Integral, Metamodernism, + the IDW, Part 1
The Journey from Inner Development to Global Transformation
*This article is part 1/2. Click here to open Part 2. This series is also conceptually paired with Integral Abstraction.
Introduction
A pressing question out there is what is the relationship between Integral Theory (IT) and metamodernism (MM)? Some confusion arises due to Hanzi Freinacht’s book The Listening Society being partly influenced by Ken Wilber’s Integral Theory and developmentalism, but Hanzi consciously sets his work apart and beyond (especially in Nordic Ideology; also see Hanzi’s Facebook post excoriating the alt-right and authoritarian Integralists). Metamodernism more broadly has even less (or no) overlap with Integral, but considering Integral as proto-metamodern can reinforce its strengths and reform its weaknesses.
A related question that arises further complicates the former: how do they each reckon with the Intellectual Dark Web (IDW)? The perspective from metamodernism (and leftists) has mostly been critical (Hanzi and I have both written damning critiques of Jordan Peterson, for example), given the anti-postmodern brand of the IDW. However, some metamodern followers are neutral and a few (conservatives) are supportive of certain IDW figures. Through the Integral lens, there is a wider range: some post-Integral(TM) thinkers are very critical (Michael Brooks, Jeremy Johnson), some still-Integral(TM) are less critical (Integral Life; Mark Forman and Robb Smith), while newer Integral adherents are relative IDW advocates (Rebel Wisdom) are the least critical. Ken Wilber himself offered a tepid critique that oscillated somewhere between Rebel Wisdom and Integral Life.
The deeper answers to these questions invokes divisive and sensitive issues that have fractured many epistemic communities and united a few, but facing the questions head-on can add clarity. To some extent, these divergences are unavoidable in the transitionary time we live in (or any time), however much of the tension is avoidable; frivolous and arbitrary conflict, clouded by emotions, identity, and dogmatic vestiges of bygone ideologies. It all begs for reconciliation and resolution, so that we may move forward together decisively in a paradigm shift. And much hinges on simply being briefed and primed on new subjects together, rather than trying to resolve conflicts through debate and dialogue.
The first question of the difference between IT and MM should be easy to address: First of all, the site Notes on Metamodernism (2010-) and follow-up book Metamodernism(2017) makes no reference whatsoever to Integral Theory, Ken Wilber, or Quadrants. So, what I call the Dutch School (of MM), which has quite a large research base now, has nothing to do with Integral. Integral =/= metamodernism, end of story. This approach is grounded in post-postmodernism and deconstructs art and culture largely towards radically hopeful and emancipatory ends.
Second, Hanzi Freinacht’s (Nordic School) metamodern grand entrance The Listening Society (2017)and follow up Nordic Ideology (2019) does make a few mentions of Wilber, but clearly differentiates itself as something new, though sharing a similar developmental premise. To be sure, recently Ken Wilber has even given a brief plug to The Listening Society in the context of his IDW commentary (March, 2019) — citing it as a unique innovation and synthesis of developmental frameworks — which I discuss towards the end.
Thirdly, Integral is not regarded at all in the ‘90s sources discussed in my Missing Metamodernism series either, adding to what we might consolidate into an American school, which includes humane technology, post-colonialism, liberation theology, and racial-social-economic justice. Many post-Integral(TM) thinkers are now involved in the latter two approaches to metamodernism, but no convergence with Integral is made in the first approach (the Dutch school; cultural analysis/ sensibility approach).
Currently, as a discourse, explicit “metamodernism” is no less than the sum-total and product of content that I have aggregated in Metamodernism: A Literature List (over 230 sources), most of which has absolutely nothing to do with “Integral.” There is of course much more implicit metamodernism going on beyond these sources, but its helpful to map the boundaries of the discourse as they are. Thus, based on these major approaches to metamodernism and a survey of the literature, I argue IT is proto-metamodern at best (which is a good thing) as it leads into the Nordic school.
Jeremy Johnson has relayed that within the Integral community many people speak of a “civil war”, caused in large part by divergent reactions to Jordan Peterson and the IDW; a schism that is not surprising and has affected other groups as well. However, the roots of the split pre-date the IDW. For Zak Stein, the war broke out at least in 2015 when he debated FOR the motion that Integral should “stop catering to corporate interests and start fighting for social justice” (see his intro: Weak & strong Integral stances against corporate capitalism); which a majority of respondents supported. The community continues to be divided over such questions, filtered through the anti-progressive capitalist-realist noise of Peterson and the IDW.
The broader culture war “debates” may not be resolved anytime soon, not least because tribes are stubborn and there is no mediation, but I propose that through this complexity is an emergent resolution that calls on parties to submit themselves to the metamodern attractor. Metamodernism is an evolving term with rich and diverse meaning and implications, but it points towards a higher paradigm, a new philosophy, cultural phase, historical epoch, and meta-perspective for the meta-crisis.
The narratives of Integral and the IDW can help bridge— act as stepping stones — to metamodernism, as it takes a constructive critical perspective of both.
To be sure, many of those ‘for’ or ‘against’ Wilber have misrepresented his work (nor even read his many books), so my purpose here is not to repeat those mistakes, but to show how some post-Integralists light the way ahead. Though Integral Theory has made a profound impact on many people, these days it is arguably past its prime and looking for a place to land its legacy. The latest incarnation is Rebel Wisdom consciously and explicitly trying to project Integral onto Peterson and the IDW (admittedly that was a large part of RW’s project), with Ken Wilber also contributing to this move, even while some Integralists have previously criticized the IDW (Robb Smith, Mark Forman, below).
Conversely, many (post-)Integral thinkers are playing an important and valuable role in emerging metamodern thought directly or indirectly, such as Zak Stein, Daniel Thorson, Jeremy Johnson, Michael Brooks, Michael James, and Layman Pascal. Peter Limberg, Terry Patten, and Bonnitta Roy play similar roles but fall for Integral’s reactionary conservative return. To varying degrees, all these people bring some sort of expertise and innovation to the table, and also ostensibly want to renew and rehabilitate the roots of integral (small “i”) consciousness, which Johnson says “belongs to larger historical arc of countercultural movements of which Wilber is a part.”
I subtitle this article The Journey from Inner Development to Global Transformation (and from Integral to metamodernism), because Integral focuses on the former, and metamodernism explores broader questions of socio-cultural change, while not neglecting the individual either. Mastering the self may be the first step for any individual, but marching together is the endgame for every dividual (suggesting we are parts of a whole). The Integral Movement is largely about inner growth, self-help, personal development, shadow-work, a holistic worldview, and other practices designed to build up the individual, and the IDW echoes similar injunctions and platitudes. Metamodernism strives to be about a great deal more.
While IT loves to study all aspects of the world through its framework, its blind spot has always been the Lower Right (LR) quadrant of systems, in particular neglecting how social systems and political structures actually manifest and operate. The Nordic school, by contrast, introduces political metamodernism by way of its respective books on developmental psychology (The Listening Society) — which offers a new fractal synthesis beyond Integral — and developmental sociology (Nordic Ideology), a much more advanced tome.
The rest of this article, Part 1/2, proceeds through Background Basics recapping a brief history of Integral and its first encounters with metamodernism. Meddling in the Middle examines Integral self-critique and its misinformed revival in recent years, along with the awkward alliance with the IDW, and other positive post-Integral moves. Missing the Meta-Turn segues into the IDW critique, setting up Part 2.
Part 2/2 begins with Integrating the Intellectual Dark Web, looking closer at the tenuous convergence of the IDW and some Integral adherents, while Foregrounding the Future outlines some ways forward through post-Integralism and metamodernism, clarifying the critique against the IDW. Finally, The Metamodern Mo(ve)ment articulates what is novel about metamodernism and serves as a conclusion and call to action to change your mind; to exit Integral and the IDW stage left and converge on the progressive cause.
Background Basics
After decades of quiet and serious scholarship, Ken Wilber’s Integral Theory movement took off in the mid-90s from the success of Sex, Ecology, and Spirituality. Integral Theory became known as a holistic knowledge framework and personal development system largely pivoting on the waning of postmodernism and on their waxing about coaching and consulting imperatives. It did not have a significant influence in academia writ large, though it has made considerable headway in some circles, which I discuss below.
Awareness and interest in metamodernism appeared in Integral communities as early as 2012, in a post on Integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com. That thread contains links to Notes on Metamodernism, as well as the writings of Alexandra Dumitrescu and Seth Abramson. Some comments compare Abramson’s thinking to Edgar Morin’s Complex Thought. Besides that, there was never much integration with metamodernism beyond merely noting it, until more recently. On Integralworld.net, although a healthy culture of debate and self-criticism exists, there’s no mention of metamodernism until one passing reference in 2016:
“Jorge Ferrer wrote me how he sees it: “I don’t consider myself a postmodern thinker, but a post-postmodern (or metamodern) — one who takes to heart certain postmodern insights but seeks to move discourse beyond them (e.g., embracing the legitimacy of ontological and metaphysical claims; the feasibility of a multiverse composed of a variety of subtle worlds, etc.) while integrating aspects of premodern, modern, and postmodern thinking.”” — Oliver Griebel, Nonduality, The Only Game in Town? (2016)
More importantly perhaps, in 2015, the edited volume Metatheory for the 21st Century presented a possible fusion between Integral Theory and the other main meta-theories of Critical Realism and Complex Thought. The book (and this table below specifically) establishes that Integral Theory is both substantially distinct from and incomplete without the other complementary meta-theories. If nothing else, it demonstrates that Integral alone is as profound as it is lacking.
According to the book, Integral Theory is only 1/3rd of a complete meta-theory. This realization is a big meta- move, and lays important groundwork for a proper metamodern meta-theory that includes all three. Paul Marshall has attempted such a synthesis in his book A Complex Integral Realist Perspective: Towards A New Axial Vision (2016). It is the beginning of a trialogue, and perhaps an invitation to other meta-theories as well. Neither book makes explicit connections with metamodernism, though some of its authors are now pioneers and contributors to it (ie. Zak Stein, Paul Marshall).
In the book The Nordic Secret (2017), by Lene Rachel Andersen and Tomas Bjorkman, they use the term “meta-modernity” as a cultural code like modernity and postmodernity, but also to include pre-modern and indigenous cultural codes. They cite Wilber’s Integral as one of many forerunners of holistic theories of post-post-modernity, along with the likes of Laloux, Habermas, and Kegan. But this is the extent of Integral discussion in the book, which is largely about “Bildung”, the concept of cradle-to-grave philosophical education for continuous self-cultivation and mature participation in the world, which is central to Bjorkman’s metamodernism.
There is some overlap in principle between Integral and Bildung, in that they both encourage self-development and maximizing human potential, but the connection is scarcely made anywhere. The language is even blended in the Koen Wessels TED talk Bildung: An Integral Approach to Education, however he makes no reference to Ken Wilber or “Integral Theory”. And Wilber’s writings do not discuss this rich concept of Bildung, although he would no doubt support it.
According to Hanzi, metamodern thinking begins at the threshold called vision-logic or 2nd Tier consciousness in Integral, but this is where those systems end and the real work begins. In The Listening Society, Hanzi argues that Ken Wilber “cannot save you”, and neither can any of your past favourite thinkers. “None of them have an encompassing enough picture of political life…” (p. 17). The plethora of (other) names and theories listed will not give you direct access to metamodern thought either, argues Hanzi, but are still prerequisites anyway. The book goes on to praise Wilber in parts, but also critique him, in footnote 73 in particular which deserves being quoted in full:
“I owe more to Wilber than I perhaps give him credit for in this book. However, being a metamodern thinker who believes more in ideas under development than in individuals, I do not feel I owe anything to any of my inspirations. As I have said, metamodernism is idealistic piracy. Because of some of Wilber’s more questionable esoteric work — and his very problematic involvements with sectarian groups and due to other issues revolving around his persona — I do not want to associate my work too closely with his. That being said, I am in some ways more Wilberian than Wilber himself, as the four dimensions of development (cognitive development, code, state, and depth) are based on a fractal application of his “four quadrant” model. I have used Wilber’s thoughts more stringently than he did himself, and that is precisely what allowed me to tease out the four dimensions of development.” — Hanzi Freinacht, The Listening Society, (p. 383–4)
This is in a sense meant to be, because if Integral did it’s job right, it would help produce the next stage of thinking, which would transcend and include itself further. And in that sense it has achieved this through Hanzi. For me, though I’ve read about Integral, I was never part of the community. While it has been informative to me, it was never directly crucial to my own education, development, or approach to metamodernism. It never came up in my formal academic experience, though its always been in the background of my own search for a Theory of Everything. In that sense, I would not identify as post-Integral like others who have been more involved, but for good measure, while I criticize Integral here I also rigorously employ the Four Quadrant model in the study of “abstraction” elsewhere.
I stress all this to demonstrate that Integral and Metamodernism are clearly not the same thing, though they overlap or intersect in some specific instances. Now you have the background basics.
Meddling in the Middle
One of the great things about the Integral community is its reflexivity (self-awareness, critique) and evolution, but this is challenged and held back by its reactionary elements (opposing progress or reform; being too apologetic for capitalism). In the end, it creates an impasse that only post-Integralists can cross. Reflection from integralists, post-integralists, and outside critics is indicative here.
On Integralworld.net, Jeff Meyerhoff’s Six Criticisms of Wilber’s Integral Theory(2006) is a sound skepticism of the developmental psychology and research methods employed by Wilber. The Rise And Fall of Ken Wilberby Mark Manson (2012) is a quite fair critical introduction, as a (short) 20 minute commentary evenly split between Integral promotion and critique.
On the podcast Emerge, Daniel Thorson interviews Robert MacNaughton on Learnings from the Life and Death of the Integral Center (2019) which survey the history of tensions within the community itself. And in a no holds barred interview, Jamie Wheal vividly discusses The Legacy of Integral (2019), with its ample pros and cons, saying 2nd Tier created far more problems than it solved. People got a “contact high” from reading Wilber, Wheal says, which “resulted in a bunch of dissociated eggheads masquerading as Jedi and thinking they could solve the world from the position of a whiteboard.”
Zak Stein, who is a contributor to the aforementioned book Metatheory for the 21st Century, is one of the strongest proponents of post-Integral metamodernism in terms of ‘social justice’ (a term that the IDW has helped nullify). In the Integral conference debate in 2015, the “weak argument” Stein proposes is that Integral should at least become more informed about what capitalism is. The “strong argument” is that Integral should be, at the very least, post-capitalist. Given that Integral was doing neither, the way people used terms like “green meme” and “second tier” became, Stein says, substitutions for actual thought.
‘Transcend and include’ was being misapplied to integrating capitalism, rather than negating its aspects of injustice (and negation is necessary; you can’t transcend and include slave labour). Integral was consulting corporations on how to be better, which at the end of the day degraded into greenwashing and pinkwashing techniques, mild forms of progress that become captured (ie. regulatory capture, cognitive capture).
Capitalism is so unimaginative that it can neither comprehend its own end (ie. ‘there is no alternative’) nor its eternity, since it’s based on compound rates of profit within a limited playing field. Naturalizing it becomes a failure of the imagination, so for Stein, ideally, “‘conscious capitalism’ should be seen as a gateway drug to an actually post-capitalist form”. Read his more detailed opening notes here.
Later in the debate Stein states unequivocally, “Pinker’s wrong” (who the other debaters had invoked earlier), before launching into rigorously unpacking how and why: it’s easy to use “statistical magic” to show less violence overall, but the potential for violence and actual structural violence is greater than ever, and our consumptive decimation of biodiversity on earth is increasing.
Moreover, any social progress from the Enlightenment that Pinker brags about was actually due to welfare state reforms because of radical labor organization, not simply due to capitalist production and rational individualism. In other words, it wasn’t reason, logic, facts, and science in itself that fought for things like suffrage, unions, education, and equality, it was the freethinkers who were wedged between authoritarians and fundamentalists; between science and religion, between enlightenment individualism and class consciousness.
Further to this point, the obfuscation of labour laws today has made structural violence in the global south largely “invisible.” ie. As Stein explains, Foxconn (where iPhones are made) has suicide nets because “political activism is impossible; the only protest is to commit suicide… holocracy’s not going on at Foxconn.” Hence, nor is holocracy happening in your iPhone in your pocket. For a deep dive into Stein’s recent work, buy his book: Education in a Time Between Worlds: Essays on the Future of Schools, Technology, and Society (2019) and visit zakstein.org.
Stein’s debate partner Bonnitta Roy added that “if the Integral community could understand the force of structural violence then we would make a much better impact.” Along these same lines, on Integralworld.net Joe Corbett writes about a “missing link” in Integral theory and practice, republished on DecolonizingYoga.com with the telling title How Ken Wilber and Integral Theory Leave Out Justice(2015).
“The silence of integral leaders on the dimension of Justice is deafening, and it reflects similarly how “middle-way” liberals proclaim allegiance to progressive values, but then won’t talk about the role of the apparatuses of power and money in preventing those values from being realized.” — Joe Corbett, How Ken Wilber and Integral Theory Leave Out Justice (2015).
This is still very true today, as the liberal establishment pushes Joe Biden, a bland candidate with a bad record. Corbett is referring to “social justice”, which since 2015 has only become even more besieged by new centrists, reactionary conservatives, and far-right trolls alike. Critics have obsessed over the increasingly marginal gains of postmodern “grievance” scholarship (see Quillette), while downplaying and mocking persistent issues of race, gender, and class.
Integral fails to transcend and include much of these postmodern modes of critique of power. In distilling postmodernism into a meme, it becomes a very ‘leaky abstraction’ in which much is left out — indeed, almost all the good stuff too. To the centrist or right-wing “critic”, ‘postmodernism’ becomes a buzzword slur, devoid of any positive critical meaning.
“No consideration is given in their analysis to how institutional structures of power and money (media, schools, religion, the corporate-military-police-state) systematically prevent and retard human development. You would think that the founding figure of the integral brand would have learned his lesson from Habermas, but I guess not.” — Joe Corbett, How Ken Wilber and Integral Theory Leave Out Justice (2015).
Corbett’s harsh take is one variety of critique, but there is a broad field of discourse within and around Integral in many directions. Below, Michel Bauwens also offers a balanced take on a critique on Integral’s aspirations and shortfall (2008) that fits within this narrative. A dismissive hyper-critique of Integral is possible, but also not completely necessary or desirable:
“The sad truth is indeed that most of what passes for integral theory is a front for system-confirming ideological approaches, sometimes aligned with the neo-conservative war party that has dominated the last US administration, but such a conclusion would be superficial, as quite a bit more is at stake.” — Michel Bauwens on Rich Carlson’s critique of Integral Theory: 1) the ideological aspects (2008)
Along these lines, the misapplications of Integral are more widespread than any proponent would care to admit, Corbett continues:
“Perhaps the fact that Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, Jeb Bush, the new fascist Ukrainian government, and a host of corporate heads are using integral ideas “in their own sort of quiet way” is enough to keep Ken hoping that power and money (along with Ken’s own super-human uber-man philosophy) will eventually light the way to our integral deliverance, perhaps in grand goose-step style.” — Joe Corbett, How Ken Wilber and Integral Theory Leave Out Justice (2015).
Indeed, Wilber actually even says he thinks that Karl Rove (infamously dubbed ‘the architect’ of the Bush dynasty) is a “Turquiose thinker,” (@10:23 in Integral Politics), essentially because he’s a good political schemer. Wilber continues “Karl Rove is a genuis. I mean, I don’t agree with a whole lot of it, but [he’s engineered the Bush victories]”. For me, this calls into question the ethics of Wilber’s whole ego-development scale and his credibility as a political commentator. Sure, Rove is a “genius,” but he’s a sociopath too, and in a metamodern world we don’t transcend and include (or elect, or appoint) sociopaths.
In Immigration and the Dangers of Political Tribalism (2018), Wilber humblebrags about how Integral influenced Clinton and “Third Way” politics, which has been thoroughly discredited by progressives: this is a common point of critique on The Michael Brooks Show (see Let’s Bury Third Way Politics Forever (TMBS 50), The Living Dead Third Way Conspires To Stop Bernie? (TMBS 87), and Steve Pinker Embraces Third Way, Knows Nothing Of Political History).
“Third Way” is dead, but its zombie persists, such as through a center-left think tank founded in 2005 bearing the same name that continues to push its message. The anti-establishment resonance of both Bernie Sanders and Trump as polar opposites reflect the irreconcilability of the current political climate, but in truth only Sanders offers an honest and pragmatic vision for a just and sustainable society. Not to mention the New Left coalition has essentially written off the (neo-)liberal establishment in favour of much higher standards. Joe Corbett’s critique of Integral continues his argument in this same spirit:
“Regarding the transition to an integral society, Salzman says “you can’t be a successful global leader of an organization without being functionally teal”. I guess for Jeff that means the integral society has already emerged at the global level under neo-liberal capitalism. We just need more of them, up to a 10% tipping-point when their values will diffuse to the rest of us, and then we’ll all finally see the virtues of free-trade, deregulation, and privatization along with our superiors.” — Joe Corbett, How Ken Wilber and Integral Theory Leave Out Justice (2015).
This exclusive Integral thinking has indeed infused some of the global elite, it just hasn’t trickled down into support structures, better laws, and economic enfranchisement, and it likely never will. Given the emphasis on self-development and the blindspots on systems, the elitist trend will only continue to degrade, as Integralists double-down on their bootstrapping method in lieu of real political change and the deep thinking (and other-consciousness) required, hence the post-Integral leadership and meta- turn. The remainder of Corbett’s critique is savagely witty and on point:
“In the final analysis, one wonders if Ken Wilber’s aversion to the “mean green meme” is an aversion to critical thinking more generally, particularly with regard to himself, and to issues of social justice surrounding some of his most powerful and wealthy client/patrons who operate out of the mean orange meme.” — Joe Corbett, How Ken Wilber and Integral Theory Leave Out Justice (2015).
Missing the Meta- Turn
Following all this criticism and internal dispute within Integral, it is curious then that Integral’s ‘missing link’ would be similar to the gaping black hole within the IDW; the complete rejection of social justice, denial of the concept of systemic racism, and a general embrace of psychologism and scientism, with a dash of market fundamentalism, all under the dubious banner of “classical liberalism.” To be sure, much of this description is in keeping with their own identification and priorities. Integral carries the mild form, while the IDW carries the strong (more myopic, dangerous) strain.
In my analysis, both Integral and the IDW exercise relatively high-level discourses about some intellectual topics, but the problem is their boring-cum-sensationalist centrist (mis)takes on politics. Both of them criticize some abstraction of the far-left without really articulating any of its content or actors (or interacting with them); they focus instead on easily mockable disruptive protestors and postmodern scholars while ignoring all the serious work done across the left, and the fundamentalism on the right. They pay lip service to progressivism while ignoring or condemning key concepts, thinkers, and movements. Maybe they are two peas in a pod after all, but still strange bedfellows.
Thus, it is a somewhat rational turn when Rebel Wisdom (a project proudly built off Peterson’s momentum) projected an Integral map onto Peterson and the IDW, as apparent daring interlocutors of a more public turn for Integral Consciousness. Rebel Wisdom saw what they wanted to, the appearance of an integrative discussion format that, perhaps aptly, characterized the IDW as “Integral” itself. In How to join the Intellectual Dark Web — a user’s guide, Fuller attempts to marry Integral consciousness with the IDW brand, but then declares the IDW conversation an “ideas revolution” and “beyond ideology”. As we will see, this does not hold up to scrutiny — it never did — though it it can appear true and resonates with large audiences.
But here’s the rub: Integral, with all its flaws, still seems better and more redeemable than the IDW. By trying to combine Integral and the IDW in such a way (it turns out none of the IDW care about Integral), Rebel Wisdom accidently reveals the worst of each. Wilber’s Integral and the IDW both reflect in each other the antipathy towards postmodernism, while not integrating social justice concerns and material politics sufficiently.
They both conflate neoliberal-left, progressive-left, and some regressive-left politics, more or less avoiding people who articulate the difference. An example closer to home is the slow or belated convergence on these topics between Rebel Wisdom and Abs-Tract.Org or Metamoderna. It results not only in an impasse, but can manifest in hostilities (another key example being Dave Rubin’s holier-than-thou and paranoid avoidance of talking to Sam Seder of the Majority Report, due to being mocked). Nevertheless, I always advocate facing these epistemic conflicts head on and in the moment, whether privately or publicly, because they are inevitable down the road.
Furthermore, neither of the IDW or Integral are yet properly aligned with a metamodern worldview or discourse, and this only reinforces the former points. When Fuller published his pro-IDW bit I’d already released my third and most comprehensive critique of Peterson, which largely attempted to describe a stalemate in the debate, and how Peterson’s resolve was itself partly to blame. Rebel Wisdom took a different path, and ignored or rejected my approach wholesale, along with Hanzi Freinacht’s fierce takedown of Peterson and Paglia, titled A Marathon of Academic Incompetence — which, for posterity, also concedes that the Peterson is good at some things.
In May 2018 I published my long-form critique of the IDW — again, styled as constructive criticism — which explained the backstory, gave credit where its due, reflected on the paradox of critique (how its truth is often denied), and argued that metamodernism is a necessary emerging framework above and beyond crude anti-postmodernism. Furthermore, I described an emerging left politics that was entirely outside the scope of IDW critiques of ‘the left’. I recommend reading the essay for the full context as it relates to this article.
Since then an avalanche of vigorous critique (much of it harsher or more pointed than mine) has followed from serious thinkers and writers across the left. Naturally, much critique is ongoing against constant media presences like Dave Rubin and Ben Shapiro, but Sam Harris, Michael Shermer, the Weinsteins, and Jordan Peterson are still regular offenders who draw constant critiques, much of which comes through YouTube and Twitter. Thus, however stale the IDW label may be, and however much some of its proponents have ‘moved on’, there is still wrongs that must be righted, still damage being done, and still healing that is needed.
Even Steven Pinker, one of the more innocuous staples of the IDW, has racked up over 20 unforgiving critiques from Current Affairs, Vox, Open Democracy, the Guardian, Less Wrong, Theos think tank, Jacobin, NY Times, Nature, Chronicle Review, New Statesment, Salon, The Conversation, Springer, and Scientific American, amongst others. There is 10x as much legitimate criticism of Jordan Peterson — and I’d know, I’ve catalogued it — and what the stalemate comes down to is that most of this critique is drowned out by disproportionate positive coverage of these figures, and their own tireless self-promotion and careerism. Peterson is incredibly resilient in this regard; criticism rolls off him like water off a duck’s back because he ignores it in favour of zeroing in on some perceived slight.
One of the most recent and relatively softball critiques of the IDW came from physicist Sean Carroll on his podcast Mindscape, starting around 58m in (see transcript). In a deflective move, Eric Weinstein simply tweets “I don’t agree” but appreciates the thoughtful critique nonetheless. Given the basic veracity of the critique — that the IDW (inadvertantly) provides cover for the far-right, that Peterson is a free-speech hypocrite that literally endorses fascism (Orbán), that they are not uniformly pro-science, etc. — the deflection is very in keeping with the brand, which gives off an air of poised petulance.
My point here is of course Weinstein doesn’t agree, because the IDW are not exemplars of constructive post-rational conversations despite their self-identification and popular opinion to that effect. They like to curate their image carefully, while avoiding direct conflict, serious critique, and sociological ideas. As is painfully obvious in Sam Harris’s exchanges with Ezra Klein or Noam Chomsky, Harris is not interested in learning, only in confirming his own inconsistent logic.
In his regular public engagement efforts Weinstein maintains a veneer of progressive leftism yet continues to demonstrate a fair degree of disinterest and ignorance about what is actually happening in New Left politics, not to mention in Integral or metamodern spaces. Case in point, his first guest on his new podcast?: mutual admiration society colleague, Trump supporter, and Weinstein’s employer/ source of income, Peter Thiel, where they spend much of the 3 hours patting themselves on the back over the importance of growing GDP, “deregulated capitalism”, a hyper-rationalist meritocracy, and how automation isn’t actually going to happen.
Bret Weinstein’s first guest on his podcast? The much reviled (by leftists) Andy Ngo, the anti-leftist instigator and pseudo-journalist for Quillette who scored massive celebrity and compensation for his minor assault incident. The lack of serious engagement with actual left politics (and the critics of Andy Ngo, in this particular case) is breathtaking.
I publish this now because of the great interest in Integral and metamodernism, combined with the waning of the IDW, in the hopes that divided groups are ready to have this difficult conversation. Only then can we resolve the epistemic conflicts and move forward together. Part 1 foregrounded the idea of the personal development journey through Integral, and the sociological criticisms that arise from that. Part 2 continues the critique but tries to steer the attentional space to the global phase shift enabled through a metamodern attractor.
The Abs-Tract Organization is a research and media think tank, highlighting the utility of abstraction and metamodernism as new critical perspectives and knowledge representation frameworks.
If you appreciate the work we do, please support us on Patreon for $1.
To learn more about us, read our blog, converse on twitter @tato_tweets, and read our Vision Plan and White Paper at http://www.abs-tract.org
