Spiral Dynamics (some reference here, here and here) is a theory about the human development throughout evolution and throughout a lifetime. The relative new theory arose from the question which one of the many existing psychological theories was the right one, they all seemed to be valid in a certain context.
The ‘inventor’ of the overall theory of Spiral Dynamics (Craves) saw a developmental pattern in which eight concepts of a mature human actually related to eachother in a developmental context. These concepts evolve in interaction with our life conditions. So, they are triggered by the world around us. You get this continual evolution where you actually solve one set of problems through a mindset, through a new mind set which comes online, but in those solutions are the seeds for the next set of problems.
One of the big topics in our discussions was the topic of engagement in relation the “the sense of oneness”. How to communicate to people in the most effective way? We all know that the ‘world around us’ differs for a lot of people and there is no way of stating that one view is better than the other. They are all different and they all have their problems and challenges. If engagement is the highest priority, ideally you would like to facilitate a community that addresses people (engage) in their current state of evolution, so to speak. There are states in which great value is attached to rituals and group values, states in which everything is about defining “self”, states in which multiple ‘truths’ arise and many more.
So, what I figured was that by adopting the organizing principles of Spiral Dynamics, you would be able to communicate effectively to the community, using the ‘right’ perspective on the world, knowing what is important to the group under certain conditions, and since you would be able to know what is important for a group in a specific state, you might be able to get the right subjects and tone of voice to engage. You would also be able to know what struggles are common in a specific state of evolution and address to that.
It’s still a very early thought, but I think there is something powerful in this theory that can be applied to our discussions on “communities”.
Image
Interesting indeed. I wonder though, you keep referring to the different levels in the Spiral Dynamics Integral as ’states’. Couldn’t it be that the different levels are different kinds of communities, in which the dynamics in the group account for the form of community?
True, by “states” I meant the levels described by Spiral Dynamics. The group dynamics in every level are different from those of the other levels, thereby describing a different community.
levels imply a hierarchy. states is better since it emphasizes the organic balance between the WE and the ME within a group. the different stages within the spiral represent value systems. based on such a value system and the we vs me balance communities tend to organize differently.
‘the expereience of one-ness’ is very very interesting but not covering it for me. people visiting a concert are feeling one but are for me not a community. 3′m now wondering what the difference is between a group and a community. for me a community is a special kind of group… but what makes it special.
That depends on how you define oneness I guess. The oneness of the people visiting a concert is merely that they are there together. I think we define oneness as the shared ‘values’ or ‘beliefs’ of a community. A group of people don’t necessarily share that.
Furthermore, maybe it’s not such a binary thing when looking at communities. We kept doing that: it either is or is not a community. But maybe there’s ‘grades’ or ’shades’ of communities. Meaning that one is just less strong than another, or they increase in density or something. Similar to the levels in Spiral Dynamics. Can’t it be that a group of people is the weakest form of community?
I totally agree. I dislike binairy discussions, but it does help to discover the axis/ parameters in play =)
community=
at least a group of people with something in common, something they share, varying from an expereince to a value system. The feeling of one-ness is created by the fact that all its members submit a part of their ME to the bigger WE, which will remain a continous balancing-act. A community is addressable and can make independent decisions. sub-communities, like sub-cultures can emerge within communities. Groups or cults are just forms of communities. further there are homogeneous and heterigeneous communities, there is central control vs distributed command, in short, each community has its own evolving culture.
a few extra thoughts:
- using the J-curve model of stability vs openess
- using McKinsy 6S model
Jorgen: try to answer our famous three questions (seriously)
1 Are all the people walking on Time-square ate this moment a community?
2 Are all the people shopping at the Virgin-store at Time-square a community?
3 Are all the people shopping at VIRGIN at the square using their customer card a community?
why yes or no (in short) - this is to check our paramaters… i will answer them myself as well.
ALL OTHERS WELCOME TO HERE YOUR VIEW ON THOSE THREE SITUATIONS, ALMAR, PAUL, JURG, STEFAN, DAVE…? =))
I would say ‘NO’ to all of them. Here’s why:
1. The people on Time-square are not experiencing a sense of oneness, they are not connected, they don’t share anything other then ‘being in the same place’.
2. The people in the Virgin store share (probably) there love for music, but they don’t experience a sense of oneness. They aren’t connected either and can not be addressed as ‘one’ based on their beliefs.
3. The people now are addressable, but they still don’t experience oneness, because they are not aware of each other. Standing in line to pay, they don’t know that the person in the back of the line carries the same card. So the connection that they have is not explicit, they are not aware that the have a connection with their neighbor, therefor they can not interact and share their ME to the WE…
interesting. two conclsions based on your reply:
1 so having something in common is not enough, it is about the experience of oneness. so Time square et new years eve?
2 so having access to each other and being able to distint/ recognize the WE is important. since all the people shopping at Virgin are able to talk to each other… it is probably more the latter?
a remark:
with addresable I meant not the individual but the group. so if I would say “to all Virgin club members” - they would feel addressed.
a question:
can you name one or two examples of both an online as well as an offline community???
Example of an online community: the members of a guild in World of Warcraft. They experience a strong sense of oneness, as they are working together in reaching specific goals and destroying monsters and all. And when they do, to them it is an ultimate feeling of oneness. They are identifiable as they give their guild a name, they interact and communicate heavily and the punishment for leaving is quite high.
Example of an offline community: the Mennonites. They have a strong sense of oneness as well, they have almost separated themselves from the rest of society, they have strong rituals and are heavily interacting amongst each other. They strive for the same goals and are united in all the stuff they do.
But again, these are ’strong’ communities. The people at Time Square on new years eve, absolutely have an experience of oneness, and are interacting at that moment with each other. I wonder if they would say they belong to the Time Square community if you were to ask them. So this would be a very weak or temporary form of community (?)
What do you think? How would you answer the 3 examples?