The recent disclosures on Wikileaks about alleged pre 9/11 awareness from top government officials about the pending calamities in 2001 has stirred up a wide array of emotions among many, varying from disbelief to anger, sadness to skepticism, contempt to despair: no sentiment is left behind. While the story validates suspicions that had lived within many through the years, there are also skeptics who question the credibility of the source.
The question about credibility of Wikileaks informants actually came up in a workshop on ethical leadership among MBA's, mostly working adults, the night before Wikileaks posted the report on the 2001 occurrences. A student asked how readers would know whether the leaked information is truthful, and not merely conjured up by some melodramatic, disgruntled, or malicious-minded individual or entity who wants to stir up turmoil or, in the case of 9/11, tear open old wounds.
The response to this question was practically unanimous among the workshop participants: any source could be questioned on legitimacy if we choose to go that route, because every piece of information we receive through any medium is based on one person or group's perspectives, often driven by particular interests, while there are almost always other perspectives and interests that are in direct opposition to that one. We experience it all the time in all settings. When it comes to media releases we even know which station to tune to or newspaper to read when we want to hear criticism, and which one to find when we want to hear or read about praise for any given subject. The truth we ultimately adopt depends on our capacity to engage in critical thinking, because the is how we weave together a story that sounds acceptable to us.
Wikileaks: some perspectives
There is still quite some confusion about Wikileaks. The source is gaining attention from increasingly larger crowds, thanks to the widely diverging exposure it receives from the media. Nonetheless, many still seem to struggle with their opinion about this emerging giant that has been rather latent in its first few years of existence, but is now steadfastly demanding attention of all who have even the slightest interest in the whereabouts of our world and its occupants.
Asking around in the earlier mentioned ethical leadership workshop with about 20 working adults in grad school what they thought of Wikileaks, some interesting statements surfaced. Some admitted that they were curious about many things throughout history that were never clearly addressed, and hoped Wikileaks would shine some long withheld light on these matters. Others questioned the driving motives behind Wikileaks and its operators. Yet others expressed their caution about the disclosure of government secrets. One participant stated that exposure of sensitive information may not only embarrass governments and other powerful sources, but can actually disrupt relationships between nations and even lead to new wars.
This point was, of course, as sensible as the others. Disclosing sensitive material is never enjoyable or appreciated by all, especially when reputations and multilateral relationships are involved.
Conscious question
A serious question we should ask ourselves, however, is: should we continue to hush matters for the short-term sake of what is usually a small group of powerful manipulators? Admitted: when the many secrets that undoubtedly exist in all governments, big businesses, and other powerful entities, will first be divulged, we may expect some turbulence. There may even be some disturbing events erupting from these disclosures. Nonetheless, the long term advantages should also seriously be considered:
1. Fewer manipulative practices. With the arrival of Wikileaks, a powerful outlet has been established for whistleblowers worldwide. The psychological effect is that decision-making entities may think more carefully before engaging in practices that shun the light of day from now on, as the chance is imminent that these practices could leak out and place these entities in the dreadful position of losing more than they could possibly win with their act.
2. Increased collective intelligence of the human race. If we can achieve a point where there is sufficient transparency in the reasons and outcomes of things, we would simultaneously have established a more equity based availability of information to all who want to know, instead of the current situation in which much information is sealed in the hands, minds, or vaults of a small elite.
3. End of global segregation. When there is nothing to hide, openness is not a problem. Greater openness encourages increased mutual acceptance and tolerance. Increased mutual acceptance and tolerance results in elimination of anger and hate, since there is no reason for "us" versus "them" thinking. On the long run, then, we could reach a point of greater integration, ensuing from the awareness that, once all barricades have been pulled down, we are more alike than we have admitted or realized for centuries.
4. Enlarged mental horizons. Supported by the unstoppable trend of social networks, the openness that Wikileaks can instigate may lead to a broader mindset within human beings, in which mainstream thinking patterns will no longer be limited to cities, states, countries, or continents, but in which the wellbeing of all living beings worldwide will be considered as easily as we now consider the wellbeing of our families or communities. This may finally give way to a global compact which is not just an ethereal dream, but actually the 8th Millennium Development Goal as formulated by the United Nations under leadership of Kofi Anan in 2000.
5. Restoring of global balance. This may sound farfetched, but is a consequence of the four previous points. With more caution in decision-making, greater transparency and increased average human intelligence, end of segregative practices, and enlarged mental horizons, we could attain a point of expanded awareness on the fulfillment of a larger purpose than mere individual gain and grandeur.
Wikileaks Cycle of Collective Awareness by Dr. Joan Marques
Reviewing the long-term possibilities that could be achieved when using Wikileaks properly, I couldn't help but think of John Lennon's almost 40 year old "Imagine":
Imagine there's no countries.
It isn't hard to do.
Nothing to kill or die for.
And no religion too.
Imagine all the people living life in peace"
I guess I could be considered just as much a dreamer as Lennon was, but my dream seems to be closer to reality than his. Time will tell.
Joan Marques is the author of "Joy at Work, Work at Joy: Living and Working Mindfully Every Day" (Personhood Press, 2010), and co-editor of "The Workplace and Spirituality: New Perspectives in Research and Practice" (Skylight Paths, 2009), an (
more...)
No comments:
Post a Comment