TRANSLATE THIS ARTICLE
Integral World: Exploring Theories of Everything
An independent forum for a critical discussion of the integral philosophy of Ken Wilber
Albion M. Butters, PhD, lectures in the Department of Comparative Religion at the University of Turku, Finland. While he is specialized in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, his interests also include intersections between alternative forms of religion and cultural studies. He is currently writing a book on ‘spiritual fiction’, The Spiritual Evolution of Comics: The Birth of ‘Spi-Fi’.
Reposted from Approaching Religion, Vol. 5, No. 2 (2015), published by the Donner Institute, with permission of the Editor
A brief history of
Spiral Dynamics
Albion M. Butters
The overall impression one gets is of an extremely intelligent set of people still enmeshed in very human dynamics.
For nearly two decades, the theory of Spiral Dynamics
has been used to dynamically model human
evolution and information systems. In that time,
however, many different versions and applications of
the model have emerged. This article will diachronically
trace the history of Spiral Dynamics, from the foundational
theory of Clare Graves to its initial introduction by
Don Beck and Chris Cowan and subsequent adaptation
by Ken Wilber. A brief exploration of the various camps
and their competing interpretations of Spiral Dynamics
will permit some critical analysis of the model itself.
The goal of this article is to provide a historical
overview of Spiral Dynamics, including its background
and history, its creators and their differences,
and the ways in which it has been and is being applied
in the world. To do this coherently first requires an
explanation of what Spiral Dynamics actually isin brief, a system that describes conceptual models
that humans use to explain the world around themas well as attention to the various forms that
have emerged over the course of its evolution.[1]
Furthermore, as Spiral Dynamics is not without its
critics, the article discusses several major objections
that have been raised.
Origins of the system
Clare W. Graves (1914-1986)
In 1952, Clare W. Graves (19141986)[2] 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 mindbrain 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):[3]
- 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 and dogma are 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 helicesHelix 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 contentionthe nature of the ‘ultimate state’ of
beingwas 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 openlike
a spiral.
Spirals and rainbows
In Spiral Dynamics: Mastering Values, Leadership
and Change (1996), Beck and Cowan use a number
of wonderful examples grounded in naturefractals
and seashells, ribbons of DNA and galaxiesto
explain why they named their system after a spiral:
‘Behold the eloquence of the spiral. Consider the
internal integrity, the elegant architecture.’ And,
‘Spirals are alive, magical, powerful, and multidimensional’
(Beck and Cowan 1996: 26). Spirals can
be said to reflect the nature of thought, sometimes
returning to the same place but eventually progressing.
Being ‘expansive, open-ended, continuous, and
dynamic’, the spiral is a model that both visually and
functionally represents the evolutionary development
of consciousness.
It is likely that Graves himself lent inspiration to
the name Spiral Dynamics. This is suggested by his
own description of the nature of his work:
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 an individual’s existential
problems change. (Beck and Cowan 1996:
28; Wilber 2000: 5)
Perhaps more important than the person who gave
the name, however, is the way in which the system
was interpreted to also represent the evolutionary
development of groups. Graves’ work was extended
beyond the individual to the collective, resulting in
a much more rich interpretation of the spiral model
and a quantum leap in its potential applications.
In this way, Don Beck’s description of the spiral
would build on that of his mentor:
A spiral vortex best depicts the emergence
of human systems, or memes, as they evolve
through levels of increasing complexity. Each
upward turn of the spiral marks the awakening
of a more elaborate version on top of what
already exists, with each meme a product of its
times and conditions. And these memes form
spirals of increasing complexity that exist within
a person, a family, an organization, a culture, or
a society. (Beck 2002: 9)
The use of the term ‘meme’ (Dawkins 1976,
Csikszentmihalyi 1993) was a conscious decision
here, evoking the scientific language of evolution
and the cultural language of information transfer. To
accurately convey Graves’ emphasis on values, that
word was abbreviated in the Spiral Dynamics system
and appended to make ‘VMEME’, defined as ‘the
magnetic force which binds memes and other kinds
of ideas in cohesive packages of thought’; extended
further, VMEMEs ‘structure the thinking, value systems,
political forms, and world views of entire civilizations’
(Beck and Cowan 1996: 30). In this way, Beck
and Cowan mapped their grand theory of VMEMEs
directly onto Graves’ theory of levels of human existence,
following his eight-level model of evolution. But
they chose not to represent the different VMEMEs
with numbers. From the very beginning, they were
cautious about creating a hierarchical structure in
which ‘higher’ automatically meant ‘better’. Instead
they used colours.
Over the course of its history, the face of Spiral
Dynamicsthat is to say, its colour schemehas
changed a number of times, from black-and-white to
different colours to those of the rainbow. While each
such change has had its own logic, they have not been
without controversy.
During the earliest stage of the theory, the different
levels of development did not have any colours at
all. Colours were supposedly first introduced when
Chris Cowan was making slides to be used as teaching
materials. He claims that colours were merely a
design element, being better than black-and-white to
illustrate the different levels.[4] Accordingly, he says,
they had no metaphysical significance, nor were they
based on the colours of the Indian seven-chakra system.[5] In fact, a conscious choice was made to not
make them match the spectrum of the rainbow.[6]
But that is exactly what Ken Wilber would later
do. Integrating the eight VMEME levels as ‘altitude
markers’ of ‘waves of consciousness’, he specifically
followed the ‘natural’ colour progression of the
chakras, which resembles that of a rainbow (Wilber
2006a: 66).[7]
Such a radical change of palette did not go unchallenged,
and it serves well to illustrate the types of
contention that were introduced as Spiral Dynamics
evolved. For instance, Cowan was very critical of the
move; ‘Because Wilber tries to apply but doesn’t actually
understand Gravesian theory, he confuses the
levels/colors like a novice. He doesn’t know Green
from Orange or Yellow’ (Spiral Dynamics 200112b).
The issue was not just about colours, of course. The
colour scheme underlines a much deeper issue that
Cowan had with Wilber’s synthesis. In his view, by
picking and choosing different elements, changing
names and focusing on ‘types and categories’, Wilber
loses sight of the essence of Graves’ primary quest:
‘the engine that drives human emergencewhy we
are and what leads us to change to be something different’
(Spiral Dynamics 200112d). The degree to
which this is true is a matter of debateand to be
sure, it is extensively debated onlinebut what is
clear is Cowan’s attachment to typologies and being
faithful to Graves.
Cowan further criticizes changes to the original
colour scheme as ‘paintballing’, ignoring the thought
that went into it. This does appear to be the case. The
colours used in Spiral Dynamics are much more than
just a design element. They alternate between ‘deny-the-self’ cool (even numbers) and ‘express-the-self’
warm (odd numbers), and there is a logic to the colours
themselves (e.g. Beige represents the savannah
where early survival-focused hominids lived, Red
evokes the colour of blood and violence,
Turquoise is the colour of Earth seen in
a holistic way from space). For his part,
Beck continues to use the original colour
scheme. He also refers to the alternation
in terms of warm (I/ME/MINE) and cool
(WE).
Differing interpretations
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
Africabringing about a peaceful end to apartheidwhen 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
200112d). 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 (197595);
2) Spiral Dynamics proper (19962001), 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:
Here’s the point: you can sit on your meditation
cushion for decades, and you will NEVER
see anything resembling the stages of Spiral
Dynamics. And you can study Spiral Dynamics
till the cows come home, and you will never
have a satori. And the integral point is, if you
don’t include both, you will likely never understand
human beings or their relation to Reality,
divine or otherwise. (Wilber 2006a: 38)
The relationship of Wilber’s integral/external
and internal/social four-quadrant model to Spiral
Dynamics is a tricky one. For Wilber, Graves’ levels
belong in the lower-left ‘WE’ quadrant (cultural
development) and correlates appear in the upper-left
‘I’ quadrant (psychological development); Integral
Theory by and large integratesor assimilates
Spiral Dynamics within these two.
This divergence of interpretations can serve to
illustrate an important difference in approaches to
transformation: ‘inner-directed’ (more focused on
the individual) versus ‘outer-directed’ (more socially
focused). Wilber’s work clearly falls into the former
category. This is evidenced, for example, by his
psychological and spiritual attention to consciousness
(and interest in Eastern religious traditions),
if not by his use of first-person pronouns to define
the quadrants in his model. Although personal transformation
is included in Beck’s presentation
of Spiral Dynamics, his model is more interested in
social structures and cultural values.[13]
Cowan completely rejects this positioning on the
basis of Graves’ theory actually ‘integrating’ them
all. Given the distance between his camp and that of
Wilber, this type of contest (i.e. whose level of ‘integration’
is greater) and functional disconnect is not
surprising. Cowan is not a fan of Wilber’s interpretation
of Spiral Dynamics in the first place. Indeed,
he states that his criticism of Wilber is primarily
based on what he perceives to be a misrepresentation
of that system, such that followers ‘have been led
down a rabbit trail into a labyrinth of all quadrant,
all level nonsense. For the people who really know
the Gravesian theory, reading it is a cringe a minute’
(Spiral Dynamics 200112d).
Beck’s response is very differentand, well, integrative.
Even years after his self-declared distancing
from Wilber, he still sees the value of Spiral Dynamics
and Integral Theory being used together. He is still
committed to SDi. Positioning remains an issue, but
in this case a logical argument is made for why the
spiral should occupy the centre of the quadrants of
the AQAL model instead of being partitioned inside
them. According to Beck (2012), having the spiral
span the four boxes helps to remove the concept
that they are self-contained entities, and it shows the
movement taking place between them. After all, the
spiral is not static, but dynamic.
Wilber’s response to all this has been to belittle
Spiral Dynamics and its creators. In his infamous
‘June 8 rant’ in 2006, he would state ‘I personally love
SD as an intro model (seriously), and we will definitely
continue to use it…’. This is followed by an ad
hominem attack on both Cowan and Beck: ‘And what
do you make of the fact that the two guys who developed
SD, nobody really wants to work with?and
in fact, they even refuse to work with each other, as
if to put an exclamation mark on the point’ (Wilber
2006b).
This remark does raise an important question.
Given the emphasis on personal evolution in Spiral
Dynamics (as well as Integral Theory), why so much
contention? The overall impression one gets is of an
extremely intelligent set of people sharing the motivation
to advance the world yet still enmeshed in
very human (and not ‘second-tier’ human) dynamics.
While the system is described as being very applicable
to external situations and patterns in the world, how
is the outside observer to measure its success in terms
of personal growth?
A spiral soteriology?
There has been integration of Spiral Dynamics
and religious systems, despite the fact that Spiral
Dynamics does not in and of itself consist of a religious
or spiritual dimension, other than as a tool
to describe various belief systems in relation to the
VMEMEs. Grounded in empirical research, it is not
a belief system in and of itself. From the outset, Clare
Graves did not appear to have a spiritual agenda. As
noted by Cowan:
Dr. Graves probably couldn’t have meditated
himself out of a paper bag and was not especially
interested in the esoteric consciousness
studies that fascinated many of his humanistic
and transpersonal-oriented peers. His curiosity
was more as to why they were so fascinated,
how they thought about psychological health
and the mature human being, and whom
transpersonal approaches might help and why.
(Spiral Dynamics 200112d)
Nor did Beck and Cowan add a religious layer when
they adopted Graves’ model. If anything, Cowan’s
sense is that doing thisusing Spiral Dynamics as
a ‘spiritual ladder’ or ‘grading scale to assess apostles and
sort the elect and deserving from the rest of
the herd’is cultic and should be avoided (Spiral
Dynamics 200112e). It is not clear whom Cowan is
talking about, but cases do exist. For example,
as one Christian author writes: ‘By virtue of the fact that you
reading this book, you are somewhere on the upper
levels of the spiral’ (Meier 2009: 4).
Over time, Spiral Dynamics would come to inform
a systemic rethinking of Christian mission and community.
Over the years, dialogue has been achieved,
and to some extent this process has been facilitated
by the founders. Although Chris Cowan was an atheist
and his attitude primarily scientific, he saw value
in the way that Spiral Dynamics outlines how religious
matters tend to be approached by people at different
levels. Ken Wilber has shown interest in engaging
with Christian leaders on the topic of Integral
Life, which includes Spiral Dynamics. Don Beck has
been much more active with faith organizations (as
demonstrated by his willingness to give workshops
at the progressive Unity Church of Dallas, Texas
or the Northbrae Community Church in Berkeley,
California).[14]
Despite his academic background in theology
and Koine Greek, Beck’s interest in religion is not
about religion per se, but ‘memetics’; by this he
means the value systems that undergird religion and
are expressed in rituals. In his view, Christianity is
in need of resuscitation, and Spiral Dynamics can
help illuminate the crisis in which value systems are
being lost in the modern world. To use an example,
he finds that children today are not being presented
with challenges of sacrifice and discipline (aspects of
Purple and Blue). Lacking the neurological equipment
at that age to make subtle nuances of judgment
about values and ethics, until they learn the code of
obedience at the Blue level, there’s no chance that
they will understand the globally integrated level of
Turquoise. In Beck’s view, the recruitment of people
into fundamentalist organizations (e.g. ISIS) reflects
the type of vacuum that arises when people’s needs at
the level that they are at are not being met.[15]
To further contextualize the way in which Spiral
Dynamics can be applied to spiritual modalities, it is
important to note that it differentiates between the
things that people think about and how they think
about them. The former is comprised of objects of
analysis, while the latter involves the mode of analysis
itself. Thus, Spiral Dynamics locates atheism and
theism on the Blue (D-Q) level, both of which include
‘true believers’ whose worldviews are absolutist.
Religious expression is exhibited in other modalities
as well. For example, aggressive proselytization can
be seen as a Red attitude, in contrast to Green’s ecumenical
pluralism.
As Christianity today faces multiple crises of
identity and attrition, and contemporary Christians
struggle to make sense of their faith, some churches
have also turned to Spiral Dynamics (e.g. Integral
Christianity, The Emerging Church, Seventh-day
Adventism). The system is being used to provide
people with a broader perspective of Christianity and,
more specifically, their relationship with it. The system
can even be used as a lens to be turned on Godor
constructed belief systems vis-à-vis different types of
divine presence and agency. As an example, one can
point to Bruce Sanguin’s readings of Christ through
the lens of Spiral Dynamics: the traditional Christ
as Scapegoat (Blue); the modern demythologized
Christ, as seen in the work of Bultmann, or Christ the
successful leader (Orange); the egalitarian or postmodern
Christ (Green); the cosmic Christ as the ‘pattern
that connects’ (Yellow), as seen by Teilhard de
Chardin; or the mystical Christ (Turquoise), in which
the entire universe is perceived as the body of God.
This is not a theological overview as much as a comparative
reappraisal of Christian teleology, which has
potential consequences for Christians and the nature
of their faith. This becomes apparent in Sanguin’s
own story of transformed understanding: ‘When
I was introduced to the map of Spiral Dynamics, I
began to see the Christ as metaphor for the spiritual,
evolutionary impulse itself, which is expressed differently
at different stages of development’ (Sanguin
2014). If it sounds like Sanguin has forsaken a traditional
form of faith for Spiral Dynamics, it’s because
he has. On his personal website, he announces that
after 27 years he has resigned from congregational
ministry (Sanguin nd).
Critiques of Spiral Dynamics
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 raceit’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 aspector 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 evolutionto put
it in terms of Spiral Dynamics, moving from Purple,
Red or Blue into Orangeis 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 200112a). 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 Yellowbeing integrativeto
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 languageBeck (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!
Conclusion
As its title admits, this article merely presents a brief
introduction to Spiral Dynamics. That said, the general
model and the dynamics between the major
players have hopefully been laid out in sufficient
detail that those who are drawn to delve the system
more deeply may do so in a way that best matches
their interest.
The future of Spiral Dynamics depends on such
interest. Its champions are of an older generation,
and the loss of Chris Cowan will certainly have an
impact on its diffusion. Students of Spiral Dynamics
are found all around the world, however, and many
of them have been working with it for several decades.
As a mature system, perhaps the most difficult
phases of schism and sectarian rancour have passed.
In discussions today, for example, personal attacks
are discouraged. Finally, Spiral Dynamics is not just
a theory. By being applied in practice, whether in
corporate training sessions or political and religious
contexts, there is every reason to believe that Spiral
Dynamics will continue to become more established
and grow.
NOTES
[1] Given the differing interpretations of Spiral Dynamics,
in some cases it seemed best to let the authors
speak for themselves. Sources included their books,
articles on the subject, and interviews that are publicly
available on the internet. My goal is to present a
critical and neutral, if cursory, appraisal of the system.
I have not personally received teaching or training in
Spiral Dynamics.
[2] Archives of Graves' work can be found at a website
dedicated to his life and research (Graves 20015).
[3] Because the definitions given here express the codes
of what will later become Spiral Dynamics, I do not
repeat them again later. Although very basic, they
should also provide a sufficient foundation for the
reader to understand what the different levels represent.
See also figure 2. For an in-depth presentation,
see Beck and Cowan 1996.
[4] As will be seen below, this statement contradicts
Cowan's adherence to the original colour scheme as
having great significance.
[5] The assignment of colours to the chakras is sometimes
attributed to Western influences. However,
while they certainly feature prominently in New Age
interpretations of the subtle energy body, their original
appearance dates back to Buddhist and Hindu
tantric texts in India. Cf. Guhyasamaja-tantra,
Kalacakra-tantra, and Cakrasamvara-tantra, which
are more than a thousand years old; see also the
sixteenth-century Sat-cakra-nirupana and the
Paduka-pancaka, translated by Sir John Woodroffe
(pseud. Arthur Avalon) as The Serpent Power in 1919.
[6] See Cowan and Todorovic's NVC Consulting website
Spiral Dynamics (200112c). For the sake of convenience,
quotes taken from that site are attributed to
Cowan himself.
[7] It is also worth noting the respective value differences
of the chakras: 1) food, sex, power; 2) heart and communication;
and 3) psychic and spiritual.
[8] Personal communication with Don Beck (interview
via Skype, 29.7.2015). It is worth remarking here
that the main developers of Spiral Dynamics were all
white males until this point. A discussion of gender in
relation to Spiral Dynamics, both historically and in
relation to the system itself, is unfortunately outside
the scope of this article, but represents an important
area for future research.
[9] I wrote to Christopher Cowan in June 2015 for the
purpose of this article. I received no reply, but in
August I received an email from his partner Natasha
Todorovic, wherein she informed me that he had
tragically just passed away. I also wrote to Ken Wilber
through his publisher and his websites, but received
no reply.
[10] See Frank Visser’s extensive website dedicated to
Integral theory, Integral World nd.
[11] For a detailed study of fMRI on Graves’ value theory
(that subjects react more swiftly to stimulus words in
alignment with their worldview than those that are
not), see Caspers et al. 2011.
[12] Wilber would have much greater commercial success,
but he has never provided compensation for his use
of Spiral Dynamics. Beck confesses some resentment
over what he sees as Wilber’s exploitation of
the system. Personal communication with Don Beck
(interview via Skype, 29.7.2015).
[13] The distinction between these approaches to transformation
is helpfully presented by Ronnie Lessem
in his presentation of a new modality that combines
the two, which he calls Integral Dynamics. Lessem’s
system also addresses the linear nature of Spiral
Dynamics. See Lessem et al. 2013: 89.
[14] This relationship has matured to the point that all of
the ministers in its Kansas City seminary are trained
in Spiral Dynamics.
[15] Personal communication with Don Beck (interview
via Skype, 29.7.2015).
[16] Personal communication with Don Beck (interview
via Skype, 29.7.2015).
[17] For a full treatment of this topic, see Roy 2006:
11852.
[18] A discussion of political orientations and Integral
Politics extends far beyond the scope of this present
paper. However, for Ken Wilber’s discussion of a
trans-partisan ‘Third-Way’. See DeVos 2008.
[19] These training programmes support a broader application
of Spiral Dynamics in the world, from HR and
executive management training to organizational
system reform to nation building.
[20] If one pauses briefly to see what activities the
founders of Spiral Dynamics are engaged in, there is
an impressive list: Beck and Cowan worked extensively
in Africa (as mentioned above), in 2007 Beck
spoke at the United Nations on the topic of its Global
Emergence Plan and travelled to the Middle East to
present an alternative to conflict between Israel and
Palestine, and Wilber has most recently been focusing
on conflict resolution.
[21] This is an important part of the theory that has not
been discussed. For a detailed discussion of the transformation
of VMEMEs, see Beck and Cowan 1996:
3447.
References
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)
Beck, Don, 2002. ‘Interview with Jessica Roemischer: the never-ending upward quest’, What is Enlightenment, 22, pp. 422
2008. Email response to Graham Wilson’s blog ‘When
dynamics spiral out of control’, http://www.the-confidant.info/2008/when-dynamics-spiral-out-of-control/ (accessed 30.3.2015)
2011. Interview with Russ Volckmann, PhD, ‘Fresh perspective: spiral interventions’, Integral Leadership Review, October, http://integralleadershipreview.com/4120-fresh-perspective-spiral-interventionswith-dr-don-beck (accessed 30.3.2015)
2012. ‘The integral dance: how a master code pollinates and preserves the culture of bumblebees’, column in Integral Leadership Review, http://integralleadershipreview.com/7174-the-master-code-spiral-dynamics-integral/ (accessed 30.3.2015).
Beck, Don, and Christopher Cowan, 1996. Spiral Dynamics: Mastering Values, Leadership and Change (Malden, MA, Blackwell Publishers, Inc.)
Beck, Don, and Graham Linscott, 1991. The Crucible: Forging South Africa's Future (Denton, New Paradigm Press)
Caspers, Svenja, et al., 2011. ‘Moral concepts set decision strategies to abstract values’, PLoS ONE, April, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3069966/ (accessed 25.3.2015)
Cowan, Chris, and Natasha Todorovic (eds), 2005. Clare W. Graves: The Never Ending Quest (Santa Barbara, ECLET Press)
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly, 1993. The Evolving Self: A Psychology for the Third Millennium (New York, HarperCollins)
Dawkins, Richard, 1976. The Selfish Gene (New York, Oxford University Press)
DeVos, Corey W., 2008. ‘Transcending both sides of the political divide: integral trans-partisan politics’, blog published on 26.5.2008, https://www.integrallife.com/video/integral-trans-partisan-politics (accessed 25.3.2015)
Graves, Clare W., 1970. ‘Levels of existence: an open systemtheory of values’, Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 10(2), pp. 13155
1971. ‘A systems conception of personality’, paper presented at the Washington School of Psychiatry, 16.10.1971, http://www.clarewgraves.com/source_content/ WSP_cc_edit.html (accessed 25.3.2015)
1974. ‘Human nature prepares for a momentous leap’, The Futurist, April, pp. 7287
Hughes, Charles, and Vincent Flowers, 1978. Value Systems Analysis: Theory and Management Application (Dallas, Center for Values Research)
Lessem, Ronnie, with Alexander Schieffer, Junie T. Tong, and Samuel D. Rima, 2013. Integral Dynamics: PoliticalEconomy, Cultural Dynamics and the Future of the University (Transformation and Innovation) (Burlington, VT, Ashgate)
Lynch, Dudley, and Paul Kordis, 1989. Strategy of the Dolphin: Scoring a Win in a Chaotic World (New York, Morrow)
Maslow, Abraham, 1962. Toward a Psychology of Being (Princeton, NJ, D. Van Nostrand Co.)
Meier, J. J., 2009. God in the Mirror: Reflections on the Physiology of Faith (Bloomington, IN, Universe Books)
Rice, Keith E., 2014. ‘Clare W Graves’ research’, website of Integrated sociopsychology and the author, http://integratedsociopsychology.net/graves_research.html
(accessed 25.3.2015)
Roy, Bonnitta, 2006. ‘A process model of Integral Theory’, Integral Review, 3, pp. 11852
Sanguin, Bruce, 2014. The Emerging Church Revised & Expanded: A Model for Change and a Map for Renewal (Kelowna, BC, Wood Lake Publishing)
Wilber, Ken, 2000. A Theory of Everything: An Integral Vision for Business, Politics, Science, and Spirituality (Boston, Shambhala)
2003. Boomeritis: A Novel That Will Set You Free! (Boston, Shambhala)
2006a. Integral Spirituality (Boston, Shambhala)
2006b. ‘What we are, that we see, part I: response to some recent criticism in a Wild West fashion’, blog, kenwilber.com, 8.6.2006, http://www.kenwilber.com/blog/show/46 (accessed 25.3.2015)
Websites
Beams and Struts, 2011. ‘Why isn’t Integral more popular?’, article by Jason Digges, commentary, among others, by Bonnitta Roy and Don Beck, Beams and Struts: for Hungry Brains and Thirsty Souls website, December 2011, http://www.beamsandstruts.com/articles/item/694-jargonless-integral (accessed 10.9.2015)
Formless Mountain, nd. Formless Mountain: An Integral Atelier, http://www.formlessmountain.com/aqal.htm (accessed 2.10.2015)
Graves 20015. A website dedicated to the life, research and thinking of Dr Clare W. Graves, compiled and maintained by Chris Cowan, Natasha Todorovic, and William R. Lee, http://www.clarewgraves.com/
(accessed25.3.2015)
Integral World, nd. Integral World: Exploring Theories of Everything, http://www.integralworld.net/sd-i.html (accessed 2.5.2015)
PiALOGUE, nd. PiALOGUE: Disambiguation-of-Life Protocol, website, http://pialogue.info/definitions/Integral_Altitude.php (accessed 2.10.2015)
Sanguin, Bruce, nd. Home for Evolving Mystics, website of Bruce Sanguin, http://brucesanguin.com/ (accessed25.3.2015)
Spiral Dynamics 200112a. ‘About SDan overview’, Spiral Dynamics®, nd, http://spiraldynamics.org/about-overview/ (accessed 25.3.2015)
200112b. ‘FAQ KWBoomeritis’, Spiral Dynamics®, 24.8.2002, http://spiraldynamics.org/boomeritis/ (accessed 25.3.2015)
200112c. ‘FAQ colors and terminology’, Spiral Dynamics ®, nd, http://spiraldynamics.org/colors/ (accessed 25.3.2015)
200112d. ‘FAQ integral and integrative’, Spiral Dynamics ®, nd, http://spiraldynamics.org/faq_integral/ (accessed 25.3.2015)
200112e. FAQ religion/cult/spirituality, Spiral Dynamics ®, nd, http://spiraldynamics.org/religion-or-cult/ (accessed 25.3.2015)
Spiral Dynamics Integral, nd. Spiral Dynamics Integral website, http://spiraldynamics.net/ (accessed 25.3.2015)
|