Don Beck makes another cogent defense of the Spiral theory, and in this case, a point that I think gets repeatedly lost when AQAL proponents dismiss SDi as nothing more than a values line in the integral model.
As far as I am concerned, the identification of the eight stages is of secondary usefulness, at best. The important element in the Spiral model is how it addresses and understands change -- how new stages emerge or don't emerge, based on a variety of factors.
This is from the SDi listserve.
With regard to the current conversation regarding 4Q/8L -- our version is 4Q/8L and AQAL is Wilber's version, the concept of "allometry" might be of use. The danger is to reduce the quadrants to separated boxes as if they are self contained entities. They are not. In a recent posting I made on Third Tier, I described the role of the Spiral in the vortex among the four, as the "verb" that drives the "rise" and meshes the various concentrations and combinations. It is quite OK to separate them for an educational purpose but quite reductionistic and artificial to attempt to decide which one comes first etc. etc. This is the reason we use the term "Integral."
The real contribution of Graves and Spiral Dynamics is not in the array of levels that he identified in his research; rather, the key is in the Dynamics of the Spiral itself.
I have a great deal of difficulty understanding how other theories explain how/why/when the emergence occurs. To my knowledge Graves offers the very best explanation within the "Double Helix" - the interaction between/among Life Conditions, human Capacities, and specific Contexts. As early as 1971 at a presentation in Washington DC (National Institute of Mental Health) he "climbed out on a fragile limb" to declare how Life Conditions shape what we know as the interiors, and why these patterns have correlates within the brain's structure, neuronets, chemical flows, and energy swirls ... nobody else was saying it so well, especially then.
When I speak or write of Spiral Dynamics, I'm referring to the "emergent, cyclical, double helix model of bio-psycho-social systems" -- the Master Code -- not the specific "systems" that many have identified. I didn't find any of this in Loevinger's initial research, for example, and have difficulty tracking the process that creates new world views or value systems in other models. This is one of the reasons I decided, after studying 42 systemic models, that I should cast my lot with Clare. I have never had second thoughts.
( We just completed an empirical study of 20,000 people in Iceland.)
I think this is a useful clarification. Anyone have any thoughts on this?
Tags:
3 comments:
It would seem to me that any stage conception leaves out the concept of ontology unless one argues there is an ultimate stage that they are sitting in that transcends it all and can witness "reality". In another way of thinking ontology at each level is a construct of that level. Even the idea of an individual self could be observed as a construct. Of course the idea of everything being a construct is open to Habermas' observation of performative contradiction in that it universalizes a relativizing concept but for the sake of brevity I will leave it at that.
So it would seem that the idea of knowing a universal concept of emergence can only be seen as arising from a stage itself. It would seem to be a performative contradiction in arguing stage theory but claiming to be beyond stages. it seems a claim that stage theory itself is beyond observation as a theory arising from a stage and then gets itself into the trouble of questioning if a stage theory arises from a stage then the stage theory will be transcended at another level and render it untrue.
It seems that the idea of stage development can at certain levels :) create an ontology of a concept that would appear to ultimately say their is no ontology.
Some would seem to handle this with meta-perspectives such as saying the map is not the territory but one would have to question if there is anything but maps with the idea of a territory a map itself. Within the infinite we can find the place of things, concepts etc only in relation to and distinguished from other concepts, things, selves, etc such as Kuhn points out with his use of paradigms. Only from within a paradigm does the use of that paradigm make sense. Only from within a constellation created in order to find identity in infinity can that constellation be observed.
So I wonder about the capacity of Graves or anyone to see emergence from other than a perspective that creates distinctions that exist only in the creation of them. Personally I see creating distinctions as sacred as is our relationship to those distinctions. I do not argue that Graves was wrong, only that right and wrong, better and worse are constructs themselves as is this comment. You could say they are different sides of the same coin but I would say the coin itself is is not separate from that which distinguishes it.
Nobody is claiming (well, maybe KW and Andrew Cohen are) to be beyond stages. Graves never talked about his own stage development, but we can assume he was able to objectively observe each of the stages he discovered in his research, which suggests his intellectual level was relatively high. Beck claims he has never met ANYONE whose center of gravity was integral or higher.
Stages are all relative. They arise from the Ground of Being and return to the Ground of Being. In the absolute sense, it's all Buddha Nature.
Of course, stages are only a map of the known territory. And at least one stage (relativist, postmodern) doesn't acknowledge the existence of stages. All six lower stages see their worldview as the only correct worldview.
And of course, no one is a stage -- stages manifest in people, not people in stages.
Peace,
Bill
I think there is indications that there are other levels in which their inhabitants would perhaps argue there are no levels or at least that those levels are constructs. Or at least that is what some of the research indicates. There is an edited book by Commons and Richards called Beyond Formal Operations that goes into some of it. Cook-Greuter did interesting work on it with Kegan as her advisor.
I am curious how Beck can know he has never met anyone at a center of gravity higher than integral. As far as I know there is no test and it would seem to me if subject object theory is correct that it would be difficult to see anyone above your level. I am writing my dissertation now so I am really curious about this. I have also worked for years with other developmental systems that have tests and even after years of work I can't call about 40% of the people that are at an earlier level than I am suppose to be at but most of the time the test explains a lot about a persons behavior and language.
My point about constructivism, performative contradiction aside, is that things like developmental levels, relativism, constructivism etc become lenses that we use to see a world that is not pre-given or at least not available to be known as pre-given. In all the research I have read this seems to be left behind to a degree after orange (or their equivalent levels in other schemes). So the question for me is that the way I am interpreting what is said here is that integral also sees theirs is the only correct worldview just that as a developmental perspective it contains other world views. Those levels that are past that (other researcher have found quite a few people beyond the equivalent of integral) and they too see theirs as the one correct world view as it is meta to other worldviews.
It just seems difficult to argue that one does not have a correct worldview themselves as arguing their worldview is incorrect paradoxical must mean it is correct to be incorrect.
Godel mathematically "proved" (way over my head so I am depending on the less mathematically challenged for this) that that all symbol systems are self-referential and produce non-contradictory propositions only within their own axiomatic confines (I think I stole that quote from somewhere I can't remember). Seem similar to what Kuhn spoke too as well as autopoietic social systems theorists. Of course they have a similar problem in trying to argue that they are not working within a symbol or autopoietic system. In short it would seem that "known territory" looks more like a known map and as Bateson said the territory never gets in (as have many physiologists etc that show we interpret but do not directly observe anything- again a bit ironic in itself).
Also you say that stages manifest in people, not people in stages. Does that mean to you that people were not the ones to manifest stages but that they are pre-given? Interesting thought for sure. I seem to be given to thinking that people do manifest in stages so to speak in that what we call a self (or those of us who are not enlightened) does not have a center but is within a context that cannot be of that self's creation and one way of looking at that is levels.
I would love to see the research behind spiral dynamics. I have read as much of graves as I can get a hold of but I can't find a lot of the data or methodology outside of the book written by Cohen. I have heard about a lot of it but I can't find it anywhere. Do you have access to any of it. I cannot use spiral dynamics in my dissertation without more to show my committee.
Shawn
Post a Comment