I am planning[1] on this being the first of several posts taking a critical look at Graves’ research into E-C theory, commonly known as Spiral Dynamics. While I think that Graves’ research methodology was superb for the era it was performed. In a time when most psychological researchers developed a theory and then tried to fit evidence to that theory, Graves designed an experiment that removed his ideas from the research and only developed the theory after many years of research [2]. However there are known flaws[3] and further academic research (and peer review) would be wonderful.

The issue I want to look at today is one that lies at the heart of his theory.  Graves developed his theory after gathering written descriptions from freshman students about their ‘conception(s) of psychologically mature human behavior’ [4]. He then has a second group of students categorise these conceptions. This on its own is a wonderful idea; rather than try to impose his own order on the conceptions, he had many different groups of students categorise them for him. The categorisations that were developed were markedly similar, although there was some variation.[5]

My criticism is that because the students needed to be graded and in order to incentivise his students to be honest he developed a set of criteria that would be used for grading.[6]

1. Breadth of coverage of human behaviour
2. Concurrence with established psychological fact.
3. The internal consistency of the conception.
4. The applicability of the conception.

I can see issues with several of these criteria but today I am going to concentrate on just the third.

Graves states that 60% of conceptions where considered to be consistent by the judges [7], but by incentivising consistency he may well have inadvertently introduced artificial consistency into the conceptions where there is none, or at least biased the degree of consistency. I can think of reasons for Graves wanting to keep the conceptions consistent. For example, this allowed him to ask his students for an updated conception at the end of the course and use this data to work out how conceptions evolve over time, this is very useful knowledge, but it may be the case that peoples conceptions are rarely consistent.

Further to this. Whilst using students to create the categorisation prevented Graves from artificially creating categories, it did not address the potential problem of biases within human perception of others values. In other words, the conceptions that are identified could be artificial constructions of human perception and language rather than points that are inherently unique.

Several vectors were identified when peoples conceptions evolve that I do not think are effected by this issue. (although further research would be needed to confirm this.)

1. Increased evolution brings an increasing complexity of conception.[8]
2. Increased evolution brings a greater degree of behavioural freedom.[9]

Other issues are, I think, more likely to be effected.  For example, that conceptions, when consistent, oscillate from ‘I’ systems, with an internal sense of authority and an external locus of control to ‘we’ systems with an external sense of authority and an internal locus of control.  When the conceptions are inconsistent this may no longer be the case. Inconsistent conceptions may not centralise on an ‘I’ or a ‘we’ state in the same place as the consistent conceptions when looking at the complexity of conception or the degree of behavioural freedom.

This brings into doubt the even, ordered nature of the way peoples conceptions evolve. For example, in not looking at the inconsistent conceptions, he may be missing conceptions that are not easily categorisable because they consist of a mix of easily identifiable conceptions. For example, someone might express a mixture of DQ and FS (pairing in Cowan and Todorovic language) with low ER and yet have the behavioural freedom and complexity of conception of someone with a consistent ER conception.

Further study would be needed to confirm this and unfortunately Graves’ many years of raw data has been lost so it would need to be done from scratch. Some longitudinal studies are ideally needed to identify how all peoples conceptions evolve and not just the consistent conceptions. A good starting point would be to identify an up to date methodology for identifying the degree of complexity of the conceptions and the degree of behavioural freedom expressed by people.

Notes

1. I say ‘planning’ because I have about ten ideas for posts for every one I have time to write.

2. The Never Ending Quest. Clare W Graves. pp38-39.

3. We looked at several on Cowan and Tordovics SD1 and SD2 course. In particualar the poor sample that 1950s American colledge students made.

4. The Never Ending Quest. Clare W Graves. pp44-46

5. The Never Ending Quest. Clare W Graves. p47

6. The Never Ending Quest. Clare W Graves. p45

7. The Never Ending Quest. Clare W Graves. pp56, 92

8. cognitive complexity - Graves used a modified version of George Kelly’s REP test. http://www.clarewgraves.com/research_content/CG&OJH/2.html

9. behavioural freedom was measured by the student judges - The Never Ending Quest. Clare W Graves. p114

With world markets dropping like a stone, crucial resources such as oil depleting and pollution in the form of global warming threatening our very habitat, I still have hope. Why?

Strangely, five years ago, when nearly everyone else was partying, I was afraid. I strongly suspected the credit crisis was coming, I was investigating peak oil and was raised to be concerned about our environment. I was a doomer.

Today I am optimistic. I do have concerns and things could certainly go down the pan, we have a long struggle ahead of us. Now that the problems are largely being recognised I feel a sense of relief and am able to focus on what needs doing more clearly.

Perhaps I just like to be contrary, but there is reason to my madness. As anyone who has followed this blog will notice I find Graves’ E-C theory fascinating. It is popularly known as Spiral Dynamics and deals with how humans value their lives and the world. Although his theory predicts some reasons to fear, my reading of the current situation is hopeful. Here is why.

Graves studied how people value the world and how that impacts on their behaviour, I have written about it elsewhere on the site, so will not go into a lot of detail here. It is complicated to sum up the whole theory in a sentence without oversimplifying, but essentially the way humans value the world is evolving.

For the last few hundred years a values system known as ER (orange) has been growing in strength as more people embrace its ideology.  This system is characterised by an ‘express self’ attitude, where we put our selves and our own needs first. Yet it is a system that does so through planning rather than immediate gratification. It is a rational, thought out value system, but one that is reductionist and tends to have tunnel vision. For all ER’s ability to create an economy that can produce unparalleled wealth and freedom it is useless at seeing the side effects of its externalisations. It does not equate the waste or resource streams into its economic model because equating them is not in its  foundational interests. As a result we have major economic crashes, depleting resources and an eco system that is becoming unfit for civilisation as we know it. This value system has brought us many great things from democracy through to the scientific method, it is not that the system is bad, just that it has had its day. It is time to develop a new way of valuing the world that takes on board the best that ER offers us, yet also has inherent appropriate responses to the problems it has caused.

For all its flaws the ER system has many benefits over the previous dominant value system, DQ (blue). DQ is an absolutist, dualistic, fundamentalist, dogmatic value system in which it is believed everyone has their place. This was a world of caste systems, an absolute belief in how life works that is handed down from superiors without question.  DQ is still around today, it is still a strong value system that many embrace whole heartedly, there are even more primitive value systems around to a lesser effect. The world is a complex place.

It is important to stress that these are systems in people, not people in systems.  A person is not in the DQ system. DQ is a system that is operating in a person, often at the same time as other value systems. People are complex.

If we have overshot our resources to such an extent that the ER system is no longer viable then it is very likely that the dominant system will descend back towards DQ. There is a very good historical example of this happening before. 1930s Germany.  ER science with DQ values is not a pretty sight. As I said, I am not without my concerns.

However, I have hope, and it is with reason.

Over the last 100 years a new value system has been evolving in response to the shortcomings of ER. It is known as FS (Green). FS takes Newtonian physics and relativises it. FS takes a colonial anthropological perspective and pluralizes it.  FS takes modern art and post-modernises it.  FS takes the scientific method that ER created and runs with it, transforming it into a multiperspictival tool. Rather than looking for a single formula that explains all existence, it conceptualises a formula to its environment. Someone with FS values cares about the environment beyond their back yard, they care about peoples happiness and ability to live life to the full regardless of their cultural origins. FS inherently develops economies that care about the resource and waste streams and it is capable of doing so without abandoning all the benefits that the ER economy brought about.

FS is a ’sacrifice self’ value system as was DQ. However the sacrifice is not to an omnipotent dictator or creator, but to the equality of all. DQ develops a strong sense of community but where everyone outside of that community is an evil ‘other’. Everyone with FS values appreciates community, but that community is different for every person, it extends to everyone that touches that persons life, no matter how far away that person is or how culturally different they are. A purely FS system of government would be inherently anarchistic, but not in the sense of the barbaric CP value system, it is a peaceful, peer reviewed, consensual seeking anarchism. It is democracy as it truly could be, with everyone having a say.

FS brings its own problems, it can take a long time to find consensus, but solutions to these will be found, in fact they are already on the horizon. Lets not race ahead, ER loves to get to the top of the pile and when ER looks at the system after FS (GT) it sees something it wants to be, but it can’t, not without first developing through FS. We need to deeply identify the problems with FS before GT can evolve to resolve them.

The reason I have hope that society is going to move forwards rather than backwards is several fold.

Firstly, moving to new systems of governance involves the destruction of the old.  When Galileo challenged the church, we were starting our transition to the ER system, it was not without conflict. The transition to FS should not be so bloody, if it is then it is likely we are descending to DQ rather than ascending to FS. Thus it is natural for there to be turmoil. In an individual under transition, there is a great deal of psychological upheaval as the foundations of how the person perceives the world changes and this process often takes time, this will be even more true in society. The problems we are struggling with could just as easily be caused by ER shifting towards FS. A temporary regression is understandable and probably inevitable.

Secondly, everywhere I look I see examples of FS thinking. From global warming scientists who will not come off the fence about exactly how bad the situation is because they understand the complexity it. To people in my local community running climate chaos kitchens and organising a transition town.  People everywhere questioning, knowing that the way we have been living is burning up and that we need to find a new way, we need ‘change’.

I grew up in a bohemian family and throughout my childhood I often came across a framed poem on the walls of my parents friends houses. It was claimed to be from an anonymous monk, but it was actually written by Max Ehrmann, a poet and lawyer in 1927. It is called the Desiderata.  A line of the poem keeps returning to me.

‘With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams; it is still a beautiful world.‘

I recently sent this open letter to George Monbiot in response to his Identity Politics in Climate Change Hell article

………………

Hi George

I’ve been following your writing for several years, my views usually agree quite closely to your own and I applaud you for managing to voice genuine global concerns in mainstream media as clearly as you do.

I’m writing because whilst reading your ‘Identity Politics in Climate Change Hell’ article I came to the conclusion that you were missing part of the equation.  I agree that we must engage the business world in seeking out solutions to the climate crisis. However, I think it is important to understand what the modern anarchist movement represents and why it is even more critical to engage it constructively.

The psychologist Clare Graves spent most of his long academic life studying how people value humanity; how they perceive and think it is best to behave in the world.  After many years of empirical research studying his subject he developed a theory that matched the data he had collated. Unfortunately he died in the 1980s before publishing his magnum opus and the core of his theory was lost from the public until recently when some of his students collated his work and published it [1].  While his work could certainly do with further research and peer review, it is the best I have come across in many years of trying to find explanations for why society behaves the way it does.  His theory predicts that problems such as global warming and peak oil would arise; he does not name them, just points out that the current dominant values in society are blind to waste and resource streams.

Graves theory has several names, I am simply going to refer to it as E-C theory, as the book above does. It is a complex theory, far too complex to express it in full in an email; even after years of studying it I am still constantly learning new nuances.  The reason for this is that the model is inherently open-ended and essentially describes how complex systems interact.  I am going to explain a small, much simplified part, but it is important to stress that due to the nature of the simplification, it makes humans seem a lot more simple than they are; the full theory does not do so.  Even with this simplification, this email is rather long; I do hope you find the time to read it.

Graves’ research uncovered five main systems for how people value the world around them. Through library research he predicted a further three. His research also demonstrated that peoples values are complex and are often not centred on a single system and that the way in which they develop is complex, yet also follows a general pattern of linear development, each value system building on the discoveries and failures of the previous one. I am only going to be discussing four of the original five, starting with the third one in out of the seven

We are going to join the picture with the C-P value system, this value system generally has a limited sense of ‘self’ awareness. People centred here realise that they are an individual and so have a strong boundary of what is them and what is not, however they do not have a strong sense of other peoples identities.  As a result, a person centred here will associate a person they are close to as being an extension of their own identity and other people as objects to be used as desired.  The culture associated with this value system is often violent (verbally, if not physically) and tends to encourage gangs to form where the members of the gang associate their buddies as extensions of themselves, because of this, a gang member will protect a fellow gang member, even if that means putting their own life at extreme risk, they will also however beat a fellow member to death if they think they were put at risk by them.  People centred here are essentially self-centred opportunists with little thought for future consequences of their actions and mainly interested in instant gratification.

The next system (D-Q) that clearly develops is one in which the sense of other has become much more fully formed. A very neat, organised, yet dogmatic system arises in which people centred here have developed such a strong appreciation for the consequences of their actions that they can be controlled with the justification of a future reward, one that they may believe they will only receive after death.  This system allows for the rise of civilisation in an empire/monarchist form in which society is hierarchy structured and everyone knows their place.  Vertical social mobility is actively discouraged through rigid class systems.  An interesting aspect of this system is that a single hierarchy does not seem to be able to exist on its own; if there is not another to compete with then a faction will break away.  People outside the hierarchical group are thought of as ‘others’ and are not truly considered human.  A person in this system can be extremely caring and giving to others in their own hierarchy (although often not to those below them) yet at the same time they would vilify an ‘other’ simply for being different.  Logic is valued in this system, but only in an absolute dogmatic sense.  There are facts, but these are as handed down from authority, not developed though logical reasoning.

A person centred in the third system (E-R) has further developed their sense of reasoning to the point that they no longer accept facts as given to them and instead investigate phenomena with their own senses to uncover evidence that supports hypotheses. These people tend to be self centred and out for self gain, but they understand the consequence of abusing those in power and the power of the system and so only break the law if they know they can get away with it. They also value the law, as much as they may grumble about its constraining their lack of opportunity, they appreciate its protecting them from C-P impulses. On a cultural level it is expressed in the concepts of the free market, democracy and the scientific method. People living from this system value the right to live life as they choose to live it, believing everyone has the right to forge a life for themselves, as a result, vertical social mobility is encouraged. However despite the desire for freedom, the very nature of the self-centeredness of this system encourages the creation of hierarchical social structures, which whilst not ridged as they where at DQ, do result in the opportunity for the abuse of power. The problems this system creates largely stem from further limitations in the ability to reason. Whilst this system is genuinely able to rationally appraise a situation, it is only in a reductionist manner. This system evaluates accurately within the blinkered set of information that it considers, but is prone to mistakes and erroneous conclusions due to a lack of consideration for all the many other possible elements that do not exist within its knowledge of the world.  In other words, whilst it is capable of examining that which it can hold, it is not very successful at examining the assumptions with which it is doing the holding.

The final value system I am going to outline in this email is F-S. People centred in this system respond to E-R by developing the ability to investigate the assumptions within which they are investigating the world around them.  This results in an appreciation for many possible solutions to a problem, an appreciation for the many different people, cultures and ways of living that are different from their own; as a result it swings people back towards a community centred perspective on life. Unlike D-Q, the sense of community is not centred on their culture, but on all the people that they interact with.  People in this system are capable of thinking outside the box and of considering the problems that the E-R system creates.  Academic examples of F-S thought include Einstein’s Theory of relativity and Godel’s incompleteness theorems. Culturally, this system introduces concepts such as human rights (beyond the borders of their own lives) and ecological concern, however we do not yet have an example of a society that has fully embraced this system. By examining groups of people who utilise this system we do know something of what an F-S society would look like. It would be non-hierarchical with little opportunity for the abuse of power, rather than managers and leaders we would have facilitators and inspiring friends.  The system of organisation would be more peer to peer based and consensus driven, resulting in a society more resilient to catastrophe.  This system also produces its own problems, the search for consensus can be lengthy and protracted and a large amount of energy is invested in social connections.  Since society at large has not yet reached this value system, exploring further usually presents more problems than solutions; from the perspective of whatever the current value system is, it is easy to confuse the one that is two steps on, and think that you are implementing it, when really it is being translated down to the current one and the problems are simply externalised and thus become ignored rather than resolved.

These value systems are not concrete absolutes but brief moments of clarity as the chaotic processes of the mind briefly coalesce in a point of clarity. It is important not to take them too literally, yet they do provide a lot of insight into how society as a whole is progressing, the kinds of problems we are likely to face when a system is dominant and the varieties of solutions that will help.  (The process of development between systems has been researched and a great deal is known about it, however this is beyond the scope of this email).  I also feel the need to stress again, as it is often miss understood, that I am simplifying what goes on here, people are not these systems, these systems (several simultaneously) exist within people, sometimes one is dominant, but often not.

Finally I can come back to your article about Ewa Jasiewicz’s and Anarchism. The central issue that grated with me lies with the semantics of ‘Anarchism’. It means different things to different people.  The original definition of Anarchy is that of ‘A state of lawlessness and disorder.’ [2], in common usage, my experience is that this usually refers to situations where countries with a D-Q system of government, often a dictatorship or similar, has collapsed, and people are running around the streets looting, pillaging and raping as the society dips, hopefully temporarily, into a CP system of immediate needs.  However the modern Anarchist movement is actually something quite different, it refers to a system of government that is non-authoritarian, within that, there are many conflicting definitions [3].

The nature of the F-S system is that it does away with the need for central control and so the F-S system is inherently anarchistic. How a nation could organise itself in this way is unknown and will probably never be fully realised; all the systems that I have described are abstracted absolutes of reality.  We do not really have an idealised ‘free’ market economy at present, nor a system of government that could lie anywhere on a linear scale between the systems that I have described.  What we have could more closely be described as multiple systems running concurrently that are centralised somewhere around the E-R system.  If the nation was centralised around the F-S system, then we would likely see far less central control and it would have far less power than it does now, that does not mean it would not exist, just as dogmatic religion, where non believers are eternally damned, still exists in a country that is governed by laws that grant us (to a large extent) freedom of speech and beliefs.

The reason I am writing is not because I disagree with your position on engaging the state and corporate worlds, but in how you underestimate the power and meaning of the ‘anarchist politics’ that you experienced.

We do need to engage every facet of society to find solutions and one of the hardest parts will be finding solutions that work for people who are not centred at F-S, without making the situation worse.  Finding corporate and state solutions will buy us more time and will encourage many more people to consider the problems that lead to F-S values, however they will not provide permanent solutions, that can only happen from the very set of values that has evolved in response to the problem.

A final point. I am not familiar enough with Ewa Jasiewicz’s writtting to say how much I agree/dissagree with her, and am not doing either here.  I will say, that just becasue someone claims to be something it does not mean that they are, not everyone at the climate camp will have been living from F-S values.

I’ve posted this letter to my blog at www.skyshine.co.uk, My introduction to E-C theory there is more comprehensive, but unfinished. I do however include many links to further reading on the web.

1. http://www.clarewgraves.com/neq/neq.html

2. http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+anarchy&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

(This is one of a series of posts exploring EC Theory / Spiral Dynamics. If you read this post alone you will get a very distorted view as to what spiral dynamics is as the post is written from one particular viewpoint. To read them in sequence, please start in the Spiral Dynamics intro category.)

It has come to me recently that in the past I did not consider the consequences of my actions. I would just see something that I wanted and take it. I am glad I have found the Party. I have been given my rightful station and a task to complete. I am to study the truth of the Spiral Dynamic

There are religious heathens on our border who believe in God being the ultimate source of wisdom and knowledge. Infidels. Do they not know that wise party member Claregreve divined the truth? Using the ancient way of consulting the Spiral Dynamic at midnight. Claregreve has the esteemed honour of being prime amongst us mere mortals before the absolute truth of all.

A few years have passed. Party be blessed. I still hold the esteemed position in the order of all things. The party has successfully eradicated the godly heathens to the west. We have conquered their land and brought it under the true rule of the Party. We tortured the animals who would not repent. They clearly have not evolved enough to see the one truth.

No sooner than we put down the godly heathens that a faction has broken away to the south claiming that there is a new way divined though the way of the Spiral Dynamic. they claim that our way is inferior. We will win, as defined by the true Spiral Dynamic. The faction is not far from our location. I have been commanded to write down the truth so that it can be saved should our position be temporarily overrun.

The Spiral Dynamic commands thus:-

There are two kinds of human. Those that follow the true way of the Spiral Dynamic and those who do not. Of the heathens there are four subtypes.

1. The savage. These are designated the colour beige. They wander the wilderness looking for food and shelter. They are rare even beyond the borders of the empire of Spiral Dynamic.

2. The tribespeople. These are designated the colour purple. They live in the far reaches of the known lands. On an expedition last year we encountered one such tribe, their heathen ways were very strange. I suggested that we put them to the stake, but my leader said that we should study and catalogue them and see if they could be saved by the Spiral Dynamic. He was a wise leader, his words were true, praise him. These people speak backwards. They see the past in front of them when clearly the future is what lies before us, as the great spiral ticks forwards each unit of time moves one more step into the future. Purple people are always found in small tribes together. The heathens believe that their dead ancestors talk to them in their dreams, but we know as heathens they will have no place in the glorious Spiral Dynamic.

3. The barbarian. These people are designated the colour red. They do as they please. They know no law and just take as they wish. Sometimes when the purples go hungry they head to our cities and are red when they arrive. This transformation is beyond my humble mind but the Spiral Dynamic will reveal its truth when I am worthy. Often they band together into small gangs, raiding the villages. They have no care for the future and no care for each other beyond what is useful to them at the time. The Spiral Dynamic states that one of them will take great risks to save one of his own gang, only to turn around and beat the saved man to a pulp for making himself vulnerable.

4. The lost peoples. These people are designated the colour blue. They claim to know the one true way, they claim that God or some other ideal provides the ultimate law of truth. They are wrong. The one and only true way is described by the law of Spiral Dynamic. People who live this way have laws and order, they form towns and cites and the people within them know their places, yet they are heathens and for all their similarities to the one true way and they are eternally damned. Blue peoples, like the godly peoples to the west that we recently vanquished, form civilisations, they understand that the future must be considered in all the actions that we make, yet they do not consider that future in the true way.

I have been trying to place this new faction into the four heathen groups. I am having trouble doing so. The cities they have taken over are reportedly not burning to the ground as they would if red elements had taken over, yet they do not easily fit into blue because the reports say that they do not follow a fixed law. Instead they have people they call ‘lawyers’ who fight with words to decide who describes the truth the most accurately. I can not envision how this could be so, surely they would just break down into anarchy and start killing each other, yet reportedly this is not what happens. My superior has told me not to worry about it, the Spiral Dynamic will show the true way, but I can not help but feel concerned. I am not trusting my superiors wisdom. This is not good, I will loose my way from the Spiral Dynamic if I keep questioning in this way.

The true way of the Spiral Dynamic is lost. The faction has over ridden us. My supervisor jumped from his window this morning. He said he would rather die in truth than have to live under false rulers. I am hesitating from taking such action myself. It seems that when I think about it, there may be some truth in what the faction has to say. The claim that they are working under a new paradigm, one that they call orange, they also claim that what I saw as the true way is in reality just another expression of blue.

This makes some sense to me now. I need to think about it for myself some more before I come to a conclusion.

(This is one of a series of posts exploring EC Theory / Spiral Dynamics. If you read this post alone you will get a very distorted view as to what spiral dynamics is as the post is written from one particular viewpoint. To read them in sequence, please start in the Spiral Dynamics intro category.)

The way of spirits is failing me. The tribe has grown, many strangers have moved amongst us, one of them took me without the blessing of the ancestors and I am lost now.

The gods have given me the desire to take what I wish from the ancient lore of Spiral Dynamics. My brother told me that I was walking the path of the snake, fool. He is stupid and does not do as I tell him. The others are attacking the tribe this morning. I pick up the boiling pot and kill a man as he is aiming a spear at my brother. My brother is grateful and thanks the spirits. I told him he was a fool and that it was me he should be grateful too, he told me not to disrespect the ancestors and I clobbered him too. I did not mean to kill him, he was useful to me, but never mind.

The elder said that the snake had possessed me and I was dead to them. I am leaving the tribe. I am travelling to city to take what is mine.

As I travel I seduce a man and take his food and, then slit his throat, I will not let a foul beast such as that posses me.

There are many people here in the city. Many men to seduce, the good ones I let take me - for a good price, the bad - I just take their money. I have some women under me who do as I say and I am to be sure they are fed. There are many riches to be had in the city, I just have to take them. A man came today and became violent with one of my woman, I had my pimp take him and dump him in the river, no one does that to me. My woman was grateful to me.

My pimp let me seduce him, the fool. I am boss now and he knows his place. One of my woman tried to drown me when I was having a bath. How could my own do that to me? Never mind she is dead now. I have looked up the lore of Spiral Dynamics and created a few rules. No killing the boss is rule number one.

I must pay taxes to the church for God. It is a good racket that they have there. Everyone obeying the master, even when he is not looking. I do not like paying, but I am told I must or they will bring the law down on me. I am not afraid.

They came to get me this morning. They have locked me in a cell and told me that I am charged with article 127. I do not know what I did.

I have been in the cell for a long time now. I felt confused for a long time, but feel better now. There are three others in my cell. We fought at first but the warden would punish us whenever we did and we could not get back at him so we are getting on now. It is nice in a way, not to have to be the boss any more. I do not like being in here, always having to follow the rules, but I am given food every day that I do not have to kill for.

I have found God. The priest has shown me the holy way of Spiral Dynamics and I obey its every law now, we will all be better for it. I am no longer in prison, God be praised, I can serve my true master now with my devoted brothers and sisters.

(This is one of a series of posts exploring EC Theory / Spiral Dynamics. If you read this post alone you will get a very distorted view as to what spiral dynamics is as the post is written from one particular viewpoint. To read them in sequence, please start in the Spiral Dynamics intro category.)

Spiral Dynamics is a gift from the ancestors through which the clouds of the future become a little clearer behind us. The ancestors have given us this knowledge that we might best know how to live.

The ancestors bring love to our hearts that we may share with one another the spirits of desire as they sing though us whilst the hollow tree beats out its heartbeat upon our hands.

The ancestors show us that when the goddess of the loins wishes to bring more among us than the deities of the forest are willing to share with us, then the spirit of the monkey may come amongst us and we will fight with our blood and entrails and feast upon those who walk the path of spirit.

When the snake speaks through a young man who is possessed to walk alone, then he is no longer of our family and he dies even though his ghost still walks and breathes in the forest.

The man snakes attack us, they do not fight in the way the ancestors proscribe. They kill all, and only to eat the fish that the spirits had deigned to us, then move on, leaving the spirits unrecognised.

I am alone now. The man snakes confuse me. But I feel I am becoming one of them.

Rather than just regurgitating material that is already published in my own words, I have decided to have some fun and have myself the task of explaining what E-C theory is from each of the different values systems within the theory. When approaching clients I have to be able to explain the theory and I have to do it in a way that they will comprehend, a large part of this is finding the language of their values and then explaining it as best I can.

I am going to start with a B-O explanation. Which I have never had to do, as B-O as a dominant system simply does not really exist in the modern world. It is going to be a challenge and I will have to use a little creative licence.

Don’t worry if you don’t know what ‘value systems’ or the different letter pairs mean yet, that will come clear in time. It might be interesting for you to note down your response to each description, e.g. a) how much do you like/dislike the sound of it. b) did you have trouble wrapping your head around it. c) after reading it, how well could you explain it to someone else. I’ll be very supprised if you relate strongly to B-O, and I won’t be supprised if you wonder what I’m on about, bare with it and come back to this system later if it makes no sense to you now.

Important note: All of these different descriptions are biased and stereotyped towards one particular expression of the value system being expressed. They are not necessarily representative, I have to some extent purposefully veered away from the more common stereotypes - but all the expressions are still stereotypes. This will become clearer in the later value systems, these systems do not really exist, they are simply artefacts of the theory and the manner in which our minds latch onto information to make sense of it. There are many contradictions from one description to another. This is on purpose to highlight some of the contradictions within the theory; take all factoids with a pinch of salt and try to let the over all picture of the theory settle in - this is the useful part of the theory.

(edited 22/05/08 - added important note)

(part of a series of posts introducing E-C Theory and Spiral Dynamics)

E-C theory was developed by a man called Clare Graves. In the early 1950s he was a psychology professor who had an itch to scratch, but he could not quite find the spot. His students kept asking him which of the psychological models that were prevalent at the time actually worked. The problem was, as far as he could tell, none of them did. This inspired him to develop an experiment that he hoped would shed some insight on the matter. It went something like this.

He set an assignment for for one of his new freshman classes. In this assignment he asked his students to write a description of what they considered to be ideal human behaviour. He then passed these papers to another group of freshman students who did not know the first group and asked them to group the papers in categories. The only condition on them being grouped was that the students thought that the papers were similar.

He then repeated, washed and rinsed the same experiment for the next nine years and then spent the next twenty years adding new variables, cross correlating with of other psychological research and performing longitudinal studies.

The end result of all this was a pile of data and a theory with a schizophrenic name. At the time he stopped writing he referred to it as the ‘Emergent, Cyclical, Double-Helix Model of Adult Human Biopsychosocial Systems’, which is a bit shorter than some of his earlier names. Unfortunately, while Graves was writing his magnum opus he had a stroke after which he never managed to finish his book.

Fortunately his work did not completely die with him, several of his students including Christopher Cowan and Don Beck set up in business as consultants using Graves work to help people and in particular businesses. They needed a business name that would help them sell their wares and they came up with the name Spiral Dynamics.

The Spiral Dynamics team carried on where Graves left off, their studies expanding with a more cross cultural perspective and looking at the specific problems that their clients were faced with. Eventually, they wrote a book, published in 1996 called, ‘Spiral Dynamics: Mastering Values, Leadership, and Change‘.

A few years later Cowan and Beck parted ways. Both carried on in the same vein of business consultancy, however both also developed in new directions as well. Cowan, along with his new partner Natasha Todorovic managed to unearth a lot of Graves original manuscript and published ‘The Never Ending Quest‘, they also continued their consultancy, training and empirical studies. Meanwhile Don Beck had teamed up with Ken Wilber, a philosipher/psychologist who had used Spiral Dynamics as part of his AQAL theory. Beck and Wilber together renamed the theory ‘Spiral Dymanics Integral’ and this is also used in consultancy and training.

There are differences between Graves original E-C theory, the early Cowan and Beck Spiral Dynamics, the Cowan and Todorovic Spiral Dynamics and the Beck and Wilber Spiral Dynamics Integral. I originally encountered this body of work while reading Wilbers ‘Theory of Everything’ and his other books. However, on reading some criticisms of Wilbers work, which I agreed with, I no longer ascribe to the Spiral Dynamics Integral model (I will go into detail about this in a later post). I later read the original Spiral Dynamics Book and The Never ending Quest, which I then followed up by attending the SD1 and SD2 training with Cowan and Todorovic. I now lean quite strongly towards the Cowan and Todorovic camp, but I do have my criticisms of their work as well. I will explore my criticisms and my own stance in more depth once I have finished fleshing out the main theory as it will make more sense then. I prefer to use the term E-C theory rather than Spiral Dynamics, which is the term used throughout The Never Ending Quest. Another name that is sometimes used is ECLET. Most articles on the web use the term Spiral Dynamics and few people would know what I am talking about if I never mentioned it so I sprinkle the term around here and there and always use it when specifically talking about work done after Graves.

(The source for this information is from the Never Ending Quest, the original Spiral Dynamics book, the SD1 and SD2 courses and the the three main websites to do with Spiral Dynamics: www.spiraldynamics.org, www.spiraldynamics.net and www.clarewgraves.com. This wikipedia article is also pretty good. )

I have been wondering if it is wise to post so much personal history on the web, after all it is here for posterity.

Then I came across this.

I’ve also been a bit too attached to getting the personal history finished before I write all the other crazy ideas in my head. But even though I’ve only got one post to go, it is taking too long.

I’ve got two of my Spiral Dynamics certification clients to see this weekend so I am not going to have a great deal of time to update the site. It’s frustrating, my replacement at Green Dot Guides starts on the 1st of May, then there will be a handover period before I have much extra time, but my head is bursting with ideas. I’m not even managing to write rough notes on them all. To boot, I am burnt out from two very demanding years as a web site development manager.To sum up I am tired but not sleeping great. Sigh. I am just going to start posting ideas as they come up. They will be a little rough for now, but never mind.

Things I am planning/doing with the site.

• Working on the design for this site (current design is just the install default.) I’ve nearly finished a preliminary banner.
• Finish my work history posts. Important because I will have much less work soon and want to get the ball moving on my next move.
• Finish the ‘about’ pages. Write a post about how I want to organise the site; and why.
• Work out how to turn on the Firefox UK English dictionary…. done. Right click > languages > UK.
• Write posts introducing Spiral Dynamics and some of my thoughts/ideas about it.
• Finish several book reviews I have been writing (in my head and on the computer.) And post them here.
• Create a 3Am ideas category and start posting them.
• Link this site up to the web. It is live but as far as I know there are no links to it. Very unlikely anyone has found it yet <checks log>Can’t find password… do it later.</checks log>
• Write a post about discovering how people in Hebden Bridge are working towards us being a transition town.

Things I am doing off the web site.

• Pregnant wife
  • Helping with extra housework
  • Discussion
  • Reading up
  • Planning
  • Preparations
• Spiral Dynamics certification
  • Continue interviewing my volunteers for certification
    • Write about process
• Permaculture
  • Monthly day class - studying towards foundation.
    • March 28th - I am hosting.
  • Write about permaculture.
  • Look after seed bed. Continue planting experimental guild of sunflowers, beans + root parsley/chard/lettuce.
• Transition town
  • Network
  • Attend the next Climate Kitchen event at the Trades Club on Sunday 5th April
  • Write about it.
• Socialise and go to Zen meditation group and Quaker meetings.
• Exercise. Run. Run some more; burn off the sleepless energy so I can rest properly. I am crap at this.
• Ohh yea, my day job.
• Rest; please. And sleep.

I am at a stage in my life where I am trying to move my career, the purpose in my life, in new directions. For a long time I have been involved in the eco-sector, but usually in a support role and I have been getting frustrated with the need to push things in new directions. I can see so much that needs to be done in the world; so many problems with how we live that are causing the eco system and our social system to break down. I will write more extensively on the problems at a later date, the purpose of this post is to share a little of my vision with you. One of my purposes of attending the Spiral Dynamics training was to help me find some new direction. Marie Faire, one of the support tutors from the Beyond Partnership suggested that I write an idealised version of how I would like to work, without any of the practical constraints. It was a very useful exercise, which allowed me to clarify my ideas. In have re-written the dream several times, and will no doubt do so again, it is an ongoing work. But for the moment, here is a snapshot of where I am.

…………………

To work in a place with people where I can look into their eyes, hold their hands and hug them with an open, peaceful heart and be likewise embraced. To also communicate and interact with a global network of other people for exchange of ideas, methodologies and systems. Where the flow of information between us is intricate and accepted even when difficult, painful and conflicting allowing for ever more accurate and complex modelling and solutions. Yet also a place with the space and time to be alone to develop ideas, to rest in solitude, silence and peace. Time to develop my own identity and creativity. A place where, by being, I flow into people as they flow into me; and then flow out again as we continue onwards, each maintaining our own individuated uniqueness. A local place where we can share ideas and experience with our full perceptive field as well as though formal language and the constructs that form from that. To work with unique individuals, each with their own depth and breadth of flavour and sensation, enjoying that difference, enjoying exploring the boundaries between us that define our individual identities; the boundaries that without which we would have no identity. Our boundaries define us and in exploring the boundaries that we share we can do more than know each other, we in a very real sense become each other for a while, in becoming each other, we are peace with each other, before the flux and flow riddle on in their evolving dance. Our own changing identities ebbing and waning as we grow, evolve and die. There is a lot of flow in this description, yet the flow is structured and at times gritty, it can be organised and hierarchical. The structure has no ultimate form, no perfect form. This sounds idealised, and it is, for that is its intention; in reality it will be grounded and the edges will sometimes be rough and unknown.

Working efficiently and effectively with people towards resolving the major problems facing humanity and the environment from the excessive consumption and waste that we produce. Working with people systems and the institutions they reside within to create more efficient, effective, congruent, reliable, integrated, sustainable, holistic and people friendly environments. Doing so by walking my talk, keeping my resource use under a specific percentile on critical measures by home working and localising, but at them same time being globally networked with other localised groups. To work specifically with E-C and related psychological theories interactively with the support of the E-C knowledge community. To keep my career open ended and expanding into new areas as they interest me and become relevant.

To work in Hebden Bridge, where I am settled into the local community with good friends. To work congruently with the needs of raising a healthy family and be harmonious with the needs of my wife, Nicole.