stepping out

an academic aside. this is an exercise in stepping out--out of your own sheltered world of the individual.

let's take into consideration one of your largest, tangible circles*--earth. in One World, Peter Singer takes a 'globalist' perspective towards community responsibility. i, for one, hate to play the overused 'september 11th' card, but this was a landmark event for the US, in that it served as a reminder--first, that the United States is not impervious to violence seen in other countries every day; second, America is and will be held accountable to other world actors.

now amanda, ofcourse the US should be accountable to one degree or another. no one would dare suggest otherwise. just LOOK at our human rights programs, and AIDS campaigns, and embassies, and outreach!

right. there's that--government activity. but before the shock of new york, the american people didn't feel the same sense of 'i am one of the world' as post 9-11.

i am one of the world.

programs and campaigns and outreach are all lovely, granted. but this is a passive understanding of a global community. it serves the same purpose as shoving a few bucks in a collection plate, or 'making a showing' at a social event. it's just enough, so you can say you were there. you were involved. you contributed. new york transformed this generation, bringing us back together, to an inter-global reality. Singer provides a strong, one paragraph example of his views.

Terrorism has made our world an interated community in a new and frightening way. Not merely the activities of our neighbors, but those of the inhabitants of the most remote mountain valleys of the farthest-flung countries of our planet, have become our business. We need to extend the reach of criminal law there and to have the means to bring terrorists to justice without declaring war on an entire country in order to do it. For this we need a sound global system of criminal justice, so justice does not become the victim of national differences of opinion. We also need, though it will be far more difficult to achieve, a sense that we really are one community, that we are people who recognize not only the force of prohibitions against killing each other but also the pull of obligations to assist one another. [Singer 7]

as a globalist, Singer hits some key points--even if you ignored global responsibility pre-21st century, now the world arena has become our business. our sphere of focus was forced to expand. Singer declares that 'we need a sound global system of criminal justice....' in other words, globalists consider a working and universally recognised global system of government to be in order--an overseer of all actors. one might argue such an actor might promote 'world peace', serving as a deterent by consequence. that is, a system of guidelines and laws for international cooperation.

even without a global government or monitor, the globalist would tell you the importance of actively engaging in world affairs, particularly since the global community is rapidly constricting. Examples would economically include the IMF and world bank; socially by the internet, in particular; politically via expanding actors such as the EU, transnational corporations, and even 'terrorist' organisations. globalists would also argue that by lending aid to other states, we're helping all international actors by inciting our 'good values' and unifying schools of thought. any responsibilities to more local circles, however, might be necessarily compromised for the greater good.

but i'm not a globalist.

i wouldn't dream of forming a global community under one government. rather, i'm going to back up and propose a tribal systems view for international order and the circles principle with no traditional government [which some of you might be familiar with]. in tribal culture, everyone works for the greater good--because everyone is interconnected within the tribe, what's best for the tribe is invariably best for the individual. without the tribe, the individual doesn't survive. i'm describing a system of support and security--a geodesic societal structure, if you like. here's the clever bit. i'm not talking about a world free of conflict. we're social animals--conflict is an integrated part of our inter-relationships. conflict is necessary for establishing ourselves as a viable entity. one actor provokes another, not so much to prove any point other than his existence and ability to function among other actors. not against other actors. compete, but don't conquer.

[definition for tribe per this discussion--i don't mean a tribe from 10,000 years ago living with the birds and apes and running around in some raw form of moccasins. i'm talking about groups of people, living together in an integrated system of reciprocal support. however they live after that--be it caves or skyscrapers is beside the point for the moment.]

what i'm suggesting here is a mutual respect and global awareness for other actors, yet a recognition of an actor's [individual, or group] individual rights to life and freedom of thought. there isn't one 'right' way to live. so why imagine there to be? a mutual respect would call for social tolerance transnationally. each group's responsibility lies to other groups, each individual's responsibility lies to other individuals. one and all part of an interlocking system of circles, each dependent upon the next.

global awareness and respect. community rights to life and organisational systems. individual rights to free thought. integrated tribal culture.

utopian? maybe so. but is it impossible...



*backtrack for the circle principle
[by the way, if you're ever bored and feel like reading some infuriating views, look up peter singer. he has a little something to anger everyone in one manner or another.]