The Atman Project and Up From Eden respectively)Although the roots of evolutionary Integralist thinking can be traced back to the 18th century, the movement itself, if it can be called such, is a product of the early 20th century onwards. And despite the association of the Integral movement today with Ken Wilber, it was Sri Aurobindo who coined the term “Integral” in this contex; see The Synthesis of Yoga, Sri Aurobindo Ashram Press. This book was first published in serial form in the journal Arya, from 1914 and 1921. It was revised several times in the 30s, 30s and 40s (see Biographical Notes to the Pondicherry edition). This is the earliest mention of “integral” in a spiritual context.
Gebser is another one who predates Wilber. I’m not sure when he started using the term, although it was after Sri Aurobindo did. His opus Ursprung und Gegenwart (The Ever-Present Origin), was published in various editions from 1949 to 1953.
Integral psychology was developed by Indra Sen (with a number of papers beginning in the early 1940s; following the orthodox Aurobindonian line) and Haridas Chauduri (in the 1970s, he gave his own interpretation). This was long before Ken Wilber started using “Integral” to define his own worldview in Wilber-IV and now Wilber-V . See this paper:
Shirazi, Bahman (2001) “Integral psychology, metaphors and processes of personal integration”, Cornelissen, Matthijs (Ed.) ‘’Consciousness and Its Transformation'’, Pondicherry: SAICE online at http://www.saccs.org.in/TEXTS/IP2/IP2-1.2-.htm
for the history of Integral Psychology.
Ken Wilber, the third main advocate of the Integral worldview, was influenced by both Sri Aurobindo and Gebser, and must certainly have derived the term Integral from one or perhaps even both of them, because in Integral Psychology he includes both of them in his list of integral thinkers. Moreover, both Aurobindonian and Gebserian themes are evident as far back as Wilber-II (in The Atman Project and Up From Eden respectively)
Currently, the movement - if it can be called such - seems to be centered around three very different advocates, each from a different continent. Representatives of the mainstream Wilberian movement would identify “Integral" with Wilberian theory and praxis. Seen this way, all non-Wilberian Integral theorists and practitioners can be construed as Wilber critics that constitute a fringe minority with little or nothing original to say, beyond disagreement with orthodox Wilberism. But just because Wilberians represent the majority in America, that doesn’t mean that Integral = Ken. If you go to India you will find, in contrast, that Integral equals Aurobindo. In Europe, Integral may well equal Gebser. An integral movement has to be global, it cannot be merely Americocentric.
 |
 |
 |
