“You must differentiate before you integrate

Premature Integral

from NVCC’s SD newsletter, March 2005

“You’ve got to differentiate before you can integrate,” commented Ed Edwards - futurist, physicist and businessman - during a discussion at our SD certification training in Santa Barbara. (The next is April 18-24, 2005.) This remark sheds light on an idea some Spiral Dynamics enthusiasts find compelling. The word “integral” is playing large and loud for many who have come to Dr. Graves’s work via the Wilber-oriented route. Indeed, it’s been tacked onto Spiral Dynamics to market a separated branch of the work from ours by slight rebranding. (The differences go far beyond mere labeling at this point, but that’s another story.) What’s going on?

Integration has a number of meanings and usages depending on what is being integrated and in which field: philosophical ideas, people, mathematics, electronics, social categories, business units or departments (i.e., manufacturing integrated with distribution), political systems, economic interest groups, consciousness, spirituality, etc. Thus, for many people “integral” is merely an adjective describing connectedness and openness to drawing together a range of parts, functions, information/insight. The word “integrative” has been part of Spiral Dynamics for years as a synonym for systemic-type thinking, one of the variations of conception within the open-ended SD model.

For others, though, the adjective “integral” has taken on metaphysical significance and become a noun. It’s an organizing principle to rally their thinking – the flag that flies over their lives. Much as a religion provides the answers for righteous living to True Believers who have adopted other spiritual philosophies, integral becomes a goal of life. This form of integral becomes a state of being, an existential condition: “I am integral!” “Proud to be an integral!” “My child is integral at Thomas Edison Elementary School.” SD turns into articles of faith.

In our experience, many of the people using the word thusly are following a fashion trend, tossing it around without thinking through the implications. The idea that everything connects is alluring; coalescing an eclectic mix of fields into a laser-like focus sounds intriguing; and pulling all the fragmented chunks together and replacing them with holism or a unified field that explains everything has been a dream for many thinkers, including Graves. The catch is, as Ed pointed out, one must also be able to differentiate clearly. It’s not a matter of integral OR differential – both are important. However, the concentration on integral has blinded many to a broader range of possibilities.

To begin, where did ‘integral’ come from? “Integralism” is an idea which was developed by sociologist Pitirim Sorokin beginning around 1912. Sorokin wrote about a unified set of philosophical ideas (i.e., unification of the true and the good). It was in 1941 that he used the term ‘integral truth’ to embrace a trio of truths he found important: senses, reason, and faith (meaning recognition of the external). Having lived through the Russian revolution and finding inspiration in the thinking of Saint Thomas Aquinas in his search for meaning and purpose, Sorokin created a philosophy that both fit Christian doctrine and ordered the chaos he saw in the world. It captured four aspects he saw in human psychology: biological unconscious, biological conscious, sociocultural conscious, and the supraconscious. Sound familiar?

Where is integral today with regards to SD? Obviously, it’s a brand terminology separating a quadrant-oriented approach from our more Graves-centric point of view. But some consider integral an attribute of a higher moral or ethical base (we don’t). A number of individuals want to mark themselves as ‘integral’ thinkers and leaders, but still have a ways to go putting theory and talk into action so far as we can tell. Still others associate it with a ‘higher’ state of consciousness and increase in vibratory frequency (A verticality versus breadth discussion could well enter here.) Others merely use it to describe an inclusive and eclectic curiosity. Whichever the meaning, there are now entertaining spin-offs linking the word with nearly anything on the marketing bandwagon: integral psychology, integral coaching, integral consulting, integral politics, integral management, integral medicine, integral publications, integral music, integral t-shirts, coffee cups, and art. The arbitrary over-use of “integral” has made it into a catchall phrase for Aristotle’s notion of ‘the good.’

Integration/integral thinking as a prime characteristic of more complex systems – the popular view

Integral, according to some enthusiasts, is THE characteristic of more ‘complex’ thinking (as related to the GT/HU systems in Graves or Yellow/Turquoise in SD). Integral is second tier, and second tier is integral. What could be simpler than this circular logic? Spiral Dynamics puts starch in floppy dreams of reaching a higher state. ‘Integral’ becomes a tangible thing, a way of being that is attainable - a touchdown past the Green-yard line – into the Yellow end zone.

Integral is something to do, to be, or to believe devotedly in. Some frame it like Calvin’s elect and damned - some are, some aren’t, and that’s just how it is. Others, like Sorokin, believe integral thought lies at the intersection of material, mental (inner and outer), and spiritual. A few of those who equate integral with SD’s ‘second tier’ believe the solutions to nuclear war and world peace lie therein, forgetting that the full spiral is always with us so it’s not that easy. More common uses of integral suggest taking many disparate ideas from a variety of fields, finding connections, and linking them. Sometimes the complex equivalence is so broad that anything can be force-fit with a little twist or shove, thereby diluting all meaning into fuzzy generalities. It means so much it comes to mean nothing. Fusing it with Spiral Dynamics/Graves appears to bring some sense and directionality to the melee.

But it’s an error to indiscriminately connect integral, Spiral Dynamics, second tier, spirituality, and consciousness as equivalent notions. It’s a blunder to view SD as nothing but a color scale and miss the theory. Inability or refusal to differentiate among these constructs muddies understanding, just as calling Gravesian levels memes does. SD/Graves is not a measure of spirituality or enlightenment but a way to understand how one conceptualizes those things (and others). A separate gauge - a spiritual-tape-measure - is needed. Spiral Dynamics has been substituted for this needed scale of soulfulness because it appears, on superficial understanding, to be little more than a color-coded yardstick with eight intervals. Turn the graphics properly and it even points to heaven. But that approach deletes the theory and retains only the scalar artifacts.

Integration/integral thinking differs in style and form, but is present in all systems – everyone is already integral in their own way

Dr. Graves writes in his manuscript: “…Each way-stage of adult man’s psychology has, stylistically, its way and time integrating the whole. It is characterized by a period of preparation, a period of achievement of relative equilibrium, and a period of disintegration as preparation takes place for movement to a higher stage. To understand a personality we must comprehend the totality of his system. This totality is a totality in the sense of the momentary total state of the organism. It is the organization around which the psychological man is centralized in the levels of human existence …” Like Graves, developmentalist David Elkind also believed that both differentiation and integration are observed at all levels of development. Humans are meaning-makers and creative by nature: we can’t not make connections between things. Hence, integral is a pervasive and necessary component of all the Gravesian levels. Spiral Dynamics then becomes a model of how different people are integral in particular ways.

This integrative complexity of each system plays a key role in sorting though and combining information. The inner person perceives and responds to the milieu – the outer environment - through structured systems of differentiation, dimension, and integration. Loosely, differentiation is the number of categories, dimension is the form and substance of those categories, and integration is the ordering of them.

How would each system display integrative complexity? AN/Beige integrates around the senses; BO/Purple around the ancestral ways; and CP/Red around the egocentric self. In DQ/Blue, dualistic integration results when differentiations are clear and distinct (ambiguity is disparaged or eliminated). It is a hierarchical integration. Dimension comes by understanding the truth and knowing the proper categories for sorting things. Absolutistic dualistic integration results in responses such as: “There are two kinds of people in the world - the givers and the takers (or the winners and the losers; friends and foes; ‘second tier’ or ‘first tier’).”

ER/Orange produces multiplistic ‘integral’ with a pluralistic integrative complexity that builds dimension by cross-comparing many possibilities and then assimilating them into wholes. FS/Green generates interpersonalistic integral which fosters relativism, situationalism, and a whole based heavily in social and psychospiritual aspects. The dimensionality becomes transpersonal and transtemporal. The GT/Yellow is more systemically integral, yet carries forth relativistic integrative complexity as it assimilates information. After that, a return to more focus on the non-material. Thus, each system can be known by how it differentiates, understands dimension, and integrates complexity.

Thus, each system has its way of integrating – of being integral. Yet it might well not be a linear progression. If Dr. Graves’s “cyclical” aspect holds up, then there could well be a rise and fall in the need to integrate.

Integration/integral thinking oscillates – it cycles to be more important in cool colored systems while differentiation is more important in warm colored systems

So, where does the worshipful twist on the word ‘integral’ come from? Consider a definition: “Essential or necessary for completion, possessing everything essential, entire, complete, perfect, uninjured, whole, existing as an essential constituent or characteristic.” Integral, it seems, offers a comforting sense of certainty and a finish line. Integration is comforting because it produces order and makes meaning. Spiral Dynamics then becomes the path to completeness, the road to perfection and becoming whole. The promise of integral is like faith in salvation and eternal life. SD becomes the central dogma of a new religion or a mantra for evolution by conscious choice. Consider how attractive that would be to people centralized in the cool-colored systems which prefer order and direction – DQ/Blue and FS/Green, but also to BO/Purple and HU/Turquoise, or its progeny B’O’ if the 6-on-6 holds up.

But there’s another side of the integration coin: differentiation. Differentiation recognizes distinctions, gradations, and variability. It increases choices, adds detail and complexity. The differentiated chunks can look like disjointed fragments, disassembled parts of an incomprehensible thing. The appearance is chaotic, confusing, and difficult to cope with for order-seekers. For chaos-lovers centralized in the warm-colored systems – CP/Red, ER/Orange, GT/Yellow – it’s often more fun to take things apart and create a bit of havoc than to glue them together. While differentiation draws distinctions between disparate parts, dimension shapes comprehension of them elaborating on their quality and quantity, and integration unveils the completed assembly: three interdependent and equally valuable elements form a complex system of relationships swinging from order to chaos.

Thus, the need or preference for integral might well be an oscillating phenomenon. If so, it would become important with entry and stabilization into the ‘sacrifice-self’ we-oriented systems. By the same token, differentiation might well take command with entry then centralization in the ‘express-self’ or I-focused systems.

If integration and differentiation are sides of the same coin, then the cyclical nature of the Gravesian point of view could well be playing out as people become fascinated with integral, then lose interest and sort for differences and greater dimensionality. If this hypothesis is true, then the interest in integral (and differential) should rise and fall as people move through the bio-psycho-socio-spiritual systems.

Integration/integral thinking is actually more important in less complex systems, whereas differentiation takes precedence in the more complex systems

If integral is of a degree and kind, and integration is ‘the process by which the manifold is compacted into the relatively simple and permanent,’ then the need to integrate – to pull together and make clear and coherent - might actually be stronger in less complex systems than in the more complex ones. Cognitive complexity, a key Gravesian marker, consists of both differentiation and dimension. Many researchers, including Graves, have reported that cognitive complexity (also cognitive capacity) increases with movement “up” the systems, though it matters what’s being thought about since some people mix unidimensional and multidimensional approaches. If cognitive complexity is lower, then the need for simple, straight-forward, clearly-connected answers might well be greater in earlier stages than when a more expansive cognitive capacity allows space for relativism, ambiguity, and paradoxical thoughts.

Integral, Differential, Dimensional

With the laser-like, quasi-religious zeal to attain “integral” status – a need we question as a marker of elevated consciousness - the elements of differentiation and dimension have been short-changed. Differentiation establishes general and specific patterns and relationships. It’s the process of describing the components, of chunking. As a child, the Dalai Lama took machines apart to see what was in them. He was curious about how they worked. Differentiation breaks things down into component parts and sorts their distinguishing characteristics into finer and finer grades. It’s part of learning.

Dimension is important in understanding and closely examining these parts while seeking to know them intimately. Similar to the Hegelian dialectic, we must differentiate and understand dimension before the grand finale of integration can occur – thesis and antithesis before synthesis – or Larry and Curly before Moe, if you prefer. If one cannot accurately sort distinctions and differences from the similarities, or pick out the confluences and conflicts in multiple sources of data, or evaluate and compare relevant components and their relationships, then integration is crippled. Without careful differentiation, without understanding the dimensions, and without depth of knowledge, then the product of integration is a sham.

In the rush to integral, with the driving need to tie everything together even when the components are sometimes barely differentiated and the dimensions barely understood (i.e., Gravesian systems), people trip themselves up. In the overwhelming compulsion to climb the yellow brick road to the Land of Integral, eyes remain on the prize and minds on the race. In the process, though, they don’t notice themselves tying their own shoes together. Things that shouldn’t be connected are. Differentiation is sloppy and shallow. Dimension collapses into Edwin Abbott’s two-dimensional world.

With the singular focus on becoming ‘integral’ and getting a membership card for the exclusive 2^nd Tier Club (where cosmic secrets are revealed to the initiates), an embarrassing accident occurs - ‘premature integral.’ In NLP there is a metaprogram: sort for difference or sort for sameness. Premature integral sorts for connections and fusion, even before there is clarity about the component parts and what makes them unique. They are forced together too soon into an unnatural fit. So, remember Ed’s admonition: “You’ve got to differentiate before you can integrate.”