Search

The author outlines a unique integral transdisciplinary theory (model, map) for studying four meta-motivations universal to all living systems. Within this theory are four primary principles to make the whole integral basis for understanding motivation and all that it determines in perception, thinking, feelings, actions. The four meta-motivations are Fear, Love, Freedom and Fearlessness. This work continues the author's 25 year study of recalibrating W. societies' views and approaches to curriculum design which are truly emancipatory, rather than continuing a legacy of fear-based curriculum design and pedagogy that is wiping out the best qualities of the Natural, Cultural and Spiritual worlds. The author argues that the foundational meta-motivation (principle) of Fear is an "ecology of fear" essential to the understanding of the Natural world and thus, also, the world of human beings. Any notion of "living in harmony" with the natural world ("a la" Gregory Bateson and many holistic and indigenous educators) ought to engage the role of an ecology of fear. A list of related resources is provided in an appendix. [This paper was published by the In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute.] (Contains 4 figures and 8 footnotes.)

The author critiques the progressive approach of two contemporary educational philosophers (English and Stengel) on the topic of fear and learning. Using a postmodern integral approach, this article examines the tendency of reductionism, individualism, and psychologism as part of a hegemonic liberalism and modernism in discourses on fear and learning commonly adopted by educators. A critical fear management/education and "Fear" Studies agenda are posited as both a location for critique of the hidden curriculum in fear studies in general, and as a new site for a more productive and emancipatory discourses on fear and "fear" for a post-9/11 world. (Contains 67 footnotes.)

The purpose here is to translate the Fifth Force Psychologies movement through an integral (Wilberian) lens. One of the most significant impacts of doing this comes from the integral initiative, which has led to Ken Wilber arguing "Psychology is dead." Concomitantly, his view is that the "integral approach" is its replacement. This move characterizes Wilber's unique integral philosophy in a deconstructionist postmodern style of Nietzsche's "God is dead." Yet, Wilber, unlike Nietzsche, and more like Rank, reconstructs a post-postmodern vision of a new critical analysis and critical theory. In the author's view, the best of Wilberian thought and critique is his social politics of knowledge (re: his dealing with the Four Forces). It is what makes a foundational postmodern critical (conflict) theory of Integral (at least, in the Wilberian view, of which the author finds most compelling and useful to the problems of the 21st century overall--that is, ideological conflict, violence, fear, terror, wars, etc.). The very understanding of "psychology" and the field of Psychology is put into question by Wilber's challenge, just as God was more fully put into question by more and more people after Nietzsche. This technical paper puts Psychology into question, not for the first time, but in a way the author thinks is truly a first 21st century vision and profound in its potential as critique. The author offers nine reasons for naming and reclaiming "Integral-Transpersonal" as the Fourth Force of Psychology. (Contains 44 footnotes.) [This paper was published by the In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute.]

Although emotion(s) have been of long interest to humans, they have particularly captivated the attention of many people and scholarly disciplines in the last 20 years. This paper critiques mainstream psychology of emotions and in particular, what Daniel Goleman has labeled the "collective emotional crisis" of our times and its relationship with emotion(al) education. After discussing some of the reasons the author has been reluctant to enter into the domain of emotion(al) education, he offers a re-location of this domain utilizing the methodology of critical integral fearanalysis. Although, this is a preliminary work in progress, the author suggests, among other things, that the lack of (and/or buried) critical attention to "fear of emotion(s)" in the literature on emotion(al) education is preventing a strong emancipatory curriculum and pedagogy. One appendix presents: (1) Letter to Michalinos Zembylas. (Contains 4 figures and 37 endnotes.)

The purpose of this study was to identify the initial terms and means of creating and assessing the quality of what the author calls "fear education" (analogous to sex education or health education). Using a review of a random sample of discourses from the educational literature, the author analyzes how "fear" and "education" have usually been discussed and operationalized. This report offers the first known critical summary on the status of fear education in Western society, and probably in the world. The results of studying fear education for the past 13 years casually, and the last four years intensely, have shown that fear education is not yet an entity (or field) self-reflective, never mind critical of itself. According to the author, "fear education" is now as inadequate as sex education was 100 years ago. With such an important topic as fear (and fearlessness), the author also suggests that the lack of systematic study of fear education itself, may be equally as much of a problem to healthy human/global functioning, as fear is. Some recommendations are offered to improve the state of "fear education" in a post-9/11 era. [Published by In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada.]

For over 30 years, contemporary American integral philosopher, Ken Wilber, has challenged all of us to critically examine how biased, if not distorted, our current forms of thinking and knowledge are, and what kind of education ought to be developed in order to build, what he refers to as, a future "Wisdom Culture." To date, no critical synthesis of Wilber's work and its relationship to the field of Education has been attempted. This paper offers three real classroom vignettes demonstrating the application of Wilber's integral approach, set within an opening fictional narrative. The remainder of the paper synthesizes an extensive search of Educational documents, and provides a critical review of 16 professional educators, from both schooling and adult education, who have published writing on applications and potential of Wilber's philosophy, toward laying the groundwork for future educational engagement with the integral approach. (Contains 64 footnotes.)

This report offers a brief summary of a master thesis that had the purpose to study the way conflict management educators write and think about "conflict." Using a critical discourse analysis (a la Foucault) of 22 conflict resolution manuals for adults and children (U.S., Canadian, Australian), and using a selected sample of those most available to teachers and facilitators, the author asks the question "what is the best conflict education that is required for youth and adults to live in a world of a 'culture of violence' in the 21st century?" The specific purpose of the study was to provide a poststructuralist critique of conflict management texts/discourses re: the conceptualizations of 'conflict' itself. The study found that the texts/discourses were highly ideologically biased toward consensus theory, unity and harmony, cooperation, pragmatism and a general conservative politics based in psychological individualism (and social psychology). Thus, there is a "hidden curriculum" that ends up more like propaganda than good quality elicitive education, according to the author of the report. The author offers alternative discourses to"balance" the dominant discourses, adding a conflict perspective, critical pedagogy perspective and post-colonial approaches to conflict that might be useful. The author recommends some theoretical foundations (and future research paths) for building an alternative he calls critical "conflict" pedagogy and/or critical conflict education. (Contains 1 figure and 30 end notes).

The paper presents the view that opening up learning beyond school walls and age barriers, although a positive extension of human potential, has left the learners of this open learning to be exposed to the toxic meta-context of a "culture of 'fear'" with its attending violence/hurting that pervades the cultural landscape. Evidence is presented that challenges the current dominating W. psychological conception that "fear" is a "feeling/emotion" and therefore is located only within the individual mindscape (psyche). This apolitically theorized "fear" within mainstream psychology has led to a preoccupation with the hundreds of individuals' "fears" ("phobias") and virtually no research on the phenomenon of "fear" itself in a sociopolitical context. "Fear" is recently being articulated in academic and popular literature as a social and political context. The author calls for a deconstructruction and reconstruction of "education," "Love" and "fear" as core aspects to understanding a new ethical base for education and its practitioners in the future. (Contains 2 figures and 2 footnotes.)