Welcome to the latest installment of Integral Explorations! Ha. Really though, this is going to be another Ken Wilber related post, so feel free to skip it if you’re getting Wilbered-out.

I just read a very nice little intro to Spiral Dynamics from the Fall/Winter 2002 issue of What is Enlightenment? magazine. Spiral Dynamics is a theory of human development that uses an evolutionary spiral to explain behaviors of individuals, societies and systems. Here are the six first tier stages of spiral development:

Beige - Instinctive. Survival is the only concern. Examples: bushmen, infants.

Purple - Magical. Keep the spirits happy. Examples: tribalism, New Age magic.

Red - Egocentric. Personal enjoyment trumps all. Examples: rebellious youth, epic heroes.

Blue - Authoritarian. Life has meaning and purpose. Laws enforce this purpose. Examples: religious fundamentalists, old school military families.

Orange - Achievist. Self interest, striving to get ahead. Examples: capitalists, Ayn Rand.

Green - Egalitarian. Inner peace, collective harmony. Examples: hippies, political correctness.

These first six stages make up the first tier and are separate from each other, although there can be a fair amount of overlap and regression. The second tier is made up of integral stages, which include and synthesize all of the first tier stages.

I’m not going to go into the second tier here, you can check out the article above or Wikipedia. What I would like to address here are applications and problems of Spiral Dynamics.

Laura and I have been discussing Spiral Dynamics for a month or so now. Our reactions to the theory are different. I find it very useful because I think spatially and it helps me visualize abstract ideas. Laura is uncomfortable with some of the possible implications its hierarchical structure. I think that both are perspectives are important.

In my work with foster youth, I have noticed a big disconnect between the children’s needs and the staff’s approach. I couldn’t articulate the issue very well until I put it into the context of Spiral Dynamics. Essentially, most of the staff is coming from a Green viewpoint while the kids are in Red. The staff expect the kids to jump to green, skipping over the vital Blue and Orange stages. The adults are constantly bemoaning the very system they expect the kids to buy into, like telling them the public education system is completely worthless and then expecting them to get up and go to school.

It might be impossible for people deeply entrenched in Green to advocate the Blue world view that the kids need to master in order to grow. I think the solution is to use a compassionate Green attitude to usher the kids into Blue so they can learn discipline and respect, which will help them to succeed in society.

Although, I’ve found Spiral Dynamics very helpful, Laura’s concerns about hierarchy are important to consider. Even Christopher Cowan’s (more on him later) official website notes:

Very well-meaning people are sometimes so highly ego-involved in preserving their high-status colors, even to creating an identity around ‘living the spiral’ just as others might organize.

Seeking “verticality,” fostering the belief that “higher is better” in all contexts, aspiring to the mythical “second tier,” following the “staircase” to enlightenment, are all examples of how people (especially when centralized around DQ (Blue) and ER (Orange)) can miss central aspects of a model and convert it into something entirely different. So this page is aimed at reinforcing a central aspect of SD which many superficial renditions overlook or dismiss: Graves’s concept of an emergent, cyclical, double-helix. The levels, however they be designated (colors, numbers, letter pairs, etc.), are the products of this interactive process. They are artifacts, not essence. Understand this principle and you begin to understand the theory, not just a model with handy color categories.

It is easy to get caught up in developmental self-congratulations or conversely paranoia about being stuck in the first tier. A clear head and grounded perspective are necessary for this kind of study.

But wait, there’s more! It seems that nothing Mr. Wilber touches can escape without controversy, so fasten your seat belts. Spiral Dynamics was introduced to the public in 1996 by Chris Cowan and Don Beck. Their work was based on the psychological theories of Dr. Clare Graves. Then what happened? The Kheper integral thought site says:

The foundation text of the modern Spiral Dynamics movement; introduces concepts like socio-cultural; evolution, business management, and that infamous vMEMES colour classification that has been so abused by the first generation of the Integral Movement sensu stricto movement (by which i mean Wilber & Beck and their uncritical followers) as a way of putting down everyone else (especially the hated “green”). Beck and Cowan had a falling out over this antagonistic first generation integralism, with Cowan arguing against Beck and Wilber’s “Mean Green Meme” and misinterpretations of Clare Graves original Spiral Dynamics. Wilber would in turn later split from Beck and reject the spiral in favour of a one-dimensional “altitude”. Nevertheless, this book, which dates to happier times, is an important foundation work in the modern Integral Movement.

This gets even more nasty. Not only did Beck file a lawsuit against Cowan, but Cowan and Ken Wilber had their own online mudslinging battle. This is all very convoluted, but the bottom line is that there are at least three versions of Spiral Dynamics with much bad blood between them. The only way to sort it will be to read more about each one.

And it’s another questionable incident involving Ken Wilber.