Integral Review (Jun 2009)
The Status and Relevance of Phenomenology for Integral Research: Or Why Phenomenology is More and Different than an “Upper Left” or “Zone #1” Affair
Abstract
The specific treatment that Ken Wilber gives phenomenology in his model ofintegral theory requires a critical investigation. According to Wilber's model, differentmethodologies are situated in distinct quadrants or "domains of knowing," namely thesubjective, objective, intersubjective and interobjective domains, labeled by their positionin the model's matrix illustration, upper left, upper right, lower left, lower right. In thismodel, phenomenology is isolated in the UL quadrant, and even more specifically as theinside perspective of this subjective domain. What this means is that, according toWilber's classification, phenomenology is an exclusive, rather than inclusive, approachthat limits its field of inquiry and therefore its range of knowing also to an insideexploration of the subjective.In contrast to this positioning, a critical reflection on the current status and usage ofphenomenology in integral theory is provided. The goal of this undertaking is to showthat phenomenology – particularly in its more advanced forms – is more and differentthan something to put merely into “upper left” quadrant or to understand only as a “Zone1” affair suggested in the conventional integral model.In the first part the paper outlines an introductory understanding and examinesclassical (Husserlian) phenomenology as well as illustrates some of its limitations. Basedon various critiques and further developments of phenomenology, the status and usage ofphenomenology in integral (AQAL) theory is discussed critically. Particularly, thisconcerns the ordering of phenomenology into a separate realm or zone, the status ofconsciousness, including the debate related to its structure and states, and inter-subjectivedimensions as well as the relation to contemplation and meditation. In a second part thepaper introduces the more advanced phenomenology of Merleau-Ponty that overcomesthe limitations of the previous versions of phenomenology. Advanced phenomenologyentails a strong proto-integral potential and as such contributes to compensating for someof the weaknesses and limitations of integral theory.Furthermore, a third part proposes that such advanced phenomenology provides thefoundations for an “adequate phenomenology” in integral research. Based on the specificontological, epistemological, and methodological considerations, this final part and theconclusion outline some perspectives on what is called integral “pheno-practice.” Theexplicated criticism and the proposed pheno-practical approach might enrich integralresearch, improve its theory building and empirical testing by offering perspectives of amore inclusive, coherent and relevant nexus of ideas and possibilities for integrativetheory and practice.
