Political Reciprocity is the the term I'll use for a concept that many don't seem to understand, especially in powerful places. Only a sociopath would reject the idea that each person, and each collective of persons, should treat others in a decent manner. However, many concerted attempts at garnering empathy and reciprocity fail: A photo of a mutilated boy, or a public demonstration often only harden opinions without changing them. So I'm asking, and will offer what I can, when/if inspiration strikes: What are the most effective methods for promoting political reciprocity?
I'll submit that any method has to be non-threatening to the security (psycholoically speaking) of the person/government you wish to influence. So without the shock, how to produce the awe... Thinking...
I don't think pictures like that will bother politicians! They will glance at it and think "Oh well that's what happens in war". They will not take a proper look at it at see their own involvement! I think it's so saddening that human beings will take part in this, or even encourage this treatment of people, just because they have a different nationality. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
cmon hype people dont give up shit unless they are made to. it is the rare occasion, perhaps, if they do so. nothing comes to mind however.
As with anything important, the solutions aren't simple. People are made to give a shit whenever things get bad enough (gnostics may take the accidental double-entendre wherever they like). The idea I'm seeking is to make proactive change while things are less bad than where they are headed. I haven't had time to think very much about this yet, but am proceeding along the lines that a semblance of an answer lies in the growing potential for telepresence, and a more general common knowledge of our connectedness; not in a purely spiritual, but practical sense. The Golden Rule can bring prosperity and political stability, but people and their goverrnments need constant reminders of how this works. So, political reciprocity could possibly be seeded through making reality vivid and "omnipresent" enough to hold the attention of even regular Jerry Springer, The Real World, or CNN viewer- and also convert passive shadenfruede and passive elitism into active compassionate pragmatism, and active sociopolitical improvement- all without alienating nonparticipants, but rather luring them. Edit: Note to Mucker- These pictures came up on another thread, where some expressed revulsion at the usage of them in political protest directed at the public, and suggested that such tactics turn people off more than making them think. I am inclined to agree, and am looking for ways to influence people toward political thought and responsibility, using less offensive and more effective methods.
IMHO All that really matters to a politician in a democracy is whether the electricity bill goes up, or the roads are unsafe. That is all the general publics frame of mind cares for. In the US for instance the #1 issue during elections are and always will be the economy. Not even the threat of terrorism (US is #4 in the world at threat) can debunk that. Those posters that we see is because we on sci are more communal in thinking, we look beyond our street corner. But there aren't many of us to actually sway elections. Reciprocity u must understand is more then just in this political sense. For instance Iraqi's now have a right to kill btwn 7,000-12,000 Americans. Now u don't want that do u?
You're looking at reciprocity upside down from where I see it. If you want someone to do good work for you, you have to insist upon that; this can apply to politics. Once a majority understands the benefits of clarity they will embrace it. Revenge is antithetical to what I am vaguely proposing. I believe a meme can change the world if viable enough to cause indefinite and geometric participation- This has happened in many cases, but with less efficiency than with the dimensions and scale of communication, collective recognition, and understanding that may become possible soon among humans.
My thoughts Correct me if I have misinterpreted, but are you proposing that wars or economic policies be based on an eye-for-an-eye philosophy? If we kill one random Iraqi kid, one random American kid should be killed? I'm not sure that I have this totally correct so, please elaborate.
collective recognition, and understanding that may become possible soon among humans. (hype) ahh 100% wired humans!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! a meme updated daily
Pollux: "Correct me if I have misinterpreted, but are you proposing that wars or economic policies be based on an eye-for-an-eye philosophy?" Not at all, and they most often are. I intended reciprocity in a sense that overpowers cycles of revenge. In an increasingly volatile geopolitical situation, it's possible that more can be done with positive actions motivated by the proposition that "it all comes back to you" (us). Spooks, "wired" if you wish, but I just think of it as being privy to better information, such as the daily real-time visceral experience of anyone or any people you need to understand in order to benefit, and the awareness that most everyone can see through you too. I've seen people tire of war and just stop it- Not in a superficial flower-power sense, but out of cold pragmatism. The way the US, and most every large power structure is being managed is becoming increasingly bad for the business of collective benefit. I believe there is an opportunity in volatile times for the indominatable survival instinct and for rationality to elevate a very old and fundamental tenet into basic international policy through popular awareness and demand: Do to others as you would like done to you- because eventually, and ever more swiftly as events accelerate and double-edged technology facilitates it, reciprocity is inevitable. We have personal and collective choices to make about our futures. Positive reciprocity could make almost everyone far happier. But with i4ni we'll never get the chance to see it. Vehicles of persuasive information and experience could be emerging that could be pivotal in creating compelling demand for leadership to respond responsibly to events, which is to say benevolently in an interdependant world. OK that's the concept, and I would like to explore the potential methods next time I have a few minutes to do so.
Thanks for all the great ideas, people. We'll save the world in no time, now:bugeye: I was wondering if anyone was prepared to expand on the idea that those of us who give a shit may be able to find a way to change enough minds to make this planet and incredibly better place to hang around, long enough to let the good times roll way on out there.
spookz:"a meme updated daily" Must I do this alone? Update: Even well-intentioned people shirk opportunities to participate in the most important dialogues and processes of history. I claim no special knowledge, but greedily thirst for it. watchagot. ?
We gain in the "big picture" through trusting relationships. We all lose in the macro scale through conflict. I am not advancing a simply pacifist message here- This is an appeal for the promotion of greater security and prosperity for any group of people, from family to superpower scale, by recognizing the reactions of others to our actions, and to the perceived motivations of our actions. Government, big business, and the major media are reinforcing to Americans self-serving expectations and demands on the world outside. Very seldom are international reactions of serious concern in American debate, and this is manifestly dangerous in light of America's global dependency on resources and markets. Reciprocity itself is a cloudy word, and without attempting to coin something more specific, I'll try and describe again what I mean by political reciprocity: Recognizing humanity in others- Work as gift, as pride, as worship for some- Idealistic public service- Doing something for the common good- Enjoying the prestige and goodwill attached to being a constructive and prominent member of a community- Doing the right thing. This reciprocity I'm trying to present for consideration is not about revenge, not Mutually Assured Destruction, not the Missile Gap, not halting WMD proliferation, not the Border Patrol, not Homeland Security, not the Strategic Defense Initiative, not the War on Terror, not the almighty Dollar, and not buying power- because once my tribe is despised, our trinkets have little value. Our Pax Americana bubble could burst, unless a fundamental change in course occurs. I sense that the wisdom to change course will not come from leadership, but from popular debate, participation, and struggle. If citizens were to demand that our government behave within the clear and ancient norms of basic human reciprocity, things would be different: Our success and security would be increasingly desireabe to the world outside. As America collectively behaves with less empathy, decency, and understanding, there will come a new balance, that Americans will experience great difficulties with. Our power does not come from the Dollars we print, or the weapons systems and troops we deploy. The methodology for bogging down empires is now well understood by those who would bring them down. It is becoming clearer through time that our power comes from our most basic legitimacy demonstrated by our actions. It seems to me that the one thing Americans need to understand most about relationships with the rest of the world (positive reciprocity) is something we unfortunately recoil from, and this could get us into big trouble. As we do to others, will be done to us. The United States is no eternal monolith. But her citizens hold tremendous power for change, if they would wield it. There could be a way to effectively communicate the imperative of political reciprocity as I am feebly attempting to describe, but I haven't found it. This relates to a debate another thread: "Why it's a Losing Battle", where one side asserts that action in pure self-interest serves self-interest better than mutual benefit, while the other side points out that because of interconnectedness, in helping many to get what they want, an individual is able to receive what s/he wants most efficiently. Help many people (or nations) to get what they want, and you have a multitude returning the favor in kind: Reciprocity. Why is this concept so remote from our national discourse and aspirations?
Must you all dash my every hope for humanity? Well, it serves me right, expecting constructivism here or anywhere, it always seems to make people so damned uncomfortable. Why is that? Why am I talking to a wall on this subject? A response could at least get even: Explain to me why we're doomed to each ignore what the other wants, when we each want the same things, and there's an infinite amount of all of it to share: What's our problem?
It's not soliloquy if I throw in a quote, right? "The very least you can do in your life is to figure out what you hope for. And the most you can do is live inside that hope. Not admire it from a distance but live right in it, under its roof. What I want is so simple I almost can’t say it: elementary kindness. Enough to eat, enough to go around. The possibility that kids might one day grow up to be neither the destroyers nor the destroyed. That’s about it…" -Barbara Kingsolver I refuse to accept that the cycles of political violence we are confronted with are interminable. I think the answers are very basic. We have only, through our own actions and through the political representatives we accede to, to treat others as we want to be treated. This is going to become increasingly clear as humanity becomes increasingly aware of itself, which is happening in an accelerating way. C'mon, people now...
