Content uploaded by Jose M. Ramos
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jose M. Ramos
Content may be subject to copyright.
ESSAY
.69
Josh Floyd
Swinburne University of Technology
Australia
Alex Burns
Victoria University
Australia
Jose Ramos
Queensland University of Technology
Australia
A Challenging Conversation on Integral
Futures: Embodied Foresight &
Trialogues
Journal of Futures Studies, November 2008, 13(2): 69 - 86
Introduction
At the heart of an integral approach to any sphere of activity and inquiry is inclusion of the
greatest possible number of perspectives, and practitioner reflection. Many practitioners associated
with the Masters course in Strategic Foresight at Swinburne University of Technology in
Melbourne, Australia have proposed that Integral Futures Studies and Foresight practice represents
a revolutionary development in the field, with potential to bring about ground shifts at least as sig-
nificant as the earlier interpretive and critical waves.
This emergence has been led by Slaughter's call for Integral Methodological Renewal: the
development of futures methodologies consistent with and based on the principles of Integral
Theory, especially, but not exclusively, as articulated by the philosopher Ken Wilber (Slaughter,
2003; Slaughter, 2004). To date, methodological renewal has focused on expanded and new tools
and techniques. Methodology, though, is about more than the tools used: it involves careful atten-
tion to the stance taken by the practitioner in the use of tools to enact knowledge and understanding.
This is particularly so for Integral Futures methodologies: Richard Slaughter and Joseph Voros have
stressed the extent of the demands placed on the Integral Futures practitioner, and have highlighted
the need for specific focus on his or her development. We contend in this article that practitioner
stance is not simply of equal importance to the tools used, but is the primary factor in realising the
benefits of Integral Futures methodologies.
Journal of Futures Studies
70
Toward Integral Enactment: Trialogues & Embodied Foresight
We argue that integral enactment of Integral Future methodologies is itself a meta-
methodology within which tools and practices should be enacted. We explore this via
a process of 'trialogue'–three-way deep dialogue–through which the outlines of an
approach to futures and foresight practice called Embodied Foresight emerges. The
'trialogue' process has evolved primarily from David Bohm's dialogue methodology
(Bohm, 1996), and the Omega Institute exploratory discussions helmed by the late
ethno-botanist Terence McKenna (Abraham, McKenna, & Sheldrake, 1998). Other
relevant examples and sources include archetypal psychotherapist James Hillman and
author Michael Ventura's debate on contemporary culture (Hillman & Ventura, 1993),
the Dialogue Group's methodology for cultural and organisational learning (Ellinor &
Gerard, 1998), and the Society for Organizational Learning's work on presence and
applied systems thinking (Senge, 1990; Senge, Scharmer, Jaworski, & Flowers, 2004).
The catalyst for the 'trialogue' process was our reflections on the 2003, 2004 and
2006 iterations of the Advanced Professional Praxis unit in Swinburne University's
Strategic Foresight program. Our 'practitioner conversations' expanded to discuss
Futures Studies (FS) as 'shadow' work (in self, teacher, school and tradition), axiolo-
gy/ethics, practitioner responsibility for published work and repercussions, transcul-
tural transmission and other general problems that arise in embodied practices. Our
focus was on general problems and solutions and to advocate reflective processes in
the Futures Studies field and Strategic Foresight profession.
Our 'trialogue' below occurred from February to April 2006 as Richard Slaughter,
Joseph Voros and Peter Hayward sought contributions for the 'Integral Futures
methodologies' special issue of Futures (published in March 2008). The resulting
'apocrypha' shows how FS practitioners can have a varied understanding of Integral
Futures methodologies and immediate/synchronic responses to the Integral Futures
debate–dependent on affiliation, information flow, mindset, power and stance–which
can differ from the key participants and that may evolve diachronically or through
time as the practitioner actively reflects on these factors (Oshry, 1996). The 'trialogue'
process below thus also 'bounds' our responses to April 2006: comparable to the raw
messiness of musicians jamming in a garage rather than spending years in a high-tech
recording studio (Metallica, 1987).
Embodied Foresight involves the enactment of integral principles in day-to-day
living and aims to make our work as practitioners continuous with our being. It incor-
porates a new approach to understanding ethical practice, based on heightened sensi-
tivity to the specific, local context in which methodology is enacted. At the heart of
Embodied Foresight is the development of capacity to sit with uncertainty and not-
knowing, to develop tolerance and acceptance of the discomfort that comes with
doubt. A healthy relationship with doubt is seen as central to good practice within a
conceptual understanding of the future as non-predictable and in-determinant.
Through the 'trialogue' reflective process, we look at how an Embodied Foresight
capacity is developed and consider a range of approaches to ongoing development,
notably practice-oriented research perspectives.
A Challenging Conversation on Integral Futures
71
The Trialogue
Alex Burns: To-date the development of Integral Futures has focused on theory
development, the creation of transdisciplinary linkages, and the formation of an epis-
temic community. Slaughter, Voros, Hayward and others have shown how integral the-
orists–primarily via the models of Jean Gebser, Clare W. Graves, Jane Loevinger and
Ken Wilber–can expand the breadth and depth of Futures Studies inquiry.
However, this theory development phase has raised several problems and patholo-
gies. The fusion of Integral Theory and FS involves the alchemical transformation of
the practitioner's consciousness, and moral engagement with possible, probable and
preferred futures. On a continuum, this places Integral FS closer to the 'master game'
of human evolution (De Ropp, 1968) than other methodological integration.
Consequently, the problems and pathologies in this theory development phase include:
'True Believer' advocacy of specific integral theorists (Hoffer, 1957), facile interpreta-
tions of other models and theorists, and confrontation with personal monsters of the Id
(Wilcox, 1956). Authentic initiatory and wisdom traditions have developed strategies
to resolve them. Yet the academic emphasis of universities and the legacy of past ethi-
cally problematic experiments has made these encounters taboo.
Anticipatory Action Research (AAR) provides a counter-balancing force to
Integral Theory and Futures Studies. It situates the theory development phase in a
Theory-Action-Review cycle (TAR). Action is necessary to test the epistemological
and ontological dimensions of theories, and to foresee the real-world impacts.
Wisdom traditions engage with Review via self-reflexive inquiry, contemplative prac-
tices and communal/group verification. To-date, although Integral Futures emphasizes
the interior dimensions of Review, the problems and pathologies mentioned above
may create an aura of pseudo-intellectualism rather than embodied presence. If so, talk
about self-transformation occurs rather than active engagement and reflective knowl-
edge sharing.
The theory development phase of Integral Futures focused on creating a new dis-
course and an epistemic community with shared meaning-making. The combination of
Integral Futures and AAR acknowledges this phase's insights, and then transcends
institutional forms to include individuals and fluid communities of practice.
Jose Ramos: I would like to make a distinction between Integral Theory as an
abstract model, something drawn up, for example, on graph paper, neat and orderly,
and on the other hand Integral Theory as transformed by its lived context, as appear-
ing distinct depending on the situation and circumstance that arises. The abstract
model is Integral Theory as an intellectual enterprise, and the contextual transforma-
tion is Integral Theory as embodied. I have more faith in the latter, a contextual under-
standing of integral approaches to any domain of knowledge and practice, which is
transformed through its visceral and practical marriage with contexts. The former
intellectual approach, has the pretension of being a model applicable to nearly all con-
texts (and perhaps in this way a male energy), while the former allows itself to be rev-
olutionised by the messy and often incoherent circumstances that arise (and perhaps
reflects a female energy). I think the latter includes a healthy doubt and flexibility to
let go of say, one theorist or one model for another, which is better suited to certain
Journal of Futures Studies
72
circumstances. As context is our concrete marriage with the world, Integral Theory in
this latter sense means a meaningful and healthy relating, from the personal to the
organisational etc. I doubt whether such a meaningful and healthy relating is possible
where a 'model monopoly' over-codes a context that is trying desperately to speak to
us, if we would only listen. In this sense the latter represents an integral enterprise, as
opposed to an Integral theory. Implicit here is a sense that it cannot be integral, if there
is only one Integral Theory. One need only to look at the area of Health Promotion or
Psychology where bio-psycho-social models have been developed as 'integral theo-
ries', or in the area of action research, where first, second and third person frames of
reference are use as de facto integral approaches. To this can be added (yet undiscov-
ered) integral theories from cultures other than the US, which will probably reflect the
cultural contexts they emerged in. Contexts are myriad and numberless. Thus an
Embodied Foresight practice is an on-going enterprise in the application of integral
(and evolving) foresight principles, not an end point. To summarise I see an Embodied
Foresight as plural and unfolding (expressing great doubt), I see it as something we
strive for as an on-going enterprise, not something we already have (expressed
through great determination), and I see it as a profoundly open anticipatory conscious-
ness that expresses the future as a principle of present action (expressing great faith),
as opposed to a single teleological vision or a version of the future as 'out there' dis-
connected from the present (which expresses a shallow faith).
Josh Floyd: Jose has picked up here on the three pillars of practice in Zen: great
doubt, great faith, great perseverance (Daido Loori, 2002, p. 269). This is very signifi-
cant in relation to the concept of Embodied Foresight. Zen is strongly grounded in
practise; there is a program of training that supports the development of the practition-
er rather than development of the practitioner's power to manipulate her or his circum-
stances. The Zen practitioner learns to see with new eyes, and I think this is something
that we strive for as futures practitioners also, to learn the uncovering of new potential
futures through making our very way of seeing things transparent to ourselves. I find
these three pillars a very powerful point of reference against which to test the perspec-
tive that I am taking in any situation: am I able to remain in that open-but-critical
space from which good futures might be assisted to emerge?
Jose, I'd like to return for a moment to your reflection on the relationship between
Integral Futures as abstract models and as lived context. I appreciate your perspective
on this, and even so, I think it is important to highlight that an Integral Futures
methodology will by definition (if it is authentic) always include both stances. It is
through the intellectual approach that we can climb out of our present, embodied con-
text in such a way that we can see its limitations. The intellectual stance seems very
important for the maintenance of critical reflection, and so I think we should be care-
ful not to swing too far towards the embodied stance such that we become just a body.
There seems to be a certain tension between the male and the female approach, as you
put it, that is at the heart of Integral Futures: trying to hold just the right tension seems
to be important. I would also like to highlight the very important role that abstract
models can play in providing the motivation to step onto the integral methodological
path. I recall my own first encounter with this perspective, and the way that it helped
to make sense of the difficulty I had been having reconciling apparently incommensu-
A Challenging Conversation on Integral Futures
73
rate ideas. Of course, the incommensurability didn't just disappear, but it did become
less confusing, less of a problem. I found that I had a way to live with it and accept it:
I had a glimpse of a transcendent organising principle that allowed the contradictions
to be.
There is also an important principle to consider here relating to the enactive view
of cognition (Varela, Thompson, & Rosch, 1991). This enactive cognition can be
summed up as "all knowing is doing and all doing is knowing" (Maturana & Varela,
1988, p. 27), and obviously this brings us back strongly to the central role of AAR in
an Embodied Foresight perspective. But why I think this is important here is that by
giving someone an abstract model or set of tools based on such a model, as is pro-
posed with Integral Futures methodologies, we are introducing a new way of doing
that can lead to a new way of knowing. This intellectualisation can be a very impor-
tant stepping stone towards the embodiment of Integral Futures principles. This
always reminds me of the famous quote attributed to Buckminster Fuller: "If you want
to teach people a new way of thinking, don't bother teaching them. Instead, give them
a tool, the use of which will lead to new ways of thinking" I find that one of the things
that seems to unite those with an interest in integral approaches is a desire to help
open up new thinking, both our own and that of others. It seems that creating and
engaging with these intellectual artefacts can be a very powerful part of this. The trick
seems to be to recognise and remember the partiality. Again, this idea of maintaining
critical tension seems to be a key.
I wonder if at this point, it would be valuable to reflect briefly on the nature of
methodology itself–my understanding is that methodology refers to the science of
method, and in this regard, as soon as we propose our Embodied Foresight as a meta-
methodology within which to enact Integral Futures methodology, we step into a
realm with a strong intellectual focus. And of course, it may pay to be mindful that the
creation of this article involves an act of conceptualisation itself.
Alex Burns: Slaughter's initial work on Integral Futures positioned it as a meta-
methodology: its criteria include an integrative frame, a re-evaluation of methods and
practitioner awareness, cultural transmission between practitioners, and a transforma-
tive space for co-creation. Wilber's breadth and scope enabled Slaughter to critically
situate FS methodologies, models, tools and artefacts in a more integrative frame
(Slaughter, 2003; Slaughter, 2004). This frame potentially highlights the conceptual
strengths and limits of each FS methodology and model. Consequently, the practition-
er's awareness of context, genealogy and the evolution of these models is important
for their cultural transmission to other practitioners. Meta-methodology also opens up
a space where new methodologies and models can be created, and as artefacts of enac-
tive cognition will transform their practitioners. Integrative polymaths such as Wilber,
Buckminster Fuller, John Lilly and Michael Murphy all exemplify the value of enac-
tive cognition in everyday circumstances, thus revealing that Embodied Foresight can
be dialogical and relational to others (Lilly & Lilly, 1976; Murphy, 1992; Wilber,
2000b & 2000c).
Meta-methodology requires a self-reflective dimension. Slaughter's intellectual
emphasis on the cultivation of contemplative practice surfaced in Swinburne Foresight
program classes via self-reflective diaries (Rainer, 1978) and guided meditative
Journal of Futures Studies
74
visioning. It also paralleled the use of auto-ethnography, phenomenology and reflex-
ive embodied research in counselling and the health sciences (Etherington, 2004).
Self-reflective practices are a counterbalance against sterile over-intellectualisation
and 'book-learning' without experience: two dangers noted in many spiritual paths and
traditions. The practitioner inevitably undergoes an 'unmasking psychology' phase
where real motivations are surfaced and confronted, similar to the nigredo stage in
psychological alchemy (Csikzentmihalyi, 1993; Fowles, 1977; Jungk, 1970). Self-
reflection also surfaces the ethical and moral lines of development, which Peter
Hayward's research contends is vital to FS (Hayward, 2003).
Whilst Integral FS has opened the gate to self-reflective practices, there are insti-
tutional limits within many universities: we are unlikely to return to the Human
Potential era of John Lilly's floatation tank experiments at the US-based National
Institute of Health (Lilly, 1978) or Timothy Leary's controversial LSD experiments at
Harvard University (Lee & Shlain, 1985). Instead, many FS practitioners have sought
this self-reflexivity through cross-cultural engagement with European, Indian and
other genealogies of alternative futures–a path that recapitulates aspects of the Age of
Aquarius subcultures and Esalen-influenced transpersonal psychology (Murphy, 1992;
Sardar, 1999). I'd echo Jose's earlier comment that this pluralistic vision–if culturally
transmitted or hermeneutically reconstructed from its original sources–has great
potential to create deeper social images and teleological futures.
As a meta-methodology, Embodied Foresight also surfaces issues about FS-as-
pedagogy and enactive cognition. FS practitioners have followed the Medieval Guild
model of novice, journeyman and master–closer to artistic vision and practitioner craft
in fields such as management and software engineering than to empirical science
(McConnell, 2003; Mintzberg, 2004). The novice encounters and studies canonical
texts which provide the intellectual frameworks and foundations for understanding FS
(Bell, 1996 & 1997; Slaughter, Inayatullah, & Ramos, 2005; Slaughter, 1999;
Slaughter, 2004). Many university FS programs–Swinburne University's Foresight
program, the University of Houston at Clear Lake, Sunshine Coast University and the
Manoa school at the University of Hawaii–appear to follow the classical European
model of studying under a Teacher who embodies FS qualities and practices.
This classical model has its challenges: psychological transference between the
Teacher and Student that results in over-identification; betrayal as an archetype of the
journeyman stage; and institutionalisation of noetic and self-reflective insights that
transcend personal idiosyncracies to reflect the practitioner's 'daimonic' genius in the
Socratic sense (Aquino, 2002; Ouspensky, 1964; Patterson, 1998; Tamm, 1991).
Consequently, the concern about Integral FS as a 'model monopoly' is linked with
these challenges because it reflects other 'shadow' interests such as Teacher prestige
and social hierarchies of power/knowledge that can develop within academic citation
networks and communities of practice (Foucault, 2004a & 2004b). Hermann Hesse
(1972) illustrates the extremes of these power/knowledge pathologies in The Glass
Bead Game in which the Castalia school develops the Glass Bead Game as a transdis-
ciplinary vehicle for enactive cognition and yet its practitioners live in monastic seclu-
sion from real-world engagement. Another is the secrecy imperative for commercial
methodologies that hides innovation (Jungk, 1970).
A Challenging Conversation on Integral Futures
75
Integral FS and self-reflective practices are usually introduced at the transition
from novice to journeyman, once FS foundations are grasped. As Hayward and others
have noted, the decision to study FS usually occurs after or during a confrontation
with Hazard that triggers existential life changes (Bennett, 1991). In the aftershock,
integrative models of human evolution are invaluable to reorient the practitioner's con-
sciousness and to correctly interpret the insights from the altered states of conscious-
ness that the existential life change has triggered (Csikzentmihalyi, 1993 & 1996;
Murphy, 1992; Ouspensky, 1964; Tart, 1986; Wilber, 2000a). Intriguingly, one of the
major trends in self-reflections by FS practitioners has been a shift from the Medieval
Guild and classical European models (Coates & Jarratt, 1989) to cross-cultural and
enactive cognition models (Slaughter, Inayatullah, & Ramos, 2005).
Jose Ramos: I will try to clarify first what I originally meant by the distinction
between the intellectual and embodied, responding to Josh's comments, before moving
on to Alex's comments about meta-methodology.
Josh, your critique is insightful and I generally agree. For example I think that we
are, as you say, part of an intellectual enterprise, and that such an enterprise allows us
to move beyond the limitations of our contexts, our embodied experiences, and pio-
neer new ground. And of course abstract models, in the way you mentioned
Buckminster Fuller's ideas, provide us with new tools that allow us to see the world
differently, open up new paths. In all these respects I could not agree more.
What I meant through this distinction was not a rejection of intellect, models and
abstractions. Rather it was to make a distinction between intellect, models and abstrac-
tions that have been blended with contexts and experiences, and intellect, models and
abstractions that have not, that have pretensions of universality, and pathological
dynamics of power. I would like to draw on three traditions that articulate approxima-
tions to this. First is the tradition of action research. Greenwood and Levin (1998)
offer an excellent introduction to AR, which I used extensively in originally exploring
the dynamics and tensions between futures and action research, and where I drew the
notion of a model monopoly. In this first exploration I wrote:
"Academic researchers, because of years of training in 'sense making' and creat-
ing frameworks, usually create 'model monopolies' where the intellectual frame-
works or models that researchers create envelop and overpower local stakehold-
ers. By contrast, an action researcher's obligation is to combine their action
research frameworks with the local stakeholder's understanding of local context
into a third 'local theory' that emerges from the co-research. Out of this process
local stakeholders learn how to conduct action research on their own, furthering
their own empowerment and a democratisation of the research/action praxis.
Transcending this 'model monopoly' would seem to be a challenge in futures stud-
ies, a field heavily reliant on models and frameworks for explaining the world."
(Ramos, 2002, p. 8)
The second tradition is post-colonial studies. This tradition has critiqued the
West's construction of universal knowledge and its categories as part and parcel of
colonisation, and how it discredits rival knowledges. In an interview I did with him,
Ashis Nandy emphasised the importance, for futures studies, of transcending the uni-
Journal of Futures Studies
76
versal categories of knowledge constructed from the West. As Nandy emphasises,
18th-19th century Western theorists (such as Smith, Spencer and Marx) established
developmentalist and modernist assumptions about the natural unfolding and trajecto-
ry of history. These 19th century assumptions were re-hashed in the 20th century as
development theories, such that 'rise of the West' conceptions of history (that the histo-
ry of modernity begins with Western values and achievements) are today default
assumptions from which people begin their intellectual work. In fact 'rise of the West'
conceptions of history have been totally de-bunked from a whole number of perspec-
tives, in particular from the work of macro-historian Robert B. Marks (2002). As
Nandy argued:
"...societies in Africa, Latin America and Asia, they are supposed to be societies
on a particular trajectory of history. They are all supposed to be trying to be in
the future what Europe and North America are today. So, in that sense, technically
there are no options open to them in the future. They are today what Europe was
in the past; tomorrow they will be what Europe is today... the social-evolutionist
model. Europe and North America will probably become more developed in the
future. And we shall be still trying to catch up with them. Future studies give us in
the Southern world a chance to break out of this shell of progressivism. Or, if you
prefer, developmentalism or modernism. It gives us a chance to think about the
future in our own terms, and without the constraints imposed by nineteenth centu-
ry social theories and the categories popularised by social science disciplines,
particularly developmental economics and history." (Ramos, 2005, pp. 434-435)
The other point is the importance of knowledge systems. As de Sousa Santos
argues, status quo globalisation relies on the hegemony of techno scientific knowledge
(and its way of discrediting rival ways of knowing) by enforcing its own criteria of
validity based in efficiency and coherence. He writes that "discrediting, concealing
and trivialising counter hegemonic globalisation go largely hand in hand with discred-
iting, concealing and trivialising the knowledges that inform counter hegemonic prac-
tices and agents." This is especially so because the vast majority of literature on glob-
alisation is produced in the wealthy North: "The knowledge we have of globalisation,
whether hegemonic or counter hegemonic, is less global than globalisation itself."
'Hegemonic rationality' discredits the social experience of the South, constituting a
"waste of social experience, both social experience that is already available, but not
yet visible, and social experience that is not yet available but realistically possible."
Because of this "there is no global social justice without global cognitive justice."
(Santos, 2004, pp. 13-14). Or as Nandy said:
"Unfortunately our basic assumption is that knowledge is one. Others may occa-
sionally have a few things to contribute to that universal knowledge system organ-
ised around worldview of modern science and the European Enlightenment's
vision of the ends of life. We forget that an entirely different range of experiences
lie behind the marginalised systems of knowledge. Experiential knowledge is a
crucial component and unless we are open to different and contradictory systems
of knowledge, different ways to look at the world, different methods, our under-
standing of the world remains narrow and misleading." (Ramos, 2003)
A Challenging Conversation on Integral Futures
77
Drawing from the tradition of feminism, Susan Hawthorne's (2002) critique of
globalisation shares similar themes with Nandy and de Sousa Santos. She links mas-
culinity with universalising economic globalisation, an extreme over-coding of what
Shiva terms "local knowledge gone global" (Shiva, 1993, p. 10), embodied in global
forces such as "capitalist, masculine, white, western, middle class, heterosexual,
urban, and highly mobile" (Hawthorne, 2002, p. 32). This can be corroborated (though
not proved) by looking at the gender imbalance at the World Economic Forum at
Davos, which was 100% male until 2001, and now approximately 90% male
(Anonymous, 2006). She contrasts this with what she considers its anti-thesis, a 'diver-
sity matrix' of knowledge systems and peoples which resist assimilation or acceptance
of this mono-culture as dominant and normal.
My own personal history as Mexican / American / Chicano, and experiences liv-
ing in Japan and Taiwan, probably contribute to a weariness of the danger of 'model
monopolies', re-hashing development theories, and a token regard for diversity and
alternative knowledge systems. I perceive the challenge to be in articulating an
Embodied Foresight, inclusive of integral theories, but allowing them to inform (not
over-code) local challenges and circumstances, and be transformed by locality and the
needs at hand. This is what I meant by "a contextual understanding of integral theory,
which is transformed through its visceral and practical marriage with contexts." Just
last month [January 2006] at the Caracas World Social Forum I was at a workshop
which put forward a bona fide integral approach to life and politics, with none of the
theorists and influences I knew, reflective of local South American experiences. Thus,
for me Embodied Foresight still has the foresight bit, which is a highly intellectual and
imaginative endeavour no doubt. But it is foresight-in-context, in so far as 1) it is will-
ing to accept the transformation of foresight principles and process based on local /
particular conditions, and likewise 2) should acknowledge that all foresight is contex-
tually bound by the practitioner's consciousness (UL), by social norms, ideology,
worldviews and assumptions (LL), by practices and structures (R), and by historical
circumstances. The former accepts the need to transform futures work based on the
needs of local conditions and peoples. The latter is more a statement about the nature
of knowledge(s), and the need to heavily qualify our assertions into assumptions. In
this spirit integrative learning begins when our integrative models break down.
I thus echo Alex's comments that meta-methodology requires a self-reflective
dimension which is also enacted, steering clear of over intellectualising. It requires
practical self reflective work, an example being first person action research done on
'whiteness' which is able to 'locate' the researcher (Gallagher, 2004), and which
emerges from experience of the world (California Institute of Integral Studies, 2004),
in order to improve our relating in the world and surface the knee jerk assumptions
culture gives us. Likewise Alex's comments on 'over-identification' with the teacher,
which exists not just within pedagogical institutions but also researcher-researchee
relationships, relationships between the colonised and coloniser (Friere, 1970), admin-
istrative and legal spaces, where people are lost in institutional cultures and their sym-
bolic networks. Meditative, reflective and 'vision quest' traditions grapple with identi-
fication, in ways that facilitate purposeful evolution beyond the extremes of the
colonisation of the self (by commerce or soft colonialism), and on the other hand a
total denial of our present and past ontogenies (pathological dis-identification).
Journal of Futures Studies
78
Josh Floyd: Jose's use of the term foresight-in-context is very powerful as a point-
er towards the practitioner stance that we are suggesting is needed for Integral Futures
methodology to reach its full potential without creating its own problems. The term
seems to reflect the integral intent. In the first instance, it represents the general
domain of foresight practise as the seeking or enactment of future knowledge. We
might characterise this drive for seeking or enacting future knowledge as a masculine
quality. And in an integral endeavour, we would want to be mindful of balancing this
masculine drive with a commensurate feminine drive: this is seen, in the second
instance, as the attention to local context, to that which is particular in our shared situ-
ation as we implement Integral Futures methodology with the intent of helping better
futures to emerge. In this view, the strongly masculine drive, mentioned earlier as
being associated with global forces, would not need to be seen as inherently problem-
atic in its own right. Rather than seeing the problem as too much of the masculine, we
might reframe it as too little of the feminine, an imbalance of compassion or Agape
(Wilber, 2000d, pp. 348-349). The masculine drive for future knowledge seems to fit
with the corresponding idea of Eros as the reaching towards wisdom that lies beyond
our present context.
Looking at Embodied Foresight in this way, as foresight-in-context, helps with
identifying the potential danger that I mentioned earlier of moving too far towards
embodiment and becoming just body, with no capacity for discerning good pathways
into the future. While we can see the present problems of Eros out of balance, this cor-
responding danger relates to Agape out of balance: too little of the masculine drive rel-
ative to the feminine drive.
Alex's consideration of potential pathologies associated with Integral Futures
work links in closely here. We are suggesting that Embodied Foresight can be under-
stood as balancing the masculine drive for future knowledge with the feminine drive
for seeking and applying that knowledge compassionately, in ways that are sensitive to
the local context in which our work is carried out. So Embodied Foresight as a
methodology for carrying out Integral Futures work requires that the practitioner
actively seeks to balance these commensurate drives of Eros and Agape.
If these are not balanced, two archetypal pathologies can arise: one in the absence
of Agape and one in the absence of Eros. The absence of Agape produces Phobos, or
fear, characterised by flight into "otherworldliness" (Wilber, 2000d, pp. 349-351).
And I would suggest that we can identify this in some of the techno-escapist visions
associated with the Transhumanist branch of futures thinking and practise. These seem
to be associated with an extreme creative urge charging towards a universal view for
humanity that doesn't actually account for how those of us who will actually have to
inhabit such a future (or worse, who will be written out of such a future altogether)
might actually want to live.
On the other hand, the absence of Eros produces Thanatos, or fixation, charac-
terised by regression to a state in which all pathways into the future are seen as merely
relative. In this state, we lose the capacity to discern between visions or to choose
ones that might lead to better futures. This is seen in extreme postmodernism and cul-
tural relativism: with rejection of all universals, we can no longer decide what is good.
This path leads to nihilism and stagnation.
A Challenging Conversation on Integral Futures
79
Jose has highlighted the danger associated with model monopolies leading to
colonisation of the future by narrow interests, which seems to be a manifestation of
Phobos. I think a real problem here could be the use of Integral Futures methodologies
without corresponding integral intent on the part of the practitioner. So the deeper pur-
pose of Embodied Foresight as Integral Futures methodology is to develop that intent,
to foster in the practitioner a genuine desire to facilitate the health of the whole.
Integral Futures methodologies provide the practitioner with significantly increased
instrumental power in carrying out futures work. But how and to what ends will this
power be applied? The methodologies, methods and tools don't themselves determine
this, which places great responsibility on the practitioner to use them with wisdom and
discretion.
Alex has highlighted the danger associated with fixation on a particular teacher or
theorist, which seems to be associated with Thanatos: with no means of discriminating
between theories or methodologies derived from these theories, we lose the capacity
to determine the most appropriate way of intervening in a given, local situation. We
effectively lose our critical capacity as practitioners to make sound value judgements.
All paths forward seem the same, and so we run the danger of misapplying method-
ologies, methods and tools.
The danger that Jose highlighted relates to the problem of practitioner intent and
hence to matters of ethical conduct: in particular, what is the extent of the practition-
er's moral embrace? Is it extended to all of his or her ethnic, cultural or national group
only? Or does it extend to all of humanity? To all of life? And the danger identified by
Alex is also one that must be addressed through the ethical conduct of the practitioner.
But now it is not only the practitioner's moral development that is of greatest impor-
tance as his or her cognitive development: the practitioner needs to develop the capac-
ity to make sound judgements about relative merits of various methodologies, meth-
ods and tools. This requires that the practitioner can see his or her own blind spots:
reflexive self-awareness, and truthfulness with oneself, is required.
If I could just recap for a moment: I think that we are united in the view that, for
the three of us, futures and foresight work is about helping better futures to emerge,
and that when we think of better futures, we have in mind better futures for all life. I
think we are also guided by the view that what constitutes "better futures" is best
determined by as many as possible of those affected by the futures that we are helping
to emerge. I used the phrase "the health of the whole" a little earlier to try to capture
this shared interest, and the idea of health ties to our discussion of pathology: health
relates not only to the capacity to fix problems (pathologies) when they arise, it also
relates to ways of being in which the problems do not arise in the first place. This is
related to the concept of apithology (Varey, 2004). So what we are saying is that in
order to best prevent problems arising in the first place, we need to understand the
potential of our own roles as practitioners in the creation of problems. Embodied
Foresight is the pathway that we are suggesting for minimising practitioner-created
problems, and beyond this, to maximise the benefits of intervention by the futures
practitioner.
I would just like to finish here by considering Jose's earlier discussion of prob-
lems associated with universalisation of knowledge. I'd like to propose that we differ-
Journal of Futures Studies
80
entiate here between partiality of knowledge and universality of knowledge. There is a
danger of losing something very important if the two ideas are conflated. My under-
standing is that the problems to which Jose draws attention relate to partial knowledge
(Western scientific knowledge, for instance) that is claimed to be complete knowl-
edge. The problem is not in the claim of universality per se. For example, if Western
scientific knowledge tells us that mixing hydrogen and oxygen in appropriate quanti-
ties and introducing a heat source will result in a reaction that produces water vapour
and more heat, then I think we could agree that this will be universally true, regardless
of the cultural context in which the reaction occurs. The problem occurs when we say
that this is the only type of knowledge that is of any relevance.
I think there are very important universals that we need in order for the futures
and foresight enterprise to get off the ground in the first place. For instance: the uni-
versal capacity for language–that allows us to share our knowledge from local context
to local context. Lakoff and Johnson (2003) have shown how metaphors based on the
way that we are embodied in the world structure the ways that we think in universal
ways, that is, in ways that are common to all those who share a particular form of
embodiment. This doesn't mean that there are no local variations, or that these varia-
tions are not important, but it does give us part of a basis for shared understanding. We
all have bodies and minds, we all interact with physical environments that share com-
mon characteristics, we all interact in social environments with other people.
We are saying here that we think Embodied Foresight, the practice of foresight-in-
context, would be a universally good way to implement Integral Futures methodolo-
gies. But we also recognize this view to be partial: it is not complete on its own, it
should be open to input from others, and it should never be imposed on them.
Conclusion
The catalyst for this reflective article was a series of discussions about our respec-
tive experiences in the 2003, 2004 and 2006 iterations of the Advanced Professional
Praxis unit in Swinburne University's Strategic Foresight program. The 'high velocity'
environment of a consulting engagement created the space to reflect on professional
development issues: individual sensitization to Hazard, the experiential gap between
Futures Studies theories and experiential praxis, and the phenomenological dimen-
sions of Foresight work using an Integral Operating System framework. This self-
reflective process suggests that a 'practitioner conversation' may complement the
'strategic conversation' used in scenario development and strategy formulation.
Since 2003 Embodied Foresight has evolved from multiple sources and practition-
er insights as a new framework for Applied Foresight. Embodied Foresight's syncretic
body of knowledge includes anticipatory action learning, self-reflexive research meth-
ods from the arts and health sciences, holonomic models of human psychology, and
experience with various initiatory and wisdom traditions. It is both a meta-methodol-
ogy on the UL dimensions of Futures Studies work and has UL/LL methods: Bohmian
dialogue, enactive cognition, the 'trialogue' process, theory-action-review cycles and
self-reflective practices. Consequently, the sociology of knowledge in Embodied
Foresight continues the post-Kuhnian debate raised in Critical Future Studies
A Challenging Conversation on Integral Futures
81
(Slaughter, 1999), critical realism (Bell, 1996 & 1997) and discourse analysis in axio-
logical, phenomenological and reflective dimensions. This process creates generative
spaces, poses new reflexive 'problems' and emphasises the UL 'meta' perspective on
LL methodologies, which are paramount to refreshing the sociology and body of the
Futures Studies knowledge base (Ashmore, 1989; Bell, 1996; Bell, 1997).
As one generative space, the Futures Studies community has benefited from Ken
Wilber's Integral framework, which provides a broad and deep scanning frame that
honours self-inquiry and wisdom traditions. Embodied Foresight thus re-situates
UL/LL methods that were implicit within Integral Futures into a new framework. The
work to-date on Integral Futures has had transpersonal, integrative and pluralistic
knowledge interests and an 'extended Now' timeframe. In this context Embodied
Foresight has anticipatory, enactive and self-reflective knowledge interests, and a
cyclical/spiral timeframe that honours the dyad between the practitioner's subjective
universe (aion) and how it manifests via enactive cognition in the objective environ-
ment (aeon) (Jung, 1966).
Embodied Foresight offers some emergent solutions for the individual practitioner
to the challenges and difficulties of Integral Futures practice. These reflexive 'prob-
lems' are part of diffusion, initiation and knowledge transfer in many wisdom tradi-
tions. Our 'trialogue' has raised several 'reflexive' problems–from Teacher-Student
relationships and pedagogical barriers to the archetypal dangers of Phobos and
Thanatos–that each of us has personally experienced within the Futures Studies com-
munity and in other initiatory and wisdom traditions.
Futures Studies methods equip practitioners with the power to have real-world
impacts with unforeseeable second- and third-order systemic effects. Integral Futures
frameworks and models have the potential to 'amplify this tenfold', and add transfor-
mative dimensions that can be potentially dangerous to the practitioner's psyche if
misapplied. (Fowles, 1977; Hoffer, 1951; Morris, 2003; Wilcox, 1956). Truly 'inte-
gral' communities create awareness amongst their practitioners of this perilous terrain
as a necessary and never-ending guardianship function (Gurdjieff, 1963; Jung & von
Franz, 1998). Embodied Foresight frameworks therefore encompass the ethical and
normative injunctive which practitioners must heed when creating and renewing
Futures Studies methodologies. For the FS scholar and Foresight practitioner these
frameworks provide the self-reflexivity and presence demanded for the effective and
ethical application of Applied Foresight.
Correspondence
Josh Floyd
National Centre for Sustainability, Swinburne University of Technology
PO Box 218
Hawthorn VIC 3122
Australia
Phone: 61 3 9214 5982
E-mail: jfloyd@swin.edu.au
Journal of Futures Studies
82
Alex Burns
PO Box 1216
Fitzroy North VIC 3068
Australia
Phone: 61 411 680 287
E-mail: alex@alexburns.net
Jose Ramos
28 Fontein St
West Footscray VIC 3012
Australia
Phone: 61 3 9029 4714
E-mail: actionforesight@gmail.com
References
Abraham, Ralph, Terence McKenna, & Rupert Sheldrake. (1998). Trialogues at the edge of
the west: Chaos, creativity and the resacralization of the world. Rochester, VT: Bear
and Co.
Anonymous. (2006). World economic forum. Wikipedia. St. Petersburg, FL: Wikimedia
Foundation Inc. Retrieved April 26, 2006 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_
Economic_Forum
Aquino, Michael A. (2002). The Church of Satan (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Temple of
Set Inc. Retrieved April 18, 2006, from http://www.xeper.org/maquino/nm/COS.pdf
Ashmore, Malcolm. (1989). The reflexive thesis: Wrighting sociology of scientific knowl-
edge. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Bell, Wendell. (1996). Foundations of futures studies: Human science for a new era (vol.
1). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Bell, Wendell. (1997). Foundations of futures studies: Values, objectivity, and the good soci-
ety (vol. 2). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Bohm, David. (1996). On dialogue. New York: Routledge.
Bennett, John Godolphin. (1991). Hazard: The risk of realization (rev. ed). Santa Fe, NM:
Bennett.
California Institute of Integral Studies. (2005). When first person inquiry is not enough.
Action Research, 3, 245–261.
Coates, Joseph F., & Jennifer Jarratt. (1989). What futurists believe. Bethesda, MD: World
Future Society.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. (1993). The evolving self: A psychology for the third millennium.
New York: HarperCollins.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and
invention. New York: HarperCollins.
Daido Loori, John. (2002). The eight gates of Zen: A program of Zen training. Boston, MA:
Shambhala.
De Ropp, Robert S. (1974). [1968]. The master game: Pathways to higher consciousness
beyond the drug experience. London: Pan.
A Challenging Conversation on Integral Futures
83
Ellinor, Linda, & Glenna Gerard. (1998). Dialogue: Rediscover the transforming power of
conversation. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Etherington, Kim. (2004). Becoming a reflexive researcher: Using our selves in research.
London: Jessica Kingsley.
Foucault, Michel. (2004a). [1972]. The archaeology of knowledge. Trans. A.M. Sheridan
Smith. London: Routledge Classics.
Foucault, Michel. (2004b). [1970]. The order of things: An archaeology of the human sci-
ences. London: Routledge Classics.
Fowles, John. (1977). The magus: A novel (rev. ed.). London: Jonathan Cape.
Friere, Paulo. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Trans. M.B. Ramos. New York: Herder
& Herder.
Gallagher, Charles A. (2004). "White like me?" Methods, meaning, and manipulation in the
field of white studies. In Hesse-Biber, Sharlene Nagy, & Patricia Leavy (Eds.),
Approaches to qualitative research (pp. 203-223). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Greenwood, Davyyd D., & Morten Levin. (1998). Introduction to action research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gurdjieff, George. (1963). Meetings with remarkable men. London : Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
Hawthorne, Susan. (2002). Wild politics. Melbourne, Australia: Spinifex.
Hayward, Peter. (2003). Foresight in everyday life (Australian Foresight Institute mono-
graph). Hawthorn, Australia: Swinburne University of Technology.
Hillman, James, & Michael Ventura. (1993). We've had 100 years of psychotherapy: And
the world's getting worse. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.
Herrigel, Eugene. (1953). Zen in the art of archery. Trans. R.F.C. Hull. London: Routledge
& Kegan Paul.
Hesse, Hermann. (1972). The glass bead game (magister ludi). Trans. R. and C. Winston.
Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
Hoffer, Eric. (1951). The true believer: Thoughts on the nature of mass movements. New
York: Harper.
Jung, Carl. (1966). Aion: Researches into the phenomenology of the self. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Jung, Emma & Marie-Louise von Franz. (1998). [1970]. The grail legend. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Jungk, Robert. (1970). Secrecy in futures research. Futures, 12(1), 4. Surrey, England: IPC
Business Press Ltd., Surrey.
Lakoff, George, & Mark Johnson. (2003). Metaphors we live by (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Lee, Martin A., & Bruce Shlain. (1985). Acid dreams: The CIA, LSD and the Sixties rebel-
lion. New York: Grove.
Lilly, John. (1978). The deep self: Profound relaxation and the tank isolation technique.
New York: Warner.
Lilly, John, & Antonietta Lilly. (1976). The dyadic cyclone: The autobiography of a couple.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Journal of Futures Studies
84
Marks, Robert B. (2002). The origins of the modern world: A global and ecological narra-
tive. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.
Maturana, Humberto, & Francisco J. Varela. (1988). The tree of knowledge: The biological
roots of human understanding. Boston: New Science Library.
McConnell, Steve. (2003). Professional software development. Boston: Addison-Wesley
Professional.
Meadows, Dennis, & Donnella Meadows. (1972). The limits to growth. New York:
Universe.
Metallica (1987). The $5.98 EP: Garage days re-revisited. Los Angeles: Elektra Records.
Mintzberg, Henry. (2004). Managers not MBAs: A hard look at the soft practice of manag-
ing and management development. San Francisco: Berrett-Koelher.
Morris, Errol (2003). The fog of war: Eleven lessons from the life of Robert McNamara.
Los Angeles: Sony Pictures.
Murphy, Michael. (1992). The future of the body: Explorations into the further evolution of
human nature. Los Angeles: J.P. Tarcher.
Ouspensky, Peter. (1964). In search of the miraculous. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Oshry, Barry. (1996). Seeing systems: Unlocking the mysteries of organisational life. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Patterson, William Patrick. (1998). Struggle of the magicians: Exploring the teacher-student
relationship (rev. ed). Fairfax, CA: Arete.
Pirsig, Robert M. (1974). Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance: An inquiry into val-
ues. New York: William Morrow.
Pirsig, Robert M. (1991). Lila: An inquiry into morals. New York: Bantam.
Rainer, Tristine. (1978). The new diary: How to use a journal for self guidance and expand-
ed creativity. Los Angeles: J.P. Tarcher.
Ramos, Jose. (2002). Action research as foresight methodology. Journal of Futures Studies,
7(1). Retrieved April 26, 2006, from http://www.borderlands.org.au/oases/
ARandForesight.pdf
Ramos, Jose. (2003). Interview with Ashis Nandy. Melbourne, Australia: Institute for Post
Colonial Studies.
Ramos, Jose. (2005). Memories and methods: Conversations with Ashis Nandy, Ziauddin
Sardar and Richard Slaughter. Futures, 37, 433-444.
Santos, Boaventura de Sousa. (2006). The rise of the global left: The world social forum
and beyond. London: Zed.
Sardar, Ziauddin (Ed.). (1999). Rescuing all our futures: The future of futures studies.
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Senge, Peter. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organisation.
New York: Doubleday.
Senge, Peter, C. Otto Scharmer, Joseph Jaworski, & Betty Sue Flowers. (2004). Presence:
Human purpose and the field of the future. Cambridge, MA: The Society for
Organizational Learning.
Shiva, Vandana. (1993). Monocultures of the mind: Perspectives on biodiversity and
biotechnology. Penang, Malaysia: Third World Network.
Slaughter, Richard. (1999). Futures for the third millennium: Enabling the forward view. St.
Leonards, Australia: Prospect Media.
A Challenging Conversation on Integral Futures
85
Slaughter, Richard. (2003). Integral futures: A new model for futures enquiry and practice.
Indooroopilly, Australia: Foresight International. Retrieved April 18, 2006, from
http://www.foresightinternational.com.au/resources/Integral_Futures.pdf
Slaughter, Richard. (2004). Futures beyond dystopia: Creating social foresight. London:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Slaughter, Richard, Sohail Inayatullah, & Jose Ramos (Eds.). (2005). The knowledge base
of futures studies: Professional edition. Indooroopilly, Australia: Foresight
International.
Tamm, Eric. (1991). Robert Fripp: From king crimson to guitar craft. London: Faber &
Faber.
Tart, Charles T. (1986). Waking up: Overcoming the obstacles to human potential. Boston:
New Science Library.
Varela, Francisco J., Evan T. Thompson, & Eleanor Rosch. (1991). The embodied mind:
Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Varey, William. (2004). Apithology. Emrgc. Retrieved April 16, 2006, from http://
www.emrgnc.com/apithology.htm
Wilber, Ken. (2000a). Integral psychology: Consciousness, spirit, psychology, therapy.
Boston, MA: Shambhala.
Wilber, Ken. (2000b). One taste (rev ed.). Boston: Shambhala.
Wilber, Ken. (2000c). Grace and grit: Spirituality and healing in the life and death of Treya
Killam Wilber (rev ed.). Boston: Shambhala.
Wilber, Ken. (2000d). Sex, ecology, spirituality: The spirit of evolution (2nd ed.). Boston:
Shambhala.
Wilcox, Fred M. (1956). Forbidden planet. Los Angeles: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios.
Journal of Futures Studies
86