{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01866251944012442, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004665629860031105, 'mean_word_length': 5.924731182795699, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Debate Integral Theory

Abstract This essay is a response to the recent exchange between Paul Marshall and Timothy Rutzou on critical realism and integral theory in Journal of Critical Realism 11(2), in which integral theory was designated by Rutzou ‘a poisoned chalice’ for critical realism. It argues that, while integral theory could benefit greatly from the adoption of critical realist ontology, metacritique and the structural analysis of politics, critical realism could benefit even more from the scientific syntheses achieved by integral theory, especially developmental psychology, cultural anthropology and transpersonal psychology.