sethmblack General Will Inquiry
Analyze collective decisions to distinguish private interest from common good and identify what would truly serve the community as a whole.
Token Budget: ~600 tokens Source Expert: Jean-Jacques Rousseau
When to Use
- Analyzing organizational or governance decisions
- Evaluating whether a policy serves the common good or particular interests
- Team decisions where individual preferences may conflict with collective needs
- Any situation where "what everyone wants" differs from "what's best for everyone"
- When stated justifications may mask private agendas
Inputs
| Input | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| decision_context | Yes | Description of the decision, policy, or arrangement to analyze |
| stakeholders | Yes | Who is affected and who is deciding |
| stated_justifications | No | How proponents justify the decision |
| proposed_options | No | Alternatives being considered |
Core Concepts
The Will of All vs. The General Will
| Will of All | General Will |
|---|---|
| Sum of private preferences | Aims at common good |
| Aggregates what individuals want for themselves | What the community needs as a community |
| Can be surveyed and counted | Requires deliberative transformation |
| May serve no one well | Serves everyone in their capacity as members |
Rousseau's key insight: "There is often a great difference between the will of all and the general will. The latter looks only to the common interest; the former looks to private interest and is merely the sum of particular wills."
Workflow
Step 1: 1. Identify the Will of All
Map what each stakeholder or faction claims to want:
- What are the stated preferences?
- What would each group gain from their preferred outcome?
- How are preferences distributed?
Output: List of stakeholder preferences with their private benefits
Step 2: 2. Probe for Private Interest
For each stated position, ask:
- What private advantage would this bring to its advocates?
- Is this being presented as common good when it serves particular interests?
- What amour propre (vanity, status) dynamics are at play?
- Who benefits most, and are they driving the process?
Output: Assessment of private interests behind public positions
Step 3: 3. Inquire into the General Will
Ask the transformative question: What does this community need as a community?
- If no one knew in advance their particular position, what would they choose?
- What arrangement would each member choose if they could not know whether they would be advantaged or disadvantaged by it?
- What serves the body politic as a whole, not merely its parts?
Output: Articulation of what genuine common good would look like
Step 4: 4. Assess the Gap
Compare the will of all to the general will:
- How far apart are they?
- What transformations would be needed to align preferences with common good?
- What deliberative conditions would help people reason as citizens, not as interest groups?
Output: Gap analysis with transformation recommendations
Step 5: 5. Recommend Deliberative Process
If current process yields only the will of all:
- What conditions would enable genuine deliberation toward common good?
- How can the process help people transcend private interest?
- What role should facilitators play (like Rousseau's "lawgiver")?
Output: Process recommendations for seeking general will
Output Format
## General Will Inquiry: [Decision/Context Name]
### 1. The Will of All
[Map of stakeholder preferences and private benefits]
### 2. Private Interests Exposed
[Analysis of self-interest behind stated positions]
### 3. The General Will
[What would genuinely serve the common good]
### 4. The Gap
[Assessment of distance between preferences and common good]
### 5. Deliberative Recommendations
[How to move from will of all toward general will]
### Rousseauian Verdict
[1-2 sentence summary in Rousseau's voice]
Error Handling
| Situation | Response |
|---|---|
| No clear collective exists | Clarify boundaries of the "body" being analyzed |
| Unanimous preference | Still probe: does unanimity reflect common good or shared self-interest? |
| Impossible to know general will | Acknowledge epistemic limits; recommend deliberative process |
| Power imbalances distort process | Note how inequality prevents authentic general will emergence |
Outputs
Primary Output: A structured analysis document that identifies and articulates patterns, insights, and actionable recommendations based on the input data.
Format:
## Analysis: [Topic]
### Key Findings
- [Finding 1]
- [Finding 2]
- [Finding 3]
### Recommendations
1. [Action 1]
2. [Action 2]
3. [Action 3]
Example output: See the Example section below for a complete demonstration.
Constraints
- Do not use this analysis as the sole basis for critical decisions
- Do not apply this framework to situations outside its intended scope
- Acknowledge that analysis is based on available data, which may be incomplete
- Honor the complexity of real-world situations that resist simple categorization
- Present findings with appropriate confidence levels
- Recognize the limits of the methodology
Additional Notes
Best practices:
- Use this skill when the situation clearly matches its intended use cases
- Combine with related skills for comprehensive analysis
- Iterate on outputs if initial results don't fully meet requirements
Common variations:
- Adjust the depth of analysis based on available time and information
- Scale the approach for different levels of complexity
- Adapt the output format to audience needs
When to skip this skill:
- The situation doesn't match the core use cases
- Simpler approaches would be more appropriate
- Time constraints require faster methods
Example
Input: A company is deciding whether to move to a four-day work week.
Abbreviated Output:
1. The Will of All
- Most employees want it (more leisure)
- Shareholders skeptical (productivity fears)
- Managers split (work-life vs. coordination challenges)
2. Private Interests Exposed
- Employee preference partly driven by amour propre: status of "progressive workplace"
- Shareholder resistance masks fear of losing control
- Some managers oppose because longer hours signal their importance
3. The General Will
What does this company need as a company?
- Not just employee satisfaction, but sustainable productivity
- Not just shareholder returns, but conditions for excellence
- A rhythm that allows both individual flourishing and collective achievement
4. The Gap
Preferences are mostly about personal advantage. Few are asking: what work pattern would this community of colleagues choose if they didn't know whether they'd be advantaged by the change?
5. Deliberative Recommendations
- Pilot program framed as experiment for learning, not advocacy
- Deliberation must include: what do we owe each other as colleagues?
- Decision by those who will live with consequences, not just managers
Rousseauian Verdict
The question is not whether employees prefer shorter hours, but whether a company that works four days serves the common good of all its members in their capacity as members. Only deliberation that transforms preferences into public reasoning can reveal this.
Integration
This skill embodies Rousseau's central political insight. Use in conjunction with:
- amour-propre-diagnosis when vanity distorts preferences
- social-contract-assessment when questioning legitimacy of the decision process
- civilization-critique when the decision involves supposed "progress"