This essay is a response to the recent exchange between Paul Marshall and Timothy Rutzou on critical realism and integral theory in Journal of Critical Realism 11, in which integral theory was designated by Rutzou ‘a poisoned chalice’ for critical realism. It argues that, while integral theory could benefit greatly from the adoption of critical realist ontology, metacritique and the structural analysis of politics, critical realism could benefit even more from the scientific syntheses achieved by integral theory, especially developmental psychology, (...) cultural anthropology and transpersonal psychology. (shrink)

This article continues the discussion surrounding the questions of metatheory which emerged from a symposium in 2011 between critical realism and integral theory. It maintains and develops the critique that integral theory is fraught with problems arising from a monovalent neo-Platonic dialectic resulting in actualism and problematic metaphysical speculations. Consequently, as a metatheory it is unable to underlabour for robust theorization and critique, and as a worldview it is quintessentially western and illicitly universalizing. Politically this results in an insufficient and (...) pathological response to the crises generated by late capitalism, while still raising legitimate questions about the need for and function of robust metatheory. (shrink)

This article offers an omissive critique of integral theory. To this objective, the article draws upon dialectical logic to investigate the affinities between integral theory and critical realism. Section 1 identifies new possibilities regarding the role of metatheory in practice by unpacking the metatheoretical coordinates of critical realism and integral theory. After providing a brief history of the origins of critical realism and integral theory, I review the ontological, epistemological, and methodological metatheorems of dialectical critical realism, and I put them (...) to work to provide an omissive critique of integral theory. Then I introduce the notion of strictly non-dialectic because it functions to explain formally how integral theory relates to critical realism. Section 2 isolates the inadequacies at every moment in the passage from the MELD dialectic. Section 3 concludes the article with a discussion of the implications of foregrounding a critical realist ontology for integral theory. (shrink)

This paper examines the points of connection and divergence between critical realism/metaRealism and integral theory, suggesting ways in which they might interact and mutually enrich each other. It highlights the common ground that both metatheories share and also identifies the particular strengths and shortcomings of both, arguing that they stem, in part, from their different emphases: integral theory on individual emancipation and critical realism on social emancipation. It suggests that this different focus has led to different strengths in each that (...) often coincide with an area that needs developing in the other, providing a promising potential for mutual enrichment. (shrink)