Spiral Dynamics
Description
Jesus Martin:
"Clare W. Graves (1914-1986) developed a comprehensive model of adult biopsychosocial system development, the “Emergent Cyclical Levels of Existence Theory” that summarized: “Briefly, what I am proposing is that the psychology of the mature human being is an unfolding, emergent, oscillating spiraling process marked by progressive subordination of older, lower-order behavior systems to newer, higher-order systems as man’s existential problems change.” (Beck and Cowan, p.28)
Graves did not write any books, except some papers and brief manuscripts. Consequently, Beck and Cowan (1996), who worked with him, were the people whodivulged the model with its present name and who continued his researches after Graves’ death. Beck and Cowan (1996) consider this theory as one of the three major advances in management approaches of the complexity in 20th century. The other two are the “Dynamic systems” Theory and “Chaos” Theory.
Beck and Cowan (1996, p.29) briefly indicate four of the basic conceptual features in Graves’ model.
1) “Human nature is not static, nor is it finite. Human nature changes as the conditions of existence change, thus forging new systems. Yet, the older systems stay with us.”
2) “When a new system or level is activated, we change our psychology and rules for living to adapt to those new conditions.”
3) “We live in a potentially open system of values with an infinite number of modes of living available to us. There is no final state to which we must all aspire.
4) “An individual, a company, or an entire society can respond positively only to those managerial principles, motivational appeals, educational formulas, and legal or ethical codes that are appropriate to the current level of human existence.”
Dawkins (1976) formulated in his thesis that, as is the same as in biology the information is transmitted through the genes, culturally – ideas, habits, beliefs, skills, behaviours etc. – are transmitted through what he called “memes”, these being the cultural unit. Graves suggested that there should be a kind of meta-meme, a system of values that he called VMemes. These VMemes are organizational principles that act as attractors of Dawkins’ memes. Therefore, on the one hand there are the memes aside as that are directly or indirectly visible and on the other hand the VMemes which are always present but they operate invisibly and sometimes automatically.
So far, eight levels of VMemes have been described, which Graves appointed by 2letters, first indicating “Life conditions” (starting letter A) and second indicates “ Mind capacities” (starting letter N). The metaphor used is a double helix with the two previous factors interacting. Systems emerge or decay when “life conditions” (historical time, geographical place, existential problems and circumstances in society) change. These life conditions change when, either new mind capacities emerge, adapting new visions, beliefs, thoughts, etc., or there is a fall to oldest levels trying to solve the alteration of those circumstances in life. However, Beck and Cowan (1996) assigned a color code for educational facilities and it would be the manner shown in this work.
The eight colours with VMemes or corresponding levels of existence and development are in order:
- Beige: Survival,
- Purple: Safety,
- Red: Power, Blue: Order,
- Orange: Success,
- Green: Community,
- Yellow: Synergy and
- Turquoise: Holism "
History
The Origins of the System
Albion Butters:
"In 1952, Clare W. Graves (1914–1986) began work on something he called the ‘Theory of Levels of Human Existence’. Its goal was to explain why people’s reactions and motivations are so varied. Fourteen years later, he published his first version of a seven-level thinking model. With the continued collection of data over the next decade, there were significant changes in this model. By 1973, Graves was conducting mind–brain research in terms of mental development shaped by neurological structures and networks, chemical agents and external phenomena.
In many ways, Graves’ real contribution was his focus on the collection of data and its application; his system was not merely theoretical, but based on over thirty years of close observation of subjects. The data collection methods that Graves used might be viewed as quite controversial by today’s standards. For instance, he used his students as test subjects, but without telling them that he was doing so, and he spied on them through two-way mirrors and taperecorded them without their knowledge (Rice 2014). Ethical considerations notwithstanding, Graves (1974) finally published an eight-level system that consisted of two tiers; six levels in the first tier (subsistence) and two in the second (being):
- Automatic (A-N): motivated by survival and physical imperatives;
- Tribalistic (B-O): seeking social stability, use of totems and taboos;
- Egocentric (C-P): individualism and the use of force to acquire objects of desire;
- Saintly (D-Q): recognition of the value of rules, marked by focus on religion;
- Materialistic (E-R): authoritarianism, dogma is trumped by pragmatism;
- Personalistic (F-S): concern with belonging, concern for others;
- Cognitive Existence (G-T): on threshold of true humanity;
- Experientialist Existence (H-U): beyond animal needs, drive to make life stable.
To identify these levels, Graves used a lettering system with two helices—Helix 1 identifying ‘life conditions’ and Helix 2 denoting ‘awakened capacities in the mind’—respectively represented by the ranges A-H and N-U. These form the basis of the eight-level system of Spiral Dynamics. More than forty years later, this letter system continues to be used, with people reporting that it helps keep in perspective the relationship between people and the culture in which they are embedded.
Just as Graves’ work fundamentally informed what would later be known as Spiral Dynamics, he himself was influenced by others in the field of transpersonal psychology. In particular, one can find parallels between his system and Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, which uses a five-level pyramidal structure to map the evolution of people’s needs: physiological ones, safety, love and belonging, esteem and, finally, self-actualization (later replaced by ‘transcendence’). In Maslow’s system, people are continually evolving, moving from one level to the next. Graves and Maslow’s relationship was not so simple, however. In true academic fashion, they strongly debated the merits of Graves’ system; Maslow reportedly argued for eight years before adopting it himself. The bone of contention—the nature of the ‘ultimate state’ of being—was actually very significant in terms of the future form of Spiral Dynamics. Maslow was deeply committed to the idea of humans developing in an ‘open’ way with no limitations. In his words, it was a matter of ‘non-interfering receptive perception versus active controlling perception, enlarging consciousness, the ineffable experience’ (Maslow 1962, cited in Graves 1970: 155).
What did ‘open’ mean in practice? Observations of people who had made it to the highest level in Maslow’s system (self-actualization) suggested that that state may not be the pinnacle of development after all. In other words, further attainments and yet higher modes of functioning remained. For this reason, it was important to be able to introduce new categories (Graves 1971). Graves integrated this approach in his system, not only formulating the eighth level of H-U (called Turquoise in Spiral Dynamics) as a further expansion of consciousness and reflecting the ability of humans to attain new coping mechanisms by means of new thinking systems, but also proposing the potential existence of even another level (I-V, or Coral) that represents a third tier of development. This last level was purely theoretical when Graves’ students Don Beck and Chris Cowan wrote the first seminal book on Spiral Dynamics in 1996, and that ‘mystery meme’ still remains mysterious today. Purportedly, very few people appear to be demonstrating the attainment of such an evolutionary state, making it difficult to describe even what characteristics it may possess. An important point, however, had been made: the system needed to be open—like a spiral."
(http://www.integralworld.net/butters1.html)
Evolving Schools of Interpretation
Albion Butters:
"As already seen above, Spiral Dynamics would end up taking different forms. Generally speaking, one can speak of three dominant interpretations, all of which continue to be propagated today, based on the teachings of the two followers of Graves and Wilber.
Although the work of Clare Graves was also picked up by others (e.g. Hughes and Flowers 1978, Lynch and Kordis 1989), it was developed and promoted the most by a pair of social scientists: Don E. Beck and his graduate student, Christopher Cowan. They first met Graves in 1975, and their co-operation continued until his death in 1986. Beck and Cowan worked on the theory for another decade before publishing Spiral Dynamics: Mastering Values, Leadership and Change (1996). It was during this twenty-year period that they developed the colour scheme and shifted to vMEME terminology, and although their mentor was not with them the entire time, they had his blessing to make such changes. As Beck notes, ‘While Graves supplied the original blueprint, he cautioned me on numerous occasions to continue the research, to branch out far beyond what he could imagine, and pursue “the never-ending quest” ’ (see Beck’s website, Spiral Dynamics Integral).
For Beck and Cowan, the research quest meant applying the theory on the ground. Between 1981 and 1988, Beck made more than sixty trips to South Africa. He and Cowan are credited with helping Nelson Mandela to change the consciousness of South Africa—bringing about a peaceful end to apartheid—when much of the nation’s population was bent on revenge against its former oppressors. As seen in the movie Invictus (2009), Mandela devised the strategy of using a rugby game to transcend racial and class identification and unify the country. In actuality, this was Spiral Dynamics being used, not to alter peoples’ value systems, but to highlight and bring into focus a value system that was already there.
In 1999, Beck and Cowan ended their professional relationship. The bitterly contested issue between them was apparently Cowan’s decision to register and trademark the Spiral Dynamics name, while Beck wanted to keep it open for academic use. A further point of conflict was Chris Cowan’s decision to join forces with Natasha Todorovic (formerly a stock market trader, with a degree in business administration) to create NVC Consulting, which made further collaboration difficult.[8] Cowan’s new partnership led to an edited book of Graves’ papers, a welcome contribution given the vast body of material that Graves produced but never published (Cowan and Todorovic 2005), and until July 2015, Cowan and Todorovic offered training in Spiral Dynamics® at their Santa Barbara headquarters and around the world.[9] As a result of this work and further study of Graves’ writings, Cowan found ‘glaring errors in previous renditions of [the book] Spiral Dynamics which we are trying to address’ (Spiral Dynamics 2001–12d). After his recent death, however, the current status of this project remains in question. Yet it is important to note that from Cowan’s perspective, there is not ultimately such a divide between Graves’ theories and Spiral Dynamics; some of the terminology may have changed, but the core remains the same. By thus positioning himself in relation to the Graves’ canon, Cowan was able to level a critique against heterodox interpretations.
Treating the system more diachronically, Don Beck divides the development of Spiral Dynamics into three phases: 1) Graves technology (1975–95); 2) Spiral Dynamics proper (1996–2001), including a relatively brief period after his split with Cowan; and 3) Spiral Dynamics integral, or SDi (2002–).[10] In creating this new iteration, he cited the influence of Ichak Adizes and John Peterson. Most importantly, he was drawn to the work of Ken Wilber, whose A Theory of Everything (2000) presented an eightlevel system with four quadrants (4Q/8L).
In a statement announcing their partnership, Beck showed clear appreciation of what Wilber’s integrative work could bring to Spiral Dynamics. In particular, he cited the ability of the All Quadrants/ All Levels/All Lines (AQAL) model to ‘further extend the functionality of Spiral Dynamics on personal, organizational, and societal levels’. The two systems share a quantitative systems thinking approach with an emphasis on openness and evolution, and in this sense they were ideally suited to complement one another. Beck was also appreciative of the way in which ‘this relationship with Ken and his vast following has created a quantum leap of interest in Clare W. Graves and Spiral Dynamics and, more than any other influence, has projected this conceptual system onto the global screen’ (Integral World nd). Such exposure had financial benefits, to be sure, but connecting with Wilber’s wider network also meant potential synergy with other thinkers and meetings with global power brokers: the White House, leaders in Congress, and 10 Downing Street.
It did not take long for tensions to arise, however. The first signs of disagreement between Beck and Wilber already appeared in 2002. As Beck stated in 2008, ‘While I did some work with Wilber, that all began to wane six years ago because of his constant distortion of the Spiral Dynamics/Gravesian model’.
A further example of the differing worldviews of Beck and Wilber is found in the former’s interest in continued scientific research of Graves’ theory, including fMRI studies.[11] Beck notes that this was a clear point of divergence between him and Wilber: ‘My friend Ken wouldn’t even talk to me about it because he had such adversity to anything that is not spirit based’ (Beck 2008).
The two were now on clearly separate paths: Beck founded the Center for Human Emergence in 2004 and Wilber established the Integral Spiritual Center in 2005.[12] They both continued to teach Spiral Dynamics in relation to Integral Theory, but in different ways. Wilber’s Integral Spirituality (2006) simultaneously redefined and marginalized Spiral Dynamics while also outlining its limitations for spiritual application." (http://www.integralworld.net/butters1.html)
Discussion
CRITIQUES OF SPIRAL DYNAMICS
Albion Butters:
"Criticism has been directed at Spiral Dynamics on a number of levels. Some criticisms are largely academic, but much more serious allegations have been brought as well. Is it a cult? A money-making scheme? A hierarchical system designed to control the masses?
One charge brought against Spiral Dynamics is that its language lends itself to people not being aware of the context in which it arose and operates, at least not in a way that influences are explicitly represented on its map. Are other meanings implicit in the mapping? More specifically, does Spiral Dynamics support outdated colonialist attitudes, such as associating the primitive Beige level with the savannah (i.e. Africa)? Beck’s past work in South Africa provides a potentially rich case study to examine these questions. His current work on increased racial polarization in the United States, however, can be seen as a reflection of his deep concern for issues of race and power. Ultimately, he argues, ‘Race is not about race—it’s about value systems.’[16]
In terms of those value systems, it is impossible to deny that Spiral Dynamics uses a hierarchical model, yet it is critical to stress here that Spiral Dynamics is not just about ascending the ‘ladder’. Each level has a shadow aspect—or what Wilber calls a ‘mean’ side – of unhealthy manifestations, and each level has its own set of challenges to be worked through. Spiral Dynamics attempts to tackle the issue of hierarchization by locating it as a human tendency, both overall and arising within the system itself. For example, one of the dangers explained by teachers of Spiral Dynamics is the tendency of people to climb to the Green level and then think that they are above or ‘beyond’ others. A related problem at this level is reductionism that seeks to deny hierarchies! When power structures and educational systems are viewed through the lens of Spiral Dynamics, different types of discourse are highlighted in terms of their respective values. The keywords associated with Green – pluralism, multiculturalism, etc.—are used by a number of academic disciplines (e.g. cultural studies) to lump things together. Wilber problematizes this as the ‘Mean Green Meme’ of the cultural elite (Wilber 2003, 2006a), but he is careful to stress that there are also healthy aspects of Green (e.g. the civil rights movement, feminism, environmentalism). In short, there are two aspects to every level, healthy and unhealthy, and a method of hermeneutical selfreflexivity is used in order to identify where the latter may be expressed in the system itself. [[ From the point of view of comparative philosophy, the epistemology of the system may be called into question. As Bonnitta Roy notes, Spiral Dynamics and Wilber’s structural view (e.g. AQAL framework) use Western modalities of thought that can ignore process-oriented understandings of reality.[17] In brief, the danger involves trying to impose rigid categories and language on a dynamic state of affairs.
Beck responds to Roy by inviting her to examine how Spiral Dynamics works in practice (for example, in Palestine) (Beams and Struts 2011). Whether or not this criticism is valid deserves further discussion (especially considering Graves’ express intent for the system to be open and the emphasis of his successors on its ‘dynamic’ nature), but it requires an understanding of Roy’s process model as informed by Herbert Guenther’s writings on the Tibetan Buddhist tradition of Dzogchen (rdzogs chen). Such a discussion will have to wait.
The writings of the researcher Michel Bauwens include some of the most scathing criticisms of Spiral Dynamics to date, despite the fact that they are almost a decade old. Bauwens begins by declaring that Spiral Dynamics is being used as a cloak for ‘neoconservative interpretations of reality’, quoting Beck as having praised George W. Bush as a ‘great leader’ (Bauwens 2005). In fact, the involvement of Wilber and Beck with politicians extended to Bill Clinton and Al Gore as well as Bush (and his brother Jeb) (see Wilber 2000: 83).[18] Furthermore, in Spiral Dynamics, conservative ideology is identified with Blue values and liberalism with higher values; on this basis alone, it is difficult to believe that Beck or Wilber would be championing the former.
Yet Wilber has expressed dismay with liberalism, finding it internally flawed and self-contradictory for its denial of the stages which led to it. For this reason, he has seen American politics to be ‘a sick version of a higher level versus a healthy version of a lower level’ (Wilber 2000: 88). It is important to note, however, that he is not satisfied with that state. Ideally there would be a healthy version of the higher level.
But Bauwens continues:
- "More generally, SD operates as a business, aggressively defends its sole use of terminology … ; and is marketed to business and political leaders as a means of social manipulation. Now imagine the world vision of someone using SD in that fashion: he moves through the world as a superior being, seeing poor sobs [sic] around him, in need of enlightenment, knowing that only a tiny few have the potential to become like him. Just like Ken Wilber, who has decided a priori that the Hindu-Buddhist Advaitic non-self doctrine is the final word in spiritual evolution, this making interreligious dialogue in fact impossible, quite a few Beck supporters hold similar but more secular views about the a priori superiority of their form of being in the world. Unbelievably (at least to me), I have even encountered SD-influenced people, who maintain that the poor people in the Third World ‘have a right to experience hunger and poverty’, as it corresponds to their developmental level!" (Bauwens 2005)
To take these points one by one, it is certainly true that Spiral Dynamics does have a business model. People engage in training sessions, they are certified, and they pay for this. This is true for both Spiral Dynamics® and SDi, as well as enrolment in Wilber’s Integral programme. It may be noted, of course, that many types of specialized training involve financial investment and trust.[19]
The ‘superior being’ critique again raises the issue of hierarchization. After all, it is perhaps impossible for values not to be attached to a system. Recognition that large segments of the world’s population are still at relatively rudimentary levels of evolution—to put it in terms of Spiral Dynamics, moving from Purple, Red or Blue into Orange—is described as being necessary in order to help facilitate that evolution. From the perspective of psychology, working with people where they are at does not automatically entail an attitude of superiority. The goal of Spiral Dynamics is, in Wilber’s words, to ‘transcend and include’. The fact that lower vMEMEs do not understand and may be in conflict with higher vMEMEs does not mean that the higher ones are antagonistic towards the lower ones. And while it is always possible that a Spiral Wizard dictator could try to use Spiral Dynamics to rule the world, Graves’ initial work suggests that those who have evolved to have tier-two (Yellow and Turquoise) values have only increased compassion and concern for those in the first tier.[20]
Furthermore, one reads again and again that the gradation of the spiral is only part of the process. Cowan clarifies that ‘this is not a hierarchy of wisdom or decency or even intelligences, much less happiness and worth’ (Spiral Dynamics 2001–12a). When goals are provided for the different eight vMEMEs, they are horizontal within each level; rather than asking people to evolve out of where they are located, practical solutions involve growth in that very level.[21] For example, those with a predominantly Purple vMEME should aspire to protect tribal ways and rituals, honour traditional festivals and ceremonies, preserve the sacred places, protect the bloodline and propitiate the spirits of the ancestors by preserving the ways of the folk (Beck and Linscott 1991: 14). When Beck uses such language as ‘cleaning up the spiral’, not even remotely does it mean a cleansing of people at different levels of development (akin to racial cleansing) or even dispensing with those levels. Rather, it refers to applying focus to them and shifting their expression from negative to positive aspects in order to promote movement and evolution. A concrete example can be seen in terms of demagoguery (Red or Red/Blue), which prevents people from moving to new levels, versus Red’s concern with freedom and being able to explore. How is the impasse of the negative expression to be broken? Beck explains that it is the task of Yellow—being integrative—to help facilitate the shift.
It is important to clarify, however, that the task belongs to the Yellow vMEME rather than ‘Yellow’ individuals (Beck 2011). Just as Buddhism paradoxically seeks to effect awakening through the recognition of non-self, Spiral Dynamics puts emphasis on human nature rather than a reified identity. Examples used to describe the different levels sometimes do combine personification (both archetypal and actual) with strong language—Beck (2011) identifies Qaddafi with Red/Blue, for instance, but correlates of the system’s relationality with individuals in the world can be argued to be a helpful device. At the end of the day, real people provide the data that informs the system!" (http://www.integralworld.net/butters1.html)
More Information
- Bauwens, Michel, 2005. ‘A critique of Wilber and Beck’s SD-Integral’, P/I: Pluralities/Integration, no. 61, http://www.kheper.net/topics/Wilber/SDi_critique.html (accessed 2.10.2015)