Every living organism evolves, develops and transforms, thus crossing increasingly expanded levels of consciousness.
This is the theory that Clare Graves presented to us around the 1950s with the 'Cyclical and Emergent Levels of Existence Theory', known by the English acronym ECLET. Don Beck and Chris Cowan took up his work to develop Spiral Dynamics.
What does this theory tell us in broad outline?
The Dynamic Spiral
Every living system (individual, organization or society) tends to become increasingly complex. It passes through levels of existence, called "Memes". The passage from a given level to a higher level requires our capacity for understanding and discernment to evolve in order to be able to respond to the specific problems posed by each "Meme". Each level of existence corresponds to values (called vMeme). The authors identified 9 levels of existence at the time to which they assigned colors:
Each level is marked by an interest in either individual development or collective evolution. Every individual, organization, or society is at a given level of consciousness (existence) due to their environment, personality (for the individual), or education (for an organization or society, their history). The transition to each higher stage is generally driven by an existential crisis and the inability to resolve new challenges. To 'move to a higher level,' each previous level must be both transcended and integrated. Finally, it is always possible to regress to a lower level.
The first three levels of existence (or civilization) are marked by fear. The transition to the second third represents a decisive leap where "a chasm of incredible depth of meaning is crossed": egotistical needs diminish; fear is attenuated in favor of love. Spiritual intelligence develops.
Here is the overall meaning of each “Same” in the Spiral Dynamics:
More information about this model and its practical application in business can be found on the website www.spiraledynamique.com.
As I stated, each level of existence is associated with one or more values. Now the most elaborate and especially the most precise theory on values that I could find is that of the psycho-sociologist Shalom Schwartz and I could not help but bring the two theories together.
The theory of universal values
I remind you of the 10 main values identified by Schwartz (extract from a sociological study):
And here is what emerges from the comparison of the two theories
| Level | Dynamic Spiral Stages | Schwartz's associated values |
| 1 | Archaic, instinctual, survival- Uses routine to survive | Compliance |
| 2 | Tribal, magical, animistic, ritualistic | Security |
| 3 | Self-centered, need for domination, heroic but simplistic | Power |
| 4 | Traditional, rule-compliant, stable, defense of order | Tradition |
| 5 | Modernism, opportunistic to achieve success, materialistic | Success/Hedonism/Stimulation |
| 6 | Postmodern, ecological, seeking harmony, anti-hierarchy | Kindness |
| 7 | Independent with regard to self-esteem, integration of differences, flexible, spontaneous, knowledge and skills are valued more than material wealth and power | Autonomy |
| 8 | Holistic, interdependence, emergence of a new spirituality as the mesh of all existence | Universalism |
| 9 | Life is a co-creative process engaged in by interconnected holons of existence with semi-permeable boundaries. | Universalism |
The two models obviously do not completely coincide, but there are many similarities: both are evolutionary; but while Schwartz considers that we all possess these values within ourselves, although to varying degrees for each individual, for Graves, each step would resemble a ladder that we would have to climb. Some rungs (levels of existence) would never be reached by some, while for Schwartz, we have access to all values, including the highest.
A big difference between the two models also appears around the definition of success which for Schwartz can take different forms: social success, search for personal pleasures (emotional) or need for discoveries (intellectual curiosity), whereas for Graves, it would only be the same level of existence.
Aside from these differences, the similarities in approach are surprising, which would lead to confirming the idea shared by these two theorists regarding the existence of values common to humanity but also to the development of any organic system. Something to think about!
Both models remain excellent analytical tools for understanding the values of an individual, an organization, or a society and the communication problems that can arise between entities that do not operate at the same level of existence and therefore do not have the same values.
EN 
FR