Gaia Online:Is Integral Government an Oligarchy?
I tend to have a love/hate relationship with Integral and Ken Wilber (this is often apparent in my blog and my comments on threads). I've read and even re-read many of Ken's books and I feel he definitely has insight into many domains of thought.
However, the 'values' contained within the hierarchy this system or 'map' advocates has always been a bone of contention for me.
Nevertheless, I often read the discussions posted on the Integral Pod and feel that most of what is posted is highly informative as far as the Integral 'map' is concerned.
Yet, recently I have become remarkably interested in the Pod authority's decisions to summarily remove members. Keep in mind, to become a member of this pod one must seek an invitation from the moderators by demonstrating that you are "sincerely excited about" the Integral Theory (obviously, this is why I have not sought out membership and why I would most likely NOT be included).
If you go into the "announcements and feedback" section of the discussions you will notice two topics one labeled "Removed member" and another entitled "Another member about to be removed?"
However, above those topics you will find a topic entitled "An important Announcement about the pod" in which at the beginning of this thread the moderator delineates in very clear statements the "vision" for the direction of the pod in which all the "moderators" have agreed. Here is a very poignant quote in relation to that pod's "vision":
"There comes a time when communities reach a bifurcation point, or a crisis of some kind, where hard decisions have to be made. We have already made one such decision with removing Rick. It was absolutely necessary for the health of the pod, and we are going to be making more decisions that are unpopular with some people. This pod was created with a vision in mind, which has not changed in any essential way." [my bold]
In addition, with respect to other ideas or "information" [READ: nonconforming] this 'moderating' authority explains:
This is not to say that we are closed to new information or ideas. However, there comes a time when decisions have to be made, and we will make them, without apology or rancor, as we have the full authority to do. This has been explained clearly and unequivocably. Anyone who fails to understand this should leave now. Any further discussion of our right to do this will be dealt with as a direct violation of the rules of this pod.
Note how any discussion against this totalistic viewpoint (which has not been made clear and thus is possibly 'secret') is considered a violation of the pod rules. And, in relation to the "health of the pod," which is emphasized repeatedly:
"It is only in extreme situations that we as mods consider cutting off discussions. Essentially, we have to believe that the pod is in danger of being deeply harmed by further discussion, and that there is no amicable solution to a problem possible. This is such a time...These are not actions we have taken lightly or precipitously. In spite of our frustration at times, the health of the pod has always remained uppermost in our minds-ahead of our egos and any emotions we have had."
It seems that here we have "Integral government" exemplified, which in form appears no different than many current systems which easily disenfranchise individuals and groups not in complinace with that status quo. This form of governing is often referred to as an "oligarchy" in which governing power rests with a small, elite segment of society or "the rule of the few." Notice the disclaimers which exist throughout the statements as to the validity of the choices made. I find this to be very disturbing and historically reminiscent.
Obviously, the originators of this pod have the right to govern or control their members as they choose. I just assumed that with the popularity and seemingly transcendent status of the "Integral Theory" some other more integrative method would be employed to maintain order/control (and I find it remarkable that so much control is necessary in the first place!).
Nevertheless, it seems the integral map provides no means of enlightened governance other than the obvious methods which have prevailed throughout history and have resulted in much pain and suffering.
And if the 'map' fails to establish parameters through which a more 'enlightened' government can exist, so as to allow its constituents/citizens the freedom to seek Spirit in a free and unencumbered social order, then as a collective we will be no better off than we are now.
