Lenses of Moral Reasoning: A Spiral Dynamics Approach
I’ve had many a conversation about morality where people who are adamant about absolute morality (people can’t just make up what they think!)… and those who have strong opinions on the complex and situational nature of morality (it doesn’t work to follow a blunt law-code!)… and those who believe that the socially constructed aspect of morality means morality is whatever you make it. Fascinating.
For many then, exposed to all these ideas, morality has become a confusing issue. How do we reconcile all these different perspectives, our internal promptings about right/wrong, what we’ve been taught, and the cross-cultural differences (and similarities) in morality?
Looking through the Spiral Dynamics framework, we discover a psycho-social progression of how morality is understood (by individuals as well as cultures throughout history) — specifically through 8 different lenses. This can help us see the utility and truth in all these moral reasonings… leading to a meaningful, integrated answer to the question of morality.
This framework can also help us recognize when someone is using a different moral reasoning than us, and communicate with them more effectively, avoiding misunderstandings.
The Moral Reasonings of the Spiral
Beige: Self-Preservation
Purple: Familiar-Convention
Red: Desire-Happiness
Blue: Absolute-Law
Orange: Nuanced-Context
Green: Subjective-Relation
Yellow: Yes-And
Turquoise: Lived-Participation
As you can see, we are not talking about what values are focused upon through a certain color-lens (though the Spiral gives insight into that as well), but the reasoning as to why one thing should be done/prioritized (seen as moral) over another.
Note: If you’re unfamiliar with the Spiral Dynamics model, it may help to take a look at my intro to the Spiral post, or get an idea by looking at this table:
Disclaimer: As with all Spiral Dynamics conversations, it’s important to remember that just because the colors are organized according to a progressive development (and thus natural hierarchy), this does not mean there is any superiority or better-ness to later/higher colors… or for that matter to earlier/foundational colors. It is a core Spiral teaching is that no color is inherently better or worse than any other.
With that, let’s dive in!
Beige: Self-Preservation
Beige morality is pretty straightforward: Survival.
This is the “base” morality — the first and most foundational moral rational. If our ancestors had no self-preservation worked into their moral schema… well then we wouldn’t be around to discuss morality at all!
Beige morality is about life! It emerges from the truth of our identity, and purpose, as living creatures. For something to be alive means it is organized in such a way that it self-perpetuates — it is autopoietic. Non-living things, while having their own purposes (and thus moral goods), do not share this self-preservation good, that is unique to living things. Consider the non-living tornado. It sort of looks alive in that it moves and grows… but it’s not structurally-functionally organized with the “goal” of perpetuating itself (or its species). From an evolutionary or even naturalistic lens, we can see that we humans, as living creatures, have a built-in “aim” according to our structure and function — that is to say, our nature. From a religious story perspective, in Genesis 2:7 the very first noted aspect of humanity was that they “became a living being”. And livingness is a divinely-enabled quality, powered by God’s spirit-breath (Job 34:13-14, John 6:63). To be alive is to be an expression of God’s breath.
This “desire” (conscious or not) for one’s own life to self-perpetuate extends to the survival of one’s offspring. Someone operating through a Beige moral lens will likely be concerned for their own life as well as the life of their children and grandchildren… and even in some cases will be drawn to risk or give up their own life for their offspring, for the parental instinct is very strong.
The Beige path towards understanding the fullness of morality is looking for what promotes life to the very fullest! Note that Yellow, as an “elevated Beige,” is an extension (and development) of this moral reasoning of life and survival from the Beige self, to the social, environmental, technological, and spiritual systems that make up the global unity.
Purple: Familiar-Convention
In the historical development of Purple, culture and language emerge. People start to live together in tribes and cultivate a true sense of “home.” They bond through shared ritual, language, story, music, and culture. The world outside the tribe was wonderous and frightening! Whatever was familiar was “safe” and good… whereas the foreign was always a danger and threat (the unknown could be a source of blessing or devastation).
Thus, Purple moral reasoning trusts what others think. It trusts the tribe. It trusts family. It trusts what feels familiar and safe. It trusts conventions and tradition because that’s what’s worked in the past and what “feels right.” What is foreign is often by default considered “bad” and what is familiar is “good.” Much of Purple moral reasoning is implicit and environmental. Simple exposure is enough to adjust what feels good, often in a relatively short amount of time.
What does it look like today?
Children when growing up, rarely question their own way of life, traditions, and roles in the family. Particularly in the first 2 years of life (pre-ego and will to disobey) this is the only moral motivation, along with Beige self-preservation.
Cult morality, where the members trust in the cult leader (and the feeling of cult unity).
Often present in traditionalists (to the extent traditions are followed because they feel “right” or “comfortable” or maintain the “status quo”).
It’s part of obedience: “I did it because my boss told me to do.”
Peer pressure: “Just do it — that’s what everyone here wants you to do.”
Feeling like you’re friend is “right” simply because they are your friend.
“It’s just the way we do things ‘round here.”
“Let’s walk the other way — something about that guy over there makes me feel uncomfortable.”
“Why do I think it’s wrong? I don’t really know, it just feels… icky."
“When in Rome… do as the Romans do.”
How does it integrate?
It’s a good thing to feel comfortable and at home… and this is one (of several) compasses we can use to point us in the direction of The Good. For instance, if we’re in a relationship, and we feel unsafe, or something just feels “off…” and keeps feeling that way for a while… well probably there’s something wrong that should be addressed. In the positive vein, if we find a new friend group that just “clicks,” and we feel we can let down our guard, there’s probably something really good that the group is providing for us.
The weakness of Purple moral reasoning is that it is susceptible being hijacked and molded by others and the environment we find ourselves in. To counter-balance this, it should always be paired with reflective and critical thought.
The power of Purple moral reasoning is that we can intentionally cultivate and channel it to be in alignment with our moral values. For example, someone who was raised in an racially and culturally homogenous group, even if they believe in their mind that other cultures are good, may find that they are disturbed when exposed to people who look and act differently. Their Purple instincts rebel against it. But, if they expose themselves more to these people, and get used to a multi-cultural context, soon what felt so strange becomes normal and comfortable.
By shaping our Purple moral reasoning (through exposure, friend-group selection, creation of new conventions, habituation, and rituals), we can dispose ourselves to live more according to our values, according to a moral code, or in a way which is harmonious with those around us.
Red: Desire-Happiness
Red moral reasoning is about Desire. We want things. And it’s only natural that we try to get them. To want something and pursue it is a good thing — it is an expression of eros love! “Draw me: we will run after thee to the odour of thy ointments.” (Song of Solomon 1:3 DRA)
Part of this desirous love is a dignifying of the motivation to be happy. According to Red reasoning, everyone wants to be happy… so it’s only logical that we pursue it!
Red in the Spiral is an individualist color, and the most egoic. Many of the pitfalls of those operating from a Red moral reasoning come from them being too selfish and short-sighted. Thus, as we will see, the moral reasoning of Red can easily lead people astray, if they seek immediate gratification and shallow happiness (particularly if it’s at the expense of others). But there is clearly a good element to our desire — for our desire draws us towards better and better things… more and more fulfilling things! Each of us will be most happy and most fulfilled by living a most moral life!
What does it look like today?
A romantic pursuing their love/their passions.
A thrill-seeker who tries more and more dangerous things because it makes them feel alive!
A teenager acting out and rebelling, doing what they want, establishing an identity outside the family expectations.
A bully taking lunch money, just because they can get away with it.
A drug lord who finds the money and glory more than enough justification for their actions.
A dictator who’ll do whatever it takes to stay in power.
“It feels good… you deserve it… just let yourself enjoy it!”
“Live a little!”
“Does he make you happy? If not, it’s time to leave!”
“Don’t let anyone tell you what to do!”
“Rules are meant to be broken.”
How does it integrate?
Red moral reasoning is essential for a healthy moral framework, for you can’t remove yourself from the moral calculous. It’s wrong to let yourself be walked over and used by other people. It’s a moral good to set healthy boundaries, and pursue a life you authentically want. However, Red moral reasoning also holds the justifications for the most violent and psychopathic behavior.
Unhealthy Red moral reasoning is selfish, short-term, hedonistic, prideful, and immature… it’s egoic and focused on short-term pleasure, not concerned with consequences. Thus, Red reasoning must be tempered by a couple modifications (provided by Blue):
Long-Term Thinking: Even if your primary concern is your own happiness, this naturally leads to a life of responsibility and self-control, for most of your happiness lies not not in the present, but in the future! You need to consider what kind of behavior will maximize your happiness, not just in the present moment, but across your whole life! When thinking this way, we discover there’s great benefit to sacrificing happiness now, to obtain greater happiness in the future. This starts with simple cost-benefit calculations: If I gossip about my friends now, then my reputation will be hurt, and it will be harder for me to have happiness-generating friendships in the future. If I party hard tonight, then I’ll have a miserable hangover and be less effective at work tomorrow. This ability to sacrifice the present for the future allows us to maintain friendships, jobs, and generally all the things that give fulfillment (a deep happiness) in life.
Considering Others: Red, being the most egoistical color, can struggle with considering others. But, even if unhealthy Red likes to pretend they are an island, our happiness is deeply dependent on our relationships. Those who are kind to others are likely to get kindness in return, and those who hurt others are more likely to be hurt by them. So very practically, we can better secure our own happiness if we treat others the way we want to be treated. What Blue teaches us is that we have a moral duty to others. What integrates this with Red is realizing this moral duty to others is simultaneously a moral duty to ourselves.
Red moral reasoning grows and becomes healthy when it can zoom-out to consider the dimensions of forward and out — that of time (considering the future self, and consequences for actions) and of space (other people and other places, which I cannot block off from affecting me), rather than being stuck in the immediate here and now of the individualist “me.” And in doing this, the Red-focused person will truly “find” and “obtain” themselves and their happiness, in a way they could not when bound-up within themselves! Part of me is in the future, and part of me is in other people.
The Red path towards understanding the fullness of morality is looking for happiness that is deep, sustained, resilient, and shared with others. For our own happiness is bound-up in the happiness of others… and, to use the Christian language, with the happiness of God. As John Piper says regarding Christian hedonism: “God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him."
For indeed, there is no greater joy than sacrificing oneself for those one loves, and for love itself! In this way, Red moral reasoning can direct us towards the fullness of love.
Blue: Absolute-Law
Blue moral reasoning is about trusting the Absolute. Morality is seen as black or white. Things are either right or wrong according to a “higher standard” (something outside of Red’s subjective happiness or might-makes-right justifications). This “higher standard” may be a legal code or a sacred text, or a constitution, or a set of values. It doesn’t matter what you want — what matters is following the rules!
Societally speaking, the introduction of Blue into is often a much-appreciated injection of order and stability. It provides clear rules and moral certainty that holds society together under fair standard.
Alas, in practice, all of these Blue promises are implemented with varying degrees of failure… the rules that are supposed to be “clear” bump up against life complexities and the need for interpretation — so there are always disagreements about applying the rules. The “moral certainty” of Blue law also becomes shaky when the law-code/doctrine appears to cause harm, is unjust, or doesn’t hold up to intellectual rigor. These are exactly the problems which lead to Orange moral reasoning.
What does it look like today?
Obeying the law and respecting constitutional rights.
Rigid rules (with no exceptions) to prevent exploitation, loopholes, corruption, or “watering down” of the ideal.
Fundamentalist religion of any tradition, that holds to rules and literal interpretations of texts (with a special shout-out to the “we are the chosen few” religions).
A teacher giving a 0 on a late assignment, regardless of the excuse, because “that’s the policy.” Or similarly: A police officer ticketing someone going 3 miles over the speed limit.
A religious person assuming that atheists have no moral compass.
A student refusing to cheat even if everyone else is doing it.
A martyr who dies standing up for what they believe in.
A pacifist who never compromises on their value of peace, even if it leads to their own harm or the harm of loved ones.
A climate activist demanding zero emissions and 100% green energy (uncompromising and absolute standards).
“No exceptions!”
“It’s a slippery slope…”
“You’re either with us or against us.”
“God would never contradict his word.”
“Better safe than sorry.”
How does it integrate?
As you can probably see, the way Blue moral reasoning often goes wrong is when its unyielding pursuit of The Good turns into an unyielding justification of punishment. It’s important for Blue to learn to integrate its high moral ideals with compassion and discernment. The need to integrate law with love is a common theme of the Gospels, in which Jesus repeatedly condemns the Pharisees as overly rule-following, lacking in compassion and virtue.
One framework which maintains an absolute moral law, while also making room for nuance and personal calling, is Joseph Fletcher’s “Situation Ethics” (book here). I find his argument quite compelling — that all morality is based in the absolute Law of Love, which all other laws point to and guide us towards living out. The framework itself may be considered more Orange or Yellow moral reasoning, but is grounded in an absolute Blue standard.
It’s important for Blue moral reasoners to cultivate humility about the absolute moral law(s) they believe in. For religious folks, this looks like acknowledging one’s littleness compared to God, entrusting the lives of others into the hands of God, and having faith that even if mistakes are made, God is pleased by the heart which seeks to please him.
Orange: Nuanced-Context
Orange moral reasoning is all about the context. It rejects the absolute binary presented by Blue, believing that there are exceptions to many rules, and that the situation changes what’s right or wrong, and that there are gradients of severity to right and wrong.
While looking through the lens of Blue highlights the black and white, looking through Orange brings into focus various shades of grey.
Orange naturally emerges from many of the problems of trying to instantiate Blue ideals. Peace is a great ideal, but Orange sees the occasional need for violence or force to obtain or maintain peace. Justice in principle involves treating everyone equally, but Orange also sees that some people need to be treated differently than others for true “fairness.” Blue morality may say that stealing is always wrong, but Orange asks questions: Why did they steal? Were there other factors at play? Blue morality may say children should obey their parents. But Orange questions: Is this rule still serving its goal? Are more children being hurt by this rhetoric than helped?
It’s sometimes hard to know exactly what to do in a situation, and Orange moral reasoning would say its our moral obligation to be thoughtful, to consider everything we can, and to make a choice that will attempt to maximize goodness!
What does it look like today?
The aspect of a country’s legal code that changes and becomes more complex to account for more situations.
Affirmative action and other programs that are aimed at addressing the unique circumstances of differing individuals and groups.
"Let’s look at the big picture!” and “We have to consider the context!”
“For everything there is a season and a time for every matter under heaven.” (Ecclesiastes 3:1)
“It depends on the situation.”
“It’s not about following the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law!”
“Best is the enemy of good.”
“Sometimes you have to choose between the lesser of two evils.”
“The ends justify the means.” (Sacrificing idealism for the “greater good.”)
"You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs."
How does it integrate?
Orange moral reasoning is essential to A) adapt to emerging needs and concerns and B) analyze the many factors of the complex world we’re living in to find the most effective courses of action.
Alas, Orange reasoning (like all the others) can be influenced by our short-sighted desires and used to justify all sorts of terrible things (I think of the wealthy mega-church pastors who justify spending their supporter’s money on private jets or justify their illicit sexual affairs because it was either a “reward” or “helping” them do their work).
Thus, Orange morality should maintain a framing within certain Blue ideals and be balanced by commitment to certain Blue rules in our lives. Each person can choose what these look like for themselves, with critical thought and introspection (that’s the Orange way!). Not everyone needs to have the same rules, but it’s a requirement for a healthy life in the modern world to have some set of personal rules to guide one’s life — with some rules being more malleable and others more rigid — some followed for a short time and others for one’s whole life.
I find Orange moral reasoning very helpful for determining my diet. For me, following absolute rules like a strict diet is quite difficult and often not very healthy. Instead, I have general priorities: 1) Eat Local 2) Eat Fresh 3) Eat Real 4) Eat Respectfully. And alongside these I will institute temporary rules to apply for a short times. During Lent I have given up all packaged, processed food. Another time I gave up eating candy and desert (except what others made at home). There have been times where I notice my diet starting to degrade, so I commit to something like buying salads when I go out to restaurants (even if it’s more expensive), or ban for myself a tempting food… but only for a pre-determined amount of time, like a week. Essential to this adaptive rule-making process is me deciding for each rule if I’m making a “firm commitment” (in which case I have to be confident I can do it) or am choosing to “lean into” a value (which is sometimes all I need to course-correct). It’s important to me that I don’t break a promise (even to myself), so I am careful about absolutes, and make use of time-boxing my commitments.
Green: Subjective-Relation
Green “considers the human element.” It is a response to the de-humanizing problems of Orange, including money over people, thinking over feeling, the treatment of humans like cogs in a machine (or numbers on a spreadsheet), a loss of meaning, existential anxiety, and the failures of materialism and capitalism. Green is also a response to global connectivity, the realization of and attempt to respect many cultures/perspectives, and appreciation of the global ecosystem.
Thus, Green moral reasoning emphases subjectivity and relations.
Subjective truth refers to the truth found within the subject (aka the subject’s experience), while objective truth refers to the truth found in objects. While Orange considers the context (and how it nuances moral questions) — Green considers the person (and how their lens shifts moral framing). By Green reasoning, two people in the “exact same situation”* could make totally different decisions, and both decisions could be “right,” because each person has a different perception, cultural upbringing, and personal calling or convictions.
*It’s not possible to ever have exactly the same situation, given interconnected reality, but we can compare externally similar-looking circumstances.
This emphasis on the subjective experience includes a resurgence of respect for the emotional experience… incorporating Purple (What feels “right”? What feels comfortable?) and Red (What do I desire? What makes me happy?). Markedly, in Green reasoning, the morality of personal emotional experience must be analyzed relationally (or inter-subjectively), considering its impact on the local community, other communities/cultures, and those on the margins. (Would that make someone else feel uncomfortable? Would it perpetuate privilege or systemic harm?)
In the Christian world, Green moral reasoning is especially present in the personal calling that individuals experience and the role of conscience. In Catholic doctrine, “primacy of conscience” asserts that our conscience is binding and to go against it is to sin. Another example of Green reasoning is found in Paul’s letter to the Romans, as he discusses whether certain days are sacred or not: “Some judge one day to be better than another, while others judge all days to be alike. Let all be fully convinced in their own minds. Those who observe the day, observe it for the Lord. Also those who eat, eat for the Lord, since they give thanks to God, while those who abstain, abstain for the Lord and give thanks to God.” (Romans 14:5-6 NIV)
Green moral reasoning often justifies through relations:
Relational Values: Red thinks it’s obvious that everyone wants to be happy, while Green thinks its obvious that everyone (if they are socially adapted) wants peace and harmony. Thus Green appeals to harm-reduction, healing, compassion, comprehensive care, equity, empathy, and communication — things which promote harmony. I particularly appreciate the utility of Rosenburg’s work on Non-Violent Communication (video).
Social Construction: Green moral reasoning acknowledges the socially-constructed nature of morality. Thus there is sometimes (but not always) an embracing of moral relativism and pluralism. For some, this means morality is “made-up” and not real (though I believe this to be an immature Orange-Green position), and thus they reject morality entirely, believing it doesn’t really matter what you do. However, even if it’s socially constructed, morality certainly matters, and is real to us (which is what Green cares about anyway). That means there’s a way to do it well, and a way to do it wrong, and part of the moral imperative is to construct better and better moral systems! Thus, even from a social constructionist perspective, Green has grounds to defend and promote a positive morality that leads to flourishing.
Relational Ethics: Green reasoning may see relations themselves as the ontological grounding of reality and/or morality. Examples include post-modern ethics (morality emerges from collective narratives rather than divine or natural law), I-thou morality (Buber: “All real living is meeting”), process philosophy (Whitehead: “There is no ‘thing,’ only interaction”), and ubuntu philosophy (“I am because we are”).
Process Over Product: Finally, a unique focus of Green relational reasoning is that of process over product. Generally speaking, Blue is concerned with the ideal, Orange with the end result, and Green with the method. Was the decision made after listening to all perspectives? Was it top-down or consensus? What were the power-dynamics? Was it consensual?
What does it look like today?
Restorative justice rather than punishment.
Accessibility for the marginalized/over-looked: making spaces accessible (eg: automatic doors, elevators, brail signs), digital accessibility (eg: closed captions, color contrast), communication accessibility (eg: sign interpreters, transcripts), & education accessibility (eg: test accommodations, personalized learning).
Concerns about systemic evil such as systemic racism and sexism, economic inequality, and environmental justice.
Sensitivity concerns around language that might be offensive, including political correctness.
"Who are we to judge?"
“Who decides what’s ‘normal’?”
“It’s a systemic issue! Don’t punish the individuals — fix the system!”
“Check your privilege.”
“We have to decolonialize our minds.”
“Feelings are data.”
“Voting isn’t real justice — we need to listen to each other and come to consensus.”
How does it integrate?
Green moral reasoning is essential to account for the diversity of cultures, perspectives, and individual promptings. It’s also key for understanding the role we have to play in the construction of morality.
However, when this reasoning is used to the exclusion of a morality grounded in the objective or absolute, then it is in danger of falling apart. The pit-falls of Green reasoning include:
Endless relativism by which no decision can be made… decisions take forever (or are impossible) if everyone must be heard.
Giving up on morality, or even on the ability to perceive “truth” in the world.
Side-stepping responsibility or accountability. How can someone be punished for living their own truth? Or for the societal forces that shaped and drove them?
Softness and chaos of both personal will and social organization. Often the lack of structure, rules, and hierarchy in Green organizations lead to their fragmentation, ineffectuality, or take-over by bad actors.
Note: It’s important here not to confuse Spiral values with Spiral moral reasoning. For instance, many people with Green values (eg: compassion and acceptance) use Blue moral reasoning: “I give money to anyone who asks, because that’s what Jesus said to do.” OR “In this community, we have a zero-tolerance policy on hate, and since you said xxxx word, you’re no longer welcome here.”
When well-grounded and spiritually/emotionally supported, Green can use its tools of listening, empathy, and harmony to see the goodness within every color’s moral reasoning, and integrate them …which leads into Yellow!
Yellow: Yes-And
Yellow moral reasoning is about saying “Yes” to all of the previous colors of moral reasoning, and integrating them together, so that each one has a “voice at the table” of ethical decision-making. Thus Yellow reasoning is less a “position” than a continual dialogue between perspectives, which forms a system of reasoning that is dynamic, adaptable, and self-correcting.
Yellow moral reasoning is always open to an “And.” What have we missed? What’s next to learn? Now, Yellow reasoning does not simply accept everything that the stream of life sends… but will sift through it, searching for its gold… and is excited when the found treasure (new information/experience/relationship) stirs a change in the current way of seeing the world!
This process requires humility, openness to mystery, love of paradox, and distance from ego (and these form the entryway into 2nd-Tier consciousness).
What does it look like today?
Dialectical thinking which acknowledges truth is found in the relationship between two extremes. (see my articles)
Symbolic reasoning used to bridge the gap between the colors, make sense of patterns across levels of reality, and connect parts of the psyche. (see Pageau)
Subsidiarity: A principle of organization which asserts social problems should be addressed at the lowest competent level (individual, family, parish…), while maintaining higher levels of authority when necessary. Rather than dictating from the top (Blue), or dissolving centralized power (Green), subsidiarity empowers the smallest unit within a networked system of support (see Catholic social teaching).
Meta-thinking and a zoomed-out perspective.
“I agree with you, but also with the other side.”
“Everything in life is a both-and.”
“There’s always a 3rd option.”
“Unity in diversity.”
"Perfect is the enemy of good and good is the enemy of great."
Yellow conceptualizations of how morality works will be complex, and there are many, but I’ll share a few (simplified) examples:
1) Co-Creation: God gave us life and the moral truths of the universe (top-down, Blue), and we (made in the image of God) continue the development of life and morality (bottom-up, Green), with the gifts God gave us… meaning our moral landscape (and our life) is a space co-created by the human and divine, participating in each other (Turquoise).
2) Whole-Part Intersection: Morality (right and wrong) is found in the relation (Green) between the objective whole (Blue) and the individual parts (Orange) (the context and experience of individuals), and thus morality is a “bridge” (Yellow) between the finite and the absolute. It transcends our understanding (due to its objective “fullness”), but also is able to be lived-out by us (due to its subjective “nearness”) (Turquoise).
3) Synthesizing Manifold Discernment Paths: We should discern (Orange) what is absolutely (Blue) yet transjectively (Green) good through the three main schools of ethics: Deontology (ideals) (Blue), Consequentialism (consequences) (Orange), and Virtue ethics (motivation and character - Green/Yellow)… while being informed by our desires (Red), comforts/repulsions (Purple), and survival instincts (Beige).
How does it integrate?
Yellow IS the integration stage, yet in trying to do this, Yellow reasoning has its own weaknesses and pitfalls!
It can easily become too theoretical or philosophical, focused on understanding frameworks and systems to the exclusion of living out the life of love. Those using Yellow reasoning have to avoid ever-deeper explicating and modification of theories, which distracts from doing the real work.
Yellow often struggles to distill the complexity of its ideas and translate them into the language the other colors (and do so authentically).
Because those focused on Yellow are in the business of integration, they often find themselves in in-between, liminal spaces — on the fringes of many groups, but at home in none. Learning to love this, and draw the necessary strength from above, is a Yellow move towards Turquoise…
Turquoise: Lived-Participation
Ah, the mystical and expansive color Turquoise! This lens transcends language, so it can be difficult to describe, much like Beige (which precedes language).
Turquoise moral reasoning is lived — it’s breathing in and out — inhaling and exhaling — receiving and giving — participating in the Breath of the Cosmos — expressing the Life of God!
Turquoise reasoning has many ways of being described (as it is containment-resistant). It can be said to arise from an experience with the divine… from an encounter with the sacred… from participation in the oneness of all existence!
While there are perhaps infinite expressions of Turquoise moral reasoning, they often emphasize the interconnectivity of all things and the inter-penetration of things perceived as opposed. For instance, the moral justification that God is in all of us and/or that we are in God. Even the tiniest particle contains the whole whole universe… and the universe is but a speck in the infinite. A Turquoise argument may rest on the realization that all people are but one organism… for instance, that the only way to love yourself is to love everyone else as you do yourself. (Meister Eckhart) What matters however isn’t the words, but experiencing and living into these truths… participating in wholeness… in the Dharma… in God…
These words may help to describe it, but they can’t be held-onto. Unlike in Yellow, there is no system in purely Turquoise reasoning.
What does it look like today?
“There is no ‘other’ — only the One expressing itself as many.”
“The Tao does nothing, yet nothing is left not done.”
“I don’t choose love — love acts through me.”
“When I feed the hungry, it is God feeding God.”
“It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me” (Galatians 2:20)
“We are already one.”
“Death is just part of life’s cycle"
"Eternity is not later—it’s now."
"Washing dishes is communion."
"This breath is prayer. This step is worship."
How does it integrate?
While Turquoise may be the final level of the Spiral, that doesn’t mean its the best (remember, no color is inherently better than another!). It certainly has flaws. Those who spend too much time in the Turquoise moral matrix, without making use of other colors, may struggle with…
Spiritual bypassing, in which the feelings of Turquoise perspectives (eg: altered states of consciousness; mystical experiences) are used as a replacement for actual growth of character and right action in the world.
Complacent contentment, in which there is little action taken or motivation to change things. This may be because…
a. Nothing is out of place — everything is exactly how it must be.
b. Each one should focus on purifying their own mind and walking the path to liberation.
c. Evil must be fought through prayer and a ministry of presence, rather than active work.
d. The life of contemplation and effortless action is disturbed by the “busy” and “grasping” energy of activism, strategy, labor, research, combat, and generally doing.
Psychosis and delusions, are extreme symptoms of too much transcendence of one’s framing (a Turquoise move) without the compensating systematizing. To keep from “falling off” into too much woo-woo, or spiritual visioning, one must ground themselves in frameworks that make sense of the world and tap into aspects of previous colors, including familial relationships, submission to authority, and empirical science.
For the Turquoise lens to not be blinded by its own hue there must be shifts back and forth between all the lenses. The best “teachers” and true “gurus” of Turquoise show this in the way they live. They “incarnate” the transcendent truth by living in this world, with all its pains and finitude.
Conclusion
So… what do you think? What moral reasonings resonate with you the most? Which ones make the least sense to you? Do you notice your family or friends in any of these ways of thinking?
If you’re a studier of Spiral, I’d love to dialogue about these associations, and see what refinements or explications can be made! The Spiral Dynamics model is rich, and I’m always impressed by the insight it can bring to so many domains!
Thanks for reading!
Photo Credits:
Photo by cottonbro studio on Pexels
Photo by cottonbro studio on Pexels
Photo by Natali Hordiiuk on Unsplash
Photo by mehmet dadük on Pexels
Photo by Kadir Altıntaş on Pexels
Photo by cottonbro studio on Pexels
Photo by RDNE Stock project on Pexels
Photo by Kaybee Photography on Pexels
