"AIP finds that IP is akin to the integral psychology of Ken Wilber in that he seeks to synthesize a myriad of perspectives by overlaying his own perspective atop the heap." -- Rich Carlson
Rich Carlson wrote an article about
Anti-Integral Psychiatry (and/or Psychology) that you may find interesting to read. I paraphrase the article here and correct grammatical and typographical errors.
In response to an Integral Psychology (IP) conference that took place in mid 2006 Rich talked about the formation of the Anti-Integral Psychiatry/Psychology movement (which he abreviates AIP and I abreviate AIP
2 or AIP squared) which suggests that the notion of culture and environment be taken into consideration when studying the psychiatric health of the individual. Rich says that AIP is similar to the
anti-psychiatry movement begun in the 1960s by
R.D. Laing. He goes on to say that unlike the anti-psychiatry movement AIP will not consider psychiatric functioning the sole result of environmental, family or sociological context. Both AIP and the anti-psychiatry movement see the need to revision the standard sterotyping processes used by most schools of Western Psychology (e.g. the
DSM IV diagnostic criteria) in order to determine if the models that they are using are valid in labeling research subjects.
The AIP response to IP must be seen in its emergence or second generation which arose in the mid to late 1990s and is now accepted by professionals teaching at such institutions as
CIIS, as an accepted modality for therapy. The foundational work of IP entitled Integral Psychology by
Indra Sen, is not at issue here. More to the point, AIP can as easily be seen as branching out from the work of Indra Sen as second generation IP.
AIP differs from IP in that AIP does not make the pre-assumption that their analyst already possesses, or is necessarily able to develop, a yogic vision in terms of vocational training which enables them to diagnose by detailing the subtle differences between the parts or planes of being from which a psychiatric problem arises. For example, AIP does not assume the conclusion that the psychologist will become an omniscient observer whose flawless yogic vision imparts to them the ability to diagnose maladies originating from occult regions of the psyche as seems to be an implicit claim of IP.
In addition the AIP group will also from time to time provide a critique of the notion that
Integral Yoga (IY) lends itself to being a helping profession, and present evidence that
Sri Aurobindo, who IP cites as their founder, in fact refuted claims that IY was a helping profession. AIP will challenge the view that IP is not constructing an ideology (or seeing through the lens of a distinct school such as Freudian, Gestalt, Jungian). IP maintains that because they are promoting an integral vision (e.g. taking all views and schools of psychology into consideration) that they are not in fact constructing an ideological school. AIP will argue that IP is in fact constructing its own ideology; an integral ideology!
AIP finds that IP overlooks the fact that most every credible school believes they are taking all previous perspectives into account but that somehow their own perspective is the most omniscient or suitible to the here and now. In this respect AIP finds that IP is akin to the integral psychology of
Ken Wilber in that he seeks to synthesize a myriad of perspectives by overlaying his own perspective atop the heap. AIP acknowledges however, that thus far any distinct IP critical theory or praxis has not emerged which is widely shared by all IP professionals. They all agree on Sri Aurobindo's model. They have yet to systematically detail how the helping profession of IP proceeds from the model of Sri Aurobindo. Neither have they explained how they will be able to discern all the cultural and professional influences which may impact the interpretation they bring to Sri Aurobindo's model.
Noting this fact the AIP group also asserts that IP has yet to resolve the contradiction that the discipline IP, whose main concern is abnormal psychology and therapy, can be derived from the discipline IY which concerns itself with supra-normal psychology and the gnostic being. This letter shall serve as an invitation to all interested parties to jump on the AIP bandwagon now before it becomes ideological (tongue half-way inserted in cheek).
.
Help
Sign In
ken wilber
October 2007 
gwizazz
Access: Public
