Fearanalysis is a methodology I have developed decades ago and it is continually being refined (e.g., Google Scholar search will give you one version guidebook). In order to take Ken Wilber's work and put it through a fearanalysis one would have to do extensive research, which I do not have time for at the moment because of other writing projects. However, it is worthy reading the prior FM blog on his new book and my first discovery of what showed up in the book Index (i.e., for The Religion of Tomorrow, 2017). Today, I did a quick digital search for 9 terms (see Table 1) I am interested in particularly about the "shadow-side" (pathological analysis) of Wilber's overall project in 50 years or so of his research and writing as a now internationally recognized philosopher and psychology theorist (i.e., Integral Theory).
RESULTS
There are many things to analyze from Table 1 (also many limitations to this method of data collection of #'s of hits), but I will not try to do that all here in this first direct fearanalysis (blogpost). You can review the numbers and look for patterns yourself. A few highlights that 'pop' out from this table are: (a) use of fear explicitly shows a moderate to low number of times until a c. 100% jump in 2017 (ROT); (b) use of fearlessness is 0 across the sample; (c) use of courage very low and consistent across the sample; (d) use of positive and negative medium low use but somewhat consistent with a reversal of predominance of "negative" in 1977 (SOC), though not highly so; (e) use of pathology a definite trend (jumping up and down) with very low in 1977 to medium high in 1995 to a similar but slightly less in 2017; (f) use of shadow very high in 1977 with a big drop (c. 40%) in 1995 and c. 100% increase in 2017; (g) use of dysfunction is the most extreme change of all the 9 terms, showing 2017 it was his favored term for discussing various aspects of the more "darker"-side of his overal project work (this is my interest as a fearologist).
DISCUSSION
What am I 'snooping' for in such a preliminary (rough data set)? I look for patterns of increased or decreased use of concepts (i.e., those related to my interest and work re: fear and fearlessness overall). It is important to look (at least) at some of the most extreme differences showing up on Table 1. Wilber's use of "fearlessness" is exactly the opposite in frequency to mine over the decades. He doesn't engage the term, which is astounding to me as it is so important in any "liberation" and/or "enlightenment" discourse, for starters. But he also doesn't much engage "courage" either. Again, astounding (puzzling) because he does moderately engage the term "fear." My question to him and others analyzing this data is: How can one engage the term "fear" with moderate use explictly in one's major texts, and not engage either courage or fearlessness (or "fearless"). It's like there is a disconnect there for me or a 'gap' in Wilber's discourse and the discourses of "liberation" that he relies upon. I am looking just for this kind of bias and what seems problematic. For e.g., he has no theory of fear to fearlessness or fear and courage, for starters. Yet, why does he assert with his colleagues (in another book, Integral Life Practice, 2008) "ILP [Integral Life Practice, which Wilber is a co-founder of] is a free and fearless exploration of the terrain..." (p. 2)?
Moving on to the next thing I am snooping for is what I have long been critical of in Wilber's discourses and those who follow him and whom he relies upon often--the issue is for me potentially circulating around how Wilber has become so much more "positive" oriented overall in his text discourses. I am concerned (especially, since 1997 forward) he has dropped the darker analysis and edges of good critical/conflict theory and become more a functionalist thinker theorist (at least, partially so). Again, I am interested in the darker shadowy-side of his great analysis overall (which is still there in 2017). So, that is why I looked for the term "positive" and "negative" to compare (albeit, this is likely not very accurate to actual volume of page spaces on each of these aspects of his thinking and work). It turns out from this sample, and limited method, he is fairly balanced in use of the terms, and that's great (with a slight, interesting anomaly in 1977 where use of "negative" was for the first time higher than "positive" (so, that validated somewhat my hypothesis he was writing more on "negative" aspects of his overall project, that is, pathologicaly and shadowy aspects of what is 'broken' for example.
Even if it is good to see the (apparent) 'balance' of positive and negative, which I would expect from good Integral philosophy/theory (and Wilber himself), if I take a look at the 2017 (ROT) book, go to the Index, there is no term entry for "negative" and yet, go to "positive" and sure enough there are several pages as well as him promoting "Positive Psychology" movement (a la Seligman) as part of ILP work. I kept asking, so where is the "Negative Psychology" movement being promoted or even named? It's not. That's problematic and tips to the 'unbalanced' scales, or at least its a tendency I suspected in Wilber's biased discourse and use of terms like these.
Next, I am fascinated by his frequency use of "pathology" over the years, which dramatically increased in this sample over time, which I am glad for. Both SES and ROT books are his two big tomes of great works (both 800 pp) and it is fairly consistent, more or less, that "pathology" gets used moderately often. So, this doesn't support (initially) my hypothesis in an obvious way re: Wilber is getting more positive. Most people can't stand the word pathology, nor spending time studying it. We generally avoid it (and fear it) and that's a whole other conversation about processes of denial, dissociation, and "fear" (i.e., fear of pathology itself; which is analogous to "fear of fear itself"). Typically, North American culture anyways tends to avoid these negative (sounding) terms (I am speaking mostly of popular culture and self-help psychology and human potential and new age discourses, but even beyond those too). Yet, now Wilber really gets me excited when he uses at the high to extremely high levels (relatively to other data collected) terms that are quite negative sounding: (a) "shadow" (i.e., shadow work, Jung's notion of Shadow, etc.) is 2nd highest amongst all the 9 terms and, (b) "dysfunction" is the very highest with an extreme valued-use by Wilber only in 2017.
I'll end the (initial) Discussion of this Table 1 here. Things to ponder in the future fearanalysis. I'll end with a Wilber (2017) quote pertinent to my own finding a way to embrace the best parts for building an integral theory of pathology. I refer to him here clarifying that he has several terms to show what his overall liberation project is about in terms of light commandments of sorts (praxis): "Growing Up," "Waking Up," and "Showing Up,"-- all 3 are the lighter 'positive' aspects or "demands" he places on anyone following his work and the path of which Integral Theory is taking... okay, fine, that's 75% of his liberation project, and what about the other 25% (at least, in Wilber's arrangement of priorities of praxis)--well, the other 4th aspect he calls "Cleaning Up" whereby he wrote, "shadow work involves the 'negative aspect' of Cleaning Up, emphasized by Integral Theory" (p. 264). But then he also clarifies on that same page that "Cleaning Up" has two major aspects, 50% of this ought to be on "Positive Psychology" (and like practices) whereby one focuses on their "strengths" and "what is working" already in their lives--to promote "thriving" or "flourishing" or "that which makes our lives better or happier" (pp. 264-65). You see when I read that kind of focus on positive (even, "Cleaning Up" is 50% positive work)--leaving overall in Wilber's project (according to this brief fearanalysis) a mere 12.5% on "negative aspect" (p. 264). Seriously, that's what the formula comes out to if you just examine this couple of pages of text, and what is sort of disconnective for me is that this privileging formula of Wilber's (albeit, I am putting % figures on it) is that it is right smack in the middle of the chapter 8 of the book "Shadow Work." Oh, my... this really needs more close examination... this really, looks off-balancing and not what Integral Theory ought to be about overall(?). Again, I am not going to get harsh in critiquing this book yet. I haven't done adequate checking out the facts and reading more, analyzing more.
This ought to create food for thought anyways...
Oh, one more cautionary on what is happening re: positive-bias in Integral Theory (a la Wilber). Listen to this quote from the same page (p. 265) where Wilber is basically promoting the "Positive Psychology" movement but beyond that he is promoting his philosophy (theory) of evolution which, for him, is looking like it (i.e., "Evolution" itself) is quite "negative"-- just listen to this quote from Wilber (which really needs nuanced challenging): "Evolution has tended to build into the brain a habit of looking for hazards and things that can signal danger or trouble; there is much less drive to notice things that are positive, that we should be grateful for, that make our lives better or happier." [he seems to be talking about a "fear habit" as 'negative' habit, is he not?; oh, and isn't this summary of "Evolution" itself positioned as 'positive' but from another perspective he is rather philosophically quite 'negative' in this construction--interesting, ironic?]
[wow! that is quite the claim, and seems quite inconsistent with Wilber-mid-career work on Integral Theory... something has really shifted, after 1995-96, in my estimate]
