group mind principle

222

The Group Mind Principle

14

Francis Offor

The Group Mind Principle and the Challengesof Global Economic Crisis

IntroductionWe today live in an era that has been described by many as the globalizednew times. This is as a result of the profundity of socio-political and economictransformation that has been occasioned by the globalization phenomenon.Today, globalization forces and processes have succeeded in blurring, andin some cases, erasing completely, lines of demarcation between the ‘global’and the local, thereby, weaving the world into a single whole. Thisdevelopment has not only strengthened the economic and socio-culturalbases for the unity of mankind by offering fresh possibilities and insightsthat might lead to universal peace, prosperity and freedom, it has also byreason of our interconnectedness, heightened the potential for effectivegeneration of global consequences for actions initiated in one small segmentof the world. The effects of the current global economic meltdown showthe power of globalization effects across the globe. Precipitators of theeconomic crisis have not been the only recipients of the growing negativeconsequences, the negative implications have spread very quickly to othereconomies of the world, including the dependent economies of Africa andthose still in the process of transition.

Since national economies were not isolated from the prevailing worldeconomic trend, the national level, therefore, becomes the inevitable startingpoint for addressing the challenges posed by the present world economiccrisis. A more holistic approach that will strap up the various strategies atthe level of states into a common framework for addressing the problem atthe global level then becomes a necessary corollary to national efforts. We

223

Francis Offor

can extrapolate this point from Anyiam-Osigwe’s assertion that “a betterworld order begins with a better me”1

In this discourse, we explore the possibility of resolving the challengesof the current world economic crisis by applying Anyiam-Osigwe’s groupmind principle, first in its local and then in its cosmopolitan expressions. Ourtake here is that the resolution of the current economic crisis using thegroup mind principle can pave the way for sustainable development both atthe national and global level.

Though sustainable development for Anyiam-Osigwe may notnecessarily be measured solely in economic terms as it has other importantspiritual and moral components,2 the understanding is that an efficient andhealthy economic system is pivotal to any effective attainment of sustainabledevelopment in all its ramifications.

Economic Crisis and the Globalization PhenomenonThe world today has become a global village! When Francis Fukuyamawrote his “The End of History”, he interpreted the uniformity we witnessedin the world then, due to the collapse of communism and the triumph ofWestern liberal democracy, to be the end of mankind’s ideological evolution.Arguing for liberal democracy and economic liberalism as values representingthe universal history of mankind, Fukuyama then insisted on the end ofhistory or of mankind’s historico-ideological struggle.3

With the globalization forces at work today, Fukuyama’s insistence onthe end of history has become an old horse. Social relations have now takena supra-territorial dimension, such that peoples and nations now affect oneanother irrespective of their longitudinal and latitudinal positions. Peoplecan now experience a temporal immediacy to socio-cultural expressionsand economic events in far away land. Nathaniel Hawthorne captures thisnew globalization experience when he describes the world as having become“a great nerve vibrating thousands of miles in a breathless point of time”.4

So, whereas Fukuyama proclaimed ‘the end of history’ following hisobservation of happenings in the 80s and early 90s, Gillian and Youngs,having observed the space-compression dimension to the present

224


globalization phenomenon together with its implications, proclaimed “theend of geography”.5

In the economic sphere, globalization entails an all-growing process ofintegration of national economies, with the creation of a uniform system ofvalues as a criterion and imperative for national economies, such that thedevelopment of these economies can only be achieved with cooperationwith the rest of the world. Economic globalization, therefore, has as its aim,for the whole world to accept uniform set-rules of market economy, whichwill have as its hallmarks: free market, free flow of ideas, information andtechnology and of course, free flow of crises arising there from. And asAnyiam-Osigwe rightly notes, no nation, given the reality of the unfoldingglobal interconnectedness can exclude itself from the problems afflictingthe international system.6

If we examine carefully the root cause of the present global economicmeltdown, we will begin to appreciate the power of transmission of theglobalization effects across the globe. Investigations have all revealed thatthe collapse of the subprime mortgage market in the United States of Americais what has today led the world into an economic crisis of such magnitudethat is unprecedented in history since the great depression. Although, manythought the crisis would stop after a series of negative effects expressedin the U.S and countries most firmly economically related to the Americaneconomy, all the countries of the world, however, had to bear the burden ofthis crisis on their back, even though it originated from a mishap in theAmerican market space.

In Europe for instance, for the first time since its formation in 1999, the15-country Euro zone is officially said to be in recession as a result of themeltdown occasioned by the collapse of the mortgage market in the U.S.While European countries like Iceland are jostling for bailout loans from theInternational Monetary Fund (IMF), major plants are being shut down inthe German cities of Eisenach and Bochum. In Turkey, 40% of banks havebeen declared failed and the attempt by government to take over andrestructure these banks is costing the state about 30 percent of her GDP,thus further plunging the economy into a deep or even deeper recession.

225

Francis Offor

In Asia, even Japan, one of the world’s largest economies is said tohave also slipped into a recession. The prices of Japaneze vehicles andelectronics the world over are said to be rising with a corresponding drop insales and profits. Even China, reputed to be the world’s fastest growingeconomy and the largest holder of foreign exchange reserve, is witnessingforeign exports and investments shrinking as well as an astronomical rise inunemployment. The Koreas are not speared, as South Korea had to set upa $30 billion currency swap with the Federal Reserve of the U.S, as a wayof responding to the current economic downturn and alleviating the pressureon her financial sector.

Although some hardliners in the Middle East have interpreted the globaleconomic crisis as divine punishment for the perceived greed and corruptionof the West and its allies, none of the countries in the Middle East has so farbeen exempted from this crisis. Even more worrisome is the prediction thatthe economic crisis, if it persists, is likely to fuel further instability in many ofthe nations of the Middle East that depended on the dwindling fortunes ofoil. The same fate is predicted to befall many of the countries in LatinAmerica that depend on oil for more than half of their export revenue andgovernments’ budget.

There is no need recounting the tales of woe that have befallen citizensand institutions in many of the states in Africa as a result of the globaleconomic meltdown. Apart from the citizens losing billions of dollars ininvestment capital, many of the states in Africa are now beginning to usethe global financial crisis as an excuse for inaction in other major sectors ofsociety.

The point of the foregoing is to show how the economic crisis whichstarted with the collapse of the mortgage market in the U.S. hasmetamorphosed into a global catastrophe that has affected all the nations ofthe continents of the world. And when a particular crisis such as this, takeson a global dimension, it becomes impossible to isolate countries and addresssuch crisis within the context of national economies alone. In addition,therefore, to efforts at addressing the problem at the level of nationaleconomy, a more holistic approach that will harness the various strategiesat the level of states into a common framework for addressing the problem

226


at the global level becomes necessary. This is the perspective that Anyiam-Osigwe’s group mind concept in its national (local) and cosmopolitanexpressions, stands for.

The Group Mind PrincipleAnyiam Osigwe tried in his philosophical fragments to explain what hemeant by the group mind. His definition of the group mind tries to transcendthe dilemma of whether it s actually a hypothesis, an explanatory device ora prescription.7 For Anyiam-Osigwe, the group mind, whether taken as ahypothesis, an explanatory device or prescription, represents the sum totalof everyone’s position and concerns. He describes it as a synthesis in whichthe defining elements of the fundamental interests of the respectiveparticipants are preserved in the resultant commonweal whose legitimacyand mutuality are subscribed to by all.8 As the sum total or synthesis ofeveryone’s position, he refers to it poetically as:

a well-spring of ideas and thought processes that is createdwhen people of a particular group or society blend togethertheir respective ideas, questions, perspectives, aspirations,knowledge and experience in relation to specific goals orissues.9

What is encapsulated in Anyiam-Osigwe’s conception of the group mindis a co-operative relation, a form of team spirit that obliges everyone toemploy all the resources, attributes and talents at their disposal for a commongood. The individuals not only employ these resources for a common good,they also project their goals, objectives and visions into that of the group,guided by the conviction that:

the collective effort would yield higher satisfaction for himas an individual and also for the community than his isolatedindividual efforts can.10

For Anyiam-Osigwe, the concept of the group mind is characterized bythe subjection of personal desires and aspirations and a commonality ofpurpose. The concept depicts a cooperative strategy for appropriating latentenergies, resources and talents for a common good.

227

Francis Offor

Our concern, however, is not only with Anyiam-Osigwe’s explanationof what the group mind is all about, but also with his choice of ‘mind’ asagainst other defining features of the human person. When Anyiam-Osigweasserted that “a better world order begins with a better me”, the ‘me’ hereis not just the mass of flesh and bones that occupies space. What then isthis ‘me’? And what is it about this ‘me’ that gives it a prime place inAnyiam-Osigwes thought, over and above other elements that are knownto define the human person? Like Rene Descartes, Anyiam-Osigweidentified this ‘me’ to be the mind.11 Like Descartes also, Anyiam-Osigweacknowledges the mind to be the most fundamental of the human essence.Osigwe believes that every human being has a cosmic identity with God,who Himself is the apogee of divine intelligence and that man is essentiallya manifestation of this divine intelligence. There is therefore for him, aspiritual realm or integral which provides the moral underpinnings for man.When man integrates into this spiritual integral (which is his pristine essence),he is able to generate the capacity to moderate his various propensities,resulting in:

1. the subordination of his lower impulses to higher ones;2. the moderation of his negative emotions and3. the preeminence of his positive emotions as the dominant traits.12

This integration into the spiritual integral is made possible by use of themind. Of all the elements that define the human person, it is only the mindthat has:

the propensity to venture into the wilderness of thought and(it is only the mind that) is endowed with an extra ordinarycapacity to piece together and organize virgin or untestedideas, thoughts, concepts and visions into a sequential andlogical pattern for rational discourse.13

If individuals can generate the capacity to moderate their variouspropensities only by integrating into their pristine essence by use of theirminds, it becomes understandable the reason for Anyiam-Osigwe’s choiceof ‘mind’ in fashioning out a common framework for addressing problemsat all levels. Now, given Anyiam-Osigwe’s insistence that the group mind

228


principle can be applied at all levels and that it is requisite for holistic andsustainable economic development,14 how then do we employ the groupmind principle in resolving the challenges occasioned by the current globaleconomic crisis and thereby engender sustainable development?

The Group Mind Principle and the Challenges of National andGlobal Economic Crisis

On how to manage the challenges posed by the present global economiccrisis, Anyiam-Osigwe’s recommendation that such attempt should startfrom the level of state is worthy of note here. According to Osigwe, “thestate is the group mind existing as a polis”.15 At the level of state where thegroup mind is operational, the welfare of all is the fundamental interest ofevery individual within the ‘polis’. The state is however saddled with thefundamental task of harnessing the various individual attributes and talentsinto a common framework for realizing this common good.

With particular reference to the states in Africa, Anyiam-Osigweanticipates no difficulty in the application of the group mind principle tosundry other problems. This is because various African political traditionshad structures that operated within those ideals represented by his groupmind principle. These structures if well appropriated could also aid theactualization of the group mind principle in contemporary Africa. Amongthe Igbo people of Eastern Nigeria, there was the Umunna where everyissue affecting the community, be it political, religious or economic, is openlydiscussed and resolved. The Bantu people of east Africa had the Mpakiti-a kind of small cell of family unit meetings at which matters of importanceare discussed and resolved. The Yoruba of Western Nigeria had the Ipade,where the people discuss their affairs and reach decisions on issues.16 InZimbabwe, the Shona language group had the Kgotla, where issues affectingthe group are freely and openly discussed and decisions arrived at. In fact,that the concept of the group mind was the animating principle of life inmost traditional African societies is attested to by this proverb among theChewa people of Central Africa: “Mutu Umodzi Susenza denga” whichmeans “one head never carries or lifts a roof.”17

229

Francis Offor

The inference to be drawn from Anyiam- Osigwe’s ruminations is therecommendation that the practices of Umunna, Mpakiti, Ipade and Kgotlain traditional Africa which epistomise the ideals of the group mind, be revivedand appropriated in our making and implementation of economic policiesand decisions aimed at addressing at the state level, the challenges of thepresent global economic crisis.

The group mind principle, when it has become fully operational at thelevel of state could then be extended to the international level, leading tosome form of world body or government which transcends individualsstates.18 The body so constituted would need to possess greater authorityand have better representativeness than any other body existing at thatlevel. Just as the state is saddled with the task of harnessing the variousindividual attributes and talents into a common framework for social actionat that level, so also would the government at the global level be saddledwith the task of harnessing the various resources, attributes and talents ofstates into a common framework for action at the global level. The reasonfor this dimension to the crisis is because the crisis has become a world-wide crisis even though its beginning is traceable to mishap in the Americanmarket. And as Joseph Stiglitz rightly remarked, global crisis requires also aglobal response.19

Attractive as Anyiam-Osigwe theoretical construct appears, it isnevertheless fraught with problems at the level of praxis, thereby, re-enactingthe popular saying that ‘words are easier said than done’.

In the first place, there are apparent contradictions in Anyiam-Osigwe’sexplications of the conditions needed for the actualization of the group mindprinciple. In some of his fragments, he insisted that the actualization of thegroup mind principle requires that participants in a group mind session beknowledgeable in matters relating to the issue at hand. The implication ofthis is that Anyiam-Osigwe didn’t expect some members of a group to beknowledgeable in some matters, since according to him, the pervadingdarkness induced by our human ignorance is yet to wane.20 By so insisting,Osigwe tactically excludes some people from participating in matters ofstatecraft, and as such making nonsense of his earlier claim that the

230


actualization of the group mind principle would require “all minds to be putto work and all hands to be on deck.”21

Again, Anyiam-Osigwe’s idea of the group mind principle and of theconditions for its actualization seems to gloss over the practical realities ofthe modern world. How for instance will the group mind be engendered ina world with a plurality of ethnic, religious, political and economic divides?22

Anyiam-Osigwe cannot pretend to be unaware of the ideological strugglesindicated by the strong animosity and antagonism between the Westernblock (led by the United States of America) and the Eastern block (led by thethen Union of Soviet Socialist Republic) between the 50s and the late 80s.

As a keen observer of events as they unfold, Anyiam-Osigwe ought tohave anticipated the present divide in the world along civilizational lines andthe alternative centres of power and influence that have emerged therefrom. The implications of this development are well laid out by SamuelHuntington in his The Clash of Civilization and the Remaking of WorldOrder.

According to Huntington:

countries throughout the world began developing new andreinvigorating old antagonisms and affiliations. They havebeen groping for groupings with countries of similar culturesand the same civilization.23

The above scenario implies that the interests, associations, goals andfocus of major actors in the world are shaped along civilizational and culturallines. This in part, explains the strong antagonisms between groups fromdifferent civilization within a state or between neighbouring states fromdifferent civilizations or even among the core states of different civilizations,resulting in the “cold peace, cold war, trade war, quasi war, uneasy peace,troubled relations, intense rivalry, competitive co-existence and arm races”24

that have become the defining features of today’s world.It is, therefore, clear that the world today comprises of what we can

call autonomous group minds which are capable of taking charge of theirown affairs. How in reality do we hope to undermine these prevalent ‘minds’,while at the same time appropriating their latent resources and energies for

231

Francis Offor

the common good is a question we are yet to find an answer to from Osigwesphilosophical fragments. A related but more disturbing question is even thatof how to evolve a body that would take the responsibility for actualizing thegroup mind principle at the global level. Although Anyiam –Osigwe insistedthat this responsibility would be carried out by some form of world body orgovernment, however he made it clear that the world body would actualizethe group mind principle only if it operated within the context of a democracy.But the problem of how to entrench democracy at the global level, eventhrough institutions like the United Nations that claims to represent the interestof all the states in the world still stares us in the face.25

Finally, Anyiam-Osigwe’s description of the group mind principle as asynthesis in which the interests of the respective participants are preservedin a commonweal whose legitimacy are subscribed to by all, seems to assumetacitly that the diverse interests of the various individuals that make up thegroup, and of the various groups that make up the state, and of the variousstates that make up the world, can coalease into one and be roughly madeidentical with the common, good. This however is not the case!

A major fact about the human race is the fact of classes, and classesare created within and among groups, and within and among states becauseof the differences in interests shared by such groups and states. In fact, thevery many changes most societies have witnessed are due to strugglesbetween one class and another based on particular interests.26 Anyiam-Osigwe’s concept of the group mind merely assumes that these variousinterests, tensions and other divides that define relationships in the real worldcan be dismissed under the mien of a cooperative strategy for appropriatinglatent energies for a common goal or good.

ConclusionIn this discourse, we have attempted to explain a strategy for addressingthe challenges of the present global economic crisis using the group mindprinciple as propounded by the late sage-philosopher, Emmanuel OnyechereOsigwe Anyiam-Osigwe. We consider Anyiam-Osigwe’s recommendationsto be appropriate, given the globalised nature of today’s world where actionsinitiated in one small segment can have sporadic global consequences. Since

232


no national economy has so far been isolated from the present globaleconomic meltdown, the national level becomes an inevitable starting pointfor addressing the challenges posed by the present world economic crisis. Amore holistic approach that will strap up the various strategies at the levelof states into a common framework for addressing the problem at the globallevel then becomes a necessary corollary to national efforts. This is theperspective that Anyiam-Osigwe’s group mind concept represents both inits national (local) and cosmopolitan expressions.

Anyiam-Osigwe’s conception of the group mind is that of a co-operativerelation, a form of team spirit that obliges everyone to employ all theresources, attributes and talents at their disposal for a common good. Itrepresents the sum total of everyone’s position and concerns. And forAnyiam-Osigwe, various African political traditions had structures thatoperated within those ideals which epistomise the group mind principle;structures that can be carefully appropriated in the making andimplementation of policies that can address at the state level, the challengesof the present global economic crisis. This strategy, when it has becomefully operational at the level of state can then be extended to the internationallevel, leading to some form of world body or government which will harnessthe various strategies at the level of states into a common framework foraddressing the problem at the global level.

The many problems associated with Anyiam-Osigwe’s programme atthe level of praxis notwithstanding, the insight provided by his theoreticalconstructs could serve as veritable basis or foundation upon which we couldbuild a paradigm for addressing the very many problems confronting today’sworld.

Notes and References1. Michael Anyiam Osigwe, “Foreward” to Olusegun Oladipo and Adebola

B. Ekanola (eds), The Development Philosophy of Emmanuel OnyechereOsigwe Anyiam-Osigwe, Vol. 2, Ibadan: Hope Publications 2009, p. x.

2. Adebola B. Ekanola, “Good Governance in the Development Philosophyof Anyiam-Osigwe” in Olusegun Oladipo and Adebola B. Ekanola (eds).The Development Philosophy of Anyiam Osigwe, Vol. 2, p. 69.

233

Francis Offor

3. Francis Fukuyama “The End of History” The National Interest, Summer,1989, p.4.

4. Nathaniel Hawthorne is cited in Jan Aart Scholte “Beyond the Bwzzword:Towards a Critical Theory of Globalization” in Eleonore Kofman andGillian Youngs (eds), Globalization, Theory and Practice, London: Pinter,1996, p. 46.

5. Eleonore Kofman and Gillian Youngs “Introduction: Globalization – theSecond Wave” in Kofman and Youngs (eds), p.7.

6. Osigwe Anyiam-Osigwe, Introspection and Integration as EffectiveStrategies for Development, Lagos: Osigwe Anyiam-Osigwe Foundation,2005, p. 8.

7. A.G.A Bello “Anyiam-Osigwe on the Individual, the State and World Order”in Olusegun Oladipo and Adebola B. Ekanola (eds), The DevelopmentPhilosophy of Emmanuel Onyechere Osigwe Anyiam-Osigwe, Vol. 2, p. 87.

8. Osigwe Anyiam-Osigwe, The Cosmopolitan Expression of the Group MindPrinciple, Lagos: Osigwe Anyiam-Osigwe Foundation, 2003, p. 13.

9. Amechi Udefi and Francis Offor “The State and the Search for PoliticalStability in Anyiam-Osigwe’s Development Philosophy” in OlusegunOladipo and Adebola B. Ekanola (eds), The Development Philosophy ofEmmanuel Onyechere Osigwe Anyiam-Osigwe, Vol. 2, p. 98 .

10. Ibid

11. See Descartes’ Meditations On First Philosophy, Trans with anIntroduction by L. J. Lafleur, Idianapolis: The Bobbs – Merril CompanyInc., 1960.

12. Michael Anyiam-Osigwe “Foreward” to Olusegun Oladipo and AdebolaB. Ekanola (eds) The Development Philosophy of Emmanuel OnyechereOsigwe Anyiam-Osigwe, Vol. 2. op. cit., p. xi.

13. Ibid., p. ix

14. See Adebola B. Ekanola “Good Governance in the Development Philosophyof Anyiam-Osigwe” op. cit.

15. See Osigwe Anyiam-Osigwe Foundation’s Excerpts and Quotes ofEmmanuel Onyechere Osigwe Anyiam-Osigwe’s philosophical Fragments,1999-2008, Lagos: Anyiam Osigwe Foundation, 2003, p.8.

234


16. Victor S. Alumona “Reinventing Governance for Social Change andDevelopment” in Olusegun Oladipo and Adebola B. Ekanola (eds) TheDevelopment Philosophy of Emmanuel Onyechere Osigwe Anyiam-Osigwe, Vol. 2, pp. 30-31.

17. Francis Offor “The Quest for Good Governance in Africa: What Form ofDemocracy is Most Suitable? Journal of Social, Political and EconomicStudies, Washington D.C. Vol. 31, No. 3, 2006, p. 274.

18. AGA Bello “Anyiam-Osigwe on the Individual, the State and World Order”,op. cit., p. 89.

19. Joseph E. Stiglitz, Globalization and Its Discontents, New York: W.W.Norton and Co., 2002.

20. Osigwe Anyiam-Osigwe, Introspectionism. Green Grasses of Home: TheKey to Development is Within and Around You, Lagos: Anyiam OsigweFoundation, 2004, p. 3.

21. Osigwe Anyiam-Osigwe, The Mindset Factor in Creative Transformation:All Minds at Work, All Hands on Deck, Lagos: Anyiam-OsigweFoundation, 2005, p. 20.

22. A.G.A. Bello “Anyiam-Osigwe on the Individual, the State and WorldOrder”, op. cit., pp. 89-90.

23. Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilization and the Remaking ofWorld Order, New York: Touchstone, 1997, p. 127.

24. Ibid., p. 207

25. David Held, Democracy and the Global Order, UK: Polity Press, 1995,pp. 267- 283.

26. Kai Nelsen, “Global Justice, Power and the Logic of Capitalism”, SecondOrder, Vol. 1, No. 1, January 1988, p.34.

group mind principle

Documents