This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (Increasing globalization has created a sense of global interdependency economically and to some extent politically, but has not yet created a global community. On the one hand, human activity is increasingly occurring in a common environment in which all humanity and the planet itself is affected by the behavior of people who live in different localities throughout the entire globe. On the other hand, most humans are primarily identified with a particular local community, a family, tribe, nation, or religion. What is needed is a full sense of interdependence, of belonging to a human community and being a “world people”. Since groups generally favor themselves above others, and some are more powerful than others, economic injustices and violent conflict prevail among different nations and ethnic groups. Richardson’s (1960) data suggests that this destructive conflict will probably continue until a world government emerges. However, for such a government to be at all democratic and avoid totalitarian tendencies it must be guided by a global community where the fulfillment and enhancement of that community is a primary value and where individual self-consciousness is formed by participation in that community so that individuals no longer identify themselves as simply Americans, Basques, Chinese, Europeans, members of religious groups, etc. There is a significant relationship between the degree to which individuals socially identify with the world community and the amount of money they are actually willing to risk allocating to a global collective enterprise (Buchan et al., 2011). The investigators show that this effect is not only a matter of trust. Those who rate themselves as feeling more attached to, closer to and more a member of “the world as a whole” appear to identify their self-interest with that of a global collective. Although local identities may be necessary for our humanity, they are not sufficient for the interdependent global identity required by our contemporary situation
The first section of this paper considers what is involved in personal community identity, how this differs from both individual and group identity, and how a global community is different from a global society or a superordinate group. A second section examines the sorts of rituals that are used to unify people and what kind of celebration may be needed to establish a personal communal identity and a global community. The third section begins testing the worth of these ideas through research. It presents pilot studies that examine the effect of presenting global identity as participation in a global community, explore what might be contained in celebrations of global community, and present a sample celebration and its effects. The results suggest that the presentation and celebration of global identity as mutual inter-agency may increase a personal sense of global identification. The concluding section discusses how thinking about personal identity in terms of community has implications for research on global identity and conflict. It also examines the occurrence of contemporary celebrations of global community, and suggests how further research may effectively advance the development of a new global self-identity.
Community Identity and the Nature of the Self
What is meant by a community? A community is not simply a large group. It may contain groups or be cognized and labeled as though it were simply a large group, but communities involve people in relationships that transcend particular activities or characteristics. In fact, when a community is treated as a group it usually involves the depersonalization of the people who compose that community. Although individuals cannot possibly know everyone else in a large community, they can imagine a personal meeting and the ability to communicate with each other as persons in active mutual relations. Anderson (1983/2006) observes that all large communities are imagined in the sense that one cannot hope to interact with all their members. One must add (as Anderson himself demonstrates) that communities are also intentioned in that they are not geographical matters of fact but must be held together by their members. Anderson notes that the national communities to which most contemporary people belong are social entities that are quite unlike the particularistic networks of imagined kinfolk or the sacred communities of past kingdoms and empires. Today, they are usually imagined as limited, sovereign, fraternities that interact with one another in ways that make it difficult to imagine a global community.
By a global community we do not mean a vague affection for some imaginary human totality which would be too large to really constitute an in-group, and which would lack a contrasting group outside it, nor some notion of humankind that is an abstraction or conceptual grouping rather than a living group. Following the Scottish philosopher, John Macmurray (1977, p. 62), who introduced a new model of social solidarity and personal identity; we shall mean “the disposition and the purpose to care for any human being with whom we are brought into relation…” We want to stress that it is the socio-emotional relationship involved in human fellowship, rather than the intellectual or conceptual social cognition involved in group identification, that is the most essential element in social identity generally, and global communal identity in particular. Our argument is not based upon some moral criterion. Rather we intend a descriptive attempt of the personal life and community that will allow us to conceive of the sort of global community required to address the reality in which humanity now lives.
Macmurray points out that persons are agents in a field of agency, that they are born into relationships with others and that persons cannot and do not exist apart from these co-active relationships, direct and indirect as they may be. He conceives the self as an agent who is communal and interconnected with others. Communities are composed of agents who both support and resist one another in ways where fear for the self is subordinated to care and concern for one another. The self exists only in dynamic relation with the other; it is constituted by its relation to the other, has its being in its relationship, and that relationship is personal. The “I” exists only as one element in the complex “You and I” (Macmurray, 1961). Macmurray’s emphasis on the centrality of personal relationship is poetically described in the thinking of Martin Buber (1923/1958) and his description of the self may be compared to the work of a number of other theorists including Gergen’s (2009) description of a “relational self” that is the nexus of personal relationships. However, according to Macmurray the self is a person who is continually grappling with the love and fear inherent in the relationships that constitute his or her being.
Macmurray’s personal self is more basic and inclusive than the conception of self in much psychological theory which typically describe either an individual self or as a social self who belongs to various groups. The individual self that is described by William James (1890/2007) is everything that can be called me or mine and has a “social” self that includes one’s reputation, status, and how one is seen by particular others. By contrast, the social self-described by social identity theorists varies with the groups to which a person identifies. He or she is an American, French, a Christian, woman, etc. To the extent a person identifies with one of these groupings she or he may base judgments on, and behave in accord with, that group’s norms and beliefs. This group self may play a role and be a part of a whole that has its own interests and goals and Haidt (2012) points out that, in contrast to the individual self, this groupish self is adept at teamwork. For Macmurray, a person may think of him or herself as an individual or as a social self who belongs to various groups, but he or she is more fundamentally a person whose agency is based on primary socio-emotional personal relationships. Persons may function as individuals or as group members and forget that their very existence as persons depends on the more primary socio-emotional relationships on which societies are based; the kinds of relationships that flourish in community.
In Macmurray’s view these personal relationships are motivated by both care and fear, and self-realization depends on the primacy of caring. Human societies are not organic facts. Rather, they are built and maintained by people intending their unity who must struggle to allow caring for others to subsume their fear. Given the fact of interdependence, the central emotional tension within a society is not between union (love) and aggression (hate), but between love and fear, with hate occurring when interdependence is frustrated (Macmurray, 1961). The fear motive may involve the threat of being abandoned, attacked, ridiculed, or the fear that caring for others may be exhausting and prevent one (and those for whom one is responsible) from having what one believes to be deserved. In the latter case, Lerner (1980) shows how people establish emotional barriers that enable them to retain their sense of justice. In Macmurray’s analysis, whenever caring is subordinated to fear an actor must either defend the self by seeking power in the sort of individualistic society described by Hobbes in which contracts are enforced by state power (rule by law), or conform to the manners of some type of communistic or collective society that assumes a common good such as that outlined by Rousseau. Macmurray argues that, given the nature of personal life, freedom and self-realization require fear to be subordinated to caring and that this can only occur to the extent to which people experience the mutual caring of a community. Thus, freedom and self-realization are primarily conditioned by the community.
From this perspective it is erroneous to think that social identity is primarily based on the cognitive categorization stressed by social identity theorists. We do not dispute the importance of people perceiving themselves as belonging to social groups and basing part of their self-concept on identification with these groups. We also agree with Reicher and Haslam’s (2013) description of how category creation may be used to promote stability or mobilize change. However, if one distinguishes a social identity based on group categories by contrasting it with an individual identity one may fail to recognize that both social and individual identity are aspects of a personal identity that is inherently social in a communal sense. Persons are necessarily and primarily involved in communities. Individuality is born and nourished in communities. Beginning with an infant’s relationship with the mother, and continuing throughout life a person is dependent on others whose wellbeing is bound up with his or her own wellbeing, and these communities are not simply groups with whom people identify. Nor are they best understood as organic wholes or in terms of a traditional Gemeinschaft community. An important aspect of Macmurray’s conceptualization of community is that it contrasts a community of caring relationships and fellowship, with both societal conformism and individualism. Thus Macmurray’s sense of community does not depend on a membership that is defined by boundaries that distinguish those who belong from those who do not belong to a group, but on a belonging that is dependent on a network of mutual responsibility. In this sense community has no negative aspect; individuality depends on community and there cannot be too much community.
From this perspective we note that persons are apt to identify with the active agency of the self and forget that this agency, and their identity as a person, necessarily involves and depends on their active relations with others. Thus, one might say that the real problem in intergroup conflict is not that the moral disengagement described by Bandura (2002) occurs because people favor their group identity, but because they fail to emotionally relate to members outside their community as personal agents. People can easily confuse their personal identity, which is based on socio-emotional relationships, with an individualistic, isolated self. Likewise they can easily confuse a community that is based on mutual personal relationships with a nation-state or a religious group, or any other social entity which they create to manage their fears and self-interest. We believe models that conceive of community as based on contracts between individuals or as organic functional agencies misconceive the nature of personal identity and community (see Kirkpatrick, 1986). The best way to combat the limitations of these models or misidentifications is to realize that personal identity is based on a community of personal relationships, a network of agents in active relationship who mutually support and resist one another, forming a mutuality of creative agency. Following these distinctions and equally importantly, community is not to be identified with a society or with a state, or with any cognitive grouping. Revising such models of personal identity is imperative today.
Kákar (2000) provides an example of the difference between having one’s identity rooted in community as opposed to having it identified with a cognized group. He notes that in the period before a Hindu-Muslim riot there is a shift from the “we-ness” of a personal religious identity to the “we-are” ness of a group identity. The “we-ness” identity involves an awareness of being mutually related to others in a community characterized by feelings of attunement and resonance and manifested in congregational activities such as prayer and ritual. By contrast, the “we-are” ness of group identity self-asserts in an aggressive manner. It is this latter social identity (with its attendant fears of retaliation and persecution anxiety and paranoid potential) that involves group categories that both homogenize and depersonalize. This distinction is analogous to the difference between patriotism as love for one’s country and nationalism as the ethnocentric perception of the superiority of one’s country and the uncritical conformity involved in a desire for its dominance (see Kosterman & Feshbach, 1989).
When the members of one community come into conflict with those from another community they are apt to begin thinking in terms of group identities and the mutuality or we-ness of community and the personal commitment involved in solidarity may be replaced by a group identification based on fear. The person believes he or she is a Hindu or an American, rather than realizing that his or her personal identity is bound up with mutual relationships in a community. In the absence of a common community it is extremely difficult to resolve group conflicts because many begin thinking in terms of their group identity and become preoccupied with a struggle for power instead of search for an integrative solution.
To some extent the beginnings of a global community occur whenever persons form mutual relations with those from other nationalities or other kinds of communities. However the realization of global community requires people to realize that their lives are interconnected with others throughout the globe and that their decisions affect others, whose agency in turn affects themselves. Thus, the global community that is needed involves persons becoming aware of belonging to a network of co-creative agency.
The Need for Communal Celebrations
In early human communities emotional ties were rooted in and based on kinship and marriage, but even then and particularly when the kinships became metaphorical, the ties were not simply factual but had to be intended. Otterbein (2009) shows how the development of fraternal interest groups in patrilocal village societies begins to obscure the interdependence of those living in a village and lessen the sense of community. Further, as humans moved beyond local bands and tribal organizations they had to discover a way to unite people by creating larger quasi-communities; entities such as clans, chiefdoms, and nations. These larger social entities involved social classes and indirect relationships involving economics, customs, traditions, laws, contracts and trade. They were unified by symbols, rituals, common customs and socio-emotional relationships organized in different ways (de Rivera, 2013). As these identities developed in size they lost much of their character as community and became “societies” organized by law, institutions, traditions, language and religious activities. However, these societies are still partially grounded in communal socio-emotional bases and only imagined as nationalities when their ways are ideologized as an expression of a common history, values, and mission (Fishman, 1968).
For such constructed entities to be viable, a sense of unity and a feeling of belonging must be intended and cultivated by celebratory rituals. Durkheim (1915/1947) gives many examples of how rituals are used to periodically reaffirm the unity of a social entity. These rituals often involve a shared story in which people are emotionally involved. They help maintain sentiments of pride, confidence and veneration. Such rituals must establish a social identity that is strong enough to deal with the conflicting interests of different individuals and groups. In early societies this sense of unity was accomplished by the assumption of a common ancestor, and lines of descent, ancestor worship or totem ceremonials were used to evoke the feeling of oneness. Denison (1928) argues that the imagining of a common ancestor must be presented within an emotional context. He notes that a logical demonstration of a statement's truth may not transform it into a belief, “while an emotional dramatization of a statement that is not true may create such a sense of its reality in the minds of the people that no logical proof will convince them of its falsity” (Denison, 1928, p. 15). That is, the reality of a narrative of a people’s collective identity must be felt and appears to be a sort of believed-in imagining (de Rivera & Sarbin, 1998). What is imagined and intentioned may be a tribe, a nation, or a community of persons.
Contemporary readers may be most familiar with the civic rituals involved in encouraging people to identify with nation states; what Robert Bellah (2006) and others have identified as “civil religion.” In the United States, for example, people fly the national flag, recite a pledge of allegiance before school begins and at the beginnings of official meetings, sing the national anthem before sports games, and hold community parades celebrating the nation as an independent entity on the Fourth of July. Although such ceremonies seek to include rather than exclude, they establish an in-group national identity that may become involved in aggressive conflict. Although they may involve feelings of community the rituals are focused on a state and hence involve state power and the temptation to make the state into a sacred object.
Many people identify with national groupings. The larger of these tend to be nation-states, but there are many local ethnic identities. Often there is conflict between governments striving to create a state identity and people attempting to maintain their more local identity. When asked about the degree to which they identify with their local community, their nation, and "all humans everywhere", the majority evidence more local or national identification (McFarland, Webb, & Brown, 2012, p. 833). And although the internet is clearly increasing and encouraging transnational and transcultural contact the sense of belonging to a global community cannot compete with the power of local and national identities.
It might be argued that human identity could be furthered by rituals that reinforce the cognition of membership in a superordinate large-group as suggested by the Common Ingroup Identity Model (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). The cohesion of such a group might be maintained if subgroup identities were still valued (Stanley, 2003). However, cognitive social identities seem to require contrasts and comparisons against which they can be articulated. Hence a superordinate “Human” or “Earthling” category would only succeed if humans became engaged in a battle with another species or a war with an alien planet. A superordinate, global group identity could conceivably occur if people realized a common danger such as global warming, nuclear annihilation, or a new deadly virus, and it is possible to imagine a human team steering spacecraft-earth into a dangerous void. However, threats often lead humans to retreat to in-group identities and political history is not encouraging. During the cold war, the government of the United States was willing to risk the lives of all on earth to maintain its nuclear superiority. Powerful nations still preserve nuclear weapons and potential global threats such as specimens of smallpox virus without regard for humankind. Many nation states are currently unwilling to unite to meaningfully deal with global warming and flows of refugees. Thus although a global catastrophe might unite the governments of the world it seems more likely that it may lead to either anarchy or global dictatorship.
For that matter, we doubt that identifying with a superordinate group or with abstract humanity would be sufficient to provide the unity that our world needs today. It seems to us that what is needed is a global communal identity based on caring inter-action through which people would recognize their identity with others regardless of their group conceptions and categories.
A communal sense of global identity requires ways to understand, symbolize and celebrate a global community, and social history, as Durkheim (1915/1947) explicates, suggests that people achieve unification through ritual celebrations of that union. Hence, we may want to imagine people around the world participating in emotional celebrations that foster a consciousness of a global communal identity. Such celebrations would use rituals that express and symbolically intend that unity. They would foster caring for others and strive to overcome the dominance of fears and self-concerns so that persons can care for all others with whom they may be involved directly or indirectly.
Using mutual ceremonies to create community is apt to arouse liberal anxiety, especially given the current anti-ritual attitudes articulated by Bellah (2006). The emotional enthusiasms that created the French republic aided the extinction of smaller communities and languages, and the rituals that united Nazi Germany involved the exclusion of non-Aryans and the extinction of Jews and other “undesirable elements.” However, people may be united in very different ways, and rituals may focus on inclusion rather than domination or exclusion. On the one hand, people may be united by being designated as members of nominally different groups who are differentially rewarded, or by encouraging them to think of themselves as members of an elite group with requirements for inclusion, initiation ceremonies, and signs that denote superiority; or by being led to participate in rituals that use common movement to encourage a sense of being part of a greater organic whole. In these cases the language that is used tends to emphasize belonging to a group and to make contrasts that exclude others by using words that contrast “us” or “our” with “them.” On the other hand, people may also be united by their participation in communities that welcome others in common celebrations. These “rituals” involve shared meals, common dances, joint worship, or fairs that have an atmosphere of togetherness that can serve to connect all those involved. Although such communities may be relatively closed to outsiders, the members within are involved in personal relationships. Membership is not defined by boundaries that distinguish those who belong from those who do not belong to a group, but on a belonging that is dependent on a sense of human dignity and responsibility. These communities, like groups, have boundaries, but they are not formed by that boundary nor by group identification, but rather by the mutual, socio-emotional, relations among members.
The people of current nation-states are often involved in both sorts of rituals. Thus, the words of the U.S. national anthem, “our flag is still there” contrast with those in the American folk song “this land is your land, this land is my land.” Both songs invoke togetherness, but the national anthem uses group conflict whereas Woody Guthrie’s folk song accentuates the common relationship as shown in the lines: “this land belongs to you and me.”
Currently most of the people of the world live in nation-states that compete in a global economy, and they participate in different faith communities and national identities that tend to constrain the possibility of mutuality. A review of literature on social cohesion (Vollhardt, Migacheva, & Tropp, 2009) details the many dangers of ignoring the identities of subgroups. Clearly, a just and peaceful global community would have to acknowledge and respect the identities of different nations, ethnicities, and faiths. Such a community would require ceremonies that were inclusive, open, and welcoming—celebrations of generosity and compassion—that presented identity and freedom in terms of interdependence rather than competing independence and encouraged emotional readiness to care for any person with whom one is brought into relation.
We believe it is possible to unify people in a global community that is not an organic group. It seems to us that this can be done if it is possible to present the idea of global identity in a way that emphasizes personal relationship rather than group belonging. Understanding global identity in this way may enable us to create celebrations that enhance the sense of participation in a global community. In a pilot study reported below the audience is asked:
How might we encourage ceremonies that empower yet not lead to a loss of individual identity? We need rituals that express our being together and enable us to feel united and maintain solidarity, but do not lead us to think that we are functional parts of some greater organism that is superior to our individuality. If we conceive of community as a group to which we belong, we may easily become involved in norms, rules, and conformity pressures. However, if we think of community in terms of our affiliation in a network of mutual relationships among persons and their environment we will have the basis for freedom. We need ceremonies that enable us to realize that our lives are bound up with others. Such a global community may be contrasted with a conceptualization of society in terms of contracts between individuals who exercise choices in a free market. It may also be contrasted with a society as a people who conform to what is good for a whole and submit to the laws of a state. What we imagine is a community of mutuality, a family of persons who trust one another, are open to others as persons and who care for one another. We do not need ceremonies that encourage a tribe, nation, team or group. We need ceremonies that celebrate our openness to relationship, that express a common faith that supports our intention to have our love for one another dominate our fear.
Three Preliminary Studies
Pilot studies examine: (1) whether it might be possible to enhance perceptions of global identity by presenting it in terms of participating in a global community of personal relationship and inter-agency, (2) whether it is possible to create items for an inclusive celebration of global community, and (3) if a celebration might increase global identification.
Study One: Presenting Global Community as a Way of Influencing Global Identification
In an attempt to increase the degree to which individuals perceived themselves as having a global identity, participants in an on-line study were presented with one person’s celebration of global community as interactive agency and given the choice of visiting one of two different web sites that were designed with global community in mind. Before and after measures of global identity were used to assess the impact of the information.
Method
Participants
Students from a university in the United Sates, attending three different psychology courses that required research participation, were given the opportunity to participate in an online survey about identity. They were assured that answers were anonymous and that they could withdraw at any time and still receive credit for participation. Of the 121 students who signed onto the survey, 96 completed items. Of these students 83% were between 18 and 20, 74% were females, and 73% were from the United States.
Procedure
After answering demographic questions, and standard items about the extent of their global identity (see Appendix A), participants read a paragraph that presented personal identity as involving participation in an active global community. The text read:
We may be beginning to live in a new global community. Here is how one person attempts to describe how he personally feels:
Although I belong to and participate in my own local communities, I am aware that I belong to a global community by virtue of the network of co-creative agency which we create together and in which we participate worldwide. I know that our lives are interconnected, that every decision we make affects not only ourselves and our local communities, those who are near, but also those who live in other geographical spaces. I know also that I belong to all living things by virtue of my living body, to the whole of Gaia, as a necessary support and condition of my being, and to all the forces and energy in the universe that support it. I know that our actions not only affect ourselves but this whole biosphere. Indeed, we are together through each other and through this active universe. Together we form a co-creative global community. In this living experience I find my identity. I celebrate this community and look forward to its continual flourishing. This is who I am and I am glad of it.
After answering some questions about the extent to which they agreed with such a view (see Appendix B) participants were then instructed that the investigator wanted to see if participating in a particular web site might affect how they felt. They were instructed, “You do not have to participate, but we believe you will find the site interesting. If you are willing to participate enter (the web site).” After some questions about the site, participants were then instructed, “A group of people who are committed to making the world a better place, realize the courage required to do what is necessary, and feel the need for solidarity are sitting in silence for five minutes at nine p.m. each night. Are you willing to anonymously join them tonight?” (Answers were: yes, will try, perhaps, sometime, no.) Participants were then again given questions about global identity and their agreement with the idea of personal identity involving participation in a global community.
Web Sites and Measures
The first web site, www.global-identity.org presents video interviews from people with different cultural backgrounds who reside in London. Participants view a two-minute trailer, where men and women of different ages and diverse backgrounds from China, Germany, Brazil, Dubai, New York, Honolulu, and Nigeria are interviewed while music is played in the background. A darker man with white hair and mustache says “No matter white or black or pink or color or whatever, we are all the same. That is where the confusion starts- we are all the same …but we are different.” A young woman remarks how her friends are from Colombia, Germany, South Korea, Turkey, Brazil. The interviewees offer statements about their own values in life, their traditions and points of views. After viewing the trailer, the participant is invited to choose from the interviews displayed on the website: “Please choose people or topics you are interested in and start browsing through the cultural mix of our world.”
The second web site, www.pwpp.org (People’s World Peace Project) presents news stories generated by NGOs who are working to create a more peaceful and just world. The stories, with attractive photos, are organized with reference to the UNESCO bases for a culture of peace. In order to encourage readers to feel inspired rather than disheartened there is an attempt to publish stories that are oriented towards solutions rather than problems.
Global Identity was assessed by a seven item scale for global identity developed by Der-Karabetian and Ruiz (1997) (see Appendix A). A sample item is: “I feel that I am related to everyone in the world as if they were my family.” Each item is answered by a six point scale ranging from completely disagree to completely agree.
The participants’ sense of Global Community was assessed by a five item scale of responses to the paragraph about global community. Respondents were given five statements about the writer’s sense of global community and asked about the extent they felt the same way by using a five-point scale ranging from not at all to completely (Appendix B). A sample item is: “When he refers to a “network of co-creative agency” he seems to think that people throughout the world are somehow participating in building something.”
Results
Responses to Global Identity were normally distributed and ranged from 1.9 to 5.9 with M = 3.9, SD = .83, Mode = 3.6. Cronbach’s alpha = .82. The mean of the 23 students who came to the university from other counties was significantly higher than the 73 students who were from the United Sates, M = 3.77 vs. 4.17, t(94) = 2.07, p < .05. There were no significant relations with age or gender.
Responses to Sense Global Community were normally distributed and ranged from 1.2 to 5 with M = 3.47, SD = .78, Mode = 3.6 (between somewhat and mostly agree). Cronbach’s alpha = .82. There were no significant relations with age, gender, or whether the student was from abroad.
Global Identity was significantly related to Sense Global Community, r(96) = .65, p < .01. The means of the initial scores of both measures were significantly higher for those students who subsequently visited a website than those who did not visit a website. Global Identity: M = 4.07 vs. 3.68; t(94) = 2.39, p < .02. Sense Global Community: M = 3.65 vs. 3.31; t(94) = 2.15, p < .04.
T-tests comparing before and after scores revealed significant changes in both Global Identity and Sense Global Community. The mean scores and test results are presented in Table 1.
Table 1
Scores Before and After Presentations on Global Community
| Measure | M |
df | t | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before | After | ||||
| Global Identity (6 point scale) | 3.87 | 4.23 | 94 | 46.2 | < .0001 |
| Sense Global Community (5 point scale) | 3.47 | 3.66 | 95 | 42.4 | < .0001 |
A univariate ANOVA of changes in Global Identity, controlling for initial scores, was used to compare the changes in students who were or were not exposed to one of the web sites. An F(2, 92) = 6.89, p < .01 showed a significant effect for site exposure. The change scores of those who were exposed to the global-identity or PWPP sites, M = .51 and M = .45, respectively, was greater than those who were not exposed, M = .27. There was no significant difference between web sites and change scores were not significantly related to gender, age, or nationality.
The increase in changes in Sense Global Community was not significantly affected by web site exposure. However, change scores were significantly related to the time spent by students who visited the PWPP site, r(18) = .64, p < .01.
The inclination to join the group that sat in silence at nine each evening predicted the final scores on both Global Identity, r(96) = .32, p < .001 and Sense Global Community, r(96) = .29, p < .01. When initial scores were controlled the inclination to join was significantly correlated with change scores of both Global Identity and Sense Global Community, r(91) = .23 and r(91) = .25, respectively, ps < .05
Discussion
The high correlation between Global Identity and Sense Global Community raises the question of whether they are measuring the same thing. A factor analysis of the items from both scales (12 in total) reveals three factors (explaining 41, 10, and 9 percent of the variance). All 12 items show communalities of greater than .35 and the component matrix of the first factor shows all items loading at greater than 470. However, a Varimax rotation reveals a first factor with primary loadings from the 5 Sense Global Community items. Items from Global Community load on the second and third factors. The results, together with an examination of the items, suggest that the items are measuring different aspects of the same construct. Both measures are somewhat validated by the fact that those with higher initial scores were more likely to visit the web sites.
The overall increase in scores on both Global Identity and Sense Global Community (in both those who visited and did not visit the web sites) may possibly be attributed to simply retaking the measures or to a demand effect created by the investigator’s evident interest in global community. However, it seems likely that the paragraph celebrating the meaning of global community may have induced a change in how students thought about the meaning of global identity and how they may be more involved in a sort of global community than they had previously recognized. If so, one might expect such a change to persist in time and this possibility seems particularly important to pursue.
Above and beyond these overall changes, exposure to either the web site sympathetically portraying people of different nationalities or the site showing the work of global NGOs clearly helped increase Global Identity and it would seem important to investigate if this increase might persist in time.
Study Two: What Aspects of Global Community Could be Celebrated?
Local religious services, gatherings, and fairs are occasions that may provide opportunities for celebrating the possibility of global community. However, the diversity of persons and ethnicities raises the question as to whether there is any agreement on what aspects of global identity might be acknowledged and celebrated. The possibility of cultivating ritual celebrations of global community led the authors to develop some ideas as to what might be celebrated by people around the globe. These were explored in a question embedded in a broader on-line survey.
Method
Participants anonymously volunteered to take an on-line survey, “to examine how emotions may affect judgments about our identity.” The participants included 19 students from an introductory psychology class at a small university in the United Sates who were satisfying a research requirement and 5 adults from a diverse local neighborhood. They represented 11 different ethnicities with ages ranging from 18 to 73, and included 15 females and 5 males (for 3 gender was not-indicted). After answering questions about gender, age, nationality, and 7-point scales of how good and how bad they were feeling that day, participants were asked to recall positive or negative emotional instances. They then answered the questions from the Der-Karabetian measure of Global Identity used in study one (see Appendix A) and were told: Please imagine that you have chance to participate in a celebration of global identity. Below are a number of things that might be acknowledged and celebrated in some way. Please indicate whether you would like them to be part of the celebration.
Results
Mean Global Identity (3.86) was almost identical to initial scores in study one. Neither age, gender, nor how good or how bad participants felt, were significantly related to scores on Global Identity. However, both the measure how good people were feeling and Global Identity significantly correlated with the extent to which items of celebration were desired, r(23) = .54, p < .02 and r(23) = .425, p < .05. The number of respondents desiring different items of celebration is presented in Table 2.
Table 2
Individual Responses to Possible Items for the Celebration of Global Identity
| Item/response | Definitely Don’t | Not Particularly | Would Like | Definitely Want |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Persons with whom I am personally close (family, friends, partner) | 1 | 9 | 12 | |
| The people around the world whom we never see but depend upon (farmers, workers, truck drivers, and so forth) | 4 | 12 | 7 | |
| The human ancestors that managed to survive and invented all the seeds and technologies that enable our lives today | 6 | 10 | 7 | |
| Our sun, animals, and other aspects of nature | 3 | 9 | 10 | |
| Some basic Goodness in the universe far beyond what anyone can comprehend | 2 | 0 | 11 | 10 |
| Some way of making amends for injustice | 2 | 8 | 13 |
Discussion
Since Global Identity and how good people were feeling predicted the extent to which celebratory items were desired, the items appear to have validity and to have been taken seriously. Although the participants represented a number of different ethnicities, the small and restricted sample limits our ability to generalize the results. However, it is encouraging to see that it may be possible to attain substantial agreement as to what people want to celebrate and it appears worthwhile to see if the results would hold for more diverse samples around the world. It is interesting to find that most students wanted some way to indicate a desire to make amends for the injustice that exists. We are not sure what rituals might be used to express this desire, but suspect some form of confessional or ritual of reconciliation and forgiveness may be required. Perhaps this general sentiment could be expressed in items referencing the human struggle to overcome oppression, inhumanity, and disasters or to a reference to a hope that future generations may inherit a more just world.
Study Three: The Impact of a Call and Response Celebration
On the basis of the above study, themes were developed for use in a simple call and response ceremony. Originating in Sub-Saharan cultures, and used in contemporary political demonstrations, call and response is a form of democratic participation that may be used in public gatherings, religious rituals, and musical expression. The “We are one people” call and response (see Appendix C) was developed in an attempt to use universal human themes to reinforce a sense of global community. It has subsequently been used to open a community peace fair and a church’s Sunday service, and it seemed desirable to see if this sort of celebration of global community could influence the global identity of those who participated.
Method
Participants
Participants were graduate students and staff attending a postgraduate lecture at a university in Argentina. Data on age and gender were not collected but the audience clearly contained men and women ranging from the mid-twenties to the sixties.
Procedure
After a visiting professor gave a lecture (on national emotional climates and their culture of peace) a resident professor led the audience in a call and response. She called out eight facts that can be celebrated by all peoples (such as the fact that ancestors developed the seeds, medicines, and technologies used today) and asked for the response: “We are one people” (see Appendix C for items). Subsequently, the visiting lecturer read a paragraph describing the sort of global ceremonies that are needed to create a global community (the paragraph that was used was the last paragraph from the section titled “the need for communal celebrations”). The Der-Karabetian questionnaire on global identity was given when the audience first arrived, before the lecture. It was repeated an hour later, after the call and response and reading. Participants were asked to note their mother’s birthdate so responses could be compared. All proceedings and questionnaires were conducted in Spanish. Although 28 persons attended the lecture, only some submitted both before and after questionnaires and a few of these could not be matched.
Results
The questionnaire demonstrated high internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .89). The initial average score on global identity M = 3.49 increased to M = 4.48. A t-test comparing the within subject scores revealed that the difference was significant well beyond the .001 level, t(9) = 10.9 (initial M = 3.69, after M = 4.15). A t-test comparing the responses of those who only submitted the questionnaire before (M = 3.21) with those who only submitted the questionnaire after (M = 4.96) also revealed significance, t(12) = 5.39, p < .001.
Discussion
It seems clear that the call and response activity was able to generate a feeling of global community. The nature of the themes suggests that this feeling may have been achieved without establishing an ingroup boundary. However, there are a number of caveats. Although the responses were completely anonymous, the lecture’s enthusiasm for celebrations of global community was clear and may well have created a demand pressure. It is unclear if the apparent enthusiasm in the room can simply be attributed to the lecturer or if it truly reflected a response to some sense of global community that was genuinely felt and would be inherent in any successful ceremony. Further, it is unclear if the feeling of global identity would persist in time and there is no clear evidence that some sort of in-group barrier was not created. Nevertheless, the success in significantly raising scores on the Der-Karabetian scale suggest that it would be worthwhile to attempt replication in other circumstances, and to add the ability to retest after time and with questions that assessed if any in-group prejudice was created.
General Discussion and Summary
The pilot studies suggest the possibility of presenting global identification in terms of identifying with a community of mutual interagency and that presenting and celebrating such an identity may increase the sense of belonging to a global community. Although this increase may simply reflect situational demands, and there is no evidence that changes may persist over time, we believe that we have demonstrated that it is possible to increase the self-perception of having a global identity that is not defined as a categorized group. Though this may be granted, it might be objected that this does not require Macmurray’s conceptualization of personhood because a perception of global identity might simply rest on a realization of economic interdependence and global “community” might simply mean a collection of individuals whose behaviors affect one another rather than the global potential of mutual relationship. However, it should be noted that many of the items on the scales that were used imply the mutual, personal, relations at the center of Macmurray’s thought. These include statements such as: what I do as a person could “touch” someone in another part of the world; I am “next door neighbors” with people living in other parts of the world; I am related to everyone in the world as if they were my family; people throughout the world are somehow participating in building something. Such statements are best understood as reflecting the mutuality of community, and the fact that even the initial answers of college students on these items are above the midpoint of agreement suggests either youthful sentimentality or the beginnings of a global community.
Recent research (McFarland & Hornsby, in press) has established high correlations between the Psychological Sense of Global Community scale of Malsch and Omoto (2007), a measure of global citizenship used by Reese, Proch, and Cohrs (2014), and the “Identification with All Humanity" scale used by McFarland, Webb, and Brown (2012). We would expect that measures on all these scales would be increased by the procedures used in study one and the sort of celebration of global community used in study three. That is, we suggest that the extent to which people have a psychological sense of belonging to a world community, the degree to which they feel they are world citizens, and the extent to which they report identifying with “people all over the world” are all related to a sense of mutuality and involvement in a developing global community of mutual relations and interagency. We do not conceive this community as an organic entity or gestalt promoted by factors such as proximity, similarity, or common fate, but as an intended social entity that is constituted by mutual inter-agency and promoted by celebration. The questions used to assess a sense of global community, identifying with all humanity or being global citizens do not necessarily imply that people are identifying with an abstract superordinate category that contrasts “humanity” with other species or pits humanity against constituent subgroup nations. The questions used in our studies imply that personal identity depends on mutual relations and that many believe these relationships may be with people around the world and constitute a sort of global community.
This conceptualization has implications for how measuring instruments might be refined and suggests that items that refer to common similarity are less useful than those that suggest mutual connection and action. Measuring a self-identity that issues from within a mutuality of interagency on a global level is far different from measuring an identity that consists of a commonness of a conceptual category. Questionnaire items that suggest the similarity or team involvement of a group identity load on a different factor than those which refer to the caring and responsibility that imply the inter-agency involved in community (Reese, Proch, & Finn, 2015). Avoiding any conflation between superordinate identity and global community requires the development of items that measure an existential, active way of mutual living, and the concomitant self-identity and self-concept that issue from within common living and are rooted in and arise from within this web of activity. Thus, the pronoun "we" needs to refer to the commonness of living together, rather than to having the same characteristics or to being on a team that is competing with other teams. In an important sense one can only have a global identity to the extent that a global community exists. Paradoxically, the existence of that community depends on the personal commitment of people around the world. Measuring the extent and depth of commitment to a global community that is currently more imagined than real may well contribute to its development.
The conceptualization raises some important issues for social psychology in general and peace psychology in particular. Although objects relations theory (Cassidy & Shaver, 2008) is built on the assumption that personal relations are the basis for identity formation, attachment theory (St. Clair & Wigren, 2004) emphasizes the importance of cognitive models based on early personal relations, and the concept of a sense of community seems to imply mutual relationships, much of social psychology still views personal identity as based on either individual traits or social categorizations. Thus, even the “Identification with All Humanity" scale (McFarland & Hornsby, in press) treats the extent to which a person identifies with others as fellow humans as an individual difference variable. Although such a measure is an important predictor of caring behavior that transcends group distinctions, we suggest that any specific instance of identifying with another as a fellow person must involve an implicit sense of the mutuality involved in community. Along this line of thought we note that Hackett, Omoto, and Matthews (2015) have shown that the extent to which people feel part of a global community appears to connect to their personal values and their concern and action for human rights. This community, of which one has a (hopefully realistic) sense, is an objective network of interagency whose structure may be contrasted with group identification (van der Löwe & Parkinson, 2014). Changes between communal and group identity play a crucial role in group conflict and studying how the psychological sense of community is rooted in the actuality of mutual relationships of caring and fear may assist us to ameliorate the destructiveness of such conflict
The ever-present struggle between caring and fear suggests that celebrations of community must symbolize the primacy of caring and reduce fear. None of the material used in the pilot studies presented human needs in a way that might directly stimulate a caring for others; caring is only implied by the mutuality of human dependence. Why are participants more willing to acknowledge this dependence? Unlike nationalistic state ceremonies, which may involve elation but imply the need for group security, celebrations of community may involve the openness of joy and reduce fear by encouraging the sense that one is not alone (de Rivera, Possell, Verette, & Weiner, 1989). If this is so, it may be that when celebrations of local community are open and festive they increase a sense of global identity. We may even conjecture that when members of different groups are involved, celebrations of common community may contribute to the optimism and emotional climate of hope needed to reduce group conflict (Bar-Tal, Halperin, & de Rivera, 2007).
To some extent the celebration that is needed is present in current religious and secular practices and, as noted below, an increasing number of the sorts of celebrations that are needed are beginning to occur. Importantly, current identities do not need to be surrendered in order to achieve the global identity that is needed. In the case of religion, the readiness to care and encouragement to overcome fear and hate is cultivated by the rituals of most traditional religious communities which foster socio-emotional relations such as generosity, acceptance, understanding, and compassion that create mutual fellowship. Although these traditional communities involve boundaries that are barriers for those with different beliefs there is no need to obliterate these boundaries. The need is to transcend them so the caring encouraged within the community is extended to outsiders and the community can enjoy fellowship with other communities. Particular rituals can be used to extend the communal feelings that are generated to others by referencing our common humanity. For example, in Catholic services the prayers of the people may include prayer for the welfare of the world, the wellbeing of all people, and the peace and justice in all nations. Buddhist mediation may involve the compassion mediation that involves wishing that all beings may be happy. The Methodist hymn, “This is my song”, uses Sibelius’s music to convey an expression of patriotism that recognizes the patriotism of those in other nations, and prays for the union of all hearts. Further, there are interfaith leaders in local communities who work together to create rituals that engender a sense of global personal identity and the virtues needed for such fellowship. In fact, the Parliament of the World's Religions and other organizations involved in interfaith dialogue encourage ecumenical ceremonies and dozens of cities now have interfaith ministries that make use of chaplains who are trained in multiple faiths and conduct services that are ecumenical in nature.
In the case of nationality, some athletic events such as the Olympics grant equal importance to the flags of many nations, and use opening ceremonies that suggest our global identity. Even in the United States, where competitions often begin with playing the national anthem, there are some important examples of more global recognition. For example, the Boston Marathon is one kind of human celebration. Runners come from all over the world, from different ethnicities, and religions, women as well as men, those on legs and those in wheelchairs, to compete with themselves as much as with one another. It is a holiday where families come to watch loved ones and simply to cheer the participants striving to overcome the difficulties of running 26 miles. When terrorists detonated a bomb near the finish line the feeling of community only expanded and led to a statement of global solidarity at a nearby game of professional baseball. The pre-game announcer stated, “Today, we gather as one. And we affirm to ourselves and to each other that we are one - one community, one nation, one world, full of love, full of compassion and full of generosity." We note that although the world currently lacks a common flag or symbol, people are beginning to use the U.N. flag or a photo of earth from space. They are not attempting to represent a non-existent global state but the primary character of the human community.
Further, people are beginning to create new celebrations that may be developing the sort of global community that is needed without surrendering their sense of local community: Entrepreneurs are developing local events that are oriented towards global identity. For example, in October, 2012, at Syracuse University, the One World Community Foundation held a "One World Concert" to honor the Dalai Lama who gave a public talk along with performances by many world musicians committed to world peace. Organizations are developing global events such as Earth Hour (http://worldwildlife.org/pages/earth-hour), where millions around the world turn off lights for an hour on March 23rd (at 8:30 local time) to remind people of the global challenge of sustainability; the International Day of Peace on September 21 when there are "global" musical performances, dances, soccer games, etc. (http://www.un.org/en/events/peaceday); and an initiative to promote peace through dance (http://peaceoneday.org). On a range of websites, people can be inspired by seeing others committed to solving global problems. For example, www.avaaz.org allows people to develop and circulate petitions and view thousands of people who are participating in movements committed to sustainability, justice, and reimagining the world.
It seems to us that social psychologists might want to recognize the existence of these events, count the extent to which they are occurring, and measure their impact on global identity and global consciousness. Several months after a terrorist attack, those who participated in secular political rituals had more positive shared beliefs regarding society (Páez, Basabe, Ubillos, & González-Castro, 2007). Might their sense of global identity have also increased? One presumes that global community is also advanced by the fellowship encouraged by international service organizations such as the Rotary Club and the Lions Club, and that it is furthered by the institution of global commonwealths such as the Commonwealth of Nations and participation in Commonwealth activities such as the Commonwealth games. However, we are not aware of data that support this conjecture and it seems important to test it. One imagines that the development of a sense of common humanity is fostered by encouraging experiences with those from different cultures who share the specific situations they face in a way that encourages fellow feeling. This may naturally occur through travel or internet exchange, but the data from study one suggests it may also be encouraged when people view sympathetic interviews with individuals from different nations or the activities of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working to create a better world. We need data on how such global identification develops.
One might say that global community is being gradually created whenever people act with caring for others around the world in mind or experience how they are united in a common struggle for world peace and justice. Certainly, a central motivation for the establishment of global identity is the discomfort of seeing nations acting unjustly. This appears to be leading to a shared injunctive norm that nations should act for the wellbeing of all the world’s people. Such a norm may even be said to define a new collective global identity whose development may be considered as a movement for social change that involves social interaction in the manner detailed by Smith, Thomas, and McGarty (2015). From this perspective one may note that an important barrier to the creation of this new identity is the relative lack of opportunity for shared communication among the people of the world. An important function of ritual celebrations is to provide this opportunity, and to help establish a norm for world justice and a consensual validation for global identity. Moreover, celebrations of the global community that currently exist facilitate the personal global identity upon which that community depends.
Viable celebrations of communion are rituals where communion and membership in the community are the primary foci (Macmurray, 1961). They may involve art, music, poetry (song), dance or simple body movements, but the primary activity should be joyful and symbolize the unity that persons in the community share with each other. Through art, music and dance the history of the global community, and the reality of the world in which it exists, the values, and the future visions of the community need be articulated. All are welcome to participate and such participation would create a self-concept of belonging to the community and being glad of it. However, for celebrations of global identity to be realistic and have a lasting effect they must deal with the fact that the personal relations that form community are always problematic. They need a way to recognize the forces against community and to symbolize the transformation of fear and hate into caring rather than domination or exclusion. To the extent that social psychologists can contribute to the design and assessment of global celebrations they will re-affirm and reinforce the intention of inter-creative agency worldwide, thereby cultivating the global identity we need today.