By way of exemplifying the problematisation of particular uses of Wilber's integral approach and its address of postformal thought, this paper analyses Slaughter's “integral” analysis of Inayatullah's Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) which forms part of Slaughter's article, “What difference does ‘integral’ make?” Futures 40 (2) (2008). Evidence given for Slaughter's assertions is investigated. His assertions are then analysed partly by way of hermeneutics, CLA and deconstruction including address of Koestler's holon theory, Jung's archetypes, and Lakoff and Johnson's conceptual metaphor. The potential of Slaughter's analysis involves the opening up or furthering of generative dialogue, specifically through extending the possibilities of CLA. As instituted, however, it enacts a premature foreclosure of such potential, partly through offering an inadequate and inaccurate evaluation of CLA. This paper specifically problematises the notion that CLA is not substantively postconventional, whilst pointing to unproductive modernistic tendencies in Slaughter's analysis. In so doing, it opens up new avenues for integral futures.
Journal article
Futures of integral futures: an analysis of Richard Slaughter's analysis of Causal Layered Analysis
Futures, Vol.42(2), pp.134-148
2009
Metrics
37 Record Views
UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
This output has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:
Source: InCites
Abstract
Details
- Title
- Futures of integral futures: an analysis of Richard Slaughter's analysis of Causal Layered Analysis
- Creators
- Gary P Hampson - Southern Cross University
- Publication Details
- Futures, Vol.42(2), pp.134-148
- Identifiers
- 1024; 991012821818802368
- Academic Unit
- Centre for Children and Young People
- Resource Type
- Journal article