Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

I was just wondering if there is any source material for this?

 I confess to both not getting, and not caring for, the 'colors' model of spiral synamics as used by the integralists.

I imprinted on other color models, from the old wisdom traditions, and the s.d. stuff just dissonates for me.

But, does I. have, say, articles analyzing how behaviors at different development levels (symbolized by the 'colors' language) work in relationships?

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

Not that I know of, Bill.

David Schnarch is my favorite at the moment, but he uses his own language and casts everything in terms of a partner's level of differentiation. So far, that's proven very useful for us - and for everyone we've recommended the book to.  

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

Bill,

I don't think there is a model of integral relationship – that's what I want to explore here, is what one might look like. I've posted a new entry at my blog that tries to set a preliminary framework without using Spiral Dynamics colors or Wilberian jargon – just basic ideas from developmental psychology and Buddhism.

I'd like to hear what you think. 

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

WH,

I like this thread, followed your link and riffed on your blog.  I hope that's okay. 

Excellent question, Bill. 

Blessings.

~Ww

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

[posting my response to WH's blog at his request…  perhaps WH should post his blog post as well….  at Bill's request, of course.  LOL]

—–oOo—–

Yeee-haw!  This is what I came for. 

As I read this, I'm seeing that your 3 stages sounds alot like some of the characteristics of a holon.  Fusion=communion and Differentiation=agency.  I think Integral would be or should be a fully rounded experience of all 4 aspects.  And, so in order for that to be true, for both transcendence and regression to be integrated in, I think that would necessarily mean that a relationship is something besides a hierarchy.  An entity in its own right, and yet also a part of something bigger.  An entity that can and does go backwards ontologically as well as forwards, that meshes with other entities on it's own level, as well as isolates.  And isn't that exactly what relationships are really like?  Really?!

I know I've been steeped in alot of bashing and polemic aimed at regression and isolation, with the hierarchists being big fans of onward and upward only.  But I'm not so sure if that is the card we're dealt. 

AND

There will necessarily be some hierarchy involved.  But where?  How?  And if Integral means transcending AND including, what things at the bottom are we supposed to include?  What elements?  What experiences?  And why?  I am used to using the SD model, so I'm going to have to use that picture in my head, but I'll try and write using more universal terms. 

I guess we begin with survival.  In the case of relationships, it would be the romantic/sexual relationship struggling for survival as it seperates out from it's Parent or Source material - familial relationships (For this reason, a man will leave his father and mother and cleave to the woman and the two will become one.).  It's a heavy deal to tell your parents that you are going to leave them and start your own family with what, only a month ago, was a potential rival to their bond.  Even if people are at a later stage in life, where they are not necessarily physically dependent on their Parents, there is still a shifting of emotional support from one base to another.  Even when the Parents are long gone, they still haunt with internal judgement messages.

After the r'ship conquers the art of survival , it will spend some time in magical thinking.  There are Higher, mysterious powers at work which determine the success of the relationship, and we try and figure out what those mysterious powers want so we can appease them.  I think alot of relationship counselling is still in this mode.  Naming the Shadow Monsters which energize our mysterious attractions and simply offering detailed instructions in how to feed them (People get “turned off” when a date talks about their former lovers… so don't do it. ).  This is not very evolved.

Then, perhaps, the relationship asserts it's presence into the culture and environment around it.  Creating the legacy of the new family, competing for status in the couples crowd.  “How many children do YOU have?  How many cars, houses, etc.”  Fighting for rank.  Overtly competitive.  That's not too evolved either.

Then, I guess, there would be finding a place in the social environment where you fit in and can be on equal footing with other couples.  “What Church/synagogue/party circuit/health club do YOU belong to?  What creed will you be raising your children under?”  Blah, blah.  There's lots of this type of counselling too - find out what your “interests” are and make sure they coincide.  Still, primitive and partial.

And what next?  The not-necessarily-competitive individual influence.  What do we bring to the table?  How can we carry our own weight in society?  Instead of what kinds of vacations are your family taking, it's what kinds of volunteer work is your family doing?  Maybe the job isn't so much about how much money is made, but now is about what kind of impact is it having on the larger community.  The circle of care would be expanding.  Now we're gettin' somewhere.

But then, what?  Any notion of competition or recognition might just drop out here.  The circle of care is agressively pushed all the way out so that any and all notions of rank are dispensed with.  Memberships with clubs and organizations become unimportant, material possesions drop off the radar and energy is spent learning to connect with and include other couples who might have been excluded in all that hierarchical jostling.  Sounds pretty good.

However.  As we all probably know, this particular stage isn't as inclusive as it tends to think it is.  It still cannot include couples who buy into and retain ranking value systems.  Just last night I was telling my friend how nauseated I get by people who chase after wealth and possesions, and how uncomfortable I am around couples who “think they're better than the rest of us”.  Yeah.  That's real evolved.  And totally driven by my own Shadowed insecurity and sense of marital failure!

Time to move on to the next thing and learn how to include what's best of all of those and leave the rest.  Include what improves life at all levels, and exclude what isolates and creates friction between the levels.  Somehow rank will be included, but also excluded.  Is that because we now see that both are required in order to provide people with a way of moving in some sort of progressive direction, where removing rank would not only be hypocritical but also uncompassionate to those who want to improve their lives and relationships?  What else will it mean? 

How does this sound?  It seems to me that this is what r'ships are actually like and not some idealized, forward-only-no-reverse idealized caricature.

[Added after hitting the button]

I just realized that I described the evolution of the relationship in mainly the bottom half of the 4 quadrants - if I can use that terminology.  But that does happen to be the half that relationships basically occupy. 

If a r'ship can be a singularity of it's own, then we might need to look at the developmental levels of the self and apply them to a r'ship - mainly Upper Left.  Prehension, irritability, sensation, perception, impulse, emotion, symbols, concepts, conop, formop, vision-logic.  This would also coincide with actual experience.  R'ships usually begin very impulsively, go towards expanding ability to direct intention claiming ever more and more of the self as it's own to direct, then finally to some thing like Absolute Intention or complete autonomy. 

And I don't know if the Upper Right applies, but it'd be fun to see.  Do couples go through physical transformation purely because they are together?  A woman certainly does.  But do they actually change together? 

I know, for one thing, that Shadow plays a part in entities that are comprised of more than one person.  Organizations have Shadow.  So, too, do smaller scale r'ships.  Integral will surely mean overcoming the urge to dissociate from primitive impulses so that they can be included in the true transcendence.  This will tie in the regression and isolation powers of a holon quite nicely.

—–oOo—–

I think there may be some things that happen to the human body because of their long-term relationship to another.  Certainly we are born to be compatible with the opposite sex.  And with the sexual politics aside (if that's even possible at this stage…  doubtful), there are things which do actually happen to us physically which prepare us for coupling and are a direct result of coupling.  And as we age and our bodies “wind down”, are they not expressing the completion of coupling?  No longer directing energy towards reproduction or mate attraction.  The female body may show the most extreme effects of this progression, but I think the male body experiences change in it's own way.  The decrease in sex drive happens to them too over the full span of their lives and they seem to instinctively direct more physical energy into acquiring possesions and protecting what they've acquired  than into survival and mate attraction.  Together we display the full human experience of our purpose.  Biology suggests that this may indeed be the sole purpose of 'the couple”.  But we know that biology is not destiny, right? 

What else does our body seem to be designed to do?  Refine physical survival to the point where it can focus on other things?  Does the couple have an advantage in those other things that the individual does not?  Is this the buliding of society, creating art and exploring the experience of being in general?  How does that non-physical event show up on the physical radar screen - for couples?  Is this also where the biological survival experience is transcended and we break away from it completly to reach large frontiers of r'ship?  Polyamory?  Homosexuality?  Bestiality?  I've heard Ken wax weird on that subject before…

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

Bill H, you wrote this toward the end of your blog post: Emotional fusion is a pre-personal form of relationship. Differentiation is a personal and individuated form of relationship. Integral (whatever that may be) is the post-personal form of relationship.

This reminds me of something I heard Caroline Myss say in a workshop in 1989. She was talking about countries at the time, but the model seems relevant for individuals, intimate relationships, families, communities, nations, and on and on. She said first they go through a groupmind stage where the welfare of the whole is the only concern (or the only tolerated concern). Next is the rugged individualist stage, which most of the United States seems to be stuck in. Finally, there's what she called the interdependent stage, where there's an acknowledgment and honoring of the whole, but not at the expense of what Schnarch (and you) would call differentiation. In other words, the ability to be a separate individual (to say no, to not need agreement from the other person, and so on) must be included as well as transcended for the “interdependent” (or “integral”) stage to be reached.

One of the things I'm thinking about here (just a thought I'm tossing out for consideration) is that what Schnarch calls differentiation might be more what we actually consider integral. He says: Differentiation is the ability to stay in connection without being consumed by the other person. If you superimpose this on Myss's model, Schnarch's differentiation isn't analogous to her rugged individualism stage – it's analogous to her interdependent stage. It seems to me that what's analogous to the rugged individualism phase would be more like the power struggle stage in a relationship, where disagreement rules and each party is staunchly defending his/her right to be different.

If this is accurate, Schnarch's sense of a healthy relationship is an integral one: both parties experience deep intimacy while simultaneously maintaining healthy boundaries and holding onto their individual identities.

Thoughts? 

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

I haven't read far enough in Schnarch to know for sure where he is heading with his ideas, but so far they haven't felt integral or second tier. Maybe Jay can shed more light on this.

What you posted from Myss is similar to something Siona mentioned in her response to my blog post:

 It's funny; I've been working on my own particular area of passion (community building and group dynamics), and there's a certain parallel to your articulation of the relationship process. In (Peck's version of) community, groups go through four stages: psuedocommunity, in which a shared pretense of communiy is developed; chaos, in which the inevitable differences of individuals come up and where people wrestle with these; emptiness, in which group members empty themselves of any attachments or prejudices or beliefs that prevent them from being in community together; and finally, true commnuity (which I will not try to explain. ;) ) What struck me was Peck's note that psuedocommunity is an important and necessary stage, because it's what allows group members to feel safe … or at least gives them the reassurance that there is a desire in others to create a safe and loving place for them, even if it is at the cost of denying parts of themselves. I think in the love relationship that fusion plays this same role: it provides that first sense of ultimate security and safety that's necessary before we can feel comfortable exploring our differences and shadows with someone.

I might suggest that the “rugged individualism” that Myss talks about is a transitional stage between fusion and differentiation – much in the same way that mythic imagination is transitional between magical thinking and rational thinking. There might also be a transitional stage between differentiation and integral. I don't know. I'm exploring this as we go.

Schnarch says: Differentiation is the ability to stay in connection without being consumed by the other person.

This sounds like individuation, and it is a necessary step before reaching the ability that Welwood describes: being able to hold both relative love and absolute love in the same interior space.

I think that what is missing from Schnarch so far is the acknowledgement of the absolute level of love and bonding. He may introduce this, but I haven't read that far yet. I think that the absolute is a necessary part of an integral conception of relationship.

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

One of the things I'm thinking about here (just a thought I'm tossing out for consideration) is that what Schnarch calls differentiation might be more what we actually consider integral.

Totally agreed, Kira, and thanks for making that point! I felt a similar point when reading Bill's piece, but had no idea how to articulate it. Schnarch's definition of “differentiation” is basically ”individualism in communion” - which seems like the Integral approach Bill was hinting at. The point is that a healthy relationship creates a new whole without losing its distinct parts. On the contrary, it's the fact that both partners are distinct that keeps the relationship fresh, healthy, and challenging for both. 

So given that, it would seem we have three stages at a minimum:

1. Fused
   
2. Individuated
3. Integrated (Schnarch's “Differentiation”)

I prefer using “Integral” in this context, myself. Schnarch's “differentiation” natively sounds more like “Individuated”, even though he means it to be closer to “Integrated”. 

Now, however, I just read Bill's reply  to you, and I see he's gone ahead and dragged the Absolute into this. Damn you, Bill!

So Bill, let's run with that. What role does absolute love play in a romantic relationship? How do we integrate that into the scheme above? 

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

Jay, thanks for your feedback and perspective on this. I have another thing to raise before I can think about the absolute love thing. Schnarch says that fusion can look like totally rejecting and rebelling against your family, for example. I think it'd be useful to look at what this elusive “individuation stage” is that's different from either “fused” or “integral/differentiated.” That piece of it still feels a bit fuzzy to me. If we use Caroline Myss's stages as a reference point, would the individuated stage be self-centered and not caring about others? Would it be like “I'm just in this for myself” or “Looking out for Number 1”? That sounds negative to me. What would positive individuation look like as a stage toward being differentiated/integral?

I think maybe what I'm trying to say here is that Schnarch seems to collapse it into two stages:

1. Fused and/or rebellious – no healthy boundaries

2. Differentiated – individualism in communion

What would be the stage between these two?

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

I think the short answer would be: individuation, without communion, the “self seeking” stage of development where one defines oneself through the relationship without being merged in it, and without experiencing the communion element.

For example, and getting a little personal here, Kira and I never had the really merged aspect of relationship – we both had been there in the past and didn't want to go there again. I think we had some of it sometimes, but it was never the defining nature of our relationship.

Rather, for the first four years we both struggled to maintain our individuality while still defining ourselves within the relationship. But we lacked the differentiation that Schnarch talks about. We didn't very often experience the communion element while still maintaining a separate self-sense.

I think that would be the “fuzzy” stage prior to differentiation that Kira is asking about.

And, in response to Jay, I think that a truly integral relationship has to include the absolute in some way – and this is where Welwood comes in.  An integral relationship would seem to be fully differentiated AND be in contact with the absolute nature of love that Welwood describes. 

I think this is where practice comes in – individual work that can produce some kind of state experience OR couples work that can produce some kind of state experience. Many people gravitate to tantra in some form, but I think that pure presence with one's partner during lovemaking or otherwise can also produce states that transcend ego – this is what Welwood is driving at  in the material I quoted in my blog post.

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

“Question: Does relationship development look like moral development in that it is NOT a transcend and include model? I'm thinking that we do not include fusion in our behavioral options when we transcend it, and so on. Does anyone else agree with this?”

I don't. 

I believe in Deity.  So, I believe that there is God, and that God had been alone - in a certain incomprehensible sense - and that God was missing out on a certain objective sense of Self, and therefore created other beingness as a way to observe and be observed.  That's way oversimplifying, of course. 

However, the elements of fusion are nested inside of Integration.  They are merely held, organized and directed differently.  The state of fusion would be an involuntary and/or unconscious state.  The Stage of Integration would be a fully conscious stage where partners could hold the state experience of fusion and direct it as it is useful, but choose to let it go when and where not. 

The elements contained in amniotic, pre-personal trust should be present during Integral, trans-personal, sexual union, but in a chosen and intentional way.  Eyes wide open, instead of shut.

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

Let me try another way into this, using Schnarch's language to a certain degree – and this will touch on what I think is one of the defining characteristics of integral anything.

• Schnarch talks about the fusion stage as identity created through a reflected sense of self. We are undifferentiated and unable to define ourselves separate from our emotional ties to the other. We see ourselves as we are reflected in our meaningful relationships.
• The next stage may then be identity created through the opposition of self to other (and the successful attempt would reflect emotional separation - the end of fusion), which Schnarch mentions as one way that people try to break the fusion pattern. Too often however, we are unable to break the fusion, which results in bickering to establish boundaries or leaving to escape the fusion (which doesn't really end it).
• Then we might discover identity as a result of maintaining self while in relationship with others (we no longer define ourselves through emotion, but rather, through a more aware ego sense). We have access to a core self that does not fluctuate based on the conditions around us, yet is capable of maintaining strong emotional connections to others.
• I think the first truly second tier or integral stage would be differentiation with the ability to take on the other's role and experience their point of view. True empathy, to me, feels like the bginning of an integral awareness. When we can take the role of another, the separation between self and other begins to break down – we begin to see all the ways are alike, and with empathy begins pure compassion. 
• Finally, we might know and experience that we are all one at some absolute level, yet still maintain our separate self-sense. This would be the ability to hold Welwood's absolute love and relative (fully differentiated) love in our interior space simultaneously. With this stage we are fully integrated in our relationships, and able to experience true compassion and empathy based on an experiential awareness on oneness.

In all likelihood, there are intermediary stages, as well, especially at the top end.  

I think many people mistake fusion for the touch of the absolute or nondual. Another variation on mistaking a pre-personal state/stage for a post-personal state/stage.

What makes it all the more confusing is that a fused couple might actually have access to absolute love as Welwood defines it as a state experience, while still existing in a pre-personal stage of relationship. It's easy to see how a couple could confuse the two.

In my last long-term relationship before Kira, we touched that absolute experience early on, but we had no framework for understanding the experience and immediately entered into an intense and destructive emotionally fused state. It solidified into a stage that we were never able to move beyond. We tried the approach of defining ourselves in opposition to the other (constant fighting to establish boundaries), but we never were able to differentiate. 

Comments? Disagreements? Revisions? 

Question: Does relationship development look like moral development in that it is NOT a transcend and include model? I'm thinking that we do not include fusion in our behavioral options when we transcend it, and so on. Does anyone else agree with this?

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

Somehow I managed to put that post up there in the wrong spot….  ?????

~Ww

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

This is just a quick note (again, I'm just starting Schnarch's book and I'm eager to get more heavily into this dialog) to add to your last post.

1. Could we see it as a both / and thing? At one level, relationships necessarily transcend and include; after all, the relationship you're in holds contains every instant from the moment you met your partner, and then goes beyond. This might be stretching things a little, but I do think it is one way in which the integral integrity might be maintained. 

2. Isn't Absolute Love both a part of a integral relationships, and so much more? I think it's a necessary peak of integral-anything (this may be a bias of mine; I equate pure consciousness / awareness with love), and as such must be at the pinacle of an integral relationship model. Here, though, the point seems almost moot, because if this love is indeed absolute, than it's not just confined to the relationship one has with one's partner, but expands to include the Kosmos as a whole. The integral relationship preceding it is merely (and wonderfully!) a path to that divine realization. Absolute love is the end and the ground, and I think for this reason is hard to include within the relationship model.

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

Siona brings up an important point that Kira touched on too …  I think in another thread … about the different experiences that men have than women.  I am assuming that Schnarch is a man, no?

Men will prolly experience progression as a penetrating of barriers, leaving one level behind to achieve the next higher level.  Women tend to experience progression as more and more synthesis, opening the embrace ever wider to include more and more.  There is, naturally, some crossover and exception, but it's an established pattern.  Eventually men arrive at the “level” of integration of all.  Women however will integrate more and more as they go up, until they finally integrate the most protected parts - If the man will allow it.  Usually the stuff that men don't even want integrated.  The “Pre” experience of this is an overdeveloped potential for “communion”.  In the Integral language, KW will prolly use a totally different word for it than Integrate.  However, that is the same erotic urge which has made evolution to Integral even possible.  If left in the “Pre” stage, it will be expressed as too much tollerance for the bad behavior and relating patterns.  It is counter-productive to evolution in the long run because it doesn't cull the herd - so to speak.  It only makes things worse.  However, if it is pushed up to the “Trans” stage, it will be expressed as zero tolerance for bad behavior, but absolute love towards the person themself.  This situation creates an intolerable “hanging projection” situation which makes dealing with Shadow immediately necessary.  Then the final “barrier can be breached”, self vs. self, and real exposure and oneness can occur. 

This is why, I think, what you're calling “fusion” is a state which can be experienced early.  At the beginning, the eyes are still shut about many aspects of  who we really are, ourselves.  But they are wide open to what we might see in the other person.  Since the other person is still hiding a bunch of stuff from themself, first, and also us, we can look and look and still not see anything wrong.  The heart opens all the way and amniotic trust is exchanged.  BAM!  Locked in.  As time goes on and the performances begin to crack and split, we see signs of problems and either the eyes close or the heart closes for our own Shadowed reasons.  Back and forth it escalates until both can shut down completely.  BAM!  Locked out.

In the true and final stage of exposure and oneness, the eyes and heart are once again, all the way open, but there is no longer any hiding self from self, so the entire picture of ourselves and our lovers are there for us to see.  The eyes and heart are now under our control, and no longer are subject to a blink reflex or heart attack.  We choose to look at anything and everything, choose to love anything and everything.  Many the icons that show mystical experiences of love or transcendence by our favorite saints and teachers show the person, face, heart or eyes shining or on fire - Alex Grey.  Mohammed.  Stairing into the sun.  Embracing the enemy.  Neo letting Smith penetrate him and assimilate him.  That's why.  The element of openly looking and openly loving was experienced at both stages. 

~Ww

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

Question: Does relationship development look like moral development in that it is NOT a transcend and include model? I'm thinking that we do not include fusion in our behavioral options when we transcend it, and so on. Does anyone else agree with this?

No. I see emotional fusion as a state. Schnarch is clear that many of the behaviors done from the standpoint of emotional fusion - self-sacrifice, e.g. - can be performed compassionately and authentically after differentiation. That's why fusion has been around for so long: at some level, it seems authentic, selfless, and “higher”.

I love the outline of stages here, Bill. I'll need to chew on them a bit.  

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

Yup.

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

I think my marriage (seperated now) was definitely in that individuation aspect of relationships. Due to my travels, and our need to have our own identities, we struggled trying to merge our growth spurts. Ultimately, we grew at different rates and different directions. What began as a communial interest in spirituality, eventually led us in different directions; and it was hard for us to speak the same language.

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

Hey, this is a great discussion….

I didn't have time to read all of the posts, but it reminded me of Robert Kegan's the Mental Demands of Modern Life where he has an entire chapter about how different “Orders of Consciousness” (which is basically a cognitive scheme outlining vertically heirarchic/ holarchically categorized cognitive capacities/epistemologies) influence relationships.  It's interesting… IN Robert's terms “the subject of of one stage becomes the object of the subject of the next”.  So in relationships it's possible to be experiencing or engaging in the relationship very subjectively and remain unaware that you are actively perpetuating a state of oceanic fusion where the relationship model is based on an undifferentiation of selves, both combined by the magic of unconscious identification.

 So with greater differentitation comes greater discrimination as to the dynamic workings of agency and communion within a given relationship, and with a greater awareness of the relationship of one's agency-within-communion comes a paradoxical increase in independance and intimacy because you have (cognitively) gotten yourself to a place where you can adroitly re-enter a the relationship with an established Framework to work from.

 I think really the difference is between a visible, objectified Framework-for-relational-emergance and a Framework-for-relational-emergance that operates implicitly and consequently ends up undermining the relationship because a partner should “want what I want, and do it without having to be told” or any other number of fallacies surrounding an inability to step away from the undoubtedly dynamic dynamic of the situation.  :)

So is that a model for integral relationships?  Approach it from a high cognitive station?  No.  It' s just a little piece I thought I'd add.

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

It seems to me that the “integral” part of relationships is still very mysterious - it might be interesting to try to define it and describe it a bit better. Even if we figure that's going to be very hard to do, it should be thought provoking.

The three stages described sound a lot like the “ages” of most relationships. You start out with young love, full of passion and immersion and oceanics, then middle aged love, where you either individuate or drive each other nuts, then old love, where you treasure the beingness of the other.

Once more I feel shallow - I like that early immersion. I think it's hot to keep that going as long as possible, and reawaken it often.

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

So, what would be integral characteristics in relationship?

 How about…

(1) Trying to work on several levels* at once.

(2) Trying to communicate between levels*, in the ways that are possible.

( * by 'levels' I mean both the SD & early wilber levels, and a broader meaning, levels of experience, levels of 'spirituality, and also the domains of experience, work, home, parenting, and so forth.)

Any others that should be added?

How do you signify giving 'precedence' or 'primary position' to the higher levels, the 'trans-rational' levels? It's hard to express that in a simple sentence.

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

I was wondering about this, specifically how to incorporate the idea of levels of development.  You have the three phase description of how a relationship progresses:

1. Fused
   
2. Individuated
3. Integrated (Schnarch's “Differentiation”)

But how is each level experienced by each person.  I'm assuming a fused state would be a different experience to someone at the mythic vs. rational vs. plurastic stages of growth.  So then two people in a relationship at two different levels of development might have very different experiences of each of the three phases of the relationship? 

Do you personally have to have a fairly high level of development to be able to take a relationship to an Integrated level?

Mostly just a bunch of questions.  

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

good questions – and then there's the whole issue of different lines – for example, I have a sister who's able to grasp fairly advanced concepts intellectually, but she has no emotional capacity to live those concepts – I'm not well-versed enough in all the stage stuff to get how this all intersects, but it seems to me kind of like another way of saying that someone's center of gravity can be, let's say, greenish-yellow, but they might have a strong blue or orange streak somewhere in their personality that interferes with their capacity for intimacy

I hope someone in this pod who's more centered in their intellect than I am will sort all of this out  :)

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

Well, Scharch does write that there are two “rules” to differentiation:

•  We come out of our family of origin at about the highest level of differentiation our parents achieved.
• We pick partners at the same level of differentiation as ourselves

(Passionate Marriage, pg. 148)

His claim is that relationships comprised of partners at different levels of differentiation usually break off early; at most, one partner is maybe one mere half-step beyond the other. I'd hazard a guess that the same would be true with the SD levels; it would be hard to maintain a long-term relationship if partners were grossly mismatched. While their centers of memetic gravity might not be exact, I imagine there'd have to be overlap in large areas before any real long term, integral relationship could be discussed. 

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

Hi Siona,

I tend to agree with Schnarch on the differentiation levels of partners. However, there are exceptions that I can offer up.

(1) If one partner is much more developed/differentiated than the other, s/he may view the relationship as part of a bodhisattva vow – to aid all beings in attaining enlightenment. In addition to whatever physical/emotional bonding material is holding them together, if one partner has the ability to hold the difference as a kind of service, then the relationship might last for a while. Admittedly, this is rare, but I do someone who has described his relationship in this way.

(2) If one or both partners are so insecure/undifferentiated that they cannot imagine their lives without this other person, who is often hated, the relationship can last, oh, say , nearly six years, during which time both people are simultaneously “in love” and bitterly resentful. Been there, done that.

Fusion is a bitch. The lack of boundaries and the inability to define oneself apart from the relationship is excruciating. When a fused couple has to deal with the day to day stuff, everything goes to hell eventually. If there are other emotional issues, including different levels of differentiation and varying degrees of low self-esteem, it can drag on for quite a while.

I think the second example is pretty common in young people, especially idealistic types who think that the other person will change (this is often seen as a “woman issue,” but I think men do it, too). In both genders there is a tendency among certain personality types to believe that loving someone can heal their wounds. True but partial – the other person has to be engaged as well.

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

I'd be highly skeptical of someone who saw her commitment to her partner as part of a bodhisattva vow. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'd think an enlightened being would understand that her commitment to the enlightenment of all beings could be be expressed more skillfully than through staying with a poorly differentiated lover. I'd be concerned that this person's high-mindedness might allow the other to stay at his level of development, and besides, if the more enlightened partner were truly more differentiated, I don't really see why or how the less differentiated one would stay in the relationship. Relationship dynamics in poorly differentiated persons depend on some kind of need, and if this highly developed person didn't reciprocate in neediness, I'm not sure how the partnership would continue . Too, I know for a fact that it's not uncommon for spiritually developed folk to have major psychological issues: this I think is the more probable dynamic.

I'm not sure how 2) is an objection to Schnarch's theory; it seems to just corroborate how poorly differentiated partners stay together. Maybe you could elaborate?

You wrote “there is a tendency among certain personality types to believe that loving someone can heal their wounds,” and this is true but only partial - the other party has to be engaged. I'd say there's yet another part. The 'lover' - the giver of love - has to love him or herself FIRST, and this I think is where the problem occurs.

If the person attempting to “love her partner back to health” doesn't love herself first, how can she be giving authentic love? Love at the expense of one's own self merely demonstrates a misunderstanding of what a universal, authentic Love is: self-abuse in the name of love is hypocritical. I think this is at the crux of that common trap. The person who wants the other to change, and who thinks that love will generate that change, has already demonstrated a deficiency in love; namely, that she needs for her partner to provide her with something. If she were truly able to give love, again, she would love herself enough not to need this change in her partner. Scharch would appreciate this paradox, too; that a person truly able to love himself would not need for his partner to change, and would thus 'free' that person to a) be herself and b) change from her own autonomous drive toward growth.

 Anyway, my point is only that the attitude of 'loving someone in order to heal them' does not mean at all the holder of that attitude is well-differentiated or emotionally mature. 

 (And while I'm here, I finished Passionate Marriage this afternoon. I assume you've read the whole of the book already? I was a little surprised to see that the final chapters draw heavily from, or at least delve into, Wilber's work … )

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

Bill E offered these traits of an integral relationship, which I think are crucial:

(1) Trying to work on several levels* at once.

(2) Trying to communicate between levels*, in the ways that are possible.

I'd like to add a few possible traits:

(3) Awareness of and ability to manage different selves.
(4) Ability to take the role of the partner during conflict. It's easier to do this when everything is good, but a true mark of development is to be able to do it during conflict.
(5) Ability to experience trans-egoic states during intimacy (not just sex, but other forms of intimate bonding as well).

There are probably others. Anyone have other suggestions?

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

I wonder if you could add in something having to do with the four drives of a holon.  I think it was mentioned on integral naked most recently having to do with politics but it would basically be the idea that you would honor the need for agency, communion, eros (which would be progress in the relationship… you know, trascending and including wherever you've already made it to), and agape (which would be lovingly conserving what has already been built).  

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

I think that would be an excellent addition, especially Eros and Agape – I've always liked those concepts.

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

Well, I would say “fusion is a bitch” when it's no good. When it's no good, it does suck, a lot of the time. While, oddly, also being satisfying a lot of the time.

Which is why I use the term 'immersion', to try to signify a state of erotic/emotive pair bonding. (Which is, I tend to think, in a large part a biologic state started and maintained by the couples biochemistry.)

My ideal form of mate relationship includes the immersion, and the capacity to recapture the immersion at any time. Even tho one doesn't want to be in immersion all the time.

Maybe 'fusion' and 'immersion' are two different states, and not two versions of the same state?

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

I wonder how it might be possible (if at all) to reawaken that level of immersion if differentiation has grown to much. If two people, though starting at basically the same level of say conscious development, grow at different speeds; would it merely be a choice for the higher developed person to remain with the lower developed, despite needing to be challenged in that line? The same question would go for emotional levels of development. Basically wouldnt the higher level in essence become the teacher or parent in the relationship; and depending on the strength of their ego, want to funnel all issues through their dominant line? Does that make any sense to anyone?:)

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

I'd be wary that the “more developed partner” - the one in the teacher role - would just be demonstrating and egoic attachment to being the one 'further along.' It's easy to lie to oneself and say that you're in a relationship to help the other person, when in truth you might well be attached to that 'teacher / parental' aspect of your identity. This is why Schnarch says it's important to assume that you and your partner are at the same level, even if you feel further along. As long as you are attached to your partner and need him or her in that fashion, you're demonstrating similar levels of differentiation.

You know, this makes me think that Schnarch's theory is spiral-neutral. I think this dynamic could work itself out between partners who are at different places on the SD spectrum, and I'd even venture that it would be quite possible for two (for example) cognitively 2nd tier folk to be quite poorly differentiated. In writing this now I'm not sure how to incorporate an integral aspect. I think that individual development MUST be an individual project – individuation, by definition, has to happen alone; healthy human psyches are not need-bound by or to other particular individuals. Toward the end of his book, though, Schnarch discusses the fundamental connection between sexuality and sexual relationships and spirituality, and I think that THIS is where the integral comes into play. 

 Would it be too much then to say that integral relationships are only truly possible between human beings who are both committed first to their own personal development? That they MUST be committed to their own growth first? This I think would fit best with the views in Passionate Marriage, in which case I'd see an Integral Marriage as starting where that book leaves off. 

Re: Is there an "integral" theory of relationships?

I agree completely with what you said, Siona, about both people needing to be deeply committed to their own personal development to have an integral relationship. And what you said about the possibility of two people being cognitively second tier but poorly differentiated is what I was talking about earlier in this thread. Two people might be drawn together because of commonality along the cognitive line but then discover either that they don't have adequate tools in other aspects of the relationship, or that they're mismatched in other aspects.

I don't believe that believing one is the “more developed partner” in certain areas always an ego thing. Bill and I have known since the start of our relationship that one of the many reasons we came together was to support each other's growth in certain areas. He's much more developed than I am in the physical realm (see his 7/8/06 Friday Five post for a glimmer of that), and also more developed in the intellectual realm. I'm much more developed in the emotional realm than he is. We don't come at this from ego – we use each other's wisdom, modeling, and articulation of experience to grow.