Creating Social Change

[Parththakkar12]

I want to share an insight about creating social change.

A lot of Stage Green people want social change. These are people who are dissatisfied with the status quo and tend to enter power-struggles with the status-quo. This does not work. If you enter a power-struggle with the status-quo, the status-quo will win. Maybe you'll get some results in the short-term, but it won't carry through long-term. The reason for this is that whenever you have a certain status quo, it's because the majority of people are clinging to it. You'll always have a lot more people for the status quo than against it/for change.

If you come in to create some change you individually want, you'll come across as an idealist/rebel/threat. People cling to the status-quo because it meets some need for them. If you say 'Screw their needs! They're evil oppressors who contribute to systemic abuse.' You're right about that. That is how collective ego survives. Any majority wins system survives at the expense of the best interests of the minority. However, you're doing the same by not taking their needs into account! If they say 'Screw you', you'll never get the change you want.

There's an alternate strategy. You can focus on creating your own world, regardless of the status quo of the world around you. Here, you can focus on creating a new status quo which you'd be in favor of! You can have other people whose best interests align with yours cooperate with you on this. What you're hoping for is that the new status quo works better than the old one for those clinging to the old one. This way you're not screwing over people clinging to the old status quo and they could be a lot more accepting of your ideas.

My claim : If you have a well-integrated Blue, you will understand the importance of having a status-quo for collective survival. If you have a well-integrated Orange, you'll have the pragmatic abilities in you to find the win-win solutions with people who seem to be your arch enemies when it comes to creating change (those clinging to the status-quo). That way you can get it done without having to enter a power-struggle!

What do you think?

Edited April 5, 2020 by Parththakkar12

[Thought Art]

Martin Luther King, Gandhi.... 

I think there is room for subcultures, but also systemic change. It's not true that it doesn't work.

Also movements like Extinction Rebellion are growing around the world and have actually accomplished a lot, and who knows what we will change in the future. 

Creating your own world? How are you going to do that when we are so connected to the entirety of the planet. Covid 19 still affects everyone.

I like this thread. Following.

Edited April 5, 2020 by Thought Art

[Parththakkar12]

7 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

Creating your own world? How are you going to do that when we are so connected to the entirety of the planet. Covid 19 still affects everyone.

That is the whole point! That's why this would work to create real change. This may require you to wake up to God-consciousness, or the reality that you are the creator of your world.

[ivory]

8 minutes ago, Parththakkar12 said:

If you enter a power-struggle with the status-quo, the status-quo will win

Well that's not necessarily true, but there will be push back. I personally don't think anyone really gets anything out of accusations unless everyone involved is open minded. So, you aren't 100% wrong.

 

10 minutes ago, Parththakkar12 said:

You can focus on creating your own world, regardless of the status quo of the world around you.

Well, that is the solution to the madness you see around you. And for sure, find like-minded people. That's what makes the absurd bearable.

[Milos Uzelac]

I feel this topic is a response to the tone of my last comment on your thread. I was kinda annoyed on the passivity and obedience of people, that this is the new normal and that it isn't a opportunity to have an argument on their side why demands for economic change and reform is now necessary for protecting the lives of workers. I partially understand your points one must look out for ones ire and anger that may have an opposite effect despite if it's backed up by correct and rational backings why the necessity of change cannot be postponed anymore, if the live of your close ones and family are at stake. Fight governmental stoked fear of the pandemic with activist stoked fear of long-term economic unsustainable consequences on the most vulnerable still during it and particularly after it. 

[Parththakkar12]

@Milos Uzelac Wasn't specifically directed at you. Interesting to see it rings a bell for you though!

[Milos Uzelac]

1 hour ago, Parththakkar12 said:

@Milos Uzelac Wasn't specifically directed at you. Interesting to see it rings a bell for you though!

It's an entire church sunday ceremony here haha 

[Parththakkar12]

I want to share some insights on systemic change.

A system is an interconnected set of elements that is coherently organized in a way that achieves something. A system must consist of three kinds of things : elements, interconnections and a function or purpose. (Quoting from 'Thinking in Systems' by Donella Meadows)

A system of humans can be looked at in an analogous manner to a system of interconnected parts of a mechanical machine with gears, crankshafts, wheels, axles, etc. So, if we look at a system of humans, which is also a collective ego, (from a certain perspective) the elements are human beings. The slots where the elements are would be analogous to roles that humans play in a human system.

• In a human system, unlike a machine, every role/component has certain degrees of freedom in the system, in the sense that there are specific limited ways that every role can alter the configuration of the system. For example, say you have a worker working a menial job with a very specific job-description. No executive power, very little agency when it comes to deciding their job-description, etc. The only way they can alter the system is by leaving their job, i.e. the system would then have to let them go and find someone to replace them.
• Every role also has certain constraints which the system imposes on it, because by definition of a role, it is limited.

Now, lets look at an oppressive system. There can be many definitions to this, but my definition is : a hierarchical system in which the people above don't consider the perspective/best interests of the people below before making decisions that impact the system. The system is set up to suppress the voices of the people in lower positions such that the people in higher positions can get away with selfishly controlling the system to their advantage. A democratic system, on the other hand, would be one in which the authorities hear the voices of the people and consider them as important when making executive decisions.

There's 3 types of roles in the systems I'm talking about :

1. Roles whose voices aren't considered important to the decision-making process of the higher-ups. Examples of these are daily-wage workers, manual labourers, etc. These people are typically SD Stage Blue people who just blindly follow authority. They, in fact, may even prefer a system that doesn't depend on their opinion as that makes their job/survival simpler! Having an 'oppressive system' here may be beneficial to the overall system even if it exploits individuals. For example, if you're an army in a battlefield, you want the commander to just be able to give orders with the confidence that their soldiers will just blindly follow them without questioning them.
2. Roles whose voices are considered important to the decision-making process of the higher-ups. Examples of these are union-workers, people 'holding authority accountable', all sorts of activists, exposers, whistle-blowers, etc. (SD Stage Green) These people want the authority above them to consider their best interests when making executive decisions, i.e. they don't really want to be calling the shots per se but they want to be a part of a more democratic decision-making process. Essentially they want the authority to take care of them, but they have their eyes open to potential exploitation. Some of them may even want to break down the hierarchy cuz they just see authority as a bad thing, like everyone should have an equal say in every decision. This would be the death of the system, as it lets go of the different and unique roles inherent in the system.
3. Roles who are actually the ones calling the shots, with or without considering the best interests of the individuals below them depending on the types of relationships between lower and higher positions.

If we're looking to solve systemic oppression/create social change, what we're essentially looking to do is to create a new system, which does the survival functions of the old system and more, which is a viable alternative to the old system. We can use ideas which we like from the old system and let go of stuff we don't like about it, so we're not completely demonizing the old system. Whether the old one gets replaced by the new one is out of our control, as that is for the collective to decide.

Please feel free to add your analysis to this/ask questions.

[Parththakkar12]

Some additional points about human systems :

• Every human system needs a leader. Without a leader, the system doesn't move forward and do what it needs to do. So you need someone directing/leading the system.
• Say I'm the leader in a system and you're also part of it. I think that we should go left, and you think we should go right. Because I'm the leader here, we will go left. Thus by definition, the leader has the most power in the system. Also, we can't have everyone be a leader in the system, as everyone has different opinions and decisions will never be concretely made.
• I'm not 100% sure about this one, but I think a system can have only one leader. Now you may give me a counterexample of corporations having a board of directors, but I think that each member on that board leads their own systems, and there still is one CEO whose decision is final and binding. Please correct me on this if I'm wrong.
• I think that being a creator/designer of a system is an even more powerful position than being the leader!

Edited April 6, 2020 by Parththakkar12

[w4read]

@Parththakkar12 a stage yellow system will recognize the most competent in the group as a leader. That's one of the main differences between yellow and orange. Whereas orange chose the most charismatic/alpha guy as a leader, stage yellow will choose the guy/gal who is most competent in the specific tasks. That could change from task to task, which also mean that the leader changes. But you don't see much of that in todays society  

 

[Parththakkar12]

At Stage Blue, people don't have an autonomous conscious mind discerning which beliefs are worth considering and which beliefs aren't. This makes them very easy targets to indoctrinate. As a defense mechanism to this, they start clinging very heavily to good vs bad/right vs wrong. If you make a statement they consider right, they'll be totally on your side no matter what, and if you make a statement they consider wrong, they'll attack you metaphorically/literally. The reason for this is they're insecure with their own beliefs, cuz they haven't stepped into logical autonomy. For more on this check my comments on the thread 'Is India really a democracy?'

If you create a hierarchical system of such people, what the person in power says goes because they're gonna claim to have the absolute truth! The voices of people below will be suppressed and the people in power will literally control the narrative. People will value their authority figures more than investigating for and finding the truth, even if their perspectives aren't honored by the system. This is pure authoritarianism/fascism/religion in the best case. The people above will expect the people below to get indoctrinated with the narrative they peddle and not ask questions. Questioning the narrative is seen as equivalent to being a traitor/disloyal to the authority and it will be punished. It won't be seen as good as people will want to cling to the hierarchy more than finding the truth!

If your voice isn't heard in a system, you have zero power to change the system. If you want change, the only thing to do is to exit this system and create your own system where you have the power you want.

Edited April 6, 2020 by Parththakkar12

[Parththakkar12]

Now you may have a question : 'Say we have a democratic system in which the higher-ups are supposed to consider the perspectives of the people below them in the decision-making process, in theory. Which means, in theory, there is supposed to be discussion on important decisions between the higher-ups and representatives of people below (say between CEOs and union leaders) But that doesn't really happen in practice, i.e. the higher-ups are controlling the narrative and the discussion is controlled by them, and the people below them keep getting deceived. What's the problem here?' This is a case of people below not really asking the good questions to the people up above. If you're gonna keep your eyes closed to the reality of abuse of power committed by your authorities, the system will be transparent in theory, but in practice it'll function like an authoritarian system where the higher-ups have all the control and the perspectives of the people below isn't counting.

Now the people below have valid reasons to not ask the tough questions to the higher-ups such as :

• Not wanting to let go of authority that protects them, even when they know that abuse of power is happening
• Everyone in the system is a stakeholder and one change you propose could change the lives of everyone involved. Therefore people holding on to the status quo won't appreciate your efforts to change the system, and there could be politics against you which could be a threat to your position in it.
• You don't feel autonomous enough to leave the system if the higher-ups there dodge your good questions. You don't have an alternate strategy of meeting the needs the old system was meeting for yourself
• Even if the higher-ups genuinely want to solve your problems, you don't have good enough solutions for them that they can implement. This could be an issue of a lack of their competence for their position, like they as a person are incapable of solving your problems even if their position allows/requires them to. This is also a lack of knowledge on your part on what they could be doing that they aren't for selfish reasons.
• You go overboard with this and propose solutions that aren't really implementable, and you're gonna have to trust them to be on your side when they tell you that it's not implementable. Learning systems thinking, learning about your system, which needs it meets and how would be a good idea in such a situation.

[Parththakkar12]

Leadership styles on the spiral stages:

1. Blue: Authoritarian leadership who just gives orders. Everyone is hyper-identified with their role in the system, worships the authority commanding them and is very very concerned with ‘doing their job right’. People are concerned with doing the duty of the position they occupy in the system and not really think too much about a bigger picture. If someone messes up, there will be a massive blame-game. If a person below messes up, they’ll be punished by the authority above accordingly and if a person above messes up, there will be protests and demands to hold people above accountable for not doing their duty well.

Differences between Blue vs Orange – At Blue, the system isn’t really goal-oriented or productivity oriented, it’s just a system of collective material survival like the DMV, court system, army/police, etc. There’s just duties to be done/rules to be followed whereas in Orange, there’s more emphasis on teamwork and collective goal-oriented thinking.

2. Orange: Alpha-male dominating, ambitious leadership that’s all about productivity. The system has a collective goal which is typically a personal goal of the leader, and recruitments of people happen according to skill, capability and fire to achieve. The organization values qualities like efficiency in productivity, time-management, teamwork, ability to strategize, mental creativity and rational mind skills. Wage-slavery is a pretty common situation in such organizations, with the boss not really caring about the fact that the employee feels like a wage-slave. Again, not much thought being put into the bigger picture, except that we now refer to the collective as a ‘team focused on a common goal’ so there’s a sense of collective goal-orientedness. Examples are big corporations which are all about making profits. Internal culture of the organization would be full of entertainment, materialism, partying, etc.

Differences between Orange vs Green – At Orange the organization is narcissistic and is concerned only about it’s own individual material gain. This is reflective of the leader, who treats everyone as a cog in the machine they created for achievement of their own goals. At Green though, the system is set up to contribute value to the world. The organization here doesn’t act like a narcissist, it acts in a socially, environmentally responsible manner.

3. Green: Compassionate leader who, as part of their life purpose, creates the organization to contribute something meaningful to society. The system has a collective goal, but this time it’s not self-centred, it’s to create social change that would raise the consciousness of humanity. Recruitment would happen based not only on skills and capability, there will also be an evaluation of whether the individual’s life purpose aligns with working at the organization or not! (I’ve been rejected at Green organizations because my life purpose didn’t align with working there!) Very relationship-oriented organization with an internal culture that has Stage Green values.

Points about this:

• If you want to create a Stage Green organization or be a Stage Green leader, you'll need elements of the lower stages too. For example, company policies/ethics rules in companies are Blue systems in a primarily Orange organization. In a Green organization, for it to really work, you'll need Blue and Orange systems with likewise leadership.
• Some dysfunctional Green organizations may try to do away entirely with hierarchy, which doesn't practically work as you need a leader who takes the initiative, gives orders and gets things going. You can have the best systems in place, but they do their job only if they have a leader. The leader is the life-blood of the system, the one who creates and directs the flow of energy in the organization.
• You can be a Stage Turquoise person in general and have a Stage Blue leadership style! For example, Sadhguru. Leadership is a very specific relationship quality and it could have nothing to do with your overall stage on the spiral.
• I don't know what leadership would look like at Tier 2, cuz as far as I know, Tier 2 is about being whereas leadership is a worldly thing. I'm not 100% sure on this, but I think that all collective activity can be summed up into Tier 1, whereas Tier 2 is more of the state of the individual. I don't know of whole organizations on Tier 2 tbh cuz Tier 2 individuals are pretty rare.
• I don't know what Tier 2 leadership style would look like. As far as I can see, every individual Tier 2 mind is so unique, that it would be difficult to draw trends in leadership styles at those stages. Also, it would be important for an organization to be very pragmatic in how it wants to manage relationships between roles, and keep relationship definitions simple so that they're manageable and not too complicated. Tier 1 does a good enough job at that for the time being.

Feel free to add your analysis on this!

Edited April 22, 2020 by Parththakkar12

[Milos Uzelac]

@Parththakkar12 Keep this thread alive and insights flowing while you are in the zone! Scrolled through it's like a spiral dynamics introductiom course for me since I still haven't organised my priorities and time properly and comprehensively, to set aside time to study it in free time and compare it with empirical examples in day to day life or or from examples from history books. Anyways thanks for the excellent explanatory and articulated thread post.

Edited April 22, 2020 by Milos Uzelac

[Preety_India]

Such an important post Parth. Good job. 

You do a great job at dismantling SD from the Indian perspective. 

Even I couldn't have done it. 

 

[GodDesireOnlyLove]

@Parththakkar12

That's good perspectives and good read. I lost energy to write off so long text. Understanding is internal always changing toward highest truth.

How would you see a coral leader/gov ?

Someone who has already understood everything said here.

Blue/orange/green/yellow/turquoise.

How would act stage coral ?

[Parththakkar12]

@Milos Uzelac @Preety_India @GodDesireOnlyLove Thanks for your comments! Out of curiosity, what value do you think I can offer with my writing? What value do you receive from it? I need some reflection on that!

Tbh I don't quite know about Coral.

[w4read]

@Parththakkar12 Awesome man! Your putting a lot of effort into this and it really brings a lot of value to the table. Great job! I'm actually sharing your vision to a certain degree and I'm very curious about how stage yellow organisations and leadership would look like. I suspect the following:

• It would be more innovative: The goal of a yellow system would be to contribute positively to the system and society as a whole. In this regards, the best way they can do this is to be innovative and not engage in competition by trying to outcompete others and push them out of the market. 
• It would be much more dynamic: Since stage yellow realizes the complexity of the system it would try to create an organisation that is able to change rapidly and take action on changes in different circumstances. In order to do this the organisational structure would probably be flatter, and have less hierarchies, which makes innovation and changes easier to make.
• I said earlier that stage yellow would have several leaders. I'm not sure if that's the case, but i think the system would be organised in a way that makes sure that all perspectives is taken into consideration, and that the people who have the most competence in specific areas would have more power in decisions regarding those areas. This could potentially be threatend with only one leader, however the system would have to weigh the positive against the negatives in regards to that, because there would definitely be positive aspects in having just one leader.
• More focusing on marketing, unique qualities, organisational culture, and structure: Marketing is about  knowing your market and your specific place in that market. In order to do that you have to know what your market want and create a system where the organisation is in best shape of creating what your customer wants. This of course also go backwards, you have to find a market niche that wants what you can actually produce. This will be affected by the unique qualities within the organisation, the culture, and the structure of the organisation. So a stage yellow leader will understand these important dynamics and focus on how to make sure all of these factors plays together in harmony and creates the specific results that the organisation wants.
• More leadership, less management: While a stage orange would use a lot of time doing management, a stage yellow would realize that leadership is much more powerful. In leadership you are thinking more long term and is more about developing your employees and giving them tools for succeed long term. It's also about visioning and changing systems. Management, on the other hand is more short term and is about controlling the process as it happens. Whilst that is important, a business who solely focus on management will not succed long term and will be blind to the changes that happens in front of their eyes. In the time we are living with so much changes going on it's especially important to be aware of this, and this is recognized by the yellow person.

[Preety_India]

@Parththakkar12  it really helps me with understanding stage blue thinking. 

 

[Parththakkar12]

When I talk about morality here, I'm primarily talking about the 'should' beliefs. Attitudes of the different Spiral Stages towards morality:

Blue:

• Morality is absolute, i.e. there are absolute rules that you should follow. My parents/religion/civilization say that you should/shouldn't do certain things and it is my duty as a good kid/person/citizen to follow these rules.
• There are systems of collective survival in place in my family/country/religion/civilization. They work only if everyone follows the one right morality. If someone breaks the moral rules, they should be punished by the authority governing the collective accordingly.

Orange:

• Morality is an idea that society constructed to limit me from achieving my personal goals. It is for people who don't want to take responsibility for their lives and instead want to be coddled by their religion/guru/priest/civilization/family.
• Morality works only because it is conditioned into people. There are no absolute 'shoulds' and the more people realize this, the more economic development we'll see.
• Morality is not needed at all. Nature works according to the Darwinian principle of 'survival of the fittest' and this will be the case whether you follow a morality or not! It is a waste of time/energy/resources to follow morality and it can cut down on my efficiency/productivity.
• The people who conditioned us to follow their morality did so for their materialistic interests. Religion is hyper-materialistic and the religious sheeple don't get this. They're kept busy following their morality and 'have-to' beliefs so that the authority above can suck them dry of their resources. Good for me, cuz that means less competition for me!
• The morality of my society is like a giant web of beliefs that set the rules of my playing field when I chase success. I will play by these social rules to win, but I will break them if I can get away with it.
• Morality is for people who can't let loose and enjoy life. Now that I've broken free of my morality, I can go out, drink, smoke, do drugs, sleep around, eat junk food, entertain myself and have a swell time!

Green:

• Morality is relative and chosen. I have a different definition of morality than the next person. My rules of what you should do can differ from the next person and I have no problems with that. However, for me to trust you, we must have a certain common moral ground.
• Religion/family/other Blue institutions indoctrinated us with their absolute morality cuz they wanted to oppress us/control us to be good people in an absolute sense. They did this for their selfish interests and we need to educate more people about this. At best, it was a failed attempt at creating as good a morality as they could.
• Morality is important for collective survival, i.e. it is important for collectives to have a moral compass guiding their relationships and attitudes towards the world. If we don't have a moral compass, we end up being narcissistic, ego-driven and end up hurting each other.
• Having a morality must necessarily mean I demonize a certain group of people and call them evil. These people are the ones opposing my dreams for a oneness-based conscious utopia where humans live in communion with nature. They are unconscious of their impact on the wider world and they will end up destroying the planet if we don't stop them and demonize them!

Points about this:

• At Green, you care about being a socially responsible citizen. But, because you're unconscious, you feel like you need a moral compass based on which you define 'socially responsible'. When you reach Turquoise though, you realize that everyone around you is a part of you. Now, you don't need a moral compass to help you be socially responsible, you will individually be completely free of morality!
• Morality, by definition, involves commitments to not hurt the people you're with in a certain way. When people agree on moral rules, it's generally considered a 'fair morality'. For example, it's considered a 'fair deal' to say : I commit to not hitting you, you commit to not hitting me.
• Different stages disagree on what's fair vs unfair. For example, what's fair for Blue is unfair for Green in a lot of cases.
• I think collective egos need to have a common definition of morality in order to co-exist in an orderly (not necessarily peaceful) way. It is important for us to feel that the other person is being fair with us in order to trust them, and we're able to agree on fairness when we follow the same rules. Now whether the rules are indoctrinated into you, or you came together because you agreed on your self-created moralities is  a separate conversation.

My proposal for a more conscious way of looking at morality:

• A deal is an agreement/arrangement in which all parties make certain commitments to the collective. Deals happen according to systems of collective survival. Morality is a deal that a collective agrees to in order to peacefully co-exist in an orderly manner. If you individually don't honor your moral commitment to the collective, you will be liable to action that the collective takes against you.
• A problem with morality today is that we're indoctrinated into it, i.e. we don't consciously commit to it. Very few people develop to Green and actually choose their morality. The more we develop to Green, the more we choose our morality, the more willing we will be to honor our conscious moral commitments to our communities. This is a wild level of democracy that we can only imagine at the moment!

Edited April 26, 2020 by Parththakkar12