Do AQAL and Spiral Dynamics Really Help with Political Analysis?

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 do you think about writer Ken Wilber’s representation of SD and Graves?

Overall, SD and integral philosophy are quite compatible, and we view Ken Wilber, leader of the integral pack (of which our former partner has been a part), as one of many contributive philosophers, compilers, and promoters. That said, we do not consider him an essential or authoritative part of Spiral Dynamics®, nor as qualified as many of our students to speak about Gravesian theory. In his recent piece on “What is Integral Spirituality?” Ken has written quite a lot about SD – as he sees it. Unfortunately, he seems to be still caught up in the same trap as many NLP practitioners and insists on Graves as a values model (i.e., content – what one values) with emphasis on the eight levels and a silly color code. By superimposing SD on his 2×2 matrix model, he continues to miss the essence of this point of view. The question so central to Gravesian studies – the how and why one values – continues to elude him. He does a fine job of criticizing his own misconceptions, but little that reaches the actual model. Continue…

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.