Symposium for Integrative Spirituality Wrap-Up

I was honored to read the posts of the brilliant contributors to Julian’s recent symposium. I for one would love to see their published anthology on integral perspectives!

While I don’t profess to have anywhere near such an in-depth understanding of integral theory (anyone reading the symposium without knowledge of spiral dynamics would have thought we were grading a finger-painting class, and I confess I felt myself going cross-eyed at times) I noticed some interesting reactions to the symposium, both in myself and others.

I don’t think it’s possible to make much sense without giving some of my personal background first. I have personal experience with trauma, as well as firsthand experience with the popular New-Age philosophy that passes for spirituality nowadays. In my journey of healing from this trauma, I’ve had to shed much of what was deemed “spiritual” around me, and much of what I considered “spiritual” in me. It was more like I was hosting a squad of really mean internal policemen who were trying to get me to adhere to a philosophy which kept me disconnected from the richness of my genuine inner life. Steve Pavlina’s words on the Tech shooting were once, believe it or not, something I would have beaten myself up for not believing.

I was never very good at this kind of “spirituality,” however (thank goodness.) Yet, shedding it, I felt lost and alone. I couldn’t find a version of spirituality that supported the deep connection to my own emotions that healing from trauma requires. I briefly resigned myself to the fact that the kind of spirituality I needed simply didn’t exist. The closest thing I found were somatic psychologies, which integrated both ecstatic bodily energetic states and the importance of a full range of emotion. An embodied spirituality—literally, a spirituality that valued the human body—seemed the sanest one I could find.

Largely because of these experiences, and because I’m training as a Somatic Experiencing Practitioner, I have somewhat of a working understanding of what keeps people defended, of why people hold so desperately to concepts of “spirituality” that don’t serve them. People, in my experience, are not trying to be idiots. They’re trying to survive. 

Note I just realized I should make: *I realize my perspective primarily addresses people who have been traumatized and are employing their spirituality as a defense, but it can also apply to people who are simply looking to transition to an integral spirituality.*

I’m primarily interested in how one would practically apply theory. I was glad to that this was one of the very important issues the bloggers addressed: How do you sanely model a comprehensive, mature spirituality without being a crusader, without regressing to being condescending? And, the trick is, how do you still come across clearly enough in your position so that your ideas are not easily translated into New-Age mush and become misused?

Traumatized people in need of healing work are often drawn to a version of “magical thinking spirituality” because it is a perfect vehicle in which to continue beating themselves up for their shortcomings as human beings.People who are wed to the idea of themselves as "on a spiritual path," even if they are on an unhealthy one, need a safe replacement for their old spiritual beliefs which they can trust, one that is inclusive of their current stage of development as well as (gently) encouraging a new one.  So the question is: how do we connect people to themselves? How do we present a working model of spirituality that is loving, compassionate, but that challenges people to confront the Shadow? How do we help people understand that they have the strength to do so? How do we present the Shadow as a spiritual component to healing, the greatest one we have? I believe that fear of the Shadow is the only reason people engage in the type of magical thinking that keeps true growth at bay. It is a defense I understand very well and have seen very often around me and in me.

I know it might be in the nature of some claiming to be “integral thinkers” to grow impatient and argue that as second-tier thinkers, there is an elevated ability to address one another frankly, to have the capacity to hear un-watered-down criticism, and to honestly wrestle with one’s own weaknesses. While this is certainly true, I also don’t believe that if a person lacks the capacity to do this with equal facility, they are simply folk that can’t be reached. I wouldn’t want to see the integral community assuming that its wisdom is “pearls before swine” to the rest of the world. In some cases it’s true, but I also believe there are plenty of people out there who are ready to transition to a more grounded spirituality, but who need loving, clear guidance, and for whom the method of approach really matters. I appreciated that the bloggers were taking this issue into serious consideration.

Harsh language does the opposite of its intent—it turns people away, no matter how right the writer thinks he/she is. Or knows he/she is. Because remember, not all turning away from writing which feels condescending to the reader is simply because the reader is moronic and way lower on the color chart than the rest of us. Some of the readers’ turning away can be healthy—if the reader senses that there is no compassionate model in place, no safe zone to relinquish defenses, no real help and guidance offered—a reader, no matter how ignorant, is perfectly in the right to turn away from brazen criticism of where they stand.

All in all, I really loved and am grateful for the posts in the symposium. I share much of the bloggers’ points of view, admired their intellectual facility and their willingness to show vulnerability, and appreciated any time that the posters showed a compassionate understanding of how people work. I deeply admire when these eloquent voices challenge people to pursue building their cognitive strengths while grounded in love.