The big questions are too hot to handle

Written by  Sir John Whitmore Friday, 05 June 2009
In all the newspaper articles, in all the radio programmes and TV shows now exposing our MP's expenses, and previously, our failed bankers' bonuses, two core issues have been strikingly missed. One is to question the suitability of the type of people currently in both those roles to be there at all. The other is to question the wisdom of desperately propping up a failing, obsolete and unsustainable world economic system.
Let us start with the first issue. Individuals, tribes, cultures, nations and humanity all mature or evolve psychologically, psychosocially and psychospiritually over time in a broadly similar predictable sequence. Some individuals may mature rapidly triggered by a crisis, and others may choose to embark on a journey of conscious self-development by a variety of means including the use of psychological or spiritual practices. Thereby these individuals climb the evolutionary ladder through sequential stages in a decade or three, whereas collectives such as a culture may take several centuries to attain the same heights.

By understanding the pattern that individuals follow, the progress of a culture or a nation becomes predictable, and the stage that they have reached is identifiable by certain known characteristics. Those who study the evolutionary consciousness of humanity all over the world, have developed countless maps and models of the evolutionary journey, from simple easy to understand three stage models to complex ones of 15 or more stages. When they are superimposed over one another, they show a consistent sequential pattern.

One of these models, a four stage one devised by Kohlberg and Gilligan, labels Egocentric as the lowest level, followed by Ethnocentric, then Worldcentric and finally Kosmocentric. The other more complex models provide more detail, but I am intentionally keeping it simple here. This model can be described as showing the size of the person's consciousness or what the person includes in his or her field of care. A recent study suggested that some 77% of the world population is currently Ethnocentric or below.

This Ethnocentric stage is characterised by tribal orientation, nationalism, rivalries, adolescent behaviours, and the like. Let us consider now the responses made by the bankers and the politicians to media and public criticism. They were very similar.
  • The claim that "Everything I did was within the rules."
  • An inability to recognise that what they did was ethically or morally wrong.
  • The excuse that "I made a mistake", but the mistakes were all to their own benefit.
  • An almost pathological inability to take responsibility, and to say "I am sorry".
 Anyone who has a teenage son will recognize these adolescent traits; however, when one is under 25 such behaviour is to be expected as an acceptable phase in growing up. Above 30 or so, and especially if one is a banker or a politician with power over many, such behaviours are not only unattractive, unacceptable, and inexcusable, they are positively dangerous. Why have the media not picked this up and pointed it out?

Introducing tighter regulations for bankers or politicians does not raise their level of maturity, morality or their ethics, it just limits what they can get away with. No, it is the type of people, the Ethnocentrics themselves, that have to go. Worldcentric people by definition and by their nature would not have abused the old regulations, let alone need new ones. Anyone below Worldcentric on the "chart" should not be selected or elected into positions of leadership in politics or big corporations, not just banks. Fewer people would fit the bill and that would limit our choice, and so it should.

The second of the two issues was the failure of commentators to seriously question the capitalist economic system that has proved to be so fragile and unjust. It has brought wealth to half the world while the rest starve; it thrives on excess consumption and the inevitable emissions, and it seriously retards the evolutionary development of individuals and cultures. Bankers and politicians alike strive to prop up the old failing system which they abused, because they know no better.

It did not occur to them that this was a golden opportunity to start to create a viable, sustainable economic system in line with the requirements of emerging Worldcentric human consciousness stage. Putting off the inevitable only makes the next economic crisis bigger and sooner. Worldcentric observers are amazed, distraught by the primitive ethnocentric thinking of our politicians and bankers, but they are up against the power that they still exercise.  

However there is also a groundswell of more conscious or 'worldcentric' people who will no longer tolerate the old order and they will become ever more vociferous until the ethnocentric majority of politicians are discredited, ousted and replaced. Some commentators will reread if not resurrect Karl Marx, but the way is forward not backwards. A new economic order is essential, one that puts people and planet before profit.

So why have these two core issues been bypassed? Because few can contemplate the demise of capitalism and so they retreat into a state of denial, and few so called leaders can face the fact that despite their profile and in some cases their cleverness, their behaviour is adolescent. They have no knowledge of the evolutionary imperative that determines our future and ultimately our survival, let alone any understanding of it, or are guided by it. Why not? Because our schooling has tragically failed many generations now by ducking evolution, in simple terms, it omits the development of emotional intelligence followed by wisdom. Instead schools have been obliged to promote quantitative technowledge to meet commercial goals. The result is a gross excess of designed obsolescent material gadgets, goods, guns and emissions, and an absence of the wisdom to use our innovative ability responsibly for the collective benefit of mankind.

Are Worldcentric politicians and bankers too much to ask for? Many conscious people are waiting in the wings for this adolescent lot to get out or grow up. Worldcentric people are described as having "a greater expansion of self to embrace all people regardless of race, gender, class, or creed; social activism, moral relativism, rationality that questions rigid belief systems and transcends traditional rules and roles", and so on. Kosmocentric ones would be better still. They "identify with all life and consciousness, human or otherwise, have a deeply felt responsibility for the evolutionary process as a whole, and have an innate universal morality", amongst other things. This is, after all, what we need if we are to overcome further economic crises and the even greater environmental and social justice crises that are on the way.

Latest from Sir John Whitmore

Leave a comment

Make sure you enter the (*) required information where indicated.
Basic HTML code is allowed.




11 comments

  • Comment Link Anon Saturday, 06 June 2009 06:25 posted by Anon

    How does the Worldcentric and Kosmocentric view affect individual liberties and freedoms?

  • Comment Link William Wilson Monday, 08 June 2009 22:48 posted by William Wilson

    Should he be speaking to an American audience, I would suggest that Sir J. W. would appear to have assumed too much, on the one hand, while ignoring the obvious on the other.

    As described in various sources including in Michael Hudson's book 'Super-Imperialism'
    (http://www.michael-hudson.com/books/ super_imperialism_II.htm), after the bankers (agents of those in the City of London) set up the US Federal Reserve Bank (in a clever maneuver in 1913) and, ever since, the leadership of that institution has managed to exercise great control the economic fate of the USA. The various strategies employed to finance the warring European parties during World War I apparently proved somewhat less than completely successful from the point of view of the USA's financial decision-makers/controllers. However, after World War II, the leaders in the USA government and the Federal Reserve had learned a lesson and had come up with strategies to deal with many perceived economic problems by taking advantage of several institutions, especially, the AID and the IMF which, together with the World Bank, were propagandized to have been designed to provide economic aid for a number of war-torn, undeveloped and/or otherwise needy economies around the world. Eventually, over time, the USA managed to wrest control of natural resources from many sources while also gaining control of the political leadership of many countries. Segments of the economic/political leadership of this country were able to push through a military/industrial program which accompanied a plan for eventual world domination (though the domestic propaganda organs conveyed the ideas that such efforts were important to maintain world peace, to help recovery in the recipient countries and/or to permit control of US national security). Meanwhile, the main-stream-media (newspapers, magazines, etc.) were taken over by corporations which eventually did away with most of their news-reporting departments, foreign correspondents, etc. The well-known efforts of many of those who held high positions in the G W Bush administration were ostensibly designed to facilitate the 'new world order' in some form or another. I would not be surprised that these individuals and their backers think of themselves as having the answers needed to facilitate a 'world leadership group'; in that context, I would guess that in a rather perverse manner they may have even considered themselves to be 'Worldcentric'. However, such a definition of the term/word(s) is probably not what the author of this article has in mind. The reason why no member of the so-called 'fourth-estate' does not speak up in the US about behavior of banksters or other crooked corporate leaders may be that the media is eventually (though, perhaps, indirectly) controlled by a number of considerations including the fellows who caused the current economic crisis. The extent to which such behavior of journalists would manifest itself in the UK is beyond my ability to speculate, however, a number of people think that bankers world-wide are able to influence politicians/powerbrokers in a variety of manners, not the least of which is quite fundamental - money!

  • Comment Link Jeremy Edwards Wednesday, 10 June 2009 11:50 posted by Jeremy Edwards

    Although the idea of political and business leaders with characteristics of "Worldcentric people" and above is very, very attractive, I'm afraid it won't happen with the methods of selection that exist at the moment.

    Most business leaders are selected on the basis of the selfish chase of profit or personal power and the same can be said of politicians, although the development of spheres of influence, is most vital for politicians. Take as an example my local MP; a very clever and successful businessman, widely tipped for high office in the next government. Locally he is considered a "good man" but he has used the excuse that things were within the rules, when morally they were dubious, (think expenses and a previous purchase of ex LA property from the sitting tenant via right to buy). The previous incumbent resigned his seat to follow a career in the church, his replacement was brought into a safe seat by the party machine, who wanted a successful, photogenic, writer of right wing economic pamphlets as a replacement for a very highly regarded, but low profile, constituency MP.

    It is a truism that those most suited to high office are those least likely to seek it, conversely those who should be excluded from high office will seek it, almost obsessively. Both Terry Prachitt and Douglas Adams have used this idea for comic effect, which isn't funny after longer contemplation.

  • Comment Link Jeremy Edwards Friday, 12 June 2009 12:59 posted by Jeremy Edwards

    Anon asked,"How does the Worldcentric and Kosmocentric view affect individual liberties and freedoms?"

    It the context of Sir John's previous article this appears to me as a silly question as people with a wider view would seek to avoid transgressing on others liberties and freedoms, as to do so would undermine their view of themselves. If every member of the population was of similar mind, the society wouldn't need rules, as all individuals would be self-governing, with an imperitive to protect the rights and freedoms of others. Unbounded freedom can be given to those of proven good judgement. Where this all comes horribly unstuck is the interation between those at opposite end of the spectrum- the conflict between the selfish and the selfless. The other issue is where two parties can hold opposed views, both in good faith; mercy killing vs. murder or matters of personal choice.

    James May, (the journalist and broadcaster), expressed an opinion that there should be only one rule, expressed as "do not be a cock", and that all and any transgressions should be tested against that - for some that would be a major restriction of their freedom as there would be no 'loopholes'!

    Does anyone know how we could select for high office the World or Kosmocentric?

  • Comment Link AlanDownunder Monday, 20 July 2009 05:20 posted by AlanDownunder

    "How does the Worldcentric and Kosmocentric view affect individual liberties and freedoms?"

    I support Jeremy's answer to that markedly egocentric question, and tritely note that my liberties and freedoms depend on others' duties and responsibilities, just as theirs depend on mine.


    "Does anyone know how we could select for high office the World or Kosmocentric?"

    Disenfranchise the egocentric and ethnocentric majority. Otherwise, at least one of their own will successfully pander to them. Shame about the impracticality of this obvious but, I fear, unique solution.

<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 Next > End >>

Blog & News Menu

Search

Contribute

Citizen Journalism

The many are smarter than the few – we would like to publish your opinion on the site so please send your article here. But remember absolute certainty is the preserve of the deluded.

Fancy contributing?

Twitter

Honesty Box



Newsletter Signup

Facebook

Latest News

2012 © Renegade Economist