![Integral [+] Facticity](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!yhcJ!,w_80,h_80,c_fill,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep,g_auto/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Ff8458843-3278-4fcc-accc-17ad21352205_1280x1280.png)
The Return of God & Future of Integral Humanism
A short tribute to Fred Dallymar’s work on Integral Pluralism
Introduction
The passing of Dallmayr invites us to reflect deeply on his essential, enduring contributions to political philosophy. When Jacques Maritain first articulated his vision of integral humanism, he laid a vital foundation for human dignity rooted powerfully in theology. However, Maritain’s framework is structurally limited in addressing the deep pluralism and systemic challenges of the 21st century. This essay is written as a tribute to Dallmayr, arguing that his concept of integral pluralism is the precise, structural upgrade needed to complete Maritain’s original project. The time has come to build a truly universal integral humanism, grounded in integral facticity—a non-reductive, four-dimensional lens derived from Ken Wilber’s Integral Theory. This renewed humanism offers a non-political, comprehensive map for development. It achieves deep structural congruence with Catholic Social Teaching (CST) while delivering the systemic critique necessary to transcend the limitations of fragmentation, inequality, and narrow cultural conservatism.
The Evolution of Integral Humanism
My initial exploration of integral humanism began with a deep appreciation for Jacques Maritain’s original framework, which correctly emphasizes the dignity of the person and the concept of integral human development. However, the framework’s deep roots in Christian theology and its emphasis on the Church’s guidance in temporal affairs proved inadequate for an increasingly pluralistic and secular world. To achieve the necessary universality, this new integral humanism retains Maritain’s foundational commitment to the human person’s telos (ultimate end) but structurally re-contextualizes the theocentric emphasis within a comprehensive, systemic one built on integral facticity. This renewal is specifically powered by two key integrations:
Ken Wilber’s Integral Theory (AQAL): The All Quadrants, All Levels (AQAL) model provides the necessary systemic structure that defines integral facticity. By acknowledging development across the four dimensions—the interior individual (subjective), the exterior individual (objective), the interior collective (cultural), and the exterior collective (social)—(AQAL) ensures a non-reductive, comprehensive understanding of the person.
Fred Dallmayr’s integral pluralism: Dallmayr’s work provides the philosophical depth needed to integrate various religious and philosophical traditions without syncretism. His approach is not one of mere toleration, which allows difference without engagement, nor is it relativistic, which reduces all traditions to equal, subjective validity. Rather, Dallmayr championed a hermeneutical encounter with the “other,” demanding a rigorous and critical dialogue where one genuinely attempts to understand the truth claims of different traditions. This structural commitment to integral pluralism ensures that the lower-left (cultural) quadrant of integral facticity is not confined to a single theological source, as in Maritain’s original vision, but is structurally open to integrating the ethical and philosophical wisdom of all major human traditions, providing the non-reductive cultural breadth required for universality.
Catholic Integralism vs. Integral Human Development
Integral facticity is the foundational principle requiring the comprehensive engagement with the four interdependent dimensions of human existence (AQAL). Crucially, this is a universal argument centered entirely on development—the dynamic process of growth guided by these facts—rather than a static, political argument concerned with regime and temporal authority, a distinction that sharply separates it from Catholic Integralism.
While I appreciate Vallier’s rigorous critique of the traditional and hierarchical relationship between Church and state, as detailed in his book All the Kingdoms of the World, his focus on political structures (the lower-right quadrant) risks distracting from the more fundamental work of universal human and cultural development (the upper-left and lower-left quadrants) that integral facticity necessitates.
This distinction is clarified by Ken Wilber’s differentiation of growth hierarchies versus dominator hierarchies. While political integralism collapses all structures into the rigid, coercive dominator hierarchies for a political end, my integral humanism adopts a dynamic, complex posture. My framework differentiates these two forms of hierarchies and integrates them: it cultivates the necessary growth hierarchies (development, inclusivity, and competence) across the four dimensions, while simultaneously maintaining a critical distance to challenge dominator hierarchies (control and exclusion) when they obstruct human flourishing. This active, transformative capacity to manage functional structures without succumbing to oppression is the definitive achievement of my framework, ensuring it remains anti-reductionistic.
A Systemic Critique of Postmodern Conservatism
In the realm of contemporary thought, Jordan Peterson has emerged as a significant figure with his advocacy for traditional values and his widely publicized critique of what he terms the “Regressive Identitarian Left” or “Postmodern Neo-Marxism.” His work, which emphasizes individual responsibility and the value of Western narratives (lower-left/cultural), attempts to diagnose and counter the political and cultural currents he sees dissolving social cohesion.
However, critics like Michael Brooks and Matthew McManus correctly argue that Peterson’s nearly exclusive focus on the individual and specific cultural narratives overlooks broad socio-economic and systemic problems. Peterson’s critique, being primarily aimed at political activism and identity politics, often fails to address the structural factors (lower-right quadrant) that contribute to inequality and social issues.
Crucially, when measured against the standard of integral facticity, Peterson’s framework shares a fundamental flaw with the political extremes he critiques: an inability to structurally differentiate between growth hierarchies and dominator hierarchies. By fixating solely on cultural myths and the dangers of ideology (lower-left), Peterson fails to recognize that complexity requires integrating both forms of hierarchies.
When analyzed through the lens of integral facticity, Peterson’s framework is significantly limited by this failure of differentiation and its unbalanced focus. While he engages with subjective experience (upper-left), even incorporating structural elements like the developmental stages of Piaget, his final analysis becomes overly fixated on a mythological and cultural interpretation of Christianity. This emphasis, centered overwhelmingly in the lower-left quadrant, comes at the expense of a full, integral view.
Furthermore, this cultural fixation demonstrates a failure to meet the standard of Dallmayr’s integral pluralism. Peterson focuses on a specific, often exclusionary, set of Western narratives, thereby failing the crucial pluralism test that Dallmayr demands for genuine universality. By prioritizing one cultural history, his framework is structurally prevented from accessing the ethical and philosophical resources of the global cultural sphere, ultimately contradicting the universal project of integral humanism. Specifically, he largely neglects the lower-right (social systems and economics), thus preventing him from providing a comprehensive analysis of contemporary issues rooted in the structure of the economic order.
Matthew Shadle’s Interrupting Capitalism: Catholic Social Thought and the Economy directly addresses this omission. He emphasizes the necessity of structural critique, arguing that a truly integral approach to human development must consider the interconnectedness of all social, economic, and cultural factors. His perspective, aligned with the lower-right quadrant of integral facticity, provides the crucial systemic critique that completes the framework and addresses the limitations of Peterson’s culturally fixated approach.
Realizing the Vision of Caritas in Veritate
Despite not being explicitly Christocentric, integral facticity serves as the operational framework for the integral human development called for in Pope Benedict XVI’s Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth). This structural congruence ensures that the framework’s emphasis on inclusivity and pluralism structurally fulfills the requirements of CST’s core principles: human dignity, solidarity, and the common good.
Caritas in Veritate insists that development must be comprehensive, considering all dimensions of life—social, economic, spiritual, and cultural. Integral facticity delivers this precise four-dimensional map, ensuring that the pursuit of charity in truth is exhaustive and non-reductive.
To clarify this structural fit, integral facticity maps precisely onto the principles of CST:
Human Dignity: This principle is simultaneously honored in the upper-left (individual interiority, consciousness, and freedom of conscience) and the upper-right (individual objective health, material conditions, and physical flourishing). Recognizing the “facticity” of these two individual dimensions ensures dignity is treated as both an inherent worth and a material reality requiring safeguards.
Solidarity: This is addressed by the collective dimensions, integrating the lower-left (cultural values, dialogue, and ethical norms)—now globally informed by Dallmayr’s pluralism—and the lower-right (social and economic systems, addressing structural injustice). True solidarity, therefore, requires reform in both cultural consciousness and the global economic architecture.
The Common Good: This is the emergent property achieved through the optimal functioning and comprehensive flourishing of all four quadrants simultaneously—a complete, non-reductive approach to human development as mandated by Caritas in Veritate.
Furthermore, the core theme of Caritas in Veritate—applying charity in truth—requires a commitment to non-reductionism. This means that reform cannot be limited to individual virtue (upper-left). It must extend to restructuring the economic system (lower-right) and informing that system with a culture of solidarity (lower-left). By recognizing the “facticity” of all four dimensions and their reciprocal impact, my integral humanism ensures that the integration of truth and charity is applied universally and systemically.
Conclusion
The integration of contemporary theories—specifically Ken Wilber’s Integral Theory and Dallmayr’s integral pluralism—into a renewed framework yields a powerful and necessary update to integral humanism. This integral humanism, built on integral facticity, offers a non-political, universal, and systemic understanding of human development that honors tradition (Maritain/CST) while actively addressing the structural complexities of the modern world (Shadle/McManus) and transcending the limitations of narrow cultural conservatism (Peterson). Through its emphasis on inclusivity, hermeneutic pluralism, and interconnectedness, this approach provides a comprehensive, adaptive framework for promoting human dignity, solidarity, and the common good. It is through the enduring framework established by thinkers like Dallmayr that the universal project of integral humanism can truly be realized and continued.