General Will Inquiry

---
name: general-will-inquiry
description: Analyze collective decisions to distinguish private interest from common good and identify what would truly serve the community as a whole.
license: MIT
metadata:
  author: sethmblack
  version: 1.0.4077
repository: https://github.com/sethmblack/paks-skills
keywords:
- general-will-inquiry
- transformation
- writing
---

# 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

```markdown
## 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:**
```markdown
## 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"