French Revolution and Spiral Dynamics

[QandC]

Hello everyone. In a book I am currently writing I wish to add some ideas upon the French Revolution and give a perspective based on spiral dynamics.

The research I've done shows that the French Revolution was obviously a reaction against a blue-stage, absolutist monarchy/feudalism. There was a transition to value thinking of orange-stage ideas . However the means of reacting were very aggressive, to say the least. In terms of thinking about power etc. this clearly shows a very red-stage mentality. France did not become a democracy after the French revolution either, rather a military regime formed by Napoleon Bonaparte. And his ways of acting were also very red/blue:ish. It seems as if the orange-stage values were too young to be fully embodied at the time and therefore failed to fully emerge. And after the fall of Napoleon the country returned to a constitutional monarchy, conservative ideas was brought back, and the catholic church once again got back some power compared to during the revolution. It was not until the industrialism that the orange stage fully awakened. 

What really happened here? Anyone who's got any ideas/knowledge about the French Revolution and can give a perspective based on Spiral Dynamics? 

Edited June 17, 2019 by QandC

[Apparition of Jack]

History happens in stages and phases. For every two steps forward of progress and evolution, there's always one step back of regression and fear. This was and always will be the case; wisdom comes in knowing which step of the process you're in and knowing what to do to navigate your world to the other side.

Edited June 18, 2019 by Apparation of Jack

[Ibn Sina]

I think most people in the french evolution era were not stage orange. 
A stage orange person would be a typical 21st century guy, who continuously works towards his goals, works up the corporate ladder, gets a job, has a family etc.
But people like Louise VI , Robespierre, Danton, Desmoulin , Napoleon, these were very very violent people  who killed people for ideals that they believed in
Robespierre's reign of terror killed thousands of people anyone suspected of going against the revolution.
They were all blue . They were not red like Gengis Khan, they were civilized people, but they were dictators who sought to maintain order in the state, and would kill millions to maintain their power. But their purpose was power, power through violence. 

I will say, Voltaire was  orange. He was an athiest, he was against all forms of violence that religion would bring. But again he can't be green as he wasn't a peaceful man , or yellow because he was completely against religion, even Buddhism. He didn't understand religion.

Rousseau was green whose ideas were  not like that of the highly logical, and reasonable voltaire, but instead his writings gave importance to the heart and living according to nature.

I think Goethe was also green (as in his book- Sorrows of Young Werther), but there is a chance that he may have been yellow, since he was not just a man of religion , but also a man of science  ( which is demonstrated both by his life and his magnum opus- Faust. He was a poet, and a scientist who studied plants, minerals and theory of colors).

I don't find many Turquoise people in 10-18th century Europe , but there are a number of saints like Saint Teresa of Avila,  , Saint Francis of Assisi, Thomas Aquinas, Sergius of Radonezh  whose biography look like they were full blown Turquoise.

Side note -

I also don't think being violent equates to being red or blue. 
Like I am sure that most soldiers in World War II , were not blue or red. Think of all those American and British soldiers, who fought in Normandy, against Nazis, who kissed their wives good bye, and went for war. I think they were  orange. US , UK they were not theocracies. The soldiers also had a family, had wife, girlfriend, children, but they joined the war because of a sense of patriotism and duty.
And if this is the case, then the question comes to me, 

was John of Arc Blue or  Turquoise?
Are religious warriors like, Krishna, Arjuna, Bhisma, Shaolin Monks, Samurais, Knight Templars, Jihadists, Crusaders, warrior saints, 
 

Blue OR Turquoise? 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 18, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[Neorez]

I think you will find some interesting thoughts in the pdf below. Here Ken Wilber talks about how groups can have certain ideas within the group but when the interact with the outside world they could show colors that are lower than the ingroup color. 

http://www.integralworld.net/pdf/Reflections_SDi.pdf

[QandC]

GREAT answers everyone – thanks a lot! 

[YaMayka]

In my opinion the French monarchy was red and the revolutionaries red/blue.

[Neorez]

@YaMayka I found the explanation of Ken Wilber verry illuminating. A monarch is mostly blue and when speaking to their people they will most likely display blue charateristics. But when they find some group that work against them they will display red characteristics. So I don't think the french monarch was red. I think they were blue but displaying red when dealing with people who were against them.

[YaMayka]

If I remember well, that was quite the case, he was surrounded by a lot of enemies and was ruling by fear (trying to keep the system where one man ruled, without being restricted by any written laws - sounds like a rule of a fist), not taking care of his subjects that well. But of course I would agree that nobody is just one colour, so most likely he had quite some aspects of blue. Both red and blue have a hierarchy but in blue the one on top is also restricted by rules.

[Neorez]

@YaMayka ofcourse it's always more nuanced but it's definetly a good point. I just found the way Ken Wilber explained it very good and it explains why some groups seems to act very different toward the outside world then when they act or communicate to their inside group.