Integrating all schools of therapy
I wrote this reflection for our pre-practicum class at the University of Rochester. The professor asked us to reflect on our readings regarding assessments, intake and integral theory.
This week, I reflected on Chapters 1, 2, and 3 in Marquis' (2007) The Integral Intake. Chapter 1 examined the role of assessment in counseling and then introduced "The Integral Intake" as a specific type of comprehensive assessment. Chapter 2 looked at Integral Theory, the theory behind the Integral Intake, which tries to integrate all fields of psychology into one system. Chapter 3 focused on the Quadratic Assessment, a component of Integral Theory used explicitly in the Integral Intake.
Integral Theory and the Integral Intake appear to be very ambitious tasks. I admire what the author, the original theorist Wilbur, and other Integral Theorists are attempting to achieve: to unify all the fragmented schools of psychology into one system, and then create an intake that appreciates and utilizes all divergent views to conceptualize a comprehensive picture of the client. It seems that Integral Theorists want to see the benefits in all schools' approaches and find how they can each complement each other, rather than warring with each other. From my brief time in the field of psychology, I have witnessed the "turf wars" between different schools of thought, ranging from Psychodynamic to Humanist, to Behaviorist, to Sociocultural. Whilst I admire the goals of the Integral Theorists, I can see how the magnitude of the endeavor could be overwhelming for new thearpists.
A few questions came to mind for me. The first being, if the Integral Theory is a conscious synthesis of all disparate schools of psychology, like a master map, what is the antithesis of Integral Theory? Could this be something unconscious? Or an area that is unmappable, like a metaphorical black hole of our psyche, or a synchronicity, that exists beyond spacetime? My second question is, I recall Nietzsche saying that all philosophy is a personal confession of its author. I am led to wonder, for Wilbur and Integral Theory, what are they trying to confess? Or less poetically, what does Wilbur hope to achieve by unifying all disparate schools of therapy? It seems like an intellectual feat, but if one tried to integrate all schools of dance, would that kind of dance be enjoyable? Lastly, how can I apply Integral Theory? Because it is so comprehensive in nature, it feels like I must be a master-level researcher and therapist to begin using it.
These chapters made me think about my own practice. I appreciated the inclusion of the Quadratic Assessment and it’s additional quadrants, which, instead of just focusing on the individual's subjective experience (Upper-Left quadrant), also allowed for individual-objective and collective perspectives. The collective quadrants were interesting to me. The Lower-Right quadrant, which represents exterior collective, made me remember how some people express mental illness directly as a result of systemic oppression; for these people, humanistic self-help cannot alone free them, society must change. The Lower-Left quadrant also resonated with me. I tend to be an individualistic and introspective person. After reading about the lower-left interior cultural quadrant, I reaffirmed my desire to gain more shared cultural experiences with others. I was also interested in the "lines" of development presented in Integral Theory, and their idea that there are higher levels of development above ego-centric rational thinking. I do believe that higher states of being are available to us if we release the strict concept of self. I also appreciate that people, when their awareness and experience expand sufficiently, can develop modes of intuitive thinking that evolve beyond traditional rational thought. I wonder, how does one find where they rank in Integral Theory's lines of development? Could you be either at para-mental or meta-mental? I wonder if people may have had brief moments of over-mental, when meditating, for example?
