Integral diskussion ang. Inclusivism etc

[JimmyAberg]

What Are Pluralism, Inclusivism, and Exclusivism?

by Michael J. Vlach, Ph.D.

Is there only one religion that leads to God or do several? Or, is the truth somewhere in between? Few issues are as controversial and important as this issue of which religion(s) leads a person to salvation . The purpose of this article is to define three key terms related to this issue—Pluralism, Inclusivism, and Exclusivism.

1.  Pluralism  -- "All major world religions lead to God and salvation."

Various forms of Pluralism exist. For our purposes, though, the Pluralism we are concerned with is “Religious” or “Philosophical” Pluralism. Religious Pluralism is the view that all major religions are equally valid and lead to God and salvation. Thus, no one religion is inherently better or superior to any other major world religion. With Religious Pluralism, all the major religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam are equal. For pluralists, there may be differences in rituals and beliefs among these groups, but on the most important issues, there is great similarity. Most religions, they claim, stress love for God and love for fellow human beings. They also point out that most religions have a form of the Golden Rule. Religious pluralists also point out that there are pious people in all the major religions. Religious Pluralism became increasingly popular in the the latter half of the twentieth century. The leading proponent of Religious Pluralism in the last few decades has been John Hick.

2.  Inclusivism  -- "One religion is best but salvation is possible in other religions."

"Inclusivism" is the position that one religion is uniquely true but salvation is accessible to those outside of that faith. For example, a Christian inclusivist might say, "I am a Christian and I think Christianity is the most correct religion, but I also think there is saving truth in other religions like Islam and Hinduism. People of other faiths can be saved by Jesus even if they do not explicitly believe in Him." Inclusivists do not go as far as pluralists in that inclusivists do not claim that all religions are equal. They do believe, though, that truth and salvation can be found in other religions. Some Christian inclusivists claim that the salvation of Jesus is unknowingly applied to adherents of other religions who live good, moral lives. Catholic and Inclusvist theologian, Karl Rahner, referred to such people as “anonymous Christians.”

The sixteenth century reformer Ulrich Zwingli held to a form of Inclusivism. In more recent years, Karl Rahner helped popularize this perspective. The Roman Catholic Church and several mainline Protestant denominations have also shifted toward Inclusivism in recent decades. The Roman Catholic “Vatican II Council” of the 1960s explicitly declared that people of other religions could be saved. Evangelical theologian, Clark Pinnock, too, has espoused Inclusivism. Traditionally, religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism have been proponents of Inclusivism as well.

3.  Exclusivism -- "Salvation is found in only one religion."

"Exclusivism" (or “Particularism”) is the view that there is only one way to God and salvation. Thus one religion is uniquely and supremely true and all other religions are false. Christianity is often viewed as an exclusive religion because of Jesus’ statement in John 14:6: “I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” In addition to Christianity, the religions of Islam and Judaism have traditionally been considered to be exclusive religions. Those who hold to Exclusivism usually affirm that other religions possess elements of truth, but these religions do not teach ‘the truth’ that is able to save its followers. In fact, much of what is taught in other religions is viewed by exclusivists as false. It should be noted that some groups within Judaism and Christianity have drifted away from Exclusivism in recent decades.

http://www.theologicalstudies.org/pluralism.html

[JimmyAberg]

...

[JimmyAberg]

Själva tråden:
http://brucealderman.gaia.com/blog/2008 ... nclusivism

"In his discussion of inclusivism, Halbfass points to the discursive tendency of traditional sectarian Indian thought to develop doxographies in which ‘others' are neutralized through inclusion and subordination.  In this, he divides the strategy of inclusivism into two major types, based on images developed within the Indic tradition. The two images are: (1) that of the ocean into which rivers merge, discharging their waters and losing their names, but remaining preserved in essence and substance; (2) that of the elephant's footstep, which includes through exceeding the footsteps of other animals, covering larger terrain than any of them individually and erasing or obliterating them in the process. Halbfass characterizes these strategies as hierarchism and perspectivism respectively, and sees examples of the first in Advaita Vedanta and the second in Jaina doxographies" (Banerji, 06)

[JimmyAberg]

As Integral Theory is increasingly institutionalized, and as it enters ever more actively into dialogue with other systems of thought, I believe it is imperative that advocates of this approach reflect on its relation to the various discursive strategies that have been adopted by prominent religious traditions in ancient and more recent times.  Given the emphasis in Integral Theory on hierarchical inclusiveness and perspectivism, I think it is especially important that we consider how the Integral approach resembles and yet may also differ from historical inclusivist strategies.

The term inclusivism is typically used in relation to other attitudes that have historically informed interreligious relationships:  exclusivism, which is the belief that only one revelation or tradition is true or has authentic soteriological power and all other ways are false; and pluralism, which has multiple definitions, but which for our immediate purposes may be defined as the belief that all major religions reveal spiritual truths but no single religion can claim to be in possession of the final, absolute truth.  Inclusivism occupies a position in between these two extremes, assigning ultimate truth status to a particular vision while acknowledging that other paths may variously participate in, reflect, or supplement the truth of this superior way.

Within the Christian tradition, inclusivism takes the form of various Christological "fulfillment" doctrines, where the possibility for salvation is granted to non-Christians (contra the exclusivist position), but only in and through the extra-ecclesial, redemptive work of Christ.  In other words, the ultimate religious fulfillment of non-Christians is allowed as a possibility, as opposed to inevitable damnation, but this salvation or realization is ultimately a Christian one.  While other, non-Christian religions are granted a relative value and "truthfulness," their value and truthfulness are recognized only inasmuch as they can be said to approximate or reflect the ultimate truth(s) of the Christian vision.

Within the Indian context, inclusivism shows up under several different guises.   As the passage above indicates, Halbfass recognizes two forms of inclusivism:  the hierarchic strategy of Advaita Vedanta (or Vajrayana), which includes alternative traditions and schools of thought by incorporating them into a hierarchy of perspectives of which it is the pinnacle; and the perspectivist strategy of Jainism, which, with its notion of anekantavada or non-one-sidedness, includes multiple religious perspectives as true but necessarily partial reflections on the whole.  (This Jain doctrine is considered inclusivist rather than pluralist because it denies the possibility of salvation to anyone who fails to accept its truth.)  The Buddha also arguably voiced an inclusivist perspective when he acknowledged, in the Digha Nikaya, that other religions could possibly lead to liberation if they contained the Noble Eight-fold Path.

Postmodern pluralists within Christian, interfaith dialogue, and Indological contexts have criticized this approach as imperialist, triumphalist, and a product of pre-postmodern rationalism.  It is a hegemonic strategy, the criticism goes, which wipes out difference in the name of an overarching truth.  As the metaphors in the passage above illustrate, it is seen as an approach which denies and essentially erases alterity - swallowing and wiping out the tracks of the "other."

To what extent does this critique apply to Wilber's Integral vision?  In an essay I wrote a year ago for the Zaadz Integrative Spirituality Symposium, I described Jainism's anekantavada doctrine as a precursor to Integral Theory's integral perspectivism.  And Wilber has acknowledged parallels between his model and the stage models of Vajrayana and Advaita Vedanta.  So Integral Theory incorporates both the horizontal and vertical inclusivist strategies highlighted in Halbfass' critique.  If the Integral approach is thus best characterized as a form of inclusivism, and inclusivism historically is a pre-postmodern, pre-pluralist strategy, must we then conclude that it is an approach that has failed to adequately digest the lessons of postmodernity?  Is it necessarily hegemonic and corrosive of difference?

In theory, I do not believe it is.  I believe it acknowledges and incorporates important postmodern insights which can help mitigate tendencies towards narrow, ideologically driven forms of inclusivism.  I will say more about this below.  In practice, however, I believe some of these lessons have yet to be digested - particularly in forums like this one, where, for instance, well-meaning Integralites may use the "transcend and include" mantra as a defensive, self-insulating polemical strategy.

[JimmyAberg]

Before looking more closely at Integral Theory, I want to pause for a moment to look at pluralism as an alternative to inclusivism.  In The Infinite Ladder, Dustin Di Perna identifies inclusivism as a rational-level (Orange) strategy and pluralism as a pluralist-level (Green) perspective.  Religious pluralism, emerging in the Western context out of the intersubjectivist critique of rationalist epistemology and ontology, thus serves as an important corrective to the earlier strategies of mythic exclusivism and rationalist inclusivism.  However, while it represents an advancement in a number of ways, it is nevertheless a problematic position to maintain.  Gavin D'Costa, for instance, argues that a pure pluralist position cannot be coherently articulated and employed because it ultimately rests on the same logical structure as exclusivism. According to D'Costa,

   [T]here is no such thing as pluralism because all pluralists are committed to holding some form of truth criteria and by virtue of this, anything that falls foul of such criteria is excluded from counting as truth (in doctrine and in practice).  Thus, pluralism operates within the same logical structure of exclusivism and in this respect pluralism can never really affirm the genuine autonomous value of religious pluralism for, like exclusivism [and inclusivism], it can only do so by tradition specific criteria for truth (D'Costa, 1996, as cited in Trapnell, 1998)


D'Costa thus calls the position of pluralism itself into question.  In seeking to establish a pluralist model of religious equality, we apparently cannot avoid making appeals to non-universal, tradition-specific truth claims, and thus implicitly endorsing a quasi-inclusivist (if not actually exclusivist) perspective of our own.  We find ourselves, in other words, in the midst of a performative contradiction.  But if religious pluralism cannot be established as a coherent, un-self-contradictory position in itself, it nevertheless imparts valuable insights into intersubjectivity, the constructedness and relative incommensurability of cultural and religious worldspaces, and the value of alterity that I believe must be retained in any post-pluralist model.

Integral Theory, in its latest incarnation, aims to do this.  While it certainly incorporates both horizontal and vertical inclusivist strategies to support its overall integrative vision, it simultaneously recognizes these strategies as creative, intersubjectively grounded enactments, not pre-given realities.  With pluralism, while we acknowledge that we cannot avoid imposing our own perspective-dependent presuppositions on others, we may nevertheless recognize the creative potential that such a gesture makes available, as we consciously "hold space" for alterity, for the integrity and sanctity of otherness, and therefore we may elect to value the stance of pluralism as the best of the limited options available to us (e.g., exclusivism or inclusivism).  With the Integral perspective, I believe a similar opportunity is available, but one which corrects - or has the potential to correct - for the pendulum swing of pluralism towards the extreme of otherness (which has sometimes unwittingly contributed to even further social fragmentation and segregation) and invites a more balanced recognition and honoring of sameness and difference, sameness-in-difference, and (with its emphasis on types, levels, and so on), difference-in-sameness.

Admittedly, the language of Integral has tended more in the direction of inclusivism, understandably raising concerns in postmodern circles that Integral represents another hegemonic meta-narrative.  Some of the earlier phases of Wilber's work may indeed be deserving of this charge.  But I believe Wilber's most recent work reflects a keen awareness of the challenges and gifts of the postmodern turn, and also attempts to address some of the shortcomings of that turn.

[JimmyAberg]

For us to make good on the promise that I believe Integral presents, I have a number of suggestions, some of which I comfortably endorse, others of which I tentatively offer for consideration:


   * To mitigate the tendency towards insular, ideologically driven inclusivism, which I believe is a potential problem for any integrative model, I believe one of the first steps is simply to call attention to and bring greater awareness to these dynamics, to call attention to the potential for elephantine footprints to effectively erase the tracks of (e.g., silence) those whom we would embrace.


   * Related to this, allowing the recognition of these dynamics to impregnate our communicative practices, to inspire us towards non-attachment to views and a willingness to suspend our positions in the moment of encounter with an other.


   * As may be apparent by the tone and content of this blog, I am suggesting - along with Gary Hampson and others - that Integralites may do well not to hurry too quickly past postmodernism, leaving it in the dust of history; rather they should return to take fuller advantage of the insights and tools won by this fairly recent development in human thought. I believe Wilber himself is recognizing the importance of this move, judging by his emphasis on intersubjectivity and constructivism in Integral Spirituality.


   * While AQAL is often discussed and, unfortunately, treated as a static map, I believe Integral Methodological Pluralism invites us to see it in more dynamic, enactive terms, as a sort of integrative operator. This serves to undercut adherence to the myth of the given, which has informed a number of historical inclusivist approaches. As I wrote in a recent blog, when we argue that something is real or true, we are making a claim about how a given conperception (a construct-perception) will behave across a wide range of circumstances. We are saying that we can count on it to behave in certain ways and be subject to certain kinds of confirmation within a given set of operational parameters. Within an Integral enactive paradigm, these parameters include the condition of the speaker.


   * It may be worthwhile, in the context of the concerns of this blog as well as the concerns of nondual spirituality, to take a closer look at our presuppositions about knowledge - what is its nature, how is it generated or realized? What is involved in map-based, instrumental or technological knowledge?


   * IMP and the AQAL enactive paradigm take wholeness for granted, but this wholeness is an "active absence": while dynamic multiplicity may "testify" to this wholeness, as the Bonpos say, it will never show up or present itself as an object for our inspection. This means that the contents of Integral Theory or the AQAL model should not be mistaken as the whole; rather, to shamelessly and cannibalistically appropriate one of Grof's terms, they encourage a holotropic orientation - an orientation which recognizes the "movement towards wholeness" as valuable but which does not presume to represent it as a single, given totality, since no such totality has ever been set up or established.


   * This move encourages us to value alterity in and with the movement towards wholeness, since, as Henri Bortoft points out, the whole is found, not in opposition to or through the addition of parts, but ever uniquely in and through them.


   * The frequently heard claim that Integral or AQAL is "without content" or a neutral operating system strikes me as problematic. I do not think this is a defensible position. Such claims can (and sometimes, in my experience, do) contribute to a tendency to treat the AQAL model as somehow given or inevitable, and this in my view can feed into the use of ideologically driven inclusivist strategies, particularly in forums such as this one.


   * Because Integral communities, to date, tend to be rather insulated - and Integral Naked discussions tend to move in relatively narrow, self-congratulatory circles - I think the maturity of the community will be served by increased efforts to interact with others outside of this movement. More encounters with intractable, inassimilable equals will be good medicine.


   * While Integral has charted a powerful and compelling course beyond pluralism, I believe it is naïve to imagine that the way forward for humanity has a single horizon. The potential for multiple integral horizons, in fact, is implied by the current Integral Postmetaphysical paradigm, but in my dealings with the Integral community I have not found this to be seriously considered.


There are likely other suggestions and comments I will want to add, and some I may want to remove, so I am giving fair warning now that the list above may change!

[JimmyAberg]

...

utrdrag från en annan diskussion i samma ämne:

I wrote:  While Integral has charted a powerful and compelling course beyond pluralism, I believe it is naïve to imagine that the way forward for humanity has a single horizon. The potential for multiple integral horizons, in fact, is implied by the current Integral Postmetaphysical paradigm, but in my dealings with the Integral community I have not found this to be seriously considered.

You responded:  Your concern is that we have found the truth and are now satisfied with it? We are ignoring other integral horizons? Let me ask: where do we find 5 other horizons that bring together the Kosmos in a credible and useful way?

Where are these other horizons that account for and make sense of all of the things Integral does? Where do we start?

I do not think there are many out there, though a few attempts have been made.  In Europe, there is Transdisciplinarity, for example.  I have talked about the TSK vision in relation to Integral here.  Almaas has fashioned a fairly comprehensive, integrative vision of the Kosmos.  And Aurobindo's Integral Yoga represents another integrative vision.  But even if we decide that Wilber's Integral is currently the best – and I certainly think it is one of the best; I'm here, after all, rather than on an Aurobindo forum – I still feel it is important to recognize that the Integral altitude can accommodate multiple visions of the Kosmos.  It may not yet, given its relatively recent emergence; but like other altitudes, it very likely will, in time.

You wrote:  May I add another concern - should we be concerned at all by the notion that we know the way forward for humanity? Or is there a place for positing that we do know the way forward for humanity?

While it is certainly a challenging issue, I think there is a place for positing a way forward for humanity.  I tried to suggest that in my original post, when I wrote the following:  “With pluralism, while we acknowledge that we cannot avoid imposing our own perspective-dependent presuppositions on others, we may nevertheless recognize the creative potential that such a gesture makes available, as we consciously “hold space” for alterity, for the integrity and sanctity of otherness, and therefore we may elect to value the stance of pluralism as the best of the limited options available to us (e.g., exclusivism or inclusivism).  With the Integral perspective, I believe a similar opportunity is available, but one which corrects - or has the potential to correct - for the pendulum swing of pluralism towards the extreme of otherness (which has sometimes unwittingly contributed to even further social fragmentation and segregation) and invites a more balanced recognition and honoring of sameness and difference, sameness-in-difference, and (with its emphasis on types, levels, and so on), difference-in-sameness.”