This stage is also divided into two parts: suggestions to facilitate the process of implementing change ourselves and suggestions to encourage others to do so.
Applying change ourselves
Go for evolution rather than revolution
Let’s compare two types of changes implemented during the crisis. One refers to the economic reforms introduced after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, known as Shock Therapy. They were designed to rapidly transition the country to the so-called free-market economy. Key elements included dismantling the old system, drastic cuts to government spending, abolishing price controls, rapid privatisation, and opening the economy to foreign trade and investment. The reforms resulted in a severe, long-term economic recession, high inflation, and an enormous increase in inequality, with a dramatic drop in living standards for many in Russia on the one hand and the rise of oligarchs on the other. When China emerged from a decades-long economic crisis, it took a different route. They did not throw out old institutions but adapted them to new goals and introduced ‘direct improvisation’ to the system: the change was centrally directed, but local officials were encouraged to improvise local solutions using local resources. Three elements – partial limits on power, accountability, and competition – were introduced into the bureaucratic apparatus, in effect turning local leaders into entrepreneurs and CEOs (Ang, 2016). This led to what is known as the economic miracle from 1978 to the 2010s (it is unfortunate that China did not evolve politically too, but regressed in recent years). The first is an example of revolutionary economic changes as it focused on dismantling the old and left rebuilding to ‘spontaneous processes’ in neo-liberal fashion. The second is an example of evolving the economic system. There are many other historical examples indicating that evolutionary changes lead to better outcomes than revolutionary ones.
Broadly speaking, we can help evolution in two ways: we can help existing structures reform, and/or start developing new structures in parallel with the existing ones. If there is too much resistance to the former, we can focus on the latter more; if the latter is too slow, we can do more about the former.
Be strategic
You can change the world, but you can’t change everything in the world. Choose carefully where to invest your time and effort, considering the short- and long-term impact. There is much each of us can do, but do not wait for a grandstand. Small incremental changes can keep motivation going if successful, but won’t completely discourage you if not. Big changes require more effort, generate greater resistance, and can lead to big failure, which can be detrimental to motivation. Besides, small changes can make a big difference – if everybody does a little, it all adds up. If stuck, you can find many suggestions in other parts of Social Synthesis.
Invest in your personal development
This is not about self-care but about your growth – you contribute to collective evolution, but also to your own. Personal and social development can enhance each other, and neither should be allowed to wither. This is like walking: we rely on one leg while taking a step with the other, and then the order is reversed. The same logic applies here. We can rely on our personal strengths and qualities when dealing with social issues, and on the experiences from our engagement to help us take the next step in our own development. Personal Synthesis offers comprehensive materials and helpful tips for personal development.
Refuse to play the game
None of the above, of course, means that we should just go along with the system. We can refuse to play the game instead. Resisting consumerism and de-investing are two ways to do so. For example, we don’t need to create a run on all banks (which could bring down the financial system with unforeseeable consequences), but each of us can shun the worst culprits by moving our bank accounts and investments. This requires disentangling oneself from the system as much as possible and making steps towards sustainable, self-sufficient living. For example, grow some of your own food, install renewable energy sources and go off the grid if possible, learn repair skills, help create a local internet service provider (yes, this is possible), and invest only in ethical, stakeholder-based businesses. All of these will pay off, as environmental degradation and the decline of existing structures are likely to lead to serious crises. In short, prepare for the worst and hope for the best.
Motivating others to apply change
We can do much on our own, but for social change to take root, it has to be widely accepted. Without it, the most wonderful projects are likely to wither. Winning their hearts and minds is what makes a real difference. This part is about motivating not just activists but the general public to make and adopt change. We will consider five major types of motivation:
- Extrinsic – wanting change, believing that it will be better than what it is
- Values – valuing change as it is aligned with our values
- Meaning – common direction
- Self-efficacy – believing in oneself, that one’s involvement matters.
- Intrinsic – liking change
Neo-liberalism has done much to systematically undermine all five types of motivation for social change:
- TINA doctrine (‘There Is No Alternative’): there is nothing better and never will be than capitalism as it is, which undermines extrinsic motivation.
- The belief that people always act solely in their own self-interest undermines being motivated by the values we uphold.
- The belief that life and its evolution don’t go anywhere. It is meaningless. Progress and growth are seen as having more of the same.
- Learned helplessness undermines the belief that we can change anything.
- Identifying happiness with consumption (hedonistic, effortless pleasures) undermines intrinsic motivation for change.
We will now discuss how we can reignite all five types of motivation.
Believing in change
Put simply, the alternative needs to be perceived as better than what already exists. Considering that the current system is deteriorating, this should not be hard; many people are already looking elsewhere. We suggest here one theory-based and one practice-based suggestion to ignite the belief in a better alternative:
- Developing models or ‘blueprints’ of the new social order that can demonstrate that there are better alternatives. These ‘blueprints’ need to be living documents that can be updated and adapted in accordance with developments on the ground. Social Synthesis is one such model.
- Highlighting existing examples. When people see that what others do can make a difference, they are encouraged and motivated to act. Also, examples are not perceived as an imposition, so they don’t trigger ‘defence mechanisms’. If you personally have nothing to show at this point, you can share stories about a growing number of individuals, projects and initiatives who are already making good strides. Social Synthesis includes many such examples, but Positive News are more up to date with monthly updates on the latest successes and progress.
Values
We mustn’t assume that people are driven only by their self-interest. Psychological research is clear about that, but also, there are many historical examples, of which we will just bring one: Lancashire workers who stood firm against slavery in the mid-19th century (before the system’s propaganda inoculated the belief that we always and only act in our self-interest), even though it was very much against their interests. More recently, many people sacrificed not only time and effort, but their careers, reputation and even freedom in support of the Palestinians who were experiencing genocide with complicity of the world. Justice and fairness may be the most prominent, but there is a host of other values that matter as well. The activists of old knew how important values can be. The French Revolution was fought and won under the banner of liberty, equality, and fraternity, which reverberates to this day. Nowadays, people may be more cynical, but that does not mean they cannot be motivated by them. We just need to be clear which values we stand for.
Meaning
There are already numerous initiatives for change (whether on social justice or the environment favoured by the left, or on immigration control and self-interest favoured by the right). Most of them zoom in on what they believe is wrong and try to persuade people of their solutions. However, very few offer a coherent vision that could have a broad appeal and be transformative for the whole system. Consequently, neo-liberal ideology still dominates the current zeitgeist.
As our individual lives acquire coherence when they are perceived as meaningful, societies too are more robust and coherent if there is a shared meaning, the sense of common purpose. People need to feel that they are part of something bigger than themselves. However, there is a widespread suspicion of any kind of ‘universalism’. This is because the past ‘grand visions’ (that originated in religions, Soviet-style Communism, scientific materialism, and various other ‘isms’) too often turned ‘universal’ into ‘absolute’ (“My way or the highway”), which has been seen as a threat to individual liberties. The present system feeds such suspicions and glorifies individuality for its own ends. Even a hint of a shared meaning is perceived as a monolithic imposition from above that necessarily limits individual freedom. It is not surprising that another ‘ism’ – post-modernism – infected the left and the right (albeit for different reasons). To motivate a broad audience, we need to confront this cynicism head-on, and define and be clear about a common purpose or shared meaning that most people can identify with and have a unifying character. The power and tenacity of people when they believe in something and hold ideals can be amazing. We don’t want to repeat past mistakes, but we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. A common purpose need not be monolithic, forced, or unduly restrictive. This can be avoided if:
- It refers to an ongoing process rather than a fixed destination.
- It is broad enough so that diverse groups of people can relate to it.
- It has wide enough boundaries to allow a lot of freedom within them.
Here is a suggestion that fulfils these criteria:
Moving towards greater social harmony and development.
Such a purpose is not fixed but an open-ended process that would make sense to most people (many social reformers from widely different orientations, from Plato and Confucius to Adam Smith and Marx, would also approve). Although broad, it can still serve as a benchmark against which various social processes can be measured. For example, it is easy to see that considerable inequality, a two-tier education system, or politics based on competition or an ‘us v. them’ mentality, do not fit well with it. It provides a direction that can reignite a belief in the future, which is necessary for long-term engagement. Capitalism was enthusiastically embraced because, for a while, it held the promise of a better future (at least in material terms). However, faith in its ability to deliver is now waning, and it is time to replace it with something more inclusive and meaningful. To see if the above motto makes sense, check if a change you want to make fits with it, and if it does, don’t be shy to talk about a change you are passionate about in that context. Most people want greater social harmony and development; it is just that it is rarely spelt out.
Believing in oneself
Inculcating learned helplessness is one of the big successes of the neo-liberal project – the sense of helplessness leading to resignation (“What’s the point of trying? You can never beat the system”). As an author and activist, Alice Walker, put it: “The most common way people give up power is by thinking they don’t have any.” Yet, before the neo-liberal revolution, major progressive changes were achieved by efforts of ordinary people (200 years ago, slavery was still legal; barely 100 years ago, women could not vote; 60 years ago, being gay was an imprisonable offence in most parts of the world). These social aberrations were overturned, thanks to those who did not accept the status quo. These changes were a result of many individuals coming together. We want to make the case that we are at a point where even the actions of a single individual can matter.
The so-called Butterfly Effect highlights that even small acts can have huge consequences. Many people think the butterfly effect is rare because we usually cannot trace all the consequences of our actions. In fact, it is extremely common (each of us being born is the result of many small, seemingly inconsequential choices and actions of our ancestors). It may be true, though, that on the social level, individual actions blend into the background during times of stability. However, in times of rapid change and great instability and uncertainty, like we’re living through now, our choices and actions might have significant effects on the trajectory of evolution. It is such a fine balance between forces pulling humankind in one direction or another that a small difference may be decisive. In the highly complex and interconnected system that human society is at this stage of evolution, small actions can easily cascade. This is why every one of us, and the choices we make, matter more than ever. Of course, this doesn’t offer a guarantee that we will ‘win’. But people don’t need to believe they will win, but that they can. And they can.
Liking change
Understandably, many people like the comfort, familiarity, and security (however illusory) that the existing system still offers, along with consumer pleasures. To overcome this, the new needs to be liked at least as much as, if not more than, the old. Considering that changes require (at least initially) more effort and that self-benefit may not be immediate, what is it that can be liked? Potentially a lot: the sense of belonging, fun, exercising curiosity and creativity, people feeling good about themselves and that they matter, the sense of progress and achievement, enjoying contributing and doing something constructive, being positive, optimism and even love. This all is intrinsic, meaning that we don’t need to do much about it – just to ensure we don’t kill them by excessive control or imposition.
However, there are other things we can do. For example, making good practices fashionable (and bad ones unfashionable) through influencers; enabling people to exercise their agency; making social action fun (an example of this is a new board game Rise up, created by the Toolbox for Education and Social Action) or an opportunity to socialise, nurturing that all-important sense of togetherness.
Some things can be pushed to offer the taste of the new and an opportunity for people to discover what they really like (for example, banning smoking in public spaces, which led most smokers to spontaneously stop smoking at home, too). Any such push, though, should be finely tuned to avoid triggering the opposite reaction. People don’t like it when something is forced upon them, even if it is for the best, because it is perceived as a threat to their agency (more commonly called freedom). This only alienates, as many activists learned in the past. A gentle nudge is best until the tipping point is reached and change is normalised. Let’s take one example: charging 5p for a plastic bag in UK supermarkets was a resounding success in cutting down on disposable plastic. What was decisive in this instance was preserving a choice (you could bring your own bags or pay the charge) and that the money was largely symbolic and not meant to hurt (there was virtually nothing else that 5 pence could do). However, 5 pence was sufficient to serve as a public reminder. Also, bringing one’s own bags makes people feel good because they are doing something both for themselves (saving money) and for the environment.
