Spiral Dynamics

Spiral Dynamics is a theory of human development introduced in the 1996 book Spiral Dynamics by Don Beck and Chris Cowan. The book was based on the theory of psychology professor Clare W. Graves. "Spiral Dynamics" is a registered trademark of the National Values Center, Inc.

Spiral Dynamics argues that human nature is not fixed: humans are able, when forced by life conditions, to adapt to their environment by constructing new, more complex, conceptual models of the world that allow them to handle the new problems.  Conceptual models are organized around value Memes: systems of core values or collective intelligences, applicable to both individuals and entire cultures (self-propagating ideas, habits, or cultural practices).

Value Memes are categorized in to two camps:  1) first tier, 2) second tier.

First tier Meme levels are focused on different themes for existence, and include almost all of the worldviews, cultures, and mental attitudes up to today.  Second tier value memes are emerging levels that gradually move away from a focus on subsistence-level concerns, and towards a being-level existence.

The existence of two different tiers of psychological development was introduced by the founder Graves. Cowan claims it is possible Graves introduced the tier system as a marketing instrument. Up to today there is no research evidence that the two tiers exist. Cowan no longer supports the existence of two tiers but claims the only thing now known about the Yellow and Turquoise systems is that they are more complex versions of Orange and Green. The open-ended theory suggests that the levels Coral and beyond are not yet substantially formed and will solidify as a greater portion of society develops towards those memes.

Spiral Dynamics Matrix

First Tier Value Memes

Beige

Summary: Archaic-instinctive—survivalistic/automatic/reflexological

Time of origin: c. 100,000 BC

Description: "Express self to meet imperative physiological needs through instincts of Homo sapiens."

Purple

Summary: Animistic-tribalistic magical-animistic Tribal order

Time of origin: 50,000 BC

Description: "Sacrifice to the ways of the elders and customs as one subsumed in group." This is the level of traditional cultures.

Red

Summary: Egocentric-exploitive power gods/dominionist

Time of origin: 7000 BC

Description: "Express self (impulsively) for what self desires without guilt and to avoid shame." Expressed by the mentality of street gangs, Vikings, etc.

Amber (originally 'Blue')

Summary: Absolutistic-obedience mythic order—purposeful/authoritarian

Time of origin: c. 3000 BC

Description: "Sacrifice self for reward to come through obedience to rightful authority in purposeful Way." Embodied by fundamentalist religions.

Orange

Summary: Multiplistic-achievist scientific/strategic

Time of origin: c. 1000 AD on (as early as 600 AD according to Graves and Calhoun)

Description: "Express self (calculatedly) to reach goals and objectives without rousing the ire of important others." Expressed in the Scientific Revolution and the Industrial Revolution.

Green

Summary: Relativistic-personalistic—communitarian/egalitarian

Time of origin: From 1850 on (surged in early 20th century)

Description: "Sacrifice self-interest now in order to gain acceptance and group harmony." Expressed in 1960s pluralism and systems theory.

Second Tier Value Memes
Yellow
Summary: Systemic-integrative
Time of origin: 1950s
Description: "Express self for what self desires, but to avoid harm to others so that all life, not just own life, will benefit."

Turquoise
Summary: Holistic
Time of origin: 1970s
Description: An integrative system which combines an organism's necessary self-interest with the interests of the communities in which it participates. The theory is still forming.

Summary from Shambhala Interview with Ken Wilber on Value Memes:

Orange’s the basic theme is ‘Act in your self-interest by playing the game to win’.  A this level the self escapes from the herd mentality of the previous level (‘Mythic fundamentalism’ ) and seeks truth and meaning in individualistic terms – hypothetico-deductive, experimental, objective, mechanistic, operational – “scientific” in the sense.  The world is a rational and well-oiled machine with natural laws that can be learned, mastered and manipulated for one’s own purpose.  Highly achievement oriented, especially toward materialistic gains (especially in America).  The laws of science rule politics, the economy and human events.  The world is a chess-board on which games are played as winners gain pre-eminence and perks over losers.  It is a world of marketplace alliances and manipulation of earth’s resources for one’s strategic gains.  The ‘Scientific-Achievement’ stage is the basis of corporate states.  It is seen in the ‘The Enlightenment’, Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, Wall Street, emerging middle classes around the world, cosmetics industry, trophy hunting, colonialism, the Cold War, fashion industry, materialism, secular humanism and liberal self-interest.

Modern philosophy is beginning to learn the wisdom in bridging the Platonic ‘lines’: Truth & Goodness (science & religion) and Truth & Beauty (science & beauty: arts, music).  For a harmonious society The True, The Good and The Beautiful all need each and cannot exist without each other.  This harmony attempts to set the stage for the next levels (integrative, holistic) where its wisdom understands that you don’t reject the previous stage, but you try to “transcend and include” stages.   The great difficulty in accomplishing Harmony is that each cultural stage feels threaten whenever another other stage tries to impose its ‘rules of the game’ and turn on each other in attempt to establish supremacy.

For example, the ‘Mythic fundamentalism’ stage (Blue) is very uncomfortable with both ‘Egocentrism’ impulsiveness (Red) and ‘Scientific Materialism’ individualism (Orange).  Orange individualism thinks blue order is for suckers and green egalitarianism (‘The Sensitive Self’) is weak and woo-woo.  Green egalitarianism  cannot easily abide excellence and value rankings, big pictures, hierarchies or anything that appears authoritarian, and thus green reacts strongly to blue, orange and anything post-green. 

Green has been in charge of cultural studies for the past three decades (via hijacked public Universities) which has produce a slew of green mene catch words:  pluralism, relativism, diversity, multiculturalism, deconstruction, anti-hierarch.  The positive benefits of green-mene consciousness are numerous: civil rights movement, feminism, environmental protection and health care freedom.  But the downsides have been equally far-reaching:  extreme or deconstructive postmodernism (as opposed to constructive postmodernism); politically correct thought police; the complete dumbing down of the educational system in order to avoid those nasty grades and ranking; the pervasive erosion of first amendment rights (when green-mene individuals are asked which is more important, freedom of speech or preventing freedom of speech as to not hurt somebody’s feelings, a majority alarmingly choose the later.  In other words, the right to free speech would be replaced by the right to not have your sensitive ego bruised, and this abrogation of first-amendment freedoms is now standard policy at many centers of higher education – an example of mean green in action).

As Don Beck says, “Green has to have victims.  And so it has to see everybody as either an innocent victim or a wicked oppressing force.  Thus, where the blue meme blames the victim, the green meme creates victims, by the droves, and then trumps up charges for those it imagines are the great oppressors.  At West Point, for example, if a man looks at a woman for longer than seven seconds, he is guilty of sexual harassment and the woman has been victimized.  This is behind so much of the “victim chic” that has become so fashionable in cultural studies, which erodes self responsibility, demonized so much of life’s unavoidable messiness, and saddest of all, trivializes the real victims of real oppression.”

Mr. Beck continues, “There is health and unhealthy green.  Healthy green is the “sensitive self”; it helps society be more caring more sensitive about others.  Unhealthy green or pathological green takes things to extremes (fundamentalism).  Instead of opening to other viewpoints and perspectives, there is a persecution of those who do share this particular “openness.”  The politically correct thought police swing into action, a type of green Inquisition that is now quite active in academia.  The pathologies of green (and the other stages) tend toward a sharp polarization into an “us” vs. “them” mentality.  Second tier sees the importance and necessity of both.  The first tier creates sharp dualities: purple has good spirits versus bad spirits; red had predators and prey; blue has saints and sinners; orange has winners and losers; green has “sensitive” and “insensitive”.

The arguments are not about better objective evidence, but of the subjective level of those arguing.  No amount of orange scientific evidence will convince blue mythic believers; no amount of green bonding will impress orange aggressiveness; no amount of turquoise holism will dislodge green pluralism – unless the individual is ready to develop forward through the dynamic spiral of consciousness unfolding.  This is why “cross-level” debates are rarely resolved, and all parties usually feel unheard and unappreciated.

z