Which Tribe is Yours?

I’ve written before about three different kinds of people – vegetable, animal, and human, - see 'Vegetable, Animal and Human People' and 'Are you Potentially Human?'

All three are present in most cultures (or collective value systems,) that is, you’ll find examples of vegetable, animal, and human people wherever you are or whenever you are.

There are however some interesting theories about how cultures evolve. It would appear that, over time, if a culture is going to change, it will do so in a certain and predictable way.

The idea of cultures evolving is heavily influenced by the work of Clare Graves, and his successors, such as Don Beck and Chris Cowan(Cowan and Todorovic 2005, Beck and Cowan 1996). Now better known as ‘Spiral Dynamics’, these theories are concerned with the innate values of any collective, and how they develop.  Applying Graves and similar theories, Wilber (2001) suggests the following stages  of development, or evolution:

• Cultures, as we understand them, begin as survivalistic, and are preoccupied all day everyday with the practicalities of staying alive. If these evolve, they will evolve into
• Cultures which have developed magical thinking. These cultures are animistic, and very concerned with ‘kin spirits’. Such cultures ‘have a name for every bend in the river, but not for the river itself’. These tribal cultures develop in turn into  
•  Exploitative power seeking cultures, sometimes known as warrior cultures, as represented in the Iliad and the Odyssey, (but also represented today in street gangs, and several City organisations) in which strength takes priority over justice. These eventually become
•  Law ruled cultures, usually referred to as ‘traditional’, or ‘people of the book’ (the Torah, the Ten Commandments, the Koran for example). In organisations these tend to be bureaucracies which emphasise formal procedures. In turn, these evolve into
• Materialistic and rational cultures, usually referred to as ‘modern’, and ‘achievement orientated’. Empirical science takes pride of place, and there is talk of ‘conquering nature’. These evolve into
• Pluralistic cultures, which are often referred to as ‘postmodern’ and relativistic. Nature is cared for, rather than there to be ‘conquered’. All people are equal and all values are relative.
• Flex-flow cultures, the first stage at which a society or community can appreciate all the stages that it has been through, and what it has gained from each of them, rather than denigrating them as ‘inferior’. This level or stage, and the stages above which will not be referred to here (as being beyond most collectives’ experience at the moment,) are also often referred to as ‘Integral’ or post-post-modern.

Each stage is necessary to the stages that follow, and none can ever be ‘skipped’. A society or community successfully moving from traditional to modern will not abandon the rule of law, but will subject that law to rational analysis before legitimising it.  All stages, even the highest we know of at present, have their weaknesses, dangers and paradoxes, the resolution of which is what usually forces a culture or community on to the next stage (Beck and Cowan 1996, McIntosh 2007).

Research undertaken independently to the work of Graves, Beck or Cowan, and apparently with no knowledge of it, by Ray (Ray and Anderson2000) identified three cultural sub groups within the USA, which Ray called the Traditionals, the Moderns and the Cultural Creatives, with the latter being the last to emerge to a significant degree (in the 1970s.) These three groups correspond with Spiral Dynamics’ traditional, modern and postmodern/pluralist stages.

As I mentioned earlier, vegetable, animal and human people exist at all stages, though a number of human people have come to a sticky end in tribal, warrior and traditional cultures; think crucifixion, shot to death, burned alive etc.

How lucky are those of us who live now and in liberal, democratic regimes??

So, having established if you’re a vegetable, animal or human person, which of these cultures would you most feel at home in? And what culture, overall, do you think you’re actually living in?

There is a really good application of these stages by Paul Smith to religion, specifically the organised Christian Church on the Integral Life site here. I think you could easily apply the same sort of analysis to any organised religion.

Your opinions and thoughts, as always, would be welcome.

Are You Potentially Human?

In my last but one post ‘Vegetable, Animal and Human People’ I wondered aloud how one could tell which of these one is.

Since then, I think I may have found a way for finding out if I'm potentially fully human!

The psychologist Oliver Burkeman mentioned some important research in his newspaper column last week. As part of this research, people were asked to choose between the two following options.

Either:

a)      A smaller rise in income, leaving them wealthier than those around them;

Or

b)      A larger rise in income, with others receiving even more.

If answer b) to you seems obvious, and furthermore would give you considerable pleasure, even if nobody else ever finds out you’re responsible for their extra wealth, I want to be your friend!

I have previously blogged about the Higher Self in 'The Human Being'. Discussing the Higher Self’s indifference to the ego’s seeming preference, not only to have lots of things, and/or power, but for others to see it has lots of things or power, a friend remarked that within his particular community, masculinity was judged by the car you were driving; i.e. the more expensive it is, the better provider for your family you must be, and therefore the more of a man you are. There are some illogicalities in this – a man’s money might have all gone on the car, rather than on his family for example. However, a flash car seems to be one of the main things by which a man is judged. A ‘merely’ adequate car with efficient fuel use would not cut the mustard.

So, could I suggest that one way of identifying oneself as a vegetable person is by wanting to keep up with the average level of possessions in one’s community, even if that's more than one needs. One way of identifying ourselves as animal people might be that we only feel worthwhile or happy if we have something more in the way of possessions or power or fame than our peers. This not the only way of identifying ourselves as 'animal' though.

In the research to which Burkeman refers it was found that ‘many people’ (he does not say how many) would choose option a) above, rather than b). Frustratingly, he does not say whether the respondents thought their choice would be broadcast. I think I know a few animal people who would choose option b) ‘because it’s the right thing to do’ but would not be particularly happy in that choice.

Burkeman suggests that, to make our lives easier, we ‘comparison-proof’ our lives, for example, be seem to be consciously ‘opting out’. In a way I guess this is what aiming to identify with your Higher Self rather than your ego is all about. And when by meditation, contemplation, prayer and/or practising living a good life, you get to the point where you  would joyfully choose option b) over a) you and everybody around you is in a win-win situation.

OK. So I’ve a little way to go then….