. This seems to be a place where we might find some substantial common ground. Here is a relevant passage:
Individuals at this stage [the postmodern] have a much deeper recognition of the culturally constructed nature of their beliefs. Because every belief is true only in a certain context, the role of class, culture, and media forces are strongly considered. Put in Integral language, the person begins to take into account more of the four-quadrant model in his or her understanding of the world.
This is a significant shift. Generally speaking, at the rational–self-authoring [modern] stage, people undergo a process whereby they reject certain societal norms and accept others according to their own sense of individual conscience coupled with rational analysis. They do not, however, tend to question the foundational concepts of the society itself—in ours this would include notions such as freedom, individuality, democracy, and capitalist meritocracy. Deep questioning of this sort is possible and likely at the relativistic-sensitive stage. Because of this, according to Loevinger (Hy & Loevinger, 1996), there often is heightened differentiation from group norms to the point where, unlike those at the rational–self-authoring stage, a person may form goals and ideals truly different from society’s ideals. People at this stage tend to reject conventional norms and are much more likely to pursue vocations or life goals that might be considered countercultural... The ability to see the relativity of truth also lends itself to heightened empathic ability and to a greater sensitivity toward others who might be marginalized by the demands and rationale of modern society. (pp 135-136)
Importantly—and perhaps unlike some other Integral texts—this argument isn’t confined to a ‘green cul-de-sac.’ My stance is not that one becomes sensitized at this stage and then carries on afterwards in a conformist, morally blind and irresponsible way. Instead, the text argues that such increased perspective taking ability and moral apprehension can be developed, and that therapy, in its own limited way, may support this process through skillful engagement within a four quadrant view of the client’s life.
For example, in the discussion of the transition from what we might call the late integral into the transpersonal, I argue that persons in the former stage are likely to be in a compromised moral position relative to the more liberating stance of those who are identified in the latter. The lengthiest quote in the entire book—from James Fowler—is used to support this contention. The quote is precisely about the liberating power of love as the ultimate good which frees moral agents to work against the compromised conditions of current society. It is worth re-quoting here at length:
Stage 5 [the late integral] can see injustice in sharply etched terms because it has been apprehended by an enlarged awareness of the demands of justice and their implications. It can recognize partial truths and their limitations because it has been apprehended by a more comprehensive vision of truth. It can appreciate and cherish symbols, myths and rituals in new depth because it has been apprehended in some measure by the depth of reality to which the symbols refer and which they mediate. It sees the fractures and divisions of the human family with vivid pain because it has been apprehended by the possibility of an inclusive commonwealth of being. Stage 5 remains paradoxical or divided, however, because the self is caught between these universalizing apprehensions and the need to preserve its own being and well-being. Or because it is deeply invested in maintaining the ambiguous order of a socioeconomic system, the alternatives to which seem more unjust or destructive than it is. In this situation of paradox Stage 5 must act and not be paralyzed. But Stage 5 acts out of conflicting loyalties. Its readiness to spend and be spent finds limits in its loyalty to the present order, to its institutions, groups and compromise procedures. Stage 5’s perceptions of justice outreach its readiness to sacrifice the self and to risk the partial justice of the present order for the sake of a more inclusive justice and the realization of love.
The transition to Stage 6 [the transpersonal] involves the overcoming of this paradox through a moral and ascetic actualization of the universalizing apprehension. Heedless of the threats to self, to primary groups, and to the institutional arrangements of the present order that are involved, Stage 6 becomes a disciplined, activist incarnation—a making real and tangible—of the imperatives of absolute love and justice of which Stage [5] has partial apprehensions. The self at Stage 6 engages in spending and being spent for the transformation of present reality in the direction of a transcendent reality. (italics added; Fowler, 1995, pp. 199–200)
Put plainly: the deeper, uncompromised moral imperatives of love and justice are placed at the very top of the developmental hierarchy. This is hardly value neutral or supportive of current societal conditions, but is inherently critical, in that it frames previous cultural understandings and approaches as precisely ‘lower,’ ‘less developed,’ and thus, all complexities considered, as ‘less desirable’ Furthermore, I would argue that such a stance is deeply congruent with a postmodernist or liberation approach in hoped-for outcome. Indeed, I see this as the logical culmination of such an approach. The only difference is that my view (and the orthodox Integral view) argues for a specific developmental pathway that we must take as individuals and cultures in order to achieve this moral shift, and that much of the postmodern/radical literature drastically overestimates the current capacity of individuals and cultures to do so. This is particularly true when these philosophies, as they sometimes do, name language as the primary shaper of reality and critiques of language and discourse as central targets for ‘intervention.’
These are certainly points to argue with and disagree about; that Fisher’s critique fails to mention any of these arguments whatsoever is problematic (to say the least) in terms of discourse. But much more problematic in my mind is the complete non-mention of Chapter 13 of the book. This chapter—the lengthiest of the entire text—is about the issue of cultural and ethnic diversity. In it, I engage an argument about the benefits and merits of the postmodern view along with a detailed discussion of the problems I perceive with its current implementation in the field of psychotherapy. Fisher might not agree with these ideas, of course, but my concerns are genuine, considered, and ‘grounded’ in actual therapeutic experience with economically and ethnically diverse populations, including a large number of immigrants. In the 30 page chapter, amongst other things, I spend a full eight pages reviewing ways of understanding the impact of culture on individual psychology (pp. 252-260), ten pages grappling with multicultural approaches to psychotherapy and the implications they have for clients in our society (pp. 261-271), and another five pages reviewing and discussing Sue and Sue’s very widely used model of Racial and Cultural Identity Development (R/CID) in the context of psychotherapeutic practice and the development of the therapist (pp. 273-278). Yet Fisher claims, without qualification, that I completely avoid cultural psychology!
Going further, Chapter 13 closes with a critique of Sue and Sue’s widely used diversity text, specifically because of the way it ignores the very political issue of class in favor of what may be the ultimately less impactful issue of cultural identity. There is an explicit call to reengage the issue of class as being central to psychotherapy. Aren’t considerations of class one of the focal points of liberation philosophies?
One final missing piece of Sue and Sue’s (1999) model, the relativistic perspective, and the diversity movement in general, is that they tend to badly ignore the issue of class, even as they give some occasion to mention it briefly. For example, in Sue and Sue’s 325-page text, class issues are addressed on only two pages according to the index (and then it is only mentioned in relation to cultural identity). This is a serious problem in a text that is so widely used and referenced. Why? Empirical research clearly shows that class—a LR issue—is a much more important determinant of mental health status than cultural or ethnic identity. In fact, when class is factored out, ethnic groups show almost no differences in prevalence rates of the major forms of mental illness (Mash & Wolfe, 2007). Recently, a book was published whose title captures the prevailing relativistic bias quite well, called The Trouble with Diversity: How We Learned to Love Identity and Ignore Inequality (Benn Michaels, 2006). Briefly, the book describes how those concerned with progressive values, which would include many therapists, have become overly focused on cultural identity and have abandoned the traditional liberal issue of class inequality... Future work in Integral Psychotherapy should bring as great as emphasis concerning the issue of class as is currently given to multicultural issues. (pp. 278-279)
In conclusion, I believe that there is important work to be done in this direction and in the dialogue between critical theorists and radicalists and more orthodox Integral theorists and practitioners. I welcome Integral texts that use these philosophies as primary reference points. However, we need, as an Integral community, to reverse several trends if these contributions are to have any meaningful impact. First, we need to stop magnifying every theoretical difference and then beginning with those magnifications as primary points of departure for our dialogues. Second, we need to stop using morally accusatory and hyperbolic language in contexts where it is likely to inflame much more than inform. Finally, we need to agree to actually read the books we are claiming to critique.
