Do AQAL and Spiral Dynamics Really Help with Political Analysis?
I enjoyed reading Matthew Dallman’s brief critique of spiral dynamics (the first chunk of block-indented text on this page).
I’m relatively new to the theory of spiral dynamics, but I too am beginning to wonder whether it actually leads to new political insights, or whether it inadvertently muddies the process of identifying more fundamental principles — such as the non-initiation of force principle — that deserve serious and abiding consideration regardless of what “color” may have first thunk it up.
For example, am I the only person who thought the following analysis was a little too accommodating to the collectivist end of the spectrum?
First let’s look at the four quadrants, which are simply the interior and exterior of the individual and collective, all of which are present in any occasion. Concerning the debate on rights versus responsibility: an emphasis on the sovereignty of the individual (rights) yields positions such as libertarianism; an emphasis on the sovereignty of the collective (responsibility) yields positions such as socialism.
As I understand it, the AQAL model, which forms the theoretical basis for the quote above, is not about “sovereignty” of the individual or the collective. (Speaking of the “sovereignty” of a collective doesn’t even make sense in this context.)
Rather, it is about ignoring one polarity or the other: ignoring the importance of self/individuality or ignoring the importance of others/interconnectedness.
As such, the true “false dichotomy” here — between a blind self-orientation and blind other-orientation — is strung between the two poles of anarchy and socialism, not capitalism and socialism.
Put simply, the political system that embodies the perspective “I can do whatever I want without regard for the impact I have on other people” is not capitalism. It is anarchy.
Free market capitalism — the social system characterized by the enforcement of individal rights — already embodies a delicate and well-conceived balance between respect for self (i.e., you may not violate my rights) and respect for others (i.e., I may not violate your rights).
Only capitalism says “Others may not initiate the use of force against you, and you may not initiate the use of force against others.”
Anarchy doesn’t say this; it says you can do whatever you want to other people. And socialism doesn’t say it either; it says that other people (with the aid of a legislator) may lock you up, or shoot you, for not allowing the welfare state to expropriate your income, run your business, and lay off your employees through minimum wage laws and other destructive regulations.
Thus, to take capitalism’s already delicately balanced self/other orientation, and argue that it should be “balanced” further with socialism’s “respect” for other people … strikes me as simply uninformed and ignorant of more fundamental dynamics in political philosophy.
So — if this is the kind of thinking that Wilber’s version of spiral dynamics and AQAL analysis leads to, then I think there’s something vital missing from the approach.
First, your criticism is of AQAL and perhaps Ken Wilber, but not Spiral Dynamics. You may want correct the title. [Good point about the title. Done. Will finish addressing spiral dynamics below. --JZ] However, you’re right on about his false dichotomy.
Also, Ken Wilber != Spiral Dynamics, which you yourself point out in your last paragraph (i.e. “Wilber’s version of spiral dynamics”). The Spiral Dynamics crowd wants to filet him and slowly roast him over an open flame. They cringe at what they consider a shallow misintepration and bastardization of SD (and emphasis on a “silly” color coding):
What I value in (perhaps Ken Wilber’s application of) Spiral Dynamics is that it places political discussions within the context of a developmental hierarchy of stages (each of which can be seen as a reaction to the flaws of previous stages, as Andrew Schwartz recently pointed out). This helps us understand what causes certain value systems to emerge and why they each believe their beliefs are incompatible with those of other value systems.
Lets pick on “Green” liberals a bit. As a value system, Green emerged in response to the shortcomings of a dominantly blue/orange world where minorities (such as blacks and gays) and women were marginalized. So Green is hostile to Orange and Blue wherever it encounters it. Green forgets that it was Orange that fought tyrrany and liberated enslaved peoples for hundreds of years. When you talk to a Green liberal about capitalism, discussing its’ moral propriety will get you nowhere (right and wrong are oppressive Blue constructs), nor will discussing the practical science of free market economics (science is a rigid marginalizing Orange construct that is cold and emotionless and “free market” means free to trample the poor and the environment).
The solution to this dilemma, it seems, requires getting said Green liberal to recognize the important contributions of Blue and Orange value systems. However, this kind of Green/Orange/Blue reconciliating inquiry is obviously only possible for someone able to think outside of the rigid confines of each previously-emerged value system. Some people, including Wilber, like to label this kind of spirit “integral” or “second-tier.” So then you have this sort of moral imperative to try and move people from first-tier to second-tier. Doing this, however, is an unfathomably complex problem. So far, all we know how to do is replace Red/Blue governments with Orange ones, and meditation.
As such, it seems to me that SD is particularly useful for political analysis. Like any form of empirical generalization (an Orange tool), it provides simple and eloquent concepts (for unit economy) to facilitate understanding and analysis (much like the heavily loaded and largely ambiguous labels “liberal” and “conservative” do). However, generalization always runs the risk of oversimplifying matters (just like liberal and conservative labels) which effectively marginalizes elements of reality that don’t fit into that model (which are Green words of warning). If we remember that the map is not the territory (and actually practice that), then there’s enormous value to be gained from Spiral Dynamics, and maybe even AQAL if perhaps it was interpreted by someone other than Ken Wilber, who seems to be embedding it with false dichotomies.
To me, the utility of AQAL seems to be that it serves as a reminder to not forget certain aspects of reality when examining the world. Don’t fall into false dichotomies by reducing internal, external, individual and collective realities to each other. (some of which Ayn Rand identified) Remember both masculine and feminine drives, different personality types, lines of development, etc. If you keep these kinds of things in mind when you look at the world, then you’re living the spirit of AQAL (whose noble intention is to provide a balanced perspective, if only if it weren’t for that rascal KW!) and that’s ultimately what matters.
The moral of this story is: Put down your god-damn map and really be present with observing the reality around you! Then, if you choose to, you can modify your map to reflect your findings.
Thanks for your comments, Marsh. I think you’re right on the money about what’s valuable in spiral dynamics (SD) and AQAL.
I also think that the benefits you’re describing are fundamentally forms of psychological or historical analysis, rather than political analysis.
Both SD and AQAL seem to be a useful way of saying “You should listen more to this other guy over here who you dislike or ignore” — but this doesn’t rise to the level of political analysis as such.
So I would agree with you that they’re useful as a sort of psychographic map, a way of understanding yourself and other people.
But they seem to be largely agnostic when it comes to identifying and promoting new political analysis as such.
This may be one reason why we see “integral” thinkers mostly either promoting some form of leftism or groping for ways to find a compromise between this and that, rather than promoting much new political analysis per se.
Does that make sense?
If there are exceptions, I’d very much like to see them.
Joshua,
This is a great post.
I agree that AQAL and Spiral Dynamics do not, per se, point to any political conclusions.
I also think that your analysis of libertarian capitalism as a balance between the poles of anarchism and socialism is brilliant.
I do suspect, though, that AQAL can be a powerful guide for understanding politics and markets and societal life in general, and that if it were to be applied well, it would tend to yield and support a political orientation similar to Rand’s.
In fact, in terms of examples of people applying an integral mode of analysis to political issues, I’m ~almost~ tempted to name CHRIS SCIABARRA, even though he does not use integral language.
But his “tri-partite analysis” of Rand’s political work as sensitive to the individual, cultural, and structural levels of society — and the systemic interrelationships between these levels — brings out an aspect of Rand that is strikingly akin to the integral orientation, which Wilber sometimes describes as an orientation sensitive to “self, culture, and nature.”
It’s pretty clear Wilber hasn’t read Sciabarra, and I think vice versa is also the case, but I’ve always felt the two would find in each other kindred intellectual spirits.
Andrew
“Only capitalism says “Others may not initiate the use of force against you, and you may not initiate the use of force against others.”
Gvt still needs to enforce contract law to make the above happen, which takes up 50 percent of the courts capacity at this time.
We might choose to call lib capitalism anarcho-capitalism, if no gvt is around to enforce contract law that is. As soon as you have a gvt body enforcing contract law, you have a social contract, and state-capitalism.
We might choose to call a command economy with no free-enterprise socialism, or communism, and yes this would be on the opposite end of a system designed without any regulation.
It was rands polaric response to communism which saw her fathers business taken away that weighed into her distaste for the state, and love of self interest.
Tossing the word anarchism out there as though it’s one broad concept which basically equates to a free for all seems to me rather mis-guided.
Many variants of anarchism exist.
Anarcho-communism is another such variant, or rather libertarian-socialism, places both individual and collective needs in more of a balance than libertarian capitalism, as it does sit opposite to communism when looked at from this perspective.
However, it too seems to me mostly mired in the post-modern wave of development, as lib socialists tend to view reality from within their own box, and do not acknowledge the importance of an evolutionary approach to development.
2nd to last paragrapgh correction: anarcho-communism or rather, libertarian socialism, sits inbetween centrally planned communism and libertarian-capitalism. Not opposite.