Typology: Foundation for an Integral Practice

(warning: a use some Wiber-speak in this post (find a glossary here). My hope is that they help to point to something useful and meaningful in your life, not to babble on about the model itself.)

Ken Wilber includes typology in his integral framework but also says that it's the least essential out of all of the components (quandrants, levels, lines, states, and types). In other words he gives more attention to the other four (mostly the first three, in my opinion). What we are talking about here is a matter of degree.  I think the lack of emphasis on typology as being essential and necessary is in part due to the fact that no one system of typology is considered complete or "right". Also, within the integral community, a LOT of energy is given to vertical development through lines and levels, typology taking a backseat in importance. The more that I have contemplated typology and come across different systems of typology, the more I believe that they are essential to any practice we might take up. Not only that but it might be the case that typology is a better place to start in an integral practice for most folks than is level development.

First the problem with partial systems: Each typology takes a certain angle on who we are and how we engage our world, outer and inner. It then offers up a variety of generalized preferences based on that angle(s) noting that we will naturally have a certain preference or a combination of this given set of preferences. Also, it will generally be the case that all preferences within a system are considered to be a part of who we are, available to us, even if we only gravitate towards some. The problem people find (in order to consider typology essential) is that they recognize the partiality of any typology system, even if they find a particular system useful. But I think that this view is unfortunate because we miss out an amazing opportunity to know ourselves, to bring more awarenes to who we are.

Now, a person may take a typology test, say the MBTI or the Enneagram, and not feel any connection with it. That's ok! But there are TONS of typologies and even if one doesn't completely "do it" for you, you might find some benefit out of it. Actually, my recommendation is to explore several typologies and you decide what is useful from all of them. I don't see typologies as rigid descriptions but rather attempts to reflect back to us who might be. Potentially valuable approximations. Not one-size-fits-all boxes, but infinite mirrors to help us look within our relative being. You see, a mirror might not seem all that important, but if you never looked into one, you would have no idea what your physical body looked like. And if you did it only once every twenty years, you would find that your body had changed a great deal. I think typology can be used in the same way, but for all the infinite aspects of our lives. It's not a practice, per se, just in the same way that you need not look at yourself in the mirror every day to know what you look like; but you might find it helpful to do so every once in a while.

So, how does typology form a foundation for integral practice and why is it a good place to begin prior to "movin' through lines"? I think typologies help us to discover what we're about in life, what we gravitate towards, our tendencies, and what we are likely to give attention to and what we probably ignore. You gain a strong appreciation of who you are without worrying about "where" you are on a specific line. You connect with you first, instead of jamming yourself into some system of development, no matter how good it is, whether that be a spiritual tradition, an exercise program, or starting an integral practice. I am not saying that utilizing typologies will necessarily do all that, but it's worth a shot. Lastly, I think in appreciating who we are, regardless of development, gives us energy to pursue development itself. We recognize our strengths and are partialness, and from that a desire to pursue growth might emerge.

One quick note: I understand that discovering "who we are" includes finding out where we are developmentally, but that is only part of the infinite picture. Typology specifically refers to those aspects of ourselves that are not development. Different systems offer their own particular aspects that they think are important.

If anyone is interested, I could form a list of various typologies (not just psychological ones).