Published
August 28, 2009
Copyright Notice
Authors who submit and have articles published in The Trumpeter license The Trumpeter to publish and redistribute the work under the CC (Creative Commons) BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. We comply fully with the open access requirements of UKRI, Wellcome, and NIHR. Where required by their funder, authors retain the right to distribute their author accepted manuscript (AAM), such as via an institutional and/or subject repository (e.g. EuropePMC), under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence for release no later than the date of first online publication.
Copies of this journal or articles in this journal may be reprinted free of charge and without further permission, provided the author and original source are acknowledged. However redistribution for commercial purposes is expressly prohibited without the written consent of the copyright holder. Except for the conditions stated above, the authors reserve all rights over the work contained herein. If you have any questions, please contact The Trumpeter's editor-in-chief.
Abstract
The purpose of this essay is to assess Ken Wilber’s critique of eco-holism or radical ecology. It (a) summarizes Wilber’s integral paradigm, then (b) reviews the eco-holistic paradigm (as interpreted by Wilber), (c) summarizes his critique, (d) reviews the rebuttal and counter-rebuttal, (e) assesses briefly the adequacy of Wilber’s critique, (f) reviews his recommended solution to the ecological crisis, then (g) ends with a rejoinder and conclusion. The focus of this essay is on the question of the potential validity of Wilber’s theoretical model upon which his critique of eco-holism is based. The reason for this focus is that Wilber’s specific criticisms of radical ecology are based on his model. If his model can be shown to be implausible or invalid, then Wilber's critique of eco-holism is undermined, if not invalidated. On the contrary, if his model is demonstrated to be plausible or potentially valid, his critique must be taken seriously and then evaluated on other grounds, such as its groundedness in the relevant radical ecological literature. The author concludes that Wilber’s all-quadrant all-level model can be accepted as potentially valid. Therefore, his critique of eco-holism is at least potentially valid, but it suffers from a lack of grounding in the radical ecological literature and unjustifiably broad characterizations of eco-holists.
From the perspective of his integral vision, Wilber would hope to find an eco-holism that is all-quadrant and all-level; that is, that recognizes, honors, and incorporates the objective, subjective, interobjective, and intersubjective aspects of the developmental levels (holons) within each quadrant. Rather, what he finds is an eco-holism suffering from two partialities: privileging a particular quadrant(s) and privileging a particular level(s).