Help
Sign In
conservate
July 2009 
Integral = Conservative + Liberal ?
Posted on May 3rd, 2008
by 
Chris
Chris
I recently came across a line in a post on an I-I discussion board that caught my attention:
"[I]ntegral politics means as much conservatism as liberalism."
As I understand integral, that's absolutely not true. (Or, to be more precise: that's true but very partial.)
Now, if we're using "conservatism" and "liberalism" as synonyms for "left-hand quadrant focused" and "right-hand quadrant focused," then, of course, both are equally important. That doesn't mean policy positions or programs should always incorporate both equally (predominantly external-quadrant probems require predominantly external-quadrant solutions, for example), but they are indeed equally important as a general matter.
Of course, if we're using those terms as they're used in American politics today, we don't just mean quadrant distinctions. We also mean tendencies to fall values-wise along blue/orange vs. red/orange/green lines, and on top of that, some other typologies and even habits that we can't chart along levels or quadrants.
But that brings me back to the initial point - it's absolutely not true that integral means "as much conservatism as liberalism." It does mean, of course, that both conservative and liberal perspectives need to be embodied, recognized, and integrated; but that means not just included, but transcended. And that, as I understand it, means a couple things: one, that some situations call for choosing one over the other, and generally, that choice will mean choosing the higher (i.e., liberal) over the lower; and two, that there's an emergent that can't be reduced to either conservative or liberal, that there's actually a new perspective at integral that isn't just one or the other at different times.
What does that mean more concretely? I think I've seen two tendencies in "integral" discussions of politics. One is to subtly merge "green" and "integral," thereby decrying most everything conservative as not integral and elevating everything green as integral. The second is to simply put blue, orange, and green side-by-side and say that someone who sits somewhere along the middle of that spectrum is the most "integral." Of course, neither a candidate operating from green nor a candidate operating from a generally-orange middle is necessarily bad, and each of us, taking an integral perspective, could probably do a good job justifying why either of those candidates is what our country needs right now (particularly when we take into account the other psychological health factors, typologies, and other characteristics that a particular candidate embodies, since all of that is vitally important). But neither of those candidates would be operating from an integral perspective.
"[I]ntegral politics means as much conservatism as liberalism."
As I understand integral, that's absolutely not true. (Or, to be more precise: that's true but very partial.)
Now, if we're using "conservatism" and "liberalism" as synonyms for "left-hand quadrant focused" and "right-hand quadrant focused," then, of course, both are equally important. That doesn't mean policy positions or programs should always incorporate both equally (predominantly external-quadrant probems require predominantly external-quadrant solutions, for example), but they are indeed equally important as a general matter.
Of course, if we're using those terms as they're used in American politics today, we don't just mean quadrant distinctions. We also mean tendencies to fall values-wise along blue/orange vs. red/orange/green lines, and on top of that, some other typologies and even habits that we can't chart along levels or quadrants.
But that brings me back to the initial point - it's absolutely not true that integral means "as much conservatism as liberalism." It does mean, of course, that both conservative and liberal perspectives need to be embodied, recognized, and integrated; but that means not just included, but transcended. And that, as I understand it, means a couple things: one, that some situations call for choosing one over the other, and generally, that choice will mean choosing the higher (i.e., liberal) over the lower; and two, that there's an emergent that can't be reduced to either conservative or liberal, that there's actually a new perspective at integral that isn't just one or the other at different times.
What does that mean more concretely? I think I've seen two tendencies in "integral" discussions of politics. One is to subtly merge "green" and "integral," thereby decrying most everything conservative as not integral and elevating everything green as integral. The second is to simply put blue, orange, and green side-by-side and say that someone who sits somewhere along the middle of that spectrum is the most "integral." Of course, neither a candidate operating from green nor a candidate operating from a generally-orange middle is necessarily bad, and each of us, taking an integral perspective, could probably do a good job justifying why either of those candidates is what our country needs right now (particularly when we take into account the other psychological health factors, typologies, and other characteristics that a particular candidate embodies, since all of that is vitally important). But neither of those candidates would be operating from an integral perspective.
Access: Public
