|
What does ‘emergent’ mean in context of
Graves and SPIRAL DYNAMICS® programs?
This question has caused lots of head scratching among scholars of
chaos and complexity theories, as well as Gravesians and serious
students of our Spiral
Dynamics® programs. The lack of a clear answer leads to
protracted discussions and considerable frustration. In the SD world,
that’s especially true for the analytical sorts who want - even
demand – a single ‘true meaning’ and would like to impose one on
Dr. Graves post mortem. Rather than that, we will look at how he
employed the word and its relatives. While that will not satisfy those
searching for a definitive answer, a brief discussion with some
examples drawn from his writings might better clarify the usages of
the term in a Gravesian context – at least some operational
definitions for those prepared to accept a bit of semantic relativism.
Graves was concerned with human biopsychosocial systems at three
levels – the individual, the culture, and the overall development of
our species, Homo sapiens through time toward its potentials. Many
people select one and propose that the model only applies at that
level. In doing so, they misinterpret his work: he sought to find
rules which applied across human nature. That said, when discussing
‘emergence,’ it is important to recognize to which sub-set he is
applying the word since he used it several contexts. And it is
important to recognize that his discussion is of Homo sapiens as we
have evolved and within the capacities of the human brain, not
engineering super-beings or godlings. He offered no guesses about next
evolutionary steps or stages beyond Homo sapiens - only the changing
psychology of our kind as it can be observed to date with a sense of
possible direction to better fitness as who we are. A key to this
open-ended view is that the next existential problems are often 'wild
cards' that break set with an established trajectory, thus awakening
thinking which might not be predictable based upon pre-existing
conditions.
The emergence of new levels of psychological
existence for Homo sapiens is quite different from the appearance of
new schematic forms in a person or group, or the importation of new
schema into a culture. (see schema and thema for more) In the
sub-sets, the ‘emergence’ might well be of a new schematic form,
but one which falls within the existing overall thematic repertoire of
a population quite nicely – novelty without a break of set like a
new fashion season or model year change for the Ford F150. At the
highest level, ‘emergence’ is of entirely new thema for existence
through the interplay of neurology with problems of existence and
necessary releasor conditions.
“Conceive, with me, that the human
organism tends, psychologically, to move through a series of
hierarchically ordered systems to some equifinal end, yet tends, under
certain describable circumstances, to stabilize and live out his life
at any one or a combination of the stages within the hierarchy. Human
behavior, then, in all its forms is like any growth phenomenon. It
tends to develop naturally through definable but overlapping stages by
an orderly progression from a less complex, to a more complex stage
and finally to its ultimate level of possible organization. Behavior
is like a seed. It can, when certain releasor conditions occur, grow
through all its natural stages to its ultimate form or, like the
released seed, behavior can be fixated or even reorganize and take on
a form not usually of its nature.” Graves, Clare W. “Value Systems
and their Relation to Managerial Controls and Organizational
Viability.” 1965.
Usage # I
Although ‘emergent’ is
sometimes a noun representing a resultant of process - the emergent -
Graves typically used versions of ‘to emerge’ as adjectives or
verbs. First, he spoke of emergence in the way of the General Systems
theorists, notably Ludwig von Bertalanffy and the more
psychologically-oriented W. Ross Ashby and William Gray. Graves
adopted ‘emergent’ as an attribute of his biopsychosocial systems
and part of the title of his own theory of mature adult development.
Two aspects of the construct - levels and sequence – were
particularly good fits:
“I call it the Emergent Cyclical Levels of
Existence point of view. This premise holds that: 1. man’s nature is
not a set thing: it is ever-emergent, an open system, not a closed
system. 2. man’s nature evolves by saccadic, quantum-like jumps from
one steady state system to another; and 3. man’s psychology changes
as the system emerges in new form with each quantum-like jump to a new
steady state of being.” The Never Ending Quest (NEQ), 29
As early as
his 1959 paper, “An Emergent Theory of Ethical Behavior Based Upon
an Epigenetic Model,” Dr. Graves had relied on General Systems
Theory (GST) as a contributor to his own theory-building. He says, for
example:
“…That as man moves from a lower to a higher level
of ethical behavior some values by which man judges right from wrong
are discarded as no longer appropriate to his changed status; that
some of the earlier values are retained intact; that some previous
values are modified; and that some new, not previously existing
conceptions of right and wrong emerge as each subsequent dynamic
system emerges.” CWG. 1959.
In the view of GST (and the more recent
work in complexity theory with Complex Adaptive Systems - CAS),
properties of a complex system are said to be emergent if they are not
properties of sub-parts of the system taken in isolation, and not
explainable via compilation of characteristics of those isolated
parts; order that arises is not predetermined. In other words,
properties of the new system are not derivative of the behavior of
those parts; something new appears. The whole is ‘smarter’ than
the chunks that comprise it. That new whole cannot be understood from
analysis of distinctions among the components, but as a process of
self-organizing which includes both variation from what was and
retention of some previous aspects. Thus, the whole of the emerged
system is more than the sum of its parts or of their properties.
For
example, all the characteristics of the first four levels of the
spiral pulled together do not predict multiplistic thinking or an
empowered sense of self. The emergent system is both more complex and
less stable. The latter characteristic has meaning for Gravesians
since more elaborated systems – higher levels – are both richer in
options and more robust, as well as more volatile than lower levels.
Concentrated pressure from lower levels can disrupt the system
severely and produce regression, as we see in regional politics all
over the world. An area not well understood is how
open/arrested/closed states function at different levels, and how
fragile openness might be when disruptions from closed systems
interfere with the process.
If one applies the Spiral metaphor and views
personality as systems with vMemes as agents (see schema), then change
occurs both with the emergence of a new vMeme and when the existing
sub-systems are connected and integrated in a new way, thereby making
the entire system different. Possible means toward this, by degree,
are accommodation to the existential problems at hand through
observation, adaptation of the system and its contents to better fit
altered existential problems, and vertical evolution of the system and
the field in which it exists through movement along the spiral. It is
this last track which fits the rise of new existential states in the
Graves theory.
Critical to applications following Spiral
Dynamics® training is that the complexity which is recognized
is a function of the observer, not the system, itself. (A useful
comparison from Ashby is to contrast the understanding of a brain by a
butcher versus by a neurologist - or to contrast the localizing of
neurons with exploring consciousness.) Recognizing the vMemes (levels)
and transitional states accurately is essential, and very difficult
for those who do not bother to inform themselves about the theory,
much less those in arrested or closed states who try to create
something linear, whereas being human is a non-linear event.
‘Emergence’ in systems theories includes the idea that higher
level properties impact on lower levels since feedback connections
remain, another key to understanding that Gravesian levels are far
more than discrete color-coded lumps when applying the theory in
living human systems. A characteristic of emergence which is often
overlooked in analyses is the influence of the derived state on the
precursor parts; things are still connected, and new system may change
the character of the previous ones which are still operating in the
same field. Recognition of this is vital for those concerned with spiral
management since we always carry parts of the past forward. Recall the
phrase ‘steady state of being’ from the quote above. It conveys
the equilibration and homeostasis-seeking in the Gravesian model.
One
can draw parallels between his change approach and Prigogine’s work
with dissipative structures and bifurcation points in systems far from
equilibrium which can lead to emergence. The imbalance arising when
existential problems outstretch the coping means – an existential
bifurcation - is a trigger for the Gravesian ‘emergence’ of a next
system with new problems and neuronal equipment turning on. Yet there
is risk to that. In Gravesian terms, balance is achieved when the
coping means – thinking and behaving – match the existential
problems in the milieu, leading to solutions which are at least
adequate for sustainable living. If we accept emergence as a property
of these systems and their subsets, then it is possible for a new way
of thinking to emerge which is far beyond the mean – an individual
or small group possessed of a new thematic form, not just schematic
alterations. If fortunate, they eventually become prophets and their
insights contribute to a shift of the system; just as likely, given
the nature of most human systems to date, they are ignored,
characterized as mad dreamers, or worse, depending on the system into
which they arrive.
Graves often spoke of himself as a “mind out of
its time” – a person asking questions which were not yet taken
seriously but which would be deemed vital in a different time to come.
Balance relates to timing. As in systems theories, the next Gravesian
vertical level appears to be something new and unexpected – emergent
- growing from the new problems created by solutions from the previous
level. It offers both greater explanatory power and increased degrees
of freedom to act when compared with previous states.
It is this
element of surprise and uncertainty in succeeding levels which
confounds many students of this theory, and why so many inaccurate
extrapolations are imposed onto the colors by those looking for
end-state sequential order rather than epigenesis, as well. The idea
of something appearing that is beyond the resultant vector of changing
elements is a notion going back at least to John Stuart Mill in the
mid-1800’s. For Graves, each new system carries forth properties
from the previous states, then adds some new and unexpected element(s)
– an added dimension.
Thus arises the concept that new systems along
the existential staircase cannot be deduced from or explained by the
properties of the lower-level systems because they include
higher-level properties; prediction is often guesswork, or projection
of the present into a hypothetical tomorrow. To anticipate a butterfly
through observation of a caterpillar is difficult in the absence of
foreknowledge.
As we have said, this projection of present goals into
future states is one of the great dilemmas for current applications,
especially the derivative approaches which often fail to recognize
their own aspirations couched as theory but offer grand statements of
what is to be. A horizontal change, on the other hand, is an
extrapolation of the present, a first-order move to accommodate the
status quo. An oblique change is second order adaptation and produces
some new behaviors and a reframe of the context. To recognize
higher-level functioning and implement third-order, vertical change, a
broader view is required – from microscopic study to macroscopic
analysis. Sometimes this shift in perspective alone is enough to
reveal an emergent property. The more thorough the data gathered in
this process, the more likely to rationalize the unexplained or
disclose the previously unobserved. This is why good ongoing research
is so essential for understanding human behavior and expanding
Gravesian theory, in addition to philosophizing.
For differentiating
emergent Gravesian systems - levels of existence - from the more
content-oriented vMemes of the Spiral model, another of Ashby’s
constructs is useful: to differentiate a system from an object and to
recognize that a system is not a thing but a list of variables (agents
and schema). To some extent, the superficial ‘meme’ language
included in Spiral Dynamics has clouded this and led quite a few people to miss
the theory for its artifacts, though the field of memetics and CAS
theory have a great deal of overlap. The confusion of contents with
containers is pervasive and somewhat alleviated if one thinks of
Gravesian systems in terms of process rather than relics, or becomes
bogged down in ‘values’ as was he in his earliest work. Anthony
Wilden’s properties of emergent systems (System and
Structure, 1972) compare very well with later Gravesian principles for EC theory, even
more reasons for his comfort with the word ‘emergent’ as a
descriptor of process come clear:
· increased adaptive range
· increased variability
· increased variety / complexity
· structural innovations
· new organizational order
· shaping of modified sub-systems (later on)
· enhanced selectivity
· changes in adaptive order and learning
· increased mnemonic capacity
· more varied simulations possibilities
· increased opportunities for changing goals
· increase of the system’s sensibility to noise
As those
familiar with the Spiral model and Graves' work will recognize, most of these are also
characteristics of vertical movement through Graves’s levels –
travels on the existential staircase or along the spiral. Finally,
General Systems theory served Graves in understanding the interaction
between inner and outer factors, as well. A system is a complex of
agents which interact with their environments. They can acquire
qualitatively new properties through this interplay, thus they are in
a continual evolution - emergence. In addition, they produce reframes
of the components and the precursors, and perhaps a reconsideration of
our very nature:
“And, I say that what our definition of psychological maturity is
will change with each and every newly emergent form of psychological
existence." NEQ, 2
Usage # II
In a slightly softer definition, Graves
spoke of the process of emerging as movement from one level to a next,
from lower to higher properties. With levels and sequence in hand, a
new thing could emerge from the combination of precursor elements.
Human nature emerges in unpredictable – though not entirely
unforeseeable - steps and stages along our evolutionary time line with
succeeding levels having surprising and unpredicted characteristics
based on their precursors or parts.
Whether the sequence is inevitably "locked" as requisite
stages through which an individual must pass, or whether it is
possible for new states to emerge in the individual human without
prerequisite passages is still debated. From the historical
perspective, the leading-edge systems seem to arise in order, though
along varying time-lines in different societies. But from the
individual standpoint, many argue that double-helix forces produce
systems congruent with the circumstances at hand. From this
perspective they can 'pop' as well as arise from precursor
problem-solution stages. Many argue that this is the case with
children who appear to think in high-order ways far beyond their
years, yet who might not have developed coping strategies that are
formed with life experience in lower levels.
The following Graves quote
summarizes a great deal of this point of view, and illustrates this
application of ‘emergent:’
“The psychology of the adult human
being is an unfolding, ever-emergent process marked by subordination
of older behavior systems to newer, higher order systems. The mature
person tends to change his psychology continuously as the conditions
of his existence change. Each successive stage or level of existence
is a state through which people may pass on the way to other states of
equilibrium.
When a person is centralized in one of the states of
equilibrium, he has a psychology which is particular to that state.
His emotions, ethics and values, biochemistry, state of neurological
activation, learning systems, preference for education, management and
psychotherapy are all appropriate to that state. If he were
centralized in some other state he would think, feel and be motivated
in manners appropriate to that state. He would have biochemical
characteristics and a state of neurological activation
particular to it.
When in a certain state, he would have opened
only certain systems for coping and learning. Thus, he would
respond most positively to education, management, and therapy which is
congruent with that state. And he would have to respond negatively to
forms of education, management and therapy not appropriate to the
state of his centralization.
An individual person may not be equipped
genetically or constitutionally to change in the normal upward
direction if the conditions of his existence become more favorable.
Or, he may be genetically or constitutionally, even morphologically,
prone to settle into or stay in a particular state unless
extraordinary measures can be instituted to change the genetic,
constitutional or morphologic disposition. He may move, given certain
conditions (I see six of them) through a hierarchically ordered series
of behavior systems infinitely on so long as his life exists, or he
may stabilize and live out his lifetime at any one or a combination of
the levels in the hierarchy. He may even regress to a position lower
in the hierarchy. He may show the behavior of a level in a
predominantly positive or predominantly negative fashion.”
NEQ,
29-30
Part of his quest was certainly for the underlying rules and
principles which might explain the interplay of forces, information,
and energy – the biopsychosocial context – which produce the
emergent phenomena. His studies of change were efforts to add to the
understanding of these basics. To some extent, the work remains more
retrodictive than predictive of the next new system since a Gravesian
premise is that the ‘real’ systems which lie ahead are usually
surprises and out-of-the-blue, not anticipated through extensions of
the present state. To stretch beyond the present eight identified
systems without data in support is a philosopher’s stretch, not a
behavioral scientist’s.
Far more detailed rules for component parts
have been laid out by Stephen Wolfram for cellular automata and
emergence as self-organization described for ants, brains, and cities
by the likes of Stephen Johnson than can yet be specified for human
societies or individual personalities. Graves wanted to understand how
human systems organize, and the rules whereby human minds form and
change and would surely have appreciated the explorations in systems
which have followed him. That is a work very much in progress.
Integration of fields and knowledge is also an ongoing process which
Graves found essential. Just as General Systems Theory was to be a
science of wholeness, Graves imagined the same in psychology. Systems
thinking is both part-to-whole and whole-to-part thinking about making
connections between the various elements so that they fit together in
a more integrative whole. In this sense, emergence and holism were
near-equivalents - a holistic structure is also an emergent one.
It is apparent that Dr. Graves found aspects of General Systems theory
intriguing because of his frustration with compartmentalization of
psychological knowledge and the narrow views which seemed to preoccupy
many of his colleagues, whether Freudian, Rogerian, cognitive, or
behaviorist. He was particularly frustrated by his behaviorist
colleagues who he felt refused to recognize the value of systems
theory.
“The data seemed to suggest that eight central ways of being have
emerged from within the nature of man in his time on earth, and that
eight basic conceptions of mature personality are related thereto.”
NEQ, 128
“Therefore many of the adult behaviors which so often
trouble people would be classified as immature by the humanists when
it is indeed possible there are mature ways of behaving for an adult
human who has emerged only to a less differentiated psychological
state.” NEQ, 28
“To learn that adults believe in several types of
mature personality is not particularly surprising. But to come upon a
hint that the types emerge one out of the other in an ordered
hierarchical way is quite a revelation. In addition, the apparent fact
that these hierarchically ordered concepts of mature personality
alternate with one another so that every other conception is like, yet
not like, its alternating partners provided some most intriguing data.”
NEQ, 91
Usage # III
A third meaning Graves conveyed with ‘to emerge’
is more commonplace: to come into view, to rise to the surface, to
appear; a first occurrence. In the following quote, Graves uses ‘emerge’
and ‘emergent’ together:
“Blithely, the reinforcement
behaviorists cast aside any suggestion that new forms of consciousness
emerge over time and changing conditions of existence. They do not see
emergence as a worthy explanation of any of the things which keep
happening to people. Such statements, typical of behaviorists, suggest
they are filtering out, rejecting, or oblivious to the reams of
information suggesting emergent stages in the development of both
individual and cultural man.” NEQ, 19-20
“From this torment and
from the peculiar kind of information now before me (similarity and
dissimilarity both between major types and within sub-types and across
type categories), the idea emerged that the conceptions represented
something more than what some people thought was the psychologically
mature person.” NEQ, 97
So, an answer to “what does Graves mean by
emergent?” is not so easy. For him it was both a central construct
of his biopsychosocial systems theory and a word he felt comfortable
using with great degrees of freedom. He saw both emergent properties
and linear properties in human nature and, as a ‘mind out of his
time,’ was quite at home with some ‘and’ logic in his theory.
Systems theory contributes greatly to understanding human nature, and
a recognition that the human spirit is 'emergent' as each new level
comes into being says it is not enough.
|
