Help
Sign In
aqal
January 2007 
Secretarian Battles of AQAL vs. Spiral Dynamics
Posted on Nov 4th, 2006
by 
ebbandflow
ebbandflow
Image source: jillallyn
I started reading some discussions about Spiral Dynamics integral, and Wilber's latest thoughts on Altitudes (aka Wilber-5). The thing that jumps out at me are the tensions between the different frameworks that manifest in subtle ways that are really only perceptable to those who follow these worlds closely.
Joe Perez writes: "Some observers of controversy in the integral arena are wondering if there is a growing gulf between previously united factions? Are the disagreements between Ken Wilber on the one hand and Spiral Dynamics on the other sectarian?"
WH explains in this comment: "Wilber has been distancing himself from SDi for a couple of years -- he tends to refer to it as a values line rather than an integral system. My feeling is that SDi, through its exposure in What Is Enlightment? and Wilber's books -- was getting more popular than AQAL, so he had to denigrate the whole model. This has been going on for some time, but it got ugly when he said harsh things about both Cowan and Beck in his Wyatt Earpy posts a while back (do a google search for Wyatt Earpy)."
I agree with Perez's observation that "I have qualms about any system (whether it be Spiral Dynamics or AQAL) that bases its theories on original research and then retains such research for its private collection available only to select and qualified researchers. I have a hard time defending any system when the answer to the question, "Where's the beef?" is "Trust Don Beck and Chris Cowan. They keep it locked in their safe.""
This to me seems to be the root of the tension between the two frameworks -- there seems to be a lack of open and transparent dialogue and debate within these "secretarian" communities of Beck & Wilber -- and Cowan as well, but I know the least about his approach.
But each one seems to be developed within their proprietary bubbles which may ultimately help fuel these types of turf battles. This is probably pretty self-evident to most, but it is an interesting and new trend for me.
UPDATE 11-04: WH writes in the comments:
"The problem is not a lack of communication between SDi and AQAL – both sides are intimately familiar with the other. The problem has been, as is often the case when money is involved, egos and competition."
I agree with this. Competition is a good and healthy thing to prevent groupthink, and I guess I'm really concerned about whether or not the business models of these different approaches prevents true dialogue and tension that forces growth and adaptation. But also whether or not there is other outside vetting that is required for it to have more widespread adoption and implementation.
I have wondered why something like Spiral Dynamics -- which on an intuitive level seems like it has a lot of grains of truth -- hasn't spread out and been implemented in many different contexts.
I actually asked Beck about this in relation to the academic world in this brief interview, and he said:
"Academics because they wear those medieval gowns, they graduate and tend to be keepers of the orthodoxy. Professors get embedded in theories and systems for which they've done their PhD study and they taught grad students from all across the world. So you find that so-called higher education academics are some of the most rigid systems that you'll ever find.
You tend to find in healthy business environments a lot more creativity, innovation and cutting-edge thinking.
So I'm less concerned about that other than the fact that I think that we have reached the point where our maps -- our maps of the planet, our maps of marketing, our maps of culture, our maps of how values systems emerge are grossly out of date and have been contaminated by our dominate worldviews. So there is a huge need today to update our maps."
So there is clearly a lot of understandable disdain towards academia, but does SDi or Wilber's approach need more peer review and validation to be seen as more credible or legitimate so that we can actually update our dominant maps?
I started reading some discussions about Spiral Dynamics integral, and Wilber's latest thoughts on Altitudes (aka Wilber-5). The thing that jumps out at me are the tensions between the different frameworks that manifest in subtle ways that are really only perceptable to those who follow these worlds closely.
Joe Perez writes: "Some observers of controversy in the integral arena are wondering if there is a growing gulf between previously united factions? Are the disagreements between Ken Wilber on the one hand and Spiral Dynamics on the other sectarian?"
WH explains in this comment: "Wilber has been distancing himself from SDi for a couple of years -- he tends to refer to it as a values line rather than an integral system. My feeling is that SDi, through its exposure in What Is Enlightment? and Wilber's books -- was getting more popular than AQAL, so he had to denigrate the whole model. This has been going on for some time, but it got ugly when he said harsh things about both Cowan and Beck in his Wyatt Earpy posts a while back (do a google search for Wyatt Earpy)."
I agree with Perez's observation that "I have qualms about any system (whether it be Spiral Dynamics or AQAL) that bases its theories on original research and then retains such research for its private collection available only to select and qualified researchers. I have a hard time defending any system when the answer to the question, "Where's the beef?" is "Trust Don Beck and Chris Cowan. They keep it locked in their safe.""
This to me seems to be the root of the tension between the two frameworks -- there seems to be a lack of open and transparent dialogue and debate within these "secretarian" communities of Beck & Wilber -- and Cowan as well, but I know the least about his approach.
But each one seems to be developed within their proprietary bubbles which may ultimately help fuel these types of turf battles. This is probably pretty self-evident to most, but it is an interesting and new trend for me.
UPDATE 11-04: WH writes in the comments:
"The problem is not a lack of communication between SDi and AQAL – both sides are intimately familiar with the other. The problem has been, as is often the case when money is involved, egos and competition."
I agree with this. Competition is a good and healthy thing to prevent groupthink, and I guess I'm really concerned about whether or not the business models of these different approaches prevents true dialogue and tension that forces growth and adaptation. But also whether or not there is other outside vetting that is required for it to have more widespread adoption and implementation.
I have wondered why something like Spiral Dynamics -- which on an intuitive level seems like it has a lot of grains of truth -- hasn't spread out and been implemented in many different contexts.
I actually asked Beck about this in relation to the academic world in this brief interview, and he said:
You tend to find in healthy business environments a lot more creativity, innovation and cutting-edge thinking.
So I'm less concerned about that other than the fact that I think that we have reached the point where our maps -- our maps of the planet, our maps of marketing, our maps of culture, our maps of how values systems emerge are grossly out of date and have been contaminated by our dominate worldviews. So there is a huge need today to update our maps."
So there is clearly a lot of understandable disdain towards academia, but does SDi or Wilber's approach need more peer review and validation to be seen as more credible or legitimate so that we can actually update our dominant maps?
Access: Public
Beck and Cowan (who used to be friends) both work from the original research and writing of Clare Graves. While Graves didn't publish too much during his lifetime, a recent book contains the majority of his writings and thoughts that eventually contributed to the birth of Spiral Dynamics.
Cowan plays it closest to Graves' original vision, while Beck has made his version more integral.
The problem is not a lack of communication between SDi and AQAL – both sides are intimately familiar with the other. The problem has been, as is often the case when money is involved, egos and competition.
There is nothing closed about SDi. You can go to the source material whenever you want. With AQAL, a lot of the validity is based on taking Wilber's word for it. This has been a problem for a lot of us who used to be in his camp. Wilber and I-I have become ever more insular.
Joe is closely aligned with I-I and Wilber, since they are publishing his new book (which I recommend). I have done the SDi certifications, so I am biased in the other direction. Between the two of us, you might get a balanced view.
Peace,
Bill
Hey Bill,
Thanks for the note.
I put an update in the post as well as a clarification / response.
So you're in SDi's corner and Joe is in Wilber's corner. :)
Re: “There is nothing closed about SDi. You can go to the source material whenever you want.”
I read this from Ray Harris a while back (via Dashh):
“Beck and Wilber say that some independent research has been done. This research was done by the Arlington Institute, who are futurists and not trained developmental psychologists. The research did not test the assumptions of SD but simply applied it as a model to existing data. How do I know? John Petersen, the director of the Arlington Institute told me this in the boardroom of the Arlington Institute. I have it from the horse's mouth. If I were a developmental psychologist I would want to do a peer review of the methodology and data of the Arlington Institute research (I'm guessing the answer is that the data is proprietary).
I do not regard the premises of the Graves system and the subsequent SD formulations to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Whilst some of it is intuitive, sections of it are, imo, entirely speculative.”
So is this Arlington validation really a validation or an application of the model to existing data? My guess is that we can't know either way for sure if indeed the data is protected as intellectual property due to the business model of SDi.
I was curious about why there wasn't more of a dialogue between SDi and academic research, and so I asked Beck about it. He said, ”Academics because they wear those medieval gowns, they graduate and tend to be keepers of the orthodoxy. Professors get embedded in theories and systems for which they've done their PhD study and they taught grad students from all across the world. So you find that so-called higher education academics are some of the most rigid systems that you'll ever find.
You tend to find in healthy business environments a lot more creativity, innovation and cutting-edge thinking.”
Innovation is certainly in the free market and not in government or academia, and so I understand the necessity for Beck's path in order to make a living. But I wonder if SDi will able to ever move beyond the progressive consulting circles and into more conservative institutions or to update the dominant maps of culture and value system emergence if there is indeed an unwillingness to explore the types of concerns that Ray Harris has brought up.
You raise some good points – points which Beck and Cowan need to address. I think peer-review is definitely missing from SDi and certainly from AQAL. Wilber doesn't even really admit that anyone but him could know enough about it to be an actual critic (see the Wyatt Earpy post at his blog). Sheer egoic madness. Beck updated some of his thinking after meeting Wilber, and I think he continues to update things as he works with them in the field.
I haven't seen the Arlington data, either, so who knows. Most of what I look at is based in Graves' original research (from the book I linked to above), which was definitely a structuralist approach, therefore lacking most of Wilber's IMP viewpoints.
As far as the academic vs. business world apps are concerned, Cowan has gone mostly the route of consulting, but Beck has been in the trenches applying this stuff to the real world (South Africa, the Middle East, the Netherlands). He has consulted with Bill Clinton, Jeb Bush, Karl Rove/George Bush, and Vincente Fox, among others.
Ray Harris is a top-notch scholar, so when he raises concerns they need to be addressed. Still, I think it will be up the next generation of SDi practitioners to move the theory forward and make it more integral. The way I use it now, with developmental lines and state/stage distinctions, probably isn't to the liking of Cowan or Beck. But that's okay.
Peace,
Bill
Re: “Wilber doesn't even really admit that anyone but him could know enough about it to be an actual critic (see the Wyatt Earpy post at his blog).”
Yeah, it makes me not trust the message as much knowing that it is developed within a pretty insular bubble. I've gotten a lot of insights from Wilber, but I sense a lack of true curiosity or willingness to engage with outside experts. I can only take so much of the Integral Naked audio discussions because there is very little disagreements or dissonance that comes up.
And I know that Beck has consulted with a number of governments (never heard that he has consulted to Rove/Bush though! thats news to me). It'll be interesting to see how the theory develops and evolves with the next generation.