Listening to the Voice of Humanity

Straight from the Heart

Feature – world crisis

Listening to the Voice of Humanity

Steven Kull

Part-4

WorldPublicOpinion.org conducted a poll of eight developed countries in which respondents were presented the annual per capita contribution that would be necessary for meeting this goal, based on the World Bank estimates. In every case, and in most cases by a large margin, majorities of respondents- on average three out of four- said they were willing to any the amount necessary to meet the goal, provided that people in other countries did so as well.

Publics as more receptive to Evolutionary change

All this is not to say, as some have proclaimed, “vox populi, vox Dei” (the will of the people is the voice of God). However, it does appear that in many cases publics tend to be at least one step ahead of their government when it comes to addressing important issues. It does appear that the citizenry as a whole is more receptive to emergent ideas promting key changes.

Institutions…tend to pursue a narrowly defined concept of institutional self-interest. Individuals… are more likely to think in terms of the common good.

This dynamic is especially true when it comes to dealing with problems of a global nature that require international cooperation. Nation states as institutions have proven reluctant to cooperate in ways that compromise their sovereignty or their freedom to pursue their maximal national interest. Cnflicts are often viewed in terms of narratives of winners and losers in a zero-sum game.

But it appears that individuals as a whole are more ready to cooperate in a global framework and are not as constrained by competitive national narratives. While for most people national identity is strong, most also think of themselves as global citizen. A World values survey found that majorities in 43 of the 46 countries polled said thay saw themselves as global citizens- on average 72%.

This differences between individuals and institutions is evident within the nation state as well. Institutions- corporations, interest groups, and political parties- tend to pursue a narrowly defined concept of institutional self-interest. Individuals have a more complex and holistic to think terms of the common good.

Though individuals have the capacity for a holistic and inclusive perspective this does not mean that all or even most of them do. But taken as an aggregate, the collective often does show these features. Why is that? When all the voices of society are considered on an issue, the self-interested voices, because they differ, tend to cancel each other out, creating a kind of background noise. Those who look at issues with at issues with a more a neutral and inclusive consciousness than become the swing vote that creates a dominant perspective.

To be continued….

For comments, reactions and suggestions please e-mail at abs_damahan@yahoo.com or call to tel No. 062-926-9418 or text Cell. No. 09283147761 Blog: http://absdamahan.wordpress.com