|
FAQ > Caveats and concerns
Might Spiral Dynamics, as a view of human cultures,
contribute to the disintegration of indigenous cultures and languages
and therefore of ethnic identity?
We've had some conversations around the question and obviously hope
the implied hypothesis is unfounded. Although Graves proposed that the
psychology of the individual corresponds with the psychology of the
group, SD may well be a better model for understanding people within
cultures than cultures, themselves. It's a complement to anthropology
and sociology, not a replacement. However, it's hard for those
familiar with it to avoid using this frame to look for the predominant
levels of psychological existence (or vMEMEs) present in a culture or
sub-culture, whether social or corporate, because it's useful for that
and reveals dimensions not otherwise discerned. Understanding the
model can position people who are open and willing to recognize the
depth in alternative ways of living and being so as to honor and
respect them, not just to judge them.
Still, there's been a bit of discussion as to how this and similar
models could be used to categorize and, if misused, to rationalize
dilution of indigenous societies in the name of some "greater
good" or even "for their own good" so as to close gaps
(as defined by outsiders) between them and a dominant culture's
imposed mindset. That applies to neighborhoods or foreign policy, and
to any culture with power over another. We'll admit to sensitivity to
this sort of application and the high-handed way people sometimes talk
about upliftment from high-horses with either a presumptive
"Second Tier" view or a capitalist multinational corporatist
perspective - "we won the cold war" so our 'greater good' is
the greatest. Sometimes we even hear echoes of neo-eugenics that are
in no way true to the essence of this model. Fortunately, that's rare.
Yet the risk of arrogant application in second, third, or fourth hands
is present for almost any robust theory - Maslow, Loevinger, Gardner,
Kegan, Piaget, or Einstein - you name it. Troubles arise when the
hands are those of scoundrels or do-gooders, well-meaning but naive,
or self-serving but smooth. With power there is inevitable risk. One
option is to keep knowledge secret among elites, but who watches those
watchers? It's no better. The alternative, of course, is a hands-off
approach. Leave people alone and appreciate them as they are and may,
of their own devices, become. That requires both a fence and an
electromagnetic screen these days since information access and global
transport are changing the world and the cultures on it. Won't happen.
And would it really be a good thing to stand by respectfully and
protectively while a people self-destructs? I think not, but it's a
choice.
So, perhaps the more important question is about Spiral Dynamics in
the hands of whom? With what intent? At what level(s) of existence,
themselves? Functioning in an open or closed state? Accompanied by
what temperament factors? With what knowledge? Open to what sources?
Wise or ignorant? And again, who monitors the monitors? Those who
really understand SD and Dr. Graves' point of view recognize the merit
and necessity of all the levels - the spiral is an interconnected
whole - but also can accept that the general trend in human nature is
toward more complex levels because we can't help discovery and
expansion of who we are. See http://www.spiraldynamics.org/Graves/CG_quotes.pdf
A good use of this model is to recognize the richness of indigenous
cultures, the ways of their learning, and the power of holding onto
languages that carry far more meaning than their words. Since SD
doesn't speak to types or categories of people but to ways of thinking
about things, then there can be several levels active in a person or
culture at the same time.
We'd propose that SD can be used quite powerfully to justify the
preservation and resurrection of indigenous cultures, the value of
languages (per the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that language and culture
are entwined, especially in non-literate societies), and to honor
ethnic identity as part of a greater, synergistic spiral whole. Losing
cultural variability is equivalent to species loss, and almost as
rapid.
Each of the Spiral's systems (colors) and the mixes in between
represent a worldview; that's central to the point of view. It's an
approach to how values are picked. Thus, there can be a range of
cultural values at each level, but a similarity in how they are
thought about and, to some extent, a pattern to the underlying
assumptions.
As above, the nature of the user is a critical factor. People
operating from different levels will see the work quite differently
and use it in ways that fit the reality they see and project it. We've
used the 'colored filters' metaphor for years - just put those over
your lens and you'll see the variability. Someone with strong FS
(Green) will operationalize SD one way, ER (Orange) quite another, A'N'
(Yellow) something else. If you want to see how Graves compared his
work with some models of development popular in his day, go to http://www.clarewgraves.com/theory_content/compared/CGcomp1.htm
One of the more important things to keep in mind is that this isn't a
model of types, but a biopsychosocial systems approach that focuses on
the interplay of neurology in the mind/brain complex with problems of
existence in the reality at hand. There are dozens of ways to sort
people into categories and sequences to describe. The SD issues focus
more on where those come from, what makes us change, and what's the
direction if movement in these emergent systems there is to be.
Is SD too much of a western convention?
Most of the people who have been active in the development of the
theory over the years have been westerners, or at least curious about
the impacts of the ER-level+ and the consequences (a far more
meaningful differentiation than geography). Sometimes there's a
dominant culture slant in examples, and we're troubled to find
religious and political presuppositions being inserted as if they're
core theory rather than personal opinion built up around the theory.
Alas, when humans describe our try to use an abstract theory, their personalities are
going
to come into it - it's only human. So the character and ethics, as
well as the cultural slant, economic views, and personal politics of the
presenter will inevitably enter into a presentation, or tint an application.
The extent of that intrusion varies with both depth of understanding
of SD and ego involvement with those matters. People will project their own systems through the model, thus turning
it, to some extent, into a reflection of their perspectives. (This is a very useful
thing to observe for analysis of who folks are rather than just what
they say. For example, if you have a good grasp of Gravesian theory,
look at a rendition of Spiral Dynamics and what it promises and
intends to get a clue as to the nature
of the renderer(s); interpretation of SD is a great projective test.) Since it's easy to attribute the character of the
implementer to the theory behind the implementation, a clear
distinction of the two - the tool versus the mechanic - is vitally
important lest the model be painted falsely with traits and attitudes
it cannot possess.
Trying to minimize biases and
recognizing stylistic differences in teaching is
about all anyone can do about it, however. It would be great to have a
total range of life experiences from all around the world on which to
draw; but there just isn't time. So we all must depend on feedback and
contributions from those who have had different experiences and who
are willing to share alternative perspectives constructively to fill
in the narrative. The theory offers a framework; fleshing it out with
examples and illustrations can be tailored in numerous ways. The model
has room for all of them.
SD has been applied fairly broadly in a number of societies ranging
from Africa to South America, Europe and Australia, and even Native
American groups. Feedback from the "east" and
"mid-east" is scant, though the material is being taught
there. That's unfortunate and we suspect many of us would love to have
both research opportunities and involvement with more non-western
societies.
Nonetheless, if there's anything to this model or emergent theories in
general, then it should track as well in an eastern or western context
- effective assessment and adaptation is the issue, not the model. The
nature of human nature ought not shift very much from nation to
nation, ethnicity to ethnicity, race to race, or even gender to
gender. There will certainly be unique vMEME mixes and expressions, as
well as characteristic profiles as manifestations with differing
traits and artifiacts. That's what we differentiate as surface and
hidden values - but the deep values themselves (vMEMEs or ECLET
levels) ought to be relatively consistent across human beings.
What common misconceptions about
the model are especially troublesome? (1) First among
many is the "up the spiral equals closer to godliness"
error. Many people try to conflate the developmental process described
by Graves/SD with spiritual development as described in traditions
like Christianity and Buddhism or even TM. Indeed, some renditions
seem to be following a pattern like the Transcendental Meditation
movements' somewhat bizarre evolution over the years.
SD describes how people come to think
about spirituality, religion, and other things material and
immaterial. That spiritual traditions seem to coincide is logical, but
not a lock. There can be near-infinite expressions within these
levels, and some familiar theological/spiritual approaches will
inevitably appear to fit and fit well. However, they are not the
levels, only coincidental substance within them.
Refinement and elaboration within such traditions need not equate with
movement on the spiral at all. Graves termed this
"horizontal" change in which the basic psychological
assumptions remain essentially unaltered while the content is enhanced
or expanded. It is our view that this can happen in terms of the
spiritual domain, making it quite possible for persons at any level to
achieve "higher" states of awakening and enlightenment,
though they will do so in the way and on the terms of that
particularized stage and in accordance with the life conditions
congruent with it. To claim that greatness can only occur atop the
spiral model displays both ignorance of history and of the
theory.
We'd agree that expanding conceptual space opens lots of
possibilities; thus the potential for understandings with very
different senses ought, logically, to emerge with systems. That's why
it's undeniable that higher levels offer more degrees of freedom to
act appropriately, and a better chance for getting things right in
highly complex situations. But this is
merely possibility and potential, not a guarantee.
People throughout
the levels have spiritual experiences far beyond their apparent capacities
through meditation, breathwork, drugs, chanting, and assorted other
means to achieve enlightenments in context. SD levels do not predict
whether this happens or not, only how it is likely to be
processed. The quest for "the breakthrough" to elevated
consciousness or out of the troublesome conventions of human nature
into something more noble is a perpetual one, likely built into our
brains just as there are tools for dealing with the awareness of
mortality. Dr. Graves and many of his contemporaries were parties to
this exploration, and it has continued in the years since as searchers
explore what human potentials might be.
(2) Here's another blunder: "A company at risk of failure
and trying to survive tough economic times is therefore Beige since
people's livelihoods are on the line. It is struggling to stay
alive." This might be a comfortable metaphor, but it's a bad
application of this model. Beige represents the first level of
humanness, the deepest system of instinctive, automatic,
reflexological being which rests close to our genes and biology. Under
first-level conditions - a Garden of Eden-like environment or with a
deficit of more elaborated coping skills - survival and reproduction
are possible. However, human individuals leave it as they pass from
infancy, just as human societies left it on exiting from stone-age
existence. We'll not find organizations here at all.
When Beige is awakened it is not metaphorical: survival is literally
at stake. Concepts like bankruptcy or losing a home due to back taxes
or even lacking a pay check to buy food are not Beige-level issues.
Hunger, thirst, sex drives, fight-and-flight reflexes are. Worrying
about future problems is not Beige, nor is going to lunch with friends
or figuring out how to manage a killer mortgage. At Beige, meeting
first-level needs takes nearly 100% of the person's effort and
attention - they will die of thirst or starvation otherwise. The means
are hands-on and immediate, not dependent on social systems or
economic success. While persistent failure on economic terms might
cause a person to slide downward on the social hierarchy and face
great hardship, it is extremely unlikely to shift their thinking back
to Beige. (This is where understanding the double-helix construct of
Gravesian theory is so vital, and an easy test of who understands the
model versus others - a large majority, in fact - who are merely
applying a color code.)
So while, at the deepest level, one might be able to track some
deep-seated fears to the corporate mind and uncover some subtle
elements of vestigial Beige (it's part of all of us, after all), to
attribute a company's actions or even an individual's choices in
social settings to 'Beige' is a stretch too far. Beige needs are
embedded in the higher levels and solved in their more elaborated
ways. Rarely, except in pathology and direst stress, would someone
actually shift back to this level once leaving it; certainly not in a
business sense, and generally only in terms of presenting problems,
not thinking.
(3) We keep seeing writings suggesting, frankly, that Purple
(BO) equals primitive, third world, and dark skin. Some of what we've heard
being attributed to "Spiral Dynamics" is nothing short of
racist tripe and the rantings of elitist snobs out to defend
exploitation and happy to sort people's worth on socioeconomic terms.
On the one hand, 'tribal' is treated as a pejorative; on the other,
anything in a tribal context gets painted paternalistically Purple, even when other
systems are active and dominant. It's very easy to miss greater
complexity when observations stop at the surface, or when it's
convenient to do so to serve a dominant group. Assuming that poverty precludes more complex
thinking is the worst sort of arrogance, though the assumption that
abundance equates inevitably with exploitation is about as bad. That
said, overlooking
the very real pressures at work when tribalism or the forces of strong
ethnic identity are present is only asking for trouble.
Again, Gravesian levels can play out with many different forms of
expression, and observers' biases play into what they can and will
see. One of the easiest traps to fall into when applying this material
is projection and the easy valuing of other ways of being without
empathy, i.e., an honest and relatively judgment-free effort to
understand where the other person is and why that is 'reality' for
them. That's not to say that all ways of being are equal or even
deserve equal toleration or support, only that they exist because they
are and understanding needs to come before action.
Another misconception about Purple is that anything which seems
sociable or group-oriented is based at the second level. In the
Graves/SD sense, Purple represents the first stage where structured
social groupings (beyond the reproductive pair-bond and family) arise.
It implies the beginnings of behavioral norms along with a set of
explanations for why things happen, a need not felt at the first
level. Issues of kinship, blood lines, a spirit world, ethnic ties, and gender roles
are keys. Vestiges and artifacts subsumed within more elaborated
systems are often confused with nodal Purple.
Merely being together in a group or team, or having a common goal do not Purple
make. Humans get together at all levels. How and why they gather
varies, and the value placed on relationships differs, as well. So to
attribute group behavior to Purple-ness is to miss that key point, as
well as to dilute the incredible power genuine second level
attachments can exert. Such bonds are not taken lightly, nor are they
easily dismissed. They are not transitory emotional states, but ties
of tribe and family that endure above all else, often through
generations. While all of the cool-color systems (the
sacrifice/deny-self group) have a collective tone, even the
warm-colors include groupness and interpersonal dynamics. Purple
represents something far deeper and closer to our origins.
(A similar off-the-mark perception is that it's Green which equals
sociability and togetherness along with its increase in intrapersonal
curiosity. While the value of affiliation and belonging are often high
at Green, this level is not alone in its attention to social dynamics
since all of the deny-self systems tend to 'other' orientations and
the warm express-self systems often find managing them important - the
inner-outer focus cycle.)
For those taking a more particle-like view of Spiral Dynamics and
thinking of these systems as "energy cores" or chunks in a
sort of mix-and-match game, the error comes more easily. Purple is the
first of the communal/collective systems and extrapolating it across
the spiral makes some intuitive sense. Even then, though, it's
important to recognize that the energy of Blue's communalism, of
Green's, of Turquoise's, etc., will sound schematically similar to
Purple's, but altered and augmented. The Purple notes will be subsumed
and embedded in their more elaborated music. For those approaching the
work from a more Gravesian perspective, the nature of BO should be
easier to differentiate and the confusion of all group activity with
Purple shouldn't be a problem.
(4) A commonplace misconception is that Red equals violence. We
go into this in some depth elsewhere and need not elaborate here
except to say that the emotionality and frequent tone of negativity in
the third level don't necessarily equate with violent acting out at or
hostile aggressiveness. Furthermore, as Graves pointed out, some of the greatest violence ever
wrought by mankind has been fostered by scrupulously justified
Blue-on-Blue warfare wrapped in flags of security, or through the rationalized
fallout of Orange economic maneuverings justified as greater goods
while lining pockets.
One must ask why violent tactics were chosen, if chosen they were, and
then ascribe levels as possible.
(5) Like the naive "Red is violent" claim, we've gone
at the "Mean Green Meme" myth elsewhere, too. It is one of
the most prolific meme viruses that's been attached to SD, and one
with the power to do great damage in our opinion. Today's expressions
of FS are not those of the 1960's, yet many of the harshest critics
seem unable to differentiate past renditions from contemporary ones,
or even to understand the sixth level versus sociable, left-leaning,
humanistic perspectives attached to fourth (DQ) or fifth level (ER)
systems. FS is less elaborated than GT, yet a genuine FS passage is a
necessary part of it. Merely wishfully proclaiming one's self
"second tier" is not to be it.
Embedded in it is another of the things we find very disturbing, that
being the confusion of a meme (a concept or idea) with a vMeme (a
framework for contemplating memes). This lazy conflating of contents
with containers has done a great deal to over-simplify SD and make
glib stereotyping so easy. Indeed, it's diluted the very thing that
makes the point of view much more than a typology or pile of levels
and quadrants. One of the toughest things for our students to do,
especially when they've been exposed to the work elsewhere, is to
figure out the difference between how a person thinks about a thing
and the thing, itself. Indeed, even Dr. Graves got himself confused on
this now and then, and we do so, too. Nonetheless, it's the quest to
understand how we process and think about things, not just to catalog
values and beliefs, that sets this work apart from so many others.
(6) Finally, beware the "Yellow sees all, knows all"
trap. The first step is falling into the Tier pit wherein all things
positive and good are Second Tier, as if there were a sharp line of
distinction and separation. (Funny, to be ranked Second Tier is not so
good for politicians.) This seems to come easier if one is
thinking in particles (SD lingo) rather than emergent waves and wave-forms
(more Graves-like), though the leap from subsistence to being levels
was a matter of great curiosity for Dr. Graves in his later years, as
it had been for Maslow, Calhoun, and others.
In this vein, we're genuinely amazed at some of
the folks claiming to be among the ever-expanding cadre of "Spiral Wizards"
(a term rooted in the 1996 book and one which we tend to avoid as way
too cute) and selling tickets to take others along some Yellow road to enlightenment as
if magic answers lie just around the next bend. To check this, listen to
some of the jargon and how easy it would be to word process it into
very conventional religious themes - salvation, immortality,
obedience, a virtual deity - and how the talk of devotion, commitment,
belonging, and even future reward fit the long-established, almost
archetypal, patterns. So, rather than accepting claims in and about SD
on face value or as articles of faith, one needs to maintain both an
open and skeptical mind so as not to be caught up by well-marketed
memes. Neither Yellow nor Second Tier are optimal states ready to
solve human kind's problems, although if the theory is correct, they
do offer overall biopsychosocial advantage in the long run of time.
We've encountered several people who are deeply ego involved in being
Second Tier and even proclaiming themselves among the
"Turquoises" to prove it. It's like they really NEED to be a
cut above the crowd, somehow more knowing or seeing. Yet they often
exhibit absolutistic certainty in the correctness of their views,
occasional narcissism, and a
clear set of compulsions to reach ever-higher levels of consciousness
in route to either transcendence or eco-fitness; they seem to believe
that talking holism, contemplative understanding, and global
consequences enough will prove the eighth level and give them a
success. This drive to be among the elite few and to be counted as an
agent of positive change (and subtly to dominate) is often like a
compulsion, yet that's one of the things Graves argued had to go away
to move into the being levels, if being levels there actually were.
(It's important to recognize that Dr. Graves's discussions of the
upper levels were derived from data in the 1950's and 1960's, a time
quite different from today.)
The test of this theory is to watch how people behave - how they deal
with others and themselves in both public and private - rather than
taking their word for levels. The people we've encountered who do seem
to be functioning in the more complex levels tend to demonstrate a
fair bit of uncertainty and modesty about themselves since they see
multiple aspects in play and have no needs to prove anything. It's the
ambitious folks who know just enough about the theory to become
competitive within it that prove best what they're not. This is not a
grading system, it's a series of cause-and-effect relationships. Those
who fight hardest for the A's demonstrate that they're not the best
students of this work in progress.
How about
Wikipedia as a resource for information about SD? Simple
answer: don't do it. The Wikipedia entry has been an ongoing source of
misinformation, gamesmanship, distortions, and confusion. We'd be happy to see it
deleted and replaced with a simple link to www.spiraldynamics.com.
For those interested in complementary theories and models, there are
plenty of other entries (like 'developmental psychology') where all the
contributors can be discussed ad infinitum, though with widely varying
quality.
Throughout its iterations the Wiki description of SD has been filled with
misrepresentations, bizarre notions, subtle marketing infusions, imaginings, and
inaccuracies, along with some factual statements. Even the discussion
about errors is riddled with errors. We used to try and keep up with it but have surrendered
to the self-appointed experts, most of whom we've never even heard of.
The entries have been rife with comments that are patently untrue,
additions from spin-offs and reinterpretations rather than SD or
Graves, and others which are severely twisted and damaging.
That's the great weakness of the wide-open Wikipedia model: total
fabrications and factual reports have equal chance of showing up.
Genuine experts and 'authorities' only in their own minds share space;
the reader is left to sort for credibility. Tertiary punditry and
panditry are treated like primary sourcing. The gullible and lazy are
misled. Well-organized campaigns
and powerful marketing can overwhelm reality. Oft-repeated untruths
take on the mantle of fact and go unchallenged. The game of
edit-my-edit can become an unending and frustrating loop, especially
when poorly informed True Believers and fanatics with axes to grind
engage in complex things. The Wikipedia compendium is a glorious and fascinating
experiment, but not always a definitive or even credible resource,
certainly not regarding
this work.
The SD community is increasingly diverse. Many of those involved have
strong views. Despite the majority of users with their heads together who apply SD's
core principles well, we're amazed at how some people become overly ego-involved
and blinkered around a pet perception of what Spiral Dynamics is and
should be. It seems to help them explain who they are in a
hard-to-understand world. In these cases, what it stands for depends
more on
what they're looking for than what the model is about. Many anchor on
being "a Turquoise" or "Second Tier;" others just
hanker for a better business tool. And some strive to live a
spiral life, a slightly screwy idea. So "SD" is like a projective test
wherein needy folks insert their own meanings, interpretations, and
fabricated "truths" while others must struggle with the
fallout.
We're
constantly amazed at what folks claim Spiral Dynamics
says, as well as the confusion about its derivation and history.
Certitude abounds along with misquotes and false claims, partly because of the undercurrents
of hostility which pervade the field and leave room for great confusion, and
partly because so many fringe players with right-thinking minds try to promote their pet ideas in places like
Wikipedia. Granting all ideas and their promoters equivalence is
a risky proposition.
Many who could know better (or would know better if they'd bother ask
direct questions instead of assuming mystical knowledge or making up 'truth' based on rumors) have posted grand statements that are
erroneous, nonsense as fact. It is our opinion that the Wikipedia
entry should be generally ignored and even deleted as long as it is so inaccurate and
subject to periodic sabotage, whether well-meant or otherwise. Our advice
on all of this is to think critically and ask questions,
taking nothing for granted and learning as much as possible. |
