Resistance is not futile: Escaping the integral trap Marcus Bussey University of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia There is a paradox lying at the heart of integral futures (IF). This paradox is built into the word integral which, as Voros points out, is rooted in a meaning base which includes: ‘‘whole, complete; essential; balanced; joined into a greater unity’’ 1 ([1], p. 197). It is this word ‘unity’ that troubles me and explains why, although as Gidley and Hampson [2] point out there are multiple ‘integrals’ in circulation, I generally avoid both the noun and the adjective in my work. For me the noun [integral] forecloses on alternatives: ‘This is whole; complete!’, one might also add kaput! The adjective has similar connotations, carrying implicit within it a sense of singularity, unit as whole, linearity (the terminus of an evolutionary cycle), centre-periphery (the whole heart – the incomplete inchoate periphery), distance (the integral gaze is not unlike the panopticon), and monotheism (you are either integral or incomplete). Furthermore, the word seduces, drawing its proponents into an integral end game that can, for the rigid convert, lead to a kind of integral fundamentalism underwritten by a sense that there cannot be many (alternatives) when there is only one way. It achieves this through a universal gaze that assesses all else as less than, incomplete, partial and unfinished. This epistemic absolutism (nothing exists outside of it) is driven by its power of definition which colonizes past and future inner/outer space. I say this with all due respect to my friends and colleagues enamoured of the integral. The word should come with a large red sticker clearly visible: Buyer Beware! To return to the paradox mentioned above. IF is certainly well intentioned. Integral futurists wish to promote the well being of the field and to augment, in the most charitable of senses, the work of all futurists. As Richard Slaughter, recently noted: One of the most welcome aspects of IF is that it is not exclusive, not in competition to other approaches. Rather, it complements them, revealing new options, insights and strategies ([3], p. 125). Futures 42 (2010) 110–114 ARTICLE INFO Article history: Available online 30 September 2009 ABSTRACT This article questions the use of the term integral. It argues that although the use is well intentioned it draws its energy from the geophilosophical drive of the Western project. This project is imperialist in nature and bases its power on its ability to define. So although IF claims to be inclusive it actually establishes a self-referential dialogical relationship between itself and its interlocutor that privileges its position. This is clearly counter to the integral rhetoric of its most ardent exponents. It is argued that this imbalance is central to the entire Western philosophic project and is rooted in the geophilosophical gaze. Such a gaze is ultimately about assimilation not mutual discourse and should be set aside for more inclusive and less culturally aligned forms of cultural analysis such as Causal Layered Analysis which accounts for the primacy of context and local knowledge and finds agency in the working of those who constitute the multitude. Such work is process oriented and stands in real contrast to the definitional power (and terror) of the integral gaze. ß 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. E-mail address: MBussey@usc.edu.au. 1 From L. integer ‘‘whole’’, lit. ‘‘intact, untouched’’, from in- ‘‘not’’ + root of tangere ‘‘to touch’’. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Futures journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/futures 0016-3287/$ – see front matter ß 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2009.09.003